Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Knicks and the Practice of Us


Opinion

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)

I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.

For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.


Fifty-three years. That’s how long Knicks fans practiced this peculiar discipline. Over those decades, legendary moments served as signposts on the journey. Willis Reed’s limp into legend in 1970 became more than a highlight—it was mythology. Patrick Ewing was both promise and heartbreak, sometimes in the same play. John Starks—forever loved, even after Game 7. Generations calibrated their emotional weather to a franchise that specialized in not quite.

Which is why, when the Knicks finally clinched that 94–90 win over the Spurs—after half a century of waiting—it didn’t feel like just the end of a basketball season. Instead, it felt like a family secret suddenly remembered. At that moment, the city exhaled, and something old and communal surged back to the surface.

Even the win matched the usual script: comeback, deficit erased, probability bent. Analysts will dissect the X’s and O’s. Jalen Brunson’s name is entering the canon. Documentaries, oral histories, and jerseys will follow. But what lingered wasn’t tactical—it was the sound.

The frequency of collective release is its own kind of music. It ricocheted off apartment bricks in Manhattan. It spilled out of Queens bars. It crackled through FaceTime calls and group chats. Videos surfaced from London pubs. They surfaced from military bases. Meanwhile, people in neighborhoods where eye contact is usually avoided instead found themselves locked in spontaneous embrace. The celebrations looked unmistakably New York. Yet we’re used to seeing cities revealed by disaster. New York and New Jersey neighbors have shown resilience in the face of tragedy: the September 11th attacks. Hurricane Sandy. The first suffocating wave of COVID. In those moments, the city improvises solidarity. But celebration reveals a community’s scaffolding, too. Joy tests what binds us when fear is absent. Who are we when we don’t have to be afraid?

That’s what made the Knicks’ championship aftermath so moving. For a few hours, New Yorkers were neighbors. The city’s fractures remained—New York was still expensive, impatient, and divided by money, race, and politics. But for one night, delight rewrote the social contract. No one checked who’d voted for whom. No one asked about background or beliefs before giving high-fives. The lines stayed, but mattered less.

It’s a rare thing now, this kind of encounter. Our institutions—churches, civic groups, local papers—are thinning. Neighborhood associations are fading. Algorithms nudge us deeper into curated silos, where everyone else is a stranger, or worse, a threat. We’re specialists in avoiding one another. Sports resist that tendency. You can’t curate Knicks fandom to your liking; you inherit it, or you choose it. From that moment, your anxiety is indistinguishable from that of the Dominican grandfather in the nosebleeds or the twenty-something who knows the Knicks mostly by meme and misery. The hedge fund manager and the public-school teacher ride the same emotional roller coaster in the final minutes.

For a few hours, everyone joins something raw and unrehearsed. Sociologist Émile Durkheim called it “collective effervescence.” It’s a rare moment: individuals, swept up by ritual, become part of something larger. In America, sports may be our last secular sanctuary for that feeling. Dismissing fandom as trivial always misses the mark. No one thinks basketball fixes injustice. No parade will pass rent control. The Knicks can’t legislate fairness. But at their best, they remind us of what civic life neglects. We suffer together, yet do not grow callous. We invest in strangers. Our stories expand inside a much larger one. Someone else’s joy enlarges us.

This Knicks team embodied that lesson. Comeback was their language. No deficit felt permanent. Games once lost are revived. They refused inevitability. It’s tempting to draw big conclusions from sports, and usually, wisdom lies in restraint. Even so, it’s hard to ignore the resonance of millions. In an age of cynicism, people choose belief. Not naïveté, but the quiet knowledge that history doesn’t always prevail.

Fifty-three years is time enough for disappointment to calcify into identity. To pass down resignation. To forget about the surprise. Then, suddenly, the Knicks won. Confetti fell. Fathers called sons. Kids watched adults cry over things they couldn’t yet name. People poured into the streets, carrying pieces of themselves they’d misplaced somewhere between deadlines, elections, rent hikes, and the daily fatigue of being alive in America. The score will live in the record books. The parade will end. The merch will fade. But maybe, just maybe, another memory will outlast them all.

For one night, New York remembered that “us” is not an abstraction. It’s a practice. A chant. A hand offered to a stranger. A city letting itself be amazed. The Knicks had finally won. And so, too—briefly and brilliantly, had the possibility of belonging.

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.


Read More

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep Reading Show less
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

United States Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II STOVL stealth multirole fighters belonging to the VMFA-121 "Green Knights" taxiing at the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi, Japan, on March 23, 2017.

(viper-zero / Getty Images)

How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

In earlier essays, I argued that America’s political division has grown so deep that a peaceful “American Union” of two sovereign nations — one broadly red, one broadly blue — is worth considering. I also argued that relocation fears are overstated, that cooperation could increase economic prosperity, and that separation could help heal the lingering wounds of the Civil War.

But how would this all actually work? What happens to the national debt? Who gets the military bases, federal lands, and nuclear weapons? Will Social Security be protected? Could two nations share the dollar, defend themselves together, and resolve their disagreements?

Keep Reading Show less
Rear view of teenage boy walking with arm around friends

Why many young men feel politically and socially adrift, how changing gender roles affect masculinity, self-esteem, relationships, and the future of society.

Maskot / Getty Images

Lost Boys - What Is the Role of a Man in Today's Society?

A recent New York Times article stated that young males who provided an important swing vote for Trump in 2024 are discouraged by what Trump has done and not done while in office. But they are nevertheless not particularly inclined to vote Democratic because they don't see the Party as welcoming their view of masculinity and they don't know where they fit in this society.

These young men assume that because the Party supports equality for women in the workplace and because many young women no longer have marriage and having children at the top of their agenda, the Party would not be a welcoming home for them. They see themselves as striving for the masculinity of their fathers' or grandfathers' day, where the man was the breadwinner in the family and had respect and authority. Not the weaker half in relationships with women.

Keep Reading Show less
Showing Up and Staying: Disaster Relief in an Age of Distrust

NECHAMA volunteers in Western North Carolina after Hurricane Helene.

Showing Up and Staying: Disaster Relief in an Age of Distrust

As the Atlantic hurricane season officially began on June 1, disaster response organizations across the country are preparing for the next storm. That preparation includes coordinating logistics, purchasing supplies, training volunteers, and strengthening partnerships. It now also requires planning for an environment shaped by misinformation, distrust, and competing narratives.

A recent 60 Minutes segment examining extremist groups in disaster zones highlighted how quickly public perceptions can form after a disaster. Recovery efforts are now followed by outside groups and online networks attempting to influence how events are understood while communities are still in crisis.

Keep Reading Show less