This article lost me by the second paragraph, when Marchman says that:

These are serious charges, made by respected players who have seen everything there is to see in baseball. So, what's going on here?

Sheff and Lofton may be respected as players, but as PEOPLE?

Nope.

If and when I hear Tom Gordon speak-up against Torre, THEN I'll start believing this crap.

One final comment: if Marchman had really done his homework, he would have ALSO checked what significant African-American agent the Yankees COULD have signed and which they didn't because they signed something else.

Let me explain: we all know that the Yankees signed Sheffield (African-American) in the off-season of 2003/04 instead of Vlad Guerrero (black Dominican).

I don't necessarily disagree with that decision, because I still have seen or read nothing that leads me to believe that Vlad would have signed with the Yankees (I have this impression that Vlad prefers being out of the spotlight). But the fact of the matter is that the Yankees DID choose the older, African-American player over the younger, black Dominican player.

I think there just might be a credibility issue here where Sheff is concerned:

After all he didn't take illegal steriods. As he says, "Steroids are drugs that you inject into your butt." The cream and the clear are applied either onto your skin or under your tongue. Therefore in Gary's logic they are not steroids.

Gary's a fine judge of character.

I also recall a few years back, while he was with the Dodgers, where Sheff "called out the entire LA Dodgers ballclub" in a tirade verbalized in the press.

Talk about disrespecting your teammates.

Forgive my ignorance, I'm not that familiar with his past, but why isn't Kenny Lofton a respected player?

I think Marchman's just saying that their being veterans gives their complaint more weight than if some rookie made it. Makes sense to me. I thought the article was shockingly even-handed and nuanced for a sports column dealing with race issues in baseball.

Sheffield may be confusing getting treated roughly because you're a prickly douche for racism here.

And I'm guessing Torre ripped into Lofton a few times because, well, Kenny, you played like such a dog he was forced to overexpose the corpse of Bernie Williams to CF again.

Torre wasn't saying you suck because he's racist, he was saying you suck because he's honest.

still have seen or read nothing that leads me to believe that Vlad would have signed with the Yankees

this is the story:

winter, 2003: Yankees front office is split between the Cashman/NY branch and the Steinbrenner/Tampa Mafia. NY wants Vlad; Tampa wants Sheffield.

Without consulting Cashman, Steinbrenner negotiates a handshake deal with Sheffield. Cashman relents

Sheffield expresses reservations about deal. Cashman, seeing an opening, negotiates deal with Vlad.

Cashman's deal with Vlad is almost complete when Sheffield drops reservations and accepts Steinbrenner's offer. Cashman forced to pull deal with Vlad.

If and when I hear Tom Gordon speak-up against Torre, THEN I'll start believing this crap.

You forgot the "Uncle" before Flash's name.

Forgive my ignorance, I'm not that familiar with his past, but why isn't Kenny Lofton a respected player?

Because he excelled at basketball in college & therefore strengthens a stereotype? Word on the street is that he enjoys watermelon, fried chicken & dancing, too.

What's wrong with the chicken dance? It is a staple of wedding receptions.

Obviously I know little about what Sheff is referring to, but Lofton's "yeah, me too" comments initially strike me as simply an easy, cheap - and yes, typical for some - way to get back at Torre for not playing him when Lofton sucked as a Yankee.

If Lofton and others were being "kept down by The Man", as he suggests, why does he wait until now to bring it up?

If Lofton and others were being "kept down by The Man", as he suggests, why does he wait until now to bring it up?

Maybe because he wasn't asked before?

Maybe because he wasn't asked before?

I dunno, if the very prominent manager of the most prominent team in baseball was a racist, you'd think that would be something you'd want people to know without waiting to be asked

The totally unsourced, clearly malicious smearing of Kenny Lofton that has somehow become acceptable in BTF discourse - I think because Furtado started it with his thread header - has got to stop, or it's got to be defended. I have heard basically nothing negative about Lofton as a teammate, but suddenly, after he notes some discrimination in the practice of baseball management, he's not merely a malcontent but a bad person. I call utter ########.

The totally unsourced, clearly malicious smearing of Kenny Lofton that has somehow become acceptable in BTF discourse - I think because Furtado started it with his thread header - has got to stop, or it's got to be defended. I have heard basically nothing negative about Lofton as a teammate, but suddenly, after he notes some discrimination in the practice of baseball management, he's not merely a malcontent but a bad person. I call utter ########.

I have never heard of one negative Kenny Lofton story before either.

I have never heard of one negative Kenny Lofton story before either.

neither have I. I don't have any reason to believe that Lofton is anything but a good guy and a loyal teammate. However, that doesn't mean I don't find his comments fishy.

I think people are down on Kenny Lofton because he's never managed to play in the postseason.

So, let me get this straight... we have posts calling both Sheffield and Lofton down for speaking up - criticizing theor characters and intentions.

Then we have posts asking why they didn't speak up sooner.


Gee, I wonder...

I think people are down on Kenny Lofton because he's never managed to play in the postseason.

I've got to assume this is some sort of joke, but I don't get it.

I've got to assume this is some sort of joke, but I don't get it.

Players who have never made it to October aren't true winners and therefore lack credibility?

The totally unsourced, clearly malicious smearing of Kenny Lofton that has somehow become acceptable in BTF discourse - I think because Furtado started it with his thread header - has got to stop, or it's got to be defended. I have heard basically nothing negative about Lofton as a teammate, but suddenly, after he notes some discrimination in the practice of baseball management, he's not merely a malcontent but a bad person. I call utter ########.

I don't disagree with your basic point, but the Braves seemed rather peeved with Lofton after his one year in Atlanta. There aren't a lot of specific stories; there rarely are with the Braves. But I think there was an issue with Lofton playing his music too loud before games.

I've got to assume this is some sort of joke, but I don't get it.

Dear Lord... is sarcasm dead?

MCoA,

Other than his time in NY, there really are no Lofton/attitude stories out there. He has, on occasion, had a prickly relationship with the media, though nowhere on a Bondsian level and it seemed to be more of an issue during his early days. He is not really comparable to Sheffield, IMO.

Edit: Yes, CFBF is right. For some reason, Kenny's music-listening habits have been brought up at times.

So, let me get this straight... we have posts calling both Sheffield and Lofton down for speaking up - criticizing theor characters and intentions. Then we have posts asking why they didn't speak up sooner. Gee, I wonder...

No, the posts in here aren't that generic; in fact they seem like a mixed bag to me. I personally have no problem with Sheffield talking about race, and I'm sure he's had some valid issues. I also think that he has "played the race card" (sorry in advance to those who are offended by this term) reflexively (Read: often) and without thought, making life difficult for his teammates and employers, and drawing the ire of many. He's also a terrific hitter. All of these are just facts.

As I said in my statement about Lofton, his comments 2-3 years after the fact "initially strike me" as a cheap shot. The only things I know about Lofton's short time with the Yankees was that he wasn't doing well, and Torre didn't play him. Were his comments more timely / detailed, we might be able to examine them more fully.

But I think there was an issue with Lofton playing his music too loud before games.

Well, there you go. Now are you convinced he's a malcontent and a bad person?

Several teams have also wanted him to get off their lawn, FWIW.

Other than his time in NY, there really are no Lofton/attitude stories out there. He has, on occasion, had a prickly relationship with the media, though nowhere on a Bondsian level and it seemed to be more of an issue during his early days. He is not really comparable to Sheffield, IMO.

Now wait, I don't think Lofton is some kind of superjerk, but I thought he basically wore out his welcome in Atlanta in one season. Is that wrong?

Word on the street is that he enjoys watermelon, fried chicken & dancing, too.

It is only my dislike of dancing that keeps me from being black, I guess.

Who doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken, by the way? Communists?

As I recall, Lofton's year with ATL was interesting, in that he found himself in a clubhouse with an established clubhouse culture (by Cox and The Three Pitchers) that was far different from the one he'd known in CLE, where he felt like - and likely was - a team leader. And Lofton wouldn't play along.

It is only my dislike of dancing that keeps me from being black, I guess.

That was you they portrayed in Footloose, wasn't it?

And Lofton wouldn't play along.

See, down south, they know how to keep the help from getting uppity.

Who doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken, by the way? Communists?

Southern cooking is a tool of our Capitalist oppressors.

Who doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken, by the way? Communists?

I hate watermelon, though that could be in part because I'm violently allergic to it (or at least was as a child and haven't considered the issue worth revisiting {edit: too much information re allergy removed}).

But I think there was an issue with Lofton playing his music too loud before games.

You misspelled "Sosa". 8-)

For some reason, the only thing I can remember re Lofton and the clubhouse was when he was on the Sox, he revealed that it was true that Albert Belle smashed a clubhouse thermostat to keep people from turning it up.

And I'm guessing Torre ripped into Lofton a few times because, well, Kenny, you played like such a dog he was forced to overexpose the corpse of Bernie Williams to CF again.

And I'm calling ######## on that. Lofton had an .827 OPS in the first half. He had a hamstring injury and then Joe started jerking him around. It was only after it became clear to Lofton that he was never going to get any real playing time that he started dogging it. Which made sense, because anyone with eyes could see that Lofton was the better defender out there.

Who doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken, by the way? Communists?

I don't much care for watermelon, but I make up for it, because fried chicken is my favorite food.

Southern cooking is a tool of our Capitalist oppressors.

Pistols at dawn, Yankee.

I don't care much for fried chicken. Too greasy usually. Watermelon is the shizzy.

The brief time Lofton played here is SF, I remember sportswriters had issues with him and alluded to similar problems on other teams, IIRC. Not sure about his teammates though.

I'm not saying Sheffield is a perfectly credible, reliable source... I'm not saying Joe Torre is a racist... I'm not taking any side on the issue, BUT -

After Lofton came out and said "Yeah, I saw this happen" - the consensus reaction seems to be incredulous disbelief. In an instant, Kenny Lofton went from respected veteran to "actually, I think I remember a team he used to play for being rather miffed at his pre-game music selection!". Wait... what?! Are you serious?

Sheffield is a blowhard with a chip on his shoulder. But the sad, uncomfortable, inconvenient truth is that a lot of his comments over the years have some validity to them. The media has convinced many people that Rickey Henderson, Sheffield and others are "jerks", primarily due to them not being media-friendly. I hate to pull the race card, but I do find it strange that an outspoken black guy like Sheffield is routinely vilified and scrutinized, while an outpsoken white guy like David Wells is treated like a lovable "straight shooter" character from a Larry the Cable Guy movie.

Here's an example from the World Series 2002 by Pearlman from SI: Lofton big meanie

The most recent graphic example took place on the Giants’ workout day last Friday. As media members and team executives lingered along the third base line of Pacific Bell Park, Lofton and teammate Shawon Dunston prepared to play catch. With three writers standing in between the two men, Lofton yelled to Dunston, "Shawon, throw the ball! Throw the ball!"

Dunston, as any Homo sapien with the slightest shred of decency would do, shrugged, noting that brain damage was one hard toss away. Lofton was undeterred. He picked up a ball from the ground and chucked it, hard and inches above one man’s head. "You gotta teach ‘em a lesson!" he said. "That’s how they learn!"

Here's an example from the World Series 2002 by Pearlman from SI: Lofton big meanie

I don't get the story. I've seen Lofton throw. If he had hit one of the writers in the head the next days headline would be "Mosquitos a nuissance at Pac Bell". Dunston though could have caused some brain damage.

I hate to pull the race card, but I do find it strange that an outspoken black guy like Sheffield is routinely vilified and scrutinized, while an outpsoken white guy like David Wells is treated like a lovable "straight shooter" character from a Larry the Cable Guy movie.

Am I not playing the race card if I think they're both a$$holes? All three of them, if you include Larry the Cable Guy.

Lofton certainly did get treated unfairly by Torre. He's certainly proven over the last 3 years that he has game left and would have been a defensive improvement on Williams. Torre certainly played favorites - opting for the player he had managed for years over the new arrival - but I remain very skeptical that he played Bernie just because he was white.

Am I not playing the race card if I think they're both a$$holes?

The stupid race, yeah.

But I think there was an issue with Lofton playing his music too loud before games.

You've confused him with Curtis Pride. They all look alke to you, don't they?

They all look alke to you, don't they?

WHAT?

You've confused him with Curtis Pride. They all look alke to you, don't they?

Didn't Chad Curtis get into a fight with someone about locker room music? Who was that?

Didn't Chad Curtis get into a fight with someone about locker room music? Who was that?

Royce Clayton.

Is everyone forgetting the Lofton / Bonilla Playoff-Time Canasta Tournament?

It was Curtis and Kevin Mitchell. Curtis fell through a ping-pong table and ended up on the DL.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19970523/ai_n10338075

It was Curtis and Kevin Mitchell. Curtis fell through a ping-pong table and ended up on the DL.

I don't remember Curtis and Mitchell, but Curtis and Clayton definitely happened in Texas.

43. JThompson Posted: July 16, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2442762)

Didn't Chad Curtis get into a fight with someone about locker room music? Who was that?



Royce Clayton.

Actually, I think it was Kevin Mitchell who Curtis got in fight with.

Lofton certainly did get treated unfairly by Torre. He's certainly proven over the last 3 years that he has game left and would have been a defensive improvement on Williams. Torre certainly played favorites - opting for the player he had managed for years over the new arrival - but I remain very skeptical that he played Bernie just because he was white.

Well, you've managed to illustrate that you think that racial inequity can only be present if Bernie Williams is white. It's an interesting theory.

a Larry the Cable Guy movie.

There are MOVIES?!?! Forget Torre, this is the greatest example yet that white people cannot adequately evaluate. :P

Is everyone forgetting the Lofton / Bonilla Playoff-Time Canasta Tournament?

Is that a joke?

None of this is an argument for sensitivity for its own sake, but Sheffield and Lofton have made really unusual and extraordinary claims, for which there are only so many explanations. The Yankees may be a truly racist organization; the players may be lying; the players may be spoiled jocks looking for reasons to feel disrespected, Torre may be a cad. Finally, there may be real, if relatively minor, issues here, nearly inextricable from egotism, managerial thoughtlessness, and baseball’s historically racist culture, which can lead people to see racism where there is none. This last explanation seems the likeliest for what went wrong here.

I know that Tim Marchman hangs out around here and that he's a brilliant guy and writer, so I was hoping this could be clarified.

Why are these the only possibilities? It seems like he omits a likely choice:

There may be real, if relatively minor, issues here, nearly inextricable from egotism, managerial thoughtlessness, and baseball’s historically racist culture, which can result in race entering the equation and playing a non-overt role in decision-making which thanks to these historically cultural issues--not only in baseball, but in society at large--could lead some to see racism where others cannot.

That wouldn't make Torre a cad, nor Marchman, but merely a product of our society in which brilliant people frequently get tangled in these issues.

It was Curtis and Kevin Mitchell. Curtis fell through a ping-pong table and ended up on the DL.

Best part of that article:

Curtis, who is 5 feet 10 inches and 185 pounds, and Mitchell, who is 5-11 and about 255

Threads like this show why people shy away from any discussion about race. At the risk of making a bad pun, some people look at things as being either black or white and things rarely are that clear.
Here are a few facts that may or may not apply to the Yankees, Sheffield, Lofton, or any workplace you've been a part of:
1. Some bosses are jerks.
2. Some jerks are racists.
3. Some racists are bosses.
4. A person can be a jerk without being a racist.
5. Not many successful bosses are racists.
6. If you're an obvious racist you don't remain a boss for long.
7. Some people (white and black) assume people of other races treat them differently because of race.
8. Sometimes they are right & sometimes they are wrong.
9. Sometimes a boss doesn't even recognize that a subordinate doesn't like how he's being treated.
10. As a society we have told a generation or two of black youth that "the man" is keeping him down. Too often that thought is in the subconscious and becomes the default reaction.

Bottom line, too many people think they know what's in another's mind and heart. Having had a number of supervisory positions including a decade or so in human resources, I can tell you that most folks aren't even aware when they've done something that bothers someone else. I had a mid-level guy who had a couple complaints against him when I checked things out I find out he wasn't purposely ignoring people. He was just zoned out because his wife was diagnosed with cancer and he had no idea how his family (three kids) would cope with no mom. Sure, he was being a jerk, but he was barely aware he was at work. Nearly every situation were a previously good boss started getting complaints it was something outside the workplace (drinking issues, wife's spending, kid's behavior) that was messing him up.

Curtis got into it with Clayton as well, about Clayton's music being played in the clubhouse.

http://sports.espn.go.com/page2/tvlistings/show4transcript.html

Mitchell, who is 5-11 and <i>about 255</i>

Depended on how patriotic Kevin Mitchell was feeling that day.

5. Not many successful bosses are racists.

There is a loaded statement. Care to qualify?

55. Rusty Priske Posted: July 16, 2007 at 04:55 PM (#2442829)

5. Not many successful bosses are racists.



There is a loaded statement. Care to qualify?

Sure. There are probably some racists who have managed to be successful in supervisory roles. However, a supervisor who allows stupid crap like racism to affect his judgment is unlikely to be as successful as a supervisor who bases decisions on merit.

However, a supervisor who allows stupid crap like racism to affect his judgment is unlikely to be as successful as a supervisor who bases decisions on merit.

That is idealistic and I wish it were true. In most places the difference wouldn't be noticed. Most of the time both people are qualified and the, I guess racist boss, decides to find something bad about the minority. Rarely does this end up biting the guy/gal in the butt.

What about non-stupid insidious crap like "aversive racism"?

It seems like historically and still in many fields, the "good ol' boys" network dictates the opposite of what you've said...

If you don't like chicken and watermelon, there's something wrong with YOU!

If you don't like chicken and watermelon, there's something wrong with YOU!

Agreed

I assumed the Curtis Pride reference wasn't confusing him with Chad Curtis, but that it was a deaf joke.

Eraser-X is, in fact, dominating this site!

Post 50 nailed the topic -- most racism in mainstream American society happens nowadays because of America's -- not merely baseball's -- historically racist culture.

Anybody care to deny that America has a historically racist culture? And that it still affects opinions, values, judgments, etc. to this day? Baseball certainly so.

I think the unwillingness to admit this elephant in the room lies at the heart of the failure of these "racial" discussions to go beyond the superficial and off-target.

It's seriously not about individuals being racist for the most part, but being unconscious actors influenced by institutional racism.

None of these mean that you can't judge Sheffield a jerk, you can't think Lofton is grinding an axe against Torre, that racial guilt can and is used as a power source in interpersonal and corporate struggles, but all of that pales in comparison to historic, institutional racism that still works mightily against the interests of Black folks in America.

Those are the facts, like 'em or not. It would be nice if we lived in a color-blind society, but we never will as long as we remain blind to the very real, present-day effects of color.

At heart here is a needless conflating here of "discrimination" and "racism".

Sheffield has said two things: a) that Joe Torre treated black players differently, and b) that Joe Torre is not a racist. This is, in fact, a highly common kind of situation. A good deal (if not that majority) of modern "racism" is unfortunately unintentionally perpetrated by people who would be deathly offended if someone suggested they are racist. People letting their cognitive processes fly on autopilot and not aware they are treating people differently.

Maybe Joe Torre unintentionally discriminated based on race, like many (most) do. Maybe he intentionally or unintentionally discriminated based on Championship Yankees. Both of those seem equally plausible to me. And maybe Torre, like many of his generation, pays lip service to equality, but in private with his friends talks about "those people". It's possible, but clearly in the realm of speculation from here.

What I think is important, particularly in a discussion about race and society, is to allow for gradations. Discrimination does not equal racism does not equal hard-core racist. It's not productive, IMO, to continue discussing this as if Sheffield has called Torre a racist when he's explicitly done the exact opposite.

I am by no means racist, and fervently despise those who are. But I have also discriminated against people of other races without meaning to. The sooner we can all allow for the existence of that dichotomy, in ourselves and others, the healthier race relations in America will be.

What's wrong with the chicken dance? It is a staple of wedding receptions.

Even the Macarena couldn't slay it.

Although I'm not quite sure what that says exactly.

Best Regards

John

Maybe Joe Torre unintentionally discriminated based on race, like many (most) do.

What's your evidence that "most" people "unintentionally discriminate" based on race, assuming that such a thing is even possible?

Anybody care to deny that America has a historically racist culture? And that it still affects opinions, values, judgments, etc. to this day? Baseball certainly so.

No. Yes -- There were fair-minded white people in the days of slavery and there are bitter racist whites today. Individuals can and do transcend the worst parts of their culture and it is the individual, not his group, that we properly hold accountable.

I think the unwillingness to admit this elephant in the room lies at the heart of the failure of these "racial" discussions to go beyond the superficial and off-target.

I don't find these discussions to be "superficial" or "off-target" in the least. They don't focus enough on what you'd like them to focus on, perhaps, but that does not mean they are either of the two things you mentioned. Nor is the "elephant" in the room really an "elephant" for the reasons I mentioned.

It's seriously not about individuals being racist for the most part, but being unconscious actors influenced by institutional racism.

There's no such thing as institutional racism beyond the sum of the acts of individuals making up the institutions.

None of these mean that you can't judge Sheffield a jerk, you can't think Lofton is grinding an axe against Torre, that racial guilt can and is used as a power source in interpersonal and corporate struggles, but all of that pales in comparison to historic, institutional racism that still works mightily against the interests of Black folks in America.

See above.

Sheffield has said two things: a) that Joe Torre treated black players differently, and b) that Joe Torre is not a racist. This is, in fact, a highly common kind of situation. A good deal (if not that majority) of modern "racism" is unfortunately unintentionally perpetrated by people who would be deathly offended if someone suggested they are racist. People letting their cognitive processes fly on autopilot and not aware they are treating people differently.

Then Torre would be a racist. He wouldn't necessarily be the most virulent kind of racist, but he'd nontheless be a racist.

We shouldn't let Sheffield say at the same time: (1) Joe Torre engages in conduct properly denoted racist -- which it clearly is when someone treats someone differently because of their race; and (2) Joe Torre isn't a racist.

Well, clearly if you don't believe in unintentional racial preference, we aren't going to come to much consensus in this discussion. Especially if you expend most of your energy arguing points based on being right in that assumption.

Sure, if we accept that there is no such thing as unintentional racial preference, then Sheffield's statements wouldn't mesh. But if we believe that water boils at 0 C we'd be surprised that you can't make Ramen in sidewalk puddles.

There's no such thing as institutional racism beyond the sum of the acts of individuals making up the institutions.

So what? There's no such thing as ignorance except for the sum of individual not knowing stuff and interacting with each other, maybe we should abolish schools? There's no such thing as illness except for the sum of individuals contracting and manifesting sickness. Perhaps we should abolish hospitals. The sum you are talking about is huge, non-intentional, and includes you and I, so perhaps it needs to be addressed?

I'll tell you what, here are some studies, many of which not only discuss unintentional racial preference, but also discuss why people in the society might not want to believe that it exists...
http://lafayette.edu/news.php/view/8952/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gx7u541611376156/
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02183.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jasp

And then there's the widespread racial preferencing in various social area which under your theory could only be explained by evil, intentional racists somehow infiltrating and controlling all of these social arenas:
http://drcenter.org/employment.htm

https://mortgagetrap.c3.ixwebhosting.com/steering.htm

This one showed real estate steering independent of income considerations occurred 80%+ of the time. Are you saying that real estate just happens to attract all of the intentional racists in the society?

Interest evidence of proliferation internationally (the theory on this gets complex, so you might want to ignore it for now):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11826937

That's just a few of the hundreds of studies on the topic. If you get a chance, you might want to read more.

peace.

What I think is important, particularly in a discussion about race and society, is to allow for gradations. Discrimination does not equal racism does not equal hard-core racist. It's not productive, IMO, to continue discussing this as if Sheffield has called Torre a racist when he's explicitly done the exact opposite.

I am by no means racist, and fervently despise those who are. But I have also discriminated against people of other races without meaning to. The sooner we can all allow for the existence of that dichotomy, in ourselves and others, the healthier race relations in America will be.

I--and others--have said this several times. You said it well, and I am glad to hear it.

It's true; I tried to rent a place down here a couple of years ago, and they wouldn't give me a reason for not doing it other than "you don't want to live here." All the neighbors were black.

I'm sure we can all agree that Sheffield is racist.

We shouldn't let Sheffield say at the same time: (1) Joe Torre engages in conduct properly denoted racist -- which it clearly is when someone treats someone differently because of their race; and (2) Joe Torre isn't a racist.

I would not be surprised if it is easier for Torre to find common ground with his white players than his black players. I would not be surprised if he behaved differently towards them. That does not make him a racist. If Torre criticized a black player for behavior he wouldn't criticize a white player for, that's racist (assuming that the reason for the difference was skin color). If Torre makes black players practice more because he thinks black people were lazy, that's racist.

Racism, as many define it, isn't so much about "same treatment," but about a belief that a particular skin color is inherently superior or inferior. "Separate but equal" would not have been a problem if separate really was equal.

Thanks, EX, for doing the yeoman's work of providing at least a few citations for Sugar Bear. It's sort of odd that something can be a foundational finding in basic sociology and social psychology, and yet be denied with such aplomb.

Crosby:

I would not be surprised if it is easier for Torre to find common ground with his white players than his black players. I would not be surprised if he behaved differently towards them. That does not make him a racist. If Torre criticized a black player for behavior he wouldn't criticize a white player for, that's racist (assuming that the reason for the difference was skin color). If Torre makes black players practice more because he thinks black people were lazy, that's racist.

You seem not to have understood what EX and CFiJ have said, and you definitely seem not to have followed EX's links. The point here is that there's reams of evidence that people who would never say that "black people are lazy" will in fact treat black people as if they've lazier. Even black people will do it. This sort of cultural conditioning is just a fact, and the first step is recognizing the problem of unconscious and structural racial bias, then bringing it to light. You have imposed a false dichotomy - between conscious declarative racism and complete lack of disciminatory action. Almost all of us reside in the middle space.

I thought he basically wore out his welcome in Atlanta in one season

Lofton that is.

More like Atlanta wasn't interested in paying Lofton the going rate on the open market. Just over $30 million for 4 years.

It's a decision they've made many times over the years.

Well, clearly if you don't believe in unintentional racial preference, we aren't going to come to much consensus in this discussion. Especially if you expend most of your energy arguing points based on being right in that assumption.

I think we just have a different definition of some terms; what I think you mean by "unintentional racial preference," I'd use the term "subconscious explanation of racial discrimination." What Sheffield alleges against Torre is racial discrimination. There may be an explanation for the discrimination that Torre doesn't understand (or which some would like to attribute more to society and history or, for that matter, the inherent failings of white people), but there's nothing I see in the alleged act itself that would rightly be denominated "unintentional." If Torre treated Sheffield differently because Sheffield's black, Torre intentionallydiscriminated against him -- an extremely serious matter. I see no reason to run away from the implication of this conclusion, or to diffuse the blame beyond Torre himself.

I'm also familiar with many of the studies you cite. The 80%+ one got that way because individuals in the institution discriminated based on race. Someone looked the black family in the face and checked the wrong box for the wrong reason. I see no reason to excuse the plain moral culpability of that act by calling it "institutional racism," though it's literally true that when enough individuals within an institution discriminate the discrimination becomes the institutions. I've never understood the term to mean that phenomenon, though.

Thanks, EX, for doing the yeoman's work of providing at least a few citations for Sugar Bear. It's sort of odd that something can be a foundational finding in basic sociology and social psychology, and yet be denied with such aplomb.

It was never denied, but instead re-defined. I like my way better. You need a better understanding of the difference between never seeing something or never being exposed to an idea and having your own ideas.

Racism, as many define it, isn't so much about "same treatment," but about a belief that a particular skin color is inherently superior or inferior. "Separate but equal" would not have been a problem if separate really was equal.

That's one way to define it. You'd think you'd need to somehow work racial discrimination into the definition of the term.

The point here is that there's reams of evidence that people who would never say that "black people are lazy" will in fact treat black people as if they've lazier.

Then they don't really believe black people aren't lazier. Who cares what they say?

The meaning of a word is a social construct, not the endpoint of a logical proof.

Generally speaking, people in America have a larger set of negative connotations associated with non-white people, and this is reflected in their actions.

In common parlance, there's a clear distinction drawn between the "racist" who strongly believes in the inferiority of other races, and "most everyone" who would be amenable to changing their ways and their modes of thinking when they become aware of their own discriminatory actions. The difference between conscious and unconscious ("sub"conscious is a distinction without difference) is perfectly real, well described, and worth keeping in this discussion. Most people use the difference between conscious and unconscious as a way of distinguishing "real racists". If you want to redefine the term, that's not ipso facto objectionable, but you need to explain why that's a good thing to do.

In common parlance, there's a clear distinction drawn between the "racist" who strongly believes in the inferiority of other races, and "most everyone" who would be amenable to changing their ways and their modes of thinking when they become aware of their own discriminatory actions. The difference between conscious and unconscious ("sub"conscious is a distinction without difference) is perfectly real, well described, and worth keeping in this discussion. Most people use the difference between conscious and unconscious as a way of distinguishing "real racists". If you want to redefine the term, that's not ipso facto objectionable, but you need to explain why that's a good thing to do.

But the discriminatory actions would nonetheless be "intentional," the issue I was initially contending. I agree that there is a manifest difference in moral culpability between the discriminatory act motivated by hatred or feelings of superiority and one motivated by social factors that have shaped the actor's personality, but the difference there isn't premised on the former being "intentional" and the latter being "unintentional."

Why? One can be racist without intending to be racist. It doesn't mean that you didn't intend to perform the act that was racially discriminatory, but it means that you didn't intend to perform a racist act. That seems like a perfectly cromulent use of the term "unintentional".

I think we just have a different definition of some terms; what I think you mean by "unintentional racial preference," I'd use the term "subconscious explanation of racial discrimination." What Sheffield alleges against Torre is racial discrimination. There may be an explanation for the discrimination that Torre doesn't understand (or which some would like to attribute more to society and history or, for that matter, the inherent failings of white people), but there's nothing I see in the alleged act itself that would rightly be denominated "unintentional." If Torre treated Sheffield differently because Sheffield's black, Torre intentionallydiscriminated against him -- an extremely serious matter. I see no reason to run away from the implication of this conclusion, or to diffuse the blame beyond Torre himself.

I'm also familiar with many of the studies you cite. The 80%+ one got that way because individuals in the institution discriminated based on race. Someone looked the black family in the face and checked the wrong box for the wrong reason. I see no reason to excuse the plain moral culpability of that act by calling it "institutional racism," though it's literally true that when enough individuals within an institution discriminate the discrimination becomes the institutions. I've never understood the term to mean that phenomenon, though.

No, the point is, if you asked the person, "Do you treat people equally on the basis of race?" They would reply emphatically "Yes." They would not be lying or attempting to deceive, they would just be flat-out wrong.

Then when it was pointed out that they were wrong they would respond defensively and try to redefine "racism" or "discrimination" or try to come up with some ridiculously unlikely alternate explanation.

You say that you've read the studies, but you clearly don't understand--this is not just an example of intellectual disagreement.

Many of the studies are not just saying that people are practicing racial preferencing. They are saying that people are doing so AND in most cases are completely unaware of that preference. So I don't understand how you can define that as anything other than "unintentional".

Furthermore, according to the studies their is an extremely high likelihood that you or I would likewise replicate some of the racial disparities in our behavior were we placed in a similar situation with a similar lack of awareness on identity issues.

So by all means, vilify those who participate in this all you want, but please refrain from excluding yourself...

Why? One can be racist without intending to be racist. It doesn't mean that you didn't intend to perform the act that was racially discriminatory, but it means that you didn't intend to perform a racist act. That seems like a perfectly cromulent use of the term "unintentional".
Page 1 of 1 pages

If the definition of "racist" is "strongly believing in the inferiority of other races," as I thought we all but agreed upon, I'm finding it hard to see how you'd pull that one off unintentionally.

No, the point is, if you asked the person, "Do you treat people equally on the basis of race?" They would reply emphatically "Yes." They would not be lying or attempting to deceive, they would just be flat-out wrong.


Exactly. And already covered.

Many of the studies are not just saying that people are practicing racial preferencing. They are saying that people are doing so AND in most cases are completely unaware of that preference. So I don't understand how you can define that as anything other than "unintentional".

Because the acts that underlie the "preferencing" are intentional acts. Much as the acts Sheffield's accusing Torre of, if true, would be intentional acts. If the possibility of motvations he may not be conscious of were presented to Torre as reasons for his behavior, including racial bias he may not be aware of, Torre may very well say, "Hey, I never thought of that. I agree. I'll change my ways." In other words, he may be susceptible to education and rehabilitation.

That does not, however, mean his racially discriminatory acts were not intentional.

The act wasn't unintentional. but its racially discriminatory character was unintentional. If someone is accused of racially disciminating, the fact that the person didn't intend to racially discriminate is a useful thing to know. It doesn't mean that the person didn't intend to perform the act that was racially discriminatory, but it means that the person didn't intend to perform a racist act. That seems like a perfectly cromulent use of the term "unintentional".

Another way of putting it:

SBB, if we accept your definitions of the terms, then it's a simple fact that most Americans are racists who intentionally discriminate against non-whites.

The terms generally are used in a different way, which has a perfectly fine internal logic, but which is not in itself better than the way you want to use the terms. We could try to change it. I don't really care that much either way - the basic fact of everyday racial preferencing and discrimination is what matters, not the precise wording with which we describe it.

Anyone who can work the word "cromulent" into a reply gets my vote as "winner of the discussion."

We're getting into very semantic territory now and without knowing exactly what the "charges" are by Sheffield against Torre, it's hard -- at least for me -- to go much further with this line. And I'm probably guilty of being overly semantic on this one. The terms "prefer" and "discriminate," the ones we've been using, have embedded within them a presupposition of some level of intent, without which, the words don't seem to make sense to describe what we're describing. Thus, the acts themselves presuppose such, or else they don't work.

Without that, Sheffield's accusations boil down to their literal essentials -- "Torre treats black people differently." I didn't understand that that was all there was to the matter, but maybe I read too much into it.

The terms "prefer" and "discriminate," the ones we've been using, have embedded within them a presupposition of some level of intent, without which, the words don't seem to make sense to describe what we're describing. Thus, the acts themselves presuppose such, or else they don't work

As E-X described, people will say "I treat everyone equally" and by all accounts intend to do so, and yet their acts do not fit with this claim. The intent to discriminate by race is not a necessary part of racial discrimination. There's no presupposition of intent, and I think this has been explained enough times already, hasn't it? Where's the disconnect?

If someone is accused of racially disciminating, the fact that the person didn't intend to racially discriminate is a useful thing to know. It doesn't mean that the person didn't intend to perform the act that was racially discriminatory, but it means that the person didn't intend to perform a racist act.

I would say that such a person is not a racist, in the way the term is commonly used to describe a person. They may have engaged in racially discriminatory behavior, but that isn't the same thing.

You have imposed a false dichotomy - between conscious declarative racism and complete lack of disciminatory action. Almost all of us reside in the middle space.

I don't disagree with you, and creating such a dichotomy was not my intention.

Calling someone a racist is an attack on their character. It isn't saying "you engage in subconscious racial discrimination" and it isn't saying "you have preferences that, despite your ignorance, are racially motivated."

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that Torre treats blacks differently and yet is not a racist. I do not believe that every instance of differing treatment based on race is racist.

An extreme example: The person at the beach who doesn't offer his black friend suntan lotion when offering his white friend the same is engaging in differential behavior solely based on skin color. That person is not a racist.

As E-X described, people will say "I treat everyone equally" and by all accounts intend to do so, and yet their acts do not fit with this claim. The intent to discriminate by race is not a necessary part of racial discrimination. There's no presupposition of intent, and I think this has been explained enough times already, hasn't it? Where's the disconnect?

There is a difference between "I treat everyone equally" and "I treat everyone similarly."

I look at the "steering" study cited above and see a totally different phenomenon. People in general prefer to live among people that look like them, because all other things being equal, people believe that those who look like them are more likely to have similar backgrounds and values. Real estate agents are aware of that general preference and lead people to environments that are full of people that look like them.

To bring up a common situation:

A young woman is in a city known to have a crime problem. It is also known that a disproportionate percentage (relative to the population) of the street crime in this region is committed by young black men. Is she racist if she feels greater fear when seeing a casually dressed young black man than a casually dressed young white man? Or is she just playing the percentages?

CB - Certainly, the question of where noticing racial and cultural differences ends and where unconscious racism begins is a complicated one.

But the discussion here was never about that. Sheffield accused Torre of treating black players worse. as such, the debate has been about preferencing and discrimination. The wide literature on aversive racism provides extensive evidence that such preferencing and discrimination in favor of whites and against minorities is pervasive throughout American culture and the American economy. This discrimination is unintended, but it is nonetheless real and its effects have been widely recorded.

Your questions about different treatment, then, while certainly worth discussing, are tangential - this is about clearly documented discrimination which is both separate and unequal.

"A young woman is in a city known to have a crime problem. It is also known that a disproportionate percentage (relative to the population) of the street crime in this region is committed by young black men. Is she racist if she feels greater fear when seeing a casually dressed young black man than a casually dressed young white man? Or is she just playing the percentages?"

Under today's standards, she is a racist and any police action playing those same percentages is a form of racial profiling. You simply cannot play the percentages where race, national origin or gender is concerned.

Sheffield accused Torre of treating black players worse.

I read "differently" not "worse," although it may have been a misquote. There is indeed a difference.

If Sheffield felt black players were treated worse than white players, why doesn't he think Torre is a racist?

Under today's standards, she is a racist and any police action playing those same percentages is a form of racial profiling. You simply cannot play the percentages where race, national origin or gender is concerned.

It may be a merely semantic distinction, but I do not equate racial profiling with being a racist. Often, the underlying reasons for the profiling are suspect and THAT is what makes the policy racist.

Perhaps it is a casualty of the current situation, but calling someone a racist is a strong accusation that has a very harsh connotation. That Sheffield specifically is quoted as saying Torre is not a racist should be a pretty strong indication that there's a weight he doesn't want to lay on Torre.

If Sheffield felt black players were treated worse than white players, why doesn't he think Torre is a racist?

Posts 68-89 discussed exactly that question.

Awesome points CFiJ, EX, Matt. I wish I was as articulate on the subject.

To take it outside of race, who hasn't experienced what Paul talks about in Romans 7:13-25. You don't have to agree with the theology to have consciously wanted to act in one way and your unconscious moved you in a different direction.

People are not primarily rational actors except on a superficial level. You have to have done some serious inner work, or at least some serious living to integrate the conscious and unconscious, the light and the dark.

Is it any really wonder that we can't integrate Black and White people when we can't integrate our own hearts and minds?

The denial of the latter is more prevalent than the denial of the former.

I disagree with SBB, but his thinking is the thinking of most people responding to Sheffield.

They say, I know Joe Torre, I've been around Joe Torre, I've never once heard Joe Torre say a racist word, no way Joe Torre is a racist, Sheffield is therefore nuts at best.

To accept that Joe Torre isn't a racist and Sheffield perceptions are accurate is too much for most to wrap their minds around.

Ironically, Sheffield seems to understand the psychology, to have lived it. And maybe I'm crazy, but I trust his experience for just that reason.

Well, the "would you make assumptions about a guy with a running chainsaw walking toward you on the street" analogies are not relevant in a situation where you have an opportunity to interact with the person in a non-stereotyped way.

Somedays, I am exhausted and don't feel like dealing with these types of issues, so I choose to avoid white people except my family or closest friends. But if they engage me, I treat them as individuals and sometimes am rewarded, sometimes punished.

There's times to play the percentages, but many people are wedded to percentages over gathering more information and treating people as individuals.

"would you make assumptions about a guy with a running chainsaw walking toward you on the street"

Harry Callahan: Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.
The Mayor: Intent? How did you establish that?
Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!

They say, I know Joe Torre, I've been around Joe Torre, I've never once heard Joe Torre say a racist word, no way Joe Torre is a racist, Sheffield is therefore nuts at best.

To accept that Joe Torre isn't a racist and Sheffield perceptions are accurate is too much for most to wrap their minds around.

I've never said anything like this. What I've written is clearly too much for you to wrap your mind around.