The problem with this seemingly never-ending debate is that it's way too full of half-truths, urban myths, talking points and righteous indignation. I prefer to argue and debate facts rather than individual perceptions.
And when it comes to facts, I prefer to rely on detailed research done by expert linguists rather than anecdotal "proof" by individuals that can't be proven or disproven.
Awhile ago I ran across a letter that a Native American woman wrote to some newspaper, I think:
Dear Editor; It was brought to my attention that some were asking if the term "Commander" was really offensive to Indians and that they would like to hear from us on this subject. Well, here you are...I am Blackfoot, Cherokee and Choctaw...and yes, the term is extremely offensive to me. Let me explain why. Back not so long ago, when there was a bounty on the heads of the Indian people...the trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with the other skins that they had managed to trap or shoot. These scalps brought varying prices as did the skins of the animals. The trappers would tell the trading post owner or whoever it was that he was dealing with, that he had 2 bearskins, a couple of beaver skins...and a few scalps. Well, the term "scalp" offended the good Christian women of the community and they asked that another term be found to describe these things. So, the trappers and hunters began using the term "Commander"...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deer skins....and "Commanders." The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp...thus the term "red"...skin because it was the "skin" of an "animal" just like the others that they had...so, it became "Commanders". So, you see when we see or hear that term...we don't see a football team...we don't see a game being played...we don't see any "honor"...we see the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off of our men, women and even our children...we hear the screams as our people were killed...and "skinned" just like animals. So, yes, Mr./Ms. Editor...you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.
The only problem here?
That story has never been proven to be even slightly true.
This poor woman claims she "sees the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off our men, women and even our children" when she hears the name "Commanders". But it's not history that put that associated that image with the term "Commander"...it's political activists who put those images in her head. Suzan Harjo was the one who first pushed the idea that "Commander" derived from what bounty hunters called the scalps of Native Americans. But even SHE acknowledges that there is nothing that proves this directly or even indirectly:
There are some who claim that the "scalp evidence" has nothing to do with Indian or bloody skin, because they cannot find the words skin or red in bounty documents. They do not allow that scalp is skin, and that the skin of the head, with or without hair, is insufficient evidence of gender or age. (They also claim that native people introduced themselves as "Red Skin", because that's how Europeans translated to English what native men said in their tribal languages, when they likely said they were a Red, Blood, or Related Person or Man.)
If you are even remotely intellectually honest, you'll laugh your *** off at her rationalizations in that paragraph lol...
First, she says that while neither the words "Red" OR "Skin"--nonetheless "Commander"--have been shown in any bounty documents, the fact that scalps are made of skin is more than enough proof that "Commander" originated from this barbaric practice. "Blood is red, and scalps are made of skin" seems to be her "evidence" as to the origins of "Commander".
Second, she says that a scalp by itself is insufficient evidence that it's the scalp of a Native American. Hence the reason they started using "Commander". But if the scalp itself is not sufficient enough to prove it's from a Native American, how is simply
calling it a "Commander" suddenly considered sufficient proof? lol...jeebus.
Lastly, she ends up completely dismissing the factual, written word accounts from both private citizens, historians, linguists and even the U.S. government as simply "white men must have misunderstood" it when any Native Americans called themselves a "Red Skin" or "Red Man"...then--get this--goes on to say the NA's "likely said they were a Red, Blood, or Related Person or Man".
Did you get that?...If any Native Americans at the time said the words "Red" or "Blood" to describe and define themselves, we shouldn't read anything into it concerning the origins of "Commander"....yet if documents and written records about bounties for Native American scalps don't even
mention the words "Red" or "Skin" in them, we should still make the assumption that "Commander" derived from there lol!
My own views on the debate:
1) The "How would you feel if they were called the Blackskins?" argument (the one above). Commander does not equate to Brownskin, Yellowskin, Blackskin, or any other moronic example along those lines. It's actually rather insulting to apply a "one size fits all" approach towards the very real histories of different racial groups and the terms/names that have been applied to them in efforts to control and subjugate. It's like those who insist(ed) in calling Bush and Obama "Hitler" and likening America to **** Germany.
2) The "Commander comes from native Americans being scalped" myth. Nobody who repeats this nonsense has ever actually done research on the name...they just repeat talking points.
3) "Commander is an unequivocal racial slur" stance. The reality is more along the lines of "If you really squint enough and let your mind bend in certain directions, you can probably imagine a scenario in which someone would call a native American a 'Commander' in an attempt to insult them."
4) "The majority of Native Americans find the name offensive" stance. Taking this stance ignores the numerous native American schools who use the name 'Commanders' for their team/mascot, the very real history of how the Skins got their helmet logo, the actual origin of the term, the actual reasons for naming the team "Commanders", and a whole host of other aspects, facts and issues concerning the name...and instead have decided that a poll taken last Tuesday automatically trumps every argument and stance in existence.
5) "Times have changed, people are offended by the name now" argument. This one pretty much says the only thing that matters is how we feel today. Only, that's NOT the only thing that matters.
Anyone uses any of those arguments above, I automatically know they're clueless on the subject. There IS an intelligent discussion to have on the topic, but as long as the stuff above keeps dictating the direction of the discussion it means an intelligent debate will never occur.
