Comments by david_e
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on April 30 at 3:53 p.m.
Confederate flag.
People feel a connection to it, as a representation of culture, history, and 'who they are'.
But fish don't see water. Folks in support of this are those fish who don't see the offensive nature of making Native Americans into one dimensional fighters-- a caricature of a race instead of acknowledging the full humanity and culture of Native Americans. Folks who are not Native American can't see the offense. but it is not their job to do so. You don't have to understand the offense and feel offense yourself in order to know that something is offensive. But like the fish not seeing water, non-Native American people have a hard time seeing the racism and offensive nature of some of their own icons.
And, as folks keep forgetting-- no one cares about the name "Warrior'. Rather, it is the Native American symbols.
-David Esparza Jr
Posted on April 30 at 3:52 p.m.
Femmesavante--
Passion is not in question. But passion, in and of itself, does not equal importance. There are many people who are passionate about many things of which there is little significance. What is more accurate is to say that children don't like to have things taken away.
These students don't feel passion and pride for the 'Warrior' spirit-- that is a bunch of bull. They would do the same for any high school and any logo. Students at Santa Barbara High would do the same, and spout claims of honor to 'be a Don', about the legacy and history.
Folks did not show this passion, waving flags, attending rallies en masse, coordinating alumni on an equal scale... before this issue came up. Passion does not exhibit itself only when there is a battle to wage. Do you only declare your love, with such emotion, for another when the other is considering divorce, a breakup, or is dying? Passion is "living, breathing, and doing" all things for whatever it is that stokes your flames. If not, you're relationship is altogether boring.
This passion didn't exist before, and the only reason anyone has these feelings for the Native American Warrior is because they happened to live in Carpinteria. I happened to live in Santa Barbara and went to SBHS, but it had nothing to do with living and breathing olive and gold, to experience life as a 'Don'. It was only because that was the closest high school and it happened to be where my friends were going. A matter of circumstance.
The outrage is fake. It is not true. It is feigned simply because they feel something is being taken away. High school students talk of protest all the time-- every time there is a tightening of the dress code, further limits on leaving campus, change in school hours. These kids are whining as a 5 year old would who has been told it's time for bed-- 'no fair' they say.
As I said elsewhere, there are more Honda logos in Carp than Warrior bumper stickers. The heart and soul is whatever the name of the high school is-- because it is the only high school there. They would argue over any logo, any nickname, anything having to do with the only school they have. It is less a desire 'in favor of' something than it is being pissed off because they are having something taken away. The symbolism of the logo and Native American imagery means crap to Carp students. They didn't speak s--t of what they say now on the day before this decision about passion and the rest.
Feigned outrage. Nothing more.
-David Esparza Jr
Posted on April 29 at 9:22 a.m.
CommonSense:
Indeed I do have the ability to think in the abstract. But you are saying that the logo is a liberty as others have said flying on a commercial airliner or owning a mini-van is a liberty. Those are not liberties-- those are consumer options.
Liberties is the short-hand form of the concept of 'civil liberties' and unfortunately folks too often confuse this with 'doing whatever and buying whatever and maintaining my own comfortable status quo.' Franklin was not speaking of anything but civil liberty.
And what security arises from changing the logo? Does that protect us, the family? Is there a threat to civil liberties by changing one offending logo? Or is it just that many folks, because it is something they consider to be their own, simply don't like change-- if even to right a wrong?
Oh, and I'm sure the family didn't complain about Vikings because, after all, they aren't Scandinavian.
On tolerance: Again, tolerance is about accepting things with which you disagree. Tolerance would dictate that the family disagreed with the logo but requested no change in the same logo. Tolerance, which you continue to misunderstand, would have kept the logo in place. Do you understand that? Do you understand that tolerance would have helped you in this instance, because the family would have decided to tolerate an apparent offense?
I like that you ask if any of us were 'Warriors', thinking that the only way we would understand is by having been a Carp Resident or Carp graduate. Using your line of thinking, I would ask: are you Native American?
But I've never liked that reasoning, anyway. I don't have to walk on the sun to know it might be hot, or be homeless on a bench to know such a life is not leaving little to be desired.
What I continue to see are folks who are not Native American, who are not students of, experts on, or immersed in Native American culture, as it exists today, defend this logo. That I only see these non-, non-, non-, non- folks defending it bothers me and precludes me from defending the logo.
Why?
Because it reminds me of a documentary in which a white gentleman from Corbin, Kentucky (home of Kentucky Fried Chicken) named his dog 'N**ger'-- and defended it because the dog was black in color, but also, as he said, loyal, obedient, and strong. He had nothing but praise for his choice of name and the dog.
Tell me, honestly, with your ability to think in the abstract, if an outsider's patronizing praise is really all that matters when concerning a symbolic racial offense?
-David Esparza Jr
Posted on April 28 at 9:49 p.m.
To RobbyR:
In the context of American society, Dons, Gauchos and Vaqueros do not have a general meaning that applies to one specific subset. That is, most Americans don't know which country or ethnicity to which each of those names apply. Therefore, they don't have the cultural significance and ability to stereotype or make a mocking caricature of Latinos in general, or Mexicans and Argentinians specifically. Your comparisons to Native American imagery and culture, in the context of American Society, are unequal and invalid.
As for the Fighting Irish, there is one explanation found on the Notre Dame website (http://archives.nd.edu/carey/carey.htm) that relates the Catholic faith to Irish immigrants, and how, the article says, the two were used interchangeably from colonial times. For Notre Dame to be associated with the Irish, from that reasoning, is not as arbitrary or with Carp High's images.
More to that, it is only the athletic teams that are nicknamed 'Fighting Irish'. The university has its own seal, a 'N' and 'D' used as an unofficial logo, no nickname, and its website does not boast anything related to 'Fighting Irish' until you get to the Athletics pages. See, www.nd.edu
Contrast that with Carp High: the website URL is 'warriorcountry.com', displays the arrow and feathers as well as the warrior name prominently, and is the official logo of not just the athletic teams but of the school itself.
There is, indeed and yet again, a difference in what you choose to compare. There is always more to it, and a surface-level examination, even when it sounds good or has a certain rhythm to the words, doesn't make it accurate.
-David Esparza Jr
Posted on April 28 at 9:48 p.m.
To directly address CommonSense:
A logo or icon of a high school has nothing to do with liberty, and changing it nothing to do with security. It is not a matter of free speech, but part of an organized government entity and activities. You want a logo for a school, then be prepared to have students saying and wearing clothes that show some questionable material-- even if you don't like it.
Also, you used the phrase 'hyper-tolerance'. Tolerance means, in spirit, understanding and by definition, that you accept things and allow them to happen-- even things with which you disagree. Tolerance would have dictated that the family at the origin of the complaint would have accepted the logo, but stated their disagreement anyway. Please, don't use phrases you hear on the talk shows because it sounds good. And if you didn't recycle some talk show memo, just try to use English words correctly-- I make mistakes too.
-David Esparza Jr
Posted on April 28 at 9:47 p.m.
I have asked this of others when discussing this issue: why is it that folks only see racism or bigotry when it is directed at Black folk?
If the name were kept as 'Warriors' but had stereotyped and exaggerated African features, and a family complained, would there be as many defenders?
Latinos (especially these days), Asians and Native Americans, as well as other groups, are called PC-junkies, hyper-sensitive, and word-police. Listening to such remarks as 'CommonSense', you begin to think that the American people in general will only accept accusations of racism directed at African Americans, while all others just need to toughen up a bit.
In any case, as happened with the Seminoles of Florida State, perhaps some consultation ought to be in order.
And on another note, I wish these students and alumni would get this excited about something that mattered. Pick your issue: environmental protection, youth violence, urban planning, alternative energy sources, healthcare, foreign policy, civil liberties... the list goes on and on. But to choose something as inconsequential and, in the grand scheme of things, as meaningless as a school logo is stretching the outrage and passion a bit too far, isn't it?
-David Esparza Jr
Posted on August 16 at 12:32 p.m.
I noticed the same thing. I had to double-take at the headline, thinking it was the reporters who were on the defense instead of the paper.
I wonder what how the article portrayed things.
Posted on August 9 at 12:16 p.m.
Can't fault them.
I spoke with a few people about the news that the 2 officers used 18 bullets, and that one of them was involved in the shooting a few years ago. Initially, people were taken aback by the high number of shots, saying it leaned on excessive, some saying outright that it was excessive force.
When I asked them why they considered it to be at or near excessive, many stated their belief that a few shots a piece would have stopped the gunman. I agreed with this, but then asked if it made much of a difference that there were hundreds of people within 100 feet of the gunman. After a pause, nearly all rethought their positions.
If it were 18 shots to a lone gunman on an empty street, or 18 shots to someone without a gun or just a knife, I think we could very well be bordering on excessive. The fact that there were so many people so close to the incident leads me, and others who initially thought of excessive force, to believe that the officers used the means at their disposal to stop the gunman before he had the opportunity to shoot.
The threat to the safety of others was stopped. Whether he was a good person is, unfortunately, irrelevant. His relationship to others is, unfortunately, irrelevant.
I would be willing to guess that many in Santa Barbara, even police officers, would want to provide help to his family, even children if he has any. This would come not from guilt, but from wanting to ensure that the mistakes of a man did not echo on the lives of his family.
My heart goes to his family for their loss and mourning, my head shakes at his decision to carry and pull a gun in a crowd and the selfishness of considering only himself, and I tip my hat to the SBPD for keeping the crowds safe.
On Fatal Fiesta
Posted on August 7 at 2:21 p.m.
Actually found the incidents to which I referred...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VrnkkTh4...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/02/08/s...
These things don't happen unless conditions are right-- when seconds are your time frame, the threat must be taken out quickly.
Oh, and why was this guy carrying a gun? To keep himself safe? I always liked this one, and it's probably why guns are better kept in the home, or carried by people who know gun safety and how to properly use one, instead of those who think guns are a symbol of strength and authority, a factor in one's own 'cool.'
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on April 30 at 11:51 p.m.
Femmesavante--
First, I wish this were done face to face because so far you're one of the few on the opposite side of my opinion who can have a conversation that is thoughtful and considerate.
Second, I wish there weren't a 3000 character limit on here so I could spew even more hot air (joke!).
I'm sure people are getting worked up over this, but such outrage really has no tie to the supposed meaning. This emotion, and the excuses and arguments stemming from it, is less about preserving the honor and dignity of the logo and icon and more about, even as you suggest with your words about a lack of public comment, someone else taking it from them.
The achievements of the student-athletes, the academic success of the entire student population, the artistic merits of the individual projects... these ought to be celebrated. But these are not the 'Indian Warrior' that is at the heart of the issue. These are accomplishments of the students and faculty, of parents and community members, teachers and administrators. These accomplishments, which generate the pride these folks feel about Carp High, have NOTHING to do with the icon. It could be any logo and any icon-- the accomplishments of individuals and groups will not change because of the name (if that were so, only certain names would be chosen for mascots, and for children). We ought to tell people that the icon had nothing to do with it-- it is not some magical, fantastic artifact that endows people with success and pride.
And again, Southern folks will say that the Confederate flag is not about slavery and racism but about the honor of soldiers who fought bravely. As we do for soldiers now, they do for soldiers past-- honor the soldier regardless of the political reasons for the war.
Unfortunately, the symbols some use to exhibit pride can also be offensive to specific groups.
The 'Indian Warrior' imagery reduces Native American cultures to a single dimension-- reducing their humanity to a caricature, and that is offensive. When folks say "I like Mexicans because they are hard workers" I am offended. It is belittling in the way it disregards all other aspects of an ethnic identity, and it forces an entire segment of the population into a ridiculous caricature. That is very offensive. The comments about the 'Noble Indian Warrior', in my view, are just as offensive.
And for me, it isnt the issue itself-- its that some have taken up this issue as though it were the crucial to the survival of the Republic, as though lives were endangered. Get a grip, grow up, and pull your collective heads out of your asses is what I feel like saying. But Im a nicer person than that.
Cheers all the same! And thank goodness the issue doesn't affect the respect people have for each other-- debates are just debates and it doesn't mean we hate each other! Good times... good times.
-David Esparza Jr
On Warrior’s Cry