eflynn

Not just because of that but that's definitely an indicator. Sick of Black people who are working class? Fed up with people who were just like the people he grew up with?

Bingo, now you are starting to understand. What if there are no black candidates? According to the mandate they better go out and fucking find one or face a fine. This has been my point all along, what if there is nobody qualified that happens to be black? Is that such a major problem or ordeal? Or could it perhaps be a fact of the lay of the land within the coaching candidate environment? Hummm, once again, lets use the running back example. Is it the black mans fault that the majority (if not all) of the superstar athletes in this position happen to have black skin? If jackson ever sets his sights on nascar the shit could get really ugly. By none I mean there are none that exitst for them to call and be turned down by. I don't believe the mandate works the way you've described it. Being from Detroit I know all about the fine Mooch got but this is the first I've heard of it working that way. Your point "all along" hasn't been "what if there's nobody qualified that happens to be black." Your point has been the mandate to require a Black person to be interviewed, not hired, is a racist policy. If nobody who's Black is qualified then a Black person won't get the job. I've understood what you've been saying all along I just think your way of thinking is naive. I've already addressed the "tryout a white guy for the running back" issue.

The fine is the result of a misintrepertation of the policy. If there are no Black candidates then there's nobody for the team to interview. Simple as that. I'm sure the Black coaches who declined the interviews are doing just fine. I doubt they sat at home and cried about being offered an interview. Maybe you'd feel useless but I doubt they would.

If that's what actually happened I don't think the fine is fair. But we're not debating the fine, we're debating the policy. I doubt it created more tension as the 200k didn't come out of any one person's pocket. As far as being "ashamed and embarassed of a leader if he was representing me solely based on skin color" I really don't understand what you're saying. I've already discussed how I felt about Jesse Jackson.

Okay. Now, if you'll look at my post to which you are replying, you'll see that I stated that "the trap is being set." It's not too clearly visible. It's in white writing. It's something that you apparently overlooked twice. But it's there. And set a trap I did. You've indicated a big problem. The masses (or, more accurately, a particular group) feel that there are certain "views, notions, beliefs" inherent in that group. This is the root of the race card. This is the root of bigotry. This treats Clarence Thomas, Janice Rogers Brown, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and any of a number of other black thinkers as "intellectual slaves." What it says is, "Clarence Thomas!!! You are allowed to think only what you are told to think." Is there a "black" way of thinking? Is there a "white" way of thinking? Is there a "Mexican" way of thinking? No. There is not. My guess is that you've got some viewpoints that many in the black community would disagree with. Many would accuse you of not thinking as a balck man should think. That would make you a "sell out." The only person that you can sell out is yourself. Clarence Thomas thinks the way HE wants to think, and nobody can tell him how he is supposed to think. Simply because he thinks for himself as opposed to thinking what he is told to think should not be held against anybody. David Duke would tell a black man that he shouldn't be allowed to think for himself. So would Tom Metzger. It appears that this is something large portions of the black community (and leadership) have in common with asshole white supremacists. It boggles my mind that anybody could tell a person how he should think. THIS is the pressure that is put on people NOT to succeed. Doing so on your own terms could result in your being labeled and hated. Clarence Thomas called his confirmation hearings "a high tech lynching." After what you said about "selling out views, notions, beliefs that the masses feel are inherent to that particulaur group," can you get an idea about why I believe that we are moving backwards every day with our pursuti for equality? Clearly, Clarence Thomas is less equal in the eyes of many blacks... I understand what you're saying and some of it I agree with. First, I think you'll find far more Black people who are at odds with Clarence Thomas' thinking than everyone else you've mentioned. I don't think it's so much "This is what you're to say and think Mr Thomas" as it is "Remember us? The people who comprised the community you grew up in? People just like you." I've never been referred to as a sellout by anyone but people who know me do recognize I'm not "your average Black man." I think there's plenty of room to think differently, and to have opposing viewpoints and still have a similar goal in mind or a similar concern. Where the sellout notion comes into play is having a viewpoint that's cancerous to those like you. Call it right, call it wrong but there's a difference. About leadership and thinking... You've made some interesting comments. One of the biggest problems I have with people in general (I talk about this with my friends all the time) is the apparent inability to think intelligently. When I watch the news I always find myself yelling "Figure it out! Think!" It's definitely apparent in the Black community. That coupled with the lack of actual leadership is a recipe for disaster. Jesse Jackson is only leading the people who are marching behind him. People are either indifferent or anti Jesse more than pro Jesse (Not that you mentioned him but he's one of our supposed "leaders").

Now, I didn't read that paper, but whites call poor whites "trailer trash"...Do you think that makes them trying to hide they are white? And I remember the Anita hill bit...It was very close to a political Lynching. He thought he was being messed with since he was Black.....I tend to agree. I think the analogy is close. So, if you don't take pride in being black, you are a sell out? I understand the comparison you're trying to make but the term "porch monkey" isn't something Black people ever call or say to each other. Ever. It's a derogatory term used by racists which is why it was so shocking to hear it used by a Black person. The only detail I really remember about the case was the "pubic hair in my Coke" thing. The irony of the case contrasted with the tone of the paper was it seemed as much as he seemed to detest his blackness he so ready to say "Hey, stop fucking with me because I'm Black." It seemed to some that he was using his blackness as a thing of convienence.

Kirk lives.

Selling out views, notions, beliefs that the masses feel are inherent to that particular group.

My mother made me read a paper he'd written when I was 16 on race and class. Even then I felt like he showed a veiled disdain for anything that reminded him he was Black. He referred to what appeared to be poor Blacks as "porch monkeys" and "jigaboos" all the while talking about the "political lynching" he was being subjected to during the Anita Hill case. If I hadn't know any better I would have thought it was written by Strom Thurmond. There's a difference between wanting someone to look at you as a person as opposed to wanting someone to not see you're Black.

He's definitely a sellout. A smart and accomplished man, but definitely a sellout.

I agree that that's the perception. It's a difficult issue to address no matter how you view it.

I asked you to name two other people who preach about differences. You named me. Then you say I don't preach. It doesn't make any sense... as long as you know I know. "Does it seem to you that American blacks are paranoid and seem to find (and complain about) racism even when none exists" Is your question loaded? From all the "reading between my lines" you should be able to conclude I don't feel that way.

"I can see that, but I think that as time goes forward, unless people hold a grudge, differences become less important, or even dissapear." On a long enough time line this might be the case. But I also feel the "grudge" notion is only a part of it. "When was the last time Kirk beat a whole damn Island like my boy Lee did?...I'll give it up to Kirk for nailing the green chick, but we are talking about fighting, not laying the pipe" Okay. When was the last time Bruce out thought a computer and made it blow up? He also defeated an evil version of himself. I have every episode on dvd. "I don't think they are discriminating against black coaches either...But its OK to make people interview blacks for jobs they are in the minority...But why not make people interview whites in the same situation?" I would love to believe that was the case but I don't. I don't think the owners are having meeting saying stuff like "Don't hire the Black guy." But I do think people's preconceived notions, no matter how subtle they are, come into play. Remember last season when Parcelles (sp?) made the comment about "Jap plays" referring to trick plays? I don't think he meant any harm by it but it was still a terrible thing to say. As far as interviewing Whites in the same situations I really don't have a problem with it. "Oh I do hear you, understand your position, learn from this, and agree we willnever truely understand each other, but I hope we get closer by dialog like this..........................But Lee would stomp Kirk like a grape." Go see "Crash" if you haven't yet. Kirk is the hardest.

True enough. Kirk was still the hardest though.

I can see why you'd say it isn't fair. I honestly don't think they'll ever be a "fair" way to handle situations like that. It's unfortunate no matter how you look at it.

"Quannell X and Tavis Smiley come to mind, but more to the point, so do you." I don't preach. We are different. Differences should be celebrated not ignored. "The divisiveness dims our focus. The government has found terror cells in this country." Ok. "Sure, you could say that but look at the intensity levels. I haven't heard of any asians rioting in the streets in this country." Which proves what? "I agree that seeing others' perspective is important, but disagree with the rest. Take this thread as an example. As far as I can tell, nobody has changed their views. These dialogs are, except for their entertainment value, a waste of time, IMO." The internet is the last place where I'd host a discussion like.

"OK, and I will agree to a certain extent. The fact your G-G grandad was slave did not effect your ability to got to school. It did not effect the ability of the guy that dropped out either....Why did you make it, and they did not? You both have g-g grandparents that were slaves?" Directly no. It's bigger than that though. Here's my point... Take the child of a just freed slave and the child of a former slave owner. Their mentalities, outlook on the world, opportunities ect are completely different. As time goes on and the kids have kids and their kids have kids in theory all of those things should become more similar than different. Fast forward to today... some of those differences still exist even if they exist differently. Some of the former differences are now the same. My point is because we started differently we'll probably end up differently. I'm not saying the guy dropped out because of these differences. If he quit he quit for whatever reason he had. "Your nuts...Kirk was a flabby guy that had cool toys. His double ax handle gimmick he GOT from Lee....Lee was a bad muther fucker, Kirk was a pretty boy" Kirk beat alien's asses. I watched him beat the shit out of a mini godzilla. When was the last time Bruce Lee beat an alien? Never. Bruce was tight, but Kirk was fresh. "No, but I don't think they discriminate against coaches or office help either. You think Airspeed should have to have a black guy?" If you don't think they discriminate against white lineman then there's no need to discuss a mandatory tryout for white lineman. No I don't think Airspeed needs a Black guy. Look man, at the end of the day I can see it from both sides. We just disagree which is fine. You're still my boy and I still look up to you as a skydiving mentor. As I said the last time we debated issues of race and politics, the good thing is we both, I hope, have a greater understanding of one another.

It makes sense you just don't like it. That's fine. It's not as if non qualified people get the jobs/positions in any case.

What rise? All the black coaches in the NFL were hired before the mandate. Do you even know when the mandate was instituted and what has transpired since then? Obviously not. Lovey Smith, Romeo Crinell, and you could make a case for Tony Dungee although he had a head coach position before and after the mandate.

What makes you believe that? If there was no need for the policy then the number of Black coaches would basically stay the same with or without it. They're not required to hire a Black coach, simply interview one. Remember, the NFL is a business well before it's a sport. There's no way anyone is going to risk losing money by hiring a sub par coach.

No. The same way it does not discriminate against black coaches. Explain the rise in the number of Black coaches after the mandate.

"Once again, please explain to me what there is to understand about the black community? Eagerly awaiting your response." WE'RE DIFFERENT PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AT THINGS FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REASONS. That's the last time I'm going to say it. If you took the time to actually understand "these people who seem so opposed to you" you might find your view/position would change. Simply stating what you believe isn't going to help you understand. "So since you say it is necessary to mandate black coaches are interviewed I guess that means you agree that a mandate should be in place stating all teams must try out one white athlete for all running back positions? Is that correct?" That's what you get for guessing. Wrong (as Charlie Murphy would say)! If the white rb is the best for the team then so be it. That doesn't bother me.

"Still when you look at it you have several ways Blacks ended up here. Captured by whites, captured by blacks, indentured servitude, came over AFTER slavery, born here. Now, can you tell me what % of Blacks came from which method? I can pretty much bet that 100% of the blacks that are in the States right now were not slaves captured, brough here, and sold here. So, why is the fact that 150 years ago a guy was treated really badly mean jack shit today? If you want to go farther back the American Indians were getting a bad deal LONG before your relatives were. And if you want to look at something closer, look at the internment of Japanese in WW2, or how the World treated Jews....ect, ect." As I've said previously, what happened previously has an effect on what goes on today and what will happen in the future. No matter what the topic is. The world is bigger than what happens to Khari and Ron. So while putting an end on paper to slavery 150 years ago made it illegal to own slaves, the previous 300+ years of slavery did a tremendous amount of damage to those people. And consequently future generations. That's the connection between someone being treated "badly" 150 years ago and his relative today. "People have treated people badly....Just becasue it was done to your great great grandad, does not make it more or less worse than the others. Just becasue it was done in the States does not make it better or worse either." Everyone's pain is supreme. Because it's theirs not necessarily because it's worse that someone else's. I'm not here to debate which race caught it the worst. Where it occurred and by who does play a factor. "ONLY 1.4% of whites owned slaves. ..So why should I suffer for 1.4% being a jackass?" That's one year, 1860. It took place for 300+. That's a huge amount of time in our country's history. "No, but you have said time after time that we need to make things right. You have supported affirmative action, and others who will read this HAVE supported reperations." Yes, I am in support of AA but I'm also in support of better education in place of or in conjunction with AA. I think it was a temporary fix that once was put into place, caused people to forget about the actual issue. "Bruce Lee hands down...Unless Kirk has a Phaser. Now Lee vs. Spock...I don't know, Spock had the strength of 10 men." Again, we disagree. Kirk's never lost a battle and if he did it was fixed. 83 episodes of ass kicking. The karate chop, the double ax handle across the back, and the jump kick would fade Bruce Lee. And he always gets the chick. Oh, nevermind. sorry. No, I think it can matter. Maybe not for THIS disscussion, but don't you find it interesting that only 1.4% of whites ever owned slaves? Also, do you think it is fair to make the NFL interview black coaches? Why not just hire the best guy? Do you think that the NFL, that is 70% black, should make teams look at white linemen more? It's an interesting stat but understand it was a stat for one year. You and I have spoken about the NFL thing previously on here. In a nutshell I feel like the best person is going to get the job. What's unfortunate is there seems to be a need for the policy. Do you honestly feel like the NFL discriminates agains white lineman?

Believe what you'd like to, but understand you don't know enough about the Black community to make create an informed opinion. As far as your original post I think it's unofortunate that it seems to be necessary... i.e. without it there would be fewer Black coaches. Can I understand why some people would say it isn't fair? Yes.

"That right there is your problem. Why did you bring your skin color into the cop situation??? What does being black have to do with mouthing off to a cop and facing the consequences???" My point is the consequences are different. You'd have to be extra naive to believe everyone is treated solely on their actions. In a perfect world, yes. Here, no. "If I was ever harrassed by a black cop or mouthed off to one the last thing i would do is think that he is being a dick to me because i am white. I would simply think either he is an asshole or perhaps I am being an asshole....Yes, sometimes skin color is an issue, but to rely on that as an excuse or assume that is the cause is a scapegoat." I'm not relying on color being an issue, I'm saying it's part of the issue. You seem to think it plays little to no part. I'm saying that's a naive way of thinking "There is way to much crying going on about racial injustices. My point here is that black people tend to make a mountain out of a mole hill." You keep repeating yourself. And I'll keep disagreeing with you. if something is wrong then ANYONE has the right and responsibility to talk about it. Making a mountain out of a mole hill is sometimes a matter of perspective which goes back to something I said earlier. Dialogue.