Euro Cup 2012 & HIV/AIDS

Photo from HDWallpaper.

In 2005, the United Nations held the International Year of Sport and Physical Education and committed sport to assisting in Millennium Development Goal achievement.  Goal #6 is to help combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.  How is sport supposed to help combat a disease like  HIV/AIDS you ask?  Sport is used as the excuse to draw people together in order to deliver educational messages and discuss issues such as stigmatization and social integration.  The Nike (RED) campaign is one of the more visible (and corporate) examples of sport attempting to fight HIV/AIDS with most other initiatives such as Right to Play, Kicking AIDS Out and the Mathare Youth Sport Association being more program based.  These programs use sport and play activities to teach youth about the dangers of HIV/AIDS while providing a safe space for discussion.  I bring up the topic because last week Poland announced that it would distribute 150,000 condoms during the Euro 2012 tournament.  A pretty progressive stance right? Yes and no. It's progressive only because we are actually acknowledging that people have sex.  Not progressive in that we are still missing the ball on what actually spreads the disease most of the time.

At one time, HIV/AIDS epidemiologist, Elizabeth Pisani said "People do stupid things, that's what spreads HIV."  She has since retracted, or at least altered, her statement to argue that "People do stupid things, for perfectly rational reasons...HIV is about sex and drugs and if there are two things that make people a little bit irrational they are erections and addiction."  When she puts it like this it makes me wonder why we spend so much money and effort trying to educate people about something that is largely visceral.  Anyways, getting back to sport, there is an ongoing argument that large sporting events draw higher rates of prostitution because of the influx of tourism.  The jury seems to be out on this one with no real data to support this argument but logic would dictate that one should go where the customers are and a large sporting event might be a good market.  After all, isn't that why stores try to locate themselves in high traffic areas?   But I think we need to stop and consider three things: (1) Pisani's research has observed that it is more difficult to encourage condom use within intimate relationships than for commercial sex, (2) as of  2004, drug injectors made up almost 80% of Poland's HIV/AIDS population (for those who knew the method of transmission), (3) Ukraine's epidemic started with their drug injector population and today it has the highest rates of HIV/AIDS prevalence in Europe (the Euro 2012 tournament will be joint hosted by both Poland and the Ukraine).

Handing out free condoms is definitely a start but, as with most things, humans tend to complicate things.  I wonder what the reaction would have been if Poland had announced it would also be handing out 150,000 clean needles?

To learn more about Pisani's work watch the TED talk below.

"While the men watch": ESPN meets "Sex & the City"

Photo from the Winnipeg Free Press.

Cross posted on Hockey in Society.

The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) has come up with a, shall we say, intriguing gimmick for the Stanley Cup finals this year.  It will be introducing While the Men Watch, a

live, sports talk show for women. Hosted by Lena Sutherland and Jules Mancuso, the program [will follow] the discussion of two women watching sports "from a woman's point of view including everything from interpreting the rules of the game to coaches in need of a makeover."  Apparently, it's been called ESPN meets "Sex & the City."

Ya, because that's what the world needs - ESPN and Sex & The City in one show.  "Female non-hockey fans" will be able to go online to "listen to an alternate commentary from [Sutherland and Mancuso]." CBC has received considerable backlash from both genders concerning the show synopsis:

As two women married to sports fanatics, there was really no escaping hockey on TV - especially during playoffs. As our men were glued to the game, we were on the phone talking to each other about what we saw on the ice in a way that was completely different than what our guys or the real announcers were saying.  Why were the players getting a seat and a drink in the penalty box if it's supposed to be a punishment? And how exactly did that coach pick out a brown suit and tie combo four sizes too big?

Congratulations CBC! You have officially regressed to the 1950's.  Women having their own sports talk show isn't a bad idea.  Having them talk about it from a woman's perspective isn't a bad idea.  But, and I hope that when the show airs this introduction statement was meant to be more inflammatory than true to form, having a show premised on the idea that women and men fundamentally experience hockey (or any sport) differently is detrimental to both genders.  Also, saying that what these women discuss can be "completely different [from]...the real announcers" say implies that men are the only ones able to really announce hockey.  Puck Daddy calls out the CBC highlighting the fact that it has Helene Elliott and Cassie Campbell as hockey commentators on their staff who represent the opposite end of the spectrum of Mancus and Sutherland.  However, as the Winnipeg Free Press reports:

Julie Bristow, executive director of studio and unscripted programming for CBC Television, said she doesn't think the optional commentary is sexist.
"We think this is a really interesting and fun way of engaging people in our national sport - both men and women," she said.
"I think it really just captures the kind of conversation that happens in living rooms and bars across the country when hockey is on."
In an email, Canadian gold medallist Hayley Wickenheiser said she looked forward to hearing it.
And in a press release, Cassie Campbell-Pascall, an analyst on CBC's "Hockey Night in Canada," said she too wanted to hear the alternate game call.
"I think it's going to be a lot of fun for more casual viewers," she said.

Say it ain't so Hayley and Cassie! Sutherland defends the show as "all in good fun" but just because it's fun doesn't mean that it's not counterproductive.  Also, are we assuming that the casual viewer wants a different type of commentary?

Puck Daddy asks if this show is sexist or incredibly sexist?  I'm not entirely sure that there are degrees of sexism. As I see it this is one of those you're either dead or you're not - there are no degrees of death.  I was inclined to say incredibly sexist because this show pigeon-holes both genders into two very defined and confining boxes, but doesn't all sexism do that? Since we live in a dichotomous society whereby everything is either or (e.g. straight or gay, white or non-white, conservative or liberal) that means that what happens to one side must also affect the other, whether "positively" or "negatively".  Putting women back into the archaic "you don't understand sport because your feminine brain cannot conceive of the strategy and skills going on" box also places every man into the "you love sport, understand all sport and are less of a man if you don't bond with other men over sports" box.  Maybe the show will turn out to be slightly more insightful than what has been proposed thus far; therefore, I suppose I will have to watch an episode or two and report back (I'm taking one for the team here folks!). But for now, to the CBC I say - stop putting your viewers into boxes!  You already have Don Cherry to do that for you.

Citius, Altius, Fortius: Transhumanism and Sport

"Technology is transforming how we makes sense of human ability and disability." (London 2012: The First Transhuman Games?"

Last year I wrote an introductory post about this topic titled "Bioethics, Doping, and Technology in Sport: Where do we draw the line?" Almost a year later, I still have neither answers nor a more defined argument for whether technology in sport is good or bad, but I would like to extend the discussion to transhumanism as a pervasive issue in sport in an attempt to make sense of it myself.  Transhumanism is a field of studies that focuses on enhancing the human condition beyond its 'natural' capabilities.  This includes our intellectual, physical, and biological capabilities.

Right-wing political scientist, Francis Fukuyama wrote about his concerns of transhumanism in 2004 stating:

For the last several decades, a strange liberation movement has grown within the developed world. Its crusaders aim much higher than civil rights campaigners, feminist, or gay-rights advocates.  They want nothing less that to liberate the human race from its biological constraints.  As "transhumanists" see it, humans must wrest their biological destiny from evolution's blind process of random variation and adaptation and move to the next stage as a species.

He continues:

If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creates claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind? If some move ahead, can anyone afford not to follow? These questions are troubling enough within rich, developed societies. Add in the in the implications for citizens of the world's poorest countries - form whom biotechnology's marvels likely will be out of reach - and the threat to the idea of equality becomes even more menacing.

I find it somewhat amusing that Fukuyama is advocating on behalf of equality, but that's a whole other issue.

Photo from Open the Future.

Dr. Andy Miah, a professor and bioethicist, explains that we are already living in a transhumanist and posthuman world (i.e. we have already moved beyond human), and that technology "operates within a shifting framework of what is normal." The field of medicine uses technology, largely without question, for the benefit of the human condition.  Miah argues that prosthetics and the ability to grow organs have become "legitimised because it has been concluded that they are beneficial for humans by correcting dysfunction."  The counter argument then runs that medicine is premised upon restoration and repair rather than enhancement; but, then when does repair become enhancement? If we are repaired to a state that is "better" than our former state, is that not enhancement? For example, if someone fell and broke their leg and is then repaired with a metal rod in their leg isn't their leg now enhanced beyond it's original function?  For the sake of argument, we will, like Miah, say that enhancement is a "level that exceeds the capabilities of all human beings." An example of enhancement beyond 'normal' outside the world of sports is that of cosmetic surgery.  If you have seen anyone embrace too much cosmetic surgery I think you would agree that they have definitely become posthuman, but I digress.

Miah argues that

Sport, it would seem, is premised upon idealistic notions of humanness, such as being natural, and even being healthy...it [endeavours] to uphold some moral code in the aspiration of fair play, that [upholds] a sporting moral norm.

We see these arguments arise most loudly with respect to performance enhancing drugs, that using steroids goes against the very 'nature' of sport.  In a recent study it was observed that using stimulants in order to achieve better grades is more ethical (or at least less ethically contentious) than using steroids to  enhance athletic performance.  It is interesting how sport is policed and understood to have relatively defined boundaries of what is fair and what is not.  Yet, is not taking stimulants in order to achieve better grades beyond what is 'naturally' human? If you aren't capable to getting an 'A' without supplements then are you worthy of that 'A'? And what is really the difference between getting a boost in the classroom versus getting a boost on the field? The educational system is very similar to the athletic system in that you receive 'coaching' beforehand and then when it is time to perform you must do so on your own.  It inherently creates a hierarchy among students and competition is just as relevant to students as it is to athletes.  So why do we draw the line between the classroom and the field?

Miah contends that the Olympic motto of Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger) perpetuates "transhumanist ideas about the dynamic of the human condition."

In the pursuit of performance, elite sports tend towards, endorse, and depend upon athletes transcending themselves (via their performances)...Athletes continually aspire to transcend known human limits.  In short, it is their ambition to break boundaries of human capability.

Thus, is not the ideal of fair play and performance enhancement mutually exclusive? Is sport trying to have its cake and eat it too? Tiger Woods received laser eye surgery - an enhancement beyond human - does that undermine the essence of sport? After all, sport is about my advantage versus your disadvantage so why isn't laser eye surgery considered performance enhancing doping?  Furthermore, in 2007, WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) decided that it would not add hyperbaric chambers to its list of banned procedures largely because it is difficult to monitor.  Many athletes use hyperbaric chambers to boost circulation, remove lactic acid and generally speed up recovery in order to get the body for the next battle.  Recently, tennis player Novak Djokovic has been questioned for his use of an exclusive CVAC pod (a super-fancy hyperbaric chamber of which only 20 existed last year) and he has said that he has only used if a few times and that he has not seen any conclusive effects on his performance.  Yet, in the same Sports Illustrated article, Jon Wertheim mentions a ban to Robert Kendrick for using anti-jetlag medicine, which is on a banned substance list. So this space egg that Djokovic has at his disposal, which claims "that spending up to 20 minutes in the pod three times a week can boost athletic performance by improving circulation, boosting oxygen-rich red blood cells, removing lactic acid and possibly even stimulating mitochondrial biogenesis and stem-cell production" is okay to use even though everything is does would be considered doping if it happened in a pill or injection form but Kendrick isn't allowed to take some jetlag pills? The line in the sand has officially disappeared.

CVAC Pod. Photo from Wall Street Journal.

I would consider myself in many ways a sport purist. I believe in playing for the enjoyment and not for extrinsic rewards (this is what we who lose a lot tell ourselves). I believe in a 'fair' competition - whatever that means. I believe in shaking the refs hand after a game even if he/she doesn't deserve it.  Yet, I certainly use technology to my advantage. I use a composite shaft hockey stick because it's lighter and gives me a quicker shot. I use a tennis racquet that gets the most out of my style of game. Miah, from what I gather at this point, is not so much the sci-fi fanatic that Fukuyama might believe him to be. I think Miah is a realist. This is already happening in sport and in our everyday lives (case in point: the airplane is definitely transhuman technology - we have enhanced our condition). The question now becomes are we fighting the inevitable? Is it too late to stop the snowball? Do we want to stop it? As much as I personally question stem cell research I do not question in-vitro fertilization or prosthetics. What's the difference? As much as I am against steroid use, performance enhancing drugs, and the Fastkin swim suits, I wouldn't be able to play tennis or hockey without technology of some sort.  Removing technology completely would alter the types of sports that we would be able to play and the manner in which we play them, but the inclusion of technology has already set us down a path of changing sport forever. Guaranteed that at the London Summer Olympics this year there will be new technologies revealed to us that will again shape how competition manifests, but is faster, higher and stronger really better or are we just toying with a puzzle because we have the ability to do so?

Vibram Running Shoes. Photo from Stephhicks.

Miah, A.  (2003).  Be very afraid: Cyborg athletes, transhuman ideals & posthumanity.  Journal of    Evolution and Technology, 13.  Retrieved online from http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/miah.html

Can golf courses be sexist?

Photo from Cylex Signs.

Dr. Heather Hundley seems to think so. Well not the golf courses themselves, but the people who create them.  I came across Dr. Hundley's article, Keeping the Score: The hegemonic everyday practices in golf, a little while ago and thought that it provides a interesting topic for discussion.  Dr. Hundley is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at California State University, San Bernadino. She writes in her 2004 article, "Because of the taken-for-granted, common sense position, it is often difficult to examine what is naturalized in our culture." The main premise of her article is how:

the tee box nomenclatures stated on the scorecards traditionally designate a location from which women should tee off; however, for men, this designation is determined by ability. Thus, men are offered more semantic choices, while women are instructed to tee off from the same location as junior golfers (the red or forward tees) regardless of their abilities.

The main question she poses is: "how do people in positions of power (owners, country club board of directors, course designers) reinforce or reproduce sexist discourse in golf?"  She argues that language contributes significantly to the way that inequality can be reinforced and recreated, while also limiting our possibilities for self-definition.  In other words, a word such as tomboy is needed to explain a girl who doesn't behave the way a 'normal' girl would (i.e. active, preferring to dress in shorts and pants rather than dresses).  The connotations given to the word girl are as limiting as the connotations of boy.  Hundley argues that golf scorecards "reveal how gender is represented and reproduced in the golfing community in a way that further naturalizes dichotomous and oppressive gender differences."  In order to do her study, Hundley collected scorecards from 85 different golf clubs in 12 different states.  The names of the tee boxes (designation of "men's" or "women's" tees) and the indication of course rating and slope were examined.

What did she find?

Initially it may appear that the golfing community constructs scorecards and tee box locations indexically. That is, a new golfer could easily infer that the forward tee boxes, creating the shortest distance from tee to green is provided for those who have not yet mastered the skill of consistently striking the ball...Conversely, skilled golfers who have mastered the golf swing are challenged with a greater distance from the tee to green.  Thus, one may believe tee box locations...indicate skill level. In the golfing community, nontheless, tee boxes are not merely related to skill level; they are also imbued with gender codes.

These tee box names, which are designated merely by gender rather than ability, perpetuate gender inequities.  For example, at Polo Park in Florida the tee boxes are simply called "Men's Tees" and "Ladies' Tees."  At the Village Greens in Kansas [and Burke Lake Golf Golf Center in Virginia, Latrobe Country Club in Pennsylvania, Walnut Creek Golf Course in California, and The Bay Course in Hawaii] the tee boxes are labeled "Championship," "Regular," and "Ladies." Indeed, while men are naturalized within the sport by implying that they are "regular" or "champions" women are "Othered," paradigmatically defined as "ladies" which, in the golf culture, are irregular and not champions...In addition, experienced, talented women often demonstrate golfing abilities that suggest they play from the middle or back tees.  Similarly, beginner male golfers and many senior males ought to play from the most forward tee boxes; however, with scorecards stating "ladies" tees, such men are semantically discouraged.  In many ways, symbolically designating the forward tees as women's "territory" demasculinizes this space and discourages men from playing at that position.

Photo from Tale of Two Cities Blog.

I think the most important part of Hundley's article is when she talks about the naturalization of these designations.  How natural is it for us to separate men and women thinking that the differences between sexes and genders is far too significant for us to play together?  When in reality, much sociological AND biological research has proven that discrepancies within sexes is far more varied than it is between sexes.  We have moved past the notion that women being active will make our uteruses explode, yet everywhere we look we are told that our bodies cannot compete the way men's can and that our skill level will never be good enough.  Examples for you to ponder:
 - the women's 3 point line is closer to the basket than men's in basketball
 - women play with a smaller sized basketball than men
 - women play fewer sets in tennis
 - women are not allowed body checking in hockey

It is so prevalent and pervasive that many of us absorb these facts as truth. Women are not strong enough to play with a men's ball. Women lack the endurance to play 5 sets.  Women's bodies are too fragile to withstand body checking. As someone who has always teed off from the "men's tees", I can tell you it's neither truth, nor am I an exception. My mother and her golf friends almost always tee off from the "men's" tees and are generally better golfers than any men they are paired with. How many times have you played with a man who should definitely use any advantage the course provides?  How many times have you seen a man tee off from the red/ladies tees? I have golfed for 23 years and have never once seen a man tee off from the forward tees. If you want to make things awkward next time you golf with a novice male, suggest to him in front of the group to tee off from the "ladies" tee; see how well that suggestion goes over.

To echo Hundley's argument, I think that as unassuming as a golf tee box may seem it:
a.) limits the ability of many women to reach their potential as golfers, athletes and as women; and,
b.) further reinforces the tiny box that men are currently allowed to operate within.
The world of sports makes life miserable for novice male athletes.  They are constantly left out of the equation. Women who suck at sports have met expectations, whereas women who excel at sports have exceeded expectations. Men who excel at sports have met expectations, whereas men who suck at sports have their identity challenged.  It's the little things like golf tee boxes that seem as natural as why men wear pants and not dresses.  If you've never thought about that before, take a second.  If you think back to any Academy Awards red carpet women are allowed to wear dresses, skirts and pants. No questions asked.  What do men wear? The same thing - a tux. Maybe a different colour if they choose to be so bold but the (tee) box for men is significantly smaller for men than it is for women. So despite the fact that Hundley states in her conclusion that "Scorecards tell players where women "belong," while men have more freedom of choice", I would argue that it is the lack of choice for men that should be more fervently questioned.  Are golf courses sexist? Yes, but not just to women.

Hundley, H.  (2004).  Keeping the Score: The hegemonic everyday practices in golf.  Communication Reports, 17(1), pp.39-48.

The Heteronormativity of the Nike's Women's Marathon

I was driving to work one morning when I heard on the radio an ad for the Nike Women's Marathon.  Not unusual since Nike and running go hand-in-hand.  What caught my attention about this particular ad was when the female voiceover said something about San Francisco fireman in tuxedos awaiting the runners at the finish line to hand them a Tiffany necklace.  THAT definitely received a WTF reaction.

Photo from milemusings blog.

As I was driving I was trying to reconcile what I just heard: women run 26.2 miles to be rewarded with jewelry and a man at the end?  If Nike was trying to be subtle with its societal expectations of women they did a really poor job of it.  Let's break down the overt reproduction of gender norms (I would call it symbolism but that would require an attempt at reading between the lines):
 - society (specifically those in the West) expects women to keep an attractive and healthy appearance in order to find a suitable mate (insert marathon and marathon training here)
 - society expects women to find men desirable (insert firemen here)
 - society expects women to find a man who is able to provide and take care of her (again with the firemen + jewelry)
 - society says a single woman past the age of...let's say 30-35...must be a lesbian

Sure it's a Tiffany necklace instead of a Tiffany engagement ring but I think the dominant message is still - woman run towards man awaiting with jewelry.  That is the end goal! You know you have completed the race, and symbolically your role as a woman in society, when you find a man willing to give you jewelry.  Was Nike trying to make an overt political statement with the largest women's marathon in the world? Yes and no. I assume they would deny it and call it women's empowerment, but Nike is really just smacking us across the face with 'one man and one woman'. It might as well be the Rick Santorum women's marathon. It is a marketing ploy. Absolutely. Sex sells.  And there are, I assume, just as many women who run the race and think nothing of the firemen and the jewelry and would have run the race without those 'incentives', as there are women who specifically choose that marathon because of what awaits them at the finish line.  Marketing and advertising not only promote what society already desires but also what larger forces dictate that desire ought to be.

Photo from TeamTraining.

Heteronormativity is the assumption that everyone is heterosexual. It describes the fact that regardless of what television show you watch, what movie ad you see or what magazine you flip through you are almost guaranteed to see the message that man and woman are a natural alliance.  It is an assumption and ideology that puts everyone into the same box and forces many to climb out of it. Well I'm sorry to inform you that people don't fit into neat little boxes, even though necklaces do and a woman is not defined by either the presence or absence of a man.

Would a Nike men's marathon with women in gowns holding an apple pie in one hand and managing a child in the other be received as uncritically? Would a Nike men's marathon with women in lingerie and a beer in hand at the finish line be acceptable?  I highly doubt the first scenario would ever happen and the second one wouldn't surprise me at all, but neither would be accepted as insignificant political and/or cultural statements.  So why, from what I can tell, has this race not received more outrage?

Photo from Runnersrambles.

I thought that when I googled the Nike Women's marathon there would be a plethora of feminist bloggers weighing in on the subject. To my surprise, almost all of the blogs I found were about runner's experiences...and not the critical kind.  For example, on Runner's Rambles I found: "Tiffany necklaces, firefighters in tuxedos, chocolate, Nike tech finisher's shirt, running through the streets of San Francisco...what more could a girl ask for?"  The only critical reflection that I have found so far about the marathon was from Wallflower Friend.  The part of the run that annoyed this blogger was that the expo at the end of the run was plastered with "I run to be...fearless...a survivor...sexy, which is where her feminist side took over.  Sexy, I might add, was written in ridiculously large font on the expo tent. I suppose we can chalk this up as another contradictory Nike initiative.  As much as Nike likes to represent itself as pro-woman athlete, it still does so within the confines of traditional gender norms.  Nike says it's okay to get sweaty, have muscles and be competitive (because those are the things that help it make money), but at the end of the day, you're still a woman. And as far and as fast as a woman can run, evidently Nike assumes that she should still be running home to a man.

The Tiffany necklace that runners receive at the end of the race reads "Run like a girl" on one side.  "Run like a girl" is Nike's attempt to challenge the assumption that running like a girl is inferior to how men and boys run.  It's Nike's contribution to the disintegration of gender norms.  But clearly, there are some gender norms that fall outside of Nike's strike zone.

You want equality in women's tennis? Give them the last match!

Kim Clijsters & Novak Djokovic. Photo from the Bleacher Report.

Women's tennis is supposedly the world's premier professional sport for women, and in a lot of ways it is.  The women get to play on the same courts, in the same stadiums, with the same equipment, in the same tournaments, with a lot of the same fans. Not a lot of women's sports can say even two of those things and on top of it all, women's tennis and men's tennis actually competes against each other in mixed doubles.  It is an admirable model in many respects; but do not be fooled, women's tennis is absolutely in the equal but separate category.

Women still play shorter matches, are allowed coaching in between sets, and are still considered the opening act to the main event.  Case in point: the men's final is ALWAYS the last match on the schedule.  It represents the "big finish".  Regardless of a whether it is a Grand Slam or a smaller tournament, if men and women compete at the same tournament you will always have Federer/Nadal/Djokovic closing down the show on Sunday and Sharapova/Williams/Azarenka will still play second fiddle on the Saturday.  It represents a very real manifestation of the saying "save the best for last."

So I say, alternate men's and women's finals on the last day of Grand Slams!  Is it really that big of a deal?  From a scheduling perspective it truly cannot be that hard, but from a perspective of equality/equity it is very significant. Alternating finals is a simple change on the behalf of women's sports that re-directs some of the respect that is so naturally afforded to male athletes.  No longer would men represent the epitome of sports.

Understandably, there might be some resistance from the men and I'm sure there will be an argument in there somewhere about sponsorship dollars.  Personally, I would argue that men's tennis generally provides better final tennis as it has become common place for less than competitive women's finals.  But that is not indicative of skill but rather of the depth of the field at any given time and women's tennis is currently struggling to find a rivalry to get behind.  It's not like the men don't have lopsided finals either.  To say that Seles/Graf, Hingis/Davenport, Williams/Williams, Williams/Clijsters are not deserving of closing the tournament is disrespectful and extremely symbolic of something that seems natural and never goes questioned.  So get on it Billie Jean King, let's see the women on the final Sunday of Wimbledon.  It will give little girls something to aspire towards and little boys will grow up thinking that men and women have always shared the spotlight.

Fair Ball: The Orientalism of Canada going to Uganda to play baseball

Photo from the Toronto Star.

Recently, Sportsnet aired a 30 minute documentary about the Canadian little league team flying to Uganda to play a World Series game that never occurred called Fair Ball.  The documentary and the team were sponsored by Right to Play, an international humanitarian organization that uses sport and play as a means to facilitate international development.  Despite the goodwill that was intended, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the problematic power relations that are reproduced by this documentary.

In 2011, Uganda was the first African team to ever qualify for the Little League World Series.  They were set to play Canada in their first game; however, due to improper documentation the American Embassy refused to grant the Ugandan team travel visas.  Saudi Arabia took Uganda's place in the World Series.  Five months later, the Canadian team from Langley, British Columbia decided that the game should still be played.  The documentary is filled with all of the feel good moments: friends are made, Canadians are humbled by the experience, a "social injustice" is rectified, and Uganda would go on to win the game.  How could this trip and documentary be a bad thing?

1.) Westerners are upheld as benevolent and Africans as grateful recipients.  Many international development volunteer trips travel under the auspice that we, the privileged, will go and make a difference and the world will be a better place because of it.  As Canada's head coach tells his team before they leave:

What Uganda is going to be for you is you're going to meet new friends, you're going to learn their lifestyle.  I want you guys to embrace the experience in Uganda and if you do that you leave Uganda a better person.

During the baseball game, the Canadian coach approached the Ugandan coach and proposed that they end the game in a draw so that no one would walk away a loser.  This was an extremely stereotypical Canadian act, but while it trumpets sportsmanship it also whispered - your boys have so little, the last thing they need is a loss.  Credit to the Ugandan coach for stating "I think we deserved a win" and, ultimately, won the game on the field.  Yet, after the game one of the Canadian players says "We were happy they won because look how happy they were just to get the win."  I do not fault the young Canadian for being happy for the Ugandan team, but his comment is saturated with how Western nations view the African continent - with pity.

2.) Westerners should feel sorry for Africa.  In the documentary, a few of the Ugandan players showed the Canadians around their homes, which were mostly in Nsambya ghetto.  All of the narratives that followed from the Canadian players and parents that travelled with the team were of heartbreak and pity:

"Your heart breaks."

"It was heart breaking. It was frightening. It was so devastating to me."

"I never expected it to be like this."

"What we have versus what they live with."

"I feel so sorry for them."

Admittedly, the Ugandan coach, George Mukhobe, said on camera that "Life in Uganda for my kids is horrible", but each of the boys who showed Canada how he lives did so with pride and even the Canadians commented on how proud they were of their homes.  What does it say about us when someone proudly shows us their home and we feel nothing but pity? Is that a trained Western social response? Is that genuine guilt?

Felix, the Ugandan player who ends up scoring the winning run for Uganda tells the camera, "I'm very proud of where we live because we improve.  We can improve on poverty."

Photo from the Vancouver Sun.

3.) Africa is drawn as backwards and primitive.  On numerous occasions the documentary reaffirms what most of North America assumes, that Africa is incapable of civilization by Western standards. It starts with the opening footage of the documentary showing young Ugandan boys playing baseball with makeshift equipment.  Then progresses to explaining why the Ugandans were denied US visas in the first place.  As the narrator, Gregg Zaun, former major league player explains:

Birth certificates aren't normally kept in Third-World countries unlike Canada and more developed nations.  Even the President of Uganda is unsure of his actual age.

Then the narrator states:

I thought the Ugandan skill level would be raw and rudimentary, while the Canadians would be rusty having not played for months. I couldn't have been more wrong.

This documentary, like so many that feature African nations, does an excellent job of showing the squalor in which these children live.  Raw sewage in the streets, small living quarters hosting large families, and flies landing on the faces of small children make it indistinguishable from a World Vision advertisement.  Also, Kenneth, a Ugandan player, is explained as an orphan because of Uganda's "tribal culture", whereby widowed women who choose to remarry must give up all ties to her children.

Repeatedly, it is hammered home how primitive the lives of Ugandans are and how lucky we are to live in Canada.  I do not deny that the living conditions of Ugandans are far less hospitable than that of the average Canadian but as a documentary, I believe that it owes Uganda the respect of explaining how British colonization led to civil unrest well into the 1960's, which then set the stage for Idi Amin's military coup.  Furthermore, as Canadians we do not need to look any further than our own First Nations reserves to find unacceptable living conditions.

In Orientalism, Edward Said, wrote about how the Orient (largely referring to areas of the Middle East and India/Asia but can also be used to describe any place outside of Western Europe and America) was (and is) always described as the 'Other', as an entity that remains unchanged and fundamentally different from the West.  The problem with these documentaries and descriptions is that they maintain the West as "modern, greater than the sum of its parts, full of enriching contradictions and yet always 'Western' in its cultural identity" (Said, 1997:10).  It creates a terrible 'us' and 'them' reality that is only true because we make it so.  In Fair Ball, despite the fact that the documentary highlights the lives of the Ugandan players, it is clearly told from a Western perspective and the Canadian players and representatives make up the bulk of the film.  It is a story told by the West to the West and the Ugandans are merely filler for the film.  It is a mediated pat-on-the-back for the Canadians more than it serves to rectify any social injustices.  Some of you might argue that Fair Ball gives the Ugandans a voice that they would have never received otherwise.  As I response I think that Bell Hooks (1990) explains it best:

No need to hear your voice when I can speak about you better than you can speak about yourself.  No need to hear your voice.  Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story.  And then I will tell it back to you in a new way.  Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. (pg.151)

This is not unlike some of the Ugandan reactions to the Joseph Kony youtube video put out by Invisible Children.  The Ugandans were upset that what was represented on film did not match their own experiences and that the story was told by a white foreigner.  Ultimately, I think that what the Canadian team did was great and I would like to believe that both sides benefitted equally from the experience.  However, it is dangerous to act like an saint when travelling across borders and think that your noble actions will be better than nothing.  The stories, films and photos can be just as harmful from thousands of miles away as can be your presence in person.  For it is the words and images that reproduce the assumptions and misguided ideas that separate 'developed' from 'undeveloped'.  We set the standard and then applaud ourselves for meeting it.

For more on Orientalism, watch this clip:

hooks, b.  (1990).  Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics.  Boston: South End.

Said, E.  (1978).  Orientalism. New York, NY: Random House.

Said, E.  (1997).  Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world.  New York: Vintage Books.