Monday Morning Uni Watch

Man, the only thing worse than a blowout Super Bowl is a uni-uneventful blowout Super Bowl. The closest thing to a uni-notable moment came at the end of the game, when the NFL powers that be once again rained down confetti shaped like the Lombardi Trophy (although to me it looks more like a keyhole). “My children actually saw it and asked me to go back and take a picture for your website,” says reader Chris Perrenot, who provided the screen shot you see above. “I’ve turned them into uni-watchers too!” Very cool.

As soon as I saw Chris’s screen shot, I had a “Wait, they’ve done that before” flashback, so I tried to figure out when they started using trophy-shaped confetti. At first it looked like they didn’t use it last year for Super Bowl XLVII, but then it turned out that they did. Similarly, at first it looked like they didn’t use it for Super Bowl XLVI, but then it turned out that they did. Super Bowl XLV? At first I thought no, but then it turned out yes (and, as you can see, they hadn’t yet started using team-colored confetti).

And that’s when it hit me: They don’t use the trophy-shaped paper for the big confetti blast at the end of the game — they use it for a separate blast during the trophy presentation. I rarely keep watching long enough to see that, so I hadn’t even realized that they do a second round of confetti. Going back one more year, they don’t appear to have used Lombardi-shaped confetti for the trophy presentation in Super Bowl XLIV, so it looks like that practice started in XLV.

Meanwhile, here’s something that isn’t Super Bowl-related but nonetheless serves as a good capper to the football season: Someone has come up with Star Wars-themed helmet concepts for all 32 NFL teams — NFC and AFC. Discuss.

+ + + + +

Candela update: For those who’ve been following the Candela Structures project (which Kirsten and I wrote about in The New York Times last May), the New York Landmarks Conservancy has completed a study that makes recommendations for how the structures can be restored and maintained. Here’s hoping the city comes up with with the funds to undertake the restoration work.

+ + + + +

’Skins Watch: NFL commish Roger Goodell was holding a pre-Super Bowl press conference on Friday and was asked if he would ever call a Native American a “Redskin” to his or her face. “He pretty much deflected the question,” says Coleman Mullins. “He talked on his same points as always: how it’s a tradition, a name meant to honor Native Americans, and that it’s simply a football team. Same old stuff.” … A Christian college in Wisconsin will no longer call its teams the Crusaders. “[T]imes change and we understand that context changes,” said the school’s executive VP — a sentiment Roger Goodell could learn from (from David Wilson).

NFL News: The Eagles had gray facemasks in 1991, but Reggie White had a black mask for at least one game (screen shot by Brad Tucker). … Bruce Menard was looking through the latest Hunt Auctions listings and spotted some great stuff, including a 1950s Bears jacket, a 1950s Browns jacket, and — my favorite — a 1940s Lions jacket. … The dollar store near Chris Flinn’s house is selling a balloon with a badly outdated Jets logo.

College Football News: Lots of silly-looking Indiana prototypes, which I figure will never make it onto the field, are floating around (thanks, Phil).

Hockey News: Throwbacks on tap next season For the Coyotes. … Groundhog Day uniforms yesterday for the Hershey Bears. (Speaking of Groundhog Day, was there any groundhog component to the Super Bowl? If so, I missed it.)

Soccer News: For Sunday’s match against Liverpool, West Bromwich Albion players wore jerseys supporting the team’s charitable foundation. Meanwhile, manager Pepe Mel wore a black armband in honor of Spanish manager Luis Aragones, who died on Saturday. … From last week: AS Monaco players wore T-shirts with the words “Fuerza Tigre!” in support of teammate Radamel Falcao, who tore his ACL recently. More curiously, his former teammates at Atletico Madrid wore their own tribute shirts (all this from Yusuke Toyoda).

College Hoops News: New alts debuting tonight for Villanova. SDSU wore shooting shirts designed by their student section on Saturday night. … Iowa and Illinois went color-vs.-color on Saturday (from Mark Arnold).

Grab Bag: Lots of chatter about Auburn baseball, football, and basketball uniforms in this 30-minute podcast (from Clint Richardson). … It’s always a little embarrassing when someone from out of town informs me of a great NYC attraction that I wasn’t aware of, but that’s the case with this amazing-looking photo-badge gallery show that Jake Kirr just told me about. The New Girl and I plan to check it out on Saturday, and I for one am super-stoked.

+ + + + +

rip.png

The day week the music died: Tough times last week, as three important musicians — all of whom I was privileged to meet at least once — passed away. I’d like to take a minute to salute each of them:

1. You already know about Pete Seeger, and there’s little I can add to the many accolades that have been heaped upon him over the past week. He was a great artist and an even greater American, and it’s hard to imagine a life more fully lived than his.

The first LP I ever owned was Seeger’s “John Henry” and Other Folk Favorites, which I received from my brother Henry as a Christmas present when I was in third grade. The following summer (or maybe the summer after that, I’m no longer sure), our family got to go on Seeger’s sloop, the Clearwater, which was the symbol of his efforts to clean up the heavily polluted Hudson River. Seeger was there on board, and I got to say hello to him very briefly. I don’t remember much about the encounter, but I recall being very aware that this was the first famous person I’d ever met. As I later learned, he was much more humble and unassuming than most other famous people.

I mourn Seeger’s death, but it’s a good, happy mourning. He lived to be 94, so he didn’t get cheated and neither did we. I’m pretty certain he made the most of every day, and we can best honor his memory by trying to do the same. R.I.P.

2. On Thursday night the New Girl and were driving home from seeing some music and had the radio tuned to WFMU. The DJ was talking about the Mighty Hannibal, the fine 1960s and ’70s soul singer whose career had been revived over the past decade or so by Norton Records and other admirers. I was happy to hear a discussion of Hannibal, but then I noticed the DJ kept referring to him in the past tense. “Shit,” I said, “did Hannibal just die?” The New Girl did a quick iPhone search and found that Hannibal had indeed passed away just a few hours earlier.

Hannibal was from Atlanta, and that’s where the early phases of his career were based, but he had made his home here in New York — first in Harlem and then in the Bronx — for many years. In the late 1990s he was befriended by local soul DJ Matt Weingarden (known here in NYC as DJ Mr. Fine Wine), who’s one of my best friends. Matt soon become something of a caretaker for Hannibal, especially after Hannibal lost his eyesight due to glaucoma. I saw him perform quite a bit during this stretch and, thanks to my connection to Matt, got to speak with him several times. He was a fascinating character with lots of amazing stories to tell.

Hannibal was no angel. Earlier in his life he had worked as a pimp (an activity I once heard him nudge-nudgingly describe to an interviewer as “assisting young ladies in their professional endeavors”), served prison time for tax evasion, and had serious addiction problems. But he had overcome all of that and, in my encounters with him, seemed like a very decent guy. He wasn’t a top-shelf, A-list soul artist, but he was a solid pro who, like most black singers of his generation, brought an irresistible gospel inflection to most of his work. He kept right on performing after he lost his vision, although he’d often start rotating to one side without realizing it while he sang, so he’d end up facing stage-left, at which point one of his backup singers would come over and gently reorient him toward the front.

Hannibal was 74. That’s not very old, but I think his death was likely a case of the mileage, not the years. I’ll miss him. R.I.P.

3. When I moved to New York in 1987, I often hung out at the now-defunct Mars Bar in the East Village, in part because their jukebox had several songs that I didn’t know where to hear anyplace else (this was before pretty much everything ever recorded was available on YouTube and Spotify). One of those songs was “Son of Sam,” the tremendous 1977 single by the local art-punk band Chain Gang, which I never got tired of hearing. A year or so after I arrived in town, Chain Gang emerged from a lengthy period of inactivity and began playing live shows, which I always made sure to see. I was particularly entranced by their frontman, this charismatic little bundle of energy named Ricky Luanda, whose stage persona seemed like equal parts street urchin, squatter, drug dealer, rock star, and avant garde artist. I eventually came to view him as the poet laureate of what I called the Lower East Side “scumderground” (a scene that no longer exists and is hard even to conceive of in the post-Giuliani and post-Bloomberg iteration of New York, but that’s another story for another day).

Chain Gang eventually stopped playing again. Much later, I think in 2008, I was at a party and found myself being introduced to Ricky Luanda, who by that time had become an experimental filmmaker. I told him how much I loved Chain Gang and how I’d always found him to be a riveting performer. He was very gracious about my fan-boy blatherings and turned out to be a peach of a guy. I ended up yakking for much of the evening with him and his lovely wife, Randi, and then the three of us sat together later that night during a performance by the local burlesque artist Julie Atlas Muz (I recall Ricky cheering particularly hard when Julie did a creepy striptease routine to the tune of Screamin’ Jay Hawkins’s “I Put a Spell on You”). After that I continued to bump into Ricky and Randi once or twice a year at various events, most recently last November.

The news came over the weekend that Ricky Luanda had died. Turns out he’d been fighting esophageal cancer, which I hadn’t even realized (and feel foolish for not having known when I saw him a few months ago). His death is hitting me harder than Seeger’s or Hannibal’s, in part because Ricky always struck me as a survivor, as someone who was indestructible. Nothing I’ve written here even hints at how special he was — he was a New York original, and it’s very disappointing to know that most New Yorkers (to say nothing of those outside the city) had no idea who he was. I mourn not only his loss but the loss of the bohemian life he represented — a life that’s now largely unsustainable in New York. R.I.P.

 

142 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • Jim Gregg | February 3, 2014 at 8:03 am |

    Since a college now thinks Crusaders is bad, I guess we should expect the Premiership Rugby team in England to change its name from Saracens to be on equal footing. Big difference between Redskins and most other nicknames.

    • Bud | February 3, 2014 at 8:55 am |

      I agree. If Crusaders is an issue, eventually all humanoid-fighter-type mascots will probably end up being abandoned. Spartans, Trojans, Warriors, Fighting Irish, etc. It’s all a bit ridiculous to me.

      • scottrj | February 3, 2014 at 11:02 am |

        Heh, throughout her middle-school years my daughter played on a club soccer team called Crusaders FC, whose jerseys sported a St. George Cross. The coach had an apparel business, so the players (and even the parents) accumulated nearly as much team-branded swag as a college athlete would: sweatshirts, coffee cups, tees, keychains, hair-bands, you name it. The players even selected one of their teammates for one of these every season:
        http://images.histor...

        Well, b/c the team was pretty successful, but also – let’s face it – b/c of the swag, every season there’d be 12-15 kids trying out for the 2-3 open roster spots. And without fail, JUST AFTER after the season started a parent of one of the new players would “suggest” to the coach that the team’s name “needed” changing. To which he’d always reply, “well, I suppose that’s something you should’ve thought about BEFORE your daughter attended a tryout, but if it’s that much of a problem you have my blessing to take them elsewhere.” Not a one ever did.

      • Chance Michaels | February 3, 2014 at 11:20 am |

        “Crusaders” is just a little bit different from the other ones you mention.

        • Bud | February 3, 2014 at 11:52 am |

          Right now, maybe. What about in 10 years? Will people feel the same way? 15 years? I can’t help but feel eventually every portrayal of a ‘group’ of people in any sense of the word ‘group’ will be phased out. Which, in my opinion, is really dumb. And boring.

        • Chance Michaels | February 3, 2014 at 12:36 pm |

          By that logic, no racial slurs could ever be discouraged. Or marriage equality must be banned because otherwise somebody will marry the Brooklyn Bridge.

          The name “Crusaders” is rooted in a very specific context that was considered praiseworthy (or at least benign) a few decades ago but is much less so today. Given our re-examination of those historical events, it’s understandable that some organizations might not feel quite so comfortable associating themselves with them.

        • scottrj | February 3, 2014 at 1:40 pm |

          “Given our re-examination of those historical events [the Crusades], it’s understandable that some organizations might not feel quite so comfortable associating themselves with them.”

          What does that statement even mean, exactly?

        • Padday | February 3, 2014 at 3:20 pm |

          It means that in the last 50 years or so the purpose as well as the methods of historical research have changed immensely. As part of that, the concept of the Crusades as being the great European fight for civilization in the holy land has since given way to the realisation that they were mostly just the murderous escapades of glory and wealth seeking elites who plundered, pillaged etc.etc. middle Eastern peoples under false pretenses. If that doesn’t ring alarm bells considering the past decade and a bit of global affairs then I’m not sure what does.

        • walter | February 3, 2014 at 5:11 pm |

          Speaking about what could become a slippery-slope issue in the next generation or so is hopelessly speculative. For all I know, falcons and cardinals might go extinct and it will be considered cruel and heartless for teams to continue using them as mascots. It’s pointless to wonder.

        • scottrj | February 3, 2014 at 5:27 pm |

          Well that’s certainly a view that leaves little room for nuance. But who am I to question what modern “historical research” has definitively concluded?

          http://www.grailwerk...
          http://www.ignatiusi...
          http://catholiceduca...

          Did atrocities, plunder, et al., occur during the Crusades? Certainly, though (1) Crusaders were hardly the sole perpetrators, and (2) atrocities, plunder et al. are ubiquitous throughout all of recorded history. But the Crusades were hardly undertaken for the purpose of plunder, and they weren’t particularly profitable in that respect. Nor were they all that “victorious”, at least not in the contemporaneous understanding of the goals for which they were mounted.

          All of which is a long-winded version of saying that equating the name “Crusaders” with the slur “Redskins” not only is intellectually inapt, but if accepted would, as previously noted, at a minimum encompass “Vikings” and “Spartans,” who themselves were guilty of the occasional depredation as well. Hell, by that standard I’m sure you could find “Patriots” who committed an atrocity or two during the Revolutionary War, so why not register an objection to that team name too?

        • Padday | February 3, 2014 at 7:08 pm |

          I’ve had a glance at your links there and aside from the questionable biases of catholiceducation.org, grailwerk.com and ignatiousinsight.com I still think my point stands. As the author of the first link writes, “No one could possibly condone a movement that, through its cocktail of idealism, indiscipline, alienation and stress, managed to give birth to such grotesque manifestations of inhumanity.” He goes on to say that it is unfair however to impose modern standards of morals on past figures. I agree completely. But we’re talking about a modern context in which bigotry against Islam and the Middle East is still a problem. In this context the Crusades still serve as an ideological flashpoint. And the major problem with a team name is that historical context and nuanced evaluation rarely come into play. And this is the major problem with the apparent analogies with “Vikings”, “Spartans” and “Patriots” is that those historical agendas don’t impact our modern context. Unless of course there’s some major vein of anti-Britishness running through American society I’m not aware of? Or a potential coup re-ignition of the Peloponnesian war? Or are we perhaps on the verge of Pax-Scandanavia?

          In sum, Crusaders is still very much an ideologically loaded term. Vikings, Spartans, Fighting Irish are in contrast very much benign.

        • scottrj | February 4, 2014 at 9:09 am |

          That’s an apologia for radical Islam, above all.

        • Padday | February 4, 2014 at 10:17 am |

          Jesus fucking Christ man. I don’t even know what to say, you are just so massively, completely out of line. There is clearly no purpose in trying to have a reasonable debate with somebody who is going to infer that any sympathy with the people of the Middle-East is automatically synonymous with a sympathy for mass murderers.

        • scottrj | February 4, 2014 at 2:15 pm |

          The point of the articles I linked to – two of which, BTW, are authored by the world’s most preeminent academic on the Crusades – is that for centuries the Muslim world not only considered them a fairly negligible historical event, but one from which they emerged victorious. What status they’ve come to possess now as an “ideological flashpoint” is largely a construct of radical Islamic thought – much like the notion that they were little more that “murderous escapades of glory and wealth seeking elites who plundered, pillaged etc.etc. middle Eastern peoples under false pretenses.” They weren’t.

          None of which is not to say that you sympathize with radical Islam, but your queasiness regarding the supposedly “loaded” significance of the team name Crusaders is hardly a well-grounded one.

        • Padday | February 4, 2014 at 6:03 pm |

          Those articles aren’t saying what you’re saying though. They aren’t denying that the Crusades were brutal and that atrocities (by modern liberal standards at least) were committed. Their defense is centered on the fact that applying modern liberal morals to that context is misleading, a point which I agree with. The problem is that a war based on religious piety in the modern world is generally considered terrorism (unless you want to make a case for jihad as justified). I will take back the bit about the Crusades being about wealth, but Crusade leaders were still murderously intent on glory and religious glory in medieval times was, considering (among other things) the power of the Papacy, something highly sought after by monarchs who sought to justify – and thoroughly believed in – their place as minor deities (which upon reflection did have indirect material benefits).

          But this is all just moot really. What you must remember is that I’m not defending the position of radical Islam, but the position of a Christian school. Why did they have “Crusaders” as a name in the first place? Because in Western, popular (i.e. not academic) historical mythology the Crusaders have predominantly been portrayed as glorious fighters for civilization against the barbarous, backwards, inhuman Muslims. The mythology, not the actual history, is the problem. Given the current climate, where people actually believe to the point of supporting unjust wars and infringement of civil liberties that we are in a battle for civilization against the Muslims, it is irresponsible to condone, glorify or otherwise promote such myths. Again, whereas the glorification of Spartan popular historical myths, or Viking popular historical myths is certainly bad history, it’s bad history which isn’t sparking or potentially justifying racial and sectarian bigotry.

    • Jerry | February 3, 2014 at 10:36 am |

      Maranatha Baptist University just changed their name, so with that comes a new nickname, that’s it, no other reason. The mainstream media is blowing it way out of proportion.

      The real reason is answered on this page, about halfway down.

      http://www.mbbc.edu/...

      • hmich176 | February 4, 2014 at 3:22 am |

        This didn’t explain why. Okay, they changed the name of the school from Bible College to University. They want a new image. So they drop the Crusaders nickname, for what reason? What was negative about it that got them to change it?

  • The Jeff | February 3, 2014 at 8:14 am |

    NFL commish Roger Goodell was holding a pre-Super Bowl press conference on Friday and was asked if he would ever call a Native American a “Redskin” to his or her face.

    I really, really, really HATE this argument. You wouldn’t say “Hey, what’s up Jew?” or “How’s it going, Mexican?” to someone who’s Jewish or Mexican either, but it doesn’t transform “Jew” or “Mexican” into inappropriate terms. The established protocols of our language dictate that you don’t directly address any individual or small group with a general cultural name. It doesn’t mean that those names are morally wrong or that the group can’t be identified with that word.


    Also those Star Wars team logos are trying way too hard to mimic NFL logos, and it really doesn’t work for most of them.

    • JimWa | February 3, 2014 at 8:28 am |

      How about this … You’re at a party, and someone brings up a point having to do with Jews or Mexicans … you point out that, “Well, Joe here is Mexican/a Jew, and he can probably …”.

      Now, would you do the same if your friend is a Native American?

      • The Jeff | February 3, 2014 at 9:10 am |

        Yeah, I think I would. I don’t really think of modern Native Americans as “redskins”, but if someone is ignorantly complaining that “redskins are X” and I have a Native American friend who isn’t “X”, I would probably point out that my friend is a redskin who doesn’t fit the stated “X” stereotype.

        I view “Redskins” as a reference to the native people of 150+ years ago. Native Americans were commonly known as Redskins in that era. That’s historic fact. I firmly believe that you can refer to those people with that term, and be “honoring Native Americans” as Snyder claims his team does, regardless of what it later became or what their modern descendants think of it. Whether people like to admit it or not, there is a cultural difference between the native people today and those of the past.

        • Chance Michaels | February 3, 2014 at 12:40 pm |

          Would you really say “I have a Redskin friend” to Native Americans you just met?

          Yes, it is “historical fact” that Redskin was commonly used to refer to Native Americans in our nation’s history. But given this nation’s treatment of those same people, is that history something to use as a defense of the term today?

        • hugh.c.mcbride | February 3, 2014 at 3:30 pm |

          “I view “Redskins” as a reference to the native people of 150+ years ago. Native Americans were commonly known as Redskins in that era. That’s historic fact. I firmly believe that you can refer to those people with that term, and be “honoring Native Americans” as Snyder claims his team does, regardless of what it later became or what their modern descendants think of it.

          If that’s the standard to which you hold yourself, I’m really worried about how you intend to “honor” the folks whose accomplishments are being celebrated this month.

    • arrScott | February 3, 2014 at 9:00 am |

      Actually, Jeff, normal polite people would call Jews or Mexicans “Jewish” or “Mexican” to their faces, comfortably. No, one wouldn’t do so in the “Hey, [noun]!” phrasing you propose, but then that’s a necessarily impolite, disrespectful form of address. Which I’m sure you understand full well. That’s obviously not the test anyone is proposing. Rather, the valid test, the test that is obviously implicit in the “say the word to someone’s face” test, is, take a circumsnatnce in which one would, respectfully, use an adjective when speaking to a person, and substitute “redskin.” Would any decent, polite person use the word “redskin” in such a circumstance? No. Why not? This is the question that “redskins” defenders refuse to answer, because if they’ve thought about the word at all, they understand that there is no way to answer the “why not?” question without either destroying the premises underlying their defense of the name, or embracing the logic of overt racial bigotry.

      • arrScott | February 3, 2014 at 9:06 am |

        To the last point, the reason that “redskins” defenders are uncomfortable with embracing the logic of overt racial bigotry is that, with a very few exceptions, they’re not actually racial bigots. A handful are, including one prominent advisor to Dan Snyder, but the vast, vast majority are well-meaning non-bigoted decent folks who just really really like the nickname and don’t want to deal with it as an ethical matter. Which characterizes most of our opinions most of the time.

        • Gusto4044 | February 3, 2014 at 9:52 am |

          I would like to hear from any descendants of Native Americans who are against the use of the Redskin nickname explain this contradiction.

          There’s at least one school, possibly more, which uses the nickname Redskins on a reservation. We don’t know what other indian-related nicknames are used by other schools on other reservations.

        • Padday | February 3, 2014 at 10:10 am |

          We don’t know what other indian-related nicknames are used by other schools on other reservations.

          Oh and we may never will. Those reservation injuns are so mysterious and secretive.

          Seriously though, could we have some context or evidence please? You’ve kind of gone and just made an implicit accusation of hyprocrasy based solely on vaguery and assumptions.

        • Phil Hecken | February 3, 2014 at 10:11 am |

          “I would like to hear from any descendants of Native Americans who are against the use of the Redskin nickname explain this contradiction.”

          ~~~

          I would think it’s up to those who are NOT descendants of Native Americans to explain the contradiction, not the other way around.

          I work with a descendant of Native Americans. Trust me, he’s quite opposed to the use of the name.

        • The Jeff | February 3, 2014 at 10:18 am |

          I work with a descendant of Native Americans. Trust me, he’s quite opposed to the use of the name.

          I used to work with a descendent of Native Americans… he didn’t give a shit about the Redskins name and was actually a Raiders fan. We got along really well, and I wish he hadn’t been transferred to a different location.

          The modern Native American people are not a homogenous group.

        • terriblehuman | February 3, 2014 at 10:46 am |

          The modern Native American people are not a homogenous group.

          Which is why “I know this Indian guy and he doesn’t care about the ‘Skins” is not a particularly good defense of the nickname.

        • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 10:50 am |

          “I know this guy..” is a form of proof by example. And proof by example is *always* a weak argument, primarily because it’s vulnerable to disproof by counter-example.

        • Phil Hecken | February 3, 2014 at 10:53 am |

          “he didn’t give a shit about the Redskins name and was actually a Raiders fan.”

          ~~~

          Right, and because one isn’t offended, all shouldn’t be?

          Because that’s the exact argument defenders of the name are giving (or rather, unless ALL are offended, rather than the “just” the 20% of ALL Americans in the latest poll commissioned by the ‘skins, then clearly it’s OK to use).

          And no, modern Native American people are NOT a homogeneous group. I’m quite certain many have bigger problems than the name of a football team. In fact, in terms of offenses committed against them, that probably ranks low on their list.

          And, I’m sure you’d get along with other Raider fans. But I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.

        • The Jeff | February 3, 2014 at 11:01 am |

          Are we saying that one person being offended means it must be changed? Because that’s bullshit and you know it. There’s *someone* offended by everything. How do you you define a cut-off point for offensiveness? Is it 5 percent? Ten percent? Twenty Five percent? At what point does “X number of people disagree with this” mean that it must be eliminated?

        • Le Cracquere | February 3, 2014 at 11:10 am |

          With all due respect, Paul, TheJeff was merely responding to Phil’s “I know this guy…” contention. You’re right that it’s a suspect tactic, but he was merely responding to someone else who used it and thought it constituted some kind of point.

        • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 11:22 am |

          With all due respect, Paul, TheJeff was merely responding to Phil’s “I know this guy…” contention. You’re right that it’s a suspect tactic, but he was merely responding to someone else who used it and thought it constituted some kind of point.

          I wasn’t directing that at Jeff in particular; I was directing it at everyone in general.

        • Phil Hecken | February 3, 2014 at 11:26 am |

          With all due respect, I was replying to Mr. Rhodes (Gusto), and it was THE who thread-jacked. My point in replying to Gusto was to ask him whether or not it was incumbent upon Native Americans (or their descendants) who “are against the use of the Redskin nickname explain this contradiction.”

          Since I personally know, like and work with a Native American descendant, I don’t feel it would be my place (nor that of any non-Native) to ask him to explain any supposed contradiction. I was not trying to say that because he may or may not personally be offended that none or all Native Americans should be. It was the who brought up the he said/she said argument. And it was that to which my second reply was directed, not the first.

          I’ve tried to stay out of this debate of late, and I’m sorry I stepped into it again. But if 20% (using the number most recently touted by the ‘skins) are opposed to a name…that translates to … wait for it … 62.6 MILLION Americans (assuming a US population of 313 million).

          That is NOT a small minority.

        • Chance Michaels | February 3, 2014 at 12:46 pm |

          Are we saying that one person being offended means it must be changed? Because that’s bullshit and you know it. There’s *someone* offended by everything. How do you you define a cut-off point for offensiveness? Is it 5 percent? Ten percent? Twenty Five percent? At what point does “X number of people disagree with this” mean that it must be eliminated?

          You’re right – it can be a tricky business to find that line.

          But when leaders from at least seven different tribes call for change, it’s time to stop pretending that this is a crankly little minority too insignificant to take seriously.

        • Le Cracquere | February 3, 2014 at 1:01 pm |

          Sorry if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. In my (minor) defense, “Trust me, he’s quite opposed to the use of the name” comes across as an “I know this guy” argument in most ordinary contexts. Also, from the present context & order of posts, it looked as if that Paul was referring specifically to The Jeff’s post. My mistake.

        • terriblehuman | February 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm |

          And can we stop using “offended” as a for/against argument? The reason I’m against the ‘Skins nickname isn’t because I or anyone is “offended”. I want it gone because I think it’s just a shitty term (also, saying something is “offensive” is different from saying “Ahhhh! I’m so offended! Make it stawwwwp!”).

          Also, whether I’m personally the target of an insult is irrelevant. I’m probably more aware of stuff like this as a minority myself, but when I see well-meaning people casually tossing a pejorative term like ‘Skins, I think, “Hey, that could be me they’re unknowingly insulting and my culture they could be appropriating.”

        • walter | February 3, 2014 at 5:13 pm |

          Not one person on God’s green earth has the right to not be offended.

    • ThePonchat | February 3, 2014 at 11:36 am |

      I worked for 2 years in South Dakota, and am now in Kansas (almost a year). I travel through and to a lot of Native American populated areas(sometimes reservations).

      In all this time, I have never heard the term “redskin” used by any Native Americans. Nor have I ever heard the term “Indian” used either. Actually, there is a lot of references using “Indian” that are not used in any capacity — i.e., Indian run, Indian giver, etc.

      • arrScott | February 3, 2014 at 5:17 pm |

        FWIW, I’ve lived in places with sizable Native American populations, and I once spent a semester interning in an urban Native American legal-aid clinic. I heard “redskin” used occasionally by Native Americans, always as a derogatory term, usually in contexts where its usage is akin to one white person referring to another as “white trash.” This was in line with the several times I witnessed “redskin” used by white people to speak of Native Americans – always in anger, always meant as a racial insult. Including in one instance by a retired white NFL hero of mine.

        As for “Indian,” in my limited experience usage varies. For some communities, “Indian” is preferred, while for others, it’s rare. Some embrace it because that’s the term most often used in the legal documents that enshrine treaty rights and tribal sovereignty.

  • Nate | February 3, 2014 at 8:22 am |

    Nobody cares about your hipster music tributes.

    • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 8:25 am |

      Quite possibly. And that means everyone can scroll right past it if they like.

      • JimWa | February 3, 2014 at 9:13 am |

        I don’t know if I’m a somebody now, but I, too, don’t care for the musical tributes, but then I learned, the scroll bar DOES work! Thank you for installing that this morning.

      • mild bill | February 3, 2014 at 12:18 pm |

        Thanks for the tribute to Pete Seeger.

        He was a tremendous example of how staying involved seems to be beneficial both physically and mentally.

        Always loved the message that appeared on his banjo.

        • CortM | February 3, 2014 at 5:46 pm |

          Since I was a little boy, Pete Seeger has given me the creeps.

          I don’t know why. The guy just creeped me out.

    • Jimbo | February 3, 2014 at 8:34 am |

      Sorry Nate, but here’s a Pete Seeger sports-related item for you: a baseball autographed by Pete, with a charming banjo drawing: http://mightyflynn.t...

    • AnthonyTX | February 3, 2014 at 8:51 am |

      Quite the contrary, Nate. While there’s certainly plenty of stuff that Paul posts about that I, for one, don’t care about (and therefore choose not to read), the music tribute section of today’s post was actually really interesting to me and I’m currently enjoying listening to Chain Gang.

      You can have your money back any time you want it.

    • Graf Zeppelin | February 3, 2014 at 8:56 am |

      Clearly, you do. So that’s one.

    • arrScott | February 3, 2014 at 9:03 am |

      Even in third grade, Paul had better musical taste. At the same age a decade later, the first LP I owned was Phil Collins’ “No Jacket Required.” I can’t say my tastes have much improved since then, but they’ve certainly broadened, which is something I guess.

      • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 9:07 am |

        Well, I can’t take credit for the Seeger LP — like I said, it was a gift. I didn’t go seeking it out or anything.

        In interests of full disclosure, the first LP I owned based on my own desires (also a gift, but one that I specifically requested) was John Denver’s Windsong. Ugh.

        • arrScott | February 3, 2014 at 9:14 am |

          Windsong. As an album, one of Denver’s lesser works. But it had “Looking for Space” and “Calypso,” the latter being an outright modern sea chanty in disguise. Couple of great songs. Sometime before I bought “No Jacket Required” with my own money at Positively 8th Street in Minneapolis, I got to go aboard the Calypso and meet Jacques Cousteau when the boat was in town during a Mississippi River expedition.

        • DJ | February 3, 2014 at 9:19 am |

          Don’t be too hard on yourself. Everyone has to begin their appreciation of music somewhere.

        • Graf Zeppelin | February 3, 2014 at 9:20 am |

          “Calypso” was always one of my favorite John Denver songs. My first LP of his was “Greatest Hits” (the first one, 1973) then “Rocky Mountain High” and “Aerie,” but the one I really wanted was “An Evening with John Denver,” the 1975 double-LP live album recorded at Universal Amphitheatre.

        • Graf Zeppelin | February 3, 2014 at 9:21 am |

          I also had a 45 of “Thank God I’m a Country Boy” that I wore out on one of those GE plastic record players in the late ’70s.

        • Bic | February 3, 2014 at 9:38 am |

          So you don’t like someone who stood up for the First Amendment and unlike your hero Frank Zappa wasn’t a complete and utter shitbag sneery smarmy douche about it, but was polite and respectful because being polite and respectful are things to be pointed and laughed and belittled nowadays, right?

        • BSmile | February 3, 2014 at 9:40 am |

          Good stuff Paul! Haha…
          The first record I ever asked for (and got) was The Ohio Players “Fire”.

        • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 9:41 am |

          So you don’t like someone who stood up for the First Amendment and unlike your hero Frank Zappa wasn’t a complete and utter shitbag sneery smarmy douche about it, but was polite and respectful because being polite and respectful are things to be pointed and laughed and belittled nowadays, right?

          Does anyone have the slightest idea what this person is talking about?

        • Dumb Guy | February 3, 2014 at 9:53 am |

          “The Eagle and the Hawk” is about as good a 2 minutes as I have ever heard.

        • Phil Hecken | February 3, 2014 at 9:55 am |

          “Does anyone have the slightest idea what this person is talking about?”

          ~~~

          Apparently your hero is Frank Zappa?

        • arrScott | February 3, 2014 at 10:48 am |

          The only problem with “Calypso” is that Denver didn’t sing it with a fake Cornish or Pirate accent. Really makes all the difference in uncovering the classic sea shanty bones of the song. It’s one of those songs I always sing along to, and I literally can’t do it without involuntarily falling into a pirate voice. “Aye, Calypso, tha places ye’ve been ta, tha things ‘at ye’ve shewn us, tha stories ye tell!”

          … And that is why I never go to karaoke.

        • Graf Zeppelin | February 3, 2014 at 1:43 pm |

          @Dumb Guy – Have you heard the live version of “The Eagle and the Hawk” from the 1975 live album (“An Evening With…”)? The string arrangment is incredible.

          @arrScott – I’ve never tried singing “Calypso” in a pirate voice; maybe next time I do open mic. I sing it without the yodeling sometimes if it feels too goofy. As for the music, it’s rather like “Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald” in a major key. I love seafaring songs.

    • David Goodfriend | February 3, 2014 at 10:03 am |

      So sorry for your losses and your writing on Ricky Luanda was particularly poignant and moving.

      And Nat whoever you are…I for one care deeply.

    • Nate | February 3, 2014 at 12:09 pm |

      So, I know my name is common and all, and I can’t really claim ownership to a handle that isn’t unique, but I occasionally post here under the name “Nate”. This Nate is not me. I actually LIKE “hipster” music!

      • timmy b | February 3, 2014 at 2:40 pm |

        Oh jeez,

        Everybody knows the best song there is is the one playing in the background in the kitchen early in “A Christmas Story”, the “Hut-Sut Song,” the Sammy Kaye version.

        https://www.youtube....

  • JimWa | February 3, 2014 at 8:24 am |

    “Okay, campers, rise and shine, and don’t forget your booties because it’s COOOLD out there!” (And so the worst possible scenario for Peyton Manning continues …)

  • Dumb Guy | February 3, 2014 at 8:25 am |

    Love your music tributes, Paul!

  • Dumb Guy | February 3, 2014 at 8:26 am |

    I like most of the Star Wars logos. I just knew my ‘Skins were going to be Jar-Jarized!

  • Ronnie Poore | February 3, 2014 at 8:26 am |

    Denver Broncos SuperBowl uni record:
    Blue jersey 1-0
    White jersey 1-1
    Orange jersey 0-4

    • Mark Rabinowitz | February 3, 2014 at 8:39 am |

      I was going to say, last night’s Super Bowl was _not_ uneventful because Denver gave on another clinic for why wearing orange jerseys at the Super Bowl was a lousy idea. Given they couldn’t wear blue, they should have gone with white, even though it would have meant forcing the world to watch the Seahawks in blue-on-blue unitards. Besides, the Seahawks had never won a Super Bowl in unitards.

      • Chance Michaels | February 3, 2014 at 12:48 pm |

        the Seahawks had never won a Super Bowl in unitards

        A trend which fortunately continues today. Don’t want to encourage them.

  • BBTV | February 3, 2014 at 8:42 am |

    I don’t think Reggie White’s facemask was black. He wore a world league style mask for a season or two and it appeared darker than his teammates due to the plastic moulding or whatever they were made of. Either way the world is better off without a gate filled homophobe like him in it anyway.

    • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 8:46 am |

      Good facemask info, but no need to piss on anyone’s grave. No more of that, please. Let’s move on. Thanks.

      • C. Fox | February 3, 2014 at 2:49 pm |

        I remember this mask distinctly. It was a very dark gray, all plastic facemask. The company is KraLite and I found this link for a similar mask (in lighter shade)when I googled it. I think Clyde Simmons wore one briefly too.
        https://encrypted-tb...

    • AnthonyTX | February 3, 2014 at 8:52 am |

      I had no idea Reggie White was so full of gates. Quite an appetite on that one.

      • arrScott | February 3, 2014 at 9:07 am |

        Gaters gonna gate.

        • Phil Hecken | February 3, 2014 at 9:58 am |

          Gators?

    • walter | February 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm |

      I’ll go out on that limb; I think gate is auto-corrected hate:)

  • Morgan Doninger | February 3, 2014 at 8:49 am |

    Thanks for the musical tributes, Paul. They reminded me of a different time in New York. I agree that it is almost impossible to remember what it was like pre Mike & Rudy. I am not as romantic about some of the crappy neibs and crime, but I do lament that there are fewer and fewer cheap places to reside here in the Big Apple to incubate these artists. I do not want to see New York lose all local flavor in exchange for “prosperity”.

  • Joe H. | February 3, 2014 at 8:49 am |

    Those NFL jackets are a thing of beauty! Why can’t we have more of an approach like those instead of the Nike/Oregon/Seahawks? More of these and MLB fall sweaters, please.

  • Graf Zeppelin | February 3, 2014 at 9:02 am |

    The Reggie White facemask looks like one of those thick plastic masks that (I think) Riddell started making in the mid-late ’80s, that got a lot of use in the WLAF in the early ’90s. The plastic was darker on those than was the gray rubberized coating on the corresponding metal cages.

  • Bic | February 3, 2014 at 9:41 am |

    Here’s a question: what happens to the Broncos victory confetti? Does it get shipped off to some 3rd world country along with all of their championship jerseys and such?

    • matthew65 | February 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm |

      They painstakingly separate the orange and blue pieces and store them for re-use next year when the Browns will face the Giants.

      • Rob H. | February 3, 2014 at 9:42 pm |

        Browns face the Giants…. no they only use confetti in the Super Bowl.

  • Ed Hughes | February 3, 2014 at 9:49 am |

    Paul, thanks for the musical tribute, and thanks also for the implicit reference to Feb. 3–55 years today since Buddy, Ritchie, and J.P. left us. You might be interested to know that “The day the music died” was coined originally not by Don McLean but by the local paper reporting the crash. Either the Clear Lake Mirror-Reporter or the Mason City Gazette, I don’t recall which. But I’ve seen the page, in which “TDTMD” heads a page of photos of the crash site. I don’t know if McLean saw that paper or if his use of the phrase was a case of parallel invention (albeit with a ten-year delay). Incidentally, the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake, Iowa, site of their last concert, is still around and fully restored. I finally got to see it last October. It’s worth the trip.

  • Barry Brite | February 3, 2014 at 9:51 am |

    Pretty ironic you wrote “The Day the Music Died” on the 55th Anniversary of the death of Buddy Holly. And supposedly that’s the day Don McLean was referring to in “American Pie”

    • Barry Brite | February 3, 2014 at 9:52 am |

      OOPS – Ed Hughes and I had the same idea but he beat me by two minutes..

      • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 9:54 am |

        I actually had no idea that today was the anniversary of that crash. Total coincidence! Wow.

    • Ed Hughes | February 3, 2014 at 11:59 am |

      The LP edition of the “American Pie” album includes the line “Dedicated to Buddy Holly” on the back cover. McLean wrote the song primarily about 2/3/59 ten years later but we also wrote about lots of what had happened in music in the intervening ten years. Don McLean inscribed the first verse of AP on the wall of the green room at the Surf Ballroom, whose white walls are covered intentionally with graffiti from artists who’ve played there over the years. If I recall, there’s also a framed gold record and framed handwritten copy of the lyric on one of the memorabilia walls at the Surf.

  • Kyle Allebach | February 3, 2014 at 10:16 am |

    The best thing about the Star Wars NFL helmets is that the Bills are in the red bucket, obviously their best look.

    (I still think the Red color is analogous to buffalo sauce)

  • hodges14 | February 3, 2014 at 10:29 am |

    Nothing on the post game presser? On the fact that Malcolm Smith looked like he just came out of a gym workout instead of dressing up? Or the nut bag who interrupted the interview and the fact that he was from Brooklyn? Ok, that last part may have been a bit political and a Brooklyn potshot, (don’t get me wrong here, I love Brooklyn), but that fact that Malcolm Smith didn’t dress for his post game presser should have been something uni-notable.

    • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 10:41 am |

      I honestly couldn’t care less about any of that shit, Alex. And even if I did, I didn’t have the luxury of sitting around watching all of that, because once the game ended I had to start writing today’s entry.

  • Dick Forman | February 3, 2014 at 10:59 am |

    Paul – do you have a particular issue with the word “girlfriend”? Just curious.

    • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 11:18 am |

      Not in the least. Why?

      • TIm | February 3, 2014 at 12:57 pm |

        I’d guess he’s referring to your use of “The New Girl” instead of “my girlfriend”. As an aside, when does “The New Girl” cease being “New”?

        • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 1:26 pm |

          The New Girl is called the New Girl because (a) she prefers that her name not be used on this site, at least not in the context of being my girlfriend, and (b) I don’t want to just say “my girlfriend” over and over — I wanted to give her a proper name. So I gave her one — the New Girl. The name will stick, no matter how long we stay together.

  • Dion Webb | February 3, 2014 at 11:13 am |

    I think the groundhog day component was Denver getting blown out again.

    • Chris Holder | February 3, 2014 at 11:56 am |

      The first Super Bowl I remember was XXIV, I believe? Whatever year the Broncos were blown out by the 49ers 55-10. As a young Broncos fan (2nd grade), I mouthed off to a guy before the game who was pulling for the Niners. Oops. Lucky me, the kid never brought up the game. Probably didn’t even watch it.

      But yeah. Last night sort of felt like that again.

  • Seth Moorman | February 3, 2014 at 11:18 am |

    I kinda like the Star Wars take on the helmets. Obviously a bit of artistic liberty was used at the sake of exact representation with the red “Buffalo” version and the blue “San Diego” design, but non the less, as a football fan and a Star Wars fan, I found them interesting.

    • Chris Holder | February 3, 2014 at 11:58 am |

      I liked most of them, but felt they missed an opportunity with the Tusken Raiders using… the Buccaneers. What? I realize they wanted to go with “Vaders” on a Raiders helmet, but still.

  • Johnny O | February 3, 2014 at 11:36 am |

    So when Roger Goddell says that “9 out of 10 Native Americans support the ‘Redskins’ name”, is he just flat out lying? Where is he getting those numbers from?

    • Chance Michaels | February 3, 2014 at 12:18 pm |

      There was a poll done about ten years ago. I don’t remember the particulars, but seem to recall its methodology has been challenged. And in any case, it’s now a decade old.

      • Phil Hecken | February 3, 2014 at 12:34 pm |

        The most recent poll (Question 15), conducted by PPP, states this:

        “Do you think the Washington Redskins should change their name or not”. The result of which were: Do: 18%, Do Not: 71%, Not Sure: 11%.

        You’ll note there is NO CONTEXT to the question, just the question.

        By contrast, the 1992 poll, probably the one to which Goodell is referring, put the number at 89% in support of the team’s name. That’s quite a dropoff. 18% less percentage points (from 89% to 71%). And 18% feel the name SHOULD BE CHANGED. That’s basically 1 in 5. And despite the way people would like to spin it, that is NOT an insignificant minority. In fact, there are more people who who want expanded background checks on guns (90%) than want to keep the Washington football team name. Is there anyone where who thinks that 10% who DON’T want expanded background checks to be a “Small Minority”?

        • The Jeff | February 3, 2014 at 1:02 pm |

          Is there anyone where who thinks that 10% who DON’T want expanded background checks to be a “Small Minority”?

          Uh… yeah Phil, ten percent, or even 20 percent *is* a small minority, regardless of how large the actual number is when you’re talking about 300+ million people. For most things, 4 out of 5 is considered to be a rather strong endorsement. As in “4 out of 5 dentists recommend Brand A toothpaste”, or whatever. It’s a large enough majority that some people might even wonder why the other 1 doesn’t approve.

          If you’re in a room with 10 people and you ask everyone if they want McDonalds or Taco Bell and 7 of them vote for Taco Bell, 2 for McDonalds , and one guy who can’t make up his mind and doesn’t vote, well then you’re gonna have tacos.

        • Phil Hecken | February 3, 2014 at 1:23 pm |

          “If you’re in a room with 10 people and you ask everyone if they want McDonalds or Taco Bell and 7 of them vote for Taco Bell, 2 for McDonalds , and one guy who can’t make up his mind and doesn’t vote, well then you’re gonna have tacos.”

          ~~~

          Yes, because that’s exactly the way we should decide the appropriateness of “Redskins”.

          As to the 10% argument…if it’s such a small minority, then why haven’t gun show background checks happened?

        • The Jeff | February 3, 2014 at 1:26 pm |

          As to the 10% argument…if it’s such a small minority, then why haven’t gun show background checks happened?

          Because elected leaders often have their own agenda and don’t always accurately speak for the people they supposedly represent?

        • Phil Hecken | February 3, 2014 at 1:46 pm |

          “Because elected leaders often have their own agenda and don’t always accurately speak for the people they supposedly represent?”

          ~~~

          That’s actually an excellent reply, THE, I’m impressed.

          But it still doesn’t speak to the point that 10% of the population can have an outsized influence on things; one would think that if 90% of the people wanted taco bell, and 10% wanted Mickey D’s, and whoever you sent out to get food came back with McD’s, they wouldn’t be getting the food next time. Or maybe they would. But again, the fast food analogy doesn’t really apply to whether the name is appropriate.

          I’m done with this now, THE, so have all the last words you want. But never underestimate the efficacy of the minority to bring about change.

    • Chance Michaels | February 3, 2014 at 12:26 pm |

      Here’s a good summary of the issues around the poll.

      Seems pretty disingenous to raise it again now, but this is the organization that keeps comparing CTE dangers to riding a bicycle.

      • arrScott | February 3, 2014 at 2:40 pm |

        Roger Goodell, disingenuous? Why, I never!

  • Alan Tompas | February 3, 2014 at 11:43 am |

    I was caught up in the disco vortex in the 70s..how the hell did I miss out on Chain Gang? If social media existed back then..my life would have been very different. You got great taste Paul.

    • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 11:57 am |

      Thanks, Alan. Not all of Chain Gang’s work holds up as well as “Son of Sam,” and they were always better live than on record. But if you’re curious, this CD compiles everything they ever recorded:
      http://www.amazon.co...

  • KF | February 3, 2014 at 12:54 pm |

    I really want to know what happens to orange/blue/white confetti that would have been used if the Broncos had won.

  • Wxs | February 3, 2014 at 1:02 pm |

    Are there going to be any new uniforms in the NFL next season?

    • timmy b | February 3, 2014 at 2:45 pm |

      Time will tell.

    • brinke | February 3, 2014 at 11:39 pm |

      all I want is a second and third full stripe on the Niners jerseys.

  • Newt | February 3, 2014 at 1:22 pm |

    IU should add the candy stripe to their football uniforms. Its part of their brand

  • Graf Zeppelin | February 3, 2014 at 1:35 pm |

    The Daily Banter’s Oliver Willis boards the bandwagon.

  • Mike | February 3, 2014 at 1:44 pm |

    Illinois has a long history of Orange uniforms, the earliest I remember the Orange Unis being along used along with White (Home) and Blue (Road) were back in the late 80s Flying Illini days. Back in the 2005 Final Four year they repeatedly used Orange uniforms when playing a team in a non-white uniform, while at home or away. Illinois has done many color-on-color games for years at this point

    Quick sample through a GIS:
    https://www.google.c...

  • MJ | February 3, 2014 at 2:08 pm |

    I second what BBTV (BRING BACK THE VET – WHAT’S UP?!?!) said about Reggie White’s facemask. It was not a traditional Riddell mask – the bars were far thicker in the horizontal plane, almost like Venetian blinds but thicker – and it was a graphite gray color far darker than the usual gray mask.
    And the Star Wars logos are ridiculously good in every way possible.

  • Ryan | February 3, 2014 at 2:31 pm |

    “[T]imes change and we understand that context changes,” said the school’s executive VP

    False, context remains the same, which is why you and others have a problem with the Redskins name, frequently citing offense in the root and origin of the word. If context has shifted, then we clearly understand the word to be used strictly in athletic diction. Hence, your argument collapses on itself in that Goodell should take note. The only thing that has changed is society’s increase in a yearning to be validated and viewed favorably among others.

    Change the Redskins’ name, yes. But to lump in the Crusaders’ name in the Skins Watch section shows the desired end result of the authors: freedom from offense. I won’t support that. Take note, as you’ve lost a reader.

    • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 2:37 pm |

      Actually, if you knew anything about my work on this topic you’d know that my position is not rooted in the word’s “offensiveness” but rather in the fact that I believe Native Americans should get to control their own imagery and not have it misappropriated by non-Natives. Others may (or may not) have issues with “offensiveness,” but please don’t lump me in with them or put words in my mouth.

      As for contexts, they change all the time — including the context in which society becomes more aware that it’s wrong to misappropriate another culture’s imagery.

      “yearning to be validated”? An interesting choice of words. Would you apply it to other social justice movements? Were abolitionists “yearning to be validated”? Suffragettes? Freedom riders? Or are you just coming up with a handy insult for people whose goals differ from your own?

      • Richard | February 3, 2014 at 6:28 pm |

        Paul, help me reconcile why on the right hand side of *your* web page, under “Categories”, the “Select Category” the only entry relating to the subject in the drop down list appears: “Racist/Offensive Logos or Imagery”

        • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm |

          Sure:

          1) You are mistaken — that is not “the only entry relating to [this] subject.” The listing of categories also includes “Intellectual property issues,” which is how I view this topic.

          2) In any case, I wasn’t even aware of that we had a category for that. Phil must have added it. If you look at the five or so entries that fall under that category, you’ll see that most of them are his (although two are mine — I must have listed them under that category ex post facto, because there’s no way I created that category name, especially because I’ve gone out of my way not to use the terms “racist” or “racism” when discussing this topic).

          The category listings are only used for the main entries, and I haven’t led with this topic in ages. I’m also bad at using the categories in general — I often forget all about them and then the entry ends up being listed under “General.” Phil is much more careful about the categories (and tags, which he often uses and I never use) than I am.

          If it were up to me, I’d prefer that we have a category for “Native American Imagery” rather than “Racist/Offensive Logos or Imagery.” And hey, it *is* up to me! So I’ll add that category now (which I’ll no doubt forget to use, assuming I ever lead with this topic again). Thanks for the tip!

          The categories only apply to the main entry (or at least that’s how I use them; Phil’s use may differ), and I haven’t led with this topic in, oh, two years.

        • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 7:01 pm |

          Update: All five entries under the “Racist/Offensive” category have been changed to “Native American Imagery.” And the two that were written by me are now also categorized under “Intellectual Property Issues.” Thanks again for pointing this out.

        • Richard | February 3, 2014 at 7:33 pm |

          But I looked at the list three times! You are right Intellectual Property Issues is right there. ADHD or something.

          You have been very consistent in your take on this subject, so I was a little surprised about the drop-down list entry.

      • Richard | February 3, 2014 at 8:32 pm |

        Uh oh. Sorry, but when I read something, and then something clicks in my head that I read language to the contrary, particularly in a Q&A piece to clarify your position, I just have to.

        I realize your consistent position is the misappropriation of imagery, and that it does not belong to Washington Football, Inc., and that being offended is not mutually exclusive.

        However,

        “Actually, if you knew anything about my work on this topic you’d know that my position is not rooted in the word’s “offensiveness” but rather in the fact that I believe Native Americans should get to control their own imagery and not have it misappropriated by non-Natives. Others may (or may not) have issues with “offensiveness,” but please don’t lump me in with them or put words in my mouth.”

        “. . . *I* find these team names offensive, and so do many others, because it the very notion of it demeans *all* of us (just as slavery demeaned all of us, just as Japanese internment demeaned all of us, etc.). It’s part of the social contract: We’re all in this together.” Paul Lukas, 23 March 2012

        • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 9:13 pm |

          Good memory! But that was literally the first thing I’d ever written on the topic. As I wrote that day, my position had changed over time. And as you can see, that piece sparked a lot of discussion, which led to lots of further thoughts by me. I soon arrived at a place that I think I’ve held pretty consistently since then — one based on misappropriation.

          Am I perfect (or perfectly consistent)? Nope. Hope you won’t hold that against me too much.

          To be clear: I do think the ’Skins name and Wahoo are offensive. But I don’t think that’s the only reason — or, more importantly, the best reason — to get rid of them.

        • Richard | February 3, 2014 at 9:36 pm |

          Agreed. I think you are very consistent, particularly on this issue. I don’t think your position has moved (much).

          Even way back then, you wrote: “It’s not a question of whether the team names and mascots are derogatory per se; it’s about whether the teams using those names have any right to use them. I don’t think they do.”

          It’s ok to take the intellectual property/misappropriation position, AND believe that the names are offensive, racist, etc., all at the same time. There is no need to deny the latter to anyone (and I think you have), just because it occupies a lower rung on the your ladder.

        • Paul Lukas | February 3, 2014 at 10:09 pm |

          I don’t think I deny that line of argument to anyone. Indeed, that is Phil’s primary line of argument. I just don’t like being lumped in with everyone else for whom that’s the primary issue, because it’s not *my* primary issue.

  • Mainspark | February 3, 2014 at 3:08 pm |

    Given the two main threads in today’s Uni Watch (Native Americans and Music), how do you all feel about the Ramones’ cover of “Indian Giver”? Should it be banned or, because there is no real misappropriation of any imagery, can I still enjoy Joey’s angst?

  • Darren | February 3, 2014 at 3:48 pm |

    Never expected to see my alma mater, Maranatha, featured here. Graduated 14 years ago, and even then there was plenty of discussion among the students about changing the mascot. Two reasons: one, for the atrocities associated with the Crusades, and two, why would a Baptist university want to identify with a mascot associated with Catholicism?

  • Neeko | February 3, 2014 at 3:51 pm |

    What about the Seahawks and their use of native imagery?

    • terriblehuman | February 3, 2014 at 4:41 pm |

      I think the Pacific Northwest has generally had a more respectful relationship with the aboriginal population, to the point where native imagery is integral to the local culture.

      Plus, the totem design isn’t inherently insulting the way “redskin” is.

      • Mainspark | February 3, 2014 at 4:47 pm |

        Well the argument is that misappropriation is the evil, not the “offense.” So according to that standard, any misappropriation is wrong whether or not its supported by some actual evidence that “the Pacific Northwest has generally a more respectful relationship.”

        • terriblehuman | February 3, 2014 at 5:01 pm |

          I’m not Paul. My main beef with ‘Skins is the dick-ishness, neither the offensiveness nor the misappropriation.

          But we’re talking about the region of the country where the biggest city is Seattle, right?

        • Padday | February 3, 2014 at 5:07 pm |

          Mainspark, the word under consideration is misappropriation, i.e. an appropriation which is wrong, disrespectful or otherwise objectionable. It is possible to respectfully represent Native Americans.

          The question of whether the Seahawks do avoid misrepresenting the natives of the Pacific Northwest is a legitimate question (personally I’m not as optimistic as terriblehuman), but playing the GOTCHA! game is not helping that dialogue in the slightest.

    • mike 2 | February 3, 2014 at 6:30 pm |

      Its a good question and one that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention.

      I dont’ think that the question is appropriation or misappropriation. Appropriation without consent is (IMO) misappropriation, even if its done respectfully.

      I’d ask the same question about the Vancouver Canucks orca logo, as well as (if it were still relevant) some of the Grizzlies secondary logos.

      In any event – misappropriation of cultural icons is troubling but its not in the same league as the R*****ins or Chief Wahoo.

  • Attila Szendrodi | February 3, 2014 at 9:50 pm |

    I used to run into Pete all the time at the grocery store or bagel shop and I cannot say enough good things about him. He was a true national treasure. RIP