It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: tadaman
Actually 23 of the 566 tribes have complained.
Only 23 actual tribes are on record objecting. Care to guess how many are from the state of Washington? 0. Not one of those tribes seem to mind, and that is the home team.
Is there offensive context to the team? I don't know much about the Redskins.
1933, Boston: The new Boston Braves football team wants to end its association with the Braves baseball team and move to Fenway Park, where the Red Sox play. It needs a new name. George Marshall, a Washington laundry kingpin, decides on Redskins.
Today, theories abound as to why he picked that particular name, including the notion that it was to honor the Boston Tea Party rebels who dressed as Indians when they dumped tea in the harbor. But according to Marshall's granddaughter and various other accounts, it was to honor coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, thehalf-German Sioux who is described in a team history book as "a full-blooded Indian."
...Hokuf joined the Boston Redskins as a left end in 1933, the year Lone Star Dietz took over. Was "redskin" a derogatory term back then?
"It was not," insists Hokuf. "For goodness' sakes, we had an Indian coach and three Indian players!"
...But Hokuf believes he can speak for his former teammates:
"The Indians living 60 years ago thought it was an honor to have a football team called the Redskins. Marshall wanted to change the name to the Redskins, so he got an Indian coach, and we didn't think anything about it.
...Sixty years later, Steve Hokuf still follows the Redskins in the papers, and says he's aware of the controversy over the name.
"It wouldn't bother me one bit if they changed it," he says with a shrug in his voice. "But I am amazed someone is making a big fuss over it. It has to be some redskins that never lived 60 years ago."