View Full Version : U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancels "Redskins" trademark
PennyQuilts 06-19-2014, 02:28 PM I don't think it is appropriate for me to slur males of any race (because they are male) and if I do, I think I should properly be ashamed of myself. That I am a member of a historically oppressed group is no excuse.
Urbanized 06-19-2014, 02:30 PM It's a slippery slope, but I am troubled by names/mascots such as "Redskins" and "Savages" but completely UNtroubled by names like "Braves", "Chiefs", "Seminoles", etc. That is, as long as there are not accompanying graphics or mascots with a racist bent (for instance I think the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo comes pretty close to the line if it doesn't cross). To me, if it is specifically celebrating the heroic elements of a culture (especially one connected to the locality or region), it is no different than "Cowboys" "Steelers" or "Rangers." That is my own litmus test; I know others disagree and think they shouldn't be used at all.
But Redskins is a pejorative. There's just no way around it.
Rover 06-19-2014, 02:31 PM Rover, so it is safe to say you cared what the person thought of you? BTW - you have been called a honkey. I saw a Blank Panther video where they called every white American a honkey.
I would care not based on my on self esteem and ego as you seem to think everything emanates from for everyone, but from the fact that it is an attempt to denigrate, control, separate, etc.. Would I think it okay to name a team the Honkeys"? You justify people calling others names because you saw an old Black Panther video on youtube? You seem to think because someone does something wrong then it is okay for everyone. And now, you even seem obsessed with the word honkey like a child is about "poop".
The attempt to rationalize all of this is just amazing and says a lot about the progress that is still needed.
PennyQuilts 06-19-2014, 02:32 PM Love that typo!!!
As it happens, I've walked at least a few feet in the shoes of a minority, and can attest that it does feel very threatening to be surrounded by others who appear to have power over you. That feeling of being threatened is what finally drove me to abandon my plan to raise my sons in a racially integrated neighborhood, and join the white flight to another part of town. And the feeling was justified by actual events, not just racist fear -- being attacked by a six-year-old wielding a pitchfork, having my mailbox rifled by a teenager and my first thousand-dollar check stolen (postal inspectors found it hidden beneath the teen's house across the street), taking my eldest son to the emergency room with a broken arm thanks to that same teen; these are only a few of the incidents that occurred, and the OCPD was no help at all. Had I not gotten postal inspectors involved, the teen would not have even been taken downtown.
I still wish for a non-racist society, but don't think it's going to be possible so long as black racists get a free pass while white racists are rightfully condemned. Bill Cosby's skit about the bus driver and the green people still rings true...
Yup, went to Millwood for three years and you have no idea if you haven't experienced it what it is like to be a minority in a group that feels they are justified in engaging in racism.
Just the facts 06-19-2014, 02:32 PM Not caring what someone thinks doesn't stop them from exerting power over you.
You might not care what I think of you but I could still ban you from this site (just a hypothetical! :) ) and that would affect you very directly. And I could do it for no other reason than harboring a strong dislike for Floridians or another bias. And if I did it, I could find plenty of other excuses to explain my behavior without revealing those biases.
Not all power is of the variety that you bestow to others through your own free will. Especially in the situations we're talking about, it was unfairly usurped.
You see though - I do care what you think for that very reason. That is why I would never go out of my way to offend you and if you perceived that I did offend you I would apologize for it.
Just for fun I tried do a diagram to determine if a word offensive or not because we know it isn't as simple as word=offensive. There has to be an intent on behalf of the speaker to be demeaning and an inference on the recipient that the term was demeaning AND there has to be some level of caring why someone would want to demean you. I'm not saying "don't care" I am asking "do you care". For some people that answer is Yes - I do care.
You see though - I do care what you think for that very reason. That is why I would never go out of my way to offend you and if you perceived that I did offend you I would apologize for it.
But in my example, you would have been at the mercy of my power due to things about yourself outside your control.
And that's what we're talking about here.
Just the facts 06-19-2014, 02:41 PM As I have written about in a totally unrelated subject, intent is only part of the problem, but the bigger part is perception. It's not enough if I consider my actions to be wrong or not wrong, it is if people I care about think it was wrong. René Descartes asked how do I know I exist. His answer was, I think therefore I am. The next question is "how do I know you exist and are not a figment of my imagination". The answer to that is it doesn't matter if you exist or not - if I think you exist then you do in fact exist to me (even if no one else can see you). The same applies in this situation. If you think there is a problem - then there is a problem. If I care what you think then I try to resolve it to your satisfaction. If I don't care what you think then I don't care what you think and go on about my life.
So in the Redskins case, a group of people have said they find it degarding. The owner of the team said I didn't intend it to be offensive and I don't care what you think and went on about his life.
Now if I was the owner of the team I would have renamed them a long time ago. I would have called them the Washington Republicans and then watch people fight over if it is a degrading term or a term of honor - and if the meaning is applied correctly or not.
Dennis Heaton 06-19-2014, 02:48 PM [QUOTE=Jim Kyle;801295]As it happens, I've walked at least a few feet in the shoes of a minority, and can attest that it does feel very threatening to be surrounded by others who appear to have power over you.[QUOTE]
Lawdy, lawdy...like walking down the sidewalk, with a another friend, in Downtown Seoul, South Korea during the afternoon, as the college students are gathering in the streets for another demonstration (1990), and you suddenly realize you are the only two blonde, blue-eyed Americans, that are definitely in the wrong part of town.
I still wish for a non-racist society, but don't think it's going to be possible so long as black racists get a free pass while white racists are rightfully condemned.
Who is getting a free pass?
Absolutely no one would say it's okay to treat another person badly due strictly to the color of their skin.
Just because it goes the other way a minuscule percentage of the time doesn't change anything we're talking about here.
And BTW, I'd like to point out that among all the people debating this, I'm pretty sure I'm the only that lives and works in areas where not only are whites the minority, it's an extreme.
I ran a nonprofit in one of "worst" neighborhoods in all of Los Angeles (and that's saying something!) for 7 years and where I was often the only white face in a very large crowd. Certainly it took a while to earn the trust of some and I don't doubt that most assumed all types of things about me because of the way I look. But I have never had any sort of problem whatsoever. I treat everyone with absolute respect and it is almost always reciprocated.
Living in Southern California with all it's diversity has changed my perspective radically. I simply never had the option of just insulating myself here because it's not possible.
I'm not trying to imply that my viewpoint is more valuable than anyone else's, just providing some perspective and sharing what have been some pretty unique experiences. All of that has caused me to think much differently than when I lived in Oklahoma.
Just the facts 06-19-2014, 02:53 PM I would say that it is 100% the intent and 0% the word.
To follow up - let me add that language is just a common means to convey thought and/or emotion through sound or visual representation. The word can't be offensive - only the thought or emotion that produced the word can be offensive.
PennyQuilts 06-19-2014, 03:08 PM Who is getting a free pass?
Absolutely no one would say it's okay to treat another person badly due strictly to the color of their skin.
Just because it goes the other way a minuscule percentage of the time doesn't change anything we're talking about here.
And BTW, I'd like to point out that among all the people debating this, I'm pretty sure I'm the only that lives and works in areas where not only are whites the minority, it's an extreme.
I ran a nonprofit in one of "worst" neighborhoods in all of Los Angeles (and that's saying something!) for 7 years and where I was often the only white face in a very large crowd. Certainly it took a while to earn the trust of some and I don't doubt that most assumed all types of things about me because of the way I look. But I have never had any sort of problem whatsoever. I treat everyone with absolute respect and it is almost always reciprocated.
Living in Southern California with all it's diversity has changed my perspective radically. I simply never had the option of just insulating myself here because it's not possible.
I'm not trying to imply that my viewpoint is more valuable than anyone else's, just providing some perspective and sharing what have been some pretty unique experiences. All of that has caused me to think much differently than when I lived in Oklahoma.
For what it is worth, I wouldn't change the experience I had as a blond haired, blue eyed girl with a strong southern drawl at a 98% black school for anything. I found out what it was to be a minority, which in my case included being repeatedly beaten up for being the wrong race, called every kind of racist slur, sexually assaulted (amounted to groping, multiple times) because I "wanted slaves;" and just resented and ostracized. This lasted about a year and then we sorted it out, the hostility stopped and I was gradually accepted. I was very upset when I had to transfer after three years. The slavery issue is definitely out there for African Americans but being a minority isn't pleasant for anyone. After being targeted while a young girl, often violently, for the sins of white America that took place before my family even came to this country, I personally think I've paid the debt for my share of white guilt. ;)
^
Truly sorry for that you went through that, Penny.
But you are right, it's rare that a white person in America ever experiences these things and it offers a glimpse of how if feels to be on the other side of the table.
I also suspect this was some time ago and that things are better in this regard at Milwood and elsewhere.
PennyQuilts 06-19-2014, 03:36 PM ^
Truly sorry for that you went through that, Penny.
But you are right, it's rare that a white person in America ever experiences these things and it offers a glimpse of how if feels to be on the other side of the table.
I also suspect this was some time ago and that things are better in this regard at Milwood and elsewhere.
Pete, I hope things are better but my own opinion is that just about any powerless minority is typically treated poorly. It is one of the reasons I am so spastic about prejudice, period. All it takes is a shift and you can find yourself in a minority position - wrong school, neighborhood, job, during travel, etc. When, for any reason, prejudice is excused, tolerated, minimized or justified, we don't get at the root of the problem. People know what they know. Their surroundings impact their version of reality. We raise our children to not hate this or that group but too often, rather that attacking racism (sexism, generic bigotry) head on, we focus on current targets. The children we teach to respect black people turn right around and hate christians. The kids we teach to respect jews turn right around and have a bias against immigrants. We think we are teaching them to not discriminate but so often, all we do is run interference for a particular group and don't really teach them about the evils of using stereotypes to judge individuals.
^
That is all true but there is also a greatly increased sensitivity and openness about these issues, which is really why this thread was started in the first place.
And I'll argue to my grave that it's far, far better to err on the side of being overly sensitive on these topics.
There is just too much downside to not take these concerns seriously, with very risk even if it may seem a bit overboard.
PennyQuilts 06-19-2014, 04:11 PM ^
That is all true but there is also a greatly increased sensitivity and openness about these issues, which is really why this thread was started in the first place.
And I'll argue to my grave that it's far, far better to err on the side of being overly sensitive on these topics.
There is just too much downside to not take these concerns seriously, with very risk even if it may seem a bit overboard.
I think everyone should try to be sensitive. And I think taking the position that people are more likely clueless than malicious would help. Patience and a sense of humor can change hearts faster than a thin skin and a sense of outrage. In my experience at Millwood, what made the change was when my tormentors (not too strong a word) decided that, despite being a white girl from the south, I didn't think I was better than them. After that assumption was set aside, they could "see" me as a person. This is not my interpretation of what happened. A ringleader actually announced that I was not "prejudiced" and she vouched for me as a good person. That was that (I still love Rita!).
Jim Kyle 06-19-2014, 06:53 PM Who is getting a free pass?You really want me to name names? Just look at who rushes to be in the middle of any (televised) conflict between the races, and begin levelling one-sided accusations before looking into the actual facts of the matter. Hint: the two most prominent ones on the boob tubes both claim to be church leaders... Second hint: If it's not on national TV, they don't show up...
Dennis Heaton 06-19-2014, 07:35 PM You really want me to name names? Just look at who rushes to be in the middle of any (televised) conflict between the races, and begin levelling one-sided accusations before looking into the actual facts of the matter. Hint: the two most prominent ones on the boob tubes both claim to be church leaders... Second hint: If it's not on national TV, they don't show up...
Hmmmm...I can think of one (P.R.). And I am wondering if the other one is (R.W)?
boitoirich 06-20-2014, 02:26 AM This thread is rich. Brave posters are being very honest about their experiences with race, the nexus of power and discrimination has come up and, to top it off, there is a damn near Socratic discussion between Pete and JTF on the importance of perception.
There are a couple items I would like to address. One is the elephant in the room: the use of the N-word among black people. Let's just get to it: it's almost comical that a group attributed with originating a slur would think that it is hypocritical for the group targeted by the slur to appropriate it for themselves -- and only between themselves. Similarly, I never use the term Redneck, although many of my friends are proud of the moniker. Among each other, the use is humorous, endearing, and a declaration of group belonging. When I visit my partner's family in Texas, they are proud to take me to a "real redneck bar" and introduce me as their "kin." I love these people, and I feel I belong with them -- but I would never utter that word. They can among themselves, even in my company, and I do not see a contradiction.
Suffice it to say, I think it's time for some people's obsession with black people's in-group use of the N word to go.
Second, Penny and Kyle spoke about something very serious: black racism. Penny did a better job. I grew up with black racism (shocker?), and resented my family for a very long time until I understood it better. I went to Classen SAS, went to college at a prestigious private university in New York, and then on to Berkeley. It took a long time for me to realize that my grandparents' racism was linked to the fact that those opportunities were and never would have been available or even legal to them. We are talking about a generation raised by people who suffered directly at the hands of those who despised them merely because of their color.
Penny was able to recover because of a champion; Kyle did what he could to protect his family, and no one would fault him for that. I will say to both, though, that it's impossible for Millwood or any area to be the same today because today's generation of children is far beyond where any adult generation is in terms of acceptance, and that includes Millennials.
Minor note: Pete asked why not "just Africans" instead of "African Americans." I love this question, because this more than anything else gets back to the discussion at hand about "Redskins." This is one instance where perception trumps intent because wherever intent is ambiguous, perception is controlling. Pete, owing to centuries of history on this continent and not in Africa, there have naturally arisen great cultural differences between West Africans and Black/AA people. Even a naturalized American from Ghana is likely to consider himself "African," whereas we (my group) see ourselves as either "Black" or "African American." Those from other places such as Jamaica or the Dominican Republic are most likely to consider themselves neither, identifying instead as "Afro Caribbean." Believe me, all three groups see themselves as distinct from the others, and our cultural differences are readily apparent. I would definitely find it awkward if someone called me African, although you might not find it strange to be considered "European."
I hope I have only added to this conversation.
BrettM2 06-20-2014, 07:54 AM ^^Thank you for posting this. That helps me understand a few things I couldn't have before.
Just the facts 06-20-2014, 07:59 AM I am still trying to create a flow diagram to determine if a word is racist. It is hard as hell because the are two sides to the coin - inference and implication, not to mention historical/origination aspects and just plane ignorance of meaning. I remember several years ago some City Finance Director here in Florida came under fire for using the words niggard and niggardly to describe the local budget and those who voted for it. The origins of those words come from the 16th century - long before similar derogatory words we established. Anyhow, it didn't stop him from losing his job.
If you want to drive yourself crazy try to create a Visio diagram of this.
You really want me to name names? Just look at who rushes to be in the middle of any (televised) conflict between the races, and begin levelling one-sided accusations before looking into the actual facts of the matter. Hint: the two most prominent ones on the boob tubes both claim to be church leaders... Second hint: If it's not on national TV, they don't show up...
I understand what you are saying but this does not nearly equate with blacks being given a free pass.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are far less respected by their own race than most realize. They may orchestrate things to make it look like they speak for all African Americans but that is far from the case. No more than Westboro church represents all white people.
ylouder 06-20-2014, 08:12 AM Lots of great post in this thread. I honestly didn't check it the last few days because I thought it would devolve into the same old back and forth about how native Americans need to stop being so sensitive and people complaining about losing their right to call other people whatever they want.
My short personal opinion about it is the name should've been changed a long time ago and I'm happy that it's finally going to happen.
dankrutka 06-20-2014, 08:31 AM There is answer your answer right there. Have you ever given deep consideration as to why those terms don't bother you even though the people saying them intend for them to be derogatory and hurtful? Figure that out and share the answer with non white males.
I'm not trying to pick on you, JTF, but you did suggest in another thread that Jews should have just tried harder not to have their stuff stolen by Nazis. Tough luck for them. You clearly have the inability to empathize or understand inequality or injustice in any meaningful way. Privilege, power, bigotry, and history all exist. We weren't all dropped into some objective world of equality 10 minutes ago. We have to understand that we have deep interconnected history that at times has been ugly and been a major cause many of the problems of today. The fact that you think people should ignore derogatory names that have a long history of power attached to them just shows your own unrecognized privilege.
(BTW, I am also privileged in many ways. I am not saying it is just you. I have the privilege of most of these arguments being theoretical too, not based in personal or societal experiences of victimization or systemic bigotry. I try to recognize my own privileges and do my best to negate it when possible. I am sure I could be better in this area.)
RadicalModerate 06-20-2014, 08:37 AM From one of my favorite classes in High School (back when dinosaurs still roamed the earth)
General semantics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics)
"The word is not the thing, the map is not the territory, the symbol is not the thing symbolized."
dankrutka 06-20-2014, 08:53 AM First, I'd also like to say that I think the discussion has been far more productive that I would have thought. Kudos.
Pete - to your point about African-Americans I think boitoirich said it well. To say someone is African seems to indicate they are not American. In fact, the word "American" is often used as a synonym for mainstream, white culture. I've often heard people say, "that's not American" concerning minority traditions or culture. Also, many Asian-Americans prefer that term too for this same reason. Even when their families have been here for generations, they can be viewed as new immigrants, not really "American." Obviously, the WWII Japanese internment camps provide a powerful example as most "Japanese" that were interned had been in the States for generations (nisei or sansei). However, many Asian-American youth still can be stereotyped as being from "Asia," and not seen as fully "American."
So, in many ways I think the African or Asian-American terms make a lot of sense. But, again, I am happy to call people whatever they would like because my explanation is likely not sufficient for everyone.
Just the facts 06-20-2014, 08:55 AM I'm not trying to pick on you, JTF, but you did suggest in another thread that Jews should have just tried harder not to have their stuff stolen by Nazis. Tough luck for them.
I think you took that out of context. In that discussion I was suggesting the Jews armed themselves and fought back instead of being pacifist until it was too late.
dankrutka 06-20-2014, 09:14 AM I think it's also important for us all to recognize that there are many strands of privilege in our society. As Penny was kind of getting at, we need to address (in)equality in a variety of areas, not just one. While racism is maybe the most historically powerful way that people have gained or lost power through no fault of their own, there are many other ways this happens to varying degrees. One way to gain some humility and work towards a more equal society is to start and think which characteristics cause you to be in the majority (where privilege generally resides) or minority (where marginalization is more likely). Are you in the majority with regards to race (white), gender (male), religion (Christian), sexual orientation (heterosexual), language (English), socieconomic status (middle/upper class), physical abilities (full use of limbs, senses, etc.), and age? If you're in the majority then it might be useful to think about what it means to have power just by virtue of that characteristic. For example, it would be easy for my to say that the American with Disabilities Act or other codes was a waste of money because I've never had to deal with what it means to try enter a public facility in a wheel chair. Even when those equality laws went into effect I still am in a position of privilege on the issue as I never have to think about how shopping stores for example, are designed specifically for me. I am not saying I should feel guilt, but consider the implications of my privilege. Once we recognize that we all have privilege we can work to mitigate marginalization in a variety of areas to the extent it is possible. Any way, thinking about privilege in these ways has been helpful to me.
dankrutka 06-20-2014, 09:18 AM I think you took that out of context. In that discussion I was suggesting the Jews armed themselves and fought back instead of being pacifist until it was too late.
My point was not to attack you, but to think about it. I don't think I took it out of context. I guess what I am asking you to consider is that I found your statements flippant and offensive and reeking of a lack of understanding of power and history. I understand you think I am letting words hurt me, but the Holocaust is a painful thing - rooted in history and bigotry - for many people to this day. They're not just words people let hurt them. Furthermore, you still seemed to blame the victim in that instance. You framed your argument - and still are - as if the Holocaust happened because the Jews didn't fight hard enough.
Just the facts 06-20-2014, 09:21 AM So the question is dankrutka - what are you going to do about it? I think a lot of problems today are literally the result of running away from our problems starting in 1946. We segregated ourselves at every possible demographic level so we would never have to associate with each other - and it was a mistake. Hell, it isn't even separation by race at this point - rich whites, middle class whites, and poor whites won't even live in the same subdivision together - and when we do live in the same subdivision we segregate ourselves by street.
When you come into my subdivision you have to make an immediate left or right turn. If you go right you go to homes on lots that are 100' wide. If you go left the lots are 60' wide. Of course the 100' lots are more expensive. No joking, when we used to go to neighborhood parties at the clubhouse the first thing people would ask me is if I turn left or right. When I would say left the conversation was over at the point. Even though we live behind the same gated wall I live on the poor (and I used that term in the relative sense) side of the subdivision. If they knew I drive a Fiat 500L I probably wouldn't even be allowed to attend the party.
Congress for the New Urbanism (http://www.cnu.org/)
dankrutka 06-20-2014, 09:31 AM That's a good question. I work in education to help raise consciousness about the very issues we're discussing, which I hope makes a difference in many practical ways long term. These discussions can serve as a starting point, and sometimes be essentially a prerequisite, for making progress in our communities.
Specific to your interest in new urbanism, these discussions can help us to consider who we are building/designing new public spaces for... Does everyone have the opportunity to benefit from new urban changes? Are we addressing systemic issues and problems? Are we ensuring that gentrification is not just pushing marginalized people out of areas that people with more money, power, and influence want? Urban environments can be conducive to multicultural interactions, but they are not inherently so. It's something we always have to be working on...
^
One of the things you do about it is to not perpetuate negative terms, like "redskins", which is where we started.
I've mentioned this before but at 53, I am old enough to remember rampant and open -- even government endorsed -- racism.
At least one third (and probably more) of the adults in this country grew up in a very different time. So much so, we are still creating laws to *force* people not to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or religion.
This hasn't all happened organically. It starts with a new awareness and challenges to age-old belief systems, common sense and the law ultimately kicks in, and then basic fairness actually has to be legislated precisely due to the fact that a good percentage of the population still won't treat people fairly otherwise.
Just the facts 06-20-2014, 09:48 AM I agree dankrutka, it take constant vigilance but its not enough to force change on people, they have to want to change, and that is accomplished by giving people a better option to pick from.
Jim Kyle 06-20-2014, 09:58 AM Penny was able to recover because of a champion; Kyle did what he could to protect his family, and no one would fault him for that. I will say to both, though, that it's impossible for Millwood or any area to be the same today because today's generation of children is far beyond where any adult generation is in terms of acceptance, and that includes Millennials.I'm glad to see that you've taken my comments in exactly the spirit I intended, and I agree that the situation today is far different than it was in the 60s when my older sons were just starting school at Longfellow. Even the situation then was very different from the way I grew up, in lily-white areas and sunset towns, with parents who were totally racist but never thought about it at all. They didn't despise people of color -- just didn't think of them as people at all!
My attitudes changed under fire in Korea during 1953, and I hoped to bring my sons up in a better atmosphere. However their experiences as the minority when we lived near NE 44 and Everest had the opposite result, and all three are now far more racist than their grandparents were. That's why I'm somewhat bitter about "reverse racism." The swing of the pendulum might make a few folk feel that they have their revenge, but it's so counterproductive that I fear for the future of both cultures. Fortunately, at my age I probably will not have to experience much of it.
Seems to me that what everyone in power overlooks is the fact that those involved are individuals, not groups. A mob is a group. Making decisions based on "group" desires leads to mob action, regardless of skin color or ethnic background. And mobs have no conscience; that's an attribute reserved for individuals.
I wish we could just respect each other as individuals, or disrespect if that's warranted but always as individuals, not groups.
And I'll repeat my endorsement of "Pudd'nHead Wilson." I think it should be required reading in every high school, complete with its use of the N-word, to bring out just how extremely ridiculous our culture was (and unfortunately, still is to a degree).
Jim Kyle 06-20-2014, 10:03 AM Duplicate, sorry!
Jim Kyle 06-20-2014, 10:10 AM From one of my favorite classes in High School (back when dinosaurs still roamed the earth)
General semantics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics)
"The word is not the thing, the map is not the territory, the symbol is not the thing symbolized."I knew we had something in common -- general semantics principles ought to be taught starting in kindergarden and continuing through graduate school!
If it were, pitchmen and con artists would have a much tougher time fleecing the public, and politicians might have to become at least honest enough to stay bought...
Jim Kyle 06-20-2014, 10:19 AM I understand what you are saying but this does not nearly equate with blacks being given a free pass.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are far less respected by their own race than most realize. They may orchestrate things to make it look like they speak for all African Americans but that is far from the case. No more than Westboro church represents all white people.I wasn't referring to "blacks" in general getting a free pass, just to black racists. And I see that you immediately recognized those to whom I referred.
I'm glad that the people for whom they claim to speak are seeing through them. I do, however, resent the way our major media still gives them a platform that makes them seem to represent the entire group. You don't see Colin Powell or Walter Williams being interviewed; about the best balancing points seem to be those presented by Al Roker!
You know the only name that kinda bugs me: "African American". Why not just African?
People from Asia are Asian, those from Europe are European... And yes, sometimes people say Asian-American but that is infrequent.
In this country, AA was decided on and is used extensively, but how do we know the particular person is American at all? Just because they happen to be *in* America? That's a bit presumptuous. Couldn't they actually be citizens of Jamaica, Nigeria or even Canada, and not American at all?
Think about an NBA game. There are lots of people from African descent in the league who are not Americans; so if Kevin Durant is African American, what does that make Serge Ibaka (from Congo)??
Charlize Theron is African American.
Was African American decided upon by white people? Who created that name?
Jamaica and Canada are also part of America. I'm offended by your exclusionary definitions. ;)
And the big question... if the Washington Redskins changed their name tomorrow to the Washington Natives, would the same people still be offended? I think they would.
RadicalModerate 06-20-2014, 10:26 AM That's a good question. I work in education to help raise consciousness about the very issues we're discussing, which I hope makes a difference in many practical ways long term. These discussions can serve as a starting point, and sometimes be essentially a prerequisite, for making progress in our communities.
Specific to your interest in new urbanism, these discussions can help us to consider who we are building/designing new public spaces for... Does everyone have the opportunity to benefit from new urban changes? Are we addressing systemic issues and problems? Are we ensuring that gentrification is not just pushing marginalized people out of areas that people with more money, power, and influence want? Urban environments can be conducive to multicultural interactions, but they are not inherently so. It's something we always have to be working on...
It's sort of sad that "The 'Rich' Folks" . . . please feel free to replace any letters of choice in the word Folks that you choose, (perhaps beginning with uck?) . . . don't seem to share The Vision for the future that you shared. (and this sad observation isn't limited to Owners of the plantations we refer to as Professional Sports Franchises).
Dang: For just a second there, I thought I was guilty of the sin of covetousness.
Then I thought better of it. =)
Still . . . Doesn't it suggest the question: "If you're so rich, hows come you ain't smart?"
btw: The last vestige of intentional "racism" on my part was removed, perhaps fifteen years ago, when I had a student/refugee from Ethiopia who said to me: "Sir John . . . I am worried about the youth of America." (Clarification: He was referring to individuals, about his age, with a related amount of melanin in their pigment.)
From that moment forward I decided to base all of my judgments about individuals on their personal culture. =)
(it's a sort of twig growing from the Dr. Martin Luther King School planted firmly on a branch of the Philosophy Tree)
Just the facts 06-20-2014, 10:27 AM I wouldn't mind if just dropped the nicknames altogether. Instead of Jacksonville Jaguars we would just have the Jacksonville Football Club.
The point is that the term African American is used to refer to people of an ethnicity while also introducing the concept of nationality.
When someone says they are Asian (which my Asian friends all do without ever tacking the American part) they are saying they are of Asian descent.
Similarly, Charlize Theron is from European descent and South African nationality. Africa is not a nation and people of South African nationality do not call themselves Africans, they call themselves South Africans.
So, the term African American combines ethnicity and nationality when really for the large part, it is meant to just address race.
And BTW, the world understands "American" means someone from the U.S. Absolutely no one from Canada or Jamaica calls themselves American.
It's not a big deal, I was just pointing that while it's appropriate for any group to decide on what they want to be called, that in this case it was a bit of an odd choice. On the other hand, I understand that given all the racial hardship why emphasizing the American part was/is important.
The point is that the term African American is used to refer to people of an ethnicity while also introducing the concept of nationality.
When someone says they are Asian (which my Asian friends all do without ever tacking the American part) they are saying they are of Asian descent.
Similarly, Charlize Theron is from European descent and South African nationality. Africa is not a nation and people of South African nationality do not call themselves Africans, they call themselves South Africans.
So, the term African American combines ethnicity and nationality when really for the large part, it is meant to just address race.
And BTW, the world understands "American" means someone from the U.S. Absolutely no one from Canada or Jamaica calls themselves American.
It's not a big deal, I was just pointing that while it's appropriate for any group to decide on what they want to be called, that in this case it was a bit of an odd choice. On the other hand, I understand that given all the racial hardship why emphasizing the American part was/is important.
My French teacher is high school was from Canada. I made a comment about America and the US being the same. She told me that if I said that to any other Canadian they'd probably hit me. So apparently they do think of themselves as American.
Africa is not an ethnicity either. It is a continent. We're all from Africa originally. This entire discussion revolves around drawing completely arbitrary lines.
And the big question... if the Washington Redskins changed their name tomorrow to the Washington Natives, would the same people still be offended? I think they would.
How about simply seeking input from a community before you co-opt their heritage?
Or just find something else meant to invoke intimidation in your competitive foes?
The mascot names were specifically selected because they were perceived to be intimidating, and that in itself is somewhat offensive.
Even if it was "Native Americans" do you think the new logo would feature someone from that heritage peacefully roaming the plains? All the depictions are in war paint with flaming spears, as if these are the defining characteristics.
There are reasons you don't see pro sports franchises named the after the Amish.
My French teacher is high school was from Canada. I made a comment about America and the US being the same. She told me that if I said that to any other Canadian they'd probably hit me. So apparently they do think of themselves as American.
Africa is not an ethnicity either. It is a continent. We're all from Africa originally. This entire discussion revolves around drawing completely arbitrary lines.
We are talking about two different things: race/descent and nationality. And specifically about what the groups prefer to be called (drawing their own lines), not what others choose to call them.
I am fine using the term African American, it's just a bit weird to introduce nationality when discussing the idea of race. They are completely separate concepts.
And if Canadians decide they want to be called Americans (which is never, ever going to happen) that's fine too.
dankrutka 06-20-2014, 12:08 PM My French teacher is high school was from Canada. I made a comment about America and the US being the same. She told me that if I said that to any other Canadian they'd probably hit me. So apparently they do think of themselves as American.
Africa is not an ethnicity either. It is a continent. We're all from Africa originally. This entire discussion revolves around drawing completely arbitrary lines.
Pete's point was that Canadians do not call themselves American. Yes, I know many people in Mexico and Latin American would say the same thing as your former teacher, but as Pete said, those are different things.
Also, many of the lines drawn in Africa were arbitrarily drawn by European colonial powers so they could extract the riches from Africa as they saw fit.... These "arbitrary" lines are incredibly meaningful and are the cause of some of the most serious geo-political problems in the world today. They also matter in other contexts too. People seem to forget that legal segregation ended in this country just a generation ago, in South Africa just 20 years ago. As much as we'd like to, you can't erase hundreds of years of discrimination in a generation. It takes persistence, humility, and work.
dankrutka 06-20-2014, 12:24 PM Similarly, Charlize Theron is from European descent and South African nationality. Africa is not a nation and people of South African nationality do not call themselves Africans, they call themselves South Africans.
I'm not sure you're totally correct, Pete. I don't know much about Theron's background, but even though her nationality is South African, there are distinct and important ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic differences in South Africa that cause the people to identify themselves in more complicated ways than just "South African." White South Africans - Afrikaners (those of Dutch descent most responsible for apartheid) and Anglo South African (mostly English descent) - make up under 10% of the population, but still control much of the wealth. While around 90% of the country consists of black South Africans who are far more connected to the rest of Africa (see the worldwide pan-African movements that were part of the decolonization struggle) than their white counterparts. I'm certainly not a South African expert (feel free to correct me on any details), but their identifications are complicated like ours.
I'm not sure you're totally correct, Pete. I don't know much about Theron's background, but even though her nationality is South African, there are distinct and important ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic differences in South Africa that cause the people to identify themselves in more complicated ways than just "South African." White South Africans - Afrikaners (those of Dutch descent most responsible for apartheid) and Anglo South African (mostly English descent) - make up under 10% of the population, but still control much of the wealth. While around 90% of the country consists of black South Africans who are far more connected to the rest of Africa (see the worldwide pan-African movements that were part of the decolonization struggle) than their white counterparts. I'm certainly not a South African expert (feel free to correct me on any details), but their identifications are complicated like ours.
I used to work with a guy (Dutch heritage) from Cape Town and met a lot of his friends from that country. Lots of them here in L.A. (we have a good amount of all backgrounds!).
He and his friends called themselves "South African" just like people of all ethnic backgrounds in this country call themselves American.
dankrutka 06-20-2014, 01:20 PM I used to work with a guy (Dutch heritage) from Cape Town and met a lot of his friends from that country. Lots of them here in L.A. (we have a good amount of all backgrounds!).
He and his friends called themselves "South African" just like people of all ethnic backgrounds in this country call themselves American.
Right. I guess, I was speculating that they self-identifications are more complex when in South Africa, no?
Right. I guess, I was speculating that they self-identifications are more complex when in South Africa, no?
Don't think so, because the differences are so obvious.
I really want to go there and now know friends of friends who live there, so I need to make that happen.
I've had a fascination with the place since a 5th grade report.
Just the facts 06-20-2014, 01:42 PM How about simply seeking input from a community before you co-opt their heritage?
You mean like the State marketing and selling American Indian culture at the AICC for nothing other than some sales tax dollars and hotel bookings?
Jersey Boss 06-20-2014, 01:49 PM If I am not mistaken, I thought some of the local tribes did provide input.
Rover 06-20-2014, 02:53 PM You mean like the State marketing and selling American Indian culture at the AICC for nothing other than some sales tax dollars and hotel bookings?
I know that you really know the history of this project. No need to misrepresent just because you hate it.
dankrutka 06-20-2014, 04:20 PM I really want to go there and now know friends of friends who live there, so I need to make that happen.
I've had a fascination with the place since a 5th grade report.
Same here except my fascination began at OU. OU had a really quirky African history professor named Jid Kamoche who you could always find walking across campus, hunched over, with his brief case and a wall-sized map. I took every class he offered. His lectures were all over the place, but he really knew his stuff. His classes were hard, but he was pretty fair. More than anything, he chose fantastic books for his classes. Instead of reading a bunch of boring history texts, we read historical fiction like Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart or Nelson Mandela's autobiography Long Walk to Freedom. [Side rant: As an educator, I think textbooks in general education classes are generally weak pedagogy that don't incite the interest in the subject matter often necessary for continued learning.] Anyway, his class helped inspire me to become a social studies teacher. And, as a professor now I always try to choose inspiring texts for my classes.
Dr. Kamoche recently passed, but I always remembered one of the novels we read mentioned how some African cultures believed that your spirit lived as long as people talked about you... So, hopefully this counts. ;)
boitoirich 06-21-2014, 03:43 AM Don't get me started on Things Fall Apart. I love that book!
Stan Silliman 06-21-2014, 10:52 AM As far as team nicknames, someone is always offended. It's often happened in the minor leagues.
Go here to get the Mike Krawczyk cartoon: Baseball_Team_Named (http://www.sillimanonsports.com/Baseball_Team_Named.html)
Baseball Team Named, Town Goes Nuts!
Richmond, Virginia held a contest to name their new AA baseball team. When the team name “Flying Squirrels” was selected the town folk went a little… shall we say “nutty.”
Deal with it, Richmond. Your precious “Braves” left town. New ownership stepped up, held a legitimate contest and the name Flying Squirrels was picked. Or as my Spanish speaking Russian friend Davidoff Clarkinov likes to call them, Ardillas Voladoras.
It could have been worse. How does the Richmond Hush Puppies sound? That name was a finalist. Ooooh, the Hush Puppies. Quiet everyone… the Puppies be in the house. Who let the Pups out … Yip,yip,yip, yip? Who let… do you see what I mean? Don’t know whether we’re talking about the shoe or the fried bread or little quiet doggies. Be happy with your Squirrels.
It could have been worse. It could have been the Flying Monkeys… of Doom!! I know, I know. That sounds like a little league team … a darn feisty little league team, at that. It could have been worse. It could have been the Rock Hoppers, another finalist. Rock Hoppers are frogs. Nobody’s going to call them the Rocks. They’ll be the Hoppers or the Frogs. Makes for a cute mascot but Richmond University already has a team called the Spiders and it wouldn’t be right to have the nickname of your professional team be one that eats the nickname of your college team.
It could have been worse. Another finalist was the Flatheads, a politically incorrect term for inbred hill people. That’s the nick we were hoping for as nobody had previously championed inbreds. Why should forehead-lacking hill people be left out of the mascot business? “Come on, you cousin-lovin’ Flatheads!” “Get your inbreded feet down to first base!” We loved the possibilities, a mascot in L’il Abner garb, Daisy Maes as batgirls, even sandwiches made with flatbreads. “Get your flatbreads here, you sister-lovin’…” HOLD ON! We’re getting word that the term Flatheads was intended to mean the ugly fishies in Virginia lakes and not Backwoods Bubba with hair-gel in his eyes. Sorry.
It could have been worse – the Richmond Rhinos! Actually… not bad, sort of masculine.
“Charge, you Rhinos, charge! And use your horn for sexual potency… not evil.”
It could have been worse. It could have been one of the names all the Richmond conservatives wanted like the Rebels, or the Virginians, or the Rapids. “Run you Rapids, run. And be all wet… and stuff.”
But the Squirrels prevailed. Boris and Natasha approve. Bullwinkle is no where to be found. And Rocky’s name will never be mentioned, for that would be a trademark infringement.
The team, part of the San Francisco Giants organization, liked the pizzazz of the Flying Squirrels suggestion and awarded Brad Mead, the contest winner with two season tickets for life, a jacket and a cap. Way to go, Brad. Brad made the gutsy suggestion. Brad had the acorns to champion the Squirrels. Now their dugout will be the Squirrel Nest. We’ll be able to buy Squirrel hats. Hopefully, not hats made from real squirrels because that would be a tad un-mascotty… to kill an animal we love enough to represent our city just to cover our heads. It should be plastic hats like those folks in Arkansas use. You know who I mean, those sooey-pig screamers? The ones who wear a red pig shaped helmet to cover up their flat heads!
Go, Flying Squirrels, score. Be happy, Richmondites, as you eat your tasty bag of nuts. It could have been worse.
Laramie 06-21-2014, 11:04 AM As far as team nicknames, someone is always offended. It's often happened in the minor leagues.
Go here to get the Mike Krawczyk cartoon: Baseball_Team_Named (http://www.sillimanonsports.com/Baseball_Team_Named.html)
Baseball Team Named, Town Goes Nuts!
...Go, Flying Squirrels, score. Be happy, Richmondites, as you eat your tasty bag of nuts. It could have been worse.
You go get 'em Stan, they could have been called the Richmond Teabaggers...
http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif
Stan Silliman 06-21-2014, 11:04 AM Here's another one, north of the border, which left the town folk a bit displeased. See HERE (http://www.sillimanonsports.com/quebecers.html) for the Zyk cartoon.
Silliman on Sports
By Stan Silliman
Quebecers Hopping Mad Over Team Name
According to the Toronto Star the proposed new name for the Quebec City ABA basketball team – the Jumping Frogs – is a tadpole offensive to Quebecers. And they’re letting the owner of the team, Real Bourassa, know about it. They’ve even threatened to send mimes down to his office to act out their displeasure.
Apparently the word, Frog, is a racist insult to those of French decent. It’s a snide term for French people the British use because the French love eating frogs. During certain periods of history the British didn’t care for the French, thus the insult. We find that a bit Francophonish because the French like eating all kinds of stuff and, to us, Frogs is a less offensive name than snails, veal kidneys or a duck liver mousse. And if you ask us we’d rather not eat anything, like a mousse, that you put in your hair.
They are now taking suggestions for an alternate team name and one that will not ruffle the Quebecers’ feathers. Some of the names suggested have been the Sneaky Snails, the Voracious Veal Kidneys and the Lively Liver Mousses. I think most of those suggestions came from our office.
We told our neighbor, Lyle, about the new minor league basketball team and the plight they were having coming up with a name and he suggested The Team that Went-a-Courtin’. We told Lyle that’d be kind of long to fit on a shirt and Lyle came back with Amphibian-Eating Surrender Monkeys. We told Lyle they’ll jump all over that one although, truthfully, that doesn’t sound very sporty.
Our Russian tennis-loving friend, Davidoff Clarkinov, suggested that possibly, we give them a basketball name based on a symbol on the French flag like the Fleur-de-Layups, a name both Frenchy and basketbally. We told Davidoff that even though it’s Quebec, it’s possible they want a name and an identity more Canadian than French. He reminded us that the Fleur-de-Lis was all over the flag of Quebec and if we wanted to examine Quebec’s coat of arms it has a fleur-de-lis, a maple leaf and a lion. He added their state bird is a Snowy Owl. He then left us with the Hudson Bay B-Ballers.
We put this ball team naming problem to our French speaking friend, David Graven, and he turned it over to his son, John, who gave us the suggestion of the Quebec Kermits. John explained to us that the hard “k” sound is very pleasing to Quebecers and can lead to some very exciting basketball chants. How a six-year-old would know all this is beyond me. John goes on to explain the Kermits will have green uniforms and long green leotards while the cheerleaders will be wearing Miss Piggy outfits. “Miss Piggy speaks French, you know.” John points out the hard “k” sound could be instrumental in bringing the Inuits from the Nunavik region of Quebec into the fold of fans as the Inuits have a slang utilizing a clicking sound loaded with hard “Ks”. “If you’re going to build a good franchise,” John continues, “All the ingredients – team name, cheer squad, marketing, and fan base - must mesh.”
John gives me an example of a cheer: “Go Kermits, Go Kermits. It’s not easy being green.” John then strokes his chin, “You know, if they don’t like the Kermits, they can always go with the Power Rangers.”
Just the facts 06-21-2014, 11:48 AM I take offense to the name Teabaggers. Does any left-wingers plan to stop using it or are you instead going to find a way to justify using it?
Laramie 06-21-2014, 01:06 PM I take offense to the name Teabaggers. Does any left-wingers plan to stop using it or are you instead going to find a way to justify using it?
LMAO!
Why? (...could have been called)
Wasn't thinking about the political term.
"To tea bag is a slang term for the sexual act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a willing sexual partner for pleasure or onto the face or head of another" ...--Wikipedia (actual link has an inappropriate sketch).
http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif
mkjeeves 06-22-2014, 07:07 AM Being association with the Tea Party probably doesn't make some teabaggers real happy either.
Dubya61 06-23-2014, 01:52 PM And the big question... if the Washington Redskins changed their name tomorrow to the Washington Natives, would the same people still be offended? I think they would.
When watching some of the media coverage of the Vancouver Olympics and the ceremonies, the Indian culture was almost always referred to as the First Nation.
Then I chuckled as I renamed the Redskins the Washington First Nationals.
All the same, I like the "first nation" concept.
|
|