Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Blog Page 816

Oxford throws freshers in at the deep end without teaching them how to swim

0

You have been at Oxford for less than a week when your first dreaded tutorial arrives. As a consequence of freshers’ week you have read the bare minimum from the reading list. Having just about survived the tutorial, realising that you managed to read one slightly relevant book, you have a look at the feedback from your essay. “Not great.” Very helpful.

Oxford is famed for its tutorial system and emphasis on independent learning – it’s the reason many apply here. But this system is often too much too soon for freshers, and it’s clear that the way we are taught here, especially in our first few weeks, needs to be revised. Most essay subjects typically comprise of a couple of hours of compulsory contact time per week, and aside from that we are expected to be reading and writing essays for these tutorials.

It is a radical difference from having a full school timetable, and there is no advice given on how to structure your learning time. Even in lectures that supposedly relate to the topics a student is studying, there is a surprising discrepancy over what is covered, no doubt due to the differences between tutors and what they deem to be important.

Aside from being given no guidance on how to work or how long to spend on essays, many incoming students have never written a proper academic essay before arriving at university. They won’t know how to structure it, or how to reference for it, or even what they should be reading for it.

The immense reading lists give very little indication of which articles are the most relevant, which means that often a student will completely miss the most important parts of the topic. The lack of a centralised curriculum means that many have no idea what the main issues of the week’s reading are, and if the tutors only discuss what you have written in your essay, then you will never learn about these main themes before sitting the exam.

Independent learning is a baptism of fire which means that students are forced to improve and adjust rapidly – but that does not mean that we have to throw freshers in at the deep end with no advice on how to swim. An awful first essay is not only demoralising, it’s impractical – the essay, alongside the following two weeks will likely be useless for revision.

This is not to say that freshers should be spoon-fed information or that tutors should hold their hands until they work out how to write good essays. But there is a strong argument for a transition period at the start of first year so that freshers can get used to working independently. Freshers already have a lot to adapt to when they first arrive – more should be done to ensure that their transition to independent work is a smooth one.

Cliché of the week: “He’s really enjoying his football at the moment”

0

This phrase really irks me, and I think it’s high time someone picked up on it. Commentators have been trotting it out for years, and it’s recently struck me just what a ridiculous phrase it is. What it actually translates into English as is “he’s playing well at the moment”, so why commentators and pundits turn this into an assessment of how much fun a player is having out on the pitch is a mystery.

They have no idea whether a player is actually enjoying himself – all they can assess is how well he is playing. Some players have the capacity to play well even when you sense that they would rather be anywhere else, rendering the link even more ridiculous. Alexis Sánchez, for example, has been consistently excellent for Arsenal, yet I have my doubts as to whether he is even remotely enjoying himself. Wouldn’t he rather be walking out at the Allianz for Bayern Munich, or playing for Pep Guardiola at Man City, than having to dig Arsenal out of holes against mediocre German sides on a Thursday night?

Equally, I enjoy playing for my college side, but remain a distinctly limited footballer. The link between performance and enjoyment is a false dichotomy. The term is complimentary of course, but perhaps does not send out the best message about your career as a whole. It indicates an element of surprise that a player is performing well – you would never hear it used of Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi. It suggests that a player is undergoing a sudden burst of good form, often contrary to popular expectation. A likely recipient would be Theo Walcott after one of his triannual scoring flurries, when the nation yet again wonders if he will finally, yes finally, fulfill that infamous potential. At 28 and counting, I somehow doubt it.

Anyway, enough of the cynicism: I hope that you all “enjoy your football” this term.

University Press defends ‘sex scenes’ in kids books

0

Oxford University Press (OUP) has defended itself from criticism after Twitter users pointed out “dubious scenes” in one of its publications, the childrens’ book series Biff, Chip and Kipper.

Social media users have claimed that one of the picture books suggests a sexual encounter behind a bush, in a scene involving three middle aged men.

Suspicion was heightened by a scene in which an elderly lady reacts in shock to what she sees behind the bush.

Some have speculated that the men are ‘cottaging’, a gay slang term for anonymous sex in public places. One Twitter user commented: “Biff and Chip go dogging”.

The controversy began after Ed Brody posted the images in question on his Twitter feed with the caption: “Somewhat dubious scenes spotted in the background of a friend’s 4yo’s school book”.

Brody’s tweet garnered 12,000 likes and nearly 6,000 retweets, despite OUP’s reply that “some of the pages are missing from this title!”

The controversial images led online users to post other suspect images from the Biff, Chip and Kipper series online. These included a child spelling ‘hepatitis’ out of building blocks, and a Priest in a girls’ changing room.

OUP defended the popular children’s books in a statement, remarking it was: “aware of the recent Twitter and media coverage referencing the illustrations from two Biff, Chip and Kipper books.

“We would like to reassure you that our books are created with the utmost thought and consideration.

“We take the utmost care to ensure that our content is age appropriate and would not cause harm or offence to any child who reads our books.”

The publisher, a department of Oxford University, added that the so-called ‘sex scenes’ in question were taken from the title Pond Dipping and that “there are pages missing in the original tweet, which takes the images from Pond Dipping out of context”.

OUP added that the hepatitis reference was removed in 2003 “as soon as it was drawn to our attention”

There are over 400 Biff, Chip and Kipper books in the Oxford Read Tree series.

According to the publishers, they are taught in around 80 per cent of British primary schools. The first set of stories was published in 1985.

The books are written by Roderick Hunt, and illustrated by Alex Brytcha. Both have been awarded MBEs for their services to children’s literature in light of the series’ success.

Some Twitter users suggested that the images were fitting entertainment for parents reading the books. One commented: “well, you know… parents have to read these books ENDLESSLY. Might as well put in some easter eggs for them to keep it fun.”

Others, however, were less amused. John Smith wrote: “What sort of twisted halfwit draws this kind of crap in a kids book? What corrupt company thinks it’s fit to print it?” The Biff, Chip, and Kipper series’ books, which were adapted for television in 2000, are now sold as educational literature in 130 countries around the world.

Union memberships are a waste of time and money

0

The Union gets you at your most vulnerable time. In freshers’ week, you wander the same corridors as some of history’s greatest thinkers and orators, following a Union representative as they snake their way through corridors lined with familiar faces.

Half asleep, you blankly nod along as they tell you that it is your privilege to spend hundreds of pounds to join them. It is that same vacant expression which stares back at you, two years down the line, as you accidentally pull out your membership card instead of your Tesco Clubcard, a cruel reminder of the money you once wasted on a piece of laminated card.

It is undeniable that the Union has boasted some amazing speakers and events and it gives students an unparalleled opportunity to broaden their intellectual landscape and discuss our time’s hottest topics. However, the reality of membership is, for the majority, quite different. When it comes to the most impressive speakers, you are actually paying for the opportunity to stand in the rain, in a queue that leads almost across the entirety of Oxford only to be turned away and be forced to watch it on YouTube.

Then there are the social events. You picture yourself sipping free cocktails and networking. But when it comes to it, it’s a Tuesday night, you have an essay due the next day for which you haven’t even started the reading and the thought of alcohol fills you with nausea after a week of poor choices. The deadline is at 10am – your friendships with future politicians can wait.

The debates come as a way to prove to yourself that you are still intellectual. Suffering from a heavy bout of Fresher’s flu and imposters’ syndrome, you make your way to the famous chamber to engage with the outside world once more. However, it seems oddly familiar.

The boy standing at the front, lecturing you more from a place of entitlement than wisdom, reminds you a little too much of the girl that stopped you the in the JCR to debate whether Brexit might actually have been the best thing for Britain since Thatcher. Your college kitchen, as it turns out, is just as much of a debating chamber as that of the Union.

Each week you promise yourself that you’ll ask a question, make a point, actually participate. But the debates are reigned over by the same few people whose arguments are so eloquently put that it doesn’t seem to matter if they are inherently flawed.

A Union membership card is the key to new experiences, to making lifelong friends, to challenging your every belief. That is, if you actually go. If you want posh boys arguing, I recommend the Bridge smoking area.

(This article first appeared in the 2017 edition of Cherwell’s sister publication Keep Off The Grass.)

Tommy x Gigi – an outdated vanity project?

0

For a collection titled “Rock Circus”, there was very little fantasy in the third season of Gigi Hadid’s collaboration with classic American brand Tommy Hilfiger. The show, held at The Roundhouse in London, opened on a darkened ring resembling a circus tent complete with acrobats, silks performers, and a David Bowie soundtrack – arguably the more fanciful elements of the entire show. The democratic layout of the room and the catwalk, winding up and around the various levels of seating, offered a large number of attendants the possibility of a front row view and had the dual function of guaranteeing a higher level of participation to most of its public, whilst maximising its social media appeal.

From the very first moments of the runway, the focus was clear: as poster girl and one half of the collaboration, this show belonged to Hadid. Despite Gigi and her younger siblings opening the show themselves, the cast of models was surprisingly diverse, including both well known icons of days past and members of the ‘new guard’ who helped populate the show with Instragram-famous faces, including Joan Smalls, Presley Gerber, Lucky Blue Smith, and Hailey Baldwin.

There is no denying that this collection is “cool.” Hadid sells a glossy incarnation of grunge, distilled and curated to edgy teen perfection. But this is not a collection that will shock or inspire—rather, it will slip straight from the runway onto street style blogs and Instagram feeds as a glorified version of what Hadid’s own personal style. Instead of making the show feel comfortable and more human, the recognisable nature of these looks leave the audience too entrenched in the realm of the familiar to find excitement. Hadid’s well-documented taste for athleisure and for street style is repeatedly represented in mesh leggings, layered turtlenecks, and graphic hoodies. When this is combined with the heavy 90s influence in the puffer coats, tartans, mesh, and oversized cardigans, the collection successfully sells the audience a packaged portrait of rich kids playing rock and roll. Somehow, however much we may try to resist, we still want to be them, or at least look like them. These clothes may not be clever, but they are charming, approachable, and have mass appeal.

The ambiguously “Rock-Sport” aesthetic with punk and Britpop influence marks a new direction for Hilfiger and Hadid, both known for their preppy, all-American approach. But while this may be tougher and edgier, it’s still a breezy and heavily curated take on the sleeker, palatable elements of movements that were all about rebellion. As expected, Hilfiger heritage demanded a recurring red and blue colour scheme and a distinct varsity flavour to the thigh high socks, bomber jackets, and track pants. All in all, it makes Season 3 a natural progression that walks the line between foreign and familiar by both leaning into and subverting the prepster vibe the brand holds dear.

Although this season was a slight departure from the norms of their ongoing collaboration, it didn’t feel brand new to its audience, with heavy resemblances to Hedi Slimane’s luxe-grunge approach to Saint Laurent A/W 2013. Even the, reception was similar: now, just as back then, the baby doll dresses, embellished fishnets, and oversize cardigans screamed young and cool but were largely criticised for lacking in innovation. The difference is that, at the time, the 90s hadn’t yet woven their way back into the mainstream. Slimane’s collection was successful largely because, like the majority of his work, it was controversial and preserved the anarchy of the movements that inspired it. Four years later, a similar aesthetic can no longer claim the polarising effect it did in 2013, and therefore loses even the accolade of subversion. Like Saint Laurent’s show, Tommy x Gigi Season 3 reinforced the idea of a hip LA A-lister playing at youthful rebellion by borrowing its look without reimagining. Hadid dressed the ‘it-girl’ of today in her own image, without wondering what she might want to wear tomorrow.

Despite the lack of any blatant missteps, only a few pieces – namely the floor length plaid overcoat worn by Gigi herself, a sequined blazer, and an androgynous blue and white striped oversized menswear sweater – managed to break the glossy department-store luster of the collection. The looks were largely approachable, versatile, and, most significantly, marketable, but they did very little to leave a lasting impression. To their credit, Tommy X Gigi have never pretended to be high fashion, and have sat comfortably in their aesthetic accessibility, even releasing most of the pieces online before the show to maximise its reach and increase their commercial value. But while this marketing focus as a brand justifies the lack of an avant-garde influence, it cannot compensate for its lack of creativity. There is no ambiguity in the collaboration’s intention: this is a show meant to sell, sell, sell.

It is clear from the outset that much of the collection was designed as glorified merch for a Gigi Hadid-led band that doesn’t exist, continuing a trend of young models and artists borrowing from 70s metal groups and 90s hip hop artists to amplify their own brand. Those “Gigi Hadid Tour 2017” tops may be cute, but they’re overdone, even considering Tommy Hilfiger’s long and complicated history with the music industry. Initially the street style trend of merchandise reinterpretation may have been clever, or at least light-spirited. But, it has increasingly revealed the potential for young moguls to claim something not their own, commodifying an aesthetic without deference to the hard work or the culture that produced it (see, for example, the Jenner sisters and their appropriation of rappers’ graphics and images for their own self-promotion). Unlike the Jenners’, Hadid’s take wasn’t directly problematic, but it feeds into the very same phenomenon.

Without a doubt, Hadid is a powerful businesswoman, building her personal brand while slowly establishing credibility in an environment that continually seeks to undermine her legitimacy as a model and as a creative mind. But, for all its polish and marketability, the collection lacked freshness and was symptomatic of a more general shift in our approach to fashion. The clothes, images, and ideology of a designer, particularly on newer labels building a following through social media, no longer play the primary role in defining their brand. Rather, brands have become the people themselves, relying more on an extreme incarnation of a muse and thus on an individual’s appeal than on an artistic vision. Tommy x Gigi is not selling clothes, it’s selling Gigi Hadid.

‘Caesar’ at the Keble O’Reilly – preview

Set in modern-day America, the hotly-anticipated performance of Caesar at the Keble O’Reilly is shaping up to be an innovative and exciting new interpretation of one of Shakespeare’s most political plays. After watching a run-through of the first half in rehearsal, the prospect of returning to see the final performance is extremely exciting. With gender-neutral casting, and the unusual decision to utilise a traverse stage, this is an extremely accessible and inventive production which anyone in Oxford would do well to catch this week.

Performing Shakespeare on a traverse stage – one with the audience seated on opposite sides of a long strip – is an unusual move, and one which I haven’t seen since Kenneth Branagh’s production of Macbeth in 2013. Ben Ashton, Caesar’s director, explains that having the audience surround the action makes the speeches seem more public – a sense of political display is a central theme of the play, and the traverse stage enhances this. Ashton also argues that this staging harks back to the Roman amphitheatres of Caesar’s time. While the thrust stages of Shakespeare’s England might also make a useful comparison, it is refreshing to escape the distancing effect of the proscenium arch that characterises so many student productions.

Gender-blind auditions have resulted in a sterling cast where ability to embody a character has been prioritised over traditional casting. Perhaps the most interesting result of this is the altered dynamic in the scene where Caesar is warned not to go to the Capitol. In other productions, this often appears to make Caesar seem somewhat sexist as he casually dismisses his wife Calpurnia’s nightmares. In Caesar, however, the genders of these two characters are switched, arguably decreasing the power differential between the two, and resulting in a far greater sense of desperation as Calpurnius begs his wife not to travel to the capitol – this is extremely successful, lending the scene a whole new interpretation that moves away from the simple husband/wife dynamic towards an appreciation of the wider situation. It is also interesting to see a female Caesar in a production set in modern-day America. While the production admirably avoids direct parallels to Hillary Clinton, it is nevertheless intriguing to see such a topical exploration of what it means to be a woman in politics.

Beyond a very minimalist set, atmosphere is created via red and blue gels – while this binary lighting scheme could perhaps be a severely limiting factor, Caesar has embraced the simplicity of this set-up. It focusses on the connotations of pensiveness and passion that are evoked by blue and red light respectively, and utilising them to complement rather than distract from the language. In addition to this, the cast’s grasp of the text is superb, and I left the rehearsal with the feeling that they really were living Shakespeare’s words. Ashton explained that given how much of the play is about not just what is said, but what is left unsaid – Caesar’s ambition is entirely reported by other characters, for example, as she never explicitly mentions it – this production utilises very simple blocking which allows the audience’s attention to remain predominantly with the language. Rehearsals have focused on when and where to break from strict iambic pentameter, and from what I have seen of the production this has been a very worthwhile exercise. Tom Ames (Mark Anthony), for example, delivers “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” with such emotion and sincerity that the crowd scenes thereafter became all the more believable and immediate. There was a sense that Caesar’s audience will feel themselves swept along with Anthony’s rhetoric in a way that Shakespeare evidently intended but few productions manage to achieve.

The cast employs an impressive geographical range of American accents, which is perhaps both a blessing and a curse for the production. Given that the characters in Julius Caesar are some of Shakespeare’s most three-dimensional, with a variety of motives and personality clashes driving the action, Ashton argues that the audience’s automatic assumptions about character based on accent will be challenged as the play continues. He hopes that Caesar will lead the audience to reconsider their original feelings towards each character and hence leave them with a deeper connection to the play as a whole. This is certainly an admirable experiment and one which I am intrigued to see play out in the theatre.

The whole cast is confident and assured in their delivery, though as they move from rehearsal to stage it is very possible that some will emerge as the stars of the show. At this early stage Jonny Wiles (Brutus) and Amelia Gabriel (Cassius) are extremely compelling and seem likely to make a strong impression on the audience.

Caesar runs from 11th-14th October at the Keble O’Reilly Theatre. Tickets available here: https://www.ticketsource.co.uk/cosmicarts

US and Russian space agencies to work on new moon-orbiting space station

On September 27th, NASA officially announced that it will collaborate with the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, in the development of a moon-orbiting space station in the near future. Such a station will allow easy travel to further locations such as Mars, as well as facilitating research on the lunar surface. This agreement demonstrates NASA’s belief that the key to future space exploration is cooperation: firstly, this project is expected to combine the efforts of multiple space agencies and aerospace companies such as Boeing; and secondly, having a space station like this in place will make it much easier to build missions on the efforts of multiple different groups, since supplies and components for missions can be delivered to the station at different times from different suppliers.

The agreement follows a March press release in which NASA indicated that they were researching the possibility of a ‘deep space gateway’ – a station above the moon where they could pool their resources and send off missions to other locations around the Solar System – Mars, of course, springs to mind, but this could also include the asteroid belt and the moons of the gas giants, which represent a vast range of environments including liquid water.These missions would be performed by reusable spaceships, which may never have to visit the surface again once in operation, vastly reducing the quantity of fuel required.

Now, the space agency has officially agreed to work together with Roscosmos, as well as commercial aerospace companies, to make this goal a reality. NASA and Roscosmos together signed a statement at the 68th International Aeronautical Congress in Adelaide that “reflects the common vision for human exploration that NASA and Roscosmos share”, announcing Roscosmos’ intention to work with NASA on the deep space gateway concept and bring their Russian commercial partners onto the playing field as well. As well as this agreement, NASA has been awarding contracts to companies including Boeing and Lockheed Martin to develop and test possible habitation systems for their astronauts.

The American space agency’s parallel efforts to include both Roscosmos and engineering companies in this project demonstrates two factors in how they are approaching space exploration at present. Firstly, they are willing to invest resources now to facilitate frequent and efficient missions in the future. Secondly, they believe in setting up a platform for a genuine space industry, so that in future government-funded agencies won’t have to do all the heavy lifting.

The possible moon-orbiting space station is something that will take a lot of resources to build initially, but will vastly reduce budgets if NASA intends to send out repeated deep space missions in future. Since most of the fuel and much of the equipment for space travel is used just to get off the Earth’s surface, projects based in the deep space gateway using a reusable craft would be very cost-effective for NASA. Combining this with the futuristic Solar Electric Propulsion system, which uses solar energy instead of exploding fuel to accelerate its propellant and is already in use today, future research of the asteroid belt or Saturn’s rings could require almost no non-reusable resources at all.

As well as a commitment to efficiency and frequency in future projects, NASA has also now shown that they want the future of space travel to be in the hands of many small organisations rather than a few governments. The space station concept would create a rich environment for independent aerospace groups, with big one-off missions replaced by a constant flow of small cargo shipments and equipment upgrades that commercial partners could handle. This is something we’ve already seen happen with the International Space Station, with SpaceX’s Dragon rockets now regularly delivering supplies, including ice cream. As well as allowing commercial groups to help with deep space missions, the lunar station will itself be made with the direct assistance of NASA and Roscosmos’ friends in the aerospace industry.

The world may not have sent humans any further since 1969, but our attitudes about how to travel in space have come a long way, and the agreement made in Adelaide last month shows it. NASA wants to lay the foundations for a space industry in which everyone can contribute to the same goals, and replace expensive, infrequent launches with a constant stream of small, efficient trips. And once we can get the infrastructure in place – hey, maybe we’ll finally get someone on Mars.

Cuppers – the greatest show on earth?

With pre-season for Blues teams well underway even before freshers’ week, college footballers across Oxford will now be turning their attention to the upcoming Cuppers campaign.

For many, their stomachs will also be turning, as the start of a new season comes as a shock to the system after a summer of debauchery befitting the superstar status of each college’s finest players.

The first challenge facing every team captain is how to disseminate their own enthusiasm for a preseason training session throughout a dressing room packed with big names, and even bigger egos. You never lose that natural goalscoring instinct, insists last season’s top scorer, as he neglects to confirm his availability on the Doodle poll. Whether or not that is the case, you can certainly lose your fitness, as demonstrated when another striker suffers a hamstring injury putting out cones for a training exercise.

Something else you can lose, of course, is your best player. This is only natural, given the intense physical demands of both league and Cuppers, which take their toll on the body after three or four years. After this time, having given blood, sweat and tears for their college, players have little reason to remain in Oxford and so tend to move on to the next stage of their lives.

This presents a problem for teams, without the luxury of a transfer window afforded to lesser leagues around the globe, as they are forced to put their faith in the lottery that is the college application process.

A college’s golden generation may have just ‘graduated’ on a high, having achieved promotion by winning the league, but the team they leave behind face a harrowing season if the freshers who replace them are more Alan Hutton than Alan Shearer.

However, as Oscar Wilde said, having captained Magdalen seconds to Cuppers glory in 1876-77, ‘Football is about the team, not the individuals.’ Certainly, college football brings together a diverse group of individuals who would perhaps not otherwise rub shoulders, but once they pull on the college strip, crest above heart, they are united, by a love of the game and an even stronger love for their college.

One of the new lads will score with an overhead kick in the first few minutes of his debut, only to never score again, but that one moment of magic will cement his place in college legend. The key to making or breaking a team’s season could be how well the players channel their college pride, and how fast the new teammates buy into the collective mentality of the team and, of course, the college.

All this and more will be on the minds of Oxford’s college footballers as they eagerly anticipate the kick-off of the new season.

Blues finish third in Elite University Cup

0

The Blues men’s football team took part in the second annual self-styled ‘World Elite University Football Tournament’, this summer. Hosted by Tsinghua University, in China, the tournament lasted just under two weeks, and consisted of twelve teams from across the globe. In the first match, a strong Oxford team proved too much for Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, recording an 8-0 win.

In the next match against Tsinghua University, a high-quality, technical encounter ended with Oxford winning 2-0, finishing top of the group and setting up a quarter-final showdown against Hua Zhong University of Science and Technology.

The team took advantage of their rest day and travelled a little way out of Beijing to the Great Wall of China and the Summer Palace.

The focus then shifted back onto football, and the efforts of coach Juliun Liu and captain Laurence Wroe to keep everyone focused were rewarded with a comprehensive 3-0 win over Hua Zhong University.

This meant Oxford were in the semi-finals, having reached the same stage in the competition last year.

The rest day before the semi-final was used to experience more of Beijing, visiting Tiananmen Square and the Forbidden City.

The semi-final encounter was against the University of British Columbia. Although Oxford lost the game 2-0, it was a performance to be proud of from the Blues, and it is no exaggeration to say UBC would not have felt robbed had the result gone the other way.

What the loss did mean was a 3rd-4th place play-off against none other than the University of Cambridge, in an exact replica of the previous year’s competition.

With the game coming on the final day of the tournament, various commitments to internships and pre-booked flights home meant the Blues went into the game missing four key players and the coach Julian.

In what can only be described as a war of attrition, made so by the intense heat and sore legs after a long term and two long weeks of football, the 90 minutes ended with the score at 1-1.

Penalties followed, and nerves of steel by both sides meant all of the first 18 penalties were scored, leaving the score 9-9. Goalkeeper Sean Gleeson saved the next one, before going on to score the winning penalty.

Gleeson told Cherwell: “After 18 consecutive penalties scored, a call from the team on the halfway line meant I had to start thinking about actually taking one.

“I remember guessing the correct way and celebrating the penalty save before having to calm myself and show no emotion while I picked up the ball and placed it on the spot. I chose which way I wanted to go and next thing I know I’ve got the biggest smile on my face and the team running towards me, the most unbelievable feeling.”

The tournament itself was won by Tubingen University, who beat University of British Columbia in an end-to-end final.

Taking a knee is the best way to take a stand

0

The #TakeAKnee protest has reached new heights, covering front pages and headline news. What started as a one-man mission championed by Colin Kaepernick, then-quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers (now unemployed), has grown into a unifying movement amongst athletes in the US.

It has garnered support from the likes of Stevie Wonder and even Shad Khan, owner of the Jaguars and donor of $1 million to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Yet Kaepernick’s protest has coalesced into a vastly different debate concerning free speech and patriotism – bread and butter issues in the President’s eyes. Trump has done what he always does, and indeed what he does best.

The President took a widely held sentiment – in this case, American pride in national symbols, and racist/sexist/etc. undertones – to set progressives’ nerves on fire. Thus the stage is set, with Trump as defender of an almost commonsensical viewpoint: how dare these ungrateful millionaire sports stars disrespect the national anthem? How dare they use their stage as athletes to shove their message down the throats of the general public?

It is all too easy to understand the reluctance to mix politics and sports. After all, none of these football or basketball stars are qualified experts on civil rights or social justice. Neither, however, are they the first to take a political message to the sports arena.

One need only look to Muhammad Ali, Jackie Robinson, Tommie Smith and John Carlos to realise this is a continuing pattern. Perhaps we must look to the meaning of the protest itself to see why athletes throughout history have sought to use their platform as a stage for protest.

Colin Kaepernick, who first made the movement iconic, cited police brutality and racial inequality as the reason behind his protest. Like Smith and Carlos’ black power stance at the 1968 Olympics, Kaepernick wished to draw attention to the plight and disenfranchisement of African Americans, particularly from police brutality.

Those who defiantly point out the wealth of these sports stars imply that they should be ‘grateful’ for their jobs and instead throw their money towards good causes – never mind that Kaepernick donated $50,000 to Meals on Wheels in response to the Trump administration cutting funds for the programme.

But for the Black Lives Matter movement, attention and awareness is what they demand and what they need.

Through the #TakeAKnee protest, attention is what they have achieved – at least until the NFL decided to co-opt the movement for their own purposes. Controversy is what the Black Lives Matter movement seek in order to start an uncomfortable conversation in the US. So what is more effective than to put a spotlight on race for the millions of NFL fans around America?

Yet Trump has managed to handle the controversy with his typical smarts.

Kaepernick’s stand for racial injustice has been turned into a circus show with the issue of race ushered into the background. Even the recent Sports Illustrated ‘protest’ cover seems to erase Kaepernick’s presence and place the whole rationale of the protest under the guise of unity. Because who cares about Kaepernick when Tom Brady, a living legend and supporter of Trump, has spoken up against the President? Not on the subject of racial injustice, of course, but against Trump’s ‘divisive’ comments. It seems that the effectiveness of this protest has been happily diminished by the media.

One final concern must be addressed: do these players have to protest during the anthem? Surely there is a more appropriate time? But the American obsession with their anthem and flag is a strange, and often misconstrued cultural idiosyncrasy.

Because for all Trump and Fox News can parrot about respect for veterans, despite the former showing little respect for them previously, what else is more American than freedom itself? Indeed, many veterans including John McCain have taken to social media and news outlets in support of First Amendment rights; the athlete’s freedom to dissent is what veterans have fought for – a fundamental American principle which deserves protection.

But it appears that many are still convinced protesting during the national anthem and in their workplace is just too inappropriate for sports stars.

So perhaps the question is what is the right way for black Americans to protest? Peacefully? Privately?

Maybe a totally different question has to be asked: when will it be convenient for Americans to take notice of police brutality?

And, moreover, the even bigger question looming: can Americans do anything about it?