Is "Redskins" offensive?
The Washington Post editorial board seems to think so. And, the NCAA Executive Committee believes a number of schools have offensive mascots, including my alma mater The College of William & Mary, whose team name is the Tribe. W&M execs disagree with the NCAA on this issue, as do I.
It's a bit like saying we shouldn't use clan as a team name, because it might offend people of Scottish descent...
12 Comments:
I think W&M was allowed to keep the name "Tribe" by the NCAA, but forced to do away with the feather as its symbol (Gee, thanks, NCAA. As a W&M alum, I HATE the mascot for several reasons: 1) general hurting nature; 2) the difficulty of using it in the singular; and 3) a complete lack of possible physical representations. What am I, a "Tribemember"?? What's our physical mascot, a group of people??).
Personally, I was hoping to use the NCAA's Thought Police as an excuse to get a better nickname. Green Storm anyone?
As for the Redskins, my favorite NFL team incidentally, I'm torn. On the one hand, I'm not thrilled about mascot changing because it might irk over-sensitive people who are spoiling for a fight about anything, because they've been wronged in the past. On the other hand, unlike more seemingly benign or general mascots like "Indians" or "Tribe", Redskins is pretty freakin' offensive. While I wouldn't bow to pressure brought by people just looking to play the role of victims and therefore protesting any Native American-related name, I think Redskins is a candidate for the dustbin. Hate to lose the history/tradition, but in this case the protesters have a point and its probably the right thing to do.
My two cents.
I disagree with Redskins being offensive, and the last time this issue came up (nearly 10 years ago, IIRC), the Virginia Indian Councils put out a statement saying that they felt the Redskins and their mascot stood for Indian pride and weren't racist at all.
I mean come on:
Braves on the warpath
Fight for Old D.C.!
Well, as long as you think "Darkies" is equally inoffensive. If so, we'll have to agree to disagree. If they were the Washington Braves (on the warpath or otherwise), I'd agree with you.
I guess one way to look at it would be to ask yourself the question whether you'd feel comfortable calling a Native American the mascot name to his/her face. I'd have no problem referring to a Native American (in their presence) as an Indian, a Brave (although it would be weird out of context), a Seminole, a Sioux, etc. etc., but I certainly wouldn't feel right saying something like "This guy here is a Redskin, and he thinks taxes are too high as well."
Wow - would you get offended and cry if I called you a sissy? Not that I would...but I'm just wonderin'. :-)
If the term/name/description is something "downright offensive" today (in this day and age), there's a reason for people to get upset. However, they don't have a *right* (no matter what fed or state courts say these days) to mandate that they not be offended anymore. At a maximum, all they have the right to do is show the offending party no type of support. Period. However, if an offending party is diliberately attempting to hurt or cause damage to the offended party - a possible crime is then committed - then and only then - are someone's rights being trampled on.
I think the funniest thing about the name argument for Sports Teams is that people love and revere their teams/mascot's. The term is one of endearment - not disgust or hate.
This is all tied into our culture's misunderstanding of the true meaning of *tolerance*; which will continue to haunt our society until we dispell the myth that offending people should never occur under any circumstances.
Sean - Are you sure you want me on this blog??? :-)
Quoth Gantoris222:
I think the funniest thing about the name argument for Sports Teams is that people love and revere their teams/mascot's. The term is one of endearment - not disgust or hate.
Exactly! That is the point I was trying to make when I mentioned the statement by the Virginia Indian Councils. I need to try and find a link to a news story about that, though it was quite a few years ago now.
For me, it's pretty simple. In this here great land, the White Man killed, raped, pillaged, drove off, and otherwise annihilated the Natives. This 200+ year historical reality gave rise to -- much the same way the U.S.A.'s slave-owning culture gave rise to -- a fairly systematized prejudice/racism/cultural bias. Think "Crazy Horse" malt liquor, think "Cigar Store Indian", think the Lone Ranger's friend "Tonto"... In many cases, quite honestly, I find it offensive that these thought systems still exist or that racism still persists. BUT, for most sports fans, they have little or anything to do with actual Native Americans. Many Native American tribes these days are doing just fine, with legal gambling casinos, government assistance. Can we change history, can we undo the Trail of Tears by getting the Washington NFL franchise to change its 70+ year name? No, we can't. And, I believe, we shouldn't even attempt revising history. Keep the name around -- it's a testament to How Far We've Come.
Joshua -- welcome to the blog!!
As a sissy, I am offended when people use the term as an insult (Sean is rolling his eyes bc we just went through this in our book club). My question is, why use a word that makes people feel bad about themselves? Redskin is an offensive and derogatory word, according to people with red skin and the dictionary. Can people use it? Of course they can. But with almost one million English words, why?
If only I were a pro team owner.
http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/mustangj17/2006/05/11/The_Most_Offensive_Team_Nickname_Ever
Gantoris222,
Who is talking about rights and courts and all that? This isn't a legal argument. Its about personal/organizational choice. I'm simply saying that in some cases teams and/or leagues should recognize that certain team nicknames chosen 100 years or more ago, are offensive by today's standards and they should make the choice to change them. In other cases, they should realize that the names are not really offensive by today's standards and that those calling for their ouster are being oversensitive, perhaps intentionally.
The law, quite simply, has nothing to do with it. If the Redskins, NFL, NCAA, etc. etc. wants to continue to use all, some or none of their current Indian mascots, they are legally free to do so. However, and perhaps you disagree, there are some things that are legal that a decent person shouldn't do anyway.
And no, I wouldn't cry if you called me a sissy. Much.
jeffx,
My simple point is that people worry about being offended and offending people way too much. You say that of course people can use offensive words, but with so many (million) out there, why use them... Let me answer that question, with a question. Do you ever swear around other people? Use the Lord's name in vain? I could go on, but I don't think I have to...
Quick question - is being politically correct at all costs important to you?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
pete,
I brought up the courts and the system of law because that's where the argument (and every such argument) ends up in this overly litigious society. It also seems to always be the case that talking heads, editorial pages, etc. latch on to people's good nature of wanting to be good and not offend the other guy - and push the envelope of political correctness. Then we have people who look down on folks who they view as inferior because they aren't *as sensitive* to people's feelings as the self-righteous person is.
Of course their are many things that are legal that we should not do. I'm not even saying that the name Redskins is a good thing. My aurgument is that people get their panties in a bunch *WAY* too easily...and then try to associate that they have some law-given *right* to not be offended. I guess I made that leap and expected you to follow. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home