View Full Version : MSNBC Host: Romney accused of using racist code
The Left is really desperate now to come up with a load of Mule Muffins like this. :rolleyes:
This is going to be a LONG 2 1/2 months.
.MSNBC Host: Romney Engaging in the “Niggerization” of Obama
On “The Cycle,” MSNBC’s answer to Fox News’s “The Five,” co-host Toure’ accused Mitt Romney of using racist code by claiming President Obama was running an “angry” campaign. After he made his claim, conservative S.E. Cupp destroyed him with logic.
He never knew what hit him:
“I mean, that really bothered me,” Touré said. “You notice he said ‘anger’ twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization’ — ‘he’s not like us.’”
“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is niggerization. ‘You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.’ And the idea of locating anger around Obama just doesn’t fit with who he is and who he trained himself to be going back to high school, training himself to be ‘no-drama Obama.’ They are talking to people who are trained to hate him, who want to hate him so this how we turn out the base to work against him.”
So, in Toure’s world, Romney needs to remind the base that Obama is black, because without that racially charged reminder, they might run out on Election Day and pull the lever for him.
That makes sense.
As if the base of the Republican Party doesn’t have enough reasons to turn out and vote, and as if the racists in both parties are ignorant the President is black.
Toure’s assertion is both feeble and pitiful. It’s another example of how it’s necessary for the left to destroy Mitt Romney as a person because they can’t run on Obama’s record.
Here's the link with the exchange.
http://campaigntrailreport.com/2012/08/16/msnbc-host-romney-engaging-in-the-niggerization-of-obama
:munchin
Touré is but a minor Wizard at MS-KKK. The real Grand Wizards to watch out for are Rev Al, Ed Schultz, and Chris 'Tingles' Matthews.
This is going to be a LONG 2 1/2 months. Especially if there's going to be a separate thread for every instance in which the politics of race and racial identity become an issue.:rolleyes:
MOO, telling African Americans how they should/should not interpret electoral politics and political communication is going to be as conducive to Romney's victory as mocking African Americans over how they do/do not interpret electoral politics and political communication.
This "dialog" in which each side says "No, it is the other side that is racist" is the trap that the current administration has been laying for the opposition since the president gave his inaugural address. If the opposition doesn't figure this out, someone in the GOP is going to step on his/her crank and enable the president and his supporters to say "See? Just like we've been saying all along!" for a few news cycles.
If the GOP wants to address the issue constructively, the response should reflect a willingness to engage issues of concern to black Americans in a manner that neither patronizes blacks nor budges on the party's core values, policy preferences, or priorities.
YMMV.
I want to know when I'm going to get my Republican secret racial language handbook.....I'm registered so I should have gotten it...maybe I'll email Al West for his copy.
Well, I'm not voting for Romney if he's gonna go around indiscriminately "niggerizing" folk. :rolleyes:
Especially if there's going to be a separate thread for every instance in which the politics of race and racial identity become an issue.:rolleyes:
MOO, telling African Americans how they should/should not interpret electoral politics and political communication is going to be as conducive to Romney's victory as mocking African Americans over how they do/do not interpret electoral politics and political communication.
This "dialog" in which each side says "No, it is the other side that is racist" is the trap that the current administration has been laying for the opposition since the president gave his inaugural address. If the opposition doesn't figure this out, someone in the GOP is going to step on his/her crank and enable the president and his supporters to say "See? Just like we've been saying all along!" for a few news cycles.
If the GOP wants to address the issue constructively, the response should reflect a willingness to engage issues of concern to black Americans in a manner that neither patronizes blacks nor budges on the party's core values, policy preferences, or priorities.
YMMV.
Sigaba - Does it not bother you, sir, that there are so many examples of people <assumed political persuasion removed> who jump on every single opportunity to turn absolutely anything that anybody says who is on the right side of the aisle into some form of racism, race baiting, bigotry, or woman hating?
I don't disagree with you, its not anyone's place to tell anyone else how to interpret anything, this is a free country. And in that vein, are we not supposed to be marching AWAY from this sort of thing? So that even normal white folks who don't understand the twisted, subjective rules that accompany interacting with or speaking about black people can do so without fear of being slandered for any and everything they said or didn't say?
When can we have THAT United States? I assert that there were many Obama voters who did so hoping that he truly would help erode the racial divide that continues to be propagated not by those who suffer from it, but by those who profit from it. Unfortunately, that change did not come either.
Predictable - both the situation and the responses. Sad it is. :(
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Destrier
08-17-2012, 07:44
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1789825795001/rep-west-this-is-what-happens-in-the-age-of-obama
Nice to see a Dem, Gov Wilder voicing out against this type of thing.
Inflexible Six
08-17-2012, 08:19
"Toure" ... I'm so glad we ask his opinions.
Entire post.Here's the thing. Every arena of discourse is going to have a set of rules, stickies, and FAQs. IMO, figuring out the basics of "the twisted, subjective rules" --and there's a charged characterization!--is not terribly difficult to do. That is, if one wants to do so.
And also, it isn't as if the GOP hasn't played racial politics (source is here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm#)).
GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.
"It's not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized," said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
By Morry Gash, AP
"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.
More recently, however, Republicans have been working aggressively to build the party's support among African-Americans, who have long voted overwhelmingly for Democrats. In 2000, President Bush got just 9% of the black vote. He improved slightly to 11% in 2004.
"It's clear the Republicans really are trying to make inroads with black voters," says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta and co-author of The Rise of Southern Republicans.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush agreed with Mehlman, although the president did not express similar regrets in the speech Thursday to the Indiana Black Expo in Indianapolis.
"Ken (Mehlman) said it was wrong to try and benefit from racial polarization. We agree fully," McClellan said.
Mehlman said Democrats have been taking black votes for granted in recent years.
"It's not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized," he said. "Just as the Democrats came to this (black) community in 1964 with something real to offer, today we Republicans have something that should cause you to take another look at the party of Lincoln."
Republican efforts to make amends could pay political dividends, Black says. "White Republican support in the South is so strong that it won't lose whites, and it could gain some blacks," he says.
While Mehlman was speaking to the NAACP, Bush used his speech to an audience of 3,000 at the Indiana Black Expo to back up the GOP outreach. He said his education, housing and economic policies have been good for African-Americans.
He took credit for initiating education programs that are narrowing the gap in test scores between black and white elementary school students. And he noted that black ownership of businesses is at an all-time high and that home ownership among blacks is nearing 50%.
"I see an America where every person of every race has the opportunity to strive for a better future," Bush said.
Bush appeared in Indianapolis instead of attending the NAACP convention, underway at the same time in Milwaukee. It marked the fifth consecutive year he has turned down an NAACP invitation to speak, making him the first sitting president since Warren Harding to not address the group.
The White House said he couldn't attend because of a scheduling conflict. Bush and NAACP leaders have been on the outs since the 2000 presidential campaign. Bush, then governor of Texas, was angered by NAACP ads accusing him of being unsympathetic to the dragging death of a black Texan.
Source is here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103631_pf.html). Can the GOP Speak to Blacks?
By Kathleen Parker
Thursday, September 3, 2009
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- When people think of South Carolina, they think of . . . I know, Comedy Central. Given the state's generosity in providing punch lines, Jon Stewart really ought to consider taking a pay cut.
What people do not typically think of is black Republicans, a perception that could change soon if a young man named Marvin Rogers has his way. This 33-year-old, Spanish-speaking former aide to South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis has a plan for the GOP: He wants to change its complexion.
Until 2008, when he ran unsuccessfully for the state House of Representatives, Rogers may have been better known in Latin America, where he was an itinerant preacher for several years, than in North America. "Unsuccessfully" in this case should be qualified. Rogers won 32 percent of the vote in a blue stronghold, running as a black Republican in the year of Obama.
All things considered, not bad.
Rogers's story is, shall we say, unorthodox. Born in the tiny town of Boiling Springs, S.C., he was raised by working-class parents with values rather than ideology. "So I was largely removed from the acrimony between the African American race and the Republican Party."
Without preconceptions about where his race placed him politically, Rogers began examining issues on paper and recognized that he was philosophically more aligned with Republicans than Democrats. But then a funny thing happened. When he began attending political meetings, he noticed, "Oh, my, I'm the only black guy here. What's up with that?"
That question led Rogers on a quest that has resulted in a book nearing completion, "Silence Is the Loudest Sound," in which he attempts to explain how the party of Lincoln lost its black soul.
Through five years of study and interviews, Rogers reached the conclusion that the chasm between the black community and the Republican Party is more emotional than philosophical. And, he says, that chasm is more a media template than reflective of reality.
The best explanation for what's gone wrong, he says, was articulated by Jack Kemp, who told him during an interview: "The Republican Party has had a great history with African Americans and they turned away from it. The Democratic Party has had a terrible history, but they overcame it."
Part of the turning away followed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy," which tried to harness votes by cultivating white resentment toward blacks. Rogers is no Pollyanna and recognizes this period for what it was -- a "bruise" on the GOP. But he insists that Democrats use the Southern strategy when it suits them.
The biggest problem for today's Republican Party, he says, is tone-deafness, as manifested by conservative talk radio and TV. Rogers says he and most blacks can't listen to Rush Limbaugh because all they hear is anger.
"They might agree with Rush on the issues, but they can't hear him because he sounds mad. People don't follow fussers. People don't follow angry men. They follow articulators."
What about Michael Steele, the Republican Party chairman? Is he changing the perception of the GOP as a party of whites?
Rogers takes a moment to consider, and answers carefully.
"Let's say I think that when he ran for the Maryland Senate seat, and when he was lieutenant governor, that was when he was most effective in changing this perception."
Another reason the GOP limits itself among African Americans, says Rogers, is because Republicans don't talk about issues that have currency in the black community -- poverty, the challenges of single-parent homes, social justice, recidivism, black capitalism and crime. Studying Republican speeches through the decades was how Rogers came up with his book title.
The way for Republicans to attract black voters is pretty simple, says Rogers: Show up and solve problems.
When he moved to Rock Hill, where he currently lives, Rogers made his home in the inner city rather than in the suburbs. When a local basketball team needed money for jerseys, Rogers helped them. Thus, when this inner-city team hit the court, the players' jerseys said, "York County GOP."
"People don't care what [political affiliation] comes after your name," says Rogers. "They just want the jersey."
With Rogers on the hustings, Democrats have cause for concern. Among other things, he's telling African Americans that they have rendered themselves politically impotent by voting monolithically. "If one party can count on our vote, then they can take us for granted. Predictability is suicidal."
Predictability would seem not to be a problem for a Spanish-speaking, black Republican wonk who just might make South Carolina less of a joke. FWIW, a rebuttal to the notion that Nixon crafted the Southern Strategy is available here (http://thenewnixon.org/2009/09/03/debunking-the-myth-of-the-nixon-southern-strategy/). Unfortunately, that rebuttal does not make use of any of Harry S. Dent's papers (http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/textual/special/smof/dent.php) in the Nixon Presidential Library. More on Dent here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202225.html) and there (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/02dent.html).
Well, I'm not voting for Romney if he's gonna go around indiscriminately "niggerizing" folk. :rolleyes:
Im with you Dusty...could lead to lots of other serious 'izations'....
Kira Davis responds to Toure:
Link (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/08/19/Young-Black-Conservative-Emotional-Response-To-Race-Baiting-Toure)
Badger52
08-20-2012, 10:33
Kira Davis responds to Toure:
Link (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/08/19/Young-Black-Conservative-Emotional-Response-To-Race-Baiting-Toure)Nicely done young lady.
Great Response Young Woman and Gov. Romney should place you on his staff.
Pres. Obama uses his own code as well. His claim to be a descendant of the first American slave is something that African Americans may admire him for.
So slavery is bad, unless you are a descendant of the first slave, in which case that is good?
The roots of heritage in African Americans run deep, but when brought to the front, only the African American community can speak freely about it, even though there haven't been slaves (in the sense of enslavement of African Americans) for a thousand+ years, yet some talk as though they were enslaved themselves during the abolition of slavery.
The more the African Americans want to rely on their approach to isolating theirselves, the more they distance theirselves from the very dreams and freedoms of equality MLK had envisioned.
Dozer523
08-20-2012, 11:45
even though there haven't been slaves (in the sense of enslavement of African Americans) for a thousand+ years, yet some talk as though they were enslaved themselves during the abolition of slavery. No slavery in the years before the American Civil War? What have I misinterpreted here?
No slavery in the years before the American Civil War? What have I misinterpreted here?
Doh! Did I say a thousand? Sorry, I meant hundred+...right civil war. Please forgive, I was never good at math:D
Doh! Did I say a thousand? Sorry, I meant hundred+...right civil war. Please forgive, I was never good at math:D
Not so good with History, either. Ever hear of Plessy v. Ferguson, and the "separate but equal" doctrine and its impact on segments of American society? :confused:
Richard :munchin
The roots of heritage in African Americans run deep, but when brought to the front, only the African American community can speak freely about it, even though there haven't been slaves (in the sense of enslavement of African Americans) for a thousand+ years, yet some talk as though they were enslaved themselves during the abolition of slavery.
The more the African Americans want to rely on their approach to isolating theirselves, the more they distance theirselves from the very dreams and freedoms of equality MLK had envisioned.The only thing more telling than your lumping all African Americans together into a monolithic entity and defining the historical experiences of blacks around the peculiar institution--rather than the possibility that many blacks alive today either came of age in Jim Crow America or have parents and family members who did--is your unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that many prominent students of the African American experience are not black.
But other than that, great post.
Not so good with History, either. Ever hear of Plessy v. Ferguson, and the "separate but equal" doctrine and its impact on segments of American society? :confused:
Richard :munchin
Not so much, sir. But I am guessing this is why we have The Congressional Black Caucus, The United Negro College Fund, and BET Network? Seperate but equal. But I believe that as long as there is "seperate" there can never be equal. Would you agree, sir? Or have I missed something?
Not so much, sir. But I am guessing this is why we have The Cogressional Black Caucus, The United Negr College Fund, and BET Network? Seperate but equal. But I believe that as long as there is "seperate" there can never be equal. Would you agree, sir? Or have I missed something?
I like Ryan's tenet of equal opportunity for all versus a guarantee of equal outcome.
Blacks in this Country have no right to bitch about "inequality" with one of their own running the White House (as it were).
Not so much, sir. But I am guessing this is why we have The Cogressional Black Caucus, The United Negr College Fund, and BET Network? Seperate but equal. But I believe that as long as there is "seperate" there can never be equal. Would you agree, sir? Or have I missed something?
There is a huge difference between a group "self" segregating and the Government making it law. Maybe you should read up on a little history :)
The only thing more telling than your lumping all African Americans together into a monolithic entity and defining the historical experiences of blacks around the peculiar institution--rather than the possibility that many blacks alive today either came of age in Jim Crow America or have parents and family members who did--is your unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that many prominent students of the African American experience are not black.
But other than that, great post.
Apologies if it seems that when referring to African Americans I gave the impression that I was referring to all blacks. I should have been more clear in stating those African Americans who subscribe to an ideology that distances themselves from the direction that we as a nation should procede towards together, as a country. Kind of in the vein of what MLK believed in.
And clearly, you are correct in that there are many who still believe we have a long way to go and we can work together to get there.
On the flipside is a small percentile of African Americans who still feel held down in place by "the white man" and feel a need to unite and make clear their expressions of "black power" and perhaps this is the small segment of African Americans that Obama, and Hilary are trying to captivate via their speeches and campaign tactics, and then add in MSNBC reports such as this to fuel the fire.
I like Ryan's tenet of equal opportunity for all versus a guarantee of equal outcome.
Blacks in this Country have no right to bitch about "inequality" with one of their own running the White House (as it were).
Can we put this in the funniest quotes of the year thread?
You don't know many minorities do you? I know this may surprise you but there are any number of people that are descriminated againt for many different reasons. The simple fact that our current POTUS is a black man does not change the fact that many blacks in this country are still descriminated against.
Same can and will be said when the first woman is elected, or the first hispanic, etc. There will always be descrimination in one form or another. The fact that one glass ceiling has been broken does not mean it will no longer occur.
The girl in the video is the same.one that posted an eloquent statement during the Koran burning episode last year. I hope.my children can someday be as eloquent.
Not so much, sir. But I am guessing this is why we have The Congressional Black Caucus, The United Negro College Fund, and BET Network? Seperate but equal. But I believe that as long as there is "seperate" there can never be equal. Would you agree, sir? Or have I missed something?
I would say you've missed a lot.
Reading "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol would be a good place to start to understand what I was saying and how it continues to affect us today.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I would say you've missed a lot.
Reading "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol would be a good place to start to understand what I was saying and how it continues to affect us today.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Roger that, sir.
Can we put this in the funniest quotes of the year thread?
You don't know many minorities do you? I know this may surprise you but there are any number of people that are descriminated againt for many different reasons. The simple fact that our current POTUS is a black man does not change the fact that many blacks in this country are still descriminated against.
Same can and will be said when the first woman is elected, or the first hispanic, etc. There will always be descrimination in one form or another. The fact that one glass ceiling has been broken does not mean it will no longer occur.
Are you saying Obama had a better chance to become POTUS because he was one of the blacks that wasn't discriminated against? That some blacks can't be POTUS because they're discriminated against?
What would stop a woman from becoming POTUS? Discrimination?
Can we put this in the funniest quotes of the year thread?
You don't know many minorities do you?
I spent my career working with minorities who didn't snivel about their ethnicity. How 'bout you?
Can we put this in the funniest quotes of the year thread?
You don't know many minorities do you? I know this may surprise you but there are any number of people that are descriminated againt for many different reasons. The simple fact that our current POTUS is a black man does not change the fact that many blacks in this country are still descriminated against.
Same can and will be said when the first woman is elected, or the first hispanic, etc. There will always be descrimination in one form or another. The fact that one glass ceiling has been broken does not mean it will no longer occur.
Discrimination has many meanings:
Noun:
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
Miriam webster even has a different definition, one not at all affiliate with race.
: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently :
I was a very skinny child. Therefore I was rarely picked until last for pick up foot ball games. When I was a kid, I thought "I know I'm skinny, but pick me and Ill play my heart out to make up for my size". Were the team captains discriminating against me on my lack of size? Negative.
They were looking for people better qualified for the job that needed to be done.
The difference between then and now is that not being picked motivated people then to either quit or get better. Which I did. I grew up to be the captain of both the basketball and football teams at my school.
If that would have been today - I would have stomped off to my parents, stuck out my lip and told my parents that I didnt get picked because no body liked me, then my dad would have sued the school in liue of "fairness", the team captains would have gotten suspended, I would have been made the team captain and mandated that football teams had to consist of 50% skinny people, 10% girls from then on.
Can you picture the NFL today if the scouts couldn't "discriminate"?
Can you picture the NFL today if the scouts couldn't "discriminate"?
If liberal influence continues at the current pace, you won't have the NFL to use as an example.
I spent my career working with minorities who didn't snivel about their ethnicity. How 'bout you?
And I have many friends that are African American (also Asian and Hispanic) that do not rely on recognition from whites to boost their self esteem (which is already off the charts), nor empowerment to make the life choices they do. They are quite successful in their lives, probably more so than myself. I am proud to have them as my friends, but the fact that they are African American is not the reason. It is because they are successful, have much to offer in the lives they lead, and give back to the community.
It could be because of the geographical location in which I live provides more opportunity for everyone, providing one takes advantage of that opportunity.
I spent my career working with minorities who didn't snivel about their ethnicity. How 'bout you?
The fact that they didn't "snivel" doesn't mean they weren't being descriminated against. I have seen true cases of descrimination in my career. I never considered it sniveling when they tried to do something about it.
Discrimination has many meanings:
Noun:
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
Miriam webster even has a different definition, one not at all affiliate with race.
: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently :
I was a very skinny child. Therefore I was rarely picked until last for pick up foot ball games. When I was a kid, I thought "I know I'm skinny, but pick me and Ill play my heart out to make up for my size". Were the team captains discriminating against me on my lack of size? Negative.
They were looking for people better qualified for the job that needed to be done.
The difference between then and now is that not being picked motivated people then to either quit or get better. Which I did. I grew up to be the captain of both the basketball and football teams at my school.
If that would have been today - I would have stomped off to my parents, stuck out my lip and told my parents that I didnt get picked because no body liked me, then my dad would have sued the school in liue of "fairness", the team captains would have gotten suspended, I would have been made the team captain and mandated that football teams had to consist of 50% skinny people, 10% girls from then on.
Can you picture the NFL today if the scouts couldn't "discriminate"?
Did you even bother to read the posts on this thread before posting. We were VERY specifically discussing descrimination based on the color of one's skin ie.. the fact that a black man is now POTUS means there is no longer descrimination based on being black.
Athletic ability doesn't concern me as far as this thread is concerned.
Badger52
08-20-2012, 13:50
While not all will be convinced (or admit to same anyway) I think the voting booths will reflect some willingness to change having had the chance to evaluate someone for a time.
I recall quietly hanging on the periphery of many parent/aunt/uncle poker games, folks who were either Republican or Democrat - conservative & liberal weren't really in jargon in So Cal back then. They weren't sure quite what to do over the possibility of electing a Roman Catholic JFK. But they were certainly familiar in the state with Nixon already. In a bi-partisan manner they decided (within my little circle) that almost anything was better than Dick in the White House at the time. Those same folks with initial misgivings wept openly in November 1963. (And LBJ drove some to Goldwater next time.)
People hold various biases, sometimes based simply on unfamiliarity; don't underestimate their ability to get past it. That generation was familiar with Nixon and said "uh-huh." Having now seen what a full term of Obamaland looks like I think their kids are going to make him a 1-term President.
The fact that they didn't "snivel" doesn't mean they weren't being descriminated against. I have seen true cases of descrimination in my career. I never considered it sniveling when they tried to do something about it.
How 'bout a name? Give me the name of one person in this Country who doesn't have the same chance of making it all the way to the top because of the color of his skin.
You're living decades in the past. You can't do better than make it to an Operational Detachment Alpha, and trust me, there were more minorities on A teams than you can imagine.
How 'bout a name? Give me the name of one person in this Country who doesn't have the same chance of making it all the way to the top because of the color of his skin.This is a loaded question. First, it requires one to prove what hiring authorities would not admit -- that someone won't get a job because of her or his skin color. Second, it assumes that there are two candidates for a given job who are exactly the same but for their race.
Nevertheless, there is Kareem Abdul Jabbar. The NBA's all time time leading scorer is on the short list when it comes to talking about the greatest basketball player in the history of the NCAA and the NBA. The man has paid his dues as an assistant coach. Along with Bill Walton, Cap is an intellectual and philosophical descendant of the late John Wooden. Yet, year after year, his phone does not ring.
Is this just about the reputation he earned early in his playing career for being "aloof"? Is this about his not knowing the game of basketball? Or is it about his not knowing about winning? Or is it about something else?
This is a loaded question. First, it requires one to prove what hiring authorities would not admit -- that someone won't get a job because of her or his skin color. Second, it assumes that there are two candidates for a given job who are exactly the same but for their race.
Nevertheless, there is Kareem Abdul Jabbar. The NBA's all time time leading scorer is on the short list when it comes to talking about the greatest basketball player in the history of the NCAA and the NBA. The man has paid his dues as an assistant coach. Along with Bill Walton, Cap is an intellectual and philosophical descendant of the late John Wooden. Yet, year after year, his phone does not ring.
Is this just about the reputation he earned early in his playing career for being "aloof"? Is this about his not knowing the game of basketball? Or is it about his not knowing about winning? Or is it about something else?
Why are you being facetious? You know full well he's being snubbed because of the lack of "fire" in his performance with Graves in "Airplane".
Racial prejudice has changed it's perspective. I feel it coming from blacks more than whites, nowadays.
Regarding KAJ - being a great player does not necessarily translate into being a great coach.
The athletic world is littered with great players - that were terrible coaches - and great coaches that were relatively terrible players.
Give me results and not reasons.
And, that ain't no code.
Why are you being facetious? You know full well he's being snubbed because of the lack of "fire" in his performance with Graves in "Airplane".I'd have thought it was for his work with Bruce Lee in Game of Death.
Racial prejudice has changed it's perspective. I feel it coming from blacks more than whites, nowadays.MOO, one of the many reasons why racism in America remains a difficult topic to discuss is that we hold to binary conceptualizations. We strive to talk in terms of black and white (pun intended) without discussing also the myriad tones of grey. And I think that there's a difference between accounting for the role of racism in our past and present and holding individuals and groups accountable for the past by punishing them in the present.
Regarding KAJ - being a great player does not necessarily translate into being a great coach. My POV is not that KAJ would be a great coach but that he has the background as a player and as an assistant coach that indicate he's qualified to get an interview for a job as a head coach in the NBA.The athletic world is littered with great players - that were terrible coaches - and great coaches that were relatively terrible players. The NBA has also had great players who became outstanding coaches. This list includes Tom Heinsohn and Bill Sharman.
Give me results and not reasons.
And, that ain't no code.How can a person produce results in the NBA if he's never given a team to coach?
TXGringo
08-20-2012, 21:30
Can we put this in the funniest quotes of the year thread?
You don't know many minorities do you? I know this may surprise you but there are any number of people that are descriminated againt for many different reasons. The simple fact that our current POTUS is a black man does not change the fact that many blacks in this country are still descriminated against.
Same can and will be said when the first woman is elected, or the first hispanic, etc. There will always be descrimination in one form or another. The fact that one glass ceiling has been broken does not mean it will no longer occur.
So only minorities are discriminated against? I vote THIS for funniest quote.
My old man always jokes about his time with HFD. Apparently, him and his buddies suffered from WHS, or "white male syndrome." You know, passed up for promotions, box and station assignments, etc...
For what it's worth, I agree that there will always be discrimination. But to imply that it only happens to minorities is truly laughable...
There could be a whole host of reasons why KAJ is not a head coach. There have been 56 African American head coaches in the NBA since '66 four of which have won championships. Less than 10%.
http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=All-Time_African-American_NBA_Head_Coaches
I am not so certain his skin color has anything to do with it IMO.
I know this may surprise you but there are any number of people that are discriminated against for many different reasons.
So only minorities are discriminated against? I vote THIS for funniest quote.How do you get "only" from "any" and "many"?
There could be a whole host of reasons why KAJ is not a head coach. There have been 56 African American head coaches in the NBA since '66 four of which have won championships. Less than 10%.
http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=All-Time_African-American_NBA_Head_Coaches
I am not so certain his skin color has anything to do with it IMO.In the course of your research did you compare the less than <10% rate of for black coaches winning the championship to white coaches winning the championship? Is it your argument that there's a correlation between a coach's skin color and the probability of his team winning the championship? Are you saying that coaches in the NBA are hired primarily based upon the criterion of winning the championship?
In any case, your post is a serviceable thumbnail of a dilemma many Americans face in their everyday lives today: not knowing one way or another why the ball does or does not bounce a certain way.:confused:
IMO, a part of the fix is creating more opportunities for Americans from different backgrounds to compare notes. For some, the chalk talk may provide opportunities to reexamine long standing assumptions. For others, the conversations might lead to looking in the mirror. I don't know how many opportunities we can generate, though, if the preferred conversation remains "It is the other guy's fault."
(And to round out the numbers, there have been a total of 298 head coaches in The Association, 217 since the 1966-67 season.)
TXGringo
08-20-2012, 22:06
How do you get "only" from "any" and "many"?
When she started it with "you don't know many minorities do you?" IMO, it was implied. Just like when you implied that KAJ hasn't gotten a head coaching gig because he's black. Which is also laughable.
When she started it with "you don't know many minorities do you?" IMO, it was implied. Just like when you implied that KAJ hasn't gotten a head coaching gig because he's black. Which is also laughable.In other words, you didn't read AFCHIC's post very carefully.
TXGringo
08-20-2012, 22:13
(And to round out the numbers, there have been a total of 298 head coaches in The Association.
And to further round out the numbers, 56 is almost 19% of 298. Whereas, blacks only make up 12.6% of the population as of 2010. So what's your point?
And to further round out the numbers, 56 is almost 19% of 298. Whereas, blacks only make up 12.6% of the population as of 2010. So what's your point?Is the percentage of blacks among the total U.S. population the relevant number or is the percentage of blacks among the population of players/coaches in the The Association the relevant number?
In the course of your research did you compare the less than <10% rate of for black coaches winning the championship to white coaches winning the championship? Is it your argument that there's a correlation between a coach's skin color and the probability of his team winning the championship? Are you saying that coaches in the NBA are hired primarily based upon the criterion of winning the championship?
In any case, your post is a serviceable thumbnail of a dilemma many Americans face in their everyday lives today: not knowing one way or another why the ball does or does not bounce a certain way.:confused:
IMO, a part of the fix is creating more opportunities for Americans from different backgrounds to compare notes. For some, the chalk talk may provide opportunities to reexamine long standing assumptions. For others, the conversations might lead to looking in the mirror. I don't know how many opportunities we can generate, though, if the preferred conversation remains "It is the other guy's fault."
(And to round out the numbers, there have been a total of 298 head coaches in The Association, 217 since the 1966-67 season.)
Not at all, sir. I suppose therr is a demarcation in the hiring process between salary and winning. Afterall an owner of a team would love the bragging rights to a winning season. But if you take into account census statistcs of race and ethnicity, one will find out of the total of 298 head coaches of which 56 have been African American, they are, statistically speaking, represented above segment population (12.6% African Americans in 2010).
All I am saying is it does not matter the skin color, period. There is only one champion team per year. Statistically the results are what would empirically be expected.
Perhaps a better argument might be, instead of why KAJ isn't head coach, why arn't there more African Americans that actually own professional sports teams?
Is there some "code" in place that keeps them from doing so?
Not at all, sir. I suppose therr is a demarcation in the hiring process between salary and winning. Afterall an owner of a team would love the bragging rights to a winning season. But if you take into account census statistcs of race and ethnicity, one will find out of the total of 298 head coaches of which 56 have been African American, they are, statistically speaking, represented above segment population (12.6% African Americans in 2010).As I asked in a previous post, is the percentage of blacks in the overall population the relevant statistic? Or is the relevant statistic the percentage of the population of players and assistant coaches in the NBA who are black?
Perhaps a better argument might be, instead of why KAJ isn't head coach, why arn't there more African Americans that actually own professional sports teams?
Is there some "code" in place that keeps them from doing so?Do you mean a better argument or a better question? Or maybe a better argument phrased as rhetorical questions?
In any case, <<LINK (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-06-05/sports/9406050462_1_african-americans-bob-arum-beatrice)>><<LINK2 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120285887693063653.html)>><<LINK3 (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/06/richest-black-americans-busienss-billionaires-richest-black-americans.html)>>. (The short answer, readily available using Google, is not enough investment capitol.)
Scamilton
08-21-2012, 00:34
This conversation has reached a stalling point. There is no point to be made in relation to the original topic using KAJ as an analogy.
Discrimination happens all over the world, and it can happen to anyone. Whether or not that person acknowledges it as such is their right. It will probably never cease to happen, because it is in our nature to size up and judge people and situations.
The fact that the Libs are using racism as a talking point is deplorable but expected. After all, it was the Democrats who first put in place affirmative action which has been called by many as counter productive and racist in and of it self. Will someone remind the Dems that they were on the confederates side in the civil war?
This conversation has reached a stalling point. There is no point to be made in relation to the original topic using KAJ as an analogy. Thank you for your timely intervention. Without it, this thread had no chance whatsoever of accomplishing what other discussions on this BB do -- bounce around all over the place as participants get a better sense of differing perspectives offered by members with different experiences.
I am especially grateful because I don't have to find and to watch Abdul-Jabbar's fight with Bruce Lee again. After all, we know that the best fight scene in the history of cinema took place in this film here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CizzE-zZo).
Discrimination happens all over the world, and it can happen to anyone. Whether or not that person acknowledges it as such is their right. It will probably never cease to happen, because it is in our nature to size up and judge people and situations. Since when have Americans been satisfied to say "Well, they do it too so we may as well also"? MOO, the point of American exceptionalism is to set high standards for ourselves as a civilization, to do our damnedest to exceed those goals, and to not bow to the dictates of "nature."
The fact that the Libs are using racism as a talking point is deplorable but expected. After all, it was the Democrats who first put in place affirmative action which has been called by many as counter productive and racist in and of it self. Will someone remind the Dems that they were on the confederates side in the civil war?A remarkable summation not only of American history during the 1960s, but the 1860s as well. Dozens of Americanists who have pondered for decades the cause of the Civil War and the reasons for the CSA's defeat can now put down their pens and mice. The answer to both questions: the liberals did it.:rolleyes:
This conversation has reached a stalling point. There is no point to be made in relation to the original topic using KAJ as an analogy.
Right.
Let's start over, using "Lew Alcindor". :D
If he were a Conservative or Republican, the "discrimination" BS would disappear.
ddoering
08-21-2012, 05:39
Are you saying Obama had a better chance to become POTUS because he was one of the blacks that wasn't discriminated against? That some blacks can't be POTUS because they're discriminated against?
What would stop a woman from becoming POTUS? Discrimination?
He is half white. Perhaps that is the part that was elected Prez. Even Harry Ried liked him because he was "light skinned." I guess Alan Keyes doesn't have a shot in hell.
ZonieDiver
08-21-2012, 05:43
If he were a Conservative or Republican, the "discrimination" BS would disappear.
How so?
Also... how do you know he isn't?
Also, also... TxG's relations are probably both of those things (Republican and Conservative) but apparently delve into the discrimination grab bag when it suits them.
Just sayin'.
How can a person produce results in the NBA if he's never given a team to coach?
He'll have to convince a GM and owner that he can lead a team to a championship - and all that goes along with that.
It is not about him...it is not about his stellar playing career...it is not about his dream...it is about the team.
I wish him well.
A remarkable summation not only of American history during the 1960s, but the 1860s as well. Dozens of Americanists who have pondered for decades the cause of the Civil War and the reasons for the CSA's defeat can now put down their pens and mice. The answer to both questions: the liberals did it.
I think your starting to understand...
How so?
Also... how do you know he isn't?
Just sayin'.
Are you joking?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kareem-abduljabbar/coppertone-politics_b_420165.html
It's really interesting how the conservative movement has jumped on Harry Reid's racial observations regarding Barack Obama's candidacy. They feel that Reid made some type of faux pas. Senator Reid was making a candid observation about racial attitudes in America. For many Americans, dark skin and the Negro dialect are a definite negative when considering a political candidate. Those attributes are associated with all of the negative stereo types of blacks that have become part of America's history.
The conservatives are trying to say that those statements by Reid are the equivalent to Trent Lott's praise for the racist segregationist presidential campaign of Strom Thurmond. There is no rational way that speaking about racial attitudes that have been in play since the beginning of our nation is the equivalent of endorsing a racist presidential candidate. But the conservatives insist it's a match. Go figure. I hope Mr. Reid continues to lead the Dems successfully. The conservatives will continue to live in their fantasy world.
Snip
TXGringo
08-21-2012, 07:22
Is the percentage of blacks among the total U.S. population the relevant number or is the percentage of blacks among the population of players/coaches in the The Association the relevant number?
Do you mean to compare the number of black players to the number of black coaches? If so, I would say playing and coaching are two completely different things.
How so?
Also... how do you know he isn't?
Also, also... TxG's relations are probably both of those things (Republican and Conservative) but apparently delve into the discrimination grab bag when it suits them.
Just sayin'.
Telling half-drunk stories around the campfire is equivalent to delving into the discrimination grab bag?
ZonieDiver
08-21-2012, 07:37
Telling half-drunk stories around the campfire is equivalent to delving into the discrimination grab bag?
My old man always jokes about his time with HFD. Apparently, him and his buddies suffered from WHS, or "white male syndrome." You know, passed up for promotions, box and station assignments, etc...
For what it's worth, I agree that there will always be discrimination. But to imply that it only happens to minorities is truly laughable...
I'm pretty good at reading between the lines, but I missed the "half-drunk... around the campfire" part of your original post in this matter.
That said, sometimes people only reveal their true feelings when they're "half-drunk" or thereabouts, and yes, "joking" about suffering "WHS, or 'white male syndrome'" IS delving into the discrimination grab bag.
ZonieDiver
08-21-2012, 07:39
Are you joking?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kareem-abduljabbar/coppertone-politics_b_420165.html
<snip>
Snip
Sorry, my Brother. I don't accept the "HuffPo" as a legitimate source for truthful information! :D
ZonieDiver
08-21-2012, 07:41
He'll have to convince a GM and owner that he can lead a team to a championship - and all that goes along with that.
If winning championships, or even convincing a GM/owner that you CAN win a championship is a prerequisite for a head coaching job, how does one explain how the bulk of the coaches in the NBA got, and kept, their jobs?:confused:
If winning championships, or even convincing a GM/owner that you CAN win a championship is a prerequisite for a head coaching job, how does one explain how the bulk of the coaches in the NBA got, and kept, their jobs?:confused:
Luck. ;)
ETA I had no idea how lucky - source Forbes.
The NBA’s Highest-Paid Coaches For 2011-12
Doc Rivers (Celtics): $7 million
Mike D’Antoni (Knicks-resigned): $6 million
Gregg Popovich (Spurs): $6 million
Nate McMillan (Trail Blazers): $5.5 million
Rick Adelman (Timberwolves): $5 million
Flip Saunders (Wizards-fired): $4.8 million
Rick Carlisle (Mavericks): $4.5 million
Mike Brown (Lakers): $4.5 million
Stan Van Gundy (Magic): $4.5 million
Scott Skiles (Bucks): $4.5 million
Found In Complete Coverage: The Business of Basketball
TXGringo
08-21-2012, 07:48
I'm pretty good at reading between the lines, but I missed the "half-drunk... around the campfire" part of your original post in this matter.
That said, sometimes people only reveal their true feelings when they're "half-drunk" or thereabouts, and yes, "joking" about suffering "WHS, or 'white male syndrome'" IS delving into the discrimination grab bag.
I'll be sure to provide situational context in the future. :rolleyes:
Suing the city because the "test is discriminatory" after you didn't study enough is delving. Joking with your buddies in the station is just that...
ZonieDiver
08-21-2012, 07:50
I'll be sure to provide situational context in the future. :rolleyes:
Suing the city because the "test is discriminatory" after you didn't study enough is delving. Joking with your buddies in the station is just that...
Be sure to do that! Situational context could prove to be important in your chosen military career.
It is. No amount of later parsing can change it. Perhaps not to the same degree as other "complaints" but I didn't say how far they reached down into the grab bag, just that they "delved" into it.
TXGringo
08-21-2012, 07:57
Be sure to do that! Situational context could prove to be important in your chosen military career.
Understood.
It is. No amount of later parsing can change it. Perhaps not to the same degree as other "complaints" but I didn't say how far they reached down into the grab bag, just that they "delved" into it.
Fair enough. I'd argue they just peeked inside.
Sorry, my Brother. I don't accept the "HuffPo" as a legitimate source for truthful information! :D
Course not; what was I thinking? :D
Scamilton
08-21-2012, 15:28
Thank you for your timely intervention. Without it, this thread had no chance whatsoever of accomplishing what other discussions on this BB do -- bounce around all over the place as participants get a better sense of differing perspectives offered by members with different experiences.
I am especially grateful because I don't have to find and to watch Abdul-Jabbar's fight with Bruce Lee again. After all, we know that the best fight scene in the history of cinema took place in this film here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CizzE-zZo).
Since when have Americans been satisfied to say "Well, they do it too so we may as well also"? MOO, the point of American exceptionalism is to set high standards for ourselves as a civilization, to do our damnedest to exceed those goals, and to not bow to the dictates of "nature."
A remarkable summation not only of American history during the 1960s, but the 1860s as well. Dozens of Americanists who have pondered for decades the cause of the Civil War and the reasons for the CSA's defeat can now put down their pens and mice. The answer to both questions: the liberals did it.:rolleyes:
At no point did I say we should accept discrimination as someone merely exercising a natural instinct and move on forever. Nor did I try to summarize the Civil War and the civil rights movement within my handful of sentences. My statement was just that, a statement. A statement meant to remind the Democrats that they composed the majority of the slave owners in our country, and put forth, in my humble opinion, the most racist piece of crap ever with affirmative action.
Scamilton
08-21-2012, 15:32
And I would have to disagree and say that this (http://youtu.be/BRrO9iy1wI0) is the best fight scene ever.
*The movie is funny and I do not think twice about the political stance it takes*
A statement meant to remind the Democrats that they composed the majority of the slave owners in our country, and put forth, in my humble opinion, the most racist piece of crap ever with affirmative action.Equating the Democratic Party of the mid nineteenth century with today's Democratic Party is an argument that works only as long as one does not study American political history and confines one's reading to the blogosphere.
When you say "the most racist piece of crap ever," IRT affirmative action, what were the other public policies on your short list?
MOO, one of the reasons why conservatives get saddled with charges of racism is because too many who sit on the right are content to offer policy analysis, historical interpretations, and statements that are intellectually unsustainable. But, by all means, let's just keep doing what we've been doing.
As I asked in a previous post, is the percentage of blacks in the overall population the relevant statistic? Or is the relevant statistic the percentage of the population of players and assistant coaches in the NBA who are black?
Both sets of statistics have relevancy. One cannot be discounted, they are dichotomies, IMO.
Do you mean a better argument or a better question? Or maybe a better argument phrased as rhetorical questions?
Meaning, statistically, the African American community would be underrepresented in this instance- why there are not more African Americans that own sports teams.
In any case, <<LINK (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-06-05/sports/9406050462_1_african-americans-bob-arum-beatrice)>><<LINK2 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120285887693063653.html)>><<LINK3 (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/06/richest-black-americans-busienss-billionaires-richest-black-americans.html)>>. (The short answer, readily available using Google, is not enough investment capitol.)
Good stuff, and I would disagree with your assesment that there is not enough investment capitol, sir. Both Oprah Winfrey, and Bill Cosby could do it, again IMO, along with a host of others(granted some may have to pool their monies), however, I think the assesment should be that realistically it is a lousy investment with little promise of return, and heavy year to year losses.
These African Americans did not get where they are foolishly squandering away their money. In all probability, they are shrewd and hold onto every cent they can. It is money hard earned, and I don't think they will let it go so easily; or without a solid chance of gains.
Now, tying this into racisim: I do not deny that racism exists, and I certainly hope that through my posts in this thread I do not give the impression that I am racist (maybe uneducated/naive, but not racist). But the folks on these lists I don't believe subscribe to racist philosophies that some other African Americans may subscribe to in their view of caucasions. I don't think, and I am just speculating, that Oprah Winfrey feels "held down" by anyone of any race.
I'll be sure to provide situational context in the future. :rolleyes:
If your choice of 'smilies' is any sort of indication of your SA, your ideas of what 'situational awareness' may be might not quite be the same as ours.
Think about it.
Richard :munchin