Skip to content

Indigenous Americans football squad forces Washington Post to re-name blog

NFL Owners Meet To Discuss Status Of Contract Negotiations Getty Images

The professional football organization in Washington continues to focus on the important things.

When they aren’t suing a tiny local paper, the team is ordering the Washington Post to change the name of their popular football blog.  Dan Steinberg of DC Sports Bog points out an article in the Post on Tuesday that explains why.

“The Redskins, who have been at the forefront in creating their own multimedia operations, have been aggressive in policing the use and misuse of their ‘brand’ by others,” Paul Farhi writes.

To that end, they no longer allow local sports highlight shows on television or radio to use the team name unless its authorized.   Recently, they took that one step further.

“The Redskins recently asked the Washington Post to rename the newspaper’s video webcast and blog about the team, which was called ‘Redskins Insider,’” Fahri notes.  (The blog has since been retitled “Football Insider.”)

After consulting with our legal team, we’ve determined that we will only mention the team’s name from now on when quoting from other sources.

Otherwise, we will refer to the team as the Washington Indigenous Americans.  Or perhaps the Washington Free Agent Mistakes.

Unless you guys have any better ideas.

UPDATE I: From venerable Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writer Ed Bouchette: “The late Myron Cope called them the Red Faces on broadcast in Pgh. Snyder asked him to stop and Cope said it more often.”

Love that.

UPDATE II: Mike Silver suggests “The Foreskins.”  Edgy, yet less offensive than the current name.  It has a chance.

Permalink 91 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
91 Responses to “Indigenous Americans football squad forces Washington Post to re-name blog”
  1. nyjalleffingday says: Mar 15, 2011 2:42 PM

    In before Hobart.

  2. jsbrasha says: Mar 15, 2011 2:42 PM

    As a life-long fan…please blow up this team and let us start over. I want a re-do! I want a RE-DO!!!!!

  3. tigerhawkeye says: Mar 15, 2011 2:44 PM

    Earlier I said that the fans lose when the lawyers win. I should have instead said that the fans lose whenever the lawyers get involved.

  4. spreadthecheese says: Mar 15, 2011 2:45 PM

    Dan Snyder is an idiot. Reading articles like this makes me realize how lucky I am to be a fan of an organization like Green Bay that doesn’t have an owner.

    How teams like Washington and Dallas put up with their owners, I’ll never know.

  5. ashburninsider says: Mar 15, 2011 2:47 PM

    Danny has already bought the .com rights for both of those names.

  6. tumtum1288 says: Mar 15, 2011 2:47 PM

    I’m game for Washington Free Agent Mistakes, their mistakes make the cowboys trading for roy williams look smart.

  7. ditkasmustache says: Mar 15, 2011 2:48 PM

    They should refer to them as “Snyder’s Follies” in EVERY article from now on.

    Its amazing when you see stories like this about NFL owners (and there are TONS of them out there) the posters here still paint the players as the bad guys in the current labor squabble.

    Amazing……………..

  8. b7p19 says: Mar 15, 2011 2:48 PM

    Oh this should be good…

  9. duanethomas says: Mar 15, 2011 2:48 PM

    Typical and the majority of people are siding with owners like this…Laughable.

  10. tdurk34 says: Mar 15, 2011 2:49 PM

    Poor timing, I was in the owners corner, but I might need to move away from that position a little. Just shows the greed.

  11. jiped says: Mar 15, 2011 2:49 PM

    How about the Washington Souix?

  12. sdboltaction says: Mar 15, 2011 2:49 PM

    You funny guy.

  13. cunningstunts96 says: Mar 15, 2011 2:50 PM

    How about the Washington Lawsuits Against Old Ladies?

  14. tinbender2000 says: Mar 15, 2011 2:51 PM

    “Inside Little Danny’s Clown Show”

  15. kingjoe1 says: Mar 15, 2011 2:52 PM

    Washington Snyder Fiasco,
    DC Dannys
    Washington Senators
    Snyder Sucks
    Danny Boy’s

    Any of those work.

  16. mostnutsever says: Mar 15, 2011 2:52 PM

    Watch out, Snyder won’t hesitate to sue you for antisemitism.

  17. rampager9 says: Mar 15, 2011 2:53 PM

    My suggestion would be Free Agent Goofs. It’s accurate, but a little long. Maybe you could abbreviate it somehow?

  18. clownburger says: Mar 15, 2011 2:55 PM

    Washington Indigenous Americans?

    “Redskins” refers to the slang for “Scalps”.

    So you may want to reconsider your new name for them to “Scalps”. Or something of the like.

    When you say “Indigenous Americans” it implies ignorance as to what their mascot name means.

  19. selgaeinla says: Mar 15, 2011 2:55 PM

    The Washington DC Fat Alberts.

  20. citizenstrange says: Mar 15, 2011 3:01 PM

    The Daniel Snyder Ne’er-do-well Greenback Mercenaries

  21. h8dansnyder says: Mar 15, 2011 3:01 PM

    The owner’s name has now been officially changed to King Moon Racer, the leader of the Island of Misfit Toys.

    I am in hell.

  22. dietrich43 says: Mar 15, 2011 3:02 PM

    Just when you think Dan Snyder can’t be any more despicable, he proves you wrong!

    How about the Washington Former Pro Bowlers or the Washington Georges? Georges for the president, dollars, and Jeff – arguably the biggest mistake Dan’s made (and that’s saying something!)?

    Or name it after Dan – the Washington Littleman.

  23. souldogdave says: Mar 15, 2011 3:02 PM

    That would easily be challenged in court. The Redskins are in the public eye, and fair usage is legal. Snyder is an idiot, and his team is crashing and burning once again.

  24. cjjetsfan says: Mar 15, 2011 3:05 PM

    How about the Washington Irrelevants.

  25. eckiebones says: Mar 15, 2011 3:09 PM

    Daniel’s Dung

  26. catman72 says: Mar 15, 2011 3:09 PM

    LOL, Snyder is a joke… what a disgrace.

  27. cmstrick says: Mar 15, 2011 3:11 PM

    Rosenthal wrote:
    “Or perhaps the Washington Free Agent Mistakes.

    Unless you guys have any better ideas”

    ———————–

    Nope. I can’t come up with anything better than that…

  28. profootballwalk says: Mar 15, 2011 3:14 PM

    Heathen Savages?

  29. thebigolddog says: Mar 15, 2011 3:15 PM

    The Washington Peaux-Rouges?

    Washington Red pellibus?

  30. ditkasmustache says: Mar 15, 2011 3:16 PM

    souldogdave says: Mar 15, 2011 3:02 PM

    That would easily be challenged in court. The Redskins are in the public eye, and fair usage is legal.

    ————————–

    A review of the court cases on this issue will show you are wrong. First Amendment claims are trumped by copyright commerce claims. The NCAA has already won in court on this point.

  31. marvsleezy says: Mar 15, 2011 3:16 PM

    In all seriousness, when does the league step in and straighten this guy out? He makes the whole entire league look bad.

  32. granadafan says: Mar 15, 2011 3:18 PM

    The Washington Litigators.

  33. bhindenemylines says: Mar 15, 2011 3:21 PM

    In my opinion (this is not a fact, so Little Danny Boy cannot sue me), you should refer to the team as:

    Snyder & Shanahan’s Three Ring Circus

    After living right outside of DC for the past 25+ years, that’s exactly what it has become.

  34. dukemarc says: Mar 15, 2011 3:24 PM

    Wow, Danny’s really taking to Lord Xenu’s whole “sue everything in sight” teachings.

  35. bhindenemylines says: Mar 15, 2011 3:24 PM

    Or pull a move ala Prince.

    The NFL Football Franchise formerly known as the washington redskins.

  36. nervouswreck042 says: Mar 15, 2011 3:29 PM

    DC Ununited

  37. toe4 says: Mar 15, 2011 3:46 PM

    Since Snyder isn’t allowing the Washington Redskins to be used without permission I believe they ought to be referred to as:

    District of Columbia redskins.

    Their fans that have to put up with that ludicrous owner ought to be respected enough to keep the general redskins (which of course is a general enough racist term) and not the specific Redskins.

    District of Columbia redskins.

  38. thegonz13 says: Mar 15, 2011 3:51 PM

    Why not use the term currently used up here in Canada… the First Nations? Shorter and still politically correct!

  39. rcali says: Mar 15, 2011 3:52 PM

    So I’m guessing “Authorized” means any media that doesn’t wrag on the ‘skins or Synder?

  40. vadog says: Mar 15, 2011 3:54 PM

    How about changing the name of the team to reflect something about the ownership…hmmm…I got it “The Washington Napoleon Complex!”

  41. dirtybird06 says: Mar 15, 2011 3:57 PM

    Thank God I’m not a fan of the Washington Indigenous Americans…what a dysfunctional bunch!

  42. EJ says: Mar 15, 2011 3:58 PM

    How about the “Free Agent Reservation”, or F.A.R. (far from winning a SB)

  43. kidmetroid says: Mar 15, 2011 3:59 PM

    The Washington Capital Gains

  44. hobartbaker says: Mar 15, 2011 4:00 PM

    The term is way outdated in any case. Walk around D.C. for awhile and tell me how many “redskinned” people you see. Not a large percentage of the population I don’t think.

  45. hendawg21 says: Mar 15, 2011 4:05 PM

    The Washington Post blows…sports writers suck…we had Wilbon sitting in one of two cities either his hometown of Chicago or his residence in Arizona trying to write about the D.C. sports scene please plus if it’s not Chicago you won’t get a good story from him, then there’s Sally Jenkins sitting on her perch in NY again trying to give good insight to local sports please spare us…of course the rest of the journalist they still stuff from other sources so what good are they…I find better Skins reading material from ESPN, PFT, CNNSI and other outlets…so big deal.

  46. dredmonk says: Mar 15, 2011 4:06 PM

    How about the Danskins? No, wait… that’s actually copywrited already.

    How about Deadskins… that’s what they’ve been since Snotty bought the team.

  47. realitypolice says: Mar 15, 2011 4:07 PM

    clownburger says:
    Mar 15, 2011 2:55 PM
    Washington Indigenous Americans?

    “Redskins” refers to the slang for “Scalps”.
    ===================

    That would be an awesome point, if it were even close to true.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Redskin” is a racial descriptor for Native Americans and one of the color metaphors for race used in North America and Europe since European colonization of America.

    From Dictionary.com:

    noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive .
    a North American Indian.

    Nice try, though.

  48. hendawg21 says: Mar 15, 2011 4:09 PM

    Hey i’ll take Snyder over Bidwell, Brown, Wilson, Davis and JJ any day…

  49. corvusrex96 says: Mar 15, 2011 4:12 PM

    I am still stunned that they even call the team the redskins.

    I am not against teams named for ethnic groups, Chiefs, Vikings, Seminoles, Vandals, Trojans, Spartans etc… are OK by me

    It just seems like if there was one team that should change its name, the redskins would be it.

    But if they insist using the moniker I suggest calling them the Maryland Redskins since they don’t play in DC anyway.

  50. thelonious says: Mar 15, 2011 4:20 PM

    Since it’s apparently all about the owner in Washington, I suggest a name that reflects His existence. I suggest the Washington Snyders, or even better, the Washington Dannys. This will serve as a reminder to long-suffering fans just who is responsible for the morass in which they find their beloved team.

    I thank God every day my owner is Wayne Weaver.

  51. clownburger says: Mar 15, 2011 4:24 PM

    While it’s true that some people did refer to indians as “Redskins”, the term “Redskin” was a common slang for “Scalping”.

    This is a fact.

    Do a little research other than “Wiki” for finding out the TRUE meaning behind the name for Washington’s NFL team and you’ll see that I am correct.

    Of course, some people don’t want to know the truth and would rather wallow in their ignorant ways.

  52. mrf47 says: Mar 15, 2011 4:38 PM

    Just call them the “Washington Haynesworths”…he embodies that team.

  53. nittanymunchkins says: Mar 15, 2011 4:38 PM

    What about the ‘Beltway Blowhards’?

  54. amr71 says: Mar 15, 2011 4:43 PM

    @duanethomas: Just because some of the owners are tools doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of their side of the argument in the negotiation process. If you side with the players, does that mean you side with everything Roethlisberger and Vick have done?

  55. metalhead65 says: Mar 15, 2011 4:45 PM

    sorry they are offended but if you ask any sane person what they think of when they here the name redskins you will get the football team as a response. I am a bears fan myself but support the use of the name by the redskins just on principle. it is time to stop the pc madness and leave sports out of it.

  56. seabreezes51 says: Mar 15, 2011 4:46 PM

    How about the Washington Bullets?
    I hear that’s been available for awhile now

  57. poweredtoast says: Mar 15, 2011 4:50 PM

    How about renaming it to “Inside the team owned by the most greedy, disgusting person on the planet”?

  58. amr71 says: Mar 15, 2011 5:07 PM

    @clownburger:

    – [American Indian activist Suzan] Harjo’s claim that it ‘had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments’ is unsupported by any evidence.” http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html

    – “Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that “redskin” was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white “other” encroaching on their lands and culture.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139.html

    – “So far we have no evidence that redskin meant anything other than ‘person with red skin’ just as black when used to describe a person means ‘person with black skin’ or white means ‘person with white skin.’ The earliest recorded example of the term redskin is contained in the following quotation from 1699: ‘Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins.’ Why would a meeting house be built to withstand Indian scalps that were exchanged for money? That’s absurd. Clearly the earliest use of the term refers to people, not scalps. http://www.takeourword.com/TOW182/page2.html

  59. realitypolice says: Mar 15, 2011 5:17 PM

    clownburger says:
    Mar 15, 2011 4:24 PM
    While it’s true that some people did refer to indians as “Redskins”, the term “Redskin” was a common slang for “Scalping”.

    This is a fact.

    Do a little research other than “Wiki” for finding out the TRUE meaning behind the name for Washington’s NFL team and you’ll see that I am correct.

    Of course, some people don’t want to know the truth and would rather wallow in their ignorant ways.

    =============

    Please prove your “facts”. You can’t just state something as a fact, and expect everyone to believe it.

    If you stopped 1,000 people on the street and asked them what “redskin” meant, 1,000 of them would say “indian” and ZERO would say “scalp”.

    Please, please, do me a favor and show one single shred of evidence, one link, one article, one reference, ANYTHING, that shows “redskin” as a slang term for “scalping”.

    Ball’s in your court, liar.

  60. sickcuz says: Mar 15, 2011 5:28 PM

    I call them the Washington Cherry Blossoms. They only look good for a couple weeks
    (usually during the offseason)

  61. baugh316 says: Mar 15, 2011 5:35 PM

    how bout the washington who gives a damn…or the washington insignificants

  62. corvusrex96 says: Mar 15, 2011 5:36 PM

    Considering their record how about the “Washington Generals” same name as the team that the Harlem Globetrotters used as a punching bag

  63. fatelvis77 says: Mar 15, 2011 5:38 PM

    Being oh so p.c., I have for years called them The Aboriginal Land Owners.

  64. sudzy11 says: Mar 15, 2011 6:07 PM

    If I were the Post I would institute a blackout of anything related to Washington Name Withheld on Request. I guess little Danny is too dumb to realize that the blog was actually promoting his business by its existence. Unless 90% of what was written was negative about the team which would be understandable.

  65. thegonz13 says: Mar 15, 2011 6:14 PM

    OK, considering the Washington team (I can’t use the name for fear of being sued!) loses games at an alarming rate,how about the Washington Generals?

  66. thefiesty1 says: Mar 15, 2011 6:14 PM

    Snyder needs to get a life without football. I guess he thinks the capital should move out of DC too. We want the nations capital to infringe on the name he bought.

  67. azbearsfan says: Mar 15, 2011 6:22 PM

    For those folks who think Redskins is a fine way to describe Native’s, I suggest you walk into a room full of Native American’s and start calling them Redskins and see what kind of reaction you get.

    If a person I knew didn’t want me to call them a certain name, or describe them a certain way, I certainly would respect that wish.

    As for the argument that historically it was an acceptable term to use; I recall Malcom X using Negro to describe blacks, but I don’t think you’d walk into a room full of black folks and start calling them Negros in 2011.

    It’s about respect for other people, and if Native’s are offended to be called Redskins, change the name and move on.

    If they could do it for the bullets they can certainly do it for the Professional Football team in Washington D.C.

  68. billsfan27 says: Mar 15, 2011 7:08 PM

    The Washington “Screw Your First Amendment Rights”

  69. thegonz13 says: Mar 15, 2011 7:13 PM

    Azbearsfan… The analogy to Malcolm X is good, although some African-Americans refer to each other using the n-word. So it’s racist if it comes from whites but not the other way around…

  70. onderin says: Mar 15, 2011 7:50 PM

    Anyone else find “skin” to be a creepy word?

  71. landroo says: Mar 15, 2011 8:26 PM

    The Washington Thinskins…

  72. robatopia says: Mar 15, 2011 9:29 PM

    I was going to suggest the Washington Red Helmets, but clownburger’s note about the scalp made me think of the following, which just rolls right off the tongue:
    the DC Redheads.
    And yes, the Foreskins is common enough slang for the team we’d all know exactly who you’re talking about.

  73. bondo42 says: Mar 15, 2011 10:32 PM

    I’ve always like the idea of the Washington Warriors. A warrior could be any race!

  74. psychostats says: Mar 16, 2011 12:36 AM

    The Washington Copyright-skins

    It might clue people in as to what’s going on.

  75. lionglass says: Mar 16, 2011 4:32 AM

    Why not “The Team That Must Not Be Named”?

  76. 12strikes says: Mar 16, 2011 8:57 AM

    The Washington Implosions

  77. MichaelEdits says: Mar 16, 2011 9:18 AM

    The Washington Losers. No, wait, that won’t work because then you’ll ask “which ones?” How about we just don’t write about them at all unless Dan pays us? In bankrupt airline peanuts.

  78. dcpowergator says: Mar 16, 2011 10:52 AM

    I think it’s Gregg Easterbrook has been referring to them for years as the “Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Peoples.”

    It even takes “Washington” out of the name just to be on the safe side.

  79. FinFan68 says: Mar 16, 2011 10:56 AM

    azbearsfan says:
    Mar 15, 2011 6:22 PM
    For those folks who think Redskins is a fine way to describe Native’s, I suggest you walk into a room full of Native American’s and start calling them Redskins and see what kind of reaction you get.

    As for the argument that historically it was an acceptable term to use; I recall Malcom X using Negro to describe blacks, but I don’t think you’d walk into a room full of black folks and start calling them Negros in 2011.

    It’s about respect for other people, and if Native’s are offended to be called Redskins, change the name and move on.
    ————————————
    Nobody is saying to refer to “Native Americans” or “Indians” as “Redskins”. The term is almost exclusively used in reference to the NFL team. It is not meant as disparaging and if it is perceived that way, then there are some people that need to lighten up and stop taking everything as a personal attack or a way for them to become an “activist” fighting for a cause. This PC garbage is completely out of control.

  80. covercorner says: Mar 16, 2011 1:46 PM

    Wahsington Federals

  81. dikshuttle says: Mar 16, 2011 2:28 PM

    Obviously the name carries all sorts of racism with it – not just the connotations to Native Americans, but for the acts unders Marshall’s stewardship…

    That doesn’t mean the franchise should or will change names any time soon.

    The name should remain Redskins until we’ve evolved as a society beyond the need to relate to these kinds of useages as racist.

    … a hundred years or so. Maybe that’ll do it.

  82. fmjohnson says: Mar 16, 2011 2:40 PM

    “sickcuz says:

    “I call them the Washington Cherry Blossoms. They only look good for a couple weeks (usually during the offseason)”

    That’s the funniest thing about all this I’ve read yet.

  83. formerredskinsfan says: Mar 16, 2011 4:25 PM

    I’ve taken to calling them the Washington Snyders. Whatever they are, they aren’t the Redskins anymore.

  84. goriidskiiin says: Mar 18, 2011 1:54 PM

    We miss you Jack Kent Cooke!! Ya know, FedEx Field was supposed to be Jack Kent Cooke Stadium but Mr. Snyder had a problem with that and sold the name rights of the man who built the franchise into a champion. Snyder is the most classless person in sports. He takes advantage of Redskin fans love of the team and creates a lousy bunch of sellout, lazy part timers of a team

  85. jalindrine says: Mar 19, 2011 3:36 PM

    It’s a little too hardy har, but I’ve always liked the idea of paying royalties and becoming The Washington Sioux.

  86. tahjay says: Mar 20, 2011 9:35 AM

    First of all Washington needs to disassociate themselves with the team altogether.

    The name should be the Landover Landfills, Landover Lougies, Landover Lollipops, Landover Lavender Flowers, or the Landover Fanlessness

  87. yahmule says: Mar 20, 2011 7:22 PM

    What does Andyman have to say about this?

  88. pftequalsgreatjournalism says: Mar 21, 2011 3:48 AM

    clownburger says:
    Mar 15, 2011 4:24 PM
    While it’s true that some people did refer to indians as “Redskins”, the term “Redskin” was a common slang for “Scalping”.

    This is a fact.

    Do a little research other than “Wiki” for finding out the TRUE meaning behind the name for Washington’s NFL team and you’ll see that I am correct.

    Of course, some people don’t want to know the truth and would rather wallow in their ignorant ways.

    ——————————————

    Try following your own advice:
    http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

    Focus on the center column on page 1 where it say “Harjo’s unfounded claim…” Suzan Harjo is well know for being wrong about this application by people in the Muscogee Creek Nation of which she is a member. Say, you aren’t a member, are you?

    Want to compare BIA CIDB cards?

  89. 420fan says: Mar 21, 2011 12:00 PM

    So Dan Snyder is trying to steal a name that he already stole? The indians in america should be pissed! Our government has lied to them since day one, and now Dan is trying to steal the name too? Damn!

  90. slickzmoney says: Mar 21, 2011 12:51 PM

    As a Redskins fan I have warmed to the idea over the years of re-naming the team. Someone mentioned “Warriors” and that’s not bad. I’ve read that Snyder has the rights to that name already. Another person mentioned “Federals” which was the USFL team in D.C. I’ve always been partial to “Potomacs” invoking a local Native-American tribe and river without the blatent race reference. Back to reality – Snyder will not re-name the team unless he is forced to.

  91. ProFootballHasBecomeAJoke says: Mar 21, 2011 6:29 PM

    How about the Washington Cadavers since they will be Dead on Arrival when the season does eventually start ? Or would that be offensive to decaying-americans ?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!