Point: A Proponent of Conservative “We” Usage Defends his Position

By Rylan Stewart

I watched the Super Bowl with my buddy, Nathan Barnett PO ’11, who you can find on this page across the way. Both of us wanted New Orleans to win the game, although this was based more on our mutual dislike of Peyton Manning than any particular affiliation.

Near the end of the first half, when the Saints needed to stop a Colts drive, Nathan turned to me and said, “We need a stop.”

“WE need a stop.”

I stared at him.

Did he just commit the gravest sin a sports fan can commit? Did he just bandwagon his Dallas ass onto the Saints truck?

In this point-counterpoint, we will explore the appropriate use of “we” in the realm of sports fandom.

Now, first things first, it is important to realize that using the inclusive “we” to refer to your team is acceptable. Most sports fans have had an ignorant family member or friend question its usage. For example:

Rylan: “We [the Oakland Athletics] are two games out of first place.”

Ignoramus: “You don’t play for the team!”

I am here to assure you that the aforementioned sentence is entirely acceptable, and even desirable. Perhaps “you” aren’t actually a member of the team or an employee of the organization, but these multi-million dollar industries exist primarily for the fans. Take away the fans, and the players, management, and owners don’t have jobs.

But the explanation goes even further than business. When you become a fan of a team, this becomes a part of your identity. It reflects a part of you that you show the world – your city, your dad, the team that your little league team was named after. It could be anything.

These teams are important representations of a part of yourself; a part into which we pour an unnecessary amount of our hopes, dreams, and passions. It is a “we” because “we” refers to a community in which “we” invest in something that is “larger than me.” “They” is not adequate. Sports communities are some of the last thriving sectors of civic society.

However, while I may be a liberal on the use of “we,” I am a fundamentalist regarding its doctrine.

Here are the rules:

You can only use “we” to refer to your favorite team. One per sport, one per league. My “we” is devoted to the Oakland Athletics, the San Francisco 49ers (the Raiders ruined the A’s stadium, so I went across the bay for this one), and the Golden State Warriors.

In order to use “we,” your loyalties can’t be split. Communities, in this case, don’t overlap.

And, you don’t have the right to change the nature of time, space, and the universe to, say, join the communities of San Francisco and Los Angeles under your “we” because you are partial to California teams. You don’t have the right to arbitrarily adopt or create a community without its acceptance. Again, this is bigger than the individual.

To get the privilege of “we” you must choose, and stick with your choice, except, perhaps, in the very worst disasters.

Taken as such, Nathan’s “we” came across as a flagrant violation of the code of community behavior, public decency, and basic intelligence.

He didn’t use “we” as a real fan.

He didn’t use “we” as an American, supporting the Saints as American heroes.

He used “we” as a “flavor of the week” favorite to win – or to help support his gambling fix.

I won’t allow it and so I am calling him out publicly.

Nathan, here is your chance to explain. Redeem yourself and I won’t fire you.

Counterpoint: A Liberal “We” Spender Speaks

By Nathan Barnett

Dear Rylan (and fellow concerned readers, Rylan’s cronies, and other possibly heartless anti-Americans):

I am American. I love America. I really do. I love our foundations. I love our rebellious origins (and don’t you forget them). The rebel cause is in our blood—in our collective spirit. We are strong as a nation because of the national unity and patriotism that stems directly from our rebellious stick-it-to-the-man roots.

Aside from severe flaws in our foundational understanding of equality, we are and have been a country of equals. Resistant to oppression by a higher, divinely authorized figure, we believe in ourselves as sovereign of our own political apparatus—“we the people” are the supreme law of the land.

We the people. We.

Not Me. Not them. We.

And as a fully proud member of the collective unit that is the United States, I embrace communities at every chance I get; I live off of the communal energy.

Yet Rylan wishes to denounce my embracement of such unity.

Rylan wishes to cast out all those who do not meet his narrowly defined yet arbitrary boundaries that make up district, city, and state lines. I say to hell with exclusion.

“We” should be interpreted as inclusive. We Americans come from different walks of life, different backgrounds, and we are better for standing together and casting aside our differences.

Let’s say I have a friend from New Orleans. So what if I simply cheer for the Saints simply because I don’t like Peyton Manning while my friend from New Orleans lives and dies on every Saints play because he grew up loving them? Last Sunday, we were in it together.

He should respect and embrace my positive vibe, my positive energy. He should bask in our common bond and take the opportunity to create a connection with me that we otherwise could not make.

Am I a bigger Saints fan than he? Of course not. Did I cheer for the Saints against my hometown Cowboys? Absolutely not. But a little diversity does not taint his, mine, or Rylan’s experience.

Purity is overrated.

All of these brilliant, patriotic points aside—I rarely use the term “we” in such a context anyhow. Rylan’s fuming stems mostly from a semantic disagreement that my humble sports editor seems not to understand. Perhaps he simply refuses to understand just to spite me.

But when two people are watching a game, cheering for the same team and one wants to refer to their collective experience, the correct term is “we.” What is implied in my supposed “grave” sports sin, “we need a stop,” is “we want a stop.” By extending our connection to the team and true fan base, we are simply increasing our enjoyment. Never do I watch a game alone and use the term “we,” unless it is my team.

So if you love America and the English language, say “we.” Shout it. Rylan even indulged in “we” talk to get a feel for what it was like. Our post-game celebratory hug was cemented with a mixture of “we” and American values that has undoubtedly only made our friendship stronger. Who can argue with that?

Stewart Rebuts

Well, well, well: Nathan, for somebody who loves America so much, it sure sounds like YOU ARE A COMMUNIST.

“Proud member of the collective unit,” indeed… the commune of the United States. I would be touched. Except that you forgot the United States was founded on capitalism and democracy, which absolutely solidifies a good dose of inequality into the foundation. “We are and have been a country of equals.” Nice try.

OK, now that I have gotten that out of my system, I can address the meat of your argument. I can understand the “semantics” disagreement. When you are supporting a team with another couple of guys, you are forming your own small community with them. It is important to respect the rules of that community. Sometimes a “we” might slip out. However, I still disagree that this smaller “communion” should take precedence over the sacred communion with your original team.

This great nation is made up of a number of small communities defined by certain political, ideological, and economic factors. These communities are quite diverse, with many different viewpoints and methods of identification.

As a citizen of the broader country, you don’t get to be a member of every community by default – unless you spend time with them, work with them, understand their background, and become accepted.

To say “we” to a sports team like the Saints, after their years and years of losing misery, devalues their experience as embattled losers that made it to the top.

If you were actually watching the game with a single real New Orleans fan, perhaps I would have found the situation more acceptable.

I agree that we must be inclusive. It is important to realize, however, that this does not mean arbitrarily deciding “who you want to win today” and joining that community.

Yes, we are separated as a nation by a number of disturbing factors – including arbitrary state and city lines (as well as other, more relevant factors that should remain outside this argument about sports). But these lines do mean something, and it is important to recognize these differences as well as cherish them.

This means that you must not presume to be a part of something you are not. If you want to be a part of the “we,” you have to earn it.

In conclusion, I am no longer sure what I am talking about.

Perhaps I am calling you a bandwagon fan, a disturbed human being, and preparing to fire you.

Care to take the argument full circle?

Barnett Retorts

How dare you lecture me about experiencing “years and years of losing misery… as embattled losers.” I am a Texas Rangers fan gosh-darnit!

There is no team in professional sports I care more about, and “years and years of losing misery” doesn’t really even come close to explaining the experience of a Ranger fan. In our 37-year history, the Rangers made the playoffs only three times, and have won only one playoff game.

That’s right: One. One playoff win. Nine playoff losses.

John Burkett: The Rangers Only Playoff Winner. How many fans can name all of the pitchers that have won playoff games for their franchise?

While this is not about the Rangers, I feel in some way as if my fanhood has been questioned.

The crux of Rylan’s worry seems to be this: How could someone who so loosely uses the word “we” rightly claim true fandom with any team? Isn’t this usage destructive to the integrity of true fan bases everywhere?

Yet to me, Rylan’s worry is about everyone but himself. He seems so wrapped up in what other people perceive. Be an individual!

I understand your frustration with bandwagon fans—especially those not associated in any way with the team or the locality. In a town dominated by football, I know about bandwagon fans. The Rangers are only relevant when they are winning.

Yet, I know that if the Rangers won the World Series, my enjoyment and satisfaction would be impossible to sour. The victory wouldn’t be about the bandwagon fans, and even they know it.

The victory would be for me and others like me. I would love to see the Ballpark not only filled with the 10,000-20,000 or so true Ranger fans in the world, but the 35,000 other fans who decided, “hey, it might be fun to go see the Rangers win a title.”

Do these fans frustrate me when they talk about Cowboys off-season workouts instead of the Rangers playoff hunt in July and August? Of course. But my teams cannot function without the support of the casual fan, and to be honest, the more the merrier.

If some casual baseball fan walks into my room during a fantasy Rangers’ World Series game and wants to join me to create a “we” to help cheer my boys to victory—then by all means, let’s do it.

Because WE are in this together.