The Universal Notebook: Just say no to Redskins and Indians

  • Mail this page!
  • Delicious
  • 2

Once upon a time, there were close to 30 Maine schools that used stereotyped Native American mascots and nicknames for their sports teams – Indians, Braves, Warriors and, most offensive of all, Redskins, a racial slur that evokes scalping.

Now there are only three – the Skowhegan Indians, the Warriors of Wells, and Nokomis in Newport.

You’d like to think they’d know better by now.

The Skowhegan Area High School Indians are an embarrassment to the state of Maine. Warriors can be a neutral designation. But calling yourself the Indians when you are not Native American is racist, pure and simple. Saying you intend to honor Native Americans does not excuse such insensitivity. Intention doesn’t count if you are offending people. And Skowhegan has been told repeatedly by Maine’s tribes, the NAACP and the Maine Indian Tribal-State Commission that the use of “Indians” is offensive.

Skowhegan and Wells have been in news lately for offending the Native American people of Maine. It‘s bad enough that Skowhegan stubbornly holds on to its racist nickname, but the local Chamber of Commerce launched a “Hunt for the Indian” retail promotion before local folks realized just how bad that made them look.

Wells Warriors were in the news because their fans allegedly donned war paint, beat on drums and whooped it up on the sidelines, offending a Native American family from the other school. Wells administrators seem to be dismissing the incident as a matter of school spirit, but when your school spirit inspires you to act like a fool, there’s something wrong with your school.

Most Maine schools and towns have been able to figure out for themselves that Native American names and mascots are inappropriate. Back in 2001, Scarborough High School led the way by changing its team name from the Redskins to the Red Storm. No doubt there are a few Scarborough alums who will always think of themselves as Redskins and who do not think of themselves as racists or even insensitive, but you do not honor a people by embarrassing them.

“Redskin” is a slur. Recognizing this, Sanford High changed its name from the Redskins to the Spartans and the Wiscasset Redskins became the Wiscasset Wolverines, albeit with a little backsliding before putting the racist mascot away for good. Elsewhere, the Old Town Indians became the Coyotes and Fort Kent Warriors kept their name but changed their logo from an Indian head to a Trojan soldier. The Golden State Warriors of the NBA do not use a Native American on their logo, they use the Golden Gate Bridge and they seem to do very nicely, thank you very much.

The pros are the worst offenders, of course. The Cleveland Indians hang on to their Red Sambo caricature Chief Wahoo, and the Washington Redskins won’t even consider changing their offensive moniker because there’s big money involved. Not sure how Cleveland fans hold their heads up in polite society while wearing a racist cartoon Indian, but the Curse of Chief Wahoo may be responsible for the fact that Cleveland hasn’t won the World Series since 1948.

The Washington Redskins have aggressively resisted calls to clean up their act, even citing polls that purport to show that 90 percent of Native Americans do not object to the name Redskins. Most of those polled, however, turned out to be self-identified Native Americans who did not belong to any tribe.

Folks in Cleveland, Washington and Skowhegan will no doubt eventually get their minds right, but in the meantime I believe people who condemn their stubborn racist should simple shun them. Sports reporters should not use the racist nicknames when referring to the teams. And athletes who play for teams with racist mascots should be made to understand that they are complicit in the racism and have a role to play in overcoming it.

I mean, how do minority players on Cleveland and Washington teams put up with demeaning another minority. Would they play without complaint for the Cleveland Asians, Africans or Latinos? Do the Washington players who took a knee during the national anthem to protest police violence in the black community not realize that Redskins is tantamount to the n-word?

In Skowhegan, it’s probably just a matter of school officials waiting out a few belligerent defenders of white male privilege, but you’d like to think that student-athletes would lead the way on social justice. All those field hockey state championships, ladies, are empty accomplishments if you won them as faux-Indians.

Come on, Skowhegan, you’re better than this. Challenge your students to come up with a better name, a better logo and a better future for your school and your community.

Freelance journalist Edgar Allen Beem lives in Brunswick. The Universal Notebook is his personal, weekly look at the world around him.

2
  • Paul R. Jones

    This article is plain hypocritical: “The Universal Notebook: Just say no to Redskins and Indians” By Edgar Allen Beem on November 20, 2017.”

    It never ceases to amaze me just how United States Constitution-stupid journalist, conventional wisdom (CW) pundits and politicians-state and federal-are piled on top of how stupid their attorneys are! As of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of the United States Constitution…only U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen!

    And, yet, Title 25-INDIANS and faux ‘Indian treaties’ whereby these journalist, CW pundits, attorneys and politicians-state and federal-assert the United States Constitution has provision whereby We, the People, have ‘treaties’ with Other We, the People, because of the “Other’s” “Indian ancestry/race” and everyone believes this hoax. That is plain hypocritical when narrow segments of society are in a tizzy about names of sports teams or business enterprise reflecting ‘Indians!’

    Worse yet are judges-state and federal-who woefully fail to uphold and defend the United States Constitution in their oath clearly articulated in CJ Marshall’s Marbury decision by accepting both sides attorney’s petition there are “Indian Treaties” and “Indian reservations” where politicians-state and federal-continue to regulate from womb to tomb a select group of U.S./State citizens health, welfare, safety, benefits, capacities, metes and boundaries because of their “Indian ancestry/race” at the same time condemn “Jim Crow Laws” citing the United States Constitution’s 14th Amendment for one….is plain hypocritical!

    It is hypocritical for journalist and CW pundits in general to complain about the use of ‘terms’ citing anything referencing “Indians” to be onerous/racist and at the same time politicians-state and federal-pass un-Constitutional common law ie. Title 25-Indians, to regulate U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” and no one raises the slightest issue about ‘racial legislation,’ and that is plain hypocritical of these CW pundits!

    The United States Constitution makes for no provisions for:

    1. Indian sovereign nations. None of the asserted tribes possess any of the attributes of being a ‘sovereign nation:’ a. No U.S. Constitution recognition b. No international recognition c. No fixed borders d. No military e. No currency f. No postal system g. No passports h. et al

    2. Treaties with its own constituency

    3. Indian reservations whereby a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” reside exclusively and to the exclusion of all others, on land-with rare exception-that is owned by the People of the United States according to a federal document readily available on-line that notes rights of renters as ‘occupancy and use’ by these
    distinguished U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” only with the land owned by the People of the United States.

    4. Recognition of ‘Indian citizenship’ asserted by various tribes. There is no international/U.S. Constitution recognition of “Indian citizenship” as there is no ‘nation-state’ from which citizenship is derived.

    A simple question for politicians, CW pundits and MSM to answer…a question so simple, it is hard:

    “Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”

    • EdBeem

      Not sure what your bias has to do with the fact that it is immoral to use Native American names and images as sports mascots, but here you go:

      The United States Constitution mentions Native American tribes three times:

      Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 states that “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … excluding Indians not taxed.”[1] According to Story’s Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution, “There were Indians, also, in several, and probably in most, of the states at that period, who were not treated as citizens, and yet, who did not form a part of independent communities or tribes, exercising general sovereignty and powers of government within the boundaries of the states.”

      Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”,[2] determining that Indian tribes were separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations;[3] and

      The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2 amends the apportionment of representatives in Article I, Section 2 above.[4]

      These basic provisions have been changed or clarified by various federal laws over the history of the United States. Regulate historically meant facilitate, rather than control or direct in the more modern sense. Therefore, the Congress of these United States was to be the facilitator of commerce between the states and the tribes.[5]

      These Constitutional provisions, and subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court (see below) are today often summarized in three principles of U.S. Indian law:[6][7][8]

      Territorial Sovereignty. Tribal authority on Indian land is organic and is not granted by the states in which Indian lands are located.

      Plenary Power Doctrine. Congress, and not the Executive Branch, has ultimate authority with regard to matters affecting the Indian tribes. Federal courts give greater deference to Congress on Indian matters than on other subjects.

      Trust Relationship. The federal government has a “duty to protect” the tribes, implying (courts have found) the necessary legislative and executive authorities to effect that duty.[9]

      • Paul R. Jones

        Your post failed to answer this question: “Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”
        You are also naïve about the Constitution’s protection of one’s U.S./State citizenship from political abuse and how the Constitution functions beginning with the 14th Amendments ‘equal protection’ Clause.

        Failure to answer my question makes your post without merit and carries no weight.

        As of the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, all of the Constitution’s references to “Indians” were made null by Citizenship! You have provided no Amendments to make a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race!” Congress has no Constitutional authority to ‘enlarge or abridge’ citizenship in accordance with these 3-SCOTUS decisions posted below.

        The balance of your post is merely recitation of fraud upon the Constitution by politicians-state and federal-who have no Constitutional authority to ‘tinker’ with a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race!”

        Lastly, judges-state and federal-have failed to uphold their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution by not looking first to the Constitution to affirm the dispute at the bar turns of common law that complies with the Constitution as succinctly written in Marbury posted below. Every court/judged that failed to determine any common law that flows from Title 25-INDIANS also failed to uphold and defend the Constitution and their oath of office.

        1. United States Supreme Court AFROYIM v. RUSK, (1967) No. 456 Argued: February 20, 1967 Decided: May 29, 1967

        “(a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment; and a mature and well-considered dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 257-261.

        (b) The Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . .”
        completely controls the status of citizenship and prevents the cancellation of petitioner’s citizenship. Pp. 262-268”

        2. United States Supreme Court OSBORN v. BANK OF U.S., (1824) No. 80 Argued: Decided: March 19, 1824

        “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is [22 U.S. 738, 828] distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”

        3. United States Supreme Court

        ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. PENA, (1995) No. 93-1841 Argued: January 17, 1995 Decided: June 12, 1995:

        JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

        I join the opinion of the Court, except Part III-C, and except insofar as it may be inconsistent with the following: In my view, government can never have a “compelling interest” in discriminating on the basis of race in order
        to “make up” for past racial discrimination in the opposite direction. See Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 520 (1989) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful racial discrimination should be made whole; but under our Constitution
        there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race. That concept is alien to the Constitution’s focus upon the individual, see Amdt. 14, 1 (“[N]or shall any State . . . deny to any person” the equal protection of the laws) (emphasis added), and its rejection of dispositions based on race, see Amdt. 15, 1 (prohibiting abridgment of the right to vote “on account of race”) or based on blood, see Art. III, 3 (“[N]o Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood”); Art. I, 9 (“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States”). To pursue the concept of racial entitlement – even for the most admirable and benign of purposes – is to reinforce and preserve for future [ ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
        v. PENA, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 2] mischief the way of thinking that
        produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of
        government, we are just one race here. It is American.

        It is unlikely, if not impossible, that the challenged program would survive under this understanding of strict scrutiny, but I am content to leave that to be decided on remand. [ ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. PENA, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 1]

        JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

        I agree with the majority’s conclusion that strict scrutiny applies to all government classifications based on race. I write separately, however, to express my disagreement with the premise underlying JUSTICE STEVENS’ and JUSTICE GINSBURG’S dissents: that there is a racial paternalism exception to the principle of equal protection. I believe that there is a “moral [and] constitutional equivalence,” post, at 3, (STEVENS, J., dissenting), between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law.

        That these programs may have been motivated, in part, by good intentions cannot provide refuge from the principle that under our Constitution, the government may not make distinctions on the basis of race. As far as the Constitution is concerned, it is irrelevant whether a government’s racial classifications are drawn by those who wish to oppress a race or by those who have a sincere desire to help those thought to be disadvantaged. There can be no doubt that the paternalism that [ ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. PENA, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 2] appears to lie at the heart of this program is at war with the principle
        of inherent equality that underlies and infuses our Constitution. See
        Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident,
        that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
        certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”).

        These programs not only raise grave constitutional questions, they also undermine the moral basis of the equal protection principle. Purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering, the equal protection principle reflects our Nation’s understanding that such classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the individual and our society. Unquestionably, “[i]nvidious [racial] discrimination is an engine of oppression,” post, at 3. It is also true that “[r]emedial” racial preferences may reflect “a desire to foster equality in society,” ibid. But there can be no doubt that racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination. So-called “benign” discrimination teaches many that because of chronic and apparently immutable handicaps, minorities cannot compete with them without their patronizing indulgence. Inevitably, such programs engender attitudes of superiority or, alternatively, provoke resentment among those who believe that they have been wronged by the government’s use of race. These programs stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority and may cause them to develop dependencies or to adopt an attitude that they are “entitled” to preferences. Indeed, JUSTICE STEVENS once recognized the real harms stemming from seemingly “benign” discrimination. See Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 545 (1980) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (noting that “remedial” race legislation “is perceived by many as resting on an assumption that those who are granted this special [ ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. PENA, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 3] preference are less qualified in some respect that is identified purely by their race”).

        In my mind, government-sponsored racial discrimination based on benign prejudice is just as noxious as discrimination inspired by malicious prejudice. * In each instance, it is racial discrimination, plain and simple.

        4. United States Supreme Court MARBURY v.
        MADISON, (1803)Argued: Decided: February 1, 1803:

        “If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

        It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
        [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

        If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

        Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of
        maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

        This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely
        obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is
        expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real
        omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers
        within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits
        may be passed at pleasure.”

        Lastly, any notion of you raising ‘Indian treaties” is debunked by this excerpted essay on the subject:

        http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm

        “The object of treaties is the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations, and is external. An especially interesting piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that the Treaty Clause was intended and understood by the Framing and Ratifying Conventions not to authorize the President and Senate, by a treaty, either (a) to override the Constitution, in whole or in part, or (b) to make domestic law (as distinguished from governance
        of relations with foreign governments),

        [Section 52.] “Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is a law of the land.
        It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign
        nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation . . . 2. By the
        general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to
        comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole Government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

        Another fallacious statement is that a treaty “can override the Constitution;” which defies historical truth, as we have seen. A related
        and most preposterous allegation is that a treaty “can cut across the
        rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights”–than which
        nothing could be further from the truth, partly for two reasons: the
        Constitution does not authorize any such treaty and, secondly, the people are, of course, given their rights by God and not by themselves through their own creation: the Constitution (including its Bill of Rights, or Bill of
        Prohibitions, Amendments). The quoted statement is farcical.

        • EdBeem

          You’re point strikes me as irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the ethics of racist team mascots. God-given rights do not require a piece of paper to validate them. And whose God are and whose rights are we talking about here?

          • Paul R. Jones

            Your post is sophistry and bad sophistry at that! Your post dodged my question:

            “Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”

            U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” are sniveling hypocrites about any sports teams and/or businesses using ‘terms’ they claim to be ‘racist’ that refer to what…at the same time U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” are on ‘racist’ federal welfare rolls since 1924 and anyone using terms of ‘lazy,’ leeches,’ ‘parasites’ ‘racial entitlements,’ et al are not ‘racists terms’ but merely accurate terms identifying a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” who are on federal welfare rolls since 1924!

            And, not one U.S./State recipient with “Indian ancestry/race” of this ‘racial entitlement welfare’ largess of free food, housing, health care and education is sniveling about taxpayer monies given to them based solely on their “Indian ancestry/race” that is publically shown to be squandered! That is called being a hypocrite! A hypocrite that bits the taxpayer hand that feeds them!

            However, having any sports team using a word such as ‘chiefs,’ ‘Indians,’ ‘Seattle,’ et al is a racist and demeaning business to whom??? A select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” who hold their hands out for federal welfare since 1924 and receive billions and billions of taxpayer dollars year after year after year that achieves what? Perpetual racial entitlements?
            Seems U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” are sniveling about words used by sports teams and businesses at the same time ‘take money’ from the taxpayers strikes me as: 1. A plain fraud upon the Constitution and treasury by welfare recipients and 2. Being hypocrites.

            Your post “…which is the ethics of racist team mascots.” is a red herring as well!

          • EdBeem

            Oh please. I checked your thousands of posts and you always post the same thing whether it has anything to do with the topic or not. In this case, it does not. Not sure what your “Indian” problem is or why you have seized on this fixed idea that the Constitution does not apply to Native Americans, but you are wrong.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Nope. You above post noting this ” Not sure what your “Indian” problem is or why you have seized on this fixed idea that the Constitution does not apply to Native Americans, but you are wrong.”
            is a false statement. The United States Constitution is controlling…there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of the Constitution…only U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race!” Period. Their sniveling about terms they deem ‘racists’ is in apposite to their history of perpetual racial entitlements by the U.S. taxpayer. They are calling the pot black all the while ignoring their own ‘racist’ conditions.

  • Chew H Bird

    When I was a kid we played cowboys and Indians. Evidently that was racist?

    • Paul R. Jones

      Great sarcasm. Of course, you will be vilified by U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” and their advocates as a heretic. And, there will be no more “LONE RANGER” re-runs either! Worse yet, Fess Parker will be short one “Indian” companion ie. Mingo, as Daniel Boone will be labelled a ‘racist’ and Disney won’t be able to run the series as re-runs. The shame of it all! Same for F-troop.

    • EdBeem

      Not on point.

      • Chew H Bird

        I know, but I also know the old saying: “Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”, while inconsiderate of others does serve as a foil (or balance) regarding political correctness taken to totality.

        I have no issue with heritage, history, circumstance, or any of the currently defined racial, sexual, or otherwise identifying characteristics.

        What I do take issue with is spending time on superficial stuff that detracts from real efforts of acceptance and equality. Many names of sports teams, or ski mountains (for example) were decided prior to the politically correct overhaul of modern wordsmiths. While some change is definitely necessary, others (reminders of our imperfect past), may serve a more valuable purpose being left the way they are so we do not repeat the same mistakes.

        • EdBeem

          Change with the times. Squaw Mountain is gone. The Skowhegan Indians should be as well.

    • highesthotliver

      When I was a kid, we ate at Sambo’s. The restaurant with the Little Black Sambo theme. Complete with large lipped characters on the walls and menus. But, they went out of business. Evidently that was racist.

      • EdBeem

        Yes, it was.

  • Max Millard

    You mentioned that the Golden State Warriors of the NBA do not have a Native American on their logo, but the Golden Gate Bridge instead. It wasn’t always that way. The team began in 1946 as the Philadelphia Warriors, and first had a racist logo showing an “Indian” dribbling a basketball. When the team relocated to San Francisco in 1962, it adopted a new logo of an Indian headdress, which it kept until 1968. Since then, all Indian images have disappeared from its logos. As a former Mainer who now lives in San Francisco, and who celebrates Indigenous People’s Day instead of Columbus Day, I look forward to the time when all Mainers will catch up to the new realities of a multiracial society. It reminds me of the story of the plane that lands at Portland International Jetport and the pilot says: “We have just arrived in Maine. Set your watches back … 50 years.”

  • funfundvierzig

    Another lecture on political correctness and morality by ultra-liberal Mr. Beam, and self-appointed spokesman for all Indians.

    Mr. Beam confidently concludes, ” ‘Redskin’ is a slur”. Yet he refers to another minority by colour of skin: “the black community”. Moreover he cites the NAACP, or National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “Colored People” is supposed to be a no-no according to liberal orthodoxy. It’s “People of Color” OMG, it’s a sheer minefield these days conversing with our liberal friends. It’s so easy to send them on the warpath.

    Gotta laugh…funfun..

    • Lucy Ball

      Beam also threw in “white privilege.” A term that really p*sses me off.

      • EdBeem

        White privilege is what oppresses minorities. It p*sses me off, too.

        • James Post

          It is interesting that Nigerian Americans have a higher median household income than white households.

          Additionally, these groups of Americans, who neither qualify as white, nor generally look white, have higher median household incomes than white households: Indian, Taiwanese, Filipino, Sri Lankan, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Egyptian. Partial list.

          Mr. Beem, please specifically explain how white privilege worked against these people.

          It certainly is an advantage to be white, but the term privilege is not sufficiently nuanced. If whites are permitted to exercise rights that are supposed to be for all, and some groups have greater difficulty in exercising these rights, I would call it advantage, not privilege.

          • EdBeem

            White privilege/advantage (take your pick) is what makes ignorant rednecks think they are superior to people of color. It’s an unwarranted sense of superiority.

          • James Post

            Notice you did not explain the median household income success of all those non white groups in relation to overall white median household income.

          • EdBeem

            RankRaceMedian household income (2015 US$)1Asian74,245[1]2White59,698[1]3Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander55,607[1]4Some other race42,461[1]5American Indian and Alaska Native38,530[1]6Black or African American36,544[1]
            By ancestry[edit]
            Indian American : $107,390[2]
            Jewish American : $97,500[3]
            Taiwanese American : $85,566[4]
            Filipino American : $82,389[4]
            Australian American : $81,452[2]
            Israeli American : $79,736[2]
            European American : $77,440[2]
            Russian American : $77,349[2]
            Greek American : $77,342[2]
            Lebanese American : $74,757[2]
            Sri Lankan American: $73,856[2]
            Croatian American : $73,196[2]
            Latvian American : $72,690[2]
            Lithuanian American : $72,605[2]
            Austrian American : $72,478[2]
            Iranian American : $72,345[2]
            Slovene American : $72,272[2]
            Swiss American : $71,418[2]
            Bulgarian American : $71,331[2]
            Romanian American : $71,230[2]
            Scandinavian American : $71,190[2]
            Italian American : $70,726[2]
            Japanese American : $70,261[4]
            British American : $70,037[2]
            Chinese American: $69,586[4]
            (including Taiwanese American)
            Serbian American : $69,372[2]
            Belgian American : $69,342[2]
            Scottish American : $69,269[2]
            Welsh American : $68,874[2]
            Polish American : $68,843[2]
            Chinese American: $68,672[4]
            (excluding Taiwanese American)
            Slovak American : $68,611[2]
            Danish American : $68,558[2]
            Czechslovakian American : $67,991[2]
            Swedish American : $67,908[2]
            Vietnamese American : $67,800[5]
            (excluding Foreign Born)
            Norwegian American : $67,403[2]
            Syrian American : $66,965[2]
            Czech American : $66,856[2]
            Hungarian American : $66,483[2]
            Ukrainian American : $66,430[2]
            Finnish American : $66,063[2]
            German American : $65,570[2]
            English American : $65,436[2]
            Palestinian American : $65,345[2]
            French Canadian American : $64,883[2]
            Portuguese American : $64,525[2]
            Irish American : $64,322[2]
            Vietnamese American : $64,191[6]
            Albanian American : $63,649[2]
            Canadian American : $63,443[2]
            Slavic American : $62,866[2]
            Pakistani American : $62,848[4][7]
            Nigerian American : $62,086[2]
            Scotch-Irish American : $62,055[2]
            Indonesian American : $61,943[4]
            Dutch American : $61,508[2]
            Egyptian American : $61,344[2]
            French American : $61,262[2]
            Turkish American : $61,187[2]
            Armenian American : $60,561[2]
            Ghanaian American : $59,545[2]
            Yugoslavian American : $58,668[2]
            Vietnamese American : $58,700[8]
            (Foreign Born)
            Korean American : $58,573[4]
            Guyanese American : $58,168[2]
            British West Indian American : $56,865[2]
            Brazilian American : $56,200[2]
            Barbadian American : $56,078[2]
            Arab American : $55,117[2]
            Laotian American : $53,655[4]
            Thai American : $53,468[4]
            Cambodian American : $53,359[4]
            West Indian American : $53,310[2]
            Cajun American : $52,886[2]
            Trinidadian and Tobagonian American : $55,303[2]
            Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac American : $51,921[2]
            American : $51,122[2]
            Pennsylvania German American : $51,061[2]
            Jamaican American : $50,935[2]
            Cape Verdean American : $48,408[2]
            Hmong American : $48,149[4]
            Haitian American : $47,751[2]
            Jordanian American : $46,855[2]
            Moroccan American : $45,128[2]
            Nepali American : $44,677[4]
            Bangladeshi American : $44,512[4]
            Afghan American : $43,838[2]
            Subsaharan African : $43,682[2]
            Bahamian American : $42,000[2]
            Ethiopian American : $41,736[2]
            African American : $40,931[2]
            Arab/Arabic : $39,395[2]
            Burmese American : $35,016[4]
            Iraqi American : $32,594[2]
            Somali American : $22,368[2]

          • James Post

            That is not a specific explanation of how white privilege works against the non white groups that have higher median household incomes than whites. You gave statistics, without explaining the economic impact of white privilege. Total cop out on your part.

          • EdBeem

            Just pointing out that you wrong. Nigerian Americans do not make more than European Americans. And economic achievement is only one measure of cultural value. Many ethnic minorities suffer second-class status in this country.

          • James Post

            I did not say that Nigerian Americans made more than European Americans. I said that they made, in terms of median household income, than white households.

            I refer to the same chart that you copied. You see whites, overall, (and they are not exactly the same as European Americans), with a median household income of $59,698 versus a Nigerian American median household income of $62,086.

            Why did you compare Nigerian Americans to European Americans, when I made the comparison to whites?

          • EdBeem

            You are comparing apples and oranges. Whites at $59,698 compares to Black or African American at $36,544, not to Nigerian Americans (who are a subset of African-Americans).

          • James Post

            A natural approach to data analysis is to look at the subsets within a group to see what the diverse ranges of data tell us. One would then logically ask why the huge difference between one subset’s median income, and the median income of the entire set.

            White privilege, in terms of income, impacts the many different black subsets differently, I would surmise. Some groups within the African American black category are able to deal with it better, in terms of the affect such privilege has on income.

            White privilege seems to be more effective against certain elements of the non white groups than against others. It is not apples and oranges, it is a deeper analysis of the data than you gave, probably because it is not convenient to your redneck bashing.

  • David R. Hill

    What a ridiculous argument, referring to Paul R. Jones diatribes! “Eeny, meeny, minie, moe, catch….by the toe.” “One little, two little, three little…” I think every white person born prior to 1960 was unintentionally raised a racist and we, and our nation, have been working ever since to reverse that indoctrination. Don’t quit now.

  • James Post

    I love it when white males mention white male privilege.

  • Donna Gammy Gallant

    I am so sick and tired of all the PC bullcrap!! The Indians were part of Scarborough’s history. Thanks to Flaherty’s Farm I am a proud owner of a Scarborough Redskins sweatshirt. I wear it with great pride. GO REDSKINS!
    P.S. What the heck is a Red Storm?

    • EdBeem

      And lots of people are sick and tired of racism, which is why Scarborough changed its name. You do understand that Redskins is the equivalent of the N-word, right?