Crucifixion, which was how the carpenter reportedly martyred himself, “is a form of slow and painful execution in which the victim is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang until dead.”
It is also apparently what happens when someone receives any consequences for their racist actions.
First Paula Deen. Then Phil Robertson. And now poor, philandering racist Donald Sterling.
The usual argument is that racism is obviously bad, but perhaps more like wearing white after Labor Day bad and not something worth punishing anyone for so severely or, well, at all. And the first amendment grants all Americans the right to say odious things and suffer no economic repercussions, right? Even if that’s not at all how a capitalist economic system works. I thought Americans loved their capitalism? And unfettered capitalism is colder than the Oregon Coast in February.
Mike Pesca at Slate argued that just because Donald Sterling is a “horrible human being,” he “doesn’t deserve to have his property stripped away.” That’s a frightening image, but Sterling — or Deen or Robertson — did not break any law on the books that put them on trial after which they were convicted and sentenced to penury. No, the “invisible hand” of capitalism swept in and slapped them upside the head.
When NBA commissioner Adam Silver banned Sterling for life, he said he would “urge the Board of Governors to exercise its authority to force a sale of the team.”
The Board of Governors—which consists of ownership representatives from the league’s teams—can remove an owner with a three-quarters majority vote. Silver says he “fully expects” that the owners will vote to remove Sterling.
I suppose it’s worth clarifying that neither Silver nor the NBA Board of Governors are representatives of the U.S. government. And the terms upon which Sterling is “being stripped of his property” are all contractually valid. Oh, and wait, he is not *losing* the property. He will walk away from this a wealthy man.
This would also happen to the CEO of a private company who made horrible statements that later went public. Was Sterling “set up”? No, that’s the most misogynistic argument possible. I recall the morals clauses that would cost a gay teacher his or her job at a Catholic School. If a gay “lifestyle” is incompatible to teaching at a Catholic School, I presume being an inveterate racist might prove problematic in a business where the majority of your staff is black. But empathy in these situations is almost always oriented toward the poor, put-upon white racists and the offended blacks must simply endure.
I mean, what else would explain the belief that Sterling, once the demon was fully out of his racist box, could function as owner of the Clippers? What about the ability of the Clippers to maintain and recruit staff? This is a sensible business decision but the fact that it’s viewed as more than that or that Sterling could ever remain in his role without any consequences is further evidence of the invisibility of blacks in this country.
Finally, it is telling that in America, its Christians equate “crucifixion” so strongly with the loss of money and baptism with torture.
serhasacomplaint 
Obvious Child…
I thought the female lead in this film was developmentally disabled, but it turns out that she’s just “edgy.” NPR describes Donna Stern as “an aspiring standup comic in her late 20s who’s out of her depth in the grown-up world.” Huh? She’s almost thirty. She is in fact a member of the adult world. She is an adult. She has been for more than a decade. There are soldiers who went off to Iraq at eighteen and served a few tours who are in fact younger than this film’s titular woman child.
Per NPR: “She’s a big baby, someone who can’t take care of herself, let alone a little baby.”
Dear God. Also, screenwriters attempting to model your characters’ speech patterns after Buffy and Juno, those characters were teenagers.
Posted by Stephen Robinson on June 13, 2014 in Pop Life, Social Commentary
Tags: Obvious Child