2024 Commanders Off-Season Thread

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I don't even think it's a cool shirt. One thing (the feathers) has nothing to do with the other (Commanders W).



Someone printed that shirt to stir the pot - and it worked. He chose to wear it. Surely, he wasn't oblivious to that fact.

Surely the pr people who let him walk in front of the presser weren't oblivious either. It's clear they are trying to figure out a way to re-engage the fan base and if it means keeping commanders they're going to struggle for a long time in my opinion.

edit: Also the people who are selling that shirt are going to make money where the Washington doesn't, Or vice versa if they are selling it through a third party and trying to gauge interest My brother JoeRedskin already bought that shirt, nd he hasn't bought Washington gear since the any of the changes, so I have a feeling it's going to have more interest than anything the Washington Commander sells

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

[MTK]

Dan Quinn on the T-shirt: "I think one of the parts of me taking this job, I was excited to bridge the past and the present. What a cool privilege that is to do. I also recognize there's a lot of layers to that. So, it was a great lesson for me. What I really hate is that any attention that would've been taken away from these rookies and this awesome crew. Nobody wants to do that."

[davy]

Originally Posted by MTK

Dan Quinn on the T-shirt: "I think one of the parts of me taking this job, I was excited to bridge the past and the present. What a cool privilege that is to do. I also recognize there's a lot of layers to that. So, it was a great lesson for me. What I really hate is that any attention that would've been taken away from these rookies and this awesome crew. Nobody wants to do that."

Numbnuts.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I don't even think it's a cool shirt. One thing (the feathers) has nothing to do with the other (Commanders W).

Someone printed that shirt to stir the pot - and it worked. He chose to wear it. Surely, he wasn't oblivious to that fact.

People in the military have worn feathers on their uniforms before. Those shirts are awesome. You're crazy.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by nonniey

The minute someone claims Redskins is a derogatory term I will always respond. I will never cede to that claim when it is emphatically false. Additionally, that slurs the fans that still buy and wear the gear and ultimately poses a threat to them as well.

Emphatically false huh? Ok. Scroll past the Smithsonian article. Lol. You are talking about a word that is literally centuries old and you were not around for any time on this Earth that it was used other than for a football team. It is completely up for debate like many things, so to say it is emphatically false because of an article you read is crazy. To ignore native Americans that think it is derogatory is crazy. It is emphatically a lightning rod for controversy but not emphatically false. There are most certainly articles that back that opinion just like the ones that back the other opinion. Im going to post one and then I won’t come back into this thread for a couple days so it gets buried and I can stop talking about, which I thought happened like 2 years ago. Lol.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...n-name-update/

[punch it in]

Im out……

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Emphatically false huh? Ok. Scroll past the Smithsonian article. Lol. You are talking about a word that is literally centuries old and you were not around for any time on this Earth that it was used other than for a football team. It is completely up for debate like many things, so to say it is emphatically false because of an article you read is crazy. To ignore native Americans that think it is derogatory is crazy. It is emphatically a lightning rod for controversy but not emphatically false. There are most certainly articles that back that opinion just like the ones that back the other opinion. Im going to post one and then I won’t come back into this thread for a couple days so it gets buried and I can stop talking about, which I thought happened like 2 years ago. Lol.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...n-name-update/

The very first response in the comment section (and no that wasn't me).

"I am currently doing some research for the peer review of an academic paper, and began by Google searching "redskin etymology." This article came up on the first page. I felt the need to create an account and actually comment on this, which would probably go unread and be nothing more than a shout into the void, only because of my incredulity of the shoddiness of this publication's journalism. The article purports that there is a document from 1863 that proves that redskin refers to the scalp of a Native American, sold like a pelt, for cash. The document itself, however, directly contradicts this. "The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every redskin sent to Purgatory." The author of this article may not be theologically inclined, but a scalp, in fact, cannot go to Purgatory, because this refers to a Catholic teaching about a state of purification before one goes to Heaven. Redskin, then, must refer to the individuals who possess the souls capable of being sent to such a theological state. Therefore, the document that the author says proves his claim directly contradicts it."

Again, it is scholars versus activists and obviously you find the activists take much more credible. And yes "emphatically false" is the correct description of the claim that Redskins is a derogatory term.

(BTW I didn't just cite Goddard (is there a better source?) the Marquet law school scholarly publication also provides damn good information refuting that claim).

[That Guy]

I guess i'll be back in a couple days too. It's still a racial term, context matters. Cornbread and cracker can be used in an offensive context, and some people do take offense to it, or else the name wouldn't have changed. please stop, this is not the hill to die on.

[HTTR]

I used to argue the etymology thesis, then came around to the simple realization that the days of one race using another race as a mascot are over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rocnrik]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Maybe they are gonna go with Comanches. They wouldn’t even have to change the first three letters , lol, and Comanches were the toughest mother fuckers in the land. Even Apaches were afraid of them.

that's is a great name !!! gotta figure they had to consider that and if NOT someone f'd up 😀

[Meks]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Surely the pr people who let him walk in front of the presser weren't oblivious either. It's clear they are trying to figure out a way to re-engage the fan base and if it means keeping commanders they're going to struggle for a long time in my opinion.

edit: Also the people who are selling that shirt are going to make money where the Washington doesn't, Or vice versa if they are selling it through a third party and trying to gauge interest My brother JoeRedskin already bought that shirt, nd he hasn't bought Washington gear since the any of the changes, so I have a feeling it's going to have more interest than anything the Washington Commander sells

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Me either, (any non redskins stuff anyway) ..... and I'd buy that shirt.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

People in the military have worn feathers on their uniforms before. Those shirts are awesome. You're crazy.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by HTTR

I used to argue the etymology thesis, then came around to the simple realization that the days of one race using another race as a mascot are over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is not what the discussion was about. What kicked this off was a claim that Redskins is a derogatory term. It's not and I provided enough evidence that shows it is not.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by nonniey

That is not what the discussion was about. What kicked this off was a claim that Redskins is a derogatory term. It's not and I provided enough evidence that shows it is not.

no, you chose to argue that one point from a larger discussion of the name. most members said your point was irrelevant to the name argument and not worth revisiting. Ultimately, this whole discussion is off of the thread topic and could have been dropped, but the name issue still burns a lot of fans.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

[MTK]

Originally Posted by HTTR

I used to argue the etymology thesis, then came around to the simple realization that the days of one race using another race as a mascot are over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what it boils down to, wild to me some still think anything NA related would actually fly as a potential new name.

I think new ownership is hoping for a quick turnaround, nothing will distract from the name like winning and an exciting young star QB. I also think a revamp of the uniforms is much more likely than another full re-branding.