It has been two weeks since Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morely made his tweet in support of protestors in Hong Kong standing firm for democracy. Morely's tweet merely echoed the American people's bipartisan support for democracy and its attendant rights for citizens of Hong Kong, made clear in the 1992 United States-Hong Kong Policy Act, and now the 2019 Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Morely has been made to retract his statement. Lebron James, James Harden, and Dennis Rodman have supported the NBA in this action, giving tacit support to Beijing.
The response from the Chinese government was not unexpected. The response from the NBA and some of the executives and players was controversial, and not in keeping with the feelings of the majority of Americans, I would guess. Does this statement indicate that the citizens of Hong Kong should not have the rights they feel they were promised when Britain turned over the colony to China? Does it mean that the business interests of these players and NBA management is more important than the rights of the citizens of Hong Kong? Does it mean that the American people and their Congress should not be allowed to speak freely about their support for the protestors against the oppressive Communist regime in Beijing?
I find it very surprising that for two weeks, there were no posts and no discussion whatsoever in this forum about this important issue. I realize that politics are often disallowed in this forum, but this issue is about some Americans and their league playing basketball in China for money, and it is about the politics of doing so. It is also could affect college teams like Cal playing games in China, which we recently did, which also generates income. It is one thing to take advantage of the opportunity to interact with another culture, but is another thing to have to kowtow to a ruthless Communist regime, which does not allow free speech or action for its citizens in order to play these games, and make statements in public in support of this regime, which is on the verge of committing another atrocity, another Tian An Men, this time in Hong Kong.
I for one, would like to hear your thoughts on this matter, where basketball has become political. It affects all of us, and it affects the citizens of Hong Kong who oppose the regime that governs them. .
The response from the Chinese government was not unexpected. The response from the NBA and some of the executives and players was controversial, and not in keeping with the feelings of the majority of Americans, I would guess. Does this statement indicate that the citizens of Hong Kong should not have the rights they feel they were promised when Britain turned over the colony to China? Does it mean that the business interests of these players and NBA management is more important than the rights of the citizens of Hong Kong? Does it mean that the American people and their Congress should not be allowed to speak freely about their support for the protestors against the oppressive Communist regime in Beijing?
I find it very surprising that for two weeks, there were no posts and no discussion whatsoever in this forum about this important issue. I realize that politics are often disallowed in this forum, but this issue is about some Americans and their league playing basketball in China for money, and it is about the politics of doing so. It is also could affect college teams like Cal playing games in China, which we recently did, which also generates income. It is one thing to take advantage of the opportunity to interact with another culture, but is another thing to have to kowtow to a ruthless Communist regime, which does not allow free speech or action for its citizens in order to play these games, and make statements in public in support of this regime, which is on the verge of committing another atrocity, another Tian An Men, this time in Hong Kong.
I for one, would like to hear your thoughts on this matter, where basketball has become political. It affects all of us, and it affects the citizens of Hong Kong who oppose the regime that governs them. .