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

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"