PDA

View Full Version : Kramer (Michael Richards)


sumo
11-21-2006, 12:50 PM
anybody see Kramer apologize on David Letterman last night? - This dude is just as mental as his Seinfeld character... what do you guys think? Is he done? - I'm thinking in our current political climate, he will be kicked out of the loop permanently - the only place he will be able to find a seat - is right next to Jimmy the Greek - he will be known more for this incident than his work on sitcoms...

83-Steelers-43
11-21-2006, 04:12 PM
At first I thought it was a joke gone bad. Then Kramer lost it and started going off on a rant and repeating the "N" word over and over again. In my opinion, the guy is done and he did in fact cross the line. It went from comedy to a Robert C. Byrd after school special.

More reading and the actual film of Kramer going KKK: http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=12568

sumo
11-21-2006, 04:26 PM
At first I thought it was a joke gone bad. Then Kramer lost it and started going off on a rant and repeating the "N" word over and over again. In my opinion, the guy is done and he did in fact cross the line. It went from comedy to a Robert C. Byrd after school special.

More reading and the actual film of Kramer going KKK: http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=12568

The apology on Letterman was bizarre - he was shaking his hands all over the place and talking all loud - he reverted back to his Kramer character

83-Steelers-43
11-21-2006, 04:32 PM
Drugs? Some type of narcotic would be my guess.

Ambridge
11-21-2006, 04:42 PM
I heard Mel Gibson and Michael Richards were supposed to co-host a holiday special on the joys of celebrating Hanukkah and Kwanza in America.

3 to be 4
11-21-2006, 08:25 PM
i originally thought he was either on drugs or was trying to pull an "Andy Kaufman" but after watching his interview im convinced its drugs. While his apology seemed sincere he still never explained WHY he did it or what he was possibly thinking.

Mosca
11-21-2006, 08:52 PM
"I'm not a racist"... well, yes you are, Mike.

The first thing most of us white folks have to do is admit that WE ARE racists... but that we're working on it. It's not about hate; you don't have to hate other races. It's about attitude, and that's something we were given by our culture; we didn't pick it, it gave itself to us without us knowing so. We had no control over how we were formed. Break it up little by little. Fixing it takes your whole life.

If you're a white person who isn't a racist, I applaud your successful breaking of the chains. May we all do it someday.


Tom

Preacher
11-21-2006, 09:11 PM
"I'm not a racist"... well, yes you are, Mike.

The first thing most of us white folks have to do is admit that WE ARE racists... but that we're working on it. It's not about hate; you don't have to hate other races. It's about attitude, and that's something we were given by our culture; we didn't pick it, it gave itself to us without us knowing so. We had no control over how we were formed. Break it up little by little. Fixing it takes your whole life.

If you're a white person who isn't a racist, I applaud your successful breaking of the chains. May we all do it someday.


Tom

Tom, while I understand what your saying, I somewhat differ from you in some areas. But I don't think this thread is the place to discuss that. I would love to have private conversation if you want though! (I have learned not to have these discussions in the open, because people jump in, read the last one or two posts, and start assuming. It ruins the conversation for those who are taking thier time and posting intelligently).

For Richards, he was wrong. Period.

As I posted before in a different thread, I think he was responding to being called "Cracker." If that is true, the original person was also guilty of racism. However, a racist action does NOT allow for a racist response, and thus, Richards was clearly wrong.

About the drugs? Doubt it. He has always been wierd.

Mosca
11-22-2006, 08:21 AM
It's OK Preacher, I don't mind having the discussion in the open, because when I write something like that I'm usually BEGGING for a followup; I'll write it to help promote some thinking, sometimes to help me focus my thoughts and sometimes to provoke others to examine theirs.

What I mean when I say "racist" isn't hate; I don't hate blacks. What I mean is the way white people especially of my age (and Gibson's and Richards', I'm 52, Gibson is 50, Richards is 57) view the issue of race. It is seeing "race of man" as more important and defining than "man". If you were brought up that way (and blacks of our age were brought up that way as well; EVERYONE was), that worldview is almost impossible to change. It was imprinted on you through subtle signs, culturally. And it is what allows you to use race as an insult. You wouldn't think to use hair color as a hateful insult; blonde jokes notwithstanding, you don't categorize people according to hair color.

The modern issue of race in this country is irrevocably tied to slavery and cultural domination, and that is what gives it its onesidedness; it's why the audience can yell "cracker" but Richards can't yell back "******". In a larger sense "cracker" has no meaning as an insult to someone who is in a superior position socially... and if you don't agree that that particular social stratification is real, I refer you to Chris Rock's routine where he tells the white audience that none of them would trade places with him, and he's RICH. "Naw, I think I'll stick with this white thing a while, see where it takes me." But "******" carries the weight of oppression, slavery, and inhumanity in the sense of people as chattel.

So as a late-middle aged white male, what can I do? The first thing I can do is not congratulate myself for conquering racism; that misunderstands the word. The fact that I treat people of all races equally in the way I conduct my life is not the same as having changed a life-view that was imprinted on me from birth. It does allow others the dignity and respect that they deserve as fellow humans, but it does not change the fact that I am aware of doing it.

In order to kill my own racism, which I did not have a say in acquiring so I can't have any shame in admitting, I can only recognize it for what it is, conquer its appearances in my everyday life, and not pass it on to my children. If you are younger, then it is likely that your cultural influences are less pervasive than they were for me and my generation, and that your parents have already watered down their poison; and you in turn will do what you can to dilute it for your children. We can only hope so.



Tom

tony hipchest
11-22-2006, 08:42 AM
moscas views support everything i have learned not only from my own experiences but 6 courses in sociaology and 1 in psychology.

this brings to mind the changes that our culture have undergone in just the past 30 years. im sure most over 30 remember the saturday night live skit with richard pryor going in for a job interview being conducted by chevy chase. "....DEAD CRACKER!" that was on national airwaves and was in the same tone as what richard michaels did in a club in front of several hundered people. noone could get away with that skit now.

sumo
11-22-2006, 11:00 AM
It's OK Preacher, I don't mind having the discussion in the open, because when I write something like that I'm usually BEGGING for a followup; I'll write it to help promote some thinking, sometimes to help me focus my thoughts and sometimes to provoke others to examine theirs.

What I mean when I say "racist" isn't hate; I don't hate blacks. What I mean is the way white people especially of my age (and Gibson's and Richards', I'm 52, Gibson is 50, Richards is 57) view the issue of race. It is seeing "race of man" as more important and defining than "man". If you were brought up that way (and blacks of our age were brought up that way as well; EVERYONE was), that worldview is almost impossible to change. It was imprinted on you through subtle signs, culturally. And it is what allows you to use race as an insult. You wouldn't think to use hair color as a hateful insult; blonde jokes notwithstanding, you don't categorize people according to hair color.

The modern issue of race in this country is irrevocably tied to slavery and cultural domination, and that is what gives it its onesidedness; it's why the audience can yell "cracker" but Richards can't yell back "******". In a larger sense "cracker" has no meaning as an insult to someone who is in a superior position socially... and if you don't agree that that particular social stratification is real, I refer you to Chris Rock's routine where he tells the white audience that none of them would trade places with him, and he's RICH. "Naw, I think I'll stick with this white thing a while, see where it takes me." But "******" carries the weight of oppression, slavery, and inhumanity in the sense of people as chattel.

So as a late-middle aged white male, what can I do? The first thing I can do is not congratulate myself for conquering racism; that misunderstands the word. The fact that I treat people of all races equally in the way I conduct my life is not the same as having changed a life-view that was imprinted on me from birth. It does allow others the dignity and respect that they deserve as fellow humans, but it does not change the fact that I am aware of doing it.

In order to kill my own racism, which I did not have a say in acquiring so I can't have any shame in admitting, I can only recognize it for what it is, conquer its appearances in my everyday life, and not pass it on to my children. If you are younger, then it is likely that your cultural influences are less pervasive than they were for me and my generation, and that your parents have already watered down their poison; and you in turn will do what you can to dilute it for your children. We can only hope so.



Tom

Tom - we're having a similiar discussion on the Dan Patrick thread - I posted this in response to what Irvin said on the air during the Dan Patrick show -- his comment was real close to what Jimmy the Greek said back in the late 80s...


What Jimmy the Greek said is believed by many to be factual also - slaveowners did participate in selective breeding to produce the strongest workers - but that didn't make it a good thing to say on the air - people didn't worry about whether or not it was factual - they just ran him off the air and destroyed his career --

If an African American says the same thing ie Michale Irvin - they get a pass - they're both wrong to bring these things up on the air because they're hurtful to a lot of people - but the consequences are not the same for both -- Jimmy the Greek loses his career - Michael Irvin - gets a big laugh...

Mosca
11-22-2006, 11:23 AM
Yep, I saw that and I was going to include that in my answer but couldn't figure out a way to word it that wasn't clumsy. But the reason Irvin gets a pass is that he is speaking from the position of the aggrieved. Is it the same? Yes. Does it mean the same thing? No. Because the words aren't formed from the same cultural context. Irvin can say it and it is UNDERSTOOD as a joke; it is. JtG says it and it is understood as institutionalized racism, because it is. After all, a white man complaining about racism and how it affects his ability to maximize his life rings hollow.

Tom

sumo
11-22-2006, 11:41 AM
Yep, I saw that and I was going to include that in my answer but couldn't figure out a way to word it that wasn't clumsy. But the reason Irvin gets a pass is that he is speaking from the position of the aggrieved. Is it the same? Yes. Does it mean the same thing? No. Because the words aren't formed from the same cultural context. Irvin can say it and it is UNDERSTOOD as a joke; it is. JtG says it and it is understood as institutionalized racism, because it is. After all, a white man complaining about racism and how it affects his ability to maximize his life rings hollow.

Tom

I think the human condition will always cause people from different cultures, colors, religions, etc - to look differently at each other, but to say that institutionalized racism still exists is part of the problem and not the solution - in fact, we have institutionalized, legislated, and ajudicated (trying to sound like the reverends) the opposite ...the "institutionalized racism" you refer to has become more of an excuse for minorities than a reality (see every statement made by Bill Cosby for the last 10 years)- INMHO, your argument would have been true 30 years ago, but not now - does racism still exist - yes of course it does - is it still institutionalized? -- no

Mosca
11-22-2006, 02:38 PM
Well, I wrote what I did to make people think, and if it did that for you then it did what I intended. Thanks for considering what I said. I assume you are younger than I am; yes, racism will be less institutionalized for you than it has been for me. But for example, as long as people still get harassed for DWB (driving while black) it will still be there.

Every year, every day, every minute, it is less. But it still has a long way to go. And yes, Cosby's argument is very persuasive when he states that blacks have not helped in deinstitutionalizing it, that they have come to depend on it and on the accomodations designed to overcome it. But if you think of it, that very fact means that it IS still institutionalized. I don't mean by the government, or overtly through things like separate facilities; I mean institutionalized in the way people treat each other and interact with each other.

Again, thanks for reading and considering.



Tom

sumo
11-22-2006, 03:22 PM
Well, I wrote what I did to make people think, and if it did that for you then it did what I intended. Thanks for considering what I said. I assume you are younger than I am; yes, racism will be less institutionalized for you than it has been for me. But for example, as long as people still get harassed for DWB (driving while black) it will still be there.

Every year, every day, every minute, it is less. But it still has a long way to go. And yes, Cosby's argument is very persuasive when he states that blacks have not helped in deinstitutionalizing it, that they have come to depend on it and on the accomodations designed to overcome it. But if you think of it, that very fact means that it IS still institutionalized. I don't mean by the government, or overtly through things like separate facilities; I mean institutionalized in the way people treat each other and interact with each other.

Again, thanks for reading and considering.



Tom

Actually, I'm pretty freakin old:old: - I appreciate you being civil with a heated topic - I lived in South Africa for two years prior to Mandela's release (told you I'm old) - I lived in the townships (S African word for Ghettos) also spent time in Zimbawbwe and Swaziland - grew up in a school system that was forced to integrate - a lot of my feelings are based on experiences more than anything else - the reason I threw out Cosby's name is because I saw him speak in person a few years ago -and what he said was in direct correlation to what I had seen - it wasn't like he was discussing theories in a classroom - anyway, this is an issue thats not going away - I'm sure we will be discussing it again soon...thanks again for being civil

3 to be 4
11-22-2006, 06:06 PM
moscas views support everything i have learned not only from my own experiences but 6 courses in sociaology and 1 in psychology.

this brings to mind the changes that our culture have undergone in just the past 30 years. im sure most over 30 remember the saturday night live skit with richard pryor going in for a job interview being conducted by chevy chase. "....DEAD CRACKER!" that was on national airwaves and was in the same tone as what richard michaels did in a club in front of several hundered people. noone could get away with that skit now.


big difference, Tony. that was a SKIT. unless Richards was doing an "Andy Kaufman", that was a REAL exchange. that wasnt performance like Chase and Pryor's was.

Preacher
11-22-2006, 06:13 PM
I thank you all for your intelligent replies. I will hesitantly continue for now... I am just really leary becausee it is usual for people to jump in and miscontrue things.

As I read through the posts, there is one overarching area which I think needs to be addressed. Interestingly, it has nothing to do with race. The result however, has everything to do with our discussion.

That area is the discussion of absolutes. Do we or do we not beleive that something is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. In this case, It is my belief that every human being is made amago dei (in the image of God). Because of that beleif, any remark, comment, or rant of a serious nature (I LOVE messing with the Bengal fans... Not sure they could read this post!) is anathema to me.

Furthemore, it is an absolute that right and wrong exist as polar opposites. Thus, what is right in one setting (properly defined) is not wrong in another. Let me put flesh on this. I beleive it is wrong to murder. Period. Now, yes, I am for the death penalty, but that is what "Properly defined" means, I defined the act as murder, the illegal taking of innocent life.

To the discussion at hand, I see the amago dei as an absolute, as a result, it is absolutely wrong to speak harm against it. To do so from any position of race is racism. Thus, a white person can be racist against whites. A black person can be racist against blacks because they are using race to deny or denigrate the amago dei.

As a result of this reasoning, I disagree that most whites in America are racist based on culture. For instance, do not beleive I am a racist because I see every human being as amago dei. As such, every human being is absolutely worth of my respect (until they act in a way which causes me to put up boundaries to protect the amago dei within me). However,
I also beleive that every culture has problems and sins intrinsic to thier own culture.

************************************************** ********

As to the specific problem of racism and black america, there is a number of issues which I have seen while pastoring an black church, but I will get into that later.

Mosca
11-22-2006, 08:28 PM
sumo, thanks for your input coming from a place where "institutionalized racism" is meant literally, as it was in the US.

Preacher, I can understand where you are coming from. I understand how laying down amago dei as a first principle gives a logical structure for how to deal with the issue.

I can't change a lot of things, but I will change what I can. I can pass righteous thinking on to my daughter, and I can stand against racism when I recognize it. If it really has to happen one person at a time, and if sometime it's one step forward and three back, well, I still think you have to always take that one step forward. Again. And again. I know that my own experience isn't universal, and seeing just a couple different points of view here shows just how true that is.

Now, I have to ask: how many black fans are here at SF? And, would there be any point to any of you helping me understand this issue, or would it be pointless and would discussing it be more like taking a step backwards, that any true progress must be made in real daily life?

And, if there are NO black fans here at SF, isn't that an illustration of how racism stratifies and segregates our society? After all, here on the internet no one knows your race, your sex, your age, your education, unless you disclose it. I'm not asking this as a leading question, I'm asking it as a genuine question that requires some thought (ie, I don't know the answer and haven't formulated a guess yet).

Tom

Preacher
11-22-2006, 10:26 PM
I'm not so sure he's done. The public memory's gotten a lot shorter--Trent Lott is back in the Senate Republican leadership after just four years.

I don't think he has any business doing standup comedy anymore. If you let a heckler get to you that badly, you shouldn't be in the business. As far as his career...what career? He was already a has-been.


I agree that he shouldn't do standup. He doesn't have the ability and needs to give it up.

Interesting reference to Trent Lott. I think that is part of the problem. To my understanding, the reference of Trent Lott had NOTHING to do with racism, until it was twisted for political gain. In the end, it does the same damage as women that claim rape/sexual abuse for financial gain (probably 1 percent.. maybe 1.5.. I am not saying it is widespread...)

The problem is... those are the cases that end up being big... and when they blow up.. like the Kobe Bryant case... those cases overshadow the real cases and cast just a little more suspicion on all claims of rape... sadly. The Trent Lott issue, IMHO, did the same. Racism was pushed to the place were 40% of the country saw it as a political ploy for party gain, hurting those people who actually were dealing with REAL race issues. Hurting them because after many people saw what happened to Lott, they didn't want to talk about racism.

I think if this nation wants to get serious about stopping real racism, we must de-politicize it.

X-Terminator
11-22-2006, 11:02 PM
sumo, thanks for your input coming from a place where "institutionalized racism" is meant literally, as it was in the US.

Preacher, I can understand where you are coming from. I understand how laying down amago dei as a first principle gives a logical structure for how to deal with the issue.

I can't change a lot of things, but I will change what I can. I can pass righteous thinking on to my daughter, and I can stand against racism when I recognize it. If it really has to happen one person at a time, and if sometime it's one step forward and three back, well, I still think you have to always take that one step forward. Again. And again. I know that my own experience isn't universal, and seeing just a couple different points of view here shows just how true that is.

Now, I have to ask: how many black fans are here at SF? And, would there be any point to any of you helping me understand this issue, or would it be pointless and would discussing it be more like taking a step backwards, that any true progress must be made in real daily life?

And, if there are NO black fans here at SF, isn't that an illustration of how racism stratifies and segregates our society? After all, here on the internet no one knows your race, your sex, your age, your education, unless you disclose it. I'm not asking this as a leading question, I'm asking it as a genuine question that requires some thought (ie, I don't know the answer and haven't formulated a guess yet).

Tom


Here's one black fan, and I have to say that your perspective is different from many of those I've heard. My personal feelings on race are along the lines of Bill Cosby, but very few of us actually speak up about it because we have a tendency to be shouted down and ostracised for daring to have a different viewpoint. Black racism is the "dirty little secret" in America - it is very deeply ingrained in a lot of our society and many of them are pretty open about it. In fact, the worst racism I have ever experienced or seen has come from other blacks - some of them in my own family. There's no question that we've made a TON of progress in race relations over the years, but I can see some regressing in the future if nothing is done about the clear double-standard that exists when it comes to racism (this incident is a prime example of that double-standard, IMO), and start cleaning up our own back yard, so to speak. Some may argue that some of that "regression" has already begun given some of the responses I've seen on other message boards on this subject.

Preacher
11-22-2006, 11:17 PM
Here's one black fan, and I have to say that your perspective is different from many of those I've heard. My personal feelings on race are along the lines of Bill Cosby, but very few of us actually speak up about it because we have a tendency to be shouted down and ostracised for daring to have a different viewpoint. Black racism is the "dirty little secret" in America - it is very deeply ingrained in a lot of our society and many of them are pretty open about it. In fact, the worst racism I have ever experienced or seen has come from other blacks - some of them in my own family. There's no question that we've made a TON of progress in race relations over the years, but I can see some regressing in the future if nothing is done about the clear double-standard that exists when it comes to racism (this incident is a prime example of that double-standard, IMO), and start cleaning up our own back yard, so to speak. Some may argue that some of that "regression" has already begun given some of the responses I've seen on other message boards on this subject.

Xterm... WHile I am white, your comments resonate with my experience pastoring a black church. What gets me the most, is the fact that since the previous pastor (who was black), would not "get into bed" politically with the other pastors... the other pastors (all black as well) turned on him and started rumors in the community that the church was dealing drugs, and that was the only way the church was attracting young people.

From what I saw, the biggest oppression in the community was from the community itself. If someone chose to rise above the crowd, they were beat (literally, children would be beat up for getting A's or B's in school, and told they weren't being black anymore). This is just one example of what I saw. It completely saddened me.

This is not to say that I beleive racism doesn't exist, nor that the people in this community didn't deal with racism towards them. This is just one more issue added on to the problem.

Mosca
11-23-2006, 09:44 AM
Man, thanks to everyone who is speaking up. I really appreciate the insight.


Tom

3 to be 4
11-23-2006, 11:03 AM
Giddyup

Chronicgaming
11-23-2006, 12:36 PM
Man, thanks to everyone who is speaking up. I really appreciate the insight.


Tom

Agreed... I think that this is one of the best threads that I've read on the forum. It think that there is hope since a good discussion can come out of such a stupid event. I also agree that Richards should be done with standup. If he was good, he would have been able to integrate what the hecklers were calling him into his act. A good standup should be able to handle heckling.

Livinginthe past
11-23-2006, 02:44 PM
Well everyone is guilty of prejudicial behaviour, that includes sexism and racism, to some degree.

These prejudices are wholly dependent on the environment you spend your time , at home, with friends and at work - and in some cases a negative personal experience.

There is a pretty overt racist atmosphere over here in the UK, mostly of the anti-Muslim and anti-eastern european nature.

The former are a bunch of raghead terrorist suicide bombers and the latter are undercutting us for labouring jobs and putting us out of work.

Alot of people believe these statements to be fact, and if you look hard enough you can find enough examples of both to confirm their supposed veracity.

Personally speaking, the racism I come across is mainly anti-Asian - ie Pakistani, Bengali and Indian - these people get grouped under the one heading - 'Paki's' - which tells you enough about the ignorance of the people concerned.

I am surrounded by overtly racist attitudes pretty much every day, most of my workmates hold strong anti-Muslim views and some of my friends do too.

Unfortunately so do my parents, the irony being that they are Irish immigrants themselves and it would have not been uncommon for them to see signs in cafe's when they first emmigrated saying 'No Dogs or Irish Allowed'.

Instead of this making the Irish more sympathetic to the plight of the latest immigrants from Asia it makes them even more eager to assimilate themselves with the rest of the population - just glad that they are not the focal point for the hostility anymore.

And I guess thats what alot of it comes down to, ignorance based on stereotypes perpetuated by people who want to be part of the 'big gang' - some things dont change even after we leave school.

I dont mind admiting that when I was younger I made childish, ignorant statements mainly based upon a need to 'fit in' - it takes each person a different amount of time to work things out for themselves - some people never get there.

NM

83-Steelers-43
11-23-2006, 03:09 PM
There's just no way to spin it, unlike Mel Gibson's drunken chat with the cops. Richards just went OFF, calmed down, then went off again with repeated uses of the n-word. This has to be a career-killer for him (not like it was going well anyway).

Hecklers are a fact of life for standup comedians and you just gotta learn the appropriate comebacks, like this one:

'Hey, I don't come down to where you work & knock the burgers off the grill.'

If they continue, ratchet it up:

'Hey, I don't come down to where you work & knock the dicks out of your mouth.'

tony hipchest
11-23-2006, 03:15 PM
Personally speaking, the racism I come across is mainly anti-Asian - ie Pakistani, Bengali and Indian - these people get grouped under the one heading - 'Paki's' - which tells you enough about the ignorance of the people concerned.

NManti- bengali sentiment is prevalent on this board too.

the bengalis suck

:chuckle:

silver & black
11-23-2006, 06:58 PM
It's OK Preacher, I don't mind having the discussion in the open, because when I write something like that I'm usually BEGGING for a followup; I'll write it to help promote some thinking, sometimes to help me focus my thoughts and sometimes to provoke others to examine theirs.

What I mean when I say "racist" isn't hate; I don't hate blacks. What I mean is the way white people especially of my age (and Gibson's and Richards', I'm 52, Gibson is 50, Richards is 57) view the issue of race. It is seeing "race of man" as more important and defining than "man". If you were brought up that way (and blacks of our age were brought up that way as well; EVERYONE was), that worldview is almost impossible to change. It was imprinted on you through subtle signs, culturally. And it is what allows you to use race as an insult. You wouldn't think to use hair color as a hateful insult; blonde jokes notwithstanding, you don't categorize people according to hair color.

The modern issue of race in this country is irrevocably tied to slavery and cultural domination, and that is what gives it its onesidedness; it's why the audience can yell "cracker" but Richards can't yell back "******". In a larger sense "cracker" has no meaning as an insult to someone who is in a superior position socially... and if you don't agree that that particular social stratification is real, I refer you to Chris Rock's routine where he tells the white audience that none of them would trade places with him, and he's RICH. "Naw, I think I'll stick with this white thing a while, see where it takes me." But "******" carries the weight of oppression, slavery, and inhumanity in the sense of people as chattel.

So as a late-middle aged white male, what can I do? The first thing I can do is not congratulate myself for conquering racism; that misunderstands the word. The fact that I treat people of all races equally in the way I conduct my life is not the same as having changed a life-view that was imprinted on me from birth. It does allow others the dignity and respect that they deserve as fellow humans, but it does not change the fact that I am aware of doing it.

In order to kill my own racism, which I did not have a say in acquiring so I can't have any shame in admitting, I can only recognize it for what it is, conquer its appearances in my everyday life, and not pass it on to my children. If you are younger, then it is likely that your cultural influences are less pervasive than they were for me and my generation, and that your parents have already watered down their poison; and you in turn will do what you can to dilute it for your children. We can only hope so.



Tom

That is a powerful post... well said.

I'm five years younger than you, and raising two daughters, ages 13 and 10. I have done as you say, and try not to pass on what I grew up with, and what is ingrained in me toward minorities. I don't hate anyone, and I treat everyone with respect, but you are right... you cannot just turn off the "racism" that has been forged in you from your cultural surroundings, no matter how much you wish you could.

I wonder how many generations it will take before this is no longer true. Personally, I don't believe mankind is capable of ridding itself of racism, altogether.

silver & black
11-23-2006, 07:19 PM
It's OK Preacher, I don't mind having the discussion in the open, because when I write something like that I'm usually BEGGING for a followup; I'll write it to help promote some thinking, sometimes to help me focus my thoughts and sometimes to provoke others to examine theirs.

What I mean when I say "racist" isn't hate; I don't hate blacks. What I mean is the way white people especially of my age (and Gibson's and Richards', I'm 52, Gibson is 50, Richards is 57) view the issue of race. It is seeing "race of man" as more important and defining than "man". If you were brought up that way (and blacks of our age were brought up that way as well; EVERYONE was), that worldview is almost impossible to change. It was imprinted on you through subtle signs, culturally. And it is what allows you to use race as an insult. You wouldn't think to use hair color as a hateful insult; blonde jokes notwithstanding, you don't categorize people according to hair color.

The modern issue of race in this country is irrevocably tied to slavery and cultural domination, and that is what gives it its onesidedness; it's why the audience can yell "cracker" but Richards can't yell back "******". In a larger sense "cracker" has no meaning as an insult to someone who is in a superior position socially... and if you don't agree that that particular social stratification is real, I refer you to Chris Rock's routine where he tells the white audience that none of them would trade places with him, and he's RICH. "Naw, I think I'll stick with this white thing a while, see where it takes me." But "******" carries the weight of oppression, slavery, and inhumanity in the sense of people as chattel.

So as a late-middle aged white male, what can I do? The first thing I can do is not congratulate myself for conquering racism; that misunderstands the word. The fact that I treat people of all races equally in the way I conduct my life is not the same as having changed a life-view that was imprinted on me from birth. It does allow others the dignity and respect that they deserve as fellow humans, but it does not change the fact that I am aware of doing it.

In order to kill my own racism, which I did not have a say in acquiring so I can't have any shame in admitting, I can only recognize it for what it is, conquer its appearances in my everyday life, and not pass it on to my children. If you are younger, then it is likely that your cultural influences are less pervasive than they were for me and my generation, and that your parents have already watered down their poison; and you in turn will do what you can to dilute it for your children. We can only hope so.



Tom

That is a powerful post... well said.

I'm five years younger than you, and raising two daughters, ages 13 and 10. I have done as you say, and try not to pass on what I grew up with, and what is engrained in me toward minorities. I don't hate anyone, and I treat everyone with respect, but you are right... you cannot just turn off the "racism" that has been forged in you from your cultural surroundings, no matter how much you wish you could.

I wonder how many generations it will take before this is no longer true. Personally, I don't believe mankind is capable of ridding itself of racism, altogether.

3 to be 4
11-23-2006, 09:07 PM
anti- bengali sentiment is prevalent on this board too.

the bengalis suck

:chuckle:


You're a Bengal!!!!! You're a Bengal!!!!!!! You're a Bengal!!!!!!!! You're a Bengal!!!!!!!!!
You're a Bengal!!!!!!!


Does that shock you?!?!?! A White man called someone a Bengal! ooooohhhh

50 years ago you would have been a Brown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sumo
11-24-2006, 02:33 PM
Here's one black fan, and I have to say that your perspective is different from many of those I've heard. My personal feelings on race are along the lines of Bill Cosby, but very few of us actually speak up about it because we have a tendency to be shouted down and ostracised for daring to have a different viewpoint. Black racism is the "dirty little secret" in America - it is very deeply ingrained in a lot of our society and many of them are pretty open about it. In fact, the worst racism I have ever experienced or seen has come from other blacks - some of them in my own family. There's no question that we've made a TON of progress in race relations over the years, but I can see some regressing in the future if nothing is done about the clear double-standard that exists when it comes to racism (this incident is a prime example of that double-standard, IMO), and start cleaning up our own back yard, so to speak. Some may argue that some of that "regression" has already begun given some of the responses I've seen on other message boards on this subject.

X - thanks for your input - I heard Bill Cosby speak live along with Colin Powell several years ago ...I have great admiration for both of these guys - Bill started his speech by listing all of the programs, scholarships, opportunities, professions, etc available to everybody - he challenged the young people in attendance to take advantage of what's there - and then he followed by saying the toughest part of the process will not be getting the grants, scholarships, jobs, etc --he said,"the toughest part will be the discrimation you will face from your own community.." - he urged them to be strong and fight through it - it was the most inspirational speech I've ever heard -- I know you're not alone, but I won't try to pretend to know what the reality of your environment is ...

sumo
11-24-2006, 03:00 PM
There is a pretty overt racist atmosphere over here in the UK, mostly of the anti-Muslim and anti-eastern european nature.

NM

Have you heard of a book called "While Europe Slept" - I read this book and it absolutely blew me away - I have been wanting to get some perspective from Eurpoeans with regards to Muslim immigration.. I had a friend that lived in France last year - maybe it was just the area he lived in, but he said the challlenges we face in the US with our southern border pales compared to what Europe is going through with their Muslim population

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-24-2006, 03:07 PM
It's OK Preacher, I don't mind having the discussion in the open, because when I write something like that I'm usually BEGGING for a followup; I'll write it to help promote some thinking, sometimes to help me focus my thoughts and sometimes to provoke others to examine theirs.

What I mean when I say "racist" isn't hate; I don't hate blacks. What I mean is the way white people especially of my age (and Gibson's and Richards', I'm 52, Gibson is 50, Richards is 57) view the issue of race. It is seeing "race of man" as more important and defining than "man". If you were brought up that way (and blacks of our age were brought up that way as well; EVERYONE was), that worldview is almost impossible to change. It was imprinted on you through subtle signs, culturally. And it is what allows you to use race as an insult. You wouldn't think to use hair color as a hateful insult; blonde jokes notwithstanding, you don't categorize people according to hair color.

The modern issue of race in this country is irrevocably tied to slavery and cultural domination, and that is what gives it its onesidedness; it's why the audience can yell "cracker" but Richards can't yell back "******". In a larger sense "cracker" has no meaning as an insult to someone who is in a superior position socially... and if you don't agree that that particular social stratification is real, I refer you to Chris Rock's routine where he tells the white audience that none of them would trade places with him, and he's RICH. "Naw, I think I'll stick with this white thing a while, see where it takes me." But "******" carries the weight of oppression, slavery, and inhumanity in the sense of people as chattel.

So as a late-middle aged white male, what can I do? The first thing I can do is not congratulate myself for conquering racism; that misunderstands the word. The fact that I treat people of all races equally in the way I conduct my life is not the same as having changed a life-view that was imprinted on me from birth. It does allow others the dignity and respect that they deserve as fellow humans, but it does not change the fact that I am aware of doing it.

In order to kill my own racism, which I did not have a say in acquiring so I can't have any shame in admitting, I can only recognize it for what it is, conquer its appearances in my everyday life, and not pass it on to my children. If you are younger, then it is likely that your cultural influences are less pervasive than they were for me and my generation, and that your parents have already watered down their poison; and you in turn will do what you can to dilute it for your children. We can only hope so.



Tom

I am 26, and I can honestly say that race does not make a difference in my life and the way i interact with people. I think that once my kids are older (which I do not have yet) however, once they grow up, in their generation, I feel racism will disappear.
Anyone who seriously is racist (wheather you are black or white) Get Over It. What is the point??

WITH THAT SAID........YES I THINK "CRAMER" IS DONE

GO STEELERS:tt02:

klick81
11-24-2006, 03:59 PM
While my sentiments fall more in line with Mosca's, I am deeply greatful for all of you who have been posting in here. I'm so used to reading the childish, ignorant ramblings on the same topic in other forums I regularly visit. Defenitely refreshing...

Livinginthe past
11-24-2006, 04:53 PM
Have you heard of a book called "While Europe Slept" - I read this book and it absolutely blew me away - I have been wanting to get some perspective from Eurpoeans with regards to Muslim immigration.. I had a friend that lived in France last year - maybe it was just the area he lived in, but he said the challlenges we face in the US with our southern border pales compared to what Europe is going through with their Muslim population

I haven't read that book, but im always game for a new perspective on the situation here.

I'll look it up - thanks.

NM

Stillers#1
11-26-2006, 07:26 PM
Had this been Bernie Mac callin a white person a cracker, in the same context, no one would care. The double standards held in this country in regard to race, are ridiculous. We have all of the black comedians and actors demnding apologies, but the shoe on the other foot, they would be laughing about it.

I don't think this was a cool thing to do, not at all. However, it is being a bit played out a bit too much IMO.

hardwork
11-26-2006, 09:36 PM
"I'm not a racist"... well, yes you are, Mike.

The first thing most of us white folks have to do is admit that WE ARE racists... but that we're working on it. It's not about hate; you don't have to hate other races. It's about attitude, and that's something we were given by our culture; we didn't pick it, it gave itself to us without us knowing so. We had no control over how we were formed. Break it up little by little. Fixing it takes your whole life.

If you're a white person who isn't a racist, I applaud your successful breaking of the chains. May we all do it someday.


Tom


There is truth in the idea that racist concepts require constant attention.

There is a study going on at Harvard, or maybe its Princeton, where an individual takes a computer generated test involving placing words that represent ideals in either the column headed "white" , or the column headed "black". The, white, professor who designed the test, and whom would be considered progressive by most standards, fails the test more often then not. (to fail is to show a bias for your own race, and a prejudice against the other)

The results, so far, of the study, are what Tom indicates in his post. That racism is within most of us, white or black, and that most of us have to be mindful of it, and realize we are works in progress.

Stillers#1
11-27-2006, 12:06 AM
That racism is within most of us, white or black, and that most of us have to be mindful of it, and realize we are works in progress.

Racism and ethnocentrism are two different things. Most white people are ethnocentric, not racsit.

Preacher
11-27-2006, 01:25 AM
Racism and ethnocentrism are two different things. Most white people are ethnocentric, not racsit.


I think this post is a VERY important distinction to make. Almost all people are ethnocentric. However, there is a great difference between ethnocentricity and xenophobia. It is only when the former gives way to the latter that a person could truly be called racist.

And yes, I consider calling someone a "cracker" or a "Ni@@er" xenophobic.

Stillers#1
11-27-2006, 07:38 AM
Xenophobia - an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

ethnocentrism - 1. Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
2. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

I am failing to see how cracker or ****** are xenophobic comments. Even your post suggests the tone which these words are used. White people are typically afraid to use the word ******, often referring to it as the "n-word", blck people however, have no problem throwing around the word cracker. I know the word ****** was created and used by the white man first, and was used in hatred, however, this word has been kept alive by the blacks. Carcker, however, was created by blacks as a racist word to use against wite people, and is also kept alive by the blacks.

My point is, black people are crying foul over this isolated incident, when they are just as much to blame for the racism in the world today.

Mosca
11-27-2006, 08:21 AM
Keep in mind that I'm not saying anything is bad or good; I'm saying it simply is, and if you want to change it, you have to know what it is and how it manifests itself.

Leonard Pitts, in his Sunday column, makes the point that one example is that Seinfeld, the show which made Richards famous, is set in New York, one of the most racially diverse cities on the planet... but there are no blacks. (Think about it. Not just no blacks among the lead players, but not in any scenes as extras, either. NYC is presented as a white monolith. No blacks anywhere, not in the coffee shop, not in parking garages, not in J Peterman, not on the streets, nowhere.)

It manifests itself here, when you imagine yourself writing to an all-white audience. I did.

Part of the problem is that black people and white people are pointing the finger, when the truth is that EVERYONE needs to pitch in to change it. Kinda like the Steelers, huh? Whites can't change it alone. Blacks can't change it alone. But, we also can't change it together unless we also change it ourselves without consideration for what others might do, with full knowledge that it might not be reciprocated. And with the recognition that people tend to take advantage of concessions rather than cooperate with them.


Tom

sumo
11-27-2006, 11:16 AM
Keep in mind that I'm not saying anything is bad or good; I'm saying it simply is, and if you want to change it, you have to know what it is and how it manifests itself.

Leonard Pitts, in his Sunday column, makes the point that one example is that Seinfeld, the show which made Richards famous, is set in New York, one of the most racially diverse cities on the planet... but there are no blacks. (Think about it. Not just no blacks among the lead players, but not in any scenes as extras, either. NYC is presented as a white monolith. No blacks anywhere, not in the coffee shop, not in parking garages, not in J Peterman, not on the streets, nowhere.)

It manifests itself here, when you imagine yourself writing to an all-white audience. I did.

Part of the problem is that black people and white people are pointing the finger, when the truth is that EVERYONE needs to pitch in to change it. Kinda like the Steelers, huh? Whites can't change it alone. Blacks can't change it alone. But, we also can't change it together unless we also change it ourselves without consideration for what others might do, with full knowledge that it might not be reciprocated. And with the recognition that people tend to take advantage of concessions rather than cooperate with them.


Tom

IMHO, your comments about Seinfeld are a little overstated (I will disclose my bias upfront - Seinfeld is my favorite show) - one of the funniest characters is the attorney who wants to sue everybody - he's a cross between Don King and Johnnie Cochran and he was on several episodes - there was also several episodes featuring two militant gays that always beat up Kramer, the Soup Nazi, the Pakistani and Italian restaurant owners, the lead character is Jewish, there are black actors at Peterman, and there are several scenes with black extras, etc - I don't know...whoever wrote that column needs to check their facts

Mosca
11-27-2006, 12:29 PM
IMHO, your comments about Seinfeld are a little overstated (I will disclose my bias upfront - Seinfeld is my favorite show) - one of the funniest characters is the attorney who wants to sue everybody - he's a cross between Don King and Johnnie Cochran and he was on several episodes - there was also several episodes featuring two militant gays that always beat up Kramer, the Soup Nazi, the Pakistani and Italian restaurant owners, the lead character is Jewish, there are black actors at Peterman, and there are several scenes with black extras, etc - I don't know...whoever wrote that column needs to check their facts


Sumo, I added the part in parentheses. I'm not much of a Seinfeld fan. I like the show, but I haven't seen all the episodes. In recalling the ones I've seen, I don't remember seeing NYC represented as racially diverse as it actually is, that's why I added that. But if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong and I apologize.

I really liked the episode about the militant gays. I don't remember the suing attorney.


Tom

sumo
11-27-2006, 01:14 PM
Sumo, I added the part in parentheses. I'm not much of a Seinfeld fan. I like the show, but I haven't seen all the episodes. In recalling the ones I've seen, I don't remember seeing NYC represented as racially diverse as it actually is, that's why I added that. But if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong and I apologize.

I really liked the episode about the militant gays. I don't remember the suing attorney.


Tom

No problem Tom - you're right Seinfeld is not as diverse as it should be if it's intention is to represent New York as it truly is ... I said the comment was "overstated" - that doesn't mean there is no truth at all to it ...but I think Seinfeld's main intention was to make an entertaining show...

3 to be 4
11-27-2006, 09:27 PM
George's boss with Yankees was black
The manager of the diner was black
The Johnnie Cochran type attorney was black
the director of the homeless shelter ( who bought back the muffin stumps)
the security guard George got the chair for
the woman at the bookstore ( who was going to punch George in the brain)
Elaines Native American friend
The Chinese American woman who was a lawyer and the sister of the delivery man
the Pakistani restaurant owner
the militant Gays ( WHO doesnt want to wear the ribbon!?)

it goes on and on. please, lets not blame Jerry Seinfeld or the Seinfeld show for idiot Michael Richards. In fact, if you've watched Curb Your Enthusiasm, the issue of race is dealt with in a hilarious yet honest way. Larry, constantly getting caught by Wanda, providing sort of the role of his conscience every time he misteps racially. hysterical stuff.

sumo
11-28-2006, 12:32 PM
George's boss with Yankees was black
The manager of the diner was black
The Johnnie Cochran type attorney was black
the director of the homeless shelter ( who bought back the muffin stumps)
the security guard George got the chair for
the woman at the bookstore ( who was going to punch George in the brain)
Elaines Native American friend
The Chinese American woman who was a lawyer and the sister of the delivery man
the Pakistani restaurant owner
the militant Gays ( WHO doesnt want to wear the ribbon!?)

it goes on and on. please, lets not blame Jerry Seinfeld or the Seinfeld show for idiot Michael Richards. In fact, if you've watched Curb Your Enthusiasm, the issue of race is dealt with in a hilarious yet honest way. Larry, constantly getting caught by Wanda, providing sort of the role of his conscience every time he misteps racially. hysterical stuff.

Of course everybody probably knows this already - but Jerry is the one who arranged for Kramer to come on the David Letterman show to offer his first of several apologies...

BlacknGold76
11-28-2006, 01:55 PM
What Michael Richards did was wrong. However, I remember a certain Rev. Jackson using the word H-Town to describe NY as being town made up of mostly Jewish people and I cannot remember an apology being offered, I could be wrong, or on Sunday when Michael Vick flipped Flacon Fans off and apologized later on. What I am saying is the standard rule of thumb must apply equally to the treatment of all who make racist comments. On Sunday I was watching ESPN and Jeremy Schaap was talking about a DB for the Chicago Bears who was in a Dennys Restaurant who walked up to a guy who was minding his own business and slapped him and called him an"ugly jew". THe DB's friends beat this guy up. This DB went on to state that his lawyers were jewish, which I guess is the closest thing that this guy could offer as an apology. The NFL suspended this DB for one game for his off the field incident. Brian Urlacher's comment about the whole situation was "that stinks", not because this guy got beat up and was called a name , but because his DB teammate was going to miss a crucial game against the New England Patriots. My question is why aren't the same questions being asked of Jesse Jackson and Michael Vick and this DB for the Bears that I mentioned above. My whole point is that they make an example of the white guy who was wrong and that's fair in Michael Richards case. However, the same media type attention should be applied as well in the other situations too. Its like Martin Luther King once stated "Don't judge me by the color of my skin, but instead by the content of my Character." :computer:

klick81
11-28-2006, 02:00 PM
Where does Michael Vick fit in any of this. Unless his finger was directed at someone specifically because of their race, he has nothing to do witht his discussion.

BlacknGold76
11-28-2006, 02:22 PM
Where does Michael Vick fit in any of this. Unless his finger was directed at someone specifically because of their race, he has nothing to do witht his discussion.

I am assuming that it is a multicultural fanbase so that would include everyone that was there fans or non-fans. I know that this a bit of a stretch but something to consider.:wink02:

sumo
11-28-2006, 02:23 PM
Where does Michael Vick fit in any of this. Unless his finger was directed at someone specifically because of their race, he has nothing to do witht his discussion.

I don't want to speak for the member posting, but I think his point may have to do with the public scrutiny following any controversial action - maybe he's trying to point out that since Michale Vick is an AA, he does not receive the same outrage as if it were a white person doing the same thing - regardless of who the gesture was made to? - even then - I'm not sure if I agree - because if Tom Brady or Michael Vick flip off the crowd - I think both will be fined equally by the NFL and be required to make public apologies --- however some of his other examples do have merit...

BlacknGold76
11-28-2006, 02:24 PM
I don't want to speak for the member posting, but I think his point may have to do with the public scrutiny following any controversial action - maybe he's trying to point out that since Michale Vick is an AA, he does not receive the same outrage as if it were a white person doing the same thing - regardless of who the gesture was made to? - even then - I'm not sure if I agree - because if Tom Brady or Michael Vick flip off the crowd - I think both will be fined equally by the NFL and be required to make public apologies --- however some of his other examples do have merit...


Thanks Sumo:thumbsup:

Preacher
11-28-2006, 02:28 PM
Xenophobia - an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

ethnocentrism - 1. Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
2. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

I am failing to see how cracker or ****** are xenophobic comments. Even your post suggests the tone which these words are used. White people are typically afraid to use the word ******, often referring to it as the "n-word", blck people however, have no problem throwing around the word cracker. I know the word ****** was created and used by the white man first, and was used in hatred, however, this word has been kept alive by the blacks. Carcker, however, was created by blacks as a racist word to use against wite people, and is also kept alive by the blacks.

My point is, black people are crying foul over this isolated incident, when they are just as much to blame for the racism in the world today.

I consider Ni##er and Cr##ker (figured if one is wrong to type in this context, so should the other be) both to be xenophobic because they are used to denigrate the image of God within someone else. Denigration of another person is usually a blatant sign of fear. So yeah, I do consider it xenophobic.

As to the the definition of ethnocentric... I am using the 2nd definition... as the first would cause too much confusion with how I am using xenophobia.

Your point is well taken however, See my original and followup posts in this thread... I articulated the racism I saw while pastoring a church in an inner city... black on black racism...

Steel12
11-28-2006, 03:18 PM
"I'm not a racist"... well, yes you are, Mike.

The first thing most of us white folks have to do is admit that WE ARE racists... but that we're working on it. It's not about hate; you don't have to hate other races. It's about attitude, and that's something we were given by our culture; we didn't pick it, it gave itself to us without us knowing so. We had no control over how we were formed. Break it up little by little. Fixing it takes your whole life.

If you're a white person who isn't a racist, I applaud your successful breaking of the chains. May we all do it someday.


Tom

Finally...a white person tells the truth. Much respect to you!

Steel12
11-28-2006, 03:32 PM
sumo, thanks for your input coming from a place where "institutionalized racism" is meant literally, as it was in the US.

Preacher, I can understand where you are coming from. I understand how laying down amago dei as a first principle gives a logical structure for how to deal with the issue.

I can't change a lot of things, but I will change what I can. I can pass righteous thinking on to my daughter, and I can stand against racism when I recognize it. If it really has to happen one person at a time, and if sometime it's one step forward and three back, well, I still think you have to always take that one step forward. Again. And again. I know that my own experience isn't universal, and seeing just a couple different points of view here shows just how true that is.

Now, I have to ask: how many black fans are here at SF? And, would there be any point to any of you helping me understand this issue, or would it be pointless and would discussing it be more like taking a step backwards, that any true progress must be made in real daily life?

And, if there are NO black fans here at SF, isn't that an illustration of how racism stratifies and segregates our society? After all, here on the internet no one knows your race, your sex, your age, your education, unless you disclose it. I'm not asking this as a leading question, I'm asking it as a genuine question that requires some thought (ie, I don't know the answer and haven't formulated a guess yet).

Tom

I'm black and here's my take on the situation...There will always be racism so either deal with it and move on or let it affect you and slow you down. I've heard the recording and to me, he's a jackass. Do I feel all white people are jackasses now? No. But I do feel that every person is racist to an extent. I didn't hear that the dudes in the audience called him a cracker but if they did, then they shoulda been removed from the building. If they didn't and they just said that he was a horrible comedian (which is what I heard), then Michael Richards is a racist and his apology was to save his reputation. People always say what they feel when they are provoked. Obviously, he feels that black people are inferior. But...he isn't white, is he? Anyway, that's my take...

Preacher
11-28-2006, 03:41 PM
EDIT: I know what I was trying to say in this post... but re-reading it... I realized it could be taken wrong. So I am canceling the post and saying instead:

Steel12... I disagree with EVERYONE being a racist... but other then that... I really liked your post.

Steel12
11-28-2006, 03:43 PM
Here's one black fan, and I have to say that your perspective is different from many of those I've heard. My personal feelings on race are along the lines of Bill Cosby, but very few of us actually speak up about it because we have a tendency to be shouted down and ostracised for daring to have a different viewpoint. Black racism is the "dirty little secret" in America - it is very deeply ingrained in a lot of our society and many of them are pretty open about it. In fact, the worst racism I have ever experienced or seen has come from other blacks - some of them in my own family. There's no question that we've made a TON of progress in race relations over the years, but I can see some regressing in the future if nothing is done about the clear double-standard that exists when it comes to racism (this incident is a prime example of that double-standard, IMO), and start cleaning up our own back yard, so to speak. Some may argue that some of that "regression" has already begun given some of the responses I've seen on other message boards on this subject.

Double-Standard? The fact that black people were slaves to many white people in this country nullifies anything racist being a double-standard. Yes, I know slavery didn't happen to me or you but by saying that racism is a double-standard is like saying don't worry about what happened during those times. I've heard that black people can't be racist because of what happened and to an extent I believe that.

I agree that we as black people shouldn't worry about what other races are doing and worry about our own. I also believe that we endure much more than other races. I'm sure many will disagree but that's my opinion.

Steel12
11-28-2006, 03:50 PM
Had this been Bernie Mac callin a white person a cracker, in the same context, no one would care. The double standards held in this country in regard to race, are ridiculous. We have all of the black comedians and actors demnding apologies, but the shoe on the other foot, they would be laughing about it.

I don't think this was a cool thing to do, not at all. However, it is being a bit played out a bit too much IMO.

There is no double-standard. ****** shouldn't be used by white people in respect to what black people endured long ago.

Steel12
11-28-2006, 03:56 PM
EDIT: I know what I was trying to say in this post... but re-reading it... I realized it could be taken wrong. So I am canceling the post and saying instead:

Steel12... I disagree with EVERYONE being a racist... but other then that... I really liked your post.

Thanks and I enjoyed yours as well. We'll have to agree to disagree because IMO, everybody has racist thoughts. They might not act on those thoughts or say them aloud but I believe everybody has them.

klick81
11-28-2006, 04:00 PM
I guess we should have seen this coming. Look at what he did on Seinfeld!:

http://zine.nationallampoon.com/index.php?option=com_jambozine&layout=article&view=page&aid=247&Itemid=32

Steel12
11-28-2006, 04:20 PM
Xenophobia - an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

ethnocentrism - 1. Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
2. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

I am failing to see how cracker or ****** are xenophobic comments. Even your post suggests the tone which these words are used. White people are typically afraid to use the word ******, often referring to it as the "n-word", blck people however, have no problem throwing around the word cracker. I know the word ****** was created and used by the white man first, and was used in hatred, however, this word has been kept alive by the blacks. Carcker, however, was created by blacks as a racist word to use against wite people, and is also kept alive by the blacks.

My point is, black people are crying foul over this isolated incident, when they are just as much to blame for the racism in the world today.

I see you're in the Air Force as well. I disagree with your post. Black people and white people are crying foul over this "isolated" incident. I sincerely hope you don't use the word. If you do, say it around other black people...don't say it behind their back. You might not like what happens but at least you'll be respected more :wink02:

There is a HUGE difference in being called a Cracker and being called a ******...I hope you understand that.

Stillers#1
11-28-2006, 04:21 PM
There is no double-standard. ****** shouldn't be used by white people in respect to what black people endured long ago.


If they want white people to respect it, then they should respect it.

I didn't own any slaves, nor did anyone in my family. Black people today sure as hell aren't slaves, although many of them would hav eyou believe differently. I'd be a liar if I said I wasn't a tad bit racist on the inside. I can laugh at racial stereotypes (mainly bc they are funny), and I think Black people need to take this one and laugh it off. I have scene stuff just as bad from Black people, and was able to laugh it off. Oh well, this guy lost his rocker for a minute, get over it. he apologized(even though it was a crappy apology) and to be honest, what if he isn't sorry about it? Should an apology be demanded,, does it make it better? Not at all. I am willing to bet he is sorry for all of the wrong reason, money to be one. What he did was wrong yes, but there is a double-standard, and if you don't believe there is, you just became another black apologist.

not that there is anything wrong with that.

Stillers#1
11-28-2006, 04:25 PM
I see you're in the Air Force as well. I disagree with your post. Black people and white people are crying foul over this "isolated" incident. I sincerely hope you don't use the word. If you do, say it around other black people...don't say it behind their back. You might not like what happens but at least you'll be respected more :wink02:

There is a HUGE difference in being called a Cracker and being called a ******...I hope you understand that.

I do use the word, but not in a racist way. I use it aroundd my black friends(which sounds bad but don't worry its all in good fun). We are the type of people who are abe to joke about that stuff. They call me cracker, I call them ******, no one is offended, I do however have the good sense to not let it outside our circle of friends, b/c I knwo some people are offended by it. However, this word probably would have went away eventually, if you didnt hear it in every rap album ever released, WHICH A LOT OF WHITE KIDS LISTEN TO! Come on lets be serious, we arent supposed to say shit, ****, ass, piss, and **** but we do, and the more we are told those words are bad, the more we use them, it's human nature.

Steel12
11-28-2006, 04:30 PM
If they want white people to respect it, then they should respect it.

I didn't own any slaves, nor did anyone in my family. Black people today sure as hell aren't slaves, although many of them would hav eyou believe differently. I'd be a liar if I said I wasn't a tad bit racist on the inside. I can laugh at racial stereotypes (mainly bc they are funny), and I think Black people need to take this one and laugh it off. I have scene stuff just as bad from Black people, and was able to laugh it off. Oh well, this guy lost his rocker for a minute, get over it. he apologized(even though it was a crappy apology) and to be honest, what if he isn't sorry about it? Should an apology be demanded,, does it make it better? Not at all. I am willing to bet he is sorry for all of the wrong reason, money to be one. What he did was wrong yes, but there is a double-standard, and if you don't believe there is, you just became another black apologist.

not that there is anything wrong with that.

You can't be serious! Black people don't consider themselves slaves today. Laugh it off? If he was joking, sure, I'd laugh it off. But he was dead serious! If he wasn't sorry about it, then he shouldn't have brought his ass on Letterman and apologized. I don't respect people like that and most black people I know don't either. What I don't understand is how anybody white can tell black people how to feel or vice versa. You have your opinion and I have mine and that's cool...but to say I'm a black apologist because I feel there is no double standard is ignorant. Sounds to me like you just became a white apologist. It also sounds to me that you aren't to fond of black people but I hope I'm wrong.

Steel12
11-28-2006, 04:34 PM
I do use the word, but not in a racist way. I use it aroundd my black friends(which sounds bad but don't worry its all in good fun). We are the type of people who are abe to joke about that stuff. They call me cracker, I call them ******, no one is offended, I do however have the good sense to not let it outside our circle of friends, b/c I knwo some people are offended by it. However, this word probably would have went away eventually, if you didnt hear it in every rap album ever released, WHICH A LOT OF WHITE KIDS LISTEN TO! Come on lets be serious, we arent supposed to say shit, ****, ass, piss, and **** but we do, and the more we are told those words are bad, the more we use them, it's human nature.

lol so now rap is the problem? Your friends shouldn't be cool with the fact you call them niggas nor should you be cool with them calling you cracker. If it was ok to say, then you'd say it outside of that circle. I hear what you're sayin but let's be real...who really gets offended by shit, fukk, ass, piss etc...

Stillers#1
11-28-2006, 04:35 PM
To think there is no double standard is ignorant. It's almost hip to make fun of white people, for being white. It's not cool to be white. I don't agree with how Kramer acted, not one bit, red my posts. However, black people should just do the same thing I do when Jesse Jackson makes his crazy racist statements, and jsut say, "what a crazy guy". End of story.

If I come off as racist, then I'm sorry, but this is how I feel.

sumo
11-28-2006, 04:42 PM
This has been a cvil conversation so far - IMHO, I think we should avoid personal attack/labels - I am fascinated by this topic and this thread has given me some amazing insight, but I hope we keep it civil --

MUCH PEACE!

Sumo

Steel12
11-28-2006, 04:56 PM
To think there is no double standard is ignorant. It's almost hip to make fun of white people, for being white. It's not cool to be white. I don't agree with how Kramer acted, not one bit, red my posts. However, black people should just do the same thing I do when Jesse Jackson makes his crazy racist statements, and jsut say, "what a crazy guy". End of story.

If I come off as racist, then I'm sorry, but this is how I feel.

Well maybe I shouldn't have said that you come off as you're not fond of black people...it just seems that you don't care about history and what happened. Like I said earlier, I know it didn't happen to me or anybody today...but it did happen and it was a big deal. I have plenty of white friends who wouldn't dare to call me a nigga or say that word (well at least in front of me). Saying that word at the wrong place and time could get you killed. Saying cracker more than likely, won't get you killed because it's not that big a deal to white people and that's why I believe there is a difference. Jesse Jackson went thru the rough periods in the mid-1900s so of course he's going to be angry that it still happens today. Some people love Jesse, some people hate him but he is a good man and tries to do something for the black race.

Trust me, I respect you more now than I did back on page 1 lol. I'm not mad or upset about this topic. I love to hear other races views on certain topics. Everybody has different backgrounds and grew up believing certain things and it's neat (gay word, I know) to find them out.

Stillers#1
11-28-2006, 06:14 PM
he is a good man and tries to do something for the black race.


I know what you're getting at, but we are all one race, the human race. Mybe Jesse Jackson should do a little helping of the white people too.

If we can't make light of ourselves, then we can't ever expect to actually be taken seriously. And if you can't laugh this off as some *******, and not the entire population of white people, then I'm sorry. Like I said, not all of us feel that way. I don't, some of my best friends, people I will never forget, and would do anything for, are black. Just b/c we joke around about that stuff doesn't make us bad people at all. It just means we can laugh at stupid stereotypes.

And yes, I would partially blame rap music, I am not saying they invented the word, but it is helping keep it alive. And dumb white kids who don't know any better grow up listening to that shit.

Mosca
11-28-2006, 07:59 PM
There is a HUGE difference in being called a Cracker and being called a ******...I hope you understand that.

I can be called a cracker all day long and it doesn't mean a thing to me; it represents nothing. There is no cultural context within which I could understand it to be an insult. Blacks, among themselves, know exactly what is meant, but my life is the same one way or another.

However, "******" when used by a white person is not just an insult; it is specifically dehumanization, it is used to imply people as chattel. That is specifically what it represents; human beings as property.

This is also why I believe that Michael Irvin's comments about Tony Romo simply don't mean the same thing as Jimmy the Greek's. Irvin's words don't carry the weight of the history of slavery. He could easinly have said that Romo had Manning blood in him. I heard his words, and I heard a humor, and pride, and a compliment to Romo from a man comfortable enough about race to use it jokingly and without baggage; but if I were to say the same thing, my words would bring up implications of slave breeding, and Aryanism, and people as objects. It doesn't matter what I meant, the words will have those meanings within the cultural context.

Thanks again for everyone brave enough to put their thoughts here. It isn't easy to write thoughts that are most often privately held, or that you know might be inflammatory.

One step at a time, one step at a time, sometimes two forward and three back; but if we keep talking about it, and when we're done we share good times without talking about it, we can conquer this. The victory might belong to our grandchildren, but so be it. If that's what it takes, that's what it takes.


Tom

Preacher
11-28-2006, 11:21 PM
I can be called a cracker all day long and it doesn't mean a thing to me; it represents nothing. There is no cultural context within which I could understand it to be an insult. Blacks, among themselves, know exactly what is meant, but my life is the same one way or another.

However, "******" when used by a white person is not just an insult; it is specifically dehumanization, it is used to imply people as chattel. That is specifically what it represents; human beings as property.

This is also why I believe that Michael Irvin's comments about Tony Romo simply don't mean the same thing as Jimmy the Greek's. Irvin's words don't carry the weight of the history of slavery. He could easinly have said that Romo had Manning blood in him. I heard his words, and I heard a humor, and pride, and a compliment to Romo from a man comfortable enough about race to use it jokingly and without baggage; but if I were to say the same thing, my words would bring up implications of slave breeding, and Aryanism, and people as objects. It doesn't matter what I meant, the words will have those meanings within the cultural context.

Thanks again for everyone brave enough to put their thoughts here. It isn't easy to write thoughts that are most often privately held, or that you know might be inflammatory.

One step at a time, one step at a time, sometimes two forward and three back; but if we keep talking about it, and when we're done we share good times without talking about it, we can conquer this. The victory might belong to our grandchildren, but so be it. If that's what it takes, that's what it takes.


Tom

Again we are going to disagree... respectfully.

When someone calls me a Cr##ker... I am deeply offended. By implication, they are calling me. "A slave owning southern white bred person who denies humanity to a person who is black." Now. Are you going to tell me that I shouldn't be offended by that? I am VERY offended by the stereotype. I am just as offended when a white person calls a black person a n##ger. Or even one black to another. In my previous church, I heard one child call another child n##ger one time (they were both black). Trust me, it never happened again in the church.

Why wouldn't I be upset when I hear intelligent men and women of all races resorting to idiotic behavior and name calling instead of engaging in intelligent discussion? Why wouldn't I get upset when I hear people denigrate the Amago Dei in someone else?

The problem is, we do not start with the assumption that all humans are equal. We start with the assumption that previous actions create a situation where humans are naturally unequal to each other.

When we start with that assumption, we give room to racism. When we give room to racism in one place, the pendulum will swing to the other. The worst thing to do is continue the pendulum. The best thing? Stop ALL racism.

However, my personal beleif is that the only way to END racism is to change the heart. And the only way to change the heart is through a relationship with Jesus Christ. However, at some point, I will ALWAYS come back to that as the final answer.

Mosca
11-29-2006, 07:08 AM
Again we are going to disagree... respectfully.

When someone calls me a Cr##ker... I am deeply offended. By implication, they are calling me. "A slave owning southern white bred person who denies humanity to a person who is black." Now. Are you going to tell me that I shouldn't be offended by that? I am VERY offended by the stereotype. I am just as offended when a white person calls a black person a n##ger. Or even one black to another. In my previous church, I heard one child call another child n##ger one time (they were both black). Trust me, it never happened again in the church.

Why wouldn't I be upset when I hear intelligent men and women of all races resorting to idiotic behavior and name calling instead of engaging in intelligent discussion? Why wouldn't I get upset when I hear people denigrate the Amago Dei in someone else?

The problem is, we do not start with the assumption that all humans are equal. We start with the assumption that previous actions create a situation where humans are naturally unequal to each other.

When we start with that assumption, we give room to racism. When we give room to racism in one place, the pendulum will swing to the other. The worst thing to do is continue the pendulum. The best thing? Stop ALL racism.

However, my personal beleif is that the only way to END racism is to change the heart. And the only way to change the heart is through a relationship with Jesus Christ. However, at some point, I will ALWAYS come back to that as the final answer.


Hey preach, we're (mostly) in agreement here; I probably didn't write it clearly enough. I'm not offended personally; I speak for myself. Of course I understand how you would be offended in the universal sense, and since you and I are different people it is completely understandable that what doesn't offend ME personally could very well offend YOU personally.

What I meant wasn't that to me it doesn't feel like an insult; what I meant was that it bounces off, that it causes crossed circuits in my brain, that to me it would be the same as calling me a dirty, low down engineer or something like that. "You lousy stinkin' white guy." "Capitalist." Or maybe a made-up word; "You stinkin' lousy fusterus." OK, now what? It's not "fighting words" to me. Maybe it's that the word "cracker" isn't universal enough? Or, maybe it's that I'm insulated from the implication by the rest of my life? In the end, it takes two to create an insult. One has to mean it, and the other has to feel it. If the receiver doesn't feel it, then it doesn't insult.

Other than that, which is just a difference between points of view (in that we understand the word differently, perhaps you with more insight based on your experiences), you are spot on in what you say.

Thanks,


Tom

Steel12
11-29-2006, 10:02 AM
I know what you're getting at, but we are all one race, the human race. Mybe Jesse Jackson should do a little helping of the white people too.

If we can't make light of ourselves, then we can't ever expect to actually be taken seriously. And if you can't laugh this off as some *******, and not the entire population of white people, then I'm sorry. Like I said, not all of us feel that way. I don't, some of my best friends, people I will never forget, and would do anything for, are black. Just b/c we joke around about that stuff doesn't make us bad people at all. It just means we can laugh at stupid stereotypes.

And yes, I would partially blame rap music, I am not saying they invented the word, but it is helping keep it alive. And dumb white kids who don't know any better grow up listening to that shit.

Ummm...Jesse has negotiated for the safe return of hostages many times...so he has helped the human race as well.

We're in the military so, of course, we're goin to have friends of different races. Where I come from (Georgia), stereotypes aren't anything to laugh at. If that's what ya'll do, keep doin it. If they let you do it then I guess they are cool with it. I don't agree but I'm not them.

There is a difference in how black people use the word today. Nigga and ****** aren't the same. We don't use it as a derogatory word. I've said and will continue to say, "that's my nigga"! It's apart of my vocabulary and I probably won't stop using it. I know when and when not to say it. I actually get embarrassed when I hear other black people use it in front of other races.

BTW, Rap is great lol...you should listen to it.

hardwork
11-29-2006, 11:35 AM
Most white people are.....

Most Black people are....

Most Oriental people are.....

Most Steeler fans are..........

You're not going to get anywhere this way.

hardwork
11-29-2006, 11:41 AM
I actually get embarrassed when I hear other black people use it in front of other races.


Why is that?

sumo
11-29-2006, 11:43 AM
I can be called a cracker all day long and it doesn't mean a thing to me; it represents nothing. There is no cultural context within which I could understand it to be an insult. Blacks, among themselves, know exactly what is meant, but my life is the same one way or another.

However, "******" when used by a white person is not just an insult; it is specifically dehumanization, it is used to imply people as chattel. That is specifically what it represents; human beings as property.

This is also why I believe that Michael Irvin's comments about Tony Romo simply don't mean the same thing as Jimmy the Greek's. Irvin's words don't carry the weight of the history of slavery. He could easinly have said that Romo had Manning blood in him. I heard his words, and I heard a humor, and pride, and a compliment to Romo from a man comfortable enough about race to use it jokingly and without baggage; but if I were to say the same thing, my words would bring up implications of slave breeding, and Aryanism, and people as objects. It doesn't matter what I meant, the words will have those meanings within the cultural context.


Tom

Hey Tom - I'm still having a tough time reconciling the Jimmy the Greek vs Michael Irvin argument - he (Irvin) made his comment last week and there was not any debate about it anywhere - I would be surprised if anybody is still even thinking about it...and from your logic it is ok for him to say it - but if a white man had said it -you know we would still be hearing about it in the media - it would be competing with Kramer for air time - but for the simple reason that Irvin is AA and Jimmy is Greek-American, we get two completely different reactions - I have difficulty accepting this as "OK" - what if somebody like say Rod Woodson - who by appearance is almost white says it? - Is it still ok? - what if somebody who just claims to have AA blood but appears to be white says it - is it still ok? - Does it still conjure up two different images or historical references?

I like what the Kramer debate is doing - you already have several AA comedians coming forward and saying they will not use the "N" word ever again in their acts -including Dave Chapelle - I would like to think that this is one more step in a progressive society towards mutual respect and equal acceptance of each other as one body of citizens...

tony hipchest
11-29-2006, 12:31 PM
Hey Tom - I'm still having a tough time reconciling the Jimmy the Greek vs Michael Irvin argument - he (Irvin) made his comment last week and there was not any debate about it anywhere - I would be surprised if anybody is still even thinking about it...and from your logic it is ok for him to say it - but if a white man had said it -you know we would still be hearing about it in the media - it would be competing with Kramer for air time - but for the simple reason that Irvin is AA and Jimmy is Greek-American, we get two completely different reactions - I have difficulty accepting this as "OK" - what if somebody like say Rod Woodson - who by appearance is almost white says it? - Is it still ok? - what if somebody who just claims to have AA blood but appears to be white says it - is it still ok? - Does it still conjure up two different images or historical references?

I like what the Kramer debate is doing - you already have several AA comedians coming forward and saying they will not use the "N" word ever again in their acts -including Dave Chapelle - I would like to think that this is one more step in a progressive society towards mutual respect and equal acceptance of each other as one body of citizens...michael irvin re-visited the dan patrick show 2 days ago in his weekly spot. he sounded sad and ashamed of himself. he apologized over and over, and was genuinely upset that he had offended people.

BUT, as he went on to explain, he was hired to be a talking head cause he is an ex player, who is jovial, likes to joke around, is respected by his peers, and he has an inside perspective of what currently goes on behind the scenes, and beyond what we see on tv during games. he admitted that when he shoots hoop with romo he jokes with him about having some black blood in him. romo jokes back. its just locker room talk and fools clownin.

irvin admitted that he is still learning to separate the "in the locker room with his boys" michael irvin, from the "reporter/analyst" michael irvin, and that he needs to use better judgement.

he gets a pass in my book.

just look at some phrases that have become ingrained into pop culture:

"ghetto-booty"- when we say jennifer lopez has one, is she offended by the implication?

does that new country song (i think its stupid) "h0nkey tonk, bo-donk-a-donk" (or whatever) imply that these h0nkey girls have the ass of a black woman?

in michael irvins eyes he was just complimenting romos skillz, just like when i say j-lo has a juicy ghetto booty it definitely isnt meant to be an insult.

sumo
11-29-2006, 12:37 PM
michael irvin re-visited the dan patrick show 2 days ago in his weekly spot. he sounded sad and ashamed of himself. he apologized over and over, and was genuinely upset that he had offended people.


I didn't know he apologized - I guess that invalidates part of my former post - I wonder what happened behind the scenes at ESPN..

Preacher
11-29-2006, 12:51 PM
Hey preach, we're (mostly) in agreement here; I probably didn't write it clearly enough. I'm not offended personally; I speak for myself. Of course I understand how you would be offended in the universal sense, and since you and I are different people it is completely understandable that what doesn't offend ME personally could very well offend YOU personally.

What I meant wasn't that to me it doesn't feel like an insult; what I meant was that it bounces off, that it causes crossed circuits in my brain, that to me it would be the same as calling me a dirty, low down engineer or something like that. "You lousy stinkin' white guy." "Capitalist." Or maybe a made-up word; "You stinkin' lousy fusterus." OK, now what? It's not "fighting words" to me. Maybe it's that the word "cracker" isn't universal enough? Or, maybe it's that I'm insulated from the implication by the rest of my life? In the end, it takes two to create an insult. One has to mean it, and the other has to feel it. If the receiver doesn't feel it, then it doesn't insult.

Other than that, which is just a difference between points of view (in that we understand the word differently, perhaps you with more insight based on your experiences), you are spot on in what you say.

Thanks,


Tom


JUST ONE QUESTION!!!!

What is a FUSTERUS?? And should I be saying it as a preacher? :toofunny:

Preacher
11-29-2006, 12:53 PM
I didn't know he apologized - I guess that invalidates part of my former post - I wonder what happened behind the scenes at ESPN..

that is an easy answer... Hey... Do you remember a guy named Limbaugh? (Irvin).. OH.. Dang it (no, that probably WASN'T the first words out of his mouth) I gotta do something about this!

tony hipchest
11-29-2006, 12:59 PM
I didn't know he apologized - I guess that invalidates part of my former post - I wonder what happened behind the scenes at ESPN..well, dan patrick is one of "the boys" and ive heard him joke around as such. irvin wasnt on to apologize but to do his weekly spot. dan told him he knew he didnt mean no harm but wanted to give irvin the chance to open his segment with an apology/explaination. he was very contrite and admitted that when it was taken out of the context of him talking to dan (this was when he possibly forgot he was talking to millions on a radio show rather than to just dan by himself) and read it on the transcripts he saw where it was wrong.

when dan said ok, now onto football, "tell me about this weekends cowboys giants match up". Irvin said "wow, thats such a left hand turn from what we were just discussing". his voice was cracking and he really sounded like he wanted to cry he was so upset for the commotion he had caused. dan offered for him to call back later in the week and after a pause irvin said "no, i get paid to talk about football, so lets talk about football". it was wierd. definitely a very humbled version of irvin you rarely see unless hes getting busted with drugs or hookers.

it really didnt seem like espn came out and forced him to do any type of apology. very sincere and i respect him for it, even though it was miles away from being what kramer did.

Preacher
11-29-2006, 01:20 PM
well, dan patrick is one of "the boys" and ive heard him joke around as such. irvin wasnt on to apologize but to do his weekly spot. dan told him he knew he didnt mean no harm but wanted to give irvin the chance to open his segment with an apology/explaination. he was very contrite and admitted that when it was taken out of the context of him talking to dan (this was when he possibly forgot he was talking to millions on a radio show rather than to just dan by himself) and read it on the transcripts he saw where it was wrong.

when dan said ok, now onto football, "tell me about this weekends cowboys giants match up". Irvin said "wow, thats such a left hand turn from what we were just discussing". his voice was cracking and he really sounded like he wanted to cry he was so upset for the commotion he had caused. dan offered for him to call back later in the week and after a pause irvin said "no, i get paid to talk about football, so lets talk about football". it was wierd. definitely a very humbled version of irvin you rarely see unless hes getting busted with drugs or hookers.

it really didnt seem like espn came out and forced him to do any type of apology. very sincere and i respect him for it, even though it was miles away from being what kramer did.

WOW... If that is true (if... not saying I disagree with your assessment, just that I didn't hear it myself), then I am VERY impressed with Irvin. Good for him.

sumo
11-29-2006, 01:31 PM
it was wierd. definitely a very humbled version of irvin you rarely see unless hes getting busted with drugs or hookers.


:sofunny: :sofunny:

Stillers#1
11-29-2006, 01:31 PM
And the only way to change the heart is through a relationship with Jesus Christ.

It's not the ONLY way, it just happens to be the best way you have found so far.

sumo
11-29-2006, 01:37 PM
it really didnt seem like espn came out and forced him to do any type of apology. very sincere and i respect him for it, even though it was miles away from being what kramer did.

But you know Kramer's recent ordeal had influence on Dan Patrick and Irvin and the type of follow up comments they made after Irvin's remarks last week...

Preacher
11-29-2006, 01:43 PM
It's not the ONLY way, it just happens to be the best way you have found so far.

I beleive it is the only way. BUt that is a faith question, and further discussion of only way/best way so far should probably be put on a different thread. But I would love to discuss--- not argue that subject in a different thread.

I just wanna be careful I don't hijack this thread (where a great discussion about race is happening) for a discussion on the exclusivity claims of Christianity.

The only reason I even brought it up in this thread was that I do beleive that the best way and only way to truly change the hearts of the people is through Christ.

However, there is a lot that can be done short of that, which both christians and non-christians can agree. The first of which being understanding that any racism, regardless of which way it is directed, is wrong (which, from your posts, I think you completely agree with).

Preacher
11-29-2006, 01:47 PM
Hey preach, we're (mostly) in agreement here; I probably didn't write it clearly enough. I'm not offended personally; I speak for myself. Of course I understand how you would be offended in the universal sense, and since you and I are different people it is completely understandable that what doesn't offend ME personally could very well offend YOU personally.

What I meant wasn't that to me it doesn't feel like an insult; what I meant was that it bounces off, that it causes crossed circuits in my brain, that to me it would be the same as calling me a dirty, low down engineer or something like that. "You lousy stinkin' white guy." "Capitalist." Or maybe a made-up word; "You stinkin' lousy fusterus." OK, now what? It's not "fighting words" to me. Maybe it's that the word "cracker" isn't universal enough? Or, maybe it's that I'm insulated from the implication by the rest of my life? In the end, it takes two to create an insult. One has to mean it, and the other has to feel it. If the receiver doesn't feel it, then it doesn't insult.

Other than that, which is just a difference between points of view (in that we understand the word differently, perhaps you with more insight based on your experiences), you are spot on in what you say.

Thanks,


Tom

Hey Tom...

Re-reading my post, I wanted to make sure you understood my tone was completely conversational. I noticed I used "I" and "you" a lot in that post. It wasn't directed at you, but the plural, you.. as in, WILL ANY OF YOU?

Just wanted to make sure you knew that! :thumbsup:

Mosca
11-29-2006, 03:11 PM
fusterus;
n., the word used to designate a second object for which the speaker does not know or cannot remember the name, now used only in cominbation with "frabney" qv, as in "There was a frabney mounted at the inner corner of the stair with a fusterus poking up through it."

A generic word meaning nothing, plugged in anywhere you want to.

tony hipchest
11-29-2006, 03:49 PM
But you know Kramer's recent ordeal had influence on Dan Patrick and Irvin and the type of follow up comments they made after Irvin's remarks last week...oh, for sure. i think it was very pro active on both their parts and irvin comes out of it virtually squeaky clean. i used to watch "the best damn sports show" alot and they joke like that all the time on there. (irvin was really good on that show and i feel is what landed him the espn job)

83-Steelers-43
11-29-2006, 03:56 PM
IRVIN APOLOGY RAISES SPECTER OF LOCKER ROOM RACISM

ESPN analyst Michael Irvin apologized Monday on ESPN Radio's The Dan Patrick Show for his comments from one week ago regarding the ancestry of Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo. But Irvin's apology, in our view, raises questions of whether racially improper remarks are commonplace in NFL locker rooms and on NFL practice fields.

"I do want to apologize for those comments," Irvin said. "They were inappropriate and insensitive."

Irvin explained that he was trying to infuse locker-room humor into the discussion. It's "how we joke around," Irvin said of his chortle-filled dissertation on the potential promiscuity of Romo's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great Grandma.

And then we had our "eureka" moment. On NFL teams, which race is the minority? Do some (or more) African-American NFL players assume that blacks are better athletes than whites simply because whites are underrepresented on NFL teams, especially at skill positions like running back, receiver, and defensive back?

We've got a feeling that the answer to that question, if people were telling the truth, is "yes." Irvin, based on the content of his apology, has made jokes like this with other players, and apparently with Romo himself.

Now we're even more confused. ESPN's official statement on the matter says in part that "[g]eneralizations about heritage are inappropriate even in jest." So is it okay for Irvin to admit on the air that one of his practices off of the air is to ask white men with impressive physical skills, even if kidding around, whether one of their ancestors made time with a black guy? Because that's really what Irvin is now saying.

For his part in Monday's apology, Dan Patrick assumed some responsibility for the situation, acknowledging that he was "laughing" through a portion of Irvin's rant. But, with all due respect to Dan, it's hard for us not to compare Patrick's shoulder shrug on this issue to the indignation ESPN's Tom Jackson displayed three years ago one week after Rush Limbaugh's remarks about Donovan McNabb, which drew no comment from Jackson when they were made in Jackson's presence.

Maybe Patrick opted not to call out Irvin because the comments were made on the radio show that bears Patrick's name. Or maybe the folks at ESPN have now decided to give this matter the Band-Aid removal treatment: (1) grab edge; (2) hold breath; (3) pull hard; and (4) move on. Regardless, we think that Irvin is getting off way too easily on this one, especially since the message seems to be that it's okay to make "generalizations about heritage" -- and to publicly admit that you do so -- as long as you don't actually make the generalizations about heritage on the air.

83-Steelers-43
11-29-2006, 04:00 PM
He apologized, it's all paved over now and hush-hush. Irvin still has his job and he's not a racist. It was just a "joke".

In other news, Kramer now has to go to Harlem at midnight tonight with a sign around his neck which reads "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Please give me work. I'm not a racist". After that, he has to go to twenty more NAACP meetings and speak.

Love these double-standards. People want equality but yet I don't see people like Jesse Jackson or the NAACP speaking out against Irvin's comments.

sumo
11-29-2006, 04:12 PM
He apologized, it's all paved over now and hush-hush. Irvin still has his job and he's not a racist. It was just a "joke".

In other news, Kramer now has to go to Harlem at midnight tonight with a sign around his neck which reads "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Please give me work. I'm not a racist". After that, he has to go to twenty more NAACP meetings and speak.

Love these double-standards. People want equality but yet I don't see people like Jesse Jackson or the NAACP speaking out against Irvin's comments.

The fact that he did apologize is huge - IMHO, I think it means maybe the double standard is dissappearing - if you look at the post I made earlier today, I was very cynical - I didn't think anybody was even talking about it anymore - I thought he got a free pass simply because he's black...the Kramer ordeal is bringing everybody to the table - which is a good thing...

83-Steelers-43
11-29-2006, 05:20 PM
And I agree Sumo, an apology is a good start. At the same time, the guy should lose his job. All I'm saying is that a simple apology wouldn't cut it if it were a white guy. He would lose his job and he would be apologizing for the rest of his life (Kramer). That's not the case with Michael Irvin. He issued an apology on ESPN radio and is still able to keep his job. IMO, that's not right and it doesn't appear to me that the double-standard is disappearing.

tony hipchest
11-29-2006, 05:39 PM
He apologized, it's all paved over now and hush-hush. Irvin still has his job and he's not a racist. It was just a "joke".

In other news, Kramer now has to go to Harlem at midnight tonight with a sign around his neck which reads "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Please give me work. I'm not a racist". After that, he has to go to twenty more NAACP meetings and speak.

Love these double-standards. People want equality but yet I don't see people like Jesse Jackson or the NAACP speaking out against Irvin's comments.ok, i see what youre saying. so to play devils advocate, why hasnt jesse jackson attacked the country song i referenced in an earlier post? you got a bunch of crackers singing about a white girls bo-dunk-a-dunk (slang term adopted from the black community which is akin to saying a lady has a "ghetto booty" or "junk in the trunk").

you gotta draw the line somewhere. irvin is not a comedian. kramer is. when irvin told his joke i atleast heard a white dan patrick laugh. when kramer started calling people ******s you could hear a pin drop. intent has to be taken into consideration.

i hate to be an irvin apologist cause i hated him on the field but if i knew him off the field i could laugh and clown with him just like all my other friends. i know some black/philipino twins and you should see the hell we give them. but they are sharp with the tongue and we get it back two fold (4 fold in their case). when me and my boys are hanging we even clown the stereotypes of white folk.

i know youre not a fan of the wayans bros. but i found "white chicks" to be more funny than offensive. maybe that is part of the problem, i dont know.

but when we are gonna be pc and police what goes on in the locker room, or amongst a group of friends, i think we have crossed a line into thought control.

what irvin said, he admitted was said in the wrong forum. i dont expect him to be fired or hung on a cross. rush limbaugh has found work and im sure kramer will too, although rush's wealth and political pull probably gives him a much more secure future.

83-Steelers-43
11-29-2006, 05:49 PM
Hey, people can say and talk however they want when they are hanging around with their friends. But when you go on public airwaves and make the comments Irvin made, you should be fired. Jimmy the Greek was fired (and rightfully so) ASAP for his comments and they were on the same basis as Irvin's. Where is Jimmy the Greek now? Ellice Islands? Nicobar Islands? If we want equality, Irvin would be out of a job right now.

As for Jesse Jackson, people like Jackson would prefer to keep black people down because if people finally realized that equal meant EQUAL people like him would be out of a "job". Jackson is a separatist who tries to build walls between the races instead of trying to tear them down.

tony hipchest
11-29-2006, 05:55 PM
Hey, people can say and talk however they want when they are hanging around with their friends. But when you go on public airwaves and make the comments Irvin made, you should be fired. Jimmy the Greek was fired (and rightfully so) ASAP for his comments and they were on the same basis as Irvin's. Where is Jimmy the Greek now? Ellice Islands? Nicobar Islands? If we want equality, Irvin would be out of a job right now.

As for Jesse Jackson, people like Jackson would prefer to keep black people down because if people finally realized that equal meant EQUAL people like him would be out of a "job". Jackson is a separatist who tries to build walls between the races instead of trying to tear them down.ok. jimmy the greek was probably wrongly fired. do 2 wrongs make a right?

83-Steelers-43
11-29-2006, 06:07 PM
ok. jimmy the greek was probably wrongly fired. do 2 wrongs make a right?

I'm not saying any of these people's actions were "right". I am saying that the punishments are not equal. Isn't that we are striving for in this country? Equality? It's fairly obvious, but I'm just trying to figure out why "The Greek" was fired ASAP after his comments but that bum still has a job. That's all.

tony hipchest
11-29-2006, 06:16 PM
I'm not saying any of these people's actions were "right". I am saying that the punishments are not equal. Isn't that we are striving for in this country? Equality? It's fairly obvious, but I'm just trying to figure out why "The Greek" was fired ASAP after his comments but that bum still has a job. That's all.the fact that irvin was hired in the 1st place goes a long way in explaining that. from what i recall cosell wasnt fired for his monkey comment and im not sure when jimmy the greek was fired.

the world of sports and entertainment is rapidly becoming blended. maybe michael felt that if chris rock isnt fired than neither would he. i really dont think it was that calculated. he f-ed up and really sounded like he was concerned with losing a job or whatever reputation he may have. that doesnt erase the double standards you speak of though.


i never really thought about it before today but the term "ghetto booty" is kind of derrogatory. almost like calling someone "watermellon lips".

it is ironic that terms like ghetto booty and bodonkadonk are being ingrained into our pop culture in this age of political correctness.

83-Steelers-43
11-29-2006, 06:20 PM
it is ironic that terms like ghetto booty and bodonkadonk are being ingrained into our pop culture in this age of political correctness.

The "N" word being the most used. Turn on any hip-hop video and how many times do you hear it Tony?

tony hipchest
11-29-2006, 06:29 PM
The "N" word being the most used. Turn on any hip-hop video and how many times do you hear it Tony?lol. i have every NWA tape. yes i said tape as in cassette. bdp, epmd, eric b, easy e, ice t, ice cube, etc... i thought that stuff was great as a teenager..."with a little bit of gold and a pager".

16 years later i still listen to the stuff (not as much as nfl network on sirius radio though)

sumo
11-29-2006, 06:32 PM
The "N" word being the most used. Turn on any hip-hop video and how many times do you hear it Tony?

Part of what I should have added when I said the double standard is dissappearing -(not dissappeared) - is many prominent black entertainers - including David Chapelle - are coming forward and saying they will never use the "N" word again in any context - this is good - and I don't even think it's really political correctness - I think it's people reasoning together within a community and pushing for true equality, fairness and mutual respect...

83-Steelers-43
11-29-2006, 06:45 PM
is many prominent black entertainers - including David Chapelle - are coming forward and saying they will never use the "N" word again in any context - this is good - and I don't even think it's really political correctness - I think it's people reasoning together within a community and pushing for true equality, fairness and mutual respect...

I wonder if the term "cracker" will be added to that list? That one get's thrown around like it's nobody's business in numerous black stand-up comedy routines. Apparently, that's OK to say though. Much like Michael Irvin's comments, it's just a "joke".

augustashark
11-29-2006, 11:23 PM
lol. i have every NWA tape. yes i said tape as in cassette. bdp, epmd, eric b, easy e, ice t, ice cube, etc... i thought that stuff was great as a teenager..."with a little bit of gold and a pager".

16 years later i still listen to the stuff (not as much as nfl network on sirius radio though)


Oh my gosh......Did you just pull out Big Daddy Kane!

Thats great.

My bad....That's Boogie Down Productions. I mis-read it...Thought it was BDK.

Rust-Buster
11-30-2006, 12:14 AM
I was really disappointed in Michael Richards. He totally lost my respect. Whether he was coked up, pissed off, or out of his mind, its no excuse. I think what he said kind of shows what lurks in his heart. I was a huge Kramer fan, now, not so much. I almost named my dog after Kramer. Glad I didn't now.
It just goes to show how far we have still to go to reach Dr. King's dream.
The fact that there was such outrage shows we've come a long way.
The fact it happened shows we ain't in the promise land yet.

augustashark
11-30-2006, 01:07 AM
Funny that alot of people now don't respect Kramer for what he said, but the people of the great state of MA continues to elect a man that drove a woman off a bridge.

The reason I used this as an example is that to me there is bigger issues then what Kramer from Sienfield said in a stuper while on stage. I know how I feel inside about this issue, and what ever Kramer says does not make a difference to me one way or another. He has to look in the mirror in morning and deal with that himself. Me I will focus on what is important, Living by the golden rule and help those who can not help themselves.

Thank you.

Steel12
11-30-2006, 10:32 AM
Why is that?

Because it's looked at as ignorant by other races.

Steel12
11-30-2006, 10:47 AM
He apologized, it's all paved over now and hush-hush. Irvin still has his job and he's not a racist. It was just a "joke".

In other news, Kramer now has to go to Harlem at midnight tonight with a sign around his neck which reads "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Please give me work. I'm not a racist". After that, he has to go to twenty more NAACP meetings and speak.

Love these double-standards. People want equality but yet I don't see people like Jesse Jackson or the NAACP speaking out against Irvin's comments.

Why would they? Two VERY different situation where one was meant to be a compliment and the other was meant to degrade. That isn't a double-standard. KKKramer showed his true colors at the wrong time.

Steel12
11-30-2006, 10:50 AM
ok, i see what youre saying. so to play devils advocate, why hasnt jesse jackson attacked the country song i referenced in an earlier post? you got a bunch of crackers singing about a white girls bo-dunk-a-dunk (slang term adopted from the black community which is akin to saying a lady has a "ghetto booty" or "junk in the trunk").

you gotta draw the line somewhere. irvin is not a comedian. kramer is. when irvin told his joke i atleast heard a white dan patrick laugh. when kramer started calling people ******s you could hear a pin drop. intent has to be taken into consideration.

i hate to be an irvin apologist cause i hated him on the field but if i knew him off the field i could laugh and clown with him just like all my other friends. i know some black/philipino twins and you should see the hell we give them. but they are sharp with the tongue and we get it back two fold (4 fold in their case). when me and my boys are hanging we even clown the stereotypes of white folk.

i know youre not a fan of the wayans bros. but i found "white chicks" to be more funny than offensive. maybe that is part of the problem, i dont know.

but when we are gonna be pc and police what goes on in the locker room, or amongst a group of friends, i think we have crossed a line into thought control.

what irvin said, he admitted was said in the wrong forum. i dont expect him to be fired or hung on a cross. rush limbaugh has found work and im sure kramer will too, although rush's wealth and political pull probably gives him a much more secure future.

Good post...props to you

Steel12
11-30-2006, 11:01 AM
I'm not saying any of these people's actions were "right". I am saying that the punishments are not equal. Isn't that we are striving for in this country? Equality? It's fairly obvious, but I'm just trying to figure out why "The Greek" was fired ASAP after his comments but that bum still has a job. That's all.

When does a white person EVER have to worry about something being equal for them? Equality is what black people are striving for and we obviously have yet to get it. As long as white people are the majority, things will never be equal. But that could be said about a lot of things. Just my opinion!

83-Steelers-43
11-30-2006, 11:34 AM
When does a white person EVER have to worry about something being equal for them? Equality is what black people are striving for and we obviously have yet to get it. As long as white people are the majority, things will never be equal. But that could be said about a lot of things. Just my opinion!

Completely missed my point. I'll try again even though I have a feeling where this is going. I'm not stating for it to be equal for just ONE ethnic backround. I'm talking about it being equal to BOTH parties. Black and white. Meaning, if Jimmy The Greek get's the hook, why not Irvin? Wouldn't that make it equal? I always hear "We want to be equal!!!". OK, it should be the same on both sides of the coin.

I'll state it again. If a white sports personality stated "Marvin Lewis is a great coach. His great, great, great grandmother must have screwed a slave trader. That's the only possible explanation for his brain capacity in order to coach in the NFL".

The guy would lose his job ASAP (rightfully so). He would issue apology after apology (rightfully so) and he would be pegged as a racist for as long as he lives (rightfully so). Why should it be any different for Irvin? I mean, isn't that what we are "striving for", equality?

Stillers#1
11-30-2006, 11:40 AM
Why would they? Two VERY different situation where one was meant to be a compliment and the other was meant to degrade. That isn't a double-standard. KKKramer showed his true colors at the wrong time.


So if Sean Salisbury says of, oh I dunno, Donovan McNabb that,"Wow McNabb sure is playing smart lately, it's almost like his great-great-great-great grandma had some relations with a white man." Do you think that would be viewed as a compliment? Hell no! The NAACP would call for Salisbury's head, over a "joke compliment" as you so put it.

Irvin may have meant it as a joke, but it was pretty much a diss on every white person ever born. It' a shame we don't have any powerful white people who are ballsy enough to hold black and white commentatos to the same standard.

Mosca
11-30-2006, 12:17 PM
I still go back to Chris Rock and his giving us white folks a pathway to epiphany....

"Ain't one of you in this room would switch places with me... and I'm RICH! 'Naw, I think I'll hang on to this white thing a little longer, see where it takes me.'"


Tom

Steel12
11-30-2006, 12:28 PM
Completely missed my point. I'll try again even though I have a feeling where this is going. I'm not stating for it to be equal for just ONE ethnic backround. I'm talking about it being equal to BOTH parties. Black and white. Meaning, if Jimmy The Greek get's the hook, why not Irvin? Wouldn't that make it equal? I always hear "We want to be equal!!!". OK, it should be the same on both sides of the coin.

I'll state it again. If a white sports personality stated "Marvin Lewis is a great coach. His great, great, great grandmother must have screwed a slave trader. That's the only possible explanation for his brain capacity in order to coach in the NFL".

The guy would lose his job ASAP (rightfully so). He would issue apology after apology (rightfully so) and he would be pegged as a racist for as long as he lives (rightfully so). Why should it be any different for Irvin? I mean, isn't that what we are "striving for", equality?

Understand where you're coming from now...don't worry I won't make this thread ugly lol. People took what Irvin said as a joke and he meant it that way. KKKramer said what he said out of racist anger. You're talking about two different levels of equality. Human rights is much different from Sports Broadcasting. You hear we want to be equal because it's MUCH harder for minorities to be taken seriously on a lot of things.

Steel12
11-30-2006, 12:42 PM
So if Sean Salisbury says of, oh I dunno, Donovan McNabb that,"Wow McNabb sure is playing smart lately, it's almost like his great-great-great-great grandma had some relations with a white man." Do you think that would be viewed as a compliment? Hell no! The NAACP would call for Salisbury's head, over a "joke compliment" as you so put it.

Irvin may have meant it as a joke, but it was pretty much a diss on every white person ever born. It' a shame we don't have any powerful white people who are ballsy enough to hold black and white commentatos to the same standard.

If Sean Salisbury would've said that, then all hell would've broke loose and IMO, rightfully so! Racism is very often associated with how white people treat minorities, not the other way around. That's the world we live in and it's that way because of what white people did to minorities many decades ago. Should we get over what happened long ago, NO. Should we let it affect us, NO, but it does. I still get followed around in stores...I still get pulled over for no reason...I still can't get adequate service when I go to restaurants, malls, etc...and I defend this fukkin country! When they do see my Military identification, that's when I get the smiles and the "thanks for what you do". Excuse my little rant, but I don't think you (not you personally) can fully understand what minorities go thru unless you are one.

Steel12
11-30-2006, 12:44 PM
I still go back to Chris Rock and his giving us white folks a pathway to epiphany....

"Ain't one of you in this room would switch places with me... and I'm RICH! 'Naw, I think I'll hang on to this white thing a little longer, see where it takes me.'"


Tom

LMAO...he's right though.

sumo
11-30-2006, 12:44 PM
I was really disappointed in Michael Richards. He totally lost my respect. Whether he was coked up, pissed off, or out of his mind, its no excuse.

I agree and I really don't want to make excuses for what he did, but the more I see him on TV lately - the more I'm convinced he has mental issues - He really freaked me out when he came on Letterman with Seinfeld (that's what prompted me to start the thread in the first place)- the guy may be a taco short of a combo platter...

83-Steelers-43
11-30-2006, 01:12 PM
Understand where you're coming from now...don't worry I won't make this thread ugly lol. People took what Irvin said as a joke and he meant it that way. KKKramer said what he said out of racist anger. You're talking about two different levels of equality. Human rights is much different from Sports Broadcasting. You hear we want to be equal because it's MUCH harder for minorities to be taken seriously on a lot of things.

I'm not comparing what Kramer said to what Michael Irvin said. I'm comparing Jimmy the Greeks firing and his comments to Michael Irvin's comments and current employment.

Jimmy the Greek's comments = Racist.

Michael Irvin's comments = Oh, it's just joking.

The hypothetical Sean Salisbury comment = Racist.

Michael Irvin's comments = Oh, it's just joking.

Once again, double-standards.

tony hipchest
11-30-2006, 01:54 PM
Jimmy the Greek's comments = Racist.

Michael Irvin's comments = Oh, hes just on crack.

The hypothetical Sean Salisbury comment = Racist.

Michael Irvin's comments = Oh, hes just on crack.

Once again, double-standards.

:chuckle: not to bog this down in semantics but in the study of sociology the term "racist" is usually used for those who are in power, the majority, those with the authority, or capabilities to opress, based on their prejudices.

for all others the term prejudiced is used.

so not only is racism a prejudiced mindframe, it includes the ability to empower one group, or keep another group down.

prejudice is just the mindframe. in this case the comments by the greek and kramer could be viewed as racist while irvins remarks are prejudiced.

augustashark
11-30-2006, 02:05 PM
Jimmy the Greek's comments = Racist.

Michael Irvin's comments = Oh, hes just on crack.

The hypothetical Sean Salisbury comment = Racist.

Michael Irvin's comments = Oh, hes just on crack.

Once again, double-standards.

:chuckle: not to bog this down in semantics but in the study of sociology the term "racist" is usually used for those who are in power, the majority, those with the authority, or capabilities to opress, based on their prejudices.

for all others the term prejudiced is used.

so not only is racism a prejudiced mindframe, it includes the ability to empower one group, or keep another group down.

prejudice is just the mindframe. in this case the comments by the greek and kramer could be viewed as racist while irvins remarks are prejudiced.

You think that what the Greek said was him trying to hold down the African American race?

I think you're way off on this one.

augustashark
11-30-2006, 02:09 PM
Here you go Tony.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17280

83-Steelers-43
11-30-2006, 03:01 PM
Here you go Tony.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17280

Thank you augustashark and more importantly (no offense augustashark), thank you Mr. Moore. :smile:

augustashark
11-30-2006, 03:10 PM
Anytime my waste mgmt friend. I just thought that his opinion carried alittle more weight then ours.

tony hipchest
11-30-2006, 03:14 PM
You think that what the Greek said was him trying to hold down the African American race?

I think you're way off on this one.
no, i dont think that. i dont know where you would even get that.

i do however know that the greek was white, that whites are the majority in america and hold the most of the power.

dont blame me for offering up the subtle differences between racism and prejudice from a sociological perspective.

augustashark
11-30-2006, 03:17 PM
Jimmy the Greek's comments = Racist.

Michael Irvin's comments = Oh, hes just on crack.

The hypothetical Sean Salisbury comment = Racist.

Michael Irvin's comments = Oh, hes just on crack.

Once again, double-standards.

:chuckle: not to bog this down in semantics but in the study of sociology the term "racist" is usually used for those who are in power, the majority, those with the authority, or capabilities to opress, based on their prejudices.
for all others the term prejudiced is used.

so not only is racism a prejudiced mindframe, it includes the ability to empower one group, or keep another group down.
prejudice is just the mindframe. in this case the comments by the greek and kramer could be viewed as racist while irvins remarks are prejudiced.

You're right, I guess I don't get it.

tony hipchest
11-30-2006, 03:38 PM
You're right, I guess I don't get it.no problem. hope i cleared some things up from a sociological perspective.

Preacher
12-15-2006, 05:34 AM
tony hipchest Quote:
Originally Posted by augustashark http://forums.steelersfever.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?p=183755#post183755)
You're right, I guess I don't get it.

no problem. hope i cleared some things up from a sociological perspective.

So Tony,

From a sociological perspective... I guess you would then agree that the Bengals Suck, not because they have black players, nor white players, but because they are the Bengals, right? :sofunny::sofunny::sofunny::sofunny: