Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Add another one to the list I compiled yesterday

A sports announcer in Oklahoma is made to puke all over himself for a perfectly innocent uttering:

Every now and then a news item pops up that is so ridiculous that you figure it's just got to be fake news, somebody's idea of a joke. You check the calendar to make sure it's not April Fools' Day. And when you realize it isn't, you come to understand that in our hypersensitive culture, a news story can be factual, accurate and preposterous all at the same time.

Which brings us to the TV play-by-play man for the Oklahoma City Thunder, a team in the National Basketball Association. The announcer, Brian Davis, was calling a game in which the team's star player, Russell Westbrook, was having another spectacular game. He had just made a pass setting up a basket -- one of a stunning 19 assists he made in the game -- when Davis put an exclamation point on the Westbrook pass, saying Westbrook was playing "out of his cotton-pickin' mind."

Davis is white and Westbrook is black, in case you haven't figured that out. And in case you have absolutely no knowledge of history, slaves once upon a time picked cotton in the South.

So reparations for the ugly past had to be paid, more than 150 years after slavery ended. How? By taking what passes for the moral high ground. The Thunder suspended Davis for one game. No fooling.

Never mind that cotton pickin' is a term used in the South by a lot of old white guys and old black guys as a genteel replacement for a harsher words, like damn.

"It's cotton pickin' hot today," sounds more refined to the southern ear than,  "It's damn hot today" or the even coarser, "It sure is effing hot today."

And then came the apology phase:

A team executive, Dan Mahoney, the Thunder's vice president of broadcasting and corporate communications, said the Thunder considered the comment "offensive and inappropriate" and announced the suspension.
But it gets worse. Davis, the play-by-play man, said while he meant no harm, he deserved what he got. "While unintentional, I understand and acknowledge the gravity of the situation," he said. "I offer my sincere apology and realize that, while I committed a lapse in judgment, such mistakes come with consequences. This is an appropriate consequence for my actions." 
The range of permissible discourse in post-America is narrowing by the hour. And the cultural overlords - the arbiters of what is okay to not only come out of one's mouth, but float around in one's mind - are just getting started.

3 comments:

  1. But if one must, one can choose from several types of non-apology apologies in which success is gauged by results:

    Typologies of apology note they cover a range of situations and degrees of regret, remorse, and contrition, and that success is to be gauged by the result of the apology rather than the degree of contrition involved.
    Deborah Levi offers the following possibilities:

    1) Tactical apology—when a person accused of wrongdoing offers an apology that is rhetorical and strategic—and not necessarily heartfelt

    2) Explanation apology—when a person accused of wrongdoing offers an apology that is merely a gesture that is meant to counter an accusation of wrongdoing. In fact, it may be used to defend the actions of the accused

    3) Formalistic apology—when a person accused of wrongdoing offers an apology after being admonished to do so by an authority figure—who may also be the individual who suffered the wrongdoing

    4) Happy ending apology—when a person accused of wrongdoing fully acknowledges responsibility for the wrongdoing and is genuinely remorseful."

    read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete