Thursday, May 3, 2018

'The Racial Traits of Athletes' - anti-Semitism in the 1920s, by Arieh Sclar


In 1922, the American Physical Education Review published a series of articles entitled “Racial Traits in Athletics.”  The author, non-Jewish physical educator Elmer Mitchell, wrote: “Nowhere, does it seem to me, can we find people closer and truer to their fundamental character than in their free and spontaneous play.”  The Eugenical News printed a summary of the series, which reinforced the dominant racial paradigm in American society.  Mitchell analyzed fifteen racial groups, although he arranged Latins, The South American, and The Oriental into broader classifications than the Irish, Greek, or Jew.  Mitchell explained that the ‘American’ athlete, “a composite of many races: conspicuously the English, Irish, German, and Scandinavian,” had become the “greatest in the world.”  Southern and eastern Europeans, however, “are less ready assimilable” than northern Europeans and they illustrated this on the athletic field.[1]
Mitchell believed that Jewish athleticism demonstrated Jews’ racial inferiority. “We see the same distaste of the Jew for outdoor life, his industry in the intellectual side of his pursuit, his subtlety in applying social or individual weakness to his own benefit, and his lack of moral sensitiveness.”  He explained that contradictory to public opinion, Jews possessed both physical and moral courage, although certain “distinctive qualities cling to the Jew when he participates in athletics.”  Sport did not change the Jewish temperament: “The average Jew is an unpopular team-mate; he is assertive, individualistic, and quarrelsome.”  Mitchell concluded that any observer would concur “by watching a group of Hebrew children on the playground.”  Even more disturbing, Jews’ ability to “face adverse circumstances” often manifested itself in “the villain role,” which he believed they seemed to enjoy.[2]
Mitchell’s imaged Jew remained physically inferior in the small immigrant body.  The Jew had vitality, caused by “clannishness,” sacred family ties, and adaptability to “the bustle and change of modern commercial life.”  This vitality was “a wonderful thing,” especially since sport did not produce the physical change many had expected. “The typical Jew is not robust in appearance,” explained Mitchell.  He used football to prove his point.  Only in “exceptional cases” do Jews star in this team sport, “where size plays so important a part.”  Yet, a small body could help Jews succeed in other sports.  “Along with boxing and dancing, gymnastics and basket ball are popular, all of them types of athletic exercise demanding dexterous footwork and dodging ability and carried on indoors.  Basket ball is easily their favorite sport.”
The unchanged Jewish body reflected, in Mitchell’s view, Jews’ unchanged intellectual ability that served as an advantage in the athletic world.  Jews retained their mental advantage as “quick thinkers, alert to grasp the strategy of the game, both of their own team and of their opponents.”  Yet, the intelligent Jew corrupted pure sport since his “individualistic tendency” produced “a spirit fostering the professional game, rather than the game which is played solely for the joy of participating.”[3]  Mitchell did not view Jewish athleticism in similar terms as Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, but he attached negative characteristics to Jewish intelligence.  Mitchell believed that when Jews willingly participated in American sport, it resulted in professional or tricky behavior that reflected Jews’ racial inferiority. 



[1] Elmer D. Mitchell, “Racial Traits in Athletics,” American Physical Education Review 27, no. 3 (March 1922), 93; The summary was in the Eugenical News 7 (1922).  Mitchell cited studies from Charles Davenport, Madison Grant, and other prominent eugenicists.  In the late 1910s, the APER included a permanent eugenics section under its monthly bibliography.
[2] Elmer D. Mitchell, “Racial Traits in Athletics,” American Physical Education Review 27, no. 5 (May 1922): 197.
[3] Ibid.  For analysis of Mitchell’s articles, see Oriard, King Football, 255-257, 283-284.

No comments:

Post a Comment