Snyder Says Commanders name will never change

[Carl23]

Now if you want to come out and say "I don't care that it offends someone" then just say that. You can't make everyone happy.

The only real argument against the name change is that it doesn't seem like many Native Americans are speaking out against it, meaning they're not terribly offended by the moniker.

I'll go with the "I don't care that it offends someone" for $20, Bob.

Really, does it have to be Native Americans that are offended? Hell, I'm white and I *sometimes* get offended when people use the N-Word. Other times, it doesn't bother me. I guess it is the context of the use of the word that is important to me.

So, in the case of the Commanders, I believe that the team (and fans) use the term in a respectful way. Their fans are proud of their team and they are proud of the name (as they should be as members of the NFCE).

 

[RFKFedEx]

Was history "kind" to GPM? No, and he didn't deserve for it to be.

He's been honored time and again. GPM has his own monument outside of RFK Stadium (still displayed), the lower level portion of seating at FedEx Field was named the GPM Lower level in 1997 (not a joke), and he was a member of the innaugural class of the Pro FB HoF in 1962.

None of the above would happen today, but we can't erase history. What and how we choose to celebrate is ever evolving. Sports fandom is part of the big picture.

Not changing the Skins' name is nowhere near the same importance or on the same level as enforcing segregation on his team and promoting it league-wide (or in Wallace's case doing so in public schools and announcing it on public school steps to the media).

Values change as we evolve. A majority of people didn't have a problem with GPM in the 1950s. We've learned a lot in society since those days.

 

[Califan007]

He's been honored time and again. GPM has his own monument outside of RFK Stadium (still displayed), the lower level portion of seating at FedEx Field was named the GPM Lower level in 1997 (not a joke), and he was a member of the innaugural class of the Pro FB HoF in 1962.

None of that is "history", though.

History is the telling of the "story" of an event, place or person. I was assuming "history" was being used as in how people look back at GPM's time as owner of the Skins, not how they viewed him at the time.

Values change as we evolve. A majority of people didn't have a problem with GPM in the 1950s. We've learned a lot in society since those days.

Actually a lot of owners had a problem with GPM's segretation tactics back then...not necessarily because of some overriding sense of doing what's right as much as they understood their teams had a lot to gain by expanding their talent base.

 

[Nova]

It's not irrelevant.

50 years ago Native Americans not only took pride in have the Commanders be called the Commanders, they actively participated in how the Commanders would present itself to the NFL and the world.

40 years later the majority of Native Americans said they didn't find "Commanders" offensive.

8 years after that, the majority of Native Americans said they do find the term offensive.

If you are saying private companies need to tailor their corporate identities solely to the whims and shifting sensitivities of an offended group, you're at best naive and at worst shortsighted. 20 years from now the majority of Native Americans might feel that, as long as the identity is respectful and consults with Native American groups on its identity, then everything's A-OK. Should the Skins then be allowed to return to being known as "Commanders"?

I'm not suggesting the Commanders change their name, I'm just saying why the defense of the name is BS... or at least the defenses presented in this thread which basically equate to 'They're wrong for being offended because we meant something else'.

If the Commanders don't care enough to change their name 'soley to the whims and shifting sensitivities of an offended group', then just own up to it and admit that the Commanders fiscal interest outweighs the feelings of the few.

Just admit you don't care that it offends.

It's also important to understand WHY the offended group feels offended. The last two official public "hearings" or panels or whatever they that the offended parties held mentioned the whole "Commander=Indian scalps" myth as one big reason why they feel the term if offensive. So should a company change it's brand name because of a belief in something that never happened? Again, if you think so you're at best naive and at worst shortsighted.

There needs to be something solid, concrete and factual to base a change of this magnitude on. Saying "They're offended" is none of those. And saying "it's just a football team" grossly underestimates exactly how much is tied up into corporate identities.

You would have to be naive to think that a word can't remain offensive even after it's derivation has been revealed and its victims enlightened.

Are you expecting them to say "Oh that's not what you meant? We have no problem then."? Because that's not what will happen.

 

[Nova]

I'll go with the "I don't care that it offends someone" for $20, Bob.

Really, does it have to be Native Americans that are offended? Hell, I'm white and I *sometimes* get offended when people use the N-Word. Other times, it doesn't bother me. I guess it is the context of the use of the word that is important to me.

So, in the case of the Commanders, I believe that the team (and fans) use the term in a respectful way. Their fans are proud of their team and they are proud of the name (as they should be as members of the NFCE).

No, no. It could be anyone that could be offended. I just used the group directly impacted by the term at hand here.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

But you have the actual people who are offended suing the team not once but multiple times....Sounds like they are offended to me.

There are five Native Americans in this one trademark lawsuit case. I am not aware of any other lawsuits the Washington Commanders have been involved in. There is likely more than five Native Americans provided in this very thread through documentation and video, have stated the opposite. Many of whom, are Chiefs who speak for their separate nations.

What seems more likely to you? Finding five individuals willing to claim they find a word offensive, or to get thousands of people to volunteer they feel pride and respect in a racist slang term?

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

It's not irrelevant.

50 years ago Native Americans not only took pride in have the Commanders be called the Commanders, they actively participated in how the Commanders would present itself to the NFL and the world.

40 years later the majority of Native Americans said they didn't find "Commanders" offensive.

8 years after that, the majority of Native Americans said they do find the term offensive.

If you are saying private companies need to tailor their corporate identities solely to the whims and shifting sensitivities of an offended group, you're at best naive and at worst shortsighted. 20 years from now the majority of Native Americans might feel that, as long as the identity is respectful and consults with Native American groups on its identity, then everything's A-OK. Should the Skins then be allowed to return to being known as "Commanders"?

It's also important to understand WHY the offended group feels offended. The last two official public "hearings" or panels or whatever they that the offended parties held mentioned the whole "Commander=Indian scalps" myth as one big reason why they feel the term if offensive. So should a company change it's brand name because of a belief in something that never happened? Again, if you think so you're at best naive and at worst shortsighted.

There needs to be something solid, concrete and factual to base a change of this magnitude on. Saying "They're offended" is none of those. And saying "it's just a football team" grossly underestimates exactly how much is tied up into corporate identities.

Agreed. I would actually be inclined to want the team to change the name if the word was actually used to offend Native Americans, or had ever been used in that manner.

That is why I did the research to find something concrete. If I was going to take this stance, I wanted to have documentation backing it up. What I found was quite the opposite. A negligent portion of an already small minority found the word offensive, the rest took pride in the word and knew it's roots. All historical documents show the word has never been a racist term, was originated from Native Americans, and all documentation saying the opposite has been proven false.

Furthermore, if people know the history of the word and it's actual use for the past 300+ years, and if there has been a misrepresentation of what that word means in the past decade, why aren't people more willing to educate the ignorant using the word incorrectly instead of taking legal action against a football team?

I equally blame the politicians and sportswriters who have been pretending this is some great travesty that must be corrected, and the Washington Commanders franchise who have made little effort in educating the public.

 

[sacase]

Whats the first thing (football) people think of when they hear the name George Preston Marshall?

Racist

 

[sacase]

There are five Native Americans in this one trademark lawsuit case. I am not aware of any other lawsuits the Washington Commanders have been involved in. There is likely more than five Native Americans provided in this very thread through documentation and video, have stated the opposite. Many of whom, are Chiefs who speak for their separate nations.

What seems more likely to you? Finding five individuals willing to claim they find a word offensive, or to get thousands of people to volunteer they feel pride and respect in a racist slang term?

They are going through the second lawsuit reference this. I am curious how things are going to play out. From what I gather they won the first only only on appeal due to laches (whatever the hell that is). Sounds like a technicality. The bad part for them is that the longer it goes on, then the more people become sensitive to it and become offended. Hell there is one instance of legislation about it as well as Vincent Grey's comments.

I am going to be strait with you. I have no dog in this hunt and I am not going to waste my time researching if or if not Commanders is racist. Do I think it is? I am not sure, but I can see how it is offensive. But please believe I will take pure pleasure if the Commanders loose their trademark and either change the name or loose millions of dollars of merchandise sales. Anything bad for the skins is a great thing. LOL

Synder comes off as being to prideful in this. I can understand his point, this is HIS team. He should also realize that we are living in a hypersensitive world and that each year, more and more people are going to consider Commanders offensive. Eventually enough people are going to be offended by it, rightly or wrongly. He could turn this into a press coup, work with the group to find a name that either celebrates American Indians in another way or find another name all together. Hell have fan voting. If he does it right he can come out on top and make a whole lot of money in the process and be a celebrated hero. Or he can be the stubborn rich guy who is to prideful to change. Either way it goes, this is not going to go away and more voices are going to call for change. Synder should realize that the Mob of Rome is against him on this.

 

[Cowboysfan570]

It will when they're forced to, just like how they didn't integrate until forced to by Kennedy.

But hey, if they want to continue their long tradition of defending bigotry so be it, it'll only make it more fun when they lose.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

It will when they're forced to, just like how they didn't integrate until forced to by Kennedy.

But hey, if they want to continue their long tradition of defending bigotry so be it, it'll only make it more fun when they lose.

I was not aware that Snyder has owned the team for that long. Thank you for enlightening me. Also, can you please elaborate on said bigotry they are defending?

Or perhaps, you should read the thread thoroughly before commenting further.

 

[Califan007]

If the Commanders don't care enough to change their name 'soley to the whims and shifting sensitivities of an offended group', then just own up to it and admit that the Commanders fiscal interest outweighs the feelings of the few.

Just admit you don't care that it offends.

If I don't care it's precisely because I wanted to understand why it did. The answers given to that question have failed on both a logic and a factual basis 99% of the time.

The opposite seems to be "I don't care why they're offended...I just care that they are." Not exactly the best stance to take when it comes to asking a multi-BILLION dollar company to change anything.

And I wish the "other side" who have been leading this charge would simply admit that it has ZERO to do with "Commander" being an offensive racial slur used throughout history, and own up to the fact that it's all about eliminating ALL aspects of using NA culture for sports teams. If I hear a single person say "It's not that the term 'Commander' is offensive, it's just that I don't want my culture being used as a symbol of a sports franchise," I'd never feel the need to talk about this topic. But that's not what's happening, is it? Nope.

Instead we are spoon-fed half-truths and urban myths about the term, factually incorrect information, and poll results are being treated as if the Word Of God. It's not enough to just want sports teams to stop using Native American culture out of respect...and these people know that. So instead they build lazy theories as to why "Commander" should be seen as blatantly offensive. They ignore their OWN history concerning the Skins using both the term and the helmet symbol, and prefer their concocted ones. They misrepresent the word, it's origins and definitely misrepresent stuff about the Commanders using the name.

Seriously ask yourself: why are they concentrating on the Commanders so much? There is a incredibly blatant reason for that, and it's NOT because "Commander" is the most offensive term and their emblem is the most offensive visual.

Just say "it has nothing to do with the term 'Commander'...it's has to do with wanting to eliminate all NA culture from sports franchises, period."

You would have to be naive to think that a word can't remain offensive even after it's derivation has been revealed and its victims enlightened.

Are you expecting them to say "Oh that's not what you meant? We have no problem then."? Because that's not what will happen.

I'm not expecting them to say anything. But I would LOVE It if they STOPPED saying the stuff which has been shown to be revisionist history in order to try and make their point. And I would love it if their supporters--of all colors--would stop using the thought that "Well, it's for a good cause so it doesn't matter if anything they say is true or not." lol...

 

[Califan007]

Here's another good article to add to the discussion:

Commanders Not So Black and White

...However, while I read the lines of debate in blogs or Facebook posts or comment sections, I can’t help but notice one glaring statement that’s always inserted into the debates: “Commanders” equals “scalp.” This conclusion originates from American Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo (Cheyenne and Muscogee) and a National Congress of American Indians’ brief.

.. Harjo’s team had previously claimed “Commander” derived from referring to bloody Indian scalps during the onset of the French and Indian War....

As appalling and emotionally appealing as it is, the Phips Proclamation doesn’t include the words “red skins” in it. Claiming “scalps” automatically means “red skins” is revisionist history, to be blunt. It was the Native Americans who first used the term “red” in order to differentiate between indigenous, white, and black people.

the earliest uses of “red skin” were in recorded statements from Natives by the French who generally traded amicably with them. The French were careful to denote the “red” distinction was made by Natives themselves....

Professor of Law and historian J. Gordon Hylton writes about the term, “…throughout the nineteenth century, the term was essentially neutral when used by whites, reflecting neither a particularly positive or particularly negative connotation.” Even Sitting Bull once remarked, “I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place.” Regardless, over the years, the scalp-equals-Commander theory has gained traction as well-meaning people took Harjo’s word on the matter as fact...

I can’t help but think how the banning of all Native American-related mascots would go over in my home state of Montana. It’d undoubtedly be ironic seeing as the reservation schools have names like the Browning and Lodge Grass Indians, the Heart Butte and Pryor Warriors, as well as the off-reservation but predominately Northern Cheyenne attended school of the St. Labre Braves just to mention a few. Go figure, the Navajo school in Teec Nos Pos, Arizona is called the Red Mesa Commanders, and there’s a 2002 Chris Eyre film that takes place on the Pine Ridge Reservation called “Skins.”

And although I don’t believe the Commanders and scalp theory was contrived with devious intent, remember, in the study of history, one should not let their own passions of today override existing facts of the past just because they don’t fit our own modern version of political correctness.

 

[Califan007]

I equally blame the politicians and sportswriters who have been pretending this is some great travesty that must be corrected, and the Washington Commanders franchise who have made little effort in educating the public.

Agree with all of that. And the Skins really do need better PR personnel handling this issue lol...there is an absolute monster way of responding to all of this, but the Skins haven't done it (not yet, anyway).

 

[RFKFedEx]

But I would LOVE It if they STOPPED saying the stuff which has been shown to be revisionist history in order to try and make their point.

So if people would lay off the name issue, you'd be cool with the movement to end unauthorized use of Native themes and imagery. Correct?

And I would love it if their supporters--of all colors--would stop using the thought that "Well, it's for a good cause so it doesn't matter if anything they say is true or not." lol...

There are several credible theories on the origins of the name, all of which are like deck chairs on the Titanic. None of those theories are going to reverse the growing sentiment of an increasingly educated public.

 

[Califan007]

So if people would lay off the name issue, you'd be cool with the movement to end unauthorized use of Native themes and imagery. Correct?

Not quite lol...what I said is I wouldn't be debating it like I am now. I'd still disagree, but there wouldn't be much TO debate. As it stands now, though, whenever something is presented and accepted as "fact" it begs to be researched. If it's shown to be inaccurate, I speak up. And when people in the media also report it as fact, it's beyond irritating because THEY should be doing this research themselves instead of just accepting everything at face value. And when my favorite team's history is being misrepresented and negatively defined through those inaccurate "facts", I definitely speak up.

However, if they took the stance I mentioned and that you just described, there are no "facts", only personal opinion and desire. And in my eyes it's a far better and far stronger case to make. "We want to have complete ownership of our culture" is a far more persuasive argument than what they're presenting now.

There are several credible theories on the origins of the name, all of which are like deck chairs on the Titanic. None of those theories are going to reverse the growing sentiment of an increasingly educated public.

Actually, the "growing sentiment" of the public is due largely to NOT being educated or informed. If this debate consisted ONLY of things that were factual, researched and of which there was ample evidence and proof, it would bore most people lol. Which of course is why the activists who are/were heading this movement stayed away from that angle...boredom never sparked outrage.

The more knowledgeable you are about "Commander", it's history and the team's use of the word, the less offended you're likely to be. I wish the public were becoming "increasingly educated" lol...

 

[muck4doo]

If a name change ever does occur they should change it to Pigskins. Makes sense for football, they can keep calling themselves "Skins", and hogs would would make more sense too. They could even keep the same damn helmets.

 

[Nova]

If I don't care it's precisely because I wanted to understand why it did. The answers given to that question have failed on both a logic and a factual basis 99% of the time.

The opposite seems to be "I don't care why they're offended...I just care that they are." Not exactly the best stance to take when it comes to asking a multi-BILLION dollar company to change anything.

And I wish the "other side" who have been leading this charge would simply admit that it has ZERO to do with "Commander" being an offensive racial slur used throughout history, and own up to the fact that it's all about eliminating ALL aspects of using NA culture for sports teams. If I hear a single person say "It's not that the term 'Commander' is offensive, it's just that I don't want my culture being used as a symbol of a sports franchise," I'd never feel the need to talk about this topic. But that's not what's happening, is it? Nope.

Instead we are spoon-fed half-truths and urban myths about the term, factually incorrect information, and poll results are being treated as if the Word Of God. It's not enough to just want sports teams to stop using Native American culture out of respect...and these people know that. So instead they build lazy theories as to why "Commander" should be seen as blatantly offensive. They ignore their OWN history concerning the Skins using both the term and the helmet symbol, and prefer their concocted ones. They misrepresent the word, it's origins and definitely misrepresent stuff about the Commanders using the name.

Seriously ask yourself: why are they concentrating on the Commanders so much? There is a incredibly blatant reason for that, and it's NOT because "Commander" is the most offensive term and their emblem is the most offensive visual.

Just say "it has nothing to do with the term 'Commander'...it's has to do with wanting to eliminate all NA culture from sports franchises, period."






I'm not expecting them to say anything. But I would LOVE It if they STOPPED saying the stuff which has been shown to be revisionist history in order to try and make their point. And I would love it if their supporters--of all colors--would stop using the thought that "Well, it's for a good cause so it doesn't matter if anything they say is true or not." lol...

With regard to the first part (I'm too lazy to break up quote blocks again), that's fair, but it doesn't change the fact that you, ultimately, don't care. That's not to say that you're an inherently evil or insensitive person.

You did your best to understand a logical reason why someone would be upset and you were unable to find a reason-- doesn't change the fact that that group is still upset.

It's a lot like having an unhappy girlfriend. You'll have no idea why they're upset, but they are and you just have to atone for it or admit that you couldn't care less because "whatever, she's just being dumb."

For the second part... somewhat closely related to the first part. Someone who is upset is typically a bit irrational. Usually their claims and demands are a bit irrational.

Like the example girlfriend, I think that the NA community has the right to complain if they feel that they're offended, regardless of reason or lack thereof since they are in fact the subject at hand.

Whether or not higher authorities should rule in there favor is another story.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

There are several credible theories on the origins of the name, all of which are like deck chairs on the Titanic. None of those theories are going to reverse the growing sentiment of an increasingly educated public.[/SIZE]

Theories are not facts, and cannot be credible until they are verified. If you have facts that show the origins of the word has a racist origin, please provide them.

Also, if the public is becoming increasingly educated on the issue they would be less inclined to want the name changed once they've learned what the word actually means.

 

[Idgit]

There's just no way around the fact that 'Commanders' is a team name that segments its population by skin color and that the group that's segmented that way is a group that's widely considered to have been disadvantaged by the majority on the basis of their culture, race, and heritage. While there's nothing inherently offensive about a skin color based classification of peoples, there are plenty of examples where differentiating on that superficial basis alone leads to bad will between the groups being segmented.

Yes, it's politically incorrect, and yes, that doesn't really matter to anybody.

Yes, it's racially insensitive to classify ethnic groups based off of something as superficial as the color of their skin.

Yes, some people find it offensive, and yes, other people don't.

And, no, the Commanders shouldn't be required to change their ill-advised and insensitive name just because a vocal minority want to find it very offensive.

At the end of the day, though enough people are bothered by it that it's become an issue your squatty little beelzebub of an owner felt the need to address it yet again. This little bit of prominent insensitivity is a drop in the bucket given the history of your team, but, yeah, it is another drop in a fairly deep bucket.