The Right Means for Social Mobility?

Differences can be noted when discussing the desires and motives of black and white families in America. In my American Studies class last week, my teacher Mr. Bolos brought up provocative statistics from an NPR story by Frank Deford titled, "The Pitch for More No. 42s". He goes on to explain how while 56 percent of college football players and 64 percent of college basketball players who are from the "Big 6" power conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, ACC, Pac-12, and Big East) are black, only 2.8 percent of college student bodies are composed of male African-Americans. 2.8 Percent.

Deford also talks about how only 7 percent of coaches and athletic directors at Division I schools are black. This point ties into the research paper I am writing at school about racial disparity in the NBA, but also relates to the idea of social mobility for blacks in America.

Deford sees blacks coming from "poorer neighborhoods" relative to whites living in the suburbs playing college athletics as a means of social mobility. Not just Deford share this view, however. Joseph Graves, author of The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America, corroborates Deford's ideas of black athletes and social mobility in his book: "Sports had already become an acceptable avenue for the advancement of African-American individuals, in part due to the racist ideology that portrayed blacks as innately superior in some forms of athletic performance, such as running and jumping” (Graves Jr., 151). Graves idea of blacks "portrayed...as innately superior in some forms of athletic performance" is especially interesting to me. Could this racial stereotype be why whites feel out of place playing these black-dominated sports? Could it be why blacks strive for athletic success over academic success?

The research Deford presented in his story seems to think these questions have been answered in the numbers already, and I seem to agree.

Slave Owner - Slave Dynamics on Today's Basketball Court?

A recent development with Mike Rice, now former head coach of the Rutgers men’s basketball team, shows footage of Rice beating his players at practices. Here is a clip:

I was shocked when I heard news of a Division I basketball coach (a school moving to the Big Ten next year) beating his players, but knew immediately how relatable it is to my studies in school at this time. I am researching around the question: Why are there more black players and fewer black executives, or positions of importance, in the NBA?

My studies have been anchored behind the book "Forty Million Dollar Slaves" by Bill Rhoden, a black sports columnist for the New York Times (Click here to read further about Rhoden's book). The book talks about blacks struggles in sports throughout history and their failure to collectively cash in on positions of authority.

Rhoden talks about Muhammad Ali and his refusal to join the U.S. Army, risking everything: "When Ali was stripped of his title, it was as if he were being whipped by the overseer" (Rhoden 18). While Ali being stripped of his heavyweight does not relate directly to the players of the Rutgers basketball team, it has relevance. On a basketball court dominated by blacks, these players were being stripped of their dignity by Coach Rice with his actions. Mike Rice is representing the "overseer," physically throwing basketballs and abusing his players.

Rice's actions against his players were completely out of line, and the university did well by firing him. This reflects negatively on white coaches, but especially on the progression of integration in the sports world. If Mike Rice, a white coach, is beating his (predominantly black) players like this in 2013, how far have we really come regarding racial issues and sports in America? An interesting question to consider. Feel free to respond in the comment section below.

March Madness: Who's going to win it all? Oh wait, no one knows.

Mid-March marks one of the most exciting sporting events in the year: the Men's NCAA Basketball Tournament, consisting of a field of college basketball's 68 best teams. Actually, it might not be the sport's 68 best teams, as smaller conferences get one automatic bid which is awarded to the conference tournament champion. However, that just adds to the appeal of the event, with upsets galore.

With the games beginning this Thursday, it made me think just why March Madness is so compelling to America, as well as myself. After reading an article about the tournament by Eddie Pells of the Associated Press, it made me think about the tournament on a larger level of importance. Professor Michael Magazine of the University of Cincinnati sheds some light on why the tournament is so much fun: "'The life lesson is that we make a lot of decisions that are the right decisions, but the outcomes don't always come out the way we planned.'"

What I take from this is that America loves to "make a lot of decisions," and the unpredictability of those decisions adds suspense and entertainment to the games that follow. Magazine's ideas also made me think about how American's like to have the control of making their own decisions, even if the outcomes "don't always come out the way we planned."

The tournament is just a microcosm of the many choices we have to make every day, some decisions more important (who you pick as your champion), and some more obsolete (picking a #1 seed to beat a #16 seed, where a #16 seed has never won a game in tournament history). One can look at the many decisions in this existentialist way, but for the average fan it is just a time of the year to fill out brackets, making you personally invested in every game played. Because as my classmate Jeremy says in his blog post, Americans love to win. We even claim to have never lost a war, when this is probably a false statement. But it is fine that Americans have the drive to win, because no one complains about someone motivated to be the best, even if on the global scale.

America and Hockey

Living in Chicago, the city's hockey team the Blackhawks are the hot topic in town nowadays. They have gotten at least one point in 23 straight games to start their season. A win earns a team two points, and a loss after regulation ends (overtime/shootout) is one point. It is a truly amazing run by the Hawks, but in viewing ESPN the past couple of days, they have not gotten as much airtime as I would expect of another sport.

To clarify, a more American sport. Hockey begun in Iceland and other countries in Europe, along with Canada. When I think of American sports, football, baseball, and basketball come to mind. Not ironically, these are the three sports showed the most on sports news shows such as Sportscenter on ESPN (the world's largest sports network). It could be that because ESPN does not air the NHL that they show less hockey highlights, but if hockey was that popular in America why would they ignore those viewers. And of course viewers would bring in advertisers, which is how networks make their bank.

In my American Studies high school course, we have examined how humans love physical and gruesome entertainment, which hockey definitely possesses. So what is it? Why don't Americans feel the same passion for hockey as football or another major sport played in the States? I think the answer is simple.

Americans are independent and full of pride for their country. Hockey, along with a sport like soccer, were not developed in the US. The typical American might think, "Why should I support these foreign sports when the best sports in the world were created and played in America?" This is an honest opinion, because personally I do like viewing football and baseball over hockey, but maybe not baseball. Baseball is too slow paced for me, but that is for a different discussion.

The Blackhawks run is incredible, but it still will never be as important to the majority of sports fanatics in America as a similar streak held by a football, basketball, or baseball team.

Why do you think hockey is not as big as a sport in America as the other "Big 3" sports (football, basketball, baseball)? What does it tell you about American's and nationalistic mindsets?

America and Discrimination Against Blacks

In my American Studies class in highschool, we were asked to read and complete the 1965 Alabama Literacy Test. The test was required for legal voters whose grandparents were not citizens. This may seem fair in theory, but in practice it targeted blacks living in the South. We also learned how difficult the test was. I scored a 33/68 on the test, a score that is way below the minimum requirement to be allowed to vote.

One might think America has learned from unfair disenfranchisement of blacks and minorities, but the theme of legal loopholes to convict these same groups of people is still present today.

In fact, I am living just outside of the central hub of this discrimination. Nationwide, blacks are incarcerated at 8.2 times the rate of whites. The book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness gave me the following information about blacks in Chicago: “The total population of black males in Chicago with a felony record (including both current and ex-felons) is equivalent to 55 percent of the black adult male population and an astonishing 80 percent of the adult black male workforce in the Chicago area” (Alexander 188). The police efforts in cities such as Chicago fall disproportionately on blacks.

Chicago police also often wrongfully convict young blacks. According to Steve Mills of the Chicago Tribune, Daniel Taylor, 17 when convicted of double murder, was actually in the Chicago police lockup when the crime was committed, yet he is still trying to seek justice twenty years after he was arrested.

One main problem is that young black people are vulnerable to the phenomenon of false confessions. While false confessions might not seem prevalent to my community and I, living in a particularly affluent suburb of Chicago, the inner city is, as co-founder of the Innocence Project Peter Neufold says, “what Cooperstown is to baseball, Chicago is to false confessions. It is the Hall of Fame. There are more juvenile confessions in Chicago than any place else in the United States.”

I see the issue of false confessions and wrongful convictions of blacks today as unfair discrimination that needs to be addressed. As the title of Michelle Alexander's book suggests, we are supposedly living in the "Age of Colorblindness," but if we cannot protect these American's rights, not as much progress as possible is being made in my opinion.

I hope this post makes you think about how history is always repeating itself; Or, is it less that history is repeating itself and rather that America has not learned from its past? Let me know in the comment section below.

Super Holiday

I remember waking up Sunday morning with much resentment. I had to take a practice ACT, and the only thing on my mind was the Super Bowl later that night. It got me thinking how nice it would be to have this one special annual Sunday as a holiday. It may seem like a fantasy, but I think it could actually be justified.

Aol reports how the Super Bowl broke the previous record for most-watched TV program in history,  netting 162.9 million viewers. Now, if an annual event regularly comes in as the year's most-watched TV event, it becomes harder to see how it is not justifiable to have the Super Bowl as a national holiday.

Also, many people view the Super Bowl just as a social event, like a party, rather than the biggest football game of the year, every year. For something that attracts so much attention, it is worthy of a day free of tedious tasks, like a practice ACT for a football-craving teenager such as myself.

The fact that someone like Christopher Columbus attracts so much attention in receiving a national holiday baffles me. The Examiner looks into the question of who should truly deserve the credit for discovering the most powerful country in the world. There is no questions about the Super Bowl on the other hand. It is viewed and enjoyed by the whole country, as well as parts of the world, too.

America would embrace the Super Bowl as a holiday with open arms. I certainly would not complain, and I don't think many others would either.

Fear in the Future: America and Guns

My history teacher Mr. Bolos presented a provocative idea about America and the fear of the future and the unknown during class this past week. A hot issue in America over the last year has been gun control, after numerous mass murderers have killed innocent civilians at schools and movie theaters (to name a few). There have been talks about stricter gun control laws in the wake of these shootings, and I believe this is attributed to a fear in America about future incidents of that magnitude.

A family mourns for victims of the Sandy Hook shooting

In reading an article by Sam Harris of The Week, he explained why he owns guns in his home and has trains "with them regularly". He further explains how while dialing 911 for the police is a legitimate mean of protection, if someone intrudes your house with the intent of harming you or your family, there is simply no plausible way for the police to arrive in time.

There is definitely some fear in the future and America in why Sam Harris has guns in his house. Also fear for the safety of his daughter in preschool. I can respect why Mr. Harris feels more comfortable in holding firearms in his household, but lost in all of the fear of mass murderers is the real reason why guns are legal in America to begin with.

It is the fear of the government holding too much power over its people. Even if Americans do not have to use their guns, the government will respect the fact that a revolt would be plausible if its people can own guns. If no guns for the people, the government would have nothing to fear.

Looking ahead, Americans have a lot to be afraid of, and so does our world as a whole. Fear is integral in a changing society however, because without it, one has no motivation to move forward and make the necessary changes.

What is your take on America and the fear of the future/unknown? Should gun laws be changed, and why would your changes be effective?