Such offensive epithets would no doubt draw wide-spread disapproval among the NFL’s fan base. Yet the national coverage of Washington’s NFL football team profits from a term that is equally disparaging to Native Americans.A letter, signed by ten members of Congress, asking Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to change the team’s name, saying it’s a derogatory term towards Native Americans. The team has repeatedly said that they do not consider the name offensive, and have no plans to change the name. Polling on the football team’s name favors keeping it in place. The effort was led by Rep. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, the congressman for the American Samoa.
District residents and their elected representatives should not tolerate commercial or other use of derogatory terminology relating to any people’s racial identity, or which dishonors any person’s race, or which dishonors the name Washington. Washington’s name has been dishonored by association with the word ‘Redskins.’ Because it is well known in America and in nations afar that American Indians have experienced utmost suffering and disrespect over the years.A non-binding resolution by Washington D.C. Council member David Grosso • Arguing in favor of changing the name of the Washington D.C. NFL team, from the “Redskins,” to a less offensive one (Grosso himself suggests Redtails, a reference to the Tuskegee Airmen of World War II, which is undeniably pretty catchy). The controversy over the team’s name is not especially new, but as years continue to slide by, it is undeniably startling to see a professional sports team bearing such an overt racial slur as its name, as well as its merchandising brand. One person not so down for a change? Washington quarterback Robert Griffin III, who tweeted his displeasure at the discussion: “In a land of freedom we are held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness.” source
This gets us back to the principle that the government must pay us what we are entitled to.Ramah Navajo Chapter President Rodger Martinez • Discussing the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to force the government to pay back Native American tribes for money they spent on federal programs. Back in 2000, Congress allocated a $1.6 billion payback to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but Congress had capped paybacks, so only $120.2 million has been paid back so far. ”We stressed that the government’s obligation to pay contract support costs should be treated as an ordinary contract promise,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her majority ruling, released Monday.
I will examine the situation of the American Indian/Native American, Alaska Native and Hawaiian peoples against the background of the United States’ endorsement of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. My visit aims at assessing how the standards of the declaration are reflected in US law and policy, and identifying needed reforms and good practices.James Anaya, UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples • Discussing his role leading the UN’s investigation on the conditions of living for the 2.7 million Native Americans in the United States today. As he alludes to, this includes native Hawaiian and Alaskan populations, as well. Ayana, a professor of human rights at the University of Arizona, will visit Washington D.C., Arizona, South Dakota, Alaska, Oregon and Oklahoma, after which he’ll present his findings at the next session of the UN’s human rights council. The declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which he mentions was signed by the U.S. In 2010 - opening for fair international debate just how well these groups are being served in modern America. source (via • follow)