The thing about rap music is yeah, I hate it. No biggie. I hate country, folk, rhythm & blues, jazz, classical, opera, metal, hard rock, etc. But nobody cares if I diss on country by calling them all rednecks. But if I diss on rap by saying maybe they’d be better off staying in school & not shooting each other all the time, then everyone calls “racism!”
But really, I just hate rap. It’s just too easy to pick on 'em for being ghetto black, too.
I’m going to try one more time, just for any lurkers who may be still reading.
You said Bonds is guilty. You said it is a fact. You said that he has done things for his own benefit that have changed the outcomes of games. You said that is a fact. When I ask for the proof, you say that he did it. When I ask again for proof, you say that he did it. Your post is your cite.
You do not accept an accusation as proof for other players. You do not accept an accusation as proof for Rose, even though Rose is a confessed and admitted rule-breaker. You only accept an accusation as proof when it is Bonds. Why?
I think one thing people are overlooking is that people often look down on or are hostile towards those of lesser socio-economic status than themselves. Unfortunately, in this country, it can tend to break down by ethnic group, so that people can conflate the two together.
I’ll admit I don’t particularly always feel comfortable around lower class people. Frequently they seem coarse, ill mannered, loud, badly dressed, etc… I can understand how if the only lower class people you saw were not of the same race as you, that you’d come to associate what you didn’t like about the lower class people with that particular race.
Luckily, I’ve been around lower class people of all races- white, black, and hispanic, just like I’ve been around middle class people (I’m middle class) of the same racial groups, so it’s pretty clear that the behaviors and attitudes I don’t like aren’t associated with any particular race.
Because being called a redneck and being accused of not finishing school and shooting each other are the same.
Like Matisyahu and Remedy, for example?
Oh, and concerning the hijack. Bonds is an asshole but Rose killed the game of baseball for many people.
Or a higher one.
Exactly. Add, your kids are possibly related to your sister. But not in a good way. So?
Yes. He is guilty of being an asshole. Just google Barry Bonds and the media, or teammates, or fans or 713. I can’t be bothered your trying to correct such willful blindness. I asked you how I could prove it to you, you offered nothing. He is. If a little googling doesn’t prove it to you, If YMVs, good for you.
What the hell are you talking about? I asked you to make a specific accusation, you made none. And as far as I know, if you did, you would be the only one making it. Pete Rose bet on baseball, then lied about it. We agree on that. You continue to want to piss out some vague charges against him having something to do with his betting while a player changing the outcome of a game. Which game, PLEASE? Make a specific accusation. What did he do in which game that he bet on that affected the outcome? Then show that an accusation was leveled and that he denied it. THAT would make him the type of person you are trying to portray him as. But nah, why bother. Instead, just say that he is rule-breaker, therefore he is guilty of anything you may accuse him of. Well, I accuse him of using cocaine before every game and using a bat filled with Flubber. And you know what, I bet he denies it. The big, fat, Flubber-using cocaine addict. And that will be PROOF!
I’ll be looking forward to your pointing to the game(s) PR played in in which his betting affected the outcome.
Which is all by itself far worse to many people, myself included, than anything Bonds has even been accused of doing.
On the morality meter, it may very well be. My point is that his actions do not bring into question whatever skills he had as a player. Not so for Bonds. We’ll never know how many homers he would have hit sans juice.
I understand your point. Bonds’ stats are suspect.
You probably made a mistake bring Rose into the debate. The man is a fool at best and a proven fraud. I loved how he played when he played. He was a throw back to the old days. He got more out of his natural abilities than anyone did around him. However, the man is reprehensible. When every clubhouse has a sign up about not gambling on baseball, they mean it. When a commission was willing to exile the two most popular recently retired players of the time for even the whiffs of association with gambling the message becomes unavoidable.
You should have compared him to other cheats.
Why Jason Giambi is better treated by the press and especially “talk radio”.
I’m not the one who brought him up. I was responding to Post #21 by jsgoddess.
Forgive me, my mistake. I got confused.
Were you actually pointing out why comparing Rose to Bonds is not comparing Like to Like?
Jim
I brought Rose into the debate for this very reason. Rose is defended hysterically for things he has admitted doing. Bonds is decried hysterically for things he is accused of doing. People will start shrieking about Bonds breaking the rules (though the rules might not have existed yet) and being arrogant (though other players are also arrogant) and I suspect that racism plays a role in the entire Bonds persona as reported by the media.
The Jason Giambi thing has a lot to do with your reason 2, I think.
Believe me; I am in your corner on Rose. But I think it could be said that Rose the Player did not embarrass and besmirch the game. It was Rose the Manager and Rose the Pariah that continues to do so.
The Steroids that Bonds used may not have been against the rules of the MLB, but they were apparently illegal substances.
Him, Big Mac, Jason G, Jeremy G, Sosa, Canseco, Sheffield & Palmiero are all considered guilty of this in the court of Public Opinion. We both believe Rose is dumber and has hurt the game more, but Bonds is the biggest target and the surliest of the bunch. Jason is probably the most sympathetic and likeable.
To an outside observer who has not followed baseball fanatically for decades, I understand the perception of racism. White steroid guy is being forgiven, black steroid guy is not and biggest idiot of all is a white guy with more defenders than Bonds.
One thing missing from all this, Sheffield seems to have been allowed to slide on all of this and he is African-American with an Embarrassment for an Uncle and iffy relation with the press. This deflates the racial angle a bit. I still think with Bonds it is overwhelmingly the pursuit of **the Record ** and the very long standing act of being a Jerk.
Jim
Yes. From Post 79:
I agree with the distinction you make between Rose The Player and his other personas. Regardless of his transgressions while a manager or a human being,* as a player* he is untouchable. Beyond untouchable. He is a role model for how any kid should play the game. I asked jsgoddess to for a specific allegation to the contrary and, as expected, all I got was crickets.
Is it RACISM or TRIBALISM? I think the USA has become tribalized, in the sense that people tent to identify with certain groups, which may or may not pass racial lines. for example: tribalism is evident in many city departments-you find members of one ethinic group concentrated in the polic or fire departments.
I find that odd. Police department and professional Fire departments seem to reflect the makeup of the towns or city. I have noticed Volunteer Fire Departments are usually less racially diverse.
Can you be more specific? I haven’t observed what you described for city governments. What area of the country sre you in? It might make a difference.
magellan01: I just want to apologize again. I seem to agree with both you and **jsgoddess ** if that is possible. 
Jim
Great thread. Except for the baseball. yawn
Well, that’s very comforting for you. Millions have different experiences. What do you make of that?
This totally sums it up for me.
We are all racist - you, me, them, black people, white people, Native American lesbians in wheelchairs, whatever - let’s accept it and move on to figure out what that means.
WhyNot’s example of walking a little differently when seeing young black hooded men approach at night is a good one. I had this same experience (and considering that my husband is himself a young black hooded man, I had the same sort of “Oh my god! I’m racist!” kind of shock). I chewed on it for a while and came to the conclusion that, while it was indeed “racist” by any definition for me to fear those guys (especially after it was pointed out to me that, on the whole, black men have much more to fear from white men than vice versa) (a) I am not a bad person for being more frightened, but more importantly (b) to be a young black man in this city means that almost everyone you approach will be a little scared of you.
I (a white woman) have never had trouble approaching strangers for the time, for directions, even for a quarter to use the phone. Black guys can’t do this nearly as easily.
Once I locked myself out of my house on my deck, and had to flag down a passer-by to ask her to go into my house and let me back in.
If this had happened to my husband, he would have been out there on the deck all night. Think about it. If you were walking home from work, and you saw a black guy on a deck asking you to enter his house, would you do it? I wouldn’t.
On colourblindness: it is a nice ideal to have, but it is not representative of the world we live in. To try to be colourblind in a racist world will just result in more racism. You must understand that most young black men, in contrast to young white women, for example, have grown up with strangers fearing their approach. They have grown up with shopkeepers suspecting them of shoplifting, of cops regularly stopping them on the street, of teachers having lower expectations of them, of having their resumes tossed in the bin because of their black-sounding names. If you ignore all this and expect a young black man to act in exactly the same way as a young white woman would, you will be disappointed.
This does not mean that we should not use the same standards to evaluate them. We just need to make sure the standards are right - can this person effectively do the job? (not “does this person effectively sell their skills in an interview?”) Does this person meet these specific criteria? (not “does this person have some intangible quality that we desire, but cannot name?”)
We must stop worrying about who is racist and who isn’t (because even if we could unequivocally label people with one label or the other, we wouldn’t be one bit farther ahead in solving the problem) and spend our time looking at specific examples of racism (e.g. fearing black men on the street) and deconstruct them to see what we can learn. Only once we shed this stupid and pointless desire to label people as racist, and at the same time take it as a great insult to be labelled as racist, can we move forward.
On hip hop: This is a deeply complicated issue because of all the racial dynamics. Believe it or not, there is hip hop music which is
It (like most “black” music) has its roots in revolution and social identity of an oppressed class. It has been commercialized to an absurd degree, but let’s not allow the commercialized big-label stuff we hear on the radio to judge the entire genre. Those of you who profess to hate hip-hop - how do you feel about The Revolution Will Not be Televised by Gil Scott Heron? That’s hip-hop, just as much as 50-Cent.
The huge majority of what we might consider “decent” hip-hop does not get played on the radio, and so the huge majority of it gets ignored. We cannot ignore the profit motive here: the record companies sell more to the demographic that likes the bling and the gangsta life and the corresponding bullshit. They don’t play the stuff that doesn’t appeal to that demographic. So more of the sh!t gets made because that’s what makes more money, and people like Sarah Jones who make spectacular hip-hop that is directly and specifically critical of the big-money hip-hop gets ignored (at best) and censored (at worst).
Nice post cowgirl:
Made me thing of something funny/sad.
Past 20 years: “Rap music is Black music and will ruin the Youth”
1950’s: “Rock & Roll is Colored Music and will ruin the Youth”
1930’s: “Swing is Negro music and will ruin the Youth”
I wonder if the same was said about Rag Time?
Jim