<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Thursday, September 23, 2004


Arnold Takes It To PCism

You've gotta love this:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California schools can continue calling their teams the "Redskins" after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of the term as racially derogatory.
Schwarzenegger said he vetoed the bill because it would have usurped the authority of local school boards.

"Decisions regarding athletic teams names, nicknames or mascots should be retained at the local level," the Republican governor wrote in his veto message.
I think he's exactly right. Now here's the disgusting part of this story:

The author of the bill, West Hollywood Democrat Jackie Goldberg said that reasoning was flawed and vowed to press for a ban.

"You don't argue local control on civil rights," Goldberg said. "If you did, we'd still have slavery in this country."
Oh, I see. So calling an athletic team "Redskins" is equivalent to buying and selling human beings. I'm glad we've gotten that straightened out.

The only thing I can figure is that people like Jackie Goldberg never went to high school or college and never watched a single sport in their entire lives. Answer this question: What is the purpose of a team mascot? The answer is simple: To drive fear into the hearts of your opponents. Now I'll admit that this has gone by the wayside in recent history...but I think we should also recognize the connection between the symbols that warriors of old (and even today) chose and what we now call team mascots. The old King of England wasn't called Richard the Cut-Baby-Seal Hearted, now was he? Nor was it Uther Penpuppy.

So too where/are school mascots chosen. My high school had the Bear as a mascot. Right next-door were the Indians. Now do you think that 'Indians' was chosen to denigrate Native Americans? Or, rather, might that name have been chosen because of the Indians' reputation for ferocity in battle?

I think the answer is obvious...and if a reputation for ferocity in battle offends the descendents of those ferocious warriors I have three suggestions, 1) Grow a spine 2) Take pride in your heritage and 3) Consider the constant and unrelenting shame you'd feel if, like me, your heritage where that of a short, drunk and querulous guy dressed in green.

And since I am fair in the extreme, I'll even provide a link to someone with the opposite opinion here. While there may very well be valid points contained on this fine page, consider this one statement as evidence of this author's ideology:

The "fighting" stereotype

For starters, the problem with any warlike name—the Warriors, the Braves, the Fighting Sioux, et al.—should be obvious. It's a stinkin' stereotype. It compares Indians to soliders [sic], killers, thugs, barbarians, and animals.
So, soldiers are on the same moral plane as killers, thugs, barbarians and animals. Hard to take him seriously after that bunch of BS.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?