And to train potty their kids......
Posted on 04/18/2002 6:58:16 PM PDT by Richard Poe
"IF COLORADO had a high school team named the Niwot N-ggers, with a big-lipped spear-chucker as a mascot, we all know that African-American groups would demand that the school change the name," writes Denver Post columnist Reggie Rivers.
It is therefore astonishing, concludes Rivers, that some people still defend team names such as "Braves," "Warriors" " and "Renegades" – names that are just as insulting to American Indians as Niwot N-ggers would be to blacks.
With these words, Rivers accidentally stumbled upon the unspoken question looming behind the great team mascot debate: Why don’t we have any sports teams named after black people?
If it is really true, as Rivers contends, that naming a sports team after a race of people is, by definition, insulting to that people, then why have generations of allegedly "racist" white Americans failed to offer this insult to blacks?
Why do we not have multitudes of baseball and football teams named the Slaves? Or – to borrow Mr. Rivers’ phrase – the Spearchuckers?
The answer is obvious. White Americans have not named their sports teams after blacks because white Americans have not viewed blacks as exemplars of the warrior spirit. Indians, on the other hand, are remembered in popular legend as brave and worthy foes on the battlefield. White Americans honored the courage of their former adversaries by naming sports teams after them.
"The white man has great respect for the Indian," writes Comanche pundit David Yeagley in a March 7, 2001 column for FrontPageMagazine.com. "I’m not saying he always treats us the way we want to be treated. But he respects us for putting up a good fight. … Why does the U.S. military have helicopters named "Apache" and "Comanche" – but none that are named "Arikara" or "Ojibwa?" They name their weapons systems after the fiercest tribes, because they want some of that fierceness to rub off."
But that’s just the problem, say liberal commentators such as Rivers. The image of a fierce Indian warrior is itself a degrading stereotype. It is precisely because such names as "Braves" and "Renegades" promote an "aggressive" image, Rivers implies, that they are insulting.
American Indian activist Russell Means agrees.
At a January 2002 conference on Indian-white relations, held in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Means scolded David Yeagley for his pro-mascot writings. "Your whole image of the Indian as a warrior comes from the white man!" said Means.
According to Yeagley, Means continued:
"Indians were not war-like until the white man made them so, [Means] lectured. Rather, they were matriarchal, humanitarian, tolerant and multiculturalist. I could hardly believe my ears. Was Russell Means denying the warrior tradition of his own people?"
So it appears.
Both Means and Rivers seem to have swallowed the line that aggression is evil. While popular among Ivy League feminists, this idea is foreign to ordinary folks, who admire a fierce and warlike spirit, whether on the battlefield or the football field.
White Americans have not named their sports teams after blacks because Americans, in general, do not envision blacks as fighters. Too often, they imagine blacks in pathetic roles, as slaves and descendants of slaves.
The British acquired a different view of Africans, based on a different set of experiences.
When the British invaded Zululand in 1879, spoiling for a fight, many feared that the Zulus would run like cowards. Their fears proved groundless. On January 22, the Zulus descended on an isolated British column at a place called Isandlwana.
Other African peoples had fled in panic in the face of British gunfire. But the Zulus were different. Braving rockets, artillery and concentrated rifle fire, they hurled themselves at the British lines, climbing over the bodies of their own dead.
In the end, the entire British force was annihilated, including over 800 British soldiers, 52 officers and some 500 of their African allies.
News of the massacre shocked and horrified Britons. But it also aroused their admiration. "We now have ample proof," the Times admitted, "not only of [the Zulus’] valour but also of their skill in strategy."
The British never forgot their war with the Zulus. Its memory has been enshrined in major films such as Zulu, Zulu Dawn and the TV miniseries Shaka Zulu – all notable for their respectful portrayal of African warriors.
Reggie Rivers is right about one thing. If any American sports team tried to name itself the "Fighting Zulus," it would probably be sued by the U.S. Justice Department.
But who would benefit from such a lawsuit? Certainly not black people.
____________________________________
Richard Poe is a New-York-Times-bestselling author and cyberjournalist. His latest book is The Seven Myths of Gun Control.
Yea he did....but one of the FBI Agents was resurrected and went on to
become a Navy Top Gun pilot. So I think he got a pardon or something like that.
And to train potty their kids......
Rather like the fuss over naming teams "rebels," which attacked even schools clearly named for Scottish "rebels" (rising of '45), or, most hilariously, the "Performing Arts School Rebels" (think Jack Kerouac)!
Having seen the movie numerous times, I have to disagree. Michael Caine was not in Command. The British just barely survived. Something like 4000 Zulus to a couple of hundred British.
It's one of my favorite movies.
I think that possibly you are thinking of Graham Green, not Russell Means. Just guessing. fsf
That is a ridiculous assumption that is not backed up by any evidence or fact and on the contrary is disputable based on recent nationwide polls among Native Americans.
Mr. Rivers is an idiot and a race baiter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.