SkinsHokieFan;3501841 said:
What scholarly research is demonstrating here is that the 1699 origin of the word is erroneous and in fact the term Commander itself was a much more benign term, as opposed to the "scalped red skin" term that people wish to make it out to be.
There is lots more in this study, with tons of citations. I do suggest you take the time and read the whole thing, I learned quite a bit from it
I might one day be very interested in finding out who exactly Mr. Goddard is. I suspect he had an agenda here. The reason is quite simple, I know exactly who Ms. Harjo is that he quotes.
If you ask me to give more weight to his commentary than I do dictionaries, etymology and my own Historical research then I hate to disappoint you. I won't. If he had not mentioned Ms. Harjo at all, I might have. By mentioning her it becomes fairly clear to me that he was going to come to his conclusions regardless of what he found in his research. I applaud the effort to find a learned man to use as a reference, but his commentary carries almost no weight with me at all.
However, whether he did have an agenda or not it is interesting to note that he admits the word is a "racial label." That must be why so many people find it offensive?
Gasp!
I totally reject his conclusion that is benign. He would have you believe that at no time was the word ever offensive to anyone and Ms. Harjo, is indeed not offended and doesn't have people behind her who are offended either. That is after all what benign means in the sense he is using it. Non harmful.
I would invite Mr. Goddard to take the same test of coming with me so that he can call perfect strangers Commanders and prove the benign nature of the word.
Racial labels are benign? That is rich. I suppose Mr. Goddard would say that the N word is also benign since it is a racial label and originally meant someone from Nigeria.
I guess he knows nothing extermination orders where Native Americans were not only referred to as Commanders, but also savages, and red devils. How very sad.
Years ago when I was in school at the University of Arizona I was in a creative non fiction writing class. There was a lovely girl in one of my classes who was from the Souix Nation of South Dakota. I mean she was quite stunning to look at. Long raven black hair, amazing figure, and a very pretty face. She was also an amazing writer.
I bring her up because I remember a paper she wrote in this class. I remember it quite well because it was so well done. Her family was traveling and they stopped at a restaurant in Montana to eat. Another customer caused a scene when he threw a fit because he didn't want to sit next to a bunch of Commanders.
Bernadette (not the name of my fellow student) remembered it as the first time in her life that she felt different from any other kid. Not different as in unique either. Different as in inferior in the minds of someone else. Her paper went on to expound on why she was not flattered when a guy tried to pick her up by calling her Pocahontas. The Disney movie was out at that time and this girl did bear a striking resemblance to the lovely animated Disney character.
You see, she did not want to be considered a cartoon, nor did she want people to think that all tribes of Native Americans are the same. She and the real Pocahontas had nothing in common as far as tribal genealogy.
You can dismiss her feelings all you want, but many of these Native Americans do not like to feel trivialized. That is exactly what Mr. Goddard has done by claiming the word is benign. If it is so benign why does it hurt some people? How many need to be hurt before we simply do the right thing and change the mascot?
Would you suddenly hate your team if they changed the mascot but kept your colors? I hope not. For the life of me I cannot understand why you don't see how offensive the word is. It is indeed a racial label. When did those become harmless? How badly would someone have to be hurting inside for you to care about how they feel? I'd honestly like to know. The same way you'd like to see polls if I can find them, I'd like to know at what point someone's pain would be enough for you to turn your back on the stance you have now?
The big difference here is I don't need to rationalize my stance.
