I know there has been much written and said about the Donald Sterling matter and his lifetime ban from the NBA.
I have nothing particular to add to the conversation, no new or unique insight to share.
But we can all use a laugh on a Monday, so did want to pass along something on the subject that was amusing to say the least. Well I found it amusing anyway. Continue on and see if you agree.
Visited my mother over the weekend. While she was occupied with some other matters in other rooms I sat in her living room. I noticed she had the weekend edition of the local paper sitting on her couch. While waiting for her to return I leafed through the paper and came upon their editorial page. There were several letters to the editor on the page, most dealing with local issues. One letter however dealt with the Sterling matter.
I'll provide a link to the full letter here. It's quite the amusing read, though unintentionally of course. The letter hits at Democrats, Magic Johnson, and the "liberal media", so you can guess the basic tone and tenor of the opinions.
The letter writer had seven points he wished to convey concerning the topic of Donald Sterling. He had me hooked with point number one:
1) I listened to the tape. There is nothing “racist” about it. The man has a mixed-race mistress and he is complaining she hangs around blacks. Prejudice? Sure. Bigoted? Probably. Racist? Give me a break;
Now I was a Chemistry major in college, not an English major. But I began my college career as an English major and did take some English courses which I passed easily. So while the contention that somehow there must be a subtle distinction between prejudice, bigotry and racism certainly struck me as obviously wrong, I thought I should do some checking just to see if this esteemed writer was onto something from a technical definition standpoint.
My source for this investigation was the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The definition pages for the individual words are linked to below.
Prejudice:
an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc.
: a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logical
Okay I believe we can all agree that the sentiments expressed by Mr. Sterling were not at all reasonable or logical and did convey a certain dislike for a group of people based on race. Strike one.
Bigoted:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Asking his mistress not to bring black people to his basketball's teams games? Sure sounds like refusing to accept the members of a particular group to me. Strike two.
But of course at this point we are in agreement with the letter writer who conceded that Donald Sterling was prejudiced and a bigot. Well okay technically he only conceded that Sterling was "probably" a bigot. Now, as they say, is where it gets weird.
Racism:
poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
: the belief that some races of people are better than others
First of all while the author of the letter used the term "racist" I am giving the definition of "racism". This is because the definition of racist pretty much referred to someone who exhibited racism, so the definition of "racist" itself was meaningless to this investigation.
To a lay person such as myself, not wanting your mistress to bring people of a certain race to your games would meet the standard of "poor treatment of...people because of their race". Strike three.
So the conclusion of this non-linguist is that the letter writer was incorrect and in fact Donald Sterling did hit the trifecta and was prejudiced, bigoted AND racist.
If you do read the entire letter at the link above you'll see in the final point, #7, is where our poor letter writer went astray. In his world the term "racist" can only be applied to those who condone or practice violence against others based on the color of their skin. Treating people like second-class citizens without violence to back it up doesn't count, and he wishes the liberal media and all the rest of us would cut it out, including apparently the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Save it for the pointy heads wearing the pointy sheets.
As a final thought, looking at points 2 and 3 in the letter, it is also funny to see yet another self-professed fan of First Amendment freedoms confusing free speech with the consequences of free speech.
2) Hello, we’re in America, not China or Russia. You’re allowed to be ignorant and stupid in this country. It’s not a crime.
3) Since when did we rescind the First Amendment? I know Democrats use it like a buffet, using it only for speech they object to (like school prayer), but it protects all speech. Even objectionable speech.
Yes the amendment does protect all speech, even vile, objectionable speech and insures it is not a crime. However, the First Amendment does not mean there cannot be private sector consequences to that speech.
Mr. Sterling will be charged with no crime. The government will take no action against him. But that doesn't mean his business associates can't decide he's bad for business and kick him out of their organization based on bylaws and rules he agreed to follow when he "joined the club" by purchasing the team.
Finally I'd like to end on a positive note by saying I did find something in the letter that I agree with wholeheartedly. From the author's point #2 above:
You’re allowed to be ignorant and stupid in this country.
Amen brother. Exhibit 1 - your letter.