Tag Archives: Native Americans

Sports news

Redskins’ name is gone

I want to make a couple of quick points about a pending announcement of a name change for Washington’s National Football League team.

First, I’ve never really gotten all that fired up about team nicknames depicting Native Americans … except for the Redskins.

Indians, Braves, Warriors, Chiefs, Black Hawks, Aztecs, Seminoles. They don’t bother me. Then again, I am of Southeast European heritage so I don’t have a particular dog in that fight, if you get my drift. About the closest name I can come up with that depicts my own heritage might be the Spartans, which is what they call teams associated with Michigan State University and San Jose State University. It doesn’t bother me in the least. OK, I digress.

The name Redskins, though, has annoyed me. I find the term to be one of those weird throwback terms you heard in 1940s Western films, when some toothless gunslinger would refer to “them redskins over yonder.” 

Then again, the Native Americans depicted in those films would mention doing battle with “pale faces,” or “white eyes” or whoever.

The name will change. As I write these words, I do not yet know what the NFL team will call itself. I’m glad Washington’s pro football franchise is moving on from that name.

As for the rest of those team nicknames, well, to be brutally candid, they don’t bother me.

International news

‘Merit-based’ immigration policy? Define ‘merit’

What is seemingly lost in all the furor over the “zero tolerance” debate and the fate of children taken from their parents at the southern border is a key element of Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policy.

The president said it again just this week. He wants a “merit-based” immigration policy that allows for a greater degree of selectivity. If you have something to contribute to the United States … you’re in. If you’re, um, not so meritorious, well, call us when you deserve to be admitted.

Trump wants to restrict legal immigration while eliminating illegal immigration. I am with him on the effort to make all immigrants enter this country legally, with proper documentation.

It’s the caveat he is seeking to attach to legal immigrants that bothers me in the extreme.

I am the grandson of immigrants. All four of my grandparents came to this country at the turn of the 20th century. They weren’t highly educated. They didn’t bring special talents or skill — although my maternal grandfather was fluent or conversant in about seven languages, owing to his years of service as a merchant seaman.

I am unclear whether any of them would have made the cut under Donald Trump’s plan to institute a merit-based immigration policy.

Here’s another thing to consider: Two of my grandparents came from Greece, two came from Turkey. I am wondering here and now whether Trump considers Turkey — a predominantly Muslim nation — to be a “sh**hole country” along the lines of El Salvador, Haiti or anywhere in Africa.

This nation — with the exception of Native Americans — is made up of people who all were immigrants. Most of our ancestors came here voluntarily; others of them were forced to come here — as slaves!

To suggest that we set the bar higher than many immigrants can clear is to deny our nation’s history and its tradition of being a land that opens its doors — along with its arms and heart — to the rest of the world.

military news

Trump sure has a way with words

Donald John “Quipster in Chief” Trump Sr. is the master of context and impeccable timing.

The president welcomed some Navajo veterans of World War II. They were the legendary Code Talkers who helped win the U.S. combat effort in the Pacific Theater of Operations.

The White House event was set up to honor those veterans, all gallant Marines. So what does the president do? The idiot in chief decided to shoot a barb at a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate.

According to The Hill: Trump said the Code Talkers “were here long before any of us were here,” referencing, I suppose, their Native American heritage. Then the said, “Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas.”

What a knee-slapper!

His reference is to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who Trump has been deriding for years because Warren claims to have some Native American ancestry in her background.

The former Marines didn’t react to Trump’s dig. Hmm. Imagine that. They are too dignified to get snookered into that kind of childishness.

Read The Hill story here.

For the record, the Code Talkers were deployed in the Pacific Theater to communicate battle plans and intelligence in their native language, which the enemy couldn’t decipher. Precious few of these brave men are left.

The president simply couldn’t salute these men’s valiant service to their country during its darkest time without offering a stupid remark about a contemporary political opponent?

Is this what his fans call “telling it like it is”?

I prefer to call it a demonstration of stupidity.

Sports news, State news

Texas HS says ‘no’ to name-change offer

indians

A story from my old stomping grounds in the opposite corner of Texas caught my eye.

But not for the reason you might think.

Port Neches-Groves High School is in an area between Beaumont and Port Arthur, in what’s called Mid-Jefferson County. Its team nickname is “Indians.” The athletic shoe manufacturer Adidas has offered free design resources and other financial aid to any U.S. high school that drops a nickname relating to Native Americans.

PN-G said “no thanks.”

Indian name to stay

In truth, I don’t really object to the name “Indians.” I do not find the term offensive the way some folk believe it is. Then again, it’s easy for me to say such a thing, since I’m not Indian.

I do object to the term “Redskins,” which is the name of the Washington, D.C., professional football team. The term was used commonly in films to refer to Native Americans in a sort of derisive fashion.

But here’s the rub regarding Port-Neches Groves High School. I remember, from the time I spent in Beaumont working (from 1984 until 1995) as editorial page editor of the Beaumont Enterprise, that the high school referred to its high school football venue as The Reservation.

Now … when I think of the term “Reservation” in the context of Indians, I think of another term. I think of “concentration camp.”

That’s what Indian reservations became for Indians who had witnessed their homeland taken from them by white settlers and military forces. Reservations became places where Native Americans were confined, where they had to remain for fear of being punished.

Should the Indians continue to identify teams competing for a Texas high school? Well, only if school officials can find another name to identify the place where its students play football.

 

 

Uncategorized

Redskins name a 'source of pride'?

Sarah Palin and Mike Ditka are on the same page regarding the name of Washington, D.C.’s professional football team.

They like the name “Redskins.” They think the name should stay. Ditka, the former Chicago Bears and Dallas Cowboys tight end and former Bears head coach, takes liberal political correctness police to task for denigrating a great name.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/sarah-palin-mike-ditka-redskins-110265.html?hp=r3

Palin, the former half-term Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, said the Redskins name is a “source of pride.”

Wow!

Let’s ponder that one for just a moment.

Palin hails from a state with a significant Native American population. Alaska is full of various people whose ancestry originates in that region. They aren’t immigrants. Their skin color is a bit reddish, yes?

I’m wondering if the ex-governor/turned reality TV star/turned Fox News contributor ever has called a Native Alaskan a “redskin” because she just knows they’d be proud to be labeled like that.

No, I believe ex-Gov. Palin is incorrect. It’s no source of pride, which likely explains why Native American groups all over the United States have protested the name “Redskins.”

As for Coach Ditka, I just would remind him that times do change. What once was considered OK is no longer held in favor. That’s how trends change, coach. They just evolve — right along with community attitudes.

Uncategorized

What's wrong with Chiefs?

I am OK with changing the name of the Washington Redskins.

Who, after all, ever uses that term other than in a derogatory context? The name ought to change.

Now comes this bit of conjecture: Will the Kansas City Chiefs’ name also come under attack?

I hope not.

http://msn.foxsports.com/kansas-city/story/redskins-indians-will-native-americans-target-the-chiefs-next-062514

Given that I’m not a Native American — even though I was born in the United States to first-generation Americans — perhaps I don’t get what’s so objectionable about the name “Chiefs.”

I’ll concede that the Chiefs long have been one of my favorite pro football teams. I was delighted beyond belief over their dismantling of the Minnesota Vikings in the fourth Super Bowl ever played. But I digress.

To this white man’s way of thinking, “Chiefs” shouldn’t be seen as offensive to Native Americans. By definition, the term identifies the leader of a Native American community. He is the most exalted member of that community and is treated with utmost respect, even reverence.

“Redskins” is another matter altogether. Let’s stop there. Leave the Chiefs’ name alone.

Uncategorized

Welcome … the Washington Indians

An earlier post on this blog took note of the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins’ name and whether it ought to be changed.

I have concluded that it should. I said so in the post, which then was distributed via Twitter and Facebook. One of my Facebook friends — and he’s an actual friend, not just a social media acquaintance — took serious exception to my notion that the Redskins name is offensive to Native Americans.

We went back and forth. My friend says we’ve fallen victim to political correctness run amok. Indeed, the Redskins name stood virtually unchallenged for many decades until the nation heightened its civil rights awareness. I keep returning to my point about the term “Redskins” and whether it originated as a term of endearment. I doubt it strongly.

Then a member of my family entered the fray. One of my sons noted that “Redskins” is a “descriptive term” coined by white people. It is meant as an epithet. His example: “Look at them Redskins. Let’s go take their land and stuff.” I died laughing.

His larger point is a valid one, which is that the term offends some people. Why not, then, simply change it?

He came up with this notion, which I’ll pass along here. Call ’em the Washington Indians, he said.

Interesting. We already have the Cleveland Indians in baseball. We also have several other duplicate team nicknames: The San Francisco and New York Giants, the Arizona and St. Louis Cardinals, the New York and Texas Rangers, the Winnipeg and New York Jets. There might be more … but you get the drift.

Besides, he said, you wouldn’t even have to mess with the Washington team logo.

Has anyone griped about the Cleveland Indians, a non-descript term that doesn’t offend anyone?

Problem solved.