D.C. Council member declares challenge to Redskins name “is now a movement”


Ignoring the team’s lobbying effort (there was one?), the D.C. City Council has passed a resolution urging the Washington Redskins to change their name.

Via the City Paper, 10 of 11 Council members present voted in favor of the resolution, with one abstaining.  Two other members, Vincent Orange and Marion Berry, did not attend the meeting.

Council member David Grosso, who proposed the resolution, said, “This is now a movement.”

It’s too late for the Redskins to pretend it isn’t, given that the Redskins tried to persuade fans to lobby members of D.C. City Council to vote against the resolution.

“With its vote today, the D.C. City Council has placed itself firmly on the side of those who believe there should be no place for institutionalized racism within the National Football League,” Oneida Indian Nation representative Ray Halbritter said in a release.  “This City Council resolution is yet another call for Washington’s team owner to do the right thing by halting the callous use of the R-word and moving the team in a positive direction away from its past legacy of racial bigotry.”

The city has no power to force a change, but it provides the latest example of the coalescing opposition to the team’s name.

43 responses to “D.C. Council member declares challenge to Redskins name “is now a movement”

  1. If I were Snyder, I’d confer with Goodell about moving the team out west, (or east, as in, “over the pond”).
    See how much the council likes that one.

    My guess is the noise would begin to quiet down.

  2. It’s a good thing there are no problems in that city for them to deal with so they can focus their attention on sports team names.

  3. “It’s a good thing there are no problems in that city for them to deal with so they can focus their attention on sports team names.

    Not a good argument. It should be obvious that a city council can focus on more than one issue at a time.

  4. Snyder should just move the Redskins to LA. Goodell will help them build a new stadium. DC should be ashamed of themselves for slamming on their own NFL franchise. There’s nothing wrong with the nick name Redskins. If people don’t like the name Redskins then don’t watch the games. That’s what the channel button is for. Duh! There’s a lot of city’s that would love to have an NFL franchise. DC doesn’t deserve an NFL franchise. Geaux Saints!

  5. There was some pushback against getting rid of other racially-charged terms that we no longer use today as well.

    “Pushback” ended up losing. And it will again.

  6. Sorry its not a movement. What many people outside this area don’t know is that the city council has done this before going back to 2001. Snyder didn’t consider the resolution then and he’s made it very clear he’s not considering a name change now.

    Snyder isn’t changing his mind, continuing to produce resolutions that call for the name change is simply an exercise in futility.

  7. The “R-Word”? You’ve got to be kidding me. I hope they never change the name. This Political Correctness has gone overboard. Why are people in the government (city council, president, etc.) telling us what to think. If they noted why the Redskins are called the Redskins since their Boston days this wouldn’t be an issue at all.

  8. The “R-word”? Seriously? They really went there?

    I hope he tells them, “No. I won’t change the name. But if it embarrasses you so much, I’ll move the team somewhere else.”

  9. How many years have they had this name? Now it’s turning into an important issue? City council must really be bored if their focusing on the NFL team and not the crime issue there!

  10. Not a good argument. It should be obvious that a city council can focus on more than one issue at a time.


    Um, are you familiar with the DC city council? Let me tell you something, they can’t. DC is so badly miss-managed that they need the federal gov’t to approve any changes in spending. (If that’s not a ringing endorsement, I don’t know what is.) THEY ARE A JOKE!

  11. Dan Snyder must realize that he can’t win this one, and that the longer this drags on the worse it’s going to be…right?

    Why? Short of PR, what is in it for him or the organization that matters to them? Last I heard, he is still rolling in money as is the NFL. So, I am failing to see why he should care how long it rolls on? He clearly doesn’t believe (as do quite a lot of other people) that there is an issue. I hope the name never changes. And if it does change, Oneida and the NFL should financially compensate him and the team ridiculously because the benefit of the change is certainly one-sided.

  12. To those suggesting that the Redskins move…you are aware that they have this thing called a “lease” at FedEx, correct?

    You’re also aware that they have a 30 year waiting list for season tickets, right?

    But yeah, head off to the uncertainty of London or Los Angeles out of spite.

  13. Questions for Florio:

    1) How can they use that name play in any even partially governmental funded stadium? (-Public Financing: 28% if this fact is correct)…all US governments (Fed, State, & Local) have policies against discrimination (race, color, creed, etc). It’s in Landover, Maryland not DC but surely they are in violation of city, county, or State of Maryland regulations.

    2) If it was in the contract, a contract with illegal clauses is not a valid contract.

    3) Tom Jackson (whom I like and respect) goes off on Incognito for being a racist because he uses the N word. Isn’t he being hypocritical if he uses the R-word or if his employer ESPN allows its use?

  14. The team doesnt need to move, just change Washington to where they actually play. That way the city councel can worry about where to spend the money they dont have

  15. Since the R-words play in Landover,Maryland and practice in Richmond,Virginia it seem a bit odd that the W-word,D.C. Council is voicing their opinion.

  16. N-word… R-word… W-word (which still confuses people)…

    I personally think that people need to adhere to the old adage of “sticks and stones”. I sort of understand the sensitivity to N. It’s too current. However, I think there is a point in time where the words are no longer denigrating or pejorative. They are simply words.

    It’s easy to glam onto a cause. I’m just afraid that we’ll run out of the 26-letter phrases and then what do we do? For example, how do we deal with the next insulting N anything? Dunno!

  17. whodeyben says: Maybe it’s time for the ‘Skins to move to L.A.


    Nope. We’re not interested in them.

  18. Answers for stealthscorpio

    1) here is no law against a name. This isn’t about “discrimination,” it’s about some seeing the name as offensive, and a media that has amplified them.

    2) Oh boy. Someone is ignorant of the law. You are ferrying to what…the stadium contract? Is there one? I don’t even know if public funds were used. Even if they were, the name would not be illegal. Even if there was something illegal in it, it would also likely have a separability clause, meaning the whole contract is not suspect because one clause is determined to be unlawful.

    3) Only if you actually think that Redskins is intended as a racial slur. Tell me…have you ever once heard someone use it as a pejorative? Because I haven’t…ever. People claiming that the an word and “Redskins” are equivalent are being intellectually dishonest.

    None of the above means I am a strong supporter of the name. I can see how some might see it as a offensive. But the question is whether or not it’s offensive to the degree that a change is warranted. Right now the media, led, in my opinion, by PFT, is portraying it as some grassroots movement. It is not. We’ve really got more important things to worry about.

  19. For the people who say they have a lease. Dan Snyder owns fed ex field. Which means a lease isn’t worth the paper its written on.I don’t like the redskins, but this is utterly ridiculous. I hope they keep the name just to piss you PC morons off. Hail to the REDSKINS!

  20. How about all those demanding Snyder change the name of his “private” business pool their money together and buy the team?

    Then they can change the name.

    I’m sure the Indian casino companies have enough money to do this.
    It is only valued at 1.6 billion.

  21. Synder should change the name of the team.

    Washington doesn’t want him? Then I’m thinking the Landover Redskins or the Maryland Redskins would sound pretty good.

    I wonder though how many of these politicians will still accept Redskins tickets as political perks? I bet every single one of them will. I hope Dead Spin or another site like that catches them doing just that.

    Typical DC pols. Having lived in that sewer of a city for four years I can tell you that the DC Council has a lot more things to worry about than the Redskins name. This smacks of political opportunism.

  22. Couldn’t the city demand the Redskins remove the name of the city from the team name?

    Let them keep Redskins, but make them change it to Maryland or Landover Redskins.

  23. Ya its a movement alright. .. a bowel movement. No team would name themselves something derogatory and this just wreaks of old person on porch finding something to complain about

Leave a Reply

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