There Will Be a Redskins Protest on Sunday

323 42
Redskins owner Dan Snyder

Redskins owner Dan Snyder

Hey, the Washington Redskins are coming to town this week and there will be some controversy. That’s because Washington’s football team insists on calling itself the Redskins and a lot of Native Americans find that term offensive.

And why wouldn’t they? I probably wouldn’t like it if there was a football team called the Honkeys.

“We support effectively removing all race-based stereotypes,” said Barb Munson of Mosinee, a member of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin and of the Wisconsin Indian Education Association’s Mascot and Logo Taskforce.

The Indian education association is hosting a session Friday at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay on the issue, and several members expect to be on hand for the noon game Sunday to hold signs objecting to Washington’s team name and logo.

But, mind you, there will not be a formal protest by the Oneida Nation. No, that probably wouldn’t fly too well with the Green Bay Packers brass, since Oneida is one of the team’s biggest sponsors.

Anyway, the Redskins have been called the Redskins since 1932, but the name has come under fire in recent years. Members of Congress have sent letters to owner Dan Snyder and commissioner Roger Goodell opposing the name and a media campaign was launched by the Oneida tribe in New York.

Goodell has danced around the issue, while Snyder has remained hard headed and said he’ll never change the team’s name.

I can see the argument for tradition and all that, but what year are we living in? The Washington Bullets changed their name to the Wizards not too long ago because, you know, it’s not cool to shoot people, and they managed to survive.

About The Author

Monty McMahon is one of the founders of Total Packers. He is probably the most famous graduate of UW-Oshkosh next to Jim Gantner.

42 Comments on "There Will Be a Redskins Protest on Sunday"

  1. Lynn Fuckin' Dickey

    I’ve said it before, they should change their mascot to a redskin potato. Keep the name, and have the greatest mascot in the league while trolling the world. It’s a win-win.

  2. E. Wolf

    The Bullets have no legacy–they are among the myriad of Washington General clones that plague the NBA. That comparison is therefore inapropos.
    The Redskins are one of those marquis NFL teams. Not quite the Packers, but still a very storied franchise with a solid history and tradition. Their mascot is the counterpart to the fabled Redskins-Cowboys rivalry, which plays on some bedrock American folklore about Cowboys and Indians.
    I do not like this climate of political correctness, at all. Mind you these same elements have coerced a number of high schools and colleges to change more innocuous mascots, such as Indians, Warriors, and so on. This has happened quite infamously in Wisconsin, and in my home state of Washington as well. If you give them the Redskins, they will then come after the Indians, Braves, Blackhawks and others with even greater determination.
    That said, may our Packers crush them and every other team they face.

    • Savage57

      The 1950’s called and they want their tolerance and sensibilities back.

      The name “Redskins” is a racial/ethnic slur. They’re the only team in professional sports that uses a slanderous term as a team nickname, no matter how much you want to spin it with some claptrap about the dangers of precedent.

      Indians, Braves, Warriors, Chiefs, etc., all have, if not a positive connotation, at least a neutral one that’s primarily descriptive.

      There used to be a pro baseball team called the Atlanta Crackers and that went away in the cauldron of the civil rights movement.

      Same deal here, Hitler.

      • E. Wolf

        Cry me a river. I believe the etymology of the term indicates Redskin originally meant warrior particular to indians.
        The interests lobbying for a change are not making any such distinction. They want all of these names and mascots off limits.
        Here is a story from my neck of the woods. I went to Issaquah for two years (freshman and sophomore).

        Here is a story peculiar to Wisconsin:

        Sorry but this is very much a slippery slope. Do not negotiate–do not compromise.

      • Ivomitonvikingfans

        A little over the top, don’t you think? I am not going to defend the use of “Redskins” and maybe it should be changed, but just because someone rightfully warns of the overreach of political correctness doesn’t make them a Nazi. “Redskins” won’t be the last target of protest. Far more innocuous names have been removed by the PC police.

        • E. Wolf

          Hey man, Nazis, depending on how you define the term, are people, too. Most of the officers supported the regime as the only available antidote to Soviet Bolshveism (which killed far more people before Hitler came to power) and in response to the outrages and injustices of the Versailles Diktat. By about 1942, many of the generals and other officers–some of them party members–were at least adverse if not outright opposed to Uncle Addie because of his criminal negligence and disregard for the lives of his own men and for the lives of millions of German civilians.
          Seriously though, I agree once someone compares something they disagree with to Hitler, they lose the argument.
          I don’t want to hurt anybody. And I do not disparage anybody on the basis of their ethnic background. I simply maintain an old school football team with a rich history should be left alone. They are not hurting anybody either and it is pretty clear the term is meant in a very positive light.

      • rebelgb

        I have to agree. Im the least politically correct person you will ever talk to, but “Redskins” is a bit over the top in todays society. Plus its really a fucking stupid name. Change that shit.

  3. Cheese

    I think we should rename the Packers because my ancestors weren’t lucky enough to go to college so they had to work in a meat factory. I’m so offended.

    It’s all how you perceive it. Why cant the term Redskin be looked at with a sense of pride? Use it as an opportunity to share your culture and raise awareness. Although having a native american mascot in Washington DC is kind of a slap in the face being that Europeans (Mericans!) committed mass genocide (with “washington bullets”) against their people and then used them for a sports logo owned by some rich white dude. I can see both sides. The Washington Redskins are like the LA Lakers. There’s no lakes in Los Angeles, and there’s no natives in Washington. Not saying this isn’t important but I’m just sick of people making an issue out of anything and everything these days.

    Wikipedia says the Wizards started out as the Chicago Packers in 1961. Are we destined to be the Wisconsin Wizards?

  4. Jurgens

    There is absolutely no way you can rationalize this mascot name and not look like a buffoon. The fact that it still exists speaks to how much Native Americans have been marginalized in this country. You can make the case that Blackhawk or Warrior isn’t derogatory, but no matter how you slice it, “Redskin”, specifically, is derogatory. Period. There is a reason, Washington gets this much heat and Kansas City doesn’t. It’s because “redskins” is cartoonishly racist.

    It’s been around for so long that many take it for granted. But just imagine if we had sports teams like The San Jose Slant Eyes, The Alabama Inbreds, The Charlotte Darkies or the Denver Wetbacks. Sounds ridiculous? It is and it’s the same.

    • Savage57


      New Orleans Coonasses?

      Boston Dagos?

      LA Gooks?

      The list goes on and on and on until at some point, someone says enough. When your people only represent, generously, 1.2% of the overall population of the US, you are always in the margin and your voice is small.

    • E. Wolf

      None of those terms denote “Warrior.” Redskin does. That is why you would never have a team like you say. Those terms are *purely* derogatory. Redskin is not. It means warrior.

      • Savage57

        Suggestion – research before you extoll.

        “Redskin” was the term expansionists used to denote either the removed scalp or the vulva to exhibit proof that they had indeed mortally wounded the enemy and could claim the bounty.

        Sometimes, you can just make shit up on the fly and once in a while get away with it. Other times, not so much.

  5. E. Wolf

    Well I have done some searching around on the etymology and original meaning, and iy t is actualldisputed. Many theories do have a warrior connotation, with alternate theories that the name stems from red clay or vermilion red dye that warriors in a Delaware tribe used.
    Another account I read indicates that the term originates from Indian parlance, with some chief calling the two parties redskins and whiteskins respectively.
    I also learned that the founding coach, named Dietz, was half Indian half German. He adopted the name because he felt it conveyed a positive, fierce image. He had half a dozen players with significant Indian ancestry who also supported the name.
    I would post links, as I did in another post that is awaiting moderation.
    Whatever its origins it is pretty clear that team uses the term to refer to Indian warriors, since they have a warrior chief as the symbol emblazoned on their helmets. Combine this with the Hail Redskins songs and talk of a warpath, and the intent is pretty clear.
    The PC crowd is not going to change my mind–or more particularly the name of Redskins fans. And that position is not likely to change the minds of the PC crowd either.
    But rest assured this is not their only demand. They want ALL these names taken off the table, and have in large part succeeded. I think it is asinine.
    Politically correct sensibilities are akin to accusations of witchcraft before the enlightenment. Call someone or something racist and everyone panics.
    I am glad it is not our ox that is getting gored. My loyalties are to the Packers, and the Packers alone. Still, many of the same attributes that have endeared me to this Packer team can also be seen in the Redskins, albeit it to a markedly lesser degree. They are on old-school, marquis franchise that has changed very little. I think their owner is a complete jackass who has set that team back decades. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. And on this controversy, he is right.

    • Jurgens

      E. Wolfe, first, when it comes to defending the honor of the Green Bay Packers, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you. When it comes to humiliating Vikings fans or putting Lance Easley in his place, I’m there with you.

      I just can’t get on board with this. We have to evolve. Redskins came about primarily because of skin color. Every other meaning is secondary or added recently as a misdirect. Clay face paint? No way.

      And even if the warrior justification things was 100% accurate, it falls apart for a couple reasons. If we took that approach, would Spearchucker be an acceptable mascot? The Veit Cong were formidable warriors, right? So can we name a team The Gooks? NOPE. The “regal Injun warrior” trope itself is insensitive anyway.

      Just because something has been around a long time or just because it’s a tradition doesn’t always make it something that we have to preserve or stubbornly hold onto. They said the same shit about segregation and slavery before that.

      This is one that people have to let go. Evolve.

      • E. Wolf

        The difference is that slavery and segregation are (or were) hurting people. I don’t see how this is. I am also not convinced by your analogy with gooks or spearchuckers, sorry.
        As I said the etymology on this term is disputed. That a lot of the founding members had Indian (or native American) ancestry is, to me at least, dispositive.
        Also, check out the links I posted in a preceding post. It shows how the same interest groups are eliminating all mascot names that touch on this theme.
        If it were just the Redskins they were after, I might get on board. But they will not stop there.
        But here is the deal. I really do not care all that much beyond my general aversion to political correctness in all its forms and my reverence for history and tradition. The Redskins are not my team, although I do respect their tradition and history. I also like them because they are the arch rivals of the Cowboys. It would suck if every other year it was the Washington Warriors at Dallas Cowboys for the Thanksgiving game.
        BUt in the end, it should not matter too much. It is the Pack–and the Pack alone–that counts.
        I hope that given that Savage and others on here can set this disagreement aside–this notwithstanding the fact the guy compared me to Hitler.

    • Arcturus

      I can’t read “marquis” twice and not comment. Do you mean to say the Redskins are like a nobleman, a marquis, or that they are a celebrated and well-known team: marquee?

  6. A.J. Hawk's Middle finger

    Having grown up out west in a small town surrounded by indian reservations I can honestly say that indians should be proud to be portrayed as anything besides nonworking drunks laying on the sidewalk.

  7. Abe Frohman

    At the end of the day, it’s Schneider’s team and he’s going to do what he wants to do. He won’t do a darn thing until such time as it starts impacting his wallet.

    Has anyone else noticed that most people, when they speak of tolerance, are really saying “you have to tolerate my uniqueness.” They are NOT saying “I have to tolerate your individual differences.” People are too easily offended. With that, do I think Redskins is a pejorative term? Yes. I do. But I guess I’m too damn self absorbed to give a shit about it.

  8. rebelgb

    On a similar news related note: Elton John has come out publicly in support of the protests and also added that he finds the “Packers” offensive due to its derogatory connotation and believes Green Bay should also be forced to change its name….

  9. JB


    Should us with 1/32 Nordic heritage protest? It’s a term loaded with negative connotations of raping, pillaging, and lovin’ Hormel chili! Plus they wear purple!


    I’m offended.

    Actually —– who gives a shit about this whole topic? Keep it. Change it. Either way, what will that mean for any particular person’s life? Nothing, except those who protested for change could then pretend they had actually improved the world in some tangible way.

    Too bad they don’t put as much energy into promoting higher education and self-reliance to the kids on the Res, or awareness of alcoholism. That might actually result in something worth celebrating.

    Unless of course you’re real interest is in celebrating youself and publically basking in the glory of your victory against the smothering oppression of a team’s mascot.


  10. E. Wolf

    I take umbrage with the Vikings name because that team is the antithesis of the Nordic heritage. I say that as someone of partial Danish ancestry on my fathers side, who, although atheist, has strong Odinist leanings as a life philosophy.
    Consider this–those whites among you on the pc bandwagon are in league with things such as the Fightin’ Whities phenomenon. Google it.

  11. dj

    I think the problem here is that E. Wolf and other have no clue what its like to be marginalized. If you lived in a place that was 99% non white and there was a football team called the crackers, you would probably not be ok with it, no matter what the etymology of the word is. Keep in mind that Native Americans aren’t just marginalized, but up until 40 years ago there were active genocidal campaigns trying to wipe Native Americans out. This has probably been the single most effective genocide in world history.

    • E. Wolf

      Cracker does not denote “warrior.” Again, these people have no intention of stopping at Redskin. They want all Indian-themed mascots gone.

      • dj

        The etymology of the word doesn’t matter, and as a matter of fact nothing I’ve read indicates that the term ‘Redskins’ has ever had anything but negative connotations.

        Perhaps ‘these people’ don’t want to stop with Redskins, but that doesn’t mean Redskins shouldn’t go. Furthermore why do you care so much if ‘these people’ want to change other mascots? They are the ones being affected negatively by the names. You have no reason to feel entitled to use racial epithets.

        • E. Wolf

          Yes, etymology does matter, as it touches upon what words mean. It appears the etymology is contested, but it does not matter.
          I care because sports mascots are part of our “culture,” as bankrupt as and desolate as American popular culture is. Many of these teams have been around a long time. It is a most unsavory proposition to have some special set of interest groups with elevated status as perennial victimized minority to have unilateral, dictatorial power as to what can and cannot be said, particularly over things like storied sports franchises that millions adore almost as much as you and I love the Packers.
          In any case, it does not affect them. It is just a name.
          Moreover, as further proof that this term is objectively innocuous, the term Redskin–when taken out of the context of NFL football–is an anachronism. This is just one of the ways this term differs from various slurs that the left try to compare it to. Unlike bona fide slurs like “nigger,” wetback,” “gook,” etc, no one uses Redskin except in the context of Washington Redskins football.
          When you couple this with the proud, regal image on their helmet, the warpath fight song, and other positive imagery, the entire context leads to no other reasonable conclusion other than that this is ABSOLUTELY HARMLESS, and that is a controversy only because a bunch of liberal do-gooders like to get their panties in a bunch over nothing.
          I will direct you to Dennis Prager’s commentary on this. Just go on youtube and search for Dennis Prager Redskins.

    • Jb

      A- how do you know who is white and who isn’t on here?

      B- I have spent many years of my life living in populations that were 99% different then me – didn’t bother me.

      C- are you really trying to claim that there was some kind of serious, organized, genocidal movement against Native Americans in 1973?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *