The Original Sin of the United States Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
At 12:20 PM 11/6/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: At 09:57 AM 10/28/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: Well, that slaughter started well before the US existed, so it did come first. But, I was thinking how racism is written into the Constitution. Which also applies to the Native Americans, no? Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the constitution? Yes. Albeit in a less dehumanizing way than assigning them 3/5 of a peronhood or to slavery - it ratherly simply states that if they are not taxed then they are not citizens of the United States. Anyhow, the reason I consider our treatment of Native Americans to be the United States original sin is as follows: The sin of slavery was at least a *choice* of the United States as an entity, inasmuch as it was written into the Constitution. In Catholic original sin theology, original sin is not _your_ *first* sin. Rather it is the sin of our ancestors, a sin upon which we owe our very existence, and a sin which has produced a debt that can never be repaid. All of these aspects, with the possible exception of the last one being at least arguable, apply much more directly to the treatment of Native Americans than to slavery. The mistreatment of Native Americans both intention and unintentional (such as in the case of certain diseases) was carried out in large part by predecssors of the United States - although admittedly the sins were then perpetuated by the United States long after slavery was abolished, the origins of eliminating the Native Americans came long before the United States. Secondly, without the elimination of the Native Americans the United States is never reallly the United States. Without elimination of the Native Americans there is no Manifest Destiny, and without Manifest Destiny the United States may never become the dominant nation in the world.I think that in large part the US owes its national greatness to the richness of its geography - which was seized from the Native Americans. Lastly, far too many Native Americans have been killed for the wrongs the United States has committed against the Native Americans to every be rectified in any meaningful sense.The First Peoples of the United States in almost all cases will be a tiny minority in their own lands in every sense - cultural, lingual, and political. There's no way to turn back the clock. If we are to map US history into Christian Theology, I would say that the Civil War is a much closer parallel to the United States' crucifixtion. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
At 09:57 AM 10/28/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: Well, that slaughter started well before the US existed, so it did come first. But, I was thinking how racism is written into the Constitution. Which also applies to the Native Americans, no? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:51 AM Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 At 09:57 AM 10/28/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: Well, that slaughter started well before the US existed, so it did come first. But, I was thinking how racism is written into the Constitution. Which also applies to the Native Americans, no? Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the constitution? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 10:21 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 - Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:51 AM Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 At 09:57 AM 10/28/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: Well, that slaughter started well before the US existed, so it did come first. But, I was thinking how racism is written into the Constitution. Which also applies to the Native Americans, no? Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the constitution? Maybe in the Apocrypha -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
- Original Message - From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:44 PM Subject: RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the constitution? Maybe in the Apocrypha You mean it is in the origional constitution, but taken out by revisionists. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:03 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 - Original Message - From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:44 PM Subject: RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the constitution? Maybe in the Apocrypha You mean it is in the origional constitution, but taken out by revisionists. :-) Exactly. Once they realized that the Masonite Revolution wasn't going to take hold, they went back and scrubbed all the copies. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
- Original Message - From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:19 PM Subject: RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:03 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 - Original Message - From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:44 PM Subject: RE: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 Is there an explicit mention of Native Americans in the constitution? Maybe in the Apocrypha You mean it is in the origional constitution, but taken out by revisionists. :-) Exactly. Once they realized that the Masonite Revolution wasn't going to take hold, they went back and scrubbed all the copies. And, if you vidiotaped the series Scrubs and reassembled it according to The Code you would find a complete doumentary on this. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:09 PM Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3 At 04:34 PM 10/19/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: First of all, I'm 99% sure we agree that slavery was the original sin of the US, Just for the record, I disagree.The decimation of the Native Americans is the original sin of the United States. Well, that slaughter started well before the US existed, so it did come first. But, I was thinking how racism is written into the Constitution. But the reasonable conservative viewpoint is not just that McNabb is overrated which I think is a wrong viewpoint, but I must admit that it is reasonable just because of its prevalence amongst the pro football punditry class but it is also that the media wants to see black QB's do well, and thus the media is less quick to turn on McNabb with criticism because he is black than they would be if McNabb were white.i.e. to argue that the racism of the media means that if McNabb were white like Jon Kitna, people would have called him overrated much faster than they have. Nah, overrated means more than that. It means he was never very good to begin with, he was just the media's darling because he was black. The reason he got MVP votes is that he his black...it is clear that a white player deserved better. So, all the black QBs that didn't rate as high as he did were worse; only white QBs could be better. Further, you now need to assume that there is a liberal sportswriter push of the liberal agenda. Moreover, the very timeline of the current situation backs up Gautam's thesis. ESPN's NFL Countdown, while a live show, is a *rehearsed* live show. At no point in the rehearsal nor at the live taping did anyone at ESPN express shock or dismay at Rush's comments, including two black former NFL Players on ESPN's panel. The network knew what they were getting with Rush. I'm sure that they wanted his target demographics. I can imagine how people who's expertise is sports would like to focus on why Rush is wrong in sports instead of getting in a political debate with him. Did you really expect two jocks to have the guts to go toe to toe with one of the most successful ranters of the 20th century? And, we don't even know if he brought up liberal media bias in the rehearsals. On Monday following the game, there was again very little notice taken of Rush's comments despite the fact that many people had no doubt by then had the opportunity to review them, and any journalists watching ESPN's show would no doubt have had the opportunity to write about them in their Monday columns. Rush being racist isn't really news. Its been going on the air waves for almost two decades. If you want, I can see if he was an obvious racist all the way back in high school. My father in law went to high school with him. Indeed, let us consider who objected to these comments. *Al Sharpton* objected to the comments. *Howard Dean* objected to the comments. Democratic Presidential Candidate *Wesley Clark* objected to the remarks. I heard of it two ways: listening to sports radio in my car and listening to ESPN's I'm not exactly sure about the sequence. On ESPN, there was breathless coverage during the baseball playoffs. The feeling seemed to be that the buzz would continue to drive ratings up. I then heard about it on sports radio, where they quoted a sports columnist on it and said how stupid Rush was. This is in a _very_ conservative city, BTW. They got a fair number of calls on this subject. Most talked about how stupid Rush was; I don't remember anyone defending him. The real problem that I see is to have a Limbaugh hijack a pregame show for his rants. How would you like it if Jesse were a guest commentator and used the show as a platform for his rants? Finally, do you really think that the fact that Rush was in the process of being outed as a druggie had nothing to do with his resignation? Pretty soon, Jesse Jackson was threatening a boycott of ESPN and even ABC/Disney. Right, just like the SBC boycott. That didn't bother me; Jesse has a smaller following than them. No one wins against mouse, not even moose and squirrel. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
In a message dated 10/23/2003 9:51:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dunno. it seems very weird to me that in wondering if somebody is a racist that the second question one would ask is does he give money to black colleges? Just an example. I'm still waiting for evidence that would counter his public utterannces. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
In a message dated 10/23/2003 9:54:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is one of the most infuriating comments that I have heard from many sources regarding this whole thing what is the point of appealing in code to somebody in this instance? i.e. for what reason would Rush decide to appeal in code in his fourth appearance on an ESPN Pregame show? To stir up controversy. To push his agenda that the media is favoring blacks. To subtly reinforce beliefs that blacks are inferior intellectually. To suggest that racism is not a real problem in need of remedy but simply an invention of the liberal media. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: massive snippage So, in short, while you could argue that PC has been used to attack very reasonable conservative positions, that dog doesn't hunt with Rush. Dear Dan, Pleez git yer frases right - it's that dog don't hunt! Debbi who agrees with most all else what you wrote in that there post ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: massive snippage So, in short, while you could argue that PC has been used to attack very reasonable conservative positions, that dog doesn't hunt with Rush. Dear Dan, Pleez git yer frases right - it's that dog don't hunt! Wel what do you expect? Time, Newsweek, NYT, etc. have all been using slang phrases in headlines, but correcting the grammer. Like this week's NW, Rush, in a world of pain, The phrase is in a world of hurt. They mean completly different things, the subtle pun would have actualy been funny if they had got the phrase correct. It's kind of like when someone outside the know tries to act like they are down. Steve Martin makes a living out of that these days. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
At 10:02 PM 10/14/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How are we so certain that Rush is not racist? Does he have a personal history of supporting racial equality? Does he give money to black colleges? speak out for racial equality? I'm not saying he is a racist but it is glib to say he is not. I dunno. it seems very weird to me that in wondering if somebody is a racist that the second question one would ask is does he give money to black colleges? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
At 01:12 PM 10/15/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rush did something that I believe can fairly be described either as racist on its face or attempting to appeal in code to those of his listeners and followers who are themselves racists. This is one of the most infuriating comments that I have heard from many sources regarding this whole thing what is the point of appealing in code to somebody in this instance? i.e. for what reason would Rush decide to appeal in code in his fourth appearance on an ESPN Pregame show? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
At 04:34 PM 10/19/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: First of all, I'm 99% sure we agree that slavery was the original sin of the US, Just for the record, I disagree.The decimation of the Native Americans is the original sin of the United States. Yes, he just gave one example, but it wasn't an off the cuff remark; he planned to bring it up. Since McNabb is just one of several high ranked black quarterbacks, it would be hard to explain why you think all the other black QBs deserve their reputations, but not McNabb. The only consistent reason for this viewpoint that I can think of is the belief that the old days, when all the QBs were white, was a reflection of the natural order of things. You know, the inherent intelligence of whites and the inability of whites to regard a black man as a leader, and all that other nonsense. So, in short, while you could argue that PC has been used to attack very reasonable conservative positions, that dog doesn't hunt with Rush. But the reasonable conservative viewpoint is not just that McNabb is overrated which I think is a wrong viewpoint, but I must admit that it is reasonable just because of its prevalence amongst the pro football punditry class but it is also that the media wants to see black QB's do well, and thus the media is less quick to turn on McNabb with criticism because he is black than they would be if McNabb were white.i.e. to argue that the racism of the media means that if McNabb were white like Jon Kitna, people would have called him overrated much faster than they have. Moreover, the very timeline of the current situation backs up Gautam's thesis. ESPN's NFL Countdown, while a live show, is a *rehearsed* live show. At no point in the rehearsal nor at the live taping did anyone at ESPN express shock or dismay at Rush's comments, including two black former NFL Players on ESPN's panel. On Monday following the game, there was again very little notice taken of Rush's comments despite the fact that many people had no doubt by then had the opportunity to review them, and any journalists watching ESPN's show would no doubt have had the opportunity to write about them in their Monday columns. Indeed, let us consider who objected to these comments. *Al Sharpton* objected to the comments. *Howard Dean* objected to the comments. Democratic Presidential Candidate *Wesley Clark* objected to the remarks. Pretty soon, Jesse Jackson was threatening a boycott of ESPN and even ABC/Disney. If this is not evidence of a coordinated attack by the PC Police, then I don't know what is and quite frankly, I am still waiting for The Fool and the ACLU to start complaining about the chilling effect that all this has had on free speech in this country Then again, I'm not holding my breath. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism L3
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:54 AM Subject: Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did Rush go to college? My impression is that he didn't, or at least he never came out with a degree Julia I have no idea, actually. What I meant was that every conservative who even wants to think about racial issues outside of PC orthodoxies has to accept that this is the deal - the very first tactic that will be used by those who disagree with him is to call him a racist. That's part of the deal. There doesn't have to be any evidence or anything at all. If you want to say anything about race beyond talking about the pervasive racism of American society and how that's the only explanation for every problem afflicting African-Americans, you will get called a racist. Every conservative knows it. I think most leftists do to, to be honest, but it's too useful a tactic of intimidation to admit that. In some cases, it happens exactly as you state it. I'm sure, especially at liberal universities, well thought out balanced conservative ideas are shouted down as racist when they are not. If you followed my discussion of my Zambian daughter being told she isn't black enough because she works too hard, you will note that I accept and acknowledge that there are problems that extend beyond the simple effects of prejudice. Having said that, though, I feel that this does not well apply to the criticisms of Rush. I've been mulling over my response to this, and find the need to keep on expanding it in my head. What I write will have to be a subset of this. First of all, I'm 99% sure we agree that slavery was the original sin of the US, and that the obvious manifestations of blacks being second class citizens in the US extended into the '60s. That is not just a matter of ancient history (heck I can close my eyes and see the TWTWTW song being sung when the Civil Rights legislation was signed). It is the necessary backdrop for any discussions because there are strong links between these facts and present attitudes, policies strategies, etc. The analogy I used when I discussed Neli (my Zambian daughter) and her accusers was people dealing with an adult who has been abused as a child. Adam rightly pointed out that white Americans can't see themselves in the position of the therapist. That wasn't the position I was actually thinking of; I was more thinking about the position of the family member. Having seen this, both personally and through Teri's work, I have a strong feel for what being a family member in this position entails. Part of it is an understanding of the background to the problem. Another part is not letting the person use their previous abuse as an excuse for present bad behavior. Sympathy and understanding must be present, but cannot be turned into a license and excuse for destructive behavior. OK, so having given my metaphor, let me look at other aspects of the situation. One of the first that I wish to consider is the change in the US political landscape in 1964. From the 1870s to 1960, the solid south existed. The South would not vote for the party of Lincoln. In Texas, the voters were referred to as yeller dog Democrats; they proclaimed that they'd vote for a yeller dog if it ran as a Democrat. The only real significant exception to this was '48 when the Dixiecrat candidate, Strom Thurmond won 4 southern states. In '64 Johnson signed the Civil Rights bill, and the political landscape changed. Barry Goldwater carried the solid Democratic south, and his own state, and that's all. Even though the Republican leadership went along with the Civil Rights act, the fact that a Democratic president pushed the legislation meant that Southerners now decided that, even though the national Republican party was the party of Lincoln, it was still the lesser of two evils...because they didn't push civil rights. Local Democrats could show that they voted against Civil Rights, and thus preserve their own hides. Nixon saw this, and he wasn't stupid. He devised his Southern Strategy to go and get these votes. While Wallace got most of them instead, this strategy has been part of the Republican party overall strategy every since. Now, this cannot be said overtly, because no one can come out and say they are against civil rights. So, code phrases have been developed. State's rights is the classic one. The apologists for the Confederacy insist that the war was about state's rights. The supporters of segregation claimed it was not anti civil-rights, but pro states rights. Now, that doesn't mean that anyone who thinks that the balance in federal and state power needs to be shifted more towards the states is racist. There are indeed, principled arguments for this, that are not at all racist. What it means is that the use
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did Rush go to college? My impression is that he didn't, or at least he never came out with a degree Julia I have no idea, actually. What I meant was that every conservative who even wants to think about racial issues outside of PC orthodoxies has to accept that this is the deal - the very first tactic that will be used by those who disagree with him is to call him a racist. That's part of the deal. There doesn't have to be any evidence or anything at all. If you want to say anything about race beyond talking about the pervasive racism of American society and how that's the only explanation for every problem afflicting African-Americans, you will get called a racist. Every conservative knows it. I think most leftists do to, to be honest, but it's too useful a tactic of intimidation to admit that. Rush certainly should have - he's not stupid. If he knew his employers weren't willing to deal with the firestorm from his comments (which they obviously weren't) then he should have either not made them, or resigned on principle - none of this interfering with NFL Countdown nonsense. Acting all surprised that this happened is, frankly, kind of disingenuous. Of course he was going to be attacked. That's what happens, right or wrong. It's only worse that - in this case - he was wrong. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
I have no idea, actually. What I meant was that every conservative who even wants to think about racial issues outside of PC orthodoxies has to accept that this is the deal - the very first tactic that will be used by those who disagree with him is to call him a racist. That's part of the deal. There doesn't have to be any evidence or anything at all. If you want to say anything about race beyond talking about the pervasive racism of American society and how that's the only explanation for every problem afflicting African-Americans, you will get called a racist. Every conservative knows it. I think most leftists do to, to be honest, but it's too useful a tactic of intimidation to admit that. Rush certainly should have - he's not stupid. If he knew his employers weren't willing to deal with the firestorm from his comments (which they obviously weren't) then he should have either not made them, or resigned on principle - none of this interfering with NFL Countdown nonsense. Acting all surprised that this happened is, frankly, kind of disingenuous. Of course he was going to be attacked. That's what happens, right or wrong. It's only worse that - in this case - he was wrong. The reverse of this is, that conservatives who are accused of being racist can say they're not, they're just the victims of the PC Police. Which is a convenient cover for when they ARE racist. Which, I really think, Rush was in this instance. If all he had said was, Donovan McNabb is overrated, no one would have been so upset. (I happen to think that McNabb *is* overrated.) By going that extra step further and assigning a far-out reason for his being overrated, Rush did something that I believe can fairly be described either as racist on its face or attempting to appeal in code to those of his listeners and followers who are themselves racists. Because, what was his point? Where the hell is this media conspiracy to elevate black quarterbacks? As far as I'm concerned, it has not been an issue since the 1988 Super Bowl. Therefore, unless he is stupid, the only point I can see is to stir the pot in a very irresponsible way. Because a lot of his listeners are angry white men who think the only reason they are not on top of the world is not because of their own failings but because of affirmative action for blacks. And they are encouraged to think this by some politicians for their own ends. And that is a racist belief, and to appeal to it, even by code is, if not racism, then a blatant and cynical use of other people's racism. Rush had to know this, and he had to know what would happen. For him to pretend otherwise is so disingenuous that even a conservative should be disgusted by it. This is not a debate over affirmative action or over racial orthodoxies. Even if not all problems are caused by racism, racism itself still exists and is in and of itself a serious problem. It does no good to say that reverse racism is to blame in a case when it clearly wasn't. For that alone, Rush should have been fired. He didn't even quit for the right reason - i.e., to atone for his error. He doesn't think (at least publicly admit) that he made an error, either of fact or of intent. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 06:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not a debate over affirmative action or over racial orthodoxies. Even if not all problems are caused by racism, racism itself still exists and is in and of itself a serious problem. It does no good to say that reverse racism is to blame in a case when it clearly wasn't. For that alone, Rush should have been fired. He didn't even quit for the right reason - i.e., to atone for his error. He doesn't think (at least publicly admit) that he made an error, either of fact or of intent. Isn't he that crazy lying junkie guy? Where would honesty figure in his worldview? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redskins RE: Raceism
I am sure that at some time in the south there was someone such as yourself who made the statement that they ,never would have guessed that the name Negro was offensive until someone told them. Actually, there were people in the South who didn't guess - and would not have cared - that the word nigger was offensive. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redskins RE: Raceism
At 11:39 AM 10/11/2003 -0700 Jan Coffey wrote: --- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:54 PM 10/3/2003 -0700 Chad Cooper wrote: Since when... Maybe 300 years ago... If it was an effective epithet, it would be in everyday language for the average 14 Year-old boy. Its comical to think of a young kid using the words You redskin! as insult. Unless redskin sounds something like Beeoottc!!, I think they have it all wrong.. Exactly, I would never have guessed that the name Redskins was offensive until someone told me. I am sure that at some time in the south there was someone such as yourself who made the statement that they ,never would have guessed that the name Negro was offensive until someone told them. What are you trying to imply by this?Your comparison makes no sense to me. JDG - Who is not offended by the United Negro College Fund ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
At 01:15 PM 10/11/2003 -0500 Reggie Bautista wrote: JDG wrote: Indeed. In fact, if ESPN had fired Limbaugh because his comments showed an utter lack of knowledge about football and the media hyping of all mobile QB's, be they Doug Flutie or Donovan McNabb, I probably wouldn't have cared.To fire him, however, because the Democratic Political Establishment in this country engaged in a coordinated assault designed to categorize all criticisms of reverse racism as racism really sits badly with me. Um, Rush wasn't fired. He resigned. I suppose it may have had as much to do with the fact he was planning to enter rehab as anything else Well, yeah. But it is clear from news accounts that ESPN made it very clear what they wanted him to do... JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
In a message dated 10/11/2003 1:21:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Indeed. In fact, if ESPN had fired Limbaugh because his comments showed an utter lack of knowledge about football and the media hyping of all mobile QB's, be they Doug Flutie or Donovan McNabb, I probably wouldn't have cared.To fire him, however, because the Democratic Political Establishment in this country engaged in a coordinated assault designed to categorize all criticisms of reverse racism as racism really sits badly with me. It is good to see you back John. With all the bad news for the GOP I was wondering when you would weigh in. The thing about Rush is that he was hired to be provocotive and he was. But based on his history it cannot be argued that his anti-media attack came out with regard to a black quaterback. As you have documented, McNabb is very good and as your ranking shows many black quaterbacks are in the upper teir. Any fan with unbiased knowledge of the game would have to acknowledge this so it seems that there must be bias in Rush to come up with this analysis. I have seen others suggest a double standard because Howard Cossel did not get fired for his monkey remark. But I think it is personnel history rather than politics. Both men were egoists with a desire to create controversy. The difference is that Cossell was a legitimate champion of black athletes while Rush (or at least a large part of his audience) are, to be kind, not overly sympathetic to the plight of blacks. So when Cossel says he did not mean the statement as a racial slur he is believed while when Rush says it is not a slur it is not because it falls into his general pattern of demogogery. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is good to see you back John. With all the bad news for the GOP I was wondering when you would weigh in. The thing about Rush is that he was hired to be provocotive and he was. But based on his history it cannot be argued that his anti-media attack came out with regard to a black quaterback. As you have documented, McNabb is very good and as your ranking shows many black quaterbacks are in the upper teir. Any fan with unbiased knowledge of the game would have to acknowledge this so it seems that there must be bias in Rush to come up with this analysis. I have seen others suggest a double standard because Howard Cossel did not get fired for his monkey remark. But I think it is personnel history rather than politics. Both men were egoists with a desire to create controversy. The difference is that Cossell was a legitimate champion of black athletes while Rush (or at least a large part of his audience) are, to be kind, not overly sympathetic to the plight of blacks. So when Cossel says he did not mean the statement as a racial slur he is believed while when Rush says it is not a slur it is not because it falls into his general pattern of demogogery. Given the opinion polls that came out this week, the GOP should have that sort of bad news every week :-) Cosell used the word monkey to refer to _white_ athletes on more than one occasion, so it does seem unfair to say that he was being racist to use it to describe black athletes, apart from everything else. As for any fan with unbiased knowledge - see Allen Barra's article on Slate. Barra is a professional sportswriter who writes, among other places, for _Salon_. Rush was wrong (see profootballprospectus.com for why) but his argument was not, on its face, entirely unreasonable. It certainly wasn't racist. Calling him a racist is nothing more than the usual tactic of arguing that anybody who disagrees with the PC line is a bigot. It happens to most conservatives in college, for goodness sake, so Rush should have been a little better prepared for it. Good to see you back, Bob. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
Gautam Mukunda wrote: As for any fan with unbiased knowledge - see Allen Barra's article on Slate. Barra is a professional sportswriter who writes, among other places, for _Salon_. Rush was wrong (see profootballprospectus.com for why) but his argument was not, on its face, entirely unreasonable. It certainly wasn't racist. Calling him a racist is nothing more than the usual tactic of arguing that anybody who disagrees with the PC line is a bigot. It happens to most conservatives in college, for goodness sake, so Rush should have been a little better prepared for it. Did Rush go to college? My impression is that he didn't, or at least he never came out with a degree Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
--- Julia thanks. It's only a minor irritation so I'll just wait till Nick gets back. thrive! david b Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: As for any fan with unbiased knowledge - see Allen Barra's article on Slate. Barra is a professional sportswriter who writes, among other places, for _Salon_. Rush was wrong (see profootballprospectus.com for why) but his argument was not, on its face, entirely unreasonable. It certainly wasn't racist. Calling him a racist is nothing more than the usual tactic of arguing that anybody who disagrees with the PC line is a bigot. It happens to most conservatives in college, for goodness sake, so Rush should have been a little better prepared for it. Did Rush go to college? My impression is that he didn't, or at least he never came out with a degree Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
In a message dated 10/14/2003 5:51:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but his argument was not, on its face, entirely unreasonable. It certainly wasn't racist. Calling him a racist is nothing more than the usual tactic of arguing that anybody who disagrees with the PC line is a bigot. It happens to most conservatives in college, for goodness sake, so Rush should have been a little better prepared for it. How are we so certain that Rush is not racist? Does he have a personal history of supporting racial equality? Does he give money to black colleges? speak out for racial equality? I'm not saying he is a racist but it is glib to say he is not. What he did was play the race card if you will. He knew he would provoke this response. At best this was cynical at worst it was racist. The PC remark is as much a knee jerk conservative response as the PC crowd. One can criticize Rush or anyone else without being PC. By the way welcome back. I think you are right about Pedro. He is the greatest pitcher in the history of the game. He has such good control that he can hit Garcia on the back at will. He can pitch so well in a key game without losing his cool and his sign language skills are outstanding. He was so nice to point out that Jorge Posada had a fleck of dirt on his head in the 4th inning. No need to apologize for his actions. The Yankees would be fortunate to face him in game 7 given his success against the team in the past few years ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redskins RE: Raceism
At 03:54 PM 10/3/2003 -0700 Chad Cooper wrote: Since when... Maybe 300 years ago... If it was an effective epithet, it would be in everyday language for the average 14 Year-old boy. Its comical to think of a young kid using the words You redskin! as insult. Unless redskin sounds something like Beeoottc!!, I think they have it all wrong.. Exactly, I would never have guessed that the name Redskins was offensive until someone told me. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
At 06:07 PM 10/2/2003 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote: But more to the point, while his remarks were not overtly racist, they *are* subversively racist. What he said was that Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media and the NFL wanted to see a black quarterback succeed. So lets seeMcNabb is a 2 time MVP candidate.. In fairness, this datapoint is irrelevant. MVP voting is undertaken by the media, so if McNabb were being overrated by the media, he would *of course* be an MVP candidate. .took his team to the NFC championship game in 2 consecutive years. Also in fairness, Rush's remakrs at the time said that if anyone took his team to the NFC championship game in 2 consecutive years it was the players of the Eagles' *defense* (which is very good.) Then again, these remarks ignore the existance of black QBs like Doug Williams (who won a superbowl.with the Redskins), or Warren Moon (most career passing yards), or Steve Air McNair. In this sense, Limbaughs remarks are downright insulting. The Doug Williams example is interesting if only because Doug Williams is perhaps widely considered to be one of the worst QB's to have won a Super Bowl.Thus, it is a real case-in-point against the argument that the media would hype any black QB.It would be interesting to know, however, if Limbaugh considered the McNair for MVP talk this year to be a product of the same, quote, social concern. And he is still young with some years before he will have to retire. Again, this datapoint is irrelevant Rush's entire point is that McNabb is young and has really demonstrated more flashes of potential of being the best QB in the NFL rather than performing as the best QB in the NFL on a consistent basis. Donovan McNabb is not mediocre. He is one of the better QBs currently playing football. Exacty, If I were to quickly rank the best QB's in the NFL, I would Tier 1A: Manning Tier 1B: Culpepper, McNabb, Vick, McNair, Favre, Carr, Garcia Tier 2A: Bledsoe, Brady, Johnson, Pennington, Gannon, Collins Tier 2B: Hasselbeck, Ramsey, Harrington, Green, Brees, Carter Tier 3: Plummer, Fiedler, Kitna, Brooks, Maddox, Blake, Stewart, Delhomme, Unranked: Warner/Bulger, Couch/Holcomb, (these QB's have worked in rotation producing similar results) Boller, Leftwich (rookies) I think there is some case to argue that McNabb is overrated - although it is just plain silly that all of this overrated talk has come out after McNabb had two bad games this year. Lots of good QB's have two bad games, but the football talking heads are positively obsessed with what has happened in the last two weeks - and rarely keep any kind of big picture persepective. The point the Limbaugh has really missed is that if McNabb is overrated, sure it is due in part to having a great defense with which to rack up a lot of victories - but I think a far more important factor is that the fans, medias, (and arguably with good reason the coaches as well) love QB's that can both run and throw. Running QB's are simply electric. On any given play, players like McNabb has the ability to burn you deep with his arm, or take off and grab 10 yards for the first down.Mobile QB's pose a great deal of problems for opposing defenses, and they are damned exciting to watch. Lastly, just in MVP terms, Mobile QB's often end up as being involved in a ridiculous number of plays, between the throws and QB runs - so just in terms of direct percentage contribution to a team, such a QB will appear more valuable. Rush Limbaugh is not as football savvy as he claims to be. Indeed. In fact, if ESPN had fired Limbaugh because his comments showed an utter lack of knowledge about football and the media hyping of all mobile QB's, be they Doug Flutie or Donovan McNabb, I probably wouldn't have cared.To fire him, however, because the Democratic Political Establishment in this country engaged in a coordinated assault designed to categorize all criticisms of reverse racism as racism really sits badly with me. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: McNabb and Limbaugh Re: Raceism
JDG wrote: Indeed. In fact, if ESPN had fired Limbaugh because his comments showed an utter lack of knowledge about football and the media hyping of all mobile QB's, be they Doug Flutie or Donovan McNabb, I probably wouldn't have cared.To fire him, however, because the Democratic Political Establishment in this country engaged in a coordinated assault designed to categorize all criticisms of reverse racism as racism really sits badly with me. Um, Rush wasn't fired. He resigned. I suppose it may have had as much to do with the fact he was planning to enter rehab as anything else. Reggie Bautista Just for the Record Maru _ Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redskins RE: Raceism
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:54 PM 10/3/2003 -0700 Chad Cooper wrote: Since when... Maybe 300 years ago... If it was an effective epithet, it would be in everyday language for the average 14 Year-old boy. Its comical to think of a young kid using the words You redskin! as insult. Unless redskin sounds something like Beeoottc!!, I think they have it all wrong.. Exactly, I would never have guessed that the name Redskins was offensive until someone told me. I am sure that at some time in the south there was someone such as yourself who made the statement that they ,never would have guessed that the name Negro was offensive until someone told them. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
At 11:39 AM 10/4/2003 -0500, you wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: At 08:49 AM 10/4/2003 -0400, you wrote: Now that the Redskins have been attacked in court, will the Cincinnati Reds be sued next? -- Erik Reuter No joke emote? June 1, 1869 In the first game ever played by a professional baseball team (all paid players, no amateurs), the Cincinnati Red Stockings beat the Mansfield Independents, 48-14. In 1869, the Cincinnati Base Ball Club played the entire season with all of its players under contract. The total salary outlay was approximately $11,000, with the salary of star shortstop George Wright nearly $2,000. Thus began the era of professional baseball and of professional team sports. What about the Cleveland Browns? I'm sure Hispanics and the other Indians are offended. (Yes I know, and I also know the difference.) Were the Browns maybe named after someone whose last name was Brown? Yes! The team was named after the man who was head coach when the team was brought to Cleveland, Paul Brown. More at http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/history/news/browns_named.php Julia so THERE! My fault. (Yes I know, and I also know the difference.) Meant I know CB were named after Paul Brown, and that even if they weren't I don't hear anyone calling people Browns as a derogatory term as redskins is (apologies to Rob). Kevin T. - VRWC Shudda used a * ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
- Original Message - From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 4:29 PM Subject: Re: Raceism My fault. (Yes I know, and I also know the difference.) Meant I know CB were named after Paul Brown, and that even if they weren't I don't hear anyone calling people Browns as a derogatory term as redskins is (apologies to Rob). ? You've said nothing that could even be remotely construed as offensive. xponent Brownies Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
At 04:41 PM 10/5/2003 -0500, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 4:29 PM Subject: Re: Raceism My fault. (Yes I know, and I also know the difference.) Meant I know CB were named after Paul Brown, and that even if they weren't I don't hear anyone calling people Browns as a derogatory term as redskins is (apologies to Rob). ? You've said nothing that could even be remotely construed as offensive. xponent Brownies Maru rob Because you have said that redskins is not derogatory to you or (some) other Indians. I'll shut up now. Kevin Tarr ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
At 11:12 PM 10/1/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as the Washington DC football team goes, I heard an interesting proposal: Don't change the name, but totally change the logo. But keep the same colors. You can do it. A red potato (of course, only the *skin* is red!), split at the top with a nice pat of butter will do it nicely. :) still, it's demeaning. To potatoes? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
At 08:49 AM 10/4/2003 -0400, you wrote: Now that the Redskins have been attacked in court, will the Cincinnati Reds be sued next? -- Erik Reuter No joke emote? June 1, 1869 In the first game ever played by a professional baseball team (all paid players, no amateurs), the Cincinnati Red Stockings beat the Mansfield Independents, 48-14. In 1869, the Cincinnati Base Ball Club played the entire season with all of its players under contract. The total salary outlay was approximately $11,000, with the salary of star shortstop George Wright nearly $2,000. Thus began the era of professional baseball and of professional team sports. What about the Cleveland Browns? I'm sure Hispanics and the other Indians are offended. (Yes I know, and I also know the difference.) Serious, tying this with the Browns or former Browns, (and I cannot find a web link) a local high school are called the Colts, with the helmet emblem just like the Indy Colts. But the Baltimore Ravens sued the school because they consider themselves holders of Baltimore Colts history and this team is in their area. The suit was dismissed quickly. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 10:49:13PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Seriously, what is your problem? Oh, Jan, don't worry. I'm only prejudiced against male redskins. Jan is such a pretty name. I'll bet you are a beautiful redskin girl. Want to go out to a movie sometime? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
Erik Reuter wrote: Now that the Redskins have been attacked in court, will the Cincinnati Reds be sued next? The Cleveland Indians or the Atlanta Braves would be more likely. And unless the Cleveland Indians have changed their logo lately, it's probably more offensive than the Washington Redskins logo, in any case. Nope, same logo I remembered. ( http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/index.jsp?c_id=cle ) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
Kevin Tarr wrote: At 08:49 AM 10/4/2003 -0400, you wrote: Now that the Redskins have been attacked in court, will the Cincinnati Reds be sued next? -- Erik Reuter No joke emote? June 1, 1869 In the first game ever played by a professional baseball team (all paid players, no amateurs), the Cincinnati Red Stockings beat the Mansfield Independents, 48-14. In 1869, the Cincinnati Base Ball Club played the entire season with all of its players under contract. The total salary outlay was approximately $11,000, with the salary of star shortstop George Wright nearly $2,000. Thus began the era of professional baseball and of professional team sports. What about the Cleveland Browns? I'm sure Hispanics and the other Indians are offended. (Yes I know, and I also know the difference.) Were the Browns maybe named after someone whose last name was Brown? Yes! The team was named after the man who was head coach when the team was brought to Cleveland, Paul Brown. More at http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/history/news/browns_named.php Julia so THERE! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
- Original Message - From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:56 AM Subject: Re: Raceism From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Raceism Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:07:08 -0500 - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Raceism Today on the news we learned that questioning hype around a quarterback is racesist, UH.that is not what happened, what was said, or even what is claimed. but naming a team after an ethnic group which doe not desire to have the team named after them is not. Then they should have complained loudly and longly back during the depression. Actually it isn't. For one thing, those who are complaining tend to live in places other than the Washington DC area, so they really have no say in the naming of a sports team in Washington DC. Sure they do. The name is a registered trademark by the Federal government. State boundaries do not provide immunity to Federal trademark infringement so the reasoning behind this argument seems flawed to me. Wellit would be quite different if the Amerinds had registered Redskins as a trademark of one or more of their nations, but they didn't. Therefore there can be no trademark infringement associated with this case. The problem for them is that if they had registered, they would be severely limited in the prevention of the use of the word Redskins. Imagine if the Washington DC team tried to prevent use of the team name in sports articles or by the fans (on the net frex, which is technically publication in many contexts). They couldn't possibly do this. So Trademark is a wasted argument in that regard. My point was that sports teams are named locally, by the owners or the fans, and not by others who might be half a continent away. Another point is that this complaint is a recent phenomena, only surfacing in the last couple of decades, while the name has been in use for at least 4 times longer. Where were the complaints when the team was first named? So you're saying that racism is ok if it's been around for a while? I'm truly not trying to bait you Rob, but this seems to be what you're trying to assert? No not at all Jon! I think we both agree that would be reprehensable. What I am saying ( and this is to my mind quite fairly echoed by the Judge of the case) is that racism is not about a group or individual having their feelings hurt (though this is certainly a result), it is about another group or individual having the intent to hurt. FREX: Abdul tells Sioban that he is a worthless, stupid, mic. Siobans feelings might be hurt and she might be angry, but that does not make her a racist, nor does it imply that racism is a part of her makeup. OTOH Abdul could be called racist and his racism could be discussed. What the plaintiffs in the case were told is that not only did they fail to demonstrate harm due to the use of the word Redskins, they also failed to demonstrate *intent* to harm. And one or the other or both would be required for their suit to succeed. They failed to find racism. For the plaintiffs to succeed in their case, they would have to demonstrate (for lack of a better term) institutionalised predjudice against Amerinds. And I would guess that would have to include anti-amerind attitudes and practices throughout the 20th century that last to this very day. And to be honest, the only institution I can think of who has participated in such behavior on an ongoing basis is the US government. To my mind the vast majority of citizens of this country think highly of Native Americans and find distasteful the treatment given these people as depicted in Jim Thorpes bio or The Sands Of Iwo Jima. (Potential thread creep here) An additional question: Do you know for sure that there weren't complaints made when the name was first chosen? I'm not sure a lawsuit would have had any legal standing until the mid-40's or even then, considering the point Julia raised. Its a very fair question, and I can't claim to have an answer that is definitive in any regard. I only know what I have read. I've been reading articles about this dispute since around the mid 70s and back then it was presented as something new and current. If there were any previous complaints I have never seen anything that even suggested it That being said, I would agree that such a suit, if brought back in the thirties, would have had greater validity, since the world was much closer (maybe a generation and a half) to the actual fighting between natives and those of european descent. Today, if you called someone a Roundhead or a Puritan, you might get a puzzled look. I'm of the opinion that we are pretty close to the same
Re: Raceism
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Raceism Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:07:08 -0500 - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Raceism big snip BTW, how many Native Americans have you polled on this subject? Because I know for sure you never asked me. (Look at a pic of me on Steves page) Or do only purebred people count? A friend I've been discussing this with pointed me at this link: This article is from 8/7/2003 http://www.indiancountry.com/?43 In a survey by Indian Country Today, 81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans. ~~ And this one, from yesterday: (Julia's point is addressed in the third paragraph) http://www.indiancountry.com/?1065123282 Opinion favors Redskins football logo WASHINGTON - A district court judgment has reinstated the trademark protections of the Washington Redskins football franchise. The Oct. 1 summary judgment overrules a unanimous 1999 decision of the federal Trial Trademark and Appeal Board that found the team name and logo disparaging to Native Americans. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, stated that the board had relied on linguistic and survey evidence only for its findings of fact as to disparagement. She characterized the findings as very limited, and ruled them inadequate to cancel the trademark protections of the teams name, logo and related properties. Kollar-Kotelly also found that too much time has passed to prove the trademarks were disparaging in 1967, when they were registered as trademarks. ~~ This is from the end of the second article: Indian Country Today considers the use of sports names, symbols, mascots and logos depicting American Indians by non-Indian teams and organizations as being offensive. Its policy states: the name Redskins is a derogatory term that for at least 300 years has been used to insult, ridicule, deride, and generally cast prejudice and hate upon American Indian peoples. The term has been used and continues to be used as a racial epithet. ~~ ...so there could be a possibility that the survey results are biased. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
This is really silly, Jon. If you want to change people's minds, telling them they can't or shouldn't be use a name is a rather dumb way to go about it. Besides, most people don't like whiners. Using or not using the name redskins is not an important battle to fight-- surely there are more effective battles that people could be fighting if they want to eliminate real discrimination against people with red skin. After all, some people's skin DID (and does) have a red tone to it, so the term is a basic description, not an insult. Big deal, who cares about skin color, get over it. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I think that perjorative terms, losing the power to hurt is a good thing. And this seemingly PC attitude you espouse actually perpetuates a perjoratives ability to hurt. There is a sports team called the Whities. And their motto is Everythings gonna be all White. The team is mostly Native Americans and they named their team in order to make light of the Redskins lawsuit supporters. I believe they are in Colorado with Debbie. G snip The Fighting Whites are indeed a basketball team from the U of Northern CO; here is their 'mission statement:' http://www.fightingwhites.org/ The Fighting Whites basketball team was organized in early February (2002) by a group of Native American and non-Indian students of the University of Northern Colorado with the intent of playing intramural basketball. We came up with the Fighting Whites logo and slogan to have a little satirical fun and to deliver a simple, sincere, message about ethnic stereotyping. Since March 6, when our campus newspaper first reported on the Fighting Whites, we have been launched into the national spotlight, propelled by a national debate over stereotyping American Indians in sports symbolism. Our objective as students was to make a straightforward statement using humor; to promote cultural awareness through satire. Now that national attention has come to us, we hope that our message will reach a wider audience. As a part of our involvement in this ongoing issue, we have formed the Fighting Whites Scholarship Fund, Inc., a non-profit organization, the profits of which will go entirely to support the education of Native American students. Their mascot/logo is a stereotypical 1950's guy in a suit and tie...kind of Ward Cleaver-ish. Most people here think it's funny (which may or may not have been the original intention; according to this fellow, The team's anglo-centric identity came about because of a desire to embarrass nearby Eaton High School and force it to abandon its big-nosed Indian mascot and change the name of its team to something other than The Fighting Reds.). http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/05/22/3e4d7ef027f68?in_archive=1 FWIW, once when some punk called me bitch I actually sneered back at him You forgot to say ALPHA first! He didn't quite know how to respond to that...evil alpha bitch smile A friend's retort when that is yelled at her is to look puzzled and say loudly, You say that like it's a *bad* thing... Again, the would-be humiliator is left confounded. But it's fairly easy for an adult to slap down or laugh off such insults; they are far more hurtful to children (I certainly didn't know what to do when my best friend in 4th grade was called wetback, other than say don't pay any attention to those jerks... and walk away with her). Debbi whose favorite insults to yell are tapeworm! and schistosome! ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is really silly, Jon. If you want to change people's minds, telling them they can't or shouldn't be use a name is a rather dumb way to go about it. Besides, most people don't like whiners. Using or not using the name redskins is not an important battle to fight-- surely there are more effective battles that people could be fighting if they want to eliminate real discrimination against people with red skin. After all, some people's skin DID (and does) have a red tone to it, so the term is a basic description, not an insult. Big deal, who cares about skin color, get over it. Your right, the term nigger is only a shortend version of negro and that just refers to the color of skin. Besides, most people don't like whiners. Using or not using he name nigger is not an important battle to fight-- surely there are more effective battles that people could be fighting if they want to eliminate real discrimination against people with dark skin. After all, some people's skin DID (and does) have a dark tone to it, so the term is a basic description, not an insult. Big deal, who cares about skin color, get over it. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Raceism Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:20:17 -0400 This is really silly, Jon. If you want to change people's minds, telling them they can't or shouldn't be use a name is a rather dumb way to go about it. Changing the way a person refers to others is often the first step in changing their perceptions and attitudes. I don't see anything wrong with attempting to combat racial stereotypes, especially when a majority of the targeted population find them offensive. Besides, most people don't like whiners. So anyone who attempts to combat a racial stereotype would be a whiner to you? Should we alert the ADL NAACP that their battles are silly and not worth the time? ;-) I know there's a difference in degrees of effectiveness. I don't think it's an unworthy cause though. Using or not using the name redskins is not an important battle to fight-- surely there are more effective battles that people could be fighting if they want to eliminate real discrimination against people with red skin. I don't see Native Americans perpetuating a culture of victimhood by filing this suit. I think that's a difference in the way we both perceive it. I also think you're arbitrarily ignoring the time (decades) that the term was used as a disparagment and pejorative in order to prove your point. After all, some people's skin DID (and does) have a red tone to it, so the term is a basic description, not an insult. Big deal, who cares about skin color, get over it. Uh huh. And 'Nigger' comes from 'Negroe', which means 'Black'. I'm sure that with subtle alterations, this argument would go over very poorly with African-American communities nationwide. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy patented spam protection and more. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:22:10PM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: Uh huh. And 'Nigger' comes from 'Negroe', which means 'Black'. I'm sure that with subtle alterations, this argument would go over very poorly with African-American communities nationwide. You're being ridiculous. I refer to black people all the time, no insult intended. Quit your whining! I will now attempt to use the word redskins more than I otherwise would have. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Raceism
Indian Country Today considers the use of sports names, symbols, mascots and logos depicting American Indians by non-Indian teams and organizations as being offensive. Its policy states: ... the name 'Redskins' is a derogatory term that for at least 300 years has been used to insult, ridicule, deride, and generally cast prejudice and hate upon American Indian peoples. The term has been used and continues to be used as a racial epithet. Since when... Maybe 300 years ago... If it was an effective epithet, it would be in everyday language for the average 14 Year-old boy. Its comical to think of a young kid using the words You redskin! as insult. Unless redskin sounds something like Beeoottc!!, I think they have it all wrong.. ...so there could be a possibility that the survey results are biased. Jon I heard on NPR about local and state gov't changing geographical names as well, in response. The most common change was from using the term Squaw (like Squaw river, peak, mountain, etc). Again... You're such a Squaw! Makes you laugh As for the pot calling the kettle black, as a youngster, I was seriously discriminated against for being white among Indians. Can't tell you how many times I got indian rug burn from the masters themselves My own experience was laced with the demonization of racism = where I was looked upon as the criminal and the bad guy, stereotyped even in play. They had their own terms for people like me. Ironically, they would only play football if I was my own team. It was beneath any of them to be on the side of a white person. Imagine 15 indian boys playing football against one white boy (being undersized did not help). Now I am not saying Indians are racist. I am talking about kindergarten children acting themselves... I guess I just see such statements (as above) as hypocritical. Does that make me racist? Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Raceism Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:15:02 -0500 Was *anyone* complaining about that sort of thing in the 1930s? Because I think that franchise dates back that far. (1937? Anyone know?) Earlier: http://www.skins.net/history.html Franchise Granted: July 9, 1932 as the Boston Braves First Season: 1932 Changed Nickname to Redskins: 1933 Moved to Washington: 1937 So 1937 was right in some regard. Nice to know I haven't totally lost all of it Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
- Original Message - From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:56 AM Subject: Re: Raceism Before I do anything else, I want to respond to just this portion of Jons message, because what he says is the most important thing anyone has said on the list all week. Rob, I know this can be a really explosive issue and I've tried really hard to phrase these questions so they won't be misinterpreted as an attack. If I offend you at all with them I'm really sorry. That's totally not my intention. Jon, I think we know each other well enough by now to know that neither of us is likely to take serious offence to remarks made during a discussion or even an argument. It is a matter of trust. The fact that you show such sensitivity for others feelings speaks well of you. But I believe that most of the trust issues on this list are in the past. (At least at this point) In the past we have seen what kinds of problems can crop up when one person lacks trust in his/her fellow listmembers and their intentions. It is perfectly OK to disagree and perfectly OK to speak one mind regarding a subject under discussion. And we will not be friends any less for it. Its a matter of trust. I guess I just empathize more with the suit filers. Its understandable. But I suspect I view these things from a different corner. It takes 2 people to have such a dispute. 1 to insult and 1 to feel insulted. Both have the ability to be in control of themselves in that the first person can insult the other or hold his/her tongue. The second person can ignore the insult or can get their panties in a bunch. It absolutely is a choice. But most of us are taught from childhood to take ourselves so seriously, to be seriously addicted to self-righteousness, that we are blinded to the choice that is always in front of us. I have failed at this many times, but I think I have learned to recognize this part of myself a lot of the time. It's quite easy to see in others, and that is a very human failing. This has nothing to do with being dispassionate, and everything to do with being aware of the doodads and thingamagadgets that make up ones inner workings. What motivates me? What makes me hurt? How is it that others words cause me to feel pain? Unfortunately (or very fortunately if you look at it the right way), I was at one time in a situation where someone I loved screamed insults and epithets directly into my face for very long periods of time. At the time I felt trapped, and my only escape was to dissociate my *self* from the situation. After my escapeG, and with some help, I could see that the choice to be in that situation was mine and mine alone. *I* was the one who kept me in a situation where I absorbed a lot of verbal abuse, and *I* was the one who let that abuse devour my self esteem. And *I* was totally responsible for any pain I suffered as a result. *I* made a victim of myself. And I was the one who had to make things change. And I had to do it without making others change because it was *my* problem. So when some group gets pissy over an epithet that lost its power nearly a hundred years ago, I see someone setting themselves up as eternal victims. And the world has far too many of them. That, my friends, does not bode well for the future, or for moral and ethical progress. xponent Immunity For Our Children Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:22:10PM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: Uh huh. And 'Nigger' comes from 'Negroe', which means 'Black'. I'm sure that with subtle alterations, this argument would go over very poorly with African-American communities nationwide. You're being ridiculous. I refer to black people all the time, no insult intended. Quit your whining! I will now attempt to use the word redskins more than I otherwise would have. Now it's personal Erik. Do this: (1)Stick your hand up so that you can see your knucles (2)Spred your fingers (3)Put your thumb against your palm. (4)Now translate to binary. Seriously, what is your problem? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Jan Coffey wrote: Today on the news we learned that questioning hype around a quarterback is racist, but naming a team after an ethnic group which doe not desire to have the team named after them is not. Which quarterback? Donovan McNabb I think I was hearing something about this, and I thought it was stupid -- look how many black quarterbacks there are these days. So I can't remember which one was getting the hype being questioned. Exactly. As far as the Washington DC football team goes, I heard an interesting proposal: Don't change the name, but totally change the logo. But keep the same colors. You can do it. A red potato (of course, only the *skin* is red!), split at the top with a nice pat of butter will do it nicely. :) still, it's demeaning. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Raceism Today on the news we learned that questioning hype around a quarterback is racesist, UH.that is not what happened, what was said, or even what is claimed. but naming a team after an ethnic group which doe not desire to have the team named after them is not. Actually it isn't. For one thing, those who are complaining tend to live in places other than the Washington DC area, so they really have no say in the naming of a sports team in Washington DC. Another point is that this complaint is a recent phenomena, only surfacing in the last couple of decades, while the name has been in use for at least 4 times longer. Where were the complaints when the team was first named? Thirdly, the name Redskins as applied to a sports team is in no way demeaning. On the contrary, sports teams are named with the intent to be impressive to a foe. By naming the team Redskins, the namers show that they hold some degree of regard for real redskins. Lastly, have you noticed that the Redskin logo depicts a dignified aboriginal, while the Braves logo (which recieves fewer complaints BTW) depicts the same in a goofy stereotypical manner? So..are you going to complain about Big Chief writing tablets next? Rush Limbaugh's statments were clearly ~anti~ racesist if anything. But neer mind the reality, reality doesn't sell comercials, so each news brodcast today spent about 3 minutes (1/10) of the brodcast on Limbaugh and his supposedly raceist comments. Jan...that is utter bullshit. Limbaugh has a history of these kinds of remarks. But more to the point, while his remarks were not overtly racist, they *are* subversively racist. What he said was that Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media and the NFL wanted to see a black quarterback succeed. So lets seeMcNabb is a 2 time MVP candidate...took his team to the NFC championship game in 2 consecutive years. And he is still young with some years before he will have to retire. Then again, these remarks ignore the existance of black QBs like Doug Williams (who won a superbowl.with the Redskins), or Warren Moon (most career passing yards), or Steve Air McNair. In this sense, Limbaughs remarks are downright insulting. In his attempt to expand upon his Liberal Bias In Media meme that he promotes with great vigor, he played the race card, but being the insensitive lout that he is, he let his mouth write a check his ass couldn't cash. But what about the so called redskins? A clear case of football racesism here. Today the judge in the appeal sided with the NFL and against the native americans who find the team's name severly distatefull. Only one brodcast even mentioned the rulling. That is because very few people take such a frivilous lawsuit seriously. BTW, how many Native Americans have you polled on this subject? Because I know for sure you never asked me. (Look at a pic of me on Steves page) Or do only purebred people count? What would anyone think of a football team named the Crackers, or Whiteies, what about Darkies, or the Wetbacks? Maybe missipppi needs a team named the the Slaves. How about the Huston Cong or the New York Chinks? How very extreme of you. Why not just come out and suggest niggers while you are at it. What you are saying certainly seems to imply that all these names have an equal perjorative value. They do not. None of them are nice, no, not one bit, but they are not equal. And Redskins has pretty much fallen off the map as a perjorative. I think that perjorative terms, losing the power to hurt is a good thing. And this seemingly PC attitude you espouse actually perpetuates a perjoratives ability to hurt. There is a sports team called the Whities. And their motto is Everythings gonna be all White. The team is mostly Native Americans and they named their team in order to make light of the Redskins lawsuit supporters. I believe they are in Colorado with Debbie. G Let's get real. This is clearly raceism. Repeating this statement incessantly won't make it any more true. (Or any less true eitherG) On the other hand what if Limbaugh had questioned press surrouding some mideocker white basketball player who was being biled as a big slam dunker in the press, but seldomely dunks and even then, is very mediocker. Wouldn't questioning that be seen as questioining an attempt at making a white basketball superhero when one simply doesn't exist? Let's get real. This clearly is anti-racisit not racesist. Donovan McNabb is not mediocre. He is one of the better QBs currently playing football. Rush Limbaugh is not as football savvy as he claims to be. xponent Multiple Breed Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Raceism Today on the news we learned that questioning hype around a quarterback is racesist, UH.that is not what happened, what was said, or even what is claimed. but naming a team after an ethnic group which doe not desire to have the team named after them is not. Actually it isn't. For one thing, those who are complaining tend to live in places other than the Washington DC area, so they really have no say in the naming of a sports team in Washington DC. Another point is that this complaint is a recent phenomena, only surfacing in the last couple of decades, while the name has been in use for at least 4 times longer. Where were the complaints when the team was first named? Was *anyone* complaining about that sort of thing in the 1930s? Because I think that franchise dates back that far. (1937? Anyone know?) Julia whose mother was born in DC and raised to root for the Redskins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Raceism Today on the news we learned that questioning hype around a quarterback is racesist, UH.that is not what happened, what was said, or even what is claimed. Uh,, guess we disagree. but naming a team after an ethnic group which doe not desire to have the team named after them is not. Actually it isn't. For one thing, those who are complaining tend to live in places other than the Washington DC area, so they really have no say in the naming of a sports team in Washington DC. In taht case I guess it would be ok to start a Tulsa hokey team named the fagotts, but not a san francisco team? Another point is that this complaint is a recent phenomena, only surfacing in the last couple of decades, while the name has been in use for at least 4 times longer. Where were the complaints when the team was first named? Well, slavery was around for a long time, and segrigation for quite a while afterwards, why was it all of a sudden in the 50's when it became an issue? Thirdly, the name Redskins as applied to a sports team is in no way demeaning. On the contrary, sports teams are named with the intent to be impressive to a foe. By naming the team Redskins, the namers show that they hold some degree of regard for real redskins. You use the term as if it were not deemening. In that case why not name a team the Angry Nigers? Well? That's what it sound like to us. Lastly, have you noticed that the Redskin logo depicts a dignified aboriginal, while the Braves logo (which recieves fewer complaints BTW) depicts the same in a goofy stereotypical manner? Wrong, it doesn't recieve fewer complaints. So..are you going to complain about Big Chief writing tablets next? Rush Limbaugh's statments were clearly ~anti~ racesist if anything. But neer mind the reality, reality doesn't sell comercials, so each news brodcast today spent about 3 minutes (1/10) of the brodcast on Limbaugh and his supposedly raceist comments. Jan...that is utter bullshit. Limbaugh has a history of these kinds of remarks. True he is an ass and a big fat idiot, but that acusing him of something here which he didn't do is being not any better than him. But more to the point, while his remarks were not overtly racist, they *are* subversively racist. That's just the point, they are not. They are supprisingly anti raceist. What he said was that Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media and the NFL wanted to see a black quarterback succeed. So lets seeMcNabb is a 2 time MVP candidate...took his team to the NFC championship game in 2 consecutive years. And he is still young with some years before he will have to retire. Mediocer is mediocer. Your welcome to your opinions. Then again, these remarks ignore the existance of black QBs like Doug Williams (who won a superbowl.with the Redskins), or Warren Moon (most career passing yards), or Steve Air McNair. In this sense, Limbaughs remarks are downright insulting. No, not concidering that williams and Moon never got anywhere near the press McNabb is getting. In his attempt to expand upon his Liberal Bias In Media meme that he promotes with great vigor, he played the race card, but being the insensitive lout that he is, he let his mouth write a check his ass couldn't cash. Not this time. The LBM simply fell right into prooving him right this time. The thing is the media is no more Liberal as Right wing. The media is quite clearly and destinctivly NOT OBJECTIVE. But what about the so called redskins? A clear case of football racesism here. Today the judge in the appeal sided with the NFL and against the native americans who find the team's name severly distatefull. Only one brodcast even mentioned the rulling. That is because very few people take such a frivilous lawsuit seriously. See, even you are racesist to call this lawsuit frivilous. BTW, how many Native Americans have you polled on this subject? Well, My family for starters. Because I know for sure you never asked me. (Look at a pic of me on Steves page) Or do only purebred people count? Well, if you look at a pic of me you will have your answer. Skin collor (especialy from north eastern tribes) has never been a good tell. (I could go back and alter my reply, but I think I will let it be) What would anyone think of a football team named the Crackers, or Whiteies, what about Darkies, or the Wetbacks? Maybe missipppi needs a team named the the Slaves. How about the Huston Cong or the New York Chinks? How very extreme of you. Why not just come out and suggest niggers while you are at it. What you are saying certainly seems to imply that all these names have an equal perjorative value. They
Re: Raceism
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Raceism Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:15:02 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Raceism Today on the news we learned that questioning hype around a quarterback is racesist, UH.that is not what happened, what was said, or even what is claimed. but naming a team after an ethnic group which doe not desire to have the team named after them is not. Actually it isn't. For one thing, those who are complaining tend to live in places other than the Washington DC area, so they really have no say in the naming of a sports team in Washington DC. Another point is that this complaint is a recent phenomena, only surfacing in the last couple of decades, while the name has been in use for at least 4 times longer. Where were the complaints when the team was first named? Was *anyone* complaining about that sort of thing in the 1930s? Because I think that franchise dates back that far. (1937? Anyone know?) Earlier: http://www.skins.net/history.html Franchise Granted: July 9, 1932 as the Boston Braves First Season: 1932 Changed Nickname to Redskins: 1933 Moved to Washington: 1937 Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Raceism
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Jan Coffey wrote: Today on the news we learned that questioning hype around a quarterback is racesist, but naming a team after an ethnic group which doe not desire to have the team named after them is not. Which quarterback? I think I was hearing something about this, and I thought it was stupid -- look how many black quarterbacks there are these days. So I can't remember which one was getting the hype being questioned. As far as the Washington DC football team goes, I heard an interesting proposal: Don't change the name, but totally change the logo. But keep the same colors. You can do it. A red potato (of course, only the *skin* is red!), split at the top with a nice pat of butter will do it nicely. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
