It was a distressing sports week. Ed Hochuli blew a major call in the San Diego-Denver matchup, the Eagles failed to hold their two score lead against Dallas, T.O. was an asshole, and Maverick Josh Howard is in the news for making "un-patriotic" comments.
Let's start with the most ridiculous item. Howard, at a charity flag football game, was caught on camera saying "'The Star-Spangled Banner' is going on. I don't celebrate this shit. I'm black." To be fair, this is not the proper place to express your opinion about America. It was a poor choice of words and poor timing. But the sentiment rings very true and white America needs to understand that rather than condemning it off-hand. There are millions (and I mean MILLIONS) of people that live here but do not have any reason to have respect for American symbolism be they white or black, native or foreign. Racism is rampant, sexism is virulent, xenophobia is at an all time high, and the leadership is the most unpopular since these types of things were recorded and studied. Those aren't really reasons to get weepy about nationalism. I'll also defend to the death Josh's right to say what he wants when he wants. That's written right into the Constitution and it you don't defend that, then you're not being very 'American'. For some reason, everyone in this country is always expected to kowtow to the flag, the anthem, and the almighty lapel pin. Personally, during the national anthem I don't put my hand over my heart, sometimes I leave my hat on, and sometimes I just sit right through it. Sort of depends on my mood. It's not meant as a disrespectful act and should not be construed as such. Like many people I just don't respect symbols because they are too easily manipulated. Barack not wearing a lapel pin does not make him un-American and Howard's lack of anthem enthusiasm does not make him un-American. I respect honest actions and people that have earned respect. Howard should have picked a better forum for his grievance, but dismissing his opinion could be considered just as unpatriotic.
Speaking of respect, some kudos are in order for Ed Hochuli. He blew the call big time. Unfortunately, because of bullshit anti-competitive NFL and broadcast rules I didn't get to see the game. But he had the testicular fortitude to stand up, apologize for the call, admit that he made a mistake, and do the best he can to rectify the situation. Of course, no one will pay attention and he'll get booed at the next game he refs. That's an action that deserves respect.
And T.O. I don't even like to mention him because he already gets enough attention. He's an amazing athlete, a great competitor, and a great football player. But none of those make him a good person and once again he's been an asshole and lauded for it. During the Philly-Dallas game he scored a touchdown and afterwards ran around the field doing the Philly Eagle arm-flap. Should have been a 15 yard penalty for tauting and a hefty fine. This action, combined with his previous asinine antics and stunts, show a supreme lack of respect for his team, his opponents, his sport, and the fans. These are not actions deserving of hours of television time. The message is clear though: if you're good at something you can be an asshole and people will love you anyway. That's not a good message to send to young athletes. Of course, you can always argue that it's just "entertainment" and not disrespectful. But this argument doesn't hold water when you further examine his verbal attacks on his current and previous teammates and his emphasis on himself rather than his team. Of course, he can say whatever he wants. As long as this type of behavior is acceptable and makes the news reels, it will continue and will be viewed as acceptable by young athletes. Personally, I think it detracts from the game. Individual effort and achievement should be lauded, but bad sportsmanship should never be rewarded.
You might argue that there's a bit of a double standard here- I'm ragging on T.O. for being disrespectful but not Josh Howard for being disrespectful. To me, there are some important differences. T.O.'s actions are continually unsportsmanlike and disrespectful. Howard's comments were a one-time thing. T.O.'s actions set a poor example for young athletes and are directly targeted at specific people (fans, opponents). Howard's comments did not deliberately target any person. They don't even target a group. Rather, his comments targeted an idea, a symbol, an intangible that only has meaning because we give it meaning. Further more, freedom of speech protects Howard's opinion (though I agree that he should have chosen a more appropriate forum) while T.O.'s taunting and spectacles are not protected by any "freedom of actions" clause. In fact, many sports seek to stop this kind of show-boating behavior in order to make the sport's image more professional. The Mavericks have already taken unspecified actions to curb future incidents like these. The Cowboys have done no such thing for T.O.'s disrespect. T.O.'s actions are antithetical to the notion of sportsmanship. Howard's comment, while not exactly pro-sportsman, is exactly what America was founded on- unhappiness with the status quo (i.e. British oversight) and a rejection of its symbols (East India tea, the British flag, etc). Finally, T.O,'s actions could never be construed as respectful or appropriate even if he changed the forum. Howard's comment would be perfectly appropriate off the field during a discussion of current social issues, current racial issues, politics in America, or any of a number of other topics. The message was good, the forum was not. T.O. does not have a productive message under any circumstances.
13 comments:
3 things:
1. Dallas obviously does not care about T.O.'s tauntings or he would not be playing in Dallas after the disrespect he showed them with the infamous 'Dallas Star' incident.
2. Howard ABSOLUTELY has the right to say something like that, just as we have the right to disagree with him. But, maybe it's just me...what is the connection to his race?
3. The Chargers were also screwed in one of the first plays of the game by a bad call that could not be reviewed because the reviewing equipment was not working...even though the play was clearly being shown on the jumbotron! Denver ended up scoring the first touchdown because of the bad call. :(
1. Jerry Jones doesn't care about sportsmanship. It's evident in his history of choices to play for the Cowboys. It's all about winning. His argument has always been that the ends justify the means. Personally, I think these types of players detract from the sport and turn it into amateur hour rather than professionals being athletic. I don't even watch Dallas games anymore unless I have no other option. That goes for Cincy games to because Chad Johnson is a punk.
2. I should have added that aspect to the post. Everyone absolutely has the right to disagree. My main concern is that people dismiss these types of comments out of hand rather than thinking about WHY he would say something like that. Rather than use it as an opportunity, they say "he's un-American" and never pursue it. It's the over-simplification aspect that bothers me. I definitely agree it was disrespectful, but in a much, much different sense than T.O.
3. Regarding Howard's race- that may have been an exaggeration on his part or it may have added to the shock value or it may be a reflection of deeper racial issues. I'm not sure and I won't eve get to ask him. But I think the point remains valid- why should you show respect for something that you don't believe is showing you respect? I have one good example. Katrina was a disaster of epic proportions and a monumental failure. There appear (although it's nearly impossible to prove) there were racially motivated aspects to the response (to go along with poor planning, insufficient supplies, and a number of other problems). Galveston and the large white population in southern Texas have received immediate help, much more sufficient funds and supplies, and much more effective rescue efforts. Maybe this was a lesson learned from Katrina or maybe it was because it was a smaller hurricane. The point is, it looks pretty crummy from a black perspective. I'm in NO WAY saying that his comment was motivated by the hurricane. I'm only saying that this is an example of the disrespect shown to black America. So why should anyone, white or otherwise, expect black America to show respect for America's symbols? Respect is a mutual feeling. It's earned. It should never be given without reasoned thought. Respect for a country, a symbol, or a person based on anything besides mutual agreement is coercion at best and despotism at worst.
4. The Chargers were stiffed twice. That's weak sauce. I've always been of a mind that a game is more than one or two bad calls. There are definitely calls that win or lose games, but those are rare. Over the course of a game, there are many opportunities to overcome bad calls. In fact, if you eliminated the mental mistakes, any team could probably withstand several bad calls and still come out way ahead. In a close game with few penalties and mental mistakes, these kinds of calls are important. In the average game with 15-20 penalties, many dropped balls, turnovers, poor clock management, and other simple errors, I think those errors should over-shine one or two poor calls. Not saying it's right, just saying you should try to correct the things that are within your control before tackling those outside it. HAHA...tackling. But I'm proud of Hochuli for admitting it and apologizing for it. That's real leadership and I would prefer he was reffing a game rather than someone that blows it and then acts like it's either not his fault or doesn't apologize. There's a lot of garbage going around the sports world websites about whether Hochuli should lose his job over this. That's friggin' stupid in my opinion. Every ref makes bad calls. If this was a pattern, yes, we should fire him. But this is one call in a game full of subjective calls. That's part of the game. So an occasional bad one is upsetting but no reason to ruin a career. I mean, the ref that jacked the Raiders out of a possible Super Bowl didn't lose his job as far as I'm aware. This is no different. We could always remove the refs entirely and go to camera replays on every play and put microchips on everything to verify every little inch. But I think that takes something intrinsically human away from the game. Hochuli is still my favorite ref. Now if I could just get any of my teams to win some friggin' games it would be a much better season.
While I agree that Howard had the right to say what he said, I disgree with the implication that it was productive or could be appropriate at a different time and place. The comment was intentionally disrespectful to the anthem. There is a difference with not participating and insulting.
Also, I agree with my dad that I don't understand the race aspect. Does being black make you less American? And if so, why? Because your ancestors came from a different part of the world? Well that's true for 99.32% of Americans out there. (Based on Wikipedia saying that 0.68% of the United States is American Indian or Alaska Native.)
I must have been busy reading Wikipedia when you posted your comment, Brandon, so I will ammend mine. You give an interesting reason why race may play a part in Howard's statement. I see the acts of racism in our country as acts of individuals or groups, however, not acts of the country as a whole. I think you can still be respectful towards the country, its anthem and its symbols without agreeing with the government or acts of specific people within the country. Don't get me wrong, racism is alive and well. But there are people out there working to change those attitudes and thumbing your nose at the whole country seems an added insult to those people. And yes, while I'm not overly patriotic and I don't stand with my hand over my heart during the National Anthem, I do think that calling it shit is an insult to the whole country.
Regarding Howard's comment, I'm just trying to say don't dismiss the comment as ONLY disrespect to the anthem. To me, the comment carries a deeper current BECAUSE he mentions race. If it was just a personal attack on the anthem, I don't think he would have mentioned race. The truth is, I don't know what his race had to do with it. But it's intriguing that he mentioned it. Obviously he doesn't represent the entire black community. But if this is a common sentiment among minorities in America, then we need to investigate it further and not just dismiss it as disrespect. My initial post wasn't very clear on this point- the importance should NOT be in the fact that he slammed the anthem. It should be about the fact that this statement hints at deeper feeling relating to race and American symbolism. I think people are focusing on the easy, obvious, simple interpretation and are missing an opportunity to link this to similar sentiments that have been voiced by many minorities.
I'm not saying he wasn't being disrespectful to the anthem. It was blatantly disrespectful to an American symbol. But it was not aimed at any particular person or group, unlike T.O. who targeted specific people. People are offended that Howard showed a one-time disrespect to the anthem. I'm more offended by T.O.'s continual behavior. It is reasonable to argue about the power of symbols and whether people are 'unpatriotic' if they disparage one of those symbols. It is not reasonable to laud a man for being disrespectful and unsportsmanlike to his teammates and opponents on a continuous basis.
As a side note, the situation is no different than politicians running attack ads. McCain complained that Obama was not 'patriotic enough' because he didn't wear a flag lapel pin. That's a stupid comment. Now people are arguing that Howard is not patriotic because of one disparaging remark. Also stupid. One time events are not enough to make such a sweeping judgment. A history of disrespect should carry more weight than one lone comment.
Lastly, I would argue that there's a world of difference between disparaging a symbol and disparaging a person. I value people more than symbolism. I find it offensive that more attention is paid to an off-handed (though inappropriately timed) comment than to the continuous and blatant disrespect shown by T.O. To me it's a question of degrees. Continuous disrespect is more offensive than an isolated event.
Do you agree with the argument that it is ok to not show respect for something that you feel does not respect you? Whether that's the proper interpretation of this comment or not, is that argument a reasonable one? Or is this a situation where we should 'turn the other cheek' and show respect even to those that disrespect us?
In response to your questions:
I would say it is fair not to show respect for something that is does not show respect for you. However, I think the bigger man would not show disrespect for something that does not show respect for him. To me, there is a big difference between not showing respect and showing disrespect. Basically it is the difference between being indifferent and being out-and-out rude. You can be polite without calling someone, “sir.”
The anthem, however, did not show disrespect towards him. If he perceives that the entire country (including his fellow blacks, I might add) are showing disrespect for him then I understand showing disrespect toward the whole country and consequently the anthem. However, I doubt the entire country would be included. The government….rich, white people…perhaps.
As a side note, the line of reasoning we are using assumes the anthem represents the country to Howard. If so, that is giving power to a symbol that could just have ignored or disregarded.
Ultimately only respect will command respect. If he ever expects to get respect, he will have to give it. This makes his actions counter-productive.
Damn, this is one civilized blog, so I will insert the standard flaming that comes with internet 'fandom'
OMG U RACEISTS! BLACKS WER SLAVS BUT I MEAN CMON THAT WAS LIKE 50 YRS AGO GET OVR IT ALREADY!
On that note, Janelle has a good point-- there is something slightly dubious about arguing Howard should be allowed to rip on symbols while he is actually using the flag as a symbol himself.
It is perfectly valid to question why certain people don't get all misty when the national anthem comes on, for which their could be many reasons: cynicism, laziness, ambivalence, politics, etc. but while I share some of Howard's sentiment, him using the national anthem to symbolize what he doesn't like about America is just as ridiculous as those who use it to symbolize what they like. Also, while his ideas are fine, and deserve attention, his choice of wording was not good-- he could have used that opportunity to say something eloquent and exact. Rather, he chose to speak for an entire group, and portray the national anthem as exceedingly negative at a CHARITY function, which in many countries in the world, do not exist.
As for the T.O. thing, its not about sportsmanship or Jimmy Jones or anything else-- it's about money. T.O. sells tickets; T.O. makes highlight reels; T.O. sells ad time. And in a nation that values that above all else, why are we surprised he gets so much attention? He's the Dennis Rodman of the NFL, and like Rodman, he'll go away soon and fade into ignominy and you can find someone new to hate. If you're going to rant, rant about the culture that eats this shit up and keeps talking about it. Rather than be mad at paparazzi, why not question why society cares what Britney got at Carl's Jr.? The issues are much deeper to me than individuals are small groups-- they have to do with the fabric of contemporary society, and without a change in that, T.O. and the paps are destined to be a big part of our lives.
Also: xenophobia is rampant, but I think it's pretty tough to claim it's at an all time high-- Alien & Sedition Acts? Japenese Internment Camps? Specific legislation targeting Chinese immigrants? McCarthyism? We're scared of outsiders, to be certain, but probably not to a greater extent than we have been at 20 other times in our short history.
One last thing: I think the point Brandon was getting at with Howard's race is that, perhaps more than any other group, black people might feel like the U.S. government, historically and currently, is not really on their side, and in response, black people might not be as willing to go out on a branch saying how great America is.
Slavery, obviously, being a big factor, but also Jim Crow laws, lynchings, unequal job and educational opportunities for a hundred or more years. Yes, many of these have been changed, but others have not.
Black men are still more likely to be pulled over by the police, and regularly get stricter sentences for identical crimes than white people. 1 in 100 Americans are in jail today, yet 1 in 9 young black men are. Unless you're willing to say that they are just innately criminals, something is up.
Maybe it's the cycle of poverty, or targeting by law enforcement, or unequal laws and applications of those laws, or a cynical culture with a lot of bad role models, but something is up.
Remember: the whole reason the Supreme Court commuted all death sentences in the 1970s was because they found black people were four times more likely to be executed than whites. Barack Obama may be the next president of the United States, but just a few years before his birth, his father was not allowed to drink out of the same water fountain as my father.
At least, I hope that was Brandon's point-- anyone can have a problem with our government for any reason, but I personally don't think it's hard to understand why black people might feel a bit more cynicism than a lot of other groups.
Yes, Black Americans have many reasons not to trust or care for the US Government. After all, the country and constitution were all set up by a bunch of old white guys who (essentially) all believed in slavery.
BUT, there are many constructive ways to address this like Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, etc. have done. Disparaging remarks do nothing but further divide us and, I think, add to the distrust and lack of understanding.
agreed-- I applauded Condoleeza Rice for asking why she doesn't see more black people working in the State Department. Howard's comments, while addressing the same root issue as Condoleeza, chose to do it in a way which made him more or less synonymous with Chris Rock-- "white people always be like this, but black people always be like that"-- good for humor and headlines, not good for real debate on real issues.
Speaking of which, this scientician isn't science-writing enough. I posted a question on that science blog like 2 weeks ago and have heard nothing back regarding either Pete Wentz or Justin Timberlake! Shenanigans, I say...
Adam
Your questions were not being ignored (at least from my end) just put aside while "life" got in the way. I've posted answers, enjoy
Good points all. We can all agree it was an inappropriate place, an inappropriate time, and a puzzling thing to say without some further explanation. At the end of the day, this comment doesn't actually change anything. People that want to sing the anthem still will and people that don't won't. Why this is considered news at all I have no idea. But it was an interesting discussion.
Sciencing is not happening, Justin Timberlake is awesome but not something I want to throw on and jam to, and big bucks make the game so T.O. and Ocho Cinco will keep on rolling.
I question the deeper motives in a society that enjoys this crap. It's acceptable voyeurism in a society that still considers itself a group advocating personal privacy. It's a two way street- people eat it up so we get more. I don't have an answer as to why people eat it up. Maybe they can't just be happy being themselves. I don't know. All I know is it shouldn't make headline news but it does so I'll just keep skimming over it.
Also- I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say xenophobia is at a major peak (maybe not an "all time high" if such a thing can be measured, but it's pretty damn blatant and getting worse by the day). If you read through current law (the Patriot Act, the FISA amendments, etc.) you'll find laws that are sedition laws but called by different names (particularly NSL's, gag orders on terror suspects, etc). We've also got increasing censorship and we've got non-police, non-military, non-law enforcement agents patrolling the border. We've increased restrictions on immigration in general, on Middle Easterners in particular (check out the list of "suspect states" on the governments own websites to find that a majority are Muslim and some have never so much as lifted a finger against us). We're so afraid of immigrants that we're rounding them up when they seek medical care- even when they pay for it. And to top it all off, we're using that fear as a cornerstone of the political campaign- the cartoon of Obama as a Muslim, the continued reference to Barack as B. Hussein Osama. Now we've got other Western countries enacting the same garbage laws- Italy is rounding up gypsies, fascists are winning elections in Italy, Greece, and other European nations, and Muslims are being harassed for wearing hijabs and turbans in countries like Denmark that were relatively respectful. While most of these examples may not be official laws, xenophobia is no less now than it ever was and I think you could make a good argument that it is pretty damn high even compared to historical precedent (unless you want to include ethnic cleansing- the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge, Darfur, the Armenian genocide, etc).
Post a Comment