Objectionable Mascots

Reading King Kaufman's column today got me thinking a little about racist/discriminatory mascots. As an Illinois alum (The "Fighting Illini"), I've thought about this quite a bit in the last 12 years or so, so here is a summary of my thoughts.

- The "Tradition" argument is crap. Teams will survive name changes. The Washington Wizards are no less popular than when they were the Washington Bullets. The Stanford Cardinal, formerly the Stanford Indians, are doing just fine. And new traditions can take root very fast (Exhibit 1: The Presidents Race at Washington Nationals Games).

- All Native American mascots should be eliminated. This doesn't necessarily mean the team names have to go, but the mascots have to go. This has largely been done (with my alma mater, one of the last holdouts, recently caving). Some logos still persist... like Chief Wahoo in Cleveland, and these have to go.

- Schools and pro sports teams should consider changing ALL Native American team names, and should stop using "endorsement" of tribes as an excuse. I don't care what rabbi endorses it, I'd have a hard time accepting a team called the "Washington Jews."

I suppose an argument could be made that a name itself is no more offensive than Vikings, Celtics, etc... they're just honoring the heritage of the area. But this seems like after-the-fact excuse making to me. And perhaps if there's any real dissent voiced, the Vikings and Celtics should change their names too.

Furthermore, the whole point of a team name is to unite the fans. If a third of your fans don't support your mascot or team name (as was the case when I was a student at Illinois), haven't you already lost that battle? It was refreshing to go to grad school, where Bucky Badger was supported by approximately 99% of the student population.

-------------

And now on to some specific recommendations.

- Illinois, drop the word "Fighting" from the name. Just be the Illinois Illini. This serves a double purpose of getting rid of the stereotypical warlike image of Native Americans, and changes the name to a generic term for "people from Illinois."

- Utah Utes. Honestly, I never knew that Utes were a group of Native Americans until recently. So just drop all Native American imagery and you're fine. Just like Illinois, you have a general term for "people from Utah."

- Cleveland Indians. As I said, Chief Wahoo HAS to go. And King Kaufman had a good suggestion... Go back to being the Cleveland Spiders. It's a great name, rooted in the tradition of the city, and you can totally capitalize on merchandising. Do you see how much people love Spiderman? Hello?

- Washington Redskins. This is the worst name out there. It doesn't just refer to Native Americans, it's a racial slur. As Chris Rock said, this is no better than a team being called the "New York Niggers."

You've got no way out of this, Washington. You've gotta change the name, or make your mascot a potato.

- Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Not Native American, but I find this one to be really bad. Is there a worse perpetuation of stereotypes in college sports than "Fighting Irish?" You might as well name a team the "Uptight Brits" or "Lazy Mexicans."

- Chicago Blackhawks. This one is so easy to fix, it's irritating. Put a space in there. Become the Chicago BLACK HAWKS. Put birds on the uniform. Have fierce bird sounds in your promos and at the games.

- Braves and Seminoles. Drop the Tomahawk Chop. It's somewhat offensive, but more than that, making stiff arm movements while singing a made up chant is just silly. Whether you know it or not, you look silly doing it.

You Most Certainly CAN Judge a Book by its Cover

Last night my fiancee and I were discussing famous quotes or maxims or what-have-you that don't really make sense to us. I'll be posting on the others another time, but I wanted to start with "You can't judge a book by its cover."

What?

You can definitely judge a book by its cover. If not, publishers are wasting alot of time and money on the covers. You might not get a 100% accurate assessment, but you can JUDGE a book by its cover. And you can usually be pretty accurate.

For example:



Here's a phone book. It's from St. Louis. From 1983. Useful only if you have a grandparent or something that hasn't moved in the last 24 years, in which case you probably know the phone number anyway. Not something I'd care to read or have.

Or how about this:



This is a computer programing book. The languages covered in the book are right in the title. I'm not a programmer so, again, this book is of no use to me. I'm making that judgment by looking at the cover.

So maybe these examples don't count. Maybe it's actually novels and other forms of nonfiction that you can't judge by the cover. Let's try this out.



I've never seen this book before, but I'm telling you, it's a crappy romance novel. Guaranteed.



Run away. Fast.

Now it gets a little trickier.



I've never read King Lear. Don't know much about it. The cover is very nondescript. So can I judge it by its cover? If I hadn't known it was by Shakespeare, sure! I'd see the name "William Shakespeare." I'm guessing everyone pretty much has a preconceived notion about Shakespeare one way or the other, so one can certainly pass judgment on this book based on the cover alone.



Lets say you live in a vacuum. You've never heard of Catcher in the Rye or J.D. Salinger. Would you ever want to pick up this book? I might, thinking it was about baseball. Otherwise, I guess not, and I never would have read this, which was probably my favorite book when I was in high school.

So, fine. You can't judge Catcher in the Rye by its cover.

Unless there's a description written on the back cover.

So in summary, here's how the phrase should read.

"You can judge a book by its cover, even if the assessment isn't always 100% accurate. You can often get a good sense of whether the book is something that will interest you or not, and if you can't tell by the front cover, look at the back cover where there's usually a synopsis of the book."