September 19, 2013

Here Are the News Orgs That Won’t Name DC’s [Redacted] Football Team

ESPN columnist Rick Reilly [redacted]<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=monDjdXXOU4">nothingbutnets</a>/YouTube, <em>Mother Jones</em>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


ESPN’s Rick Reilly—onetime Sports Illustrated great, 11-time National Sportswriter of the Year, and all-time GIF magnet—doesn’t think Washington, DC’s pro football team should change its name. Why? For starters, there’s this 2004 poll, in which 90 percent of Native Americans surveyed said they didn’t find the name offensive. On top of that, Reilly reports that his father-in-law, a member of the Blackfeet Nation, doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with it, and nor do people at three majority American Indian high schools whose sports teams play under the same name.

But there’s another reason gnawing at Reilly: He doesn’t like that paternalistic white journos are trying to cram change down Americans’—and Native Americans’—throats. As he wrote yesterday:

The 81-year-old Washington Redskins name is falling, and everybody better get out of the way. For the majority of Native Americans who don’t care, we’ll care for them. For the Native Americans who haven’t asked for help, we’re glad to give it to them.

Trust us. We know what’s best. We’ll take this away for your own good, and put up barriers that protect you from ever being harmed again.

Kind of like a reservation.

That’s right: Kind of like a reservation. For a thorough takedown of Reilly’s argument, take a look at this response by The Nation‘s Dave Zirin. (We’re just glad Reilly didn’t write his piece in verse.)

In the meantime, here’s a list of folks who have decided to no longer refer to the Washington [Redacted] by name. We’ll update it as more publications and journalists sign on. 

UPDATE, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2013: In a column for the Indian Country Today Media Network, Rick Reilly’s father-in-law, Bob Burns, says Reilly misquoted him:

You can imagine my dismay when I saw my name and words used to defend the racist Washington Redskins name. My son-in-law, ESPN’s Rick Reilly, completely misunderstood the conversation we had, quoting me as saying “the whole issue is so silly. The name just doesn’t bother me much. It’s an issue that shouldn’t be an issue, not with all the problems we’ve got in this country.”

But that’s not what I said.

What I actually said is that “it’s silly in this day and age that this should even be a battle — if the name offends someone, change it.”

…Let me be clear: The racial slur “redskins” is not okay with me. It’s never going to be okay with me. It’s inappropriate, damaging and racist.

In the memory of our Blackfeet relatives, it’s time to change the name. That would honor us.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate