Jump to content

PK and the Olympics


brobin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cucumber is right that it's the old boys club but as I've pointed out before, Iginla is a part of that old boys club. So was Fuhr, who was also a cokehead gambling drunk but hey every Oiler was. Kevin Lowe still is when you see how he gambles the future of the Oilers every season.

Before the Russians came to the league it was the French Canadians that didn't belong in the Old Boys club.

Yes Iginla is part of the club but lets be honest his outter appearance is more tan than black. He looks like many white Canadian players who play hockey in the sun belt and enjoy surfing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to chime in one more time: there is absolutely nothing offensive, inappropriate or racist about pointing out the simple fact that subliminal racism exists. In fact, what would be arguably more offensive is pretending that it doesn't. I think that much of the discourse around PK Subban has been informed by subliminal racism, and I stand by that claim 100%.

Now, if Team Canada makes the obviously correct hockey move and puts him on the team, then I've got no beef with them. (That won't prove that subliminal racism hasn't been a factor in the discourse around PK - just that it's not relevant to Team Canada's hockey decisions, to their credit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iginladraft.jpg

Sigh...

So you had to dig out a photo of him in a Stars jersey to illustrate your point? There are many photos of Iggy, it's curious that you chose that one.

The fact remains that light-skinned blacks and latinos are treated differently in our society than their darker-skinned fellows, and it would make sense that this same concept extends to Iginla vs Subban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fact that a TSN analyst has a Freudian slip and on the air says "PK has to learn to play the white way" backs this up.

Just to chime in one more time: there is absolutely nothing offensive, inappropriate or racist about pointing out the simple fact that subliminal racism exists. In fact, what would be arguably more offensive is pretending that it doesn't. I think that much of the discourse around PK Subban has been informed by subliminal racism, and I stand by that claim 100%.

Now, if Team Canada makes the obviously correct hockey move and puts him on the team, then I've got no beef with them. (That won't prove that subliminal racism hasn't been a factor in the discourse around PK - just that it's not relevant to Team Canada's hockey decisions, to their credit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good interview with Mellanby on TSN Radio 2nd intermission. Finally someone from Habs management sticks up for Subban and actually says he would pick Subban for the olympic team and disagreed with the statement that Subban is a defensive liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is.

Is good topic for discussion (irrelevant to PK going to Olympics but). Many seem to have a strong opinion on the matter and racial bigotry/prejudice is an important issue for sure (Muslim bigotry seems to be more an issue than race these days, but a different can of worms).

But labelling Yzerman and Hockey Canada as racially motivated in any way, without a shred of "real" proof seems very uncalled for (especially when seemed to have zero issue selecting 3 different Subbans' for world juniors).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Funny how when discussing roster, Naylor says PK winning the Norris, "obviously is questionable"?

Almost as if to say, Norris voters were clueless and award is irrelevant to PK's resume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said before, it's less race and has a lot more to do with Canadian hockey culture. However, there is a racial issue in Canadian Hockey Culture, and it comes from the fact it was formed by middle class white men who decided that calling someone a woman is an insult because women are inferior to men in hockey and that if you don't act like you are humbled to have a career playing a game then you are taking the sport for granted. These things all add up. The racism is not deliberate and has a much stronger root in privilege. As I said earlier in the thread, a player like Jarome Iginla fit quite comfortably in Canadian hockey culture and embraces it as strongly as a Joe Sakic. That's why he has never dealt with it like Subban and Kane have.

The same "white privilege sport culture" thing existed in football and basketball as well. In football, it was a common belief that blacks could not be quarterbacks. In basketball, the 1980s Celtics gave rise to the belief that whites were better players but the game was being changed to make it easier for them to succeed than the whites. As the game changed so did the culture and a big part of it was calling this stuff out and accepting a form of gentrification into the sport.

The reason hockey is going to be last to change is because the culture is not just sport related, it's geographically related. For many, changing this would mean "changing the game" and making people feel like that saying Don Cherry is wrong is saying their way of life is wrong. It's no different to someone feeling religious discrimination through social policy change.

This all said... the truth is, if Canada skips on Subban for the same reason America skipped on Yandle, it's absolutely impossible to frame it as a race or cultural issue. I honestly don't think Canada will skip on Subban, but don't think for a second that means the issue is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think race is an issue, not at all. In the past, maybe not so distant, for sure it was. But today, no. I believe the opposite is more likely to happen. We have an army of political correctness in the media. It is far easier to push for a roster that reflects diversity than the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said before, it's less race and has a lot more to do with Canadian hockey culture. However, there is a racial issue in Canadian Hockey Culture, and it comes from the fact it was formed by middle class white men who decided that calling someone a woman is an insult because women are inferior to men in hockey and that if you don't act like you are humbled to have a career playing a game then you are taking the sport for granted. These things all add up. The racism is not deliberate and has a much stronger root in privilege. As I said earlier in the thread, a player like Jarome Iginla fit quite comfortably in Canadian hockey culture and embraces it as strongly as a Joe Sakic. That's why he has never dealt with it like Subban and Kane have.

The same "white privilege sport culture" thing existed in football and basketball as well. In football, it was a common belief that blacks could not be quarterbacks. In basketball, the 1980s Celtics gave rise to the belief that whites were better players but the game was being changed to make it easier for them to succeed than the whites. As the game changed so did the culture and a big part of it was calling this stuff out and accepting a form of gentrification into the sport.

The reason hockey is going to be last to change is because the culture is not just sport related, it's geographically related. For many, changing this would mean "changing the game" and making people feel like that saying Don Cherry is wrong is saying their way of life is wrong. It's no different to someone feeling religious discrimination through social policy change.

This all said... the truth is, if Canada skips on Subban for the same reason America skipped on Yandle, it's absolutely impossible to frame it as a race or cultural issue. I honestly don't think Canada will skip on Subban, but don't think for a second that means the issue is dead.

Actually, you are wrong. Race has a lot to do with it. Black people in Canada have played hockey for generations...a fact conveniently "forgotten" by those who claim it as a "white" sport. Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured_Hockey_League

I highly recommend the book.

And for those who say race is irrelevant and refer to Iginla, he kept his mouth shut, didn't "rock the boat" and he has light skin ( =.no threat to the old boys hockey establishment. PK is brash, speaks his mind and is far from pale( = threatening to the old guard---needs to be put in his place) .

Btw, Shea Weber has scored far fewer points and has a much inferior plus/ minus....where is all the debate about his place on the team and discussion of his defensive liabilities...??

And Yandle.....has never come close to a Norris caliber season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find it odd that the only trophy from last year with an asterisks beside it seems to be the Norris. No one ever says about St. Louis... Yeah, but Crosby was injured. No one says about ovechkins Hart "but it was a shortened season".

While I don't think Team Canada is debating PK due to race (it is stupidity, grandfathering, and old school conservatism), there is still racism in this league, in some GMs, in reporting, and in refs.

Some of you may be old enough to remember when the Russians broke into the league. It is easy to forget the constant bashing of these players as "others, soft, cheaters, showboats,etc" in the media. (Except for Don a Cherry, who still goes on national TV and disparages euros without consequence). It is odd that I never hear Don Cherry bash Bobby Orr for leaping after scoring a goal... A blatantly showly celebration. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you are wrong. Race has a lot to do with it. Black people in Canada have played hockey for generations...a fact conveniently "forgotten" by those who claim it as a "white" sport. Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured_Hockey_League

It's still a white sport. It's dominated by whites on the ice, off the ice and in the offices. Just because there have been coloured leagues does not change this fact. It is dominated by a white, middle class sentimentality. There has been hockey in Scotland since 1932 but to claim hockey is not predominantly Canadian because there has been a Scottish league since the 30s would be as disingenuous as your statement.

One day, hopefully in my lifetime, that will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you missed my point... the fact that black's were involved in a successful league from the 1890's demonstrates that it wasn't always a "white" sport but it became dominated by the white, increasingly upper, middle class while Black contributions to the game were ignored. Sports do not have colours--perceptions shape reality and the suppression of the successful black history in hockey helped to create that false perception.

Soon--if we are not there already-- the dialogue is going to be about how the game is only available to the well-off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't. The game has always been dominated by the white male middle class, especially once it went pro. It isn't just the players but owners and management as well.

Maybe you just don't understand what I mean by dominated.

Ok, one last try and then we will have to agree to disagree. An excerpt from the lost history of black ice hockey which makes the point better than I have been:

Setting the Ice Hockey Historical Record Straight

Our knowledge of the roots of Canadian hockey has been based almost solely on the historical records maintained by early White historians. Because of this, the misconception that hockey is a White man's invention has persisted. We know today, such an assumption could not be further from historical fact. The roots of early Canadian hockey originate with the North American Indians. The roots of modern Canadian hockey originate, in large part, from the influence of an even more surprising source, that of early African-Canadian hockey. For it was Black hockey players in the later half of the nineteenth century whose style of play and innovations helped shape the sport, effectively changing the game of hockey forever. Page 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then agree to disagree because you don't understand what the word DOMINATED means. Please look it up in every dictionary you own, either in paper or online. It doesn't matter where the roots are. Who is running the game? Who is playing the game? Blacks and Aboriginals are not controlling the game. It doesn't matter where their historical roots lie in this discussion.

Who created rock and roll? The roots are African American. Who dominates rock and roll today? It ain't African Americans.

Agree to disagree that you can't read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then agree to disagree because you don't understand what the word DOMINATED means. Please look it up in every dictionary you own, either in paper or online. It doesn't matter where the roots are. Who is running the game? Who is playing the game? Blacks and Aboriginals are not controlling the game. It doesn't matter where their historical roots lie in this discussion.

Who created rock and roll? The roots are African American. Who dominates rock and roll today? It ain't African Americans.

Agree to disagree that you can't read.

This all said... the truth is, if Canada skips on Subban for the same reason America skipped on Yandle, it's absolutely impossible to frame it as a race or cultural issue. I honestly don't think Canada will skip on Subban, but don't think for a second that means the issue is dead.

I was, and have been, responding to this part of your original post..not sure why you are so hung up on the word dominated, but I was arguing that PK's possible exclusion from the Olympic team would be related to race and how black people's contributions to the game's history being ignored - by the dominant culture (happy now ?!) -- illusrates that concept. I.e., that racism has played a role in how PK is portrayed in the media and percieved by fans and that this unwarranted negativity could impact the selection process. Thank God rational heads prevaled. Now the media maroons at TSN are debating whether or not he has a role on the team! . Obviously, since I was arguing that Blacks--and others-- have been/ are discriminated against in hockey, Causcausians must be dominant (OOPS, that word again). It is pretty hard, but not impossible, to be discriminated against if you are in control. That is why I have said you misssed my point. There is nothing wrong with my reading skills.

Before telling me I can't read, you might want to try doing it yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that the national discussion is framed by the Toronto-centric media for whom what goes on in Montreal is peripheral and an afterthought. As has been pointed out by other posters, if Galchenyuk played in T.O. he'd be a household name nationally, and if Subban was winning Norrises there his face would be ubiquitous and they'd be trying to induct him into the Hall of Fame on his days off. So now we get dunderheads like Dreger acting like it's a legitimate question whether or not PK will accept a reduced role with Team Canada when it's a given that every player will do that. Even Sid won't be leaned on as heavily as he is with the Pens because there's a whole roster of all-stars behind him to pick up the slack. Just yesterday on That's Hockey they mentioned PK's "defensive liabilities" like it was well known and agreed upon that he's weaker defensively than all the other guys on the team. The guy only won the Norris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was, and have been, responding to this part of your original post..

Then you don't even understand the context of why I said it. The impossibility is that anyone from Team Canada could just point to the skipping of Yandle on Team USA and say, "Was that race related?" and because you can't say yes, that would be their argument with Subban.

Also, it's the same Team Canada that had no issue putting an A on Iginla's sweater. Why was he accepted? Goes right back to my original points.Stop acting like Subban is the first black Canadian hockey player to ever play for Team Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you don't even understand the context of why I said it. The impossibility is that anyone from Team Canada could just point to the skipping of Yandle on Team USA and say, "Was that race related?" and because you can't say yes, that would be their argument with Subban.

My argument was, and is, that your comparision is off. PK is a far superior defenseman to Yandle and the reigning Norris Trophy winner. In past Olympics Norris winners were automatically considered strong contenders--if not automatic selections-- for team Canada.

Why is PK's case different...I say race--consciously or unconsciously-- plays a role. I understand that people would have made the Yandle comparision. I just don't think its valid.

Also, it's the same Team Canada that had no issue putting an A on Iginla's sweater. Why was he accepted? Goes right back to my original points.Again, as has been argued on the boards already, Iginla fit it because he keeps his mouth shut-- and some would argue that because he has lighter skin he is accepted more easily.

Stop acting like Subban is the first black Canadian hockey player to ever play for Team Canada. This was never part of my discussion.

I understand your argument very well... it seems that you have trouble grasping mine.

Anyway, PK is on the team. The point is moot. As far as this discussion goes I :surrender:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...