Skins are SB Bound... Havent u heard?

[1fisher]

So did accusing me of being confused. You don't like the paint, don't sling the paintbrush.

What % are you looking for in order to change your mind? I mean give me a range here. Since a poll will clearly define right or wrong to you, what % do you need?

I don't believe for one minute that you'd do it. The invitation is wide open.

This one isn't that complex. It is for you because it is the team you love. A team that I suspect you would still love if they did the right thing and changed the name. For me it could not be more obvious what is right and what is wrong.

To me if you are going to disown racism, you do not cling to a racist symbol while doing so.

I will never need a poll to think for me. I can do it on my own. Do you think I was shocked when I learned that GSP was a racist? I assure you I was not.

I find it almost humorous that you misspell "hearsay" to make it look more like "heresy" and use "then" instead of "than." It totally changes what the 2nd sentence says. In other words heresy follows persuasion per you. How true. It is a shame that it totally applies in this case, albeit not in a religious sense.

I know a lot of Native Americans. None of them that I know are nonplussed by that word. Every single one of them has told me that it offends them. These are good people. They do not deserve the insults. It's too bad they are never asked to vote in polls.

In case you are wondering how many Native Americans I might know. My Mom's 2nd husband was a full blooded Apache. I know a lot of his people. My father-in-law was actually adopted by the Navajo and Hopi tribes of northern Arizona. All of my in-laws have extensive Histories of friendships with their Native American neighbors. In fact, one of them is basically my adopted brother-in-law. When his family died he had nowhere else to go. My wife considers him as much a brother as her own flesh and blood. He considers my in-laws as his Mom & Dad. They made sure he was still raised with his tribal culture intact.

I live near the Tohono O'Odam Nation. I wear my Cowboys colors proudly and often get to ask them about the word. You pay attention to polls. I listen to people. In my time doing this I think one person has said he doesn't care. I've asked hundreds. I don't know who your polls ask, but it isn't the people I know. I call these things...facts.

Ownage! Good read.

 

[DallasEast]

Evidence of that?

Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Let's stop, back up a second and review. This is what you highlighted in my reply:

Originally Posted by DallasEast [URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"][URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"][URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"][URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"][URL="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"] [/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

That opinion is shared by a minority within the Native American community and among the majority of various peoples outside of the Native American populace. That's relevant.

I'm curious whether you will state that there was a misunderstanding here on your part or if I will find myself laughing my butt off after reading your next answer.

Okay. I stated that the opinion of Native Americans (EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY CONSTITUTE THE MINORITY) who considered the term 'Commander' as offensive was shared by non-Native Americans.

Are you stating or even inferring that I must present evidence which proves my assertion? Are you stating that in order for something to be deemed offensive, it can ONLY be offensive to a certain individual demographic? Really???

[This may prove interesting reading]

Where are we going off on this indifferent/disconnect discussion.

umm... Chief? (pun intended)

Initially, you commented on 'indifference' and 'disconnect'. My replies centered upon on their irrelevance to the conversation. The only issue about the topic surrounds the use of the term 'Commander' is its offensive nature.

Here is the fact. Native American leaders find it offensive.

Yeah. I have stated that in previous replies, so I already know.

Based on this study, the vast majority of Native Americans do not.

Yakuza Rich's last reply is worthy of re-mentioning here.

I am not the one who commisioned or paid for the study...

Well, duh.

[Did anyone else believe he had anything to do with this poll? No?]

I... I don't think anyone else thought you did either, my man.

...and hell I didn't even know it existed until an hour ago.

Are you okay?

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

The Annenburg/SI study has a major hole in it that is pretty obvious to see. The term 'Warrior' and even the term 'Indian' are completely different from 'Commander.' A flawed poll doesn't mean it's a fact when it comes to the conversation at hand.

Technically, referring to an African American as 'black' is deragatory to some African Americans. I could skew a poll question like 'do you find racial slurs like 'black' offensive?'

I'm sure I would get a resounding no by African Americans. Then I could say 'well, 99% of African Americans don't find racial slurs offensive according to the poll I conducted.'

Of course, that would be deliberately misleading and I don't think the Annenburg/SI poll did that. But, there was a flaw in the poll nonetheless (polls tend to have flaws in them) and thus it doesn't really make it a fact. If they asked 'do you find the term 'Commanders' offensive?' to Native Americans and the answer was a resounding no, then I would say that is a fact (provided that the sample size is over 100 people from across the nation).

Gallup polls generally sample 1,500 to 2,000 people. And yes I do agree that the question asked "Generic vs Native American name vs Commanders name" matters. However, this seems to be the one study that we have all found, despite assertions that there are others. If there are others that contradict this study, I'd love to see it

From this study

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/08/17/indian.wars030402/index.html

Somehow that message is lost on most of Mills's fellow Native Americans. Asked if they were offended by the name Commanders, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents -- and 57% of those living on reservations -- feel it's O.K. for the Washington Commanders to continue using the name.

Only 29% of Native Americans, and 40% living on reservations, thought Snyder should change his team's name. Such indifference implies a near total disconnect between Native American activists and the general Native American population on this issue. "To a lot of the younger folks the name Commanders is tied to the football team, and it doesn't represent anything more than the team," says Roland McCook, a member of the tribal council of the Ute tribe in Fort Duchesne, Utah.

What % are you looking for in order to change your mind? I mean give me a range here. Since a poll will clearly define right or wrong to you, what % do you need?

There isn't a % or whatever that I need. However, evidence (not anecdotal real evidence) points to the fact that this is not the major issue this is made out to be

I don't believe for one minute that you'd do it. The invitation is wide open.

Fantastic. I have no idea when/if I'll ever make it to AZ. However my possible future father in law lives there, and possible future mother in law teaches on a reservation, so you never know. I'll have to send her an email tonight

This one isn't that complex. It is for you because it is the team you love. A team that I suspect you would still love if they did the right thing and changed the name. For me it could not be more obvious what is right and what is wrong.

To me if you are going to disown racism, you do not cling to a racist symbol while doing so.

Sure it is. Was the name Commanders chosen to insult Native Americans? Or to honor William "Lone Star" Dietz.

And look at this here

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/08/17/indian.wars030402/index.html

For more than 30 years the debate has been raging over whether names such as Commanders, Braves, Chiefs and Indians honor or defile Native Americans, whether clownish figures like the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo have any place in today's racially sensitive climate and whether the sight of thousands of non-Native Americans doing the tomahawk chop at Atlanta's Turner Field is mindless fun or mass bigotry. It's an argument that, because it mixes mere sports with the sensitivities of a people who were nearly exterminated, seems both trivial and profound -- and it's further complicated by the fact that for three out of four Native Americans, even a nickname such as Commanders, which many whites consider racist, isn't objectionable.

See the key word there Hostile. C-O-M-P-L-I-C-A-T-E-D

I will never need a poll to think for me. I can do it on my own. Do you think I was shocked when I learned that GSP was a racist? I assure you I was not.

You keep droning on about "not needing a poll," however you seem to miss the point. I am using facts in this argument, whereas you are using anecdotal evidence. Hey, I don't really know you except for this message board. What am I going to go on, a guy named Hostile, or a 3rd party study commissioned to study the issue.

Again, you yourself said in this thread "I've seen polls that say they do oppose it."

Please, show me those polls and studies. I would be happy to see them and draw my own conclusions from there, as opposed to heresay and anecdotal evidence.

I find it almost humorous that you misspell "hearsay" to make it look more like "heresy" and use "then" instead of "than." It totally changes what the 2nd sentence says. In other words heresy follows persuasion per you. How true. It is a shame that it totally applies in this case, albeit not in a religious sense.

I am a financial analyst. Apologies for my lack of spelling/grammar skills

In case you are wondering how many Native Americans I might know. My Mom's 2nd husband was a full blooded Apache. I know a lot of his people. My father-in-law was actually adopted by the Navajo and Hopi tribes of northern Arizona. All of my in-laws have extensive Histories of friendships with their Native American neighbors. In fact, one of them is basically my adopted brother-in-law. When his family died he had nowhere else to go. My wife considers him as much a brother as her own flesh and blood. He considers my in-laws as his Mom & Dad. They made sure he was still raised with his tribal culture intact.

I live near the Tohono O'Odam Nation. I wear my Cowboys colors proudly and often get to ask them about the word. You pay attention to polls. I listen to people. In my time doing this I think one person has said he doesn't care. I've asked hundreds. I don't know who your polls ask, but it isn't the people I know. I call these things...facts.

That is a fantastic story. I am happy to hear who you have spoken to and the heritage in your family.

However, and this seems to be the point you are missing, in light of scientific studies, what you are saying doesn't mean a thing. Its called anecdotal evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.
(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.
(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.
In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence

I, on the other hand, can point to this in this article and use it as scientific evidence, with the statistics and interviews cited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/magazine/08/17/indian.wars030402/index.html

Indeed, some Native Americans -- even those who purportedly object to Indian team nicknames -- wear Washington Commanders paraphernalia with pride. Two such men showed up in late January at Augustana College in Sioux Falls, S.Dak., for a conference on race relations. "They were speaking against the Indian nicknames, but they were wearing Commanders sweatshirts, and one had on a Commanders cap," says Betty Ann Gross, a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux tribe. "No one asked them about it. They looked pretty militant."

So here I am, some dude who lives outside of Washington DC who has no access to any reservations here, and who hasn't traveled to AZ, what am I supposed to go on? Native Americans showing up at meetings objecting to Native American nicknames WEARING Commanders SHIRTS AND CAPS

Tell me, based on scientific 3rd party studies, and articles such as these, what am I supposed to conclude?

What am I supposed to conclude after reading this?

She wants Indian mascots and the tomahawk chop discarded, but she has no problem with team names like the Fighting Sioux (University of North Dakota) or even the Commanders. "There's a lot of division," Gross says. "We're confused, and if we're confused, you guys should be really confused."

What do I conclude with this?

Opinion is far more divided on reservations, yet a majority (67%) there said the usage by pro teams should not cease, while 32% said it should.

"I take the middle ground," says Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, 51, director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office in Kykotsmovi, Ariz., and an avid devotee of the Atlanta Braves. "I don't see anything wrong with Indian nicknames as long as they're not meant to be derogatory. Some tribal schools on Arizona reservations use Indians as a nickname themselves. The Phoenix Indian High School's newspaper is The Commander. I don't mind the tomahawk chop. It's all in good fun. This is sports, after all. In my living room, I'll be watching a Braves game and occasionally do the chop."

I would be more then happy to see contrary evidence to what I am presenting. It has been almost a decade since this article, so if there has been a significant shift in opinion, I would love to see it. I am now more curious then ever on this topic.

Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone. Let's stop, back up a second and review. This is what you highlighted in my reply: I'm curious whether you will state that there was a misunderstanding here on your part or if I will find myself laughing my butt off after reading your next answer.

Okay. I stated that the opinion of Native Americans (EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY CONSTITUTE THE MINORITY) who considered the term 'Commander' as offensive was shared by non-Native Americans.

Are you stating or even inferring that I must present evidence which proves my assertion? Are you stating that in order for something to be deemed offensive, it can ONLY be offensive to a certain individual demographic? Really???

[This may prove interesting reading] umm... Chief? (pun intended)

Got it. Misunderstood your original post.

To be perfectly honest, I think it is awfully presumptuous for another demographic to assume something is or isn't offensive to another demographic. However to answer your question, yes, another demographic, race, group, can find a term offensive.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I'll put this out there since it bears on the conversation. My best friend while I attended Texas Tech is a Native American. His entire extended family detested the name "Commanders". They would refer to the football team only as "Washington's Football Team". That's about twenty or so of his family I met, and all of them shared the same sentiment.

Now for the idiots willing to take up Hostile on his invitation one of two things is going to happen if you walk up to a group of men on a reservation and say "Hey, Commanders!"

1. They'll blow you off as an idiot not worthy of their time.
2. Police will notify your next of kin to inform them you are in intensive care, dying, or dead.

I have no doubt about that whatsoever. The term is racist and insulting on every possible level. There is no grey area.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

I'll put this out there since it bears on the conversation. My best friend while I attended Texas Tech is a Native American. His entire extended family detested the name "Commanders". They would refer to the football team only as "Washington's Football Team". That's about twenty or so of his family I met, and all of them shared the same sentiment.

Now for the idiots willing to take up Hostile on his invitation one of two things is going to happen if you walk up to a group of men on a reservation and say "Hey, Commanders!"

1. They'll blow you off as an idiot not worthy of their time.
2. Police will notify your next of kin to inform them you are in intensive care, dying, or dead.

I have no doubt about that whatsoever. The term is racist and insulting on every possible level. There is no grey area.

What about if you walk up to a Native American and say "Hey, toads!" If they get offended does that mean that "toad" can't be a name of a mascot?

Hos' example is so unbelievably naive and lacking any understanding of context and nuance, I can't believe there is anyone out there who takes it seriously.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

What about if you walk up to a Native American and say "Hey, toads!" If they get offended does that mean that "toad" can't be a name of a mascot?

Hos' example is so unbelievably naive and lacking any understanding of context and nuance, I can't believe there is anyone out there who takes it seriously.

That has got to be the dumbest thing I've read in quite some time, but coming from a Commanders fan I'm not remotely surprised.

"Toad" isn't a derogatory term thrown at Native Americans you idiot. "Commanders" is a racist term. Are you not smart enough to understand the difference???

Here's an offer. You take Hostile up on his invitation, and if you live through it without at least a serious *** kicking, I'll pay for your airline ticket. I pick the day and time of day you go up to the group of Native Americans on the reservation.

Candidly, I have to worry that the offer would be construed as accessory to murder in court.

 

[Hostile]

What about if you walk up to a Native American and say "Hey, toads!" If they get offended does that mean that "toad" can't be a name of a mascot?

Hos' example is so unbelievably naive and lacking any understanding of context and nuance, I can't believe there is anyone out there who takes it seriously.

The naivete is yours and your fellow fans who stick your heads in the sand and let polls think for you.

You admit that it is an offensive name, yet you justify it. That is naive. Your example is beyond naive. Toads? Are you serious with that crap? That is the best your mind can work? How utterly sad.

Simple question. Are you 100% certain that no Native Americans you speak to would be offended if you call them a Commander? Yes or no? It is a simple question.

SHF is showing me results from several polls. I suppose in your minds those people who are offended don't matter? That is exactly what you and he, are saying they don't matter because they are in a minority.

I thank the good Lord every day that I don't have to rationalize racism. Good luck to you both with it. Oh excuse me, you don't rationalize it, you disown it.

 

[Hostile]

There isn't a % or whatever that I need. However, evidence (not anecdotal real evidence) points to the fact that this is not the major issue this is made out to be

No, let's correct that. No % would matter. Not even a higher % who want the name gone. Those who feel that way have never mattered to Commanders fans. That is a fact.

See, you have the luxury of saying they don't matter. It's not a luxury I would accept.

I am going to ignore the rest of the post because frankly it is obvious that you don't care, so why should I waste my time responding in any manner?

The bottom line is you condone a racist name. You cannot deny this to me on any level. I do think the polls go overboard when they add braves and warriors, etc. Those are not offensive.

The word Commander is. Period. It was a pejorative at its genesis and it remains one now. Look up the definition. Look up the etymology. Both will teach you an irrefutable fact. It is not an endearing term.

You will ignore all of that in favor of polls that tell you that since a minority do feel offended and a majority don't let it bother them that the minority doesn't matter.

Look we all get it. It doesn't make it any less galling, but you whitewash it however you have to in order to justify it.

My invitation stands to any Commanders fan. Say the name to perfect strangers of Native American descent and let's put your theories to a real test, not a saccharine poll. What will you care if the guys you say it to react with negative feedback? They will clearly be in the minority you already admit you don't care about.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

I am going to ignore the rest of the post because frankly it is obvious that you don't care, so why should I waste my time responding in any manner?

Whatever

I've seen polls that say they do oppose it

Again, show me. Thats all I am asking for.

I do think the polls go overboard when they add braves and warriors, etc. Those are not offensive.

"They were speaking against the Indian nicknames, but they were wearing Commanders sweatshirts, and one had on a Commanders cap,"

Asked if they were offended by the name Commanders, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended.

When you bring facts, and not emotional anectodal heresay, I'll be ready to discuss this. You are the one whose seen other studies and I am dying, begging you to show them to me. You are the one who seemingly can't see the complexity of the issue. If it is as black and white as you claim, demonstrate it to me with facts.

This isn't a discussion I am just going to allow to go away.

 

[Skinsradiosucks]

We should just ban all Skins fans from CZ like they do us at ES. Just sayin...:laugh2:

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Whatever




Again, show me. Thats all I am asking for.







When you bring facts, and not emotional anectodal heresay, I'll be ready to discuss this. You are the one whose seen other studies and I am dying, begging you to show them to me. You are the one who seemingly can't see the complexity of the issue. If it is as black and white as you claim, demonstrate it to me with facts.

This isn't a discussion I am just going to allow to go away.

You really can't figure out why they'd be wearing the team's shirts and caps can you? They're showing support for the team, but protesting the name. It makes them more than just random protesters. Damn, that should have been obvious.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

The word Commander is. Period. It was a pejorative at its genesis and it remains one now. Look up the definition. Look up the etymology. Both will teach you an irrefutable fact. It is not an endearing term.

anthropology.si.edu/goddard/Commander.pdf

If you are willing to do a little reading, this is a fantastic article with quite a bit of citation on the genesis of the word.

Page 3 on starts getting into the meat of the origin, and cites first documented uses of the term Commander, or Red Skin
​

​

​

​

​

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Somehow that message is lost on most of Mills's fellow Native Americans.

Asked if they were offended by the name Commanders, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents -- and 57% of those living on reservations -- feel it's O.K. for the Washington Commanders to continue using the name

Only 29% of Native Americans, and 40% living on reservations, thought Snyder should change his team's name. Such indifference implies a near total disconnect between Native American activists and the general Native American population on this issue. "To a lot of the younger folks the name Commanders is tied to the football team, and it doesn't represent anything more than the team," says Roland McCook, a member of the tribal council of the Ute tribe in Fort Duchesne, Utah

I think the writer is foolish to say that there is a ‘near total disconnect’ between Native American activists and the Native Americans that they are representing. 30% is the minority, but it’s not a small faction of people. And 40% of reservations…and I’m assuming that most of the activists are on reservations…is hardly a disconnect anyway you slice it.





YR

 

[zrinkill]

What about if you walk up to a Native American and say "Hey, toads!" If they get offended does that mean that "toad" can't be a name of a mascot?

Hos' example is so unbelievably naive and lacking any understanding of context and nuance, I can't believe there is anyone out there who takes it seriously.

Wow .....

That is the dumbest attempt at defending racism ever ......

 

[zrinkill]

This isn't a discussion I am just going to allow to go away.

Its not 2012 yet ......

 

[Hostile]

Whatever

You do care? I don't believe it.

Again, show me. Thats all I am asking for.

Why? Tell me why I should bother? You will dismiss them anyway. You know it and I know it.

When you bring facts, and not emotional anectodal heresay, I'll be ready to discuss this. You are the one whose seen other studies and I am dying, begging you to show them to me. You are the one who seemingly can't see the complexity of the issue. If it is as black and white as you claim, demonstrate it to me with facts.

Comical to once again use that spelling. Aw well.

You're right. I do not see this as a complex issue and I am not going to. I think claiming it to be complex is complete and total rationalization and I simply will not do it. The word is offensive. It should have been gone a long time ago from the lexicon.

This isn't a discussion I am just going to allow to go away.

That is fine with me. Enjoy posting about polls. I will stick with right or wrong.

 

[Hostile]

We should just ban all Skins fans from CZ like they do us at ES. Just sayin...:laugh2:

If they ban a Cowboys fan for acting like a troll, I have no issue with it. It is their house.

We will never ban just because they are Skins fans. Not a level this site will ever sink to.

Yes, I know you were joking. I just want our intentions known and not misrepresented.

 

[Hostile]

anthropology.si.edu/goddard/Commander.pdf

If you are willing to do a little reading, this is a fantastic article with quite a bit of citation on the genesis of the word.

Page 3 on starts getting into the meat of the origin, and cites first documented uses of the term Commander, or Red Skin
​

​

See, this is what I am talking about and why I will not provide you with polls. First of all, if I even remembered where I had seen them it might be different. Maybe they were Arizona specific. I am pretty sure one of them was when a Native American High School called their mascot the Fighting Whiteys to protest the practice of using pejoratives as a mascot name.

I think the polls go too far because they ALWAYS ask about words other than Commanders. Braves, Warriors, Seminoles, etc. There is no thought that some may give a no vote because they don't see those words as offensive.

There is no doubt about the word Commander though.

Dictionary.com: –noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive a North American Indian. Origin: 1690–1700, Americanism
Merriam-Webster: Function: noun
Date: 1699 usually offensive




There are other examples of dictionaries (Oxford for example) that will call it an offensive word, but there is no need to post them all. Let's look up etymology or the origin of the word.

Etymology: "American Indian," 1690s. Red as the skin color of Native Americans is from 1580s; red man is from 1580s.

How interesting that the 2 dictionary versions I did use, both of which call it an offensive term have similar dates to the etymology. In other words, it is not some fabrication. There is actual research involved.

Are there studies out there that want to soften the word? Yes, of course there are. Just like the polls that throw in braves and warriors to soften them. Demographics of the polls also matter. The further away from the DC area you take the poll the more likely you are to find people who voted yes instead of no because they are not fans of the team. That is why I offer people to come to Arizona.

Yes, I can acknowledge that some are actually fans of the team and the name doesn't bother them. How different from the lack of acknowledgment that many Native Americans actually are offended. Again, they don't matter. I ask again, how many will it take before they do matter?

I wish I could disown those people the way Commanders fans can. Actually, I don't. I was being sarcastic. Those people matter to me, and their feelings matter to me. I made mention of people I actually know and love who are seriously offended. They were trivialized immediately. I knew they would be. It is the common practice of racism to make those you offend not matter.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

Warning: to read the following post, you must be able to read at at least a ninth grade level. If you do not meet these requirements, please return to cowboyszone.com > Main Forums > Fan Zone > Has Any Rookie Ever Excited You As Much As Dez Bryant?

Why wouldn't you walk up to someone and call them a toad? The reason of course is that it would be offensive. Therefore the word "toad" can be offensive of inoffensive depending on context, such as intent. To simply label a word racist or not racist, offensive or inoffensive, is the kind of black-and-white thinking typical of a pre-adolescent.

To determine if the word "Commander" is offensive, it is necessary to look at the context of its use. So what is the context of the word "Commander." Surely it has changed in the past two-hundred years. If you overheard someone say "Commander" in a conversation, would you think they were making a derogatory remark about native americans, or talking about the football team in Washington? In my 29 years, I have never, not once, heard someone use the word "Commander" as an insult. I imagine that the ratio of times people use the word to refer to the football team compared to as an insult is at least 1,000,000 : 1. The fundamental meaning of the word has changed from being an insult (although it is not at all clear how prevalent the word was in 1932) to being the name of a football team.

Clearly, (again you should only have reached this point if you read at a ninth grade level) we can't outlaw every word that can be offensive in a certain context because every word can be offensive. I can call you a doorknob or a pillow and make it offensive. What is important is the intent of the person speaking. If the speaker does not intend to be offensive, then it is perfectly acceptable to disregard the sensitivities of those offended by him.

I am not minimizing the sad history of Native Americans in this country. I AM minimizing the sensitivities of those offended by the name Washington Commanders. No fan of the Washington Commanders intends to slander or offend a native American by the use of the word. Native Americans never cross my mind when I am talking about the Commanders. Joe Gibbs, Darrell Green, Sonny Jurgenson, and Art Monk are Commanders. The group of Native Americans in Hos' example are not.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Clearly, (again you should only have reached this point if you read at a ninth grade level)

uh, Hostile was an English major and I was his professor, so...