Isaac's Adventures in Literary Land, Vol. Whatever

Science Fiction has always been a personal favorite genre of mine. Part of the allure is the fancy new technology that the main characters always get to use/enjoy/abuse. Another interesting result of reading Asmiov or other greats is realizing how right they often were about their future (our present).

Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel Oryx and Crake is a particularly chilling and relevant example of an author seeing a possible future. I won't bother too much with plot, it's about as complex as Ken Ham's opening statements in his debate vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy. 

But the actual premise of the book is pretty simple: genetic engineering and biochemical manipulation have become so advanced and useful that they pervade everyday life. Buildings have plant matter incorporated to become more efficient, physical appearance can be changed as quickly as in Scott Westerfield's Uglies, and man's dream of the 24-wing chicken has finally become a reality.

With all this awesome technology lying around, the world was only waiting for some genius to come along and start the apocalypse. Which is precisely what happens.

Now beware, further explanation of plot follows the jump, accompanied with spoilers. Those who cherish the idea of reading a book as an adventure into unknown territories should stop reading this and go read a book, preferably the one I'm writing about, so that you can come back and finish reading it.

How to Change Someone Who Won't

I found this ad profoundly moving.



I should admit that I'd never really thought much about this issue, growing up, because I don't particularly care for football.  I was a baseball fan, and when someone talked about mascots that were insulting to Native Americans, I could only think of the Indians and the Braves, and those didn't seem all that insulting to me.  (The concept of cultural appropriation was far too sophisticated to find a sympathetic home in my teenaged brain.)

And when I watched the occasional football game, the nickname of the Washington team just didn't penetrate the fog of apathy (about football, not about justice), and it didn't occur to me that an actual racial slur, not a cultural appropriation but a racial insult, was being used.

(By the way, parents: remembering what an idiot you were when you were a teenager is a great way to remind yourself to be patient with your teenagers.  Just sayin'.)

Anyway, once the injustice was pointed out to me, I had a hard time unseeing it, and I have lost my sympathy for any arguments (are there any, actually, that don't boil down to "we don't wanna"?) for the worth of keeping that name in play.

Obviously, these proud Native Peoples have not found a sympathetic hearing among NFL execs, team owners, managers, players, and the like.

But there is a group of people who could change things.  Radically.  Without them changing at all.

Sportscasters.

Sports journalists, networks, papers, commentators--anyone whose job it is to talk about sports could simply refer to the team as "Washington."

It can be an adjective and a noun.  There is no grammatical or practical need to use the offensive nickname.

It can be dropped.  Entirely.  Without fanfare, or with a simple public statement, or even with a big to-do.  But it can be dropped.

Sportscasters can't control what coaches and players say, they can't control what team uniforms and logos look like, they can't control the fans or even preach very successfully at anybody.

But they can stop using hurtful words.

Individual commentators and writers and interviewers can quietly drop the word out of their vocabulary, even if the organizations of which they are a part will not go along.

Larger organizations can make public announcements or send confidential corporate memos.

They can do it.  And they could make a difference.

I'm going to try to stop using the Washington team's nickname.  You can, too, if you like.  It probably won't much matter.

But maybe it will.