I've gotten a couple of angry emails about yesterday's Jason Whitlock piece at ESPN.com's Page 2 that casually played the race card when it comes to the negative public reaction to the lackluster play of the U.S. Men's Olympic Basketball Team over in Athens:
I must've missed the memo -- the memo that went out to the red-blooded American sports public and explains exactly when it became OK to throw patriotism out the window and openly root against a U.S. Olympic team.Yeah, I didn't get that memo. I'm wondering what was in it. Did it mention Allen Iverson by name? Did it have stipulations about the number of tattoos acceptable on an Olympian? Was there a cornrows clause? Or was the memo just straight and to the point?
Americans do not have to support a group of black American millionaires in any endeavor. Despite the hypocritical, rabid patriotism displayed immediately after 9/11, it's perfectly suitable for Americans to despise Team USA Basketball, Allen Iverson and all the other tattooed NBA players representing our country. Yes, these athletes are no more spoiled, whiny and rich than the golfers who fearlessly represent us in the Ryder Cup, but at least Tiger Woods has the good sense not to wear cornrows.
There are a million excuses, some of which might legitimize a teeny bit of hostility toward USA Basketball. But there's no reasonable justification for the out-and-out hatred of Larry Brown's squad. There's no reasonable justification for the sheer delight that many red-blooded, patriotic Americans are taking from the USA's struggles.
Before taking Whitlock to task for this claim, we ought to concede at least one area where he's gotten things right elsewhere in the article -- that the American meltdown in international basketball very closely resembles the dethroning of Canada from global dominence in ice hockey that began with the Summit Series in 1972 -- a point made earlier this week over at Blog Maverick, and a comparison I made in the wake of the American debacle at the FIBA World Championships two years ago.
But there's one way the comparison falls apart. Because in the wake of three shocking losses to the Russians in 1972, the Canadian public turned on Team Canada like a pack of wild dogs -- just the way the American public is bashing Team USA right now.
That team of Canadian professionals came into training camp out of shape and disinterested. They didn't take their opponents seriously, and they didn't take the tournament seriously. And it showed on the ice. And the fans let them have it.
It all came to a horrible crescendo after Game Four of the series in Vancouver, a 5-3 win for the Soviets. As Team Canada left the ice, at this point down 2-1-1 in the series, a rain of abuse hailed down upon them as Phil Esposito stepped up to a CBC microphone to give an interview that was simulcast inside the arena:
"For the people across Canada, we tried. We gave it our best. For the people who booed us, jeez, all of us guys are really disheartened and we're disillusioned and we're disappointed in some of the people. We cannot believe the bad press we've got, the booing we've gotten in our own buildings.
Sound familiar? Know this: 30 years ago, in the depths of the Cold War, people across Canada weren't chary to express their disappointment in a group of lazy professionals who refused to take a sporting event as seriously as the average fan.
Were those Canadians any less patriotic because they booed that team? Not on your life. In fact, when they booed, they were simply insisting that the team on the ice live up to the hard-won reputation on the name on the sweater.
And that's not any different from what American fans are demanding from our Men's Olympic Basketball Team today.
By the way, Esposito wasn't done with his comments after those first few sentences. Instead, as one of the leaders of Team Canada, he took responsibility for his team's poor performance, promised to work harder, and rallied the Canadian fans behind the squad:
"Everyone one of us guys, thirty-five guys who came out to play for Team Canada," Esposito continued, "we did it because we love our country and not for any other reason. They can throw the money for the pension fund out the window, they can throw anything they want out the window - we came because we love Canada. And even though we play in the United States and we earn money in the United States, Canada is still our home and that's the only reason we come."
If only Iverson, Duncan or Marbury would be man enough to step up to the microphone and do the same.
I don't want to discount that there are, even today, a number of closet racists who are taking delight in seeing a team of African-American men beaten soundly on a Basketball court. But ascribing those twisted thoughts to an entire nation of sports fans ticked off because a team wearing the name of our nation and carrying our colors couldn't manage to defeat the titanic basketball power of Puerto Rico, strains credulity.
As Charles Austin wrote to me last night, "When everything is racist, nothing is racist." And in this case, it's simply a convenient canard to let this team -- from senior mangement, to the coaching staff and the players on the floor -- off the hook.
UPDATE: Let the finger pointing continue, as Argentina has defeated Team USA in the semifianls, 87-81. The U.S. will play either Italy or Lithunia in the Bronze Medal game.
It’s too bad Whitlock has to throw the ‘race’ card in his article. If you take out that BS, the rest of his article has some merit and does make some good points.
European basketball is clearly superior to the American brand when it comes to the ‘International’ rules. The Canadians found this out the hard way, although they did manage to win by the skin of their teeth.
Americans are just used to winning and dominating basketball. Now they are seeing their team lose and they don’t really know how to take it. I believe the US could still win the Olympics or any other tournament clearly if they took more guys that fit into the International style of play…there are still lots of those guys out there, if you believe The Sports Guy.
Win or lose, I am still proud of the American team.
I don’t think Whitlock is out-of-bounds when he calls the criticism of the basketball team “borderline racist.” The other day, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial praising the women’s softball team–an almost entirely white and hispanic group–while denouncing the “pampered millionaires” of the basketball team–who are all black. The editorial also portrayed Larry Brown as a hapless victim of his incorrigible charges.
Why couldn’t the WSJ let their praise for the softball team? Why add the gratuitous slaps at the basketball players? And–to address Whitlock’s point–if the basketball team was all white, would the WSJ have gone out of its way to slam them as “pampered millionaires”?
I’m not saying the WSJ is racist. I’m saying that it’s socially acceptable in the mainstream press to denounce successful, wealthy black athletes for being greedy or somehow less than moral.
Whitlock’s best point–which Eric did not mention–was that for the basketball players, their paramount goal in life is playing in the NBA; for athletes in other sports, the Olympics is their prime objective. The notion that we all must revere the Olympics is probably the real culprit here, rather than race. People are critical of the basketball players for not “sacrificing” enough. And that’s just sad.
Outside of what the press might have to say that comes off as close to Skip states, I think it’s kind of ridiculous to state that Americans being peeved at the play of the “Dream Team” up to this point as being racist is just off base. While Eric is dead on to say that there is probably some segment of Americans who have racist tendencies and are basking in some delusional glory, the rest of us just feel that the team has been somewhat less than effective.
It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that a bunch of shooters on a team just ain’t going to cut it. But up until the last game and a half that the team played, there was no real fire on the floor, IMHO. People criticized the team for not playing “team” ball, which they hadn’t been. Sorry, Mr. Whitlock, but if we put a team of all white players on the floor, and they stunk up the joint, they’d be hearing the same jeers from the crowd and the collective public.
you point to the interesting parallels between the US in Basketball now and Canada in Hockey in 1972. I’ve always thought that Canada’s experience hockey closely mirrored the English experience in Soccer. When England was crushed by Hungary 6-3 at home in 1952(?) it produced the same soul searching as Canada losing at home 7-3 to the USSR in 1973.
As long as sports journalism is going to indulge the endless clich
Tom, to clafiy my argument above, I am only talking about the media’s perceptions and coverage. I recognize that it’s inherently foolish to try and ascribe a monolithic reaction to the public at-large. The majority of Americans are not watching the Olympic basketball tournament and thus are unlikely to weigh-in with any substantive opinions.
As for the criticism that the basketball team wasn’t playing “team” ball, this goes more to what the real criticism should be: That USA Basketball failed in its job to assemble the best possible team. I would also question hiring Larry Brown as the coach; he is obviously qualified, but is his defense-based system the right approach for the international game? It’s the philosophy of coaches like Brown that have brought the NBA to the level it is today.
Now for Jim’s comments: I don’t disagree with anything he said, but his pitch is a little outside the contextual strike zone. The Olympics are expressly based on the premises of nationalism and statism. They require massive government interventions within the host nations and many of the participating countries. Every competition takes place in an express nationalist context. A true, individualist Olympics would eliminate national teams and olympic committees altogether.
The individualist Olympics..? I think I kinda like it..!
In a sense, though, don’t the world records in the individual events already transcend nationality? The headline is: Tim Montgomery, an American, is World’s Fastest Man. As opposed to: Americans faster than other nationalities.
On second thought, maybe nationality is inextricably entwined. I suddenly recall rooting for Lance Armstrong precisely for being a Texan-American beating the Europeans.
My vision for the Olympics would be to eliminate the IOC and national committees and have everything run by the individual sports federations on a decentralized basis–kind of an “Articles of Confederation” versus the current federalist Constitution. You could host the games over a two-week period in multiple cities using existing facilities, thereby negating the need to have one country pour billions of public dollars into one-shot venues. With television and the Internet, you no longer need everything in one location (especially when you have a dedicated, multiple-outlet broadcaster like NBC running the show.)
In effect, I’m proposing we coordinate all of the various “world championships” held in the Olympic off-years into one “Mardi Gras” of random sports.
Eric — I think you’ll be pleased with Iverson’s comments if you read back through our coverage. He’s proud to be part of this team, and he hasn’t shirked away from a question. I’m a little disappointed that Duncan hasn’t been as forthcoming, but he also is proud to be part of this team, and I feel for him.
I think Whitlock has a bit of a point here, to tell you the truth, and I don’t always feel that way about his work. These guys put their butts on the line when the rest of the league said no. Many of them have embraced all that’s good about the Olympics — Richard Jefferson has been seen at several other sports, Iverson is growing up before our eyes, etc. But they were not prepared to be here. Not like the softball team that spent all year playing any assortment of decent players they could find. Not like the soccer team that trained all year. Not like the water polo and volleyball teams, some of whom were even more disappointing. (Ahem … U.S. women … the Dominican Republic??!!)
I didn’t see a bunch of spoiled NBA stars sleep-walking their way through the tournament. I saw, like Michael Wilbon said, a bunch of guys working hard. But they weren’t ready. Blame the system, blame the coach, etc. Blame the players for never developing the jumpers and perimeter defense that would’ve helped them succeed at this level.
But the more I watched, the less I could pull against them. The stereotype of these players — of which race was PART but not all — didn’t match what I saw from them.
Skip — I like your idea of decentralizing, and I think the Summer Games should be split into a core of classic sports and a couple of smaller satellite Games. But I don’t see how the national federations will disappear. Even if you stripped away every national uniform, people will still cheer for whoever lives in their neighborhood, their state, their country, etc. Felix Sanchez, the latter-day Edwin Moses, had scant ties to the Dominican Republic before he decided to represent that country. The country embraced him anyway.
Beau, I recognize that I don’t have an actual plan for getting rid of the national federations. As for nationalism, it would still exist in a decentralized games–the national federations for particular sports, i.e. USA Basketball, would still exist. My concern is getting rid of the national Olympic committees, which are nothing more than political intermediaries that have nothing to do with legitimate sport.
Skip — Fair enough. Might have some logistical hurdles, but it’s an interesting idea.
Disruption
Eric over at Offwing has an interesting reply to Jason Whitlock’s article that compares USA Basketball’s recent performance with Team Canada’s performance in the 1972 Summit Series. Read it if you have time….