Senior Conspirator Eugene Volokh notes that polls show that a majority of Native Americans do not object to the use of the name Washington Redskins by the DC NFL team. As a general rule, I don't think that it's wrong to name sports teams after ethnic groups. Eugene correctly points out that naming a team after a group is usually the result of positive associations with the group rather than negative ones. Certainly, no one objects to the Minnesota Vikings, the Boston Celtics, or the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. The Notre Dame case is particularly telling, given that the team's name not only includes the name of an ethnic group, but also references the stereotype that the Irish are unusually violent. Team names such as the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves also seem unobjectionable. Indeed, using "Braves" as a team name seems little different from using "Vikings," in so far as both terms refer to a type of fearsome warrior associated with a particular ethnic group.
I have always thought that "Redskins" is a tougher case because the word has a long history as an ethnic slur against Native Americans. Thus, I would expect them to find it offensive. And they might well be justified in taking such offense. Certainly, blacks would have justifiable cause for anger if a pro sports team used the N word as a name, and Jews if a team started calling itself the "New York Kikes." The fact that most Native Americans nonetheless do not object to the NFL franchise's use of "Redskins" suggests that the term may have lost its insulting connotations. If it has, then it might be unobjectionable after all. However, I would need to see more data about current usage of the word and about Native American awareness of its past uses to reach a definitive judgment. Even if "redskin" is no longer much used as a slur in mainstream culture, it's possible that it still gets used in that way in some parts of the country with large Native American populations.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Ethics of Naming Sports Teams After Ethnic Groups:
- "'I Am a Red-Skin': The Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826)":
- American Indians' Views of the Redskins:
- Laches Proves To Be the Most Valuable Player:
What do you believe are the positive associations with Vikings or Fighting Irish or (say) wolverines that led them to be chosen as mascots?
Mascots are chosen for the stereotypical traits they embody -- NOT valence. So please consider what Native-American stereotypes a school or sports team might want to associate itself with.
Stereotypes are the problem, and to continue on your example of the New York Kikes, what if it were simply the New York Jews, and the mascot was simply an amalgam of mostly-positive Jewish stereotypes?
It wouldn't bother me.
Toughness, courage, competitiveness, determination, and so on.
2005 USA Today Article
From that article:
What if those "positive" stereotypes were double-edged? As they go: Jews are clever (conniving). Jews are good with money (greedy). Etc.
Or let me ask you, if you were a student at Harvard and Harvard was playing against the Yale Jews, and Harvard students were burning effigies of Jews before the game, what would your reaction be?
Toughness, courage, competitiveness, determination, and so on.
I have a very hard time believing man-on-the street comes up with your list when asked to free-associate Viking/Fighting-Irish/Wolverine UNLESS he is specifically thinking in terms of the sports team. And you left off things like rape, plunder, drunk, vicious from your list.
If a team called itself the "Jews" for the specific purpose of referencing these negatives, that might be different. But I doubt that would actually happen.
if you were a student at Harvard and Harvard was playing against the Yale Jews, and Harvard students were burning effigies of Jews before the game, what would your reaction be?
If it was clear from the context that it was merely a fun statement against the Yale team rather than an attack on Jews in general, I would be fine with it. It would be no different from Packers fans burning a Viking in effigy before a Packers-Vikings game.
Toughness, courage, competitiveness, determination, and so on.
I have a very hard time believing man-on-the street comes up with your list when asked to free-associate Viking/Fighting-Irish/Wolverine UNLESS he is specifically thinking in terms of the sports team. And you left off things like rape, plunder, drunk, vicious from your list.
I left them off because it is highly unlikely that sports teams intend to evoke rape and plunder in choosing their names or that those are the associations that come into fans' minds when they hear that a team is called the Vikings or the Fighting Irish. Obviously, both team owners and fans are indeed "thinking in terms of the sports team" when they consider sports team names.
Go Words! Go Words! Punctuate them, Words! Yaaaaah!
I admire your consistency. I suspect that many Jews would feel quite uncomfortable amid a burning rabbi and the associated chants.
I left them off because it is highly unlikely that sports teams intend to evoke rape and plunder in choosing their names or that those are the associations that come into fans' minds when they hear that a team is called the Vikings or the Fighting Irish. Obviously, both team owners and fans are indeed "thinking in terms of the sports team" when they consider sports team names.
Devil-deacons, hurricane's, vikings — these vastly different mascots have at least thing in common - they communicate "we are a threat." I believe this communication is generally the primary consideration in the selection of a mascot. Yes, nobody wants someone thinking specifically of rape and plunder when the Vikings are mentioned, but these historical associations — which I am certain would come up if you asked people to "free associate" on "Vikings" — are firmly a part of what makes Vikings "scary".
Similarly, Native-American mascots aren't chosen because people admire their basket weaving or their peaceful harmony with the earth. They are chosen to convey images of ferocity, war, resistance, mercilessness, and a primitive savagery that "you better not mess with." This is especially sad to me when you consider that they acquired these stereotypes from whites as they attempted to resist a genocide that killed 20 million of them.
And that is exactly what teams like the North Dakota Fighting Sioux were trying to honor, I think. Too bad the PC chases out the respect for their actions. Ditto with the Fighting Irish (who were mostly fighting ... defensively); and the Vikings. The Minnesota Scandinavians weren't honoring rape and plunder, but adventure and conquer. It's an honor to be a Vike, I can't believe your PCness blinds you to this.
And hello? When was the last time you saw a Viking, or a meat Packer, burned in effigy at a tailgate in a parking lot. Fires, are you kidding me? Security would be on you in an instance, no matter who or what you're burning. No hate crime legislation needed there... equal enforcement, and what a slipperly slope this loss of honorable Indian mascot names might bring in PC land?
And the Orlando Magic, pagan idolators for sure, equally place our souls in danger.
When these 2 get together for Game 7 of their Spring occult tomorrow, I expect my television to open up and swallow me like the little girl in that movie I can't remember the name of now.
How do we allow such wickedness in the naming of these franchises?
What do you make of the longer history Cited by EV that "Redskins" is what the Indians called themselves? "Redskins" is actually a more apt descriptor than "Indians."
It also has not been established in these 4 blog entries that "Redskins" is or has been a slur. It's only been asserted with no evidence presented. Perhaps someone should take a stab at that?
I grew up near an Indian reservation in Montana in the '50's and '60's and went to college with numerous enrolled members of several tribes. Even with that sheltered upbringing, I heard (unfortunately) the so-called "N-Word" used toward, and in the presence of black persons, on numerous occasions in my youth with obvious venom.
On the other hand, I have never actually heard anyone refer to a Native American, pejoratively or otherwise, as a "redskin" (except perhaps when I was about 7 and still playing "Cowboys and Indians"). I have heard Native American activists refer to themselves "the red man." If an angry white guy started ranting about, say, "the F***in' redskins," he would have been laughed out of the room -- there's simply no power in the epithet. Maybe there was in the 19th century on the frontier, but not anymore -- it is, at best, an historical artifact.
Now, I certainly wouldn't advise walking around Indian reservations yelling "Redskin, redskin, redskin," anymore than I would suggest walking around there whistling "Garryowen" -- both as a matter of courtesy and personal safety, because some member of that minority who disapprove of the Washington Redskins name (or the likely majority who disapprove of the 7th Cavalry) might just take offense and kick your ass. Still, I just don't see "Redskin" as in the same league.
Perhaps we could all work on finding a way to force Dan Snyder to sell the franchise -- now, that would be an improvement! I'll gladly keep the name if we can get rid of the owner. (On the other hand, if forcing a name change decreases the franchise value, then maybe he would sell -- hmmmm.)
Best,
Ben
Down with chickens!!!
PS this sort or righteous indignation is what perpetuates meaningless feuds and discrimination in this country
Now there's a nifty innovation in postmodern ethics -- the inheritance of hurt feelings!
Why stop with your grandmother? Probably your great- and great-great-grandparents suffered insult at the hands of someone or other. In fact, I bet if you go back not too many generations, one branch of your family tree held another in contempt, so you, the heir of both, should rightfully be offended by yourself.
Nice, given all the positive and neutral feedback about the actual word, it would seem that your offense is largely a creation in your own mind, or better, the mindless absorption of PC-think. In that sense, what won't you take offense at?
Um, I think you're mistaken. Aunt Jemima products have always been named Aunt Jemima. "Ni**er in a box" may be slang for Aunt Jemima's pancakes, but it's not a name they've actually went by.
As someone with an African great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- (etc) grandmother, I say to you, brother, let it go.
While I cannot prove a negative ("no person ever referred to Aunt Jemima as 'n-word in a box'"), there's a whole book on this exact subject, called Slave In A Box!, which isn't shy about using the word but never uses the whole phrase.
What do you have against short pants? Or is there another connotation I'm not aware of?
So I agree with the above comments that to the extent there was really ever an established perjorative use for the term, it has long been eclipsed by its use as the name of a football team.
I think the complaints about the redskins are most comperable to a hypothetical complaint that the name of the NAACP is perjorative. When NAACP was created, "colored persons" was an entirely appropriate way to describe african americans. That is no longer true, but somehow it's okay because NAACP was created by and is run by members of the group that would otherwise be offended. "Redskins" was never really a common perjorative, but some now find it offensive. I suggest that if the NAACP doesn't have to change their name, neither should the Redskins.
Prof. Somin, there is a rich irony in your post, which criticizes political correctness yet nevertheless purposely dodges use of the word "nigger," despite the purely pedagogical (and not pejorative) context. It's especially amusing that you'll use a slur for Jews in the same sentence where you refrain from using a slur for African-Americans. I suppose your explanation would be, "Because I'm Jewish, so I get to use the word." But isn't that the same PC-driven rationale that you are in effect criticizing?
Speak freely. Otherwise, you're not a real libertarian after all.
Han Solo: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C-3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han Solo: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
Chewbacca: Grrf.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win.
We chose the name because the Anasazi had advanced architecture that illustrated out software orientation.
Talk about inherited injustice!
This came about because, as a North London team, Tottenham developed a substantial Jewish following, which then itself attracted antisemitic chanting by fans of opposing teams. The Yids co-opted the slur, turning it into a badge of honor -- of sorts.
I should note that I don't bring this up to suggest normative implications for the debate in question - merely to note this historical oddity - which I find quaint.
I would like to know if anyone has actually based his opinion regarding Native Americans, in any degree whatsoever, based on a sports mascot. That would truly be idiotic.
Why are we not concerned that residents of Philadelphia are being stereotyped as green-furred, pear-shaped creatures?
French "sauvage", from which "siwash" is derived, does not mean the same thing as English "savage". A more accurate translation of "sauvage" is "wild, undomesticated". One speaks, for example, of "champignons sauvages", meaning mushrooms collected in the wild rather as opposed to raised on farms, or "chevaux sauvages" "wild horses", meaning horses that live on their own as opposed to those controlled by people. There may well be some secondary association of fierceness or savagery with "wild" Indians, but the term "sauvage" itself merely refers accurately to their traditional way of life.
It is true that in some contexts "siwash" came to be a pejorative term, but in Chinook Jargon it was not - it was simply the term for "Indian". "siwash" only came to be used as a pejorative term by speakers of English who generally did not know Chinook Jargon.
Knickerbockers is a term for the old Dutch in New York, who were known for wearing those pants. Rip Van Winkle, for example, is oft referred to as a Knickerbocker tale. The many old establishments (apartments, offices, clubs, etc.) in the city and its environs refer to the Dutch not to the pants
I assume its only a matter of time until someone decides that the name is offensive to women, by referring their old fashioned underwear. ASUch an argument would be as accurate as the scalp/redskin canard.
News Article
And the score
<blockquote>
"I take offense today in her memory."
</blockquote>
My late wife, whose n* Great Grandmother walked the Trail of Tears, didn't object. Not that it matters any.
Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit upheld a finding that the only remaining litigant in a long-running case had waited too long to challenge the team's use of the name. See Pro Football, Inc. v. Harjo.
The issue will recur, I am sure. So a number of questions arise, the last of which being the most significant and the one that the courts will do their best to avoid: 1) does anyone have standing to challenge the name (apparently yes, although the harm needed for standing seems theoretical to me); 2) is the name sufficiently offensive to warrant the cancelation of the trademark (the district court originally had said no); and 3) is the law that authorizes such a cancelation unconstitutional on the ground that it endorses a point of view and thus violates the First Amendment?
That third question implicates a number of other questions. How is offensiveness to be determined--by witness testimony, survey data, or a review of the literature? If either or both of the first two, is it a matter of majority vote? Assuming offensiveness is found, does the same standard of legal protection apply to a trademark as to other speech? If deciding that something is offensive is viewpoint discrimination, does this mean that no application for a trademark can ever be rejected on the ground of offensiveness, or are there degrees of offensiveness such that some is protected and some is not? Is it at all relevant that the team could continue to use the name despite any outcome, as the only effect of cancelation would be that it could not protect the name by means of the trademark law?
Is it no wonder that the courts would like to decide this dispute on other grounds (which would mean that the team would win)?
When most people think of Native-Americans, those very stereotypes I mentioned (among other stereotypes) are exactly what come to mind. You are under the mistaken impression that stereotypes necessarily develop from some conscious and deliberate information processing.
Why are we not concerned that residents of Philadelphia are being stereotyped as green-furred, pear-shaped creatures?
Because, unlike with Native-American mascots, Philadelphians do not labor under any such stereotype that is currently being reinforced by the mascot (and nor is such a stereotype expected to develop, and nor are Philidelphians a group that has historically suffered persecution or discrimination).
No, you're conflating "libertarian" with "insensitive jerk." It's libertarian to defend the right to be an insensitive jerk. It's good manners to abstain from exercising that right.
I don't know any Jews, and that includes my own large family, who are offended by the pedagogical use of "kike." On the other hand, many African-Americans are clearly offended by any use of the N-word. So again, provided you're not acceding to a prohibition on anyone's right to use the N word, choosing not use it is only good manners. Conversely, choosing to use it just because you have the right to is evidence you may be a rude, insensitive jerk. It's also a good way to ensure Libertarianism remains a fringe political movement.
(Sheesh. PREVIEW! PREVIEW!)
Nobody could possibly know that and I doubt that it is true.
I was doing research on this issue with the top researcher in the field, and one trivial and non-controversial early finding to this research was that the undergraduate students in our sample most certainly did have these stereotypes, as indicated by attitude and stereotype measures that both did and did not rely on their ability and willingness to consciously introspect about those attitudes/stereotypes.
Isn't it the job of the top researcher in "this field," whatever this field actually is, to make sure that he continues to have a job, which he only does by continuing to lament the existence and pervasiveness of such stereotypes?
Seriously, who in this day and age associates Native Americans with their bellicose counterparts of 200 years ago? The stereotypes these days are alcoholism, poverty and ca$in0* business. This raises a separate question: should you really be lamenting the stereotypes or the sociological facts underlying them, e.g., the indeed high rate of poverty among Native Americans?
*Volokh blacklists the actual word.
Who would you rather be associated with: fearsome people who need to be watched or broken societies eeking out an existance on the leavings of everyone else? (I will also note that the cas1nos apparently do not enrich most of the tribe members associated with the enterprise.)
In fact, people have addressed this over and over. You don't want to hear it. In fact, you yourself wrote:
In other words, as you admit, when people think about these things in terms of sport teams, it reinforces their positive aspects. How is this not a good thing?
The positive attitude/affect towards mascots is the valence -- which is different than a stereotype. I certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if mascots lead people to have more positive attitudes towards Native-Americans.
My problem (as indicated in the quote you reference) is that stereotypes like primitive, fierce, savage, war-like and violent are also communicated and, I believe, are likely to influence how Native-Americans are conceptualized. Indeed, this is the primary reason why Native-American mascots are chosen -- because, in the context of competitive sports or school spirit -- these stereotypes have a very positive and welcome connotation.
In fact, people have addressed this over and over. You don't want to hear it.
I guess it's possible that I'm just not hearing an answer. I mean there are so many obviously intelligent people here, and I feel like I've stated my concern in such a clear way. Yet still after all this discussion I can't verbalize in my own head any sort of coherent argument from any of you for why Native-American mascots do not express the stereotypes that Native-Americans are primitive, fierce, etc., etc.. When I try, I only come up with the unrelated points I've been trying to pick off. So either I'm stupid, or I'm not communicating my question well, or the problem for some reason lies outside me. I envy very much the security that your large numbers of smart people all agreeing must afford.
What I mean by this, if you were to go to Michigan's campus and ask "What do you think about wolverines?" the students are far more likely to associate the word with the school and thus the teams than if you were to go to a random town in Alabama and perform the same test.
There are also a few that are so engrained that wherever you go the school is likely to be the first association. I would have to think Fighting Irish fits this category, perhaps better than any other.
These associations also likely vary by time as well and depending on the team's performance. People would be more likely to think about the Washington Redskins during football season as an example, and especially if the team were doing well.
As for team names evoking fear or a threatened feeling, witness:
Akron Zips (named for a shoe brand)
Arizona Cardinals
Evergreen State College Geoducks
Ohio Buckeyes
Seattle Sounders FC
Boston Red Sox
UCSC Banana Slugs
Williams Ephs (named for founder Ephraim Williams)
I would imagine this was a source of pride rather than discomfort for Jews.
How many of those are only offended if the word is used by a non-African American, and what does that mean?
Of course. When did I say otherwise? But that doesn't mean you have to use the word to have the discussion. You knew exactly what I was talking about, and I haven't used it. So using it is a choice, one everyone should be permitted, and which anyone who isn't going out of his way to be jerk will abstain from making.
If civility and consideration don't matter to you, then you have no problem.
And who decides what's a slur for this purpose? Apparently, you think as long as you don't intend offense, none should be taken. Well, that's just not how everyone's wired. Some people can't decide not to be offended. So, knowing that many will be offended, do you say, "not my problem" or do you make a small civilizing gesture that sends the message that, as adults, we don't need government to tell us how to talk to each other? Or do you send the message that if, as a society, we want to prevent certain behavior, we better criminalize it, because some of us refuse to recognize a difference between "legal" and "proper?"
I suspect a minority of African Americans feel that way. And what it means is that for them language is a proxy for the speaker's intentions, and they assume black people don't use the word to express their hatred of black people. Others who use it they can't be so sure about, so they'd prefer they not use it at all. That sounds reasonable to me.
I operate on a similar set of assumptions. Anyone I know not to be anti-Semitic is welcome to use anti-Semitic slurs humorously in my presence, because I know it's meant affectionately. But if I hear a stranger use the same words, I'll question his motives.
I don't know a single person who believes "that native American people are primitive, fierce, warlike, savage, and dangerous." Do you?
If anything, the current stereotype is that they are shiftless drunks, wasting away in poverty on reservations while "stealing our fish" and running gambling establishments. What about a team called the Menominee Croupiers? Or the Chippewa Poachers? ;-) Now, those would be stereotypes. But a cartoonist could design some dynamite mascots.
Likewise, how many people believe the Vikings are actually going to row up the river and burn their subdivision, or that the South High Spartans were sent to the agoge for training at the age of seven?
The West High Centurions are a stereotype of what? Italy hasn't recovered from it's WW-II stereotype of cowardice.
They are dead stereotypes, devoid of their association with reality, and most people know that. They are a romantic tribute to what many view as "the good old days" (Ah, how I miss the diphtheria!) - those halcyon days of yesteryear. The days that never were.
First, I think you might be surprised at the number of people who don't know that Native-Americans are a real and modern social group in this country.
Second, your use of the word "believes" makes me think you have an overly narrow view of stereotypes. Try saying to some of your friends "What kind of person comes to mind when I say 'American Indian' and please feel free to report back what they say. If Native-American mascots encourage or reinforce some particular response to this question that involves stereotypes, should we not say that Native-American mascots encourage/reinforce stereotypes?
And it appears to be the case that the vast majority of Indians have no objection to the "Redskins," just as the vast majority of Irish have no objection to the "Fightin' Irish."
By contrast, North Dakota is changing the name of its team - the "Fighting Sioux" - because the two Sioux tribes in the state object to the name.
This seems a reasonable approach to the matter...if large numbers of the affected group actually object, the name should be changed. If they don't, then you ignore the noisy minority and honor the wishes of the members of the affected groups.
I should point out that both Vikings and Fightin' Irish would likely have been considered quite offensive in the 9th century/1840's respectively...but the negative connotations are now gone and what you mostly have is romanticized nostalgia. Given the success of the Irish in America today, the fact that one's great-great-great-grandfather was known for getting drunk, getting into fights, and getting taken off in the paddy wagon every week would me more a source of pride than shame.
But other terms are still negative - I don't think we'll see the Cleveland K*kes any time soon, for example (and I can only imagine what their mascot would look like); and I suspect there would be a lot of objection to, say, the Newark Mafia. (Although I may be wrong about that).
I've never met one, but maybe I'm sheltered. I've only hung around in urban and rural areas on both coasts, and in the interior, hanging around with professionals, laborers, and Rednecks. Seriously, I've never met anyone who doesn't know there are still Indians as a social group. That being said, few people actually think of them much. They are truly out of sight out of mind.
The stereotypes are "drunken bum," "They own casin..." (is that word really banned here?) "They're stealing our fish" (because of their treaty fishing privileges). Rednecks are particularly incensed about that one. Oh, and "We stole their land," maybe with the addendum of "But we deserve it." That's what comes to mind when it you ask about Indians.
The only people I know who think of Indians as savages, are some who live around the reservations, but even that is mainly with pity. My ex-wife worked in "the first ER out from the Reservation." They got to stitch up the drunken fighters. That's all that was left of the "Noble Savage."
The "scalping murdering Redskin" of the 1850s and the old Cowboy movies is a giant step up from the stereotypes they have now.
If the sports names are lost, the only images left are the bum and the gambling parlor. I'll not exaggerate it and say that would be a tragedy, but it would be a lessening.
I think it is important that if one is going to make schools or teams go through all the effort of altering their mascot/trademark (and suffer the real consequences to such changes), that one needs to demonstrate that mascots have real negative consequences. So yes, I do think it's relevant what Native-Americans think insofar as I think it would be a bit presumptuous or arrogant of me to say "this is harmful to you" to people who don't perceive any harm themselves. As a libertarian (believe it or not), I'm very hesitant to impose my view of the good on others.
Having said that, the situation is much more complicated. I gave the example of a Native-American attending a school that is playing against another school that has a Native-American mascot, and of this person having to endure the indignity of seeing the effigy of a Chief burned or otherwise assaulted, amid anti-Indian chants. This sort of thing happens, and strongly diminishes the relevance of polls in my mind.
Lastly, as Eugene noted when he first posted the poll data, there are a number of problems with this data and it is self-serving to point to unreliable/biased polling and say "This may or may not be good but it's all we have and so it should help us make a decision".
Is this because of the Indian connotation, or the fact that "Sioux" is in itself an insult? It apparently means "snake." They weren't popular with their neighbors. If they were the Lakota Warriors would the objection be the same? Beats hell outta me.
There's an interesting incident that illustrates some of the issues with "patronizing" the Indians.
There is a Boy Scout troop in Colorado that styles itself the Koshare Dancers (Boy Scout Troop 232 and Venturing Crew 2230 of the Rocky Mountain Council, Boy Scouts of America). They specialize in historical and interpretive Indian dance, including a powerful interpretation of the Ghost Dance. One of the nearby tribes had objected to their use of Indian ritual. The tribe sent a delegation of elders to visit and speak with the troop's leaders and Scouts. In the aftermath, and with the cooperation of the troop, the elders took away one set of regalia, which was deemed too close to sacred Indian tradition. (They now use it in their own ritual to the delight and pride of the Scouts.) Then they hired the Scouts to come out to the reservation and teach their people to dance.
There has also been some protest against the Boy Scouts' use of Indian imagery in their Order of the Arrow society of honor campers. The BSA has adopted a Song of Hiawatha sort of stereotype for the OA's ritual and traditions. That's as distorted as the "Murdering, Scalping Savage" stereotype, but the swing of opinion appears to be that it is more positive. I can't see Brotherhood of Cheerful Service working for a sports team, though.
>>>---WWW--->
This whole tempest is merely an example of the euphemism tredmill... one generation's neutral term becomes another's inflammatory label.
By the time you have to dig to being offended by a /rival/ team's mascot you are simply looking for offense for offense's sake. Yet one more reason to cheer for your own team.
Would you actually expect a student from Ireland attending Notre Dame to get upset by students from USC hanging an Irish effigy? Or even that same student attending USC for that matter?
People can belong to more than one community at a time, sometimes even conflicting community images at the same time. To say otherwise seems to be the very essence of identity politics.
Sure and this reminds me of the Orangeman who died, and who (being a fool) went to St. Peter seeking admission into Heaven.
"But you're an Orangeman," said St. Peter. "What makes you think you can get in here?"
The Orangeman thought for a minute (a fairly new experience for him), and finally said, "I should be admitted because I'm the bravest Orangeman that ever lived."
"And how are you figuring that?" asked St. Peter.
"Well, I'm the Orangeman who walked down the Falls Road waving a Union Jack and singing 'The Sash My Father Wore'."
"Really?" asked St. Peter. "I've never heard of that. And when did all that happen?"
"About thirty seconds ago."
[ba-dum, BUMP. Ksssssh]
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your servers.
It's almost too bad that's not true. We'd both be hoisted by our own petards.
Many commenters find this theory implausible, and so do I: I doubt that either the negative versions of the traits that might be brought up by the term "redskins" (e.g., savagery, bloodthirtiness, etc.) or the positive ones (e.g., fierceness, vigor, bravery) have any effect -- conscious or subsconscious -- on modern attitudes towards American Indians. But if you could point to some such specific evidence, I'd certainly be open to looking at it, and I'm sure the other commenters would be as well.
(I set aside for now the very different question of how an Indian might feel at seeing his school's mascot being burnt in effigy by the other team. I'm skeptical that this will upset him, for much the reasons mentioned above, but that's a different issue from the stereotype question that most of your comments have focused on.)
When we lived in Red Wing, Minnesota, a young Sioux who was a classmate of our older daughter took every opportunity to harass her and, if possible, physically assault her. One thing that I noticed about him was that he was wearing a Chief Wahoo ball cap whenever I saw him. I didn't survey the rest of the tribe, but Cleveland Indians team apparel is a big seller nationwhide.
By the way, what stereotypes are brought to the fore by the West Virginia University Mountaineer or the U of Mass Minuteman, not to mention those Green Bay Packers? On the other hand, I never could figure out what was meant by having the Cardinals as our high school mascot. Sort of like the Toronto Blue Jays or the Toledo Mud Hens. Those mascots existed before Alfred Hitchcock produced his Birds movie. Then there are the St. Helena Saints, who thrashed us soundly in football during the four years that we played them in high school.
Reminds me of the sign that a friend claims he had seen hanging from the windows of one Catholic school, referring to the hoped-for outcome of an athletic contest with another Catholic school: "Beat Holy Child."
No I don't I have such evidence, and to be honest I'm not even sure what it might look like. (as I think it would be hard to locate such evidence when it comes to the propagation of stereotypes about other groups as well).
So I guess I'm just operating under the assumption that social stereotypes that imply undesirable traits (at least outside a context in which those traits are desirable) will likely result in disadvantages for members of the stereotyped group.
But you find this theory implausible?
Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I need more than just a bare assertion that American Indians are supposedly being harmed because of stereotypes supposedly being perpetuated by the Redskins team name.
Too bad we didn't have this conversation five years ago. I'd probably have a PhD right now.
That's an interesting anecdote, but I'm not sure why you think that any particular individual (especially this ruffian) serves as a useful stand-in for even his tribe, let alone all Native Americans in general.
And I also find it interesting that whereas one individual Native wearing the Cleveland Indians ball cap is some kind of evidence that the use of an inarguably racist image is not that offensive to Natives in general, the offense that any particular Native takes at such imagery is discounted if surveys can in anyway establish that most Native Americans are not offended. My point being, if we're going to dismiss the validity of the opinions of a minority (or even individual) Natives, then we should probably do that in all cases.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.