Discussion for article #222098
Unfortunately, I think this comes down to money. Sterling’s got a lot of it and, despite whatever personal beliefs he holds about race, was willing to spread that money around to the right organizations, charities, and programs. Rather than take an ideological stand and reject that money, they’ve been trying to skirt the edges of this issue to keep the money coming. This is all too common, unfortunately.
Probably not a popular sentiment, but as with even the most dyed-in-the-wool Klansman, we cannot change their attitudes but we can change their behavior – and while he gets no pass for his private obscenities, his public actions, though purchased, do count in the lives of real people.
I guess what I’ve concluded is the LA NAACP, like Cory Booker, courted the wealthy for the benefit of the community. In this world where help is hard to come by, it’s hard to fault them for that.
So while I harbored extreme skepticism, I suppose I’ve softened a bit on it. Not on the bigot, but on the people who courted him.
They’re changing the name of the team to the LA Crackers.
This article begs the question of money and influence. Simply look around and there are numerous examples of such unhealthy relations, and I offer Madoff as proof. Long relationships cemented by lies on his part and greed on the investors part. Ted Turner is another example with the cosmetic ponzi scheme. Beating the case he was off to the races with news and sport outlets. There is no side show here, just a racist and perhaps a zionist at work, with mega money. The NAACP was raped by these donors for years and you want to point out this case as troubling.
“Raped”? Seriously? The word you’re looking for is “prostituted” – because that’s what the LA-NAACP did to itself. In fact, their relationship with Sterling isn’t that different from his to V. Stiviano. In both cases, he showers one with monetary “affection,” in exchange for “favors.” In both cases, it’s despicable behavior, but not rape.
1 Like
So often institutions become rackets over time as they ossify and lose focus on their vision and mission. I’m not willing to say that’s necessarily what happened here. Would have to know more. But it wouldn’t surprise me in the least. One can see why Sterling would want the NAACP’s endorsement and approval as a sort of whitewash (pun unintended). It’s hard to understand why the organization would provide it other than money.
Upon reflection you are right in this instance.