At the risk of intruding upon our weekend bloggers, I wanted to post an update to our prior posting on the Seahawks’ cornerback Richard Sherman. Sherman has now been fined by the NFL, not for his infamous post-game interview, but his unsportsmanlike conduct on the field after the final play against the San Francisco 49ers. He will pay almost $8000 for his taunting of San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Michael Crabtree. As someone who has long objected to increasing example of poor sportsmanship (as well as excessive celebration) incidents in football, I believe the fine is well deserved, though (as I previously stated) I felt Crabtree also acted in a rude manner in refusing to shake Sherman’s hand and shoving Sherman’s face mask. I would have liked to see him fined as well.
I thought the earlier discussion over Sherman was interesting in the sharp difference in how his interview was perceived on this blog. I continue to view Sherman’s conduct in that interview to be disgraceful and unprofessional. I do not believe that it is racist to describe a player screaming at an interviewer and into a camera in this way as “thuggish.” I was surprised by many who not only stated that they felt that the conduct was acceptable but by those who said that they liked this type of trash talking. Sitting with my kids and watching the game, I did not view the interview as “thrilling” but obnoxious. In my view, this is a controversy that turns not on the different way people view race but the different way people view conduct. For some, those issues are inextricably linked and race is distorting the view of the conduct. I found many of those views to be insightful. There are clearly racists who came out in this debate, but I do not believe that the majority of people objecting to Sherman’s rant were acting out of some latent racist motivation. I also do not believe that to call out a black athlete for such conduct must only be due to latent racism. I truly believe that a white player would have been similarly criticized by many of those objecting to this incident. Sherman went directly from an unprofessional taunt on the field to an unprofessional rant on television. His conduct warranted condemnation and, as discussed earlier, this is not a free speech issue.
We have criticized people of all races on this blog for uncivil and “thuggish” conduct. It does not matter that Sherman has a degree from Stanford or that he has an impressive life story. He is an adult and his conduct on the field and in the interview was disgraceful for a professional athlete in my opinion. He certainly has company in this ignoble group, but that does not excuse his conduct.
As I mentioned earlier, I thought it was great that the Seahawks have cracked down on thugs in the stadium who taunt and harass visitors from other teams. If this effort is going to successful, the players need to be held to a minimal standard of conduct on the field. Otherwise, we will allow this game (like other games) to decline to the lowest common denominator of conduct.
Obviously, for those who said that they like to see this type of trash talking or that they believe it is too late to conform the conduct of professional athletes, this is a rather moot point. However, I do not. I have long criticized the decline of civility and basic norms of conduct in our society. That may certainly make me prissy or old-fashioned in the view of many. I must admit that I find myself in a diminishing minority. For those of us who hold to such views, Sherman’s taunting on the field and screaming in the interview was all too familiar and outside of the bounds of professional conduct.
I believe that Sherman should have been reprimanded by the team for the interview as unprofessional and unbecoming for a member of the Seahawks (while the interview occurred on the field and he was in his uniform, it is not subject to the NFL rule or fines). Clearly, many disagree and I am glad that we can discuss those different views on this blog without personal animus or assuming the worst motivations of people. There are good faith views on both sides of this controversy. Issues that touch on race produce strong passions as well as strong rhetoric in such debates. We should not shy away from discussing such issues on this blog but we should show that such discussions can occur without labeling people on the other side as necessarily racists or apologists.
The fine was well deserved for the taunting. A fine against Crabtree would be equally well deserved. I fail to understand why his shoving of the face mask was not denounced and penalized.
Elaine,
Not addressed really to you I promise….
AY,
It wasn’t “bait.” I was responding to nick’s describing my husband’s comment as “myopic.” So…I responded to something negative he said and you consider that baiting? Good grief! Maybe I should just sit back, be a good little girl, and keep my mouth shut.
The delicate gentlemanly sport of football:
League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis | PBS America
Elaine your husband is a wise man, does he have a brother? 😉
Nick,
I wouldn’t respond in kind…. It seems that one has already had there A$$ handed to them by the professor….. It’s just bait….. While I don’t agree with some things people say…. I am not going to ridicule them for what they think…. Just let it pass…..
Yep… Black men that show up to class and makes straight A’s and score 1400 on their SAT’s on their own.
“He is a hoser, stupid, sissy” I guess it’s ok to call people names, just not those on the blog.
Elaine, You’re in top form today.
“what scares some people most isn’t black men with guns–it’s black men with brains” Absolutely.
The GOP apology: “We apologize to those whom were offended, have removed the post and are ensuring it does not happen again.” Grammar alert. Whom is an object, as in “to whom do you wish to speak”. Who is a subject. “who were offended” describes “those”. Do wish people would not try to sound more educated than they are – pet peeve.
nick,
“But, the ‘what scares people is black men w/ brains’ is myopic.”
*****
My husband is not myopic. He is open-minded and not an ideologue. He is more thoughtful when discussing issues/politics than someone like you could ever think of being. He argues and makes his points fairly. He doesn’t insult the character and intelligence of those who disagree with him. His comment was made not just in reference to Sherman. He was looking at the “big picture.” That’s anything but myopic!
BTW, he comes from a “football” family. My husband’s father played semi-pro football during the depression and told him interesting stories about some of the goings on in the sport back in the day. My father-in-law was inducted into the Saint Anselm College Sports Hall of Fame in the 1980s. Both my husband and I have had relatives who got scholarships to play football in college and who also played professional football.
“Is it racist to think this way?”
Yes.
Justin Bieber?? He is a hoser, stupid, sissy; not a thug. I cannot speak for all people who find Richard Sherman unacceptable. I think he scares few people, except for maybe wide receivers who don’t want to get head butted by him and have their career ended. Yeah, like Johnny Sample mentioned previously, that act gives him an edge on the field. But, the “what scares people is black men w/ brains” is myopic. Sherman’s act doesn’t portray a man w/ brains. It is a cartoon figure of the “prison culture” Jason Whitlock writes about eloquently. The irony of Russell Wilson being a teammate[and expressing his love of Sherman] is rich. Wilson is just as intelligent as Sherman. He graduated from UW. He did come from an upper middle class family in Virginia[His dad was an attorney that Mespo knows]. Wilson uses his brains, a God given quality, for good. Sherman uses it to perpetuate the “prison culture” that young, black men will buy hook, line and sinker. It’s a travesty the path this bright, articulate path has chosen. That’s why intelligent, black, male, sportswriters loathe it.
U.S. v Alvarez, 9th Circuit, affirmed by Supreme Court:
(The Dread Truth). Those who argue that this does not apply to current American racial realities are examples of the dynamic that is obvious to the courts and the world of nations that surround us.
Americans are arguably the most self-unaware of all nationalities:
(Propaganda Is A “Toxic Asset” – 2). It is, according to U.S. v Alvarez, ubiquitous in U.S.eh? Culture.
Justin Bieber benefits from double standard, while Richard Sherman is smeared as a ‘thug’
Opinion
by Demetria Irwin
January 24, 2014
http://thegrio.com/2014/01/24/justin-bieber-benefits-from-double-standard-while-richard-sherman-is-smeared-as-a-thug/
Excerpt:
Bieber hasn’t been called a thug because he’s not one and his white skin and Canadian birth certificate prevent most people from calling him that regardless of his behavior. Sherman has been called a thug because he’s a black male athlete who is unafraid to remind everyone about his domination on the football field and he occasionally does that in a spirited way.
Instead of trying to put the square thug peg into the round slot that is Bieber, we should instead focus that energy on changing the long-held perception of black men as violent, dangerous beings. Calling Bieber a thug is just a continuation of misusing labels. The more practical but also much more difficult course of action is to have a nuanced national conversation about this country’s obsession with assigning aggression to every black male action.
As far as Bieber is concerned, there is another important issue attached to his and that is immigration. In a recent blog post, the ACLU pointed out that if Canadian citizen/American resident Bieber were more like his non-famous fellow immigrants, his recent run-ins with the law would likely lead to deportation. But Bieber is white, is from a predominately white country and has millions of dollars. We have an idea of how the deportation story will end for him and it is very different than the ending might be for, say, a Haitian immigrant whose home was raided and who was arrested for a DUI, drag racing and driving with an expired license.
There are obvious double standards in this country. How do we address them in a productive way?
Elaine, At least Bieber did not commit a crime entering the US while most of the illegals DID commit a crime with about 60% or more coming here illegally. He also went through a permanent residency hearing to get his green card. While his license may have expired, he at least HAD one, unlike most illegals. If he had crashed into another car, he would have been able to pay for the damages, unlike other illegals who usually RUN from the scene since they have no insurance or means to pay.
I would guess that Bieber pays millions in taxes while illegals only pay sales tax and at a far lower rate since many if not most of the items they buy are tax exempt. If the illegals works off the books which about 50% of them do, they pay even less taxes than an American in the same job. If they work on the books, they get all their state and Federal income taxes back by using all of their relatives as dependents. Then if they decide to use a fake SS number, not only do they get all of their income taxes back, they also get a check for $5000 from the EIC for a family of four with one wage earner. If you doubt this, do an income tax return for a minimum wage earner with a family of four. Back in the1990s the National Academy of Science did a study of costs, and it found that a family of illegals cost CA about $7000/yr in costs.
So it is a no brainer to figure out why it is in the US interest to allow Beiber to stay vs an illegal who costs FAR more than any contribution to the US.
The White House and Capitol were built by thugs and 27% of U.S. presidents owned thugs.
ap,
Did you see this?
Iowa Republican Party Posts Graphic Mocking Racism
BY REBECCA LEBER
JANUARY 25, 2014
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/25/3205601/iowa-gop-racism/
ap,
My husband said that what scares some people most isn’t black men with guns–it’s black men with brains.
Thanks, Elaine M.
Game Change
by Amy Davidson
February 3, 2014
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2014/02/03/140203taco_talk_davidson
Excerpt:
But there is more at work in the thug issue than the very real racial angle. Professional football has never been more profitable or more popular, bringing in annual revenues of over nine billion dollars. Yet the sport is changing, with the end of a decades-long dodge about what the constant collisions do to its players. The stories of former stars brought down by early dementia, depression, A.L.S., and suicide are now familiar. The N.F.L. has, after much pushing, agreed to a seven-hundred-and-sixty-five-million-dollar settlement, the bulk of it as compensation for retired players. (The judge who has to approve the settlement doubted that the sum would be enough.) There is a risk that the sport will become like boxing—too dangerous to encourage one’s own children to play, and, therefore, marginal. For now, there is too much money—and even the players would say, too much pleasure—for the league to have a problem finding takers.
What bargains will we be making when we cheer for the players on Sunday—for Peyton Manning or Richard Sherman (or the Seahawks’ underestimated quarterback, Russell Wilson)? Some people might find it convenient to dismiss players as thugs. Discussions about the ravages of the game often come around to questions posed mostly to give fans some dispensation, such as: Given where these guys are from, how good were their other choices? What worth did their futures hold anyway? That sort of rationalizing serves only to make watching a beautiful but violent game less uncomfortable. And that’s the most thuggish thought of all.
Johny Sample, cornerback for the Cleveland Browns back in the fifties and sixties, began the “trash talk”, as well as employing incredibly dirty cheap shots. In his biography, he said the trash talk was a strategy designed to distract an opponents focus from their game plan. He said once a player responded to his verbal assaults he knew he had gotten to them and reduced their ability to compete effectively in the game. Insults had always flown back and forth on the playing field as part of the game, but Sample’s flamboyantly demonstrative behavior took it to a new level; he was ushering in a new era and shredded the old notions of sportsmanship in the process. Once, when Sample’s name came up during a game on Monday Night Football, Dan Gifford declared that he was the dirtiest, cheapest player he had ever seen play, whose priority was attracting attention to himself at the expense of his team and that he would not have anything more to say about him.
Several years ago, Skip Bayless, then a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, wrote an incredibly brave piece about the encroaching Blackness that was transforming basketball into something he was no longer comfortable watching. I have to agree. There’s something about the over-preening dancing and posing that occurs after every play; it used to be after a touchdown, now all it takes is a first down, and sometimes not even that. It used to be that a player demonstrated style during a play, like Payton’s high stepping, and then acted as if he had scored touchdowns before.
I understand the entertainment value that the league sees in all this display. It’s driven by TV production crews and advertisers. Even the post-game rant garners attention But the antisocial behavior players are demonstrating in todays game embody the worst in our divided society, be they white or black.
That Seahawks behavior was thuggish – at best. It was a thoroughly undignified way for anyone to behave, let alone a Stanford grad. It made him look small and cheap, like a street punk. And it fed into the imaginations and prejudices of certain segments of society, like those wealthy enough to own a sports team, for whom Black Americans are either athletes or criminals, and sometimes both.
Is it racist to think this way? Maybe, although I agree with Prof. Turley that the core issue is about conduct. But to the degree that race shape perception, as well as behavior, this might be as good a time to start talking about it. Because it ain’t going to get any better. As for me, I’ve lost interest in football, in large part because of crap like this. I’m waiting for Six Nations rugby to start up in February. (Anyone else notice how Rupert Murdoch has squelched rugby since he bought the broadcasting rights?)