• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Who cares if you are liked, if you are right ?  The weak people that won't stand up for what is right, that's who.

Do you feel the need to be liked ? I am as just as much of a jerk in real life as I am here. For some odd reason, people always tell me they love my honesty. Well...those people are just as crazy as the rest of us including you for knowingly breaking the PC rules.

 

No one would name a team something that was widely considered a slur.

 

It's existed for over 80 years now as the name.

 

Snyder is right.

 

It's a witch hunt. It's silly of the tribes or media to go for this as a trophy. What do you win ? He still owns the team, he still owns a team worth likely 2B these days.

 

Natives don't win either. We lose a team that serves as a proud team moniker/name, a team that honors the history.

 

It's a pitiful way to approach the whole thing.

Edited by Kosher Ham
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 We don't use "Chinaman" any more.  

 

Well, perhaps you don't......

 

Now is Aunt Jemima as insensitive as Redskin? I think it can be.

 

I think everyone is probably getting too focussed on the word itself. It's clearly a weird, anachronistic word that is defined by the dictionary as offensive. It's also probably only ever used at this point in relation to the football team.

 

(Though, can you imagine if that Tom Landry commercial where he finds himself "surrounded by Redskins" came out today? Good gravy).

 

The word is problematic.But there is also the issue of cultural appropriation and turning that culture into a charicature or a cartoon.

 

Does anyone remember Sambos Restaurants? I ate at one once. I think that is probably the closest example of what is happening to the Redskins. Though, the Redskins are certainly not going to vanish completely.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambo's

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a "town" close to where I live that is 99% white people.  Most of the black kids that I grew up with and even kids today view that "town" as a racist place.  When I was in middle school, my mom worked part time at the 7-11 in that "town".  The locals are very tightknit and I remember my mom telling me that they used the word "sambo" for black people as well as "boofer".  That was one of my first life experiences with racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Though, can you imagine if that Tom Landry commercial where he finds himself "surrounded by Redskins" came out today? Good gravy).

I don't think it would be a problem at all.

He's obviously using a word that was artificially picked, to make the commercial more ironic. (And, remember, the object of the commercial is to give the audience hints as to who the mystery person is. In Robert Ludlum's commercial (in a trenchcoat, on the Orient Express), he mentioned that his American Express card is useful as a form of identification "if I should be forced to reveal my Bourne Identity".)

And he's obviously referring to the football team. The "redskins" are wearing Redskins uniforms. (I've always wondered if they were actual Redskins players.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never really gave much creedance to the idea that if we do change the name it will empower the word as a slur.

However, this campaign has done just that to me. Frankly, nobody has produced a single objective piece of evidence it was evr a slur. But if this goes through... Boom 'R word'. Shame really

The current campaign to 'change the mascot' doesn't even apply to the 'slur' argument, which is the basis.

More PC crap. I'm convinced subjectively that the change the mascot drivers are people I simply wouldn't care to hear their opinion on anything- whether they were NA, Caucasian, AA, Eskimo or Martian.

Edited by Bonez3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, nobody has produced a single objective piece of evidence it was evr a slur.

You mean, other than, say, the people posting in this very thread that they, personally, have had that word used as a slur?

I think it's pretty obvious that the phrase "The Washington Redskins" isn't offensive. (Neither intended to be one, nor perceived as one.)

But I also think it's blindingly obvious that the word "redskin" absolutely can be, and, on rare occasions, is, used as one. (Both intended to be one, and perceived as one.)

 

That isn't the word's most frequent usage.  But that usage isn't zero, either. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea man- I don't buy into word of mouth. And if using anecdotal examples, I feel substitute the word Indian, Brave or Chief and the likely context would be same. But again, I'm not there and I don't know. So I'll stick to what can be legit proven

Racism can incorporate alot of semantics. Prove to me Redskins is used consistently over anything else

But again, I would need to find some objective data. Hell, if its that much a slur, how come its so damn difficult to prove. Not like the N word, which is undeniable.

I get it CAN be a slur... What cant

Edited by Bonez3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea man- I don't buy into word of mouth.

Then the reason why I should pay any attention to you is . . . . ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason, I stated before my opinion has no effect in this. FedEx and Pepsi does.

I love the Skins and feel its not a slur. I'm just throwing 2 cents away. Hope others agree

Edited by Bonez3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the Skins have hired a lobbyist makes me believe they know something we don't. This coild be a desperation move to save the team's name.

 

The name is going to change, this battle was lost the moment Snyder callously said "I'll never change the name!, Never! You can put that in CAPS!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My overall perception of the name change debate:

 

- Both sides have some legitimate and valid arguments to make, even if they're not being made that often in the press or public.

 

- The media rarely, if ever, presents the pro-Redskin side in a valid or legitimate way. And when they do, it's never with the same zeal and authority as the anti-Redskin side is presented.

 

- The pro-redskin side has a wealth of provable facts to back their stance that almost none in the media either knows about or cares about.

 

- The whole "Redskin is rooted in scalping Native Americans for money" argument has surprisingly taken a back seat now in the debate. The reality that there's nothing whatsoever linking the term Redskin to that barbaric act centuries ago must have finally started soaking into the mainstream consciousness. If there were evidence of this being true, the name would have been changed the very next day.

 

- Along those lines, the initial plan of attack--to repeat ad nauseam the scalping story and that 'redskin' has always been a racial slur throughout this country's history--has started losing its effectiveness. There's so little--if any--evidence of either stance being true that it's was doomed to be effective for only a short time.

 

- The new plan of attack, that "Regardless of it's history, NA's don't like the term now and don't want to continue to be referred to as redskins by anybody", would have been the best way to have started this entire movement:

 

"We understand the history that 'Redskins' has, both as a term used among our ancestors and as an identifier for Washington's football team. We also understand how some Natives over the years have taken pride in having our culture connected to such a successful franchise and we appreciate the various beneficial moments shared between the Redskins and the Native American community over the team's history. But we also think it's time to retire the name, as we have done ourselves within our community. Here's why..."

 

That would have been the wiser, and more effective, stance to take from the beginning.

 

Instead, the activist mindset on the anti-Redskin side decided to try and publicly shame the Skins franchise into changing the name by using demonizing rhetoric and unprovable "facts" to back up their exaggerrated claims of the word's history. Didn't work, although it did get some naive media members to help take up the torch for awhile. Taking that avenue just made the pro-Redskis side defensive.

 

- Changing the name is not inevitable. Far from it, in fact. Stop thinking that's a legitimate reason to champion doing so.

 

- Also, stop insisting that Redskin is the equivalent of the "N-word". It's not. Never has been, never will be. And there are significant reasons why that is.

 

- If anyone did an expose on Suzan Harjo, I mean a real one, she'd disappear from the national discussion on all this...and it would be a noticeable blow to the anti-Redskin side.

 

- I believe that since the majority of NA's don't care if the Redskins keep or change their name, you won't find any real or concentrated movement among their population to give a pro-Redskin voice to the Indian community. The motivation isn't there if you don't care either way. However, seeing a prominent group of NA's using a slogan of "Change it. Don't change it. We don't really give a ****." would be awesome lol...

 

- When pressed to explain exactly why we should all view 'Redskin' as a racial slur, the answers always come down to this: "Because Native Americans think it is." When asked what to think if the majority of NAs were found to not be offended by the term, the answer always comes down to this: "If 20% of Native Americans are offended, isn't that enough?"...There is a TON wrong with both of those answers.

 

- In addition, "It refers to a race by their skin color" isn't the definition of "racist".

 

- George Preston Marshall being racist in no way, shape or form, helps validate the "Redskin is a racial slur" argument. There have been national writers that I respect making the claim that it does, though...*shaking my damn head*

 

- Just an aside, putting the word "dirty" in front of the word "redskin" does not show that redskin is a racial slur. Yes, this is one of the pieces of "evidence" provided by the anti-Redskin side. The word should be considered a slur regardless of what's put in front of it. I've heard the phrase "dirty Mexican" used, both in film and in person. Does that mean that "Mexican" is now a racial slur?

 

- ^^No, you wouldn't call your team the Washington Mexicans, but only because doing so would be seen as insensitive...you could call your team the Canadians and nobody would bat an eye. The insensitive aspects come into play when the name used is either seen as marginalizing a minority or giving an air of accepted supremacy to a majority.

 

- ^^That's what a lot of this argument is over...whether or not using Native American names and imagery by default marginalizes the Indian community. It's not about Redskin is a racial slur or Indian scalping or "dirty redskin" or any of that. The Redskins are the biggest domino...the thinking is, get us to fall and the rest will fall as well.

 

- There is no monolithic Native American voice in all of this.

 

- Losing trademark protection for the name "Redskins" does not mean the team has to change their name, nor does it mean they no longer have any exclusive rights to the name "Redskins".

 

- Politicians signing a letter against the name 'Redskins' means abso-stinkin-lutely nothing. City counsels passing resolutions to ask the Redskins to change their name means abso-stinkin-lutely nothing. Sportswriters saying they will no longer use the name "Redskins" in their articles means abso-stinkin-lutely nothing. Posturing means abso-stinkin-lutely nothing.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that if the name is changed, people will use the term "Redskin" more negatively. What was once a term used to refer to an NFL team will now be used against the Natives. The public have just added another slur to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't the word redskin a NA equivalent of the N word?  

 

The incredibly short version: The "N-word" was used for centuries to subjugate and terrorize Black Americans.

 

"Redskin" is, at most, politically incorrect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't the word redskin a NA equivalent of the N word?

Well for starters, African Americans didn't create the N word as a descriptor for themselves. It was created by those who enslaved them. Natives created the term Redskin to define themselves when speaking with white settlers. The difference is easy to understand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Califan007. Especially about Harjo, I've seen her written statements about white people and frankly if anyone is a racist in this debate it's her.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071016013711/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1094829740

 

There is SO much about Harjo that could be reported and written about, that would put her in an extremely negative light. Just like there's a ton that could be written about both the Redskins and Snyder (along with previous owners not named Marshall) that could put them in an extremely positive light.

 

Neither has (or probably will) happen, though. Doing so doesn't fit the prescribed media template of Redskins=Slur, Snyder=Evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't the word redskin a NA equivalent of the N word?  

 

The only way you could say they are "equivalent" is if you're suggesting ALL slurs are equivalent. In which case it then brings the question of peoples legitimacy on arguing this point if they're not including the Yankee's in their argument.

 

The word Redskin was a term whose origins trace back to Native Americans themselves using it as a means of referring to themselves as a group. The origins of the N-Word is one where those external to blacks created the word to refer to them.

 

A large number of predominantly native american schools have chosen and welcomed the name as a mascot and moniker. I'd challenge you to find a single predominantly black school in this country whose mascot or name is the N-words. While it's frequent use in a subset of African American culture, no where is it used in such a broad societal way as a school's name.

 

The frequeny of use and societal knowledge of the n-word as a slur, comparitive to Redskin, is significantly greater. Used outside of members of said group, the N-words use in culture and society today is almost singularly used either as a slur or in discussing a slur. The vast majority of times "Redskin" is uttered in our society today it's used to reference a football team. A white person walking down the street and then pointing and shouting "N-WORD" is likely to cause people to think he's pointing out a black person in a negative way. A white person walking down the street and then pointing and shouting "REDSKIN" is likely to cause people to think RG3 is just across the way.

 

The N-Word and Redskin are SIMILAR in that both HAVE been used as a slur. Suggesting they're "equivalent" is like like saying tepid and scalding are equivilent because they both deal with temperatures. It's like saying Boogerface and C-sucking MF'ing A-Hole are "equivilent" because they're both insults. It's like saying the Jacksonville Jaguars and the New England Patriots are "equivilent" because they're both football teams (to bring it back home to a football forum ;) ).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The incredibly short version: The "N-word" was used for centuries to subjugate and terrorize Black Americans.

 

"Redskin" is, at most, politically incorrect.

 

... and using a historical reference, when the Boston Braves signed three " Indian " players ( as the headline read ) in the summer of '33, they were described in the article as " three noble redskins ", Messrs ( plural of Mister ) David Ward, Orien Crow, and Cloquel Thompson.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The incredibly short version: The "N-word" was used for centuries to subjugate and terrorize Black Americans.

"Redskin" is, at most, politically incorrect.

btw, I agreed with most of what you posted.

I have personally witnessed the use of the word redskin to demean NA's. I know I'm not the only one. Maybe on this board, but others have as well. The use of the word as a slur against NA's is one of the reasons some NA's don't like the team name.

I think it's reasonable to assume that particularly in the past, the word was used more commonly as a slur.

IMO, a big issue is that "we" feel bad about how AA's were treated but for the most part, could care less how NA's were treated.

Also, regarding another post, I don't think we know for 100% sure that the word redskin was an invention of NA's. Sure, there are examples of some that say that. But there are examples of those that do not agree.

Edited by codeorama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, I agreed with most of what you posted.

I have personally witnessed the use of the word redskin to demean NA's. I know I'm not the only one. Maybe on this board, but others have as well. The use of the word as a slur against NA's is one of the reasons some NA's don't like the team name.

I think it's reasonable to assume that particularly in the past, the word was used more commonly as a slur.

IMO, a big issue is that "we" feel bad about how AA's were treated but for the most part, could care less how NA's were treated.

Also, regarding another post, I don't think we know for 100% sure that the word redskin was an invention of NA's. Sure, there are examples of some that say that. But there are examples of those that do not agree.

 

1) The "N-word" wasn't merely used to demean Black Americans, though. Its history suggests it's far more than simply a racial slur.

 

2) We have about a kabillion times more evidence that the terms "red man" and "red skin" originated from Native Americans themselves as self-descriptors than we have evidence that the term "Redskin" originated elsewhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Califan007. Especially about Harjo, I've seen her written statements about white people and frankly if anyone is a racist in this debate it's her.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071016013711/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1094829740

 

 

thanks for posting that. ive been meaning to dig up some of her bizarre ramblings, but keep getting sidetracked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, regarding another post, I don't think we know for 100% sure that the word redskin was an invention of NA's. Sure, there are examples of some that say that. But there are examples of those that do not agree.

 

 

goddards credentials, along with his neutrality on the issue and his obvious exhaustive research lead me to believe him over susan harjos flapping gums. 

 

remember, shes the same lady that claims 'squaw' is a slur that somehow refers to a native american womans lady parts, and based on her bizarre, unsubstantiated claim, got the word removed from some books. 

 

google that one for some laughs. 

  • Like 3

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.