What in a Team Name? A Lot!

It is almost impossible to not know about the controversies over sports team names that are named after slurs or white shorthand for Native Americans as they are pretty consistently in the news. I haven’t owned a television for over ten years, but the controversies about these names is also in the newspapers, radio, etc… I have felt for many years that these names are wrong and offensive for several reasons. Those reasons can be slightly different depending on the particular ‘name’. Here are some of the names and my thoughts on them.

Redskins - This is a word that was used to describe the skin color of Native Americans and is widely considered to be a racial slur and studies show that to most likely be correct. Why it’s a slur – whether the word means the color of skin, a bloody scalp, or a description of the corpse with the scalp removed – seems clear. In 2014, Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo activist stated: "The name itself actually dates back [to] the time when the Native American population was being exterminated, and bounty hunters were hired to kill Native American people... So, in order to show that they made their kill, they had to bring back a scalp or their skin." According to the Los Angeles Herald, different parts of the colonial government would pay up to 50 pounds for the scalps of Indian males over the age of twelve, 25 pounds for Indian women over the age of twelve, and twenty pounds for the scalps of children of either gender. The owners of the team named the “Washington Redskins” state that the team name is respectful and has been from its inception, however, it appears that is not necessarily true and is more of a myth that is clung to in the hopes that they will not feel forced to change the team name. In the end, many people see the word 'redskins' to be as rude and bigoted as the word 'nigger'... if we are unable to accept the use of that word because of its connotations, why would we be okay with this one?

Braves- One the face of it, this word seems respectful. It brings to mind an Indian warrior – a tall male, proud, and strong, etc... However, when I really thing about this I realize that I am seeing an image in my head that is part myth, part caricature. I am not seeing what that word really shows because I do not know the culture well enough to understand the full nuances of what the word really symbolizes. So what this term really suggests is what white people think of Indian culture which shows how not only how limited our understanding of their culture is, but how little we actually respect it as well. A whole intricate culture is not made to be simplified into a few actions of a mascot or boiled down to a single stereotype or image. So, in the end, this word really isn't nice or respectful either as many Native Americans have tried to express to us through speech and writings. Currently, the US has a major league baseball team named the Atlanta Braves and a few minor league affiliates with the same name.

There are other team names that are named after specific tribes (such as the Chicago Blackhawks and the Florida State Seminoles), stereotypes (Elora Mohawks) or simply as Indians (such as the Cleveland Indians) and they tend to be seen by native tribes as offensive, racist and derogatory. When I look at the issue in that light, I can't have any opinion but that the names need to be changed. First of all, while it might cost the teams money to change things, it would be a very great gesture which I believe would go a long way into helping to promote healing in the Native American community. I also think that would potentially bring in more revenue as another group of people who currently feel angry and alienated (and maybe even mocked) would potentially become customers when it feels more respectful and fun for them. Sports teams have been complaining over the last several years that they need to attract more customers- this seems like a good potential way to do it. It also seems like changing a name is really a small thing to do to help build bridges and create opportunities for community gathering and understanding. Just my thoughts....


pictures from:
http://www.redskins.com/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Braves,

Journey Forth #4 : Some Common Myths about Gluten and Celiac Disease

When I was first starting the process that led to my diagnosis of celiac disease, I heard many things that I found out later either were not true... or the fact that they happened to be true in my case was unusual. So I thought I would write a short post on the most common myths (at least the ones that I have heard) and mention the true facts behind them.

1. Celiac disease is a simple gastrointestinal disease – For people who have celiac, they soon learn that the disease is anything but simple and doesn't only effect the digestive system. As discussed in past posts, this disorder affects every part of the body and some doctors believe that this disease is primarily a neurological one with some symptoms being digestive... and not the other way around. Even if that viewpoint isn't entirely true, the evidence of how this auto immune disorder effects and damages all organs and body systems seems pretty conclusive.

2. Celiac disease is a children's disease – While children are more likely to be diagnosed and diagnosed early, adults have the disorder as well in pretty high numbers. Estimates on undiagnosed adult celiacs range from 1 in 20 to potentially 1 in 6 for simply gluten intolerance. The symptoms tend to be more noticeable and obvious in children and adults tend to have less obvious or more ignorable symptoms... as well as the unfortunate fact that they are also more likely to be wrongly diagnosed. It is estimated that only 5% of celiacs have been diagnosed which makes up about one percent of the American population. Also, this disorder cannot be 'outgrown' and once truly diagnosed... you will have the disease for your entire life. In essence, there is no cure.

3. Celiac disease is the same as a wheat allergy – this really isn't true. While some people with celiac disease also have a wheat allergy (I might be one of those), most do not. Celiac disease is an auto immune disorder and as such the body responds differently than it does to an allergy. While both are dangerous and not problems to take lightly, they are not the same. Those with a wheat allergy can still eat barley and rye, while those with the celiac disease cannot.

4. Eating Gluten makes you fat – This isn't a true statement at all. Many people have started eating gluten free as a diet choice- some celebrities have made it more popular and 'trendy'. When it comes to gaining weight the answer is usually very straight forward... it you take in more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. While there are exceptions, the vast majority of people who start a gluten free diet will actually gain weight for a few reasons. One is that the person's lifestyle hasn't changed at all. Their eating habits, social customs and physical activity levels are what really cause an individual to develop weight gain. Another reason is that gluten free foods are thought by some to have fewer calories in them then their regular counterparts- with few exceptions, that is an erroneous assumption. Gluten free foods tend to have more fat and sugar to balance the lack of gluten protein. In order to make texture, color, and taste more 'normal', these are the ingredients that tend to be tweaked... and are also the main things that cause weight gain. Also, the average person's diet is heavy on grains with fewer legumes, fresh fruits, vegetables, and other foods that are naturally gluten free. Processed food is another factor in weight gain and so simply changing an unhealthy way of eating for an unhealthy diet without gluten doesn't really change much. Last, exercise is important for anyone and most people will gain weight if they tend to be sedentary creatures (anyone seen a thin sloth? :D Just kidding) All in all, most people do not lose weight on the gluten free diet and most individuals will put on some pounds when beginning the diet.

5. People who suffer from Celiac disease are skinny - Hmm, mostly not true. Yes there are a small percentage of people who are too slender due to the symptoms of eating gluten and the damage that it causes to the patient. However, around 40% of people who are diagnosed with celiac are overweight at initial diagnosis. Less than five percent of patients are underweight. So, not only is a person's weight not necessarily a good indicator for diagnosis, it may actually help convince people that they do not have celiac disease simply because of their extra weight... not a credible diagnostic tool.

So... do you have any thoughts on these myths? Know of one that I missed? What are your thoughts?