City Paper - Redskins Segregationist Past, and Efforts to End It, Recalled

[Crazy Levi]

This is ridiculously easy to answer...I'm actually surprised you needed me to do so.

The parallel is that both men (Snyder and McKenna) have built up a deep reservoir of mistrust in a sizeable percentage of Redskins fans...to the point that neither is given the benefit of the doubt automatically by most of these groups of people. Even when you don't agree with the mistrust, it's not difficult to understand where the mistrust comes from.

...

OK, so let me see if I have this right.

You don't "trust" McKenna. So does that mean you are accusing him of writing an innacurate article? That's pretty easy to prove. Pick his story apart. Show us the lies and innacuracy.

If you can't or won't do that, you have no business drawing a parallel.

Many Redskins' fans don't like Dan Snyder - but that's subjective. You can't "prove" it right or wrong.

You can, however, prove McKenna's story about Marshall is right or wrong. Nobody has to give him the "benefit of the doubt."

If you doubt his story, show us why it is innacurate.

That's why you are engaging in fallacy. It's apples and oranges.

I don't believe for one second that you actually believe there is anything wrong with Mckenna's story. You simply have a bone to pick with the guy, so you'll ***** about him every time he writes an article.

To say there is a "parallel" here is absolutely ludicrious. Anybody who has taken logic 101 knows this.

[DC9]

I'll start my comment by saying I thank God that I didn't have to grow up/live in a time in our country where crap like this was going on.

As far as the article, I can't tell if it's Dave McKenna trying to kiss Snyder's ass by showing how truly evil a man that Marshall was, or if he is just trying to take another shot at the Redskins.

It's an interesting piece, and frankly a subject that shouldn't be forgotten. But the timing is interesting, I can think of a hundred other articles he could write this week in particular. That being said, it wasn't very well researched and only skirted several of the issues. I honestly wish he had gone deeper into depth on Bobby Mitchell, or maybe asked Bobby about his interactions with Marshall.

That would be a riveting piece. McKenna fails to impress with this one.

[Crazy Levi]

The irony I was pointing out is you seeing continued mistrust in one and not the other; and not seeing Cali's excellent analogy between the two.

Hail.

That's not irony.

I don't trust Dan Snyder. I do trust McKenna. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Please explain why that is irony. In case you haven't noticed *I* did not bring up Dan Snyder. I don't believe it has anything to do with this article, or this thread.

YOU however continue to bring up Dan Snyder at EVERY possible turn, while accusing others of being obsessed with him.

That's some irony for you.

Hail.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

OK, so let me see if I have this right.

You don't "trust" McKenna. So does that mean you are accusing him of writing an innacurate article? That's pretty easy to prove. Pick his story apart. Show us the lies and innacuracy.

First show us where anyone claimed there were "lies" and "inaccuracies" in the article.

If you can't or won't do that, you have no business drawing a parallel.

There is NO way you can be this obtuse and still work a keyboard ...

The parallel is in the MOTIVATION of each man that so many Skins fans distrust.

You know...which I outlined in the part of my post you decided wasn't important and left out of your quote lol...

I'll post it again:

Snyder and McKenna deserve their doubters as well.

And the mistrust comes from why he wrote the article and why it's published now instead of some earlier date. Since someone stated that the WP had a book review about the same topic, it's not too far-fetched to believe McKenna was lazy and got his article idea from seeing the review in the Post. Then again, maybe he's been saving this piece for release and publication right before the Skins start the season. Remember how so many claimed that Snyder filed his lawsuit during Super Bowl week in order to get attention? Do you think the same might be said about McKenna and publishing this article during the week before the NFL season starts, maybe?...

Read that part in red...find a free online translator that can translate Logic to Obtusenese if you need to. The mistrust is within the motivations of both men. I guarantee everyone else here got that point after reading my first post.

There's no real reason to answer any of the rest of your post...if you can't understand what I've written above--and have written in two previous posts--then you sure as hell won't get anything else I write in response.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

That's not irony.

I don't trust Dan Snyder. I do trust McKenna. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Please explain why that is irony. In case you haven't noticed *I* did not bring up Dan Snyder. I don't believe it has anything to do with this article, or this thread.

YOU however continue to bring up Dan Snyder at EVERY possible turn, while accusing others of being obsessed with him.

That's some irony for you.

Hail.

Please, from the thread you took such umbridge to, to today, show me where I bring up the darn owner I've been one of the loudest critics against over the years on here at 'every turn.'

Go, research, show me this pro-Snyder obsession your asserting I have.

And Snyder/ The Washington Redskins have every relevance when it comes to anything McKenna puts out there as he has a past track record of attacking both in equal measure, singularly or together. How you can then wonder why people doubt him and his motives is beyond me, but that's your prerogative.

It'd be nice if you'd afford others their's on McKenna in exactly the same way as you want yours on your mistrust of Snyder, however irrelevant that is to most things you argue against like his recent history. But that will be more irony that's totally over your head no doubt.

Hail.

[Crazy Levi]

First show us where anyone claimed there were "lies" and "inaccuracies" in the article.

There is NO way you can be this obtuse and still work a keyboard ...

The parallel is in the MOTIVATION of each man that so many Skins fans distrust.

You know...which I outlined in the part of my post you decided wasn't important and left out of your quote lol...

I'll post it again:

Read that part in red...find an free online translator that can translate Logic to Obtusenese if you need to. The mistrust is within the motivations of both men. I guarantee everyone else here got that point after reading my first post.

There's no real reason to answer any of the rest of your post...if you can't understand what I've written above--and have written in two previous posts--then you sure as hell won't get anything else I write in response.

Thanks. I now do understand the extremely broad parallel you are drawing.

Some people don't trust Snyder. Some people don't trust McKenna.

Ok, wow, I get it. I just think it's pretty weak. Again, if you don't "trust" McKenna, it's pretty easy to shoot this particular article down if that were your intention.

Instead you are just hiding behind a very flimsy prejudice.

"McKenna doesn't like Dan Snyder. For some reason, I do like Dan Snyder. Therefore, I am not going to "trust" this apparently accurate and informative article about Redskins history - even though I have no factual reason for it."

Talk about "obtuse."

And, if you simply are not interested in reading McKenna's work because you question his "motivations," well, that's your right as well. But it sure seems obtuse.

So much obtuseness going on here.

---------- Post added September-7th-2011 at 11:45 AM ----------

And Snyder/ The Washington Redskins have every relevance when it comes to anything McKenna puts out there as he has a past track record of attacking both in equal measure, singularly or together. How you can then wonder why people doubt him and his motives is beyond me, but that's your prerogative.

Hail.

There you go again, with the clear intimation that there's something sinister going on behind the scenes with this article. I do NOT doubt why some here are questioning his "motives."

But in the context of this article, it's really petty. Why should McKenna's "motives" matter? If anything, the article makes Snyder look GOOD - after all, he's many things, but he's clearly not a racist.

So again, what is your problem with the article? Do you have ANY problems with the article, beyond questions about the "motivations" behind McKenna writing it?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

"McKenna doesn't like Dan Snyder. For some reason, I do like Dan Snyder. Therefore, I am not going to "trust" this apparently accurate and informative article about Redskins history - even though I have no factual reason for it."

Your arrogance aside, where have either I or Califan (forgive me for speaking on your behalf bro) in this thread even suggested we mistrust the accuracy of McKenna's piece, being as we're the two your arguing against whilst not even fully understanding what it actually is your arguing against it would appear.

I, not Cali, have said I don't trust McKenna's motives behind anything he puts out; and Cali has pertinently made the analogy between that well earned reputation and Snyders from other's like yourself; but I'm curious as to where we've questioned the validity or accuracy of his piece, or the subjects worth.

Hail.

[Crazy Levi]

Your arrogance aside, where have either I or Califan (forgive me for speaking on your behalf bro) in this thread even suggested we mistrust the accuracy of McKenna's piece, being as we're the two your arguing against whilst not even fully understanding what it actually is your arguing against it would appear.

I, not Cali, have said I don't trust McKenna's motives behind anything he puts out; and Cali has pertinently made the analogy between that well earned reputation and Snyders from other's like yourself; but I'm curious as to where we've questioned the validity or accuracy of his piece, or the subjects worth.

Hail.

Then there is no parallel there.

I do not mistrust Snyder's "motivations." I think he's motivated by a desire to have a winning team.

I mistrust his management style. I think he's a crappy owner. I think he makes terrible decisions, and set this franchise back more than a decade.

You mistrust McKenna's motivations.

Do you understand why that isn't a valid parallel?

So are you saying you trust the accuracy of his article? Then what are we arguing about?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Crazy, I agree, I don't believe your obtuse.

Being as stubbornly awkward as you possibly can be for the sake of argument and in so doing coming across as completely arrogant and condescending, but not obtuse.

Everything has been explained and repeated in multiple posts throughout this thread. If you continue to flippantly dismiss or ignore the very pertinent points made, then that is of course your rightful prerogative.

But there's really little point in continuing this if that's the case.

Hail.

[DC9]

Levi,

Where would you start if you were doing an Article on the de-segregation of the Washington Redskins?

Would you start with a civil rights activist from Virginia and a dead interior secretary to JFK?

[Crazy Levi]

Crazy, I agree, I don't believe your obtuse.

Being as stubbornly awkward as you possibly can be for the sake of argument and in so doing coming across as completely arrogant and condescending, but not obtuse.

Everything has been explained and repeated in multiple posts throughout this thread. If you continue to flippantly dismiss or ignore the very pertinent points made, then that is of course your rightful prerogative.

But there's really little point in continuing this if that's the case.

Hail.

There is no point in continuing. You continue to attack me personally while refusing to defend your fallacies.

It's your perogative as you say. Enjoy not reading McKenna's articles because you mistrust his "motivation," and I'll continue to read them and actually judge them on their merits.

---------- Post added September-7th-2011 at 12:09 PM ----------

Levi,

Where would you start if you were doing an Article on the de-segregation of the Washington Redskins?

Would you start with a civil rights activist from Virginia and a dead interior secretary to JFK?

I haven't really thought about it. That's an interesting question though. I guess it would depend on about 600 different factors.

Where would you start?

[DC9]

I haven't really thought about it. That's an interesting question though. I guess it would depend on about 600 different factors.

Where would you start?

I would start with Bobby Mitchell. Do you think McKenna has the reach or cred to get a class act like Bobby Mitchell or any other relevant source to the story?

Not bashing here, this is where Cali and GHH are going as far as McKenna goes. That being said, check my post history out, I hammered Donovan for the way he handled the City Paper....

That also being said, let's focus on other things. We've been begging for a rebuild for years, why do you always have to look at negative? Give it some time, the rebuild is here, brother.

[Crazy Levi]

I would start with Bobby Mitchell.

Why?

Bobby Mitchell wasn't HERE when the Redskins were a segregated team.

I guess talking with some of the players who were might be an interesting angle. But I think speaking with a civil rights activist from back then is a perfect place to start an article like that.

Keep in mind it was 50 years ago...it's not like there is a bottomless well of potential sources to speak with.

[inPORTISweTRUST]

OK, so let me see if I have this right.

You don't "trust" McKenna. So does that mean you are accusing him of writing an innacurate article? That's pretty easy to prove. Pick his story apart. Show us the lies and innacuracy.

If you can't or won't do that, you have no business drawing a parallel.

Many Redskins' fans don't like Dan Snyder - but that's subjective. You can't "prove" it right or wrong.

You can, however, prove McKenna's story about Marshall is right or wrong. Nobody has to give him the "benefit of the doubt."

If you doubt his story, show us why it is innacurate.

That's why you are engaging in fallacy. It's apples and oranges.

I don't believe for one second that you actually believe there is anything wrong with Mckenna's story. You simply have a bone to pick with the guy, so you'll ***** about him every time he writes an article.

To say there is a "parallel" here is absolutely ludicrious. Anybody who has taken logic 101 knows this.

Listen and listen very well Levi.....

It's not the content of the article that is "mistrusted" the article is factual and accurate...

IT'S THE TIMING OF RELEASE AND MOTIVATION FOR WRITING THE ARTICLE THAT IS BEING QUESTIONED....

The article stirs up powerful feelings and brings up a dark part of Redskin's history only a few days before the start of a season, A season full of positive prospects.

It's like a kid making honor roll, buying him ice cream, and then taking him to Busch Gardens just to bring up his father's alcoholism as soon as he steps off his first ride.

Now please put down your bat the horse is dead and has had enough

HAIL!

[Sandman69]

I don't see our name or mascot as racist. Marshall was definitely racist, but not from the name of the team.

I also see the parallel of people mistrusting both McKenna as well as those mistrusting Snyder. Based on their track record.

Though I also think that someone predicting a 3-13 season for the Skins can be proven wrong at the end of the season.

[Crazy Levi]

That also being said, let's focus on other things. We've been begging for a rebuild for years, why do you always have to look at negative? Give it some time, the rebuild is here, brother.

That's not fair at all. I'm not "negative."

I'm very excited about this season and the first REAL rebuilding season we've had here since about 1994. I've been quite clear on that here.

I'm not even the one being negative in this thread.

I thought it was a good article. That's positive.

[Bang]

Levi,

Where would you start if you were doing an Article on the de-segregation of the Washington Redskins?

I know where I'd start.

the trash can.

This article has been written a thousand times. It's pretty common knowledge for any football fan, and if it's not there's a thousand already-written histories of the Redskins being the last team to integrate.

to those who feel it should never be forgotten.. why not?

Why not let that crap fade to memory? Are we worried that re-segregation could happen?

Some things are best left to history. Dredging up racism in the past doesn't really do anything but inflame the present. There is no present day correlation that can be drawn from this, no similar situation in which this re-hash can metaphorically shed some light.

Sports are meant to be escapes from the bull**** that governs the rest of the world.

The NFL is a great model of all the positives of de-segregation.

The majority of the money being made is made by minorities purely on the merit of their ability, and nothing else. No affirmative action, no good ol' boy network making sure whites get to play QB.. none of that exists. (Regardless of what Jamelle Hill will say)

In the NFL men of all races and faiths come together as teams and cooperate. The best get to play, not the whitest, not the coach's son.. the fastest, strongest and smartest get to play.

In the stands people of all colors cheer for players of all colors. During the week people walk around and talk about these guys and their exploits, wear their jerseys and their names.

I'd like to see an article trumpet that once in a while. This is ancient history. An embarrassment to our team, our country, and we as people. The only logical thing to do is go forward.

The NFL has. Spectacularly.

~Bang

[DC9]

Why?

Bobby Mitchell wasn't HERE when the Redskins were a segregated team.

I guess talking with some of the players who were might be an interesting angle. But I think speaking with a civil rights activist from back then is a perfect place to start an article like that.

Keep in mind it was 50 years ago...it's not like there is a bottomless well of potential sources to speak with.

Because the source of a lot of the knowledge would come from Mitchell. How did he find out he was getting traded? How did he feel? How did Marshall treat him? Did Marshall even talk to him? That's a lot more riveting than an 89 year old woman who organized 100 picketters outside a pre-season game. They still get more PETA activists up in Philly than that.

Like Bang said, this has all been done before.

Like you said, it happened 50 years ago....why bring it up now? Of all weeks...take your pick.... opening week, 9/11, new faces on defense, new quarterback, 9 out of 12 draft picks make the team, Snyder stayed out of football operations this offseason...take your pick.

That's why I said he's either trying to kiss up to Snyder by writing poop about Marshall or he's trying to take a shot.

inPORTISweTRUST had it write to an extent, timing. Why now? But I will add that his sources are crap. That shows that he's either lazy or he couldn't get more reliable sources.

to those who feel it should never be forgotten.. why not?

Bang,

Bobby Mitchell was a special athelete, but the fact that he was the first African-American on the squad makes him a special person. Every Redskins fan should know the story.

[Bang]

Bang,

Bobby Mitchell was a special athelete, but the fact that he was the first African-American on the squad makes him a special person. Every Redskins fan should know the story.

Fine. I totally agree. But it's been told. A thousand times. That's all I'm saying.

I don't care if McKenna has an axe to grind with Snyder, which is pretty apparent. It's a Redskins history story, so it is always relevant in this town, but there's other stories that can be told, maybe one that hasn't been told so much? We can learn about groundbreakers in the NFL, rather than be told about the roadblock racists. Tell it from the positive side, we know who the villains were.

Why not tell Marion Motley's story?

Fritz Pollard? First black coach in the NFL, and his story is never told.

George Preston Marshall making Bobby Mitchell sing "Dixie"? Sure, re-hash that one. I guess it's just me.. I'm just ready for the world to get positive for a change.

GPM is dead. And in the NFL, so are his ideals.

LONG dead.

~Bang

[DC9]

Fine. It's been told. A thousand times. That's all I'm saying.

Why not tell Marion Motley's story?

Fritz Pollard? First black coach in the NFL, and his story is never told.

George Preston Marshall? Sure, re-hash that one.

~Bang

I'm not propping the article at all. But I don't think that it's just something that should be forgotten. Maybe in 20 years or so, but right now it's still relevant history of this team.

[TheRookie]

Crazy Levi,

Hypothetically speaking, If right before an election, Keith Olberman reported an otherwise factual story about John Boehner's crying being the result of...say...cocaine use in his earlier years holding elected office...which he (Olberman) had known about for months, would you not question the motivation? Would it not undermine the reporting just a tad that the story was held until it could do potentially the most harm to Boehner's campaign when it's no secret Olberman has an axe to grind with the Republican party?

In this case, Snyder is Boehner and McKenna is Olberman. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the 50th anniversary of the game was over the summer. It was a preseason game, right? Would it not have been more appropriate to recall all this prior to the preseason? Or, maybe, as someone else mentioned, McKenna was just being lazy and piggybacking off The Post's story about the book. Given he and Snyder's past, though, it doesn't seem irrational to at least question the motivation and/or timing.

PS -- the whole Boehner cocaine thing was made-up purely to attempt to make a point

[Bang]

I'm not propping the article at all. But I don't think that it's just something that should be forgotten. Maybe in 20 years or so, but right now it's still relevant history of this team.

I follow you. I know history should never be forgotten.

Lessons need to be learned, and history is where we learn them.

Like i said after I edited, I guess i'm just more than ready to move beyond to the positive. There's other lessons history teaches us.

~Bang

[Crazy Levi]

Crazy Levi,

Hypothetically speaking, If right before an election, Keith Olberman reported an otherwise factual story about John Boehner's crying being the result of...say...cocaine use in his earlier years holding elected office...which he (Olberman) had known about for months, would you not question the motivation?

No, I wouldn't question the motivation. I know Keith's politics and I'd understand his motivation - it's not like there's any mystery there.

In the case of THIS article, I also don't question the motivation. Because I don't care.

Redskins fans here have whipped themselves up into such an anti-media frenzy that they aren't making any sense. Why should anybody CARE if McKenna has an axe to grind with Dan Snyder? It has nothing to do with the validity of his article, or whether or not it's interesting reading. And I thought it was interesting reading. I'm always interested in hearing the voices and recollections of people who won't be around much longer, telling me their perspectives on how things were back then. The idea that I should somehow not "trust" the article because McKenna wrote it never even occured to me, and neither did the idea that somewhow this article about the history of the Redskins could somehow be construed as a slam against the current team or its owner. That's all in YOUR minds.

You guys have a lot of misplaced anger against the media.

"They are biased against Snyder"

"They picked us to go 3-13"

"They are always so mean!"

None of this matters or makes any difference where it counts - the football field.

I've got a better hypothetical situation than your silly and irrelevant tale of Boehner's coke use.

Dan Snyder continues to behave himself and lets Shanny stay the course, even if we go 3-13 this year. The Skins continue to rebuild. The Skins get back into the playoffs next year or after that, and become a competetive, contending team with a future.

During this same period of time, the media gradually changes it's tune. We no longer get picked last every preseason, we are no longer be the butt of every NFL joke involving free-agents, and we stop getting "picked on." Suddenly, the coverage of Redskins becomes less "biased," and Redskins fans stop suffering the indignity of having to read about how bad the Redskins organization is.

One can dream.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Is there a worse online debate than "Your analogy is flawed?"

Seriously...both of you...stop. No one cares. No one likes you. No one is reading your ****. You are off-topic and boring.

[elkabong82]

oh that whacky city paper. I guess when you never write about actual football then you resort to dredging up half-a-century-old stories that everyone already knows just days before the season opener. Perhaps 50 years later a new perspective, a new angle, could be covered, using primary sources and interviews. This article is like a cut and paste off of wikipedia.