Sunday, December 2, 2007

Racism by Any Other Name ...

Everytime I think I should spend a few bucks and subscribe to the Livingston Press & Argus, instead of reading it on line, I read something by Buddy Moorehouse, and the urge vanishes.

On Sunday (Dec. 2, 2007), it was Moorehouse's lament on the passing of the Ypsilanti High School's racist mascot, the Braves.

Moorehouse described complaints against the mascot as the work of a "just a handful of complainers making a lot of noise" and accused the district of giving in to the "silly tide of political correctness." In other words, he first marginalized the critics and then ridiculed them. So much easier than having to deal with the intellectual content of their arguments against use of Native Americans as sports mascots.

If Moorehouse thinks Native Americans are fit subjects for mascots, why aren't other racial groups suitable? Can he explain why only one of the following figures is acceptable as a sports mascot in 21st Century America?



The key part of Moorehouse's analysis of the mascot controversy lies in this paragraph:

"And, yes, I've heard all the arguments that these nicknames are offensive to American Indians. I can certainly see that a nickname like 'Redskins' is a problem, but I don't see 'Brave' as an offensive word. And what's wrong with honoring an Indian tribe by proudly wearing the tribe's name on your uniforms?"

Moorehouse's admission that "Redskins" is "a problem" is a pathetic attempt to minimize the significance of the term. It's not "a problem" -- it's vile racism. Why won't he call it that?

What's wrong with honoring an Indian tribe? Which tribe, exactly, is being honored by Ypsilanti? There is no tribe named "Braves." It is a generic term that treats all Native Americans the same, regardless of tribe, that lumps them all into one category despite vast differences among them. It essentializes them, creating the impression that because they all have similar skin tones, they are all alike. That's racism, pure and simple.

The Central Michigan Chippewa nickname, on the other hand, does honor a specific tribe. And the Saginaw Chippewa community has given its approval to use of their name. The same is true with the Florida State Seminole nickname, whose mascot is an actual historical figure, Chief Osceola, who led the Seminole resistance against the U.S. Army.

Despite Moorehouse's claim that most Sioux in North Dakota support the University of North Dakota's "Fighting Sioux" name, the tribal council of the Standing Rock Sioux has gone on record opposing the name. And he appears to have distorted the contents of the poll. Although a majority of Native Americans said they did not find the name "offensive," a majority of them still said the university should drop the name if the tribes do not want it used.

But besides the way it lumps all Native Americans together, there are other problems with the name "Braves" as it applies to Native Americans. It paints Native Americans as violent, warlike people who are to be feared. War was only one aspect of Native American life and their relationships with Euro-Americans, European governments, and the U.S. government. Remembering Native Americans as warlike helps white Americans justify the massacres that occurred as the American government pursued its expansionist policies of the 18th and 19th centuries. The names "Braves" carries a lot of ideological baggage.

Perpetuating the warlike image of Native Americans also freezes Native Americans in the past. It makes contemporary Native Americans invisible. If the only images of Native Americans that people see are those of fighting warriors of the past, they will overlook Native Americans who live among us as teachers, computer programs, carpenters, doctors, and nurses. And they'll overlook any Native American students who happen to attend Ypsilanti schools and don't fit the stereotype of "Braves."

Moorehouse says the "Braves" name is an honor, but if the people supposedly being honored don't see it that way, why persist? In the past, schools and universities persisted because they had the power to do so. And that's really what it boils down to -- power. Whites have it, others don't.

If Moorehouse wants Ypsilanti to honor a tribe, why not honor one of the biggest, most powerful tribes of all? Why not name Ypsilanti's athletic teams after white people -- "The Fighting Whities."

Actually, some students at the University of Northern Colorado did name their intramural team the "Fighting Whites" in response to a nearby school's use of "Fighting Reds," and has been selling t-shirts and bumper stickers with the name to raise money for scholarships.



I'll bet Moorehouse would feel honored to hear the opposing team's fans shout, "Beat the Whities" and to see images of "whities" hung in effigy on banners before the game. And to read sports page headlines about the "Fighting Whities" being "gunned down" by another team.

All good, clean fun.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks Judy, I would love it if you would submit this for a "guest editorial"
Buddy Morehouse is mighty sure of himself on this issue and either he has not thought it through or he just doesn't care!
I'd like to have a better understanding of his understanding, igmoramce or racist?
My guess is he'd rather not be called either, but I would like to see him try to defend himself!

Anonymous said...

Judy:

For someone who obviously hates Buddy Moorehouse as much as you do, you certainly spend a lot of time reading his columns.

That's obviously what he wants you to do.

He wins.

Judy said...

I don't hate Buddy Moorehouse. How could I? He gives me so much material to blog about!

Moorehouse has a great forum for influencing public opinion. He needs to be smarter about how he uses it.

Dan said...

I get a good laugh of out WHITE people always complaining about sports teams with American Indian names. I won't defend Redskins, but what's wrong with "Braves?"

""If Moorehouse thinks Native Americans are fit subjects for mascots, why aren't other racial groups suitable?"""


Notre Dame Fighting Irish - with a stereotypical leprechaun to boot. If that's not an over-the-top generalization of the tendancy of Irishmen to fight, I don't know what is. I don't take offense to it either outside of Charlie Weis being a jerk. I'd rather have us being known for toughness, stubborness, and refusing to quit, than weakness.

There aren't a lot of teams called the "Yuppies." That doesn't strike a lot of fear into the opposition.

Anonymous said...

Judy, as usual you're in the minority. In poll after poll, the majority of people in this country don't find anything wrong with Indian nicknames. It's a huge stretch to brand someone a racist over it.

From Wikipedia, regarding the Fighting Sioux nickname:

"In 2005, The Fargo Forum conducted a survey of Native and non-Native people from throughout North Dakota. The survey asked respondents if they supported the nickname and logo and if they were offended by them. Overall, 81% of respondents said they agreed with the use of the nickname and logo and 95% said they were not offended by them."

You're saying that 95% of the people in North Dakota are blatant racists?

Stop calling people names, Judy. You're just making yourself look like a shrill reactionary.