• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         1
      In today's Divisional Debacle, the Defense under Greg Manusky in the first half, gave up 207 yards of offense (105 rushing/102 passing) and two touchdowns.  That said, they did manage a single INT on which the Offense actually managed to score a touchdown off of. They allowed 12 of 16 passes to be completed . 
       
      In the second half it was 107 yards given up (58 rushing//49 passing) a field goal and a touchdown. They traded their first half pick for a second half sack. However, Dallas completed all five of their pass attempts. 
       
      Don't read that thinking "Well it seems like they tightened up some in the 2nd half."  They didn't. They simply had about half the plays in the second half. 30 plays in the First and 18 in the Second.
       
      So far in two Divisional matchups, the Defense has faltered in the Second half. They start out like a house of fire for the first few drives until their opponents gradually make adjustments. This Defensive coaching staff fails make any adjustments, whether in game or at the very least at Halftime. They've given up over 30 points per game for a total of 63 points given up in two games. While the Bears are up next, the Pats await and they've put up over 70 points in two games. Yeah. Ok. They did shut out the Dolphins today which is looking like the NFL version of ... ahem... shooting fish in a barrel. 
       
      The frustrating thing is Manusky is the DC that the Front Office actively looked to replace during the off season without firing him. When you know they're looking to replace you, most people would make a concentrated effort to show an improvement. Yet Manusky's Defense still keeps acting like it's starring in Groundhog Day.
       
      In his post game presser, when asked directly about if any coaching changes would be made, Gruden said "No, I think after two games – you’re talking about playing two very good offensive football teams and two of the best offensive lines in pro football we just played back-to-back. That’s no excuse whatsoever, but I don’t think we need to hit the panic button yet. We just have to continue to focus on what we can do better to win. Get Jonathan [Allen] in here, get a couple of our corners back in here and let’s go back and strap it up against Chicago [Bears] next week and see what happens.” 
       
      Here's another frustrating thing. The defensive communication was an issue last season as well. Wasn't this supposed to have been worked on during OTA's and Training Camp? It's understandable that the rookies would still be on a learning curve, but NFL vets like Collins and DRC you'd think they would have down by the start of the season. 
       
      Gruden said they're a very talented group on Defense but that they weren't reaching them. When questioned as to why the coaching staff that has been in place for several years, wasn't reaching them, he defended the comment as them being a young defense. “We have some moving parts now. Landon Collins is a veteran guy but this is his first year, [Montez] Sweat’s in his first year, [Cole] Holcomb, it’s his first year, [Jon] Bostic is in his first year. We’re playing Dominique [Rodgers-Cromartie] at corner and this is Jimmy Moreland’s first year, so it’s not like we are the most experienced group. We feel like were very talented, but we`re still fighting through somethings. There are a lot of things to look forward to, without a doubt, but we do have to play better and strap it up and get back to work."

       
       
       
Alaskins

The Official ES Redskins Name Change Thread---All Things Related to Changing the Team's Name Go Here

Recommended Posts

Change the name to the DannySnyders.    The Logo would be of a smiling Danny Snyder.  Plaster that smiley Snyder face everywhere and of course, build a big Saddam Hussian sized statue with Danny Snyder.

 

Also, change of the name of Washington to Snydertown. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, if they don't care about the context now, they probably won't care if the context changes to a different object. This isn't about logic with word usage, they just blindly want the word gone under the guise that it only exists as a slur, despite its existence, origin, and current usage by NAs as a descriptor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, if they don't care about the context now, they probably won't care if the context changes to a different object. This isn't about logic with word usage, they just blindly want the word gone under the guise that it only exists as a slur, despite its existence, origin, and current usage by NAs as a descriptor.

Their argument centers around two main points as I understand it

1- Redskins is a slur.

2- Cultural appropriation.

There is a third point that doesn't apply directly to the redskins but more for other teams. It's the depiction of Native Americans as violent or insulting caricatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading over and over that redskin and the N word are not the same, I beg to differ.

 

1. BOTH words are literally about the color of a person's skin.  Redskin is obvious. The N word came from translations literally meaning "black". 

2. BOTH words are used negatively and positively. In the case of the N word, we clearly know the negative use, but the positive use is more of a recent thing (used in rap, used among friends).  Redskins is used positively as some NA's self associate with each other (as has been posted here) but also, it is used as a slur to demean NA's. 

 

Again, obviously, the N word's negative use is MUCH MORE documented and known compared to the word redskin.  I'd follow that by saying, most of us, living where we do have a lot LESS contact with NA's on a regular basis compared with AA's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading over and over that redskin and the N word are not the same, I beg to differ.

1. BOTH words are literally about the color of a person's skin. Redskin is obvious. The N word came from translations literally meaning "black".

2. BOTH words are used negatively and positively. In the case of the N word, we clearly know the negative use, but the positive use is more of a recent thing (used in rap, used among friends). Redskins is used positively as some NA's self associate with each other (as has been posted here) but also, it is used as a slur to demean NA's.

Again, obviously, the N word's negative use is MUCH MORE documented and known compared to the word redskin. I'd follow that by saying, most of us, living where we do have a lot LESS contact with NA's on a regular basis compared with AA's.

Find me an African American school that finds the N-word so acceptable that they named their mascot the N-word and I might believe you. Because Redskins is used positively by more than just "some" Native Americans. Edited by AsburySkinsFan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find me an African American school that finds the N-word so acceptable that they named their mascot the N-word and I might believe you. Because Redskins is by more than just "some" Native Americans.

May not be today, but give it time. I teach HS kids and we are losing the battle to get them to stop using the word. It's everywhere in hip hop.

Let me ask this, do we have AA reservations? No, clearly we don't. Why would we have schools named for the color if their skin. AA's are in integrated schools. I'd guess many NA's are but, many are in school on reservations.

Find me an African American school that finds the N-word so acceptable that they named their mascot the N-word and I might believe you. Because Redskins is by more than just "some" Native Americans.

May not be today, but give it time. I teach HS kids and we are losing the battle to get them to stop using the word. It's everywhere in hip hop.

Let me ask this, do we have AA reservations? No, clearly we don't. Why would we have schools named for the color if their skin. AA's are in integrated schools. I'd guess many NA's are but, many are in school on reservations.

Find me an African American school that finds the N-word so acceptable that they named their mascot the N-word and I might believe you. Because Redskins is by more than just "some" Native Americans.

May not be today, but give it time. I teach HS kids and we are losing the battle to get them to stop using the word. It's everywhere in hip hop.

Let me ask this, do we have AA reservations? No, clearly we don't. Why would we have schools named for the color of their skin. AA's are in integrated schools. I'd guess many NA's are but, many are in school on reservations.

Sorry for the double post.

Again: we don't have AA only schools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading over and over that redskin and the N word are not the same, I beg to differ.

 

1. BOTH words are literally about the color of a person's skin.  Redskin is obvious. The N word came from translations literally meaning "black". 

2. BOTH words are used negatively and positively. In the case of the N word, we clearly know the negative use, but the positive use is more of a recent thing (used in rap, used among friends).  Redskins is used positively as some NA's self associate with each other (as has been posted here) but also, it is used as a slur to demean NA's. 

 

Again, obviously, the N word's negative use is MUCH MORE documented and known compared to the word redskin.  I'd follow that by saying, most of us, living where we do have a lot LESS contact with NA's on a regular basis compared with AA's.

You don't teach mathematics, do you? :)

Otherwise, you would know that "If two objects have two things in common, but they also have characteristics which are different, then the two objects are equal" doesn't work.

And, if you want to argue that we're discussing semantics, as opposed to mathematics, I will illustrate.

The two characteristics which you observe are shared by the word "redskin" (actually, I will point out, by "one usage of the word redskin") and the n-word, are also shared by the n-word, and the word "colored".

Are the n-word and the word "colored" the same word?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, I'm pointing out the Origin of both words. They both started the same way.  As a commentary on the color of skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, I'm pointing out the Origin of both words. They both started the same way. As a commentary on the color of skin.

Seriously dude, just because you teach black kids doesn't mean you're an authority on that word.

I'm TELLING you that no black person would ever go for naming a team that. That is literally one of the most asinine things I've ever read here

What the hell does hip hop have to do with anything anyway?

Because YG has a hit song called "my n*****" on the radio, my generation is gonna just start using that word to name organizations ? Lol

Are you Serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, I'm pointing out the Origin of both words. They both started the same way.  As a commentary on the color of skin.

 

Damn those Natives for inventing such an insulting way of referring to themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brave on the warpath? You really think the word is only in 1 song? Really?  I don't teach only black kids and I'm not an authority, I'm only pointing out what should be obvious.

 

The use of the N word today (being acceptable) has been all over the place. A lot of people are not happy about it. Charles Barkey, Michael Wilbon off the top of my head, have gone on record saying they use the word.  I listen to hip hop at baseball practice, its all over the place.  Its crazy for such a taboo word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....dude.

I was using one example. I'm black. I listen to hip hop daily. I say the word daily.

The N word is not some huge gigantic deal to my generation ( whether that is wrong or not is for another discussion). It's word we use and yes, we know the history of it. Yes, we know that there is a time and a place for it and no, that isn't to name a damn sports team.

What you said was asinine. That's my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't see why it's so wrong to notice someone's color anyway.

it's only color.

it means nothing about the person except what color their skin is.

On the scale of things that matter, we put it at the top..  but in truth...  it's only ****ing COLOR.

It is absolutely no different than saying someone is blonde or redhead.
And everyone' deathly afraid of it.

 

We put importance on the most trivial things.

 

~Bang

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....dude.

I was using one example. I'm black. I listen to hip hop daily. I say the word daily.

The N word is not some huge gigantic deal to my generation ( whether that is wrong or not is for another discussion). It's word we use and yes, we know the history of it. Yes, we know that there is a time and a place for it and no, that isn't to name a damn sports team.

What you said was asinine. That's my point.

You just admitted you use the word all the time.

You're making my point for me. Thank you.

I'm not saying the word redskin has the impact that the n word does. Of course it doesn't because it's nowhere near as widespread.

I've only pointed out that both words began the same way.

Both words are accepted by some rejected by others.

You just said the n word is acceptable to you. Maybe not if I use it, right? So why would it be ok for someone else to use the word redskin? They can if they want, but when a white guy calls a NA a redskin, it's not a compliment.

Damn those Natives for inventing such an insulting way of referring to themselves.

So you were there and know for sure that they started it?

If they call themselves that, does that mean I can too. You know where I'm going with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't see why it's so wrong to notice someone's color anyway.

it's only color.

it means nothing about the person except what color their skin is.

On the scale of things that matter, we put it at the top..  but in truth...  it's only ****ing COLOR.

It is absolutely no different than saying someone is blonde or redhead.

And everyone' deathly afraid of it.

 

We put importance on the most trivial things.

 

~Bang

 

Which is funny--because I identify myself by color everytime I fill out a job application: white--not of latino descent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying the word redskin has the impact that the n word does. Of course it doesn't because it's nowhere near as widespread.

The fact that the word "redskin" has almost 100 years usage, in a positive manner, and that said positive usage probably accounts for 99.9% of the word's usage might be a factor, too.

In fact, I would assert that the word "redskin" gets used far more often than the n-word, despite your anecdotal statements.

 

I've only pointed out that both words began the same way.

 

 

 

1)  No, you haven't only pointed that out.  You flat out asserted that the two words were the same, and tried to support that assertion by listing two ways in which they were similar, neither of which was the word's origin.  (Although one of them was kinda close to it.) 

 

2)  And no, the two words origins were not the same.  Not unless you have some information I haven't seen, asserting that the first documented use of the n-word was of AAs referring, respectfully, to themselves. 

 

Their origins have some things in common. 

 

So you were there and know for sure that they started it?

 

 

Ah, so now we've established that one of the ground rules for this discussion is that you can assert anything you want, concerning the origin of the word "redskin", and that the only people who can dispute you are people who were personally present the first time the word was ever spoken? 

 

Or perhaps, since neither of us were present, perhaps we could accept the documented, historical, record, and the word of the Curator of the Smithsonian.  A person who I suppose might not be the foremost expert on the subject, but I suspect is vastly more qualified than either of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just admitted you use the word all the time.

You're making my point for me. Thank you.

I'm not saying the word redskin has the impact that the n word does. Of course it doesn't because it's nowhere near as widespread.

I've only pointed out that both words began the same way.

Both words are accepted by some rejected by others.

You just said the n word is acceptable to you. Maybe not if I use it, right? So why would it be ok for someone else to use the word redskin? They can if they want, but when a white guy calls a NA a redskin, it's not a compliment.

So you were there and know for sure that they started it?

If they call themselves that, does that mean I can too. You know where I'm going with that.

Did you not use the example of someone naming a team "the niggas"? You then said you could see a lot of blacks supporting that because it's said a lot in hip hop music and in private conversations

THAT is what is asinine

Edited by BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is funny--because I identify myself by color everytime I fill out a job application: white--not of latino descent.

 

Actually, I will point out that he's going further than that, with this argument. 

 

He's not simply announcing that we cannot be allowed to use the term "redskin" to refer to a race, but demanding that, because it is insulting to refer to a race using that word, therefore the word cannot be used to refer to things other than the race, either. 

 

Rather analogous to arguing that, since it is offensive to refer to Americans of Anglo-Saxon descent as "white", (because it's a reference to their skin color), therefore I must also be prevented from identifying the car in my driveway as "a white Ford Explorer". 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, I'm pointing out the Origin of both words. They both started the same way.  As a commentary on the color of skin.

And yet that has ZERO bearing on the intent of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.