I don’t recall the last time Jeff Goldstein was this hopping mad about an issue, but he is writing up a storm on the idiotic NCAA decision to ban ‘offensive’ mascots from tournament play, but otherwise not bother with them. He has posts here, here, and here (read them in that order).
My take on the silliness is here.
Vladi G
OT – Pittsburgh is winning the cup this year. They just inked Ziggy to a three year deal. Their power play will be unstoppable.
back on topic, as a University of Illinois grad, this doesn’t really bother me. The Chief is fun to watch, but if you can choose between offending a very small number of people, and offending no one, why choose to offend anyone?
SomeCallMeTim
more than simply insulting, because they strengthen the political hand of prononents of identity politics, which in turn weakens individual rights and drives the PC culture that leads to the kind of balkinization and clash of cultures we’re now beginning to see all over Western Europe.
It’s hard to take his argument(described in the quotation) seriously, as the right to trial and counsel is a substantially more important individual right than whatever the hell he thinks he’s defending, and his reaction to Padilla can most charitably be described as, “Ehh.”
On reflection, it’s impossible to take his argument seriously. He should have just written, “This makes me angry in the bad place.” Same diff.
badputtr
I’ve been watching this fiasco closely. I grew up a “Ute,” as in the University of Utah. (I’m Danish by ancestory.) Everyone in Utah knew that a “Ute” was a reference to the indiginous tribe of native americans found in Utah before the mormons claimed it.
I watched in the 1980’s when you finally saw the mascot in the indian regalia go away because it was politically incorrect. The University has an agreement with the Ute tribe to use the name. I don’t know if they pay them or the Utes might just like the notariety.
Here’s my deal- All of the institutions of higher learning that are trying to keep their mascots, etc that reference native americans maintain they have some level of high respect for the culture they are borrowing their mascot from. I have to agree with them. If you look at the broad demographic profile of native americans (I’m not disrespecting, just reciting back what they tell us about their people) most indicate that their cultures suffer from high degrees of poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, illiteracy, and most other social ills. If a university wasn’t truly paying homage to those cultures through mascot use, why would they align themselves in such a way. If they meant disrespect, they could come up with all sorts of derogatory euphemisms portraying the social problems I mentioned above.
I support maintaining the heritages and alignments that are positive and accurate in their reflection of the native american cultures. God knows there are enough negative ones out there.
Jeff G
Explain to me how my argument can’t be taken seriously: identity politics weakens the rights of the individual by giving rise to “representative” voices who lay claim to authenticity, and in so doing, to control the terms of debate.
If you don’t want to take my argument seriously, that’s certainly up to you. But as it stands, your response, such as it is, is incoherent.
ppGaz
James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Al Sharpton, e.g.
But in an age of coalition-herding, and the relentless manipulation that goes with it, where all truth is political … how does the individual gain power, other than by joining a herd?
Ben Regenspan
But Jeff, answer this: do you think a mainly non-black team should be allowed to name itself The Niggers or a non-Jewish team The Kikes? To have a mascot that runs around and eats watermelon or bakes mock blood-of-Christian-children into matzah? I personally would oppose these things for the same reason that I oppose “Indian” stereotype mascots — because they are transparently offensive and would put a whole community into a state of uproar, and for good reason. I don’t know how you can scapegoat this particular issue onto the generic “overzealous PC liberal” because, just like the black and Jewish communities would be were one of the above examples to be realized, it is primarily the Native American community that has been organizing against Chief Osceola-style stereotyping. And it is a sufficient number of people from this community who are organizing that you have to consider what is more important: upholding a rather superficial sports tradition or recognizing that that tradition is demeaning and represents a sort of tyranny of the majority, even if some Native Americans might not have a problem with it.
I would really recommend that you see In Whose Honor if you think that those Native Americans who take objection to to stereotype-derived mascots and team names are but a small minority, or are led by some sort of far-left white professor/instigator. This is surely not the case.
Ben Regenspan
Oy. “Chief Osceola-style stereotyping” above should read “Chief Illiniwek-style stereotyping”.
Jeff G
Except that I cite two polls that show that the vast majority of Native Americans aren’t offended at all, Jay Rosenstein’s tendentious take aside, and “Niggers” and “Kikes” are hardly the same as “Utes” and “Seminoles.”
Justin Slotman
Yeah–documentaries I haven’t seen aside, it’s hard to explain those polls away.
I mean, you have the Southeastern Oklahoma State Savages. The student body there is 30% Native American. That’s really sizable, and if they had a problem with being Savages, I’m sure they could do something about it, unless they’re just being oppressed by the SOSU administration, which, they could be, but I doubt it. But unless that minority is being oppressed, there’s no reason why NCAA needs to take a stand on SOSU. Unless the NCAA just thinks they know better than the people in whose interests they purport to be acting in, which–of course–is always true with the NCAA. They always DO know better than you.
I don’t get why this decision now, though. The NCAA never does anything for a non-money reason. Maybe they fear lawsuits and ever more expensive lawyers as Native tribes get wealthier?
SomeCallMeTim
Jeff:
Briefly:
A. Assume you’ve identified an individual right (“rights of the individual…[to] claim to authenticity”). The right to trial (and to counsel) is also a right. It is a more basic right than the one you’ve identified. Padilla is entirely about the government’s attempt to denude citizens of that right. As said above, your response appears to be, “Ehh.” So there seem to be two possibilities. (1) You are using the “individual right” tag as cover for some other argument (or lack thereof), in which case I don’t take your argument seriously because it’s fictitious. (2) Or you think the right to claim authenticity is a right more important than a citizen’s right to trial, in which case you are a moron, and I don’t take your argument seriously for that reason.
B. As other have adverted to, the right involved seems to be something closer to the right of the individual not to be offended. Just as you can’t get all the women in the office to allow you to refer to them as “b*tches”, and then require all new women to submit to that rule, so here you can’t claim that 80% of the population voted away that 20%’s right not to be offended.
You can claim the words aren’t offensive to any reasonable person, but that’s a different argument.
C. I assume this is all controlled by the NCAA bylaws, so that’s what will be litigated. If the Seminoles want out of the NCAA badly enough, maybe they can get out of the contract.
tom scott
I’m not buying the equivalency argument in comparing Indian names to Blackies or Kikes. The adoption of Indian names is intended to project a postitive image of the warrior class. The names Blackies or Kikes is intended to project a negative image. One points to the noble the other to the ignoble. There is no equivalency there and it’s a piss-poor argument.
Bird Dog
Read our post on Redskins – and do not let the PC bozos eliminate Indians from our history and culture – in our name, like they are doing us a favor. They are not.
BoDiddly
It’s an easy concept to grasp:
In issuing such edicts, the people who claim to be fighting against racial stereotyping and prejudice are asserting their own superiority over the race in question. “Since the poor little Native Americans are too weak, disorganized, or socially ignorant of what’s going on, we need to make sure their dignity is protected.” In “taking up their fight,” there’s an inherent superiority expressed, the very root of destructive discrimination
As to the tired old “Niggers” and “Kikes” meme, how exactly does that equate to the FSU mascot, the proud Chief Oceola riding out on a horse in full war regalia, claiming the field of battle for the Seminoles?
And, lastly, the following paragraph has been carefully written so as to not contatin any language that can be in any way offensive to any group:
” ”
(I apologize for the lack of end-punctuation, but it called for the mark commonly referred to as a “period,” a blatant and obvious sexist term)
Marc
Because traditionally Chief Osceola is played by a drunken, 19-year-old frat boy named Trevor? Because the field of battle is a football stadium, and the only one who could lay claim to it is Bobby Bowden?
If this is the kind of fantasy world you all live in with college football, I’m starting to understand the wet dreams that led us into Iraq.
Is this what passes for conservative humor these days? No wonder you people like Mallard Fillmore.
BoDiddly
I know it’s a hard concept for you to wrap your kool-aid-stained paws around, Marc, but in the minds of those looking for offense at every turn, there will soon be precious little room for anything in the english language. Take a look at how obscure things get after googling “racial slur database.”
On the portrayal of Oceola: you’re essentially saying that Jamie Foxx did much harm to the memory of Ray Charles, because he’s, well, not blind and not dead.
I personally take exception to your phrase “drunken, 19-year-old frat boy named Trevor.” You’re obviously prejudiced against drunks, 19-year-olds, frat boys, and people named Trevor.
JWeidner
That’s a pretty lame equation. I think the point is that enough people find it offensive that some drunken, white, fraternity guy is portraying an indian stereotype for the sole purpose of whipping more college age kids into a drunken frenzy at a sporting event.
To say that this somehow equates to a black actor portraying a black musician is just bizarre and wrong. You’re taking a racial issue and trying to turn it into…well, I don’t know what you’re trying to turn it into. Now if you were to say that it was more like Al Jolson portraying Jack Robin (Jazz Singer) in blackface, I’d agree with you.
Don’t get me wrong, I know that in the case of FSU, the university has a tight relationship with the local Seminole tribe, but that’s not the case all over the nation and at all the schools that have Native American mascots. I mean, c’mon. You ever seen the Fighting Illini mascot? That’s exactly the type of charicature that people DO find offensive.
How is that a positive image if the entire tribe was never a warring tribe at all? Are you so sure that all tribes had a warrior class? And if the tribes did develop such a class, who do you think they did the majority of their fighting against? By that argument, we’re honoring them by commemorating the fact that settlers wiped them out?