Volume > Issue > Note List > Redskins in Indiana?

Redskins in Indiana?

Many sports sections in newspapers across America have a ban on referring to the Cleveland baseball team as the “Indians” and the Washington football team as the “Redskins,” etc. So reported the National Weekly Edition of The Washington Times (June 9-15).

We admit that we don’t give much attention to American Indian issues. After all, we’re not an “ethnic studies” magazine. Still, once in a while we’ve given a side glance to Americana-Indiana (Jul.-Aug. 1999, pp. 16-17; Sept. 2002, pp. 25-27).

Anyhow, the story in The Washington Times was about how the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which has banned Indian sports mascots from its pages for nine years, has reversed its policy.

Well, sort of. While the Star Tribune will now actually print Washington Redskins, it will not allow the shortened version of Redskins, which is Skins. How odd! We thought the supposedly offensive part was Red, not skins. Go figure.

Well, at least a small step forward has been taken on behalf of free speech.

Enjoyed reading this?

READ MORE! REGISTER TODAY

SUBSCRIBE

You May Also Enjoy

When the "Shorter Form" Is The Politically Correct Form

Scripture is censored in the Parable of the Talents, where the "wicked, lazy servant" is sent "where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth."

You Can Say That?

China could well be poised to inherit the earth that the U.S. once commanded — especially if our comparative student bodies are any indication.

Charles Dickens's 'A Happy Holidays Song'

What advice would a politically correct contemporary American publisher give to Charles Dickens regarding A Christmas Carol?