• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      Good afternoon Redskins fans!  I have once again been invited to sit in the relative comfort of the press box and shout my thoughts into the void via this blog.  As you watch the game today and see the rain  pour relentlessly from the heavens, know that I am safe and dry.  Know also that @Spaceman Spiff is out there somewhere, cold and unappreciated, rolling around in the muck trying to capture that perfect picture.  Maybe say a little prayer for his health (or laugh, whatever, I’m not judging you).  Also, be sure not to miss the pictures he posts on this site after each game.     
       
      Before we get into today's Redskins game, I want give some thanks for more positive occurrences in DC sports.  Congrats to the Washington Mystics for winning their first championship.  Congrats go out to the Washington Nationals as well for reaching the world series.  These two teams (along with the Caps) are working hard to change the sports related mood around this town, and we're all happier for it. 
       
      Lets move now into less cheerful topics, namely your Washington Redskins!  Yow know things are going bad, and I mean really dang bad, when your team has gone through three quarterbacks and two coaches and your not even half way through the season.  Today's fresh hell comes in the form of a specter of the our recent past coming to smirk at our misfortune.  Im talking of course of Kyle.  Kyle's spent the week assuring everyone that he isn’t holding a grudge, while very obviously holding a grudge.  “Everything else.”  You know what I’m talking about. 
       
      If all he brought to town were his hurt feelings we wouldn’t have a problem.  Sadly, he’s arrived with an undefeated football team that the NFL says we have to play this week.  This feels entirely unfair. 
       
      My generic key to the game:  Run the ball and stop the run.  The team (spoiler alert: 49ers) that does this today will win.   
       
      Redskins Inactives  
      QB Colt McCoy  
      S Deshazor Everett  
      CB Josh Norman  
      RB Chris THompson  
      LB Josh Harvey-Clemons 
      G Wes Martin  
      TE Vernon Davis  
       
      49ers inactives  
      QB CJ Beathard 
      WR Deebo Samuel  
      CB Ahkello Witherspoon  
      FB Kyle Juszczyk 
      T Mike McGLinchey 
      T Joe Staley 
      DL DJ Jones 
       
      1st Quarter Update
      Redskins 0 – 0 49ers
       
      Callahan wasn’t playing around when he said he wanted to run the ball.  That first drive was all runs, and looked great... right up until they tried to pass the ball.  Hopkins missed the relatively short fied goal, because of course he did.     

      Maybe Quinn isn’t a good choice to be returning punts?  Consider it.    
       
      That second Redskins drive looked more like what we’ve come to expect from this offense.  Run for negative yards, pass dropped, and an unsuccessful screen pass.  A quintessential Redskins three and out. 

      Passing yards this quarter:  Redskins 3. 49ers 9.  Are you not entertained?! 
       
      Half Time Update
      Redskins 0 – 0 49ers 
       
      How happy are you to spend your Sunday afternoon watching this game?  Consider that some people paid money, to sit in a poncho, in the rain, to watch this game. 
       
      It’s now time for those half time adjustments that our beloved skins do so well.  It’s unlikely the second half mirrors the first. 
       
      3rd Quarter Update 
      Redskins 0 – 3 49ers  
       
      Good news, this game will not end in a 0-0 tie.  Those half time adjustments have kicked in as expected and the 49ers have found a way onto the scoreboard in this messy throwback game.  The Redskins have decided to spend the second half collecting holding penalties and sadness.  Mercifully, only one quarter remains. 
       
      End of Game Update 
      Redskins 0 – 9 49ers 
       
      Callahan hasn’t spent much time as the head coach of the Washington Redskins, but he’s already proven that his team can waste 2nd half timeouts like a veteran.  It makes little sense to adopt a strategy that shortens the game when your team is losing, and it makes even less sense when your team is short on time outs.  I’m not really sure what the thinking as late in this game.    
       
      Next week Kirk Cousins!   
       
       
Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/01/31/word-squaw-offensive-or-not-153328

 

The Word ‘Squaw’: Offensive or Not?

 

The word squaw certainly has had its share of history. In researching its meaning, squaw is either offensive or historically accurate in portraying a female Indian woman. According to which historian you speak to on any given day or which link you click in a Google search, there are several theories regarding the word’s origin. Most notably negative and perhaps the most feared definition of the word is that squaw translates to vagina.

 

According to Dr. Marge Bruchac, an Abenaki historical consultant, Squaw means the totality of being female and the Algonquin version of the word “esqua,” “squa” “skwa” does not translate to a woman’s female anatomy.

 

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines the term as “often offensive: an American Indian woman” and “usually disparaging: woman, wife.”

 

[...]In her article “Reclaiming the word ‘Squaw’ in the Name of the Ancestors,” Dr. Bruchac wrote the following excerpt about the meaning of squaw.

 

The word has been interpreted by modern activists as a slanderous assault against Native American women. But traditional Algonkian speakers, in both Indian and English, still say words like ‘nidobaskwa’=a female friend, ‘manigebeskwa’=woman of the woods, or ‘Squaw Sachem’=female chief. When Abenaki people sing the Birth Song, they address ‘nuncksquassis’=‘little woman baby’.”

“I understand the concern of Indian women who feel insulted by this word, but I respectfully suggest that we reclaim our language rather than let it be taken over,” wrote Bruchac.

 

There is no mistaking the strength in passion against the word. For several years after the article, Bruchac received death threats for her stance.

 

Though the earliest historical references support a non-offensive slant on the meaning of squaw and support Bruchac’s claims, there are also several literary and historical instances of squaw being used in a derogatory or sexually connotative way.

 

According to some proponents on the inflammatory side of the words meaning, squaw could just as easily have come from the Mohawk word ojiskwa’ which translates politely to vagina.

 

[...]Of all the support for the negative, the word squaw got its highest claim to defame when Suzan Shown Harjo, a Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee American Indian rights activist appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show and said on-air that squaw was an Algonquin word meaning vagina and that the word squaw was viewed by many Native people as the “S-word.”

 

Though several journalists since have supported Harjo, the jury is still out when it comes to the meaning of the word squaw. Most historians and linguists appear to be more supportive of a non-derogatory meaning, use of the word is still looked at as offensive to many others.

 

In the years since Harjo’s appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, efforts to rename geographical sites swung into full-force. In the first four months of 2008, the U.S. Board on Geographic names renamed 16 valleys creeks and other sites omitting the name squaw.

 

*********************

 

Any of that sound familiar? lol...Seems Harjo's preferred method of activism is to try and show how certain NA words/terms have offensive origins and are actually insulting slurs.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I've never mentioned her or her "stuff". My views are not based on anything from her or Harjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never mentioned her or her "stuff". My views are not based on anything from her or Harjo

 

They are the same person lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that not everybody wants to listen to some dude yap for thirty minutes, but man, this was very entertaining. Would like to see what y'all thought about it too. He made some good points.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLG5RmUvrzs#t=466

 

 

there were some good points there. at around the 18 minute mark, when the amanda blackhorse clip is played, well, thats just hilarious. 

 

 

"so, amanda blackhorse, full blooded navajo, you are aware theres a navajo high school 50 miles from your house that uses the term 'redskins' as their mascot, right?"

 

"yes.....ummmmm......i think they are trying to look at the word positvely....."

 

 

classic. 

Edited by grego

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.

There are people who state that it was first used by Natives, AND CAN BACK IT UP, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS TO PROVE IT.

And there are people who disagree, AND HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIM.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never mentioned her or her "stuff". My views are not based on anything from her or Harjo

 

true. 

 

so, what examples have you seen as far as credible 'origin' stories regarding the name? i'd like to see some, because ive spent alot of time looking into this topic and havent seen much. 

 

edit- pretty much what larry said above. :)

 

Any of that sound familiar? lol...Seems Harjo's preferred method of activism is to try and show how certain NA words/terms have offensive origins and are actually insulting slurs.

 

 

its unbelievable. shes an absolute lunatic, and a very effective one. nobody calls her on her bull****. 

 

mind boggling. 

Edited by grego

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.

The claim repeatedly made by changethemascot.org is this: "The R-word is a term screamed at Native Americans as they were dragged at gunpoint off their lands."

I've not been able to find anything on their website that expands on this claim providing any details. Before I can agree that redskins is, as you say, politically incorrect at most, I'd need to know where that claim comes from and if it has any validity. Sadly the group claiming to want to educate us all on the words origins doesn't seem to lead with the boring facts and I haven't found anything yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there were some good points there. at around the 18 minute mark, when the amanda blackhorse clip is played, well, thats just hilarious. 

 

 

"so, amanda blackhorse, full blooded navajo, you are aware theres a navajo high school 50 miles from your house that uses the term 'redskins' as their mascot, right?"

 

"yes.....ummmmm......i think they are trying to look at the word positvely....."

 

 

classic. 

 

I wish the reporter has followed up by saying "So you do see how both the Redskins name and logo can be looked at in a positive manner?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I've brought up cultural appropriation a few times in this thread and no one seems to want to discuss it. I'm not even sure that I agree with the idea of cultural appropriation being unacceptable but at least we could discuss the actual claims being made instead of pretending this is really just about guilty white sports writers.

Edited by Destino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

code, i know you didnt mention harjo, but goddard did-in his paper on the name. that alone shows the influence she has in the issue. and he basically calls her a nut. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139_2.html

 

 

Goddard's view, however, does not impress Cheyenne-Muscogee writer Suzan Shown Harjo, lead plaintiff for Native American activists who, for the past 13 years, have sought to cancel trademarks covering the name and logo of the Washington Redskins.

"I'm very familiar with white men who uphold the judicious speech of white men," Harjo said in a telephone interview. "Europeans were not using high-minded language. [To them] we were only human when it came to territory, land cessions and whose side you were on."

Goddard, aware of the lawsuit and Harjo's arguments, said that "you could believe everything in my article" and still oppose current public usage of "redskin."

Evidence cited by Harjo and others has pointed to a much harsher origin for "redskin," but Goddard, a linguist who studies the Algonquian language of northeastern North America, casts doubt on much of it. "While people seem to be happier with the agonistic interpretation of past events," he said, "when you get on the ground, the real story is much more complicated and much more interesting."..................................

..............................But while such bounty proclamations were issued as early as the mid-18th century, Harjo acknowledged that she has not found an early instance of "redskin" in such a context.

Goddard, who calls Harjo's argument "an unfounded claim," said the first known public use of "redskin" in English occurred on Aug. 22, 1812, in Washington at a meeting between Madison and a group of visiting Indian chiefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Because it lacks the pure venom.

 

it is more a NA equivalent of white people referring to black men as "colored boys," IMO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim repeatedly made by changethemascot.org is this: "The R-word is a term screamed at Native Americans as they were dragged at gunpoint off their lands."

I've not been able to find anything on their website that expands on this claim providing any details. Before I can agree that redskins is, as you say, politically incorrect at most, I'd need to know where that claim comes from and if it has any validity. Sadly the group claiming to want to educate us all on the words origins doesn't seem to lead with the boring facts and I haven't found anything yet.

 

That statement from their website comes across as emotional rhetoric moreso than a statement of fact.

 

One thing to consider, though, is that there could be a certain level of Native American historical facts that will have no recorded record, and could be a more verbal record passed down through generations. Still, I'd think that if "Redskin" was as widely used racial slur as has been reported by the anti-Redskin side, evidence of this would be incredibly easy to find.

 

And just for the record, when I say Redskin is "politically incorrect at most", I only say that because of 3 things:

 

1) Almost no evidence that the term is rooted in derogatory and hateful speech

2) The belief that "NA's don't want to be called that" and "Refers to a race by their skin tones" as the prevailing sentiment to change the team name--both speak more loudly of political correctness than racial slur

3) Suzan Harjo lol (just to offset her baseless "scalping" stories)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've brought up cultural appropriation a few times in this thread and no one seems to want to discuss it. I'm not even sure that I agree with the idea of cultural appropriation being unacceptable but at least we could discuss the actual claims being made instead of pretending this is really just about guilty white sports writers.

 

That's mainly because, in my opinion, cultural appropriation is a different topic from "Redskins is an offensive racial slur". I said above that the anti-Redskin side should have opened with cultural appropriation/cultural relevance and stuck with that topic. They screwed the pooch by insisting that "Redskin" is an obvious offensive racial slur rooted in racial hatred. IMO, changing the name from Redskins to Braves/Warriors/Whatever wouldn't end the debate since it's still an appropriation of NA culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)  I don't give a crap what the history and origins of the word are.   I care what it is understood to mean in 2014.   Check the dictionaries.

 

2) I also don't care that Susan Harjo is an idiot and a fraud.  Smearing her doesn't change the underlying message.  If someone showed that one of the leading proponents of KEEPING the name was a white supremacist, it wouldn't change the underlying merits of the pro-Redskin side either.  (and you guys don't want to go down that road anyway, given that the guy who founded and named the team was a huge racist )

Edited by Predicto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it lacks the pure venom.

 

it is more a NA equivalent of white people referring to black men as "colored boys," IMO.  

 

Nah, if there IS an equivalent, it's more the equivalent of calling blacks "negroes" or "colored".  But I don't even buy that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)  I don't give a crap what the history and origins of the word are.   I care what it is understood to mean in 2014.   Check the dictionaries.

 

What it means in 2014 is...

 

large.png

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)  I don't give a crap what the history and origins of the word are.   I care what it is understood to mean in 2014.   Check the dictionaries.

 

2) I also don't care that Susan Harjo is an idiot and a fraud.  Smearing her doesn't change the underlying message.  If someone showed that one of the leading proponents of KEEPING the name was a white supremacist, it wouldn't change the underlying merits of the pro-Redskin side either.  (and you guys don't want to go down that road anyway, given that the guy who founded and named the team was a huge racist )

 

1) You should, everyone should, because it's a large basis for the pro-Redskin side. Saying you don't care is the same as saying "I don't really give a rat's ass about knowing both sides of the issue". If that's the case, your opinion on all of this just got flushed down the toilet.

 

2) Calling and idiot fraud an "idiot fraud" isn't smearing. And again, you damn should care (as should everyone else), because her foundation for the name change is based on fraud. Please tell me you see the significance in that.

 

 

 

What it means in 2014 is...

 

 

 

Exactly lol :lol: ...

Edited by Califan007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I don't give a crap what the history and origins of the word are. I care what it is understood to mean in 2014. Check the dictionaries.

2) I also don't care that Susan Harjo is an idiot and a fraud. Smearing her doesn't change the underlying message. If someone showed that one of the leading proponents of KEEPING the name was a white supremacist, it wouldn't change the underlying merits of the pro-Redskin side either. (and you guys don't want to go down that road anyway, given that the guy who founded and named the team was a huge racist )

Agreed on both counts.

(Well, other than your continued insistence that a dictionary is the authoritative source for determining whether a usage which said dictionary is required to pretend dies not exist, is offensive).

What matters is whether the name is offensive, now.

And smearing Harjo (and I'd put Hallbritter in that category) might have been valid, when they were the only people complaining. But they aren't, any more. There's complaints coming from people who really are legitimate spokesmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Saying you don't care is the same as saying "I don't really give a rat's ass about knowing both sides of the issue". If that's the case, your opinion on all of this just got flushed down the toilet.

 

 

And that defensive, dismissive attitude is why you are losing this war.   I know both sides of the issue as well or better than anyone here.   We have been discussing it for years.

 

I'm trying to explain to you that you are not going to change anyone's mind about this by arguing about whether it was "red war paint blah blah blah."   No one who isn't a Redskins fan already is going to give a crap about that.   

 

2) Calling and idiot fraud an "idiot fraud" isn't smearing. And again, you damn should care (as should everyone else), because her foundation for the name change is based on fraud. Please tell me you see the significance in that.

 

 

 

Susan Harjo is a turd, but this debate is not about Susan Harjo.  If David Duke made a big fuss wanting to keep the name, the debate would not be about David Duke either.  

What it means in 2014 is...

 

 

 

I wish that were true.   I want that to be true.  

 

Sadly, if that were true this issue would have gone away a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed on both counts.

(Well, other than your continued insistence that a dictionary is the authoritative source for determining whether a usage which said dictionary is required to pretend dies not exist, is offensive).

What matters is whether the name is offensive, now.

And smearing Harjo (and I'd put Hallbritter in that category) might have been valid, when they were the only people complaining. But they aren't, any more. There's complaints coming from people who really are legitimate spokesmen.

 

Many are using her arguments in their stances, though. Showing her arguments to be fraudulent and why they should be taken with the world's biggest grain of salt isn't smearing. (you guys need to find a more appropriate definition of "smearing" lol).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We as Redskin fans and the organization will unfortunately never win this battle. It doesn't matter how many facts we throw at these people. They don't and won't listen until they get their way and the name is changed. It's just a matter of time before we lose support from the NFL. I don't want us to change the name but one day this is going to become a distraction and may prevent us from winning games. The worst case scenario I can come up with is one day in the future we have the #1 pick and we're in line to grab a once in a lifetime talent like Clowney, and he refuses to sign with the team because of the name. You may say no one would ever do that because of the money being offered but that player would become a hero by the media. The same thing could happen when trying to sign a top free agent in the future. Unfortunately this is how the world works. Again I want us to hold strong and keep our name for now but the second it starts effecting us on the field we must change the name immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish that were true.   I want that to be true.  

 

Sadly, if that were true this issue would have gone away a long time ago.

If you walk up to somebody in the streets and say, "what about them Redskins." the football team will be talked about more often than not.

As for the issue at hand, we all know that it's media driven. Why wasn't this issue THIS big back in the 90s? Why is it so big now?

Because it generates clicks and views. The media is going to suck all they can out of this. Will it result in a name change? I don't know. But they're going to be on this issue until they can't get anymore money of out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed on both counts.

(Well, other than your continued insistence that a dictionary is the authoritative source for determining whether a usage which said dictionary is required to pretend dies not exist, is offensive).

 

 

Arguing that "redskins" and "Redskins" are two entirely different words is the kind of thing you argue before an appellate court. Splitting that thin of a hair is simply not something that is going to resonate generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you walk up to somebody in the streets and say, "what about them Redskins." the football team will be talked about more often than not.

As for the issue at hand, we all know that it's media driven. Why wasn't this issue THIS big back in the 90s? Why is it so big now?

 

It existed in the 90s. Dan Steinberg pointed out that it got particularly heated in '71 and '72. Why issues or ideas suddenly go from underground or background noise to prominence is the subject of books. Zoony will spend pages and pages stealing ideas from the Tipping Point on this very subject.

 

It's probably easier today because of how fast an idea can spread on social media.

 

Generally speaking, the "Why do we care now?" argument is an extremely weak one. Why did we suddenly care about suffrage and saloons in the 1910s? Why did we suddenly care about littering in the 1970s? Why did we suddenly care about drunk driving in the '80s? Granted those are "big" issues and this is a "small" issue but the concept is the same. We care because something focusses us on it. Usually mass media.

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.