Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

PAX, LUX ET VERITAS SINCE 1965
Post Native Americans and African-Americans; Fort Smith Peace Council
Created by John Eipper on 06/28/14 9:02 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:

Post

Native Americans and African-Americans; Fort Smith Peace Council (Randy Black, USA, 06/28/14 9:02 am)

I enjoyed Brian Blodgett's synopsis of the events of the Five Civilized Tribes (27 June). As a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, I've studied the matter of slavery and the Chickasaws over several years from the Oklahoma and Texas point of view. And per Brian's description of the citizenship process, my great-grandfather, Robert Guess, Sr., was registered in 1897 on the Dawes Rolls, along with his three sons and two daughters, one of whom was my paternal grandfather, Jeff Guess.

My US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Degree of Indian Blood paperwork labels me as one-fourth Chickasaw. And just so you'll know, there is no minimum degree of Indian blood in order to be a citizen of the Five Civilized tribes. The only requirement that I'm aware of is a verifiable blood trail to one of the original enrollees during the Dawes registration period.

Brian said, "Of interest is that while some (tribes) had African-Americans as slaves, some African-Americans were also Freedmen who were viewed as members of the tribe." I believe that Brian may be incorrect when he stated that "Freedmen were viewed as members of the tribe." At the least, his is a generalization of facts that may exist within other tribes.

In fact, among the tribes that I've researched, including the Chickasaw, former slaves of the Chickasaws were not viewed as members of the Chickasaw Tribe, ever, until forced to do so by the US government in order to survive as a Indian nation.

From pages 273-275 of The Chickasaws, by Arrell M. Gibson, University of Oklahoma Press, 1971:  "The Fort Smith peace council on September 8 (1865)" required the tribes present to "renew their allegiance to the United States...and make a treaty of peace and amity...All have forfeited all annuities and interests in the lands of the Indian Territory. But with the return of peace...the President is willing to hear his erring children in extenuation of their great crime" [of siding with the Confederacy]. Note: Some among with Chickasaw sided with the Union but in the end, had to rejoin their Confederate Chickasaw brothers after the war in the subsequent treaty.

Per the US government's terms: "Each Indian Nation had to abolish slavery and accept the freedmen ‘into the tribes on an equal footing with the original members, or suitably provide for.'"

This "Treaty of Fort Smith" was signed under duress, but it was signed. In effect, the Chickasaws and the other tribes were forced to sign it to keep their land that had been given by the United States during the era of the Trail of Tears.

The net result was that the civilized tribes had to give African-American slaves full Indian citizenship in order to survive. The purpose of the events at Fort Smith was to bring the Indians into the US as full citizens and to eliminate any possibility of a future re-establishment of the various Indian tribes. That was change later in the 1920s when the United States Supreme Court sided with the Indians in the various lawsuits of that era.

On April 28, 1866, a Chickasaw delegation consisting of (five names), "because of their common interests," signed a common treaty providing for a definitive peace settlement.

(Including the Choctaw Nation) the two nations adopted the federally mandated laws "to give all person of African descent," who were resident of these nations "at the date of the Treaty of Fort Smith, and their descendants, heretofore held in slavery among said nations, all the rights, privileges, and immunities, including the right of suffrage, of citizens of said nations, except in the annuities, moneys, and public domain" of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations. Also the Chickasaws and Choctaws were "to grant each freeman and descendants a tract of forty acres of land from their national domains."

RB: Once the two tribes made these provisions, the United States paid $300,000, three-fourths of that to the Choctaws, one-fourth to the Chickasaws. (Ibid,; and Agreement with the Cherokees and other Tribes of the Indian Territory, 1965, in Lappler, Laws and Treaties, II, 1050-52.)

In effect, the US government held a gun to the tribes' heads and said in so many words, "If you want to survive, you'll agree to offer full citizenship into your tribe by your former slaves."

The US government even went so far as to state that if the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations failed to follow through within two years, the US would deduct $100 per head and remove the former slaves from the Indian nation's lands, "within 90 days after the expiration of the two-year deadline."

A group of US troops occupied the Chickasaw and Choctaw lands concentrated at Fort Arbuckle to enforce a Reconstruction program of "penance for rebellion against the United States."  Major John B. Sanborn ran the Freedman's Bureau during this period at Fort Smith, named "Headquarters Regulating Relations Between Freedmen in the Indian Territory and Their Former Masters." (Ibid)

Personally, this does not sound like the Indians thought of the slaves as "members of the tribe."

Maj. Sanborn reported that "most of the former masters still held their negroes in slavery, and entertain a bitter prejudice against them all." Maj. Sanborn, in a later report to his superiors on Washington, later retracted this earlier report.  (Ibid)

Addendum: Lawsuits in the 1920s enabled the various Indian nations to re-establish their Tribes. But for many years, there was no commercial or business activity on the part of the Tribes.

RB: At the end of the Civil War, it's my impression that there were about 4,500 Chickasaw citizens. Today, I believe the number is in the 45,000-50,000 range.

Finally, after decades of attempts by the US government to exterminate the Chickasaw Nation, the Chickasaws have recovered.

Our annual budget allows for expenditures for healthcare, housing, transportation, education, social services, government operations, legal, museums, public safety and defense, judiciary, aging services and natural resources.

Chickasaw citizens enjoy first-class healthcare at no expense to the individual citizens. Healthcare is paid for from income generated by our business enterprises, including computer manufacturing, gambling operations including the world's second largest casino, the WinStar at Thackerville, Oklahoma, a resort golf course, a chocolate factory that ships worldwide, a bunch of truck stops, various hotels and restaurant, radio stations, and a variety of other business enterprises.

The Chickasaws operate its own police force and courts in principally south central Oklahoma across hundreds of miles in various directions and provide education benefits in the form of scholarships and grants to students who attend universities across the nation and the world.

Assets/expenditures are in the billions of dollars, all generated internally from Indian enterprises. Total assets have increased from about $13 million in 1987 to more than $2 billion in 2013. Net assets have doubled since 2008. A good chunk of it is in cash. The impact of the Chickasaw Nation's business enterprises are in the $14 billion per year range. Not bad for a bunch of Indians who only had a few million in the bank on 27 years ago.

Go Redskins!

JE comments:  The Chickasaws are doing extremely well--bravo!  But ahem, Randy:  some of their governance and economic policies sound like socialism to me...


SHARE:
Rate this post
Informational value 
Insight 
Fairness 
Reader Ratings (5)
84%
Informational value84%
Insight84%
Fairness84%

Visits: 37

Comments/Replies

Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • Native Americans and Socialism (Randy Black, USA 06/29/14 4:25 AM)
    In his hopefully tongue-in-cheek reply to my 28 June post about the organization of the Chickasaw Nation and related Native American topics, John Eipper could not resist a cheap shot. He said, "But ahem, Randy: some of their governance and economic policies sound like socialism to me..."



    I do not see what John apparently sees. Pardon me, but was not socialism originally built on the concept of taking from the rich without compensation and redistributing to the poor? Is not socialism based on the theory that the government, which is the community as a whole, owns everything and only shares the spoils/profits with the proletariat at the discretion of the masters who remain in their mansions?



    In the case of the Chickasaw Nation, even after the federal government did everything in its power to stomp out the hundreds of Indian tribes, we ultimately prevailed in the US Supreme Court in the first part of the last century and began to rebuild. We did it in the face of extinction, and mostly without assistance from the Fed.



    Even when the Clinton Administration was held in Contempt of Court by a Federal Court in 1999 for failing to account for billions in Indian Trust Fund moneys, we survived. The US Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin and Clinton's Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt were the two officials on the losing end of the federal court's decision. In their defense, the two officials offered that they were unable to examine records stored in an Albuquerque warehouse because those records "were so tainted by rodent droppings that to disturb them would risk infecting workers with the deadly Hantavirus." No kidding. Those were the days prior to hard drive crashes, I suppose.



    From The Chickasaws, page 306:  "In spite of vigilance and protest by the Chickasaw Citizenship Commission, the Dawes Commission staff pre-emptorily enrolled thousands of challenged freedmen and whites.



    "By 1901, Chickasaw and Choctaw officials appealed to Congress, and that body in 1902 created the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court, a three-member federal tribunal, to render decisions on enrollment claims. Of 3,679 applications contested by Indian officials, the court allowed only 156 to be added to the Chickasaw and Choctaw rolls. Out of a total of 66,217 claimants, including freedmen, the Dawes Commission was permitted to enroll 35,638 to share in the combined Choctaw-Chickasaw domain, consisting of 11,660,952 acres, the Chickasaw portion embracing 4,707,904 acres.



    "The Chickasaw rolls, completed on January 1, 1906, contained the names of 6,319 citizens--1,538 full bloods, 4,146 mixed bloods, and 635 intermarried whites. The Chickasaw freedmen roll contained the names of 4,670 Negroes."



    On the government's efforts to solve "the Indian problem," from the 1870s until the mid-1940s, and even lasting in some cases until the 1960s, the federal government continued to kidnap by armed police thousands of Indian babies from their birth parents and give them to more than 100 government-run boarding schools and eventually to "white families." The federal concept was to eliminate Indian "blood" by cross-breeding with whites and thus eliminate the various languages and religions.



    A few of these schools remain open today. The Sherman Indian High School (SIHS) in Riverside, California is one example. The boarding school was opened in 1892 and is operated by the US Bureau of Indian Affairs. The seven dorms are segregated by sex. Originally, it served students age 5 to early 20s. Today, its seven dorms house students in grades 9-12, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs remains the master of all decisions.



    From various sources: During the 2008-09 school year, SIHS administration removed more than 30 staff from their facility, upsetting the students. The students protested, to no effect. Officials stated that there were not enough BIA funds to pay the employees that had been let go. That same year, traditional ceremonies for the school's annual spring pow-wow were replaced with Christian prayers. Heck, if the Fed would account for the billions they lost track of over the past century, they could have avoided laying off 30 teachers at the SIHS five years ago.



    Bottom line: Chickasaw citizens are not taxed on their earned income or inheritance(s) to pay for our tribal social programs, medical care, post high school education, police, fire departments or judicial system. That pretty much dispels JE's thoughts about Chickasaw socialism.



    However, we pay our federal income taxes, just like the rest of the nation, and that money is used for Obamacare and other state welfare programs across the United States.



    We earn our money legally from a wide variety of business enterprises and investments, which allows all of the profits for the betterment of those who are citizens of the Chickasaw Nation. In the case of those who are unable to work due to disability, those who are low income, and those who are retired, they also benefit but not to the exclusion of others.



    The persons who make the big decisions as to how to invest and operate our enterprises are elected by Chickasaw citizens. Our governor (tribal chief) is Bill Anoatubby. Gov. Anoatubby grew up in Tishomingo, Oklahoma, has a degree in accounting, and served in the Oklahoma Army National Guard in the 1970s. In his early career with the Chickasaw Nation, he managed our healthcare program across our 13-county region of south central Oklahoma. He served as Lt. Governor from 1979 to 1987. He was elected to his leadership position in 1987 when the tribe had about $13 million in assets. As I said in my earlier post, today, the Chickasaws have in excess of $2 billion in assets. It's all come under his forward-thinking leadership.



    From Wikipedia:



    In 1987, Anoatubby was elected as the 15th Governor of the Chickasaw Nation, the twelfth-largest tribe in the United States. He was reelected in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2011; on two occasions (including the most recent) he faced no opposition. He is currently serving his seventh term, which expires in 2015.

    As Governor, he is responsible for administration of nearly 13,000 employees, more than 200 tribal programs and services, and more than 100 tribal businesses. As Governor, he has devised a multi-pronged approach to improving conditions for the tribe in the areas of tribal finance, education, business and economic development, environmental protection, and healthcare.


    Governor Bill Anoatubby appointed Charles W. Blackwell as the Chickasaw Nation's first Ambassador to the United States in 1995. At the time of his appointment in 1995, Blackwell became the first Native American tribal ambassador to the United States from any tribal government.


    RB: For those interested in the various questions that often come up in my conversations with non-Native Americans:


    Do American Indians and Alaska Natives pay taxes?


    Yes. They pay the same taxes as other citizens with the following exceptions:


    --Federal income taxes are not levied on income from trust lands held for them by the US.


    --State income taxes are not paid on income earned on a federal Indian reservation.


    --State sales taxes are not paid by Indians on transactions made on a federal Indian reservation.


    --Local property taxes are not paid on reservation or trust land.


    For more: http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Anoatubby




    JE comments: I wasn't trying to be incendiary with my "socialism" question. My aim was to get a discussion going about the collective nature of Chickasaw enterprises and the distribution of the profits. For example, how do we interpret a tribal work force of 13,000 out of a total population of 49,000?  (This latter number is from Wikipedia.)  I also hope my friend Randy will forgive me if I see the "S-word" in his own words.  I'll add a bit of emphasis:


    "We earn our money legally from a wide variety of business enterprises and investments, which allows all of the profits for the betterment of those who are citizens of the Chickasaw Nation. In the case of those who are unable to work due to disability, those who are low income, and those who are retired, they also benefit but not to the exclusion of others."


    As I said yesterday:   The Chickasaws are doing extremely well, and bravo for that.

    Please login/register to reply or comment:


  • Native Americans and African-Americans (Brian Blodgett, USA 06/29/14 5:50 AM)
    In response to Randy Black's post of 28 June, yes, my comment was a generalization that the "Freedmen were viewed as members of the tribe," inasmuch as the US government viewed them as members, not the Native Americans themselves. The gun to their head in 1865 was exactly as Randy described--a treaty signed under duress aimed not so much at, from what I can tell, helping out the African-Americans, but rather forcing the various Native American tribes to give up their way of life and become landowners in the style the "Americans" were used to, not the communal concept of land owning that served the Native Americans so well. By doing so, they lost land to settlers and the railroads, allowing expansion westward to flourish in the lands previously communally held by tribes, but now held in much smaller groupings by individuals.

    One question for Randy: Much has been said recently about the use of Native American names in education, especially as school mascots or nicknames. The Washington DC football team recently had its trademark rights to the name pulled, yet you signed your post "Go Redskins." Were you referring to the football team, and if so, since it seems to bother so many Native Americans (or so it is reported), does it really bother them as much as we hear?


    JE comments: I interpreted Randy's closing remark as an endorsement of Washington's football franchise. The federal court decision was clearly a case of legislating from the bench, but it was for a good cause. It's hard to believe that in the 21st century, a professional sports team can continue to use such an offensive stereotype.

    Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • Washington Redskins Controversy (Randy Black, USA 06/30/14 9:18 AM)
      John Eipper continues to take cheap shots at Native Americans and football teams, while Brian Blodgett (29 June) asks questions.



      Brian asked: "The Washington DC football team recently had its trademark rights to the name pulled, yet you [Randy Black] signed your post 'Go Redskins.' Were you referring to the football team, and if so, since it seems to bother so many Native Americans (or so it is reported), does it really bother them as much as we hear?"



      My answer is: 1) my signature "Go Redskins" was sarcasm, and 2) I've never heard a Native American, or anyone else for that matter, in my circle of friends complain about the Washington Redskins' name. When the controversy comes up and it does, the consensus is that the matter is political and originates in Washington, DC.



      Even the Feds admit that only a small percentage of Native Americans have been surveyed and/or have expressed a negative opinion of the football team's name.



      John Eipper, on the other hand, seems to formulate his position based on his personal value-set that the Redskins name is politically incorrect when he states, "The federal court decision was clearly a case of legislating from the bench, but it was for a good cause. It's hard to believe that in the 21st century, a professional sports team can continue to use such an offensive stereotype."

      I must ask, "it was a good cause, according to whom?"



      Personally, I find it hard to believe that "in the 21st century," anyone would assume that because the Feds legislated from the bench, it was a just and valid move.



      But then we are a nation where the sitting President publicly stated this week that, notwithstanding "the laws passed by Congress, he will continue to do things his way."



      More to the point, the decision to overturn 75 plus years of trademark law in the case of the Redskins, was a political move that likely came from within the Obama Administration and which will be overturned in my humble opinion, much as his illegal moves to appoint his cronies to the National Labor Relations Board two years ago were this week. This trademark matter was already overturned a decade ago but keeps coming back. The last time the Trademark ruled that the Redskins were wrong on their name, the court that overturned the decision stated that those suing were "too old." Thus, a decade later, the plaintiffs assembled a younger group of people to sue.



      One can conclude that the USA is no longer a land of majority rule. Instead we are faced with a country where even tiny minorities can change the rules regarding fixing something that was not broken.



      Attendance at the games of the Washington Redskins has been steady for decades. Along came a couple of unknown tribes and a few hundred activists and voila, the US Trademark Office decides to withdraw rights that have existed since 1932. Clearly, someone made an "end run" to get something done that was not wanted by the majority.



      As Redskins trademark lawyer Bob Raskoph said,, "And just like last time, today's ruling will have no effect at all on the team's ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.



      "We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's divided ruling will be overturned on appeal," Raskoph said. "This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins' trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board."



      RB: This current dust up is a repeat of the same lawsuit that was "won" in 1999 by a few Native Americans but that was overturned on appeal in 2003. The message remains, "You don't like the name, don't support that team or buy their tee shirts."



      Just so you'll know, the only members of Congress that supported this lawsuit were 50 Democrats in the Senate. The leader of that group was the usual suspect, Harry Reid. Before moving on, let's look at the facts: There are about 2 million Native Americans enrolled in 566 federally recognized tribes and about 3.2 million who tell the Census Bureau that they have Native American blood. According to the Associated Press, 90 percent do not have a problem or find the name offensive.



      Again, according to the Associate Press, there are Native American schools across the nation, which name their athletic teams "Redskins."



      Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation, grew up when Navajo children were forced into boarding schools to disconnect them from their culture. Some were punished for speaking their native language. Today, he sees environmental issues as the biggest threat to his people.



      The high school football team in his district is the Red Mesa Redskins.



      From the AP: 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.



      Trivia: How did the football team get the name, Redskins? The white owner of the team when it was founded, George Preston Marshall, chose the name in 1932 "partly to honor the head coach, William 'Lone Star' Dietz, who was known as an Indian (Sioux tribe). Mr. Dietz (1884-1964), in fact, never demonstrated proof that he was Native American but that's moot at this point after 77 years."


      Additionally, the team's first owner was the last NFL team to sign black players and only did so when forced by the federal government in 1962 but again, is it relevant?



      Now, about the Coachella Valley High School Fighting Arabs. Yes, it is a real high school near Indio, Calif. They've been called the Arabs since 1931. My first wife taught there for three years and at the time. We both thought the name a bit odd. They remain the "Arabs" to this day. The student body at the time we lived nearby was far and away of Mexican origin. No one cared then, or apparently now.



      We lived near that campus in the late 1960s-early '70s and their mascot is a characterized student getup of an angry Arab, oversized headgear and costume complete with silk pants, fez and shirt and a curved blade sword.



      Then there's the Atlanta Braves and their famous "Tomahawk Chop" rallying cry, the Fighting Illini of the University of Illinois, the Chicago Blackhawks with their Native American mascot who wears war paint, the Kansas City Chiefs and Chief Wahoo who wears full war paint and feather headdress, the Florida State University Seminoles and a few hundred teams using the Redskins name or other Indian names and trademarks.



      And let's not forget the Edmonton Eskimos, the Golden State Warriors or the Cleveland Indians. Other teams include the Shawnee High School Renegades in New Jersey, the Broken Arrow High School Savages, the Savages name being share with 11 other high schools from Oklahoma to Montana, the Warriors, shared by more than 75 school across the nation, and even the Dearborn Heights (Middle School) Redskins in Dearborn Heights, Michigan.



      Note: Florida State University pays a royalty fee to the Seminole Tribe for the use of the "trademarked" Seminole name. They only started paying for the use of the name after a protest by the tribe in 1972. This, it's all about money as to whether or not an Indian tribe is "offended."



      Finally, according to Sport Illustrated in 2002, "There is a near total disconnect between Indian activists and the Native American population on this issue."



      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy#Public_opinion_surveys




      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_team_names_and_mascots_derived_from_Indigenous_peoples#Renegades


      JE comments:  I cannot fathom how describing the Redskins mascot as offensive is a "cheap shot" at Native Americans, but Randy Black and I will have to agree to disagree.  Note that at the first link above, a 2001 poll from Indian Country Today found that 81% of the respondents consider Native American sports mascots deeply disparaging.  Randy does not mention this survey.
      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • Washington Redskins Controversy (Brian Blodgett, USA 07/01/14 3:43 AM)
        I have been teaching a Native American history course for several years, and we cover up to the present day, with every other week focusing on current events involving Native Americans. This is a general education course, and when I asked about the trademark issue and the Washington Redskins, I had many replies, but I asked one student for permission to use his response for this Forum, which he granted.

        "One of the main reasons for the pressure in changing the name of the team is that America is changing. The traditional white hegemony is diminishing because America is emerging as a multicultural society. Though the US Patent Office came out against the name as offensive and in addition [there is] political support for the name change. You had mentioned before, Professor, why now, why so much political and social pressure? It is simply reflecting a changing demographics, and as the demographics change so to does the value system. Even though civil rights groups have put pressure on the team to change their name for years they could never get consensus until now. Why now is because the zeitgeist has changed in the United States to reflex and new and still emerging social order. Where the once white majority had no problem morally with the name since their power came from the battles fought in the past against the native peoples. When differing cultures go to war it is sometimes customary to use the name of a defeated people. A name means more than just a name; it is a sign of power over a people and control. In addition, using a name such as the Redskins also shows how difficult that struggle was for early America. Conversely having the power to force Washington Redskins to change their name is an example of the new multicultural society flexing its muscle against the old white majority that is now fading from history."


        JE comments: It is unsurprising that the Native American sports mascots have been abandoned first at universities (such as my Alma Mater, Dartmouth, in the 1970s). High school and professional teams are lagging behind. But as Brian Blodgett's student argues, changing demographics and values in this country are real.  Finding a new mascot is a symbolic act that won't right past wrongs or improve the lives of Native Americans today, but it is one more step in the direction of replacing white privilege with a new pluralistic society.


        My thanks to Brian's student for sharing his response with WAIS.  Brian:  when you have the chance, I'd like to know more about your course.

        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • Washington Redskins Controversy (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 07/02/14 4:30 AM)

          I don't actually think that the name of the Washington Redskins was ever intended to be demeaning to American Indians. On the contrary, I think it shows admiration--a desire for the team to play the way the brave warriors fought against European oppression.



          I guess what was intended is not important if people in fact feel demeaned, and in such a case the name should probably be changed. But if I were an American Indian (which I am not; so have no right to an opinion, I guess), I think I would be proud that such an important American sports team pays tribute to my ancestors.


          JE comments:  Perhaps there was no original intent to demean, but it's dehumanizing to include Native Americans alongside Lions, Jaguars, and Bears in the football world's bestiary.  To be sure, our friends who happen to be wranglers (Dallas), pirates of various stripes (Tampa Bay and Oakland), Minutemen (Boston/New England) or pugilistic citizens of the Emerald Isle (Notre Dame) might take equal offense.  And where is the rage from the world community of Saints (New Orleans)?


          I'll concur with Cameron Sawyer that if some Native Americans feel demeaned by the Washington Redskins, then the name should be changed.  Imagine a sports mascot featuring caricatured African-Americans, Jewish Americans, or Mexican-Americans.  If such were the case, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.  Coachella Valley High School in California, mentioned in Randy Black's last post, is sticking with their Arab name--although the hook-nosed, grimacing mascot will be getting a makeover.  Still, the controversy continues, and it's just a matter of time before they'll need a new mascot:


          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/arab-mascot-coachella-valley-high-school_n_4372780.html


          Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • Washington Redskins Controversy (Tor Guimaraes, USA 07/03/14 5:35 AM)
            While this controversy is not of much importance to me, my bewilderment about it is. I share Cameron Sawyers's impression (2 July) that "the name of the Washington Redskins was never intended to be demeaning to American Indians." I would name my team Braves, Lions, Tigers, Redskins, because these are symbols for strength, courage, speed, etc. Certainly nothing negative.

            While I unfortunately have no American Indian blood in my veins (just a little Guarani blood), if I did I would be proud if some rich white guys want to name their team after my race. I am aware of no complaints from Native Americans, just politicians with nothing useful to do. Am I wrong?


            JE comments: I can accept that the "rich white guys" did not intend to demean by naming their team the Redskins. It wouldn't have occurred to them (the rich white guys) that it's possible to demean Native Americans; ditto for tigers, bears, and broncos.  And that's the whole point, as I see it.


            The lion lies with the lamb: this may be the first time Tor Guimaraes and Randy Black have agreed on an issue! Randy's followup is next in the queue. At least Bienvenido Macario (his post follows Randy's) is with me on the Redskins brouhaha.


            (Between Tor and Randy, I'm not sure who is the lion and which one the lamb.  Both are steadfast WAISers, and that's what matters.)


            Please login/register to reply or comment:


          • More on Washington Redskins Controversy (Randy Black, USA 07/03/14 5:47 AM)
            In our discussion about the rights of a corporation to call itself the Washington Redskins, Cameron Sawyer (1 July) sells himself short when he implies that because he is not an American Indian, he (may have) no right to offer opinions. Of course he has a right to offer his opinions on any topic. That's what we're all about in WAIS.



            If we were only allowed to opine about stuff in which we're actually "blood," John Eipper would keep his nose out of the fray. Instead, JE offers his own views that seem to support the tiny, tiny minority of Native Americans. President Obama only offered that if it were his team, he'd "consider" changing the team's name.



            Background: Twenty-eight years ago, a group of five American Indian activists filed their complaint before the US Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark and Appeal Board, Seventeen years later, they won their complaint when the Board ruled against the Redskins. A couple of years later, that Board was reversed in a real Federal Court.



            Regarding last month's ruling, the losing side from 1986 complaint recruited a new, younger group of Indians--Plaintiffs led by Amanda Blackhorse, age 24 when she filed the current complaint in 2006. Blackhorse is a Navajo social worker living in Arizona. In their complaint, the current group of activists used short movie clips to demonstrate that the term "redskins" was an ethnic slur.



            Blackhorse's group offered up video clips were from a 1949 TV show, "The Lone Ranger," and movies "Broken Arrow," 1950, "Ride ‘Em Cowboy," 1942, and "Once Upon a Time in the West," 1968.



            From what I gather from media articles and legal pundits, this ruling does not mean the football team cannot use the Redskins name; it simply means they cannot protect their trademark from copycats if and only if they lose their appeal. Even if the team loses their appeal, they can still use the name; but without trademark protections. Yawn.



            If Cameron's supposition were the rule, as a card-carrying citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, I would be the only one in this room allowed to offer an opinion on the matter.



            And in the unlikely event that you're interested in my position, I support the Washington Redskins' right to any name they choose, just as long as the Dallas Cowboys continue to win.



            If we are to follow Cameron's inference, then no one who is not a card-carrying Scandinavian can offer opinions about the Minnesota Vikings and so on and so forth. Where will this silliness end?



            To borrow from Mark Davis, a North Texas AM radio guy (remember AM radio?):

            "Revisit the Basic Truth of Sports Team Names: No one has ever named a team for something they considered dishonorable or distasteful. Every name ever affixed to a team has been to portray the team in a positive light. This was true of the Boston Redskins when they adopted that imagery 80 years ago, and it was true when the team name stuck five years later in a move to Washington.


            "At that time, and today, Redskin has no body of usage as an epithet in its own right. None. The attachment of a negative modifier in old movies (dirty, bloody) no more stigmatizes the term itself than the adjectives that have been attached to Yankee over the years, and that doesn't seem to torture New Yorkers.


            "As with most things, this has a marketplace solution. If the team senses that enough regular people--not posturing politicians or opportunistic activists--are sincerely offended by the name, they will change it.


            "Until then, anyone professing a deep wound at the sound of Redskins should dial back the drama and look at history. And any newspaper or website banning the publication of the name should be ashamed of bending to the modern whims of noxious political correctness." (From The Dallas Morning News, Oct. 2013)


            By the way, Mr. Davis is a damn Yankee, being from College Park, Maryland. His show is on KSKY, 660 AM daily in the Dallas market. But we don't hold his Yankee beginnings against him. As the bumper stickers say, "I wasn't born in Texas but I got here as fast as I could."


            JE comments: Randy Black is calling me more extreme on this issue than...President Obama? Zounds!


            Next up:  Bienvenido Macario.

            Please login/register to reply or comment:

            • Is Maryland a "Yankee" State? (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 07/03/14 5:18 PM)
              A native of Maryland is a "damned Yankee"? (See Randy Black, 3 July.)  Wait a minute... Maryland is a lot more South than North, and most Marylanders would surely object to this.



              Returning to the Redskins controversy, I'd like to clarify my position on who and who is not entitled to an opinion on what matter.



              I didn't intend to say that no one can have an opinion on anything where that person is not "blood." That sounds like the old argument that men have no right to an opinion on abortion. I surely don't agree with this.



              What I meant was that as a non-Indian I have no right to an opinion on the narrow issue of whether the Washington Redskins name is offensive to Indians or not. That is surely none of my business to decide what is offensive or not, since offensiveness is an entirely subjective matter.

              JE comments:  Mark Davis, the radio announcer of Randy Black's post, is from College Park, Maryland, which is just outside of Washington, DC.  Maryland was a slaveholding state, and Baltimore was largely sympathetic with the South during the Civil War.  Washington of course was another matter.  So I'll go with Cameron on this one:  while there have always been Yankees in the DC area, it isn't completely accurate to call Marylanders "Yankees"--at least not historically.  


              And then you have cities like Miami, with its (tropicalized) Yankee personality despite its southern location.


              Please login/register to reply or comment:

              • Maryland, "Damn Yankees," and True Deep Southerners (Tor Guimaraes, USA 07/05/14 4:39 PM)
                Tongue in cheek, Maryland natives need to put their proverbial feet down regarding being called "damned Yankees."  (See Randy Black, 3 July.) My wife, a native Minnesotan, gets jokingly verbally abused at every opportunity by our Tennessean Old Boys' club for being a "damned Yankee."

                When I am present, I immediately try to protect her by attacking the attackers. Since everything is relative, I tell them that where I come from, the real Deep South (Brazil), all US Americans are "damned Yankees." I also tell them that I am trying to learn to be a Southern redneck and have already read three books about it. My biggest problems are lifting my house so I can fit at least five dogs underneath, and getting my wife to agree to two wrecked cars on cement blocks on the front lawn.


                JE comments:  It's interesting that Brazil's "Deep South" states (São Paulo down to Rio Grande do Sul) are culturally the most "Yankee" regions of the country.


                Someday I'd like to start a discussion on "neo-redneckism," by which I mean the conscious adoption of Good Ol' Boy values and behavior.  My Delaware-born father was something of a practitioner before it became fashionable, in Missouri in the 1970s, when he embraced country music and bought a pickup truck.


                (No offense intended, of course, by the term Redneck...although I'm not aware of any sports teams with that name.)



                 

                Please login/register to reply or comment:




          • Get Racism Out of Sports: Washington Redskins (Bienvenido Macario, USA 07/02/14 5:00 PM)
            I found this item, "Get Racism out of Sports," from a Native American website.

            http://www.ya-native.com/nativeamerica/getridofracisminsports.html



            A white man and an elderly Native man became pretty good friends, so the white guy decided to ask him: "What do you think about Indian mascots?" The Native elder responded, "Here's what you've got to understand. When you look at black people, you see ghosts of all the slavery and the rapes and the hangings and the chains.



            "When you look at Jews, you see ghosts of all those bodies piled up in death camps. And those ghosts keep you trying to do the right thing. But when you look at us you don't see the ghosts of the little babies with their heads smashed in by rifle butts at the Big Hole, or the old folks dying by the side of the trail on the way to Oklahoma while their families cried and tried to make them comfortable, or the dead mothers at Wounded Knee or the little kids at Sand Creek who were shot for target practice. You don't see any ghosts at all.



            "Instead you see casinos and drunks and junk cars and shacks. Well, we see those ghosts. And they make our hearts sad and they hurt our little children. And when we try to say something, you tell us, ‘Get over it. This is America. Look at the American dream.' But as long as you're calling us Redskins and doing tomahawk chops, we can't look at the American dream, because those things remind us that we are not real human beings to you. And when people aren't humans, you can turn them into slaves or kill six million of them or shoot them down with Hotchkiss guns and throw them into mass graves at Wounded Knee. No, we're not looking at the American dream. And why should we? We still haven't woken up from the American nightmare."


            See also: The late Floyd "Red Crow" Westerman discusses "Racism in Sports":


            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa5xwjE4T9k



            JE comments:  The present discussion is the same one that took place at Dartmouth in the early 1980s, when there was resistance to the College's decision to abandon the Indian mascot.  (Dartmouth teams are now the "Big Green"--not controversial.)  As for my own position, in 1983 I found some merit to the "courageous, noble tradition" and "here's a Native American who likes Indian mascots" arguments, but eventually I was won over by the fact that Native Americans exist who find tomahawk chops and "wah-hoo-wah" chants deeply offensive.


            Thirty-two years of debate haven't led to any consensus, or even new arguments.  I propose we put the topic to rest.

            Please login/register to reply or comment:

            • Washington Redskins Controversy; from Ric Mauricio (John Eipper, USA 07/05/14 5:14 AM)

              [JE:  Our friend Ric Mauricio sent his thoughts on the Washington Redskins controversy.  Although I asked for a moratorium on this discussion, we haven't heard from Ric for some time, and I found his perspective interesting--especially the comparison of Native Americans and Chinese immigrants.  So here's one more post on the Redskins.]



              I would like to thank Bienvenido Macario for his post of 3 July. It is a very well thought-out concept that we should all be aware of. Yes, the treatment of the Native American Indian has indeed been whitewashed, so that we in the present do not realize the abhorrent treatment they suffered at the hands of the European conquerors. Then again, many ghosts exist with other peoples forced to work for the "pioneers." The treatment of the Chinese laborers has never been fully explored by history.


              Now imagine if the San Francisco 49ers were called the San Francisco Chinamen, and instead of tomahawk motions, everyone wore hats with pigtails attached. In fact, I have found that many people still do not realize that the word "Chinaman" is as derogatory as the word "Chinks."  I cringe every time I hear those words in a movie.


              Oh, maybe the Cleveland Browns were actually named for the "little brown brothers" from the Philippines, and to recognize their scouting prowess, the sign for "first down" was created.


              I actually liked the name the Washington Senators. But perhaps our leaders from Congress would be offended if the tomahawks were substituted by everyone turning aside to each other, covering our mouths, and with the other hand, passing around bundles of monopoly money.


              The Boy Scouts of America do a very good job at recognizing the great culture of the American Indian. The boys start out at Tenderfoot and can achieve the highest rank of Eagle Scout. I belong to the Order of the Arrow and the ceremony, complete with Indian ceremonial garb, is very solemn, very sacred, as we recognize those whose leadership allows them to be included in the Brotherhood of the Order of the Arrow.


              I am all for changing the name of any team mascot that can be construed as demeaning to any group of people.


              JE comments:  A couple of months ago I read Oscar Lewis's classic The Big Four, on the robber barons (Huntington, Stanford, Hopkins, and Crocker) who founded the Central Pacific Railroad.  I don't know if the book "fully explores" the suffering of the Chinese laborers, but Lewis does describe their inhuman treatment and horrific working conditions.  Lewis's history, published in 1938, is surprisingly modern in its prose style and editorial slant.  I owe a debt to our colleague Paul Pitlick, who recommended the book back in March, and even loaned me his copy.  (Paul:  I'll return it the next time I see you--promise!)

              Please login/register to reply or comment:





      • A Trip to Broken Bow, Oklahoma; Native American Mascots, Revisited (Randy Black, USA 08/04/14 12:13 AM)

        I just returned from a few days camping with my family in the Beavers Bend (Oklahoma) State Park near Broken Bow, a town of about 5,000. The beautiful part of southeast Oklahoma is about a 2.5 hour drive from the Dallas area.



        As we drove into Broken Bow, and were passing the high school, a large billboard promoted the many state championships of that town's football team, the Broken Bow Savages.



        They've had that name since 1924. Broken Bow is in the heart of the Choctaw country.



        I was reminded of our recent WAIS discussions of the alleged political incorrectness of various sports team's nicknames. Some among us are convinced that there should be a law against such names. I recall that I pointed out that many teams around the country prefer their names regardless of the views of a tiny, tiny segment of the population, Indian or otherwise.



        I met two of the players from the Savages who were holding down summer jobs in the park and who were proudly wearing T shirts proclaiming their allegiance to the school and team. Naturally, I asked them for opinions on the dust up related to the NFL's Redskins. They had heard about the controversy but seemed frustrated that so few can yell so loud about so little when the nation faces larger challenges.



        My question on the Redskins controversy and Obama's quote was received with laughter and derision. "Those fools up east should get a life," offered one young man. The other was less polite stating words to the effect, "these are the same fools who have told us that our borders are safer than ever."



        Trivia: Other Oklahoma football teams with interesting names include the Chickasha Fighting Chicks, Elk City Elks, the Beaver Dusters, Paoli Pugs, the Fox Foxes, the Crooked Oak Ruf-Nex and my favorite: the Bray-Doyle Donkeys (they kick ass). Their team MVP is the "Ass of the Year" and the all-time Bray-Doyle greats are inducted into the "Ass Hall of Fame." Clearly, the Okies have not lost their sense of humor.



        Credit: http://www.thelostogle.com/2007/10/31/power-poll-best-oklahoma-high-school-nicknames/



        JE comments:  Fighting Chicks certainly sound fearsome!  The University of Delaware has the Fightin' Blue Hens, but they are known as a feisty type of gamecock.


        Have there been any new developments on the Washington Redskins controversy since our discussion in June?  This is the kind of story you miss when you're away from the United States--and events of graver significance have happened since then, particularly in Ukraine and Gaza.

        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • Another Mascot to Reckon With... (Michael Sullivan, USA 08/04/14 12:30 PM)
          My favorite politically incorrect nickname for a high school is in Yuma, Arizona. Their nickname is the Yuma Criminals. They are named after the Territorial Prison built there in 1876, which operated for 33 years. Today the prison is a state park. Most people have never heard of Yuma, but there is an excellent western movie called the "3:10 to Yuma."

          JE comments: Ah, but lawbreakers everywhere must find the mascot demeaning! How about wrestling with a criminal?  (Yuma's largest employer is the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma.  I assume Michael Sullivan knows it well.)


          Please login/register to reply or comment:





Trending Now



All Forums with Published Content (44453 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications

Economics

Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy

Education

Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series

History

Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust

Nations

Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire

Politics

Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US

Religion

Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)

Travel

Geography Maps Tourism Transportation

WAIS

1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who