McNabb Was Right

I really had no intention of mentioning this topic in the least. However, there was an historic event on Monday in the NFL which brought this back for me. The Cowboys defeated the Buffalo Bills 25-24. The Cowboys defense allowed 3 points. QB Tony Romo threw five interceptions – two were returned for touchdowns. The Cowboys won the game because the defense stifled the Bills and eventually forced turnovers late. The Cowboys placekicker had a game for the ages by nailing two long field goals and a textbook onside kick.

If anyone wants to see how two QBs are perceived after awful performances, look no further than Monday’s contest between the Buffalo Bills and Dallas Cowboys. Cowboys QB Tony Romo threw five picks and he is being celebrated for his grit and resolve.

ESPN’s Gene Wojciechowski tries to snuggle up to Tony’s nutsack. That little Romo throws five picks and gets compared favorably to Tom Brady. What a country!

USA Today’s Skip Wood kneels down for a whiff. Hmmm! Hmm! Romo!!

The Dallas Morning News’ Jean-Jacque Taylor beats a path to Romo’s doorway. “Cause he’s got personality!”

There are at least 1,000 national stories covering some aspect of the game. Google the love fest for yourself. It all stands in stark contrast to the reviews of McNabb’s struggles against the New York Giants last week. Of course the Eagles were playing a superior team and without their star running back – and their coach’s gameplan was abysmal, but that’s another discussion for another time.

If “white” folks stumble across this post, be sure to remind me that “this has nothing to do with race.” I already know. It’s because the Cowboys are popular; because Romo’s a new guy; because Romo’s likeable; because Romo’s mobile and he makes things happen; because Romo’s not involved in any controversy; because Romo smiles all the time; because Romo’s whatever…you fill it in. I wonder if he dodges the bullet if the Cowboys lose this game. We’ll never know. Next week’s game versus the New England Patriots will not offer the media or anyone else an opportunity for substantial criticism of the young QB. Every QB needs to see the Pats a few times before they can reasonably be expected to beat them.

Funny stuff – no matter how you slice it. And if you’re name is McNabb, that slice will have “a little extra.”


  1. no it’s because romo still nailed some key throws to HELP his team earn the victory.

    Winning does that to a TEAM.

    If dallas lost and the media coverage wasn’t harsh at all (which it was during the game, he was being riddiculed by the commentators) then you have a point. Until then, keep searching for race in everything.

    Do you really think fans really care if thier qb is black or white? Sure some would perfer one over the other, but MOST don’t give two shits, me being included.

    I’m from st louis. Before Tony Banks was Chris chandler. When he stunk it up people in the crowd cheered for banks. Then after a couple of dreadful seasons, they wanted banks out, and black folks in st louis stuck up for the dreadful qb saying that “white” st louis wants him benched for being black. Hilarious and misled people.

  2. Mcnabb is criticized like any other qb. Sure he may get racist letters from idiot racist fans, but i guarantee those are few and far in between. So i can see why he may think that. But he is just like any other qb. Even manning was criticized as a guy who couldn’t win the big one.

    Brady was quickly placed ahead of manning on the all time list early in his career. Why? Because he won superbowls and manning hadn’t. It’s about production and winning. And in New York, Philly, even chicago the media is pretty harsh and so are the fans. Race has nothing to do with it buddy. Good try though.

  3. miranda,
    give some examples of why it has to do with race. Back up your “race” claim.

    or just call it racism and go away with no explaination. Good for you.

  4. Ever heard of rex grossman. White qb’s get thrown under the bus every bit as much. Difference is, white people realize it’s because rex sucks, not because he’s white. If rex was black, miranda and temple would have numerous threads about “unconcious racists” and “white supremists” who want to bench a qb who started for a superbowl team the year before.

    But he’s white so who cares….let’s just defend any black person no matter what.

  5. The (all white) annnouncers during the Bills-Cowboys game never got anywhere near Romo’s “nut sack,” and certainly never knelt down “for a whiff” of Romo’s whatever (to use your colorful references). Jean-Jacque Taylor, by your own assesment “beats a path to Romo’s doorway,” but Taylor is black (which you don’t tell your readers). Hard to see “racism” here.

    In any event, everyone suffers from the unkindness, even meanness, of others (be it from racism or some other form of unfairness). So what? You just move on and do your thing. Life’s losers whine and play the victim. Life’s winners shake it off and keep going forward. Which is Mcnabb? Which are you?

  6. Mcnabb just doesn’t like that he doesn’t get a pass (which he largley does from the national media) but not from his hometown fans. And philly fans are NOTORIOUS for being hard on thier own teams. RACE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

    Sorry you black racists…oops blacks can’t be racist because they don’t take part in the institutionalism of BLAH BLAH…..racists.

  7. McNabb isn’t comparable to the worst QBs in the game. The great thing about living in this era is that all of this is easily verified or refuted. Go back and read the media reports or the fan comments or the interviews. It’s all there. Read the AP characterizations this year of his performance vs. that of Drew Brees or Marc Bulger. This isn’t rocket science. It may be hard to swallow, but it isn’t rocket science. Perhaps most importantly, in the grand scheme of things, it is largely immaterial at the NFL level. Where it matters is at the level of aspiring QBs with talents that coaches would prefer to see at other positions.

    Let’s not discuss Rex unless there is a specific application. He does not fit here. He’s had every opportunity to be successful and he is awful. Bernard Berrian and Muhsin Muhammad are better than every receiver DMc has played with save for Owens. I thought he’d be much better, but he has been unable to check his athletic arrogance. The comparative universe of QBs for McNabb is at the other end of average game performance.

    We could start with Carson Palmer. You do the searches and let me know what you come back with. Manning caught a great deal of heat – but I believe he caught it because people widely resented his bearing (which they clearly misread) and his legacy (son of Archie). Folks were way off in their assessments of Manning, and not merely because he won a Super Bowl or has figured out how to beat the Patriots. Brady hasn’t lost many games so he’s teflon in the same way that Derek Jeter has been. Still, if you wanted to compare the public perception of comparable QBs along “racial” lines (including or excluding McNabb – since his comments were not exclusively about him), you would find his assessment to have significant empirical support.

    Perhaps the simplest refutation to your fury is the simple truth that “whites” are an American culture group who demonstrate an observable, measurable and predictable bias. Experimental psychologists like Jack Dovidio have made countless peer-reviewed studies on this.

    Dovidio’s point has been that a phenomenon called “aversive racism” prevails and shapes reactions to negative events or behaviors. This kinder/gentler form of racism has generally replaced “dominative racism” (all of your posts refer to this type). Under aversive racism, the practitioner holds views of non-whites which are consistently lower than those for whites engaged in the same or similar behavior.

    I can imagine you screaming, “It’s just not true.” Knock yourself out. Have at it. Get your scream on. It matters very little. The numbers have been in for three decades.

    I won’t do the heavy lifting to drag out all the numbers. I’m sure that would not be compelling. It never is. This piece is not written to change your mind – I wouldn’t be so presumptuous.

  8. Now James H. –

    Do you really believe that the existence of “racism” means that each and every single “white” person wants to lynch every single black person with every fiber of their being? Is that the extremist version we’re working with? Are there any nuances? If so, what are they?

    Also, given the money spent and violence exerted to teach Blacks to hate other Blacks (if you don’t what I’m talking about here, don’t bother responding – please), why would you think someone’s skin color is somehow indicative of their thinking?

  9. Yes there are some out there who will give a white qb a pass before the black qb. They are out there. But they are the minority. THE MINORITY. The majority of americans white or black do not care who the qb is or what color he is, and only care if he wins or loses.

    There are plenty of blacks that would have rather had mike vick on their team rather than manning or brady. Is it because vick was better….HELL NO, he isn’t even close. It’s because he is black and they would rather see a black qb, esp one that is tied in with the hip hop culture part qb part gangster part rapper. Now. Is this you? Prob not, you seem to know a little about sports. Is this most or all blacks? Hell no. But just because there are SOME out there like that won’t lead me, like it does you, to the conclusion that all people are like that.

    I stand by my rex grossman comment. If rex was black, african americans like you would pull the race card. You guys would be in an uproar over his being benched. I can hear you now saying “THATS NOT TRUE” “I KNOW REX SUCKS”, knock yourself out.

  10. What about white running backs or recievers. We do see recievers more, but with the exception of brian leonard, there are virtually no white tailbacks. And what does the WHITE media do. Compare him to mike alstott. He doesnt look like or even resemble alstott in his playing style. He actually runs like a tailback.

    See, there are minimul levels of bias towards race when it comes to slotting a guy in a position in football. But it goes both ways. Most tailbacks are african american because most african americans have produced at a higher level that thier white counterparts. Most qb’s are white because most white qb’s have produced at a higher level than their black counterparts. Sure there have been some unbelievable black qb’s. There is the occasional good white running back in college, once in a decade in the NFL. But it’s all about production at the position….not race.

  11. We do see recievers more, but with the exception of brian leonard, there are virtually no white tailbacks. And what does the WHITE media do. Compare him to mike alstott. He doesnt look like or even resemble alstott in his playing style. He actually runs like a tailback.

    Nick – you’re 100% right. It’s so annoying. It’s unnecessary. It’s insulting.

    As for the position stuff, a lot of this happens when kids are young. They get pushed to positions where coaches guesstimate they’ll be best suited – and that’s often based on tradition. Most QB’s are white today because most Black kids who wanted to play QB 20/30 years ago were moved out of the position – and do not serve as role models for the NFL guys playing now. The NFL guys today all point to Doug Williams and Warren Moon…that’s it. Moon played in Canada for years. It is conceivable that Moon would hold every single record of note in the NFL were he not forced to play in Canada. Touchdowns, completions, yards – the whole nine. He is still considered a second tier QB by most announcers – just below Montana, Elway, Marino, and Favre. Moon threw as pretty and accurate a ball as any of them. It’s not his fault that the Oilers believed they could win without fullbacks, tight ends and a ball control offense.

    This is the first generation of Black kids to grow up with the expectation they won’t have to change position. The first one. Not the second or third. White guys in the league now are there as a result of the active engagement of white coaches to CHANGE the competitive dynamics of earning time at the position. This is not a reflection of merit. Perhaps it will be in 10 or 15 years. We’re getting close, but we’re not there yet.

    If you did the math – and went back and looked at the names and the birth years, you’d easily see what I’m talking about. I don’t believe we’re at the point where many college or high school coaches can continue to keep the position white. Coaches like Urban Meyer, Les Myles, Bob Stoops and others have demonstrated a willingness to play the best guy – and do what’s best for the team. That’s the way of the future. That Black QB who languished on the bench in the 80’s or early 90’s is either starting or transferring. If he’s not as good, he’ll stick around and learn…but I believe your premature by about a decade.

  12. “There are plenty of blacks that would have rather had mike vick on their team rather than manning or brady. Is it because vick was better….HELL NO, he isn’t even close. It’s because he is black and they would rather see a black qb, esp one that is tied in with the hip hop culture part qb part gangster part rapper.”

    Really? Is that what you hear from your friends on the court? I know you didn’t say “all” but plenty seems a little absurd to me. Especially since the desire for Black quarterbacks (Vick or others) was born out of the frustration of seeing so many good players ride the pine because some coach and the fans wanted to see a white QB who was down with country music and cowboy culture. Feel me?

    Your Rex Grossman hypothetical is terrible. Was there a hue and cry in Ohio when Akili Smith was benched. Nope. Did it happen in Oakland when Aaron Brooks blew it? Nope. You gonna have to clean that up. Give it up – and give up the Black Monolith. It’s a fiction that is essential to your “white” identity. You’re not “white” but you’re still a “white supremacist” even though I know your heart is in the right place.

  13. Actually in both of those cases there were blacks pulling the race card.

    I told you already about tony banks. I was at games where the crowd was cheering TONY TONY TONY, then when we realized he sucked too, we wanted him benched. And what did a LARGE part of the african american community do here in st louis. Say that we just don’t like him because he’s black.

    Sure, i even said there were white folks out there who would rather have a white qb. They are out there. But there are PLENTY of black people who would love to either have mike vick, mcnabb, or vince young on thier team BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK, they also exist. And at a higher rate than whites who want white only qb’s.

  14. Nick – what is the race card – please explain that bullshit. And explain how accusing someone of playing a race card is not a form of white supremacist status quo bullshit. I’ll wait.

  15. Tony Banks was terrible at Michigan State. Folks in St. Louis were probably pissed off about how the Rams jerked James Harris back in the day.

  16. Well when I say “playing the race card” it means black people or white or any race, using thier race or culture as an excuse for a situation not going their way. “Vick is being picked on because he’s black” is an example of pulling the “race card”

    You know what it is, you know the context of which it’s used. You do it daily on your blog. You infer racism at the drop of a hat in some pretty obscure situations.
    Now, if there is racism present then it wouldn’t be pulling the race card, it would be calling out racists.
    You tend to think you do the ladder, but really your just making a lot of excuses for a lot of black folks (LIKE VICK) that don’t even deserve to be defended. Pick your battles more wisley.

    James harris?

    You mean this james harris.
    James Harris: Cut by Rams in ’97 after being indicted as the money man in a cocaine trafficking ring. Had been found guilty of beating his wife the year before. Two sacks in one season as a Ram.

    Yea it was cause he was black all right. I met the guy, he coaches at east st louis, one of my old high schools main rivals. Scumbag all the way..typical street thug type. Went to belleville east in case you want to google away!

  17. no you didn’t mean that james harris. You meant the one that played before i was even born. Didn’t even know about that james harris.

    you meant this harris
    Harris’ tenure with the Los Angeles Rams and the San Diego Chargers in the 70s was much more successful. He had a well-respected career and he even became the first African American to start a playoff game when the Rams played the Vikings in the NFC Championship in 1974

    Uh, you do know i said black folks in ST LOUIS were pulling the race card when banks was benched. By the way How is banks still in the NFL? anyway, and you do know the rams used to be in LA back in the 70’s. Do you think the black folks in st louis were still holding on to some resentment over the mistreatment of a qb that played for a team 2,000 miles away. THATS A STRETCH.

  18. That’s a nice interpretation – but there is one huge problem. The burden of proof to demonstrate racial bias has to be carried somewhere. When is the last time “whites” admitted race was a factor in anything except the most egregious case. In point of fact, as a collective “whites” lack the capacity to admit or discern when racism is at play. Precious few can even define the term.

    Fewer have studied it or given serious thought to it. So, when I hear “playing the race card” I know it’s coming from someone with an opinion-based reference rather than a fact-based reference because the premise of playing the “race card” is generally absurd.

    It isn’t always the case – but it is often the case.
    I was being facetious about James Harris – but the paucity of Black QBs would make the time and distance irrelevant. I remember where I was when Doug Williams won the Super Bowl. I rooted for him, but I haven’t rooted for Washington before or since. So, I can’t seriously say James Harris’ career was an issue, but it depends on who you ask.

  19. This is an interesting thread of comments. My thoughts on DMc are that, yes, he has been the subject of racial antagonism; I’m not sure if it is prejudice or not, but it may be. Specifically, I point to that blubbering idiot Rush Limbaugh. But, also he plays in a traditionally harsh town for atheletes. Who hasn’t Philly fan booed or criticized with a sharp tongue? I happen to respect DMc’s abilities, but they are probably diminishing; that happens to guys getting older.

    As for Romo, he is the flavor of the month. He is a very good QB who had a horrid game against the Bills, and in Dallas and in Austin, he was soundly criticized. I think the aura surrounding Romo cannot be accurately compared to DMc because Romo came out of nowhere, he plays for the Cowboys, and he dates a hot American Idol!

  20. “So, when I hear “playing the race card” I know it’s coming from someone with an opinion-based reference rather than a fact-based reference because the premise of playing the “race card” is generally absurd.”

    So, you are pre-judging people who say “playing the race card”? Isn’t that an opinion-based reference rather than a factual one? You indicate that it is not always accurate, but that is your interpretation. Seems to me you are being a tad bit hypocritical.

  21. Thats temple for you. A white person makes an argument and he overanalyzes what they say and uses studies to show they are “unconcious racists” or “white supremists”, and it’s all based off of interpretation.

    But another black poster was calling us crackers and white boys (don’t have to do much reading into those comments) and he turns a blind eye.

    Because basically, he doesn’t think black people can be “racists”. Either that or he thinks they have the right to be. Either way he exhibits some pretty radical thinking. Not radical in a good way, radical in a “WTF are you even getting this shit” way.

  22. Nick – you’re a fraud…unfortunately, I did respond to that issue you had with another poster. You may not the answer, but so what. Do the work.

    AM – as for the race card thing – you’re grasping at straws. What is the premise behind “playing the race card.” Nick tried to blow smoke up our asses by suggesting that it’s universal – anyone can play the race card – nonsense.

    The only folks who even use the term are white folks, post- Shapiro. So what does it mean? What’s a “race”? What’s “racism”? What’s “white supremacy”?

    Lotta jabber – not a lot of work from any of you. If you don’t want to answer the questions, I suggest you move on or hit the GO TO YOUR ROOM link…cause the convo can’t move forward until you acquiesce. Your choice.

  23. I suppose it is not, but it does shed light on how some Black journalists view Romo and goes against your implication that the media is somehow looking at Romo differently because he is half White.

  24. I didn’t know I needed to work to express my opinions. And, I certainly do not, and will not, acquiesce to anyone’s way of thinking just because they think I should. I’m not sure, as obviously you are not, what the purpose of “playing the race card” is, but I do know that Jessie Jackson and the Reverand Al did in the Duke lacrosse case, as did Nifong, and the Southern bigots do all the time. Who’s better, who’s worse? Not sure.

  25. If there is no correlation between biology and ideology – how does that go against my statement? In-group and out-group identity for “whites” is not restricted to that group – it’s been communicated for quite some time – by force and by media. The in-group preferences of whites are identifiable in many cultures all over the planet. Check out “Your Beautiful White Face” on this blog. Black sportswriters are not immune.

    BTW, you only have to work on that here. I’m sure you can say whatever the hell comes into your head at dinner, in class, in the sports bar and in the bedroom. This is the only place you have to think before you type/speak. Of course not. What I mean by work is that your experience may be cool for you, but it is insufficient.

    So, Nick doesn’t like to work. He likes to chat. We’ll see about you. I suspect you have more pride.

  26. don’t flatter yourself with all your “do the work” nonsense.

    Quoting professors studies to read into statements and infer that someones comments are in the “white supremist” vain is not “work”. It’s trying to sound like you know what your talking about. And you don’t even do a good job of that. I came accross this blog on accident, read it, and felt compelled to post. Don’t know why, but I did.
    Your the one with a blog attached to a site (starting five) full of african americans who constantly talk about racism and white supremacy and how black folks are being mistreated. I’m just expressing my opinions and views on things. Your the one posing as some righteous civil rights activist. You are the one that’s a fraud.

    Read all the books you can buddy, quote them all the time. But apply the material when it actually makes sense. If the material even makes sense.

    Im done playing the semantics game with you.

    Yea you responded alright. Eric daniels is just “bias” and if i was a man i would take his words and blah blah. I killed that dude. Sure the other crazy wanna be civil rights activists may have sided with him. But most sane people would laugh at the hypocracy in his statments. Calling people crackers and white boys, all the while railing agianst racism. Pot meet kettle. Temple, you hate racism. I hate racism. I hate racism in all forms. You hate white supremacy and racism from whites. Blacks? Thats a different story.

    Saw a quote from that idiot on another site about how black america hates white america and wishes them ill will. He needs to only speek for himself and not lump in respectable black people with radical thinking ignorant people like himself.

    And your a hypocrite for allowing racist comments to go unchecked if it’s from a brother. But your quick to read into every post and play the semantics game to prove we are racists for not agreeing with your dilusional rhetoric.

    But hey, keep on fightin the good fight.

  27. Uh, regarding your comments to me, they make no sense given what I had written. Figure you must have been smoking something when you wrote them.

    But later you made an interesting statement: “Precious few can even define the term [racism].” I’m game. Define it (succinctly, please) so that we all know what we’re discussing here.

  28. Only the “wise and divine” temple knows what racism is. He reads books, does “heavy lifting” and plays the semantics game.

  29. nick – if opinions were assholes, you could finally open that porn studio in van nuys. stop spouting your many versions of “I think” – and get to “I know.” What do you know?

    It’s like you too lazy to check a boxscore. You need to get in the wind.

  30. James – I didn’t respond to most of your post because it wasn’t related to what I wrote. My original post wasn’t a complaint. McNabb didn’t complain either. Read Todd Boyd’s piece…watch the interview. It was a simple response to a simple inquiry. A complaint almost always anticipates a response and some amelioration. I don’t work that way.

    Since that was your only real point, perhaps you’d prefer to discuss something else.

    If you’d like to discuss racism, I suggest you wait – as I have for these other folks to define racism. They must know what it is – since they are so strongly opinionated about when it is not in evidence. But don’t wait for Nick – he’s not a producer.

  31. I think you misunderstood. I was asking you to define racism so that we all understand the issue at hand. And yes, I think I would like to discuss it with you–honestly, I find much about “racism” confusing these days.

    Can you give me a straightforward, succinct definition of racism that we can all work with here?

  32. Temple: after reading some of your posts, I’ve reached a few conclusions. First, I “know” that racism exists in our society, and I don’t need to read all of your cited literature for that knowledge. Next, I do not believe the racism that does exist today is nearly of the magnitude that you believe it to be. Remember, I am half Hispanic with a traditionally Mexican surname, and I have been keenly aware of when people have treated me differently because of that fact. Nevertheless, my last name and heritage does not define me. Finally, I think when you fail to acknowledge the great strides in racial acceptance in this country since the Sixties, you slap OUR civil rights activists in the face. Yes, I said OUR. Black America does not have a monopoly on MLK and Rosa Parks; they stood up for all of us, Black, White, HIspanic etc. Additionally, when you imply that posters here have some kind of racist animus, you slap each of us in the face. Guess what, you don’t know me, and I don’t need that. Race can go on being the most dominant thing in YOUR life, but it will not be in mine. So, have a nice life, but I think you will never be happy because you will always be looking over your shoulder afraid that the big White Boogie man is going to get you.

  33. Austin: You are talking about prejudice/bias. Interpersonal relationships undergirded by white supremacy in which the only thing at stake is “getting along” is not my concern. There is no doubt that interpersonal prejudice is considerably less than in recent years. That’s why Dovidio and his partners came up with the term “aversive racism.”

    As for the Civil Rights activists, the CRM did not start in the 60’s and the goal was not “racial acceptance.”

    You probably don’t need to read this site or the cited literature, but if you don’t when the CRM started or what the original goal was (not the revisionist goal), then you probably need to read something – OR – talk to someone who was there in the beginning (long before the Montgomery Bus Boycott).

    White supremacy, as a system, isn’t run by Boogie Men over my shoulder. Consider that you’ve concluded with a speculative assertion about Boogie men (I believe those are dancers, as opposed to Boogey men, but I digress) – and eschewed the challenge of learning about something you clearly do not understand.

    The CRM did not begin with Dr. King or Ms. Parks. If you are familiar with a single word of Dr. King’s after he stepped down from the podium in 1963, you’d be well aware of this. Go back to the roots of the CRM or have the dignity to know what were Dr. King’s priority’s on April 3, 1968 – before you have the temerity to talk about getting slapped in the face. I haven’t even begun to slap.

    Finally, that you are “half Hispanic with a traditionally Mexican surname” is irrelevant. This is neither about biology or naming. It’s about discernment.

    Aside from failing to understand the nature of racism, the origins of the Civil Rights Movement and the aspirations of the Rev. Dr. Marting Luther King, Jr., you’re right on. Either you can do better or you can’t. I’d suggest a bit of reading to rectify that – but I know – you’re not interested. Maybe you could catch a documentary or something…maybe there’s a snippet on youtube. Look for ACP and APR.

  34. Temple,
    wow, you tell people to read your posts more closley all the time then play the semantics game. This time you need to read more closley. He didn’t say “we have made great strides since the START of the civil rights movement in the 60’s” He simply said we have made great strides since the civil rights movement IN the 60’s. Which we have. And typically you get off topic and ACT like your educating someone by arguing “the civil rights movement didn’t start in the 60’s” Well, good point buddy. But it has nothing to do with what he said.
    ONCE agin, he didn’t say the civil rights movement started in the 60’s nor did he elude to that. You, once again are reading into what people are saying.

  35. “Either you can do better or you can’t. I’d suggest a bit of reading to rectify that – but I know – you’re not interested”

    And you call people a persumptious smug bastards. You are the king of this type of behavior.

    “I read books so i’m smarter than you”
    But what are you reading? It’s good that you read. But if your not reading diverse material it doesnt matter. If your reading studies and books written by radical thinking people with obvious agendas then you are only getting one side of opinions. And then you totally dismiss others opinions. And assume they don’t “READ” or do “heavy lifting” The “heavy lifting” I do is in the weight room buddy. But when i read, i read a diverse group of materials. Try it and don’t paint yourself into a corner like you have.

  36. nick-

    since neither you nor austin know the aims of the CRM, how do you know what strides have been made?

    still trying to figure out what the attraction is for you. you don’t answer questions – you just act like a petulant child with an opinion on everything and knowledge of nothing. i’m sure you have a cognitive disorder. you ignore direct inquiries aimed at moving the dialogue forward. your purpose is nothing more than obfuscation. you’re done.

  37. obfuscation, petulant

    big words don’t make your posts witty or even close to right. Good try though.

    Typical response…we never understand, we should read more. You are a cartoon character

  38. How do you know I don’t know the aims of the CRM?
    My original point stands: he didn’t state anyting about the START of the CRM. Why did you go off on that, it made no sense. You just babble and throw in some words that people usually don’t use and that (i bet) you don’t even use in normal conversation, to make yourself sound like some kind of authority. Your just an average Joe with some pretty funny OPINIONS.

  39. You ignore direct inquiries.

    I make statements about the vick situation, you as about benoit. I address benoit, and you ignore it.

    You backpeddal and sidestep and change the subject with semantics and word games. Sounds insightful, but there is no meat on those statements.

  40. “you ignore direct inquiries aimed at moving the dialogue forward” Yes, Temple, you do.

    Twice I’ve asked you to define racism so that we will all understand what we’re really discussing. Twice you have gone chicken on me, for all to see.

    Given your self-proclaimed expertise, providing that definition should be a simple matter. Yet you are afraid even to try.

    So how about it–can you muster the courage to provide the definition of racism?

  41. He already said visit the ‘Go to Your Room’ post, you’ll find 1 link. Simple enough. It has enough work synthesized into posts and links for you to devour. If you so wish. Secondary to that there are plenty of sports blogs that deconstruct the ‘yeah, but we found a white exception’ argument that keeps being erected like an old man on ED meds. LOL

  42. He already said visit the ‘Go to Your Room’ post, you’ll find 1 link. Simple enough. It has enough work synthesized into posts and links for you to devour, if you so wish. Secondary to that there are plenty of sports-directed blogs that deconstruct the ‘yeah, but we found a white exception’ argument that keeps being erected like an old man on ED meds. LOL

    T3 there are brain chemicals at work here (yo, I followed DV’s links bout dopamine and I’m out done…makes too much scary sense!!) so disengagement might be necessary as not to become ‘enablers’. For real. You know ‘we’ (those that fought the good word fight, no matter how the post started per se) can waste energy all day doing this and NO doubt you and I will probably do it a bit tomorrow. LOL
    But fighting WP with BP seems real attractive to me these days. Namely, disengagement feels right. Don’t you have to pay attention a bit when I continue to ignore your existance as a whole?? Maybe just one useful tactic in an overall strategy that still needs to coalesce. Regardless, I’m tring to help keep my blood pressure down right now.
    And…we gotta keep laughing Folk!!!

  43. SD-

    It’s all about developing the thread to demonstrate that folks are locked into the Psychopathic Racial Personality. Consider just one example – someone asserts that great strides have been made since the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement without knowing the aims of the CRM – because if they did – and they took it back to Adam Clayton Powell and A. Philip Randolph, they’d know that was an uninformed statement. An of course, the CRM and Dr. King’s podium moment have been conflated as a singularity. That’s a problem.

  44. James –

    I haven’t declined to answer your question. I have been waiting for some of the folks who are just as opposed as you are to respond to a previous question – what’s is racism? how is it different from bias/prejudice/white supremacy? Is there a difference, if so, what is it?

    That question hasn’t been answered. It may be a bit much, but it must be addressed if you want me to engage in a debate. We don’t have to agree, but we need to have a mechanism for comparing apples to apples.

    So, don’t take your cues from Nick because we’ve already established his reading comprehension issues…he hates big words, books, studies, professors and data…but he has lots and lots of opinions. And, for some reason, he won’t go away.

  45. “I haven’t declined to answer your question.”? Sure you have. 3 times now I’ve asked you to define racism so that we know what we are discussing here. And still you dissemble.

    Your clumsy obfuscations aside, at the heart of it you are just plain afraid to provide a definition and defend it.

    Ever heard of an intellectual punk-ass?

  46. A thesaurus, Temple? So you have to look up your big words. Hm.

    No reverse psychology. Just showing Nick and the others that you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

    But, to be fair, I will give you a 5th (!) opporunity: Please define racism for us so that we’ll all understand what we are discussing.

    Hint: Your thesaurus won’t help you much here. You’ll have to plagiarize another source.

  47. “Consider just one example – someone asserts that great strides have been made since the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement without knowing the aims of the CRM – because if they did – and they took it back to Adam Clayton Powell and A. Philip Randolph, they’d know that was an uninformed statement.”

    I must confess Temple, you’re right. There have been no strides since the Sixties concerning civil rights. In fact, I walked by a “Whites Only” water fountain today. I don’t work with any Black people; they are wearing masks and makeup. I didn’t go to a school with any Black people, and we don’t have a Black man running for President. Yeah, you got me there. And, that Eddie Murphy skit on SNL in the Eighties where he dressed as a White man, and all the Whites had a party on the bus after a Black person left? That happens every day!

  48. Wow, at first I thought the phrase “snuggle up to Tony’s nutsack” was a little over the top, but I WAS WRONG!!!

    As for Brian and others with similar arguments, the very second that you bring up the words “Rex Grossman” as to not only demonstrate that you are unfit to enter the discussion, but also to tell the world that you got every single question wrong on the “analogy section” of your SATs. It would be more honest to just say “I blindly refuse to believe that race is a factor unless I see a pack of reporters burning crosses at a Klan rally”. At least then there would not be a painful exercise…

  49. Austin – let me ask you a simple question. If access to water fountains is a great stride, are you suggesting that the grandparents of the average American were so demonic, evil and vindictive that this crude and pernicious practice was allowed to continue unabated from 1865 to roughly 1965? It’s a YES or NO question.

    Are you suggesting that millions of Americans proclaimed the virtues of democracy from the end of slavery straight through 1965 while reserving the right to preclude Blacks from using the same water fountain? Also a YES or NO question.

    If so, perhaps we should follow that up. If not, perhaps you could tell me how it constitutes a great stride.

  50. I’ll tell you what a great stride is; it is the fact that my parents grew up in a world of prejudice against Blacks, and I am not prejudice against any race. Was it wrong for the racism that existed in the past? Absolutely. But, the fact is that I, and many White and Hispanic people my age, grew up in a family where in the late Sixties and early Seventies, the “N” word was thrown around with little thought to the offensiveness of the word.

    My family has gotten past that way of thinking, however, with the possible exception of my idiot sister, and my children will grow up not hating anyone due to the color of their skin.

    The Civil Rights Movement’s goals may not be accomplished in total, but it has made significant strides toward that end. As my wife’s grandfather lies on his death bed, another generation who did not have the enlightenment we have will pass on. After that her mother will pass, and another generation will pass. Ultimately, my children will be the leaders of the world, and then, maybe, the visions of Dr. King will be fully realized. And, it starts with one person making a difference. That my friend, is a significant stride.

  51. If it’s a yes – just say so and we can proceed. It sounds like a yes – but you seem to have trouble with embracing or understanding exactly how evil or weak or disinterested or overwhelmed 200 million people would have to be to preclude one class of folks from drinking at the same water fountain, passing laws to that effect and approving the use of tax dollars for the efficient enforcement of said provisions by police.

    You are talking about the use of the “N” word. I am not talking about that at all. It may be relevant in your family, but in the grand scheme of things, Dr. King and others were not concerned about legislating Mexicans out of their white-given right to refer to Africans as niggers. I’m sure your sister has told you this about a thousand times.

  52. So now I’m not only a racist, but I’m a “Mexican”? I’d say it is you who needs to look in the mirror. Also, what part of the word “absolutely” do you not understand? Maybe you can look it up in your thesarus. You have no idea what I’m talking about because you are too caught up in what happened many years ago, not what the current situation is.

  53. I thought you said something about a Mexican surname…perhaps I made an error. Apologies, and feel free to clarify – but I hope you’re not offended at being identified with the Mexican people. As you Mexicans have a long and distinguished history in this nation and in Mexico. To what did you take umbrage – an honest error or the association?

    I wonder if you’d be this pissed if I assumed you were Austrian or Norwegian. Oh well. Perhaps we’ll never know.

  54. “Racism IS the institutionalized and interpersonal manifestation of white supremacism.”

    Finally, your definition of racism for us to consider.

    By your definition, it is not racism for someone to think Asians are superior to Blacks and Whites, since this thinking does not manifest White supremacism. Is that accurate?

    Not arguing, just seeking clarification.

  55. I think that temple’s operative word is “institutionalized” and it would be a point of fact and not opinion that “institutional racism” is a manifestation of white supremacist thought. Here are some of those facts related to our criminal justice system in 2007:

    I think what sometimes gets tiresome is too many people believing that if they PERSONALLY don’t espouse racism, then that is good enough for them. Now back to those water fountains. Those fountains represented institutional and not personal racism. This could only have happened because there were not enough whites who challenged segregation. And by not doing so, they were complicit in that racism. In the same vein, if you are a white who is not challenging our criminal justice system or racially disparate educational system in 2007, then you are also complicit. I could only guess that the silence of those who can’t recognize institutional racism today would also have been silent 50 years ago about the water fountains.

    Moral of story: Not being PERSONALLY racist is merely baby step one. If you are not challenging institutional racism, then your silence is the equivalent of driving the getaway car…

  56. Don’t get an attitude. “Finally” my ass.

    Understand that you’re late to the conversation. There have been numerous instances where folks have evaded this question – so I had no intention of answering you immediately. I put the question to several posters who conflated “racism” “prejudice” and “bias.” You don’t have any standing to expect an immediate answer. You’re a guest.

    You don’t have to behave (within reason), but you need to understand that I neither need to respond to you nor run from you. So, if you don’t get what you want when you want, handle it or move along.

  57. Now that we’ve cleared that up James, I don’t believe that an Asian person believing themselves superior to Blacks or “whites” constitutes racism. I believe it may-may-may-may constitute “ethnocentrism” – but that would depend on many, many things. Which “Asians” are you talking about? Jews, Turks, Kurds, Persians, Indians, Sri Lankans? Tibetans? Mongols?

    How did they come to this belief? Is it based on biology? Is it based on an immutable characteristic solely accessible to that group? Are they a “race”? According to whom? What is a race?

    It’s not simple for me. It’s as complex as the persons and the collectives involved.

  58. “Don’t get an attitude.” I agree, please don’t.

    I am merely asking a simple question for clarification. Being hostile and avoiding the question indicates that you fear the answer will in some way undermine your definition. Where is your intellectual courage?

    I’ll ask it again: According to your definition, is it racism for someone to think Asians are superior to Blacks and Whites?

  59. James – quick question

    Should I delete that ignant, arrogant shit as you read the answer which is clearly posted above or would you prefer to write an apology? Your choice.

  60. “I don’t believe that an Asian person believing themselves [sic] superior to Blacks or ‘whites’ constitutes racism.”

    I understand that for you it is not simple, but there is no need at this point to make it unduly complex.

    Let me ask the question differently, with fewer variables, using the classic anthropological nomenclature:

    Is it racism for a white person (a Caucasoid) to think Asians (Mongoloids) are superior to Blacks (Negroids)?

  61. I see you decided to forego the apology. I guess whenever you get out of line I’ll just delete you – so watch your step.

    As far as definitions go, we haven’t covered any ground here. If there is a problem with “the classic anthropological nomenclature” (and there is), you need another paradigm. More to the point, I don’t care about what people “think” – I care about what they have the power to do. Does anyone really care about what other people think when it has no bearing on their life? How insecure do you have to be to actually give a shit when it has no impact?

  62. You’re not answering the question, just running on about your feelings (‘I don’t care about what people “think'”).

    We can get to what people “do” momentarily if you like. For now, let me ask this simple question yet again:

    Is it racism for a white person (a Caucasoid) to think Asians (Mongoloids) are superior to Blacks (Negroids)?

  63. You’ve really lost your mind. Figure it out – and why are so focused on what people think. You have ample information – the answer is obvious.

  64. “You have ample information – the answer is obvious.” Actually I don’t and it’s not.

    Why the persistent tedium of avoiding the simplest question? Don’t be afraid. I won’t bite you.

    I think this is the 4th time I’ve had to ask this really simple question (last simple question took five requests to get an answer–are you checking with someone before answering?)

    Let’s try again: Is it racism for a white person (a Caucasoid) to think Asians (Mongoloids) are superior to Blacks (Negroids)?

  65. Before we get into all of that, what’s your definition of “racism”? If you don’t have one or it’s under construction, let me know. And, please – enough projecting about fear. You’ve been told the “delay” was not about you. In essence, you and your question were ignored for three days.

  66. Truth is, I don’t have a clue what the definition of “racism” is, or how to go about defining it. That’s why I’m asking.

    So let me try again: Is it racism for a white person (a Caucasoid) to think Asians (Mongoloids) are superior to Blacks (Negroids)?

    Really, it souldn’t take an expert such as yourself three days to answer a simple question yes or no. (You could have done that in any of your last few posts.)

  67. Thank you, Temple3–that’s helpful. So I don’t lose track, I’ll add that clarification to your initial statement:

    “Racism IS the institutionalized and interpersonal manifestation of white supremacism. What a person thinks does not, in and of itself, constitute ‘racism’.”

    Now a further clarifying question, if I may. You specify “white” supremacism in the definition. Should we change that to “racial” supremacism instead, or does racism of necessity involve the supposed superiority of whites and no others?

    Thanks in advance.

  68. “I would not change that.”

    Hm. Then doesn’t racism, in this definition, basically just mean white supremacism?

    Calling it “racism” (with all the confusing transmogrification that term has undergone over time) only obscures the central issues you address, and the progress that you presumably seek to make, in the discussion.

  69. [Side Observation: Clarity and, to the extent possible, simplicity are critical elements of genuine discussion (about racism or any other issue), but they are anathema to rants and arguments.

    Rants and arguments, if you think about it, serve no real purpose other than as a form of emotional masturbation– satisfying for the moment, perhaps, but selfish and addictive, and, ultimately, distorting reality. They offer no, shall we say, seminal and lasting, value.]

  70. Not quite, but close.

    The term “racism” is appropriate because “white supremacy” is not exclusively about the COLOR “white” (as in paint or of chalk). The notion of “white” as a descriptor of collectives of people, of “races” is the signifier – and so the terms stand together.

    Calling the phenomenon “racism” does not obscure. It places the phenomenon at the human level – and serves as a basis for historical and critical inquiry. Otherwise, we’re talking about what color to paint your home.

    As you may know, “whiteness” is a mutable quality – and has been expanded to include swarthy Europeans and even some Africans (according to the US government). One need not hail from northwestern Europe or be Christian to be deemed “white.”

    The issue is not merely the hierarchy (“whites” as normative and supreme), but also the system of classification (biological “races” defined by immutable traits). Both are problematic…they were created simultaneously and should be addressed as such. The formative years of anthropology and many other academic disciplines is chock full of anti-African bias which has been well documented by Stephen Jay Gould and many, many others.

  71. I understand.

    But how do you handle the transmogrification problem as it relates to current discussions of (as opposed to rants and arguments about) “racism”? That is the essence of my concern.

  72. James:

    The transmogrification of civil discussions into rants/arguments


    the transmogrification of discussions about “white supremacy” as the operative form of “racism” into discussions exclusively about the universality of “racism” (ie., everybody does it).

    To which are you referring?

  73. Too narrow.

    Let me take a step back and lay it out differently.

    The term “racism” has taken many forms, changing from year to year, from cause to cause, and finally from from person to person, to the point that the term means so many things it no longer really means anything. Everyone just knows that whatever it means, “racism” is bad and they don’t want to be associated with the term.

    In practice, the term “racism” has thus become over time an amorphous accusation more than an idea for discussion or a phenomenon to address. Because of this, those who really want better race relations are constantly stuck with an emotional weapon that blocks, rather than a conceptual tool that builds, understanding and progress.

    Worse, many people accused of “racism” look to their hearts and find no racial animus there, so they protest their innocence, only to be told they’re guilty of it but don’t know it (because its unconscious racism, or structural racism, etc.). As that happens, the good will of people and their desire to help is eroded. Bombarded with accusations they believe are unfair, over time they start tuning out the accusations, then quit trying to help, and finally just stop caring.

    You don’t want that. Not if your purpose is to persuade and to seek solutions, in which case it is far better to jettison the baggage-laden term “racism” and go with something clear and precise in its meaning.

    If on the other hand the purpose of this website is, in its essence, to fulminate and express Black anger in a quasi-intellectual format (quasi because calling people “ignant” and “bastards,” for example, is hardly intellectual), then continue using the term “racism” freely.

    It’s your call. I only encourage you to ask yourself honestly what you’re trying to accomplish here, and how best to accomplish it, before making that call.

  74. Fulminate was the Webster’s Word of the Day not so long ago…and it has an interesting history.

    Lightning strikes more than once in the history of “fulminate.” That word comes from the Latin “fulminare,” meaning “to strike,” a verb usually used to refer to lightning strikes — not surprising since it sprang from “fulmen,” Latin for “lightning.” When “fulminate” was adopted into English in the 15th century, it lost much of its ancestral thunder and was used largely as a technical term for the issuing of formal denunciations by ecclesiastical authorities. But its original lightning spark remains in its suggestion of tirades so vigorous that, as one 18th-century bishop put it, they seem to be delivered “with the air of one who [has] divine Vengeance at his disposal.”

  75. To your point:

    I hear what you’re saying. Your concern is not the same as mine. As I understand your comments, you are concerned about the extent to which complex ideas become unworkable as “whites” process their feelings about matters of race. Words are misinterpreted, dialogue breaks down, resentment builds, opportunities for “inter-racial” collaboration lost. That’s not an area of concern for me. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate folks who do that. I do. By and large, I’ve found that the people best suited for that type of work are “whites” with a solid anti-racist educational foundation and non-whites with a vested, immediate interest in improved SOCIAL relations with “whites.” I don’t fit either of categories.

    This blog is not intended as a teaching tool on “race” for “whites.” If it happens, it’s an accident. That is why I often provide visitors (and trolls) with links to sites with that expressed purpose. Those bloggers have that orientation, that expertise, and that patience.

    Moreover, this isn’t about terminology – it’s about power relationships. While I agree with your assessment of the process toward discord, I maintain that this happens precisely because “whites” DO NOT HAVE TO engage the topic. For “whites”, these issues do not demand a resolution. For Black folk, it’s different – and the issues that demand resolution are not acceptance, tolerance and communication. The issues are wealth, health and control. That’s not the level of conversation most “white” folks are ready to engage – and I certainly have no inclination to drag them along.

    You may be encouraged that some diversity consultants prefer to use the word “bias.” They find that the term works much better in communicating with “white” audiences about their thoughts and feelings. They then use the term bias to map how thoughts lead to actions which need not be malicious to have an adverse impact. Consultants are being paid by corporations and governments – so maybe it’s working.

    There is no doubt that there is value in the approach you’ve outlined. However, for me, it would be sub-optimal and misguided. Thank you for your contributions. By the way, none of this means that you or other so-called “whites” are unwelcome – it simply means that when topics of “race”/”racism”/”white supremacy” arise, the status quo (ie., “white”) perspective is neither a focal point nor valued. It has no special standing and is judged on its merits. And, if you had already had a solid anti-racist education, I would not have needed to say that.

  76. That’s cool.

    You may/may not be “white” according to the “classical anthropological nomenclature,” but I chose to view your comments as reflecting an interest in unfolding these issues as they relate to “whites.” In other words, I believe your emphasis, at least here, to be on communication with “whites” versus articulation of a Black partisan agenda (or any other for that matter.)

    That’s not an indictment – it’s really of no consequence – it’s just a perception. What is your primary objective here? To gather information? Have you thought about how you might apply that information?

  77. You are right to view my “comments as reflecting an interest in unfolding these issues as they relate to “whites.”

    Since Whites have the power, and since I don’t see that changing in my (or your) lifetime, it seems logical at this stage to co-opt as many Whites as possible, and to use methods and language that best facilitates that endeavor. (See Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War.”)

    You are right also in your surmise that my primary objective here is to “gather information” (or rather, to learn by engaging). I guess the eventual application will depend upon what I learn. But I am curious. Why would you ask me that last question?

  78. It is worth saying that while my comments are not directed to “whites,” I recognize that there will be always be, for lack of a better word “mutuality” between our collectives across the globe. The actions of Black folk do not occur in a vacuum – and it precisely because we have so many undernourished assets that I direct my attention there.

    Co-opt: great word choice. To neutralize or win over through assimilation into an established group.

    Now, don’t you need someone to create that established group? ‘Cause if that group to which so many “whites” should be co-opted has been established, sign me up.

    I understand your fondness for Sun Tzu. He should be elevated to the status of American Express for our youth – it would keep them out of a great deal of adverse situations. I suppose your plan looks something like this: “The enemy’s spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become converted spies and available for our service.”

  79. It’s not so much about co-opting Whites into a group, but rather co-opting them into an idea (or, really, into a series of ideas designed to move Blacks forward).

    You are absolutely right in saying “The last question is all there is”–applying what we learn, laying out a plan, developing methods for implementing that plan, and establishing roadmarks to measure progress, this is what counts.

    Really, the groundwork is already laid. White guilt is easily manipulated (a powerful tool), and we have many examples of success in that. It will continue to be a powerful tool if it is not over-played or undermined.

    It is this that concerns me about using terms and approaches that needlessly stir up otherwise gullible (which includes most) Whites. Only by nourishing White guilt can an environment be maintained that will best allow ultimate success and minimize significant White backlash, until the point is reached that White attitudes truly are no longer of practical consequence.

    Guilt, we must never forget, is the White’s greatest weakness–the one place in their fortress that truly can bring them down.

    By contrast, consider Asia. I lived there (China, Japan, Thailand). To the typical Asian, Blacks are the lowest form of human life, almost simian, and the Asians have not an ounce of guilt about that. Sometimes businesses and websites will actually specify “no coloreds,” but usually it is–like most things Asian–subtle in its expression, avoiding any open confrontation if at all possible.

    Overcoming Asians and Asian culture will not be easy; neither will overcoming Whites and White culture, but the latter does not present nearly the obstacles (because of White guilt).

    But I do rattle on…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s