The Official GMG 'Redskins' Appreciation Thread

[snyprrr]

I wasn't young in the '80's, just sayin'...

But no, in truth I was a peace love dove hippie as early as the late '60's, and I first became aware of the issue, as such, back then (think of Marlon Brando refusing his Oscar and all that stuff). The in the late '70's there arose a push against Indian-named sports teams. That was the first time I thought specifically about the Foreskins, and also when I decided it was mainly overblown in most other situations. Look at it like this (which is how I do): back when they were naming the team, the owner looks around and says 'we're mostly white guys, let's call 'em the Whiteys. Or if later, he looks around and says 'They're mostly black guys, let's call 'em the...'.  Well, you see what I mean. There is simply no difference. I've actually (unbelievably!) thought about this, and for many years. It's wrong to say it doesn't matter. That's only true because they don't have The Bomb, or whatever... 

oh, ok,... yea, now i remember (if you remember, you weren't really there!!)

Yea, ok, I know where you're coming from- yes, I was there too at that time, but, the last 40 years have turned me around,- now I'm a full fledged Bigotarian!! If the... uh... natives want to do something about it, maybe they should try a curse?... oh... wait... it seems .... wait...





I almost get the feeling that no matter what happens, this "team" has a certain... mm... legacy. If it wins, mark my words, it will be the Smoking Gun of "Sports Entertainment". Maybe "they" need the team to win to make DC look good? oy vey

Do you really think of them as the "foreskins"?

it's "handed down"- 'skins fans are a bunch, that's fer shur,... taking all that abuse... so sad... they love it when you say foreskins! it's part of their 'stockholm syndrome'- they need the abuse

[snyprrr]

So, we have a story already! Some of the 'skins raised their arms in the 'Don't Shoot' manner, signifying solidarity wif the Ferguson rioters, as the came onto FedEx Field last night. I think this Thread is gonna go places!

[snyprrr]

GO REDSKINS!![/font][/size][/color]

[Cato]

GO REDSKINS!![/font][/size][/color]

Sonny Jurgensen, where are you?

I tried to find the highlight where he throws a pass from behind his back, but apparently the NFL has copyright issues with it.

[Bogey]

Easy litmus test of whether the name should change or stay the same:

If that team were forming today and the ownership were choosing a name with the league's backing, would that current name be on the table?  If the answer is no, then time for a change.

[drogulus]

   
      I hear it's changing it's name to Satan II.   

     

[Ken B]

Ban football. Solves all these problems. Might cure world hunger too. Can't know till you try.

[Daverz]

Really? When naming your team you pick a pejorative name? (Explains the Washington Senators I admit.) i think it was clearly not meant pejoratively when it was selected.

It's part of a history of racially insensitive product and business names, logos and mascots: Sambo restaurants, Coon Chicken, Darkie toothpaste... many more examples can be found on the web. 

[ibanezmonster]

Don't click on this URL in a public place...
http://i.imgur.com/DvOK6dB.jpg

[Ken B]

It's part of a history of racially insensitive product and business names, logos and mascots: Sambo restaurants, Coon Chicken, Darkie toothpaste... many more examples can be found on the web.

Braves and Indians as names were picked because some of the virtues popularly ascribed to native Americans were admired and considered appropriate for sports teams. You present no reason to doubt that Redskins was chosen with the same intent. Just as the products you list play on stereotypes, so do names loke Braves or Fighting Irish. And the operative sterotype in this case is fierce and skillful warrior.

[Daverz]

Braves and Indians as names were picked because some of the virtues popularly ascribed to native Americans were admired and considered appropriate for sports teams. You present no reason to doubt that Redskins was chosen with the same intent. Just as the products you list play on stereotypes, so do names loke Braves or Fighting Irish. And the operative sterotype in this case is fierce and skillful warrior.

Whatever the intent, the name could only have been chosen because Native American voices didn't matter at that time.  Just like the other product names I mentioned could have only been chosen bacause Black voices didn't matter at the time.

However the intent is also questionable: Redskins owner George Preston Marshall was a noted racist who resisted integration.

[Ken B]

Whatever the intent, the name could only have been chosen because Native American voices didn't matter at that time. 

That is almost true. The sitting vice president when the team was formed was an American Indian, so some of their voices mattered, and some considerable fraction of the public admired their heritage. It is inconceivable a black man could have been elected vice president back then, when flour was already named after Aunt Jemima. The past is never a simple as some would have it be.

[Daverz]

That is almost true. The sitting vice president when the team was formed was an American Indian, so some of their voices mattered, and some considerable fraction of the public admired their heritage. It is inconceivable a black man could have been elected vice president back then, when flour was already named after Aunt Jemima. The past is never a simple as some would have it be.

One guy speaks for all Native Americans then and forever?  "Redskin" has always been a slur.  I don't understand why anyone would want to defend the name.

[Ken B]

One guy speaks for all Native Americans then and forever?  "Redskin" has always been a slur.  I don't understand why anyone would want to defend the name.

One guy speaks for all? A straw man, since I said no such thing. But you have argued throughout that they were treated as were blacks, and that is completely false. The fact the electorate considered the man an acceptable replacement president proves that very clearly.

And let's be clear. I have not defended the name. I have questioned bad arguments  and dubious assertions made on  no or  little evidence. the argument that the name should be changed because it was meant as a slur in in 1932 by the folks who picked it is a bad argument, proffered with no evidence but misconceptions about the attitudes of the time.  Imagine we find meeting minutes when they picked the name proving that they considered calling a team redskins an accolade, would you then support the name?

[Daverz]

One guy speaks for all? A straw man, since I said no such thing. But you have argued throughout that they were treated as were blacks,

and that is completely false. The fact the electorate considered the man an acceptable replacement president proves that very clearly.

OK, I misunderstood your reference.  It's a reference to Charles Curtis who "was born on Jan. 25, 1860 in Topeka, Kan. to Oren Arms Curtis, a Civil War veteran, and Ellen (Pappan) Curtis who was Kaw, Osage, Potawatomi and French and a descendant of Kaw Chief White Plume and Osage Chief Pawhuska."

Of course Native Americans weren't treated "as were blacks".  They were treated as Native Americans.  And that was very, very badly.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are somehow unaware of the shameful treatment of Native American peoples in this country.

And let's be clear. I have not defended the name. I have questioned bad arguments  and dubious assertions made on  no or  little evidence. the argument that the name should be changed because it was meant as a slur in in 1932 by the folks

You keep making this obtuse argument that the name of the team couldn't have been chosen as a slur in itself.  It's a strawman argument.   No one is making the argument that the name was chosen for the purpose of slurring Native Americans. 

who picked it is a bad argument, proffered with no evidence but misconceptions about the attitudes of the time. 

What misconceptions do I have about the attitudes towards Native Americans in the 1930s?

Imagine we find meeting minutes when they picked the name proving that they considered calling a team redskins an accolade, would you then support the name?

No, because it's not the 1930s anymore.  We've moved on as a culture.  I hope.

[snyprrr]

oy, this was not why i bumped the thread.

Is humour lost on youse guys today???

Another Stupor Bowl rigged game and none of you are incensed? FAKE GAME... NFL is listed as a "Non Profit Organization"... it is listed as "Sports Entertainment" just like WWE.

Money.

It's all about the spread.


The spread, guys.

Crooks.

Football...





go watch a high school game if you love the game so much, but please don't try to tell me the NFL is "real" sportsd... eh?

EVERY FLIPPIN GAME LATELY HAS BEEN WON/LOST BY SUSPICIOUS OR SEEMINGLY STUPID CALLS/PLAYS.


You just can't imagine Manning/et al taking a $1 billion dollar paycheck to throw a bad pass... or a guy just accidentally doesn't tackle someone... or the ref makes a dubious call???


Is this the football of 60 years ago?


NO!!!!







NFL IS FAKE AS FUKKKKKKKK




Just look at some of the players' faces after that last play....mmmm?


And last year too.

Don't click on this URL in a public place...
http://i.imgur.com/DvOK6dB.jpg

so beautiful it made me cry

[The Six]

Is humour lost on youse guys today???

If only we had any here!

[Cato]

If only we had any here!

I thought Snyprrr's comments were pretty funny!