Skip to main content

Responding to Leonard Pitts, Jr.'s Argument Against "Redskins"

I was reading this article, Leonard Pitts Jr.: No justifying ‘Redskins’ as mascot | Wichita Eagle, and was honestly intrigued by the language Mr. Pitts used in his opposition to "Redskins."

Mr. Pitts uses some sorely developed points, many of which I have already offered rebuttal for when presented with them from other parties. But for the sake of honest counter-argument, here we go.

Does that seem logical? If so, then perhaps you can understand my impatience with people who insist on defending the Washington, D.C., football team whose nickname is a racial slur.
The latest is NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. He recently responded to a letter from members of the House Congressional Native American Caucus questioning the appropriateness of the name “Redskins.” That name, wrote Goodell, “is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.” The team took the name in 1933, he noted, to honor then-coach William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was reputedly (it is a matter of historical dispute) an American Indian.
“Neither in intent nor use was the name ever meant to denigrate Native Americans or offend any group,” he wrote. In other words, we have changed the meaning. It no longer means what it has always meant.
First of all, the nickname is not a racial slur, and the arguments Mr. Pitts eventually goes on to make about the use of the word as a racial slur are unfounded and unsupported in any fashion.

Secondly, Mr. Pitts incorrectly paraphrases Mr. Goodell and implies that Goodell was saying "we have changed the meaning." Nowhere in Goodell's letter or the statement presented does Goodell say "we have changed the meaning." In fact, Goodell says it has "[n]ever meant to denigrate Native Americans."

She has found empirical proof that those names and imagery lead to lowered self-esteem and sense of community worth among American Indian kids. They also damage aspirations and heighten anxiety and depression.
In other words, seeing their people reduced to mascots is toxic to Indian children. And if the names and images in general are damaging, how much more harmful is “Redskins”?
So what Mr. Pitts is suggesting is that Stephanie Fryberg has evidence that the term "Redskins" is offensive to "American Indian kids." I disagree, empirically, with this notion, as there are studies upon studies done by major research groups who have found many Native Americans look at the name with endearment and pride. But for the sake of the argument, we can--you know--ignore those.

Mr. Pitts says "if the names and images in general are damaging" that "Redskins" must be "more harmful." Well, if I'm not mistaken, "Redskins" is one of the mascots, and thus, would have been involved in the same study. This study, I'm assuming, focused on the multitude of nicknames and mascots linked with Native Americans, so did not take into account each individual name's effect on the "American Indian kids." If this is the case, the entire study is skewed and the data is unreliable in argument for any one nickname, "Redskins" included.

But as we look deeper at this segment from Mr. Pitts' article, we see that Mr. Pitts uses the phrase "American Indian." If Mr. Pitts was half the journalist he wished to be, he would have done his research and found that "Indian" is one of the words included in Stephanie Fryberg's "empirical proof." The term "American Indian" is every bit as offensive as Mr. Pitts believes "Redskins" to be. "American Indian" denotes that the people's heritage traces back to the country India. This is proven inaccurate, and has been a topic of debate for some time now. In fact, the term "Indian" was applied to Natives by the European settlers who saw the Natives as people who looked like they came from the country "India" and visually--and incorrectly--identified them as Indians. What Mr. Pitts fails to realize is that he has insulted an entire group, while trying to defend said group. This offensive language and thought-process from Mr. Pitts is enough to discredit his entire argument, but for the sake of having some fun here, I will continue.

That name, after all, was never neutral, but was, rather, a hateful epithet hurled by people who were stealing from and committing genocide against those they saw as savage and subhuman.
Mr. Pitts throws out unfounded arguments here. It is the same nonsensical "evidence" distributed in case after case against the Washington Redskins. There is no evidence, that anyone ever "hurled" this "hateful epithet" while "stealing from and committing genocide" against Native Americans.

While I have your attention on the subject, there is never, and has never been evidence provided by anyone that "Redskins" was ever used in a hurtful, hateful, or racist fashion. Argument after argument has been used, and stricken, because of lack of evidence. The only thing anyone ever suggests is to go to a reservation and call those people a "Redskin" to their face if you want proof that it offends them. Do you realize you could offend a homosexual male by calling him "gay" with an incentive or a tone? Using any term as a name is never respectful, but to use the term simply as an identifier, as the Washington Redskins do, is not offensive:

...Mr. Pitts, however, is. HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Windows Live Messenger Officially Converted to Skype

Messenger has moved to Skype

Messenger was retired in April 2013 and is no longer available or supported on most Mac and Windows operating systems. *

You can continue to make audio and video calls with your contacts on Skype and Facebook and send IMs for free—your contacts will come with you when you update to Skype and sign in with your Microsoft account.

Find out more about Skype

For information about moving from Messenger to Skype, visit the About Skype page.
To learn about instant messaging with Skype on your Windows desktop, visit the Skype instant messaging page.
To find out how to call your contacts with Skype on your Windows desktop, visit the Skype–to–Skype calling page.


I am disappointed by this. Microsoft has abandoned millions of customers worldwide in favor of their newly acquired toy, Skype. They flaunt it as a merger but the merging process is reported widespread to be faulty and does not transition your contact. They also have not yet ado…

You Must Be The Greatest!

"The irony was not lost on me: the man my trials had molded me into, was the master I'd spent all these years trying to find. I was lost and alone, awash with despair. I sought mentorship, I sought guidance- I'd fallen to my knees and begged for it. And now, there is no other way to say it, than to say I'd been blinded by suffering; I just could not see that my many struggles had been the hands sculpting me into the guide I'd sought. Where I once sought from others their forgiveness for my failures, I now forgive myself, and seek to help other extend the same to themselves. Where I once sought from my loved ones support for my dreams, I find now that they did not extend aid because they saw who I could be, and not who I was. I am my own master. Master, and servant - I am not above humanity, nor below it. I am of it, I am it. I am all that is human: life, death, love, loss, joy, and suffering. I am all of it, and because I am all of it, I am important, and necessar…

Marvel and Sony Reach Agreement For Spiderman

A quick glimpse into our archive would reveal we here at Don't Laugh, People are fans of comic books and their respective movies. I do not often divulge into a battle of DC vs. Marvel vs. the others, because I typically enjoy plenty from all (but yes, I do think Marvel is the best for art and for stories). However, "the last 24 hours have been really exciting."* Kudos to you if you didn't need to look up that quote... damn you if you did. *Dr. Okun - Independence Day

It was announced by many sources late last night/early this morning, that Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures had finally reached an agreement for their partnership in order to introduce Spiderman into the Marvel Cinematic Universe (where The Avengers live). Marvel will reportedly allow Sony to retain Spiderman's rights to let Amy Pascal produce films in the title, but she will be aided by Marvel's top man, Kevin Feige, in her endeavors. Feige will be involved in Spiderman's 2017 standalone fil…