Writing Thursday for USA Today’s Packers sub-site, Pete Dougherty of the Green Bay Press-Gazette made the case that the Packers should take a hard look at Adrian Peterson, who’s set to become a free agent next week after 10 mostly stellar seasons for the Minnesota Vikings. He notes that some NFL observers think Peterson still has a few years left in the tank — he turns 32 on March 21 – while others think he’s done after missing most of the 2016 season with a knee injury.
And then there’s the reason he missed all but one game of the 2014 season: The NFL suspended him after he was indicted on child-abuse charges in Texas for beating his 4-year-old son with a switch. Dougherty has some thoughts on that, too:
“As for Peterson, society is changing fast, and obviously for the better, on many things, including disciplining children. I’m 55 and have friends about a generation older who say corporal punishment in school was routine. That’s not that long ago.
“This is learned behavior.
“Peterson, like Vick, paid his penalty. He took a plea bargain in a Texas court and was suspended by the NFL without pay for the final six games of 2014.”
That four-word second paragraph doesn’t seem to track with the rest of what Dougherty wrote, and here’s why: As noticed by a Deadspin reader, it originally contained some other thoughts about why Peterson did what he did:
“Let’s not also forget that Peterson likely is descended from slaves who suffered savage disciplinary beatings generation after generation after generation. It excuses nothing but also can’t be ignored. This is learned behavior.”
So Peterson beat his kid because his lineage comes from likely slaves. Glad that’s all cleared up.
Dougherty’s column was edited to remove the lines in question at some point Thursday evening and an editorial note was added at the top of the column:
“Note to readers: A paragraph in an earlier version of Pete Dougherty’s column that included a reference to Peterson’s punishment of his 4-year-old son being connected to America’s history of slavery was removed. It was poorly reasoned and insensitive. We apologize to all readers who were offended.”
A few people on Twitter tried to explain the problems with Dougherty’s original logic:
“Well, wow,” tweeted Soledad o’Brien.
And this:
“Pete Dougherty is likely descended from slave owners who, ya know, beat and raped their slaves, so … wait, what?” weighed in Larry Rubinow.
(c) 2017, The Washington Post · Matt Bonesteel
