Mohammad Ali and Heroism
Back in school,
I remember this text on the black American boxer named Cassius Clay: after
winning the Olympic medal, he expected to be “accepted” by the white majority.
Of course, nothing of the sort happened, and Clay was disillusioned. He
converted to Islam, changed his name to Muhammad Ali and continued to express
his views on many topics, regardless of how unpopular they might be. Like the
treatment of blacks. And the Vietnam war.
Christopher
Gasper pointed out the contrast
from modern athletes:
“Ali was an athlete with a voice and a social
conscience who wasn’t afraid to use his celebrity to make a statement or take a
stand… There will never be another Ali because he was sui
generis, but also because most of today’s transcendent athletes are too busy
protecting their bank statements to make a political statement.”
So true.
Then again, is
Santosh Desai right when he asks:
“Do people revered as heroes in any
culture have a moral responsibility to speak up for larger issues and take
strong political stances?”
Especially when
their “hero” status comes from something they did in a totally non-moral
domain, like sports?
“Should our heroes be made to carry this
burden of our expectations that they represent our views using the platform
that they have earned through their achievements?”
Can’t heroes
from another domain remain neutral?
“It is everyone’s right not to be
political or not to be concerned about larger issues, particularly those outside
their area of expertise.”
All this made me
wonder if Desai is right in his conclusion, in that the problem lies not in our
heroes but in our expectations from them?
“We have invented the heroism of our
heroes; the burden of our illusions about them must also be ours.”
Of course, that
would just make Ali all the more unique. And admirable. Regardless of what you
think about boxing as a sport.
Comments
Post a Comment