(Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images North America)
No man should be called out of his name
During a sport’s talk radio interview Boomer Esiason continued the widespread criticism of Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez. Reflecting on fan dissatisfaction, Esiason commented on the prospects of the Jets acquiring Peyton Manning:
Everywhere you look, that’s what they’re saying. But first of all, we don’t even know if Peyton’s able to play. If Peyton is able to play and the new general manager and whoever they hire to run that team out there decides to go without Peyton Manning, then I’m sure that the Jets will be sniffing around.
Because that’s what the Jets do. They’re trying to find their Tom Brady. They’re trying to find their Aaron Rodgers. And I don’t think in their mind they think that they feel like they’ve found the kid.
Esiason’s argument that Sanchez is neither Brady nor Rodgers is anything but controversial. The success and greatness of those quarterbacks rests with their being head-and-shoulders above other quarterbacks in the league. Yet, Esiason didn’t stop there, offering the following: “If you watched Mark Sanchez the last month of the season, he was like a Chihuahua standing on Madison Avenue and 36th Street entering the Midtown Tunnel, eyes bigger than you-know-what, and just so shaky.”
As I was driving my car listening to the radio, I heard a report about Esiason’s criticism and I was taken a back. Did a commentator just “rip” the most recognizable Mexican-American quarterback in the NFL with Chihuahua analogy? Did a nationally known football analyst and ex-quarterback really “call Mark Sanchez ‘skittish’” via the Chihuahua card? Of course, he did, this is the America of the declining significance of race.
While some may call it a coincidence that Sanchez was likened to a dog, a dog that is racialized within the hegemonic imagination, why did he not invoke a Pomerania, a Poodle, or any number of small dogs? Why did he go to the place popular culture has gone so often in regards to Latinos? Why did he invoke a dehumanizing analogy that gives life to a history of racism? According to José M. Alamillo, Associate Professor and Coordinator Chicana/o Studies Program at Cal State Channel Islands, the comments are both offensive and a part of a larger history of racial meaning: “Boomer’s statement about Mark Sanchez as acting like a Chihuahua dog is quite offensive because it associates people of Mexican descent as being spastic, conniving, yapping, hyper-sexual, yapping and having anger management issues.” Similarly, Alexandro José Gradilla notes that his analogy “falls inline with similar ‘ready made/easy to use’ themes to characterize Latinos in general.” According to the Associate Professor in the Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies at Cal State Fullerton, “The criticism is ‘hybrid’ form of exclusionary and derogatory discourse that uses race to belittle ones manhood. Sanchez was not an attack dog or a loyal dog but a small annoying…more bark than bite small trendy accessory.”
While others will focus on intent (see here for example) and argue that Esiason was merely trying to describe his play by invoking a “dog analogy” the racism denial card once again misses the point. Given the common practice of racializing and demonizing people of color through tropes and representations that depict “nonwhites” as subhuman and animals, it is hard to ignore this disturbing analogy. “It amazes me that sports commentators feel they have to interject race/ethnicity into their critique of an athlete’s play. Referring to Sanchez as a Chihuahua only invokes ethnicity as if the sporting critique needed some deeper level of explanation – when in reality it need not be mentioned at all,” notes Adrian Burgos Jr., Associate Professor of Latina/Latino Studies at University of Illinois. “For those who say, oh no the PC police are overreacting, my question is, why did Boomer feel he had to go there in the first place? Did he feel his criticism of Sanchez’s play would not been accepted otherwise? What did his mentioning a Chihuahua add to his critique of the sporting play?” The racial language adds nothing to the critique, except a continuation of racial language and images that have long plagued American culture.
Whether or not Esiason was conscious or not, whether he intended to make the link or not, is irrelevant. The power of the white racial frame and the power of white racial privilege helps explain why he didn’t think about the meaning and potential reception of in his choice words. Either aware of the embedded racial meaning or unaware, his comments reflect the power of white privilege.
David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. He has written on sport, video games, film, and social movements, appearing in both popular and academic mediums. His work explores the political economy of popular culture, examining the interplay between racism, state violence, and popular representations through contextual, textual, and subtextual analysis. Leonard’s latest book, After Artest: Race and the Assault on Blackness, will be published by SUNY Press in May of 2012.