Glenn X Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Greetings and salutations, fellow Redskins fans. While I’ve been out of the country for the past month, having gone to England to see my exceptionally lovely English girlfriend, I was able, thanks to the wonder of the World Wide Web, to keep somewhat of a bead on how our team was doing. And so far so good. Very good, in fact. S.O.S. and his vaunted offensive scheme, as well as his rapier wit, are proving to be as impressive as initially billed. Good going, Mr. Snyder. However, despite this, upon returning to the good ol’ U.S. of A., I find myself being almost magnetically drawn to negative ink on the ‘Skins, as I’m sometimes wont to do. Take for example this most recent honey of a hatchet-job, courtesy of a one Gregg Easterbrook from ESPN’s Page 2: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/tmq/020827.html The R*dsk*ns fled Washington for lower taxes and better parking, yet seek to benefit from the city's prestige while paying naught for the privilege. This is sneaky, low and lacking in character. ("Sneaky, low and lacking in character" would be a nice adjectival phrase for R*dsk*ns owner/menace to western civilization Dan Snyder, but there's a topic for another day.) Honorable franchises should call themselves what they are. And speaking of honorable, the name R*dsk*ns is not.Redskin is a derogatory term, intended to disparage. Of course, contemporary R*dsk*ns fans don't mean it that way, nor want to hurt anyone's feelings. To fans it's just a traditional name, lacking inherent significance. Fans may chant a team name without giving any thought to what it means -- what's a Laker or a Hoya? But although fans do not intend R*dsk*ns to be offensive, it is nonetheless. And the fact the name is long-established constitutes no validation. Suppose that, since its founding in 1932, the team in question had been called the Washington Darkies. Today this name would be long-established and fans, inured to its meaning, would sing, "Hail to the Darkies!" without intending to hurt anyone's feelings. Even some African-American ticket holders might sing, "Hail to the Darkies!" That wouldn't make it right. Cue Fat B*stard soundbite, in attendant Scottish brogue: What kinda kRRRap is this?!Maybe I’m taking Mr. Easterbrook too literally here. Maybe he was just funnin’ with us all, right? Yeah, maybe that’s just it. Wait a minute, though. According to ESPN.com, this Easterbrook guy is a senior editor at The New Republic magazine and is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, neither of which are exactly bastions of much anything beyond left-of-center political viewpoints the last time I checked. In fact, each could credibly be described as being “bleeding heart” to a rather significant degree. So you see, it’s all about being suitably P.C. with Mr. Easterbrook. As a result, yes, he definitely meant what he wrote. Aside from the thoroughly snide tone and misinformed claims that make up Mr. Easterbrook’s anti-Redskins rant, though, what really gets me is that after going off on how bad the ‘Skins supposedly are because of their “racist” nickname, in the same article he later moves on to a feature he calls “Cheerleader of the Week,” which is accompanied by a scantily clad picture of a Denver Broncos pom-pom girl. For shame, Gregg! For shame! Gregg, don’t you realize that you’re abandoning your “enlightened” bleeding heartism here? What would all your incredibly “enlightened” friends at The New Republic and the Brookings Institution say about this, Greg? That you’re a sexist pig, no doubt! Gregg, Gregg, Gregg, don’t you know that by displaying that picture of that cheerleader in your article you effectively reduce the woman featured in that image to an object, a sexual object, an object to be “cruelly fetishized by your brutalizing male gaze,” as feminist Laura Mulvey would surely argue? Well, I see, Gregg. Sexism is just fine and dandy with you. But racism? That’s where you draw the line, eh? You misogynist hypocrite, you! And speaking of sexist enjoyment of the female form via the bad ol’ male gaze, has anyone here seen that Philadelphia Eagles Cheerleaders’ Lingerie Calendar yet? For those that haven’t, all I have to say is: YOWZA! The Eagles may be a bitter rival playing in a putrid stadium in a putrid city populated with putrid football fans, but man-oh-man do they ever have some great looking young ladies shaking their money-makers on the sidelines on autumnal and wintry Sundays over the past several years. So in closing: as far as I’m concerned, Gregg Easterbrook can take his sanctimonious asterisks and shove ‘em up his sanctimonious @ss, and the Philadelphia Eagles Cheerleaders have my blessing to make their “tasteful” lingerie calendars an annual tradition. P.S. If the Easterbrook article has already been covered in a previous thread(s), you all have my sincere apologies for the re-post. P.P.S. I would like to take this time to thank Codeorama for his hilarious weekly summaries of this year’s installment of Hard Knocks. While I didn’t have access to HBO over in England, I didn’t need to thanks to Codeorama’s laugh-so-hard-it-makes-you-cry reports on the cable channel’s behind-the-scenes look at Dallas Cowboys training camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 P.S. If the Easterbrook article has already been covered in a previous thread(s), you all have my sincere apologies for the re-post. Well, yeah, it has, but not nearly as well as you just did! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Diesel Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 LOL. Well handled Glenn my man. I know I don't know you, Glenn...my man. But anyone who has the good sense to promote the inherent values of a....Brianna Banks (if you will)...is my man indeed. On your recommendation alone I shall check out these Philly skanks. If they are worthy of you....they must be worthy of something. Know whadda mean? From one conesuer to another...well I'll just take your word for it and check these ho's out. As for Mr. Eaglebroke...yes it's been addressed. I got all fired up about this putz in another thread, but I'm over it now. You've pretty much nailed every aspect of the previous thread so no need to go on any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 There was another thread on this but that post of yours was well worth the repeat. Give 'em heIl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange&Blue Skins Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Personally, I find the name Easterbrook extremely offensive. As a Christian, the name conjours ups a "brook" of blood as Christ died on the cross during "Easter." Easterbrook is a derogatory term, intended to disparage. Of course, Gregg doesn't mean it that way, nor does he want to hurt anyone's feelings. To him it's just a traditional name, lacking inherent significance. He may sign is name on ESPN's check without giving any thought to what it means -- what's a Smith or a Johnson? But although Gregg does not intend Easterbrook to be offensive, it is nonetheless. And the fact the name is long-established constitutes no validation. Suppose that his ancesters called themselves "ChristianKiller." Today this name would be long-established and Greg, inured to its meaning, would introduce himself as "Greg Christiankiller" without intending to hurt anyone's feelings. Even some Mormons might read ESPN. That wouldn't make it right. :bow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaffeen Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Glenn, I enjoyed the read. Well written and great "spin". I do think the author has some valid points, but you do as well <tongue firmly in cheek>. I think it is somewhat befitting that such a politically correct city have such a politically incorrect team (in more ways than one). Go Native Americans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Originally posted by Glenn X P.P.S. I would like to take this time to thank Codeorama for his hilarious weekly summaries of this year’s installment of Hard Knocks. While I didn’t have access to HBO over in England, I didn’t need to thanks to Codeorama’s laugh-so-hard-it-makes-you-cry reports on the cable channel’s behind-the-scenes look at Dallas Cowboys training camp. [/b] Thanks for the props.... Great post as well.... I can't wait to see what Hard Knocks brings us tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Nice post Glenn. Keeping with the non PC theme, is the a url for the iggle sheerleaders lingerie calender? I want to see if they are being exploited by those sexist men out there, yeah thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 That dumbass rarely contributes to Page 2, thank God. He has some kind of vendetta against the 'Skins. In actuality, the name Redskins was created by George Preston Marshall while in Boston to create a kinship with the Red Sox, who were the big team in town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dickens Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Have Easterbrook read this! The vast majority of Native Americans have no problem with the name Redskins, in fact on some reservations the Redskins are the names of the high school football teams. Easterbrook is a bonafide moron. From National Review Online John J. Miller March 8, 2002 9:05 a.m. By Any Other Name What do Native Americans think of sports teams named after Indians? Indian team names actually offend Indians? Self-appointed Native American activists say they do — but a new poll by Sports Illustrated tells a different story. Last year, when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights moved to condemn the use of Indian team names by colleges, universities, and K-12 schools, commissioner Abigail Thernstrom proposed a compromise. Rather than urge the federal government to file civil-rights lawsuits, as several fellow commissioners wanted to do, she suggested that the panel merely encourage "schools, teams, and other organizations voluntarily drop names that Native Americans themselves (as indicated by polling data or clearly expressed local sentiment) find offensive." It seemed like a reasonable middle ground between the activists who see racism everywhere they look and Redskins fans who refuse to acknowledge that some team names are considered slurs by many of their fellow Americans. Yet the commission voted down the Thernstrom proposal and issued its blanket condemnation instead. Perhaps it was Thernstrom's interest in "polling data" that turned them off, because a new poll published in Sports Illustrated suggests that Indian team names aren't nearly as offensive to as many people as the activists have let on. The Peter Harris Research Group polled 352 Native Americans (217 living on reservations and 134 living off) and 743 sports fans; the results are published in SI's March 4 issue. Here's the most important finding: "Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols." The poll also found that 75 percent of Native Americans don't think the use of these team names and mascots "contributes to discrimination." Opinion is divided about the tomahawk chop displayed at Atlanta Braves games: 48 percent "don't care" about it; 51 percent do care, but more than half of them "like it." The name "Redskins" isn't especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don't object to it. As a general rule, Indians on reservations were more sensitive about team names and mascots, but not to the point where a majority of them ever sided with the activists on these questions. Sports Illustrated writer S. L. Price reaches the obvious conclusion: "Although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Don't pay too much attention to Chief Easterbrook (and YES, I mean Chief in a disparaging way). He's been writing that column for a long time, and no one pays any attention. When I say he's been writing 'that' column, I mean he's been writing the same one over and over. If you read his weekly column, he says exactly the same things -- including his lame running commentary on the Skins name. His stupid "An Alien is Quarterbacking the Rams" horse is so tired, but he keeps beating it. Don't his editors notice that all he does is change the picture of the cheerleader each week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted August 28, 2002 Author Share Posted August 28, 2002 Originally posted by The Diesel I don't know you, Glenn...my man. But anyone who has the good sense to promote the inherent values of a....Brianna Banks (if you will)...is my man indeed. Well, then, TD, you'll be pleased to see what I've just added to The Daily Babe thread over at the Tailgate. Originally posted by NavyDave is there a url for the Iggle cheerleaders lingerie calender? Ask and ye shall receive, ND: http://www.eaglesnet.com/store/cheerleaders/default.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Thanks dude. I see that several cheerleaders apparently refrained from doing the lingerie shoot. They must be part of the peep hole lawsuit:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.