“F***ing lazy thick n***er”. To what extent is there a distinction between ethnic minorities and the majority of other athletes in sport media today?
In this post-colonialist society, ethnic minorities have had a significant role in sports today than they had done before. The dawn of this approach was from the 70s and 80s, where infamous sports icons, such as O.J. Simpson and Walton Payne, had begun to break barriers between ethnic minorities and the majority. Now, there are a lot of ethnic athletes (from Didier Drogba to Tiger Woods).
Yet, there is still dissimilarity between how they are depicted in the media, in comparison to the majority of athletes not from an ethnic background. Ferguson (1998), argues that “during World Cup games, we tend to become nationalist”.[1] It is this ideology of colonialism that still exists in our post-colonialist society. This essay will critically analyse evidence to judge to what extent does the media differentiate a difference between ethnic minorities and the majority of other athletes.
The media has a big stimulus on sports. They play a big role on occasions of significant sporting events. Althusser argues that “sport played a big role in the cultural apparatus through chauvinism. The cultural apparatus is an ideological state apparatus where Althusser argues the bourgeoisie use it to control the working class. The media, owned by the bourgeoisie, use chauvinism in big sporting events”[2] for example the World Cup.
Another example of this is in North America, where the governments have been condemned for their confined approach and colonialist stance. Sport teams in America use Native Americans as mascots for their teams. It could be argued that this would then prevent a progressive approach to the representation of Native Americans, keeping them at the rear so as to justify inhabiting their land. This was shown through the New York Post, where a game between New York and Cleveland baseball acquired the controversial headline of "Take the Tribe and Scalp 'Em”.[3] This connotes that the media still have racist and colonialist attitudes towards the minority race, whether it is premeditated or subliminal.
This links in with the theories of colonialism and post-colonialism. It is apparent that ethnic minority athletes do have bigger roles in sports, and that in the media they are attaining a better and more constructive representation in this Western globalised society. This links in with the post-colonialism due to the fact that the media has provided a more constructive representation of ethnic minority athletes.
Nevertheless, the theory of colonialism does still exist. The media does on occasion portray colonialist depictions of ethnic minority athletes. Williams (1990) argues that “throughout the media, in reference to sports, women and people from ethnic groups where referred to, by commentators, by their first names. This was opposed to white men who were referred to by either their last name or their full name”[4] Although not a direct attack of racism, it does connote the colonialist views of the media taking the ethnic minorities less seriously, which is a residue of the effect of colonialist societies.
This universal racial representation of the media can be connoted back to the media’s response to the 1968 Olympic Games, when Tommie Smith and John Carlos celebrated their win by doing the ‘black power salute’.[5] The media, instantaneously, responded pessimistically, indicating subtle racial hatred towards the two athletes, notwithstanding the Civil Rights Act 1968 that was enforced just months before.
The Los Angeles Times called it a “Nazi-like support”.[6] In conjunction to this approach was the reaction of the Time Magazine’s reaction in conjunction, denigrating the ‘unacceptable’ and ‘petty’ behaviour of both athletes. They referred to the situation by publishing a picture of the Olympics logo with the slogan “Angrier, nastier, uglier", scorning the Olympic slogan.[7] These downbeat connotations had a negative effect of ethnic minorities, not only in America, but on an international level.
This colonialist mind-set during the time was evident in Australia, where Peter Norman, runner up to Tommie Smith, was casted out of the Australian media for backing the salutation.[8] These implications, while signifying Zeitgeist of that particular time, also represented that while the Civil Rights Act 1968 attempted to eradicate racism and discrimination in America, there is still a somewhat thick glass barrier that ethnic minorities cannot break through, especially with the discouraging influence of the media.
This treatment from the media, while not as severe, changed forms during the 1996 European Championships. Robert Ferguson (1998) argued that the Daily Mirror’s coverage of England vs. Germany during the 1996 European Championships was example that the media was a nationalist entity. [9] While it was not coherently directed towards the race of athletes, it was still negatively portraying German ethnic minorities in England, due to the negative connotations of the Germany national team.
The Daily Mirror enthusiastically used three-quarters of their front page newspaper to display a photo-montage of the shouting or smiling heads of two English football players, Stuart Pearce and Paul Gascoigne, whilst clad in steel helmets worn by British troops in the Second World War. The two main words of the headline read simply: ACHTUNG! SURRDENER.[10] This clearly indicates that there is, yet, a disparity between ethnic minorities and the majority of athletes in regards to race and nationality.
This comes into play only when they pose a threat to England fans, whether it is through a World Cup or Olympics. The media does create a big distinction, a glass ceiling that they cannot breakthrough in our globalised world even when it was 28 years after the media’s response to the 1968 Olympics black power salute. Ferguson argues that “Klinsmann is referred to as the ‘former Spurs star’, for though he had become one of the ‘enemy’ Klinsmann was favourite with many of the English football fans”.[11] This negative representation of Klinsmann shows that there was a distinction between ethnic minorities in football and majority of other footballers during the 90s. It is apparent that this so-called post-colonialist approach has failed to mould itself in modern day society and is simply a façade to keep up appearances.
It’s not just Britain and America where the media represents nationalism and attacks other countries in big sporting events. Moragas Spa et al argue that “local circumstances can greatly colour the experience of a global event like the Olympic games”,[12] which was evident in the 1998 World Cup when French newspapers “offered their readers a variety of explanations as to why French fans were not ardent enough as spectators, including that France and the French were not underdeveloped enough”.[13]
However, in spite of these nationalist connotations occurring in the 90s, in 2004 there has been evidence of racial and colonialist views from the media when Ron Atkinson referred Chelsea player Marcel Desailly as a “fucking, lazy, thick nigger”.[14] Despite the fact that he assumed he was off-air, it clearly demonstrates the indirect, harsh reality of the media’s opinion of ethnic minorities through their, at the time, pundit for ITV.
However, this can be counter argued as “he resigned from his job at ITV. He had to give up his column in the Guardian. And he lost a fortune - as much as £1 million - when other commercial projects were ditched by the companies he was associated with."[15] It does show that post-colonialist and globalised world media are taking solemn action against racism and trying to prevent it, at the same time the old colonialist ideologies still remain despite this. But is this because it is what the media wishes to genuinely portray, or is it simply a way to disguise such hiccups so as to not lose profit?
This debate about if the media represents post colonialist or colonialist views towards athletes can be applied to the 2006 American football movie “Gridiron Gang”. The movie follows a gang of prison inmates where they are selected to play American football against to become good citizens. The connotations of the movie are a mix of post-colonialism and colonialism, in the fact that the majority of the main stars in the movie are ethnic minorities, but the social connotations from the movie are that the prisoners who turn athletes are given a “second chance” through sports.
The historical connotations of this type of narrative in sport movies have been going on for quite a while. However at the end of the movie, the prisoners change their life around and become better people for society thanks to sports. This does give a negative representation of ethnic minorities, in the fact that some ethnic minorities can be seen as have had a second chance and also colonialist representations that the media carry.
The 1986 movie ‘Wildcats’ has a similar narrative, only this time instead of prisoners, it is focused on badly behave pupils. They are also given a “second chance” through sports which does affect how people see ethnic minorities from an outside standpoint. Marxists would argue that the political reason for this is so that the upper-class can maintain their colonialist representation on the ethnic minorities and also keep them oppressed through alienation. These dominant colonialist representations that have been present in sport movies, from ‘The Longest Yard’ to ‘Gridiron Gang’, connote that there are underlying differences in the film industry between ethnic minorities and the rest of the athletes who are born in western countries.
There are many possible reasons for this same representation still being used twenty years later in the same sport movie genre in our more globalised world. Both of the writers who wrote the movie are of white descent, and would not have a truthful account of how and what it is for an ethnic minority athletes. This underrepresentation was also because of the institution, Columbia Pictures, not having enough ethnic minority workers to help build an accurate picture. This will cause people to scrutinise ethnic minorities as “having a second chance” in terms of being able to participate in sports, and therefore is imperative.
Another theory that can be applied to this debate of whether there is a distinction between ethnic minorities and the majority of other athletes in sport media today is the theory of Marxism. Althusser (1971) argues that “the role of sport in chauvinism is of the first importance as part of the cultural apparatus.”[16] The cultural apparatus is a part of the ideological apparatus, the tool the upper-class use to control the working classes.
Althusser argues that, through the cultural apparatus, the upper classes use nationalism to give morale to the working classes to try and blind them of their oppression. This plays into sports because nationalism for countries, chauvinism, is used for this purpose. That is why whenever there is a world cup the government backs England to do well, and even the Prime Minister gets involved.[17] This could mean that some of the British public would alienate the ethnic minority athletes, which was evident in the Daily Mirror article in 1996.
This colonialist and post-colonialist debate to what extent there is a distinction between ethnic minorities and the majority of other athletes extends to 2009, the Tiger Woods sex scandal. In 2009 he was involved in a sex scandal which caught the media by storm and lead to him taking an indefinite hiatus from Professional Golf[18] This story gained a lot of publicity around the world, and painted Woods in a negative light, giving him a negative representation.
However, another sex scandal involving Wayne Rooney got very little media attention. This case was much worst as it involved prostitution and he was a teenager at the time.[19] These contrasts between the two ethnicities of the athletes and the media response to both of them connotes the media does distinguishes ethnic minorities and athletes of white decent.
In conclusion, since the 1960s the media has been distinguishing between ethnic minorities and the majority of other athletes. The colonialist ideologies that the media had during that Zeitgeist have not been completely eradicated in our ‘proud’ post-colonialist society. As Ferguson argues, this is evident through the media’s coverage of the 1996 European Championship and also the same, to some-what colonialist, narrative of Gridiron Gang and the genre of Sport movies have shown this. Ethnic minority athletes are, without a doubt, trapped behind a glass barrier, which begs the questions as to when the media will be able to portray a similar representation of them and the majority of other athletes.
[4] MacKinnan, K (2003). Representing Men. London: Arnold. p. 176.
[5] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,900397,00.html
[7] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,900397,00.html
[9] Ferguson, R (1998). Representing "Race". London: Arnold. p. 135.
[11] Ferguson, R (1998). Representing "Race". London: Arnold. p. 137.
[12] http://www.sillitoe-uk.net/media/html/Alina.pdf
[13] ibid
[14] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/apr/22/football.raceintheuk
[16] Ferguson, R (1998). Representing "Race". London: Arnold. p. 134.
[17] http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/may/18/gordon-brown-2018-world-cup-england
[18] http://www.cnbc.com/id/34386050
[19] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3588112.stm
No comments:
Post a Comment