Thursday, April 14, 2005
By popular demand....
Since a two-person majority has requested I argue against Jermaine O'Neal's accusation of racism against David Stern and his age-requirement ideas, I guess I will have to take a crack at it. Personally, I think it's pretty difficult to argue that something doesn't exist (see atheists' arguments that there is no God), but, what the hell, the people have spoken and far be it from me to deny them their daily bread. Here's a few reasons off the top of my head:
David Stern is a business man, not a deranged social activist. Even if he were a raging racist intent on keeping the Black man down, do you really think he's going to use the entire NBA to serve his own personal agenda? Of course not. Whether David Stern is the next David Duke or the next Martin Luther King, Jr., his decisions on league policy are going to made in what he believes are the best interests of the league as a business. Let's face it, with Kobe's rape trial, the brawl in Detroit, Ron Artest's rap vs. basketball priority disorder, and Latrell Sprewell's hungry family, the NBA has a bit of an image problem right now. It's a problem too big for Lebron to cancel out on his own. Image problem = lost revenue. Lost revenue = bad.
Jim Brown, whom I believe is African-American, would seem to support this theory.
When asked by Dan Patrick on espn radio if he thought racism was a factor in this issue, Brown said, "Absolutely not. I don't see racism involved at all. I think maturity is involved....Basketball is dominated by African-Americans, football is dominated by African-Americans. I really don't think these young men have done enough research to understand what racism is about."
In a six-minute segment, Brown had many interesting things to say about race and pro sports today. Espn frequently changes the content on their front page so I don't know how long it will be there, but if you get the chance, I highly recommend checking out the entire segment.
I ask you, is it more believable to think Commissioner Stern is trying to improve the league image by requiring his new players to be, at least on paper, more mature, seasoned individuals or is it more believable to think that Stern is intent on oppressing young Black players by delaying their multi-million dollar deals by two years? Like I said, it's difficult to prove that anything doesn't exist, but given those two explanations, which seems more likely?
Ockham's Razor:
This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.
If you honestly believe that racism is more likely, I would invite you to tell Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, a pre-arrest Kobe Bryant or LeBron James about the inherent racism of the NBA. David Stern and the NBA made gods out of these men. Are we to believe he didn't realize they were Black or that maybe he just decided to make a few exceptions? Please.
Jermaine O'Neal says the intent of a minimum age requirement in the NBA is racist, implying, I presume, that the NBA is trying to prevent young Black men from becoming wealthy. He who came straight out of high school does this while collecting a 14.7 million dollar paycheck under the umbrella of the exact same NBA which he accuses. The irony could not be any more obvious.
I realize that some of you will take my reference to Jordan and Co. as the old "I'm not racist; I have plenty of Black friends" defense, but what can I say, you're gonna hear what you want to hear.
Let's get back to business. Isn't it more likely that Commissioner Stern believes he is acting in the best interest of his company by protecting the quality of his product? As Jermaine pointed out, the past two rookies-of-the-year have been guys drafted out of high school and this year's All-Star game featured seven such players. However, these players are more the exceptions than the rule. As the message is sent louder each year that making the jump is an e-ticket to superstardom, we're going to end up with a lot of very young men who are sensational athletes but still need a lot of work on their game...work which they are not likely to pursue as fervently if they already have their guaranteed multi-million dollar contracts. If GMs and owners start stockpiling young players that are not ready for the pros only to leave them on the bench for four years (see Jermaine O'Neal) or just throw them to the wolves (not Timber-), an argument could be made that the quality of the game as a whole would be weakened.
Is it more likely that Stern is protecting his product or is it more likely that he is focused not on business, but on stemming the social progress of Black Male America? If you believe the latter, you probably also bought into my bit about black coffee.
Just to be clear, I am not making an argument for or against the proposed minimum age requirement. If you asked me, I would say I think it's an artificial fix for a real problem. But that is not the issue at hand here. This is about whether or not the notion of such an age requirement is inherently racist. To that effect, I believe my opinion is clear.
|
David Stern is a business man, not a deranged social activist. Even if he were a raging racist intent on keeping the Black man down, do you really think he's going to use the entire NBA to serve his own personal agenda? Of course not. Whether David Stern is the next David Duke or the next Martin Luther King, Jr., his decisions on league policy are going to made in what he believes are the best interests of the league as a business. Let's face it, with Kobe's rape trial, the brawl in Detroit, Ron Artest's rap vs. basketball priority disorder, and Latrell Sprewell's hungry family, the NBA has a bit of an image problem right now. It's a problem too big for Lebron to cancel out on his own. Image problem = lost revenue. Lost revenue = bad.
Jim Brown, whom I believe is African-American, would seem to support this theory.
When asked by Dan Patrick on espn radio if he thought racism was a factor in this issue, Brown said, "Absolutely not. I don't see racism involved at all. I think maturity is involved....Basketball is dominated by African-Americans, football is dominated by African-Americans. I really don't think these young men have done enough research to understand what racism is about."
In a six-minute segment, Brown had many interesting things to say about race and pro sports today. Espn frequently changes the content on their front page so I don't know how long it will be there, but if you get the chance, I highly recommend checking out the entire segment.
I ask you, is it more believable to think Commissioner Stern is trying to improve the league image by requiring his new players to be, at least on paper, more mature, seasoned individuals or is it more believable to think that Stern is intent on oppressing young Black players by delaying their multi-million dollar deals by two years? Like I said, it's difficult to prove that anything doesn't exist, but given those two explanations, which seems more likely?
Ockham's Razor:
This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.
If you honestly believe that racism is more likely, I would invite you to tell Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, a pre-arrest Kobe Bryant or LeBron James about the inherent racism of the NBA. David Stern and the NBA made gods out of these men. Are we to believe he didn't realize they were Black or that maybe he just decided to make a few exceptions? Please.
Jermaine O'Neal says the intent of a minimum age requirement in the NBA is racist, implying, I presume, that the NBA is trying to prevent young Black men from becoming wealthy. He who came straight out of high school does this while collecting a 14.7 million dollar paycheck under the umbrella of the exact same NBA which he accuses. The irony could not be any more obvious.
I realize that some of you will take my reference to Jordan and Co. as the old "I'm not racist; I have plenty of Black friends" defense, but what can I say, you're gonna hear what you want to hear.
Let's get back to business. Isn't it more likely that Commissioner Stern believes he is acting in the best interest of his company by protecting the quality of his product? As Jermaine pointed out, the past two rookies-of-the-year have been guys drafted out of high school and this year's All-Star game featured seven such players. However, these players are more the exceptions than the rule. As the message is sent louder each year that making the jump is an e-ticket to superstardom, we're going to end up with a lot of very young men who are sensational athletes but still need a lot of work on their game...work which they are not likely to pursue as fervently if they already have their guaranteed multi-million dollar contracts. If GMs and owners start stockpiling young players that are not ready for the pros only to leave them on the bench for four years (see Jermaine O'Neal) or just throw them to the wolves (not Timber-), an argument could be made that the quality of the game as a whole would be weakened.
Is it more likely that Stern is protecting his product or is it more likely that he is focused not on business, but on stemming the social progress of Black Male America? If you believe the latter, you probably also bought into my bit about black coffee.
Just to be clear, I am not making an argument for or against the proposed minimum age requirement. If you asked me, I would say I think it's an artificial fix for a real problem. But that is not the issue at hand here. This is about whether or not the notion of such an age requirement is inherently racist. To that effect, I believe my opinion is clear.
# posted by j.h.k. @ 9:28 AM 
