July 21, 2025 • 28 mins
Critics aren’t buying the timing of President Trump’s call to return the names of the Washington Commanders and the Cleveland Guardians back to their original, derogatory names. Amy and T.J. go over the history of the teams’ names, whether or not Trump can actually force the issue and reaction from Native Americans… all while many believe this is simply an attempt to deflect from negative headlines connecting Trump to Jeffrey Epstein.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hey, there're folks, it is Monday, July twenty first. Is
it racist or does it have a nice ring to
it depends on who you ask. Welcome to this episode
of Aby and DJ Robe we are. I can't believe
still talking about the term red skin in terms of
the Washington Redskins, a name they got rid of, a
(00:21):
controversy that'd been going for decades. We thought was over.
It's back front and center, and only one man could
possibly have us talking about it.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Yes, the President of the United States, because he would
prefer a lot of people believe for us to all
be talking about the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians
rather than his possible potential relationship involvement with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
So yes, he is.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Trying that is cynical roads. I'm also just referring to
what a lot of other folks are pointing to that
this could be a very cleverly tim wag the dog
situation where President Trump is trying to create another conversation
that sets people off and gets people fired up and
creates a lot of controversy and conversation. And so this
(01:13):
might be a classic deflect and distract method by the President,
or perhaps he just suddenly felt impassioned by this and
the timing is not coincidental, So let's go with this.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
This is not new for him. He's been talking about
this for years, frankly that he didn't appreciate that people
are changing names. So the Washington they went by Redskins
for ninety years or so. The Cleveland Indians the saying
they changed their so the Guardians and the Commanders are
now the Commanders. So he has spoken out Robock about this.
(01:46):
I guess this elevated because not only now that the
President over the weekend say he wants the Washington Commanders
to change their name back, it came with a pretty
specific threat and it's a big deal in the DC area.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Oh yes, he said that he wants these team owners,
the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians to get it done,
to change their name back.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
But he specifically has some.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Capital potentially over the Washington Redskins, who are looking to
create a new stadium from an old stadium, the RFK Stadium.
And so they were given the land, or at least
they were, DC was seated the land by President Biden
so that they could then go into a contract of
sorts with the Washington Commander is correct. I have to
(02:33):
make sure not to say I've lived in DC for
so many years, and so it's so easy just to
have Washington Redskins roll off the tongue. But yes, the
Washington commanders to eventually make that their home, and the
President is threatening to disrupt those plans, and so he
is trying to do what he thinks he can to
create a rethinking of the name of the Washington Redskins.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
The owners are saying, not so fast.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, nobody's thinking about radar. Where did this come from?
This has not been a part of conversation. It kind
of came out of nowhere. They went through all this
to change their names, their logos, all that merchandise, the
branding on the stadium, everything they did that they were
not considering at all changing the name, period, point blank,
and they made that clear. But the President, for whatever reason,
(03:20):
is on one now. We don't know. Yes, he came
with a threat, but we don't actually know if he
has the ability to stop that deal or not. He
can certainly make it disruptive, as he is able to do.
But Roopes I was even hesitant as we were taught
We went round and around about this story on Morning
Run this morning before we even recorded it. It meaning
like we're doing this again. Is this just another throwaway?
(03:44):
Are we about to start to have this debate all
over again about that name? And I bet most people
who are listening right now probably don't know where it
comes from, why it's offensive, or even if it's offensive,
because for years, one of the arguments that some Dan Snyder,
who was the owner at the time, and others have
(04:04):
made was that, hey, look at this poll here, the
majority of people aren't offended by it, or they pull
to some research say, hey, when the word first came
about in history, it wasn't derogatory. They use those two
things as their reason, right.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
President Trump has tried to say that this is actually
honoring Native Americans, that we are regarding them and putting
them up in history as warriors is something to be applauded,
a sign of strength, the sign of courage. Yes, so
they're saying this isn't derogatory, this isn't negative. But that
poll that you're referencing, The Washington Post actually conducted a
(04:41):
poll back in twenty sixteen when this was being talked about. Yes,
Dan Snyder was the owner back then, and their poll
said nine to ten Native Americans are not offended by
the Redskins name. So they had a survey, I'll give
you the specifics of five hundred and four people across
every state, including the district, and they said that the
(05:03):
minds of Native Americans were unchanged. The last time a
poll had been done was two thousand and four, so
twelve years ago they said no one was offended, and
twelve years later, in twenty sixteen, they said no one
was offended. And in fact, they said among the Native.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Americans that they were able to talk to over a.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Five month period said seven and ten didn't feel that
the word redskin was even disrespectful to Indians. So forget
about whether or not they cared if it was the
name of the Washington football team or not. They said
that they did not think it was disrespectful, and an
even higher number of this one kind of threw me
eight and ten. According to this Washington Post, Pole said
they would not be offended if a non Native American
(05:44):
called them that name.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
That is hard for me to believe.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
I'm sorry, a white person calling a Native American a
redskin would not be offensive.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
I that's wild to me.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Okay, And several other groups came out and immediately took
issue with that polling. Who did you ask? How was
this done? They immediately kind of shot this thing down,
as to your point, that's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
That seems insane, and it doesn't make sense like that
would be offensive to anyone, I would imagine.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
So that's okay. So they point to some poles. But
then they want to go to history. And this is
where we need to have a better understanding here, folks,
because folks will say, hey, look, that word started out
not as a negative, so therefore you can't tell me
it's a negative now because it started out that way.
The argument now, according to what scholars at the Smithsonian actually,
(06:36):
they said that the word was actually used, or at
least Native Americans refer to each other or different groups
by colors or that color skin folks, this color skin folks,
and red skin was kind of loosely translated by French
explorers who came here, colonists, some what I want to
(06:57):
call them, the colonizers.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Different words for everybody.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Apparently we won't get into that historically, but the French
came here, we're hearing it trying to translate. Someone wrote
it at some point and it was read by many
as po rouge means red skin. Is how it was
interpreted over the years, and that's sure fine. Initially, Robes,
it was not a negative. It it damn sure became
(07:24):
one over the years and even over the centuries.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Po rouge actually is a wine that I actually was
looking this up as well.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
It's a French wine known for.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Being made from red skinned grapes. So yeah, that is
a direct translation. Red skin is exactly what po rouge means,
and so yes, there were plenty of folks who initially
were like, okay, that's just the description, but it obviously
became derogatory pretty quickly. I mean, most Native American communities
(07:54):
now would consider that and it is considered by all
dictionaries as a racial slur, as something that is deraga
tour reap without a doubt.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
In cartoons, do you remember how Native Americans were depicted
in cartoons? You're right, And some people will point you
to a nineteen thirty something Tom and Jerry that was
titled what was it, Redskin Blues where they were attacked
Tom and Jerry by Native Americans at the end, just
American culture, where there's music, where there's movies, and the
(08:24):
imagery over the years, redskin has become negative. You cannot
argue with that.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Well, it's interesting too, because it's amazing where we were
just now talking about it, perhaps in twenty sixteen around
that time, and then obviously now again once again after
everything changed around twenty twenty. But if you go back
and look and do the research, by the nineteen sixties
it was widely understood as offensive period. So you think
(08:50):
about all those years ago in the nineteen sixties when
we had all sorts of cultural issues happening there as well,
the Civil rights era, all of that, they were like,
even then, it was negative, and there is a claim
in history where it may be shifted and turned. Apparently
a lot of folks say that the term became used
(09:11):
when they were referencing paying bounties for Native American scalps,
which were sometimes referred to as red skins. So that
also plays into all of this as well, and they
were saying that is a direct connection, a direct point
in which there was a derogatory condition placed on that
(09:32):
specific term.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
And we're saying here, folks, I don't know how much
more evidence there needs to be, but there is no
argument that that word is fully understood to be negative. Now,
I have never heard anyone like the N word, right,
I've never heard anybody call someone that in the Native
American community to their face as an insult. I've never
heard that.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
No, I haven't either.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
I don't know if that actually happens, but the word
is offensive. We have the definitions here from Cambridge Dictionary,
Merrion Webster, and dictionary dot Com. Not a single one
of them suggests this word should just be used loosely
in casual conversation.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Merriam Webster says, used as an insulting and contemptuous term
for an American Indian. The Cambridge Dictionary says an extremely
offensive word for a Native American. It says member of
one of the groups of people who were living in
North and South America before Europeans arrived. Yes, Native Americans,
dictionary dot Com said, says it disparaging and defensive.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
That is how the term redskin is referred to you.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
No, I was debating even I don't know what if
we say this, and I've read some stuff where I
mean Native American writers would go our word. Oh wow,
they're doing this like inward and I it made me
stop and think, like, what is the I know, customery.
(10:56):
We're sitting here saying it loosely, there is no big deal.
But if someone on the other end, a native of
an American is hearing that come in their ears the way
I hear the inward come into mind from a non
black speaker, that would completely change this game.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Up. Yeah, I've never heard of anyone saying the R word,
but I think, you know, if you I mean, I
think that could be where we end up. You know,
we all evolve based on what is offensive to people,
and some things were offensive and then they don't, they
aren't any more, and some thing's become more offensive, and
we just have to evolve and respect where people are
who They're the only ones who can say whether or
(11:31):
not we have to refer to it as the R word.
But yes, as short as period five years ago, six
years ago, we were saying it like it was just
an everyday average word. I mean again, I lived in DC,
so it was just hearing that. I have to stop
myself and think about what the name of the team
is because for so long, even as a newscaster reporting
on the Washington Redskins. It was just it flows right out.
(11:53):
It feels normal, it feels natural, and that's the whole point.
It shouldn't if we look at the dictionary definition of
how all this word is regarded. We need to retrain
our brains. And that's okay. It's okay to say, whoops.
We shouldn't be saying that word anymore. So should we
have not been even saying the word in this podcast?
Speaker 3 (12:10):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
That's a question I would ask somebody else outside of
our communities, but I do. I think everybody on everywhere
you see it, it's reported this way and they say
it that way. There's no way you would ever turn
on the TV and they want to change it to
the Washington in words, you would see that.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
No, everywhere, you're not gonna.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
See that word. Nobody's just gonna let that roll off
their tongue. Then why do we allow this one? We
are not. We just having conditioned ourselves to understand just
how offensive this word is. Now, I'm not suggesting that
the N word and the R word are right, should
be the same, are in the same category, and the
least I'm not saying that, but if a Native American
tells me that that's what that word means to him
(12:52):
or her, then I will listen to that.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And I'm it's interesting too, because I just really think
when it comes to what's right and what's wrong on this,
it has to come from the community itself.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
It just does.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
I mean, there's no one else who can say whether
it's offensive or not other than Native Americans period period.
They should get the final word. They should get the
final say. I am so okay with that.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
We're talking about the evolition of words. Can you imagine now?
We say it no problem reported all day on TV,
the NAACP, the NAACP. But go out today and try
to call a group of people colored people and see
what happens. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
That was a different time where that word or that
(13:35):
usage was okay. We decided it wasn't anymore, and you
can't do that, you NCF the United Negro College.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
I was just gonna ask about that other word.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Und negro. Good luck going out there calling somebody a
negro on the street.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Today it changes, And I've even seen a recent headline
saying they want to do away with African Americans.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
They don't want anyone.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Else referring to black people as African Americans, because not
all black people come from Africa. I mean in terms
of you know, maybe you could go back to the
beginnings of time. But people identify as a lot of
other things other than African American. And their skin may
be black, or they may be they may identify as black,
but they don't identify as African Americans.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Oh giggling because I had a weird moment over here
because I almost naturally just asked a white woman what
black people want to be called African American? So what
do we want to be called.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Now, white lady, whatever you say, please let me know.
But that's just the point that things do change. Things
that were once okay are not anymore. And that's okay too.
And I know this whole war against woke is a thing,
and I get that to an extent. We can't go
too far and over corrections. But why is it ever
a bad thing to make sure somebody doesn't feel offended?
(14:52):
If it's within an it's an easy thing to do.
It's not a hard thing to do, now, I get it.
Was an expensive thing to do initially for or the
Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians to have to change
all that you pointed out, logos and marketing and just everything.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
So twenty million I think is reported right.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
So there is a significant cost to that, but the
benefit I think is worth it in the end, because
you don't want to have something or a team that
you're heralding and you want people to be championing and
then have it somehow just polarized folks and make people
feel et cetera, or not included or degraded. That's just
(15:30):
not ever going to be something you want as a
part of sports.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
So all of this, all those decades of this debate,
all those decades of the team having that name, finally
got resolved, we thought, at least in twenty twenty two,
they started competing as the Washington Commander, so they've had
three full seasons. But why when you go back really
to nineteen thirty three with the owner call his team
(15:56):
the Washington our words in the first place. Turns out
it has to do with the Boston Red Sox.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
And welcome back everyone to this edition of Amy and TJ,
where we are talking about.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
Well kind of what Trump wanted us to be talking about.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
But still it's an interesting debate to have whether or
not he has a first of all, the right the
authority to ask team owners from the Washington Redskins the
Cleveland Indians to change their names back to those monikers
I just referenced instead of their newly more appropriate and
less offensive current names of the Washington Commanders and the
(16:45):
Cleveland Guardians. Yes, it takes me a second, but yes,
I want to keep reiterating that these are the new.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Names that came about because they were.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Deemed defensive by Native Americans, and rightfully so.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
For a law long time these debates have been going on.
But that's the one when you argue that everybody has
been most after you have what is it, Florida State,
the Seminoles down there.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
But there's a big butt to that.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
I have relationship the Seminole, like the Indian tribe specifically
gave them permission to use their tribe in their name,
and you know what, that's when it's okay, because yes,
the argument is that there these are ways to honor
(17:33):
the legacy of Native Americans and their fierceness and their
fight and their warrior like mentality, and so of course
it makes sense to have a sports team that's fighting
and it's about physical strength and all of those things.
So so many people argue that it's a compliment to
Native Americans, but the people who are saying it's a
compliment are people who are not Native American. So I
(17:54):
really don't think you get to say. However, when you
do have a group of folks like the Seminole Indians
say it's okay, we're proud that you're using our name,
then yes, great, amazing. You literally got permission from a
group makes it okay.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
And I didn't realize, but the Utah University of Utah,
they are named the Utes yep. I didn't realize their
name prior to the Utes was Redskins, the Utah Redskins.
And then in collaboration with the Ute Indian tribe in Utah,
which the state is actually named after, in collaboration with them,
(18:30):
they got permission to use the name, and they have
a great relationship.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Out there now, and that's amazing.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I also saw the Central Michigan University Chippewas the chipwas
name and imagery approved by the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
So that like, that is the way forward.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
If this tribe says, hey, you have our blessing to
use our name or our imagery to show you are
a fighting, winning team, go for it.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
That's the way to do it.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
And those were specific, right, those were specific to tribes.
Use chipewall, you name seminoles, redskins is like a general term. Right,
You can't ask permission from entire community. And you said,
they say these are tributes. And I have down the
National Congress of American Indians, which is a group the
longest I guess serving a group in the country that
(19:24):
actually represents Native Americans. And to that point, robes about
these being tributes, and I quote, these depictions are not tributes.
They are rooted in racism, cultural appropriation, and intentional ignorance.
Now that's an interesting one, Like we choose to be stupid,
we choose to say, yeah, we're honoring you. Yeah, the
(19:45):
word that seems very dismissive, like we don't want to listen.
You're dismissing the people who have a claim. That's interesting
and I think it's dead on intentional ignorance.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Yeah, that's a really good way to put it.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
And They went on to say, for too long, they
perpetuated harmful stereotypes that degrade, dehumanize, and harm the well
being of Native people using basically, yes, Native Americans as mascots,
so to speak, which oftentimes, you know, look, you've got
your hogs, I've got my dogs. Usually, very often we
(20:18):
see them mascots as animals, as fierce animals in a
lot of ways. And so yes, I didn't think about
it that in that way, that it's dehumanizing, and obviously
it's generalizing, and like the Native Americans might be the
most peaceful pacifist ever, but yeah, they're depicted as being
these warmongers, these savages.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
Yes, the sages' they've been attached to.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
So if yes, we have a mascot the University of Arkansas,
y'all got a dog, Well he's a sweet little thing.
He's not exactly fierce.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
Yeah, but bulldogs, you know, they can be a little
they can be rough. Things are supposed to inside fear.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Imagery of something that can't be tamed, right, Yeah, and
so you need it that way. This makes it pretty clear.
But this next one I was point of you two ropes.
Native people are not mascots. We have our own language, cultures,
and governments. Our identities are not anyone's mascot or costume.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
They say, as well, that is so true.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
I just don't know what argument we can have here.
So why would a guy name his team? This was
interesting history that I didn't know, Robes. But when this
team Washington that we now know is the Washington Commanders.
It was founded in nineteen thirty two in Boston. Didn't
realize that, but they were the Boston Braves of the NFL. Well,
(21:42):
the Boston Red Sox and the Boston Braves of the
Major League Baseball League played at Fenway Stadium. Yes, there
was a Boston Braves football team and a Boston Braves
baseball team that were both in town. The Boston Braves
football team was going to have to start playing at
(22:05):
Fenway some games, so the owner, mister George Preston Marshall,
I believe he's his name, he said, I don't want
to I don't want any confusion with the Boston Braves
baseball team when my Boston Braves football team shows up
to play, So I'm just gonna change the name of
my team. And that is where he landed with this name.
(22:29):
So it was the Braves football team. It was kind
of similar redskin if you will, in that Native American vernacular.
But that is how the team started in the first place,
is because there was another team of the same name,
and the guy needed to mix.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
It up, so he changed it too, the Redskins, Wow.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
The Boston Redskins, and then they moved to DC a
few years later. But that's it really came about because
he needed to distinguish his team from another team was
there that was called the same thing.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
I was a little confused too, because Boston Red Sox,
that's not that is nothing, that has nothing to do
with Native Americans. I started to think I started to
go down that road in my head.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
Oh, I was all. They just happened to have to
all share wow Fenway Park, and he didn't want confusion
between there being a baseball team and a football team
having the same name, so he turned them into the Redskins.
The rest is now history. And then that history rogues
got changed in twenty twenty. Why all the name change
(23:31):
that's been talking about for a long time, but it
really ramped up specifically in May of twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Yes, George Floyd and certainly at that point we started
to rethink about, well, so many things, and how we
refer to people, how we treat people, how we hire people,
how all of those things. There was a there was
an absolute cultural revolution, a race revolution, so to speak.
We had to rethink everything. After the death of George Floyd,
(23:57):
there was an uproar. There was an uprising, and one
had been brewing for a very long time, you.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Know what you say. There was a people were in
a hurry to change things. I wonder if we gave
some things enough thought. And I'm not arguing about whether
or not the name should have been changed for the
Washington team, but swear he died George Floyd in May
of twenty twenty. I think they announced in July of
twenty twenty, Okay, we're going to change the name. That's quick.
(24:24):
I mean, after decade of this debate, that seems like
a rash of rush decision, reacting to a moment. Even
if it was the right decision, was it handled the
right way? The optics of this now it's just.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
I mean, people do point to oftentimes what we've seen
in history is sometimes you have an overcorrection. And we
were talking about black versus white but then everyone starts
looking at every single marginalized community and how can we
do better? How can we be more aware or more
woke in those moments? And so, yes, there was financial
(24:56):
pressure that actually ultimately create the change that we saw.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Yeah, that probably is, But doesn't it always go back
to that?
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Okay, yeah, I think about it now, But still just
that it had to happen that way. And there's a
conversation we're having now about the name and incorporating the
opinions of those who are impacted by that name. Right,
I was enough of that. There wasn't a national conversation.
It wasn't time enough to in a month to do that.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Everyone wanted to look as though they were listening and
they were making changes, and this was a.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
Part of it.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
It's wild to think that that one event sparked so
many reactions from so many people. And yeah, we're still
dealing with the aftermath of all of that now.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
But again, Ken Trump, that's the question, wrong, can Trump
even do this? We don't know.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
You know what's interesting, So I Time magazine actually today
talked about they actually found a quote from President Trump
back in twenty thirteen where he said this our country
has far bigger problems, focus on them, not nonsense, He
tweeted back then it was an x. He said that
(26:16):
Barack Obama should not be telling Washington, DC's NFL team
to change their name. So he was saying when Barack
Obama was urging and suggesting that yes, it was time
to change the name of the Washington Redskins, Trump actually
tweeted that this was nonsense, that we had bigger problems
to focus on in our country.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
And oh the irony.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
Now twelve years later, he is asking the country to
focus on a name change, to rechange a name that
was changed, because that's where he wants to focus now
of our country.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Just wanted to.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Bring up that little fun tweet that was unearthed by
Time magazine today.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
You don't, and he'll make the argument that I didn't
want them to change the name in the first place.
I'm not urging the change the name. I just want
them to go back to what they were.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
I'm sure make America, make make Washington's NFL team great again.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Or racist again, whatever you want to put it. Well, no,
it's it is fascinating, but it is. But folks, please
don't for a moment in any conversation you have about
this use as a defense that the word didn't start
out as a negative word. It doesn't matter how it started,
it's where it is and where we all understand it
(27:27):
is right now. We can't use that or ignorance as
an excuse for what is blatant racism in the eyes
of people who see that word and have lived that life.
So just please don't do that.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Yes, and we always appreciate you listening to us and
always want to hear what you have to say, so
please feel free to let us know. We'd love to
hear you weigh in on this Amy and TJ podcast.
We've got an Instagram page we always put some stuff up,
so feel free to weigh in say what you think
about this and if we should even be talking about
this at this point after a decision has already been made,
(28:03):
but we love to always hear what you think.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
Thank you for listening to us on.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
This Monday, I made me roback on behalf of my
partner t J Holmes.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
Have a great day, everybody,
Hey, there're folks, it is Monday, July twenty first. Is
it racist or does it have a nice ring to
it depends on who you ask. Welcome to this episode
of Aby and DJ Robe we are. I can't believe
still talking about the term red skin in terms of
the Washington Redskins, a name they got rid of, a
(00:21):
controversy that'd been going for decades. We thought was over.
It's back front and center, and only one man could
possibly have us talking about it.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Yes, the President of the United States, because he would
prefer a lot of people believe for us to all
be talking about the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians
rather than his possible potential relationship involvement with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
So yes, he is.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Trying that is cynical roads. I'm also just referring to
what a lot of other folks are pointing to that
this could be a very cleverly tim wag the dog
situation where President Trump is trying to create another conversation
that sets people off and gets people fired up and
creates a lot of controversy and conversation. And so this
(01:13):
might be a classic deflect and distract method by the President,
or perhaps he just suddenly felt impassioned by this and
the timing is not coincidental, So let's go with this.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
This is not new for him. He's been talking about
this for years, frankly that he didn't appreciate that people
are changing names. So the Washington they went by Redskins
for ninety years or so. The Cleveland Indians the saying
they changed their so the Guardians and the Commanders are
now the Commanders. So he has spoken out Robock about this.
(01:46):
I guess this elevated because not only now that the
President over the weekend say he wants the Washington Commanders
to change their name back, it came with a pretty
specific threat and it's a big deal in the DC area.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Oh yes, he said that he wants these team owners,
the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians to get it done,
to change their name back.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
But he specifically has some.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Capital potentially over the Washington Redskins, who are looking to
create a new stadium from an old stadium, the RFK Stadium.
And so they were given the land, or at least
they were, DC was seated the land by President Biden
so that they could then go into a contract of
sorts with the Washington Commander is correct. I have to
(02:33):
make sure not to say I've lived in DC for
so many years, and so it's so easy just to
have Washington Redskins roll off the tongue. But yes, the
Washington commanders to eventually make that their home, and the
President is threatening to disrupt those plans, and so he
is trying to do what he thinks he can to
create a rethinking of the name of the Washington Redskins.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
The owners are saying, not so fast.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, nobody's thinking about radar. Where did this come from?
This has not been a part of conversation. It kind
of came out of nowhere. They went through all this
to change their names, their logos, all that merchandise, the
branding on the stadium, everything they did that they were
not considering at all changing the name, period, point blank,
and they made that clear. But the President, for whatever reason,
(03:20):
is on one now. We don't know. Yes, he came
with a threat, but we don't actually know if he
has the ability to stop that deal or not. He
can certainly make it disruptive, as he is able to do.
But Roopes I was even hesitant as we were taught
We went round and around about this story on Morning
Run this morning before we even recorded it. It meaning
like we're doing this again. Is this just another throwaway?
(03:44):
Are we about to start to have this debate all
over again about that name? And I bet most people
who are listening right now probably don't know where it
comes from, why it's offensive, or even if it's offensive,
because for years, one of the arguments that some Dan Snyder,
who was the owner at the time, and others have
(04:04):
made was that, hey, look at this poll here, the
majority of people aren't offended by it, or they pull
to some research say, hey, when the word first came
about in history, it wasn't derogatory. They use those two
things as their reason, right.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
President Trump has tried to say that this is actually
honoring Native Americans, that we are regarding them and putting
them up in history as warriors is something to be applauded,
a sign of strength, the sign of courage. Yes, so
they're saying this isn't derogatory, this isn't negative. But that
poll that you're referencing, The Washington Post actually conducted a
(04:41):
poll back in twenty sixteen when this was being talked about. Yes,
Dan Snyder was the owner back then, and their poll
said nine to ten Native Americans are not offended by
the Redskins name. So they had a survey, I'll give
you the specifics of five hundred and four people across
every state, including the district, and they said that the
(05:03):
minds of Native Americans were unchanged. The last time a
poll had been done was two thousand and four, so
twelve years ago they said no one was offended, and
twelve years later, in twenty sixteen, they said no one
was offended. And in fact, they said among the Native.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Americans that they were able to talk to over a.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Five month period said seven and ten didn't feel that
the word redskin was even disrespectful to Indians. So forget
about whether or not they cared if it was the
name of the Washington football team or not. They said
that they did not think it was disrespectful, and an
even higher number of this one kind of threw me
eight and ten. According to this Washington Post, Pole said
they would not be offended if a non Native American
(05:44):
called them that name.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
That is hard for me to believe.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
I'm sorry, a white person calling a Native American a
redskin would not be offensive.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
I that's wild to me.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Okay, And several other groups came out and immediately took
issue with that polling. Who did you ask? How was
this done? They immediately kind of shot this thing down,
as to your point, that's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
That seems insane, and it doesn't make sense like that
would be offensive to anyone, I would imagine.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
So that's okay. So they point to some poles. But
then they want to go to history. And this is
where we need to have a better understanding here, folks,
because folks will say, hey, look, that word started out
not as a negative, so therefore you can't tell me
it's a negative now because it started out that way.
The argument now, according to what scholars at the Smithsonian actually,
(06:36):
they said that the word was actually used, or at
least Native Americans refer to each other or different groups
by colors or that color skin folks, this color skin folks,
and red skin was kind of loosely translated by French
explorers who came here, colonists, some what I want to
(06:57):
call them, the colonizers.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Different words for everybody.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Apparently we won't get into that historically, but the French
came here, we're hearing it trying to translate. Someone wrote
it at some point and it was read by many
as po rouge means red skin. Is how it was
interpreted over the years, and that's sure fine. Initially, Robes,
it was not a negative. It it damn sure became
(07:24):
one over the years and even over the centuries.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Po rouge actually is a wine that I actually was
looking this up as well.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
It's a French wine known for.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Being made from red skinned grapes. So yeah, that is
a direct translation. Red skin is exactly what po rouge means,
and so yes, there were plenty of folks who initially
were like, okay, that's just the description, but it obviously
became derogatory pretty quickly. I mean, most Native American communities
(07:54):
now would consider that and it is considered by all
dictionaries as a racial slur, as something that is deraga
tour reap without a doubt.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
In cartoons, do you remember how Native Americans were depicted
in cartoons? You're right, And some people will point you
to a nineteen thirty something Tom and Jerry that was
titled what was it, Redskin Blues where they were attacked
Tom and Jerry by Native Americans at the end, just
American culture, where there's music, where there's movies, and the
(08:24):
imagery over the years, redskin has become negative. You cannot
argue with that.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Well, it's interesting too, because it's amazing where we were
just now talking about it, perhaps in twenty sixteen around
that time, and then obviously now again once again after
everything changed around twenty twenty. But if you go back
and look and do the research, by the nineteen sixties
it was widely understood as offensive period. So you think
(08:50):
about all those years ago in the nineteen sixties when
we had all sorts of cultural issues happening there as well,
the Civil rights era, all of that, they were like,
even then, it was negative, and there is a claim
in history where it may be shifted and turned. Apparently
a lot of folks say that the term became used
(09:11):
when they were referencing paying bounties for Native American scalps,
which were sometimes referred to as red skins. So that
also plays into all of this as well, and they
were saying that is a direct connection, a direct point
in which there was a derogatory condition placed on that
(09:32):
specific term.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
And we're saying here, folks, I don't know how much
more evidence there needs to be, but there is no
argument that that word is fully understood to be negative. Now,
I have never heard anyone like the N word, right,
I've never heard anybody call someone that in the Native
American community to their face as an insult. I've never
heard that.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
No, I haven't either.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
I don't know if that actually happens, but the word
is offensive. We have the definitions here from Cambridge Dictionary,
Merrion Webster, and dictionary dot Com. Not a single one
of them suggests this word should just be used loosely
in casual conversation.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Merriam Webster says, used as an insulting and contemptuous term
for an American Indian. The Cambridge Dictionary says an extremely
offensive word for a Native American. It says member of
one of the groups of people who were living in
North and South America before Europeans arrived. Yes, Native Americans,
dictionary dot Com said, says it disparaging and defensive.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
That is how the term redskin is referred to you.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
No, I was debating even I don't know what if
we say this, and I've read some stuff where I
mean Native American writers would go our word. Oh wow,
they're doing this like inward and I it made me
stop and think, like, what is the I know, customery.
(10:56):
We're sitting here saying it loosely, there is no big deal.
But if someone on the other end, a native of
an American is hearing that come in their ears the way
I hear the inward come into mind from a non
black speaker, that would completely change this game.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Up. Yeah, I've never heard of anyone saying the R word,
but I think, you know, if you I mean, I
think that could be where we end up. You know,
we all evolve based on what is offensive to people,
and some things were offensive and then they don't, they
aren't any more, and some thing's become more offensive, and
we just have to evolve and respect where people are
who They're the only ones who can say whether or
(11:31):
not we have to refer to it as the R word.
But yes, as short as period five years ago, six
years ago, we were saying it like it was just
an everyday average word. I mean again, I lived in DC,
so it was just hearing that. I have to stop
myself and think about what the name of the team
is because for so long, even as a newscaster reporting
on the Washington Redskins. It was just it flows right out.
(11:53):
It feels normal, it feels natural, and that's the whole point.
It shouldn't if we look at the dictionary definition of
how all this word is regarded. We need to retrain
our brains. And that's okay. It's okay to say, whoops.
We shouldn't be saying that word anymore. So should we
have not been even saying the word in this podcast?
Speaker 3 (12:10):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
That's a question I would ask somebody else outside of
our communities, but I do. I think everybody on everywhere
you see it, it's reported this way and they say
it that way. There's no way you would ever turn
on the TV and they want to change it to
the Washington in words, you would see that.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
No, everywhere, you're not gonna.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
See that word. Nobody's just gonna let that roll off
their tongue. Then why do we allow this one? We
are not. We just having conditioned ourselves to understand just
how offensive this word is. Now, I'm not suggesting that
the N word and the R word are right, should
be the same, are in the same category, and the
least I'm not saying that, but if a Native American
tells me that that's what that word means to him
(12:52):
or her, then I will listen to that.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And I'm it's interesting too, because I just really think
when it comes to what's right and what's wrong on this,
it has to come from the community itself.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
It just does.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
I mean, there's no one else who can say whether
it's offensive or not other than Native Americans period period.
They should get the final word. They should get the
final say. I am so okay with that.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
We're talking about the evolition of words. Can you imagine now?
We say it no problem reported all day on TV,
the NAACP, the NAACP. But go out today and try
to call a group of people colored people and see
what happens. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
That was a different time where that word or that
(13:35):
usage was okay. We decided it wasn't anymore, and you
can't do that, you NCF the United Negro College.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
I was just gonna ask about that other word.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Und negro. Good luck going out there calling somebody a
negro on the street.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Today it changes, And I've even seen a recent headline
saying they want to do away with African Americans.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
They don't want anyone.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Else referring to black people as African Americans, because not
all black people come from Africa. I mean in terms
of you know, maybe you could go back to the
beginnings of time. But people identify as a lot of
other things other than African American. And their skin may
be black, or they may be they may identify as black,
but they don't identify as African Americans.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Oh giggling because I had a weird moment over here
because I almost naturally just asked a white woman what
black people want to be called African American? So what
do we want to be called.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Now, white lady, whatever you say, please let me know.
But that's just the point that things do change. Things
that were once okay are not anymore. And that's okay too.
And I know this whole war against woke is a thing,
and I get that to an extent. We can't go
too far and over corrections. But why is it ever
a bad thing to make sure somebody doesn't feel offended?
(14:52):
If it's within an it's an easy thing to do.
It's not a hard thing to do, now, I get it.
Was an expensive thing to do initially for or the
Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians to have to change
all that you pointed out, logos and marketing and just everything.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
So twenty million I think is reported right.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
So there is a significant cost to that, but the
benefit I think is worth it in the end, because
you don't want to have something or a team that
you're heralding and you want people to be championing and
then have it somehow just polarized folks and make people
feel et cetera, or not included or degraded. That's just
(15:30):
not ever going to be something you want as a
part of sports.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
So all of this, all those decades of this debate,
all those decades of the team having that name, finally
got resolved, we thought, at least in twenty twenty two,
they started competing as the Washington Commander, so they've had
three full seasons. But why when you go back really
to nineteen thirty three with the owner call his team
(15:56):
the Washington our words in the first place. Turns out
it has to do with the Boston Red Sox.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
And welcome back everyone to this edition of Amy and TJ,
where we are talking about.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
Well kind of what Trump wanted us to be talking about.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
But still it's an interesting debate to have whether or
not he has a first of all, the right the
authority to ask team owners from the Washington Redskins the
Cleveland Indians to change their names back to those monikers
I just referenced instead of their newly more appropriate and
less offensive current names of the Washington Commanders and the
(16:45):
Cleveland Guardians. Yes, it takes me a second, but yes,
I want to keep reiterating that these are the new.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Names that came about because they were.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Deemed defensive by Native Americans, and rightfully so.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
For a law long time these debates have been going on.
But that's the one when you argue that everybody has
been most after you have what is it, Florida State,
the Seminoles down there.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
But there's a big butt to that.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
I have relationship the Seminole, like the Indian tribe specifically
gave them permission to use their tribe in their name,
and you know what, that's when it's okay, because yes,
the argument is that there these are ways to honor
(17:33):
the legacy of Native Americans and their fierceness and their
fight and their warrior like mentality, and so of course
it makes sense to have a sports team that's fighting
and it's about physical strength and all of those things.
So so many people argue that it's a compliment to
Native Americans, but the people who are saying it's a
compliment are people who are not Native American. So I
(17:54):
really don't think you get to say. However, when you
do have a group of folks like the Seminole Indians
say it's okay, we're proud that you're using our name,
then yes, great, amazing. You literally got permission from a
group makes it okay.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
And I didn't realize, but the Utah University of Utah,
they are named the Utes yep. I didn't realize their
name prior to the Utes was Redskins, the Utah Redskins.
And then in collaboration with the Ute Indian tribe in Utah,
which the state is actually named after, in collaboration with them,
(18:30):
they got permission to use the name, and they have
a great relationship.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Out there now, and that's amazing.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I also saw the Central Michigan University Chippewas the chipwas
name and imagery approved by the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
So that like, that is the way forward.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
If this tribe says, hey, you have our blessing to
use our name or our imagery to show you are
a fighting, winning team, go for it.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
That's the way to do it.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
And those were specific, right, those were specific to tribes.
Use chipewall, you name seminoles, redskins is like a general term. Right,
You can't ask permission from entire community. And you said,
they say these are tributes. And I have down the
National Congress of American Indians, which is a group the
longest I guess serving a group in the country that
(19:24):
actually represents Native Americans. And to that point, robes about
these being tributes, and I quote, these depictions are not tributes.
They are rooted in racism, cultural appropriation, and intentional ignorance.
Now that's an interesting one, Like we choose to be stupid,
we choose to say, yeah, we're honoring you. Yeah, the
(19:45):
word that seems very dismissive, like we don't want to listen.
You're dismissing the people who have a claim. That's interesting
and I think it's dead on intentional ignorance.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Yeah, that's a really good way to put it.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
And They went on to say, for too long, they
perpetuated harmful stereotypes that degrade, dehumanize, and harm the well
being of Native people using basically, yes, Native Americans as mascots,
so to speak, which oftentimes, you know, look, you've got
your hogs, I've got my dogs. Usually, very often we
(20:18):
see them mascots as animals, as fierce animals in a
lot of ways. And so yes, I didn't think about
it that in that way, that it's dehumanizing, and obviously
it's generalizing, and like the Native Americans might be the
most peaceful pacifist ever, but yeah, they're depicted as being
these warmongers, these savages.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
Yes, the sages' they've been attached to.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
So if yes, we have a mascot the University of Arkansas,
y'all got a dog, Well he's a sweet little thing.
He's not exactly fierce.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
Yeah, but bulldogs, you know, they can be a little
they can be rough. Things are supposed to inside fear.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Imagery of something that can't be tamed, right, Yeah, and
so you need it that way. This makes it pretty clear.
But this next one I was point of you two ropes.
Native people are not mascots. We have our own language, cultures,
and governments. Our identities are not anyone's mascot or costume.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
They say, as well, that is so true.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
I just don't know what argument we can have here.
So why would a guy name his team? This was
interesting history that I didn't know, Robes. But when this
team Washington that we now know is the Washington Commanders.
It was founded in nineteen thirty two in Boston. Didn't
realize that, but they were the Boston Braves of the NFL. Well,
(21:42):
the Boston Red Sox and the Boston Braves of the
Major League Baseball League played at Fenway Stadium. Yes, there
was a Boston Braves football team and a Boston Braves
baseball team that were both in town. The Boston Braves
football team was going to have to start playing at
(22:05):
Fenway some games, so the owner, mister George Preston Marshall,
I believe he's his name, he said, I don't want
to I don't want any confusion with the Boston Braves
baseball team when my Boston Braves football team shows up
to play, So I'm just gonna change the name of
my team. And that is where he landed with this name.
(22:29):
So it was the Braves football team. It was kind
of similar redskin if you will, in that Native American vernacular.
But that is how the team started in the first place,
is because there was another team of the same name,
and the guy needed to mix.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
It up, so he changed it too, the Redskins, Wow.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
The Boston Redskins, and then they moved to DC a
few years later. But that's it really came about because
he needed to distinguish his team from another team was
there that was called the same thing.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
I was a little confused too, because Boston Red Sox,
that's not that is nothing, that has nothing to do
with Native Americans. I started to think I started to
go down that road in my head.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
Oh, I was all. They just happened to have to
all share wow Fenway Park, and he didn't want confusion
between there being a baseball team and a football team
having the same name, so he turned them into the Redskins.
The rest is now history. And then that history rogues
got changed in twenty twenty. Why all the name change
(23:31):
that's been talking about for a long time, but it
really ramped up specifically in May of twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Yes, George Floyd and certainly at that point we started
to rethink about, well, so many things, and how we
refer to people, how we treat people, how we hire people,
how all of those things. There was a there was
an absolute cultural revolution, a race revolution, so to speak.
We had to rethink everything. After the death of George Floyd,
(23:57):
there was an uproar. There was an uprising, and one
had been brewing for a very long time, you.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Know what you say. There was a people were in
a hurry to change things. I wonder if we gave
some things enough thought. And I'm not arguing about whether
or not the name should have been changed for the
Washington team, but swear he died George Floyd in May
of twenty twenty. I think they announced in July of
twenty twenty, Okay, we're going to change the name. That's quick.
(24:24):
I mean, after decade of this debate, that seems like
a rash of rush decision, reacting to a moment. Even
if it was the right decision, was it handled the
right way? The optics of this now it's just.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
I mean, people do point to oftentimes what we've seen
in history is sometimes you have an overcorrection. And we
were talking about black versus white but then everyone starts
looking at every single marginalized community and how can we
do better? How can we be more aware or more
woke in those moments? And so, yes, there was financial
(24:56):
pressure that actually ultimately create the change that we saw.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Yeah, that probably is, But doesn't it always go back
to that?
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Okay, yeah, I think about it now, But still just
that it had to happen that way. And there's a
conversation we're having now about the name and incorporating the
opinions of those who are impacted by that name. Right,
I was enough of that. There wasn't a national conversation.
It wasn't time enough to in a month to do that.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Everyone wanted to look as though they were listening and
they were making changes, and this was a.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
Part of it.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
It's wild to think that that one event sparked so
many reactions from so many people. And yeah, we're still
dealing with the aftermath of all of that now.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
But again, Ken Trump, that's the question, wrong, can Trump
even do this? We don't know.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
You know what's interesting, So I Time magazine actually today
talked about they actually found a quote from President Trump
back in twenty thirteen where he said this our country
has far bigger problems, focus on them, not nonsense, He
tweeted back then it was an x. He said that
(26:16):
Barack Obama should not be telling Washington, DC's NFL team
to change their name. So he was saying when Barack
Obama was urging and suggesting that yes, it was time
to change the name of the Washington Redskins, Trump actually
tweeted that this was nonsense, that we had bigger problems
to focus on in our country.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
And oh the irony.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
Now twelve years later, he is asking the country to
focus on a name change, to rechange a name that
was changed, because that's where he wants to focus now
of our country.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Just wanted to.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Bring up that little fun tweet that was unearthed by
Time magazine today.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
You don't, and he'll make the argument that I didn't
want them to change the name in the first place.
I'm not urging the change the name. I just want
them to go back to what they were.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
I'm sure make America, make make Washington's NFL team great again.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Or racist again, whatever you want to put it. Well, no,
it's it is fascinating, but it is. But folks, please
don't for a moment in any conversation you have about
this use as a defense that the word didn't start
out as a negative word. It doesn't matter how it started,
it's where it is and where we all understand it
(27:27):
is right now. We can't use that or ignorance as
an excuse for what is blatant racism in the eyes
of people who see that word and have lived that life.
So just please don't do that.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Yes, and we always appreciate you listening to us and
always want to hear what you have to say, so
please feel free to let us know. We'd love to
hear you weigh in on this Amy and TJ podcast.
We've got an Instagram page we always put some stuff up,
so feel free to weigh in say what you think
about this and if we should even be talking about
this at this point after a decision has already been made,
(28:03):
but we love to always hear what you think.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
Thank you for listening to us on.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
This Monday, I made me roback on behalf of my
partner t J Holmes.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
Have a great day, everybody,
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Zima
Chris Harrison
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!