Sports Daily: Richard Sherman, Social Media, and Race

[MrMBrown]

I don't even understand why this is a major story. On one hand you have the greatest coach of this era accusing another player of dirty play, on the other hand you have Richard Sherman cutting a wrestling promo. And Richard Sherman is the story? We had another school shooting here in America this past week, yet somehow Richard Sherman is the lead story in America? Seriously?

[BengalsFan99]

It amazes me that people forget how this country was formed. If you study American history it should NOT surprise ANYONE that this man is attacked. LOL I mean lets be REAL: this country is built on hate and Racism. The Native people of America were nearly killed off completely and the African people were brought here enslaved to build its wealth. Racism in sports will never go away, because this country was founded on HATE/Racism its the HEART of America. If you think differently, then you haven't been paying attention.

And I don't want to hear "Oh you people need to forget about slavery!!! Ask a Jewish person to forget about the Jewish Holacaust.....It won't happen, and it shouldn't!

[GLASS87]

Quote: Originally Posted by BengalsFan99

It amazes me that people forget how this country was formed. If you study American history it should NOT surprise ANYONE that this man is attacked. LOL I mean lets be REAL: this country is built on hate and Racism. The Native people of America were nearly killed off completely and the African people were brought here enslaved to build its wealth. Racism in sports will never go away, because this country was founded on HATE/Racism its the HEART of America. If you think differently, then you haven't been paying attention. And I don't want to hear "Oh you people need to forget about slavery!!! Ask a Jewish person to forget about the Jewish Holacaust.....It won't happen, and it shouldn't!

You obviously know nothing about history, sorry. Africans were NOT brought here to "build America's wealth" as you so ignorantly claim. The first American African slave owner was black. He purchased and traded for blacks who were already enslaved by other blacks. Once a black American slave was released he received quite a bit of land from the slave owner. This black man, the first black slave owner, would lose quite a bit of money and land this way so he lobbied to have the laws changed. Then we allowed him to sell his slaves to white men. As history progressed, the majority of slaves in slavery were actually owned by blacks. As for the Native American drivel, you're wrong there too. These wretched "whites" you speak of didn't know Indians were even here. The overwhelming majority of Indians were brutal savages. Not only did they mercilessly kill whites, but they killed each other. There was NO government, NO laws, NO rules, NO common language... nothing but wild animals killing each other. With your logic, you also hate Muslims because those brown baddies from the middle east also conquered, enslaved, and murdered millions of whites, blacks, and asians. Quit being an uneducated fool indoctrinated in the race bating lies of Sharpton, Jackson, and these uppity white liberal fools. Go buy some books and research real history. You seem to be the most racist and hate filled person here.

So your great-great-great grandfather murdered my great-great-great grandfather. According to your awesome reasoning, I should hate you and you should be judged according to your ancestors works. Good job racist.

[GLASS87]

Let's be real real here. Does it have something to do with his color? Yes, yes it does. Look at black culture in America people. The majority of the music you here on the radio glorifies being in gangs, murdering people, selling drugs, and demeaning women. The majority of this nation is white and around 15% is black. Every person that is arrested and booked will have their race noted. The true facts are that blacks commit 80% of violent crime and commit 80% of racial violent crime. In South Africa, 1/3 of every black man will commit rape at some point in his life. At the World Cup women were given metal devices to place inside themselves that lock on to the genitals of the suspect.

With all this said you can tell me that when a black man making more money in a 5 year stint in the NFL that will make more than 95% of Americans in their lifetime getting on national television and acting like a complete fool would not garner a, "thug" reaction? The stereotype of most blacks is that they: speak improperly, hate authority, are violent, sag their pants, and are "thugs". So Sherman is going to the Superbowl and yet he lacks the restraint to speak properly, respect his opponents, show respect to the woman next to him and to the fans who pay his salary? Nope, instead he acts like a complete fool with millions of men, women, and children watching. He plays right into the stereotype. It's not racist, just simple observation.

The majority of terrorists in the world right now are followers of Islam. Do I hate brown people who worship Allah? - No, I don't. But if some brown Muslim was interviewed post-game screaming and yelling about how he owns Christians and wants to kill the infidel I would respond, "typical terrorist". The point being is that when people play into their respective stereotypes, why is everyone else blamed? It's not just whites calling Sherman a thug - it's all of humanity - other blacks included. You think every black person wants their race associated with a moron like Sherman?

Real black heroes in the US are Thomas Sowell, Alan West, Alan Keyes, Frances Rice and all members of the NBRA, Ben Carson, Mia Love, Chelsi Henry, Tim Scott, and many others. Yet, idiots like Sherman and the rest of the NFL thugs, rappers, basketball players, and race bating politicians are the heroes our young black youth look up to. And we wonder why the black community is in such shambles right now.

[khrag]

I don't think people were calling him a thug for his emotion, I think they were calling him that because of what he said "if you talk about me I'll shut your mouth for you" stuff he said. Most people can't understand that he meant by his play, not that he would physically do it.

But to say that they are calling you a thug is like the new N-word, is frankly beneath a Stanford graduate.

To Richard Sherman: you are the best CB playing at the moment, enjoy it while it lasts. Remember, Derrel Revis was once the best CB playing. The play you made to end the game was fantastic, one of the best defensive plays I've seen in years, but, there was no need to go get in Crabtree's face and say good game, was just looking for trouble. You didn't have to rub his nose in it, your play already did.

[MrMBrown]

Quote: Originally Posted by GLASS87

Let's be real real here. Does it have something to do with his color? Yes, yes it does. Look at black culture in America people. The majority of the music you here on the radio glorifies being in gangs, murdering people, selling drugs, and demeaning women. The majority of this nation is white and around 15% is black. Every person that is arrested and booked will have their race noted. The true facts are that blacks commit 80% of violent crime and commit 80% of racial violent crime. In South Africa, 1/3 of every black man will commit rape at some point in his life. At the World Cup women were given metal devices to place inside themselves that lock on to the genitals of the suspect. With all this said you can tell me that when a black man making more money in a 5 year stint in the NFL that will make more than 95% of Americans in their lifetime getting on national television and acting like a complete fool would not garner a, "thug" reaction? The stereotype of most blacks is that they: speak improperly, hate authority, are violent, sag their pants, and are "thugs". So Sherman is going to the Superbowl and yet he lacks the restraint to speak properly, respect his opponents, show respect to the woman next to him and to the fans who pay his salary? Nope, instead he acts like a complete fool with millions of men, women, and children watching. He plays right into the stereotype. It's not racist, just simple observation. The majority of terrorists in the world right now are followers of Islam. Do I hate brown people who worship Allah? - No, I don't. But if some brown Muslim was interviewed post-game screaming and yelling about how he owns Christians and wants to kill the infidel I would respond, "typical terrorist". The point being is that when people play into their respective stereotypes, why is everyone else blamed? It's not just whites calling Sherman a thug - it's all of humanity - other blacks included. You think every black person wants their race associated with a moron like Sherman? Real black heroes in the US are Thomas Sowell, Alan West, Alan Keyes, Frances Rice and all members of the NBRA, Ben Carson, Mia Love, Chelsi Henry, Tim Scott, and many others. Yet, idiots like Sherman and the rest of the NFL thugs, rappers, basketball players, and race bating politicians are the heroes our young black youth look up to. And we wonder why the black community is in such shambles right now.

The fact that you think Alan Keyes and Alan West are heroes truly tells me what a ****ing moron you truly are. I'm sorry,I get that you're conservative but you're a ****ing idiot,plain and simple. Honestly you bring up race baiting politicians and then you call Alan West and Alan Keyes heroes? I try to respect folks opinions, but people like you,people who subscribe to that "they're okay as long as they share my viewpoint, people like you I have no time for. Alan West a hero........HA! That dude has done more to make black folks look foolish than Richard Sherman has ever done.......but since he shares your views he's aces? Get the heck outta here with that heroes nonsense.

[RogueHominid]

This is the most interesting discussion to happen on OS since I've been here. This is precisely about race, and I think the poster remarking that "Thug" has become a euphemism usable by Whites for a more sinister epithet is right on.

Before stating my position, I should say that Glass needs a real education in American history. I happen to teach colonial American literature at the university level, and we just covered Columbus, Cortés, and a priest by the name of Bartolomé de las Casas in my survey course. In his Diario, Columbus suggested that Native Americans were natural slaves and should be subjugated and put to work. The proposition was rejected, as the sovereigns and many intellectuals knew 1) that wasn't a Christian thing to do, and 2) Indians were possessed of reason, culture, and religion, which meant they couldn't be considered barbarians and natural slaves. Unfortunately, the exigencies of colonial development pushed colonists to enslave Natives as Columbus suggested--this was especially the case where silver or gold mines were thought to be, as in Peru and Mexico. The encomienda and repartimiento systems developed, which were forced tribute-labor systems in theory but slavery in practice. These facts show that the enslavement of non-Europeans was part of the European vision for America since the beginning. Even the great defender of Indian rights, Las Casas, wasn't against slavery outright--in 1516, he argued that Indian slavery should be replaced with...wait for it...African slavery. In 1518 this started, with 400 African slaves being shipped to Jamaica. The rest is history. Of course, the Spanish colonies developed slave economies more quickly than the English or French because the Spanish got settled first, but slavery was just as central to the economies of those empires, especially in the Caribbean.

The argument that Indians were inherently savage is absolutely false. Some practiced ritual cannibalism, which of course freaked Europeans out, but many had advanced cultures that clearly marked them as fully human. The complexity of Tenochtitlan, for example, makes that case. The histories of the Pequot War and King Philip's War in New England between Puritans and Indians also makes the case, as those wars were instigated by the aggressive land-grabs of English colonists (and some unfortunate killings of Indians by Whites). Howard Zinn covers this in his People's History of the United States--you should check it out. His account of Iroquois culture offers a stunning refutation of your argument that there was no culture, law, or whatever among Native populations. It's just a false argument; you have to do better than that.

As a literary historian, the angle that interests me is genre. There's a great blog post here about the post-game interview as a genre and its expectations: http://www.avidly.org/2014/01/22/we-talkin-bout-genre/. The argument there is basically that the post-game interview is a genre built around the denial of the fact that the athlete in question has just been immersed in a three-hour long exercise in violence and brutality. While the entire game is predicated on acts of violence and the exercise of competitive egos, the post-game interview seeks to reassure the audience that the entire event was really a civil affair by asking athletes to talk in vague cliches about "competition" and "preparation" and "execution." I don't think we should blame athletes for not playing to the conventions of that genre, which is less concerned with saying something true about what just happened and more concerned with convincing the audience that we're not the real barbarians for having just glutted ourselves on violence...for fun.

Richard Sherman violated the conventions of genre, but that doesn't make him a "thug." If there's thuggery in pro sports, its home is not in the predominantly Black NFL, but in the predominantly White NHL, where the violence we associate with the sport (fights) isn't actually a part of the game, like violence in the NFL is. If a White player violated the conventions of genre in a similar way, would he be a "thug" in popular discourse? Probably not. The inconsistency in our use of labels like this is, I think, what leads people to conclude that the reaction to Sherman has a lot to do with his race. I find it hard to get around that argument.

A more sensible position would be to say that Richard Sherman knows that he is an entertainer and that reporters live for moments of honesty such as he gave. He said what he said because he's a competitor and a performer, period, not because he's a "thug."

[Sjhone30]

The problem is that ppl think a football player or any pro athlete for that matter is supposed to switch his/her emotions on and off before and after the game. Ppl also forget that american football is a very violent sport in which emotions run high throughout, especially after big moments such as that one. I guess no one saw Sherman go over to Crabtree to display the sportsmanship that everyone claims he lacks, but Crabtree pushed away his handshake. Why because his EMOTIONS were high just after that play. The reporter caught Sherman just after the exchange with Crabtree and got the first reaction. And subsequently blown way outta proportion.