After reading 3/4 of the article I don't see what you are seeing. My impression of the point of the article is that whites are getting most of the attention and deserving blacks are not. There are several examples given.
Ok...I'll just quote a racist section here...
With Caitlin Clark headed to the 2024 WNBA draft, where she’s projected No. 1 overall, Watkins, the nation’s second leading scorer this season behind Clark, is positioned to become the face of women’s basketball. She'll be joined by Notre Dame point guard Hannah Hidalgo, the other favorite for freshman of the year.
Not lost on any of the powerbrokers in the game: Both of these players are Black. And in a game built by Black women, it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past.
The premise stated here is that Caitlin Clarke is the "face" of the WNBA (which is an opinion) she's certainly gaining a lot of attention but not because she's white....it's because she's actually a new and noticeably talented player. She's getting attention because of merit....just as we would expect any player to get if they were playing at the level Caitlin Clarke is as a rookie.
The second paragraph quoted suggests that the future "faces" of the WNBA should be "black" as if merit doesn't matter....race does. Take a close look at this particular statement.
Both of these players are Black. And in a game built by Black women, it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past.
First is a statement of race.
Second is a premise "the game (WNBA) is built by black women". This isn't just debatable as an opinion....it's pretty ignorant of the fact that the entire league is subsidized by the NBA. It doesn't make enough money to exist on its own because the level of play is rather poor (regardless of the race of the players). The lack of interest and fans in WNBA games has been something of a joke in both the sports community and comedy (Bill Burr has entire bit on the WNBA).
The final part of the paragraph says it
matters that the race of the players associated with the "face" of the WNBA "matters". Why?
Consider a similar statement made about any other organization and the races were reversed....
The US was built by white men, so it matters that the faces of future leaders reflect those of past leaders.
The US military was built by white men, so it matters that the faces of future generals reflect those of past generals.
The US entertainment industry has been built by white men, so it matters that the faces of future industry leaders reflect those of the past.
Now, let's consider the possibility that the author of this racist article is on the political left....and believes in DEI. If that were the case, an organization like the WNBA that's been historically dominated by black and gay women who are massively overrepresented and arguably hold a vastly disproportionate amount of power, should be looking for more straight white women to be the future faces of the WNBA....since historically, they have been marginalized and "oppressed" by the league....how else would you explain their disproportionately low numbers?
Clearly....this isn't what the author believes.
We could also try assuming that she believes all racism is wrong....merit is what counts...and therefore Caitlin Clarke deserves all the attention she's getting and is nothing but good for the league as her games sell tickets, and reduce the need for funding from the NBA. In this scenario....it doesn't matter at all what the "face of the WNBA"'s color is....and the premise of the article is entirely racist. Race doesn't matter...merit does...
I hope that explains the rather blatant racism that pervades the article but if you want more examples...just say so....
I suppose all the redefining of "racism" on the left and relating it to power imbalances, especially in DEI, could just be a rhetorical tool for racial discrimination against whites....but if that were the case in your opinion, you would easily see the racism.
