Most of my ideas for posts come from the conversations that arise from within my circle of friends. It's almost as if they actually like what I write, as if someone really reads the random nonsense that my creative so-called genius generates. I received a message from a few of my friends about an idea for a post; and I took it and ran with it...
As the title suggests, the Olympics has some underlying racism that comes with it. I don't mean racism as so wonderfully displayed in Boston via Massholes; but "positive" racism. By positive, I mean the generalizations that the announcers/analysts make with which no one seems to have a problem (check the grammar). Everyone does it, and this post is to help outline a few of these not-so-harmless stereotypes in not just Olympic events, but all sports...
I'll propose my main examples in inquisitive form. If you were a betting man/woman/dolphin, would you place a substantial amount of money on Angola to win the gold in basketball? Would you lay down a few hundred bucks on a Lithuanian to win the marathon? I didn't think so. It's crystal clear to most people that America has basketball on lock, and that Kenyans and Ethiopians dominate in long-distance running. Now, with that thought marinating in your head, you can think back to past Olympic telecasts in which the announcers have said something to the effect of, "Those Kenyans are so strong in the marathon. It's tough to pick against them." Apparently, all people seem to do in African countries is run, like they don't have any other habits or like any other sports. I wonder if Forrest Gump is the choice movie for the entire continent...
Granted, in other sports the winner is more of a toss-up. For example, in Athens, each gold medal winner of each men's gymnastics event was from a different country. However, what's more confounding than Richard Jefferson being an Olympian is that in certain sports/events, there are subtle racial nuances that announcers and fans widely accept.
And it's prevalent in the four major sports. To my football fans, let's examine new great White hype and Masshole icon Wes Welker (pronounced Wel'kahhhhh in Boston). Football experts always use adjectives like "cerebral" and "scrappy" to describe how he plays so effectively. However, when describing teammate Randy Moss he's just an "athletic freak" or "physically gifted," as if he has no understanding of routes, defensive coverages, and the football's trajectory when it's in the air. And if you need nother example from the gridiron, let's examine the position of quarterback. When teams refer to their, "mobile quarterback," he seems to be of a certain dark-skinned pigmentation. For those that are, "pocket passers," they're of the lighter persuasion. Note: Byron Leftwich and Alex Smith are notwithstanding in this example because they go against the grain and, well, they're terrible...
I couldn't discuss this topic without bringing hoops into it. Is it just me, or are all Caucasian, Europeans, and Argentinians either "standstill shooters" or "have an unorthodox game?" Manu Ginobili is often referred to being a "nuisance" on the court because of the way the fearlessly attacks the rim. Bear in mind that Dwyane Wade and Allen Iverson play the exact same way, but they're not pests on the floor. Also, to lovers of the sport, the lighter-skinned players that aren't scrappy came out the womb with the ability to be deadly accurate with a jump shot. Now, in my findings I've found a lot of this to be true. I mean, how many times in a game do you alert your teammates to, "never leave the White guy open?" Is that wrong to say? I'm not sure of that answer...
To me, speaking generally, the spectrum—the left end having "intelligence" and the other having "physical gifts/athleticism"—moves further right the darker the subject's skin is. Again, that's just a generalization; but generalizations and stereotypes, regardless if they're positive or negative, are founded upon truths that have long been established. The reason why few people pick against African competitors in long-distance runs is because they have a long history of winning them. Basketball was invented in America, and until four years ago, the country hadn't lost an international basketball that involved professional players. The facts are there, and fans of these international sports subconsciously use them to back their generalizations; and no one has any complaints. Is it because it's within the realm of sports? I'm sure most Black people be offended if he or she asked for something to drink and the vendor offered a 40-ounce bottle of St. Ives Malt Liquor in a brown paper pag, stating, "A lot of Black people buy these, so I figured you wanted one." I'm also convinced that most Asian people would become offended if people mocked them by speaking to them in broken English the way most of them do. So why do sports get a pas? My theory is that because the racial generalizations aren't as vivid in athletcis as they are in other facets of society. Some of it, like the "don't leave the White guy open" thing, is done in good humor. A lot of it has to do with words like scrappy, mobile, and freakishly athletic when they're used to describe a particular player. As long as the speaker doesn't appear to be prejudiced in their thinking, or be blatantly racist, then he or she will be excused for those kinds of remarks.
So when you're tuning into the Olympics next week, listen for the statements with covertly stereotypical undertones, because they will be there. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a bet to make.
Peace.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment