|
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
|
I have to wonder how many African American women feel sold out for the race card by Isiah and some of the AA males who support the notion it's "less bad" for black males to denigrate black women.
This is after all a sexual harassment case, not a race crime case, so why did Isiah bring race into the equation? I have to figure it's a subterfuge to confuse the issue. How much of the population's opinion can he dispose of through such manuevering?
1. All whites. The race card says "this is a black thing, you'll never understand, so your opinion is invalid."
2. Some percentage of black males who willingly take the bait and in so doing suggest that the denigration of black females by black men is some sort of justifiable, historical inevitability. I think we see this in this thread.
3. Some percentage of black women who are so used to being talked down to they fear increased reprocussions for standing up for themselves.
All of these are designed to shut down or disqualify what could otherwise be productive conversation.
Black women under no circumstances should be considered beneath laws that are designed to protect all women, and one would think black males would be the first to want equality under the law for their mothers, children, sisters and spouses, but in suggesting that chauvanistic behavior is "just the way we do things, and it's nobody's business if we do," or "slavery made us this way" is self-segregating and self-discriminating.
I don't think anyone willfully choses this for themselves, but I see it as a side effect of taking the race bait and and thereby justifying reprehensible behavior on racial grounds.
Again, I'm sure no one believes they are doing so, but I think it underlies every attempt to qualify concerns in these matters when they come from whites. Don't think anyone here does that What does it mean when things are said like "whites just want to see a black man go down," or "unless your black you'll never understand," or "what race are you?"
Some may think those are relevant questions, but I think they're no more valid in a sexual harassment case then similar ones would be from whites in order to suggest that only whites should opine on a case of corporate embezzlement by a white executive.
I'm not so idealistic or naive to beleive that the laws on the streets should be the same in the ghetto and the suburbs, but this isn't about a discussion between a pimp and his hookers, this is about the discourse between upper levels of management of a large corporation. Killa and Code can disagree all they like on how much influence Isiah has on "the youth of today" but I think it's undeniable he, as President of Basketball Operations (and Knicks Emperor at large) has a huge influence over the population of MSG employees.
So too Anushca, who, if memory serves me, was VP of Marketing for all of MSG -- this includes the WBNA Liberty and others. Like Isiah, she was a basketball legend and a fast-track executive who, I can only imagine, was an inspiration to many female athletes and employees at the Garden.
In the Imus case, misterearl rightfully and eloquently asked "How must the parents of those girls feel when their kids are referred to as 'nappy headed 'hos'", and I think the similar question must fairly be asked here: how must the many females who respected Anuchca feel when the words "black," "ho," and "bitch" resounded through the hallowed halls of the Garden? And how now must the parents of young women like those of the Liberty, or interns and employees at MSG, feel when they hear Isiah largely indifferent about the possible mistreatment of women under his watch (So long as it was same-race mistreatment)?
Whatever Isiah's influence within the black community, now that his thoughts on how black women can be spoken to are in the air they are influential, regardless of where they arose. Even more influential is the response to them from black community leaders. I believe that was the point of the article and this thread.
My problem in so many of these racial discussions is how defensive blacks become when one of theirs is under fire and whites look to how the community will respond. That's when we get the stuff like "leave Zeke alone", "the media loves to skewer us," or "they'd never go after Larry Bird like this," etc. While some of those notions may have validity, situations like these still present a high-profile opportunity for us, as a society to educate, raise the bar, and move the line forward.
The Imus case was another such opportunity, and that is pretty much the main basis of comparison between the two.
|
9/23/2007 7:45 PM