# Jermaine O'Neal is kinda dumb



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

From http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2035132



> "As a black guy, you kind of think [race is] the reason why it's coming up."


 :krazy:


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

So I would presume that you are black, and therefore can speak accurately to what Jermaine was thinking in his statement?

I don't know about the race thing, but I think Jermaine makes some good points. Why would they want an age minimum when some of the best young players entered the league before turning 20? Why isn't it an issue in hockey, baseball, golf, tennis, etc? 

If you're good enough to play, you should have the opportunity.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

This statement is even dumber.



> To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional.


The NBA is a business, not a government institution. It has a right to determine its own bylaws for ensuring its success in the marketplace. If the NBA decided you had to be 35 to play for its teams, it could do it. If it decided you couldn't be over 6"8, it could do it. Anyone who didn't like its rules could go off and form their own league. That's the way the free market works. Jermaine might understand that if he had gone to college.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

NBAGOD said:


> Why would they want an age minimum when some of the best young players entered the league before turning 20? Why isn't it an issue in hockey, baseball, golf, tennis, etc?


It's pretty straightforward: baseball and hockey have robust minor leagues. Golf and tennis aren't team sports (they earn as they win and pay their own way).

The NBA is in a position where bad teams are forced to either take young players and hope they develop or take more experienced players with lower upside (allowing the good teams to take lower risk gambles later in the draft, and perhaps end up with the better players in the long run in the process).

Jermaine's seeing tootsie rolls, in my opinion. The players' race has nothing to do with the NBA's attempt to create an age minimum.

Ed O.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

NBAGOD said:


> I don't know about the race thing, but I think Jermaine makes some good points. Why would they want an age minimum when some of the best young players entered the league before turning 20? Why isn't it an issue in hockey, baseball, golf, tennis, etc?
> 
> If you're good enough to play, you should have the opportunity.


I agree, there shouldn't be an age limit. However, to assume they are doing this based on race is a large leap in logic. If there was a legitamate minor league this wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

NBAGOD said:


> So I would presume that you are black, and therefore can speak accurately to what Jermaine was thinking in his statement?


Wait - you need to be black to determine what another human being might be thinking?

I would think it has more to do with being that individual rather than skin color. But, maybe I'm just old fashioned in thinking that individuals have thoughts - not races.



> I don't know about the race thing, but I think Jermaine makes some good points.


No he isn't. He's blatering on nonsensically. 

It's racist to assume that all prospects out of High School will be blacks. THAT, my friend, is the definition of racism.



> Why would they want an age minimum when some of the best young players entered the league before turning 20?


Because it is depleting the talent pool. These players are sitting on the bench a lot of the time - for a few years



> Why isn't it an issue in hockey, baseball, golf, tennis, etc?


Baseball is one of the most racially diverse sports in the world. I don't know why you would mention them.

But, the simple answer to your niave question is - do any of these sports have a legitimate, decent money generating farm system in the NCAA? No. They are all represented, but they aren't true gross income providers. 

This is what it comes down to - not race. 

Anyone that thinks otherwise - isn't thinking. The days of race coming BEFORE income are past.

The NFL and the NBA have a farm system in the NCAA. They don't pay for it. It also generates income for the league and for the NCAA. It's a "partnership". 



> If you're good enough to play, you should have the opportunity.


They aren't. That is the point. 

Most of these players sit the bench and don't contribute for 2-3 years. Thus, taking up room. They aren't good enough to be on the floor, but they can sit a bench. 

The only reason they are there is because teams know they WILL be good. Since they are there, they HAVE to take him, or someone else will. 

Thus, potential is ruling the day rather than current skill level. 

The Lebron's of the world are few and far between. Furthermore, the success these players are having is almost directly attributable to the lack of talent in the league.

Do you really think these kids could make a good squad in the hayday? 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Jermaine might understand that if he had gone to college.


Funniest. Statement. Ever.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Jermaine might understand that if he had gone to college.


Since when does having sex with sorority girls teach you about the constitution?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Since when does having sex with sorority girls teach you about the constitution?


Boy - you just summed up the limits of your argument.

Thank you.

Play.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> It's racist to assume that all prospects out of High School will be blacks. THAT, my friend, is the definition of racism.


Who knew? Should we alert the lexicographers?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Funniest. Statement. Ever.


You REALLY need to get out more.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Last time I checked, Ha wasn't black when he was drafted.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

I wonder how many players come out because of academics? What's the minimum gpa to play in the NBA? NCAA schools are getting hammered on academic violations so the underwater basket weaving major doesn't work anymore.


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

I have a hard time understanding how an age limit would NOT be age discrimination.

Go Blazers


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

The Professional Fan said:


> Last time I checked, Ha wasn't black when he was drafted.


...neither was Darko or Robert Swift. Though I don't really care one way or another on this issue, I'm guessing that the age limit issue will be dropped by the league when they're actually negotiating the CBA. Many fans want to see it raised in hopes of restoring the college game and raising fundamentals, but I think it's probably a red herring issue for the league's real interests in the bottom line. I guess we'll see...

STOMP


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I agree that outside of the race statement, Jermaine makes some good points, although, as pointed out, he is ignoring some of the facts.

The league needs either an age limit or a minor league system. It doesn't work to bring in immature players just to sit on the bench because they may develop. I would vote for the minor league system because it has been shown to work in other leagues and it would allow the Lebron's and Amare's of the world to jump in earlier if they have the skills.

Either way, I don't think Jermaine should have addressed this without thinking a little first.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Jermaine is the perfect example of why a age limit is being bargained. The Blazers paid him for over three years before there was any return on the investment. If he went to the NCAA or overseas, he would enter the draft as a top three pick, and would not have milked three years of training and pay out of the Blazers. My personal opinion is that teams should have options to keep the players a extra year longer at the rookie salary scale for every year below 20. I other words, we get those two years of training the player with little help on the court back, without having them become a FA. If they don't pan out, we have the option to let them become a FA.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

IIRC Jermaine entered the draft because he didn't qualify academically to get into any colleges....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BealzeeBob said:


> I have a hard time understanding how an age limit would NOT be age discrimination.


It definitely IS age discrimination. The question is whether it would be legal or not.

Discriminating based on youth is generally more acceptable than discriminating based on advanced age... a young person will get older, but an old person will never get younger.

I'm not 100% sure that an age floor would hold up to a legal challenge, but I'd guess that if it's collectively bargained for by the owners and the union then it probably would.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It definitely IS age discrimination. The question is whether it would be legal or not.
> 
> Discriminating based on youth is generally more acceptable than discriminating based on advanced age... a young person will get older, but an old person will never get younger.
> 
> ...



I think it depends on the influence the league has in congress and the judicial system. Obviously the age restriction held up in the NFL which I believe is a reflection of the power that league has. The NBA does not hold nearly the amount of power that the NFL has which could mean a different outcome.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I think it depends on the influence the league has in congress and the judicial system. Obviously the age restriction held up in the NFL which I believe is a reflection of the power that league has. The NBA does not hold nearly the amount of power that the NFL has which could mean a different outcome.


You think the NFL influenced (presumably in an extralegal way) the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled in their favor? I think that's a pretty wacky take on things.

The law in this area is unclear, and courts can disagree as to the legality. The NBA won't need to go to congress to get laws changed in their favor and they won't necessarily need to rely on some cache of influence with the judiciary, either.

Ed O.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

meru said:


> You REALLY need to get out more.


Nah, but you should work on your sense of humor and your ability to sense sarcasm. :biggrin:


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

BealzeeBob said:


> I have a hard time understanding how an age limit would NOT be age discrimination.


It would - in a sense.

But, if the league can prove that having these children in the league is hurting the league then they can enforce it.

Furthermore - it is a private industry. Therein, they can decide who can and can't play in their league - as long as it isn't discriminatory based on race, religion, etc. Age really isn't one of those factors.

The NFL had their agreement upheld on just those reasons. 

Play.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> Wait - you need to be black to determine what another human being might be thinking?


I think it is presumptious for someone who isn't black to call a black person "dumb" for expressing an opinion on white/black racism. A white person would know little about the kind of prejudice that a black person has faced, that's what I meant.



> No he isn't. He's blatering on nonsensically. It's racist to assume that all prospects out of High School will be blacks. THAT, my friend, is the definition of racism.


You're confusing facts with racism....like Jermaine, the overwhelming majority of high school players trying to enter the NBA are minorities. 



> Because it is depleting the talent pool. These players are sitting on the bench a lot of the time - for a few years


As are almost all rookies. As Jermaine said though, the last two Rookies of the Year came right from HS. I think if you compared under 20 draftees with over 20 draftees you wouldn't see much difference in their accomplishments in their first few years. There are hits and misses in both groups.



> Baseball is one of the most racially diverse sports in the world. I don't know why you would mention them.
> 
> But, the simple answer to your niave question is - do any of these sports have a legitimate, decent money generating farm system in the NCAA? No. They are all represented, but they aren't true gross income providers.
> 
> ...


How does the NBA benefit from people like LeBron and Kobe going to college? and I never said it had anything to do with race, Jermaine did. My point was that if a qualified player could play Major League Baseball or NHL hockey at 18, then why can't a basketball player have the same opportunity?



> They aren't. That is the point. Most of these players sit the bench and don't contribute for 2-3 years. Thus, taking up room. They aren't good enough to be on the floor, but they can sit a bench.


Wow, and you call me naive. It seems that Dwight Howard, Al Jefferson, Sebastion Telfair, Loul Deng, Josh Smith, JR Smith, LeBron James, Amare Stoudemire, Darius Miles, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, etc, etc are contributing/did contribute right out of the gate. Compare the 3/4 year college players selected in this draft with the HS players.....is Okafor that much better prepared than Howard? Is Nelson that much better prepared than Telfair? Experienced college players like Luke Jackson, Kirk Snyder, and Raphael Arajao haven't done anything. 

Again, my point is that if an 18 or 19 year old is good enough (and the facts bear out that many are), than they should have the opportunity. 

I think another poster hit it on the head....Stern is using this as a bargaining chip and it will fall by the wayside in the negotiations.



> Do you really think these kids could make a good squad in the hayday?


There were a lot less teams in the "heyday" (whenever that was)....not every team had 3 players on the IR either , so a lot less roster spots. Same concept though.....if a player is good enough, he should have the opportunity. (heck, Magic Johnson was 19 when he was drafted). Like anything else, supply and demand regulates the market.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Reep said:


> I would vote for the minor league system because it has been shown to work in other leagues and it would allow the Lebron's and Amare's of the world to jump in earlier if they have the skills.


I would agree, except I think the college game suffers if this happens. 

I would hate to see this happen. 

Not that *I* watch the college tourney, I just love collegiate level sports. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

tlong said:


> The NBA does not hold nearly the amount of power that the NFL has which could mean a different outcome.


The judicial system is about precedents. The NFL set the legal precedent, and a judge would have to have good darn reason to overturn it for a different sport.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

NBAGOD said:


> I think it is presumptious for someone who isn't black to call a black person "dumb" for expressing an opinion on white/black racism. A white person would know little about the kind of prejudice that a black person has faced, that's what I meant.


Calling them dumb, perhaps ... but challenging the notion openly? 

By the same account - a black person will never know the prejudice that a white person faces. And - yes - we all face prejudice. 

I think there is racism in the US. But, I think that constantly focusing on it only makes it worse ... not better. Pulling the race "trump card" out at every turn cheapens the claim. It's crying wolf - over and over and over.

I grew up in inner-city Atlanta, before things came together for my family. I grew up being one of two white kids in a black school. I eventually moved to schools where blacks were the minority - and the racism showed between the two ... not close. The black school was FAR MORE racist towards me than the white kids were to the blacks.

The race prejudice card goes both ways. It is a revolving door. This door only spins faster and allows more traffic the more it is used.



> You're confusing facts with racism....like Jermaine, the overwhelming majority of high school players trying to enter the NBA are minorities.


I didn't confuse a fact or confuse racism. In fact, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

The overwhelming majority ARE blacks, but racism would preclude blacks and allow another group. This is NOT the case.

Let's think about this - does the NBA really have a racial prejudice against the workers that comprises 98% of the revenues generated? Doubtful.

I know if I am a racist, the last place I am looking to work is the NBA.



> As are almost all rookies. As Jermaine said though, the last two Rookies of the Year came right from HS.


This, in and of itself, is a damning statement. But, when you extapolate out why this is the case - it becomes a worthless statement.

Part of the reason these High School kids have won "Rookie of the Year" is because the best players have also left too early and either did not go to college to develop or have left college so early that they weren't in the group.

So, the players that would have given them a good run came out 3 years earlier ... fresh out of HS.



> I think if you compared under 20 draftees with over 20 draftees you wouldn't see much difference in their accomplishments in their first few years. There are hits and misses in both groups.


Agreed. There are always hit and miss.

But, talent is talent. Both Amare and LeBron are better players when they start their rookie campaign if they spend 3 years in college.



> How does the NBA benefit from people like LeBron and Kobe going to college?


They benefit because these players don't generate LESS hype when they come out. They generate MORE. (except LeBron, which was a hype generation the likes of which we've never seen)

Does it mean that the league generates more revenue? No. The revenue is just deferred, that's all.



> My point was that if a qualified player could play Major League Baseball or NHL hockey at 18, then why can't a basketball player have the same opportunity?


I've never supported either having kids of that age being a part of the game. 

But let's face facts - these guys generate money and enrollment at universities. These guys themselves may not get an education, but they MAY provoke other kids to go to university just to be a part of where they are.

I'd imagine that the school that would have netted LeBron would have had a tremendous (and noticible) attendance spike. Just as schools that win the Natl Championship have attendence spikes.



> Again, my point is that if an 18 or 19 year old is good enough (and the facts bear out that many are), than they should have the opportunity.


I'm looking outside the small picture.

I think when an 18-year old child (especially black, call me racist if you must) makes a fortune for playing a game ... it sends a message to young kids. A message that you can get the easy road if you become an athlete.

So, instead of actually learning and getting an education - they honestly think they have a chance at this too. 

Young, impressionable children.

The reason I don't like it for blacks, more than anyone else, is that it sends a message to these youngsters. The youngsters are the future of the entire race, and they already have enough stacked against them. It sends that same message. It helps keep them in a position of lesser power. 

Right now, if you ask the average HS kid what salary they will make when they graduate the answer is: "over a million dollars".

Life. It is a hard lesson to learn.

Where do you think they get these ridiculous numbers? Why do they think it is going to be so easy?

Because they see other kids do it. The people they look up to ...

Now, switch it around ... LeBron goes to Georgetown. He wins an NCAA championship. It boosts attendence to that school. 

It's a small sway, but it is sway enough.



> I think another poster hit it on the head....Stern is using this as a bargaining chip and it will fall by the wayside in the negotiations.


I'm sure he is.

Play.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I think this racist issue is pretty ignorant myself....Black players these days have no idea what racism truly is....Ask a black person who grew up in the 50's in 60's in the south (or anywhere in the U.S.) and they'll tell you what racism is...Athletes these days use that word all too often, and most often it is used as a cop out response for anything.....Black people have had better than they ever have and its naive of them to say things are racist just because by coincidence black people are involved....

I'm sure he's going to use the race card in some way when he is tried for the Auburn Hills brawl as well....


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

NBAGOD said:


> So I would presume that you are black, and therefore can speak accurately to what Jermaine was thinking in his statement?
> 
> I don't know about the race thing, but I think Jermaine makes some good points. Why would they want an age minimum when some of the best young players entered the league before turning 20? Why isn't it an issue in hockey, baseball, golf, tennis, etc?
> 
> If you're good enough to play, you should have the opportunity.


I would think that all those team sports mentioned have a farm system to where the NBA does not. I think that the play of the NBA is starting to suffer now that more and more kids are joining the NBA to fill up the benches instead getting playing time in college.

I was good enough to have a 233 average in bowling, but I never went out on the national tour, why? Cause I was working to hard at the regional level that I would have been eatten alive out there. I know that I wasn't ready for that and most of these kids are fooling themselves if they think that they are ready for the jump from high school to the NBA. Kinda a big fish small pond theory. :biggrin:


----------



## faygo34 (Mar 22, 2003)

<i>Right now, if you ask the average HS kid what salary they will make when they graduate the answer is: "over a million dollars".</i>

where did you get that from? i highly doubt that. knowing MANY HSers. i think none of them would say that. :no:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I would agree, except I think the college game suffers if this happens.
> 
> I would hate to see this happen.
> 
> Not that *I* watch the college tourney, I just love collegiate level sports.


The level of play would go down if a minor professional league emerges, but it would give NCAA basketball a chance to build a student/athlete that's more legitimately a student. Players that played for a school would be there for school first, and basketball second. Kids that don't like school and want to focus solely on basketball could do so... and earn money at the same time (assuming, of course, they're good enough).

It would kill a cash cow for the NCAA members, and I would bet that the revenues generated by D-I men's basketball extend beyond those programs, but for the viewer who wants to see what so many wish college athletics could be, this could be a great thing.

Ed O.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> By the same account - a black person will never know the prejudice that a white person faces. And - yes - we all face prejudice.


Oh that's right - 1 in 4 young white men are in prison. Every time I'm out driving my car I get pulled over by the cops and asked to spread 'em. DAMN this pasty flesh of mine!



> I think there is racism in the US.


Yes - and it's coming from JERMAINE O'NEAL!



> But, I think that constantly focusing on it only makes it worse ... not better.


Right - because that's the way we deal with all social problems - we ignore them and they go away. AIDS? If there weren't ACT-UP it wouldn't even exist! Crime? Cops just perpetuate the problem!



> I grew up in inner-city Atlanta, before things came together for my family.


"I's so po' I had to live with the black folks!"



> I grew up being one of two white kids in a black school. I eventually moved to schools where blacks were the minority - and the racism showed between the two ... not close. The black school was FAR MORE racist towards me than the white kids were to the blacks.


I hope that you've sold the rights to your life story to NBC. I await the stirring mini-series - "Up from honkiness" or "White like me" or perhaps "A butterbean in the sun".



> The race prejudice card goes both ways. It is a revolving door. This door only spins faster and allows more traffic the more it is used.


Stop! Your metaphor's spinning too fast for me!



> Let's think about this - does the NBA really have a racial prejudice against the workers that comprises 98% of the revenues generated? Doubtful.


That's right - all those cotton plantations CAN'T have been racist - all the people picking the cotton were black!

If an argument's strength is in inverse proportion to the quality of its critics, Jermaine's argument (which sounds like it came straight off of a Players' Union talking points sheet) is looking stronger all the time.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

faygo34 said:


> where did you get that from?


The Wall Street Journal, I believe.

But, don't quote me on the source. I read too many things to remember which paper reported what.

But, it was a national study, so I'm taking thier statistical significance and margin of error over yours.

Play.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Yes, Jermaine is dumb.........about public relations.

If I had a vote, I would favor an age limit. I'm not going to insult people just because they disagree. 

People need to stop taking this stuff so bloody personally!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

meru said:


> Oh that's right - 1 in 4 young white men are in prison.


So what? 1 in 4 white men aren't getting caught committing crimes.



> Every time I'm out driving my car I get pulled over by the cops and asked to spread 'em. DAMN this pasty flesh of mine!


Jeez, I don't know where you live, but I get in the car all the time with a bunch of black guys ... and never once did we get asked to pull over. In fact, not one of them has ever been pulled over for anything more than a speeding ticket...

crazy enough...

they weren't asked to spread anything.



> Right - because that's the way we deal with all social problems - we ignore them and they go away.


No, you're twisting what I'm saying - and doing a poor job of it.

If you have a scab, and you pick at it - it gets infected and doesn't heal.

When the media and citizens constantly focus on "black this" and "white that" ... blah blah blah ... it draws constant lines. News stories constantly have little blurbs like the black percentage of this and that compared to the white percentage. That's DRAWING LINES.

We FOCUS on it. We pry at it. 



> AIDS? If there weren't ACT-UP it wouldn't even exist!


Is this even English?

Comparing AIDS to the media focal point of race relations is quite a leap in logic, even for one as densely illogical as you.



> Crime? Cops just perpetuate the problem!


Quite often they do. 

Especially if they are pulling over random black people in cars, as you allude to above.



> "I's so po' I had to live with the black folks!"


I was. Which lends itself to the story. 

You are crossing a line here.



> I hope that you've sold the rights to your life story to NBC. I await the stirring mini-series - "Up from honkiness" or "White like me" or perhaps "A butterbean in the sun".


It'd be fun to plant my foot striaght in your anus. 



> Stop! Your metaphor's spinning too fast for me!


My guess is that most things move too fast for you.



> That's right - all those cotton plantations CAN'T have been racist - all the people picking the cotton were black!


One would assume that society today is slightly different than the time of cotton plantations. Further, I hardly doubt that any of the cotton plantation workers were gainfully employed at higher than competitive salaries to the rest of the civilized world.



> If an argument's strength is in inverse proportion to the quality of its critics, Jermaine's argument (which sounds like it came straight off of a Players' Union talking points sheet) is looking stronger all the time.


No, you are just a  bad. words. not. allowed. stop. it. or. thread.gets.closed..

***** Close the damn thread. I'm not fond of someone being allowed to insult another's life. *****



Play.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Comparing AIDS to the media focal point of race relations is quite a leap in logic, even for one as densely illogical as you.


Is that a personal shot?....or a disagreement?.....


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Is that a personal shot?....or a disagreement?.....


Both.

But, mainly - A personal shot. 

When someone insults you personally, you have a right to defend yourself.

Play.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I didn't read that article but I saw the interview with O'Neal, and he didn't really say anyone was racist. He just raised a question for the most part. I don't agree with the point personally, but ah well.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> No, you're twisting what I'm saying - and doing a poor job of it.
> 
> If you have a scab, and you pick at it - it gets infected and doesn't heal.


A scab is not a social problem. You can also say that a torn ACL that doesn't get focused on and worked on doesn't heal. Neither analogy tells us anything about racism.



> When the media and citizens constantly focus on "black this" and "white that" ... blah blah blah ... it draws constant lines. News stories constantly have little blurbs like the black percentage of this and that compared to the white percentage. That's DRAWING LINES.
> 
> We FOCUS on it. We pry at it.


It's worth noting that the people who usually adopt the "Leave it alone, don't constantly focus on it" philosophy, towards racism, are white. And it's also true that white people, who *by and large* (this is not meant to apply to every single white person) are not the victims of racism in this country, are the ones who don't stand to lose anything from such a philosophy.

Minorities who are passed over for promotions, are treated unequally by cops, who are turned down as renters, etc, just due to the colour of their skin (as there undoubtedly are; I'm not trying to discern which cases, exactly, are true racism and which aren't) understandably find such a philosophy intolerable and inadequate.

The person who's leg is forced to be in a fire would like to discuss the fire. A lot. The person who's leg isn't in the fire can much more easily and conveniently request not so much fire-related discussion.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> This statement is even dumber.
> 
> "You don't hear about it in baseball or hockey. To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional.



HEY TALKHARD... don't just butcher quotes to make others look stupid. 

"You don't hear about it in baseball or hockey. To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional. If I can go to the U.S. Army and fight the war at 18 why can't you play basketball for 48 minutes?" O'Neal said. 

Fact is, the US is still a racist society. For those of you that don't see it, you are clearly blind and missing the facts.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Fact is, the US is still a racist society.


No........It isn't....


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> No........It isn't....


It depends on who you are and where you live.

I quite believe you, that American society is not the least bit racist towards you.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> No........It isn't....


you have to realize that because you aren't, and don't experience it, doesn't mean that it isn't a fact of life for a large portion of our society.

Not only that, I think there's a bit of an issue about the "level" in which someone is talking about. When someone says that it's a racist society now, they aren't talking about it on the level of the 1950's, or slavery, or anything like that. But there is racism out there, be it subtle, or institutionalized. It's more towards prejudice now, which is probably why so many people have a hard time accepting that it is still there.


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

jermaine is a retard he dident make sense i saw it on espn2


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> you have to realize that because you aren't, and don't experience it, doesn't mean that it isn't a fact of life for a large portion of our society.


I went to school at a school where being my race (white) was considered a minority.....I had no problems racially and I dont think that there was much racism there....

I can see maybe up in Northern Idaho (just an example) or somewhere like that, being of African American descent a person might find some racism, but that might also be a reason those racists live up there and black people are more prone to living in larger inner city areas...



> Not only that, I think there's a bit of an issue about the "level" in which someone is talking about. When someone says that it's a racist society now, they aren't talking about it on the level of the 1950's, or slavery, or anything like that.


I dont see it as a problem like that. I was just watching the channel 12 news and they had a segment on the certain no drug zones on Broadway in downtown Portland. The drug users/dealers were complaining that the police were racial profiling, when really it was just a coincidence that the drug users in the area just happened to be black. But it was an easy case to use, to pull out the race card. 

The recent police shootings in Portland over the last couple years, particularly the case over in St. Johns where the police fatally wounded the drug dealer....Some of the black people in the community said that it was a race motivated shooting, when in actuality the suspect was (what the officer thought to be) reaching for his gun and the officer shot him, it was a huge mistake by the officer, but do you think if the drug dealer had been white, that the white community would have been outraged? No. If the suspect/victim was white it wouldnt have had any exposure at all or if the officer was black it would have the reaction it did?

I heard an interesting interview about this on the Dan Patrick Show earlier today, he interviewed Jim Brown and asked him if he thought that it was racism....Brown replied "These kids have no clue what racism is, this country right now is the farthest it has ever been from racism. Me, Jackie Robinson, Bill Russell and others know what racism is."



> But there is racism out there, be it subtle, or institutionalized. It's more towards prejudice now, which is probably why so many people have a hard time accepting that it is still there.


There is exceptions and special cases for everything, and while I'm sure there is racism out there, it is few and far between. Overall, racism is hardly a problem and is better than it has ever been.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Is this an age restriction or a racial restriction that would be put on the NBA?

Last I heard they were talking about not allowing people under the age of 20 in the NBA. They didn't say anything about a particular race, American or International, etc.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Tince said:


> Is this an age restriction or a racial restriction that would be put on the NBA?
> 
> Last I heard they were talking about not allowing people under the age of 20 in the NBA. They didn't say anything about a particular race, American or International, etc.


Jermaine O'Neal feels that it is racist, and it has sparked up controversy.....


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Jermaine O'Neal feels that it is racist, and it has sparked up controversy.....


I don't see the connection, but maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Tince said:


> I don't see the connection, but maybe I'm missing something.


The connection is that unlike other sports where you can get drafted or play at 18 or 19 it is okay, but now the NBA is trying to stop that and O'Neal thinks it is racist...

O'Neal seems to beleive that race is the case, but unlike those other sports the NBA doesnt have any kind of minor league system where players can go and make money playing professionally....add to that with multiple other factors that differentiate young basketball players from the others sports, O'Neal doesn't have much of a case....


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> A scab is not a social problem. You can also say that a torn ACL that doesn't get focused on and worked on doesn't heal. Neither analogy tells us anything about racism.


Unfortunately - my analogy with the media still holds true, while yours does not.

The analogy of an ACL would have to work something like running on a torn ACL does little for healing.

There is no question about it - drawing racial lines in the sand does little to lend itself to integration, rather it focuses on differences which promotes SEGREGATION. 



> It's worth noting that the people who usually adopt the "Leave it alone, don't constantly focus on it" philosophy, towards racism, are white.


No. No one advocates "leaving it alone". If there is a racial action or hate crime or any such nonsense, then do something about it. 

But, to focus on what whites think and what blacks think causes society to notice stark differences. It sees our multiple peoples - not as individual human beings - but by race. It shows our differences and sheds light on it and hunts it out ... even where it really doesn't exist.

Until we, as a society, quit focusing on "black this" and "white that" ... we will always have issues.



> And it's also true that white people, who *by and large* (this is not meant to apply to every single white person) are not the victims of racism in this country, are the ones who don't stand to lose anything from such a philosophy.


Unfortunately, that just isn't true. 

The difference is that white people can't fall back on a convienient excuse of race as a final solution answer for everything. And if we do - no one gives a damn.



> Minorities who are passed over for promotions, are treated unequally by cops, who are turned down as renters, etc, just due to the colour of their skin (as there undoubtedly are; I'm not trying to discern which cases, exactly, are true racism and which aren't) understandably find such a philosophy intolerable and inadequate.


It's hard to prove that any of these things were done based upon someone's race. Unfortuntely, it's become convienient to lay down the race excuse as the reason for "inequity", where there is none. 

Perhaps I have far more pride in myself than all this, too. I wouldn't WANT to be a part of a company or a renter's policy where the other party was motivated by race. If my own merit wasn't enough, then I would move on.

I think people use race to easily. You didn't get your promotion or the job you coveted ... guess what? 10 other men and women didn't either. But, it's a LOT easier to blame something external to themselves as the source. 



> The person who's leg is forced to be in a fire would like to discuss the fire. A lot. The person who's leg isn't in the fire can much more easily and conveniently request not so much fire-related discussion.


Unfortunately, the majority of the time, the person with the leg in the fire isn't anywhere near a roaring fire. In fact, they are actually 10 feet from a candle. Yet, they seem to think they are covered in gasoline and about to combust.

For the people with their legs truly in the fire - I say: MOVE! Take life by the horns and move on. I have moved on from things when I felt unjustly treated, as we all have. It sucks to move along when you aren't at fault ... but to keep your leg firmly planted in a roaring inferno ... you're an idiot.

Play.


----------



## KIDBLAZE (Jul 8, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> No........It isn't....


What US are you living in? :krazy:


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Tince, 
O'Neal has a valid point in that he feels the change would affect young blacks more. I think that is what he is trying to say. He is probably pushing the point because he didn't have a college option, and had there been an age limit... who knows what he would have done. Probably wouldn't be where he is today. So it is understandable his concern. Racist? I don't think so... but still probably a valid concern.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

OK, either I'm confused or Jermaine is. 

My understanding of the proposed age limit is that the NBA would still allow for high school players to be drafted. If they were drafted in the first round, they would still have 3 years of guaranteed money with a fourth year at the team option.

The only difference between now and then is that 18 and 19 year olds would be required to play in the NBDL. They'd make the same amount of money, just in the "minor leagues". They'd still have the ability to play professional basketball, just in a different context.

Plus, from everything I've read, Billy Hunter has changed his mind in regards to opposing this plan because he's been told by the players that he represents that they are in favor (at least the majority of them) of this proposal.

If this is a "racist" proposal, then the majority of NBA players are racists for supporting it, right?

Now, I might have it all wrong. But that's my understanding of the issue and the proposal. Racism exists in our country on many different levels - overtly at times and subtly at others. But I don't think that this proposal is an example of racism.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Storyteller said:


> OK, either I'm confused or Jermaine is.
> 
> My understanding of the proposed age limit is that the NBA would still allow for high school players to be drafted. If they were drafted in the first round, they would still have 3 years of guaranteed money with a fourth year at the team option.
> 
> ...


nobody ever confused Jermaine O'neal with Einstein.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


> nobody ever confused Jermaine O'neal with Einstein.


Wait - you mean Jermaine O'Neal did NOT create the mathematical proofs behind the Theory of Relativity?!

Oh man... I'm confused now. You are shattering my reality with posts like these!

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Unfortunately - my analogy with the media still holds true, while yours does not.


Unfortunately, yours does not either. Unattended social programs don't go away. The civil rights movement could have been likened, by some skeptic at the time, to "picking at a scab." Such analogies, ultimately, are trite and meaningless. They are too simplistic to have any bearing on highly complex matters.



> No. No one advocates "leaving it alone". If there is a racial action or hate crime or any such nonsense, then do something about it.


It's not always as obvious as a burning cross in a front yard. There's a lot of hidden racism and systemic racism that a lot of people just refuse to talk about because it's not obvious and if it's not obvious, those people (people who lose nothing from it) announce no racism is present at all.



> Unfortunately, that just isn't true.
> 
> The difference is that white people can't fall back on a convienient excuse of race as a final solution answer for everything. And if we do - no one gives a damn.


Unfortunately, it is true. Whites simply aren't the usual victims of racism in America, so it's highly convenient for them to say, "Leave it alone and it'll eventually go away."



> It's hard to prove that any of these things were done based upon someone's race. Unfortuntely, it's become convienient to lay down the race excuse as the reason for "inequity", where there is none.


It's also become convenient for those unaffected by racism to pretend there is no racism and any accusation of such is just loathsome excuses for personal failure. It's quite clever, because it makes the potential victim the one who's held in contempt.



> Perhaps I have far more pride in myself than all this, too. I wouldn't WANT to be a part of a company or a renter's policy where the other party was motivated by race. If my own merit wasn't enough, then I would move on.


As a white, you stand a much better chance of being evaluated by merit. It's nice of you to imply that those who are perturbed by being blocked by racism simply have no pride in themselves but if a black man is blocked from becoming an executive by the glass ceiling of an overt or implicit old boy's club, one can have pride in one's self _and_ be justifiably angry.



> I think people use race to easily. You didn't get your promotion or the job you coveted ... guess what? 10 other men and women didn't either. But, it's a LOT easier to blame something external to themselves as the source.


I notice you haven't addressed those that really *are* victims of racism. You've spent one paragraph after another blasting people who blame their own failings on racism. Is it that you believe there is no such thing as racism anymore, or is there another reason the only thing you talk about is people alleging racism when none exists?

Also, how is someone to _know_ when they were blocked by racism? Everyone with a modicum of sense knows that minorities _are_ discriminated against to some degree. No employer is going to come right out and hand a minority a card saying, "Congratulations! You lost this job because I'm a racist." Racism, these days, is always hidden. So how _are_ blacks and latinos supposed to deal with hidden racism? Especially when many people take the, "Prove it or admit you're making excuses" attitude. Just shut up and "have pride in themselves?"



> For the people with their legs truly in the fire - I say: MOVE! Take life by the horns and move on. I have moved on from things when I felt unjustly treated, as we all have. It sucks to move along when you aren't at fault ... but to keep your leg firmly planted in a roaring inferno ... you're an idiot.


The "fire" was metaphorical. It's not a physical fire that you can move out of. The "fire" is racism spread throughout American society. So what does "MOVE!" mean? If *you* are unjustly treated, as a member of the majority, it's probably an isolated instance. Racism, however, is more systematic and exists all over.

Play, you're a very smart guy. Why is it so hard to understand that _your_ experience may not be the same as those minorities go through? You keep bringing it back to yourself, and what you've experienced and what you did to deal with it. Do you really, honestly, intellectually believe that there's no difference between what whites experience in American society and what minorities experience in American society?

You seem totally hostile to the idea that there may be something to what minorities allege because "you have pride in yourself" and "you grew up poor but succeeded anyway" and "you think the media focuses on it too much." How do you know you'd feel the same way on all these issues if you, same guy, had been born black and gone through life black?

I'm not agreeing with Jermaine O'Neal that the age limit is a racial issue. But I find it odd that every time racial issues come up, you're _always_ on the side of, "Stop focusing on it, things happen to everyone, whining won't help anything." You tend to take a much more open-minded approach to everything else but, on this, you seem unwilling to consider it from any other angles. Perhaps things aren't the way you see them, Play, and that shouldn't even be surprising: you've never experienced life as a minority, so you have none of that experience.

Now, that isn't to say that you can't talk about the issue without that experience. Perspectives from all angles are worthwhile. But without that experience, you shouldn't be *so certain* that there's nothing to it. There are many, many reasonable, insightful, well-reasoned and intelligent minority perspectives that argue that there is implicit and hidden racism holding back many people. Are they all full of ****?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Unfortunately, yours does not either. Unattended social programs don't go away. The civil rights movement could have been likened, by some skeptic at the time, to "picking at a scab." Such analogies, ultimately, are trite and meaningless. They are too simplistic to have any bearing on highly complex matters.


Agreed. It IS trite, but quate apropos. 

I don't feel that a constant spotlight on differences actually facilitates healing. What we NEED to do is bond together and look at the similarities, rather than the distinct differences.

This includes this "black culture" thing. It frustrates me to no end. Black culture ... black culture ... wiskey tango foxtrot?! Black culture is a self-made way of insuring failure, because for the most part it is anti-societal norms. Furthermore, most of the "black culture" ideals, nowadays (perhaps not so much in the past) are created to thumb their nose at "white culture". But guess what .... white culture ISN'T "white culture" ... it is societal norms. The society, at this point, is as much a function of the black addition to it as it is the white. 

What I see is black people DAMNING themselves, in order to prove some point. What the point is, I haven't a clue. Perhaps to prove that they don't need to function in the "white man's" world. But, this is done to their detriment. The "white man" is every bit as much a victim of these societal norms as anyone else. 

Everything counterproductive is held dear... from identifying with other countries as their "homeland" to refusing to dress to the American standard. All things to refute their own success.

Now, before you point back and say ... why should they conform ... I will say my feelings are the same towards any person that feels they need to buck the systme for the sake of bucking the system... to prove they don't need it or whatever pathetic reason helps them sleep at night. These idiots that walk around talking about how they just need to express their true selves ... and then get blue hair and tatoos covering their necks and huge holes in their ears ... THAT ISN'T YOUR TRUE SELF ... idiot. Who is born with blue hair? Who is born with crazy tatoo designs? No one. So, how can this be some sort of a genetic mishap? No ... all it is, is an attempt to screw up their lives and then blame society for their ills. 

Getting back to the black side of things - 

What I see is black people acting like lobsters in a boiling pot of water. As one starts to climb out of the boiling hell ... they reach up with their claws and pull them back down. This is a phenominon found in lobsters and crabs ... I feel it fits the black community quite well. 

Regardless of racism in society or not, the impetus is on the black community to quit fostering excuses (valid or not) and forge forward. No one is going to hand them a wonderful life on a silver platter. At this point, however many successive generations after the fact, there is no excuse for not being further.

The black leaders are no where near the inspiration level they once were. Where once black leaders asked the communities to work together and clean themselves up ... and NOT ask the white man for anything ... it has turned 180 and has implicitly stated that the white man does owe us and we can't be whole until reparations are made. The ones that are still fighting the old fight are ignored. 

Of course this is a generalization. There are those that refuse to be put in this small and narrow box ... but to the community at large, it fits.
The media is doing it for exploitation. Controversy sells, implicit or not.



> It's not always as obvious as a burning cross in a front yard.


You think I don't know this?

Come on ... I grew up black. I played sports my entire life, mostly with blacks. My best friend throughout college was black. My frat was Phi beta Sigma. 

You think I haven't seen it when we happen to be driving along, Derrick and I (and D is completely non-thug), and some lady looks over sees D and pushes the lock down on her car. Or when we walk, someone clutches their purse a little closer?

I've seen it. 

But, you know what? That isn't racism, unless this reaction is based SOLELY on race. Unfortunately, it is not. It is based on empirical evidence, and thus opinions are formed. This is how the human mind works. 

If I see a thug, white, black, asian, latino, or a martian from planet Zimm ... I'm going to try to avoid them. I don't want the confrontation. 

This reaction, while unfair the vast majority of the time, was created by the few who act like thugs. Unfortunately, the few typify the whole. You remember the bad, forget the good. Human experience. 



> There's a lot of hidden racism and systemic racism that a lot of people just refuse to talk about because it's not obvious and if it's not obvious, those people (people who lose nothing from it) announce no racism is present at all.


I'm not saying there is no racism. That's absurd. 

The problem is that a lot of blacks LOOk for it under rocks and in nooks and crannies. In places it does not exist. The human mind is structured so that it will find what it is LOOKING for, regardless of whether it is there or not. You'll twist words or experiences to fit your paradigm.

I feel this happens more than it does not.



> Unfortunately, it is true. Whites simply aren't the usual victims of racism in America, so it's highly convenient for them to say, "Leave it alone and it'll eventually go away."


It will. Every successive generation is far more tolerable than the one preceeding it. Unfortunately this is the opposite for the black community. Every successive generation has more angst than the one prior.

This is creating a negative shift in the other communities.

This is counter-productive and worse yet - creating chaos. A community as large and influential as the black community propogating chaos cannot be a good for the society as a whole.

It is in all our best interest that both sides try to heal... 

Because even if one side wins this tug of war, and they even the score ... humanity struggles.



> It's also become convenient for those unaffected by racism to pretend there is no racism and any accusation of such is just loathsome excuses for personal failure.


It's amazing that our frat meetings dealt with raising the black consciousness and the black community ... and they were upset with their brethren for making it tougher for them to be accepted. 

[/quote]It's quite clever, because it makes the potential victim the one who's held in contempt.[/quote]

It is even more clever to play a card that one cannot refute - because to do so is to live in "denial" and to accept it is to be a "racist".

The race card trumps all ... there is no reply.



> It's nice of you to imply that those who are perturbed by being blocked by racism simply have no pride in themselves but if a black man is blocked from becoming an executive by the glass ceiling of an overt or implicit old boy's club, one can have pride in one's self _and_ be justifiably angry.


You think that because you are born white ... you are born into the "old boys club"? Where's the meeting, because I'm due. 

If one sits back and truly feels wronged because of race - it is their responsibility to move on. I know I would. If I was passed over for someone's kid ... I'd leave the company. I'd turn and walk away. No regrets.

I can only imagine how I'd respond to this situation - but I'd like to imagine that I would have a very low threshold. 

The problem is that I feel people typically take the easy excuse for things and tend to shy away from personal responsibility. Every white person passed over generates their own reasoning for not getting the promotion. It makes them sleep easier. It's human nature.

There are certainly instances where race is THE overriding issue. But, it's a lot more rare than people would like to make it. At least in corporate America. 



> I notice you haven't addressed those that really *are* victims of racism.


Because I truly feel it is a rare thing.

For those people, I think it is best to walk away. You aren't going to change this idiot's opinion. You aren't going to get anyone to do anything except tire of your whining. People are starting to turn on this behavior ... so, when the real racism shows its face ... people ignore it.

This doesn't mean there wasn't a time that REQUIRED proactive actions. The time was here and it has passed. Now is the time to merge and bond with society ... not create angst. 



> You've spent one paragraph after another blasting people who blame their own failings on racism. Is it that you believe there is no such thing as racism anymore, or is there another reason the only thing you talk about is people alleging racism when none exists?


No, I think the overriding theme is that the BLACK COMMUNITY sponsors the mindset that ALL of their ills are caused externally rather than internally. 

As long as this mindset is predominant, the black community will not empower itself and forge foreward. My anger and frustration comes from the fact that the black community, as a whole, seems intent of forcing themselves into the stoneage. 



> Also, how is someone to _know_ when they were blocked by racism?


They aren't. Which is why it is such a convenient excuse to say - "Hey, I'm a victim".

This society, and I mean American society, breeds this mindset. We all want to be victims and refuse to take responsibility for the bed we are sleeping in.

Our actions are DIRECTLY responsible for our experiences.



> The "fire" was metaphorical.


Thank you for clarifying. So was my response.



> It's not a physical fire that you can move out of.


Yes it is. 

If you feel the heat of the fire, walk away. Planting yourself dead in the middle of the inferno solves nothing, but gets you a nice sunburn.



> The "fire" is racism spread throughout American society.


Then I would call it less of a "fire" and more of a "spark".



> So what does "MOVE!" mean?


It means, put yourself AND your consciousness at greater level. 

I'm not Biblical man, but if thine eye offends thee, then pluck it out. 

I take this to mean ... Leave that which does not benefit you behind!



> Racism, however, is more systematic and exists all over.


Or it doesn't and people just see it as such.



> Why is it so hard to understand that _your_ experience may not be the same as those minorities go through?


I never said it was. 

But, I feel that we should make common cause to join together and forge together. The majority of this country is NOT racist. The majority of this country does NOT sponsor segregation. 

The like minds rule the rest. It's called the conscious mind. We force the experience together.



> Do you really, honestly, intellectually believe that there's no difference between what whites experience in American society and what minorities experience in American society?


I think the experiences are different and alike at the same time. But, what the real difgference comes down to is - PERCEPTION.



> How do you know you'd feel the same way on all these issues if you, same guy, had been born black and gone through life black?


I don't know that I would feel the same way if I lost my arm in a car accident. Or if I decided to buy an Audi or if I listen to a particular song.

My experiences dictate the way I think, therefore any change in my experience could change the way I perceive the world (hence my constant focus on PERCEPTION). 

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I'm not saying there is no racism. That's absurd.
> 
> The problem is that a lot of blacks LOOk for it under rocks and in nooks and crannies. In places it does not exist. The human mind is structured so that it will find what it is LOOKING for, regardless of whether it is there or not. You'll twist words or experiences to fit your paradigm.


How do you fight something that's institutionalized and nobody in power has any sympathy for? What you chalk up to whiners just looking for excuses can more easily be explained by justifiable paranoia, in a society where every setback _could_ be due to racism...and you'll never know for sure or be able to prove it. And nobody else will ever care.

Try and put yourself in that situation for a second, rather than the "Tired of constantly hearing about racism" situation. Your positions are too extreme and harsh, IMO. People aren't necessarily dead-on correct or lying for their own gain. There are in-between positions, where a tough situation (like hidden racism) can lead to guesswork that is sometimes wrong.



> It will. Every successive generation is far more tolerable than the one preceeding it. Unfortunately this is the opposite for the black community. Every successive generation has more angst than the one prior.


I disagree with this. Each generation is not necessarily more tolerant, and the black community is hardly more angry than they were during slavery or when prejudice was allowed by the government. Open racism might decrease with every generation, but hidden racism and systemic racism often grows stronger.



> You think that because you are born white ... you are born into the "old boys club"? Where's the meeting, because I'm due.


No, I think rich white families hold many of the keys to power and unknowingly perpetuate racial disparity because they are more likely to associate with, and thus make connections with, other rich white people (through family socializing, private schools, universities, country clubs, etc). Thus, when they have a job opening, their rolodex is filled with white people who "they know and trust" and are likelier to get the job then a qualified black man. *Not* because this employer is a racist, but because the racial divide is now built in to the system. That's how racism often perpetuates itself systemically, even when no individual in this loop is a racist.



> Because I truly feel it is a rare thing.


Well, that clairifes things significantly. I think we have a major and fundamental difference on that point. I think it's still tragically common.



> For those people, I think it is best to walk away. You aren't going to change this idiot's opinion. You aren't going to get anyone to do anything except tire of your whining.


I do question your motives a little when even in cases of real racism (that you consider rare), you _still_ call it "whining."



> This doesn't mean there wasn't a time that REQUIRED proactive actions. The time was here and it has passed.


People said that prior to the civil rights movement, too. You may be right or you may be wrong...but you should at least realize that status quo is easier for the majority group in power than it is for others.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

For those that think O'Neal decided to "play the race card," that's evidently not true. He was apparently asked whether he thought race played into it, thus the question he was answering already involved "the race card."

http://nbasource.blogspot.com/2005/04/hear-jermaine-out.html


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> For those that think O'Neal decided to "play the race card," that's evidently not true. He was apparently asked whether he thought race played into it, thus the question he was answering already involved "the race card."


Further proof that the MEDIA creates the diversity lines. 

That was and is my point. Our media focuses on it and casues us to see each other as different.

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Further proof that the MEDIA creates the diversity lines.
> 
> That was and is my point. Our media focuses on it and casues us to see each other as different.


Well, the media has an obligation to investigate issues and expose problems. Whether our current media does a good job of that is certainly debatable. That aside, I think racism is a problem whether the media does a lousy job covering it or not.

That is to say, the media might make it worse (arguably) but societal racism is not purely, or even largely, a media creation, in my opinion.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> How do you fight something that's institutionalized and nobody in power has any sympathy for? What you chalk up to whiners just looking for excuses can more easily be explained by justifiable paranoia, in a society where every setback _could_ be due to racism...and you'll never know for sure or be able to prove it. And nobody else will ever care.


Yeah, and?

I _might_ not be getting my promotions because I'm 6'6" and I'm intimidating looking. I _might_ not get a promotion because I went to school at Alabama. 

Just because something MIGHT be, doesn't make it so. 

Little kids are afraid of the boogey man in their closet -- and in truth, he COULD be. But, more often than not ... it's in their mind.



> Try and put yourself in that situation for a second, rather than the "Tired of constantly hearing about racism" situation. Your positions are too extreme and harsh, IMO.


I have. Repeatedly. 



> People aren't necessarily dead-on correct or lying for their own gain.


It isn't about lying for gain - it is about accepting responsibility. Everyone makes excuses when things don't go their way.



> I disagree with this. Each generation is not necessarily more tolerant, and the black community is hardly more angry than they were during slavery or when prejudice was allowed by the government.


You want to bet?

The youth is more angst ridden than any of their forefathers. The anger was different. The anger was directed, focused. Now it is lashing out wildly, and it's easy to jump on the blame ****** bandwagon.



> Open racism might decrease with every generation, but hidden racism and systemic racism often grows stronger.


I don't think ti grows STRONGER. What IS growing stronger is resentment. Resentment of special priviledges created to balance an equation that will naturally balance itself through civilized means.

The white majority is getting sick of this nonsense being thrust down our throats. The white majority is sick of "black history month" or "Black Ms. America" or "Black Sitcoms" or "BET" ... any such thing that creates the differentiation. Yes, yes ... the common argument is every other day is "white" day ... well, guess where you are? You are in a country founded by anglos, who unjustly seized it from mexicans and native americans. 

It's time to blend in and realize that "being unique and different" doesn't a culture create. A culture is created by being. Blacks want some "different" culture. The creation of which alienates them from the rest of the civilized world. This is counter-productive. 



> No, I think rich white families hold many of the keys to power and unknowingly perpetuate racial disparity because they are more likely to associate with, and thus make connections with, other rich white people (through family socializing, private schools, universities, country clubs, etc).


I can agree with this statement.

Like you follow up in saying - this is NOT racism. This is society. This is interaction with your peers.

But, what you fail to also mention in this is that 99% of everyone else is also NOT a part of this system. 



> Thus, when they have a job opening, their rolodex is filled with white people who "they know and trust" and are likelier to get the job then a qualified black man.


Assuming their are equally qualified, or even similarly qualified with the extra biut going to the "unknown" black person - the hiring manager would be stupid not to go with the "known" commodity. 



> *Not* because this employer is a racist, but because the racial divide is now built in to the system.


It doesn't happen overnight. 

Success isn't something that just happens and all of a sudden it's all hunky-dorey.

84% of all millionaires in America are FIRST GENERATION millionaires. FIRST GENERATION! 

Get off your *** and do something about it. Change the system. But, saying - "Pooh. Mr. White got his job because of connections. Damn the man. The society is out to get me." is horse ****. 

Get out there and do something about it. Get yourself a lower paying job - like the REST OF THE ****ING WORLD. Work your way up. Start something new. 

Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. 



> Well, that clairifes things significantly. I think we have a major and fundamental difference on that point. I think it's still tragically common.


In the systematic sense you showed above - yes. But, this is hardly RACISM. This isn't done as a matter of race. 



> I do question your motives a little when even in cases of real racism (that you consider rare), you _still_ call it "whining."


Question away. 

If I get insulted by a person, I don't call the police and file a harrassment and assault claim against them. I choose to handle it myself. Which means, I either respond, walk away or put two knuckles against their throat. Whatever I feel is the appropriate response. The appropriate response to me is responding in kind. If it is escalated, then they chose that response and should fear what comes next.

Just like here on the boards. I never start an insult. But, I'll be the first one with a witty comeback that puts it over the edge. I don't go to the board mods and "whine" that people were mean. I choose to deal with it.

"Whining", to me, is when you don't handle things internally. 

If you feel there was racism, then do something about it. Don't whine unless it was so severe that public outcry is warranted. 

Life has a strange way of looping back on itself to teach lessons. Karma, my friend.

Play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Little kids are afraid of the boogey man in their closet -- and in truth, he COULD be. But, more often than not ... it's in their mind.


Comparing racism to absurd things like the boogey man is unnecessarily trivializing it. Have at least a modicum of respect for what other people might go through.



> Like you follow up in saying - this is NOT racism.


No, I didn't say that. It *is* racism. It's called "systemic racism" or "implicit racism." It's not "overt racism."



> But, what you fail to also mention in this is that 99% of everyone else is also NOT a part of this system.


Whites are more a part of it than blacks are. Yes, it's a class issue as well as a race issue. However, when a far greater percentage of blacks are poor than whites, it's also a race issue.



> If I get insulted by a person, I don't call the police and file a harrassment and assault claim against them.


Racism isn't just "insults." It's losing opportunities, which is as real a loss as loss of possessions. Would you "whine" to the police if your house got robbed?

It's a shame that you're so unwilling to even consider that racism may be devestating to a lot of people that you characterize it as "whining," "excuses" and akin to being scared of the "boogey man." You lack empathy, in my opinion, the ability to understand that others may go through things that you simply don't understand. You're so sure you understand it from all sides and black people are just dead wrong. And whiners.

It's not that you simply disagree. You go out of your way to trivialize it and anyone who might experience it.

I, personally, have tried to avoid making that mistake in return, tried to avoid charaterizing all white people who don't see racism as a big deal as self-satisfied opportunists, happy at adopt an "I've got mine, so tough luck" attitude. It's as easy a position to take as your "We white people are tired of this whining nonsense" position (almost a word-for-wrd quote of yours, earlier in your post), but I see both as entirely unproductive. And I _do_ have some empathy for the white majority, most of whom aren't racist and get tired of hearing about racism. So I avoid the equally-as-patronizing position as your, "Have some pride in yourself and quit whining" position.

In any case, you can have the last word, but I think our differences are too fundamental on this particular issue. Even though I wouldn't say my own life has been much impacted by racism, I find your liberal use of "whining," to characterize anybody who talks about experiencing racism, somewhat offensive and I'd rather the discussion not turn hostile.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Paxil said:


> Tince,
> O'Neal has a valid point in that he feels the change would affect young blacks more. I think that is what he is trying to say. He is probably pushing the point because he didn't have a college option, and had there been an age limit... who knows what he would have done. Probably wouldn't be where he is today. So it is understandable his concern. Racist? I don't think so... but still probably a valid concern.


 I guess I can understand what he's getting at, but it still seems like a strech to me. For it to be racist, wouldn't that mean the NBA did it as a means to hurt African American's? Clearly they're doing it because the owners don't have enough self-control to restrict themselves from drafting HS players, so the NBA is taking the temptation away.

I'm assuming everyone that believes this is racist also believes the NFL is racists as well because of their age limit?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Tince, O'Neal said he was taken out of context and he wasn't accusing the NBA of racism. He was simply saying he sees a disconnect between nobody having an issue with kids going pro at 14-15, in things like tennis or gymnatics, or at 16-18 in hockey and baseball and yet there being a big hue and cry over 18 year old adults going pro in basketball. One thing that jumps out at you, he reasons, is that all of the former are predominantly white, while basketball is predominantly black. It's not necessarily racism, there are other motivations one can point to, but it's noteworthy.

Of course, it's not a perfect association, as you point out: football has an age limit and is somewhat of a mixed bag, racially. However, one could also argue that football is irrelevant because nobody really desires to go straight into pro football at age 18. It's rare that a player challenges the two-year rule.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

What amazes me is that how white people can be _so sure_ there is no racism and that if people just tried harder, they could be just as successful and stay out of prison. Okay, put your money where your mouth is. Everybody's heard of "Black Like Me" right? The classic late 50s book where a white reporter had his skin stained black (with very dangerous drugs which probably contributed to his early death) and reported the despicable treatment he received. Well, in the 90s, a white college student called Joshua Solomon decided, as so many white kids seem to, that "that was then, but it's different now - what are they complaining about?" and tried a similar thing, intending to last six months. He lasted two days, and was so _scared_ for his _life_ that he backed out of it. So, how 'bout some of you guys who think it's so great give it a try? (Not you Play, because, after all, you "grew up black." I guess that's where your innate basketball ability and natural rhythm come from.)

Or, if not, at least answer this. If there is no racism, then presumably the explanation for the RIDICULOUSLY disproportionate number of black men in prison compared with whites (usually for drug use, despite the fact that drug use is equal among the groups) is that blacks are just _genetically_ driven to crime. And the disproportionately low percentage of black kids graduating from high school must be that they are genetically not as bright. Is that what you believe? Have you shared that with all your (whiney) black acquaintances?

But if that is the case, then surely that's an argument for affirmative action. Because, after all, the physically handicapped get more spent on their education than the able-bodied, so shouldn't the genetically handicapped be given a bigger slice of the pie?


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Tince, O'Neal said he was taken out of context and he wasn't accusing the NBA of racism. He was simply saying he sees a disconnect between nobody having an issue with kids going pro at 14-15, in things like tennis or gymnatics, or at 16-18 in hockey and baseball and yet there being a big hue and cry over 18 year old adults going pro in basketball. One thing that jumps out at you, he reasons, is that all of the former are predominantly white, while basketball is predominantly black. It's not necessarily racism, there are other motivations one can point to, but it's noteworthy.


Minstral, thanks for the explination, I'm starting to understand this a little better, but I still can't make the connection...

As far as the tennis, golf, gymnastics, and all other individual sports, I see zero connection. In those sports, they don't have an owners that pay them regardless of their performance. If a 14 year-old earns his tour card (which isn't based on potential, but actual skill level) and pays his tour fees, then he has every right to be a professional. The NBA drafts players on potential and can't pay them strictly based off incentives, so it's a totally difference situation.

As far as baseball is concerned, they have a minor league system. When a player is drafted they aren't promised anything as far as salary is concerned (unlike the NBA). Players who take a risk and come out early, risk not making hardly any money and ruining their chance to support for their family. In the NBA, all the risk falls on the owners.

I don't know enough about hockey to make a case either way.

I'd say this age limit is stupid if following were true:

A) There is no guaranteed contracts.
B) There is no pay scale for rookies
C) Players contracts could be 100% incentive based
D) A minor league system was in place.

The overall problem is that the owners don't have the self-control to not draft players on potential, because they're affraid they're going to let the next Kobe Bryant slip by them in the draft. This new rule would help protect the owners and most likely balance out the balance of the NBA. 



> Of course, it's not a perfect association, as you point out: football has an age limit and is somewhat of a mixed bag, racially. However, one could also argue that football is irrelevant because nobody really desires to go straight into pro football at age 18. It's rare that a player challenges the two-year rule.


I seriously doubt many people would challenge the NBA rule once it's in place. I can almost promise you if HS players were allowed to go straight to the NFL, you would see 1-2 players do it every year. However, the risk is much greater sense nothing is promised to them, like it is in the NBA.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> Or, if not, at least answer this. If there is no racism, then presumably the explanation for the RIDICULOUSLY disproportionate number of black men in prison compared with whites (usually for drug use, despite the fact that drug use is equal among the groups) is that blacks are just _genetically_ driven to crime. And the disproportionately low percentage of black kids graduating from high school must be that they are genetically not as bright. Is that what you believe? Have you shared that with all your (whiney) black acquaintances?


Maybe a culture of hopelessness and self-pity is to blame?

I reject the notion that racism does not exist just as surely as I reject the notion of a genetic predisposition to crime or inferior mental capacity. But I also don't believe that looking for racism to point a finger at is the answer to the racism that does exist.

A constant reminder of how blacks are unique amongst minorities in the US is not a way to empower them or to lift them up, IMO. It's a way to reinforce that they have been (and are, to some extent) trod upon and to instill resentment in some of them and pity among some others... NOT a good way to solve the problems in the long run.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Maybe a culture of hopelessness and self-pity is to blame?


Even if true, that doesn't resolve meru's question, though, it only abstracts it one more level.

You simply transform meru's question into: has our society fostered a culture of hopelessness and self-pity in the black community (through past and present actions), or are they genetically pre-disposed to hopelessness and self-pity?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Tince said:


> As far as baseball is concerned, they have a minor league system. When a player is drafted they aren't promised anything as far as salary is concerned (unlike the NBA). Players who take a risk and come out early, risk not making hardly any money and ruining their chance to support for their family. In the NBA, all the risk falls on the owners.


Actually, that isn't true. Drafted high schoolers are in baseball, like in basketball, often the prized prospects (though there's reason to argue that they shouldn't be) and hold out for very large signing bonuses, threatening to go to college if not given the bonus they seek (which would mean the drafting team wasted a precious high pick entirely).

Basketball is actually _more_ restrictive than baseball already. In baseball, there is no "rookie pay scale" or "draft slot salaries" once you consider signing bonuses.



> I'd say this age limit is stupid if following were true:
> 
> A) There is no guaranteed contracts.
> B) There is no pay scale for rookies
> ...


Why should owners be protected more? Currently, they are already protected by the rookie pay scale and the four year rookie contracts. The Cavs are paying pennies on the dollar for LeBron James' production. The flip side is that rookies get some protection, too, by having small but guaranteed contracts.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> You simply transform meru's question into: has our society fostered a culture of hopelessness and self-pity in the black community (through past and present actions), or are they genetically pre-disposed to hopelessness and self-pity?


I don't think I did that at all. I reject that there's a genetic predisposition, but I question whether there is a _cultural_ predisposition.

If there is a cultural predisposition, then the question isn't even whether it has been imposed on them or if it has been self-imposed... it's whether they can break the cultural self-destruction themselves (either through optimism or finger-pointing) or they need to have the government do it for them.

Who is to blame for their culture doesn't really matter to me. We can't go back in time and change things. We need to address the present in a fair fashion and, IMO, we need to encourage african americans to have faith in themselves and endeavor to succeed on their own rather than waiting for white people to change their minds en masse and suddenly make the world entirely fair.

Ed O.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Maybe a culture of hopelessness and self-pity is to blame?


To blame for what? The fact that blacks are statistically far more likely to be punished and punished much more severely than whites for similar offenses? The fact that the names "Rasheed" and "Ebony" will get THE SAME resumes rejected at a much higher rate than "anglo" names like, oh, Ed., or Susan?

Or, to give another example: I work in a University. Every employee and student who wants to use university parking has to hang a permit from their rear-view mirror. As it in fact says on the back of this thing, you're not supposed to KEEP it hanging there while driving, but just hang it up while parking. Of course, everybody leaves it there all the time. No white faculty member or student was aware that you could get a ticket for driving with this up. Why? Because they didn't need to be. EVERY black student is. Why? Because they've been pulled over, ostensibly for that offense. 

Of course a "culture of hopelessness and self-pity", should such a thing exist, would be more likely to suppress achievement than a "culture" of "I'm genetically superior to everybody else, and the world is my oyster", but then again, who gets to choose their culture?



> I reject the notion that racism does not exist just as surely as I reject the notion of a genetic predisposition to crime or inferior mental capacity. But I also don't believe that looking for racism to point a finger at is the answer to the racism that does exist.


So what IS the answer? White people don't KNOW about the racism that exists (except, of course, when they don't get the place they believe they deserve at Law School, and then suddenly they discover the pernicious evil of state-sponsored racism). When it's pointed out to them, they refuse to believe it. "It can't be true, because I haven't seen it." Therefore the person pointing it out is crying wolf. Play's reaction is so incredibly typical as to be laughable.



> A constant reminder of how blacks are unique amongst minorities in the US is not a way to empower them or to lift them up, IMO. It's a way to reinforce that they have been (and are, to some extent) trod upon and to instill resentment in some of them and pity among some others... NOT a good way to solve the problems in the long run.


Obviously there are better. Equal federal funding of minority schools, perhaps. Or massive reformation of laws that punish minority offenders disproportionately to non-minority offenders. Purging of the ranks of the institutionally-racist police. See any of it happening? Wonder why some minorities get a little despairing?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Who is to blame for their culture doesn't really matter to me. We can't go back in time and change things. We need to address the present in a fair fashion and, IMO, we need to encourage african americans to have faith in themselves and endeavor to succeed on their own rather than waiting for white people to change their minds en masse and suddenly make the world entirely fair.


Yes, but on the other hand, you can't dig a pit for someone and then later say, "Well, the past is unfair but in the present you'd better find your own way out of pit and not wait for us to make things fair."

Lack of wealth, unfortunately, breeds things like laziness and irresponsibility in many (regardless of race, but a greater percentage of blacks are poor than whites). But those attributes wouldn't have been bred if they hadn't been started off poor and kept that way for generations. To now say, "Well, let them have faith and succeed on their own," when bad habits have been reinforced for years, taking away the discipline in many of them, is disingenuous.

Once blacks and whites are on even footing in terms of class representation, then all groups can fend for themselves equally. But first that racial equality needs to be created and that's a task that requires the powerful majority just as much, or more, than the powerless and, in some ways, disarmed, minority.

These comments are obviously not meant to characterize every member of any particular group, obviously. Of course there are people who grew up poor and had the discipline, work ethic and luck to succeed anyway. But that's not the norm.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> If there is a cultural predisposition, then the question isn't even whether it has been imposed on them or if it has been self-imposed... it's whether they can break the cultural self-destruction themselves (either through optimism or finger-pointing) or they need to have the government do it for them.
> 
> Who is to blame for their culture doesn't really matter to me. We can't go back in time and change things. We need to address the present in a fair fashion and, IMO, we need to encourage african americans to have faith in themselves and endeavor to succeed on their own rather than waiting for white people to change their minds en masse and suddenly make the world entirely fair.


Indulge me in a little analogy. It has been my experience that fundamentalist Christians have a huge persecution complex. I even had a woman tell me the other week that George Bush is persecuted for being a Christian (when pressed, she said that the persecution consisted in people not voting for him). It is certainly true that being a fundamentalist Christian disadvantages you in several areas. A belief that dinosaurs are hoaxes planted by Satan will not get you a job in many paleontology departments. Refusing to believe in Evolution, a theory that Scientific American referred to as the unifying theory of all modern biology, is going to keep you out of the lucrative biotech field. And so on. Imagine further, that 1 in 4 young fundamentalist men were in prison, that fundamentalists lived predominantly in poor urban areas and were harrassed by the police. Would we say, "hey, get with the program guys, forget all that God stuff and pull yourself up by your bootstraps! Otherwise, you've nobody to blame but yourselves. Your culture needs fixing!"?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> To blame for what? The fact that blacks are statistically far more likely to be punished and punished much more severely than whites for similar offenses? The fact that the names "Rasheed" and "Ebony" will get THE SAME resumes rejected at a much higher rate than "anglo" names like, oh, Ed., or Susan?


I think that these are two different situations (and I'll assume they're both true; I don't know them to be, but I'll trust you for this conversation).

The first, assuming things like geography and income are taken into account, is something that we should worry about, but it might be unavoidable. The jury trial is part and parcel of our judicial system, and by accepting a jury defendants--black or otherwise--know that they're throwing their fates to the wind at some point.

The second is not governmental, and it's not even racial, necessarily, and it's something that is perhaps unfortunate but less in the control of the government. It's cultural. Cultural biases by individuals can be nasty things, but it's just a part of a complex society, and it can be ameliorated by black parents naming their children something more mainstream. It doesn't make it right, of course, but if a child is named Rasheed by his parents in spite of known discrimination, those parents are partly to blame. An analogy is moving next to an airport and then complaining about the noise.

In the long run, in both cases, people will become more tolerant of blacks or they will not. Governmental imposition of special status will, IMO, do more harm than good. American cultures need, IMO, to become MORE like one another to further acceptance, rather than more balkanized.



> Or, to give another example: I work in a University. Every employee and student who wants to use university parking has to hang a permit from their rear-view mirror. As it in fact says on the back of this thing, you're not supposed to KEEP it hanging there while driving, but just hang it up while parking. Of course, everybody leaves it there all the time. No white faculty member or student was aware that you could get a ticket for driving with this up. Why? Because they didn't need to be. EVERY black student is. Why? Because they've been pulled over, ostensibly for that offense.


Sorry, but I find it impossible to believe that every black student is pulled over for that. I find it very likely that every black student knows about it and believes that they might be pulled over for it, but if the racism was THAT explicit, it should be a simple matter of taking the security guard's name and badge number and compare notes. If guards are only pulling over black students, those guards should be fired.



> Of course a "culture of hopelessness and self-pity", should such a thing exist, would be more likely to suppress achievement than a "culture" of "I'm genetically superior to everybody else, and the world is my oyster", but then again, who gets to choose their culture?


I come from a rural, rather poor culture. I now live in a metropolitan area and haven't smelled cow feces in years.

As a white male, I have several cultures to choose from, and I was mobile enough financially and emotionally to change. I'm not sure that every black person is in the same postion, so I think it's up to black leaders to offer alternatives... to break the monolithic political and cultural trends for african americans and let them choose from alternatives like almost every other group in the country can.



> So what IS the answer? White people don't KNOW about the racism that exists (except, of course, when they don't get the place they believe they deserve at Law School, and then suddenly they discover the pernicious evil of state-sponsored racism). When it's pointed out to them, they refuse to believe it. "It can't be true, because I haven't seen it." Therefore the person pointing it out is crying wolf. Play's reaction is so incredibly typical as to be laughable.


I don't know what the answer is; I'm not sure that there IS an answer. I think that the only REAL sustainable answer is probably more time and letting all americans see that we are more alike than different.



> Obviously there are better. Equal federal funding of minority schools, perhaps. Or massive reformation of laws that punish minority offenders disproportionately to non-minority offenders. Purging of the ranks of the institutionally-racist police. See any of it happening? Wonder why some minorities get a little despairing?


That's all governmental, and I am not sure that those changes are sustainable. 

East Germany heavily subsidized their automotive makers before the Berlin wall fell, and shortly after Nov 9 1989 their industry was in ruins because of the removal of the governmental support.

I see a similar situation if rigid social rules aimed at combatting institutional racism, and I think that the country would be the worse off for it both in the short run and in the long run.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> Indulge me in a little analogy. It has been my experience that fundamentalist Christians have a huge persecution complex. I even had a woman tell me the other week that George Bush is persecuted for being a Christian (when pressed, she said that the persecution consisted in people not voting for him). It is certainly true that being a fundamentalist Christian disadvantages you in several areas. A belief that dinosaurs are hoaxes planted by Satan will not get you a job in many paleontology departments. Refusing to believe in Evolution, a theory that Scientific American referred to as the unifying theory of all modern biology, is going to keep you out of the lucrative biotech field. And so on. Imagine further, that 1 in 4 young fundamentalist men were in prison, that fundamentalists lived predominantly in poor urban areas and were harrassed by the police. Would we say, "hey, get with the program guys, forget all that God stuff and pull yourself up by your bootstraps! Otherwise, you've nobody to blame but yourselves. Your culture needs fixing!"?


You've said that Christians shouldn't be able to vote, right? That you are allowed to make that statement in a forum like this shows that in some ways Christians are discriminated against in a significant way... in a way that blacks are not.

Speaking to your hypothetical, it's too complicated to really answer meaningfully. I will say, though, that it seems a Christian would have to give up their god (presumably the socially offensive component of their culture) to fit in... african americans don't have to give up their blackness to change their culture.

Ed O.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Why should owners be protected more? Currently, they are already protected by the rookie pay scale and the four year rookie contracts. The Cavs are paying pennies on the dollar for LeBron James' production. The flip side is that rookies get some protection, too, by having small but guaranteed contracts.


I didn't mean to say that the owners SHOULD be protected more, I'm saying that's what they want. The protection in this case would come form the draft being less of a gamble and more of a sure thing. Had Darko gone to college for two years and came out, I'm pretty confident Detriot wouldn't have taken him with the #2 pick.

The point of the draft is to help make the bad teams more competitive, or at least give them a chance to be if they want to. Taking some of the risk out of who they're playing and giving these bad teams, more NBA ready players would help them a lot. 

I don't feel using LeBron James as an example is very fair. It would be like me using that one guy who declared out of HS and didn't get drafted as my main example for why there should be an age limits.

The owners pay their employees and to me it only seems fair that they are able to set some reasonable guidelines in their hiring practice (draft). I know the argument, just don't draft them, but clearly the owners don't have that self-control. There are jobs where they want you to have 5 years of management experience before you're considered to be hired, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Maybe a person with no experience would be the best manager ever, but sometimes people just have to pay their dues.

I can't make the strongest case in the world, mainly because I don't believe it's 100% clear cut what is right. My main point is I don't see is being racist or a form of racism, only a form of descrimination. 

I have no problem with people thinking age limits are bad, just as long as they're not making it a black and white issue.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Minstral,

I am withdrawing from this conversation, not because I am uncomfortable or because I am angry or think the conversation is spiraling downward. 

The reason for my self-removal deals not with our separate viewpoints - but the reasons behind them. You are under the impression that I don't believe there is racism or that there isn't a different experience. I am fully aware these things exist.

My stance is a stance for empowerment. It is a stance for self-betterment. I want the black community to succeed on its own merits. I believe they can, and I believe that without all the crutches "white society" gives them - they would. 

I am MORE angry at the crutches that are specifically designed to unempower a person. To force reliance. 

You want to discuss racism - racism is what drives welfare. Racism is what drives affirmative action. Racism is what drives a lot of social programs.

On the outside they seem nice and friendly... like a cuddly teddy-bear. But, the truth is that they are designed and implemented to keep a segment of society oppressed. It is designed to create a disparity and a fueding mindset. 

If we, as a people, could stop warring internally for a second - we'd realize that the government is ****ing us all equally. They are the true enemy of the free people. 

So, while you come at me with your side - I understand it - and to an extent I agree. But, I feel that change happens more through self-empowerment. Through self-betterment. Let those racist parts of society do their dirt - they are getting outnumbered ... but the internal strife is starting to take over people's minds and starting to cause true outward racism to show itself more. This angst is propogated by the government and the laws "created to help minorities out".

Bah.

Refute all you want. You are entitled to your opinion. 

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> There are many, many reasonable, insightful, well-reasoned and intelligent minority perspectives that argue that there is implicit and hidden racism holding back many people. Are they all full of ****?


Many ethnic groups have been discrimated against in this country. Italians, Jews, Poles, Chinese, Koreans, Indians, etc. They all faced workplace discrimination, or religious persecution, or outright hostility or exclusion from their neighbors or from the businesses they frequented. But they didn't whine about it, or form grievance groups. Instead, they buckled down and worked their butts off to get ahead and make a good life for themselves.

Blacks, on the other hand, won't let anyone forget their misfortune. They whine and moan and carry on about "racism" until people are sick of hearing it. There is even a reparations movement among blacks that is demanding billions of dollars in payments for slavery, something no one alive today experienced. Many blacks seem to think the government and society owe them something, and they enjoy making the rest of us feel guilty for being born white or some ethnicity other than African.

The irony is, many people who would otherwise not feel negatively toward blacks are becoming increasingly hostile to their "cause" simply because it is driven into the ground over and over. You can't keep crying wolf when there is no wolf in sight.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> You've said that Christians shouldn't be able to vote, right? That you are allowed to make that statement in a forum like this shows that in some ways Christians are discriminated against in a significant way... in a way that blacks are not.


I think they'd swap the joke about not voting for the 1 in 4 young men in prison, don't you?



> Speaking to your hypothetical, it's too complicated to really answer meaningfully. I will say, though, that it seems a Christian would have to give up their god (presumably the socially offensive component of their culture) to fit in... african americans don't have to give up their blackness to change their culture.


What IS their blackness? It's not genetic - biologists have discounted the notion that races are biological for almost one hundred years. Race is a social construction.

Besides, you're assuming that it's okay to compel black people to change their culture. Why? Just because it's not religious? But what if many of their beliefs were based in religion (like the Black Muslim followers of Farrakhan)?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I think that these are two different situations (and I'll assume they're both true; I don't know them to be, but I'll trust you for this conversation).


Bwahahaha! He fell for my liberal tissue of lies!



> The first, assuming things like geography and income are taken into account, is something that we should worry about, but it might be unavoidable. The jury trial is part and parcel of our judicial system, and by accepting a jury defendants--black or otherwise--know that they're throwing their fates to the wind at some point.


This suggests that we cannot condemn jurors for making racist decisions. On the contrary, we can and should.



> It doesn't make it right, of course, but if a child is named Rasheed by his parents in spite of known discrimination, those parents are partly to blame. An analogy is moving next to an airport and then complaining about the noise.


On this analogy, racists can no more control their racist actions than Airports can control their noise. If racists are really that incapable of control, then should they be allowed to wander about loose? Don't we have good grounds for institutionalizing them?
A closer analogy is to say that women are to blame when they get raped because they knew there are rapists out there.



> In the long run, in both cases, people will become more tolerant of blacks or they will not.


You do realize that you just contrasted blacks with people, right?



> Governmental imposition of special status will, IMO, do more harm than good. American cultures need, IMO, to become MORE like one another to further acceptance, rather than more balkanized.


Hey, I'm with you on that one. But as Martin Luther King wrote in his letter from Birmingham Jail - how long do we have to wait? It would be nice if everyone stopped committing crimes, and maybe they will, but does that mean we can't do something about it now?



> Sorry, but I find it impossible to believe that every black student is pulled over for that.


Ask yourself why you find it impossible.

But yes, not EVERY black student is pulled over. But a statistically disproportionate number are.



> I find it very likely that every black student knows about it and believes that they might be pulled over for it, but if the racism was THAT explicit, it should be a simple matter of taking the security guard's name and badge number and compare notes.


It should, shouldn't it? But then, if they do it, people keep saying "but he's a nice guy! I find it impossible to believe that he would do such a thing! You must be exaggerating!"



> If guards are only pulling over black students, those guards should be fired.


I wasn't talking about guards - it's a law. I meant cops.



> I come from a rural, rather poor culture. I now live in a metropolitan area and haven't smelled cow feces in years.


Now we're stretching the definition of "culture" to its limits.



> As a white male, I have several cultures to choose from, and I was mobile enough financially and emotionally to change. I'm not sure that every black person is in the same postion, so I think it's up to black leaders to offer alternatives...


Why Black Leaders? Obviously they don't have state resources to hand. Why isn't it the job of the US government? Don't we have a duty to make sure "No Child Left Behind"?



> I see a similar situation if rigid social rules aimed at combatting institutional racism, and I think that the country would be the worse off for it both in the short run and in the long run.


Couldn't you have made the same argument against the Civil Rights act? Would you have? In any case, why do they need to be "rigid social rules"? I think we should just make sure that every school is funded equally, from Beverly Hills to Compton. How 'bout that?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I think they'd swap the joke about not voting for the 1 in 4 young men in prison, don't you?


You keep harping on this 1 in 4 young black men in prison thing. Not sure where you got that figure, but let's assume it's accurate. Are you suggesting that this is a sign of racism? That blacks are being thrown in prison when they don't deserve it? The more likely explanation is that young black men are committing a large number of crimes, and are getting caught! It's no secret that the inner cities, where most young black men live, have much more crime than the suburbs or small towns, where most young white men live. I have a suggestion for the young black men in this country: if you think the judicial system is racist, by all means don't commit a crime! That's the best way to avoid prison.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Minstral,
> 
> I am withdrawing from this conversation, not because I am uncomfortable or because I am angry or think the conversation is spiraling downward.
> 
> The reason for my self-removal deals not with our separate viewpoints - but the reasons behind them. You are under the impression that I don't believe there is racism or that there isn't a different experience. I am fully aware these things exist.


Just to be clear, I don't think you "don't believe there is racism," or "that there isn't a different experience." I simply believe you are too extreme about what most (read: not all) people can do. Blacks were started poor and many have been kept there for generations. Poverty _does_ breed bad habits, like laziness, hopelessness and irresponsibility. Not in every person, but in many people. Clearly, some have risen past all that because they did have the necessary drive (and luck) to break the chains of poverty. But I don't think the average person, raised in poverty, has that kind of drive promoted and developed within him.

So now, after such a class has been created, you suggest that they lift themselves up...even though part of the creation is laziness and irresponsibility (and it would be for whatever group had been started off and kept like that for many generations). That's just not possible for the majority. Empowerment is at least partly nurture, and these environments don't nurture empowerment, by and large.

That's my problem with everyone should get where they want to go through personal empowerment.

Create racial equality (empirically this means that blacks are fully represented through the classes and professions; if they are 13% of the population, they should be around 13% of the lawyers, doctors, plumbers, fast food workers, etc) and _then_ let people rise and fall based on personal empowerment. Racial inequality was created artificially; why shouldn't racial equality thus be created?



> I am MORE angry at the crutches that are specifically designed to unempower a person. To force reliance.
> 
> You want to discuss racism - racism is what drives welfare. Racism is what drives affirmative action. Racism is what drives a lot of social programs.


Yes, I've heard this claim before and I think it misses the point. I'll return to analogy for this, but this is equivalent to being in a small boat and coming across several people drowning in the water. You can't fit them into your boat, so you throw them some life preservers, until you can find a proper rescue agency (a larger boat, a helicopter, etc). Those life preservers are social programs like wellfare. Yes, they keep the people where they are...but where they are is preferable to drowning. The *real* solution is not in the social programs. A real solution requires addressing the roots of the problem; however, even done right, that can take years or generations. Many people may drown in the interim. Life preservers are hardly ideal, they don't lift the people *out* of the water. But keeping them where they are, until a real solution can be found, is far superior to letting them sink for good.



> So, while you come at me with your side - I understand it - and to an extent I agree. But, I feel that change happens more through self-empowerment. Through self-betterment.


Self-empowerment and self-betterment are great ideals. And I'd love a society where that's all a person had to rely on. But, realistically, I believe we've created a society where all racial groups are not _equally equipped_ for self-empowerment. If all racial groups (and both genders) were equally equipped to be self-empowered, then sure...go as far as your ambition takes you and no further.

I _had_ planned to fade from our discussion, but I wanted to clarify my positions. And note that I don't entirely disagree with what you value, I just don't think current society is currently set up for living purely by such ideals.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> I think this racist issue is pretty ignorant myself....Black players these days have no idea what racism truly is....Ask a black person who grew up in the 50's in 60's in the south (or anywhere in the U.S.) and they'll tell you what racism is...Athletes these days use that word all too often, and most often it is used as a cop out response for anything.....Black people have had better than they ever have and its naive of them to say things are racist just because by coincidence black people are involved....
> 
> I'm sure he's going to use the race card in some way when he is tried for the Auburn Hills brawl as well....


Just because Blacks today have it better today than blacks that grew up in the 50's and 60's makes the racism in this country ok, we shouldn't talk about it or bring it up. That is by far the stupidest statement I have ever heard. Jermaine should get props for being the only athlete to have enough guts to question just exactly what this is about.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> You keep harping on this 1 in 4 young black men in prison thing. Not sure where you got that figure, but let's assume it's accurate. Are you suggesting that this is a sign of racism? That blacks are being thrown in prison when they don't deserve it?


Hell, we all deserve it. You've broken several laws today. Did you read my example about the parking permit? Ever done that? Got a taillight out? But I bet you if whites were punished proportionately to blacks for the same offenses, we'd see some of those laws changed.



> The more likely explanation is that young black men are committing a large number of crimes, and are getting caught!


And you know this is "more likely" because....?



> It's no secret that the inner cities, where most young black men live, have much more crime than the suburbs or small towns, where most young white men live.


And, of course, all those black people CHOOSE to live in the inner city. Why don't they choose to move to the suburbs? Or would that be bad, because they'd bring their innate criminality with them? Enlighten me here.

But besides that, even if you compare white men of COMPARABLE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC background with blacks, blacks get punished disproportionately. I'm sure you're outraged at this and are now determined to set it right, right?



> I have a suggestion for the young black men in this country: if you think the judicial system is racist, by all means don't commit a crime! That's the best way to avoid prison.


I don't think they can hear you. I think you have a civic duty to deliver the message in person. I'll lend you a megaphone and directions to inner city Detroit.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Blacks, on the other hand, won't let anyone forget their misfortune. They whine and moan and carry on about "racism" until people are sick of hearing it.


This isn't funny any more. You're the second poster to contrast "blacks" with "people." 



> The irony is, many people who would otherwise not feel negatively toward blacks are becoming increasingly hostile to their "cause" simply because it is driven into the ground over and over. You can't keep crying wolf when there is no wolf in sight.


...said the man with his eyes firmly shut.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

vandyke said:


> Just because Blacks today have it better today than blacks that grew up in the 50's and 60's makes the racism in this country ok, we shouldn't talk about it or bring it up. That is by far the stupidest statement I have ever heard. Jermaine should get props for being the only athlete to have enough guts to question just exactly what this is about.


True.

But what's being overlooked here is that Jermaine was wrong.

The age limit would effectively shorten the careers of the player by two years at the beginning of his career. But it would effectively lengthen the career by two years at the end and give an opportunity to more players who might have been in the league except for the high school kid taking up a roster spot, getting paid big money and not playing. Both of these things affect blacks more than whites, as they are more likely to be in the NBA to begin with. One affects them positively. One negatively. It all evens out, but with one big difference...

This is being done for purely financial reasons. The league wants players who are getting paid 3+ million per year to be playing, not just taking up roster space. If their careers are two years shorter, it's two years less of paying them their larger salary. Two years at the end of a career could be 8-10 million per season that teams save by shortening career length. That makes sense to a certain extent, but a minor league system makes more sense. Calling it 'racism' makes no sense at all (and I agree with zagfan20 above - it cheapens REAL instances of racism which happen every day.)


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Many ethnic groups have been discrimated against in this country. Italians, Jews, Poles, Chinese, Koreans, Indians, etc. They all faced workplace discrimination, or religious persecution, or outright hostility or exclusion from their neighbors or from the businesses they frequented. But they didn't whine about it, or form grievance groups. Instead, they buckled down and worked their butts off to get ahead and make a good life for themselves.
> 
> Blacks, on the other hand, won't let anyone forget their misfortune. They whine and moan and carry on about "racism" until people are sick of hearing it. There is even a reparations movement among blacks that is demanding billions of dollars in payments for slavery, something no one alive today experienced. Many blacks seem to think the government and society owe them something, and they enjoy making the rest of us feel guilty for being born white or some ethnicity other than African.
> 
> The irony is, many people who would otherwise not feel negatively toward blacks are becoming increasingly hostile to their "cause" simply because it is driven into the ground over and over. You can't keep crying wolf when there is no wolf in sight.


Man you are an  even in such a heated discussion, you can't be calling people names. , we don't want anything from you, trust me we don't even want anything to do with you people, all we want is the same opportunities that you people have, and when one segment of the population controls all the wealth, positions of power, media outlets, etc. Given the same opportunities that you people are born into, we would have no problem being on equal footing in this society, but when the oppressionists have a 400 year head start on you it makes it kind of hard for us to be on equal footing thank you very much. If this is honestly what you feel you unfortunately you are part of the problem in this country, and that is part of the problem is that too many of you idiots do feel this way but do yourself a favor look at all the facts, and there is one thing I always say is just imagine if the situation was reversed, white people would have died off a long time ago put in the same situation as african-americans were put into since the beginning of slavery, it is our perseverance that we have been able to make it this far, but given the same set of circumstances I doubt greatly that your people would have been able to do the same.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

Fork said:


> True.
> 
> But what's being overlooked here is that Jermaine was wrong.
> 
> ...


Yes I understand that, my point is having an age limit isn't going to help, the GM's are the ones making these picks and unless the talent at the GM level gets a lot better at evaluating talent, gauging a players worth, etc. Instead of paying 18 year olds who can't play that money they are going to be paying 20 year olds that money and it won't make a difference. It is like cutting off your nose to spite your face, 60-70% of the GM's in this league are horrible at evaluating talent, don't know how to guage what a player is worth when their contract is up for an example to give Zach Randolph a contract worth 86 million is ridiculous it is going to take Portland 5 years to become winners again because his talent does *not* equal that type of money. Even if you raise the age minimum you are still going to have really bad gm's making really bad picks, and signing players to really bad contracts which is the problem not having an minimum age of 20.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Many ethnic groups have been discrimated against in this country. Italians, Jews, Poles, Chinese, Koreans, Indians, etc.


Cool, how many of them were enslaved for hundreds of years? Can you honestly not figure out the difference? 

Those folks you name who were discriminated against had the means to immigrate here - sure they started out poor, but they made those sacrifices because they really wanted to be here. African Americans did not save up money to come out here, they were chained up, brought over and sold... can you not see the difference? How quickly is a race supposed to overcome slavery and achieve parity with their captor race? Apparently 150 years is supposed to be enough. Doesn't sound like it to me, they were enslaved for longer than that.

We act like a bad boyfriend or something - what? I said I'm sorry for cheating on you and bought you flowers, why won't you shut up about it? It's been 3 days for crying out loud! Stop whining about it!!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

vandyke said:


> Man you are an  even in such a heated discussion, you can't be calling people names. , we don't want anything from you, trust me we don't even want anything to do with you people, all we want is the same opportunities that you people have, and when one segment of the population controls all the wealth, positions of power, media outlets, etc. Given the same opportunities that you people are born into, we would have no problem being on equal footing in this society, but when the oppressionists have a 400 year head start on you it makes it kind of hard for us to be on equal footing thank you very much. If this is honestly what you feel you unfortunately you are part of the problem in this country, and that is part of the problem is that too many of you idiots do feel this way but do yourself a favor look at all the facts, and there is one thing I always say is just imagine if the situation was reversed, white people would have died off a long time ago put in the same situation as african-americans were put into since the beginning of slavery, it is our perseverance that we have been able to make it this far, but given the same set of circumstances I doubt greatly that your people would have been able to do the same.


Hmmm...IIRC the poster you are flaming at with the "you people, we people" is African American.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

For the record I don't want reparations and I really wish when people like "Blowhard" say that there is a reparation movement, to please provide me with a link, rather than concocting Tall Tales to make an incredibly biased bigotted point, which I've come to expect from him.

A movement from black people to get reparations? Oh brother. Talkhard, just continues to plunge into the lowest form of scum on this planet.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

vandyke said:


> Yes I understand that, my point is having an age limit isn't going to help...


I agree.

That doesn't make it racism.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

Wow, this thread has morphed into some kind of monster. I jst want to question a statement made, and I hope I don't offend anyone the way some of the other posts have.



> but when the oppressionists have a 400 year head start on you it makes it kind of hard for us to be on equal footing


I understand this position to a certain extent, but it made me think about something.....3 or 4 years ago there was an article in the Oregonian about a family of Asian immigrants (I think Vietnamese). It talked about how these people arrived in the US in the 1970's with no English skills and little more than the shirts on their backs....yet through sheer determination one of them graduated from PSU with a masters in engineering and others opened successful businesses, etc, etc. 

More generally speaking, if you look at many top doctors, scientists, academics, high achieving students, etc you see that Asian Americans are disproportionately represented. So I ask, why is it that generally speaking Asian immigrants can achieve so much success in such a short time? I'd ask the same about Jews as well. They didn't have a 400 year head start. Is it something in those cultures that values education, family and hard work more than in other cultures? Why are so many blacks in jail? Fathering illegitimate children? Dropping out of school?, etc. Why can a much higher proportion of Asians live the American dream while generation after generation of Blacks spin their wheels? Is it all racism?

P.S.: I'm Italian, and we're not exactly the highest achieving sub group either.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I ahve thought this whole scenario through, I have discussed it with a co-worker who happens to be an African American, and a huge hoops fan. Neither he nor I can see how the age limit is a race issue.

More than anything it is a talent, finance and maturity issue. I think hte fact is if players are good enough to make the NBA they will make it and stick. As it is while HS players are coming out and eventually contributing teams would be better suited to take players that are a little older with a little higher competition level....Now ....

Dorko Millicic
Nikoloz Tkitishvilli
Nenad Kristic
Maciej Lampe
Zaur Pachulia
Robert Swift
Pavel Podkolzine
Vikor Sanikidze
Seung-Jin Ha

All of these Players were under 20 at their prospective draft.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

HKF said:


> For the record I don't want reparations and I really wish when people like "Blowhard" say that there is a reparation movement, to please provide me with a link, rather than concocting Tall Tales to make an incredibly biased bigotted point, which I've come to expect from him.
> 
> A movement from black people to get reparations? Oh brother. Talkhard, just continues to plunge into the lowest form of scum on this planet.


I seldom agree with Talkhard's opinions, but you should really get out more. Here are some links to get you started. (Hint: Google is your friend)

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_reparations.htm

http://www.swagga.com/

http://www.ncobra.com/

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/26/slavery.reparations/

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Reparations.html

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/racism/010827.reparations.html

http://www.adversity.net/reparations/reparations_for_reverse_discrimination.htm

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1446.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/03/25/slave-reparations.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/03/25/reparations-sidebar.htm

http://www.newnation.org/NNN-reparations-for-African-slavery.html


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ok I'll issue a warning, I can see this discussioni on the brink of getting nasty, calm it down and we can let it roll, but the second it gets insulting towards anyone, or any group it's gonn be shut down.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Now to further the discussion.....

To the original issue of Race being a factor in the age limit, I have to ask....

Would less African Americans make it to the NBA if the age limit were imposed?

Would having the age limit force hardship on young players?

In most cases aren't the players in question, in possession of a college scholarship?

I just really don't fathom how this is an issue of specifically holding the African American back.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Now to further the discussion.....
> 
> To the original issue of Race being a factor in the age limit, I have to ask....
> 
> ...


Join the club. I agree 100%


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> For the record I don't want reparations and I really wish when people like "Blowhard" say that there is a reparation movement, to please provide me with a link, rather than concocting Tall Tales to make an incredibly biased bigotted point, which I've come to expect from him.


You're revealing your own ignorance. The reparations movement is very real. 60 Minutes or one of those news magazines did a segment on it, and author/activist David Horowitz has written extensively against it. You really should educate yourself before you start throwing around wild accusations.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

vandyke said:


> we don't want anything from you, trust me we don't even want anything to do with you people


You don't?

Then don't ask.



> all we want is the same opportunities that you people have


Oops. You asked.

You think we were "given" all this? You think we come out of the womb, rushed to our "white people are us" meetings and gauranteed success?



> and when one segment of the population controls all the wealth, positions of power, media outlets, etc.


This is an incomplete thought. 

Even still - if I move to Japan, I am in the minority. White people do not own all the wealth, positions of power or media outlets. They also do not give me special priveledges or even put me on equal footing. 

But, I would have to pull up my bootstraps or fail. No one would give me a second thought. You think this should be different?



> Given the same opportunities that you people are born into, we would have no problem being on equal footing in this society


Ah yes, the born into routine. 

We were just HANDED our wealth and positions of power. None of us earned it through hard work. My grandfather, another minority at the time ... shunned by all of society, brought up 4 children ... all of whom are self-made millionaires now. 

One generation later.

Magic. 



> but when the oppressionists have a 400 year head start on you it makes it kind of hard for us to be on equal footing thank you very much.


OPPRESSIONISTS?! HA!

What a joke.

This is the nonsense that cause white people that support the black struggle to roll their eyes, sigh and give up. 



> there is one thing I always say is just imagine if the situation was reversed, white people would have died off a long time ago put in the same situation as african-americans were put into since the beginning of slavery


Wow, and that's among the *least* racist comment I've ever heard.



> it is our perseverance that we have been able to make it this far, but given the same set of circumstances I doubt greatly that your people would have been able to do the same.


While it sounds just terrible - black people have their own countries and have done a fine job ---- *of running them straight into the ground*. Is this the white man's fault? Or is it symptomatic of the "black man"'s overwhelming perserverance?

When you say this - did you even think about think about it before it spews forth from that extremely limited mindset of yours?

I mean, did you logically decide to cast out all historical evidence to the contrary or was it just not even a factor?

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> . . . 3 or 4 years ago there was an article in the Oregonian about a family of Asian immigrants (I think Vietnamese). It talked about how these people arrived in the US in the 1970's with no English skills and little more than the shirts on their backs....yet through sheer determination one of them graduated from PSU with a masters in engineering and others opened successful businesses, etc, etc.


Exactly right. Many Koreans have come to this country and opened laundries or grocery stores, or some other kind of business, and done very well. So have Slavs, and Poles, and Indians. Amazing how an immigrant who speaks almost no English and is living in a brand new country can zoom right past a black American who was born here and speaks the language fluently.

One of the differences is attitude. Koreans, for example, are willing to live in a crowded apartment over their store, and do all the dirty work required to make a business successful, from sweeping the floor to washing the windows. In short, they will do whatever it takes to "make it" in the U.S. Many black kids, however, are unwilling to take a job at McDonalds flipping burgers because they think it is beneath them. They have a sense of entitlement that most minorities can't afford.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

HKF said:


> A movement from black people to get reparations? Oh brother. Talkhard, just continues to plunge into the lowest form of scum on this planet.



While I'd love to say it isn't so - it is. 

There is a movement demanding reparations from companies (and the government) that supported slavery. It was found that the amount demanded would bankrupt 5 of our top 20 companies in the US. 

Link 1 

Link 2 

Play.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Given the same opportunities that you people are born into, we would have no problem being on equal footing in this society


Nonsense. This is just more "victimology." Every black kid in this country has the "opportunity" to go to public school, yet black kids drop out in much higher numbers than white kids. That's not taking advantage of an opportunity--it's rejecting the opportunity. And the number of fatherless families in the black community is huge. This is not something that "the system" does to blacks, it's what blacks do to themselves. 

Somewhere along the way, many blacks forget that you actually have to show up and work hard to get ahead in life. You can't experience the American dream just by rolling out of bed in the morning.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I thought i heard somewhere that there are more "blacks" who moved to the US directly from Africa now in the US, than there are "native" born blacks in the US.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Nonsense. This is just more "victimology." Every black kid in this country has the "opportunity" to go to public school, yet black kids drop out in much higher numbers than white kids. That's not taking advantage of an opportunity--it's rejecting the opportunity. And the number of fatherless families in the black community is huge. This is not something that "the system" does to blacks, it's what blacks do to themselves.
> Somewhere along the way, many blacks forget that you actually have to show up and work hard to get ahead in life. You can't experience the American dream just by rolling out of bed in the morning.


I keep forgetting that "Talkhard" is actually a satire created by a liberal to make rightwingers look stupid. But this time, he's gone too far. Even conservatives aren't _this_ ridiculous! At least he didn't throw in something about communists and atheists, though.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

NBAGOD said:


> Wow, this thread has morphed into some kind of monster. I jst want to question a statement made, and I hope I don't offend anyone the way some of the other posts have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The issues you touched upon here have been addressed at great length by Thomas Sowell since the 70's to the present. http://www.tsowell.com/

His research in the areas of economics and race was very illuminating. While arguing that racism was still alive and well in the U.S., he also argued that racism (alone or in great part) after the civil rights era is not a valid explanation for economic, educational or family failures.

One of the more interesting studies was that comparing the achievments of black immigrants from the Carribean to native black citizens. To a racist they "all look the same". So how to explain the great disparity? He looks into this and other intriguing areas.

To those interested in the subject area, I don't think you can afford to miss Sowell's work on race - a library at this point.
http://www.tsowell.com/writings.html

He has a brand new book out I have yet to read. Might be a good starting point for those interested. As usual he tackles "difficult" subjects that are minefields for less skilled writers. Look at this description - talk about diving into a pit.



> This explosive new book challenges many of the long-prevailing assumptions about blacks, about Jews, about Germans, about slavery, and about education. Plainly written, powerfully reasoned and backed with a startling array of documented facts, *Black ******** and White Liberals* takes on not only the trendy intellectuals of our times but also such historic interpreters of American life as Alexis de Tocqueville and Frederick Law Olmsted.
> In a series of long essays, this book presents an in-depth look at key beliefs behind many mistaken and dangerous actions, policies, and trends. It presents eye-opening insights into the historical development of the ghetto culture that is today wrongly seen as a unique black identity—a culture cheered on toward self-destruction by white liberals who consider themselves “friends” of blacks. An essay titled “The Real History of Slavery” presents a jolting re-examination of that tragic institution and the narrow and distorted way it is too often seen today.
> The reasons for the venomous hatred of Jews, and of other groups like them in countries around the world, are explored in an essay that asks, “Are Jews Generic?” Misconceptions of German history in general, and of the Nazi era in particular, are also re-examined. So too are the inspiring achievements and painful tragedies of black education in the United States.
> *Black ******** & White Liberals* is the capstone of decades of outstanding research and writing on racial and cultural issues by Thomas Sowell.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I keep forgetting that "Talkhard" is actually a satire created by a liberal to make rightwingers look stupid.


Ha. You even made me laugh with that one, Meru! 



> But this time, he's gone too far. Even conservatives aren't this ridiculous! At least he didn't throw in something about communists and atheists, though.


I notice you didn't refute my argument on the facts. You just resorted to mudslinging, a common liberal tactic when reason and logic won't suffice.


----------

