« all my dreams will warm and sweeter be | Main | you vitriolic, patriotic, slam, fight, bright light, feeling pretty psyched »

mg

every thang's gonna be all white!

by mg at 01:03 AM on March 12, 2002

In completely frivilous and down-right laughable news, an intramural basketball team at the University of Northern Colorado has dubbed themselves “The Fighting Whities.” Why did they choose that name? To raise awareness and understanding about the stereotypes some cultures endure.

The team is led by Solomon Little Owl, director of Native American Student Services at UNC. He says the “message is, let’s do something that will let people see the other side of what it’s like to be a mascot.” There are many teams based on racial stereotypes – the Atlanta Braves, the Washington Redskins. Little Owl is “really offended” by the mascot issue at a local high school. He hopes “the people that support [stereotypical mascots] will get offended” by his team’s name.

Now, my mom went to St. John’s University. I grew up watching the St. John’s Redmen, back when they didn’t suck eggs. I remember how pissed I was when the school caved in to pressure and renamed the team the “Red Storm.” I mean, what the hell is a red storm anyway? The team is just way too menstrual for me to get into anymore.

Maybe it’s because I’m not Native American, but I don’t see how the Red Men, the Redskins, or the Braves are offensive. Well, maybe the tomahawk chop a little, but that’s besides the point. The point is that something is only offensive if you let it be. Note the "N" word.

Little Owl, and the rest of those liberal pansies with nothing better to do than complain about the names of high school sports team are so out of touch with reality. They hoped calling their team the “Whities” would help people to realize just how offensive these names to be. But check out the comments on this article. Not only is no one offended, the find it entertaining. The comments point out that for every Braves, there are the Fighting Irish, for every Redskins, you’ve got a Celtics.

So, score one for the equality of racial stereotypes and score one more for political incorrectness. Next thing you know, we might see boobies on TV.

comments (10)

But let us not forget the Cleveland Indians and their mascot Chief Wahoo! I'm not sure being called a "whitie" is really offensive. Being called a "cracker" isn't offensive either, but it's even more amusing. If the Expos decide to move to the West Coast and call themselves the California Crackers, I'll be their first fan.

by jesus at March 12, 2002 2:16 AM


St. Johns doesn't suck eggs anymore! They seeded 9th in the tournament, which is better than not getting in at all.

But yea, it's not the same yelling "Go Red Storm!" as it was rooting for the Redmen.

by michele at March 12, 2002 5:57 AM


In college, I played on an intramural basketball team called the "Fighting Foreskins" and another called "Painful Rectal Itch". We sucked, and I've long since forgotten the statements we were trying to make....

by northstar at March 12, 2002 4:04 PM


Well, you were obviously making statements about the barabrity of male circumsicion and rough toilet paper.

by mg at March 12, 2002 4:53 PM


Go Fighting Whities!

Of course this is funny to us...it is partly intended to be. But it doesn't detract from the fact that redskin, squaw, brave, etc. are derrogatory terms to American Indians, and their wishes should be respected. The dominant group just cannot comprehend how it feels, so they derride and blame those who are offended for this "new political correctness" that is "consuming" the media.

Look at the history of the American Indian, and the exploitation and horrors they have endured. Must we keep piling on insult to injury?

Those who think it is OK to do so just have no knowledge of the history of these peoples. Call me a stinking liberal or whatever you like; such accusations are non sequitor to this issue. You can't compare "Celtics" to "Redskins"--Celtics is not a derrogatory term as "Redskins" is. Redskin is the term that was used by Europeans to humiliate and insult Native Americans. If you are going to argue for preserving these derrogatory terms, you will have to find a better way to do it.

Otherwise, thanks to the "Fighting Whities" for
bringing this issue back to the media fore!

by JC at March 13, 2002 3:19 PM


In the early days of this country the Irish were as much outcasts as any other ethnic group. They were denied employment, social services, and generally abused by mainstream America.

Since I'm just an ignorant fool, and you are such great scholar of American history, why don't you explain that to me why people don't deem the mascots of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish or Boston Celtics as derogatory, considering they are as much racial stereotypes as the mascots for the Washington Redskins or Clevland Indians? Please, enlighten us.

by mg at March 13, 2002 3:40 PM


Let's put that white guy on a Wheaties box: "Breakfast of Champions -- Wheaties for Whiteys!"

by Sky at March 14, 2002 7:15 AM


They have T-shirts!!!!!!

by V at March 15, 2002 11:24 AM


Irish in America generally no longer suffer from racial (ethnic, really) discrimination, past or present, but Native Americans are still suffering from what was done to them before. And it's probable that there are still incidents of discrimination because they are a different color from or appear dissimilar to Caucasians. Those are some reasons.

by jean at March 15, 2002 10:12 PM


I didn't know it at the time, but Sports Illustrated did a survey several years back. Something like 80% of Native Americans were proud of the mascots of teams like the Indians and Redskins. In fact, it is a very small minority that are offended. Why are they the ones with all the press?

Say what you will about what was done to Native Americans during the early part of this country's history, but the reason why they might be discriminated against today is because, rather than like other ethnic minorities who choose to assimilate into American society, they choose to segregate themselves. It's always remarked about the poor standard of living on reservations, but who says they have to stay on reservations?

Take, for example, Chinese Americans instead of the Irish. They can't easily assimilate because of their skin color. When the first Chinese immigrants arrived in this country they were treated little better than slaves. Yet, today Chinese-Americans are deemed by some as too successful. Same with the Jews, only think thousands of years of opression. Or, how about how only 50 years ago Japanese Americans were thrown in internment camps, but you wont find many of them blaming the failures in their life on it. Why do some ethnic groups succeed while others fail? I don't know.

by mg at March 16, 2002 1:11 AM



comments are closed