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