As I review the boards, it never occurs to me to be offended by a sports team's name. After all, teams were named in far less enlightened times. I am of course referring to the recent media rekindling of Native American discontent with Washington's mascot.
An Air force friend who commented extensively on my "Slaves to the Symbol" post regarding offense and the Confederate battle flag passed along this article discussing the debate and thought I might comment.
Some might raise the specter of "political correctness" and warn us that we are taking offense too easily these days: "Come on, get over it already." They might point to Notre Dame's mascot and argue that Irish-Americans aren't up in arms about the jut-jawed leprechaun stereotype.
On the other hand, I can understand why they might be offended and I know that I would certainly notice if the bookie's board had spreads for the Metropolitan Niggers vs. the Neon City Kikes.
The word "redskin" was used in part to dehumanize an opponent during a long period of intermittent warfare. Dehumanizing epithets are a cultural universal, especially in times of violent conflict. Thus, "redskin" can be compared to "gook," "raghead," "jap" or "kraut." I cannot say whether or not the epithet "redskin" is as offensive as these examples, if gradations of this form of insult are possible, to the Oneida Nation. It is not my place to make that call and it is easy for those distant from the offense to dismiss its severity to the offended.
We cannot avoid offending others and sometimes this offense is critical to our strength as a republic. I am pretty certain a large percentage of the population would find offense at some of my opinions, but I still need to be able to express those opinions in a civil manner. Calling people names is also not restricted, although under certain circumstances it can be libel or slander if the name-calling is public, false, and damaging.
The Redskin's case is neither an expression of political, economic, or religious policy nor is it slander or libel. Additionally, it seems that a huge majority of Native Americans are ambivalent toward the Redskin's mascot.
Does this matter? Do we allow every offended group to dictate how others use language? Does the size of the group or its relative power matter? How far should we go to avoid offense?
At this point, I could not support court action or legislation to decide this matter, although such court action was attempted some years ago in this specific case. I am pleased that the NFL is at least willing to discuss it, although how seriously they are considering it is beyond my ken.
Ultimately, I would ask, just as I clarified in a reply to the "Slaves to the Symbol" post, that we continue to at least consider those aggrieved and not dismiss them offhand. In our daily lives, we should seek to avoid gratuitous offense. Why? Because those "say what's on their minds and don't give a shit what other people think" are both louts and liars.
2 comments:
So here's my question...Why were they named the Redskins in the first place? In the history of naming sports teams were there ever names similar to your examples for Metropolitan or Neon City? I don't think so because teams are always named after things that we have respect for due to an entities strength, bravery, ferocity, etc. I don't see teams being named after things people don't respect (in some way or another).
As for your Chief's statues, not at all bad because those are done out of total respect for a tribe leader's wisdom, leadership, and bravery, which is what those statues embody for our enlisted leaders(at least in my opinion). Now I might be a little biased as I am a KC Chiefs fan as well, but again that name is not being attacked. Also love to further the conversation.
The argument against Chiefs' groups using the headdress and iconography came from Native Americans who viewed such usage not as intentionally demeaning, but as just generally ignorant. I advocated, in Italy at least, for an award of a centurion bust, since the Roman centurion is far more analogous to an AF CMSgt.
Native Americans offended by the Redskins' moniker (and there aren't that many, as I pointed out in my piece) argue that the Chiefs and the Braves aren't derogatory terms, but as you mentioned, at least partly used to indicate some level of strength, bravery or ferocity.
The Redskins are the only team I can think of with names similar to my fictional sports team names, and I doubt that the name was specifically meant to offend.
Post a Comment