Washington Post: New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Commanders name

[Califan007]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?tid=sm_tw


"Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the team’s name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39.

Even 9 in 10 of those who have heard a great deal about the controversy say they are not bothered by the name.

What makes those attitudes more striking: The general public appears to object more strongly to the name than Indians do."

***********************

So it looks like you are free to keep hating the Commanders heh heh...you don't even have to worry about making up new insulting team names for awhile, you can stick to Foreskins lol *thumbsup*...

 

[StarBoyz83]

I'm suprised the name isn't changed already. It will be changed by 2019

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

I'm suprised the name isn't changed already. It will be changed by 2019

Is Snyder going to have a heart attack or stroke before then? Because if he isn't incapacitated or dead then it isn't going to happen.

 

[StarBoyz83]

Is Snyder going to have a heart attack or stroke before then? Because if he isn't incapacitated or dead then it isn't going to happen.

Don't see how he has a choice. They changed NBA team names quickly.

Just realized I read it wrong. I thought it said are offended lol

 

[Califan007]

Just realized I read it wrong. I thought it said are offended lol

I was about to say lol...

 

[Manwiththeplan]

My question would be, since there are more than 5 million people who identify as Native American, why is it no big deal that 500,000 are offended by the name? And before anyone says it, no you could not get 500,000 people to say they are offended by any other team name. Maybe the Indians, however I would say the logo is what is offensive. I'd also guess, you could not reach 500,000 even if you added the number of people offended by every other NFL team, NBA team, MLB team (minus Cleveland), MLS team or NHL team. I just think it's incredibly arrogant to tell someone what they should or should not be offended by, when the thing in question is specific to their race and not yours. For the 4,500,000 people who identify as Native American who aren't offended, good for them, I just don't think it's right to basically say **** off, which is what Snyder has done to the 500,000 that are offended.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

And I have asked it before and have NEVER received an answer, but to anyone who defends Snyder for standing up to the PC crowd, please tell me how his stance is not anything but self serving hypocrisy considering he sued the Washington city paper for defamation and accused them of Anti-Semitism for this article http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...he-cranky-Commanders-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder and this drawing



Yes, to him that picture was Anti-Semitic, but the name Commanders is fine? Someone please explain how this is not hypocrisy at it's worse!?

 

[AbeBeta]

My question would be, since there are more than 5 million people who identify as Native American, why is it no big deal that 500,000 are offended by the name? And before anyone says it, no you could not get 500,000 people to say they are offended by any other team name. Maybe the Indians, however I would say the logo is what is offensive. I'd also guess, you could not reach 500,000 even if you added the number of people offended by every other NFL team, NBA team, MLB team (minus Cleveland), MLS team or NHL team. I just think it's incredibly arrogant to tell someone what they should or should not be offended by, when the thing in question is specific to their race and not yours. For the 4,500,000 people who identify as Native American who aren't offended, good for them, I just don't think it's right to basically say **** off, which is what Snyder has done to the 500,000 that are offended.

This.

One in every 10 native people being offended by the name is pretty substantial.

I expect many that weren't personally offended by the name don't even have this on their radar of annoyances as many Native people - particularly those living on reservations - have far more serious and pressing issues to deal with. That doesn't give license to continue to use a derogatory name.

 

[Califan007]

My question would be, since there are more than 5 million people who identify as Native American, why is it no big deal that 500,000 are offended by the name? And before anyone says it, no you could not get 500,000 people to say they are offended by any other team name. Maybe the Indians, however I would say the logo is what is offensive. I'd also guess, you could not reach 500,000 even if you added the number of people offended by every other NFL team, NBA team, MLB team (minus Cleveland), MLS team or NHL team. I just think it's incredibly arrogant to tell someone what they should or should not be offended by, when the thing in question is specific to their race and not yours. For the 4,500,000 people who identify as Native American who aren't offended, good for them, I just don't think it's right to basically say **** off, which is what Snyder has done to the 500,000 that are offended.

What if 100,000 people say they are offended? What then?...I mean, it's only 2% of the people, but 100,000 people is a substantial number of people, wouldn't you say? What about 50,000? Is that too many still? Is 10,000 people offended way too many people to ignore? What should be the cut off number in terms of overall number of people, since we're not going on percentages.

I think the main point is, while 500,000 is a significant number of people, it's nowhere near as significant as 4.5 million people. So the goal is to show that the term is offensive and racist, regardless of the number of people. It has actually never been shown to any conclusive degree that 'Commander' is an obvious offensive racial slur. The overwhelming majority of Native Americans themselves say they aren't offended by it, which underscores that fact.

As for the logo being what is offensive, just a reminder that it was a Native American who designed the logo...they heard that the Commanders were going to go with a logo that de-emphasized the Indian connection and the Indian community didn't want that to happen:

"Blackie Wetzel was once president of the National Congress of American Indians and worked toward getting housing and job training for Native Americans. Photos from the 1960s show him with President John F. Kennedy, whom he counted as a friend.

In a 2002 interview with The Washington Post, Blackie Wetzel said he had taken pictures of Indians in full headdress to the Commanders’ office and told officials he’d like to see one on the helmet. Within weeks, the new logo was chosen and appeared on helmets in 1972. “It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team,” he said at the time. “It’s only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians.”

[...]The one thing (Wetzel's son) said is not debatable: His father would have wanted him to visit the team, one he remained loyal to until his death in 2003.

A year earlier, the two were watching television when the Commanders came on the screen. Wetzel said (Blackie's) voice was faint, but he could hear him say, “They still have that on their helmets.”


*************

You'd be real hard-pressed to convince me that the Skins emblem should be seen as offensive.

 

[Califan007]

And I have asked it before and have NEVER received an answer, but to anyone who defends Snyder for standing up to the PC crowd, please tell me how his stance is not anything but self serving hypocrisy considering he sued the Washington city paper for defamation and accused them of Anti-Semitism for this article http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...he-cranky-Commanders-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder and this drawing



Yes, to him that picture was Anti-Semitic, but the name Commanders is fine? Someone please explain how this is not hypocrisy at it's worse!?

Apples and oranges.

The pic you show is a slander against a specific person and the intent was TO slander him.

Commander isn't aimed at a specific person but is instead aimed at the team...and there is in no way an intent to slander or disparage anyone.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Apples and oranges.

The pic you show is a slander against a specific person and the intent was TO slander him.

Commander isn't aimed at a specific person but is instead aimed at the team...and there is in no way an intent to slander or disparage anyone.

You completely glossed over the fact that he said that picture was Anti-Semitic...he played the race card for drawing devil horns and a beard on him, but completely dismisses people who think Commanders is offensive

 

[Manwiththeplan]

As for the logo being what is offensive, just a reminder that it was a Native American who designed the logo...they heard that the Commanders were going to go with a logo that de-emphasized the Indian connection and the Indian community didn't want that to happen

No, I was saying the Cleveland Indians logo is offensive, not the Commanders logo.

 

[Califan007]

You completely glossed over the fact that he said that picture was Anti-Semitic...he played the race card for drawing devil horns and a beard on him, but completely dismisses people who think Commanders is offensive

And you completely glossed over the fact that since those two situations are not the same, there is no hypocrisy on Snyder's part. Besides, just because Snyder doesn't agree that "Commanders" is an offensive racial slur doesn't mean he gives up his right to defend himself against perceived racial slurs aimed at him.

 

[Califan007]

No, I was saying the Cleveland Indians logo is offensive, not the Commanders logo.

Ah, gotcha lol...I read your sentences mashed together, it seems.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

And you completely glossed over the fact that since those two situations are not the same, there is no hypocrisy on Snyder's part. Besides, just because Snyder doesn't agree that "Commanders" is an offensive racial slur doesn't mean he gives up his right to defend himself against perceived racial slurs aimed at him.

Not what I'm saying. The hypocrisy is he has no problem using the race card when he feels slighted, but is not even open to the idea that the team name may be offensive, because he has never said anything that would make one even believe that he cares if people are offended.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?tid=sm_tw


"Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the team’s name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39.

Even 9 in 10 of those who have heard a great deal about the controversy say they are not bothered by the name.

What makes those attitudes more striking: The general public appears to object more strongly to the name than Indians do."

***********************

So it looks like you are free to keep hating the Commanders heh heh...you don't even have to worry about making up new insulting team names for awhile, you can stick to Foreskins lol *thumbsup*...

It's all bs.

Until I see hundreds or thousands or real, full blooded Native Americans picketing and protesting at Danny's stadium. I call bs.

You could easily say it's paying tribute to them.
The Indians themselves gave themselves the name "red skin"

 

[AbeBeta]

.
The Indians themselves gave themselves the name "red skin"

Yeah and African Americans once favored the term Negro. They later rejected the term because of its association with oppression and segregation.

Context changes. Your argument that "they called themselves that" is a complete failure.

 

[Idgit]

Wonder why the WaPo title didn't read "Washington Post: New poll finds 9 in 10 Commanders aren’t offended by Commanders name".

Just kidding. I know why it doesn't say that.

 

[Califan007]

Yeah and African Americans once favored the term Negro. They later rejected the term because of its association with oppression and segregation.

Context changes. Your argument that "they called themselves that" is a complete failure.

It's not a failure in the context of the word 'Commander' claiming to be rooted in bigotry, racism and violence....which is the argument being put forth by the Name Change proponents.

And for the record, blacks didn't reject "Negro" because of its association with oppression and segregation. It was rejected by a sesgment of the black community--mostly of the younger generation in the 60s and 70s when self-identity was a significant topic and desire. It was more a generational issue than one of rejecting the name due to association with oppression and segregation.

Anyone in my age range probably remembers this clip lol:

 

[revospeed]

Is the nickname "Cowboys" meant to honor ranch hands? Doesn't seem to be the case with Rowdy. As a person who grew up on a ranch, I'm offended.

As a person of Irish descent, I'm offended that a school started by French priests can have a mascot like "Fighting Irish". Why not just put a bottle of Jameson in his hand and really play up the stereotype of drukenly, fighting Irishmen?

If you want to say that Commanders is offensive, then you better be prepared to be offended by every human-based mascot.