EMAIL us your comments, insights or whatever

  • NOISportsblog@gmail.com

Friday, April 13, 2007

Whitlock: Why Doesn't He Like Negroes?

Jason Whitlock is at it again.

Pandering to the white media. Betraying his community. Turning his back on the agenda of Negro America. Siding with racists and users of horrible language directed at destroying the self esteem, self worth and self respect of young Negro women.

For shame Mr. Whitlock, for shame!

The Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton have launched a defense through offense. Exhorting the media to understand and report the damage that Imus' comments caused not just the scholar-athletes of Rutgers, but Negroes in general. The Revs have cemented a united front to challenge the racist language used by Imus and proliferated on the airwaves of CBS and MSNBC. To allow Mr. Imus to continue to use their airwaves would be condoning his language and it would be a complicit act of racism.

Mr. Whitlock suggests that the Revs only involve themselves in such an issue because they see the opportunity to hijack the news and to somehow line their pockets. That they neglect to speak out on other issues that might not present them with the opportunity to monopolize the headlines and add to their bank accounts.

We suggest that the Revs reserve such actions for only the most important and socially repressive actions. That the good Revs have been involved in the struggle and have built the credibility to determine which issues require kid glove treatment and which ones require a maelstrom.

The Negro community has grown to trust their judgment. They have rarely let the Negro community down. Why else would they be able to generate such response and such coverage? Would the media grant them such privilege and respect and input if the Revs did NOT reflect the accumulated voice of Negro America?

"We have more important issues to deal with than Imus. If we are unwilling to clean up the filth and disrespect we heap on each other, nothing will change with our condition. "

But, isn't that hate and disrespect heaped on Negroes by other Negroes a reflection of the fact that people like Imus say what they say? If the Imus's of the world can be censored. If the Revs can complete this dialogue on what is acceptable to say and what is not, won't we then see the Negroes self-image improve? If white America is silenced, Negro America will certainly be able to flourish. And the incestial disrespect will cease. Can't Whitlock see that the disrespect Negroes have for other Negroes is a product of white Americans getting on the radio or tv and saying whatever they want about Negroes? Is this not clear?

We believe Mr. Whitlock is the one completely out of touch with the community that the Revs gracefully and fully represent. Perhaps Mr. Whitlock should take to heart Snoop Dogg's assessment of the situation. The suggestion that rappers say worse things than Imus is out of touch with what Negro America believes.

"It's a completely different scenario," said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [the cable network home to Imus] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha-----as say we in the same league as him."

Could this be more clear? Rappers using those terms are ART. It is how they feel. White folks using them is hate. Understand, Mr. Whitlock?

And Snoop went on to further illustrate the REAL hypocrisy of the incident.

"Snoop Dogg insisted "this punk" Imus deserved much more than a two-week suspension. He deserved to be fired. He should at least be punished like the NFL suspended Tennessee Titans football player Adam Jones for an entire season for scrapes with the police:
"Kick him off the air forever," he said. "Ban him like they did [Adam] 'Pacman' Jones. They kicked him out the [National Football] League for the whole season [for numerous violations of the NFL's personal-conduct policy, including multiple arrests], but this punk gets to get on the air and call black women 'nappy-headed ho's.' "


So, before self indulgent panderers attack the only people with the fortitude to stand up to white, corporate America and its flagrant and profitable racism; we'd ask that you fully understand the plight of the Negro. That you fully understand the needs of the community. That you fully consider WHY Negroes use the terms they do. That you concede that the hypocracy ISN'T in who can say what, but is in how the system doles out retribution.

And, sometimes, that system needs the maelstrom of the Revs to right it.

Get in line Mr. Whitlock, as a Negro, your resistance is only hurting yourself.

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

If 70% of hip hop albums are bought up by the stringy doghair-ed spawn of waspy suburban trash, are they not 70% responsible for Mr. Whitlock's Negro on Negro hate and disrespect?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"are they not 70% responsible for Mr. Whitlock's Negro on Negro hate and disrespect"

Sir, and that other 30% is more than covered by the distasteful comments that rule the airwaves.

Really, if you add it all up, it comes up to more than 100% white responsibility. But, it's easier to just say that whites are 100% responsible for the Negro on Negro disrespect.

We won't get into finite math here.

Josh said...

after watching Whitlock's appearance on YouTube, I have to say I'm very impressed with his point of view... at the same time, I at least understand where Snoop is coming from, and when I had to explain the controversy to my roommate (who thought "nappy-headed" meant "sleepy" until I told him different), I pretty much explained it from the general parlance of gangsta rappers, and the implications of the word "ho" in songs of that nature, as, essentially, a synonym for "groupie."

I thought Imus was an idiot after I heard that he had said this stuff, and I felt that the Rutgers women clearly neither matched the description nor deserved being called that by anyone. At the same time, I don't think Imus is very culturally relevant. He's just a stupid, old white guy who misuses old slang and thinks he's hip for doing it. I've seen some testimony that Imus makes a habit of saying offensive thingss and hasn't been called on it before...

I'm not a fan of political correctness, in general, as I think it stands in the way of an honest discourse about race in America. I think it's usually a defense mechanism of guilty white liberals so they can ignore the fact that racism still exists. All the same, to my perspective, Imus crossed a line, and I don't have much sympathy for him. Maybe he does speak for a large swath of white America. If so, they're all not only ignorant, but unaware of their own ignorance.

All the same, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are counterproductive as "leaders."

--------------

I can never tell what proportion of your readers are aware that you're mostly writing satire. It seems like everyone is taking you seriously, but that might just be that I'm not picking up their sarcasm as easily as I am yours.

Here's a clue, people: when someone smart (as the writer of this blog obviously is) says something with the a word like "always" "never" "all" "fully" or what have you, in regards to real-world issues, they usually aren't being serious. The disdain for people such as Jackson, Sharpton, Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, etc., and their defenders, in this blog is readily apparent through the excessive knee-jerk defense of these characters. Vick and Jones are completely out of sync with the Nation's view of how a black man should act (at least to my understanding), and Sharpton and Jackson seem to dedicate their publicity stunts towards white people, like old Civil Rights leaders, instead of encouraging self-sufficiency within the community.

Maybe this being written down ruins the joke for the writer of this blog. If so, he's invited to delete this portion and just publish the other stuff.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Maybe this being written down ruins the joke for the writer of this blog. "

Sir, the jokes on you.

FREE PACMAN!


:)

Martin said...

Sir, I have struggled at great length this past week to wrap my head around the Imus incident and I just cannot figure it out - what is coach kkk's involvement? He, being the leader of the white devils, has to be involved, but I just cannot see it. Sir, please, can you enlighten me?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Sir, please, can you enlighten me?"

Sir, coach kkk is not involved with Imus. kkk is far to devious and evil to allow himself or duke to be entrapped by the Revs. (reference the duke lacrosse case)

Rebecca said...

Gentlemen, a question: your reaction to Whitlock lumping in the (black, female) Rutgers coach in with Jackson and Sharpton in his KC Star article? Is it more insulting to essentially call a woman a gold-digger than it is a man?

Regarding the two previous comments: does anyone believe the master of the Devils would involve himself with a man who has hair like Imus's? He would probably suspect miscegenation.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Is it more insulting to essentially call a woman a gold-digger than it is a man?"

Ma'am, we watched C. Vivian's passionate plea for healing. The coach, acting as in a parental role for her players/children, tried to effectively communicate how this act hurt them. We read mention of a recruiting platform for the Rutgers team. Really? All we saw were some very hurt people trying to heal thru verbalization of the pain.

the butler said...

"Vick and Jones are completely out of sync with the Nation's view of how a black man should act (at least to my understanding)"

Huh, I must have missed the "How a Black Man Should Act" memo that the Nation sent out.

If Pacman has violated the law, the United States Judicial system will have the responsibility of deciding his punishment. We do not need some pretentious, self-righteous dictator of a League making outlandish judgements on a man in a blatent political attempt to save his own face.

Pacman has been arrested and questioned by the police on numerous occasions, yes.

Has he ever been convicted of any of these 10 arrests/questionings?

NO!

Free Pacman, indeed.

Josh said...

all I'm really saying is that they're embarrassing, and they keep forcing themselves into the public eye acting disgracefully. Imus hasn't been convicted of anything, but that doesn't stop me from judging him. I don't see why I should deal with Jones and Vick any differently just because they're black. Being black doesn't give a man license to be a terrible person.

Convicting someone of a crime can take a long time, especially if they can afford a good lawyer. Even when a trial finally does come around, it's on the prosecutor to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, while conforming to all of the rules of evidentiary law. That means a lot of stuff that we get to see doesn't make it into the official record, including other bad acts.

When a guy has been arrested 10 times for doing stupid crap, it's a pattern. How many arrests should it really take before someone learns their lesson and starts modifying their behavior? I'd say a maximum of three, if they're ever going to change while their situation remains static. Pacman needed a jolt like Goodell gave him, and the NFL needed to do something to save its image before a lot of fans were alienated. Pacman Jones was the perfect example of what the problem has been, lately.

Just 'cause you ain't been convicted of nothin' (and despite what he says, he has been charged), doesn't mean you didn't do anything. This is the triumph of common sense over obfuscation.

The man's been acting like a walking stereotype, and getting a hell of a lot of press in the process; if that doesn't bother you, you're probably identifying with him too much. To my eyes, he seems like a one-man modern-day minstrel show.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

" Imus hasn't been convicted of anything, but that doesn't stop me from judging him. I don't see why I should deal with Jones and Vick any differently just because they're black. "

Sir, we don't get the connection between Imus and Jones and Vick. Huh? Imus uses racially charged, devisive and hateful language. Jones and Vick have made a few silly missteps in their personal lives. They haven't been pouring kerosine on the racial tinderbox. No offense, but when juxtaposed, there is no intellectual similarities between these things.

" Even when a trial finally does come around, it's on the prosecutor to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, while conforming to all of the rules of evidentiary law. "

Are you suggesting that the legal system would be better if the prosecutor can just accuse someone, and then the person is GUILTY until they can prove innocense? Wow! We'd love to hear your opinion on that if YOU happened to be in the wrong place at a bad time and were brought to trial under those conditions.

" How many arrests should it really take before someone learns their lesson and starts modifying their behavior?"

We'd suggest that it should take a CONVICTION. An arrest is not an indictment of wrong doing. Many people get arrested, then the situation is cleared up...and the case is dispositioned with no guilt. If we acted as if someone is guilty just because they are arrested, why have courts?

"This is the triumph of common sense over obfuscation."

Sir, NO. This is the triumph of innocense until PROVEN guilty.

"To my eyes, he seems like a one-man modern-day minstrel show. "

Sir, and we would suggest that your eyes are connected to a head covered in alibaster skin, right?

You CAN'T identify with Pac Man, so don't pretend that your "embarrassment" or "being bothered" is of any relevence.

Josh said...

the difference between what it takes to lose, as a defendant in a criminal trial and what it takes to lose as a party in a breach of contract suit is significant because the latter doesn't lose their freedom, only the right to recompense for a bargain they have ostensibly broken. Don't compare his loss of a year out of his career with someone losing their ability to choose where to be, and with whom (not to mention rectal virginity).

Most employers in this country are free to fire anyone they want for no reason (although not, technically, "any reason," as race, gender, age, and sexual orientation are protected classes...but try proving that the protected class was the employer's reason, in court, by a preponderance of evidence). The exception is for those employees who are operating under a contract, such as Jones'. If he'd been found to have been in breach of his contract, the Titans would be free to release him without any compensation, and demand back the prorated portion of his signing bonus that is yet to count under the salary cap. With all the bad press Pacman has heaped on the League, he should be happy that he's only getting a year's unpaid vacation. Players have gotten a lot more control over their own lives, and I'm glad for that, but the NFL remains a business that relies on having at least a mostly-positive image.

As for my skin tone...whatever, man. Are you actually defending this guy, or is it just that you don't want to hear anything negative about any black person from any white person? I'm not a bigot. I identify with you more than you realize. I know that idiots like Pacman Jones don't adequately represent black men in America, but I bet I'm in a minority for thinking that way, myself.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"the difference between what it takes to lose, as a defendant in a criminal trial and what it takes to lose as a party in a breach of contract suit is significant because the latter doesn't lose their freedom, only the right to recompense for a bargain they have ostensibly broken. Don't compare his loss of a year out of his career with someone losing their ability to choose where to be, and with whom (not to mention rectal virginity)."

Sir, you mention a bargain ostensibly broken. Understand, the conduct policy was enacted two weeks ago. Well AFTER Pac Man entered into the contract/bargain. He is being punished retroactively. It is akin to making a new law, then going back and punishing people based on the NEW law for acts that were legal at the time. And that does not jibe with our legal system.

"Most employers in this country are free to fire anyone they want for no reason "

That is completely untrue in any "right to work" states. Why do you think major corporations require HR departments that have experts on states employment laws? It isn't as simple as you pretend, sir.

Again, the policy in place when Jones signed his contract is DIFFERENT than the policy now. He hasn't committed any infractions under the NEW policy.

Would it be fair if there was a new law that said anyone that gets a speeding ticket goes to jail for 30 days. And then they round up anyone who got a speeding ticket before the new law and sent them to jail?

"I'm not a bigot."

He who doth protest too much.

Josh said...

again you're likening an employer-employee relationship to the criminal justice system, when civil and criminal law are completely different. For one thing, the NFL is not the government, and doesn't have to conform to the Constitutional limits that constrain (rightfully) our government in terms of retroactive lawmaking and enforcement. As a private body, the NFL has the ability to make judgments such as the one affecting Mr. Jones and then carry them out. It is only limited by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the demands of its consumers. If the NFLPA doesn't take up for Pacman, he's S.O.L.. Sometimes, policies aren't made, as in this case, until the necessity for them has been made brutally apparent by the misconduct of an employee.

"Right to Work States" has to do with the ability of an individual to contract with an employer outside of a union, and regardless of where any particular NFL team resides, that doesn't apply to the League (everyone has to go through the NFLPA; the League, and other major league sports leagues, have been granted an antitrust exemption). If Pacman wants to drop out of the union and attempt to contract with a team, he's free to try. He'll fail, and wind up in the CFL or Arena League, but that's his choice.

The NFL is as successful as it is, as the preeminent professional sports league in the nation, largely due to the cozy relationship between the union and the league. Without those good relations, we never would have seen free agency, nor would we have seen the salary cap. Regardless, the men who play for the NFL now make scads of money, in relation to the total revenue from games and television contracts (and, in some cases, outside of the league from endorsements), since there are a total of 8 home games in the regular season, as compared with 82 for baseball and 41 for basketball. In return for the investment, they promise that they will, in good faith, perform and prepare professionally, while doing nothing to shame the league in public. Plenty of players have done stupid things in their careers, but the sheer concentration of dumb crap that Pacman has pulled in his brief tenure with the Titans brought consequences down not only on himself but on every other player who shares his predilection to embarrassing public spectacles. For the policy to be put into effect due largely to Pacman (as, not the straw, but the straw mattress that broke the camel's back), without it dealing with his misadventures would be wasting an opportunity to make an example of him. The NFL is a business with deep needs for positive public relations, and it does what it has to in order to stay on top of the professional sports world.

As to whether you think I'm a bigot, truly I don't care. I doubt I'd be putting in this much effort to convince you of anything if I thought you were less than an equal, but whatever you need to tell yourself to feel free to disregard whatever the "white devil" says, go ahead and repeat it like a mantra.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"As a private body, the NFL has the ability to make judgments such as the one affecting Mr. Jones and then carry them out."

Sir, then why bother enacting the policy? Why not just suspend him WITHOUT the new policy? Clearly, they feel the need, legally, to have one. Therefore, if they are acting in a legal interest, this isn't simply an employer/employee matter. It is a legal/law matter.

""Right to Work States""

Sir, our reference to right to work states was to PROVE your statement that "Most employers in this country are free to fire anyone they want for no reason" WRONG. Now, if you want to qualify it AFTER you looked up right to work and pretend that you meant only unions...that is fine. But it ISN'T what you said, inferred or insinuated previously. You made a completey incorrect blanket statement. But, we'll allow you to pretend you were talking solely about unions previously...wink wink...

"As to whether you think I'm a bigot, truly I don't care."

Sir, you DO care. Or else you wouldn't keep mentioning it.

Your white guilt reigns.

Anyway, why are people not calling for Urlacher to be suspended? His paternity issues, compromising photos grabbing titties and openly and intentionally marketing products that fit his personal agenda at the super bowl should bring some heat. 100K fine to him is nothing. When will we make an example out of him?

When? Or do we just let him run unchecked...since he has light hair and blue eyes?

Josh said...

So you're comparing promiscuity with assault? Make no mistake, spitting in someone's face is assault, as is grabbing a stripper by the hair and slamming her head on a stage. That covers two of the charges...let's see, we have another assault, a felony vandalism, throwing a tantrum because he was forced to wait in line at a valet service, probation violation, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, and he's also alleged to have bet on college games to make quick money (after preparing to throw $81,000 in one-dollar bills in the air at a strip club), and smoking weed (not that that's awful, but it's against league policy).

At least Chris Henry was known to be a risk when he was in college, which was why nobody took a chance on him and his obvious talent until the third round of his draft.

Urlacher plugging for a competitor for Gatorade...you're reaching, man. He got fined but it's not something that the average fan was talking about. Urlacher sleeping around? I think people would be more upset if he weren't. We live vicariously through rock stars and athletes, when it comes to that kind of lifestyle.

I said "Most employers in this country are free to fire anyone they want for no reason," and pointed out the exclusion of those employees with a contract (which generally has to be written to overcome the burden of proof). When you're in a union, you've got a collective bargaining agreement, and in that case, there are procedures for an employer to go through in order to fire you, or the union will get involved. If you're not in a union and don't have a contract, you've got no right to work. That "right to work" thing is just a euphemism for a right for employers to exploit the competetive workforce by decimating unions.

I've taken a semester-long class specifically on Employment Law. As distressing as it may be, there is no right to any particular job, outside of what is contracted. There is no right to have a job, just like there is no right to an education, just like there is no right to healthcare. If you want to change any of those sad facts of life in America, why not spend your energy there, instead of shilling for Pacman?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"So you're comparing promiscuity with assault? "

Sir, we thoughtthis was about things players have done to tarnish the image of the league..or at least that is what you said before.

And again, Pac Man has been convicted of nothing. Your jump to label him as guilty without a trial...and in some instances, even charges, reaks of bigotry, hypocrisy...and maybe racism.

" I think people would be more upset if he weren't. We live vicariously through rock stars and athletes, when it comes to that kind of lifestyle."

So, it is ok when YOU agree with the lifestyle. But when it is a thuggish lifestyle that MILLIONS of people live vicariously through...YOU draw the line? We refer you to the statement above. Bigotry, hypocrisy and maybe racism.

"That "right to work" thing is just a euphemism for a right for employers to exploit the competetive workforce by decimating unions."

You are thoroughly incorrect. That right to work thing covers employees (in state's that have such legislation) from being fired on an employers whim. Meaning that your statement "most employers can fire employees for any reason they want", is incorrect in many states.

"I've taken a semester-long class specifically on Employment Law."

Your instructor must be very frustrated with your progress.

"There is no right to have a job"

Agreed. But many states have legislated that ONCE you DO have a job, your employer can not fire you without provocation and without following a specific protocol.

"If you want to change any of those sad facts of life in America, why not spend your energy there, instead of shilling for Pacman?"

Sir, an we would ask you the same. Lay aside your bigoted thought process and open your mind to the fact that, as time goes on, less and less people see the world through white eyes. In a score of years, YOU will no longer be the majority here.

Times they are a changing.

Free Pac Man.

Josh said...

times are changing, but they aren't changing to suit the black point of view. Your portion of the population of America isn't growing. Instead, it is Hispanics and Asians who will take the title of "majority" from whites in this country. African immigrants will help usher in that era, as well. It is your (purported) perspective that will decrease in influence, more than anyone else's. Things will follow that same track until the black community breaks out from its current rut of glorifying violence, petulant misogyny, and empty materialism, as embodied by Pacman Jones. Propping up someone like that as a martyr of racism only reinforces the stereotypes held by every other community in America about yours.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Things will follow that same track until the black community breaks out from its current rut of glorifying violence, petulant misogyny, and empty materialism"

Sir, thank you.

And you tip your hand and unveil your bigotry and limited view.

You only report on what you read about from the white media. Obviously, you know nothing about Negro America, or what Negroes actually value.

It's quite high handed to suppose what Negroes need to do to change their lot in life, when you can only site the things you see that supposedly represent Negro America, through the eyes of the white media. You clearly know nothing of Negroes in this country working in science, art, education, etc...etc...Because all you choose to find out about is the negative Negro image the white media feeds you.

For shame. The white media works diligently to hold Negro America down by perpetuating those images. And you act complicitly by eating them up.

Tell me again you aren't bigoted. Your views are the very definition.

Josh said...

what I'm talking about is Pacman Jones and your rush to support him. I know and like many educated, proud black people. It's very possible to be both; you strike me as one, yourself. I am mystified by your insistence on identifying with those who seem to contradict all of your values except that one which entails contradicting anything a person with pale skin might say.

When you have children, sir, do you want them to emulate the lifestyle of Mr. Jones? Or would you rather your son embrace education, respect his sisters, and seek enlightenment above all things?

Josh said...

furthermore, it's been B.E.T., under Russell Simmons (and also, yes, since he sold to Viacom), that's done more to create the current image than any single white-owned media company.

Josh said...

what, are you quitting on me now that you got something that you think sounded sufficiently stereotypically white?

Josh said...

"big·ot·ed /ˈbɪgətɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uh-tid] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

Now, who is it among us that falls squarely under this definition, again? Hmmm.

I do judge certain aspects (those that I already mentioned) of the modern culture of hip hop...but at the same time I think very highly of conscious rappers like Common and Lauryn Hill. I applaud proud African-Americans who can find their voice and express themselves without getting all Gumbely.

I'm a Liberal Jew who lives with a born-again Christian Conservative, and we get along fine. My first girlfriend was black, my first love was Mexican, and if you're really preaching what you believe, even while I'm still just a student of life, I've already got a lot more perspective and a greater link to reality than you ever will.

Don't get me wrong, I think you're a smart dude, but damn are you hypersensitive. A little melanin deficiency and a man can't say what's on his mind without being labelled a racist? You know there are problems in the black community.

If ya'll would stop with the trash-all-whities crap and see that some of us actually do see the black community in general as having a lot of smart people and a vibrant inner life, and who want to either help or see you guys help yourselves to overcome the lingering symptoms of slavery...the self-hatred, the widespread (but not universal) disdain for education, all of that is obvious to people with open eyes. Why's it so galling to you if those eyes are blue?

Sometimes it seems that nobody's more bigoted than a black man.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"When you have children, sir, do you want them to emulate the lifestyle of Mr. Jones?"

Sir, We'd want our children treated fairly. And not to be retroactively punished by new laws/policies without having the chance to abide by the new laws/policies.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

" the current image than any single white-owned media company."

Sir, BET is viewed by such a small percentage of Americans it is ridiculous. Look up their ratings.

Yet, right now, the topic of debate in most white run media is Negro values and how the white man can control and dictate them.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

" the current image than any single white-owned media company."

Sir, as soon as you countered with the "i'm no bigot", "i know black people" and decided how YOU perceive Negro values and culture...the stereotype was set.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Now, who is it among us that falls squarely under this definition, again? Hmmm."

Sir, you forgot the second part of the definition:

one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Your desire to impose you white experiences on the values of Negroes and your blindly and hatefully disregarding the tenents of jurisprudence that country was founded on...when a Negro is in question clearly demonstrate your hate and intolerance.

Your weak reference to supposed Negroes that you know are the typical machinations of the bigot. We know you are a student. Those young Negroes in your classes....they don't like you...they tolerate you. They aren't your friends. When you aren't around, they comment on how bigoted and racist you are. Trust us.

Josh said...

All that would go back to, if true, is how you and others who think like you can't accept any thoughts from anyone outside of your circle, no matter how much they might say the same thing in private.

Besides, they've had three years to get used to the idea that I say exactly what I think, no matter what the circumstances. Anyone who might have been offended by something I said years ago has by now written it off as a peccadillo at worst. Plenty of people just tolerate me, a fair number like me, and included in the latter are a few African-Americans.

I think I'll trust my own perceptions. I'd say we can agree to disagree, but I doubt you'd agree to that, since it's coming from a white man.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"All that would go back to, if true, is how you and others who think like you can't accept any thoughts from anyone outside of your circle"

Sir, it's almost comical.

You want to determine what the problems of Negroes are in this country, based on what is presented to YOU by the white media. Then you want to take YOUR experiences as a white man and tell Negroes how to fix their problems. And finally, you want to somehow admonish the Negroes who reject your impressions and solutions, which are not inclusive or counterbalanced by Negro media or experience, as being close minded or unwilling to accept views from outside the circle.

Don't you see the utter hypocrisy in that?

Negroes would probably be happy to hear your thoughts...IF you had some sort of shared experience. Going to college with a few black kids does not qualify. How many Negro family's homes have you gone to for dinner? Churches? How many Negro neighborhoods are you a regular in and can walk down the street and know most of the people? How many Negro authors and writers do you regularly read?

Opinions from outside a particular circle can be worthwhile. But when they are from up in an ivory tower with no tangible experiences used to derive the opinions...Well, then those opinions become like assholes. Dig?

Josh said...

For what it's worth, and I doubt you'll think it's worth much, I took three African American Literature classes, as well as Blues and the African American Folksong. I really liked Ralph Ellison and James Baldwin. Richard Wright was okay, too. Frederick Douglas is brilliant, of course, although you might point out he's far from current. Some older stuff like Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man...plus I'm reading your blog, aren't I?

When I was in first grade, my best friend was a black kid, but his mom didn't like him hanging out with me either because I was white or because I was Jewish, so she put a stop to it after a while.

My favorite professor in college was a black guy who taught film classes on Sexuality in the Cinema, Revolution and Film, Advertising and Global Culture, and Gypsy Literature (the one class of his I didn't take). I can't say I had much interaction with him outside of class and getting a letter of recommendation for law school. He was kind of grouchy, but said that he was willing to help me because I "wasn't an idiot."

I got really tight with a guy who owned a coffee shop near my undergraduate school. He was really cool and bright and wise, had been a fullback in the USFL, but now weighed 300 pounds and had made a career before the shop of setting up restaurants and clubs. He told me that I reminded him of himself at twenty. I'd talk with him for hours, several days a week. After I said to him that I only thought that certain people were interesting enough to bother learning from, he let me know that everyone has something to teach, and that I'd understand that eventually; I've gotten closer to that now.

I had a long talk with a fellow named Clarence when I was travelling through Georgia, we met at a hostel and I went on a ride with him back to his neighborhood about 45 minutes away, we sat in a one-room soul-food restaurant run by a woman who handled the stove, the register, and the customers. I tried chitterlings while every tittilated face in the place watched me closely to see my reaction, had some collard greens and ribs and corn. Just saying, that's what they were serving, so don't try to imply that I think that sort of thing is all you eat.

I talked with a scholar on race, a man who was the first African-American professor at Harvard Law, and who was touring the country after resigning his post in protest over what he saw as a failure to employ enough people of color, not wanting to be a token. He talked with me and a few others who stayed behind about how strange it was that some members of the community now looked back on the segregation era as the good old days, in the sense that there was a thriving economy and relatively low crime, togetherness and an easy target for resentment.

I've had dinner with one girl here a few times and we've had some really great discussions, ranging from personal stuff to politics and race, batting around how things look from our own perspectives and what it's about to try to see things from the other person's eyes.

I've made the effort to expose myself to another point of view. It's not just from the white-owned media and ivory tower intellectualism as you seem to think. I've never been invited to a family dinner, church, neighborhood...it's not like I can impose myself. If I'm not welcome, I'm not welcome, at least in the real world. Often enough the color of my skin is enough to bias people against me. I'm sure you know what that feels like.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

Kumbaya....my lord....Kumbaya...

Come on now...let's join hands...

Kumbaya, my lord, Kumbaya...

Anonymous said...

Josh was either full of sport or naivet'e. Either way I'm sorry he gave up.

Then again, maybe he's still typing his next response.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Josh was either full of sport or naivet'e. Either way I'm sorry he gave up."

Sir, as are we. We were anxious to hear about the old Negro man he once spoke to when he bought a paper at a stop light. Or the Negro janitor in elementary school that Josh used to converse with...

Nothing more enjoyable than an "I know a Negro" story...

Josh said...

what it comes back to is simple: if you want an athlete to hold up as a role model, you don't even have to look very far. Just take Muhammed Ali or Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Now those were men worth admiring.

By jumping to the defense of every man with black skin, any time he gets in trouble...well, you've heard of The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf.' Sometimes people deserve what they get.

Josh said...

I was raised by a Liberian woman for several years, while my mother was in the hospital. Doesn't quite count, though, since Africans have a completely different outlook on life.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"if you want an athlete to hold up as a role model"

Sir, who is foolish enough to hold athletes up as their moral role models?

Please, unless you are speaking for yourself, refrain from assuming that everyone cares to list athletes as role models.

We simply consider them people. And would hope that as such, they would enjoy the same rights as you do.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"I was raised by a Liberian woman for several years, while my mother was in the hospital. Doesn't quite count, though, since Africans have a completely different outlook on life"

Sir, thank you for the update to your "I know a Negro" stories.

And no, having a Negro servant at home doesn't quite count.

Josh said...

you sure like labels, don't you? She was someone I loved, and who loved me. That continued long after she moved on in her life and became established in this country. Maybe that, along with growing up in a diverse area, is why I will always try to (and usually succeed to) look past skin color when I deal with people. Maybe you had bad experiences with white people growing up, or as an adult, and that's why you deliberately paint us with a broad brush. Or maybe you're partially kidding, but even if so I highly doubt you'll admit it.

Pacman isn't being locked up without a trial. The private organization called the National Football League is merely suspending relations with him for a year. Everyone except for employers, in this country, would like to believe that people have a right to a job. Unfortunately, no matter what you say, that simply isn't true.

Being treated as a human being and an adult partially entails having consequences to your actions. They don't have to be proven in a court of law for private bodies to act upon the information available to them, in pursuit of their own best interests. Often, a manager accused of sexual harrassment will be suspended from work until the investigation is completed, or even fired before that happens. That's just the way it is.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Maybe that, along with growing up in a diverse area, is why I will always try to (and usually succeed to) look past skin color when I deal with people"

Sir, then why do you keep bring up skin color?

Again, you give the stereotypical "I'm colorblind" statement. Yet all you talk about is color.

No one is colorblind. No one. And to suggest you are simply is demonstrative proof of your efforts to bury and hide your bigotry and prejudice. Giving empty stories of your "life" experiences to somehow fabricate a "colorblind" image only further reveals your nature.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"That's just the way it is."

Sir, so that makes it just, right or fair? It may not be "illegal" but is in stark contrast to our legal principles.

There was a time when folk in this country spoke of slavery...and they said, "That's just the way it is. "

Thanks for your progressive thoughts.

Josh said...

If you didn't keep throwing around the label, or implication, of racism to every comment made by a person not of your ethnicity, then we wouldn't have to respond by talking about how we're not racists. It's a fair reaction to an unfair accusation. It's not like I talk about it with every black person I meet. Usually I talk about sports or music or philosophy, or politics if I'm feeling adventurous.

Everybody in America is racist to some degree or another, in the sense that we've grown up in a society where race is the biggest issue, and also among the least discussed. It's sort of the elephant in the room. At the same time, I don't know how old you are but studies have shown that among younger people it's becoming considered to be less and less important a way of classifying individuals. Or maybe more of a detail than the principal source of identity.

Nobody can or really should be truly colorblind to the point that they can't notice and appreciate some of the differences between various communities. However, that perception of difference doesn't have to be accompanied by intolerance. They can be used as a mirror to show us our own prejudices, and we can learn a broader, more true view of the world.

As to your other question, I said earlier that "As distressing as it may be, there is no right to any particular job, outside of what is contracted. There is no right to have a job, just like there is no right to an education, just like there is no right to healthcare. If you want to change any of those sad facts of life in America, why not spend your energy there, instead of shilling for Pacman?"

I'd be more than happy to fight beside you if you were picking worthwhile fights.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"respond by talking about how we're not racists."

Sir, again. Emptiness. Words are worthless. You can say "I'm not racist" but your ideals and principles give you away.

"It's not like I talk about it with every black person I meet"

Sir, we doubt you talk about anything except your Negro "mami" with the folk you meet.

"At the same time, I don't know how old you are but studies have shown that among younger people it's becoming considered to be less and less important a way of classifying individuals."

Unfortunately, based on this discussion...we can't count you in those stats.

"They can be used as a mirror to show us our own prejudices, and we can learn a broader, more true view of the world."

Then we urge you to open your mind and learn. Please.

"There is no right to have a job"

Sir, this is one of the few points that you have made that we agree with. We haven't once said anyone had the right to a job. You are arguing this point with yourself, not us.

"I'd be more than happy to fight beside you if you were picking worthwhile fights. "

You mean fights that you deem to be fitting for the Negro...super. Just because you had a Negro housemaid for a few years, don't believe for a minute you set the agenda for Negro America. WOW! Talk about arrogance.

Josh said...

I must give you credit, you're an expert in making "straw man" arguments.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"I must give you credit, you're an expert in making "straw man" arguments."

Sir, we reject your credit.

You insinuate that we have not refuted your argument, by invoking the "straw man" label.

We say, at this juncture, after you have told us about your views on what Negro America's problems are, what workers' rights are, what OUR position is on the right to a job, that you are colorblind, all about every Negro you have met, who should be rolemodels, that WE think athletes are role models and what fights YOU are willing to support for Negroes...we say....

We don't even know what your original point was...so, we agree. If you want to label this a straw agrument, feel free. We can't refute your original point of view if you don't have one and don't stick to it.

Wasn't the straw man searching for a brain? Good luck.

Josh said...

okay, I'm bored of arguing with you. I know you've put together this site just for the sake of seeing who'd pick fights with you, and I appreciated the practice.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"I'm bored of arguing with you"

Racist.