• Blog Entries

    • By JimmiJo in ES Coverage
         0
      ES Coverage Cowboys vs Redskins 2019
       
      9/15/19
       
      Do I look like I'm playing? I'm not playing. This is the Washington Redskins versus the Dallas Cowboys. If you are a fan of this game, and this one does not get you excited you might want to check your pulse.
       
      Hello my friends it is I, JimmiJo, back for another year of this wonderful thing we call Redskins Football. This makes season 14 for me. I am joined by The Spaceman Spiff who will hereafter be known as "The Spaceman Spiff." 
       
      Where's that dude that gets the big tattoos on his back? There's his next one.
       
      So how important is this game? I don't know. What is the different between 1-1 and 0-2? The difference between batting .500 and zippy?
       
      Throw in that this is their 2nd division game to start the year AND a home game and you have a critical match.
       
      And once again they contend with critical injuries to start the year. Last year it was  their rookie star running back. This year its their 2nd year star...well you get the rest.  Darrius Guice is gone and not coming back this year. I think this really hurts him moving forward. Not sure who will build a scheme around him given his first two seasons.
       
      So it is down to the veteran Adrian Peterson. I have no worries of ring rust for hum. None whatsoever. He knows what to do.
       
      Anyway, almost time. Please share your thoughts.
       
      Stand by...
       
      Inactives
       
      The Redskins declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 12 QB Colt McCoy
      o   No. 23 CB Quinton Dunbar
      o   No. 31 Fabian Moreau
      o   No. 64 C Ross Pierschbacher
      o   No. 67 G Wes Martin
      o   No. 86 TE Jordan Reed
      o   No. 93 DT Jonathan Allen
       
      The Cowboys declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 10 WR Tavon Austin
      o   No. 37 S Donovan Wilson
      o   No. 57 LB Luke Gifford
      o   No. 61 C Adam Redmond
      o   No. 69 G Brandon Knight
      o   No. 79 DT Trysten Hill
      o   No. 97 DE Taco Charlton
       
      Follow along in-game at Twitter @Skinscast 
       
      JimmiJo
       
      Head coach Jay Gruden said it is not time to press the panic button when asked if staff changes could occur on the defensive coaching staff. It may not be for him, but he might want to pay attention to the sounds coming from the owners suite at Redskins Park.
       
      For example the sound of shouting and heavy objects striking walls could portend an early offseason for someone.
       
      The Washington Redskins are now 0-2 to start the season. They are 0-2 in the division.
       
      If that is not panic-inducing, they face a Chicago Bears football team (themselves in need of a solid win) on Monday Night Football next. A series they do not typically do well on.
       
      In both games to open the campaign the winning teams had the game well in hand at the start of the fourth quarter, despite Washington taking leads in each of the games.
       
      Against Dallas, the team began well again; taking a 7-0 lead into the second quarter. This was not quite the 17-0 start they had in Philadelphia. Nor did it take until halftime for the Cowboys to adjust.
       
      It happened on Dallas’ fourth drive. Starting at their own 3-yard line at 9:44 in the 2nd period, the Cowboys employed a combination of runs up the middle and quick outs in the flats and sideline to advance the ball 97-yards in 7 plays and tie the game.
       
      Following a three-and-out by Washington, Dallas went 74-yards on 11-plays to take the 14-7 lead at halftime.
       
      The 3rd Quarter began with the Cowboys receiving the ball at their own 25. Nine plays  and 75-yards later they were leading 21-7.
       
      The Redskins made it interesting with their own 11-play, 70-yard drive to cut he lead to 7.
       
      But Dallas responded with a field goal. And would add another touchdown in the fourth quarter to extend the lead to 17.
       
      Washington’s consolation score with just under 3-minutes remaining allowed rookie Terry McLaurin to add a touchdown to his debut season.
       
      The Redskins have developed a reputation for not responding well to adjustments. They had little answer for the adjustments Dallas made to their offense. Ditto the game in Philadelphia.
       
      In both, Washington had a lead to protect and could not.
       
      Coming into the season the defense was expected to the be the strength of the team. Yet in two games they have surrendered 910 yards (445 per game) and 63 points. Not exactly setting the world on fire.
       
      Statistically the Redskins defense are near the bottom in points allowed and yards surrendered.
       
      The coach wants to blame injuries. Not only the their excellent young nose tackle in Jonathan Allen, but also to the secondary which has already gone significant realignment to accommodate injuries to Quinton Dunbar and Fabian Moreau.
       
      Still, with the specter of a season going off the rails after only two games, the fans want someone to blame.
       
      Wont be the quarterback. Case Keenum has completed 68.2 percent of his passes. He has thrown 3 touchdowns against no interceptions.
      Ditto other skill positions. Adrian Peterson did not his best outing but the team abandoned the run early. The receivers are doling their own, with guys like McLaurin shining.
       
      And as bad as the collapse was last week and the home loss this, it feels too early to call for the head coach.
       
      That leaves those in charge of the defense. Specifically, Defensive Coordinator Greg Manusky.
       
      Fan ire seems more and more to be falling on Manusky, if sentiment on twitter and sports radio means anything.
       
      But they don’t decide who stays and who leaves. That is the job of the head coach who so far, is backing his guy.
       
      But there is a higher authority at Redskins Park. Legend has it owner Daniel Snyder once put a gallon of vanilla ice cream outside a Redskins defensive coordinator’s door following a poor performance by the defense.  
       
      Given the start to this season, Manusky could be hearing the ice cream truck in his sleep. And that would be better than what many of the fans are wishing for him.
       
Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Even if the majority has no problem with it, does it make it right?

If you were sitting in a restaurant with 3 black guys and you called the the n-word and they had no problem with it, but I did. Is it acceptable? No. Again, I'm upset about the name change too, but if Native Americans have a problem with it, I say we change it.

Why bring up what you or I think (or black people for the matter, as they're clearly not okay with the word)? We're still talking about the Native American perspective. How many [Native Americans] is "Quite a few?" Is it the majority [of Native Americans]? Maybe they should have worked on finding an answer before letting their righteous indignation run amok.

There's one recent study that does show the majority of Native Americans are offended by the word. I have no access to it, so I can't judge its methodology. Many will dismiss it because of a perceived small sample size, but that's not really an issue compared to whether or not it was, in fact, a representative sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the majority has no problem with it, does it make it right?

If you were sitting in a restaurant with 3 black guys and you called the the n-word and they had no problem with it, but I did. Is it acceptable? No. Again, I'm upset about the name change too, but if Native Americans have a problem with it, I say we change it.

 

The problem with this is that there are no Native Americans sitting around in a room with Danny, playing cards and throwing out Redskin.    We are talking about a team and there is no direct correlation to any individual.  The two are not the same.  

Edited by ABQCOWBOY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's striking that "Flying Dutchmen," "Knickerbockers," "Yankee" and "VIkings" are not under attack.  But you have to understand the current climate is such that sensitivity is demanded of whites (or straights) because of perceived power differential.  That's simply a justification post hoc, though.  Vikings has gone through a number of meanings (or connotative) changes, some derogatory and others positive. There's a legitimate argument to be made that the reputation of Vikings today is of that of a far more savage group of conquerors than anything ascribed to AMerican Indians.

 

Even the words Native American and American Indian are disputed.  Many activists prefer American Indian for a variety of reasons, it was the (mostly white and whitewashed) academic left that started to use that term to the exclusion of American Indian.  They never actually consulted AIs, though I do see some acknowledgment of this in the last decade or so.   The point is that this never ends because it's born from the same psychosocial processes as the Cultural Revolution and the idea that by totalizing and politicizing all life, we can generate a "new man" with which to build a more utopian realm.  Ultimately, if whites or black people started using Native AMerican disparagingly, we'd have to move on from that, even if most people didn't.  It's the same with Orient(al) there's nothing inherently offensive in the name and the justifications for the move away from it are all post hoc nonsense.  Asian is no better than Orient, other than slightly more precise.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the majority has no problem with it, does it make it right?

If you were sitting in a restaurant with 3 black guys and you called the the n-word and they had no problem with it, but I did. Is it acceptable? No. Again, I'm upset about the name change too, but if Native Americans have a problem with it, I say we change it.

Wait. So if 1 person is offended by a word you can't use it? Congratulations. We are all now mute cause SOMEONE will ALWAYS be offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's striking that "Flying Dutchmen," "Knickerbockers," "Yankee" and "VIkings" are not under attack.

If the Redskins go down, I'd have no issues with trying to bring every questionable name down with us.

On that note, how about the Washington Okla Humma (or whatever you'd have to write to make it grammatically correct)?

Edited by Hunter_R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logo by itself is absolutely no offensive. If I'm not mistaken, it was actually designed by a native american, and is one of the most artistic logos in all of sports.  

 

The name might be offensive with or without the name.  

 

The two most offensive native american things in sports are the Tomahawk Chop and the Cleveland Indians grinning logo.  

 

Hell, even the Brave's Tomahawk on the uniforms is more offensive. And I'm of Indian origin, so I should know! (Ok, my parents are from the country Columbus tried to find and failed, so a little different type of Indian ancestry. :) So, really I have no additional insight.)  

 

Just trying to lighten the mood.  

How in the hell is the tomahawk chop offensive?  Indians/Braves, Native American warriors, if you will, fought with tomahawks.  How is that even remotely offensive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Redskins go down, I'd have no issues with trying to bring every questionable name down with us.On that note, how about the Washington Okla Humma (or whatever you'd have to write to make it grammatically correct)?

Wouldn't you rather save the Redskins name, and want to protect the "questionable names"?

You have no spine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Redskins go down, I'd have no issues with trying to bring every questionable name down with us.

Agreed. Snyder should be a "force for change" in the wake of this instead of going silently into the night. At least that sounds better than being a sore loser.

As a fan, I do hope the Blackhawks keep their name but that, too, is only a matter of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. So if 1 person is offended by a word you can't use it? Congratulations. We are all now mute cause SOMEONE will ALWAYS be offended.

But who are you or anyone to tell Native Americans what they should be offended by?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't you rather save the Redskins name, and want to protect the "questionable names"?

You have no spine.

If: introducing a conditional clause.

Of course I'd rather your scenario happens, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Other people deserve to lose their teams names for the exact same reason if the Redskins do.

Edited by Hunter_R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How in the hell is the tomahawk chop offensive?  Indians/Braves, Native American warriors, if you will, fought with tomahawks.  How is that even remotely offensive?

What makes you think most Native Americans fought with Tomahawks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Redskins go down, I'd have no issues with trying to bring every questionable name down with us.

On that note, how about the Washington Okla Humma (or whatever you'd have to write to make it grammatically correct)?

 

Yep, I'd pay money to burn to go after the Celtics and the Fighting Irish.  As far as I know, while Celtic may apply to Boston's Irish population, they didn't own the team, Red Auerbach (Jewish) did.  Knickerbockers are Dutch settlers, I believe, it's not just the short (of course a million names go from people to things, think Ottomans)  Then the name became (no longer) to people from NY.  The name underwent so many changes and sure, some were probably frowned upon but no one went around censoring or censuring, as far as I know.  But again, without evidence that Dutch or Irish actually owned these franchise, we'll have to assume it's offensive.  Even non-offensive names have been targeted for destruction, so this isn't solely about Redskin.  Again, though, what gives WASPs, Italians, Greeks, and Eastern Europeans permission to call a team Knickerbocker or Flying Dutchmen (Hofstra)?  

 

I can't wait for these people to go to Asian companies and protest the cartoonish and often offensive use of Black Africans in imagery, as well as anything else (like a store or company named after Hitler or someone else they have less historical attachment too.)  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For every Native American saying the word is offensive, you have just as many who is proud of the word.

And why would the team already branded by the distinction of being forced to integrate want to be caught in the middle of that? Dan Snyder should have gotten out ahead of this and not been the second owner of this franchise forced to yield on a racial issue. Snyder has never been great at picking his battles however so we have two more years of appeals and negativity to endure before he takes his place next to GPM in the history books.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But who are you or anyone to tell Native Americans what they should be offended by?

Why aren't you asking that to the people who are telling Native Americans that they should be offended by the term, "Redskins?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a caricature of an American Indian who goes by "Chief Noc-A-Homa" or "The Screaming Indian"...

 

They are completely different.  You obviously never went to a Braves game when Chie Noc-a-homa was there.  He looked nothing like that picture.  He had plenty of hair, was native american, wore a full head dress and attire.  The picture you posted is of a Screaming Brave (or Indian warrior). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But who are you or anyone to tell Native Americans what they should be offended by?

The presumption here is that if one person feels one way, ALL people feel a similar way.  This is like the argument about trigger warnings, please.  Because one person survived something does not give them the right to dictate how millions of others of people conduct their lives, it's a never-ending cycle to find and even generate slights to exert social power.

 

Arguably, we have no right to demand Latin America call us "America" instead of Estados Unidos (EE UU) because that is their right.  By not respecting people's right to be as they will and to be left alone, are we actually making the world safe for diversity in thought and practice or are we launching a highly cultural imperialist model of social change.  

 

The Amish call non-Amish, "English" based on historical circumstances.  Why don't we all boycott and pressure the Amish to start calling us all by our right names.  If not, it's oppression, right?  And who are they to use the word they've used for centuries?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. So if 1 person is offended by a word you can't use it? Congratulations. We are all now mute cause SOMEONE will ALWAYS be offended.

The goal is to generate offense, actually.  Think about Harjo's deceptive campaign against the word squaw. she has not only manufactured 'facts' to justify that campaign, she has relied on manufactured evidence for "Redskins" being a racial slur.  So, at some point, do I start asking myself, is this woman simply wrong or misinformed on TWO separate things (place names were changed in response to the squaw controversy) or is she an inveterate liar who takes out her personal grievances against whites (or against the world) through manufacturing controversies so that she can watch them squirm and eviscerate their traditions and heritage to placate her (an odd form of revenge, but one that makes sense.)

 

Also, anyone who knows what goes on on Twitter or Tumblr. know that EVERYTHING is a cause for protest and controversy and offense.  It's a simple fact that being a victim (of however marginal a slight) is empowering in our current social climate and becomes a currency of power in interpersonal and intergroup relationships and interactions.  I think there is a totalitarian impulse behind it, no different than the idea that SOMEONE, ANYWHERE believes differently than you must be converted or killed.  That or just a broken, mentally ill or disordered or evil person who enjoys finding slights so tehy can justify their hatred of some group or another.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why aren't you asking that to the people who are telling Native Americans that they should be offended by the term, "Redskins?"

The movement is driven by Native Americans. I'm not going to tell Native Americans that they shouldn't discuss what should be considered racist amongst their own people. The days of credibly arguing this is a white sports writer issue are over. No matter what you think of that shady Oneida leader, his changethemascot.org group and the National Congress of American Indians are leading this fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think most Native Americans fought with Tomahawks?

I don't have the exact numbers but we know for a fact that Native Americans fought with Bow/Arrows, spears, tomahawks, knives, etc. before gun powder was discovered/presented to them.  Also, nowhere in my post did I say "most", I said they fought with tomahawks.  

 

That's history.  So again, tell me how in the hell is a tomahawk chop offensive?

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movement is driven by Native Americans.

It's clearly not only driven by them. I'll ask this again. Are they [the Native Americans against the name] the majority? If so, fine, change the name.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bring up what you or I think (or black people for the matter, as they're clearly not okay with the word)? We're still talking about the Native American perspective. How many [Native Americans] is "Quite a few?" Is it the majority [of Native Americans]? Maybe they should have worked on finding an answer before letting their righteous indignation run amok.

There's one recent study that does show the majority of Native Americans are offended by the word. I have no access to it, so I can't judge its methodology. Many will dismiss it because of a perceived small sample size, but that's not really an issue compared to whether or not it was, in fact, a representative sample.

That poll was discussed here when it came out.  The questions were designed to get the response desired, the guy who conducted the poll had  a clear agenda, the poll was conducted at two pow wows with no information on where they were held or what the occasion was, and 3 of the questions responses were not listed.  It was far from scientific.

 

Add: link to poll http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

Edited by RedskinsFan44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are completely different. You obviously never went to a Braves game when Chie Noc-a-homa was there. He looked nothing like that picture. He had plenty of hair, was native american, wore a full head dress and attire. The picture you posted is of a Screaming Brave (or Indian warrior).

Well I was 7 in his last year and I barely remember him from TV. However, talking with my baseball nut dad(who's against all this "PC crap") he always thought they were one in the same in his youth. Wiki and other sources seem to indicate they at least started out that way though I'm happy to dig deeper.

I don't doubt one bit by the 80s they had officially separated the two either.

The Patch and the Mascot are both bad looks either way and were rightfully left in the past.

That's history. So again, tell me how in the hell is a tomahawk chop offensive?

Native Americans can be a very spiritual group, And some(not all) don't want every public image of them to reflect warfare that turned out really poorly for them?

Edited by EvilMonkeyBoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really is a shame there isn't a seperate thead for the Trade Mark issue as most of the pertinent posts dealing with the case will be missed by most in the clutter of this thread.

 

This from UPI

 

"....Bob Raskopf, expressing confidence the decision would be reversed, as it was in 2003.

 

We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins' trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.

As today's dissenting opinion correctly states, "the same evidence previously found insufficient to support cancellation" here "remains insufficient" and does not support cancellation.

This ruling -- which of course we will appeal -- simply addresses the team's federal trademark registrations, and the team will continue to own and be able to protect its marks without the registrations. The registrations will remain effective while the case is on appeal.


When the case first arose more than 20 years ago, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled on appeal in favor of the Washington Redskins and their trademark registrations.


Why?


As the district court's ruling made clear in 2003, the evidence 'is insufficient to conclude that during the relevant time periods the trademark at issue disparaged Native Americans...' The court continued, 'The Court concludes that the [board's] finding that the marks at issue 'may disparage' Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact.' Those aren't my words. That was the court's conclusion. We are confident that when a district court review's today's split decision, it will reach a similar conclusion.

In today's ruling, the Board's Marc Bergsman agreed, concluding in his dissenting opinion:

"It is astounding that the petitioners did not submit any evidence regarding the Native American population during the relevant time frame, nor did they introduce any evidence or argument as to what comprises a substantial composite of that population thereby leaving it to the majority to make petitioner's case have some semblance of meaning."


The evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more than ten years ago. We expect the same ultimate outcome here."

Edited by nonniey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movement is driven by Native Americans. I'm not going to tell Native Americans that they shouldn't discuss what should be considered racist amongst their own people. The days of credibly arguing this is a white sports writer issue are over. No matter what you think of that shady Oneida leader, his changethemascot.org group and the National Congress of American Indians are leading this fight.

 

Harjo has been on this for a long time.  What do you think of her role, her questionable reliance on manufactured (as in, a passage that didn't exist or was debunked) evidence?  

 

You know, there was a point in this society where we knew it was impolite to call an actual blind or retarded person blind or retarded but we insulted someone with those precisely because those were limitations they did not have.  Now, we are still leaving "cretin" "Idiot" and "dumb" off the table, but why?  It's basically because it is far more important to pick and choose what words we'll war against because it serves a particular cause.  For one, retarded

 

I mean, what if we find out psychopaths are born?  (evidence suggests it anyway.)  Shall we stop using the term in polite conversation? 

 

Do racial or ethnic word controversies take precedence over the concerns of those who fight against ableism?  Inquiring minds want to know by what right non-Scandinavians or non-Irish/Scots can call their teams by these names or make the decision for them as to what is offensive?

 

I can't think of anything being more demeaning to Irish heritage than a leprechaun with his dukes up.

 

Meanwhile, the distinct Southern identity is being stamped out in favor of the Yankee, don't name your team Rebels, don't have an old white guy mascot (See UAB Blazers changed mascot and Ole Miss, if I recall). But don't use a minority--that TOO is offensive!

 

It's a war against our very heritage, often a given actor is unaware of what role they're playing in a much broader phenomenon.  I'd also want to look into who convinced them, after decades, to advocate for this change, as opposed to silence (or relative silence) just 10-15 years ago, even as colleges were abandoning neutral names.

 

Really is a shame there isn't a seperate thead for the Trade Mark issue as most of the pertinent posts dealing with the case will be missed by most in the clutter of this thread.

 

 

Can I be honest?  It seems pretty clear to me that the momentum gathered and the "votes" are in.  The bien pensant have decided and just as it is with homosexuality, and increasingly transsexual identity, we will all soon "Agree" on this issue.  So, the particulars of the trademark case are just about how much longer the agony will continue.  But make no mistake, the name will be changed and probably all but a few names will change for the colleges still left with Indian team names.  People who took the time to learn, already know that evidence is scant in favor of the "disparaging word" case.  But it doesn't matter.  No more than any other thing mattered.  You and I will be made to bend to their will.  Same as with the idea that church and state separation meant the absence of religious content.  That was never the intent, everyone actually knows this but we pretend to something else because of the proliferation of religious (and secular) differences between peoples and it was one way to remove the controversy.  But keep in mind some people keep pushing to remove not only God or religion but all cultural references that are simply related to religion (Santa Claus, as an example.)  It never ends until people push back and push back not just stand their ground.

 

When a greater crisis comes and makes us forget about this nonsense, we may see a move back to normalcy.  That or letting people alone and preserving actual diversity in thought, practice and lifestyle instead of warring against every man's conscience and heritage.

Edited by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin
  • 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.