Snyder Says Commanders name will never change

[RFKFedEx]

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.

No facts. Can you provide some facts, or just theories like everyone else?

I find nearly all of the theories credible, but none of those theories are going to change the public's increasingly negative perception in 2013. The public knows more about the plight of Native American people today than we did in 1933, and society isn't going to drift in the opposit direction any time soon. The team name, imagery, and Native themes all fall under the same umbrella.

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.

Lawyering the details of body paint vs bloodied scalps is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Good luck with that PR campaign.

I still love the name and imagery, but I also understand why its time to evolve as a sports fan.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

No facts. Can you provide some facts, or just theories like everyone else?

:laugh2: Read the whole thread and look at the links I provided as well as the video interview of a Native American Chief.

I find nearly all of the theories credible, but none of those theories are going to change the public's increasingly negative perception in 2013. The public knows more about the plight of Native American people today than we did in 1933, and society isn't going to drift in the opposit direction any time soon. The team name, imagery, and Native themes all fall under the same umbrella.

I will say again, perceptions and theories are not truth. They are not facts. I am not going to believe that my opinion is more "credible" than someone else's. But I will honor facts over opinions. I am siding with the facts. Changing a professional football team's name, which most Native Americans are proud of, is doing nothing to improve things for Native Americans. If anything, it's doing the opposite since the majority of them are proud of the name.

Lawyering the details of body paint vs bloodied scalps is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Good luck with that PR campaign.

I have no idea what you're even talking about here. That argument is dead because one is a truth and the other is a lie. I don't need to be "lawyering" anything.

I still love the name and imagery, but I also understand why its time to evolve as a sports fan.

I so hate the word "evolve" when it comes to subjective opinions. I've heard it far too often recently when people are under the misguided notion that their opinion is somehow better than someone else's because it's newer. Here's a thought: new ideas can be just as bad or worse than old ideas. Some traditions don't need to be redefined or broken all in the name of "evolution" or "progress".

I swear people just try to BS their way into making their opinions valid. Why should this one Native American woman and her half a dozen friends speak for every Native American nation? It would be less ridiculous if they agreed with her, but they don't. She hasn't evolved, she's just ignorant.

 

[Califan007]

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 doesn't change that I don't care, but it DOES explain why I don't. Putting my comments in context, strangely enough, is important to me lol...

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."

I'm pretty sure those aren't the only two options lol..."Either say you're sorry or say she's being stupid."

I don't have to do either. I could also just let her be upset with the belief that eventually the truth will solve everything. She could actually have an incredibly valid reason for feeling like she does, but doesn't realize she's not voicing it (I have found women tend to do that, actually lol...they think they're telling you something when they really aren't). It could be that she misunderstood or perceived my words/actions completely wrong and is letting her emotions dictate reality.

I can't control what other people think or feel. So as long as I know I didn't do anything wrong there's no need to atone for anything and there's no need to sweep "her" and her feelings under the rug as irrelevant or "dumb". Just keep on going about my day/week/life and let her deal with what's really bothering her.

Now...if she takes me to COURT over these unexplained and confusing things bothering her, that's a whole different story lol...

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.

I've no problem with complaining. I do have problems with spreading false information as fact and seeing those "facts" be treated like carved-in-stone truths. I also have a huge problem when seeing someone trying to point out the inaccuracies being immediately dismissed as "blind follower" or "racist" or "unenlightened" or any other terms. I equally have a problem with people who won't let facts sway them in their beliefs one way or another. The whole "I don't care about facts, all I know is..." mentality is incredibly frustrating to see people take on any issue.

 

[Califan007]

This comment from yet another article kind of sums up the aspects of this whole debate that gets me frustrated:

Other than reiterating the unsubstantiated and implausible theory that the term owes its origin to scalping, Harjo and others have merely waved their hands, asserting that as Indians they know differently without presenting any evidence whatsoever. A typical example is found in this Native Village article, which quotes Harjo as follows:

I'm very familiar with white men who uphold the judicious speech of white men. Europeans were not using high-minded language. [To them] we were only human when it came to territory, land cessions and whose side you were on.

The only point here that even resembles an argument is the bald assertion that Europeans never spoke of Indians other than disparagingly. This is not true. Evidence to the contrary is explicitly cited by Goddard. What is more disturbing is that Harjo's primary response to Goddard is ad hominem: that as a white man what he says is not credible. Whether he is white, red, or green is of course utterly irrelevant, as thinking people have known since at least the Middle Ages. Goddard presents his evidence in detail, with citations to the original sources. You can evaluate it yourself, and you need not rely on his statements of fact but can, if you are willing to devote some time and effort, check out the sources yourself. Furthermore, without the slightest evidence Harjo imputes to Goddard not merely bias but racism, a charge which, based, as her own words reveal, entirely on racial stereotyping, merely reflects back on herself.

See, it's not just about being factually correct...it's also about the entire mindset that is behind this movement against the Commanders. Since Harjo has been one of the main people leading this charge, it's rather enlightening to see her express herself in the ways she has. Again, ask yourself "Why the Commanders?"...it will (or should) tell you a ****load as to what this is really about. Because it ain't about "Commander" being an unforgivable offensive racial slur.

 

[muck4doo]

If it makes you feel any better Skins fans, I think you should be able to keep your name no matter how racist it or your history is. I hate Mara and the Gnats more right now.

 

[Sonny#9]

Then there's this too: http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports...cle_26b0f8d8-eb22-52f0-87df-c05e24bbfc0e.html

“It doesn’t bother me,” said Robert Green, 66 and chief of the Patawomeck Tribe in Virginia. “About 98 percent of my tribe is Commanders fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either.”
Kevin Brown, 58 and chief of the Pamunkey Tribe of Virginia, said, “I’m a Commanders fan, and I don’t think there’s any intention for (the nickname) to be derogatory. The majority of the people in my tribe don’t have a problem with it. There are a few who do, and we respect their feelings.
“I like the uniforms. I like the symbol (logo).”
G. Anne Richardson, chief of Virginia’s Rappahannock Tribe, had to stifle a laugh when asked her feelings on the Commanders’ nickname.
“I don’t have an issue with it,” she said. “There are so many more issues that are important for the tribe than to waste time on what a team is called. We’re worried about real things, and I don’t consider that a real thing.

 

[SkinsFan28]

Then there's this too: http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports...cle_26b0f8d8-eb22-52f0-87df-c05e24bbfc0e.html

from the article:

“We’re more worried about our kids being educated, our people housed, elder care and the survival of our culture. We’ve been in that survival mode for 400 years. We’re not worried about how some ball team is named.”


But if the ball team did not have a nickname some believe denigrates an indigenous culture, those making decisions to provide money for education, housing, elder care and the preservation of that culture might take the issues more seriously.


“That has nothing to do with why we don’t receive the benefits we deserve,” Richardson said. “Congress is not willing to do what they need to do so we will get what we deserve.

Wow, what an epic failure of logic on the writer's part. At least I am glad the lady responding had more sense than him.

 

[zrinkill]

Change the race and there would be outrage.

Skin fans can try to make excuses all they want ..... buts its a fact that if you changed the race it would be a different story.

 

[Sonny#9]

Change the race and there would be outrage.

Skin fans can try to make excuses all they want ..... buts its a fact that if you changed the race it would be a different story.

I am going to respond to you just once, simply b/c this one-size-fits-all view of racism is bunk. Example:

The United Negro College Fund. Make it for poor white kids. Have fun with Al Sharpton.

 

[Califan007]

Change the race and there would be outrage.

Skin fans can try to make excuses all they want ..... buts its a fact that if you changed the race it would be a different story.

Incredibly flawed, simplistic logic.

For example:

The NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The NAAWP - National Association for the Advancement of White People.

People with working brain cells will realize that simply "changing the race" doesn't tell you squat about either example. Context means everything. Your response considered absolutely none.

 

[zrinkill]

I am going to respond to you just once, simply b/c this one-size-fits-all view of racism is bunk. Example:

The United Negro College Fund. Make it for poor white kids. Have fun with Al Sharpton.

Incredibly flawed, simplistic logic.

For example:

The NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The NAAWP - National Association for the Advancement of White People.

People with working brain cells will realize that simply "changing the race" doesn't tell you squat about either example. Context means everything. Your response considered absolutely none.

Both of you just proved my point ...... grats

 

[SkinsFan82]

Both of you just proved my point ...... grats

I think you misunderstood their point.

Your logic is that if the name was changed to the Washington N-Words that there wouldn't be any discussion to be had, it would be straight up wrong and nothing left to be said.

The problem is that Commanders and 'N word' aren't equivalent terms and it seems that a very large portion of the Native American population don't feel they are either.

Obviously there are Native Americans that feel it's a slur and even the Chiefs that have spoken on behalf of their people (representing hundreds or even thousands of people) said that while most have no issue or even take pride in the team name that some people view it as a slur and that is their right to do so.

The point of the other posters is you can't just swap in any racial slur because to a lot of Native Americans it's not a slur.

To me the question in all this is what is the pain of those who view it as a slur in comparison to those who view it as a source of pride and a tribute to warrior heritage of their ancestors? I know a lot of non-Native Americans don't want to acknowledge this but it's not a cut-and-dry situation like they would like to believe.

Edit : Just to be clear, you can't use the term 'Blackskins' as an equivalent either, because the origin of the term 'Commanders' isn't a reference to natural skin tone but of face paint.

 

[zrinkill]

the origin of the term 'Commanders' isn't a reference to natural skin tone but of face paint.

Bull ...... thats what people say to deflect the accusation of racism ..... but there is as much evidence that it was about skin than it was not.

 

[muck4doo]

Bull ...... thats what people say to deflect the accusation of racism ..... but there is as much evidence that it was about skin than it was not.

Leave the Commanders and their racist team be. They have earned their racist heritage, so leave it alone. You just don't get heritage like that out of straw.

 

[slaga]

Change the race and there would be outrage.

Skin fans can try to make excuses all they want ..... buts its a fact that if you changed the race it would be a different story.

Well let's see. Vikings, Celtics, Irish, Aztecs, Eskimos, Indians, Canucks, Apaches, Redmen, etc. There are a whole slew of team names based on race / ethnicity that are not being sued.

Nope. I think you are wrong.

 

[Doomsday101]

Well let's see. Vikings, Celtics, Irish, Aztecs, Eskimos, Indians, Canucks, Apaches, Redmen, etc. There are a whole slew of team names based on race / ethnicity that are not being sued.

Nope. I think you are wrong.

People want attention this is a good way to get it.

 

[Califan007]

Both of you just proved my point ...... grats

Actually I don't think you understood your own point lol...

Which was, if you change the race, you'll see just how offensive the original was/is. Change "Commanders" to "Blackskins", and you'll understand why "Commanders" should be seen as racist.

We both debunked that crappy logic with our examples.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

What else is she supposed to say? She's trying to argue that her culture is being disparaged. She'd be an idiot to say, "use this aspect of my culture but not that aspect for your team names".

Times change as do cultural norms and opinions on what is acceptable and what is not.

"Warrior" is not a term that has any ties to one certain culture or race of people. The fact that she said she'd still be offended by that name shows me where her true intentions are.

As for what is socially acceptable nowadays, i think we have much, MUCH bigger issues to tackle rather than a couple sports team names that are steeped in tradition.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

"Warrior" is not a term that has any ties to one certain culture or race of people. The fact that she said she'd still be offended by that name shows me where her true intentions are.

As for what is socially acceptable nowadays, i think we have much, MUCH bigger issues to tackle rather than a couple sports team names that are steeped in tradition.

Agreed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the slippery slope argument also works the other way.