See All Topics

Home / Section: Editorial cartooning

Tom Stiglich equates Redskins logo with Nazism, confederacy imagery

An editorial cartoon by Tom Stiglich that ran in the New York Daily News has caused a bit of a stir for Washington DC residents who say that comparing the Redskins logo to images of the Nazi and Confederate flag is offensive.

Here’s WUSA9.

Community Comments

#1 Jim Lavery
@ 11:59 am

What a shame….no room for the 0bama Logo I guess.

#2 Jim Lavery
@ 12:01 pm

All kidding aside, he shows an immense grasp of history. Who can ever forget when the Washington Redskins invaded Poland?

#3 Carl Moore
@ 4:58 pm

What a great cartoon. So on the mark. When you’re at a Redskins game, the hatred for Native Americans by the fans is so intense it makes your skin crawl.

#4 Jim Lavery
@ 5:39 pm

They should rename them the Washington Crawlskins.

#5 Donald Rex Jr.
@ 9:29 pm

The football team is a tribal stalking horse in my opinion. Easy and regular free publicity for tribal interests.

Laying Native genicide on a sports team, and spinning that into into the equivelant of Nazis or Confederate defense of slavery demonstrate no understanding of these complicated issues. Cartooning masterbation in my opinion Mr. Stiglich for twitter like virilty, but no issue.

#6 Mike Peterson
@ 4:17 am

The use of the swastika is not only a miss but a distraction. Use of the battle flag makes the point that there are people who, either out of insensitivity and ignorance or out of actual racist arrogance, will deny the offensive nature of a symbol.

But, even then, the insensitive and/or racists never see their faces in the warped mirror anyway, so it’s kind of pointless to hold it up to them.

#7 Jim Lavery
@ 6:49 am

It’s just a ruse to look sensitive and compassionate to pick up girls.

#8 Steven Richard
@ 6:14 pm

This is one of the silliest editorial cartoons I think I’ve ever seen. So ridiculous no wonder so many papers are dropping cartoonists from their staffs. Really pathetic.

#9 Keith Brown
@ 6:21 pm

There sure are a lot of opinions swirling around here and I’m willing to bet that not a single one is that of a true native American. I could be wrong. Are there any native Americans in the thread that can render an actual opinion on the subject?

#10 G Louis Johnson
@ 9:34 pm

Hmmm…I wonder if Tom Stiglich the cartoonist is a native American. He seems to have a big megaphone in which to express his opinion. Of course none of the white people on this thread could possibly relate to the Native American. Its not like white people have ever been targets of genocide, racism, stereotyping or “archaic symbols of pride and shouldn’t express an opinion on this issue. Have any Irish, Jews, Italians, Poles, Mormons, Atheists, or Gays expressed an opinion on this issue yet?

As for my opinion, I just wish the Washington Redskins would be a better role model and win some games.

#11 Donald Rex Jr.
@ 1:35 am

Let me just add this about this thread…

#12 Mike Peterson
@ 4:11 am

So only those offended have a right to say something is uncool? Is that the new rule? Because it’s like you are trying to lure someone into a rather obvious example of how absurd that notion is, so that you can invoke Godwin and claim victory.
By the way, I have dealt with tribal historians, sovereignty militants, Indian journalists and educators and a reasonable number of jes’ plain folks, and I’ve never encountered an Indian who used the term “Native American” except to say how stupid they thought it is. In what-we-call-Canada, “First Nations” is fine. On this side of the white man’s border, “Indian” is preferred.

And nobody I have ever met who has a logical claim to be an Indian wants to be called a “Redskin.” But until they form a majority, and unless they speak for themselves, I guess the dumb jokes and condescending wisecracks will continue.

#13 Keith Brown
@ 5:45 am

I never meant to suggest that only those who are offended could render an opinion on the subject. What I meant is that I would like to hear the opinion of those in which this cartoon is meant to represent and I suspect none where in this particular discussion. In short, don’t ask me, ask an “Indian”.

#14 Mark Juhl
@ 8:56 am

A couple thoughts, I grew up in an area where most of the cities and lakes were named after Indian tribes or individual Indians, should all those names be changed? How about the “Apache” attack helicopter, I guess we’d better change that to.

Secondly, the swastika was coopted by the Nazis. Before they decided to use it , it meant’ something quite different. There’s a local bridge built around 1904 that is decorated with dozens of swastika’s carved into the concrete. While a modern curiosity the small bridge would have to be destroyed to get rid of the symbols. Should that be done?

#15 Keith Brown
@ 9:08 am

Chris Rock did a hilarious bit on this very subject. I guess the question is: Do we have the ability anymore to be empathetic with those in which the name describes?
What about those who may still be offended by the confederate flag?
If we cannot personally relate to those who feel the sting of these symbols, do we have the ability to empathize with their feelings? Do we even have the ability to try?

#16 Joe Engesser
@ 10:32 pm

‘Nazi Rebskins’?

#17 JW Wills
@ 10:26 am

They should be renamed the WASHINGTON FORESKINS in recognition of all the dicks in DC.

#18 Richard Crowson
@ 8:04 pm

As editorial cartoons go, this one is lame. As comments go, these are even lamer. Good grief. Is this what we’ve come to? Roll over, Jeff MacNelly, and tell Doug Marlette the news.

#19 Mike Lester
@ 9:22 am

There’s an excess at work not only in this “cartoon” but throughout media and America. (Miley Cyrus is no accident.)
But Mr. Stiglich can relax. His shark was just jumped:,34292/

#20 Paul Fell
@ 7:44 pm

If you want to see the best damn cartoon about Washington’s “Redskins” mascot logo, do a google search and dig out Milt Priggee’s great take on this subject from some 20 years ago. It’ll blow your socks off and is even more timely today.

#21 Paul Fell
@ 7:55 pm

My apologies. The version you’ll see that Milt created recently is a toned down version of his cartoon of years back. You’ll have to do your own research to find the original version.

Guess it was too true to the mark to share with the current crop of “sensitive new age guys”. Too bad we have such gutless, miserable wimps in charge of newspapers and their web sites that we can no longer have hard-hitting, truthful cartoons. God forbid the general public might get something to actually discuss beyond “news of the stars”, which passes for news these days.

#22 Stacy Curtis
@ 10:33 pm

Paul, is this the cartoon you’re referring to:

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.