Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 94 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 94 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[House]
[Page H4087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

``REDSKIN'' OFFENSIVE TO NATIVE AMERICANS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for 5 minutes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday on the cover page of
The Washington Post newspaper, there was an article written by
journalists Jon Cohen and Rick Maese that, according to a recent poll
taken among the sports fans of the Washington, D.C. area:

Mr. Speaker, not only is the term ``redskin'' inappropriate, but it
is just plain offensive and derogatory towards Native Americans. And I
want to share with my colleagues in Congress, and especially the
American people, how the word ``redskin'' came about and its history.
In 1749, it was a standard procedure among settlers who lived in what
is now known as Maine and Nova Scotia to kill and scalp as many of the
Indians as members of the Micmac Tribe. The same policy was also
implemented in 1755 by settlers who lived in what is now known as the
State of Massachusetts--that their object was to kill and scalp members
of the Penobscot Indian Nation.
Mr. Speaker, the policy was you get paid for killing and/or scalping
Native American Indians. And if you kill an Indian boy, you get paid 50
pounds. If you get a scalp of an Indian, you also get paid 40 pounds.
For any female, Mr. Speaker, under 12 years old that you killed or
scalped, you also get paid 25 pounds. Mr. Speaker, I submit that these
scalps were also called ``redskins.'' Mr. Speaker, this is why this
word is so offensive to Native Americans.
Mr. Speaker, there's a saying in Indian country: ``Walk in a man's
moccasins for 2 weeks before you pass judgment on that person.''

{time} 1040

Mr. Speaker, my point is what if that scalp belonged to your mother
or to your wife or daughter or your brother or sister or to your son or
father? Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that our Washington fans and
the American public will come to realize why the usage of the word
``redskin'' has brought nothing but a stark reminder of the horrors of
how Native Americans have been treated for centuries.
Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe in the fairness and decency of the
American people. I believe that many of our fellow Americans did not
know of the history of the word ``redskin,'' and I sincerely hope many
others will come to a better understanding as to why Native Americans
feel obviously offended by the use of the word.
I hope Mr. Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football
League, and all the NFL club owners will seriously raise this matter
with Mr. Dan Snyder to try to change the name of his Washington
football franchise. The NFL has a moral responsibility to take
corrective action on this matter. It is the right thing to do.
Under the mandate of the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Speaker, the U.S.
Congress has both a legal and moral responsibility to look after the
needs of our Native American nations. It is for this reason that the
bill, H.R. 1278, was introduced to not allow or to cancel the
registration of the word Redskins as a trademark name simply because it
is a derogatory term and a racial slur against Native Americans.
Mr. Speaker, don't get me wrong. I'm a great supporter and fan of the
sport of football. In fact, I played 4 years of football in high
school. Many of my relatives played both at the college level and in
the NFL: the late Junior Seau of the San Diego Chargers; Troy Polamalu
of the Pittsburgh Steelers; Jesse Sapolu of the 49ers, just to name a
few. There are many others. My point, Mr. Speaker, is we need to
correct this inequity. We need to show a little more respect for
members of the Native American community.

[From the Washington Post, June 26, 2013]

Washington Redskins Name: Washington Post Poll Finds Most D.C. Area
Fans Support It

(By Jon Cohen and Rick Maese)

A large majority of area sports fans say the Washington
Redskins should not change the team name, even though most
supporters of the nickname feel the word ``redskin'' is an
inappropriate term for Native Americans, according to a new
Washington Post poll.
The debate over the team's name has intensified in recent
months as members of Congress, activists and media
commentators criticized it as offensive to Native Americans
and lobbied for change. But most Washingtonians--61 percent--
say they like the team's name, and two-thirds say the team
should not change it, according to the poll.
Among Redskins fans, about eight in 10 say the team should
keep its name. Also, there's some evidence that changing it
might undermine support from some of the team's most ardent
backers.
``It's been associated with the team for so long, I just
don't see any reason to change it now,'' said retiree Joseph
Braceland, 70. ``It was not meant to be derogatory.''
A quarter of all area adults and slightly more than half of
self-described Redskins fans say they ``love'' the team name,
yet both groups overwhelmingly say that in general a new name
wouldn't make much difference to them.
Among those who want to keep the Redskins' name, most--56
percent--say they feel the word ``redskin'' is inappropriate.
Only half as many--28 percent--consider the term as an
acceptable one to use.
``I think any word that you deal with, it depends on the
context,'' said Stephan Bachenheimer, a District resident who
works for the World Bank and supports the Redskins' name. ``A
lot of people have a hard time separating these issues.''
The name has been subject to much criticism and public
debate this offseason, with both local and national leaders
urging the team to consider a name change, a request the team
has fervently resisted.
In the new poll, 28 percent of all Washingtonians say the
team should change its name, far above the 11 percent
nationally who said so in a recent Associated Press poll.
``I don't believe in being super politically correct--I
have a sense of humor--but I think this name came about at a
time when there was very different awareness about the plight
of the American Indians,'' said Mary Falvey, 60, who works in
communications for the Food and Drug Administration. ``I just
don't think it's appropriate. There's increased sensitivity
about race in this country today--for the good.''
While feelings about the team's nickname were similar
across most demographics, the percentage advocating a shift
in the D.C. area peaks at 39 percent among African Americans
with college degrees. (There weren't enough Native Americans
among the poll's 1,106 respondents for meaningful comparison;
Native Americans make up less than 1 percent of the
population in the region, according to Census data.)
According to poll results, education plays a role more
broadly: 34 percent of all area college graduates say change
the name, compared with 21 percent of those with less formal
education.
``Leave the name alone,'' said Eileen Schilling, 52, who
works in construction sales. ``It's ridiculous. It's getting
completely out of hand. Pretty soon we won't be able to dye
our hair because it might offend someone. I'm Irish. Should
the Notre Dame Fighting Irish change their name because I
don't like it? Hell no. What about the Kansas City Chiefs?
The Cleveland Indians? Should the Eagles change their names
because it's a national symbol? It's ridiculous.''

____________________