Update - Gil Sentenced - 2yrs Probation - No Jailtime

[dobrojim]

+1 donk

[montestewart]

I think it's a great thread, and I'll come back later. I'm off to find the Arenas thread.

[Severn Hoos]

Huh. Interesting discussion. I'm not ready yet to say that African Americans or whatever have made enough progress that we can declare "mission accomplished" and stop worrying about it. I find it comforting that only 40 years after MLK Jr was assassinated we were able to progress far enough to elect Barack Obama. That's a good sign of progress. But that's all it is. We have a long way to go to make sure that the future course of your life at birth is determined solely by the merit of your diligence and your character and not the color of your skin. Or where you were born, or what god you worship, and etc. etc. etc.

I think Mike Vick and Gilbert did get a bad rap because of the color of their skin. You don't see people calling white athletes thugs. Ever.

Good point - I have never heard a white athlete called a thug. Of course, there's a subculture - mostly Black/African American - that glamorizes the "thug life" even if they do claim that it's "just entertainment." At the general level, it's tough to glamorize the one and then complain when the label is applied. IMO, if more people complained more vocally about the glamorization, there's be more of a case to be offended by the term.

And on the other hand, the popular term for white athletes is "punk." From Jason Williams to Ryan Leaf to Jimmy Claussen, the "white version" of players who would probably be referred to as "thugs" if they were black is to call them punks. Is there an equivalence there? I don't know. I suppose "thug" does have a more negative (violent?) connotation than "punk," but it's an interesting cultural divide.

[Severn Hoos]

There will never be complete equality or fairness. It will always be something. People will always form groups and separate be it race, intelligence, music, region, whatever. People are different and a lot of people like being around people that are the same as them.. whatever that sameness is.

People like Jessie Jackson and other black leaders of more modern times have even started to say it... Get out of your own mental jail. Stop living in the past. Stop being a victim. It has never looked so good for people of black heritage. They are passing on that message because it is true. Self jailing and holding onto excuses holds more black people back then anyone can do to them.

Thanks, hands - I appreciate this part of your post. People congregating with others with whom they are most comfortable is not in itself a bad thing. And I do believe that the deep-seated hatred that existed is mostly passed from the scene with younger generations.

One last point - my least favorite expression is "Don't judge a book by its cover." Now, I understand what it means and where it came from. But think about it - when the expression was coined, all books had virtually the same (leather bound) covers. Maybe one was a little fancier than another, but you really couldn't tell anything about the content of the writing by the actual cover.

Now, fast forward to 2010. Walk through a Borders or Poetry & Prose, particularly the Politics section. I guarantee you that you'll be able to determine the political viewpoint and probably the main thesis of 80% or more of the books by just looking at their covers. Is there a hagiographical picture on the cover? It's probably a positive biography of that person. The most unflattering picture possible of the subject (LOTS of examples in this genre, whether it's Bush, Hillary, Obama, etc.)? You can bet it's an attempt to tear down that person.

Point is, authors and publishers telegraph their intentions with the covers they choose, since they now have the ability to convey so much more in their choice of covers.

What does this have to do with people? Well, I believe that the choices we make in how we present ourselves to others say a lot about us, and that it is valid to begin to form opinions from those choices. If a guy comes to me for a job interview dressed sloppily, has lots of tattoos, and is wearing a baseball cap, I will start to form an opinion about that person, certainly as it relates to his fitness for the job. And if he opens his mouth and can't form a proper sentence, then I'm pretty much done.

(By the way, how did you just picture the guy I described in the paragraph above? Black? White? Something else? I didn't say, so maybe how you pictured him says something about your own preconceptions?)

I believe that a lot of what is considered "racism" today would be more appropriately termed "culturism." I think most of the people who called Vick a thug would actually be more comfortable with a well-dressed, professional-looking black man than a tattooed, long-haired (or skinhead?) white guy. What they are reacting to is the entire culture that glorifies violence, denigrates education ("acting white"? could there be a more self-defeating philosophy than to demonize education, which is clearly the best path to get out of the difficult circumstances so many find themselves in?), and seems to glory in offending - or at least making uncomfortable - "the man".

Allen Iverson can do his job with cornrows, pants on the ground, and pitiful grammar. But the guy working in retail who wants to emulate Iverson will never make it up the ladder - not because of the color of his skin, but because of the way he presents himself. And that is almost completely in his control, including making the effort to go to school and educate himself so that he speaks in a way that engenders confidence in others. But if he's constantly told that the reason he's kept down is not his own making, but sinister forces out to get him, he will never actually achieve whatever potential he may have. And that's a tragedy.

[sorry for the length, thanks for indulging me...]

[NbdyBeatsTheWiz]

you're welcome severn, i enjoyed the read, it almost redeemed the thread for me.

[hands11]

Huh. Interesting discussion. I'm not ready yet to say that African Americans or whatever have made enough progress that we can declare "mission accomplished" and stop worrying about it. I find it comforting that only 40 years after MLK Jr was assassinated we were able to progress far enough to elect Barack Obama. That's a good sign of progress. But that's all it is. We have a long way to go to make sure that the future course of your life at birth is determined solely by the merit of your diligence and your character and not the color of your skin. Or where you were born, or what god you worship, and etc. etc. etc.

I think Mike Vick and Gilbert did get a bad rap because of the color of their skin. You don't see people calling white athletes thugs. Ever.

Good point - I have never heard a white athlete called a thug. Of course, there's a subculture - mostly Black/African American - that glamorizes the "thug life" even if they do claim that it's "just entertainment." At the general level, it's tough to glamorize the one and then complain when the label is applied. IMO, if more people complained more vocally about the glamorization, there's be more of a case to be offended by the term.

And on the other hand, the popular term for white athletes is "punk." From Jason Williams to Ryan Leaf to Jimmy Claussen, the "white version" of players who would probably be referred to as "thugs" if they were black is to call them punks. Is there an equivalence there? I don't know. I suppose "thug" does have a more negative (violent?) connotation than "punk," but it's an interesting cultural divide.

Watch the Sopranos. The God Father.. Etc. Italians are called thugs also. And understandably so because of the mob thing. The boys. I have heard my share of stories from my Great Uncles mostly. Stereo types are not just made up. My family members had mob connections so I can at least understand why people think what they do about Italians. It certainly isn't all Italians, but the ones that act a certain way trigger those thoughts and they are sometimes accurate. The mob is a real thing and it was heavy with Italians.

With the movies, the real life news and busts.. it is what it is.

Now I didn't understand any of this when I was a kid in a mostly WASP/Jewish neighborhood so it was a little confusing what was going on. Was it fair? No. But as I got older I could at least understand where it was coming from. Stereotyping is a starting point. It's what you prove about yourself as an individual after that. People that can't get past the stereotypes racists, bigots, etc. Some may change. Many just need to die off so a new generation can replace them. Then things change.

But it's always some group. It once was the Irish and the Polish. Asian.. Now Middle-Eastern and Mexican. It's the challenges of the melting pot as it melts. But name a place in the world that melts better than we do.

Hell look at the Kurds, Sunni and **** in Iraq ...

[hands11]

There will never be complete equality or fairness. It will always be something. People will always form groups and separate be it race, intelligence, music, region, whatever. People are different and a lot of people like being around people that are the same as them.. whatever that sameness is.

People like Jessie Jackson and other black leaders of more modern times have even started to say it... Get out of your own mental jail. Stop living in the past. Stop being a victim. It has never looked so good for people of black heritage. They are passing on that message because it is true. Self jailing and holding onto excuses holds more black people back then anyone can do to them.

Thanks, hands - I appreciate this part of your post. People congregating with others with whom they are most comfortable is not in itself a bad thing. And I do believe that the deep-seated hatred that existed is mostly passed from the scene with younger generations.

One last point - my least favorite expression is "Don't judge a book by its cover." Now, I understand what it means and where it came from. But think about it - when the expression was coined, all books had virtually the same (leather bound) covers. Maybe one was a little fancier than another, but you really couldn't tell anything about the content of the writing by the actual cover.

Now, fast forward to 2010. Walk through a Borders or Poetry & Prose, particularly the Politics section. I guarantee you that you'll be able to determine the political viewpoint and probably the main thesis of 80% or more of the books by just looking at their covers. Is there a hagiographical picture on the cover? It's probably a positive biography of that person. The most unflattering picture possible of the subject (LOTS of examples in this genre, whether it's Bush, Hillary, Obama, etc.)? You can bet it's an attempt to tear down that person.

Point is, authors and publishers telegraph their intentions with the covers they choose, since they now have the ability to convey so much more in their choice of covers.

What does this have to do with people? Well, I believe that the choices we make in how we present ourselves to others say a lot about us, and that it is valid to begin to form opinions from those choices. If a guy comes to me for a job interview dressed sloppily, has lots of tattoos, and is wearing a baseball cap, I will start to form an opinion about that person, certainly as it relates to his fitness for the job. And if he opens his mouth and can't form a proper sentence, then I'm pretty much done.

(By the way, how did you just picture the guy I described in the paragraph above? Black? White? Something else? I didn't say, so maybe how you pictured him says something about your own preconceptions?)

I believe that a lot of what is considered "racism" today would be more appropriately termed "culturism." I think most of the people who called Vick a thug would actually be more comfortable with a well-dressed, professional-looking black man than a tattooed, long-haired (or skinhead?) white guy. What they are reacting to is the entire culture that glorifies violence, denigrates education ("acting white"? could there be a more self-defeating philosophy than to demonize education, which is clearly the best path to get out of the difficult circumstances so many find themselves in?), and seems to glory in offending - or at least making uncomfortable - "the man".

Allen Iverson can do his job with cornrows, pants on the ground, and pitiful grammar. But the guy working in retail who wants to emulate Iverson will never make it up the ladder - not because of the color of his skin, but because of the way he presents himself. And that is almost completely in his control, including making the effort to go to school and educate himself so that he speaks in a way that engenders confidence in others. But if he's constantly told that the reason he's kept down is not his own making, but sinister forces out to get him, he will never actually achieve whatever potential he may have. And that's a tragedy.

[sorry for the length, thanks for indulging me...]

Great read Sev.. Thankss for putting some though into that. I would have to agree. Great read and thought provoking.

[dobrojim]

good and fair points Sev

in a similar vein I remember reading one of those early internet emails
that had gone viral - the email broke down MJ's salary in a number of ways,
what he got per game, per hour, how he had already exceeded the SS cap
on taxes on Jan 1 etc....pretty impressive stuff or at least thought provoking.
Gargantuan numbers by most reasonable standards.

but the clincher was the last sentence/statement which pointed out that
MJ would have to continue making money at that pace for some number of
DECADES (or more) before he would catch up to Bill Gates.

all this has exactly ZERO to do with Gil or racism either

[daSwami]

Good point - I have never heard a white athlete called a thug. Of course, there's a subculture - mostly Black/African American - that glamorizes the "thug life" even if they do claim that it's "just entertainment." At the general level, it's tough to glamorize the one and then complain when the label is applied. IMO, if more people complained more vocally about the glamorization, there's be more of a case to be offended by the term.

Gil is not an athlete who to my knowledge has ever done anything to embrace and/or glamorize the "thug life" mentality. Those who think the gun incident proves otherwise probably have a place in their brains reserved for anyone who fits the the tattooed/irreverent/young/black/millionaire/athlete archetype (aka prejudice). Its so much easier to lump all these people into the "thug" category before ever taking the time to get to know the individual. God forbid one might have to re-think some long-held misconceptions.

Al Sharpton has openly expressed his frustration with young black men who seem so willing to embrace these stereotypes because, he feels, it only serves to stoke the embers of bigotry.

And on the other hand, the popular term for white athletes is "punk." From Jason Williams to Ryan Leaf to Jimmy Claussen, the "white version" of players who would probably be referred to as "thugs" if they were black is to call them punks. Is there an equivalence there? I don't know. I suppose "thug" does have a more negative (violent?) connotation than "punk," but it's an interesting cultural divide.

I hadn't thought about the "punk" thing, but I do see coded racism inwhich terms like "scrappy," "heady," and "gutsy" are often reserved for white athletes. Here's a great article about Dustin Pedroia that speaks to the subject quite eloquently

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/dustin_pedroia/page1

[hands11]

Good point - I have never heard a white athlete called a thug. Of course, there's a subculture - mostly Black/African American - that glamorizes the "thug life" even if they do claim that it's "just entertainment." At the general level, it's tough to glamorize the one and then complain when the label is applied. IMO, if more people complained more vocally about the glamorization, there's be more of a case to be offended by the term.

Gil is not an athlete who to my knowledge has ever done anything to embrace and/or glamorize the "thug life" mentality. Those who think the gun incident proves otherwise probably have a place in their brains reserved for anyone who fits the the tattooed/irreverent/young/black/millionaire/athlete archetype (aka prejudice). Its so much easier to lump all these people into the "thug" category before ever taking the time to get to know the individual. God forbid one might have to re-think some long-held misconceptions.

Al Sharpton has openly expressed his frustration with young black men who seem so willing to embrace these stereotypes because, he feels, it only serves to stoke the embers of bigotry.

And on the other hand, the popular term for white athletes is "punk." From Jason Williams to Ryan Leaf to Jimmy Claussen, the "white version" of players who would probably be referred to as "thugs" if they were black is to call them punks. Is there an equivalence there? I don't know. I suppose "thug" does have a more negative (violent?) connotation than "punk," but it's an interesting cultural divide.

I hadn't thought about the "punk" thing, but I do see coded racism inwhich terms like "scrappy," "heady," and "gutsy" are often reserved for white athletes. Here's a great article about Dustin Pedroia that speaks to the subject quite eloquently

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/dustin_pedroia/page1

I don't think those are reserved.

I think MJ and Magic where those things. MJ was also an amazing leaper, Magic wasn't.

Magic was more like a Bird. Those players are called. - scrappy," "heady," and "gutsy
MJ, Kobe, LeBron, etc are also amazing leapers so while they are those things and are commented on saying they are you are also going to hear of lot of comments about their amazing physical plays because ... how can you ignore them.

An amazing athlete is simply going to have more adj applied to them that over shadow the scrappy," "heady," and "gutsy adj while someone who isn't an amazing athlete (leaper) , those are the only words you hear ie. Steve Nash. That makes it sound like they are reserved for them when I don't believe they are.

But peoples perception is their reality.