California Becomes First State To Ban “Redskins” as School Mascot or Team Name

Assemblymember Luis Alejo/ photo courtesy Associated Press
Assemblymember Luis Alejo/ photo courtesy Associated Press

by Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald

Assembly Bill 30, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Luis Alejo (D-Salinas) was signed by Governor Brown yesterday and goes into effect January 1, 2017. The bill, known as “the California Racial Mascots Act” makes the state the first to prohibit public schools from using the term “Redskins” as a school athletic team name, mascot, or nickname beginning January 1, 2017.

The bill also prohibits the State Board of Education from waiving this prohibition. While the bill does go into effect at the beginning of 2017, it allows schools to phase in new sports and band uniforms as long as they avoid the use of the name “Redskins.” It is believed that the bill will affect approximately four high schools in California.

The term “Redskins” was once used to describe Native American scalps sold for a bounty and, as a result, people are speaking up and saying they want a name change that is not racially or culturally insensitive to Native Americans.

The grassroots group, Change the Mascot, has had an ongoing campaign which has been a strong supporter of the legislation to eliminate the use of “Redskins,” as a mascot or team name. They praised California Assemblymember Luis Alejo and Governor Brown for its landmark stand against the R-word. Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter, who testified at a key hearing on the bill in the Senate Education Committee on June 17 and fellow Change the Mascot leader, National Congress of American Indians Executive Director Jackie Pata, said in a joint statement:

“We applaud and extend our deepest gratitude to AB-30 author Assemblyman Luis Alejo, Governor Jerry Brown, and California’s lawmakers for standing on the right side of history by bringing an end to the use of the demeaning and damaging R-word slur in the state’s schools. They have set a shining example for other states across the country, and for the next generation, by demonstrating a commitment to the American ideals of inclusion and mutual respect.”

Change the Mascot goes on to state their discontent with the NFL’s lack of action stating, “Their historic step to build a better future stands in stark contrast to the dogged inaction of Washington’s NFL team, which in the face of all the evidence that this term degrades and offends Native Americans, continues to defend and promote the slur for its own financial gain.”

Assemblymember Alejo, who authored the bill and has also opposed the NFL Washington Redskins team name, said “This is part of a national movement and now is the time for us here in California to end the use of this derogatory term in our public schools.” The Washington Redskins football team has been the subject of passionate debate in recent years, with many activists and Native Americans calling for a name change.

DeMaurice Smith, Executive Director of the NFL Players Association, was on NBC’s Meet the Press earlier this year in February and expressed an understanding of the desire for the name change, stating, “I think that the right course is to sit down with our fans and let’s really talk about what we love about that team. And if it’s in the best interest of everybody that we not offend anybody, let’s make that change.”

Perhaps it’s time for us all to look at this, not from our perspective, but from the perspective of those who are most offended by the use of this name. Assemblymember Alejo and Governor Brown, with the support of other legislators, took a big step in making positive change and it’s time for the federal government to follow. It’s time for change.


About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts


  1. Barack Palin

    I have to agree with Thomas Sowell who said  “some people are in the business of being offended, just as Campbell is in the business of making soup”.

  2. Tia Will


    some people are in the business of being offended”

    And, some people are in the business of being offensive. It seems to be the American way to take oppositional stands on every issue. Why single out the “offended” when there is so much financial gain to be had by being “offensive” ?





    1. David Greenwald

      I agree with your comment – that some are in the business of being offensive.  I often view claims that “I’m not PC” as a belief that that gives them the license to be rude and offensive.

      To me the question should be whether a term is offensive and if it is, stop using it.

      However, with Redskin, it doesn’t appear completely black and white:

      My view is if a group of people don’t like the term – why use it?  Given the history of this country towards indigenous peoples, I don’t think we have a leg to stand on.

  3. wdf1

    Vanguard:  Today, they praised California for its landmark stand against the R-word. Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter, who testified at a key hearing on the bill in the Senate Education Committee on June 17th and fellow Change the Mascot leader National Congress of American Indians Executive Director Jackie Pata, said in a joint statement:

    Interesting recent article on Ray Halbritter from The Atlantic, October 2015: The Anti-Redskin.

  4. Clem Kadiddlehopper

    The  California Democratic Party Mantra  

    1. If you reference a group and their skin color is darker than yours, it’s offensive.
    2. The degree of offense is determined by how many shades darker their skin is than yours.
    3. No claim of offense is ever illegitimate. You are to never request proof that any real harm was done. That would be insensitive.
    4. Even if a minority says they hate all whites, they are never racist. If a woman hates all men she is never sexist. But everyone is equal.
    5. Even though an individual can hate themselves genuinely, a black person can never be accused of hating blacks. The n-word is perfectly ok for them no matter how it is used.
    6. Intent is never considered. Rather you will be judged according to a list of words. This way we discount your humanity and at the same time we know exactly how much to hate you.
    7. Individuality is to be ignored. Only group identity matters.
    8. The narrative that every non-white is a poor oppressed victim is never to be questioned. They are never to be held accountable when they make bad choices. Judging them by the same standard you would use to judge whites would be racist. Somehow.
    9. No one belonging to any minority group should ever be encouraged to think about just how insulting and patronizing all of this is. The message that they cannot make it on their own without lots of favoritism and special treatment is a statement of their equality. Somehow.
    10. No one, and I mean no one, who a) claims offense and b) is non-white should EVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be told to grow up and get over it.

    Supplemental rule concerning women:
    1. If a woman is offended by anything a man says, the degree of the man’s guilt is inversely proportional to how attractive the woman is. If she’s a [edited for language]

    [moderator] Please keep your language civil.

  5. Barack Palin

    Are we going to ban the state name of Oklahoma which translates to ‘red people’?  I’m sure there’s some group somewhere who will claim to be offended by that.

        1. David Greenwald

          I don’t know, but one difference is that the name was part of the treaty signed following the force eviction from Florida by a Choctaw Chief.

          I know you’d like there to be a black and white, clear cut standard, but this stuff is actually quite complex. My view is that we should avoid terms that are offensive to people and we should not be judgmental as to what what is or is not offensive.

        2. Barack Palin

          So if some group now comes forward and feels victimized and offended by the name ‘Oklahoma’ should we then ban it and forever more refer to it as the “O” word?

          1. David Greenwald

            That’s your conclusion not mine. It’s also my view, not necessarily shared by others.

        3. Davis Progressive

          i agree with david’s question – do you believe that there should be a team called a clearly offensive slur?  and if not, where and how do you draw the line?

        4. Frankly

          “The Kikes”?

          No problem whatsoever.

          But the point being lost on the PC correctness crowd is intent.

          The name “Redskins” is not intended to be derogatory.  In fact, I would see it as honoring a heritage of the Indian warrior.

          But we bow to the hypersensitive.  It is only THEIR opinion that matters.  The lowest common denominator wins as long as they are a registered victim group.

          Hypersensitivity to words is evidence of a personality flaw, and/or a political agenda.

        5. wdf1

          Frankly:  The name “Redskins” is not intended to be derogatory.  In fact, I would see it as honoring a heritage of the Indian warrior.

          Are there Native Americans who think that way? Why not just ask Native Americans what kind of name they think would honor their heritage rather than patronize them by picking the name for them?

          Frankly:  “The Kikes”?  No problem whatsoever.

          Are you going to follow that up and say that naming a sports team that way would be meant to honor Jewish heritage? Do you think Jews would feel that way?

        6. Frankly

          So, you are going to make the case that every sports team named “redskins” was meant as being derogatory to American Indians?

          On the contrary, it should be seen as a complement.

          I demand that the the Dallas NFL team change their name from “cowboys” to “ranch herding professional”…. since that word is derogatory to boys and is not inclusive enough of girls working in the profession.

        7. wdf1

          Frankly:  On the contrary, it should be seen as a complement.

          Again, the dictionary definition of “redskin” does say, “usually offensive.”

          It also says that for “kike.”

          I guess you wouldn’t have a problem if the Sacramento River Cats were renamed to the Sacramento N——s (the N-word)?  Dictionary also says “usually offensive” for that word.  Are you going to say that African Americans should see such a name as a complement?

        8. wdf1

          Frankly:  The N____ word was always meant as a derogatory word.  You are out of bounds with that comparison.

          Then at least we are in agreement on something. But I would note that the word didn’t seem to have the derogatory power it has today when you read Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn.

          If I were the owner of a new sports team, I think it would be really stupid marketing to choose to name my team the “Redskins” or the “Kikes”.  Don’t you?

        9. wdf1

          Frankly:  Hypersensitivity to words is evidence of a personality flaw,

          I think insensitivity to the meanings and usage of words is evidence of a potential personality flaw.

        10. Frankly

          I think insensitivity to the meanings and usage of words is evidence of a potential personality flaw.

          I might agree except when the meaning and usage of the work does not warrant the sensitivity displayed.

          Insensitivity is one extreme.

          Hypersensitivity is the other extreme.

          These days we see much, much more of the latter.  Too much.  It has to stop.

          Nothing in the Constitution says we are to keep all people safe from ever having their feelings hurt.


    1. Matt Williams

      BP, while I have no definitive answer to your question, I think the following quote by Representative Tom Cole, R-Okla., who is Native American, gives us a clue. He has actively weighed in on the Washington Football Club nickname issue, calling the Redskins name “derogatory.”

      “It is very, very, very offensive,” he told a Washington, D.C., publication. “This isn’t like warriors of chiefs. It’s not a term of respect.”

      I suspect that if you asked him whether the word Oklahoma itself, and its usage, was a term of respect, he would likely say, “Yes.”

      Now if you asked him whether he thought the term “Baja Oklahoma” was a term of respect for Texas, he would probably smile.

  6. Sam

    Glad to see the State spending their time on this issue instead of water storage projects. I wouldn’t want to pass by a high school with the R-word written on it while I am searching for water for my family.

      1. Sam

        I would love an update on state water projects! Last I read they decided to allow the fast tracking of some major storage projects, but then chose not do fast track any of them.

  7. Frankly

    When I was little, like most youngsters, I had a problem controlling my emotional responses to any slight or any indication that someone else poked fun at me or at my expense.

    Then I grew up.

    Some people never grow up.

    And then some people like to wallow in a victim status, continually demanding that everyone else pay homage to them and walks on eggshells around them so as to not cause them any emotional turmoil.  And in some cases to help them feel that they are compensated for their own personal insecurities.

    And eventually they find they have fewer and fewer real friends other than the insecure that wallow in a victim status.

    But misery loves company, so maybe that is how it should be.

    1. Davis Progressive

      i consider frankly’s comments themselves to be micro-aggressions.  he continues to spout off about psychology which he clearly has no background or real understanding in.  every time he writes on this, i lose respect for him.

      1. Frankly

        I don’t really care about your respect DP in this case.  I too don’t have respect for anyone that is stuck on an expectation of speech code policing for every little sensitivity.

        This PC correctness crap is killing the country.

        You and others of this mindset are responsible.

        You apparently don’t understand the damage done.  You want to legislate hurt feelings, and all it does is creates divisions in society.   I don’t hire hypersensitive people, and I don’t befriend them because they are passive-aggressive hostile and exploit the PC correctness rules to cause harm to others.  They seem to walk through life with a chip on their shoulder that life isn’t fair and someone else is always to blame.

        “micro-aggression”, right.

        And then why is your comment not “micro-aggression?”   And why is the demand that we eliminate certain words not “aggression”?

        They are.

        1. Davis Progressive

          the first problem with your initial comment is you wrote, “When I was little, like most youngsters, I had a problem controlling my emotional responses to any slight or any indication that someone else poked fun at me or at my expense. Then I grew up. Some people never grow up.”

          what your forgetting is that people exposed to racism and other sleights and trauma at a young age have psychological problems as the result of that trauma.  it’s not just a matter of growing up, it’s a matter of growing up with the ability to be able to look back on your youth and laugh.  that’s easy when you’re a 50-something, successful, affluent white male.  but you see the world through only your own eyes and that limits your perspective.

          second, “This PC correctness crap is killing the country.”  i tend to agree with david’s point on political correctness, some people want to be offensive and use their anti-pc as an excuse to be offensive.  pc isn’t killing this country, years of systematic oppression, segregation, slavery and genocide killed this country for anyone who wasn’t a white male.

          third, “then why is your comment not “micro-aggression?”” – because you don’t understand what a micro-aggression is.  your comment was discriminatory toward broad-swaths of people.  my comment was critical of the lack of foundation for your views points.  please learn definitions of words before you try using them.

        2. Frankly

          You have no idea what I or anyone else who is 50 something, white and successful had to overcome to get where I am today.

          Your blind bias is ass-tounding.

          I see the world as just people.  You see the world as class, race, group stratified.  Yours is the biased and destructive view preventing progress in civil rights.

          My son has a group of friends like the UN.  They all tease each other. They all love each other.  In your world they would be jailed for what they say.

        3. Frankly

          I think this might be 15% accurate.  I see the world as it should be and could be if only we got rid of the destructive mindsets holding it back.

          Most people I know with your views have had it relatively easy in life.  Born into reasonably affluent families blessed with academic gifts.  And much of what shapes the views and political motivations of a percentage of these lucky people seems to be their own guilt.

          I don’t have any material guilt.  I am thankful for all the opportunities that God has given me.  Everyday is a new opportunity to progress and advance as a human in this life.  I understand my fortunes and do not take them for granted.  But I also do not wallow in despair and grief that I was born into a poor family living in a single-wide trailer, with a father that developed severe mental health problems and left my mother having only a high school diploma to raise three boys by herself.  I don’t wallow in despair that she remarried a guy that was his own mess and didn’t have a clue about parenting except with violence.  I don’t wallow in despair that my mom died at a young age.  I don’t wallow in despair that I was picked on relentlessly when I was young because of the way I looked and the way I talked.  I don’t wallow in despair that I wasn’t gifted enough to get straight As and didn’t have parents that would help me do better in school and to make sure I got into a good college.  I don’t wallow in despair that my wife and I lived paycheck to paycheck for most of our life together.

          The PC correctness crap allows people to wallow in despair.  It provides them a false sense of what the real world is like.  They cannot function unless they have people constantly shielding them and comforting them and telling them that life should be more fair to them.

          This is so destructive at an individual level.  And also destructive to our country as we become a nation of thin-skinned children that never grow up and learn how to cope with hurt feelings, and never learn how to develop deep, meaningful and lasting relationships with other people.

        4. tribeUSA

          Honestly, a lot of this pc stuff is offensive to me, to the point where I start to feel nauseated

          –on TV Monday eve (channel 10 or 13), they did interview a number of indian high school students and parents, all of whom were fine with the Redskins name–at least one of them even stated he was proud that his ancestors warrior heritage was being honored.

          There is no consensus even among indians as to whether or not they should feel offended by the term redskin–although I’m sure the pc brigade will be sure to remind them, to enlighten them that they should feel offended. This is a political clubbing process to submit to the diktats of the new enlightened homogenized corporate world order.

  8. Davis Progressive

    some stuff in here worth reading:

    The most prominent example of this is the existence of insensitive Native American mascots and team names. A 2014 analysis from FiveThirtyEight found 2,129 sports teams names that reference Native Americans.

    These team names can have a damaging impact on Native youth.

    “[American Indian and Alaska Native] students across the country attend K-12 and postsecondary schools that still maintain racist and derogatory mascots. Research shows that these team names and mascots can establish an unwelcome and hostile learning environment,” argues a 2014 report from the Center for American Progress. “The presence of AI/AN mascots directly results in lower self-esteem and mental health for AI/AN adolescents and young adults.”

    Luckily, schools, teams and companies that use offensive Native American imagery  are increasingly under fire. In September, the California State Assembly voted to ban schools from using “Redskins” nicknames and mascots. In October, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) created a commission that brings together tribes, community members and state agencies to foster a productive dialogue on the subject. In 2012, the Oregon State Board of Education banned Native American mascots and team names from schools.

    Caitlin Bordeaux, 24, is a teacher at a Bureau of Indian Education School, meaning all of her students are Native. Her school has a Native American mascot, she says, but not one that misrepresents her culture.

    “[Native American mascots] should be updated because they still portray stereotypes and show that we’re all the same. But all tribes aren’t the same. Not every tribe uses headdresses,” said Boreaux of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe.

    Eshtakaba Lafromboise, 19, thinks sports teams are in the wrong when they promote a “racist term and offensive term” for Native Americans. “If they used any other race, I’m sure people would be on that right away,” said Lafromboise, a Sioux.


    “Those things, they mean something,” she said. “A lot of people don’t seem to understand.”

  9. Misanthrop

    What a bunch of hateful, ugly apologists. Its really pretty simple, if something offends somebody it is offensive. If you want to be insensitive to that in defending the use of hate speech go ahead its  as protected as the speech itself. Its good to know that Davis is so rich with race baiting trolls many of whom are regular commenters on the Davis Vanguard.

    1. Barack Palin

      I see race baiters as the ones who try and stir up race problems at every turn whether they exist or not.  You know, people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama and Louis Farakhan.  I’ve often accused the Vanguard of race baiting.  Making accusations of racism where there are likely none is race-baiting.  So in the case here imo the race baiters are the people who see ‘redskins’ as a problem and feel they need to ban the word for some feel good emotions.

      1. Frankly

        Does not even know what “race baiter” means.

        But she/he is sure correct that hate and insensitivity is alive and well.  He/she puts it on full display. The righteous have never spewed so much vitriol.

        They say in such a hateful, biased and insensitive way… if don’t you allow us to control what you can and cannot say, you are hateful, biased, insensitive and a racist to boot.

    2. Biddlin

      ” Its good to know that Davis is so rich with race baiting trolls many of whom are regular commenters on the Davis Vanguard.”

      Not just rich with ’em but a couple are masters!


  10. Biddlin

    “If I were the owner of a new sports team, I think it would be really stupid marketing to choose to name my team the “Redskins” or the “Kikes”.  Don’t you?”

    I don’t know, “The Davis Crackers” has a certain verisimilitude, n’est-ce pas?


    1. tribeUSA

      Remember the jingle to the F-troop TV show? What a racist jingle and show! So many offensive stereotypes poking fun at the indians, whereas the paleskins were always shown with dignity and respect, no stereotypes or poking fun! Find the films and burn burn, burn them! Only by such actions can world peace and harmony be achieved.

    2. tribeUSA

      Personally, I like the Vikings; they are part of my genetic heritage on the paternal line–likely a marauder that raped and enslaved one of my ancestors in the British Isles. Am I unenlightened; should I feel offended by the portrayal of Vikings as fierce bloodthirsty marauders? What is wrong with me, why doesn’t it bother me that they have been so stereotyped?

  11. Anon

    This reminds me of the flap over the name DHS Blue Devils.  Someone decided the name had to do with devil worship.  Then there was the flap where stores decided they should not use the term “Christmas” during the holiday season.  Good grief!  This is the “PC Police” run amok!

  12. Frankly

    This explains the origin of the name.

    I suggest that all professional sports that have any connection at all with indigenous people of this country change their names.  Gid rid of all references… or maybe call all teams Denali.    Or maybe just call themselves them all “hypersensitive”.

    Oakland football team… time to get rid of you offensive name.

    Atlanta and Cleveland baseball teams you are next.

    And the Cleveland Browns… that must be hurtful too.

    I’m sure people with long beards will want the 49ers to change their name.

    Maybe we should just give them a number so as not to cause any hurt feelings.

    But then that will probably bother some group too.

    Maybe we should all be like the artist formally named Prince… just be a unique symbol so we don’t risk having a word cause a firestorm.

    1. Don Shor

      And here is more information about the history of the controversy:

      This goes back decades, to attempts by tribal leaders and organizations to combat stereotyping. The derogatory nature of the name results from semantic changes over the years. Semantic change is real, and has happened to many words depending on their usage. Sometimes it arises from a derogatory meaning becoming attached to a formerly benign word.

      If a significant number of members of a particular minority group find the name offensive, it is worth considering making the change. It is certainly worth considering eliminating stereotypical names for high school sports teams, and that is what this article is all about.

      Sometimes this is just about groups that were formerly marginalized and discriminated against finding their voice and asserting themselves. Sometimes that bothers the people who are in the majority. They often like to trivialize such assertions, to practice pseudo-psychology and thereby demonstrate their continued superiority, and, of course, to ridicule the attempts by those marginalized to assert themselves.

      “Yep, things have changed. That word’s archaic and bothers some people. Those people may have a point, and if it bothers them perhaps we can be respectful of their concerns. Phase it out, and let’s start with places where students are learning to respect each other.” That might be a better response.

      Talk about change averse.

      1. Frankly

        “We just don’t think that (name) is an issue,” Yazzie said. “There are more important things like busing our kids to school, the water settlement, the land quality, the air that surrounds us. Those are issues we can take sides on.”

        “Society, they think it’s more derogatory because of the recent discussions,” Yazzie said. “In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you’ve got — your skin. I don’t see it as derogatory.”

        Neither does Eunice Davidson, a Dakota Sioux who lives on the Spirit Lake reservation in North Dakota. “It more or less shows that they approve of our history,” she said.

        North Dakota was the scene of a similar controversy over the state university’s Fighting Sioux nickname. It was decisively scrapped in a 2012 statewide vote — after the Spirit Lake reservation voted in 2010 to keep it.

        Davidson said that if she could speak to Dan Snyder, the Washington team owner who has vowed never to change the name, “I would say I stand with him . we don’t want our history to be forgotten.”

        In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

        If a significant number of members of a particular minority group find the name offensive

        10%?  Need a calculator?

        The derogatory nature of the name results from semantic changes over the years.

        Not at all.  It is the rise in hypersensitivity and the political exploitation of speech that has changed over the years.  The intent of the word remains the same.  The definition of the word remains the same.

          1. Don Shor

            The National Congress of American Indians first called for the names of sports teams to be changed in 1968, long before conservatives had invented “political correctness” as an excuse for continuing to say rude things and insult people.

        1. Barack Palin

          But as noted by Frankly, 90% of native Americans weren’t bothered by it in 2004.  Those numbers have gone up, so why?  The PC lefties worked it up and told them they should be bothered, so in true victimy form many more have decided to go with it.

          1. Don Shor

            90% of native Americans weren’t bothered by it in 2004.

            How long are you guys going to keep quoting this junk, discredited statistic?

  13. Frankly

    Well we need to get busy then and eliminate all the following too for the following reasons…

    Kansas City Chiefs / Sensitivity to Indians
    New England Patriots / Sensitivity to non-patriots
    Oakland Raiders / Indians again
    Minnesota Vikings / Sensitivity to Scandinavians
    New Orleans Saints / Sensitivity to atheists
    New York Yankees / Sensitivity to southerners
    Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim / Sensitivity to atheists
    Atlanta Braves / Indians again
    San Diego Padres / Sensitivity to atheists
    Cleveland Indians / Indians again
    Boston Celtics / Sensitivity to Irish, Scots and Brits
    Golden State Warriors / Indians again

    Big shame though.  Wipe out the historical connection to these team because of politics, a few activist and a small crowd of hypersensitive.  I don’t think this will turn out well for the groups in the long run.  A lot of people will be pissed off and think badly of them.  It will be a very hollow and smug victory.

    1. Frankly

      Oh… and let’s not forget the hundreds if not thousands of grade school and college teams.

      And if we are going to outlaw the team name “Redskins” there are several native America tribes that have sports teams with this name.  Need to ban those too.

      And then “progress” to the next set of words we need to ban because someone’s feelings are hurt.

    2. Don Shor

      One of these things is not like the others. Which one?

      1. wdf1

        For those who don’t normally bother to read the dictionary, from the list above only “redskin” comes up as

        Disparaging and Offensive.
        1. a contemptuous term used to refer to a North American Indian.

        The other names don’t come up as “disparaging and offensive,” or “contemptuous.”

        1. Frankly

          Frankly:  If you had an employee who clearly identified as a Native American, would you introduce him to others in a work setting as a “redskin”?

          wdf1, don’t be so silly.

          I would introduce him by his name.

          You people are so race, class, gender, sexual orientation… any other group you can think of… obsessed, that I worry about ya’ll.  I really do.

        2. wdf1

          Frankly:  In the past, you have mentioned having black or African-American co-workers/employees, using those terms.  If you would hesitate to say in a similar way, “I have a redskin employee” or “I have a kike employee,” then I submit that is a good indicator that either term would be problematic to use as the name of a sports team.

          You people are so race, class, gender, sexual orientation… any other group you can think of… obsessed, that I worry about ya’ll.  I really do.

          I think I’m pretty specific about what I object to — “redskin” is inappropriate as a mascot name for a sports team in the U.S.  There’s a pretty good case that it’s an offensive term — see the dictionary if in doubt.  You have tried to make the discussion about everything else (see this).

      2. hpierce

        Ok, my previous post seems to be lost (maybe I dumb-thumbed)… I tried to point out that the Celts, despite Frankly’s list and explanations, ARE part of Irish, Scot, and much British heritage and lineage… Celtic music is very much a part of traditional Scottish and Irish music and legend.

        That being said, I’m guessing Don, that “Redskins” is the ‘topic’ (and now law) “most” derogatory to the Oneida, and other Native Americans, per the article, and that is “your” answer…  yet, I remember the protest against Atlanta Braves’ fans ‘chop-chop’ gestures and their chant.  Yet Ted Turner (and Jane Fonda) were owners, and did nothing.

        Celts are (arguably) a race, Indians are (arguably) a race (if they originated in India).

        So the Cleveland Indians‘ logo (and perhaps KC Chiefs) should be pretty much as offensive to ‘Native Americans’ (who really weren’t indigenous people until relatively recently, if you look at human history… they were ‘just’ “indigenous” when the Europeans came to the ‘Americas’)[or, is your euro-centric bias/guilt coming into play?].

        So, I guess I don’t know what your point is Don, unless it’s trying to keep people “on topic” in regards to the subject legislation, and the article.

        Guess I’m just dense.

          1. Matt Williams

            I thought the question was “Which one is different from the others?” There was no obvious answer for me, and Padres seemed to be the least flawed of the answers.

      3. tribeUSA

        OK Don, I concede you’ve got a point; I would say that the one starting with “Re” does stand out, and could be construed as offensive by many–I hope this means that you are OK with all the other names on the list!

  14. Dave Hart

    Hey, how about all you folks who think all this political correctness is total B.S. join in on changing the Davis High mascot from the Blue Devils to the White Honkies or maybe the Redneck Crackers?  Come on, let’s prove we have a sense of humor.

    1. hpierce

      Given the discussion by some, I’d vote for “White Hankies”.  Might cut down on the competition for spots on the sports teams.  Or we could go for the ‘Mea Culpas’ [nah, too many church/state /foreign language issues].

      Something about tempests and teapots?

    2. tribeUSA

      Dave–I’d be OK with palefaces (or palefaced boogeymen), particularly if some of the other local high schools had indian-themed mascot names. So go out and get some sun this week!

  15. Jerry Waszczuk

    As I remember communists  were  very offended when you call them red instead to be proud of color they associate themselves with.  Liberalism is a mental disorder.


Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for