Makeup

Wow...

I am speechless. What has become of our society!?

A better question would be, if that scout was 'Asian' or 'Latin American' or 'Native American', and asks that same question... is that racist!?

by NewKidInTown on Jun 13, 2007 11:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

asks the same question

about a 'black' ball player, if that wasn't inferred from the previous msg.

by NewKidInTown on Jun 13, 2007 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A couple of names

Two recent names where "makeup" was discussed prior to their being drafted...

Stephen Drew
Jared Weaver

Of course the "makeup" issue also has been used with respect to their brothers.

I'm sure I could come up with others as well. So it has been asked, but there may still be a racial/ethnic component involved.

by SLK on Jun 13, 2007 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Scott Hairston

Is another guy who IMO never got a full shot despite the fact that he can rake, because of "make up."

by Yakker on Jun 13, 2007 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kyle Drabek's makeup caused him to slip.

There are also minorities whose makeup was praised. The first two that come to mind are Marquis Grissom and Andrew McCutchen.

Overall there is no denying we hear the term "questionable makeup" more in reference to African-Americans players. It is sad and unfair, unfortunately it happens.

by bl on Jun 13, 2007 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh and one really big name

Jim Edmonds when he was with the Angels was always ripped for not caring enough... where Erstad and Salmon were the tough as nails, gritty guys...

Of course Edmonds "makeup" was questioned by LaRussa again last year as he was recovering from his concussion...

by SLK on Jun 14, 2007 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is alleged that the UCONN baseball player was referred to as n*gger in the locker room. It is not clear who referred to him as such - a teammate or a coach. When he complained of this treatment, he was told to piss off. So I suspect that when this scout talked to the staff about the kid, they might have said he was a troublemaker - prompting the scout to discuss this with the player's representation. What a racist! trying to find the truth.

I had trouble finding any record of this Anderson on the UCONN baseball team. There appears to be a 2b on the team in 2004, but not 05, 06, or 07. It was stated that he just graduated, so I guess he was a freshman when all of this occured.

The most intersting statement by Judith Browne-Dianis was about baseball having a history of racism - I suppose she was not aware of the fact the its an American sport and America has a history of racism.

by cooper7d7 on Jun 13, 2007 12:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not UConn

but a University IN Connecticut...

by SLK on Jun 13, 2007 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

Thanks for pointing that out to me. However, that might be very important. I think this kid started out at UCONN in 2004, transfered to another school in Connecticut, and just graduated. So, maybe the scout was wondering why he transfered - could he not handle UCONN, did he want to be closer to home, is he an overachiever who might not handle the adversities of professional ball, etc?

by cooper7d7 on Jun 13, 2007 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's an issue.

Using the word "never" is incorrect. How many articles and comments have there been about how scrappy David Eckstein is? Now how many articles and comments have there been about a black player who has very little athletic talent but works hard? You might be able to come up with some, but not nearly as many as Eck. Sure, some people act in such a way that there's no room for doubt -- no one who acts like Elijah Dukes would be respected, no one who acts like Curtis Granderson wouldn't be respected. But there's still the issue that the same behavior gets perceived differently when it's done by different people.

I have a "Basketball Almanac" from about 10 years ago, that has descriptions of everyone who got a lot of playing time that season. Almost every single white player in it is described along the lines of "not very athletically gifted, but hard-working." No black player is.

It's an issue. It's not about people being consciously racist, and it's really not anything to get defensive about. It's about questioning your initial assumptions and wondering if we can do better. (Kind of like we do with sabermetrics. Do you flip out when someone questions whether wins or batting average are great stats? If you do, then you contribute to things never getting any better. If you don't, and are willing to entertain the possibility that there is something better, then maybe we can learn something and get somewhere.)

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Jun 13, 2007 1:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

insert

"But" at the beginning of the second sentence.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Jun 13, 2007 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess...

you presume that all the writers that contributed to that Almanac were white!? Presumably if an Asian, Latin American, Black and/or North American wrote those same phrases/words you feel that is racist?

I think our society has to extend beyond a black/white issue. There are countless times where an 'Asian' says something about a black man that walks into his convenience store (not to personify stereotypes, but my actual experiences of seeing such things), and that's not perceived as 'racist'.

Likewise, there are many people who say that 'racism' exists in the police forces across the country. Again, I do not dispute such notions, however, if a black person is pulled over in a predominantly 'black' neighbourhood, i ask the question is that 'racial profiling', or is it really probability. I would say that both apply. Further, if the police office is not 'white' and pulls over someone of color, is that calculated into figures and %'s. I would argue it isn't.

Finally, too often we personify stereotypes of the 'rich white man' and the 'poor black man'. In fact, my Law School (I am Canadian) requires you to fill out whether you are a 'visible minority', or 'Caucasian' when applying. You are also taught about 'white privilege', etc. in classes. Again, this is something that needs to be addressed. Yes, I am a white male. I am also a white male raised by my mother, who worked three jobs to put himself through school. The point being, I do not need validation for my efforts, but I also do not believe that as a whole we just cast a blanket statement like 'white privilege'. If it's not ok to stereotype when it comes to one party, it should also not be ok to genearlize and stereotype on the other. Always it should be confined to the individual. As a result, I feel that it was an appropriate question (if described in the above context), regardless of color or creed, to better understand the 'make-up' or 'personality' or the player.

by NewKidInTown on Jun 13, 2007 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that should be...'Native American'

not North American, in the first sentence, ahah.

by NewKidInTown on Jun 13, 2007 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

I guess...

you presume that all the writers that contributed to that Almanac were white!?

uh... why do you ask? where did he say anything about white people, other than them constantly being described as hard-working by whoever was writing the almanac?

by wily mo on Jun 13, 2007 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're...

... making the assumption that my goal is to find out who wrote it so I can call them a racist. That's not my intent, and it's not the intent of anyone who has a sincere interest in racial healing. I don't know who wrote it, and it doesn't matter. All I care about is the end result, which illustrates that people perceive the same behavior done by different races, differently. And yeah, that absolutely is true all the way around; when a white person does something, a black person might jump to a different conclusion about what it means than they would have if a black person had done it. That's less of a pressing issue, in the sense that white people control more of the power in the society. But the larger point is that it's natural to draw correlations between behavior and race -- we can't literally be color-blind, it's impossible -- but it's still something we need to be aware of and watch out for, because it often results in flawed logic and incorrect conclusions. It's not about who is or is not a "racist." That's not productive, and I don't even think it's a meaningful term anymore, unless you're talking about the very small number of people left who consciously think a race is inferior/superior and are proud of it.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Jun 13, 2007 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree...

I merely point that 'generalizations' can not be tolerated on the one hand, regardless of skin color, and not on the other. Even in the statement above you say... "that's a less pressing issue, in the sense that white people control more of the power in society" that smacks right in the face of a generalization/stereotype. You can't say on the one hand, you, as a white person have 'privilege' or conceivably 'more' power, without making a generalization or a stereotype. I, as a white male from a single parent, from extremely modest means, have no more power than anyone else relative to my standing in society. If you pass that kind of rhetoric off as acceptable, then it is ok to make a generalization that 'if you are black driving in a black neighbourhood, you are more likely to get pulled over because of probability and not because of race.'

I think we agree, that we have to watch what is being said when it relates to behaviour and race. More importantly, it MUST be kept on an individual basis and be contextualized.

by NewKidInTown on Jun 13, 2007 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nevertheless...

it's an interesting issue/discussion, and one that I'm glad we have discussed on the board.

:)

by NewKidInTown on Jun 13, 2007 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the power issue.

Even in the statement above you say... "that's a less pressing issue, in the sense that white people control more of the power in society" that smacks right in the face of a generalization/stereotype. You can't say on the one hand, you, as a white person have 'privilege' or conceivably 'more' power, without making a generalization or a stereotype. I, as a white male from a single parent, from extremely modest means, have no more power than anyone else relative to my standing in society.

this one is always complicated. i think when you're talking about who has the power in a society, it's more to do with who does have the power than who doesn't. you say here that you as a white dude from modest circumstances can be just as screwed as a black dude from modest circumstances. that may very well be true, as far as it goes. but generally speaking, there aren't hundreds of black guys out there with the power to hire or not hire you for a job, who may or may not do so based on their conscious or unconscious racial ideas.

basically the idea is, if everybody (white, black, eskimo) is equally racist, but 95% of the CEOs are white, the black people are more screwed than the white people. your being a white person from a single parent family doesn't change that.

(of course in reality not everybody is racist. some black people are, some aren't; some white people are, some aren't. this example is just an abstraction.)

by wily mo on Jun 13, 2007 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To a certain extent I agree,

however, when it comes to Law School applications and now some hiring standards, they require an applicant to indicate of what your 'ethnicity/background' is. I think that illustrates the whole notion of stereotyping. The 'idea' is to allow access to 'visible minorities' who are perceived to be at a greater disadvantage. 'Generally' speaking that may be the case. However, I present the following example. Canada has a large Asian minority, many of which have come to the country with a lot of $ (ie. that immigrated under the 'entrepreneurial/investment classification', which requires the immigrant to have a higher $ amount entering the country). This applicant, whether for a job/law school/university,etc. inevitably marks down 'ethnic minority' on their application. This greatly increases their opportunity to get the position (job, law school, university) over someone who is perceived to have 'privlege'. How I fit into the 'privileged' category versus anyone else is absolutely absurd. Further, what about the student/applicant from Croatia, England, Germany, etc., they are not defined as 'visible minority'. Why does 'ethnicity' have to be defined by colour?

To me you can't suck and blow. You can't on the one hand say, don't discriminate, profile, etc. on the one hand, but it's ok to generalize and group all others in the same boat as coming from privilege.

by NewKidInTown on Jun 13, 2007 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

three small points

As someone who's parent holds a prominent at a prominent American law school, I can tell you that Asians specifically receive no "boost" applying to law schools (except for ones who strongly indicate they want to go into legal academia, since there's a dirth of Asian professors at elite law schools).
Don't most applications ask about economic background as well? And, when they don't, isn't that a good topic for your personal statement, should it really be a central issue in your life? No doubt that "race isn't everything." It's ONE thing, and it's a totally separate thing than socio-economic disadvantage. Both groups face various hardships in achieving what is relatively easier for a rich white male. There are some advantages that a rich minority student has that a poor white kid doesn't. But there are also obstacles that minority faces simply because of his/her "visible" differences. That's a good reason for asking both to me.
Some of the benefits a minority may receive has to do not with a desire to "help the disadvantaged" but rather to create a diverse environment, which actually does seem to make some real-world difference. Of course, it's good to have a mix of socioeconomic backgrounds, too. But I just wanted to point out that the reason for hiring someone from a different culture can extend beyond "making up for lost ground," so to speak.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 13, 2007 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

it SHOULD ONLY be brought out in a Personal Statement, there is no need for it's inclusion on the actual application. There should not be a demarcation 'visible minority' to 'minority', especially in Canada/U.S. We all come from immigrants at one time or another. In all fairness, to someone who recently came from Croatia, Germany, etc. who are not 'visible immigrants'.

Great discussion.

by NewKidInTown on Jun 13, 2007 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

as far as undergraduate education goes...

I know all the University of California schools were forced to do exactly what you are saying right now when affirmative action for public institutions was banned. The way UC Berkeley has tried to get around this ban without sacrificing their desire for diversity is to admit the valedictorian from every high school, regardless GPA/board scores, which means a more diverse population is admitted than would happen if 50 kids from each rich suburban school district with superior grades/boards were admitted.

Not sure how I feel about the personal statement versus application point. Is your concern that it becomes too much of a numbers game when schools have accurate access to the percentage of students of different backgrounds admitted? I can definitely see the concern here. Of course, access to these numbers also holds schools accountable for who they admit, and highlights any shortages in particular backgrounds they have, be it Latino, transgendered, middle-class or female. Obviously, the numbers can be mishandled, but letting people go by their gut instinct on "whether we're letting in a diverse enough crowd" isn't likely to produce the results we want either.

On the "visible minority" point. I feel pretty strongly about this one. Both my parents are Jewish, but I hardly identify as Jewish myself at all, as both my parents are totally assimilated (e.g., we celebrate Christmas), aren't religious themselves at all, etc. Because of all this, no one knows I'm Jewish -- any of the stereotypical Jewish features are absent (e.g., I have blond, straight hair, etc.). When I tell friends I am, technically speaking, Jewish, they're always shocked.

What's my point with all this? I've heard people around me (friends and otherwise) say horrible things about Jews, and the discrimination is most certainly there. But, because I look like a WASP, I haven't had to deal with almost any prejudice my entire life.

If you're able to pass yourself off -- from a visual standpoint -- as a non-minority, you face exponentially less discrimination. To me, that's a very good reason to identify those members of society who are not so "lucky" to be able to blend in, and have to face bigotry on a more regular basis. People don't look at me and make the judgments they would when they look at a face of someone from a different culture because they don't know they are.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 13, 2007 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

any of the stereotypical Jewish features are absent (e.g., I have blond, straight hair, etc.).

that's caused by celebrating christmas, maybe?

by wily mo on Jun 13, 2007 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

don't most doctors agree....

....that celebrating Christmas is one of the top 10 causes of blondness worldwide?

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 13, 2007 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fun facts! =-D

There are some stereotypes that have a degree of truth to them. For example, it's true that Jews have a significant over-representation in financial services (and have had for several centuries... this stereotype and the often accompanying anti-Semitism is highly ironic, because Jews were forced way back when into the money-lending industry when the Church deemed it dirty and therefore not allowed to Christians). The ol' "big nose" thang, on the other hand, has not an inkling of truth to it. Contrary to popular belief, Jews do not have in general noses that are much bigger than another given race/ethnic group/minority/majority. There's no real genetic inheritance pattern amongst Jews to indicate that Josh Jew's nose is X centimeters wider and taller than Chris Christian's. This one actually dates back to when Jews were demonized (literally... horns, tail, the whole shebang) by the Church because they refused to join said Church. The big nose/horns/tail/blood-of-Christians-in-Matza propaganda campaign was all sensationalized and very much made up.

Man, we sure do manage to piss people off...

by mroak89 on Jun 13, 2007 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nose size

It is well documented that Jews are shapeshifters - recently, this has manifested itself as a reduced probiscus.

by cooper7d7 on Jun 13, 2007 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very true.

I have no rebuttal

by mroak89 on Jun 14, 2007 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Definitions...

An Asian bystander might not be technically allowed to be called racist, even if he is shouting racial expletives at the top of his lungs to an innocent black bystander. Why?

Because only those with power may be considered "racist." Racism is:

A policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering a doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.; discrimination.

Specifically, that means that basically while a single man can be racist (a black CEO who refuses to hire non-black employees), a race that is not in power as a whole cannot be racist so to speak. So all things being equal between that Asian and black man, neither one could really be considered "racist" -- a bigot sure, but I think we should be careful how we use the term "racist" or "racism," because it's a truly powerful accusation and word, and to simply throw it around trivializes the actual effects that it has on cultural and ethnic minorities.

by mroak89 on Jun 13, 2007 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stop being pedantic

That is one specific, and I would contend non-mainstream, definition of racism. The more common and simple defition is:

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Technically, an Asian dude who hates black people is obviously racism.

by aCone419 on Jun 13, 2007 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Being pedantic

Perhaps I should apologize, but I feel that the overuse of such a term trivializes it. Racism historically is the political/socioeconomic oppression of one race by another race, the term you cite is a result of modern abuse of the term. When you're talking about a topic as broad as racism, you are forced to look at the minutiae, because if you do not then nothing may be learned because there is no foundation of agreed-upon fact.

The fact of racism is that it in its most recent/famous form involved the oppression of black Americans by white Americans during and well beyond the slavery era. To say that an Asian guy screaming expletives at a black guy is racist is simply a trivialization of all the implications. It might be a horrible, asshole thing to do, but it is not racist. Racism is about far more than hate. If MLK thought it was only about hate, his goals would have been very different than the civil rights goals that he pursued -- racism is about removing, or having the power to remove, such rights from a race simply because they are not your race. Being a bigot is about simply hating another ethnicity/culture. Stop being so condescending, when defining terms is a primary part of any debate/discussion.

by mroak89 on Jun 14, 2007 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am not trying to be condescending

But terms and language itself evolve over time. What you are talking about would better be described these days as racial discrimination. You may feel that "a personal hatred of other races" is a bastardization of the term "racism," but that is what people generally mean by it. And that's why it is pedantic; you are missing the point of the discussion if lieu of being hypertechnical.

by aCone419 on Jun 14, 2007 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perception

Perception is that the average black athlete is more physically gifted than the average white athlete. Honestly there isn't much out there to make me think that perception isn't reality. Is it coincidence that nearly every WR and DB is black? But to take that further, I think the perception is that the white athlete has more refined skills because they can't rely on the athletic ability the black athlete has. I believe that is why the white athlete gets the "hard work" tag. People fail to realize athletic ability is the same as skill, it can't be maintained or advanced without hard work.

by sungod7 on Jun 13, 2007 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reality

C'mon guys. In this thread, everyone makes it look like racism is a one way street. To think that way is ignorant. Racism happens to every race. To think African Americans aren't racist towards any other race is an uneducated statement. There are jobs that are given to undeserving people only because of race. There are scholarships granted unfairly because of race. To continually play the race card is a detourant for progress. Wasn't it said, "to take a step forward you have to stop looking behind you"? The past is the past and to continue revisiting is nothing short of stalling progress. You go to any therapist, the first thing they tell you is to stop reliving the past. Why is it that the race card is always played when the right thing isn't said or done about a minority or race? You pick up a scouting report for basketball and the bio for a white player read, "is gutty and hard working". Never do you read or hear the words athletic. You read about the white receiver as being "deceptive or crafty", never fast. You go to a gym to play pickup basketball, the crowd is majority African American with one white guy, guess who gets pick last because it's assumed that he can't play basketball because of his race? White man gets killed in the Midwest by a couple of African Americans in the past month, hear about on the news? Nope. Was Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton holding a news conference demanding justice? Nope. To read this you might think I'm racist as well. I'm not. One of my best friends was black and I never once judge him on his race. In high school I was the one to talk to him when some of the less sensitive kids called him a **gger. To correct racism, it has to be approached from all sides. To incorrectly label one race as racist is wasting everyone's time

by dmcclure on Jun 13, 2007 2:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

re-read the thread.

I agree it's a pressing issue in all communities.

by NewKidInTown on Jun 13, 2007 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

statement

To think African Americans aren't racist towards any other race is an uneducated statement.

uh... an uneducated statement made by who on this thread, exactly?

by wily mo on Jun 13, 2007 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not in the mood....

....to join in on the whole racial debate issue today -- it's too tiresome -- nor to pull up all the legal academia that some members of this board (not necessarily you) are mis-representing, but I WILL stick up for therapists:

"You go to any therapist, the first thing they tell you is to stop reliving the past."

No, they don't. Or at least not unnecessarily. If what you need to do is move on with your life, and you're dwelling on some little thing, they will. Otherwise, their job is to help you resolve the past, often times by discussing it ad nauseum. I don't really think this generalization works, so it makes your analogy to racism fall apart -- even moreso because the "issue in the past" isn't so much in the past. If it were, this thread wouldn't exist, now, would it?

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 13, 2007 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"My best friend is black"

oh man, classic justification that always precedes or follows a particularly offensive statement.

Not saying that you're racist (check the definition from the dictionary... I provided it above), but careful how you justify your right to say things. If you're going to say something along the lines of (and I'm not saying you said anything remotely resembling this) "Black people get special treatment more than whites," your justification for such a comment should be far more than "It's okay, my best friend is black."

It pisses me off to no end when someone I don't know makes a joke like "Oh yeah, let's just throw the Jews into the oven... Haha, it's okay, I can say that because my mother's Jewish, and my best friend is Jewish"

by mroak89 on Jun 13, 2007 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Moms

If his mother is Jewish, then he is Jewish.

by aCone419 on Jun 13, 2007 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah yes, therefore it is okay!

by mroak89 on Jun 14, 2007 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I mean, kinda

It at least makes it more acceptable than some guy who is only tangentially related to Judaism, though it would be somewhat more awkward.

by aCone419 on Jun 14, 2007 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The point

is that it is never "okay." Hitler's grandmother was Jewish. Does that make what he did any more acceptable? "It's okay if I exterminate these people, my grandmother was Jewish!" doesn't exactly ring of reason.

The only people I find it acceptable to make Jewish jokes are my close friends whom I know for a fact aren't anti-Semitic, and professional comedians, because it's their job to stir up controversy in this day and age. The fallback to "I can make this joke, because I'm of that ethnicity (or know someone of said ethnicity), even if I don't actually celebrate it" is inherently bigoted and (in some cases) racist. Historically, some of the worst anti-Semites have been Jews. It does not make a comment any less reprehensible just because it is also directed at one's mother/best friend, because the point is, it's rarely to never directed at one's self in these cases.

by mroak89 on Jun 14, 2007 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh come on

Did you just equate self-deprecating Jew humor with the Holocaust? Please...

by aCone419 on Jun 14, 2007 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

have to agree -- mass genocide by a man in deep denial of his origins does not even come close to equaling someone making a joke that they feel they're background entitles them to make.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 14, 2007 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not calling them equal

I value your posts and I tend to agree with the very vast majority, but I think you missed my point on this one, which I illustrated further below.

by mroak89 on Jun 14, 2007 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is there a name for this?

OK, Alon might have made a poor choice of example to illustrate his point. Please comment on the point rather than harping on the example, thanks.

by cooper7d7 on Jun 14, 2007 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, can't

I would love to continue with this very enlightening discussion, but according to Godwin's Law, it automatically over with in the dropping of the H-bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

by aCone419 on Jun 14, 2007 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

Because I'm being totally irrational. Fully agree. Absolutely. How silly to think that self-deprecating Jew jokes from a pseudo-Jew is anything except righteous humor.

The "holocaust comparison" maybe was not the best point -- fine, I'll give you another one.

A student in front of dozens of parents during an assembly about racial diversity at our school comments, "I went into Chaverim [the Jewish cultural group that I run at my school] and just noticed that a couple of them had their wallets out. I wanted to make the obvious joke, but I felt that maybe it wouldn't be okay, so I'll just say it now -- there were all those Jews with their wallets out..."

Said student was Jewish. Does that make the joke okay? My point is that it's simply not okay to make these kinds of jokes, because having serious issues with your personal history is not a funny thing, and an example of one person who had similar issues is Hitler. Another person would be any Roman emperor, extremists who blow themselves up in Israel, and anyone who was a part of the Catholic church at almost any point in time. Pardon my name selection.

by mroak89 on Jun 14, 2007 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you can take anything too far

and the student you're talking about did. what he said was inappropriate.

truthfully, since you're the one so hung up on definitions of "racism," I don't think this fits your term. nor do i think the main problem with what you said is bigotry. the problem is that what he said, given those circumstances, was highly socially inappropriate. (the problem INTERNALLY that said person has is much deeper, but they'll need a therapist for that one.)

i'll stick by saying that, within the context of being socially acceptable (which includes not making those around you comfortable), it is not bigoted to poke fun at your own heritage, so long as you DO consider it poking fun at yourself.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 14, 2007 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

On the important stuff

agreed.

Specifically: "it is not bigoted to poke fun at your own heritage, so long as you DO consider it poking fun at yourself."

The issue for me is that how many actually consider it poking fun at themselves?

by mroak89 on Jun 14, 2007 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just to expand on the idea....

...of the main problem with what that kid saying being the social situation and not the content, per se....

Let's say this Jewish kid, who was friends with you, had made that comment just to you, fully knowing you are Jewish as well, in the hopes that you would share a chuckle. Whether or not you found it funny, I don't think you would have found that scenario "racist."

What makes the scenario you are describing "racist" is that there are other people around who do NOT share his and your heritage, and, presumably, this kid was looking to draw a chuckle from these people as well. Knowing that these people laugh about something as hateful against your culture as that is uncomfortable, inappropriate, and highlights the fact that THEY (those observers around you) may hold some racist notions of their own. I believe that THIS is where the feelings of racism come into play, NOT what the kid (who shares your culture) said. However, this kid was wrong for asking these other people to display their racism, especially since, in doing so, he is throwing others who do not want to see this racism around them so visibly under the bus. It's disrespectful to disregard everyone else's feelings like that.

by bleedjaxblue on Jun 14, 2007 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you just like to argue

All I said was that it was less inappropriate for someone to make a joke about their own heritage than someone who doesn't share that heritage. I don't really see how that's even debatable. I even said that such a joke increased the awkardness of the situation.

Your reply was barely even related and was a response to a hyperbolic caricature of my point. You seem more interested in arguing than anything substantial.

Besides, you already ended the ended the discussion by your absurd reductio ad hitlerum line of reasoning.

Good day to you, sir.

by aCone419 on Jun 14, 2007 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And yet

You're the one who replied to each of my posts attacking minor nuances (if we're going to use two synonyms in describing everything -- after all, I do love exaggerating my exaggerations), and making blanket statements about what is "okay" or even "less offensive" in a very touchy subject. Hate is hate, I raised Hitler as an example of why hating your own race is not any more acceptable than hating another one, and as I already said it probably was not the best example -- I then brought up other examples that maybe you'll find more socially acceptable.

Absolutely I love to argue, that's why I come to this site -- to discuss minor league prospects and argue. What right do you have to dismiss that? Where would humanity be if we dismissed discussions based on the merits of "that guy just likes to argue," or similar commentary?

by mroak89 on Jun 14, 2007 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks Wily Mo

you just proved my point

by dmcclure on Jun 13, 2007 3:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

huh?

You said "In this thread, everyone makes it look like racism is a one way street." What specifically are you referring to? We can't have a discussion if you don't want to explain what you're talking about.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Jun 13, 2007 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Explanation

My comment was meant to imply that racsim touches all races, not just blacks. It seems that the only racism that gets any coverage is the white on blacks. It goes way beyond that. If I offended anyone, that's not my intention. I care that everyone is treated with equally. I just want to make sure that if someone is claiming racism, that the same label can't be applied to themselves.

by dmcclure on Jun 13, 2007 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

we're not offended, we're just confused.

who are you talking about that said or implied that black people are never racist? cause i don't see it anywhere. that's all i'm asking.

by wily mo on Jun 13, 2007 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

or

was that in reference to my reply to NewKid, about the CEOs and so on? that doesn't prove your point at all, though. i explicitly made the point that in this imaginary scenario, 100% of the people involved (white and black) were racist.

by wily mo on Jun 13, 2007 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. When's the last time you saw them holding a news conference because an hispanic boy was killed in a gang shooting? Or the Asian store owner who was killed over $50? The media gives coverage to these individuals who I question whether they are for everyone's rights or are their actions bias? I actually had the unfortunately task of having to go the the Nation of Isalm in Chicago. My company provided equipment for them and did everything we could to make them happy, as we did for any customer. I happened to make a service call to their location and was treated worse than a dog. I was made to stand in a corner with my face to the wall as two gentlemen laughed and had fun at my expense. I was never more humilated in my life. If you read in my first post, the white basketball player was myself. It was at a YMCA by Cabrini Green projects before they tore it down. I was invited to play there by my black friend. He even apologize for what I went through. This isn't therapy, but it's more prevelant than many want to believe.

by dmcclure on Jun 13, 2007 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

you are a better person than I

for you to call them "gentlemen" is pretty big of you.

I can think of a lot of words, but gentlemen is not one of them.

Growing up in Chicago--I underdtand your Cabrini Green idictments. Tough area.

by So Cal Bob on Jun 13, 2007 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

is "jesse jackson and al sharpton" the answer to my question about who you're talking to? cause i was asking because you said this:

In this thread, everyone makes it look like racism is a one way street.

are jesse jackson and al sharpton posting on this thread? i don't mean to seem like i'm getting on your case, but i kind of felt like you were getting on ours.

to your actual point - if you're saying that jackson and sharpton are, by and large, grandstanding jackasses, i don't disagree. in general i think the black community at some point needs to jettison the fourth-string MLK understudies and get some leaders who aren't quite so hacktastic; but then, at this stage it's unclear to me who actually has the power to do that. you mention:

The media gives coverage to these individuals who I question whether they are for everyone's rights

that's a very interesting question to me: why is it that the media goes to jackson and sharpton every time there's a black man in the news? isn't there anybody else they could put on? at this point i'd honestly rather hear curtis granderson's opinion about social issues; hell, i'd even rather hear elijah dukes'. it'd be honest, i'm sure, and he seems like a smart guy, if also totally demented.

I was made to stand in a corner with my face to the wall as two gentlemen laughed and had fun at my expense. I was never more humilated in my life. If you read in my first post, the white basketball player was myself. It was at a YMCA by Cabrini Green projects before they tore it down. I was invited to play there by my black friend. He even apologize for what I went through.

this kind of stuff sucks, no matter who does it. there's a total lack of trust and faith on all sides in american race relations right now and it's hard to even talk about, as we're seeing here.

by wily mo on Jun 13, 2007 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

People are assholes.

I agree 100% with your notion that there are people of every race color and shape who are pigheaded assholes who have done all they can to make lives of others miserable. This absolutely goes for every race and religion, it's human nature. But I'm still not sold that you would call that racism... Pigheaded, being an asshole, just mean-spirited, inherently evil, ignorant, bigot, all those words apply, but I think racism really is a class in and of itself reserved for one race as a whole putting down another race as a whole based on visual differences.

by mroak89 on Jun 13, 2007 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

subject

I think Jesse and Al do a bit to much grandstanding but I have no problem with them focusing there efforts on blacks. IMO the blacks need more people like them to help them grow as a race, and work on the problems they have.

by Josh on Jun 13, 2007 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMO

There is a valuable point here, just like there was a valid point in the whole Mike Cameron/Chris Young debate. Some times we (unknowingly) use code words or thoughts that, if we thought them out, might be based in part on racial characteristics.

The transcript probably takes it too far or extrapolates too much, but, at least for me, in the future, I will take care to think before I use "make up" to justify a position.

by Yakker on Jun 13, 2007 4:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My last post on this subject

because this is getting overwhelming and maybe my point is failing to get accross. My point about everyone think's this is one way street, was where this thread started from Judith Browne-Dianas. She asked if the same question would be asked to a white player. Secondly, it wasn't about Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Bringing those two individuals into this was trying to bring home a point. I'm sorry that my post has detoured my passion for this site, which is baseball in general. This site has accumalted many different insights on players and organizations that I enjoy reading. In closing, if my lack of literacy skills has offended anyone or wasted their time, I apologize. I value this site and want to be a welcomed contributor. Last thing, may Lou Pinella fix my beloved Cubbies.

by dmcclure on Jun 13, 2007 4:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs