Podcast: Redskins, Collusion, 49ers Holdouts, Graham Grievance and More

[adsenseyu1]

In this weeks podcast I: offer some rambling thoughts on the Redskins name controversy; discuss the NFL collusion case, go over options for the Saints and Jimmy Graham as his grievance hearing continues, look at the 49ers holdouts and impacts they could have on contracts, tackle a Ryan Mallett questions, and finally give some thoughts on Lebron James’ possible free agency and legacy players.

View in iTunes
Listen via Stitcher
Subscribe to the OTC Podcast
  • PATREZI

    I really like your podcasts generally but your comments on wondering why the term Redskins might be pejorative were patently stupid. Think of it this way; Suppose you’re with a big tough native Indian, would you call him a Redskin to his face? Well, if you wouldn’t because you might get the crap kicked out of you, you probably should not call anyone that name either. My kids are half Irish as I understand you are too. People used to use the word Mick and using it was the equivalent of how people use the word Redskin.

    • Thats fair but I think my point on it (at least for myself) is that I would never think of calling an Indian the name Redskin as an insult in the first place. Its not part of any vocabulary I grew up around or heard through the grapevine. If for some reason I completely lost my cool in that situation and lost my mind I cant imagine that word even jumping into my head. Not because I know its a hateful word that Id be afraid to use just that rightly or wrongly I associate it with football.

      I mean I can see how Jonah Hill flew off at that guy a few weeks ago and dropped a not so acceptable word. Whether he meant to use it or not (or does or doesnt use it normally), it is a derogatory term that deep down is probably in the mind of most people to hurl as an insult if they lose it, which he did. I just think exploring the history of the actual word and bringing that to light is more beneficial than the approach that is going on now.

      • PATREZI

        We grew up in an isolated community which had a large native population. They hated the word. To them it was the same as words for Blacks and Asians.

    • mike jones

      I’ve yet to see any evidence whatsoever that Redskin was ever used as a derogatory word to disparage native Americans. How about just a tad bit of evidence? Patently stupid? I’m almost 40 years old, and I have never in my entire life heard the word even used when it wasn’t applied to the Washington nfl team. Never once in my life.

      Convince me, please. You can’t just say, *Hey, it’s just like being called a mick. Trust me, I’m a liberal white guy from east coast – I get to decide when minorities are being oppressed.*
      Offer evidence. Some evidence. Any evidence. I’ll happily support your efforts to get the name changed, once I have just a little evidence that this isn’t just the newest way for white dudes of a certain ideological persuasion to clutch their pearls and proclaim outrage while using minorities as props in their own little morality plays while actually doing f*ck-all for social justice.

      • PATREZI

        Mike,I know you wouldn’t do this anyway given your description of yourself but the next time you happen to be in a community with a large Native Indian population as a purely social experiment, use the word and see if the people take offense. Just because you’re not aware of something doesn’t mean it’s not pejorative. Think of it this way, it’s the equivalent of this: I’ve often read comments by people where they say: ” why are racial epithets so upsetting to people? When people call me a cracker, I don’t think it’s upsetting!”.

        • mike jones

          I’ll say it one more time: You are the one making the extraordinary claim; yet you not only don’t offer extraordinary evidence, you offer no evidence whatsoever.

          You, from your position of white male privilege, simply declare yourself the protector of minorities everywhere and that Washington Redskins is a pejorative an analogous to a team called the Atlanta N****s. I want to believe you aren’t simple using a historically oppressed minority as a prop in your own internet morality play where you are the lead protagonist for minority rights while doing jack and shiat in the real world for a community of people that has truly enormous problems – I really want to. Help me out here, give me one bit of evidence that there is a significant portion of the native American population that finds this term offensive and that found it offensive back before people like you decided it was the cause du jour.

          I know a little something about the 1950s-60s-70s civil rights movements, and therefore I’m well aware that while black civil rights leaders began objecting to words like colored, negro, n****r, way back in the 1950s. Why is it I have never heard nor read of Indian leaders objecting to the team name Washington Redskins back in the 1970s or even the 1980s even though as a political organization, native american civil rights groups had power that was in fact greater than blacks (considering their almost insignificant population, and the incredible racial animosity whites displayed to blacks back in the middle of the last century) back in the 1960s-70s? Why is that it was not until 2013 that this issue even made a blip on the national radar if as you claim this term has been offensive to all all native Americans since time-immemorial?

          Can you address the counter-claim by your opponents that literally dozens of majority of native-american high schools (where native-americans control the local school districts) use Redskins as team names? Are you actually calling for these native-americans to quit using a name that you have decided that they SHOULD find offensive but apparently do not? Do you have any clue how paternalistic and presumptive your behavior is? Of how much like a closeted racist that may make YOU seem?
          Can you offer one shred of evidence besides your dubious anecdotal claims? Please man, offer me something more than a bare assertion. I want to believe you aren’t engaged in this behavior merely to bolster your self-worth and self-perceived moral standing.

          • jack_sprat2

            That’s how effeminate male heterosexual Progressives get laid, during their salad days. (Or in preference to useful work like digging ditches or slinging fries.)

        • jack_sprat2

          There’s a world of difference between CALLING someone something, which raises the likelihood that it’s at the very least a challenge to take offense/fight, and using the same name for a sports team. Please note that it’s not ME who makes that distinction, but a great many Natives. There’s a least one tribal school in AZ that uses the name. More than a few Natives have been voluble in proclaiming that they take pride in the fact that the name is associated with the team in the nation’s Capitol. I actually HAVE been asking the question for some twenty or more years, when on or near a Res, in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York. None of the people with whom I discussed the matter took offense at the usage, some liked the specific case in Washington, and most said that the general attitude is one of mild indifference.

          I will admit, though, that I SUSPECTED that things might be different in cases such as yours, where longstanding local conflicts, especially with folks who identify as settler families, kept feelings raw. So, now I know to look harder for actual EVIDENCE. In the places where I had heretofore inquired, more than one guy told me that the few who might bitch about it were the sort who made life on the Res a challenge, when they weren’t doing one of their many stretches in jail or prison.