issue 29 // volume 40 The report card: Racist team names Elliot Chan 4. Opinions Editor orth American sporting heritage has always found inspiration in the indigenous people. It makes sense. After all, they are proud people who essentially lost everything during colonialism—so why not give them some consolation by rooting for them in athletic endeavours? What perhaps began as an attempt to pay homage to noble aboriginals now looks a lot like racism, and who can blame them for being angry? While some names are vague (e.g. Chief, Braves, Warriors), others are blunt and offensive (e.g. Indians, Eskimos). So what should be considered racism in the realm of team names? Pass: Seattle Seahawks Far from creative brilliance, the Seattle Seahawks have done an excellent job with naming their team, by paying tribute to both the native culture and the geographical splendour of the West Coast. It does not label or condemn a class of people; instead, it’s unique. Those who have seen the Seahawks logo will know that it’s native art with a bit of modern flair. To address my point, I shall use an example: the Chicago Blackhawks—the hockey team, which many believe has the most beautiful jersey in the sport—is based off of an American army division during World War I. The logo itself is a native man’s head, inspired by the Sauk and Fox aboriginal leader for whom the army division was named. I don’t understand why it has such acclaim and prestige. It’s a downright offensive logo that mocks a group of people who had their identity stolen from them. The Seahawks, on the other hand, stems from fiction, even though it’s rooted in tradition—and that is how a quality team name should find its characteristics. It should take on a form of its own. It should be organic, not superimposed. [Team names] should take on a form of its own. It should be organic, not superimposed. Fail: Washington Redskins Few sport teams are as blatantly racist as the Washington Redskins. Sure, if there were teams that were called the Yellowskins, the Blackskins, the Brownskins, the Whiteskins, the Squintyeyes, the Biglips, the Longnose, etc. then there wouldn't bea problem. We have already marked the line, and to continue singling out natives—even though the whole concept of “redskin’” is a racist classification—is a great disservice to our liberating society and the whole concept of team unity that is nurtured by sports. Aska native person, and they would likely be hesitant about saying that their skin is actually red. Yet the Redskins’ logo is so clearly one of an aboriginal man, not unlike the Blackhawks’ Ask a native person, and they would be hesitant to say that these representations are actually natives. Nevertheless, you look at the logo for the Cleveland Indians and you will see a happy cartoon native face. If you don't feel shame for cheering for those teams, it’s probably because you area sports fanatic and you are blinded by your pride, but in reality, you are not native and you have been brainwashed to oppress a whole race of people. Some might say that it is an honour to have a sports team named after them, but that’s not their name. No other race of people is presented in such a demeaning fashion. To boo the Redskins may be to boo their poor defensive play, but subliminally it’s also booing a group of people not even involved in the game. Native Americans have been asking the Redskins franchise to change their names for decades now, and it seems their argument is valid. They are offended. They have asked nicely. They have asked not so nicely. Yet nothing has changed yet. If it wasn’t an insult before, it sure is now. opinions // 15 Caution: phony feminism, shameful » Banning Father's Day may be an attempt to disrupt the works of true feminists lloradanon Efimoff Contributor arlier in June, a storm of feminists—in reality, 4chan trolls—took to Twitter to campaign against Father’s Day. Some people think it’s pretty obvious that this was a joke, a hoax, etc.—but unfortunately, others took it seriously. Like Fox News, of course, which had a televised segment on the horror of the #EndFathersDay campaign. Even though it was a hoax, and was started by people who were obviously not feminists—as has been admitted by 4chan users—some people caught on and mistook the campaign for a real one. However, I agree with them that it was a real campaign, albeit one of a completely different nature. It was a campaign to further damn the face of feminism in the minds of young men and women today, and apparently Fox News journalists. It’s sad but true: no one wants to be a feminist anymore. : That shit was over in the ‘80s. : Many of the people I see at : school believe in all of the tenets : of feminism, but don’t consider : themselves to bea feminist. They : : don’t want to be labelled a man- : hater. Feminism is about : equality—plain and simple. : It means hold the door open : for me and I'll hold it open : for you. It means we can split : the bill, we’re both entitled to : have an orgasm, and people of : all genders and sexes deserve : to have the same wages and : benefits for doing the same : jobs. I don't hate men. I havea : father, a stepfather, brothers, : uncles, male cousins, and male : friends whom I love very dearly. : [wouldn't hate anyone based : on their gender or sex, and : most feminists I know feel the : same. Feminism is supposed : to be about breaking out of : discrimination, not turning : discrimination around. Spite : isn’t going to help anything. That’s why this sort of shit pisses me off. People actually : believe this! People assume that : feminists, as a whole, don’t wear : bras, don’t shave their armpits, : hate men, are lesbians; now, : icing on the cake, people assume that feminists want to ban : Father’s Day. For the majority of : us, this is simply not true. And : for those who believe in that : philosophy, that’s fine, everyone : is entitled to an opinion. In : the same way that all Muslim’s : are painted as terrorists, this is : an unfair portrayal. Yes, some : feminists are really radical—but : that doesn’t mean we all are. What do I think if we ban : Father’s Day and Mother’s Day? : How about a Parent’s Day? Ora : Guardian's Day? Ora Caretaker’s : Day? Frankly, no matter how : you word it, it’s going to insult : somebody. You will never please : everyone. And maybe some feminists actually believe that Father’s : Day should be banned. But : the fact that this was started : by 4channers trying to further : derail feminism from its path to : gender equality is pathetic. Why : is feminism demonized when it : really just means equality? Dialogue of irrationality » Spiritual conversations should not be taboo : seems to come froma defensive : place, as if I doubt their values : by questioning their faith. : Which also might be true. Elliot Chan 4. Opinions Editor =<. Mopinions : eit | @theotherpress.ca ’m getting older in a secular society—or at least one that acts that way. I’m not sure if I’m simply surrounded by intellectuals who deem themselves unreligious, or if those who do have faith don’t wish to speak critically with me about it. I fear that the polarizing attitudes towards religion are causing a lot of built-up tension between us, and that the don't-ask-don't-tell approach to our spirituality is causing more prejudice than we would care to admit. While we have become more open-minded with scientific discovery, cultural differences, and sexuality, we are still placing unfair judgement on those who have religious faith. “T’ve felt it,” is a common reply I receive when I question someone's religious belief out of curiosity, “you haven't.” I feel a bit of shame when I get such a response, as if I’ve done something wrong, or I’m simply undeserving of the specifics. Perhaps both are true. Yet more often than not, the response If I continue to probe for : more details, the conversation : becomes more heated and : contentious. It becomes an : argument. Why is that? Why : can't we have an honest debate : about religion today? Why do we : : still have our feelings hurt? When I ask questions : about religion or about one’s : spirituality, it’s not my goal to : : disprove them. I understand that : : it’s not a science experiment. It’s : pretty clear now that nobody can : : disprove God. What I want to find out is : why my dear religious friends : and families, who I share so : many similarities and interest : with, cannot see eye-to-eye in : this one particular area of life. I : want to know why the concept : of heaven can bring comfort to : one group of people, while the : concept of reincarnation can : bring comfort to another. I want : to know why some religions : demand celibacy, while others : nurture freewill. Yet when I ask : these questions, I’m often met : with contempt. On some occasions, I am : welcomed into churches and : temples to partake in rituals I : know nothing about. I ask those : around me what the process : is all about, and the answer is : usually “just because...” It’s a : tradition. And that seems like : avalid reason for religions to : continue existing. It binds those : with faith to a comfortable : constant. The real world might be changing, but there is at least : this one—albeit irrational— : thing that'll keep them : grounded. It’s comforting. It makes me smile when I see someone truly believe : insomething. I surely don't have the same discipline. I’m : easily swayed with logic and : evidence, with lust and jealousy. : That doesn’t mean I’ma bad : person. That just mean I’m not : religious... or even spiritual. Here is an example: I want : to ask those who have withheld : their virginity until marriage : how they do it. How do they : defy temptation? How do they : even exist in this live-for-the- : moment society? I want to : ask these questions so that I : can understand myself. I want : to understand my own belief : system. I want to be convinced. : Yet, all am at the moment is : intrusive.