At a time when societal institutions are intersecting cultural issues in unprecedented ways, I\u2019m curious as to what we speak of \u2014 and what we don\u2019t\u2026 what we highlight \u2014 and what we won\u2019t. As persons who believe in respectfully discussing all that\u2019s happening on the planet and adhering to the Judeo-Christian ethic that all lives are equal, we strive not to intentionally ignore any issue, especially when any are treated as lesser. So for today, allow us first some basic background info\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officially called the \u201cHong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China\u201d (HKSAR), Hong Kong is \u201cone of the most densely populated places in the world,\u201d home to over 7.5 million people within only 426 square miles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A British colony beginning in 1842, Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997. Per the transfer agreement between China and the United Kingdom, as a \u201cspecial administrative region,\u201d the relationship between Hong Kong and mainland China is described as “one country, two systems.\u201d Hong Kong has their own governance and economic systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Increasingly more, freedoms for Hong Kongers have been perceived to be in decline. Said by former Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice, \u201cThere is great concern in the United States about what is going on in Hong Kong. There is great concern first of all as to whether or not the promise from Beijing of one country and two systems is really being honored.\u201d In response, there is increased friction, violence, and protests. (Interestingly, with such increase, there are also claims of police brutality, a lack of democracy, and demands that the protests not be portrayed as \u201criots\u201d; this is approximately 7,821 miles away).<\/em> With far more details than a singular post can articulate, upon the escalating tension and China\u2019s recent national security law that cracks down on pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, last week the British government suspended the 1997 transfer agreement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Back to the point of this post\u2026 I\u2019ve been struck by the handling of this issue by the NBA. While taking an active role this summer in highlighting justice for all people and an admirable intolerance for oppression, notice how they\u2019ve handled the oppression in Hong Kong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When tensions escalated last fall, GM Daryl Morey of the Houston Rockets personally tweeted, \u201cFight for Freedom. Stand for Hong Kong,\u201d the Chinese Basketball Association quickly terminated any cooperation with the Rockets; China\u2019s top state broadcaster\u2019s sports channel suspended airing any Rockets games; and multiple Chinese companies also immediately severed ties. The NBA\u2019s fast, first response was regret \u2014 regret as to how Morey may “have deeply offended\u201d the people of China.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The NBA focus on China\u2019s disrespect more than Hong Kong\u2019s oppression prompted outrage from Democrats and Republicans alike \u2014 sadly, a rare occurrence these days. Sen. Rick Scott called it \u201cshameful\u201d \u2014 Beto O\u2019Rourke, “an embarrassment.\u201d The NBA then attempted to awkwardly navigate through their resulting PR predicament, eventually saying they support free speech by all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So with the protests intensifying in recent months and days, let\u2019s venture back to our original question in regard to what we speak of \u2014 and what we don\u2019t\u2026 what we highlight \u2014 and what we won\u2019t. Why do cultural institutions act the way they do?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tweeted actor and liberal activist, Bradley Whitford, \u201cHey @NBA. Do you care about what\u2019s happening in Hong Kong?\u2026 Or do you only take principled stands if they won\u2019t hurt your bottom line?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n While I can\u2019t see a day when I ever advocate for Twitter as a respectable means of communication, my curiosity continues. There seems need for more research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to USA Today, \u201ca conservative estimate\u201d puts NBA revenue from China at \u201c$500 million annually based on deals that are publicly known.\u201d Also, \u201cChina\u2019s Tencent reached a five-year, $1.5 billion deal to remain the league\u2019s exclusive digital partner in China, and it is the NBA’s largest partnership outside of the U.S\u2026 NBA China, a separate business arm of the NBA, was valued at $5 billion by Sports Business Journal last month. Separate from the NBA\u2019s partnerships in China, players are invested in the country, too. Several of them, including stars LeBron James and Steph Curry, make annual visits to sell apparel products from Nike and Under Armour.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n As said by the publication, \u201cThe NBA and basketball are entrenched in China.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hence, my curiosity continues. So do my questions about our cultural institutions\u2019 social stands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Editorial note: the BBC, CNBC, CNN, The Dispatch, Reuters, USA Today, and Wikipedia each served as vitals sources for this post.)<\/em> At a time when societal institutions are intersecting cultural issues in unprecedented ways, I\u2019m curious as to what we speak of \u2014 and what we don\u2019t\u2026 what we highlight \u2014 and what we won\u2019t. As persons who believe in respectfully discussing all that\u2019s happening on the planet and adhering to the Judeo-Christian ethic that all … <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"