The Lowell Sun
Sunday, April 1, 2007

Think twice before using a derogatory term, even in jest

I enjoyed reading David Pevear's March 25 article, "No Harm, No Foul" because it brings up a subject that really needs more discussion due to recent decisions made by various national, regional and local educational as well as athletic associations.

As a 1994 graduate of the University of Illinois, I was dismayed by the recent decision of the NCAA that my alma mater's use of the "Illiniwek" or "Illini" tribal imagery as their symbol is listed as offensive and "hostile and abusive." I believe there can be a way Native Americans can be honored when their tribes are respectfully used in a historical context such as the Illini of Illinois, the Seminole of Florida, the Sioux of North Dakota and the Chippewa of Michigan. To say names like "Redmen," "Redskins," and "Red Raiders" are also respectful of Native Americans would be like equating "Haoles," "Palefaces" and "Gaijins" (all derogatory terms used by non-white groups to refer to white people) with the same level of respect as "Patriots," "Minutemen" and "Yankees" (OK, maybe the last one can be deemed derogatory in New England at least).

I disagree with Mr. Libby's opinion that it would be different if Tewksbury called themselves the "Savages" (a name used by Southeastern Oklahoma State University until May 2006, when they changed to "Savage Storm").

Mr. Libby states, "As long as it's done tastefully and respectfully, more power to them..." I cannot see how Whitemen, Yellowmen or Blackmen could be used tastefully, which leads me to believe it's a weak argument to say that Native Americans see Redmen as being used "tastefully" or "respectfully."

As for Mr. Aylward's assertion that the name is a source of pride in the town, pride for whom? If the town was so proud of its Native American heritage dating back to the 1700s, then why not call them the Wamesits? Braintree High School uses the Wampatucks, not a descriptive name from white groups derived from a centuries old belief that it is better (i.e. more powerful) to put a group in its place by labeling them rather than giving them the proper designation in their language. Even the word "Indian" is a misnomer.

As a result of Christopher Columbus's gaffe, Native Americans have lived for centuries with a nomenclature which groups them anthropologically with South Asians of the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian language tree.

My final thoughts on this issue is the "co-opting" of derogatory terms by a group inside and outside the target. This occurs all of the time in many different facets of society. Often times a group will neutralize a derogatory term by co-opting it amongst its targeted victims.

I am a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility and I often remember back to my college days at Illinois when at times, maybe at a lunch table at the student union, a small group of my friends who also use wheelchairs would converse freely using the g-word toward each other, with and without candor. To see the faces on people at other tables, their harrowed expressions of, "Did that guy-in-a-wheelchair call that other guy-in-a-wheelchair a gimp? The witnessing of this exchange may lend the observing group to surmise that the targeted group is comfortable with the derogatory term. It's quite uncomfortable as a white person to hear a table of African-Americans throwing around the n-word just as it's shocking to hear the g-word used between people with disabilities. But there is no discomfort quite like the discomfort when a white person feels like they can use the n-word because they heard a black person use it ... or an able-bodied person use the g-word because they heard a disabled person use it.

So the next time you come across a table of Native Americans, think twice before using the r-word.

PATRICK FAHERTY
Lowell