Reflections on Jewsday: A Response to Paul Manata
Paul Manata’s most recent attempt to deflate my critique of the Cleveland Indians branding has left the fact that I’m a Canadian in the background and shifted to focus on a reductio. Paul points out that cultural stereotypes proliferate about Italians. So then if stereotypes about Indians are “bad” presumably then stereotypes about Italians are bad as well. You can see where this is going…
First, a “confession” of sorts. When I was in Times Square, New York last March I contemplated purchasing a “Fuggedaboutit” tourist T-shirt. (I didn’t due to price. ) Is that a racially charged expression? I don’t think so.
Of course the world is full of stereotypes and many of them are innocuous or relatively innocuous. Others can actually be helpful. Here’s an example, in his book Protecting the Gift Gavin de Becker lays out strategies to protect your children from predators. Among his gems of wisdom is this: in the event that your child gets lost you should instruct them to seek out the help of a woman, not a policeman. The reason? Women tend to be nurturing and will be more likely to get involved and make sure the child finds their parent. Women are also statistically much less likely to victimize a child than will a male. As for seeking out a “policeman” the problem is that young children cannot distinguish policemen from, say, mall or parkade security guards. And the latter are statistically more likely to present a threat to your child than the general population.
Does that offend security guards? Too bad. de Becker is interested in protecting children not avoiding offense to the union of security guards, and there is enough wisdom in the advice and the stakes are high enough that he can share that advice without blushing.
So some stereotypes are harmless (if the cultural phrase “Fuggedaboutit” is a stereotype then it seems to me to be a harmless one). And other stereotypes are actually useful, at least if kept in check. (Obviously if Jane starts dating a security guard named Jack it would be wrong for her parents to object because they think all security guards are pedophiles. But there is a huge gap between Gavin de Becker and Jane’s parents.)
But other stereotypes are harmful and wrong. And the irony is that Paul provided us with a great example. He noted how both the United States and Canada rounded up citizens of Italian ethnic origin and placed them in internment camps. Those people were victims of grave injustice. That injustice was informed by certain stereotypes. Those people would probably never have been imprisioned had those stereotypes not been allowed to be perpetuated.
So here’s what Paul seems to want: drop the critical discourse about stereotyping in culture because it will lead to absurdities. And here’s what I’m advocating: we need to continue this conversation because while some stereotypes are justifiable and some are innocuous, others are quite harmful. It is for that reason that I find Paul’s dismissive attitude toward the whole discussion to be so troubling.
When I was in high school we usually went to the movies on Tuesday night because it was discounted. We called it “Jewsday”. I suspect if somebody had asked me whether that was anti-Semitic at the time I would have rolled my eyes. Hey, if anything the term highlights a positive character trait: thriftiness. What’s wrong about that?
I have a very different view now that I understand the history better. I have studied the Holocaust and the internment camps that continued for years after the end of World War 2 because no western nations wanted the stateless Jewish refugees. I read with horror about the “Protocols of Zion” and I was stunned to read through Martin Luther’s “The Jews and Their Lies”. I shook my head at the expulsion of Jews during the Catholic Reformation in Isabella’s Spain and dropped my face in my palms upon reading of the medieval pogroms as the crusaders marched to liberate the Holy Land. An understanding of history placed a term that otherwise might have seemed innocuous — “Jewsday” — into a completely different light.
Imagine that you’re in the office and you see a man tell a female coworker “You look very nice today.” Offensive? You’d think not. But what if that man had a history of sexual advances against women? What if the office was aware that the female coworker had been raped? All sorts of past history can color what might seem to be an otherwise innocuous compliment.
Are racial stereotypes of Indians in professional sport wrong? Well we cannot say they are wrong a priori since, as we’ve seen, some stereotypes are innocuous and others are advantageous. But one thing we need to do is actually look at the history against which those images and phrases are set. A term like “Jewsday” or an office compliment might seem innocuous until you consider the past history.
So one of the things we should do is familiarize ourselves with more of the history of First Nations people. Let’s say, for example, that you want to name a sports franchise in Eastern Canada the Beothuks and you have a cartoonish image of an Indian to go with it. Would the history of the Beothuk people be of any relevance? What if it turned out that a genocide was committed against the Beothuks which led ultimately to the extinction of this people group in the early 19th century. Might that past history not provide a new perspective on the appropriateness of the proposed team branding? I think it might.
Our willingness to explore these questions openly and honestly is not an example of PC run amok. It is, rather, a recognition of the perennial tendency human beings have to marginalize other groups and to be insensitive to the groups they are marginalizing.
So to sum up, assuming that Paul thinks terms like “Jewsday” are wrong he should demonstrate why popular images of First Nations people in professional sport are more like “Fuggedaboutit” than “Jewsday”. Since Italian Americans have been victims of their own negative stereotypes I would think this is a question Paul would want to take very seriously.
Tags: prejudice, racism, stereotype
13 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
PM says:
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 7:03pm
Um, but I demonstrated that the history of Italians *is* relevant. In any case, I think *everyone* agrees that “some” (vague) stereotyping can be bad. Are the baseball teams who name their teams the “Braves” and the fans do the “tomahawk chop” to join together and root against an opponent among them? I don’t think so. But I see when an identical argument is given you, and a people group who has been historically mistreated in America is presented to you, and clear cases of stereotyping that are supported by examples of Italian-American’s voicing their disapproval is given to you, you brush it all off and claim “they earned it.” You’re an insensitive racist!
Other than that, what is the history of the “Braves?” What is the history of the “Redskins”? Indeed, even the “Indians.” There’s no history *as such*. There’s no *group* that can complain. These terms are so vague that they don’t represent a group who had genocide committed against them. To claim that because X Indian group had most of its people killed because they kept fighting means that “Indians” had genocide committed against them, is to be ignorant of Indian history. They didn’t identify with the other tribes as you seem to think. In fact, they often fought against them and joined U.S. Troops in waging “genocide” (granting you that point there).
Or, what about the FSU Seminoles? They’re the only U.S. tribe to never sign a treaty, and they’re proud of this. So FSU names their team after a tribe that never surrendered. Is this wrong? They paint their faces. They have a “red skinned” chief with feathers in his hair as a mascot. In fact, THE SEMINOLE TRIBE helped the team create the mascot. Indeed, the horse and spear of the mascot have no connection to Seminole history, yet the tribe ENDORSED this. So, the school AND the tribe are for it. Whos’ against it? Mainly, leftist organizations that NEEDS problems between races in order to justify their existence and rhetoric. But if you drive through the reservations, you’ll see FSU#1 on the mailboxes, and “Go FSU!” on the backs of Indians’ trucks. Yet the team name is “Seminole” and the mascot is an historically inaccurate, white college student riding around the stadium at half-time whooping and hollering.
You don’t have an argument anymore. There may be racism in the U.S., just like there is in Canada and other places. But pointing to baseball team names or football team names, mascots, etc., isn’t where it’s at. You’re wrong and you should admit defeat on the matter. If you want to argue against racism, good, and I’ll back you. But don’t become a shill for leftist stupidity which frequently overreaches and absolutely needs racism in all spheres of life in order to justify their very existence. It’s sad and doing their bidding is beneath you.
randal says:
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 7:22pm
“I see when an identical argument is given you, and a people group who has been historically mistreated in America is presented to you, and clear cases of stereotyping that are supported by examples of Italian-American’s voicing their disapproval is given to you, you brush it all off and claim “they earned it.””
Paul, how can you completely ignore what I wrote? I noted a neutral slogan on a t-shirt. I also noted negative racial stereotypes that provided a pretense to victimize the Italian-American population as a justification for internment. Please pay attention to what people actually write rather than inventing a strawman opponent.
I’ve got to run. I have a class to teach outside of the city today. I’ll finish setting you straight tonight or tomorrow.
PM says:
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 7:33pm
Randal, I’m talking about Joey from Friends. I’m talking about Vinnie Barbarino. I’m talking about Tony Micelli from Who’s the Boss. Are these instances of “racism in plain sight?” They’re just as silly and over the top as a man painted red and running around a stadium with face paint on. So, please criticize Friends for us. I’m talking about 99% of the examples I brought up. Tell the people I watch football with not to say the refs were paid off when they make a bad call. And, who are you to say “Fuggedaboutit” isn’t bad or offensive? Do any actual Italians say it? Or, is it another instance of a TV show caricaturing them?
Come back later and “set me straight” (while everyone who reads your blog and generally agrees with you are rolling your eyes and are in disbelief that they’re agreeing with the mean Calvinist). Oh, by the way, my Cherokee wife said to tell you to unwind your panties. Since it came from a woman, it can’t be sexist, right?
drwayman says:
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 7:56pm
“…they’re agreeing with the mean Calvinist.”
I’m not agreeing with you.
You’re agreeing with me
randal says:
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 2:45pm
Please address the central argument I’ve been giving and which you’ve been ignoring.
Jews have suffered from a long history of persecution and oppression. This long history of persecution and oppression provides a background context against which ethnic stereotypes which would otherwise be considered positive or innocuous (e.g. thriftiness) are now considered opprobrius.
If you agree that this is true about Jewish stereotypes given Jewish history, how can you be so sure that it is not true about First Nations stereotypes given First Nations history?
Finally, this is the second time you’ve referred to men wearing panties. I’m not sure what that implies about your particular lifestyle, and frankly I don’t want to know. But I promise not to combine that information about your unhealthy preoccupations with any stereotypes, ethnic (e.g. Italian), social (e.g. redneck) or otherwise.
randal says:
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 2:29pm
“Other than that, what is the history of the “Braves?” What is the history of the “Redskins”? Indeed, even the “Indians.” There’s no history *as such*. There’s no *group* that can complain. These terms are so vague that they don’t represent a group who had genocide committed against them.”
That’s foolish Paul. The Indian Resettlement Act of 1830 wasn’t directed against one tribe. It was directed against all Native Americans living east of the Mississippi. Throughough the history of persecution of First Nations people in North America the persecution has more often against First Nations people *as such* rather than specific tribes.
I noted in another comment the offense of a sports team being called the “Cotton Pickers” which would include the picture of a burly black slave working in the field. That image wouldn’t need to identify the slave as having a specific tribal African origin to be offensive.
“They didn’t identify with the other tribes as you seem to think.”
Be careful about making sweeping judgments about the beliefs of entire sectors of the population. Anyway, it is simply false. There is an enormous solidarity among First Nations people on many issues.
I think it is interesting that you continue to ignore the Jewish analogy: two groups with histories of social marginalization and oppression. Do you believe terms like “Jewsday” are offensive and wrong because of the history of persecution against which they are set? If you do agree that that is the case, why are you so unwilling to concede that parallel references to Indians (which pick out “positive” stereotypes analogous to the thriftiness in “Jewsday”) are not also problematic?
PM says:
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 7:13pm
Randal, why do 96% of Indians not care about the name Washtington Redskins?
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf
What explains why YOU are so offended by something that 96, that’s NINETY-SIX-percent of Indians aren’t offended by? Aren’t they in a better position than you do judge whether something is offensive to them and their history? Why the disconnect, Randal?
You’re argument is no good. How many times and different ways do I need to slap it around like a red-headed stepchild (oops, did I offend a red-head?)
pete says:
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 9:00pm
Paul,
You quoted a previous survey citing 62% of Indians weren’t offended by the name “the Indians”.
While I agree with you on why sports teams are given their names, and am charitable to your “War Party” interpretation, by citing the survey in support of your position, do the other 38% not figure into your moral reasoning?
Is a tyranny of the masses acceptable to you?
If you met a Canadian Indian, who was a residential school victim, who happened to burst into tears upon seeing you wear a Clevland Indians Jersey, would you tell them to “untie their panties” because the majority of them aren’t offended?
If 62% voted for abortion in a given state, would that be cool-beans with you?
Zaak says:
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 3:36pm
About 3 months ago our church participated in The Blanket Exercise which was put on by Christian Reformed Committee for Public Dialogue and the Canadian Aboriginal Ministry Committee (for more information: http://www.crcna.org/pages/publicdialogue_blankets.cfm ) .
Their purpose was to help the general population understand the persecution of Native Americans in Canada so as to foster healthy attitudes and work towards reconciliation between peoples.
What I came away with from the very powerful exercise was that my ancestors were guilty of genocide, racism, and other great evils. What do I do with that? Well, I can reason it away. I can “look to the future” and tell the First Nations to suck it up and stop living in the past. I can ignore the continued racism that persists in my continent (the KKK has a growing chapter in Saskatchewan, there are always police scandals related to abuse towards First Nations in the news, attitudes towards First Nations continue to be cynical in nature since suicide/drug abuse rates are highest among First Nations and there seems to always be some financial scandal on a reservation somewhere, etc. ).
Or, I can begin to chip away at the places in my culture (and I would include American culture in my own since we watch American TV and sports and listen to American music, etc.) where racism exists. I agree with Randal in regards to the sports logos in question being racist. They certainly do not promote a healthy or honouring view of “indians.”
I watched a documentary last year called Reel Indian (I recommend it to you). In the beginning of the film, the narrator talks about how he used to watch old cowboys and indians movies in the church basement every Saturday night as a child. He spoke of how he and all of his friends would cheer on the cowboys until they realized that they were indians – that the people being vilified in film were their ancestors – that when people look at them today, they see caricatures of the noble savage or the godless savage or the drunk indian. It is these stereotypes that destroy a culture.
Adam Omelianchuk says:
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 1:48am
I am offended by the New Jersey Devils…
pete says:
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 3:02am
I think “Saints” have been more historically persecuted.
Jared says:
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 5:26am
Pete: That’s fantastic!
Adam: look what happened when Tampa took the Devil out of their name the other year… pennant.
Argument. Won.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 2:03am
I wonder is Miroslav Satan had a hard time in school.