Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jnhay

  • Rank
    The Heavy Hitter
  • Birthday 07/17/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Washington Football Team Fan Since
  • Favorite Washington Football Team Player
    Darrell Green
  • Location
  1. On their side in this instance or are you speaking generally? If it's the latter that's definitely white guilt. It'd make more sense to just look at the issue and come up with your own opinion.
  2. The purpose of words is to convey ideas. It's not a new phenomenon for different people to interpret the same word differently, and have neither group be wrong. Reference this list to see words that mean the opposite of themselves http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=49834 So, I don't disregard the offended. I think they're totally justified. But I feel no guilt in choosing to continue to support the positive interpretation of the word redskin, especially since many native Americans agree.
  3. There are Native American tribes in the area, right? Do they protest at every game, because wouldn't it be pretty damn easy to do?
  4. I think I've said it already, but this keeps coming to my mind. When people say the name is offensive, they choose to believe the origin is from killing Natives or the white man making up the name to demean a race. Since these versions of history don't seem likely to me, I can't take the outrage as seriously. I do see the point where people have experience with people calling them Redskin personally in a derogatory way, but those anecdotes are far outnumbered by those who choose to believe the stories given to them by Suzan Harjo.
  5. Potomacs is looking better and better these days. It would be ultimate proof that the issue isn't as straightforward as many dummies think. I'm still totally against changing the name, but if it happens it'd be nice to have the opposition (at least the fake, Washington Post types) feel as stupid as they should.
  6. What annoys me the most is that people will put their own spin on the word Redskin, and transform its meaning to something they can relate to and be offended by. It's not the same as calling a team "brown skins" or the n-word. If the team changed its name to the n-words, black people (and of course, people of other skin colors) would be outraged and there's no way 99.9% wouldn't be against it. You don't see that with the NA population. Why? Because it's not like calling the team the Washington N-words!
  7. The only thing offensive thing about your scenario is the context. Going up to anyone and saying "Hello white guy" or "Hello chubby person" rather than introducing yourself or addressing them by name is naturally rude. But then you have the Association of American Indian Affairs, and a bunch of actual chiefs out there. Are those contexts offensive?
  8. I found it surprising and confusing to learn that the tribe Suzan Harjo (probably the most vocal opponent of our name) is part of, the Creek nation, actually owned slaves. If someone could shed some light on that historically I'd appreciate it. Because it definitely makes me a little less sympathetic.
  9. I don't know. When it comes to bull****, I'm pretty sure Mayweather is the king. So if we're just going by a person's word, then he's not getting the benefit of the doubt from me.
  10. Can you somehow see how Bradley won 7,8,9 and 10? I think it's impossible for Duane Ford's opinion to be that of a sane man's.
  11. Are you taking into account the rule changes that favor less powerful and less frequent punching?
  12. I think that at least Kellerman and Steward would have been all over Pacquiao if he was looking bad during the fight, because they were pretty critical of the stuff that went on before the fight. It didn't happen because he was pretty dominant.
  • Create New...