Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Knicks 90, Raptors 87: "Shump and Lin wouldn't let us lose."

To what degree should "we" identify with the Redskins?

Post inspired by comments made by Big Blue View regular SBakerTheTouchdownMaker in response to the BBV Five Questions with Hogs Haven. Make sure you dip on over there to check out my largely incoherent rants to Ed's probing questions.

Anyways, SBakerTheTouchdownMaker noted that I used "we" to refer to the Redskins. I did this subconciously, and probably do so a lot here at Hogs Haven, as I've never actually established to myself that I'm a member of the Washington Redskins. In fact, I'm not. In fact, they probably wouldn't want to have anything to do with me. Most of the time, I don't even want to have much to do with me.

But that feeling isn't mutual. The Redskins would exist sans Skin Patrol, but Hogs Haven is utterly derivative of the Redskins and that's just the way I like it.

The question here and presented towards reader(s) then, is whether I'm justified in personally identifying with the team. I justifiably refer to my alma mater as "we" when discussing athletics, because I have a demonstrable investment in the team, in the form of a piece of paper with my name on it (that I think I've since lost). But what connection do I have with the Redskins?

We could add financial, as directly and indirectly I have contributed funds to my beloved Redskins. But let us not limit financial spending merely to moneys pocketed by the Washington Redskins; I've "invested" hundreds of dollars into the pockets of Dallas Cowboys fans via lost bets through a horrible many-moons long losing streak we suffered nearly uninterrupted from 1997 through 2004. [One more reason to love Coach Gibbs, by the way, is that he figured out how to beat the Cowgirls.] But my financial suffering lacks regard for whether it bulges the pockets of Cowboys fans or whether it purchases Dick Clark. Worse in the former case, actually, since you also have to suffer the inevitable gloating (see: Emotional Health).

We could add emotional health, as my girlfriend can attest suffers through losses and builds through wins. Nothing slows a work week more than a loss, especially to a division rival. You wouldn't have wanted to be around me September 17th of last year, though had you caught me January 7th after our postseason win over the Bucs, your drink(s) would have been free (see: Financial).

Is that enough? I ask semi-rhetorically because I really couldn't give a damn. I will continue to identify myself with the Redskins even if they wouldn't have anything to do with me and even if I have no reasonable justification for it. Irrational and unconditional love for one's favorite team may not be healthy. But neither is drinking, and I never bother justifying that.

Comment 9 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

You are absolutely justified
being a sports fan is about being emotionally invested.  It is about willingly giving time and money.  If that doesn't make us part of the team I don't know what does.  

We all us the 'we' whether it be on a blog, in the bar or at home.

by WCG @ Hogs Haven on Jun 20, 2007 2:49 PM EDT reply actions  

if I hadn't worked with you so
much in the past few months I might be ticked off that a Skins fan and me agree so often.:)

by WCG @ Hogs Haven on Jun 20, 2007 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

I tend to take the other side...
I think that the team is the team and fans are fans.  They are a major part of what the team does and there is a huge investment, in terms of time, emotion and money... but having said that, the team is an organization in and of itself.

I try to avoid the used of "we" and "us" when dealing with the teams I follow (including my beloved Skins) but I am not part of that team.

I think there is a difference between what I just said (my team) and the usage of "we" or another word that includes the fan with the team.  I have teams that matter to me, and they are therefore "my" teams.  But I am not part in the decision making or the actual playing... so when referencing the team, I cannot bring myself to say we.

I could just be me... or it could be my belief in the inherent power of words... but I think there is a distinction that has to be made.

by TexSkins on Jun 20, 2007 5:00 PM EDT reply actions  

New rule
Only registered commenters/diarists/frontpagers on HogsHaven are allowed to refer to the Redskins as "we."

by Burgundy and Gold on Jun 20, 2007 6:21 PM EDT reply actions  

We're sorry
Big Blue View Nation apparently owes Hogs Haven an apology. We had no idea you were such an emotional basket case, and that answering our probing questions (participating in our Vulcan mind-meld) would lead to such angst. We deeply regret causing you such distress. Now, go have a few drinks and quit worrying about it!

Ed
BigBlueView

by ETVal @ Hogs Haven on Jun 20, 2007 11:44 PM EDT reply actions  

Weeeeeee!
I believe oyu are justified.  I've noticed that everyone on this blog uses "we" instead of "The Redskins".  I do it consciously and nearly religiously.  I have an emotional attachment to the team, the only pro sports team which I would claim to have such a link to...the remainder are schools which I attended.  Financially, I helped pay bloated contracts to vets whom are equally so.  
Personally, I've even taken on the pain-staking conversion of my wife-who claims the cowgurls (I coulda sworn she said Rams...I told her that I would have never married her if I knew she liked "Canada's Team".  But considering she knew i loved my skins, she kept mum until the '05-'06 season, when we were already married (treacherous winch).

Short answer...you and everyone else who suffers pain because of the organizations short-comings (or the completely unwarranted attacks from Dallas fans) can collectively refer the the 'Skins and themselves as "WE".

by JustinU804 on Jun 21, 2007 9:29 AM EDT reply actions  

My girlfriend
doesn't really follow the NFL -- she loves CFB though -- but her and her family claim the Dallas Cowboys as well. It's quite an ordeal.

by Skin Patrol on Jun 21, 2007 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Media Requests please email hogshaven@gmail.com

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Arnold-schwarzenegger-kindergarten-cop_small
Trading Up Is Not The Solution. Here's why.
Super_47_small
I Ran Into Jim Haslett and We Talked QB Draft, Manning, Trading Up
Images_small
SB Nation 2012 NFL Mock Draft

Recent FanPosts

Small
Who will we be pursuing this FA 2012?
Small
I'm Torn...
Small
Manning to Texans
Orange_moon_at_nationals_park_small
Solve QB; I almost don't care how!
Small
Are we Really Mortgaging the future with a trade up for RG3?
Redskins2_small
Rocky McIntosh to Rams?
Desert_small
The GM's plan to turn it around in 2012
Pcinoz_1__small
2012 Salary Cap Position
Small
Does RG3 Start from Day 1?
Redskins_logo_small
My agenda as Redskins GM

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Superbowl_small Kevin Ewoldt

Riggins_small Ken Meringolo

Editors

Fb_small Parks Smith

Chalkboard_football-opt403x300o00s403x300_small UkRedskin

Washington_redskins_helmet_small Redskins News

Authors

Badshirt2__2__small fatpickle

Paterno_tribute_small Tiller56

Small Steve Shoup

Defaukt_small HTTR4LIFE

Hh_small Ronnie Adkins