+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Geronimo = Osama bin Laden = Offensive?

  1. #1
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default Geronimo = Osama bin Laden = Offensive?

    The actual mission was called Operation Neptune's Spear. Osama bin Laden's code name as an individual was Jackpot. If he was captured or killed, the code word was Geronimo.

    It's the last one that has a number of Native Americans upset. I've seen it characterized as racism, an insult to a revered Native leader, and as an example of the colonialism that lingers in America. Some have also likened it to other instances of cultural appropriation.

    I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this. I can see how it's offensive, but it was a Latin nickname given to a Native American leader by Mexicans, a name used by many (non-Native American) people of many ethnicities both today and throughout history, and the motto of the 501st Infantry Regiment. The man history remembers as Geronimo was actually named Goyahkla.

    So I guess the thing is that I view this as a fairly offensive choice in code words, but it's also a good opportunity to educate people on who Goyahkla actually was.
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  2. #2
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Since when has the military ever been sensitive to things like this. It's like the codeword for success on 9/11 for al-Qaeda being Custer.

    Then again does this mean when people yell "Geronimo" jumping out of a plane, it is also insensitive.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  3. #3
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    I don't know if shouting it when parachuting is seen as insensitive or not, but Geronimo is a revered leader to many Native Americans and his descendants proudly took that name on. He fought against an oppressive colonial power at a time when his people were truly being treated like subhumans. He died just barely a hundred years ago and a lot of those wrongs have never been righted, so these wounds remain fresh, even if the majority of non-Natives ignore them. Since the US government and armed forces were the ones who relocated people, broke treaties, and killed Natives, it's a bit of a slap in the face. Was it deliberately offensive? No, but it's a good opportunity for those insulted by it to point out why it's problematic.
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  4. #4
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Putting it that way, you could almost say the US Army are thinking of al-Qaeda in the same way as they used to think of Native American Indians.

    You would hope that countries would grow out of that, but I guess not.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  5. #5
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    I think it was a tad insensitive. There's an on-going SDMB thread about it and there are so many other words that could have been used that wouldn't have triggered an association with someone else. In general, I find the use of Indian names in the military and elsewhere in US culture and commerce a tad problematic, but it's not something a) for me to decide one way or another or b) that would matter nearly as much if American Indians didn't still suffer terrible hardship because of who they are and their history.

  6. #6
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí View post
    ...but it's not something...that would matter nearly as much if American Indians didn't still suffer terrible hardship because of who they are and their history.
    Right. It's not the most offensive thing ever done ever, but I can still see how it could piss people off when things are still pretty bad for them.
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  7. #7
    Member
    Registered
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí View post
    I think it was a tad insensitive. There's an on-going SDMB thread about it and there are so many other words that could have been used that wouldn't have triggered an association with someone else. In general, I find the use of Indian names in the military and elsewhere in US culture and commerce a tad problematic, but it's not something a) for me to decide one way or another or b) that would matter nearly as much if American Indians didn't still suffer terrible hardship because of who they are and their history.
    There's too much being read into the code name choice. Someone would have been offended by whatever they chose.

    The military helicopter names are taken as a sign of respect by everyone in the military and a quick Google turns up very little bitching about the helo naming convention.

    As for American Indians suffering, they suffer because they lost an extremely nasty war before everything was PC, were thrown into internment camps, forced to rely on the government for everything, and never really integrated into society. There's little continuing racism, just a cycle that is damned hard to break.

  8. #8
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by hobbler
    There's too much being read into the code name choice. Someone would have been offended by whatever they chose.
    This just patently isn't true, a random easily pronounceable neologism could have been coined, a silly term like "SmellyBear" or "Robottom" could have been used, or a name that is so common as to not be tied to one particular historical figure.

    Quote Originally posted by hobbler
    The military helicopter names are taken as a sign of respect by everyone in the military and a quick Google turns up very little bitching about the helo naming convention.
    They might well be considered fine, but there's quite a difference between the implication of naming the hardware your military uses and codenaming the most infamous terrorist ever. It could also be argued, I suppose, that the use of those terms in a military context promulgates one dimensional bellicose stereotypes of what non-European civilization in America. Again, it's not something I'm gonna get offended on anyone's behalf over but the two things are quite different.

    Quote Originally posted by hobbler
    As for American Indians suffering, they suffer because they lost an extremely nasty war before everything was PC, were thrown into internment camps, forced to rely on the government for everything, and never really integrated into society. There's little continuing racism, just a cycle that is damned hard to break.
    I'm not sure it matters why it is that they suffer still, but they're the lowest rung of American society. The appropriation of cultural tropes of say German-Americans, or Irish-Americans, or British-Americans, who as population groups don't suffer as Americans, is far less of an issue because they're not a perpetual underclass in that society. To put it another way, if all you have is your past heroes and very little else, you may be more sensitive to their perceived sullying.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts