dagblog - Comments for "NBA Owners that Oppose Gay Marriage?"

And, of course, the fact that

Anonymous PS — Tue, 06 May 2014 13:44:51 +0000

In reply to Overall, I do agree with PP

And, of course, the fact that they were made public.

One of the reasons activists try to make private things public is that they then become much harder to ignore.

There is a violation of privacy in those revelations, and there is an issue there.

Unfortunately, except perhaps in a legal proceeding, you can't make something private again once it's been made public.

Even if all parties agree that the act or words shouldn't have been made public, they are public now, and people can't decide to un-know them.

Marital cheating is meant to be private, but once it becomes known, it is very, very hard for the other spouse to trust the cheater again. Subsequent appearances and heartfelt claims of fidelity aren't entirely trusted because it was these very things that were used to hide the infidelity in the first instance.

And once the transgressions become known, the transgressed party feels like a fool unless he or she responds in a forceful way.

How were the Clipper players supposed to respond once Sterling's utter disdain for them was known to the world? Of course, Kareem has pointed out that Sterling's racism was well known before, and these now-outraged individuals were nowhere to be heard from, except for Mr. Baylor, perhaps. I don't know all the details, but he makes a very good point.

I guess this is the way change happens sometimes/often. How many black people, including Rosa Parks before she became "Rosa Parks" could have demanded they sit anywhere front of the back of the bus? A whole lot. But as I recall the story, she was tired that day and the bus was largely empty and, for whatever reason, she'd just had enough and something sparked.

Someone could have said--and perhaps did say at the time--"Why is Ms. Parks getting so upset now? What's the big deal now? She's been following the rules all her life and, presumably, content to do so. If she was so unhappy with the rules, why didn't she or millions of other blacks do something about it before?" And it doesn't entirely answer the question to point out the penalties blacks would have suffered for not following this rule. Of course. And there's fear and habit and all the rest at play. But on this particular occasion, Ms. Parks said, "To hell with the consequences. I'm a human being and I'm going to sit down here."

Overall, I do agree with PP

Anonymous PS — Tue, 06 May 2014 13:22:59 +0000

In reply to NBA Owners that Oppose Gay Marriage?

Overall, I do agree with PP that the response to all these misdeeds can't be to demand they be fired. That would be bordering on satire.

However, I see no reason that, say, the gay community couldn't or shouldn't put pressure on sports teams to sign openly gay athletes and to protest when said gay athletes are let go or passed over because they get married or appear in public or at league family events, like picnics or award dinners with their same-sex partners and, where children are invited, with their children.

Boycotting games, merchandise, advertisers are all fair game tactics though I think that tactics that force the sides to engage directly on the issue are more positive. Many times the threat of pocketbook pressures is required to force engagement, but still.

I think the Sterling, and maybe the Eich, revelations hit harder than they might have otherwise because they were so "in your face." IOW, I doubt there's a single black person who follows sports who isn't aware of racism among team owners who are almost entirely white. Certainly the players are aware.

Sterling's words were particularly creepy because of the sexual suggestiveness, the idea that it was okay to sleep (with the slave), but verboten to be seen in public as a couple (at the master's table or the Cotillion). You know, it's okay to make millions and millions off these "young bucks" and even "breed" with them, but it's beyond the pale to be publicly associated with them as equals.

I'm sure that the content of these comments doesn't surprise any thinking and aware black person. But somehow, the comments were so direct and in your face and came to light at a time--largely due to Obama's elections--when race relations are on the front page, they had an intense sting and just couldn't be ignored. "No, Mr. Sterling, enough, you can't sit front row with your mixed-race girlfriend and make millions and millions off our sweat and treat us like the nigger in the wood pile. Sorry." Ignoring them would have been galling.

Eich fell into a similar situation.

Yes, it was the content of what they did and said, but it was also the social timing of it and the directness of it that demanded a strong response.

They also received praise and

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 05 May 2014 21:03:45 +0000

In reply to John Carlos and Tommie Smith

They also received praise and became icons for their bold move and essentially symbols of David vs. Goliath, one of the key symbols of the 60's. Sometimes Carlos expresses some regret - certainly had some poor times - but others he's quite proud of where the act took them. Also, certainly a number of other athletes were thrilled with the act.

It was interesting to me to find out that Peter Norman (the silver medal white dude) was part of the protest as well - never realized - though the photo op probably looked better with 2 black fists in the air than it would with 3 fists up, or maybe not. Anyway, Norman wore the human rights pin and got blasted back in Australia.

John Carlos and Tommie Smith

rmrd0000 — Mon, 05 May 2014 19:41:58 +0000

In reply to You did have the glove-fisted

John Carlos and Tommie Smith were sent home from the Olympics then faced media scorn and public ostracism after the salute. It is now the owners who may have to be careful.

You did have the glove-fisted

Anonymous PS — Mon, 05 May 2014 19:23:25 +0000

In reply to Jackie Robinson didn't speak

You did have the glove-fisted fellows at the Olympics back in the, what? 1960s or 1970s? Can't remember the particulars right now, but they weren't being paid, as I recall, so weren't under the thumb of an owner or league.

Jackie Robinson didn't speak

rmrd0000 — Mon, 05 May 2014 18:46:36 +0000

In reply to They could. After all, DeVos

Jackie Robinson didn't speak out about racial issues until he left baseball. Michael Jordan did not speak out about social issues during his career. The athletes have always been told to stay quiet politically. The Sterling matter is a strange twist in that activity of the owners is now open to question.The owners may have to become as apolitical as the players were forced to be in the past.

They could. After all, DeVos

Anonymous PS — Mon, 05 May 2014 18:12:09 +0000

In reply to NBA Owners that Oppose Gay Marriage?

They could.

After all, DeVos has no problem seeking to legally bar certain people from intimate acts that only concern them.

Why should folks speak "kindly" to DeVos when DeVos feels no compunction about speaking kindly to others?

Why should folks play patty cake when DeVos et al like to bring the long hammer of the law down on the heads of folks of whom they disapprove?

Not sure I entirely understand the rationale for the asymmetry at work here.

Sterling and Eich can't be put legitimately into the same bucket even using the notion that "recent rights" somehow have less standing.

While once considered recent, blacks' rights can't be thought of as recent any longer, even though slavery and Jim Crow were practiced longer than the period since Brown v Board of Education or the Civil Rights Acts.

The whole idea of recency is interesting, but odd and somewhat paradoxical. OTOH, the day after BvB, African Americans "suddenly" had the right to go to the same schools as whites. But were these rights "recent," or was it the lifting of the ban on living out those rights, which arguably go back to the founding of the country, if not further back in time, that was "recent"?

I'd argue that it was America's decision to finally "live out its creed" in this one area that was "recent" in 1955 and later in 1965.