Today's Hot Button Topic: Is the NBA Viewing Public Racist?

[Chief Rum]

Check out what Phil Taylor for CNNSI has to say:

Arrival of White Europeans Could Maybe Bring More Whites Back To The NBA TV Screen (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/phil_taylor/news/2003/06/30/hot_button/)

Maybe I'm just naive, but I was rather shocked at this article. The guy basically comes out and says that the reason ratings have waned for the NBA here in the U.S. is because the viewing public is basically racist (mainstream white America wants more white guys, less corn-row wearing, baggy-short-featuring black guys--not my stereotype--pretty much what he throws out there).

The only thing I agree with is that if NBA ratings do increase again, and it can be clearly linked to the arrival of star "white" players, then, yes, that would be sad and racist and ugly.

But he seems to completely discount the factors that are turning fans off from the game. Such as that Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird are no longer in the league, and no one active seems close to matching their drawing power. Or that the American sports fan (black or white) might appreciate a little efficiency and good play just as much or even more than a flashy dunk or endless three point shots. Or that, quite frankly, the game has simply lost its luster because you can usually predict each year who's gonna win it all anyway. Or it could be this particular Finals (the one he notes with the poor ratings) featured a team centered around one of the most boring superstar personalities in sports and a team that is relatively faceless on the other end. Or that the ridiculous rising arena prices are keeping the working class joe away from seeing games live. And I am sure some of it is also whites being turned off by some of the gang-imagery seemingly promoted by some players, whether legit or not (I leave it for you guys to decide if the perception is actual gang-style attitude/behavior, or just white America's way of labeling the young black male persona in today's society).

I'm not denying that there are no bad reasons for viewers to be turning off the TV when the NBA comes on. I'm sure there are a few that are turned off because they are basically bigots. And I wouldn't be surprised if it works both ways, too. I'm not making accusations here--just pointing out that racism is, unfortunately, human nature.

But as a white man, I'm kinda displeased that this guy would make this jump to conclusion just to write an article (IMO). He discounts all the other reasons for why interest might be waning, except the race card, and since I don't think that's true or supported by any actual facts, I don't think it's fair to make that implication at this point.

For instance, his view doesn't explain me. I used to love the NBA. Magic Johnson was a favorite player of mine. But as the years went by, I feel that pro basketball has gotten further and further away from good, fundamental ball play (which is something I appreciate). And it has become much more about the money and the image, rather than the passion for the game. And I am sure it also has a lot to do that I am mainly a Clippers fan (you want to know why ratings are plunging--try Donald Frickin' Sterling holding down an exciting young team in the middle of the country's #2 media market, rather than exploiting the massive potential for exposure and millions of LA fans and their money).

If I don't watch the NBA anymore because of all the blacks playing the game, why am I watching college basketball? I LOVE college basketball. Always have. The race percentages are about the same, I am guessing, so what's different? Well, it's about the game down there. It's about the passion. Yes, standards have fallen in college basketball, too, just like in the pros, but there are more coaches that teach it right, and there are more good kids--both white and black--who aren't playing for an NBA contract, but for school pride, sportsmanship and a free ride to a degree in college.

So if I am a member of such a mainstream racist society, why do I still watch college basketball?

And then there are his points about the Europeans. Personally, I don't give a flyin' flip about the influx of Europeans. I'm only looking for good players, whether they are European or American, black or white. Good guys that play the game the way it used to be played, with fundamentals and a good work ethic both on and off the court. So if he thinks the return of the "good, white player" is going to bring me running back to the TV, he's in for a shocker.

Oh welll, am I rambling here, or does any of this make sense? What do you guys think?

Chief Rum

[BreizhManu]

Will those people like the league better if it's populated by more Caucasians whose names they can't pronounce? If Antoine Walker and Jermaine O'Neal don't suit your taste, will you really prefer Zarko Cabarkapa or Sofoklis Schortsanitis?


Sofoklis is black, same thing goes for the 3 french drafted this year (Pietrus, Diaw and Morlende) which prooves he really knows the subject...

anyway I must agree with you most people like fundamental ball play and you can hardly see that in the NBA right now, now it's just one on ones and highlights. That's the only reason why the ratings are dropping.

[Blackadar]

The game really sucks the past 10-15 years. Too much flash, not enough fundamentals. Too many bad characters, not enough good guys. The rules are different ("the Jordan rules") for different players. If Kobe has driven the lane in the last year without traveling, I haven't seen it. If Shaq has been in the low post without fouling, I haven't seen it. People like Antione Walker throw up 3 pointers without any regard as to whether they can or should shoot them. Whiny players like Rasheed Wallace get away with murder. Or attacking their coach, like Spreewell.

It's boring, frankly.

[Ksyrup]

The problem with his argument is that it isn't a black vs. white thing, it's a North American style vs. European style thing. And most - not all, but most - of the players from Europe are white, so maybe that's where his white vs. black thing comes in. But, if more people enjoy that style of basketball then the chest thumping, one-on-one, look-at-me style of basketball that North America has produced over the past 2 decades - prevalent in both black AND white NA players - then that's just what it is. But it's got nothing to do with racism - it's the style of basketball.

I may be funny this way, but I like my basketball players with a little bit of shooting ability. I also prefer a game that features 12 players on each side and 5 on the court at all times, to be a "team sport." And that's not what the NBA is about these days, and hasn't been for quite awhile. So I guess I need to apologize to black people everywhere because I don't like the NBA, and "they" make up -what's the percentage now, 70% or more? - a large percentage of the NBA. So I'm sorry - sorry that more North American players think Allen Iverson, and not Tim Duncan, is the model basketball player. That must be my fault.

[Samdari]

It actually seems to me that we Americans are progressing as a society far enough that we have let our jingoism overcome our racism. I don't see as where the NBA audience has embraced white foreigners over black Americans. In fact, rumor has it is that Kiki kept the #3 pick (which was going to be Melo, whoever made the pick) because his designated pair of forwards of the future were foreign and would not sell tickets. Carmelo will.

[cuervo72]

I think to some extent, the perception of the NBA is moving away from the mainstream. In the 80's/90's there were still plenty of black players, but they didn't have the trash talking, hip-hop, corn-row, gang-banger image associated with them (as even some of the white players - besides the corn-rows - now do). At least not that I can recall. Now does every black player today fit that stereotype? Of course not. But that stereotype is out there. And I'm sure there are plenty of people who think of that stereotype and say "bah, I don't want to watch a bunch of trash-talking, hip-hopping gang-bangers out there".

Let's turn this around...for years, NASCAR was around but didn't have the national following it does today. What was one of the reasons for that? The stereotyping of the drivers and those who followed the sport - a bunch of beer swilling, tobacco chewing redneck southern boys. There are a lot of people (myself included) who were put off by that stereotype. I'd say NASCAR has been trying to move away from that stereotype, bringing it more into the mainstream - and it's popularity has boomed.

And then there's soccer :D

[MrBug708]

If Kobe has driven the lane in the last year without traveling, I haven't seen it. If Shaq has been in the low post without fouling

Time to start watching then

[ice4277]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Let's turn this around...for years, NASCAR was around but didn't have the national following it does today. What was one of the reasons for that? The stereotyping of the drivers and those who followed the sport - a bunch of beer swilling, tobacco chewing redneck southern boys. There are a lot of people (myself included) who were put off by that stereotype. I'd say NASCAR has been trying to move away from that stereotype, bringing it more into the mainstream - and it's popularity has boomed.

Oh, no, trust me, it still VERY much has that stereotype.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by ice4277
Oh, no, trust me, it still VERY much has that stereotype.

It does, but I don't think it's as bad as it used to be. I for one (ok, not a large sample size) don't view it quite as I had. There are more and more young drivers that don't fit the good ol' boy stereotype, starting with Jeff Gordon and Tony Stewart (no coincidence these are two of the most hated drivers on the circuit?). They've also been adding tracks in places outside the traditional NASCAR stomping grounds of FL/GA/NC, such as Las Vegas, California, Chicago, New Hampshire, Watkins Glen.

[Samdari]

Actually cuervo, I think that the booming popularity of NASCAR has less to do with moving away from redneckism than the general populace of this country embracing the redneck lifestyle more and more. Rednecks love NASCAR and hate the NBA, and more Americans are converting to redneck (is there a church where this is done? What kind of ceremony is involved?) than ever.

And Watkins Glen is not something that has been added in the recent NASCAR boom, they've been racing there (and Pocono) as long as I have been aware of sports, which dates back to mid/early 1980's.

[Dutch]

If racism is such a big part of society that it creates such great hot topic conversation....the math would suggest that at least some percentage of our very own FOFC society are racists. So all FOFC racists please speak up now. I doubt there really are any that are popular around here to be honest. Or is it just a myth that gets a lot of attention? Why is yelling the 'race card' so popular? Because it gets attention. It's really sad, but newspapers and TV do it all the time in hopes of getting somebody to stick around long enough to glance over at the add to the left or right of the article or stick around through to the commercial break.

It ends up being our society as a whole who pays the price with suspicion and mistrust for one just to get some editor or producer a few extra bucks...

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Dutch
If racism is such a big part of society that it creates such great hot topic conversation....the math would suggest that at least some percentage of our very own FOFC society are racists. So all FOFC racists please speak up now. I doubt there really are any that are popular around here to be honest. Or is it just a myth that gets a lot of attention? Why is yelling the 'race card' so popular? Because it gets attention. It's really sad, but newspapers and TV do it all the time in hopes of getting somebody to stick around long enough to glance over at the add to the left or right of the article or stick around through to the commercial break.

It ends up being our society as a whole who pays the price with suspicion and mistrust for one just to get some editor or producer a few extra bucks...

Or maybe, racists don't know they are racist.

[Havok]

These europeans are one of the reasons im actually starting to watch NBA a "little bit" more. The NBA has gotten WAY out of hand lately. Its ridiculous, these guys are supposed to be role models and they act like 12 year old kids playing street ball. Makes me sick really. But these europeans play team ball and its more fun to watch in my opinion. I'd much rather watch the old "Celtic's or Lakers" then the new Lakers or the Magic where its the Tracey Mcgrady show every night.

I actually wasn't that mad when our last "dream team" got they're asses kicked a couple times. Serves them right for not taking the rest of the world seriously. Im not saying that everyone in the NBA is like that, they're are still guys like Tim Duncan out there who understand this concept.

alos.... I don't think the whole "more white people will watch" thing should be considered racist. Ask 100 black people who they're favorite women's tennis player is and i guarrentee 99.9% will say Venus or Serena. Same thing goes with golf.... Tiger, Tiger, Tiger. Ask 100 Mexican's who they're favorite boxer is and i guarrentee 99% of them will say a Mexican (weather he's american/mexican or from mexico).

What if a Mexican becomes the next "Jordan" in basketball. Don't you think the amount of Mexicans that watch basketball would increase alot??? Of course it would. The amount of black people that watch golf is probally alot higher since Tiger has come along.

Its not unheard of for people to be slightly bias towards an athlete that looks like them or is from the same place they are from or whatever. It actually good for the sport because more people are watching. And it doesn't make them racist.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Samdari
Actually cuervo, I think that the booming popularity of NASCAR has less to do with moving away from redneckism than the general populace of this country embracing the redneck lifestyle more and more. Rednecks love NASCAR and hate the NBA, and more Americans are converting to redneck (is there a church where this is done? What kind of ceremony is involved?) than ever.

And Watkins Glen is not something that has been added in the recent NASCAR boom, they've been racing there (and Pocono) as long as I have been aware of sports, which dates back to mid/early 1980's.
Mmm, I don't know if Americans are converting to being redneck. Any other examples of this (excepting Jeff Foxworthy and Roseanne)? Good point about Watkins Glen, I didn't know how long they had been racing there but figured I'd mention it (I knew they'd been racing Pocono for a while).

Originally posted by John Galt
Or maybe, racists don't know they are racist.

Well, at what point does ethnocentrism end and racism begin? Aren't there many who are accusing the latter when it is really the former?

[vtbub]

That's just a real bad article.

According to conventional wisdom, the top three players drafted this year are can't miss players. Two of them are not Eurowhite.

The NBA has spent more time being bad then good. As late as 1983, finals games were being shown tape delay late night. They had a bad package and a bad product. Then came the triumverate, Magic, Larry, and MJ. They marketed hard, play and ratings were excellent, it was early summer's must see TV.

Now there are too many teams, too much money, and plenty of players who can't play and even MORE marketing. Frankly, I don't care if Allen Iverson delivers babies at halftime, when he can't make 6 out of 10 shots, it's bad basketball.

Has the "Snoop Doggy" image hurt? Probably to some degree. Millionare brats who can't speak decent English are not going to warm themselves to the casual fan, no matter what color they are.

The perception of selfishness has hurt Major League Baseball a ton. Writers will tell you that the Carl Everett's and Wil Cordero's are few and far between. How many people here on the other hand can relate to the money A-Rod makes? Has it made Texas any better?

That's where the NBA is headed, it's all about me. MLB has history and can pull at heartstrings that no other sport can. Mark McGwire rooted just as hard for Sammy Sosa, as we rooted for them both. That was a magic summer. The NBA doesn't have that depth. It's a regional game, with a lot of whining. It's a sport relegated to regional cable that doesn't translate well on the radio that many families can't afford to see.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Havok
Its not unheard of for people to be slightly bias towards an athlete that looks like them or is from the same place they are from or whatever. It actually good for the sport because more people are watching. And it doesn't make them racist.

Racist.










;)

[albionmoonlight]

Assumption #1--the "one-on-one," high-flying, dunk-centric, hyper-athletic, trash-talking style of basketball that has its roots on the street courts of America is "black basketball."

Assumption #2--the pass-first, team-oriented, earth-bound, fundamentally-sound style of basketball that has its roots in european coaching is "white basketball."

If both assumptions are true (and I am not saying that they are--though the fact that Jason William's nickname is "white chocolate" would seem to indicate something to me) and if I prefer style #2 (I do), then does that make me a racist? If I prefer the style of ball played by white people, not because the players who do it are white, but because I like/relate to the style--is that a racial thing at all? I don't think so, but I think that others may disagree with me.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by John Galt
Or maybe, racists don't know they are racist.

So you make a flippant blanket statement instead of addressing the common theme that most have brought up here? Hmmm.

What you are implying (going back when this was brought up before) that we should embrace the attitudes and styles of players that are refered to as: "these guys are supposed to be role models and they act like 12 year old kids playing street ball." or "but they didn't have the trash talking, hip-hop, corn-row, gang-banger image associated with them (as even some of the white players - besides the corn-rows - now do)." or "Too much flash, not enough fundamentals. Too many bad characters, not enough good guys. The rules are different ("the Jordan rules") for different players." or "People like Antione Walker throw up 3 pointers without any regard as to whether they can or should shoot them. Whiny players like Rasheed Wallace get away with murder. Or attacking their coach, like Spreewell." or "I feel that pro basketball has gotten further and further away from good, fundamental ball play (which is something I appreciate). And it has become much more about the money and the image"

because if we don't, then we are racist and thus, we are bad people? I don't accept much of the NBA for the exact reasons given here because I want a better product, better attitudes and a better image.

You know, it sounds like there are a bunch of grumpy old men here all wanting the NBA to return to the fundamentals and actions from the past before it turned into one-on-one street hoops. :)

[John Galt]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Well, at what point does ethnocentrism end and racism begin? Aren't there many who are accusing the latter when it is really the former?

Now that's a good question. I think that often racism is a proxy for ethnocentrism and vice versa. Trying to separate 'isms is usually not a worthwhile exercise because you discover a lot of overlap. For example, a lot of people believe vtbub's comment that, "Millionare brats who can't speak decent English" uses language skills as a proxy for racism (no offense intended - just using an easy example from this thread). Judging someone based on inner-city or black language use is often the same as judging them based on their skin color. It is just that we can rationalize language and claim not be racist.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
So you make a flippant blanket statement instead of addressing the common theme that most have brought up here? Hmmm.

Give me some credit - usually I bore everyone with overly long and condescending posts. :)

And I was going to say more (as I just did), but I wanted to first attack the notion that there aren't many racists because people say they aren't racist.

[John Galt]

dola,

"Better Image" is culturally defined. When one says they want a better image, they import an array of cultural opinions about what is excellence. For some parts of black America, Iverson is iconic and is a "better image." For some parts of white America, Iverson is everything wrong with America. "Better" is never neutral and objective in matters like this.

[albionmoonlight]

I understand your point, John, but I still believe that I get to have a preference. I do not like when public figures (or anyone for that matter) misuse language. If part of "black culture" is misuse of language, I still don't like it.

Perhaps my attitude in this respect causes me to dislike black speech in particular. To me, such an attitude is not "racist" because it is not irrational. I wish that everyone used proper language. I wish that more black people used proper language. I wish that more white people used proper language. I am not going to change my views on what make a good and respectable person just because some of the traits that I do not respect happen to coorolate to minority racial status.

I would never force someone to change the way they speak, act, or dress. I will not, however, pretend to like everyone's choices.

[Anrhydeddu]

But aren't there positive values that can be applied to all humans regardless of race and culture? I mean if education (for example) is seen as good thing (as oppose to being un-educated), how should one react to anyone (whether individually or a culture) that does not value education? Or perhaps a better example. If a lifestyle encourages and glorifies the shady side of the law or engaging in unlawful behavior, should we not encourage and support the opposite? Where it can get a little fuzzy is in style. Everyone has an opinion of what styles they like and don't like (even Galt), that is natural. But if the NBA wants to promote and perpetuate a style of play that some/many do not like, can we have the right to criticize that without being called racist?

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by John Galt
Now that's a good question. I think that often racism is a proxy for ethnocentrism and vice versa. Trying to separate 'isms is usually not a worthwhile exercise because you discover a lot of overlap. For example, a lot of people believe vtbub's comment that, "Millionare brats who can't speak decent English" uses language skills as a proxy for racism (no offense intended - just using an easy example from this thread). Judging someone based on inner-city or black language use is often the same as judging them based on their skin color. It is just that we can rationalize language and claim not be racist.

Good points. Is it ever possible to safely object to a particular behavior that is associated with blacks? I am mildly annoyed with general ignorance and degredation of the English language, of which inner-city language (so called "ebonics") is just one flavor (I was also disapproving of Webster's adding terms such as "phat" and "dot-commer" to the dictionary....). But how can I hold that opinion without being labeled racist?

As an aside....I am bothered more by Millionaire technology brats (hello, Mr. Snyder) than millionaire bball players.

[TroyF]

The guy who wrote this is an uninformed buffoon.

The ratings continue to slide for numerous reasons. We talk about the lack of fundamentals and the team game. . . but I think it goes deeper than that. I think it's as much how physical the play is as much as anything. Why did Kareem develop his skyhook? Why did Kevin McHale have an unlimited arsenal of low post moves? Why did teams who couldn't shoot the ball well average nearly 100 points a game before?

Simple, not only did teams run more, the game was about POSITION, not STRENGTH. Even if you shot the ball poorly, you could score because the offense had the advantage. The onus was on the defensive teams to get into proper position. Even a great defensive team wasn't able to do this on a consistent basis.

The Euro's still play the game that way, which is the game I love to watch. I watched less basketball this year than I ever have before. The games I tried to catch? Mavericks, Kings, T-Wolves, Spurs. The Spurs played ugly, but TD is one of my favorite players in all of sports. Garnett is pure joy to watch. I love watching Webber and Bibby run the break together.

I'm watching less because of race? Please. . .

TroyF

[KWhit]

Originally posted by John Galt
"Better Image" is culturally defined. When one says they want a better image, they import an array of cultural opinions about what is excellence. For some parts of black America, Iverson is iconic and is a "better image." For some parts of white America, Iverson is everything wrong with America. "Better" is never neutral and objective in matters like this.


I agree with you here.

However, black people who believe that Iverson should be the epitome of the NBA are never labeled racists. White people who would like to see another Larry Bird are often called racist (and you can substitute any current white player for Bird, like Nowitzki, Nash, etc.).

[cuervo72]

Nicely put, Anrhy-d.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by John Galt
dola,

"Better Image" is culturally defined. When one says they want a better image, they import an array of cultural opinions about what is excellence. For some parts of black America, Iverson is iconic and is a "better image." For some parts of white America, Iverson is everything wrong with America. "Better" is never neutral and objective in matters like this.

This was my point I was addressing before you wrote this.

I tried several attempts at responding to this but none of it makes sense. I'll shutup for now.

[Anrhydeddu]

I am mildly annoyed with general ignorance and degredation of the English language, of which inner-city language (so called "ebonics") is just one flavor (I was also disapproving of Webster's adding terms such as "phat" and "dot-commer" to the dictionary....). But how can I hold that opinion without being labeled racist?

So are many educated black leaders and clergy but they are shouting down for being 'whitey'.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
I understand your point, John, but I still believe that I get to have a preference. I do not like when public figures (or anyone for that matter) misuse language. If part of "black culture" is misuse of language, I still don't like it.

Perhaps my attitude in this respect causes me to dislike black speech in particular. To me, such an attitude is not "racist" because it is not irrational. I wish that everyone used proper language. I wish that more black people used proper language. I wish that more white people used proper language. I am not going to change my views on what make a good and respectable person just because some of the traits that I do not respect happen to coorolate to minority racial status.

I would never force someone to change the way they speak, act, or dress. I will not, however, pretend to like everyone's choices.

Language is not a neutral, static thing. It changes all the time and is never the same for very far. It is often said that America and the UK are separated by a common language. Words like "ya'll" and "whatcha" reflect regional dialects. Just because a dictionary doesn't recognize them doesn't mean they aren't used. The internet has added whole new layers to language ranging from kooldudz speak to AOL shorthand. In black America, words like "ask" are often pronounced differently.

The point isn't that we shouldn't strive for a common language, but judging someone based on used different language often masks racism. It is easy to see a "punk" like Iverson as "stupid" or "un-educated" because of the way he talks when you are white and speak in a different way. The point is, he may be neither of those things, but language allows a proxy for racism.

Use another example like hair. Until a lawsuit against a major hotel chain, many companies considered cornrows to be unprofessional and prohibited them from being used at work.

Or names. We had a thread before about how "black" names significantly decreased the chance of getting an interview with identical resumes.

Or background. Sometimes it is easy to look at a white kid from the suburbs and say his arrest for pot was a childhood indiscretion while looking at a black American with the same arrest may lead one to raise "character" issues. These shootings of athletes over the last few years have raised similar "character" flags when the athlete is black even though they were random based on available evidence. When a black kid gets in trouble in Compton, someone may say, "Well, what was he doing there in the first place?" - ignoring that Compton has different relevance in black and white communities.

Race informs our opinions in ways we often don't realize.

[John Galt]

The fear of being a racist.

Or more precisely, the fear of being called a racist.

This is one of the thorniest problems in discussing any race issue. No one wants to be a racist, so they deny every argument that they use race in their decision. Or better yet, they point out how other races do the same thing.

The point that I'm trying to make is that we are all racists. We all use race to make decisions. Sometimes it is via proxies (like above or when buying a house in a "nice" neighborhood) and other times it is more direct (walking home at night a bit quicker when followed by a group of gangsta-styled black teens). Race matters.

I think that is an important thing to recognize, because race affects our decisions and once you realize that you can start to minimize the ways it does. Rather than looking out and justifying, you can look in and improve.

When someone calls me a racist and explains why, I thank them, because I know it will make me a better person. I don't want to be a racist, but I know that for the time being, I am.

[Anrhydeddu]

You know, I would love to hear Galt say once - just once - that blacks can be racist and have the same racist attitudes as white. In the past year, every single time we bring this up, he always comes up with one-way examples of racism and cultural bias.

So much for shutting up. :rolleyes:

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
You know, I would love to hear Galt say once - just once - that blacks can be racist and have the same racist attitudes as white. In the past year, every single time we bring this up, he always comes up with one-way examples of racism and cultural bias.

So much for shutting up. :rolleyes:

See my above post - we are all racists. The problem is whites typically have power and define mainstream culture. That has a net negative effect on blacks and other minorities. Until black neighborhoods aren't almost all black because of low property values or racist housing policies, I'm more concerned about white racism than black racism. Housing segregation is the single most important issue in race today, but no one has a good solution. Until then, our cultures and schools and peoples will remain divided and different.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
You know, I would love to hear Galt say once - just once - that blacks can be racist and have the same racist attitudes as white. In the past year, every single time we bring this up, he always comes up with one-way examples of racism and cultural bias.

So much for shutting up. :rolleyes:

Shut up already, you honkey! :D

http://www.clarence.com/contents/cultura-spettacolo/televisione/tvshow/jeffersons/images/george.jpg

[Anrhydeddu]

See my above post - we are all racists. The problem is whites typically have power and define mainstream culture. That has a net negative effect on blacks and other minorities. Until black neighborhoods aren't almost all black because of low property values or racist housing policies, I'm more concerned about white racism than black racism. Housing segregation is the single most important issue in race today, but no one has a good solution. Until then, our cultures and schools and peoples will remain divided and different.

...or maybe blacks (or any other cultural groups) prefer to associate among themselves?

That is not to say that such policies do not exist but like with anything else, if we want to identify a cause then we surely will find what we want to see.

[Anrhydeddu]

dola

I blame my friend Chief Rum.

Let's make it a rule of no more hot topics this week. :)

[vtbub]

Millionaire brats come in all shapes, sizes, gender, color, orientation and disability.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
...or maybe blacks (or any other cultural groups) prefer to associate among themselves?

That is not to say that such policies do not exist but like with anything else, if we want to identify a cause then we surely will find what we want to see.

I'm not denying the truth to that - I saying that blacks usually don't have a choice because of a long legacy of racist housing policies (which define school districts and so many other subcultural aspects of modern life). For a quick summary of some of the things I'm referring to, I found this with a quick google search:

http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/african/Article_Detail.asp?Article_ID=4436

I'm sorry if I've threadjacked. I'm still talking about racism, but I guess I went a little off target. ;)

[TroyF]

Originally posted by John Galt
See my above post - we are all racists. The problem is whites typically have power and define mainstream culture. That has a net negative effect on blacks and other minorities. Until black neighborhoods aren't almost all black because of low property values or racist housing policies, I'm more concerned about white racism than black racism. Housing segregation is the single most important issue in race today, but no one has a good solution. Until then, our cultures and schools and peoples will remain divided and different.

You'd damned well better be concerned about both types, because as long as one exists the other will certainly follow.

There is a lot of racism that exists in this country. Please look at my rants on the lack of black head football coaches if you don't think I can't see that.

Yet, this "we're all racists" BS is just BS. Yes, everyone stereotypes. Stereotyping is a different thing than racism is. All we have to do is open up a simple dictionary to determine the meaning of racism:

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I don't believe I'm superior to anyone, regardless of race.

I do not discriminate based on race either. If I'm walking down the street at midnight and I see a group of teenagers with bandanas playing loud music, will I speed up my pace a little bit? Damn right I will. Of course, what isn't said in your example is that I'd pick up the pace regardless of the skin colors of those individuals. It's dark and I'm alone. There is more of them than there is of me. White people stab and rob just as easily as a latino or a black.

Is that stereotyping? Yup. I'm stereotyping teenagers as a whole and it isn't really fair. Most groups of black and white teens would do nothing to trouble me. I also have stereotypes of gay people, poor black people, white rich guys, white guys who live in trailer parks, and about every other group of people that exists on the planet.

The goal is to control those stereotypes so that I never feel that I'm superior to any of those people and that I treat them with respect regardless of the reason I stereotype them in the first place.

Of course, the sad thing, with all of the PC going around is that if you defend yourself as a non-racist. . . you are a racist.

TroyF

[vtbub]

There is a difference between culture bias and racism.

Personally, I really don't care what any of these people do in their own lives.

It does matter how they perform their craft. Why? We all pay for it. Your mother who would know Iverson from Ivanhoe, chances are, pays a cable bill, buys clothes or eats foods endorsed by atheletes or entertainers. We pay their salary.

Their job is to produce the best product. It's clear that they are not. Jordan's last championship brought higher ratings than the World Series, and I'll go out on a limb here and say that Greg Ostertag and Toni Kukoc were not the main draws for that.

There is a major problem when your ratings fall 66% in five years. Is race a factor, I'm sure to some degree. I couldn't watch because it was BORING. THE NBA IS BORING. I don't care if it was an all white team of bricklayers from Nebraska, the product is horrid.

I understand that there are those out there who are rabid NBA fans who think we are all nuts. As far as the "Whitey" black against the "hip-hop" arguement goes, the series featured Tim Duncan and David Robinson. You can't get more well spoken and intelligent than that, and it still bombed. No one accuses Shaq of being a genius, but people watch him.

The name of the game is getting the casual fan to watch. Right now they are not. Work on the product and people will watch.

[Anrhydeddu]

vtbub, I agree with what you said. But I would ask "why has it become boring". What is it that they are teaching or encouraging that presents the NBA as a boring (or unwatchable) product? To me, it's the "be like Mike" factor - the insane desire to walk down the floor for 18 seconds and then drive to the hoop for a slam the last 6 seconds of the shot clock. The rest of the players are just standing around.

What we have gone off on the tangent is about the "image" and promotion of the NBA to a more specific demographics. Maybe this goes hand in hand with the style of play, I don't know.

[Anrhydeddu]

Since ebonics was brought up, I thought this was an excellent article from Education Week

Language Lessons (http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=31dialect.h21)

[Craptacular]

Bring back the nuthuggers.

[Havok]

Originally posted by KWhit
Racist.










;)

LOL!!! i was wondering who was gonna do that :)

[Havok]

Originally posted by TroyF
You'd damned well better be concerned about both types, because as long as one exists the other will certainly follow.

There is a lot of racism that exists in this country. Please look at my rants on the lack of black head football coaches if you don't think I can't see that.

Yet, this "we're all racists" BS is just BS. Yes, everyone stereotypes. Stereotyping is a different thing than racism is. All we have to do is open up a simple dictionary to determine the meaning of racism:

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I don't believe I'm superior to anyone, regardless of race.

I do not discriminate based on race either. If I'm walking down the street at midnight and I see a group of teenagers with bandanas playing loud music, will I speed up my pace a little bit? Damn right I will. Of course, what isn't said in your example is that I'd pick up the pace regardless of the skin colors of those individuals. It's dark and I'm alone. There is more of them than there is of me. White people stab and rob just as easily as a latino or a black.

Is that stereotyping? Yup. I'm stereotyping teenagers as a whole and it isn't really fair. Most groups of black and white teens would do nothing to trouble me. I also have stereotypes of gay people, poor black people, white rich guys, white guys who live in trailer parks, and about every other group of people that exists on the planet.

The goal is to control those stereotypes so that I never feel that I'm superior to any of those people and that I treat them with respect regardless of the reason I stereotype them in the first place.

Of course, the sad thing, with all of the PC going around is that if you defend yourself as a non-racist. . . you are a racist.

TroyF


What a breath of fresh air.... i was starting to get a little frustrated reading this thread after John Galt started his liberal ranting, but finally..... a man with some commen sense! :)

well said Troy

[McSweeny]

all i know is i miss Larry Bird. It was so much fun to watch the Celtics back when he was playing (and didn't suck). Does that make me racist? I should hope not. It was the style of play, not the color of his skin or if he was European or not. I cannot stand to watch NBA games anymore. Way too much one-on-one crap. So that makes me racist? bah

[vtbub]

Why's it boring?

Too much money. Too many teams. Not enough talent.

[Marmel]

Originally posted by John Galt

but I wanted to first attack the notion that there aren't many racists because people say they aren't racist.


John, I saw you coming before I even opened this thread up. You need to be a bit more unpredictable.

[vtbub]

Perv ;)

[John Galt]

Originally posted by TroyF
Yet, this "we're all racists" BS is just BS. Yes, everyone stereotypes. Stereotyping is a different thing than racism is. All we have to do is open up a simple dictionary to determine the meaning of racism:

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others

Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I don't believe I'm superior to anyone, regardless of race.

I do not discriminate based on race either. If I'm walking down the street at midnight and I see a group of teenagers with bandanas playing loud music, will I speed up my pace a little bit? Damn right I will. Of course, what isn't said in your example is that I'd pick up the pace regardless of the skin colors of those individuals. It's dark and I'm alone. There is more of them than there is of me. White people stab and rob just as easily as a latino or a black.

Is that stereotyping? Yup. I'm stereotyping teenagers as a whole and it isn't really fair. Most groups of black and white teens would do nothing to trouble me. I also have stereotypes of gay people, poor black people, white rich guys, white guys who live in trailer parks, and about every other group of people that exists on the planet.

The goal is to control those stereotypes so that I never feel that I'm superior to any of those people and that I treat them with respect regardless of the reason I stereotype them in the first place.

Of course, the sad thing, with all of the PC going around is that if you defend yourself as a non-racist. . . you are a racist.

Just a few thoughts before I get back to work.

First off, I don't think a dictionary definition is a good way to look at "racism." Dictionaries aren't so good for 'ism type words and don't usually gather the real underlying meaning of a power-charged word.

Second, stereotyping and reacting is prejudice and discrimination (part of your definition).

Third, not believing you are superior is only part of the picture. See the ideas of proxies above.

Fourth, your stereotype example is good and illustrative. My point is that even when you react the same way to white teenagers, it is in part because of the way they are dressed and act - a way more commonly found in inner-city black kids. Clothes and style become proxies for race.

Fifth, I don't know what you mean in regards to PC - I've never leveled the label "racist" at anyone moreso than I adopt it myself. You may be talking about someone else here, but I'm not sure how it applies to what I'm saying.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Since ebonics was brought up, I thought this was an excellent article from Education Week

Language Lessons (http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=31dialect.h21)

Good article. I enjoyed reading it.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
John, I saw you coming before I even opened this thread up. You need to be a bit more unpredictable.

:(

[Marmel]

Originally posted by John Galt
Just a few thoughts before I get back to work.

First off, I don't think a dictionary definition is a good way to look at "racism." Dictionaries aren't so good for 'ism type words and don't usually gather the real underlying meaning of a power-charged word.

I guess the John Galt definition is the way we should go?


Originally posted by john galt

Fourth, your stereotype example is good and illustrative. My point is that even when you react the same way to white teenagers, it is in part because of the way they are dressed and act - a way more commonly found in inner-city black kids. Clothes and style become proxies for race.


How exactly do you know this is why people react that way.


Sorry John, you are going to need a lot more cites in your future posts from now on.

[Marmel]

Originally posted by John Galt
whites typically (have power) and define mainstream culture.

Again, where do you get this from?

I can just as easily say that blacks are defining mainstream culture these days. What do you even mean by mainstream culture?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
I guess the John Galt definition is the way we should go?

I'm just saying dictionaries don't capture the big picture, not that I have a better definition.

Originally posted by Marmel
How exactly do you know this is why people react that way.


The point isn't that that is why people react that way, just that the way people react has a disproportionate racial effect. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone can know how our subconscious affects our behavior, but when it does so in racial way, we should stop and ask why.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
Again, where do you get this from?

I can just as easily say that blacks are defining mainstream culture these days. What do you even mean by mainstream culture?

By mainstream I mean majority culture. Things like language, style, movies, TV, etc. are all part of culture. Yes, blacks get integrated in a sort of add-minorities-and-stir sort of way, but inner city and hispanic, asian, black, gay, transexual, etc. minorities have limited opportunity to define and change the mainstream.

[Marmel]

Originally posted by John Galt
By mainstream I mean majority culture. Things like language, style, movies, TV, etc. are all part of culture. Yes, blacks get integrated in a sort of add-minorities-and-stir sort of way, but inner city and hispanic, asian, black, gay, transexual, etc. minorities have limited opportunity to define and change the mainstream.

I would argue that style and music are heavily influenced by minorities, and that your average white person is limited in these categories.

and what does gay, transexual have to do with a race discussion?

[Dutch]

but inner city and hispanic, asian, black, gay, transexual

Gays and Transexuals are not minority racial groups..... :rolleyes:

[Marmel]

We know John has to sneak those words into every thread he posts in, so lets give him a break on it. ;)

[Anrhydeddu]

hispanic, asian, black, etc. minorities have limited opportunity to define and change the mainstream.

Not in Latin America, Caribbean, Sub-Sahara Africa, India, China, Japan, etc. (Yes, I purposely took out gay and transwhatever, that was just a sly attempt.)

[Abe Sargent]

I agree that NBA basketball was boring and stuff, and I stopped watching it. But, I have to admit, that if Yao turns in another season like last year, I may have found my own Personal Jordan. He makes me want to be creative....


(To the tune of "Personal Jesus")

Personal Jordan


Reach out and touch Phil

Well your own
Personal
Jordan

Someone to be your friend
Someone who cares

Well your own
Personal
Jordan


Feeling alone
And all on your own?
Take the test
Allow me to suggest
Pick up the remote
You know there's new bloke
There


His name is Ming
And he's the new thing
A player from East
He is such a beast
Even Phil's
Gotta wish he was in
Houston


Well your own
Personal
Jordan

Someone to be your friend
Someone who cares

Well your own
Personal
Jordan

Reach out and touch Mike


Plays ball
And he's really tall
Has handling skills
His team he wills
To wins aplenty
And won't take any
Hell



Well your own
Personal
Jordan

Someone to be your friend
Someone who cares

Well your own
Personal
Jordan


Reach out and touch Yao



-Anxiety

[TroyF]

John,

Marmel posted mainly what I was going to post, but I'll add a couple of things.

The fact that I have a stereotype for white trailer park trash. . . does that make me racist? Racism is hating someone because of the color of their skin John, not having a perception of what a person is because of the clothes he/she is wearing.

Stereotyping someone is making a judgement about someone based off of a perception of that person. (this can be a correct or incorrect perception)

The two are different and I can't believe you can't see that.

Fourth, your stereotype example is good and illustrative. My point is that even when you react the same way to white teenagers, it is in part because of the way they are dressed and act - a way more commonly found in inner-city black kids. Clothes and style become proxies for race.

OK John. I'd speed up if I saw a bunch of kids on motorcycles with leather jackets. Is this racism? I just brought up a WHITE stereotype John. Does that mean I'm racist against whites? Don't give me the clothes and style proxies for race crap. You show a complete lack of understanding of the difference between what racism and stereotyping are and I find it sad. (I have a psychology minor, feel free to borrow some of my books on the subject sometime)

TroyF

[Marmel]

Nice reply Troy. :)

[Anrhydeddu]

You know, with Galt being a NYC lawyer, I wonder if they have a dress code? (I know, stupid question.) I know if I walk in there with my usual jeans and t-shirt, I would be deemed unprofessional. Seems like even he and his firm has a standard and image to protect and to project. Just a random, silly thought.

[Ben E Lou]

Troy's scenarios remind me of a frank discussion on race we had with a group of inner-city black teenagers and suburban white teenagers, all from metro Atlanta. It was a GREAT and very honest dialog, with about 60ish teenagers there, with right around a 50/50 racial mix. One of the black teenagers expressed frustration and hurt that when whites pull up to an interstate exit near the inner-city neighborhoods of downtown and black kids are hanging out, they'll immediately let up the windows and/or lock the doors. Several black heads nodded. Former Oakland Raider and former Black Panther Dennis Pete, who was the leader for the inner-city Atlanta kids at this particular event, asked to speak. He stood up and said something to the effect of: "I'm a black man. I'm FROM the inner city. I WORK in the inner city. I LIVE in the inner city. When I see a group of teenagers in the inner city, I lock my car doors. That's not racism. {chuckle} That's just plain wisdom." His chuckle had a domino effect through the kids, both black and white. Let's not get so P.C. that we just throw wisdom out the door.

As far as the NBA goes, it certainly has an image of being an inner-city-cultured game. However, I don't see "racism" at work here as much as culturalism and generationalism. To the youngsters I work with, both black and white, team basketball is "boring" and "soft," while one-on-one take-it-up-and-dunk-in-a-guy's-face basketball is "exciting" as well as "manly". It isn't up to me, or any of you, to say which way is "better" per se. My guess is that the game will continue to evolve more and more in that direction, and that attendance and viewership will begin to rise again as today's young people, both white and black, become the Nielsen audiences and ticket buyers of tomorrow.

[Marmel]

A-

If you had been paying attention to FOFC instead of spamming everybody about Lahman, you would know that NYC lawyers have a casual dress code that John adheres to.

[vtbub]

Well said Skydog.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
I would argue that style and music are heavily influenced by minorities, and that your average white person is limited in these categories.

and what does gay, transexual have to do with a race discussion?

That was my point about adding minorities and stirring. There is a difference between how mainstream culture imports black culture and how black culture perceives itself. This is true in any subculture - take alternative music - people in the subculture scene are always arguing about who is a sellout and who is the new cutting edge. Blacks and other minorities participate to some degree, but not the same way. Others (like Asian males and Hispanics) rarely appear on TV or in movies.

And I just brought up gays and transexuals to show that other minorities have little influence on culture (but thanks for asking the question in a non-condescending tone - unlike some people).

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Not in Latin America, Caribbean, Sub-Sahara Africa, India, China, Japan, etc. (Yes, I purposely took out gay and transwhatever, that was just a sly attempt.)

You are right. I was speaking as to American culture.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by TroyF
John,

Marmel posted mainly what I was going to post, but I'll add a couple of things.

The fact that I have a stereotype for white trailer park trash. . . does that make me racist? Racism is hating someone because of the color of their skin John, not having a perception of what a person is because of the clothes he/she is wearing.

Stereotyping someone is making a judgement about someone based off of a perception of that person. (this can be a correct or incorrect perception)

The two are different and I can't believe you can't see that.

Fourth, your stereotype example is good and illustrative. My point is that even when you react the same way to white teenagers, it is in part because of the way they are dressed and act - a way more commonly found in inner-city black kids. Clothes and style become proxies for race.

OK John. I'd speed up if I saw a bunch of kids on motorcycles with leather jackets. Is this racism? I just brought up a WHITE stereotype John. Does that mean I'm racist against whites? Don't give me the clothes and style proxies for race crap. You show a complete lack of understanding of the difference between what racism and stereotyping are and I find it sad. (I have a psychology minor, feel free to borrow some of my books on the subject sometime)

TroyF

TroyF - first off, I would appreciate you be a little more civil and worrying a little less about my psyche.

You offered a definition of racism that I said was incomplete, but even then it includes things like acting on stereotypes. You said in your last post, "Racism is hating someone because of the color of their skin John" - that is not your own definition from the dictionary. The dictionary mentions nothing of hatred - only prejudice. You are right that if racism means hatred then all your other arguments follow - but I'm arguing with your definition. Just restating it as though I'm a moron doesn't answer what I'm saying.

When a person make actions based on a racial stereotype, they are being conscious of race and thus are racist. That is the essence of racism. If you read my above posts, I'm arguing that EVERYONE does this which means we are all racists. We all use prejudice and discriminate based on that prejudice. That does NOT mean we all hate or that we want to be.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by John Galt
You are right. I was speaking as to American culture.

And the America culture is all of these things, it all depends where you chose to look.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Troy's scenarios remind me of a frank discussion on race we had with a group of inner-city black teenagers and suburban white teenagers, all from metro Atlanta. It was a GREAT and very honest dialog, with about 60ish teenagers there, with right around a 50/50 racial mix. One of the black teenagers expressed frustration and hurt that when whites pull up to an interstate exit near the inner-city neighborhoods of downtown and black kids are hanging out, they'll immediately let up the windows and/or lock the doors. Several black heads nodded. Former Oakland Raider and former Black Panther Dennis Pete, who was the leader for the inner-city Atlanta kids at this particular event, asked to speak. He stood up and said something to the effect of: "I'm a black man. I'm FROM the inner city. I WORK in the inner city. I LIVE in the inner city. When I see a group of teenagers in the inner city, I lock my car doors. That's not racism. {chuckle} That's just plain wisdom." His chuckle had a domino effect through the kids, both black and white. Let's not get so P.C. that we just throw wisdom out the door.

This is exactly my argument. We ALL make racist decisions. You can call it wisdom or justify it, but ultimately it is a decision informed by impressions of race. I'm not saying a person is bad because they are racist, just that once you recognize your own racism, you can start to analyze it, understand it, and eventually come to terms with it.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
And the America culture is all of these things, it all depends where you chose to look.

Of course, but minorities typically have less access to mainstream culture and thus subcultures form. This is what I've been arguing all along.

[Anrhydeddu]

Galt, you need to lighten up and get over to the Not a QuikSand puzzle thread. :)

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
You know, with Galt being a NYC lawyer, I wonder if they have a dress code? (I know, stupid question.) I know if I walk in there with my usual jeans and t-shirt, I would be deemed unprofessional. Seems like even he and his firm has a standard and image to protect and to project. Just a random, silly thought.

I think this is actually an important point and shows why I'm not at odds with what SD is saying, but I am at odds with TroyF. I agree that we make decisions to look "professional" and other style-based actions. Those decisions are inevitably based in part on race. TroyF thinks that means I'm attacking white America and saying it should be rejected. That isn't what I'm saying at all - I'm saying in an instance like this, you can adopt "professional" clothes, but in doing so you should think about whether that decision was based on a "white" cultural standard. You may reach the same decision, but it is important to turn inward and not reject out of hand that your decision may be based on your own racism. Then again, it may not. Just don't be fooled into thinking racism is only a product of conscious intent.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
This is exactly my argument. We ALL make racist decisions. You can call it wisdom or justify it, but ultimately it is a decision informed by impressions of race. I'm not saying a person is bad because they are racist, just that once you recognize your own racism, you can start to analyze it, understand it, and eventually come to terms with it. Uh...no. That is not exactly your argument. Dennis went on to tell his kids not to blame the suburban white kids for the fact that their neighborhoods are unsafe. He was saying that the decision was NOT racist at all, but just good common sense.

The semantics of this discussion are causing a problem. For most, the word "racist" has a negative connotation that includes hatred or a view that one race is "better" than another. "Prejudice" is probably a better word to use for what you're talking about John. We all make pre-judgments. Just because one factor in a pre-judgment is race does not mean that the "pre-judger" has race-based hatred in his heart.

[Anrhydeddu]

I agree with SkyDog. I understand the word "culturalism" better. Galt seems to want to have everything lumped into the word "racism" so as to re-define that word so we can accept its broader meaning (for whatever agenda). I reject that because historically it had always meant superiority/inferiority by race. But one of the traps I see many fall into is the notion of characteristics, which can be applied to races and certainly to many cultures - otherwise how can one define what a race or a culture is?

[Buzzbee]

I admit it. I am...an...an....NBA racist. There! I said it. Whew! It feels good to get that off my chest.

I used to watch the NBA. Was more into college ball than pro, but still would sit down and watch a game from time to time.

Now, I flip right past. I'll admit, part of that is because of the "image" of the NBA. Since I haven't watched a game in several years, only bits and pieces here and there, I can't really tell you what the game is like. I can tell you my thoughts about the NBA.

One thing that bugs me is the recent trend of younger and younger players entering the league. Why is that a problem for me? Several reasons.

Maturity. There are exceptions to every rule, but in general kids coming out of high school aren't as mature as kids who have gone through 4 years of college. When someone like LeBron James (good, recent example) makes a comment about loyalty to Nike vs. loyalty to the team he is playing for, it makes me cringe.

Style of play. I like fundamental basketball. Plain and simple. I played baseketball throughout my youth, and like to watch good, fundamental basketball. I also like to watch Dr. J and Jordan-esque type moves where a player drives the lane, spins two or three times, and makes a miraculous double-pump reverse jam over somebody. But not EVERY PLAY! To me the NBA has become televised street ball. It focuses on the individual ATHLETE rather than fundamental team basketball. I really don't care to watch Allen Iverson vs. the Knicks, or KobeShaq vs. the Suns. I'd rather watch the Pistons with Isiah Thomas, John Salley, Bill Lambier, and Dennis Rodman play the Celtics with Bird McHale, Parrish, and DJ.

Thugness. Here is where the NBA racist in me comes out. I see players like Iverson and Spreewell and immediately transfer my opinion of them to others in the league. It gives me an image that the players in the NBA are simply thugs who have moved from the playgrounds into the arenas. It's not true, I know, but when I see and NBA players with cornrows, tattos from head to toe, baggy shorts and gold chains, I don't think of basketball. I think of gangstas and cop-killing rap songs. This coupled with incidents like those of Iverson, Spreewell and the former player (Williams?) accused (convicted?) of murder tend to re-inforce this image. To me the NBA has targeted itself to a black male audience. I am not in that audience and don't care to watch.

[vtbub]

Nielsen complies numbers based on ethnicity, does anybody knew how the NBA does in "black" demos?

[Buzzbee]

Dola

My post was just TOO damn long so I decided I'd break it up, just so SOMEBODY might read it.

Here is another problem I have with the NBA:

"Youth Movement" This sort of goes along with Maturity above, but I wanted to split it out and make different points. Do I believe LeBron Should have the right to make $90 million if he has the skills, ability, and desire? Absolutely. Do I believe that most of the kids coming out of high school or leaving college early have those skills, ability, and desire? Absolutely not! Yes, Kobe, and Kevin Garnett have been able to make that leap, but in general I believe that they are the exception rather than the rule. For the most part I despise when players leave after their Freshman or Sophomore year.

My reasons are two-fold and I will use my Alma Mater to illustrate my point. Kenny Anderson left Georgia Tech after his sophmore season. He was a tremendous talent, and could handle the ball incredibly well. He was a star player in college, leading Tech to the Final Four, but never dominated. I believe that he came out too early. He struggled his first few years and I believe that staying in college (for at least one more year) would have helped him develop his skills and be more prepared for the pro game. In my opinion leaving early was detrimental to his career.

Next, Stephon Marbury. Left after his Freshman year. Has had a good career so far, but it took him a year or two to adapt. Now, Chris Bosh left Tech after his Freshman year. Again, he played solidly, but Tech didn't even make it into the NCAA Tournament, and was eliminated in the second round of the NIT. And he was picked with the FOURTH OVERALL PICK!?!?!?! Sheer madness.

Oh, for my other reason why I don't like kids going pro early. The effect it has on a college program. A coach spends time recruiting a player and hopes to develop that player over four years. To have that player play one year and bolt can set a program in a tailspin. When Stephon Marbury left, Tech had no one to fill his shoes, and hadn't been recruiting a point guard because they didn't really expect it to be one and done for him. Tech never recovered. To me it seems like college coaches would no longer recruit the star high schoolers for fear that they will go pro after a year. I'd tend to recruit solid players who will stay four years.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by John Galt
TroyF - first off, I would appreciate you be a little more civil and worrying a little less about my psyche.

You offered a definition of racism that I said was incomplete, but even then it includes things like acting on stereotypes. You said in your last post, "Racism is hating someone because of the color of their skin John" - that is not your own definition from the dictionary. The dictionary mentions nothing of hatred - only prejudice. You are right that if racism means hatred then all your other arguments follow - but I'm arguing with your definition. Just restating it as though I'm a moron doesn't answer what I'm saying.

When a person make actions based on a racial stereotype, they are being conscious of race and thus are racist. That is the essence of racism. If you read my above posts, I'm arguing that EVERYONE does this which means we are all racists. We all use prejudice and discriminate based on that prejudice. That does NOT mean we all hate or that we want to be.

I am going to worry about your psyche, because you still don't understand the difference between racism and stereotyping. It is true, racists use stereotyping. That doesn't mean everyone who stereotypes is racist.

You continue to say everyone is racist. I say that is complete hogwash.

According to your definition of racism, whites regularly are racists against whites. Blacks are racists against blacks and hispanics are racists against hispanics. I'm really offended and baffled by this line:

We all use prejudice and discriminate based on that prejudice.

You might. I don't. Walking faster because I'm worried about getting mugged at midnight isn't a racial prejudice. Not hiring someone because of their skin color is.

Thinking I'm better than another individual because of my skin color is racism, calling Randy Moss a thug is not.

The only time in my life I can remember treating someone differently than I would anyone else was when I was 10 years old. A bunch of my classmates started teasing a deaf student. I pitched in and said some things that were mean. We were making fun of the way this guy talked.

I remember walking back to class feeling horribly about it. I went home and just sad on the bed, thinking. I apologized to him the next day and I swore I'd never treat someone badly because they were different than I was.

I don't. I've never refused to hire a black person because of the color of their skin. On the flip side, I've never hired one because of the color of their skin. I smile to a sales clerk and say hi no matter what color their skin is or how many peircings they have.

Maybe you can give some example of what you think John, because I can't recall a single instance in my adult life where I've treated someone differently because of the color of their skin.

If you want to call yourself a racist, that's fine with me. Though I strongly doubt you've discriminated against blacks or any other skin color for that matter. Don't include me and everyone else in the world in with your definition though.

I'm not "scared" or "frightened" about being called a racist. I'm offended by it. If anyone is going to call me one, they had better give me some examples to show it.

TroyF

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Uh...no. That is not exactly your argument. Dennis went on to tell his kids not to blame the suburban white kids for the fact that their neighborhoods are unsafe. He was saying that the decision was NOT racist at all, but just good common sense.

The semantics of this discussion are causing a problem. For most, the word "racist" has a negative connotation that includes hatred or a view that one race is "better" than another. "Prejudice" is probably a better word to use for what you're talking about John. We all make pre-judgments. Just because one factor in a pre-judgment is race does not mean that the "pre-judger" has race-based hatred in his heart.

I agree that definitions are a big problem here. The strange thing is that TroyF offered a definition to defend the "other" side, but then it turns out to be contrary to his and your position and I get blamed for a bad definition. Weird.

Anway, Dennis and I are making the same argument, but using different labels. You are right about that.

My point (or agenda as some have said) is to argue that these decisions should be called racist because they are based on race. This does not diminish the importance of the word, but allows us to recognize that we may not be as innocent as we believe. Too often in discussions of race, it devolves into, "I'm not a racist. How dare you call me a racist." That prevents any meaningful discussion (see what is happening between me and TroyF). I think that our racially prejudiced decisions aren't that dissimilar from when a classic race-based decision. For example, an employer doesn't hire someone because he is named Tyrone, says "ax" instead of "ask" (and thus, seems uneducated), looks like a "gangsta," and has cornrows. I think we all could agree (I hope) that the decision of the employer is racist. The employer doesn't think he/she is being racist, but that is because racism is often subconscious. The same things happen when we flock with our own (if we are white), avoid black neighborhoods, speed up with the hypothetical black teenagers behind us, etc. We all make race based decisions and recognizing that is important to combatting instances like the employment one. Otherwise, the employer just replies, "Don't call me a racist, I had good reasons not to hire Tyrone" and we get nowhere.

[ctmason]

Please.

As most sportswriters do. This guy is overthinking the entire situation.

The NBA, just like any other sports product, has declining ratings because their superstars do not appeal to as many people as before. Furthermore, said stars do not have rivalries to keep the public entertained.

I seriously doubt less people watch the NBA as a whole because it isn't good fundamental basketball anymore. Those fans who even know what that means (I'm not one of them), are in the minority...by far.

The rivalries of Magic vs. Bird, Lakers vs. Pistons, etc. are what generated entertainment value and what brought viewers. The stories, the themes, the conflict. THis is what sells entertainment.

It isn't rocket science. Package a good rivalry better, and youll have more viewers. That may be too far gone for the NBA to salvage, as they've focused far too much on individuals.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by TroyF
I am going to worry about your psyche, because you still don't understand the difference between racism and stereotyping. It is true, racists use stereotyping. That doesn't mean everyone who stereotypes is racist.

You continue to say everyone is racist. I say that is complete hogwash.

According to your definition of racism, whites regularly are racists against whites. Blacks are racists against blacks and hispanics are racists against hispanics. I'm really offended and baffled by this line:

We all use prejudice and discriminate based on that prejudice.

You might. I don't. Walking faster because I'm worried about getting mugged at midnight isn't a racial prejudice. Not hiring someone because of their skin color is.

Thinking I'm better than another individual because of my skin color is racism, calling Randy Moss a thug is not.

The only time in my life I can remember treating someone differently than I would anyone else was when I was 10 years old. A bunch of my classmates started teasing a deaf student. I pitched in and said some things that were mean. We were making fun of the way this guy talked.

I remember walking back to class feeling horribly about it. I went home and just sad on the bed, thinking. I apologized to him the next day and I swore I'd never treat someone badly because they were different than I was.

I don't. I've never refused to hire a black person because of the color of their skin. On the flip side, I've never hired one because of the color of their skin. I smile to a sales clerk and say hi no matter what color their skin is or how many peircings they have.

Maybe you can give some example of what you think John, because I can't recall a single instance in my adult life where I've treated someone differently because of the color of their skin.

If you want to call yourself a racist, that's fine with me. Though I strongly doubt you've discriminated against blacks or any other skin color for that matter. Don't include me and everyone else in the world in with your definition though.

I'm not "scared" or "frightened" about being called a racist. I'm offended by it. If anyone is going to call me one, they had better give me some examples to show it.

TroyF

TroyF, I've tried to play nice, but you seem to react very strongly to everything I've said. Please try to give me some credit when you read my posts.

You used a definition of racism that included "prejudice" and "discrimination" based on race. If you don't want to use that definition, then fine.

My point is that you can use a "hatred" or "superiority" definition, but if you do so, you beg the question with the rest of your argument. You end up using a label to dismiss everything.

Read my above posts (the last couple). I DO understand the difference you are making, but my point is that racism is not always conscious and your new, refined definition doesn't account for that. It treats race as only a belief on conscious hatred. Thus, an employer who never hires blacks because they are "different" (whether he/she realizes it or not) isn't a racist to you and I think that is a shortcoming of your approach.

[GrantDawg]

I'm a racist. I moved back home from an all-white neighborhood, preaching for an all-white congregation, so that I can live in a mix raced neighborhood and preach for a mixed race congregation. Why? Because my daughter would have grown up without having black/Latino friends and I think that would have handicapped her later in life. So I made a decision based on race and according to John I'm a racist. I guess I'll just be a racist then.

[Anrhydeddu]

If we shouldn't label others, why should be then be labeled ourselves?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
I'm a racist. I moved back home from an all-white neighborhood, preaching for an all-white congregation, so that I can live in a mix raced neighborhood and preach for a mixed race congregation. Why? Because my daughter would have grown up without having black/Latino friends and I think that would have handicapped her later in life. So I made a decision based on race and according to John I'm a racist. I guess I'll just be a racist then.

I agree - you are a racist (with no negativity intended). And I think you made a great decision. I too was raised in a very ethnically diverse neighborhood (SE DC) and I'm a much better person for it. I'm only arguing in this thread that we make decisions based on race and we should question it when we do - it doesn't mean that some of those decisions aren't good.

Not to open a can of worms, but this is why I'm an affirmative action supporter - I believe that AA is a good racist decision when done right.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
If we shouldn't label others, why should be then be labeled ourselves?

We do label others and ourselves. Some labels are good and some are bad. Racist ones should be given heavy scrutiny, but in cases like Grantdawg's, they can lead to good decisions.

[Anrhydeddu]

you are a racist (with no negativity intended).

That's where you get in trouble and the crux of the semantics debate here.

[TroyF]

Thus, an employer who never hires blacks because they are "different" (whether he/she realizes it or not) isn't a racist to you and I think that is a shortcoming of your approach.

Talk about putting words into someone's mouth. Where exactly did I say that? Where did I say that unconscious racism doesn't exist and that unconscious racism "doesn't count"?

One: Most people who treat blacks differently on a consistent basis know exactly what they are doing.

Two: In the rare cases they don't realize it, they are being racist. I'd say more often than not, however, these type of people stereotype EVERYONE, regardless of race. Still, by acting on that stereotyping behavior and treating someone differently because of it, they are acting in a racist manner.

Three: Just because those type of people exist, does not mean that everyone is racist.

Four: The frustrating thing for me in all of this is how loosely you use the word "racism" Walking by a group of teens is racism. Thinking to yourself "man, look at that KKK symbol on that guy's white sweater, what a scumbag" is racist. (hey, I'm judging him on what he's wearing, that's racist by your definition)

I think people throwing out the word every other sentence is hurting the civil rights movement more than people realize. It also still bothers me that you can use such a wide brush on everyone in the world (note: just because you include yourself as a racist doesn't give you the right to include everyone else in the world as one)

I'm not even going to start on the fact you had included gays and trans-sexuals in your group of minorities. What a persons behavior in the bedroom has to do with judging people based on their race would cause me to have an aneurism.

TroyF

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
That's where you get in trouble and the crux of the semantics debate here.

Yeah, I know. I originally was going to post it without the parenthetical, but I wanted to be clear.

I think I've justified my view of racism and thus far, the only definition offered was consistent (though I thought incomplete) with my definition.

View racists as only people with conscious hate for minorities misses too many racist decisions - I just don't know how anyone could be happy with such a narrow definition. I know people just want to say "racism bad" and thus limit it to really, really bad people, but in doing so, they miss a lot of racism in America.

[TroyF]

DOLA,

Racism as a positive word. Wow. I feel so stupid now.

TroyF

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by John Galt
Yeah, I know. I originally was going to post it without the parenthetical, but I wanted to be clear.

I think I've justified my view of racism and thus far, the only definition offered was consistent (though I thought incomplete) with my definition.

View racists as only people with conscious hate for minorities misses too many racist decisions - I just don't know how anyone could be happy with such a narrow definition. I know people just want to say "racism bad" and thus limit it to really, really bad people, but in doing so, they miss a lot of racism in America.

Because there are other words that would apply much better and be more clearer in its context than trying to apply multiple conflicting definitions to one single word.

[Castlerock]

Check out this test. Select the "Race IAT".

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html

From the site: It is well known that people don't always 'speak their minds', and it is suspected that people don't always 'know their minds'. Understanding such divergences is important to scientific psychology. This web site presents a method that demonstrates the conscious-unconscious divergences much more convincingly than has been possible with previous methods. It also displays the method in a do-it-yourself demonstration form.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by TroyF
[b]I think people throwing out the word every other sentence is hurting the civil rights movement more than people realize. It also still bothers me that you can use such a wide brush on everyone in the world (note: just because you include yourself as a racist doesn't give you the right to include everyone else in the world as one)

TroyF

I think this is the most powerul argument against what I have said. And I approach it with trepidation. Trivialization of racism is not something I'm after.

Still, I think we can differentiate between racists while still recognizing connections to them. The KKK is clearly bad - no one will deny that. The employer that never hires minority is bad - no one is denying that. The man who won't date a minority is bad - maybe someone here would deny that.

My point is that we should recognize that we are connected to the bad racists in meaningful ways. We make decisions that are inherently cultural (based on style, language, media, etc.) and that culture includes a lot of race-based baggage. We make decisions based on race even when we don't mean to.

Does this mean we are "bad" like the KKK. No. We could even be "good" like Grantdawg. The point is that race-based decisions should be heavily scrutinized and you should question what parts of our culture you use in making them.

P.S. - I didn't mean to put words into your mouth, but you seemed to be using a conscious hatred type definition which would tend to exclude the employer. If that isn't the case, then what is your definition? You said, "Still, by acting on that stereotyping behavior and treating someone differently because of it, they are acting in a racist manner." How does that not include the walking faster or any number of style based assessments?

P.S.S. - I brought up gays and transexuals to show how other minorities have trouble accessing culture, not to argue that they were "races."

[John Galt]

Originally posted by TroyF
DOLA,

Racism as a positive word. Wow. I feel so stupid now.

TroyF

Come on, I didnt' say that and you know it.

[vtbub]

John,

You offend me.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by John Galt
Come on, I didnt' say that and you know it.

Yes you did.
agree - you are a racist (with no negativity intended). And I think you made a great decision. I too was raised in a very ethnically diverse neighborhood (SE DC) and I'm a much better person for it. I'm only arguing in this thread that we make decisions based on race and we should question it when we do - it doesn't mean that some of those decisions aren't good.

Not to open a can of worms, but this is why I'm an affirmative action supporter - I believe that AA is a good racist decision when done right.

Galt, in the past I have taken your examples and turned them around. Let me do it again and see if you agree.

The Black Panthers are clearly bad - no one will deny that. The employer that never hires a white is bad - no one is denying that. The man who won't date a a white is bad - maybe someone here would deny that.

[Buzzbee]

John - I think the point that many people are trying to make is that you are painting with too broad a brush in how you are using the term racism. Using stereotypes and being prejudice when making decisions about others may be factors in racism, but don't constitute racism in and of themselves. At least as most people generally think of racism.

I can also see your point in that most people generally think of racism as hatred toward another race, or feeling of superiority over another race, but that racism can encompass more than that. However, saying that everyone is racist just because they form ideas or make decisions because of a persons race is, I THINK, taking it a little too far to the other extreme.

{Edited for clarification. Edit in Italics. }

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Yes you did.


Galt, in the past I have taken your examples and turned them around. Let me do it again and see if you agree.

I said racist decisions should be given heavy scrunity, but SOME decisions (like Grantdawg's) are good ones. That is not the same as saying, "Racism is [sic] a positive word."

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
John - I think the point that many people are trying to make is that you are painting with too broad a brush in how you are using the term racism. Using stereotypes and being prejudice when making decisions about others may be factors in racism, but don't constitute racism in and of themselves. At least as most people generally think of racism.

I can also see your point in that most people generally think of racism as hatred toward another race, or feeling of superiority over another race, but that racism can encompass more than that. However, saying that everyone is racist just because they form ideas or make decisions because of a persons race is, I THINK, taking it a little too far to the other extreme.

{Edited for clarification. Edit in Italics. }

Maybe, and I expect that is how many people would feel. I just hope that more people at least adopt your middleground. I still believe that racism, sexism, and heterosexism as inevitable in anyone because we are all shaped by culture and communicate through culture. You may want to disagree with that point, but I think that will be because we have different conceptions about how heavily influenced we are by the culture we participate in.

[Frozenrope]

I think the NBA viewing public is as racist (or non-racist) as the non NBA viewing public.


How's that for ambiguity?


:)

[TroyF]

P.S. - I didn't mean to put words into your mouth, but you seemed to be using a conscious hatred type definition which would tend to exclude the employer. If that isn't the case, then what is your definition? You said, "Still, by acting on that stereotyping behavior and treating someone differently because of it, they are acting in a racist manner." How does that not include the walking faster or any number of style based assessments?

Simple, when I'm walking faster to avoid the teenagers, I'm doing it based on factors that have nothing to do with race. They have to do with other stereotypes. (the first and foremost being a bunch of teenagers congregating on a street at midnight makes me assume the behavior isn't good. . . this could include the local high school chess team for all I care)

It's a stereotype I freely admit I have. It's also one I'm not likely to change. It doesn't have anything to do with racism. The kids could be any color and I'd have the same reaction. This is NOT racism. Not in any sense of the word. I guess you could call it ageism if you had to search for a word. (I probably wouldn't feel nearly as nervous if I saw a bunch of 85 year old on the street at midnight)

I guess to make a long definition a bit shorter and easier to understand is that were I in that situation I'd take MANY factors and put them together to judge my level of discomfort. In my case, race would be a non-issue, I'd be just as scared of skinheads as I would bloods. Labeling my actions by a single word would not really describe why I did what I did or what it was I was doing.

Describing it as racism would be incorrect on any level.

TroyF

EDIT: I guess the 85 year old would scare me at midnight too. I mean, what on Earth are they doing after midnight? I'd be thinking "Children of the Corn" in reverse and hoping I could outrun the old guy in the electric wheelchair.

[SplitPersonality1]

EDIT: I guess the 85 year old would scare me at midnight too. I mean, what on Earth are they doing after midnight? I'd be thinking "Children of the Corn" in reverse and hoping I could outrun the old guy in the electric wheelchair.

Funniest post I've read in a long, long time. :)

I think this thread needed a bit of levity.

[astralhaze]

After a long sabatical from the board I came back tonight on a whim and read this thread and realized why I left in the first place.

[sterlingice]

Oh, hell, I'll take a shot at staying on topic. My one color of racism in the NBA: green. It's like the alternative example someone made earlier. Basketball "sold out": it's sunk to the lowest common denominator in gameplay: team of one on ones vs a game of team vs team. A lot of this has to do with the nature of the sport: when you aren't making $10M per year, the thing that matters most is winning. When you make the kind of money being made today in the big sports, winning becomes a lot more secondary to making sure you get your minutes and touches so you can sign your next contract for even bigger money. And we see it everywhere in sports now: kids don't grow up dreaming about the Stanley Cup or a Super Bowl Ring, they grow up thinking they could be the next Michael Jordan to satisfy their ego or be content to be the next Mike Hampton and pull a big paycheck despite not playing well.



And, John, I usually agree with you, but this time you have no logical leg to stand on. The examples you pick on (such as the kids in the inner city) are closer to "I see an anthill and thus sticking my arm in it is perfectly logical because they may not bite me" than "I hate you because you have a different color of skin than I do". It's common sense versus racism: for instance, in the inner city example, crime rates are stastically higher due to many factors and none of them have to do with race (lack of police protection, higher crime rates among lower income people, etc). If you want to call this racism, then you are wrong. If you want to call this prejudice by proxy, that would be technically correct but you are trying to attach an unfair stigma to this action.

Back to the inner city example again, I don't care if those people are white, black, purple, green, polka dotted, Trekkies, or a group of yogurt lovers: factors such as the lower police protection and low income stastically lead to higher crime rates and I'm sure if I were a psych major or professional instead of something useful ;) I could tell you logically why those are so with some authority. To not use this logic because, (well, honestly I don't know why) you think this logic is "evil" and prejudiced... well, it's a concept I just cannot fathom.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by John Galt
My point (or agenda as some have said) is to argue that these decisions should be called racist because they are based on race. This does not diminish the importance of the word, but allows us to recognize that we may not be as innocent as we believe. Too often in discussions of race, it devolves into, "I'm not a racist. How dare you call me a racist." That prevents any meaningful discussion (see what is happening between me and TroyF). I think that our racially prejudiced decisions aren't that dissimilar from when a classic race-based decision. For example, an employer doesn't hire someone because he is named Tyrone, says "ax" instead of "ask" (and thus, seems uneducated), looks like a "gangsta," and has cornrows. I think we all could agree (I hope) that the decision of the employer is racist. The employer doesn't think he/she is being racist, but that is because racism is often subconscious. The same things happen when we flock with our own (if we are white), avoid black neighborhoods, speed up with the hypothetical black teenagers behind us, etc. We all make race based decisions and recognizing that is important to combatting instances like the employment one. Otherwise, the employer just replies, "Don't call me a racist, I had good reasons not to hire Tyrone" and we get nowhere.

Oh, hell, I feel like playing devil's advocate tonight and taking this perspective: I'm going to disagree with you here and your assertion that you {John} are the one being racist here. And no, my point is not to play the "you're a bigger racist" game but to show that your arguments drain away your credibility.

However, this is a thought exercise for everyone and I invite anyone to logically argue or agree with this (I'll try to argue my points, but I'll have limited 'net access starting Thursday and going through Sunday due to being out of town and away from my beloved computer).

Hypothetical Situation
Let's say I run the Willowbrook Office Max in Northwest Houston (where I worked in high school) and I'm looking to hire a new cashier. My clientele are of all races, genders, creeds, etc because I'm sandwiched inbetween the richer "white flight" part of town to the north and west with a poorer area (where I grew up) to the south and east. All of the businesses in all of these areas need office supplies and they come to me (or if they're smart, they go to Office Depot due to the general incompetence and decision making of district management and misallocation of resources, but I digress). Since it's a cashier I'm looking for, I need someone who is professional, hard working, respects authority, and who will not drive customers away (among other skills). Two of your examples above are reasons to not hire the Tyrone and they have nothing to do with race.

If you say that not hiring Tyrone is racist, then you are playing the race card where there is no call for it. Remember, in a job interview, you are trying to get a feel of how well a prospective employee will perform for your company: you care a lot more about green than white/black/purple/blue/whatever. You have to make a judgement based on these things and to back you into a "verbal" corner, you have a pair of canidates who, except for the qualities mentioned above and below, they are identical. Heck, for the sake of argument, we'll make them twin brothers vying for the same job: you have Tyrone and his identical twin who is identical in every superficial way but whose behavior is different.

Is the Test Valid
We have now stripped this argument down to it's core as you listed it above but placed in an anology. However, we have taken away all the randomness out of the experiement and the only variations are the control variables. (PHYSICS! Get out of my head!) Do you agree that this is a fair analogy. If not, give a detailed and logical reason as to why.

Experiment Controls
For the first trait: using the word "ax" instead of "ask" shows either an unwillingness to act professionally or a lack of intelligence. Either of these is a stike against Tyrone's potential ability of work. If he chooses to speak in informal English in a formal setting then he is just showing his contempt for the process and demonstrating a problem with authority. If he is simply not as intelligent, then that, too, speaks poorly of his prospective work quality.

Secondly, if this person showed up "like a gangsta" for a job interview (or to pick up an application or whatever), what hope is there for his professionalism on the job. If he isn't willing and/or knowledgable to dress professionally for an interview, what hope does he have of haveing a good rapport with your customers (very important). Like the last example, it also shows an unwillingness to follow authority.

Back to the example at hand: Tyrone's twin, however, speaks with gramatically correct english and came to the interview wearing business casual and a tie (no need for suit and tie- it's just a retail job).

To John
Here's where I call you a racist. Why are you assuming that just because a person "is named Tyrone, says "ax" instead of "ask" (and thus, seems uneducated), looks like a "gangsta," and has cornrows" is of another race? Ok, that was a softball. How about this: by perscribing those "stereotypical" attributes to your hypothetical Tyrone, you, yourself, have fallen victim to what you are decrying and have lost some credibility. It's a watered down example of a clansman calling David Duke a racist: there's a loss of credibility in the argument. By set theory, you must be implying one of two things: either all black people have those attributes or all people that have those attributes are black (or, of another race, but it was stronly implied which race you were referring to)- either is a strong case of the negative stereotyping you are lambasting elsewhere. You can't have it both ways: it can't be morally unfair to stereotype but ok to stereotype to make an argument.

Question
So I ask you: who do you hire, Tyrone or his twin brother? And how is hiring his brother racist as opposed to good business sense based on one's job qualifications. How can a prospective employer in my position not say "Don't call me a racist, I had good reasons not to hire Tyrone"- he had perfectly valid reasons not to hire him and they had nothing to do with the color of his skin.

Invalid Assertions
The following are not acceptable rebuttals (for the reasons following them):

1. You will never have two perfectly matched canidates. By wording the example in the form it originally was, you implied that those reasons and those alone were reasons to not hire a person. Also the implication is that not hiring for those reasons is implicitly racist while I have created an above example where race is taken out of the picture. This is a dodge, not a logical rebuttal.

2. Using the word "ax" instead of "ask" is the sign of an ethnic education and to expect proper grammar is a racially unfair question. As owner, my business involves speaking to people of all cultures and many of them do not speak proper English. However, the various dialects all have one thing in common: rooted in proper English. Also, you cannot claim that he will be able to communicate well with the black clientele because that is only a small fraction of your business and that is racist towards every other race that patrons your establishment.

3. It's just a job interview- it doesn't show how a person will work. Very true, but as an employer, I have to use my best judgement to hire the person who will work best for me. It's like the NFL Draft: sure, it's a hit and miss situation, but if you pick people who interview better, you will be picking from a better pool of canidates. Those who have interview and, thus, by extension, better verbal communication skills: something essential to my customer service based line of work. Another classic dodge.

4. You've created a situation where prejudice is required The brother of the previous argument. What is the business owner to do? Choose blindly? That's not fair to him or his patrons. You cannot label a use of logic as "prejudice" just because it's convenient for your supposition that all prejudice is bad.

SI

[superbama]

This is a very interesting topic. I must admit I'm racist when it comes to hiring practices. I'm partial to Central and South Americans. I've had very good luck with them and love the work ethic and lack of complaints. I'm very leary when it comes to hiring white people though. In my experience they have been too high maintainence. It's like I owe them more than we agreed apon days after their hire. I still must use my experience to guide me in life, I cannot wait for society to tell me the PC flavor of the month.

[Anrhydeddu]

The Black Panthers are clearly bad - no one will deny that. The employer that never hires a white is bad - no one is denying that. The man who won't date a a white is bad - maybe someone here would deny that.

You think I can get John to agree with this?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
You think I can get John to agree with this?

Good call. I won't agree that the Black Panthers are bad nor that every employer that only hires blacks is bad.

I want to reply to some of the things being said here (espcially to SI), but I'm pretty busy today (trying to get time off for the holiday). Hopefully, I'll have a chance to come back this afternoon.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by John Galt
Good call. I won't agree that the Black Panthers are bad nor that every employer that only hires blacks is bad.

I want to reply to some of the things being said here (espcially to SI), but I'm pretty busy today (trying to get time off for the holiday). Hopefully, I'll have a chance to come back this afternoon.

If you can't agree that a company in America which only hires black people is bad, then I do not see how you can have a reasonable discussion on racism.

You CANNOT make the point that if the blacks were the best qualified candidates for 200 positions, they should all get the jobs and then turn around in the next breath and say it should be different for whites.

That's exactly the type of arguement which wil assure us of NEVER getting where we want to go. It's a clear cut double standard. If we are looking for a diverse workforce, it needs to be diverse all over. . . not just diverse where YOU want it to be.

In my arguement for more minority coaches in football, I've never stated that jobs should be given to less qualified candidates. I firmly believe there are blacks who can do the job every bit as good as whites and are being held back. I hope blacks be given more chances to become head coaches, not to simply diversify the workplace, but because they've EARNED the shot.

If over the next 10 years the NFL hires 75 black head coaches and 3 white head coaches, I will again question what is happening. From what I can gather, you'd be just fine with that.

Sad.

TroyF

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by John Galt
Good call. I won't agree that the Black Panthers are bad nor that every employer that only hires blacks is bad.

I want to reply to some of the things being said here (espcially to SI), but I'm pretty busy today (trying to get time off for the holiday). Hopefully, I'll have a chance to come back this afternoon.

I don't mind at all. As I said, I'll be away this weekend so I won't really have time to respond much until Monday.

SI