WASHINGTON REDSKINS NAME CONTROVERSY

People are clamoring for the scalp of the Washington football Redskins. They want the “Redskins” to cease being the “Redskins“ They want to change the team’s identity!



It’s because everyone thinks that “Redskins” is a derogatory racial slur referring to skin color and bigotry. But actually, “Redskins” refers to the color of paint that certain Indians located in what is now Newfoundland used to paint their bodies--it was red. It’s as simple as that!



This red color would be flashing quite boldly during wartime, giving them a spectacular aura!  Settlers called this particular Indian tribe--the Beothuk--“Red Indians” for the lavish body painting. As that noble tribe is now extinct, sports teams such as the Washington football Redskins may be seen as doing honor to the Beothuk--preserving their memory!



When that National Football League (NFL) franchise in the 1930’s, then in Boston, took the name “Redsins”, it’s likely that the impression they wanted to make was one of toughness and prowess on the field of battle. Note the prominent use over the years of a spear in the team’s logos and on their helmets--hardly pejorative!



Back in the day, it wouldn’t have made sense to call a particular tribe the “Red Indians” if all Indians were already considered “red.” It would have been redundant. In fact, all Indians weren’t as a rule referred to as “red” or “redskin” or “red anything”. That’s more recent.



In lieu of name-changing, the Redskins could be encouraged to refine their image by making the Indian’s appearance on the team logo more realistic--a lighter skin tone matching that (estimated) of the Beothuk Indians, and highlights of a bright brilliant red pigment applied as best as we can tell they did.



Proud Redskins owner Dan Snyder can say it was all one big misunderstanding. Problem solved. Game Over. Now if winning some real games was as easy!



Sources:

The Quebec History Encyclopedia

The Smithsonian Book of North American Indians

Wikipedia--Washington Redskins

NFL Should Enforce Safety Rules on Helmets

The NFL this week fined three players tens of thousands of dollars each for particularly brutal tackles involving leading with the helmet.

There's been a backlash among defensive players who say they're just playing hard, that they don't know any other way to play, and so on. One of the fined players wasn't even called for a penalty on the field. Something's wrong with this picture!

According to NFL rules, a tackler may not use his helmet to butt, spear or ram an opponent. It's a 15-yard penalty.

So those who are saying that fining players is wrong because it will compel the defenders to play soft should realize that hitting with the helmet is already prohibited. They've just been getting away with it for years.

Look at footage of games in the 60's and you'll see none of this tackling with the helmet as a weapon. It got started with the Raiders in the 70's and was considered cheap shots. They paralyzed Patriots WR Stingley.

In recent years, it's been all about protecting the QB--leaving receivers and runners free game for assault. The only helmet-contact-related rule they're enforcing seems to be helmet-to-helmet contact.

But helmet-to-anything contact is forbidden by the aforementioned anti-spearing rule. And it should be. The helmet is a protective device, not meant to be a weapon. You're supposed to tackle with your body.

If the NFL would enforce its rule on anti-spearing--maybe, say, sending a memo out to all defensive coordinators and special-teams coordinators that they will be penalized 15 yards every time a tackler leads aggressively with his helmet--you should see the number of such incidents decline substantially.

Steven (Starjet) Kearney