PDA

View Full Version : A BLACK man defends...


Yonivore
10-09-2003, 12:22 PM
...Rush Limbaugh! Egads!


Armstrong Williams
Racial double standard? of course!
Quote:
Armstrong Williams

October 2, 2003

In America in 2003, black people can talk openly about race. They can admit to identifying with black cultural icons. They can admit to having black pride. They can even drop the N-bomb. White corporate America cannot. The result is a racial double standard that threatens our ability to talk openly about the very serious topic of race relations.

Case in point: Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh recently resigned from his job on the ESPN National Football League pre-game show after making racially charged comments about Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well," said Limbaugh. "There is little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

If Limbaugh had been blessed with dark skin like me, there is little doubt that he would still be working for ESPN. In fact, he probably would have been given a raise for adding kick to ESPN's floundering pre-game show. But Limbaugh is white. So he was forced out for playing the race card.

Of course, Limbaugh is no stranger to hyperbole. Exaggeration and paranoid finger wagging are the reasons for the better part of his success as a radio personality. And that is why he was hired - to shock people into paying attention.

Still, one has to wonder, what precisely did Limbaugh insinuate that was so wrong? That the NFL has ethnic double standards? Of course it does! This past year the NFL instituted a new policy that will enact sanctions against teams that fail to interview minorities for vacant coaching positions. Critics of the policy raised very legitimate concerns of whether trotting out black coaching candidates for token interviews might do more harm than good. After all, you can force an owner to interview a black coach, but you can't force him to hire one. Would the repeated rejection of certain black candidates actually do harm to thr reputations?

These are serious questions, and ones that the NFL never seriously addressed. Instead, they plowed forward with the policy for a very simple reason: We - NFL policymakers, fans and media - want black athletes and coaches to have equal opportunity. At this late date, we realize that black athletes and coaches have traditionally been denied certain opportunities. It was easy for white coaches to succeed when they had other white coaches from whom they could learn and white owners willing to give them a chance. Society did not offer black coaches this same opportunity.

So, is it racist to mandate that black coaches at l get interviewed? Of course. It seeks to assuage the problem of racism in the past by practicing reverse-racial preferences now. These sorts of preferences define all the members of a fixed group by skin color. By extension, the policy implicitly accepts the notion of creditor and debtor race. Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution make allowances for such classifications. Still we support the policy. We want it to succeed.

Many of us feel the same way toward black quarterbacks. Radio talk show host Russ Parr recently told me he roots for Michael Vick, not because he has any roots in Atlanta, but "because Vick is black." What Parr knows, and what anyone who gives the matter any thought realizes, is that until recently, few black athletes were given an opportunity to play quarterback. Many suffered because coaches and owners assumed that they lacked teamwork skills and were not intelligent enough for the position.

For decades white owners and coaches were incapable of thinking outside of thr own limited cultural experience. This even holds true with regard to raw athletic ability. Black quarterbacks that did not fit the mold of a traditional pocket passer were squeezed into other positions. (A decade ago, Michael Vick would have likely been forced to play cornerback, recver or running back. In all likelihood his career would have been cut short by injury. This is what black athletes endured until very recently.)

We - the media, owners and members of society - want that to change. We get particularly excited when we think a black athlete is opening new doors. Donovan McNabb is the perfect example. Other quarterbacks have better numbers, but McNabb comes up big in big games. For his career he has a nearly 2-to-1 ratio of touchdowns to interceptions. He has been to three straight Pro Bowls and two consecutive NFC championship games. Plainly, he's a good quarterback. And he's black. For these two reasons we want him to succeed.

Black people have no problem admitting this. Callers during my recent appearance on the Russ Parr radio show talked openly about how they want blacks to succeed in areas where they were traditionally denied equal opportunity. Get it? They want Donovan McNabb to succeed because he's black. Most of society feels the same way. But if a white guy brings up this racial double standard he will be labeled a "racist" and fired.

It seems ironic - and more to the point, harmful - that we have become so conscious of past racism, that we can no longer talk openly about it, or even raise the issue to consciousness for genuine examination. That helps no one.
________
iLIKEhotGAMES (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/iLIKEhotGAMES)

Reality
10-09-2003, 12:45 PM
true, Yonivore, but be certain that YOU will be labeled a racist, and Mr. Williams an "Uncle Tom" for posting the truth. Not to worry, it only proves your point.
________
drugtest (http://drugtestingkit.org)

Nattydread
10-09-2003, 03:38 PM
Every year we see athletes coming off what we call a break out year. They had a great season the past year and the fans, the media anticipates great things again from them the next season.

When these athletes don't deliver...many times the media stays with them too long. Maybe its because they were intent on making this guy 'the story' ...or they may be afraid to be the first to be critical of the athlete. Whatever the reason many times these athletes often come back after a break out season and...SSUUCCKK!

Kurt Warner is a great example after the last super bowl appearance he has sucked..but the rams and the media stuck with him until they couldn't any longer!
Terrel Davis was another example...he suck as a RB coming back to Denver after the 2nd superbowl. Emmit Smith for the past few years..SSUUCCKK yet the media still want to make him a story in Arizona.

Well so too is the situation for McNabb. You might say it may be a bit pre-mature to say he sucked at the time the comment was made. After all not many of us know why he kept throwing 5 yards passes instead of going down field. Is it Andy Reads play calling, his recvers cannot get open, or is it McNabb who sucks? What ever the reason..is not important for this conversation.

The point about Rush comment was he claimed that McNabb was getting this treatment because he was black? Not because he was Donovan McNabb but because he was black.

This statement extends to every black QB in the league and it simply isn't true. I'm black and at first I was wary of commentators implying that black QB are like a quasi RB.

But over the years that has changed..and many times now when I hear commentators critisize black QBs I often agree. Kordell Stuart...SSSSUUKKK! Eron Brown 2 years had a great year but this year he suck!
Rodney Pete...SSUUCCKKED!
But in every case it is the individual and it has nothing to do with bng black...there are many white QB today who SSUUCCK as well...Vinny Testaverde...SSUUKKK and I can go on!

You guys have your head buried so deep up your ass you cannot see this!

Whether or not NcNabb SSUUCCKK whether or not he was getting special treatment is irrelivant..the claim that he was getting this treatment because he was black is the crux of the argument!
________
Latina live (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/latin-girls/)

azellyn
10-09-2003, 03:49 PM
Yeah he's credible. He's the one who propositioned openly gay David Brock and was turned down. He's a piece of work himself--and he stupidly continues to front for a party that despises both his race and his sexuality.
________
AVANDIA ATTORNEY (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

SCT Jurji
10-10-2003, 03:20 AM
A BLACK man defends ?

Wow, talk about us and them mentality.

I would say "A man defends" 'You are so young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as judge of the highest matters.'

Plato

Yonivore
10-10-2003, 05:12 AM
Quote:"A BLACK man defends ?"

"Wow, talk about us and them mentality."

"I would say 'A man defends'"
You're absolutely right SCT Jurji. Unfortunately, in America, there is a common perception that non-Black are unqualified to comment on racial issues. Therefore, I felt it necessary to point it out to readers - - just to avoid having to make the point later on in the thread.

azellyn, I have no idea what your post had to do with any of this. But, it sure substantiated the "Uncle Tom" inference made by Realist. Thanks.

And, while we're on the subject, here's an interesting bit from James Taranto's "Best of the Web" yesterday. It tells the tale of a study submitted and published in a left-wing publication, that sat on the internet for a year, and was pulled after the Limbaugh comment when it was discovered the study AGREED with Limbaugh. Then the author posts a message where he attempts to differentiat the two and only makes the connection stronger. Here, read the rest...

The link will take you to the most recent addition, but look in the archives (link at the bottom the page) if this article has already been archived.
'The Black Quarterback Effect'
Quote:James Taranto in WSJ's "Best of the Web"

Here's an odd twist on the Rush Limbaugh football kerfuffle: It turns out that an academic paper published last October lends support to Limbaugh's comment, which critics denounced as racist, that "social concern" led people in the NFL and the media to hope Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb to do well. The study, by Duke University economists Peter Arcidiacono, Jacob Vigdor and Eric Aldrich, is titled "Race, Football and Television: Examining the Black Quarterback Effect."

The three economists analyzed ratings for ABC-TV's "Monday Night Football" between 1997 and 2001 and found that "Monday Night Football games featuring black quarterbacks have Nielsen ratings 11% higher than otherwise identical games with two white starting quarterbacks." What accounts for this? Here's Vigdor's explanation, in an article posted Tuesday on the Web site of The American Prospect, a left-wing magazine: "The racial tolerance of the American public has increased dramatically over the past 20 years, at l in the world of sports. With this tolerance has come a true preference for diversity."

Now, here's where things get wrd. In his article, Vigdor attempts to use his study to discredit Limbaugh's views. "If Limbaugh had done any research on the subject, he would have learned that the media's desire to see black quarterbacks succeed is not rooted in 'a little social concern,' but rather in good old-fashioned attention to the bottom line." Network executives, that is, cater to viewers' "preference for diversity" in an effort to drive up ratings and therefore profits.

Vigdor is setting up a false dichotomy. What is a "preference for diversity" if not a "social concern"? What's more, Limbaugh referring not to executives and programming choices but to the opinions of sportswriters and commentators. Is there any reason to think they don't share the football-viewing public's preference for diversity?

At the same time as he is trying to distance himself from the congruence between his own findings and Limbaugh's views, Vigdor has removed the study itself from his Web site. Click here, where the study used to appear, and you get this message:

The paper "Race, Football and Television: Explaining the Black Quarterback Effect" has been removed from this site. Our contract with Nlsen Media Research requires us to refrain from posting the results of this study online.

Yet the study, published Oct. 29, 2002, apparently was available online, notwithstanding the Nielsen contract, for nearly a year. Yahoo has it cached here, though it's a PDF file rendered as HTML, which makes it hard to read in places. A comment in this blog entry, dated Oct. 4, links to the page where the study appeared. It would appear Vigdor decided to suppress the study only when it was linked to the Limbaugh comments, and he now expects interested parties to rely on his tendentious anti-Limbaugh explanation rather than see for themselves what the study said. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush

"As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." - - Arthur Carleson, WKRP in Cincinnati
RIP Gordon Jump
________
WEB SHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)