Comments on: Supreme Court Will Not Review Racist Epithet Case

By: Shari Valentine

Shari Valentine — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:15:46 +0000

This is the latest in the 500 year war. One of the things that makes it tricky is that the R-word team may get the opportunity to draft a Cherokee player to play for them. Some of the info is included in the 1965 story link Joe embedded.

So, this kid will be faced with the decision to take on the entire NFL and systemic racist court system by refusing to play for a team named for the most severe epithet of his race, or play for a team named for it.

It is a familiar though not publicized dilemma. Many American Indians living off of reservations are faced with these difficult choices about their education and participation. My daughter, whose high school mascot is the cougars, nevertheless faces the decision every year with the cheers and posters for the game against a rival team, the Indians.

Posters like scalp the Indians, massacre the Indians, etc. are regularly on display. We then get to watch the halftime performances where the cheerleaders and drill team wear regalia reserved for elders and leaders who have earned it.

This case is not in the end about statutes of limitations. It is about power and wealth. The team has the power and wealth of its own, tradition, history and unfortunately, the fans.

Only coalition politics and alliances will bring down the R-team. If other players and fans who are victims of systemic racism join Native Americans in boycotting these teams, money will become a weapon that works in our favor. As long as fans pay money and players accept the money, the Court will hide behind technicalities and the racism will continue to prevail

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:43:24 +0000

Potato bug, thanks for the detailed and insightful comment. You may be right. Yet, I understand most of these legal niceties, but it also seems clear to me that the Supreme Court has the power to take on such an important case and to rule that such extreme racist action (including intensive commercialization of racist images) violates certain US or international laws dealing with civil/human rights. The literature showing great harm to indigenous people, esp. young people, is quite clear. To hide behind legal niceties is not only cowardly, but from an international human rights point of view, illegal and immoral. This white-run country has participated in many forms of genocide against indigenous Americans, and in my view it is time to quit making a distinction between “colonial time” (where a recent Oneida decision admits the US did bad stuff to Indians ) and “contemporary time” (where the federal courts like to use time limits to say we cannot do something to redress the impact of past oppression).

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: potatobug

potatobug — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:42:35 +0000

Joe,

I don’t disagree with you on this issue in general but in this case the post isn’t accurate.

The Court grants about 1% of requests for a writ of certiorari out of the thousands it receives, and it takes 4 justices to grant the writ. When the court denies the petition, it is *not* saying it approves of the lower court’s decision. Even if it did in this case, it would be saying only that it agreed with the D.C. Circuit’s determination on the issue of statute of limitations. It would say nothing about whether the “racist epithet is OK,” as that’s beyond the scope of the petition.

Further, the denial has no precedential value. If the same matter came up in a circuit other than D.C., the circuit court is not bound in any way by the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, whereas it would be if the Court had heard it and made a ruling. And a party to that case could petition for writ of certiorari afterward. (Also note that the end of the Washington Post’s article refers to a 3rd Circuit decision saying that this kind of trademark can be challenged at any time. That will still be the law in the 3rd Circuit until the Supreme Court says otherwise.)

I do understand that these procedural determinations often serve as cover for a court’s opinion on the underlying issue—the conservative justices’ ruling in the Ledbetter pay discrimination case is one popular example—and that may be what’s happening in this case. But the way you’ve reported this is misleading.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:16:05 +0000

Yes, John, that is a standard defense. “We are honoring Indians.” Just like they are honoring Black Americans when the use the N-word?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: John D. Foster

John D. Foster — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:28:45 +0000

Joe, thanks for the post on this important topic. I enjoy bringing this up in my race/ethnic course, and the origins of the term “redskin.” It referred to the scalps of Native Americans returned from the “frontier” by “settlers” for a cash reward, since it would be too cumbersome to haul back entire bodies. It is a naked symbol of our genocide of a multitude of nations. And yet people (not just whites, by the way) commonly say it’s no big deal and worse argue that we’re celebrating Indian culture when displaying these images. Or worse, the argument I’ve heard from some students over the years that if we changed these nicknames, logos, and mascots, we’d have to buy new gear for our beloved sports teams!!!

Like or Dislike: 1 0

By: No1KState

No1KState — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:18:12 +0000

Btw, thanks for correcting my blog link.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: No1KState

No1KState — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:17:36 +0000

I’m calling BS on the SC. Not Joe.

What’s the reasoning behind this time warp? They don’t wanna upturn the lives of white people? Isn’t that the same reasoning behind resistance to reperations? Does it not occur to any of them that the lives of the Amerindians and other racial minorities are “upturned” because of racism? That perhaps deciding in the favor of Amerindians would be turning things up-side-right?

Like or Dislike: 1 0

By: No1KState

No1KState — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:13:55 +0000

BS all day long.

Thanks, Joe.

Like or Dislike: 1 0

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:42:50 +0000

No1KState, the SCOTUS has a habit of putting Indians back in “colonial time,” and admitting they were oppressed then and that US treaties were legal back then, but then shifting to “modern time” in which the SCOTUs cannot possibly go against whites who have established themselves in a place or a company and rule in favor of Indians. Basically, the courts just say “might makes right (law)”

Like or Dislike: 1 0

By: No1KState

No1KState — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:19:21 +0000

Hey guys! I wasn’t going to say anything, but I hope it’s okay if I point out that the link for my blog does not go to my blog. My blog’s web address is – http://herecomethatgirl.blogspot.com/

The first thing I wonder about is the statute of limitations. Are there statutes of limitations in cases where whites/men criminalize other whites/men, or to put it better, where the gender/race of the victim is not part of the crime itself? Is there a statute of limitations on embezzlement, for example? There’re time limits on rape, spousal abuse, pay discrimiination, etc and so on. It could be that since I didn’t go to law school, I’m not aware of all the laws. But, I don’t know, it seems like cases where the victim is a woman or person of color and the crime itself involves their gender or race, there’re time limits.

That aside, this is quite disappointing. It would be easier to swallow if it were the case that the SC was just following procedure or whatever, where the issue has to do with legal technicalities and not the particular facts of the case. You know? Cause often, the SC deals with technicalities not the case per se, right? And it would be overreaching or “activist” of the court to make a decision about the merits of the arguments and not statutes of limitations. But since the New Haven case was somewhat unprecedented in that the SC made a decision about the case rather than sending it down to the lower court, they could’ve done that now.

Like or Dislike: 2 0