Skip to main content

View Diary: Maybe The Best Response to Racism in the History of Sports (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry, I disagree (10+ / 0-)

    (I do thank you for your comment, though.)

    The Clippers players strongly debated a boycott, but considered the outcome and decided that it would serve as a greater punishment to themselves and their fans than to Sterling, who has never viewed the team as anything more than a financial investment to be treated like one of his apartment complexes -- I could write more about this, but I'm afraid it would be diary-length.

    Doc Rivers and Chris Paul are among the most vocal anti-racism workers in the league, and as a team they chose a symbolic statement that would show they were playing for one another by throwing off the mantle of their owner and registering their disgust. Even this "meh" move was taken at personal risk, as the NBA tightly regulates player activity and apparel on the court, with contractual obligation to suppliers and sponsors.

    John Carlos and Tommie Smith were strongly pressured to boycott the 1968 Olympics, but instead chose to compete for themselves and their community, making a statement on the medal podium with bowed heads and raised fists. That image is burned into the American -- and even the world -- sports landscape, whereas a boycott would have simply given that stage to someone else. It would also be mistake to believe this is over. Several people in the organization have said they are considering retiring rather than fulfilling their contracts if Sterling isn't removed from the helm of the team. If nothing else happens, I'll heartily join your "meh". Until then, I can only see what effect it had on the conversation and the long-term telling of this story.

    No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

    by newinfluence on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:13:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  if the Clips had chosen (8+ / 0-)

      to boycott, i'd have supported them 100%.  The fact they played, I also support 100%.  They're the ones caught in the middle, and they're the ones directly affected by Sterling's comments.  And as you say, there are few people in the league with more respect and credibility than Chris Paul and Doc Rivers.   I don't think people not in the situation can second guess them.  

      I bet Oakland would have supported a boycott, had they opted for it, but then what?  They're not going to play the series? Some team gets a walkover into the conference finals?   Eventually, they'll have to play, but what they did was enough to show the comments weren't acceptable to them as a team, and if this isn't resolved to their satisfaction after the season (i think they're toast, basketball wise), we might see additional player reaction, including sit-ins of games.

      Really, this can only end with the league suspending Sterling until they can find a buyer, and everyone knows that.  My guess is they reasoned a boycott of the game would be seen as a vote of no confidence in the league office and, as such, premature.   Silver got Sterling to stay home for Sunday's game, and he'll probably be formally suspended thru the playoffs by Tuesday's game, without prejudice for longer sanctions.  Sterling's very litigious, and these comments don't necessarily break any laws, so actually maneuvering him out may take some creativity and thus time.

      I also feel terribly for the fans -- I bet tickets for the remaining first round series have already been sold already, and that represents a big expense for much of the C's more working class fanbase, but I wouldn't spend another dime on parking, hot dogs, or whatever, if it goes to Sterling.  But maybe that also punishes concession workers or other folks who may be of color.
       

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:27:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site