Skins are SB Bound... Havent u heard?

[Hostile]

I prefer the term These United States of America

Look what the cat dragged in and the kittens wouldn't eat.

Long time no see Eric. Hope all is well with you.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

But if I walk up to a black man and drop an N bomb? What if I walk up to a Hispanic man and call him a beaner?

How come you didnt say the "b" word?

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

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.

Per Wiki

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

Robert Hale Ives Goddard, III (1941- ) is curator and senior linguist in the Department of Anthropology of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution. He is widely considered the leading expert on the Algonquian languages and the larger Algic language family.

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.

Well I have a feeling that with or without the reference to Ms. Harjo, you'd dismiss. It doesn't agree with the narrative you are trying to hold on to here. Seeing that this article was published in 2005 and the case was reaching its zenith in 2005, her mention is very relevant.

If you can find proof of some nefarious plot by Mr. Goddard, I would love to see it.

I'd also love to see your research that is contrary, and as well cited as this study was.

He has lived in DC for many decades, so who knows he could be fan of the Commanders!

Or maybe the guy is a Harvard PHD and an expert in this particular field. I dunno, that seems the more plausible explanation.

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'd say he has quite a bit of evidence towards his conclusion

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/

[The quotation "I am a Red-Skin" in the title is from a speech made by the Santee chief French Crow in a formal council with President James Madison in the President's House in Washington on August 22, 1812, as interpreted by John A. Cameron and officially recorded. French Crow's speech and one given just before it on the same occasion by the Osage chief No Ears contain the first known public uses of Commander in English. The same expression was used by the Potawatomi chiefs Topinabee and Metea at a treaty conference in Chicago in August, 1821, as interpreted by Whitmore Knaggs and recorded by Henry Rowe Schoolcraft.]

I have actually emailed him and I hope he finds time to chime in. I think he could add something to this discussion

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'd have no doubt that an expert in linguists has actually been on reservations and spoken about this. But perhaps he'd be up for the challenge. His phone number is on his web page, so perhaps a phone call is in order tomorrow.

White is a racial label. And as indicated and cited many times in the article, amongst the first uses, native Americans referred to themselves as "Red Skins" well into the 19th century.

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.

I'd also like to see some studies/notes on those. Clearly you have done your research, so if you can add anything to this discussion by actually citing things, I am very open to it. Mr. Goddard forcefully rejects what you are stating in the first page of his study

Before its documented history can be traced, however, the false history given for it in standard reference must be expunged

Key words of course being false history. So on one hand, I have an expert in Native American languages, someone who has a Harvard PHD, is considered THE leading expert on Algonquian languages, and has studied them for 40 years, forcefully rejecting your thesis, and then I have you and your stories.

Which direction am I going to go in? Which set of data is more persuasive and cited?

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.

Again, you have great stories and one day if I make it to AZ I'd be quite interested in hearing more and meeting the people you talk about. I am sure there is quite a bit to learn.

Until then though, it doesn't carry much with me. I like things being cited, published, scrutinized when doing my research, not stories.

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?

Honestly, it would be great to have an updated study in 2010. Is there still an overwhelming majority that does not mind the name as has been cited in the studies that I have shown in this thread. Is this a case of over zealous activists with their own agenda or is there genuine across the board suffering because of this?

When Phoenix Indian High School calls its newspaper the Commander, when those protesting Native American names show up in Commanders shirts and caps, when 60+ percent of Native Americans say they aren't offended, what conclusion am I supposed to come up with?

The big difference here is I don't need to rationalize my stance.

Neither do I. And neither do these people.

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.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I pounded a guy into the ground because he called me a 'spic.'

I'm not even Hispanic.

I'm Hawaiian...

If I were a Native American (The Hawaiian people are Native Americans btw) and someone called me a Commander I'd ground and pound his *** too.

Not even sure why we're arguing with these knuckleheads...

http://i949.***BLOCKED***/albums/ad336/SaltwaterServr/orsonclapping.gif

Exactly.

 

[Hostile]

Hmm.

I wonder if this is going to be ignored or not?

A roundup of American Indian opinion leaders, published 8/7/01, confirms that Native people don't think the "honor" is an honor:

In a survey by Indian Country Today, 81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans.

"Do Indian mascots predominantly honor or are they predominantly offensive to Natives?"

Honor 10%
Offensive 81%
Unsure 9%

In UND: Bellecourt Criticizes Nickname (Grand Forks Herald, 11/26/02), activist Vernon Bellecourt refers to
a recent survey done by a Cherokee Indian group of 14,000 of its members. That poll, he said, found that 85 percent of respondents thought it was time to eliminate the use of Indian nicknames.

A North Dakota poll reported on In-Forum.com, 9/9/05, says that
63 percent of American Indians said UND should change the name if the state's Sioux tribes formally request it....

Many non-Natives agree. For instance, here's a report from NativeTimes.com, 11/14/03, titled "Another Poll Shows Public Support for Mascot Change":

Tulsa radio station KRMG is asking listeners " Do you agree with the Union School board's unanimous decision to keep the Native American mascot and team name "Commanders?". Results indicate an overwhelming majority, 81%, say they do not. Nineteen percent agree with the school board.

The poll comes on the heels of two other recent surveys about mascots.

NewsTalk WDWS AM asked listeners if the University of Illinois should retire its Chief Illiniwek mascot. According to the station, 63% of respondents believe the mascot should be changed while only 37% say no.

In response to a query asking if the district should lose the "Commanders" mascot, KTUL Newschannel 8 reports a whopping 78% agree the mascot should be changed. Twenty-two percent opts to keep the status quo.

Interesting how the SI Poll is mentioned.

Native views should carry the most weight, of course. But some polls suggest mascots don't bother Native people much. The much-maligned Sports Illustrated poll got the ball rolling on this contrary claim.

Unfortunately, its methodological flaws are overwhelming. I'd say it's almost worthless as a statistically valid representation of Native views.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Hmm.

I wonder if this is going to be ignored or not?

Interesting how the SI Poll is mentioned.

Proof of what we already knew to be perfectly true.

Let's see what convoluted rationalization is presented by the Washington faithful in response.

 

[Califan007]

How do you disown that other than to stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist?

This can NOT be a serious question.

Just a heads up...I'm a black man, over 40 years old, and thus have a helluva lot of experience dealing with racism and racists attitudes in all sorts of people, things and institutions that are all still playing a part in my current life and lifestyle. And burying my head in the sand is not among the ways I, and many others, deal with those past realities.

 

[Hostile]

This can NOT be a serious question.

Just a heads up...I'm a black man, over 40 years old, and thus have a helluva lot of experience dealing with racism and racists attitudes in all sorts of people, things and institutions that are all still playing a part in my current life and lifestyle. And burying my head in the sand is not among the ways I, and many others, deal with those past realities.

It was a serious question. How do you simply disown it? Especially given what you say above. You clearly aren't disowning it in other aspects of your life.

 

[Califan007]

It was a serious question. How do you simply disown it? Especially given what you say above. You clearly aren't disowning it in other aspects of your life.

I think the answer should be beyond obvious, especially within the context of the discussion at the time. And just a refresher as to what that discussion was: Commanders fans taking pride in the accomplishments and achievements of the Skins teams, players and franchise as a whole in the pre-Super Bowl era...and the idea that those achievements should be devalued, ridiculed and diminished in our eyes.

Within that context, I correctly stated that while Skins fans happily and proudly "take" ownership of all of the franchise's past ups and downs, past glories and failures, we overwhelmingly do NOT put the racist attitudes of the past Commanders owner Marshall into that category. We don't deny it's a reality (which is what burying our heads in the sand would convey), instead we easily condemn his bigotry as a symptom of both the times and the individual man...nothing to be proud of as a Skins fan, to say the least, but also nothing to make us ashamed to BE Commanders fans of the franchise's entire run and history.

The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens are proud of their country and of being Americans...even with America's incredibly violent and disturbing history of racism in its past (and still in its present in pockets of instances). People of all colors, ethnicities and backgrounds are able to take pride in this country despite that history...and it's NOT by ignoring it or burying their heads in the ground. It's by understanding the realities of Life, of the past, and of human nature...and appreciating all that has occurred, changed and improved between then and now.

However, unlike the United States, Commanders fans don't actually "own" anything concerning the franchise, and we don't actually "live" in Commanders Nation...so we don't have to accept every aspect of the franchise's history as part and parcel of being a Skins fan. If we "disown" any part of the Skins franchise's history, it simply means we refuse to let that aspect play any significant role in defining the franchise as a whole to us as fans...and we sure as hell won't let anyone else do so for us.

 

[Califan007]

Per Wiki

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

Robert Hale Ives Goddard, III (1941- ) is curator and senior linguist in the Department of Anthropology of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution. He is widely considered the leading expert on the Algonquian languages and the larger Algic language family.

Yeah, I've quoted from this same man's research in the past...and I've found that if someone is dead-set on claiming the term "Commander" has a racist and bigoted origin, they will simply claim that this guy is "just one guy" or (as Hostile alluded to) he must have an "agenda" lol...it always comes across more to me as "if you can't attack the logic and facts, attack the person delivering the logic and facts".

I'm not sure why anyone would unequivocally dismiss Goddard's research other than they just don't want to consider it.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I'm not sure why anyone would unequivocally dismiss Goddard's research other than they just don't want to consider it.

I didn't have time to read Goddard's research. But what got me was the claim that 30% of Native Americans and 40% of Native Americans who don't like the Commanders name means that the Native American activists are completely out of touch with their fellow Native Americans is absurd and screams an agenda.

Having been born and raised in Central New York, which has a heavy Native American population, 'anectdotal evidence' showed me that without question that Native Americans hate the Commanders name. I can tell you that if I said 'the Commanders beat the Giants today', they wouldn't take offense to that because of the context it was used in.

But, they don't like Washington using the name so they can line their pockets nor do they like the Cleveland Indians either.

I work in statistical research and we use polls from time to time. But one reason we don't use polls more is that they usually have flaws in them and many times the agenda of the people or the company behind the poll is there to give them the result they want. So knowing what I know from 'anectdotal evidence' and then seeing Goddard try to explain that Native American activists are 'out of touch' with fellow Native Americans, even though I wouldn't call 30% to 40% 'out of touch', sent off the signal that the poll was there to prove the Goddard belief and was probably filled with flaws.

I don't think anybody here is wanting Washington fans to give up rooting for their team or devalue their favorite team's past achievements because of the name of the Commanders...because winning 2 Super Bowls during the strike years did that.

And I don't feel that a Washington fan is 'racist' because they stick to the name the Commanders. But it certainly says 'being a racist against black people is bad, but okay against Native Americans' to the rest of society that gives a damn and just comes off as ignorant. And making up cockamamie excuses like 'what if I called them toads?' or whatever just makes it look worse. Did you root for them because they were named the 'Commanders' or did you root for them for other reasons? If it was the latter, I don't see why you would stop liking them because they went with a different name that wasn't a racial slur. In fact, I think you would be more proud of the team.





YR

 

[Hostile]

I think the answer should be beyond obvious, especially within the context of the discussion at the time. And just a refresher as to what that discussion was: Commanders fans taking pride in the accomplishments and achievements of the Skins teams, players and franchise as a whole in the pre-Super Bowl era...and the idea that those achievements should be devalued, ridiculed and diminished in our eyes.

Within that context, I correctly stated that while Skins fans happily and proudly "take" ownership of all of the franchise's past ups and downs, past glories and failures, we overwhelmingly do NOT put the racist attitudes of the past Commanders owner Marshall into that category. We don't deny it's a reality (which is what burying our heads in the sand would convey), instead we easily condemn his bigotry as a symptom of both the times and the individual man...nothing to be proud of as a Skins fan, to say the least, but also nothing to make us ashamed to BE Commanders fans of the franchise's entire run and history.

The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens are proud of their country and of being Americans...even with America's incredibly violent and disturbing history of racism in its past (and still in its present in pockets of instances). People of all colors, ethnicities and backgrounds are able to take pride in this country despite that history...and it's NOT by ignoring it or burying their heads in the ground. It's by understanding the realities of Life, of the past, and of human nature...and appreciating all that has occurred, changed and improved between then and now.

However, unlike the United States, Commanders fans don't actually "own" anything concerning the franchise, and we don't actually "live" in Commanders Nation...so we don't have to accept every aspect of the franchise's history as part and parcel of being a Skins fan. If we "disown" any part of the Skins franchise's history, it simply means we refuse to let that aspect play any significant role in defining the franchise as a whole to us as fans...and we sure as hell won't let anyone else do so for us.

Your answer is well thought out and delivered.

Thank you for actually taking the time to explain yourself. It wasn't that hard once you actually got into it was it?

Perhaps a lesson for the next time.

 

[Hostile]

Yeah, I've quoted from this same man's research in the past...and I've found that if someone is dead-set on claiming the term "Commander" has a racist and bigoted origin, they will simply claim that this guy is "just one guy" or (as Hostile alluded to) he must have an "agenda" lol...it always comes across more to me as "if you can't attack the logic and facts, attack the person delivering the logic and facts".

I'm not sure why anyone would unequivocally dismiss Goddard's research other than they just don't want to consider it.

Here's what you don't know about me. I am a writer. In particular non fiction. In particular History of the old west.

In other words, I can produce documented evidence of the use of the word Commander as a derogatory term. I have no doubt whatsoever that Mr. Goddard is an educated man. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is a successful man. Based on my own empirical research on the subject of Native Americans his conclusions are questionable.

Especially that the word is benign. I have already shared examples of people I actually know who are offended by the word. How then is it benign? Can you and your esteemed Goddard shills contact Mr. Goddard and have him explain this to me?

I'm really serious here Commanders fans. Do you deny that the word does offend some people? It is a really simple question.

If you acknowledge that some people are genuinely offended by the word and its connotations then please explain to me why their feelings don't matter.

Understand something else here please. Native Americans generally are a very silent group. They do not like to stir up controversy or trouble. In other words, I am telling you that many people who voted that the word is not offensive may have done so simply to not feel like they are causing alarm or discord. If you doubt this, I urge you to go talk to Native American studies professors.

Countless expert sources cite the word as offensive. Why does Goddard have more validity than all of those sources?

SHF asked me to produce polls showing that majorities polled find the word Offensive. I found a half dozen of them. Will their results matter to you?? I suspect not because you simply do not want to consider it.

I have seen first hand the offense of the word. Benign? I am never going to accept Mr. Goddard on that one. Would you if you had witnessed something? Please do not lie to me and say that you would because of his credentials. I am not a naive little boy. I guarantee you that someone with high credentials in some aspect of life has at one time or another pissed you off. So either tell me you blindly accept everything everybody says or that you too, like me, base your opinions on the experiences life has taught you.

If you want to call that me dismissing things simply because I don't agree with them, then buddy, be my guest and go find the sand to stick your head in.

 

[Vtwin]

This society is going straight into the gutter.

People just LOOKING for reasons to get upset.

Why on earth would any organization take a name for themselves which they thought to be a negative reference to an entire subset of the population?

Just the fact that teams have taken names referencing native americans and display these names and symbols PROUDLY when going into BATTLE should be perceived as an honor, not a slight.

I always wanted to be an "Commander" when we played cowboys and indians.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

Hmm.

I wonder if this is going to be ignored or not?













Interesting how the SI Poll is mentioned.

Now we are talking. This is what I have been looking for in this whole thread.

Let me go through them and I'll respond in a little while. Got a busy day at work, just wanted to drop this post so you know that I saw this.

 

[DallasEast]

This society is going straight into the gutter.

People just LOOKING for reasons to get upset.

Why on earth would any organization take a name for themselves which they thought to be a negative reference to an entire subset of the population?

Just the fact that teams have taken names referencing native americans and display these names and symbols PROUDLY when going into BATTLE should be perceived as an honor, not a slight.

I always wanted to be an "Commander" when we played cowboys and indians.

Probably due to differing mindsets. One mindset, belonging to Native Americans, is that they are proud of their heritage, yet take offensive to labels which they do not identify with their heritage. The other mindset, primarily held by non-Native Americans, is that they are proud of the perceived pride which Native Americans do not share since it is different from their own.

Differing mindsets have existed since the dawn of humanity. Only understanding and acceptance have ever provided avenues for universal mutual recognition. Since one group towers over the other, I am not certain if true mutual recognition will ever truly develop.

That is a shame. We, human beings, all over around this crazy world in all our varying colors, races and creeds have come such a long, long way from where we have come, but the fact remains that we still all have a long, long way to go. Perhaps one day people will deem something as uncool when someone else who they believe should think the exact way as themselves does not agree.

/rant

 

[Hostile]

This society is going straight into the gutter.

People just LOOKING for reasons to get upset.

Why on earth would any organization take a name for themselves which they thought to be a negative reference to an entire subset of the population?

Just the fact that teams have taken names referencing native americans and display these names and symbols PROUDLY when going into BATTLE should be perceived as an honor, not a slight.

I always wanted to be an "Commander" when we played cowboys and indians.

I agree with everything you said to a degree, except the part in bold. I am genuinely the exact opposite. I am not a PC person. I can cite examples for you if you doubt this, but in the thread is not appropriate. So PM me to ask if you wish.

Let's look at the facts shall we? In the 1930's this country was not PC. Especially as it pertained to racial topics. Please acknowledge this and let's not need to show a History of racism in America. In other words, if Washington was getting an expansion team in the NFL, in the post Civil Rights Movement era, I do not believe there would be public support for the mascot name Commanders.

The existing public support is entirely about the love they have for their team, not about what is right and what is wrong.

If you disagree with this, please tell me why.

I believe the Civil Rights Movement moved this country forward. I also believe that Native Americans have been too slow to demand their civil rights. One such is not to have a derogatory word as a descriptor.

Is that too much to ask?

If not, then how is it an example of searching for things to be offended by?

I look forward to your answers.

 

[Hostile]

I have a very good friend who is a college professor of Linguistics. In particular he is considered the most promising scholar of Native American languages in the US. I am quite proud to consider him a friend. Pardon me if I keep his identity private since I did not ask his permission to share his name.

I sent him an e-mail this morning about Mr. Goddard's article. I am amazed at how fast he responded. Here is his response. I am not going to use the quote function because I don't want his response truncated. I am going to bold the parts I wish to emphasize.

"Hey Mike.

Would this be Ives Goddard from the Smithsonian? Hang on ... Ah. I found the article that I think your discussant is citing.

The article is only about the origins of the term 'Commander'. Goddard's contention is that it is an Indian coinage and not something that white people came up with. I just skimmed the article, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of whether the term is currently benign or offensive with two exceptions:

1) The introduction refers to a court case brought against Pro-Football, Inc (specifically the Washington Commanders) by a Cheyenne-Creek Indian activist. (She lost.) For Goddard, the issue is the faulty etymology of the term 'Commander' cited by the activist, and not its (in)appropriateness as a term for Indians/Native Americans. The article then deals with the origins and earliest attestations of the term.

2) The second mention of current controversy is the last sentence, which I quote in full: "The descent of this word into obloquy [censure, blame, or abusive langauge aimed at a person or thing, especially by numerous persons or by the general public.] is a phenomenon of more recent times." From this sentence, it is clear that Goddard considers the term disparaging.

So Goddard's article as it stands cannot support the argument that the term 'Commander' is benign. Tell your interlocutor to read it in full. (I'm attaching it so that you can read it yourself; it's pretty dry reading but that's what you get with etymological discussions.)

If you really want to know if the term is offensive, ask some Indians. They will either say "yes" or "no" and you'll have your answer (there's nothing like real data to settle an argument . It doesn't matter much what white people think is offensive or not: it matters what Indians think.

Hope that helps. Let me know what happens."



Gee, his advice sounds surprisingly like my contentions. It is also interesting that he defines Mr. Goddard's work a lot differently than has been presented here. Also note, that he knew who Goddard was as he clearly asked his name to begin the e-mail. I also find it enlightening that he used the words "etymological discussions," which is exactly what I have maintained this topic really is. I did not prompt him in any way. I merely asked him if he knew of a Mr. Goddard who described the word "Commanders" as benign.

You want scholarly response...there it is.

 

[Vtwin]

I agree with everything you said to a degree, except the part in bold. I am genuinely the exact opposite. I am not a PC person. I can cite examples for you if you doubt this, but in the thread is not appropriate. So PM me to ask if you wish.

Let's look at the facts shall we? In the 1930's this country was not PC. Especially as it pertained to racial topics. Please acknowledge this and let's not need to show a History of racism in America. In other words, if Washington was getting an expansion team in the NFL, in the post Civil Rights Movement era, I do not believe there would be public support for the mascot name Commanders.

The existing public support is entirely about the love they have for their team, not about what is right and what is wrong.

If you disagree with this, please tell me why.

I believe the Civil Rights Movement moved this country forward. I also believe that Native Americans have been too slow to demand their civil rights. One such is not to have a derogatory word as a descriptor.

Is that too much to ask?

If not, then how is it an example of searching for things to be offended by?

I look forward to your answers.

I also agree with everything you say, except for the part in bold.

The fact that the name was picked in the extremely non-PC climate of the 30's helps to make my point. Why would an organization choose a descriptor that was widely viewed as derogatory?

I do wonder why the Native Americans would find it derogatory when used as a symbol of pride, power and will. That is my point.

In the context of using these terms to represent an organization in a positive light the offended are looking for a reason to be offended in my opinion. I personally would take pride in that scenario.

If anyone starts a team and calls it the Skinny, White, *******es I might have to switch my allegiance.

 

[Hostile]

I also agree with everything you say, except for the part in bold.

The fact that the name was picked in the extremely non-PC climate of the 30's helps to make my point. Why would an organization choose a descriptor that was widely viewed as derogatory?

I do wonder why the Native Americans would find it derogatory when used as a symbol of pride, power and will. That is my point.

In the context of using these terms to represent an organization in a positive light the offended are looking for a reason to be offended in my opinion. I personally would take pride in that scenario.

If anyone starts a team and calls it the Skinny, White, *******es I might have to switch my allegiance.

The answer is in the question. They chose it because at that time there was not PC pressure on them not to use a derogatory name. Look no further than Hollywood for examples of the negative portrayal of Native Americans in general. It wasn't until around the 1960's that some actors and directors began to tell things from the Indian perspective now and then.

Let's not forget that it took public pressure to remove the N word from being an acceptable racial descriptor in this country. That is all this is. A call to do what is right. The word Commander is exactly the same as calling a Black man a ******. There is no difference.

You admit the mascot name would not have public approval today. That should be a huge clue that it is lacking in good taste to use it.

Lastly, the use of the symbol as a source of pride. I partially agree with this. I believe that is why some Native Americans vote that they are not offended as well as the reason I stated earlier. They see someone trying to use the mascot as a means to win. I understand that. I always have.

Let me throw out a few expansion team names for you to consider.

The Hollywood Hebrews
The Nashville ******s
The Tucson Mexicans
The Las Vegas Honkeys

Would any of them fly? There's no difference. Not one single shred of difference. These teams would fight just like the Commanders do to show a sense of civic pride. It just isn't a good enough excuse to keep the name and it isn't a reason to keep it at all.

The bottom line is, there are people offended. I cannot in good conscience say that their feelings do not matter or that they should simply shut up and accept the fact that it is not going to change. If you can, good for you I suppose.

Lastly, it is a well known fact that George Preston Marshall was a racist. Even knowledgeable Commanders fans are not denying this. Isn't it the least bit likely that his choice of this particular mascot name really was more evidence of his racist mores? If not, please explain to me why they went from Braves to Commanders when they moved across Boston yet kept Commanders when they moved from Boston to Washington, DC.

If the name was indeed a tribute to Sonny Dietz as the revisionist History claims, why was he already using a Native American mascot before Dietz was even hired and why did he keep it long after Dietz was gone?

It's time to cowboy up and admit the truth. The name is offensive.