Just a brief return with an interesting link I found. The below article came from the The Onion, a satirical news website. It is basically making fun of the UConn Women's Basketball team and insinuating several things. First, by having the UConn team complain about losing to another women's team, they are insinuating that the UConn women are actually men. Second, by being disgusted about losing to a women's team, they are also making the statement that women's basketball is far below men's basketball. And finally, the last statement says that the team found solace in the fact that the UConn Men's Basketball team would have lost to Notre Dame as well. This statement is meant to convey that the men's team is so terrible that they could lose to a women's team.
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/uconn-women-disgusted-they-lost-to-womens-basketba,19957/
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Anthony's Blog Conclusion
Alright, I know that the end of the semester is not until the first week of May. But I have maxed out on the number of blogs and comments I can make, so why sit around for a month waiting to put up my conclusion? I would rather get it finished so I can focus on my Olympic Bid project with both eyes. I will keep reading the articles and if one pops up that I can’t keep from commenting on, perhaps my blog will come out of retirement. If two or three perk my interest, well, then it will be the Favre of blogs.
I really enjoyed keeping a blog of the readings this semester. Probably unlike most, I prefer some structure in my assignments that keeps me focused on the tasks I need to accomplish. It has definitely helped keep me up to date on the readings each week. One of the other things I liked and that I learned from was viewing other’s blogs. It gave me the perspective others held on the papers and topics and helped me shape my own opinion of how sport and society are reflections of each other. While this may go all the way back to the beginning, I particularly liked reading everyone’s Introduction blog. Some of the people in class I have known for a while and I still learned new things about them. Others I had no idea who they were and it helped me get to know who they are and where they are coming from. I am a big believe that our past experiences help shape who we are and how we view the world, so in a way it let me know the “audience” that is our Sport and Society class.
I don’t know that blogging actually forced me to think differently about certain topics. I tried hard to be honest about what I felt in each of my posts. I think too often we are afraid to say what we really feel and think, which severely limits an academic discussion. So rather than changing how it forced me to think differently, I would say that it allowed me to express myself differently and honestly. Speaking up in a class when your viewpoint is different or unique is sometime an intimidating prospect, especially from a generation more accustom to texting or “facebooking” someone.
My personal favorite article so far this semester have been the 1998 “A Twist of Race: Ben Johnson and the Canadian Crisis of Racial and National Identity” from Steven J. Jackson. I think I am guilty as many Americans are of overlooking Canada. It also highlighted the racial issues in another country that I think most would consider fairly progressive and liberal. I have too often only examined racism from the American perspective and the history I have been presented of racism paints it as one that was created in America and not shown it as an issue with global implications.
I am not sure where I will end up in my career, but I do believe that I will be able to use the lessons in this class to ensure that I view my work and world with a more enlightened view of sociological issues. Diversity will be a major part of the world for the foreseeable future, especially in America. As globalization continues, we are increasingly interacting with those who we would label as “others” in a less enlightened light. Rather than thinking of those outside of my imagined communities as “others”, I hope to use my knowledge to consider them all fellow human beings.
"Packaging the Games" Reading
Andrew C. Billings and James R. Angelini’s 2007 “Packaging the Games for Viewer Consumption: Gender, Ethnicity, and Nationality in NBC’s Coverage of the 2004 Summer Olympics” is an interesting article that explains exactly what is in the title. Billings and Angelini (2007) examines the presentation of the 2004 Athens Games through the lens of gender, ethnicity, and nationality. The results are probably not really surprising to those of us who have had many discussions on gender, ethnicity, and nationality in sport. White American males are those most covered during the Olympics, at least in the top 20 athletes mentioned and for the most part, all over the entire coverage (Billings & Angelini, 2007).
While the overall results may not be surprising, one thing did catch my attention. Men and women received roughly the same amount of coverage during the Games, yet the majority of the most mentioned athletes were male (Billings & Angelini, 2007). I found this interesting because the gender coverage seems to be scripted to provide equality and fairness. In fact, this is mostly confirmed in the article, when the authors state that “They also found that the host of the Olympics (predominantly Bob Costas) generally fared better than on-site reports in achieving gender fairness – perhaps a function of increased host scripting” (Billings & Angelini, 2007, p. 98).
This states to me that the either for their own reasons or for gender equality, the Olympics is being scripted to be more fair in terms of gender coverage. However, the reporters on the ground who are less scripted are still having a difficult time being fair in their coverage. While I do not know the background of the reporters, I am going to guess that these sports are not always their forte. They may not know the sports they are reporting on as well and rather than learning the obscure names of athletes they may never see again, they focus on the few that stand out. This allows us to notice the gender inequality that still exists but is hidden and more difficult to get at. It is likely the same for ethnicity and nationality, though I feel the nationality issue in the Olympics is much more open and blatantly obvious reasons. While issues like sexism and racism are more difficult to easily see in a society that is becoming more successful at hiding them, they still exist and instances such as this article help us to notice what we may often overlook.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
"Global Games" reading/rant
Alright, I am going to do it. I am going to let my own values and opinions trump my common sense and spend my entire blog entry complaining about a single paragraph in John Nauright's "Global Games: Culture, Political Economy, and Sport in the Globalised World of the 21st Century".
So what paragraph am I going to complain about that I took personally? If you read my introduction, you might be able to guess. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or a Mormon for those who prefer to shorten things up a little bit). On page 1328 of his article, Nauright blasts the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics of 2002 for focusing on Mormons in their presentation of local culture, stating "The focus of broadcasters and image makers upon the Mormon history and identity of the city and the state of Utah was misrepresentative" (Nauright, 2004, p. 1328).
Nauright's complaint is that Salt Lake City and Utah are only partly made up of LDS members, that there are other cultures in Utah. I have several issues with Nauright claim that focusing on LDS was a poor choice. First, while Nauright says the focus was on the LDS church, he does not say that the entire presentation of Salt Lake City's culture was here. I find it hard to believe that any presentation as large as the Olympics could focus on a single aspect of the culture of a city and land. Certainly some of the focus must have been on the overall American culture. However, I have not recently seen the presentation, so I can concede this argument.
So for the sake of things, let’s say that 75% of the presentation on local culture was focused on Mormons and the Church. Is that a terrible thing? Mormons make up 58% of Utah according to the February 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, a report produced by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Doesn't it make sense that the majority of the presentation on local culture would focus on the majority, specifically because it is so different from other locations throughout the world? How much do most of you really know about Mormons? And I am not talking about the common jokes about polygamy, which has been banned by the church since the 1890s, or that Mormons are sweet people who are brainwashed idiots (I'd like to consider myself evidence that this myth is false, though you may have a different opinion). So isn't it an interesting topic and culture within America, something that would grab the attentions of Americans and the challenge the general stereotype of America itself?
And come on, Salt Lake City was founded by 148 people way back in 1847. Guess how many of them were Mormons? That’s right, 148. They were looking for a place where they could practice their religion freely, escape from persecution like Missouri Executive Order 44. This order signed in 1838 made Mormons the only religious group in American history to have a state issue the legal extermination of its members.
Isn't this an interesting history? And it is only the bare surface of the story itself, one that is much more complex and surprising that it all happened here in our own country.
I have no doubt that there are many other interesting stories of the non-Mormons in Salt Lake City that should have been told and I doubt that all of them were ignored. But what I think that Nauright is missing is that the Salt Lake City games gave an opportunity to present the real history and culture of Mormons to a large audience, one that has largely only been taught myths and lies. Mormons only make up 2% of America in 2008 according to the Pew Forum's survey. So if anything, the Salt Lake City games was focusing on a minority in America, giving opportunity to a culture's story that is so often ignored and misconstrued.
So what paragraph am I going to complain about that I took personally? If you read my introduction, you might be able to guess. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or a Mormon for those who prefer to shorten things up a little bit). On page 1328 of his article, Nauright blasts the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics of 2002 for focusing on Mormons in their presentation of local culture, stating "The focus of broadcasters and image makers upon the Mormon history and identity of the city and the state of Utah was misrepresentative" (Nauright, 2004, p. 1328).
Nauright's complaint is that Salt Lake City and Utah are only partly made up of LDS members, that there are other cultures in Utah. I have several issues with Nauright claim that focusing on LDS was a poor choice. First, while Nauright says the focus was on the LDS church, he does not say that the entire presentation of Salt Lake City's culture was here. I find it hard to believe that any presentation as large as the Olympics could focus on a single aspect of the culture of a city and land. Certainly some of the focus must have been on the overall American culture. However, I have not recently seen the presentation, so I can concede this argument.
So for the sake of things, let’s say that 75% of the presentation on local culture was focused on Mormons and the Church. Is that a terrible thing? Mormons make up 58% of Utah according to the February 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, a report produced by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Doesn't it make sense that the majority of the presentation on local culture would focus on the majority, specifically because it is so different from other locations throughout the world? How much do most of you really know about Mormons? And I am not talking about the common jokes about polygamy, which has been banned by the church since the 1890s, or that Mormons are sweet people who are brainwashed idiots (I'd like to consider myself evidence that this myth is false, though you may have a different opinion). So isn't it an interesting topic and culture within America, something that would grab the attentions of Americans and the challenge the general stereotype of America itself?
And come on, Salt Lake City was founded by 148 people way back in 1847. Guess how many of them were Mormons? That’s right, 148. They were looking for a place where they could practice their religion freely, escape from persecution like Missouri Executive Order 44. This order signed in 1838 made Mormons the only religious group in American history to have a state issue the legal extermination of its members.
Isn't this an interesting history? And it is only the bare surface of the story itself, one that is much more complex and surprising that it all happened here in our own country.
I have no doubt that there are many other interesting stories of the non-Mormons in Salt Lake City that should have been told and I doubt that all of them were ignored. But what I think that Nauright is missing is that the Salt Lake City games gave an opportunity to present the real history and culture of Mormons to a large audience, one that has largely only been taught myths and lies. Mormons only make up 2% of America in 2008 according to the Pew Forum's survey. So if anything, the Salt Lake City games was focusing on a minority in America, giving opportunity to a culture's story that is so often ignored and misconstrued.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Athletes with Disabilities Discussion
I would like to think that my sport, fencing, is fairly progressive when it comes to athletes with disabilities. While certain disabilities would not be practical in fencing, there is a wheelchair fencing division.
They hold national tournaments for wheelchair fencing as often as any other division. There is a national championship, though I am not familiar with how it is run, or if it is run at all, on the international level. Wheelchair fencing has been around since at least 1999, when I went to my first national tournament.
The athletes in wheelchair fencing have to have a qualifying disability for the national tournaments, though I have heard of local tournaments in which they allow anyone to participate in order to have a larger group.
For fencing at least, I know that the problem at the national level is not the availability, but the lack of those with qualifying disabilities to participate in the tournaments. One problem is likely the lack of coaches who know how to train for this, the lack of facilities at local levels for training, and other similar problems at the local level.
I don’t know of any famous fencers with disabilities, but then again, I am guessing few people know of any fencers period! As far as my personal experiences, I can remember competing against a few guys who did not have an arm. They competed in the normal competitions and the only accommodation was helping them get on the equipment and hook up to the scoring system. I’ve never participated in wheelchair fencing, but I have watched it and it looks difficult. It is much different from normal fencing, because footwork is such an important part of the fencing I have participated in and I can’t experience fencing without being able to move your feet.
If you watch the video I have linked, you can see that wheelchair fencing is far from stationary. They rock back and forth in the wheelchairs, use their bodies to dodge and are very quick. This video is probably one of the more boring matches I have seen to be honest. The competitions I remember watching involved a lot more rocking in the wheelchairs and sparing back and forth. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn38yRYUE88
They hold national tournaments for wheelchair fencing as often as any other division. There is a national championship, though I am not familiar with how it is run, or if it is run at all, on the international level. Wheelchair fencing has been around since at least 1999, when I went to my first national tournament.
The athletes in wheelchair fencing have to have a qualifying disability for the national tournaments, though I have heard of local tournaments in which they allow anyone to participate in order to have a larger group.
For fencing at least, I know that the problem at the national level is not the availability, but the lack of those with qualifying disabilities to participate in the tournaments. One problem is likely the lack of coaches who know how to train for this, the lack of facilities at local levels for training, and other similar problems at the local level.
I don’t know of any famous fencers with disabilities, but then again, I am guessing few people know of any fencers period! As far as my personal experiences, I can remember competing against a few guys who did not have an arm. They competed in the normal competitions and the only accommodation was helping them get on the equipment and hook up to the scoring system. I’ve never participated in wheelchair fencing, but I have watched it and it looks difficult. It is much different from normal fencing, because footwork is such an important part of the fencing I have participated in and I can’t experience fencing without being able to move your feet.
If you watch the video I have linked, you can see that wheelchair fencing is far from stationary. They rock back and forth in the wheelchairs, use their bodies to dodge and are very quick. This video is probably one of the more boring matches I have seen to be honest. The competitions I remember watching involved a lot more rocking in the wheelchairs and sparing back and forth. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn38yRYUE88
Monday, February 28, 2011
"Yo Yao!" Reading
David Leonard's "Yo Yao! What does the "Ming Dynasty" tell us about race and transnational diplomacy in the NBA?" (2003) is an article that really highlights sport from the viewpoint of multiple reality postmodernism. As I read this article, I found myself torn back and forth between what exactly Yao Ming represents to the NBA. Does he represent acceptance of Asians into American culture? Do the ways in which he is promoted show that racism towards Asians is as real as ever? Is he an example of the upcoming takeover of the NBA by hardworking foreign players? Is he just a new tool of subtle racism from white America against black America?
What I really found interesting was that when I did my best to remove my own background and viewpoints from my viewing lens, I can see how the answer to all of these questions is, at the same time, yes. Even as Leonard touches my nerve with his use of "white supremacy", I must admit that Yao fulfills all of these roles. To say that there is not a more positive view of Asians in America today than 50 years ago would be idiotic, yet that does not erase the fact that Yao Ming is promoted in a racist manner and that racism towards Asians still exist. Similarly, we cannot ignore the hard work and dedication that foreign players give to make it in the NBA. However, we also cannot ignore the manner in which this is removing African-American players.
One thing that does bother is Leonard's use of "Ming Dynasty" in his title. While I know that this term has been used many, many times before Leonard, I can't help but feel that he is using the same racist language to promote his article that he helps to expose within the article itself.
What I really found interesting was that when I did my best to remove my own background and viewpoints from my viewing lens, I can see how the answer to all of these questions is, at the same time, yes. Even as Leonard touches my nerve with his use of "white supremacy", I must admit that Yao fulfills all of these roles. To say that there is not a more positive view of Asians in America today than 50 years ago would be idiotic, yet that does not erase the fact that Yao Ming is promoted in a racist manner and that racism towards Asians still exist. Similarly, we cannot ignore the hard work and dedication that foreign players give to make it in the NBA. However, we also cannot ignore the manner in which this is removing African-American players.
One thing that does bother is Leonard's use of "Ming Dynasty" in his title. While I know that this term has been used many, many times before Leonard, I can't help but feel that he is using the same racist language to promote his article that he helps to expose within the article itself.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
"A Twist of Race" Reading
In his 1998 "A Twist of Race: Ben Johnson and the Canadian Crisis of Racial and National Identity", Steven J. Jackson brings up several interesting points. Prior to reading this, I had not given any thought to how racist attitudes might exist in Canada. As Jackson states, "...Canada is recognized as one of the most pluralistic nations in the world..." (Jackson, 1998, p. 25). I am sure that there is some racial disharmony within Canada, as there exists in most, if not all, parts of the world. However, I feel that Jackson may be reaching with his belief that the transformation of Johnson from Jamaican immigrant, to Jamaican-Canadian, to Canadian, and back to Jamaican immigrant is primarily based on racist attitudes.
It is very practical that cultures highlight those who bring positive light upon them and hide or disown those who bring negative light. Looking into his background, I found that Johnson was around sixteen when he immigrated to Canada. While I would be suspicious of calling him a Jamaican-Canadian rather than just a Canadian if he had immigrated as an infant or even prior to his teens, much of Johnson's identity was formed prior to his life in Canada. To call him only Canadian during his short-lived Olympic victory would be an insult in my opinion to the part of his identity that is Jamaican, a country with a prestigious and well deserved record in Olympic Track & Field.
I believe that the proper labeling of Johnson's nationality should be whatever he describes himself as. While I have no idea what that would be, I would think that he would prefer Jamaican-Canadian, though I could be very wrong. As far as Canadian's owning and disowning him during his success and fall, what country/state/city has not done the same thing with many others regardless of race? Didn't leaders in the American Muslim population quickly distance themselves from extremist who caused 9/11? And rightfully so, because the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists and would never commit such terrible crimes. Canadians rightfully wish to be thought of in a positive light, as we all do. So when it was found that Johnson was doping, they rightfully distanced themselves from him. When I think of Ohio, I think of the Wright brothers, one of whom was born in Indiana. However, I don't think of Charles Manson, who was born in Cincinnati.
I also don't know if I buy Jackson's evidence of the term "Jamaican" being equivalent with "black" in Canada. If anything, I think that most people would picture a person of African descent when an individual is described as Jamaican. As more than 90% of Jamaicans are of African descent, this would usually be correct. If someone were described as a Swedish-Canadian, I would automatically think their skin was white as over 90% of Swedes are of European descent.
While I am sure that there were racist undertones from the media and Canadians within Johnson's fall from grace, I disagree with Jackson's belief that titling Johnson a Jamaican immigrant stemmed from racial disharmony. However, perhaps I am wrong. While I disagree with Jackson, it is quite possible that Johnson's labeling as Jamaican was due to racism within Canada. One of the difficult parts of racism in a country like Canada is its hidden nature, or "racism with a smile". It could be that the less overt form of racism has sufficiently pulled the sheep's wool over my eyes so that I cannot discern it.
It is very practical that cultures highlight those who bring positive light upon them and hide or disown those who bring negative light. Looking into his background, I found that Johnson was around sixteen when he immigrated to Canada. While I would be suspicious of calling him a Jamaican-Canadian rather than just a Canadian if he had immigrated as an infant or even prior to his teens, much of Johnson's identity was formed prior to his life in Canada. To call him only Canadian during his short-lived Olympic victory would be an insult in my opinion to the part of his identity that is Jamaican, a country with a prestigious and well deserved record in Olympic Track & Field.
I believe that the proper labeling of Johnson's nationality should be whatever he describes himself as. While I have no idea what that would be, I would think that he would prefer Jamaican-Canadian, though I could be very wrong. As far as Canadian's owning and disowning him during his success and fall, what country/state/city has not done the same thing with many others regardless of race? Didn't leaders in the American Muslim population quickly distance themselves from extremist who caused 9/11? And rightfully so, because the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists and would never commit such terrible crimes. Canadians rightfully wish to be thought of in a positive light, as we all do. So when it was found that Johnson was doping, they rightfully distanced themselves from him. When I think of Ohio, I think of the Wright brothers, one of whom was born in Indiana. However, I don't think of Charles Manson, who was born in Cincinnati.
I also don't know if I buy Jackson's evidence of the term "Jamaican" being equivalent with "black" in Canada. If anything, I think that most people would picture a person of African descent when an individual is described as Jamaican. As more than 90% of Jamaicans are of African descent, this would usually be correct. If someone were described as a Swedish-Canadian, I would automatically think their skin was white as over 90% of Swedes are of European descent.
While I am sure that there were racist undertones from the media and Canadians within Johnson's fall from grace, I disagree with Jackson's belief that titling Johnson a Jamaican immigrant stemmed from racial disharmony. However, perhaps I am wrong. While I disagree with Jackson, it is quite possible that Johnson's labeling as Jamaican was due to racism within Canada. One of the difficult parts of racism in a country like Canada is its hidden nature, or "racism with a smile". It could be that the less overt form of racism has sufficiently pulled the sheep's wool over my eyes so that I cannot discern it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)