AIBU to wonder why all white is alright?

[VeraStanhope]

I'm not a sport buff, but I have had to sit through the GB womens' hockey matches. Wondering how they all have kept lovely slim, straight noses in what looks a brutal sport, I suddenly realised mid-final that all the players are white. Celebrating with all white support staff at the end of the match. Friend who is the sports buff says "well it is a posh sport". How is that okay to accept that in 2016?

I play hockey in London admittedly not quite Olympic standard. My nose is thankfully still straight.
It's sad but true that in the 3 clubs I've played at, there are maybe one or two non whites in each club at any one time. And most people are ex private schools. I suppose this is partly the answer, hockey isn't played much in the state sector.
I don't think it's a big deal that the teams are mainly white personally. It's not like non whites are excluded per se. May the best person get the job irrespective of colour. One could argue that most of our best athletes are black and it's not because whites are excluded but if the best athletes are non white then it's perfectly rational that they are the ones that should be representing GB in athletics. I'd apply the same logic to hockey.

Well, I think the best players should be chosen, regardless of race or ethnicity. If that ends up being an all white team, so be it. If it ends up being an all black team, so be it.

For instance, look at the American basketball team. It's like 99% black, yet blacks only comprise around 13% of the American population. My husband is African-American. He grew up dirt poor and he told me the reason why black athletes dominate basketball is because you don't have to be wealthy to play it (he also played college basketball when he was young). You just need a ball. So when you go into poor black areas in America, you'll almost certainly find a lot of kids playing basketball. It's not like tennis or ice hockey - sports where you have to have some financial means in order for you to have access as a child. It's very unfortunate that not all children have the same opportunities in life but that's just how it is.

I haven't RTFT but I found it remarkable how non-black the Brazilian men's gymnastic team was, given that there's such a massive amount of gymnastic talent quite evident amongst the many, many (predominantly black) capoeristas in Brazil. I guess it's sadly indicative of lack of access to facilities or trainers amongst lower socio-economic groups.

I know I keep on repeating more or less the same thing here, but I feel like it needs to be emphasised as it seems to be the crux of the issue yet it's so hard to discuss.

Why are sports that require you to have money predominantly white? Why are those with the means to do so predominantly white? Why are (mostly) white people the wealthy ones?

We have more or less all established that certain sports require certain means so certain demographics are going to be better at them, while certain other demographics will excel in sports that don't require as much money. Why are we just accepting the fact that the rich are white and the poor are brown?

Muffy, from my experience I think part of the issue is that lots of non white affluent/middle class parents focus on education rather than sport.
I work in tennis in a middle class area of London and would say at beginner level our kids groups are fairly equally mixed if you look at the ethnicity of the kids.
As the children get older talent becomes more obvious as does the commitment of the parents, once the children get to around 10/11 we find that lots of the Asian kids will be pulled out of sport to concentrate on academic success ( we don't have nearly as many black children due to the ethnic mix of the area so its harder to see a trend with them)
I know the kids dropping out are not due to money, this term I can think of quite a few very good players with parents in high paying jobs that are stopping to concentrate on school work.
So what i'm saying in a long winded way is that non white = poor is not always the reason, sometimes it is that certain groups of people have different priorities.

My CD (10) plays hockey with our local club and at entry level hockey here is cheap, £40ish for 20 weeks of training and a bunch of round robin tournaments. Sticks are provided for new players, all you need are shin pads, a gum shield, a bottle of water and some warm kit. What's interesting is how the numbers dwindle as the winter progresses and the 9 o`clock starts seem less inviting than early September. I think that parental support makes a big difference early on and that they will have often played themselves. It takes a long time to make a cultural shift and encourage New demographics to join. In our club there is a mix of private and state school kids, with a few BME kids (whose parents play). There are quite a lot of ex pats from Australia, South Africa too.

My hope is that with a gold medal (very exciting, well done!) there will be a trickle down of funding AND interest to increase participation in the sport.

(I am not a hockey player, but I did play it in my state school in the 80s, when not skipping off for piano lessons)

I'm not convinced by this elite sports thing. My kids go/went to bog standard primaries and comprehensives. They have done archery, fencing, riding, road biking, mountain biking, canoeing, climbing, tennis, judo, football, swimming, trampolining, sailing, boxing......

DS2 in particular is quite a gifted sportsman. He was scouted for tennis, he was an absolute stand out natural at archery, he was fencer of the week every week, he is a great runner. Out of all these the sport he has chosen to do three times a week is football, at which he is decent but not amazing.

Kids choose what they enjoy (and probably what is percieved as "cool").

Tinkly, behind every elite sports star is a determined parent!
You let your son chose to do something he enjoys, I know there are lots of parents that would have made their child do a sport they excel at. Andre Agassi's book about his life is a very interesting look at how determined some parents can be if they think their child could achieve sporting greatness.

Tinkly have your children done all of those sports as part of their normal schooling? Because that list is hardly typical of the sports on offer at "bog standard" primaries and comprehensives.

Indeed Nancy, DS was invited to try out tennis by a scout who came to the primary school. After a handful of lessons the coach then asked us if he could get someone to look at him for possible inclusion into the elite national training programme. He was six.

They were really just looking at his athleticism and coordination I imagine. They were quite keen on him but at this point DS decided he really couldn't be doing with tennis two or three times a week, so after failing to persuade him otherwise, we let him drop it.

Frik they've done some things at school, like 10 week fencing courses and judo courses at primary. They've done archery courses and sailing courses for things like D of E and of course loads of outward bound type stuff with scouts and guides. My DH is a triathlete and bike mad, so they do lots of cycling all the time. One of my girls rides every week and has done for about 7 years (she's not that good though). I dunno, they just like trying stuff: DS1 took up boxing at Uni for instance. We go to Club la Santa in Lanzarote every year and they have a good try of every sport going.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but from your post twinkly it seems to me like you're fairly well off for your children to be able to do such a range of activities.
If a scout had picked me out at 6 year old and said I could be the greatest tennis player on earth it wouldnt had amounted to anything for me because unless someone was willing to pay for me to be coached and all the other stuff there is no way my parents could have afforded it.
Your children are very lucky that they have had all the opportunities offered to them.

Again apologies if I'm way off the mark.

I think that's definitely a reasonable explanation to some extent nancy, although I think it only stretches so far. If you think about parts of London, some areas are far more white than others (although all are going to be mixed to some extent) but the "more white" areas always seem to be the more MC ones, the areas that people aspire to.

When I was in both primary and secondary school in London, there were very few white (British) kids around. They probably made up about 30% of the school, if that. It's the same (maybe even less) now that DD goes there. 5 minutes down the road, in the "nicer" area, I'd say the schools were (and still are) about 70% white. These are still comprehensive schools, but the ones that are known for being "nice".

I'm not sure how popular hockey (or polo!) are in those schools but I've worked in two of them and swimming and tennis both seem very popular. But I would agree with you that in those relatively diverse MC schools the BAME parents probably push academia more. I just find it strange that the posher the area (and school) the whiter it becomes.

dont
you did not get my meaning which was not that obtuse
I said establishment families are likely (as in likelihood - do you understand) to the tune of 87% (to be white) as opposed to 100%
I was not saying that 87% of the establishment families were white
You seem to misunderstand points that other posters are making as they do not fit your opinions.
The population of the UK is over 80% white - so therefore it is likely by an overwhelmingly majority that the establishment families (who are to my mind those with power and money) would be white too as we are predominently a white European country.

I just find it strange that the posher the area (and school) the whiter it becomes.

DD1's grammar school has a much better ethnic mix than other schools in the surrounding predominantly white area.

Large parts of the UK are very white without being remotely posh, of course.

Is the school in a more WC or MC white area, Maple? Your DD's school being a grammar school sort of reflects nancy's point about BAME parents pushing academia more than sport, which would make a lot of sense.

To be honest though, I've realised that a lot of my thoughts on this come from what my idea of "posh" is. What I have grown up thinking of as "posh" is what most people on here probably see as ordinary. So when I'm thinking of posh kids in posh schools, the very MC schools count too, it's just that the private schools with straw hats are more posh.

The schools I was talking about in my PP are both comps but in a part of London where the house prices are currently around the £1m mark. But yes, those schools are far whiter than the schools five minutes down the road in the less "desirable" part of the borough.

Laura

It's possible to be really excited about the hockey team 's performance and to want sports teams to be selected on merit while still acknowledging that many sports require resources that are unavailable to huge chunks of the population.

Tbh if any sport needs fast twitch muscle and sprinting ability it's hockey, surely?

I read an interesting article that deals with the idea of fast muscle twitch.

mediadiversified.org/2016/08/19/its-not-about-the-genes-stupid/

Wit- my problem with your posts is not one person has said its fine that there are no black players in the GB team and it's very unfair for you to insinuate anyone did

Mollie establishment families in the UK are not "at least 87% white" -they are 100% white

There is an enormous difference between "has the money for private school" and establishment.

Fair enough. (Non PA smilie.)

I guess my other point would be with regards hockey itself. It isn't really an exclusive sport...so if 'non-whites' are going to public school etc why aren't they playing and achieving?

Frik Of course, some things are expensive: DS was offered a few tennis lessons for free, but if he's gone down the coaching squad route he would have had to have had one on one expensive lessons. DD's horse riding is about £12 an hour. Any kind of competing would probably mean owning a horse.

But in the past year DS has done a term of fencing as an afterschool club once a week for maybe £4 or £5 an hour, all equipment, instruction etc provided. Same with judo and tabletennis (tabletennis was on offer but he didn't actually want to do it), all local clubs going into schools, giving a taster, trying to encourage new members.

We pay much more than that for his football (local village team, training once a week and game on a Sunday). I think lots of sports are accessible these days. But as I said, kids go for the popular ones.

DD's horse riding is about £12 an hour

That's really cheap - its £60 per hour in my area!

I went to a rough comp. Hockey was compulsory for girls from 11- 16.

The GB team is very mixed.

they've done some things at school, like 10 week fencing courses

I think there's a difference between trying a sport and that sport being part of the culture. So, the pictures on the walls, the house teams and competitions, sporting cups and inter-school matches, and history like your family member having been to the same school, in the same house and playing the same sport, all of which creates more of a tradition. The tradition then makes it more of a natural ambition for the child, and the family ties mean that it's easier for the parents to understand the sport and how to support the child to success in it. Therefore it's not just about current affordability, it's not as easy as making just enough money to be able to send your child to a sports club or to a private school for the first generation and expecting them to automatically be on a level playing field with families with 'old money' and long established ties to the things that confer advantages.

I don't think this is a good situation, I'm more musing, speculating on why social mobility isn't as fluid and accessible as just getting a bit of money and buying your way in to the benefits of wealth. Though of course, wealth is the first access ticket.

I am surprised t all the posh comments about hockey
I grew up in a very poor working class area of Merseyside and we played hockey in high school.

I never enjoyed hockey and never give it another thought but now both my teenage sons play (they have left school) . I live in a deprived area of Lancashire that is often in the news for failing schools childhood poverty etc but there is a good hockey scene here with a broad mix of players that include teachers, doctors, labourers, a brick ir , a hairdresser, students and a mechanic. There are people from all different race black grounds as well.

So posh and hockey aren't two words that I would put together.