Warrior debate makes homily

[mu_hilltopper]

As was posted before .. my unofficial MU roommate became a Jesuit and does a Facebook mass every week.  This week's homily spends several minutes talking about the Warrior name debacle.

https://www.facebook.com/mcdsj/videos/10158883340268563

Homily starts at 7:30 .. 13:40 starts talking about being on MU's BOT and the $1m pledge to return the Warrior name.  Interesting to hear him explain that every 2 years, the BOT would do something insane that would force the university to change to deal with the board.  The name change was one of them.

Interesting commentary.

This is all tied in to the insurrection at the Capitol and racism.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Thank you for posting.  Besides being an interesting and instructive homily about recent events, I had no idea that Bergstrom went rogue on Gold.  That's awesome. 

[Warrior-Eagle]

As was posted before .. my unofficial MU roommate became a Jesuit and does a Facebook mass every week.  This week's homily spends several minutes talking about the Warrior name debacle.

https://www.facebook.com/mcdsj/videos/10158883340268563

Homily starts at 7:30 .. 13:40 starts talking about being on MU's BOT and the $1m pledge to return the Warrior name.  Interesting to hear him explain that every 2 years, the BOT would do something insane that would force the university to change to deal with the board.  The name change was one of them.

Interesting commentary.

This is all tied in to the insurrection at the Capitol and racism.

Jim is an extraordinary talented Jesuit. Yet invisible after he left the American. My memory is he left the BOT and was invited back and declined. My point was he can make a difference but gave a homily on a difference.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Thanks for posting. This is a very nice listen. I will say this, part of the problem in this situation and in this country is you have people calling people (or nicknames) racist and there are people who object to the categorization. Those that object should be able to hold that opinion without being labeled a racist.

For instance, I don't believe the name Warriors is racist in the least. I don't think Braves or Chiefs is racist. I don't think a tomahawk symbol or an arrowhead are racist.  I believe the Redskins are doing the right thing and I believe the Indians are doing the right thing. Both are objectionable to say the least.  I actually believe Warriors and Braves, given appropriate symbolism, should stand for a proud Native American history.

Similarly, Is there anybody who does not believe that "black lives matter?" Not that I know of. However, I believe the BLM organization is despicable and divisive.

Are there racists in this country? Of course! It is laughable to suggest there isn't. There always will be in the US and every single country on Earth. But it's better here than almost every corner of the world. And people get sick and tired of being accused of racism when they don't feel that way at all.

Is there anybody who doesn't abhor the protests in DC? Not that I know of! It was a horrible embarrassment. But can we also agree that what happened in Seattle and Minneapolis and Portland and Chicago and elsewhere this past summer was equally despicable and may have fueled the DC activities as much as anything our president may have said? That's what I believe.

So when your friend talks about Warriors being racist, I reject that assertion. And I'm not wrong because that's my belief. I believe it to be an homage. He can hold the opposite belief and also not be wrong. We don't have to call each other names when we disagree.

[Madgeorge]

+1,000,000!!

[wadesworld]

BLM is responsible for the insurrection by white terrorists. That's one I hadn't heard before.

[jesmu84]

BLM is responsible for the insurrection by white terrorists. That's one I hadn't heard before.

I haven't seen anyone blame it on BLM. I have seen that antifa is actually to blame as all those folks in DC were antifa in disguise.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So when your friend talks about Warriors being racist, I reject that assertion. And I'm not wrong because that's my belief. I believe it to be an homage. He can hold the opposite belief and also not be wrong. We don't have to call each other names when we disagree.

So, there was a lot in your post. I'm not going to get into everything but wanted to focus on this here.

Your belief has nothing to do with anything. You are not the arbiter of whether something is or is not racist. Something (a thought, an action, a nickname, etc) either is or it isn't racist. Racism is not in the eye of the beholder and if it was, it certainly is not in your eyes as the person making the statement. It would be in the eyes of all the people who are on the receiving end of your statement, it's up to them whether or not they found what you said or did to be racist. And if they did find it racist, they should be able to communicate that to you (in a constructive way which doesn't always happen) and you should be willing to listen to their concern (even if its not delivered in a constructive way, because you should want to be the better person).

According to your logic, my father in law isn't racist. I know this because he has repeatedly told me that he's not racist. He regularly refers to black people as the n-word, he calls anyone from the Middle East terrorists, and literally every time he notices a chinese restaurant he says "ching ching chong", not quietly either, loudly and proudly. But it's all okay because he doesn't believe saying those things is racist. It's just free speech and he can say what he wants.

Racism isn't a thought crime. It doesn't matter what you believe or what's in your heart or how you consciously feel about people of other races. What matters is the impact that you have on someone else with your words and actions. If you say or do something that hurts or offends someone else, they don't care if you said it intentionally or unintentionally, the impact is the same either way. Sure, it makes it worse if you are doing or saying something intentionally but it doesn't make it better if you are doing it unintentionally. Think of it like a car accident. Whether or not you intended to hit someone with your car, the damage is the same either way and either way you are responsible.

The next time someone says something you said or did is racist, I know it's hard but try to not get defensive. Instead, try apologizing and asking for help. "I'm sorry that I had that impact on you. That was not my intent. Can you help me understand what it was about what I said/did that impacted you so I can know better in the future?" I think you'll be surprised by how well the conversation goes if you are willing to listen. It won't always work if the other person is just out for blood but in my experience if someone is willing to confront you face to face, they are usually looking to be constructive (social media is another story).

[naginiF]

So when your friend talks about Warriors being racist, I reject that assertion. And I'm not wrong because that's my belief. I believe it to be an homage. He can hold the opposite belief and also not be wrong. We don't have to call each other names when we disagree.

The bold is the issue. If native americans find the name or imagery associated with the name offensive it really doesn't matter what you or I believe. Believing in something doesn't make it or you correct, see: flat earthers, birthers, anti-vaxers, thinking the action on the 6th were protesters and not terrorists, Bigfoot enthusiasts, Scientologists, my in-laws believing the Browns should be favored this weekend etc. etc. etc.

You  can believe many things without them being true. When those beliefs impact others in a negative way you should reflect on those specific beliefs i.e. flat earthers don't negatively impact society but birtherism does.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

According to your logic, my father in law isn't racist. I know this because he has repeatedly told me that he's not racist. He regularly refers to black people as the n-word, he calls anyone from the Middle East terrorists, and literally every time he notices a chinese restaurant he says "ching ching chong", not quietly either, loudly and proudly. But it's all okay because he doesn't believe saying those things is racist. It's just free speech and he can say what he wants.

Come on. I hardly think believing Warriors, Braves and Chiefs are words that can be construed positively (which is what I believe) compares to the father in law you describe...a man who sounds a lot like Archie Bunker.

[Warriors4ever]

There are plenty of people who don't believe that black lives, or brown lives either, matter  as much as white lives. And yes that makes them racist, whether they believe they are or not ( some are proud of being racist).

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

BLM is responsible for the insurrection by white terrorists. That's one I hadn't heard before.

Didn't say that. I suggested the rioting of the summer empowered the riots in DC. That's what I believe. It doesn't make me a racist.

And to keep it on point, it doesn't make me a racist if I think Warriors is perfectly fine.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

There are plenty of people who don't believe that black lives, or brown lives either, matter  as much as white lives. And yes that makes them racist, whether they believe they are or not ( some are proud of being racist).

You are correct.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

As was posted before .. my unofficial MU roommate became a Jesuit and does a Facebook mass every week.  This week's homily spends several minutes talking about the Warrior name debacle.

https://www.facebook.com/mcdsj/videos/10158883340268563

Homily starts at 7:30 .. 13:40 starts talking about being on MU's BOT and the $1m pledge to return the Warrior name.  Interesting to hear him explain that every 2 years, the BOT would do something insane that would force the university to change to deal with the board.  The name change was one of them.

Interesting commentary.

This is all tied in to the insurrection at the Capitol and racism.

I lived next to him Freshman year in McCormick.  I was in 915 and Jim was in 914. 
Very nice guy and a great neighbor.  Fr Jim was just known as "SAGAaman" back then as he was the only one willing to volunteer and be our SAGA floor rep on McCormick Dorm Council.

[jesmu84]

Ibtl

[Lennys Tap]

The bold is the issue. If native americans find the name or imagery associated with the name offensive it really doesn't matter what you or I believe. Believing in something doesn't make it or you correct, see: flat earthers, birthers, anti-vaxers, thinking the action on the 6th were protesters and not terrorists, Bigfoot enthusiasts, Scientologists, my in-laws believing the Browns should be favored this weekend etc. etc. etc.

You  can believe many things without them being true. When those beliefs impact others in a negative way you should reflect on those specific beliefs i.e. flat earthers don't negatively impact society but birtherism does.

SOME Native Americans (and some non Native Americans) will be offended by terms like Warriors and Braves that are meant to be an homage. And SOME people (even some Native Americans) wlll insist that a clearly racist term like Redskins is really an homage. SOME people (TAMU's FIL) will insist that using the n-word isn't racist. And SOME people will insist that having a problem with organizations like BLM is.

As you point out, SOME people are free to believe all sorts of wacky stuff. We'll always have the permanently offensive and the permanently offended. They can believe what they want - free country. We don't have to listen to them, though.

[Hards Alumni]

Thanks for posting. This is a very nice listen. I will say this, part of the problem in this situation and in this country is you have people calling people (or nicknames) racist and there are people who object to the categorization. Those that object should be able to hold that opinion without being labeled a racist.

For instance, I don't believe the name Warriors is racist in the least. I don't think Braves or Chiefs is racist. I don't think a tomahawk symbol or an arrowhead are racist.  I believe the Redskins are doing the right thing and I believe the Indians are doing the right thing. Both are objectionable to say the least.  I actually believe Warriors and Braves, given appropriate symbolism, should stand for a proud Native American history.

Similarly, Is there anybody who does not believe that "black lives matter?" Not that I know of. However, I believe the BLM organization is despicable and divisive.

Are there racists in this country? Of course! It is laughable to suggest there isn't. There always will be in the US and every single country on Earth. But it's better here than almost every corner of the world. And people get sick and tired of being accused of racism when they don't feel that way at all.

Is there anybody who doesn't abhor the protests in DC? Not that I know of! It was a horrible embarrassment. But can we also agree that what happened in Seattle and Minneapolis and Portland and Chicago and elsewhere this past summer was equally despicable and may have fueled the DC activities as much as anything our president may have said? That's what I believe.

So when your friend talks about Warriors being racist, I reject that assertion. And I'm not wrong because that's my belief. I believe it to be an homage. He can hold the opposite belief and also not be wrong. We don't have to call each other names when we disagree.

https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/0807047414

come back in a week when you've read it.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Come on. I hardly think believing Warriors, Braves and Chiefs are words that can be construed positively (which is what I believe) compares to the father in law you describe...a man who sounds a lot like Archie Bunker.

Agreed. I wasn't trying to compare them, there is no comparison. One is blatant and hate based, the other is well-intentioned but flawed. I was pointing out that believing something isn't racist doesn't make it so.

I've speculated before that we almost need a new word. Some people want to make racism mean only the most terrible and awful examples of racism. Others see racism as anything based in racial bias even minor things that are close to benign in impact.

It is problematic to try to limit racism to just the most blatant acts of hatred and bigotry. It is also problematic to treat someone who engages in "low-level" racism (for lack of a better way to phrase it) the same as someone who spouts off the n-word every chance they get. Maybe a new word would fix it, but I suspect that over time that word would get elevated to the same level as racism and the problem would persist.

[Galway Eagle]

Is there anybody who doesn't abhor the protests in DC? Not that I know of! It was a horrible embarrassment.

I know of at least 2 people I'm unfortunately related to who proudly supported it. If you would like to do a scroll through Parler or Twitter or YouTube comments etc. you could find plenty of people supporting it.

[4everwarriors]

Crean sucks...is not racist even if Too Tan Tommy thinks it is, hey?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Agreed. I wasn't trying to compare them, there is no comparison. One is blatant and hate based, the other is well-intentioned but flawed. I was pointing out that believing something isn't racist doesn't make it so.

I've speculated before that we almost need a new word. Some people want to make racism mean only the most terrible and awful examples of racism. Others see racism as anything based in racial bias even minor things that are close to benign in impact.

It is problematic to try to limit racism to just the most blatant acts of hatred and bigotry. It is also problematic to treat someone who engages in "low-level" racism (for lack of a better way to phrase it) the same as someone who spouts off the n-word every chance they get. Maybe a new word would fix it, but I suspect that over time that word would get elevated to the same level as racism and the problem would persist.

I like this concept!!

[wadesworld]

SOME Native Americans (and some non Native Americans) will be offended by terms like Warriors and Braves that are meant to be an homage. And SOME people (even some Native Americans) wlll insist that a clearly racist term like Redskins is really an homage. SOME people (TAMU's FIL) will insist that using the n-word isn't racist. And SOME people will insist that having a problem with organizations like BLM is.

As you point out, SOME people are free to believe all sorts of wacky stuff. We'll always have the permanently offensive and the permanently offended. They can believe what they want - free country. We don't have to listen to them, though.

I will make sure to turn to you when trying to determine if things are racist.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Two comments:

• Not having "Warriors" as a voting option does not mean that MU alumni overwhelming rejected the nickname
• If after going through an "involved" voting process, and then willy nilly voting for the "Gold" (Tom Crean and Bergey inspired), shows how out of touch the BOT and admin were (are)

The good father should atone for his sins for his role with the BOT. The problem with "Warriors" always has been the symbolism not the word. And how MU handled and communicated it from start to finish (including DiUio's unilateral decision and undisclosed deal with the Potawatamis) is the on-going saga made worse by the comical "Goldgate". It made a national laughingstock of MU that is still seen today when every announcer calls "Warriors".

[GoldenWarrior11]

In retrospect, Marquette could have absolutely kept the Warriors nickname and simply removed all connections and imagery to Native Americans.  The Golden State Warriors did so in the late-60's, and there is little-to-no demands to change their name.  But, what is done is done.  The name is gone and is never coming back. 

In 2046, Golden Eagles will have been around longer than Warriors (and many of those that associate Marquette with Warriors will have passed on). 

[skianth16]

Agreed. I wasn't trying to compare them, there is no comparison. One is blatant and hate based, the other is well-intentioned but flawed. I was pointing out that believing something isn't racist doesn't make it so.

I've speculated before that we almost need a new word. Some people want to make racism mean only the most terrible and awful examples of racism. Others see racism as anything based in racial bias even minor things that are close to benign in impact.

It is problematic to try to limit racism to just the most blatant acts of hatred and bigotry. It is also problematic to treat someone who engages in "low-level" racism (for lack of a better way to phrase it) the same as someone who spouts off the n-word every chance they get. Maybe a new word would fix it, but I suspect that over time that word would get elevated to the same level as racism and the problem would persist.

I rarely engage in any conversations about race/racism online for a variety of reasons, but I think this post is great and is worth noting. From what I remember from my Psychology of Prejudice course at MU, there is a difference between racism and prejudice, and I think the "low level racism" you refer to is often just an example of prejudice that is in some way tied to race. Lumping all things together under the umbrella of racism makes it seem as though innocent ignorance is just as bad as intentional racism. I'd be willing to be that a lot of prejudices come from a simple lack of experience and are not in any way meant to be offensive.

What can be hard, though, is to listen when we're told something we said or did was offensive. Especially when that conversation happens with an anonymous stranger online. Being in a more diverse workplace or school setting or neighborhood opens us up to experiences with more people from more backgrounds and helps us better understand where people who are different than us are coming from.