Jamal Spencer, a student in Naomi Glogower’s sociology class at Michigan State University, sent in the following promotion for Black History Month, courtesy of the Los Angeles Clippers (source):
Spencer makes two interesting points. First, Black History Month is in February. Oops. Second, and more importantly, notice that the promotion includes admitting “1,000 underprivileged children free.” It is assuming that “Black” is coterminous with “underprivileged,” erasing middle and upper class Blacks and poor Whites. In fact, about half of poor people are White and about 75% of Black people are not poor. This promotion, however, strengthens the conception that the poor are Black, a conception that contributes to the (racist) maligning of and restriction of benefits for the poor. Happy Black History Month indeed.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 30
Pure Klass — March 7, 2011
Third, isn't there something odd about observing black history month with two pictures of white men?
Dena — March 7, 2011
Also - I know nothing about the two people pictured, but they look pretty pale-skinned. Seems unlikely that either of them identify as Black.
"Celebrate Black History Month by making Black people invisible and equating Blackness with poverty." Great.
Dena — March 7, 2011
Oops - should have reloaded...
Brandon — March 7, 2011
Here's problem #3....
The underprivileged kid gets in free... if accompanied by an adult. So the adult needs to get there and pay for their own ticket.
How underprivileged can the kids really be if their parent or guardian can afford to go?
AlgebraAB — March 7, 2011
Your argument would have been much stronger if you had mentioned Donald Sterling's background (Donald Sterling being the owner of the Clippers and the man in the bowtie in that image).
Elgin Baylor just dropped a lawsuit over racial discrimination against Sterling, in which Baylor had claimed that there was a racist culture in the team during his years as an executive. Sterling has also paid out several millions of dollars in court settlements over allegations of racial discrimination in renting the apartments he owns (he's a major real estate developer in LA). In fact, the federal DOJ sued him over housing discrimination.
Then there are all the sexual harassment lawsuits he's had filed against him ... and the fact that he heckles players on his own team (although he is at least an equal opportunity heckler in this regard, with Chris Kaman being a big target) ...
What I'm wondering is, putting race aside, how did they determine who is "underprivileged"? It sounds like it was a first-come, first-serve ticket giveaway to me.
bbonnn — March 7, 2011
"1,000 underprivileged children free ... must be accompanied by a parent or guardian ... subject to availability ... tickets distributed at check in table ..."
So ... how do the people at the check-in table know if a child is underprivileged?
Sully R. — March 7, 2011
i too would like to know how this is even going to work. an underprivileged child can only attend if they are in the company of a paying adult? what? and how do they determine which children are underprivileged? have said adult display the child's malnutrition and lack of dental work?
AlgebraAB — March 7, 2011
To add a bit of context to this story ... The Clippers only had 3 home games in the month of February. One was versus the Bulls, one was versus the Celtics and one was versus the Lakers (technically the Clippers were the away team but they share the arena).
So, in hindsight, I don't think they scheduled the game for March because they forgot or were ignorant about Black History Month being in February. I think they simply did not want to give away free tickets during one of the above "premium" games that command higher ticket prices. So March 2nd was the next available home date closest to February against a weaker opponent during which there would probably be far less demand for tickets.
Doesn't exactly paint them in a positive light but it does add some context.
Ben — March 8, 2011
Seriously, how whiney can you get? As somebody else pointed out, I'm sure they're well aware of when black history month is. What's wrong with doing something in the beginning of March to celebrate something held in February.
So some folks in the club management sat down and said, let's do something for Black History Month, something to benefit the community, improve our image, whatever. Idea: let's admit 1,000 underpriviledged children for free! What's wrong with that. Certainly they can't admit 1,000 black children for free. Imagine the drama. Admit 1,000 children of whatever background for free? Doesn't really do much since it only saves the parents money. So they chose underpriviledged children. The horror.
Now one little gesture, perhaps not 100% professional, but certainly not harmful to anyone, is enough to blog and whine about at length. I'm sure the 1,000 children, black or white, didn't complain.
Grizzly — March 8, 2011
But as the post points out, it conflates being underpriviledged with being black, which, despite what may be good intentions on the part of the owners, is offensive.
My ancestors were Irish. If this same organization held an event saying, "In honor of St. Patricks Day, we will be giving away 1,000 tickets to alcoholics" I would be offended.
pduggie — March 8, 2011
But if ALL white people, rich and poor alike, benefit from white privilege, isn't "underprivileged" the perfect term to describe blacks?
Any black, rich or poor, lacks the privilege afforded whites. So they are, by definition, underprivileged.
Or if "underprivileged" is just code for "poor black", how can one say that rich blacks still lack privilege in the US?