Update (9/26): A commenter, whose post I deleted, called me a liar because the story states that some Indians are offended by “Redskins”, but my title reads, “Only White Liberals…” I thought it was obvious that I was exaggerating in the post title for effect. I excerpted the story and linked to it so everyone could see that some Indians are offended by the word. My point is that white liberals are at the forefront of this stupid stuff, and the survey shows the majority of Indians are not bothered by the name. If my intent wasn’t clear, I hope it is now.
***
Just as I thought:
A poll of American Indians found that an overwhelming majority of them are not bothered by the name of the Washington Redskins.Only 9 percent of those polled said the name of the NFL team is “offensive,” while 90 percent said it’s acceptable, according to the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey, released Friday.
Annenberg polled 768 Indians in every state except Hawaii and Alaska from Oct. 7, 2003, to Sept. 20, 2004.
The survey found little disparity between men and women or young and old. However, 13 percent of Indians with college degrees said the name is offensive, compared with 9 percent of those with some college and 6 percent of those with a high school education or less. Among self-identified liberals, 14 percent found the term disparaging, compared with 6 percent of conservatives.
I blogged about something similar: American Indian vs. Native American.
White liberals puzzle me with their paternalistic, presumptuous and often preposterous schemes, thinking they know what’s best for everybody else. I’ve had a few lecture me on how racist conservatives are. Can you believe it? I better go to bed before I say something I’ll regret in the morning.
By the way, I’m not a Redskins fan. I’m a Carolina girl!
Anything bad for the Redskins is good for me. HOW BOUT THEM COWBOYS!!!
Comment by Chris Roberts — 09.24.04 @ 11:10 pm
This theatre of the absurd plays itself out on the collegiate level, too. For several years, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has been subject to an onslaught of PC protests over their allegedly racist mascot Chief Illiniwek. The head honcho of the main front group is led by a U of I professor with the last name Kaufmann. Doesn’t sound to indigenous to me. For further reading, search the news-gazette.com archives for the keyword Illiniwek.
Comment by P.J. Hinton — 09.25.04 @ 12:43 am
And at the high school level as well. My high school was called the Renton Indians. We had a letter from the Chief of the Indian tribe who we were supposedly named after (who knows, there are a lot of different Indian tribes in the area–Washington State near Seattle) saying he was proud to be affiliated with us and that they considered it an honor. The letter got trotted out every couple years as someone new would contemplate suing us. Of course, it was always some white liberal lawyer, no actual American Indians ever complained to my knowledge.
I’ve been out of the area for a while, but my parents still live there, and as far as I know, they’re still the Renton Indians. (They tend to keep me informed of the worst excesses of liberals in the area. In such a liberal area, they can’t tell me everything or we’d never talk about anything else.)
Comment by Elizabeth B — 09.25.04 @ 1:31 am
[…] ;— Posted by Greg Krehbiel
— Email article to a friend
La Shawn makes plain what most of us suspected all along – that the people who are off […]
Pingback by Crowhill — 09.25.04 @ 3:56 am
Native American Offense
La Shawn posts the results of a new survey on whether Native Americans are offended by the name of the Washington Redskins. I’d like to know the numbers on how many are offended by the term ‘Native Americans’, since almost…
Trackback by Parableman — 09.25.04 @ 8:56 am
It’s typical liberal white guilt. History is history, and white liberals just cannot seem to get on with life.
Comment by RepJ — 09.25.04 @ 10:05 am
I am a huge ‘Skins fan. Keep the name the same.
Comment by Kyle Suggs — 09.25.04 @ 10:15 am
Carolina girl? So “Panthers” doesn’t bother you?
Comment by CGHill — 09.25.04 @ 10:20 am
If there were a dummycrats football team, it would appropiately named Dummycrat Jacka****.
Comment by Andreas Brecht — 09.25.04 @ 10:23 am
Hey, I’m a “Native American” (albeit caucasian). I was born here! Heck, so were my parents.
Comment by Mark — 09.25.04 @ 10:26 am
Fly, Eagles Fly…
They will OWN the NFC East this year, btw.
I can say from experience, as a pinkskin (to low a fraction for the fed to call me a redskin), I don’t know anyone but handwringing liberals that insist on the native american term. It torques off most redskins that I know.
Sorry in advance for this slightly off topic promotion, LaShawn.
BTW, if anyone is the Philly, NY area over Columbus day weekend, the Rancocas reservation in NJ has a nice little festival, with tribes from all over the Americas in attend. Do a google search on Rancocas festival, and you’ll find all the info.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.25.04 @ 10:29 am
Mark, if we take the logic to the extreme, everyone Earth needs to move back to Africa. Maybe we can have a lottery to redistribute the population to the other continents. I am hoping for Australia myself, but with my luck lately, I’ll get Antarctica…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.25.04 @ 10:32 am
Mark: say it with me, E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!
Comment by avery — 09.25.04 @ 11:02 am
It really doesn’t matter if various Native Americans polled find no offense with the name “Washington Redskins”. It’s still the public use of a offensive racial epithet by a corporate entity for profit, and should be discontinued.
However, I understand why some native peoples are not bothered by the name. Who has the time to be angered over a name when failed schools and abysmal poverty levels on reservations continue to oppress various Native American nations within our country into second-class citizenship?
Where was the Marshall Plan for the reservations?
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.25.04 @ 11:48 am
When I was spending half of my life in Africa and half in the States, I described myself as an African-American.
In fact, I am not sure exactly what my racial make up is although its not something I spend a lot of time thinking about. I’m an American mixed breed. If I look closely at my skin with a magnifying glass, I see lots of brown, some blue, some green and some pink. Cool!
Comment by Pat Wilson — 09.25.04 @ 12:16 pm
It’s still the public use of a offensive racial epithet by a corporate entity for profit…
But shouldn’t the opinion of Indians themselves carry any weigh in determining whether the word is an “offensive racial epithet?” Some whites may think calling someone “black” is an epithet, but I’m offended when they call me an “African-American.”
If people don’t like “Redskins”, they should use the power of the free market and boycott the organization. Must we always resort to whining and lawsuits and stupid protests and complaints by bored, paternalistic, too-much-time-on-their-hands liberals? I find that offensive.
And the “oppressed” talk bores me. The word, which means “to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority”, has been watered down to describe any group that’s poorer than another, has kids stuck in failing government schools, and a whole host of things. Let’s give people what they need for true “empowerment”: Individual and economic freedom, school choice, etc., and let’s ditch the “oppressed” talk and save it for places like the Sudan or the Middle East. Using it to describe anyone in America is a cheap and disingenuous way to arouse emotion and misguided guilt.
Fortunately, it doesn’t work on me.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.25.04 @ 1:03 pm
La Shawn,
The opinions of the oppressed class can carry some weight, but not all weight, La Shawn. If the opinions of the oppressed class should carry all weight, then every white person on this blog decrying the prevalence of affirmative action in this country should stop speaking on the subject posthaste, leaving the discussion to better informed people of color. Of course, that type of censorship has no place in America.
As I said previously, Native Americans who honestly believe that the name “Washington Redskins” is not offensive are probably inundated by other factors, like poverty, unemployment, high illiteracy rates and low political power.
Many people do use the power of the free market to boycott the Redskins and other offensive corporate products. The problem is when those individual actions are not enough to cease the unneeded race-baiting from corporations. Furthermore, no one resorts to “whining and lawsuits and stupid protests and complaints” when using the power of the American judicial system to air grievances with the manner in which corporations do business. The real question is why conservatives always assail the ideal of corporate social accountability except when it suits their God-fearing, paternalistic, Christian conservative purposes, like conservative politicians upset at Interscope Records for promoting acts like Snoop Dogg or Marilyn Manson.
Further, no one has watered down the term “oppressed” in the American context, especially in reference to Native American nations. Can you honestly say that the Native Americans have not been “kept down by severe and unjust force or authority” wielded by the United States of America? Are you willing to believe that it doesn’t happen anymore, especially given the vast number of treaties and agreements the United States has no plans to uphold?
Given your comment La Shawn, one could argue that you believe it near-impossible to be “oppressed”, economially or politically, in America. I won’t quote Sen. John Kerry and say you are living in ‘a fantasy world of spin’, but I point to American homelessness and unemployment, police brutality and racial profiling against racial minorities, and the unjust and illegal voter disenfranchisement of Black voters in the 2000 election - all problems of which you are well aware, La Shawn - as a sensible starting point for you to re-evaluate reality.
People are not beheaded by the government in America. Instead, we allow you to reach maturity without adequate, affordable health care while living in dilapidated, unsafe, crime-infested housing, without a functional education system, without jobs that will support reasonable expenses, and without political clout of any kind to alter these conditions, and tell you that your ignorant, poverty-stricken, powerless citizenship is your fault, and that speaking against the regime that allows these conditions to exist is “helping the terrorists”.
But, of course, real oppression only happens “over there”. Got it.
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.25.04 @ 2:29 pm
Well, James, everything you write about is well-covered terrority on my blog. But it’s as though you’re here for the first time. I’m not going to reinvent the microchip, so for my views on voter “disenfranchisement”, etc. peruse my archives.
And as I’ve said before, I’m a native American, too. Be more precise in your terminology.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.25.04 @ 2:37 pm
But that’s kinda my point, La Shawn. Preciseness in information. The news article you cite doesn’t give information about the manner in which those poll results were gleaned, or the other questions that could have been asked along with the offensiveness of the “Washington Redskins” name.
We don’t really know how the study worked, so asserting that it’s findings mean that Native Americans (or American Indians, whatever you prefer) are not offended by the name “Washington Redskins” isn’t, in my opinion, really supported by very much.
I raised more than just voter disenfranchisement of our people in my last post though. Do you believe corporate social accountability should never be pursued, or should be pursued selectively, or what? In this case, outside of the obvious (well, okay, obvious to some) offensiveness of the corporate brand name “Washington Redskins”, you discounted the American citizen’s use of governmental institutions to pursue corporate social accountability, and I don’t understand your parameters in that assertion.
If a chemical company was polluting a local river with toxic waste, killing fish, hurting industry, and poisoning drinking water, citizens, in my opinion, would be correct in filing a grievance with the EPA in order to compel the chemical company to cease and desist its pollution and attempt cleanup of the affected environment.
Are persons suffering under the social pollutants of offensive racial epithets prepackaged as corporate brand names not justified in bringing their grievances to relevant governmental institutions for redress?
True, the Washington Redskins aren’t killing fish, but if affected citizens in my chemical company example did not know or had not conclusively proven to all that the toxic waste from the chemical company was hurting them and their children, would those concerned citizens still be remiss in bringing their grievances to relevant government institutions, regardless of how they know they’re being affected?
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.25.04 @ 3:20 pm
James, James, James. Your alarmist and over-the-top views are “[F]ull of sound and fury, signifying nothing”, to quote Shakespeare.
And I know you raised more than voter disenfranchisement, which is why I used the word, “etc.” after it. I didn’t want to delineate everything you wrote, which, in my opinion, was irrelevant to the “Redskins” issue. And the toxic pollution metaphor falls (and fails) flat.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.25.04 @ 3:33 pm
James, There is only thing to call someone like you, “Killjoy.”
It is true that in the past people used used harsh words to demean other people. The intent was always to condition another people’s thoughts and to keep them in their place.
In using the name Redskins there is no intent to defame. The American Indians, in the main, recognize that– most have taken its use as a compliment.
The only thing in question is your motives; you have no injured client. You are acting for yourself– for what purpose? Your intent is to condition other people’s thoughts toward your politics and to keep the white man in his place.
Comment by Lou Wheeler — 09.25.04 @ 4:16 pm
I’ve never been able to figure out how naming a team after someone is an insult, anyways. I always thought it would be an honor to have a team named after you! Are the “Eagles” named the “Eagles” because we don’t like eagles - or b/c we admire eagles for their strength, tenacity, etc. - qualities we want the team to emulate? How is it racist to say that someone has characteristics that you admire & wish to emulate?
Comment by Mayflower — 09.25.04 @ 5:21 pm
Here in Colorado, a group of American Indians were put out by a local High School’s mascot: the Braves, so they somehow temporarily got the name changed to “The Fightin’ Whiteys” and even sold t-shirts and other memoribila with the logo.
Sales were brisk. People thought the “Fightin’ Whiteys” were teriffic!
Comment by Mark Slater — 09.25.04 @ 7:26 pm
Another thing… What’s all this talk about the Eagles? Sure they are probably the best that the NFC can muster, but they, and any other team that inferior football conference can produce; will be squashed by the AFC’s finest.
Comment by Mark Slater — 09.25.04 @ 7:28 pm
Heard that John Edwards is going to bring a class action suit against all native americans for introducing tobacco to the white man.
Comment by ratso ferrari — 09.25.04 @ 8:05 pm
La Shawn,
The toxic pollution metaphor was dead-on accurate. You can evade the issue if you like, this isn’t a democracy. It’s your blog.
I just wanted to allow the discussion to move beyond lowbrow sniping at liberals or conservatives over divisive racial issues into a more constructive conversation over the corporate social accountability issue you unintentionally raised. If that’s not where you want to go, that’s fine. Here’s the obvious question.
How would you all feel about more equality in these corporate brand names?
We have the Atlanta Braves and the Washington Redskins.
How about the Colorado Crackers?
The St. Louis Sambos?
The Washington Whiteys?
Or, Chris Rock’s old punchline, The New York Niggers?
In all seriousness, completely without any sarcasm intended (I don’t like sarcasm either, La Shawn), are these names anything more than unneeded race-baiting?
If not, why do people defend the first two?
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.25.04 @ 8:24 pm
WOW!! La Shawn is a Carolina Fan, cool. As someone who lives in North Carolina, maybe we should look at starting our own 527 org, “Panthers Fans for Truth”.
Comment by Ray Phelps — 09.25.04 @ 9:06 pm
How bout the New England Liberals?
Comment by ratso ferrari — 09.25.04 @ 9:37 pm
“…why do people defend the first two?”
Because the people who are supposed to be insulted and denigrated by those names don’t see any problem with the names. That’s what the post and the poll pointed out remember.
Comment by Samantha — 09.25.04 @ 9:39 pm
Before the Atlanta Braves, there were the Atlanta Crackers. The precedent has already been set James, so buy your team and go for it!!!!
These sports franchises won’t change because they have spent millions and millions of dollars in marketing, name recognition, and merchandise manufacturing. There is too much money wrapped up into it to placate those who are opposed. Even if using those names isn’t right.
The poll proves the point. If the Native-Americans were diometrically opposed to the names, then change would have taken place by now. It’s not up to others who think they know better to voice their opinion as advocates for the Native-Americans. Besides, isn’t the bigger priority fixing the real problems of Native-Americans. Let’s get their situation (lack of education, housing, good paying jobs) squared away before we worry about the name issue. To me it demeans the bigger picture. Like I’ve told DarkStar and others, we got to quit putting thumbs in the dike.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 09.25.04 @ 11:01 pm
And if they do change their name, I’ll still hate ‘em just as bad. GO COWBOYS!!!
Comment by Chris Roberts — 09.25.04 @ 11:02 pm
My high school was the Indians. They changed it to “Trevians”. Now there’s a name that strikes fear into the opposition! People thought we were from outer space!
I remember seeing some white liberal reporter shoving a camera into the face of the chief of the Seminoles and asking if he was upset that Florida State used “Seminoles” as a mascot name. The chief said: “No, because of Florida State, we’re the most famous tribe in America!” The reporter looked shocked by the answer.
Comment by Bill Steffen — 09.26.04 @ 12:11 am
Boy oh Boy! James really does know how to twist an issue, how do we go from naming a football team to toxic waste in a river? As some of the comments point out, the naming of a sports team (especially football teams) is to show how strong and mighty a team strives to be. The Redskins, Braves, Seminoles, etc. were picked to show the quality of strength. The names James uses in his later post were picked (by him) to show the absurd. In a way, he really argues against himself by using over the top names. It completely shows the contrast between picking names of teams for degrading reasons and picking names for reasons of strength. Moreover, even if names are originally picked for degrading purposes, it may very well backfire. The team may garner a large following and dominate the sport turning the name into something synonmus with winning and strength. Finally, even if we were to rename all teams to non-Indian names, the American Indian will leave the popular conscious of the American public. If it were not for the names of sports teams, a vast majority of the public would not even know the Indians were in America in the first place! How’s that for weaving a new issue into this blog? (the poor state of teaching American history in our schools)
Comment by Don — 09.26.04 @ 1:16 am
Niners fan here!
Comment by Kiki B. — 09.26.04 @ 2:39 am
As a Neosho American I want to thank you for your post that the magority of us are not offended by a NFL team being named the Redskins. More times than the moon has risen I have repeatedly pointed out to the politically correct crowd they are wrong in their belief we are offended and for putting words in our mouths without any thought of asking our permission.
To these self proclaimed saviors of ours I point out that by having teams named the Chiefs, Blackhawks etc., it keeps our race, its causes and existence in front of everyone. By continually being reminded of us this way may hopefully help remind everyone of our dire needs, that all to often become out of sight then out of mind.
Why,for example, should we not be proud to have a team named the Indians the same way the Norse are proud to have a team named the Vikings.
Comment by Johnguy Howard — 09.26.04 @ 8:07 am
The high school which my brother’s stepdaughter attended, in a Chicago suburb, recently changed the team name away from “Indian”. They did so, however, at the behest of the many students of Pakistani descent.
Comment by triticale — 09.26.04 @ 10:23 am
LaShawn -
I would have been rooting for the Panthers were they playing *anyone* but my team last February. However, both sides played a great game, and the Panthers have much to be proud of for a fabulous season and Super Bowl. Here’s to a second match-up in 2005.
PC
Comment by PatriotsChick — 09.26.04 @ 10:58 am
“Because the people who are supposed to be insulted and denigrated by those names don’t see any problem with the names.” - Samantha
According to this, the only offense generated by a racial epithet is subjective. I do not agree. I believe that a racial, gender, ethnic, sexual orientation, religious, or otherwise group negative slur is designed to be offensive regardless as to whether the target audience decides to be offended by the term used. Therefore, the designed offense is both objective and universal. Sometimes the target audience is not represented enough to express any meaningful assent or dissent whatsoever.
For example, if within a group of white twentysomething stockbrokers at a bar, one of the white women refers to a Black female co-worker as a “nigger bitch”. Should anyone be offended? The Black female co-worker is not present, and never has to know. Should anyone present be offended? If so, then is their offense paternalistic?
What if the Black woman was present, and her white female co-worker made the aforementioned statement? If the Black woman did not register outright vitriol with the white female, or tried to ignore the comment, or perhaps did not hear the comment when all others did, would the Black woman’s lack of response indicate acceptance of those terms used to demean and denigrate her to the other assembled white co-workers?
What if the Black woman hears the comment like everyone else, but registers no problem whatsoever or laughs along? Maybe the Black and white female co-workers have some odd connection of demeaned friendship, who knows. Is it then improper and paternalistic for one of the white male co-workers to register offense and discontent with such terms? Is he simply a ‘killjoy’? The only so-called ‘joy’ he may be terminating is mirth derived from the racial degradation of minority groups.
I’ll be honest - even if people have known certain team names to be upstanding elements of strength and robust virtue their whole lives, that does not mean that those same terms are not also racially debasing and unnecessary.
You do not have to be a American Indian to find fault with the “Atlanta Braves”.
You do not have to be a Native American to find fault with the “Washington Redskins”.
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.26.04 @ 12:41 pm
Mr. Lamb,
You are comparing apples to oranges. As others have already commented the team names are not chosen to denigrate a group but to identify with the positive things about that group. If you can argue that there is something positive about calling a sports team “nigger bitches” then maybe you might have a point. Otherwise you are just ignoring what is for what you wish would be. Your last two statements,
“You do not have to be a American Indian to find fault with the ‘Atlanta Braves’.”
and
“You do not have to be a Native American to find fault with the ‘Washington Redskins’.”
beg the question of why. Why are you so offened and bent out of shape over those names when the people who are supposed to be oppressed by them are not? Why is their approval of the use of these names not good enough for you leave the issue alone? Why are their voices on the issues not the ones that have the first and last say? And why is the historical fact that American Indians were fierce warriors not good enough for the rest of America to remember this by naming teams in their honour? Why continue to argue that these names are offensive to American Indians when they repeatedly say that they do not find the names offensive?
Comment by Samantha — 09.26.04 @ 3:48 pm
What if the Atlanta team changed its name to “Negras” or “Darkies” or a New York team changed its name to “Kikes” or “Yids” or “Spics”?
Stan in San Diego
Comment by stan — 09.26.04 @ 4:22 pm
Yahoo! I frequently check out your blog, LaShawn, and enjoy it but I’ll enjoy it even more now knowing you’re a Carolina Panthers girl
Keep up the good work!
Comment by Sister Toldjah — 09.26.04 @ 6:12 pm
Isn’t it nice when you find out
… that one of your favorite bloggers is also a fan of your favorite NFL team?
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 09.26.04 @ 6:17 pm
Did you know that the California legislature recently passed a law that would prevent public schools from using the name Redskin? The governor vetoed it. At first I thought that was the reason for this post, but then I didn’t see where you mentioned it. Here’s a link: docrampage.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_docrampage_archive.html#109593019303364293
Comment by Doc Rampage — 09.26.04 @ 6:49 pm
So, to sum things up, it doesn’t matter if the indians are offended, or if LaShawn is offended. It only matters if James Lamb and co. are offended on their behalf.
Personally, I think the Indians might be offended… AFTER THE EAGLES OWN THE NFC EAST!!!!
Really, who wants to be associated with a losing team? I could make some Bo-Sox, Bo-Tox, Mass. democrat analogy here, but I think I just did.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.26.04 @ 7:31 pm
I’m Irish and have never been offended by the terms “paddy wagon” or “donnybrook’. The only people who have been offended by these are liberals.
What I do find offensive is that stupid leprechaun that Notre Dame uses.
But then, who the heck cares?
Comment by Partisan Political Operative @ 11372 — 09.26.04 @ 8:23 pm
SCSIwuzzy,
No one is offended on anyone else’s behalf.
People are offended because racial epithets used as corporate brand names are offensive.
It’s as if some people here see nothing wrong with corporations making money off of the racial pain of American minority groups.
I wonder why.
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.26.04 @ 9:23 pm
By the way, anytime anyone wants to discuss the ramifications of individuals and groups using governmental institutions to pursue corporate social accountability (please see my earlier posts as to why I consider that question relevant), please feel free.
The random sniping over racial offensiveness is both boring and useless. I asked serious questions about the conservative argument against offended people pursuing lawsuits against the Washington Redskins to compel a sense of corporate social accountability on that organization. In case people forgot, …
“Many people do use the power of the free market to boycott the Redskins and other offensive corporate products. The problem is when those individual actions are not enough to cease the unneeded race-baiting from corporations. Furthermore, no one resorts to “whining and lawsuits and stupid protests and complaints” when using the power of the American judicial system to air grievances with the manner in which corporations do business. The real question is why conservatives always assail the ideal of corporate social accountability except when it suits their God-fearing, paternalistic, Christian conservative purposes, like conservative politicians upset at Interscope Records for promoting acts like Snoop Dogg or Marilyn Manson.” - James Lamb
To any opponents of my position on this issue, why the conservative double-standard?
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.26.04 @ 9:24 pm
Your argument is a liberal double standard. Liberals file lawsuits and seek to bar teams from using those nicknames, which they find offensive. Yet they defend those who use rampant profanity and promote free sex, drug use and other vices, which many people find offensive. Before you start throwing out the “double standard” litmus test, better check your own argument. The names may be offensive to you, but Marilyn Manson is offensive to me. I choose not to listen to Manson and Snoop, don’t buy their records. Is it enough to stop them from producing their works, no. Should I file a lawsuit, no. First Amendment rights apply to all, including those who choose to name their teams Braves, Redskins, Indians, etc. If someone wants to name their team Coons, Negros, Whiteys, Polloks, etc., that’s their business. If they want to change their name, that’s their business, just as it is Snoops business to rap about “smokin trees and hittin hoes.” I wish he wouldn’t, but the law protects him just as much as it does the Washington Redskins.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 09.26.04 @ 9:41 pm
“Your argument is a liberal double standard.” - Chris Roberts
No, sir. That is incorrect.
I never said I had a problem with lawsuits against Interscope Records, or any corporation, filed by citizens pursuing corporate social accountability through governmental institutions.
I think those lawsuits are fine.
My question concerned why conservatives have no problem with the lawsuits against popular music corporations like Interscope Records, but view lawsuits asking the Washington Redskins to alter their racially offensive name as “whining and lawsuits and stupid protests and complaints by bored, paternalistic, too-much-time-on-their-hands liberals” to quote La Shawn.
There is a conservative double-standard. Your position may not share this double standard, Mr. Roberts, but most other conservative positions certainly do.
I want to know why.
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.26.04 @ 10:11 pm
James,
For the ‘racial pain’ part, you have to show that the action is causing pain. If the indians aren’t pained by the team’s name, who is?
How about ND? Does the Fighting Irish need to go too?
Indian Motorcylces? Minnesota Vikings? Tampa Bay Buccaneers (the implication that Floridians commit or endorse piracy, and the painful memories of people who have been plundered on the high seas)
Also, why do you assume that all conservative think and act alike (do we all look alike, too?)?
While the alternate team names brought up by Stan are offensive and derogatory, and could only be taken as such, as I believe Samantha pointed out, the Redskin’s are not called that to mock the American Indians.
Should Jim Thorpe, PA, go back to being called Mau Chuck?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.26.04 @ 10:11 pm
Simple, James. They don’t find the names offensive, but they find the music very offensive. I think I made that point clear. How is that a double standard? And please don’t call all those who aren’t offended racist. That would be labeling. I also made it clear that both are protected by the First Amendment. I don’t agree with lawsuits against either. Until the Redskins stop selling out all 92K tickets to 8 home games because everyone is offended by the name, they have no reason to change. I was illustrating that if you call the conservative postition a double standard, then the other side is a double standard too.
I see where you are coming from, and I am trying to illustrate the other side of the equation. If I have failed, blame it on my state-school college education vs. the finer institutions of the Ivy League :>
Perhaps there’s no way to effectively make the conservative case to you?
Comment by Chris Roberts — 09.26.04 @ 10:26 pm
I think the offense is all in the intent of the speaker. Back to James Lamb’s example, is the white woman calling the black woman “ni**** bit**” as a twisted term of endearment, or in a nasty derogatory way? Sounds simple, but I really believe it is that simple. Also, precisely why it’s wrong to jump down anyone’s throat for using the terms without knowing what the speaker’s motivation is.
Comment by Jeannie — 09.27.04 @ 12:08 am
“I see where you are coming from, and I am trying to illustrate the other side of the equation. If I have failed, blame it on my state-school college education vs. the finer institutions of the Ivy League :>” - Chris Roberts
Wow. Envious much?
“I think the offense is all in the intent of the speaker.” - Jeannie
Now, here’s an interesting point. The speaker’s motivation is a concern, but again, not the only one, in my opinion. Is it ever possible to have a ‘twisted term of endearment’ like ‘nigger bitch’ that was not in some way offensive?
I believe that racial epithets are always offensive. The speaker’s intent can not be the only concern when using racial epithets, because the historical and current race-specific social damage bred into such terms by design exists without respect for the motivation and intention of the speaker.
The racial epithets I’m using in this and other posts are sick and demeaning and offensive and evil and wrong.
Case in point: a white straight male friend of mine in college once had an discussion with me about a black comic. To disagree with a point I made, in a joking manner, my friend replied with a dismissive “Nigger, please.”
I was not amused.
We immediately launched into an argument over his comfortable, commonplace usage of that slur against me. Now, after some effort, I realized that my friend meant no ill will towards me in the usage of that misguided language. However, as I promptly and consistently informed him, it really didn’t matter whether or not he meant anything derogatory towards me.
That word will always be imbued with America’s worst levels of race hate; one cannot divorce the English language equivalent of over four centuries of anti-Black American race hatred and violent suppression of Black people through simple context clues and professed speaker motivation.
Racial epithets are always wrong.
George Orwell, in his landmark essay “Politics and the English Language” spoke more eloquently than any other 20th Century writer about the power of language to shape thought and to frame human understanding. Without the words to describe, analyze and interpret our experiences and thoughts, Orwell believed, people cannot communicate effectively, or understand each other. The problem is that human thought is subjective, and easily manipulated for political concerns.
Keeping that in mind, I believe that when some conservatives profess ignorance of racial pain and group offense, or pretend that the victims of certain negative race language are the only persons allowed to speak against such terms, they deny themselves the ability to view racially vitriolic elements of modern English for the terms of oppression that they are.
In short, they consciously and willfully deny themselves the ability to comprehend the historical and present-day oppression and subjugation of groups of American citizens they consider unlike themselves.
As long as a person seriously doesn’t understand the utter depravity of a racial hate term like ‘nigger’ or ‘redskin’, they never have to interrogate whether such terms truly have any place in a civilized society. This person can simply ignore the terms, and their respective American histories, completely, blocking all attempts by others to educate on the unabashed evil of the terms or to question publicly the use of such terms by any legal entities, corporations included.
It’s not as simple as ’some stuff offends you, some stuff offends me, allow market forces to judge what stuff deserves a place in American society’. Sometimes people should be willing to learn why certain words and phrases have so much historical and current evil that they always offend and demean, regardless of context.
I have demeaned people by using racial epithets to explain these points. For that, I apologize.
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.27.04 @ 2:49 am
Not envious at all, just a dull attempt at humor. I am very proud of the school I represented as a college athlete, and for achieving the academic success I did.
James, you are letting loose with a lot of coherent argument, but I don’t think you are convincing anyone of your point of view. As I said earlier, the reason why most people here aren’t offended by the nicknames is because they don’t classify them in the same category as “ni**er.” You probably won’t win any converts here. Everyone can agree that using the n-word is blatantly irresponsible speech, but there is no consensus on Native American nicknames. Especially amongst the Native Americans, as evidenced by the polls. Research consistently shows no consensus among Americans on this topic. We can all appreciate healthy discussion, but I think we’ve beat this one into the ground, with each side making their case. Once again, we need to agree to disagree and leave it there.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 09.27.04 @ 10:02 am
Chris, James, there are plenty of names American Indians find offensive, though Redskin isn’t normally one of them.
Sqauw, for instance, is highly offensive to many (since it is a rather crude term for a female reproductive organ), so I could see rising complaints from a team called the Seattle Squaws. There is hate in this word. redskin carries about as much hate as black or white; there are people that say these three words with hate, and those that hear them with hate, but they are by no means a majority.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.27.04 @ 10:20 am
The root of this seems to be that James feels that corporations are inherently evil, simply by existing, and that anything that corporations do must therefore be evil as well.
I just cracks me up to hear liberals drone on and on about some great ‘corporate conspiracy’ with secret, evil designs to keep the little guy down. Of course, these ideas are circulating around among people who mostly have no idea whatsoever of the reality of the corporate and business world. Most business people find them hysterically funny because they’re so patently ridiculous. But the frightening theing is, many liberal-leaning and humanities-based persons actually, seriously believe this, and they pass laws and run for office and such on the basis of these beliefs.
I guess a lot of people need some sort of mystery or excitement in their lives, and they prefer to believe in deep, dark conspiricies that don’t exist.
It’d be funny if it wasn’t taken so seriously by the left.
Comment by Claire — 09.27.04 @ 12:09 pm
“The root of this seems to be that James feels that corporations are inherently evil, simply by existing, and that anything that corporations do must therefore be evil as well.” - Claire
I never said anything like this.
I don’t believe this.
Claire, is it easier to for you to discuss these issues if you just make up my opinions for me?
That’s offensive.
Try reading my earlier posts and questioning my logic. Mr. Roberts and others have, why can’t you?
“As I said earlier, the reason why most people here aren’t offended by the nicknames is because they don’t classify them in the same category as “ni**er.” ” - Chris Roberts.
You’re right that most people don’t find those “redskin’ on that same level of offense. I think they should, but that’s another essay.
“You probably won’t win any converts here. … Once again, we need to agree to disagree and leave it there.” - Chris Roberts
That works for me. I don’t proselytize, just question. Fun while it lasted, no?
Comment by James Lamb, Jr. — 09.27.04 @ 12:43 pm
Just cruisin’ thru the last 57 comments, watching everyone get upset, and had this thought:
Has it occured to anyone that Mr. James Lamb might be pulling everybody’s leg?
I mean, his comments are straight out of the Conservative’s Guide to Sterotypical Liberals and Why Its OK To Hate Them.
Just wondering…
Glen
Go Eagles!
Comment by Glen Carey — 09.27.04 @ 1:45 pm
La Shawn,
Your website is really hopping!
Comment by RepJ — 09.27.04 @ 3:38 pm
If you look into why teams are named you will see how their names symbolizes power, a ruler and most times being fearless warriors therefore to be a Washington “Redskin” is definitely intended to be a compliment. There are so many other offensive things being said and done to Native American than naming a football as an honor such as celebrating “Columbus Day” and Thanksgiving” (just to name a few). I, being part Ojibwa, take more offense in the celebration of those holidays then being considered a monarch. But that’s another blog :-).
GO LIONS!!! (This is the year they make a come back)
Comment by Danielle — 09.27.04 @ 3:58 pm
Hey our local high school team is called the LIONS and we have others in our country like the MINERS,INDIANS,LOGGERS,TIGERS,CARDENALS, and our jonnior collage team are the EAGLES so what do a few of these have against teams like the REDSKINS,INDIANS,BRAVES,CHEIFS,COWBOYS,PACKERS and what ever. Well then a few years ago those idiots at PETA was demanding that the GREEN BAY PACKERS cange their names to the PICKERS i guess they dont like a team called the PACKERS becuase it refers to meat packers and the PICKERS refers to like picking vegetables what a bunch of fools at PETA but only a real dweeb would ever join a stupid organization like PETA
Comment by firebird — 09.27.04 @ 4:24 pm
I say God bless their little white achey breakey sensitive hearts.
Excuse me please, I’m getting misty.
Comment by Jim R — 09.27.04 @ 6:45 pm
La Shawn, after reading Lamb Jr. and co.’s stuff and yours and the other’s responses, all I have to say is KEEP VOICING YOURSELF (for me). They will never get it. And we will never buy it.
Comment by noah — 09.28.04 @ 2:16 pm
Always fun James. People should invigorate their intellect.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 09.29.04 @ 9:46 am