Tampilkan postingan dengan label blackness. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label blackness. Tampilkan semua postingan

Senin, 19 November 2012

Left of Black S3:E10 | Who is Black in Multiracial America?





Left of Black S3:E10 | Who is Black in Multiracial America?

November 19, 2012

American racial history was long framed by the notion of the “one drop” rule, which within a political economy of race and difference, was a blatant attempt to embolden Whiteness and the privilege that derived from it.  Scholar Yaba Blay offers a different view of the “one drop” rule with her multi-media project (1)ne Drop which “seeks to challenge narrow, yet popular perceptions of what Blackness is and what Blackness looks like.”

Blay, a Visiting Professor of AfricanaStudies at Drexel University and contributing producer to CNN’s Black in America 5, which was inspired by the (1)ne Drop project, joins Duke University Professor Mark Anthony Neal on the November 19th episode of Left of Black to talk about the complexities of Black identity.  Neal is also joined by University of Washington Professor Habiba Ibrahim for part two of an interview about her new book Troubling the Family: The Promise of Personhood and the Rise of Multiracialism(University of Minnesota Press).

***

Left of Black is a weekly Webcast hosted by Mark Anthony Neal and produced in collaboration with the John Hope Franklin Center at Duke University.

***

Episodes of Left of Black are also available for free download in  @ iTunes U

Senin, 23 Januari 2012

Left of Black S2:E16 | ‘Blackness’, Professional Sports and the #Occupy the Academy Movement




Left of Black S2:E16
‘Blackness’, Professional Sports and the #Occupy the Academy Movement

w/ Bomani Jones, Professor David J. Leonard and Professor James Braxton Peterson
January 23, 2012

Host and Duke UniversityProfessor Mark Anthony Neal is joined via Skype© by David J. Leonard and in-studio by Bomani Jones.  Leonard is an associate professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender, and Race Studies at Washington State University at Pullman and the author of the forthcoming After Artest, Race and the Assault on Blackness (SUNY Press).  Jones is a journalist, sports commentator, former host of The Morning Jones and a well-known contributor to ESPN’s Around the Horn and Jim Rome is Burning.  The trio discuss responses and effects of the recent 2011 NBA lockout and how it relates to race.  Leonard and Jones highlight how branding defines basketball’s popularity and the irreplaceable value of the sport’s greatest athletes.  Lastly, the conversation touches on the comparison between how fans value the NFL differently than the NBA.

Later, Neal is joined via Skype© by James Braxton Peterson, director of Africana Studies and associate professor of English at Lehigh University.  A frequent contributor to MSNBC, Peterson addresses the impact of scholars who reach well beyond the Academy.  Neal and Peterson also discuss the scholarly impact of the  #Occupy Movement as expressed in Peterson’s recent HuffPost Black Voices article, “#Occupy the Academy.”  
 
***

Left of Black is a weekly Webcast hosted by Mark Anthony Neal and produced in collaboration with the John Hope Franklin Center at Duke University.

***

Episodes of Left of Blackare also available for download @ iTunes U

Minggu, 22 Januari 2012

‘Blackness’, Professional Sports and the #Occupy the Academy Movement on the January 23rd ‘Left of Black’





























‘Blackness’, Professional Sports and the #Occupy the Academy Movement on the January 23rd ‘Left of Black’



Host and Duke University Professor Mark Anthony Neal is joined via Skype© by David J. Leonard and in-studio by Bomani Jones.  Leonard is an associate professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender, and Race Studies at Washington State University at Pullman and the author of the forthcoming After Artest, Race and the Assault on Blackness (SUNY Press).  Jones is a journalist, sports commentator, former host of The Morning Jones and a well-known contributor to ESPN’s Around the Horn and Jim Rome is Burning.  The trio discuss responses and effects of the recent 2011 NBA lockout and how it relates to race.  Leonard and Jones highlight how branding defines basketball’s popularity and the irreplaceable value of the sport’s greatest athletes.  Lastly, the conversation touches on the comparison between how fans value the NFL differently than the NBA.



Later, Neal is joined via Skype© by James Braxton Peterson, director of Africana Studies and associate professor of English at Lehigh University.  A frequent contributor to MSNBC, Peterson addresses the impact of scholars who reach well beyond the Academy.  Neal and Peterson also discuss the scholarly impact of the  #Occupy Movement as expressed in Peterson’s recent HuffPost Black Voices article, “#Occupy the Academy.” 



***



Left of Black airs at 1:30 p.m. (EST) on Mondays on the Ustream channel: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/left-of-black. Viewers are invited to participate in a Twitter conversation with Neal and featured guests while the show airs using hash tags #LeftofBlack or #dukelive. 



Left of Blackis recorded and produced at the John Hope Franklin Center of International and Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke University.



***



Follow Left of Black on Twitter: @LeftofBlack

Follow Mark Anthony Neal on Twitter: @NewBlackMan

Follow David J. Leonard on Twitter: @Dr_DJL

Follow Bomani Jones on Twitter: @Bomani_Jones

Follow James Braxton Peterson on Twitter: @DrJamesPeterson



###

Jumat, 13 Januari 2012

Obery Hendricks: Mitt Romney and the Curse of Blackness


Mitt Romney and the Curse of Blackness
Obery M. Hendricks | HuffPost Religion

When it comes to others' choice of religions, I'm pretty much a live-and-let-live guy. In fact, I don't believe in religious litmus tests of any kind. Frankly, I think they are self-righteous and insulting. Yet I must admit that there is something about Mitt Romney's religion that I find deeply troubling, particularly in light of the possibility that he could become the next president of this nation. What concerns me is this: the Book of Mormon, the book that Mitt Romney and all Mormons embrace as divinely revealed scripture that is more sacred, more true, and more inerrant than any other holy book on earth, declares that black people are cursed. That's right. Cursed. And not only accursed, but lazy and aesthetically ugly to boot.

I'm not talking about ascribed racism such as we see in Christianity, in which racist meanings are attributed to certain verses of the Bible that actually contain no such meanings, as with the Gen. 9:25 cursing of Canaan (not Ham!) which, though used as "proof" of black wickedness and inferiority, in actuality has nothing to do with race.

And no, I'm not talking about a single ambiguous, cherry-picked verse, either. I'd much rather that were the case. The sad truth is that the Book of Morman says it explicitly and in numerous passages: black people are cursed by God and our dark skin is the evidence of our accursedness. Here are a few examples:

And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them (2 Nephi 5:21).

And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations (1 Nephi 12:23).

"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. (Jacob 3:8).

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men (Alma 3: 6).

It would have been infinitely more righteous if Mormons had relegated the sentiments of these verses to the scriptural sidelines of their faith, but the historical record tells us otherwise. Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, repeatedly ordered his Church to uphold all slavery laws. Although Smith had a change of heart toward the end of his life, his successor, Brigham Young, did not. Young instituted social and ecclesiastical segregation as the Church's official policies, thus excluding people of black African descent from priesthood ordination and full participation in temple ceremonies, regardless of their actual skin color. Moreover, Brigham Young, whom Mormons revere almost equally with Smith, proved to the end of his life to be a brutal white supremacist who fervently supported the continued enslavement of African Americans; he was so convinced of black accursedness that he declared that if any Mormon had sex with a person of color, "the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot."

The Book of Mormon's teaching of the accursedness and, therefore, the inferiority of blacks -- if blacks are cursed, then by definition they are inferior to the divinely acceptable whites -- was reaffirmed by numerous Mormon leaders for a century and a half. As late as 1969, even after the Civil Rights Movement had dismantled de jure segregation throughout the land, David O. McKay, then president and "living prophet" of Mormonism, still publicly justified its segregationist policies by declaring that "the seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro... goes back into the beginning with God."

Now, some will argue that I should dismiss the codified racism of the Book of Mormon as the unfortunate folklore of a bygone era because of the 1978 revelation by Spencer W. Kimball, the Church's president and "living prophet" at that time, that after a century and a half black males were finally un-accursed enough to fully participate in Mormonism's priesthood and sacred temple ceremonies. However, even if we ignore the suspiciously coincidental timing of this "revelation" (it conveniently appeared when the Church's federal tax-exempt status was imperiled by its racial policies), an attentive reading reveals that Kimball's proclamation did not in any way address the question of whether or not the Church still considered the Book of Mormon's assertions of black inferiority to be divinely authorized. In fact, the specific contents of Kimball's revelation were never made public. Nor has the Church ever disavowed the Book's white supremacist passages or the past racist practices and pronouncements of its leaders.

What makes this all the more problematic for me is that at no time has Mitt Romney ever publicly indicated that he seriously questioned the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon's teachings about race, much less that he has repudiated them. It is true that in a 2008 Meet the Press interview with the late Tim Russert, Romney did vigorously assert his belief in equal rights for all Americans in every facet of life. As part of that narrative, he cited his parents' "tireless" advocacy for blacks' civil rights, including the dramatic exit of his father, Michigan Governor George Romney, from the 1964 Republican convention as a protest against nominee Barry Goldwater's racial politics. He also shared that he wept when he learned of Spencer Kimball's aforementioned revelation. Yet from Romney's remarks it is not clear whether he wept for joy because Mormonism was eschewing its segregationist policies or if he wept from relief that the announcement promised to quiet the public outrage that those policies were causing. And significantly, while he recited his parents' efforts to confront racial injustice, Mitt Romney pointed to no such activities of his own.

But let me be clear: this is not a "gotcha" political ploy. In all honesty, I am neither saying nor implying in the slightest that Mitt Romney is a racist. I simply do not know that to be the case. Nor do I mean to overlook the racial progress that the Mormon Church has made in the last several decades. What I do mean to say is 1) that Americans of goodwill owe it to ourselves not to turn a blind eye to the possible implications of the white supremacist legacy of candidate Romney's religious tradition, no matter how noble our intentions; and 2) that Mitt Romney himself owes it to America to address the issue. Why? Because Romney was tutored into adulthood by a holy book that declares that all Americans like me are cursed by God. And he is not only a believer; he has served as a leader in his faith. This is indeed a crucial point for consideration because, as this nation has seen time and time again, the inevitable consequence of America's policy-makers considering people of color as inferior to whites is that blacks' social and material interests have also been considered inferior -- and quite often treated that way.

I admit that this question of religion and racism is quite complicated and I don't claim to have all the answers. But I do know that recognizing the equal rights of black Americans under the law, while of paramount importance, is not the same as recognizing our intellectual capabilities and moral character as inherently equal to whites. And I am aware of one thing more: that when Tim Russert invited Romney to repudiate his Church's racist legacy on Meet the Press, Romney refused.

That is why, Mr. Romney, as an American citizen whose president you seek to become, I must insist that you honestly and forthrightly attest to me and all Americans of goodwill that you actually can be my president, too, fully and completely. You can accomplish this by publicly disavowing the portions of your holy book that so sorely denigrate the humanity of me, my loved ones and all people of black African descent.

It is incumbent that you do this, candidate Romney, for the sake of all Americans. 

***
Obery Hendricks is Visiting Scholar at Institute for Research in African-American Studies and Department of Religion at Columbia University and the author of the recent The Universe Bends Toward Justice: Radical Reflections on the Bible, the Church, and the Body Politic.

Kamis, 03 November 2011

Is the Tween World Ready for the Subaltern? A.N.T. Farm and the Politics of Blackness



















Is the Tween World Ready for the Subaltern? 
A.N.T. Farm and the Politics of Blackness
by David J. Leonard | NewBlackMan

Having already graduated Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez, and Demi Lovato to various forms of stardom, it should be of little surprise that Disney has sought to infuse younger talent as a way to maintain its stranglehold on tween audiences.  In recent years this has increasingly proven difficult given the success of Nickelodeon with the emergence of Miranda Cosgrove and Victoria Justice. 

Realizing the increasingly fickle marketplace, Disney has sought to change-up the formula in some regards in building a show around a young African-American girl, Chyna.  A.N.T Farm chronicles the story of three genius middle-schoolers who because of their talents and skills attend high school as part of its advanced program.  While participating in the Advanced Natural Talent Program (A.N.T), they face numerous dilemmas resulting from their special gifts, tensions with their older schoolmates, and simply because they are kids growing up in a complex world. 

Although A.N.T. Farm explores this issues amongst the three main characters, Chyna (the musical prodigy), Olive (the girl with a photographic memory), and Fletcher (the artist), the show is truly a show about Chyna.   From the inclusion of her family to the endless opportunities for her to showcase her musical talents, whether it be playing the violin, jamming on the guitar, or singing a familiar pop song, the show is really one that is selling China Anne McClain (Tyler Perry’s House of Payne), who stars as Chyna.

According to one review of the show, A.N.T. Farm represents a continuation, albeit modified, of the proven formula of Disney’s grooming stars of significant marketing potential: “Disney has turned the concept into its latest situation comedy—and a star-grooming vehicle for the very talented China Anne McClain. China, who plays Chyna, is one of the Mouse House's latest singing, dancing mini-Mileys, sure to soon grace lunchboxes and toothbrushes everywhere.”  While certainly true, with a CD and the back-to-school Chyna accessory package just around the corner, the significance of this A.N.T. Farm transcends the commercial practices of Disney.

The introduction of an African American potential superstar in the tween marketplace, one that requires star power and crossover appeal, is important. Brooks Barnes, in The New York Times, describes the qualities required of a tween superstar as follows:

Creating a breakout tween superstar takes years of careful grooming that hark back to Hollywood’s studio system days. Disney, scouring audition tapes and the Web, looks for various elements: presence, a genuine interest in show business and raw talent in acting, singing or dancing. Good looks are a must, but so is a certain blandness. Tween viewers gravitate toward actresses who they think have best-friend potential; the slightest mean-girl whiff can prevent a star-in-the-making from reaching the stratosphere.   

Given the history of race and racism, the persistent demonization of African American women as loud, mean, and aggressive, and given the systematic erasure of young black girls from television culture, it is easy to see the ways in which the arrival of A.N.T. Farm can be seen as transformative and ground-breaking. 

Evidence by blog commentaries, the prospect of a Disney show starring a young African American girl led to praise and celebration.  For example, Kimberly Seals Allers laments the lack of diversity available for youth of color, praising Disney for the creation of A.N.T Farm because of its potential positive impact on African American girls:  “As a mother, trying to raise a young black girl with positive self-esteem and self-love for her hair, her body and her mind, it’s frustrating that my daughter doesn’t see many images of herself on her own favorite channel. I knew things were bad when she begged me to buy her a Hannah wig (it wasn’t Halloween) and complained a lot about her own thick hair,” writes Allers on a parenting blog. “So I was really happy to see the new Disney show starring the very sweet and lovely, China Anne McClain.... And the character has a two-parent home! Whoo hoo! When she says she wants her hair to be straighter and longer and her skin lighter, it breaks my heart.  I’m working super hard to do my part to counteract that. But I’m hoping a vivacious, and talented young brown girl on the TV screen every week will help a little too.”   

Searles reiterated this same theme on her own blog, Mocha Manuel, focusing on the show’s potential message to young African American girls: “Anyway, I know it's up to us parents to instill in our little brown girls the self-love that the media could never do and to fill the hole of positive images with our own research and resourcefulness, but I'm hoping an A.N.T. Farm and this talented, beautiful, young black girl can help a little too. Are you hoping the same? Why are we still struggling to see positive young black girls on kids TV?”   Similarly, Meghan Harvey, who praised the show for a variety of girls, seemed to highlight the shows efforts to challenge stereotypes, especially as it relates to girls and African Americans

Smart is Cool – The girls on these shows are all smart girls who make good grades and school a priority, yet they are all cool. In fact the show Ant Farm, centers on the “ANT” program for gifted youngsters who have skipped a few grades including our lead character. And with A.N.T. Farm it’s also great to see a super smart African American girl back on the Disney channel! It’s about time.

The concerns and hopes here are obviously real, reflecting on the damaging impact of popular culture and society at large on African American identity (See Kari Davis).  It does represent an important intervention in a cultural world that normalizes whiteness as the standard of measurement all while demeaning and devaluing those who come to embody the OTHER within the dominant white imagination.  According to Anne Ducille, in writing about her experiences with toys and dolls, children’s culture is one of hegemonic whiteness:

Whitewashed by the images with which I was daily bombarded, for most of my childhood I little noticed that the dolls I played with, the heroes I worshipped, and the alter egos I invented did not look like me. The make-believe world to which I surrendered my disbelief was profoundly white. That is to say, the “me” I invented, the self I day-dreamed in technicolor fantasies, was no more black like me than the dolls I played with” (duCille, 1996, pp. 11-12, in Guerrero p. 187)

As such, the introduction of a show centering around a young-African American girl represents a counter narrative to the cultural jamming of whiteness, albeit limited because of broader racial realities and its emphasis on a middle-class sensibility, its elevation of a politics of respectability, and of course the difficult path of countering hegemonic stereotypes.  Celebrations, notwithstanding, the show replicates what S. Craig Watkins describes as a commitment “to the notion of promoting respectable – or in other words, bourgeois – images of blackness.”

The creation of A.N.T Farm, however, should not simply be thought of in terms of Disney’s efforts to challenge persistent racist images within American culture or even its efforts to provide black youth with “role models” and “positive representations.”  It is clearly a marketing strategy that seeks to capitalize on a market share that has ostensibly been ignored by television networks: African American families.  Describing it as “shrewd marketing” “at a time when children’s channels are working harder to find minority stars.” Brooks Barnes highlights the economic calculations here. It is

Signaling to parents that diversity is a priority. But Nickelodeon and Disney also want to hold a mirror to a diversifying viewer base. “We have taught children to look for themselves,” Mr. Marsh said.

Other actresses vying for tween superstardom are Zendaya, a biracial 14-year-old who co-stars in Disney Channel’s budding dance hit, “Shake It Up.” Coco Jones, 12, is an African-American singer. (Combine Jennifer Hudson with Rihanna and give the results a middle school gloss.) Ms. Jones has become a darling of Radio Disney. Nickelodeon is developing a series around Cymphonique Miller, a 14-year-old African-American singer and actress, called “How to Rock Braces and Glasses.”

While writing about Nickelodeon in her fantastic book Kid’s Rule: Nickelodeon and Consumer Citizenship, Sarah Banet-Weiser’s observations are applicable to Disney and in this case A.N.T Farm, a show that imagines a world where “race is simply something that ‘happens’ in a kid’s world” (p. 170).  Thus far, it has gone to great lengths to avoid racial conflict and tension, all while imagining blackness and whiteness as insignificant in the daily lives of American kids.  In this regard, it operates through the commodification of blackness that ultimately reifies the hegemonic practice of reducing race to little more than a cultural or aesthetic marker.  

Embodying Anne DuCille’s idea of “mass produced difference” A.N.T Farm, highlights the broader approach to race within children’s television culture (and popular culture as a whole). “Any time representation of race is produced it reflects a stereotype or a narrativizing of a cultural myth about race – even if ostensibly ‘positive,’” writes Banet-Weiser.   Or as Lisa Guerrero notes,  “race merely serves as another kind of ‘accessory’ that signifies ‘hipness,’ without incurring the actual costs and consequences of real world racial signification.”  As such, Disney “employs several different strategies of representing race: race either is represented as hip or cool, as a kind of aesthetic style or it is represented through the lens of authenticity, with ‘real’ tropes structure the narrative of the program.  The inclusion of explicitly racial images . . . coincides with the exclusion of a specifically racial agenda, so that inclusion functions as a kind of exclusion” (Banet-Weiser, p. 171). 

A.N.T Farm bridges these two themes together, using race as an unspoken backdrop for viewing Chyna all while constructing her as a “real” breath of fresh air that challenges the less desirable and less positive (yet no less supposedly real) representations of blackness within popular culture.  Most importantly, it follows suit with other programs through its erasure of an explicit “racial agenda.”  It lacks even the mere hint of the ways in which the race, class, sexuality, and gender are lived by American teenagers.

In her essay about race, gender, and the Bratz dolls, Lisa Guerrero highlights the complex relationship between children (particularly children of color) and dolls/toys/popular culture.  She notes that, at one level, visibility, inclusion, and the ability to see oneself within spaces of play and consumption are important.  At another level, given commercial demands and the practice of denying and erasing the real-life realities of race, gender, and class, these representations can be at best limiting, and at worst problematic, all while normalizing whiteness. Guerrero notes in “Can the Subaltern Shop: The Commodification of Difference in the Bratz Dolls:”

As much as the dolls rely on images of difference, that difference relies on naturalized notions of whiteness. The dolls may be succeeding in presenting a new, and much needed idea of difference as beautiful and coveted, but that idea still exists in opposition to the “normal,” White beauty that Barbie, and the ideals reflected in her and her world, present. Ultimately, though, it is a start.

However small the impact of a doll may seem, and despite some of the paradoxes of the Bratz’s representation of difference, there remains an important oppositional potential about the collection. They have presented a challenge to the Anglocentric version of womanhood found in the arena of toys that has been dominant since the 1959 introduction of Barbie. They have given face to difference and provided images through which young girls of color might find themselves reflected. And they have begun the work toward opening up a space in the popular imaginary for the normalization of multiracial identities. 

A.N.T. Farm, despite its shortcomings, much of which reflects the broader cultural/political landscape and the dubious motives and marketing plans of Disney, illustrate this same important instance of change.  The tween world is embodies the hyper emphasis on materialism and consumption, yet given the hegemony of whiteness the entry of China Anne McClain it is hard not to think about this change as transformative a frustrating intervention at that. 

***

David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. He is the author of Screens Fade to Black: Contemporary African American Cinema and the forthcoming After Artest: Race and the War on Hoop(SUNY Press). Leonard is a regular contributor to NewBlackMan and blogs @ No Tsuris.



Sabtu, 29 Oktober 2011

Putting the “Run Away Slaves” Ahead of the Plantation: Parity, Race and the NBA Lockout

"Basketball and Chain" by Hank Willis Thomas

Putting the “Run Away Slaves” Ahead of the Plantation: 
Parity, Race and the NBA Lockout
by David J. Leonard | NewBlackMan

In wake of LeBron James’ decision to take his talents, along with those of Chris Bosh, to South Beach to join forces with Dwayne Wade, the NBA punditry has been lamenting the demise of the NBA.  This only became worse with the subsequent trades of Deron Williams and Carmelo Anthony to New Jersey and New York respectfully.  Described as a league “out of control in terms of the normal sports business model” where player power “kills the local enthusiasm for the customer and fan base,” where superstars leave smaller markets with no hope of securing a championship, where manipulating players and agents have created a game dominated by “players whose egos are bigger than the game,” much has been made about player movement.

Commentators have lamented how players are yet again destroying the game from the inside, thinking of themselves ahead of its financial security and cultural importance.  In “NBA no longer fan-tastic,” Rick Reillylaments the changing landscape facing the NBA.  Unlike any other sport, the NBA is now a league where “very rich 20-somethings running the league from the backs of limos,” are “colluding so that the best players gang up on the worst. To hell with the Denvers, the Clevelands, the Torontos. If you aren't a city with a direct flight to Paris, we're leaving. Go rot.”  In other words, this line of criticism have warned that “the inmates are running the asylum,” so much so that the league “is little more than a small cartel of powerful teams, driven by the insecurities and selfishness of the players who stack them.”  

While such rhetoric erases history (of trades – players of the golden generation have certainly demanded trades; the same can be said for other sports as well) and works from a faulty premise that parity is good for the economics of the NBA (the very different television monies for the NBA and NFL proves the faultiness of this logic), the idea that the league needs more parity remains a prominent justification for the NBA lockout.   “The owners believe that the league should be more competitive and that teams should have an opportunity to make a profit,” notes David Stern. Similarly, Adam Silver, deputy commissioner, argues, “Our view is that the current system is broken in that 30 teams are not in a position to compete for championships.” 


Such rhetoric and Stern’s ubiquitous statements about the NBA needing a dramatic restructuring builds upon argument that the NBA’s future is tied to its ability to thwart players like LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Deron Williams, and potentially Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, and others from taking their talents anywhere.  The cautionary rhetoric was evident in Jason Whitlock’s “NBA players are wrecking their league:”

This whole NBA scenario — from LeBron’s Decision to Melo’s Madness to Deron’s Escape — reminds me of the American housing bubble. . . .

For close to a decade, NBA players have walked the thin line between love and hate with their customers. The players crossed it when Ron Artest and several Indiana Pacers climbed into the stands to brawl with spectators. Commissioner David Stern instituted a string of new rules — dress code, tougher restrictions prohibiting fighting, 19-year-old age requirement for the draft — to push the players back on the other side of the line.

Those Band-Aid policies are starting to break. The players, many of whom have never grasped the need to understand and satisfy their customer base, are beginning to unwittingly push back.
Soaked in the arrogance of fame, wealth, immaturity and business ignorance, the players have dramatically reshaped the league with their free-agent and impending free-agent maneuvers.

In doing so — in destroying basketball in Cleveland, Utah and Denver — LeBron, Melo, Amar’e and Deron reinforced the perception among fans that teams don’t matter.

“As a player, you have to do what’s best for you,” Wade told reporters in reaction to the Carmelo trade to New York. “You can’t think about what someone’s going to feel or think on the outside. You have to do what’s best for you, and that’s what some players are doing. I’m happy for those players that felt that they wanted to be somewhere and they got their wish.”

That pretty much sums up the mentality of the modern-day American and modern-day pro athlete. Pleasing the individual takes precedence over everything else. It doesn’t matter that the collective strength of the NBA made Wade rich. Wade and other NBA players must be concerned only with themselves. That’s the American way.

He, like others, has called upon David Stern and the owners to protect the league, the game, and the players from the players themselves.  And that is what we are seeing with the NBA lockout.  Yes, it is about money – yes, it is about free-agency, the mid-level exception, hard versus soft caps, splits in revenue, and countless other issues but in the end this struggle is one that is about power and control.  It is a struggle to reverse if not end free agency, to guarantee profit and competitiveness (and lower salaries) through limiting player movement.  It is about reversing the victories  of past collective bargaining agreements and even Curt Flood.

It represents a struggle from the owners to make sure the future LeBron James’ doesn’t have the ability to take his talents to South Beach; it is a fight to make sure the next wave of stars doesn’t follow in the footsteps of Carmelo and Deron Williams who purportedly used the mere prospect of free agency to lead to force a trade.  It is a fight about restricting the power of the NBA’s 40 million dollar slaves from exercising what little power they possess.  

While the issues at work certainly relate to notions of parity, small market versus big market, and countless other issues, the scorn and rhetoric sounding the alarms plays upon fears resulted from the increased perceived power of black athletes.  The fears, the accusations, and the speculation as to the demise of the league, all which play on the purported selfishness, lack of intelligence, egos, and overall attitude of today’s (black) players builds upon longstanding stereotypes regarding black masculinity.  It is the living embodiment of the infamous words said between two cops regarding Malcolm X: “that’s too much power for one man to have.”  The NBA players, its primarily black players, have exhibited too much power, leading to widespread panics and condemnation; it has led to action in the form of the NBA lockout. 

We can understand the NBA lockout by looking at the work of Herman Gray, who argued that blackness exists as a “marker of internal threats to social stability, cultural morality, and economic prosperity.” It is similarity evident in the writings of Homi Bhabbi who persuasively described blackness in the white imagination as “both savage (cannibal) and yet the most obedient and signified of servants (the bearer of food); he is the embodiment of rampant sexuality and yet innocent as a child; he is mystical, primitive, simple-minded and yet the most worldly and accomplished liar, and manipulator of social forces.”   The NBA lockout is justified by the ideas that blackness is “simple-mindedness” that blackness is childishness, and that blackness is a space of manipulation, all of which threatens the long-term success and profitability of the NBA product.  The lockout is an effort to get that under control, to prevent anymore runaway slavesfrom putting themselves ahead of the plantation, I mean the game.   

***

David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. He is the author of Screens Fade to Black: Contemporary African American Cinema and the forthcoming After Artest: Race and the War on Hoop (SUNY Press). Leonard is a regular contributor to NewBlackMan and blogs @ No Tsuris.

Selasa, 13 September 2011

“Shut Up and Play:” Racism, Sexism and “Unattractive” Realities of American Culture


“Shut Up and Play:” Racism, Sexism and “Unattractive” Realities of American Culture
by David J. Leonard | NewBlackMan

My anger and frustration following yesterday’s tennis match has nothing to do with the match itself.  While pulling for Serena Williams and disappointed by her defeat, the surprising loss did little to damper my spirits.  What has inspired my ire has been the media’s yet again troubling treatment of Serena Williams.

Following the match and in response to her confrontation with the match umpire (see here for details and video), commentators have taken her to task, deploying racialized and gendered criticism.  Described as “petulant,” going “bonkers,” as “a stereotypical Ugly American”and as someone whose “ego” led to a “tirade” the media tone has rendered what appeared to be a tame and minor confrontation into a spectacle that rehashes longstanding stereotypes about black women as childish, emotional, lacking self-control, and otherwise angry.  In other instances, Williams has been demonized for her “outburst” and “menacing behavior,” for “losing her cool” during an “Ugly US Open meltdown” and the “the menacing tone of her remarks.”  Mary Carillo referred to Serena’s behavior as that of an “ass clown.”

The references to her tone and demeanor as menacing, given the ways in which white supremacist discourse has pathologized and rendered African American as cultural, physical, and economic menaces are particularly revealing.  “Racial logic has advanced a link between the legibility of black bodies, and a racial being,” argues Delia Douglas in “To be Young, Gifted, Black and Female:  A Meditation on the Cultural Politics at Play in Representations of Venus and Serena Williams.”  Noting, “that black bodies have historically been designated as the site and source of pathology,” Douglas makes clear that “behaviour and habits are seen as symptomatic of these racial distinctions.”


The hyperbolic and racially and gendered rhetoric is encapsulated by a column from George Vecesey in The New York Times

As she stormed at the chair umpire during a changeover, Williams was reverting to her vicious outburst at a line official that caused her to be disqualified at match point in a semifinal in 2009, the last time Williams was here.” “But at what point does comportment, sportsmanship, become part of the measure of a great champion?” “The tantrum early in the second set caused many in the crowd to boo the decision, delaying the next point. Stosur kept her cool, and Williams never showed a trace of those couple of hard hits. She could have gone out with dignity on an evening when she did not have her best game. Instead, she called the chair umpire a hater, and later professed not to remember a word of it.

Irrespective of the exaggerating and demonizing rhetoric, Serena Williams’ confrontation of the umpire was tame; while angry with a suspect call and unwilling to capitulate to authority merely because of custom, she was clearly composed, calm, and collective; there was no “outburst;” she did not “lose her cool” nor was anything about her behavior “menacing.”   

Even the USTA has concluded that the “controversy” was much ado about nothing, fining Williams $2,000 dollars.  Explaining the fine, it announced:

US Open Tournament Referee Brian Earley has fined Serena Williams $2,000 following the code violation issued for verbal abuse during the women’s singles final. This fine is consistent with similar offenses at Grand Slam events. As with all fines at the US Open, the monies levied are provided to the Grand Slam Development Fund which develops tennis programs around the world.

After independently reviewing the incident which served as the basis for the code violation, and taking into account the level of fine imposed by the US Open referee, the Grand Slam Committee Director has determined that Ms. Williams’ conduct, while verbally abusive, does not rise to the level of a major offense under the Grand Slam Code of Conduct.

Noting the existence of “similar offenses” during the course of all Grand Slam events, the USTA acknowledges the banality of the behavior from Serena Williams. 

Williams has been positioned as yet another black athlete who may have the athletic talent, but lacks the mental toughness and commitment needed to excel on the biggest stages.  More significantly, the post-match commentaries reveal the powerful ways that race and gender operate within American culture.   Her blackness and femininity, especially in the context of the white world of tennis, overdetermines her positioning within a sporting context.  This moment illustrates the profound impact of both race and gender on Serena Williams, a fact often erased by both popular and academic discourses.  According to Delia Douglas, “The failure to consider the ways in which sport is both an engendering and racializing institution has lead to myriad distortions, as well as the marginalization and oversimplification of black women’s experiences in sport.”   As such, her stardom, her success, and the specifics of the incident does not insulate her from criticism and condemnation, but in fact contributes to the acceptability in fans and commentators alike symbolically shouting and yelling, “Shut up and play.”

To understand the reaction is to understand a larger history involving Serena Williams.  Two days before the finals match, William C. Rhoden, in a video commentary entitled “Embracing Serena,” argued that Serena hasn’t been accepted as “a great American story.” Citing a certain level of “ambivalence” and a refusal to celebrate the “resilience” and the “will” exhibited by the Williams sisters, Rhoden highlights the ways in which cultural citizenship has been denied to the Williams sisters; better said, he points to the racial double standards and the ways in which race and gender overdetermine the manner in which the Williams sisters are positioned and confined within the national landscape.  On cue, commenters (before and after the match) provided evidence of Rhoden’s argument, referring to Serena Williams as a “psychopath,” immature, as a “poor sport,” as an embarrassment,” as a “hater,” as “out-of-control,” “unattractive inside,” as “disgraceful” and a “poor loser,” illustrating not only a level vitriol but the “continuance of racism” and sexism “in the new millennium” (Spencer 2004).  The 2011 U.S. Open was like the 2009 U.S. Open, the 2001 Indian Wells tournament and countless other years where fans and commentators alike subjected Serena and Venus to the logics white racism and sexism all while denying the continued significance of both.   
  
The continued relevance of race and gender are evident in other ways. We can see it with the constant references to her body (Jason Whitlock once refereed to her as an “unsightly layer of thick, muscled blubber, a byproduct of her unwillingness to commit to a training regimen and diet that would have her at the top of her game year-round”) and the ubiquitous references to her physicality, strength and power.  “Black bodies have long been objects of scrutiny, the recipients of inordinate attention and discussion for over a century.  Black bodies were seen as the site and source of black pathology, as boundaries against which one could determine acceptable sexuality, femininity and morality (Giddings, 1984; Gilman, 1985),” writes Douglas.  “Historically, white supremacist racial logic has long relied on ‘the use of a dichotomous code that creates a chain of correspondences both between the physical and the cultural, and between intellectual and cognitive characteristics’” (Hall, 1997; p. 290). 

The rhetorical descriptors long used to describe the Williams sisters and the hyper focus on her “menacing” body following yesterday’s match illustrate the ways in which race and gender operate through the dissection and demonization of Serena’s body. We see it in the dissection, commentary, and surveillance of both their clothing and hair choices.  

We see how race and gender matters in the available narratives. We see it with the narrative choices that depict the Williams sisters as “ghetto Cinderellas’” as worthy of celebration because tennis (whiteness) saved them from the “cradle of crack dealers and grunge courts” leading them to compete for championships and millions of dollars. 

Race and gender matters.  It is evident in media coverage, fan reactions, and in so many different places all of which illustrates how “sport both reinforces and reproduces the ‘persistent’, ‘resurgent’, and ‘veiled’ forms of white power that permeate society (King, Leonard & Kusz, 2007, p. 4 in McCay and Johnson 2008), What happened at the U.S. Open and what has happened in the hours that followed were just another chapter of this larger history; a history of racism and sexism within the world of tennis. 

James McCray and Helen Johnson begin their article, “Pornographic Eroticism and Sexual Grotesquerie in Representations of African American Sportswomen” by drawing a historic parallel between the treatment of Althea Gibson and Serena Williams:

Go Back To The Cotten [sic] Plantation Nigger. (Banner in the stands when Althea Gibson walked on court to defend her US Open title in 1958)

That’s the way to do it! Hit the net like any Negro would! (Racist male heckling Serena Williams before she served at the 2007 Sony Ericsson Championships in Miami)

While illustrating the continuity of white supremacy and the fallacy of those post-racial celebrations, the shared experienced between Gibson and Williams encapsulates the dehumanizing and violent conditions that both endured and challenged during their careers.   While acknowledging differences, it points to the powerful force of racism and sexism within America life. 

Yet, it also points to the ways in which Althea Gibson and Serena Williams (as well as Venus Williams) disrupt the hegemonic whiteness of the tennis world.  To understand Serena’s (as well as Althea’s) place within the history of tennis, including this week’s events, is to understand her willingness to challenge authority and the culture of a normalized whiteness within (and beyond) tennis.   In “Refereeing Serena: Racism, Anger, and U.S. (Women’s) Tennis,” on the Crunk Feminist Collective blog, its author powerfully notes how Serena refuses to accept the confined and controlled by the overdetermining logics of racism and sexism:

Yes, I’m aware of all the ways in which her acts in this moment reinforce stereotypes of the Angry Black Woman. However, we cannot use our investment in a respectability politic which demands that Black women never show anger or emotion in the face of injustice to demand Serena’s silence. Resistance is often impolite, and frequently it demands that we skirt the rules. . . .. Serena continues to disrupt tennis spaces with her dark-skinned, powerful body, her flamboyant sartorial choices, her refusal to conform to the professional tennis obstacle course, and her willingness to get angry and show it.  That disruption is necessary—because however “right” or “wrong” it may technically be—it demonstrates that all is not well racially in tennis. Black folks—men and women—are still largely understood within a narrative of brute, undisciplined physical strength—rather than as athletes who bring both physical and intellectual skills to their game.  As long as these issues remain, tennis will continue to be “unattractive” from the inside out.  

Agreed.  While others have used this moment to “hate,” demonize, and pass judgment on Serena Williams, for me, it is reminder of the history of resistance and fortitude; yet, it is also a reminder of how my love of sports is so often polluted by the racism, sexism and “unattractive” realities of American culture. 

***

David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. He has written on sport, video games, film, and social movements, appearing in both popular and academic mediums. His work explores the political economy of popular culture, examining the interplay between racism, state violence, and popular representations through contextual, textual, and subtextual analysis. He is the author of Screens Fade to Black: Contemporary African American Cinema and the forthcoming After Artest: Race and the War on Hoop (SUNY Press). Leonard is a regular contributor to NewBlackMan and blogs @ No Tsuris.