Sunday, June 14, 2020

CrossFit: An Exercise in Everyday Racism and White Fragility

Events from the past few weeks have shaken the world, not because something new or different happened, but because the world was forced to watch a particularly bothersome and lengthy image that reflected what has been happening for centuries. The power inequalities symbolized through George Floyd’s blackness and Derek Chauvin’s whiteness represent the racialized power inequalities that have flowed for so long through a range of institutional spheres – criminal justice, education, politics, work, media, and let’s not forget, sport.

As a result of sustained and intense activism, mainstream organizations across the world finally began responding supportively to the #BlackLivesMatter movement. And, a greater number of white people have started discussing the notion of white privilege in the media, including across social media.

CrossFit Headquarters, however, remained silent on the issue, that is until its then CEO, Greg Glassman responded to a Tweet regarding racism as a public health issue by writing insensitively, “It’s FLOYD-19.”, something most of us have probably seen:

On top of this, Glassman stated of Floyd's death, "We're not mourning for George Floyd, I don't think me or any of my staff are...Can you tell me why I should mourn for him? Other than it's the white thing to do."

Understanding Racism’s Layers
Before going further with an inspection of CrossFit, it’s important to understand racism. Most of us think racism is no longer systemic, built into law, and instead believe racism only materializes when extreme, fringe radicals display a swastika symbol or if someone hurls racial epithets at an ethnic minority. Of course those are examples of racism. But racism carries other elements, ones which resonate more strongly with ethnic minorities.

Again, racism reflects power inequalities. In countries like those across Western Europe, Canada, Australia, the United States (where I’m from) and Aotearoa New Zealand (where I live now), white people are the numerical majority, which gives them a dimension of power. But on average, white people are also more likely to wield institutionalized power, meaning it’s more likely for them to hold formalized leadership positions, where their decision making power disseminates across organizational spheres. Additionally, they are more likely to hold influence in mainstream media platforms.

Another important aspect of racism worth noting is that current racialized power inequalities across society reflect historical manifestations of racism. To this end, encounters with racism are not singular, unique events for ethnic minorities. They remind us of patterned inequalities that have impacted our families, friends, and communities for decades, sometimes centuries.

Racism also comes in different forms. Again, it’s not just the odd loudmouth or angry gunman targeting people of color. The more common form of racism today is called “everyday racism,” or the so-called “subtle” micro-aggressions that put down black, Indigenous and other people of color, perhaps not on literally an everyday basis, but regularly enough that clear patterns exists.

“Wow, you’re really smart for a Mexican.”
“Can I touch your hair?”
“You’re lucky for affirmative action.”

It’s also about body language, noticing people rolling their eyes at you, getting interrupted more than white peers, having to hear “minor” racist jokes, reading racist comments on the Internet, having white people belittle you online when you expose racism. Here’s another thing, white people tend not to notice these instances, and tend to be less aware these actions are in fact racist. Women can probably relate with respect to everyday sexism. If instances of everyday racism happen once a year, it’s not a big deal. But once a year isn’t reality, and dealing with everyday racism gets exhausting.

Additionally, racism gets institutionalized. As stated previously, within organizations, white people are more likely to be in authoritative positions. Thus, formal leaders are less likely to intervene when overt or everyday racism transpires; anti-racist policies are less likely to be developed (same too with anti-sexist, homophobic and transphobic policies).

Two last things before we get back to CrossFit. When an ethnic minority confronts someone about racism, it’s frequently the ethnic minority who gets called out as the trouble-maker, cast as being hyper-sensitive, because racism is supposedly only a thing of the past. Enter white privilege, a reference to the unearned benefits white people experience in majority-white societies. White privilege doesn’t mean white people don’t have to work hard, but they don’t have to overcome racism to get where they’re going, and that’s a significant form of privilege (think also heterosexual/male privilege).

What black people, Indigenous people, other people of color wish, is when we point out racism that more white people would back us up, listen to us, believe us, try to understand us. It’s much more frequently uncomfortable for us. If us pointing out racism is uncomfortable for you, don’t respond by demonstrating white fragility, doing something hurtful to us that makes it more comfortable for you. Unfortunately, we’ve recently seen white fragility manifest among CrossFit leadership.

Okay, finally, back to CrossFit.

CrossFit’s Recent White Fragility
Following Glassman’s racist Tweet, waves of criticism ensued, eventually prompting Glassman to Tweet, “…the CrossFit community will not stand for racism,” and, “My heart is deeply saddened by the pain it has caused. It was a mistake, not racist but a mistake.”

Classic white fragility. By contending that his initial comment was “not racist,” Glassman attempted to exonerate himself from any responsibility of being racist, consciously or unconsciously, thereby re-establishing his own social equilibirum. Instead, he should have admitted to making an insensitive, racist Tweet, and clarified he will do the hard work to learn more about racism’s complexities so that he can be an active anti-racist ally. This would include taking on advice from those who experience racism so he can use his power to address institutionalized and interpersonal racism in CrossFit.

Institutionalized Racism in CrossFit?
Remember that hashtag, #OscarsSoWhite? How about #CrossFitGamesSoWhite? But wait, this is sport, and people earn their way to the top absent of systemic racism, right? To a degree, yes, but just like golf, swimming, skiing and tennis, CrossFit is an expensive sport that is inaccessible to a disproportionate number of black, Indigenous and other ethnic minorities.

This varies from community to community, and even between countries. Individual exceptions will rise from time to time. However, we need to acknowledge the racialized membership patterns that flow throughout the global CrossFit community. An intersection between race and class cannot be ignored.

Back at a 2019 CrossFit Games press conference, Dave Castro was asked, “These are all amazing athletes right here, but they all look alike. What are your plans for, or if any plans to add diversity to the roster?” A few fans in the audience yelled, “Next question,” as Castro chuckled. He then ignored the question by describing the next morning’s event (see last 2 minutes of video).

Once more, classic fragility. To be fair, I’m not sure if Castro is white (his surname leads me to believe he isn’t), but I’m guessing he’s not black or Indigenous, and him evading a question on diversity demonstrates both privilege and fragility. I mean, even before Floyd’s death, wasn’t ethnic diversity important across all sectors of society, including CrossFit? When a leader walks away and dismisses diversity as worthy of discussion, he (or she) is re-establishing the status quo. This is racism, not in its most acute form, but it stops us from having the uncomfortable but necessary conversations. In this way, everyday racism upholds severe racism.

In turn, when someone else in leadership makes a more obvious racist statement (like Glassman’s), CrossFit doesn’t have a leg to stand on. They had chances to address racism and their lack of racial diversity, but they very publicly let those chances slide and could only release a very tardy statement regarding their prolonged silence after Floyd’s murder and Glassman’s racist Tweet. Part of their statement reads, “We weren’t sure how to get the message right, and as a result, we failed catastrophically by not effectively communicating care for the Black community, all as the online world was watching and experiencing extreme pain,” to which I ask, how many senior members of staff at CrossFitHQ are woke ethnic minorities? Did that contribute to your delay?

And here we are, CrossFit Boxes de-affiliating, elite athletes withdrawing from The Games, members infuriated and arguing with each other.

So What Now?
More elite athletes need to stand up. Katrín Davíðsdóttir, Brooke Wells and Amanda Barnhart have all posted the following types of statements, showcasing that their morals around racial justice supersede their athletic goals (apologies to other athletes who’ve made similar posts), as they problematize the fact that Glassman still holds the key position of power within CrossFit.

Will other elite CrossFit athletes do like Colin Kaepernick and Muhammad Ali, fight for justice in the midst of their career when they have more influence? Will the new CrossFit CEO, Dave Castro, tackle the issue of poor ethnic diversity, and do so carefully by listening to individuals from black, Indigenous and other ethnic minority communities, including those excluded from CrossFit due to economic disparity? Will woke ethnic minorities be hired in leadership positions? Will gym owners and members step up, including those who are white, to act as anti-racist allies when ethnic minorities need them? Silence is compliance.

These conversations are not easy. I’m a heterosexual male, and I don’t like admitting I get privilege from those statuses, but I do. It appears everyday and overt sexism exists in CrossFitHQ; these conversations are essential. If you have privilege, don’t let a sense of fragility stop you from reflecting on social inequality. Those of us who are minorities, we may not always need you, but it feels really good to get your help, and no doubt, your help stimulates change.

David Tokiharu Mayeda is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology & Criminology at The University of Auckland in Aotearoa New Zealand. His teaching and research expertise are in everyday racism and ethnic minority student success in higher education. He has been an active CrossFit member for approximately five years.

Saturday, May 30, 2020

From Rodney King to George Floyd: Racism Still Trumps Panoptic Proof

"...when the looting starts, the shooting starts" (U.S. President Donald Trump). 

In the aftermath of George Floyd's murder, coming at the hands (or knee) of white police officer, Derek Chauvin, uprisings have sprouted across the United States. The largest and most intense are understandably in Minneapolis, where the tragedy transpired. Not too long ago or far away in 2016, Philando Castile was shot and killed by an officer in Falcon Heights, Minnesota after indicating he was carrying a legal firearm and telling the officer he was not reaching for it. Both tragedies share a range of key characteristics that are all too familiar and anxiety-provoking for African American communities:

  • The deceased victims are African Americans, mostly, though not always male;
  • the law enforcement officers (or figures*) are not African American and typically white;
  • the African American victim is inaccurately stigmatized in advance as disproportionately dangerous, perceived as large, armed, aggressive, criminogenic;
  • the officers (or figures) use excessive force;
  • the tragedy is often video recorded, either by bystanders, or in a few cases through technologies connected to the police (e.g., body cameras);
  • the officers (or figures) normally do not face legal repercussions, even with video evidence, or legal repercussions are extremely delayed and only enforced because video evidence goes public.
* In some cases, vigilante figures are not formally connected to law enforcement, but claim enforcement rights in their neighborhood or hold former law enforcement connections. Think George Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin and Gregory and Travis McMichael who killed Ahmaud Arbery.

Over-criminalization of African American males is nothing new in American history. Following the abolition of slavery, the American south saw the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. Absent the institution of slavery, legal mechanisms that could oppress African Americans were less ubiquitous and less formal. Thus, the Klan implemented their own form of terrorism, relying on a strategically constructed image of black men as sexual predators. As Hodes (1993) writes, "In the minds of Klansmen and their sympathizers, the rape of white women was the logical extreme to which black men would go without the institution of slavery to restrain them" (p. 409); in short, without slavery, white racists needed to fabricate dangerous images of black men in order to justify their continued violent oppression. Unsurprisingly, it was after slavery's abolition that lynchings festered in the south under that region's enforcers.

But that was roughly one and a half centuries ago. Since then society has advanced tremendously, specifically with respect to our justice systems and technologies. Today, we have established law enforcement, court and corrections systems that are not supposed to demonstrate biases. And more germane to this piece, we have technologies that can capture interactions between police and alleged criminals that were non-existent even in the 1980s.

Panoptic Eye over Police Undercut by Power of Racism
Michel Foucault's notion of pantopticism suggests that in the modern era, technologies control workers, as managers are able to maintain a constant watch over employees. Management may not actually be watching, but workers wonder if they are, and they can't watch management. Thus workers are incessantly anxious and in turn obedient. Given the level of technology in modern society, shouldn't police be anxious enough not to abuse their authority?

If we go back to March 1991, Los Angeles resident George Holliday used his VCR to film four white LAPD officers - Stacey Koon, Theodore Briseno, Laurence Powell and Timothy Wind as they beat Rodney King, striking King with metal batons at least 56 times, resulting in 11 skull fractures. Indeed, King was committing crimes (driving under the influence, evading arrest), but the level of punishment was disproportionate, to say the least.

Of course the other key element of the story emerges April 29, 1992, when the four officers were acquitted, in spite of the video evidence that was disseminated across the world. Their acquittal sparked an uprising across Los Angeles resulting in 58 deaths, over 2000 injured and $785 million in property damage (Loyd, 2012, p. 432). Why so much rage, why so much destruction?

For African Americans in Los Angeles (and beyond) King's violent victimization wasn't an isolated incident. Rather, it represented the first time a pattern was proven through visceral video imagery to the international public, catalyzing a rage also reflected during the Watts uprising of 1965, but which at that time lacked the panoptic power of citizen journalism.

Moving forward to the 2010's, citizens across the world were armed with quickly accessible smart phones, there to film and live stream potential cases of police brutality, including those gone lethal. With patterned examples of deathly excessive force inflicted upon African American victims proven through video and disseminated to the world, society would expect to see a change judicial outcomes. Of course instead, justice has been denied, as communicated through this post spreading across social media, also speaking to white privilege:

I can go jogging (#AmaudArbery).
I can relax in the comfort of my own home (#BothemSean#AtatianaJefferson#BreonnaTaylor).
I can ask for help after being in a car crash (#JonathanFerrell and #RenishaMcBride).
I can have a cellphone (#StephonClark).
I can leave a party to get to safety (#JordanEdwards).
I can play loud music (#JordanDavis).
I can sell CD's (#AltonSterling).
I can sleep (#AiyanaJones)
I can walk from the corner store (#MikeBrown).
I can play cops and robbers (#TamirRice).
I can go to church (Charleston9).
I can walk home with Skittles (#TrayvonMartin).
I can hold a hair brush while leaving my own bachelor party (#SeanBell).
I can party on New Years (#OscarGrant).
I can get a traffic ticket (#SandraBland).
I can lawfully carry a weapon (#PhilandoCastile).
I can break down on a public road with car problems (#CoreyJones).
I can shop at Walmart (#JohnCrawford) .
I can have a disabled vehicle (#TerrenceCrutcher).
I can read a book in my own car (#KeithScott).
I can be a 10yr old walking with our grandfather (#CliffordGlover).
I can decorate for a party (#ClaudeReese).
I can ask a cop a question (#RandyEvans).
I can cash a check in peace (#YvonneSmallwood).
I can take out my wallet (#AmadouDiallo).
I can run (#WalterScott).
I can breathe ( #EricGarner).
I can live (#FreddieGray).
I can ask someone to put a leash on their dog when it is required in the public park we are in (#christiancooper).


African American communities and their allies realize nearly 30 years after the uprisings in Los Angeles, even with the advent of digital proof, we still fail to see justice. To this end, "It's worse today than it was back then."

Anger - Including Violent Anger - must be Contextualized
By sating, "...when the looting starts, the shooting starts," the POTUS is expressing an insensitivity to the most recent example of lethal police misconduct inflicted upon African Americans. Additionally, he is demonstrating an ignorance to patterned racial injustice. The mass anger we are seeing now is far more reflective of a revolution grounded in demands for justice than it is looting. Thus as POTUS and his followers fixate on looting and responding to it with threats to "shoot," they are dismissing the fundamental social concern.

When critique, outrage and anger regarding looting overtakes critique, outrage and anger regarding patterns of lethal police discrimination, a deep seeded racism is exposed. As activists are demanding, if society wants to see less violent revolution, it needs to see its justice systems and political leaders admit their racist faults and radically shift their practices.

Hodes, M. (1993). The sexualization of reconstruction politics: white women and black men in the South after the Civil War. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 3(3), 402-417.

Loyd, J. M. (2012). The fire next time: Rodney King, Trayvon Martin and law-and-order urbanism. City, 16(4), 431-438.

Thursday, December 5, 2019

Survivor's Sickening Sexism

I'm a few episodes behind on season 39 of CBS's Survivor, so no doubt others have written at length and in shorter social media posts, but I can't help myself. The episode reeks of both interpersonal and institutionalized sexism. The production team (i.e., institution) confirms their heightened awareness of the issue at hand by opening the episode with this warning:

The concerns revolve around contestant, Dan, who's alleged of sexually harassing a number of female contestants. Without getting into all the details, a visibly upset Kellee asserts, "He literally has done this (touched inappropriately) to five different women in this game. This sucks." The production team responds, informing her they can intervene if she wishes (see below, right):

From there, the following messages are shown to the audience, confirming that concerns of sexual harassment are real, as producers state they have met with all contestants and individually with Dan, who was formally warned. Bottom line, the allegations and feelings expressed by female contestants were not considered fabricated.

But then the game play begins. This isn't a blog about who tricked/out played who. This is about manipulating discrimination. In the end after Kellee is ousted from the tribe, Janet finds out she was played by Elizabeth who told her that she felt uncomfortable about Dan's touching. But really, Elizabeth was working along side Dan, and the pitch to Janet about sexual harassment was just game play.

Elizabeth outright admits this, but the primary thing Dan, Missy or anyone else involved really cares about is if their alliance is stable. To be clear, sexual harassment is a form of gender-based discrimination. That's indisputable. Therefore, Elizabeth (and potentially others) consciously used a form of discrimination as game play.

Would it be permissible for a white player to go up to an African American player and say, "Hey, 'player X over there used the n-word'", as a means to advance their game? I don't think so. Why then is it acceptable for people in this season of Survivor to consciously manipulate sexual harassment as part of their strategy?

Then Tribal Council happens again in the episode. The contestants are discussing the issue as the now exiled Kellee must watch in silence. And how problematic is that - the rules of Survivor prohibit a victim from speaking about her victimization while everyone else talks about it right in front of her. Jamal extremely eloquently lays it down, explaining why men should acknowledge their privilege and not question when women and girls express feeling uncomfortable when males touch them inappropriately and/or are sexually assaulted. Listen, it's less than 90 seconds, or read below.

"...I think this issue is a lot bigger than the game of Survivor...from my positionality with my gender, far be it from me to speak for women, what I can do as a man, I can give a little bit of advice as to how hear these stories, when we're talking about harassment, when we're talking about discomfort, when we're talking about male entitlement. It behooves us all as men to take a step back and look at our own behavior, and imagine that you had no idea that what you were doing was inappropriate, that was making someone uncomfortable, and you believe women if they choose to bring that up because it's difficult enough to do that in and of itself. We have a responsibility to hear women, listen to women and believe women when they're ready to tell their stories." 

And ultimately what happens after Jamal says this? He's voted off. No, not because he said what he said. The problem is he was kicked off in spite of what he said. Ultimately, the players cared about advancing in the game more than they cared about someone who had the courage to say all the right things regarding this particular form of discrimination, including that sexual harassment is bigger than the game of Survivor.

Unfortunately, no, not in this world. A game for $1,000,000 and all kinds of status ended up being bigger than the manipulation of sexual harassment. Not for Janet - she put aside her game play to try and oust someone who she was told was harassing women. Not for Jamal - he expressed what society needs so desperately to understand. But for the players who colluded to kick Jamal out, his and Janet's efforts to stand up to sexual harassment were superseded by our society's pathetic desire for money and fame, and that's just sad. Unfortunately that's what Survivor is - yeah, a microcosm for society at large, whose values are disgustingly twisted.

And what about Survivor's production team? Are they going to let this go? Apparently it's now acceptable for players to use discrimination as a form of game play. Will they bring this up at the season finale, and do so appropriately? Or will they simply convey, "Sexual harassment is bad and won't be tolerated." Cause fact is, on this episode sexual harassment wasn't just tolerated, it was outright allowed as strategic trickery (Elizabeth admitted it on camera), and the institution sat idly by when that happened.

Discrimination can never be game play, period, because if it is, it communicates that discrimination can be used as "game play" in other social institutions (e.g., work places, schools, sports teams). Why can't the Survivor production team get that? Apologies from the contestants are something, but the institution should have intervened appropriately and immediately.

Further reading: Survivor's "#MeToo moment" protected the game instead of the players

Sunday, September 29, 2019

Trends in Contemporary Social Movement Leaders

Beginning with Malala Yousafzai, she along with Emma González and Greta Thurnberg, have been leading major campaigns since the early 2010's. Lots of patterns to recognise here, not only with respect to these three individuals, but also in how segments of society have responded to them.

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Contemporary Slavery in Thailand

Over at Sociology in Focus, I have a completed 4-part series on contemporary slavery in Thailand based on a recent trip I took in August with Global Exchange.

Part 1 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: Developing and Preying on Vulnerability". It explains the socio-political backdrop to worker exploitation and full-fledged slavery in Thailand. The two groups that face the greatest levels of exploitation are Burmese migrants and rural hill tribe Thai, both of whom lack critical citizenship rights, thereby increasing their vulnerability.

Part 2 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: How's that Shrimp You're Eating?". This post examines the shrimping industry in Thailand - one that doesn't receive much media attention, but is extremely large, and rests upon massive labour exploits.

Part 3 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: Connections to Thailand's War on Drugs". This post ties Thailand's harsh war against methamphetamines that began in 2003, describing how such punitive and violent measures carried out by the state exacerbated social inequality and was particularly harmful to those groups in Thailand that were already most vulnerable to being exploited.

Part 4 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: Thailand's Matrix of Domination". In this final post, I discuss how hill tribe Thai males are driven into commercial sexual exploitation, operating in an extreme limited opportunity structure.

Click on any of the links above to read the stories; in each one there are additional links, videos, and pictures accompanying the content.

 blog directory

academics blogs

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Let's Hold Obama To It

Okay, so Obama pulled it off. I'm happy, but more so relieved that Romney didn't win. In typical Obama fashion, a well delivered victory speech:

@ 11:00:
"We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America open to the dreams of an immigrant's daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag..."

@ 19:05:
"America, I believe we can build on the progress we've made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunities and new security for the middle class. I believe we can keep the promise of our founding, the idea that if you're willing to work hard, it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, abled, disabled, gay or straight. You can make it here in America if you're willing to try."

Well, in reality, I disagree because discrimination and inequality still exists. Too many Americans won't keep that promise because America is still ensconced with significant bigotry and ignorance that won't let so many minorities succeed no matter how hard they work. However, the ideal is nice to express, and let's face it, you would never hear such a message from Romney or really any other prominent Republican candidate that speaks appreciably to that level of diversity. 

So, now, it's time to hold President Obama to being the progressive president he claimed to be four years ago. There's no campaigning to worry about four years from now. Get it done!