Bradbury; a Short

Science Fiction is a unique genre in which authors can approach contemporary issues such as war, love, racism, and social diaspora yet remain fresh through unique subject matter. For example, Octavia Butler's Fledgling, while dealing with a the vivid concepts of race and the plight of people caught "in-between" societies, is less threatening to the patriarchal mind because of the innocuous way such concepts are approached: vampires. By basing the entire novel on a suspension of belief, the author can insert controversy yet keep the reader open-minded. Such is one of the advantages of being covert.

But a few SF authors have approached the issue in a very non-suspended way. Bradbury, for example, is well-known for Fahrenheit 451 and The Martian Chronicles. But he was also a prolific short-story writer, one of which was "The Big Black and White Game." The story, written in 1945, depicts a "friendly" baseball game between a white and black team. In short, the black team dominates their opponent, to the point where the white team members get testy. They start complaining about the silly tradition, and their wives start implying that they shouldn't make time for the game next year.
But then, the black team begins to lose. The members, rather obviously, begin making errors and throwing *just too slow* to get the white runners out. But this is brought to an uneasy head near the end of the story: suffice to say it makes positively clear about who really is rising to the occasion. (Aaand partly because it's been two years since I've read the story)

How well did Bradbury convey an idea? His theme, that the black men and women in the US are fully capable but forced to be *just too slow* for their white peers, is clearly apparent. However, some of the descriptors for the men on the brotha's team are woefully Western. The narrator watches the black team's fielders running out, akin to African gazelle on the plain. He notes their flexing muscles and flawless physical appearance. While his intentions are to glorify a group of men who are competitively superior to their white opponents, he is also promoting a sense of "other" by using African-inspired imagery. But this hardly seems his intent, as it counters the theme of the story.

As mentioned by one member of class, this misstep is likely due to the fact that Bradbury is trying to write as a form of protest which elevates a group of people equal to that of the dominant. Instead of solidarity, he is attempting inclusion. For a white SF writer of this time--and during the "melting, pot" era--it follows a rather progressive idea. But what we see now is the harsh effects of such an idea. By trying to assimilate groups of people into a new, identity-less collective, we compound the existing problems of identity and community. Not only do the disenfranchised already have little means of reconnecting with their cultural/communal past, under the "melting pot" directive, greater society tries to pigeon-hole them into an utterly unresolved perception of self. Naturally, this wasn't likely assumed by Bradbury at the time, and his efforts seem more directed at a white audience--he is trying to convince those readers to break down their preconceived notions (such as the inferiority of the "other" in sports). For trying, his attempt to elevate the black athlete to that of the white is progressive.

But what is now touted is the "salad bowl" idea. Instead of the Borg-esque collective, each can now rest assured that their identity will not come under fire. But seemingly in response to this idea is the attempts of politicians to try to emphasize frivolous ideals and fears to ensure that their dominance as brokers of English or holders of voting citizenship is not compromised.
"For every action..."

(and note this; it seemed a good irony)