Commies vs Lions

[Rat]

And then complaining that the marathon wasn’t a sprint

I can't help if others complain about it.

 

[OneLofaTatupu]

I can't help if others complain about it.

Yes you can. Have faith in yourself.

 

[James in PA]

Lions fans must be devastated. This was their year. But deep down I knew they weren't going just because I badly wanted it to happen once the Hawks were done. Ya see, the NFL won't allow me to have a Super Bowl in which I don't loathe at least one of the participants. No, Commies Bills ain't gonna happen.

 

[Cyrus12]

Lions fans must be devastated. This was their year. But deep down I knew they weren't going just because I badly wanted it to happen once the Hawks were done. Ya see, the NFL won't allow me to have a Super Bowl in which I don't loathe at least one of the participants. No, Commies Bills ain't gonna happen.

Happens every year it seems...if you cheer for small markets get used to being disappointed come playoffs...

 

[AROS]

Go Redskins!!!

Yeah, I said it. F the Woke.

 

[Cyrus12]

Go Redskins!!!

Yeah, I said it. F the Woke.

Reported to Admin for offensive ness

 

[Hollandhawk]

Go Redskins!!!

Yeah, I said it. F the Woke.

I'm glad that free speech is back on .net.
F the lead poisoned boomers.

 

[keasley45]

Go Redskins!!!

Yeah, I said it. F the Woke.

Wow, dude.

 

[hgwellz12]

There are PLENTY of teams that finished near the bottom of the barrel that could have picked Lamar, Rodgers, Mahomes, Marino, Brady, Brees, Montana...

True, but a lot of times, like, a WHOLE LOT, the reason that those teams are perpetual bottom feeders is because they don't have the management/ownership in place to envision picking that caliber of players.

 

[NoGain]

True, but a lot of times, like, a WHOLE LOT, the reason that those teams are perpetual bottom feeders is because they don't have the management/ownership in place to envision picking that caliber of players.

True dat. Like when JS was supposedly in love with Josh Allen and Mahomes, yet they made no bold attempt to move up to get them, or when they supposedly had liking for Penix, but pretty much *crickets* on draft night.

 

[AROS]

Wow, dude.

I heard there were many Native American groups who wanted the team to retain that name. I've read both pros and cons on the issue over the years. Yet Braves, Indians, Chiefs, etc is totally fine. Some of those logos, btw...Hmm...

Look, I'm not trying to start a "thing" here but I see massive hypocrisy where I see it. I never saw "Redskins" as a derogatory term. Unlike the "N" word. I took it as a place of warrior mentality where some tribes would wear red paint before they went to battle. But I admit, I don't know everything about this topic. One of our mods in fact is Native American. @Appyhawk please feel free to prove me right OR wrong here publicly.

All I can say is I personally never saw the term Redskins as a derogatory title.

A simple search:

• Some say the term was used by Native Americans to self-describe and distinguish themselves from white and Black people
  
  
• Some say the term carries cultural, historical, and emotional significance that honors Native American culture
  
  
• Some say the term is used affectionately by some Native Americans

 

[Aussie Seahawk]

I feel terribly sorry for the Lions. Now I'll barrack for Buffalo. That is going to be one heck of a match-up tomorrow!

 

[SonicHawk]

I heard there were many Native American groups who wanted the team to retain that name. I've read both pros and cons on the issue over the years. Yet Braves, Indians, Chiefs, etc is totally fine. Some of those logos, btw...Hmm...

Look, I'm not trying to start a "thing" here but I see massive hypocrisy where I see it. I never saw "Redskins" as a derogatory term. Unlike the "N" word. I took it as a place of warrior mentality where some tribes would wear red paint before they went to battle. But I admit, I don't know everything about this topic. One of our mods in fact is Native American. @Appyhawk please feel free to prove me right OR wrong here publicly.

All I can say is I personally never saw the term Redskins as a derogatory title.

A simple search:

• Some say the term was used by Native Americans to self-describe and distinguish themselves from white and Black people
  
  
• Some say the term carries cultural, historical, and emotional significance that honors Native American culture
  
  
• Some say the term is used affectionately by some Native Americans

Their name is the commanders

 

[keasley45]

I heard there were many Native American groups who wanted the team to retain that name. I've read both pros and cons on the issue over the years. Yet Braves, Indians, Chiefs, etc is totally fine. Some of those logos, btw...Hmm...

Look, I'm not trying to start a "thing" here but I see massive hypocrisy where I see it. I never saw "Redskins" as a derogatory term. Unlike the "N" word. I took it as a place of warrior mentality where some tribes would wear red paint before they went to battle. But I admit, I don't know everything about this topic. One of our mods in fact is Native American. @Appyhawk please feel free to prove me right OR wrong here publicly.

All I can say is I personally never saw the term Redskins as a derogatory title.

A simple search:

• Some say the term was used by Native Americans to self-describe and distinguish themselves from white and Black people
  
  
• Some say the term carries cultural, historical, and emotional significance that honors Native American culture
  
  
• Some say the term is used affectionately by some Native Americans

And so you fell into the trap of believing the ' many groups' defense? There's a history in this country of 'green- lighting' offensive characterizations and finding just enough evidence to defend the 'practice'. Shoot in the days of slavery, white folks would get Blacks to sign petitions and statements saying they were thankful for slavery and many Blacks were perfectly ok with it. And those instances were magnified and held up as justification 'by Blacks themselves' for maintaining the institution.

In a nutshell , it wasnt 'many groups', it was predominently indegenous people who were also football fans who 'fanned' more than they were 'offended'. And the 'they use it affectionately ' argument is about as 'sleep' as calling black people ni66er5 and defending it because 'they say it all the time'. The 'they used it' is referenced first in instances where native leaders would contrast themeselves in the simplest way possible in comparison to their brothers with 'white skin'. What were they supposed to call them, Amercian? So settlers were 'white skinned' and natuve people were 'red skinned'. It didnt predate colonialism as a term of endearment and was hijacked by white settlers who used it to count the number of dead Indians they could tally because they got paid for them. That fact alone should be enough for that word to never see the light of day again in an enlightened culture but hey, its a cool name and logo on a football uniform, so lets roll with it.

And trying to make it all ok by referencing how groups like the 'blackfoot' indians today are proud of the name despite it nit acknowledging the historical tribal names of the tribes is also misplaced. Blackfoot was a term that came to be as a reference to a few tribes as a result of their feet / moccasins being dark in color. Whether them being blackened by the soil they walked on their journey from their native lands to the reservations they would be relegated to or simply stain from the native soils they walked in their homelands, no one is 100% sure, but It became a term of pride for tribes as they unified in defense of their people and culture. It has no commonality with 'redskin' and the comp is another narrowly crafted argument to defend the use of the word. The two couldnt be more different.

I get being fired up by the win. I sat and watched the game with a lifelong friend of mine who is about as die-hard (he and his entire family) a Washington fan as i am Seahawks, and cheered as loudly as he did for their win. As old highlights of the team were being played, i asked him about how he navigates cheering for a team who's name was so entrenched with tradition and tied to things like their fight song - he said plainly - ' that name should have never been, and its just a name. Knowing the offense it carried is 10000 times more importnant than getting pumped as a football fan, screaming 'hail to the Redskins '.

 

[Cyrus12]

I heard there were many Native American groups who wanted the team to retain that name. I've read both pros and cons on the issue over the years. Yet Braves, Indians, Chiefs, etc is totally fine. Some of those logos, btw...Hmm...

Look, I'm not trying to start a "thing" here but I see massive hypocrisy where I see it. I never saw "Redskins" as a derogatory term. Unlike the "N" word. I took it as a place of warrior mentality where some tribes would wear red paint before they went to battle. But I admit, I don't know everything about this topic. One of our mods in fact is Native American. @Appyhawk please feel free to prove me right OR wrong here publicly.

All I can say is I personally never saw the term Redskins as a derogatory title.

A simple search:

• Some say the term was used by Native Americans to self-describe and distinguish themselves from white and Black people
  
  
• Some say the term carries cultural, historical, and emotional significance that honors Native American culture
  
  
• Some say the term is used affectionately by some Native Americans

This is a good explanation...but I'm still offended...

 

[Cyrus12]

And so you fell into the trap of believing the ' many groups' defense? There's a history in this country of 'green- lighting' offensive characterizations and finding just enough evidence to defend the 'practice'. Shoot in the days of slavery, white folks would get Blacks to sign petitions and statements saying they were thankful for slavery and many Blacks were perfectly ok with it. And those instances were magnified and held up as justification 'by Blacks themselves' for maintaining the institution.

In a nutshell , it wasnt 'many groups', it was predominently indegenous people who were also football fans who 'fanned' more than they were 'offended'. And the 'they use it affectionately ' argument is about as 'sleep' as calling black people ni66er5 and defending it because 'they say it all the time'. The 'they used it' is referenced first in instances where native leaders would contrast themeselves in the simplest way possible in comparison to their brothers with 'white skin'. What were they supposed to call them, Amercian? So settlers were 'white skinned' and natuve people were 'red skinned'. It didnt predate colonialism as a term of endearment and was hijacked by white settlers who used it to count the number of dead Indians they could tally because they got paid for them. That fact alone should be enough for that word to never see the light of day again in an enlightened culture but hey, its a cool name and logo on a football uniform, so lets roll with it.

And trying to make it all ok by referencing how groups like the 'blackfoot' indians today are proud of the name despite it nit acknowledging the historical tribal names of the tribes is also misplaced. Blackfoot was a term that came to be as a reference to a few tribes as a result of their feet / moccasins being dark in color. Whether them being blackened by the soil they walked on their journey from their native lands to the reservations they would be relegated to or simply stain from the native soils they walked in their homelands, no one is 100% sure, but It became a term of pride for tribes as they unified in defense of their people and culture. It has no commonality with 'redskin' and the comp is another narrowly crafted argument to defend the use of the word. The two couldnt be more different.

I get being fired up by the win. I sat and watched the game with a lifelong friend of mine who is about as die-hard (he and his entire family) a Washington fan as i am Seahawks, and cheered as loudly as he did for their win. As old highlights of the team were being played, i asked him about how he navigates cheering for a team who's name was so entrenched with tradition and tied to things like their fight song - he said plainly - ' that name should have never been, and its just a name. Knowing the offense it carried is 10000 times more importnant than getting pumped as a football fan, screaming 'hail to the Redskins '.

And yet the racist chant is KC is tolerated....making a mockery of Native traditions. Doing a tomahawk chop stereotyping Native culture and history...seems to be a double standard to me...

 

[keasley45]

Dont disagree

 

[Bear-Hawk]

True, but a lot of times, like, a WHOLE LOT, the reason that those teams are perpetual bottom feeders is because they don't have the management/ownership in place to envision picking that caliber of players.

Hold on. That sounds like you’re talking about my Bears.

 

[Cyrus12]

Hire Pete and your in the playoffs next year....all 3 nfc north teams are now in ruins. It could be the Bears time!

 

[keasley45]

Cant tell you how good it feels to know the Lions are out of it. I didnt mind the feel-good story that they were last year, but this year, i think they got a bit full of themselves and given the number of times their defense was exploited this year (by us included), ot was entirely premature.

That, and as much as i respect what Goff has done, the dude is a product of an outstanding system. I think this year will go down as his career high-water mark.