Fireable offense for Rick Reilly?

[Baron Scicluna]

I'm guessing the difference is that Blackfeet is a name they chose themselves.

And it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. It's because they painted their moccasins black.

The Redskins name comes from when they were originally up in Boston and shared the Braves nickname, back when NFL teams did that sort of thing (Giants, Pirates to Steelers, Senators, Indians, Reds). Marshall changed it to keep the Indian connotation, but to something different.

Which really should mean that if the Redskins have to change their name, then the Braves should too. Yet, even though there is some pressure on the Atlanta organization, there doesn't seem to be the same level of it. Maybe part of that is because the Redskins are based in the nation's capital, but it still seems a little strange.

 

[Steak Snabler]

FYI, I was talking about the group of people choosing their own name, not the teams.

 

[H.L. Mencken]

Was it a fireable offense when Deadspin completely ****ed up their "Johnny Manziel ain't that rich" story because they completely misinterpreted Texas legal documents and then built an entire false premise around that story to fit into a "Dur! Media sux!" narrative?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Why am I to all of a sudden believe the father-in-law, especially when Reilly knew this piece would get good play, considering it's a hot-button issue? My gut feeling is the father-in-law got some **** over it and changed his tune. I know he's not loved here, but Reilly is too good and too seasoned to pull this kind of crap.

I agree.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

This should be Reilly's next tweet.

My father-in-law is looking forward to his next steak with me. If he opens his mouth to the media again, he will be put in a home, one like the ones they do exposes on on 60 Minutes. #Dont****withmeoldman

 

[Double J]

I'm guessing the difference is that Blackfeet is a name they chose themselves.

And it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. It's because they painted their moccasins black.

The Redskins name comes from when they were originally up in Boston and shared the Braves nickname, back when NFL teams did that sort of thing (Giants, Pirates to Steelers, Senators, Indians, Reds). Marshall changed it to keep the Indian connotation, but to something different.

Well, now that neither the football team nor the baseball team are still in their original city, maybe the Redskins should become the Braves. Wouldn't have to change the logo or anything else.

 

[da man]

Maybe not a fireable offense, but could pissing off your father-in-law be a divorceable offense?

 

[Double J]

Maybe not a fireable offense, but could pissing off your father-in-law be a divorceable offense?

Carter Pewterschmidt says yes.

 

[SnarkShark]

Burns closes by saying, "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."

So, Redskins bad. Bad!

And Blackfeet ... Good?

Should the Redskins change their name to Blackfeet?

That wouldn't offend anyone, would it? Holy ****, I haz a confuse ...

I can't believe you thought posting this was a good idea...

A quick Google search would have sent you here: http://www.bigorrin.org/blackfoot_kids.htm

Is the name of the tribe "Blackfoot" or "Blackfeet"? Where did this name come from?
"Blackfoot" is the English translation of the word siksika, which means "black foot." It refers to the dark colored moccasins the people wear. Some Blackfoot people are annoyed by the plural "Blackfeet," which is obviously an anglicization. But most Blackfoot people accept both terms. "Blackfoot" is more commonly used in Canada, and "Blackfeet" is more commonly used in the United States.

I'm pretty sure people get more offended about a slur based on the color of their skin, rather than something they choose to call themselves based on their footwear.

 

[Tarheel316]

Maybe not a fireable offense, but could pissing off your father-in-law be a divorceable offense?

Carter Pewterschmidt says yes.

Nicely played!

 

[exmediahack]

If my daughter grows up to marry a guy still pulling in a million dollars a year 20 years after his career peaked, he can misquote me all he wants.

 

[Stoney]

Why am I to all of a sudden believe the father-in-law, especially when Reilly knew this piece would get good play, considering it's a hot-button issue? My gut feeling is the father-in-law got some **** over it and changed his tune. I know he's not loved here, but Reilly is too good and too seasoned to pull this kind of crap.

This was also my thought when reading that. The scenario that sounds more plausible to me is father in law changing his tune after he realized he'd put his foot in his mouth and was taking heat and getting Uncle Tom allegations for it. I'm no Reilly fan, but I've difficulty believing he'd SO egregiously misquote someone (much less his father in law) to this extent.

 

[BillyT]

Why am I to all of a sudden believe the father-in-law, especially when Reilly knew this piece would get good play, considering it's a hot-button issue? My gut feeling is the father-in-law got some **** over it and changed his tune. I know he's not loved here, but Reilly is too good and too seasoned to pull this kind of crap.

Because we are talking about Rick Reilly who everyone either hates or is insanely jealous of.