I have come to realize that only a select few have the desire to contribute and discuss the topics on the Friend Group blog. With that in mind, this next post is specifically for Berg, Myers, Braxton, Evan (a Cubs fan), and myself. (But if anyone else wants to discuss the topic, feel free to comment.)
I realize that I have only been a baseball fan and a White Sox fan for a short time. And I also understand that since my interest in the team and the sport started in late summer/early fall 2005, I will often be classified as a "bandwagon" fan. But I assure you, my love and passion for the White Sox and for baseball is very real. In fact, I believe that my passion for baseball replaced my passion for professional wrestling. I only mention this because I feel it is important to clarify that I have done my homework on the Sox and all that encompasses being a Sox fan. To me, there is a very deep and personal connection to the team that is special. Several of you on here are also Sox fans, and after our team just received a beatdown and a sweep by the Chicago Cubs, I felt it necessary to bring up several important questions or issues related to the crosstown rivalry between the White Sox and the Cubs...
Why are the Cubs seen as the premiere Chicago baseball team, and why are the White Sox considered the Second City's second team? I hate idiotic Cubs fans who cheer for their team and don't even know 3/4 of the players on the team. But I can respect Cubs fans that know their team and have been fans despite the 100 year world championship drought. If you are a REAL Cubs fan then I tip my cap to you for your patience and passion. But unfortunately I have not met very many REAL Cubs fans. As my good friend Bradley Bergstrand once told me, Cubs fans tend to be drunken frat boys with polo shirts that scream "Yay! Go Cubs Go!" So far this description has been very accurate in my experiences.
I will now try to put things into perspective for you from the view of a White Sox fan. Wrigley Field, the home of the Cubs, is in the wealthier North side of Chicago. The rich and wealthy are usually not seen as "heroes". U.S. Cellular Field (or New Comiskey), is in the South side of Chicago. This is where the working and lower class of the city lives. The common man is usually seen as an underdog or hero. Yet the White Sox are usually cast as the villains. Aside from lacking the same kind of popularity that the Cubs have, the Sox are also the villain baseball team in films such as Angels In The Outfield and Major League 2. And what about the differences in the kind of success each team has had? The Chicago Cubs have two world championships, while the Chicago White Sox have three.
I know that I am VERY biased, but I have just never been able to see what is so loveable about the Cubs. I understand that as of 2008 it has been 100 years since they last won a World Series, and this should evoke some sympathy. But when the White Sox won the World Series in 2005 it had been 88 years since they had last won a world championship. That is an equally long period to wait. Being a Sox fan, I understand the reasoning behind why we hate the Cubs. But what do Cubs fans have against the White Sox? The Cubs are loved and the Sox are neglected. That is why losing to the Cubs is so painful for Sox fans. It is like David losing to Goliath.
I have developed this personification where Chicago is the parent of two children: the Cubs and the White Sox. The Cubs are the noisy, abnoxious partygoer that the whole school knows and thinks is really cool. The White Sox are the nerdy, quiet outcast that studies and does well on tests, but is always overlooked. And the parent (Chicago) clearly likes the Cubs more. To me this is sad. The White Sox are the neglected underdogs. I am not attempting to change the minds of any Cubs fans out there. I am simply stating my beliefs and observations. I want to know what fuels a Cubs fan in their rivalry against the White Sox, because I just don't see any glory from the Cubs side of things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Excellent post, Derrick. It's an interesting question, and if I were a social sciences major of any kind I would probably want to do a study on this, but since I'm not, I will merely speculate.
Having lived on the North Side for four years, I can attest that the Cubs are quite cherished (note that I'm a Cards fan, and therefore root against the Cubs and therefore for the White Sox as a default). Northwestern in particular, as a magnet for rich kids from around the nation, has seen many a Californian who never cared about baseball move to the North Side and don a Cubs hat merely for social reasons. In fact, most of the mystique of Wrigleyville surrounds the fact that it's one of the hippest party neighborhoods for young liberal yuppies in the Chicagoland area despite the fact that the Cubs have consistently underperformed for an entire century. In fact, I believe the trendiness and wealth of the Cubs and their fan base has contributed to their failings over the years - Wrigley Field always sells out even when the Cubs are at the bottom of their division. Since they remain profitable without winning, they have historically had little impetus to spend large amounts of money building a winning franchise.
The White Sox, I think, are the control group in this experiment because most of the aberrations in this situation emanate from the Cubs. Yes, the South Side of Chicago is the more blue-collar neighborhood, but the South Side is still nicer than most Midwestern Rust Belt Cities, such as Detroit, Cincinnati, or Pittsburgh. The White Sox are a regular team with a regular fan base who appreciates them winning more because they are valued as a sports event and not an excuse for bar hopping on Addison Street. That being said, don't romanticize the 'poor man as a hero' motif too much - that may play out in popular culture, but in real life most people are motivated by self-interest, personal gain, and money. Thus the rich set the trends, and we must develop a different mindset if we want to envy the poor.
Braxton definitely confired the Cubs as the "polo wearing frat guy team" in his first paragraph, and I think it's safe to say that many actual baseball fans feel the same way. In the Cubs defense just so I can get it out of the way, I really hope that "Wrigley Field" stays that way and it doesn't get renamed. However, Sox fans had the same thing happen when New Comiskey was changed, and they got over it, so I'm sure the North Siders can too.
On the other hand I think a lot of people actually in Chicago don't care and if one team or the other make it to the playoffs and beyond, that person will cheer for whichever team does the best. For me, since I was old enough to really watch baseball a lot and understand it, it goes back to the mid-90's, and I always cheered for the Sox and the Cardinals, simply because they're the two closest teams in the NL and AL unless you throw in the Royals, which I don't (although I'll always be a Royal bandwagon fan if they ever do good :)
But if you want to disgrace any Cubs fan, all you have to do is ask me, Berg or Halpo about the big Sox fan that actually works at Wrigley and cheered us "South Side Trash" that walked by the broken down stadium in full Sox gear. It's pretty sad when a man 30 feet away and 20 feet up in the stadium is yelling down to street expressing his love for the South Side when hes in Wrigley. Poetic justice? You might have the rich north siders that support the Cubs, but it seems that the not so fortunate folks that actually work in Wrigley might support the Sox a little more.
There's also a ton of history between these two clubs since they've been together in Chicago for so long. You don't have that between the Dodgers and Angels. I don't even think the Mets and Yankees have as deep a rivalry, although the same rules apply: poor working class in Queen root for the Mets; wealthier, casual "polo frat" fans root for the Yankees. Their World Series in 2000 could've been great if the Yankees hadn't stomped the Mets into the ground...
I think a week ago the Sox were deserving of a butt-kicking. When Ozzie Guillen makes comments like "I hate Wrigley because the rats are huge" and anti-Cubs talk like that I think it really fired the Cubbies up, and look what happened. Hopefully since Berg and Halpo are going up to the series at the Cell this week we can maybe turn that around and win a couple.
"That being said, don't romanticize the 'poor man as a hero' motif too much - that may play out in popular culture, but in real life most people are motivated by self-interest, personal gain, and money. Thus the rich set the trends, and we must develop a different mindset if we want to envy the poor."
To Braxton...
I'm not trying to stress the hero vs. villain idea too much. But I do believe that 'romanticism' in baseball, and in most sports, is an important part of the game. This is why people are so fascinated with the way Tampa Bay has played so far this year. This is why such a large part of country hates the Yankees, and will cheer any team that plays against them. People love the underdog team in sports. The White Sox are the 'poor man's' baseball team in Chicago. To me, this makes them the underdog team. But are Cubs fans willing to dispute my claim? Do they view themselves as the underdogs? That's what I want to know. What fuels them in their rivalry against the Sox? Is it just the momentary bragging rights?
Also Braxton, are you saying that since many Cubs fans root for the team and wear the gear for social reasons that this makes their cheers hollow and without real passion?
"On the other hand I think a lot of people actually in Chicago don't care and if one team or the other make it to the playoffs and beyond, that person will cheer for whichever team does the best."
To Myerz...
I'm pretty sure that we've encountered a couple fans like this before. So while I agree with you that there are fans of both the Sox and the Cubs, I don't believe that there is a very large percentage of baseball fans like this in Chicago. So much of being a White Sox or a Cubs fan is despising the other team. I think it would be just about as common to find someone who likes both the Cardinals and the Cubs. The only person I know who likes both of these teams is Mike Boren.
Before I begin, I have to say the only downside to England (besides spending twice as much on EVERYTHING) is that I can't watch the Cubs during what is, I believe, the best season they've had thus far in my entire life. I would also like to say, that since I'm not from Chicago and am not really invested in the rivalry, and because I grew up a persecuted Cubs fan in Cardinals territory, and because I tend to gravitate towards Chicago pro teams, I root for the White Sox when they aren't playing the Cubs.
Suburban frat boys wearing Cubs gear piss me off too- like Braxton said, it's a social club, and they have never endured the suffering that we fans in the St. Louis area feel when the Cubs fail (again and again) to go the distance.
2nd Point: Cubs fans are EVERYWHERE. Even in London. I talked to a guy wearing a Cubs hat in Trafalgar Square thinking he was a fellow American fan, but he responded in a Manchester accent. For the Cubs/Diamondback NL semifinal series, half of the fans in the sold out Diamondback Stadium were Cubs fans. For whatever reason, the Cubs have done very well establishing and maintaining a loyal fan base all around the nation and (apparently) the world.
3rd Point: All baseball players are superstitious to the extreme- more so than any other sport, I would argue. I once had to convince myself that a game we lost to Calhoun was not due to me failing to hit my glove three times when Tyson struck out the lead-off hitter. As a baseball player for 11 years and a Cubs fan for 21, I can assure you that the Curse is given a lot of power. I think that we Cubs fans accept the final defeat as inevitable, but we still hold out hope that one day our pennance will be paid, and the Cubbies will once again be champions of the world.
4th Point: Baseball is a very historical game, and the past is always present with players and with fans. True baseball fans hold dearly to the romantic notion that baseball is God's own sport and above all reproach. With that said, there was a time when the White Sox were true villians and traitors to the game. Even though the White Sox are my AL team, they will most likely be forever branded with the Black Sox scandal.
Final Point: The Cubs will the World Series this year.
I forgot to include this points in my previous comment:
The Cubs/White Sox rivalry is very tense and often can manifest itself violently. I don't know about this year, but I know that in past years, the Cubs/Sox series was the impetus for some serious gang violence. The Cubs/Cardinals rivalry, is different though. I think that the Cubs/Cardinals rivalry is all about the baseball (although some might claim Harry Carrey has a role in there too), but the Cubs/White Sox rivalry is more about social issues and the perception on both sides that the other's fans fill a certain stereotype or social niche. Braxton and I have a friendly rivalry in which we don't like each other's teams, but one of Tasha's friends from Chicagoland absolutely loathes, to the point of wishing death upon, the stereotypical Cubs fan. She hates the fans and the idea that the Sox are snubbed, and therefore hates the Cubs.
Also, Derrick, just to add some perspective, Yankee Stadium and Mets Stadium are both in working class parts of NYC. Every time I fly out of LaGuardia, I drive past both fields, and there isn't much change in scenery, just as there isn't much difference between their fans. The preeminance of the Yankees franchise is due to them making huge amounts of money and hip-hop's affinity for the oversised, flat-brimmed Yankees baseball cap. If the Mets didn't sign $25 million contracts, or if Bruce Springsteen wore Mets gear at all of his concerts, your working man vs. popped-collar frat boy theory might work, but such is not the case.
Well spoken, E-Rod. Though I must point out that I never said anything comparing the Mets and the Yankees. That was actually Myers. I don't know how the system works in New York because #1 I've never been to New York and #2 New York baseball teams tend to get hated on moreso than other teams simply because they are from New York.
But there certainly is a class distinction between the North and South sides of Chicago. And for Sox fans I think that difference in wealth and social status drives their disdain for the Cubbies.
What is really unfortunate is that the Black Sox Scandal is a dark part of our team's past, but the burden of this event is placed upon the eight players who were subsequently banned from baseball. In truth, Charles Comiskey was the real criminal, and I feel that he deserves most of the blame because of how poorly he treated his players.
Point taken on the location of the NY ballparks, but my main point I guess is that the other two cities that have two teams don't have as deep a rivalry as the Chicago teams do. The closest rivalry I think is the Dodgers and Giants. Although they're not in the same city...anymore...they always have a deep hatred for the other.
Oh and Evan, I think the Chicago feud has been fueled more recently by a Vaginal catcher that'll remain nameless taking a cheap shot at AJ Pierzynski a couple years back. And what happened to him? Couldn't handle that Windy City feud and now he's still being Vaginal on the Padres.
Derrick: I agree that romanticism plays a huge role in the public's perception of entertainment in general and sports in particular. What makes this all so interesting is that it is 'cooler' to root for the Cubs (generally speaking), but there are many possible reasons.
Is it
1)The Cubs are the Underdogs
or
2)Rich People love the Cubs
Having not experienced the worldwide brotherhood as thoroughly as Evan, I am basing most of my experience right here in the belly of the beast, and my intuition is leaning toward #2. All I'm saying is that the large amount of social Cubs fans have turned being a Cubs fan (in many cases) into a sort of ascetic suffering which goes hand in hand with excessive alcohol consumption. Fans of the White Sox or Cardinals (or almost any other team) would be hard-pressed to build a profitable losing team in such a way - it requires a unique social and monetary climate which exists in Wrigleyville and few other places. This is not to say that the Cubs are independent of market forces - just the opposite: they are successfully marketing a commodity, but not the same commodity every other team is trying to provide. Most teams focus on winning, but the Cubs are more about the experience than about actually winning anything - in fact, the very fact that they haven't won a World Series in a hundred years is part of that experience.
If, however, the curse should be broken after a century of losses, the Cubs are going to find themselves in an interesting place. They will have gained and lost something - certainly a World Series would make the fans happy, but the experience of being a Cubs fan would not mean the same thing it has meant to so many fans who lived their lives like the Israelites in the desert, awaiting the promised land.
Perhaps the Cubs will follow the same path as the Red Sox when they broke their curse and turn their losing franchise into the best franchise in MLB...
Step one to becoming the best franchise in MLB would involve tearing down that monstrosity known as Wrigley Field.
I think you might be right, Derrick - Wrigley represents everything which has made losing profitable for the Cubs for so long.
You have to be kidding me. Wrigley Field is the only real stadium left besides Fenway. You really can't be serious...
BTW- I'm in Paris right now.
I think most of being a cub fan is feeling sorry for yourself for your constant disappointment. I also think part of being a Sox fan is feeling sorry for yourself because the Cubs unfairly get all the attention in Chicago. The drama is the heart and fun of chicago baseball.
The Cubs should keep losing and the Sox should keep being less popular and when we play we should call eachother gay and poor. Then when one of of us is in the world series we can all secretly be hoping they do well.
p.s. I will never root for the cubs even in the world series.
As a less knowledgeable fan and even less-so of the Chicago baseball team rivalry in particular, it is interesting to see some of these fan characteristics described. It may be interesting for you all, as well, to see my point of view.
I did not know the extent of the class distinction between the Sox and the Cubs fans. Well, more accurately, I was just entirely unaware of the 'stereotypical Cubs fan'; even after hearing Bradley's 'polo-shirt frat boy' description, I did not really understand. This brings my next point, to which you may (hopefully) or may not respond, circling back around to social groups and fashion:
Despite the apparent class distinction between the two teams' associations, to me, through a plethora of input, the Sox seem[ed] the 'fancier' team and the Cubs the underdogs. This may have started with the glory of the Sox 2005 World Series championship while the Cubs were still long-term losers.
In addition to viewing the Sox as a winning team of great players and the Cubs a losing team of people, it seems even their uniforms have had an impression on my views. To me, the White Sox, with their sleek black-and-white-colored outfits, are like a fast sports car or a luxury car. They use a fancier font that sort of mirrors the old pen-and-ink cursive. Contrarily, the Cubs don true blue-and-red outfits with thick, straight, bold print and a cartoon bear, making them seem more like a lame mini-van. The Sox seem to look like bada**es while the Cubs just look annoying.
Then comes the stadiums. The Cubs stadium is fine, like a homely babysitter or average Midwest American house (older) including bland, non-impressive lawn. The Sox stadium seems much more aesthetically pleasing, it seems to have with vivid, vibrant colors and sharp lines, like a hot babysitter or fancy, tidy, modern house with perfectly landscaped lawn including nicely trimmed grass.
Perhaps these visual impressions were impressioned themselves just by the glory and heightened view of the Sox team's value after the 2005 win. In other words, it has been a trickle effect, and only the mental view of a winning (successful) vs. losing (less successful) team has interpreted these sights (and their Cubs counterparts) as aforementioned. Is this the case, the biased view influencing other visual factors? Or are there really differences in appearance that can be seen by the human eye? If so, what are your impressions of these sights?
This question seems oddly posited after reading that Cubs fans are 'rich kids,' but nonetheless, what are your thoughts ? In turn, I felt said difference could also be seen in the fans, though maybe this a little more far stretched. While Sox can be a host to working class, lower and middle classes, it seem[ed] the Cubs were host to Midwest families of four. What do you think?
Gretchen - do you have a blogger account? Given your substantial contributions, I think we'd all like to have you as a contributor to the blog if you want to. Also, Bradley should figure out his password.
So you're not a Cubs fan, Derrick. This is a fact that most of us know already. But do you have to cut down those that are? Please tell me, what constitutes a real fan? Is it knowing every single statistic about every single player on the team you "claim" to be a fan of? Because I really don't see how having that knowledge is really that important, although I do not look down on those that do know about the players on their team. I just think that enjoying the tradition that is America's pasttime should be sufficient. Why does it matter what team you are or are not a fan of? Why can't you just let it be that someone enjoys the experience. Why must you look down on those "polo-shirted frat boys"? Who are you to tell them how to be a fan of baseball? Why does it matter to you?
I realize that I may come off sounding ingnorant because, honestly, I didn't even read the entire blog (please don't take that as an insult, I am rather lazy sometimes) and I didn't read all of every comment either. But I just had a few things to say in response to what I did read. And maybe I misinterpreted what I read. Also, I am choosing to remain anonymous. Call me a coward, but perhaps I am.
Yes, Braxton, I'd like to have an account, but I think it requires me to have a google account. Is this the way to do it?
Post a Comment