Dec 23, 2012; Philadelphia, PA, USA; Washington Redskins helmets along the sidelines prior to the game against the Philadelphia Eagles at Lincoln Financial Field. The Redskins defeated the Eagles 27-20. Mandatory Credit: Howard Smith-USA TODAY Sports

Two D.C. stations refuse to run anti-Redskins ads


The debate around the Washington Redskins name is growing larger every day. It seems like everyone, including the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has weighed in on the debate. It seems like the side is still very split and controversial.

The Oneida Indian Nation purchased ads on two Washington D.C. area radio stations, WJFK and WPGC. They were trying to air ads against the Redskins name. CBS Radio Washington, which owns both the stations, declined to air them though.

“Based on the amount of on-air debate, adding paid commercials from one side isnot something that we think is beneficial for this discussion and for our audience,” senior vice president of CBS Radio Washington said via email, which Oneida Indian Nation forwarded to the Washington Post.

For those curious, that ad can be heard here. It starts out by pointing out that the Redskins were the last team to integrate and that was the legacy of the owner Preston Marshall, the same person who chose the Redskins name.

The Oneida Indian Nation responded in a statement released via their representative, Ray Halbritter

“It is unfortunate and un-American that the station permits the team to slander Native Americans on the public airwaves with the use of the r-word, but doesn’t permit Native Americans to use the same airwaves to object to the use of a racial slur.  We will not be silent mascots.  This issue is not going away, as evidenced by the growing and diverse support this effort gains by the day.”

Do you think the name should be changed? Let us know in the comments below.

Tags: Washington Redskins

  • virtualcynic

    Everyone can be offended by something if they want to be offended.

  • jahacopo2221

    Well, I think the true “Indian” population should be offended that the Oneida Indian Nation has misappropriated the term Indian. Indian should truly refer to somebody from India, now that we all know that the early Europeans were wrong when they thought this was the West Indies. Why is it okay for the Oneida to adopt this term applied to them by the European colonists and settlers, but not the redskins–a term that it is noted that many native populations actually use to refer to themselves to distinguish from the pale skins? The local native tribes don’t seem to have a problem with the term, 90% of Native Americans polled don’t have a problem with it, so why must we continue to have this debate to satisfy a very small percentage of the population. Newsflash: You can’t make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time. In conclusion, an interesting history lesson that is brought to you courtesy of Curt Autry, a news anchor for the NBC affiliate in Richmond, VA where the Redskins have just moved their training camp (prompted by the news that a Richmond paper will no longer be printing the word ‘Redskins’, using instead ‘professional football team’): “CONFESSION: I’m an Okie. And there’s something you should know about Oklahoma if you think the Washington Redskins should change their name. In a shameful chapter in U.S. history, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 forced the relocation of thousands of natives on the east coast to a U.S. territory in the heartland. It’s a place a Choctaw tribal chief named “okla humma,” which literally means “RED PEOPLE.” The name stuck. So, if the Richmond Free Press refuses to print the word “Redskin” – following that logic, the paper should never print “OKLAHOMA” either. Boycotting words is a slippery slope.”