Yesterday, Daniel Cubias made an interesting observation at his blog The Hispanic Fanatic, about what may well be another example of the primary target of my own blog.
My primary target is what I've come to call "common white tendencies." The tendency that Cubias points out is that of using first names for non-white people in certain contexts, and full or last names for white people.
The context in question for Cubias is baseball, and in particular, the media's recent discussion of Manny Ramirez's fifty-game suspension for performance enhancing drugs:
What I found interesting is that when the news broke, it was “Manny” this and “Manny” that. It reinforced my observation that white sports stars tend to be referred to by their last names. Hispanic and black athletes, however, are often called by their first names. . . .
I first noted this about a decade ago when Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa were in their epic homerun race. The references to “Sammy” were ubiquitous, while I don’t recall anyone calling the St. Louis slugger “Mark.”
Similarly, in debates of greatest pitchers of recent history, there’s a lot of talk about Clemens, Johnson, Maddux. . . and Pedro (as in Martinez). Even when the white athlete has an uncommon moniker (I’m looking at you, Chipper Jones), he usually gets the last-name treatment. That’s not always the case with, say, the very troubled Ramirez (as we see here).
Having had this pointed out to me, I can quickly think of other examples. LeBron. Tiger. Ichiro. But I too find it difficult to come up with white examples.
Cubias also asks, "If this is true (and the evidence is only anecdotal), is it a sign of disrespect or a display of affection? Does it mean anything at all?"
I suppose it could be both. But even if this naming practice springs from affection, I still find it belittling.
Like nicknames, first names are more commonly used for and among children; that's the main reason why using them for non-white adults, especially in contexts where they're not used for white adults, strikes me as belittling.
Now I'm trying to think of other circumstances where this happens, in order to decide whether this differential naming practice really is another "common white tendency."
I've recently noticed, for instance, that one of this blog's regular commenters, Thordaddy, uses belittling nicknames during his exchanges with certain other commenters. During such exchanges, here and elsewhere, when he uses the names of other commenters who appear white, he types out their actual names (he calls me, for instance, "Macon D," and he's typed out other apparently white names correctly as well, such as "Steffie").
However, in his exchanges with at least two other commenters, who self-identify as black men, Thordaddy has come up with belittling nicknames.
In his discussion here with a person who comments on my blog and others--Nquest--Thordaddy substitutes a name that as far as I can tell, he came up with on his own: "ye ye." And in his discussion here with a person who served as a guest poster yesterday, for the post below this one--Big Man--he uses another, more literally belittling name: "lil' man."
I don't normally see a reason to discuss particular commenters in my blog posts. However, in this case Thordaddy is worth identifying, because he may well be displaying a common white tendency.
If so, that tendency would be the one that Daniel Cubias posits in his post, that of using belittling names for non-white men and last (or actual) names for white men. And, I would add, for white women.
Cubias identifies what appears to be a racial differential in the usage of first and last names, but I think the resultant belittling of non-white people can happen with nicknames as well, and that it is happening in Thordaddy's case.
What do you think? Could such differential naming practices be a common white tendency--that is, the use of actual and/or last names for white folks, and the belittling use of first names or nicknames for non-white people?
If so, what's up with it?
And can you think of other examples?
This makes sense, Macon. It's absolutely the way women are referred to. Compare "Clooney" and "Tom Hanks" and "Zac Efron" and "Powell" to Paris, Britney, Whitney, Hillary, and Condi. What men in politics get the belittling first-name treatment that Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice get?
ReplyDeleteJust throw this in the mix, class and power also affects how people are addressed. It's seen as acceptable (whether or not this is a good thing is another issue) that someone of higher socioeconomic class or power addresses an underling by their first name, not their actual title.
ReplyDeleteWhat about those celeb magazines that feature male white celebs on the cover, and often only address them by first name on the cover? Like using "Brad" or "Orlando".-Sqr
My friend works retail and they wear name tags with their first name on them. She has observed white customers giving non white retail employees nicknames without their permission. For example a black woman in her 60s works there, her name tag says "Barbara" the customer called her "Babs". It is completely unacceptable and belittling to give an elder a nickname without their permission.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed this kind of thing with the way President Obama is addressed in media. His title is rarely used. Many times, yes, his last name is used, but I don't remember media failing to use his actual title when Bush was president. Maybe I'm wrong. Then he's also referred to as Barry, a nickname he has but it's kind of inappropriate to refer to a man in that position by his nickname.
ReplyDeleteI keep waiting for the scary zombie to pop up on my computer. Seeing you white folks in here HUMBLY trying to understand these issues is freaking me out a little bit (yeah, I know, I just stereotyped...sorry). Hats off to you folks, you're making this nation a better place.
ReplyDeleteI think you might be on to something.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed this too, especially with regard to female athletes of color (eg- "Venus" and "Serena"). In addition to non-white men, as Orange said, women are referred to by first names like this all the time.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that too. In my opinion its not a common "white" practice but a common parctice of "racist whites". Another one of their favorites is to call a grown man "boy".
ReplyDeleteI've noticed. And sorry to burst your bubble, Steffie. But the phenomenon is pretty mainstream, which is to say the mainstream is racist.
ReplyDeleteI've only heard overtly racist conservatives call Pres Obama "Barry." Not only is it a nickname, it Euronizes his Kenyan name, AND it's a name he purposefully chose to outgrow.
Yes, it's both belittling and affectionate. Kind of the way we treat pets.
A few white guys come to mind.
ReplyDelete"Joltin`" Joe (Dimaggio)
Joe "Cool" (Montana)
"The" Babe (Ruth)
"Broadway" Joe (Namath)
Red Auerbach, always referred to as Red, at least in Boston papers if not elsewhere.
Add Shoeless Joe Jackson ("Say it ain't so, Joe") to that baseball list as well.
ReplyDeleteI hate it when people call the president by his first name or some nickname. They did it to Bill, too, though. Not to mention W. I've also never understood why newscasters called Hussein "Saddam." I understand that Bush I did it to belittle his adversary, but why should the media follow suit?
Students will invariably call Dickinson "Emily," also, even when asked not to. I can't see this as a particularly "white tendency," or one that falls down racial lines.
Yeah, anonymous commenter who refused to come up with a name despite my request that commenters do so. And people of all races sometimes give nicknames to inanimate objects too, like their cars. And the many-hued masses often give silly, belittling names to their dogs and cats too!
ReplyDeleteThe post isn't about whether ALL nicknaming and/or first-naming is a common and objectionable white tendency. It depends on what's happening with namings in terms of race in any given context.
In baseball and other sports, for instance, using first names seems reserved mostly for non-white players, but not nicknames. Thus, since the latter happen to both sides of the racial divide in that context (professional sports), nicknaming can't be called an objectionable/racist common white tendency within that context. But if the former--first-naming--pretty much only happens to non-white players, than it seems that it is belittling, and racist. If there are other instances where nicknames do get applied only to non-whites and not to whites, as in Thordaddy's selective, apparently race-oriented renamings, then the practice of nicknaming in that situation/context does appear to be objectionable, belittling, and racist.
White first names tend to be much more common then ethnic first names. Hence, not effective identifiers, like Pedro, LeBron, Tiger, Ichiro etc. That is, afterall, the primary purpose of a name. There is not a psychotic racial hatred motivating all the currents of societal culture (even if a few small minded people do perhaps do it with that motivation)
ReplyDeleteOkay anonymous (one, or two, what-the-fuk-ever--speaking of names, is it SO DAMN HARD to pick one for yourselves?), then provide, please, a list of famous white athletes who DO have unusual first names, and also get the same first-name treatment as many famous non-white athletes do. Please disprove, that is, this part of Daniel Cubias' post at The Hispanic Fanatic:
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, in debates of greatest pitchers of recent history, there’s a lot of talk about Clemens, Johnson, Maddux . . . and Pedro (as in Martinez). Even when the white athlete has an uncommon moniker (I’m looking at you, Chipper Jones), he usually gets the last-name treatment.
I'm not sure I would have noticed this without someone bringing it to my attention, which is interesting since I'm a white male. Now that you mention it there does seem to be a pattern and it does seem racist. I believe this is the more underlying, deeply woven kind of racism that probably wouldn't jump out at you (if you're white that is) unless brought to your attention. Good stuff, this is why I read this blog...to get educated!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, watch out for zombies:)
I think this does happen but not only because of racism. The reasons I think different commentators do this are as follows: 1) racism, 2) alot of people of color act less "stuffy" so seem like someone you could "chill" with, 3) sometimes they are so few everyone knows who you're talking about with just the first name, 4) they are often superstars and, again, everyone knows who you are talking about. Unfortunately, because racists take any opportunity they can to somehow belittle people of color, commentators should probably just keep a neutral tone and refer to everyone in the same manner.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, clearly, but there's more going on. This is complicated. There's no doubt that the overwhelming number of athletes known by first name are non-white, or female. But in most of those cases, I think the athlete invites it. Many of them chose to be called by nickname or first name in their public personas. At least, I'm not aware of anyone requesting to be referred to more formally. Clearly I could be wrong. My sense though is that being known by your first name implies a whole different level of fame than the case where people just know your name. It implies not just knowing of you, but actually knowing you. A lot of these athletes have publicists working hard to craft an accessible image. As a Seattle fan, I know that Ichiro worked the name as hard as Madonna did hers. It's a big deal to be "the" Ichiro, or "the" Pedro. "Bo" is more marketable than "Jackson". Most people called Michael Jordan - the biggest celebrity athlete ever - "Jordan" until Nike launched the "Be like Mike" campaign. If we use the first name, we feel closer to them and so have more of an affinity for whatever they are endorsing or the teams they are playing for. It's probably true that part of the reason why they make that choice is to be less threatening to white folks. But I actually think that's a small part of it. They aren't being marketed as harmless or housebroken, they are portrayed as demi-gods and heroes. And I think we try to take on some of their glamor by acting as if we're on a first-name basis.
ReplyDeleteAnd there has to be an explanation for those non-white athletes we don't know by first name. I think it has something to do with larger than life public personas. Of the most successful athletes, what is it about the ones we know by last name? Of those who are at a high level and do not go by first name, they tend to be more reserved. Tim Duncan of the Spurs springs to mind. Hugely talented, but not an outsize personality. Compare two contemporaries, "Sir Charles" Barkley, the "round mound of rebound" and Karl Malone. Nobody called Malone by his first name, in contrast to Barkley. I think personality explains it.
Then we get to the white athletes. Do we refer to them by last name for the same reason we refer to Mariano Rivera by his full name or his last name? In a lot of cases, blandness is a factor.
Probably the most celebrated white athlete of all time (in the US) is "the Babe", who sports as diminutive a moniker as I can imagine. The failed former Seahawk linebacker Brian Bosworth marketed himself as "the Boz". Clemens lacks charisma and his nickname never really caught on except among announcers contractually obligated to use it.
Since I can think of only two white examples, I have to conclude there's something in your post. There is something going on that invites us to be less formal with certain non-white athletes, that is much less conceivable with white athletes. Shrug. It's fun to think about this stuff. Thanks!
No1Kstate you are not bursting my bubble at all. I understand that a lot of people are doing it but find that the ones that I have encounterd doing it are racists. Now help me out here please, does mainstream not also mean in a way "acceptable"? if that's the case I would not call it mainstream becuse that practice is not acceptable at all to me.
ReplyDeleteFYI: English is not my mother language,that's why my grammar and spelling sucks.
Macon D,
ReplyDeleteYou're doing exactly what I said you would do and now this blog is looking more like imperial behavioral modification.
I call "Nquest" by the name "ye ye" in reference to Kanye West. You know, that spolied black brat that thinks he's suffered the same kind of "racism" that his great great great great great grand daddy suffered.
That's "Nquest." The fool lives vicariously through the racism suffered by others because he's never really suffered any his self.
He also thinks your a "racist." Lol!
Now lil' man is a little different story. Of course, his blog name just begs for distortion especially if he isn't "BIG" enough to admit that he has told some falsehoods. So I told him when he fessed up to his lil' fibs, he could be "Big Man" again.
Your "racist" accusation is nothing but liberal fantasy. It's what you want me to be. You have your conclusion and everything is your evidence.
That's definitely not what I want Thordaddy to be. And I didn't say "Thordaddy is a racist." I said that something Thordaddy did is racist (Thordaddy should have a look n listen to a great explanation of that distinction here). I'm not surprised that Thordaddy disagrees. In fact, refusing to acknowledge one's own racist actions is yet another common white tendency. My gratitude goes out to Thordaddy for providing such clear examples of the primary topic of this blog, "common white tendencies."
ReplyDeleteI call "Nquest" by the name "ye ye" in reference to Kanye West. You know, that spolied black brat...*blank effin stare*
ReplyDeleteI was second anonymous. I can't list athletes because I don't follow sports. Also because I'm not much interested in this petty argument. Just responding to let you know I won't be reading or commenting on this blog ever again courtesy of your rude response. It seems to me that obnoxiously, arrogant attitude you hold is at the core of most racist behavior (although you don't manifest it that way).
ReplyDeleteUm, Pedro is an extremely common name, so is Alex. Try again.
ReplyDeleteBrian, thanks for coming up with a name. My "rudeness" came about from frustration--I repeatedly ask commenters to use a name, and there's also a request that they do so right about the comment-writing box, and yet, many still refuse to come up with a name. It gets confusing--near as I can tell, this thread already has three different people writing under "Anonymous."
ReplyDeleteIt's strange, and telling perhaps, that although you have so little interest in this "petty argument," you saw fit to step in and pronounce it a bad argument. Then, when challenged to prove your assertion, you wrote that you don't know enough about the topic to provide any proof. And so I say unto you, dear Brian--before you accuse others of ineffective communication techniques, you really ought to reconsider your own.
Thanks for another great post Macon. I do think the use of first names for athletes of color and for women generally is both belittling *and* is done as a sign of affection. Something that is done as a sign of affection can also be belittling and condescending. In some ways, it reminds me of the habit in a bygone era of referring to black domestic servants as 'mammy'. There's no doubt to me that this was done as a sign of affection by white children for the black women raising them and by their white parents. Yet at the same time, it was an incredibly demeaning practice because it attempted to strip those proud women of their dignity as adults. Being able to call someone by their first name shows an informality with that person but in certain contexts it can also be a way of demonstrating power differences. I think that often white Americans feel like they really 'know' black people (especially famous ones) so they feel comfortable using first names and assigning nicknames. When this occurs in the media, to me it seems to be an unconscious relic from the days of 'mammy' and 'boy' as affectionate yet demeaning terms for black adults.
ReplyDeleteThordaddy,
ReplyDeleteAre you in the USMC?
Macon D,
ReplyDeleteHow exactly is it "racist" to refer to two individuals by monikers different than what they post under when those monikers aren't even real names or names at all?Again, this liberal tendency looks more and more like imperial behavioral modification.
cdwriteme,
No...
I think part of this comes from the idea that black people, especially black atheletes, are "cool" and that by calling them by a nick name, one is participating in their coolness. This can be seen in the way NBA commentators drool over "Kobe" and "Lebron."
ReplyDeleteI also think that in a very subconsious way, some feel a sense of superiority over black atheletes. There kind of an assumption of moral deficiency, because there's such a steriotype of the lazy, disrespectful black athelete. Sometimes you heare the way these guys are criticized, and you wonder where the respect is. This is especially in the NBA, where the management of teams and the league and officials seem to want to cnotroll the players in a way I wouldln't expect if they were mostly white.
OCTOMOM -- dehumanizing, and insulting of her motherhood status, where is the disrespect for Angelina Jolie's fertility? or Mia Farrow?
ReplyDeleteMacon D,
ReplyDeleteHow exactly is it "racist" to refer to two individuals by monikers different than what they post under when those monikers aren't even real names or names at all?|
I've already answered this question; it's in the racially differential treatment, the way you apparently do that belittling thing with the names of black people you disagree with, but not those of white people you disagree with.
Thordaddy,
ReplyDeleteAre you in the Navy?
cdwriteme,
ReplyDeleteI'm not in the military and never have been. Why, are you in the military?
Thordaddy,
ReplyDeleteYou use the term "Liberal" to refer to Macon's apparent "Agenda". What do you mean? Are you speaking politically? Are you saying that people that disagree with racism are Liberal? If so, is it possible to be a member of the Republican Party and still be anti-racist?
And please elaborate on this agenda you speak of. The only agenda that I am aware of is the one that promotes awareness and equality, love, and respect. Is that really such a bad agenda?
How interesting! I think it has to do with a big loss of respect for how we address other people. I tend to always address people by their full name and titles unless given permission by the titleholder to use a variation of their name, etc. Their is a huge loss of etiqutte in media communication as well as in the workplace.
ReplyDeleteI don't follow mens basketball, but in womens basketball the players are referred to by the people narrating the game by last name, and then sometimes first name in other contexts.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't disagree with the possible origins of the nickname thing, I'm not sure I agree with it either, because when you broaden your sample from athletes to actors and musicians there is a huge amount of first-name only discussion.
It feels to me like part of a larger conversation about the cult of celebrity in the US, and the great lengths our media goes to create and product-ize celebrities. Calling them by their first names (or a nickname) is one way to "feel close" to a famous person, to feel like an intimate of theirs and appropriate some of their fame and success by identifying with it via admiration. Which might also tie in with what cassie said about the loss of respect for full names and titles, as our focus has shifted away from (at least in public discourse) systems and groupings and families, towards the individual-with first names and nicknames.
On a different note, I definitely understand the allure of anonymous commenting. I do it elsewhere, especially if its someplace that I don't think I'll comment at again (like stuff sent in links from friends). My true forays into the internet began at the very start of the meme of "if you put any personal info online (and are female), you're gonna get stalked". And also because I've been part of job searches where peoples online profiles are intensely viewed and where people have been disqualified for being indiscreet on livejournal. "Jules" is one of the nicknames I am sometimes called based on a real name, and I posted under it, rather then a less traceable nickname, by accident the first time.
derek,
ReplyDeleteIn this context, a liberal is one who gives little to no credence to the traditional definition of "racism."
This liberal tendency to reject all things traditional has many intoxicating possibilities for those that employ such orthodoxy.
In Macon D's case, he is part of a behavioral modification movement with very zealous aims. And because liberals reject tradition this necessitates the understanding that one should show no restraint in their liberalism.
So what you see Macon D doing is archiving a greater and greater collection of white/nonwhite interaction and then categorizing it in such a way as to serve a self-interest. This interest takes the form of discovery one's "whiteness," but in reality, the only discovery is that Macon D is a very zealous liberal.
Probably got something to do with the majority of white men being called one of about half a dozen names - "Mike", "Steve", "Bill", "Dave", "Tom", or "Bob". I went in to work the other day and one guy had a list taped up of all the "Steves" that were in that day, with their departments and last names (necessary, since there were three in one department). You pretty much *have* to go with last names, there!
ReplyDeleteWomen's names, even incredibly common white women's names, still have much more variation. If you're talking about "Hillary", you can pretty much determine from the context whether you mean "Clinton", "Duff", or someone from the office, but if you just say something like "Bill", so many more options.
But dissuading white people from giving white babies incredibly common white names gets you into the whole "kreeaytiv" misspellings, hippie object names, and cultural appropriation can of worms. Personally, I'd rather be referred to by my first name than my last, so to me this translates into "White guys, unless you're Brad, you're never going to get first-name-only superstardom, suck it up", at least as far as *full* first names go.
Unwanted nicknames, however...look, I wear a name tag. If you are going to call me by name, don't get offended when I look at you like your brain cell is lonely when you ask "So what should I call you?", and then get pissed when you decide to call me something different anyhow. My common-ass first name (which on paper, means I'm most likely Canadian-born white or black, or Asian born anywhere) is *not* that difficult to handle as is. Though around here, people don't do that to long names of, say, Ethiopian or Indian origin. Only people they already feel comfortable subjugating - known commodities.
Thordaddy, how is that a bad thing? What's wrong with rejecting a traditional view of racism? How would you define this traditional view? And, if you think about the history of race in this country, couldn't you say that things that are "traditional" are often racist as well?
ReplyDeleteKevin, it seems that Thordaddy misses the days of "traditional" racism. In other words, the days when people like you "knew their place."
ReplyDeleteAnd, his understanding of the word "liberal" is just, wacky.
You and Derek won't get anywhere asking for straightforward definitions from him. He'll just keep telling you what "liberals" "do" instead.
To Thordaddy: do you believe that so-called white people are superior to so-called black people? And do you even understand what it means to write "so-called" here?
Kevin Lockett,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I said liberals are those that give little to no credence to the traditional definition of racism.
What this means is that in our liberal society there is no particular definition of racism. Racism is really nothing more than what Kevin Lockett wants it to be.
Clearly, you can see why this brings you great advantage?
But just as clear is the inherent weakness in making your case by relying on a liberal definition of racism. A liberal definition of racism is really no definition at all and now we are in a state of blaming and denying "racism" because its meaning is unknowable and you are just one of the many that make it such.
Thordaddy, Is this some kind of a sick joke you're playing? Or are you being yourself? If this is really you than...
ReplyDeleteLOL...I am sorry you feel this way. If you do ever want to change I recommend reading this, and other blogs like this without build a wall so high that you are unable to see over it. I believe there are 2 kinds of white folks in America. One is ignorant but willing and able to be educated. Second is ignorant and not willing to be educated. If you are indeed being serious than I am very sad for you, as I would not be very happy with so much hate in my heart.
Also, it appears my and others words fall on deaf ears with you and I am done trying to convince you of anything...I've already put more energy into you than I should have...I'm done.
derek says,
ReplyDeleteThe only agenda that I am aware of is the one that promotes awareness and equality, love, and respect.LOL! Yes, one that promotes by force of government.
Why would one need the force of government to usher in what you already claim self-evident?
Barack!
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is, any white person, especially a white man, and it was usually a white man - that called my mother by her first name immediately wished that he hadn't. It is for this very reason that a lot of Black men of my generation were named "Sir" or given military titles as first names, such as "Major". Dick Gregory named one of his daughters "Miss" because white people hated to call a Black woman "miss', preferring to use the lady's first name. James Brown allegedly walked off the Johnny Catson show without performing because Carson kept calling him "Jimmy" after Brown had called him "Mr. Carson" and requested that he be called "Mr. Brown". Please note that I am referring to a formal or business setting, or interactions between complete strangers. For a lot of older Black Americans, being called by their first name, as well as "uncle" or "auntie" by somenone they had to address as "Mr." or "Miss", were viewed as intentional signs of disrespect - presuming a familarity that did not exist and a level of intimacy that was not reciprocal. Many older Black people view this behavior as insulting, while a lot White people think they are being "friendly". If you're wondering why the conversation immediately went south, after you called him/her by a nickname - that you made up - this is probably why.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me but if you're going to criticize Obama being referred to as "Barry" as racist, can you please explain why I had to put up with eight years of every media source imaginable (even some left-leaning print newspapers) referring to the President as "Dubya."
ReplyDeleteOne of three things is happening here. Either you have a very selective memory, George W. Bush is a person of color, or you're seeing "racism" where it's actually just good old fashioned dislike and disrespect.
Elizabeth, a few things to keep in mind:
ReplyDelete1. As far as I know, Bush actually goes by "W," while Obama hasn't gone by "Barry" for a long time.
2. It's much more of an issue in the area of sports, which was the original example. I don't think it's intentional racism, but rather a subconscious action that is the result of living in a racialized society.
3. There is not history in this country of blacks calling whites by first names to assert power and reinforce inferiority.
Great post.
ReplyDelete"I've noticed this kind of thing with the way President Obama is addressed in media. His title is rarely used. Many times, yes, his last name is used, but I don't remember media failing to use his actual title when Bush was president. Maybe I'm wrong. Then he's also referred to as Barry, a nickname he has but it's kind of inappropriate to refer to a man in that position by his nickname."
I think I may have to partially disagree with you on this one - I've seen Bush referred to as such without the title plenty of times. Not to mention the ubiquitous "W" which was recognizable enough to title the biopic.
I will echo no1kstate by saying that "Barry" is more disrespectful, however, because of the problematic Americanization and his desire to outgrow it.
"Big Ben" Roethlisberger
ReplyDeleteCoach "Tomlin"
James "Harrison"
"Hines" "Ward"
Antwaan "Randle El"
Brett "The Diesel" Keisel
"Fast Willie" "Parker"
"Troy" "Polamalu"
Huge Steelers fan obviously. Sports writing/nicknames do not follow racial lines, unless you are looking to be offended. Unless you think Pittsburgh is some bastion of rightness. If you do, thanks, we rock. But I expect that we yinzers are no better/worse in regards to racial hangups.
ITA w/Margaret. And I don't think it's limited to sports. Even WIWL do it: J.K. Rowling, who the Vatican (say what you will) acknowledged for her anti-racism work through her Harry Potter books, consistently had the protagonist refer to the only black man in the series by his first name while referring to all the white adults -until he got to know them well- by their last names. I doubt she, as a white person, was conscious of the discrepancy. It's an assumed familiarity that continues the disrespectful tradition of refusing to acknowledge the adult status of POCs.
ReplyDelete