Oh, let's just see what happens!
tee hee ;) :D ;D
Seriously, I feel bad. Being a life long Deadskins Basher I feel bad for all this name-changing fracas going on. I mean, who are these sports writers? And who are these... Native Americans? pffff... The fact is, they lose,... and they lose. Here, I've got two words for you:
John Riggens (I even forgot how to speel the naame!)
That was about 30 Years Ago.
The mere fact that a bunch of ninnies have me feeling sorry for Daniel Snyder is an outrage!
Feel free... it'll do ya some good! ;) 8)
My favorite kind.
(http://www.pantrydiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/008-red-skin-potatoes-with-tahini-sauce-PD.jpg)
As a Cowboys fan, I can't tolerate other teams in our division anyway, but the Foreskins are tops for worst, followed by the Beagles. One of my favorite football moments was Super Bowl 18 in 1983 when the Raiders clipped the Foreskins by the score of 38-9, and the 9 were just mercy points at the end. Not the worst blowout ever, but I damn near choked on my nachos! :D :D
They should change the name, even without all that. 'Redskin' is the exact equivalent of 'n-----r' and if we won't tolerate one, then why the other?
8)
Not sure about the level of offensiveness of the word "redskin," but there was a movement to change the name of the Cleveland Indians. If they go that far, then they should also change the name of the Boston Celtics, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the Minnesota Vikings. The Irish and Scandanavians should be offended.
You're only joking, of course. The obvious difference is, there are plenty of Irish-Americans in and around Boston; if they were "offended" they would speak up, would be in a position to speak up.
Now, the owner of the Redskins could address the people of the District: "Any Native Americans who reside here who wish to complain?"
Wonder what the response would be like . . . .
Seen on FB
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 17, 2014, 05:26:18 PM
One of my favorite football moments was Super Bowl 18 in 1983 when the Raiders clipped the Foreskins by the score of 38-9, and the 9 were just mercy points at the end. Not the worst blowout ever, but I damn near choked on my nachos! :D :D
My favourite game ever! Being a Raider fan, it was probably the last time I actually enjoyed a Raider game.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 18, 2014, 01:50:47 AM
You're only joking, of course. The obvious difference is, there are plenty of Irish-Americans in and around Boston; if they were "offended" they would speak up, would be in a position to speak up.
Now, the owner of the Redskins could address the people of the District: "Any Native Americans who reside here who wish to complain?"
Wonder what the response would be like . . . .
I am joking. In the same way that being offended at "Cleveland Indians" is a joke.
Redskins is another matter...
Quote from: Greg on August 18, 2014, 10:03:04 AM
I am joking. In the same way that being offended at "Cleveland Indians" is a joke.
Redskins is another matter...
Agreed. 'Braves' and 'Indians' are innocuous and meant that way. 'Redskins' is pejorative and meant that way. There's the difference.
8)
Still, if they go with the spuds, it could be a vegan breakthrough!
I like those red skin potatoes, but loathe the football team.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 18, 2014, 10:10:12 AM
'Redskins' is pejorative and meant that way.
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.
Quote from: Ken B on August 18, 2014, 01:06:59 PM
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.
Even back in the Old West, the term 'redskin' was meant negatively. If you define someone by the color of their skin, how is that not pejorative? I don't know that a whole lot of thought was put into at the beginning, but if it had been, then even in a politically incorrect era someone would have said 'hey, wait a bit on that...'
Of course, it's Washington... :-\
8)
This is a minor matter that can easily be resolved by the ownership. Then, it's time to get back to the important matter of winning games.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 18, 2014, 01:15:03 PM
Even back in the Old West, the term 'redskin' was meant negatively. If you define someone by the color of their skin, how is that not pejorative? I don't know that a whole lot of thought was put into at the beginning, but if it had been, then even in a politically incorrect era someone would have said 'hey, wait a bit on that...'
Of course, it's Washington... :-\
8)
Since you're the only one so far who has stood up for the name-change, may I ask you: Exactly when did you... mm... (being sensitive here)... "become aware of" this and saw it as such? Back when you were young? The '80s? Recently, as in when all this became news within the last year or so?
Just curious...
Just as the singer from Judas Priest was nowheres near gaaay back in the '80s, no one I ever knew ever said nuffin about no racist name. It was just the 'redskins', and the...Indian guy on the helmet looked pretty noble and cool,... soooo,... just like "gay marriage", this wasn't an issue "back in the day" (when life seemed... oh on second thought, it wasn't simpler). 'Redskins' simply was NOT 'Ni66er',... simply not. I mean, isn't whitey still called 'White Skin'? I never got the 'redskin' being an outrage (maybe them drunk injuns just want mo' money, mo' money, mo' money?) (they seem to be the least well organized group after the "whites") (maybe I should stop? should I stop? you know - I DO love "everyone",... really!!)
Overload the system with outraged issues...
Either way, I surely can't wait to watch them lose 40-0, 26-3, 53-0, 32-31, 18-3, 32-0,...
(I was hoping to lure out some die-hards here, but they're either too scared, or, Classical People know better)
Quote from: Sammy on August 18, 2014, 01:33:15 PM
This is a minor matter that can easily be resolved by the ownership. Then, it's time to get back to the important matter of winning games.
Wait... whaaat?
This is the
REDSKINS Appreciation Thread... what part of that didn't you understand? :laugh:
just bustin' yo' balls ;)shhh... are you a.... gulp.... fan? :o ??? :'(
Quote from: snyprrr on August 18, 2014, 01:49:06 PM
Since you're the only one so far who has stood up for the name-change, may I ask you: Exactly when did you... mm... (being sensitive here)... "become aware of" this and saw it as such? Back when you were young? The '80s? Recently, as in when all this became news within the last year or so?
Just curious...
Just as the singer from Judas Priest was nowheres near gaaay back in the '80s, no one I ever knew ever said nuffin about no racist name. It was just the 'redskins', and the...Indian guy on the helmet looked pretty noble and cool,... soooo,... just like "gay marriage", this wasn't an issue "back in the day" (when life seemed... oh on second thought, it wasn't simpler). 'Redskins' simply was NOT 'Ni66er',... simply not. I mean, isn't whitey still called 'White Skin'? I never got the 'redskin' being an outrage (maybe them drunk injuns just want mo' money, mo' money, mo' money?) (they seem to be the least well organized group after the "whites") (maybe I should stop? should I stop? you know - I DO love "everyone",... really!!)
Overload the system with outraged issues...
Either way, I surely can't wait to watch them lose 40-0, 26-3, 53-0, 32-31, 18-3, 32-0,...
(I was hoping to lure out some die-hards here, but they're either too scared, or, Classical People know better)
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... :)
8)
Quote from: snyprrr on August 18, 2014, 01:54:01 PM
Wait... whaaat?
This is the REDSKINS Appreciation Thread... what part of that didn't you understand? :laugh:
just bustin' yo' balls ;)shhh... are you a.... gulp.... fan? :o ??? :'(
Obviously clueless.... ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 18, 2014, 02:33:12 PMThat was the first time I thought specifically about the Foreskins
Do you
really think of them as the "foreskins"?
Quote from: Jay F on August 18, 2014, 03:39:04 PM
Do you really think of them as the "foreskins"?
As a Cowboys fan in Texas, it is the best I can do.... nothing personal, of course. >:D
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 18, 2014, 02:33:12 PM
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... :)
8)
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...
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
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
Quote from: Jay F on August 18, 2014, 03:39:04 PM
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
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. :laugh: I think this Thread is gonna go places! ;)
GO REDSKINS!!
[/font][/size][/color]
Quote from: snyprrr on February 01, 2015, 07:55:59 AM
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.
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.
I hear it's changing it's name to Satan II.
(http://footballmentaltoughness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Bill-Belichick.jpg)
Ban football. Solves all these problems. Might cure world hunger too. Can't know till you try.
Quote from: Ken B on August 18, 2014, 01:06:59 PM
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.
(http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/Washington_Redskins_Holiday_Special_South_Park.png)
Don't click on this URL in a public place...
http://i.imgur.com/DvOK6dB.jpg
Quote from: Daverz on February 01, 2015, 04:39:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Ken B on February 01, 2015, 05:38:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Daverz on February 01, 2015, 06:52:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Ken B on February 01, 2015, 07:01:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Daverz on February 01, 2015, 07:09:36 PM
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?
Quote from: Ken B on February 01, 2015, 07:23:37 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
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.
Quote from: Greg on February 01, 2015, 05:29:26 PM
(http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/Washington_Redskins_Holiday_Special_South_Park.png)
Don't click on this URL in a public place...
http://i.imgur.com/DvOK6dB.jpg
so beautiful it made me cry :'(
Quote from: snyprrr on February 02, 2015, 07:50:20 AM
Is humour lost on youse guys today???
If only we had any here!
Quote from: The Six on February 02, 2015, 10:45:06 AM
If only we had any here!
I thought
Snyprrr's comments were pretty funny! 8)