Some would say that the 'behaving a certain way' == 'behaving black', even if we are talking about little more than getting cornrows.
I find it amazingly offensive that people equate "behaving black" with the behavior I described: engaging in crime, flashing guns, associating with hip hop, etc. There are millions and millions of blacks who apparently don't "behave black". How are those blacks (like Battier and Allen and Hill) behaving? White? Can't law-abiding blacks get to have a cultural identity of their own?
I know that folks in this thread are criticizing the racial assumptions some fans make about the league as a whole, but I also see dozens of people making racial assumptions of their own.
You're saying, that it's offensive when people equate "behaving black" with crime and guns, because it is an undeserved cultural identity, but at the same time, you have linked hip hop and "a certain style of dress" with "thug life". It's essentially the same thing. Hip hop is a culture, and as with any other culture, it has its own "style of dress". As the predominant culture of young blacks in this country, criminalizing hip hop is at least as damaging to the black population, as a cultural identity involving gun related violence.
It should not be offensive, to equate "behaving black" with "associating with hip hop", because without a racist predisposition, "associating with hip hop" would not be seen as a negative attribute. To connect a negative label such as "thug" to hip hop culture as a whole, is to give it a racist (or at least discriminatory) identity. Using a cultures "style of dress" or music as qualifiers to negatively judge an individual is also discriminatory, as it indicates that all members of that culture have negative essential qualities.
NHL players fight all the time, and are often called "thugs" on the ice, but I have rarely (if ever) heard someone talk about NHL players in general as "thugs" off the ice. Often the "thugs" of the NHL are spoken of highly as people. NFL players are rarely held to such generalizations either, despite that they have the same demographics as the NBA. The difference, is visibility. When people watch football, they aren't watching black guys. More specifically, they aren't watching black guys with tattoos, expensive jewelry, and "black" hair styles, representing hip hop culture. They just see guys in uniform. Players get fined for removing their helmets, and showing their faces on the field. When the camera shows the players on the sidelines with their helmets off, who do they most often show?...the coaches (historically white), and the quarterback (historically white). Its far more difficult to discriminate against an NFL player due to racial bias, because their race (and equally as important, their culture) is so rarely on display.
The bias didnt originate with Iversons era, as I remember some people initially having a negative view of jordan due to the gold jewelry he wore on the court as a rookie (and his infamously banned shoes). Then there was the issue with the length of the shorts worn by the fab 5 at Michigan. In both cases, it was put forward like they cared more about the way they looked, than how they performed (a common stereotype of young blacks). In reality, they were just expressing their culture. As hip hop culture went from being a fad in the early 80s, to an ingrained part of the black experience in america in the 90's, its stereotypes became ingrained in the NBA as well. These stereotypes aren't likely to leave the NBA before they leave society in general =/
Topic: Why can't the NBA shake the "thug" image? (Read 34322 times)