NBA Dress Code Is Racist
OK, so maybe this isn't of interest to many of you, but it's another way in which the corporate nature of American sports reveals itself. Perhaps you've heard of it, perhaps not. But the NBA has announced a dress code for its players. The announcement has not been received very well, and with good reason. Jason Richardson hit on the hypocrisy of the dress code by saying that clothes don't make the man. He says:
"You wear a suit you still could be a crook. You see all that happened with Enron and Martha Stewart. Just because you dress a certain way doesn't mean you're that way. Hey, a guy could come in with baggy jeans, a do-rag and have a Ph.D. and a person who comes in with a suit could be a three-time felon."This is what gets me. We see news of people being laid off, of businesses sending American jobs overseas, of the increasing disparity between the wages of CEOs and the average worker, and yet still the corporate model is seen as the ideal one. I understand that NBA players are not paupers and they are party to the economic inequity themselves, but to attempt to try and clamp down on their dress, and enforce a corporatized (read: white) image on the (largely black) NBA stinks of racism. Clothing is certainly racially influenced, and to prohibit these guys from wearing chains outside their clothes, banning throwback jerseys, forcing them to wear jackets if on the bench, well, it just continues to re-affirm the racial overtones which are offensive to many of the black players who make many white execs rich.
posted by tc @ 4:18 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
In the post I acknowledged that these guys are not paupers and that they are obviously well-paid, but as someone (dunno whom) said, clothes don't make the man. Richardson made that same comment. When a bunch of little white bureaucrat-types in the league office are trying to enforce their line, well, yeah, as I said, they are making money, but speaking as someone who's been a teacher for a while, I see how (minority) kids are treated simply because of how they dress, and it's infuriating. Quite frankly, I think that this is a subtle form of racism, yes. I understand what you're saying, and sure, perhaps in a more mixed, or conventional workplace, a dress code is reasonable-personally I don't care, but I understand-but to me, this ruling by Stern, to appease big white advertisers has the whiff of racism.
Pondo, I do admit, I agree with ya to some degree on this issue. You're right-and I admitted it myself-these guys are not paupers. Many of them (Latrell Sprewell, Pat Ewing complaining several years ago before the PA got a new collective bargaining agreement, countless others, are whiny, spoiled, ungrateful, practically any other adjective you wanna throw out there) are immature spoiled babies. I still don't see why David Stern though, at least to some degree needs to throw his weight around to satisfy some crooked, dishonest business execs. Yeah, they're not starvin' but still, given the racial dimension in this issue, it strikes me as a bit shrill and Napoleon-ish. I'm a history teacher.
Post a Comment
<< Home