Shock of the day, Jemele Hill hates the Celtics.

[paintitgreen]

I think this thread has overblown the "hate-mongering" and "racism" in her article. She probably shouldn't have thrown in the Hitler-nuclear war comment, but it seems as though she was throwing it in to discuss how bad it would be for a Detroit fan to cheer for Boston. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is she was saying being a life-long Piston fan who cheered for the Celtics in the Finals is a horrible thing and to stress that point, used extreme comparisons. Yeah, it's overboard, but it's just hyperbole. Writers include that stuff - editors should take it out if it's over the line.

And the argument that ESPN changed the article after publishing proves she's wrong is just ridiculous. These articles undergo editing before they're posted. That somebody underestimated the feedback from a statement (likely because they just read it as innocuous hyperbole, as I'm sure many people would) it not proof that she did anything wrong. They should have taken it out before publishing. Instead they took it out after publishing. They approved of the statements before, they obviously just realize the feedback is too much.

I also think her words are being twisted. She never said the Boston Celtics or the city of Boston were racist, she merely said there was a national perception that the city and team were racist at a specific point in time. I'm a white guy who grew up in Boston. I knew there was a perception that Boston is a racist city. Does the fact that I acknowledge that perception existed mean I'm claiming Boston is a racist city? Of course not. Neither does Hill's acknowledgement that there was a national perception that Boston was racist mean that she's claiming Boston is racist. She points out that perception is gone, but the perception is somewhat relevant to her argument.

Had she gone on and explained all of Red Auerbach's moves that elevated the status of African Americans in basketball, she would simply have been regurgitating JA Adande's piece from earlier in the year. But it wasn't an article about Boston's racism, it was an article about her feelings of dislike for the Celtics since her days of just being a Piston fan. She said the national perception racism fueled her initial hatred of the Celtics. Can any of us honestly say that perception did not exist? Can any of us possibly speculate that the perception did not affect Jemele Hill? How, then, can we say she's wrong?

Hill also said that her current hatred of the Celtics is not based in any way on race, it is simply based on the fact that as a Piston fan, the Celtics were a team she despised, much like many of us hated the Bad Boy Pistons more than any other team in the NBA. I don't see anything wrong with that.

As for the Charles Stuart comment, again, what's wrong with it? That was an event that fueled the national perception of Boston as a racist city. Yes, it could have happened in pretty much any city in America and unfolded the same way. But it didn't. It happened in Boston, and many impressionable people, or people previously disposed to the position, were convinced this was proof of Boston's rampant racism. It might not be true, but she's not arguing that it is. She's only pointing to it as one event that furthered her perception that Boston was, particularly during the time of the Bird Celtics, a racist city. We might not like that Boston has or had this reputation but it did, and her acknowledgement of it doesn't equate to an argument that Boston is racist.

There is no conceivable way that anybody here can tell Jemele Hill that she didn't believe Boston was a racist city and the Celtics were a racist team. She did, and nothing we say or that she thinks now can change what she once thought. She honestly admitted it was a factor in her hatred for the Celtics. She can't change what the national perception of Boston was in the 70s and 80s, and she can't change how she felt about the city and the Celtics in the 80s. And I don't see why we should demand she does. She points out that she doesn't feel that way now. That is all she can do.

I think a lot of people here just don't want anybody to think Boston was a racist city. Well, a lot of people (including Bill Russell) have claimed Boston was a racist city, and whether it was/is true or not, the claims of those people affected other people. She only mentioned the effects, and did not claim the original perceptions were correct. Not everybody on ESPN and every other national media outlet needs to write in defense of Boston for everything.

Bottom line, she's a disgruntled Pistons fan. There's nothing wrong, to me, with interjecting your personal feelings and fan loyalties, into columns. And that's what she did.

[Casperian]

@paintitgreen
I will keep it short, this thread is already in full soapbox mode.

I could care less about the City of Boston (not 100% true). I´m not a Red Sox fan nor a Patriots fan, just a Celtics fan. So I´m not trying to defend the City of Boston here. She wrote her article about the Celtics, said it was her perception that it was a racist team, and brought up events that happened in the City of Boston and had nothing to do with the Celtics as things that strengthened her beliefs. She does not say that the things she felt about the Celtics were not true. This is her only attempt to relativize her feelings:

Those feelings toward the city and the Celtics have subsided, in large part because our own racial attitudes have progressed.

You can´t write a piece about your hate for a franchise, explain it was because of unrelated things that happened in their City, and bring this as your attempt to relativize your statements, imo. You said Russel hated Boston, but he also loved the Celtics. To keep the metaphor of Nazi-Germany alive: To think the Celtics are racist is like calling Claus von Stauffenberg a Nazi. It is simply uneducated, and should be labeled as that.

Let´s keep it at that, I completely understand your point, but the first unedited article was just a slap in the face and a "Your Momma" joke combined. I hope you understand.

TP for keeping things in perspective.

[LarBrd33]

sounds like ESPN was forced to apologize on behalf of that fool's Hitler comments: http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/53032/20080617/espn_apologizes_for_celtics_hitler_reference/#

[nickagneta]

Sweet, vindication.

[crownsy]

paint, the reason she gets slammed for race mongering isn't that this article goes there, its that 99% of everything she writes goes thier.

It's her gimmick, and when you have a specific gimmick, its ok for people to criticize her for once again blatanly adding a racial element to get readers.

[Roy Hobbs]

“The column, as originally posted, made some absolutely unacceptable comparisons,” the statement said. “We’ve spoken with Jemele, and she understands that she exercised poor judgment.”

“Both Jemele and ESPN.com apologize. Within hours of its posting on Saturday evening, the inappropriate references were removed from the site, and we are thoroughly reviewing the entire situation,” the statement said.

When asked how Hill’s remarks made it onto ESPN’s Web site, ESPN spokesman Paul Melvin said there was a “breakdown in the system of editorial checks and balances.”

“We’re normally quite proud of the editorial judgment exercised here, but this was clearly an exception to that,” Melvin said.

Link.

That's called "being taken to the wood shed".

[Donoghus]

Sweet, vindication.

Haha....yup.

[Roy Hobbs]

Interesting, reading some of Jemele's comments about Imus:

I'm still boiling because too many people continue to defend Imus behind lame free-speech arguments -- remember, speech is free, but consequences are not -- and the idea that black women just don't know a good joke when they hear one.

In case you're wondering, I would have been equally outraged if Imus were black, Asian, Latino, Portuguese or Italian. The ethnicity or skin color of the perpetrator matters none.

But none of this has anything to do with Imus, whose apology I can't accept or take seriously. Imus has become a Hall of Fame broadcaster using race-baiting, offensive tactics. He is routinely offensive to people of color and women, and if he needs to lose his job to understand that there is no place for that, so be it.

As a society, there are times when we need to stand together against indecency and cruelty.

So that we're clear: inappropriate and offensive speech should result in firing, regardless of whether intended as a joke.  It doesn't matter what the skin color of the person using the speech is; if somebody resorts to race-bating or uses offensive tactics, they should be fired.

Got it, Jemele.  Pack your bags.

[Donoghus]

Interesting, reading some of Jemele's comments about Imus:

I'm still boiling because too many people continue to defend Imus behind lame free-speech arguments -- remember, speech is free, but consequences are not -- and the idea that black women just don't know a good joke when they hear one.

In case you're wondering, I would have been equally outraged if Imus were black, Asian, Latino, Portuguese or Italian. The ethnicity or skin color of the perpetrator matters none.

But none of this has anything to do with Imus, whose apology I can't accept or take seriously. Imus has become a Hall of Fame broadcaster using race-baiting, offensive tactics. He is routinely offensive to people of color and women, and if he needs to lose his job to understand that there is no place for that, so be it.

As a society, there are times when we need to stand together against indecency and cruelty.

So that we're clear: inappropriate and offensive speech should result in firing, regardless of whether intended as a joke.  It doesn't matter what the skin color of the person using the speech is; if somebody results to race-bating or uses offensive tactics, they should be fired.

Got it, Jemele.  Pack your bags.

Nice find.

Ironic, don't you think?   

[Mean Gerald Green]

Interesting, reading some of Jemele's comments about Imus:

I'm still boiling because too many people continue to defend Imus behind lame free-speech arguments -- remember, speech is free, but consequences are not -- and the idea that black women just don't know a good joke when they hear one.

In case you're wondering, I would have been equally outraged if Imus were black, Asian, Latino, Portuguese or Italian. The ethnicity or skin color of the perpetrator matters none.

But none of this has anything to do with Imus, whose apology I can't accept or take seriously. Imus has become a Hall of Fame broadcaster using race-baiting, offensive tactics. He is routinely offensive to people of color and women, and if he needs to lose his job to understand that there is no place for that, so be it.

As a society, there are times when we need to stand together against indecency and cruelty.

So that we're clear: inappropriate and offensive speech should result in firing, regardless of whether intended as a joke.  It doesn't matter what the skin color of the person using the speech is; if somebody results to race-bating or uses offensive tactics, they should be fired.

Got it, Jemele.  Pack your bags.

FANTASTIC.

She should be out of a job regardless due to her sophomoric, blog post writing for a major sports outlet.