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)

DaveThePanther2008
 Share

Recommended Posts

Brooklyn 3.0 Grand Master

Brooklyn 3.0

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

The Redskins name may not be something you like but it is the true name of the team.  They named it for the right reasons and should have never been changed. 

The team has history with it and shouldn't have ever been changed.  D. Synder had originally said he would never change the name but the WOKE crowd got to him and they changed it. 

There are so many team names that could face stupid but similar fates later on.  Buccaneers and the Raiders were pirates and murders, the Chiefs fall into the same category as the Redskins.  You could go on and on.  Just makes no sense.  It's a name and shouldn't be destroyed because a couple of whiny little bitches have nothing better to do than to get their panties in a wad and change things. 

I bet you think all confederate statues should remain.

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The NFL Shield At Midfield Grand Master

The NFL Shield At Midfield

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MHS831 said:

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. 

The idea that the only people who are offended by "Redskins" are uptight white liberals is one of those talking points that's been repeated so often that people just kind of accept it as being true even if it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherclaw Grand Master

pantherclaw

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, MHS831 said:

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. 

A petition to change the Washington Commanders' name to the Washington Redskins has been circulating online. The petition was started by the Native American Guardian's Association (NAGA), a North Dakota-based nonprofit organization, on June 21, 2023. As of September 14, 2023, the petition has over 131,000 signatures. 

The petition states that the name "Redskins" has cultural, historical, and emotional significance, honoring the bravery, resilience, and warrior spirit of Native American culture. The petition also claims that the name "Commanders" is a fitting name for oppressors. 

The Commanders changed their name to the Washington Football Team in 2020 after many said it was racially insensitive to call the team "Redskins". However, the Commanders have made it clear that they're not going to make the switch, even though many people have signed the petition. 

 

Peace. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
csx Grand Master

csx

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

A petition to change the Washington Commanders' name to the Washington Redskins has been circulating online. The petition was started by the Native American Guardian's Association (NAGA), a North Dakota-based nonprofit organization, on June 21, 2023. As of September 14, 2023, the petition has over 131,000 signatures. 

The petition states that the name "Redskins" has cultural, historical, and emotional significance, honoring the bravery, resilience, and warrior spirit of Native American culture. The petition also claims that the name "Commanders" is a fitting name for oppressors. 

The Commanders changed their name to the Washington Football Team in 2020 after many said it was racially insensitive to call the team "Redskins". However, the Commanders have made it clear that they're not going to make the switch, even though many people have signed the petition. 

 

Peace. 

You might want to read up on that group a bit. Even if they weren't a front for the former owner it would not erase other native groups stances or speak for all natives.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JawnyBlaze Grand Master

JawnyBlaze

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, MHS831 said:

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. 

Perfect post. /endthread

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherclaw Grand Master

pantherclaw

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, csx said:

You might want to read up on that group a bit. Even if they weren't a front for the former owner it would not erase other native groups stances or speak for all natives.

I made a direct quote.  

I know that doesn't stop people from wanting to be upset over everything.  

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
strato Grand Master

strato

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, OneBadCat said:

I never liked The Commanders name. If anything, it felt like it was doubling down on colonialism when the point was to try to honor the natives. They could have kept the logo and called them The Warriors.

 

I am pretty sure Commander (In Chief) is where Commanders comes from. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • kungfoodude
      Hey You, You Don't Know Quarterbacking

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      That's fine but for every Kurt Warner there are 10 Tony Banks that don't find their spot because....it never really existed.  Jake Browning was on and off practice squad teams for years until he stuck in Cincy. In his limited action over the past two seasons, he has played well enough that the Bengals panic traded for 41 year old Joe Flacco. It's easy to point to outliers like Warner or Purdy or Tom Brady as players who fell through the cracks because....well, they are outliers. The statistics over the long term have never really borne out the argument that every QB is just waiting for their perfect spot and situation. Most of these guys bounce around the league and it just never really clicks anywhere or they become marginal backup QB's. I don't think that exactly an accident. It's tough to be a starting NFL QB and it's why the hunt every offseason is so frantic. There are just so few that do it at a high level. My guess is that a theoretical market for Bryce Young(today) is going to look a lot like that post Chicago Justin Fields market. Not a lot of interest and a late round pick value at the highest. And a lot of that IS going to be his average to below average physical traits. It's extremely tough to be in that range and excel in the NFL. And it's precisely because you DO have to be closer to perfection to make up for the fact that you can't do a lot of the things that the elite to above average starters in this league do. 
    • Seltzer
      Bryce's Achilles Heel Is Not What You Think It Is

      By Seltzer · Posted

      Im never not impressed by how confidently wrong you are. I've watched probably 200 NFL QBs play live. This talk about Bryce's arm strength is retarded, pure and simple. Bryce can make every throw an NFL QB needs to make in any circumstance. Does he have an arm that makes you go wow all the time? No, but very few QBs truly do. Bryce has plenty of zip on the ball when he wants. That TD to XL was a frozen rope. He throws to the opposite hash and outside all the time with no problem. Bryce's arm is objectively stronger than Cam's post-injury. I've seen both live multiple times and I know. And Cam could still play QB well without his rocket launcher. OPs point remains. QB success relies on a lot of nebulous things. Obviously you dont like Bryce. But his success is not going to be bc he doesn't have the arm strength. Its embarrassing this is a thing. Go to some games and actually educate yourself.  
    • ImfromClayton
      Where do you fall on the Bryce Young spectrum?

      By ImfromClayton · Posted

      I personally think Bryce is going to be an extremely good Quarterback for a long time. If you look at modern QB development, it just takes a while. The extreme athletes can get by early, but if you look at the trajectories of guys the last 10 years, were seeing a lot of slow-cooking. Jared Goff, Geno Smith, Baker, Sam Darnold, Trevor Lawrence. The list is long.  The guys that were truly special from Day 1 is an extremely short list. The list of things that college quarterbacks are responsible for gets shorter by the day with the transfer portal, and the college offenses. The list of things that NFL Quarterbacks are responsible for seems to get longer and longer each season.  I saw an interview the other day in which a rookie quarterback and center were calling plays for the offense.  I can't remember the team or the Quarterback, but I definitely remember the clip. It takes time, even for the smartest and most gifted, and the reality is, we have no idea how good or bad the coaching may be until we hear things we aren't supposed to hear anyway.  Bryce isn't perfect, but I saw in another thread, his biggest struggle is risk/reward. That is something I only expect him to improve upon. His adjustments, ability to read a defense, and execution have been extremely good considering our rosters in his tenure here. Our offensive personnel and coaching were both so poor his rookie year that I'm not sure it's fair to properly evaluate that at all. Since that time, all we've seen from him is growth and progress. 
×
×
  • Create New...