2024 Commanders Off-Season Thread

[mooby]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

+1

I can't believe we're still debating this dumb shit, we haven't been the Redskins in at least 3+ years.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mooby

+1

I can't believe we're still debating this dumb shit, we haven't been the Redskins in at least 3+ years.

Dead horse meet the baseball bat

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by mooby

+1

I can't believe we're still debating this dumb shit, we haven't been the Redskins in at least 3+ years.

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.

[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/

[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).