What you’re saying, essentially, is that it’s OK for Levenson to discriminate against black people if he’s doing it based only on money and not race. I’ll say that’s debatable and leave it at that. Actually I will point out again that he’s the one who framed this in terms of race.
And this touches on an issue that the OP alluded to but that we haven’t gotten into much: the NBA is populated by black players and a large part of the audience is black, but the team ownership almost all white, management of the teams is largely white - although it’s more diverse, I think, than other leagues - and in general white people in the U.S. are wealthier than black people. So the NBA is a league of black talent that makes money for (mostly) white owners and you can sometimes sense discomfort between white management/ownership and the black players and fans. This email is another manifestation of that discomfort.
Yes, you were defending him. The poor little rich slumlord being embarrassed by his latest kept woman who challenged his masculinity by “fawning” over other men (like taking a picture with 55-year-old Magic Johnson). We should take pity lest we all wind up in such a sorry state- disrespected by our own property!
Is there another e-mail where Lewinson uses the n-word or something, or is “White people have more money than black people” considered racist nowadays?
I repeat, show me anywhere in the recording where Sterling yelled at Stiviano.
Show me somewhere he used the N word.
Show me anywhere that he used any racial slurs.
The guy never raised his voice. He wasn’t cracking the whip on his mistress- he was begging her not to embarrass him. That makes him a pathetic old fart, NOT a bigot.
Therer are roughly 6 billion people in this world more worthy of my sympathy than Donald Sterling. Rich guys who cheat on their wives and shower lavish gifts on bimbos are a scuzzy bunch and Sterling is no exception.
But a genuine racist would have used racial epithets and ordered his mistress never to associate with black men.
A conventional villain would have told her, “Listen, up- you mind your manners or I’ll put you back in the gutter I picked you out of.”
Instead, he was reduced to begging his mistress to cheat on him more discreetly!
The last thing on earth I feel like doing is scouring the Sterling audio for damning quotes, but he is clearly no fan of black people. There are court transcripts that prove that entirely independent of the phone call. As a very wise stranger once said:
I’m really leery of wading into this one and maybe being associated with some of the arguments floating around in defense of Levenson, but…
Was he discriminating against black people? Wanting to get a few white cheerleaders and change the music from hip-hop to classic rock or what have you doesn’t seem to rise to that level.
It’s often dumb to draw this sort of equivalence, but in this case I think it’s instructive: What if he thought his problem was the opposite one? What if, instead of needing more affluent white people and corporate clients, the perceived problem was that the team wasn’t drawing from Atlanta’s sizable black population as much as they could? If an email then came to light in which the owner said he wanted to hire some black cheerleaders and play some different music in order to make the games more appealing to black fans, no one would have a problem with it.
I don’t think his sin was racism. He’s explicitly complaining that “racist garbage” from white people is the root of the problem. He’s definitely being mercenary, showing no compunction about trying to cater to those racist tendencies, and there’s a good discussion to be had about just how much obligation there is for a business not to do something like that – I really don’t know. Nonetheless, there’s a big difference between catering to the racists by forbidding or discouraging blacks from coming to the game, which AFAICT they weren’t doing, or on the other hand by trying to encourage more white people to come by doing things that they think will make whites more comfortable.
Overall it’s not great, but “racist” is the wrong term.
Did you listen to the recordings or read a transcript? Sterling explicitly and specifically told her he didn’t want her to be seen with BLACK people. He was fine with her consorting with white men in public. He was embarrassed specifically because of their race.
“Genuine racists” always use racial epithets? What utter bullshit.
He says they’ve reduced the proportion of black fans at games to around 40% from 70% and he sure suggests they want to reduce it further. And no, changing the music isn’t discriminating. The uncomfortable thing is that he talks about intentionally whitening up their image: he says there are too many black people in the bars, on the kiss cams, in the shooting contests between quarters. Why? Because they have lots of black fans at their games! Black fans have supported them - but he doesn’t want to make that too obvious because it’d make white people with more money uneasy. He’s prioritizing them above the black people who already come to their games, and he’s not doing it by offering them more amenities or doing the things companies typically do for fans who have a lot to spend. He’s talking about doing it by making the fanbase seem less black so white people will show up, and he’s willing to cater to those white fans even though he knows they’re racists.
I’m going to say “a lot,” because the alternative just encourages and entrenches prejudice. That’s bad enough on its own, but it’s that much worse when you’re talking about a league that is 75% black. He’s a guy who makes his money off black talent but wants to downplay the black people who buy tickets so he can bring in white people with more earning power.
I agree with all of that – I just don’t see the argument that it rises to the level of “racist” or “discriminatory.”
Does he think less of black people? No, if anything he thinks less of white people. Is he raising barriers to black attendance? No. Is he discouraging black people from attending? Not unless you count changing the music, but that’s zero sum and would cut both ways.
Marketing to a targeted racial demographic isn’t racist. I can’t remember the last McDonald’s commercial I saw that didn’t feature black people, but that doesn’t mean that company is discriminatory; they just feel that appealing to the black market is the most profitable way to go. Granted, this situation is not identical because the Hawks are consciously appealing to their customers’ basest instincts, but, again, that’s a different sin from racism.
That sounds inclusive, not exclusive- in other words, not what Levenson talked about. I don’t think McDonald’s is attempting to appeal to black customers instead of white ones. Advertising in general has gotten more diverse because companies are recognizing that the country is more diverse.
That’d be more of a quibble about terminology than anything else.
I should clarify: I can’t remember the last McDonald’s ad I saw that didn’t feature almost exclusively black people. I don’t mean, like, five friends go out to eat and there’s always a token black guy in the mix. Their television marketing is clearly geared specifically to a black audience.
I disagree. “Racist” seems like a far worse judgment than “callous is business affairs.” Motivation does matter.
(Yes, there are exceptions to the McDonald’s thing, naturally I’ve been googling for the last few minutes, and confirmation bias, etc. etc. I’m still confident in the overall point.)
Interesting! This is a real thing. Here’s why. I guess McDonald’s is smarter than the Hawks, which ought to be news to nobody.
I’m not sure about that. I wouldn’t accept it if we were talking about segregated lunch counters, so I think there are limits to that logic, at least. And again, I’m not willing to accept a million and one unreasonable restrictions on the use of the word racist.
I don’t know the ins and outs, by the way, but ownership of the Hawks has been a mess for years. It’s probably worth acknowledging that as we look at Levenson’s grappling for ways to attract fans.