CSotD: “I’m really that stupid” is a pretty unassailable defense
Skip to comments
Most of the cartoons in support of the Trademark Office's cancellation of "Redskins" as a trademark have been kind of low-level: Not bad, but nothing that jumps out as proclaiming any great truth. Not surprising, since the injustice of the term had been already well established.
But I like Steve Kelley's take, because it deals with the casual racism that lies behind the alleged "controversy." The day after the decision came down, I heard a promo for an NPR program about it that included something about "changing" social sensibilities.
The thing is, here's what has changed: We've started listening to people we used to brush off as unimportant. And keep an eye on "we," because "Redskins" is not the word whose implications have changed.
For example, it's not that we look at "Gone With The Wind" today and wince at a defense and glorification of a slave-based economy and privileged lifestyle that wasn't unjust back in 1939.
It was offensive and we knew it was offensive, if we were listening at all. Which is the critical point: Who are "we" and were "we" listening?
As marginalized as African-Americans were in those days, they were not entirely voiceless, and TCM's material on the film includes significant commentary on the fact, ranging from this piece of what seems hindsight …
Butterfly McQueen was not happy with the depiction of Prissy as a lazy, ignorant black woman but at least could console herself that her salary would pay for a semester of college.
… to this clear evidence of contemporaneous-but-largely-ignored controversy:
One area in which the book was not acclaimed was the black press, whose writers denounced it for racist language and a sugar-coated picture of life in the South. When Selznick started filming tests for the roles of Mammy and Prissy, word that the script had retained the novel's racist language got out, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) threatened a boycott. Selznick finally arranged a meeting with the nation's most influential black reporters at which he assured them that all offensive language would be removed from the script. He also cut any references to the Ku Klux Klan and a scene that seemed to justify lynching.
But, in the end, it comes down to "us" not giving a damn what "they" think.
Which comes down to the issue not of black or white or red or yellow, but of "us" and "them."
The fact that there even had to be a "black press" is evidence enough, as was the common practice in mainstream newspapers of the day, which published occasional pages of "Negro news," but only if sufficient advertisers stepped forward to sponsor them.
This isn't about signs on water fountains.
We're talking about an entire societal construct: "We the People" and, over there somewhere, "them" the Negroes. And the Mexicans. And the Indians. And the chinks and the hebes and the pollacks and the wops and the bohunks.
Check out this page from 100 years ago yesterday. It's not a major-market paper, but it's mainstream, and the part that makes me laugh is that, under that headline about potential problems with our neighbor to the south is a subhed noting "Mexican Soldiers Insulting."
Mira! El pote dice que la tetera es de color negro.
There are some truly fundamental societal issues in the "Redskins" debate, starting with the hypocritical nonsense of defining "political correctness" as a purely liberal concern, but then having our annual conservative pissing-of-the-pants over the term "Happy Holidays."
And at the core is the resurgence of the post-Civil Rights mindset in which tyranny of the majority is once more expected to overcome what, in a more just society, would be recognized as fairness and consideration.
As Kelley notes, our language is deeply infused with phrases like "Indian giver," and, though decent people shudder when someone speaks of being "jewed down," if instead you say you were "gypped," it passes nearly without notice.
Do we have to purge all references to race, religion and ethnicity from our language? Some of it is clearly okay, some of it is clearly offensive. So where is the line?
That's where the argument becomes silly to the point of being all but futile, because the line can readily be drawn at the point where the people involved have clearly said "Don't call us that."
Once they've said that, the "debate" comes down to this:
"Either you are a racist or you're not smart enough to get the point."
"I'm not a racist!"
How can you dispute someone whose defense is their own stupidity?
And, yes, by golly, the online community has now been once more treated to the absurd contention that, despite the Scandinavian legacy of Minnesota and the fact that "viking" is not in any way a slur, there is no difference between "the Washington Redskins" and "the Minnesota Vikings," and that, if we have to drop one, surely we must eliminate them both.
You cannot seriously advance this argument unless you are a moron.
It's not that marginalized people should always reflexively object to being used as mascots, even when, as in the case of the Florida Seminoles, they have a presence in the community, however small. But that's something to be negotiated and discussed.
It's an entirely different issue than being subjected to a slur. I promise you that Notre Dame would not have embraced "The Fighting Papists" and I don't think "The Minnesota Squareheads" would have passed muster, either.
In any case, this all spurred a significant number of much more interesting cartoons last October than anything that has issued from the trademark decision, because "it's about time" simply doesn't make for trenchant commentary.
I will admit that there is a free-market, free-speech issue in the Trademark Office's refusal to grant protection to terms like "Redskins" or "Niggers" or "Kikes" or "Faggots" or "Assholes," but if that is the biggest issue you have with our system of trademark and copyright laws, well, once again we're back to the defense of "No, no, I really am a complete fool!"
Speaking of athletics and ambivalence
Fans of the Washington team may have been experiencing some of the same mixed emotions I've mentioned a couple of times here in terms of the World Cup: Love the game, hate the management.
The difference being that I haven't heard anyone step to the defense of FIFA's arrogant greed, and quite the opposite, which you will find stunningly displayed in this collection of international cartoons.
And I'm betting that a large majority of those cartoonists, despite the harsh, horrific truth depicted in their work, are glued to the television.
It is a puzzlement.
Comments 3
Comments are closed.