START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
787,608 people care about Civil Rights

The 81-Year-Old Newspaper Article That Destroys the Redskins’ Justification For Their Name

The 81-Year-Old Newspaper Article That Destroys the Redskins’ Justification For Their Name

Written by Travis Waldron

As challenges against the name of the Washington Redskins have persisted for more than four decades, the team’s ownership and management has held on to a consistent story: that the team changed its original name, the Boston Braves, to the Boston Redskins in 1933 to honor its coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who maintained at the time that he was a member of the Sioux tribe.

But in a 1933 interview with the Associated Press, George Preston Marshall, the team’s owner and original founder, admitted that the story wasn’t true.

“The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins,” Marshall said in the AP report. The quote was originally referenced in a story on the team’s name at Sports Illustrated’s MMQB site. Jesse Witten, the lead attorney in a lawsuit challenging the legality of the team’s federal trademark protection, unearthed the actual AP report this week, and provided it to to Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney. ESPN’s Keith Olbermann reported it on his show, “Olbermann,” Thursday night.

Here’s a copy of the news clip, which ran in the Hartford (Conn.) Courant on July 5, 1933:

redskinsnewspaper
Credit: Hartford Courant 

The team’s owner, Daniel Snyder, and top management have justified the team’s name as an “honor” to Native Americans in letters to fans and the public. So too has NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. And both have leaned on the story that Marshall chose the name to honor Dietz to make that case.

Snyder referenced the history without using Dietz’s name specifically in a letter to season ticket-holders last October:

As some of you may know, our team began 81 years ago — in 1932 — with the name “Boston Braves.” The following year, the franchise name was changed to the “Boston Redskins.” On that inaugural Redskins team, four players and our Head Coach were Native Americans. The name was never a label. It was, and continues to be, a badge of honor.

The team has also used Dietz’s heritage — and the claim that the Redskins were named in his honor — to defend itself in the lawsuits challenging its federal trademark.

The NFL, too, has rested its case on that history. Goodell did so in a letter to 10 members of Congress who wrote him to challenge the name last June. The commissioner called the name a symbol of “strength, courage, pride, and respect” and specifically referenced Dietz’s role in the name:

In our view, a fair and thorough discussion of the issue must begin with an understanding of the roots of the Washington franchise and the Redskins name in particular. As you may know, the team began as the Boston Braves in 1932, a name that honored the courage and heritage of Native Americans. The following year, the name was changed to the Redskins — in part to avoid confusion with the Boston baseball team of the same name, but also to honor the teams then-head coach, William Lone Star Dietz.

Asked for their response to the news clip, neither the NFL nor the Washington Redskins responded by the time of publication.

Dietz’s history was already in question at the time thanks to the work of historian Linda M. Waggoner, whose exhaustive account of Dietz’s life found that he almost certainly was not a Native American, as he had claimed. In fact, Dietz faced a federal trial alleging that he had falsely represented himself as a Native American to avoid the World War I draft. After the first trial ended with a hung jury, Dietz pleaded no contest to the same charges in a second trial and served 30 days in jail.

When ThinkProgress asked the franchise about the claims that Dietz was not a Native American last year, the team’s president and general manager, Bruce Allen, called the questions “ignorant requests” and suggested that we speak to Dietz’s family instead.

Amid scrutiny about Dietz’s history, the team has given the appearance of backing away from relying on the claim that he inspired the name. Notably, Allen did not cite Dietz or the origins of the name in his written response to a letter from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and 49 other senators who called on the team to drop “Redskins.”

If Marshall didn’t choose the name based on Dietz or the presence of Native Americans, what was his reason? As Olbermann notes in his report, the team chose its original name — the Boston Braves — because it shared a field with Boston’s baseball team by the same name. Marshall explains the AP story that he gave up the name “Braves” because it was too easily confused with the baseball team, and he chose “Redskins” to keep the Native American imagery as the team moved away from the Braves and into Fenway Park, the home of the Boston Red Sox.

Until recently, that story was more commonly told than the one about Dietz. In 1972, freelance writer Joe Marshall wrote a story on team nicknames in a promotional program from a game between Washington and the Atlanta Falcons. Joe Marshall didn’t reference Dietz in his story, instead writing that the team wanted to “change names but keep the Indian motif”:

The Redskins also copied a baseball team, the Boston Braves. George Preston Marshall started with his team in Boston on Braves Field. When he switched playing sites, he wanted to change names but keep the Indian motif. Since he was now sharing a park with the Red Sox and at the same time liked Harvard’s crimson jerseys, Redskins seemed appropriate. Redskins they have remained, a proud tradition. Until now, that is.

In that sense, it seems obvious that the name “Redskins” was chosen more as a marketing ploy than anything else, a way to tweak the team’s name without changing the image it had established. Regardless of the original motive, however, this much is clear: the story the team and NFL have used to justify the name’s existence as a “badge of honor” is not true, and the man who founded the team refuted it himself more than 80 years ago.

This post originally appeared on ThinkProgress

Read more: ,

Photo: George Preston Marshall (right), owner and original founder of the Washington Redskins, with President Truman and NFL Commissioner Bert Bell (center) in the White House (1949). Credit: Abbie Rowe via Wikipedia

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

136 comments

+ add your own
5:21AM PDT on Jun 12, 2014

Good points, Adrian and Kevin. I'd forgotten about the "Giants". Dennis W., and Karen, what do your posts have to do with this discussion? Sorry, you lost me completely. Maybe you thought you were commenting in another discussion? Do you post with having more than one "tab" open? I have an online friend that does that often, and she has posted in the "wrong" article more than once.

4:59AM PDT on Jun 10, 2014

noted

7:11AM PDT on Jun 8, 2014

Interesting.

12:15PM PDT on Jun 7, 2014

Yeah, and you also have the New York Giants NFL team and the San Francisco Giants MLB team.

I do not really do intellectual property law, but I do not believe one can copyright a general name and it is only actionable if it can cause actual confusion (i.e. that one team is claiming to be the other team).

10:57AM PDT on Jun 7, 2014

Diane, I don't think the nickname of a team in one sports league has any bearing on what another one can use. The NFL and NHL both have teams called the Jets, just as one example.

7:36AM PDT on Jun 7, 2014

thank you

8:32PM PDT on Jun 5, 2014

Dennis W, I said long ago Columbus Day should be trashed. History books imply America was hermetically sealed until Columbus "discovered" it. I didn't know it was lost! Guess the history books don't realize the Vikings, Chinese and others visited long before Columbus was a glint in his daddy's eye.

8:43AM PDT on Jun 5, 2014

I'm sorry Kamia T., but while I understand where you're coming from, I have to disagree. Call a Black man a nigger, and it's easier to enslave him. Call a Jew a kike, and it's easier to put her in the "camps". Call a Vietnamese a gook, and it's easier to kill them. Call a member of the GLBQT community a fag or a dyke or a tranny, and it's easier to restrict their basic human rights and deny them their humanity. Call a Native American a redskin, and it's easier to steal his land and force her onto the Rez. It ALL starts with how we refer to one another, and when we use offensive language to denigrate an entire community of people, we just make it easier to abuse them. Time to scrap the name of the washington team, and then let's get rid of columbus day, for starters.
Changleshka Wakhan Apichiyapi ekta Chankpe Opi
Mitakuye Oyasin

11:37PM PDT on Jun 4, 2014

Thanks for the article.........and the laughs Stephen G

8:42PM PDT on Jun 4, 2014

Just curious, since Kevin suggested "Warriors", there is a NBA team with that nickname. Could the name be used in a different league if already used in another?

There are so many "copyright" laws, and just wondered about that name. We, in Seattle have the "12th Man" phrase and this last fall, there was a lawsuit filed because a college claimed they'd used that phrase longer than the Seattle Seahawks fans, so Seattle couldn't use it. I think they had some "compromise" there as "the 12th Man" most certainly was used and EVERYWHERE. Not sure if a "mascot" name could be, though.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

Poor pangolins. Every day at least one other species so close to the brink. Dreadful beyond words!…

Darlene et al.....you go on and on about adverse effects from vaccines....here are adverse effects from…

Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.