Now Liberals Attack Mascot For NOT Being A Minority


Seems like only yesterday liberals were rallying against teams that depicted racial minorities, like Indians, as their mascot.

Simpler times.

Now? Liberal students in Rutgers University’s student government are rallying against their own mascot–apparently, because it depicts a white man, which is somehow also offensive to racial minorities.

The Rutgers Scarlet Knight is an oversized stuffed head whose sole purpose in life is to energize fans at sports games.

He does not look like an actual person–but since he has white skin and blue eyes, he has to go.

In order to correct that grotesquely flawed depiction of a knight–who, throughout medieval European history, were pretty much exclusively white males–Rutgers student government approved a resolution to call for “more diverse” mascots.

Adding minority mascots, alongside the current Scarlet Knight, will apparently accurately represent the diverse Rutgers community. There are no formal plans yet, but the resolution suggests Scarlet Knights who are black, Hispanic, female, or even third-gender.

Apparently, unless your mascot looks exactly like your special interest group, you’re a second class citizen. Which explains the widespread disenfranchisement of the 100% of LSU students who aren’t actual tigers, or the University of Georgia students who aren’t actual bulldogs.

The idea that a mascot–itself a cartoonish caricature–has to depict every single minority group is a red herring. Mascots shouldn’t be about division: they should be about unity.

Sometimes, school pride is represented by a cartoon mascot Indian. Sometimes it’s a white male knight. Heck, sometimes, it’s just a tree–in the case of Stanford, who fired their Indian in 1972.

But the point is, a mascot isn’t supposed to depict skin or gender: it’s supposed to depict spirit, togetherness, and, above all, fun.

Which makes it all the more depressing that liberal America just can’t see the forest beyond the dark-skinned third-gendered trees.