Coming from a neighboring Central European country, I need to add a few points in @Schwizer’s defense.
The German equivalent of the term “redskin” (“Rothaut”) is much less offensive than the English one. It’s got a certain “noble savage” vibe and thus is not entirely harmless, but it was never used as a malicious slur. Winnetou is a famous storybook hero who would proudly identify as a “Rothaut”.
European culture is more consensus oriented; we tend to move quite quickly from “There should be no rule against this just because a few people think it’s bad” to “We don’t need a rule against this because no one in their right mind would do it anyway”.
Having a central authority decide what kind of language is appropriate for individual schools to use is currently an American thing. It feels very strange to us. We’d rather “fix” things that violate the consensus defined in (2) on a case-by-case basis.
Your hostility and approach to open discourse doesn’t fill me with particular confidence, but here is hoping.
Regarding your eloquent comment on this particular thread.
Just to clarify: I was merely remarking that shouting at someone, just because they suggest that banning names might reek of tokenism, is maybe not the most sophisticated way to demonstrate ones eagerness for open discussion.
Am genuinely puzzled by the unpleasant and hostile tone of this thread.
As to your analogy: antisemitism is alive and well in Europe, not excluding Germany. Such gems of European high culture as ballet / theatre / literature are riddled with antisemitic references: e.g. Nutcracker or Merchant of Venice or The Canterbury Tales. There is also a painful erasure of jewish presence from history and the physical landscape of many regions of Europe, non the less, especially as a person of jewish descent, I prefer for the Merchant of Venice to be shown in theatres in all its antisemitic glory. Inciting people to fervent discussions, reflecting on their own prejudices–as has happened this summer at the Globe Theatre in London. Because banning things is only one option.
The real question is what is the most effective way for High School kids i.e. the next generations to learn about the complexities of race relations. I am so sorry that some of us dare to discuss such things in the open… really really inconsiderate.
I’m always having a hard time judging the “relative badness” of various terms in a foreign culture. How “bad” is “redskins”?
There might be some things that I’d consider inappropriate, but not totally inappropriate, i.e. where I’m not convinced that my viewpoint is the only possible one. Then I’d consider it enough to start a discussion at a particular school, with the teachers involved, about whether we should really use that name. Banning the name would be an overreaction.
And there are other things that are completely out of the question. In that case, I wouldn’t bother banning the name. I would use the choice of name as evidence for firing the responsible teacher and then change the name, without ever explicitly banning it. Banning the name would just be a way to tell racist teachers how to keep their job.
So does “redskins” fall exactly between those two “levels of badness”?
“It’s a dictionary-defined offensive term,” Ray Halbritter, a prominent leader of the Oneida Indian Nation, told Agence France-Presse. “Washington’s team name is a painful epitaph that was used against my people, Indian people, when we were held at gunpoint and thrown off our lands.”
In my case, because I live too far away from them, so I have no practical means of getting reliable face-to-face information. Thanks for the link, but I didn’t come out much smarter. I’m happy to take everybody’s word that the term is offensive, but the degree of offensiveness is hard to quantify. I lack the appropriate reference points.
Celebrating naive clichés can already be offensive on its own (If Austrians were a disadvantaged minority rather than the citizens of a rich country, “The Sound of Music” would be offensive). But I get the impression that “redskins” is worse, and I still have no idea how much worse.
Apparently, it’s bad enough to introduce an official “list of banned team names”, but not bad enough to fire school officials who won’t change the name unless forced.
Or is it actually that bad, and it’s just politics that those racist teachers/school officials/coaches (whoever gets to decide team names in the US) aren’t fired?
But actually, it doesn’t matter. Once “controversy!” has been called on any particular word, people will rapidly sort themselves into two camps. Even if the term was “only slightly disrespectful” to start with, the kind of people who will still use the R-word to name new teams in 2020 should not be allowed to work as teachers.
Ok guys, I am thrilled to have created such a discussion. Really, thrilled and humbled. I have not read through it all, I will. I am not easily offendable at all, so don’t worry. I like just about all people, mainly the intelligent ones
I am Swiss, my nick “Schwizer” just means Swiss in our german dialect. And indeed, “Rothaut” is not offensive at all. However, what I meant was that if one wants to combat racism (and I am not a racist at all) one has to address the real issues. Words and denominations are mere secondary ones. The underlying issue here is racism. It should be examined and rooted out in all its expressions. Intelligent people of all skin colors, people who clearly are not racists should even be allowed, in my humble opinion, to call black people (which is not a racist term, I hope) as “negroes”. I don’t, I do not want to offend anyone. My kids have learned not to use this term.
I am a tech guy with a huge linguistics interest. I am also interested in issues like history or geography. Actually it’s easier to enumerate the subjects I am not interested it than the other way round.
I follow Cory Doctorow on twitter and often see links to here, that’s why I came here. And being able to use english quite well, I thought I would contribute something. That’s all.
I apologize for being snarky (but I can’t say it will be the last time )
I live on the west coast. Redskin will either get you a huge eye roll from the native American community here or outright hostility. If the Washing Redskins is linguistically okay, then (and Millie, don’t hate me for this analogy) the Washington Bitches and Hoes are as well.
But neither of them are.
Also, native Americans and first Nations appreciate ‘noble savage’ about as much as a person from china being constantly told, “oh, you must be so good at math!!”. Yes, we know it is trying to be positive, but it is very reductionist.
Part of which involves how our government has abused our native peoples. And not using actively racist language will not eradicate racism (something literally nobody has stated or suggested), just state endorsement and propagation of racist ideas.
State adoption of a full set of peoples as a caricatured sports mascot named after a slur is simply not something to champion. It doesn’t “solve racism” and isn’t meant to. It’s one thing among many that need to be done.
Noble savage was never, ever a positive. It’s still giving a perceived animal vague human qualities. They remain lesser beings aping “civilized” society.
Yes, of course, but in @japhroaig’s defense, he did say “trying” to be positive. Which, yes, is ultimately not at all positive (ETA: a point with which japhroaig obviously agrees).
Really don’t worry, but your apologies are welcome of course. I was not aware that the word redskin is so offensive, I never use it, but when I read it the only picture that popped up in my head was the one of a random person having a somewhat redder skin. Being non-reductionist is a good goal, and it’s not always an easy one. Stereotypes are deeply rooted, they are not always offensive. I am also always ready to learn, and today I did, thanks.
I can give a small example from here. Switzerland is much less an immigration country than the US is. So when hundreds of thousands of Italians came here in the sixties they were viewed as strangers (although Italy is two hundred miles away…). The were accepted as workers in the economy but not easily in everyday life (even in the Italian speaking part of Switzerland this was the case, and this is very strange). This has changed, thank god. Italians are not even really viewed as foreigners anymore (although they are, technically). Other foreigner groups have lived through the same experience, for instance serbs, kosovo albans, croatians (although less somehow), but also tamils from Sri Lanka. Immigration is a big issue nowadays, with so many Africans coming here (especially from Eritrea but also Tunisia or Lybia) and people from the middle east (which is called “near east” here, isn’t that funny?), Syrians mainly.
When the Italians came here they were also nicknamed as “Tsheenggeh” (which comes from the Italian word for 5 which is used in some game they often played apparently). This term was (and is) derogative, but not racist (which is logical as no sane person could call an Italian to be from a different race of course).
“The law affects four public high schools: Gustine High School in Merced County, Calaveras High School in Calaveras County, Chowchilla Union High School in Madera County and Tulare Union High School in Tulare County.”
)
