Sport Final

1.)Questions in the use of native American imagery in sports

According to Coakley, "using Native American stereotypes in sports is so common that most people don't realize they do it." In taking over Native American culture and using their traditions and values for mascots and logos, sports teams and fans disrespect Natives and engage in a modern form of "cultural identity theft." There has been an ongoing conversation about removing the use of Native American imagery entirely from the realm of sport; for example, in 2005, the NCAA banned the display of anything Native american related at NCAA playoffs and championships. However, there were 'exceptions' made to this rule, especially for Florida State University, who continued to use the Seminole name, claiming they had permission from the Seminole tribe. The use of Native American logos and iconography heightens tensions between Native Americans and white European American culture. No matter how much sports teams claim to 'honor' Native Americans through use of their logos and mascots, it seems more like the use is related to capitalist ideology and a desire to profit off of products bearing Native american imagery in order to benefit and appease white boosters. This seems counter-intuitive to respecting Native culture, especially because, as Coakley notes, many white sports fans often engage in "stereotypical habits and dress" like feathers, moccasins, red-face, etc when supporting their teams and don't even bother to acknowledge the 566 diverse types of federally recognized Indian tribes here in the US. Moreover, sports fans have been outright disrespectful and ignorant when dealing with protests to the use of Native American imagery-for example, a video showed Wahoo fans using highly racialized and stereotypical slurs at protestors who came out to a game, and, in another example, high school students playing agains a team called the Indians brought out a sign reading "Hey Indians, get ready for a Trail of Tears." In no small part due to these negative representations of Native Americans that are perpetuated in sports discourse, many Native American sports players feel cut off from the cultural roots that are at the heart of their native identities. Native Americans, according to Coakley often feel they have to "swallow their national pride" and "repress anger against insensitivity" in order to participate in sports, and often have to make dramatic cultural compromises to follow their passions. For example, Native American high school students are often avoided recruitment by coaches when they have not agreed to white coaches attempting to strip them of their cultural traditions and replace them with Euro-American orientations that favor competition. Native Americans often have to make a choice between sports participation and their cultural beliefs, and are forced to 'go along with ' the dominant culture even if they disagree with it. This shows that even though sports are regularly described as sites for creating social integration, its clear that this does not occur automatically, and sports often become sites for expression of racial, ethnic and religious conflict and prejudices. There is a need to think of ways to combat this; for example, Coakley suggests creating programs designed to defuse racial and ethnic conflict, and the idea of sponsoring diversity courses for team owners and athletes so to not disrespect teammates or their cultures.

1.) A question on race and sports and performance and the idea of black domination in sports

According to J. Hoberman, "sport is a factory that produces images and representations of racialized difference." Rather than reducing race, sport does the opposite and reproduces racial stereotypes that already exists and makes them seem greater. It should be noted that 'race' is a socially constructed concept that views people as sharing genetically transmitted traits, and uses physical markers to demarcate groups and signify difference. Constructions of different races rely on genetic determinism, or the idea that genes determine our social behavior. Sport has reflected and reproduced these societal views on different races from the beginning-for example, in the early 1900s, Jack Johnson, a black heavyweight champion, fought retired white champion Jim Jefferies and came out on top, which resulted in race riots due to a threat to the idea that white people were superior in every way. Johnson's victory began to produce a shift in racial discourse in which it became widely believed that whites were intellectually superior, and blacks were physically superior. These ideas of biological difference became reinforced in the different narratives surrounding black and white athletes--black athletes are often discussed based on their physicality (fast, powerful, aggressive, violent), while whites are discussed based on their intelligence. Author J. Coakey notes that "When athletes are white, racial ideology focuses on social and cultural factors rather than biological/genetic factors ... and the success of white athletes in benchmark for assessment of others achievements, while the success of black athletes seen as invasion, takeover or problem." This shows that sports operate as a site that reinforces a dominant societal notion that black people are of the body and white people are of the mind. This may come as a result of white male anxiety about the success of black athletes, and a need to justify black success by blaming genetics (For example, a 1999 Sports Illustrated issue featuring all white men entitled, "Whatever happened to the white athlete with a big black question mark shows white male anxiety over loss of power). Using the term "dominate" to describe the black male presence in sport also implies aggression, reinforces notions of blacks associated with violence. This is an idea that is still widely perpetuated in sports media today-for example, the Lebron/Gisele magazine cover is a close replication of a King Kong image, associating black athletes with a giant, violent ape. These notions do not acknowledge the truth, which is that African Americans are actually underrepresented from most sports at most levels; however, due to a large number of blacks i highly mediated sports like boxing, football, etc, according to Coakley, "people don't realize African Americans are absent in all but five of the dozens of professional sports in America." This is evident in the structure of sport as well- only 13.8% of football coaches in 2018 were black on D1 teams, and black coaches across the board continue to be hired "for token purposes" and in order to get more black athletes on the team. Overall, race in general is a socially constructed phenomenon, but racial ideologies that pervade societal discourse are continually reproduced throughout sport and have lasting effects on who gets to play, who is hired, and who succeeds.

1.) Question of gender equity in sports

Gender equity issues in sport have existed for as long as sport has been a part of society, because the patriarchal view of women as a "weaker sex" has been challenged by their engagement with sports. For example, in the 19th century there was a moral panic/danger of women riding bicycles, which stemmed largely from the fact that this made them more vulnerable to chance encounters with men. Because of this, medical scientists tried to say that women were 'naturally' unsuited to cycling/sport in general, and were too fragile to play sport, and that putting energy in sport took away energy from their reproductive forces. As R. Holt notes that "personal transport meant private mobility and the prospect of freedom from surveillance, and [the ability] to be in charge of one's own destiny" which was threatening to their view as submissive sex objects. These ideas can still be seen today, in both overt and subtle forms of gender ideology of women in sport. An overt example would be when people claim Serena Williams cannot perform to the highest potential in tennis while pregnant. A more subtle example would be the fact that women's sports are not given high coverage, and when they are, the coverage reinforces the notions of femininity. Moreover, instead of being viewed as active performers, they are viewed as passive in the media; for example, women swimmers are often posed provocatively and in bikinis with seductive gazes on magazine covers instead of in their one piece uniforms. This has effects on the power structure of sport as a whole, not just who gets to play. There is an under-representation of women in decision-making positions of sport. In fact, after Title 9, there has been a decline in women's head coaches, with only 34.6% of teams having women coaches in 2016 and only 4/15 members in the IOC board being women. Women who are in the domain of sports are also often looked down upon: -Ex: Mike Newell: furious at the addition of a woman assistant referee in English football, says bring women into sport causes 'big problems'. -Ex: NFL Quarterback Cam Newtown: "It's funny to hear a woman talking about sports". There are also factors like budget cuts and privatization to worry about (programs for girls are much more vulnerable to budget cuts) and backlash among those who, as Coakley says, "benefit from the status quo" and resist the presence of women in sport (ie Murfield golf Club only allowed women to join in 2017, and by doing so, risked not being able to host the British open. According to Messner, gender equity in sport is "the way the gender regime responds to these challenges (of equity in sport) will have a ripple effect on the larger gendered order." What he means is that with work towards dismantling the belief that women in sport will threaten male social power and prestige, the effects may be seen in many other parts of the gender order of society. We should welcome attempts to challenge sexist/destructive/violent aspects of male sport culture, especially on campuses in college sport, but also address the issues in a wider culture that celebrates male violence and aggression and women's submissiveness/fragility.

1.) Question on the concept of "self-objectification", and how it relates to gender differences in sports performance.

In his book, Sports in Society Issue and Controversies, Coakley notes that "gender ideology influences how people think about and identify themselves and others, and how we organize and and develop social rewards". One concept that has arisen out of the influence of gender ideologies is self-objectification is a third-person perspective in which you see/evaluate yourself through the eyes of other people (ie "How do I look?") Objectification theory says that a combination of media exposure and social interaction (women undergo constant surveillance of their bodies from men in addition to their own surveillance of themselves) causes women in the west to internalize an objectifying observes perspective on their own bodies and physical appearance, rather than a 1st person perspective (how do I feel? what am i capable of?) This increases women's sense of anxiety and can lead to issues around eating disorders, bodily appearance concerns, etc. When women engage in this kind of objectification, their status becomes attached to how other people see them from the outside, instead of how they feel on the inside. This may be linked to motor performance-in some way, we are socialized in gendered ways that has a material consequences (ability to have confidence in bodily movement/train body to move in certain ways as relevant to sport helps account for some differences in motor performance we see b/w boys and girls).. ie boys throw "harder/in more "advanced ways" may not be biological, there may be a social component to those differences. We can't say how much of the difference in performances in down to biology, but we can see the same idea at play when looking at the difference between someone throwing with their right arm versus left arm-if you are a righty your right arm has been socialized as "stronger'/trained for performance than your left arm. Using the term "Throwing like a girl" as a negative phrase in society reflects internalization of objectification of cultural attitudes towards the female body, and helps perpetuate to women in sport that some difference exists where they are not as athletically capable as men. We can also look at the ways women have been viewed in sporting media/adverts compared to men in order to see examples of objectivity. There is continued emphasis on their 'cosmetic fitness' ie being firm but shapely, sporty while also sexy (ie Roger Fedderer and Anna Kourkanova differing covers for Sports Illustrated). This shows that despite realms where it appears women are engaging in equal opportunity to men, there are still subtle or unconscious methods female objectivity that prevent them from the same opportunities and experiences as their male athletic counterparts. The view of women as less capable sports performers not only has physical consequences but also effects how sport is structured, who gets to play, and who is hired to coach, too. For example, Scranton and Flintoff write in Gender, Feminist Theory ,and Sport says that women have "traditionally been expected to play supporting roles" in sports where they stand on the sidelines and look pretty, cheering on their male counterparts or bringing beverages and snacks. This is reflected in the under-representation of women in decision making position of sports-for example, in the IOC board, only 4/15 are women, and in the reaction when women offer sporting commentary (ie Cam Newtown: It's funny to hear a woman talk about sports like that." We should shift the dominant narrative from treating 'like a girl' like it's a bad thing or any less than what a man can do....as Messner notes, when we grant girls and women equal opportunities to play sports alongside boys and men, a different truth is revealed: males and females are not categorically different. We all exist on a "continuum of difference, where some women are taller, stronger, faster, and better athletes than some men, and vice versa." However, this cannot be realized until a shift in the gender ideology where others view women (and often women view themselves) as weaker and less athletically capable.

Question on Friday Night Lights and how it portrays the role of sports in relation to social mobility

Setting the scene: demonstrated limited # of people in small community--limited access to resources? Pressure to get out of the country, hicktown, football field surrounded by nothing--football is their life. White guys had cars to drive to practice, black guys ran to practice=socioeconomic divide Girls and women: mother has high expectations for sons, traditional homemaker--women not athletic, they only assist the boys and men to maintain themselves. That's where they gain their "respect"-in the kitchen. White male coach=father figure to players outside of FB team..broken households. Masculinity portrayed=arrogance+god-like+top shape=most desirable? Male athletes come together as one--heals outside tensions (racial, political, family issues). Token/black savior of community?=Boobie. Racial tensions/issues that emerge=HS parties are separate (black & white). Purposely hurting Boobie=white athlete opponents. Certain sides played=each of them think their own view is right when discussing where to have state teams play for state championships (racial tensions among older men, no women) Sport having a positive/negative impact?=parties and fun--problems for athletes--bad things always happen. Lots of intensity--abuse? Pressure by parents who have already achieved a lot. Pressure believing football is all they have and they remind their kids of that--American dreams. Black people 'only' play football..Boobie is illiterate but has tons of scholarship offers to top schools.

1.) Question on what we mean when we talk about social change in sport and social change through sport

Social change "in" sport refers to movement regarding the way the internal structure of sport is structured and institutionalized, and the ways in which the site negotiates who participates, what the conditions of their participation will be, who reaps the benefits, etc. An example of social change in sport would be changes in the notions of women's entrance into the sporting arena and the resulting shifted lens of the gendered ideology that sport should be a male-dominated arena. Women's entry into more sports, such as tennis and golf, and the introduction of Title 9 to provide more gender equity in sport, changes common sense thinking about women's biology and potential, and helps debunk the ideology of masculine power in the domain of sport specifically. Also, the creation of such places as the Center for the Study of Sport in Society, as Eitzen notes, serves to 'make sport more inclusive ... and promote such issues as male violence and human rights', and shows the way the very institution of sport is being challenged in ways that is promoting women's equity specifically in the sporting realm. Another illustration of change 'in' sport may be the promotion of diversity in both players and coaches. For example, Jackie Robinson challenged the ideology of white supremacy that justified maintenance of Jim Crow laws, and allowed for the beginnings of desegregation in 1946. In addition, the NFL adopted "The Rooney Rule" in the early 2000s which said that teams were required to interview minority candidates for head coach positions, displaying a restructuring in the hiring processes of the game in a way that favored better outcomes for diverse players. Social change "through sport" refers to sport moving beyond the boundary of the realm of sport itself and beginning to act as a catalyst/modality for change within the wider social structure. For example, the prevalence of out gay athletes helped to changed sensibilities around people's attitudes about homosexuality in general in society, which may have helped lead to gay marriage become legal. One example of this was gay snowboarder Gus Kenworthy kissing his boyfriend after performing in the 2018 Winter Olympic games, which caused a stir in the media given that it deviated from the traditional hyper-masculine status-quo of Olympic male athletes that the public is used to seeing. As John Amechi said, "people have a psychological investment to sport", and athletes like Gus can contribute as agents of social change based on their ability to connect with the masses on issues such as gay rights; in fact, the visibility of athletes like John Amechi and his influence as being one of the first openly gay athletes likely had a strong effect on people's likeliness to vote 'yes' to the legalization of gay marriage. Another example of social change through sport would be when, as Messner describes, the Workers Rights Consortium used the link between university athletic programs and large shoe companies as a way to expose US corporations exploitation of works in poor nations. Since sport is often a place where multinational corporations both exploit athletes for capital gain and exploit workers to produce market commodities like shoes and uniforms, it provides a lens into the alienation of the working class under capitalism and highlights the changes that need to be made to the material conditions of production in society as a whole. Lastly, the overwhelming influx of athlete political activism and development of critical class consciousness of athletes like Colin Kaperneck and Michael Jordan has led to what Carrington describes as using sports as "bodily expression of black politics of liberation on the part of athlete", and has played a large role in bringing issues like police brutality and mass incarceration to the forefront of public discourse. Athletes have transcended the realm of sport in order to challenge, and help dismantle the winder social orders of society that they see a problem with instead of just focusing on the sport itself and, as Laura Ingraham put it, '[shutting] up and [dribbling]." Overall, social change 'through' sport means specifically using the platform of sport to create change within wider society. Sport often acts as a reflection of society, which is why social change "in sport" is usually an indication of something the larger social order should change, and why social change 'through sport' is a successful way of challenging wider political and social insitituions in society.

1.) Athlete activism, how it has changed over the years in relation to sports in politics (Carrington)

The idea of the conscious athlete and the idea of the athlete activist was realized with Muhammend Ali, who spoke out against Amerian imperialism abroad and white racism in the states. According to Carrington, Ali "debunked the notion that sport and politics were and ever could be separate spheres", and unveiled the fact that sport is a site where the dominant ideologies of political and social life can be both reproduced and challenged. Earlier generations of athletes of black athletes also used athletics as a for of black freedom and push back on the formal constraints of racism. For example, Jack Johnson, a black heavyweight champion, produced a shift in racial discourse when he dominated Jim Jefferies in a heavyweight match, insinuating the idea into society that whites were only intellectually/aesthetically superior and that blacks were physically superior. Unfortunately, as decades passed after this, black sporting politics was displaced as a result of the capitalist structure which dictated a narrative that, as Laura Ingram put it, black athletes should "shut up and dribble"--ie, accept their place as commodity spectacles in the realm of sport and acknowledge their fundamental lack of power in the arena, and accept their passive place in the capitalist mode of production. Carrington argues that, despite this notion of black athletes being "good corporate athletes" above all, there has been a recent resurgence/reawakening of consciousness of athletes perhaps due in part to "deepening forms or racial injustice and equality across society; for example, levels of incarceration of African American men and women have rendered the current moment 'the new Jim Crow era'. Michael Jordan is a key figure in this resurgence, since he, formerly known as an "apolitical athlete" who cared more about maintaining his image than activism, spoke up and said he could 'no longer stay silent' the black lives matter movement. Other examples of athletes becoming activists include in 2012, when Miami Heat and Lebron James, after shooting of Trayvon Martin took an Instagram photo of themselves wearing hoodies symbolizing Trayvon, in a sign of solidarity against police brutality, and even more recently, Colin Kapernick, who took a knee during the national anthem at an NFL event in solidarity for racial inequality and police brutality. These are examples of athletes developing a critical class consciousness and showing a broader shift towards more active politics of anti-racism and athletes no longer seeing themselves through the eyes of the dominant, predominately white class that controls the capitalist structure of sport. Athlete activism demonstrates the ways that social change is possible through sport and also shows the way that sport is inherently political and has the ability to challenge, perpetuate, or dismantle wider social orders and structures within society.

1.) Question on the Los Angeles 2028 summer Olympic games and the benefits, or not, of hosting the Olympics for cities.

There is already an Olympic moral / legacy around City of Los Angeles, having already hosted the games twice in the past. After the success of the 84' Olympics, the LA84 foundation was created to help promote and maintain youth sports in Southern California, which still exists today and helps promote youth participation and sports funding in public schools here. In addition, the legacy left by Olympic infrastructures (recreation facilities for neighborhood youth to continue usage) improved and helped maintain the presence of sport and similar recreational activities in poorly funded neighborhoods. These examples highlight the economic/urban development opportunities for economically deprived neighborhoods in LA that hosting the Olympics could bring. These opportunities also include new jobs that would arise by the hosting of the games, including but not limited to jobs involving transportation, since one of the legacies of the '84 Olympics was improvements in LA transportation. On the other hand, as Boykoff notes, "The Olympics have evolved from a relatively modest festival of amateur athleticism into a shimmering, capitalist dynamo", and any city that hosts them is opening themselves to a spectacle of debate and protest surrounding social and political orders. Boykoff writes that the Los Angeles games are very focused on the economic benefits that the game will have on the city, since the $225M surplus from the 1984 games has "bottle-fed the legend that the games can be a fiscal success". However, according to study by the Council on Foreign relations, this has not been the case in recent years, as the price of hosting the Olympics has skyrocketed with added costs like increased security after 9/11; for example, the price of London's Summer Games in 2012 generated $5.2 billion compared with $18 billion in costs. People in favor of the games also do not acknowledge that the jobs that are being produced are only short-term and for the time period of the Olympics, and that, in addition to unemployment rates likely to returning to what they were before the Olympics after they are over, the remaining debt of hosting the games will be taken on by the City of LA (taxpayers = us), which could put the city in an even worse financial situation than they are in now before the games. In addition, discussing the games only from a fiscal standpoint does not take into account the social and political effects the hosting the game will have on an already tense discussion on these matters in south central LA. Hosting the Olympics would contribute to the gentrification or, uprooting local neighborhoods through urban development, that is already happening here, and would drive up the cost of living in low income South LA neighborhoods. Moreover, the LA epidemic of homelessness will continue to be swept under the rug to "beautify" the city, which seems wrong and morally incorrect for an event meant to promote community and an event that has surpluses of capitalist revenue at its disposal. In addition, the games have been known to lead to huge rises in police militarization which was already a problem in the 1984 LA Olympics when they led to an expansion of the infamous police gang sweeps that kept many areas of the city, like South Central, under conditions of military occupation, which in this day and age can't help but be conflated with police brutality and will likely have negative consequences. Finally, anti-Olympics protesters in the past, at the Sydney Summer Games in 2000, zeroed in on the environmental sustainability impact of the games, and this is likely to be similar problems that arise at the LA Olympics with issues with clean air and pollution already a major issue for the city, and with transportation / Traffic leading up to / during games, with high concentration of people creating more pollution and smog. It should also be noted that, in the past, a number of Olympic athletes have taken a stance on political issues, and have used the games as a platform for social change and also as a platform to reform the games themselves. For example, 1968 Summer Games, Carlos and Smith were protesting widespread political problems like poverty and racism that plagued the United States and the world. Their shoeless feet and black socks represented poverty. It is highly likely that the resurgence of similar displays will occur at the LA Olympics, especially with the recent rise in athlete activism and development of critical class consciousness of athletes across the board, but especially in the US. Overall, the Olympics are a part of a a political opportunity structure that athletes, activists, and members of society can use to challenge dominant power relations. Any city that hosts the Olympics, like Los Angeles, should be optimistic about hosting the games and about the opportunity to display their city as the incubator of, as Brownell describes a display of a "world order divided into citizens happily loyal to their individual nations". However, LA residents should also be aware and conscious of the inherently political nature of sports and the Olympic games and the fact that it will likely be a site where, despite seemingly promoting national and global unity, political and social dissent that is present elsewhere in society, on both national and global levels, will be reinforced and displayed.