Amateur Canadian team ditches “Redskins” name

Getty Images

If the Washington Redskins were thinking about adding the Nepean Redskins of Ottawa to the “hey these other teams use the name to so it must be OK” database, it’s too late.

According to the Canadian Press, the Nepean Redskins opted to ditch the name under mounting pressure regarding its offensive nature.

The club’s president, Steve Dean, said the change will cost $100,000 (U.S.), which is likely a fairly large chunk of change for an amateur football team.

The move comes a day after Rick Reilly’s intellectually dishonest (and incredibly late to the party) parade of horribles regarding other potentially offensive nicknames, like Saints, Angels, and Wizards.  Reilly also harvests quotes from a couple of Native Americans who aren’t offended by the term, presumes that only white people are, and completely ignores the increasing efforts of Native American groups like the Oneida Nation to fight the name.

But at least Reilly is certain to get an interview with Daniel Snyder when Monday Night Football returns to FedEx Field on November 25.

In the interim, Reilly also should interview Steve Dean of the Nepean soon-to-not-be-Redskins and officials from the Oneida Nation regarding why they think the name should go away — and whether Redskins really has the same connotation as Chiefs, Indians, Braves, Irish, or perhaps the most potentially offensive label of all:  Dude Who Wrote The Movie Leatherheads.

58 responses to “Amateur Canadian team ditches “Redskins” name

  1. Hail to the Redskins!
    Hail Victory!
    Braves on the Warpath!
    Fight for old D.C.!
    Run or pass and score — we want a lot more!
    Beat ‘em, Swamp ‘em,
    Touchdown! — Let the points soar!
    Fight on, fight on ‘Til you have won
    Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!
    Hail to the Redskins!
    Hail Victory!
    Braves on the Warpath!
    Fight for old D.C.!

  2. Rick Reilly is overrated and, despite having access to everything interesting in sports, writes utterly boring pieces.

  3. Amateur Canadian team?

    Well in that case – my intramural team in college was named the Redskins, so they should be allowed to keep it.

    What are we going to report next? Good God.

  4. I hope NBC auctions off the naming rights to where FLOOR works. I would pay some good money to have him “work” at “The Dome of the Redskins”

  5. Man, when you get on high horse, you can’t even see the rest of us down here, can you?

    Reilly cited several Native American tribes and groups that agree with his opinion while you’ve just parroted the same one over and over. Reilly also connected with the story personally by using his father in law.

    Your stance on the Redskins name is fine, its good to support your beliefs, but that doesn’t make everyone else’s wrong and such slanted journalism on a site that’s supposed to be about football news is only going to alienate people.

  6. The new racism of this modern age is to use an entire culture for one’s own personal gain.

    That’s all this issue has been about, from this blurb here, to the Hollywood dope the other day, to this very site using race for site hits. People an entities exploiting race. That’s what real racism is, not a nickname of a team paying homage to qualities of honor and bravery.

    If not, then this site should be happy to give a discount on ad rates by subtracting all site hits involving race per ad rates. Put your money where your mouth is, PFT, if it’s not racial usery for personal gain as your motivation.

    It’s a new century, a new racism masked as “social progress”; a tool for those who are actually just racial users.

    Where’s all the Atlanta Braves complaining here? Nowhere? That’s more evidnce this is all just phony usery for personal gain.

  7. Once again we turn to Ottawa as our moral compass.

    Quick question: if you name your team the Hopeless Alcoholics do you run the risk of offending the large interconnected tribe of caucasions in and around the green bay area?

  8. …actually, “Reskins” would fit really well, it’s a term used to describe a covering to hide or protect an existing “skin”. Either to hide it or protect it.

    Come to The Great Gabbert for the solution to all problems.

  9. Hail to the FluffyBunnies!
    Hail RGKnee!
    Braves on the steroids!
    Fight for your PED’s.!
    Run or pass and score — we dont want that anymore!
    eat ‘em, chomp ‘em,
    4th Down! — Let the punts soar!

  10. Let’s name them the Washington Parasites, in honor of the federal employees, elected officials and their entourages, consultants, law firms and associations that feed off the American taxpayer.

  11. I understand why a team would change from a team with a name like the “Redskins”, but why would a school like Marquette change from the “Warriors”?

    war·ri·or (wôr-r, wr-)
    1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
    2. One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict.

    How does that imply Native American? AND, how is it offensive?

    I’ve always thought of Warrior as someone in battle, and never a reference, much less an insult, to natives.

    How about Washington Warriors? Or would that be offensive to a small band of gangbangers from the Bronx?

  12. I remember reading this site when it was nowhere near PC and actually pretty funny. Guess when your bread is buttered by “corporate”, you’re expected to toe the party line.

  13. They should be more racially sensitive and change their name to the Washington Injuns, that way they do away with the redskins name but still keep their logo

  14. Not to ask a dumb question, but what exactly is insulting about the term “redskin”? Why is having red skin an insult?

  15. Had enough of these leftist, liberal smackos? Lets call themThe Pigskins but don’t tell anybody. Some wack job leftist, imbecile will want to represent the pigs.

  16. I love this…”we know it’s offensive so be offended”

    Reilly talks to multiple areas using the name Redskins that are upwards of 95% native american and they tell him it’s a source of pride for them. He talks to a relative Native American and they tell him it’s irrelevant and shouldn’t be the focus at all. He has multiple quotes from Native Americans talking about conversations they’ve had with other Native Americans stating they don’t care or, again, it’s a source of pride.

    And it’s completely diregarded by Florio because he’s offended for them and thats the way it should be. This is not a black and white issue and the fact that you’re making it that way is embarassing at best.

    Stop trying to be a hero for people that don’t need one.

  17. I hope Snyder has the stones to stick to his words that the name ain’t changing. I really do.

    What’s lost in all of this is that the name was taken by the Boston Braves NFL franchise when it moved from a park the Boston Braves baseball team used to Fenway. They changed their names from Braves to Redskins to honor Lone Star Dietz, their coach in 1933, who was part native-American and to keep some context to the Braves name.

    So the name has never meant to be disparaging and really, who would adopt a moniker for their football team that was. This is silliness by the politically correct to assert their power, “fix” problems where there aren’t any and elevate their own stature.

  18. Instead of going the route of many college teams and switching to Red Hawks or Red Storm or something like that, they should just change the name to Washington Pigskins. First of all, fans would get to keep referring to their team by the abbreviated nicknamed “The ‘Skins.” Second of all, the “Pig” portion of the name could be considered to be a tribute to the team’s legardary “Hogs” moniker. And, lastly, footballs are routinely referred to as pigskins (even if they are now made with synthetic materials). They could keep their team colors, and switch the helmet logo to something similar to what the Arkansas Razorbacks use.

  19. I fully expect everybody who thinks they should change it to also say that they need to change the name of the state of Oklahoma since it is Choctaw for ‘red people.’

  20. Fact: The name WILL change, there is absolutely no doubt. It could be next year or 10 years from now, but it will change.

    The only question is, should they change the name now and get it over with? The old proverbial “tear off the band-aid” approach? Or should they drag it out through the courts and the court of public opinion, and get tarnished with the “racist organization” label that becomes inevitable when you’re on the wrong side of legal battles and/or history?

  21. I don’t think guilting Snyder into changing the name is going to work. How about all the reporters whining about the name cash in their 401Ks and give the cash to Snyder to change the name? He will do it for money, but not for people whining about it while those same people write scathing reports about the man and his team. Might as well just say “Please, Mr. Snyder. Change the name. Pretty please?”

  22. yes, HUGE outrage as demonstrrated by the 9, NINE, IV protesters at Lambeau…but that’s understandable as there’s no native americans in that part of the country (sarcasm implied)

    you spin, they spin, we all spin to support our views

  23. By the way, it’s not intellectually dishonest to mention that “Oklahoma” is in fact Choctaw for “red people”…are you guys going to refrain from referring to the sooner state by it’s given name to “that place north of Texas”, too?!

  24. I hate Dan Snyder. And i’m 100% in his corner on this. Grow a thicker skin. Better yet, mind your own effing business you pipsqueek twerp. It isn’t everybody else’s responsiblity to change in order to fit your delicate sensibilities.

    I’m offended by toothless hicks from Morgantown. You know the toothbrush was invented in West Virginia. if it had been invented anywhere else it would’ve been called a teethbrush.

  25. Here is another great example of why it is wrong as taken from what somebody else wrote on another site.

    Look, I think a nickname conceived in the 1930’s should allow for a bit of rhetorical wiggle room.

    But, from the other perspective, racial slurs applied by the descendants of the perceived perpetrators of injustice do make the epitaph more severe.

    I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, just that it’s how it is. It certainly bugs some racially sensitive people. For sure they got a beef with being insulted by the descendants of folks that killed their ancestors and then continue to disrespect them to this day. Seems that way.

    On the other hand, white folks complaining about badass other white folks (The Vikings, Raiders, Buccaneers) just isn’t the same. There’s no serious or recent historical context there. I mean, maybe if you’re from Wales you might have some lingering animosity from atrocities committed by Norsemen 1200 years ago, but even then it was kind of a fair fight — and there wasn’t ever genocidal oppression visited upon Anglo-Saxon existence by the Norse.

    When it comes to genocide, can’t same the same for the Mohicans though… even the Karankawa which helped found the state of Texas got screwed.

    So, you know, an unaware white guy saying “what’s the problem?” never really had to consider a similar racial context simply because he’s from a race that, well, to be honest, never has been consistently oppressed.

    But to give you a rough parallel, could you imagine if some Germans started a soccer club in Israel in the 1950’s and called it The Jerusalem Concentration Campers? Or maybe (to keep it in the U.S.) what if there was a baseball team called the Fredricksburg Slave Traders? Think that would work?

  26. Optometrists the world over have demanded that CBS cease and desist the use of an eyeball as their logo as they find it offensive and have no control over how it used… Wake up America or this is your future.

  27. From The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976):

    [Grandma Sarah notices that Lone Watie has painted his face]

    Grandma Sarah: What’s all that paint about?

    Lone Watie: It’s my death face.

    Grandma Sarah: You know, we’re sure gonna show them redskins somethin’ tomorrow. No offense meant.

    Lone Watie: None taken.

  28. fwippel says:
    Sep 20, 2013 3:37 PM
    The team’s new nickname will be the “Politically Correct”. That way, we can be assured that NO ONE will be offended by it.


    Ehhhh not so fast fwippel…I for one would be offended if my team got involved in politics.

  29. simplesimon1, don’t use the term “white folks.” I’ve spoken to many European Americans and nearly 100% of them find the use of the word “white” to describe us as offensive.

    How can you look at my skin and say “white?”

    You can call me European-American, or Irish-American. Or better yet, just American. I’m actually a Native American – I was born here, like my father, my father’s father, and my father’s father’s mother. You have to go back to the 1860s to find an ancestor of mine born outside of this country.

  30. @captbuff

    “How can you look at my skin and say “white?””

    Well, Europeans, or better yet, Anglo-Saxons, were the ones to coin that phrase, not any other race. It also wasn’t used as a moniker to disparage, demean or disillusion them. It was actually used to show the belief that Europeans held about Jesus being “white as snow” and adopted by them to achieve greater closeness to their living God than others of different color.

    So the idea that these things could be in any way linked as the same is quite a reach.

  31. Haha, Reilly drops more specifics and quotes more NATIVE AMERICANS than all the articles posted by Florio and PFT the last six months combined yet they have the audacity to rip on Reilly’s reporting ethics.

    Thanks to Reilly for reporting facts.

  32. I understand why a team would change from a team with a name like the “Redskins”, but why would a school like Marquette change from the “Warriors”?

    war·ri·or (wôr-r, wr-)
    1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
    2. One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict.

    How does that imply Native American? AND, how is it offensive?


    Umm…it’s not hard to Google…
    Marquette’s was clearly “Native American” for ages…
    and I’m guessing that you’ve already made up your
    mind that it can’t be offensive, but it’s been about 40 years since Stanford switched from “Indians”…
    not sure why this snuck up on you…

  33. The nepean redskins must have heard about the big protest in greenbay and that changed their minds. The 24 that showed up to protest. Where was that coverage. It was a big deal then. It was a TOTAL BUST. WONDER WHY. Florio get off your high horse punk. I love these scribes who go after reilly because in their eye he is do wrong and misinformed. Could it be florio you are a cryin idiot

  34. Fighting Irish isn’t offensive to some Irishmen?

    Are you kidding me?

    If we had a team called the fighting Blacks or the Border-hopping Mexicans(promoted by Sen. McCain of course), I would think people would have a problem. Irish people fighting is a stereotype that would be worse than calling someone a redskin. I personally embrace the term, but I am sure there are others who would give it a bad connotation.

    He also left out Reilly’s point that the state of Oklahoma means ‘red people’.

    I think if there is a state with the name, a football team should be allowed and embraced with it.

Leave a Reply

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