MBB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[AO]

If you can't distinguish between a 1800's minstrel show and someone making fun of lil' wayne, you might also be ignorant.

[Gregory Sager]

Wow ... way to spectacularly miss the point, AO.

Let me spell it out again for you, since you're so slow on the uptake: A white man wearing blackface, especially while imitating blacks for entertainment purposes, is considered to be highly offensive -- not just by black people, but by anyone who is aware of American history and the cruel stereotypes and insults perpetuated by minstrel shows.

[AO]

Wow ... way to spectacularly miss the point, AO.

Let me spell it out again for you, since you're so slow on the uptake: A white man wearing blackface, especially while imitating blacks for entertainment purposes, is considered to be highly offensive -- not just by black people, but by anyone who is aware of American history and the cruel stereotypes and insults perpetuated by minstrel shows.

and you missed my point.    The similarity between the minstrel show and the lil wayne impersonation is a white man in blackface.  The difference is that the minstrel show was making fun of an entire race of people, whereas the bethel kids were making fun of lil wayne. 

Just because someone is offended does not mean someone did something racist.  The intent was not racist, and neither were the actions.  It wasn't the makeup that made the minstrel shows racist.

[Gregory Sager]

Wow ... way to spectacularly miss the point, AO.

Let me spell it out again for you, since you're so slow on the uptake: A white man wearing blackface, especially while imitating blacks for entertainment purposes, is considered to be highly offensive -- not just by black people, but by anyone who is aware of American history and the cruel stereotypes and insults perpetuated by minstrel shows.

and you missed my point.    The similarity between the minstrel show and the lil wayne impersonation is a white man in blackface.

... a similarity that means everything in this context. The specifics behind the wearing of the blackface are unimportant. It's no different than wearing a white sheet and a hood and saying, "I'm not impersonating a Klansman. I'm just dressing up as one of the actors from the cross-burning scene in my favorite Coen brothers movie, O Brother, Where Art Thou?"

A white man wearing blackface for any reason whatsoever is offensive.

The difference is that the minstrel show was making fun of an entire race of people, whereas the bethel kids were making fun of lil wayne.

Come on, AO. Is that the best you can do? It's not wrong, because it's not a generic white man making fun of generic black people, but rather it's a specific white man making fun of a specific black man? That's one of the silliest arguments I've ever encountered on this site -- and, believe me, over the past twelve years I've seen some doozies. It assumes that people's actions take place in a historical and social vacuum. Sorry, AO, but they don't. Every single one of us lives out his life within a larger context. It's called culture.

There's no appropriate context or excuse that ethically validates a white man wearing blackface. It's as much of a historical signifier of white dominance and black humiliation as a Klan robe or the Confederate battle flag -- even more so, in a sense, because it's a direct visual caricature as well as a historically-based insult -- and particularizing it does not mitigate it.

Just because someone is offended does not mean someone did something racist.  The intent was not racist, and neither were the actions.

I never said it was racist. Don't put words in my mouth. I said that it was wrong and offensive and an insult. Racism connotes intent, and I fully agree that the Bethel student may have simply been ignorant. Hence, my statement about this being a teaching moment for a school almost completely made up of upper-middle-class suburban white kids who may have many within their ranks that've had little or no exposure to people who aren't like them.

It wasn't the makeup that made the minstrel shows racist.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Man, you really need to get into the habit of reading up on a subject before you post about it. The makeup was a big part of what made minstrel shows racist. First of all, the burnt cork or greasepaint was used to make the minstrel performer as pitch-black as possible. Even the black performers who performed in minstrel shows were forced to wear this kind of blackface, thus obliterating one of the basic truths of black America -- black Americans come in a vast variety of shades, and this diversity of hue is due to the forced miscegenation of white slaveowners and overseers raping female slaves. (American blacks have on average 17-18% European ancestry.) The color difference within black America has been a key aspect of that subculture since antebellum days; eliminating it on the stage (and minstrel shows were the primary moneymaking avenue for black entertainers for many decades) reduced the image of black men and women to a uniform, generic appearance -- a fact of which black people were keenly aware. It was the entertainment equivalent of the stereotypical white remark that blacks all look alike.

Second, the makeup exaggerated one of the salient features of the sub-Saharan African phenotype, broad lips. Blackface minstrel makeup made the lips broad to cartoonish proportions, further demeaning black people by caricature. Check out these examples here and here and here. Tell me that this cartoonish exaggeration is not racist in intent.

[AO]

... a similarity that means everything in this context. The specifics behind the wearing of the blackface are unimportant. It's no different than wearing a white sheet and a hood and saying, "I'm not impersonating a Klansman. I'm just dressing up as one of the actors from the cross-burning scene in my favorite Coen brothers movie, O Brother, Where Art Thou?"

A white man wearing blackface for any reason whatsoever is offensive.

Does a Klan hood have any other possible interpretations?  Do you think the bethel student had to explain to the crowd that he was impersonating Lil Wayne?

Come on, AO. Is that the best you can do? It's not wrong, because it's not a generic white man making fun of generic black people, but rather it's a specific white man making fun of a specific black man? That's one of the silliest arguments I've ever encountered on this site -- and, believe me, over the past twelve years I've seen some doozies. It assumes that people's actions take place in a historical and social vacuum. Sorry, AO, but they don't. Every single one of us lives out his life within a larger context. It's called culture.

I think you were able to understand my argument, but some part of your brain decided that in order to defeat it you had to try to make fun of it, rather than admit that it's the most sensible explanation of what went on.  I'm not claiming we live in a historical vacuum.  If the students had put on an 1800s style minstrel show, then I would agree that they forgot the historical context of that sort of comedy and were stupid to do it.

I never said it was racist. Don't put words in my mouth. I said that it was wrong and offensive and an insult. Racism connotes intent, and I fully agree that the Bethel student may have simply been ignorant. Hence, my statement about this being a teaching moment for a school almost completely made up of upper-middle-class suburban white kids who may have many within their ranks that've had little or no exposure to people who aren't like them.

We agree that a specific white man made fun of a specific black man.  We can also agree that it was offensive and immature.  I think it was offensive to lil wayne, and you think it was a "serious racial insult", though you have now stepped down from calling it "racism" as I had thought "serious racial insult" inferred racism.   I don't think racism connotes intent, but it surely could have a hand in determining the punishment for the racism.  But in this case I believe the intent is irrelevant, as the actions the students took were not of a stereotyping or racist nature.  In order to stereotype, you have to target more than 1 person, and the student was clearly targeting Lil Wayne.

It wasn't the makeup that made the minstrel shows racist.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Man, you really need to get into the habit of reading up on a subject before you post about it. The makeup was a big part of what made minstrel shows racist. First of all, the burnt cork or greasepaint was used to make the minstrel performer as pitch-black as possible. Even the black performers who performed in minstrel shows were forced to wear this kind of blackface, thus obliterating one of the basic truths of black America -- black Americans come in a vast variety of shades, and this diversity of hue is due to the forced miscegenation of white slaveowners and overseers raping female slaves. (American blacks have on average 17-18% European ancestry.) The color difference within black America has been a key aspect of that subculture since antebellum days; eliminating it on the stage (and minstrel shows were the primary moneymaking avenue for black entertainers for many decades) reduced the image of black men and women to a uniform, generic appearance -- a fact of which black people were keenly aware. It was the entertainment equivalent of the stereotypical white remark that blacks all look alike.

Second, the makeup exaggerated one of the salient features of the sub-Saharan African phenotype, broad lips. Blackface minstrel makeup made the lips broad to cartoonish proportions, further demeaning black people by caricature. Check out these examples here and here and here. Tell me that this cartoonish exaggeration is not racist in intent.

You are correct in that the minstrel show makeup was cartoonish and racist, but the similarity between the minstrel makeup and the lil wayne makeup was not the cartoonish racism, but simply the color of the face.  The bethel student dressed up as lil wayne, not the stereotypical black male.

[Gregory Sager]

... a similarity that means everything in this context. The specifics behind the wearing of the blackface are unimportant. It's no different than wearing a white sheet and a hood and saying, "I'm not impersonating a Klansman. I'm just dressing up as one of the actors from the cross-burning scene in my favorite Coen brothers movie, O Brother, Where Art Thou?"

A white man wearing blackface for any reason whatsoever is offensive.

Does a Klan hood have any other possible interpretations?  Do you think the bethel student had to explain to the crowd that he was impersonating Lil Wayne?

That's your explanation? The Bethel students in the audience got the joke, so it's OK? All that proves is that Bethel really is a hive of ignorance when it comes to racial matters.

The bottom line here is that you're groping to excuse the inexcusable. Regardless of intent, and regardless of the specificity of the person being impersonated, in this country a white man wearing blackface is racially insensitive and insulting. End of story.

Come on, AO. Is that the best you can do? It's not wrong, because it's not a generic white man making fun of generic black people, but rather it's a specific white man making fun of a specific black man? That's one of the silliest arguments I've ever encountered on this site -- and, believe me, over the past twelve years I've seen some doozies. It assumes that people's actions take place in a historical and social vacuum. Sorry, AO, but they don't. Every single one of us lives out his life within a larger context. It's called culture.

I think you were able to understand my argument, but some part of your brain decided that in order to defeat it you had to try to make fun of it, rather than admit that it's the most sensible explanation of what went on.  I'm not claiming we live in a historical vacuum.  If the students had put on an 1800s style minstrel show, then I would agree that they forgot the historical context of that sort of comedy and were stupid to do it.

History provides the context as to why blackface is offensive, and it's an overarching context that negates any specificity. That's the whole point. There aren't any exceptions -- "Oh, I wasn't making fun of black people, I was only making fun of one black guy in particular" -- that override the cultural paradigm.

I never said it was racist. Don't put words in my mouth. I said that it was wrong and offensive and an insult. Racism connotes intent, and I fully agree that the Bethel student may have simply been ignorant. Hence, my statement about this being a teaching moment for a school almost completely made up of upper-middle-class suburban white kids who may have many within their ranks that've had little or no exposure to people who aren't like them.

We agree that a specific white man made fun of a specific black man.  We can also agree that it was offensive and immature.  I think it was offensive to lil wayne, and you think it was a "serious racial insult", though you have now stepped down from calling it "racism" as I had thought "serious racial insult" inferred racism.

I never stepped down from anything. You're the one who equates "racism" and "serious racial insult," not I.

Also, I didn't infer anything vis-a-vis my use of the term "serious racial insult." You're confusing "inferred" and "implied." A writer or speaker implies; a reader or listener infers.

I don't think racism connotes intent, but it surely could have a hand in determining the punishment for the racism.

Racism as a term is open to interpretation, and my interpretation is pretty moderate. I limit it to intentions, whereas some people (particularly those who use the term "racism" as a cudgel) define it as being so inherent within a person that that person can be unconsciously racist.

But in this case I believe the intent is irrelevant, as the actions the students took were not of a stereotyping or racist nature.  In order to stereotype, you have to target more than 1 person, and the student was clearly targeting Lil Wayne.

... and I never said that the student was stereotyping black people. Again, regardless of the specificity of a white person's portrayal of a black person, using blackface is simply wrong. It's loaded with larger cultural meaning and historical weight for a white person to put on blackface in this country, no matter how much he or she protests to the contrary.

It wasn't the makeup that made the minstrel shows racist.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Man, you really need to get into the habit of reading up on a subject before you post about it. The makeup was a big part of what made minstrel shows racist. First of all, the burnt cork or greasepaint was used to make the minstrel performer as pitch-black as possible. Even the black performers who performed in minstrel shows were forced to wear this kind of blackface, thus obliterating one of the basic truths of black America -- black Americans come in a vast variety of shades, and this diversity of hue is due to the forced miscegenation of white slaveowners and overseers raping female slaves. (American blacks have on average 17-18% European ancestry.) The color difference within black America has been a key aspect of that subculture since antebellum days; eliminating it on the stage (and minstrel shows were the primary moneymaking avenue for black entertainers for many decades) reduced the image of black men and women to a uniform, generic appearance -- a fact of which black people were keenly aware. It was the entertainment equivalent of the stereotypical white remark that blacks all look alike.

Second, the makeup exaggerated one of the salient features of the sub-Saharan African phenotype, broad lips. Blackface minstrel makeup made the lips broad to cartoonish proportions, further demeaning black people by caricature. Check out these examples here and here and here. Tell me that this cartoonish exaggeration is not racist in intent.

You are correct in that the minstrel show makeup was cartoonish and racist, but the similarity between the minstrel makeup and the lil wayne makeup was not the cartoonish racism, but simply the color of the face.  The bethel student dressed up as lil wayne, not the stereotypical black male.

Not the point. You said that it wasn't the makeup that made minstrel shows racist, and I simply proved otherwise.

[SUMMIT!!!!!]

Greg- being uninformed and wrong about anything has never stopped AO from spouting off.

AO-- take Greg's suggestion and read up on mistrel shows, blackface, etc, BEFORE opening your mouth/keyboard and showing us all how truly ignorant you are.  Blackface, Klan hoods, "Stars & bars"-- they are all symbols with deep and historic meaning, deragotory and offensive to blacks.

This is something like the 4th time in 4 years (and the 2nd from the MIAC) that college kids  made national news for donning blackface in attempts to be "funny"-- by now, one would think people would have learned-- donning blackface is NOT humorous, and yes, it IS offensive.

[AO]

The Bethel students in the audience got the joke, so it's OK? All that proves is that Bethel really is a hive of ignorance when it comes to racial matters.

The bottom line here is that you're groping to excuse the inexcusable. Regardless of intent, and regardless of the specificity of the person being impersonated, in this country a white man wearing blackface is racially insensitive and insulting. End of story.

I think everyone, including you, got the joke.  I don't believe that you think what the bethel student did was comparable to the racist minstrel shows.  If I'm understanding you correctly, the kid could have worn a lil wayne mask and there would be no problem, but since he cheaped out and used makeup, it is a serious racial insult due to the previous use of makeup by racists.

I think all that has been proven here is that the use of blackface makeup is not comparable to the klan hood or nazi swastika as a recognized symbol of something to be offended by.  I seriously doubt it will get there despite efforts to elevate it through academic reform.  It's not possible for the majority of Americans to be ignorant about American culture, as those same Americans make up the culture.  If it somehow does become a part of American culture, then I'll be offended too.  I'm not defending the use of blackface makeup by the idiots from hamline pretending to be african for halloween or the kids from macalester as they were stereotyping the general population of black people.  Obviously it's a bit tricky to use blackface makeup without appearing to be stereotyping the whole race, but in this case I think the bethel student made it quite clear of the lil wayne impersonation due to use of it only during the lil wayne song.


in other news more closely related to the topic of the forum: the tommies posted a video of the construction progress on the new shoe last week.

[Buddo]

IMO...

1. Blackface is never acceptable in this day and age
2. Lil' Wayne should be disrespected in almost every way... excluding racial mockery
3.

In 2007, Macalester College in St. Paul censured a student for attending a campus house party wearing blackface and a noose around his neck, accompanied by a student dressed as a Ku Klux Klan member. That same year, Hamline University, also in St. Paul, suspended six players from its football team for donning blackface and body paint to impersonate African tribesmen for an off-campus Halloween party.

This is from the Strib article... wow that sounds bad. The intentions could have been innocent, but what were they thinking?

In other news, I understand that 2G Parker Hines from Minnehaha Academy will be playing up River Road at Augsburg College next fall.  He could be a nice addition for the Dawgs.

That's huge, I've heard great things about the kid.

[Buddo]

About time to change the subject? Ok!

I've been using my brother's rivals pass and I came across their top 100 ranking for c/o 2010... now these aren't in any way official since it's just one guy coming up with these, but they at least give you a ballpark idea.

Got it? Don't give these rankings any weight! They are incredibly unofficial and speculative. Alright, now that we have that out of the way...

So anyways, this is what I can see for the MIAC:

SJU
#34 Luke Januschka, St. Cloud Cathedral, SF
#43 Erik Tengwall, New London-Spicer, PG/SG
#61 Scott Willenbring, ROCORI, SF
#66 Seth Marx, Benilde-SM, SG

St. Olaf
#47 Connor Gunderson, Austin, SG
#90   Mike Jensen, Zimmerman, PG

Concordia
#84 Brandon Host, Mound-Westonka, SG

Hamline
#58 Josh Pratt, St. Anthony, SG

Augsburg
#35 Parker Hines, Minnehaha Academy, PG
#76 Andy Siedlitz, Robbinsdale Armstrong, SG

Bethel
#91 Derek Walhome, Staples-Motley, SF


Also this is for our friends in the WIAC (my boys at EC doing well it seems):

65   Paul Franklin   Stillwater (UW-Eau Claire)
77   Kevin Rabbers   Grand Rapids (UW-Eau Claire)


So there are a few things to consider. One, obviously since this is a MN list, we don't know of any outstate recruits at this point for MIAC schools from places like Iowa, the Dakotas, Wisconsin and Illinois.

Two, the list is about half-full of committed kids with the rest "undecided"... I find it really hard to believe that many of these kids have not decided by mid-May, so I'm guessing that their decisions just haven't  been made public.

Three here is something to consider... of the top 100, the top 15 are either D-1 commits or D-1 caliber that may be going to  CC's or Prep Schools. From there, #'s 16-33 are a solid chunk of D2 kids with a few more sprinkled through the list. The rest, I guess, you could consider D3 kids.

[Gregory Sager]

Greg- being uninformed and wrong about anything has never stopped AO from spouting off.

AO-- take Greg's suggestion and read up on mistrel shows, blackface, etc, BEFORE opening your mouth/keyboard and showing us all how truly ignorant you are.  Blackface, Klan hoods, "Stars & bars"-- they are all symbols with deep and historic meaning, deragotory and offensive to blacks.

This is something like the 4th time in 4 years (and the 2nd from the MIAC) that college kids  made national news for donning blackface in attempts to be "funny"-- by now, one would think people would have learned-- donning blackface is NOT humorous, and yes, it IS offensive.

Well, as AO has demonstrated, learning is not something that is swallowed easily by everybody. A shame, too, as this all really boils down to being sensitive to others, particularly regarding a subject such as racial humiliation in which the wounds are deep.

About time to change the subject? Ok!

I've been using my brother's rivals pass and I came across their top 100 ranking for c/o 2010... now these aren't in any way official since it's just one guy coming up with these, but they at least give you a ballpark idea.

Got it? Don't give these rankings any weight! They are incredibly unofficial and speculative. Alright, now that we have that out of the way...

So anyways, this is what I can see for the MIAC:

SJU
#34 Luke Januschka, St. Cloud Cathedral, SF
#43 Erik Tengwall, New London-Spicer, PG/SG
#61 Scott Willenbring, ROCORI, SF
#66 Seth Marx, Benilde-SM, SG

St. Olaf
#47 Connor Gunderson, Austin, SG
#90   Mike Jensen, Zimmerman, PG

Concordia
#84 Brandon Host, Mound-Westonka, SG

Hamline
#58 Josh Pratt, St. Anthony, SG

Augsburg
#35 Parker Hines, Minnehaha Academy, PG
#76 Andy Siedlitz, Robbinsdale Armstrong, SG

Bethel
#91 Derek Walhome, Staples-Motley, SF

What I find interesting is that the two traditional powers, St. Thomas and Gustavus Adolphus, aren't represented here. Of course, that probably means absolutely nothing.

[sumander]

From the "for what it's worth" department MSUM has named Chad Walthall it's men's BB coach.

Looking at the candidates, not a surprise in my mind.

[Drake Palmer]

From the "for what it's worth" department MSUM has named Chad Walthall it's men's BB coach.

Looking at the candidates, not a surprise in my mind.

Dang Sum – it looks like it must take a Cobber to train a Dragon.  Good luck to the old alma mater.

Also, you could almost say the new axis of basketball coaching powers, or cradle of coaches is coming out of the Upper Midwest.  Walthall, a native of Staples, MN; Rich Glas, current coach at Concordia – Bemidji, & Ben Jacobsen, University of Northern Iowa coach, a protégé of Rich Glas while at the University of North Dakota and former Mayville, ND native.  And of course I almost forgot former Arizona coach, Lute Olson, another Mayville ND native, & LA Laker coach Phil Jackson. I believe Jackson was from western ND - Williston?  The Upper Midwest - the new cradle of coaches indeed!  

[Gregory Sager]

Staples, Mayville, and Williston aren't in the Upper Midwest, Drake ... they're in the Lower Arctic.

[sumander]

And of course I almost forgot former Arizona coach, Lute Olson, another Mayville ND native, & LA Laker coach Phil Jackson. I believe Jackson was from western ND - Williston?  The Upper Midwest - the new cradle of coaches indeed!  

Little known fact, Lute actually coached high school BB at Mahnomen and Two Harbors!

Phil Jackson was a standout player for Bill Fitch at UND in the early sixties!