User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.8817 seconds
57 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
huh. and he's still alive?
AFAIK not a single active player at the time spoke out against it. Wallace kept asking Feller to name "one" player other than himself who wanted to abolish the reserve clause, but Feller couldn't come up with a single one---although he said that he got plenty of private agreement.
TSN ran a story in the late 1950s where Joe Cronin, then the Red Sox GM, is interviewed about how the clubs are losing money and the player's need to understand that and be better about promoting the game and not care so much about their contracts and such. A couple of weeks later, Feller responds in TSN with a reasoned comeback that answers every one of Cronin's charges one by one. In the same issue, Cronin basically says, "well, I respect Bob and I am sure most players are like he says," etc.
A smart man who has lived a great life.
yeah, and it's pretty apparent why. owners had the hammer, so if i was a player i'd either keep my mouth shut or endorse the plantation owner. or put my career on the line.
That's why he's called the 'Man', always stickin' up for him.
aw, i don't mind giving stosh a pass ... he just wanted to get up to the plate and get his cuts. can't say what i would have done.
It's even worse (much worse) in some of those other interviews, where Wallace is practically promoting Parliament cigarettes as a health food, quoting a report from one of those tobacco lobby backed "studies" as if it were from the Surgeon General himself.
Really? When I went to that page, I saw a complete transcript.
Getting past the reserve clause stuff, I loved this part about Pay TV --
That reminded me of "ads" I saw in the Movie theaters in the 60's arguing against "pay tv", with little illustrations that implied that there would be some kind of coin box on top of the television that you would put money into, to watch a show.
I also liked his comments about some ball parks not being friendly to the ladies because they serve beer, especially at night:
" if they want to serve beer in ballparks, serve it like they do in Fenway Park, under the stands, let no one take any beer or alcoholic beverage into his seat. "
and
"WALLACE: Youngsters, of course, make up a large part of the television audience watching televised baseball games. How do you feel about those games being sponsored by beer companies?
FELLER: Well, that's the ball club's business.
WALLACE: But your opinion?
FELLER: My opinion? I see nothing wrong with it. If they can't get some other sponsor, after all, we have... they have to pay the salaries to the ballplayers. I know beer companies are not allowed to televise the World Series, for a reason.
WALLACE: What's that?
FELLER: For a reason.
WALLACE: What's the reason?
FELLER: Well, you ask Commissioner Frick, he'll be glad to tell you.
WALLACE: Well, you know the reason. What is the reason? I'm kind...
FELLER: Well, he thinks it's the greatest show on earth, and he thinks he would sooner choose the sponsor and so far he's not seen fit to choose a beer company, which I can't say whether I agree or disagree. "
Different world back then, I gotta say.
Ted Lindsay (yeah different sport) would be a good example of the way ownership would deal with activists. And Lindsay had such a controversial position, "Actually, we don't have many grievances. We just felt we should have an organization of this kind."
If you haven't read Ball Four in a while (which applies to me, too), it's edifying on this point. Many players were afraid to voice support of the union because if you were a marginal player, it could be the tipping point for or against you (and management made this pretty clear), and if you were a journeyman, a definite regular or a bona fide star, it could be used against you in contract negotiations and even in trade negotiations. This in combo with the reserve clause, exactly what were the players supposed to do--where was their leverage?
As for Musial supporting the "restrictive" system, just one more thing he and Yaz had in common. Bouton is very critical of Carl, and reports that he was highly criticized by other players privately for dragging his feet on the union issue, citing that Yaz even called other "stars" with the idea of establishing a separate union or fraternity for the "star" players. Someone--maybe it's Bouton--says, yeah, Yaz is always out for Yaz.
As for Feller being bright and thoughtful and also being a curmudgeon--hey, before you become a man who's live beyond your time (see Charlton Heston, too, as to this point), your time has to first catch up with you before it can pass you up. I cut him a lot of slack--for his accomplishment, for sacrificing what would definitely have been greater accomplishment in favor of what he thought was a greater good, for his being ahead of his time on the labor issue, and for being a cautionary tale about what will happen to us all--if we live long enough. BTW, he also may a nice transition in his late career to being a finesse pitcher, so it's not like he's locked into never changing. He may be cranky, but he's a straight-shooter. He's not the one playing mind games.
One of the ironies of the Central High situation was that Faubus was (before that infamy) thought of as a moderate on segregation*. He was not a George Wallace or Strom Thurmond-type. ("Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.") Yet Faubus will forever be remembered for trying to keep 9 black kids out of Central High in Little Rock.
*I'm not really sure what a "moderate" in that context meant. I sense it was a Southern white who believed in integration, but believed in a go-slow approach.
Mickey may have, too. He agreed with whatever the hell it was Casey said that day.
Wallace did win the 1982 Alabama Governor's race with a great deal of African-American support.
naw, they had lucky strike. can't work for a competitor. they had scruples in those days!
That's a very important point to remember about what reserve clause era players were up against.
------------------------------
One of the ironies of the Central High situation was that Faubus was (before that infamy) thought of as a moderate on segregation*. He was not a George Wallace or Strom Thurmond-type. ("Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.") Yet Faubus will forever be remembered for trying to keep 9 black kids out of Central High in Little Rock.
*I'm not really sure what a "moderate" in that context meant. I sense it was a Southern white who believed in integration, but believed in a go-slow approach.
Rich, in the context of 1957, a southern "moderate" was pretty much any segregationist who wasn't giving proactive encouragement to violence. It had nothing at all to do with actively speaking out in favor of actual integration. You could count the number of actual southern white proactive integrationist politicians on the fingers of one amputated hand. Even the ones who counseled obeying court orders were quick to emphasize that they thought that the orders themselves were wrong, wrong, wrong.
Plenty of southern politicians like Faubus could pose as "moderates" until the shiz hit the fan in their own states, at which point the whites started demanding to know "Which side are you on? Ours, or the niggers'?" Hell, George Wallace himself campaigned for Governor as a "moderate" the first time around, but he learned his lesson after that.
and what he said was "I ain't never gonna get out-niggered in an election again"
and what he said was "I ain't never gonna get out-niggered in an election again"
And the double irony is that the man who beat him the first time around (John Patterson) may actually have been an even worse Governor than Wallace, although he wasn't quite as flamboyant about it.
The answer: the Voting Rights Act, and its effective enforcement. All the "niggers" counted; thus, they all had to be considered. If you wanted to dance, that was the tune.
The Southern Moderate position in the '50's and '60's was the same as the William F. Buckley position. It's up to democracy to take care of the problem as best it can--it's not a constitutional (read "absolute political value"). It's not the place of the federal government, esp. the courts, to social engineer the problem away. Whether democracy ever would have done it, we will never know--you can prove with any accuracy the effects of what didn't happen.
That's one version of the southern moderate. The other version, often found in cities like Atlanta and in states like North Carolina, actually professed to "favor" integration, but only at some vague and distant date when "people are ready for it." Like victory in Vietnam, that date was always just around the corner.
And BTW Buckley's position was nothing like that. He was a white supremacist, and quite outspoken about it, not just in regards to the U.S. but all over the world. He eventually grew out of it for the most part, but to read his tortured defenses of segregation (and European colonialism) in the first decade of National Review is almost painful, and I'd imagine even more so to a true conservative.
Feller: Well Mike, where are all the best players now?
Pretty amazing... Feller really was ahead of his time. Thanks for posting this.
FELLER: I'm glad you asked me that, Mike. I read that story today, very interesting. And I'd been... I think that we have a country of... we're beginning to be a country of sport sitters instead of sport fans or sport actual participating.
The more things change...
You have the advantage of me, since I know what I'm talking about.
One can be both a white supremacist and what I described. Indeed, one can be a racist in the most perfect sense and still be politically democratic. Quit thinking substance, and start thinking process.
They keep on saying "Go slow"
But that's just the trouble
Too slow
Surely to god Patterson Hood knows how Wallace's first wife's name was spelled -- Lurleen.
That's great. It's not his spelling. In the liner notes it merely says to listen to the piece. I got the transcription from one of those lyric sites that spam you to death. Their transcriber is to blame.
I had thought for a while about transcribing it myself, but I stopped smoking pot a while back and the urge to do such things passed.
You have the advantage of me, since I know what I'm talking about.
One can be both a white supremacist and what I described. Indeed, one can be a racist in the most perfect sense and still be politically democratic. Quit thinking substance, and start thinking process.
Well, I guess. But I do have the advantage both of having lived through that period, and having read Buckley with rather depressing regularity, much in the way that I read some of our libertarians here. I've always liked to keep on top of what humanity is up against.
That said, I shouldn't have framed what I said about Buckley the way I did, because what we're saying isn't really contradictory so much as it's complementary. You're perfectly right that one can be a complete racist and still position oneself in "constitutional" or "process" terms, as Buckley did when he said that we should defer to "the people" of the South. Of course it was easy for racists to prattle about southern "democracy" in an era when the black franchise was ruthlessly suppressed by both legal and extra-legal means.
And of course Buckley also inevitably threw in long asides about black mental inferiority, the "savagery" of black African governments, and the superiority of white southern "culture", all of which were supposed to help us to "understand" the natural reluctance of white southerners to grant blacks any real form of political equality---and never mind social equality; that wasn't even worth discussing.
It's with that sort of background memory that I wrote what I did about Buckley in #35. Though as I also said, he did seem to have a certain change of heart in later years on the subject, and what I'm talking about here applied mostly to his earlier years at NR.
As for Musial, Flood didn't have many nice things to say about him in his book.
Of course that was before Wallace killed her by feeding her all those cancerous rats----ah, the Good Old Days.
Really? Did he say bad things about him? I've never read Flood's book, but as I remember (and it's a long time), Brosnan didn't have much to say one way or another about Musial, other than the perfunctory accolades that went without saying. Musial was a player but not a presence when it came to the larger issues. Not a bad thing to be if you want to lead a long happy life. But there's no doubt that had he and, oh, say, Ted Williams entered some large gathering who would have quickly become the cynosure of all eyes. No magnetism, no color, no controversy--but what he was was a hell of a ballplayer
Brad Snyder, author of "A Well-Paid Slave: Curt Flood's Fight for Free Agency in Professional Sports," wrote about the Flood-Musial relationship. This snippet also features Teddy Ballgame's disdain for Curt Flood: Teddy Ballgame apparently never broke bread with Ron "Kunta Kinte" LeFlore.
Well, you’re not the only one who lived through the period. As he was the premier pubic conservative/Republican intellectual of his time, that’s why I used him. I read his magazine (as well, as, oh, say, it’s antithesis The New Republic), his syndicated column, and his books, beginning with The Unmaking of a Mayor when I was just out of high school in ’66 or ‘67, and Man and God at Yale and the McCarthy hearing one when I was a college undergraduate.
First, let’s agree that people are likely (by “likely” I mean “certain”) to believe what adheres to their self-interest. Otherwise, argumentatively, it will be like cutting through the Amazon jungle with a fingernail clipper. But, that applies to everyone, Andy. Even the righteous.
His intent or “real” intent to one side, the enunciation of principle exists separate and apart from the character of the enunciator. This applies to WFB as well as MLK, to me as well as to you.
As it was for Old Liberals to prattle about equal rights before later suddenly metamorphosing into New Leftists and special preferences.
And that was part of my point. See the reference to the Voting Rights Act above. And many conservatives would say that’s the only federal government necessary or warranted. Once that became effective, racism had to become temporized at an institutional level, and that, as the day follows the night, was bound to filter to general society. We’re certainly not race blind, but it sure ain’t 1964 either.
That's right. And you know, asides such as that might have validity--as do those about the defects of whites. But, as the James Watson episode demonstrate, some things can not even be tolerated except along one line of thought. But, call yourself a liberal.
Racial pride is racial pride, cultural pride is, too, but Buckley specifically also went on record as early as the late ‘60’s/early '70's as saying that equality under the law was a separate issue from biological and cultural equality.
There’s no doubt that there are many, if not all, of us (white/black, liberal/conservative) whose passion for a tenet is directly proportional to our stated or tacit self-interest. Nevertheless, they are still expressed “principles”; it’s not ad hoc Solomonic dictate. Thus, it’s something everyone can be held to equally and impartially. If only results matter, then you are not in a socio-political sense principled at all.
Which was the time under consideration in the original contention wrt the issue of the southern moderate which I addressed with the Buckley illustration. As a matter of political principle , it was a question of who the ultimate temporal authority was on that issue—the states or the federal government. It’s an issue that is still not resolved on all fronts one way or another (“this stupid country”—Diamond Joe Quimby). We all change to some degree, probably only to some degree, but just because someone is a racist (in a way different from you) doesn’t mean they are, or should be, disenfranchised.
We all change to some degree, probably only to some degree, but just because someone is a racist (in a way different from you) doesn’t mean they are, or should be, disenfranchised.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. If you think that I'm a "racist," you might want to elaborate. And who said anything about "disenfranchising" anyone?
Racial pride is racial pride, cultural pride is, too, but Buckley specifically also went on record as early as the late ‘60’s/early '70's as saying that equality under the law was a separate issue from biological and cultural equality.
There’s no doubt that there are many, if not all, of us (white/black, liberal/conservative) whose passion for a tenet is directly proportional to our stated or tacit self-interest. Nevertheless, they are still expressed “principles”; it’s not ad hoc Solomonic dictate. Thus, it’s something everyone can be held to equally and impartially. If only results matter, then you are not in a socio-political sense principled at all.
First, the Buckley I'm referring to was the Buckley of the mid-50's / mid-to-late 60's, so we may simply be talking about two different creatures. The Buckley who was defending legal as well as cultural segregation during this time had had a change of heart by the time you're speaking of.
And I'm also not trying to reduce his former racial views to "self-interest." I suppose that he might have personally benefited from segregation in some minor way, but I doubt seriously if that was much of a driving force behind his views. I took them at the time as 100% sincere (or "principled"), and I still do today. OTOH his words were what they were, and from a substantive (sorry) point of view, it's hard to get around that. This was not merely a matter of being against federal civil rights laws on the philosophical grounds of federalism, in the manner of Goldwater. This was a case of a man whose explicit racial views dovetailed so perfectly with the political agenda of the "moderate" (i.e. non-KKK) Dixiecrats that for all intents and purposes they were joined at the hip. There were plenty of others like him, too: One of the more prominent among them, James J. Kilpatrick, wrote hundreds of editorials and one very widely distributed book that echoed Buckley's sentiments to a remarkable degree, both in his racial and "constitutional" views. (He, too, had a later change of heart.)
And of course Buckley also inevitably threw in long asides about black mental inferiority, the "savagery" of black African governments, and the superiority of white southern "culture", all of which were supposed to help us to "understand" the natural reluctance of white southerners to grant blacks any real form of political equality---and never mind social equality; that wasn't even worth discussing.
That's right. And you know, asides such as that might have validity--as do those about the defects of whites. But, as the James Watson episode demonstrate, some things can not even be tolerated except along one line of thought. But, call yourself a liberal.
I have no idea what you mean by this, since I've never once in my life called for silencing anyone, let alone people like James Watson.
Of course it was easy for racists to prattle about southern "democracy" in an era when the black franchise was ruthlessly suppressed by both legal and extra-legal means.
As it was for Old Liberals to prattle about equal rights before later suddenly metamorphosing into New Leftists and special preferences.
And that was part of my point. See the reference to the Voting Rights Act above. And many conservatives would say that’s the only federal government necessary or warranted. Once that became effective, racism had to become temporized at an institutional level, and that, as the day follows the night, was bound to filter to general society. We’re certainly not race blind, but it sure ain’t 1964 either.
I certainly agree with both your last sentence and the critical importance of the Voting Rights Act, but without the earlier (1964) bill we wouldn't be nearly as far down the road as we are today, libertarian fantasies to the contrary. None of which has anything to do with Old Liberals metamorphosing into New Leftists (which was a pretty vague term to begin with, and by now is little more than an anachronistic epithet).
First, let’s agree that people are likely (by “likely” I mean “certain”) to believe what adheres to their self-interest. Otherwise, argumentatively, it will be like cutting through the Amazon jungle with a fingernail clipper. But, that applies to everyone, Andy. Even the righteous.
His intent or “real” intent to one side, the enunciation of principle exists separate and apart from the character of the enunciator. This applies to WFB as well as MLK, to me as well as to you.
I won't argue with that, but it doesn't really say much, either, other than as a cautionary note not to condemn a philosophy on the sole ground that in some cases most of its practitioners may be a bit creepy. And yes, that thought can very well apply across the political spectrum. I'd have to lobotomize myself in order to deny that with a straight face.
But I do have the advantage both of having lived through that period, and having read Buckley with rather depressing regularity, much in the way that I read some of our libertarians here.
Well, you’re not the only one who lived through the period. As he was the premier pubic conservative/Republican intellectual of his time, that’s why I used him. I read his magazine (as well, as, oh, say, it’s antithesis The New Republic), his syndicated column, and his books, beginning with The Unmaking of a Mayor when I was just out of high school in ’66 or ‘67, and Man and God at Yale and the McCarthy hearing one when I was a college undergraduate.
Again, the Buckley period I'm referring to was (roughly) his first 10 years as editor of National Review, a good 5 years after God and Man at Yale, and a year after his infamous McCarthy and His Enemies. His racial views didn't really gain steam until he began the magazine in late 1955, and his run for Mayor in 1965 began to mark the period where he gained a far more general influence and appeal. Firing Line came along the year after that, and further softened his public image, but by that time he'd toned down the racial rhetoric considerably.
Sure, as long as you acknowledge that the entire stance of the 1950's "southern moderate" in the Buckley / Kilpatrick sense of the word was a complete sham to begin with. Being a "moderate of process" is wonderful, but only if the end that you have in mind isn't the continuation of a racial caste system----a simple litmus test that Buckley and Kilpatrick failed miserably during the period in question.
Another primate we all know and love likes to refer to "high Broderism" as the art of positioning oneself between two "extremes" with no regard for the substance of an issue, in order to present oneself as a sort of Statesman of Moderation. While that can often be a misused expression, there's no group of people it's ever fitted more perfectly than the racial "moderates" of the period between Brown and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. These self-proclaimed "moderates" saw themselves as "moderately" located between what they endlessly proclaimed as the two "extremes," the Klan and Martin Luther King----a juxtaposition they used in endless variants for an entire decade. How moderate can you be---what more can you ask for?
I suppose that in your eyes, saying this will confirm that I'm some sort of a racist or New Leftist who just wants to silence James Watson and promote "special preferences" for unqualified minorities, but what the hell, this is BTF. It's the coin of the realm.
Amin and Boukassa and the like were hardly Jeffersonian democrats, even without the cannibalism.
Well, Amin and Bokassa both post-date the period in question. The government that Buckley most often referred to over and over was that of Patrice Lumumba, overthrown after but ten weeks of rule, and whose savagery, while all too real, rather paled in historical comparison to that of the Congo's former Belgian colonizers.
But far more to the point, what on earth would Patrice Lumumba (or for that matter, African cannibalism) have to do with the United States? Should German-Americans, Italian-Americans and Japanese-Americans have been disenfranchised because of what their Old Country governments did during World War II? Should descendants of the Mayflower have to answer for the horrors of British colonialism? What sort of selective history is that? What sort of logic represents whites by their finest representatives and blacks by their worst?
I do not for one moment believe that Buckley ever changed his mind about these views. I believe that he only stopped asserting them because he knew they were so reviled by the vast majority of Americans, that he was damaging himself by continuing to assert them, so he shut up and moved on to other things.
Racism is bred in the bone. Once a racist, always a racist. You may choose to cover it up, but it doesn't change who you are.
Srul, is Charles Murray therefore a racist in your estimation? If so, is any researcher who studies IQ and finds that the median IQ for one racial or ethnic group is substantially higher or lower than it is for another is a racist? If someone who finds such disparities then says the group with lower median IQ is "mentally inferior" always a racist?
I think that in a lot of cases, particularly for past generations who grew up in a caste system, it's a matter of simple exposure. When all you know about black people are the prevailing stereotypes, and when the press coverage of black people outside the police blotter is about as extensive as its coverage of wheelchair basketball, it's often amazing what a little firsthand knowledge can do to lift a lot of that mental fog, at least among people who weren't racists at heart to begin with. I saw this process at work all the time in the 60's, and I'm sure it goes on today.
Racism in my opinion is taught from parents to kids and absorbed from the larger society in which a child is raised and in which his views are shaped. It is not genetic "in the bone." Making statements which might be factually true about a group have nothing to do with racism.
Racism is two things: 1) disparaging in some respect an individual on the basis of his race and not on the basis of anything he has done or said or otherwise belong to him as an individual; and 2) actively or passively discriminating against all or some people in a group based on perceptions of negative characteristics within that group. (By passive discrimination I mean not standing up against active discrimination.)
In my opinion, racism is not just believing that on average this group or that group excels in one area or another, even if those beliefs are based on dubious science. However, I concede that most people who are racists also believe their group has this or that inherent advantage over the other group and they also base that on dubious science. As such, it's not necessarily wrong to say most people who believe Group X is "mentally superior" to Group Y are also racists. But (as I see things), the only people who can fairly be called racists are those who (by their actions, attitudes or emotions) deny an individual his individuality due to his race or those who discriminate on the basis of race.
And like I said, the animadversion game works both ways--but you dig in your heels at that. You insist on going into motives and intent when it's Buckley, but not when it's you or someone you side with. I'm not going to let you have it both ways. Not wanting an overweening federal government to impinge upon one's daily life is perfectly cognizable historically as a political principle. That it comes in conflict with another principle that we value highly is also incontestable, and all the frantic hand-waving is not going to make the conflict disappear. Wax righteous in a low-grade fashion if you will,and the only reason it's low-grade is because you know you're living a contradiction and that people like me will call you on, so you try to preempt that by polluting the well--by attacking motives and sincerity. Save it for your support group. One can attempt to smear any principle any way one wants, but you have your self-interests and so do I and so do others. Snarking at the clothes of others while deflecting from your nudity, insisting that in some fashion it should matter politically while remaining mum on yours doesn't speak to either justice or psychological integrity.
No. It succeeded, as long as the will of the electorate was allowed to be effective. That was the principle. It doesn't have to have your result to succeed--it can, but it doesn't have to. That's why it's a principled principle. That another one, from another sovereign source, supervene it doesn't change that.
A principle exists--no need for us to get into what the wellspring of that is unless this is psychology/sociology rather than politics because that doesn't or shouldn't derogate from its permissibility--and thus the proponent can be held to his own words. If the electorate had decreed in those states that had segregation that there should now be integration and the government would have nevertheless found a way to keep segregation intact, you'd then have something real to go after the Buckleys with. But that wasn't what happened and you don't--it wasn't allowed to come to that pass. If I say I don't think the US government in the guise of falsely assumed (I don't necessarily believe this--but this is their voice I'm throwing) Supreme Court constitutional fiat is wrong, but change through state legislation is right, I have stated something you can hold me to, whether I think it is likely to pass or whether I really want it to. It's a rule we can all play by. Then if what you want comes to pass, and I renege, you have something on me. You can judge me according to what I publicly agreed to.
Maybe you can refer me to all that outrage you expressed when Watson underwent that dousing.
Well, yes, if you hold that only a certain outcome is tolerable and that the outcome can only be that one class be favored under law, that's exactly what that is--institutional discrimination, ergo racism. It's the same horse; you've just dehorsed the rider and assumed the saddle. All you have to say to get out of that bind is agree that the law be applied the same to everybody regardless of their race--that race not matter at all. Anything less, whoever espouses it, is racial discrimination. You might think some racial discrimination is good, but then so did a lot those people you so fondly disparage. But that would make it about expediency, not higher principle, and it would have to be recognized we'd be just jostling for position. You may be the good racist, but you're a racist. And if you can make your case for racial discrimination, why can't Buckley, or Wallace, or ?.
More and more people are seeing through that betrayal of liberal principle for self-interest. That ain't no way to run a railroad and it's no way for a government to behave toward a community of diverse people and interest. If government won't stand for principle, then who will? Indeed, why should anyone?
Perhaps not, as long as one is willing to make "factually true" statements about one's own group as well, and as long as one doesn't go around making racially based policy prescriptions as a result. There's a big difference between the sort of phony racism charges that were thrown out against (for example) the Moynihan Report, and charges of racism against those who use highly selective scientific evidence as a way to bolster the case for racist laws.
Racism in my opinion is taught from parents to kids and absorbed from the larger society in which a child is raised and in which his views are shaped. It is not genetic "in the bone." Making statements which might be factually true about a group have nothing to do with racism.
I don't want to put words in Srul's mouth, but I don't think he was saying it's genetic or congenial. My reading of his comment is that racism is "bred" into people through their environment and family. I think you're taking the "in the bone" comment too literally.
I don't know if Charles Murray is a racist, but I do think he's a quack.
And like I said, the animadversion game works both ways--but you dig in your heels at that. You insist on going into motives and intent when it's Buckley, but not when it's you or someone you side with. I'm not going to let you have it both ways. Not wanting an overweening federal government to impinge upon one's daily life is perfectly cognizable historically as a political principle. That it comes in conflict with another principle that we value highly is also incontestable, and all the frantic hand-waving is not going to make the conflict disappear. Wax righteous in a low-grade fashion if you will,and the only reason it's low-grade is because you know you're living a contradiction and that people like me will call you on, so you try to preempt that by polluting the well--by attacking motives and sincerity. Save it for your support group. One can attempt to smear any principle any way one wants, but you have your self-interests and so do I and so do others. Snarking at the clothes of others while deflecting from your nudity, insisting that in some fashion it should matter politically while remaining mum on yours doesn't speak to either justice or psychological integrity.
Nice rhetorical flourish, but it doesn't have a thing to do with anything I wrote. I wasn't imputing any "motives" to anyone that they hadn't openly announced themselves. And the rest of that is little more than an attempt to bait me, but no thanks.
Being a "moderate of process" is wonderful, but only if the end that you have in mind isn't the continuation of a racial caste system----a simple litmus test that Buckley and Kilpatrick failed miserably during the period in question.
No. It succeeded, as long as the will of the electorate was allowed to be effective. That was the principle. It doesn't have to have your result to succeed--it can, but it doesn't have to. That's why it's a principled principle. That another one, from another sovereign source, supervene it doesn't change that.
Yes, "it" succeeded, but not because of anything that Buckley or Kilpatrick said or did. They consistently denounced the idea of northern majorities being able to "force" integration on the South. Again, they had a nice change of heart after the fact, but you act as if they hadn't been part of the problem in the first place.
A principle exists--no need for us to get into what the wellspring of that is unless this is psychology/sociology rather than politics because that doesn't or shouldn't derogate from its permissibility--and thus the proponent can be held to his own words. If the electorate had decreed in those states that had segregation that there should now be integration and the government would have nevertheless found a way to keep segregation intact, you'd then have something real to go after the Buckleys with. But that wasn't what happened and you don't--it wasn't allowed to come to that pass. If I say I don't think the US government in the guise of falsely assumed (I don't necessarily believe this--but this is their voice I'm throwing) Supreme Court constitutional fiat is wrong, but change through state legislation is right, I have stated something you can hold me to, whether I think it is likely to pass or whether I really want it to. It's a rule we can all play by. Then if what you want comes to pass, and I renege, you have something on me. You can judge me according to what I publicly agreed to.
I'm sure I'm often as guilty of this as the next person, or maybe I'm just too dumb to understand it, but could you re-write that in plain English? You've got one hypothetical tripping over another, and you lost me along the way.
I suppose that in your eyes, saying this will confirm that I'm some sort of a racist or New Leftist who just wants to silence James Watson and promote "special preferences" for unqualified minorities, but what the hell, this is BTF. It's the coin of the realm.
Maybe you can refer me to all that outrage you expressed when Watson underwent that dousing.
Morty, I had to google James Watson to refresh my memory, so I wouldn't have any record of any such outrage. I guess that makes me a New Leftist or something.
Well, yes, if you hold that only a certain outcome is tolerable and that the outcome can only be that one class be favored under law, that's exactly what that is--institutional discrimination, ergo racism. It's the same horse; you've just dehorsed the rider and assumed the saddle. All you have to say to get out of that bind is agree that the law be applied the same to everybody regardless of their race--that race not matter at all. Anything less, whoever espouses it, is racial discrimination. You might think some racial discrimination is good, but then so did a lot those people you so fondly disparage. But that would make it about expediency, not higher principle, and it would have to be recognized we'd be just jostling for position. You may be the good racist, but you're a racist. And if you can make your case for racial discrimination, why can't Buckley, or Wallace, or ?.
More and more people are seeing through that betrayal of liberal principle for self-interest. That ain't no way to run a railroad and it's no way for a government to behave toward a community of diverse people and interest. If government won't stand for principle, then who will? Indeed, why should anyone?
Again, what does this have to do with any position you've seen me take, either on this thread or anywhere else? I guess you're just mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore, and I'm sorry to hear it, but I'm afraid you're going to have to work that out for yourself.
It might be silly and / or misinformed, but it would only be racist if it were accompanied by a call for a racially based quota system in sports.
Yes. That is, if your basis of opinion is on the science -- and the science you cite is not overwhelmingly discredited -- you must be willing to equally accept whatever conclusions the science reveals as it regards all groups, including your own. (As to the Charles Murray "science," I know that some scientists do discredit it. However, as far as I know, most do not. The schism appears to be more political than purely scientific. As I don't study that field, I don't know which side is right.)
and as long as one doesn't go around making racially based policy prescriptions as a result.
Racially based policy prescriptions are always racist, in that they deny an individual his individuality due to his race. Affirmative action and Jim Crow are good examples of such policies. They harm some people and help others based on race; and in so doing, they presume that individuals are just representatives of their race, not really individuals at all.
Fair enough. I tried to clarify that by saying "if that is supposed to mean it is congenital." But if Srul was being purely figurative, his choice of words muddied the waters, using a phrase which includes a biological basis.
Correct
No, the phrase uses an ANALOGY to inheritance, not a literal concept.
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less"
No.
Yes. IQ has far too much cultural bias, and is based far too much on education, to be used as a measure of true intelligence. Anyone who tried to use it that way, to disparage a group, is a racist.
As I see things, that is far too narrow a definition.
Bob was a warm and thoughtful guy, but very pro-Establishment, pro-management, old school. Of course, he would jump to Musial's defense (and speak out against Meggyesy, Bouton and Flood -- although his casting of Flood as a loser who walked away is lamentable).
Otoh, if Flood's complaint against Musial is that his restaurant didn't bend its rules for Flood, that's not exactly damning. And even if the restaurant incident was something uglier than that, well, Musial's role in the restaurant was to come in for a few hours in the evening after a day game and glad-hand customers. Biggie Garagnani ran the place; Musial lent his name. It's possible to see where Flood would have expected Musial to act in Flood's behalf while Musial would have been oblivious.
In fact, I'd guess that Flood's general beef with Musial would be for what he didn't do, rather than what he did, whether it was Musial not ensuring that his restaurant staff treated Flood well or Musial -- possibly the one guy who could have made a difference -- not saying a thing about the segregation of the Cardinals' spring training accommodations, which embittered the Cardinals' African American players (see Halberstam, "October 1964"). Musial was not one to rock boats, and Flood was a person most likely to see the boats that needed rocking. It's no surprise if Flood had little use for Musial, but it's also difficult to see Musial's offenses as unindictable.
Charles Murray, like William Shockley before him, does not seem to understand what the word "genetic" means.
Yes. IQ has far too much cultural bias, and is based far too much on education, to be used as a measure of true intelligence.
Because "mentally inferior" cannot be construed (to my thinking) as anything but a put-down (as opposed to an objective finding), I tend to agree with you that it is in essence racism. However, I don't buy the "based far too much on education" line.
I think IQ roughly measures what we commonly think of as academic intelligence; but what we commonly think of as intelligence does have cultural bias. That is, IQ leaves out things which I believe are aspects of intelligence (e.g., musical intelligence) which don't correlate with IQ. And because it does not measure the full spectrum of mental talents, saying Group P is mentally superior to Group Q not only gets you nowhere, but is based on a mental test which ignores areas where Group Q may score higher.
All that said ... I think the real problem with The Bell Curve is transposing what it finds about various groups and applying those findings to individuals (or policy). That, to me, is racist. All that matters to me are individuals, and treating an individual as one person, but not as a stereotype or as a representative of some larger group.
So what?
We are hardwired to categorize and to seek comfort in our kind. The rest follows--including racism and other proclivities toward distinguishing on categorical lines. See Andy and Republicans/Conservatives. See Red Sox/Yankee diehards. It makes things easier. It helps get things done. We feel safe--or safer. Like a form of tribalism. Modern forms of democratic government are instituted in an attempt to rise above that--and in doing so, prosper.
But say it goes from parent to child or culture to individual doesn't answer why it's there to begin with.
And you say this with a straight face? It has everything to do with what you wrote--you plainly and expressly make accusations about what lies behind some people's avowed principles--their sincerity, etc. Why do you that?
Really, Andy....from you? You simply want engage on a topic--others bait? But as someone said upon hearing of Elvis's death: "Smart career move."
"cultural bias", "true intelligence", "disparage". Try "kneejerk" too.
In truth a far more blatant example of the "categorizing imperative" would be your apparent need to categorize and get in the face of just about everyone else on BTF, without any regard to political ideology. Never a discussion, always an argument. Obviously this makes life on BTF at least much easier for you. I'm now beginning to understand what Srul has been talking about all these months, but better late than never.
And you say this with a straight face? It has everything to do with what you wrote--you plainly and expressly make accusations about what lies behind some people's avowed principles--their sincerity, etc. Why do you that?
Perhaps once of these days or evenings it might dawn on you that I wasn't impugning their motives---I was accurately reprensenting their thoughts, as expressed in their own words. I guess that amounts to dirty pool (or an "accusation") on my part---how dare I take what they wrote for an entire decade in perfect sincerity at face value!
And the rest of that is little more than an attempt to bait me, but no thanks.
Really, Andy....from you? You simply want engage on a topic--others bait?
No, Morty, not "others." Just you.
aren't most of those studies flawed because they don't account for environment in the womb? I've seen some of those studies and they usually fall apart by not accounting for the developing environment. Not to mention the inherent bias of iq test as a measure of intelligence.
Yes, right, I'm sure Buckley said he was only adhering to the state's rights position to keep blacks segregated and in their place. Quote me where he said that.
Excuse me, but you are the one that initially nitpicked an argument where none existed, then when I pointed it out, admitted it, only to "scat" to "why" Buckley really made such avowals. Really, Andy, I expected better. You need to seriously re-group. I have engaged on this point, here and elsewhere, as to race a number of times, and my position is consistent--and unrefuted. What they do is what you, Szrul, and some others do--retreat to a righteous huff.
"Bait" is not synonymous with "unanswerable". People who "bait" don't make extensive arguments in support of their points, which you have only ignored and evaded. Your emotional over-reaction is your problem. Get a grip. Just deal with the points made and leave those endless characterizations that go in your mind alone.
Laying aside built-in biases in IQ and like metrics, aren't you going to find differences no matter how you label the groups? I.e., if you look at the IQs of blonds vs. brunettes or blue eyes vs. brown eyes or people with two-syllable first names vs. one-syllable first names or people who drink Coke vs. people who drink Pepsi, etc., etc., aren't you bound to find differences? In other words, the overwhelming odds are that two groups--whatever those groups are--won't have the same average IQ score, right? So why do we assume that average scores divvied up by race are any more meaningful than average scores divvied up based on religious denomination or favorite pizza topping?
If so, that would not be an example of a flaw in the IQ test as a measure of intelligence. That would be a flaw in drawing the conclusion that IQ is genetically passed*. However, if "environment in the womb" were an issue -- I doubt it really is -- it would be simple to control for if you wanted to compare two groups of people.
*Murray & Herrnstein wrote in The Bell Curve: "It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. ... The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."
That's just Andy's schtick when he doesn't want to respond to a serious point that may hit too close to home. He used it on me the other day.
Yes, right, I'm sure Buckley said he was only adhering to the state's rights position to keep blacks segregated and in their place. Quote me where he said that.
Buckley repeatedly said that he sympathized with the southern position on segregation, and cited the performance of African governments and the general inferiority of blacks as reasons. You're perfectly within your rights not to see any connection between those often expressed sentiments and his views on civil rights laws.
I am NOT saying that this racist attitude of his ALONE was responsible for his views on civil rights laws---I've never tried to pigeonhole Buckley as being nothing BUT a mere racist while he was in his 30's---but to wave aside these racial views of his as being merely "substantive," as if somehow that removes them from the discussion, is little more than a transparent debater's trick. You acknowledge these racial views of his, but then act as if he could completely ignore them while he wrote editorial notes that could have been quoted verbatim with beaming approval by the Citizens Councils of Mississippi.
In truth a far more blatant example of the "categorizing imperative" would be your apparent need to categorize and get in the face of just about everyone else on BTF, without any regard to political ideology. Never a discussion, always an argument. Obviously this makes life on BTF at least much easier for you. I'm now beginning to understand what Srul has been talking about all these months, but better late than never.
Excuse me, but you are the one that initially nitpicked an argument where none existed, then when I pointed it out, admitted it, only to "scat" to "why" Buckley really made such avowals.
If you want to choose to view what I wrote in #44 as anything but an attempt to reach a common ground, go ahead. There's no point in regurgitating that back-and-forth all over again.
my position is consistent--and unrefuted. What they do is what you, Szrul, and some others do--retreat to a righteous huff.
Your position, whatever it is, is "unrefuted" only in your own mind. The rest of us may be happy to leave it to rest in peace.
People who "bait" don't make extensive arguments in support of their points, which you have only ignored and evaded.
Yes, that's why my long and rather detailed post in #52 was met with a "Got it. Carry on" reply. My real mistake is trying to enter into a discussion with a tar baby.
Ah, Ray finds a soulmate. Maybe you can lend Morty one of your ghostwritten dialogue bits and let him refute it; it'll spare both of you the trouble of actually dealing with anything else.
It depends on how large the groups are and how big of a difference we are talking about. If the IQ of any individual were completely random and you compared the IQ of two very large groups, you would expect the mean IQ in those two groups to be extremely close.
The problem is IQ is not completely random. It may be genetically inherited, culturally affected, nutritionally affected, environmentally affected, educationally influenced or some combination of those or other factors. And for that reason, two large groups (based on ethnicity) won't have the same exact mean.
But actually, most ethnic/race groups are pretty close to the average, 100. (That number is normalized, like ERA+.) Asians score higher than whites; but Asians are only something like 102 and whites 100. I suspect Greeks, Italians and Frenchies all score on average within a point or two of each other, all very near 100.
Where controversy arises is with a large group in which the mean is quite far from 100, especially if it is on the low side. If that is the case, then that group is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to competing in occupations which require or benefit by high IQ.
So why do we assume that average scores divvied up by race are any more meaningful than average scores divvied up based on religious denomination or favorite pizza topping?
Only because people have strong emotional and group attachments based on race, ethnicity, etc.
The African Africans that stayed behind would not. Indeed, they were not introduced to Western civilization until very recently. Why would we think that wouldn't have some effect, that they wouldn't be as consonant with that new culture they found themselves in? (Unless one has some religious mind-first idea in place.) Any animal of a species separated develops so as to have some differences, those differences being consonant with the environment they developed in and find themselves in. Dogs have evolved from wolves. Are they different? Of course. To some extent. Now, please [out with the bad air, in with the good air], the difference between the descendants of those Africans who left Africa tens of thousands of years and the progeny of those who stayed behind is not as extreme as, say, with those dogs and wolves, but that there would be differences--why is that so outrageous to contemplate, if nothing else at least as a thought exercise?
And it would work the opposite--if the Europeans had had to adjust to a culture and civilization developed by the African Africans, they would "generally and in a broad sense" be found similarly deficient. Why is that so hard to understand and discuss? Too, remember, that of course this also means that although one group may be more intelligent as a whole according to the dictates of a certain culture doesn't mean there aren't many many individuals within the dominant group who are ever so "inferior" to many many in the "lesser" group.
The Andy and Szrul marionettes want to pretend that they are so open-minded that they don't realize that their brains are in danger of falling out.
Watson (and Murray) may be wrong, but why is it not even discussable? It's because of politics, that's why. Andy and Szrul's liberal politics. And they can yammer about racism all they want, but it's ####### disgusting. And frightening. It's every bit as repressive a mindset as their worst right-wing nightmare.
You disappoint me, Andy. I would not have thought that you would stoop to such poltroonery. If it's so upsetting to you, just forget that we ever attempted a congress of the mind. Continue with the pocket pool. Nothing is gained except through contention. As George Bernard Shaw once said, you never know what a man thinks until you contradict him. I thought that was a principle of yours, too. Now, you go all wet-eyed sob-sister on me.
Maybe the topic of Health Care will come up and we can be buddies again.
Watson (and Murray) may be wrong, but why is it not even discussable? It's because of politics, that's why. Andy and Szrul's liberal politics. And they can yammer about racism all they want, but it's ####### disgusting. And frightening. It's every bit as repressive a mindset as their worst right-wing nightmare.
What I can't understand is why you would spend three paragraphs explaining your views in a calm and rational manner, and then feel compelled to add the ad hominem attack at the end, as if I were part of some Berkeley mob trying to suppress speech that I don't agree with. When have I ever expressed the slightest bit of support for any such speech suppression?** What's seriously weird is your apparent need to find enemies where they don't exist.
**Maybe Ray can make that the subject of his next imaginary interview, which you can then cite as as proof of my suppression tendencies.
Lighten up, loosen your girdle, at ease, smoke if you got 'em. I'm just jerking your chain. Your names there are just placeholders.
I can see Shaw's point, all right: I contradict one comment you make about William F. Buckley, modify that comment almost immediately afterwards, and I wind up being called a racist, a New Leftist, and someone who wants to suppress my ideological opponents. Some rational discussion you're trying to get with that.
Okay by me, Emily. Most of what you've been saying on this thread pretty much falls into the Gilda Radner category of seriousness to begin with, so I guess I shouldn't pay too much attention to it.
Poltroonery ("cowardice") is such an odd looking, yet excellent word. I looked up its etymology: I wondered what other contemporary English words derive from pullus. Here are three common ones I found:
* Pony (1650–60; earlier powney < obs. F poulenet, dim. of poulain colt < ML pull?nus (L pull(us) foal + -?nus -an)
* Pullet (1325–75; ME polet < MF poulet, dim. of poul c0ck < L pullus chicken, young of an animal;)
* Pool, as in billiards (French poule, hen, stakes, booty, from Old French, hen, young chicken, from Latin pullus, young of an animal;)
And this is one word I don't recall ever seeing before:
* Catchpole, which is "A sheriff's officer, especially one who arrests debtors" (bef. 1050; ME cacchepol, late OE cæcephol < ML cacepollus tax-gatherer, lit., chase-fowl, equiv. to cace- (< ONF; see catch ) + pollus < L pullus chick;)
Pole, as in a telephone pole, does not come from pullus. It comes from palus, which means stake. (bef. 1050; ME; OE p?l < L p?lus stake). That's the same root word for pale and palisade.
Palus also is the origin for the Spanish word palo ("pole" or by usage "tree" or "stick," esp. a tree or stick shaped like a pole) found in a few California cities, Palo Alto ("tall pole" or "tall tree") and Palos Verdes ("green trees") Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main