You know about Jackie Robinson. You know about Satchel Paige. And after the last two weeks, you sure as hell know about Michael Richards. (In case you’ve been under a very large rock, the video clip that’s the source of that particular fuss is available here.) What you probably don’t know about — and what nothing can really prepare you for, so I won’t even try — is this.
That photo is the front side of a postcard, which Uni Watch auction consultant David Brown discovered for sale on eBay. According to the seller, it dates from somewhere between 1904 and 1918, and this appears to be borne out by the jerseys’ pointed collars and other details (although the catcher’s chest protector, with its large panels of padding, looks surprisingly modern).
Phony? Photoshop? Probably not. This 2003 article, part of which is quoted in the eBay listing, says there’s a Nigger Island in Maryland (it’s now technically known as Negro Island), and there used to be another one in Ontario. Such place names were once common, and many of them have endured. According to that same article, America still had at least 144 “Nigger”-identified places in 2003. The controversy surrounding one of them — a Kentucky road called Nigger Fork — is discussed in this 1995 article.
And there’s more. Nigger Island is also the setting for Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None (no word on whether they had a baseball team), considered by many to be her finest mystery novel, although most recent editions have changed the reference to Indian Island. In fact, the book’s original UK title was Ten Little Niggers (some editions with this title can be seen here and here), after the nursery rhyme we know today as “Ten Little Indians.”
As for the uniforms, there’s an irony — or at least a few shades of complexity — in the sight of an all-white team wearing Nigger Island jerseys. Like, what was the team’s full name, the Nigger Island Caucasians? Did other white teams mock them for wearing “Nigger” on their chests? Or were they proud to wear a racist epithet? Did any of them grow up to play for the old minor league Atlanta Crackers? One thing’s for sure: None of them played for the Crackers’ Negro League counterparts, the paradoxically named Atlanta Black Crackers.
What a mess. I already knew baseball and dysfunctional race relations were both quintessentially American, but I hadn’t thought about them intersecting quite like this before today. And as reader Austin Gray points out, the best commentary may be contained within the photo itself, where one of the guys in the back row has “ISLAND” misspelled as “ILSAND.” A subtle bit of subversion, or a textbook case of stupid is as stupid does? You be the judge.
I trust everyone will keep today’s comments intelligent, rational, and on topic, right? Right.
Contest Update: Thanks and congrats to everyone who entered the Distant Replays $200 gift card quiz/raffle, from Don Norwood, who submitted his entry barely an hour after the quiz was posted last Thursday, to Edward Ra, who clicked “Send” about 90 seconds before last night’s 11pm deadline. (Those who submitted after the deadline — you know who you are — will be entered into the drawing for the wild card berth but will not be eligible for the scoring-based finalist spots.)
A small battalion of trained lemurs is scoring the entries at this very moment (I tried to get chimps but they were too expensive). We should be ready to announce the 11 finalists tomorrow, as long as I don’t run out of Lemur Chow™. Hang tight till then.
Uni Watch News Ticker: That same eBay postcard seller also has this gorgeous 1906 shot — full listing here. … Yesterday’s pics of Marko Jaric’s backwards jersey prompted this recollection from Adam Ross: “Ala Abdelnaby never played when he was with the Blazers in 1992, so it was kind of a big deal when coach Rick Adelman motioned for him to get off the bench one time late in a blowout — except when he took off his warm-up jacket there was nothing on underneath. This led to the strange scene of a topless Ala running into the locker room to retrieve his jersey. He never did get in that night.” … More advertising apparently in store for soccer jerseys. … You can just barely see Hunter Hillenmeyer’s latest torn “C” decal here. … The BC Lions’ orange postseason helmets are up for auction (with thanks to Sheldon Spencer). … All our recent chatter about NFL officials’ garb prompted this hard-line observation from Ben Matthias: “I think it should be noted that the NFL officials don’t follow any protocol on what other accessories can be worn with their uniforms. In the ACC, for example (and in many other D-1 conferences), all members of a crew must wear gloves or nobody does. Same with earmuffs, hand warmers, etc. The NFL is lax on that rule. I think it makes the officiating crew stand out more (in a bad way) when each guy wears different things.” That seems a bit harsh to me. If only one guy wants to wear gloves, let him. … “The secretary where I work brought her high school yearbook to work the other day and I thought I’d take a look at the sports uniforms,” writes Chris Lemley. “It turns out that she graduated from Michigan’s Iron Mountain High School, the alma mater of the pride of the Upper Peninsula, Tom Izzo and Steve Mariucci.” Take a look here and here. … Xavier will be wearing throwbacks tonight (with thanks to Andy Ingram). … Several readers have noted that Seahawks kicker Josh Brown had his earholes covered in Sunday night’s game. I’m assuming he did this for warmth, not to drown out the crowd noise (especially since his earholes have been unobstructed in other road games). … In other placekicker news, Jason Brown notes that Martin Gramatica was wearing his wedding band on Sunday, as you can just barely see here, here, and here.
#1 by Teebz on 12.05.06 8:35 am |
Interesting topic, Paul. I was unaware that there were actual places using that “name”, or it’s politically-correct name today. You’d think that as far as humanity has come - space travel, medical achievements, etc. - that we’d be able to fix the injustices of the past.
Thanks for bringing this to light. Great post.
#2 by Skip on 12.05.06 8:37 am |
Obviously if we were naming teams today these examples, and others (Washington Redskins) would never pass. The obvious problem comes from a less tolerant era.
#3 by Steve from Austin on 12.05.06 8:42 am |
Wow…
Great find
#4 by Pat on 12.05.06 8:58 am |
Interesting stuff. I don’t feel like it’s my place to comment. So I won’t.
But I will say this. I am incredibly jealous of Tom Izzo and Steve Mariucci. Those basketball uniforms they got to wear are absolutely gorgeous.
#5 by BtotheE on 12.05.06 9:10 am |
Great article and pics.
#6 by Greg on 12.05.06 9:14 am |
I like that last picture of Grammatica with the back of the NY jersey reading Short.
http://espn-i.starwa...
#7 by Austin Gray on 12.05.06 9:15 am |
Let me be the first to point out that the player in the middle of the back row has a misspelling on his jersey. It says “ILSAND” instead of “ISLAND.” I find this more than a little funny - you know, racism hand-in-hand with ignorance/stupidity. OK, it was probably just carelessness, but it’s still funny.
#8 by PDXclark on 12.05.06 9:29 am |
How about the fact that he is wearing actual thigh pads- most kickers & some receivers don’t use them at all.
#9 by Kelli on 12.05.06 9:30 am |
Looks like Gramatica has been talking to Dre Bly’s tailor.
#10 by Chad E. on 12.05.06 9:33 am |
Gramatica wore his wedding ring when he kicked for the Colts this year too.
#11 by Christopher "fuegote" on 12.05.06 9:48 am |
I’m just happy Gramatica didn’t pull a muscle or tear anything. :-D.
Those photos of Izzo and Mariucci are classic. Great unis too.
#12 by Kenny on 12.05.06 9:57 am |
Wasn’t that his brother that got hurt? But I know where you are going with that
#13 by Richard on 12.05.06 10:14 am |
both of them hurt their legs around the same time - celebrating successful field goals.
#14 by Banker Bill on 12.05.06 10:17 am |
That may be the defining moment of the entire situation - you can’t be racist without being stupid.
What a thought provoking post today Paul. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a uniform that made me want to throw up so much in my life - and that includes the purple unis and the unnecesasry piping. Those are just asthetically not pleasing to look at - the Island (I won’t even dignify the use of the first word) uniforms are truly ugly - in every sense of the word.
#15 by skott on 12.05.06 10:17 am |
wow.
it is completely unbelieveable that there are so many places in the US still with names that are so obviously offensive.
how does one go about finding this list? i’d love to know where and what they are…ugh.
#16 by Pat on 12.05.06 10:27 am |
I actually rather like the uniforms from a purely aesthetic standpoint. If you can ignore the use of that particular word in the team name and look at the uniform itself it actually works quite nice. They could ceertainly use some better socks but I like the arched type with the horizontal underneath. I like the collar (what’s up with dude on the left in the middle row? Does he have another collar on under the regular collar?). And, I like the plain white hats.
The manager on the right has some real awful posture.
#17 by Christopher on 12.05.06 10:27 am |
Here’s a start:
http://en.wikipedia....
#18 by JimmyMac on 12.05.06 10:36 am |
To MLB’s credit, the retiring of all #42 jerseys Leaguewide while a minor gesture is significant in the bigger picture when you see this crap.
This insideous stuff makes me sick. Kudos to Paul for bringing it up (as difficult as is to confront) and addressing it today…
As a lifelong Blackhawks fan I get uncomfortable seeing Hawks fans facepainted in war paint and such. Yet, I admire the graphic integrity of which the team crest is handled…somewhat hypocrital…geez, I hope not.
On a lighter note… I really like the Springfield Cardinals minor league identity…system relevant, animated and attractive… but not looking like the latest plush toy packaging from Fisher-Price. I detest the continued dumbing down of minor league marks…but that’s just me.
#19 by Steve on 12.05.06 10:38 am |
As for Izzo and Mariucci’s uniform, they look like a copy of the early 1970’s Marquette basketball uniforms. Maybe someone could find a picture.
#20 by joe on 12.05.06 10:38 am |
Interesting…but the use of a word doesn’t connote racism. The baseball players in the picture are not automatically racist because they are wearing the name of a locale that (today) we consider controversial.
I think we all get too bent out of shape over words, when its action and behavior that really matters. Michael Richards’s actions were over the top and malicious (reminded me of the scene from Blazing Saddles when the Sheriff rides into town for the first time).The use of the word nigger on a place name and subsequently on the jersey of a 1920s era bush-league ball club is hardly equivalent to the racist rantings of a hack comedian or even burning a cross.
Just a thought, but if pre-20th century Americans attached the same intentionally derogatory connotation to the word nigger that we do today, wouldn’t most white Americans be uncomfortable telling others that they lived on Nigger Island, or played for the Nigger Island Baseball Team? I’m just asking people to look at it in its historical context in addition to applying a 21st century perspective.
Interesting bit of American history.
#21 by JimmyMac on 12.05.06 10:42 am |
Speaking of Blackhawks…great footage from late 60’s before helmets, dasherboard signage and logos on the ice visually obliterated hockey…
http://www.youtube.c...
Old theme song included…
#22 by tedkerwin on 12.05.06 10:49 am |
more on offensive geographical names.
#23 by Pat McDermott on 12.05.06 10:51 am |
About Brown’s covered earholes:
I know that playing high school football in Central Pennsylvania it was quite common for players to tape their earholes at practice or even for playoff games in late November - early December. It’s amazing how much warmer you feel when two strips of athletic tape are applied to your helmet.
#24 by Banker Bill on 12.05.06 10:51 am |
Joe, I thought the same thing as you - until I thought about it a little more - I think blatant racists in their own warped way would be PROUD to wear such things because it reinforces their beliefs. Everyone else is right though - I understand that it was acceptable vernacular back then, and as part of the history it should be noted and discussed - but as a 36 year old white person, I was raised to ALWAYS associate that word with a negative connotation. I guess I am a product of my upbringing - as are the players in the photo.
#25 by JimmyMac on 12.05.06 10:52 am |
And yet we sure can roll out the “nationalism” when we really want to…The 1991 National Anthem (for the Madhouse on Madison) and Kate Smith bringing down the Spectrum… outstanding…
http://www.youtube.c....
http://www.youtube.c...
#26 by Richard on 12.05.06 11:25 am |
this one - Super Bowl 25 - is one of the best performed renditions ever.
#27 by Paulio on 12.05.06 11:34 am |
If you read the Wikipedia link that Christopher included you’ll find in there that the term did not have the harsh stigma attached to it as it does now until the 1960 (which is why as a 36-yr.-old you have heard it as a taboo word your whole life, Banker Bill.) It goes on to say that authors, such as the celebrated Mark Twain used it until the late 1800s.
Although a lot can change in a decade or two, seeing as how Paul and the auctioneer estimate this to be before 1920, I don’t see how anyone should assume that these ballplayers were racist. It seems to me that it’d be the equivalent of someone from African-American Island to be wearing that on their jerseys. I’m with Joe on this one… Bill, I think you are digging too deep and looking for controversy where there is none.
#28 by iowaboy277 on 12.05.06 11:47 am |
You can search the Geographic Names Information Service from the U.S. Dept. of Interior and U.S. Geological Survey.
A search for the n-word there yields 190 hits, though all of them apparently part of variant names and not current, standard names.
#29 by Minna H. on 12.05.06 11:56 am |
I am at work, but I had to comment on this. Just because it wasn’t a term of derision back then doesn’t make it not racist to wear it. I flinched at seeing the word, as I flinched when reading ‘Jap’–also a commonly accepted term during WWII.
Take the Washington football team. It is an offensive slang term, and yet, it is still being worn. With pride by some. To me, the casual use of the term in a time when said community in question has less or no rights is indicative of the problems of racism.
Paulio, African American is an accepted term (sort of) by blacks today. No matter how accepted that term was back then, I highly doubt that black people (with no rights) liked hearing it. Banker Bill in not digging too deep on this one, and I do feel there is more to the issue than just, ‘Oh, well. That’s how it was back then.’
Words lead to action. Words allow us to communicate. I think words even shape our thoughts and belief.
No witty repartee in this post—just my heated opinion.
#30 by Leigh on 12.05.06 11:57 am |
I’m not sure if it’s been touched on yet, but Korea is wearing, what appears to be, a new batting helmet for the Asian Games. With the back view here and here it looks like Nike has taken a hockey helmet and put a bill on it.
#31 by seth on 12.05.06 12:04 pm |
if you look at the catcher’s chest protector in the Nigger Island picture, it looks pretty close to the same as the one in the Wellington HS picture. That may be evidence of not photoshoping.
#32 by DJ on 12.05.06 12:05 pm |
As a lifelong Blackhawks fan I get uncomfortable seeing Hawks fans facepainted in war paint and such. Yet, I admire the graphic integrity of which the team crest is handled…somewhat hypocrital…geez, I hope not.
The Blackhawks are named after the Blackhawk Regiment of WW I, which was named after the Sauk and Fox Chief Black Hawk. A specific person in history; kind of like naming a team the Napoleons, or the Caesars. The Blackhawks do a good job of avoiding offensive imagery in their logos and mascot (the Indian Head, the crossed tomahawks over the “C”, the recently-added Tommy Hawk mascot (a black bird wearing the four feathers). Fans in Indian “warpaint” and headdresses are over the top. There aren’t too many of those, though.
#33 by specs on 12.05.06 12:07 pm |
I consent that the historical context of the Island baseball team makes each individual player’s beliefs on race a gray area. However, as Minna mentioned, there are equivalents today, which have absolutely no defense in a historical context, with the Washington Redskins being the most offensive and obvious example. I think only Native Americans can really say what is and is offensive to them (i.e. the Seminole tribe OK’ing FSU’s logo and mascot), but I’d be willing to bet that “Redskins” is nowhere near acceptable. We can sit here and talk about how offensive a 1920s baseball team name was, but how can we look down at them when we do nothing about current offenses of the same extreme?
#34 by specs on 12.05.06 12:09 pm |
That should read “what is or is not offensive”
#35 by Teebz on 12.05.06 12:26 pm |
No one is saying they are racist. In fact, I agree that it was an acceptable term. The problem is that the associated connotation on the word has changed, and it is no longer used in the same form as what it was. This is why it is offensive to us in today’s society.
The swastika was once a symbol of peace before being used by the Nazi Party in Germany. We all know the images the swastika carries now.
Gay means happy, but if someone said you were gay, you’d probably assume the negative connotation before the accepting the original definition of the word.
As for the Blackhawks, the Seminoles, the Fighting Sioux, the Braves, the Redskins, et cetera… I don’t have a problem with these names. While some may take offense to them, I think they are a sign of respect of a team who proudly walks onto a field of battle. While it is somewhat politically incorrect, they honour a heritage and the people of that heritage in a way that is inoffensive. Redskins is probably as close as one can get in team names in regards to being remotely disrespectful, but doesn’t that represent all aboriginal people without creed or geographical location?
Just as a disclaimer, I am open to intelligent discussion about this. If you want to rip me, please take your discussion elsewhere. Thank you. :o)
#36 by Flounder on 12.05.06 12:28 pm |
Billy Cundiff had his on too while kicking off for the Saints this weekend.
#37 by Pat on 12.05.06 12:30 pm |
Completely agree. Just because you where the shirt does not mean you should be immediately condemned a racist. As the article in reference states, the term was not a harsh racist term like it is now. But that’s beside the point. The name of the island from which this team hailed was “Nigger Island.” Why does wearing the name of your hometown/island immediately make you a blatant racist? Sure, as it was the early 1900s, a few of them may have been guilty of bigotry but to accuse an entire team of such a vice even isn’t right.
The use of the word “nigger” was not only to define a specific group of people but also to lump them together without proper judgement. Isn’t that what Banker Bill and Minna H are doing by suggesting that every member of the team is racist because of a name that is on their jersey?
Being brought up in a modern society and being told that this word has such harsh meaning is understandable. But isn’t it also understandable that the players in those pictures were brought up knowing that this word was acceptable and did not do any harm when used? They almost certainly didn’t know any better. Between it being an accepted word and the name of their country I don’t see how you can immediately accuse any of them of anything more than ignorance.
#38 by Pat on 12.05.06 12:32 pm |
Sorry, “island” not “country” in that last paragraph.
#39 by Scott Barkett on 12.05.06 12:35 pm |
I dunno if anyone else mentioned this yet in a comment, but the Browns defense had cotton in their earholes against the Chiefs this sunday.
#40 by Timmy D on 12.05.06 12:36 pm |
Just have to say I loved that video about the Blackhawks. A good point made about the name of the team being named after the regiment by way of the great Indian chief who like every story about Indians turns out tragically (even though he fought valiantly and is revered here in Illinois and also in Wisconsin). The name of the team was Black Hawks, which lends more legitimacy to the name, it was not until the 80’s that they changed it,
In 1986, while going through the team’s records, someone discovered the team’s original NHL contract, and found that the name “Blackhawks” was printed as a compound word as opposed to two separate words (”Black Hawks”) which was the way most sources had been printing it and as the team had always officially listed it. The name officially became “Chicago Blackhawks” from that point on.
which I guess takes away some of the legitimacy of it seeing as it was not a two part name to begin with, but nonetheless it is still done tastefully and beautifully. I commented last night that Chicago had the best uniforms collectively (all major sports) in the country. Those uniforms are just spectacular, as are all Chicago home/away uniforms (alternates…ehhh) even the cubbies, yes Minna, I am a Sox fan, you hit it right on the head.
It is amazing how much one word can mean so much in this world. How much hatred and pain can come through six letters and it is still sad that people still have to resort to words that are so hateful. Even though in the context of their time it was acceptable for whites, it was still a racist slur and does not take them off the hook. Another wonderful post Paul.
#41 by kevlay on 12.05.06 12:36 pm |
from dictionary.com:
red·skin
–noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. a North American Indian.
cleary, redskin is a derogatory term for Indians, and does not “honor” them in any way. it amazes me that washington still uses this nickname.
#42 by joe on 12.05.06 12:37 pm |
For Redskins discussion, read this article from 2002.
#43 by Timmy D on 12.05.06 12:39 pm |
Sorry, the quote i used was from wikipedia, as a college student i should know better and cite my source.
#44 by Patrick on 12.05.06 12:49 pm |
I beleive that the use of any Indian mascot or logo is offensive, even if it is done to honor a certain chief or tribe. There is a very interesting article here about the psychological effects of the use of Indian mascots. I believe that one of the best arguments against their use is stated in point 10, which argues… “Indian” mascots “freeze” Indigenous Peoples in a romanticized historical period that ended over a century ago - and which in truth never existed. By continuing to portray American Indians in such a manner the reality of how First Nations peoples are today - living, struggling and adapting like everyone else in the modern world - is set askew.
#45 by Andy (#11) on 12.05.06 12:49 pm |
One thing I think is interesting in the N-word Island photo is that most of the players have their caps tilted to the right side. At first I thought maybe it was some sort of gang sign…a shout-out to their fellow racist peeps, but then I decided that they’re probably just using the brims to shield their eyes from the sun.
#46 by joe on 12.05.06 12:51 pm |
I’m not offended in the least. Actually its pretty funny.
#47 by J. Mark English on 12.05.06 12:56 pm |
Hello,
This is a great blog. I’m going to be sure to link yours to mine. Would you mind doing the same for me?
Thank you very much.
My site:
www.americanlegends.blogspot.com
Take care,
Mark
#48 by joe on 12.05.06 1:00 pm |
I read those points. Most of them are ungrounded, uncited ridiculous assumptions. Moreover, the article is unsigned, which should tip you off about its credibility, and the site looks like it was put together by a middle school student.
For some reason, I can’t convince myself that a struggling Washington area football team somehow is setting back an entire group of people. Jim Thorpe didn’t seem to have much trouble.
#49 by specs on 12.05.06 1:04 pm |
Me neither, but that has absolutely no bearing on the other issues at hand. White people living in America (like myself) have never had to deal with racism, slavery, internment camps, reservations, or restricted (or completely non-existent) civil rights. What we find offensive, in my opinion, is completely irrelevant.
Teebz, I’m not trying to rip you, but I don’t see how “Redskins” could not be considered offensive. If a team was called the “Blackskins” or the “Yellowskins” and had a picture (caricature or not) of a black person or an Asian person, I’m pretty sure black or Asian people would be upset about it. As a white person, I’m not in a valid position to define what is or is not offensive to other people. I personally find “Redskins” offensive, as well as as the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo, or any other logo, mascot, or team name that simplifies (and in my opinion, demeans) any group of people.
#50 by Pat on 12.05.06 1:05 pm |
But, as a college student, shouldn’t you also know that as a professor of mine once put it: “Any paper citing wikipedia will be failed.”
#51 by Timmy D on 12.05.06 1:12 pm |
Damn, got me there
#52 by Minna H. on 12.05.06 1:15 pm |
Pat, I am not saying they were all racist. What I am saying is that they lived in racist times (don’t we all), and the word in and of itself is racist. I am also saying they benefit from that time solely because of their race. They didn’t play against people of color, for example, to keep it in the context of sports.
Teebz, I respectfully disagree that the names are a tribute–especially not Washington. Nor do I see the fans, such as Atlanta, being respectful with their behavior. As for the Fighting Whities, there is just no equivalent derogatory term for white people.
joe, it is disingenious to bring up one person and say that it didn’t harm him, and therefore it’s all right. The name of a team is not the most important problem faced by any group, but, again, it is indicative of the disregard the majority has for a minority.
As someone who has been called chink, gook, jap, bitch and cunt—I can tell you that words do hurt and that they are destructive.
#53 by joe on 12.05.06 1:15 pm |
Please speak for yourself, although I don’t want to get into a drawn out discussion about it.
#54 by Minna H. on 12.05.06 1:24 pm |
joe, you may have felt prejudice or discrimination on some level (if you are white), but not the rest as dictated by goverment. There is a difference.
#55 by joe on 12.05.06 1:25 pm |
Conversely, it is similarly disingenuous to bring up another individual or minority (of persons) who does find a word offensive or harmful, and therefore, the word must be offensive and treated as taboo by the public as a whole. If any of you had bothered to read the Washington Post article, you would have learned that an American Indian leader was partially responsible for the current Redskins Indian head logo IN THE 1960s.
#56 by specs on 12.05.06 1:25 pm |
Perhaps you’ve been the target of racist coments or behavior. If so, then I apologize for lumping you in with myself and the white Americans I know. Obviously, I don’t know what you’ve experienced, but no matter what was said/done to you, I don’t believe it carries the same weight as what many non-white people have gone through in America, because it lacks the same social and historical context, which does play a role in these issues.
#57 by Pat on 12.05.06 1:33 pm |
Maybe I misunderstood your original statement. I don’t think you can put blame on these people just because of the time period they happened to live in though. I may be wrong, but it seems like you are by saying they “benefitted from that time solely because of their race.” Maybe I’m taking it the wrong way again but I think cultural norms have a lot more to do with the issue here than any of these people’s personal beliefs.
For the record I have to agree with the nickname ‘Redskins’ being offensive. I, personally, am not offended by it but I can see how it would be the same as calling a team the Washington Spics or the Washington Heebs. Both offensive words to one particular group of people but don’t really affect another. But, I don’t think that some native american based logos should be considered offensive. While I was at Merrimack College they had to change their logo from this to this. Seems to me that the logo depicting the native american was more of an honor than slight. Although I can see the issue with this, especially given his nickname (Chief Wahoo).
#58 by Paulio on 12.05.06 1:39 pm |
I think Minna’s missing my point. The word was not racist at that point in time, therefore how can we say that the players wearing the jerseys were.
It’s kind of the opposite of what happened with the word Yankee. Before the Revolution, the British used it as a derogatory word, so had they had a soccer team called Yankee Island F.C. that could have meant they were using it in a malicious way. Nowadays we’d just assume that they were from a place called Yankee Island.
#59 by Pat on 12.05.06 1:52 pm |
Joe,
The point of your post is half the problem. We held very different values as a society back in the 1960s and even further back when the team migrated from Boston. Back in the 60s “nigger” was still a commonly used term. We were still a segregated society. Women were barely getting rights for which the entire country has taken for advantage in recent years. Whether or not a leader from the Blackfoot tribe wanted to help with the logo in the 1960s and was not offended by it does not mean that with the maturation of a more culturally accepting society Native Americans have not realized just how offensive the name ‘Redskins’ is.
I forgot to mention before that the Merrimack College nickname was ‘Warriors.’ That is part of what made it seem like more of an honor for the Native American depiction in their logo. Seeing as how the Redskins have a similar logo and not a cartoonish representation they may be better served changing their nickname as opposed to their logo. I don’t really have a problem with depicting Native Americans in a proudm powerful role but no matter how respectful the logo may be calling them ‘Redskins’ is almost certainly offensive. No matter what the writer from the Post says.
#60 by Pat on 12.05.06 1:53 pm |
The country has taken their rights ‘for granted’ not ‘for advantage.’ I really should proof read before I hit “Say It”
#61 by Nolan on 12.05.06 2:10 pm |
I had a NCAA basketball jersey revelation the other day that was not specifically mentioned in the espn article.
Up early watching SportsCenter and there were a ton of basketball highlights on. I noticed you only see close ups of the players from around the numbers up, and in those shots there was not a swoosh to be found or an adidas logo or any other manufacturer logo either.
Curious, I looked it up. No logos are allowed on the jersey by NCAA rule.
This explains the Nike shoulder stripe, it’s a swoosh without being a swoosh, a way to get around the rule. Lame.
#62 by JimmyMac on 12.05.06 2:13 pm |
There are certainly many team names (mascots) that that can be considered border line racist (or at least ethnically insensitive)… Redskins, Indians and mascots such as Chief Illiniwek for the Figthin’ Illini.
http://static.flickr...
As an Irish-American, some have even made the case the ND Fightin’ Irish logo suggests Irish folks look like leprechans and are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. I do not feel this way but see how some can make this point.
http://realhoboken.c...
Since day one, the Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop is the most ridiculous chant and it’s really unfortunate that it continues even today…totally ridiculous…and the team supports it with a neon grapchic and piped in music…no B.S.
http://www.youtube.c...
I mean come on…try something else…
#63 by ACC (the Brain) on 12.05.06 2:20 pm |
This site could do a public service and design a new plainer Redskins logo - sans the face. It’s time to get away from the offensive logo. Snyder will take flak for this but in the long run the NFL would benefit and fewer people will be offended.
My concern is the logo would still be in demand because it would become a retro logo. But there could be a rule prohibiting sales of new merchandise displaying the old logo.
I would start by researching old Redskins games and stories and incorporating something of importance into the new logo.
#64 by kevlay on 12.05.06 2:22 pm |
next uni topic: cheerleader uniforms.
make it happen, paul.
#65 by Chad G on 12.05.06 2:36 pm |
hehe,
these win by far…Simple, clean, and…you know what else
#66 by joe on 12.05.06 2:40 pm |
Ives Goddard, a linguist with the Smithsonian, posits that the term Redskin came from literal translations of the Native American term for themselves (in relation to White skins).
Most of the historical record (by this research) would support the contention that redskin was not used in a derogatory manner. James Fenimore Cooper (”Last of the Mohicans) used it regularly, and his novels consistently celebrated Native American culture. In fact, redskin was not considered derogatory until the related victim class decided so in the latter half of the twentieth century, in spite of the fact that the intentions of most people who had used the expression in that century were not derogatory but meant to recall romantic ideals of valor, pride, and athleticism associated with Native Americans, ideals they would like to impart upon their cherished football team.
Who then is responsible for turning redskin into a derogatory word? Not the mainstream society, but the victim class who feigns injury.
#67 by al on 12.05.06 2:42 pm |
Thanks Chad on two fronts):
1. for attempting to divert the thread to a more lighthearted, uni-centric tangent.
2. for posting a picture of my favorite girls… if only one of them were Minnie Driver & an Almost famous-era Kate Hudson….(heart flutters).
#68 by Lou on 12.05.06 2:44 pm |
I would like to see them go back to the old yellow helmet with the red “R” logo in the circle. Simple, elegant and less offensive.
#69 by Matty L. on 12.05.06 2:51 pm |
The ABA expansion team in Quebec City next year was originally gonna be named the Jumping Frogs but a fan poll switched the name to Kebekwa or Kebs for short. Logo and mascot are still a frog though apparently.
I don’t find it offensive at all, and I’ve got French-Canadian heritage so I see people making a fuss over it as pretty stupid, especially seeing as a Quebecois businessman owns the team.
#70 by Metsfan AZ on 12.05.06 2:52 pm |
Did they ever have the arrow and feathers that FSU has? I thought I saw something like that once.
#71 by Teebz on 12.05.06 2:57 pm |
I respect the opinions given. Thanks for the intellectual conversation and refraining from any irrational ranting.
Minna, as for “Fighting Whities”, weren’t the Yankees a group of white people who fought? While the stigma is not negative due to their fighting for a good cause, it is still a term to label a bunch of people. This would also apply to the Philadelphia Quakers.
I agree that Redskins is a term that is bordering on insulting. However, this wasn’t what was intended in 1933 when the team changed names. “The city of Boston, Massachusetts was awarded an NFL franchise in 1932, under the ownership of George Preston Marshall.
Initially the new team took the same name as its landlords, the Boston Braves, one of the two local baseball teams at the time. When the football team moved to Fenway Park (home of the Boston Red Sox) the next year, Marshall also changed the name of the football Braves to the ‘Redskins’, to honor their head coach, who claimed Sioux ancestry, and to further distinguish the team from its ex-landlordsâ€.
However, “George Preston Marshall, owner and founder of the franchise, sought to rename the Boston Braves after leaving the stadium they shared with the baseball team of the same name. He chose the name Boston Redskins in honor of William Henry ‘Lone Star’ Dietz, who falsely claimed to be part ‘Sioux’. In fact Dietz was entirely of European ancestry, as was proven by an Indian Country Today articleâ€.
In fact, the Redskins have a much more insulting past. The Redskins were the last team to be integrated. “Under threat of civil rights legal action by the Kennedy administration, which would have prevented a segregated team from playing at the new District of Columbia Stadium, as it was owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior and thus federal government property, the Redskins became the final pro football franchise to integrate, in 1962, its second season in the stadium.â€
Personally, if you ask me, a team being forced to integrate by the American Government because the owner doesn’t want to integrate would be far higher up the list of things that offend me than the name “Redskinsâ€.
#72 by JimmyMac on 12.05.06 2:57 pm |
THE HISTORY
‘Redskin’ Through the Years.
Red Cloud. Red Thunder. Red Eagle. Redlands. Red Mud.
“The term redskin, applied by Europeans to Algonquians in general and the Delawares in particular,†says the Reader’s Digest in its book America’s Fascinating Indian Heritage.†was inspired not by their natural complexion but by their fondness for vermillion makeup, concocted from fat mixed with berry juice and minerals that provided the desired color.â€
The men “would streak their faces and bodies with bright red ocher and bloodroot,†adds the Reader’s Digest.
Indians painted their skin for decorative and ceremonial purposes. “Red is generally accepted as being one of the colors most easily available to and most used by Indians,†As Ronald P. Koch states in his book Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians.
FYI- Some inside information from a contact who worked at the Redskins and sent me this…he also suggested that the ‘Skins would have a very difficult time making any changes to their marks because of litigation surrounding this sensitive topic…Not to come to the defense of Dan Snyder…God forbid, but sounds like a case of you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t if you are trying to rebrand the Redskins.
#73 by Monkeysandwich on 12.05.06 2:58 pm |
Like many of you, I visit Uni Watch for information on 82-year-old seamstresses, helmet stickers, and….hardcore social justice. I can’t figure out why the Redskins don’t go back to these helmets and replace the “profile logo.”
I liked them when they used them as the throwback unis.
#74 by Chad G on 12.05.06 2:59 pm |
Al, this is for you
I have also had enough of the offensive logo/sports name discussion. All these long posts with no pictures is making my time wasting at work not as enjoyable as usual.
Also I kinda even feel more comfortable displaying pictures of hot cheerleaders on my computer screen more so than a discussion of the N word. Just seeing it typed gives me the willies a little.
#75 by Natron on 12.05.06 3:01 pm |
I applaud the insight here (and I’ll have to assume it’s based on fact, because I’m naive to the points made, and too lazy to verify them myself ;-), but I think the point is a little moot. Historically “redskins” may not have been considered a derogatory term, but then again “N-word” wasn’t either.
The fact of the matter is that in today’s society - and by “today’s society” I guess I would classify that as being post-civil rights movement America - the term “redskins” certainly would be considered offensive. There may well be credence in the argument that the “victim is feigning injury”, but it’s irrelevant today. Many “victims” have cried foul throughout history and have initiated change as a result, more often than not, a positive change.
I’m not comparing the renaming of the Washington football team to say sailing the Atlantic in search of the “new world”, mind you, but I seriously doubt the long term negative consequences of changing the nickname to something else.
#76 by Monkeysandwich on 12.05.06 3:04 pm |
Meant to link:
#77 by joe on 12.05.06 3:05 pm |
Hey, I have that book on my shelf. I guess that means I’m a bigot, nevermind my Redskins pennants and shrine to Joe Theismann.
#78 by John from KY on 12.05.06 3:08 pm |
Yes, per Helmet Hut the Redskins did use the spear logo from 1965 through 1969 (they had it before FSU; I think FSU started using it in 1975 or 1976). The Redskins used the feather decals from 1959-1964, the yellow “Circle R” in 1970-71, and the current design since 1972 (with minor changes like adding yellow face masks, wider white stripes, metallic shell, different position of the feathers, etc. over the years).
#79 by JimmyMac on 12.05.06 3:13 pm |
Hey, I have that book on my shelf. I guess that means I’m a bigot, nevermind my Redskins pennants and shrine to Joe Theismann.
No one is suggesting as such Joe. Cheering for a team named Redskins does not make one a bigot…absolutely not…just a loyal fan.
#80 by joe on 12.05.06 3:15 pm |
Eh, I was just being facetious. Thanks for the info and quote from the book.
#81 by Phil on 12.05.06 3:21 pm |
Great topic today Paul. I check the site daily. This is the first time I have ever written anything. The only reason I am checking in today is because I truly believe in this issue and I know many Lakota who feel the same way.
The use of Indian mascots is something that I think should be dropped entirely by all sports teams and schools. Research clearly indicates the impact of the use the stereotypic images on Indigenous people and how non-native people treat this group of human beings. I also think that teams like the Redskins, Chiefs, and Indians, as well as schools like FSU, Illinois, and UND are missing out on a golden opportunity to create new uni’s and logos and subsequently cash in on merch sales.
#82 by M Flick on 12.05.06 3:24 pm |
In news relevant to few Americans over the age of 12:
US Soccer has a new coach, and his name may be Jürgen.
“There were two sticking points in signing Klinsmann: The first was Klinsmann’s long relationship with adidas. The U.S. national soccer team is heavily underwritten by Nike, and sources at the shoewear companies said talk of the appointment initially caused some concern. According to a person connected with the shoe company today, Klinsmann has left adidas, solving the issue in one fell swoop.”
http://msn.foxsports...
#83 by JimmyMac on 12.05.06 3:25 pm |
Joe- No prob.
The source told me that Dan has a bronze bust of an Indian Head with this saying etched underneath the bust. When Dan interviews top executives, he makes it a point to show them the statue to understand it’s relevance, point out the passion he has for the team and the importance of the name to the entire organization.
Urban legend, who knows? He had no reason to bs me so i guess it might be true.
#84 by BBFAN on 12.05.06 3:27 pm |
Man, this has been the worst comment section in a while. I mean, you all have valid arguments and all, but I come here for pictures of Antonio Bryant’s a$$ and Dre Bly’s spandex. I wish we could save the political commentary for family get-togethers at the in-laws.
#85 by STUBZ on 12.05.06 3:29 pm |
I can’t understand how anybody could have picked out the wedding band on his finger. Somebody must have been studying those pictures since Sunday.
#86 by al on 12.05.06