Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is at it again, in trying to defend his team's nickname. Over the past several weeks and months, the team has come under increasing pressure to change their nickname. While many Native American groups, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and also dictionaries find the term "Redskin" to be derogatory, Snyder has a different take on things. When asked by ESPN's John Barr on Tuesday, "What is a Redskin?" Snyder responded with this:
"A Redskin is a football player. A Redskin is our fans. The Washington Redskins fan base represents honor, represents respect, represents pride. Hopefully winning. And, and, it, it's a positive. Taken out of context, you can take things out of context all over the place. But in this particular case, it is what it is. It's very obvious."
Barr then asked Snyder, "For people who don't know you and don't understand where you're coming from on this issue, what can you share with them that will help them understand what really motivates you as far as your position on the issue of the team name?"
In turn, Snyder said the following:
"It's what the name actually means. I would like people to know the history. Whether it's Lone Star Dietz, whether it's Walter 'Blackie' Wetzel in Montana, it's just historical truths. And I'd like them to understand -- as I think most do -- that the name really means honor, respect.
We sing 'Hail to the Redskins.' We don't say 'hurt anybody.' We sing 'Hail to the Redskins, braves on the warpath, fight for old D.C.' We only sing it when we score touchdowns. That's the problem, because last season we didn't sing it quite enough, as we would have liked to."
He's such a funny guy, isn't he?
In response to Snyder's comments (and joke), National Congress of American Indians Executive Director Jackie Pata and Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter said this:
"We are certainly glad to see that after decades of silence, Mr. Snyder suddenly has an interest in the plight of Native Americans. Some of the money he recently spent was for burgundy and gold parks adorned with the very mascot and epithet that Native Americans are imploring him to change. He doesn't understand a simple fact: No matter how much of his fortune he spends trying to convince the world that slurring people of color is acceptable, it is not. The more he clings to this racist epithet, the more he walks in the footsteps of his predecessor the segregationist George Preston Marshall, who originally gave the team this hideous name. If Mr. Snyder truly wants to help Indian Country then he could provide financial support, while at the same time ending his callous use of this racist epithet that hurts Native Americans."
No matter how much Daniel Snyder defends his team's name, there will come a time when, due to so much pressure from Native American groups, politicians, the league, and the American public in general, he'll have to go through with it. I do find it quite hilarious that, when defending his team's nickname, Snyder has the nerve to talk about its history. The first owner of the Washington Redskins was none other than George Preston Marshall. Coincidentally enough, when describing the first owner of the Redskins, professor Charles Ross said, "For 24 years, Marshall was identified as the leading racist in the NFL." Why was this? Because he was opposed to having African-Americans on his roster. While African-Americans had started getting signed by teams in 1946, and drafted in 1949, Marshall refused to sign one until 1962. The only reason he did this is because, that year, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy issued George Preston Marshall an ultimatum - that unless he signed an African-American player, the government would revoke the Redskins' lease on D.C. Stadium.
Daniel Snyder certainly knows a great deal about respect. The man is defending a team name which is derogatory against Native-Americans, and was initially owned by a man who refused to sign African-American players.
It's also funny that Snyder mentioned the lyrics to the team fight song, "Hail to the Redskins!" since some lyrics to the song were altered due to controversy. The earlier version of the song included the following lines:
"Scalp 'em, swamp 'um"
and
"We want heap more"
Perhaps Daniel Snyder should take a team history lesson of his own, admit racism has followed the team like a shadow since its inception, and be willing to make another change.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/dan-snyder-redskins-name-definition_n_5653042.html
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24649434/owner-daniel-snyder-does-interview-explains-what-a-redskin-is
http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/pressroom/Change-the-Mascot-Campaign-Praises-Hillary-Clinton-for-Strongly-Opposing-the-Washington-NFL-Teams-Name-269201281.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall
http://mascotcontroversy.weebly.com/hail-to-the-redskins-fight-song.html
"A Redskin is a football player. A Redskin is our fans. The Washington Redskins fan base represents honor, represents respect, represents pride. Hopefully winning. And, and, it, it's a positive. Taken out of context, you can take things out of context all over the place. But in this particular case, it is what it is. It's very obvious."
Barr then asked Snyder, "For people who don't know you and don't understand where you're coming from on this issue, what can you share with them that will help them understand what really motivates you as far as your position on the issue of the team name?"
In turn, Snyder said the following:
"It's what the name actually means. I would like people to know the history. Whether it's Lone Star Dietz, whether it's Walter 'Blackie' Wetzel in Montana, it's just historical truths. And I'd like them to understand -- as I think most do -- that the name really means honor, respect.
We sing 'Hail to the Redskins.' We don't say 'hurt anybody.' We sing 'Hail to the Redskins, braves on the warpath, fight for old D.C.' We only sing it when we score touchdowns. That's the problem, because last season we didn't sing it quite enough, as we would have liked to."
He's such a funny guy, isn't he?
In response to Snyder's comments (and joke), National Congress of American Indians Executive Director Jackie Pata and Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter said this:
"We are certainly glad to see that after decades of silence, Mr. Snyder suddenly has an interest in the plight of Native Americans. Some of the money he recently spent was for burgundy and gold parks adorned with the very mascot and epithet that Native Americans are imploring him to change. He doesn't understand a simple fact: No matter how much of his fortune he spends trying to convince the world that slurring people of color is acceptable, it is not. The more he clings to this racist epithet, the more he walks in the footsteps of his predecessor the segregationist George Preston Marshall, who originally gave the team this hideous name. If Mr. Snyder truly wants to help Indian Country then he could provide financial support, while at the same time ending his callous use of this racist epithet that hurts Native Americans."
No matter how much Daniel Snyder defends his team's name, there will come a time when, due to so much pressure from Native American groups, politicians, the league, and the American public in general, he'll have to go through with it. I do find it quite hilarious that, when defending his team's nickname, Snyder has the nerve to talk about its history. The first owner of the Washington Redskins was none other than George Preston Marshall. Coincidentally enough, when describing the first owner of the Redskins, professor Charles Ross said, "For 24 years, Marshall was identified as the leading racist in the NFL." Why was this? Because he was opposed to having African-Americans on his roster. While African-Americans had started getting signed by teams in 1946, and drafted in 1949, Marshall refused to sign one until 1962. The only reason he did this is because, that year, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy issued George Preston Marshall an ultimatum - that unless he signed an African-American player, the government would revoke the Redskins' lease on D.C. Stadium.
Daniel Snyder certainly knows a great deal about respect. The man is defending a team name which is derogatory against Native-Americans, and was initially owned by a man who refused to sign African-American players.
It's also funny that Snyder mentioned the lyrics to the team fight song, "Hail to the Redskins!" since some lyrics to the song were altered due to controversy. The earlier version of the song included the following lines:
"Scalp 'em, swamp 'um"
and
"We want heap more"
Perhaps Daniel Snyder should take a team history lesson of his own, admit racism has followed the team like a shadow since its inception, and be willing to make another change.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/dan-snyder-redskins-name-definition_n_5653042.html
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24649434/owner-daniel-snyder-does-interview-explains-what-a-redskin-is
http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/pressroom/Change-the-Mascot-Campaign-Praises-Hillary-Clinton-for-Strongly-Opposing-the-Washington-NFL-Teams-Name-269201281.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall
http://mascotcontroversy.weebly.com/hail-to-the-redskins-fight-song.html
Comments
Post a Comment