Who Dat? Not A Saintly Cheer

The New Orleans Saints are very much the feel-good story of the NFL these days. Displaced by Hurricane Katrina just four years ago, their place atop the standings this season symbolizes the resiliency of their great city.

But as Andy pointed out to me the other day, Saints' fans' cheer of choice symbolizes something quite different. To those unfamiliar, Who Dat? might sound like a southern take on the common Whose House? cheer. It isn't. It is a line popularly used in minstrel shows. (If you think minstrel shows have something to do with nomadic lute players of yore, do some Googling to learn about the minstrel shows popular from the mid-19th to mid-20th century.) Although minstrel shows were popular across the U.S. and, indeed, Europe, they marketed a southern image, presumably for "authenticity." Claiming a connection to New Orleans was, perhaps, the most popular technique.


This is not a legacy anyone should be cheering. The claim that the cheer "celebrates" New Orleans is no more persuasive than the claim that the confederate flag can be used to celebrate southern pride without celebrating slavery and racism. The confederate flag represents the South because it evokes the decision by the southern states to secede in an attempt to perpetuate slavery. Similarly, Who Dat? represents New Orleans because it evokes the city's historic ties to minstrel shows. In either case, you can't reach the ultimate conclusion without the intervening racist imagery.

Think back to the tomahawk chop, as utilized by fans of any number of teams, but particularly the Atlanta Braves. The tomahawk chop is obviously problematic because of the unmistakable connection between the mascot of these teams and the deeply racist image of Native Americans as savages. No matter how sincerely the fans believe they hold no racial animus, the act alone perpetuates a racist caricature.

Who Dat? is no better, and perhaps worse. Although the connection between the cheer and its minstrel roots may be less obvious to the general public than that between the tomahawk chop and a Native American mascot, this only serves to illustrate the intentional selection of the cheer because of its unmistakeable connection to New Orleans; it can't be coopted by another team in another city. Who Dat? is the Saints' cheer because New Orleans has a uniquely strong association with the minstrel shows that popularized the cheer originally.

Saints' fans are rightfully proud their team, but they should not be proud of this cheer. As the Saints march on toward the Super Bowl, more and more people will hear the cheer and wonder what it means. If they take the time to find out, I hope they will justifiably be embarrassed for the Saints.

A sad thought at a time when we should be so proud New Orleans, its people, and its football team.

Where Should I Park My 4 Guys?

Here she comes in her palanquin
on the back of an elephant
on a bed made of linen and sequins and silk...
The Infanta by The Decemberists

I'm a big fan of the Decemberists, but I sometimes suspect that frontman Colin Meloy pens his songs with one hand on a piano, the other on a thesaurus. Her palanquin? What the heck is a palanquin?

It's pretty clear from the context of the rest of the verse that a palanquin is something like an elaborate saddle for riding atop an animal. Yet, the real magic of the internet is that you only wonder these things for a moment now — before you turn to Wikipedia and get the (collectively created) answer.

Yes, a palanquin can be a small cabin supported by one or more animals...

...however, it can also be such a cabin supported by one or more people, as you've certainly seen in movies.

There's something astonishingly servile about a palanquin (or litter or sedan chair, as these contraptions are also known) when carried by other people. In many/most cases, the people riding in the palanquin could just as easily be walking; however, the dictates of society mean that they get to ride, borne quite literally on the backs of the less socially favored.

This menial, servile past was brought closer to home for me when I learned that Ben Franklin, afflicted by the gout and unable to ride a horse to the Constitutional Convention, was carried to the convention in his sedan chair. Franklin was borne by four convicts, and their appearance is partially captured in the painting below:

The Russians Get Fyodor Dostoevsky, We Get Pat Robertson

Historians have long suspected that Fyodor Dostoevsky, a Russian novelist of immense talent, had temporal lobe epilepsy. This condition – which also appears to have afflicted Lewis Carroll, Edgar Allan Poe, Gustave Flaubert, Philip K. Dick, & Sylvia Plath – can cause the individual to feel a euphoric connection with the divine, to experience an ecstatic array of visual images, and it may be implicated by some people who report UFO or other paranormal experiences.

I wonder if Pat Robertson has something like temporal lobe epilepsy.

You see, Pat's a wonder to me. I'm astonished that there is an individual who can time and again intrude upon our national consciousness, say something crazy, and then retreat back to his relative obscurity only to emerge later in the year. Here's like a hibernating bear of nuttiness. For a chronicle of Pat's previous predictions, threats, and promises, click here.

Of late, God's been talking to Pat. What's He/She/It been saying, you ask? Well, a couple things.

First, God told him the outcome of the upcoming U.S. Presidential election. Sadly, Pat's not going to tell us who the victor shall be, but if he is at all like Biff in Back to the Future Part II, we'd expect Pat to increase his already massive wealth by betting on the election.

Second, God has informed Robertson that China is going to by-and-large convert to Christianity. Since God didn't provide a timeline to Robertson, we'll just have to wonder when the miraculous mass conversion of China will occur. Tomorrow? How about 2010? Tell us, Pat. Please.

God told me you should tell us.

Nur noch wir können uns retten. (t)

Hearing the sad news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan earlier today, I looked back at my reaction to the London bombings of July 7, 2005.

It isn't yet clear who is directly responsible for today's slaughter, but initial indications are that those behind today's attack are of the sort who share goals in common with the London bombers and with other bombers whose actions have scarred the world during the past decade.

Reading my London bombing post 903 days after I wrote it, it's clear that at the time I greatly underestimated the potential for intra-Iraqi and jihadist violence during the intervening 2 ½ years. Looking back, I realize that my intuition that the violence would quickly flame-out stood in contrast to the basic thesis of the post, that – in the long run – it's all but impossible for groups of people to force a De-Enlightenment upon the world, even if the short run shows little progress toward reducing global ignorance and provincialism. 2 ½ years later, on a dark day when apparent extremism wounded the hope of a country, I still feel that the horse is out of the barn for extremist views, though extremism and responding to extremism might be the most dominant geopolitical forces during my lifetime.

Despite my opinion that the extremist's struggle is ultimately for naught, events like today still depress me greatly. Somehow, the depression of today reminds me of the dark words Martin Heidegger said in his famous interview with Der Spiegel in 1966 (published posthumously in 1976), titled "Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten" or "Only a God can still save us":

HEIDEGGER: Those questions bring us back to the beginning of our conversation. If I may answer quickly and perhaps somewhat vehemently, but from long reflection: Philosophy will not be able to bring about a direct change of the present state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all merely human meditations and endeavors. Only a god can still save us. I think the only possibility of salvation left to us is to prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline; so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god.

I agree with Heidegger in the view that there's no one philosophy, mode of being, or way of life that will unite humanity under a single banner, smoothing out the cultural differences. Yet – and I haven't studied enough Heidegger to know if he'd disagree with me on this point – it's precisely this diversity and intellectual disunion that promises to save us.

The global proliferation of pluralistic cultures, whether through the gradual introduction of democratic institutions or through the rapid technological baptism of individual citizens into a connected world, forces an increasing percentage of world citizens to an important daily realization. The realization is as follows: There are other ways of coping with the world that differ from mine.

Certainly, most greet this realization with fear, and some greet this realization with violence.

Yet, from this first exposure, can there be anything but eventual tolerance?

From that eventual tolerance, can there be anything but eventual intolerance for the ancient intolerance?

Ahmadinejad & Academe

At the end of the Columbia Hillel Reform Kol Nidre (Yom Kippur) service, the rabbi urged all the congregants to join the protest Monday against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whom Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs is hosting for its annual World Leaders Forum.

At the time, I generally agreed that protesting Ahmadinejad was worthwhile. Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, calls for destruction of the State of Israel, and generally holds odious and illiberal beliefs on many subjects. Furthermore, he is in a position of political power to effectuate at least a subset of these despicable beliefs into action.

Ah, but the protest is only partially against Ahmadinejad. Most of the rhetoric seems to be directed against Columbia University for allowing Ahmadinejad to participate in the World Leaders Forum.

The main argument against Columbia's action (or inaction, depending on how you view the events) is that providing Ahmadinejad with a forum at Columbia University either (1) implies academic or Western endorsement of his beliefs, or (2) legitimizes him as a political figure. Andy's post effectively addresses the second prong, so I will address the first.

Despite various disclaimers by Columbia President Lee Bollinger that Ahmadinejad's participation does not amount to a University endorsement of his views, the millions of people who hear of this event will likely fail to make this distinction, and may think more highly of Ahmadinejad or his beliefs than before. Even though the University interlocutors promise to "sharp[ly] challenge[]" Ahmadinejad, the simple granting of a forum to some extent implies that his beliefs are worth challenging.

The critical difference, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad is not simply a layman who holds such beliefs. In other words, he is not "a Grand Wizard of the KKK who called for African nations to be wiped off the map." He is being invited because he is the leader (more accurately: second in charge) of a large and influential nation. If Ahmadinejad were just a shopkeeper in Tehran, Columbia would really have no business inviting him.

But even in this last case, I think Columbia should still have the right to invite him. This is a question of academic freedom. Specifically, it raises the following question: Are there people whose beliefs or actions are so odious that they should be forbidden from speaking at a university? This is a tough question, but I'm inclined to answer No.

As Mike Dorf has pointed out, refusing to allow some people to speak would imply university endorsement of everyone else who speaks. Since drawing the line once would mean having to draw the line forever, from a pragmatic standpoint it makes sense to adopt a hands-off approach.

At bottom, however, it comes down to how much one values the special position of the university in intellectual discourse. Yes, there is a danger that Ahmadinejad may gain in influence by participating in this event (though unlikely to gain much from the one person who matters: Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran), but academic self-censorship is more dangerous precedent. Most ideas are odious to someone. If universities are closed to ideas that lack a consensus, where can they be subject to rational criticism?

We have the powerful institutions of diplomacy and the military to oppose Ahmadinejad's implementation of his ideas outside the borders of Iran. What do we have to prevent the spread of academic self-censorship outside the borders of Columbia?

Ahmadinejad on Campus

Entering the Columbia campus today was no small feat, as the subway entrance outside the gates ejects you into a security cordon. The Columbia campus, a 6-square-block quad, is sealed off except for the two main gates. After presenting my Columbia ID card, I made my way to the law school, passing through a locked-down campus littered with the indicia of a protest-to-come.

New York civic leaders of all stripes are up in arms at Columbia welcoming Ahmadinejad to campus, some threatening to find economic ways of harming Columbia. Yet New Yorkers have had to do their cosmopolitan duty and entertain ghoulish figures since the dawn of the U.N., and my words to those who oppose his presence at Columbia – not to those who oppose him through their questions and remarks at the event or to his ideas through their protest signs – is the same as Josh Marshall's reaction to the Ground-Zero-visit opposition: Grow Up.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been around for almost 30 years — whether its 2^nd in command is invited to face U.S. students or not doesn't really matter when questions of legitimacy come up. It's not a question of legitimizing a less-than-democratically-elected leader. It's a question of dialoging with a presence on the world stage that won't go away, however much we choose to avoid diplomacy and dialogue.

Lost in the furor over the Ahmadinejad visit are two interpretational lenses that I find instructive.

First, it was almost a year ago that supporters of the Iranian progressive movement were heartened by the vocal opposition that met Ahmadinejad when he spoke to students at Tehran's Amir Kabir University. I was elated that Ahmadinejad met vocal opposition then, and I hope he meets vocal opposition today. If I could engineer society so that he met vocal and informed opposition every day, I would.

(In this sense, Ahmadinejad's interlocutors inside the auditorium serve roughly the same purpose as the protesters outside the auditorium. But for Ahmadinejad coming up to Columbia, how would he ever encounter those strenuously opposed to his message?)

Second, our country needs many things, but it especially needs to reacquaint itself with civil debate, even if it looks like civil debate with monsters. For 7 years, we have suffered under a President who appears afraid to face his opposition. This is a problem. Just as the UK's Prime Minister must face bombardment every week during Prime Minister's Questions, we should demand a society where political views of all stripes engage opposing ideas, even if those opposing ideas sound odious in the extreme.

Gone Are the Brethren

(Crossposted from the American Constitution Society :: Columbia Law School)

In my 3½ semesters in law school, I’ve noticed a funny expression in old Supreme Court opinions. Justices would often use the phrase “my brethren” to refer to their fellow justices.

As one might expect, the appointment of a woman to the Supreme Court marked the end of this practice. A Westlaw search of the phrase “my brethren” in Supreme Court opinions yielded some 284 Supreme Court cases, from 1795 to 1981, in which the phrase appeared. The last time “my brethren” was used to refer to fellow justices was in Justice Rehnquist’s dissent from a denial of certiorari in Jeffries v. Barksdale, 453 U.S. 914 (1981). The Jeffries dissent was handed down on June 29, 1981; President Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor on July 7, 1981.

What Passes for Truth is Stranger than Fiction

For some folks, Wikipedia (the online resource deceiving college students everywhere) leaves something to be desired. The creators of Conservapedia created their site as "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American."

This is not a parody site. Parody is entirely unnecessary. I submit for your approval the Conservapedia's entry for "unicorn."

As an aid to future historians, looking to understand the odd things that "conservative" came to represent during the 00's, here's "unicorn" as it stood on the morning of 2/24/07:


"Great Job on the Unicorn page!" Conservapedia contributor PhilipB writes to Rich P, the primary author of this scholarly contribution. Great job indeed.

Hat tip to Sadly, No!

O.W. Holmes Jr. Man of His Time Club Member: Justice Bradley in Bradwell v. Illinois

(Crossposted from the American Constitution Society :: Columbia Law School)

From a certain point of view, Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873), is a forgettable case. In Bradwell, the Court builds on the Slaughter-House Cases, holding that the right to practice law is not among the Privileges or Immunities protected by the 14^th Amendment.

What is memorable about the case is Justice Joseph Bradley's (wink, wink) concurrence in this 8-1 opinion.

Based on the undeniable power of this concurrence, I'm proud to announce that Justice Bradley has just won entry into the hallowed halls of the O.W. Holmes Jr. Man of His Time Club, a select club for bygone Supreme Court Justices who included startlingly pre-modern passages in their opinions. (Of course, Holmes's opinion in Buck v. Bell is offensive enough to install him as the permanent founding member.)

Here's Justice Bradley, concurring that the 14^th Amendment doesn't prohibit Illinois from denying Myra Bradwell admission to the bar on the basis of her sex:

[T]he civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband . . . It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.

Bradwell, 83 U.S. 130 at 141.

Virginia Wasn't The Only Place That Wasn't For Lovers

(Crossposted from the American Constitution Society :: Columbia Law School)

It's easy to be hard on Virginia for having an anti-miscegenation statute in 1967.

It's easy to forget that it wasn't alone.


Source: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 6 n.5 (1967).

We've Come Traveled A Long Way, Baby Friend

January 13, 1967 — Ed Sullivan finds the Rolling Stones' lyric Let's Spend the Night Together objectionable, forces the band to sing Let's Spend Some Time Together.

February 5, 2006 — NFL officials, haunted by wardrobe malfunctions and panicked by America's apparently frail sensibilities, force the aged Rolling Stones to alter two of their songs during the Super Bowl halftime show.

Titles For Canadians For Dummies

9 out of 10 amateur book critics agree: They should retitle this series For Canadian Dummies.

Tiananmen Wha?

As you've probably noted in the news, Google has agreed to censor itself in China.

To censorship in action, check out the search results for tiananmen square from Google's main site and from google.cn.

The distinction is far more jarring when looking at Google image search results for tiananmen square from their main site and from google.cn.

I Presume They Ask For ID From Males Who Look Too Old

Other burgs may have their malfunctional teen centers and their high school dances. In Manhattan's hip Chelsea neighborhood, there is at least one (ostensibly) alcohol-free club for teens, Crush.

PR for the club appears to be managed by Lizzie Grubman Public Relations, whose namesake ran over 16 people outside a grown-up club on Long Island in 2001.

Would Dada Want Matt Drudge to Give Credit Where it's Due?

Though the definition would likely cause an art historian to shudder, if I had to define postmodernism in a single breath, I'd go for something like the creation of meaning through the juxtaposition of seemingly unrelated assets or elements otherwise present in modern society.

This is funny.
If you go by my definition, the most conspicuous example of postmodernism at play is the Drudge Report, where Matt Drudge avoids writing much of anything — choosing to control the discourse of his site merely through the position and juxtaposition of stories that are already out there.

Though Drudge is little more than a headline editor and assembler, he sculpts the news of the world for millions of people each day. His daily audience is larger than the daily audience of any of the cable news networks. If you see it on Drudge, you'll see it on any one of the major news sites 30 minutes later.

Viewing Drudge through this lens, I was surprised to see him write something of a dismissive headline concerning vandalism of the Duchamp's Fountain, probably the most famous Dada work.


There would be no Drudge Report without Postmodernism, and there would be no Postmodernism without Dada.

Vatican III

The Vatican releases an Instruction that gays — unless they've "clearly overcome" their homosexual tendencies — need not apply for the Catholic clergy.

After releasing the instruction, Pope Benedict XVI asked for a high five from somebody, anybody.

...but they all totally left him hanging.

Wingnuts: A Picture of Human Resilience

Some people just don't let reality get in the way of a good story.

Here's an ad currently running on the Drudge Report. I'm tempted not to link, as their hokum doesn't deserve any additional attention, but here's the advertiser.

I believe we may have identified the core of Bush's 38% support.

Democracy in Action...

...in Texas

WHITE SETTLEMENT, TEXAS — Residents held on to their heritage Tuesday night and voted against changing their town name to West Settlement, despite proponents' arguments that the name has racial connotations.

In a record turnout, 2,388 residents voted against the name change and 219 voted for it in unofficial, complete returns.

The city got its name because it was the lone village of white pioneers amid several American Indian encampments in the Fort Worth area in the Texas Republic territory in the 1840s.

Mayor James Ouzts and other city leaders proposed the change, saying the current name is confusing, misleading and has hindered economic development in this 15,000-resident suburb of Fort Worth.

However, the ballot measure angered many residents who said the change was unnecessary and too costly. Signs across town urged folks to 'Be Proud! Don't Let Them Discard the Heritage of White Settlement. Vote No!'

Scientific American: Calling ID Like It Sees ID

Gotta love Scientific American.

I'm reminded why I subscribe to this magazine when I see them tout It's Over in Dover after all the Dover school board members who supported intelligent design fail to win reelection.

Their blog's reaction to the Kansas state Board of Education including ID in their state standards? Kansas, Where "Ignorant" is the New "Educated"

I'll Take My Stiff Dose Now, Mr. Cheney

Nicholas Kristof (NY Times subscription required) offers a honey of a Dick Cheney quote from the 2000 Republican National Convention. Preparing for battle with Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, Cheney told the crowd how the Bush White House would differ from the Lewinsky Scandal-wounded Clinton White House:

On the first hour of the first day, he will restore decency and integrity to the Oval Office... They will offer more lectures, and legalisms, and carefully worded denials. We offer another way, a better way, and a stiff dose of truth.
Link