The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

LPJ = Sanity

Thanks, bro!

>> I have no problem with you having your personal views that you do not like the name, but you are not satisfied with your own views, you have to try to claim that the name is offensive to everyone.


Where precisely did I do that?

As I said earlier, my posting to this board *is* my research. You guys have brought out a couple of facts I didn't know. This may be an old topic for you, but it is a new one for me. In the thread I referenced on the other board, a Native American came forth to say the name was offensive to him. That was my first exposure to a Native American's opinion. It's true I haven't toured reservations. I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself. I prefaced my opinion by saying "personally."

On the other thread the guy who initiated the point about the name needing to be changed went on to reference a Native American author and several movies that dealt with the subject. That is valid information, too. Also the point about Stockholm syndrome was compelling. My wife would say that choosing to not be offended is a survival strategy.

I would love to be a Redskins fan because I love football and the local media is simply loaded with Redskin hype. It's constant.

When I got here in 1988, my team had finally become competitive for the first time in its history. It hurt not to be there. They ended up winning a lot of big games but couldn't win in the playoffs. I was proud of them, but being a Saints fan, I was constantly ridiculed by Redskin fans. People would hand me a paper bag and laugh in my face. People, obviously, like you. Karma is a bitch ain't it.

My wife would say that choosing to not be offended is a survival strategy.

There are also those who would point out that, choosing TO be offended can also be a political strategy. Your wife is certainly free to ignore the polling data if she chooses... that's the beauty of living here... at least, until the lords of political correctness get their way...

BTW... I had long been an admirer of the Saints, and of their beleaguered fans (my family roots are in southern Mississippi)... until y'all discovered the joys of arrogance.

Yeah... karma's a bitch... you'd do well to remember it...

To me, personally, the term Redskins is no more or less offensive than any other derogatory term. If the term doesn't apply to me I have no reason to take offense. I am one-quarter Cherokee. I am not an "Indian." I am not a "Redskin." The Redskins are a professional football franchise. I am a Redskins fan. The only people I've heard use the term "Redskins" in a derogatory manner look like they are the product of inbreeding. Why would I be offended by someone who looks like a cast member from "Deliverance?" I wouldn't be and am not. Those whose opinions matter to me are far more creative with their insults.

Nobody uses the term "Redskins" as both a reference to the sports franchise and as an insult to Native Americans in the same statement. Intent and context matter. "How do you feel about the Redskins execution?" "I'm all for it." There is no connection between that statement and Native Americans. A few with obvious agendas, like Suzan Shown Harjo have tried to make a connection for the purposes not of preventing offense of "her people" but rather for the purpose of licensing and registering the trademark "Redskins" for profit. That is a greater injustice than any damage a word intended to honor a proud franchise could do. OK, a once proud franchise but we'll get back there.

Hail To The Redskins

TCIYM wrote:If the Post didn't go out of their way to insult Snyder at every opportunity he probably wouldn't care.

Why should Snyder care anyway. The quickest way to get people off your back is to produce winning teams -- not by being whiny and complaining that the media is out to get him.

Danny did this all to himself. The only way the media will stop harrassing him is if he finally starts winning.

markshark84 wrote:

TCIYM wrote:If the Post didn't go out of their way to insult Snyder at every opportunity he probably wouldn't care.

Why should Snyder care anyway. The quickest way to get people off your back is to produce winning teams -- not by being whiny and complaining that the media is out to get him.

Danny did this all to himself. The only way the media will stop harrassing him is if he finally starts winning.

Dan Snyder has the same rights as anyone else. His wealth and his ownership of the Washington Redskins has nothing to do with his right not to be a victim of targeted harassment by the media. The right to freedom of press is to prevent abuses by government. The People have a right to know what their government is doing. That same law is not a shield to protect media from violation of individual rights against libel, defamation, etc. If Snyder was a nobody like most of us we would be all for his right not to be harassed by a tabloid.

As far as "winning" is concerned, it isn't as though Snyder hasn't tried. His biggest fault is he is too much a fan, but he has paid players and hired experienced management and coaching and left them to make the same mistakes an inexperienced staff or Cerrato would have made. What that has to do with his legal rights against harassment is beyond me. As you so plainly pointed out, if the Redskins were winning you would care about his rights. Because that's how we determine who has rights and who doesn't.

*SPAM BREAK*

-- THN.. the best in Redskins conversations across our great nation!

Oops quoting Red_One43 >> I have no problem with you having your personal views that you do not like the name, but you are not satisfied with your own views, you have to try to claim that the name is offensive to everyone.

Oops wrote

Where precisely did I do that?

You wrote: "I'm sure "Redskins" sounds waaay more offensive to the public now than it did in the 1930s. Americans are much more socially conscious now."

Since you didn't say the term "Redskins," but said "Redskins" which is how the team is referred. Plus you capitalized it. What "public" are you talking about when you more offensive? These are things that you said that may have lead me to read into your statement. True the term "redskin" is more offensive in general today than in the 1930's.

As I said earlier, my posting to this board *is* my research. You guys have brought out a couple of facts I didn't know. This may be an old topic for you, but it is a new one for me. In the thread I referenced on the other board, a Native American came forth to say the name was offensive to him. That was my first exposure to a Native American's opinion. It's true I haven't toured reservations. I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself. I prefaced my opinion by saying "personally."

Sounds like you already had determined that you were against the use of "Redskins" as a franchise name before the Native American came forth on the other board so why do you need us as research?

On the other thread the guy who initiated the point about the name needing to be changed went on to reference a Native American author and several movies that dealt with the subject. That is valid information, too. Also the point about Stockholm syndrome was compelling. My wife would say that choosing to not be offended is a survival strategy.

So you are saying that the Native Americans on the reservation who named their team the Redskins are choosing to not to be offended as a survival strategy?

I would love to be a Redskins fan because I love football and the local media is simply loaded with Redskin hype. It's constant.

There's nothing stopping you, you can always say "Skins." If "Redskins" is offensive to you.

When I got here in 1988, my team had finally become competitive for the first time in its history. It hurt not to be there. They ended up winning a lot of big games but couldn't win in the playoffs. I was proud of them, but being a Saints fan, I was constantly ridiculed by Redskin fans. People would hand me a paper bag and laugh in my face. People, obviously, like you. Karma is a bitch ain't it.

People like me? I have strong Louisiana roots and happen to root for the Saints. Haslett was an HC there. Bum Phillips, Earl Campbell. Jim Mora. Bobby Hebert! Billy Kilmer. John Gilliam opening kick -off TD for the first TD in Saints history. No, it wasn't people like me, obviously.

The term name "Redskins" is a powerful name to me. Compare it to "Chiefs" and "Braves." I can feel the difference in the names. The name "Redskins" not only contains the glory of the history of the Red people of this country, but it also contains the pain of the Red people of this country. I personnally feel that considering the plight of Native American peoples in this country, if one is going to have a team name honoring them, it would be one that speaks to the truth. I think that it is sad that folks claim how offensive the name is but never set foot on a reservation except maybe to gamble at a casino. Most people will probaqbly will never understand why a Native American high school could name its team the "Redskins." Believe it or not, Native American people do not just speak with one tongue. Where one Native american will abhor anything "redskin" another will embrace "redskin" as defined in his own terms (correct, most non Native Americans are not welcome to use that term in direct reference to a Native American person in his vicinity). For me, I will be a Redskin fan till the day I die. To me, it is more than about a game.

Dan Snyder has the same rights as anyone else. His wealth and his ownership of the Washington Redskins has nothing to do with his right not to be a victim of targeted harassment by the media.

Targeted harassment??? Seriously??? The media rips on Snyder because he is an egotistical jackass that has no idea how to run a football team. If the Skins won he wouldn't be criticized the way that he is. All the whining and pettiness just makes him look worse.

As far as "winning" is concerned, it isn't as though Snyder hasn't tried. His biggest fault is he is too much a fan, but he has paid players and hired experienced management and coaching and left them to make the same mistakes an inexperienced staff or Cerrato would have made.

No, that isn't his fault. His fault is that he treats this team like his own personal fantasy football team, hires incompetent morons, like to make stupid big splashes with players and coaches, and hates it when he doesn't have control (i.e. under Marty).

What that has to do with his legal rights against harassment is beyond me.

Too bad he isn't being harassed. [/quote]

Yea, accusing Dan Snyder of violating EPA laws by "going all agent orange" on protected trees on his own property has everything to do with the Redskins. So does slamming accusations of a company Snyder no longer owned at the time of the alleged slamming. So does Six Flags. So does breast cancer. Perfectly logical connections to the Redskins. What was I thinking? Let's just look for any and every reason to character assassinate Dan Snyder whether it's justified or not. Half-truths are perfectly acceptable so long as we call it "satire" even though it clearly is anything but. Snyder has the next 40 or more years of owning the team to "be petty."

skinsfan#33 wrote:Haven't you figured it out yet, the media in dc blames Snyder for every problem and they have trained the fan base to do the same.

Daniel Snyder is a smart owner and a knowledgeable football expert. He has given glory and respect to himself, the team and anything associated with the Redskins and their fans over the last decade.

We can hold our heads high to defend him as the victim of relentless and unjustified attacks. He is, in fact, a victim of vicious lies and innuendo. His name will be vindicated not only in a court of law but by football experts holding high again our three existing Lombardi trophies.

His management is the envy of the NFL and his generosity towards the fans is a leading light as an example within and beyond football. His public relations towards the media, fans, former employees and everybody he does business is a worthy topic of discussion and research in the most prestigious schools and universities in the USA as a good example of success.



One more thing, if the people in the Arab world are fighting hard to remove tyrants, egomaniacs and despots from power and privilege, ...

... could not that happen also in Redskins Park??? Just asking.

TCIYM wrote:Yea, accusing Dan Snyder of violating EPA laws by "going all agent orange" on protected trees on his own property has everything to do with the Redskins. So does slamming accusations of a company Snyder no longer owned at the time of the alleged slamming. So does Six Flags. So does breast cancer. Perfectly logical connections to the Redskins. What was I thinking? Let's just look for any and every reason to character assassinate Dan Snyder whether it's justified or not. Half-truths are perfectly acceptable so long as we call it "satire" even though it clearly is anything but. Snyder has the next 40 or more years of owning the team to "be petty."

His actions absolutely are related to his ownership of the Skins. The same way it's relevant when newspapers write about player arrests and other similar incidents that don't have on the field but have an impact on football nonetheless.

Not to mention that you are fixated on one writer from one paper (not even the Post which was what started this thread). Most of the stories from the Post that have to do with Snyder focus on his awful management of the Skins.

oops wrote:In the thread I referenced on the other board, a Native American came forth to say the name was offensive to him. That was my first exposure to a Native American's opinion.

What's your proof that the person on the other board was really an American Indian? It might also interest you that our current logo was suggested by an Indian.

So does Walter Wetzel, former chairman of the Blackfoot tribe and president of the National Congress of American Indians in the 1960s. By the early ‘60s, the Redskins had dropped any reference to Indians in their logo, uniforms and merchandise. Wetzel went to the Redskins office with photos of Indians in full headdress.

“I said, ‘I’d like to see an Indian on your helmets,’” which then sported a big “R” as the team logo, remembers Wetzel, now 86 and retired in Montana. Within weeks, the Redskins had a new logo, a composite Indian taken from the features in Wetzel’s pictures. “It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team. . . . It’s only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians.”

more

TCIYM wrote:

markshark84 wrote:

TCIYM wrote:If the Post didn't go out of their way to insult Snyder at every opportunity he probably wouldn't care.

Why should Snyder care anyway. The quickest way to get people off your back is to produce winning teams -- not by being whiny and complaining that the media is out to get him.

Danny did this all to himself. The only way the media will stop harrassing him is if he finally starts winning.

Dan Snyder has the same rights as anyone else. His wealth and his ownership of the Washington Redskins has nothing to do with his right not to be a victim of targeted harassment by the media. The right to freedom of press is to prevent abuses by government. The People have a right to know what their government is doing. That same law is not a shield to protect media from violation of individual rights against libel, defamation, etc. If Snyder was a nobody like most of us we would be all for his right not to be harassed by a tabloid.

As far as "winning" is concerned, it isn't as though Snyder hasn't tried. His biggest fault is he is too much a fan, but he has paid players and hired experienced management and coaching and left them to make the same mistakes an inexperienced staff or Cerrato would have made. What that has to do with his legal rights against harassment is beyond me. As you so plainly pointed out, if the Redskins were winning you would care about his rights. Because that's how we determine who has rights and who doesn't.

I'm sorry, this is just too much. Do you really believe what you are writing? And no, if Snyder was a normal person I would not support him knowingly breaking a law by deforesting an area of his home so that he has a nice view of a lake. That is an a-hole thing to do.

And winning is something that you either do or do not. I don't care how hard Snyder tries. And his biggest fault is not that he is too big of a fan; it is that he is egotistical and won't let football people control the football aspects of his team. And if you think he hired Cerrato to call the shots, you are just crazy. Don't forget what happened to Schott -- typical Snyder. If you don't see this; well then, I can't help you.

And no, I never said that if Danny was winning I would care about his rights. How you conceived this I have no clue. He could be Kraft and I still wouldn't care. Whether you want to believe it or not, he is a public figure, a celebrity. They don't have it the same as normal people. What I meant is that if he were winning, less heat would be on him for being a less than stellar citizen. People tend to look beyond these types of things as long as they are producing desired results.

It's clear some people just want reasons to bash Dan Snyder, even if those reasons are lies and half-truths from a tabloid about things not related to the Redskins or past mistakes that are now history. All I care about is what is happening with the Washington Redskins on the field this season. History and Snyder's personal and business affairs nor Redskins related do not concern me. Seeing as how Snyder is likely to own the team for the next 40 years or longer I can't see the point in beating dead horses. I can only hope he learns from his mistakes. Bringing in Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan and allowing them to make the football decisions was a first step. Fail to see how discussing a coach who was fired over nine years ago is relevant. Fail to see how alleged deforestation of trees on Snyder's property is relevant. Fail to see how some can continue to bash for past mistakes both team related and non-team related. Also fail to understand why Snyder is being bashed for taking the advice of legal counsel. Snyder didn't take it upon himself to look for reasons to file suit. He took the advice of Tony Wyllie. I'll just agree to disagree, as does the law. If targeting a specific individual is the intention, a newspaper better have its facts straight. In this case it doesn't. Snyder has a case, regardless of how people choose to characterize him.

Sounds like a few pretty innocuous posts by oops aroused some strong feelings and maybe even a little hostility.

Both sides of this issue are valid. I saw no hidden agenda in oops' posts. He was very up-front.

I am part Blackfoot myself and find the name somewhat offensive intellectually but not emotionally ... if that makes any sense.

I attend games by "scalping" for face value off craigslist. I sing "Hail to the Redskins" when we score. I love the old words:

Hail to the Redskins!

Hail Victory!

Braves on the Warpath!

Fight for old Dixie!

Run or pass and score -- we want a lot more!

Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score

Read 'em, weep 'em, touchdown - we want heap more

Fight on, Fight on -- 'Till you have won

Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!

For what it's worth, the name Braves is way more honorific than the name Redskins.

Peace out my brothers, please!

DarthMonk

Redskin in Canada wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Haven't you figured it out yet, the media in dc blames Snyder for every problem and they have trained the fan base to do the same.

Daniel Snyder is a smart owner and a knowledgeable football expert. He has given glory and respect to himself, the team and anything associated with the Redskins and their fans over the last decade.

We can hold our heads high to defend him as the victim of relentless and unjustified attacks. He is, in fact, a victim of vicious lies and innuendo. His name will be vindicated not only in a court of law but by football experts holding high again our three existing Lombardi trophies.

His management is the envy of the NFL and his generosity towards the fans is a leading light as an example within and beyond football. His public relations towards the media, fans, former employees and everybody he does business is a worthy topic of discussion and research in the most prestigious schools and universities in the USA as a good example of success.

Who are you... and what did you do with RiC?

Redskin in Canada wrote:One more thing, if the people in the Arab world are fighting hard to remove tyrants, egomaniacs and despots from power and privilege, ...

... could not that happen also in Redskins Park??? Just asking.

He owns the team with the loyalist fans on the planet...

We hate/dislike him on many different levels but he's just the owner, we'll wait him out because there is no where else for us to go.

No matter what you say most of us would give up the NFL before switching teams

TCIYM wrote: Snyder has a case, regardless of how people choose to characterize him.

First, whether he has a case AT ALL will be decided by a Court of Law., not by the fans, experts or anybody outside that court room. The Judgment will speak on it.

Second, the character, or lack thereof, of this person is directly responsible for his terribly poor performance as an owner. His private life and personality flaws would be meaningless to us if they did not transpire all the way from the Front Office, to the stands and all the way to the field of play.

He has worked very hard to collect a wide range of critics and enemies in all walks of life. His public relations are disastrous. I could care less about all his flaws if he was removed enough from the management of the team. But just when people are hoping and praying that he has removed himself under Allen and Shanahan, he comes back to become the focus of controversy and criticism.

He loves attention and publicity. He gets it alright.

1niksder wrote:Who are you... and what did you do with RiC?

SARCASM.

1niksder wrote:He owns the team with the loyalist fans on the planet...

We hate/dislike him on many different levels but he's just the owner, we'll wait him out because there is no where else for us to go.

No matter what you say most of us would give up the NFL before switching teams

Citizens of Arab countries are not changing nationalities. They are loyal to their countries and they are removing despots and tyrants from power.

We are Redskins Fans. All I want is this CLOWN to remove himself from embarrassing this team in every possible way time after time.

The only person who has been able to manage him was Joe Gibbs. Dan has been an embarrassing figure before and after Joe.

Redskin in Canada wrote:
He loves attention and publicity. He gets it alright.

If this is what it take to keep him out of football related matters, I'm behind him all the way. Why should we be the only one to have to deal with this egotistical idiot. Let "the Danny" be who he is...

Maybe the NFL will get tired of it and make all of happy.

Redskin in Canada wrote:We are Redskins Fans. All I want is this CLOWN to remove himself from embarrassing this team in every possible way time after time.

The only person who has been able to manage him was Joe Gibbs. Dan has been an embarrassing figure before and after Joe.

This is where we differ...

I want him Gone... But he won't sell

1niksder wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:We are Redskins Fans. All I want is this CLOWN to remove himself from embarrassing this team in every possible way time after time.

The only person who has been able to manage him was Joe Gibbs. Dan has been an embarrassing figure before and after Joe.

This is where we differ...

I want him Gone... But he won't sell

Selling the team would be a dream come true. But he MIGHT sell if there was a good enough offer on the table. In the absence of that offer, I want him REMOVED.

DarthMonk wrote:Sounds like a few pretty innocuous posts by oops aroused some strong feelings and maybe even a little hostility.

Both sides of this issue are valid. I saw no hidden agenda in oops' posts. He was very up-front.

I am part Blackfoot myself and find the name somewhat offensive intellectually but not emotionally ... if that makes any sense.

I attend games by "scalping" for face value off craigslist. I sing "Hail to the Redskins" when we score. I love the old words:

Hail to the Redskins!

Hail Victory!

Braves on the Warpath!

Fight for old Dixie!

Run or pass and score -- we want a lot more!

Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score

Read 'em, weep 'em, touchdown - we want heap more

Fight on, Fight on -- 'Till you have won

Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!

For what it's worth, the name Braves is way more honorific than the name Redskins.

Peace out my brothers, please!

DarthMonk

As I stated in my responses to Oops, I have no problem with anyone who finds the name offensive. We all have our reasons for believing as we do. I have no probelm with him being a Saints fan giving an opinion on a sensitive issue. As you saw, I have no problem debating this issue. On the threads where this issue has been brought up, there is always some hostility and that is with fellow Redskin fans. I feel that Oops was treated as well as any Redskin fan would be on debating this issue. Question for you DarthMonk, is the title of this thread about appropriateness of the team name, Redskins? Hidden agenda or not, he gave his opinion and others on this site gave theirs - that is what makes this site great!

Red_One43 wrote: Question for you DarthMonk, is the title of this thread about appropriateness of the team name, Redskins? Hidden agenda or not, he gave his opinion and others on this site gave theirs - that is what makes this site great!

Answer:

Title of thread is "Ahh those petty Redskins...."

First post reads as follows:

If they spend 1/2 as much time prepping for the draft than they did worrying about media outlets using their name they would have won multiple super bowls the past decade...

Thread started weaving and included phrase concerning use of the name Redskins in quotes.

First post by oops read:

A Saints' board has quite a thread on this topic: http://saintsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194247

Dander seemed to rise suddenly.

Seemed like typical thread action.

As you said, "Hidden agenda or not, he gave his opinion and others on this site gave theirs - that is what makes this site great!"

Dander seemed to rise suddenly. Seemed a little odd but that is typical thread action too, I suppose.

My agenda was to point out what seemed like borderline hostility. I could very well be wrong.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

Red_One43 wrote: Question for you DarthMonk, is the title of this thread about appropriateness of the team name, Redskins? Hidden agenda or not, he gave his opinion and others on this site gave theirs - that is what makes this site great!

Answer:

Title of thread is "Ahh those petty Redskins...."

First post reads as follows:

If they spend 1/2 as much time prepping for the draft than they did worrying about media outlets using their name they would have won multiple super bowls the past decade...

Thread started weaving and included phrase concerning use of the name Redskins in quotes.

First post by oops read:

A Saints' board has quite a thread on this topic: http://saintsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194247

Dander seemed to rise suddenly.

Seemed like typical thread action.

As you said, "Hidden agenda or not, he gave his opinion and others on this site gave theirs - that is what makes this site great!"

Dander seemed to rise suddenly. Seemed a little odd but that is typical thread action too, I suppose.

My agenda was to point out what seemed like borderline hostility. I could very well be wrong.

DarthMonk

Ah, C'mon, he was asking for it (tongue in cheek). I think Oops is taking the name of his team (Saints) way too seriously - Let's see a man goes into the Redskins Den and tells the Redskins faithful that they should change their name because he personally finds it offensive and returns alive - that is an express ticket to Sainthood in my book Hey St. Oops - no hard feelings. Meet us at the thread below, if you really want to "research" how we feel about this topic. Let's turn this one back over the right topic.


http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35988