Ravenwood - 01/12/06 06:45 AM
Washington is playing Washington this weekend in the divisional football playoffs. Countertop reports that Seattle reporters have been told that the Redskins Moniker will be verboten, lest they risk offending Native American Indians.
CHEAP SHOTS: To avoid insulting native American heritage, the Seattle Times decided to limit severely the use of the term Redskins in the paper -- even if a team with that name will dominate news coverage this week. The Times will not use the moniker in headlines or captions. Reporters can use it only once, as a first reference, in all stories. The Redskins will be referred to almost exclusively as Washington -- which could get a little confusing for local readers who also live in that state.And the push to ban Native Americans marches onward.
Category: Sports
Comments (8) top link me
I generally agree that this Native American portion of PC run amok is ridiculous. However, I do think that "Redskins" is well over the line.
If we had named a team the Detroit Niggers back when that name was common usage, it would have been changed years ago. Redskin is everybit as offensive. It is not the name of a tribe, or a generic term like "Warrior" of "Chief." It is a racial slur. It doesn't help that D.C. has absolutely no ties to any Native American tribe (other than being the source of many of the bad decisions regarding them).
D.C. should change its team name to something more appropriate for the city. Perhaps the Washington Crack-heads or the Crooked Tax and Spend Politicians.
Posted by: Nick Bourbaki at January 12, 2006 9:00 AMNick,
That's a bunch of horseshit. There are high schools on Indian Reservations that still use the Redskin mascot. And the Washington Redskins moved to D.C. from Boston.
Posted by: Ravenwood at January 12, 2006 9:40 AMSomeday when I'm rich I'm going to buy a baseball team and call them the Palefaces.
This would really be just for fun, you see, as something tells me that my protesters would just bitch about our mascot discriminating against other races...
Posted by: roger at January 12, 2006 10:16 AMIt doesn't help that D.C. has absolutely no ties to any Native American tribe (other than being the source of many of the bad decisions regarding them).
Nick,
Thats about as fucking insulting and full of horshit a comment as I've read in a long time.
What about the:
Powhatan
Algonquian
Siouan
Monacan
Mannahoac
Accohannock
Lenni Lenape
Susquehannock (From Maryland and who being natural enemies of the Powhatan of Virginia I have listed as far apart as possible).
Speaking of which, where exactly do you think the names Chesapeake (as in that little bay) and Potomac and Anacostia come from?
While I am on this topic, I ought to add two more local Tribes to the list - the Necostan and Anacostans.
Posted by: countertop at January 12, 2006 10:56 AMI think it is disgusting that any organization would use American Indians as a role model and positive symbol.
Posted by: mikem at January 12, 2006 2:56 PMThe Cleveland Browns were named for the African race. (When the team was formed, they had a fan contest to name it. The winner came up with "Browns" becasue he was a fan of boxer Joe Louis, "the Brown Bomber," referring to his race. Many people assume they were named for their first coach, Paul Brown, but that is incorrect.)
ONE LITTLE TWO LITTLE THREE LITTLE INDIANS,FOUR LITTLE FIVE LITTLE SIX LITTLE INDIANS SEVEN LITTLE EIGHT LITTLE NINE LITTLE INDIANS TEN LITTLE INDIAN BOYS
Posted by: sandpiper at January 17, 2006 10:34 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
