First, I would like to briefly respond to the previous article which provided an illusion of justification for the name "Redskin." Moral decisions should not be made by permission, instead, they are an internal decision based on compassion, history, vision, community and common sense. Morality stems from the cultural teachings that we all receive at a young age. To say that some Native Americans give permission for use of the derogatory term "Redskin" is the equivalent of SS Propaganda in World War II that stated "many Jews wanted what they had coming to them." Or it is similar to Clarence Thomas saying to his friends "its all right to call them 'niggers.'" If for example a doctor has a patient who wants to commit suicide, he or she will still work to save their lives, obeying a higher moral order than mere permission.

Please humor me in this example, as I change the flow of history to illustrate the use of compassion in making a moral decision. No actual reference to history is implied. Let's say Chief Pontiac led a successful 18th Century military campaign against the young United States. Nations representing the Iroquois, Sioux, Chippewa, Seminoles and Cherokees killed many European settlers including President George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. The Indian Nations were so violent that they threatened to exterminate every European settler on this soil. Instead however, a treaty was signed, and the white people were all forced to live in reservations on the most undesirable land in poverty. So, we are all under Indian rule and they love sports. Someone starts a team called the "Whiteskins" and they put a profile of George Washington on the side. Everyone loves the whiteskins because in real life they always lose, but in this athletic/entertainment/fantasy the white people can finally win. What is most ironic is that the Whiteskins are from the capital of Indian country - Pine Ridge, South Dakota - the last place on earth one would go looking for a whiteskin.

Pretty ridiculous isn't it? Fact of the matter is - no matter how you cut it - the terms "Blackskin, Whiteskin, Yellowskin or Redskin" which define people by skin color - no matter what your intent - is unfair. Most people prefer to be defined by culture. This is because you can choose your culture, but you cannot choose your skin color.

White people (Yes, I'm being unfair) have yet another advantage in that they don't have to define themselves according to skin color. They will instead use terms like I'm "Irish," I'm "German," or I'm "from Texas." However, people of other races are in fact defined by color - he's "Black," she's "Chinese," or they are "Redskins." Hence, the term "Cowboy" (which is actually a cultural icon) should read "Whiteboy" and it would if the predominate mode of thinking placed white as meaning "other than," or if the earlier scenario were true.

Throughout all literature, journalism, conversation and the media, notice that unless a person's race is mentioned it is always assumed that they are white, thus everyone else is an other. By taking on this primary perspective Euro-Americans (a cultural term), have been given the enormous power of naming which carries with it paternalistic power. Everyone knows, for example, that they are not "Indians," but this is the name they were given and so they have to live with it. They were all lumped together because they were not important enough to be treated according to who they really were (a huge number of different nations). This power of naming along variations of skin color in the history of European conquest is associated with oppression, slavery, domination, horror and death.

To define or describe people according to skin color is generally accepted as racism. Fascists also like to make use of this race - superiority/inferiority issue, they love to throw peoples' race into their face and project them as "others." Organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Front and every Indian hater in America probably uses the term "Redskin" on a regular basis. So it just makes sense that we - the thinking, compassionate, reflective people would not want to be associated with a name that creates circumstances by which we bring out the worst tendencies in human behavior (racism, fascism, unfair bias). Why do we wish to recall in a derogatory way, those who suffered one of the most horrible events in human history? We do it because its easy, they are defeated and we can take from them what we want. Yet, Native Americans were killed for one main reason - they were not white - they were killed and are still oppressed today because they have Red - skin. I know you think thats its cool, but color is an inescapable and obvious badge of otherness and oppression.

My point is to show how unprofitable, insipid and banal it is to call people by their skin color. It I think is especially dangerous on a casual level because it implies broad acceptance of these terms. Again, most people on earth prefer to be called by culture. Thus the name of the NFL franchise "Chiefs" which is also Native American in origin draws little opposition because it is a cultural term - not a racial one. Or the Minnesota "Vikings" which describes a tribe, recieves no opposition. The "Vikings" would be opposed if they described physical characteristics by which they had no control.

I am very confident that the name will be changed one day because humans are increasingly crossing racial and cultural boundaries especially in the United States. This new generation is much more sensitive to race. 25 years ago the name of the team was not even an issue - today it is, and increasingly sports announcers and others call them the "Skins" out of a moral obligation. It is always difficult to take a moral stand, to show people how some commonly accepted practice is wrong.

It has been very difficult to shed light on this subject. Using the language of the oppressor to explain oppression is a lot like using water to explain fire. Ultimately though my aim is to show how terms like "Redskin" serve to mis-represent the best qualities in the human experience. That no matter what people say - you must decide for your own - which side of the river you are on - there is no middle. Either you are with Hitler, the Klan and Custer, or you are with Dr. King, Gandhi and Einstein. There are creative alternatives to this name that do not necessitate the team losing its identity, quality or spirit. It is always difficult to take a moral stand - it would be easy to keep the name as it is, but to change the name is the meaningful choice. It shows that we as humans can respect each other, downplay our differences and see beyond the surface.

I would be remiss if I did not include some of the alternatives to the current name. "Warriors" is a cultural term, as is "Shamen" - the "Washington Shamen" has a nice ring to it. "Medicine Men" would also work as would the name of a nation such as the "Potomacs" or my favorite the "Cherokee." I could hear it now: "The Cherokee have the ball at their own 20." Other terms that describe men's activities such as "Ghost Dancers," "Pow-Wow," or "Hunters" or even "Tribe" may work. We could also find out whos picture that is on the helmet and name the team after him. There is finally the possibility of changing the entire cultural representation. I have always like the name "The Washington Presidents" so the announcer would say "It's the President's ball at the 35 yard line."

Let me also close by saying that I am as much a fan as anyone has been since '72. I love the team despite the fact that the name causes me pain and even though I am a Native American myself. Yet, I believe that we all eventually reach the truth in our own time.

Peter Brooks