I have often considered writing a blog or a Twitter feed where I review movies that are older, have been overlooked, or received brutal reviews when they came out but can be appreciated years later. On that last point I'm mostly thinking about Stallone movies. In fact if I were to have such a blog there would likely be a monthly segment called something like "This Month's Under-appreciated 80s Action Movie." I think it would catch on.
The point is that I enjoy writing and I enjoy exploring movies that are under-appreciated or have been buried over the decades by the glut of films available to us consumers. Last night I re-watched one such movie, Mickey Rourke's The Wrestler. Now don't get me wrong, it's not like I stumbled across the Beatles One CD at a thrift store and thought that I had stumbled upon the greatest band of all time that no one's heard of. Rourke, after all, won a Golden Globe for his role as "Randy 'The Ram'" and was nominated for an Academy Award. However, I think there are many casual movie watchers (which is what I would describe most of us as, including myself) who wrote the movie off just because they saw it was about a professional wrestler from the 1980s. In reality, though, it really is one of the best movies I've seen in the 2000s. The story is heartbreaking, the cuts are among the best I've seen and the soundtrack is so creatively integrated that I can't help but appreciate it, even though I typically HATE movies that don't have a happy ending. But I digress, this is not a review of The Wrestler.
As I do with most movies I watch, I tend to explore the main actors and the story behind the movie on IMDB and Wikipedia. I did this with Rourke and found an interesting factoid - that he was a professional boxer before hitting it big as an actor, which got me thinking about baseball. I know it sounds strange, but the link is there, however convoluted it may be. Rourke's careers as a boxer reminded me of several other athlete's-turned-entertainer, the first of which being Macho Man Randy Savage, who was a professional wrestler from the 80s and 90s (I thought of him after watching The Wrestler for obvious reasons) but was also a professional baseball player.
Poffo ("Savage's" real last name) wrestled during baseball's off-season, and experienced modest success in as a switch-hitting catcher in the St. Louis Cardinals organization, hitting .282 at the age of 20 in 1973, splitting time between A-Ball and the Rookie level. He was then converted in to an outfielder in 1974 by the Reds organization where he played for their A-level affiliate. He struggled, however, as an every-day player and left the game for his very successful full-time wrestling career. He finished his ball playing career with a .254 batting average.
After thinking about the "Macho Man's" baseball career, I thought it would be worthwhile to explore a couple of other entertainers who dabbled in baseball before settling on a career elsewhere. Perhaps the most intriguing to me on this (albeit short) list is country and gospel singer Jim Reeves, who was a minor league pitcher with various organizations from 1945 until 1947.
Reeves experienced world-wise recognition in the 1950's and 1960's in his more noted career as a singer before his death in a private plane crash at the age of 40 in 1964. Prior to, and after, his death, Reeves was wildly popular in South Africa and experienced significant success in other countries in addition to being well-liked in the States. Prior to his singing days, however, he played in the now non-existant B, C and D levels of the minor leagues during the pre-television hay day of minor league baseball where hundreds of local leagues and teams were scattered across the country. In those days, especially in the lower leagues, statistics were not kept precisely, and therefore it's tough to say exactly how good Reeves was. However, it we can tell that he experienced great success in his final season, 1947, where he pitched 172 innings with 12 wins and an ERA of just 3.09.
Last on the list is the gruff co-star from the popular 2000s TV show Gilmore Girls, Scott Patterson. I think it's safe to say that Patterson is the best ballplayer of the bunch, as he topped out at the AAA level, and managed to play there for most of his seven season minor league career. Patterson broke in to the minor leagues with the Atlanta Braves in 1980, was traded to the Yankees mid-season in 1982 and stayed with the organization until 1986. It wasn't until 1992, however that Patterson broke in to movies and TV, and he didn't get his "big break" with Gilmore Girls until 2000 (though he put together a pretty respectable career doing small parts on popular TV shows and lead roles in non-notable movies).
As a baseball, player, though Patterson was a solid right handed pitcher who began his career as a starter (winning 14 games in both 1981 and 1983) and spend the final three years of his career as a relief pitcher (where he saw his best year in 1985, winning 12 games out of the bullpen and posting a superb 2.36 ERA). By 1986, though, Patterson began to struggle and ended up calling it quits after posting a 5.13 ERA for the year with the Yankees AAA affiliate.
One thing is certain, though, Scott Patterson was a good pitcher. As an example, in 1981 while playing for the Braves' A affiliate, Patterson was a perfect 9-0 with a 2.11 ERA. This was bolstered with a career best 8.2 strikeouts per 9 innings (totaling 89 punch-outs in 98 innings). That hot start earned him his first promotion to AA. And for his career Patterson recorded a record of 63-52 with a very respectable 4.31 ERA over a total of 965.1 innings. Not a bad career if you ask me.
Do you know of any more ball players who later became famous for something else? The most notable example I know of not listed above is former NBA player (and current Celtics GM) Danny Ainge, who played for the Toronto Blue Jays in the 1980s. But he doesn't really count because he stayed in sports when he "changed" careers.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
MJ and The Age 50 Comeback
I admit it. I'm a sucker for 1990s nostalgia.
In 1992 the Portland Trail Blazers played the Chicago Bulls in the NBA finals. My dad recorded Game 2 for one reason or another, so we had one piece of MJ-in-action in the house. Over the next couple of years I proceeded to watch that game at least one hundred times. At this point I was in the infancy of my basketball interest, but it was also a part of my long peak of interest. During the summer, if I wasn't watching that tape or a live game on TV, I was playing basketball. When March Madness fell on my school's spring break, if I wasn't watching a live game, I was playing basketball. Clearly I love watching and playing the game, and seeing Michael Jordan dismantle my beloved Blazers was the catalyst.
When Michael Jordan was inducted in to the Basketball Hall of Fame he famously hinted at the fact that he may try a comeback at age 50. He's now 48 years old and reportedly practiced with the Charlotte Bobcats (for which he is the majority owner) last week. Though he'd have to sell off his shares before being allowed to play - no small feat in itself - all indication are that the skills and fitness are still there. There are many who wonder if such a comeback would be worthwhile, or if a failure at a comeback would somehow tarnish MJ's legacy. I have my own opinions on this, but no one can say for certain. Once thing is certain, though, if Michael Jordan did make a comeback, I would watch every game. This coming from someone who sees maybe three full NBA games each year (I got rid of TV some time ago, so now I follow online and through highlights).
There's another factor that plays in to all this, and that is the "MJ and Son" factor. Many remember the magical 1990 season in which Ken Griffey and Ken Griffey Jr. played together on the Seattle Mariners. How great would it be if Michal and Jeffery Jordan teamed up on the Charlotte Bobcats? And chew on this, since we're talking about father/son combos: There have been a number of fathers and sons who have both played in the NBA (though none at the same time). How many points would Jeffery Jordan have to score for he and MJ to take over as the father/son combination with the most career points scored in the NBA? The answer is zero - he's just have to play in a game, and wouldn't have to actually score. Now this is more a Jeffery Jordan story, granted, but it speaks to MJ's greatness and the fact that I have no doubt he could successfully and effectively play in the NBA for 10,15 or maybe even 20 or more games at age 50. And believe me, it would be entertaining.
In 1992 the Portland Trail Blazers played the Chicago Bulls in the NBA finals. My dad recorded Game 2 for one reason or another, so we had one piece of MJ-in-action in the house. Over the next couple of years I proceeded to watch that game at least one hundred times. At this point I was in the infancy of my basketball interest, but it was also a part of my long peak of interest. During the summer, if I wasn't watching that tape or a live game on TV, I was playing basketball. When March Madness fell on my school's spring break, if I wasn't watching a live game, I was playing basketball. Clearly I love watching and playing the game, and seeing Michael Jordan dismantle my beloved Blazers was the catalyst.
When Michael Jordan was inducted in to the Basketball Hall of Fame he famously hinted at the fact that he may try a comeback at age 50. He's now 48 years old and reportedly practiced with the Charlotte Bobcats (for which he is the majority owner) last week. Though he'd have to sell off his shares before being allowed to play - no small feat in itself - all indication are that the skills and fitness are still there. There are many who wonder if such a comeback would be worthwhile, or if a failure at a comeback would somehow tarnish MJ's legacy. I have my own opinions on this, but no one can say for certain. Once thing is certain, though, if Michael Jordan did make a comeback, I would watch every game. This coming from someone who sees maybe three full NBA games each year (I got rid of TV some time ago, so now I follow online and through highlights).
There's another factor that plays in to all this, and that is the "MJ and Son" factor. Many remember the magical 1990 season in which Ken Griffey and Ken Griffey Jr. played together on the Seattle Mariners. How great would it be if Michal and Jeffery Jordan teamed up on the Charlotte Bobcats? And chew on this, since we're talking about father/son combos: There have been a number of fathers and sons who have both played in the NBA (though none at the same time). How many points would Jeffery Jordan have to score for he and MJ to take over as the father/son combination with the most career points scored in the NBA? The answer is zero - he's just have to play in a game, and wouldn't have to actually score. Now this is more a Jeffery Jordan story, granted, but it speaks to MJ's greatness and the fact that I have no doubt he could successfully and effectively play in the NBA for 10,15 or maybe even 20 or more games at age 50. And believe me, it would be entertaining.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Baseball-Politcal Color Barrier
It is only the end of April, but I am nonetheless looking very much forward to the Rhetoric Society of America conference that will take place about a month from now in Minneapolis, MN. As someone who studies the rhetoric of sexism and racism in sports I am excited whenever I run across a scholar who dabbles in the same kinds of conversations that I do. That’s why I was pleased to find that Dr. Michael Butterworth of Bowling Green’s Communications Department will be presenting at the RSA conference. Butterworth has written a couple of notable baseball-related scholarly articles, with the most recent being “Race in ‘The Race’: Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Heroic Constructions of Whiteness,” which appeared in Critical Studies in Media Communication in August 2007.
Butterworth’s blog is also a worthwhile read. Coinciding with Jackie Robinson’s MLB-wide recognition, Butterworth wrote an entry prefacing a talk he was to give regarding parallels the media has drawn between Robinson and Barack Obama. (The blog entry disucssing this is brief, as he went more in depth in his panel, I'm sure, but it got me thinking nonetheless.)
The parallels are clear, but there are also significant arguments that reveal that these parallels are overly-specific, if not false altogether. I won’t try to populate a list of all these links (for one because I don’t know what all of them are, but also because there are many, many of them), but there are some that are quite significant.
For the purposes of this blog, I’ll note that President Obama, like Robinson, is “the first person of color to do X.” While societal trends regarding Jim Crow Laws place Robinson as the man who broke the “Color Barrier,” and not “Fleetwood” Walker, so to is Obama considered the first “African American US President” despite the fact that he, as many have described him, “raised white” and is not by colloquial definition “African American” at all (that is, having ancestry in this country that traces back to slavery).
Obviously there is no precedent for arguing “someone came before” in the case of Obama and the US Presidency, as there is for Robinson. The point, though, is that greater societal perceptions do not necessarily reflect reality. In that sense, thinking about the mythology surrounding Robinson becomes quite interesting.
What is the mythology surrounding Robinson? For me the story of Jackie Robinson is still linked to a children’s storybook that was read to me at some point early in grade school. The book was Teammates by Peter Golenbock, and I still remember the drawing near the book’s conclusion portraying Dodgers shortstop, Pee Wee Reese walking up to Robinson and putting his arm around him in support.
The abuse and other challenges faced by Robinson are difficult to wrestle with for those who grew up in the post-Jim Crow Era given our exposure to New Racism, but most today agree with the fact that the trend Robinson initiated in 1947 was a positive. And it was. But the mythology surrounding Robinson suggests an absolute positive. On the macro level this is certainly true, but on a micro level there were some negative repercussions. The most prominent of these is the fact that Robinson’s MLB debut ultimately lead to the folding of the Negro Leagues, which was not a negative for the players but the fans, who lost an outlet for participation that was otherwise restricted to many black Americans at the time. Over time segregation was abolished and this outlet was regained, but I wonder what reactions at the time were for black Americans.
Are there hidden, albeit short term, negatives to the reality and/or mythology being created around President Obama? It is impossible to say if there are any in the Robinson-Negro League-fan mold. However, what is important to remember that the “progress” observed by Obama’s election is not an indication of 2008 marking the beginning of the “Post Racism Era.” On the contrary, many responses to Obama’s election have been baffling. An example of this is seen in “Birthers,” who claim Obama was not born in the United States. This in contrast to his election opponent John McCain who, everyone knows and acknowledges, was born in Panama, albeit as part of an occupying American military force (or more specifically, the child of a soldier in that force).
Note that there is currently only one African American senator (out of fifty total), and 42 house representatives (out of 435, less than 10%). This following the first break of the “Governmental Color Barrier” which occurred in 1870, when both the first African American senator and house representative were elected. Like “Fleetwood” Walker in baseball, Hiram Revels (Senate) and Joseph Rainey (House) were elected during reconstruction – a time that was itself lauded as a “Post Racism Era.” As I stated above, Jim Crow proved this not to be the case.
The point here is that a mythology has and will continue to emerge surrounding Barack Obama’s presidency. Further, we are encouraged to believe that because Obama is in office we are in an era and society that is “post racism.” Understanding this mythology, along with historical precedent, and the fact that New Racism encourages us to believe “things are better than they used to be,” we can observe that something more complicated is going on. And just as “Fleetwood” Walker didn’t mark the end of racism in baseball in 1884, nor did Robinson in 1947, Obama does not represent an end to racism in the way our government is run in 2010.
Butterworth’s blog is also a worthwhile read. Coinciding with Jackie Robinson’s MLB-wide recognition, Butterworth wrote an entry prefacing a talk he was to give regarding parallels the media has drawn between Robinson and Barack Obama. (The blog entry disucssing this is brief, as he went more in depth in his panel, I'm sure, but it got me thinking nonetheless.)
The parallels are clear, but there are also significant arguments that reveal that these parallels are overly-specific, if not false altogether. I won’t try to populate a list of all these links (for one because I don’t know what all of them are, but also because there are many, many of them), but there are some that are quite significant.
For the purposes of this blog, I’ll note that President Obama, like Robinson, is “the first person of color to do X.” While societal trends regarding Jim Crow Laws place Robinson as the man who broke the “Color Barrier,” and not “Fleetwood” Walker, so to is Obama considered the first “African American US President” despite the fact that he, as many have described him, “raised white” and is not by colloquial definition “African American” at all (that is, having ancestry in this country that traces back to slavery).
Obviously there is no precedent for arguing “someone came before” in the case of Obama and the US Presidency, as there is for Robinson. The point, though, is that greater societal perceptions do not necessarily reflect reality. In that sense, thinking about the mythology surrounding Robinson becomes quite interesting.
What is the mythology surrounding Robinson? For me the story of Jackie Robinson is still linked to a children’s storybook that was read to me at some point early in grade school. The book was Teammates by Peter Golenbock, and I still remember the drawing near the book’s conclusion portraying Dodgers shortstop, Pee Wee Reese walking up to Robinson and putting his arm around him in support.
The abuse and other challenges faced by Robinson are difficult to wrestle with for those who grew up in the post-Jim Crow Era given our exposure to New Racism, but most today agree with the fact that the trend Robinson initiated in 1947 was a positive. And it was. But the mythology surrounding Robinson suggests an absolute positive. On the macro level this is certainly true, but on a micro level there were some negative repercussions. The most prominent of these is the fact that Robinson’s MLB debut ultimately lead to the folding of the Negro Leagues, which was not a negative for the players but the fans, who lost an outlet for participation that was otherwise restricted to many black Americans at the time. Over time segregation was abolished and this outlet was regained, but I wonder what reactions at the time were for black Americans.
Are there hidden, albeit short term, negatives to the reality and/or mythology being created around President Obama? It is impossible to say if there are any in the Robinson-Negro League-fan mold. However, what is important to remember that the “progress” observed by Obama’s election is not an indication of 2008 marking the beginning of the “Post Racism Era.” On the contrary, many responses to Obama’s election have been baffling. An example of this is seen in “Birthers,” who claim Obama was not born in the United States. This in contrast to his election opponent John McCain who, everyone knows and acknowledges, was born in Panama, albeit as part of an occupying American military force (or more specifically, the child of a soldier in that force).
Note that there is currently only one African American senator (out of fifty total), and 42 house representatives (out of 435, less than 10%). This following the first break of the “Governmental Color Barrier” which occurred in 1870, when both the first African American senator and house representative were elected. Like “Fleetwood” Walker in baseball, Hiram Revels (Senate) and Joseph Rainey (House) were elected during reconstruction – a time that was itself lauded as a “Post Racism Era.” As I stated above, Jim Crow proved this not to be the case.
The point here is that a mythology has and will continue to emerge surrounding Barack Obama’s presidency. Further, we are encouraged to believe that because Obama is in office we are in an era and society that is “post racism.” Understanding this mythology, along with historical precedent, and the fact that New Racism encourages us to believe “things are better than they used to be,” we can observe that something more complicated is going on. And just as “Fleetwood” Walker didn’t mark the end of racism in baseball in 1884, nor did Robinson in 1947, Obama does not represent an end to racism in the way our government is run in 2010.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Jamie Moyer's Premature Baseball-Reference Obituare
I've been pretty prolific lately. Mostly with longish posts. This one will be a little shorter, I promise.
A funny chain of events occurred this morning: Jamie Moyer caused a short circuit at baseballreference.com and has suggested (at least in my mind) that casual fans may some day soon begin to believe that he is a robot.
It all started when I read an article not too long ago announcing the Moyer was set to be the number five starter for the Phillies to begin the 2010 season. I was pleased, but not surprised. Afterall, throwing the rough beginnings of 2009, Moyer had an exceptional season. He even saved the Phillies a few times with some five inning relief appearances late in the year. I've been a Moyer fan since he came to the Ms mid-way through the '96 season. I liked him because he pitched the way I did: he threw the ball where he wanted it to go, he didn't try to knock the catcher on his backside. Of course his low-80s heat is scarier than mine, but that's why he's a professional ball player and I'm the one writing a blog for free.
It wasn't until this morning, though, that I realized just how much of an anomaly Moyer is to the casual baseball fan/non-Moyer follower. What triggered this was a facebook post made by a friend that read
Not only is the man still alive, but he slated to start against Houston on Saturday.
But there's something about this Jamie Moyer fellow. Something unassuming. Something that makes people think he'll fall apart and fall off the face of the baseball earth after every season, despite his continued success. This is remarkable considering that over the last decade, even in his "down" years, he's still performed remarkably well. In 2004, for example, the man's ERA was 5.21 and he allowed the most home runs in the American League. But he also pitched over two hundred innings for a team whose bullpen was oft battered to the tune of 99 losses. Then there's 2007, his first full season in Philly, where his ERA was once again over 5.00. But he pitched 199.1 innings and won fourteen games. Fourteen. At age 44!
And yet, failure is still expected. But you know all this.
What struck me today was reading Tim Kurkjian's article "New Wave of Pitchers Taking Over Game", where he notes that
Naturally I take issue with Kurkjian's phrasing. What he should have wrote is that Jamie Moyer is not a Hall of Fame pitcher yet, because if he pitches to age 52 and wins 300 games there is no way he can be denied. No way.
But this got me thinking. At present, and for the first time in his career, Moyer is the winningest pitcher in baseball. And I wondered: who is second? I had a hunch that the second winningest pitcher among all active players was Andy Pettitte, but it appears that I'm wrong. According to Baseball-Reference.com, which, especially since the redesign and inclusion of minor league stats, is my source, my old reliable for baseball information, according to this site Jamie. Moyer. Has. Retired
Evidently Pettitte is the active leader in career wins. I failed in my attempt to post a screen capture of this, so I'll describe - on the list of "Active Wins Leaders" Moyer's name does not appear - nor is his name bolded on the "Career Wins Leaders" list, a delineation that separates the active from the retired. For all baseballreference intents and purposes, Jamie Moyer is no longer a ML baseball player.
Clearly this is just a glitch, but it has curious parallels with what I see as common opinion.
It seems that the common opinion is one that expects a quiet, long anticipated failure. A failure that has yet to come but still surprises many from year to year. How can this be considering the fact that the man is historically remarkable?
Two weeks ago Jayson Stark wrote this article describing Moyer's attempt to make the Phillies rotation in 2009. He asks the question:
If he sticks in the Phillies rotation this season Moyer will be the oldest, consistent, non-knuckleballer starter in the history of the game. And he certainly has a shot at being the oldest consistent starter outright. He'd only have to hold on until his age 49 season to earn that distinction. But who says he can't? If Moyer continues to pitch the way he has the last few years, there is certainly hope that he'll be able to continue playing in 2011, 2012, and on to 2013 (at which time, at age 49, he could be primed to eclipse the 300-win mark).
My question, then, becomes, why is failure expected and seemingly absorbed with such subdued responses? Why is it that the casual fan is surprised to see that the man is still playing the game instead of intrigued and excited?
Jamie Moyer is historically remarkable, there may never be another like him in age or strategy again. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine an instance in which a pitcher with an 80 mile per hour fastball would even be given the opportunity to play at the highest level in the game's current climate. In addition, Moyer may be the last 300 game winner we see for a very, very long time. And he is sure to be the most unconventional to arrive at such a place if he does arrive there.
In a sport where most pitchers throw the ball will chilling velocity, and batters strike the ball back the way it came (plus another 450 feet) on a regular basis, why not cheer for the patience, perseverance, and outstanding athletic, though not overpowering, abilities in a Jamie Moyer? Why anticipate his failure? Why not follow his every start in his quest for an unlikely triumph? Why not anxiously await news of his making the Phillies rotation this spring instead of being surprised to hear that he is even a part of the game anymore?
Jamie Moyer provides the opportunity to cheer for the unlikely and the remarkable, yet so many allow him to fall from view. For the last few years I have been, still am, and will continue to be, transfixed on this storyline. I know many of you are the same. I just don't understand why there are so few of us.
It is The Way of Things.
A funny chain of events occurred this morning: Jamie Moyer caused a short circuit at baseballreference.com and has suggested (at least in my mind) that casual fans may some day soon begin to believe that he is a robot.
It all started when I read an article not too long ago announcing the Moyer was set to be the number five starter for the Phillies to begin the 2010 season. I was pleased, but not surprised. Afterall, throwing the rough beginnings of 2009, Moyer had an exceptional season. He even saved the Phillies a few times with some five inning relief appearances late in the year. I've been a Moyer fan since he came to the Ms mid-way through the '96 season. I liked him because he pitched the way I did: he threw the ball where he wanted it to go, he didn't try to knock the catcher on his backside. Of course his low-80s heat is scarier than mine, but that's why he's a professional ball player and I'm the one writing a blog for free.
It wasn't until this morning, though, that I realized just how much of an anomaly Moyer is to the casual baseball fan/non-Moyer follower. What triggered this was a facebook post made by a friend that read
I just had my annual "Wait, Jamie Moyer is still alive?!?" moment.
Not only is the man still alive, but he slated to start against Houston on Saturday.
But there's something about this Jamie Moyer fellow. Something unassuming. Something that makes people think he'll fall apart and fall off the face of the baseball earth after every season, despite his continued success. This is remarkable considering that over the last decade, even in his "down" years, he's still performed remarkably well. In 2004, for example, the man's ERA was 5.21 and he allowed the most home runs in the American League. But he also pitched over two hundred innings for a team whose bullpen was oft battered to the tune of 99 losses. Then there's 2007, his first full season in Philly, where his ERA was once again over 5.00. But he pitched 199.1 innings and won fourteen games. Fourteen. At age 44!
And yet, failure is still expected. But you know all this.
What struck me today was reading Tim Kurkjian's article "New Wave of Pitchers Taking Over Game", where he notes that
For the first time in 15 years, a season has begun without one starting pitcher whom we can point to and say, without hesitation, "That guy is a Hall of Famer right now.''
For the first time in 10 years, a season has begun without an active pitcher with at least 260 victories. Jamie Moyer entered the season with the most wins (258). Tim Wakefield entered with the most wins among active right-handed pitchers, with 189. God bless both of them for what they've done -- they are miraculous in their own right -- but neither is a Hall of Fame pitcher.
Naturally I take issue with Kurkjian's phrasing. What he should have wrote is that Jamie Moyer is not a Hall of Fame pitcher yet, because if he pitches to age 52 and wins 300 games there is no way he can be denied. No way.
But this got me thinking. At present, and for the first time in his career, Moyer is the winningest pitcher in baseball. And I wondered: who is second? I had a hunch that the second winningest pitcher among all active players was Andy Pettitte, but it appears that I'm wrong. According to Baseball-Reference.com, which, especially since the redesign and inclusion of minor league stats, is my source, my old reliable for baseball information, according to this site Jamie. Moyer. Has. Retired
Evidently Pettitte is the active leader in career wins. I failed in my attempt to post a screen capture of this, so I'll describe - on the list of "Active Wins Leaders" Moyer's name does not appear - nor is his name bolded on the "Career Wins Leaders" list, a delineation that separates the active from the retired. For all baseballreference intents and purposes, Jamie Moyer is no longer a ML baseball player.
Clearly this is just a glitch, but it has curious parallels with what I see as common opinion.
It seems that the common opinion is one that expects a quiet, long anticipated failure. A failure that has yet to come but still surprises many from year to year. How can this be considering the fact that the man is historically remarkable?
Two weeks ago Jayson Stark wrote this article describing Moyer's attempt to make the Phillies rotation in 2009. He asks the question:
What's the last team to start a non-knuckleballer older than Moyer more than once in a season? Any season? And the answer to that is: You can't find one. Ever.
If he sticks in the Phillies rotation this season Moyer will be the oldest, consistent, non-knuckleballer starter in the history of the game. And he certainly has a shot at being the oldest consistent starter outright. He'd only have to hold on until his age 49 season to earn that distinction. But who says he can't? If Moyer continues to pitch the way he has the last few years, there is certainly hope that he'll be able to continue playing in 2011, 2012, and on to 2013 (at which time, at age 49, he could be primed to eclipse the 300-win mark).
My question, then, becomes, why is failure expected and seemingly absorbed with such subdued responses? Why is it that the casual fan is surprised to see that the man is still playing the game instead of intrigued and excited?
Jamie Moyer is historically remarkable, there may never be another like him in age or strategy again. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine an instance in which a pitcher with an 80 mile per hour fastball would even be given the opportunity to play at the highest level in the game's current climate. In addition, Moyer may be the last 300 game winner we see for a very, very long time. And he is sure to be the most unconventional to arrive at such a place if he does arrive there.
In a sport where most pitchers throw the ball will chilling velocity, and batters strike the ball back the way it came (plus another 450 feet) on a regular basis, why not cheer for the patience, perseverance, and outstanding athletic, though not overpowering, abilities in a Jamie Moyer? Why anticipate his failure? Why not follow his every start in his quest for an unlikely triumph? Why not anxiously await news of his making the Phillies rotation this spring instead of being surprised to hear that he is even a part of the game anymore?
Jamie Moyer provides the opportunity to cheer for the unlikely and the remarkable, yet so many allow him to fall from view. For the last few years I have been, still am, and will continue to be, transfixed on this storyline. I know many of you are the same. I just don't understand why there are so few of us.
It is The Way of Things.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
A White Sport: Racist Cultural Ideology as Reflected in Runner’s World
Looking at the magazine covers in the supermarket checkout line is always an adventure for me. The four or five tabloids always seem to feature a slightly different incarnation of the same photo, while the dating magazines claim to have the newest secret for netting my secret crush. And then there are the exercise magazines, the ones that so badly want me to use their formula to lose ten pounds in ten days, or employ recipes that will make me healthier while making my taste buds go wild. The marketing strategies employed on these covers really are fascinating, but what makes them truly significant for study are the cultural ideologies they appeal to and attempt to install in our culture.
What does it say, then, about cultural ideology that South Africa’s You magazine ran a cover story about embattled middle distance runner Caster Semenya, with the headline reading “We turn SA’s power girl in to a glamour girl – and she loves it!” (“Makeover”). What does it say about cultural ideology when we consider the fact that Semenya had much attention directed toward her following her 800 meter world championship win because she is suspected of not quite being biologically female? What does it say about cultural ideology that Semenya apparently felt the need to undergo a makeover to make her fit western conceptions of “beauty” only after she came under fire for appearing too masculine?
…
Business is about reaching a target market and convincing individuals making up that market that they need a certain product or service. It’s pretty simple, really. Assess what a given group wants and needs (or thinks they want and need), and provide it – for a fee, of course. I say this at the risk of essentializing those who develop and market products, but much of this field operates through stereotype, fictive kinship, and other factors that media and social ideology tell people are a part of their identity. Certainly in the twenty-first century such marketers tend to avoid the explosive and the potentially offensive while attempting to employ the purely profitable. But the result of this can often be seen curious to behold.
Take the popular magazine Runner’s World as an example. The target audience of this publication is casual long distance runner. That is, the non-elite or non-competitive “jogger.” Many of the magazine’s readers are people just starting out in the sport or people who began running later in life. And, of course, the magazines available in this country are likely intended for Americans. Beyond this, looking at the publication’s content can provide clues as to who comprises the target audience, with the ultimate question being why such an audience is the focus. Like any other publication, I believe Runner’s World serves to support hegemony, normalizing white individuals in the sport of running, and othering people of color.
Consider first the magazine’s covers. Between November 2008 and May 2010 the individuals featured on the cover appeared to be white sixteen times, versus being a person of color three times. Further, in December 2009 Runner’s World printed the article “The Best of Running” chronicling a variety of categories, such as “Most Exciting Young” runner, “Best Looking” runner, and others, presumably taking in to account professional distance runners from around the world. The choices for this piece are curious, to say the least. For performance-based awards one would expect athletes from Kenya, Ethiopia, and Morocco to dominate given the fact that athletes from these countries have won most major championships in recent years. With this in mind it is no surprise that Ethiopian legend Haile Gebrselassie was named “Best Male Distance Runner of All Time,” but a surprise that the “Most Exciting Young” award winners were Kara Goucher and Ryan Hall, who are both white and never won a major international race (Flax 65, 70). This, given the plethora of younger Kenyan and Ethiopian runners who have won major competitions over the last few years, is quite odd.
Perhaps even more telling are the award recipients for “Best Looking” runner, where Australian Craig Mottram was selected for the men, and Goucher for the women (67). These selections beg the question, to whom are these individuals considered the “best looking”? The variability of western and non-western selections in this piece are quite curious, but it is clear that western conceptions of beauty and cultural ideologies are at play in this article. This is particularly curious in reference to Caster Semenya, who was given a new hairstyle, clothing, and make-up to help her fit western conceptions of beauty. In many ways this links to Frantz Fanon describing people of color finding it necessary to achieve “a white totality” (that is, “becoming white”) in an attempt to gain acceptance (193). The response to Semenya’s sex being questioned was to her present as more feminine (in the Western understanding). Despite this, though, this attempt is ultimately fruitless because the white hegemone still sees color, thus the person of color is still subject to the racist ideology that subverted them in the first place. This is seen with Semenya, as questions regarding her sex did not abate, even after a makeover that was presumably meant to present her in a more feminine, and therefore positive, light.
Given the questionable selections of ability-based “Best of Running” awards, it is clear that Runner’s World attempted to create a strong representation of Americans in this article. This is understandable in a sense given the fact that the article appears in an American magazine and must therefore appeal to a nationalistic prejudice. But the color divide in this piece, as with the magazine’s cover models, is quite curious. Of all the athletes mentioned in these selections twenty-eight different white people are mentioned versus eight people of color – with only half of the people of color being non-Americans.
This is only one example, but it is quite telling as to the apparent motivations of Runner’s World. Based on these trends it appears that running as a profit-making venture is targeted toward white audiences. Why is this? Perhaps it is because most of this country’s poor are people of color, and therefore reaching out to white audiences provides greater profit potential. However, I believe that this is based on a stereotype that, for Americans, running is a “white sport” as opposed to sports like football and basketball that are “black sports.”
While this is certainly Westernized, I think it’s also racialized. This stereotype suggests that running is a white sport, normalizing whiteness within it. Of course it’s not true that only white people run, just like it’s not true that only black people play basketball, but Runner’s World cover trends and “Best of Running” selections perpetuate stereotypes and reifies racist ideology. The rhetoric of this as a choice for the normalized is very interesting. This is because running is commonly seen as being a pure, “man versus man” endeavor. It’s not a contact sport, and it’s a classical activity that goes back to the first Olympics nearly three thousand years ago, while representing the bravery shown in the first marathon runner who ran the distance and died. This compared to football, a war metaphor where athletes dig in to the “trenches” and attempt to take over the enemy’s “territory.” In war it is not the nobles that fight, but “expendable” individuals. Running meanwhile is done for health, it’s done to see who is the better man, not for conquest. It is of the upper class. This, in conjunction with the trends seen in Runner’s World supports the claim that sports and media reflect a hegemony that subverts people of color. This is supported by Fanon, who describes the way black people in particular “[symbolize] the biological” both in terms of sex and the physical (167). That is war, work, athletics and other arenas.
In addition to this racializing of what running is and who takes part in it, it is also sexualized, as I said before, based on Western concepts of beauty. Kara Goucher and the aforementioned Caster Semenya are prime examples of this. Goucher, who I noted as the “Best Looking” runner according to Runner’s World, has been on the cover of the magazine three times between January 2008 and March 2010, significantly more often than any other athlete despite only medaling once in international competitions (a bronze in the 2007 10,000 meter world championship). Conversely, Caster Semenya, who was a nineteen year old sensation at the 2009 track and field World Championships after easily winning the 800 meter run, has never appeared on the cover. Further, she’s garnered much unwanted attention amid accusations that she has failed gender tests and should therefore be disallowed from competing against women. It was this attention that led to her appearance on the cover of a magazine having been given a makeover. Further, one could certainly argue that she would not have appeared on the cover of this magazine, or any in the same genre, had it not been for such a makeover because she does not meet these westernized, racialized expectations of women.
The racialization of distance running as a sport reflects an ideology of normalized whiteness that is widespread. That is to say those who are crowned as the most popular (or in the case of Runner’s World, explicitly naming the “best looking”) are white and serve to reflect an image of the sport as white-dominated. Returning to Runner’s World’s “Best of Running” article, how can Ryan Hall and Kara Goucher be rationalized as the “Most Exciting Young Runners” currently involved in the sport? Goucher, after all, is nearly thirty-two years old and Hall is twenty-seven, while both have competed professionally since 2006. In light of the fact that there are numerous more accomplished, younger, athletes of color currently competing in the sport, this clearly reflects a trend of using rhetorical strategies to normalize and value achievements of white runners more than those of the other.
Certainly it can be argued that whiteness is normalized in our culture. Patricia J. Williams tells the story of a loan officer who assumed she was white in her important book Seeing a Color-Blind Future: The Paradox of Race (39). This was based on the fact that the sole communication between the two was done over the telephone, and the loan officer’s presumption that a law professor with good credit who spoke in a Standard American English accent would be white.
Similarly, in the second edition of Racism Without Racists: Coor-Blind Racism and the Peristence of Racial Inequality in the United States Eduardo Bonilla-Silva describes the day, when working in his front yard, a real-estate agent asked him if he worked for the home owners and if they would mind if she showed the house to a potential buyer (223-224). In both cases whiteness is presumed as a position of affluence and authority. It is normalized in the sense that the successful individual (the law professor and home owner) is expected to be white. In Bonilla-Silva’s case, the “help” is expected to be the person of color, and in Williams’ case the person of color is not anticipated as being capable of such a position.
In light of this it becomes clear that whiteness is normalized in our culture in terms of the expectation of success and general acceptance. Whiteness is normalized in the way that women of color are pushed to reflect western conceptions of beauty in their appearance in an attempt to reach acceptance. Ideology is also reinforced by media such as Runner’s World where people of color are rarely seen on the cover and rarely equally represented in the articles contained within. In this way cultural ideologies that place whites as prime are reified, thus creating an expectation of people of color as less successful and less able to perform and achieve what whites do. Through this hegemony is reinforced and perpetuated by the ideologies that both whites and people of color are encouraged to hold.
Works Cited
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. 2nd ed. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006. Print.
Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. Trans. Charles Lam Markmann. New York: Grove Press Inc., 1967. Print.
Flax, Peter. “The Best of Running.” Runner’s World Dec. 2009. 62-70. Print.
“Makeover For SA Gender-Row Runner.” BBC News. 8 Sept 2009. Web. 28 Dec 2009.
Williams, Patricia J. Seeing a Color-Blind Future: The Paradox of Race. New York: The Noonday Press, 1997. Print.
What does it say, then, about cultural ideology that South Africa’s You magazine ran a cover story about embattled middle distance runner Caster Semenya, with the headline reading “We turn SA’s power girl in to a glamour girl – and she loves it!” (“Makeover”). What does it say about cultural ideology when we consider the fact that Semenya had much attention directed toward her following her 800 meter world championship win because she is suspected of not quite being biologically female? What does it say about cultural ideology that Semenya apparently felt the need to undergo a makeover to make her fit western conceptions of “beauty” only after she came under fire for appearing too masculine?
…
Business is about reaching a target market and convincing individuals making up that market that they need a certain product or service. It’s pretty simple, really. Assess what a given group wants and needs (or thinks they want and need), and provide it – for a fee, of course. I say this at the risk of essentializing those who develop and market products, but much of this field operates through stereotype, fictive kinship, and other factors that media and social ideology tell people are a part of their identity. Certainly in the twenty-first century such marketers tend to avoid the explosive and the potentially offensive while attempting to employ the purely profitable. But the result of this can often be seen curious to behold.
Take the popular magazine Runner’s World as an example. The target audience of this publication is casual long distance runner. That is, the non-elite or non-competitive “jogger.” Many of the magazine’s readers are people just starting out in the sport or people who began running later in life. And, of course, the magazines available in this country are likely intended for Americans. Beyond this, looking at the publication’s content can provide clues as to who comprises the target audience, with the ultimate question being why such an audience is the focus. Like any other publication, I believe Runner’s World serves to support hegemony, normalizing white individuals in the sport of running, and othering people of color.
Consider first the magazine’s covers. Between November 2008 and May 2010 the individuals featured on the cover appeared to be white sixteen times, versus being a person of color three times. Further, in December 2009 Runner’s World printed the article “The Best of Running” chronicling a variety of categories, such as “Most Exciting Young” runner, “Best Looking” runner, and others, presumably taking in to account professional distance runners from around the world. The choices for this piece are curious, to say the least. For performance-based awards one would expect athletes from Kenya, Ethiopia, and Morocco to dominate given the fact that athletes from these countries have won most major championships in recent years. With this in mind it is no surprise that Ethiopian legend Haile Gebrselassie was named “Best Male Distance Runner of All Time,” but a surprise that the “Most Exciting Young” award winners were Kara Goucher and Ryan Hall, who are both white and never won a major international race (Flax 65, 70). This, given the plethora of younger Kenyan and Ethiopian runners who have won major competitions over the last few years, is quite odd.
Perhaps even more telling are the award recipients for “Best Looking” runner, where Australian Craig Mottram was selected for the men, and Goucher for the women (67). These selections beg the question, to whom are these individuals considered the “best looking”? The variability of western and non-western selections in this piece are quite curious, but it is clear that western conceptions of beauty and cultural ideologies are at play in this article. This is particularly curious in reference to Caster Semenya, who was given a new hairstyle, clothing, and make-up to help her fit western conceptions of beauty. In many ways this links to Frantz Fanon describing people of color finding it necessary to achieve “a white totality” (that is, “becoming white”) in an attempt to gain acceptance (193). The response to Semenya’s sex being questioned was to her present as more feminine (in the Western understanding). Despite this, though, this attempt is ultimately fruitless because the white hegemone still sees color, thus the person of color is still subject to the racist ideology that subverted them in the first place. This is seen with Semenya, as questions regarding her sex did not abate, even after a makeover that was presumably meant to present her in a more feminine, and therefore positive, light.
Given the questionable selections of ability-based “Best of Running” awards, it is clear that Runner’s World attempted to create a strong representation of Americans in this article. This is understandable in a sense given the fact that the article appears in an American magazine and must therefore appeal to a nationalistic prejudice. But the color divide in this piece, as with the magazine’s cover models, is quite curious. Of all the athletes mentioned in these selections twenty-eight different white people are mentioned versus eight people of color – with only half of the people of color being non-Americans.
This is only one example, but it is quite telling as to the apparent motivations of Runner’s World. Based on these trends it appears that running as a profit-making venture is targeted toward white audiences. Why is this? Perhaps it is because most of this country’s poor are people of color, and therefore reaching out to white audiences provides greater profit potential. However, I believe that this is based on a stereotype that, for Americans, running is a “white sport” as opposed to sports like football and basketball that are “black sports.”
While this is certainly Westernized, I think it’s also racialized. This stereotype suggests that running is a white sport, normalizing whiteness within it. Of course it’s not true that only white people run, just like it’s not true that only black people play basketball, but Runner’s World cover trends and “Best of Running” selections perpetuate stereotypes and reifies racist ideology. The rhetoric of this as a choice for the normalized is very interesting. This is because running is commonly seen as being a pure, “man versus man” endeavor. It’s not a contact sport, and it’s a classical activity that goes back to the first Olympics nearly three thousand years ago, while representing the bravery shown in the first marathon runner who ran the distance and died. This compared to football, a war metaphor where athletes dig in to the “trenches” and attempt to take over the enemy’s “territory.” In war it is not the nobles that fight, but “expendable” individuals. Running meanwhile is done for health, it’s done to see who is the better man, not for conquest. It is of the upper class. This, in conjunction with the trends seen in Runner’s World supports the claim that sports and media reflect a hegemony that subverts people of color. This is supported by Fanon, who describes the way black people in particular “[symbolize] the biological” both in terms of sex and the physical (167). That is war, work, athletics and other arenas.
In addition to this racializing of what running is and who takes part in it, it is also sexualized, as I said before, based on Western concepts of beauty. Kara Goucher and the aforementioned Caster Semenya are prime examples of this. Goucher, who I noted as the “Best Looking” runner according to Runner’s World, has been on the cover of the magazine three times between January 2008 and March 2010, significantly more often than any other athlete despite only medaling once in international competitions (a bronze in the 2007 10,000 meter world championship). Conversely, Caster Semenya, who was a nineteen year old sensation at the 2009 track and field World Championships after easily winning the 800 meter run, has never appeared on the cover. Further, she’s garnered much unwanted attention amid accusations that she has failed gender tests and should therefore be disallowed from competing against women. It was this attention that led to her appearance on the cover of a magazine having been given a makeover. Further, one could certainly argue that she would not have appeared on the cover of this magazine, or any in the same genre, had it not been for such a makeover because she does not meet these westernized, racialized expectations of women.
The racialization of distance running as a sport reflects an ideology of normalized whiteness that is widespread. That is to say those who are crowned as the most popular (or in the case of Runner’s World, explicitly naming the “best looking”) are white and serve to reflect an image of the sport as white-dominated. Returning to Runner’s World’s “Best of Running” article, how can Ryan Hall and Kara Goucher be rationalized as the “Most Exciting Young Runners” currently involved in the sport? Goucher, after all, is nearly thirty-two years old and Hall is twenty-seven, while both have competed professionally since 2006. In light of the fact that there are numerous more accomplished, younger, athletes of color currently competing in the sport, this clearly reflects a trend of using rhetorical strategies to normalize and value achievements of white runners more than those of the other.
Certainly it can be argued that whiteness is normalized in our culture. Patricia J. Williams tells the story of a loan officer who assumed she was white in her important book Seeing a Color-Blind Future: The Paradox of Race (39). This was based on the fact that the sole communication between the two was done over the telephone, and the loan officer’s presumption that a law professor with good credit who spoke in a Standard American English accent would be white.
Similarly, in the second edition of Racism Without Racists: Coor-Blind Racism and the Peristence of Racial Inequality in the United States Eduardo Bonilla-Silva describes the day, when working in his front yard, a real-estate agent asked him if he worked for the home owners and if they would mind if she showed the house to a potential buyer (223-224). In both cases whiteness is presumed as a position of affluence and authority. It is normalized in the sense that the successful individual (the law professor and home owner) is expected to be white. In Bonilla-Silva’s case, the “help” is expected to be the person of color, and in Williams’ case the person of color is not anticipated as being capable of such a position.
In light of this it becomes clear that whiteness is normalized in our culture in terms of the expectation of success and general acceptance. Whiteness is normalized in the way that women of color are pushed to reflect western conceptions of beauty in their appearance in an attempt to reach acceptance. Ideology is also reinforced by media such as Runner’s World where people of color are rarely seen on the cover and rarely equally represented in the articles contained within. In this way cultural ideologies that place whites as prime are reified, thus creating an expectation of people of color as less successful and less able to perform and achieve what whites do. Through this hegemony is reinforced and perpetuated by the ideologies that both whites and people of color are encouraged to hold.
Works Cited
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. 2nd ed. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006. Print.
Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. Trans. Charles Lam Markmann. New York: Grove Press Inc., 1967. Print.
Flax, Peter. “The Best of Running.” Runner’s World Dec. 2009. 62-70. Print.
“Makeover For SA Gender-Row Runner.” BBC News. 8 Sept 2009. Web. 28 Dec 2009.
Williams, Patricia J. Seeing a Color-Blind Future: The Paradox of Race. New York: The Noonday Press, 1997. Print.
Take Care, New Media Scholars
First, let me say that I don’t study Native American rhetorics, nor do I really focus on what classification is the vogue, PC term for a given group of people. With that in mind, please forgive me if this particular entry serves to reflect my ignorance. I do, however, feel compelled to comment on issues or race/racism/language use in New Media, given a conversation I observed today.
Several of my friends and colleagues study what’s described as the rhetoric of “New Media.” That is, new technology that changes, or has potential to change, the way people communicate, are represented, express themselves, etc. It used to be Facebook, but within the last year or so, Twitter has become the new big thing people want to discuss. I’d like to add that I really dislike Twitter on a personal level. I think it’s interesting enough as a form of media, though I wonder why it exists, especially considering the fact that many synch their Twitter accounts to Facebook, MySpace, or some other site that has a wider range of capabilities. Really, the fact that I use Twitter by itself is pretty archaic (which is a funny thing in itself). Still, I’m reasonably addicted to it, even though I hate the thing. The friends and comedians that I follow on Twitter are far too entertaining for me to give up at the moment. I haven’t used it terribly long (less than nine months), and I use is pretty sparingly, so I suspect I’ll have to get bored of it before I’m able to kick the habit.
But that was a digression.
Representation in New Media is a hot topic. How do people construct their own identity in something like Twitter? What assumptions to other users make about an individual based on the limited information provided on such site? And what does all this say about cultural ideologies that we are subject to and operate under? Much of these discussions have to do with race, sex, sexuality, colonialism, gender, and other such topics. With this in mind, take a look at the following conversation between a New Media scholar (Person 1) and a colleague who doesn’t study New Media, but does cover sex and race issues in their work:
Person 1: Reading Stuart Hall and replacing every instance of "black" with "American Indian."
Person 2: It would be interesting to see what a Brit like Hall has to say about AmerIndians in terms of race, to see what their views are.
Person 1: my pov only, "AmerIndians" is probably not a label you want to use.
Person 2: Well thats Twitter shorthand forcing abbreviations.In Twitterspeak whats the dif betw "American Indian" & "AmerIndian"? Am I dumb?
First, to help put this in context: the “Stuart Hall” mentioned by Person 1 is a newer version of this book, which is
really quite interesting: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. (Though one should note that this work isn't really "by" Hall, but is rather a collection that includes some works by him and some articles that discuss his works).
First, I take issue with the reading proposed by Person 1 because Hall is British, talking about racism in relation to black people living in England. Definitely a different context when considering any oppressed group in the US. Second, I stand by what Person 2 has to say; it would be interesting to see what a British scholar has to say about American Indians because they have a different perspective than American scholars.
I’m not sure, though, that Person 1 understands Person 2’s initial response, however. Person 1 seems to think that her colleague is endorsing the use of, or typically uses the term “Amerindian” as interchangeable with “American Indian.” I would tend to agree that using a term like “Amerindian” isn’t really a good idea. It’s kind of like saying “Afro-American” or something like that (which, as a side note appears in the first edition of a very popular text, The Rhetorical Tradition. A surprise, considering the fact that I assumed that term had died out by the 1990s). However, Person 1 really should have noticed the difference between “Amerindian” and “AmerIndian” and taken in to consideration the fact that Twitter often forces unnatural abbreviations, misspellings, and other space saving techniques because it only allows the user to type a maximum 140 characters per entry. This is why, in his second entry, Person 2 uses shortened versions of words such as “betw” instead of “between” and “dif” instead of “difference.” Why choose to read one term as a potentially-offensive abbreviation and read the rest as Twitterspeak-forced abbreviations that are common?
This blog isn’t meant as an attack on Person 1. Rather it’s an example of something I think New Media scholars need to be very careful of. That being the fact that language used on sites such as Twitter, like text messaging, are not necessarily mirror reflections of what a person is communicating. One must use translation skills to see what the person in question is saying as opposed to what they are typing. For example, how should a text or Twitter message that reads “wut r u doing?” be translated? If it is translated literally, it makes no sense. “r” and “u” are not words, but they do mean something. We all know this. And I’m not typically one to criticize scholars of social concerns for looking at something too closely, but when discussing New Media, especially Twitter, one must be aware of the constraints that force particular language use. After all, no one forces people to use insensitive or offensive terms in interpersonal speech. It’s a completely different story when discussing Twitter in particular.
Monday, December 28, 2009
The Poor, Inflated Middle Class
In this particular entry I'd like to share some thoughts on something that I've been thinking about for a couple of years now: The poor, inflated middle class. With "poor," and possibly "inflated," containing meaning on multiple levels.
-------------
I'll start with a personal story. I just bought a car. After driving my '85 Toyota for about eight years, it was finally time to move on. Now I'm a poor graduate student, an exploited laborer, and I'm okay with that. It's just part of the deal. Despite this, though, I still need some wheels. Not that I drive very often, but considering I live in the middle of nowhere, transportation is at times necessary. The old Camry filled the bill perfectly for a long while. But, sadly, she's just about dead. I wanted a dependable car. Something that, given the proper maintenance, wouldn't let me down any time soon. I looked at a Golf, but they have some pretty bad reviews: fragile, poor part quality, great mileage though, but didn't quite fill the bill. Looked at another (newer) Camry - too expensive for what I could afford (surprisingly - though I should mention that my selection was limited. This was a rush job as I'm visiting my family for the holidays, and my car broke down while away from home, so I need a new one before I leave. As if more stress were something I wanted out of this season
). I'll cut to the chase: I ended up buying an entry level, 2001 German-brand car. Good, dependable car (cheap price thanks to the fact it was a repo) that I don't have to worry about being stranded with as long as I do my part as an owner.
I didn't buy this car because it was a fancy-schmantzy German chick-magnet. On the contrary, I actually feel a little (or a lot) irresponsible for buying it. But the fact is that this car was the best quality vehicle I could get while remaining within my modest price range. As I strapped in to drive it home I wrapped my fingers around the leather steering wheel, fiddled with the climate control, and struggled (read: failed) to turn the radio on )because I couldn't figure out the anti-theft device that rendered it inoperative) I started wondering why so many bells and whistles were so necessary. For the last eight years my car had no amenities beyond power steering (not even a radio, and only one hub cap). Heck, I didn't even have a working defrost until two winters ago, and I was happy about it. In fact, I straight up miss the Camry, my stomach is in a little bit of a knot just thinking about the fact that it'll soon be donated. All I wanted in a new(er) car was something that wouldn't die on me. I got that, but I also got a whole lot more. And why?
The answer is that the United States is based on a bloated, fictional middle class, and it's killing this country. The elite in this country is so tiny that everyone that is not destitute is shoved in to this "middle class" category. Growing up I was well cared for, never destitute, and I know my parents and their parents before them considered themselves middle class. Okay, that's fine. But my best friend growing up came from a family who also considered themselves middle class, and there was a huge difference in economic status. We lived in a trailer park (albeit, a nice one) until I was four years old, then moved in to a nice single story home in town, while my friend lived in a huge suburban home, three big cars in the garage. This represents an apparent gap that is in reality wider than the example indicates.
So lots of people are middle class. Granted, and this is important because I'm certainly not ignoring this fact, there are lot more destitute poor in this country than those from insulated white communities likely realize. And this number of poor greatly outnumbers the elite. However, the point here is that "middle class" is a huge percentage of people in this country. Which brings me back to my new(er) car.
Cars are an obvious status indicator in this country. Even as a kid I knew that BMWs and Mercedes were nice rides, usually driven by people with money. So how was I able to afford one? The answer is that car companies have mirrored Americans' desire to be "upper class," or at least separate themselves from the "lower middle classes" in some way. As such, Aston Martin and Rolls Royce - vehicles usually only available to the social elite - are no longer the only nice cars out there. Today companies like Audi and Mercedes still make their top of the line car - for example, the Mercedes CL is 120 grand, and they even make a "limousine" that's a whopping $300,000. But at those prices Freddy Middle Management can't afford to drive a nice car, but he's got some extra money to burn (or a desire to be in debt for status') in order to exemplify Veblen's concept of "Keeping up with the Jones,'" so what does he do? He buys the cheaper option.
The first thing I thought when I peeked at my new car in the garage was: "Man, that looks just like a Honda Accord." Except for the leather steering wheel, that is. The bells and whistles, that's it. The car isn't that much better made, and maybe even worse made than a Honda of a lower price (we're talking new cars now since used vehicles vary by so much). But there's that German company's emblem on the trunk lid that says (as T-Pain would say) "I got money in the bank, what chu think about that?" I think Veblen had it right.
So food for thought: consider the blogs title - "The Poor, Inflated Middle Class." Think about it in reference to the fact that the middle class in this country is both huge and in debt (and I guess overweight, too if you think about "inflated" in that way), and think about it in terms of empathy. Those poor American middle class folks that are subject to the requirement of keeping up with the Jones' and spending more than they earn. It's interesting stuff.
-------------
I'll start with a personal story. I just bought a car. After driving my '85 Toyota for about eight years, it was finally time to move on. Now I'm a poor graduate student, an exploited laborer, and I'm okay with that. It's just part of the deal. Despite this, though, I still need some wheels. Not that I drive very often, but considering I live in the middle of nowhere, transportation is at times necessary. The old Camry filled the bill perfectly for a long while. But, sadly, she's just about dead. I wanted a dependable car. Something that, given the proper maintenance, wouldn't let me down any time soon. I looked at a Golf, but they have some pretty bad reviews: fragile, poor part quality, great mileage though, but didn't quite fill the bill. Looked at another (newer) Camry - too expensive for what I could afford (surprisingly - though I should mention that my selection was limited. This was a rush job as I'm visiting my family for the holidays, and my car broke down while away from home, so I need a new one before I leave. As if more stress were something I wanted out of this season
). I'll cut to the chase: I ended up buying an entry level, 2001 German-brand car. Good, dependable car (cheap price thanks to the fact it was a repo) that I don't have to worry about being stranded with as long as I do my part as an owner.I didn't buy this car because it was a fancy-schmantzy German chick-magnet. On the contrary, I actually feel a little (or a lot) irresponsible for buying it. But the fact is that this car was the best quality vehicle I could get while remaining within my modest price range. As I strapped in to drive it home I wrapped my fingers around the leather steering wheel, fiddled with the climate control, and struggled (read: failed) to turn the radio on )because I couldn't figure out the anti-theft device that rendered it inoperative) I started wondering why so many bells and whistles were so necessary. For the last eight years my car had no amenities beyond power steering (not even a radio, and only one hub cap). Heck, I didn't even have a working defrost until two winters ago, and I was happy about it. In fact, I straight up miss the Camry, my stomach is in a little bit of a knot just thinking about the fact that it'll soon be donated. All I wanted in a new(er) car was something that wouldn't die on me. I got that, but I also got a whole lot more. And why?
The answer is that the United States is based on a bloated, fictional middle class, and it's killing this country. The elite in this country is so tiny that everyone that is not destitute is shoved in to this "middle class" category. Growing up I was well cared for, never destitute, and I know my parents and their parents before them considered themselves middle class. Okay, that's fine. But my best friend growing up came from a family who also considered themselves middle class, and there was a huge difference in economic status. We lived in a trailer park (albeit, a nice one) until I was four years old, then moved in to a nice single story home in town, while my friend lived in a huge suburban home, three big cars in the garage. This represents an apparent gap that is in reality wider than the example indicates.
So lots of people are middle class. Granted, and this is important because I'm certainly not ignoring this fact, there are lot more destitute poor in this country than those from insulated white communities likely realize. And this number of poor greatly outnumbers the elite. However, the point here is that "middle class" is a huge percentage of people in this country. Which brings me back to my new(er) car.
Cars are an obvious status indicator in this country. Even as a kid I knew that BMWs and Mercedes were nice rides, usually driven by people with money. So how was I able to afford one? The answer is that car companies have mirrored Americans' desire to be "upper class," or at least separate themselves from the "lower middle classes" in some way. As such, Aston Martin and Rolls Royce - vehicles usually only available to the social elite - are no longer the only nice cars out there. Today companies like Audi and Mercedes still make their top of the line car - for example, the Mercedes CL is 120 grand, and they even make a "limousine" that's a whopping $300,000. But at those prices Freddy Middle Management can't afford to drive a nice car, but he's got some extra money to burn (or a desire to be in debt for status') in order to exemplify Veblen's concept of "Keeping up with the Jones,'" so what does he do? He buys the cheaper option.
The first thing I thought when I peeked at my new car in the garage was: "Man, that looks just like a Honda Accord." Except for the leather steering wheel, that is. The bells and whistles, that's it. The car isn't that much better made, and maybe even worse made than a Honda of a lower price (we're talking new cars now since used vehicles vary by so much). But there's that German company's emblem on the trunk lid that says (as T-Pain would say) "I got money in the bank, what chu think about that?" I think Veblen had it right.
So food for thought: consider the blogs title - "The Poor, Inflated Middle Class." Think about it in reference to the fact that the middle class in this country is both huge and in debt (and I guess overweight, too if you think about "inflated" in that way), and think about it in terms of empathy. Those poor American middle class folks that are subject to the requirement of keeping up with the Jones' and spending more than they earn. It's interesting stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
