Brickbats

Brickbat: Indian Country

|

Redskins
Redskins

An Obama administration official got into a fistfight with a Native American college student over a Washington Redskins shirt the student was wearing at a Pow Wow in Washington, D.C. Barrett Dahl says William Mendoza, executive director of the White House Initiative of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, approached him, called him stupid and uneducated for wearing the shirt and attacked him when he turned to walk away. Mendoza says when he confronted Dahl about the shirt Dahl told him he'd be happy to step outside and explain his reasons for wearing the shirt. Mendoza says he approached Dahl later to apologize and Dahl threw coffee at him and hit him.

NEXT: In Europe, Terrorists Arm Themselves on the Black Market While Populists Champion Self-Defense Rights

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sounds like things got a little tepee and wigwam.

    1. +2 tents

      1. circle the wagons much?

  2. This injun didn’t understand he was being offensive to himself. Their like children and need the big chiefs in Washington to take care of them .

  3. Outside of a few DC area bars, the highest concentration of Redskins gear I’ve ever seen was when I stopped at a taqueria on the Mescalero rez in New Mexico. The dog was wearing a redskins bandana.
    So problematic.

    1. I’ve read that polls show that most Native Americans either don;t care or like the name.

      1. What? You think it really matters? The benefit of being progressive is being able to take offense on behalf of other people, you unenlightened *insert gender-neutral non-racial slur here*

        1. That and they really believe these people do not know what’s best for them .

        2. Take offense and get violent. Really, Mendoza had no choice, the shirt made him do it

          1. There is iron in his words of outrage.

    1. “Mendoza approached him on an escalator and beat him so savagely he wound up with a fractured arm, broken teeth and a black eye.”

      Do you really need to mention the black eye? did he just need a third thing to list?

      1. You can take my rule of 3s from my cold, dead hands.

    2. While I have a feeling the actual events fall somewhere between the two different narratives, and I think Dahl probably knew he was going to get hassled, I’m guessing it was pretty close to Dahl’s version.

      1. Hassled for wearing home town team gear?

        1. At a gathering of Native Americans in DC? I’d call it a safe bet.

          1. Well he’s probably used to being around sane Native Americans who don’t give a shit, not insane liberals.

          2. I’d call it a safe bet.

            Ugh. White-Man make pun, offend great spirit. Now you banned from casino.

  4. Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance.

  5. Once joining the Chicago tribe, a brave’s counting coups are expected to be swift and damaging.

    1. Runs-With-Statists certainly managed that

  6. Dahl should endeavor to persevere

    1. That is by far my favorite Clint Eastwood movie. ‘ Dying ani’t much of a liven boy’.

      1. Words to live by:
        “We thought about it for a long time, “Endeavor to persevere.” And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union.”

  7. Two savages doing what comes natural.

    /Merican

    1. Now it’s not for me to tell anyone in this camp what to do, as much as I don’t want more people gettin’ their throats cut, scalps lifted or any other godless thing that these godless bloodthirsty heathens do. Or even if someone wants to ride out in darkest night. But I will tell you this. I’d use tonight to get myself organized. Ride out in the morning clear-headed. And startin’ tomorrow morning, I will offer a personal $50 bounty for every decapitated head of as many of these godless heathen cocksuckers as anyone can bring in. Tomorrow. With no upper limit!

      1. “Al, I have hoped for this conversation ever since you give me that Indian head to hide.”

  8. Jesus Christ Reason. I can take it when you make me defend people like Milo and websites like Gawker. But I will never fucking forgive you for making me defend the Washington Football Team.

    1. cause like last year, no fucking defense

  9. An Obama administration official got into a fistfight with a Native American college student over a Washington Redskins shirt the student was wearing… Mendoza says when he confronted Dahl about the shirt Dahl told him he’d be happy to step outside and explain his reasons for wearing the shirt

    Mendoza already “knew” why: “Something something ‘false consciousness’ mumble mumble…” What’s the Native American equivalent of uncle Tom?

  10. Mendoza says when he confronted Dahl about the shirt Dahl told him he’d be happy to step outside and explain his reasons for wearing the shirt. Mendoza says he approached Dahl later to apologize and Dahl threw coffee at him and hit him.

    Either way Mendoza – *you’re* the douchebag in the story.

  11. I’ve run into Native Americans in Utah who rooted for the Redskins specifically because of the team name.

    I’m sure there are others who are offended by the name.

    One of the primary features of progressives is the belief that the people want whatever the progressives want. It’s part of what makes them diametrically opposed to us libertarians. We laugh in the faces of politicians and government officials who think they can account for the qualitative preferences of anyone but themselves.

    An Obama Administration official going after a Native American for having unaccounted for feelings about the Redskins is one example, but feminist officials can’t account for the qualitative preferences of women, environmentalist officials in the Obama Administration can’t account for the qualitative preferences of people who care about the environment; the list of groups of people whose preferences politicians can’t really account for eventually grows to include everybody.

    There is one exception, however, in that Hazel can accurately account for the qualitative preferences of Trump supporters–it’s uncanny. There’s no need for Trump supporters to explain themselves and the reasoning behind their own personal preferences. Hazel already understands and accounts for all of their qualitative preferences individually–and correctly considers them all to be patently offensive.

  12. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  13. As a person of German-American heritage I want to know when the racist caricature that is Bernie the Brewer will be shown the door? Or an exit slide.

    1. They already took away the mug of beer he used to slide into.

      I’d rather see a St. Pauli Girl anyway.

  14. Mendoza says when he confronted Dahl about the shirt Dahl told him he’d be happy to step outside and explain his reasons for wearing the shirt.

    Interesting statement. I wouldn’t be surprised if many Native Americans wore the shirt not because they felt it was honoring them but as a kind of remembrance of their history. Because the name ‘Redskins’ refers to the blood on the dead bodies of natives killed by white settlers, wearing it would ironically honor the dead and serve as a reminder of their oppression.

    I’m surprised that someone like Mendoza would jump to conclusions instead of listening to the guys reasons, because I think he would probably have heard an explanation something like that,

    1. the name ‘Redskins’ refers to the blood on the dead bodies of natives killed by white settlers

      oh, bullshit Hazel.

      In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin’s early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word’s first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that “the actual origin of the word is entirely benign.”

      Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.

      Goddard’s paper methodically describes the term’s early evolution, made possible by an unlikely abundance of documentation. “It is extremely unusual,” he wrote, “to be able to document the emergence of a vernacular expression in such exact and elucidative detail.”

      They also mention that the “bloody”-claim you cite…. was pushed by an activist suing the Redskins

    2. Because the name ‘Redskins’ refers to the blood on the dead bodies of natives killed by white settlers,

      You actually believe that?

    3. Sorry, Hazel, you are wrong. on many issues I am in sympathy with you but on this one, no, I am not.

      The term “redskin” comes from the fact that people thought that Indians had skin that appeared to have a red hue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.