Harry Reid: Redskins should change name

DON'T WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO DEBATE HARRY!!!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Wednesday that the Washington Redskins should change their name.

In an interview with The Hill, Reid said, “I think [Washington Redskins owner Dan] Snyder is so short-sighted on this.”

He added, “We live in a society where you can’t denigrate a race of people. And that’s what that is. I mean you can’t have the Washington Blackskins. I think it’s so short-sighted.”

Earlier this year, Snyder said he would never change the name. Asked for comment, a spokesman for the Redskins referred to the letter Snyder wrote to the team's fans earlier this year on the name controversy

The three most powerful Democrats in Washington — President Obama, Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) — have now urged the Redskins to rethink their mascot.

Pelosi told The Hill in October that it “probably would be a good idea if they change the name.”

Obama, meanwhile, told the AP this fall that he would think about changing the name if he owned the team.

Reid noted that other sports teams have changed their controversial monikers, including the Washington Wizards. The professional basketball team used to be named the Washington Bullets.

Other members of Congress who have called for the Redskins to change their name include Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Dels. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and Eni F. H. Faleomavaega (D-A.S.).

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

The Washington Red Clouds: A team name to honor a great warrior and leader

In June 1870, the most powerful American Indian leader in the country, Red Cloud, arrived in Washington with a contingent of Oglala and Brule Sioux. He was treated as a head of state, given tours of the Capitol and the Washington Navy Yard — where he witnessed a gunnery demonstration — and was feted at a White House reception hosted by President Ulysses S. Grant. The former commander of the Union armies may have recognized the significance of Red Cloud accomplishing in two years what Robert E. Lee could not in four: defeating the United States in a war.

What is called Red Cloud’s War officially began in 1866 when the Sioux leader could no longer abide the relentless incursions, including the building of U.S. Army forts, into his people’s territory. The high point of the war occurred when he and his field commander Crazy Horse wiped out an Army troop of 81 men. President Andrew Johnson’s stunned administration sued for peace. In November 1868, Red Cloud signed a treaty to end the fighting — only after burning the Army forts to the ground.

Less than two years later, Red Cloud was in the nation’s capital. “He became stunningly famous,” historian R. Eli Paul wrote. “Newspapers recounted his every word and deed, and large crowds of onlookers gathered at every public sighting .”

It is time for Red Cloud to return to Washington — on the professional football team’s jerseys and in its fighting spirit.

In an Oct. 9 letter to Washington Redskins season-ticket holders, owner Daniel Snyder reiterated his pride in the team and resisted calls to change its name, which Indian groups and others have proclaimed offensive. Snyder emphasized: “Our past isn’t just where we came from — it’s who we are.”

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading.....

NBC Sports partnered with Oneida casino prior to Costas Redskins rant

The disputed Indian leader pushing to change the Redskins team name had already entered into an undisclosed television agreement with NBC Sports when Bob Costas delivered his on-air editorial condemning the Redskins name.

The Oneida Indian Nation’s Turning Stone Casino in upstate New York, overseen by gaming mogul and disputed Oneida Nation Representative Ray Halbritter, will host its first NBC “Fight Night” production November 16 with the IBF heavyweight title fight between Tomasz Adamek and Vyacheslav Glazkov.

NBC already had the deal in place to broadcast from Turning Stone when Bob Costas delivered a halftime editorial during NBC’s October 13 primetime broadcast of the Cowboys-Redskins game.

Costas treated unsuspecting Sunday Night Football fans to an impromptu etymology lesson, noting that objections to the names of the Braves, Chiefs, or Warriors represent “political correctness run amok” because “these nicknames honor rather than demean.” On the other hand, the amateur linguist said, the Cleveland Indians and their mascot Chief Wahoo “have sometimes run into trouble.”

Costas elaborated that the Stanford Cardinal and Dartmouth Big Green were “both once the Indians,” while the St. John’s Red Men “have become the Red Storm.”

“And the Miami of Ohio Redskins, that’s right Redskins, are now the RedHawks,” Costas said.

Costas said that the name Redskins “truly differs from all the others.

“It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent,” Costas said.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....

Bozell Column: The New Broadcast Profanity, 'Redskins'?

Conservatives begin by revering tradition; liberals often by trashing it. In fact, it doesn’t bother liberals that something they found acceptable one day is declared -- by them -- repugnant the next. It’s taken only a few days of liberal media agitation for MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell to announce that Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is “the George Wallace of the NFL.”

Snyder saying he’ll never change his team's name has somehow become historically comparable to George Wallace’s “segregation forever.” It’s suddenly so offensive, apparently, that the leftists who have gone to court to make the airwaves safe for every profanity imaginable, in the name of free speech and tolerance, are now petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to ban “the R-word” from television.

They’re urging the broadcasters to “self-regulate” the team name out of existence. But why would you petition the FCC to urge the media to “self-regulate”? It's non-sensical -- unless  “self-regulation” is merely a first step. The “anti-censorship” Left is just getting started.

Reed Hundt, an FCC chairman under Bill Clinton, led a number of former FCC officials in a letter to FCC acting chairwoman Mignon Clyburn (the daughter of Rep. Jim Clyburn) asking the FCC to use its muscle to force Snyder to surrender. They demand Clyburn apply the agency’s “unquestioned authority to convene an open forum with broadcasters to determine whether they should self-regulate their use of the term ‘XXXskins’ when referring to the Washington D.C football team.”  

The word “Redskins” is so apparently offensive they’ve made the team sound like a porn film. Here is the insanity: They'd be less offended -- and in some circles of the libertine community,  openly supportive – if Snyder renamed the team the “Foreskins.”

These liberals are not reflecting a nation's outrage. They are attempting to create it.

Only 11 percent of Americans (and ten percent of “native Americans”) are offended by “Redskins,” so Hundt & Co. are left with the weak argument of championing American apathy: “63% of those surveyed either would approve of broadcast TV stations not using the current name or do not care if broadcasters stop using that name. Only 37% would disapprove of broadcasters if they no longer used the name. Several media leaders, including Peter King (Sports Illustrated) and Mike Wise (Washington Post), have already recognized this shift and agreed to abandon use of the term ‘XXXskins.’”

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading.....

Poll: Redskins Name Change Wouldn’t Bother Fans

A majority of D.C. residents say a change in the Washington Redskins’ name wouldn’t impact their loyalty to the team, according to a new poll.

The survey commissioned by the Oneida Indian Nation, which has been pushing owner Dan Snyder to change a team name it considers offensive, found that 25 percent of Washington residents would be less of a fan if the name changed, while 18 percent would be more of a fan. But 55 percent said it would make no difference.

The poll is set for release Wednesday morning, but was reviewed by TIME ahead of its release. The automated phone survey of 500 Washington adults, by the firm SurveyUSA, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

“You cannot poll morality, and our hope is that Mr. Snyder will demonstrate true leadership and change the offensive name, not because of what any public opinion studies show, but because it’s the right thing to do,” Ray Halbritter, an Oneida Indian Nation spokesman, said in a statement.

Snyder has adamantly defended the team name and vowed not to change it.

Fifty-nine percent of Washingtonians said American-Indians have a right to be offended when referred to as “Redskins,” according to the poll.

Oneida Indian Nation are scheduled to meet with National Football League officials on Nov. 22.

Via: Time is UP

Continue Reading

[VIDEO] O’Donnell Falsely Claims Racist NFL Owners Invented ‘Redskins’ Mascot

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
October 14, 2013 11:46 pm

MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell offered an uninformed characterization of the origin of the Washington Redskins mascot Monday on The Last Word. 

The MSNBC host alleged the name was “invented by white guys” in 1933:

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: The name of the Washington football team was invented by white guys in 1933 when the team was then located in Boston. We don’t have notes from the naming session so we don’t know what else the team owner vetoed. Boston white skins? I doubt that made the list even though the team was very, very white. So what were the chances that the white guys in Boston in 1933 would come up with a racist term when thinking of people of different races? The chances were 100 percent.

However, according to Senior Linguist of the Smithsonian Institute Ives Goddard, the term “redskin” predates the 20th century and extends back to the colonial period. Moreover, according to Goddard, both members of the Native American community and whites used the term:

It was from the use of red as a conventional iconic reference to North American Indians, both by Native Americans and by representatives of the Colonial European powers, that the word redskin emerged. This development took place among a small group of people in a limited area, part of what was historically called the Illinois Country.

O’Donnell also claimed “we don’t have notes on the meeting,” but because the owners were white guys from Boston in the 1930s the odds of adopting a racist team name were high.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading.....

Carney 'proud' of Obama on Redskins

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday he was "proud" of President Obama for saying over the weekend he would "think about changing" the name of the Washington Redskins.

Carney noted he was a longtime Redskins fan and a native-born Washingtonian.

"I was proud of my president on this issue," the press secretary said.

He also said that he did not believe Obama had called Redskins owner Dan Snyder to discuss the name.

Carney is a personal friend of the NFL owner, according to a financial disclosure form released in 2011.

In that document, Carney describes receiving a pair of tickets to watch two separate Redskins games in the owner's suite. The disclosure refers to Snyder as a "long-time personal friend."

In the interview with the Associated Press, Obama said that ultimately, the decision to change the name rested not with politicians, but the NFL franchise owners. Still, the president said, he would consider altering the nickname.

"If I were the owner of the team and I knew that the name of my team — even if they've had a storied history — was offending a sizable group of people, I'd think about changing it," Obama said.

The Redskins responded with a statement from their attorney, Lanny Davis, who is also a columnist for The Hill.

"We at the Redskins respect everyone," Davis said. "But like devoted fans of the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians and the Chicago Blackhawks (from President Obama's hometown ), we love our team and its name and, like those fans, we do not intend to disparage or disrespect a racial or ethnic group."

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading.....