Oh I thought the "aboriginal" people of North America crossed over from what is now the Russo/Chinese areas - the land bridge to Alaska. Does arriving by foot count differently than arriving by boat?
I don't care if they keep the name Redskins or not but since "The People Who Walked Here From Beyond The Big Blue Wobbly Thing" don't have red skins (and no-one thinks they do), they must be self-labelling. That being so, it makes as much sense to be offended as it would for me to describe my family as "Bengals" and then claim that the other Ohio team has a racist name. Perhaps Bengalis should be offended?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Joe Guy wrote:Just curious.... If the team were named the Washington Chinks should the owner be required to change it? They didn't mean for the name to offend anyone. It was intended to stand for strength, endurance and hard work when they originally named the team.
Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Lenape or Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Lenape, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint.[11] The indigenous peoples of the continent had no common identity, and referred to themselves using individual tribal names, which is also preferred to the present day. Group identity for Native Americans only emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, in the context of negotiations between many tribes signing a single treaty with the United States, where Native American Chiefs referred to themselves and the tribes they represented, as " redskins ".[12] "Oklahoma" is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma meaning "red"). [13]
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
I think a good basic rule of thumb should be this:
If you're aware of something, and it doesn't offend you until some busybody comes along and tells you it should offend you, you're not really offended...
Whether or not 'redskins' is derogatory while 'braves' is not, there is no other racial/ethnic group that is utilized in the same way as a sports mascot in American sports - is there?
Perhaps I'm wrong about that; but it does seem this is a category of such distinguishable difference that it merits a different framework.
This morning I was listening to NPR's Saturday edition, and heard them interview teenagers who were genuinely surprised, having seen a movie depicting the onset of the AIDs epidemic in the 80s, that homosexuals once were largely closeted in society.
I realize we still have far to go in that arena, too - but 40% of Americans now live in states that recognize gay marriage (Montana's lawsuit was just filed in federal court this past week! WOOT!!) and things have changed substantially from when I was a child.
This gives me hope that 100 years from now, the advancements in tolerance of 'the other' will have addressed this argument. However, sports being one of the last bastions of intolerance, I could be very wrong.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
It seems to me that the "intolerance" in this instance, belongs to those who are attempting to force the name change. I think a tolerant person, even if they personally weren't crazy about the name would understand the tradition and history, and realize that only a very tiny percentage of people ever found this offensive until the outrage manufacturers went to work, and just let it go.
On the topic of gay marriage, I've noticed a trend of growing intolerance of those opposed to it by those in favor. For example, I recall recently that a company CEO was hounded out of his job when it was revealed he had made a contribution to the California referendum that passed outlawing gay marriage in the state Constitution. A nominee for the federal bench is currently being excoriated at his confirmation hearing for having the nerve to rule in favor of his state's laws prohibiting gay marriage.
There is a tendency among some people to plead for "tolerance" when they view their position as weak, and then seek to deny it for others when they believe they have the upper hand. A classic example of this would be the smoke Nazis. A couple of decades ago all they were asking for was a section in restaurants where smoking wouldn't be allowed. Now they're trying to ban people from smoking in their own homes.
Sometimes it's people looking for something to be pissed about, but I don't think that's the case here.
I think that characterization describes the current brouhaha perfectly...
And while I endorse changing the name, I would never force the Redskins to do so, although I think they ultimately will (it's a matter of time).
I hope you're wrong. I don't believe that it's carved in stone that the arc of history must always go in favor of the nitpickers and the people who are outraged for a living. I believe that acceptance of the team name would show that the country's understanding of what is and is not racist is starting to move to a more mature and nuanced level.
As someone who has lived and worked with Native Americans, LJ, I respectfully disagree with you.
It's not that the outrage was manufactured - it's that nobody gave a shit what the Native American population thought about this until very recently.
Prejudice against Indians is still very pronounced, at least where Indians actually live in concentrated communities in this country - that's been my experience, both here and in Maine. Hollywood loves Indians, but not so much the white people living in towns bordering reservations.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
[quote[If you're aware of something, and it doesn't offend you until some busybody comes along and tells you it should offend you, you're not really offended...[/quote]
Jim--I don't think that's the only reason that people get offended when listening to your so-called busybodies; sometimes people just grudgingly accept what they believe they can't change without admitting any offense--what's the use in getting pissed off, nothing will change. That's one of the reasons Jim Crow stayed in place as long as it did, and the general argument from the whites was out blacks (or coloreds or negroes or whatever) were happy with the status quo until the agitators came in and stirred them up. I think the same was true with the anti-smoking movement; a lot of people didn't care for smoke, freely patronizing smoke-filled bars, tolerating it in the office and meeting rooms, etc.; but when they saw that their raised voices might effect a change, they spoke up. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some who go overboard with this, but then extremists are found on all issues.
Now is that what happened here? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me. If you grew up surrounded by teams using names you personally found offensive, you might hold your tongue too unless you believed it could have some sort of effect. And when you did, you'd speak up.
Not that people can't be stirred up by rabble rousers as well--we've seen that throughout history. But sometimes silence doesn't signify consent, just acceptance of the status quo.
[quote[If you're aware of something, and it doesn't offend you until some busybody comes along and tells you it should offend you, you're not really offended...[/quote]
Jim--I don't think that's the only reason that people get offended when listening to your so-called busybodies; sometimes people just grudgingly accept what they believe they can't change without admitting any offense--what's the use in getting pissed off, nothing will change. That's one of the reasons Jim Crow stayed in place as long as it did, and the general argument from the whites was out blacks (or coloreds or negroes or whatever) were happy with the status quo until the agitators came in and stirred them up. I think the same was true with the anti-smoking movement; a lot of people didn't care for smoke, freely patronizing smoke-filled bars, tolerating it in the office and meeting rooms, etc.; but when they saw that their raised voices might effect a change, they spoke up. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some who go overboard with this, but then extremists are found on all issues.
Now is that what happened here? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me. If you grew up surrounded by teams using names you personally found offensive, you might hold your tongue too unless you believed it could have some sort of effect. And when you did, you'd speak up.
Not that people can't be stirred up by rabble rousers as well--we've seen that throughout history. But sometimes silence doesn't signify consent or endorsement, just grudging acceptance of the status quo.
Good point, Big RR. I can remember in the 1960s when southerners routinely blamed the whole civil rights movement on "outside agitators" stirrin' up their...their... Well, you know what word they used, and they also insisted that the people that word referred to weren't offended until the outsiders told them it was offensive. This also aligns with BSG's point, "It's not that the outrage was manufactured - it's that nobody gave a shit what the Native American population thought about this until very recently." A further factor that affects both of these points is the genocide that has left the "Native American"/"American Indian" population of the U.S. at less than 1% of the tolal population. (Why should we listen to such a tiny, tiny minority?)
Towards the end of that 10-year-old article on the Pekin (IL) High School Chinks which I linked to above, the author (Roger Simon) shifts his focus to the "Redskins" controversy and the symbol of the University of Illinois sports teams, Chief Illiniwek. He concludes,
...after much thought today I must side with the aggrieved.
The chief and other such symbols should be retired. And that's not because of PC -- political correctness. It's because of CD -- common decency.
The time for these symbols has gone. It is time to move forward. And you cannot move forward by looking backward.
We took the land from the American Indians and we gave them disease, alcohol and reservations in return.
At least we can leave them with their dignity.
It seems a small price to pay for an entire continent.
When a war between nations is lost
The loser we know pays the cost
But even when Germany fell to your hands
Consider dear lady, consider dear man
You left them their pride and you left them their land
And what have you done to these ones?
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God@The Tweet of God
There have been protests for at least 25 years about the team name. This is just the latest round. One way to look at it is that if a professional sports team in any sport were to start today, no one in their right mind would name it the Redskins. Thus, the only basis for continuing a name that has clear negative reference to an oppressed people is the particular team history and that within that context it is meant as a term of honor. It is hard to imagine that over time that will win the argument. I agree with BigRR that at some point it is inevitable that the team or NFL will yield to the pressure to eliminate the name that many are personally offended by, and which the majority of the population deem to be a racist slur.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Well, I have to say I have a really hard time seeing any kind of meaningful analogy between a body of laws and practices designed to deny a group of people their basic human and political rights, (Jim Crow laws) and the name of a professional sports franchise, which denies people...well..absolutely nothing...
In fact, to me the comparison really trivializes and demeans the importance of the civil rights struggle, (I'd make the same observation about comparing it to the smoke Nazi crusade)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Perhaps Bengalis should be offended?
