The prevailing people of the present may not be those of the future

In class on Wednesday we had a question to answer about what types of people are relevant in today's society. At the time that Mills wrote the Sociological Imagination, it was mentioned that black athletes such as Jim Brown and Bill Russell had become powerful, outspoken leaders in society. Two men that directly came to my mind regarding black athletes speaking out were Tommie Smith and John Carlos. Although their stand against human rights was in 1968 at the Mexico City Summer Olympic games, a thought came to my mind. Smith and Carlos, who are many times now perceived as heroes of the time, were shunned by the Olympic committee at the time of their famous picture on the podium where they raised their fists donned with black gloves to represent black power. Many years passed before their actions were viewed as positive for not only their race, but human rights in general (Smith was an advocate for all human rights. He was part of an organization call the Olympic Project for Human Rights whose aim was to protest racial segregation in the United States and general racism in sports. You can see Smith, Carlos and the silver medalist from Australia, Peter Norman, sporting patches with initials OPHR on them).

When were then answering the questions from Mills about our own society, I felt that an example of Smith and Carlos was relevant. At their famous moment, they were not seen as prevailing citizens. They had taken an unpopular stance that caused much tension. Now, they are viewed as activists for human rights and racial integration in sport, and the connotation of their names has changed from negative to positive as time had passed.

So looking at today's society, we are able to choose who the prevailing people are based on societal perceptions. First, lets look at a person like Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns. For his two MVP seasons, the media seemed to have a love affair with him, making him a positive person of the moment. He was touted as an unathletic NBA player who was able to maximize his potential and make every player around him better. For all intents and purposes, he was the ideal teammate. Now compare him to Kobe Bryant who has become an antagonist to the media and many NBA fans. We hear about how he ran Shaq out of L.A., how he constantly yells at teammates, and how he can only play within the team system for so long before he become selfish. He would not be considered an ideal teammate.

With that, it seems clear that Nash will forever be a hero and Kobe will forever be a villain. I disagree with that notion. If that were the case, it would have been impossible for Tommie Smith and John Carlos to ever be viewed in a positive manner. It took years upon years for their place in history to be solidified, and the same thing will happen for Nash and Kobe. Nash may have a great career and win another MVP award, but maybe he does nothing of cultural relevance that sticks with people 50 years from now. Kobe has had a great playing career but has been overshadowed by some of his deficiencies. However, it is quite possible that the way he acts today and the things he says today will be the way the world functions in 50 years. I am not saying that either of them have done something profound at this point. What I am saying is that it seems almost impossible to tell who are the prevailing people of the time until years have passed. The perceptions of today will most likely not be the perceptions of the future.