Spanish Basketball vs. NFL RACISM-OFF!!!!

As many of you surely know, the Spanish basketball team released a photograph prior to the Olympics that featured them affecting a stereotypical "slant-eye" gesture. Of course, no one said anything about the Chinese response of a photograph of Yao Ming eating traditionally marinated Boquerones. This is kinda lame and easy: yes it's offensive. It's terribly offensive and really stupid and childish and it walks that razor thin line where you're not positive if you're outraged at how racially insensitive it is or just how little thought it took. The real fun, of course, comes when the NFL enters the picture. 

Here's Mr. Irrelevant's take on the Big Lead's take. To summarize: TBL posted that America had no right to be mount a high horse on this issue because of the NFL franchise the Washington Redskins. Mr. Irrelevant points to a poll that shows a whopping 90 percent of American Indians have no problem with the name. It suddenly seems so long ago that Braves, Indians and Redskins' games were being picketed by various American Indian groups who took offense. Where I begin to take issue is the parting shot offered by post author Chris Mottram

Isn’t it a pain in the ass when all those pesky “facts” and “evidence” get in the way of make-believe?

Now, I understand that Mottram is a 'Skins fan and, therefore, justifiable in his defense. Rooting for a sports franchise means accepting the good with the bad, like enjoying the Twins' penchant for winning on the cheap and putting together well-constructed teams while understanding that many fans are still of the opinion that "well-constructed teams" mean "white teams". It's a constant balancing act, and the will to defend stems from the fact that no one wants their favorite sports franchise to be bad in any way. Mottram is also correct in his use of this poll, which (by polling standards) seems to be pretty fair (I would say that 768 is a pretty low sample size, but I doubt a higher one would change the results). 

However...

What is more interesting about this poll is not that so many American Indians are not offended by the name, but why they are not. Being a bleeding heart liberal American Indian myself, I know why I find it offensive: it is a derogatory term for American Indians being used as the name of a professional football team. As TBL said in the original post: 

Say what you want about European racism, but Spanish soccer fans aren’t galloping ignorantly through the gates in blackface to cheer on N—– FC.

(Addendum: I would like to point out that European racism, particularly towards blacks, is fucking terrible and far worse that you will find in most places in America. Remember, as bad as we are we still had to go through that whole Civil Rights thing, which Europe avoided like the Pla...ooh...still feels too soon...)

I do, however, understand that I cannot speak for all American Indians on this issue, and my calling them American Indians illustrates that point. I use that term because the term Native American is not only incredibly bland, but it unfairly incorporates us into the United States and assumes that we had some say in how the modern iteration of this country came to be. American Indian allows me to remember that we are different, that there is a certain pleasantness in the difference, and that it is important to remember how different we once were and how different we will always remain from white folk. 

This does not change the fact that Redskin, no matter how many people find it offensive and no matter what color they are, is an offensive term that was used either a) as a simple descriptor based on skin color or b) based on the blood that came from the head during a scalping. Either one of those leads to a bad word to use to describe an entire group of people (particularly when our skin is, in fact, brown). Mottram is right when he says that not enough people are offended by this word to make it an issue, but chooses to leave it at that. What is not taken into account is the fact that part of the reason that the name is accepted by so many American Indians is that it has been the name of a major football franchise since 1933. There is no way to deny the fact that this has made this word more acceptable that things like the n-word (for African Americans) or the s-word (for people of Latin and South American descent). It also certainly portrays a negative stereotype of American Indians being warlike and savage for the simple fact that the name is used for a team in a competitive physical sport like football. 

The numbers of who is and who isn't offended certainly represent an interesting view of this issue, but they don't tell the whole story. The story is that it is fundamentally wrong for a franchise in any form of business in the 21st Century to name themselves after a derogatory term for a group of people. But, like on so many other issues, I can understand why people would disagree. 

Dr. Z and the racism

So here's what's fun about Dr. Z's recent NFL commentator evaluation. Like so much modern sports writing, it has just a hint of racism. A dash, if you will. Let's show some evidence.

First, here's some praise for FOX NFL commentator Tim Ryan:

How good is Ryan? Well, how many analysts will tell you who the good BLOCKERS are on kickoff returns? Arizona-Washington -- "Watch Lorenzo Alexander reject Jerheme Urban out of the wedge ..." Kaboom! A former superstar is slipping, he'll tell you about it. The Seahawks' Walter Jones gets stuffed by Cleveland's Robaire Smith on a running play: "You wonder about Walter Jones," says Ryan, who, unlike most of his brethren, does not blindly plug the stars. The Browns' line goes unbalanced on a play, he catches it immediately. He and Rosen routinely will call penalties before the flags are dropped. Rosen is meticulous about telling you who's on the field, when a team goes into a different personnel grouping. There are snappers, too. The Saints' Reggie Bush loses ground, trying to put on a fancy move. "Think four and you'll get more," Ryan mutters. In his and Sam's case, four and a half.

Not so bad, right? Here's some more, now commenting on the NBC team of Madden and Michaels:

The only thing I ever had against this team was that their attention span would occasionally flag if a game were dull, and they'd get away from it and onto topics of the day. Someone must have had a talk with them at NBC because that hasn't seemed to be a problem anymore. And as I've written before about Sunday night's increased technical equipment, it makes for more comfortable watching, all around. John still has the pipelines to feed him the cogent observation, such as noting that "the Patriots' defense is set up not to let you complete passes outside ... you have to go inside." And he can still bring it when the mood seizes him. On the running style of the Jaguars' tiny Maurice Jones-Drew -- "He can run straight up and still get low."

Again, nothing out of the ordinary. Maybe loses some points for the brushing over of Michaels' lame-duck style and some old-hat statements about Madden, but still innocuous for the most part.

Here's where it gets interesting. When talking about the team of Marshall Faulk and Deion Sanders (the bolds are mine):

When Deion and Faulk did Cincinnati-San Francisco in Week 15, I was stunned by their insight. I mean, they were giving us stuff such as: Deion on Chad Johnson -- "Any time Chad's in the slot, he's not going deep." Faulk on Johnson vs. T.O. -- "T.O.'s always looking to score, Chad's looking to fall down, after he runs a slant." I mean it was a clinic, a scouting report. Then I thought it through. This is the league's network. It's in its best interest if its broadcast team remained informed. Either Cincy coach Marvin Lewis briefed the boys on the ins and outs of his personnel, or some scout did, because I just don't believe these two announcers would figure this stuff out on their own. Their stuff only served to render more inane Steve Mariucci's comments that followed, during the break. But if they can provide enlightenment, why knock it, no matter where it comes from.

Now, it is immediately followed by a dig at a white guy, to be sure. But looking at the other analysis by Dr. Z on this page, two things become clear:

1. The white guys don't get criticized.
2. The white guys definitely don't get called boys.

Also dangerous here is the insinuation that Sanders and Faulk get all their information from either scouting reports or talking to coaches. While this may be true, this very well could be true for everyone, white or black. However, Tim Ryan and Tony Boselli get nothing but praise for their keen awareness and analysis, with nary a thought to the preparation they might have gone through. Look at this section about Boselli:

Wow, what a terrific rookie season for big Tony. First look -- that's when he'll see the play in its entirety, before he has the luxury of the replay. This, of course, is the test. He'll diagram the line play, as well, swiftly and accurately. Coverages, too. Nothing like young eyes, folks. He'll pick up blitz schemes, he'll rip the stars as well as the ordinary Joes, which is unusual: "Edgerrin James got off the line too quickly," which was why he was stopped. "Ernie Sims came in high on that one," which was why Marcel Shipp got a touchdown over him. "Frank Gore missed the pick-up," which was why the rush forced an incomplete. Seems trivial, but there are guys who will never criticize a big name player.

I think Dr. Z has wood. Later in that same paragraph, about Boselli's (black) partner, Ron Pitts:

Pittsie, once a five-star Z announcer, has been bouncing around for a while, but he's latched onto a good partner here.

Which, of course, does a good bit to make Pitts sounds like a parasite. Pleasant.

I understand how nitpicky this all is. Also, I understand that Dr. Z is more than likely not a huge hood-wearing racist. However, it's very clear that there's a lack of equal ground being portrayed here. This almost certainly was not a conscious decision by Dr. Z to take some black guys down a peg. This is simply another example to add to the pile of subtly inequitable language used between whites and blacks in sports journalism.