New Page 1

New Page 1

The debate over the appropriateness of Native American realities and culture for sports teams is an interesting study. There is no doubt some of the names are every bit as demeaning and outdated as the opponents claim. It was long ago recognized terms such as "yellow skins" were offensive to everyone.
It is sad to see things such as the Portland Oregonian commit to not using phrases like "Redskins" but simply replace the "I" with an "*" as we see on the link above. Is there really a difference? If I say "f*ck", have I not drawn MORE attention to the offending word? This emphasizes the very thing I claim to be trying to conceal. It would be easier just to say Washington when reporting on football. Nobody would NOT know who I referred to and the offensive phrase would be completely removed from the conversation.
At the same time, it is fitting a team with such a name resides in Washington. The things that go on there are offensive to every thinking citizen of the United States. People elected to represent "the people", senators and representatives who should have the goal of the greatest good, instead vote along party lines. If you can find a single person who is genuinely, completely represented by one of the major parties I will show you a person who has a limited capability and willingness to use their mind. The parties function for the greatest votes, not the greatest good, and the people they purport to represent seldom have even a simple majority of the values the party holds.
Campaign promises are easy targets for jokes. The same people entrusted with regulating the banking system regularly bounce checks at their own bank...Remember that scandal? They hide behind the misleading phrase "You can't legislate morality" when faced with tough dilemmas. If you cannot legislate morality, please explain why I cannot steal, beat up a little kid, and so forth? Legislating morality is exactly what is going on.
To top it off, Washington was a leader in the mistreatment of the Native Americans. Nobody made and broke more promises than "the Great White Father in Washington" regardless of who it was. I can think of no other place in the United States that had such a huge impact on the Native Americans. Certainly they are the best place to have such an aggregiously named team.
However, all of this overlooks another point. All team names are being painted with the same brush. Why is "Warriors" considered in the same light as "Redskins"? Is it racial to be considered a fighter? Is it offensive to refer to one facet of life? The most common argument I have seen is that "white America" should not use any symbol of Native American culture.
That is a huge setback. Certainly things that demean or offend other peoples should be removed. But a simple acknowledgement of a portion of the culture is not and should not be offensive. If people are going to complain about a name like Warriors then they should also complain about Knights, Rangers, and I could make an argument Cowboys. You could even extend this argument to team names such as the Spurs and Huskies.
I know I lost some people right there but the other names are based on historical understanding, just as these names are. Spurs are used to rake the sides of horses. They can only be used to injure. There is no other purpose for them. So here we have a team name celebrating a practice some people would argue is cruelty to animals.
By the same token, the Washington Huskies call to mind the dogs used in the Iditarod, a cruel race that sees many dogs die every year so that some clueless yokel can say they drove a sled faster than some other "rugged individualist". Why is nobody screaming in protest at the glorification of these cruelties? To the animal rights activists these names should be considered highly offensive.
The problem is these things in the eyes of many of us, myself included, are overreactions. The name Warrior does not call to mind the same connotations as Redskin. Indians is more debatable but that debate holds value in bringing these issues to light and causing people to think.
The naming of peoples keeps changing. No person in their right mind would choose the word that dominated much of the discourse about Native Americans for a couple hundred years. If you read a book that refers to the "savages" you instantly know the person does not respect their subject. You also know that person does not care who they insult. The name "Indian" is objected to frequently due to its faulty origin. At some point the phrase Native American will fall under the same scrutiny.
Maybe some day instead of feeling the need to label people Native American, Irish, Italian, Chinese, etc. We can all change our thinking and call them and ourselves something fresh and radical....Like people.