Danlin O.
Not one to watch sports games, I rarely follow the headlines on professional sports teams. Once in awhile, I would come across articles on a certain sports game or a specific sports player in the newspapers, but I would quickly turn to the sections that I enjoy reading about. Of course, this implies that I hardly gave any thoughts to professional sports team names. However, upon reading Ward Churchill’s “Let’s Spread the ‘Fun’ Around,” I have acquired a deeper understanding and fascination with the origin and issues concerning the names of professional sports teams.
In his essay, Churchill points out the injustice of incorporating Native American references in professional sports team names and mascots. He is absolutely raw and unrestrained in criticizing the owners and related personnel of professional teams—even going so far as to bluntly state out racial slurs to prove a point. Well, it works. What may have offended many people actually caught my attention. Never would I have considered the “use of native names, images, and symbols as sports team mascots” as a “virulently racist practice” (Churchill 219). I might have even naively praised the team names as creative.
I know better now, fortunately. I agree with Churchill that what most people consider as “no big deal” is definitely something of importance—especially if the situation can be compared to Nazism (Churchill 220). To blatantly employ the culture of Indian heritage for means of personal entertainment is not what one would consider as a way to “honor native people” (Churchill 220). Instead, it actually makes Native Americans look savage and primitive. And if we substitute the team names with racial slurs of other ethnicities, suddenly they become socially unacceptable. Then what makes the use of Native American names and symbols as professional sports team names acceptable?
Ward Churchill does not stop with his sarcasm at the substitution of multifarious racial slurs for team names. He uses his diction carefully to give his opinion on the players and owners of sports teams. Churchill actually compares team athletes to horses being “trotted out by professional team owners” to dilute the controversy—which I found humorous (Churchill 220). Usually the word “trotted” is associated with horses or other animals. By pairing that word with people, he illustrates the athletes as animals—with no free will of their own—that are controlled to do whatever their owners want. This gives me a negative image of athletes and team owners instead of the positive way that the media portrays them to be.
Churchill undeniably uses his right to freedom of speech and expression to the greatest extent. His relentless criticism of the people who chose to brush off the professional sports team names controversy as a minor problem certainly teaches them a lesson. The people whom Churchill calls out in his essay will probably think twice about the way they speak of Native Americans from now on—for surely, Churchill will bite back. Churchill’s arguments were straight to the point and easy to comprehend. His message undoubtedly got through to me.
http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/photo/1005944081000877832KbiRigFSdx
