For anybody who knows me, they would certainly know I am a huge Hockey Fan, and an avid follower of my team, the Chicago Blackhawks. In fact, I probably spend too much time following the NHL and the Blackhawks, I can routinely be found chatting about the Blackhawks or watching their games, even during the hot month of July.
But it was an incident away from the Hawks, but on the ice that catches my attention today, or really the aftermath of the event more so. On Thursday September 22, 2011 a preseason exhibition game took place between the Detroit Red Wings and Philadelphia Flyers in London, Ontario, a neutral site not uncommon in preseason action. The game was tied at 3-3 after the end of regulation and through a 5 minute overtime period, resulting in the game finishing with a shootout. The shootout consists of one skater trying to score a goal against the goalie, with no other defending players on the ice, it is a penalty shot, one shooter and one goalie. The team that scores the best out of three attempts wins the game, or sudden death if extra rounds are needed.
In this game a young and talented Wayne Simmonds of the Philadelphia Flyers was making his attempt to score a goal on the Red Wings goalie, when while he was skating with the puck something was thrown from the crowd onto the ice. Now things being thrown on the ice at hockey games is not new, hats are thrown on the ice for a "hatrick" when a player scores his third goal of the game, and other teams specific things are thrown as well at times such as octopi for the Detroit Red Wings. But throwing anything on the ice while play happens is very much frowned upon by the league, players and most fans, however in this instance it was not only that something was thrown on the ice while play was going on, but it is more WHAT was thrown. In this case is was a banana peel while Simmonds was skating, and Simmonds happens to be black.
When I first started hearing about this incident the following Friday morning, initially I thought not much of it, other than some fan was a real idiot for throwing something on the ice during play. It was not until I started reading about the "racism" about it did it really catch my attention, mainly because I did not understand why. The incident was labeled as racist the fan was labeled racist, but I could find nothing about the fan at all, only a banana peel had been thrown. I had to ask co-workers, "how is this racist?" before I understood the undertone of how it could be (If you also do not understand, I suggest you look it up, I will not go into that type of detail here).
This brings me to the point of this article, after obviously a very long lead in and intro, not was this racist, but the immediate call of it to be racist. As I mentioned, I did not understand how this event had any racial undertone with it, I had to ask and have it explained. Now if I had done the same thing (I never would though) I would also have been called racist, though by my own admission, I had absolutely no idea prior to that it could even be considered racism. Yet that is the label being used now, and I still have found out nothing of this fan.
Why is this important?
For several reasons not the incident itself, but the reaction by the populous in large caught me not only off-guard, but made me step back.
Among the first things I heard is, "it is obviously racist". By all means, it may very well be, there is no denying racism MAY be a motivator. But at the same time to deny that it may NOT be would be, and in my opinion is just as irresponsible. An act as this could be very innocent in intention (though stupid), but the perception be something different. Is it racist, if the objective or motivator was anything but based on race? Could this person be like myself (probably in a small group of people) who did not know how it could be perceived? Yet, the immediate call is racism, and we still at the time of this writing know nothing of the fan him or herself.
Another part of this immediate reaction is how the conclusion is drawn that concerns me. It is based on the action, and going to a prejudged "reason". If this had been racially motivated, would the fan in concern had thrown this during Wayne Simmonds shot attempt, without doubt yes. But at this point, this is the ONLY fact that supports this notion, ignoring that the same fact could also support other possibilities. Could this have been a stupid gag by a College Frat boy against a team he did not like? Yes. Could this have been a fan who just wanted attention or to cause disruption? Yes. Yet, these and many other considerations are dismissed, and we immediately call racism. Why and how?
The why is I believe fairly simple, we do not like it and want to kill racism whenever it pokes its head. But how did people come to this conclusion? Among the answers I came across was is, "it is common". So in order to conclude this to be racist, we must ASSUME the lowest denominator of someone we do not know, which in this case is racism. Fans doing stupid things at sporting events is NOTHING new, whether it is the streaker at a Baseball game, fans throwing bottles at an entire football team, or nearly killing a man who is a fan of a rival team, but rarely are this immediately called "racist". Why is this one different? Why for this fan, is he automatically assumed to be the lowest denominator when nothing is known about him, where when other fans doing really stupid things, it is simply chalked up to just that, a stupid fan being stupid.
The issue with calling someone racist, is NOT when the title fits, but when it does not, because the person being accused of it can not prove they are not. Proving you are not racist, is to prove an absolute negative, it cannot be done. Science can no more prove that Big Foot or Aliens do not exist, then a person can prove they are not racist. If Big Foot or Aliens do not exist and never have, there then can be no evidence to prove they were never here, only the lack evidence that they ever were. But in itself, the lack of evidence also does not prove something does in fact NOT exist, for certain we will find new dinosaur fossils in the future, that we today have no evidence to suggest they lived. But this lack of evidence does not prove they did not live as well, it just simply has not been found. This is the problem with universal negatives, all they leave is the lack of evidence, and they inherently can never prove themselves to be true. The same goes for racism. IF a person is not racist, they will leave no proof that they aren't, just the lack of proof that they are, and conversely not all racist leave proof that deep down that is what they truly are.
Yet here, with nothing more than a single action, that could easily have been done for other reasons, and the so far complete lack of anything else to consider otherwise, this person has now been labeled a racist. Could it have been racist, certainly it could have, and frankly would not surprise me if it was. But could it have been motivated by something else completely innocent from race? It is just as reasonable for this as well, given that many fans in many sports have done stupid things also separate from race. It could be a very unfortunate coincidence or it could be the face of a truly ugly person, but to rush to judgment without attempting to determine the facts, in my opinion is irresponsible.
The Rush to judgment
As a society on the whole, we do not tolerate people conducting themselves in a manner we find unacceptable, and call them out and/or hold them accountable for their actions or deeds. But to rush to judgment with less then the facts serves no purpose for society as a whole, and too often can be detrimental to innocent people. It is not always true that, If it looks like a Rat, smells like a Rat, and eats like a Rat, that it is in fact a Rat, or even very good books can have a hideous looking cover.
For example, remember the Duke Lacrosse players in 2006 to me a prime example or rushing to judgment before all the facts are known and mob mentality in convicting people in the public forum.
In the spring of 2006 three members of the Duke Men's Lacrosse team were accused of rapping a stripper, who was black. By no means were these three young men the most stellar students nor the lead candidates for citizen of the year. But the immediate call and public outcry was these young men were guilty, and it was racially motivated. In the public forum, these three men were crucified, their own teachers protested AGAINST them, the prosecutor was holding daily press conferences. Everyone said "these men had to be guilty", "this was obviously racially motivated", and such. But it turns out in the end, these three young men were not in fact the offenders, they were the victims. The woman had lied, all along her story was inconsistent, but to the public this did not matter since the perception "HAD" to be guilt and "MUST" be racist. The lives of these three men were successfully assassinated, based solely off of perception and not fact.
Now to really to compare these two is stretch by any means, but not the "public perception" aspect. The public perceived "it must be this or that", with having nothing more than an accusation and ZERO supporting proof.
Here we have the same, a perception of guilt and nothing more. To this point no supporting fact other the who it was against, when it may have very easily have occurred to another player or at another time. This is not say it was not racist or racially motivated, just that basing judgment ONLY on perception when the facts could easily support various other reasons is a rush to judgment, and could easily convict a relatively innocent person, for simply a childish and stupid act.
On person mentioned this quote from Edmund Burke, which I have always liked and agree with
all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
I could not agree more, but let us make sure it is truly evil before we fight it.
No comments :
Post a Comment