Recently, a NBA team owner was caught, as in secretly taped,
spewing feelings and opinions about “black people” that most reasonable and
modern people would disagree with, to say the least.
But, say the least,
the people did not. Everyone from Magic Johnson (whom this 80-year-old
curmudgeon was referring to in this rant to his twenty-something
assistant/girlfriend/defendant-in-an-embezzlement-suit brought by he and his
co-owner wife) to National Basketball Players Association president Chris Paul
and NBA All-star and special adviser to the NBPA, Kevin Johnson took to their
personal press agents (Twitter) denouncing the comments as “a black eye for the
NBA”, “reprehensible” and “unacceptable” and that was just the beginning. Soon NBA
stars past and present, politicians, religious leaders, celebrities and of
course NBA fans were voicing their disdain for the owner and his repulsive
words––effectively calling for his head. Fan boycotts. Player boycotts. The
outrage was palpable, it was everywhere and it was growing. Rightly so, for no
player (especially an African-American player) wants to play for a racist
owner. Nor do they want to be associated with an organization like the LA
Clippers or the NBA if they are in any way complicit in blatantly racist
bigotry. Right? Neither do a majority of dedicated fans. I assume. Curmudgeon’s
face had become the face of these organizations and that image came to
represent the worst the NBA had to offer, inciting ill in all who laid eyes
upon it. This was bad for everybody, especially the Clipper and NBA
organizations and their largest revenue streams of licensing, merchandise and
ticket sales.
With the NBA Finals tournament in full swing and the
Clippers a serious contender for the championship, the timing couldn’t have
been worse. All eyes were on the NBA and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, was
under pressure to take punishing action fast. Swiftly and decisively came the
huge fine and the vote by the other NBA owners to force the sale of the team––all
sealed with a lifetime ban from NBA ownership. The outrage subsided as if the
beloved team and sports were no longer tainted with racist bigotry.
That couldn’t be farther from the truth, leaving one to
wonder where has the public outrage over racism in other pro sports
organizations been? Only in the last 12-18 months has the issue of the
Washington Redskins name made it to a broader public discourse with a handful
of public figures speaking out against the name. For the first time, The
Federal Trademark Board ruled this year that the Redskins name is “disparaging
to Native Americans” and its trademark should no longer be protected. This is
the result of a case that has been winding its way through the court system for
over 20 years. Although it applies
additional financial and political pressure on current team owner Dan Snyder,
the Redskins organization announced it would appeal. The trademark cancellation
will be on hold while the appeals case makes its way through the court system,
which could take years.
Where is the outrage? Where are the boycotts? NFL? Player’s
Union? NFL team owners? Washington Redskins players? FANS?! Is the R-word not
racist or hurtful enough to you? Sociologist, Irving Lewis Allen stated that
“slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics are by
nature derogatory.” The fact that the overwhelming majority of the public
doesn’t think this particular one is derogatory is the mark of a successful
genocide. Decades of being bombarded with only these types of images and
references to native people has successfully reduced indigenous nations and
their descendants to a lower class of existence in the minds of the general
public––lower than the animals and fictitious characters native people are
depicted along side with as sports mascots. What if the name used a different
color and accompanying imagery? Yellow? Black? What might those logos and
mascot characterizations look like? Would that be hateful enough to incite your
outrage and mobilize the masses? What about the usage of feathers, face paint
and other native artifacts? If a team mascot wore priest collars, shook a
crucifix and threw Holy water toward the opposing team would the usage of those sacred items be offensive enough
to demand a change? Still not moved?
Perhaps you just need to know more about the history of the
term “Redskin”. Maybe then you will be repulsed and moved to action. Let’s try.
Historically and generally speaking, a “redskin” is a dead
Indian, more specifically the bloody scalp of a dead Indian. Hunting and
killing Indians was a lucrative venture in colonial times. Fur traders started
using the term “redskin” to refer to the Indian scalps they were selling when
the Puritan women who worked in the trading communities complained that “scalp”
was offensive. The colonial government paid 20 pounds for scalps of boys and
girls under 12 years old, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and a hefty 50
pounds for scalps of males over 12 years – equivalent to $9000 today. Scalps
replaced the previous proof of kill - the entire head – because as the heads
piled up, the stench of the rotting flesh became too offensive. Now the name
was less offensive too. Still not feeling it?
Maybe you will be outraged on behalf of children?
Contrary to popular argument that American Indian mascots
honor native people these and other prevalent representations of American
Indians actually have a negative affect on native people. A 2008 research
paper, “Of Warrior Chiefs and Indian Princesses: The Psychological Consequences
of American Indian Mascots,” found that native mascots inflate the self-esteem
of non-Natives, while having the opposite effect on Native people. The 2008
research combined the results of 4 studies, from 3 universities and states
that, “American Indian mascots are harmful because they remind American Indians
of the limited ways others see them and, in this way, constrain how they can
see themselves” and further concluded that “exposure to mascot images like
Chief Wahoo decreased native youth self-esteem even more than that of
stereotypically negative images (such as those depicting alcoholism and
homelessness).”
Maybe ire toward the team owner is the deciding difference
here. Maybe you just need to despise him (or her––see former Cincinnati Reds owner, Marge Schott). Fine.
The current owner is simply continuing and fighting to
preserve the tragic tradition established by the team’s original owner and
founder, George Preston Marshall. Marshall was arguably one of the most
outwardly racist owners in professional sports, having been identified as the
leading racist in the NFL for his uncompromising opposition to having
African-Americans on his roster. Not until 1962, sixteen years after the league
began signing African-American players and only under an ultimatum issued by
Attorney General, Robert Kennedy to either sign an African-American player or
loose the 30 year lease on the D.C. stadium, did Marshall sign all-American
running back, Ernie Davis. Davis refused to play for “that S.O.B.” and was
subsequently sent to Cleveland. Marshall’s legacy also includes the George
Preston Marshall Foundation, which serves children in the Washington, DC area.
The $6 million he left to fund the foundation had one stipulation: that none of
the funding could be used “for any purpose which supports or employs the
principle of racial integration.”
That’s quite a long legacy of racial prejudice and yet no
outrage. No boycotts. No lifetime bans. No coaches, nor players threatening to
quit. Some will argue that a lot of Native Americans don’t find native mascots
offensive and will point to a school or university using a native mascot with
the blessing of a local tribe or faction. If this is all it takes to dismantle
a long tradition of racial injustice, than I’ll show you a NAACP Lifetime
Achievement Award with old Curmudgeon’s name on it that he received in 2009
just weeks after being accused of racism and “embracing a vision of a Southern
plantation-type structure” in a lawsuit filed by Clipper star, Elgin Baylor.
Where is your outrage? What is the difference that separates
these two stories into opposite columns on the “acts of racial injustice to
protest” chart? It’s there, shining and sparkling from decades of dedicated
polishing like a world champion trophy, the sterling difference - convenience.
Apparently, in some cases, it’s just too inconvenient to stop supporting your
favorite team, or coaching them, or playing for them or playing against them in
protest. Allowing convenience to determine which group of people affected by
racism you defend and fight for, only serves to excuse and sustain racism
towards another group, a group that one day you may find yourself
inconveniently part of.
