From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Raceism Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:07:08 -0500
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Raceism
> Today on the news we learned that questioning hype around a quarterback is
> racesist,
UH.....that is not what happened, what was said, or even what is claimed.
> but naming a team after an ethnic group which doe not desire to > have the team named after them is not.
Actually it isn't. For one thing, those who are complaining tend to live in places other than the Washington DC area, so they really have no say in the naming of a sports team in Washington DC.
Sure they do. The name is a registered trademark by the Federal government. State boundaries do not provide immunity to Federal trademark infringement so the reasoning behind this argument seems flawed to me.
Another point is that this complaint is a recent phenomena, only surfacing
in the last couple of decades, while the name has been in use for at least 4
times longer. Where were the complaints when the team was first named?
So you're saying that racism is ok if it's been around for a while? I'm truly not trying to bait you Rob, but this seems to be what you're trying to assert?
An additional question: Do you know for sure that there weren't complaints made when the name was first chosen? I'm not sure a lawsuit would have had any legal standing until the mid-40's.... or even then, considering the point Julia raised.
Thirdly, the name "Redskins" as applied to a sports team is in no way demeaning. On the contrary, sports teams are named with the intent to be impressive to a foe. By naming the team "Redskins", the namers show that they hold some degree of regard for "real" redskins.
Well, the suit filers seem to have a different opinion.
Lastly, have you noticed that the "Redskin" logo depicts a dignified aboriginal, while the "Braves" logo (which recieves fewer complaints BTW) depicts the same in a goofy stereotypical manner?
So..........are you going to complain about Big Chief writing tablets next?
If a team used the name 'The N*ggers' and had a bunch of black men in business suits as their mascot, the disparity might be obvious, but we'd still recognize the name as racist. More on this later.
<Rush Limbaugh stuff snipped>
>
> But what about the so called "redskins"? A clear case of football racesism
> here. Today the judge in the appeal sided with the NFL and against the
native
> americans who find the team's name severly distatefull. Only one brodcast
> even mentioned the rulling.
That is because very few people take such a frivilous lawsuit seriously.
I saw it on three major networks and on CNN and NYOne news. The media here paid attention and it wasn't a slow news day. Oh, and the suit was 11 years old. Somebody cared about it enough to see ti through to the end.
BTW, how many Native Americans have you polled on this subject? Because I know for sure you never asked me. (Look at a pic of me on Steves page) Or do only purebred people count?
An interesting question, but unless you think the suit should have been dismissed based on a lack of NA support, I don't quite understand your point. Since a lawsuit was initiated, why shouldn't we simply assume that at least some people feel strongly enough that the term was disparaging to take action?
>
> What would anyone think of a football team named the "Crackers", or
> "Whiteies", what about "Darkies", or the "Wetbacks"? Maybe missipppi needs
a
> team named the the "Slaves". How about the Huston "Cong" or the New York
> "Chinks"?
How very extreme of you. Why not just come out and suggest "niggers" while you are at it. What you are saying certainly seems to imply that all these "names" have an equal perjorative value. They do not. None of them are nice, no, not one bit, but they are not equal. And "Redskins" has pretty much fallen off the map as a perjorative.
Considering that a lawsuit has been initiated, are you certain about this? Do you live in a community where you come into contact with anti-american indian racism on a regular basis?
I'm not a member of the NA community. I also posted this as an example and did in fact mention the 'n' word there and above. Can you explain why you think the term 'redskin' is not as strong or extreme a pejorative as the others? I sort of assumed that it had the same negative value as 'chink' or 'kike' does to an asian or a jew. Am I wrong? Why was the lawsuit initiated then?
I think that perjorative terms, losing the power to hurt is a good thing. And this seemingly PC attitude you espouse actually perpetuates a perjoratives ability to hurt.
The term may not be used as often, but I don't personally think that makes it less hurtful when it's used. I'm not sure that ignoring racism is a constructive solution either.
There is a sports team called the Whities. And their motto is "Everythings gonna be all White". The team is mostly Native Americans and they named their team in order to make light of the "Redskins" lawsuit supporters.
I believe they are in Colorado with Debbie. <G>
Didn't someone say that satire is the greatest form of flattery? :)
~~~~~~~~
Rob, I know this can be a really explosive issue and I've tried really hard to phrase these questions so they won't be misinterpreted as an attack. If I offend you at all with them I'm really sorry. That's totally not my intention. I guess I just empathize more with the suit filers.
Jon
Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
