It is hard to watch the replay of the Ron Artest incident without really wondering just what the hell went wrong. What deep-rooted problem lies at the core of a skirmish between exalted athletic stars and the fans who pay to watch them play? Is it simply racial? That would be hard to believe, given that most fans are white and most players black (of course a generalization of major american sports), this problem should occur more frequently. Is it the resentment that fans feel for the millions of dollars that athletes make by simply playing a game? If this is so, people would cease to attend games, buy apparel, or spend money that regularly ends up in the pockets of these sports stars and/or those that support them, (AKA team owners, advertisers, etc.) The factor leading to the blow up in Detroit is not as simple as the reasons given above, yet these reasons do play a part in explaining the strained relationship between the american fan and the american athlete. An analysis of this relationship as it currently exists is important in discovering something meaningful in the american psyche.

A good question to open up the analysis of the problem is to ask if this was a predictable situation, should something like this have been expected? The easy first answer is no, for one, because law dictates the framework for our actions. It is wholly reasonable to expect people to follow the law and in this instance, not to have jumped into the stands, throwing punches. Because Artest (or the fans) broke the law, it was necessarily unexpected. Another argument that would support the unforeseeness of the outburst is that an individual psychology isn't predictable, it’s hard to tell what someone is thinking. Because we can’t know the thought processes of an individual, we cannot predict his/her actions. These above arguments, (lawlessness and individual psychology) erase responsibility from the society and place it squarely on those that were present and involved. To claim the incident was isolated and simply the work of a few wrong doers is careless, and to not see it as a symptom of a bigger problem, dangerous. Vernon Maxwell was known for fighting audience members, Dennis Rodman kicked camera men in the balls, the Kansas City Royals first base coach Tom Gamboa was attacked more than once by fans, Bryan Cox routinely flipped off crowds members, and the list goes on; the Artest incident simply solidified the odd relationship that americans have with their sports icons. The real question is how and why do americans have such a contradiction of emotions when it comes to paid athletes.

The Why? portion of the question is simple, the fans feel as though they have a stake in what happens on the court, field, diamond, rink, etc. The audience has invested time and money for their team to be winners, in this way they are part of the team and demanded to be recognized as so. The problems that arise out of this are not due to winning or losing, fans can take that, it’s the exclusion as a part of the team that drives fans insane. The collective throwing of batteries at a Philidelphia Eagles game, or the cups of beer and soda thrown on Artest is an instance of audience interaction, they feel they are helping their team, are part of their team, and are simply reacting in a way to “protect this house”. This feeling of entitlement that a fan feels towards his or her team can erupt into the dangerous situations, but it is the belief of the author that this is the simple answer to a bigger problem.

This feeling of entitlement that fans have seems to lead to the scrutiny of athletes. If a player performs poorly, he will hear it from the fans, if he performs well, he is a hero. If a player ends up displeasing the wrong fans, (the home teams fans generally speaking), it can blow up. The scrutiny can manifest itself as abusive language, (such as the yelling of racial epithets), abusive actions, (like throwing batteries), and in the case of Detroit vs. Indiana, violence. Although the violence started between players, the fans quickly joined in to “defend” (throw beer on) their “teammate” (Ben Wallace). The reaction by Artest upon being nailed with a cup of liquid is where the night turned sour. Feeling he was being treated unfairly, Artest climbed into the stands and started throwing punches. This is not the actions of a man with his wits about him, yet it seems he really felt that he was being wronged. Who wouldn’t be scared of an arena full of people throwing debris at you? The fierce response by Artest was his reaction to being scared; that is to say, feeling as if the situation he was in was out of control. This quick resolve to violence by Artest is not the actions of a man that is on the edge, but a more and more common acceptable form of behavior in american culture. How could fans pay to watch someone play and feel that it is their duty to interfere violently when it doesn’t go their way? And in contrast, why is it when a man is attacked by an arena full of people, his first reaction is to start throwing punches?

The answer to both of these questions is the belief that they were “free” to act in such a way. That is to say that the fans thought, (since they pay players salaries), they were “free” to do so, this also applies to Artest in that he thought, (since he is an american citizen), he was “free” to do so. “Being free” is a dangerous mentality for humans to succumb to, it gives false impressions that can lead to extreme behavior, (not always a bad thing), in this case an outbreak of violence. The idea of “freedom” implies there are no rules, no way to act incorrectly, and no one to answer to in consequence of your actions. Sadly enough, this is the most important feature of the american psyche. While “freedom” (the american psyche) takes credit for people like Charles Lindbergh, Martin Luther King, and Henry Ford, it ceases to recognize it’s other children, Charles Manson, Colonel Custer, and the Columbine Kids. The belief that anything is possible is dangerous in the wrong hands, never mind the fact that it is a false belief.

First off the laws of physics dictate a certain amount of what is and isn’t possible. This seems like a useless argument given that most people would agree that physics sets boundaries to what is possible but that this isn’t the real issue, the issue is a political mindset. But I disagree, I think a lot of people in america, (mainly the religious right), actually believe that ANYTHING is possible. Well, what the hell, they actually believe, and live by, the premise that if you are “good” you will go to a place for eternity where pain ceases and by some accounts, the ROADS ARE PAVED WITH GOLD! If you can get somebody to believe that, you can get them to believe anything (like voting for George Bush is a good thing, but that’s another article). And if someone believes this whole-heartedly, even the laws of physics will not sway their point of view. This is why the statement that physics sets boundaries is informative in this case, there are a lot of people that actually disagree with it.

The next dictator of possibilities is the society in which one lives. Certain societies allow and disallow certain possibilities. Blacks in america were still slaves long after the white men declared all men “free and equal”. Slavery was abolished in the United States a 100 years or so after some modern countries, america was late to the dance. Even then everyone didn’t accept it, it took a long bloody battle to determine that blacks actually were equal, that is to say they had the “same amount” of freedom as whites. It is still the case that there are people that are “more free” than others, most generally wealthy vs. poor. But this is a tangent, the fallacy lies in the fact that one is “free”. Your society dictates norms and ways of acting, if this isn’t followed you are incarcerated, that is to say if you break the law, you go to jail. The rule of law limits possibilities, AKA eliminates absolute freedom.

If there is no absolute freedom, why is it that americans take this “right” so seriously? Why are we proud to be the “land of the free”? The idea is that politicians to create a national identity created “freedom”. Americans are “free”, and other people weren’t, that is why america is a “better” country. The word “freedom” is arbitrary, the writers of the Declaration of Independence could have substituted “thrifty” and people would have wrote songs about how well americans spend efficiently. The word “freedom” is a sort of mascot for the troops to rally around. When you have no other reason for going to war, say it is for the sake of “freedom”, and unfailingly americans will align themselves squarely opposite of whoever is deemed the “freedom hater”. Since the Korean War, (some say World War II), america’s reasoning for combat actions has been for the sake of “freedom”. The Korean and Vietnam wars were for the sake of “protecting freedom” from the “freedom hating” communists. The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were and are under the guise of “spreading freedom”. And with no other rational reason than “freedom” americans will fall rank and file behind any action that is tied to the emotion-invoking word.

The United States is a conglomeration of nations, the most diverse country in the world, but its citizens are isolated from one another, and from the society that nurtures them. This is because of the perceived notion of “freedom”. Americans do not feel any real responsibility for their culture or society, as they also don’t expect help from their culture or society. This alienation of citizens is a direct cause of such peculiar phenomena as the Columbine Kids and Timothy McViegh and I believe also the tension that exists between professional athletes and the fans that support them.