Detroit News Bans Use of 'Redskins' In Football Coverage

Submitted by LS And Play on

The Detroit News will no longer use the term 'Redskins' in its football coverage, "reflecting the growing view that the term is offensive to many Americans." No word on whether the paper will discontinue referring to the state of Oklahoma as such, considering it quite literally means 'red people' in Choctaw.

Link

[Ed-S: Reinstating this thread, but we're gonna be moderating closely. Don't be an asshole no matter how much you think someone else is being an asshole rules in effect.]

RagingBean

June 25th, 2014 at 10:01 PM ^

Anyone arguing in favor of the continued use of this term should go read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee before they say one word more on the topic. Educate yourself.

beevo

June 25th, 2014 at 10:41 PM ^

This might work.   The libs wouldn't be upset as it doesn't denigrate a minority and the conservatives would probably be honored as they generally don't take themselves as serious. 

So, why aren't we upset over the term red-neck, hillbilly or cracker?  I'm sorry, I don't fully understand the PC rules. 

Wolverine Devotee

June 25th, 2014 at 10:15 PM ^

Native names dropped by DI universities over the years

  • Miami (NTM) Redskins became the Miami (NTM) RedHawks
  • Eastern Washington Savages(!) became the Eastern Washington Eagles (best known for their red field)
  • Quinnipiac Braves became the Quinnipiac Bobcats
  • Seattle University Cheiftains became the Seattle Skyhawks. Boo this. The world needs more Chieftains.
  • EMU obviously
  • Arkansas State Indians changed to the Arkansas State Red Wolves not that long ago
  • Both St. John's and UMass dropped their Redmen nickname in favor of Red Storm and Minutement respectively

Just to name a few.

JTrain

June 25th, 2014 at 10:15 PM ^

What next? Probably going to get neg'd to hell and back, but... can we possibly sissify our overly-sensitive society any more??

In reply to by JTrain

BlockM

June 25th, 2014 at 11:05 PM ^

There's a difference between overly sensitive and basic consideration and empathy for another person's heritage and past.

JTrain

June 26th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^

Just don't see the harm. Society is wayyyy to sensitive. Let's move on. Let's puts some time and energy into something more serious. A major world issue perhaps.
I just don't see this as a real "racism" issue.
Next thread please.

Space Coyote

June 26th, 2014 at 3:34 PM ^

There are much bigger issues in this world than the naming of a team "Redskins". Those issues tend to be very complex, deep, and difficult to find genuinely good and positive outcomes for. I think it's a common problem that, as a society, we spend so much time worrying about the low-hanging fruit that only runs surface deep.

There is racism in the name. In my opinion, there are much more rooted problems dealing with racism in our society today that we should be facing and spending more time on than the name "Redskins". That doesn't make the name right. It makes it a simple fix so we can move on to other things. Then we're not spending time worrying about this rather than more complex issues.

And that's why such a minor-world issue should be able to be addressed and dropped and moved on from with one simple, appropriate measure: change the name. 

XM - Mt 1822

June 25th, 2014 at 10:19 PM ^

barons, saxons, friars, kings, are all names we use, rally around, adore if that's your team.  and redskin is used in the exact same CONTEXT.   

otherwise, i hereby appoint myself to represent other under-represented entities, and demand that names like the 'wolverines', badgers, wildcats, longhorns, banana slugs and others be removed from the national lexicon.   now. 

XM - Mt 1822

June 25th, 2014 at 10:38 PM ^

all of those other titles have centuries worth of background as bloody beserkers, raping, piliging, theiving, and all of that.   but we all know that in the context of a sports team, to use the word, for instance, 'knights', is a revered name, a proud name, a name of honor.  i have never, ever, heard of the variations of redskins, indians, braves, chiefs, blackhawks in the context of sports used in any other fashion but fun and good spirits, go-team-go fashion.  

if you waited most or all of your whole lifetime to protest, and if you didn't also sign the petition to ban these other 'offensive' names like knights and green wave, spare us the self-oppression and the manufactured outrage. 

 

p.s. i am the proud father of more children with very dark skin than almost everyone on this mostly lilly-white (enjoyable) blog, one of which children is literally hanging on my arm right now making it difficult to type, so i can take him to bed.

trueblueintexas

June 25th, 2014 at 11:16 PM ^

If your point is that we should not honor those who raped, piliged, etc. Sure, ok. But that is a different discussion than the one taking place in this thread. The primary issue I have seen represented on the board is that Redskin refers to the people who were being killed, not the ones doing the killing. 

LordGrantham

June 25th, 2014 at 10:31 PM ^

It's amazing to me that even on a board where most of the posters are pretty well-educated, there is still so much defense of using a racial slur as the name for a football team.  

This should be a very simple issue.  On one side of the ledger we have 30% of Native Americans who find the term "extremely offensive" according to the most recent polling, and on the other side we have people buying football jerseys and cheering on an NFL team.  This is a no-brainer.

Cope

June 25th, 2014 at 10:34 PM ^

Why has this not been an issue before? For decades of political correctness? I think the most educated argument for keeping it is idiom. I don't really see the term as holding any weight anymore (despite historical implications). For the football team, it's been around so long in only that context that it is accepted into society as idiom and no longer holds any negative power it did in the distant past. Idiom is a pretty powerful linguistic argument; it has allowed many terms or phrases into common use that I grate me teeth at. I think what you're seeing is not an insensitivity to Native Americans, because I think those who want to keep the name would feel differently if they were aware of Native Americans who are offended, such as having personal friends who are. I think it's a backlash against a society that many intuit is picking battles based on political agendas and personal gain (of those who want to lead the witch hunt) and then the group effect that runs differing opinions out of town. I think people are getting fed up with that, with a healthy dosage of desiring the status quo, more than anything specific about Native American insensitivity.

sadeto

June 25th, 2014 at 10:37 PM ^

The first trademark lawsuit was filed more than 20 years ago. I'm not going to blame you for not being aware, we've been sweeping the Native Americans under the rug of collective conscience ever since we stopped massacring them. 

Cope

June 25th, 2014 at 10:46 PM ^

I wasn't aware. And I'm not against changing it. Just trying to identify the feelings behind that perspective. I can't imagine someone picking that name, but I've been slightly put off by how quickly and aggressively political black balling sweeps across society. It almost becomes violent, when no one noticed before.