Thursday, October 31, 2013

It's Tradition!

Should the Washington Redskins change their team name?  Of course not.  The Washington Redskins have been around since 1932, making the name a tradition to many supporters around the United States.  Hundreds of thousands of fans have pulled for the 'Redskins' at games, and have never known their team by any other name, so why change it now?  In an open letter to fans, Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Redskins, says, "After 81 years, the team name 'Redskins' continues to hold the memories and meaning of where we came from, who we are, and who we want to be in the years to come." The tradition of a football team and its fans that has been around for almost a century is far more important than the tradition, honor, and respect of a race and culture that has been around for millennia. Admittedly, the term 'Redskins' is a derogatory term, but a very large majority of the fans of the Redskins are not directly offended by the name.  And with good reason!  According to Merriam-Webster, the term 'Redskin' is only "usually offensive."  Usually.  Therefore, there is no need to change the team's name.  To understand the original rationale behind the team's name, people just need to look past the offensive mascot and try to grasp the meaning behind it.  In the same way that the Savannah Spics honor and respect people of Latin descent, Washington is honoring Native Americans through its football team's mascot (obviously the Savannah Spics are not a real sports team, but you get the point).  For example, below is a photo of a traditional Native American chief, wearing a ceremonial headdress, celebrating with wine after a successful day of hunting.

In comparison, here is a photo of an average Redskins fan

Or maybe the photos are supposed to be switched?  Hmm, Who cares?  The point is that the Redskins are obviously holding Native Americans in the highest light possible, with the utmost respect.  What Native American wouldn't want to be portrayed in this way?



I hope I have made it obvious enough that this is a very sarcastic response to the topic at hand, and that I believe that the Redskins should have to change their name immediately, as it is ridiculously racist and offensive.  Dan Snyder is an ignorant piece of trash for claiming that the team name 'Redskins' holds the memories and meaning of where "we" came from, who "we" are and where "we" want to go in the future.  All I can hope at this point is for Mr. Snyder to someday realize how ignorant he is and change the name to something less offensive like "poop heads" or "morons."


Too Little Too Late

The recent controversy regarding the Washington Redskins refusal to change their blatantly offensive name has brought about great discussion surrounding the practice of using outdated terms and imagery of Native Americans to represent sports teams. Native American monikers have been longstanding "go-tos" when it comes to naming a sports team. this practice has been going on for far too long, with roots seated deep within the cultural fabric of America. For years it has been casually accepted that while " yes, these names and mascots care offensive, we've had them for so long we cant change them now!" This applied apathy can be juxtaposed with the same attitudes that allowed but segregation of African Americans as well as the practice of slavery. It is in my opinion that not only should the use of derogatory terms for sports team be stopped, but that the strong push for these names to be changed has come too late.  

It is impossible to argue that terms such as "Redskin" or mascots such as "Chief Wahoo" are not racist. What makes these terms different from other derogatory terms such as "spic" or "nigger"? Paralleling a term with a favorite pastime such a football, is certainly different than being associated with slavery and oppression. It is this fact that has allowed for further subjugation of Native American people to not only continue, but be celebrated to this day. Unfortunately, these team names and mascots have become so ingrained into our society that terms such as "scalping" the opposition, or going on a "warpath" are commonplace. By allowing these terms to be be associated with things so very dear to the majority of people is effective allowing for racism and opprssion to be further integrated into our society.

It is easy to say that these names are "tradition" and "have been around for this long, why change now?", but if this attitude was employed 148 years ago, slavery would still exist in the United States. The idea that tradition is a valid reason to continue a practice which is utterly racist is one which is not only ridiculous, but on a basic level lazy. choosing to sit back and allow this is a failure of society, and has been going on for far too long. Traditions can be either wonderful or extremely damaging, and in this case the aforementioned "tradition" is not only one of ignorance, but hate as well.

It is encouraging that the Redskins' are being pressured to change their name, unfortunately, the franchise is resisting this current push on basis of "tradition". Again, we must ask ourselves: is this tradition is worth keeping? For the Redskins to keep their offensive name is simply fueling a racist tradition which should be eliminated. By stripping these oppressive ideals from popular culture the a strong source of power for them is removed, but to allow it to continue, is to allow prejudice against Native Americans to be further seated into what is "acceptable" in American culture.

Sports Teams Vs. Native Americans



Over the years, there has been much controversy surrounding American sports teams who use Native American names and mascots. This controversy has been occurring since the 1940s when many sports teams began adopting Native American symbols. Many fans and players see the names as a way of paying homage to the Native Americans, but many Native Americans feel that these names and mascots are very offensive and disrespectful. According to articles written by Native American authors, these offensive and derogatory team names have been used to insult them in the past. It is often debated whether or not the offensive names of these sports teams should be changed. I do not believe it is ethical to use these team names, especially when many Native Americans find these names racist. If more people knew about the history and amount of suffering Native Americans have endured, maybe they would be less willing to support teams which utilize these
insulting names.


The Florida State Seminoles, Atlanta Braves, and especially the Washington "Redskins" names have offended Native Americans altogether. Suzan Shown Herjo, a women who is determined to change the name and logo of the teams, shared a story about how she entered a store and was told no black “Redskins” were allowed. Imagine a racial term being thrown at you and no one thought anything was wrong with being called out your name. That would not feel good would it? If a NFL team was called “DC Niggas” it would be a big worry and there would be no problem changing it. The R-word is just as equal to the N-word. Why are we paying little attention to the Native Americans being disgraced? Why does it have to be so difficult for the Native American people to defend themselves as human beings? All ethnicities should be treated equally in this case.



Along with the racial slang being used by sports teams’ they portray the Native Americans with stereotypical actions. Many of them have struggled to do away with these stereotypes, but with the encouragement of these teams and everyone who supported it will cause them to have to go a long way. Atlanta braves, a baseball team, performs an “Indian Call,” each time a point is scored. This mocks the Native Americans making them sound as if they are barbarians. Children grow up not thinking anything is wrong with this. Just as racism was taught many years ago it is being taught in a different form and a select few can notice.



It is somewhat understandable that there is a lot of history and hard wins behind this racial slur, but it is still unacceptable to wear this name on a jersey in front of millions. The decision of the owner Daniel Snyder not to change the name of Washington Redskins shows the prejudice and discrimination his team is promoting.  This battle is continuing to become more and more furious as tribe leaders come across this coach to argue for mainly their heritage and dignity. The controversy is traveling through the country and recruiting more supporters everyday.

In this messed up society who knows who is going to win this battle. Will it be the racist non-caring coach or the troubled Native American that has been dishonored. At the end of the day all the coach really cares about is the money the team is bringing in, so what is the real importance of the name. The history will still remain the same and will be remembered even more in an honorable way without the racist name. 














Change Should Be Made

Native American mascots have been the topic of controversy ever since the 1960s. Numerous people argue that the use of native names and symbols by non-native teams to be derogatory and a harmful form of ethnic stereotyping and thus should be eliminated from every sports team. I believe that native names and symbols by non-native teams should be eliminated from sports team because this type of stereotype diminishes the Native culture and is hurtful to many Native people.


In a country where stereotyping is a big issue, why do we allow this form of stereotyping to still exist? Why are Native people the only race of people that are permitted to be used as mascots? If we want to use race as team names and mascots, then why don’t we have teams such as The Asians, The Jews, or The Christians and have mascots according to their cultures? We can’t do this because it would be disrespectful to these different ethnic groups just like its disrespectful to the Native people. Teams use mascots because it represents them and their state/country. Take for instance the Memphis Grizzlies, an NBA team. Their mascot is a Grizzly bear. Why? Because when they were originally located in Vancouver, British Columbia, the Grizzly Bear was Native to the land, which is why they made their mascot a bear, and that followed when they transferred their team to Memphis. The bear represents where they originally came from and is part of the culture and I’m pretty sure we aren’t offending any Grizzly Bears by using them as mascots. If we are, then God Bless all of us. But what does the Washington Redskins or the Florida State Seminoles have to do anything with Native Americans? Did the natives find these sports team or have any part in them? Even if they did, we should still change it because tribes such as the Oneida Indian Tribe in upstate New York and others around the country find them as a form of racial slur. If they find it disrespectful, then we should simply change it to honor their culture and heritage. There are many sports that have changed their mascots because of these controversies. For example, the Atlanta Braves came under fire for their “screaming Indian head” for its 2013 batting practice caps. The Braves responded by removing the Indian from its caps and ultimately opting for a safer, script “A” logo instead.



The National Basketball Association (NBA) have avoided controversies by changing any Native American resemblance from their teams in the past. The most controversy the NBA had to deal with was the most recent name change of the New Orleans Hornets to the Pelicans. The reason for this controversy is basically, who wants to play against the Pelicans? It’s not even a frightening bird and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be afraid to play against “The Pelicans.” However, the name works because it’s the state bird of New Orleans. Overtime, people will become used to the name and hopefully other NBA teams will be afraid to play against “The Pelicans.” If these teams have taken a stance and changed any resemblance their team had with the Native culture, then why can’t other teams do the same? A team represents the state its from and thus should use names and symbols to represents its state, not something that is disrespectful to another race because they deserve to be treated with as much respect as everyone else in this country.

Redskins Controversy


Redskins. To Native Americans, this term is the equivalent of nigger, spic, or cracker. Despite this, Dan Snyder, the owner of the redskins, is adamant about allowing a racial slur to remain the name of Washington’s football team. This football team, by the way, plays in America’s national league, which means this racism is on a national scale. Fortunately, there is legislation that congress is deliberating over that may soon make racist occurrences such as this less prevalent in sports. Regardless, outsiders looking in on America see such great controversy over something so obviously immoral and discriminatory, and this is shameful.

An individual would be opposed to changing the name for one of three reasons. One, this individual is racist, and their stance on this argument is understandable. Two, the individual has a stake in the teams’ income, an owner for example, and changing the team name, all branding and all merchandise associated with the team would be both inconvenient and expensive. Third and finally, a person may argue that the current society exists in a post racial time and that the name of the teams are not intended to be malicious towards any one group, but instead are just names that were created in a different time and have a benign meaning in the current age.  These individuals fail to realize however that though modern society is past racism, racism still exists. Native Americans do not share the same view and are offended by the fact that their people are paraded around, quite literally, as mascots.

All in all, a sad fact remains. The only reason the name has not been changed by now is that Native Americans do not possess much, if any, voting power and are such a minority that they also cannot easily gain national attention for such injustices. If the name of the team was instead ‘the crazy niggers,’ the name would have been changed in a microsecond, many years ago, no questions asked. What’s more, and this is the saddest part of all, congress will most likely not pass the bill, because wealthy individuals such as the owners of the teams will lobby, control, and pay congress to be their puppets in this matter.

The Misinterpretation of Team Names: A Flaw in Professional and Collegiate Sports

The recent controversy regarding the Washington Redskins, specifically the use of the word “Redskins”, has brought a lot of attention not only to Dan Snyder and the Redskins organization but as well as the representation of Native Americans throughout the professional and collegiate sports world. The main issue headlined in the media today is that the owner Dan Snyder should change the name of the Washington Redskins to something more suitable for modern times. My response to that is:

“Who Gives a Shit?”

The Washington Redskins first stepped onto the field in 1933, and it baffles my mind how this issue about their “name” has been blown completely out of proportion in almost what, a hundred years later? The Redskins franchise has won numerous amounts of Championships and Super Bowl titles and has had a cast of past greats such as Joe Theismann and Doug Williams, as well as modern day superstars such as Clinton Portis and RG3. Not to mention that the Redskins franchise itself has been named the third most valuable franchise in the NFL for who knows how long?

Besides the Redskins illustrious history, the main issue I have as well as many others have is the reasoning behind changing the name itself. The word “Redskin” originated back when English Settlers first immigrated to North America. At that time the settlers probably did not know what to call their crimson-skinned brethren, so in order to differentiate themselves from the Native Americans, they just devised a nickname that we know now as Redskins. A bit out of the ordinary? Yes. Racist? No. Clever? Not really. Still, the nickname they devised worked for the time being and eventually over time, once the interactions between settlers and Native Americans picked up, they learned of the names of the actual tribes they came from, and as a result, the term Redskin was no longer needed.

I agree, the term “Redskin” is a little outdated, but that is the point, its outdated. It no longer has a meaning associated with the term it once was. It’s just a cool sounding arrangement of letters that spells Redskin. That’s it. I mean obviously the term still means Native American, but for the people who say that the Redskins organization is racist for using the term Redskins, they are taking the term way out of context. In contrary the Redskins franchise is not racist and deeply acknowledges the rich history of its former Chesapeake Bay glory days and has continued to display a love and affection to the Native Americans from their region. Don’t believe me? Here are a few lines from their fight song, "Hail to the Redskins":

“Hail to the Redskins!”
“Hail Victory!”
“Braves on the Warpath!”
“Fight for old D.C.!”
Interpreting things to be the literal meaning often does help when trying to persuade individuals to fight for a cause and should be avoided when trying to win an argument. If I told you that six-foot tall dinosaurs play basketball in Toronto, would you believe me? It is true, no matter how stupid that sounded. Such is the Redskins case, where people vouch for their name change based on the literal meaning of “red-skinned Native Americans”. To those people I ask what is your reasoning behind targeting only the Redskins? There are plenty of other team names you can take the literal meaning for and make that racist as well. A common household name in college football is the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Everyone knows what knows what Notre Dame is, but what is exactly a “Fighting Irish”? Well, if you are familiar with the Irish, you would know the common stereotype is that they are heavy drunks. And along with that drunkenness, tempers flare into a cue stick holding, mean-mugging, pub rampage, which is force to be reckoned with. Kind of like the Notre Dame football team. Actually, that’s kind of an understatement. So what do you think? Should the Notre Dame “Fighting Irish” be renamed the Notre Dame “Drunk Irish Men”? I personally would love that.    
The point is, sports teams are supposed to be fun. That is why people watch them. No real sports fan cares about what their team actually is or what they once represented. They just care about if they can win the next game and eventually bring home the most priceless memento a team can bring home to their city, a championship. I am not Redskins fan, but I do understand where most Redskins fans and executives are coming from. There is a rich history within that franchise and changing the name of a team that has been engraved in the minds and hearts of so many is a painful pill to swallow. Although Dan Snyder did not help his case, he did what any die-hard sports fan would do, and that is to back his team up no matter what people think. All we can do now is wait and see if the Redskins give into pressure and change their name. In the meantime, we can all give our undivided attention to the Falcons as they try to bounce back and hopefully get into the wild card race. Rise Up!



American Teams with Native American Mascots


Since the beginning of sporting teams, Native American names and mascots have been used to show who a sports team was. The Redskins, Braves and Chiefs are a few teams who use Native American Tribe mascots to define their team. However, is it right to use these Indian mascots to define a team?
One of special note is the NFL football team, the Washington redskins. Not only do they use an Indian as their mascot, but also their team name is actually a racial slur towards Indians. Susan Hajaro is a Native American who has made it her mission to annihilate these mascots to “protect her people”(Native American mascots: Pride or Prejudice). Her main effort of course is towards the Washington Redskins. She says that the word redskins, is just as bad as the N-word. The Redskins is basically the main name of issue. If people get the Washington Redskins to change their mascot the others teams will quickly follow.

That being said, the controversy of having an Indian Mascot as a team name has been around for while. In the beginning there were nearly 3,000 teams that used Native American mascots, but now people are becoming more aware of the insult that some mascots cause to the Indian people and that number has been reduced to around 900. However, that is still 900 too many according to many Indians. One of these teams that noticeably changed its mascot is the Atlanta Braves. The Braves, previously, had a mascot consisting of a screaming Indian figurehead. They later changed it to the more recent “A” that we see on their caps today.
These team names also give the wrong impression of who the Native American people actually are, and what their history is. These days you have all these teams represented by Indians, along with books and movies about fictional characters. If you ask little kids to describe an Indian, they will more than likely go off of what they have seen in movies and sports. They fail to realize that the Native American people are still amongst us living as modern humans. They also fail to see that Indians do not in fact, have red skin as is promoted in many teams Indian mascots such as Chief Wahoo for the Cleveland Indians. The fact is that many people in the United States do not even know an Indian and therefore have a certain image about them that has been molded into them by the media and entertainment.
To sum up everything, most of these controversies are a matter of the mascots representing respect and pride versus indignity and humiliation. The Native Americans argue that having an Indian mascot is demeaning, and portrays the Native American culture in a very narrow minded light. The owners of the team, however, argue back saying that the mascots that they have chosen honor the Indian people and provide a constant reminder of who lived here before the English arrived. A great example are the Florida State Seminoles, who fired back at the NCAA calling the NCAA ban on Indian mascots for colleges “outrageous and insulting”('Change the Mascot' Campaign Hits Washington Redskins). They said that their Indian mascot is an honor to be associated with their University.

Native American Team Names and the Witch-Hunt Mentality

          The "witch hunt mentality" has been an ever- present element of human interaction throughout history. For innumerable sociological and psychological reasons (which shall not be stated here in the interests of brevity and coherence), we are compelled to weed- out, to report, to be the one out of many who successfully finds and makes public the hidden evil. Take the persecution of Jesus Christ, by which the law- abiding and God- fearing Jews, so readily and happily handed over one of their own because he was a heretic. Take the Salem witch hunts themselves. Take 1940's Germany, in which Nazi publicists intentionally nurtured this mentality in their subjects. It is a "collective neurosis" of sorts, to quote Frankl. It is an unfortunate, vestigial psychological hang- nail from our evolutionary days.

          For this mentality to flourish, the perceived evil (i.e. witches, heretics, Communists, etc.)  must be publicly condemned either by the majority of those perceived to society's "good" people, the highest authority in society (i.e. the king, government, etc.) or both. On its most basic and primal level, the mentality manifests itself through "tattling" in young children. We never truly grow out of it (though we think we do), and we never truly realize it until it has been explicitly pointed out to us. Every era and every society has its own perceived evil, and in this generation, it is those who are not politically correct, those who are seen to be "offensive" in even the slightest capacity, and those make any distinction, good, bad or neither, between different groups of people.

          It is painfully easy to pinpoint where this modern neurosis got its start. In the midst great social upheaval of the last century, especially in America during the struggle for civil rights, those who were previously indifferent or at the minimum largely unaware of the unjust ills suffered by certain groups, all suddenly became activists. They joined the protests. They confronted discrimination where they previously allowed it to pass noticed. They took a stand where it was convenient for them, which, in truth, is courageous, and all many civil rights activists said they needed to do. In short, the common man became a warrior for justice in his own right and become hypersensitive to the types of discrimination which had long plagued the nation. 

          This heightened level of scrutiny and sensitivity to these issues was indeed necessary to rid them at the time, as they had become so deeply ingrained in the American way of life. And while our vigilance is still a necessity to keep them from returning, somewhere along the way, the heightened awareness became corrupted, either from its gradual escalation to a vice of excess or overstaying its welcome. In any case, it has evolved into, as you likely guessed, the witch- hunt mentality. 

          Think about it: how many times have you heard someone or something accused of being "racist", and thought to yourself how utterly ridiculous it was. Surely even the people most sensitive to these issues will admit to one such occurrence. It seems today that in any dispute involving people from two different social demographics can hardly proceed without one party (or both) being accused of being either "prejudice", "racist" or "a bigot." Do none of these claims ever have any merit? They absolutely do at times, but our witch hunt mentality has become so pervasive, we decide so quickly by it and it makes our opinions so final, that we are rendered incapable of fair judgement and assessment of our society's conflicts. As soon as we hear one of the magic words, "racist", "prejudice", etc. we immediately shut down, for the party accused of such evils cannot possibly be correct, and if we concur with them, then surely we are those things too.

          So, putting these pseudo- instincts aside they best we can (it will take some work, but you can do it), and trying our best to recognize the total ambiguity that the magic words have assumed, tackle a contemporary issue: professional sports team names that some claim are insensitive. I will start with a question: When you hear the word 'offensive', what do you think? Is there any urge to examine it's meaning, beyond 'bad'? We have been so trained to immediately shun "offensive" things, that we can scarcely remember that it is an entirely subjective term. When someone labels something as such, we must not immediately begin thinking of absolutes.

          Admittedly, a white man may not be able to  to fully see why the term "Redskin" may offend a Native American, as he is incapable of doing so. However, we must look at this subjective term objectively in order to produce a right judgement. First and foremost, we must realize that looking to Native Americans as the final authority on whether or not these team names are good or bad is logical fallacy. Simply because some Native Americans are offended by the term, is not indicative of badness, just as a Native American, or Redskins fan finding it unoffensive is not indicative of its goodness. As Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote, "One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric."

          So, what then might make a team's name "bad?" I should hope that one might respond by saying that any team name that defames or otherwise makes a derogatory statement about what it represents. No teams with Native American teams do indeed do this. "Redskin" is no more "offensive" than referring to Caucasians as white or Africans as black. When one begins to take the time to see things in a more logical light, rather then submit to the gag reflex that is quasi- prejudice, then he/she can come to more sane and logical conclusions about these issues. It should not, in any other deduction, cause one to strain so much as they do to reach such rudimentary revelations such as the fact that no person in their right mind would name their sports franchise, which they can be assumed hold in high esteem, after something they did not admire.

          In addition, let me be clear that this is not the only issue whose practical resolution is vitally crippled by our tattle-tale mentality.One might think that having seen what tremendous damage this mentality has posed to human society in the past, we would be more apt to vigilance. Yet this is not the case, and in a great deal of circumstances, individuals have been aware that their accusations of racism and prejudice are totally unfounded, but they know that these can be exploited to tremendous advantage, both in terms of the argument, and of being the "heroic" who weeded out the perceived evil. Those of us who are aware of what is becoming of our common conscious can do great lengths to diminish its effectiveness, simply by recognizing, and taking a stand on issues such as "offensive" team names.

          

Thanks Daniel Snyder

*DISCLAIMER* THIS IS A SATIRE DO NOT THINK THAT THE OPINIONS STATED BELOW REFLECT THAT OF MY OWN. THIS SATIRE IS MEANT TO REFLECT HOW RECALCITRANT DANIEL SNYDER IS BEING. OTHER THAN THAT ENJOY.

Thanks to Daniel Snyder’s unwillingness to change he has inspired many communities across America to stand up and create their own sports teams. Many communities have seen how Mr. Snyder wont bend to the feeble Native Americans plead to change the name and due to this they too want to create teams with the same intrinsic value. Some of these heartfelt teams wanted to get their message across to the public by giving small descriptions of their values.

The California Beach Bums
Motto: “Dude Hang Ten”
We are a team with very naturalistic values. We hold all that nature has to offer highest. The NFL has never seen a team like ours. We may not be the fastest, the keenest, or even the most talented but we are the most environmentally friendly. We are currently working on the worlds first split toe sandal cleat. This technology will allow our team to stay fashionable while also being easily slipped on and off. Overall we have to thank Mr. Snyder for allowing our team to promote the most chill way of life.
The Superior Minstrels

Motto: Save face by going Black Face
We are a group based off of pure southern values. For our NBA team we will show everyone what great basketball players come out of the south. We pride our selves on the team uniforms which consist of painting our faces black and wearing homemade potato sack jerseys. The potato sacks are one of the most essential parts of our team for they allow maximum flexibility. Along with out potato sacks we also pride our selves on breaking down barriers by painting our faces. No longer can our teammates judge one another based on their physical appearance if everyone has the same color face. Due to this unity our team is the most dedicated team that will ever step foot on the basketball court. We are superior to every other team in any aspect conceivable and soon the world will know that. Thanks to Mr. Snyder we woke up and realized who cares what people feel if your team is successful.
Los Luchadores de Hierba (The Grass Wrestlers)

Motto: We will mow through our competition 1 course at a time!
We are team based on solid moral values Honor, Family, Tradition, and Doughnuts! We are going to be the first ever team to enter into the PGA tour. We believe that all sports have teams so why should golf not be the same. Our team has trained for over a decade on many golf courses in multitudes of country clubs. The sport of golf we believe is a tranquil escape from our lives. We would have never generated enough courage to come the public if it was not for Señor Snyder. Señor Snyder opened up our eyes to the real America and for a man to have such a team on spotlight and not give in to the demands of society it really inspired us to make our move as well.
Murica’s Confederates

Motto: When all else fails Duck Tape.
We are a team that relies heavily on our good old southern upbringing’s. For the past thirty years our team has participated in a sport that is not professionally recognized Mud Bogging. Mud Bogging is a southerners past time, we dive our jacked up trucks in and out of mud pits just for the thrill. This sport is truly a demanding one for if you mess up one detail you could lose your whole truck to the swamp lands. Our team uniforms consist of camouflage boots, camouflage jeans, camouflage belt, camouflage T-Shirts, camouflage hoodies, and camouflage hats with the fish hook on the bill of the cap. Along with our team uniforms our trucks also coordinate. Our trucks all are painted completely with camouflage and have duck tape in the trunk to fix almost every problem that we may come across. Our team wants to show the public that just because we blend in with the forest our sport is still visible. Mr. Snyder taught us a very important fact that its okay to step on the small people as long as your team makes you millions and is awesome.

As you can see this spur of creativity in America is truly amazing. Though these are just a few of the teams coming out of the woodwork many more have yet to get the same courage to make their dreams come true. It’s unbelievable that one man incited such positive creativity in the communities across America. All of these teams express their gratitude to Mr. Snyder for allowing them to understand that even though you may step on the feelings of others as long as their names are not on your paycheck then their opinions are irrelevant.

NFL Team Name Controversy

Recent controversy over the name of a Washington Football team, the NFL Redskins, has brought about some debate on the exploitation of Native American culture. There have been lawsuits filed against the trademark by the Oneida Nation, claiming that the term “Redskins” is a racial slur and should not be used as the name of a National Football League team. A major “Change the Mascot” campaign has been launched against the team name, including radio ads and protests at major away games, including Green Bay and Dallas.
Owner Dan Snyder, however, disagrees with the sentiments of the Oneida Indian Nation and supports of the campaign. He denies any efforts to change the name, though he expresses great respect for the campaign supporters and Native American groups offended by the name. He also goes on to say that “I hope such individuals also try to respect what the name means, not only for all of us in the extended Washington Redskins family, but among Native Americans too.”

What’s funny about this statement is that only wants respect for the rich history of his team. Everyone understands that, including me. What I cannot understand is how the history of a football team can compare to that of an ethic group that has been wildly disrespected at every turn. What Mr. Snyder is missing is a little dose of Empathy.
Imagine a little black cartoon, with bold pink lips, a top hat, and a wide smile, brilliantly named Jim. We’ll say that this little black character is the face of a football team, and has been for over 80 years. Some people are offended by the connotations surrounding the character, but the memories associated with the team have outweighed the backlash, because everyone knows that sports memories are more important than the oppressed history of a nation of people.


You can see how absurd this sounds, because many people would be offended by a satirical depiction of their identity. Anyone would have an issue with being misrepresented. Is that not how America was founded in the first place, because of being taken advantage of and misrepresented by Great Britain? I don’t think the problem is that it mocks the culture, as the names of other well-known teams- Braves, Chiefs, or Seminoles does. The point is that those offended by the term do not recognize it as a symbol of their culture as the American owners of the team do. With this being said, I am not sure what “meaning” Snyder was referring to in his statement. If it holds any meaning to the Indian people, I doubt its positive or worthy of honor, being that it is seen as a racial slur.

Furthermore, you would think that as a country we would understand that certain subjects are sensitive and should not be mocked. In 2013, people still have to be told to respect each other’s feelings and cultures, and that is what this issue is all about: Respect for your fellow man. That is not to say that your fellow man’s sports team isn't also due respect, however I think most people would agree that people should come before franchises. 

Justice For All

What if we had a new NBA basketball team called “The Negroes”? How long would that last? Or if we had a NHL hockey team named “The Crackers”?  We all know there would be rallies, protest and many different things to promote change. But why haven’t we seen this much noise being made for Native Americans? For decades Native Americans have had to sit back watch movies, professional sports teams and even schools mimic their ways of life or what we assume they’re like. But like they say better late than never, more Native Americans are taking a stand against the injustice they face.

Since then some schools have changed their school’s mascot if they felt they were offensive to Native Americans. But some teams have kept them because they were specific names of tribes and felt like they honored Native Americans. In my opinion they should take them away all together. The images we see are really stereotypical images that come to mind when we think of “Indians” (that we still say) or Native Americans. There is no honor in that. I feel like most Americans are in denial about the level of racism that still exists because it is not as obvious as it used to be.


If having specific groups of races as a mascot isn’t offensive how come we don’t see it as much? The only other race that has a mascot is the Irish (NBA Boston Celtics). Other than that you see the typical animals or objects as mascots. The reason it is not being done as much is because everyone knows how racist it is. I’m glad the Natives are finally taking a stand. It’s a shame it had to take this long. The real question we should be asking is why did we not take the Native Americans seriously in the first place?


Why did it take this long for us to finally hear the Native Americans? We are supposed to be the land of the free but yet we isolate them from the rest of us in reservation camps. We make Acts saying we’re sorry but never make an attempt to do something about it. For the longest we have pushed the Native Americans to the side as if they don’t exist. We rarely even see them represented in the media (TV shows, Movies, etc.) as everyday people. 
Bottom line we need to respect every race and color no matter where they are from or what they might look like. We need to snap out of this euphoria of everything is alright and that racism is finally over. The Native Americans are finally having their moment that is long overdue. The injustice for them has been going on longer than any other American race issue. There is even a song to help us remember exactly when it began “In 1492 Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue”. So we should all do our part to help bring them their peace and respect everyone deserves.

Offensive or Otherwise?

Native American as Mascots: Offensive or Otherwise?

 Well, if you were to ask an older man who has lived during a time when social injustice wasn't relevant to America (especially in sports), he would say, “Otherwise.” “Back in my day, nobody cared about those people who barely exist. It was all about whose team made it to the World Series or the Super Bowl and the pride it gave people in their hometown, not about whose Indian tribes’ feather color wasn't represented right on the logos. Why don’t these folks crawl back in that little hut where they came from and leave us sport lovin’ Americans alone?”

 If you were to ask a sports fan whose favorite team had a Native American mascot, he would say, “Otherwise.” “It’s not like we're saying Natives are losers or anything. I think we make them look pretty good. Where else do you see a whole crowd of people dressed like an Indian who are proud to be like that?” I can just imagine he’d look something like this:



 If you were to ask the owner of a NFL team who had a Native American mascot, he would say, “Otherwise.” “Look, I have money to make here. If these Indians file a lawsuit against us and they win, imagine what that would do to my reputation! Besides, our fans would never want their team to go from the 'Redskins' to the 'No-skins.' Who wants to support a team with a name like that?" That’s well-spoken by a filthy rich man.

If you were to ask a soccer mom who had all of her children in a sport, she would say, “Otherwise.” “Why this event is terrible! I mean, who are my kids going to play for if their team’s name disappears?  I already have Jimmy seeing a psychologist for his ADHD. I don’t think my other children should see a therapist, too, because of the possible trauma that’s going to fall on them due to their mascots being gone! I think these Indians need to be a little more sympathetic when they make these kinds of decisions.” Does this statement sound a little ironic?

 If you were to ask a man who had a doctorate in economics, he would say, “Otherwise.” “Being a proud American citizen under a capitalist country, the main goal for any of us is to make the most money as possible. Looking at the laws of demand, if your consumers reject to the product you are selling, in this case, the change of Native American mascots, you can expect your business to fall heavily in profits. It is neither ideal nor logical to cease any flow of revenue into your company; therefore sports owners should continue their traditional plan of making revenue.”

 If you were to ask a Republican senator in a red state, he would say, “Otherwise.” “Frankly, I find this mascot controversy to be quite silly. We have established civil rights laws years ago, so what is there left to complain about?  We also live in a country were majority rules; let’s see how the voters take on this issue.” I’m sure he’s one of the politicians involved in stopping complaints about the mascots.

 If you were to ask a Native American teenager who played on her school basketball team (with a N.A. mascot) with her classmates, she would say, “Otherwise.” “I don’t see what the big deal is. I mean, the Wild West was centuries ago, so this sympathy for my people is a tad bit, I don’t know, dated? I remember my mother making a fuss about my team’s mascot, because we’re called the Redskins, and she keeps going on and on about how ‘derogatory that name was to our family.’ Um, it doesn't offend me when my friends say it, so why bother nagging about it now?” Does she have any compassion for her heritage? Nope.

 If you were to ask an attorney who gets paid to fight for people’s civil rights, he would say, “Offensive.” “I will fight to the day I die, to put justice in the hands of these Indigenous individuals.  Once I notify a payment from them, every sports organization in the world would have to pay up for damage they caused.” Yes, just imagine all that money and recognition he would get from that.

If you were to ask a journalist who writes editorials for a popular magazine, she would say, “Offensive.” “Well, of course it’s offensive! I mean, disregarding that mostly liberals read our magazine, it’s just awful! The little man will always win in these kinds of situations, and besides, when was the last time you've seen Native Americans in the news, like, thirty years ago? Regardless of how you stand on this topic, you all will tune in for more details. I make sure I have the facts and I find myself pretty trustworthy.” Of course it’s offensive if you don’t buy her magazine!
  
The problem with this picture is actually not the lack of the common American viewing Native American mascots as offensive. One problem is their justification for why it’s not offensive. If you’re going to argue about any issue, your argument is invalid if it’s filled with logical fallacies, or better yet, it can be countered by a stronger argument. Another problem is the people who do believe it's offensive think that it is simply because it is the “politically correct” way of thinking. They feel like they have to side with some Native American tribes in order to look moralized. What ever happened to common sense? For this issue about Native American mascots, the real issue emerges: for our stances, we seek to benefit ourselves rather than to see all sides of the argument.  However this Native American mascot controversy plays out, I hope it considers the common sense side, not the political/economic/ignorant side.



Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Top Five Albums of the Past Decade (2003-2013)

I am of the opinion that most music today sucks. It lacks the depth, meaning, effort and even talent that comprised music as little as twenty or thirty years ago. So understand that making this list was not easy and understand the merit that I find in these albums is based largely on the merit that I find in "old" music. That said:

5.) WOLF- Tyler, The Creator


          By seeing this as the first entry on the list, you may think that I am an ignorant cretin, like many of the young white males who like this album. You may think that because I've chosen a quasi- mainstream album (there are more to come) that I’m not a cultured music enthusiast. If you think that, then we have a problem. The stigma that we have that all mainstream or popular music is bad, unrefined or unoriginal is killing music. Sure, music like this is popular among cretins, and like I said before, I think most new music, mainstream or not, is abominable.

         But, we must still give it a chance. This album may come across as unrefined at times, and there’s no doubt that it’s rude and offensive (things that you could hear from any Passion Pit fan or your mother.) Honestly though, listen, and you may just see past that. There is real talent here. The music, which at times transcends the label “beats” is original, creative, and offers hope that rap may be taken in a new direction from where it has long been stagnant. 

4.) X&Y- Coldplay

                You can’t deny it. You’ve cried like a little baby at least once to Fix You. “Whoa! Critical fallacy, Graham! One song doesn’t make the whole album good.” You’re right! You’ve just never really listened to the other songs. While on a few of the less bearable tracks, all you can think about is Chris Martin’s infamous “greatest band in the world” comments (What If, Twisted Logic), on some other tracks, the comments become bearable, on other tracks, you forgive him for it, and on most of them, the complex melodies of the music and subtle sensitivities in his voice force you to agree with him.

               
                That is, of course, until the song ends. At that point, you’re left strangely unimpressed, except for Fix You, which makes up for a lot where other songs last in this category. After many listens, I think I’ve pinpointed the problem. The album is too mellow at times. To be good, an album must function as a work of art altogether, not by just by the quality of the individual songs. X&Y doesn’t provide quite enough to contrast and give special value to its mellow parts. The album however, has mastered the art of being mellow.

3.) There's No Leaving Now- The Tallest Man on Earth

               Kristian Mattson is only 30, and this is his third sixth release (counting EP’s.) By listening to his albums in sequential order one notices how rapidly his voice, his songwriting ability, and most of all his treatment of self have evolved one comes to understand the full potential of this man. Today, album that has this much sincerity is considered the artist’s masterpiece, and it’s almost as if everyone, including the artist themselves sense this and never endeavors to make anything better. This is not the case here- not by a long shot. There are many, many good things to come from him and you can hear that he knows that in his voice. He has confidence where he had insecurity. His music is now more full- bodied, while keeping every bit of that organic quality that is so attractive. Yet, this album is decidedly a ”grower” and not a “show-er.” In light of all this, it’s almost necessary to have listened to his prior work to "get" this one.

2.) War Elephant- Deer Tick

                John McCauley III has way too much in common with Bob Dylan for you not to have heard of him, even if one of the principle similarities is that you have to get used to their voices before you can appreciate them. Beyond that, that trait is reconciled by both men in the same way- through intense creativity and dangerous individuality. While McCauley is never going to lead a cultural revolution, he expresses defiance in other ways. For one, like Dylan, he exercises total control of his music in this album. For starters, he wrote, recorded (every instrument) and produced the entire record by himself at the age of 21.
                
                Do not listen to what any critic tells you about this album. Anyone who would criticize this album for being too sophomoric has missed the point entirely. That would be like criticizing the Sex Pistols for their lack of technical ability. McCauley has been to dark, dark places and at rare times, some very happy ones, all by the ripe age of 21 and he wants to tell you all about it as quickly as he can. There is beauty in that and it gives this album has something that we so desperately need nowadays: soul.

1.) Modern Vampires of the City- Vampire Weekend

                Take a few minutes to get all of the anti- hipster hate out of your system before you read this. You good now? Great. Let me start off by saying that the worst type of artist is one who tries to sound tortured; the best is one who simply creates, and as it just so happens, is tortured. The whole album is Ezra Koeing’s reflections on faith. What makes them so poignant, and one of the reasons that he is so tortured by his thoughts is that he realizes the gravity of his faith choice (or lack thereof). But most importantly, he is not so fanatical to be a forgone Jew and not so arrogant as to be a forgone atheist. It gives his arguments for both sides legitimacy and it gives his music soul. Everything comes from his soul here- not traditional soul (although it evokes the same emotions) rather, Koeing has taken all that is right and justifiable from the gaudy mess that is modern music, and gives it something to work for: meaning. It is no ordinary man that can handle that task. It takes a genius. 

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Top Five Hanna-Barbera Production Cartoons

 The Hanna-Barbera team of producers, William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, created and/or produced some of the most recognizable and lovable cartoon characters of the 20th century, beyond Disney and Warner Bros. This is my list of the most influential and iconic Hanna-Barbera produced shows. 


#5: Powerpuff Girls
For an overview, the show consists of three superhero Kindergartners who live with their creator, a scientist. They use their supernatural powers to help the city of Townsville crack down on criminals and super villains, most notoriously Mojo Jojo, an intelligent monkey who was created by the same scientist who created the Powerpuff Girls. Surprisingly for some people, The Powerpuff Girls was the last cartoon ever to be associated with Hanna-Barbera. Not only is it one of the most popular shows from Hanna-Barbera for the Millennium kids (kids born in the 90's to present), but the Powerpuff Girls were some of Cartoon Network's first recognizable characters from their productions. So why Powerpuff Girls from all the shows created in the 90's? I'll admit I'm biased for this show since I personally watched it as a kid. Yet, besides my like for the show, Powerpuff Girls were some of the few Hanna-Barbera female characters that had their own show. There was Josie and the Pussycats from the '70's, but it had nowhere near the amount of popularity and success of the Powerpuff Girls. This focus on girls didn't come off as a "girl show" but rather portrayed a different image of the stereotypical cartoon. 




#4: The Flintstones 
Personally, I never watched this program as I did other Hanna-Barbera productions. However, I can see their influence everywhere. The Flintstones was the first iconic cartoon targeting adults instead of children. It would be the equivalent of The Simpson's today (of course a more kid friendly Simpsons)! Yet, being the first doesn't stop there.  The Flintstones were one of the first cartoons to ever be used for advertising. The Winston cigarette company was the first, followed by Welch's juice, then most notably for my generation, Cocoa Pebbles/Fruity Pebbles. It was also the first cartoon to have a married couple sleeping in the same bed. Being portrayed as cavemen in a 1960s fashion, The Flintstones started out showing two married couples (Fred and Wilma Flintstone/Barney and Betty Rubble) go about their seemingly modern daily lives. After a couple of seasons, the couples had children: Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm. I truly believe if it wasn't for The Flintstones, there wouldn't be The Jetsons, another popular prime time show, focusing on people of the future, rather than the past. 




#3: The Yogi Bear Show
The Yogi Bear Show was one of the first Hanna-Barbara cartoons involving an animal character with a sidekick and dressed in a human-like fashion. Yogi was the first character created by Hanna-Barbara. I'm sure some find that surprising since Yogi Bear first appeared on the variety cartoon show The Huckleberry Hound Show, Hanna-Barbera's first successful solo cartoon show. The show had many other notable characters including Huckleberry Hound himself. So why have The Yogi Bear Show over the The Huckleberry Hound Show in my top five? It's because Yogi Bear is a spin off show, the first cartoon spin off in history. Not only that, but Yogi Bear actually was the most popular segment from The Huckleberry Hound Show, which lead to Yogi having his own show a couple years later. The show consisted of Yogi Bear and his small sidekick BooBoo, the bear who always tries to warn Yogi of the park ranger. The setting is in Jellystone Park (sound familiar?) Yogi always got into trouble with the park ranger for stealing "pic-in-ic" baskets from the park visitors. The Yogi character is iconic for his clever rhyming and elongating of words and his phrase "I'm smarter than the av-er-age bear!"




#2: Scooby-Doo
If someone were to ask you what cartoon had the most shows derived from its concept, I hope you would say Scooby-Doo without any hesitation. Josie and the Pussycats, The Amazing Chan and the Chan Clan, Speed Buggy, Clue Club, Jabberjaw, with the addition of the 10+ versions of  Scooby-Doo (some still being made today) are just  a few of the shows deriving from the original Scooby Doo, Where are You? show from 1969. The show focuses on four teenagers: Fred (the leading one), Daphne (the girly one), Velma (the smart one), Shaggy (the "scardy-cat" one), and most notably, Scooby-Doo (the Great Dane who talks). The mysteries they solved always involved something spooky, and the character behind the spooky business was (kind of predictably) a character the mystery-solving gang met earlier in the show. I truly believed this show was the start-up for interest in mysteries (of course after Sherlock Holmes)! 




#1: Tom and Jerry
I don't think I need to give any reasons why this show is number one on my list. I think I can safely say that this show is more iconic and loved than any other Hanna-Barbera produced show, and possibly any cartoon show. The concept is so simple: cat vs. mouse, yet it is able to captivate the world so much that it seems more like the most unique concept of any cartoon. I'm confident enough to not even say what the show's about, because most Westernized people know about Tom and Jerry. If this show were to first air today, it would be either banned or marketed for adults, due to the heavy amount of violence. Disregarding the violence, Tom and Jerry were characters who didn't talk; it was their hilarious actions of hatred for each other and the amazing sound track in the background that "spoke" for these characters. Important note: Tom and Jerry is not a show directly produced by Hanna-Barbera productions; it was a show produced by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera while they were working for MGM (before they made their own success). With that being said, if it wasn't for that experience producing the first Tom and Jerry shows under MGM, Hanna-Barbera productions may have never formed at all.