Brooklyn Nets Suspend Kyrie Irving For at Least Five Games, Deem Him "Unfit" Based on His Unrepentant Antisemitism
After a lot of unrepentantly defiant antisemitism displayed by Kyrie Irving and a lot of waffling by the Brooklyn Nets and the NBA, the Nets have finally suspended Irving for at least five games. Here is the complete statement issued by the team:
Over the last several days, we have made repeated attempts to work with Kyrie Irving to help him understand the harm and danger of his words and actions, which began with him publicizing a film containing deeply disturbing antisemitic hate. We believed that taking the path of education in this challenging situation would be the right one and thought that we had made progress with our joint commitment to eradicating hate and intolerance.
We were dismayed today, when given an opportunity in a media session, that Kyrie refused to unequivocally say he has no antisemitic beliefs, nor acknowledge specific hateful material in the film. This was not the first time he had the opportunity – but failed – to clarify.
Such failure to disavow antisemitism when given a clear opportunity to do so is deeply disturbing, is against the values of our organization, and constitutes conduct detrimental to the team. Accordingly, we are of the view that he is currently unfit to be associated with the Brooklyn Nets. We have decided that Kyrie will serve a suspension without pay until he satisfies a series of objective remedial measures that address the harmful impact of his conduct and the suspension period served is no less than five games.
A few hours after the Nets announced Irving's suspension, Irving made the following Instagram post (I have not changed the grammar or spelling in his post):
While doing research on YHWH (Yahweh), I posted a documentary that contained some false anti-Semitic statements, narratives, and language that were untrue and offensive to the Jewish Race/Religion, and I take full accountability and responsibly for my actions. I am grateful to have a big platform to share knowledge and I want to move forward by having an open dialogue to learn more and grow from this.
To All Jewish families and Communities that are hurt and affected from my post, I am deeply sorry to have caused you pain, and I apologize. I initially reacted out of emotion to being unjustly labeled Anti-Semitic, instead of focusing on the healing process of my Jewish Brothers and Sisters that were hurt from the hateful remarks made in the Documentary. I want to clarify any confusion on where I stand fighting against Anti-semticism by apologizing for posting the documentary without context and a factual explanation outlining the specific beliefs in the Documentary I agreed with and disagreed with. I had no intentions to disrespect any Jewish cultural history regarding the Holocaust or perpetuate any hate. I am learning from this unfortunate event and hope we can find understanding between us all. I am no different than any other human being. I am a seeker of truth and knowledge, and I know who I Am.
Note that Irving still refuses to say what exactly he agrees with in the film. The film consists of three hours of lies and nonsense thrown together, so Irving's statement is equivalent to someone listening to David Duke ramble on for three hours, posting a link to Duke's speech, and then later saying, "Well, I don't agree with everything he said, and I apologize to anyone who is offended."
If Irving's apology is sincere and if he is truly "a seeker of truth and knowledge" then he can start by clarifying exactly what he believes. Then, he can educate his social media followers who responded with ignorant comments reiterating and amplifying the lies stated in the film that Irving promoted in a previous (and subsequently deleted) social media post. Irving's followers truly believe that Irving is some kind of truth-speaking prophet and not a dude who is gullible enough to fall hook, line, and sinker for conspiracy theories that are easily debunked.
I know better than to try to persuade people who are willfully blind to the truth, but when thinking about who has power, what are the limits of free speech, and what is the nature of objective historical truth, it is interesting to keep in mind a few facts that I have mentioned in my previous articles about Irving:
1) Irving has more social media followers than the Jewish population of the world. Irving has over 20 million followers, while there are fewer than 15 million Jews in a world that has a population of nearly 8 billion people. When Irving boasts that he has an "army" supporting him, that is not an exaggeration. He is far from powerless both in terms of his personal, generational wealth, and in terms of the influence that he wields. If each of his followers spreads his messages to just five more people, Irving potentially reaches 100 million people every time he makes a social media post.
The Jewish people are so powerful that less than 80 years ago a third of their population was massacred in Europe while the Jewish people were unable to get immigration quotas lifted in any major Western country, including America.
2) No one has challenged Irving's free speech right to post whatever he wants to post. The First Amendment protects against government restriction of a citizen's free speech rights--but just like Irving has a right to say what he wants to say, other people have a right to respond to him, to question him, and to decide to not employ him or do business with him.
3) I have seen some people assert that the film that Irving promoted speaks the truth, and I have seen other people say some version of "everyone has a right to speak his truth."
Regarding the first sentiment, the movie that Irving promoted asserts that the Holocaust never happened, that Jews controlled the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and that Jews worship Satan. Those statements are all demonstrably false. This would be equivalent to a white supremacist stating that slavery never happened, that Black people are responsible for harming white people on a massive scale, and that Black people worship Satan. If you support Irving's promotion of antisemitic falsehoods, then you have no standing to challenge white supremacists who state that they are not attacking Black people but rather defending white people, and you definitely need to stop talking about so-called "micro-aggressions." To be clear, I find both white supremacy and Holocaust denial to be offensive; I condemn both. I just don't want to hear about "micro-aggressions" from people who endorse "macro-aggressions" that contradict historical truth and contribute to a climate in which antisemitic violence is soaring to unprecedented levels.
Regarding the second sentiment, this notion that there is not an objective truth but that each person has his or her own "truth" is precisely what George Orwell warned about in his classic dystopian novel 1984. If words lose their objective meaning and if history can be whatever each person believes it to be then we have no shared past and no shared future because there are no longer standards for what is right, what is wrong, what is true, and what is false. There are far too many people in our society who would love to take our educational system in that direction. The Soviet Union tried it, China is doing it now, Cuba is doing it now, and we have seen--without fail--that every nation that goes down this path ends up persecuting its own people and terrorizing its neighbors.
People laughed and shook their heads when Kyrie Irving suggested that he believes the world is flat, not understanding where this kind of irrational thinking leads; once you abandon objective truth, anything is believable, and any action can be justified.
I doubt that Irving sorted his way through all of the above truths in the past four or five hours, but either he or people close to him figured out that he is on his way to killing the golden goose that lays $40 million per year eggs for him. I doubt that many of his followers will ever figure this stuff out, but if Irving makes a sincere attempt to become more informed and objective then perhaps he can become the "light" he claims to aspire to be.
I am rooting for Irving to grow, and for his followers to grow with him. It is not an exaggeration to say that our society's fate depends on people leaning toward objective truth, and leaning away from subjective, personal "truth."
It is not too late for the NBA office, the NBA Players Association, and the coaches who are self-styled social justice warriors to make their voices heard against antisemitism. Their continued silence speaks volumes.
Labels: antisemitism, Brooklyn Nets, Kyrie Irving, NBA
posted by David Friedman @ 1:34 AM
21 Comments:
David,
Film studies professors regularly assign Griffith's Birth of a Nation, which dehumanizes Black men and glorifies the KKK and indeed revitalized the Klan. President Wilson, a dedicated segregationist, delighted in the film upon screening it in the White House. Many profs also assign Gone with the Wind, another film that dehumanizes Blacks and glorifies the Klan, although the movie is more muted in its Klan-worship than is the novel.
There are other texts that epitomize hatred of Black culture that I could cite. But I ask, should professors now apologize for "promoting" these types of anti-Black texts? As with Irving posting the antisemitic film in question, many educators put anti-Black films on their syllabi.
Not being facetious here. My larger point is that anti-Black racism is so pervasive that it's taken for granted. I think that the treatment of Irving here, while at the same time whites tend to get a pass for "promoting" hateful material against Blacks, demonstrates a double standard.
Whites don't have to apologize for "promoting" Birth of a Nation or Gone with the Wind and so Irving shouldn't have to apologize for "promoting" Hebrews to Negroes.
One other point: white America has never apologized for their ongoing dehumanization of Black people going back to 17th-century colonial Virginia. No, Jews did not control the transatlantic slave trade. But (Caucasian) Jews, especially Sephardim, did participate in it. Judah Benjamin was the second-in-command of the Confederacy. A Jewish man named Robert Rosen proudly wrote a book called "The Jewish Confederates". Robert Moses, the NYC Parks Commissioner that built all those parks and bridges and thus displaced a lot of communities, that Robert Caro wrote about in The Power Broker, was virulently anti-Black racist.
The Black-Jewish relationship is complicated. All the above is just a counterpoint to the narrative that Jews were all civil rights activists who marched with King.
Anonymous:
I don't know how "regularly" "Birth of a Nation" is assigned by film studies professors, or in what context it is assigned. If it is being viewed from the standpoint of examining film making/propaganda techniques that is different than if it is being viewed from the standpoint of being an accurate historical depiction. I tend to agree with you that "Birth of a Nation" should be consigned to the junk heap and not viewed at all.
"Gone With the Wind," Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" with its depiction of Shylock, and other films, plays, and novels that contain stereotypical depictions of Blacks, Jews, or other minorities present a challenge. Should these works never be viewed or read again? Should they be viewed or read in the larger context of understanding bigotry? I am not sure that there is a one size fits all answer regarding stereotypical depictions in fictional works.
Irving promoted a film that is presented as a documentary revealing hidden historical truths. There is a difference between false history versus fiction that includes stereotypes. If a professor screened "Birth of a Nation" while stating that this is an accurate portrayal of history and of Black people then I would say that professor is just as out of line as Irving is.
I disagree that white America has never apologized for dehumanization of Black people. There have been both individual and collective apologies, and there have been steps toward remediation legally, economically, and in the way subjects are taught in schools. I am not saying that there is not more that can or should be done, but I disagree with the notion that nothing has been done.
I acknowledge that individual Jewish people participated in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. No reputable person denies that. Black people also participated in the slave trade both in terms of hunting down slaves in Africa, and in owning slaves in the New World. The film that Irving promoted asserted that the Jewish people controlled the trans-Atlantic slave trade. That is demonstrably false, but it is an antisemitic trope that has been repeated for decades by Farrakhan and others as a means of stirring up hatred against Jews.
Anonymous:
I agree that the Black-Jewish relationship is complicated, but Irving's promotion of an antisemitic film did not serve either community very well. No one is suggesting that all Jews marched with Dr. King, but it is not difficult to determine that Jews supported the Civil Rights Movement (and continue to support Civil Rights causes) to a greater extent than most if not all other non-Black communities. Farrakhan and others have their reasons for wanting to deny that history and to falsely accuse the Jewish people as a whole of being the primary oppressors of Black people. A lot of polling has been done of how Jewish people view Black people and of how Black people view Jewish people. The rate of documented antisemitism within the Black community is very sad and disappointing. The Jewish community as a whole aligns politically and economically with the goals of the Black community, but many members of the Black community do not see this. Individual exceptions can always be found, but the cliche that the Black community will never forgive the Jewish community for the help that the Jewish community has provided contains more than a kernel of truth, as can be seen not only in opinion poll numbers regarding antisemitism but also by a cursory examination of the comments section in Kyrie's social media platforms.
A Jewish person who overtly expresses racist views will be ostracized and condemned by the Jewish community. There is no outcry in the Jewish community that Donald Sterling did not get a fair shake. In contrast, a Black person who overtly expresses antisemitic views always receives public support from a significant portion of the Black community and is rarely condemned by the community. Banners are going up around the country proclaiming that Kanye was right, and it is not hard to see how much support Kyrie is receiving (and I realize that some of that support comes from white supremacists, but not all of that support is from white supremacists). Where is the "Squad" to condemn antisemitism? Where is Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Jewish leaders don't just speak about about antisemitism but they also speak against racism. Why is antisemitism the only bigotry that is only battled by the people who suffer from it? We should all oppose antisemitism the same way that we should oppose all forms of bigotry.
No Jewish person is going around begging for thank yous from the Black community, but a decrease in overt antisemitism is not too much of a request--out of basic human decency even without acknowledgment of the prominent role that the Jewish community has played in supporting Civil Rights.
I hope for better days ahead, but as a student of history I cannot say that I am optimistic.
David,
Anonymous again. Just a couple of points of clarification:
1) When I speak of white America apologizing to Blacks I mean on the scale that the U.S. Government apologized to Japanese for internment of of them during WW2 - in 1988 President Bush officially apologized and as a token of apology gave each Japanese survivor $20,000 in REPARATIONS. Another analogy is the way in which Germany apologized to Jews through reparations re: the Nazis and the Holocaust. Not only the U.S. Government. Also the British Crown, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, the Catholic Church all owe trillions of dollars in reparations to Black Americans (North and South).
2) Yes, Africans participated in the transatlantic slave trade. But on a much, much lower scale than did (Caucasian) Jews. The point being that wealthy Jews were part and parcel of the slave-power structure. Blacks never really were. In other words, saying that Africans trafficked in fellow Africans, which they did, as a way of deflecting white (Jewish) guilt is similar to someone who'd blame parents who sell their children to modern child-traffickers as a way of deflecting the blame from the real predators who reap the massive profits from modern slave-trafficking.
That's all.
Anonymous:
In 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives issued a formal apology for slavery and for the Jim Crow laws: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-times-united-states-officially-apologized-180959254/
In 1985, Pope John Paul II apologized for the role of white Christians in the African slave trade: https://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/14/world/pope-apologizes-to-africans-for-slavery.html
I did not look up all of the other countries that you listed, so I am not sure whether or not they formally apologized.
Reparations, of course, is a different issue than a formal apology. I suspect that the when, how, who, and how much will be debated for quite some time. I am not denying the importance of the issue, but it does not directly relate to the topic at hand, and it cannot be adequately addressed in a word count-limited comment.
The historical evidence does not support the contention that the Jewish people were part of the slave-power structure. Individual Jews participated in small numbers.
David Brion Davis is one of the leading scholars regarding the slave trade. In a letter to the New York Review, he quoted scholar Harold Brackman regarding the Jewish participation in the slave trade in 1830: "There were only twenty-three Jews among the 59,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and just four Jews among the 11,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves. In other words, the South’s 'master class' of big plantation owners was 99.9 percent non-Jewish. Also in 1830, 11,912 slaves were owned by 3,647 free 'persons of color' who outnumbered Jewish slaveholders by fifteen to one."
I am not going to go through a footnoted version of every piece of scholarly evidence because whole books have been written on this topic, and the credible information based on primary source material is that the Jewish participation in the slave trade was minimal.
I am not justifying anyone's participation, of course--but Kyrie promoted a film asserting that the Jewish people controlled the trans-Atlantic slave trade. That is not only a lie, but it is like throwing a match on the already smoldering flames of antisemitism at a time when antisemitic attacks are at an all-time high. Synagogues are hiring armed guards to protect their congregants, and Jews are regularly being attacked on the streets. What Kyrie did is reprehensible, and will have long-term, real world negative impact on people's lives. He has unleashed a potential whirlwind, and it is his responsibility to do everything he can to reverse the damage. He is not responsible for the film or for all of the antisemitism in the world, but to the extent that he promoted the film and encouraged antisemitism he is responsible for the consequences of his actions.
anonymous
I don't see why all tax payers (regardless of origin) have to cover reparations given out by government to any particular group. Especially since they (taxpayers) didn't take part in any of the reasons for such reparations. To me all this looks like a cheap cash grab. The government doesn't have its own money (to large extent).
I also don't see a reason to pay for anything our ancestors did. It is inappriopriate to assign blame to everyone based on origin, because shit happened back then. In the end everyone would owe to everyone else for sins of ancestors.
Beep:
The challenge with reparations, as you allude to, is the process of determining who to blame and who should be compensated.
Regarding the Holocaust and the internment of America's Japanese citizens, those were specific events that happened in a narrow timeframe. We know who the perpetrators were and who the victims were.
In contrast, slavery happened for hundreds of years, and involved many countries and individual perpetrators. This is not a simple matter of saying government x stole property y from person z or government x killed person y. To the extent that specific perpetrators and victims can be discerned, reparations are appropriate, but I am not sure how to do that regarding slavery. Further, the trans-Atlantic slave trade predates the creation of the United States, and the United States outlawed slavery within 80 years of this country's birth (i.e., after the Civil War).
This is a painful, sensitive topic. I feel the pain of those who suffered hundreds of years ago, and the pain of their descendants today, but I am not sure how a reparations plan would work.
I agree the topic is sensitive and very emotional.
And there is one thing no one dares to mention (or so it seems), the benefits of living in US today in comparison to living in an African country. Would American minority like to go to Africa to live there today even with all the reparations they demand? I seriously doubt it.
Thanks to this slave trade they can now live in US, which should count for something.
PS. To be clear, I'm not American. Just looking at it from outside.
Marcel
Reparations is owed to level the playing field
The reason white people got 100x more wealth than black people
Is because of slavery and Jim crow not cause they outwork or work harder than black people
Without racism and those atrocities toward black American it's more than likely white folks wouldn't even survive in this country
Tax payers had to pay Jewish and Chinese for atrocities that didn't even happen in the USA
So they should pay for reparations cause u benefitted from generations of racism toward black Americans
Not just white people every non black American group benefits from black Americans being bottom caste
Asians
Hispanic
Africans etc
Programs our ancestors fought for the biggest beneficiary are non togroups.
That why reparations should only go to black Americans and be specific to us
So to me it's nothing to debate
If u can trace one of ur ancestors to slavery. Which it is easy to do
All black Americans should get a check and should be programs geared to level the playing field
Black Americans built this country and have been oppressed like no other people in world history
It is time we get what is owed to us,
Beep - such a perspective ignores the fact that slaves were a huge contributing factor to the US economy itself as cheap/ effectively unpaid labor, while being exploited and dehumanized. And it’s too easy for someone without going through the history and generational trauma to say that it’s still better to be in the U.S. than in Africa - which is another matter that you seemed to generalize way too simply.
I am from Asia and have lived in both Africa and U.S. in case my background matters in providing more perspectives, although it shouldn’t.
Beep:
I can't endorse that view. Slaves were brought to America against their will. The conditions in other parts of the world then or now are not relevant. That would be like saying that Holocaust survivors (or any group of survivors/refugees who escaped persecution) are living better in their new countries than they lived in their previous countries so they are not really victims.
Marcel:
As I indicated above, I don't want to get too far into this off-topic subject. A commenter brought up reparations, not Kyrie Irving. Kyrie Irving posted a link to an antisemitic film. That is why he is in the news, that is why I wrote about him, and that is why the Brooklyn Nets suspended him.
I am not sure where you get your figures comparing "white wealth to Black wealth."
It is racist to assert that whites (or Blacks) could not survive in a particular country without someone else's help. There are countries with various different racial compositions around the world. One race is not superior to another race in terms of building countries (or anything else).
I am not sure when you think that U.S. taxpayers paid reparations to Jewish people or Chinese people.
Again, the topic of reparations is complex, nuanced, and beyond the scope of this conversation. From this point forward, I will restrict comments to those that pertain to the issues discussed in this article, which is no different than my usual policy restricting the comments section of a particular article to the subject(s) discussed in that article.
Longtime reader even though I almost never see eye-to-eye with you when it comes to basketball (maybe I'm a masochist), but your attention to and comprehensive coverage of antisemitism in the basketball world is consistently top-notch. I have no notes, thank you for continuing to shine a light on this ugly side of the basketball world -- imagine if we were as hard on athletes for being antisemitic as we were on athletes who are perceived to be "anti-American" like Colin Kaepernick.
Anonymous:
Thank you!
I respect the fact that you don't want to get too off topic, but I really would like to say this about reparations. Why is it that the topic of reparations for American descendants of slaves makes people singularly touching and angry about paying for something that they had no role in? American tax dollars are routinely spent to address things that are not the "fault" of most/all taxpayers but are deemed to be in the national interest. There is not the same outrage, for example, at billions being spent on the war in Ukraine. Wouldn't it be nice if instead of outrage, Americans could respond to the idea of reparations by thinking "I know that I did not have any role in slavery, and neither did any of my ancestors. But I benefit from living in America and recognize that America would not be where it was today without the centuries of unpaid labor that helped build it. It is also in my interest to live in an America that can fully acknowledge past wrongs, and it is in my interest to live in an America that can take a big step to heal this deep wound and move forward."
Anonymous:
I cannot speak for why other people feel the way that they do. The topic of reparations does not make me angry. I feel that the topic is (1) complex, (2) not relevant to the subject of this article, and (3) not something that can be coherently figured out in the comments section.
If taxpayers prefer for government money to be spent differently than it is being spent, then taxpayers can vote out the current President and current members of Congress and replace the current elected officials with elected officials who the voters believe will act more in alignment with their spending preferences.
My take on reparations is not to deny that evil took place, nor to deny that victims deserve compensation; my take is that when the perpetrators and victims can be directly identified and the damages accurately calculated then it is straightforward to make reparations. With the Holocaust, there are documented historical records about who did the killing, who was killed, what property was taken by whom, etc. With the internment of America's Japanese citizens there is also documentation of exactly what happened.
In contrast, slavery has existed throughout human history. Almost without exception, conquerors enslave the conquered. There have been countries that have been conquerors and conquered at various times. Specifically regarding the trans-Atlantic slave trade, that historical horror took place over several centuries and was perpetrated by multiple countries and businesses, some of which no longer exist. I don't know how one would figure out who to classify as the perpetrators who "owe" money, and I don't know how one would figure out who to classify as the victims who are "owed" money. What if a person is of mixed ethnic heritage and has ancestors who were slaves as well as ancestors who were slave owners? Should a descendant of slave owners who is currently impoverished be forced to "pay" for what his or her ancestors did? Should a wealthy person who is descended from slaves receive payment?
It is easy to propose a program involving massive redistribution of wealth, and much more difficult to figure out the logistics.
Again, this is a topic worthy of discussion, but it is far off the topic of Kyrie Irving promoting a movie filled with antisemitic tropes, and it is a topic deserving a separate article. If Irving had wanted conversation focused on that topic, he would have been well advised to use his power and influence to start or advance that conversation as opposed to (1) promoting a film denying that the Holocaust happened and (2) refusing to retract that promotion or even offer an apology until after the Brooklyn Nets suspended him. If the reporting that he refused to even answer text messages from the Nets' owner is accurate, then Irving essentially suspended himself by refusing to communicate with his boss.
Imagine any other employee posting hate speech on social media, refusing to apologize, and refusing to even speak with his boss about the issue. That would result in immediate termination. Irving, because of his gifts as a basketball player, will be given every opportunity to resume making millions of dollars playing basketball. I hope that he chooses a path of repentance, self-education, and educating his followers--who, based on their social media comments, are in dire need of education and leadership--but I would not be surprised if he chooses to become a self-styled "martyr," which would not only be self-destructive but will further heighten tensions.
I was shown Birth of a Nation (and The Triumph of the Will) in high school by teachers who made a point of putting them in context.
Roger Ebert did a great job of describing how difficult it is to ignore Birth of a Nation as a filmmaking achievement on one side and how difficult it is to ignore its horrifying morals on the other side: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915
As for Triumph of the Will, it is both an impressive filmmaking achievement on its own and, when placed in proper context, provides some light on how "normal" people can do (or support) horrifying actions -- if we do not understand how evil can happen, we increase our risk of it happening again.
Anonymous:
The point regarding Kyrie Irving and his social media post is that he promoted a film loaded with antisemitic tropes and other falsehoods, he doubled down on his post when he was questioned about it, and he could not bring himself to say that he is not antisemitic. Nor has he stated clearly and without equivocation that he acknowledges that the film is full of lies and hate speech.
So, there is a big difference between watching a propaganda film from the standpoint of studying propaganda techniques versus promoting a film filled with lies and refusing to acknowledge the harm that such promotion causes.
I'm not suggesting that you do not understand these distinctions, but I just think that they bear repetition and emphasis because a lot of people who speak about this issue to defend Irving fail to acknowledge these distinctions and fail to acknowledge why Irving is wrong.
David,
First "Anonymous" again. I didn't mean to derail the discussion on antisemitism by bringing up reparations for Black Americans. But there is a final point that I'd like to make in response to what you said about the immense difficulties involving logistics re: reparations. You said that Japanese internment and Jews under the Nazis were relatively focused groups that suffered in a narrow timeframe, which you compared to slavery of Blacks having spanned centuries and the whole Western Hemisphere. Good point. But H.R. 40 is a congressional bill, for now stalled, that would establish a commission to study the problem in all its magnitude: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/40.
Anonymous:
I am not opposed to the problem being studied. I just explained my opinion of why the problem has logistical challenges that differ from the reparations paid to victims of crimes that took place over a shorter of period of time and had specifically identifiable victims and perpetrators.
Human history has a depressing amount of suffering caused by evil actions, and as a species we have yet to learn how to stop inflicting suffering, let alone how to address all of the suffering that has happened (and the ongoing legacy of that suffering).
If Kyrie Irving chooses to lend his voice to addressing such issues from a standpoint of empathy and historical knowledge/insight, he could have a powerful impact on his 20 million followers and on society as a whole. I don't expect him to become a Holocaust scholar, or even to focus his efforts on antisemitism. If he can just learn to not diminish the suffering of other groups, I have no problem with him choosing to focus on his heritage as a Black person who also has Native American ancestors, and shining a light on the suffering inflicted on Black people and on Native Americans. Sadly, up to this point his message has been confused and has been wrapped in hate-filled tropes that will only create further suffering while doing nothing to alleviate the problems he supposedly seeks to solve.
(This is the anonymous who was speaking about Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will)
I 100% agree with you, we're saying the same thing. My argument that the dark side of history be studied, lest it be repeated, is far outside the scope of this issue, which is about promoting antisemitism.
Post a Comment
<< Home