Tweet
Where's Floyd Mayweather Jr. outcry?
By LZ Granderson
ESPN.com
some excerpts from the article...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/comme...ory?id=5543201
By LZ Granderson
ESPN.com
some excerpts from the article...
...
Which brings me to my second point: Just as we sometimes learn more about a person on the front end of a controversy than the back, sometimes it's the back end that reveals the ugly truth. In this case, the truth is Mayweather's being given a pass because he's black.
Not long after Schlessinger made her remarks, Rev. Al Sharpton could be seen ripping her to shreds on CNN and suggesting sponsors pull ads from her show. I've yet to hear a Sharpton comment regarding Mayweather. I've yet to hear him call for a boycott of any of his future fights or the sponsors tied to him.
The same goes for the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who didn't have a problem inserting himself in the conversation this summer when Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert went off on LeBron James after the King moved his throne to Miami. Jackson implied Gilbert's comments were laced with racist undertones. He even demanded a sit-down with the owner. I've yet to see Jackson insert himself into the Mayweather conversation or publicly request a similar meeting.
...
Mayweather's comments are as troublesome as Schlessingers', but he is being treated differently because he's black.
Period.
And if he were being treated honestly, black man or not, we would be hearing denunciations from Jackson, Sharpton and the NAACP. (The National Federation of Filipino American Associations provided a lead for them today.) I'm not playing devil's advocate; I'm advocating for equality -- but in the true sense of the word. Whites don't hold the patent on being racially insensitive, just as blacks are not the only group of people to be discriminated against in this country.
...
Mayweather should not be judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his YouTube comments. If a half-hearted apology was not enough to spare Imus, Schlessinger, et al, then it shouldn't spare him.
And if it does, then what does that say about us?
Which brings me to my second point: Just as we sometimes learn more about a person on the front end of a controversy than the back, sometimes it's the back end that reveals the ugly truth. In this case, the truth is Mayweather's being given a pass because he's black.
Not long after Schlessinger made her remarks, Rev. Al Sharpton could be seen ripping her to shreds on CNN and suggesting sponsors pull ads from her show. I've yet to hear a Sharpton comment regarding Mayweather. I've yet to hear him call for a boycott of any of his future fights or the sponsors tied to him.
The same goes for the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who didn't have a problem inserting himself in the conversation this summer when Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert went off on LeBron James after the King moved his throne to Miami. Jackson implied Gilbert's comments were laced with racist undertones. He even demanded a sit-down with the owner. I've yet to see Jackson insert himself into the Mayweather conversation or publicly request a similar meeting.
...
Mayweather's comments are as troublesome as Schlessingers', but he is being treated differently because he's black.
Period.
And if he were being treated honestly, black man or not, we would be hearing denunciations from Jackson, Sharpton and the NAACP. (The National Federation of Filipino American Associations provided a lead for them today.) I'm not playing devil's advocate; I'm advocating for equality -- but in the true sense of the word. Whites don't hold the patent on being racially insensitive, just as blacks are not the only group of people to be discriminated against in this country.
...
Mayweather should not be judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his YouTube comments. If a half-hearted apology was not enough to spare Imus, Schlessinger, et al, then it shouldn't spare him.
And if it does, then what does that say about us?
Comment