Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Here come the Redskins (*nothing piece MSN article)


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, frankw said:

The original owner of the team and the man who was behind the branding at the time was a notorious racist who was forced to integrate black players to the point the lease on his stadium was almost revoked. Attempting to go back to that would be ridiculous.

Yep they were threatened with having the lease pulled for what is now known as RFK Stadium because it was on federal land.  George Preston Marshall was a very vocal, proud racist and his team was the last to integrate.  They would have minstrel shows at halftime and everything.

 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

I liked the Washington Football Team gimmick.  It was unique.

Yep.  Once they went to Football Team they should have stayed with it.   basically  taking a soccer ish name actually worked being the lone duck in the NFL with it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently no one read the article past the clickbait title… their team president literally said there are a million things that are more of a priority than team name. So no change is imminent lol.

 

they never should’ve changed it from Redskins but once they went to Washington Football Team they should’ve stuck with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Seems like there is going to be a change in DC.  They might be reverting back to the Redskins.

I was never a fan of the move and sadly it was the few ruling the many.   I hope they go back.  Even though I can't stand the Redskins I hate the new name.  I see Red and Gold they are the Redskins and always will be for me.

Good Luck Washington I hope you do the right thing. 

NFL News: Commanders' president unveils team's plans for name change (msn.com)

 Any issue that addresses racism  is going to be the few ruling many.  The majority is not in position to decide how the minority group should feel about it simply because they can outvote them.   Referring to skin color is about as racist as it gets, even if it is a mascot--in my view. 

Edited by MHS831
  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

The natives didn't weren't offended when they were the redskins. More natives have come out in support of the original name, the Redskins. 

Seems like a no brained to me. 

So you have data to support this?  I would agree that your position is a "no brainer."

38% of self-identified Native Americans said they were not bothered by the Washington Redskins name. But 49% overall said it was offensive, along with 67% of respondents who were heavily engaged in their native or tribal cultures, 60% of young people, and 52% of those with tribal affiliations.

But it is not about numbers, so I was wrong for presenting the data to argue in support of a decision that is about individuals, not groups.  If it was always about the majority makes the decision, we could tear down access ramps for the disabled.  We could hoist our Confederate flags to celebrate 4 years of white heritage that most whites know nothing about, and we could force all religions not classified as evangelicals to comply with the majority or tough sh!t.   Right?

If some are offended, even if those offended were not in the majority, that is all that should matter. 

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Also hit the over.  Banking on Man City running up the score and Leeds getting a lucky strike.   
    • Tailed you.  Also Free Play, which is why the risk shows $0.00. Let me look at hoops and get back to you.  Always fade Hubert, haha. 
    • Hard to say right now, but good thinking.  I look at this as the info we need for free agency.  Looks like we are going to free up about $10m so far; watch to see if any contracts (Moehrig, Horn, Brown, etc) are reworked the first week of March.  Then after free agency, we will have a pretty good idea. Right now, to be fair to your question because I am sure you are aware of its timing: In free agency, I see us adding an OT of some sort and drafting one at some point.  It all depends on how they view Ickey, Nijman, and maybe BC.  That OT could be Nijman.  I do not see the future OT--just a stop gap. I see the Panthers signing a free-agent center.  I think the market is strong.  I see Fortner from the Saints as a prime candidate and his salary is estimated at $6m by Spotrac.  the Saints are $42m over the cap, so I doubt they are able to re-sign many of their own.  He will be 28.  I also expect them to re-sign Corbett (depth) at a vet min ($1.5m) deal. I also see free agency as a strong area to get a free safety who can play and is under age 30.  Hawkins, Cook, and Bryant are all around age 27-28, play at a high level, and should be had for about $15m per. EDGE: Arnold Ebiketie is a good value because he gets pressure at a high percentage.  He had 2 sacks and Atlanta just drafted 2 pass rushers last year.   He has a 70+ PFF rating and will (Spotrac) demand about $9m.  While he is not the answer, he is a great third down option with Princely and he would allow for Jones, Scourton, and Princely to develop.
×
×
  • Create New...