Originally Posted by infantrycak
Except for the fact redskin is more akin to black than n*gger.
Outside of this conversation look around this message board or in society generally and people routinely talk about black, white, yellow, brown and red skinned people. It is a factual demarcation.
To Dan B, I am sorry but back in that day you can't say against integration for one race means against for all. Jim Thorpe was the 1st AFPA president (which became NFL). There were a lot (relative to the population) of Indian players in the NFL. Integration for Indians was not the same as integration for blacks. Marshall was specifically anti-black. The 1933 NFL order was specifically anti-black. FYI-the Boston Braves Thorpe played for was the baseball team not Marshall's football team.
I can absolutely say that George Marshall was against racial integration of any type. Because he stipulated in his will that the Redskins trust not spend money on "any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.
" If he only hated one race, he would have specified.
There may have been a lot of Native American players in the NFL. But there weren't a lot of Native American (Or Black, Asian, or Hispanic) players on the Redskins. They were all white. For 30 years.
If you've got a few minutes check out this 40 page preview of
a 2001 book about the issue. The author doesn't take either side and presents an interesting look at the history of the term "Redskin," as well as a history of the fight to change the name of the team. I thought it was interesting that Snyder changed the name of the area the Redskins play in from Raljon, Maryland
back to Landover -- because the residents were offended that Jack Kent Cooke named the spot for his sons. There's also some interesting quotes in the preview from newspaper editorials, etc. around the turn of the century using the term "Redskin." It's not in a flattering light.