I’ve enjoyed reading this discussion as much as almost anything in my time as a Banter reader (which is a long time). And I promise to cut down on my usage of ‘Yankee’ as a pejorative. I use it far more as a utterance of respect since it connotes the greatest sports franchise the world has ever known. Bring on the Rangers!!!!!!!!

In response to what you have said, I would prefer if the word Nigger was never used again. I am reminded of Richard Pryor when he came back from a trip to Africa and told his audiences that he went there and saw people of all different types, sizes, and colors but didn’t see one Nigger. He never used the word in public again (to the best of my knowledge), though he acknowledged it was hard not to, due to habit and cultural norms. He began to see it as an ugly word and he felt his attempts to buffer himself from the pain it caused by “owning it” were misguided. I tend to agree with Mr. Pryor here. With respect to a statute of limitations on racial slurs, I don’t think they are really ever okay. Why reprise something ugly from the past? In this case, however, that doesn’t really apply since there are still a ton of First Nation men and women around who are offended by these images. The fact that this is even a question shows how little we understand the ongoing struggle against this sort of prejudice.

Finally, and this is an especially important point, just because the President is a black man does not mean we live in a society that is color blind, nor equal with respect to race and power. It is not an individual case by case basis that we should decide what is okay and what is not. We should be more concerned with the symbolism and history the words and images we are using are steeped in. It doesn’t matter that Mos Def is talented, intelligent, rich, famous, he still gets called Nigger and is discriminated against just the same (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/mosdef/mrnigga.html). Racism is inherently about a structural difference in power.
Speaking of that difference in power, how many black senators do we have?

How many black governors? How many black CEOs of fortune 500 companies? The power structure in our society is certainly nowhere near equal. And, no, it wouldn’t be okay to hurl derogatory slurs at them even if they were equal in societal power. The urge to defend a person’s “right” to use offensive and demeaning and othering language is in and of itself an urge to defend the power structures as they now exist.

Cherry picking a few African Americans who are rich distracts from the institutionalized racism of our society.

No one of “color” is two generations away from racism. It’s all around us, today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOnkv76rNL4

This is Dustin Hoffman’s well-meaning but misguided performance as Lenny Bruce from the accomplished-looking movie, “Lenny.” Hoffman managed to take all the late night sexuality out of Bruce and this scene has no bite, just unfunny and didactic. But the filmmaking is really strong.

[71] Have black people been assimilated into the power structure of our society? See Obama, Barack. I think Jay-Z and Oprah are on the list of wealthiest people in America. Does that mean that it’s ok to call them Niggers?

I don’t mean to offend anyone by this post – I’m just trying to provoke further discussion. This is not an easy topic and I think for every point someone makes, there’s an exception to the rule.

[69] But didn’t Bobby’s wife recant the story and drop the charges? I read where she said she was upset at him and made up the story to get back at him. I’m not saying that it didn’t happen or that it did happen, but no one (other than Bobby and Pam) knows for sure. One thing we do know is that he has never been found guilty of abusing his wife and that she is still with him to this day (with no other incidents being reported since).
What if she did actually make the story up? Should it follow Bobby the rest of his career? If the abuse did take place and she just changed her story to “protect” her husband (this certainly does happen is sad when it does) the police should have investigated the matter further (this was back in the aftermath of the OJ Simpson fiasco and domestic violence was starting to be taken more serioulsy by law enforcement).
Shouldn’t we give him the benefit of the doubt since he was never found guilty?

Thanks again,
udog
(Dodgers in 2012!)

The term “racist” is a difficult one to deal with, as it is both limiting and imprecise. We can argue all day whether something is “racist” or not without ever coming to a common ground. So let’s use the term “problematic” for now, and get into the specifics of why these depictions are problematic:

1) ESSENTIALIZING- the first problem with these depictions is that they essentialize American Indians as a group. That is, they imply that there is an “essence” of American Indian-ism that is shared by all Indians and can be depicted with as little information as a caricature, logo or swing of the hands. This simplification is a denial of individuality to American Indians. These things refuse to recognize American Indians as a diverse group of people, individuals as different from each other within the group as from others without it. By extension, if Indians are refused individuality, they are cast as less than human. Essentialization is dehumanizing.

2) OTHERING- these depictions serve to separate American Indians from the rest of, let’s say, “America” by establishing false dichotomies between “the other” and “the same.” For instance, American Indians don’t have “red” skin anymore than European Americans have “white” skin. As humans, we all basically have slight variations of brownish/pinkish/olivish skin color, and, again, there is often as much difference within a group as between groups. But by labeling one group “white” and the other “red,” a difference between groups is artificially introduced. This difference is constructed arbitrarily- why does skin color matter, anyway? We could just as easily delineate people by, say, eyelash length and come up an “other and a “same” group.

This isn’t problematic in itself, but the fact is the labels in question were (and are) imposed by a power structure that exploited (and exploits) the “othered” group. Othering is a process of establishing a power structure and taking a dominant position over the othered group (Look at the history of the “Hutu” and “Tutsi” labels for an example). In this way, even “positive” essentializations of an othered group (are American Indians Brave-r than European Americans?) are impositions of power upon that group.

And really, that’s what this whole thing boils down to. These depictions are problematic because of the exploitative structures of power they were created by and represent. However, because they also serve to reinforce the ideology of the power structures that cause them, they can’t be considered benign.

(BTW, this is white the “Fighting Irish” label, or the stereotyped Italian on the pizza box others were posting about should be considered differently than depictions of American Indians. By and large, “ethnic whites” have been assimilated into the power structure of our society. Without the context of social exploitation, these signs are benign.)

[39] To Matt’s point … You’re an intelligent commentator here and we’ve had great exchanges, but this is exactly the kind of attitude that perpetuates the behavior Emma has written about. There always has been, and always will be, a cultural and sociological element to sports. Is it entertainment? Absolutely. But for a lot of people, it’s not a break from reality, it is reality. …. On a different note, I’m more surprised that the Braves were able to fill the stands. They were drawing at TB Rays level through September, in the the heat of a playoff race. Good fans those Atlanta folks.

[0] Emma, I’ve forwarded this piece to a former professor who has studied this topic for more than a decade, and worked with the group at the University of Illini to try to remove the imagery of Chief Illiniwek due to its messaging. Great stuff.

We are all prejudiced and racist and sexist in some way, shape, or form.

We have all absorbed these lessons just by living our lives in a dominant culture and stereotyping happens automatically before we even have a chance to perceive it (check out John Bargh’s work “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being”). The job of people who hope to combat racism (and I truly believe the people engaging in this debate in the comment section hope to combat racism, even those arguing on the side of the chop being harmless) is not to deny the racist aspects of our selves, but rather to confront them and to understand how they have an impact on our behavior and the many ways they come out in seemingly innocuous ways.

Making people feel as if they are an inferior other happens all the time and one of the most hurtful defenses of this “othering” is the accusation that a person who feels offense is uptight and simply can’t take a joke. Modern racists inevitably end up mocking the “PC police” for taking the fun out of everything and sanitizing the world. I have never encountered a better argument in favor of maintaining the status quo than “lighten up.”

Besides, if you can’t be clever or funny or interesting without mocking someone else or putting someone down, you probably aren’t as funny/clever/interesting as you think you are.

As for the tomahawk chop, et. al, I pretty much agree with everything monkeypants had to say, so don’t have much to add.