The Thin (White) Line between Ballers and Brawlers

I’m not surprised that mine appears to be the first response.  This article hardly deserves one.  If you cannot honestly see the tremendous difference between what happens within the rules of the game on the field and what happened during this riot on the field, I truly pity you.

Comment by rich from ohio — October 24, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

While I agree with the author that there is a tendency toward tongue-clucking in the (sports) media a lot of the time, I don’t think the general reaction to the Miami-FIU incident qualifies as such. The fight between those two teams has nothing to do with the physicality of the game of football, and I for one am not afraid to suggest that, while there may not be a racial element to what happened, there most certainly is a socio-economic and cultural element.

First of all, I don’t believe the biggest reason for football’s popularity is the violence involved. Football may be the most physical (and violent, though hockey fans might argue) of the popular American sports, but it is also very intricate, very strategy-oriented, and very conducive to the demonstration of remarkable physical skill. The ridiculously huge popularity of “fantasy” football seems to illustrate that, for the average football fan, the game’s appeal runs far deeper than just seeing someone get knocked unconscious (when did Ben Roethlisberger develop such awful karma anyway? What, did he burn down a convent as part of his Super Bowl celebration?) or have their leg broken. Fantasy players earn points for making skilled plays, not for being savages. Further, it is understood by players of all professional sports that there IS a difference between intensity during the game and malicious intent after play has stopped. The fact that this line is occasionally blurred when players lose their heads does not mean the line wasn’t there to start with.

Second, I don’t think we should be afraid to address the possiblity that there is a socio-economic and/or cultural element to this. There is absolutely NO part of me that believes, or wants to believe, that there is something inherently violent or savage about blacks or people of any other race. That having been said, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that, among young black athletes- more so today, it seems, than ever before- a very high value is placed on showing up one’s opponent, on “getting mine,” and on not letting anyone get away with any offense against you. I’ve been a sports fan for a long time, and I don’t think it’s indicative of some pre-held bias of mine that I think something like the Pacers-Pistons fiasco from 2004 just would not have happened 20 years ago. There is simply a feeling of irresponsible entitlement among many black athletes now that wasn’t there before. That’s why Ron Artest just HAD to go into the stands after getting pelted with some jackass’s beer- he was keeping it real. Every time I watch a football game now, I see players celebrating and taunting as if they’d just made the winning play in a 49ers-Cowboys game circa 1994, when all they did in reality was tackle someone. In the second quarter. And this happens all the time now, whereas it simply didn’t before. And, as the author said, this is far from the first time Miami has been party to an incident like this in the last several years. One of these incidents occurred when several Miami players made it a point to dance, jumping up and down, on the opposing team’s logo at midfield, getting right up in the opposing players’ faces as they did so- during warmups.

Why is this so? I don’t think you have to look much farther than the Miami University football program for an answer. As with so many problems, this seems to be down to money. Football factories like Miami- and, make no mistake, these players are “student-athletes” only in the most broad sense of the term- help to create the aforementioned sense of untouchable entitlement by telling these kids, whether implicitly or tacitly, that the only thing they need to do to succeed is win at football (thereby making money for the school). Which is fine; it is what it is. But don’t be surprised, then, when players like these don’t seem to care about much of anything- especially scholarship or improving one’s character, which I’m pretty sure were two of the main goals of “higher education” at one point in time- except winning and “getting mine.” It’s not me who is racist for suggesting these things- a closer look would seem to indicate that it’s football “schools” like Miami, which perpetuate the belief that young black men can’t be successful unless it involves making music or playing sports, whose racial sensitivies should be questioned.

Comment by Daniel from Baltimore — October 24, 2006 @ 7:25 pm

I feel that this article was poorly thought out and full of generalizations. Speaking of shooting fish in a barrel, way to go for condemning football as “violent”.

Props to Daniel for his well structured and reasoned response, but I disagree that ‘getting mine’ has anything to do with race. Athletes of all races are prone to this type of behavior. I do think that placing the blame according to race is not only ‘racist’ by definition, but also a dangerous point of view (not that he shouldn’t be free to express it, however).

Comment by Brent from San Diego — October 24, 2006 @ 9:30 pm

I hope I’m not actually as much of a loser as I’m afraid I am for doing so, but I’m going to respond to Brent’s comment about part of my original response to this article being racist.

First- I think it’s a fair assumption that for something to be called “racist,” it pretty much has to involve some kind of assumption or belief that one race of people is INHERENTLY different from, or better (or worse) than, another race. Again- there is no part of me that believes that about any race. At the same time, however, let me ask this: is it “racist” to say that a person’s cultural background may affect their attitudes and behavior? Far from it. While I admit that the attitude of “getting mine” is not inherently a “black thing” (if that’s even what I said originally), it’s hard to deny that that attitude is an easily observable aspect of popular black culture- watch five current rap videos, and four of them will illustrate my point. That having been said, I believe it’s important to draw clear, logical conclusions about why such an attitude would be so prevalent in a given culture. I don’t believe that a person’s skin being brown makes them have that attitude of “getting mine,” or of the sense of “irresponsible entitlement” that I mentioned in my original response. I don’t believe that a person’s race even makes them predisposed towards any given attitude or procilivity. However, I think that if you examine the circumstances surrounding the lives of blacks in this country, you will find socioeconomic reasons for the things I’m talking about- and, by extension, the perhaps increasing number of incidents similar to the Miami-FIU incident.

By circumstances surrounding the lives of black people, what I mean is this: black people were kidnapped and forceably brought to this country, where they were made slaves. After slavery was abolished, many blacks were then ghettoized. As recently as 50 years ago, blatanly racist (toward blacks) words and actions were publicly tolerated in much of the country. Even after civil rights, blacks still have lower levels of education and income and higher levels of crime and incarceration (generally speaking) than those of whites. Basically, blacks have been over a barrel in this country, economically and culturally, since the beginning. Is it any wonder, then, that part of that population’s response has been an exaggerated idolization of exactly what they’ve been denied for so long, namely wealth and cultural respect? One could raise many different questions as to why the main vehicles for blacks to attain these things have wound up being sports and music, but that’s not my point here. My lesser point is this: I defy anyone to tell me that this argument of mine is actually racist. But my more important point is that institutions such as Miami University football do a lot to reinforce among young black men this notion that they deserve wealth and cultural cache- even if it’s at the expense of responsible, intelligent, social behavior (not “white” behavior)- because they’re good at football. And, like it or not, this phenomenon DOES have at least something to do with what happened in Florida on Saturday night.

Comment by Daniel from Baltimore — October 25, 2006 @ 11:32 am

Okay, one last adjunct to my comments (God, I really must not have a life): Plenty of black artists (Mos Def, Kanye West, Dave Chapelle, et. al) question the exact same aspects of culture that I am questioning here. Further, a black person who points out the fact that a privileged white person’s very privileged-ness often leads to obliviousness and/or insensitivity toward the circumstances of those who are less fortunate is not racist for doing so- he’s not barred from the discourse because he hasn’t lived “the white experience.” By the same token, I refuse to buy into this overly “PC” idea that I am automatically racist for commenting on a cultural phenomenon that happens to involve black people. Just because it may be a sensitive issue doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be addressed or analyzed- by anyone of any race. Criticize my argument on its logical merits (or lack thereof); but don’t say it’s racist simply because it dares to comment on black culture. I do not have to be part of that culture to analyze it, and I am not racist for doing so. Making analysis and critique of cultural issues related to blacks only okay for other blacks to conduct won’t help anything.

Comment by Daniel from Baltimore — October 25, 2006 @ 12:07 pm

One important distinction. The argument itself is racist, whether or not you are a racist is not up to me to decide (nor was it my intention to suggest it as such). I also specifically said that you should be perfectly free to express your views. As for your socio-economic argument, I (mostly) agree. But it is important to specify that it is the environmental conditions that affect behavior, not the color of ones skin. You failed to do this in your original post. If Dave Chapelle or Kanye West or anyone else made the argument that the color of ones skin (i.e., being white) made someone insensitive I would call that a racist argument by definition as well.

But at least we can agree that this article was bogus :P.

Comment by Brent from San Diego — October 25, 2006 @ 3:29 pm