Slate: Why We're Ditching Use of 'Redskins'
Website joins critics boycotting NFL name
By John Johnson,  Newser Staff
Posted Aug 8, 2013 10:12 AM CDT
The Washington Redskins logo.   (AP Photo/Nick Wass, File)

(Newser) – After today, you'll still see the occasional article about Washington's NFL team at Slate, but that article will no longer use the word "Redskins." As David Plotz explains, the site is joining those who avoid the term out of sensitivity to Native Americans. Plotz runs through the controversy surrounding the name—owner Daniel Snyder is adamant about keeping it, while critics, including some in Congress call it an embarrassment—and concludes it should go. It may not be as heinous as its worst critics say, but it's bad enough.

"While the name Redskins is only a bit offensive, it’s extremely tacky and dated—like an old aunt who still talks about 'colored people' or limps her wrist to suggest someone’s gay," Plotz writes. He doesn't expect Slate's stance to change the world, or Snyder's mind, but Plotz hopes bigger players such as the Washington Post or ESPN might come on board to pressure the owner. Think of it this way, he suggests: "Would any team, naming itself today, choose 'Redskins' or adopt the team’s Indian-head logo? Of course it wouldn’t." Click for the full column.
 

My Take on This Story
Show results without voting  |  
4%
4%
1%
29%
1%
61%