I was watching 'Around the Horn' on Tuesday, and the long-debated issue came up of whether or not it's appropriate for the Washington football franchise to use the name 'Redskins.' Obviously, this is not the first any of us is hearing of this, and I'm sure I've had conversations with many of you before as to our thoughts on the name. Apparently, this latest round of debate was brought up by the decision (or defense of the decision) of the Kansas City Star not to use the name in its coverage of the team, presumably referring to them instead as simply Washington. Now, historically, I've been relatively agnostic about the whole issue, and half-heartedly defended the name based on a few arguments: 1) That choosing something as your mascot implies a pride and adoration in that mascot, so calling the team "Redskins" is a celebration of Native Americans, not an insult to them. 2) That the name "Redskin" does not seem any more inherently offensive than "White" or "Black," both of which are freely used to refer to ethnic groups (I feel like the brief era where some black people insisted on being called "African American" has passed; I don't know any black people who are offended by being called black), although admittedly the idea of having a team named the Minnesota Whites or Atlanta Blacks does seem a little odd, if not necessarily offensive.
But this latest discussion got me thinking again and investigating my logic, particularly because the argument made by the ombudsman of the Star reminded me of a decision I made myself about a decade ago to stop using the words "f*g" and "f*gg*t." Those were words I used often in high school and college, and if pressed on the bigotry of using them, I always pointed out that really my use of them had nothing to do with homosexuality, it was just kind of a synonym for "bad" or "weak" or "lame." But at some point I kind of decided that that was bullshit, and that it was a word that was used in a nasty way towards a group of people who I respected as humans, and so I just wasn't going to use it any more (or at least try not to - I'm not perfect and I may have even used it on this blog a time or two). Nowadays, I work really hard at educating my students not to use those words.
So is there a huge difference between the two? Well, maybe a little. "F*g" is never really used with a positive connotation (except for sometimes by actual gay folks in somewhat the same way black folks say "nigga"), while I believe that naming your sports team "Redskins" connotes pride and celebration of that name. All the same, they're two words that a group of people born a certain way find offensive. I don't say f*g, I don't say k*ke, I don't say n*gg*r, so should I not be saying r*dsk*n? Seems like I probably shouldn't. So I think I'm going to try not saying it or writing it for a while. I'm just going to go with Washington, or if it's really tortured to do that, maybe Skins (I think that's what I say most of the time anyways). A bigger question, of course, is if the franchise itself ever reached this conclusion, what would they become? While it's very difficult to think of the team by another name, it's even harder to think of them with a different logo or colors. So is there a way to keep the scheme of the franchise without the name? The actual, politically correct appellation we use for the people we're talking about is Native American or American Indian, but it's difficult to imagine ever calling a sports team that. But there could be a simpler solution:
The Washington Americans. It's a better fit with our MLB franchise the Nationals, and has more to do with our city's role as the nation's capital. And it maybe does a little bit to undo the decades of insult the franchise has done to our indigenous people by insisting that they are, in fact, the definition of Americans. You can even sing "Hail to th' Americans" if you elide the e and the A. It's no dumber a name than the Houston Texans, it's still a better song than "Fly Eagles Fly" or "Bear Down Bears," and it claims the title of "America's Team" from that other joke of a franchise.
OK, enough of my pontificating. Let's see what happened in Week 4 of NBD.
Replacement Players (115) over Higgs-Boson (114)
[Derek over Ray]
First, thanks to both of these teams for ensuring that we did not spend another week under the despotic regime of .... as the Classic Jam High Scorer of the Week. And thanks again to them for putting on such an entertaining contest. The Particles would have beaten any other team in the league this week, and at the very least the impressive performance of Michael Vick (19), Marques Colston (21), and Stevan Ridley (23) should give them confidence that they won't be sitting on one win for much longer this season. But that elusive second win didn't come this week thanks to a vintage performance by Tom Brady (32). While the run game of Marshawn Lynch (22) and Adrian Peterson (12) provided power early, it was Brady's late flurry of passes to Brandon Marshall (20) that won the day for the Replacements, who may have a name change in store themselves now that the replacement refs are gone and the players have proved that they can compete with NBD's elites. I am happy to make The Replacements' "Alex Chilton" the High Scorer Classic Jam of the Week. It is an awesome song. Love the guitar riff at 2:06.
Stocks in Clarks Wallabees (108) over Finga Sniffs (87)
[Elliott over Manning]
The Sniffs' Joe Flacco (24) came roaring out of the gates in this one, delivering his point total before the Wallabees were even on the board. Hooking up with Victor Cruz (17) and Rob Gronkowski (14), he gave the Sniffs a strong early lead. But as he did for Washington this week, Robert Griffin III (23) brought Elliott back to life in the waning moments. Aided by a solid running game from Michael Turner (23) and an opportunistic defense in the Texans (23), the Wallabees were solid in almost all facets of the game. A late flurry of scoring by Jason Witten (17) was mere icing on the cake.
.... (107) over Woody's Warriors (88)
[Papkin over Sherwood]
Though the Pips may have released their vise-like grip on Classic Jam honors, they have still not relinquished their position atop the NBD standings thanks to a decisive victory - their fourth in a row - over the Warriors this week. In addition to their perfect record, the Pips can now make a pretty incredible claim: they have the top scoring running back (Arian Foster, 15 this week), wide receiver (AJ Green, 18) and tight end (Tony Gonzalez, 5), and defense (Chicago, 24) in the league right now. And with a perfectly serviceable quarterback (Eli Manning, 19), that makes them a pretty unstoppable force, even for a Warriors team that boasts a very promising rookie running back in Trent Richardson (16) and finally saw a decent performance out of Chris Johnson (16). Woody's pass game, however, lagged far behind the run game, just as the Warriors lagged far behind the Pips.
Joe's Team (105) over Doo Doo (103)
[Colly over Screen]
Whooey! This was a tight one that came down to the final minutes on Monday night. The Collies came out firing through the air, with Matthew Stafford's (20) bizarre submarine motion somehow getting the ball to Vincent Jackson (16) and Larry Fitzgerald (12). But soon, Doo Doo's 49ers defense (29) picked up on the fact that Stafford's passes weren't getting more than six feet off the ground and started picking them off, to the tune of multiple pick-sixes. Forced to shift to the run game, Joe's Alfred Morris (17) picked up the slack and returned the lead to the Collies. As the game drew to a close, Doo Doo's Peyton Manning (25) attempted to make one of his classic comebacks, but his attempts to Alshon Jeffery (3) in the final seconds on Monday night fell just short, and Screen was consigned to his fourth straight loss.
Zombie Lassard (104) over Burke City Giants (97)
[Sovic over M Toobin]
So far this season I've been attempting to write these reviews as though they're real teams and real games, talking about Matthew Stafford throwing balls to Larry Fitzgerald, etc. Part of the reasoning for this is that Yahoo's game recaps have usurped my role a bit as a simple stat-delivery system, and do a pretty impressive job of pointing out interesting stats and such. But I'm stepping out of that "faux-reality" mode for a minute to wonder aloud something that the game recaps couldn't tell me: what percentage of fantasy teams with both Matt Ryan (26) and Roddy White (29) managed to still lose in Week 4? It's got to be single digits, right? But even single digits would be higher than Burke City's win percentage, which still stands at .000. That's what happens when your $16 free agent pick-up Dennis Pitta drops an 0-fer on you. Or when the Giants defense you picked up for that week's game only manages 3. Or when one of your starting running backs, Michael Bush (4), is an injury replacement for a guy who's no longer injured. Still, Ryan-White almost won the day single-handedly, and the Zombies needed Drew Brees' best day of the year (30) and another 2007esque performance by Willis McGahee (20) to keep the Giants winless.
Wild Stallions (97) over Brain Crapital 47 (88)
[DeYoung over M Haller]
As long as I've left faux-NBD journalist mode for the last write-up, I'm just going to stay there for this one, since I can't figure out how I would explain Aaron Rodgers' big day (29), while the Crapitals' receivers and tight ends combined for only 11 points. Maybe he was passing to Matt Prater (14)? Rodgers, along with Jamaal Charles (19) and Frank Gore (14), did manage to keep it somewhat close, but only because the Stallions were the lowest-scoring winner in NBD this week. The Stallions were also driven by their quarterback (31), who actually is probably capable of putting up those kinds of numbers without receiving help, but he got it anyway from Jordy Nelson (15) and Mike Williams (12). That's all I got.
So I know I mentioned doing Power Rankings or something this week, but my rant about our team name ended up eating up my brainpower and time. Next week I've got Columbus Day off, so maybe I'll put a little extra time in and give you guys something special. In the meantime, I can't wait to hear what you have to say about the Americans.
14 comments:
I'll comment on the Washington franchise after some more thought. But my loss last week has me steaming.
I lost to the Replacements twice. First, Brandon Marshall catches a touchdown pass from Jay Cutler with 3 minutes left while leading 27-10. Why throw? reminds me of my playoff loss last year to Drew Brees throwing while leading by 20 only to set a record. This puts the Replacements ahead by .9 of a point. But Dallas gets the ball and I have Miles Austin and Demarco Murray. Kyle Orton drives the Cowboys 80 yards for the TD. In the drive the running back has two runs for more than 10 yards and catches two passes. The slot receiver also catches two passes. Particle victory, NO!!! The running back is #34 and the slot receiver is #17. Replacements. They left Witten and Bryant in the game but took out my two nags. I piss and spit on Brad Garrett and Jerry Jones. My vaunted Arizona defense just gave up a touchdown in the first two minutes. Maybe I should piss on myself.
i love it. don't feel strongly enough to stop saying r*dsk*ns myself, but fully support your stance. and will try to spread the movement by leading many rousing renditions of "hail to tha 'mericans" at dorrians this weekend. also: can they still be "braves on the warpath"?
I would go with the full name, the Washington Native Americans. Then everyone could call them The Nates. We have the Nats, why not the Nates?
The guitar solo in Alex Chilton clearly bares the influence of "Another Girl Another Planet" by The Only Ones, whose leader Peter Perrett was a similarly strung-out rock-cult-genius type of figure.
@1:43
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvO7HNQPFRI
Hail to the merkins
As I am not a Washington die hard, I understand that my comments or opinions do not have the same gravity as those of you who bleed burgundy and gold. I don't have have a big dog in the fight. Saying that:
I think the name should be changed. I base this thinking on the origin of the term. Redskin was a derogatory term at its inception. It was meant to classify a race by an erroneous depiction of their skin color. I know that Washingtonians don't walk around thinking bigoted thoughts when they talk about their team but the name itself is offensive. It is different than Braves in Atlanta or Seminoles in Florida. But not far different than the Cleveland baseball team that should probably also change. Columbus never got close to Bombay.
Other names also strike me as peculiar. No one questions the New York Yankees, but what if Atlanta decided to call itself the Confederates or the Rebs. To the victor goes the spoils.
Then there are team names that travel from city to city. Lots of lakes in the Minneapolis area spawning the Lakers, but only the trickling LA River in Los Angeles. I wonder how many gigs Louis Armstrong had in Salt Lake City.
Teams have changed their names without the predicted catastrophic results. The Bullets became the Wizards and have not lost fan base. Stanford became the Cardinal and actually became better.
Before anyone asks, I could surely live with the Steelers becoming the High Techs, since they don't make much steel in the Burgh anymore.
That's my two cents. Speaking of cents, the penny was once called the "Indian Head" but that got replaced by Abe Lincoln.
When I originally read the blog post I had a number of different points to make and have since forgotten most of them.
However, generally speaking, my feelings on the issue boil down to the following:
1. Are there any Native American groups (by the way, when my folks were out in New Mexico recently they found that the real "Native Americans" out there actually refer to themselves as Indians; so why are we using Native Americans anyway?) that are actively and vocally opposed to the use of the name Redskins? That's a serious question. The reason I ask is because I've never been made aware of any, yet if there was a group or groups who were offended and they asked the organization to change, then I think that's a legitimate reason to change the name. But I don't think that a bunch of PC do-gooders, politicians, or fantasy football participants should dictate whether it is used or not. If the actual group of people that it represents is ok with it, then I am ok with it.
2. I have a difficult time comparing the term Redskin to the N-word, K-word or F-word. I briefly saw in one of Ray's replies that when the term was originally used it was a derogatory name, which is a fair and good point to bring up. Having said that, it's not exactly a term you ever hear used today unless it is with regards to the Washington Redskins. Actually, I take that back, in my experience it's a term that's NEVER used unless with regards to the Washington Redskins. In today's society to compare it to the N-, K-, or F-words seems a little crazy to me. Furthermore, to my knowledge, the organization has never used it in a negative light and has always portrayed the Redskin image/logo/whatever in a very honorable and proud way. It would be one thing if we had mascots like the old Cleveland Indian's cartoonish version, but to the best of my knowledge that has never been the case. On top of that, isn't the fact that the organization changed the lyrics of HTTR from "fight for old dixie" to "fight for old DC" proof that the organization is aware of offensive language and or gestures?
Long story short, I guess the only thing that would change my mind is if a group of Native Americans has/is/in the future asks for the name to be changed due to the level of offensiveness that it communicates to them. If it's already happened or is currently happening, then I am naive.
"Fight for Old Dixie" changed because it was no longer relevant, as the Cowboys introduction in 1960 broke the Redskins monopoly on the Southern markets. Not out of any racial sensitivity.
"Scalp Em" was removed from the lyrics due to sensitivity and complaints.
I'll weigh in and say the best case for keeping it is that since the 1800s, the meaning of the word has changed. It now means "proud football team", not "racial slur." At least to the vast majority of people in America.
No group holds a monopoly on language and meaning. Do homosexuals have cause to insist cigarettes no longer be called "fags" in the UK if the term offended them?
For a little historical context, I'll simply link to this Wikipedia entry on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_mascot_controversy. If you don't feel like following the link and reading it all, I'll summarize that there have been several efforts by Native American groups to have the name changed, including boycotts, protests, and lawsuits. So obviously there is some distaste for the name among American Indians. That said, the Wikipedia entry also cites a survey of Native Americans in 1992 where 90% of those surveyed felt the name was acceptable, and only 9% were offended by it.
One interesting point that emerges from Elliott's comments is our large ignorance and inexperience with the people we're talking about. I equated r*dsk*n to n*gg*r or f*gg*t or k*ke, and E said he had a hard time with that. I can't really argue the point that strongly, but neither can E, because we both know what it'd be like to say each of those words around the people they refer to, but seemingly nobody has any idea how a Native American would respond to being called a r*dsk*n, since no one knows any American Indians! I seriously don't think I've ever met anyone who can claim more than one-sixteenth of tribal heritage, and those are exclusively obnoxious girls (I know three of these!). My apologies if you actually have a bunch of Cherokee friends I don't know about, E, but you're right: Most of my opinions on the matter have been formed by hand-wringing sportswriters or PC politicians, not the people I'm actually worried about offending.
One point I want to emphasize here is that I'm not actually calling for a name change (and of course, even if I were, that wouldn't mean anything). The Americans thing was fun to make on Photoshop, but I'm not sending it to Dan Snyder. My own hand-wringing here is over whether I will continue to use the term. And I think I'd really like to hear a more up-to-date source than a 1992 survey, or speak to some actual Native Americans, to know whether I'm okay using what might be deeply offensive to some people. I really have no idea, and so I'm not urging anyone else to adopt the same stance, much less the team. This weekend, I went out with the Bardey brothers to a sports bar for the game. They referred to them as R*dsk*ns, and I had no problem with that. I sang Hail to th'Americans, and it was funny. It wasn't a big deal. But if someone knows any Sioux, Apache, Mohawk or Chippewa that we could ask, I'd like to find out if it should be a bigger deal.
is native jutts pc
Ask Roseane David.
http://valhalla.law.und.nodak.edu/LawReview/issues/web_assets/pdf/86/86-4/86NDLR879.pdf
Read this when you have 5 min.
I am in agreement with many of the points that Hylton makes in his paper. I am staunchly in favor of the Redskins staying the Redskins. We, as a society have become increasingly concerned about words and names and a fear of offending others. Sticks and stones, man! I think that in many cases, the tv pundits and numbskulls who are calling for name changes are not actually examining history. I might seem insensitive, but why is the term "Redskin" offensive? Should Indianapolis change the name of it's city? If the general public knew that it meant "city of Indians", I am sure that people would be pitchin' a hissy.
Our brothers from the early 20th century must be laughing in their graves if they can see the moronic issues that we debate (I include myself in this group).
Post a Comment