What’s In a Name?
This country and our legacy of overt instances of racism, sometimes resulting in acts of atrocity and genocide (e.g. extermination of the Native population) still haunts us (in a variety of ways) but overwhelmingly in some of our grossly stereotypical sports symbols, which were in part this week condemned by the NCAA.
Concerning racism, in the United States at least, we receive a plethora of mixed messages. On the one hand, we publicly condemn racism and racist beliefs and ideologies, but sports team names that are often demeaning accompanied by their often racist characters and logos are still as much a part of American culture as apple pie, regardless of how historically inaccurate they may in fact be.
Nevertheless the symbolic terrain/landscape has been distorted by the varying contemporary degree of the detachment of symbolic signification from the symbols themselves, in postmodern jargon this is referred to as the floating signifier. Human beings act toward things on the particular basis of the meaning that certain things have for them. The meaning here is derived from social interaction and such meanings are always modified through an interpretive process used by the person when dealing with the things s/he encounters (Blumer 1969).
Thus, generations of young sports fans, who are always historically removed (whether mindful or not) from the blatant injustices suffered by historically marginalized groups of people, often understand such symbols (e.g. sports names and logos) very differently than those who are and often continue to be subjected to a historical trajectory dictated to them (e.g. in classrooms, textbooks, etc.) by others, most notably white people.
Consider for instance the “Redskins” a current NFL football team. Most people are of the belief that the term “redskin” simply relates to the color of Indian skin, which in and of itself is certainly derogatory. However, Suzan Harjo, who heads a national Indian rights organization aptly points out that the historical use of the term “redskin” is actually more macabre the one might think.
Most concede that it is no secret that the United States government sanctioned bounties upon the heads of Indians. Allegedly to ease the burden of carrying around rotting heads or corpses of Indians the U.S. government relaxed the bounty to include just the scalp or skin of an Indian. Trappers, who would hunt Indians along with wild game reportedly begin using the term (much like bearskin, deerskin, etc.), in crude reference to the bloody mess that accompanied the scalp or skin of the Indian (Wiley III, Ed 2005).
Interestingly enough, although few would refute the grossly stereotypical nature of the Cleveland Indians logo, e.g., "Chief Wahoo" (pictured above), the story behind their name is not necessarily. Louis “Chief” Sockalexis is purported to be Baseball’s first American Indian player, some refute this claim, however most agree that Sockalexis was among the very first few professional American Indian ballplayers.
Sockalexis was born on the Penobscot Indian Reservation in Maine in 1871 and attended the College of the Holy Cross. At 5’11” 185 pounds, Sockalexis was considered a rather large man by early twentieth standards (http://www.baseball-reference.com/). Although it is often hard to accurately cite early “official” baseball statistics, (e.g. stats were often kept very crassly), by all accounts "Chief" was, for a brief time, a standout ballplayer (the Cleveland Indians webpage refers to him as a “supreme baseball talent”).
It is alleged that the Cleveland ball team (formerly the Cleveland Naps) changed their name to the Cleveland Indians in honor of Soxalexis two years after his death. The Cleveland organization however after the 1914 season prompted a name change for the Cleveland franchise. On January 17, two Cleveland based newspapers (The Leader and The Plain Dealer) reported that the “Indians” had been chosen to replace the Naps, in reference to the club when Sockalexis played for the team from 1897-1899 (http://www.cleveland.indians.mlb.com/).
The degree to which a team name or logo is racist varies considerable depending on the context (as the above examples illustrate). In this regard, some professional sports names, I contend, are not necessary demeaning or racist (e.g. Warriors, Braves, etc.) however I also believe the NCAA made the correct initiative in their assertion that certain names need to be changed, and other organizations (e.g. MLB, NFL, etc.) should follow in good faith.
Works Cited
Bloomer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interaction. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Wiley III, Ed. 2005. “Honoring Native Americans with Disrespect” http://www.bet.com/
posted by sociologyman at 6:56 PM
4 Comments:
chris,
interesting short article. i have a question though. as far as i know, the majority of the anthropology community today considers that "race" is only a socially constructed category and that such concept has no biological reality per se. do sociologists have the same points of view? by the way i'm very interested in reading more sociological work, as well as philosophy and literature. would you like to recommend me some important sociological books? i do not envision myself having time to dig into this subject the coming school year since i'll be working on my own anthroplogical research. but i always want to absorb different kinds of knowledge. and i think that you're the right person to ask.
peace,
loretta
Loretta-
I can make some suggestions for American Lit. readings that deal with critical race theory.
One of my favorites is 'Passing' by Nella Larsen. It is a short novel and is often published alongside another novella. It deals with the common practice of light-skinned blacks in the 1920s "passing" as whites to excel their social status. The writer deals with social construct theory in race, and also arguably, on sexuality. Being biracial myself, I have found much personal relevance in the novel. I wrote one of my research papers on it as an undergrad.
The monumental critical race theory piece would be W. E. B. DuBois' 'The Souls of Black Folk.' The core of the writing is the metaphor of "the veil." The veil is a metaphor for segregation between blacks and whites. He expands this metaphor by describing its inhibiting characteristics. He also introduces the concept of "double consciousness" that blacks (and arguably other minorities) have to live with. Whites are allowed to be themselves and never have to think about their race whereas blacks have to live their lives being constantly aware of being black. I'll admit it's a dry read, but very much worth it.
Aside from literature, another one of my personal favorites on the subject is "Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White" by Frank Wu. It is one of the first books I have read that delves into the concept of Asian-Americans as minorities. It is not a work of literature, written from a legal point-of-view, due to the fact Wu is a law professor. He intertwines traditional critical race theory planks with concepts that are applicable solely to Asian-Americans (e.g. "model minority", "constant foreigner", "tourist stereotype.")
These are just a few suggestions. There is so much out there. Let me know what you think of them.
Loretta,
Of course race is a social construct and few, if any, I believe would refute this. However, we cannot deny the very real social ramifications that race, even as a construct, has upon our culture, as we place such an enormous emphasis on race, ethnicity, and race based issues/matters. Race, as a biological issue, is still very much debated.
As far as sociological book recommendations, it depends on what “type” of sociology you are into or which perspectives you wish you employ e.g. macro sociology, micro sociology, etc. The three most popular “sociological lenses” or “perspectives” are, conflict theory, functionalism, and symbolic interactionism. I am primarily (although not exclusively) informed by symbolic interactionism, but I can certainly recommend books that reside in all three perspectives.
Karl Marx (conflict theory), although considered a political philosopher by many (I would not refute this) his ideas nevertheless are resolutely sociological. Certainly check out the Communist Manifesto (a must read), also read chapter one “The Commodity” of Capital, here Marx elaborately outlines his theoretical position concerning the development of the commodity and how it is inextricably linked to the rise of capitalism. If these readings interest you, I would surely recommend picking up a copy of The Marx-Engeles Reader edited by Tucker (1978) which is a pretty comprehensive smattering of Marx’s ideas.
Emile Durkheim (functionalism), is perhaps most well known for his study on suicide, however he has many great works. I would check out his book The Rules on the Sociological Method, where he painstakingly outlines key sociological concepts and ideas (e.g. “what is a social fact”). His ideas are conducive to what has been referred to as functionalism, or the idea that society works or functions collectively together, much like the body (e.g. the heart, lungs, brain, etc., all need to work together for the whole, to survive). Functionalism, contemporarily referred to as structural functionalism, has been widely dismissed by many, although the theories are nevertheless interesting.
Erving Goffman (symbolic interactionism) who is my personal favorite is considered by many as the greatest American sociologist. His work is general concerned with the self and impression management (e.g. micro sociology). Due to my inherent bias, I cannot specify one good book to read; accordingly I would recommend picking up the Goffman Reader edited by Charles Lemert. This should give you a pretty good idea of his work. If you find you like Goffman, I would also suggest picking up Symbolic Interactionism by Herbert Blumer (1969), The Social Construction of Reality by Berger and Luckman (1976), and Life as Theater edited by Brissett and Edgle (1990).
Regarding critical race theory, which generally recognizes that racism is endemic to American life, echoing Zo’s comments (which he posted on my blog in regards to your question) I would certainly also recommend W.E.B. DuBois Souls of Black Folk (1903). Also check out Critical Race Theory and Introduction by Delgado and Stefancic (2001), Words that Wound by Matsuda, Lawerence III, Delgado, and Crenshaw (1993), Women, Race and Class by Angela Davis (1983)
Hope this helps!
Chris,
You know who introduced me to the concept of race as a social constuct? It was our buddy, Mr. Rubin. He mentioned it in senior survey. He was good at introducing advanced concepts to high school students. It would be hilarious for us to get a hold of him and have coffee with him when you are in town next.
Zo
Post a Comment
<< Home