Panninho

Members
  • Content Count

    663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Panninho

  • Rank
    The Field Goal Team

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
    24.11.1990
  • Redskins Fan Since
    2011
  • Favorite Redskin
    Sean Taylor
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
    Washington Redskins
  • Location
    Germany
  • Zip Code
    1160

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Problem is, that he is nowhere as good as Pulisic.
  2. Redwolves is a really cool name, hope we don't get disappointed with something like Warriors. Saw somewhere that when the teams come onto the pitch you could dim the light (for night games), show a big moon on the screen and the whole stadium could howl. That'd be amazing.
  3. I mean after all they show their methodology and the sampling was good enough to be published in a peer reviewed journal, not something you can claim for the other polls. Also their sampling seems to be quite representative of all political ideologies.
  4. But would that pride be reduced if they would still honor that NA heritage just with a different NA themed name that does not offend the other half? Serious question.
  5. Well the latest poll shows that at least half of Native Americans are offended by it. So where does this then leave us? https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/ But even if it would just be 20 or 30%, why wouldn't that 20 or 30% count? I mean that's still a lot of people you would offend with that.
  6. I'm sorry but that is just not true. Look at the list of organizations and persons that spearhead this initiative. It's predominantly Native Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington_Redskins_name_change_advocates
  7. It's impossible to not notice the political rift in the US and how everything becomes political there, it's also not sooo different here in Europe. But that doesn't make it right and I don't think people should engage in it to the point where everything is dismissed because it comes from the other side. Because ultimately this issue is about the people that might be affected, so why not be open to the sociological debate and consider all aspects of the topic? I can see your point and I also believe you that you don't see it as a slur. But that does not mean the people affected by this feel that way or that other non-affected people feel as you or that, in a bigger context, the usage of the symbols and names - even when not meant derogatory by most - do not foster a problemactic picture of the NA community. I also love the logo and I'd like nothing more than to keep it because it isn't controversial. Unfortunately, I cannot say that for sure because we know some NA are hurting.
  8. I think it's very difficult for a person not affected by this term to assess whether it is actually hurting anyone or not. I had a similar discussion with my mom recently because here in Germany and Austria many things are re-branded and she doesn't agree or understand. We have old folk songs that warn about drinking coffee because you don't want to become a "muslim man", dishes that are named after marginalized Eastern European ethnic groups, a mix of beer and coke which is colloquially called "negro", etc. Her point basically was that none of that was meant in a derogatory way. It was just normal to call it that back in the day and no one is saying these things out of disrespect and she thinks it's exaggerated to re-name all of that. Here is the thing though. From research we know that language plays a big role in forming and manipulating opinions and creating subconscious beliefs. Even though people might not think it is a big thing and are actually convinced that they do not mean it in a harmful way it still can create an environment that ultimately hurts the affected community. Many people here claim that we should focus on more important matters like actually directly helping the communities and not bother about these issues. But if you think that people dressing up in funny costumes, painting their faces red and mimicking random battlecries has absolutely no effect on the subconscious perception of Native Americans I think you are not being honest to yourself. So even if it might just be a small issue on a very long list of issues that these communities are facing why just sweep those things aside? It's possible to do several things at once. Things like these can actually contribute to such groups being marginalized. And when you question whether the name has hurt anyone it's not always about an immediate direct insult but has to be put in a bigger picture and into historic context to really judge the impact. I am not claiming that this is irrefutable and that the name change would have a big impact but to just say it's not harming because it isn't meant that way is short sighted from my point of view. And I don't think this is an issue of left or rigth. This is not a political issue but a sociological issue and if people actually cared about the well-being of these people you should at least be open towards having the debate. And let's be honest, we already know that it is hurting at least a proportion of the Native American community so why disregard their opinions just because other Native Americans might not feel it's derogatory?
  9. I agree, and I would like to get them involved in the process. Snyder said they want to honor the Natives so I guess a new name wouldn't be something that has absolutely nothing to do with them. So I think it absolutely makes sense to get them involved, but not necessarily with the ultimate goal to keeping the name. Should be an open discussion with an open end.
  10. Asking the Native Americans how they feel and offering them a platform obviously makes a ton of sense, I am all for it. But I would not think that the discussion would then go away. We already know that the Native Americans are also not all on the same page concerning the name. So if, for example, 60% of them support it and 40% are against it what's the next move then? You would have a majority but at the same time also know you would still offend a significant portion of that ethnical group.
  11. What the hell are you talking about? I am talking about Clemens Tönnies who was in charge for Schalke for the last 20 years until last week.
  12. Because you like a club that was, up until last week, run by a racist billionaire that exploits workers from Eastern Europe?
  13. I think it's funny that people say they would be done if the name changes. Seriously? That's where you draw the line? It's not the constant athletic sucking? The incompetent slimebags that were running the front-office? The fact that this team took away the passports of the cheerleaders and pressured them into topless pictures during a trip to Costa Rica? That all was okay but if they change the name then you're gone? I mean I get that it's tough to let go of a name that is deeply connected to your fascination for the sport. No one says it's easy. But it not only offends people from an already marginalized ethnic group, it also dictates the narrative about this sports team. I feel, beyond just it being the right thing to do from a moral standpoint, it can really give this franchise an enormous momentum. We feel like a lot of the things are trending in the right direction for once. Why not give this franchise a fresh start, change the narrative and on top of that move back to DC? I think it's the right thing to do.
  14. I am mostly surprised that mail-in voting isn't a possibility for everyone in some states so far. I'm German but live in Austria, so I have been voting via mail-in for more than a decade now and I was never asked to give a reason. You just request the paperwork and hand it in. Is there actually any good reason to not provide everyone with this opportunity other than Republicans fearing a bigger voter turnout?