Thursday, June 04, 2015
Political Mayhem Thursday: Girls and Boys and Sports
In that context, I was a little confused when I read this in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
Rochester Century's Jessie Aney defeated
Edina's Michael O'Neil 6-2, 6-2 on Tuesday in team quarterfinals of the
Class 2A boys' tennis state tournament at the University of Minnesota
Baseline Tennis Center….
Aney, whose tennis résumé is more impressive than her slicing
backhand, was lured by the members of the Rochester Century boys’ tennis
team to play with them in hopes of a winning a state tournament berth.
She won the 2011 Class 2A girls’ singles and 2012 girls’ doubles
championships and has accepted a tennis scholarship to North Carolina.
The move worked when the Panthers ousted longtime champion Rochester Mayo in the Section 1 finals.
“I thought coming into this season there were four teams that could win [the section],” Century coach Nick Crossley said. “Getting Jessie kind of put us over the edge.”
With Aney playing No. 1 singles on Tuesday and setting the tone for the rest of the team, the Panthers continued their roll, defeating Edina 6-1 in the Class 2A team quarterfinals at Baseline Tennis Center in Minneapolis. Aney defeated Edina’s Michael O’Neil 6-2, 6-2, keying a Century sweep of all four singles matches.
When I first read this, I was deeply confused. Had Jessie Aney become a boy? And if so, why did she not change her name? On re-reading it, though, the truth became clear-- Jessie Aney is (still) a girl who just is really great at tennis. Like, good enough to beat the number one player for Edina, where there are some pretty good tennis players.
The world is changing. And that's a good thing.
The move worked when the Panthers ousted longtime champion Rochester Mayo in the Section 1 finals.
“I thought coming into this season there were four teams that could win [the section],” Century coach Nick Crossley said. “Getting Jessie kind of put us over the edge.”
With Aney playing No. 1 singles on Tuesday and setting the tone for the rest of the team, the Panthers continued their roll, defeating Edina 6-1 in the Class 2A team quarterfinals at Baseline Tennis Center in Minneapolis. Aney defeated Edina’s Michael O’Neil 6-2, 6-2, keying a Century sweep of all four singles matches.
When I first read this, I was deeply confused. Had Jessie Aney become a boy? And if so, why did she not change her name? On re-reading it, though, the truth became clear-- Jessie Aney is (still) a girl who just is really great at tennis. Like, good enough to beat the number one player for Edina, where there are some pretty good tennis players.
The world is changing. And that's a good thing.
Comments:
<< Home
Thank You for your Honest Confession of Confusion.
Your amusing anecdote reminds me of Dann Walker's truism: "I will see that when I believe it." Thank you for sharing. I went back and read the story, and it is pretty straightforward--but, in a week where it is "all Caitlyn Jenner all the time time," it would be very easy to see something that was not there. Very good.
As for the world changing, I am also reminded of one of my favorite definitions of history as the "study of change over time." Of course, a more inside-baseball field within the study of history, the study of the study of history or historiography, might concentrate on how our interpretation of a static set of historical facts changes radically over time as our present realities and perspectives change and allow us to see old things in a new way.
My recollection from high school is that the best women in the state could always have beaten my times in track (even though I was often the number-one-ranked sprinter at my school in our small schools division). I am guessing the top female cross country athlete in Michigan could have bested Mark Osler in 1982. I am sure that if Tracy Austin had showed up as a fifteen year-old to play our number one tennis player back in the late-1970s we would have had the same outcome as Edina in 2015. So, lots of changes, but, I see lots of continuities as well. The biggest changes, and I feel confident that this was your point, seem to me to revolve around the way we now interact with these female phenoms.
A related history note as a follow-up to a discussion on the Razor from 18 February of this year regarding objections being raised against the new AP US History format in Oklahoma. One of the questions in the air (and in a lot of places on the blogosphere and social media and places like Think Progress and the Huffington Post) seemed to be how serious were these questions? How serious were the people objecting?
UPDATE: an open letter released a few days ago from an impressive collection of conservative academics offers up a serious critique. Even though the signatories are celebrated conservative intelligentsia, they are, nevertheless, highly esteemed scholars with whom serious people may disagree--but not dismiss. The letter raises many of the issues we tossed back and forth in February. So, I am glad we were able to get a head start on this issue (which looks to be very important to many of us) on the Razor months ago.
Your amusing anecdote reminds me of Dann Walker's truism: "I will see that when I believe it." Thank you for sharing. I went back and read the story, and it is pretty straightforward--but, in a week where it is "all Caitlyn Jenner all the time time," it would be very easy to see something that was not there. Very good.
As for the world changing, I am also reminded of one of my favorite definitions of history as the "study of change over time." Of course, a more inside-baseball field within the study of history, the study of the study of history or historiography, might concentrate on how our interpretation of a static set of historical facts changes radically over time as our present realities and perspectives change and allow us to see old things in a new way.
My recollection from high school is that the best women in the state could always have beaten my times in track (even though I was often the number-one-ranked sprinter at my school in our small schools division). I am guessing the top female cross country athlete in Michigan could have bested Mark Osler in 1982. I am sure that if Tracy Austin had showed up as a fifteen year-old to play our number one tennis player back in the late-1970s we would have had the same outcome as Edina in 2015. So, lots of changes, but, I see lots of continuities as well. The biggest changes, and I feel confident that this was your point, seem to me to revolve around the way we now interact with these female phenoms.
A related history note as a follow-up to a discussion on the Razor from 18 February of this year regarding objections being raised against the new AP US History format in Oklahoma. One of the questions in the air (and in a lot of places on the blogosphere and social media and places like Think Progress and the Huffington Post) seemed to be how serious were these questions? How serious were the people objecting?
UPDATE: an open letter released a few days ago from an impressive collection of conservative academics offers up a serious critique. Even though the signatories are celebrated conservative intelligentsia, they are, nevertheless, highly esteemed scholars with whom serious people may disagree--but not dismiss. The letter raises many of the issues we tossed back and forth in February. So, I am glad we were able to get a head start on this issue (which looks to be very important to many of us) on the Razor months ago.
WF, interesting piece by Ron Fournier today on American Exceptionalism (which was the topic back on Feb. 18): http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/republicans-are-wrong-about-obama-s-american-exceptionalism-20150604
Yes. I liked Ron Fournier's piece today. I have long thought that President Obama gets a bad rap on "American Exceptionalism." He has actually defined and defended the idea eloquently on several occasions (so much so that I have imagined academics cringing as they listened to some his more soaring patriotic oratory--although certainly no one would object to his Selma speech).
I also agree with Fournier that the President's critics often conflate his actual foreign policy with his rhetoric. I think I probably have more sympathy for those critics than Fournier. In point of fact, in the instance of the brief Jeb Bush quote Fournier cites, I would disagree that Bush's claim is even incompatible with my above assertion that President Obama often offers eloquent defenses of American Exceptionalism.
Rather, Bush is really trying to express something else entirely, something much more connected to the very practical question of how and when to project American power across the world (soft power, leading from behind, etc.). That is actually an appropriate discussion for 2016, and one that Candidate Obama facilitated with great skill in 2008. At this point, near the conclusion of his presidency, the President needs to stand up and take his medicine as we assess the results of his innovative thinking in American foreign policy.
Switching gears again and going back to our previous discussion with respect to defining what we would like to have in re the AP Exam and American Exceptionalism, I think the following excerpts from the letter might gain the approval of Fournier and the President (I certainly like them):
"We favor instead a robust, vivid, and content-rich account of our unfolding national drama, warts and all, a history that is alert to all the ways we have disagreed and fallen short of our ideals, while emphasizing the ways that we remain one nation with common ideals and a shared story."
"We believe that the study of history should expose our young students to vigorous debates about the nature of American exceptionalism, American identity, and America’s role in the world. Such debates are the warp and woof of historical understanding. We do not seek to reduce the education of our young to the inculcation of fairy tales, or of a simple, whitewashed, heroic, even hagiographical nationalist narrative. Instead, we support a course that fosters informed and reflective civic awareness, while providing a vivid sense of the grandeur and drama of its subject.
"A formal education in American history serves young people best by equipping them for a life of deep and consequential membership in their own society. The College Board’s 2014 framework sadly neglects this essential civic purpose of education in history. We can, and must, do better."
Post a Comment
I also agree with Fournier that the President's critics often conflate his actual foreign policy with his rhetoric. I think I probably have more sympathy for those critics than Fournier. In point of fact, in the instance of the brief Jeb Bush quote Fournier cites, I would disagree that Bush's claim is even incompatible with my above assertion that President Obama often offers eloquent defenses of American Exceptionalism.
Rather, Bush is really trying to express something else entirely, something much more connected to the very practical question of how and when to project American power across the world (soft power, leading from behind, etc.). That is actually an appropriate discussion for 2016, and one that Candidate Obama facilitated with great skill in 2008. At this point, near the conclusion of his presidency, the President needs to stand up and take his medicine as we assess the results of his innovative thinking in American foreign policy.
Switching gears again and going back to our previous discussion with respect to defining what we would like to have in re the AP Exam and American Exceptionalism, I think the following excerpts from the letter might gain the approval of Fournier and the President (I certainly like them):
"We favor instead a robust, vivid, and content-rich account of our unfolding national drama, warts and all, a history that is alert to all the ways we have disagreed and fallen short of our ideals, while emphasizing the ways that we remain one nation with common ideals and a shared story."
"We believe that the study of history should expose our young students to vigorous debates about the nature of American exceptionalism, American identity, and America’s role in the world. Such debates are the warp and woof of historical understanding. We do not seek to reduce the education of our young to the inculcation of fairy tales, or of a simple, whitewashed, heroic, even hagiographical nationalist narrative. Instead, we support a course that fosters informed and reflective civic awareness, while providing a vivid sense of the grandeur and drama of its subject.
"A formal education in American history serves young people best by equipping them for a life of deep and consequential membership in their own society. The College Board’s 2014 framework sadly neglects this essential civic purpose of education in history. We can, and must, do better."
<< Home
