|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Clarence Hill Jr @clarencehilljr · 2h Per @CharlesRobinson a name change for the Washington football franchise is imminent. Teams have been told to scrub the old racist logo off of their platforms. Robinson says a new name could be revealed in the next few days |
I think Pigskins would be cool, but I doubt it.
That is my final answer. I am sticking to it. Pushing all of my chips to the center of the table.
(inhales).....FRRRREEEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMMMM
I like the sentiment but this one always felt like a stretch just to keep "red" in the name.
it may be childish but I have this image of a hat feature they could market - like the Green Bay cheese heads - that I'm really smiling at.
Even the song would work
Hail to the Redskin (potatoes)
Hail Victory
Spuds on the warpath
Fight for old DC
That is my final answer. I am sticking to it. Pushing all of my chips to the center of the table.
Dude you aren’t remotely funny.
Quote:
I like the Washington RHINOS
More like the Redeyes.
the fight song would be hilarious
That’s actually a great name.
Even the song would work
Hail to the Redskin (potatoes)
Hail Victory
Spuds on the warpath
Fight for old DC
Now that’s good stuff.
In the absence thereof, let’s go with pussies.
Although I am sure it was already mentioned. I just hadn’t heard it.
My nephew said Washington Georges. Kinda like buffalo bills, but I think I like monuments better.
That being said, I don’t want them to pick something cool, I hope they pick something dumb.
On what grounds would they do anything? Seriously, don't overthink this.
Face it, they are only doing this because sponsors are threatening to pull out and of course a chance to sell more gear helps too.
they can also rely on peer pressure and cancel culture to help out. Odds would seem high that someone photographed wearing the old garb gets called out on social media one day.
They won’t/can’t do anything. They will do the name change and leave the rest alone, IMO. Kick a guy out for wearing his Cooley jersey? Well, now you are kicking out thousands and pissing off people coming to games spending infinitely more money on a Sunday than they did on their jersey.
Quote:
Please make it so.
Would be amazing.
the fight song would be hilarious
Quote:
The Washington Wetbacks
That is my final answer. I am sticking to it. Pushing all of my chips to the center of the table.
Dude you aren’t remotely funny.
I wasn't trying to be funny. I never thought of "Redskins" as being a racist name. Many have agreed including many native Americans who felt honored to have the team from our capital named in reference to them as mighty warriors. The Redskin mascot was very proud on his horse, in his garb, with his spear. It was never meant as an insult. It's not like the mascot was never an ex rodeo clown paid to fall over himself in a drunken stupor. Fact is that SJWs and PC culture have made life a headache for many who didn't deserve to be characterized as offensive yet were bullied into changing their ways. If you were offended by my words you are one who is offended by words. That is your problem, not mine. I wasn't being hateful and I was trying to show that the Redskins aren't either.
I bet you go by JoeyBigBlue outside of BBI too. Too cool.
Quote:
In comment 14931914 LeonBright45 said:
Quote:
The Washington Wetbacks
That is my final answer. I am sticking to it. Pushing all of my chips to the center of the table.
Dude you aren’t remotely funny.
I wasn't trying to be funny. I never thought of "Redskins" as being a racist name. Many have agreed including many native Americans who felt honored to have the team from our capital named in reference to them as mighty warriors. The Redskin mascot was very proud on his horse, in his garb, with his spear. It was never meant as an insult. It's not like the mascot was never an ex rodeo clown paid to fall over himself in a drunken stupor. Fact is that SJWs and PC culture have made life a headache for many who didn't deserve to be characterized as offensive yet were bullied into changing their ways. If you were offended by my words you are one who is offended by words. That is your problem, not mine. I wasn't being hateful and I was trying to show that the Redskins aren't either.
I bet you go by JoeyBigBlue outside of BBI too. Too cool.
So your way of demonstrating that redskins isn’t a racial slur was to suggest they change their name to a different racial slur?
Ok but then why did you choose a racial slur to demonstrate your belief that redskins isn’t a racial slur?
This is confusing.
Life goes on.
Quote:
In comment 14931914 LeonBright45 said:
Quote:
The Washington Wetbacks
That is my final answer. I am sticking to it. Pushing all of my chips to the center of the table.
Dude you aren’t remotely funny.
I wasn't trying to be funny. I never thought of "Redskins" as being a racist name. Many have agreed including many native Americans who felt honored to have the team from our capital named in reference to them as mighty warriors. The Redskin mascot was very proud on his horse, in his garb, with his spear. It was never meant as an insult. It's not like the mascot was never an ex rodeo clown paid to fall over himself in a drunken stupor. Fact is that SJWs and PC culture have made life a headache for many who didn't deserve to be characterized as offensive yet were bullied into changing their ways. If you were offended by my words you are one who is offended by words. That is your problem, not mine. I wasn't being hateful and I was trying to show that the Redskins aren't either.
I bet you go by JoeyBigBlue outside of BBI too. Too cool.
I don't want to get into the political aspect of this discussion, but your history of the name is not correct.
George Preston Marshall renamed the Boston Braves to the Boston Redskins after purchasing them in 1933 to play off of the Red Sox, having moved to Fenway Park (previously playing in the same stadium as the Boston Braves baseball team - now in Atlanta).
The team failed in Boston and moved to DC shortly thereafter.
I am not trying to argue or engage you on anything beyond clarifying that the history of the organization did not name themselves "Redskins" out of respect or honor. One would argue they would have kept "Braves" and likely faced significantly less push back in current day. It was just a cheap marketing trick.
This is confusing.
I like Washington Scandals myself..
Thank you for deciding on behalf of Native Americans that "redskins" is not a racial slur against them.
Quote:
People sometimes get banned for political posts but racial slurs are A-ok?
This is confusing.
OK Karen
I’m just trying to get an understanding.
Quote:
White women on the internet trying to claim “Karen” is a racial slur. Hahhahhhahahhhhh.
RicFlair - I think this is quickly becoming a racial slur. It seems more benign, but it is intended that way.
Remember that time Leslie Neilsen got all bent out of shape because someone called him Shirley?
Quote:
In comment 14932179 RicFlair said:
Quote:
White women on the internet trying to claim “Karen” is a racial slur. Hahhahhhahahhhhh.
RicFlair - I think this is quickly becoming a racial slur. It seems more benign, but it is intended that way.
Remember that time Leslie Neilsen got all bent out of shape because someone called him Shirley?
I'd go for Hogskins though
Remotely political or racial. A safe choice is an animal mascot like an Owl. Washington Owls - Does that offend anybody ?
it commemorates a Confederate Victory
Robert E Lee was victorious or Gen Hooker, although Stonewall Jackson ended up dying..
are we going to rename the ship?
where does this shi(p)t end?
it commemorates a Confederate Victory
Robert E Lee was victorious or Gen Hooker, although Stonewall Jackson ended up dying..
are we going to rename the ship?
where does this shi(p)t end?
Why do we have US Military assets that commemorate those who committed treason against the United States? All that shit should be wiped away.
Quote:
the Navy has a Cruiser named USS Chancellorsville..
it commemorates a Confederate Victory
Robert E Lee was victorious or Gen Hooker, although Stonewall Jackson ended up dying..
are we going to rename the ship?
where does this shi(p)t end?
Why do we have US Military assets that commemorate those who committed treason against the United States? All that shit should be wiped away.
But, Gary, isn't this now skating into dangerous territory for the thread...as a moderator?
That is a great choice. Just picture this - Alvin & The Chipmunks singing (in that famous falsetto) "Hail to the Chipmunks .... fight for ole D.C. !"
Link - ( New Window )
The problem with much of the rebel monument stuff is that it came well after the Civil War, often produced as a reaction to Civil Rights events.
The problem with much of the rebel monument stuff is that it came well after the Civil War, often produced as a reaction to Civil Rights events.
I keep seeing this last point mentioned quite often. But we have seen over a dozen statues taken down in the Carolinas that have been in place for a long time. One came down last week in Salisbury, called "Fame". Put in place in 1909. In Charleston, a John Calhoun statue was taken down that has stood for 124 years. In Columbia, a statue was taken down that had been in place since 1880.
Maybe it is different in the "Deep South", but there were many statues erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy, but their monument and memorial efforts were targeted in the early 1900's, not in the Civil Rights movement. In balance of that statement, they also memorialized some aspects of the KKK.
Again - maybe it is different outside of the Carolinas, but I'm not seeing statues taken down from the 60's. I'm not even sure here they had any memorances of the Civil War period put in place after the early 1900's
Quote:
...after the Civil War, similar approach to allowing Hirohito to remain on his throne after WW2 - helped to appease the masses, gave them a feeling of control in defeat and yes, in hindsight, heavy handed as the Union may have been, they clearly let the rebels off far too easy. As in post WW2 Germany, symbols glorifying the defeated regime should have been illegal.
The problem with much of the rebel monument stuff is that it came well after the Civil War, often produced as a reaction to Civil Rights events.
I keep seeing this last point mentioned quite often. But we have seen over a dozen statues taken down in the Carolinas that have been in place for a long time. One came down last week in Salisbury, called "Fame". Put in place in 1909. In Charleston, a John Calhoun statue was taken down that has stood for 124 years. In Columbia, a statue was taken down that had been in place since 1880.
Maybe it is different in the "Deep South", but there were many statues erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy, but their monument and memorial efforts were targeted in the early 1900's, not in the Civil Rights movement. In balance of that statement, they also memorialized some aspects of the KKK.
Again - maybe it is different outside of the Carolinas, but I'm not seeing statues taken down from the 60's. I'm not even sure here they had any memorances of the Civil War period put in place after the early 1900's
Yep
They now have context.
I’m told by a source there will be some more news that comes out tomorrow other than the name change.
And it’s not good.
I did not get specifics, but get ready people.
-Scott Abraham
I’m told by a source there will be some more news that comes out tomorrow other than the name change.
And it’s not good.
I did not get specifics, but get ready people.
-Scott Abraham
Ooooo! Scary intrigue at "Whatever?" Park. What could be not good? Half the team is sick? Danny Boy is throwing a tantrum...Sponsors have totally backed out for the season?
Kate Mara has bought the team????
stuff is that it’s tied to social media and mob rule instead of democratic action. History tends to repeat itself and right now we’re a lot like Europe in the 1930s.
hmm that is an interesting take ..
and confederate monument Stone Mountain Park officially opened on April 14, 1965
some people should reexamine where they get their news ...
and also our country is doomed
racist logo plastered everywhere
The link below has over 90 monuments depicting the Confederacy. Only 3 opened after the 1930's and 1 of those was a duplicate of a different statue and one was of Robert E Lee.
The point I was trying to make is that there weren't a lot of Confederate statues erected in the Civil Rights movement to try and lessen the impact of that movement. I've seen that posted numerous times though.
List of Dozens on Confederate Monuments - ( New Window )
In comment 14932375 giantfan2000 said:
Quote:
The only problem I have with all this name change & monument
stuff is that it’s tied to social media and mob rule instead of democratic action. History tends to repeat itself and right now we’re a lot like Europe in the 1930s.
hmm that is an interesting take ..
Quote:
Maybe it is different in the "Deep South", but there were many statues erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy, but their monument and memorial efforts were targeted in the early 1900's, not in the Civil Rights movement. In balance of that statement, they also memorialized some aspects of the KKK.
and confederate monument Stone Mountain Park officially opened on April 14, 1965
some people should reexamine where they get their news ...
and also our country is doomed
I have to admit, as a kid I never imagined something like this could happen to our country. I joined the Army at age 17 and spent 20 years defending it. This is no longer the country I defended, just a facsimile of itself.
I have no problem with the Redskins name change as this has been brought up before. We shall see what comes of it.
Quote:
...after the Civil War, similar approach to allowing Hirohito to remain on his throne after WW2 - helped to appease the masses, gave them a feeling of control in defeat and yes, in hindsight, heavy handed as the Union may have been, they clearly let the rebels off far too easy. As in post WW2 Germany, symbols glorifying the defeated regime should have been illegal.
The problem with much of the rebel monument stuff is that it came well after the Civil War, often produced as a reaction to Civil Rights events.
I keep seeing this last point mentioned quite often. But we have seen over a dozen statues taken down in the Carolinas that have been in place for a long time. One came down last week in Salisbury, called "Fame". Put in place in 1909. In Charleston, a John Calhoun statue was taken down that has stood for 124 years. In Columbia, a statue was taken down that had been in place since 1880.
Maybe it is different in the "Deep South", but there were many statues erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy, but their monument and memorial efforts were targeted in the early 1900's, not in the Civil Rights movement. In balance of that statement, they also memorialized some aspects of the KKK.
Again - maybe it is different outside of the Carolinas, but I'm not seeing statues taken down from the 60's. I'm not even sure here they had any memorances of the Civil War period put in place after the early 1900's
Those early 1900 monuments were Jim Crow monuments erected to fight integration and promote segregation. They are every bit as despicable as the anti civil rights monuments erected in the 60s.
Most of these monuments did not go up immediately after the war’s end in 1865. During that time, commemorative markers of the Civil War tended to be memorials that mourned soldiers who had died, says Mark Elliott, a history professor at University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
“Eventually they started to build [Confederate] monuments,” he says. “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s.
In contrast to the earlier memorials that mourned dead soldiers, these monuments tended to glorify leaders of the Confederacy like General Robert E. Lee, former President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis and General “Thomas Stonewall” Jackson.
“All of those monuments were there to teach values to people,” Elliott says. “That’s why they put them in the city squares. That’s why they put them in front of state buildings.” Many earlier memorials had instead been placed in cemeteries.The
Link - ( New Window )
As far as the whole Confederate monuments and names of military bases and ships go, the fact that we have commemorated treasonous losers (in both sense of the definition of loser) for more than a hundred years doesn't change the fact that those names are those of TREASONOUS LOSERS. The sooner they can change the names, the better.
Quote:
In comment 14932326 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
...after the Civil War, similar approach to allowing Hirohito to remain on his throne after WW2 - helped to appease the masses, gave them a feeling of control in defeat and yes, in hindsight, heavy handed as the Union may have been, they clearly let the rebels off far too easy. As in post WW2 Germany, symbols glorifying the defeated regime should have been illegal.
The problem with much of the rebel monument stuff is that it came well after the Civil War, often produced as a reaction to Civil Rights events.
I keep seeing this last point mentioned quite often. But we have seen over a dozen statues taken down in the Carolinas that have been in place for a long time. One came down last week in Salisbury, called "Fame". Put in place in 1909. In Charleston, a John Calhoun statue was taken down that has stood for 124 years. In Columbia, a statue was taken down that had been in place since 1880.
Maybe it is different in the "Deep South", but there were many statues erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy, but their monument and memorial efforts were targeted in the early 1900's, not in the Civil Rights movement. In balance of that statement, they also memorialized some aspects of the KKK.
Again - maybe it is different outside of the Carolinas, but I'm not seeing statues taken down from the 60's. I'm not even sure here they had any memorances of the Civil War period put in place after the early 1900's
Those early 1900 monuments were Jim Crow monuments erected to fight integration and promote segregation. They are every bit as despicable as the anti civil rights monuments erected in the 60s.
Most of these monuments did not go up immediately after the war’s end in 1865. During that time, commemorative markers of the Civil War tended to be memorials that mourned soldiers who had died, says Mark Elliott, a history professor at University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
“Eventually they started to build [Confederate] monuments,” he says. “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s.
In contrast to the earlier memorials that mourned dead soldiers, these monuments tended to glorify leaders of the Confederacy like General Robert E. Lee, former President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis and General “Thomas Stonewall” Jackson.
“All of those monuments were there to teach values to people,” Elliott says. “That’s why they put them in the city squares. That’s why they put them in front of state buildings.” Many earlier memorials had instead been placed in cemeteries.The
Link - ( New Window )
I'd be fine with the monuments coming down. The Daughters of the Confederacy weren't exactly some awe-inspiring organization. at best they commemorated the KKK. at worst, they were a mouthpiece for them.
My point was only trying to address the frequent comment that many memorials were put in place in the 60's to dull the impact of teh Civil rights movement.
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me.
I’m not advocating for it, but I wouldn’t oppose it either.
They can mostly keep same branding and colors
Link - ( New Window )
Not a fan of Red Wolves or Red Tails - the latter makes me think of a bunny rabbit.
NPR: Confederate Statues Were Built To Further A 'White Supremacist Future' - ( New Window )
Life goes on.
You're the one crying the most on the thread. The fact you typed in Washington Wetbacks and thought that it was a) witty, and b) proving a point, just shows what a shitty person you are.
Keep lamenting society based on team name changes while ostensibly supporting the lawlessness and ineptitude of the federal government. I wonder how you'd handle the 1960s if you were as old as you are now back then.
I don't know how many more times I have to tell you guys.
Quote:
People sometimes get banned for political posts but racial slurs are A-ok?
This is confusing.
OK Karen
Washington Redskins retire team name, logo; no replacement announced - ( New Window )