Draymond Green deserves criticism not dehumanization

For whatever reason, fate found it fun to have Draymond Green and the Golden State Warriors face Rudy Gobert and the Minnesota Timberwolves in an entire playoff series. That is at least four games of them seeing each other in the paint — you know, the place where Draymond Green stomps on chests and puts people in headlocks. Basketball stuff. Real hoops.

During Thursday's Game 2, Green was fouled by Naz Reid, after which he flailed his arm at Reid's head, and Reid fell to the floor. Green was hit with a technical, which puts him two away from an automatic one-game suspension. His response? “The agenda to continue to keep making me look like an angry black man is crazy. I’m sick of it. It’s ridiculous.”

Here's the thing: Draymond Green deserves criticism for his actions on the court, especially the violence and the tantrums. And a group of people not liking Draymond because he hits people in the nuts, chokes you, stomps on chests and constantly berates refs does not constitute an agenda.

But that criticism can cross a dangerous line.

Draymond Green deserves criticism and consequences for his actions

Draymond Green is loud, obnoxious and uncomfortably violent at times. As far as qualities to put together in a person, those should be more than enough to meet the threshold of “this is someone I don’t want to be around.”

But we don’t actually interact with Green as a person, we interact parasocially. We talk about what he should or shouldn’t do amongst ourselves — he should pass the ball to Curry, he should not punch Kuminga in the head during offseason, We make guesses at what’s going through his head at various times, and we talk about the punishment he should get when he invariably commits his next infraction.

Usually we disagree with what the NBA comes up with. And usually, for his unpleasantness to opponents and refs, it seems like he deserves more technical fouls than he gets. If anything, people in my camp seem to think Draymond gets away with more than anyone.

That may or may not be true. If this is what Green is talking about — not liking the consequences of his actions — when presenting the idea of an agenda against him, then no. No, that's not an agenda. But when it shifts from what he does to who people perceive him to be, that's a different story.

A group of people not liking Green solely because he fits a dishonest and deleterious stereotype of “angry black man” in their brittle little minds absolutely constitutes an agenda — and it’s a dehumanizing one.

But if framing him as an “angry Black man” is rooted in racial bias rather than behavior, then there is an agenda

I hope you can see the difference. I hope it’s so obvious to you that just the act of my writing it is insulting, and you stop reading.

Once someone stops wanting a reasonable response to Green for what he’s done but instead because of who he is to them, everything changes. It’s no longer about restraining someone from committing some sort of offense. It’s much more about the act of restraint. This man is dangerous and must be contained.

Have you seen basketball from a few decades ago? Have you seen what Kermit Washington did to Rudy Tomjanovich? Have you seen the Malice in the Palace? I’m not saying these events were good or even neutral. I’m just saying Green isn’t special. He’s out of time in a lot of ways. Some of the things he does have been phased out of the game broadly, but in the past there were times some were just as legal as the gather step is today. If you have a bit of historical context, you see it. A lot of Green's most agitating tendencies are just a style of play. Unfortunately, it’s just a style of play that’s ass.

But that’s not what this is about to some people. Due to some kind of lived hatred, brainwashing or bad series of coincidences, the “angry black man” stereotype exists and gets perpetuated by people still.

When one example of it happens, it goes on the giant pile of evidence to confirm what they already believe. When 10 counterexamples come by, they are promptly ignored, completely filtered out of existence. That’s what this comes down to in a lot of ways. A willing refusal to learn or improve.

And I have to ask: Do you think Green is not acutely aware of this? Of these people? How dehumanizing do you think that must feel, if you’ve never actually felt it yourself?

But among the group who are informed by the “angry black man” stereotype, it’s discussed how out of control he is and how he needs to be chaperoned. It’s not “Draymond Green has to stop doing this stuff and must be punished” it’s “Draymond Green is out of control.”

If that narrative takes over, and if that’s what Green is sensing, then yeah. He’s absolutely right. There is an agenda against him. A really gross, public one that, for whatever reason, people just miss. It’s not like racism stopped when the KKK became less popular or the Civil Rights Bill was passed.

No it hasn’t. For a long time, it had just taken a different form in places where enclaves of different races and nationalities didn’t really interact. You know, like suburbs. Code words, rallying around causes that have a direct negative effect on a marginalized group in the name of “the deficit” and stereotypes like these. I’d prefer not to list other ones.

If you see yourself reflected back in any of this, then this is a good time to sit down and chill. Do what Green doesn’t. Think your stuff through.

I guess it’s pretty simple. Draymond Green should not be dehumanized. He should also not choke people. Both can be right, and this situation is just filled to the tippy top with so much I would consider wrong.

Everybody just be normal, okay?