And so my two-front war continues
Cenimo: We've gone round on the confederate flag thing a couple times, and nothing new is emerging. I'm prepared to discontinue that one. UNLV is my own alma-whatever, BTW, so it's not an acident that I chose a reference to the Rebels.
John McNeil: Symbolic and real are not mutually exclusive. Both symbolic victories and a social conscience are perfectly real. My point in calling attention to the symbolic nature of the victory is that it would rest in the meaning of the event. It's not just a question of whether or not the mascots are continued or discontinued; but a question of how either option will be interpreted, and as I said before; that interpretation can and will vary. This doesn't mean that symbolic victories are inconsequential, it means that the consequences are harder to control.
On your second paragraph, two problems:
1) I would say that you are at this point slightly mischaracterizing the issue. The mascots are not part of a propoganda program whose explicit intent is to defame Native Americans. They are part of a soprts-related subculture whose leadership is unconcerned about an ill-equipt to understand Native American issues. The insults to the extent that they exist are part of the latent meanings of the symbols, and those furthering the use of those symbols are unintentally insulting Native Americans. If you are going to campaign againjst them, then it will be far more effective if you can do so without implying that the intent of a sprts fan is really to destroy a culture. It is precisely insofar as so many PC agendas attribute malicious purpose to those that are if anything neglectful that makes those agendas so easy to dismiss. If you assert that people intend harm by these symbols, it is to easy for them to say, no my intent was to root for my team. The issue is more subtle than that. It's not about propoganda, and in most cases it is not about overt racism either; it is about latent prejudice.
2) More importantly, to my current postion, I see no reaason to believe eliminating these symbols will cause any prejudice to fade. Others will take their place. Heck, I don't even see a link between the elimination of such symbols and the general promotion of tolerance. And the notion that prejudice will thenb fade is little other than an article of faith here, faith in progress. That is an idol to which many a Native American life has been sacrificed in the past; I see no reason to believe it will now deliver them from oppression.
I didn't say the public will only stand for so much justice, BTW, that is a straw man, I said that the public will only pay attention to so many moral reforms at any one time, and will only pay attention to them for a short time. That is a social fact, and that too has real consequences, one of them being that poorly chosen crusades drive out critical ones. Shoring up those crusades with articles of faith about growing love and compassion and declining racism is a trick that the left has been playing on itself for years. It is convenient way of rationalizing our retreat from critical issues, and our growing obsession with status politics. And while we seek to fine tune the nations moral fiber and its bedside manner, conservatives are grabbing all the critical resources. So, in the end people make concessions as long as they feel like being tolerant, but when push comes to shove these agendas provide no real leverage with which to protect the communities we claim to support.
