Redskins Run the Wrong Play, Again, With 'Community Voices' Campaign


After a series of missteps during the NFL season, the Washington Redskins' press office is continuing its recent tradition of incompetence here in the offseason with "Community Voices," a series of articles that quote fans who do not object to the team's name, which is defined in most dictionaries as a racial slur.

"My grandfather was three fourths Cherokee," reads one testimonial, provided by Penny Pitre of Round Rock, Texas. "I am not offended. I have been a Redskin fan since I was a child. Keep up the good fight, tradition and honor."

"I have loved the Redskins for many years and do not think that a change in name is necessary," writes Carolyn Blevins of Bristol, Virginia. "Anyway, I am part Cherokee Indian and do not find the name one bit offensive. The Redskins have a great heritage and I do not think that anything should change."

The "Community Voices" material fits the general idea that the Redskins press office has been pushing for months -- that scattered personal statements of support from people claiming to be Indians are proof that the name is not offensive.

On the other side of the ball are eminent leaders, civil rights organizations, Tribal groups, and politicians (including President Obama) who have said that the name needs to go. 

In previous attempts to push back on the broad support for a name change, the Redskins press office has:

—Presented irrelevant anecdotes about high school football teams who proudly go by the name Redskins.

—Publicized a fabricated a story about the Redskins logo being designed by Pine Ridge residents.

—Published supportive comments by a "full-blooded Inuit chief" who turned out to be neither full-blooded nor a chief.

—Repeatedly cited a 2004 Annenberg poll that has been criticized as flawed.

—Issued a December press release —a precursor to "Community Voices"—that contained brief statements supportive of the name from two ostensibly representative Native fans. One of the individuas picked, it was revealed, had a history of mental health issues, and had previously been a prostitute and a crack addict, prompting one ICTMN reader to ask "This is the person they use to represent Natives in their press release…?" The other person quoted in that December press release identified herself as a member of the "Iroquois tribe," a suspicious designation given that Iroquois is the name of a confederacy of six nations -- in our experience, a Native usually identifies him- or herself as Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca or Tuscarora, rather than "Iroquois." (The December press release was issued the day after members of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights voted unanimously for a resolution urging a name change.)

The "Community Voices" campaign, like the efforts that preceded it, is not likely to win the Redskins any points with the media or national groups involved in the debate—indeed, it's a press release that seems to court ridicule by the press.

From ThinkProgress: "The major problem with Community Voices is that it ignores the actual claims Native Americans who don’t like the name make against it. Community Voices tells us that there are football fans and Native Americans who support the name, but no one disputes that. What Community Voices doesn’t address is the actual claims some Native Americans make against it. Community Voices doesn’t dispute (or attempt to dispute) whether the name is an offensive term."

From The team contends that, in response to owner Daniel Snyder’s October 2013 letter to fans defending the team name, the organization received more than 7,000 letters and emails of support, with nearly 200 coming from people who identified themselves as Native Americans or family members of Native Americans. The team claims that only seven letters were received from Native Americans who oppose the team name. It’s an entirely unscientific exercise, oozing with potential bias and lacking any evidence of vetting. It also ignores the organized effort against the name

But to those who are dead-set against a name change, it's fuel. It's more confusing verbiage that makes them think they might win this thing and get to keep their racist slur of a name. The militant supporters of the team's name don't seem to know it, but they're rapidly approaching a fourth-and-very long scenario, and no amount of laughable cut-and-paste press releases the team issues will change that. But it's plain to everyone else that pretty soon there is only going to be one play left:


You need to be logged in in order to post comments
Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page



Hannah Bowen
Hannah Bowen
Submitted by Hannah Bowen on
Well Penny, as 1/4 Native American, do you participate in any tribal culture? Do you attend Powwows, do you practice any of your tribal culture at all? Do you even know what tribe you are from or do you just know that your Grandfather was "Indian"? I don't think it would matter if you were full Native but you didn't have any idea about your own culture, you don't get to say its "OK" then. I think it is offensive because: it is estimated something between 50 million and 100 million Natives were killed when the "New World" started to be colonized by Europeans (many by less direct causes, like smallpox). For comparison; an estimated 11 million Jewish folk died in the Holocaust. Would people think its offensive if we had The Minnesota (insert racist Jewish slur here, there's plenty on the internet). No, of course not, because normal people know thats just not cool. Do we have the St. Louis Slaves? Nope. I don't see the Kansas City White Trash either.

Michael Madrid's picture
Michael Madrid
Submitted by Michael Madrid on
Concensus will eventually surpass anything Snyder convinces himself is true. Once this controversy starts chipping away at Snyder's pocketbook, he'll see the light.

tmsyr11's picture
Submitted by tmsyr11 on
With the NFL venture into social media 'concerns', it is likely better to discuss banning N-word use from the football field or making sure the 'alternative persuasion' is protected over religious concerns sponsored by US states in light of potential SuperBowl revenues. Simply talking the worn-Redskin label- is simply old and not "sexy".

Submitted by Rojodi on
I love the "Community Voices," makes me laugh, especially from those that claim heritage. My paternal grandmother was born on the St.Regis Reservation. We cousins were never allowed to say the name, and if we did, it was met with a slap across the mouth.