Forty Million Dollar Slaves??

I have now seen the author of the book, Forty Million Dollar Slaves: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete, twice on TV news programs. His name is William Rhoden and he writes for the New York Times sports column. He believes that "sports stardom has brought black athletes wealth without progress and prosperity without freedom." He went on to say that leagues such as MLB and the NBA are forms of modern day slavery. I didn't know what to think; how can a guy like Lebron James who just signed a contract worth $60 million over a three year span possibly be considered a slave? Well, as Glenn Beck said, please put me on that plantation, lock me in those chains, and make me a multi-million dollar slave. The players in these leagues have dreamed ever since they could remember to be the elite athletes in their sport; who knew that they were actually dreaming to be a slave? Those athletes have put all of their heart into becoming the athletes that they are and were never forced (unless by parents) to get on a court or field and spend countless hours perfecting their game. They don't play in these leagues because the white slave master owners forced them to, they do it because they can make a great living doing something that they love doing. I guess that makes the white, European, South and Central American, and Chinese players in the NBA slaves as well right? I believe that Jay-Z is the majority owner of the New Jersey Nets. Isn't that amazing? I never saw him becoming a slave owner. He says that Michael Jordan, arguably the greatest player in NBA history and a man that transcended his sport, was responsible for bringing about change and needed to commit himself to helping the black community. Rhoden says that by ignoring these issues Jordan committed an almost treasonous act. You know, Rhoden, maybe Michael Jordan didn't consider the possibility that he was a slave; that making $30 million a year in salary and endorsements could be racist. Here's an excerpt from the book:

"In those days, when black faces were few and far between, we cheered for the color of the skin. We had some variations to the general rule: If the team was from the South and had just one Brother, his team was our team; he was our man. Didn’t matter who the athlete was underneath his uniform or his skin—his true character was less significant than his presence. Out there on the field, he became the torchbearer for the race. Content of character mattered only to the extent that we prayed these pioneers wouldn’t embarrass The Race."

I understand that things were much different in his day and that racism was a lot more evident but isn't this thinking the exact OPPOSITE of what Martin Luther King Jr. so valiantly fought for? "I have a dream," as King said, "that one day my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." To Rhoden race was, and seemingly still is, the only factor, no matter how good or bad the person. I understand that I was not alive as an African-American during the height of racism and I don't want to downplay how horrific it was, but African-Americans have come a long way since the 1960's. I can also understand blacks cheering for blacks when there were few playing in professional sports and how a black victory in sports could be considered a victory for the black race. What I don't understand is where Rhoden gets off saying that slavery is still very much alive. I am not trying to act like racism is dead, but I believe the way to beat racism is not to look for it where it is not as it seems Rhoden is doing, but to start judging people by their character, not skin color, as Martin Luther King Jr. once dreamed. Forty million dollar slaves? Not in my opinion.

Here's the website where I got the excerpt -- link