Friday, October 11, 2013

Throwing Around The Ol' Redskin

Football is becoming increasingly....well, difficult. Fun to watch, but there are so many stories that get on one's nerves. Take the "new" controversy over the Washington Redskins.

No doubt you've heard a little about this already. For at least the second or third time, some people with nothing better to do have observed that "Redskin" is (or was) slang for Indian, and apparently this is a bad thing. So for the past few weeks, there's been a handful of very noisy activists trying to put pressure on the organization to change its name. To what, I don't know. A few years ago, a fan from West Virginia suggested they should end the controversy by re-naming themselves the Washington Rednecks, but I sense that's not in the cards. Anyway, now President Obama, whose many roles apparently include Spokesman For Any And All Even Theoretically Oppressed Minorities, has weighed in and said that if it were up to him, he would of course consider changing the name. And some sportscasters have announced that they will no longer refer to the team as the Redskins, but simply as Washington.

So far, the team's owner, Dan Snyder, has pretty much told these activists and sundry concerned people that they can suck it, noting in a letter the other day that the team has had this name for eighty years--and it was the "Braves" before that--that it's not meant to be offensive to Native Americans but rather to celebrate them, and finally, that they've gone this long without changing it and they're certainly not going to now. A handful of people in the media have declared that this position is so offensive it will inevitably trigger a backlash and a boycott, but let's face it--as long as Snyder is the owner and his determination holds up, they won't ever put the team under enough pressure to change its name.

More to the point, though--I always shake my head at stories like this, probably because it's so blasted familiar. Having spent years in the wacky circles of academia, I should point out that to the Left, it means nothing if you say your mascot is meant to invoke themes of bravery, ferocity, being a great warrior--which the Redskin mascot is obviously intended to do. To them, any representation of Indians or other minorities doesn't give them their due as individuals and Noble Oppressed People, so trying to stress their positive qualities is still an insult somehow. So, in a nutshell, that's their thinking here.

Not that it makes any more sense, of course. Because I haven't heard any of these people complaining about the name of the Minnesota Vikings. The old Scandinavian seafarers are also being stereotyped by the sports mascot, reducing them to ferocious warriors; why isn't anyone speaking on their behalf?

I'm being facetious, of course. We all know why. The Vikings are (were) white--not just white, but pure Nordic white. Therefore, they can't really be oppressed. Besides, they can't be made into objects of sympathy by activists the way Indian tribes can.

And anyway, it's not like there's an overwhelming feeling of offense from Native Americans today about the name. What polls there have been on reservations about the issue show that while a significant minority would prefer a name change, a majority are either fine with it or don't care. Some pointed out that they have bigger things to worry about, like their job, or paying their bills. Not that it would really matter if there was more negative opinion, because look--the Redskins are a private organization, and unless there's actual discrimination going on by that organization against Native Americans, there's nothing here. End of story.

Though, as someone mentioned on Twitter, a different kind of change might be in order. Perhaps Snyder should consider renaming the team the "Maryland Redskins." Now that would be much less offensive.

32 comments:

LL said...

I heard that Obama is upset about the "Baltimore Ravens" too - mainly because of the Heckle and Jekyl stereotype...

AndrewPrice said...

They should be changed to the Fredskins: LINK

In all seriousness, I hate the mindless argument: "Well, if anyone is upset, then we should change it." That's ridiculous. It's also disingenuous because the people who say that only recognize certain types of insults.

Rustbelt said...

T-Rav, this whole thing is just plain nuts. As for most American Indians not being offended, try this: the last time this 'cause' became the cause de celebrite, (if I'm misspelling my French, I honestly don't care. It's French.), sports writers came up with a list of colleges whose mascots were offensive. At the top was Florida State. When this got out, the unimaginable happened- the Florida leaders of the Seminole Nation came forward and said, "Whoa! Wait a minute! We like that FSU honors us. In fact, we helped them with the team's colors. We designed Chief Osceola's outfit, spear, and entrance. We also helped come up with the school's 'war chant.' Where are you guys getting this stuff?" Needless to say, embarrassment quickly followed. The writers tried to cover their hides by claiming that it should be law that schools need tribal permission to use Indian names.
Another was the Idaho Vandals. Uh, wait a minute. The Vandals? Apparently, lefties think anything vague must be a snide reference to American Indians. Exactly why the Left would worry about offending 4th and 5th century barbarians who attacked the Roman Empire and whose descendants are mostly German is beyond me.
And there's habitual offender Illinois- the Fighting Illini. You may have heard that the longtime mascot, Chief Illiniwek, was retired in 2007 because he was considered offensive. It turns out, members of the Peoria Tribe did have problems with him- his outfit was that of the Lakota Sioux. (The Sioux are probably the most disliked tribe on the plains.) But you'd never know that- or that most students and alumni want him back to the extent that student organizations have him portrayed in unsanctioned appearances on campus- from the media. As a U of I alum (who has since passed away) once told me, "it would be nice if these guilt-ridden white people actually knew anything about Indians to start with."
I also once saw a report with an 'enlightened,' guilt-ridden activist who wanted all 'offensive' names to be removed from schools. (At the time, she was calling for the sexist term 'Minutemen' to be removed from her school, UMass.) When the reporter mentioned a 2004 SI report that found over 80% of American Indians either liked or didn't care about teams using Indian names, she looked shocked ("there's life outside my bubble? Oh, no!"), and could only state that she'd never even heard of the report.
Well, it does seem some people have their heads screwed on correctly. Over the summer, RG III tweeted that the activists' demands showed (I'm paraphrasing, I don't remember the actual tweet), "we are still fighting the forces of tyranny," or something like that. I wonder if he was told to turn in his race card.

Rustbelt said...

Andrew said: "In all seriousness, I hate the mindless argument: 'Well, if anyone is upset, then we should change it.'"

Sadly, Andrew, I think it was just last week that Roger Goodell said that "if one person is offended [by the Redskins' name], then we need to consider changing it."

Okay, it's official. I now hate this a$$hat more than I hate NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. And when you can beat a guy who has three major work stoppages under his belt (2 full seasons' worth of games), that's saying a lot.

Rustbelt said...

Note: After re-reading, I don't think I was clear on RG III's tweet. He's supporting the Redskins name, wants it to stay that way, and considers the guilt-ridden activists to be the 'tyrannical' ones. Sorry if I was a little unclear there.

T-Rav said...

LL, I hadn't heard of that one. Are you sure he doesn't just have some grudge against Poe?

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I'd accept that, but only if those are real Brontosaurus burgers they're selling. :-)

Not only is it stupid, it's impossible to fulfill in a modern, pluralistic society. If you change it, some people are going to be offended by what you change it to, and others will be offended that you changed it in the first place. So it becomes a game of placing some people's sensibilities above others; which usually doesn't work out well.

T-Rav said...

Rustbelt, those are some very interesting anecdotes. I notice, though, that the media has been trying to get around these uncomfortable facts by talking about the everyday discrimination faced on reservations, as proof that the country is still totally racist and ought to atone for its genocidal nature, blah blah blah.

Even so, even they have been forced to admit that a majority of those who answer their polls don't have a problem with Indian mascots, and as the case of Florida State shows, some are downright proud of it. Which only means they'll stop relying on polls to support their argument.

T-Rav said...

Rustbelt, that statement from Goodell is as dumb as it is meaningless. We may just be talking sports here, but no institution of any kind can survive if just one person's dissent delegitimizes it. It's "tyranny of the minority" taken to the absurd extreme.

Tennessee Jed said...

classic P.C. - mind other people's business. Look, I've never cared much for Snyder, with his being on an annoyance level with Jerry Jones. I'm with him on this, however. Maybe they could rename themselves the Muslims, the Shut Downs, or the Progressives.

Patriot said...

T-Rav.....Having spent time in DC growing up there in the 60's and 70's...perhaps they should use some of the old names the fans came up with during their lowday (what's the opposite of hayday anyway?):

Deadskins
Foreskins
Skins
Blackskins
Hogs (Actually, that one works for DC!)
Posse
Wild Bunch
or, the perennial favorite......Losers!!

Individualist said...

I would like to take these liberals who make this kind of spurious accusation and put them in a time machine and plop them smack down in front of Sitting Bull or Geronimo unarmed and tell them to explain to these two gentlemen how oppressed they are and how the greatest injustice the white man has done to them is to note that their skins are red.

Somehow I think it would be a short debate!

tryanmax said...

On Vikings: I'm certainly no expert, but I am fascinated by Vikings. As near as I can tell, as a people, the Vikings are one of a very few groups to have never been oppressed by outsiders. (Which isn't to say they never oppressed their own.) But they are famous for their oppression and persecution of others. Certainly that lopsided history alone is offensive enough that we should oppose the name "Vikings" on sports teams.

It's "tyranny of the minority" taken to the absurd extreme.

There is one step further, that is already being flirted with. If one person can imagine someone being offended, whether such a person exists or not, the imagined dissent delegitimizes.

TJ said...

As a diehard fan of the Redskins since 1982, I think this is just totally absurd. The fact that it keeps coming up every few years is just ridiculous in the extreme. These people really have no life.

I'm not a fan of Dan Snyder and share Tennessee Jed's opinion of him and Jerry Jones, but I'm glad that Snyder is sticking to his guns.

I like Individualist's idea - anybody got a time machine?

T-Rav said...

Jed, I've heard before that Snyder is kind of an....well, that he's not a very nice person. So yeah, this isn't about him, this is about the principle of the thing.

In fact, I wonder if it's the hard-headed jerks who are best suited to withstand this P.C. crap--if you already don't care what other people think and let them know that, it puts you in a good position.

T-Rav said...

Patriot, I imagine "Foreskins" would upset the feminists and "Blackskins" would upset the NAACP, but beyond that, sure, those are good alternatives. In fact, "Deadskins" might be rather apt right now. Or "Steelers." Or "Giants."

T-Rav said...

Indi, I don't know. Given their conflicts with the U.S. government, Sitting Bull and Geronimo might not mind having that conversation. No, if you really wanted to get rid of such busybodies, send them back to Tenochtitlan, heart of the Aztec Empire, circa 1510. That would be a VERY short debate.

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, you're right. I forgot about the ultra absurdity. This is why we ought to really push back on such cases--come right out and say, "Your being offended is not relevant."

That's all true about the Vikings. However, you're forgetting that nearly all the people they oppressed were white. Not only that, they were pagans for most of the time they were out warring around, and their victims were generally Christians. So they get bonus points for that.

tryanmax said...

Touché!

Kit said...

Actually, I say Christians (or English) should make a complaint that the word "Vikings" to Christians and people of English* is offensive because the Vikings made their money of off the exploitation of English Christians.


*Or Northern European heritage

T-Rav said...

Kit, as you would know if you had any higher education, it is impossible for one to discriminate against, exploit, or otherwise oppress Anglo-Saxon Christians, since such people are an inherently oppressive race themselves. Any suggestion to the contrary is merely a distraction. (tsk-tsk)

Individualist said...

"Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (236–183 BC), also known as Scipio the African, Scipio the Elder, and Scipio the Great[1] was a general in the Second Punic War and statesman of the Roman Republic. He was best known for defeating Hannibal at the final battle of the Second Punic War at Zama, a feat that earned him the agnomen Africanus, the nickname "the Roman Hannibal", "

T-Rav I just read this on Wikipedia and if true we have much bigger fish to fry than the name of a football team. It appears that the entire continent of Africa is named after a Roman General, a war monger who invaded Africa and destroyed the city of Carthage and salted the ground.

Worse yet the name Africanus is a nickname that mocks a great man who hailed from that continent that we can no longer call Africa because it is offensive. Hannibal a man who was completely misunderstood by the Romans. He stopped by just to show them his new Elephants and they thought he was invading, silly white people that they are.

So here we have a whole continent named after a white guy that oppressed them... we must demand that the name of Africa be changed immediately. Fortunately for the Romans they moved to Byzantine and became Turks and thus became a non white group when the Western Empire fell or they would have to pay reparations too. but for now the name must be changed.

T-Rav said...

Indi, good point. Not only that, we'll now have to change the name of African-Americans as well, since they can't receive their identity from an imperialist Roman. But....if we do that....we'll be claiming to have power over the labeling of racial minorities....and....that's bad so....(head explodes)

BevfromNYC said...

Why don't they just called it "The Team That Was Known As The Redskins" (TWKATR) or just use a symbol with no name. Hey Why do we need to label ourselves anyway?

T-Rav said...

Bev, maybe we could call it the Mascot-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named. (You're welcome.)

AndrewPrice said...

So let me get this straight. It would be politically correct to eradicate any reference to Indians, blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, and the handicapped from our sports teams.

Strange world. This sounds more like something the KKK would push.

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, I like the Fredskins and I don't like Snyder either. He's a real jerk. Still, I have a lot of faith in RG III and I think they will become a dominant team soon.

Anthony said...

*Shrugs* As a longtime DC area resident (though I've never lived in DC and never will) I don't get worked up about some Native Americans waging a PR campaign. There's no intent to offend but if Redskins is the equivalent of the N word people bothered by it, they are free to hold press conferences if it makes them feel better. It won't change anything.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, no, no, no, it's not! They're doing it because they care! They're nothing at all like the KKK! What part of this don't you understand?!

Rustbelt said...

Before T-Rav can get his head fully glued and taped together again, there's another reason that all things 'African' need to be renamed. While Scipio led an army comprised only of evil, white, racist Italians, the Carthaginian army of Hannibal included not only Carthaginians, but Libyans, Numidians, Iberians, Celts, Moors, and Gaetulians. Why, an entire continent has been named for a man who crushed a multi-ethnic rainbow of various peoples coming together. Tell the people!

And I have to admit, this whole topic makes me angry since I've basically adopted the Redskins as my NFC team. (Largely because of RG III.) But in regards to Andrew and TJ's remarks, I hate to say it, but Dan Snyder has actually become rather respectable in my eyes- largely because Dan Rooney sold out to Obama in 2008, supporting the guy the whole way through, being allowed to complete the team's ownership restructuring before capital gains taxes were raised (though not objecting to them being raised on others), and being granted the Ambassadorship to Ireland during Obumbler's first term. He's also responsible for the aptly-named 'Rooney Rule"- requiring teams to interview prospective head coaches based on the color of their skin. (F%@& content of character.)
Whatever Snyder may have done, he hasn't become a despicable sellout.

Patriot said...

Guys....Do you know that DC used to have a baseball team called The Senators?! How f'ing lame. So maybe we should call the Skins the Representatives? The Washington Representatives?

Actually...I can think of quite a few "Washington" themed team names.......:

The Washington Predators
The Washington Tomahawks
The Washington Reapers
The Washington Drones
The Washington B-52's
The Washington MOABs
The Washington SEALs
.....and ultimately, the obvious winner....
The Washington Hope

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, Rooney really sold out. What a disgrace.

Post a Comment