So I’m not typically one to rebut in an angry fashion, but whoever left the last comment is flat wrong and obviously didn’t get the point of my last post. So let me break it down to you (and you can tell yo’ momma all about it when you’re done reading).
First off, I wasn’t fear-mongering, I was fact amplifying. If you don’t think it’s possible for another major natural disaster to occur on US soil right now in the aftermath of Katrina, then obviously you haven’t been on this planet very long. Just last August/September, Florida was ravished by 4 successive hurricanes. Rumblings from volcanoes both in the US and in Mexico, as well as Earthquakes in places as random as Kentucky and Indiana, have all occurred with unusual frequency in the last 11 months. And certainly the threat of a terrorist attack is always looming (lest we forget that al-Qaeda’s number 2 man warned that 9/11 was nothing to what we are going to see just a few weeks ago).
So my “hypotheticals” are realistic possibilities, not superfluous fear tactics.
As you noted, Rumsfeld indeed is guilty of fear-mongering. But what I’ve presented is far from what Bush & Company presented in taking this nation into Iraq. If you want to talk faulty hypotheticals, then point your fingers at them, and keep them there. Don’t point them at me when I’m dropping knowledge. Arguably the most criminal “hypothetical” ever acted upon in the history of this nation was the notion that Iraq was an imminent threat, that they had WMD’s, and that they were connected to al-Qaeda (all “facts” that the 9/11 Commission Report says were false). I’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve taken realities and looked ahead into a potential situation based on realities that anyone 1-year-old or older has seen.
My basic point was simply that while Bush is bantering about in Iraq so we can “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here,” our nation is far more vulnerable than before. So let me amplify the facts for you once more:
FACT: Over 40% of our troops in Iraq are National Guard Members (meant to protect these borders and help in such disasters as Hurricanes)
FACT: Senators and Governors (on both sides of the aisle) alike have expressed the concerns that I amplified concerning having so many National Guard troops in Iraq (i.e. not having enough National Guard and Federal support in times of National disasters)
FACT: An estimated 3 million illegal immigrants cross our Mexican border each year
FACT: Over 90% of the cargo that is brought into this country on ships goes unchecked
FACT: Iraq was no imminent threat
FACT: There is no exact science to aiding devastated areas in times of Natural Disaster, therefore the support necessary isn’t clear until after it happens (watch the news and note how support troops and relief levels steadily increase as the awareness of the full devastation of Katrina is revealed)
All facts from whence I extrapolate these opinions:
OPINION: The US Armed services are strained (with many overseas Troops comprised of our National Guard); especially on the homefront
OPINION: The nation is at least as vulnerable as it was when we entered Iraq, and certainly not significantly safer
OPINION: Another terrorist attack or major natural disaster would push the Federal Government, as well as the National Guard, to its limits
No “fear-mongering” there. Just sound streams of logic. And again, I point out, these are all possibilities based on things that have occurred in recent months.
So to address your foolish comment that I’m not good at fear-mongering, you are absolutely correct. Fear-mongering is what Rumsfeld did. If Bush, Rumsfeld and company had involved themselves in the kind of thinking that I displayed in my last post, maybe we wouldn’t be in the quagmire that we’re in right now in Iraq.
Maelstrom keeps it real. And I will continue to look ahead to realistic possibilities. So my advice to you is to open your eyes, evaluate the big picture, and don’t leave ignorant comments here at The Vortex while hiding behind the cloak of an “anonymous” statement.
Now go tell yo’ momma!
-Maelstrom
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
The Hurricane
By now I’m sure everyone is aware of the devastation that Hurricane Katrina has wreaked (and continues to wreak) on the Gulf Coast and far northward. As an avid news watcher and self-proclaimed amateur meteorologist, I am impressed with the storm. The first Hurricane I remember following was Hurricane Gilbert back in 1988 (I believe), which also hit the Gulf Coast. Ever since then I’ve been hooked on observing them in all their splendor and intensity. Hugo, Andrew, Bob, Bonnie, Opal; I remember them all. I can even tell you how strong each one was, where it landed, and approximate monetary damage for many of them. My family and I even drove through the remnants of a Hurricane (Alberto) on the Gulf Coast (which was quite an experience to say the least). And of all the storms I’ve watched, Katrina has to be the most awesome one I’ve ever followed.
I remember watching this storm develop last week. It was a small and meek storm that developed near the Miami coast of Florida. I didn’t think it was going to amount to much, and when it hit Florida, it was a diminutive Category 1 Hurricane. Then it weakened to a Tropical Storm, strengthened back into a Category 1 storm, and was a Category 2 storm when I last saw the news Saturday night. Having seen many storms before, and taking into account how close Katrina was to land already, I didn’t expect the storm to get much stronger, and maybe it would hit land as a Category 3 storm. At least that’s what I thought.
Boy was I wrong!
When I woke up Sunday morning, Katrina had jumped from a Category 2 storm to an unheard of Category 5 Hurricane, with sustained winds of 160 mph. And just a few short hours later, instead of weakening (as I had expected it to), the Hurricane was even stronger with winds of 175 mph. Though amazed by the storm, I began to consider the consequences and what could be done to help people who were sure to be devastated by the coming Hurricane.
In this country, there are 3 groups that are inevitably called in to help out with disaster relief efforts. They are the Red Cross, the shadow government FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Guard. That reality got me thinking, What if there aren’t enough national guardsmen to help out with the relief effort?
As of July 2005, the National Guard comprised 41% of US forces in Iraq (roughly 55,350 Guardsmen). Now, I’m not certain what the number of Army National Guard personnel is here in the States (such information is incredibly difficult to find in Post-9/11 USA), but let’s just assume that there are more than enough in the US to handle the current situation in the Gulf. My concern then becomes what if another natural disaster occurs now (Volcanic Eruption, Earthquake, another Major Hurricane; all realistic possibilities)? And if such a horrendous thing were to occur, how much more vulnerable does that make this nation to a terrorists attack?
So here’s my frustration, our President and his cronies are constantly parading around, preaching the false doctrine of “we’re safer now than before the Iraq War/before 9-11.” My thought is that if you believe our President, then you also believe that Elvis is still alive. It is not unthinkable that we could see a serious negative domino effect with respect to security here in this country.
Let me explain.
When we invaded Iraq, we sent over tens of thousands of Army National Guard personnel (who are supposed to protect the USA borders). In doing so, many young men and women that were in the Reserves were upgraded to Full-time National Guard service. And as you might recall, all branches of the Armed Services, including the Army, are having trouble meeting yearly recruiting goals. So, when a natural disaster like Katrina hits, and the National Guard is called in to help out with security and clean-up, it puts further strain on each State’s branch of the National Guard. Now consider the possible addition of another major natural disaster occurring in the coming days (or even a terrorists attack).
How in the world would we defend ourselves with so many guardsmen and other servicemen deployed in Iraq, helping out with Katrina, and then dealing with the other (hypothetical) tragedy?
Honestly, it’s not brain surgery to consider or realize that maybe the US is at its most vulnerable when we are hit with a major natural disaster like Katrina. Militarily, we are already spread thin worldwide, and that becomes more critical in times of natural disasters. And we’ve already seen how cold and calculating “the terrorists” are. I could imagine that they too realize this vulnerability and would seek to use it to their advantage.
And I know I sound cryptic, but it makes sense to me. Furthermore, I’m not the only one with this concern. Michigan Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, expressed similar concerns about exhausting the National Guard back in July (a concern he also shared with many Governors who were worried about the number of National Guard Units they’d have at their disposal in case of Natural Disasters).
My basic point is that I believe it’s high-time that President Bush puts his money where his mouth is, and secures our borders (that’s another blog for another day right there) while making sure that this country has the military support that it needs to protect these people (US citizens) in times of extreme tragedy. Otherwise, in my opinion, we are no safer than we were the day we set foot in Iraq.
Because as my very wise mother often said to me in my youth, “How can a man take care of other things if he can’t take care of his own house?”
Mr. President, you should listen to my mom!
-Maelstrom
I remember watching this storm develop last week. It was a small and meek storm that developed near the Miami coast of Florida. I didn’t think it was going to amount to much, and when it hit Florida, it was a diminutive Category 1 Hurricane. Then it weakened to a Tropical Storm, strengthened back into a Category 1 storm, and was a Category 2 storm when I last saw the news Saturday night. Having seen many storms before, and taking into account how close Katrina was to land already, I didn’t expect the storm to get much stronger, and maybe it would hit land as a Category 3 storm. At least that’s what I thought.
Boy was I wrong!
When I woke up Sunday morning, Katrina had jumped from a Category 2 storm to an unheard of Category 5 Hurricane, with sustained winds of 160 mph. And just a few short hours later, instead of weakening (as I had expected it to), the Hurricane was even stronger with winds of 175 mph. Though amazed by the storm, I began to consider the consequences and what could be done to help people who were sure to be devastated by the coming Hurricane.
In this country, there are 3 groups that are inevitably called in to help out with disaster relief efforts. They are the Red Cross, the shadow government FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Guard. That reality got me thinking, What if there aren’t enough national guardsmen to help out with the relief effort?
As of July 2005, the National Guard comprised 41% of US forces in Iraq (roughly 55,350 Guardsmen). Now, I’m not certain what the number of Army National Guard personnel is here in the States (such information is incredibly difficult to find in Post-9/11 USA), but let’s just assume that there are more than enough in the US to handle the current situation in the Gulf. My concern then becomes what if another natural disaster occurs now (Volcanic Eruption, Earthquake, another Major Hurricane; all realistic possibilities)? And if such a horrendous thing were to occur, how much more vulnerable does that make this nation to a terrorists attack?
So here’s my frustration, our President and his cronies are constantly parading around, preaching the false doctrine of “we’re safer now than before the Iraq War/before 9-11.” My thought is that if you believe our President, then you also believe that Elvis is still alive. It is not unthinkable that we could see a serious negative domino effect with respect to security here in this country.
Let me explain.
When we invaded Iraq, we sent over tens of thousands of Army National Guard personnel (who are supposed to protect the USA borders). In doing so, many young men and women that were in the Reserves were upgraded to Full-time National Guard service. And as you might recall, all branches of the Armed Services, including the Army, are having trouble meeting yearly recruiting goals. So, when a natural disaster like Katrina hits, and the National Guard is called in to help out with security and clean-up, it puts further strain on each State’s branch of the National Guard. Now consider the possible addition of another major natural disaster occurring in the coming days (or even a terrorists attack).
How in the world would we defend ourselves with so many guardsmen and other servicemen deployed in Iraq, helping out with Katrina, and then dealing with the other (hypothetical) tragedy?
Honestly, it’s not brain surgery to consider or realize that maybe the US is at its most vulnerable when we are hit with a major natural disaster like Katrina. Militarily, we are already spread thin worldwide, and that becomes more critical in times of natural disasters. And we’ve already seen how cold and calculating “the terrorists” are. I could imagine that they too realize this vulnerability and would seek to use it to their advantage.
And I know I sound cryptic, but it makes sense to me. Furthermore, I’m not the only one with this concern. Michigan Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, expressed similar concerns about exhausting the National Guard back in July (a concern he also shared with many Governors who were worried about the number of National Guard Units they’d have at their disposal in case of Natural Disasters).
My basic point is that I believe it’s high-time that President Bush puts his money where his mouth is, and secures our borders (that’s another blog for another day right there) while making sure that this country has the military support that it needs to protect these people (US citizens) in times of extreme tragedy. Otherwise, in my opinion, we are no safer than we were the day we set foot in Iraq.
Because as my very wise mother often said to me in my youth, “How can a man take care of other things if he can’t take care of his own house?”
Mr. President, you should listen to my mom!
-Maelstrom
Monday, August 29, 2005
Bird
Today marks what would be the 85th birthday of my absolute favorite Jazz Musician of all-time; Charlie “Yardbird” Parker. I still remember the first recording of him that I heard. It was on my mother’s computer, using Microsoft Encarta. The song was Perdido and it was from a 1951 recording (which was taken at Massey Hall in Toronto, Canada, and is now revered as the Greatest Jazz Concert of All-Time). I replayed it and replayed it and replayed it. In fact, when I hear the recording now, I still get nostalgic; I still feel the same sublime delight that I felt that day when I first discovered it. That was probably 8 or 9 years ago, and yet today that sound is what I strive for whenever I pick up my horn.
Who is Charlie Parker, you ask? Well, he is often considered the 2nd most influential musician in the history of this nation’s first original music art form (Jazz), after Trumpeter Louis Armstrong. In fact, the sound that most people today consider to be jazz music was concocted by Charlie Parker (along with a couple others) some 60+ years ago. His influence endures much longer than he lived.
Charlie Parker was born in Kansas City, Kansas in 1920. At a young age, he took an extreme liking to music, and actually played the Baritone in school. He later gained a great appreciation for the alto saxophone, and began woodshedding (a musicians term for practicing) his sound. In fact, it has been said that he practiced his saxophone for 15 hours a day, everyday (and if you’ve ever heard him, you totally believe that; I know I do!). At age 15 he dropped out of school to pursue a musical career, and several years later, in New York City, he’d finally hit his stride.
Well before he made his name in NYC, however, a terrible tragedy occurred. Parker was in a car accident that landed him in the hospital. While there, to ease the pain, Bird (as he was often called) was given Morphine. As a result, Bird gained an affinity for the drug, and its drug cousin, Heroine. The marriage of Charlie Parker and Heroine would begin an era of Heroine drug use in the United States (yo…no lie…I saw it on the History channel), and would be a major influence on other musicians at the time. His Heroine and Alcohol abuse would eventually lead to his very early demise.
From 1942 until his death in 1955, Bird made hundreds and hundreds of amazing 3 and 4 minute songs. His lightning fast approach, unencumbered chord attacks, and tasteful tone were unsurpassed and maybe only matched by his close friend (Trumpeter) Dizzy Gillespie. He could play any song at any tempo and in any key. Every sax player wanted to be EXACTLY like him. It was the biggest compliment in the world to be told that you were copying Bird, or that you sounded just like him.
He died at the age of 34, with his extensive substance abuse problem being the cause of death. His body was so badly misused and abused that the coroner had estimated his age at 55 years old.
Unfortunately, I think that in order for Jazz to progress, it was necessary for him to die when he did. Without his death at that time, there would’ve been no John Coltrane or Miles Davis (at least, not like we know them). Coltrane brought with him the use of the extended solo and altissimo (the ability to play shriekingly high pitched tones on the Sax). Davis, who got his start in Bird’s quintet, also revolutionized Jazz in various ways. Even Bird’s compatriot Dizzy expanded his repertoire after Parker’s death. Charlie’s stature was so large that I tend to believe that he would’ve dictated the direction of Jazz, which might’ve limited some of the events that later shaped and expanded the horizons of Jazz in the decades following his departure.
Drug user, womanizer, alcoholic, and undependable. All these terms have been used to describe Yardbird. Be that as it may, this guy is my musical hero. I can listen to 3 notes of Parker music on the radio and I’ll know exactly what song is playing. I can verbally recite dozens and dozens of his solos note for note (although I can only play a handful of them due to their complexity). I can even remember when I heard each solo for the first time. And I’ll never forget that first double cassette that my friend dubbed for me years and years ago (remember tapes and “dubbing” music, instead of CD’s and “burning” it?).
Among the most important lessons that I’ve learned from Bird is in the essence of a statement that he once made. He said that “if you don’t live the life, then the sound won’t come out of the horn.” Unfortunately, many musicians already believed it and thus began crucial Heroine habits that put many of them out of work or landed them in jail (they thought that if they did drugs like Bird, then they could play like Bird). Fortunately his death caused some musicians, like Miles Davis and Trumpeter Red Rodney, to kick the habit. And though alcohol use is still a big deal in Jazz today, I’d contend that serious drug abuse has since ebbed.
Another lesson that he taught me was in reference to the concept of music. He didn’t like the term Jazz or Bebop, as his music was called. He could be heard playing over the top of orchestras or being backed up by congas and timbales. He recorded with organists and many singers. Nothing was out of his range of musical ability. Other musicians sometimes criticized him for showing up at bars and playing Country music from Juke boxes. To him though, it was ALL music, and if it told a story, then it was beautiful.
I wish I could talk to him, meet him, listen to him in person. I wonder what kind of knowledge he would impart upon me. I wonder did he have any limitations. Was he able to play altissimo with the same proficiency as his successor John Coltrane? What would he have played and what would he have done if he had a whole album full of extended solos?
I wish I could get his sound, but maybe I can’t because I certainly don’t live the fast, tumultuous lifestyle that he lived (and I certainly don’t have the 15 hours a day to practice as he did). I wish I could at least play all the “Heads” or “Themes” that he wrote if not the solos as well. Yet when I practice, it takes forever just to get 8 counts correct. But every once in a while, I here some of his phrasings creeping out of my horn and I say to myself, “hey, I sounded like Charlie Parker!” And you know I’m happy when that happens.
One day, I hope that someone makes another Charlie Parker movie that would do him and his legacy more justice (Clint Eastwood made one in 1987 which featured Forrest Whitaker as Bird). And not only that, I wish that they'd call me in to help out with its production, because as his biggest fan, I know I deserve that much.
No matter what, I certainly hope that Bird’s music continues to fly well into this new millennium!
Happy Birthday Bird!
-Maelstrom
Who is Charlie Parker, you ask? Well, he is often considered the 2nd most influential musician in the history of this nation’s first original music art form (Jazz), after Trumpeter Louis Armstrong. In fact, the sound that most people today consider to be jazz music was concocted by Charlie Parker (along with a couple others) some 60+ years ago. His influence endures much longer than he lived.
Charlie Parker was born in Kansas City, Kansas in 1920. At a young age, he took an extreme liking to music, and actually played the Baritone in school. He later gained a great appreciation for the alto saxophone, and began woodshedding (a musicians term for practicing) his sound. In fact, it has been said that he practiced his saxophone for 15 hours a day, everyday (and if you’ve ever heard him, you totally believe that; I know I do!). At age 15 he dropped out of school to pursue a musical career, and several years later, in New York City, he’d finally hit his stride.
Well before he made his name in NYC, however, a terrible tragedy occurred. Parker was in a car accident that landed him in the hospital. While there, to ease the pain, Bird (as he was often called) was given Morphine. As a result, Bird gained an affinity for the drug, and its drug cousin, Heroine. The marriage of Charlie Parker and Heroine would begin an era of Heroine drug use in the United States (yo…no lie…I saw it on the History channel), and would be a major influence on other musicians at the time. His Heroine and Alcohol abuse would eventually lead to his very early demise.
From 1942 until his death in 1955, Bird made hundreds and hundreds of amazing 3 and 4 minute songs. His lightning fast approach, unencumbered chord attacks, and tasteful tone were unsurpassed and maybe only matched by his close friend (Trumpeter) Dizzy Gillespie. He could play any song at any tempo and in any key. Every sax player wanted to be EXACTLY like him. It was the biggest compliment in the world to be told that you were copying Bird, or that you sounded just like him.
He died at the age of 34, with his extensive substance abuse problem being the cause of death. His body was so badly misused and abused that the coroner had estimated his age at 55 years old.
Unfortunately, I think that in order for Jazz to progress, it was necessary for him to die when he did. Without his death at that time, there would’ve been no John Coltrane or Miles Davis (at least, not like we know them). Coltrane brought with him the use of the extended solo and altissimo (the ability to play shriekingly high pitched tones on the Sax). Davis, who got his start in Bird’s quintet, also revolutionized Jazz in various ways. Even Bird’s compatriot Dizzy expanded his repertoire after Parker’s death. Charlie’s stature was so large that I tend to believe that he would’ve dictated the direction of Jazz, which might’ve limited some of the events that later shaped and expanded the horizons of Jazz in the decades following his departure.
Drug user, womanizer, alcoholic, and undependable. All these terms have been used to describe Yardbird. Be that as it may, this guy is my musical hero. I can listen to 3 notes of Parker music on the radio and I’ll know exactly what song is playing. I can verbally recite dozens and dozens of his solos note for note (although I can only play a handful of them due to their complexity). I can even remember when I heard each solo for the first time. And I’ll never forget that first double cassette that my friend dubbed for me years and years ago (remember tapes and “dubbing” music, instead of CD’s and “burning” it?).
Among the most important lessons that I’ve learned from Bird is in the essence of a statement that he once made. He said that “if you don’t live the life, then the sound won’t come out of the horn.” Unfortunately, many musicians already believed it and thus began crucial Heroine habits that put many of them out of work or landed them in jail (they thought that if they did drugs like Bird, then they could play like Bird). Fortunately his death caused some musicians, like Miles Davis and Trumpeter Red Rodney, to kick the habit. And though alcohol use is still a big deal in Jazz today, I’d contend that serious drug abuse has since ebbed.
Another lesson that he taught me was in reference to the concept of music. He didn’t like the term Jazz or Bebop, as his music was called. He could be heard playing over the top of orchestras or being backed up by congas and timbales. He recorded with organists and many singers. Nothing was out of his range of musical ability. Other musicians sometimes criticized him for showing up at bars and playing Country music from Juke boxes. To him though, it was ALL music, and if it told a story, then it was beautiful.
I wish I could talk to him, meet him, listen to him in person. I wonder what kind of knowledge he would impart upon me. I wonder did he have any limitations. Was he able to play altissimo with the same proficiency as his successor John Coltrane? What would he have played and what would he have done if he had a whole album full of extended solos?
I wish I could get his sound, but maybe I can’t because I certainly don’t live the fast, tumultuous lifestyle that he lived (and I certainly don’t have the 15 hours a day to practice as he did). I wish I could at least play all the “Heads” or “Themes” that he wrote if not the solos as well. Yet when I practice, it takes forever just to get 8 counts correct. But every once in a while, I here some of his phrasings creeping out of my horn and I say to myself, “hey, I sounded like Charlie Parker!” And you know I’m happy when that happens.
One day, I hope that someone makes another Charlie Parker movie that would do him and his legacy more justice (Clint Eastwood made one in 1987 which featured Forrest Whitaker as Bird). And not only that, I wish that they'd call me in to help out with its production, because as his biggest fan, I know I deserve that much.
No matter what, I certainly hope that Bird’s music continues to fly well into this new millennium!
Happy Birthday Bird!
-Maelstrom
Sunday, August 28, 2005
So What's a Chief?
Agreed Oz1310 (see comments to the previous post). Your points are well taken, and I concur. And yes, I know that my emphasis on certain principles is pretty strict and harsh. However, I write in that manner because I’m tired of the nature of humanity which often allows people with seriously flawed social perceptions the chance to ignore some of the real problems that society faces. In the year 2005 racism is as prevalent as it has ever been (along with many other prejudices). So people with some serious biases and prejudices now try to hide behind the curtain of “you’re trying to be too PC.” I am the first to tell people that some things have, in my opinion, tipped over the PC scale. However, on the issue of removing Native Americans as mascots, there is nothing PC about it at all. It is simply the right thing to do!
But for good measure, here’s another harsh judgment. If you’re under 35 and you harbor such bigoted foolishness in your heart (as outlined in my previous two blogs), then you’re foolish without a cause. Your parents may have actually witnessed lynchings (yes, believe it or not), and were certainly around to see the struggle of the Civil Rights movement (in the 50’s and 60’s) if they were raised here in the USA. So maybe it’s hard for them to overcome such racist notions (I am a firm believer that the childhood a person witnesses/lives has a profound affect on the person that they become), though I don’t think that’s an excuse (but maybe a reason). However, for those of us that have grown up in integrated schools, only known of open seating on public transportation, and have only seen “Coloreds/Whites Only” restroom signs in history books, we should be able to decipher between the racisms of our parents’ day and the realities that we’ve witnessed all of our lives. It’s just that simple, and there are no excuses.
I began writing a post way back in early April concerning the use of Native Americans as mascots at Universities. It was relevant at the time because on April 4th of this year, North Carolina played the University of Illinois in Basketball for the NCAA Title. I didn’t get a chance to finish the post, but have been lying in wait like a Lion in the jungle for the right moment to address this topic. Now the time has come.
For consistent “Vortex” readers, we are all well aware that the University of Illinois has a Native American as their mascot and they call themselves the Fighting Illini. Not only do they have a Native American as a mascot, but the mascot has a name: Chief Illiniwek. Now, the name (and his likeness that parades around at sporting events-namely basketball games-and performs an “authentic Indian dance”) may not seem to be that big of a deal, but it has some very critical implications.
To be a Chief in Native American culture is to achieve the highest political/religious office to be obtained in a Native American Tribe. The position of Chief is likened unto an Ayatollah in Islam or The Pope in Catholicism. The Chief is one who has the right to determine/issue tribal laws or decrees, but who is also looked to for spiritual guidance.
Unfortunately, the U of Illinois takes this powerful image and makes a complete and total mockery of everything it represents. For instance, at basketball games, U of Illinois promises that Chief Illiniwek will perform an authentic Indian dance. Sadly, for anyone that’s ever seen it, the dance is totally NOT authentic. A college student (typically a white male) prances around in an amalgamation of canvas, leather and feathers while flailing his arms and legs about, as the audience cheers him on. It looks nothing like an authentic “Indian dance,” and many Native Americans have expressed their disgust in it. (Sidenote: If you’d like to witness authentic Native American dances, you should attend a “Pow Wow” in your area. It is quite the experience).
So here’s the crime: The University of Illinois defends its use of the mascot, and so does the surrounding community and many of its alumni. Petitions and protests have been proposed and staged. Yet, there’s been no change. Why? Of course because of monetary reasons coupled with stubborn tradition. Erase money, and the stubborn traditionalists will subside (Cash Rules Everything Around Stubbornness, to steal and modify a common rap credo).
How do we diminish the power of the almighty dollar at these insensitive Universities?
Well in the case of the University of Illinois, I think all the Big Ten schools, including my alma mater, should take after the lead of the University of Iowa and the University of Wisconsin and not compete against the U of Illinois until they change their degrading mascot. In fact, so should all other colleges/universities toward all other colleges using Native Americans as mascots. That will show solidarity, understanding, and it will do what these schools fear the most: hit them in the pocketbook.
Now as for the other major University that suffers from a critical cultural insensitivity problem, Florida State University, the NCAA has inexplicably left them out of the ban. Now there are reasons for this, and you know I’ve got an opinion. However, I’ll have to hit you with that one later on!
-Maelstrom
But for good measure, here’s another harsh judgment. If you’re under 35 and you harbor such bigoted foolishness in your heart (as outlined in my previous two blogs), then you’re foolish without a cause. Your parents may have actually witnessed lynchings (yes, believe it or not), and were certainly around to see the struggle of the Civil Rights movement (in the 50’s and 60’s) if they were raised here in the USA. So maybe it’s hard for them to overcome such racist notions (I am a firm believer that the childhood a person witnesses/lives has a profound affect on the person that they become), though I don’t think that’s an excuse (but maybe a reason). However, for those of us that have grown up in integrated schools, only known of open seating on public transportation, and have only seen “Coloreds/Whites Only” restroom signs in history books, we should be able to decipher between the racisms of our parents’ day and the realities that we’ve witnessed all of our lives. It’s just that simple, and there are no excuses.
I began writing a post way back in early April concerning the use of Native Americans as mascots at Universities. It was relevant at the time because on April 4th of this year, North Carolina played the University of Illinois in Basketball for the NCAA Title. I didn’t get a chance to finish the post, but have been lying in wait like a Lion in the jungle for the right moment to address this topic. Now the time has come.
For consistent “Vortex” readers, we are all well aware that the University of Illinois has a Native American as their mascot and they call themselves the Fighting Illini. Not only do they have a Native American as a mascot, but the mascot has a name: Chief Illiniwek. Now, the name (and his likeness that parades around at sporting events-namely basketball games-and performs an “authentic Indian dance”) may not seem to be that big of a deal, but it has some very critical implications.
To be a Chief in Native American culture is to achieve the highest political/religious office to be obtained in a Native American Tribe. The position of Chief is likened unto an Ayatollah in Islam or The Pope in Catholicism. The Chief is one who has the right to determine/issue tribal laws or decrees, but who is also looked to for spiritual guidance.
Unfortunately, the U of Illinois takes this powerful image and makes a complete and total mockery of everything it represents. For instance, at basketball games, U of Illinois promises that Chief Illiniwek will perform an authentic Indian dance. Sadly, for anyone that’s ever seen it, the dance is totally NOT authentic. A college student (typically a white male) prances around in an amalgamation of canvas, leather and feathers while flailing his arms and legs about, as the audience cheers him on. It looks nothing like an authentic “Indian dance,” and many Native Americans have expressed their disgust in it. (Sidenote: If you’d like to witness authentic Native American dances, you should attend a “Pow Wow” in your area. It is quite the experience).
So here’s the crime: The University of Illinois defends its use of the mascot, and so does the surrounding community and many of its alumni. Petitions and protests have been proposed and staged. Yet, there’s been no change. Why? Of course because of monetary reasons coupled with stubborn tradition. Erase money, and the stubborn traditionalists will subside (Cash Rules Everything Around Stubbornness, to steal and modify a common rap credo).
How do we diminish the power of the almighty dollar at these insensitive Universities?
Well in the case of the University of Illinois, I think all the Big Ten schools, including my alma mater, should take after the lead of the University of Iowa and the University of Wisconsin and not compete against the U of Illinois until they change their degrading mascot. In fact, so should all other colleges/universities toward all other colleges using Native Americans as mascots. That will show solidarity, understanding, and it will do what these schools fear the most: hit them in the pocketbook.
Now as for the other major University that suffers from a critical cultural insensitivity problem, Florida State University, the NCAA has inexplicably left them out of the ban. Now there are reasons for this, and you know I’ve got an opinion. However, I’ll have to hit you with that one later on!
-Maelstrom
Friday, August 19, 2005
Too PC?
Yesterday I posted a blog here concerning the NCAA's ban of Native American mascots in the postseason. I was reprimanded by an "anonymous" comment for incorrectly stating that NCAA teams would be banned from Bowl Games. I was wrong on that account. There is no official NCAA tournament in football, thus schools would be allowed to participate despite their misuse of Native American mascots. On that note, I believe that the BCS (the governing body for Bowl Games) should also implement a policy similar to that of the NCAA's. Finally, for the anonymous commenter, can I at least get an opinion on the material discussed here instead of just a dry rebuke? Anyhow, on with today's message.
By implementing rules pertaining to the eradication of Native American likenesses as mascots or as weapons of war (see my previous blog), there have been some that claim organizations like the Pentagon are being too PC (Politically Correct). Well, if you think they’re being too PC, then you’re racist (or at least severely racially ignorant and culturally insensitive). Though getting rid of Native American mascots may be an attempt by the NCAA to be PC, it is not the PC thing to do, it is the right thing to do.
In the aftermath of the Pentagon’s and NCAA’s announcements concerning Native American images, there has been much backlash by many of the political analysts that I watch, enjoy and respect. All of them seem to disagree with the Pentagon and the NCAA, and they all cite comparisons that are, in my opinion, not nearly equivalent. In fact, I can’t even classify what they do as comparing apples to oranges; they are comparing apples to concrete or oranges to rocks. They’re wrong, and I’ll explain why.
I’ll start with my Right-Wing Political buddy Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. I actually heard him debating this topic on his show several months back. He said that he has no problem with the use of Native American images as mascots because other forms of racism go unnoticed by many and don’t particularly bother him. For his comparison, he said that people use the term Paddy-wagon all the time, and that term is offensive towards Irish people (I believe that he is also Irish). So, history lesson: Paddy derives from the name Patrick, as in St. Patrick, as in the Irish Holiday. It is indeed a term of denigration toward people of Irish descent. It is apparently used in conjunction with “wagon” because large vehicles would be used to collect Irishmen.
Yes, I agree that Paddy, or Paddy-wagon, is a term that people shouldn’t use derogatorily. I myself no longer use the term “gypped” (pertaining to gypsies) once I discovered its origins, I challenge people when they use “jap” (a derogatory epithet towards Jews), and I quit using fag/faggot long ago. I would have no problem doing away with Paddy (a term I never use anyhow). I disagree, however, that the misuse of one term pertaining to one culture makes it ok to misuse another culture’s image, as Mr. O’Reilly has implied. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Furthermore, Irish people weren’t brought over to this land as slaves like Black people, neither were they run off their land like Native Americans. And Irishmen are assimilated into White America here, where they suffer far less discrimination than do minorities. Finally, the most of this nation has no idea that Paddy is a derogatory term, but we all know (or should know) that Native Americans don’t all have red faces, wear feathers in their hair, and walk around in moccasins at the grocery store. So Mr. O’Reilly, how can Paddy be erased from our language if the “wrongs” that we are all aware of aren’t first erased?
MSNBC has a new show called “The Situation” with Libertarian-leaning Tucker Carlson. When I saw that he was going to discuss this issue I was anxious to hear his thoughts because I was sure that he was going to applaud the NCAA. Well, to my dismay, he scoffed at the NCAA. Then he proceeded, along with his two white guests (one male, one female), to make a statement that I’ve consistently heard white people make when discussing this topic: “if White people were used as mascots I wouldn’t be offended. If there was a Chicago 'Whities' team we’d be out there supporting them in the stands.” All three of them chuckled about it as if they said something funny, then he moved on to his next topic. I watched as my blood boiled, my mouth was wide open, and I was incredibly incensed. “Spoken like privileged White people,” I thought to myself.
So here’s an example of a flawed comparison. Native American people (do I need to explain again how they’ve been treated in this country?) and White people who did the oppressing, the murdering, the enslaving, the raping, and who still rule in this nation by virtue of their skin tone alone. Of course representatives from their side of the fence would make a stupid comment like “we wouldn’t be offended if we were mascots.” They can say that because White America hasn’t had to face what Native Americans have. And if they did have the same plight as Native Americans, they would have the force to change such insensitivities whenever they wanted to because they have the majority rule. So yes Mr. Carlson, maybe you would enjoy seeing your privileged and powerful people as mascots, but hopefully you recognize that it is not so with many minorities. Most importantly, I hope you recognize that it is wrong to do so.
During my evening news exploration (which ensues each day after an hour of ESPN), I saw that CNN’s Leftist Lou Dobbs was also going to address the issue with a White lady counterpart. They first began by mentioning the NCAA’s decree, and then introduced what the Pentagon had done. To my frustration, he too felt as though the Native American names should remain in place as mascots, as well as the names of military weapons and tactical maneuvers. He went as far as to call the person that initiated the change at the Pentagon an idiot, and hoped that Florida State University would win its battle to maintain the Seminole as its mascot. No need to tell you how mad I was.
So before he was finished, he made this stupid comparison (based on the case that some Native Americans were making concerning the insensitivity of naming war machines/tactics after people who were destroyed by war): “well I suppose we should just rename Navy Ships like the Eisenhower.”
Again, an apple to poop comparison. When a single man is recognized as a war hero, it is an honor to him and his family to have a ship named after him. Eisenhower is not “a people,” Eisenhower was one man. Not only that, Eisenhower was a highly privileged white man that was a General as well as President of this nation. There is nothing but honor in naming a ship after him. Finally, Eisenhower’s whole lineage of ancestry was not obliterated, neither were his descendents all but banished to reservations.
So I emailed Mr. Dobbs and told him how incendiary I thought his foolish comments were, and I hope he read what I wrote and actually let it swirl around his head because he is absolutely wrong on this one (and I normally agree with the guy). I really wish he’d invite me on his show to discuss his stupid statements concerning this topic so I could rip him apart. He wouldn’t stand a chance.
One evening after work, during the ESPN hour, I saw that “Around the Horn” was going to also tackle this issue. 3 of the 4 (2 Black, 2 White, all men) sports reporters on the panel agreed with the NCAA’s decision to penalize schools using Native American mascots. The Denver Post’s Jim Armstrong (one of the white panelists) commented that he felt “the NCAA is trying to be too PC here” and that he’s afraid one day he’ll be sued “for calling a basketball player tall because it’s offensive to short people.” In my heart I hope that he was just saying that to make the show interesting and that he didn’t really think that his argument is equivalent to what the NCAA is trying to outlaw.
The tall/short argument he made could be a PC problem given some historical background that I don't believe exists. However, that is vastly different from calling a school the Fighting Illini and having a mock-up of an Indian Chief as their mascot. Short people weren’t enslaved by Tall people and then forced off of their land. Oddjob (the diminutive character from James Bond movies) isn’t the mascot for 15 of this nations Universities. Smurfs (that are 3 apples tall) aren’t mocked at halftime shows with an “authentic” Smurf dance. Real oppressed people are though, and that’s the crime.
Mr. Armstrong, what you’ve described, and the realities we exist in, are two totally different things. If one day Tall people do abuse Short people as a class/group of people, then you’ll have a valid point. Furthermore, to call people Tall or Short is to describe them. To paint a smiling face Red and put a Feather in its head and call the team the Indians is racist because that doesn’t accurately describe Native Americans. No 1 image can, and that image is one born out of the racisms of decades ago.
Finally, it’s not lost on me that each of these men, that have taken issue with changing mascots, is among the most powerful of earthly beings: White American Men. So here we have privileged white men, agents by both race and gender (for those that understand the concept of targets and agents), saying that such naming is ok. If they were doctors trying to do heart surgery, I wouldn’t trust them. If they were astronomers claiming to have discovered a new star system, I wouldn’t believe them. If they were car dealers test driving a new car, I wouldn’t ride with them.
Why?
Because they have very little credibility, if any, to make such a judgment call. Growing up as White Men in America, they have never had to face the kinds of discrimination that women and minorities face. So it is not a shock to me that they can’t see what is absolutely criminal about this issue. And although I truly respect each of them, and will continue to watch their shows, on this issue I think they oughtta keep their racially ignorant mouths shut.
So in the future, I hope that people learn to make comparisons that are truly comparable instead of parading around these incongruent comparisons that couldn’t hold water with a bucket. And on the issue of Native Americans as mascots, there’s no comparison that can be given that justifies their continued misuse.
-Maelstrom
By implementing rules pertaining to the eradication of Native American likenesses as mascots or as weapons of war (see my previous blog), there have been some that claim organizations like the Pentagon are being too PC (Politically Correct). Well, if you think they’re being too PC, then you’re racist (or at least severely racially ignorant and culturally insensitive). Though getting rid of Native American mascots may be an attempt by the NCAA to be PC, it is not the PC thing to do, it is the right thing to do.
In the aftermath of the Pentagon’s and NCAA’s announcements concerning Native American images, there has been much backlash by many of the political analysts that I watch, enjoy and respect. All of them seem to disagree with the Pentagon and the NCAA, and they all cite comparisons that are, in my opinion, not nearly equivalent. In fact, I can’t even classify what they do as comparing apples to oranges; they are comparing apples to concrete or oranges to rocks. They’re wrong, and I’ll explain why.
I’ll start with my Right-Wing Political buddy Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. I actually heard him debating this topic on his show several months back. He said that he has no problem with the use of Native American images as mascots because other forms of racism go unnoticed by many and don’t particularly bother him. For his comparison, he said that people use the term Paddy-wagon all the time, and that term is offensive towards Irish people (I believe that he is also Irish). So, history lesson: Paddy derives from the name Patrick, as in St. Patrick, as in the Irish Holiday. It is indeed a term of denigration toward people of Irish descent. It is apparently used in conjunction with “wagon” because large vehicles would be used to collect Irishmen.
Yes, I agree that Paddy, or Paddy-wagon, is a term that people shouldn’t use derogatorily. I myself no longer use the term “gypped” (pertaining to gypsies) once I discovered its origins, I challenge people when they use “jap” (a derogatory epithet towards Jews), and I quit using fag/faggot long ago. I would have no problem doing away with Paddy (a term I never use anyhow). I disagree, however, that the misuse of one term pertaining to one culture makes it ok to misuse another culture’s image, as Mr. O’Reilly has implied. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Furthermore, Irish people weren’t brought over to this land as slaves like Black people, neither were they run off their land like Native Americans. And Irishmen are assimilated into White America here, where they suffer far less discrimination than do minorities. Finally, the most of this nation has no idea that Paddy is a derogatory term, but we all know (or should know) that Native Americans don’t all have red faces, wear feathers in their hair, and walk around in moccasins at the grocery store. So Mr. O’Reilly, how can Paddy be erased from our language if the “wrongs” that we are all aware of aren’t first erased?
MSNBC has a new show called “The Situation” with Libertarian-leaning Tucker Carlson. When I saw that he was going to discuss this issue I was anxious to hear his thoughts because I was sure that he was going to applaud the NCAA. Well, to my dismay, he scoffed at the NCAA. Then he proceeded, along with his two white guests (one male, one female), to make a statement that I’ve consistently heard white people make when discussing this topic: “if White people were used as mascots I wouldn’t be offended. If there was a Chicago 'Whities' team we’d be out there supporting them in the stands.” All three of them chuckled about it as if they said something funny, then he moved on to his next topic. I watched as my blood boiled, my mouth was wide open, and I was incredibly incensed. “Spoken like privileged White people,” I thought to myself.
So here’s an example of a flawed comparison. Native American people (do I need to explain again how they’ve been treated in this country?) and White people who did the oppressing, the murdering, the enslaving, the raping, and who still rule in this nation by virtue of their skin tone alone. Of course representatives from their side of the fence would make a stupid comment like “we wouldn’t be offended if we were mascots.” They can say that because White America hasn’t had to face what Native Americans have. And if they did have the same plight as Native Americans, they would have the force to change such insensitivities whenever they wanted to because they have the majority rule. So yes Mr. Carlson, maybe you would enjoy seeing your privileged and powerful people as mascots, but hopefully you recognize that it is not so with many minorities. Most importantly, I hope you recognize that it is wrong to do so.
During my evening news exploration (which ensues each day after an hour of ESPN), I saw that CNN’s Leftist Lou Dobbs was also going to address the issue with a White lady counterpart. They first began by mentioning the NCAA’s decree, and then introduced what the Pentagon had done. To my frustration, he too felt as though the Native American names should remain in place as mascots, as well as the names of military weapons and tactical maneuvers. He went as far as to call the person that initiated the change at the Pentagon an idiot, and hoped that Florida State University would win its battle to maintain the Seminole as its mascot. No need to tell you how mad I was.
So before he was finished, he made this stupid comparison (based on the case that some Native Americans were making concerning the insensitivity of naming war machines/tactics after people who were destroyed by war): “well I suppose we should just rename Navy Ships like the Eisenhower.”
Again, an apple to poop comparison. When a single man is recognized as a war hero, it is an honor to him and his family to have a ship named after him. Eisenhower is not “a people,” Eisenhower was one man. Not only that, Eisenhower was a highly privileged white man that was a General as well as President of this nation. There is nothing but honor in naming a ship after him. Finally, Eisenhower’s whole lineage of ancestry was not obliterated, neither were his descendents all but banished to reservations.
So I emailed Mr. Dobbs and told him how incendiary I thought his foolish comments were, and I hope he read what I wrote and actually let it swirl around his head because he is absolutely wrong on this one (and I normally agree with the guy). I really wish he’d invite me on his show to discuss his stupid statements concerning this topic so I could rip him apart. He wouldn’t stand a chance.
One evening after work, during the ESPN hour, I saw that “Around the Horn” was going to also tackle this issue. 3 of the 4 (2 Black, 2 White, all men) sports reporters on the panel agreed with the NCAA’s decision to penalize schools using Native American mascots. The Denver Post’s Jim Armstrong (one of the white panelists) commented that he felt “the NCAA is trying to be too PC here” and that he’s afraid one day he’ll be sued “for calling a basketball player tall because it’s offensive to short people.” In my heart I hope that he was just saying that to make the show interesting and that he didn’t really think that his argument is equivalent to what the NCAA is trying to outlaw.
The tall/short argument he made could be a PC problem given some historical background that I don't believe exists. However, that is vastly different from calling a school the Fighting Illini and having a mock-up of an Indian Chief as their mascot. Short people weren’t enslaved by Tall people and then forced off of their land. Oddjob (the diminutive character from James Bond movies) isn’t the mascot for 15 of this nations Universities. Smurfs (that are 3 apples tall) aren’t mocked at halftime shows with an “authentic” Smurf dance. Real oppressed people are though, and that’s the crime.
Mr. Armstrong, what you’ve described, and the realities we exist in, are two totally different things. If one day Tall people do abuse Short people as a class/group of people, then you’ll have a valid point. Furthermore, to call people Tall or Short is to describe them. To paint a smiling face Red and put a Feather in its head and call the team the Indians is racist because that doesn’t accurately describe Native Americans. No 1 image can, and that image is one born out of the racisms of decades ago.
Finally, it’s not lost on me that each of these men, that have taken issue with changing mascots, is among the most powerful of earthly beings: White American Men. So here we have privileged white men, agents by both race and gender (for those that understand the concept of targets and agents), saying that such naming is ok. If they were doctors trying to do heart surgery, I wouldn’t trust them. If they were astronomers claiming to have discovered a new star system, I wouldn’t believe them. If they were car dealers test driving a new car, I wouldn’t ride with them.
Why?
Because they have very little credibility, if any, to make such a judgment call. Growing up as White Men in America, they have never had to face the kinds of discrimination that women and minorities face. So it is not a shock to me that they can’t see what is absolutely criminal about this issue. And although I truly respect each of them, and will continue to watch their shows, on this issue I think they oughtta keep their racially ignorant mouths shut.
So in the future, I hope that people learn to make comparisons that are truly comparable instead of parading around these incongruent comparisons that couldn’t hold water with a bucket. And on the issue of Native Americans as mascots, there’s no comparison that can be given that justifies their continued misuse.
-Maelstrom
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Native American Mascots
Two weeks ago, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) issued a decree to all its members that schools who use culturally offensive mascots (like Native Americans for example) would not be allowed to hosts postseason events like Bowl Games or March Madness. The schools have been given several months to comply, after which time the NCAA will enforce its rules. I don’t understand why the NCAA didn’t go further and make the use of such mascots illegal during the regular season as well, but I do applaud them for taking a major step in the right direction.
One week after the NCAA made its decree, the US Pentagon said that it would no longer use Native American tribal names (or any moniker that has been used to describe Native Americans) for names of its tactical maneuvers or weapons. Now this only applies to the fleet of planes and the department that defends the Pentagon, and does not include the Army, Navy, etc. This too is a major step forward.
When this land, the USA, was “founded” some centuries back, it was home to the American Indian (Native Americans). In typical European Imperialistic fashion, the inhabitants of this “New World” were turned into slaves, murdered, and forced off of their land (not to mention given fatal foreign diseases). And despite the amicable story we’ve all come to know surrounding the Thanksgiving holiday, the complete story concerning Native Americans and “the White man” includes the decimation, denigration, moral degradation, and displacement of Native Americans by their foreign conquerors. The women were raped, the men were murdered, and those that survived were forced to travel “the Trail of Tears,” along which a million Native people died.
Fast forward to the year 2005, and you have a nation of over 300 million diverse people; black, brown, red, yellow, and white. Of that diverse pallet of over 300 million people, the American Indian makes up less than 1%. Despite their lack of population representation (and maybe because of it), they make up a far greater number of racially/culturally insensitive mascots than any other group of people living here. In fact, I can think of about 15 schools or athletic teams that use Native Americans as their mascot, while I can only think of two such cases using any other group (Notre Dame “Fighting Irish” and the Boston “Celtics”). I can’t think of any other group’s image or name being used for the name of military maneuvers or weapons (like the Apache Helicopter or Operation Tomahawk).
Now on the point of using Native American names for weapons of war and war missions, can’t you see the pernicious situational irony in that? This nation’s armed services is making a conscious move to name weapons of war after a group of people that it decimated through war tactics. Many Native Americans see it as a slap in the face. It’s like saying, “Ha ha, we destroyed you all with these tactics, and so we’ll name the tactics after you and use them to destroy other people.” In my opinion, I think the other armed services should take after the Pentagon’s lead and do away with such naming.
On the hot-button point of Indians as mascots, I don’t see what the problem is; get rid of them. Any of hundreds of things can be used as mascots for your school or athletic team; from weather and celestial presences (Lightning or Stars), to animals or mythical beings (Bears or Griffins). Why in the world is it necessary to use, rather, misuse the images of a group of people such as the American Indian? And yes these representations are racist because they play upon stereotypes that are often unfounded (and if you don’t think they’re racist, then you’re racist too).
Central Michigan University Chippewa’s, the Washington Redskins, the Chicago Blackhawks, The University of Illinois Fighting Illini, The Florida State Seminoles, The Cleveland Indians (affectionately known as “the Tribe” by fans and Sports writers/commentators). All of these schools (public universities at that) and sports teams should be ashamed of themselves, and should indeed be penalized until they change their mascots (and really, upon reading this post, you should look up the school or sports team and look at the image they use and actually see the racism; like the cheesy-grinned, red-faced Cleveland Indian.).
Or maybe we should socially regress and begin naming teams/schools after other races. Instead of Washington Redskins, let’s change the name to Washington Rednecks and make the mascot a corn-fed white man in overhauls with a mullet. Instead of Cleveland Indians, let’s change the name to Cleveland Niggers and have the mascot be a wide-nosed, afro-wearin’ black man with a Cash Money necklace and 5 karat diamonds in both ears. Instead of the U of I Fighting Illini, lets have the University of Illinois Fighting Bitches and have the mascot be a woman with her hair dyed red, wearing a choker with 7 tattoos, chewing gum.
Get the point? If the other things would be wrong, then why do we accept the Native American misrepresentations as if they’re right?
So what is my take on schools/teams that use “White” people as mascots like Notre Dame and the Boston Celtics? Although I think the major difference is that neither Irish nor Celtic people were raped, pilfered, pillaged and driven off of their land (but both could easily assimilate into privileged White society) here in the USA, I say get rid of these misrepresentations too. Not all Irish people are “lucky” (when Notre Dame wins a football game that it is supposed to lose, the common refrain is “it’s the luck of the Irish”), neither are they all angry (which is an Irish stereotype and is further perpetuated by the mascot as well as the title “Fighting” Irish). I’m not as privy about Celtic stereotypes, but I can imagine that there are some Celtic people that aren’t particularly pleased with Boston’s mascot and that there is an inherently discriminatory notion about it that the vast majority of Americans aren’t aware of.
As with many of the schools/teams bearing Native American monikers, I’m sure that tradition would never allow for the dismissal of “Fighting Irish” or “Celtics” as mascots at these institutions. Especially given their storied histories.
I know this debate is far from over, but in the year 2005, it shouldn’t be that difficult to see what’s wrong with this misuse of imagery. On that same vein of thinking, consider the era when many of these mascots were implemented; pre-1965 Civil Rights Act. So it’s no wonder that the majority of these mascots are based on stereotypes and are brazenly racist. If we know the racist era that these things were conjured up in, then how in the world can we defend them when we know the racist thinking that existed in bringing them about in the first place?
In the future I hope that the NCAA toughens its policy, and that other branches of the Armed Forces follow after the lead of the Pentagon.
-Maelstrom
One week after the NCAA made its decree, the US Pentagon said that it would no longer use Native American tribal names (or any moniker that has been used to describe Native Americans) for names of its tactical maneuvers or weapons. Now this only applies to the fleet of planes and the department that defends the Pentagon, and does not include the Army, Navy, etc. This too is a major step forward.
When this land, the USA, was “founded” some centuries back, it was home to the American Indian (Native Americans). In typical European Imperialistic fashion, the inhabitants of this “New World” were turned into slaves, murdered, and forced off of their land (not to mention given fatal foreign diseases). And despite the amicable story we’ve all come to know surrounding the Thanksgiving holiday, the complete story concerning Native Americans and “the White man” includes the decimation, denigration, moral degradation, and displacement of Native Americans by their foreign conquerors. The women were raped, the men were murdered, and those that survived were forced to travel “the Trail of Tears,” along which a million Native people died.
Fast forward to the year 2005, and you have a nation of over 300 million diverse people; black, brown, red, yellow, and white. Of that diverse pallet of over 300 million people, the American Indian makes up less than 1%. Despite their lack of population representation (and maybe because of it), they make up a far greater number of racially/culturally insensitive mascots than any other group of people living here. In fact, I can think of about 15 schools or athletic teams that use Native Americans as their mascot, while I can only think of two such cases using any other group (Notre Dame “Fighting Irish” and the Boston “Celtics”). I can’t think of any other group’s image or name being used for the name of military maneuvers or weapons (like the Apache Helicopter or Operation Tomahawk).
Now on the point of using Native American names for weapons of war and war missions, can’t you see the pernicious situational irony in that? This nation’s armed services is making a conscious move to name weapons of war after a group of people that it decimated through war tactics. Many Native Americans see it as a slap in the face. It’s like saying, “Ha ha, we destroyed you all with these tactics, and so we’ll name the tactics after you and use them to destroy other people.” In my opinion, I think the other armed services should take after the Pentagon’s lead and do away with such naming.
On the hot-button point of Indians as mascots, I don’t see what the problem is; get rid of them. Any of hundreds of things can be used as mascots for your school or athletic team; from weather and celestial presences (Lightning or Stars), to animals or mythical beings (Bears or Griffins). Why in the world is it necessary to use, rather, misuse the images of a group of people such as the American Indian? And yes these representations are racist because they play upon stereotypes that are often unfounded (and if you don’t think they’re racist, then you’re racist too).
Central Michigan University Chippewa’s, the Washington Redskins, the Chicago Blackhawks, The University of Illinois Fighting Illini, The Florida State Seminoles, The Cleveland Indians (affectionately known as “the Tribe” by fans and Sports writers/commentators). All of these schools (public universities at that) and sports teams should be ashamed of themselves, and should indeed be penalized until they change their mascots (and really, upon reading this post, you should look up the school or sports team and look at the image they use and actually see the racism; like the cheesy-grinned, red-faced Cleveland Indian.).
Or maybe we should socially regress and begin naming teams/schools after other races. Instead of Washington Redskins, let’s change the name to Washington Rednecks and make the mascot a corn-fed white man in overhauls with a mullet. Instead of Cleveland Indians, let’s change the name to Cleveland Niggers and have the mascot be a wide-nosed, afro-wearin’ black man with a Cash Money necklace and 5 karat diamonds in both ears. Instead of the U of I Fighting Illini, lets have the University of Illinois Fighting Bitches and have the mascot be a woman with her hair dyed red, wearing a choker with 7 tattoos, chewing gum.
Get the point? If the other things would be wrong, then why do we accept the Native American misrepresentations as if they’re right?
So what is my take on schools/teams that use “White” people as mascots like Notre Dame and the Boston Celtics? Although I think the major difference is that neither Irish nor Celtic people were raped, pilfered, pillaged and driven off of their land (but both could easily assimilate into privileged White society) here in the USA, I say get rid of these misrepresentations too. Not all Irish people are “lucky” (when Notre Dame wins a football game that it is supposed to lose, the common refrain is “it’s the luck of the Irish”), neither are they all angry (which is an Irish stereotype and is further perpetuated by the mascot as well as the title “Fighting” Irish). I’m not as privy about Celtic stereotypes, but I can imagine that there are some Celtic people that aren’t particularly pleased with Boston’s mascot and that there is an inherently discriminatory notion about it that the vast majority of Americans aren’t aware of.
As with many of the schools/teams bearing Native American monikers, I’m sure that tradition would never allow for the dismissal of “Fighting Irish” or “Celtics” as mascots at these institutions. Especially given their storied histories.
I know this debate is far from over, but in the year 2005, it shouldn’t be that difficult to see what’s wrong with this misuse of imagery. On that same vein of thinking, consider the era when many of these mascots were implemented; pre-1965 Civil Rights Act. So it’s no wonder that the majority of these mascots are based on stereotypes and are brazenly racist. If we know the racist era that these things were conjured up in, then how in the world can we defend them when we know the racist thinking that existed in bringing them about in the first place?
In the future I hope that the NCAA toughens its policy, and that other branches of the Armed Forces follow after the lead of the Pentagon.
-Maelstrom
Monday, August 08, 2005
I'm Back Again!
Hello to my few but faithful readers. I'd like to say that I'm sorry for the almost month-long hiatus from The Vortex postings, but no need to fear; I haven't stopped writing and I'm back. Well, almost! I have 2 more serious academic hurdles to handle, but they will both be taken care of within the next 48 hrs. Then I'll be back for sure.
I'd like to thank my good friend "GO" for the comments he left at the end of my July 2nd post. I found them both insightful and hilarious. I'd also like to thank my former advisee Sara for her kind comments at the end of my July 13th post. Please do return frequently, and take a gander at some of my past posts. And the anonymous posts are also greatly appreciated.
I know that much has occurred politically since my last post, and maybe I've missed my opportunity to speak on some of those issues. Don't bet on it though, cuz i'll find a way to get back to them. I've got too many half-written blogs to just let all that world-changin' writing go to waste.
And here's just a warning. I plan to completely ignore other relevant issues for the sake of tackling something that I don't think should be an issue with people under the age of 35...but apparently still is, and I'm pissed about it. My next few posts will focus around the ominous specter of RACISM. I can't believe that I would even feel the need to address it in so much detail in the year 2005, but I have to. So in my next few posts, please forgive me as I make like Bubba Sparxx and "get ugly up in here."
In the meantime, I suppose I could drop this celestial nugget of information. I'm sure that many people have heard about Earth's close encounter with Mars. Well, being the amateur stargazer that I am, I can verify that Mars is quite a sight these days. It is even more spectacular than it was 2 summers ago (the closest it had ever been before this year). The planet Venus is normally the first nighttime object visible from my location on the globe (except for the Moon). Well, for about 2 months now, Mars has been shining much brighter than even Venus, and is visible 30 minutes before Venus or any of the stars. It's even present when there is ample sunshine round about it.
Now I've heard rumors that Mars is going to appear as large as the Moon in the night sky. I don't believe that. I think someone misinterpretted what's really gonna take place. Mars is going to appear almost as bright as the Moon on the day that it's the closest to Earth (August 27th). Please believe, if Mars appeared as spatially large as the Moon, I'd be on the edge of the Earth tryin' to long jump from here to there...trust!
If you'd like to see Mars (Venus is up there too), look toward the Western sky at about 9:30pm Eastern Standard Time. It should be the only bright shining object in the sky at about that time. It will appear slightly orange. You should catch it then, but be swift cuz you've only got about a 2 hour window with which to watch it before it descends below the horizon. It is quite the sight.
Also, if you're like me, you'll be on the lookout for shooting stars. Every year during July/August, there is a meteor shower known as the Perseids (I think) that occurs. And even if you miss the peak "shower" time, you can often catch stragglers. Peak days are August 11-13th if you want to maximize your chances of wishing on a star. Oh, and patience is a tool that's worth takin' with ya' while seeking shooting stars.
Alright, I'm goin to bed! Holla atcha boy!
-Maelstrom
I'd like to thank my good friend "GO" for the comments he left at the end of my July 2nd post. I found them both insightful and hilarious. I'd also like to thank my former advisee Sara for her kind comments at the end of my July 13th post. Please do return frequently, and take a gander at some of my past posts. And the anonymous posts are also greatly appreciated.
I know that much has occurred politically since my last post, and maybe I've missed my opportunity to speak on some of those issues. Don't bet on it though, cuz i'll find a way to get back to them. I've got too many half-written blogs to just let all that world-changin' writing go to waste.
And here's just a warning. I plan to completely ignore other relevant issues for the sake of tackling something that I don't think should be an issue with people under the age of 35...but apparently still is, and I'm pissed about it. My next few posts will focus around the ominous specter of RACISM. I can't believe that I would even feel the need to address it in so much detail in the year 2005, but I have to. So in my next few posts, please forgive me as I make like Bubba Sparxx and "get ugly up in here."
In the meantime, I suppose I could drop this celestial nugget of information. I'm sure that many people have heard about Earth's close encounter with Mars. Well, being the amateur stargazer that I am, I can verify that Mars is quite a sight these days. It is even more spectacular than it was 2 summers ago (the closest it had ever been before this year). The planet Venus is normally the first nighttime object visible from my location on the globe (except for the Moon). Well, for about 2 months now, Mars has been shining much brighter than even Venus, and is visible 30 minutes before Venus or any of the stars. It's even present when there is ample sunshine round about it.
Now I've heard rumors that Mars is going to appear as large as the Moon in the night sky. I don't believe that. I think someone misinterpretted what's really gonna take place. Mars is going to appear almost as bright as the Moon on the day that it's the closest to Earth (August 27th). Please believe, if Mars appeared as spatially large as the Moon, I'd be on the edge of the Earth tryin' to long jump from here to there...trust!
If you'd like to see Mars (Venus is up there too), look toward the Western sky at about 9:30pm Eastern Standard Time. It should be the only bright shining object in the sky at about that time. It will appear slightly orange. You should catch it then, but be swift cuz you've only got about a 2 hour window with which to watch it before it descends below the horizon. It is quite the sight.
Also, if you're like me, you'll be on the lookout for shooting stars. Every year during July/August, there is a meteor shower known as the Perseids (I think) that occurs. And even if you miss the peak "shower" time, you can often catch stragglers. Peak days are August 11-13th if you want to maximize your chances of wishing on a star. Oh, and patience is a tool that's worth takin' with ya' while seeking shooting stars.
Alright, I'm goin to bed! Holla atcha boy!
-Maelstrom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)