A New Consciousness?

But it is not enough to stand on the opposite river bank, shouting questions, challenging patriarchal, white conventions. A counterstance locks one into a duel of oppressor and opressed; locked in mortal combat, like the cop and the criminal, both are reduced to a common denominator of violence. The counterstance refutes the dominant culture’s views and beliefs, and, for this, it is proudly defiant. All reaction is limited by, and dependent on, what it is reacting against. Because the counterstance stems from a problem with authority–outer as well as inner–it’s a step towards liberation from cultural domination. But it is not a way of life. At some point, on our way to a new consciousness, we will have to leave the opposite bank, the split between the two mortal combatants somehow healed so that we are on both shores at once and, at once, see through serpent and eagle eyes. Or perhaps we will decide to disengage from the dominant culture, write it off altogether as a lost cause, and cross the border into a wholly new and separate territory. Or we might go another route. The possibilities are numerous once we decide to act and not react.

…

It is the work that the soul performs. That focal point or fulcrum, that juncture where the mestiza stands, is where phenomena tend to collide. It is where the possibility of uniting all that is separate occurs. This assembly is not one where severed or separate pieces merely come together. Nor is it a balancing of opposing powers. In attempting to work out a synthesis, the self has added a third element which is greater than the sum of its severed parts. That third element is a new consciousness–a mestiza consciousness–and though it is a source of intense pain, its energy comes from continual creative motion that keeps from breaking down the unitary aspect of each new paradigm.

En unas pocas centurias, the future will belong to the mestiza. Because the future depends on the breaking down of two paradigms, it depends on the straddling of two or more cultures. By creating a new mythos–that is, a change in the way we perceive reality, the way we see ourselves, and the ways we behave–la mestiza creates a new consciousness.

~Gloria Anzaldua, 1997, pp. 100-102.

Keeping the Flame of Protest Alive

The following is a response to the article “Shut up or stay home” by Gary Kingston in Saturday’s Canwest papers, in which it was reported that Dick Pound issued a stern warning to Canadian athletes who may be wrestling with the moral dilemma of competing in the Beijing Olympics due to, most notably, China’s role in the human rights issues in Tibet, and the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

 

At present, many of the prominent IOC member nations have gone on record stating that there are no official plans to boycott these Games. And while he is not attending the opening ceremonies himself, Stephen Harper made it clear that it was not for the purpose of political statement (an official delegation is scheduled to be in attendance). As such, the proverbial baton has been ultimately passed to the hands of the athletes and their own moral judgment as to whether or not to participate in any political actions of protest or boycott.

 

Kingston mentions a couple of the activist groups and actions already in process, including Nikki Dryden (Team Darfur) and Romain Mesniol (pole vaulter, France) who are encouraging the use of the Olympic venue as a forum to speak out, or to display symbols of awareness and protest, however discreet. It is because of this kind of thoughtful action that I am reminded of a couple of important teachable moments relevant to these issues. 

 

Dryden’s points about the need to take the entire Olympic Charter document under consideration is a valid and important one. Perhaps Dick Pound should heed that advice and consider more than the few lines of Rule 51, Subsection 3 about what is not acceptable at the Games and recall Rule 2 which outlines the Mission and Role of the IOC that Dryden cites. But there are more lessons here than simply those for Dick Pound. 

 

Yes, the Olympic Charter should be cited more thoroughly in relation to the headline news events brought on by flashmob attacks on the Olympic torch relay, or reports of violent outbreaks against demonstrators in Tibet. Rule 2, sections 4 and 6 of the Charter are relevant here. They state that the mission and role of the IOC is to “cooperate with the competent public or private organisations and authorities in the endeavour to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby promote peace” and “to act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement.”

 

While it may be difficult to note the direct relevance of these Charter mandates to these cases in particular, what should not be lost is the fact that people have been sufficiently motivated to take action to raise awareness of important socio-political issues. Governments have been sufficiently motivated to use extreme force to subdue discontented populations. And still larger, more widespread hunger, poverty, homelessness, violence and unrest goes relatively unmentioned. For many, the thought of even the most peaceful Games and their concomitant elaborate, excessive spectacles are hard to take when there is still so much suffering and inequality in the world.

 

It may sound like a novel concept, but we may need to be reminded that while the Olympic Games may be a celebration of human excellence, the mandate that it be done to such excess does highlight the fact that it is indeed nothing more than a decadent excess in contrast to the real living conditions of countless around the globe. Maybe, just maybe, we could reappropriate the Olympic ideal of celebrating human sporting excellence of an elite few and actually direct our efforts more towards a global humanity, and this might still be as glorious when the finish line is crossed. Perhaps even the avid fan of the Games could get a similar inspiration knowing that a greater good was being done, even at the expense of a fast run, high jump, or heavy lift.

 

The other teachable moment is found in Kingston’s reference to the “black power salute” by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. Pound’s stern warning that anyone breaking Rule 51 “will be dismissed” has historical precedent. Smith and Carlos were given a mere 48 hours to leave Mexico following their powerful gesture on the medal podium. Despite repeated attempts to intimidate them by the U.S.O.C. and the U.S. coaching staff, they did not break from their mission to make their statement.

 

You see, theirs was something more than a mere desire to “advance political beliefs.” They were at the heart of a much larger movement (Olympic Project for Human Rights) with an extended family including such notable figures as: Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), Elvin Hayes, Bill Russell, Bob Beamon, John Wooten, Jim Brown, and Muhammad Ali—all of whom were actively involved at the height of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.. Racial inequality in America at that time was a ‘serious’ issue and theirs was an incredibly powerful display made at great personal expense. For this to be recounted as a reason not to use the Games for political purposes 40 years later, I think the opposite effect might be the result.

 

Also worth noting is the fact several athletes have made political statements in the past without censure. Some have even been cause for various forms of celebration. “Canadian” (Mohawk) kayaker Alwyn Morris had an eagle feather on the podium in Los Angeles as a tribute to Aboriginal people in Canada, and to the lessons he learned from his father. “Australian” Cathy Freeman ran victory laps draped in the Aboriginal flag before adding the Australian version for good measure. Why are some of these symbolic acts punishable and not others? It can only testify to the complexity of global (political, economic, and cultural) power relations in and between nations.

 

As Harry Edwards, the organizer of the 1968 Olympic Boycott/Project for Human Rights reminds us, “the Olympic games are political, if nothing else. The fact that all participating nations do not compete under a single flag, the Olympic flag, but under their respective national flags, heightens their political flavor.”

 

To those athletes and citizens to whom Pound made his address, do not be intimidated by a hollow threat of dismissal by the IOC. This posturing is indicative of a paranoia that a tarnish will be left on the Games. I think we all know that what has gone on already can assure us that these Games are not innocent or unblemished. Regardless of where you stand on these broad and specific issues, you will be confronted with having to make a choice. Whatever decision you reach is a deeply personal one, and only you will have to live with the consequences. Smith and Carlos may have been sent home and not given NFL offers immediately after those ’68 Games, but who else do you remember from that year? Who else has become as ubiquitous a symbol for resistance and change? Who else made a difference?

 

You can shut up and stay home if you want. Or you can stand up, and show us what citius—altius—fortius really means when talking about the human spirit, not just bodies. The choice is yours, not Dick Pound’s.

Dick Pound: Shut up or stay home: Olympians who speak out in Beijing ‘will be excluded’

  Dick Pound, told the Canadian Olympic Committee’s board that “Canadian athletes whose concerns about China’s human rights record might lead them to speak out during the Beijing Olympics should just stay home.” 

Two quick things in response to this article: (1) Who made Dick Pound the sole moral authority to dictate what athletes with a moral/social conscience should do in response to the issues surrounding Beijing’s hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics? Yes, there are rules in place to deal with Olympians who use the podium or the Games as a political platform. Rule 51, Subsection 3 states that “No kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” Fair enough. Rules are rules. But (a) the athletes will clearly be informed of these rules and can make autonomous decisions about whether to follow them or not. Dick, it’s a bit of a grandstand move to issue your typical “obey, or else …” warning; (b) the article suggests that this is to deter the kind of “demonstration” still famous after the 1968 Games in Mexico City. As such, I thought it would be appropriate to correct Gary Kingston that this “salute” was a bit more than simply an effort to “advance political beliefs.”

 (2) To do that, I thought it would be only fitting to hear it from Harry Edwards:

As we have mentioned many times, the Olympic games are political, if nothing else. The fact that all participating nations do not compete under a single flag, the Olympic flag, but under their respective national flags, heightens their political flavor. … The Star Spangled Banner, the national anthem of the United States of America, was to be the focal point of the victory stand protests [by the members of the Olympic Project for Human Rights]. It has been felt for many years among the more determined segments of the black liberation movement that the Star Spangled Banner was a monument to hypocrisy of America. For the black man in America, the national anthem has not progressed far beyond what it was before Francis Scott Key put his words to it–an old English drinking song. For in America, a black man would have to be either drunk, insane, or both, not to recognize the hollowness in the anthem’s phrases. To expose this hypocrisy, we intended to inject a small bit of truth and honesty in the name of black dignity into the 1968 Olympic games. …

Then came the victory ceremonies for the 200-meter dash. Tommie Smith, the gold medalist, and John Carlos, the bronze medalist, had made it crystal clear that they intended to go through with their planned protest at the victory stand. Subtle attempts at intimidating the two had been made by members of both the U.S. Olympic Committee and the U.S. track and field coaching staff. But Carlos and Smith would not bend. They climbed to the victory stand shoeless, each wearing a black glove. Smith had a black scarf tied around his neck. They were joined on the victory stand by Peter Norman, the silver medalist from Australia, who wore the official badge of the Olympic Project for Human Rights to underscore his support of the black liberation struggle. The men were presented with their medals and each turned toward the flag of the country representing the gold medal winner. The U.S. National Anthem was played. Smith and Carlos immediately raised their gloved fists and bowed their heads. In a taped interview with Howard Cosell, Smith explained the pair’s protest gestures. He stated, “I wore a black right-hand glove and Carlos wore the left-hand glove of the same pair. My raised right hand stood for the power in black America. Carlos’ raised left hand stood for unity of black America. Together they formed an arch of unity and power. The black scarf around my neck stood for black pride. The black socks with no shoes stood for black poverty in racist America. The totality of our effort was the regaining of black dignity.” Smith later confided to me that the gesture of the bowed head was in remembrance of the fallen warriors in the black liberation struggle in America–Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others.

The impact of the protest was immediate. The U.S. Olympic Committee, acting hastily and rashly, warned all other U.S. athletes, black and white, that “severe” penalties would follow any further protests. Smith and Carlos were given 48 hours to get out of Mexico and were suspended from the Olympic team (Edwards, 1969, pp. 102-104). 

 

Why These Aren’t Comparable

In the aftermath of the LeBron Vogue cover, a surely well-intentioned member of the NASSS community posted this billboard image from the 2008 WNBA’s Minnesota Lynx ad campaign depicting who I’m assuming is the Lynx’s Seimone Augustus juxtaposed to a wild lynx. Okay, I can see how someone would want to draw a comparison between this and the LeBron cover. A semiotic analysis of the two should be done the very same way. Yes, we have a black female athlete being juxtaposed with a wild animal. This is not unlike the juxtapositioning of King LeBron versus the King Kong or the US Army recruitment posters (see previous posts). However, in order to read this ad critically, one must go far beyond this superficial analysis. There are significantly different processes (discourses) operating in these two images.

To put it simply, I’ll turn to the words of Sojourner Truth (ca. 1848):

That man over there say that women needs to be helped into carriages and lifted over ditches, and to have the best places everywhere. Nobody ever helped me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place and ain’t I a woman? I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me–and ain’t I a woman? I could work as much, and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well–and ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen ‘em most all sold off into slavery, and when I cried out with a mother’s grief, none by Jesus heard me–and ain’t I a woman? (Rhoden, 2006, p. 228).

What we are talking about here, is what’s often referred to as the “double burden” or the double diaspora. This is the condition under which women of color have had to suffer the indignities of both oppression of women, and of people of color.

A relevant case study that will be unveiled in my dissertation is that of Latasha Byears. That chapter is intended to flesh out these differences in black male and female sexuality, and the compounded floating signifier that is “race” when “gender” and “sexuality” is added to the mix. In short, Latasha Byears is an openly lesbian player who was charged with sexual assault of a teammate at an after-party to the LA Sparks’ WNBA championship win. Immediately, she was released by the Sparks’ ownership group, who coincidentally only months later had to deal with another sexual assualt (rape) charge against their own Kobe Bryant. The political salience of black masculinity (in the ideal form of Kobe Bryant) far outweighed the worth of ”the Dennis Rodman of the WNBA” in Latasha Byears, despite her import and role in their championship run. In the end, the charges against both Bryant and Byears were dropped (or cases settled out of court), and Byears reached an undisclosed settlement with the LA owners in her lawsuit against them for wrongful dismissal (their clear exhibition of holding a double-standard).

In close, suffice to say that the reading of black female athleticism cannot be simply mapped the same way it can be for males. The history and the contexts that inform both are far too complex and different to simply say that the “same things” are at play. That is not to discount any critical reading of this image. In fact, I strongly encourage it be done. What I am saying, however, is that it is likely to be more effective if one were to analyze this imagery in question through a somewhat modified lens (gender, race, and sexuality all still are important, just ordered differently). Make sense?

Dig it!

MSNBC Video: Is the Vogue Cover Racist?

The Fallout in Public Response: “Much Ado About Nothing”?

Over at SportsFilter the SpoFites are debating the merit in any racist interpretation of the Vogue cover. Overwhelmingly, the consensus appears to be that this is “much ado about nothing.” LeBron okayed the image. Gisele signed off on it. Which must mean that we’ve got a collective of all-too-sensitive zealots who want to make an issue out of nothing.

Follow the debate. Throw in your two cents. In a day or two I’ll have a follow-up post to help “make sense” of this all from a critical, but realistic, cultural studies point-of-view. Until then … do join in on the discussion, whatever your viewpoint may be.

Dig it!

Racial Stereotypes–are we reading too much?

Ironically, this controversy (err, flashpoint?) erupts just as I’m reading Scripting the Black Masculine Body by Ronald L. Jackson (2006). Which means that my first point is going to qualify this response as an admitted disourse analyst who does read this image (and the bodies therein) as text. I do this in response to Jackson’s critique that reads:

In reading bodies as text, the discourse analyst does the interpreting of the written text with little to no regard for how and why the text was initially written (p. 53).

Jackson goes on to then espouse, “in a bit more sophisticated terms,” the nuances of the analysis of corporeal inscription, which he insists involves a more in-depth, “critical focus on both the historical and contemporary manifestations of body politics” (p. 53). Its principle concern, he says, lies with the intent as well as the underlying motivations for the inscription–for the act of writing the text–which, in this case, would be the staging of the photograph.

But let’s put that rather semantic debate over whether or not analysing the discourse or the inscription is more valid in this case (obviously, you know where I stand on this issue–once again we’re confronted with someone who doesn’t grasp the scope and complexity of discourse analysis), and look at the act, motivations, and intentions behind the “inscription” of this text.

First of all, Vogue is 100% unsurrepticiously seeking to capitalize on the celebrity status of the two cover models. As Vogue spokesperson Patrick O’Connell states, the magazine is seeking “to celebrate two superstars at the top of their game.” Moreover, they are also wanting to maximize the benefits from having the first black male on its cover (only the third male to grace the cover in its history. If I’m not mistaken, following Richard Gere and George Clooney (both with the supposed intent to pander to Vogue’s gay readership)). Exploit James’s marketability? Why not? Nike is doing it (as is Coke, Bubblicious, and Juice Batteries). This isn’t new. “[T]he Black body is treated as cultural capital and commodified in the popular marketplace”  (Jackson paraphrasing Cornel West (1993), 2006, p. 73). Realistically, “[i]f one surrenders capitalism, one must also concede the exploitation of Black bodies and the negative projections that drive this exploitation” (p. 73). As a result, black bodies will ”continue being commodified in a number of ways throughout everyday [North] American life, and this practice is mirrored in popular culture” (p. 73).

Secondly, the photographer of this cover isn’t shy about taking “controversial” shots. In fact, it’s how she gained such notoriety. Annie Leibovitz, as a contributor to Vanity Fair, garnered the reputation of being bold and unafraid after such provocative pics as Demi Moore’s pregnant nude and Whoopi Goldberg in a tub of milk. So let’s not even try to pretend that this imagery is “innocent.” The analyst quoted in the article hits it right on the head. And since magazines with such high profiles as Vogue don’t rush to print their covers (especially ones with potential for negative fallout), this had to be intentional–planned and deliberate.

Finally, something must be said to those who don’t see any potentially racist overtones, or to LeBron James himself who told an interviewer, “Who cares what anyone says?” Speaking to the “hypersensitivity to race” in [North] America, simply ask yourself this: who do you want to win in the US Democratic Convention, and why? Sex/Gender and Race are still very much at the forefront of contemporary thought and politics. Unfortunately (yes, for black folks, but also for us all), if this imagery is what is used to sell magazines, the ”suggestion [remains] that the worth of Blacks lies in their ability to entertain via sports, dance, comedy, drama, and so on” (Jackson, 2006, p. 58). But rather than point fingers at who is to blame, the least we can do is to consider all of the reasons why this imagery–these texts–can still be read in this way. Why does the lascivious image of black men–on black bodies in general–remain so “prominent in popular media” (p. 4)? 

Because people buy it. It sells–period.

New Ethnicities – get your head around this, I dare you.

This is an excerpt from Stuart Hall’s (1992) chapter on “New ethnicities”:

     Another element inscribed in the new politics of representation has to do with the question of ethnicity. I am familiar with all the dangers of ‘ethnicity’ as a concept and have written myself about the fact that ethnicity, in the form of a culturally constructed sense of Englishness and a particularly closed, exclusive, and regressive form of English national identity, is one of the core characteristics of British racism today. I am also well aware that the politics of anti-racism has often constructed itself in terms of a contestation of ‘multi-ethnicity’ or ‘multi-culturalism’. On the other hand, as the politics of representation around the black subject shifts, I think we will begin to see a renewed contestation over the meaning of the term ‘ethnicity’ itself.

     If the black subject and black experience are not stabilized by Nature or by some other essential guarantee, then it must be the case that they are constructed historically, culturally, politically—and the concept which refers to this is ‘ethnicity’. The term ethnicity acknowledges the place of history, language and culture in the construction of subjectivity and identity, as well as the fact that all discourse is placed, positioned, situated, and all knowledge is contextual. Representation is possible only because enunciation is always produced within codes which have a history, a position within the discursive formations of a particular space and time. The displacement of the ‘centred’ discourses of the West entails putting in question its universalist character and its transcendental claims to speak for everyone, while being itself everywhere and nowhere. The fact that this grounding of ethnicity in difference was deployed, in the discourse of racism, as a means of disavowing the realities of racism and repression does not mean that we can permit the term to be permanently colonized. That appropriation will have to be contested, the term dis-articulated from its position in teh discourse of ‘multi-culturalism’ and transcoded, just as we previously had to recuperate the term ‘black’ from its place in a system of negative equivalences. The new politics of representation therefore also sets in motion an ideological contestation around the term ‘ethnicity’. But in order to pursue that movement further, we will have to re-theorize the concept of difference (p. 446).

So now that you’ve read all that, you are undoubtedly asking, “So what?” Well, simply put, this excerpt is a meditation on two things I’ve recently encountered. First, is the chapter that my last post references—”Football in Black & White” by Michael Oriard. Second, it relates to my interrogation of the racial politics put forward by Jim Brown. The former, for its explanation of the difference and diversity within the category of ‘black’; the latter, for his complicated espousal of strategic segregation (combating “integration” and “assimilation”) while at the same time embracing and erasing difference in personal relationships. So, in close, I’m trying to get my head around how this all could relate back to a reconceptualization of ‘ethnicity’, and what that would mean for a critical multiculturalism and/or an anti-racism politics. Guess I’m gonna have to sleep on it for at least one night.

Dig it!

Football in Black & White

I just finished what I think is one of the most engaging and accessible chapters on racialization and racial politics in professional sport. Oriard’s (2007) chapter “Football in Black & White” in Brand NFL: Making and Selling America’s Favorite Sport covers everything from stacking, “style”, and attitude, through economics and politics in the historical and contemporary periods. From Jim Brown through Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens, Willie Thrower through Michael Vick … he covers a lot of ground in this chapter, and covers it well. Frankly, the best quality of this chapter is how well Oriard delves into the complexity of racial politics and attitudes. He deftly explains the diversity and difference among supposedly homogeneous groups (e.g., how even black sports writers, coaches, etc. can differ in their views on things like “black expression” in the forms of endzone celebrations and sack dances).

In short, Michael Oriard, I’ve been a big fan of your cultural studies work since first cracking the spine of Reading Football. Well done in this latest work. Rest assured, I’ll put it to good use …

Dig it! 

More Themes for 2008–This one courtesy of Dave Zirin

And, of course, it was all brought to us 24 hours a day by a sports media quick to draw broad assumptions, as the push to put out opinions in the absence of facts has become an accepted hallmark of today’s information-first age. This was a particular catastrophe after the tragic slaying of Taylor and the irresponsible assumption that his death in a botched robbery was the result of a thug life gone awry.

Yes, my own theme for ‘08 is to Write-Write-Write, but Zirin’s message is an important one to consider. I think it is vital that the sports media starts to include more critical voices. My hat goes off to Zirin, William C. Rhoden, and Stephen Brunt, but I think that it is important to get some critical academic voices to join this choir. And I don’t mean in the “soundbite” kind of way that many academics make newsprint, but in comprehensive, thoughtful, reflective, and engaged ways–but still timely.

Dig it!