Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Sun Oct 19, 2025 1:52 am

Sonny9 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:49 pm Agree with the sentiment but their skin color wasn't red. Red referred to their war paint

Not to be argumentative but how do you know that?
Is there evidence contemporary to the naming that would show that to be the case?

In regards to the origin of the term itself I don't think there is a definitive answer. Linguists usually look for how a name was used in old writings etc. and I don't think it is always clear as to why. As to the team I think the owner wanted to keep the Indian theme when the team was moved from the baseball Braves field to Fenway Park.

JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Sun Oct 19, 2025 1:52 am

Sonny9 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:49 pm Agree with the sentiment but their skin color wasn't red. Red referred to their war paint

Not to be argumentative but how do you know that?
Is there evidence contemporary to the naming that would show that to be the case?

How do I know their skin wasn't red and that they wore red war paint? Those are just facts. Maybe I'm missing your point?

The red war paint was worn because it was spiritual and was used as symbol of strength. Ocher, a reddish clay, was plentiful and used to make the war paint. The Blackfoot, who is the tribe on the helmet, oddly enough used black war paint

At times people change the meaning of things to fit their agenda. Not saying you are doing that.

"Black skin" is not the equivalent of "redskin." The exact equivalent is "n*gger."

Sonny9 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 19, 2025 1:43 pm

JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Sun Oct 19, 2025 1:52 am

Sonny9 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 8:49 pm Agree with the sentiment but their skin color wasn't red. Red referred to their war paint

Not to be argumentative but how do you know that?
Is there evidence contemporary to the naming that would show that to be the case?

How do I know their skin wasn't red and that they wore red war paint? Those are just facts. Maybe I'm missing your point?

The red war paint was worn because it was spiritual and was used as symbol of strength. Ocher, a reddish clay, was plentiful and used to make the war paint. The Blackfoot, who is the tribe on the helmet, oddly enough used black war paint

At times people change the meaning of things to fit their agenda. Not saying you are doing that.

Read up on the word “redskin” and while I learned a few new things, one thing that was never mentioned was that the word referred to war paint. If there’s an objective source (not some team PR nonsense) that suggests otherwise, I’d be glad to stand corrected.

Whatever the origin of the word, and whether it ever had a positive connotation or not, the word underwent a pejoration process back in the 19th century. It was first listed as a “contemptuous” word in the 1898 Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Also, the team name was objected to originally in 1968 by the National Congress of American Indians, which takes opposition to the name out of the contemporary political battlegrounds some here choose to frame the issue with.

These are facts easily looked up. On a message board that alleges to have historical scholars, it’s disappointing to see some here try to twist the historical record.

As for who the term honors, once again, it’s arrogant to tell a group that isn’t honored by the name that they should be. It’s also arrogant to appropriate how native Americans use the word among themselves to general use. I don’t think it’s a radical concept to understand that a word takes on a different context depending on who the user is.

However, I’d accept a return of the name under the following conditions:
- A majority of native American tribes in the National American Indian Congress approve of the name and any imagery attached to it. To do so would take away the silliness of people citing one tribes’ support of the name (something easily manipulated whether by cherry-picking at best or possible bribery at worst) and using it as “proof” all native Americans support the name.
- That all merchandising proceeds from the name go to native Americans. Want to honor native Americans with the word? Put your money where your mouth is.

Ten Minute Ticker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 9:08 am
Read up on the word “redskin” and while I learned a few new things, one thing that was never mentioned was that the word referred to war paint. If there’s an objective source (not some team PR nonsense) that suggests otherwise, I’d be glad to stand corrected.

Whatever the origin of the word, and whether it ever had a positive connotation or not, the word underwent a pejoration process back in the 19th century. It was first listed as a “contemptuous” word in the 1898 Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Also, the team name was objected to originally in 1968 by the National Congress of American Indians, which takes opposition to the name out of the contemporary political battlegrounds some here choose to frame the issue with.

These are facts easily looked up. On a message board that alleges to have historical scholars, it’s disappointing to see some here try to twist the historical record.

As for who the term honors, once again, it’s arrogant to tell a group that isn’t honored by the name that they should be. It’s also arrogant to appropriate how native Americans use the word among themselves to general use. I don’t think it’s a radical concept to understand that a word takes on a different context depending on who the user is.

However, I’d accept a return of the name under the following conditions:
- A majority of native American tribes in the National American Indian Congress approve of the name and any imagery attached to it. To do so would take away the silliness of people citing one tribes’ support of the name (something easily manipulated whether by cherry-picking at best or possible bribery at worst) and using it as “proof” all native Americans support the name.
- That all merchandising proceeds from the name go to native Americans. Want to honor native Americans with the word? Put your money where your mouth is.

Here is more research

"Yes, one of the theories for the origin of the term "redskin" is that it referred to the practice of some Native American warriors using red paint for their bodies and faces before battle. This war paint was used for spiritual protection and was believed to symbolize blood, energy, and power. However, the exact origin of the term is debated and may have other roots, such as references to skin color, or potentially referring to bounties for Native American scalps. "

I don't think the ones in favor of the term are the arrogant ones here.
Agree on the following except what is the agenda of those doing it - "I don’t think it’s a radical concept to understand that a word takes on a different context depending on who the user is. "

from the link below -
"As with many words in our language, intent, tone and context play a part in how words are interpreted. Anyone calling Redskins “racist” when it’s used as a self-identifying Native American term, simply because it’s used positively, is an act of finding the worst in it. Ignoring its intent, tone and context deliberately misinterprets its use. Why, when 90% of Native Americans feel differently? They have the right to elevate the term, and we have a duty as a community to state our intent and context, with the blessings of groups like the Native American Guardians Association who represent saving and defending native imagery in a positive way."

“It's not a term that the white man created. It's actually a term that the Indians themselves created. I just think we have people in this country that try and gin up problems that don't exist." ~ Chief Robert “Two Eagles” Green of the Patawomeck Tribe

"Redskins was originated by Native Americans to refer to themselves, the logo was designed and approved by Native American leaders, and the vast majority of both Native Americans and the public revere the Name. "

"Two national political polls, the first in 2004 by the National Annenberg Election Survey and another in 2016 by The Washington Post came up with almost identical results. When a respondent identified themselves as Native American, both polls asked, "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?". In both polls, 90% responded that they were not bothered, 9% that they were offended, and 1% gave no response."

Bolded as to agree with a previous poster as to whom is being offended

Native American Guardian's Association - NAGA

https://www.nagaeducation.org/misconcep ... -is-racist

Here are your words -"That fact is easily looked up. On a message board that alleges to have historical scholars, it’s disappointing to see some here try to twist the historical record."

If you want a conversation, fine. If you are going to be condescending because someone disagrees with you, maybe you shouldn't be in the conversation?

In my home state this is how the 'controversy' played out.

Wellpinit High school, located on the Spokane Indian Reservation, serving students that live on the reservation, their mascot/team(s) name is the Redskins.

(D) Politicians got resolutions then a finally a bill passed to ban Native American based mascots, "unless a local tribe supported the mascot and/or gave permission of use."

Some people, not indigenous, didn't live on the reservation, and in many cases didn't even live in the state, were offended by the Wellpinit Redskins and wanted it changed. They had the arrogance and gall to lecture and tell those of the Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation what they should be offended by, and that they were wrong to have honor and pride in their school's mascot/name.

Naturally, our local media was searching for a certain result and tried their best to find members of the Tribe who were offended by their own school's mascot, that they chose for their school over seven decades ago. In the end they had to keep quoting the same 2-3 people. While the vast majority repeatedly had to explain that they were not offended and wanted to keep the name.

There was unofficial community discussions/votes, where keeping the Redskins kept easily winning. That wasn't the desired result from outside of the Reservation, so it continued to be a 'controversy'. Finally, it was decided that the students could vote. Overwhelming majority voted to keep the Redskins and the Spokane Tribal Council passed a resolution to finalize that.

After the students voted to keep "Redskins" they went on to win back-to-back State Championships in basketball. The first of those being their first state championship in any sport in school history. Winners.

Yep ... even from his grave, George Preston Marshall continues to rile up football fans. He owned the team and gave them that name. A name that stood for 87 years. He probably wouldnt appreciate being blackballed or cancelled from the team's history since he was part of it.

It's worthwhile to learn more about the "Native American Guardians Association," especially when people are trying to use its words to prop up an argument in favor of the name Redskins.

It's a lobbying group founded less than a decade ago for the express purpose of "protecting" team mascot icons: that is, protecting the interests of the deep-pocketed entities that own those mascots.

Per court records, it took money (via a shell organization) from Dan Snyder himself when the debate over his team's name was heating up. A number of its board members have no native blood. A recent Change.org petition to change the Commanders name back to what it was, alleged to have been started by a sole fan, was found to be started and funded by this group. Its primary reason for being seems to be to challenge any effort at any level to do away with native-themed mascots, and to coach "witnesses" on what to say during hearings and meetings on such matters.

A little research (and isn't that why we're here?) shows that native heritage is a bit far down on the list of this organization's priorities. Follow the money, friends.

Citizen wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 9:05 am It's worthwhile to learn more about the "Native American Guardians Association," especially when people are trying to use its words to prop up an argument in favor of the name Redskins.

It's a lobbying group founded less than a decade ago for the express purpose of "protecting" team mascot icons: that is, protecting the interests of the deep-pocketed entities that own those mascots.

Per court records, it took money (via a shell organization) from Dan Snyder himself when the debate over his team's name was heating up. A number of its board members have no native blood. A recent Change.org petition to change the Commanders name back to what it was, alleged to have been started by a sole fan, was found to be started and funded by this group. Its primary reason for being seems to be to challenge any effort at any level to do away with native-themed mascots, and to coach "witnesses" on what to say during hearings and meetings on such matters.

A little research (and isn't that why we're here?) shows that native heritage is a bit far down on the list of this organization's priorities. Follow the money, friends.

Good information. Goes to show that not all “sources” are created equally.