Politically Correct: The Issue of the Washington Redskins

Yesterday, as I was reading through the news avenues of the inter-webs, a story concerning an issue at Concordia University came to my attention. The issue was this: censoring song lyrics in regards to political correctness. The song lyrics in question weren’t… well, if you were a white male they were fine! There were two pieces, a thoroughly researched impartial view of the evidence and an attention-grabbing, opinion-driven editorial. As is always the case: more people were talking about the editorial (I love how much the average person fact-checks!). Anyways, I begin with this to address a larger issue closer to home: the Washington Redskins.

For those out there who don’t know, the Washington Redskins are a professional football (NFL) team that operates out of Washington D.C. They were founded in 1932 (back then known as the Boston Braves) and have been around ever since. So what’s the issue? Well, if the name hasn’t already tipped you off, have a look at the logo:

Redskins

Or the mascot:

chief-zee2

The Washington Redskins are not unique. They represent one of several professional sports teams (looking at you, Cleveland Indians) with, frankly, poor choice in their name. For the sake of today’s article: let’s focus on Washington. What’s the big deal? Who cares if they are called the Redskins? Indeed a very recent poll (2013) showed that 79% of Americans felt that the name was fine and that Washington should keep it. Well if the majority thinks its the right thing to do than who cares?

There are worse logos.
There are worse logos.

This is why I hate the term “political correctness”, more often than not it can be written as “what group(s) are okay to make fun of, what groups are not?” Let’s try some name suggestions: the Delaware Dykes, The Hampton Housewives, The Philadelphia Faggots, The Notre Dame Fighting Irish (this one is real), and the Nebraska Negroes. Were those names offensive: yep. Okay, new question: why the f*ck is the name “Washington Redskins” okay?

The term “redskin” began as a racial slur against Native Americans back when European settlers were still colonizing America. It enjoyed it’s height of use in the 18th and 19th centuries before fading away (no longer “politically correct”). At it’s base, the word is a racial slur (red skin) but was also used denote the “primitive” dress and culture of the Native Americans. Essentially this word is a two-for-two, debasing someone based on what they look like and how they live (aren’t words great?).

I guess the best way to put it is this: if you were walking home alone one night and saw a stranger of Native American descent walking toward you, would you feel comfortable calling out: “How’s it going, redskin?”

Apparently, 79% of Americans think it’s okay. Let’s count some numbers. Right now there are roughly 313.9 million people in the United States. That’s estimated, the last full census was conducted in 2000. Of that number, 2.8% of the entire population identified as “American Indian”. They couldn’t influence a poll if they tried.

800px-Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg

I’m going to guess that most of that 79% were not “American Indians”. Makes a bit more sense now, doesn’t it? Do I personally (as a white male) really find the word “redskin” offensive to me. No. It doesn’t deliver any kind of impact. However, that whole wonderful notion of progress dictates that, for the greater societal good, I look beyond my own apathy to empathize with other people (some of whom do not share my cultural background). This is what needs to happen with the Washington Redskins.

Human beings do not like to change traditions, even if the tradition is horrible. Take a look at slavery, one of the worst crimes in humanity: 625,000 people (in the United States alone) had to die in order to lose that tradition. That’s not to say that slavery didn’t exist for over 200 years (again, just in the U.S.) before people finally acted. Was it worth it: yeah, racism still exists but slavery is gone. That’s progress.

Luckily, there is no institution remaining that is as overtly inhuman as slavery. However, people are still human. A lot of us are way too okay (and self-justifying) about treating others in really unfair and cruel ways. I include myself in this bashing, so I’m trying not to preach.

20121207-225414

My point is this: nothing will be lost in changing the Washington Redskins’ name. At the end of the day who cares, it is the name of a freaking football team. So IF there is even a chance that it might be offending say, a whole group of people, why not change it? Think of the merchandising opportunities (you greedy bastards). Think of what one small gesture like that might mean to the remaining Native American community (sorry for the whole ‘murdering your culture thing’, I guess we can change our sports teams’ names. You know we spoil you). Think of it like this: “tradition” or “the way its always been” is one of the poorest, most self-justifying excuses there is for: we don’t want to change, even if it bothers other people.

For the record: I don’t think the Washington Redskins organization is racist or bigoted in any way. The driving emotion of this issue is apathy. Who cares if a few Native Americans write letters and complain? The vast majority of the non-Native American population doesn’t mind.

Let’s be more than “politically correct” on this one.

Utopia: No One Should Care About Michael Sam and Ellen Page Being Gay

On February 10th of this past year, I can remember reading an article on ESPN Boston that gave me pause. The subject: would Michael Sam (who just came out as the first openly gay football player entering the NFL draft) be a good fit for the New England Patriots? Reading it unfolded as I figured: yes, if he can help the team win. You know what I remember thinking as soon as I finished: “must be a slow news day if this is what they’re talking about.” But it wasn’t just an ESPN Boston article, it was all over the news. That night I heard it on the NewsHour (public broadcasting I consider to be more reputable than CNN or… you know, Fox). It astonished me that it was all television journalists would talk about. Thankfully most of the reaction was positive and supporting but I couldn’t help thinking: isn’t there something (a lot of things) more newsworthy?

This is a chart showing radiation leaking into the Pacific Ocean from Japan. Not to be an alarmist but doesn't this impact exponentially more people than Michael Sam's orientation?
This is a chart showing radiation leaking into the Pacific Ocean from Japan. Not to be an alarmist but doesn’t this impact exponentially more people than Michael Sam’s orientation?

Less than a week later, Ellen Page also came as gay. She revealed her truth in a very passionate and sincere speech. It was genuinely moving but again: I couldn’t believe how many people were talking about it. Her announcement did not generate the sensation that Michael Sam’s did (he is an historic first, after all) but still. People cared, like really cared (both supportive and inhuman). My thought was this: who cares who these people sleep with?

These people apparently.
These people apparently.

A lot of people do. That’s the sad fact. Whether abroad or at home, the issue of gay rights is still an intense battle. Should it be: f*ck no, there are actual problems out there BUT that doesn’t make it any less legitimate. Take the Olympics for example: we all know about Russia’s stance.

Just saying: for a country that hates gays, they put on one colorful opening ceremony.
Just saying: for a country that hates gays, they put on one colorful opening ceremony.

Personally I feel that the United States, Canada, and every other country claiming to be “first-world” should have abstained from attending. By sending our athletes, that was an endorsement, not just of the Olympics (which are very homoerotic when you consider the history: so add that irony) but of Russia (most importantly, their politics). But anyway, I’ll try to stick to my point and avoid ranting.

There is a real perverse fascination with people’s sex lives on this planet. Whether it’s in support or not: why do people care? Sex is an intensely personal act so unless the whole planet is having one global orgy, it’s not going to affect everyone. Yet this has been an issue throughout all of human history. First it was skin color and gender, now it’s sexual orientation. Humanity loves to look for stupid reasons to hate each other.

think-about-stupid-people

I don’t mean this article to belittle LGBT rights or pride in any way. Those organizations are needed and are a benefit for so many millions. I cannot praise enough the work that they do. However, I do look forward to the day where gay/bisexual/transgender pride is treated the same way as straight pride: no one cares.

We're getting there, just slowly.
We’re getting there, just slowly.

There should never be pride or shame in being what you are. Black, white, gay, straight, brown-haired, blue-eyed, depressed, athletic: people are born with all sorts of traits. Some of them are currently societal advantages and some of them are legitimate gifts and handicaps (a person born with a strong heart as opposed to a person born with an anxiety disorder). The point is, regardless of type: those don’t matter. That’s what makes humanity great. We’re born being what we are; we decide who we are. Sometimes that decision isn’t great. I’m not going to say everyone is awesome because there have been (and still are) plenty of people who choose to hurt rather than to love, to be angry instead of forgiving, to be prejudiced instead of understanding. Those are defects worth getting emotional about, because those are the ultimately the responsibility of the individual.

To quote the LEGO Movie (which is so awesome btw): "it may sound like a cat poster but it's true".
To quote the LEGO Movie (which is so awesome btw): “I know it sounds like a cat poster but it’s true”.

I’m far from preaching all out love. Again, people should be held responsible for the poor decisions they make and unconditional love in the face of repeated abuse is certainly an unhealthy thing. As I said before, I’m aware that the world is not ready for LGBT pride to be irrelevant, I just hope one day that it can be (that sounds odd to say). Both Michael Sam and Ellen Page are role models and incredibly brave for what they CHOSE to do. Fifty years from now though, I would love it if the reaction I opened the article with was the norm: “someone’s talking about their sexuality? Must be a slow news day”.

To me there are few sadder pictures than children being taught to hate.
To me there are few sadder pictures than children being taught to hate.