Free Jemele Hill!
by
William L. Anderson
by William L. Anderson
DIGG THIS
On the night
of April 15, 1965, my father and I listened intently to WCAU AM
from Philadelphia, as the 76ers were playing the hated Boston Celtics
in the seventh game of the eastern division finals in the National
Basketball Association playoffs. Thanks to a miracle, the Sixers
had the ball under Boston’s basket in the Boston Garden with five
seconds to go, trailing by a single point.
All they had
to do was to inbound the ball, score a basket, and score a huge
upset against this behemoth that had monopolized NBA championships
for most of my childhood. It was our moment and we were set to celebrate.
My family had
moved from near Philadelphia to Lookout Mountain, near Chattanooga,
Tennessee, in the summer of 1964. In September, the Phillies were
leading the National League by 8-½ games and proceeded to lose 10
straight, losing the pennant to the St. Louis Cardinals by a game.
(The Cards went on to beat the Yankees in the World Series.) It
was one of those things that a boy of 10 could not understand, as
sports were in my blood, and I rooted for any team from Philadelphia.
So, half a
year later, we waited for a form of redemption for Philadelphia
that never came. As many of you already know, there was no successful
inbounds play that night. John
Havlicek stole the ball. (I am thankful that I was not subjected
to the screams of Celtics announcer Johnny Most in that most famous
of broadcasts; the silence on WCAU was enough.)
Two years later,
we finally received redemption as the 76ers demolished Boston 4–1
in the eastern finals and won the NBA championship. It was a most
sweet moment as I, along with much of the Free World at that time,
hated the Celtics. Hated the Celtics.
It turns out
that Jemele Hill, a talented ESPN columnist from Detroit also
hates the Celtics, and some of her words have resulted in her
having to engage in the Official Grovel and Apology before the Altar
of Political Correctness. Just as Havlicek spoiled my evening in
1965, Larry Bird of the Celtics would perform his own miracle steal
in 1987, leading to a bitter series win over the Detroit Pistons.
Writes Hill, describing a moment I can understand down to my toes:
1987. I was
12 and a huge Pistons fan. I just knew it was our year, just as
I knew E.T. was real. Game 5. Celtics. Boston Garden. Eastern
Conference finals. Larry Bird stole Isaiah Thomas' friggin' inbounds
pass with a couple of seconds left, passed to Dennis Johnson,
and the Celtics won the game (and eventually the series). I had
a nervous breakdown and spent two straight days listening to Robbie
Nevil, flicking the lamp in my room on and off like Glenn Close
in "Fatal Attraction." Bad times.
One thing that
made that series especially nasty were the racially-charged comments
that Pistons forward Dennis Rodman made after Boston won a hard-fought
game to take the series 4-3. When asked by a reporter about Larry
Bird, Rodman replied that the only reason Bird received any publicity
was because he was white. Now, this was before Rodman had become
the NBA’s Official Freak Show, but when Isaiah Thomas – who knew
better, given Bird’s outstanding Hall-of-Fame record as a player
– affirmed those remarks, the series took another tone: Boston had
too many white players; it was a racist team.
At that point,
the racial wars within the NBA (and professional sports, in general)
were in the open and never have subsided. In 1965, Philadelphia’s
starting five – and Boston’s – were mostly black players. Havlicek’s
famous steal did not carry racial overtones; he had bailed out the
Great Bill Russell, who seconds before had committed the turnover
that gave the 76ers the ball in the first place. Russell was black,
as were Sam and K.C. Jones and Satch Sanders, who to this day remain
the Gold Standard of professional basketball.
The 76ers in
1967 had an all-black starting five, led by Wilt Chamberlain and
Hal Greer. At that time, it is doubtful that there were any more
"racist" sports cities than Philadelphia and Boston. But
we Philly fans did not hate the Celtics because their stars were
black; we hated them because they were the Celtics. The green
and white uniforms were enough to stoke the juices.
Unfortunately
for Jemele Hill, she did not stop with saying she hated the Celtics.
Instead, she embellished her statements, saying that "rooting
for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim. It’s like
hoping Gorbachev would get to the blinking red button before Reagan."
(Unfortunately, the ESPN brass had her remarks airbrushed and no
longer are available through
this column.) Those were the words that would get her into trouble
and lead to the following Official
Grovel:
I deeply
regret the comment I made in a column Saturday. In expressing
my passion for the NBA and my hometown of Detroit I showed very
poor judgment in the words that I used. I pride myself on an understanding
of, and appreciation for, diversity – and there is no excuse for
the appalling lack of sensitivity in my comments. It in no way
reflects the person I am. I apologize to all of my readers and
I thank them for holding me accountable. This has been an important
lesson for me and illustrates that, like many people, I still
have a lot of growing and learning to do.
To that I say:
Give me a break. She did not echo any feelings that I and a million
other people in 1965 and 1967 harbored and people in Detroit – black
and white – harbor today. Please remember that when Red Auerbach
was coaching the Celtics, he would light up a stogie near the end
of the last game of the NBA finals (usually against the hapless
Lakers) to make his point.
In 1967, Auerbach’s
first year in retirement (Bill Russell took the role of player-coach
for the Celtics), he sat in the stands in game five of the eastern
series, a contest Philly would win 144-121, and a game I remember
like it was yesterday. Philadelphia fans sitting near Auerbach lit
their own cigars, and what a delicious moment it was, although I
have described actions that today are considered so Politically
Incorrect as not even to be mentionable in polite or even impolite
society.
Had a sportswriter
in Philadelphia on April 16, 1965, written Hill’s words, we would
have agreed wholeheartedly. (Of course, Hitler had been dead only
20 years and it would be another 20 before Reagan and Gorby would
meet in Iceland.) In fact, I suspect more than one Philadelphia
fan on that morning believed that nothing short of a thermo-nuclear
attack on the city of Boston would suffice. First the Phillies blowing
the pennant, and now Havlicek stealing the ball. Philadelphia once
again was a city of losers, and those loyal to the City of Brotherly
Love were not pleased.
But today,
Hill must repent of whatever it was she said. For those who might
not understand the mechanics of sportswriting, she was using hyperbole.
She was not advocating Round Two of The Holocaust or regretting
that Gorbachev and the Red Menace did not nuke us; she simply was
using over-the-top language that hardly is unusual in her profession.
At least she
did not have to apologize for the following (although some people
claim to have been offended):
Equally appalling
is that some of my friends – people I consider hardcore Detroiters
– have actually been rooting for the Celtics in the Finals. That's
just gross. If you're from Detroit, and you're at peace with the
idea of the Celtics winning another NBA title, immediately hurl
yourself off the Ambassador Bridge.
Rooting for
the Celtics is like supporting inflation, unemployment and locusts.
It's like praying for Eva Mendes to get married and for Brad Pitt
to be disfigured.
It's like
wishing dollar bills and free time for Pacman Jones. It's like
hoping the pit bull doesn't take Michael Vick's pinky as a memento.
It's like wanting Ron Artest's raps on repeat. It's like coveting
fungus.
By the way,
I do not recall Johnny Most, who truly was the ultimate homer when
it came to announcing, being brought before the PC Police. However,
there were no PC Police when he was doing his impression
of a professional broadcaster. No one had to bow down before the
God of Diversity and the ridiculous, parsing language that accompanies
it.
No, Jemele
Hill is a throwback to the columnist who was fun to read and who
enjoyed writing for fans. For that matter, she was one of the few
columnists in the country who gave
apologies to the Duke lacrosse players after North Carolina
Attorney General Roy Cooper exonerated them in April, 2007. Her
column is well-worth reading and reveals someone who is willing
to ask the hard questions of herself and others.
Most likely,
I would not agree with every word of every column that Hill has
written, and I am thankful for that. I figure that anyone who agrees
with me 100 percent of the time is not worth reading, given that
I doubt I would agree with me 100 percent of the time.
But Jemele
Hill is a serious writer and someone I enjoy reading. She should
not have to fall down prostrate to the PC Gods and be forced
to write complete b.s. about her "insensitivity" and the
like, since she was not "insensitive." She grew up hating
the Celtics. So did I. Her moment was Bird stealing the ball, and
mine was the theft by Havlicek. So, let her hate the Celtics – and
leave her alone and let her write.
Correction:
In a recent
article in which I took issue with a book review by Robert Perkinson,
I mistakenly said that K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor had included
the Darryl Hunt case in their book, Until
Proven Innocent, in response to the charge that Perkinson
had made against them in his review in The Nation.
Indeed, Perkinson was correct; there is no mention of the Hunt case
in that book.
However, I must add that this omission was not due to Perkinson's
charge that they had left out the Hunt case because they did not
wish to disturb their own "narrative," but rather because the chapter
(Chapter 23) of the book was dealing specifically with cases of
prosecutorial misconduct. Furthermore, the authors highlighted
cases involving both blacks and white defendants who were convicted
wrongfully because of misconduct by North Carolina prosecutors.
Darryl
Hunt ultimately was exonerated because of DNA testing, something
that was not available when he first was convicted in the mid-1980s.
It is ironic that many of Nifong's supporters were willing to accept
the results that freed Hunt but were not willing to accept the fact
that no DNA by any lacrosse player on Crystal Mangum meant anything
at all, except to mean the players were guilty. (One North
Carolina Central University student declared that the players "left
nothing behind.")
K.C. Johnson, in his Durham-in-Wonderland
blog, highlighted the Hunt case long before the book was published,
so Perkinson's contention that he was not interested in the case
because of a certain "narrative" simply cannot stand. Nonetheless,
I still made an error which I regret, and I apologize for it.
June
24, 2008
William
L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him
mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland,
and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute. He also is a consultant
with American Economic Services.
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
William
Anderson Archives
|