Are We Still Racist
On the Sunday after Red Auerbach's death, the legendary Celtics' coach and executive's career accomplishments were discussed on every sports television program and written about in every American sports page. Along with all the championship banners, clairvoyant draft picks and sly trades, Auerbach's impact on race relations in sports- first black NBA draft pick, first all black NBA starting lineup, first black NBA head coach- was rightly counted among his most impressive achievements.
And whenever Auerbach's role in smashing racial barriers in the NBA was discussed, the next sentence or sound bite would invariably be something along the lines of "and this was Boston where race is a BIG issue." Not was. Is. Not Boston sports. Boston.
To many national sports fans and sports journalists, the 2006 Boston sports fan is just a step up the evolutionary ladder from the racist louts who broke into Bill Russell's bed and defecated on his bed. Our attitudes and prejudices haven't changed; we've just figured out how to behave when the TV camera is turned towards our section. We accept black and Latino players on our teams but not in our neighborhoods. We may cheer for David Ortiz or Paul Pierce or Rodney Harrison but, man, wouldn't it be that much sweeter if that was some white guy out there doing the same thing?
Race, prejudice, segregation and ignorance are still issues in Boston. And New York City. And Los Angeles. And Chicago. And Paris. And London. There is no disputing Boston's ugly racist history. And there is no disputing that a city once awash in racism certainly had its fair share of racist sports fans. But at what point does the 2006 Boston sports fan stop getting the blame for what the 1956 Boston sports fan may have thought?
A prominent ESPN on-air announcer, who is black, once told a friend of mine that he would never root for a Boston team because he never saw any black fans when he watched Red Sox games on TV. As far as he was concerned, the fact that he didn't see a lot of black people at Fenway obviously meant that somehow black people were actively being kept out of Red Sox games. He saw the lack of black faces in Fenway as proof that the whole enterprise of Boston sports was undeniably racist. This was just three years ago. 2003 and he was convinced that it wasn't just Boston that was racist but somehow anyone and anything connected to the city was. Including a Red Sox organization whose most popular players were its Dominican pitcher and Mexican-American shortstop.
It was the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. In what major league baseball stadium is the crowd not overwhelmingly white? In what stadium of any professional sport is the crowd not overwhelmingly white? When I watch an Orioles game which takes place in a state where 26.3% of the residents are black, I don't start planning a crab cake boycott because I don't see many black people at Camden Yards. Are 22.1% of the fans at a University of North Carolina basketball game black? If the blimp shot of the crowd at a Washington Redskins game doesn't appear to be comprised of 61.3% black Skins fans does that mean that everyone in the DC Metro area is racist? About 7% of Massachusetts' population is black. If the racial makeup at Fenway Park is evidence that Boston sports and Boston sports fans are inherently racist, what do the lily-white crowds at Atlanta Braves games or Seattle Seahawks games or Green Bay Packers games or Miami Heat games or Chicago Blackhawks games say about those cities' views on race?
But the ESPN announcer knew that Boston had battled race problems in its past and instantly drew a connection between a history of race issues and few black faces at Fenway and had no problem declaring Boston sports racist. And I think that a lot of national sports fans and media members would draw the same conclusion.
For all of the talk about the Auerbach's impact on race relations, few commentators took the time to mention Auerbach's impact on race relations in Boston. There was plenty of talk about how Auerbach (and really his black players) had to contend with Boston's race issues- Tony Kornheiser made a point to talk about the city's past race issues when discussing Auerbach during the Patriots' Monday Night Football game- but very little how much Auerbach's actions had helped change attitudes in the city. Most commentators had no problem detailing how virulent racism was in Boston when Auerbach was putting together his great Celtics teams but very few chose to mention how much has changed in the city since Auerbach arrived.
At a time when soccer stadiums in Europe echo with racist chants and black players are pelted with bananas, is Boston sports fan really the bad guy? Over the past decade, there have been examples of racist behavior at sporting events all over America but in Boston outside of some idiotic blathering on WEEI it’s hard to find one significant example of racism and sport interacting.
Any racial problems in Boston have nothing to do with sports. And any racial problems in Boston certainly aren't indicative of the attitudes of the vast majority of Boston's sports fans. Sports has always been recognized as one of the true equalizers of American society. It doesn't matter what you look like; it just matters that you can hit or run or throw or catch better than the other guy. Maybe no city had a harder time coming to grips with the impact of race on modern sports than Boston. But come to grips Boston has. And the rest of America needs to figure that out.
Auerbach's death shouldn't just shine on a spotlight on the racist past of Boston's sports scene. It should serve a vivid reminder of how much the city's fan base has forever changed.
Jamie Chisholm