Athletic Blacks vs Smart Whites: Why Sports Stereotypes Are Wrong
Before playing the Stanford team in the Final Four, UConn women's coach, Geno Auriemma, said people underestimated Stanford because they think white players are soft. More pointedly, he pointed out that his players, who are predominantly African-American, should be given the same respect for their discipline for which Stanford's team was praised. The coach was simply exposing stereotypes that have been around for a long time.
Black athletes are usually given credit for their "natural athleticism," while whites are credited for their "hard work," "discipline" and "knowledge of the game"; as if Black athletes are naturally given the gift of great athleticism, and white people become great athletes through hard work, discipline and intelligence.
Every Black athlete who is successful has worked very hard and is knowledgeable of their sport. Every white athlete who is successful has natural athletic ability.
The problem with stereotypes in sports is that they often lead to general stereotypes. If you say "white men can't jump," why not "Black men can't read defenses"? And if Black men can't read defenses, maybe they can't read books either?
Sports stereotypes have a real effect in the real world. Most employers are not concerned with employees' natural athletic abilities, so stereotypes of African-Americans being athletically superior for the most part do not help Blacks in the real world. However, the stereotypes of whites being hard working, disciplined and smart are helpful to them in finding employment.
One of the most prevalent stereotypes in sports is that of the Black quarterback. Both Rush Limbaugh and former sports commentator, Jimmy the Greek, have caught flack for their philosophies on African-American quarterbacks. Jimmy's explanation of how blacks were bred for physical skill but whites were bred for intelligence was blatant racism, but there have been many more subtle ways at insinuating the same point.
Former NFL M.V.P. Steve McNair played for a small Black college because every major college recruited him to play defensive back rather than quarterback, his natural position. Many African-Americans are discouraged from playing quarterback and asked to play other positions in high school, college and the professional ranks. How many other black M.V.P.-caliber quarterbacks were forced to play other positions because coaches didn't feel Blacks made good quarterbacks?
Biological factors do not compel people from certain races to excel in certain sports. Cultural factors do. China produces a lot of good ping-pong players because ping-pong is part of Chinese culture. Kenya produces a lot of marathon winners because long distance running is part of their culture. Jamaica produces sprinters because track and field has become a strong part of their culture and national identity. Baseball has become a big part of Latin American culture and subsequently several of baseball's top players come from Latin America. Basketball is a big part of African-American culture, so a good deal of players in the NBA are African-American.
Sports stereotypes are made to be broken. Athletic basketball players are popping up all over the world from all different backgrounds, from Argentina to Turkey, from Kenya to China. Boxing, once a sport dominated by African-Americans, is now being dominated by boxers of other ethnicities from all around the world. Russians are dominating the heavyweight division, and a Philipino, Manny Pacqiao, will fight an Englishman, Ricky Hatton, for the title of best fighter, pound for pound (at least while Floyd Mayerweather is retired).
While no Black quarterback has won a Superbowl since Doug Williams proved Jimmy the Greek wrong in 1988, two of the last three Superbowl winning coaches have been African-American. This goes even further to disprove Jimmy the Greek's theory, given that African-Americans have excelled at coach, the most cerebral position of all.
Despite all the stereotypes of Black athlete not being intelligent or caring about their education, an African American, Myron Rolle, has become the first major U.S. athlete to win the Rhodes Scholarship since Bill Bradley. He bypassed a career in the NFL to get an education from Oxford University, one of the world's most prestigious schools.
Read a Story on Myron Rolle, Rhodes Scholar
When stereotypes begin to insinuate that certain races have certain characteristics, whether they be positive or negative, they fall into the same racist generalizations that are at the root of racism and race-based discrimination.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
ANd to the ignorant people the two top heavy weight boxers are Ukrainian not Russian. Soviet union and Slavic countries does not equal "Russian". Russian is mostly Slavic but so are many other countries that were part of the old Soviet Union. Calling a Ukrainian a Russian can be dangerous to your health. (read up of the stalins purge to understand the history between the two if you are ignorant of history)
"Race" does not exist, so logically any assumptions based on the disproved premise of "race" are . . . baseless. And logically, since "race", and the Human Genome Program says DNA proves it, therefore any sentence using the term "racial" must be based at least partly on a very large and fundamental fallacy. Likewise, nobody discriminates against me because of my "race". The human genome project has informed me, based on science, that I don't have a "race" and neither does anyone else. Instead, people discriminate against me and others (tasering us, for example) because of our "SKIN COLOR".
This is why I use the term "skin color based discrimination". Let's face it: That, and facial morphology and hair color and a few other meaningless characteristics are all that "race" ever was, and the Human Genome Program has proved this beyond any intelligent doubt. The fact that some whites will discriminate against people who have any shade of brown regardless of any other physical characteristic that may be apparent or absent, shows that, in terms of what arouses discriminatory behavior, "skin color" is most all that "race" ever was. And skin color is only what human beings make of it. Nothing more. If we had any sense, it would make no more difference to us than it makes to a cat who has a litter of kittens who fur colors are different. But some humans are obviously more dense than cats in this respect.
Great article. You said above,
"Biological factors do not compel people from certain races to excel in certain sports." This is true, if only because, as the Human Genome Program has declared based on mapping of the entire human genome, "race" does not exist as a matter of biology. Let me repeat. The Human Genome Project has declared:
"DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another."
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
Excellent piece.
The guy that wrote this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kyle/grant-hill-miraculous-or_b_188908.html
... should read more of your stuff. He would gain a lot from life by having a consistent conversation with you.
When it comes to competitive athletics, the objective is to win. Therefore if an athletic player uses his or her athleticism to win the game, it seems to me he or she is both smarter and more athletic at that particular time, than a player who uses intelligence and loses the game. Let's face it no one plays to lose, and that old adage "it's not whether you win or lose, yadda yadda", is absolute garbage, because if you play the game in such a way that causes you to lose, then you are still a loser! Usain Bolt is absolutely brilliant for recognizing that he has incredible speed, LeBron James is an absolute genius for recognizing how and when to take advantage of a "more intelligent" player. Let's face it Dukes "cerebral" J.J. Redick, is clearly not playing the same game that, Chris Paul, LeBron James, and Dwayne Wade are playing. These guys are both athletic and cerebral, they think and respond faster than the so called "smart" player!
What you see happening here is an excuse for those who really don't play the game well, and try to justify their inadequacies by suggesting that they are better in a way that clearly has nothing to do with the game itself, how intelligent can you be when you play a game that you lose to a so called less intelligent person.
It is that simple, isn't it.
So true. It reminds me of my personal experience. My father is black and my mother white. My grades were reasonably good and I was not bad with sports too. The usual comments made to my parents were :"she really takes the best from each of you, the brain from her mother and the legs from her father!".
My brother ( with a complexion so light he is taken for white) was a really good basketball player. When coaches found out his father was black, the reaction was inevitably:"oh, now I see where he gets his ability from".
It has never occured to anybody that the athlete in our family was our mother and that my father was a total failure whenever a ball was involved.And since I'm only 32 years old,I'm not talking about far away times.I must add that in our family, we"ve always smiled about it, knowing that stereotypes would always be part of our existence.
Solid article and analysis on sports stereotyping. As an avid sports fan myself, I find that on a deeply subconscious level I still adhere to stereotypes that have marked Black athletes as having superior physical gifts, or White players being very "fundamentally sound".
There are certain physical attributes, however, that we should also acknowledge (though VERY carefully) as being a natural disposition for particular ethnic groups. For me, it is safe to say that most Filipino fighters like Manny Pacquiao, WILL be small. (Yes, I must qualify, that I am Filipino, and so I don't find myself being overly-presumptive here. We simply aren't a tall people). That said, certain physical predispositions will compel athletes to adjust, know their strengths (i.e. quickness perhaps, for Filipino fighters), or simply work harder.
The way stereotypes blur fact and fiction make these sorts of conversations an on-going one in sports. But we have to keep doing our best to successfully sift out fact FROM fiction, and share the truth we uncover. Certain things ought to be clear enough though: no one group is inherently 'smarter' than the other or more hard-working. Some groups do excel in certain sports, and some natural physical attributes do dictate where they excel best (case in point, Filipinos and boxing, in the lighter weight classes).
Lastly, please do note that, it is "Filipino", or "Pilipino", and not "Philipino", as it is commonly misspelled. Keep up the good writing!
Miguel
http://www.racewire.org
i too think stereotypes are wrong, but i also take issue with several points being made in this article. first, steve mcnair was an average nfl quarterback and recruited for another position at a division 1-a college because he wasnt good enough for division 1-aa, it had nothing to do with him being black and wanting to play qb. this is a fact, not an opinion. he was given every opportunity in the nfl and played quarterback there...he had a good career and thats it.
it is also true that until graduation rates increase for football and basketball players the generalization that they arent as intelligent or dont care about education will prevail. depsite your citing of myron rollle, he clearly doesnt represent the majority here, but rather is an exception. i dont like stereotypes or generalizations, but they tend to form from what is being observed in the athletic arena. certainly because the majority exhibits behavior doesnt mean an entire population does, but think about what it would mean to take credit for being a natural born athlete as opposed to fighting for what you think you deserve.
Your contention that Steve McNair (capitalize the NAME) was an average QB is your opinion. McNair was above average. He certainly surpassed the legions of over-hyped white QB busts no one can remember. And you don't know what all behind his acceptance to college. The main point is his career proved naysayers wrong. And if you need to see more black scholar-athlete exceptions that the media won't publicize, I recommend checking an Ebony magazine around the May-June graduation time frame.
Is Ebony magazine now a quotable source for unbiased reporting, specifically in issues of race involving comparisons of blacks to other ethnicities?
I somewhat doubt it.
There are numerous factors that impact graduation rates for athletes, the chief one being lack of financial resources. But if young athletes are recruited, despite their lack of achievement or interest in higher education, it's silly to expect them to emerge from college in four years.
There is really no such thing as a "natural born athlete"; there are only physical characteristics that may or may not give one an advantage in a particular sport. Being the greatest basketball player in history did not help Michael Jordan when he switched to baseball. Michael Phelps is tall enough to play basketball, but his unusually short legs and long torso would make it unlikely for him to succeed.
Bottom line, those who work the hardest at their sport tend to succeed.
arleen,
I think you have your division 1-a and 1-aa's confused. He was good enough to play at the 1-a as QB, but 1a schools would rather have the likes of Chris Simms at QB and Steve play some other offensive position. He played at a 1-aa school because he saw an opportunity to start as a QB. If he's so average, he holds and NCAA passing record (may be broken now), he was an All-American and in his NFL career, he was named Co-MVP with Payton Manning and took his team to the Super bowl. I know no one cares about who comes in second, but there many QB's which had great careers and know as great QB's didn't win or get to a Super bowl. How notable has Chris Simms’ career been?
Your opinion on his ability is your own and I don't begrudge you that, but you speaking as a resident expert on how D-1 schools recruit black QB's is just silly. You don’t know because you think that such things can’t possibly be going on, but until you are a black athlete facing this or a coach privy to these types of conversations, you have no idea. And yes, working in athletic departments at two universities, I have overheard such conversations.
If your comment about McNair is indeed a fact, then it appears that while he was not good enough to play D-1 football, yet clearly good enough to be a starting quarterback in the NFL, then D-1 schools need to revisit what they consider good enough! Your logic suggest to me that all D-1 quarterbacks were better than the NFL starter Steve McNair!
It's certainly true that black athletes work just as hard as white ones. But it still defies common sense, and our lying eyes, to pretend that blacks have no superiority in athletic ability to whites. There are five or ten times as many white football and basketball players in America as blacks. Yet blacks dominate both professional sports, even though blacks are a small minority of the American population (12% or so?). So let's get real. It's anti-intellectual to claim that we can't generalize about racial or ethnic groups (it's smply a fact that blacks have more problems with high blood pressure and diabetes than whites; this may or may not be genetic; scientific tests will ultimately tell). The problem, obviously, is stupid extrapolations from generalizations into other, irrelevant areas (like saying that blacks are less intelligent than whites just because they can, as a rule, jump higher than whites on basketball courts), to support a racist agenda. Young people of all races in America are markedly less racist than older generations. As their huge enthusiasm for Obama shows, the young will radically reduce the pernicious effects of racism in America in the next few decades, so racist agendas for generalizing about blacks will also tend to disappear. In the meantime, those with agendas will twist anything they can to serve their dumb agendas, and there's little we can do about their cynical distortions, except challenge them with the facts, though people with agendas ignore inconvenient truths.
"When stereotypes begin to insinuate that certain races have certain characteristics, whether they be positive or negative, they fall into the same racist generalizations that are at the root of racism and race-based discrimination."
I absolutely agree, Mr. Gane-McCalla, but then I must ask why you capitalize the word "Black", but not "white". What certain characteristics are you attributing to "Blacks" that you are not attributing to "whites"?
A good point. No one attempting to portray 'white' as a proper-noun name for a class of people would get away with it. The howls of "Racism!" would be instant and loud. Much of this piece is devoted to the idea that any observance of a person's race is an instance of racism, as if we can only selectively acknowledge the truth about a person. An athlete can be black, but there can't be a black athlete.
So, like BackwardsE, I too wonder why this author writes about Black athletes and white athletes instead of Black and White or black and white athletes.
http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-i-will-capitalize-black-but-not.html
these are very very old sterotypes. so old they predate the United States by about 100 years. the obvious puropse of such stereo types was as a justification for denying blacks anything but menial, pysical labor. It works to reinforce the idea of overall white supremacy by "allowing" that blacks are "just better at" physical work. as if god had assigned everyone their place in the great order of the universe, and blacks should not apply to college. African Americans, like other immigrant groups, worked with what they were given for many many years. They have always had to work harder to "prove" they were equal.
African-Americans are not "immigrants". A small thing perhaps, but an important distinction. The history of black Americans has no parallel with the experience of white immigrants. Black people were allowed to excel in athletics when many other professions were closed to them. Although in horse racing, it was the other way around. Black jockeys dominated in the nineteenth century until they were barred from riding, discrimination that persists to this day.
Not exactly on topic, but I was watching a light heavy championship fight earlier today. One fighter Black, the other, not. The "un"conscious bias toward white fighters is pretty amazing to listen to. They are constantly given credit for punches they miss, for swinging wildly and missing as wildly, and in general for every little thing they do, whether or not it actually contributes toward scoring points or winning the fight.
I generally turn down the audio and do not listen to those announcers. They don't realize, perhaps, the disservice they do. Fortunately, the boxer himself, after losing the fight by a near shutout (two judges had the fight 118 - 110, the other, 117 - 110) did not, to his credit, agree with the analyst's hype. The fighter was realistic and down to earth and it was kind of fun to watch the air blow out of the analyst. (He could very well have been the punch by punch guy, but one of those fellows was over the top campaigning for the white fighter.
RRRRight. I am sure the announcers are the ones with the unconscious bias. Cause if you say anything good about a white boxer you must be bias.
Look at the flack all the slavic boxers get from american boxing fans and writers because of sterotypes of them being , slow , strong and "boring". ANd yet they still win and dominate the heavyweight division. EVen after racist instuls from american hopes Briggs, Rhaman etc. (see what happens if one of the Slavic boxers ever, ever make a racial insult. They hypocritical reaction of the American sport fan and writer would be laughable)
They are upset because they don't think someone white should be winning. That bias is open and not unconscious. And boxing fans and writers bath themselves in this hatred all the time. They are just jealous that after the Soviet Union fell, the field of competition expanded and they are no longer the top of the world. And the had a pretty good record in Olympic boxing before so I don't know why American boxing fans are surprised they can produce champion boxers after they get the chance to compete professionally. And Slavic culture has a strong history of combat sports and excelling in them. they have dominated all forms of wrestling and have some of the best MMA fighers and the top heavyweights in MMA.
Great article. Fantastic. Right on point.
J
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
