[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 8, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6350-H6354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE ISSUE THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for 5 minutes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detract our attention
from the current national debate on the government shutdown and the
debt ceiling issue, but I do want to share with my colleagues an issue
that will not go away.
What is it that the National Football League, the 32 football club
owners, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell have yet to understand why
the word ``redskin'' is considered a very offensive racial and
derogatory term that describes Native American Indians?
My apologies, Mr. Speaker, for I have yet to master the English
language. But I want to share again and again with my colleagues and
some 181 million football fans all over America why our Native American
Indian community considers the word ``redskin'' as very offensive, and
clearly, the National Football League and NFL Commissioner Roger
Goodell cannot and should not disclaim responsibility.
Again, let's review the history. The origin of the term ``redskin''
is commonly attributed to the colonial practice of trading Native
American Indian scalps and body parts as bounties and trophies. For
example, in 1755, settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Province were paid
out of the public treasury for the killing and scalping of people of
the Penobscot tribe. The bounty for a male Penobscot Indian above the
age of 12 was 50 pounds, and his scalp was worth 40 pounds. The bounty
for a female Penobscot Indian of any age and for males under the age of
12 was 25 pounds while their scalps were worth 20 pounds. These scalps,
I submit, Mr. Speaker, were called ``redskins.''
The current chairman and chief of the Penobscot Nation, Chief Kirk
Francis, recently declared that the word ``redskin'' is ``not just a
racial slur or a derogatory term,'' but a painful ``reminder of one of
the most gruesome acts of . . . ethnic cleansing ever committed against
the Penobscot people.''
Mr. Speaker, again, I ask my colleagues and the 181 million football
fans throughout this great Nation of ours--suppose that that redskins
scalp that was brought in for payment was the scalp of your mother,
your daughter, or your wife or your son? Again, Mr. Speaker, Native
American Indians are also human beings and God's children. They are not
animals.
Our colleague, Tom Cole, from Oklahoma, the cochair of our
Congressional Native American Indian Caucus and a member of the
Chickasaw Nation, states:
This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political
correctness on the planet. It is very, very, very offensive.
This isn't like warriors or chiefs. It's not a term of
respect, and it's needlessly offensive to a large part of our
population. They just don't happen to live around Washington,
D.C.
Also, our colleague Betty McCollum from Minnesota, as cochair of the
Congressional Native American Indian Caucus, says this ``is another
attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of Mr. Dan Snyder,'' the
owner of the Washington franchise, ``and other NFL owners who appear to
be only concerned with earning even larger profits, even if it means
exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans. For the head of a
multibillion dollar sports league to embrace the twisted logic that
`redskin' actually `stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect,'
is a statement of absurdity.''
My dear friend and colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, representing the
District of Columbia, states that the owner of the Washington football
franchise, Mr. Dan Snyder, ``is a man who has shown sensibilities based
on his own ethnic identity, yet who refuses to recognize the
sensibilities of American Indians.''
[[Page H6351]]
Ms. Norton also said:
As an African American woman and third-generation
Washingtonian, I want to say to Redskin fans, no one blames
you for using a name that has always been used . . . but I
can think of no argument for retaining a name that degrades
our first Americans.
Mr. Speaker, the game of American football has become one of the most
treasured sports among American Polynesian athletes. Polynesian youth
learn to play the sport at a young age, with dreams of playing in the
National Football League. Football offers opportunities for higher
education and economic opportunity.
Many of our Polynesian NFL players have realized their dreams, like
Troy Polumalu, and Chris Kemoeatu of the Pittsburgh Steelers, the late
Junior Seau, and now Manti Te'o of the San Diego Chargers, and the
former player, Joe Salave'a, and Roy Helu, with the Washington
Redskins.
Mr. Speaker, I submit, let's do the right thing, and I appeal to the
NFL, do the right thing. Change the name of the Washington football
franchise.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detract our attention from the current
national debate on the government shutdown and the debt ceiling issue,
but I want to share with my colleagues an issue that just will not go
away. What is it that the National Football League, the 32 football
club owners, and the NFL Commissioner Mr. Roger Goodell have yet to
understand why the word ``redskin'' is considered a very offensive,
racial and derogatory term that describes Native American Indians?
My apologies, Mr. Speaker, for I have not yet mastered the English
language--but I want to share again, and again with my colleagues and
some 181 million football fans around the country--why our Native
American Indian community considers the word ``redskin'' as very
offensive, and clearly the National Football League, and NFL
Commissioner Roger Goodell cannot and should not disclaim
responsibility.
Again, let's review the history. The origin of the term ``redskin''
is commonly attributed to the colonial practice of trading Native
American Indian scalps and body parts as bounties and trophies. For
example, in 1755, settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Province were paid
out of the public treasury for killing and scalping people of the
Penobscot tribe. The bounty for a male Penobscot Indian above the age
of 12 was 50 pounds, and his scalp was worth 40 pounds. The bounty for
a female Penobscot Indian of any age and for males under the age of 12
was 25 pounds, while their scalps were worth 20 pounds. These scalps
were called ``redskins.''
The current chairman and chief of the Penobscot Nation, Chief Kirk
Francis, recently declared that ``redskins'' is ``not just a racial
slur or a derogatory term,'' but a painful ``reminder of one of the
most gruesome acts of . . . ethnic cleansing ever committed against the
Penobscot people.''
Mr. Speaker, again I ask my colleagues and the 181 million football
fans throughout this great Nation of ours--suppose that the ``redskin''
scalp that was brought in for payment was the scalp of your mother,
your daughter, or your wife or son? Again, Mr. Speaker, Native American
Indians are also human beings and God's children--they are not animals!
Our colleague Tom Cole from Oklahoma, Co-Chair of the Congressional
Native American Indian Caucus, and a member of the Chikasaw Nation,
states: ``This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political
correctness on the planet. It is very, very, very offensive. This isn't
like warriors or chiefs. It's not a term of respect, and it's
needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don't
happen to live around Washington, DC.''
Also, our colleague Betty McCollum from Minnesota and Co-Chair of the
Congressional Native American Indian Caucus, states that Mr. Goodell's
letter ``is another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of [Mr.]
Dan Snyder,'' owner of the Washington franchise, ``and other NFL owners
who appear to be only concerned with earning even larger profits, even
if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans. For the
head of a multi-billion dollar sports league to embrace the twisted
logic that `[r]edskin' actually `stands for strength, courage pride,
and respect' is a statement of absurdity.''
My dear friend and colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, representing the
District of Columbia, states that the owner of the Washington football
franchise Mr. Daniel Snyder ``is a man who has shown sensibilities
based on his own ethnic identity, [yet] who refuses to recognize the
sensibilities of American Indians.'' Ms. Norton also said, ``As an
African American woman and third-generation Washingtonian, I want to
say to Redskins fans--no one blames you for using a name that has
always been used . . . but I can think of no argument for retaining a
name that degrades our first Americans.''
Mr. Speaker, the game of American football has become one of the most
treasured sports among American Polynesian athletes. Polynesian youth
learn to play the sport at a young age with dreams of playing in the
National Football League. Football offers an opportunity to enter the
realm of higher education and economic opportunity. Many of our
Polynesian NFL players have realized their dreams--like Troy Polumalu
and former player Chris Kemoeatu of the Pittsburg Steelers, the late
Junior Seau and now Manti Te'o of the San Diego Chargers, former player
Joe Salave'a and now Roy Helu, Jr. with the Washington ``Redskins,''
Haloti Ngata and former player Ma'ake Kemoeatu with the Baltimore
Ravens, Isaac Sopoaga and former player Vai Sikahema with the
Philadelphia Eagles, Tyson Alualu with the Jacksonville Jaguars, Samson
Satele and Fill Moala with the Indianapolis Colts, Mike Iupati with the
San Francisco 49ers, Ropati Pitoitua with the Tennessee Titans, Paul
Soliai with the Miami Dolphins, and Domato Peko, Ray Maualuga, and
former player Jonathan Fanene with the Cincinnati Bengals, and the list
goes on and on, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I love the game of football. I played all four years in
high school. I love the NFL. But there is absolutely no excuse for the
Washington professional football franchise to continue the shameful use
of the word ``redskins.''
Just last week, another island boy weighed in on the name of the
Washington, DC football franchise. He is none other than our own
President Barack Obama, born in Hawaii and who played basketball for
Punahou High School in Honolulu, Hawaii, and he said: ``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.'' President Obama further said: ``Native
Americans feel pretty strongly about it . . . I don't know whether our
attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate
concerns that people have about these things.''
While race-based killing of Native Americans is a thing of the past,
the tradition of mockery and insult--whether intentional or not--lives
on through the Washington ``Redskins,'' a name that American Indian
rights activist Ms. Suzan Harjo calls ``the worst thing in the English
language you can be called if you are a native person.'' This is not a
popularity contest. You don't take polls on issues with deep moral
implications. That is just absolute nonsense.
For those who question whether this racist or derogatory word is
offensive to Native Americans, I want to share with my colleagues an
excerpt from a letter sent by the leaders and members of the National
Congress of American Indians (NCAI)--the oldest, largest, and most
representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization serving
the broad interests of the majority of some 5 million Native Americans
with well over 500 tribal governments and communities across the
nation. In the letter, NCAI President Jefferson Keel of the Chikasaw
Nation from Oklahoma states that Congressional efforts on this issue
``will accomplish what Native American people, nations, and
organizations have tried to do in the courts for almost twenty years--
end the racist epithet that has served as the [name] of Washington's
pro football franchise for far too long.''
Mr. Speaker, the term ``redskin'' does not, as NFL Commissioner Roger
Goodell suggests, offend just one person. And the responsibility for
perpetuating this racial slur, as Mr. Goodell implies, lies not just
with Mr. Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington football franchise.
The responsibility rests squarely on the National Football League and
the 32 owners of their football teams, and NFL Commissioner Roger
Goodell.
As for the ``Redskins'' sponsors--such as FedEx, Virginia Lottery,
Sprint Nextel, Coca-Cola, Bank of America, Anheuser-Busch, and others--
they are equally accountable for the continued use of this disparaging
term. Their silence on the issue given their direct contribution to
this racist and derogatory word is deafening.
Again, I ask NFL Commissioner Goodell and the 32 club owners--do the
right thing--change the name of the Washington football franchise.
I submit for the record a letter from the National Congress of
American Indians; and today's commentary from two articles in the
Washington Post authored by Mr. Dana Milbank, Ms. Theresa Vargas and
Mr. Mark Maske.
National Congress of
American Indians,
March 21, 2013.
Hon. Eni Faleomavaega,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Faleomavaega: On behalf of the National
Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the nation's oldest and
largest tribal government advocacy organization in the
country, we applaud you for sponsoring the ``Non-
Disparagement of Native
[[Page H6352]]
American Persons or People in Trademark Registration Act of
2013''. This legislation will accomplish what Native American
people, nations, and organizations have tried to do in the
courts for almost twenty years--end the racist epithet that
has served as the mascot of Washington's pro football
franchise for far too long.
The NCAI membership has been an active part of ending these
types of derogatory stereotypes for several decades. The NCAI
was one of many native and non-native organizations in
support of the original court cases on this matter, Harjo et
al v. Pro Football, Inc., and we support the current case,
Blackhorse et al v. Pro Football, Inc., to cancel existing
trademarks.
We are proud of all our people who struggle for dignity and
fight against stereotypes, including Native and non-Native
students, families, teachers, and others who have worked
together to retire over 2,000 ``Indian'' names, logos,
mascots, and behaviors in schools across the land. The use of
Native Peoples as mascots is offensive and unjustifiable. We
will continue to call for an end to this practice until the
remaining stereotypes are gone from the American landscape.
Thank you and your co-sponsors for your leadership and
courage in introducing this important legislation. If you
have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me
or the NCAI Deputy Director, Robert Holden, at the National
Congress of American Indians.
Respectfully,
Jefferson Keel,
President.
______
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 8, 2013]
For the Redskins, What's in a Name? Plenty
(By Dana Milbank)
You know a guy is in trouble when he hires Lanny Davis as
his lawyer.
Davis has developed a specialty representing Third World
dictators and questionable businesses since his days as a
spokesman for Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal
So when Davis's name appeared on a statement from the
Washington Redskins on Saturday afternoon declaring that
President Obama was wrong to question the team's name, it was
a sure sign that Dan Snyder is worried.
Davis, brought in this summer to help with the team-name
controversy, expressed his disappointment ``as a supporter of
President Obama'' that Obama was not aware of a decade-old
poll finding that only one in 10 Native Americans were
offended by the name. ``We love our team and its name,'' he
wrote, and ``we do not intend to disparage or disrespect a
racial or ethnic group.''
I like Davis and admire his creativity, but, to borrow a
Clinton-era phrase, let's parse this statement. Are the
Redskins really defending the name with an out-of-date survey
that allowed anybody--even somebody with less native blood
than Elizabeth Warren--to identify as a Native American? And
even if those results were accurate, are Davis and Snyder
suggesting that racism is okay if it polls well?
To see whether it's right to use ``Redskins'' as a mascot,
NFL owners gathering in Georgetown on Tuesday for their Fall
meeting should substitute some other common racial epithets
and see how they would sound: The Washington Wetbacks? The
Houston Hymies? The Chicago Chinks'? Or perhaps the New York
Niggers? That would be enough to send anybody to the shotgun
formation.
``This word is an insult. It's mean, it's rude, it's
impolite,'' Kevin Gover, who is Native American and director
of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian,
said Monday at a news conference on the eve of the NFL
meeting. ``We've noticed that other racial insults are out of
bounds. . . . We wonder why it is that the word that is
directed at us, that refers to us, is not similarly off-
limits.''
Gover was part of a gathering arranged by the Oneida Nation
at the Ritz-Carlton, the site of the owners meeting. The
tribe has been running radio ads calling for a name change,
and the cause got a boost when Obama said in an interview
with the Associated Press on Saturday that he'd think about
changing the name if he were in Snyder's shoes. Snyder is on
record telling USA Today: `We'll never change the name. It's
that simple. Never--you can use caps.''
Actually, forget the Caps; let's use the Bullets, who
became the Washington Wizards to avoid using what was a less
offensive word than Redskins. Davis decries the ``selective''
outrage against the Redskins but not the Atlanta Braves or
the Cleveland Indians or the Chicago Blackhawks. The Braves'
Tomahawk Chop and Cleveland's Chief Wahoo are indeed
appalling, but the team names aren't epithets.
``We're asking the NFL to stop using a racial slur,'' said
Ray Halbritter, representing the Oneida Nation.
The best argument was made not by a Native American but by
an African American, the District of Columbia's delegate to
Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton. ``My great-grandfather was a
runaway slave,'' she said. ``I went to segregated schools,
just like many Native Americans. . . . I don't see how anyone
who has gone through our historic experience can fail to
identify with Native Americans who are raising this issue.
Need I remind them of the terms that have been attached to us
in history and how the moment we hear one of those terms,
you've got an uprising?''
That makes Davis's defense sound all the more trivial.
``The name `Washington Redskins' is 80 years old--it's our
history and legacy and tradition,'' his statement said--as
though that trumps the Native Americans' history and legacy
and tradition.
Norton predicted that the offensive name won't last much
longer. ``The name is going to go in the dustbin of
history,'' she said. ``My only regret is that Dan Snyder, the
owner of the team, had to be pushed this far.''
If Snyder feels otherwise, perhaps he can start making his
way to history's dustbin, and a new owner can change the
name. Maybe then we'd win some football games.
Make your case: Should the Washington Redskins change their
name?
______
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 8, 2013]
Indian Tribe Pushes for Washington Redskins Name Change as NFL Owners
Gather
(By Theresa Vargas and Mark Maske)
NFL officials will meet with the Native American group that
is campaigning against the name of the Washington Redskins
and hosted a symposium Monday on the issue a mile away from
where league owners began gathering for a fall meeting.
``They know we're not going away,'' said Ray Halblitter, a
representative for the Oneida Indian Nation. He called the
meeting with the National Football League ``a move in the
right direction.''
The symposium comes three days after President Obama took a
stance in the long-standing debate, saying that if he were
the team's owner, he would think about changing the name.
The Oneida Nation launched the ``Change the Mascot''
campaign a few months ago, drawing inspiration from a high
school in its back yard that dropped the ``Redskins''
moniker. Since then, the New York tribe has emerged as one of
the strongest forces behind the growing push to scrap the
Washington team's 80-year-old name, scheduling radio ads to
run in every city the Redskins visit this season.
Its conference, held at the Ritz-Canton in Georgetown,
featured a panel of speakers that included the head of the
Snithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, a
psychologist who spoke about the public health consequences
of the word, student activists and politicians--Rep. Betty
McCollum (D-Minn.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.).
``I can think of no argument for retaining a name that
directly insults Americans and especially our first
Americans,'' said Holmes Norton, speaking as a third-
generation Washingtonian.
She said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell showed leadership
last month when he stepped back from his earlier defense of
the team's name and said, ``If one person's offended, we have
to listen.''
Nevertheless, no formal discussion of the Washington
Redskins' name is expected among NFL owners who are gathering
at another Ritz-Carlton in Washington for a one-day meeting
Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the situation,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the
sensitivity of the topic.
They said they sense little or no sentiment within the
league to urge Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to make a change.
NFL officials were invited to the Native American
symposium, but none attended the event, Halbritter said. But
he said he was encouraged that Goodell had instructed Adolpho
Birch, the NFL's senior vice president for labor policy and
government affairs, to schedule a meeting. The sit-down is
scheduled for Nov. 22 at the league's offices, but two
sources said it could be held sooner.
On Monday, as NFL franchise owners began arriving for their
Tuesday gathering, several declined comment on the name-
change issue.
Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy, who once played
for the Redskins, was the athletic director at Colgate when
the school changed the name of its athletic teams from Red
Raiders to Raiders in 2001. But he declined to speak Monday
on the controversy.
``I'd rather not get into it,'' Murphy said.
Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie also declined to
comment.
In May, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder told USA Today, 'We'll
never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER--you can use
caps.''
In the months since, a string of prominent sports writers
has stop penning the word. A group led by a former Federal
Communications Commission chairman announced an effort to
persuade broadcasters to stop saying the name on the
airwaves. And a decision is expected soon in a lawsuit aimed
at revoking the federal trademark protection of the team's
name.
Kevin Gover, who heads the American Indian museum and whose
son is a plaintiff in the trademark case, said the Oneida
Nation has long been a powerful force in the American Indian
community and that the tribe's involvement in the name-change
issue has only elevated the conversation. He said he has
little doubt that NFL officials, even if none attended the
symposium, were listening to what was said.
``Like all major industries, the NFL is very interested in
its public image,'' Gover said, ``and when there is a
challenge to that public image, the NFL is inclined to
respond.''
During Monday's event, Gover--who wrote a letter to The
Washington Post about the
[[Page H6353]]
offensiveness of the name when he was a high school senior in
1973--spoke about how as a child he was called ``redskin''
and doesn't understand why, unlike other racial slurs, the
word has not become off limits.
Michael Friedman, a clinical psychologist who has
researched the effects of stigma and discrimination, said the
word amounts to harassment and causes mental and physical
harm to a population that already faces higher rates of
depression, alcoholism, suicide, diabetes and infant
mortality.
``This is a public health issue,'' he said. 'This is not a
political correctness issue.''
Also on the panel were two students from Cooperstown High
School and the school board's president, who earlier this
year were behind the decision to change the school's team
from the Redskins to the Hawkeyes. The Oneida Nation later
paid for the school's new uniforms.
The tribe, which has about 1,000 members, has prospered in
the casino and resort business and has pledged $10 million
over 10 years to the American Indian museum.
The tribe also sponsors the Buffalo Bills and has a
``vested interest in the league being a unifying force,''
Habritter said.
``As an Indian nation that values the idea of mutual
respect, we only have one simple objective in all of this,''
Habritter said. ``We no longer want to be treated as targets
of racial slurs. We don't want our children to be treated as
targets of racial slurs. We want to be treated as what we
are: Americans.''
______
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 8, 2013]
Tackling the Offensive
(By Dana Milbank)
You know a guy is in trouble when he hires Lanny Davis as
his lawyer.
Davis has developed a specialty representing Third World
dictators and questionable businesses since his days as a
spokesman for Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky
scandal. So when Davis's name appeared on a statement from
the Washington Redskins on Saturday afternoon declaring that
President Obama was wrong to question the team's name, it was
a sure sign that Dan Snyder is worried.
Davis, brought in this summer to help with the team-name
controversy, expressed his disappointment ``as a supporter of
President Obama'' that Obama was not aware of a decade-old
poll finding that only one in 10 Native Americans were
offended by the name. ``We love our team and its name;'' he
wrote, and ``we do not intend to disparage or disrespect a
racial or ethnic group.''
I like Davis and admire his creativity, but, to borrow a
Clinton-era phrase, let's parse this statement. Are the
Redskins really defending the name with an out-of-date survey
that allowed anybody--even somebody with less native blood
than Elizabeth Warren--to identify as a Native American? And
even if those results were accurate, are Davis and Snyder
suggesting that racism is okay if it polls well?
To see whether it's right to use ``Redskins'' as a mascot,
NFL owners gathering in Georgetown on Tuesday for their fall
meeting should substitute some other common racial epithets
for Hispanics, African Americans, Asians and Jews and see how
they would sound. That would be enough to send anybody to the
shotgun formation.
``This word is an insult. It's mean, it's rude, it's
impolite,'' Kevin Gover, who is Native American and director
of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian,
said Monday at a news conference on the eve of the NFL
meeting. ``We've noticed that other racial insults are out of
bounds. . . . We wonder why it is that the word that is
directed at us, that refers to us, is not similarly off-
limits.''
Gover was part of a gathering arranged by the Oneida Nation
at the Ritz-Carlton, the site of the owners meeting. The
tribe has been running radio ads calling for a name change,
and the cause got a boost when Obama said in an interview
with the Associated Press on Saturday that he'd think about
changing the name if he were in Snyder's shoes. Snyder is on
record telling USA Today: ``We'll never change the name. It's
that simple. Never--you can use caps.''
Actually, forget the Caps; let's use the Bullets, who
became the Washington Wizards to avoid using what was a less
offensive word than Redskins. Davis decries the ``selective''
outrage against the Redskins but not the Atlanta Braves or
the Cleveland Indians or the Chicago Blackhawks. The Braves'
Tomahawk Chop and Cleveland Chief Wahoo are indeed appalling,
but the team names aren't epithets.``We're asking the NFL to
stop using a racial slur,'' said Ray Halbritter, representing
the Oneida Nation.
The best argument was made not by a Native American but by
an African American, the District of Columbia's delegate to
Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton. ``My great-grandfather was a
runaway slave,'' she said. ``I went to segregated schools,
just like many Native Americans. . . . I don't see how anyone
who has gone through our historic experience can fail to
identify with Native Americans who are raising this issue.
Need I remind them of the terms that have been attached to us
in history and how the moment we hear one of those terms,
you've got an uprising?''
That makes Davis's defense sound all the more trivial.
``The name `Washington Redskins' is 80 years old--it's our
history and legacy and tradition,'' his statement said--as
though that trumps the Native Americans' history and legacy
and tradition.
Norton predicted that the offensive name won't last much
longer. ``The name is going to go in the dustbin of
history,'' she said. ``My only regret is that Dan Snyder, the
owner of the team, had to be pushed this far.''
If Snyder feels otherwise, perhaps he can start making his
way to history's dustbin, and a new owner can change the
name. Maybe then we'd win some football games.
______
NFL To Meet Tribe Over Redskins Name
(By Theresa Vargas and Mark Maske)
NFL officials will meet with the Native American group that
is campaigning against the name of the Washington Redskins
and hosted a symposium Monday on the issue a mile away from
where league owners began gathering for a fall meeting.
``They know we're not going away,'' said Ray Halbritter, a
representative for the Oneida Indian Nation. He called the
meeting with the National Football League ``a move in the
right direction.''
The symposium comes three days after President Obama took a
stance in the long-standing debate, saying that if he were
the team's owner, he would think about changing the name.
The Oneida Nation launched the ``Change the Mascot''
campaign a few months ago, drawing inspiration from a high
school in its back yard that dropped the ``Redskins''
moniker. Since then, the New York tribe has emerged as one of
the strongest forces behind the growing push to scrap the
Washington team's 80-year-old name, scheduling radio ads to
run in every city the Redskins visit this season.
Its conference, held at the Ritz-Carlton in Georgetown,
featured a panel of speakers that included the head of the
Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, a
psychologist who spoke about the public health consequences
of the word, student activists and politicians--Rep. Betty
McCollum (D-Minn.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.).
``I can think of no argument for retaining a name that
directly insults Americans and especially our first
Americans,'' said Holmes Norton, speaking as a third-
generation Washingtonian.
She said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell showed leadership
last month when he stepped back from his earlier defense of
the team's name and said, ``If one person's offended, we have
to listen.''
Nevertheless, no formal discussion of the Washington
Redskins' name is expected among NFL owners who are gathering
at another Ritz-Carlton in Washington for a one-day meeting
Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the situation,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the
sensitivity of the topic.
They said they sense little or no sentiment within the
league to urge Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to make a change.
NFL officials were invited to the Native American
symposium, but none attended the event, Halbritter said. But
he said he was encouraged that Goodell had instructed Adolpho
Birch, the NFL's senior vice president for labor policy and
government affairs, to schedule a meeting. The sit-down is
scheduled for Nov. 22 at the league's offices, but two
sources said it could be held sooner.
On Monday, as NFL franchise owners began arriving for their
Tuesday gathering, several declined to comment on the name-
change issue.
Green Bay Packers President Mark Murphy, who once played
for the Redskins, was the athletic director at Colgate when
the school changed the name of its athletic teams from Red
Raiders to Raiders in 2001. But he declined to speak Monday
on the controversy.
``I'd rather not get into it,'' Murphy said.
Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie also declined to
comment.
In May, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder told USA Today,
``We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER--you
can use caps.''
In the months since, a string of prominent sports writers
has stopped penning the name. A group led by a former Federal
Communications Commission chairman announced an effort to
persuade broadcasters to stop saying the name on the
airwaves. And a decision is expected soon in a lawsuit aimed
at revoking the federal trademark protection of the team's
name.
Kevin Gover, who heads the American Indian museum and whose
son is a plaintiff in the trademark case, said the Oneida
Nation has long been a powerful force in the American Indian
community and that the tribe's involvement in the name-change
issue has only elevated the conversation. He said he has
little doubt that NFL officials, even if none attended the
symposium, were listening to what was said.
``Like all major industries, the NFL is very interested in
its public image,'' Gover said, ``and when there is a
challenge to that public image, the NFL is inclined to
respond?'
During Monday's event, Gover--who wrote a letter to The
Washington Post about the offensiveness of the name when he
was a high school senior in 1973--spoke about how as a child
he was called ``redskin'' and doesn't understand why, unlike
other racial slurs, the word has not become off limits.
Michael Friedman, a clinical psychologist who has
researched the effects of stigma and discrimination, said the
word amounts to harassment and causes mental and physical
harm to a population that already faces higher rates of
depression, alcoholism, suicide, diabetes and infant
mortality.
[[Page H6354]]
``This is a public health issue,'' he said. ``This is not a
political correctness issue.''
Also on the panel were two students from Cooperstown High
School and the school board's president, who earlier this
year were behind the decision to change the school's team
from the Redskins to the Hawkeyes. The Oneida Nation later
paid for the school's new uniforms.
The tribe, which has about 1,000 members, has prospered in
the casino and resort business and has pledged $10 million
over 10 years to the American Indian museum.
The tribe also sponsors the Buffalo Bills and has a
``vested interest in the league being a unifying force,''
Halbritter said.
``As an Indian nation that values the idea of mutual
respect, we only have one simple objective in all of this,''
Halbritter said. ``We no longer want to be treated as targets
of racial slurs. We don't want our children to be treated as
targets of racial slurs. We want to be treated as what we
are: Americans.''
____________________