A Level Playing Field: How Sports Influence the Perception and Reality of Race Relations in America

Sports are one of the most influential aspects of America popular culture, and these four articles provide valuable insight into American race relations and identities. Each article recognizes the powerful place that sports hold in the American identity, and discusses the way they have been connected to images of heroism and patriotism. The articles use the lens of sports to study the way meanings have been attached to racialized bodies, and how the black and Mexican athletes they discuss have never been seen solely for their athletic talent. Instead, they have either used their sport to actively emphasize their own racial identities, and / or have had specific racial images and identities imposed upon them. In this way, the course, field, and court have been used as spaces for racial control and opposition. These articles also focused on the financial aspect of the sports industry, looking at where funds were allocated, who has been denied funding, and why race has been used to justify specific financial policies.

Henry Yu’s article uses Tiger Woods as a powerful example of how racial identities are often central to the way famous athletes are understood. He believes that Tiger’s celebrity was built upon his (so-called) racial identity just as much as his athletic talent. One of Yu’s main arguments is that categories of race and culture are still extremely problematic (often being connected to dogmatic ideas of biology, blood, and heritage). He argues that “the idea of culture is little more than the grafting of nonbiological claims onto preexisting categories of race” (326) and that Americans still have an “obsession with the idea that race is a biological category represented by individuals” (332). Tiger Woods is a particularly salient example of this trend due to what the Los Angeles Times called his “rich ethnic background” (325). Yu highlights the bizarre “racial calculus” (326) which has been used to quantify Tiger’s race, and discredits ideas of a historical racial purity. He discusses both how Tiger’s multiracial identity was used to represent the “new” multiracial diversity in America, and how he was (much more prominently) heralded as a heroic black figure. Yu demonstrates how, rather than being black, Tiger Woods was conceptualized as black to fill specific cultural needs. He argues that “Tiger Woods was more politically useful, and understandable, as black” (333), that his created blackness satisfied “general American craving for individual black heroes to redeem its ugly history” (334), and that “Wood’s race [was] a prime factor in his potential marketability” (335). Yu believes that this trend diverts attention from the systematic racism that is still endemic within American society, situating racism in the past and emphasizing ideas of meritocracy and equality.

While Yu’s presents Tiger Woods as a distinctly apolitical figure, Amy Bass discusses the way that black athletes used the Mexico City Olympics as a forum for political expression in order to comment on the perpetuation of racism within America. While Tiger’s “black” identity was largely created for him, the OPHR “ensured that the black athlete, in a collective, politicized effort, played an increasingly significant role in the manufacture of racial and national identity” (187). While, in the past, “athletes were ‘some of the best salesmen for the American way of life’” (187), the OPHR encouraged athletes to use their visibility to call attention to systematic inequalities (rather than continuing to uphold idealized representations of America). The demonstrations at the Mexico City Olympics refuted the “rhetorical displays” usually associated with sports, such as the “idea of a level playing field as a metaphor for racial and national equity” (188). The OPHR struggled with presenting a “unified political front centered on a ‘black’ identity” (189), and their proposed boycott never came to be. Because of this, political actions were taken at an individual level. Though many other athletes supported what they saw as a pro-black (rather than anti-America) demonstration, the actions of Carlos and Smith faced “booing and jeering” (192) and the athletes were criticized for being (what people viewed as) un-patriotic. After the demonstration, the USOC delivered a “‘veiled threat’ to other athletes, indicating that any further actions of political agitation would not be tolerated” (192), and the athletes faced significant social and financial consequences. Rather than recognizing Carlos and Smith’s demonstration as a moment of pride and triumph, America continues to paint them as tragic actions, and associate them with (even blame them for!) the horrible murders during the Munich Olympics. Like the other articles, “Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars?” demonstrates how, though sports are often used to send political and ideological messages, legitimacy for such actions is usually reserved for messages that are already entrenched in the popular imagination.