NBAPA Lawyer: Double standard exists regarding age limit for black basketball players and white athletes in other sports

[mtron929]

I suppose that depends on how you define "racism." At least this one sociologist disagrees with you (from http://itp.wceruw.org/Bonilla-Silva%20R ... Racism.pdf):

"Although all racialized social systems are hierarchical, the particular character of the hierarchy,and thus of the racial structure,is variable. For example, domination of Blacks in the United States was achieved through dictatorial means during slavery, but in the post-civil rights period this domination has been hegemonic (Omi and Winant 1994; Winant1994).9 Similarly, the racial practices and mechanisms that have kept Blacks subordinated changed from overt and eminently racist to covert and indirectly racist (Bonilla- Silva and Lewis 1997). The unchanging element throughout these stages is that Blacks' life chances are significantly lower than those of Whites, and ultimately a racialized social orderis distinguished by this difference in life chances. Generally, the more dissimilar the races' life chances, the more racialized the social system, and vice versa."

Of course, my definition is correct. Here is an extreme case that demonstrates this point.

Let's say hypothetically a person is looking to exploit his 10 new employees. He devised a contract filled with loop-holes and used a third party to get them to sign this unfair contract. Later on, he meets his new employees and learned that they were all black. Is he a racist? What if they were all white? Is he not a racist? How can the same action without any race variable lead to racist in one situation vs non-racist in the other?

If the owner has a business in an industry that disproportionately employees black people then of course he would be racist. You act like he doesn't know or understand the demographics of his business before hiring people and making them sign these contracts. Believe it or not this exact same thing was done through US history to purposely marginalize black citizens. And it still goes on today.

Try to follow the argument. My hypothetical situation illustrates a case where the owner's intention was exploitation with the victims happening to be black. In the extreme unlikely case in which the owner does not even know the race of his employees, then you cannot accuse him for being a racist. All of this was concocted to argue against a poster who claimed that one can retroactively accuse someone of being a racist even if race was not take into account as long as minorities are involved.

[dk1115]

Oh man, racists calling other people racists should be over by now.

[ChosunX]

Of course you will get the standard ignorant white guy response that it has nothing to do with race. When you're white, it's a lot easier to not see race. But this is clearly a racist policy- one that disproportionately affects black athletes and lines the NCAA's pockets.

It's a racist policy that's not based on race...ok.

It's a racist policy because it systematically disenfranchises black athletes and exploits them, period. One could similarly argue that human slavery was about money but not about racism. It doesn't make it not racist.

Scientific racism was made up to justify racism. Is there such thing to justify exploiting the NBA players?

[Pointgod]

Of course, my definition is correct. Here is an extreme case that demonstrates this point.

Let's say hypothetically a person is looking to exploit his 10 new employees. He devised a contract filled with loop-holes and used a third party to get them to sign this unfair contract. Later on, he meets his new employees and learned that they were all black. Is he a racist? What if they were all white? Is he not a racist? How can the same action without any race variable lead to racist in one situation vs non-racist in the other?

If the owner has a business in an industry that disproportionately employees black people then of course he would be racist. You act like he doesn't know or understand the demographics of his business before hiring people and making them sign these contracts. Believe it or not this exact same thing was done through US history to purposely marginalize black citizens. And it still goes on today.

Try to follow the argument. My hypothetical situation illustrates a case where the owner's intention was exploitation with the victims happening to be black. In the extreme unlikely case in which the owner does not even know the race of his employees, then you cannot accuse him for being a racist. All of this was concocted to argue against a poster who claimed that one can retroactively accuse someone of being a racist even if race was not take into account as long as minorities are involved.

It seems like you're purposely trying to make an extreme case just to suit your point. Which isn't realistic. Im not saying I agree that the NBA is targeting black players, but the reality of the situation is that a business would definitely know the demographics of the people that work in that industry. You're trying way to hard to provide excuses for racist policies. Reality is much simpler these people know fully well what they're doing. again not saying the NBA is doing this.

[Peja Stojakovic]

Of course, my definition is correct. Here is an extreme case that demonstrates this point.

Let's say hypothetically a person is looking to exploit his 10 new employees. He devised a contract filled with loop-holes and used a third party to get them to sign this unfair contract. Later on, he meets his new employees and learned that they were all black. Is he a racist? What if they were all white? Is he not a racist? How can the same action without any race variable lead to racist in one situation vs non-racist in the other?

If the owner has a business in an industry that disproportionately employees black people then of course he would be racist. You act like he doesn't know or understand the demographics of his business before hiring people and making them sign these contracts. Believe it or not this exact same thing was done through US history to purposely marginalize black citizens. And it still goes on today.

Try to follow the argument. My hypothetical situation illustrates a case where the owner's intention was exploitation with the victims happening to be black. In the extreme unlikely case in which the owner does not even know the race of his employees, then you cannot accuse him for being a racist. All of this was concocted to argue against a poster who claimed that one can retroactively accuse someone of being a racist even if race was not take into account as long as minorities are involved.

lol, nice thought experiment. truly you are at the forefront of the science of racism.

[DoubleLintendre]

Try to follow the argument. My hypothetical situation illustrates a case where the owner's intention was exploitation with the victims happening to be black. In the extreme unlikely case in which the owner does not even know the race of his employees, then you cannot accuse him for being a racist. All of this was concocted to argue against a poster who claimed that one can retroactively accuse someone of being a racist even if race was not take into account as long as minorities are involved.

This doesn't work, because your situation is missing realistic components that are a crucial part of the whole discussion.

If we're talking about the NBA, we know that most of the recruited players are going to be black. For your argument is hold weight you'd have to argue how your scenario wouldn't be taken as racist if it happened to be that the majority of your businesses workforce was black, and you knew this before you decided to run the said loophole scheme.

It's impossible to make a color-blind argument when you 100% are aware of the races of people involved. The people affected by NBA age caps are predominately black.

[Peja Stojakovic]

this kind of rhetoric aside, the best thing the nbapa could do for its players would be to establish a nice fat strike fund so the owners couldn't outlast them as easily as last time

[Pointgod]

this kind of rhetoric aside, the best thing the nbapa could do for its players would be to establish a nice fat strike fund so the owners couldn't outlast them as easily as last time

I wouldn't be surprised if the NBAPA has done this. This time they're more prepared and ready than the last lockout which was a complete **** show.

[83SixersRocked]

Try to follow the argument. My hypothetical situation illustrates a case where the owner's intention was exploitation with the victims happening to be black. In the extreme unlikely case in which the owner does not even know the race of his employees, then you cannot accuse him for being a racist. All of this was concocted to argue against a poster who claimed that one can retroactively accuse someone of being a racist even if race was not take into account as long as minorities are involved.

This doesn't work, because your situation is missing realistic components that are a crucial part of the whole discussion.

If we're talking about the NBA, we know that most of the recruited players are going to be black. For your argument is hold weight you'd have to argue how your scenario wouldn't be taken as racist if it happened to be that the majority of your businesses workforce was black, and you knew this before you decided to run the said loophole scheme.

It's impossible to make a color-blind argument when you 100% are aware of the races of people involved. The people affected by NBA age caps are predominately black.

Suppose the owner of said company was black? Now to the NBA - If Michael Jordan is for raising the age limit, is he racist by virtue of that stance?

Suppose the hypothetical argument had been this:
"My hypothetical situation illustrates a case where the owner's intention was exploitation with the victims happening to be white. In the extreme unlikely case in which the owner does not even know the race of his employees, then you cannot accuse him for being a racist. All of this was concocted to argue against a poster who claimed that one can retroactively accuse someone of being a racist even if race was not take into account as long as minorities are involved."

Are white ice hockey team owners racist because most of the players are white?

[mtron929]

Try to follow the argument. My hypothetical situation illustrates a case where the owner's intention was exploitation with the victims happening to be black. In the extreme unlikely case in which the owner does not even know the race of his employees, then you cannot accuse him for being a racist. All of this was concocted to argue against a poster who claimed that one can retroactively accuse someone of being a racist even if race was not take into account as long as minorities are involved.

This doesn't work, because your situation is missing realistic components that are a crucial part of the whole discussion.

If we're talking about the NBA, we know that most of the recruited players are going to be black. For your argument is hold weight you'd have to argue how your scenario wouldn't be taken as racist if it happened to be that the majority of your businesses workforce was black, and you knew this before you decided to run the said loophole scheme.

It's impossible to make a color-blind argument when you 100% are aware of the races of people involved. The people affected by NBA age caps are predominately black.

You are missing the context. Originally, I stated the following.

"There's a clear difference between exploiting a group of people because they are black vs exploiting a group of people who happen to be black. One can make an argument that both aren't noble actions, but one is racism and the other isn't."

And the person who responded disagreed with my assertion. Do you agree or disagree with what I have said above? Aside this, the hypothetical example was brought up NOT to assert that it has any real-world ties but to demonstrate the weirdness that arise when one believes that one can still be a racist without taking race into account.

[mtron929]

If the owner has a business in an industry that disproportionately employees black people then of course he would be racist. You act like he doesn't know or understand the demographics of his business before hiring people and making them sign these contracts. Believe it or not this exact same thing was done through US history to purposely marginalize black citizens. And it still goes on today.

Try to follow the argument. My hypothetical situation illustrates a case where the owner's intention was exploitation with the victims happening to be black. In the extreme unlikely case in which the owner does not even know the race of his employees, then you cannot accuse him for being a racist. All of this was concocted to argue against a poster who claimed that one can retroactively accuse someone of being a racist even if race was not take into account as long as minorities are involved.

lol, nice thought experiment. truly you are at the forefront of the science of racism.

And what might that be? All I am saying is that one should not infer that racism has occurred just because victims are predominantly minorities. Most people posting in this thread actually agree with me that there is no evidence that race has anything to do with age limits in the NBA.

[I_Never Lied]

The age limit is a bad idea, because it wont filter this ridiculousness. They need to restrict tattoos and hair.

[Ballerhogger]

Get a minor league system for the NBA.

isn't that what the D league is?

[Ballerhogger]

Lets be real. College is worthless for these kids.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using RealGM Forums mobile app

could teach them basic business and how to save money

[Peja Stojakovic]

Try to follow the argument. My hypothetical situation illustrates a case where the owner's intention was exploitation with the victims happening to be black. In the extreme unlikely case in which the owner does not even know the race of his employees, then you cannot accuse him for being a racist. All of this was concocted to argue against a poster who claimed that one can retroactively accuse someone of being a racist even if race was not take into account as long as minorities are involved.

lol, nice thought experiment. truly you are at the forefront of the science of racism.

And what might that be? All I am saying is that one should not infer that racism has occurred just because victims are predominantly minorities. Most people posting in this thread actually agree with me that there is no evidence that race has anything to do with age limits in the NBA.

yeah i don't think age limits are racist. they do force kids into a **** ncaa system. i just replied kneejerk when you had to draw up hypotheticals to explain some point about racism when the idea of racism is a completely normative thing that's meant to be applied to actually existing relations

[Foshan]

The more teenagers are allowed to enter this league, the less jobs will be available for seasoned veterans.

So allowing the young kids to come in without college is actually racist against all of the aging nba players who will be forced to retire early or go play abroad because all of the tanking teams want guys with young potential.

As this cycle continues, we will have more and more young athletes pushing out younger and younger mediocre vets. And since this lawyer has determined that this is racism only against the black athletes in the NBA (who can't get in young enough) this is also racism against older black athletes who are now getting booted too early.

[Foshan]

Get a minor league system for the NBA.

isn't that what the D league is?

I haven't read all of this thread, but this seems like the no-brainer solution right here. Give every NBA team a D-league team, run them like a minor league-development team. Sure there would be some complications, but if a players had to do '2-yrs' they could do it in this system, and make some money. If you actually have some good players down there, it would make it more valueable for NbA teams to send underpreforming or recovering from injury players to get the rust off before coming back.

[eagereyez]

I'm confused. Is the argument being made that NBA owners are racist against black people, so they are forcing blacks to go to college for a year in order to make them lose out on money they might have earned if they had gone straight to the pros?

[Damon_3388]

For those actually arguing "racism", it's pretty ironic that arguably the main (or best documented recently) career/life ruined by lack of an age limit turned out to be that of a white player (Robert Swift).

[eagereyez]

You have a more reasonable definition that allows certain groups to demonize anyone they want to?

I've got a much more reasonable, and reasoned definition, absolutely.

Racism is a system by which members of one or more races are systemically disadvantaged in relation to others.

It has nothing to do with personal beliefs, and everything to do with the society in which we live.

Exactly. Why don't people understand this? No racist "intent" is required, just a system in place that disadvantages a marginalized group of people. There is simply no valid argument that this IS NOT racist.

This is a horrible definition of racism. Racism is the belief that one race is inherently inferior or superior to another. Society is governed by the personal beliefs of the people within it, so saying it (racism) has nothing to do with personal beliefs is preposterous. Lots of people in this thread are confusing racism with stereotyping.