The backlash Jerry Jones received was almost immediate, after he informed the media, (that if any of his Dallas Cowboys players failed to stand for the national anthem, they would not play for the team),
You would think that as the owner of his team, Jerry Jones has the right to have a say in the policy decisions of said team. In fact, furthermore, as the owner, Jerry Jones has the right to make unilateral policy decisions for said team. Whether those decisions are smart is neither here nor there. The right any owner has to make those decisions for their respective teams or organizations, is unquestionable.
How Twitter Got Jemele Hill Suspended By ESPN
Except if you’re an easily triggered liberal like Jemele Hill. She called for fans to boycott the Cowboys’ advertisers, in a series of tweets. This after calling President Trump a “white supremacist” in a tweet a few weeks ago;(something she has since apologized for). She felt compelled to go after the Cowboys advertisers, despite the warning she had gotten from her ESPN employers over the Trump tweet.
She clearly didn’t think her revolutionary idea through, since many of those advertisers sponsor her employers at ESPN as well. Her subsequent suspension came as no surprise.
Now what kind of logic inspires a reporter who works for a sports network; to ask fans to boycott the advertisers of a sports franchise her sports network covers? Surely it can’t be because the owner of the above-referenced sports franchise instructed his players; as is his right, to stand for the national anthem? Well for the illogical, like Ms. Hill, that is a perfectly good reason to risk career suicide. It’s the principle of the matter, right? Wrong!
Shouldn’t Ms. Hill be aware that she is currently serving a two week suspension because she disobeyed her employer’s instructions, even though it was for tweeting something she believes in? Isn’t she condemning Jerry Jones for threatening his players with suspension if they disobey his instructions? If she’s going to ask the fans to boycott advertisers of the Cowboys, over Mr. Jones’ threat to suspend his players; why isn’t she making that same call for the fans to boycott the ESPN advertisers, for actually carrying out that very threat? And it was carried out on her no less. Isn’t her suspension from ESPN, based on the same “injustice” she’s accused Jerry Jones and the Cowboys of? Where are her principled calls to action now? I guess they disappeared into a puff of smoke, when they potentially threatened her pocket.
Michael Wilbon’s Idiotic Racially Charged Comments.
This brings us to the Michael Wilbon commentary. As reported in Breitbart; “Monday on ESPN’s “Pardon the Interruption,” co-host Mike Wilbon likened Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones to a slave owner because he said Cowboys players will either stand for the national anthem or not play.”
[T]he word that comes to my mind, I don’t care who doesn’t like me using it, is ‘plantation,…The players are here to serve me and they will do what I want no matter how much I pay them. They are not equal to me. That’s what this says to me and mine. (Michael Wilbon)
Breaking down Mr. Wilbon’s comments about Mr. Jones will be very simple, because that’s exactly what they are. He clearly didn’t put much thought into them and they reveal how fragile he is when it comes to racial issues.
Why Michael Wilbon Thought “Plantation” In Lieu Of Jerry Jones’ Instructions
Why did Michael Wilbon, a very well-off individual, with a great paying job at ESPN, think about the word “plantation” because of what Jerry Jones instructed his well-paid players to do? It’s because no matter how much Mr. Wilbon gets paid, he seems too mentally weak and fragile, to ever get over his own skin colour.
What about these players, who though most of them are “black” and are all paid very handsomely by one Jerry Jones; reminds Mr. Wilbon of a “plantation?” Is he referencing the “black” slaves, who were mostly sold by Moslem traders to traders who were mostly Jewish; and brought over to the Americas to work on plantations for little to no money? Is he talking about those plantations? Is he comparing wealthy “black” Cowboys players to “black” slaves, because the non Jewish “white” owner of the Dallas Cowboys; instructed them to stand for the anthem of the nation they’re all citizens of? Is he actually comparing the Cowboys’ facility; (where those “negro” players work for millions of dollars on average), to a plantation; because its owner instructed his players to stand for their national anthem? Absurd!
Jerry Jones, if he saw those “black” players as “slaves”; must be a complete idiot for paying them all of that money to play for him. All he would have to do to get them to “slave” over an American Football (cotton) Field; is use his “white privilege” and provide them with food, clothing, bed and board. But who really sees the “black” players as slaves?
If all it takes to get Michael Wilbon to think of a “plantation”; is for a “white” owner to issue out instructions; then it’s clear that it is Mr. Wilbon who actually thinks of himself and thinks of the “black” players as slaves.
And that’s the sad thing. Despite all of his success, Michael Wilbon is still crippled by racial insecurity. Thus his default position on any issue that is racial in nature; is that “whites” still view him and other “blacks”, as slaves. It’s a reflection of just how uncomfortable Mr. Wilbon is, in a society that is still majority “white”. It’s also a reflection of Mr. Wilbon’s hypocrisy.
He works for a company owned by Jews and sits across Tony Kornheiser who is a Jew; everyday on his Pardon The Interruption show. He also attests to the fact that Mr. Kornheiser is his friend. Does he feel oppressed by being in Mr. Kornheiser’s presence every work day? Does he remind Mr. Kornheiser at every opportunity; that his fellow Jews owned more “black” slaves than any other ethnic group in the U.S.? When Mr. Kornheiser says “Let’s move on” to him, is Mr. Wilbon reminded of a plantation? Why has he worked with Mr. Kornheiser for so long; despite his Jewish ancestry and the history of Jewish ownership of “black” slaves?
And how about ABC? Why has Mr. Wilbon worked for ABC for so long, knowing that they are owned by Jews, who in turn owned more “black” slaves in the U.S. than any other ethnic group? When they instruct Mr. Wilbon to cover the NBA Finals, is he reminded of a plantation? If he is reminded of a plantation, why does he still work there? Shouldn’t he start his own sports media company, so that he doesn’t feel owned by the oppressive Jew as his ancestors were?
The truth is, Mr. Wilbon isn’t reminded of a plantation at all, when his Jewish employers instruct him to cover the NBA Finals; or instruct him to do anything else work related. He isn’t reminded of a plantation when that happens, because he is compensated very nicely for following his employer’s instructions; just like the Cowboys players are.
So why all of the racial virtue signaling? Why stigmatize Jerry Jones with that label, when Mr. Wilbon doesn’t really believe what he’s saying? If he does believe what he’s saying about Jerry Jones, then he would have resigned from ESPN effective immediately, citing a “plantation” atmosphere as his rationale for doing so. He would have then publicly repudiated Mr. Kornheiser and his friendship with him. But we all know Mr. Wilbon won’t do that, because as he knows, he really doesn’t believe what he’s saying about Jerry Jones.
The following set of comments made by Michael Wilbon are mostly true, even though he would like to live in a “Utopia” where they are no longer true.
But Wilbon, The Players Are There To Serve Jerry Jones
A part of being paid by your employers, is serving their needs. They own private companies in order to make money. They hire employees in order to help them make more money. Out of those profits, employees get a percentage, so that they would stay and help their employers make more money, instead of going to another employer.
By working, the employee is serving the employer’s needs. It’s no different in a sports company and therefore, no different with the Cowboys. The players work for Jerry Jones. By working for him they are serving his needs by making him billions of dollars. Out of those billions, Jerry Jones, pays them a percentage, which for them, amounts to millions of dollars on average. Therefore, while working for Jerry Jones, his players are bound to wear the uniform of his team, help advertise the sponsors who pay Mr. Jones, and any other instruction he hands out to them within lawful parameters.
That includes standing for the national anthem. If they fail to follow those instructions, for which Mr. Jones pays them quite handsomely; in other words, if they fail to serve him, he has the right to withhold his money from them as all employers do. He may choose to suspend them and he may even choose to fire them. He is only bound to pay them if and when they serve him.
Mr. Wilbon knows this. He knows that he may be fired by ESPN, if he doesn’t serve his boss’ needs. Why, over a hundred of his fellow employees were fired by ESPN only last year. I don’t recall hearing any ‘plantation’ comment by Michael Wilbon, when referring to his ESPN bosses after they took that action. In fact, if he had done so, he would no longer be working for ESPN. Of course, he is free to voice his opposition to serving ESPN’s needs while getting nicely compensated for it, but I doubt that’s ever going to happen.
All Men Are Not Created Equal
Michael Wilbon is right when saying that Jerry Jones is insinuating that his players are not equal to him. They are not, Mr. Wilbon because otherwise they wouldn’t be his. The word “his” is possessive. It says that the Cowboys players, in regards to their work, belong to Jerry Jones. They signed a contract to get paid very handsomely. However, that contract also comes with the recognition that Jerry Jones is your boss, not your equal.
Mr. Wilbon understands this. If he felt that he was equal to his ESPN bosses, he would have blocked the firing of his fellow employees last year. Or maybe, since they’re equal to their bosses, according to Mr. Wilbon’s logic, they would have vetoed their own sacking. Maybe Michael Wilbon has only just realized that he is in fact, equal to his employer all along, and will decide to bring back his fellow employees who were fired last year; on his own dime no less. I wonder how long he would last before going bankrupt. But he would never do that.
In fact, he couldn’t do that because as he already knows, he is not equal to his bosses. That’s why they’re his bosses; a fact that he recognizes and has to recognize in order to keep his nice paying job.
So why does he have a problem with Jerry Jones’ assertion of his economic superiority over his own players? He disingenuously mentioned that Jerry Jones was referring only to “me and mine”, as if the Cowboys are a “black” only franchise. No, Jerry Jones instructed all of his staff, of whatever racial background, to stand for the anthem. He asserted his authority over all of them. So what is Mr. Wilbon’s real issue? He believes the stupid claim in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that “All men are created equal”. Even though that claim has no basis in reality, and no society, including the U.S. has ever functioned on that philosophical ideal.
Yet that’s the premise for Michael Wilbon’s assertion that Jerry Jones (should) look at his “black” players as his equals. Even though he pays their salaries. When he said; “they will do what I want no matter how much I pay them” he should have said; “they will do what I want because of how much I pay them” He seems to have trouble grasping the notion, that no matter how much the players are paid, it is the fact that they are paid that should be a reminder to everyone, that they are in fact, not equal to their employer.
The fact is, whether Mr. Wilbon wants to acknowledge it or not, there is no equality in society. Nor should there be if we want society to function. Otherwise, why would anyone be compelled to continue building society and obeying laws? True equality would only end in utter chaos and the rule of the strong, not of the law.
To conclude, media personalities like Jemele Hill and Michael Wilbon aren’t to be taken seriously. They don’t really believe what they’re saying and if they do, they clearly haven’t thought it through. They are there to incense the masses, (who generally don’t live as comfortably as Mr. Wilbon and Ms. Hill do), to risk whatever little they earn, in order to create uproar and chaos. Uproar and chaos, they and their ilk would be safe from, sitting in their ivory towers.