They Command No Respect

 

As anticipated, the NFL's Washington Football Team unveiled their new mascot and logo on February 2. After 18 months of contemplation, a year and a half of brainstorming and vetting ideas, the big brains within the Washington Football Club committed to....

The Commanders

At this point, everyone on Twitter has made the same jokes. But I'm going to put them here too, because they're funny, and this mascot is lame. For starters, team names often have shortened nicknames. The Patriots are known as the Pats, the Packers are called the Pack, the Cavaliers are known as the Cavs, etc, etc. The Commanders...  wearing maroon... The Commies is just too easy!

Also, a name like Commanders is going to invoke allusions to other things....  like commanding organizational skills....

I guess it is an Organized Sport...

Even better than a cheap hook joke, most Gen Xers, and elder Millennials will more than likely make the GI Joe comparison...

Anyway...  I obviously think this choice is a joke. But apparently, I'm not alone. The Washington Post conducted a survey between February 2 and the 14th. As you can see below, fans who like or love the new name account for only 41%. Negative Opinions add up to 49%, and if you include "no opinion" as being apathetic and therefore also negative, that equals 60% of all polled. In addition, it appears most fans would have preferred remaining the Washington Football Team, which was the placeholder name until they came up with a new one. 

Interest level	Percentage points
Love	5%
Like	36%
Dislike	32%
Hate	17%
No Opinion	11%

Team name	Percentage points
Washington Football Team	43%
Commanders	26%
Redskins	22%
Other	5%
No opinion	5%

It seems this franchise can't get a break. But then again, all these investigations into office conduct doesn't really make me sympathetic. In addition to lukewarm response to their new name, the team has also been called out for their new logo (shown above). Apparently they trademarked the dates for the Superbowls, not the championship season. This sounds like semantics (and it is) but the Superbowl played in Febuary of 1983 was for a season mostly played in 1982. This article explains the issue, and its pretty funny, because its such a stupid problem to have. 

At least they are no longer clinging to their old mascot and nickname. And I think most of us can agree on that. And perhaps all these issues they're having now is just karma earned from decades of propping up a racist slur. 

The Spiders are Dead, Long Live the Guardians

 I post an awful lot about Indian mascots. Last Winter I posted about Cleveland Baseball's decision to drop their racist name and search for a new one. Well... search they did, and they found one. Please welcome the new Cleveland mascot, the .... 

At first it seems pretty lame. If you remember, before the Indians, Cleveland's baseball team was the Spiders. There was plenty of speculation the franchise would go back to the Spiders moniker. Instead they chose this nonsense. It sounds awkward. 

I looked into it though. It makes sense for Cleveland. Way more sense than using a Native mascot. In 1932, Henry Herring and Frank Walker built a bridge across the Cuyahoga River. The bridge itself isn't very memorable, but at the ends stand four giant statues. These statues represent the progress of transportation, and each hold a mode of transportation representing that progress, from hay wagon to automobile. 

These statues are known as the Guardians of Transportation. And there you have it.... the Cleveland baseball team has officially partnered with the Ohio Department of Transportation.  

The Indians are Dead, Long Live the Spiders

 

Last week, The Cleveland Baseball Franchise released the above statement. The New York Times broke the story that a name change would be announced the day before, and on December 14th, there it was. 

2020 was an incredibly awful year, but for the Change the Mascot organization that has been battling to leave old native themed sports mascots in the past, this year has been a huge success. Since the 70s this movement has been successful in changing mascots at the grade school and collegiate level, and in minor and semi pro leagues. Professional league teams, though, have resisted. 

Something changed this year, making the previously improbable finally a reality. The worst professional league offender, the Washington Redskins, retired the name and logo. They changed to the classy, simple Washington Football Team, and started using a wordmark instead of an Indianhead. And now, following suit, the Cleveland Indians, one of the oldest American baseball teams, using the same name for 105 years, has decided to change. 

This shouldn't be a huge surprise. Cleveland has been making strides in the last few years to move to this obvious conclusion. They retired their racist caricature mascot Chief Wahoo in 2018. However, like the mascot, the Indian name will survive for one more year, the 2021 season being its last. And the franchise will undoubtedly hold onto the trademark as long as possible by releasing Indians imprinted merchandise periodically. I wouldn't be so concerned about this. It's a business decision, and in a year, the franchise will be rebranded and busy peddling their new rebranded merchandise. 

Speaking of that... I hear the franchise may be planning on resurrecting the mascot from a Cleveland precursor franchise. The Spiders could be the second arthropod mascot of a major league team, after the Charlotte Hornets. University of Richmond might be pissed. 

A cause for celebration, surely, even though the Indians could have done as Washington did, and discontinue use immediately. Instead they will wait an entire season. Below is an article from the Washington DC ABC affiliate, which showcases reaction tweets from Indian fans. Some are uplifting and supportive, and some are disappointedly not. 

Redskins No More

It finally happened. The Washington Football Team has officially decided to retire their logo and nickname. I've been posting about this a lot in the past. use the search bar here to see all the posts labeled "American Indian" and "sports", you'll find them. 

This decision is huge. The Anti-Indian Mascot movement has been seeking this outcome since the 1970s. Dan Snyder had previously vowed to never change the name as long as he's owner. It has been a one-sided debate against an opposition that was tone-deaf and unwilling to listen. So... what happened to suddenly change minds?

1: There has been a trend in the last ten years to end the use of culturally insensitive mascots in public schools, and public and private universities. California and Maine recently passed legislation. The Cleveland Indians retired Chief Wahoo, The Braves retired the Laughing Brave. 

2: George Floyd's viral death which strengthened Black Lives Matter to a point where the movement can not be ignored anymore. Suddenly, it became very bad for business to be seen on the wrong side of racial civil rights issues. And at the heart of the Indian Mascot issue is colonialism and racism. 

3: Business partners, and advertisers, and then finally minority share holders began to jump ship. This is what ultimately forced the franchise's hand. 

How long will this take? Unclear. It's actually unclear at the moment if there will even be an NFL season starting in 2020 (unlikely). If there is, it is doubtful that the Washington football team would even be able to compete with new branding and a new nickname. There aren't even any official ideas yet for a name change.

However, this idea of changing the name isn't new. Previously, Snyder was granted trademarks to the Washington Warriors. But that trademark had been voided. Other nicknames that had been suggested in the past include the Griffins, Generals, Sentinels, Senators, Renegades, Red Wolves, Redhawks, and Red Tails. 

Hopefully we wont have to wait long until the new name is revealed. At the moment, I'm sure there are plenty of terrible human beings making it clear how angry they are at even the prospect of a new team identity. And I'm also sure there will be plenty of throwback merchandise proudly displayed at NFL games for the foreseeable future. 

Thanks for the Memories

I posted about the State of Maine banning American Indian mascots entirely, in name and symbol. Apparently this is the first state to do so, following California's partial ban that targeted the name Redskins exclusively.

Following this event, a middle school in Ohio is also contemplating a name change. While this is not that eventful on its own, I think the coverage is interesting. The masthead above has the link (click it). Also, linked here....

The school appears to be moving in the right direction, but, like with all institutions fearing public backlash, they're being cautious and seeking public opinion first by survey. Apparently majority consensus determines wrong or right. Imagine Lincoln issuing a survey before signing the Emancipation Proclamation.

The story tries to show both sides of the issue. Predictably, the reasons for keeping the mascot are limited to tradition, keeping it "just for the memories". Nostalgia isn't a reason to even have a mascot to begin with. Keep in mind, this particular story involves a middle school, not a high school or university, or professional club.

There are younger people interviewed expressing need for change, and of course, older people who want the mascot to stay. All people interviewed are beyond Middle School age, by the way, and one woman is 71 years old. I wonder what actual middle school students think about the issue. I know, it's a crazy idea, asking the group most affected by this symbol (even if they're affected at all).

Hopefully, the White Oak middle school, and the City of Cincinnati will do the right thing.

Some ideas for the future....

Cincinnati has several nicknames, some more old school than others. But... Queen City, Blue Chip City, and Porkopolis can lend themselves to some pretty cool mascot ideas.

School Mascots derived from Porkopolis would be the most fun
https://www.designevo.com/create/logos/pig.html

One by One, Change will Come

Up until recently, the State of Maine had one remaining high school with an American Indian mascot. Skohegan is the county seat of Somerset County, the Skowhegan Regional school district services 5 other neighboring communities. The Press Herald published the following story earlier this week about a press release from Maine's Department of Education. The link is below.

The history of Maine and tribal relations revolves around a series of wars with the Wabanaki Confederacy. By 1725, the 4th Anglo-Abenaki War ended with the native population of the Somerset area either pushed out or massacred. This history, like most American relationships with local tribes, makes using the mascot far more uncomfortable.

Later in the week, Skowhegan held a meeting to discuss the mascot. Apparently, the meeting concluded with a resolution to discontinue the name. The story is below, reported by the local ABC affiliate. The State of Maine no longer has American Indian mascots in their schools.

Parodies Piss Off Racists

The other day Frederick Joseph, a Manhattan area activist, went out wearing a Washington football team parody t-shirt. Instead of the Indian head mascot, the logo featured the bust of a white dude with the term "caucasians" underneath instead of the actual team name. He documented it on instagram and twitter.

Joseph's interactions with the public were actually not that surprising. He said himself, the reactions were disappointing, but not unexpected. Sports fandom can be pretty rabid and nonsensical to start with, but the backlash to Colin Kaepernick and the whole national anthem craziness doesn't make rude, obnoxious and ignorant responses to such a subtle parody shocking. You can read all about this public opinion experiment on several news outlets, including The Washington Post, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, YouTube and many others.

Predictably, Washington fans lept to defend themselves. Joseph pointed out a particular poll was cited as evidence that 9 out of 10 American Indians polled think the current mascot name is okay. I posted about this poll before. Joseph points out the poll was debunked by The Nation, and Joe Rosenstein wrote about the dubious poll for the Huffington Post as well. It took me a while to track down these articles, after searching for terms such as "Redskins Poll Debunked", or "false Redskins poll" or other similar phrases. The results were dominated by the original press releases by the Post and CBS, and even ESPN celebrating the original Washington Post poll.

These articles confirmed my earlier suspicions of foul play. It is a bit of a coincidence that the Washington Post, which covers Washington football, conducted and published the poll. But also, the poll, done by telephone, only polled 504 people claiming to be Native, without any sort of background check, or confirmation of actual Indian status. This highly publicized poll attempts to counter similar polls and studies done across the country by various other civil rights groups, and universities.

Once again, it seems that a false or misleading narrative has garnered the loudest, most easily found voice on this subject. The good news is change will come. The right people, in the right places are agreeing with these sentiments. California banned Indian mascots from all high school athletic departments. Lord Jeff is no longer the unofficial mascot at Amherst College. The Laughing Brave and Chief Wahoo are no longer part of the Braves or Indians marketing. These are big strides, and the end game will be a Washington football namechange. It's coming, patience. 

The Death of Chief Wahoo

If you've been reading this blog for awhile (doubtful), you'd be familiar with my interest in protesting the use of American Indian mascots in sports. I've posted a few entries about it on this blog. Feel free to search for them. Yesterday, this movement to end oppressive cartoonish depictions of cultures in sports got a big win.

Recently, the Cleveland Indians posted a press release about their own Indian mascot caricature, Chief Wahoo. According to the Cleveland baseball franchise, they will officially retire Wahoo in 2019 after 70 years. The New York Times corroborates.

Before I go on, it is important to remember that this is a big deal for a movement that, until now, has only been able to convince organizations in semi-pro and amateur sports competitions (collegiate, and undergraduate level) to divest from problematic identities. The fact that this is a major league professional franchise with a 70 year investment in their mascot and identity is huge.

However, this won't happen until 2019. Also, the franchise will continue to offer Chief Wahoo merchandise in their direct market (the Cleveland area). They want to maintain the trademark. So, basically, the logo wont be truly retired, but at least it will be off the uniform, stadium, official franchise marketing, and global marketplace.

Philip Yenyo, director of AIM (American Indian Movement), sums up my thoughts about this pretty well. He says this decision is a "step in the right direction", but "why wait? [...] if you're going to go this far and get rid of it, why not do it now? All they are doing is testing it out, because the name has to go too. The nickname absolutely has to go. It's not just the logo".

And so, although this is a good thing, and should be celebrated by the movement, there is still more that needs to be done. The mascot issue is a two part problem, not only are the logos caricatures, but the nicknames, the identities of these teams and fanbases, are also unacceptable.

Cultural Appropriation: What is it exactly?

Recently, and by that I mean in the last 10 years or so, there has been this trend toward social consciousness, a progressive reformation fueled by the internet's ability to bring people closer together and give voices to the previously ignored. One of the great things about social media platforms and the media that reflects that social media back at us as newsworthy, is the ability for the minority to be heard. While I think this is great, giving a voice to the voiceless, sometimes I am surprised by our ability as human beings to take everything a little too far.

Cultural Appropriation is the idea, best put, that dominant cultures, because they are the strong, majority culture, are able to take aspects of minority, oppressed cultures, and use them for nefarious means, often without the consent of the minority culture, and also often without adequate compensation. In short, Cultural Appropriation is an offshoot of Colonialist bully tactics and is inherently evil and should be called out and condemned.

I found this explanation somewhere too... "taking something from a culture that you do not belong to, and use it outside of that cultural context – usually without understanding its cultural significance, and often times changing its original meaning”

I wanted to give credit to the cartoonist. but no one seems to know

Already, with this definition, I have questions, and problems. My first question? What are these nefarious means? 

In many online articles from sites like The Huffington Post, Salon, Gawker (if it still existed), and other "liberal media" publications, the nefarious means are explained as using the cherry picked minority culture for monetary gain. Obvious examples of this include white musicians learning "black" music and then becoming rich off producing those styles, or fashion designers ripping off minority fashion and turning it into expensive high fashion products. Or the alternate medicine industry that often mines non-Western cultures for homeopathic remedies.

Less obvious, however, would be the underhanded scheme of borrowing minority culture and turning it into a fad which then serializes and undermines the appropriated culture turning it into no more than a caricature. The entire crux of the Anti-Indian Sports Mascot movement is built on this premise.  This is also the problem with ethnic themed Halloween costumes. My second definition above is important in this context. A dismissal of original context in favor of brand recognition, or profiteering is totally an appropriation as opposed to appreciation.

Typically, however, the Left, even with the best intentions of supporting the struggles of the less fortunate, and the oppressed minority, took this idea of Cultural Appropriation and over policed it to the point of madness. At times, it seems, the goal for some people is to completely shut out everyone who is of a different culture and revert back to a cultural isolationism. This cultural possessiveness doesn't appear to be a very progressive goal.

this is probably anti-Left propaganda. 

Which brings me to my second question: What cultures do we, as Americans, belong to, or not belong to, and who gets to make those decisions?

The United States of America is in a very unique place as far as culture is concerned. Everyone is welcome here, despite what fervent anti-immigration 'Mericans may say. And, because of that, the US, unlike every other country with stricter immigration policies (or no immigration policies), is a very interesting place culturally. This country has pockets of cultural influence that mirror every place on the globe. And in those pockets reside customs, cuisine, religious practice, fashion from everywhere. I think that is pretty remarkable, that one nation houses all of the diversity of the rest of the world. There are cultures here in the US that otherwise may never meet, and probably never meet under good terms.

Music, I think, gets a particularly bad rep for Cultural Appropriation. Music, the USA's greatest export, is steeped in cultural mixing and matching. All the great pop genres are rhythms and cords borrowed from "minority" cultures in America. Gospel, Blue Grass, and the Blues helped form Country, Rock n Roll, Reggae, Funk, Soul, and Hip Hop. It is almost impossible, however, to look at the history of modern music and not realize that, in every genre, there is a disproportionate number of minority innovators who died penniless while Eurocentric musicians often found exorbitant amounts of wealth and fame by playing "minority" music. At this point, however, I think the power structure in the music industry has shifted enough that all creators and innovators receive their due regardless of cultural identity. I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure contemporary Black and Latino artists are no longer largely ignored in favor of White copycats (award shows still have problems). And, on top of that, at this point, I think we, as a society, are informed enough to look back and recognize the primary contributions and importance of minority musicians and artists. I know, personally, I'd rather hear Fats Domino and BB King, and Big Mama Thornton than Elvis.

Speaking of receiving their due... anti-cultural appropriation groups don't seem to take into consideration the market for cultural appreciation, especially when lead by that particular culture. Basically, I'm pointing out the viability for minority cultures to sell themselves. Tourism is one of the biggest, sometimes the only, industry in developing nations. Caribbean nations are good examples. Hawaii and Puerto Rico are also good examples of American cultures outsourcing themselves to the rest of American culture.

Any ethnic specific cuisine is basically a business opportunity to sell a cultural experience. As a non-member of any of these cultures, am I supposed to not give my business? Should my mother return all those amazingly crafted ponchos and wraps? My point is this discussion could get off the rails real fast depending on how far down the hole you want to go.

Is it worth highlighting a fashion company's obvious appropriation of Native art to sell jewelry to college kids? Yes. Especially since there is a Federal law prohibiting the sale of falsely marketed Native American made products. But is it worth shaming that 8 year old who went on a Caribbean trip with her family and got her hair braided and wrapped? Probably not, now you're just an asshole.

And I think that is where the line of Cultural Appropriation and Cultural Appreciation lies... are you being an asshole? Is there really any harm in college aged idiots drinking tequila and wearing hats on May 5? Is there harm in a Mexican restaurant chain selling tequila and hats every day of the year? I think this really comes down to personal judgement all around. With some common sense woven in. This whole thing comes down to judgement: People judging others' lifestyle choices, other people making judgements about what is and isn't respectful and responsible. Is there really harm being done? What is the goal here?

So... no Karen, that white chick with the dreads is not trying to trivialize the struggles of the Rasta. And no, Chad, it's not ok to wear that headdress to Coachella. And yes, Linda, I can make sticky rice in my house and eat with chopsticks whenever I want. But also, ethnic themed Halloween costumes are never acceptable.

There is this myth in America that has been prevalent since my grandparents' day that cultural diversity should be celebrated. But instead of trying to live this myth, we use it as a way to further divide and spread hostility. Please, share the cultures, be open, be understanding, teach, learn, experience, be respectful, don't be an asshole.

Purple Hairy Elephants!

Awhile ago, I wrote about Amherst College, and their recently solved dilemma regarding their problematic namesake, Lord Jeffery Amherst. The college had publicly severed ties with the unofficial mascot, and adopted their first official mascot, the mammoth.

On October 20, 2017, they announced their official mascot design/logo. It's pretty cool. I posted it below. This is a follow up to this blog post right here.

Another Win for American Indians and Prehistoric Mammals!

The other day Amherst College announced a change to their school mascot. Previously, the college apparently had no official mascot, but Lord Jeffrey Amherst was considered an unofficial mascot. Amherst College claims to have the oldest collegiate athletics department in the United States, and competes in the NCAA division III as part of the Little Three in the New England Small College College Athletic Conference.

The college, founded in 1821 in Amherst, Massachusetts, was technically named after the town. However, the town was named for Lord Jeffrey Amherst, First Baron Amherst, hero of the Seven Years War, known in the United States as the French and Indian War. Afterward, he was appointed Governor-General of British North America.

As Governor-General, Lord Jeff oversaw the defense against Pontiac's Rebellion. The controversy stems from his suggestion in 1763 to use smallpox as a biological weapon against Pontiac's allies. This has been historically preserved through a letter chain between him and his subordinate Colonel Henry Bouquet. The letters express not just a desire to eliminate combatants, but to "extirpate this execrable race".

The town of Amherst has also wrestled with its namesake, and there have been petitions to change the town's name as well. Even though Lord Jeff had put his stamp on the region (Amherst, MA is not the only place to bear his name in the Northeast), his legacy as a war hero is tarnished by his participation in passive genocide.

Amherst College, however, has indeed decided to take steps to distance themselves from Lord Jeff and his history with Indian extermination. There is a hotel on campus that bore Lord Jeff's name, and that too will be renamed, according to Cullen Murphy of the Amherst board.

As before there appears to not have been an official Amherst College mascot, now the school has adopted one. The Beneski Museum of Natural History on campus has a complete mammoth skeleton, unearthed by Amherst professor Fredrick Loomis in 1913. And so, Amherst begins a new chapter, with a new official mascot, the Amherst Mammoth. Congratulations!

A quick google search for "mammoth mascot logos" proves mammoths could be potentially terrifying. There are a few mammoth mascots already. The Colorado club from the National Lacrosse League and HC Ugra from the KHL both use the Mammoth, and also the Omaha franchise from the now defunct FXFL were the Mammoths. Both Tufts and Alabama have elephant mascots, which are almost the same thing. All of these examples lead me to believe the newly chosen mascot has potential. I look forward to seeing Amherst College's new identity unfold in the coming months.

California Redskins: an Update

Awhile ago, I wrote about Governor Brown from California signing a law to ban the Redskins mascot from all California schools. At the time, there were still four schools left in the state that used the mascot. Go here for that original blurb. It's at the end of this piece on Lancaster, NY. Also, smash that CalSchoolNews banner for this new follow-up article.

As an update, the time is officially up for those four California schools. What did they choose to do?

Gustine High decided to do what many other schools have done in the last few decades, and opt for identifying as a color or colored animal in place of racism. They are now The Reds, and use a stylized letter G as a logo/symbol. Well done!

Calveras High School has preferred to "stick it to the man" by removing their Redskins name and replacing it with nothing. Sort of. They still use their Indian iconography. This does follow the mandate, but exploits a loophole that pretty much undermines the whole point of the mandate to start with.

Speaking of missing the point, the remaining two schools, Cowchilla and Tulare Union changed their mascots also, per the law. They both identify as The Tribe now, and both unsurprisingly have also kept their Indian iconography.

So, really, only Gustine understood the point of this excercise.

No one believes change will come easy, especially with regards to generations old allegiances to mascots important to adolescent athletics. This is still a step in the right direction, and eventually even the iconography will change.

Poll Position: Too Good to be True?

Recently there was a poll taken regarding the name of the Washington, DC football team. It pretty much matched a similar poll conducted in 2004 which showed a large number (9 out of 10) of American Indians support the mascot and don't find it offensive. The poll was conducted by the Washington Post, the hometown paper of the Washington football team. They polled 504 American Indians from all over the country.

The full story as reported in The Washington Post, the International Business Times, and Market Watch is linked below.

There are a few things I noticed about this poll:

1. The Washington Post claims responsibility for the poll, however, it isn't clear if the franchise had a hand in it also.
2. 504 people doesn't necessary make a good survey size, especially since the registered Indian population is closer to 3 million (Yes, we make them register). Also, The Post claims the 504 people were polled all over the country. But what is the demographic background of the survey size? How many are urban Indians? How many live on reservations? How many from the Oneida Nation that strongly oppose the name? Age demographics? Education level? Are they football fans? What tribes are they from? Are they 100% card carrying Indians, or people who may have one half-Cherokee great grandfather? These sorts of things make a difference.
3. I find it very interesting that this poll seems to exonerate Dan Snyder from looking like a heartless racist opportunist.

It is easy to read a headline and take it at face value. People do this all the time, and never bother to read between the lines, or realize what the story leaves out, possibly on purpose. According to this poll, the Washington football team has been vindicated. They have proof again that they aren't in fact racist, despite all of the other facts to the contrary. They polled a few actual Indians and those they polled almost unanimously said Redskins is not a racist term. Awesome! Story over, bring on the new stadiums and jerseys and put away those protest signs and radio ads!

Except, the fact remains the team is named after a skin color. It is a team owned and run by non-Indians who make a lot of money off an image of a person that does not represent them in any way. There is no poll that will change that, no matter how high the percentage.

not actually what Dan Snyder looks like...

Lies, Slander and Racism: an addendum

From previous posts on this blog, it is obvious how I feel about The Washington Football Team and Dan Snyder's position on their name. Recently it came to light that the team had been running a Twitter account in support of the current name, and in opposition of any call to change it.

Links to somewhere

This alone, wouldn't be so bad, the Washington team has made no secret how they feel about their brand. The problem is they tried to disguise the Twitter account as a fan created and supported account, not an official team account run by staff members.

Now, for the people out there who understand why the name is racist, and unacceptable for a major sports franchise, this scandal isn't very remarkable, or surprising. However, for people on the fence about it, or indifferent, this highlights how desperate the team is to have support. To create the illusion that other parties aside from the team believe the name to be not racist is disingenuous and also not even necessary. There are plenty of actual fans who argue against the name change all on their own.

Bottom line: the whole thing is set up as sly propaganda. And if your football team has to resort to sneaky tricks to gain support, then maybe the name really is racist and unacceptable.

The Mighty Mighty Arabs

I have become invested in mascot name changes for a while now. I've posted about this before a few times, mostly in reference to The Washington Football Team. Recently, a high school in upstate New York has decided to change their 68 year old Redskins name to the Legends (apparently, a legend is a Knight). 

Good for them. It's always nice to see a group of people choose to do the right thing, even though moving away from tradition is difficult. Al Jazeera reported on this in their article here. An eighth grade girl chose the new logo and name and unveiled her winning designs at a town meeting. 

Of course there are opponents of the name change. Nothing is ever easy, apparently. And of course these people oppose the new mascot for the same old and tired reasons. Why should they turn their backs on 68 years of tradition? They apparently had no problems turning their backs quite literally on the 13 year old designer during the town meeting. The president of the town council was interviewed by local television and expressed his disappointment with these people. The news coverage is below. 

Apparently these proud Lancaster people who just want to hold on to their heritage turned the meeting into an ugly display, as reported by the Buffalo News. Some of them thought it appropriate to yell "Heil Hitler", which I don't understand. Are they being supportive of Nazis, or calling the council Nazis? Either way I don't get it. Nazis were all about using offensive and demeaning iconography, but why would you want to bring that up? It doesn't help your argument. And calling the council Nazis makes no sense. They are changing the mascot to be more inclusive and neutral, not because they are fascists who believe in a super race.  



 
In other name changing news, my favorite "accidentally racist" mascot received a makeover the other day. Coachella Valley has officially changed their name from the Arabs to the Mighty Arabs, and updated their logo from cartoonishly offensive to slightly more dignified. Al Jazeera reported about this too. The logo has been replaced, and the mascot and similar iconography removed. However, it's a pity they will no longer be belly dancing on sidelines. 

As an aside, the State of California has declared the Redskins mascot to be banned in the state as of 2017. I'm sure opponents of this are declaring that their state is targeting the four schools in the entire state that use the mascot. But... that's exactly what's going on. 

The superintendent of Coachella Valley said something truly important about his mascot change, something that opponents don't seem to realize or care about. He said the decision was easy for his school district because communities need to "forever keep our eyes, ears, and hearts open to the feelings of others even when no disrespect or harm is intended."

Still Waiting for the Change...

So... racism has been a thing for quite sometime and recently it has become a big deal in the media and public conscience.  In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, because you've been living in a box for the last year and a half, or because you're a rich white person who can ignore reality when it gets uncomfortable, let me post some links as examples...

What Happened in Ferguson?

Trayvon Martin Shooting: Fast Facts

The Death of Eric Garner

That ought to bring you up to speed...

The thing about all of this and the whirlwind of media coverage that surrounded each event, and many others, was the lengths major media outlets went to try and defend the status quo. This lead of course to the victims in each case being vilified as criminals doing criminal things. However, the evidence in each case would never aspire to condemn those victims to death.

Underlying all of these events, and many others that gained some level of heightened media scrutiny is race. Each victim in each case was a black man, and each antagonist in each case was white. Every time something like these incidents happen, racist motivations are questioned, as they should be. And every time racism is brought up, the majority cringes.  Some people get outright hostile.  No one likes to be insulted, and the term Racist has become one of the worst things to be tagged.

So... people on the defensive who feel insulted, come up with ways to deflect blame and excuse themselves from the conversation; or just shut the conversation down as quickly as possible. Here are a few ways that is done, especially in the news media:

1. Its not about race. "This particular issue isn't actually about race. Racism is a thing of the past. There must be another reason".  
2. Shift blame. ie: Black people ought to take responsibility for their own poor education/high crime rates, etc.  
3. Reverse Racism. "You can't blame white people for being oppressive. That's racist!"
4. When someone makes a comment about racism, question their character/education/age/motivations, anything to discredit them as an expert
5. Demanding undeniable proof, and then attempt to construct strawman arguments to discredit the proof, or counter facts to try and discredit all of the proof to the contrary.  

I think that covers everything. The thing that I find interesting is the perception about what racism is, and what racism actually is. This is probably at the root of the problem we have as a culture when it comes to discussing racism and how to change things.  We should be actively working together to attempt to make the lives of all of our people better. But instead, we keep asking if racism is actually a thing.

It is a thing. But racism is no longer a bunch of Klansmen lynching black people in the dead of night, sponsored by their local governments, nor is it Jim Crow laws that legally force black people to pick up food at the backdoor of restaurants, sit at the back of public buses, or use separate and inferior schools, restrooms, and drinking fountains. With the word Racism comes a picture of an overtly prejudiced person calling for the active oppression and exclusion of an entire group of people. And although white supremacy groups do still exist in this country, they are at the very margins of the society as a whole, and no one in the majority wants to be associated with them.

Click me for more throwback ads!

Racism does still exist however, in a more sinister covert sort of a way. Slavery was only one (a very big one) of many examples of American culture oppressing a minority group. This history goes back to before the United States was actually a thing, and has been informing our collective behaviors ever since. After slavery states were forced to end slavery, this idea of white people being superior to black people didn't disappear. Racial prejudices had been so ingrained in the culture at large for over 100 years, and continued unchallenged for decades after.

It is easy to forget racism exists today. Instead of advocating openly that black people or any minority should not be given equal rights, the language has changed. Politicians who value their careers can't say anything overtly racist, but they can declare "war" on poor people taking advantage of social programs.  They can make it difficult for poorly performing schools to receive funding. Supporting the war on drugs and mandatory minimums is perfectly acceptable. And voting for voter fraud legislation is okay. All of these seem like legit campaigns, until it is realized the communities who most need social programs, have the poorest performing schools (which are already underfunded), and would be most affected by voter ID laws are the communities with the most minorities. The words urban, and poor have become the new code words for black.

Institutional racism is a term coined by Stokely Carmichael in the 1960s to describe the systemic failure of institutions, public and private, to provide appropriate services to people based on their skin color, ethnicity, or culture. The US has a long history of oppressing their minority populations. Now the language has adapted to help continue barring minorities from enjoying the same paths to success.

This is what institutional racism is, a systemic cancer. It has been infused into our society from the beginning and, at this point, dwells in the subconsciousness of the nation. Most of us have not been willing participants, which is why the majority (white people) get so defensive in the first place. White privilege is a good example of institutional racism. The majority on an individual basis reap the rewards of being part of the majority. I can walk around a retail store without a store employee following me around. I only get pulled over by the police when I actually do something wrong (like speed, or run stop signs). And it is easy for me to believe white privilege doesn't exist, because I never experience life from another point of view.

This is not actually what I set out to write about today. But there it is. This has all been context for what I actually want to write about, one of my favorite topics: The Washington football team.

There has been a movement that began in the '40s to retire disparaging athletic mascots. I've written about it before on this blog, a bunch of times. Clicky click the label on the bottom of this post for all the other posts.

Slowly things have begun to change in this country. This movement gathered some steam with some help from Civil Rights gains in the '60s. Since 1968 there have been 27 division one colleges to discontinue their Indian mascots, and rebrand as something else. This trend is also prevalent in high schools, but I couldn't find any actual numbers. However, to date, according to FiveThirtyEightSports there are still 2,128 American Indian mascots in the US.

click me for the full article

92% are high schools, and the rest are pro, semi-pro, and college teams. To be fair, that number may be a little inflated, as 780 Warriors and 343 Raiders are included. Personally, the terms Warrior and Raider don't invoke images of Native Americans in warpaint, unless of course the iconography (logos) that matches the name is distinctly Indian, then it counts. Also, if the full name is the red Warriors, or Red Raiders, chances are it is an Indian mascot. However, this data doesn't necessarily reflect that. Regardless, this doesn't take away from the importance of the rest of the information in the graph.

Also in this article on FiveThirtyEightSports are maps showing state populations of actual native peoples, and states with high schools with native mascots. Spoiler: there isn't a correlation. So... if the schools do not represent their actual population, why cling to an outdated mascot? I especially don't understand the need to stubbornly refuse to change to a mascot that is not a representation of an oppressed minority group that still exists.

The backlash to mascot changes is really what this is about.

Internet news is awesome. There are so many new outlets to read from, with a variety of specialized topics, from a variety of places and contexts. However, the downside is the creation of the "comment section". It allows for everyone who reads an article to engage the article, and everyone else who may read it. It allows people to share their opinions, which is awesome, I suppose, but it also exposes individuals' archaic, backwards, and mostly uneducated thinking. And in comment sections regarding changing disparaging mascots, you can witness some horrible examples of racism, ignorance, and apathy.

 Opponents of Change the Mascot campaigns make many of the same arguments heard in conversations about race. In fact, the Washington team's fansite sells a children's book to help rationalize cheering for a team named after a skin color. SB Nation has a satirical review of the book here. It amazes me the team and league can't see this for what it is, a shameless attempt at propaganda. It has it's own website. Google it if you're interested. I'm not going to link it here and provide it web traffic. The page reminds me of white supremist websites, it's pretty disgusting. The part I think is most offensive is that its a children's book, which helps highlight Alex Haley's statement that racism is taught.

But it's part of our history!

Bottom line: defending American Indian mascots is part of this country's love affair with institutionalized racism, and should continue to be part of the ongoing conversation about racism in this country.

Social Change on the Airwaves

Football season has started again.  Of course this means that every week for the next 19 weeks all sports networks will be doing nothing but talking about what happened on Sunday, and what may happen next Sunday.  Also, we should be talking about racism in athletics.

click me

The Oneida Nation has paid for a radio campaign aimed at the Washington football team with the goal of getting the mascot changed.  a full story can be read here on USA Today's site.  But a quick Google of Oneida Radio Ad will give many different links to similar stories.

click for article

Click the linky links below to hear the radio ads.  So far there are two spots.

click for first ad

click for second ad

Falling on Deaf Ears?

An open letter to Dan Snyder has been posted by Grantland, the super cool sports/pop culture blog headed up by the immortal Bill Simmons. Changing culturally insensitive, and mostly outright racist Indian mascots is something I've supported for quite a while, so... this is a repost?  reblog? something?

click me to go to the article

I do find this interesting, as it is the first time I've seen professional (semi professional?) sport writers make any sort of public statement regarding this issue in support of American Indians. Most of the time writers, the NFL, and fans play the "too much history" card, or the "dignified honor" excuse like the franchise is doing the Indian people a favor by naming themselves after them.

Anyway, I doubt this will change Snyder's mind, if he even sees it at all. More importantly, many other sports fans will see it. This will help change the mainstream opinion concerning American Indian imagery in sports. Hopefully the NFL will feel pressure to change its stance. The part of this article that made me the most angry was learning how Goodell feels about the issue. Clearly appeasing the owner of one of his franchises is far more important than doing the right thing.  

Mascots and Design: part two

I am a big fan of design. I flirted with the idea of being a graphic designer back in college, but chickened out after convincing myself that I'd never be as talented as every other graphic designer who had ever made money at it. However, it has remained a curious hobby. Sports logos are an interesting thing, to me. And not just professional sports either. There is great potential to brand and market a team, organization, or school around a particular icon or theme. Sometimes I feel like this potential is wasted by schools and teams that just borrow from other more famous professional logos. I digress though.

Chris Creamer's Sports Logos is a huge internet database and online community devoted to logo design. They do a good job researching and categorizing sports logos, offering a pretty comprehensive history of sports iconography. I was pretty disheartened then, when I read this article about the Atlanta Braves decision to change the design of the BP baseball cap they were going to offer.

click me

That is the Screaming Indian, or Laughing Brave. In case you aren't up on your classic Major League Baseball mascots, it was retired and replaced by a tomahawk logo in 1966. For more about the Indian mascot issue, see a post I wrote earlier Mascots: Is the Name The Fighting Hitlers Already Taken?

The writer of this article about the Atlanta Braves design choice is not only insensitive to the issue of Indian iconography in sports, but isn't very eloquent in how he frames his disagreement with the franchise's decision to not be racist.

He states: 

The Atlanta Braves have cowered in the corner, yielding to a tiny minority of voices and have made a last-minute change to their BP cap design. But they don’t even have the nerve to issue a press release saying that they chickened out and didn’t want to step on anyone’s toes. They didn’t say that they decided that honoring their past wasn’t worth offending the white guilt of some writers. They didn’t say that they wanted to be in the news one more time for bowing the the infinitesimal pressure they might have read in the comments section of some article about their new BP hats.

The article sounds like a kid whining because his parents didn't show up to his baseball game like they promised. Halfway through the article, I half expected to hear Will Smith start singing, "Parents just don't understand!" Reading this article, and a few of the comments underneath, crushed my optimism that this nation has made great strides in the racism department. In fact, I was amazed at the selfishness. Really, this is all about a disgruntled consumer that won't be able to buy the hat he wanted. In fact, nostalgic fans clinging to the Braves racial identity are truly in the minority, which makes his whole statement that much sillier and ironic. The loudest voices are not necessarily the majority of voices.

I encourage reading the rest of the article, linked right here. It is also worth reading comments. To be fair, from a design perspective, the laughing Indian is a much better design than the Atlanta A crossed with a tomahawk. However, that is a pretty poor argument to have when faced with the racially insensitive implications of both designs. At least the tomahawk isn't an actual Indian doing a characteristically Indian thing (he is presumably screaming a war-cry).

A comment from the comment section gave me hope that not every sports fan is an insensitive, shallow racist. It reads as such:

Does this article have a point, or did you just feel the need to incoherently rant about some related subjects? Seriously, there's no sense of organization to this piece at all. You go from attacking the Braves organization for (wisely) backing down from the use of a potentially offensive design to criticizing them for using something simple, and then somehow you get to needlessly attacking the "self-entitled, unintelligent, hipster wannabes" who you perceive to be the root of the problem? Pick a subject and stick to that, don't just jump around from idea to idea without any sort of rhyme or reason. I'm not saying that I completely disagree with you - I think the logo, in this day and age, is a bit much, but there are certainly worse depictions of Native Americans that need to be stamped out first (looking at you, Washington Redskins). However, the way you go about constructing your argument makes you sound like an angry high schooler. Also, this all seems like a thinly veiled attack at Paul Lukas, who's been very vocal about his opposition of these sorts of caricatures. Maybe it's just me, though.

The writer of the article missed the point that the organization made an effort to be familiar with the feedback presented regarding their choice of icon and theme that they identify with. They made a choice to not aggravate a sensitive topic for a group of people in this country. Instead of understanding the issue, the writer of the article attacks what he considers to be a group too small to be taken seriously, thereby dismissing the entire civil rights stance.

Personally, I believe the Braves made a good decision to retire a culturally insensitive icon over 30 years ago, and then decide it was probably a bad idea to resurrect that icon. Hopefully soon we will arrive at a time when the Indian sports mascot is seen in the same light as minstrel shows, and there won't be a tomahawk, or laughing brave, or Chief Wahoo, or arrow head to be seen representing any sports franchise.

American (history) Lies

I'll just leave this here.  It's from Cracked.com, which is a blog that loves to publish articles in the form of listed items...  usually the 5 or 10 or whatever number of some nerdy theme.  Sometimes they publish interesting things, like this article about the Monkey Sphere.

The specific article I want to talk a little bit about today though, is titled the 6 Ridiculous Lies You Believe about the Founding of America.  The title is a little misleading, as the 6 items are actually more about the 6 lies we (Americans) believe about American Indians, the discovery of America, and Pilgrims, not so much about the founding of the United States of America.  Either way, this article can be placed in the history category and highlights some of the same sorts of things Howard Zinn, and James Loewen have been talking about for years.

This of course is more of the same in a recurring theme around here, the misinterpretation of facts used to prop up the status quo, oppression, etc.  When I hear people (politicians, talking heads, media,  angry protesters, etc) talking about old school American values, founding fathers, and what this country should stand for, I think back to things like this article.  If people are unaware of the real truths behind the history of the "new world" what else have we been lead to believe about the rest of our collective history?  Also, Vikings!  Who doesn't like Vikings?