It really is amazing that guys would sacrifice the
hard-earned privilege to play NBA playoff games for the right to protest. The leadership of LeBron or Kawhi is something, but those in this thread saying that they’ve made their money and have less at stake basketball-wise and security-wise are not wrong. Isn’t that always the case, though? The common sacrifice of the lesser-knowns is the most notable and the least noted. The best-known generals weren’t killed in action.
Of course, if there are enough disrupters, then even those who don’t want to make a political statement will be affected. But guess what? The privilege to play in the NBA is not a right, and change is coming fast. Those who can lead a movement and force the narrative might just say No Justice, No Peace. Credit to them for doing what they can. They are calling for sacrifice. We don’t generally criticize leaders for putting others in harm’s way for a just cause. We venerate them for their leadership and hard decision-making. I guess the NBA players who lead may not be given that benefit, either, by some in society. I wonder why? True, the rank and file NBA players didn’t sign up for this, specifically, and the analogy to the military only goes so far—but the politics of military service is a whole other discussion. Who am I to criticize leaders for leading?
Kaepernick’s folly (if you can call it that) was not being good enough, or playing in a league where one player’s protest mattered enough. Maybe Tom Brady could have accomplished more, but he wasn’t interested. For some, that will be an asterisk. Others would think it to have been foolish for Brady to seek change at the expense of another ring. But weigh that for a moment.
Incidentally, imagine if valued contributors to the sports talk on this board refused to participate unless politics was given equal air and standing, and it led to a general strike?
@Reverend, these days were meant for you.