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.

You make the call: Is military recruiting through university sport “out of bounds”?

It’s a play right out of the U.S. military playbook: use university and professional sport — particularly football — as a channel to recruit new soldiers for the armed forces. Following a tradition long established by their counterparts to the south, the Canadian Armed Forces have adopted this play for their own purposes, albeit with a twist. Our military has recently increased its visibility through sponsorship of sporting and cultural events, most notably last weekend’s Grey Cup and the upcoming Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) football championship, the Vanier Cup.

Historically, this makes sense to us. There was a time when the strength of a nation was measured by a fit population ready for military service. Drill exercises in school physical education programs introduced young men to the discipline demanded in a world on the brink of conflict. This early training invariably led to enthusiastic participation in organized sport, particularly those traditionally manly sports like football.

If you ask former CFLer Jason Kralt (now a recruiter for the Canadian Forces), as a reporter for CBC did during the Grey Cup pregame telecast, he would tell you that there is no difference between playing on a football team and serving in the Forces. The decision-making skills, brotherhood and readiness for action learned on the field of play are directly transferable to the field of combat. Sure, the consequences might be greater in the military, but Kralt smoothly downplayed such trivialities.

But what is ironic is that this sponsorship comes at a time when the Canadian military has waived its requirement of a minimum fitness level to join the service. While this is clearly one sign among many that the Forces are on a desperate mission to increase their numbers, apparently general recruitment has little to do with requiring fit bodies. The thrust to recruit soldiers via football suggests that there must be some congruency between military and sport cultures.

We see this in the spectacular Grey Cup telecast. Much like the Americans, the Canadian military pulled out all the “good stuff” for the game. A fly-pass by the Snowbirds, a car crushed by a Leopard tank, players and cheerleaders escorted by armoured vehicles all served to deliver just enough of that element of risk and adrenaline rush to be both fun and sexy for would-be recruits.

The twist on the American playbook, however, comes in the Canadian Forces’ slick new TV advertising campaign. While inspiring to patriotic Canadians, commercials portraying the role of the Forces as an exercise in civic nationalism while downplaying interventionist foreign policy seems disingenuous at best. Fighting forest fires in British Columbia, battling floods in Manitoba, and rescuing those in distress off the coast of Nova Scotia are literally and figuratively miles away from the roadside bombs and live fire faced in combat zones like Kandahar.

But you don’t need to be all that media-savvy to recognize the real message being put forward in these marketing ploys — just read the headlines. The commitment to maintain the current operation in Afghanistan is reinforced almost daily by the unified front of Harper, Hillier, O’Connor, and MacKay. Other news announces the retraining and redeployment of Navy or Air Force personnel to service on the ground, the new mandatory tour of duty for fresh recruits, and the extended tours for existing troops. It is no secret that the Forces need more bodies in the Middle East.

Thus, the recent sponsorship agreement with the CIS. For a reported $500,000, the Canadian Forces secure championship sponsor naming rights as well as the opportunity to be on prominent display with direct access to interested athletes. While their presence at events like the Vanier Cup is not new, the branding of the sport with the Forces logo is definitely a step in a very American direction. As such, it might be wise for us to take a look in that direction to see what might be in store as a result.

Pat Tillman was a patriotic American who left a lucrative career in the NFL to fight with the U.S. Army Rangers alongside his brother. Deeply impacted by 9/11, both took the bait and signed up for what they believed was a right and honourable duty. Pat was killed by “friendly fire” in Afghanistan.

What is unique in the case of Tillman is how the sporting world, following the lead of the government, continues to valorize his death as if he fell honourably at the hand of the enemy. On one hand, he posthumously received the Silver Star and Purple Heart; on the other hand, his uniform number was spectacularly retired from active duty by his university and professional football teams. The culture of sport continues to work at the service of the state and its military apparatus.

Of course, the choice of an athlete, or any Canadian, to enlist in our armed forces is a deeply personal one that should be respected. But when the business of sports intersects so dramatically with the decisions of our political and military leaders, we should take pause. Canada should support its soldiers, but if war is a continuation of politics by other means, that support should begin before they are sent off to fight. In other words, when the slick marketing campaign is pulled back, are the right questions being asked? And if so, are the right answers being given?

Pat Tillman’s family doesn’t think so.

Frustrated with the U.S. government’s initial cover-up of the friendly fire incident and disenfranchised with the political justifications for war, the family no longer supports an American military presence in the Middle East. Pat’s brother Kevin recently released a letter that makes it clear the two were unaware of the full consequences when they enlisted. “Somehow,” he wrote, “a narrative is more important than reality.”

As a proud Canadian, a CIS or aspiring athlete, or an avid fan of our uniquely Canadian brand of football, in support of our soldiers we strongly encourage you to think about the narrative that has been crafted by the Canadian Forces and Harper government. Those other TV clips showing bodies returning home in flag-draped boxes should serve as a constant reminder of the real conditions recruits will face not long after enlistment dispels the magic pixie dust of the marketing agencies.

While celebrating “Canada’s finest” on the battlefield that is Griffiths Stadium in Saskatoon for this Saturday’s Vanier Cup, you are being asked to join a fight that has far more drastic consequences than simply winning or losing a game. In return, we must ask tough questions about our nation’s role in international conflicts. It’s fine to have a playbook, but the players must make the plays. Chasing after long bombs rather than dodging roadside bombs sounds more like play to us — a freedom we cherish dearly.

Rod Murray is a PhD candidate and sessional lecturer in Sport History and Ethics at the University of Alberta. Sean Smith is a lecturer in Sport Management at Brock University and former CIS athlete

Cranking up the sex appeal of women’s sport: Is this a good thing?

Below is an op-ed piece I co-wrote with Lisa Bavington for the Edmonton Journal (Aug. 14, 2006, p.A18) in response to an article in the same paper with the headline “Gulbis cranks up golf’s sex appeal a notch” (Stock, Aug. 10, p.D02). Since her emergence as a legitimate contender on the LPGA tour, Gulbis has been “ruffling feathers” with her provocative attempts at self-promotion, but they have also been acknowledged as helping to raise the public interest in women’s golf.

With all that is going on in the world, especially in the Middle East, some very troubling issues are flying under the radar here at home. One recently reared its head in the sports pages of the Edmonton Journal last Thursday.

The story may have been lost amidst the whirlwind caused by the foiled terrorist plot at Heathrow Airport in London, but a headline stating that “Gulbis cranks up golf’s sex appeal a notch” was sure to make at least a few heads turn, if for no other reason than to sneak a peek at the corresponding photos. This just so happened to be the same day that sports fans looking for their fix at Sportsnet were asked, “Who is the hottest female athlete?” Yes, professional golfer Natalie Gulbis was one of the options.

The story in The Journal, however, was actually more about the CN Canadian Women’s Open, scheduled to be played in Edmonton in 2007, and the excitement and optimism about hosting such a prestigious event. The fact that Gulbis will be in Edmonton for a fundraising event this week makes including her in the story sensible. But what doesn’t make sense is why, in the contemporary era, we are celebrating the increased sex appeal of a female sporting event. Is that really what it takes to capture an audience and a fan base?

Sport is supposed to be one of our society’s true meritocracies, where what you can do on the court or the course is what really matters the most. In times long past, it clearly wasn’t that way for female athletes. The city of Edmonton has its own history with this very issue when the Edmonton Grads were ruling the international basketball world.

From 1915 to 1940, the Grads won an astonishing 502 out of 522 games played. They were the most dominant franchise in all of sports history — male or female. As true celebrities, more than just their wins and losses were reported in the press. Printing the ladies’ favourite recipes was common. Announcing the engagement and ensuing weddings of the Grads was also important news, especially since a trip down the aisle usually meant their playing days were over. Sport was no place for a lady after marriage. The home and her husband would have to be her priority now. Coach Percy Page was adamant about his players being respectable ladies at all times away from the court.

Famed for actually getting “A League of Their Own,” the All- American Girls Professional Baseball League, which ran from 1943 to 1954, made sure the girls were unquestioningly feminine in their appearance both on and off the diamond. Strict codes governing everything from hairstyles, makeup and clothing right through to conduct ensured that they looked and acted “ladylike” in the public eye. Promoters had to sell more than just baseball. They had to market guaranteed femininity too.

But we’ve surely come a long way since those days, haven’t we? The sign that the times have changed surely came, in most people’s minds anyway, when Brandi Chastain shocked the world by ripping her jersey off after scoring the game-winning goal against China at the 1999 Women’s World Cup.

The image of Chastain on her knees in celebration, clenched fists in the air, wearing only a sports bra, has become one of the most ubiquitous images proclaiming the modern age of the emancipated female athlete. Natalie Gulbis is present-day proof. Or is she?

Lauded for her bikini-clad cover on FHM magazine and her own calendar that the USGA deemed “too provocative,” Gulbis continues to reap the rewards of being known as the “Anna Kournikova of golf.” But provocative would not be the first word that comes to mind when one takes a look at her recent photo shoot for Sports Illustrated. That is unless you happen to find a woman standing in front of the kitchen stove provocative. The organizers of the 2007 Open in River City certainly do and are hopeful that this calendar girl may “just do it” in their tournament.

But Gulbis’s “marketing” choices are not about promoting the sport. If she were promoting golf, it would be reasonable to assume there would be some identifiable images related to the game — the course itself, action shots and/or other players. Given that she is the only one represented in her calendar, this would not seem to be the case. One may even get the impression from comments she, and others, have made about the apparent image problem in women’s sport, that there just isn’t enough adequate representation that could help her fill the pages for the entire 12 months. How unfortunate. In this case, Gulbis is arguably taking one for the team. Apparently her golf clubs leaning up against the stove make her appear progressive.

No doubt there’s an image problem in women’s sport, although perhaps it has less to do with those “butchy” (read “lesbian”) players that Colette McAuley made reference to in her defence of the Canadian women’s national team rugby calendar, and more to do with marketing the sport in a ridiculous fashion. For example, the upcoming Women’s Rugby World Cup, which begins Aug. 31, is being advertised as “Six days of grace, beauty and championship-inspired aggression.” Grace and beauty aren’t exactly the words that come to mind when describing a women’s rugby game. That’s not how the game is played, regardless of the gender of the participants. Who is it that the organizers are marketing to, exactly?

Contrary to popular belief, the future of women’s sport does not lie in the hands of those female athletes who put out calendars to change the image of the women who participate. They are not the heroes of the game who will save women’s sport from certain demise. Change is inevitable; progress is not. Pose in dress, a skirt or nothing at all in front of a kitchen stove or washing machine if you must, but don’t attribute a causal link between athletes’ calendars and the first female commissioner of the LPGA. Annika Sorenstam playing on the men’s tour is progressive; Mianne Bagger (transsexual woman) playing on the women’s tour is progressive; Natalie Gulbis posing in front of a kitchen stove is not progressive … it’s promotion.

If there is a failure in all of this, it is not the failure of the women on the tour to promote the sport, it is the failure of female athletes in general who do not see that being more readily identified out-of-uniform than on the field makes it difficult to find a way to promote women as serious contenders when game time comes around. In the end, many women find it impossible to remain competitive in sports that include female athletes as centrefolds, spread-eagled and airbrushed, in the middle of every player’s official rule book.

So? What do you think about all of this?

Keep Your Eye on the Prize

Like prehistoric men back from the hunt, they display their shimmering prize, passing it from outstretched arms to outstretched arms, sharing it happily, generously, with each other and with their fans. (137)

This passage recalls the Edmonton Oilers as they celebrated their 1988 Stanley Cup win.  However, the literary craftwork is evident in the imagery it conjures beyond this single celebration.  How many times has this same scene played out over the years?  How similar are the Cup celebrations at all of the other levels of hockey?  To other sports?  My point?  There is something almost timeless and universal about the sporting victory.  Like the Dryden passage suggests, there is something almost primal about it—right through the ensuing celebration.  But there are also lessons to be learned.  Lessons about how to win and lessons on how (not) to lose.

This past week it was made public that the University of Alberta Golden Bears hockey team lost the University Cup that they had just won.  No, they didn't lose it because of sanctions for doping or gambling or any other of the many reasons why championships and medals have been taken from other teams and athletes.  They lost it to a mischievous prankster who walked away with the trophy while the Bears were reveling in their victory at an off-campus bar.  While the trophy has successfully been found and returned to its rightful possessors, it got me thinking about some of the other times a situation like this has occurred. 

The Holy Grail of hockey is still undoubtedly the Stanley Cup.  And while there are a host of other national and international championships worth vying for, none have the symbolism of the Stanley Cup.  Despite that fact, it too has gone missing, been left unattended, or put to a use other than as a champagne chalice. 

Whether it was the Ottawa Silver Seven punting it into the Rideau Canal for an overnight bath, or the 1924 Canadiens leaving it on the side of the road after changing a tire on the car they were traveling in, the 2006 Golden Bears need not be singled out for failing to dutifully attend to their championship cup.

The Stanley Cup has served as everything from a flower pot to a baptismal font.  While only circulating at the levels of local gossip or urban legend, the '80s, in which the Edmonton Oilers held the Cup for their dynastic reign, were also rumored to be a "high time" of rampant cocaine use among the highly paid, young professional athletes.  You can only imagine that it was used for far more intoxicating substances than champagne.             

But the athletes aren't the only ones who gleam in the shimmering light of championship hardware. Fans cherish them too. Countless fans flock for opportunities to have their picture taken with the Cup. Much to the delight of many fans, Guy Lafleur stole the Cup in '79 and put it on display in his parents' front yard. Heck, fans even try to steal it themselves. In 1962, Ken Kilander opened the display case in the Chicago Stadium lobby and almost made it out the door with Stanley's Cup in tow. When asked, he said he was just taking it back to Montreal, "where it belongs." A more organized heist was foiled in '77 when seven men schemed to lift it from the Hall of Fame.
To show that this is not a phenomenon limited to hockey, the Grey Cup has also gone missing.

On Dec. 20, 1969, it was stolen from its showcase at Lansdowne Park in Ottawa, home of the Rough Riders.  Police, acting on a tip, recovered it intact in a locker in the Royal York Hotel in Toronto on Feb. 16, 1970. (18-19)

In response to this theft of the league's treasure, then-CFL Commissioner Jake Gaudaur stated, 

At that time I decided we shouldn't lose the symbol of what we were supposed to be all about and decided to protect it along the way. (331)

Thus, the trophy was placed securely in the Hall of Fame and a replica cup was made for the more public appearances as had become customary. 

So you see, the theft of the University Cup from under the noses of the back-to-back CIS champion Bears isn't really all that unusual or out of the ordinary.  While the thief's motivation to walk off with the Cup can't be known, it could range anywhere from the die-hard fan's adoration of championship hardware, as we saw with several fans of the Stanley and Grey Cups, to a prankish college student up to nothing more than shenanigans much like stealing an opposing team's mascot.  Despite the situation, the Cup always seems to find its way back home, with an anonymous tipster usually responsible for leading authorities to its ultimate whereabouts.

In hindsight, should have the Bears players been more careful with a valuable and prized possession?  Sure.  But perhaps that isn't the most valuable lesson that can be learned from this incident.  For me, it was a meditation on attachment and mindfulness.  If something is so important that we will make countless sacrifices in pursuit of it, then perhaps we should give it the attention and respect it deserves.  This could go for the quest for a sporting cup, or for fostering healthy relationships with other people (not that people are "things" like a Cup).  It is also a reminder that even when the prize is won, or the mission accomplished, there is still work to be done.  Did back-to-back championships breed a bit of comfortability and carelessness in the Bears?  Perhaps.  But does that make the Bears guilty of anything that most of us couldn't also be accused of?  I don't think so.  This was a classic example that even champions are flawed and make silly mistakes from time to time.  As odd as this may sound, the unknown thief of the Cup might have been motivated by something unknown to even him.  Knowingly or not, he has served to provide the gentle "nudge" to remind us that even when the battle is won, we must stay ever ready for the next one.  One can't be sure when the next challenge will present itself.  

Moral of the story:  ALWAYS keep your eye on the prize … even after it's won!!!

Dig it!         

Jock Culture Questioned … duh!

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/

Is "jock culture" somehow responsible?  Does sport culture spur (sexual) violent behaviour?  CNN's Anderson Cooper says that "the accusation has never been definitively proven".  The only response I can muster is: WHAT MORE "PROOF" DO YOU NEED??? 

For chrissakes, citing "one" 2002 study from Rutgers does not constitute sufficient research into a phenomenon that has been widely acknowledged as endemic in sport culture and society.  Just off the top of my head, I would cite Crossing the Line: Violence and Sexual Assault in Canada's National Sport by Laura Robinson, Men at Play: A Working Understanding of Professional Hockey by Michael Robidoux, and last but definitely not least Our Guys: The Glen Ridge Rape and the Secret Life of the Perfect Suburb by Bernard Lefkowitz.  That doesn't even mention the countless other academic efforts to address sexism and sexual violence in sport.  Definitively proven???  Come on!

As fired up as Cooper's blog got me around this whole idea of whether or not this type of behaviour is common in jock culture, this also is an excellent flashpoint to highlight the role that the media plays in facilitating our "historical amnesia".  Sure, this whole Duke thing is a headline story now, but how long until it is on the back pages or off the radar screen entirely?  I'll tell you how long.  It won't be until the next sports team/athlete sexually assaults someone and it gets reported.  Even then, the issue will come to the foreground, but this Duke incident will be long forgotten.  People don't forget Mike Tyson.  I don't think there has been a mention of Tyson without reference to his imprisonment for the rape of the beauty pageant contestant (what was her name?).  But, a lot of that has to do with the saliency and ever-present myth of the black rapist (I won't even get into the racial tensions that this Duke case has incited because the one black team member was the only one not required to provide a DNA sample).  I guess 1989 was too long ago to remember the Glen Ridge rape case for folks in the USA.  At his fingertips, Anderson Cooper must have access to countless headlines easily recounting hundreds of sexual assaults in the country.  Of those, how many would have had "jocks" as perpetrators?  Fuck, the sports pages alone are often referred to as the crime report.  Nothing there?  One study from Rutgers, that fails to definitively blame jock culture for the sexual violent acts committed (blame shared equally between "gang mentality", "alcohol", and victim blaming for (implied) both "asking for it" and failing to report it), as the validation to state that "solid answers remain as elusive as ever"???  Mr. Cooper.  As such an accomplished and respected journalist/anchor on the "world's most trusted news source" I would hope that you would do a better job of answering your charge to "look into" this issue.

In the wake of the controversy swirling around Duke University's lacrosse team, I was given the job of looking into that question, and I found that solid answers remain as elusive as ever. 

Do NOT allow this Duke incident to become just another anomolous act of (sexual) violence in a world full of violence.  Sport culture plays an undeniable, inextricable role in this type of act.  The most frightening aspect of this whole thing is that you will not label its cause(s) as anything but "elusive" or "indeterminable".  It's equally frightening that the "historical amnesia" has struck even you.  These kinds of scenarios have been playing out for a long long time.  And, unless you, as a representative for the media as a whole, take a stand and actually point the finger and "definitively" address the role sport/jock culture plays in this kind of violence, this will surely continue to happen time and time again. 

As was the motivation for Laura Robinson to write Crossing the Line, this is a contemporary flashpoint that can serve as a prime opportunity for us to "rethink the game [sport/jock culture and all its concomitant entitlements] and consider ways to fix it". 

Who's up for the challenge?  Mr. Cooper, are you? 

Dig it!