Good-Bye, Redskins


syrakusos

Recommended Posts


“Redskins” was always an insult, at best (and not much good), it was a crude name, lacking even the poetry of Bruce Springsteen’s "Born in the USA": So, they sent me off to Vietnam, to go and kill the yellow man. The name Redskins was from the time of the Yellow Peril and the White Man’s Burden.
Some of my conservative comrades on “Objectivish” message boards for fans of Ayn Rand continue to defend the Washington Redskins. Most recently, on Galt’s Gulch Online, a video appeared in which Native Americans give their support for the team. Neither a convenience sampling nor a statistically valid survey can disprove the racism behind the mascot name. In point of fact, their arguments on behalf of the insult only raise basic problems with all such mascots.
Minnesota Vikings, the Michigan State University Spartans, the Trojans of the University of Southern California, all seem harmless enough. So, the Atlanta Braves and similar mascots fall into that latitude. However, even as Cleveland should keep the Indians, the cartoon of Chief Wahoo should be re-imaged.
The Fighting Irish are not known for their wars against others, not even in defense of Ireland. They mostly fight among themselves, so famously at Donnybrook Fair that we can drop the capital letter of the locale and just keep it as a common noun. The Boston Celtics are honorific; but the Drunken Irish of Notre Dame are embarrassingly archaic.
We have occupations: Milwaukee Brewers, Dallas Cowboys, Houston Oilers (gone), Pittsburgh Steelers, Seattle Mariners, even the Pittsburgh Pirates, hearkening back to the wild frontier days of the western Allegheny region.
We have no shortage of animals: Ravens, Eagles, Seahawks, Bears, Bruins, Cougars, Wildcats, Stallions, Broncos, Colts, Marlins, Sharks. I like the pun of the Huskies for the University of Connecticut. As long as I lived in Oho, I never perceived the buckeye as an aggressor, or even much of a defender. Although the symbol works well enough for Ohio State University, they never have to face any Redwoods, Pines, Oaks, or Maples – and gratefully, no Termites or Ash-borers.
Maybe someday Earth First activists will object to our forcing animals to fight each other for entertainment. For now, the names seem harmless enough. It is difficult to imagine cheering for the Bricks, Rocks, Asphalts, or Concretes.
But, then, English football teams do well enough just being “United”, although some escutcheons do display mythical beasts. Manchester United has a devil – but so does Duke University of North Carolina. Too bad we will never see them play against the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels, or the San Diego Padres.
In the Star Trek: Enterprise series, the Andorian captain Thy’lek Shran calls Jonathan Archer, “pinkskin.” It was intended at first as an insult, but came to be something of a soubriquet as their friendship evolved over the years. However, the Andorians met the Vulcans first; and even had a brief war and many subsequent border skirmishes. Yet, Shran never referred to “greenskins.”
In the Original Series, Dr. McCoy similarly teases Commander Spock about his green skin, as well as his ethos of logic, and other points of difference. It is all meant to be accepted as jocular. However, Captain Kirk never engages in that except for the few times when his mind was being compromised and he needed to get a subtext message through: “I am not me. I am in trouble here. And you are about to be.” When the NCC-1701 Enterprise first sees a Romulan, the navigator, Lieutenant Stiles, makes a comment about Spock – and Captain Kirk relieves him of duty. No racism is tolerated on the ship, or in the Federation.
Originally posted on Necessary Facts here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jayzis, Mary and Joseph. The Fightin' Irish you say.

The only Pat and Mike joke I know goes like this:

Pat goes to the doctor and the doctor suspect diabetes so he gives Pat a sterile bottle and tells him to take a urine sample. Well Pat is not what you would call an educated man and he really does not know what "urine sample" means. He goes home and asks his wife. His wife does not know either, but she suggest that Pat go upstairs and ask Mike who knows a lot of stuff. Pat objects on the ground that Mike is a pain in the ass, stuck up and a smarty pants. Go upstairs, says, wife and don't be so proud. So Pat goes upstairs to ask Mike what a "urine sample" is. A few minute later he comes down with a black eye a bleeding nose and a fat lip. Saints preserved us say Pat's wife, what happened. Pat said, well I went up stairs and asked Mike as nice as you please what is a "urine sample" Go piss in a bottle that son of a bitch says. Go shit in your hat, says I and the fight was on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

He is. What he can't do now is claim exclusive rights to the name.

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

He is. What he can't do now is claim exclusive rights to the name.

Then he doesn't really own it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

He is. What he can't do now is claim exclusive rights to the name.

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

He is. What he can't do now is claim exclusive rights to the name.

Then he doesn't really own it.

Horseshit. Trademarks are a form of intellectual property--that term is disputable--while the team is an organization. Owning the team is like owning a business. Owning the name is like owning a word. Two completely separate things. Claiming someone doesn't "truly own" whatever because some trivial issue is borderline stupid. By the way, why did you quote my post twice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

He is. What he can't do now is claim exclusive rights to the name.

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

He is. What he can't do now is claim exclusive rights to the name.

Then he doesn't really own it.

Horseshit. Trademarks are a form of intellectual property--that term is disputable--while the team is an organization. Owning the team is like owning a business. Owning the name is like owning a word. Two completely separate things. Claiming someone doesn't "truly own" whatever because some trivial issue is borderline stupid. By the way, why did you quote my post twice?

Samson,

My misunderstanding. Now that clears it up + I only knowingly quoted your post once.

Having a bad day? Calling a post borderline stupid is not necessary...and quite immature. Just state why you disagree, no?

-J :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

He is. What he can't do now is claim exclusive rights to the name.

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

He is. What he can't do now is claim exclusive rights to the name.

Then he doesn't really own it.

Horseshit. Trademarks are a form of intellectual property--that term is disputable--while the team is an organization. Owning the team is like owning a business. Owning the name is like owning a word. Two completely separate things. Claiming someone doesn't "truly own" whatever because some trivial issue is borderline stupid. By the way, why did you quote my post twice?

Samson,

My misunderstanding. Now that clears it up + I only knowingly quoted your post once.

Having a bad day? Calling a post borderline stupid is not necessary...and quite immature. Just state why you disagree, no?

-J :smile:

Eh, alright. It's just silly to say one doesn't own something because of some restriction or other triviality. Though some of them are understandable like a property tax, revocation of trademark is totally unrelated to ownership of the team. The revocation can be criticized on other grounds like fairness or overreaction, but it absolutely does not nullify ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

He is. What he can't do now is claim exclusive rights to the name.

The owner of a team should be free to name it as he pleases. It's his/ her property

Offended? Don't like it? Then there's the economic boycott.

-J

He is. What he can't do now is claim exclusive rights to the name.

Then he doesn't really own it.

Horseshit. Trademarks are a form of intellectual property--that term is disputable--while the team is an organization. Owning the team is like owning a business. Owning the name is like owning a word. Two completely separate things. Claiming someone doesn't "truly own" whatever because some trivial issue is borderline stupid. By the way, why did you quote my post twice?

Samson,

My misunderstanding. Now that clears it up + I only knowingly quoted your post once.

Having a bad day? Calling a post borderline stupid is not necessary...and quite immature. Just state why you disagree, no?

-J :smile:

Eh, alright. It's just silly to say one doesn't own something because of some restriction or other triviality. Though some of them are understandable like a property tax, revocation of trademark is totally unrelated to ownership of the team. The revocation can be criticized on other grounds like fairness or overreaction, but it absolutely does not nullify ownership.

Fair enough.

_J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redskins was always an insult, at best (and not much good), it was a crude name, lacking even the poetry of Bruce Springsteens "Born in the USA": So, they sent me off to Vietnam, to go and kill the yellow man. The name Redskins was from the time of the Yellow Peril and the White Mans Burden.

In reality, the term "redskin" was not "always an insult." It was first used by Native Americans, and referred not to actual skin color, but to pigments applied to the skin.

In calling it a "crude name" which is lacking in poetry, are you therefore saying that Native Americans are aesthetically inferior for having invented the term and applied it to themselves? Are you saying that they are so stupid and otherwise inferior that they need others' guidance and protection when it comes to the words they chose to describe themselves?

Personally, I think that Native Americans of the past were fabulous in their artistry, including that of their language usage. The actual aesthetic inferiority is to be found in those who are so dumb as to treat poetic descriptions and metaphors literally -- to stupidly reify them into physical characteristics which do not exist in reality. Native Americans who adorned themselves with red paint did not have red skin, just as Native Americans who prided themselves on their honesty did not spontaneously develop the physical characteristic of "straight tongues." And it would be moronic for people to attribute physically straight tongues to Native Americans, and to then claim that insulting them for their physically straight tongues is racist: "Differences in appearance shouldn't matter, and that includes that shapes of people's tongues!"

This issue is just a total idiotfest on multiple levels.

Some of my conservative comrades on Objectivish message boards for fans of Ayn Rand continue to defend the Washington Redskins.

Are they defending the Washington Redskins, or are they just rejecting the political correctness and the eagerness of others to be offended regardless of the reality of the history and prideful usage of the term?

Most recently, on Galts Gulch Online, a video appeared in which Native Americans give their support for the team. Neither a convenience sampling nor a statistically valid survey can disprove the racism behind the mascot name.

Where is the proof of the racism behind the name?

Where is the proof that those who are squawking the loudest about the name are not a "convenience sampling" of the type of people who are looking to be offended, to cry racism, and to control other people?

In point of fact, their arguments on behalf of the insult only raise basic problems with all such mascots.

Who is arguing "on behalf of the insult"? I haven't seen anyone doing so. Rather, they're arguing that it is NOT an insult.

Minnesota Vikings, the Michigan State University Spartans, the Trojans of the University of Southern California, all seem harmless enough.

Vikings were basically rapists and pillagers. The word "Viking" means expedition/intrusion. So, you're apparently saying that the intrusions of rape and pillage are "harmless enough"?

So, the Atlanta Braves and similar mascots fall into that latitude. However, even as Cleveland should

keep the Indians, the cartoon of Chief Wahoo should be re-imaged.

So, "redskins," a term of pride invented by those to whom it refers, and which is actually a reference to face and body paint rather than skin color, is crude and racist, but the term "Indian," which misidentifies the inhabitants of one continent for those of another, and which was imposed on one people by another, is not crude and racist?!!!

As I said, total idiotfest.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality, the term "redskin" was not "always an insult." It was first used by Native Americans, and referred not to actual skin color, but to pigments applied to the skin.

[...]

So, "redskins," a term of pride invented by those to whom it refers, and which is actually a reference to face and body paint rather than skin color ...

Do you have a link or something to support this etymology? I hadn't heard this about the pigments ...

________________

EDIT: after a quick information mission into word origins, I find an argument for the phrase emerging as a 'affectless' signifier, one that was in use by 'redskins' to differentiate from 'blackskins' and 'whiteskins,' and which had a much less pejorative connotation the further back you go to its origins.

So, yeah, not always an insult. Up here, in conversation, calling someone redskin would be either anachronistic, unpleasantly 'affectionate' like "Darky," or akin to fighting words. It's no longer 'affectless' in usage.

A side note on another, more fraught word: faggot. This is a word that when uttered still gives me a chill. If someone calls me a faggot to my face, it feels like a prelude to physical aggression. But I don't hear the word much at all, and it has been a few years since it was applied to me with menaces. Same with 'queer.' The only place I have heard that lately is out of Wolf's mouth.

I don't think redskins is half as fraught as faggot, but I can imagine that it would sting in proportion to the insult intended. Up here, there is a pot of truly ugly fighting words to apply to aboriginal people. My heart sinks when I hear them used. The words are only meant to disparage, to humiliate, to denigrate.

So, I am not troubled by the Washington Redskins name, personally. It's measurably less offensive than the cartoon mascot for the Indians.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't hear the word much at all, and it has been a few years since it was applied to me with menaces. Same with 'queer.' The only place I have heard that lately is out of Wolf's mouth.

You have to read Wolf Devoon hyper-literally. He challenges you with every sentence. I mean not "you" Bill Scherk, but the reader. I do not know what your problem is with Wolf Devoon, but he is easily a monstrously large intellect of a frog in this small pond of Objectivist discourse. I always found him insightful, about three levels deeper and two heads taller than most of the people I meet, even at cloud computer and Ruby on Rails user groups. As Ayn Rand explained it, what happens when you take a deep sea creature and bring him up to sea level? We are surface fish compared to Wolf Devoon. The only other person whom I met in real life at that level was Durk Pearson, whose IQ busted the charts at MIT. Just sayin'... he might piss you off... accept it as a learning experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't hear the word much at all, and it has been a few years since it was applied to me with menaces. Same with 'queer.' The only place I have heard that lately is out of Wolf's mouth.

You have to read Wolf Devoon hyper-literally. He challenges you with every sentence. I mean not "you" Bill Scherk, but the reader. I do not know what your problem is with Wolf Devoon, but he is easily a monstrously large intellect of a frog in this small pond of Objectivist discourse. I always found him insightful, about three levels deeper and two heads taller than most of the people I meet, even at cloud computer and Ruby on Rails user groups. As Ayn Rand explained it, what happens when you take a deep sea creature and bring him up to sea level? We are surface fish compared to Wolf Devoon. The only other person whom I met in real life at that level was Durk Pearson, whose IQ busted the charts at MIT. Just sayin'... he might piss you off... accept it as a learning experience.

Please tell us more about "two heads taller" and "three levels deeper." Also about reading Wolf "hyper-literally."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a link or something to support this etymology? I hadn't heard this about the pigments ...

No, I don't have links. During the past half-year, I've been reading and hearing experts here and there address the subject of the history of the term. I haven't made a collection of their clippings and essays.

The longer that the controversy continues, the less frequently their views show up in press reports. No one appears to want to hear that the term is not necessarily disparaging and racist.

I'm reminded of the "niggardly" episodes that popped up once in a while during the past few decades. Reality didn't matter. Very stupid people were highly offended by the word and its mere phonetic similarity to another word, and that's all that mattered. Their hatred and bloodlust needed to be sated. Reputations and careers needed to be destroyed. So "niggardly" became racist! People were smeared. They were sent to sensitivity reprogramming camps. They were required to do public penance.

Maybe in a few years identifying someone as a "thespian" or a "homo sapien" will also trigger such outrage? Who knows what the next public outrage bandwagon will be?

EDIT: after a quick information mission into word origins, I find an argument for the phrase emerging as a 'affectless' signifier, one that was in use by 'redskins' to differentiate from 'blackskins' and 'whiteskins,' and which had a much less pejorative connotation the further back you go to its origins.

So, yeah, not always an insult. Up here, in conversation, calling someone redskin would be either anachronistic, unpleasantly 'affectionate' like "Darky," or akin to fighting words. It's no longer 'affectless' in usage.

Yes, as I said, those who are looking to be offended are not concerned with the reality of the origins of the term, or with the fact that Native Americans do not actually have skin tones that are distinguishable from those of "whites," or that the NFL's usage of the term has never been in any way disparaging. Certain people want the term to be racist and offensive, and therefore it is now "akin to fighting words" because they want it to be. People who have no interest in football or its culture nevertheless want to impose their own personal context onto the sport.

Now, how about the terms "negro" and "colored"? Wouldn't they also be considered anachronistic and fighting' words if used in an everyday conversation? Yet they're used in very prominent organizations' names -- the United Negro College Fund, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Shouldn't we ignore the context and the actual history involved with those organizations, and just blow a fucking gasket and demand that they also change their names? And then two years from now, whatever they changed their names to will suddenly be anachronistic and upsetting to us, and then we'll demand another change?

A side note on another, more fraught word: faggot. This is a word that when uttered still gives me a chill. If someone calls me a faggot to my face, it feels like a prelude to physical aggression. But I don't hear the word much at all, and it has been a few years since it was applied to me with menaces. Same with 'queer.' The only place I have heard that lately is out of Wolf's mouth.

Have you seen South Park's F-word episode (http://www.hulu.com/watch/249997)? They have a pretty cool take on the word. Pup BaBoon would qualify as a fag using their criteria: He's an attention-seeking loudmouth; he generates a lot of annoying noise.

I don't think redskins is half as fraught as faggot, but I can imagine that it would sting in proportion to the insult intended. Up here, there is a pot of truly ugly fighting words to apply to aboriginal people. My heart sinks when I hear them used. The words are only meant to disparage, to humiliate, to denigrate.

Right, but the usage in professional American sports is a different context than the usage in your neighbor's backyard. The NFL is not guilty of the humiliations in your neck of the woods.

So, I am not troubled by the Washington Redskins name, personally. It's measurably less offensive than the cartoon mascot for the Indians.

What do you find to be especially upsetting about the cartoon mascot for the Indians? Isn't the Minnesota Vikings caricature just as offensive? All Nordic people don't look or act like that. So why the selective outrage?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's bad or undesirable to avoid "niggardly" because of its close phonetic relationship to the deeply and blatantly racist "n" word.

--Brant

I also "don't think it's bad or undesirable to avoid 'niggardly' because of its close phonetic relationship to the deeply and blatantly racist 'n' word."

If a person chooses, due to his own sensitivity, to avoid certain words because they might be upsetting to some people because they kind of sound like other words, then that's his choice. I'm fine with that.

But I do think that it is "bad and undesirable" for people to try to force other people not to use words which kind of sound like other words. If you go after Burger King because they have a "Whopper," and you don't like the word because it sounds like "Wop," which is very upsetting to you, then you have crossed the line and become the abusive party: your behavior is worse than the (non-existent) racial slur that you're bent out of shape about.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe in a few years identifying someone as a "thespian" or a "homo sapien" will also trigger such outrage? Who knows what the next public outrage bandwagon will be?

I think that the next public outrage campaign should be to make Blue Man Group change its name...

Chris+Wink+Blue+Man+Group+20th+Anniversa

...because Mel Gibson wore blue war paint in Braveheart, and therefore the term "blue man" refers to Scots and the color of their skin, and I think it's viciously racist and humiliating to look at Scots as inferior for having been born with blue skin, and therefore the name Blue Man Group is a racial slur against Scots.

Picture-291.jpg

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's bad or undesirable to avoid "niggardly" because of its close phonetic relationship to the deeply and blatantly racist "n" word.

--Brant

I also "don't think it's bad or undesirable to avoid 'niggardly' because of its close phonetic relationship to the deeply and blatantly racist 'n' word."

If a person chooses, due to his own sensitivity, to avoid certain words because they might be upsetting to some people because they kind of sound like other words, then that's his choice. I'm fine with that.

But I do think that it is "bad and undesirable" for people to try to force other people not to use words which kind of sound like other words. If you go after Burger King because they have a "Whopper," and you don't like the word because it sounds like "Wop," which is very upsetting to you, then you have crossed the line and become the abusive party: your behavior is worse than the (non-existent) racial slur that you're bent out of shape about.

J

True enough. I'd love to go to a "re-education camp" and drive the cultural fascists crazy.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe in a few years identifying someone as a "thespian" or a "homo sapien" will also trigger such outrage? Who knows what the next public outrage bandwagon will be?

I think that the next public outrage campaign should be to make Blue Man Group change its name...

Chris+Wink+Blue+Man+Group+20th+Anniversa

...because Mel Gibson wore blue war paint in Braveheart, and therefore the term "blue man" refers to Scots and the color of their skin, and I think it's viciously racist and humiliating to look at Scots as inferior for having been born with blue skin, and therefore the name Blue Man Group is a racial slur against Scots.

Picture-291.jpg

J

Lessee: If you quote someone else it's egoism. If you quote yourself it's egotism.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe in a few years identifying someone as a "thespian" or a "homo sapien" will also trigger such outrage? Who knows what the next public outrage bandwagon will be?

I think that the next public outrage campaign should be to make Blue Man Group change its name...

Chris+Wink+Blue+Man+Group+20th+Anniversa

...because Mel Gibson wore blue war paint in Braveheart, and therefore the term "blue man" refers to Scots and the color of their skin, and I think it's viciously racist and humiliating to look at Scots as inferior for having been born with blue skin, and therefore the name Blue Man Group is a racial slur against Scots.

Picture-291.jpg

J

Lessee: If you quote someone else it's egoism. If you quote yourself it's egotism.

--Brant

I swing both ways.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now