Western culture does have something to contribute to the world!

Everyone who has read Guns, Germs, and Steel knows that one of the central themes of Diamond’s book was that New Guinea tribesmen were in no way inferior in human ability to Wall Street bankers (ooh, bad choice of an example: it’s pretty easy to argue that Wall Street bankers are some of the lowest examples of humanity.) So here’s a story of New Guinea tribesmen using Facebook. Also, it tells of a documentary that was made that switched stereotypes: instead of sending the Harvard professor to New Guinea to comment on their lives, they brought over a group of New Guinea tribespeople to gawk at us.

The company I worked for didn’t have a good reason why they could not, so we pitched it as an idea and got it commissioned.  That’s when I was brought in.  Worried that their visit might pollute their culture with modern ideas, or perhaps make them terminally envious of a world beyond their reach, I talked to some experts on Papua New Guinean tribes, and at that point exposed myself for the blinkered bigot that I was.  “How dare you,” said one anthropologist, “to imagine, without question, that a Sepik tribesman would be envious of your culture.  That’s one of the most arrogant things I’ve ever heard.  These people are supremely proud of their own culture.  They have a much more rewarding lifestyle than the majority in the West.  Mark my word, they won’t want anything you can give them.”

Oh, burn. That’ll put us in our place.

Except…we did have an advantage or two.

But the anthropologist was wrong about one thing; they did take something back: the idea of putting feathers on arrows. In the second week of their visit, I took three of the tribe to watch an archery club shoot at targets in a local community center. One of the archers was a fanatic and made his own arrows from willow, spruced with turkey feathers. The tribesmen were fixated on the feathers. “Why these feathers?” they asked. “It makes them fly straight,” said the enthusiast. And after a few practice shots, the tribesmen discovered that it certainly did. Their eyes lit up. Back home (presumably for thousands of years), they had been making arrows that were three times the size and weight of these feathered arrows, because without feathers an arrow needs to be weighty in order to fly true through the air. Just adding feathers would mean that they could carry three times the number of arrows out on hunts, and shoot three times the number of feral pigs. Of all the ideas in England, this was the one that could have an immediate and significant impact on their lives.

So what has the West done for the rest of the world lately? Well, there’s feathered arrows. And…facebook? Maybe we should stop right there.

How to make a funny-looking mouse

I’m going to tell you about a paper that was brought to my attention by some poor science journalism, so first I have to complain about the article in the Guardian. Bear with me.

This is dreadfully misleading.

Though everybody’s face is unique, the actual differences are relatively subtle. What distinguishes us is the exact size and position of things like the nose, forehead or lips. Scientists know that our DNA contains instructions on how to build our faces, but until now they have not known exactly how it accomplishes this.

Nope, we still don’t know. What he’s discussing is a paper that demonstrates that certain regulatory elements subtly influence the morphology of the face; it’s an initial step towards recognizing some of the components of the genome that contribute towards facial architecture, but no, we don’t know how DNA defines our morphology.

But this is disgraceful:

Visel’s team was particularly interested in the portion of the genome that does not encode for proteins – until recently nicknamed “junk” DNA – but which comprises around 98% of our genomes. In experiments using embryonic tissue from mice, where the structures that make up the face are in active development, Visel’s team identified more than 4,300 regions of the genome that regulate the behaviour of the specific genes that code for facial features.

These “transcriptional enhancers” tweak the function of hundreds of genes involved in building a face. Some of them switch genes on or off in different parts of the face, others work together to create, for example, the different proportions of a skull, the length of the nose or how much bone there is around the eyes.

NO! Bad journalist, bad, bad. Go sit in a corner and read some Koonin until you’ve figured this out.

Junk DNA is not defined as the part of the genome that does not encode for proteins. There is more regulatory, functional sequence in the genome that is non-coding than there is coding DNA, and that has never been called junk DNA. Look at the terminology used: “transcriptional enhancers”. That is a label for certain kinds of known regulatory elements, and discovering that there are sequences that modulate the expression of coding genes is not new, not interesting, and certainly does not remove anything from the category of junk DNA.

Alok Jha, hang your head in shame. You’re going to be favorably cited by the creationists soon.

But that said, the paper itself is very interesting. I should mention that nowhere in the text does it say anything about junk DNA — I suspect that the authors actually know what that is, unlike Jha.

What they did was use ChIP-seq, a technique for identifying regions of DNA that are bound by transcription factors, to identify areas of the genome that are actively bound by a protein called the P300 coactivator — which is known to be expressed in the developing facial region of the mouse. What they found is over 4000 scattered spots in the DNA that are recognized by a transcription factor. A smaller subset of these 4000 were analyzed for their sequential pattern of activation, and three of these potential modulators of face shape were selected for knock out experiments, in which the enhancer was completely deleted.

The genes these enhancers modulate were known to be important for facial development — knocking them out creates gross deformities of the head and face. Modifying the enhancers only leaves the actual genes intact, so you wouldn’t expect as extreme an effect.

One way to think of it is that there are genes that specify how to make an ear, for instance. So when these genes are switched on, they initiate a developmental program that builds an ear. The enhancers, though, tweak it. They ask, “How big? How high? Round or pointy? Floppy or firm?” So when you go in and randomly change the enhancers, you’d expect you’d still get an ear, but it might be subtly shifted in shape or position from the unmodified mouse ear.

And that’s exactly what they saw. The mice carrying deletions had subtle variations in skull shape as a consequence. In the figures below, all those mouse skulls might initially look completely identical, because you aren’t used to making fine judgments about mousey appearance. Stare at ’em a while, though, and you might begin to pick up on the small shifts in dimensions, shifts that are measurable and quantifiable and can be plotted in a chart.

Attanasio-face-enhancers-9

This is as expected — tweaking enhancers (which are not, I repeat, junk DNA) leads to slight variations in morphology — you get funny-looking mice, not monstrous-looking mice. Although I shouldn’t judge, maybe these particular shifts create the Brad Pitt of mousedom. That’s also why I say that implying that we now know exactly how DNA accomplishes its job of shaping the face is far from true: Attanasio and colleagues have identified a few genetic factors that have effects on craniofacial shaping, but not all, and most definitely they aren’t even close to working out all the potential interactions between different enhancers. You won’t be taking your zygotes down to the local DNA chop shop for prenatal genetic face sculpting for a long, long time yet, if ever.


Attanasio C, Nord AS, Zhu Y, Blow MJ, Li Z, Liberton DK, Morrison H, Plajzer-Frick I, Holt A, Hosseini R, Phouanenavong S, Akiyama JA, Shoukry M, Afzal V, Rubin EM, FitzPatrick DR, Ren B, Hallgrímsson B, Pennacchio LA, Visel A. (2013) Fine tuning of craniofacial morphology by distant-acting enhancers. Science 342(6157):1241006. doi: 10.1126/science.1241006.

Good riddance, Michael Lotfi

Michael Lotfi was a doctor in training, but no more. He’s quitting. And he blames President Obama, because…Obamacare!

After telling us how deep his lifelong commitment to becoming a doctor was, and how deeply in debt he is, he announces that he’s giving up on that precious dream. Why?

After quite literally losing my hair from the internal conflict, considering the sunk costs and evaluating different avenues I have decided.

I have decided that I believe in the principles of a truly free-market, and I trust the free-market. Because of this deep, internal value system I cannot, with clear conscience, continue on this path. My life has value. Such value cannot be calculated by Washington bureaucrats. I won’t allow it. Only a true free-market can accurately assess the value I am capable of.

Mr President, I’m leaving the medical field. I’m hanging up the white coat. However, let me be clear. You have not won. Unless something “changes”, you’ve lost and will continue to lose. You will fail because you lack principle. Meanwhile, we will succeed because we are born of principle.

So he weighed his deep commitment to free market values against his personal commitment to saving lives, and decided that the free market was more important.

I applaud his decision to leave medicine, then, because I’d rather have doctors who love medicine than doctors who love capitalism and money. And yes, I agree that he’s a man of principle…it’s just that his principles are venal and fucked up.

Bye! Have fun being a plutocratic parasite!


As has been pointed out in the comments, Lotfi is a poseur. His essay carefully phrases everything to give the impression he’s in med school, and he poses in a lab coat and stethoscope, but he isn’t actually a med student. He’s a “political commentator”, or no-talent hack with no real skills.

Ow, cringing

Yikes, this is an awkward story. A teaching assistant mailed her students personal, nude photos of herself instead of homework answers. If it was a genuine mistake, and I assume it was, I feel for her — she’s going to get some unfortunate student feedback.

But to everyone giggling over it, I would say, grow up. Adults are sexual beings. They will have sex lives; they aren’t going to sacrifice that so students can pretend they’re all alabaster statues. This was an unfortunate error, but it doesn’t mean she’s something unusual: educated people, like your professors, tend to have rather adventurous and interesting sex experiences. They just don’t usually expose them.

But most of my cringing is reserved for the commenters at the link who are making much of the fact that the woman was of Asian descent, and are throwing around jokes built on offensive stereotypes. There is no shame in a person having sex. There ought to be quite a bit of shame in being a bigot.

Malcolm Gladwell is simply an awful person

I don’t get it. Jonah Lehrer was rightly pilloried for dishonest journalism, so why is Malcolm Gladwell, the king of shallow, pseudo-scientific hackery, still getting published, and still raking in absurdly high lecture fees? Why is anyone still giving him the time of day? For instance, read this piece published in the New Yorker in September: Do Genetic Advantages Make Sports Unfair?. It’s more of his glib, counter-intuitive nonsense, and it’s dangerously bad.

He argues that performance enhancing drugs aren’t so terrible after all — they’re just equalizing the playing field. But the only way he can do that is by pretending the consequences don’t exist.

What Gladwell fails to mention – at all – are the risks involved in using performance-enhancing drugs. There is nothing about the risks of blood doping or of pharmaceutical enhancement. He even skips the risks inherent in the very genetic condition he holds up as “lucky.” There is no mention of contact sports, where the decision to illegally enhance could be the difference between life and death for your competitor. There is no recognition that healthcare access for athletes is a continuum with the Lance Armstrongs at the upper end, with their elite teams of morally questionable medical practitioners,and with some kid at the bottom end, desperate for a place on the team, taking injectables that he gets from a friend of a friend.

So journalists can lose their jobs for plagiarizing or making up facts, but actively distorting the evidence and making dishonest arguments is apparently still within the ethical compass of some journalists.

The American Indian Movement Manifesto on Racism in Sports and Media

This Manifesto is being sent to scores of media organizations, involved governmental and regulatory bodies, key government and law enforcement officials, the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, the National Football League, the Minnesota Vikings, the Washington DC Professional Football Team, all Professional Sports Teams using Indigenous Mascots, all advertisers providing income to the teams and leagues, the leaders of indigenous communities and all people who cherish the freedom to live our lives without prejudice.

October 16, 2013

NO INDIGENOUS CHILD, NO CHILD,
SHOULD GROW UP IN A WORLD
WHERE PROFESSIONAL SPORTS AND MEDIA
PERSIST IN USING DISCRIMINATORY NAMES & MASCOTS.
CHANGE THE NAME
CHANGE THE MASCOT

The battle for equality, and against prejudice, requires eternal vigilance for the long list of people subject to the bite of institutional discrimination – women, religious minorities, people of color, indigenous people, immigrants, seniors, LGBT people, poor people, people with physical and behavioral differences….

It is illegal in the United States to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, physical difference or gender preference. We, the Indigenous People of America, are victims of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin and institutional ignorance. While many indigenous people choose to live their lives with pride and independence from the negative influences of institutional racism, it remains necessary to assert our equal rights as citizens of the United States through education and legal action.

The name for the Washington DC football team is a racial slur, an illegal form of hate speech and discrimination, that damages a protected class of people by denying us respect and equality: in the workplace, at government funded facilities and contractors, at public gatherings, over regulated airwaves, and in corporations producing electronic and print content. The “R” word has no place in a country of equals. No similar denigrating term for other protected classes of people would be tolerated, and we would not accept any such denigration of anyone. Yet, sports organizations, media organizations and many fans have inherited and perpetrated an immunity to the racism embedded in derogatory indigenous sports names and mascots, and the damage they do to the freedom of anyone to live their lives without experiencing prejudice or ridicule.

The argument or rationalization that indigenous sports mascots and racist names filled with fan tradition should somehow be immune from the laws of the land that protect people from discrimination hardly matches the damage to the heritage and traditions of indigenous people perpetrated by the mascots, by the names, and by centuries of desecration and injustice that continue to this day.

All Indigenous Mascots manufactured for professional and school sports teams by and for non-­indigenous people are unwelcome caricatures that do not represent the religion, culture, beliefs and rich history of native people.

Moreover, there is overwhelming evidence from impartial academic research that unwelcome indigenous mascots and stereotypes and caricatures damage indigenous children, damage indigenous futures, and damage the perception of all protected classes.

While our actions are addressing offensive language and images, we want to be clear that our objective is to stop the damage to our children, and to all protected classes by asserting and seeking enforcement of the US Constitution and the many Federal, State, County, City and Municipal laws explicitly designed to protect us from harm.

We, the American Indian Movement, insist that all racist sports names and mascots that appropriate our names and images be changed by the media and by the perpetrators so that they can no longer harm our children, and deny indigenous people and all protected classes of people our civil rights.

We are a beautiful part of the fabric of the United States of America, as are all of our fellow brothers and sisters experiencing systemic injustice.

Appropriated Indigenous Mascots and Names are Institutionally Racist and contribute to severe hardships faced by many indigenous people. The extent of damage is unimaginable to all but us. Do your part to bring us all together.

The American Heritage Dictionary Definition of Redskin:

red·skin (rĕdskĭn′)
n.
Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a Native American.

To the National Football League, the Washington DC Football Team, and to all other Professional & School Sports Teams & Stadium Authorities choosing to Appropriate Indigenous Names and Mascots:

This is a formal notification that your organization’s choice to continue your appropriation of our religion and heritage and culture and images and leaders and language for your financial benefit and amusement, despite ample cures and alternatives, damages the self concept and income producing potential of indigenous children specifically, and all indigenous people as a protected class, and violates our civil rights.

On or before October 25, 2013, in advance of election day, we request that your organization publicly state your intention to Change Your Mascot & Name or your intent to continue to willfully harm a protected class of people.

We understand the inherited tradition of these names and mascots and the strong emotions they conjure. We believe that institutional racism is hard to change and we are asking you to begin that journey now. No indigenous sports mascot or name manufactured by and for non-­indigenous people honors us, is welcomed by us, is celebrated without denigration, or is an accurate representation of our race, our religion and our heritage.

If after October 25, 2013 you plan to continue the use of caricatures of our names and our people indefinitely, we plan to consider the following actions to protect our people and our rights under the laws of our country:

We will explore the potential for a class action lawsuit naming your organization as a defendant. You are a willful party with the clear intent to continue to harm a class of protected people. Plaintiffs may include indigenous children, all indigenous people, and all protected classes. Damages may include lost income, psychological damage, medical expenses and punitive assessments. Our legal team includes attorneys associated with the successful tobacco and clean indoor air damage claims.

For the Washington Football Team and the Cleveland Baseball Team, because your mascots and names are so vulgar and denigrating, we will seek all legal and political remedies to protect indigenous people from your brand of hate, and from your blatant and illegal disregard for existing discrimination and labor law protections in code and statute.

We will seek Public Licensing and Public Regulatory remedies linked to your conscious disregard for and damage to the public interest, your disregard for FCC requirements, and your use of profane and grossly offensive language and images known to cause harm to children and members of the public.

We will pursue remedies including injunctions, bans and damages at the Federal, State, County, City, and Municipal levels – asking that they immediately enforce all applicable legal protections and remedies that exist in writing that are intended to protect employees, contractors, children and the general public from hate crimes and acts of discrimination, harassment, profanity and abuse.

We will organize people in your community to oppose your use of denigrating mascots, and we will pursue boycotts, protests and specific large scale boycott actions aimed at your advertisers.

We are asking you to change. A private organization has the right to freedom of speech but not the freedom to publicly incite racial hatred. Public organizations, publicly funded organizations, and corporations and organizations regulated by the public have a higher standard. They do not have the right to harm any class of people because of the color of their skin, or because of any other aspect of their appearance, origin or beliefs.

To the politicians in Wisconsin and elsewhere who are attempting to assert your ignorance and racism and political power to make it more difficult for schools to change their indigenous names and mascots, we ask you to stop the denigration and discrimination. We urge all citizens to vote for people who believe in an inclusive nation that does no harm to our children.

Once you have received this public notification, you may not hide any further behind your ignorance or tolerance. Your conscious choice to continue to harm a class of people must have just consequences if we are to preserve a union where all men and women are created equal. A simple remedy exists for the profound damage mascots cause by your use.

Use alternative words and images that communicate without harm. We look forward to hearing your public decision about the continuation of your discriminatory mascots and names before October 25th, 2013.

To the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, the Minnesota Vikings, and the State of Minnesota:

We believe the Governor of the State of Minnesota, the Commissioners of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, and the Ownership of the Minnesota Vikings are publicly required to be aligned with our commitment to equality and human rights.

Your passage of the Construction Services Agreement Equity Plan is a powerful demonstration of the proactive protection and engagement of women, minorities and veterans in the economics of building a new sports facility for the people, and suggests you recognize your responsibility to pursue equality for all people.

We ask you, the publicly owned Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, to not allow the posting on any electronic or print sign on your premises the discriminatory name of the DC team, or broadcast across the public address system the discriminatory name of the DC team, so that you can avoid creating an illegal and damaging workplace, an illegal and damaging event and an illegal and damaging accommodation. Many alternative forms of speech are available that do not offend, do not convey hate and do not denigrate a protected class of people.

On November 7, 2013, the Washington DC professional football team comes to Minneapolis to play football at the government funded and operated Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome where civil rights laws and labor laws prohibit discrimination of any kind and where over 200,000 nearby indigenous people live their lives.

Minnesota has a legacy of leading the nation in civil rights first with Hubert H. Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone, and now with two strong Senators who support equality for all, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken. Congresswoman McCollum has

co-­sponsored legislation to address the trademark protections for the Washington DC’s discriminatory name (“R” word) and is a national leader against the continuation of sports mascots. Congressman Ellison is also a passionate defender of human rights.

Any print or broadcast use of the name currently utilized by the DC football team within the property owned by the people of Minnesota violates Federal labor laws, hate speech protections and broadcast decency licenses, violates State, City and County labor laws and civil rights protections, violates the operational and employment bylaws of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, and violates the civil rights of every indigenous person by denying us equal protection under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Your responsibility is to the people of Minnesota. We will be at the October 25th meeting of the MSFA and ask that we have time on the agenda to discuss the opportunity for you to choose to be on the correct side of history, to make history, by honoring Federal,

State and Local laws that clearly do not permit the “R” word, an explicit form of institutional racism, with explicit damage to indigenous people, from being seen or heard in the People’s Stadium. It is simply illegal.

If, on October 25th, 2013 you do not vote to follow the laws of the land, and proactively and publicly ban the use of the “R” word in the Metrodome, we plan, in addition to the actions identified for perpetrating teams, to consider pursuing appropriate actions which may include:

All remedies prohibiting the use of the “R” word and images at the Metrodome before or during the November 7th game using the many City, County, State, Federal and International laws designed to prohibit expressions of hatred based upon race or nationality. These include:

The Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority’s own harassment and offensive behavior policy that explicitly prohibits discrimination, harassment and offensive behavior.

The Minneapolis Ordinances designed to effectuate non discrimination and to protect minors.

The Minnesota Human Rights Act. We are prepared to deny or decertify MSFA’s certificate of compliance.

Further, we are prepared to bring this matter to International Attention. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which the US is a signatory, prohibits “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination”. Further, racist names violate the International Declaration of Indigenous Rights which the US signed last year.

To Media Organizations including newspapers, electronic publishers, radio broadcasters, television and cable broadcasters, public address announcers and individuals covering professional sports:

We are asking you to consciously avoid the print and verbal use of all commercially manufactured indigenous sports team names, and similarly, consciously avoid the images of the names and mascots when covering these teams. We are asking you to refer to the teams using their city names and to use images that avoid as much as possible their unwelcome indigenous name and mascot images.

Individuals and organizations have acted to replace mascot words and images with alternatives that do not have damaging consequences. A partial and growing list includes:

Washington City Paper, Kansas City Star, DCist, Gregg Easterbrook (ESPN.com), Slate, Mother Jones, The New Republic, Peter King (Sports Illustrated and MMQB.com), Bill Simmons (ESPN and Grantland), Christine Brennan (USA Today), Mike Wise (Washington Post), Warren Pierce (WJR Radio).

Sadly, the Star Tribune chose a few years ago to reverse its policy honoring the civil rights of Indigenous People and now permits the regular use of the “R” word and unrestricted use of damaging Indigenous names and images. The recent appointment of a new editor offers an opportunity to immediately reset to a policy that does no harm to the children of America.

Greater sadness and disappointment comes from the Pioneer Press. In a recent telephone conversation, the editor of the Pioneer Press emphatically stated that his policy was to continue to report without editorial license the Indigenous team names and images, including the “R” word, until such time as the non-­Indigenous teams changed their manufactured and damaging names and images.

The American Psychological Association, Indigenous Children, Indigenous Parents and tens of millions of citizens who believe in human equality ask you to voluntarily act now, immediately, to remove the stain of mascots from print and the airwaves, from public address systems and electronic signs to the internet, and from our consciousness.

We recognize that in order to preserve the integrity of reporting it may be necessary in certain limited circumstances for the offending images and words to be used instead of alternatives -­ when addressing this issue educationally or providing accurate direct quotes from non-­involved parties.

Major Native American organizations, including the American Indian Movement: National

Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Education Association, the Native American Journalists Association, the Oneida Indian Nation of New York, the Native American Rights Fund, the Morning Star Institute, the International Indian Treaty Council, and the National Indian Youth Council, have opposed the continued use of the “R” word and all Indigenous Mascots manufactured by Non-­Indigenous People.

The “R” word is no different from the “N” word except that the institutional inherited racism associated with the use of Indigenous Mascots and Names by non-­indigenous people has maintained its political, social and financial momentum. You ignore the evidence that such use is damaging and entirely unnecessary, and such use would never be tolerated for analogous situations with other protected classes. You ignore the evidence that the reason you persist in denigrating a class of people is because of embedded racism – by definition.

We believe in the freedom of the press, and the freedom of speech. Your organization already has editorial policies and if you are a broadcaster you have regulated editorial policies that filter out a list of certain vulgar and offensive terms, and classes of obscene images. The “R” word and the Cleveland Mascot Image and all other Indigenous Mascots harm our children and our nation. There is no logic, no ethics, no rationalization for the continued publication of versions of the N word that continue to harm the very people we have harmed the most in this country. If you examine analogies, no similar names or mascots would be acceptable if similarly applied to gay people, women, religious groups, people from Asia, people with physical differences etc.

The media of this nation seem to believe it is their right and duty to use the name REDSKINS and other denigrating mascots words and images. This horrific racist name, designed to be derogatory, and its accompanying manufactured images, are broadcast and imprinted into the minds of all indigenous people, all indigenous children, all children and before the world. The truth is the “R” word is not any different than the “N” word except that all of us have become accustomed to sports driven forms of institutional racism.

The most egregious damage occurs with the words and images associated with REDSKINS. Other offensive and discriminatory names and images include INDIANS, BRAVES, BLACKHAWKS AND CHIEFS.

Impartial academic research is abundantly clear that mascots and stereotypes harm the targeted class of people, Indigenous People, with children being the most affected by negative consequences.

Moreover, this same research suggests that any specific use of mascots and stereotypes crosses over and affects all protected classes because any demeaning of one class increases the context and perceptions of all targeted classes as to their social status and self image, and increases the likelihood that the general population will view all classes of protected people with a lesser perception of equality.

Editors throughout the country maintain standards that prevent certain words and images to be used when they are unnecessary or specifically harmful or not appropriate for children. We ask that you filter the detrimental words and images out, and replace them with alternative references that convey the necessary meaning without incurring the harm.

We, and the American Psychological Association, recommend the discontinuance of any and all references to the “Redskin” words and images, and other similar mascots, because it harms the self-­image of our children, it reflects an inequality that affects attitudes and behaviors, and it reflects a continued institutional racism that is no longer acceptable today for other minority groups. The many laws protecting all people from racism need to be enforced for indigenous people.

We ask you to recognize that what is at stake is your willingness to recognize and overcome overt racism. We ask you to stop enabling the words and symbols that harm not only our children but all of us. Edit out their racist names and images unless they are essential for context or education.

Let the shame and harm be on the perpetrators. Not us.

We believe the word “Redskin” is a form of hate speech, is discriminatory, is vulgar, violates certain federal and state labor laws, violates the editorial standards of most media organization except when it comes to indigenous people, and is entirely unnecessary regardless of whether a racist owner chooses to change the name or

not. “Redskin” is deeply offensive because it was originally utilized to designate contempt for the remains of murdered American Indians.

We believe all indigenous sports mascots manufactured for commercial benefit by and for non-­indigenous people are similarly denigrating and harmful to a race of people.

The time is now to take a position that is on the right side of justice and equality for the millions of indigenous people, and for all children who are damaged by the outright racism expressed by the word “Redskin” and other indigenous mascots.

On behalf of the Change The Mascot Movement, the American Indian Movement, and millions of citizens, we urge you to take a single easy step that will help tip the national scales against the never-­ending discrimination of indigenous people. There is a growing list of media organizations and reporters who are refusing to broadcast hate because a few men have decided it is ok to cause damage to an entire nation of people in order to preserve tradition. This is a formal request for a change in your editorial policy.

We are asking your organization, no later than October 25th, 2013, to establish and publicize your policy, one that we hope consciously minimizes or bans the use of Indigenous mascot words and images when alternatives carry the necessary story and meaning.

We plan to challenge any media organization that continues to utilize the harmful manufactured Indigenous mascots that are entirely unnecessary for the majority of

media coverage. If the mascot analogy were applied to other protected groups, we know you would not choose to continue the practice of robotically using offensive and discriminatory words and images for other protected classes.

We hope you will voluntarily agree that it is institutional racism that has influenced your editorial policy, and that filtering your coverage in the same way you do for other topics such as obscenity and denigration is on the right side of history, the law, education and human rights.

If your decision by October 25th, 2013 is to continue the robotic practice of using denigrating manufactured indigenous mascots, we will explore a class action lawsuit citing your willful denial of existing laws and existing research that associates your unnecessary use of these mascots with significant damage to the wellbeing of children and a class of people. We will also pursue other remedies that include the enforcement of discrimination laws and civil actions such as boycotts of your organization and your advertisers.

For those media organizations regulated by the FCC, we will seek to challenge your broadcast licenses on the basis that you’re entirely unnecessary use of harmful Indigenous mascots and names amount to willful acts of negligence that are not in the public interest, that amount to the broadcast of obscene and vulgar language and image, that are clearly discriminatory, that violate State, Federal and Local laws, and that are known to cause harm to an entire protected class of people.

You are invited to participate in or follow our symposium on the topic of Indigenous sports mascots that will be held at the University of Minnesota on November 5th, 2013.

To ALL Governmental Agencies, Elected Officials and Representatives, Government Paid Public Servants, Court and Regulatory Bodies and Law Enforcement Agencies at the Federal, State, County, City and Municipal levels:

There are many issues facing the people of the United States. Only one issue appears in our media with institutional regularity virtually every day of every year. It is the

institutional racism inherent in the words and images associated with Indigenous sports mascots. No other protected class of people in America are subject to daily caricatures of name and image in stadiums and across all media that harass and degrade our culture, our names, our language, our heritage, our leaders and our religion.

Indigenous People in America suffer greatly and disproportionately from centuries of discrimination and oppression.

We have found scores of laws at the International, Federal, State, County, City and Municipal level, including cherished constitutional protections, that prohibit the expressions of hate speech and harassment and discrimination that you have permitted to continue through your inaction. The fact that no other protected class experiences this degree of pervasive denigration is the very definition of institutional racism.

We ask you, as our leaders, as our representatives, as the protectors of justice and human rights, and as the administrators of our constitutional guarantees:

Please stop the harm of Indigenous mascots and racist names, particularly the heinous examples from DC and Cleveland by denying them the right to display and disseminate their hate speech in public, in the workplace, to children, and across regulated media by enforcing the laws of the land – now!

You are invited to participate in or follow our symposium on the topic of indigenous sports mascots that will be held at the University of Minnesota on November 5th, 2013.

To ALL people who believe in an inclusive Constitution of the United States and recognize that all forms of institutionalized discrimination by Governments and Corporations are illegal and damage the fabric of our nation:

Vote for people who will actively work to protect the rights of Indigenous people, and all people, to live their lives without discrimination.

Contact your government representatives and officials and ask them to act now to enforce the laws of the land that prohibit discrimination and harassment and hate speech.

Contact your sports team and your stadium authority and ask them to Change the Mascot and avoid any dissemination of all denigrating Indigenous sports mascots in word and image. Record and report their use of denigrating and illegal indigenous mascots.

Contact, publicize and boycott all of the perpetrating teams and their advertisers.

If you are an Indigenous person who is an employee, contractor or fan experiencing the denigration of Indigenous sports mascots and names manufactured by non-­Indigenous people for non-­Indigenous people, please express yourself to the perpetrators and contact us.

If you are able to volunteer, or donate money or resources to the American Indian Movement, please contact us at the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media. Educate and Participate.

CHANGE THE MASCOT
STOP THE R WORD
STOP INDIGENOUS NAMES AND MASCOTS

Contact Us

Changing Winds
Richie Plass: 920-­615-­6558,
612-­567-­0123[email protected]www.yworlds.com/changethemascot

American Indian Movement
National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media
Clyde Bellecourt: 612-­886-­2107,
612-­251-­5836 clyde[email protected]www.aimcollection.org

The discomfiture of MRAs will be a joy to behold

ABC is going to be showing an exposé of MRAs and the Manosphere tomorrow night (Friday) at 10pm ET. Paul Elam, Chief Goon, and John Hembling aka JohnTheOther, Executive Glossolaliac, of AVoiceForMen will be featured, and that website is already bracing itself for the derisive laughter to come. Manboobz will be featuring a live chat during the show; I suspect I’ll have to miss it all, since I’m racing off to St Paul for my weird conference weekend immediately after my classes on Friday. But I shall be eagerly anticipating the manly breakdown to follow.

Let me know how it goes, and maybe someone can write a summary guest post for me…at least, if you’re not one of the many who’d rather make soup in your toilet than watch the manosphere dance.


By the way, is this new? The subhead for AVoiceForMen is “Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry”. Humanist? Misogyny isn’t exactly a humanist value.

Should be an interesting debate

August Berkshire of Minnesota Atheists will be battling Scott McMurray of Faith United Methodist Church in LaCrosse on Sunday.

berkshiredebate

Isn’t the premise of these debates insulting in itself? McMurray is basically arguing that the man on the other side of the stage is evil…or if he’s not, he has already conceded the debate. Or maybe he’s going to pull an Oprah move and claim August isn’t really an atheist — I’ve seen that one a lot.

Sci Culture

Did you fall for this? Science published a paper which claimed that reading literary fiction, you know that stuff that gets taught as highbrow reading material in college literature classes, is objectively better than genre or popular fiction at improving your mind and making you better able to understand other people’s mental states. It was all over the popular news sites.

Language Log shreds the paper wonderfully. It’s a great example of stirring the muck and taking whatever odor wafts out of the mess as a great truth. You might be able to see some obvious flaws just from my brief description: what the heck is “literary fiction”? Isn’t that a contentious division already? How do you recognize it (mostly, I fear, it’s because they’re old books that you’d never pick up to read for pure pleasure)? How did the authors of the study choose it?

As it turns out, the authors hand-picked a few passages from books that they subjectively placed into their categories of literary vs. popular fiction, had subjects read them, gave them a couple of standard tests of theory of mind or empathy, and got a very weak statistical effect. You know, if you shovel garbage at a wall, you can probably find some seemingly non-random distribution of the pattern of banana peels, too.

But it got published in Science, which is dismaying. Unfortunately, here’s where Language Log fails — they infer nefarious commercial intent from it.

The real question here is why Science chose to publish a study with such obvious methodological flaws. And the answer, alas, is that Science is very good at guessing which papers are going to get lots of press; and that, along with concern for their advertising revenues from purveyors of biomedical research equipment and supplies, seems empirically to be the main motivation behind their editorial decisions.

Oh, nonsense. I’m sure that Science is quite careful to keep editorial/review and advertising decisions entirely separate, and if their main concern was peddling expensive biomedical gear, why would they waste space on a simple and flawed paper using cheap psychological techniques? There are trade journals that are much better sources for overpriced gadgetry and reagents.

I’ll also point out that they’ve reversed the situation: Science isn’t good at guessing what papers will appeal to the popular press, the popular press is accustomed to turning to a few journals, like Science and Nature, for finding what the scientific soup d’jour is.

This is not to say that Science or Nature are objective paragons at finding the most important science of the day. To the contrary, both are self-consciously elitist journals, jockeying for position as the premier sources of distilled scientific wisdom. Language Log completely missed the boat: paper decisions at Science are not made to satisfy either the popular press or the scientific supply houses; they are decisions to appeal to the tastes of other scientists, and the financial benefits flow secondarily from that.

There is a Sci Culture, just like there is Pop Culture and High Brow Culture and Redneck Culture. And all of these fragments of a greater whole have their various organs of communication and modes and expectations of behavior, which are all much more complicated than being simply driven by the invisible hand of the market.