Whitlock: NBA customer base is white? Standard for behaviour should be set by whites

Good post.

A lot of this is perpetuated my the sports media and their (perhaps subconscious) preconceived notions. For example, Jeremy Shockey is considered by many in the media to be a "fiery competitor," while Terrell Owens is a "self-promoter" or a jerk. (I think they're both dicks, but that's beside the point.)

Look at commentators' descriptions of athletes. White athletes are often described with adjectives such as "intelligent" or gritty, while black athletes are more often praised for their "God-given" athletic ability. See Bird v. Magic.

And the descriptions of the Pacers-Pistons brawl were interesting. For years now, SportsCenter has shown clips of the Bruins going into the stands at MSG back in the '70s to beat up on some Rangers fans, and have commented on it whimsically. Now this incident wasn't as bad as last week's, but the tone of the discussion is far different.

As for the culture vs. race question, I don't think it's solely a matter of "culture." Someone brought up the Williams/Bibby comparison. Another example is LeBron. He's a black kid from the city, grew up without a whole lot, etc. He has the tattoos, headband, etc. and grew up in the "hip-hop" culture. But he's shown, at the age of 19, that he has a head on his shoulders, and is by and large a bright, levelheaded, and generally good kid. He's also shown a high level of teamwork and intelligence on the court.

I think the primary problems are basketball-related. The youth system is much different than it was in the days of Robertson, Russell, or even MJ. These kids are coddled at a very early age, and are basically asked to play selfish basketball, so as to show their skills better to college or NBA coaches. The majority of these players come from meager beginnings, all of a sudden are given millions of dollars, and don't know how to deal with it. The marketing of the league, sneaker copmpanies, etc. almost forces them to maintain a certain persona as well. Sprewell has been more popular and marketable after choking Carlesimo than he was before.

 

An excellent post over all. I'd just say regarding this point, and following up on Mel, that "ghetto culture" is as much a media creation as it is a spontaneous development of specific, concrete responses to life in specific, concrete locations. That is, ghetto culture emerges from the ghetto but is promptly mediated by corporate marketing departments for clothing companies, record companies, shoe companies, etc. In short, upper-middle class white guys play a pretty substanial role in shaping, promoting and spreading it. I know a guy (Cultural Studies prof at NYU) who got a check from Nike based on his research into ghetto fashions which led him to recommend that Nike put the swoosh on the back of baseball caps which were being worn backwards, and which eventually led to caps being worn sideways (in his theory).

I think the point you raise is where the original article is inadequate, and why I agree with Dr. Jones' point on page one. I think there are some interesting points to make about race, culture and sports here, but Whitlock isn't up to the task. I think several people who post on this thread have already made more cogent arguments than he manages.

 

Indeed. I think if we are looking for a ground zero on this point (to where we are today with the Artest debate) I would point to the Michigan "Fab Five" team of the early '90's. There we saw the emergence of a hip-hop/anti establishment image, that was both embraced in order to sell product-but also created backlash that had a racial bite to it. From this group of players foward, the NBA has been struggling with how to deal with this vis-a-vis its image.

Another point to revisit in the context of this debate, is the manner in which the league tried so hard to market Grant Hill as as post-Jordan face of the league.

 

Well, but that is sort of my point. The marketing of ghetto culture only goes so far; it has a very limited demographic. Kids. That sells tennis shoes and FUBU, but not luxury boxes and courtside seats. Who was the face of the NBA? Jordan. Who did the NBA want to suceed him? Grant Hill, then Kobe. Now Lebron. They passed over players like Allen Iverson, who they're clearly not comfortable with.
Its one thing to say that the NBA plays up the ghetto image, as do corporations. Sure. But, that leads to two questions. One, it had to start somewhere. Two, as you're spoonfed this image, you start to believe it. That's why Riley on the Boondocks goes into a funk when told that no one REALLY lives like they don rap videos. And yes, much of the BET money is white corporate money. But who WATCHES BET?
You can't dismiss this stuff just because corporate America makes money off of it. Corporate America makes money off of everything; that's why they're so good.

 

I'll ask this again. How is this worse than the Rangers game a few months ago? If the NBA wasn't majority black, this story goes away in a few days.

 

That's the stink of it. It looks like Whitlock played the race card in order to draw attention to his column. It worked. At least here on BS.

But I think there is a greater story here and that is that Whitlock is appealing to blacks, who have coincidentally embraced the hip-hop culture, to clean up their act because it is unacceptable to behave in this fashion. And to a certain degree he is correct. To wit; hip-hop lyrics are the most profane, vulgar and demeaning to women of any musical form. Of course, Eminem goes there as well and he isn't black so it is obviously not a completely racial issue, then is it?

The point that Whitlock is making, IMO, and has been made here by others, is that the amount of black-on-black violence is greatest in the ghetto/black/hip-hop culture. That needs to stop. The in-your-face/don't-diss-me mentality that is pervasive there is what Whitlock is citing as something that needs to change. His view is that this attitude is most prevalent in the black communities and less so in white communities.

Isn't that the core of his proposal? Is it valid?

 

Actually, I think the points you make are better than Whitlock's, who seems to be arguing "we need to clean it up before we piss off the White Man," whereas your point (and Nicephoras' as well, I think) is that the violence and crassness portrayed in representations of ghetto culture (that which is bought and sold in the suburbs) has real effects on real black people who really live in the ghetto. So, if he was appealing to blacks on those grounds, I'd agree with him. Of course, if that were the case, his name would be Stanley Crouch and he'd be a much better writer than he is.

 

I'm don't really care about Whitlock. I'm arguing that the mainstream media is being racist (edit: more like profiting from racism, a story about blacks behaving badly is more "entertaining") by covering this so much more than similar events in sports not dominated by blacks.

 

Interesting point, and I think you're right. Wonder how ESPN's initial coverage played into this, though, when they tried to cast the players as victims and the fans as villains (whereas I think there should be a pox on just about every house involved). On the one hand, as I believe people on this thread point out, they were protecting their investment, on the other hand... I wonder if that could've been read as playing a race card or two as well. I don't know myself, just speculating. I also don't give a rat's tail for Whitlock either, but there's some interesting stuff in this issue about media and culture, etc.

 

Sorry. I don't buy that. Rush Limbaugh was fired for his speculation on Donovan McNabb, and that action was supported by the majority of media around the nation. Now the only way you could get away from that would be to say that was only the reaction of a liberal media rejoicing about a conservative getting the axe. It was much more than that.

This story has more legs on ESPN than any other network and there are many black commentators who have unanimously condemned the players going into the stands as unacceptable. If any place is close to being racially neutral it is ESPN.

You are now sounding like you are playing the race card in reverse. Your point comes across as excusing the actions of the players as being over-played by the media for profit.

Certainly the fans were out of line but the players response was totally unacceptable and unprecedented in US sports.

 

He's talking about the Texas Rangers, not the Glasgow football side, in the question he was asking in the last page. And in the 70s, the Philadelphia Flyers went en masse into the stands after some fan (I think that was in Vancouver, so while it's not technically the states...). Anyway, while it's unacceptable, it's not unprecedented.

 

Exactly. That's what Ben's talking about. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, SportsCenter regularly showed old footage of the Boston Bruins going into the stands to beat up NY Rangers fans. But they would joke around about it. The tone is far different than it is here.

It's no secret that race changes the tone of the media, particularly in sports. For weeks now, everyone's been talking about the "rap" CD Artest produced. Except it's not a rap CD. It's a CD of a female R&B group. But everyone still calls it a rap CD. Why? Because 50 Cent is controversial; Destiny's Child is not.

 

I don't care how my "point comes across" since I believe that I am correct. I'm not excusing the players at all, but am disgusted how this story is aired frequently on CNN and MSNBC while the baseball incident was a one day story. I'll stop playing the race card when racism disappears.

 

Good luck. Racism has been in the world forever and won't go away in our lifetime no matter how hard we wish it would. So if you truly don't want to excuse the players behaviour, don't couch your comments under the heading that it is just about networks making money or the story would go away.

 

I don't see how people can argue about race not being a central part of the story.

But one thing that makes this story different-and this is why I brought up the Fab Five-is that there has been a level of expectation in the media that this sort of thing was inevitable. If you look at it from 1991, it's been a slow boil, be it Iverson, the strike, PJ-Latrell, the Trailblazers...we could if we wanted to, just do a chronolgical list that if looked at in its totality, would validate people's peception that this was inevitable. Remember the SI cover a year or to ago that asked many of the same questions that Whitlock is addressing? It strikes me that the media has been lying in the weeds just waiting for this very thing from this generation pf players.

There is one interesting twist to this though (and suspect I'll catch hell here for this) and that is to look at what happens when a "bad boy" is something of a Tom. For this you need to look at Charles Barkley. Funny how the media and white America treats Charles. IMO opinion there has always been a Uncle Tom quality to him-no coincedence that his sidekick Jason Williams, also seems to share that same level of coziness with the press-even after shooting a man to death.

If Artest had the same temper, but played the fool ala Barkley with the press, would he be seen as a "bad guy (that wonderful shorthand you hear in newsrooms and press boxes)? I don't think so-I think the tone would be very different. And that's another side of the race coin that IMO, a lot of white journalist should look themselves in the mirror and ask if they've been playing fair.

And no, if anyone is wondering, I'm not white-Afro-Caribbean.

 

But he doesn't and that is the core of this situation. He has had numerous incidents, been through some counseling and still has the same attitude.

His laying down on the scorer's table was an in-your-face gesture to fans and the league. Had he walked away things it would have much harder for the fan to even hit him with the beer cup. But he put himself in a position to incite further action, which he has done in the past.

Then he takes it a step further by going into the stands. From there on it is just a snowball rolling downhill...his teammates join in, "protecting their own"...and you get what you get.

To say that RACE is a central part of this is wrong. That IS playing the race card. If you look at the video, the guy who threw the chair at Artest is BLACK. Where is the racism there?

Sorry. I'm not buying any of this. I have heard Stuart Scott, Kenny Smith and about a dozen other black media types universally condemning the action of Artest and accepting the fact that the suspension was justifiable as a means to curb unacceptable behavior. None of them have even begun to make the claim that a few here have purported.

 

I think you need to re-read that. I asked if he had the same temper-as in the the temper we all know he has.


The question of race is not about whether Artest was right or justified in what he did. It's about how the story is covered.

I think several people have made that quite clear.

 

I disagree. I'm talking about the general issue. When Vernon Maxwell hit a fan in the stands no one went nuts. And he's black. The issue here is the organized chaos.
Moreso, my point is larger and more general, not about this particular incident.

 

But don't think there was the level of expectation for violence from that generation of players then there is of today's young players. That I think is what is driving the story: this is something people have been waiting from this group-be it Artest or Rasheed Wallace.

And it's in that level of expectation where the issue of race and culture need to be sorted out.

 

Well, that's one of my points, yes. The ghetto culture that white kids think is cool melts away when they grow up. Sure, they might keep it real in the clubs, but then they'll wake up and go to their office jobs. They're playing at keeping it real. The message to those in a position to try and emulate Allen Iverson is different; BET isn't watched by white kids nearly as much.
There is an argumnt to be made for the "ghetto culture" created by blacks, perpetuated by corprate America, but one that still has very real negative effects on kids.
Part of this is the negative way in which education is seen in black culture. Its the same thing Chris Rock talked about 4 years ago.

 

Well said. Let's not let race color over the fact that this was totally unacceptable behaviour. Period.

While I question Whitlock's motive, (and I probably shouldn't because I don't know his true motive) I think he is on to something...like if you don't want to smell like a pig, don't go to bed with one. To wit; if you don't want to be painted like a gansta, don't listen to their music, dress like them, talk like them, act like them and hang around with them.

In trying to be PC, we all run the risk of sounding like we are excusing the behaviour.

 

That's only part of it. The Texas Rangers incident was pretty different. If it was Jeremy Shockey, Eli Manning and Chris Snee who went into the stands in an NFL game, and started punching anything that moves, I think it would have the same reaction.
My argument is tangential to Whitlock's, whose main point is to show how unfair white society is to black players with his "watch out for the white man" nonsense.

 

SPOT ON !!!

 

Some of us believe in fairness, others like to bash blacks when they misbehave while looking the other way when whites act similarly. That's the MAIN REASON why blacks make up such a huge percentage of the prison population.