Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=Hog1;783361]Washington...........wizards...sick
AND I heard the other day, they are thinking of changing it back to Bullets? I guess it is no longer offensive to have an object of death and destruction representing your team?
PC.......go figure.........[/quote]



.......it's becuase handguns are legal in DC again.:headbange

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=Mattyk;783402]Despite the struggles under Snyder the Redskins are one of the NFL's most storied franchises. Changing the identity of the team would be a bad idea if it's just for a PR move.[/quote]



You mean like the ..."Baltimore Colts" or the Cleveland uhh Baltimore Ravens.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=SmootSmack;783329]I'll just repost what I did a couple of years ago when we talked about a name change for the Redskins:

It admittedly does get increasingly difficult to pretend that the team's name does not have some other connotation. And the really cold fact is that, because Native Americans have been so marginalized in our society (once their society), that the offensiveness passes unnoticed because there is really no one around to hear the tree fall in the forest. A name that gave that kind of depiction to Blacks or Ricans like me would get shouted down because there are enough people in that constituency with enough of a relevant voice sure to tell society that that is unacceptable.

Couple of ironies though. [B]One is that the fact is that when you say the word "Redskins" in so-called mainstream U.S. society, what people think of first IS the football team, and NOT the ethnic group.[/B] Another is that research (which I don’t have right in front of me right now) reveals that Native Americans themselves throughout the years at all levels of sport have themselves named their teams Redskins. Hmm.

When people talked about "ni**ers" that word was laced with hatred and a misguided superiority at the time it was being said, with violence, lynchings, separate restrooms, back of the bus, you name it. But when we say the word Redskins today, there is no associated hatred or sense of supremacy vis a vis Native Americans; the word comes out of the mouth without any associated negative baggage. Sure, it is the same "word," but the substance is not the same at all. The prevailing argument is that we should dispense with the word because it is offensive and does not represent our society today. But since we know that it does not represent today's society, then the alleged offensive substance of the word has already been rendered meaningless !

Even on the team itself, I don't remember anyone thinking Mark Rypien was dumb or reviled as the quarterback because he was Native American; of course not. So, where is the real offensiveness? What was that we learned in school, "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

Growing up for me (and I’m sure others), the name depicted bravery and glory etc. and that, as far as the Washington Redskins were concerned specifically to be called a "true Redskin" was a badge of honor in the sports world and in the local community, as it stood for humble guys who worked hard on the field with great teamwork and gave to the community off of it. It was hardly disparaging at all and really had nothing to do with offending Native Americans b/c again, Redskin conjured up the image of Darrell Green and Art Monk, not Sitting Bull.

As a minority myself, I sometimes find it perplexing that other minorities in the U.S. would look so quickly to self-identify as hyphenated, and to marginalize themselves by choosing to direct their collective energy to take up the cause of being offended by labels and semantics.[/quote]This is an OUTSTANDING post! I especially like the line in bold because a word has no inherent meaning, it is what we all say it is. When the vast majority of people hear the word "Redskins" they think of the football team the same way that when the vast majority of people hear the word "cracker" they think of a snack food.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=ArtMonkDrillz;783488]This is an OUTSTANDING post! I especially like the line in bold because a word has no inherent meaning, it is what we all say it is. When the vast majority of people hear the word "Redskins" they think of the football team the same way that when the vast majority of people hear the word "cracker" they think of a snack food.[/quote]

No you didn't, I know you just did not compare a racist term with a snack food???

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=Giantone;783544]No you didn't, I know you just did not compare a racist term with a snack food???[/quote]

crack·er (krkr)
n.
1. A thin crisp wafer or biscuit, usually made of unsweetened dough.
2. One that cracks, especially:
a. A firecracker.
b. A small cardboard cylinder covered with decorative paper that holds candy or a party favor and pops when a paper strip is pulled at one or both ends and torn.
c. The apparatus used in the cracking of petroleum.
d. One who makes unauthorized use of a computer, especially to tamper with data or programs.
[B]3. Offensive
a. Used as a disparaging term for a poor white person of the rural, especially southeast United States.
b. Used as a disparaging term for a white person.[/B]

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[QUOTE/

a. Used as a disparaging term for a poor white person of the rural, especially southeast United States.
b. Used as a disparaging term for a white person. [UNQUOTE/

The term /cracker, straight from the vocabulary of one Brandon Lloyd. Disparaging is to say distasteful, not likable/unwanted. It's been argued that "Redskin" ranks in the same category as many of our other well known slangs utilized to characterize ethnicity. Do we really want our sports franchises named some of those names?

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

The point is that cracker is used in everyday speech, and that contextually, it is not offensive.

The same is true with Redskins, when used in media, or most normal daily speech the context does not lead to the disparaging notion that had existed one time long ago, but instead recalls tradition, honor, and overspending on lazy free agents.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

I wonder if Snyder will get sick of all the heat he takes and sell the team.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;783569]The point is that cracker is used in everyday speech, and that contextually, it is not offensive.

The same is true with Redskins, when used in media, or most normal daily speech the context does not lead to the disparaging notion that had existed one time long ago, but instead recalls tradition, honor, and overspending on lazy free agents.[/quote]Exactly.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

The media can come off as a gang- when you go against one, you go against them all. Therefore all the local media has taken this as a battle in the war to bring Snyder down. When you read or listen to the radio everything concerning the lawsuit is spinned negative on snyder to sway society's perspective that this is a frivaless lawsuit.

I really wonder what will happen if Snyder wins in court? It will set a prescident, no more yellow journalism, what a thought!

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

I like to do what seems reasonable and makes sense. I don't always get there, but that is the goal.
SO, I do my own survey among my email list (about 50), my family, mom, etc.
I ask, "What does the term Redskin make you think of" (some old, some young)? Well I got some smartass shit...like bad football, chaos, etc(to be expected).
Not one person associated the term Redskin with a derogatory characterization of the American Indian. I personally have never, in my lifetime heard anyone use that term other than for the Wash Redskins. EXCEPT in a couple of Very old....crappy...Hollywood Cowboy movies.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

wow, not sure how this thread turned this way..... but ill add to it:


90% of Native Americans are cool with the Washington Redskins name:
[URL="http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/NewsDetails.aspx?myId=89"]Annenberg Public Policy Center[/URL]



Can we go back to the Danny Boy bashing?

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

Hog 1 how many of the people you interviewed are american Indian? You cannot tell one race what is/ isnot offensive to them.

Imagine there is a tv show on called "wet-back" and was on for a long time, so much so that everyone associated wet-back with the funny tv show of that name. It still doesn't make the term is any less offensive to hispanics.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=Hog1;783574]I like to do what seems reasonable and makes sense. I don't always get there, but that is the goal.
SO, I do my own survey among my email list (about 50), my family, mom, etc.
I ask, "What does the term Redskin make you think of" (some old, some young)? Well I got some smartass shit...like bad football, chaos, etc(to be expected).
Not one person associated the term Redskin with a derogatory characterization of the American Indian. I personally have never, in my lifetime heard anyone use that term other than for the Wash Redskins. E[B]XCEPT in a couple of Very old....crappy...Hollywood Cowboy movies.[/B][/quote]

and J.M. Barrie's Neverland

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=diehardskin2982;783578]Hog 1 how many of the people you interviewed are american Indian? [B]You cannot tell one race what is/ isnot offensive to them. [/B]

Imagine there is a tv show on called "wet-back" and was on for a long time, so much so that everyone associated wet-back with the funny tv show of that name. It still doesn't make the term is any less offensive to hispanics.[/quote]

While I wished that was true, that actually isn't. I was in a conversation with an African-American man one day and we got on the subject of race. He basically stated to me that while it is very offensive to the black race for white people to use racial slurs against black people, it is widely acceptable for black people to use racial slurs against white people. He justified it by saying that the words that black people used on white people were more or less "silly" names and should not be taken to offense like the names that a racist white person would use to describe black people. Now, have no idea if this truly is the belief amongst all black people in this country, but that is just what he stated. He also went on to state that white people should never use the term "boy" if talking about a black male, but it was OK for blacks to use the term "boy" in describing white males.

So, I would say, based on this info this gentleman had presented to me, it would seem like that rule doesn't apply to all. I'm hoping this was just his thoughts and nothing that is widely accepted amongst minorities, otherwise I would question the validity of fighting for equality. I, myself, would find any word that is used to disparage a race offensive. But, I think one should also consider the contextin which the word is being used. For instance, computer guys like myself find it a compliment to be called "computer geeks". We feel that is the highest form of flattery one could ever receive in the I.T. world. But, growing up through school, if you were called a geek, you were someone who was very unpopular, backwards, and would only find friends with other geeks. Maybe it's because most of us geeks grow up to be bosses of the "non-geeks"? Who knows?

I said all that to say, when we talk about racial slurs, are we just talking about the word itself? Shouldn't we also consider what context the word is being used? Just a thought.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=diehardskin2982;783578]Hog 1 how many of the people you interviewed are american Indian? [B]You cannot tell one race what is/ is not offensive to them. [/B]

Imagine there is a tv show on called "wet-back" and was on for a long time, so much so that everyone associated wet-back with the funny tv show of that name. It still doesn't make the term is any less offensive to hispanics.[/quote]

No, I cannot...or at least should not. I don't really know how many are actually insulted and offended by the American Indian thing.
I am confident the Batallions of attorneys are so offended, they have their hands out for endless compensation. (JoeRedskin not withstanding)
I am confident the ACLU's and their knock off organization are offended enough to offer more of the same.
I am confident there will be no shortage of.....deeply offended and insulted parties any time a "settlement check" might become available.
BUT I am not so sure how many people would be offended and insulted about this issue if the monetary enrichment, media spotlight were removed and the Armies of advisors went away?
BTW, my survey group had one American Indian known....not sure how many are still in the closet?

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

I will side with Snyder from what i heard last night but i will read this whole thread first..

If we were winning again I dont really think there would be that much of a thing.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=skinsguy;783622]While I wished that was true, that actually isn't. I was in a conversation with an African-American man one day and we got on the subject of race. He basically stated to me that while it is very offensive to the black race for white people to use racial slurs against black people, it is widely acceptable for black people to use racial slurs against white people. He justified it by saying that the words that black people used on white people were more or less "silly" names and should not be taken to offense like the names that a racist white person would use to describe black people. Now, have no idea if this truly is the belief amongst all black people in this country, but that is just what he stated. He also went on to state that white people should never use the term "boy" if talking about a black male, but it was OK for blacks to use the term "boy" in describing white males.

So, I would say, based on this info this gentleman had presented to me, it would seem like that rule doesn't apply to all. I'm hoping this was just his thoughts and nothing that is widely accepted amongst minorities, otherwise I would question the validity of fighting for equality. I, myself, would find any word that is used to disparage a race offensive. But, I think one should also consider the contextin which the word is being used. For instance, computer guys like myself find it a compliment to be called "computer geeks". We feel that is the highest form of flattery one could ever receive in the I.T. world. But, growing up through school, if you were called a geek, you were someone who was very unpopular, backwards, and would only find friends with other geeks. Maybe it's because most of us geeks grow up to be bosses of the "non-geeks"? Who knows?

I said all that to say, when we talk about racial slurs, are we just talking about the word itself? Shouldn't we also consider what context the word is being used? Just a thought.[/quote]

As a black man let me tell you that the statement that man told you is not true and not the feeling of our race. I cannot tell you that if I called you a "cracker" is a joke and should not be offensive to you, especially if it hurt your feelings. Many times society groups have taken a negative term like the N-word or geeks and used it amonst themselves in an indearing way. However that does not change the original context being indeed very negative.

We all now the history of the Redskins and the fact is that when the name was changed from the Braves, it was changed under the leadership of a racist biggot. The Redskins have a long and established history as a team, but it doesn't make the name any less right. Money or no money being involved.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote]29. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct by Defendants, and each of them, Mr. Snyder has suffered general and special damages in an amount of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), including damage to Mr. Snyder's reputations and standing in the community, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, embarrassment, humiliation, damage to peace of mind, emotional distress, and injury in his occupation. Although the full nature, extent, and amount of these damages are currently unknown, this Complaint will be amended at or before trial to insert such information if such amendment is deemed necessary by the Court[/quote]

Man, I wish I had the money to sue for hurt feelings. I know some would like to sue me.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

Mark Rypien is half Cherokee?

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=skinsguy;783622]While I wished that was true, that actually isn't. I was in a conversation with an African-American man one day and we got on the subject of race. He basically stated to me that while it is very offensive to the black race for white people to use racial slurs against black people, it is widely acceptable for black people to use racial slurs against white people. He justified it by saying that the words that black people used on white people were more or less "silly" names and should not be taken to offense like the names that a racist white person would use to describe black people. Now, have no idea if this truly is the belief amongst all black people in this country, but that is just what he stated. He also went on to state that white people should never use the term "boy" if talking about a black male, but it was OK for blacks to use the term "boy" in describing white males.

So, I would say, based on this info this gentleman had presented to me, it would seem like that rule doesn't apply to all. I'm hoping this was just his thoughts and nothing that is widely accepted amongst minorities, otherwise I would question the validity of fighting for equality. I, myself, would find any word that is used to disparage a race offensive. But, I think one should also consider the contextin which the word is being used. For instance, computer guys like myself find it a compliment to be called "computer geeks". We feel that is the highest form of flattery one could ever receive in the I.T. world. But, growing up through school, if you were called a geek, you were someone who was very unpopular, backwards, and would only find friends with other geeks. Maybe it's because most of us geeks grow up to be bosses of the "non-geeks"? Who knows?

I said all that to say, when we talk about racial slurs, are we just talking about the word itself? Shouldn't we also consider what context the word is being used? Just a thought.[/quote]

A true test of any name or word that you question might be a racially charged word: would you in good conscious go up to a Native American and call him a redskin?
We should not use racially charged words or names, especially those that refer directly to peoples skin color. For a for a group of people that were mistreated just because of their ethnicity and because they were not white, like Native Americans or African Americans. It is better stop the practice of using that name or word. I really do not care how long the name Redskins has been used.
Would I stop being fan of the team if they changed the name? No.

You talk about considering words in their context of how they are being used.
Consider this:
Mr Snyder (a Jew) owner of the Washington REDSKINS is suing someone (another jew) because they drew horns on a picutre of him and Mr Snyder called it anti-semitic. But he is ok with using the name Redskins when referring to Native Americans, a race of people his team is named for. Warped.
Kind of like your african american friend who thinks it is ok to be racist against whites. It is not ok. It should never be ok.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

The following is an excerpt from a 2006 Washington Post article that clearly depicts how the term "crackers" could be used in an inflammatory way. It's a word seldom heard when referring to any peoples'. It caught my attention as it reminded me of the Lloyd situation in San Fran which I mentioned earlier.

By: Howard Bryant
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 7, 2006

In San Francisco, Lloyd fought with team leader Fred Beasley, a fullback who said Lloyd was not a team player, as well as running back Kevan Barlow, who suggested that Lloyd was more interested in a possible career as a rap musician than being a winning football player. Lloyd angered 49ers public relations executives by referring in his rap lyrics to the predominately white members of the San Francisco media as "crackers."

ps/ I doubt the 49ers pr exec's. would be angry had they not felt the reference offensive.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

Hey LTF, question for you since you've been a, wait for it....longtime fan. Back in the 50s, 60s, 70s; was there the same amount of buzz about the name? Were people clamoring for a change back then?

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=SmootSmack;783666]Hey LTF, question for you since you've been a, wait for it....longtime fan. Back in the 50s, 60s, 70s; was there the same amount of buzz about the name? Were people clamoring for a change back then?[/quote]

Absolutely not.

However, during the 60's the NCAI, Nations Congress of American Indians created a campaign to eliminate negative stereotyping of Native American people. They have long been opposed to mascots that portray Indians in a negative light. Names like Redskins, Braves, and Seminoles are believed to demean their native traditions.

The saga has continued to the highest court in the land finally making a ruling. I look for it to be an issue of contention as long as there's an ear to hear.

[url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.finalcall.com%2Fartman%2Fpublish%2FNational_News_2%2Farticle_66301.shtml&ei=0TlTTdrgD9O_gQfmvIDrCA&usg=AFQjCNGtk04CDdKLEQ6PvrqzyH-k_NtO3A&sig2=QnjJuBEr_u-V4iucH-vYwQ]Supreme Court won't rule on racist NFL team name[/url]

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;782521]Dan Snyder has a Type A personality. I'm not one to usually throw out these things, but he fits the description to a T. He's a tight-wad. He's a control freak. He thinks he could do it "his" way.

Yeah, perhaps he does want to win, but wanting to win doesn't mean having empathy with regards to other fans and their experience or the players. Hell, he didn't give a shit about Dan Turk.[/quote]

A decade of futility would give even the casual fan reason to pause. The graphics depicted here are proof there's much work to be done.

[url=http://wn.com/Daniel_Snyder#]Daniel Snyder[/url]

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=Longtimefan;783670]Absolutely not.

However, during the 60's the NCAI, Nations Congress of American Indians created a campaign to eliminate negative stereotyping of Native American people. They have long been opposed to mascots that portray Indians in a negative light. Names like Redskins, Braves, and Seminoles are believed to demean their native traditions.

The saga has continued to the highest court in the land finally making a ruling. I look for it to be an issue of contention as long as there's an ear to hear.

[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.finalcall.com%2Fartman%2Fpublish%2FNational_News_2%2Farticle_66301.shtml&ei=0TlTTdrgD9O_gQfmvIDrCA&usg=AFQjCNGtk04CDdKLEQ6PvrqzyH-k_NtO3A&sig2=QnjJuBEr_u-V4iucH-vYwQ"]Supreme Court won't rule on racist NFL team name[/URL][/quote]

to add to this, the very name "Indian" is derived from mistaken geographic identity, yet many Native Americans still call themselves Indians. The group you note above reminded me of that.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

Media wrap up of reaction to the suit:

[url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/early-lead/2011/02/the_hits_just_keep_coming_over.html]The Early Lead - The hits just keep coming over Dan Snyder's City Paper lawsuit[/url]

The recurring theme; he can't win in court & this is doing more to damage his rep than help it. I'd say that's on par w/the reaction here.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

Well that article was just a re-hash of other articles. It's pretty easy to keep the hits coming when you are the one that keeps repeating them...

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;783808]Well that article was just a re-hash of other articles. It's pretty easy to keep the hits coming when you are the one that keeps repeating them...[/quote]

Hence, I posted it was a wrap up. Not sure what you meant in 2nd sentence, or rather who it was directed to.

If you haven't scoured the web for every article about it, this one shows you that a few journalists have done pieces on it. Yet to see anyone coming to Snyder's defense & saying this suit makes sense as a PR move.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=freddyg12;783812]Hence, I posted it was a wrap up. Not sure what you meant in 2nd sentence, or rather who it was directed to.

If you haven't scoured the web for every article about it, this one shows you that a few journalists have done pieces on it. Yet to see anyone coming to Snyder's defense & saying this suit makes sense as a PR move.[/quote]

I was talking about the post. The article is titled and[U] The Hits Just Keep Coming[/U], but really it's just a wrap up of the same story told multiple ways. To compare/contrast; the SB started with a whimper due to the snow. If a week later they rehashed all the stories about the snow, you would not title it the snow keeps coming - no, the snow came and reporters found various ways to report on the same story. That is what happened with the Snyder story.

In contrast; the SB started with Snow, then Seatgate, then the (minor) roof leak, and the filing of the lawsuit by Cowboys season ticket holders. There, the hits (or different negative situations) just kept coming. So, the title may have been appropriate in that context.

In DS' context, the only way you could say the hits keep coming is if you are referring to negative articles about the same situation, and in that case the post is as i said, in a position to keep the hits coming simply by repeating and rehashing the same information over and over.

You want to make it a wrap up article then say Reviewing Snyder's gaffe, or what the press says, or whatever. That's fine. My point is simply that there wasnt a new "hit" or negative situation w/regards to DS in that "article"

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

An excerpt from Jeffrey Goldberg's article in The Atlantic; I think he's calling us punks. At any rate, something to think about next time you throw Dan Snyder your hard-earned money.

[I]All of this is a shame. Redskins fans deserve better but don't do anything about it. I hope Washington grows up and realizes that it shouldn't tolerate obnoxious behavior. Unfortunately Washingtonians are scared and passive when it comes to joining together in protest or fighting The Man, even if he's stupid, greedy and ridiculous.

Pray for them.[/I]

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020805137.html]Jason Reid - With his lawsuit against Washington City Paper, Daniel Snyder continues to put the Redskins in a negative light[/url]

The view from a legal perspective.

[url=http://www.csnwashington.com/pages/redskinsvideo?PID=_RRMJTjEFA9Jw3HQj8XyRXpHoHIT0KP2]CSNwashington.com: Washington Redskins Video[/url]

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=freddyg12;782646]On the subject of DS' religion, I haven't checked, but I'm pretty damn sure he's the 1st Redskins owner that's Jewish. This is historically significant but doesn't get any attention due to the history of the Skins & their fanbase.[/quote]

Why is that historical? Because of his religion? That's the problem with us today. We put to much emphasis on "first black president" or "first asian _____" or "first latin ____". Really, who gives a shit whether or president is black or our NFL owner is Jewish. I could give a rats ass what color our owner is or what false god he worships. What I do care about is how our team is represented, by him, both on and off the field. Period.

[quote=Longtimefan;783220][url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/06/AR2011020602499.html]Courtland Milloy - Snyder's devil is in the details - and a name[/url][/quote]

Good article.

[quote=tryfuhl;783259]he's really focused on changing the name huh[/quote]

I don't think it's so much he cares about the name as much as he's pointing out Dan's hypocrisy in crying over a "racist image" when he himself has images and names that other have deemed "racist." He's right.

[quote=skinsguy;783390] Let's also remember that Lions, Tigers, and Bears (OH MY) [/quote]

Well played. 9.9/10

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=freddyg12;783803]Media wrap up of reaction to the suit:

[url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/early-lead/2011/02/the_hits_just_keep_coming_over.html]The Early Lead - The hits just keep coming over Dan Snyder's City Paper lawsuit[/url]

The recurring theme; he can't win in court & this is doing more to damage his rep than help it. I'd say that's on par w/the reaction here.[/quote]

I think him doing those radio bits were a horrible idea as well. Not only did he get up there and flat out lie about the situation, but he had his scapegoat (Wyllie) named just in case shit hit the fan. Guess what. It did. This is another case were I believe Dan Snyder is doing what Dan Snyder wants, and not listening to what the advice he's been given. I highly doubt this PR guy is behind this shit, much like I don't believe many of those FA signings were Vinnys. He has to have a fall guy.

If people don't understand how Snyder works, then review some of his history. He's made a fortune by buying other acquisitions and reselling (among illegal practices) them for a profit.



[quote=SkinDogg;783876]An excerpt from Jeffrey Goldberg's article in The Atlantic; I think he's calling us punks. At any rate, something to think about next time you throw Dan Snyder your hard-earned money.

[I]All of this is a shame. Redskins fans deserve better but don't do anything about it. I hope Washington grows up and realizes that it shouldn't tolerate obnoxious behavior. Unfortunately Washingtonians are scared and passive when it comes to joining together in protest or fighting The Man, even if he's stupid, greedy and ridiculous.

[/I][/quote]

Aside from the gear that I already own. I do not support Dan Snyder anymore(in terms of tickets/food/etc). I'll cheer on my Skins each and every week from the view of a TV which is usually at a bar (or free online). Most people will continue to support him much like this guy says. It's the same with anything really (even our politics). Nobody wants to be the guy to make a stand. Some hilarious things I hear regularly is how people continue to purchase season tickets ONLY because it's been in the family for X amount of years, or I've spent too much money to give up now!!


The Redskins are up there in the Fan Cost Index (FCI) rankings, but display a shitty product. If anything, he needs to be reducing prices. At some point, you need to say. Listen, enough is enough.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

This topic is getting old.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

When Snyder croaks I wonder if the estate taxes will be so high that his widow/family will be forced to sell the team? I wonder if we can imitate the Egyptians and revolt to force him out? Can Snyder be tricked into selling the team? Will inception be possible ten years from now?

Sigh.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=NC_Skins;784010][B]Why is that historical? Because of his religion? That's the problem with us today. We put to much emphasis on "first black president" or "first asian _____" or "first latin ____". Really, who gives a shit whether or president is black or our NFL owner is Jewish.[/B] I could give a rats ass what color our owner is or what false god he worships. What I do care about is how our team is represented, by him, both on and off the field. Period.



Good article.



I don't think it's so much he cares about the name as much as he's pointing out Dan's hypocrisy in crying over a "racist image" when he himself has images and names that other have deemed "racist." He's right.



Well played. 9.9/10[/quote]

It's historically significant because such things are milestones. These are things that couldn't happen under the rules just 40 -50 years ago. So anytime something happens that wasn't allowed under previous law, it is historically significant. I'm certainly not saying it should be dwelled upon as much as it is in some cases, but is is unavoidable to a degree, e.g. Obama will always carry the distinction & burden. Due to our history, Americans may put too much emphasis on such milestones, but it's also a sign of social progress that many are proud of.

In Snyder's case, its largely gone unoticed, but now for many fans his only public association w/his religion is a negative one, as he is playing the anti-semite card.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=Ruhskins;784033]This topic is getting old.[/quote]

I have a feeling it will remain an issue though until there's a resolution. When that will be is hard to say.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=Longtimefan;784049]I have a feeling it will remain an issue though until there's a resolution. When that will be is hard to say.[/quote]

Agreed. It's just that I was reading JReid's article and thought..."I really should not care about this issue".

And honestly, I don't. To me, this is not a Redskins issue. Snyder happens to be the owner of the Redskins. But it is easy for me to see this as an issue between a semi-public figure in the DC area and a small newspaper. Now granted, I know everyone doesn't see it this way. But whether he wins or loses, it's just not an issue that will directly affect the way the Redskins will play or what will they do in the offseason.

A much bigger issue that will affect the Redskins? The possibility of not having a football season in 2011.

Re: Snyder Camp Upset!!
 

[quote=NC_Skins;784020]I think him doing those radio bits were a horrible idea as well. Not only did he get up there and flat out lie about the situation, but he had his scapegoat (Wyllie) named just in case shit hit the fan. Guess what. It did. This is another case were I believe Dan Snyder is doing what Dan Snyder wants, and not listening to what the advice he's been given. I highly doubt this PR guy is behind this shit, much like I don't believe many of those FA signings were Vinnys. He has to have a fall guy.

If people don't understand how Snyder works, then review some of his history. He's made a fortune by buying other acquisitions and reselling [B](among illegal practices[/B]) them for a profit.





Aside from the gear that I already own. I do not support Dan Snyder anymore(in terms of tickets/food/etc). I'll cheer on my Skins each and every week from the view of a TV which is usually at a bar (or free online). Most people will continue to support him much like this guy says. It's the same with anything really (even our politics). Nobody wants to be the guy to make a stand. Some hilarious things I hear regularly is how people continue to purchase season tickets ONLY because it's been in the family for X amount of years, or I've spent too much money to give up now!!


The Redskins are up there in the Fan Cost Index (FCI) rankings, but display a shitty product. If anything, he needs to be reducing prices. At some point, you need to say. Listen, enough is enough.[/quote]

Please share what these illegal practicies are.