Jump to content

Redskins no more-team retires name


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

Disagree  obviously  but your last sentence is a new disagreement.  You think by changing the name he is going to make money? I very much doubt that. Going to be less for him. Probably  lose more fans too.

No, he stood to lose money if he DIDN'T make the change.  Nike, FedEx and Amazon were all threatening to pull their sponsorship deals until they changed the name. 

Big money was talking, so he finally listened and made the change.  That was all far more impactful than any fans banding together to boycott the team, either for changing the name or for refusing to change it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Patriots:  Colonial slave owners and terrorists.  Buffalo Bill:  Indian bounty hunter.  Raiders:  Raped and plundered innocents on the high seas.   Buccaneers:  See Raiders.  Chief

Native Americans: ok cool whatev Libs: huh ok Angry pasty bros: GAHHHHHHHH WHAT IS NEXT, SNOWFLAKES??? THE PATRIOTS???!?!?!??!!!??? 

Browns: Last week they left my delivery at the wrong house.

Posted Images

3 hours ago, THE BARON said:

Also... Since the Confederate Battle Flag is out, there needs to be a new flag that represents the spirit of the south.  A collage of all the best the south has to offer.  

A southern Belle in a pair of Daisy Dukes 

The image of the "Southern Belle" was part of an attempt by the United Daughters of the Confederacy to re-write southern history and preserve Confederate culture.  And for the most part....it worked.

The image also was used as a way to demonstrate that white southern women needed to be "protected" from recently freed black men.  The racist stereotype that black men were dangerous rapists who wanted to hurt white women was one that became pervasive for decades, right up to today.  And many black men in the south were lynched or sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit, or for even looking at a white woman wrong.  And that didn't stop a long time ago, either.  

 

 

 

https://woollymammothoctoroon.wordpress.com/the-southern-belle-is-a-racist-fiction/

The “Southern Belle” is a Racist Fiction

by Sam Biddle

gawker.com 

The "Southern Belle" Is a Racist Fiction

Sometime between Reconstruction, this episode of MTV: True Life, and the hundred-thousandth wedding held on a plantation in South Carolina, the term Southern Belle became just another friendly identifier to put in your Twitter bio, a throwaway regional label no weightier than Cali Surfer Dude. But the difference between SoCal pride and honoring your Southern gentility is that the latter celebrates the ugliest stain in America’s history.

The notion of the Southern Belle dates back to the 19th century, when it was a cheery name given to a specific sort of white person who flourished in the American South before the end of the Civil War. Belles were a few very specific things: white, bourgeois, and almost certainly beneficiaries of the slave trade, married to the plantation owners whose wealth was secured through black chattel. From an encyclopedic entry provided by the University of Richmond:

She was beautiful but risky to touch, like porcelain. Every southern belle was expected to be up-to-date on the latest fashions, which often proved tricky and expensive because fashion was constantly changing throughout the nineteenth century. A true lady embodied the ideals of the South, and was thus hospitable and graceful.

Today, the image of a Southern Belle is not just some strange collage on Blake Lively’s mood board, but a commonplace compliment used frequently in sorority recruiting and on Tumblr, an inane cheer for a vague kind of Southern pride. Thought Catalog, our most accurate trove of inanities, defines the Southern Belle as a “mindset” that doesn’t even have much to do with geography anymore:

Not knowing how to cook is just not an option for the Southern Belle. They were raised to know how to make a good meal, to feed themselves and the people they love, and to have people looking forward to coming over for dinner. When you go to their house, you know that you are going to leave full and happy.

[…]

Southern Belles don’t care if not every woman wants to be like them, or if they’re considered too “traditional” or “old-fashioned.” They are happy to live the life they have, and be who they are, without pleasing some feminist or businesswoman who wants them to be more “modern.” They know how much better life is when you live it in style.

The Southern Belle, you see, knows better than you do. She knows what is right—for her family, for herself, and for her country. The modern Southern Belle is a paragon of conservative values, warmth, light, quiet strength, and happiness. It may seem retrograde, but it’s just what genteel society women have been doing since the days of the Confederacy.

The "Southern Belle" Is a Racist Fiction

From the September 7th, 1861 issue of Harper’s: “A Female Rebel in Baltimore”

But praising the loyalty and generosity of the Southern Belle is about as cheery as celebrating the camaraderie of the Hitler Youth, the fresh air of the Trail of Tears, or the cardiovascular benefits of the Bataan Death March. You can find something fun in any horror of history! And the Belles of today do exactly that—if you bring up sl*very, they’ll point to all the nice parts about the Old South. The architecture, the parties, the sipping of cool drinks on warm porches. Oh, the fields? Those fields are just for growing delicious strawberries and tomatoes for folks to enjoy. Nothing more.

Every perk and beautiful part of white plantation life was created through black slavery. If Belles were patient and gracious, it’s because forced black labor enabled it. If the Southern life was pretty and sophisticated, it’s because slavery afforded it. Everything pleasant about Belle-hood was a function of human suffering on a vast scale—it’s conceptually impossible to separate the society bankrolled by slavery from the slavery itself.

Americans love myopia and general narrowness. Think of how great it would be if we could treat history like a buffet and just pick out nice parts? The chic tailoring of SS uniforms, the athleticism of Roman bloodsport, the loyalty of feudalism.

Unfortunately for the nostalgics, the Old South is synonymous with the Antebellum south, which in turn is synonymous with the slave economy. Bu-bu-but tradition! Sorry. Your tradition was someone else’s nightmare. Pining for those days, even if you’re too detached from national history to realize it, is pining for the comforts of whiteness when black people were property. You ignore it, you can romanticize it, and you can deny it, but you don’t get to pick and choose the portions of history that actually happened; the Old South is a soiled rag, too rank with national shame to be wrung out. Antebellum America cannot be redeemed for the sake of your wedding, fraternity mixer, or lifestyle website.

So: Please pick a different party venue, because otherwise your wedding is going to be sh*tty and racist.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

No, he stood to lose money if he DIDN'T make the change.  Nike, FedEx and Amazon were all threatening to pull their sponsorship deals until they changed the name. 

Big money was talking, so he finally listened and made the change.  That was all far more impactful than any fans banding together to boycott the team, either for changing the name or for refusing to change it.

And Amazon ,Nike or FedEx don't really give a rats ass about this or any societal movement from a personal aspect. They are afraid if they don't cave they will face bad press and outrage from a small % of Americans. But nevertheless it will hurt their bottom line - so they "Care" . Its all about the $$$.

And therein lies the bigger issue. Societal issues aren't changing due to this , the perception is its changing because big corporations are "caving" but they just want to protect their assets , just like politicians are looking to preserve votes. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BROOKLYN JET said:

Yes, and ones who have been dead for 12 years are still getting voter registration forms in the mail.

LOL, true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

And Amazon ,Nike or FedEx don't really give a rats ass about this or any societal movement from a personal aspect. They are afraid if they don't cave they will face bad press and outrage from a small % of Americans. But nevertheless it will hurt their bottom line - so they "Care" . Its all about the $$$.

And therein lies the bigger issue. Societal issues aren't changing due to this , the perception is its changing because big corporations are "caving" but they just want to protect their assets , just like politicians are looking to preserve votes. 

The funniest are the Big Financial corporations donating millions and doing social media campaigns after redlining and refusing to loan to minorities for decades (hint, they still do) and doing the cynical PR stuff to look "woke ". 

 

#change #care #dontburnourbuildings

 

LOL.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

The image of the "Southern Belle" was part of an attempt by the United Daughters of the Confederacy to re-write southern history and preserve Confederate culture.  And for the most part....it worked.

The image also was used as a way to demonstrate that white southern women needed to be "protected" from recently freed black men.  The racist stereotype that black men were dangerous rapists who wanted to hurt white women was one that became pervasive for decades, right up to today.  And many black men in the south were lynched or sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit, or for even looking at a white woman wrong.  And that didn't stop a long time ago, either.  

 

 

 

https://woollymammothoctoroon.wordpress.com/the-southern-belle-is-a-racist-fiction/

The “Southern Belle” is a Racist Fiction

by Sam Biddle

gawker.com 

The "Southern Belle" Is a Racist Fiction

Sometime between Reconstruction, this episode of MTV: True Life, and the hundred-thousandth wedding held on a plantation in South Carolina, the term Southern Belle became just another friendly identifier to put in your Twitter bio, a throwaway regional label no weightier than Cali Surfer Dude. But the difference between SoCal pride and honoring your Southern gentility is that the latter celebrates the ugliest stain in America’s history.

The notion of the Southern Belle dates back to the 19th century, when it was a cheery name given to a specific sort of white person who flourished in the American South before the end of the Civil War. Belles were a few very specific things: white, bourgeois, and almost certainly beneficiaries of the slave trade, married to the plantation owners whose wealth was secured through black chattel. From an encyclopedic entry provided by the University of Richmond:

She was beautiful but risky to touch, like porcelain. Every southern belle was expected to be up-to-date on the latest fashions, which often proved tricky and expensive because fashion was constantly changing throughout the nineteenth century. A true lady embodied the ideals of the South, and was thus hospitable and graceful.

Today, the image of a Southern Belle is not just some strange collage on Blake Lively’s mood board, but a commonplace compliment used frequently in sorority recruiting and on Tumblr, an inane cheer for a vague kind of Southern pride. Thought Catalog, our most accurate trove of inanities, defines the Southern Belle as a “mindset” that doesn’t even have much to do with geography anymore:

Not knowing how to cook is just not an option for the Southern Belle. They were raised to know how to make a good meal, to feed themselves and the people they love, and to have people looking forward to coming over for dinner. When you go to their house, you know that you are going to leave full and happy.

[…]

Southern Belles don’t care if not every woman wants to be like them, or if they’re considered too “traditional” or “old-fashioned.” They are happy to live the life they have, and be who they are, without pleasing some feminist or businesswoman who wants them to be more “modern.” They know how much better life is when you live it in style.

The Southern Belle, you see, knows better than you do. She knows what is right—for her family, for herself, and for her country. The modern Southern Belle is a paragon of conservative values, warmth, light, quiet strength, and happiness. It may seem retrograde, but it’s just what genteel society women have been doing since the days of the Confederacy.

The "Southern Belle" Is a Racist Fiction

From the September 7th, 1861 issue of Harper’s: “A Female Rebel in Baltimore”

But praising the loyalty and generosity of the Southern Belle is about as cheery as celebrating the camaraderie of the Hitler Youth, the fresh air of the Trail of Tears, or the cardiovascular benefits of the Bataan Death March. You can find something fun in any horror of history! And the Belles of today do exactly that—if you bring up sl*very, they’ll point to all the nice parts about the Old South. The architecture, the parties, the sipping of cool drinks on warm porches. Oh, the fields? Those fields are just for growing delicious strawberries and tomatoes for folks to enjoy. Nothing more.

Every perk and beautiful part of white plantation life was created through black slavery. If Belles were patient and gracious, it’s because forced black labor enabled it. If the Southern life was pretty and sophisticated, it’s because slavery afforded it. Everything pleasant about Belle-hood was a function of human suffering on a vast scale—it’s conceptually impossible to separate the society bankrolled by slavery from the slavery itself.

Americans love myopia and general narrowness. Think of how great it would be if we could treat history like a buffet and just pick out nice parts? The chic tailoring of SS uniforms, the athleticism of Roman bloodsport, the loyalty of feudalism.

Unfortunately for the nostalgics, the Old South is synonymous with the Antebellum south, which in turn is synonymous with the slave economy. Bu-bu-but tradition! Sorry. Your tradition was someone else’s nightmare. Pining for those days, even if you’re too detached from national history to realize it, is pining for the comforts of whiteness when black people were property. You ignore it, you can romanticize it, and you can deny it, but you don’t get to pick and choose the portions of history that actually happened; the Old South is a soiled rag, too rank with national shame to be wrung out. Antebellum America cannot be redeemed for the sake of your wedding, fraternity mixer, or lifestyle website.

So: Please pick a different party venue, because otherwise your wedding is going to be sh*tty and racist.

So, we cant have the babe in Daisy Dukes ???  Just the biscuits and grave ??? There is a good point there, but women in countries and times without slavery had their fair share of "kept" women.  The Victorian women were every bit as impractical as the "Southern Bell", no ??? 

Perhaps I should have nixed the term "Southern Bell" and substituted it with hot redneck chick in cutoff shorts and a skimpy top.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure but let's not act like those voices are the ones they are listening to. They are listening to a ridiculous  mob that decided redskin was offensive  bexaus they were ignorant of the teams history or actual native American viewpoint.  But I also dont thing sponsors or minor owners for that matter should be able to change the name. That should be the majority owner or maybe the fans.


Sponsors aren’t changing the name. They’re deciding not to invest their money if that’s the name. Frankly they should have never invested in it in the first place, but better late than never. There’s companies and organizations out there that I’m sure would love to sponsor the Redskins name. NRA maybe?


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Look above and I posted it.  Yes it was.  The name originated from NAs who wanted to differentiate themselves from "whites" & "blacks".  Especially blacks, who were slaves

Sorry if that doesn't fit your argument

 

 

You’re citing yourself as a source?😅

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Snell41 said:

 


Sponsors aren’t changing the name. They’re deciding not to invest their money if that’s the name. Frankly they should have never invested in it in the first place, but better late than never. There’s companies and organizations out there that I’m sure would love to sponsor the Redskins name. NRA maybe?


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

And the companies that are backing out of sponsorship aren't doing so because of social outrage and compassion to the cause, they are doing so because it has the potential to harm their bottom line. Just like the politicians , police chiefs , and the NFL commissioner who is taking a knee for the "cause" . Wake up people their cause isn't your cause their cause is their financial impact, lost votes/jobs  or losing fans.  And yes there are outliers on all sides who have morality or hate as their agenda but those are a small percentage as opposed to what the media wants to spin .

Among that small percentage are a group of disenfranchised young Americans who believe they are part of a revolution to right the sins of the world - what they fail to see is that they are being sold a bill of goods by an establishment that has being lying and deceiving for decades to simply keep votes in their coffers. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 56mehl56 said:

And the companies that are backing out of sponsorship aren't doing so because of social outrage and compassion to the cause, they are doing so because it has the potential to harm their bottom line. Just like the politicians , police chiefs , and the NFL commissioner who is taking a knee for the "cause" . Wake up people their cause isn't your cause their cause is their financial impact, lost votes/jobs  or losing fans.  And yes there are outliers on all sides who have morality or hate as their agenda but those are a small percentage as opposed to what the media wants to spin .

Among that small percentage are a group of disenfranchised young Americans who believe they are part of a revolution to right the sins of the world - what they fail to see is that they are being sold a bill of goods by an establishment that has being lying and deceiving for decades to simply keep votes in their coffers. 

So are you for or against the name change?  Cause reading the above I can't tell.  It sounds like you want to keep the name, because the motivation of those pressuring Dan Snyder to make the change aren't pure enough.  Please, set me strait on where you stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Warfish said:

So are you for or against the name change?  Cause reading the above I can't tell.  It sounds like you want to keep the name, because the motivation of those pressuring Dan Snyder to make the change aren't pure enough.  Please, set me strait on where you stand.

Personally, I'd rather see it left alone. But those crying outrage and being pacified by the veiled stances  corporations, politicians and leaders are making are being blinded once again by what this is all about . Are there injustices in the world - absolutely and not just against one race color or religion .  By sticking with the hand that feeds you when that hand is the one that has routinely lied and over promised for decades is sheep like. Throw em a few bones , make promises , stir up crap in the corrupt media and pull em by strings like puppets. 

I'd rather not see a revolution because that is detrimental to the country as a whole - i'd rather see the "oppressed" groups woke to the reality of just who is pulling the strings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Warfish said:

So are you for or against the name change?  Cause reading the above I can't tell.  It sounds like you want to keep the name, because the motivation of those pressuring Dan Snyder to make the change aren't pure enough.  Please, set me strait on where you stand.

Warfish. The arbiter of morality and social justice.....lol. ANSWER HIM, AND LET YE BE JUDGED!!!

 

Youre a DC area guy, still haven't heard an opinion on Chief Zee. If this had been a 70 year old white guy  he'd be the example of "evil" and "white supremacy" and "cultural appropriation ".

 

636045471570783752-C03-CHRISTINE-12-53486685.jpeg.6cd44222c332d8674112aacc34357241.jpeg

 

Instead, hes the perfect way to highlight intellectual dishonesty....or intellectual cowardice.  

 

Seems to be a lot of that going around these days....

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Philc1 said:

You’re citing yourself as a source?😅

I’m siting the source I simply googled, copied and pasted.  Go look, I’m not doing your research.  
You on the other hand are blowing smoke based on nothing

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're into this kind of stuff, and ever find yourself down in DC/NoVA, definitely check out the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, part of the Smithsonian collection.  It is amazing, vastly better than the actual Air & Space museum in DC itself.  A treasure trove of history.


I love this kind of stuff, the problem I have is I’m in the UK lol


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, slats said:

The team owner who changed the name from Braves to Redskins was a blatant racist and the last team in the NFL to desegregate, seven years after the second to last team desegregated. His reason? He didn’t think fans of his team, which he had marketed successfully to the south via radio, didn’t want blacks on the team.  

To act like they weren’t racist is ignorant. To think that particular racist didn’t understand the different connotations between Braves and Redskins, and which name honored native peoples and which one was a slur, would also seem to be pretty dim. 

You can say it over and over but it'l doesn't magically make it racist. Yes the slur that no one thought was a slur since the beginning ahh yes. Its mite since they changed it but it wasn't racist when they did it or now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Philc1 said:

You are acting like it’s Florida State naming their team after the Seminoles - an actual tribe that was local to that area.

 

Calling a Native American a Redskin is like calling a Black person something I would get banned for even typing.  I don’t even think they should change the name but the fact the people are trying to rationalize that word as an honor is nonsense

Well that is the narrative that the mov is pushing... but doesn't change the fact that they are wrong. Saying Redskins is not like say the n work. Notice how there isnt an R word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Warfish said:

There is definitely some ignorance here.  I just don't think it's where you think it is.  Reading this, I don't think you know very much about the history of the team or of Native Americans.

Again, I'd suggest a visit to the National Museum here in DC for Native Americans.  I think you'd find it eye opening.....presuming you don't pull a Chuck Woolery and decry the entire museum as fake news.

 

Isnt that a game show host? I apparently know more than you about the team and native American viewpoint. The idea that the Redskins team name was racist is silly, sorry it is. Its mute since they are changing it. I'm looking  forward to all the other upcoming nominees for name changes especially the Patriots 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Biggs said:

Ignorance is a decidedly two way street.  The name change was petitioned by the American Indian council in 1968.  Before the "Mob" spoke up the intelligent, respectful Indians seeking some respect were completely ignored.  

The "mob" is actually American public opinion changing over 50 plus years so that it's no longer profitable to slander natives for commercial profit.   You may not like that but I'm a big believer in Capitalism and it's simply weeding out an unprofitable position by the owner of the Washington NFL franchise.  A man who has proved over and over again that he is a jackass, completely out of touch with common decency on many levels beyond this one issue.  He has been dragged kicking and screaming to this position for one reason, His wallet isn't heavy enough to give him the ballast he needs to keep the mob of NFL owners from forcing his hand. 

 

You can be right on some of your points and still be wrong with the premise. That owner very well be a jackass  It will be interesting to see what else become racist moving forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

No, he stood to lose money if he DIDN'T make the change.  Nike, FedEx and Amazon were all threatening to pull their sponsorship deals until they changed the name. 

Big money was talking, so he finally listened and made the change.  That was all far more impactful than any fans banding together to boycott the team, either for changing the name or for refusing to change it.

Seem to make alot of sense  I reas about the fedex stuff. I wonder though if there was additional  pressure from nfl and tv deals...you're probably  right 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Snell41 said:

 


Sponsors aren’t changing the name. They’re deciding not to invest their money if that’s the name. Frankly they should have never invested in it in the first place, but better late than never. There’s companies and organizations out there that I’m sure would love to sponsor the Redskins name. NRA maybe?


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

What a dumb comment. So people who support the 2nd amendment bad? I'm sure there are other companies that would want to be on the stadium, sponsor etc... but obviously the ones involved do not like the name.

Where ever and whoever sponsor etc doesn't chair the fact that saying redskins isnt racist 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always liked the name Washington Senators back in the 60’s. But then they moved to Minnesota and became the Twins if I’m not mistaken. I like the name of the team to compliment the city’s culture. I mean, isn’t that the point. Which is why I despise teams leaving a city and taking the name with them. So what exactly do RedHawks have to do with Washington?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

You can say it over and over but it'l doesn't magically make it racist. Yes the slur that no one thought was a slur since the beginning ahh yes. Its mite since they changed it but it wasn't racist when they did it or now. 

I really don’t understand why you feel the need to defend it. How does the removal of this name effect your life in a negative way? What harm does it cause you? Because for many Native Americans, this is a real positive. Maybe just be happy for them? I don’t know. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, slats said:

I really don’t understand why you feel the need to defend it. How does the removal of this name effect your life in a negative way? What harm does it cause you? Because for many Native Americans, this is a real positive. Maybe just be happy for them? I don’t know. 

Not to single anyone out, but it’s incredible how there’s only one bloc of people super-animated about this issue, and they’re the ones least invested in any of it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

Not to single anyone out, but it’s incredible how there’s only one bloc of people super-animated about this issue, and they’re the ones least invested in any of it. 

As a representative of Pasty Americans I’m impressed at your restraint on the subject. Especially considering it’s summer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

As a representative of Pasty Americans I’m impressed at your restraint on the subject. Especially considering it’s summer. 

I can’t get banned before Jamal is traded.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

Isnt that a game show host?

Yes, he was.

8 hours ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

I apparently know more than you about the team and native American viewpoint. The idea that the Redskins team name was racist is silly, sorry it is.

You're factually and historically incorrect, but I don't think I can convince you otherwise, so this too is moot at this point. 

Believe what you like, but don't be a hypocrite about it, make sure you call every Native American you meet a "redskin" when you see them.

After all, it's a term of honor, right, so they won't mind.  They will probably thank you.

8 hours ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

Its mute....

Moot.

8 hours ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

.....since they are changing it.

Indeed.  

8 hours ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

I'm looking  forward to all the other upcoming nominees for name changes especially the Patriots 

Yes, I've heard, the what about, slippery slope, what's next theory.

I'm not going to hold my breath about the Pats being changed, but if you want to get hysterical over it, by all means, have a blast.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wonderboy said:

Always liked the name Washington Senators back in the 60’s. But then they moved to Minnesota and became the Twins if I’m not mistaken.

The Nationals (who also went by the name Senators) played in DC from 1901-1960.  They relocated to Minnesota and became the Twins.

The expansion Senators played in DC from 1961-1971.  They relocated to Texas and became the Rangers.

We now have the current Nationals, who started play in DC in 2005, who were the former Montreal Expos.

Quote

I like the name of the team to compliment the city’s culture. I mean, isn’t that the point. Which is why I despise teams leaving a city and taking the name with them. So what exactly do RedHawks have to do with Washington?  

Hard to see where "Redskins" had much to do with the DMV region or DC in particular.

Red Hawks?  Has nothing whatsoever do with DC.  We have Red tail Hawks here, but it's not a thing really.

At this point, no one but Dan Snyder knows what name he's planning, so hard to say today if it'll have any tie to the DMV or DC area.

Personally, I like Red Wolves.  There is a distinct lack of Canine-type mascots in the NFL (closest is the Bears, while we have at least three Big Cat teams), it would save a few things people like, like the HTTR hashtag and song (with minor modification), and I saw at least three cool logos online for it from Fans (means nothing, but potential for a good look is there).  And it's 100% unrelated to the controversy/objection, which would be good.

But we'll see.  Knowing Dan, it's gonna be a sh*tshow.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Warfish. The arbiter of morality and social justice.....lol. ANSWER HIM, AND LET YE BE JUDGED!!!

Like you're judging me?

17 hours ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Youre a DC area guy, still haven't heard an opinion on Chief Zee. If this had been a 70 year old white guy  he'd be the example of "evil" and "white supremacy" and "cultural appropriation ".

I don't know his ethnic background, nor do I know who he is.  If he's not Native American, yes, then it's cultural appropriation and something Native Americans are generally offended by, when people mock-up their ethnic and religious attire and beliefs and turn them into a funny sports mascots and the like. 

Has nothing to do with him being white or black (although that part especially seems to matter ALOT to you......).  I doubt he, or most of the team fans, have active racist intent.  This is textbook passive, systemic-type, racism.  

ol' "Chief" Zee, like everyone else, will have to get used to the new name.  Or he can always quit and root for the Eagles, like some local fans claim they're going to do.  Guess we'll see.

17 hours ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Instead, hes the perfect way to highlight intellectual dishonesty....or intellectual cowardice.  

Seems to be a lot of that going around these days....

Care to elaborate on this?  Where is the "intellectual dishonesty" you think you see?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...