98 - torii means that so many non-Negro people insist that there is no problem about american born Black people not playing much baseball because they think that you can substitute any person who is not american but has Negro ancestry and then say - look, there is no racism. see all the Black people, who cares where they were born

when the point is that AMERICAN Blacks are not playing baseball, not that MLB doesn't want ANY people who have Negro ancestry

Right. That's why his statements were not "repugnant" by any means, it was just a poor choice of words for him to say the non-US blacks are "imposters."

101 posts, eh? O/U 230.

tell me the name of even ONE Black ballplayers who has been described as "gritty"

Not in the MSM so much, but I've noticed that Nyjer Morgan comes up a lot in gritty/scrappy player fan discussions. He's fast, he makes amazing catches, he slides into bases headfirst (not anymore, but now he does feet-first and the Nats broadcasters talk about how tough and old-school he is)...all the stuff the white gritty guys do. (I admit he is my favorite current position player.)

- black journeyman - hmmmm, well there was tony clark. and, um, and,

and um, Lenny Harris, and um, Daryle Ward, and um, Donnie Sadler, and um, Curtis Pride, and um....


- black middle reliever - can't think of even one

Keeping in mind there seems to be fewer black pitchers in general, you still have Arthur Rhodes, Ray King, Latroy Hawkins, Darren Oliver...


- black AAAA guy - hanging on at AAA

What is a AAAA guy? It's a concept that only exists for a couple seasons at most before the player either gets a chance or proves he's not that good anyway. If there was really racism against black players, I'd assume they'd be well-represented as AAAA guys, beating up AAA pitching but the big league team decides they won't be given a chance in the majors for whatever reason. Not being familiar with every team's minor league system I won't even try identifying such players.



torii means that so many non-Negro people insist that there is no problem about american born Black people not playing much baseball because they think that you can substitute any person who is not american but has Negro ancestry and then say - look, there is no racism. see all the Black people, who cares where they were born

when the point is that AMERICAN Blacks are not playing baseball, not that MLB doesn't want ANY people who have Negro ancestry

So, is there racism there or not?

God people are sensitive these days., We all know what he was trying to say, that the lack of black players in baseball is obscured to some by dark skinned latin players. There is nothing offensive about it. I really wish the PC police would get their funding cut.

Assuming the percentage of black players in baseball is decreasing, I don't see why we should care, as long as it's not because the people running the leagues are racist.

What is the claim here? That the reason there are fewer blacks in baseball is that people are racist, but their racism only applies to black players and not to "dark-skinned Dominican" players?

I don't know how this adds to the discussion, there doesn't an overabundance of US born African American talent, in particular guys who maybe dominant players in the amateur ranks, but find themselves to be 'bit' players either in the minors or in the Major Leagues.

From whatever I've learned by looking through my baseball cards, it seemed like there was more US born African American players who earned a living as rank-and-file players.

Maybe it is a generalization, after the established players, there is a steep drop as far as quality US born African American players.

i keep telling everyone that the word "black" as used by us american born Blacks does not mean - any person on the planet who has visible Negro ancestry. it means a person who is american who has at least one american parent of Negro ancestry. it is irritating that so many people INSIST that we are not allowed to use ANY term to describe our own ethnic group

The problem is that you've chosen a term that has a well-established meaning to the majority of the population, and one that they understand as far more inclusive. Also, different people within the purportedly same culture have different definitions. Gary Sheffield once said something like "Derek Jeter isn't really black," although he would qualify under your definition.

I might very well feel little sense of identity with the majority of the Israeli population, but that doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense to say they aren't Jewish. Instead, if I were to be considered the same as an Israeli Jew, I would respond that there are enormous cultural differences between American Jews and Israeli Jews, making it a very superficial comparison.

Why would you want to use a term that has a clearly established definition for most of the population? It's a pretty silly battle to pick, especially when you can get just as significant a result without confusing terminology.

To me, Vladimir Guerrero is black and Dominican while Gary Sheffield is black and American. I expect that they have more in common with each other by nature of being wealthy, by being celebrities, or by being exceptionally talented baseball players than they do by nature of both having dark skin. The way to stop people from saying they are the same is not to insist that Guerrero isn't black despite most of America considering him as such. It's to say "yes, they both have dark skin, but that doesn't mean they are similar at all culturally."

I'm behind in the thread.

I, too, initially figured the "imposter" comment was just a poor word choice on Hunter's part, until I read his expanded comments.

I can give him some benefit of the doubt since it's easy for something said contemporaneously without prepared remarks to come out wrong, but this does still seem kind of silly for him to have said.

It's not healthy to focus on race to the extent that one sees conspiracy theories where none exist. I mean, Al Sharpton can do that since that's how he makes a living, but intelligent people like Hunter really shouldn't be following suit.

Calcaterra has always been into this topic, so I am not surprised he is a key MSM guy slamming Hunter. Calcaterra has slammed people here as well on this topic.

Don't see why this matters, Robinred. The issue is Hunter's remarks, not who the "key MSM guy slamming Hunter" is.

tell me the name of even ONE Black ballplayer who has been described as "gritty"

These guys are the 50 grittiest players of all time, many of whom (17) are black-Americans or call themselves black-Americans or have subscribed to Jet Magazine or have said, "there is no such thing as too much junk in the trunk":

1 Craig Biggio
2 Ron Hunt
3 Jason Kendall
4 Nellie Fox
5 Brett Butler
6 Chuck Knoblauch
7 Omar Vizquel
8 Luis Aparicio
9 Bert Campaneris
10 Don Baylor
11 David Eckstein
12 Pete Rose
13 Maury Wills
14 Ozzie Smith
15 Rickey Henderson
16 Cesar Tovar
17 Juan Pierre
18 Jim Gilliam
19 Willie Randolph
20 Fernando Vina
21 Eric Young
22 Minnie Minoso
23 Larry Bowa
24 Don Kessinger
25 Felix Millan
26 Brady Anderson
27 Harold Reynolds
28 Steve Sax
29 Alfredo Griffin
30 Tony Taylor
31 Mark Belanger
32 Toby Harrah
33 Curt Flood
34 Chet Lemon
35 Brian Downing
36 Richie Ashburn
37 Joe Morgan
38 Derek Jeter
39 Don Blasingame
40 Tony Fernandez
41 Eddie Yost
42 Dave Cash
43 Rick Burleson
44 Luis Castillo
45 Horace Clarke
46 Scott Fletcher
47 Bobby Grich
48 Tony Phillips
49 Johnny Temple
50 Tim Foli

A number of the "non-black" gritty players are of Afro-Caribbean heritage.

I'm pretty sure David Eckstein once said, "there's no such thing as too much junk in the trunk".

So...

I'm surprised you didn't catch the Netherlands (with both the stereotype for height + the tallest player in pro ball @ 7-1): 5'-11" (20+) / 6'-0.5" (25-34) per your link. I also think you should be careful with which #s you compare across countries (do you really want to use the 5-10.5 figure for the US for all comps?), but you likely are.

You're right, I just missed the Netherlands. Although, like Germany, their heights are self-reported instead of measured.

I don't see why we wouldn't use the 5'10 1/2" figure for the US, since the original discussion was US Caucasians vs. Europeans. I realize that all the numbers listed are problematic because methodologies don't really match across countries, but it's the best I could find in a quick internet search.

The genetics may be similar (though certainly not identical) - the real difference is in the quality of health care, particularly to the lower classes. Over history people have gotten taller for nutritional/medical reasons. Europe has far better health care than us, and that has gotten to the point of their being taller than us, even when taking race into account. You see the same trends in other ways too - the infant mortality rate for example.

I think it's just heliotropism. A lot of those tall Europeans are Scandinavian, where there's not much sun, so they need to grow taller for the sunlight.

I figured it was Lamarckian evolution. Since white people can't jump, our basketball players have tried harder and harder to reach the rim until they grew an extra half inch.

What is the claim here? That the reason there are fewer blacks in baseball is that people are racist, but their racism only applies to black players and not to "dark-skinned Dominican" players?

You mean Hunter's claim? I don't know that it has anything to do with racism. I think it's that the prevalence of non-US blacks obscures the problem of underrepresentation of US blacks, because people see a lot of dark-skinned guys.

Whether they are underrepresented and whether we should care are separate issues.

#113 is brilliant.

Lisa's reaction to my post, and various counter-reactions, demonstrate my point. Some black ballplayers assert that there's a lingering, subtle racism in MLB culture. Others point out, subjectively or by certain objective measures, that there isn't. It's a matter of clashing perceptions, which means that it isn't possible to arbitrate a resolution; you just have to have a dialogue where both sets of perceivers assume the others are well-intentioned. Easier said ...

I realize that the list in #109 is mostly tongue-in-cheek and derived from a Pancake-Floppy formula, but it's interesting that Aparicio and Ozzie Smith, two of the guys who'd be high on any subjectively-assembled list of "polished" ballplayers, are assigned lots of GRIT :)

speaking as a Chinese person, it's really f'n annoying when people assume I'm Japanese or Korean, so I can relate to Hunter's feelings about this.

Surely you'll acknowledge that your steadfast refusal to wear a "Kiss me, I'm Chinese!" button isn't helping the situation.

From the Pirates over the last couple of years, we've had Daryle Ward, Delwyn Young, Pat Mahomes, Craig Monroe, Shawn Chacon, Shane Youman, and Jason Boyd. That's off the top of my head - there may be others.

Which doesn't necessarily mean that black bench players aren't under-represented, of course.

Black journeyman?

Reggie Sanders says hello. . .

Here's what Ozzie Guillen thinks:

I was laughing because when he said, `They go there and sign for potato chips,’ I said, `Well, we’ve got Chapman. They gave him $12 million. (Cincinnati actually agreed to a $30.25 million, six-year contract with pitcher Aroldis Chapman(notes).) We’ve got (prospect Dayan) Viciedo. They gave him $10 million. I remember in my time, one scout goes (to Venezuela and) 30 players show up. Now, 30 scouts go there and one player shows up. In our country, we play baseball. That’s no choice. Here you can play basketball, you can be another athlete, you can do so many things when you have the opportunity. And that’s why there’s not many (African-American) players out there.”

There has been some concern about the number of African-American baseball players. Many blacks are choosing to play other sports instead.

Black players accounted for 10.2 percent of major leaguers in 2008, the most since the 1995 season, according to the University of Central Florida’s Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports.

“I keep saying a lot of times, in 10 more years American people are going to need a visa to play this game because we’re going to take over. We’re going to,” Guillen said.

______

Surely you'll acknowledge that your steadfast refusal to wear a "Kiss me, I'm Chinese!" button isn't helping the situation.

In college, when I was with the Chinese-American Student Association, I sometimes wore a "Hug me, I'm Chinese" button. I got a lot of hugs (awesome), but also many quizzical looks. "You're Chinese? I thought you were ....." I don't necessarily blame people for not being able to tell the difference, but it can be annoying. The same type of thing clearly annoys Hunter, and I don't blame him.

You're right, I just missed the Netherlands. Although, like Germany, their heights are self-reported instead of measured.

I was aware of the Netherlands through their chess team. At one point the smallest of the six was 6'3" (team composition changes a lot but Jan Donner was a constant for a long time and he was a really big guy.)

"I keep saying a lot of times, in 10 more years American people are going to need a visa to play this game because we’re going to take over. We’re going to,” Guillen said.

Kind of comical, but better not show that to a certain O'Reilly.

You mean Hunter's claim? I don't know that it has anything to do with racism. I think it's that the prevalence of non-US blacks obscures the problem of underrepresentation of US blacks, because people see a lot of dark-skinned guys.

Whether they are underrepresented and whether we should care are separate issues.

You use the word "problem" above. Why is it a "problem," as long as the people running the leagues aren't racist/discriminatory? Why should we care if it's not a problem?

Should we care if caucasions and asians are underrepresented in the NFL? Should we start programs in high schools designed to get more caucasion and asian kids interested in football for that reason? I think the programs for trying to get more inner city kids to play baseball are great; I'm not sure why these programs need to be driven by "underrepresentation."

crosby

trouble is that i didn't CHOOSE the word "black" and i would really like to have a word which describes us - americans with african negro ancestry - and also the african negro has to be descended from american slaves. and that we are also mixed with some caucasian and native american too.

and i am not real too happy with gary sheffield (who OBVIOUSLY has caucasian and NA ancestors) saying that jeter is not Black, because he most certainly IS.

the real problem here, which torii is trying to talk about, is that those of us who are Black and who love baseball see that not many Black athletes are choosing baseball. we get frustrated by people who say - like, so what, there are plenty of - let's say - people of Negro descent (including those from the caribbean) so there is no problem. torii is NOT saying - we should have only american grown Blacks in baseball, he is saying that there are significantly fewer than there used to be and he wants Black athletes to have baseball as a choice.

LASoA,

it isn't difficult to tell black from white from asian, but i think that even most caucasians would have trouble telling danish from, say norwegian or swedish. or serbs from croats from montenegrins.
- i can't speak for other non-asians, but honest to God sometimes it is really REALLY hard to tell the ethnic group of an asian (if you don't see their name)

ray

i swear to GOD you LIKE to misunderstand. you are like a straight guy in a comedy sketch who treats every word as literal

the "problem" is NOT NOT NOT that MLB is trying not to have dark skinned baseball players of negro ancestry

- are we clear here?

it isn't difficult to tell black from white from asian

It can be, sometimes. How many people know that Ian Snell is black?

Don't see why this matters, Robinred. The issue is Hunter's remarks, not who the "key MSM guy slamming Hunter" is

.

Don't see why you get to define what the issue is, Ray. Calcaterra has made a big deal about this before--any time an African-American player says something like this, he goes off. In this case, in a bigger forum than he used to have, he used what is in IMO over-the-top language (and others have noted it as well) to describe Hunter's comments. And, while the "impostors" line is the main sound bite, "beyond repugnant" has gotten a little play as well. So, I would like to know where Craig is coming from. Like Bob DC said, this is a clashing perceptions kind of deal.

when the point is that AMERICAN Blacks are not playing baseball

I've never quite seen why people get so much in a tizzy over this, is it written somewhere in a book of things-which-must-happen that african americans have to play baseball? Maybe they'd just rather be spending their free time playing another sport.

At worst you can say it's unfortunate for baseball because the pool of available talent is smaller and the game might miss out on another Willie Mayes, but I don't get all the moral/ethical hand-wringing.

/outside perspective

The problem is that you've chosen a term that has a well-established meaning to the majority of the population, and one that they understand as far more inclusive. Also, different people within the purportedly same culture have different definitions. Gary Sheffield once said something like "Derek Jeter isn't really black," although he would qualify under your definition.

I might very well feel little sense of identity with the majority of the Israeli population, but that doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense to say they aren't Jewish. Instead, if I were to be considered the same as an Israeli Jew, I would respond that there are enormous cultural differences between American Jews and Israeli Jews, making it a very superficial comparison.

Why would you want to use a term that has a clearly established definition for most of the population? It's a pretty silly battle to pick, especially when you can get just as significant a result without confusing terminology.

Someone else can take a peek at the OED or American Heritage if they're inclined, but "black" in the Merriam Webster online dictionary includes a definition (2(b)(2)) limited to black Americans: "of or relating to the African-American people or their culture." I've always understood that as a separate sense in which the term is used.

Using the term in that sense is plainly more accurate than the term "beyond repugnant" applied to Hunter's comments -- an extremely poor use of language, both definitionally and as a means of communication and discussion.

it isn't difficult to tell black from white from asian, but i think that even most caucasians would have trouble telling danish from, say norwegian or swedish. or serbs from croats from montenegrins.
- i can't speak for other non-asians, but honest to God sometimes it is really REALLY hard to tell the ethnic group of an asian (if you don't see their name)

My wife is Chinese- and she has a hard time telling- unless she hears their name or hears them speak.

What most people do not realize is that the people today known as the Han Chinese, are genetically/ancestrally, a very varied group, go back a couple thousand years and you did not have this one huge ethnic group- you had many differing groups with many different languages and cultures and they merged and blended. Two thousand years ago the ancestors of the "Han" Chinese living just north of Vietnam were likely similar to, if not identical to the ancestors of today's Vietnamese. The Chinese - the Han Chinese have a very broad gene pool and you can have some Han Chinese- people who have been Han Chinese for generations and generations who are visually indistinguishable from Koreans, and some who are visually indistinguishable from Vietnamese or Khmers or Mongolians.

WRT Europeans, Europeans spent many generations trying to tell eachother apart and believing in a mythical racial/ethnic purity that for Europeans never actually existed. Very broadly a "typical" Italian/Greek/Spaniard (Mediterranean) can be distinguished from a Scandinavian, and a Mediterranean can also be distinguished from a Slav (Pole, Russian, etc)... but
My sister's husband is Italian, with an extremely Italian name, but he's a blonde- and even though his ex-wife was also Italian (dark hair and olive skin) both their daughters are naturally blonde- they look, well Irish.
[What's really funny is that the European ethnic group that has been most conspicuously/notoriously obsessed with ethic purity/distinctions, the Germans, have by European standards a relatively broad genetic pool- every group is an amalgamation but the Germans are more so than most other allegedly discrete European Ethnic groups.

tell me the name of even ONE Black ballplayers who has been described as "gritty"

Matt Lawton
Eric Owens

Both of whom are long retired.

My Wife's husband is Italian, with an extremely Italian name, but he's a blonde- and even though his ex-wife was also Italian

Does this translate?

Either your wife's husband is you or there's some Al Martin-style bigamy going on here.

Does this translate?

ha! You brought it to my attention while I still had time to fix it.

the point is that AMERICAN Blacks are not playing baseball, not that MLB doesn't want ANY people who have Negro ancestry

Yeah, and what's crazy--not "offensive" or "racially insensitive," just batshit crazy--is that Torii thinks there's a conspiracy of MLB front offices trying to trick the public into forgetting about racism by filling the rosters with American-Black-looking individuals who aren't American Blacks.

In fact, according to Torii, it's not just Torii's theory, but "African American [ballplayers']" theory.

This is completely orthogonal to the question whether we should care how many American Blacks are in MLB. Leave aside whether Torii's right or wrong about *that* issue. He's WAY out there with this conspiracy theory stuff.

The reason there are fewer american blacks in MLB is there are fewer americans in MLB. End of. American blacks are over-represented in MLB compared to the number of americans.

Don't see why you get to define what the issue is, Ray. Calcaterra has made a big deal about this before--any time an African-American player says something like this, he goes off.

I haven't heard any African American players say anything like this before. Have you?

I understand from Hunter's comments that some African American players believe this but, even if it's true that this is a common theory amongst them, I haven't heard of it before.

In this case, in a bigger forum than he used to have, he used what is in IMO over-the-top language (and others have noted it as well) to describe Hunter's comments. And, while the "impostors" line is the main sound bite, "beyond repugnant" has gotten a little play as well.

I don't know that Hunter's comments are "beyond repugnant," but they're clearly irrational on a number of levels. I'm not sure it makes sense, though, to criticize Craig for his comments while giving Hunter a pass for what he said.

So, I would like to know where Craig is coming from. Like Bob DC said, this is a clashing perceptions kind of deal.

Craig has told everyone where he is coming from, no?

Eric Owens

Wait, Eric Blake Owens, the guy who played for the Reds, is black?

Black journeyman?

Reggie Sanders says hello. . .

Just to clarify terms: Jerry White and Al Newman were journeymen who played almost a whole career for one team. Reggie Sanders was a regular/minor star who played for a different team annually.

Like Bob DC said, this is a clashing perceptions kind of deal.

By the way, Robinred, as for this being a "clashing perceptions kind of deal," nice try, but no. Or, "no sale," as you like to say. It can't be "clashing perceptions" (at least not of *valid* perceptions) when one side's "perceptions" (Hunter's) are simply irrational because Hunter is ignorant of issues such as how the draft affects organizations' scouting strategies.

It can't be "clashing perceptions" (at least not of *valid* perceptions)

Once you put the "valid" in there, it sort of waters down the "perceptions" part.

trouble is that i didn't CHOOSE the word "black" and i would really like to have a word which describes us - americans with african negro ancestry - and also the african negro has to be descended from american slaves.

That last point seems important. This isn't the first time I've heard slave ancestry being the distinction between the American black and the Latin genetic Negro. But I honestly don't understand why. The injustices of slavery are now six generations old. Why does there exist the perception that this still matters?

SBB, the point is that Robinred is trying to present an equivalency of both Hunter's and Craig's perspectives. But since Hunter's perspectives are demonstrably ignorant in that he doesn't understand the effects of the amateur draft on organizational scouting strategies, there is no equivalency in perspectives.

This isn't a "life experiences" kind of thing where, say, Hunter sees more racism in the world than Craig does since they've lived different lives. Hunter's claim is irrational on its face.

I'm pretty sure David Eckstein once said, "there's no such thing as too much junk in the trunk".

Funny, I always imagined him calling random houses and asking for "Hugh Jass" and then giggling uncontrollably...

I haven't heard any African American players say anything like this before. Have you

Sabathaia, and a couple of others. Calcaterra went off then as well, right here on BTF.

And, you inferred the "equivalency" thing in terms of "validity", so no sale. What does seem to be relatively equivalent is the language/reaction. As far as your other point, it has some truth to it in this case--I was the one, remember, who posted Ozzie Guillen's quotes. In general, though, the way you (and many others) make this stuff a false binary--this is racist, that isn't; this is a problem, that isn't; it is ok if this guy complains, but that guy shouldn't--retards, rather than encourages, dialogue. You are on a little bit stronger ground here than you usually are, since, like Andy said--context, context, context.

Matt Lawton
Eric Owens

You mean Eric Young? Eric Owens is definitely not black.

Not to dispute the overall point, but a few off the top of my head:

Randy Winn
Damion Easley
Marlon Anderson
Marlon Byrd
Michael Tucker

trouble is that i didn't CHOOSE the word "black" and i would really like to have a word which describes us - americans with african negro ancestry - and also the african negro has to be descended from american slaves. and that we are also mixed with some caucasian and native american too.

It seems like a very arbitrary distinction to me. In an alternate universe, Pokey Reese's grandparents move to Canada in the 1950s; is the Canadian-born Pokey Reese black? In the same world, Guerrero's ancestors fled from a Texas plantation and gradually made their way to the DR; is Guerrero black?

Are you making a distinction between "blacks" (those who have dark skin) and "Blacks" (members of a particular cultural/racial group)?

the real problem here, which torii is trying to talk about, is that those of us who are Black and who love baseball see that not many Black athletes are choosing baseball. we get frustrated by people who say - like, so what, there are plenty of - let's say - people of Negro descent (including those from the caribbean) so there is no problem. torii is NOT saying - we should have only american grown Blacks in baseball, he is saying that there are significantly fewer than there used to be and he wants Black athletes to have baseball as a choice.

There are fewer American whites as well. If we're going to have an influx of foreign talent (which I think we all agree is good), we should expect members of other ethnic groups to decrease.

I agree that there are fewer black Americans in baseball, relatively speaking, but it's strange to conclude that it must be a lack of choice rather than other significant, less accusatory factors: popularity of other sports, larger and broader international talent base, international players not being subject to the amateur draft, etc.

Using the term in that sense is plainly more accurate than the term "beyond repugnant" applied to Hunter's comments -- an extremely poor use of language, both definitionally and as a means of communication and discussion.

"Beyond repugnant" is indeed a bit of ridiculous hyperbole. What I really have the problem with is the suggestion that there's some concerted effort by ownership to pass off cheaper "fake blacks" as the genuine article.

What does 'beyond repugnant' even mean?

Media commentators live in a self-created bubble, but sportswriters don a bubble suit as well. XXXL.

HOW could i have forgotten lenny harris, owner of The Sacred All Time Pinch Hits Record???
and yep, daryl ward sure nuff qualifies as a bench guy, and yeah, matt lawton was a bench guy, pretty much, after he left cleveland.

but i wouldn't call arthur rhodes or latroy hawkins middle relievers - they are setup guys. which are middle relievers who pitch that all crucial inning before The Closer like Jobs the Yankee's DESTINY. darren oliver fits, though

142 - karl
trust me on this - the injustices of slavery didn't suddenly vanish 6 generations ago. you must know history bettern that. life is NOT a role playing game where you can wipe the game's history away and start with a clean slate.
- and yes, i know that this is anecdotal, but having heard "jeter isn't REALLY black" from both blacks and whites is not insignificant. you don't hear "jeter isn't REALLY white"
- and yes, i know this is anecdotal, but speaking as a lighter skinned ethnic looking person, i can tell you that the way i am talked to and the way i am treated is QUITE different if the person who is talking thinks i am not Black (and i can do this if i am sitting a white baby/child - people look at the child and think i am its mother and am therefore not Black...) and trust me, when you are buying a house/car, you are treated VERY differently.
- and people look at people with dark skin different than they do light skin. and i guess this is why so many people with dark skin work so hard at lightening it. i guarantee you that michael jackson and swammy sosa are not alone.

you might could say - well, white and asian americans don't look at a Black american any different than they do at a Black canadian, or a Nigerian or a Jamacian.

and i say, that has exactly ZERO to do with the fact that jim crow laws are only a generation behind. the wounds are too raw.

i would say that if you are an american of greek descent, you probably aren't caring/remembering that your ancestors were enslaved by the romans 2000+ years ago. and that as a greek-american, you most likely are not treated or looked at by non-greek americans as, um, "other" and the fact is that WE are.

i promise you that torii is NOT the only american Black guy who has said/thought the exact same thing (sheffield said almost the exact same thing about a year ago). unlike what ray insists, torii is NOT a moron who has nooooooooo idea how drafting works, or that MLB owners want the largest number of cheapest laborers possible. ray sees things in black and white

so to speak...

interesting because this entire discussion reminds me of one of my mother's friends, who is white, in her mid-to late 60s and an engineer. she was only accepted to engineering school in the first place because back then, they didn't require a picture and she has a name that swings both ways. she heard for YEARS - women don't really WANT to be engineers. men engineers need to have other engineers they can talk to/relate to. you can't have women in engineering school because REAL engineering students want to go to a GOOD program that is serious. besides, women, um, lack the necessities to be serious/successful engineers. if women were any good, there would be lots of women engineers. but there aren't, therefore they aren't any good. she says that this stuff hasn't left - if there are all these supposed opportunities, where are all the women engineers? are we gonna keep insisting - well, if Those People don't wanna be engineers, like, so what?

or a better example - what stat geek here has raised HIS daughter to be a stat geek? now i know that some of all yalls sons aren't exactly geeks or numbers people. but where are the daughters??? is every one of you gonna tell me, well, if she doesn't LIKE numbers - shrug, shrug

In general, though, the way you (and many others) make this stuff a false binary--this is racist, that isn't; this is a problem, that isn't; it is ok if this guy complains, but that guy shouldn't--retards, rather than encourages, dialogue.

Sarah Palin told you not to use that word.

I haven't characterized Hunter's comments in any way other than to say that they're irrational. I've not ascribed any moral component (e.g., "repugnant") to his comments, or anything like that. I'm not offended that he believes this, and I don't think it makes him a bad person; I'm just trying to examine whether his belief makes sense. And I don't think your "Oh, well, these are just two different perceptions" schtick makes any sense here or is all that helpful.

If Torii believes what Torii said, Torii is a moron.

I'm very upset that there aren't more short Jewish libertarians playing MLB.

Eric Owens is definitely not black.

That's one impostor undeniably accounted for ...

CrosbyBird Posted: March 11, 2010 at 01:53 PM (#3477499)

trouble is that i didn't CHOOSE the word "black" and i would really like to have a word which describes us - americans with african negro ancestry - and also the african negro has to be descended from american slaves. and that we are also mixed with some caucasian and native american too.

It seems like a very arbitrary distinction to me.

sigh
so it is arbitrary to you. what of it? it is arbitrary to me that people who do not believe in God and say that the Bible is nothing but myths and fairy tales invented by a bunch of males to keep control over others call themselves "jewish". and it is arbitrary to me that people insist that your jewishness is determined by your female ancestors, not by your religious beliefs

shrug

if that is how a specific group of people want to define what is and is not "jewish" then arbitrary or not, that is their right


In an alternate universe, Pokey Reese's grandparents move to Canada in the 1950s; is the Canadian-born Pokey Reese black? In the same world, Guerrero's ancestors fled from a Texas plantation and gradually made their way to the DR; is Guerrero black?

- if pokey reese's grandparents moved to canada in the 50s, and those grandparents were descended from american Black slaves, then yes I would consider him Black. close enough in time. if his ancestors were american slaves in 1750 and moved to england, then i would not consider him "Black" - and if pokey reese's grandparents came here in the 50s from nigeria, then no, i would not consider him "Black" although he is, in fact, black or a person with negro ancestors. if vlad guerrero's ancestors fled before the civil war, no they are not "Black"

i have said a zillion times that i wish there was a specific word to define our particular ethnic group with our specific heritage that is not just "Black"

Are you making a distinction between "blacks" (those who have dark skin) and "Blacks" (members of a particular cultural/racial group)?

YES YES YES
DINGDINGDING

WE GOTS A WINNAH!!!!!!

David Nieporent (now, with child) Posted: March 11, 2010 at 02:24 PM (#3477541)

I'm very upset that there aren't more short Jewish libertarians playing MLB.

me too, david. although you would have a tough time of it because they would always be telling you - STOP THINKING collitch boy and just hit the damm ball!!!!

and i personally am very upset that there aren't more short, skinny FEMALE non-jewish texanegresses playing MLB

but hopefully, little ayn will change things and become the first short catholic jewish libertarian FEMALE to play MLB and then we can both be happy...

it is arbitrary to me that people who do not believe in God and say that the Bible is nothing but myths and fairy tales invented by a bunch of males to keep control over others call themselves "jewish".

I thought we were called "atheists," actually.

I think bbchick is referring to people who are atheist of belief but Jewish by ethnicity.

gef

i did too, boy, i did too.

but there is a group of people who argue different.

I'm just trying to examine whether his belief makes sense.

Fine, but realize that it may not make sense to you--but may make plenty of sense to him or Lisa based on stuff they know and understand and have experienced that you don't know, don't understand, and haven't and can't experience. Now, as I said, and you ignored, in this particular case, you are on a little bit more solid ground for some of the reasons mentioned in the thread and by Guillen.

And I don't think your "Oh, well, these are just two different perceptions" schtick makes any sense here or is all that helpful.

It's not a schtick; it's a component of a worldview based on life experiences, etc, just as your statement, that you were taught "race doesn't matter"--a direct quote of yours--is a component of your worldview.

What does 'beyond repugnant' even mean?

Well, that is why I would like to hear from Craig.

i can't speak for other non-asians, but honest to God sometimes it is really REALLY hard to tell the ethnic group of an asian (if you don't see their name)

Howard Stern used to occassionally bring on a panel of Asian-Americans (picked off the streets in NYC) and the cast on the show would try to guess which national heritage each one had. Most of the questions were about food items or martial arts, the only things Howard, Robin, Fred, Gary and Jackie thought they knew about Asian cultures ... Once when they played "Name the Asian," Howard's guests that hour were two stand-up comics, one Korean and the other white (a Jew, I think). Notably, the Korean-American comic could not identify which countries the panelists' ancestors came from any better than the others could.

FWIW, I think I can bat 98% identifying another Ashkenazi Jew (as long as he is pure Ashkenazi), just based on looks. ... And speaking of that, anyone who knows what an Ashkenazi Jew (wearing no Jewish garb) looks like, can pick me out as one, though unlike David, I am descended from the somewhat taller (6'2") portion of the tribe.

Fine, but realize that it may not make sense to you--but may make plenty of sense to him or Lisa based on stuff they know and understand and have experienced that you don't know, don't understand, and haven't and can't experience.

No. That's what I'm rejecting out of hand - the notion that "experiences" mean that we necessarily have to treat Hunter's bizarre comments with respect. Once again: He doesn't understand how the draft affects his theory.

It's not a schtick; it's a component of a worldview based on life experiences, etc, just as your statement, you were taught "race doesn't matter"--a direct quote of yours--is a component of your worldview.

I was taught (summarizing) that race shouldn't matter, not that race is never a factor in the world.

#161, it's entirely possible that Craig's new gig places restrictions upon him. Even if not contractual, there are practical issues in that if what he has to say is column-worthy then that's where it should go.

Not speaking for Craig, but if (big if I agree) Hunter actually believes that only pure descent from those kept in bondage in the US count as "black" then he's advocating something exactly as repugnant as a candidate for SS membership having to prove pure bloodlines back N generations.

If you don't happen to find that repugnant (as in nothing terribly wrong with the practice per-se, simply tarnished by association with a repugnant organization), ... well I find it more baffling than repugnant. Particularly (as others have noted in this thread) the strange qualifying rules.

No. That's what I'm rejecting out of hand - the notion that "experiences" mean that we necessarily have to treat Hunter's bizarre comments with respect. Once again: He doesn't understand how the draft affects his theory.

It depends on how you define "respect." He may or may not "understand how the draft affects his theory", but given his vantage point, I can see why he would react this way. It is possible, and, I think, often important, to show that level of respect while still disagreeing in this context. But that type of discourse doesn't happen very often. Instead, we get "I'm tired of the race card" or "This is 100% pure unadulterated bullcrap" or cracks about Al Sharpton and now, a reference to the SS.

No. That's what I'm rejecting out of hand - the notion that "experiences" mean that we necessarily have to treat Hunter's bizarre comments with respect. Once again: He doesn't understand how the draft affects his theory.

I don't know if this is 180 degrees wrong, 360, 720, 1080, or what. The existence of the draft is Hunter's theory. African-Americans have to enter organized baseball through the draft. Non-Americans of dark complexion don't. (Did you miss the part about bonuses and "potato chips"?) That distinction might -- repeat, might -- have more than a little to do with the number of African-Americans in Major League Baseball, a problem Hunter rightly decries.

Now, as Ozzie Guillen notes, elite, creme de la creme NADC's are drawing big bonuses. That has nothing whatever to do with non-elite talents.

but if (big if I agree) Hunter actually believes that only pure descent from those kept in bondage in the US count as "black" then he's advocating something exactly as repugnant as a candidate for SS membership having to prove pure bloodlines back N generations.

I find it pretty "baffling" and "bizarre", to use Ray's word,that you would bring SS membership requirements into this. I also think you are misreading, and/or reading too much, into what Hunter is saying, and should consider going back and reading Lisa's posts again.

You use the word "problem" above. Why is it a "problem," as long as the people running the leagues aren't racist/discriminatory? Why should we care if it's not a problem?

Don't ask me; ask Hunter. I'm just relaying his message.

Jack: Steven's a good man, he's on partner track at Dewey and he's a Black.
Liz: A black!? That's offensive.
Jack: No, no. That's his name. Steven Black... good family. Remarkable people, the Blacks, musical, very athletic, not very good swimmers. Again I'm talking about the family. Black is African-American, though.

Everyone likes to have some other group to look down on. Hunter apparently likes to look down on Hispanic players. He certainly didn't mean "impostor" as a compliment. Line him up with Simon Legree. Being an African American does not exempt you from being a racist.

rich

and i couldn't tell you who is/isn't ashkenazi jew (ethnic) unless he's wearing a yarmulke or dressed like a hassidic. (and then i wouldn't know if he is any other kind of jew)
- even with last names, i know it's usually a go with cohen or levy or silver or gold or diamond or dreyfuss, but after that? ford? gaylord? osbourne?
- as for females, not a chance unless they are wearing a necklace/t-shirt with the star of david, because females, for some reason no one has explained, do not wear yarmulkas

"What troubles me most was the word “impostors” appearing in reference to Latin American players not being black players. It was the wrong word choice, and it definitely doesn’t accurately reflect how I feel and who I am,” Hunter posted on his Angels-sponsored blog Wednesday afternoon.


“What I meant was they’re not black players; they’re Latin American players. There is a difference culturally."

In the blog post, he added: “I am hurt by how the comments attributed to me went off the track and misrepresented how I feel. My whole identity has been about bringing people together, from my neighborhood to the clubhouse. The point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between black players coming from American neighborhoods and players from Latin America. In the clubhouse, there is no difference at all. We’re all the same.

______


___________

#167 I've read Lisa's posts. Now tell me what distinction you see process-wise between what Hunter seems to be talking about.

Yes, the SS was intentionally picked for shock value, but I see nothing wrong with the logic.

i would say that if you are an american of greek descent, you probably aren't caring/remembering that your ancestors were enslaved by the romans 2000+ years ago. and that as a greek-american, you most likely are not treated or looked at by non-greek americans as, um, "other" and the fact is that WE are.

Norwegian descent (actually never even thought of my name as Greek). If anything, my ancestors were doing the enslaving of those sniveling weakling Normans and Anglos. :)

But this is pretty much the point I'm trying to make or understand. Many other groups saw mistreatment in the past, but only blacks still make it part of their identity now in the 21st century. As you say, modern Greeks don't think of a heritage of Roman slavery. In the US, Irish, Italian, Polish immigrants had their hard times a couple centuries ago but that doesn't seriously linger now. Chinese-Americans are not defined on whether their grandfathers indentured on railroad labor. Jews certainly saw persecution, but that is not a requirement for considering oneself Jewish.

I don't doubt that what you say about Black identity is true, but I'm trying to understand why so. The only other group I can think of in modern America that still considers itself historically wronged is Native Americans, which is true, but that conflict faded from visibility nearly a century ago.

#172, thanks. I also stand by the "big if" and I don't tend to get too hung up on less than optimal word choices.

Many other groups saw mistreatment in the past, but only blacks still make it part of their identity now in the 21st century.

Well, yeah, blacks in the US today ... and the Greeks who ##### about the name "Macedonia" because it was part of ancient Greece, the clans who march provocatively in Northern Ireland to celebrate the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, the clans that throw and shoot sh!t at them ...

In the US, Irish, Italian, Polish immigrants had their hard times a couple centuries ago but that doesn't seriously linger now.

Unless by "linger" you meant to exclude, "b!tching about black people." Perhaps not publicly, but let's try to be at least mildly realistic.

#174 there are still serious structural problems for natives on reservations. From a story yesterday, "Risk of infection [for tuberculosis] among natives is 31 times greater than non-natives; for Inuit, risk is 186 times greater. Add in water problems (clearly related), education, etc. ... well it ain't pretty.

You can argue whether the whole reservation setup makes sense or even whether it could be made to work well. But to me it's still ongoing.

"What troubles me most was the word “impostors” appearing in reference to Latin American players not being black players. It was the wrong word choice, and it definitely doesn’t accurately reflect how I feel and who I am,” Hunter posted on his Angels-sponsored blog Wednesday afternoon.

“What I meant was they’re not black players; they’re Latin American players. There is a difference culturally."

In the blog post, he added: “I am hurt by how the comments attributed to me went off the track and misrepresented how I feel. My whole identity has been about bringing people together, from my neighborhood to the clubhouse. The point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between black players coming from American neighborhoods and players from Latin America. In the clubhouse, there is no difference at all. We’re all the same.

Robinred, his problem was not really the word "imposters," but was his expanded comments following that word. Had it just been the word "imposters" many people would have assumed (and initially did assume, me included) that it was just a poor word choice. But he expanded it to this (highlighted), and included the word "imitators":

"People see dark faces out there, and the perception is that they're African American," Los Angeles Angels center fielder Torii Hunter says. "They're not us. They're impostors.

"Even people I know come up and say, 'Hey, what color is Vladimir Guerrero? Is he a black player?' I say, 'Come on, he's Dominican. He's not black.' "

Baseball's African-American population is 8%, compared with 28% for foreign players on last year's opening-day rosters.

"As African-American players, we have a theory that baseball can go get an imitator and pass them off as us," Hunter says. "It's like they had to get some kind of dark faces, so they go to the Dominican or Venezuela because you can get them cheaper. It's like, 'Why should I get this kid from the South Side of Chicago and have Scott Boras represent him and pay him $5 million when you can get a Dominican guy for a bag of chips?'

"I'm telling you, it's sad."

Once he goes on to that full and detailed explanation, which confirms his original intended meaning and usage of the word "imposter," it's really hard to now claim that he was taken out of context. His full explanation included a stated conspiracy theory.

Far from a single word being taken out of context ("misrepresented," he claimed), once the context was added, it revealed without a doubt the way he intended to use the word. It wasn't a "poor word choice" at all; actually, the word he chose perfectly represented his sentiments.

Now, if he feels bad about the comments and would like to amend or clarify them or walk them back, fine. I have no interest in not giving a person the chance to change his views. But an honest message from him now would be "you know, some of the things I said were misguided." Not "I made a poor word choice and was misrepresented."

I particularly liked the "this was 0.5% of the interview" excuse he initially offered. As if Bill O'Reilly or someone could make a racist statement or whatever and then say "Oh, that was only 30 seconds of my show."

He said today: "The point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between black players coming from American neighborhoods and players from Latin America." Yes, that was part of his point. But the problem is that his original comments went far beyond that, to make another point:

"As African-American players, we have a theory that baseball can go get an imitator and pass them off as us," Hunter says. "It's like they had to get some kind of dark faces, so they go to the Dominican or Venezuela because you can get them cheaper."

You're trying to apologize for his comments by claiming that they represent a "perspective" that deserves respect. I completely disagree.

#176 as friend of mine was killed by Armenians for whom the question as to whether what happened in 1915 was "genocide" is worth killing over. No, he wasn't actively involved in the dispute (though he was working on his doctorate in history). He was working at the Turkish embassy and was killed in an attempted hostage taking.

I haven't got a lot of patience for people not willing to let go of the distant past.

karl,

how can i put this - civil rights law were only made 45 YEARS ago. i assure you that almost all of us have parents who remember life under jim crow VERY well. we are NOT, um, indistinguishable from other white people as irish, poles and italians are. things have nor changed to the point where we are looked at as just another (white) american. and THAT is why we still nurse our still raw wounds...

things are different with NA because they were put into enclosed hellish pieces of acrage and basically left to rot. out of sight, out of mind. us darkies were NOT. and even so, the res is just another kind of ghetto. without the shootings, that is. but unemployment, alcoholism and hopeless is just as bad.

and by the way, you don't mind if i picture you as looking like aksel svindal when we talk, hmmmmmm. Youse Guys ain't the only ones with imaginations you know

It wasn't a "poor word choice" at all; actually, the word he chose perfectly represented his sentiments.

How so? You really think he thinks that latino blacks are purposely imitating US blacks as part of baseball's conspiracy? No, he stupidly used that word to say that baseball covers up the lack of US blacks by using latino ones. Thus, it's a poor choice of words.

"Many other groups saw mistreatment in the past, but only blacks still make it part of their identity now in the 21st century. ... I'm trying to understand why so."

It's largely because that slave period is much closer in time, because the after-effects are much closer in time, and the long period of mistreatment makes up a much larger percentage of their history in this country (85.46%, see below) than it does for the other groups you speak of.

I would imagine there are a lot of black-Americans whose feelings could be summed up as, "Let's not get caught up in the past; leave slavery behind; let's move forward." And other blacks who feel just the opposite.

One thing I believe generally about history is this: By studying your past you get a better understanding of who you are now and why you are the way they are. Every group takes a special interest in its own history, in large part because they want to understand who they are. But you can also get a much better understanding of your neighbors by studying their history, as well.

As to African-American history specifically, mistreatment makes up a very large part of it. There's just no way around that. If you date it from 1619-2010 (392 years), you can look at it in nine distinct periods:

1. 1619-1776 (157 years; 40.05%) -- enslavement
2. 1776-1803 (27 years; 6.89%) -- revolution and enslavement
3. 1803-1865 (62 years; 15.82%) -- no more revolution; much worse enslavement
4. 1865-1896 (31 years; 7.91%) -- freedom, but terrible repression up to Plessy
5. 1896-1954 (58 years; 14.80%) -- brutal Jim Crow; massive migration to the North
6. 1954-1968 (11 years; 2.81%) -- the Civil Rights era to MLK assassination
7. 1968-1977 (9 years; 2.30%) -- Black Power to Kunta Kinte
8. 1977-2008 (31 years; 7.91%) -- The Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods era*
9. 2008-2010 (2 years; 0.51%) -- The Age of Obama

From 1619-1954, most of that was a period of some form of serious abuse and dehumanization. Those 335 years represent 85.46% of African-American history. What percentage of Greek-American history were Greeks terribly mistreated in the United States?

* Over this era, you see black Americans (or people like Tiger Woods with some black-American ancestry) rise to the top of many industries and positions of prominence; and become undipsuted, overwhelmingly beloved cultural figures like Michael Jordan or (for a while until he got too weird) Michael Jackson). It's not just in sports or music. It includes media moguls like Winfrey, military leaders like Powell, an endless count of academics in various fields, some titans of industry and on and on. While there were in previous eras great and important blacks, very few of them were the top dogs or the chieftans of industries otherwise dominated by whites.

Many other groups saw mistreatment in the past, but only blacks still make it part of their identity now in the 21st century.

Well, yeah, blacks in the US today ... and the Greeks who ##### about the name "Macedonia" because it was part of ancient Greece, the clans who march provocatively in Northern Ireland to celebrate the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, the clans that throw and shoot sh!t at them ...

Lots of people harp on about (perceived) injustices or (perceived) glories from the past. But very few groups make past suffering in those injustices conditional on membership. If you are Jewish and your family was fortunate enough not to be affected by the Holocaust, it doesn't make you any less Jewish. Whether you are a Greek or a Macedonian Slav is a matter of language, culture and ethnicity, not your position on a naming dispute. The seige of Londonderry and the Battle of the Boyne (and the Somme, which is actually what most of the Orange marches are about) are important historical events for Unionism, but if you were born in Northern Ireland, you're a Protestant, support the Union and don't have much time for Eire, then no Unionist or Orangeman is going to say you're not "one of us" because your family didn't participate in past events or suffer past hardships. Whereas bbc is saying that even if you fit in culturally, ethnically, etc, a family background in slavery in the USA is a sine qua non to be "one of us."

I'm not saying that's good or bad. But I have to agree with Karl that it's very unusual.

What percentage of Greek-American history were Greeks terribly mistreated in the United States?

There were the massive urban riots shortly after the release of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Other than that, not much.

The Polish Sausage Racer Posted: March 11, 2010 at 03:22 PM (#3477622)

Everyone likes to have some other group to look down on.

- unfortunately only too true. one of the worst things about us human beings. people LIKE to divide themselves into Those People and Us. sort of the tower of babel.

Hunter apparently likes to look down on Hispanic players. He certainly didn't mean "impostor" as a compliment. Line him up with Simon Legree. Being an African American does not exempt you from being a racist.

- sigh
he did not mean "imposter" as a compliment

one more time.

he is saying that american black people are a different ethnic group from caribbean black people. he is concerned that although spectators can't tell the difference just by looking, that MLB prefers THAT group. and a good deal of the preference is because of cost. (although some of us worry that it AIN'T just money). and also, that there is a greater dislike of american blacks than caribbean blacks - or mabye i should say that there is preference for non-american blacks.

AND that non-black people will say - see, there is no racism because of all the dark faces, who cares where they are from

AND that our own children are not playing baseball, going to see baseball games, caring about baseball. like that old madonna song - it used to be our playground, too...

Ron Johnson Posted: March 11, 2010 at 03:52 PM (#3477643)

I haven't got a lot of patience for people not willing to let go of the distant past.

- the past in our case is HARDLY distant.
but all i can say is look at the jews and arabs, arguing over a tiny miserable strip of land and that has been going on HOW many thousand years?

Lots of people harp on about (perceived) injustices or (perceived) glories from the past. But very few groups make past suffering in those injustices conditional on membership. If you are Jewish and your family was fortunate enough not to be affected by the Holocaust, it doesn't make you any less Jewish. Whether you are a Greek or a Macedonian Slav is a matter of language, culture and ethnicity, not your position on a naming dispute. The seige of Londonderry and the Battle of the Boyne (and the Somme, which is actually what most of the Orange marches are about) are important historical events for Unionism, but if you were born in Northern Ireland, you're a Protestant, support the Union and don't have much time for Eire, then no Unionist or Orangeman is going to say you're not "one of us" because your family didn't participate in past events or suffer past hardships. Whereas bbc is saying that even if you fit in culturally, ethnically, etc, a family background in slavery in the USA is a sine qua non to be "one of us."



I agree with 99% of what Lisa's written in the thread but there's still a little ambiguity in that one. I've been assuming she doesn't mean literally that there had to be slavery in one's family tree to be "black," but I also haven't seen that she thinks otherwise. There's an obvious cultural distinction between United States blacks and non-United States blacks that should be (and is) noted in real-world language, but I'd think descendants of US residents who could have been "legally" enslaved during the days of infamy would be deemed "black," whether or not they actually were.

That, of course, is a different matter than the actual affinity people with shared backgrounds and histories may have with one another ("one of us") which isn't an ethnocultural concept.

but all i can say is look at the jews and arabs, arguing over a tiny miserable strip of land and that has been going on HOW many thousand years?

One hundred years, basically. And the big dispute has been going on for just 63 years, when about a quarter of a million people were forced to flee their homes and have never been allowed to go back. But I guess those people (many of whom are still alive) and their descendants should just forget it? After all, there are so many benefits to life as a stateless refugee.

Or is it only black american suffering that's recent enough for you?

Was going to answer Ron and Karl, but Lisa and Rich make the relevant points beautifully.

Do you understand the difference now? Have an inkling of the horrors of that history, jim crow, lynching, segregation, just being a small minority whose experience is completely invisible to the majority? That you are paranoid and angry if you remember the past and let it disturb you?

To disappear this history is to disappear the people themselves.

But this is pretty much the point I'm trying to make or understand. Many other groups saw mistreatment in the past, but only blacks still make it part of their identity now in the 21st century.

"only"?
to expand upon 176 and 179
Serbian Culture is obsessed to the point of insanity with the idea of victimhood (and recent history has only reinforced that idea- even tough it's clear to everyone outside Serbia that they brought the recent stuff down on themselves)

Many in India are obsessed with the Mughal conquest and rule of India which occurred centuries ago and ended about 200 years ago.

There are always some groups in virtually every society who see their persecution and victimhood at the hands of others/outsiders as being a core of their national/cultural identity- in some societies those groups form a plurality or even a majority- in which case victimhood does become a predominant feature of that society's identity- whether that sense of pervasive victimhood is historically justified or not.

sugarbear

about the question of enslaved ancestors in america -

IF you are a person of negro ancestry whose ancestors immigrated to america after the civil war and before, say, 1965 and lived in a Black community (not that there were exactly all these people who didn't) and had to live under jim Crow, then, yes, i would consider you Black

alou,

although i am not jewish (at least not that i know of over the past, say 300 years) i hear tell that the original jewish inhabitants were forced out of that tiny miserable strip of land around 70 AD and have been wandering around, waiting to go back home - some say, when the Lord gives it to them, some say, when they can get back thern. unless you believe that the people who now call themselves jews are just people who never had any connection to that place whatsoever, and decided to become jews, although their mothers weren't jewish, and THEN decided to go claim that tiny miserable strip of land because of what their new Book said

the distant past

Well, Mississippi ratified the Thirteenth Amendment in 1995. I imagine you could still find some white folks there who think that was a bad idea.

@Alou, I doubt that descent from slaves is some sort of membership requirement in the African-American community; it just happens to define the great majority of African-Americans. Plenty of American blacks had free or freed ancestors (had white ancestors too, though that's another story), and some black people in America were a lot less hurt by segregation than others. But slavery in the 18th/19th century and Jim Crow in the 19th/20th are culturally uniting dynamics that have roughly defined a population.

There's a pretty prominent black American at the moment whose ancestors were not slaves here, though his children's ancestors were. When he moved to the South Side of Chicago, he wasn't asked for his lineage before being considered African-American, right?

Lots and lots of groups of people have complicated and fluid processes for determining who's "one of us" and who isn't. (As far as that goes, Irish people are as discriminating as anyone on earth – what your people were doing in 1916 or 1922 is enormously important there.) You can't just look at their histories and their ideologies and make a ruling from the outside about whether they are being reasonable or not.

And just to continue the Irish analogy for a moment: 1916 and 1922 and other such dates may not be within living memory anymore, but lifespans are very, very long. Those dates were within the memory of a lot of living people's parents, and they helped create the political parties of the Irish Republic, and its social and cultural groupings. Whether the "distant past" is really over is often a product of whether other events have intervened to erase it. Where they haven't, the past functions very vitally today. That's sort of the definition of history.

Edit for clarity

although i am not jewish (at least not that i know of over the past, say 300 years) i hear tell that the original jewish inhabitants were forced out of that tiny miserable strip of land around 70 AD and have been wandering around, waiting to go back home - some say, when the Lord gives it to them, some say, when they can get back thern. unless you believe that the people who now call themselves jews are just people who never had any connection to that place whatsoever, and decided to become jews, although their mothers weren't jewish, and THEN decided to go claim that tiny miserable strip of land because of what their new Book said

I believe it's been shown that the Ashkenazi Jews are basically middle-eastern in origin at least on the Y chromosone, so no, they aren't European converts. But no, the "original Jewish inhabitants"** weren't just milling around trying to go to Palestine for two thousand years. If they'd wanted to, they could have a generation or two after the destruction of the Temple - no-one was stopping them. Presumably, some did. But many didn't, they got on with things in new countries, formed new lives, cultures etc. No doubt part of this was that Palestine was poor whereas there were better lives to be had elsewhere, so why go back to a poor place? Meanwhile the rulers of Palestine changed but essentially for hundreds of years up until the First World War it was ruled by the Turks. It was not disputed. Arabs and Jews were living reasonably happily side-by-side.

The Jews ofc experienced a lot of persecution and by the late 19th century there was a strong movement to establish a Jewish state, so that Jews could be free of persecution there. It was based more on an ethnic than a religious sense of Jewishness - in fact, Zionism is strongly linked to socialism/communism, which is why to this day there are so many kibbutzim in Israel. This need to set up a specifically Jewish state naturally conflicted with the wishes of the non-Jewish people in the proposed area, and this is the Arab-Israeli conflict. It certainly doesn't date past the First Zionist Congress and practically it doesn't date past the First World War when Britain invaded the region and made the Balfour Declaration. So it's about a hundred years old.

**although at least according to Jewish folk history the original inhabitants are the Canaanites and the Israelites are invaders from Egypt :)

the past in our case is HARDLY distant.

Indeed. And I'd argue that's where the focus should be. The recent past that can be more or less directly chained to the present. Informally no farther back than grandpa.

Indeed. And I'd argue that's where the focus should be. The recent past that can be more or less directly chained to the present. Informally no farther back than grandpa.

If the only relevant past is within the memory of those alive, then if you can kill off that memory, it'll be just like it didn't happen at all. That coincides with the dominant culture's desire to bury and conceal its crimes. It's a pretty dominant ideological position in the US and serves to buttress the social status quo as reality.

One hundred years, basically. And the big dispute has been going on for just 63 years, when about a quarter of a million people were forced to flee their homes and have never been allowed to go back. But I guess those people (many of whom are still alive) and their descendants should just forget it?

And someone else might say, well that 1/4 of a million were only a small fraction of the MILLIONS who were displaced in the years immediately after WWII, and the millions of others have in fact "gotten over it" and moved on, more or less.

I have to admire the sheer stubbornness and obstinacy of the Palestinians though, problem is they are facing a people just as stubborn and obstinate. {I think one of the major factors perpetuating this particularly problem is that the Israelis and Palestinians are not only incapable (apparently) of seeing/understanding things the way the other side sees things- but each side actively embraces the uniqueness of their own state of victimhood and actively denies that of their opponent or even the actual experiences of their opponents- Palestinians deny that the holocaust happened, that Jews have any connection to the land/area, and insist that the State of Israel is western plot against them- Zionists have denied that there is any such people/nationality- claim that Palestinians are really just Jordanians or Syrians, claim the Levant was vacant until about 100 years ago when Arab immigration coincided with Jewish immigration, that the Palestinian refugee situation was created and perpetuated by cynical Arab leaders for their own internal/domestic reasons...
"know your enemy" The Israelis and Palestinians have lived in close contact for several generations now- but not only does neither side "know" their enemy- they REFUSE to, they are terrified of finding out- methinks their worldviews would shatter and break were they to discover that their enemy (in the plural not singular*) were human afterall.

Despite what some may claim, Caribbeans of African descent and American Blacks do have shared experiences- their ancestors (for the most part) were West Africans who were captured (kidnapped/POWs etc), sold (usually by other Africans) into slavery (To Europeans or peoples of European descent)- and forced to work on pain of death for the benefit of others (usually Europeans or peoples of European Descent), and then even after emancipation were usually on the bottom rung of a loose caste system based upon skin color.
Someone like Vlad Guerrero (or his ancestors rather) has more in common with American Blacks than someone like Obama (Kenyan-American?)

*Individual Palestinians and Individual Israelis are certainly capable of seeing Individual Israelis and Individual Palestinians as human- what the seem incapable of is seeing the otherside collectively as human or as a "people"

**although at least according to Jewish folk history the original inhabitants are the Canaanites and the Israelites are invaders from Egypt :)

I saw a fairly convincing program on PBS which used archaeological evidence which showed that the original "Hebrews" were not largely from Egypt, but rather were other Canaanites, living on the outskirts who essentially adopted a different history to distinguish themselves from the other people they broke away from and then defeated. Perhaps others saw the same program and can add some details. (The show did not claim that some Jews were not enslaved in Egypt and did not travel to the Levant. Apparently some did. But the bulk of the original Jews of Judea were essentially just rural Canaanites who created their own pre-history many thousands of years ago.)

#195 I'm not arguing for forgetting the past. And I can't say I see much effort to bury and conceal the crimes of the past in the US (unlike say Japan)

To put a Canadian perspective on it, I have no problem saying that the Chinese laborers brought over here to build the railroads were badly treated. I don't feel the current generation has anything to apologize for (Though I'd be perfectly fine with some permanent acknowledgment of the facts)

i would say that if you are an american of greek descent, you probably aren't caring/remembering that your ancestors were enslaved by the romans 2000+ years ago. and that as a greek-american, you most likely are not treated or looked at by non-greek americans as, um, "other" and the fact is that WE are.

Norwegian descent (actually never even thought of my name as Greek). If anything, my ancestors were doing the enslaving of those sniveling weakling Normans and Anglos. :)

Yeah, but we were under the fascist yoke of the Swedish Serpent until 1905. That's gotta count for something.

But this is pretty much the point I'm trying to make or understand. Many other groups saw mistreatment in the past, but only blacks still make it part of their identity now in the 21st century. As you say, modern Greeks don't think of a heritage of Roman slavery. In the US, Irish, Italian, Polish immigrants had their hard times a couple centuries ago but that doesn't seriously linger now. Chinese-Americans are not defined on whether their grandfathers indentured on railroad labor. Jews certainly saw persecution, but that is not a requirement for considering oneself Jewish.

I don't doubt that what you say about Black identity is true, but I'm trying to understand why so. The only other group I can think of in modern America that still considers itself historically wronged is Native Americans, which is true, but that conflict faded from visibility nearly a century ago.

Lisa speaks better to this than I can, but it's a lot easier to shed an accent and anglicize your name than it is to bleach your skin. And of course Jim Crow is ancient history in most respects, and we're an infinitely better country because of it, but it's contrary to human nature to think that its elimination was going to wipe out its history in the minds of everyone whose families were adversely affected by it. If only it were that simple.

Not that this has all that much to do with what Hunter said, because David Ortiz's grandparents wouldn't have been treated any better up here than Torii Hunter's grandparents were---in real life, their relative states of fortune were almost purely an accident geography. When I read comments like Hunter's, what I imagine is the sort of argument that they would instigate among African Americans, who would divide among themselves according to their individual perspectives.** Hunter's is only one of them, and while it's worth of respect, he doesn't have any more standing to issue these sort of grandiose proclamations than someone whose views on the subject are 180 degrees opposite of his. We're all still trying to figure this whole thing out, and it's clear that we're not quite there yet.

**Think of the equally fierce arguments you hear among African Americans about the appropriateness of interracial dating and marriage, a debate that's every bit as heated as it is among whites, though not for the same reasons.

I have no problem saying that the Chinese laborers brought over here to build the railroads were badly treated.

Were they mistaken for Koreans &/or Japanese?