General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Rude Pundit: Regarding Racism and Redskins
That's a picture of one of the biggest stars in American history, Bing Crosby, in the 1942 film Holiday Inn. In case you think otherwise, Crosby was a white man wearing blackface in this scene, a celebration of Lincoln's birthday where Crosby and others, some in blackface, some black (and still in blackface), sing the praises of "Abraham." Holiday Inn was a hit, and it was nominated for three Academy Awards, winning one for "White Christmas" (yes, it is ironic). It is a beloved classic, something that plays around Christmas and, often, the "Abraham" scene is cut out.
The funny thing about this is that in 1942, very, very few white people would have thought twice about Crosby acting like a black man. In fact, it was still seen as a mighty fine form of entertainment. It was acceptable. It was the way things were. Casual, quotidian racism was everywhere; it was a part of the American cultural landscape as much as it was part of the American sociopolitical landscape.
Advertising was filled with unsubtle racist caricatures. Tom and Jerry cartoons, into the 1950s, featured a Mammy who was constantly reacting to Tom's behavior. Aunt Jemima? Uncle Ben? Rastus, the Cream of Wheat chef? This shit was America, inescapable, insidious, and ubiquitous.
Times change, good people of the USA. Aunt Jemima got a makeover. Tom and Jerry was redubbed. We warn people when something awful from the past is going to be shown. And General Electric doesn't advertise its products like this:
You don't hear much from anyone about how much they miss having smiling, chicken-eating boy in their advertisements. Very few people are wistful for do-rag wearing Aunt Jemima (except in a kitschy way). Oh, sure, sure, when the change first happened, you heard idiots talk about "tradition" and "oversensitivity" and some such shit. But now who cares? Gone and good riddance.
So it must be with the Washington Redskins. We are long, long past the time when the name and logo should have been changed. To believe otherwise is to stand with the blackface performers and the Aunt Jemima originalists. "Redskin" is an insult, purely and simply. That this is even a debate is ludicrous, and, frankly, it speaks to the fact that Native Americans lack even minimal power in the nation.
This is one of those "controversies" that the Rude Pundit simply doesn't understand. You're a business. Your name pisses people off. You fucking change it, especially when representatives of the group you're offending say things like, "We have to be careful about making another human being a mascot of anything...Were no ones mascot. You change it because, if you don't, your business will suffer. Or, fuck it, you can go down with the ship.
And after you've changed your name, Washington football team front office, which you know you're going to do and are just fucking around with people to sell more of your shitty merch before it's all history, maybe you could get around to getting rid of this Robert Griffin III mask:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/regarding-racism-and-redskins.html
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)redqueen
(115,096 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Think you can get him to do a similar post about misogyny?
IDemo
(16,926 posts)It's now a sushi joint, undergoing its second remodel.
dilby
(2,273 posts)Of course they only have a Tiger now days.
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)If the term redskin is so offensive why are there High schools on Indian Reservations that have the Redskin as their mascot? Shouldnt they be offended too? I would think a reservation would be a lot more receptive to changing their mascots.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Ingroup and outgroup.
It's their heritage and they have a right to use it and/or profit from it if they want, however they want. The rest of us do not.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Iggo
(47,487 posts)It's offensive. Period.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)It cant be that difficult for a high school with a native american principal to change their teams mascot.
The principal says he is not offended. Ill let him know that the internet has decided he is wrong.
Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #14)
Iggo This message was self-deleted by its author.
Iggo
(47,487 posts)dembotoz
(16,737 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)Hasn't been that long, to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambo%27s
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)How they've lasted 56 years with that name is a mystery, though their website claims the name was simply a combination of the names of the founding partners. They don't deny, however, a later "afterthought" tie in to what they refer to as a "children's story." Uh, huh, sure.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Rebrand already @#$%.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)tclambert
(11,080 posts)Although I really like them boiled, with butter and a little parsley.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)ALERT!!!!!
I kid, I kid, but I am sure somebody has.
JVS
(61,935 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts).... landscape as much a sit is part of the American sociopolitical landscape.
Advertising is filled with unsubtle sexist and homophobic caricatures.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)This man and all he writes should be banned from DU.
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But if Robert Griffin himself is OK with the mask (and I assume that he granted permission for it to be sold), what is the problem with it? It's not like it's any kind of caricature of him, racist or otherwise, it is simply his likeness.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Is the rude pundit asking someone to self censor bigotry?
How dare he?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"This is one of those "controversies" that the Rude Pundit simply doesn't understand. You're a business. Your name pisses people off. You fucking change it, especially when representatives of the group you're offending say things like, "We have to be careful about making another human being a mascot of anything...Were no ones mascot. You change it because, if you don't, your business will suffer. Or, fuck it, you can go down with the ship."
They make money from the name. They view it as an asset with history and a critical part of their branding. If they thought they could make money by changing the name, they would.
Ignoring everything else about whether they should change the name morally and ethically, the economics of the situation are simple. People who want them to change the name are very unlikely to ever actually consume the product that the name is representing (i.e they probably aren't redskins fans). Meanwhile, people who don't want them to change the name are some of the Redskin's most dedicated consumers.
That is why they don't want to change it. Now, economic pressure (like boycotts and loss of sponsorship) could eventually outweigh the current incentive for keeping the name. The redskins clearly do not think that that point has come yet though.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)with Redskins logos from coming into the country, and they can no longer seek a criminal prosecution for violation of their copyright. The only remedies remaining to them are civil. That is a result of last week's decision in which the federal government refused to certify their copyright. That will hurt the bottom line.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)The appeals process is not over and until it is (and they lose), they will be able to enforce their copyright.
Honestly they have no reason to change it now. If they are indeed forced to by the copyright, they can placate their fans by saying they had no choice.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)I'm not an expert on these sorts of legal matters. Frankly, I have no idea if they will win.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)at all. We've been told for several days now that bigoted slurs were essential to his punditry. This entry would suggest otherwise.
Uncle Joe
(58,111 posts)Thanks for the thread, meegbear.