Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 04, 2014

The New York Daily News, the fifth largest newspaper in the U.S., will no longer use the Washington Redskins' mascot or logo in any of its sports coverage. "[T]he Redskins name is a throwback to a vanished era of perniciously casual racial attitudes," the paper "No new franchise would consider adopting a name based on pigmentation -- Whiteskins, Blackskins, Yellowskins or Redskins -- today. The time has come to leave the word behind."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

The paper continues, "Here's a simple test of whether Redskin passes muster: Would you use the term in referring to Native Americans in anything other than a derogatory way? The answer, of course, is no. ...

"The News will publish the term Redskin in reader letters about the controversy and in quotations in stories about the controversy when a full quotation seems particularly relevant.

"Otherwise, the name will not appear in the newspaper."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Whaaa! The world isn't like it used to be! Damn liberal conspiracies won't let me be oppressive or offensive to ANYONE anymore!"

-grumpy old white men, terrified by things that remind them of their own mortality.

#1 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-09-04 05:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Most Washington fans already shorten the moniker to 'skins anyway. Why not just call them the Washington Skins, keep the colors and replace the Indian logo with a football (pigskin)? They already self-adopted the Hogs in the 1980's and many continue to dress as pigs at home games today.

Of course, it's too simple to catch on....

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-09-04 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good move by the Daily News.

I wonder if a side effect of the controversy will be for the media and fans to refer to NFL teams more by their place name and less by mascot. Becoming a fan of British soccer has gotten me used to that approach, where mascots are almost all used far less often.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

NFL teams more by their place name and less by mascot. - Rcade

Doesn't allow the NFL to just pickup and move......

As commercial as the US is, I find NFL, NBA, and MLB to be wonderful interms of not having corporate logos on their uniforms.

Removing the mascot from the team, leads to the commercialization of the uniform.
ei.marketwatch.com

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-09-04 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

When will Notre Dame drop the offensive name of "Fighting Irish?"

#5 | Posted by SaintFinnbarr at 2014-09-04 05:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

When will Notre Dame drop the offensive name of "Fighting Irish?"

#5 | POSTED BY SAINTFINNBARR

When are they going to go after the Detroit Red Wings.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-09-04 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

" will be for the media and fans to refer to NFL teams more by their place name"

Like New York? Errr......

Or with baseball, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago......

Yeah, that's the ticket.

#7 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-09-04 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Removing the mascot from the team, leads to the commercialization of the uniform.

The uniform already is somewhat commercialized with sports companies like Nike and Riddell branded on them.

The thing they'd be most likely to sell for corporate logos -- the front of jerseys above the numbers -- doesn't have anything on it today related to mascots.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Like New York? Errr...

Obviously it wouldn't work in cities with multiple teams. But most teams in U.S. pro sports don't have that issue.

#9 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

When will Notre Dame drop the offensive name of "Fighting Irish?"

When people of Irish heritage in great numbers say it is offensive to them.

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe they should change their name to the Rednecks.

Even though lefties use the term as a pejorative, they'd have no problem with it as a team logo.

With the left it's perfectly acceptable, even laud-worthy, to be offensive toward certain classes of people.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-09-04 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's weird you think "rednecks" is an insult only used by the left. I grew up in Republican Dallas and heard the term applied plenty of times to describe people who were from the country.

It also wasn't racial. Blacks from the sticks could be called it just as easily as whites.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

A nationwide contest to pick or predict the new name, would provide million$ in free publicity for the team. Facebook, the Drudge-Retort-Report and the TV networks would give them plenty of free advertising.

#13 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-09-04 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

It also wasn't racial. Blacks from the sticks could be called it just as easily as whites.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nonsense. That's like saying whites from the hood could be called ni$$er. I have lived "down south" in many states since 88 - NEVER have heard any black person from the sticks or from "down on the farm" referred to as a redneck. Bloviate and equivocate some more.

#14 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-09-04 07:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Oklahoma - the most racist state name in the nation. Where is the outrage at their name? It should be removed from all maps, and I would hope that the NY rag would never print it's name again either.

Stupid liberals taking their ball and going home as usual.

#15 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-09-04 07:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nonsense.

I've lived in the south 46 out of my 47 years. I've heard it used to describe blacks too, both insultingly and as a positive self-identifier for people proud of being from the country.

Redneck started as a white insult, but it often gets used the same as hick, hayseed, bumpkin and yokel. None of which is race specific.

Look at Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might be a Redneck" jokes and tell me how many of them are about one race instead of about country people?

www.countryhumor.com

#16 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe they should change their name to the Rednecks.

Even though lefties use the term as a pejorative, they'd have no problem with it as a team logo.

With the left it's perfectly acceptable, even laud-worthy, to be offensive toward certain classes of people.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ

Another republican who can't understand the difference between how you're BORN, and how you BEHAVE.

It is wrong to discriminate against or mock anyone for their inborn traits. However how they live their lives is fair game because it's by choice and it's something they could change if they wanted to.

I don't know why this one is so hard for you to grasp.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-09-04 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's like saying whites from the hood could be called n-----.

Funny you should mention that. Young people of all races are calling each other the -a form of that word. It's all over Twitter. I find it absurd but it's commonplace.

Language changes.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

....and no dancing in the end zone either. Political correct party pooping is here to stay.

#19 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-09-04 10:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think people should drop this nameless newspaper and not speak of them ever again.
They are nobodies from nowhere and deserve to be forgotten.

#20 | Posted by keener80388 at 2014-09-05 12:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

As commercial as the US is, I find NFL, NBA, and MLB to be wonderful interms of not having corporate logos on their uniforms.

Removing the mascot from the team, leads to the commercialization of the uniform.
ei.marketwatch.com
#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Nike swooshes, etc. are all over them. They're small. But they are there.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-05 01:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here s the real test go talk to the Indians and see if they say its ok.

No wait they did that Test passed.................

No one but liberals dislike it Indians support the name

#23 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-09-05 08:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Its a stunt to get press for another failing newspaper. Basically the net has killed off these papers.

Cancel your membership and switch to a real news source.

#24 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-09-05 08:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Let's stir up a problem where none exists. Good job.

#25 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-09-05 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

the -a form of that word. It's all over Twitter. I find it absurd but it's commonplace.

Language changes.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-04 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Apples to oranges - is there an "a" form of redneck? I referred to the original "n" word.

#26 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-09-05 09:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is obviously time. This has been a movement for quite some time and it seems to have gathered steam every year. Now, it is the majority opinion that the name is offensive, and that is all it takes to deem something offensive verbally: for a majority to oppose it.

#27 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-09-05 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now, it is the majority opinion that the name is offensive, and that is all it takes to deem something offensive verbally: for a majority to oppose it.

#27 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-09-05 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obummer has a 37% approval rating - can we now consider him "offensive"? The majority opinion - as so often pointed out by lefties on the DR - is not always the "right" one.

What about Oklahoma Kan? Should we ban that name?

#28 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-09-05 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Swing and a miss. We are talking "verbally" and "offensive."

of·fen·sive
adjective
1.
causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry.

So trying to score some stupid political point is rather sad and shows how badly you understood my point.

#29 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-09-05 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

What about snifflelywhizzlefoo, should we ban that too?

Sincerely,

Every person who is somehow bothered by this but can't defend the name "Redskin" on its own merit

#30 | Posted by Sully at 2014-09-05 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

WOW! This is really going to kill ticket sales! I bet the billionaire owner is really really concerned! Five whole papers and a few tv commentators have vowed not to use the name. Oh my!

#31 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-09-05 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

And if you choose to say "the President" instead of "Obama," that is your choice.

You can start a movement and, like this one, in about 20 or 30 years, you can get the word "Obama" deemed offensive too.

Get started on that.

#32 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-09-05 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Apples to oranges - is there an "a" form of redneck?

A lot of people proudly call themselves rednecks. I'm related to some.

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-05 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

A lot of people proudly call themselves rednecks. I'm related to some.

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-05 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Again - same word same meaning. It is known and "accepted" that the "a" version is an acceptable word amongst blacks but cannot be used by non-blacks. "redneck" doesn't have a similar version - it's redneck or redneck - no "a" version for use amongst rednecks which would be deemed not offensive if used by non-rednecks to describe rednecks.

It's a silly discussion - either a slur is a slur for all, or you once again purposefully divide based on race - you can't have it both ways - either all races in the US are "the same" for everything or they are not. Otherwise you have to be willing to accept that certain races have customs/physical or mental traits that are positive or negative on society simply because of race.

#34 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-09-05 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.annenbergpublicpolicycente
r.org

Eight percent of men and 9
percent of women said the name was offensive, wh
ile 90 percent of each sex said it did not bother
them. Ten percent of Indians under 45 found the name offensive, compared to 8 percent of those
45 and older.

#35 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-09-05 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Did you see the date of that release E Plur?

September 24, 2004

#36 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-09-05 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

What became of Goatman? Goats are offended....

#37 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-09-05 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Redneck started as a white insult,..."

No it didn't! I'm shocked. I guess you don't know everything after all, RCade.

"Supporters of King William were known as "Orangemen" and "Billy Boys" and their North American counterparts were soon referred to as "hillbillies". It is interesting to note that a traditional song of the Glasgow Rangers football club today begins with the line, "Hurrah! Hurrah! We are the Billy Boys!"

"The origins of this term Redneck are Scottish and refer to supporters of the National Covenant and The Solemn League and Covenant, or "Covenanters", largely Lowland Presbyterians, many of whom would flee Scotland for Ulster (Northern Ireland) during persecutions by the British Crown....
Many Covenanters signed in their own blood and wore red pieces of cloth around their necks as distinctive insignia; hence the term "Red neck", (rednecks) which became slang for a Scottish dissenter*."

#38 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-05 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

redneck (n.) Look up redneck at Dictionary.com
"cracker," attested 1830 in a specialized sense ("This may be ascribed to the Red Necks, a name bestowed upon the Presbyterians in Fayetteville" -- Ann Royall, "Southern Tour I," p.148), from red (adj.1) + neck (n.). According to various theories, red perhaps from anger, or from pellagra, but most likely from mule farmers' outdoors labor in the sun, wearing a shirt and straw hat, with the neck exposed. Compare redshanks, old derogatory name for Scots Highlanders and Celtic Irish (1540s), from their going bare-legged.

It turns up again in an American context in 1904, again from Fayetteville, in a list of dialect words, meaning this time "an uncouth countryman" ["Dialect Notes," American Dialect Society, Vol. II, Part VI, 1904], but seems not to have been in widespread use in the U.S. before c.1915. In the meantime, it was used from c.1894 in South Africa (translating Dutch Roinek) as an insulting Boer name for "an Englishman."
www.etymonline.com

#39 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-09-05 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Language changes."

Yeah...and it gets corrupted a lot of the time too. Muslim terrorism gets changed to "workplace violence," foreign wars get changed to "overseas contingencies," and other frivolous PC BS. However, I still go by "hillbilly" even though by the new PC name I'm an Appalachian-American and having been born here I also claim Native-American. I used to claim I saw myself a "gay" person but now, as a heterosexual, I avoid that and describe myself as a "merry" sort. I'm kinda old, you see, and all this changing meanings of words screws me up.

#40 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-05 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is known and "accepted" that the "a" version is an acceptable word amongst blacks but cannot be used by non-blacks.

White kids are calling each other that word all the time. Just look at Twitter.

#41 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-05 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Compare redshanks, old derogatory name for Scots Highlanders and Celtic Irish (1540s), from their going bare-legged."

Interesting, but redshanks and rednecks two different things. The origin of "redneck" definitely goes back to the early 1600's and as a dissenter my ancestor was a "redneck" and was exiled to arrive in Jamestown in the Virginia colony in May, 1638.

"The Covenanters of 1638 and 1641 signed the documents which stated that Scotland desired the Presbyterian form of church government and would not accept the Church of England as its official state church. Many Covenanters signed in their own blood and wore red pieces of cloth around their necks as distinctive insignia; hence the term "Red neck", which became slang for a Scottish dissenter."

Like many words whose origins have been lost, it has turned out to mean something entirely different nowadays.

#42 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-05 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Like many words whose origins have been lost, it has turned out to mean something entirely different nowadays.

#42 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG AT 2014-09-05 11:59 AM

Seems connotation trumps denotation in the world today. If enough people misuse a word, that becomes what it means by default rather than expecting people to actually learn what a word means.

#43 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-09-05 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is why so many people say "irregardless." Hell, spellcheck didn't even alert me it isn't a word and it has told me "spellcheck" is wrong.

#44 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-09-05 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

A lot of people proudly call themselves rednecks. I'm related to some.

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-05 10:38 AM

Believe him people. I've met one of them.

#45 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-09-05 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Seems connotation trumps denotation in the world today."

Absolutely...and I marvel at all the confusion if causes so often.

"If enough people misuse a word, that becomes what it means by default rather than expecting people to actually learn what a word means."

Ditto...and that's why I totally avoid use of the word, "niggardly."

'It is why so many people say "irregardless."

My new pet peeve is the use of "more importantly." "Importantly" is an adverb and should be used to describe a verb, an action. I hate it when, for instance, a news jockey states something like, "So-and-so is a writer but more importantly, he has a TV show." It might be more important that he has a show, but there's no adverb or action being described.

#46 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-05 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...but there's no adverb or action being described."

No VERB or action being described.....

#47 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-05 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation, grew up when Navajo children were forced into boarding schools to disconnect them from their culture. Some were punished for speaking their native language. Today, he sees environmental issues as the biggest threat to his people.

The high school football team in his district is the Red Mesa Redskins.

washington.cbslocal.com

"We just don't think that (name) is an issue," Yazzie said. "There are more important things like busing our kids to school, the water settlement, the land quality, the air that surrounds us. Those are issues we can take sides on."

"Society, they think it's more derogatory because of the recent discussions," Yazzie said. "In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you've got -- your skin. I don't see it as derogatory."

Neither does Eunice Davidson, a Dakota Sioux who lives on the Spirit Lake reservation in North Dakota. "It more or less shows that they approve of our history," she said.

North Dakota was the scene of a similar controversy over the state university's Fighting Sioux nickname. It was decisively scrapped in a 2012 statewide vote -- after the Spirit Lake reservation voted in 2010 to keep it.

Davidson said that if she could speak to Dan Snyder, the Washington team owner who has vowed never to change the name, "I would say I stand with him . we don't want our history to be forgotten."

#48 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-09-05 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

The USA media and PC police in action destroying equality for most while dividing us as a nation.

#49 | Posted by Robson at 2014-09-05 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

The corrupt corporate media wants total control of the agenda and is intent on dividing us as a nation, while introducing multi-culturalism and PC as their claim to fix. Americans need to wake up if only for 30 minutes a day.

The media has a plan, and it is taking over our rights and our freedoms and politics, so that their ilk have all the power.

#50 | Posted by Robson at 2014-09-05 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Among its other meanings the pejorative "Redskins" was used to describe Native American corpses bounty hunters brought in.

Whatever meaning anyone not of that race ascribe to the pejorative 'redskin', all of them are insulting to Native Americans.

#51 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-09-05 07:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Until wealthy elites on Wall Street that have control of our media demographically represent most Americans, we do and will end up with a racist oligarchy that defends and supports only their own kind, instead of all Americans.

Racism is about actions and not mundane politically incorrect statements that the media can then use to hype. Be a thought leader instead of a thought follower.

#52 | Posted by Robson at 2014-09-05 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

BFD - Jes' Sayin'

#53 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-09-05 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Racism is about actions and not mundane politically incorrect statements that the media can then use to hype.
#52 | POSTED BY ROBSON AT 2014-09-05 07:44 PM | FLAG:

Statements ARE actions.

"Words are never only words, for they define the boundaries of what we can do." Slavoj Zizek

#54 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2014-09-05 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Too many people are getting to be thin skinned people always looking for something to complain about.

They believe words that are not intended to be hurtful are on the same level as having actual hatred directed at you just because of who you are.

Instead of being an offensive society, we're becoming an offended society. A bunch of whining spoiled emotionally weak crybabies.

Get a life.

#55 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-09-06 08:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

If Native Americans would look at things differently, they could see that the name Redskins as a team name is not intended to insult them.

It is meant to be show strength and pride in this particular case.

How sad they are throwing away an opportunity to make sure America remembers the Indian heritage that existed here before anyone else.

The symbol of an Indian Chief.

It's a shame to throw that away too.

Then again, maybe I just look at some things differently than other people. We can't always go through life defining who we are by looking at the past.

Of course, I'm not Native American so I can't understand the whole thing, but I wasn't brought in the culture to see the word Redskin as meaning anything negative. Most of us today don't see the word Redskin the same way as people 100 years ago.

Some words are certainly hurtful. In this particular case, I just don't see it.

#56 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-09-06 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

My ignorance. I don't believe the symbol is a chief but still it's a honorable symbol of pride.

#57 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-09-06 09:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

They won't use the name redskins? Yet every time an article is written about it the name redskins is used and fully written. Unlike the N-Word which from the beginning was used as a slur the name redskins was and has never been used that way. I have heard the N-Word thousands of times in my life used to slur black people and never once have I heard the word Redskins used that way. In fact other than a cowboy movie have I ever heard anyone desparage an Indian in my life.

No this is a liberal invention meant to tarnish people who oppose them changing it. In fact the earliest known written use of the term is by an Indian speaking in front of congress.

If liberals would spend their time trying to feed hungry children with their own money then they wouldn't have time to invent false issues. Polls show no one gives a damn about this and for good reason.

#58 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-09-06 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Also, why isn't anyone complaining about the Atlanta Braves logo?

A tomahawk?

Talk about putting Native Americans in a bad light?

By today's standards, they were barbaric people.

Tomahawk imagines only serve to remind us how savage many Indian cultures were.

But that's ok.

Heaven forbid we use an old antiqued word.

I tend to agree with MCM. The "redskin" debate probably is being pushed by liberals who fancy themselves the standard bearers of morality when, from my perspective, I see them mostly as shallow and lacking any sort of theme or consistency.

I certainly believe liberals are more behind the gay marriage push than even gays themselves who, from what I've read, many could care less about getting married.

From the polls I've read, there seems to be little support for changing the Redskins name. Why am I not surprised?

#59 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-09-07 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort