SXSW and the Segregation of Baseball
Everything relates in some way to baseball. I take this as a fundamental organizing principle of my world view. (This is why “42” is retired as a uniform number by every Major League team.) I might, in an incautious moment, admit that sometimes this world view requires a bit of stretching. But sometimes it doesn’t. The recent controversy about SXSW cancelling panels is an example.
I have never paid much attention to SXSW. I have long been aware of it in a vague sort of way: a music festival, which is cool, but far away and so not anything I am likely to personally attend. So even though I got that it is a big, prominent music festival, it is just one of many such events that I have little reason to devote consciousness to. Somewhere along the line it became a bigger deal, with panel discussions on a wide swath of modern culture. I have no idea how that transition occurred, but still: cool.
Until, that is, the last couple of days, when it has been in the news for cancelling some panels, including “Level Up: Overcoming Harassment in Games” on how to use design to stymie harassment in the gaming community, with an obvious eye to Gamergate. Then SXSW received some threats of violence against the panel, and cancelled it. They also cancelled a panel coming from the other side, thereby maintaining apparent balance.
The balance bit is risible enough. Suppose I have four cookies and am divvying them up between my two children. If one of the kids demands all four, while the other only asks for two, then giving the first kid three cookies and the second only one is not an equitable compromise. What struck me, however, is how much the affair reminds me of the segregation of baseball following the limited integration of the 1880s.
I have written previously about the various groups in these discussions. There was, in the baseball context, a small group that believed on principle that blacks should be allowed to compete; another group that opposed blacks on white clubs due to racism; and a large squishy middle group that didn’t much care either way. The racist faction was able to persuade the squishy middle by making it more trouble than it was worth to hire a black player. The squishy middle didn’t want the hassle, so the racists won.
We see the same thing in the current controversy. The pro-harassment faction threatened to create a scene, so the panel was cancelled, placing the SXSW organizers solidly in the squishy middle. I expect that if you asked them, they would unanimously insist that of course they were against sexual harassment. But not to the extent of risking someone putting on a scene. That’s too much hassle.
We, from our modern pedestal, look back at the squishy middle that acceded to baseball’s segregation and regard them with contempt. We enjoy imagining that we, of course, would have been in the minority standing up for black rights. Maybe we would. Maybe we wouldn’t. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. But sometimes hindsight isn’t necessary.
[Image: Negro League team Detroit Stars, via Wikipedia.]
SXSW hasn’t been just a music festival since 1994, when it added film. It added “Multimedia” a year or two later, and that was renamed “Interactive” in ’99 or ’00. Interactive is a huge internet/technology conference, with pretty much every major tech industry player in the world (including gaming from every side) pouring money into it. It’s where Twitter was effectively launched (Twitter existed before SXSW, but that’s where it was announced to the world), to give you an idea of how influential it is.
It is the most mainstream and corporate of the three components of the festival (I have never paid to attend, but hang out there because there’s music without the larger crowds and a lot of really nice free stuff; lots and lots of free stuff). All the TV networks are there, the major players in internet technology, computers, anyone who’s ever built an app ever, and so on. The entire thing is a basically promotion platform. It’s for that reason it has tended to avoid controversy like the plague.That it was doing a harassment in gaming session at all was mildly out of character; that it bailed at the first sign of discord is not.
If they had a session about harassment in the movie industry, or music, during either of those components of the festival, it would have taken some pretty serious and credible threats to get them to cancel them, because those festivals, while they make a lot of money and are used extensively as promotional platforms, are also a lot freer. The corporate side is sort of on the outside looking into those, whereas it is the inside of interactive.Report
It’s where Twitter was effectively launched
Oh. To hell with it.Report
Five months is a long way out for the Public Relations folks.
When part of the Playbook is death threats, I’m willing to wait until they’re a bit closer to the event before I conclude anything about what the organizers are doing. Because it does seem to me that getting a bit of buzz for panels like this is a pretty decent idea… And nothing creates buzz like “please, put this back on the menu!”Report