Sports- The direct cause of Racism in America today.

"Sport is the main cause of Racism in America today"

A controversial opinion perhaps. But let us examine why I believe it to be true.

It all stems from what I call 'the cancer of competition'.

In American society, to call someone 'competitive' is a compliment of the highest order. Our society values the aggressor, the winner, In the words of the Queen song "We Are the Champions" - we have no time for losers. You could go so far as to say America is a 'winner-takes-all' culture. There is almost no insult worse than to accuse someone of being a 'loser'. It is important to bear this key facet of the American psyche in mind when trying to analyse the growing phenomenon of sports-fuelled racism.

Other societies less racist than ours, do not have this notion of competitiveness. In England for example, it is far more important to be seen as a good sportsman, than to win the game. Indeed to call someone a 'good loser' is a compliment over there. The English have exactly the correct attitude. Sports are a diversion, not to be taken seriously by anyone with any amount class or breeding.

The Englishman is indifferent to the outcome of a mere sports fixture, having his mind set on higher things (like the vast body of art and literature his fellow Englishmen have bestowed upon a grateful world, or the civilizing legacy of the British Empire, still appreciated by third-world natives everywhere each time they drink a glass of clean water or drive on a pothole-free road, or his Monarchy, the envy of the entire world).

The Englishman has a noble history and a lovely Queen and Royal Family to feel good about. He has little need of sporting victory to boost his self-esteem. This goes a long way toward explaining why there is little or no racism in 21st century Britain.

America by contrast seems obsessed with sports. From Wrestling to Golf, from Baseball to Gridiron, from Bowling to Fly Fishing, from synchronized swimming to Dwarf-tossing - America's TV stations pump out sport (like an improbably lenghty ejaculation in a porn movie) on over 400 channels 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, 100 years a century. We cannot get enough.

And it would all be fine, except for one thing. Americans care about the outcome of these games. We genuinely feel good when our team win. We feel a genuine HATE for the opposition in defeat. Which brings us onto my argument that racism is caused by sports.

The first premise which nobody will disagree with is that all sports have winners and losers. We can guarantee that when the game is over, one group of playes will be ecstatic with the joy of winning, and the other team will be downcast and sullen, humiliated by nothing more than their own stupidity in taking something as trivial as the outcome of a game of (for example) basketball seriously. Depressed by the inability to move a small spherical object into a contrived position more times than the other team. It is a rather pathetic sight.

It goes on, the supporters of the winning basketball team will be elated, and likewise the supporters of the losing team will feel as if their world has just collapsed, or as if a favorite faithful dog just got broadsided by a semi truck.

Again, all this pain and anguish caused by something as stupid as caring about basketball.

So how does this cause racism ?

It is simple. Because America has de-segregated sports, there will doubtless be a mixture of races in any given basketball team. One team (lets call them Team 'A') might have 9 African Americans, and one White, while another team (lets call them Team 'B') may have 10 African Americans and no whites.

What happens when team 'A' loses to team 'B' ? - The inbuilt racism of both Whites and African Americans comes to the fore. The winning team (with 10 African Americans) will wonder why they won. They will look around at their team mates, and see nothing but dark faces. Then they will look at the losing side. Their eyes will alight on the one thing that makes team 'A' seem different - the unusual presence of a white Anglo Saxon or European player amongst the ranks. The obvious conclusion will then be drawn, which is: "we won because we have an all-black team" The seeds of racism have been sewn, in this case the All African American team will be feeling mighty superior to the 'mongrel' team.

Over in the Team 'A's locker room, there will be more post-game analysis. And yet again it will lead racism rearing its ugly head, as the 9 African American players naturaly focus on the one thing that made their losing team different from team 'B' - the presence of a white man (or 'honkey' as they may secretly think of him) on their otherwise racially pure basketball team. The insidious sin of racism will gradually grow like a tumor, until all the African Americans on Team 'A' are baying and screaming for white blood to avenge their 88-91 humiliation.

Meanwhile, team A's lone Caucasian is feeling utterly dejected. He is wondering secretly if the African-American 'Brothers' on his team actually gave him a fair crack of the whip ? Could it be that their subconcious racism led them to pass the ball to an alternative player, when he was in fact in the best position to recieve it ?

Now this shocking example only considers the players. But consider the viewers, the fans - they are most likely having similar thoughts. Indeed we can tabulate the explosion of sport-driven racism in a scientific manner to prove my point as follows:

White team 'A' supporters

These people will feel humiliation and racist hate for the all black team that 'proved' the racial inferiority of the white man by defeating him in the basketball game. The white player on team A represents the hopes and dreams of all White Americans, put to a dramatic end by a team of superior Nubian athletes, having the unfair advantage of racial purity.

African American team 'A' supporters

These people will be seething with racist frustration. Knowing that their team lost because of the one weakest (or should that be whitest ?) link. Their resentment may result in an increase of unprovoked racial attacks on whites in African-American areas of town.

White team 'B' supporters

Nothing can remove the sour taste of racial subjugation from these poor white's mouths. They already have a hard time supporting a team composed entirely of strong Black role-models. But to see their team defeat a team containing one of their racial compatriots just makes the cognitive dissonance too much to bear, resulting in a kind of tidal wave of self-hate, which manifests itself as a an outpouring of racist violence against the nearest African-American target.

African-American team 'B' supporters

These people have just had their racial prejudices confirmed. The mighty all-black team has wiped the floor with the racially compromised team, but instead of feeling happy and rejoicing in the superiority of their race on the basketball court, this victory simply reminds them of how they are held back in daily life: For example, they think how much better America would be if Congress and the Senate were all African-American affairs. Surely things would be better, given the superior verbal skills of the Black race (demostrated by the large number of rappers who are black). This then causes simmering resentment which boils over into a display of racial violence and looting, the like of which has seldom been seen before.

As you can see, here I have scientifically demonstrated (see above table) how racism is fuelled by sports, and in particular by racially mixed sporting events. But is it one thing to describe a problem, but it is quite another to solve it. But as with most problems, the solutions are there, and as with almost all problems no matter how intractable the solution involves a twin pronged attack of taxation, and technology

I have clearly demonstrated that racial violence and racism in America is caused by racially integrated sporting events. My 'table of racism' proves conclusively that we are all affected by this, black and white alike.

At first sight, a solution to the problem seems obvious - and I bet you thought of it long before getting as far as this. The obvious solution is to ban racially mixed sporting events. In other words, turn the clock back a few years to the days when we had a separate African American basketball league.

But like all 'obvious' solutions, there is a big drawback. In this case, we could be seen to be encouraging the very racism we are seeking to destroy. By segregating all sports, we run the risk of being seen as promoters of Apartheid, a throwback to the days of lynching and slavery.

So, for obvious reasons, the segregation option is out. So what is the answer ?

The answer is clear. When we are confronted with environmental issues, we try and make the polluter pay the price for his pollution. It should be just the same for 'social polluters'. Racism is social pollution in just the same way that greehouse gasses and oil slicks are environmental pollution.

The corporations who own the sports teams, and the corporations who sponsor those teams via advertizements and endorsements should be forced to pay a tax for every racially mixed game they show on TV. This would be a targetted tax which would be spent on programmes to raise the public's awareness of racial issues, and to compensate the victims of race crime.

If the corporations object to paying the tax, this is where the technology comes in. Systems now exist which can modify a video stream in real time, one of these systems should be used to ensure that when the game is broadcast, the complexions of every player are digitally enhanced to match the 'average' skintone of all players currently on the court (pitch/fairway/field) whatever.

This way, the raging torrent of racism that spews forth from our sports chanels day in, day out like a diabolical sewer of excrement and filth can be stemmed, and the giant corporations who have been getting away with social pollution on a grand scale can finally be made to pay for their crimes.

What do others think ? I am not interested in whether you agree that racism is caused by sports, I have demonstrated that sufficiently. I am more interested on whether the technical solutions I have proposed are workable. Anyone out there know anything about taxation ? Or real-time digital enhancement of video streams ?

Or am I being a bit too simplistic ? I realise this is a somewhat complex issue I have raised here.

	A Much More Dangerous Threat (5.00 / 3) (#7)
	by sventhatcher on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 03:53:07 AM PST

	What you're seeing in American obsession with the winner in Sports is the manifesting of a much more serious problem deep rooted in American Culture. In short: Capitalism or The American Dream. The idea that the smallest man can through hard-work and ingenuity rise up in the world of Corporate America and make his fortune. This idea was largely encouraged by the rise of dot com companies that seemed to have achieved this American Dream. Of course, it's all a myth. Who succeeds and doesn't succeed in the American economy is totally based on what the banks and megacorps deem fit to succeed. The dot com companies would've never been considered huge success stories without venture captal or huge buyouts. Money makes the world go 'round, and no one can really stop those who hold the vast majority of the money. Americans are obssessed with the winner in Sports, because it's their own way of experiencing the American Dream. To be a winner. They supported the team. The team won. It's like they won. They know deep inside the economic American Dream is an impossibility, so they live another version out through sports. The United Kingdom, being far more socialist than America, doesn't have this problem to the degree that America does. There are much tighter regulations on corporate entities allowing the people to be content with the fact that corporations control the flow of money as opposed to the US where people don't trust corporations becuase of loose regulations. --Sven (now with bonus weblog vanity site! (MLP sold seperately))

	I partly agree with your analysis. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
	by dmg on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 07:14:21 AM PST

	About the American Dream. But I think it goes deeper than that. It really boils down to class. Americans are more 'working class' in their outlook than Europeans. I have met people on my travels to the USA who were materially very well off, possibly even multi-millionaires, but whose class and breeding could be compared to the lowest of the low in the United Kingdom. People who don't know which knife and fork to use if there is more than one of each on offer. People who call a napkin a serviette, and who go to the 'toilet' or 'bathroom' instead of the lavatory. By contrast, in Europe I have met relatively poor people with a grasp of etiquette and manners that would not shame royalty, and an appreciation for art and culture that makes the average American look like the philistine he so obviously is. Europeans understand that sports are needed to keep the workers in their place, but would never take sports as seriously as Americans, because that would mark them out as somehow vulgar, or lower-class. In the UK, the sport of soccer is only enjoyed by a small minority of poor/common people, usually from 'council estates' (or projects, as you call them in the USA). The idea that a politician (say) or a movie star would waste energy following sports is simply unthinkable. It is just a question of good breeding. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	I think you misunderstand pragmatism, dmg (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by Adam Rightmann on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 07:56:12 AM PST

	for pragmatism is the quintessential American trait, compared to emotionalism, which is the typical European state. It took an American to develope the light bulb, necause Thomas Edison wanted to see better in the dark. A European would have waxed poetic about how life looks better in the flickering lamplight, how the lifestyle of the gaslighters would be ruined, how art would suffer under the harsh glare of an electrical light. An American would have just sat down and invented it. It took an American to develope the telephone, a lower class European would have chauvanistically figured no one outside his little hamlet was worth talking too, an upperclass European would have hired a messenger (for starving wages). Once the few remaining Europeans with any sense of pragmatism realized what America was about (in the 19th century), they flocked to our Blessed shores where they could live their life in fullness, leaving Europe full of dreaming, nostalgic wastrels who would rather debate the merits of a fish fork than lift a finger towards human progress (though they certainly won't hesitate to through a fire extinguisher at authority figures). A. Rightmann

	Edison was a cheap fraud (5.00 / 1) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 08:12:28 AM PST

	And he didn't invent the lightbulb. It took Joseph Wilson Swan, patriotic Englishamn, to do that. As we can see: So, who invented the lightbulb? Most people would answer little Tommy Edison, but they would be wrong. In fact, they were being used as electric lights for more than 50 years prior to his patent date. In addition, Edison was not the first to patent the modern design of the lightbulb. It seems that an inventor named Joseph Swan demonstrated the same carbon filament lightbulb in Newcastle at least ten months prior to Edison's announcement. In addition, Swan received a British patent in 1878 for the same bulb that Edison patented in the U. S. in 1879. Did Edison know about Swan's work, or did they simply work independently and arrive at the same conclusion? There is no question that Edison had seen a Scientific American article on Swan's preliminary work with carbon filament electric lighting. But Swan's work had not been perfected at this point, so Edison may have arrived at his invention by improving on Swan's preliminary designs. Eventually, Edison was the one making the big $$$ off this invention and Swan was rightfully upset with this situation. So, if you were in Swan's boots, what would you do? Sue the pants off of Edison. And that is exactly what Swan did. Edison lost in the British courts for infringement of Swan's patent. As part of the settlement, Edison was forced to take Swan in as a partner in his British electric works. The company was called the Edison and Swan United Electric Company. Eventually, Edison acquired all of Swan's interest in the company. In the United States, Edison didn't have the chance to put up a fight. The U.S. Patent Office had ruled on October 8, 1883 that Edison's patents were based on the prior art of a man named William Sawyer and were invalid. In addition, Swan had already sold his U.S. patent rights to the Brush Electric Company in June of 1882. So why does Edison get all the credit for the invention of the lightbulb? Very simple, he owned the power company - what was to eventually become General Electric. After all, what use is a light bulb without electricity? Edison set up a system of power distribution in New York City. He used the DC (direct current) system, which is no longer used. Suck it down! America has always been good at marketing (because all their marketing managers are working class and therefore in touch with the mass market), but has showed a real lack in the invention field, kind of like the Romans did. The USian empire is to the British Empire what the Roman Empire was to the Greek. The Greeks bestowed civilisation & learning, the Romans were just cynical power wielders.

	You must take lessons from the Russians (5.00 / 1) (#11)
	by Adam Rightmann on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 08:19:32 AM PST

	all through out the Cold War, Russia was always proclaiming that they were the first to invent something or do something, be it the helicopter, television, or manned spaceflight. Well, you made a lot of garble in italics, with a supporting link from a movie web page, I'm impressed. Shall I make my own link about flying nannies in Victorian England? A. Rightmann

	Ah hah (5.00 / 1) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 08:26:15 AM PST

	You are now just denying the facts. Like a typical american, you don't let the truth get in the way of what you want to believe. It makes me sick that you support the perversion of history for the sake of puffing up America's prestige. Whatever happened to truth and honour? Honour! You don't even know how to spell the word.

	More evidence (5.00 / 1) (#13)
	by Logical Analysis on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:10:09 AM PST

	Research this -- http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=72421&tocid=0 -- surely you are not going to argue that the Encyclopedia Britannica is false?

	So I should trust an English based (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by Adam Rightmann on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:28:54 AM PST

	encyclopedia (the Britannica) on subjects that case England in a positive light? Can you at least find an impartial link with some credibility? A. Rightmann

	We can trust the source (5.00 / 1) (#18)
	by dmg on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 12:38:02 PM PST

	Precisely because the source is British, we know we can trust it. For centuries, Britain has had a tradition of upholding the truth, even when it did not agree with the powers that be. In fact, the tradition of the free press began in England. So you see, when the source of your information is British, you are assured of its authenticity, unlike when you read something produced by the AOLTimeWarner media behemoth. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Don't trust the source (5.00 / 2) (#20)
	by specom on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 06:09:38 PM PST

	You mean like when you people used to repeat the lies of cecil rhodes? Like when you pushed for decades the nonsense that the ancient african city of Zimbabwe was the biblical city of Ophir and had been built by ancient israelites? Like the "Rape of Belgium" propaganda in WWI? Precisely because the source is British, we know we can trust it. For centuries, Britain has had a tradition of upholding the truth, even when it did not agree with the powers that be. In fact, the tradition of the free press began in England. So you see, when the source of your information is British, you are assured of its authenticity, unlike when you read something produced by the AOLTimeWarner media behemoth. Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

	Eurotrash is White trash (5.00 / 1) (#17)
	by Rand Race on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 12:25:03 PM PST

	A minority of very lower-class, uneducated, probably extremely right wing, and usually very uneducated morons. Sounds just like American rascists to me.

	so right (5.00 / 1) (#21)
	by johnny ambiguous on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 06:15:01 PM PST

	You are so right. What relief I feel to see that Britain's intellectual elite are fully aware of the gravity of the USA's sports problem. If you think USia's sports fetish is disgusting when viewed from far overseas, still you can not possibly imagine how demoralizing it is to see it at zero range. As one of the infinitesmally tiny minority of non-sports-fans in this country, I feel like a keeper in an overcrowded and understaffed insane asylum. I must say that the racism angle to this story seems to be a bit of a red herring. I am aware that the author is trying to hook into the nearly universal revulsion to racism that civilized persons share these days, in order to avoid the unthinking response of some readers, "Hey, it's just a game, right?" The important point here is not that there are racial problems associated with sports; it is that sports themselves are thoroughly evil, and should be suppressed. As fascinated as the wise, grave and judicious editors here at adequacy.org are with eugenics, I am surprised by the omission of the harsh but obvious final solution to this problem: forced sterilization of all sports fans. Half measures will not suffice! Specially profound punishment must be meted out to the "pushers" of this depraved trade, the sports team owners. They must all be hunted down and ruthlessly liquidated. It's almost too late, my poor country is on the brink of an ineradicable disgrace! To the revulsion of foriegners, while the American president is indeed a serious, mature businessman in the oil trade, only a mere faltering heartbeat away from the presidency is a buffoon who made his fortune as the owner of a sports team! The only thing worse, which God in Heaven forbid, would be for a movie actor to occupy the White House. Yours John Ambiguous Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

	Alright.. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
	by Husaria on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 07:19:32 PM PST

	What a poorly written article. I am still not convinced. True, America is obbessed with sports. But, seriously, is this article meant to be a troll? Sig sigger

	Capitalism, Revisited (5.00 / 2) (#19)
	by sventhatcher on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 02:34:14 PM PST

	You've got to understand that lack of culture in America is also the result of Capitalism. The corporations find it much easier to sell to middle-class American and up if they can control what people consider tasteful and what they do not. What else could possibly explain the popularity of some of the music, movies, and literature that soar to the top of the charts in this country other than corporate brainwashing. The corporate world has Americans convinced that they have no need to appreciate the finer things in life or to develop a sense of tact, because Americans are portrayed in all media outlets as not having these qualities. The British are shown in a negative light often simply for showing the same qualities. It's part of the reason there is such a strong anti-American sentiment in the UK. Our media outlets are constantly making fun of them for being tasteful. I would certainly grow to resent that if I were British. --Sven (now with bonus weblog vanity site! (MLP sold seperately))

	Hold the fucking door (5.00 / 1) (#15)
	by Rand Race on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 11:53:34 AM PST

	Sports are a diversion, not to be taken seriously by anyone with any amount class or breeding. Aren't we talking about a nation whose football fans were banned from Europe due to wanton hooliganism?

	Well its a bit more complicated than that. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by dmg on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 12:03:40 PM PST

	Some English soccer fans are violent psychopaths, but then, they are in a minority. A minority of very lower-class, uneducated, probably extremely right wing, and usually very uneducated morons. However, they are a very small minority, and so they don't permeate the culture in the same way as they do in the USA. Hence they are less dangerous. It would be unthinkable to the concept of 'cheerleaders' in British society. because we simply cannot comprehend attaching so much significance to a sporting event. The average normal person in England does not give a shit about football, indeed, most people would not even be able to name a single player. Contrast that with the USA where talk of sports dominates one in three conversations, and I think you will see the difference. A sports fan in England is looked upon as someone to be pitied, rather than envied. In the USA, it seems you almost have to be a sports fan, or people will think you are not normal! time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Agreement... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 08:43:15 PM PST

	Sorry... but I would have to say... I'm not convinced that racism is caused by sports at all... I have more of a belief that it is caused by ignorance/stupidity (Take your own pick...) I'm a white guy in America with the athletic ability to possibly be able to throw a baseball from the pitcher's mound TO home plate... do I think race has anything to do with it... no... it's just that I'm horrible at sports... does this make me better or worse then anyone... no... My humble opinion, Nephilium

	Are you for real ? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
	by dmg on Tue Jul 24th, 2001 at 05:45:57 AM PST

	Adequacy.org has a strict no trolling policy. Perhaps the only way your mind can adjust to the fact that someone else has a strong controversial opinion is to assume that he is 'trolling' Have you actually read the article ? The 'racism table' offers proof of the racism caused by sport. Perhaps you should re-read the article... time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Not necessarily so IMO (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 11:08:32 PM PST

	Sorry, but you could'nt just bring a worse example than British sportsmanship. Take the violent fans of british soccer for example. they certainly DO care about the outcome of a soccer game! Furthermore, I agree that sports is highly overrated and that this exaggerated competitiveness results in violence (& racism as a subsection of it) in many times. however, do keep in mind that the ONLY thing that several individuals who have different cultures/opinions/race/relegion can do together is sports! as long as your'e physically capable, you can use sports as a bridge, as a means of communications. I must admit, that I find it difficult to weigh the positive & negative attributes of sports. There should be a lot of research put into it before one could reach a "good or bad" conclusion, and even then you may not be able to reach such a conclusion. I agree that viewing sports as fun & physical excersize would greatly decrease tension in society and attract many more people to it yet I find it difficult to believe that any of us could make a difference as long as sports remains an economic enterprise.