What's in a Name?

President Obama has declared himself "concerned" over the Washington NFL franchise's continued use of the name "Redskins"--thus presumably ensuring that the name will never be changed.

I don't know how I feel about the whole controversy surrounding the politically incorrect nickname.  Actually, that's not true.  I know exactly how I feel: I don't care.  I have far bigger things to worry about than whether or not the name "Redskins" offends Native Americans.  The Giants are 0-5 for God's sake!  Still and all, these are exactly the kinds of issues--fundamentally meaningless, yet rife with the potential for manufactured outrage--that scream out for saturation blogging.  So here goes.

I suppose I can understand the source of the offense, assuming that calling a Native American a "redskin" would be the equivalent of calling an African-American the 'N'-word.  (Amazing that I can't even bring myself to type that word, even in a discussion about racial epithets.)  And of course, Native Americans and others would point out--rightly--that no sports team would ever dare to call themselves (please excuse the expression) the "Little Rock Niggers" or the like.  But the reason that no team would adopt that name has as much to do with the history of the word as it does with any rational calculation of political correctness--or of human decency.  What does the N-word connote, after all, other than a history of oppression?

By contrast, when sports teams adopt nicknames, they often adopt names that connote strength or power (e.g., Lions, Tigers, Bears, oh my!).  "Redskins" is just another example of this, as are other team names that reference Native American attributes (not to say clichés): the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, the Chicago Blackhawks.  These teams chose those names because the teams felt they conveyed an image of strength, nobility, fearlessness.  Is this an insult?

Critics would point out that the names also convey the sense of Native-American-as-savage--noble or otherwise.  Or, indeed, that my explanation itself points to a fundamental problem: Teams name themselves after animals, and so by adopting Native American names, the teams implicitly equate Native Americans with animals.  I don't think this is the case, though: Unless such naming rituals also "animalize" 49'ers or Spartans or Trojans.  Hm.  Maybe it's only acceptable to name a team after a group of people if those people no longer exist?  Note to self: I can name my expansion minor-league field-hockey team the Berkeley Visigoths!

The Washington Redskins organization can obviously do whatever it wants with its name.  I take the team at its word when its officials assure us that they mean no offense.  And I respect the argument that the team has been the "Redskins" since 1932; there's history there!  But of course, there's history on the side of Native American groups, too, and respecting that history might pay off in more ways than one.

Heck, the Tampa Bay baseball team was the laughingstock of the Major Leagues until, after the 2007 season, they changed their name from "Devil Rays" to the less-infernal sounding "Rays."  A cosmetic change?  Perhaps.  But the team made it all the way to the World Series in 2008.  Maybe a little good karma goes a long way.

Mix It Up

Eleven years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center inaugurated "Mix It Up Day," a nationwide event where students are encouraged to eat lunch with students with whom they would not normally eat.  I know: Pretty gay, right?!?

Actually, no.  Not at all.  Not in any sense of the word.  But that hasn't stopped the American Family Association from condemning "Mix It Up Day" as a nefarious attempt to recruit unsuspecting schoolchildren into the hedonistic ranks of the creeping homosexual subculture.  The conservative activist group--and thanks, right-wing troglodytes, for turning "family" into code for ignorant bigotry--has called on parents to keep kids out of school on October 30--lest their children come home all gayed up!

The event, of course, has nothing to do with homosexuality, except perhaps in an incidental way.  The "Mix It Up" program "is not about sexual orientation but rather about breaking up social cliques, which are especially evident in a school cafeteria."  "Mix It Up" is part of the SPLC's "Teaching Tolerance" project, which seeks to combat bigotry and, obviously, intolerance wherever it may crop up.  Sure, on "Mix It Up Day someone will presumably end up dining with a gay student; someone else will dine with a bunch of science geeks; and someone else will finally get the chance to talk to Charlene, the cheerleader he has pined for since freshman year but who never knew he existed so she could never see that they were meant for each other and he could love her in a way that Chad the wide receiver never could and--

Sorry, I got distracted.

The American Family Association seems to labor under the kind of misconception that has caused paleoconservatives to react with atavistic dread to the concept of same-sex marriage: The fact that people CAN marry people of the same sex does not make it MANDATORY to do so.  The fact that people will be "forced" to eat lunch with a relative stranger on October 30 does not mandate that the new lunch buddy be gay.  I hasten to point out that the program calls for students to dine WITH--not ON--each other.

Furthermore, conservatives are terrified at the thought that dining with a gay student could turn a straight kid gay.  But by that reasoning, isn't it equally plausible that dining with a straight kid could bring the poor benighted deviant child back into the good graces of God and community?  Or is the lure of homosexuality just so great that no one can hope to resist?  For a group that hates gay people, the AFA sure does give them a lot of credit.
Look, AFA, talking to or eating with--or even, dare I say, befriending--a gay person will not make a straight person gay.  In much the same way, if I were to dine with any representative of your group, I wouldn't turn into a moron.  Luckily, the world doesn't work that way.

Tuesday Paper Recap

Congratulations to the Chilean miners, rescued after two months trapped 2,000 feet underground:

The second miner to reach the surface, Mario Sepúlveda, left the rescue capsule in a kind of victory dance, hugging family members and officials. He embraced President Piñera three times and presented people with gifts: rocks from the mine.

Rocks? OK, it's not like they had a duty-free shop down there, but. . . rocks? We suppose it's better than a "My Daddy spent two months in a collapsed mine and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" shirt.

**********************************
A new entrant in the least-interesting-job ever competition:

The reason these grains [of ancient wheat] make good pasta, said Andrea Brondolini, an ancient-wheat specialist at the Italian Agricultural Research Council in Sant’Angelo Lodigiano, can be traced to the early history of agriculture. As ancient types of wheat were hybridized into modern varieties, they were bred for a higher yield.

"Ancient wheat specialist"? That must have been an interesting dinner-table conversation:

"Ay, Papa, I'v-ah decided what I want to do with my life!"

"Whaddaya mean, 'what you're gonna do wit' your life'? You follow inna da family footsteps! You tak-ah over da harmonica shop!"

"Nah! I'ma not-ah gonna take-ah over da harmonica shop! I'ma gonna be an ancient-ah wheat especialist at the university!"

"Ancient-ah wheat?!?"

"Yeah, ancient-ah wheat!"

"Fuggedaboutit! Whatta you gonna learn about ancient-ah wheat?"

"Dere's lots ta learn about ancient-ah wheat! Farro! Spelt! Einkorn!"

"Whadda ya talkin' about 'einhorn'? Who's-a gonna give-ah you money to tell 'em about einhorn?"

"Ah, fuggedaboutit!"

"YOU fuggedaboutit!"

"NO! YOU FUGGEDABOUTIT!"

And so on into the night.

*******************************************

Hmmm. . . . WOS says we have a message from the Italian-American Anti-Defamation League. . . . We'll get back to them.

*******************************************
Finally, this tidbit from the world of infant and child development:

"Babble is increasingly being understood as an essential precursor to speech, and as a key predictor of both cognitive and emotional development."

Looks like there's hope for Sarah Palin after all!

GOOD NIGHT, EVERYBODY! WE'RE HERE ALL WEEK! DON'T FORGET TO TIP YOUR WAITRESS!

Prejudice (A Brief Post)

Back when the Solipsist was a wee blogger, still in kneepants and propeller beanies, he used to watch Saturday morning cartoons. At the time, a public service announcement played frequently, showing a young boy talking to his grandfather. The boy asked his grandfather what "prejudiced" meant. The grandfather explained and asked about the boy's curiosity. The boy explained that his "black friend" Tony had called him prejudiced, but he--the grandson--din't think he was. The grandfather then asked, "Well, why is Tony your 'black friend' instead of just your friend?"

WHOA!!!! Heavy mindfuck for the Saturday morning cartoon crowd.

We were reminded of this the other day when one of our minions came and told us of an experience she had had whle tutoring. She was working with a student when another student came up to the table and said to the first student--the one who was being tutored--"Are you really gonna let this white bitch tutor you?"

Talk about prejudiced! We only wish our tutor had had the presence of mind to fire back, "Ahem! Why am I a WHITE bitch, instead of just. . . ."