Washington Post editorial board stops using the word ‘Redskins’(...Huh, you gotta love the IRONY, or do we call it HYPOCRISY, when the WASHINGTON POST will stop using the word REDSKINS, while at the SAME TIME,in the SAME ARTICLE, posting a very large PIC[PHOTO #1] of the REDSKINS LOGO, but remember, it clearly states, ...the word Redskins......clearly theres a DIFFERENCE...) By Annys Shin August 22, 2014 PHOTO #1: The Washington Redskins logo is seen on the field before a game against the New England Patriots in Landover, Md., on Aug. 7. (Alex Brandon/AP) The Washington Post editorial board said Friday that it will stop using the word “Redskins” when referring to Washington’s football team, joining a growing list of commentators who have renounced the term because they believe it disparages Native Americans. In a statement, the board said, “While we wait for the National Football League to catch up with thoughtful opinion and common decency, we have decided that, except when it is essential for clarity or effect, we will no longer use the slur ourselves.” The editorial board is separate from the news-gathering side of the organization, which Executive Editor Martin Baron said will continue to use the team’s moniker. “The Post’s newsroom and the editorial page operate independently of each other,” Baron said. “Standard operating policy in the newsroom has been to use the names that established institutions choose for themselves. That remains our policy, as we continue to vigorously cover controversy over the team’s name and avoid any advocacy role on this subject.” Tony Wyllie, the Redskins’ senior vice president of communications, said the announcement was “no surprise.” “The editorial board has been opposed to the Washington Redskins name for more than 30 years,” he said. “We just wish they would have taken us up on our offer to visit several reservations to see how much Native Americans embrace and value the name and use it as their own logo and mascots across this country.” The team’s owner, Daniel Snyder, has vigorously defended the name, arguing that it honors Native Americans and vowing never to change it. He continues to have the support of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and, more recently, a group of former Redskins players. This week, former Chicago Bears coach and ESPN analyst Mike Ditka called the debate over the name “stupid.” Snyder and the team’s president and general manager, Bruce Allen, learned about the editorial board’s decision Friday during the team’s 53rd annual Welcome Home Luncheon at the Gaylord National Convention Center at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Md. The gathering is a fundraiser to benefit the team’s charitable foundation. Opposition to the name has been percolating since the 1960s, but the campaign against it has taken off in the past year, in large part because of the efforts of the Oneida Indian Nation. In a joint statement, Ray Halbritter, the representative of the New York state tribe, and Jacqueline Pata, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, called the policy change “appropriate and honorable” and said, “Media outlets must decide which side they are on — are they going to continue promoting a racial slur or are they going to stand on the right side of history?” The Post editorial board’s stance against the name predates Snyder’s ownership of the team. It published its first editorial decrying it in 1992 but last used the name of the team in an Aug. 13 editorial. In its statement, the board said: “We don’t believe that fans who are attached to the name have racist feeling or intent, any more than does Mr. Snyder. But the fact remains: The word is insulting. You would not dream of calling anyone a ‘redskin’ to his or her face.” The change in policy does not apply to readers whose letters appear on the editorial pages. Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, said a number of factors contributed to the board’s decision to stop using the name now. In the past, the board’s prevailing view was: “We’re a newspaper. We have to cover the world as it is.” But over time, Hiatt said, that argument could not overcome “our discomfort in using a slur.” He said the board has also been influenced by what he called recent “momentum” against the name, including the decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in June to cancel the team’s trademark registration. The team is appealing the decision, which would not force the franchise to drop the name. The editorial board’s announcement follows many other public condemnations from elected officials, civil rights leaders and clergy members. Prominent sports writers and some Post columnists have stopped using the moniker, along with news organizations ranging from the Seattle Times to the Washington City Paper. The announcement was denounced by some fans. “If I were the team owner, I might change the name, but I would defend Dan Snyder’s right to keep the name and never change it before I would defend the Post’s position to never use it,” Lou Pettey of Bethesda said in an e-mail. Desmond Lee, a lifelong fan who grew up in McLean, Va., said polls show the board is out of step with the overwhelming majority of Americans and Native Americans, who don’t find the name offensive. Even some critics of the name were underwhelmed by the announcement. “You print [the name] in the Sports section thousands of times,” Bethesda native Joshua Gray said. “If you believe the word is a slur, don’t use it.” Liz Clarke contributed to this report. ============================== The Redskins name is defined by more than Racism By Maurice Barksdale 9 hours ago, August 22,2014 I keep hearing opponents of the Washington Redskins name pointing out that the word “Redskin” is a racial slur and how the dictionary defines it as such. But if the word Redskin is only a racial slur then wouldn’t the Redskins be slurring themselves by calling themselves that name? Who would want to slur themselves? If Redskins owner Dan Snyder wanted to slur Native Americans out of hate, then why would he call his team the Redskins? Wouldn’t he call them the “Cowboys”? Yes, for those who live only by what a dictionary says, one of the definitions of the word cowboy is a fighter of Indians. But just like the word cowboy, the word redskin can have more than one definition. And opponents of the name can defy the logic all they want to, but it’s customary for people to name athletic teams after something they admire or aspire to be like. It makes absolutely no sense to name your team after something that you hate or detest. Theres no logic to it. If there was such a desire to slur or offend Native Americans then why were there so many sports teams with Native American centric names? Today in America, Native Americans are admired for many things culturally and one of those things was their fighting spirit in defending their land. Many Native American tribes were known for being great warriors. And the pride and courage they showed in fighting for their land is very admirable and easy to understand for people not just in America but around the world. It’s the simple concept of freedom that so many people can relate to. And I’ll concede that the word Redskin has been, or is used, by some people as a racial slur. But the Washington Redskins and their fans aren’t using the word that way. The Redskins use the name, not to offend anyone, but to emulate the fighting spirit of the great Native American warriors who fought against the white settlers, and yes “politicians” who forced them from their land. I like the fact that the team aspires to the qualities of Native Americans. It’s something to be proud of. Unlike teams that aspire to promote the qualities of pirates and plunderers like the Raiders, Buccaneers, and Vikings. Maybe those politicians in Minnesota who want to ban the word Redskins should look up the word Viking in the dictionary. And then try to explain why that name is PC acceptable, and Redskins isn’t? I would much rather have my team emulate Native Americans than a people best known for raiding and killing like the Vikings. But maybe the perception in this twisted politically correct environment we live in is that the using a particular word is considered by some a worse crime than killing. When I became a Redskins fan as a child, I had no idea the word was a slur. I grew up knowing the word was the name of the team I loved to cheer for. And most Redskins fans don’t use the word as a slur. It means something positive. The team name, colors, and tradition became a way of life for me like many Redskins fans. Only later did I come to learn the word was considered a slur by some. But the fact is as I pointed out before, one word can have multiple meanings to different people. So I don’t care what the dictionary says. When I hear the word Redskins, it doesn’t evoke thoughts in me of racial hatred for Native Americans. Such thoughts wouldn’t even occur to me. When I hear the word Redskins I know what it means to me and it transcends the dictionary answer. I define it as tradition, I define it as admiration for Native Americans, and I define it as the life long love of football. However, some people in this world only want to focus on what divides us. But this is the one fact that those people simply can’t comprehend. Redskins Nation is made up of people of all races including Native Americans. And the word Redskin isn’t tearing those races apart, it’s what brings us together. HTTR!!!
Posted on: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:53:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015