Opinion | Sports

Bob Burns: Indian mascots aren't based on a proud tradition

Friday, October 11, 2013

Bob Burns, a member of the Blackfeet Nation, stands firm against racist mascots, despite article that was written by his son-in-law, Rick Reilly of ESPN:

So you can imagine my dismay when I saw my name and words used to defend the racist Washington Redskins name. My son-in-law, ESPN’s Rick Reilly, completely misunderstood the conversation we had, quoting me as saying “the whole issue is so silly. The name just doesn't bother me much. It's an issue that shouldn't be an issue, not with all the problems we've got in this country."
But that’s not what I said.
What I actually said is that “it’s silly in this day and age that this should even be a battle -- if the name offends someone, change it.” He failed to include my comments that the term “redskins” demeans Indians, andhistorically is insulting and offensive, and that I firmly believe the Washington Redskins should change their name.
When Rick’s article came out, it upset me to be portrayed as an “Uncle Tom” in support of this racial slur. I asked him to correct the record. He has not, so I must do it myself.
I grew up seeing store signs in the nearby town of Cutbank that read “No dogs or Indians allowed.” Our Indian families who live on reservations continue to feel the sting of racism. I could never support the term “redskins” because we know first-hand what racism and ignorance has done to the Blackfeet people. Our people grew up hearing terms like nits, dirty redskins, prairie nigger, savages, heathens, lazy Indians and drunks -- all derogatory terms used to label us. It is better today, but the underlying mentality is still there or obviously people would change the name.

Get the Story:
Bob Burns: Blackfeet Elder Says Rick Reilly Misquoted Him; Wants ‘Redskins’ Banned (Indian Country Today 10/10)