Hockey’s Diversity “Problem”
The NHL has players from Finland, Sweden, Russia, Czechia, USA, Slovakia, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Slovenia, Austria, Norway, France, even 1 from Australia, and of course a shit-ton from Canada.
But… that’s not enough “diversity” according to one Washington DC, think tank. Nope.
I mean, that’s 15 different countries, languages, cultures, and ethnicities.
So what’s the problem?
Oh you know what the problem is…
The “problem” according to the left-leaning Brookings institute is that the NHL is too white. 90 percent they say.
And why would anyone expect it to be different?
Hockey is a winter sport, played by people who live in places that have snow, that is to say Northern Europe, Russia, Canada and the northern bits of the USA.
You know, places that white people come from, so who the hell else would you expect to be playing hockey??
And besides, would it be a problem if it were 100% or 10% or 1% ???
Who cares about the ethnic makeup of Hockey players? I mean if they can put the puck in the net, if they can take a hit to the boards and not cry like a soccer player, then they’re on the team! Who the hell cares where they’re from or their skin tone?
Just win baby!
In this supposed post-racial age, the color-blind benneton catalog world in which everyone is treated equally and judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character – or goals and assists – it is performance that matters. Right?
And all that other stuff including race doesn’t.
Right? You agree, right???
Of course, because YOU are a wise and enlightened person, YOU are not a racist or a xenophobe, YOU see everyone as an individual just like every good and decent person. You have no preference for anyone based on race or nationality or ethnicity.
And that is why you don’t care that the NHL is 90% white, or the NBA is 80% black or that Pesapallo is 90% Finnish.
You do not care. And only a bigoted, racist poo-poo head would. Not you. So let’s have a big round of applause for you, because you are SOOOO good.
If that’s the case, then what exactly is the “problem” for the NHL?
The left-leaning Brookings Institute hinted at it this way:
“by 2020, the U.S. Census is expected to show that two-fifths of the nation’s population identifies with a racial group other than white; and that sometime after 2040, there will be no racial majority in the country….”
Key phrase: “identifies with.”
What the left-leaning Brookings Institute was trying to tell the NHL without actually saying it is: Mexicans won’t watch hockey unless you have Mexican players, blacks wont watch hockey unless you have black players, Chinese wont watch hockey unless you have Chinese players.
Now theres a couple ways to interpret this. The smart-ass way, which of course has a lot of appeal to me is that the Brookings Institute is saying that all other groups – except good enlightened whites like themselves – are racist.
Of course, saying that other groups are racist, is in itself an act of racism, and that is why the Brookings didn’t come right out and say it. Worse than hypocritical – It’s a threat to their own self image.
While being a smart ass is fun, it’s not necessarily smart.
A smarter way to look at this is to accept that “in-group preferences” are real, natural, to be expected, and are not going away. That instead of being hypocritical – the Brookings Institute is right.
It is part of human nature to prefer your own tribe.
Your tribe is after all an extension of your family.
You love your mother more than a stranger loves your mother. You love your own children more than any other children.
Nothing good is going to change that, and nothing good is going to come from trying to change that.
This is no way implies hatred, fear, or animosity towards others.
Not at all.
Liking apples does not mean you hate oranges.
Even in my own little world down at the pool hall. The English hang out with the English. The Germans with the Germans. The Indians with the Indians. The Arabs with the Arabs, the Filipinos with the Filipinos, and the Thai with the Thai.
Do people also move between groups? Of course. Whenever language and situation make it possible they do. And there is nothing wrong with that either. It’s all good.
We can have our tribes, and we can get along with people in other tribes.
There is no problem that needs to be solved.
But this observation upset one guy I know. He protested that this sort of tribalism was ‘wrong’ and ‘evil’ and that he himself made no distinctions between groups, that he was more enlightened and progressive and good because he went out of his way to talk to everyone.
A few weeks later, the same guy and I were watching a match. When he told me who he was rooting for I asked why?
He said, “Because he’s from my country.” Like it was the most obvious thing in the world.
I laughed. Despite his previous loud proclamation of having no in-group preference, reality betrayed him, he too was tribal.
Anyways, back to hockey.
As far as I am aware the left leaning Brookings Institute has never warned the NFL or NBA for not being white enough. Has never suggested that the makeup of players ought to reflect the white majority in order to improve ratings.
So what makes Hockey different?
Why are changing demographics a problem for the too-white NHL but not the too-black NBA?
Is it because non-cold country ice-skating peoples – that is to say non-white people – don’t give a crap about hockey?
Is Brookings suggesting that these non-cold-country peoples could be enticed into watching hockey if they were to see other non-cold-country peoples playing the game?
Does that mean that Brookings tacitly admits that “in-group” preference is a real thing and that it is more prevalent among non-cold-country peoples?
Do these tendencies have broad implications far beyond hockey?
Because these tribal instincts apply not only to sports, but in other matters as well.
But let’s stick to hockey for now.
What is the point?
Point 1 is to acknowledge – like the Brookings institute did – that tribalism is a real thing, that it is powerful, and it’s not going away as long as human being are human.
Point 2 is to stop using bullshit words like diversity to mean things that it clearly does not mean.
That word is used in precisely one way, to criticize any sport, school, business, movie, restaurant, city, or country as being too “white.”
The actual meaning of diversity is “anti-white.”
Whenever someone says they want more diversity, they are saying they want fewer white people. Usually Fewer straight white men.
I mean, there is no diversity movement in China, Africa, Mexico, India, Japan, Israel or Saudi Arabia is there?
No one is saying they want more Swedes in Saudi Arabia, or more Jews in China, or more Dutch in Africa are they?
Diversity is a one way street.
Diversity only applies to European and European derived countries. That is to say, to majority White countries.
Diversity is anti-white.
Diversity is, for lack of a better word, racist.