Monday, March 2, 2015


As a Native American descendant, I admit that I am not in the least offended by the term "Redskin". I am certainly more related to the Native Asians that crossed the Siberian-Alaskan land bridge more than 10,000 years ago than Senator Elizabeth Warren.  However, progressives are more likely to question my lineage than hers. Redskin is more aligned with the translations of early European discoverers than it is a derogatory slang.  Yet, many would have you believe it an attempt to deride a proud and glorious people.  The gatekeepers of racial polarization and censored speech clearly do not want you to confuse legacy with hyperbole.  Nor do they seek to illuminate the masses with facts when fiction attracts a more enraged protester.  In the matter of whether the Washington franchise in the National Football League should maintain the name "Redskins", a federal agency, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, canceled their trademark on the grounds that its nomenclature is offensive to a specific group of people. Their decision is not intended to take away the name but merely, diminish the team's ability to protect its trademark and thus, unilaterally profit.  Yes, take away their right to legally defend their property.  That'll teach them to be more compassionate and choose a nickname like the "Pelicans".  

Maybe if Daniel Snyder had won at least two Super Bowls we would not be questioning the veracity of our team's name.  Let's give the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe there is more to this.  Let's find out what Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton might say on MSNBC: 

“I don’t know what Snyder is standing on, what the principle is,” Norton said.  “We understand what the principle is on the part of Native Americans. I’m not surprised that most Americans don’t see any harm in the word.  Most of us have had to be educated by Native Americans, who after all, are only less than two percent of the population.  They don’t exactly have a microphone every day.  If it were African Americans, you’d know all about it.” 

Congresswoman Holmes is right.  As a African-American, Native American, I have a microphone and do know.  The term "Redskin" pre-dates the first slave owner in the United States.  Anthony Johnson, a black man, in 1654, enslaved African John Casor.  In 1661, Virginia made the practice legal for any free white, black or Indian to own slaves.  The term  "Redskin" was first used by Europeans to describe the skin tone of Indians or as progressives would say, Natives.  It is derived from the term "red man" which was used during the 1590's.  What is really interesting is that in 1933, according to the Bill Poser of the University of Pennsylvania Language Log, "George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian.  When the team moved to Washington in 1937, it was renamed the Washington Redskins.  George Marshall clearly did not consider the name disparaging."  If it were not offensive to William Dietz then, what is this all about?  This has more to do with the narrative that America is an unfair, racist nation whose Constitution needs to be "fundamentally changed" to overcome our segregated origins.  White America must pay the price for the Nation's "Jim Crow" and Slave past.  No matter the cost, Dan Snyder must pay.

What perplexes me more is the sincere effort by the narrative's movement to chastise Dan Snyder using federal resources rather than calling upon federal resources to remove President Andrew Jackson, the father of the Democrat Party, from the twenty dollar bill.  Jackson demanded slave loyalty and beat them to be more productive.  His negotiated treaty with the Five Civilized Tribes led to the infamous "Trail of Tears" which witnessed the deaths of up to 6,000 Cherokee.  What better way to address the legacy of the Democrat Party than to remove Jackson.  By the way, he did not support a federal reserve of the printing of money.  It would be his honor and certainly more honorable than cursing Snyder.  I would even recommend a President to replace him--Ronald Reagan.  I leave it the Progressives to build new talking points against.  Racial polarization is never true justice.  Redskins is fine with me.

No comments:

Post a Comment