The Power of Neologisms!
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
A Stepford Reboot
We've come a long way, baby. The ideal woman of the 50s was coiffed, pearled, and aproned—a bastion of motherhood and wifehood, completely fulfilled by the perfection she creates. Snacks on the table when the children walk home from school? Check. Kind words for a child with hurt feelings or scraped knees? Check. Nutritious breakfast to fuel a family headed out the door to experience the day? Check. Perfectly prepared homecooked meal in the oven just waiting for the arrival of a hard-working husband? Check.
In her role as the Beaver's mother now forever preserved by re-runs, Barbara Billingsley serves as the go-to cultural reference of an ideal 50s woman. But looking at her today, we can't help but notice what we did not see: an identity other than that given in service to her husband and sons. At the same time modern women laugh at the idea that a woman could actually want that role for herself, we are also still drawn by the ease with which she fulfills her family's needs. We know that it is only a television show. We know that it represents a very small slice of actual life experienced by women in the 1950s. Yet we have naturalized her experience and it overwrites whatever reality was actually experienced by women of the time. And the efficiency of the system she seems to command is enviable to any modern mother.
Today we enthusiastically celebrate the emancipation (so to speak) of wives and mothers who are now freed to manipulate their own paths and disrupt historical male roles of husband and father. There are ongoing obstacles, certainly, but women have made inroads in every area of male strongholds, including combat and sports. We can have it all, if only we stay organized, exercise, push hard enough, and work as hard as men do. Or can we? For all of the perceptions we have supposedly shed in our journey, the identity of "mother" is still loaded with a powerful set of concepts and emotions. The modern mother, far from progressing, has not changed her traditional identity role, but simply taken on the additional role traditionally assigned to fatherhood. And the modern mother is one who is somehow capable of perfectly blending these roles and if she fails to do so, she merely needs the right organization. Bluntly put: to fail to do so is to admit to failure as a mother.
In the past 40 years, mothers have joined the job force enmasse. This has spawned an entire industry dedicated to a client who is busy, savvy, capable, and bankrolled by her own efforts. Working Mother magazine is one such animal.
Yet for all the promise that the title offers, Working Mother actively works to create an unattainable standard. Recently, Working Mother began featuring celebrity mothers on their covers, whose lives are a far cry from that of the average working mother. "There is no typical day for me. That’s something I realized a while ago," says actress Amy Brenneman, featured in the October 2010 issue. "So we have a terrific nanny who comes in the morning because some days I leave before 5 a.m." And a nanny is a reality for some working mothers. But the article goes on to say that her contract states that her children have their own trailer on set, an idea clearly unrealistic for all but a small minority of women. And the "real" women they profile are highly paid and highly positioned, features of employment millions of mothers do not share. Furthermore, both mothers and children are fluffed and polished to perfection before having their photographs taken in an elaborately staged scene meant to look like their own homes. This further serves to replace the reality of working motherhood and replace it with a manufactured, idealized, Stepfordized image of reality.
It is the Stepford Wives rebooted for the modern age. Instead of mere perfection at home, Stepfordizing requires perfection at work as well.
In her role as the Beaver's mother now forever preserved by re-runs, Barbara Billingsley serves as the go-to cultural reference of an ideal 50s woman. But looking at her today, we can't help but notice what we did not see: an identity other than that given in service to her husband and sons. At the same time modern women laugh at the idea that a woman could actually want that role for herself, we are also still drawn by the ease with which she fulfills her family's needs. We know that it is only a television show. We know that it represents a very small slice of actual life experienced by women in the 1950s. Yet we have naturalized her experience and it overwrites whatever reality was actually experienced by women of the time. And the efficiency of the system she seems to command is enviable to any modern mother.
In the past 40 years, mothers have joined the job force enmasse. This has spawned an entire industry dedicated to a client who is busy, savvy, capable, and bankrolled by her own efforts. Working Mother magazine is one such animal.
Yet for all the promise that the title offers, Working Mother actively works to create an unattainable standard. Recently, Working Mother began featuring celebrity mothers on their covers, whose lives are a far cry from that of the average working mother. "There is no typical day for me. That’s something I realized a while ago," says actress Amy Brenneman, featured in the October 2010 issue. "So we have a terrific nanny who comes in the morning because some days I leave before 5 a.m." And a nanny is a reality for some working mothers. But the article goes on to say that her contract states that her children have their own trailer on set, an idea clearly unrealistic for all but a small minority of women. And the "real" women they profile are highly paid and highly positioned, features of employment millions of mothers do not share. Furthermore, both mothers and children are fluffed and polished to perfection before having their photographs taken in an elaborately staged scene meant to look like their own homes. This further serves to replace the reality of working motherhood and replace it with a manufactured, idealized, Stepfordized image of reality.
It is the Stepford Wives rebooted for the modern age. Instead of mere perfection at home, Stepfordizing requires perfection at work as well.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Finally, Version 2.0
The World as Seen Through a Film of Ethanol
“Keep in mind that the nearest bacteria may be behind you.” – Purell advertisement
In 1997, the hygiene company GOJO introduced the public at large to a new type of clean, and through aggressive marketing campaigns has raised the bar for cleanliness to new, dizzying heights. This was the year that Purell, the first product of its type, hit the markets. Originally designed for use by GOJO's traditional industrial market base in hospital and restaurant settings, GOJO soon figured out how to tap into pre-existing cultural insecurities, weaving their product into the daily lives of people in every walk of life. The underlying assumptions at work in this advertising campaign are two-fold, however. Campaigns rely both on the public's growing germophobia and on older, traditional assumptions of women's roles, place, and purpose.
The surface-level Myth paints a simplified and terrifying version of the world, one where an indiscriminately horrible and alien population of invisible germs must be constantly eradicated for the well-being of humanity. It would be incomprehensible to live in harmony with these things. In addition, there is no room for good bacteria or the body's own natural defenses, and soap and water isn't capable of saving us. Rather, we must rely on Purellifying.
Other, subtler elements of this Myth point to the less obvious, second Myth that Purell relies upon, however. The blending of these two is most obvious in the name of the product itself, “Purell” being a combination of the word “Pure,” and the suffix “ell” (or elle). The first of these morphemes combines notions of something untainted, unmixed, undiluted, and unpolluted, with moral and religious connotations of separation from all things immoral, and sexual abstinence. While these former connotations are already traditionally more associated with the feminine than the masculine, the suffix “ell” leaves no doubt that this is a feminine concept. “Ell” heightens the feminine when used at the end of English words, bringing to mind popular magazines such as Elle, and the now defunct Mademoiselle, and is used to imply diminutive status. In short, the name simultaneously plays on a desire to eradicate all other life-forms from the body, and communicates that a feminine product is needed to get the job done.
Not only is a feminine product necessary however, but a woman to wield it. Although hand sanitizer is mostly touted as a protection from illness, and is at best only capable of killing bacteria rather than removing physical grime, it is also portrayed as a cleaning product – one that will naturally be used by women. This is easily demonstrated by a glance at the scents currently available. Amongst images dominated by women and children, Purell's promotional website offers Spring Bloom, Ocean Mist, Crisp Apple, Cucumber Melon, and Spring Splash, each common name a treasure-trove of Myth in its own right, with an overall ironic theme that connects women to nature. Each name draws on elements of nature that are joined to stereotypical Western femininity throughout the ages: flowers; spring; the ocean and water in general; the overflowing bounty of Ceres herself represented through fresh fruits and vegetables, not to mention the seduction of Eve through an apple. In addition, Purell offers product variations that not only boast these fresh and dainty scents, but also borrow from other elements of culturally required feminine hygiene and upkeep in the form of Moisture Therapy, and Purell with Aloe. With Purell, women will not only be clean, but have soft skin to boot, though one is left to wonder why GOJO sees women as in need of so much more sanitizing than men.
Markers of femininity extend to advertising campaigns as well. Here, it is the woman’s job to protect those she loves, namely children, from a “dirty world”, and the way to do this is through constant use of Purell.
Purell is also happy to provide more details about the world that has given rise to womens' constant need for their product. In short, it is a world that is too dirty, chaotic, and uncontrollable, one where Purell is necessary to gain at least a small amount of control back. For example, recent magazine advertisements shout in bold, capitalized black text on a stark white background: “BACTERIA FOUND IN THESE PAGES INCLUDED IN NEWSSTAND PRICE,” inviting readers to “Think of all the people who flipped through this magazine and put it back on the rack. Fathers on diaper duty. Mothers with runny noses. Cooks who handled raw meat all day. They’re strangers to you but their germs just got pretty friendly with your hands.” This message paints a world that is not only chaotic, however. It also is full of antisocial people who do not value cleanliness. People who don’t care that their actions will lead to a violation of another's person. People that women need to be protected from. On this level, Purell and company also paint a world that glorifies isolation; where even indirect contact with other members of a community equals contamination rather than any sort of beneficial exchange or synergy. Instead, women should strive for Purellity.
In fact, the contamination that Purell warns against is much worse than simple infection or illness. Rather, if women don't guard their Purellity, the filth and chaos of the world will become an inextricable element of their very being. As put by a recent ad campaign, “You are what you touch.” You will not only be weakened and sickened by outside forces, you will become them. You will merge with toilets and trash cans, and you will be chaos incarnate:
Conclusion of some sort...
Thursday, April 21, 2011
It's Beginning to Look A Lot Like A Myth...
We must put on our best clothing. Our children must be best behaved. We must attend some sort of religious service, even if our shadow wouldn’t darken the door to a religious function under any other circumstances, excepting that of the death of a family member. We must have the most perfectly chosen gifts wrapped in the most perfect way delivered at the culturally appropriate time before the holiday celebration. Forget that the gift went on a credit card. Forget that you spent $75 on the ingredients to make a pound cake that the recipients won’t like. Forget that it cost more than the gift inside the box to mail said present. Forget that you haven’t seen their children in years and have no idea what toys are trending on the opposite coast.
There are few, I would imagine, that would dispute this sort of celebration, no matter the holiday, takes an idea of ideology or theology and profanes it in the worst possible way. Recently, America has developed an attitude that appears to reject this sort of celebration, with cries of “Christmas already?!?” heard in the aisles of Target as the various artificial trees go on display in the days before the celebration of Halloween.
The idea of Christmas as a sacred holiday seems to have become profaned by both the commercialism that we all buy into (even those who regard Christmas as a religious holiday) and the embracing of Christmas as a secular holiday celebrated outside of a religious context. Both of these adaptations of Christmas are denigrated in the minds of those who wish it to remain about the birth of Jesus. But in order for Christmas to “remain” about the birth of Jesus, it has to have been about the birth of Jesus in the first place. And this is simply not the case. Biblical scholars have identified, based on textual clues in the Bible, that Jesus was probably born in the fall or spring. (He wasn’t born in the year “zero” either, but that’s a different story.) Like Easter, December 25 was a pagan holiday that celebrated a reversal of class situations (Saturnalia) in which masters became slaves and slaves became masters for the day. This was an apt choice by early Christian leaders, as Jesus—a simple carpenter—came as a sort of “unking.”
So at its very heart, the only claim that Christians have on December 25 is the renaming of an existing holiday that remotely suggests a correlation to Jesus. December 25, of course, was further strengthened by the celebration of Hanukah by those who practiced Judaism (again, another long side story). But the religious right (or traditionalists) try to assert that Christmas had a stronghold on this time of the year and is the only appropriate holiday that deserves observation. “Keep the Christ in Christmas” and “Jesus is the reason for the season” are two obvious recent examples of that sort of thinking. Yet to claim a season devoted to thousands-years-old celebrations as reserved for only a certain type of celebration is, simply, wrong.
The “tradition” of Christmas that both the sacred and secular share is the giving of gifts. This is actually the only part of Christmas that can be related to the birth of Jesus. Three wise men from the east came to bring gifts that they presented to Jesus. But the nature of those gifts, while holding real material value, were symbolic and held prediction of the future. The gifts we give today are anything but symbolic. At least they aren’t overtly. I do recall a time when my sister and I were shopping for a Christmas gift for my mother. “Let’s get her a wool sweater,” I suggested. “And tell her ‘we wanted to give you something as irritating as you are.’” However, the gifts most people exchange today rarely serve in a symbolic way.
There are few, I would imagine, that would dispute this sort of celebration, no matter the holiday, takes an idea of ideology or theology and profanes it in the worst possible way. Recently, America has developed an attitude that appears to reject this sort of celebration, with cries of “Christmas already?!?” heard in the aisles of Target as the various artificial trees go on display in the days before the celebration of Halloween.
The idea of Christmas as a sacred holiday seems to have become profaned by both the commercialism that we all buy into (even those who regard Christmas as a religious holiday) and the embracing of Christmas as a secular holiday celebrated outside of a religious context. Both of these adaptations of Christmas are denigrated in the minds of those who wish it to remain about the birth of Jesus. But in order for Christmas to “remain” about the birth of Jesus, it has to have been about the birth of Jesus in the first place. And this is simply not the case. Biblical scholars have identified, based on textual clues in the Bible, that Jesus was probably born in the fall or spring. (He wasn’t born in the year “zero” either, but that’s a different story.) Like Easter, December 25 was a pagan holiday that celebrated a reversal of class situations (Saturnalia) in which masters became slaves and slaves became masters for the day. This was an apt choice by early Christian leaders, as Jesus—a simple carpenter—came as a sort of “unking.”
So at its very heart, the only claim that Christians have on December 25 is the renaming of an existing holiday that remotely suggests a correlation to Jesus. December 25, of course, was further strengthened by the celebration of Hanukah by those who practiced Judaism (again, another long side story). But the religious right (or traditionalists) try to assert that Christmas had a stronghold on this time of the year and is the only appropriate holiday that deserves observation. “Keep the Christ in Christmas” and “Jesus is the reason for the season” are two obvious recent examples of that sort of thinking. Yet to claim a season devoted to thousands-years-old celebrations as reserved for only a certain type of celebration is, simply, wrong.
The “tradition” of Christmas that both the sacred and secular share is the giving of gifts. This is actually the only part of Christmas that can be related to the birth of Jesus. Three wise men from the east came to bring gifts that they presented to Jesus. But the nature of those gifts, while holding real material value, were symbolic and held prediction of the future. The gifts we give today are anything but symbolic. At least they aren’t overtly. I do recall a time when my sister and I were shopping for a Christmas gift for my mother. “Let’s get her a wool sweater,” I suggested. “And tell her ‘we wanted to give you something as irritating as you are.’” However, the gifts most people exchange today rarely serve in a symbolic way.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
At The Co-op
Here's another try. I think this one might actually be a myth...
Food co-ops maintain their mystique by presenting themselves as distinct from conventional grocery stores. What’s being sold in stores like Whole Foods or the Boise Co-op is atmosphere as much as product. It’s the mist covered produce, smartly designed product packaging and total lack of primary colors, all kept stocked by hip looking employees who each seem to be biding time before their next backpacking trip across Southeast Asia or their band’s next tour. It somehow feels healthy, and responsible, just being there.
The distinctness of the co-op, however, is not limited to product packaging or its choice of employees (the co-op type, all of whom are dedicatedly uniform in their expressions of distinctness). The co-op’s otherness is achieved in part by its appropriation of foods from around the world. The co-op aisles are filled with “ethnic” products which are sometimes intermingled with the more conventional American foods, and sometimes grouped together under generic aisle markers. The presence of this “exotic” food at the co-op is an integral part of the way the co-op locates itself in relation to other grocery stores; this location happens on what I’ll call the Foodtinuum.
Ethnic food in the co-op functions as an exotic form of its other products, which are already distinct from foods at conventional grocery stores: conventional red tomato sauce is bad; organic garlic and basil tomato sauce is better; Thai curry sauce with lemongrass and coconut cream is best. By purchasing these exotic foods, the responsible consumer is not only withdrawing support from the conventional production of food, they are progressing beyond conventional cuisine in general – they have moved from the far right of the Foodtinuum, where processed red sauce comes in a dull red can, to the far left where the product has been exoticized beyond recognition; to reach Foodtinuum nirvana is to purchase a product your friends have never heard of, and whose label you cannot read.
The appropriation of these exotic foods onto the Foodtinuum is problematic considering both the colonial history and economic globalization that enable the red curry sauce to be a profitable option for those who stock the co-op’s shelves. Entire food cultures, and the often troubled stories of how elements of them made it across the world and into fashion in American food blogs, “New American” cuisine and onto co-op shelves are lost in the simple fact that, well, curry is just more interesting than spaghetti (a once exotic food that has effectively crossed the Foodtinuum).
The narrow focus on staple foods from numerous countries acts as a sort of colonization itself; curry from Thailand, kim chi from Korea, egg rolls from China, sushi from Japan, refried beans from Mexico; from vast, diverse and holistic food cultures the co-op distills its selection to the foods that caricaturize each country in the Western mind. These food cultures and their representative staples are mocked by the aisle markers used to organize them: “Oriental,” “Hispanic,” “Ethnic” (the last being a catch all, especially for those foods that have been generalized beyond their origins – i.e. curry powder, an American generic for the various curry pastes used in different parts of the world).
The appropriation of new foods into the spectrum is necessary to keep the exotic sufficiently exotic. This is especially challenging as organics make their way into conventional grocery stores. It is now common to find partial or whole aisles dedicated to “Natural” foods at conventional stores; interestingly, this is also the best place to find “ethnic” foods as well. The co-op must keep up; as staple foods from around the world make their way across the Foodtinuum and into big, warehouse grocery stores, other, less familiar foods must be promoted as obscure.
For example, have your tried Kombucha? It’s fermented tea from Asia; it’s like regular tea but better. You can get it at the co-op.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
One Last Draft
Today professional basketball is fast paced, with a greater focus on pick and roll offense, intense defense (except for the Knicks), and an emphasis on the fastbreak dunk. Many white players come from programs like Wisconsin, Butler, and the Ivy League schools, where game plans are built around zone defense and ball control offense, you know the fundamentals. This style of basketball has slowly been disappearing from the league since, oh, probably the first time Dr. J dribble the full court and dunked over someone. Seriously, go on Youtube... Dr. J was the man. Around the same time as all this was happening, Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics were engaged in an epic rivalry (that had been going on since the 60’s) with the Los Angeles Lakers and Magic Johnson. Bird was white and Magic was black. Given the history of race relations in this country, you can probably fill in the blanks. The media took the rivalry and made it nation wide obsession. The NBA’s ratings were never higher. Then Bird retired. And after that there hasn’t been a white, American born (a key difference because even Steve Nash is Canadian) superstar since. In those 19 years since Bird retired a myth that white players can’t play in today’s NBA was born and entered into the lore of professional basketball.
Today’s sportswriters are sometimes more concerned with race than the game itself. Think about the whole Tiger Woods fiasco. When people found out about his affairs, they all turned on him. And not just Tiger Woods the person, but Tiger Woods the golfer. When he came back and played like shit everyone said it was because of his personal life and that he shouldn’t be the number one player anymore. But, really, did Tiger Woods being a sex addict and all around despicable (seriously, cheating on his wife with dozens of women is beyond appalling) person change the fact that he is the best golfer in the world? No. And what story did it replace? “Holy crap, Tiger Woods is black”. Collectively many white sportswriters were saying, “Well, I’ll be gosh darned he was black after all”. And that’s the point. Sportswriters want the game to extend of the court, field, or pitch because it sells. Race is a perfect topic to accomplish that goal. Bird and Magic sold because the media was able to convince people that race was more important than all the epic games played. And there were golden because on was black, one was white, and it was never clear who was really better.
Okay, so Larry Bird retired and another white superstar never came along, so what? I’ll tell you what, this myth has effectively erased past white players who contributed to how game is played today and is used as a way of demeaning current black players. I never even saw Larry Bird play a game and yet, thanks to ESPN Classic, I know that he was a great basketball player. I know he’s probably the best small forward in the history of basketball. I also know that the reason I think of him every time a white college player (J.J. Reddick, Adam Morrsion, Kirk Heinrich, etc.) is projected high in the NBA draft. It’s not like I can help it. The higher a player is drafted, the better they are supposed to be. Therefore, a white player drafted say 3rd overall (Morrsion) should be a superstar, or at least an All-Star. When I think white superstar I think Bird. Who else would I think of? Bryant “Big Country” Reeves (drafted 6th by the Grizzlies)? He was 7 feet tall and could barely dunk. Adam Morrison? He looks like a character out of Dude Where’s My Car? What I do remember is that both players suffered from an extreme lack of athleticism and the media told me that’s why they couldn’t make it. The NBA today was influenced by street ball and the flash of Magic Johnson’s “Showtime” Lakers they say. They also say without saying that the reason white players can’t play in today’s NBA is because the “fundamentals” are gone. That’s a fun way of them saying, “The league is too black and undisciplined”.
This feeling of the league becoming too black started in the 70’s when the league merged with the ABA and Julius Erving exploded onto the national scene. There had been many black superstars before him (Russell, Baylor, Roberston, et al.), but he was different. He had the ability to drive the entire length of the court and dunk over anyone... he also had an amazing afro. Had in not been for a title run with the 76ers in the 80’s, Dr. J’s legacy very well may have been lost as the league suffered through rampant cocaine use. NBA historians have this fun game they play where they pretend that 1975 to 1980 never happened. It is because of this that “Pistol” Pete Marovich is lost in the catacombs of basketball lore. And while Dr. J and Magic are getting credit for forever changing the game, what they were doing was nothing new and Marovich had just as much influence on the changes to the game. Looking at today’s game. All those behind the back passes and drive and kick point guards, who perfected that style? Pete Marovich (white). Who started that style of play? Bob Cousy (white). In the 50’s. Not Magic and not Dr. J. Then, why do they get credit?
Because the 80’s still define basketball today. Most sportswriters remember back to the 80’s because that is when they started watching basketball. The guys who remember the earlier days are old and retired. And those guys who remember the late 70’s are ignored because the players were all coked up... except Bill Walton... he was on acid. Like me, many sportswriters have watched and seen fewer and fewer white players at All-Star Games. At the same time the game has indeed become more fast paced, and the isolation play (essentially one on one basketball) has become a mainstay in most play books. Players like Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony made a living being isolated from their teammates and essentially reducing a five on five game to one on one. A combination of the drug problems in the 70’s, the dunks of the 80’s, and the one on one crossovers (Jordan over Russell) have changed the image of black players and their influence on basketball. This leads to a stereotype that black players have made the game all about flash and athleticism and not about fundamentals. In order to drive home this point, the myth of white players, and all their fundamentals, not being able to play in the NBA.
Certainly a professional sports league wouldn’t let race define them, right? Wrong. Consider that the NBA is the only professional sports league that has a dress code. That’s right. Players showed up with in baggy clothes and wearing chains and what the kids are calling bling. Then the NBA said, “Look professional!” And really they meant, “Stop dressing like thugs!” So, even on the surface the NBA tries to reduce the perceived... um... blackness of the league. Since this exists in the league, it is not hard to fathom this notion of “blackness” being active in the media. Hence the myth: white guys can’t play in the NBA because (even though white players had just as much influence on changes to game) the league is too undisciplined, too high flying, and too black.
Today’s sportswriters are sometimes more concerned with race than the game itself. Think about the whole Tiger Woods fiasco. When people found out about his affairs, they all turned on him. And not just Tiger Woods the person, but Tiger Woods the golfer. When he came back and played like shit everyone said it was because of his personal life and that he shouldn’t be the number one player anymore. But, really, did Tiger Woods being a sex addict and all around despicable (seriously, cheating on his wife with dozens of women is beyond appalling) person change the fact that he is the best golfer in the world? No. And what story did it replace? “Holy crap, Tiger Woods is black”. Collectively many white sportswriters were saying, “Well, I’ll be gosh darned he was black after all”. And that’s the point. Sportswriters want the game to extend of the court, field, or pitch because it sells. Race is a perfect topic to accomplish that goal. Bird and Magic sold because the media was able to convince people that race was more important than all the epic games played. And there were golden because on was black, one was white, and it was never clear who was really better.
Okay, so Larry Bird retired and another white superstar never came along, so what? I’ll tell you what, this myth has effectively erased past white players who contributed to how game is played today and is used as a way of demeaning current black players. I never even saw Larry Bird play a game and yet, thanks to ESPN Classic, I know that he was a great basketball player. I know he’s probably the best small forward in the history of basketball. I also know that the reason I think of him every time a white college player (J.J. Reddick, Adam Morrsion, Kirk Heinrich, etc.) is projected high in the NBA draft. It’s not like I can help it. The higher a player is drafted, the better they are supposed to be. Therefore, a white player drafted say 3rd overall (Morrsion) should be a superstar, or at least an All-Star. When I think white superstar I think Bird. Who else would I think of? Bryant “Big Country” Reeves (drafted 6th by the Grizzlies)? He was 7 feet tall and could barely dunk. Adam Morrison? He looks like a character out of Dude Where’s My Car? What I do remember is that both players suffered from an extreme lack of athleticism and the media told me that’s why they couldn’t make it. The NBA today was influenced by street ball and the flash of Magic Johnson’s “Showtime” Lakers they say. They also say without saying that the reason white players can’t play in today’s NBA is because the “fundamentals” are gone. That’s a fun way of them saying, “The league is too black and undisciplined”.
This feeling of the league becoming too black started in the 70’s when the league merged with the ABA and Julius Erving exploded onto the national scene. There had been many black superstars before him (Russell, Baylor, Roberston, et al.), but he was different. He had the ability to drive the entire length of the court and dunk over anyone... he also had an amazing afro. Had in not been for a title run with the 76ers in the 80’s, Dr. J’s legacy very well may have been lost as the league suffered through rampant cocaine use. NBA historians have this fun game they play where they pretend that 1975 to 1980 never happened. It is because of this that “Pistol” Pete Marovich is lost in the catacombs of basketball lore. And while Dr. J and Magic are getting credit for forever changing the game, what they were doing was nothing new and Marovich had just as much influence on the changes to the game. Looking at today’s game. All those behind the back passes and drive and kick point guards, who perfected that style? Pete Marovich (white). Who started that style of play? Bob Cousy (white). In the 50’s. Not Magic and not Dr. J. Then, why do they get credit?
Because the 80’s still define basketball today. Most sportswriters remember back to the 80’s because that is when they started watching basketball. The guys who remember the earlier days are old and retired. And those guys who remember the late 70’s are ignored because the players were all coked up... except Bill Walton... he was on acid. Like me, many sportswriters have watched and seen fewer and fewer white players at All-Star Games. At the same time the game has indeed become more fast paced, and the isolation play (essentially one on one basketball) has become a mainstay in most play books. Players like Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony made a living being isolated from their teammates and essentially reducing a five on five game to one on one. A combination of the drug problems in the 70’s, the dunks of the 80’s, and the one on one crossovers (Jordan over Russell) have changed the image of black players and their influence on basketball. This leads to a stereotype that black players have made the game all about flash and athleticism and not about fundamentals. In order to drive home this point, the myth of white players, and all their fundamentals, not being able to play in the NBA.
Certainly a professional sports league wouldn’t let race define them, right? Wrong. Consider that the NBA is the only professional sports league that has a dress code. That’s right. Players showed up with in baggy clothes and wearing chains and what the kids are calling bling. Then the NBA said, “Look professional!” And really they meant, “Stop dressing like thugs!” So, even on the surface the NBA tries to reduce the perceived... um... blackness of the league. Since this exists in the league, it is not hard to fathom this notion of “blackness” being active in the media. Hence the myth: white guys can’t play in the NBA because (even though white players had just as much influence on changes to game) the league is too undisciplined, too high flying, and too black.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Las Vegas-- Revised Version
Ok! Here's the revised version. The last portion of this post is still a bit tangly, but at least provides a starting point as I consider further revisions.
I was a little worried. I'm glad I had time to post.
There’s a strange double movement to Vegas—the city both naturalizes and denaturalizes myths about what it means for us to be participants in a capitalist society.
With these qualifications in place, the myth enervating Las Vegas can be better understood through the opposition between Freemont Street—also known as Old Downtown—and the more famous strip. The former is representative both of the city's past and its revisualization of its future; the latter utilizes tropes from the former to lend itself authenticity, yet it subtly changes these tropes. In the differences, and also the similarities, between Freemont Street and the Strip one can envision a broader shift in how we orient ourselves toward capital.
I’ll begin my reflection here by discussing Fremont Street—a location that’s near and dear to my heart. Fremont Street shares several common elements with the more famous strip. The digital screen that serves as its canopy and its semantic frame celebrates excess in a manner similar to the palisades of the Venetian and Caesar’s Palace. And in common with the strip, there is a garish air to Fremont Street: neon signs unapologetically entice passersby with cheap buffets and booze; posters announce casino’s “loose slots” and their cheap blackjack tables. Female employees of the casinos—either garishly dressed, or wearing very little— are scattered decorations.
Yet at the same time that Fremont Street celebrates excess, it also encourages visitors’ active participation. Running beneath Fremont’s large screen, zip-lines convey revelers from one end of Old Downtown to the other. Their bodies become part of the larger scene; enveloped yet participatory in the space created by the larger canopy. In a similar way, at the same time that “loose slots” and cheap blackjack tables entice visitors to join gambling’s cycle of winning and quickly losing, they at least promise that budget travelers will be able to “hold on” for a while longer. With its participatory air and bargains, Fremont Street encourages even budget travelers to share in the experience of Vegas—albeit at a tidy profit for the casinos.Despite the obvious charm of Fremont Street, one can nonetheless arrive on the more fabled strip by traversing a few miles down Las Vegas Boulevard with its surprising array of wedding chapels, pawn shops, and bail-bond outfits. Yet the inhuman scale and tenor of the strip is alienating to me; any one of the major casinos is the size of, or bigger than, a NYC block.
While the intimidating scale of the Strip can be viewed as a natural extension of elements already present in old downtown—a celebration of spectacle, for example—the grandeur of these developments nonetheless serve to erase their visitors. Even as a strange mix of characters walks up and down the strip carting wildly overpriced liquor (a six pack of Bud goes for 20 bucks), the celebratory air is very narrowly crowded—and uncomfortable—within confined corridors built of capital. And though the nightclubs of the strip pretend at exclusivity through their exorbitant fees, both their music and their visitors seem bleakly interchangeable. At the same time that the Strip celebrates a display of wealth and spectacle for spectacle’s sake, through sheer grandeur it paradoxically imposes uniformity on its participants. Ones’ senses quickly become numb.
The difference between Old and New Vegas is a question of degree rather than of type: the differences between these two scenes nonetheless demonstrate how the myths enervating American consumerism have subtly changed. Both the Strip and Fremont Street essentially rely on the same myth, which is deeply tied to capitalism in general, in order to operate: though visitors are encouraged to risk fortunes and know that the games they’re playing are rigged, in exchange for their risk there’s at least the potential for a dramatic payout. This myth—this inherent desire to beat the odds—rationalizes an otherwise insane activity: throwing one’s money in a waste-bin. Yet Fremont encourages the participation of visitors who may be less well off, while the Strip works actively to erase such visitors. The distinction between Old and New Vegas isn’t whether one will lose through playing, but whether one will be allowed the privilege of playing at all.
The difference between Old and New Vegas is a question of degree rather than of type: the differences between these two scenes nonetheless demonstrate how the myths enervating American consumerism have subtly changed. Both the Strip and Fremont Street essentially rely on the same myth, which is deeply tied to capitalism in general, in order to operate: though visitors are encouraged to risk fortunes and know that the games they’re playing are rigged, in exchange for their risk there’s at least the potential for a dramatic payout. This myth—this inherent desire to beat the odds—rationalizes an otherwise insane activity: throwing one’s money in a waste-bin. Yet Fremont encourages the participation of visitors who may be less well off, while the Strip works actively to erase such visitors. The distinction between Old and New Vegas isn’t whether one will lose through playing, but whether one will be allowed the privilege of playing at all.
The Strip, by being so exclusive, runs against the egalitarian myth--which may never have been true--of Old Downtown and to some extent America. The values underlying this myth can be summarized succinctly: everyone should be allowed to participate in the spectacle of capitalism, and then to lose their shirt. The question isn’t whether the capitalist game is rigged. It's whether one has access to the game in the first place.
Vegas, both old and new, lays its cards on the table; and I admire the city for its chutzpah. Though one can accuse Vegas of lacking subtlety, by making starkly visible the myths which enervate our broader culture, the city at least temporarily suspends the pervasive power of these myths. By illuminating what is elsewhere hidden, Vegas is simultaneously able to embrace bubble-gum capitalism and to offer an escape from it.
The strange double movement of Vegas situates it at the strange locus of myth and myth’s dissolution. In embracing ones role in the city’s consumer culture, by subjecting oneself to its predation, one comes closer to understanding the fundamental tenets of our economic exchange.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Bird and Magic
So here's part 3 of a really well made HBO documentary about the Larry Bird/ Magic Johnson rivalry. This part is particularly interesting in regards to race. I think the NBA today is very much like the NBA of the late 70's early 80's when it comes to how white players are viewed by fans, media, and other players. If you ever get a chance to view the entire documentary you'll see just how much of an impact these two players had on the game, but for now I feel like this segment explains a good del about my myth.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Now that seems really obvious and lame...
Here are some others I also like. Perhaps one will lend itself better to reverse myth examination...
Just as with my thesis topic, I am unable to narrow down just what it is that I wish to focus on. I have found it. This photograph. Observe, please.
I may be wrong, but this image lends itself well to a rich and well-storied history as well as the evacuation of that history and the overwriting of the idea of a modern American family as they celebrate Christmas. Love the high heel foot raise!
Or, maybe it's just ironic and I'm a dope. I'm open to that interpretation as well.
Or, maybe it's just ironic and I'm a dope. I'm open to that interpretation as well.
Still Struggling
I've had a terrible time finding a mythology that seems relevant and that I find interesting. While reading more of Mythologies for inspiration I realized that many of Barthes' topics were derived from public exhibitions, either from an art gallery, natural history museum ("The Family of Man"), science expo ("Plastics"), the movies ("The Face of Garbo"); so I decided that I would perform a mythology on whatever was happening at the Boise Art Museum, which is a show called "Art and the Environment." In line with the theme, 'landscape' seemed like a good choice because it is distanced from and has meaning separate from what it represents, but I was mistaking an image's history for its existence in nature. I feel like I need to review Barthes' essays for the relationship of the authenticity of an image in relation to the thing it represents. I may find answers there. I'm sure the nature of the landscape has been addressed by art scholars and it may not need further examination. It seems passé to analyze such a long-established and inherently unchanged genre. Perhaps a genre is the wrong thing to analyze. For the sake of the exercise I need to find something else which has immediate relevance.
I keep getting stuck on evolutionary concepts like the single mother and discotheques, not new (replacement) uses of older things like wine--which Barthes covered as Frenchness, and might hold up as the new American pretension a la Sideways. I force myself to consider alternative exhibitions of contemporary American culture: the infomercial, and all I know are Snuggies, the George Foreman Grill, and the TimeLife Hits of the Decades series hawked by by-gone veejays.
Perhaps it's the camera. Or the telephone. But these again are evolutionary. Having one's picture taken used to be special and required a formal sitting. Later it recorded only special moments. Two decades ago we were limited to 24 or 36 exposures to a roll and had to ration pictures to the important moments because each shot cost money. The early aughts saw the prevalence of digital cameras which was to shortly lead to their ubiquity as they were made smaller, cheaper and of ever-increasing quality as they were--and have been--integrated into our devices: telephones, iPods, and computers, and they are always with us. And our cameras don't just take pictures. They are tape recorders and video cameras, and of a vastly higher quality than the professional equipment of just twenty years ago.
Cameras are now what wrist watches used to be; they are no longer for the few, but have been democratically cheapened to overcome the problematics of access to technology; they also, in conjunction with the phones they are part of, often serve as the sole personal timepiece of their owners. The telephone, and the integrated camera, are making the wristwatch anachronistic.
[more as it comes]
I keep getting stuck on evolutionary concepts like the single mother and discotheques, not new (replacement) uses of older things like wine--which Barthes covered as Frenchness, and might hold up as the new American pretension a la Sideways. I force myself to consider alternative exhibitions of contemporary American culture: the infomercial, and all I know are Snuggies, the George Foreman Grill, and the TimeLife Hits of the Decades series hawked by by-gone veejays.
Perhaps it's the camera. Or the telephone. But these again are evolutionary. Having one's picture taken used to be special and required a formal sitting. Later it recorded only special moments. Two decades ago we were limited to 24 or 36 exposures to a roll and had to ration pictures to the important moments because each shot cost money. The early aughts saw the prevalence of digital cameras which was to shortly lead to their ubiquity as they were made smaller, cheaper and of ever-increasing quality as they were--and have been--integrated into our devices: telephones, iPods, and computers, and they are always with us. And our cameras don't just take pictures. They are tape recorders and video cameras, and of a vastly higher quality than the professional equipment of just twenty years ago.
Cameras are now what wrist watches used to be; they are no longer for the few, but have been democratically cheapened to overcome the problematics of access to technology; they also, in conjunction with the phones they are part of, often serve as the sole personal timepiece of their owners. The telephone, and the integrated camera, are making the wristwatch anachronistic.
[more as it comes]
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Pistol Pete
While Dr. J is credited with changing basketball into the fast paced game it is today, in many ways Maravich was just as influential with his crazy behind the back and full court passing. This will come up in my next draft, I just haven't written it yet. Just watch these videos and ponder why it was the black player that became the face of the changes in the game.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Landscape
This is coming is fragments and pieces, reflective of the short periods I've been able to work on it. I will iron the pleats out later.
A painting, in the traditional mode of a two-dimensional surface within a four-cornered frame, has particular attributes of portability, scale, perspective, and immutability that make it distinct from what it represents.
Painted landscapes allow places to travel instead of people, the way postcards used to, and photos attached to e-mail and Facebook posts do today.
A landscape painting is a false window into an unreal world that resembles our own. It is hung on a wall as ornamentation and brings the outdoors in. It allows the owner a certain control over nature, by putting it in improbable places: the southwest-style guest room has O’Keefe on the wall; the Asian bathroom has a misty bamboo forest valley; the mountain scene over the hotel bed might help us forget there are people on the other side.
A familiar painting can offer familiarity and stability. The scene does not change as time passes outside the window—the season is idle, the river and clouds are frozen, the birds are suspended—and this singular scene can be moved between rooms and even houses as the owner redecorates or moves. The possession and portability of a landscape gives the owner, even the viewer, control over nature in a superficial yet powerful way.
Art is decorative and transcends the creation of nature, thus the concept of a Creator is removed and replaced with the creative mastery of the artist. The symbiosis of the natural world is lost for the detail of brushstrokes and the layering of paint. The work of the painter is revered for both the ability of accurately depicting a real place, but also for what he or she inserts into the landscape via interpretation, style and influence as the Hudson River School did in New York in the nineteenth century.
Landscape paintings cannot be mistaken for the real thing; even photographs are always recognizable as depictions, so we have a surface on which to reflect and create meaning as observers. We understand a waterfall as the result of the artist’s process: as technique, and decisions like medium, color, and brush type; not as erosion and plate tectonics.
A painting, in the traditional mode of a two-dimensional surface within a four-cornered frame, has particular attributes of portability, scale, perspective, and immutability that make it distinct from what it represents.
Painted landscapes allow places to travel instead of people, the way postcards used to, and photos attached to e-mail and Facebook posts do today.
A landscape painting is a false window into an unreal world that resembles our own. It is hung on a wall as ornamentation and brings the outdoors in. It allows the owner a certain control over nature, by putting it in improbable places: the southwest-style guest room has O’Keefe on the wall; the Asian bathroom has a misty bamboo forest valley; the mountain scene over the hotel bed might help us forget there are people on the other side.
A familiar painting can offer familiarity and stability. The scene does not change as time passes outside the window—the season is idle, the river and clouds are frozen, the birds are suspended—and this singular scene can be moved between rooms and even houses as the owner redecorates or moves. The possession and portability of a landscape gives the owner, even the viewer, control over nature in a superficial yet powerful way.
Art is decorative and transcends the creation of nature, thus the concept of a Creator is removed and replaced with the creative mastery of the artist. The symbiosis of the natural world is lost for the detail of brushstrokes and the layering of paint. The work of the painter is revered for both the ability of accurately depicting a real place, but also for what he or she inserts into the landscape via interpretation, style and influence as the Hudson River School did in New York in the nineteenth century.
Landscape paintings cannot be mistaken for the real thing; even photographs are always recognizable as depictions, so we have a surface on which to reflect and create meaning as observers. We understand a waterfall as the result of the artist’s process: as technique, and decisions like medium, color, and brush type; not as erosion and plate tectonics.
Myth by Linda
“Myth is a system of communication, that it is a message. This allows one to perceive that myth cannot possibly be an object, a concept, or an idea; it is a mode of signification, a form” (Barthes, 107).
Merry Christmas! Or by those who are more secular, Happy Holidays! No matter how you express it, though, the month of December is the occurrence of a combination of holidays that are largely celebrated by no work, parties, gift exchanges, food, and visits from family and friends. Because of a particularly grisly experience in December 2005, I have come to realize that the celebration of the holidays in America in December has been overwritten with a cultural impression of a specific type of acceptable behavior. I believe it is a culmination of both the religious holidays that are observed and the coming of a new year. Consumerism and the rise of the popularity of Santa Claus also contributes to this cultural phenomenon.
So if the Merry Christmas is the myth, then what was there before? December is a time of enormous stress for many people. That is the reality of the situation. Why?
You have to buy gifts you potentially can’t afford. You can sit out of the gift giving, but to do so raises judgment and pity from family members and friends, who will second guess your every financial move in the coming year.
You have to spend time with people you don’t like. Your relatives. Could there be any more awkward of a time than that spent with relatives during the holidays. They aren’t like you. They don’t know you. They bought you something you would never use/need/want. They have radically different outlooks on everything it is possible to have an outlook upon: religion, politics, money, relationships, careers, child rearing, exercise, style, and diet, to name a few.
You feel guilty if you do not do any of the things that society (read capitalism) has decided that you should be doing to celebrate the holidays. Is there any greater source of guilt in life than that which occurs at this time of the year? It comes from everywhere. We must put on our best clothing. Our children must be best behaved. We must attend some sort of religious service, even if our shadow wouldn’t darken the door to a religious function under any other circumstances, excepting that of the death of a family member. We must have the most perfectly chosen gifts wrapped in the most perfect way delivered at the culturally appropriate time before the holiday celebration. Forget that the gift went on a credit card. Forget that you spent $75 on the ingredients to make a pound cake that the recipients won’t like. Forget that it cost more than the gift inside the box to mail said present. Forget that you haven’t seen their children in years and have no idea what toys are trending on the opposite coast.
So I am sure that isn't the form that is emptied of the previous content. That is what resides there now. What was there before? I'm not sure I can articulate it. Perhaps in class we can.
“Every object in the world can pass from a closed, silent existence to an oral state, open to appropriation by society, for there is no law, whether natural or not, which forbids talking about things” (Barthes, 107).
Merry Christmas! Or by those who are more secular, Happy Holidays! No matter how you express it, though, the month of December is the occurrence of a combination of holidays that are largely celebrated by no work, parties, gift exchanges, food, and visits from family and friends. Because of a particularly grisly experience in December 2005, I have come to realize that the celebration of the holidays in America in December has been overwritten with a cultural impression of a specific type of acceptable behavior. I believe it is a culmination of both the religious holidays that are observed and the coming of a new year. Consumerism and the rise of the popularity of Santa Claus also contributes to this cultural phenomenon.
So if the Merry Christmas is the myth, then what was there before? December is a time of enormous stress for many people. That is the reality of the situation. Why?
You have to buy gifts you potentially can’t afford. You can sit out of the gift giving, but to do so raises judgment and pity from family members and friends, who will second guess your every financial move in the coming year.
You have to spend time with people you don’t like. Your relatives. Could there be any more awkward of a time than that spent with relatives during the holidays. They aren’t like you. They don’t know you. They bought you something you would never use/need/want. They have radically different outlooks on everything it is possible to have an outlook upon: religion, politics, money, relationships, careers, child rearing, exercise, style, and diet, to name a few.
You feel guilty if you do not do any of the things that society (read capitalism) has decided that you should be doing to celebrate the holidays. Is there any greater source of guilt in life than that which occurs at this time of the year? It comes from everywhere. We must put on our best clothing. Our children must be best behaved. We must attend some sort of religious service, even if our shadow wouldn’t darken the door to a religious function under any other circumstances, excepting that of the death of a family member. We must have the most perfectly chosen gifts wrapped in the most perfect way delivered at the culturally appropriate time before the holiday celebration. Forget that the gift went on a credit card. Forget that you spent $75 on the ingredients to make a pound cake that the recipients won’t like. Forget that it cost more than the gift inside the box to mail said present. Forget that you haven’t seen their children in years and have no idea what toys are trending on the opposite coast.
So I am sure that isn't the form that is emptied of the previous content. That is what resides there now. What was there before? I'm not sure I can articulate it. Perhaps in class we can.
“Every object in the world can pass from a closed, silent existence to an oral state, open to appropriation by society, for there is no law, whether natural or not, which forbids talking about things” (Barthes, 107).
Black or White Doesn't Matter with Two Seconds on the Clock
This is the roughest of rough drafts. I've started over and am in desperate need of help. Sorry for asking you to read this:
Today’s NBA is fast paced, with a greater focus on pick and roll offense, intense defense (except for the Knicks), and an emphasis on the fastbreak dunk. Many white players come from programs like Wisconsin, Butler, and the Ivy League schools, where game plans are built around zone defense and ball control offense. This style of basketball has slowly been disappearing from the league since, oh, probably the first time Dr. J dribble the full court and dunked over someone. Seriously, Youtube that shit... Dr. J was the man. Around the same time as all this was happening, Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics were engaged in an epic rivalry (that had been going on since the 60’s) with the Los Angeles Lakers and Magic Johnson. Bird was white and Magic was black. Given the history of race relations in this country, you can probably fill in the blanks. The media took the rivalry and made it nation wide obsession. The NBA’s ratings were never higher. Then Bird retired. And after that there hasn’t been a white, American born (a key difference because even Steve Nash is Canadian) superstar since then. Thus the myth that white players can’t play in today’s NBA.
There are a lot of good white players today. Troy Murphy and David Lee are serviceable double-double big men and Kevin Love would be a superstar if he didn’t play in Minnesota. Yet, they are rarely seen at the All Star game or in the playoffs. These are the venues of most exposure in basketball and not seeing a white player dominate in, oh, 30 years certainly makes it easier to manipulate fans into believing the myth. Certainly die hard fans (who are essentially scholars of the game) know that this myth is compete bullshit. It is the semi-fans or the one team only fans that have been manipulated. For example, if a fan only followed the Cavaliers for the past 10 season, that fan would have watched Luke Jackson and Chris Mihm effectively ruin the first two years of the LeBron James Era. That fan would probably buy into the myth that white players can’t make it today’s NBA. And most of the myth is built around the careers of players like Jackson. Mihm, Adam Morrison, and Christian Laetner. Yes, they all were terrible players, but there is no need to compare them with every white player to come out of college. And yet, here in 2011 BYU point guard Jimmer Fredette is held to this standard. Why?
The myth that white players can’t play in the NBA is perpetuated by the media so that when the next white superstar does arrive, they’ll have years worth of material to write and report. Therefore, any white player, like Jimmer Fredette, is going to be portrayed as a player that has no shot of making it the NBA so that if he does, they’ll have a plethora of material to write about. The difference between white and black has been the backstory of some of sports greatest stories. The NBA would say day like to return to the days of Magic versus Bird and Los Angeles versus Boston. But that won’t happen without a white superstar.
What harm comes from this? The myth that white players can’t play in the NBA is just a modern adaptation of “black players can’t play professional sports and would ruin the game if they did”. In other words, it’s just another myth that’s come along try and make sports more than a game. And that is what has been lost over the years. Basketball is a sport. Sports are games. Games are played on courts and fields, not in press boxes and not on soap boxes. Writers don’t want fans to realize this. A good basketball scholar follows players and what they did on the court, not what they did off the court. And what really sells papers? Race and conflict. Any documentary about Bill Russell will tell just as much about his political protests and strong opinions on race as they will covering his 11 championships. Yes, that’s right 11. Shouldn’t that be the focus of the biography on a basketball player? Does it really matter that Russell was black? The guy won more goddamn championships than most franchises.
Today’s sportswriters are sometimes more concerned with what goes on outside the game. Think about the whole Tiger Woods fiasco. When people found out about his affairs, they all turned on him. And not just Tiger Woods the person, but Tiger Woods the golfer. When he came back and played like shit everyone it was because of his personal life and that he shouldn’t be the number one player anymore. But, really, did Tiger Woods being a sex addict and all around despicable (seriously, cheating on his wife with dozens of women is beyond appalling) person change the fact that he is the best golfer in the world? No. And what story did it replace? “Holy crap, Tiger Woods is black”. But, that’s the point. Sport writers want the game to extend of the court, field, or pitch because it sells. Bird and Magic sold because the media was able to convince people that race was more important than all the epic games played.
In today’s world of Twitter and instant updates on ESPN, people are attracted to big name celebrities and people that make a shit load of money. So, players are followed like Paris Hilton (only they contribute to society). Since none of the best players are white, fans easily buy into the myth that white players can’t be successful. Players today are millionaires and millionaires in this country are a focus of public scrutiny. Again, this gets away from the point that even if they millionaires, they are still athletes. They make that money by playing games. And, the best players play. Coaches today don’t care if a player is black or white, they need players that fit their system. All the aforementioned white players that crashed and burned in the NBA did so because their skills didn’t fit the systems they were playing in. Not to mention that some of the all time greatest busts, Robert Traylor, Dajuan Wagner, and Kendrick Brown, were all black. Race makes no difference.
So, what does this all mean? It means that the myth that white players can’t be successful in today’s NBA is a hot topic in the media so that when the next Larry Bird finally shows up, the media can make a lot of money covering that player. Then the NBA can make money. After all it is a business and race sells. But, for all this marketing and all these invasions into the lives of athletes, the truth about professional basketball is erased. All the should really matter is what happens on the court. On the court it doesn’t matter if someone is black or white. The players we remember were great players because they could shoot a ball into a basket. So, even though race gets the headlines, championships go in the record books.
Today’s NBA is fast paced, with a greater focus on pick and roll offense, intense defense (except for the Knicks), and an emphasis on the fastbreak dunk. Many white players come from programs like Wisconsin, Butler, and the Ivy League schools, where game plans are built around zone defense and ball control offense. This style of basketball has slowly been disappearing from the league since, oh, probably the first time Dr. J dribble the full court and dunked over someone. Seriously, Youtube that shit... Dr. J was the man. Around the same time as all this was happening, Larry Bird and the Boston Celtics were engaged in an epic rivalry (that had been going on since the 60’s) with the Los Angeles Lakers and Magic Johnson. Bird was white and Magic was black. Given the history of race relations in this country, you can probably fill in the blanks. The media took the rivalry and made it nation wide obsession. The NBA’s ratings were never higher. Then Bird retired. And after that there hasn’t been a white, American born (a key difference because even Steve Nash is Canadian) superstar since then. Thus the myth that white players can’t play in today’s NBA.
There are a lot of good white players today. Troy Murphy and David Lee are serviceable double-double big men and Kevin Love would be a superstar if he didn’t play in Minnesota. Yet, they are rarely seen at the All Star game or in the playoffs. These are the venues of most exposure in basketball and not seeing a white player dominate in, oh, 30 years certainly makes it easier to manipulate fans into believing the myth. Certainly die hard fans (who are essentially scholars of the game) know that this myth is compete bullshit. It is the semi-fans or the one team only fans that have been manipulated. For example, if a fan only followed the Cavaliers for the past 10 season, that fan would have watched Luke Jackson and Chris Mihm effectively ruin the first two years of the LeBron James Era. That fan would probably buy into the myth that white players can’t make it today’s NBA. And most of the myth is built around the careers of players like Jackson. Mihm, Adam Morrison, and Christian Laetner. Yes, they all were terrible players, but there is no need to compare them with every white player to come out of college. And yet, here in 2011 BYU point guard Jimmer Fredette is held to this standard. Why?
The myth that white players can’t play in the NBA is perpetuated by the media so that when the next white superstar does arrive, they’ll have years worth of material to write and report. Therefore, any white player, like Jimmer Fredette, is going to be portrayed as a player that has no shot of making it the NBA so that if he does, they’ll have a plethora of material to write about. The difference between white and black has been the backstory of some of sports greatest stories. The NBA would say day like to return to the days of Magic versus Bird and Los Angeles versus Boston. But that won’t happen without a white superstar.
What harm comes from this? The myth that white players can’t play in the NBA is just a modern adaptation of “black players can’t play professional sports and would ruin the game if they did”. In other words, it’s just another myth that’s come along try and make sports more than a game. And that is what has been lost over the years. Basketball is a sport. Sports are games. Games are played on courts and fields, not in press boxes and not on soap boxes. Writers don’t want fans to realize this. A good basketball scholar follows players and what they did on the court, not what they did off the court. And what really sells papers? Race and conflict. Any documentary about Bill Russell will tell just as much about his political protests and strong opinions on race as they will covering his 11 championships. Yes, that’s right 11. Shouldn’t that be the focus of the biography on a basketball player? Does it really matter that Russell was black? The guy won more goddamn championships than most franchises.
Today’s sportswriters are sometimes more concerned with what goes on outside the game. Think about the whole Tiger Woods fiasco. When people found out about his affairs, they all turned on him. And not just Tiger Woods the person, but Tiger Woods the golfer. When he came back and played like shit everyone it was because of his personal life and that he shouldn’t be the number one player anymore. But, really, did Tiger Woods being a sex addict and all around despicable (seriously, cheating on his wife with dozens of women is beyond appalling) person change the fact that he is the best golfer in the world? No. And what story did it replace? “Holy crap, Tiger Woods is black”. But, that’s the point. Sport writers want the game to extend of the court, field, or pitch because it sells. Bird and Magic sold because the media was able to convince people that race was more important than all the epic games played.
In today’s world of Twitter and instant updates on ESPN, people are attracted to big name celebrities and people that make a shit load of money. So, players are followed like Paris Hilton (only they contribute to society). Since none of the best players are white, fans easily buy into the myth that white players can’t be successful. Players today are millionaires and millionaires in this country are a focus of public scrutiny. Again, this gets away from the point that even if they millionaires, they are still athletes. They make that money by playing games. And, the best players play. Coaches today don’t care if a player is black or white, they need players that fit their system. All the aforementioned white players that crashed and burned in the NBA did so because their skills didn’t fit the systems they were playing in. Not to mention that some of the all time greatest busts, Robert Traylor, Dajuan Wagner, and Kendrick Brown, were all black. Race makes no difference.
So, what does this all mean? It means that the myth that white players can’t be successful in today’s NBA is a hot topic in the media so that when the next Larry Bird finally shows up, the media can make a lot of money covering that player. Then the NBA can make money. After all it is a business and race sells. But, for all this marketing and all these invasions into the lives of athletes, the truth about professional basketball is erased. All the should really matter is what happens on the court. On the court it doesn’t matter if someone is black or white. The players we remember were great players because they could shoot a ball into a basket. So, even though race gets the headlines, championships go in the record books.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Beginning of My Myth
The in-laws are here. So are Jeff’s sister and brother-in-law. The stress has started. I’m drowning in it. The only thing that isn’t tense is above the neck. No headaches, though. That’s the only thing I have to be thankful for.
They aren’t around kids much, so they don’t know. They don’t know and they aren’t trying to make an effort. How many times do I have to ask them to close the toilet lid, to not leave loose change where Braden can reach it? How many times do I have to ask them to pick up plastic bags off the floor in their bedrooms (my bedrooms)? Why do their bedrooms (my bedrooms) look like an abandoned tenement cum home of the homeless? How many times do I have to say, Please, no shoes on the carpet. Please, guys, no shoes on the carpet. Do you mind taking your shoes off inside the house? (CAN YOU TAKE YOUR DAMN SHOES OFF? WHY DO I HAVE TO ASK SO MANY TIMES?!?!?!?)
I’m already a little bit prone to claustrophobia. Okay, I’m a lot claustrophobic. I can’t stand the window seat on the plane. I can’t even sit in a restaurant booth and be up against the wall. I would never dream of going caving. What I do dream of is being stuck in a progressively smaller waterslide that never ends. And it’s just light enough for me to tell that the walls are closing in… closing in… stealing my breath. So in this house of 2100+ square feet, why is it that I feel like I’m stuck in the back of an elevator with 12 other people while somebody rips farts that smell like fried chicken?
I’ve come to the realization that I don’t like to have people stay in my home. One night. That’s about it. The old adage about fish and houseguests after three days is true. Except in my case, I picked up my fish from the “cheap meats” section of the grocery store and they were already rotten the day I brought them home.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Blue Collar is the New Black
Blue Collar is the New Black
Two nights a week, I make my living serving booze to Boise’s finest. The bar I work in boasts a randomness in clientele that keeps the cash registers ringing at all times of day. My shifts are on Friday nights and Monday nights. Working these two shifts has brought to my attention not only how people drink, but what they drink. On Fridays, we have a lot of younger patrons in the bar who aren’t usually seen on the weekdays. Mondays, being industry night, we serve the folks who work in other bars and restaurants downtown. I have been doing this job for almost nine years now, and when I first started, I would have been hard pressed to see girls in little dresses, or guys in skinny designer jeans slinging back a cold one, but these days it seems to be the norm.
There has been a noticeable shift in what young people are drinking, and I have witnessed firsthand the trendiness of drinking PBR. It is easily recognizable as “shitty beer” and it used to be that given the option between a PBR and another domestic beer, people would snub their noses at the blue ribbon winner and opt for something a little less “trashy.” Now Pabst is the biggest seller in my bar and from what I have read, in many bars across the country. To keep up with demand, Pabst even stepped into the realm of light beer by offering Pabst light. Now people can look trendy while keeping those calories in check.
In the bar where I work, we offer PBR (the quintessential blue collar beer) in every imaginable form and we consistently sell out of it. Our latest trend is PBR 40 oz. bottles for $4.50. At the end of a Friday night, you can hear the moans of the door guys as they pick up the half full soldiers left to waste. The notion of large quantities of beer for a good price does not factor in here. These bottles are purchased for the look. On more than one occasion, customers have been spotted in the bathrooms dumping portions of their beers out in the sinks. It is not about getting the most bang for your buck in terms of alcohol. Instead it is about getting the recognition for being a cheap beer drinker. It is about adopting the identity of the working class.
Cheap beer is synonymous with low economic status. It is what people buy when they want to get drunk for the least amount of money possible. It has generally been relegated to working class folks who throw a couple back at home, or kids scraping together all the change in their ashtrays to buy a case of beer for a party. Cheap beer has commonly been seen as the redneck beer. This spoof ad with Brad Pitt playing Chester Nelly is a perfect example of the connotations beer like PBR used to bring with it. (Warning: if you click on the Chester Nelly link, just be aware that this video is pretty offensive) There are people out there who have been drinking Pabst in bars for years, either because it is affordable, or because it is union made, or because it is one of the last large scale independent breweries remaining, or simply because they prefer the taste of it. Pabst Blue Ribbon has been around for almost 120 years, and the brewery has consistently marketed the product as the good ol’ American beer. It has generally been seen in the hands of the blue collar demographic. Now twenty-somethings all over the country are embracing this particular sign as a part of their identities.
What is it about the idea of blue collar that is so appealing to the new generation of drinkers? My best guess is it is the new rebellion against the upper tiers of society. There has been push back against the wealthy and the elite in different eras, and this new rush to guzzle the working man’s drink seems to be today’s manifestation. Though Pabst does not do any large scale advertising, the marketing for other domestic beers has seen a shift. Instead of the bikini-clad babes that used to beckon to frothing troglodytes, we now see a delivery man hero putting beer back in the hands of the common man, and women poking fun at tragically unfashionable men who drink light beer. We have spokespeople like Keith Stone. The marketing scheme has gone from “drink beer and get laid” to “drink beer and be an everyman.” Though I am unable to articulate just what it is, there is a certain identity that comes along with drinking Pabst these days. It implies that you are a working class hero; that you are above all that crazy consumerism that would drive other people to opt for a more expensive hand crafted beer. While this seems benign, I feel it begs analysis.
As with many adaptations of style, this beer nouveau crowd is borrowing cues from a group of people who are underrepresented in society. It has become cool to be poor, and the guzzling hipsters are waving their red, white, and blue beer cans high as they shamelessly exploit the working class. My issue is not with the fact that they are drinking a certain type of beer to look cool. My issue is with the notion that they have adopted a recognizable sign of low economic status in order to make themselves readily identifiable as “blue collar” but they can easily shed that identity when it is convenient. I doubt that any of the new cheap beer club members would willingly adopt all aspects of the working class culture, and they are lucky because they don’t have to. They can get the credibility for drinking the working man’s beer, but they do not have to bear the burden of the working man’s plight. The choice they make in their beer selection is not out of necessity, but out of desire.
The danger in this type of identity marker for me is that it ignores the representative group. It lessens their visibility in society because it smoothes over the unattractive parts. It downplays the seriousness of economic hardship by making it look fashionable to be poor. I am all in favor of people having choice and being able to express themselves freely, but I do feel like there are far too many trends that exist at the expense of others. I suppose that is the benefit of having a set of tools with which to deconstruct them.
The Great White Hype Part Duex: The Media Representation of Jimmer Fredette
How are players viewed by sportswriters? A combination of statistics, race, similarities with other players and reputation. Just look at Jimmer Fredette, the BYU point guard, through the lens of a sportswriter (or fan). How he is viewed and represented in the media is reflective of a system that the fuels a myth. The myth that white players can’t be successful in the National Basketball Association. By looking closely at how the media represents Fredette, we can test the legitimacy of the system used to judge players before they even play one professional game. The easiest place to start is race. Since Jimmer Fredette is white he is immediately set apart from a majority of the other players in the NBA. And no, that is not a racist thing to say. It would be hard to believe that if Fredette was black he would generate nearly as much buzz as he does. There are very few good white players in the NBA today and so whenever a white player is really good in college everyone pays close attention to see if he might be the next white superstar. Of course, most sportswriters would never openly say just how much race matters in their analysis of players. Though when pressed on the subject one can tell that through all rhetorical bullshit they really would like to admit that race is central to their opinion. When people look at Fredette’s statistics (he led college basketball in scoring, or was at least in the top three, look it up), they often dismiss his gaudy numbers by saying, “well he’s not athletic enough” and “look at the competition”. That’s a fun way of pointing out that Fredette plays in a primarily white league and sometimes struggled against “better athletes” (sportswriter speak for black players). So, in this case a player’s race and the race of his peers becomes a means of dismissing his statistics. Is this warranted? No. Fredette’s statistics are concerning because he’s a point guard that shoots 30 to 40 times a game. Sure, he makes a lot of those shots, but that isn’t the role of an NBA point guard. They are expected to facilitate and be almost like another coach out of the floor. He could move over to shooting guard, but he’s only 6’3” and most shooting guards are at least 6’5” to 6’7”. So, yes Jimmer’s statistics are very alarming, but not because he played in a predominantly white league. They’re concerning because point guards aren’t supposed to shoot and score that much. Somebody should probably tell Jim Rome that (well, don’t because he wouldn’t listen anyway).
When Fredette’s name is mentioned in regards to his professional prospects sportswriters often compare him to players like Adam Morrison and Christian Laetner. There is no reason for this. The only thing these players have in common is that they are white. Morisson was a scorer from the small forward position at Gonzaga, but lacked the ability to create his own shot and was woefully incompetent on defense. That killed him in the NBA. Laetner goes down as perhaps the greatest college basketball player ever and for good reason. He was and still is a legend at Duke, which is the most legendary basketball school, so yeah he’s kind of a big deal. He wasn’t very good in the NBA mostly because he was overshadowed by his far more famous teammate Kevin Garnett and for being a jerk. Players can get away with that in college (especially at Duke), but the NBA is relatively lax when it comes to fouling someone hard (or just smacking them in the mouth). That caused Laetner to crash back to earth. Jimmer Fredette doesn’t have to worry about these same faults. He’s a good kid, can create his own shot, and while he will be an eternal legend at BYU, BYU is no Duke. Then, why is he constantly compared to Morrison and Laetner? Easy they’re all white. It doesn’t matter that their games are all different, in order to perpetuate the stereotype the white players can’t be successful in the NBA race is all that matters. Therefore, Fedette’s media representation must be associated with less successful white players so that white signifies crash and burn.
Finally, there is reputation. In the NBA reputation is everything. Bill Russell hasn’t played in almost 50 years, but we all know that he won 11 championships. We also know that Charles Barkley never won a championship despite being an elite player... and an incompetent commentator. When it comes to Jimmer Fredette his reputation, sportswriters and especially color commentators are quick to point out that he plays in inner city games in the summer. “Playing inner city games” is a code that signifies a level of equality between Fredette and the other top rated prospects, who, for the most part, are black. Again, race comes to define Fredette, but it here that the true motive behind the “white guys can’t play basketball” myth: hope that a white player, any white player will become a superstar. There hasn’t been a white superstar in the NBA since Larry Bird and he retired in 1993. There have been many good white players, but not elite players. That drives away conscious and obnoxious fans (racists) and some other parts of the white male demographic. The NBA is a multi billion dollar industry and while it remains so without this demographic, popularity in the mainstream media and culture is nowhere near where it was in the 1980’s. By some odd coincidence the 1980’s were also the days of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and the highly public and racially motivated rivalry of the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers.
And so, there it is. The myth that white players can’t play in the NBA is perpetuated by the media so that when the next white superstar does arrive, they’ll have years worth of material to write and report. Therefore, any white player, like Jimmer Fredette, is going to be portrayed as a player that has no shot of making it the NBA so that if he does, they’ll have a plethora of material to write about. The difference between white and black has been the backstory of some of sports greatest stories. The NBA would say day like to return to the days of Magic versus Bird and Los Angeles versus Boston. But that won’t happen without a white superstar.
PS: Kevin Love could solve this problem if he didn’t play in fucking Minnesota.
When Fredette’s name is mentioned in regards to his professional prospects sportswriters often compare him to players like Adam Morrison and Christian Laetner. There is no reason for this. The only thing these players have in common is that they are white. Morisson was a scorer from the small forward position at Gonzaga, but lacked the ability to create his own shot and was woefully incompetent on defense. That killed him in the NBA. Laetner goes down as perhaps the greatest college basketball player ever and for good reason. He was and still is a legend at Duke, which is the most legendary basketball school, so yeah he’s kind of a big deal. He wasn’t very good in the NBA mostly because he was overshadowed by his far more famous teammate Kevin Garnett and for being a jerk. Players can get away with that in college (especially at Duke), but the NBA is relatively lax when it comes to fouling someone hard (or just smacking them in the mouth). That caused Laetner to crash back to earth. Jimmer Fredette doesn’t have to worry about these same faults. He’s a good kid, can create his own shot, and while he will be an eternal legend at BYU, BYU is no Duke. Then, why is he constantly compared to Morrison and Laetner? Easy they’re all white. It doesn’t matter that their games are all different, in order to perpetuate the stereotype the white players can’t be successful in the NBA race is all that matters. Therefore, Fedette’s media representation must be associated with less successful white players so that white signifies crash and burn.
Finally, there is reputation. In the NBA reputation is everything. Bill Russell hasn’t played in almost 50 years, but we all know that he won 11 championships. We also know that Charles Barkley never won a championship despite being an elite player... and an incompetent commentator. When it comes to Jimmer Fredette his reputation, sportswriters and especially color commentators are quick to point out that he plays in inner city games in the summer. “Playing inner city games” is a code that signifies a level of equality between Fredette and the other top rated prospects, who, for the most part, are black. Again, race comes to define Fredette, but it here that the true motive behind the “white guys can’t play basketball” myth: hope that a white player, any white player will become a superstar. There hasn’t been a white superstar in the NBA since Larry Bird and he retired in 1993. There have been many good white players, but not elite players. That drives away conscious and obnoxious fans (racists) and some other parts of the white male demographic. The NBA is a multi billion dollar industry and while it remains so without this demographic, popularity in the mainstream media and culture is nowhere near where it was in the 1980’s. By some odd coincidence the 1980’s were also the days of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and the highly public and racially motivated rivalry of the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers.
And so, there it is. The myth that white players can’t play in the NBA is perpetuated by the media so that when the next white superstar does arrive, they’ll have years worth of material to write and report. Therefore, any white player, like Jimmer Fredette, is going to be portrayed as a player that has no shot of making it the NBA so that if he does, they’ll have a plethora of material to write about. The difference between white and black has been the backstory of some of sports greatest stories. The NBA would say day like to return to the days of Magic versus Bird and Los Angeles versus Boston. But that won’t happen without a white superstar.
PS: Kevin Love could solve this problem if he didn’t play in fucking Minnesota.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Green Consumerism
As a former vegan and occasional vegetarian whose tolerance of lactose is skeptical depending on the weekday, I’ve spent a fair amount of time in coops and natural food stores. I have to admit that I love being in a coop. Not shopping there, necessarily - just being. What’s being sold in stores like Whole Foods or the Boise Coop is atmosphere as much as product. It’s the mist covered produce, smartly designed product packaging and lack of primary colors, all kept stocked by hip looking employees who each seem to be buying time before their next backpacking trip across Southeast Asia or their band’s next tour. It somehow feels healthy, and responsible, just being there.
There is a smugness intermingled with the Australian wines, fairly-traded coffee and hand-dyed organic cotton saris made by former prostitutes in Calcutta – it requires a certain level of interest and cultivated understanding of the global market, with its specific offerings and nuanced economic ramifications, to fully appreciate and indulge in coop shopping. A seasoned shopper will know not to ask where the artichokes are (they’re out of season) and which bar of dark chocolate really is worth $6.79. They will navigate the Health and Wellness section with poise and purpose (homeopathic sleep aid, check; ear candles, check; probiotic supplement, check), banter with the butchers and gladly accept and comment on the apricot gelato samples.
The myth in this approach to consumerism is that it is all “green.” A parallel market has grown up to fill coops and natural food stores with products that aren’t found in conventional grocery stores. Conscientious consumers don’t want to be confronted with brightly packaged Ziplock boxes or unsophisticated, plain white cutting boards, so companies with unrecognizable names are providing the same products with a different aesthetic and the vague promise of sustainability.
These green products have been tacked on to the local food movement, so that next to your locally grown potatoes is vegetable peeler made from recycled plastic. Down the aisle there are plastic sandwich bags and plastic wrap made by Natural Value, as well as brown paper towels, pea-green disposal utensils and substantial, homemade- paper looking plates. Amidst all of the responsibly grown, produced and shipped items the inconsistency of “natural’ disposable plastic sandwich bag loses its punch.
The focus on ethic foods is another element to the myth. Somehow buying green and eating ethnic foods have been associated with one other. The coop is the only place in town where you’ll find 52 different types of Asian hot sauce, or a whole shelf of bottled curries, or three different kinds of instant miso soup. The energy used to distribute these items makes them distinctly ungreen, yet they are purchased with the same feeling of well-being as the kale grown down the street.
The idea of a green consumerism is a myth. To be truly green would be to stop participating in the demand for and production of useless crap, and the wasteful and illogical distribution of food across the world. But...that's too hard. And the myth feels so nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)