Image courtesy of Fouquier ॐ under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
We “whiteys” are finally getting a taste of our own medicine, so to speak. If a sports team wants to make a caricature of Ward Cleaver its mascot, I say go for it. How does it feel to be a mascot? Pretty hilarious in my estimation. I’d never have imagined a male WASP to be a mascot for anything except maybe an accounting firm- or white bread. (Ever notice it is only considered “correct” to make ethnic jokes if you’re a part of the ethnic group in the joke?) Of course the ridiculous leprechaun boxer of the “Fighting Irish”- the Notre Dame mascot- has been around for many years and I’ve never heard Irish people complain about it. In fact, the Roman Catholic parish in which I grew up used the ridiculous leprechaun for its own “Fighting Irish” high school mascot. This parish was comprised of people of mostly Irish descent, (despite the presence of a few Italians, Poles, Scots and Germans) so one would think someone would object to the use of either the mythical leprechaun or the stereotype of the bar-brawling Irishman, but no one did. It was funny and you didn’t have to be Irish to appreciate the humor. You didn’t have to be Irish to drink beer and play bingo in the church basement either.
While the boxing leprechaun is generally considered humorous, especially among those of Irish descent, mascots such as “Chief Wahoo” of the Cleveland Indians are taken to be offensive to American Indians. While I would agree that Chief Wahoo isn’t an accurate portrayal of American Indians, he’s a caricature, a cartoon character much like the boxing leprechaun. Of course the practice of using caricatures based upon racial or ethnic stereotypes isn’t limited to sports. Aunt Jemima comes to mind- the smiling Black “Mammy” pictured on the pancake mix and maple syrup, and who can forget the White Puritan type guy on the Quaker Oats box? Aunt Jemima is not representative of Black women, neither is the “Quaker Oats Box Guy” representative of White men. Yet the caricatures persist, not as an indictment of our insensitivity but as vestiges of a former time- the Black “Mammy” who knew how to cook tasty meals or the Puritan who lived a clean, wholesome lifestyle. The mental images of “home cooking” and “purity” are the images that the manufacturers want to encourage by using these images, not of slavery or prudery. Likewise the idea of Indian mascots is intended to bring home the image of the formidable warrior, not the negative (and disproven) stereotype of Indians as illiterate, drunken savages.
Certain stereotypes persist regarding WASP’s- the image that White families are reminiscent of Leave it to Beaver or The Brady Bunch. These programs were stereotypes in and of themselves, the clean-cut prudery and strident, blissful cleanliness were and still are painfully out of touch with reality. There were elements of reality in those sorts of portrayals, enough to make them seem “real,” but a reality only in the way a photograph relays reality- one dimensional and only part of the entire scene. We are all familiar with statements such as “Whitey don’t have rhythm,” or “White men shouldn’t play basketball,” and by and large these statements are not entirely true but true enough, we’ve all seen enough examples of ill-coordinated White people- to be funny. Stereotypes only exist because there are enough real life examples of them to “prove” the point, and humor is only funny when it contains a grain of truth.
When we lose the capacity to laugh at ourselves we lose an essential part of our humanity. I can laugh at the “Fighting Whitey” mascot because I see the humor in it- the stolid, lily-white, clean cut White guy- I know people like that, and I’m about as whitebread as they come. I’m comfortable enough with my identity to laugh at the negative stereotypes, partially because I can see where the negative image came from and partially because I have the courage not to be a part of the negative image- the resolve to be a part of the solution rather than a contributor to a problem. Are certain groups uncomfortable with negative stereotypes because they identify with the negativity or because the image hits too close to home? Do the stereotypes address issues that need to be confronted within a particular group- making it easier to attack the negative stereotype than to take steps to resolve the problem within a group that gave rise to the stereotype in the first place?
Stereotypes can be educational if they are not taken as an excuse for promoting racism or as an excuse to deny equal opportunity to others. Where did they come from- where is the grain of truth that led to the exaggeration of a fault or a caricature of a particular group? Rather than bemoan the creation of persistent stereotypes, it is contingent upon individuals to dissuade them, not by decrying the perceived insensitivity of others but in living in such a manner that proves the stereotype wrong. Been wrongly stereotyped as a deadbeat or as a “Monica” or as one with a proclivity for violence? Live in such a manner as to prove a negative stereotype wrong. As to the funny ones, the caricatures such as Chief Wahoo or the boxing leprechaun- or the “Fighting Whitey”- why not just laugh?
I am sure there will be a demand for the “Fighting Whitey” T-shirts. I hope there is. If the proceeds from the sales of the shirts benefit the residents of Indian reservations all the better- capitalism is a good thing, after all. Quite a few of us “Whiteys” are laughing at the “Fighting Whitey” mascot because we see how rigid, stern and “white, clean and neat” we can be. Perhaps the “Fighting Whitey” controversy will help us relax and laugh a bit instead of being so hung up on what’s “politically correct” or not. We can focus more on our shared humanity and less upon the trivialities that divide us.