German Newspaper: Dirk defeats ghetto basketball

[brassviews]

I think the author is doing a favor by expressing what most people think including myself. I don't see a problem with that whatsoever. Maybe he could be a bit more mature with the words and phrases he uses instead of coming off as a bigot. But for the most part, the things he says holds merit.

To have a white Finals MVP again is great as it shows that the NBA is becoming more diverse. When you have only black players winning Finals MVPs, it makes the league look racist. I consider this unintentional segregation by them. The fact that black players are mostly Finals MVPs gives indication that black players are only capable of such feats. That shouldn't be the impression whatsoever. If people root for Nowitzki because he's white, it should be to end trends that generate racism. Just as black Americans in the 60s rooted on their own to enroll in white universities, I see no issue with white people rooting for Nowitzki to become Finals MVP. It's all about trying to end the norm.

About the culture and style of NBA players over the years, I would have to really agree with the author. I think the dress code policy was one of the best things Stern did for the league. The long jerseys, baggy pants, and sports caps that players were wearing to and at games made the league look like a hip hop after party. Iverson was responsible for this phenomenon as he fashioned this clothing style first. Even though today's NBA players don't dress this way anymore, you can still see remnants of it through the tattoo craze. There's nothing wrong with tattoos, and I don't mind if players sport them. My issue is the excessiveness of tattoos. When guys have them plastered all over their bodies including face and neck, it makes the league look thuggish. Some of the players look like people who would commit felonies. The dress code could only do so much I guess.

Lastly, I think the NBA is a league of show given the type of basketball played. It seems a lot of players are interested in giving highlight reels rather than help their teams win games. But when you look at the type of basketball background these players come from, you can't really blame them. Some of them develop an interest in basketball from watching streetball. They feel they have to put on a show in order to gain respect from their peers. It's unfortunate, but that's just way things are when you're a young player.

Nonetheless, I prefer European basketball over NBA though the latter is still better given the level of players. But I think the team basketball in Europe is more enjoyable than the individual-driven basketball played in the NBA. I much rather watch Barcelona play than see Wade or Durant score 50 points.

This is just my opinion of course.

[Coach_McGuirk]

Well try and wear that to a job interview and say wearing this is your preference. It's more about being professional than style preference. The NBA is a business that needs to sell itself to advertisers and therefor the employees should look professional.

Just because you wouldn't get the job doesn't mean that the reasoning behind it isn't stupid.

I don't care what they wear either, because my interest focuses on basketball. But to cater to the masses you need to show professionalism and that includes a decent dress code.

[MigrainePatrol]

The German writer that did this piece would be like that comedian's joke about how Adolf Hitler would feel if all the black people left the NBA and it was 5 white dudes vs 5 white dudes. He would be like "Eeek Wharz arez zee Nigg.az?" LOL

[2011Champs]

You all are way too sensitive if some article is going bother you that much.
Grow a pair.

[kailloo]

The difference is it's hidden in the USA but I think overall France is more integrated .

No.

15% of American marriages in 2008 were interracial/inter-ethnic (I used inter-ethnic because the US govt counts Latinos as white).

I question if France even has 15% ethnic/racial minorities in its population, let alone having all 15% of marriages being interracial/inter-ethnic marriage. France has immigrants, but they are mostly other European caucasians: Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Greek, and Polish.

Heck, less than 5 years ago France was still having race riots. This year they implemented a xenophobic burqa ban, part of Sarkozy's attempt to siphon off racist/xenophobic votes that were tilting towards Le Pen.

France also have mass deportations of Roma, even ones in the country legally. They literally round minorities up and kick them out of the country, for no reason other than they are minorities the French have declared undesirable. It's what the US was doing with Chinese immigrants... 100 years ago.

Sarkozy has even proposed stripping non-white Frenchmen of their citizenship if they are convicted of a crime. But white French criminals face no such loss of citizenship.

I do not post a lot but i can not let somebody say this. There was 27% of what we call here "mariages mixtes" in 2010.
Anyway I agree that french governement is using racist laws and trying to prevent immigrants to come in France. But nobody build a wall. It's not texas.

I've been to USA 5 times, not long enough to say that I know it very well but one thing that surprised me was that neighborhood were mostly from origin or another, not mixed which is very different from France where people are in the same neighborhood because they are from the same social class.

I know that it's not about the people but the politics of immigration are very different in France and USA. France denies the culture of the immigrants, "all people are the same" (but richer are better) and USA recognizes the culture from immigrants (but WASP are better).

I am a son of immigrants, I was in the riots, it was not about race, it was about social problems, i have friends from all origin, asians, africans, north africans, east europeans, completely french (does it exist?, (only 1 fourth of French has his 4 grand parents french) all people grew up together and if i find France hypocrit (no deputee from arabian origin for exemple) it seems to me that people in France (in big cities at least) are very used to live with people from other countries.

Still if I think Sarkozy is bad, you can not tell lies, for example, the loss of citizenship is not about color, it is for the people who got french citizenship in the 3 last years and did something like murder or rape. I do not agree whith this law but come on if there was something about colour in a french law the guy would not keep his job. But yes, since the unemployment grew up, the far right racist party is growing up and Sarkozy is trying to get voices. But his politics would still be democrat in your country...

Anyway, come to Paris, you'll see by yourself.
Sorry for my english guys.

[number 11]

I think the author is doing a favor by expressing what most people think including myself. I don't see a problem with that whatsoever. Maybe he could be a bit more mature with the words and phrases he uses instead of coming off as a bigot. But for the most part, the things he says holds merit.

To have a white Finals MVP again is great as it shows that the NBA is becoming more diverse. When you have only black players winning Finals MVPs, it makes the league look racist. I consider this unintentional segregation by them. The fact that black players are mostly Finals MVPs gives indication that black players are only capable of such feats. That shouldn't be the impression whatsoever. If people root for Nowitzki because he's white, it should be to end trends that generate racism. Just as black Americans in the 60s rooted on their own to enroll in white universities, I see no issue with white people rooting for Nowitzki to become Finals MVP. It's all about trying to end the norm.

About the culture and style of NBA players over the years, I would have to really agree with the author. I think the dress code policy was one of the best things Stern did for the league. The long jerseys, baggy pants, and sports caps that players were wearing to and at games made the league look like a hip hop after party. Iverson was responsible for this phenomenon as he fashioned this clothing style first. Even though today's NBA players don't dress this way anymore, you can still see remnants of it through the tattoo craze. There's nothing wrong with tattoos, and I don't mind if players sport them. My issue is the excessiveness of tattoos. When guys have them plastered all over their bodies including face and neck, it makes the league look thuggish. Some of the players look like people who would commit felonies. The dress code could only do so much I guess.

Lastly, I think the NBA is a league of show given the type of basketball played. It seems a lot of players are interested in giving highlight reels rather than help their teams win games. But when you look at the type of basketball background these players come from, you can't really blame them. Some of them develop an interest in basketball from watching streetball. They feel they have to put on a show in order to gain respect from their peers. It's unfortunate, but that's just way things are when you're a young player.

Nonetheless, I prefer European basketball over NBA though the latter is still better given the level of players. But I think the team basketball in Europe is more enjoyable than the individual-driven basketball played in the NBA. I much rather watch Barcelona play than see Wade or Durant score 50 points.

This is just my opinion of course.

way 2 much thought put into this

u dam racist

[PersianCeltic]

First of all a country doesn't necessarily have the obligation to assimilate or integrate anyone from the outside, let alone embrace them. The entire point of a country is common national origin, history, culture or ethnicity.

Now a country like the US, which is founded on immigration, does have a particular obligation to accept immigrants. To refuse to accept Mexicans or Africans would be a counter to the most basic reason why this nation exists and would be a voiding of our very social contract. But most countries are not like this, for example a nation like say Korea or Israel has a common ethnic identity and history as a core of its reason to exist and has 0 obligation to accept other people. Israel for example was founded and validated by Europeans as a Jewish state, and that's why even Obama agrees that all those Palestinians and Arabs who were expelled by the Jews in the early part of the 20th century and in border wars have no rights to come back... let alone complete strangers who dont even have a claim on the land.

You can argue that certain European nations like France, Spain and England have some obligation to accept immigrants due to Colonization but most countries around the world, including most Central European nations have 0 obligation to do any of that crap.

Second, stereotypes of immigrants are for the most part [b]correct. Most immigrants are less educated and more rough around the edges than natives.[/b] Logically, else why would they leave their own roots to a completely new country with strange faces, a different language and all that? Becaus their own country is poorer, have less opportunities for education and living than the place they're trying to go to. The reason why immigrants immigrate is they want the piece of the pie that someone else has made. Immigrants also often represent the lowest tier of the country they're from, people who are millionaires in Belize aint moving to France... it's the poor people. A lot of the issues are cultural but most are socio economic. Most of these people weren't happy in their first country, and they aren't happy in their new country either.

Stereotypes are racist (by definition, if you say something about a group of people and it's negative it's racist) and it might be immoral (for example if you're Christian and believe everyone's equality comes from God himself). But something being racist doesn't mean it's untrue. For example saying black males are more likely to abandon their children (particularly with women of other races) is certainly racist, but it's also true. Saying Asians are smarter is racist but it's supported in testing. Racism towards immigrants in Europe is wrong but doesn't mean some of the excuses for it are all factually untrue in an absolute sense.

Third, disregarding all that the immigrants themselves are to blame. No one gives you any rights. You have to fight for them. Look at Ashkenazi Jews they were discriminated against for 1000s of years and it was only when Jews became proactive, organized and proved to the world how wrong they are about everything that Jews got rights. Immigrants cant go to country expecting thing. You have to go over ready to fight... economically, socially, and culturally until the natives are defeated. Only then can you dictate terms and tell people how to assimilate or integrate etc. Most immigrant populations are centuries away from that kind of organization. The point about assimilation or integration is also in the hands of the immigrants themselves. There are many examples of successful instances of both... for example successful assimilation by 4th, 5th generation Chinese whose ancestors been in the US since the 1840s or segregated integration like ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn who retain their own customs, religion, dress and even have their own courts and are immune to prosecution in many cases from the American court system. People have different ways of adjusting, neither better or worse. The only measure is whether they're successful and happy with the way they did it.

[DJ43]

Hitler was a Heat fan anyway.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdboDoO6hRE[/youtube]

[doc.end]

so i can't group three black guys into "degenerative hip hop culture" even if they perfectly fit into the description and I considered the culture itself degenerative? Only in US lol

I'm pretty sure if it was Birdman JR and Kmart, it wouldn't be racist because because one of them is white?

I'm pretty sure you'd put Birdman into Rock & Roll culture. You just don't get it. Unconscious racism is the worst.

Yet you have stated in your sig that you don't want your team to draft two white Euro players. Interesting. By your logic at least.

[hebrewhammer]

Lol, no. Assimilation has been the way to handle multicultiralism in many different countries (still is in some) until they started to realize that this is the wrong way to go about it. You don't try to make other people like you to get a functioning multicultural society, you accept them for what they are and advocate a mixture, not assimilation.

Yes you are right about it. What I meant by assimilation is like when one guy from Peru comes to Slovakia he makes friends with Slovakians and there are not many of his countrymen there. When people migrate in large numbers they tend to stick together more. I don't know why but for some reason it always spawns loads of problems, especially if these people are very different ethnically.

Yeah, I understand what you mean. Your first example is how it should be, a mixture. The thing is that it's not their fault, it's the peoples fault for trying to assimilate immigrants instead of embracing them for what they are and include them. This then leads to segregation and therefore, the immigrants are not to be blamed for these problems, it's the people living in the country and the system that's at fault most of the time.

First of all a country doesn't necessarily have the obligation to assimilate or integrate anyone from the outside, let alone embrace them. The entire point of a country is common national origin, history, culture or ethnicity.

Now a country like the US, which is founded on immigration, does have a particular obligation to accept immigrants. To refuse to accept Mexicans or Africans would be a counter to the most basic reason why this nation exists and would be a voiding of our very social contract. But most countries are not like this, for example a nation like say Korea or Israel has a common ethnic identity and history as a core of its reason to exist and has 0 obligation to accept other people. Israel for example was founded and validated by Europeans as a Jewish state, and that's why even Obama agrees that all those Palestinians and Arabs who were expelled by the Jews in the early part of the 20th century and in border wars have no rights to come back... let alone complete strangers who dont even have a claim on the land.

You can argue that certain European nations like France, Spain and England have some obligation to accept immigrants due to Colonization but most countries around the world, including most Central European nations have 0 obligation to do any of that crap.

Second, stereotypes of immigrants are for the most part correct. Most immigrants are less educated and more rough around the edges than natives. Logically, else why would they leave their own roots to a completely new country with strange faces, a different language and all that? Becaus their own country is poorer, have less opportunities for education and living than the place they're trying to go to. The reason why immigrants immigrate is they want the piece of the pie that someone else has made. Immigrants also often represent the lowest tier of the country they're from, people who are millionaires in Belize aint moving to France... it's the poor people. A lot of the issues are cultural but most are socio economic. Most of these people weren't happy in their first country, and they aren't happy in their new country either.

Stereotypes are racist (by definition, if you say something about a group of people and it's negative it's racist) and it might be immoral (for example if you're Christian and believe everyone's equality comes from God himself). But something being racist doesn't mean it's untrue. For example saying black males are more likely to abandon their children (particularly with women of other races) is certainly racist, but it's also true. Saying Asians are smarter is racist but it's supported in testing. Racism towards immigrants in Europe is wrong but doesn't mean some of the excuses for it are all factually untrue in an absolute sense.

Third, disregarding all that the immigrants themselves are to blame. No one gives you any rights. You have to fight for them. Look at Ashkenazi Jews they were discriminated against for 1000s of years and it was only when Jews became proactive, organized and proved to the world how wrong they are about everything that Jews got rights. Immigrants cant go to country expecting thing. You have to go over ready to fight... economically, socially, and culturally until the natives are defeated. Only then can you dictate terms and tell people how to assimilate or integrate etc. Most immigrant populations are centuries away from that kind of organization. The point about assimilation or integration is also in the hands of the immigrants themselves. There are many examples of successful instances of both... for example successful assimilation by 4th, 5th generation Chinese whose ancestors been in the US since the 1840s or segregated integration like ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn who retain their own customs, religion, dress and even have their own courts and are immune to prosecution in many cases from the American court system. People have different ways of adjusting, neither better or worse. The only measure is whether they're successful and happy with the way they did it.

[PersianCeltic]

First of all a country doesn't necessarily have the obligation to assimilate or integrate anyone from the outside, let alone embrace them. The entire point of a country is common national origin, history, culture or ethnicity.

Now a country like the US, which is founded on immigration, does have a particular obligation to accept immigrants. To refuse to accept Mexicans or Africans would be a counter to the most basic reason why this nation exists and would be a voiding of our very social contract. But most countries are not like this, for example a nation like say Korea or Israel has a common ethnic identity and history as a core of its reason to exist and has 0 obligation to accept other people. Israel for example was founded and validated by Europeans as a Jewish state, and that's why even Obama agrees that all those Palestinians and Arabs who were expelled by the Jews in the early part of the 20th century and in border wars have no rights to come back... let alone complete strangers who dont even have a claim on the land.

You can argue that certain European nations like France, Spain and England have some obligation to accept immigrants due to Colonization but most countries around the world, including most Central European nations have 0 obligation to do any of that crap.

Second, stereotypes of immigrants are for the most part correct. Most immigrants are less educated and more rough around the edges than natives. Logically, else why would they leave their own roots to a completely new country with strange faces, a different language and all that? Becaus their own country is poorer, have less opportunities for education and living than the place they're trying to go to. The reason why immigrants immigrate is they want the piece of the pie that someone else has made. Immigrants also often represent the lowest tier of the country they're from, people who are millionaires in Belize aint moving to France... it's the poor people. A lot of the issues are cultural but most are socio economic. Most of these people weren't happy in their first country, and they aren't happy in their new country either.

Stereotypes are racist (by definition, if you say something about a group of people and it's negative it's racist) and it might be immoral (for example if you're Christian and believe everyone's equality comes from God himself). But something being racist doesn't mean it's untrue. For example saying black males are more likely to abandon their children (particularly with women of other races) is certainly racist, but it's also true. Saying Asians are smarter is racist but it's supported in testing. Racism towards immigrants in Europe is wrong but doesn't mean some of the excuses for it are all factually untrue in an absolute sense.

Third, disregarding all that the immigrants themselves are to blame. No one gives you any rights. You have to fight for them. Look at Ashkenazi Jews they were discriminated against for 1000s of years and it was only when Jews became proactive, organized and proved to the world how wrong they are about everything that Jews got rights. Immigrants cant go to country expecting thing. You have to go over ready to fight... economically, socially, and culturally until the natives are defeated. Only then can you dictate terms and tell people how to assimilate or integrate etc. Most immigrant populations are centuries away from that kind of organization. The point about assimilation or integration is also in the hands of the immigrants themselves. There are many examples of successful instances of both... for example successful assimilation by 4th, 5th generation Chinese whose ancestors been in the US since the 1840s or segregated integration like ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn who retain their own customs, religion, dress and even have their own courts and are immune to prosecution in many cases from the American court system. People have different ways of adjusting, neither better or worse. The only measure is whether they're successful and happy with the way they did it.

[mowcrowbar]

[flitz]

From a german's perspective:

I would have never found this article if it wasn't for an american bball forum (this).
I can just say that talking to basketball fans around here you never hear anything like this opinion from the article. Such bs can only come from somebody who has no idea what he's talking about.

Regarding racism: the newspaper 'Die Welt' is published by the same publisher as 'Bild' - a horrible piece of yellow press. So I'm not really surprised to find such writing in there. Not that it makes the article any better but at least it isn't a wide spread oppinion.

[WhateverBro]

First of all a country doesn't necessarily have the obligation to assimilate or integrate anyone from the outside, let alone embrace them. The entire point of a country is common national origin, history, culture or ethnicity.

Now a country like the US, which is founded on immigration, does have a particular obligation to accept immigrants. To refuse to accept Mexicans or Africans would be a counter to the most basic reason why this nation exists and would be a voiding of our very social contract. But most countries are not like this, for example a nation like say Korea or Israel has a common ethnic identity and history as a core of its reason to exist and has 0 obligation to accept other people. Israel for example was founded and validated by Europeans as a Jewish state, and that's why even Obama agrees that all those Palestinians and Arabs who were expelled by the Jews in the early part of the 20th century and in border wars have no rights to come back... let alone complete strangers who dont even have a claim on the land.

You can argue that certain European nations like France, Spain and England have some obligation to accept immigrants due to Colonization but most countries around the world, including most Central European nations have 0 obligation to do any of that crap.

Second, stereotypes of immigrants are for the most part correct. Most immigrants are less educated and more rough around the edges than natives. Logically, else why would they leave their own roots to a completely new country with strange faces, a different language and all that? Becaus their own country is poorer, have less opportunities for education and living than the place they're trying to go to. The reason why immigrants immigrate is they want the piece of the pie that someone else has made. Immigrants also often represent the lowest tier of the country they're from, people who are millionaires in Belize aint moving to France... it's the poor people. A lot of the issues are cultural but most are socio economic. Most of these people weren't happy in their first country, and they aren't happy in their new country either.

Stereotypes are racist (by definition, if you say something about a group of people and it's negative it's racist) and it might be immoral (for example if you're Christian and believe everyone's equality comes from God himself). But something being racist doesn't mean it's untrue. For example saying black males are more likely to abandon their children (particularly with women of other races) is certainly racist, but it's also true. Saying Asians are smarter is racist but it's supported in testing. Racism towards immigrants in Europe is wrong but doesn't mean some of the excuses for it are all factually untrue in an absolute sense.

Third, disregarding all that the immigrants themselves are to blame. No one gives you any rights. You have to fight for them. Look at Ashkenazi Jews they were discriminated against for 1000s of years and it was only when Jews became proactive, organized and proved to the world how wrong they are about everything that Jews got rights. Immigrants cant go to country expecting thing. You have to go over ready to fight... economically, socially, and culturally until the natives are defeated. Only then can you dictate terms and tell people how to assimilate or integrate etc. Most immigrant populations are centuries away from that kind of organization. The point about assimilation or integration is also in the hands of the immigrants themselves. There are many examples of successful instances of both... for example successful assimilation by 4th, 5th generation Chinese whose ancestors been in the US since the 1840s or segregated integration like ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn who retain their own customs, religion, dress and even have their own courts and are immune to prosecution in many cases from the American court system. People have different ways of adjusting, neither better or worse. The only measure is whether they're successful and happy with the way they did it.

Lol, most countries actually do have an obligation to take on immigrants, for example being a part of EU gives your country an obligation to take on immigrants. Therefore, most central european countries also has an obligation to accept immigrants and I have no clue why you would call it "crap" when it's something positive. And no, the entire point of country isn't to share a history, culture or etnicity, it had more to do with nationalism being an easy way to control people and thus became an easy way to make sure people was ready to fight for the country.

No, stereotypes about immigrants aren't for the most part correct. Studies actually show that they are often false. It might be true that immigrants are less educated than natives, but I really don't see this as a problem. Just because they are less educated doesn't mean that they are dumber, it's just that they haven't had the opportunity to educate themselves yet and this opportunity should be provided by the country they arrive to. Lol at believing most immigrants aren't happy in their new country, I have never met one who isn't. You are talking a bout a small, very small minority since most are definitely happy in their new country. And your whole point of the black people more likely to leave their children and asians being smarter I don't believe for one second. Does this study on black people include black people all over the world? I have a hard time to believing that skin color would have anything to do with leaving your child. And Asians test better because of those type of tests are similar to what asian countries use on their tests in school, not because being asian somehow makes you smarter, that's a ridiculous claim.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you're saying there are examples of successful assimilations, since assimilation is something negative. It's not what you strive for and if assimilation is successful in a country means that their attempt to create a multicultiral society failed.