I've been told my favorite term is microcosm.
I appreciate its versatility. Many prevalent issues in sports have mirror examples, if not its source, coming from the greater society outside the field of play. Perhaps the best example is the player empowerment saga happening in the NBA and response to it from the team's governors. Politics -- or better yet, the two-party system -- is also a microcosm. I think the two microcosms -- sports and politics -- are more alike than they are different. In fact, I've always found the criticism of sports ironic when the same critiques of sports fandom seem to also be the case in how people identify politically. Interestingly enough the word fan, short for fanatic, is defined as "a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause." Examples are plentiful of sports fans in various capacities acting foolishly yet one can argue this happens in the world of politics as well. How so? In Origins, Marc Horger thoroughly breaks down America's "love affair" with the two-party system. Particularly Horger's identification of James Madison's Federalist Paper 10 greatly warns of how factions ultimately crumble popular governments. Remember that "excessive and single-minded zeal" from the fanatic definition? Here's Madison's take on factions from Federalist Paper 10: "A zeal for different opinions concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good." For all the zeal in sports, fans have shown the ability to co-operate for the common good, this being one memory that sticks out: Yet on the other hand politics, even when it hasn't made sense, has stuck firmly to this two-party rule. Horger recounts the 1924 and 1928 Democratic National Conventions and the in-fighting the party endured being the home of the racial segregated South as well as the nation's big cities. In addition, there included five candidates -- three being former Presidents -- that ran as third party candidates in breaking off from their previous affiliations one would surmise due to philosophical issues. The sixth, and most popular, candidate to do this was recently deceased H. Ross Perot. As Horger's article was published before the 2016 election we would see another third party candidate rise to prominence in Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. As the characteristics of the Democratic and Republican parties have changed often, as Horger highlights, there hasn't been a quest to veer from the two-party system. Instead parties simply found new 'shticks'. Yet even if a candidate like Bill Clinton, as David Abraham -- from the previous linked article -- suggests, isn't "that kind of Democrat" voters still tend to side with their party of choice. While other candidates exist outside of the two parties -- ones that might align ideologically -- but your team is your team right? This has felt especially relevant in the last election cycle and certainly set to rear its head in 2020. Bernie Sanders wasn't deemed popular enough to defeat eventual President Donald Trump leading the Democrats to give the nomination to Hillary. Yet voting for Bernie Sanders felt frowned upon as the sole objective seemed to be 'Beat Trump at all costs'. Fast forward to the upcoming election and it feels as if most Democrat nominee candidates have adopted similar stances from Sanders' 2016 run. History looks primed to repeat itself, with Bernie running again among a sea of new contenders. Sports fans are viewed -- while sometimes dysfunctional -- a key to the cog that is a team and its connection to its community. This type of relationship is one voters should aim for in being part of the political process compared to simply being along for the ride. "Identity, not ideology, held them together" as Horger explained about people's political party should be something we use to describe sports fans not the group in charge of selecting our country's President.
While the title of this post's origins speak to a citizen's relationship with the government, nothing could spell out the importance of representation more.
We've used representation, and the idea that one---or a group---speaks on behalf of a whole, as the backbone of our own government. City councilmen represent various wards in their municipality. Mayors represent the entire city. Governors represent the state. Congressmen also represent the states they hail from but on the legislative level. A president represents the country. Everything seems to come back to representation. It is then not surprising to see the backlash over Halle Bailey being cast in the new, live-action version of Disney's The Little Mermaid. What those up in arms fail to recognize is by participating in the Twitter hashtag #NotMyAriel, the case for why representation is important is solidified. Look at other entities of note that share Ariel's 'known' race/ethnicity: Jesus Christ, Santa Claus, Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, Peter Pan, Frodo Baggins...the list goes on. Nevertheless, I appreciate coming up in an age that showcased figures in the media that resembled myself. Albeit fictional, the stories and portrayal of Black families as normal I'm sure did more to help the Black cause than it did to harm. From animated series such as The Proud Family and Static Shock to sitcoms such as A Different World and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, it wasn't simply the representation but the content itself that was so powerful. For instance, who could forget this iconic clip from the Fresh Prince: β These shows were influential beyond measure and related, specifically, to an audience that Sleeping Beauty nor Malcolm In The Middle could ever dream to reach. For a population so forgotten and downtrodden, it meant the world to see representation not only in skin color but in lived experiences. The power was to see that American 'normalcy' was indeed attainable, that the nuclear family model was also a story that could be told of a Black family. Privilege is kin to perspective, and when you have a privilege---particularly one you did not work towards earning---it is nearly impossible to understand how something seemingly so minuscule like Ariel from The Little Mermaid looking like you could be a groundbreaking concept to someone else. This too explains Barack Obama and why there existed, and still does, a fervor of support for him. As his policies and effectiveness during his eight-year tenure as President are certainly up for critique; he is a proxy in the realm of representation that even he, himself, has no control over. This extends to the four Congresswomen of color affectionately referred to as 'The Squad' that has met βthe ire of the sitting President. It is imperative that these women represent the experience they do outside of any ties to the political affiliation they belong to. As trailblazers in the way they have gone about the platform afforded to them they are one in this collective, amplifying voices that have been stifled for far too long. It is because of this that I will go see the new Lion King film that has Donald Glover and Beyonce headlining its cast. I will see Lion King---and The Little Mermaid---the same way I, and others, flocked to Black Panther. The same way I have supported Jordan Peele's films. Its acknowledgement of the power of representation. And as a heterogeneous nation comprised of many cultures and ethnicities the truly American action is to champion this newfound accessibility to representation. I would hope this trend continues and extends especially to the Native American and First Nations population. Every culture deserves to see itself portrayed. Not because this casting of Bailey will inspire young Black girls to try to become mermaids but because it actually reinforces that inclusion is a tangible action and not just a buzzword that feels like the right thing to say.
Society operates on a rather simple premise: I won't harm you if you don't harm me. Since we moved away from the 'I'm bigger and stronger than you and therefore I can take everything I want from you with no repercussions' worldview, we have collectively decided to be governed by ethics and an agreed upon framing of what should be. From this foundation we get laws. We get morality. We have a contract. An agreed upon existence. As a contributing member of the collective society you are agreeing to adhere to these laws and code of morals. Agreeing to this premise of not interfering with someone else's world. We have even created a career path for people we have entrusted to ensure we maintain this credo:
Police officers. As a police officer you are held to a higher standard as the practitioner of what is right and what is just. Are you expected to be perfect? No, of course not, you're a human being. But at a minimum, you are expected to care about the community you serve beyond this being a job. Especially considering that the work being done is often times a thankless task and you know the whole potential of losing your life in the line of duty bit. On that note consider this: we ask police officers to diffuse tense, sometimes dangerous situations. The skill in which we seek is more artistic, more of a people person; a person that can soothe and reason with someone. Besides the authority we prescribe to the position (cough what some people say about the Presidency cough), what proves your effectiveness is your impact. This is felt not given. It can also be assumed that--as civilians would be as well--police officers are just as afraid and fearful of their safety entering into some of these dangerous situations. Despite being equipped with bulletproof vests, a baton stick and/or taser, handcuffs and--what is the true game-changer--a gun; this is not enough to guarantee excessive force is not used in the diffusing of tension. While it may appear like a lot to ask for police officers to enter these unknowns 'completely blind', no one stated this was an easy job or responsibility. When a police officer is called to a scene it is never to serve as a hitman. It is never to serve as an assassin. It is to diffuse. When a police officer pulls a car over it is in the name of safety. Someone is driving too fast, or too recklessly and poses a danger to the rest of society in that moment in time. The police officer's job in this instance is to stop this person's action and reinforce safety. This is done by pulling the vehicle over, observing the person's current status and either issuing a citation or letting them off with a warning. Even in a hypothetical where a person is less cooperative and maybe has a weapon threatening the lives of innocent bystanders, a police officer's duty here is to calm and diffuse. If the weapon wielder is not listening to commands to cease their behavior that person is to be removed from the situation. Not have their life taken from them but have the weapon separated from the person. Apprehend the person and take them to a place away from society where they can await an opportunity to be dealt a consequence for the social contract they breached. A police officer is not judge, jury or executioner. A police officer is the middle man. Bringing the person alive to a court of their peers to answer to the disturbance that person initiated. The end. This is all common sense. Enough is enough. If there are no measures for police to answer to the 'fear' that causes them to shoot first and ask questions later than I simply ask this: why have guns? If we cannot identify the subconscious blind spots where an officer sees a person and becomes more inclined to shoot and kill out of fear, then we should proactively take the ability to end a life with the pulling of a trigger from that authority figure. β Is that how you would describe what happened here? Or how about here? β So in the case of a Starbucks barista asking a group of police officers in Tempe, AZ to either leave the premises or relocate away from a customer, maybe the customer is not wrong for being fearful. We are asked to understand when police officers armed with the ability to shoot without punishment are afraid. Given the current temperature, that first video being in Tempe, that Starbucks customer has every right to feel threatened. I'd say when a group of people reports being afraid of the force that is supposed to keep them safe, we may have a broken system on our hands. I know nothing of the type of city that Tempe is. But with the relationship many people in our most vulnerable cities feel about police, something needs to be fixed. It is interesting that the ones most at risk of being victims of crime seem to be the people who need the police most. Yet these are also the people that seem most distrustful of police. These incidents aren't even the biggest issue we have with guns. I haven't mentioned Parkland or Sandy Hook or Vegas yet. I haven't mentioned Charleston yet. In a country seemingly obsessed with guns, there is a lengthy discussion to be had in changing our association with these weapons of mass destruction. I do not have an answer for ridding America of mass shootings. However, a starting place is our police force. Instead of viewing this as a move that makes police officers susceptible to violence perpetrated against them, view this as a sense of calm to the people these officers serve. Think of this as a pledge to, I don't know, protect them. A soothing voice to say 'I want to help make sure you and everyone around you is safe' compared to the 'scared and react' voice likely heard as a police officer has just fired numerous bullets into someone who ultimately posed no danger at all. As Independence Day has just passed, we often hear people proudly boast about America. I'd also make a correlation that these same people feel a comfort and pride in its institutions. That a segment of the population does not feel that, and openly clamors for it, should be telling. With the comical history that is the great gun debate, making a small concession to restore faith in the Blue Lives that matter so much seems like the social contract we really should be agreeing to.
There lies a long list of trends happening in society that truly encompasses "comme ci, comme ca". I studied French in high school and for some unbeknownst reason it was my favorite phrase. Not that it didn't have an English translation (so-so, for those too lazy to Google) but it gave 'so-so' some spice and pizzazz, which yes!
From that long list will come posts on those topics because like this first one, it truly requires a deep dive on the subject. As you may have noticed from the title, this is Part 1. Part 2 will actually be the sports version of this exact piece on another platform that I'll be writing on. Stay tuned for that. The accountability to which I speak of comes from one of the hot, new phrases to have joined the lexicon in quite some time: cancel culture. Yes, cancel culture is the illusion. To get to that we need to first define very specifically what cancel culture is and when it comes up. As best as I can label it, cancel culture describes a phenomenon where the consumers of a product, brand or entertainment entity seek to hold said product or entertainer accountable for conduct detrimental to society. Maybe this is best explained by real life examples: Bill Cosby being cancelled for allegations of aggravated indecent assault , Gucci receiving backlash for its Sambo sweater and H&M being called out for it's very tone deaf hoodie. The illusion comes in the actual cancelling of these people/brands. In instances where we do see 'cancellation' (Cosby or R.Kelly) it takes everyone being on board. Yet it appears when a call is made for people--especially of color--to band together and withhold support due to a problematic incident; that 'boycott' either falls on deaf ears or people openly chime in on that not being a good idea. Gucci--and to a lesser extent H&M--can avoid a full boycott due to influence. Influence--as I defined in my car on the way to go grocery shopping this morning--is a mixture of content and reputation. Gucci is a fashion line that creates clothes, handbags, accessories, etc. That's the content. Not all Gucci branded items are appealing to the eye but their reputation is such that someone would (and has) chalked up $1590 for those shoes in the last link. This is how you get Floyd being an idiot about refusing to boycott Gucci but its also how you get people on the other end that may speak to their disgust in the moment and but be 'back on the train' when the artist, brand or company releases something new. Now don't get me wrong. Not everything is boycott or cancellation worthy. Very few offenses are actually. Let's take Chris Brown as an example. While an egregious action, the outcry should have been demands for the 19 year old singer to enter therapy. Instead of treating this kid as a monster; some calm in the face of chaos could have been a suggestion for Brown to realize this act continued the cycle of the same sickness he was witness to as a child. What occurs instead is: Chris Brown fans attempting to diminish the incident and in turn barely holding him accountable at all whereas the other side of the fence preaches for all out excommunciation. What is lost is the handling of the moment where this can be a teachable moment for Brown. With this public reaction to a vulnerable scenario, potentially Brown is afforded the ability to be open about the incident, his past and hopefully a sincere vow to learn from the mistake. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20 and there is no certainty that my hypothesis would have yielded the results I painted. The point still stands that instead of pouring water on an oil fire, that we don't rush to vilify. Chris Brown is human. The people at Gucci and H&M are as well, and while they may all deserve to hear of the disappointment they caused people do mess up and this should be a thing the world understands. With that said, accountability is also important particularly in the era of social media. Now that consumers have a direct line via Twitter and Instagram consequences are swift and fierce; forcing these companies and brands to act. This in action looks like Pepsi's response to the backlash they faced from the Kendall Jenner commercial. Is it a perfect apology? No. But I'm sure what came out of it was an understanding that there maybe ought to be a few more brown people deciding what winds up on the cutting room floor. The blame finger also needs to be pointed at us (in society) for all of this. We actively search for it. Take the case of Twitter user @CraigNoFridayy. Also present in the age of social media is going viral. The man in the video above, CraigNoFridayy, said in a reply about his own cancellation, "I am just a normal person who went to work yesterday, I had no idea that today I would wake up with all this attention". How could such a hero be cancelled? Easy. Man becomes the face of handling racism in the workplace and before his key to the city is done being copied at Home Depot ,someone goes out their way to find old dirt. This particularly bothers me because--as I'll argue more in Part 2 of this piece--here is a moment where someone is lauded for one, standalone event. Nothing about that video suggested Craig is a proxy for any other sense of good in the world. He is not suddenly a hero that has done no wrong. Appreciate the man for this moment and the funny memes that accompany it. Why does his tweets from nearly 2 years prior to the incident require digging up? This unfortunately gives slight credence to DogAvi Twitter's claim of "everyone wants to be offended at every turn". While I disagree with it in the dogwhistle sense of "I (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) get to say what is offensive and what is not because this is my country" it's hard to argue against when you're going into a search bar in Twitter looking for trouble. Ultimately, let's not make cancel culture the new boy-who-cried-wolf. Holding celebs and companies accountable for their output is a great tool to reshape 'outdated maps' (worldviews and ways of thinking) and when done correctly there should be next steps for progress identified. When done haphazardly, these same entertainers and brands are able to call out the fickleness of your cancellation, moving on to the next act knowing their influence is too strong for you to truly abandon them. |
Details
Ty FosterQuestion everything. WQHC Archives
June 2020
Categories |