They haven't announced anything in an official fashion, but TheMMQB.com's Robert Klemko said in a radio interview Thursday that the Peter King's new Sports Illustrated NFL microsite will no longer be referring to Washington's professional football team as the "Redskins."
"I know that our site, we’ve talked about it, and we’re not going to use Redskins in our writing," Klemko said on CBS Sports Radio’s MoJo with Chris Moore and Brian Jones. "We’re going to say ‘Washington football team.' And it’s not something we’re going to publicize or write about. We’re just not going to do it."
If indeed that is implemented, it's probably only a matter of time before other mainstream sports sites like King's began to adopt such policies, regardless of how informal they are. The name, which is blatantly racist and has always been somewhat controversial, has become a lightning rod of late, with local politicians, respected NFL executives and even members of congress urging the team to get with the times and consider making a change.
Earlier this month, Slate announced that it was discontinuing use of the name in its publication, and ESPN's Rob King refused to use the name in a Q&A we posted earlier this week. The comments reacting to this piece I wrote in January indicate the fans are typically on the other side of this argument. It's hard to find anyone in the media willing to support the name, but team owner Daniel Snyder won't budge.
That could eventually change, though, if the businesses that support Snyder and his team begin to reconsider their investments based on the fact the players wear an epithet on their jerseys. Media embargoes like the one The MMQB is apparently adopting could begin to set those wheels in motion.
Should we change the Blackhawks name too? I cant wait till PETA starts this crap about the Cubs, bears. lions, falcons; Seahawks............ Wait...... There is no such animal as a Seahawk........... To bad....... we will bitch anyway.Tall people about the Giants; MLB and NFL. Nordics about the Vikings.........................................................
Can this crap get any sillier?
Is this histarical or what? Honestly. The border heading advertisement reads. Are you really ready for Washington Redskin Football season? Stuff that in your little two bit show. KARMA man KARMA.
Its just a handful of people getting their panties in a knot. P.C. garbage. Does anybody remember when Mississippi voted on changing their state flag because it has a Confederate battle flag on it. From a population of a state where the African American/Black population out numbers any and all combined other nationalities 75% to 25 % voted over 85% to keep its flag the way it is. Its always just a handful of people complaining about some thing they really don't care about. Unless it could help promote their show. If it wasn't for this article I would have never known about this lame duck fiasco they call a sports program. Yes I am part Cherokee Indian.
It's a pretty gross name considering our nation's history of mistreating native Americans. Argue that it's not racist all you want, largely white nay-sayers-- it's gross enough to warrant a name change. I honestly feel the same about any of the names/mascots that reference native Americans, personally.
What it comes down to is this-- does it hurt anyone to change the name? No. Does it hurt anyone to keep it? Obviously, it does. That should be enough of a reason to change it. Not only that, the proposed name change, Redtails, is actually a ridiculously cool team name on all counts.
I'm honestly not interested in discussing some backwards logic on why it isn't racist somehow-- what are the reasons NOT to change it, and why do they trump the feelings of those affected by the terminology?
Political Correctness: A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
I will from now on call them the Redskins no matter what! Interview me? Redskins. Write in a forum Redskins. All fans should do the same! PC is out of control and its time to tell them to go have intercourse with themselves!
My 8-year-old asked me last year, "Redskins??? Why are they called the Redskins?"
If there's not a simple answer to this that you can explain to an eight-year-old--and there isn't--then the name probably sucks. And it does.
Personally I am not offended by the name, but I am not a native Indian either. Perhaps there should be a national poll taken with only native indians able to participate. If those who are being theorized as being offended in fact are, then it's past time to change the name. If not, then let's move on to another subject, like....
How come it's alright to have BET (Black Entertainment Channel) when I'm quite sure it would be squashed in two seconds if someone tried to start up a WET (White Entertainment Channel)? And please don't come back with some stupid porn-related answer because of the the acronym, this is a valid question.
The real question regarding these and similar subjects we debate is: Are we as a society trying too hard to over-compensate for past prejudices and sins and in fact now swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction? For at least two decades now it seems the 'minority voice' has become the directors of the moral compass of society, regardless of whether the subject be about removing God from our schools, promoting gay rights, or removal of perceived derogatory labels.
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principals and, like it or not, believe in them or not, that foundation was the rock that this country was founded on and was once the very fiber of our government and educational system. But that was the past. Now as a nation, the small, disagreeing minority opposed to those principles has pulled those very fibers out of the fabric of this nation, one at a time, until it has become what it is now, an old tattered cloth, barely resembling it's original design or beauty.
Over and over history has shown the fall of many great nations and each the cause has been remarkably similar, the slow removal and disintegration of the very fibers that made those nations great. Sir Edmond Burke's was once quoted, “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." Yet, mankind never seems to learn.
The only reason this is an issue right now is because the Redskins are coming off a successful season and have a franchise QB that will keep them in contention for the long haul. No one cared about this two years ago when the 'Skins were limping along. The PC police need something to jump on to and it is much better to pile on a successful team that is in the news than a team that isn't.
If it was so offensive, why all of sudden are you taking action now. It is not because it is 2013, it is because they are winning. If they under perform this year and next, no one in the media will care. Get off your high horses and focus on more important issues surrounding "This League."
Meantime, will they be cleansing the site of all previous mentions of the R-word?
The term "Redskins" is not "blatantly racist," but merely an archaic term for American Indians, and one that originated with the Indians themselves. A linguist at the Smithsonian Institution has done an illuminating study of the term's provenance. [http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf] It is only in the past generation that dictionaries have listed the term as offensive, and given the perception today that is, the team might wish to consider changing it. However, the term is not, and has not been in the past, inherently pejorative. Those who claim the term is "racist" perhaps should study up on the historic usage of the word. And since, in the current day, the vast majority of people who use the term are doing so in a positive fashion, why should a vocal minority who take offense carry the day? Why not just proclaim it a positive term?
This will blow over like it has before. The media will find something else to write about. And I am willing to bet that if this website stays around, someone will slip and mention the name. And I wonder if they will be called on it.
@tygalpin Does it hurt anyone not to change the name? No. I am so sick and tired of this PC crap. Pretty soon if you let this minority speak for the majority, you will not be able to do or say anything that may hurt someone's "feewwings".
@ncheelsfan Exactly, well said!
Educate your child. That's how you explain it to him. Or just leave it up to the same public school you went too. Well............ maybe not!
@myproxy The Redskins began their history in Boston, MA. It's actually referencing the Boston Tea Party (when the protesters disguised themselves as Indians) and when the team moved to DC, they kept the name. Easy explanation that any child with basic knowledge of American history can understand.
You can read the whole history of the team starting here:
@myproxy I'll take a stab at it. How about, "Redskins is an old word for American Indians going back to the early days of the country. The team took the name because of the Indians' bravery and strength."
You're on your own for Packers, Pirates, Dodgers, Lakers and the Utah Jazz.
Rome fell from the exact reasons we will fall. SOON! Maybe divide the country in to segregated nations. One for Indians. One for the African Americans. One for the Japanese. One for the Chinese. One for the Hindu Indians. One for the Mexicans. One for the yada yada yada! If you don't like something. Turn the channel for goodness sake. People are not happy unless they are pi#$ing and moaning.
@Under_Dog_Lefty "How come it's alright to have BET (Black Entertainment Channel) when I'm quite sure it would be squashed in two seconds if someone tried to start up a WET (White Entertainment Channel)?"
What types of programming would be on White Entertainment Television? What shows would they feature? What type of cultural norms would they reinforce? How does one define "white culture?" What would WET look like?
@Under_Dog_LeftyWow. So much ignorance in so short a time. I'm actually impressed.
@MarkCNSullivan so true...doesn;t matter the Native Americans suffered genocide, not at all relevent that that the team was founded and named by a virulent racist...,heck, there aught to be a German soccer team named Juden Haut (Jew Skins) it's such a non-offensive name..
@MarkCNSullivan @myproxy Packers, because if I'm not mistaken the team was started by the owners of a meat packing facility in Green Bay, The Lakers were originally from Minneapolis, The City of Lakes., it's on our signs and everything. Jazz because they were formerly from New Orleans. That's 3 that i can help demystify for you.
@souvien @MarkCNSullivan Souvien, I gather you didn't bother to read the essay I posted. Anyway, the Redskins began in Boston as the Braves. When they moved to Fenway Park, home of the Red Sox, they became the Redskins -- a way to keep their Indian theme and echo the name of the baseball team with which they shared the park. They did this because Redskins was commonly used as a synonym for American Indian, as a look at contemporary dictionaries and newspaper headlines shows. Whether George Preston Marshall was a racist -- he was, as were many Southerners and other Americans of the age -- has not a single thing to do with the meaning or usage of a word. Redskins, at that time, was not considered a pejorative.
Now, if you are saying that, because of Indians' history of ill treatment, that American culture should not use representations of Indians: well, shouldn't Oklahoma -- meaning Land of the Red Men -- change its name? How about Indiana, meaning Land of the Indians? How about more than half of the 50 states, whose names come from Indian words?
@souvien @MarkCNSullivan Well, actually, the n-word *has* always been used in a pejorative way -- sorry to fall back on etymology, but if you go back to the dictionaries and newspapers of 50-100 years ago, you will see the N-word then was clearly meant and used in an offensive manner -- Whereas Redskin was another word for Indian -- Sitting Bull himself referred to himself as a Red Man.
Again, my take is that Redskin is archaic, James Fenimore Cooper-vintage -- not inherently offensive. I appreciate that some today perceive the term to be offensive, so for PR reasons, at least, the team might wish to consider a name change.
That said, would you oppose changing to another Indian-related name -- say the Potomacs or Powhatans -- to honor the tribes of the Washington and Northern Virginia area? Chiefs from both of those tribes have said they are not offended by the term Redskins, so they likely would not oppose calling the team after their tribes.
Or do you feel that *no* Indian references should be used, given the sorry history of Native Americans in this country? At which point, I again raise the question of references to Indians in popular culture -- which are allowable, and which are not?
@MarkCNSullivan @souvien sorry, etymology is a pretty weak staff...after all the n-word was not originally pejorative. Red, Skins..I appreciate that you and most others do not see the offense...but you seem an educated fellow, so I am gobsmacked as to how you do not grasp the repugnant incongruity of our nation's capitol using that name given our nations shameful treatment of the Native Americans. Red. Skins...Juden. Haut.