He's only 88?

his dismissal of all Latin American players verged into dangerous waters, particularly in the post-Don Imus era.

The post-Imus era? Are there really people sitting around saying, man, before 2006, you could say all the racist #### you wanted in public fora, but then Imus got canned. If Imus ain't safe, who is?

Is it really so mindblowing that racism is bad, and warrants public sanction?

Is it really so mindblowing that racism is bad, and warrants public sanction?

Sure, but that's always been murky waters - both delineating what is racism and then determining what are appropriate sanctions. I know you know that as well, MCoA.

They're doing some good work in the scholarly fields about humor and racism, I think Ted Cohen (of U of Chic) even published a mainstream book: Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts, which is supposed to be very good.

The post-Imus era? Are there really people sitting around saying, man, before 2006, you could say all the racist #### you wanted in public fora, but then Imus got canned. If Imus ain't safe, who is?

Is it really so mindblowing that racism is bad, and warrants public sanction?

Yes and yes. Tune into WFAN for a few minutes and you're bound to hear plenty of this type of talk. The radio personalities who talk about this make one thing very clear: they want to be able to say whatever they want without repercussions, except to give a half-hearted apology. For Imus to be held accountable is one of the worst crimes they can think of.

Jones is a name that is common in baseball now.(1 more than Rodriguezes) Can anyone see him saying all those players are named Jones? It would be nonsensical, just as it is to complain about people named Rodriguez unless you were being racist.

Racialist.

For a comment to be "racist", doesn't it have to have a negative connotation?

I just didn't get that from what he said. If I were to say something along the lines of "I know all about the Uniform Commerical Code, but today's bankruptcy lawyers are all guys named Goldberg to me", then I guess I am making a joke about the prevalence of Jews in bankruptcy law (which, of course, is true), but, is that anti-semitic? I guess I don't see it.

Its not like there aren't a disproportionate number of Latino players in MLB....so, is it now verboten to make any comment on ethnicity?

(Naturally, making any ethnic comment shows terrible judgement. I'm saying, prudence aside, is Rooney's comment even remotely a slur?)

Let me save you from reading the next 500 posts on this dreary topic: the people who find racism in everything from Hostess Ho Hos to Shout! Nappy Carpet Stain Remover will argue passionately that not only is Andy Rooney a racist, but racism is our nation's scourge and we must all feel bad about that; the other half of the next 500 posts will argue with equal passion that the Hostess Ho Ho company, while using Ho Ho in its name, has always disassociated itself with Don Imus, as has Nappy Carpet Stain Remover.

So please, don't read any more of this tired crap. Go to other posts -- where Bonds and steroids can be given a fresh once over.

He should have said they're all named Alex Gonzalez.

I wouldn't say that there are a disproportionate number of Latinos in MLB. Unless you mean there need to be more in order to reflect the racial composition of the United States.

For a comment to be "racist", doesn't it have to have a negative connotation?

Isn't the negative connotation something like 'baseball was interesting when it was about white guys, now that it's full of hispanics, not so much'?

I have never regretted any racist commments I've ever made.

What a coward.

I concur with Darren. He made a specific point to say he didn't watch the game any more after citing some regular names of his youth because they are all Rodriguez's now, why should I care?

Rifkin's bleating proves the point as to why we discuss this in a way he seems too dense to perceive.

Isn't the negative connotation something like 'baseball was interesting when it was about white guys, now that it's full of hispanics, not so much'?

I thought the thrust of the article was, "baseball was never interesting to me, and it still isn't". I took it to mean, "I can't be bothered to tell one guy from next, but, there are tons of Latinos".

Obviously, he was making a joke about Latino ballplayers. I'm arguing that you can say, "Boy, there are a TON of Dominicans in Washington Heights" without implicitly meaning that Dominicans are bad.


EDIT: Here's the quote from the article. I think it supports my interpretation compared to Darren's.

"My disinterest in baseball as a kid has lasted all my life. I'm still not interested in the game. I don't watch it on television or follow it in the newspaper. I know all about Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, but today's baseball stars are all guys named Rodriguez to me. They're apparently very good but they haven't caught my interest."

The post-Imus era? Are there really people sitting around saying, man, before 2006, you could say all the racist #### you wanted in public fora, but then Imus got canned. If Imus ain't safe, who is?

Is it really so mindblowing that racism is bad, and warrants public sanction?

No, but it is "so mindblowing" that there would be mass hysteria over the Imus comment, to the level we witnessed. And it is "so mindblowing" that people give deference to Al Sharpton in the first place.

EDIT: Here's the quote from the article. I think it supports my interpretation compared to Darren's.
"My disinterest in baseball as a kid has lasted all my life. I'm still not interested in the game. I don't watch it on television or follow it in the newspaper. I know all about Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, but today's baseball stars are all guys named Rodriguez to me. They're apparently very good but they haven't caught my interest."

The thing is, HE brought up the race issue. He couldn't leave it by saying "I know all about Ruth and Gehrig, but today's baseball stars don't have the same effect. None of the names or players - although apparently very good - have caught my interest."

What he DID write simply trumpets that race is an issue in his head as far as the older game to today's game. He can't be bothered to learn the difference betwen Rodriguez and Gonzales because all 'those' names sound the same.

So, Joba fan, I disagree. I do not think that quote supports your argument.

Just as one example, this is as of Opening Day 2005:

Population USA (approx): 300 mil
Population Dominican Repub.: 9 mil

Players on Active Rosters: 750
Dominican Players on Active Rosters: 91


I'd say that's disproportionate. I'm not implying that the overrepresentation is a bad thing, but to say, "Geez, there are a TON of Latino players in MLB" -is- factually accurate.

I am very sorry for those that I've hurt. In a long life, you can sometimes regret an action or two, such as the afternoon when some chums and I took the streetcar to Chinatown and boxed the ears of a Chinaman. Have you ever noticed that they don't make racists like they used to? Today's racists couldn't terrorize a Negro-run drugstore soda fountain.

I love this stuff, its the sort of comment by some crotchety(spelling?) old bastard that everyone thought was dead that can raise the ire of many Americans. Seriously who gives a sh-t what he wrote. I like the game as it is. Have always like the game...warts and all. Yet, now one comment from a dinosaur from another era will launch a thousand pc emails on this most sacred of baseball sites.

Apparently in today's climate, mentioning race, or even the commonness in some field of a particular type of surname runs the risk of being deemed racist. Unless, of course, the race being mentioned is European. If I say "there sure are a lot of Latinos playing baseball," that's racist, but if I say "there sure are a lot of English musicologists," it's not racist. Is that clear? No, not to me either. Is it stupid? You bet your boots.

Is there a grey area? Sure. Rooney's inclusion of that line in his column could be taken as implying that the presence of so many Rodriguezes in baseball has something to do with his lack of interest in the sport. But it's a ridiculous thing to get so sensitive about, especially since he said "they're apparently very good." That's just not derogatory, no matter how much certain people want it to be (and why would someone want that, anyway?).

As for the percentages of different races in the United States in comparison to major league baseball, the U.S. has very distinct regions with regard to racial makeup, and that has to be accounted for when making comments like "only 10% of Americans are black, so why should more than 10% of baseball players be?" What 10% of Americans are in total is almost irrelevent to anyone's day-to-day life. There are regions of the country in which half the people are Latino, and regions in which 80% of the people are black. There are also regions where 99% of the people are white. These things change, of course, but at any given time, they're the way they are. Baseball is like a region of the country; it's a region where many more black people used to live than do now. This is a change, a change has a catalyst, and it can be productive to discuss what the catalyst was.

The thing is, HE brought up the race issue. He couldn't leave it by saying "I know all about Ruth and Gehrig, but today's baseball stars don't have the same effect. None of the names or players - although apparently very good - have caught my interest."

I concur; he brought up "the race issue". But to bring up the race issue and to engage in racism are two very, very different things!

It's also possible that the increase of Latino players in MLB has some form of racism on the part of the owners behind it. Latinos who aren't Americans by birth are generally much easier and cheaper to sign than American citizens are, and the owners, rather than being enlightened souls who only wish to have the best possible baseball players on the field regardless of race, color, or creed, may simply be taking advantage of the economically weak and underinformed.

When I say this, of course, I'm not referring to the star players, who'd have been signed up for MLB any time since the mid-60s. I'm referring to the scrubs--the utility infielders, the fourth and fifth outfielders, the 11th and 12th pitchers. There are still American black superstars in the game, but what's the percentage of black vs. Latino scrubs, and how has it changed over the past 25 years?

what exactly is he doing to Katie Couric in that photo?

Can Rooney even spell Rodriguez?

For a comment to be "racist", doesn't it have to have a negative connotation?

No.

I am very sorry for those that I've hurt. In a long life, you can sometimes regret an action or two, such as the afternoon when some chums and I took the streetcar to Chinatown and boxed the ears of a Chinaman. Have you ever noticed that they don't make racists like they used to? Today's racists couldn't terrorize a Negro-run drugstore soda fountain.

Was this you Andy :P?
http://www.angryasianman.com/2007/03/two-arrested-in-racist-bus-beating.html
Or maybe this:http://www.angryasianman.com/2007/07/hate-crime-on-canal-street.html

Personally, I could give a crap about Imus or Rooney or the Jersey Guys or Mike North. I think they should be fired because they suck at their jobs, but there's a critical perspective gap here.

A lot of people, (like Rich I suppose) hear these things as isolated incidents. "Sticks and Stones" I suppose.

But to the people who are upset, it's about the daily treatment they receive. It's about a majority of the people in the country not liking the number of Latino folks in the country and passing laws to push them out of their community. It's about pretty terrible images of African American women. It's about a bunch of racist motivated violence in the country. It's about that calm when you don't know whether you should profile those frat boy looking guys coming up the street toward you, and deciding not to because "that's wrong", and then being thanked for your open-mindedness with a racial slur or a shake thrown at your window as you get into your car.

I don't think about race very often. Most of the time, I'm think about what to teach, or what to cook for my wife, or why the Sox suck this year.

But I've never been a victim and if I hear some ####### who has no empathy for Asian Americans or Latinos or whomever on the radio, I don't care if he's overtly "racist", I'm going to take a few minutes out of my day to get him fired. And that's not race specific.

But I've never been a victim and if I hear some ####### who has no empathy for Asian Americans or Latinos or whomever on the radio, I don't care if he's overtly "racist", I'm going to take a few minutes out of my day to get him fired. And that's not race specific.


What was that Radio Station that was making fun of Tsunami Victims? Good times.

Just as one example, this is as of Opening Day 2005:

Population USA (approx): 300 mil
Population Dominican Repub.: 9 mil

Players on Active Rosters: 750
Dominican Players on Active Rosters: 91


I'd say that's disproportionate. I'm not implying that the overrepresentation is a bad thing, but to say, "Geez, there are a TON of Latino players in MLB" -is- factually accurate.

I agree with other posters that it's not about the proportion of Latina/o Americans in the country compared to the number of Latino players in baseball.

But surely, you can see why the number of folks from the DR in baseball doesn't illustrate a proportion of Latinos in baseball.

That'd be like saying:
White guys wearing purple hats in the US: 200
White guys wearing purple hats in MLB: 13

See! There's too many white guys in MLB!

No.


Eraser X, Merriam-Webster disagrees with you:
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m;also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

So does the O.E.D.:
a)The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. b)=racialism: Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being.



Also, I want to call attention to this:

It's about that calm when you don't know whether you should profile those frat boy looking guys coming up the street toward you, and deciding not to because "that's wrong", and then being thanked for your open-mindedness with a racial slur or a shake thrown at your window as you get into your car.

OK, as a former member of a fraternity in college, shoudn't this offend me? Doesn't this imply that all white fraternity members are racists?

But surely, you can see why the number of folks from the DR in baseball doesn't illustrate a proportion of Latinos in baseball.

Surely, you can see that it's difficult to find hard data about "Latinos" in baseball, both because of limitations of what I can google in 30 seconds and because of definitional issues (Is Teixera a Latino?). Surely, you understand that I used the prevalence of Dominican players as metonymy to represent the Latino population as a whole. Surely, you're not arguing disingenuously.

It's also possible that the increase of Latino players in MLB has some form of racism on the part of the owners behind it. Latinos who aren't Americans by birth are generally much easier and cheaper to sign than American citizens are, and the owners, rather than being enlightened souls who only wish to have the best possible baseball players on the field regardless of race, color, or creed, may simply be taking advantage of the economically weak and underinformed.

If they're signing these people (oops, I said "these people!" racist!) because it's cheaper to do so, then that's pretty clearly not "some form of racism" at all, but simply good business sense.

Believe it or not, the dictionary definition and why folks who haven't done much thought on race quote it is one of the first topics in any substantive discussion on race. If you could be bothered to check the archives, you could find that very discussion on this site. I'm not really interested in a rehash. But I have enough respect for you that I'm sure you can figure out why it's utterly vital to people interested in racial equality to not accept unintentional racial inequities.

Surely, you can see that it's difficult to find hard data about "Latinos" in baseball, both because of limitations of what I can google in 30 seconds and because of definitional issues (Is Teixera a Latino?). Surely, you understand that I used the prevalence of Dominican players as metonymy to represent the Latino population as a whole. Surely, you're not arguing disingenuously.

No, what I was arguing is that you chose a non-representative sample of the Latino population to represent the Latino population and then used that to justify a "not that there's anything wrong with that" statement.

How is it different from my "purple hats" example? I was being genuine.

OK, as a former member of a fraternity in college, shoudn't this offend me? Doesn't this imply that all white fraternity members are racists?

Ok, so the actual spewing of racial slurs or tossing a milkshake at my car doesn't bother you, but me talking about it does? I have racialized responses sometimes. I don't think it's the best thing. I don't think I'm too different from the rest of the 6 billion people on the planet in that respect. I'm better than most at understanding that and treating people well.

I was trying to be honest in the hopes that you might be interested in why people don't react in the same way you do, but clearly you are uninterested. My apologies.

He made a specific point to say he didn't watch the game any more after citing some regular names of his youth because they are all Rodriguez's now, why should I care?

Lassus, if you are going to slander me, try not to be such as self-righteous jack*ss when doing so. You don't seem to be able to read, and yet you call me "dense." He never said he didn't watch the game any more. He said he never had an interest in baseball 'all (his) life.'

Rooney specifically said:

My disinterest in baseball as a kid has lasted all my life. I'm still not interested in the game.

And then you claim that he used to watch the game before Hispanics became prominent:

He made a specific point to say he didn't watch the game any more after citing some regular names of his youth...

My advice is that someone of your limited wit should not go around calling other people dense. It's just gonna keep biting you in the ass, jack.

If they're signing these people (oops, I said "these people!" racist!) because it's cheaper to do so, then that's pretty clearly not "some form of racism" at all, but simply good business sense.

True, unless they are saying, "Manny Ramirez is Latino! That means he'll be cheaper! That's good business!"

And as stupid as that sounds, I've certainly seen that type of racism before outside of MLB.

Believe it or not, the dictionary definition and why folks who haven't done much thought on race quote it is one of the first topics in any substantive discussion on race. If you could be bothered to check the archives, you could find that very discussion on this site. I'm not really interested in a rehash. But I have enough respect for you that I'm sure you can figure out why it's utterly vital to people interested in racial equality to not accept unintentional racial inequities.

But Rooney is not party to "any substantive discussion on race", any more than I am. The question which I posited, which you still haven't answered, is: is an invocation of race, even no intent of negative comment upon the members of the racial group; and with, at most, an amorphous and highly subjective implicit negative connotation-is such a comment racist? Or rather, is it racist in the sense that Rooney should feel compelled to apologize? I recognize that one could have an academic debate about implied racism in otherwise innocuous comments; I'm arguing that its harsh and probably inaccurate to slander an 88-year-old man with labels of racism when he meant no harm, and any potential offensive reading of his text requires some reinterpretation by the reader. I'm not particularly interested in issues of race in this country- and I don't expect you to be interested in the details of geology, my chosen academic interest. I do, however, care when someone can be publically tarred as a racist for something that clearly had little or no racist intent.

Ok, so the actual spewing of racial slurs or tossing a milkshake at my car doesn't bother you, but me talking about it does?

Yes, because I am not tossing the milkshake, and I am not spewing slurs. But if you categorize me, and everyone like me, as a racist-waiting-to-happen, then you're calling -me- a racist, and it becomes my problem.

he people who find racism in everything from Hostess Ho Hos to Shout! Nappy Carpet Stain Remover

You forgot Nips.

Believe it or not, the dictionary definition and why folks who haven't done much thought on race quote it is one of the first topics in any substantive discussion on race. If you could be bothered to check the archives, you could find that very discussion on this site. I'm not really interested in a rehash. But I have enough respect for you that I'm sure you can figure out why it's utterly vital to people interested in racial equality to not accept unintentional racial inequities.

Surely, you can see that it's difficult to find hard data about "Latinos" in baseball, both because of limitations of what I can google in 30 seconds and because of definitional issues (Is Teixera a Latino?). Surely, you understand that I used the prevalence of Dominican players as metonymy to represent the Latino population as a whole. Surely, you're not arguing disingenuously.

No, what I was arguing is that you chose a non-representative sample of the Latino population to represent the Latino population and then used that to justify a "not that there's anything wrong with that" statement.

How is it different from my "purple hats" example? I was being genuine.

OK, as a former member of a fraternity in college, shoudn't this offend me? Doesn't this imply that all white fraternity members are racists?

Ok, so the actual spewing of racial slurs or tossing a milkshake at my car doesn't bother you, but me talking about it does?

I was trying to be honest in the hopes that you might be interested in why people don't react in the same way you do, but clearly you are uninterested. My apologies.

Rooney has stayed too long at the fair. It's time for him to retire. If he was 20 years younger, this incident would have probably produced a bigger controversy, and he may well have lost his job as a result of his ignorance, not any racism. Because he's old, his comments are largely being dismissed.

You forgot Nips.

Miko, my little joke (which apparently sailed right over Lassus's microcephalic head) intentionally mentioned two brand name products which together made up Imus's strange line, "That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo." Hence, Hostess Ho Ho's and Nappy Carpet Stain Remover (which I assume does not really exist).

I thought you asked

or a comment to be "racist", doesn't it have to have a negative connotation?

and then I answered

No.

The question which I posited, which you still haven't answered, is: is an invocation of race, even no intent of negative comment upon the members of the racial group; and with, at most, an amorphous and highly subjective implicit negative connotation-is such a comment racist?

Oh, so this is what you asked? Are you mistaken, crazy, a liar, or referring to somewhere you asked a different question and I wasn't there at the time? Maybe some combination of the four.

As I see it, you asked a simple, absolutely question with a clear negative answer, and you got it. If you want me to explain why the answer is no, I'd be happy to, since you have been so kind and polite.

Under any functional definition of "racist" it has to do with the actual impact of the speech, since intention is neither relevant, nor easily discernible. For example, "White women are tomcats in the sack" would qualify as racist, even though, of course, I meant it as a good thing.

I'm sorry to hear that you have been tarred at some point during this conversation. I have yet to be tarred at any point in the many times I have been accused of racism. In fact, I have yet to even witness a tarring for any reason--thank God.

Yes, because I am not tossing the milkshake, and I am not spewing slurs. But if you categorize me, and everyone like me, as a racist-waiting-to-happen, then you're calling -me- a racist, and it becomes my problem.

So you don't care about racism, only that you might get called a "racist"? That's awesome. Have a good night. Good luck avoiding being called a racist, avoiding addressing issues of racism and being tarred.

Under any functional definition of "racist" it has to do with the actual impact of the speech, since intention is neither relevant, nor easily discernible.

To say that intent is not relevant is to presuppose what you set out to prove. And frankly, I don't think the "ease" in ferreting out racism should bear on how we define the term, unless our goal is to identify racism in as many contexts as possible.

Under any functional definition of "racist" it has to do with the actual impact of the speech, since intention is neither relevant, nor easily discernible.

Of course, "actual impact" isn't really easily discernable, either; what it tends to come down to is, "How loudly a few people complain." Your claim that "intention is [not] relevant" is par for the course for you; it's convenient because it enables you to go around making accusations of racism on a whim and rejecting all evidence that there's no racism in a given situation.

It's one thing to merely argue that even a positive stereotype can have negative effects; that's a rather uncontroversial proposition. To call it "racism" cheapens the word, though. (And in any case, the negative effects generally stem from the fact that the stereotype is inaccurate; an accurate statement wouldn't really be a stereotype.) I understand why you do it; racists don't have any power in the U.S., while calling someone a racist grants you power. But that doesn't make it any more legitimate.

In any case, that's sort of tangential to the thread, since Rooney's statement wasn't about race at all.

Fair enough. What is our goal then? So far we've seen two different ones:
1. Identify racism in as many contexts as possible in order to understand and eradicate it.
2. Make sure I don't get called a racist.

It makes sense we have different understandings of a what a useful definition is.

To say that intent is relevant is to presuppose the sanctity of your point of view. It's fine that you disagree, but how should the definition be constituted?

After all, language is useful for its changing application, it is not some perfect work handed down by the Gods.

DN: But I don't seek or gain power from calling someone a racist. As I've already explained on countless occasions, I believe that "racist" actions are a default setting, and that we are all in process on these issues. My only judgment is on those who ignore that process and seek to earn some type of "non-racist" merit badge by attacking any attempts to make identifications of "racism".

So your characterization is false.

But I agree entirely with this:

Of course, "actual impact" isn't really easily discernable, either; what it tends to come down to is, "How loudly a few people complain." Y

This is entirely true and major problem, but would you really argue that it is limited to issues of race? Loud complaints are generally valued more than thoughtful, reasoned argument and issues of race are no different.

Ideally, people would engage these issues more thoughtfully and it would prevent both shallow accusations and also aversive racism. But if you look above, that level of discourse is something that JCF is not interested in.

In that case, can't we at least agree that it's better that folks not belong to the majority power group actually have some sort of voice to raise grievances on this issue instead of the historical reality in which an accusation of racism would often accomplish little more than invite further racist violence?

Fair enough. What is our goal then? So far we've seen two different ones:
1. Identify racism in as many contexts as possible in order to understand and eradicate it.
2. Make sure I don't get called a racist.

Strawman. I would argue that "true" racism, as defined by the commonly-held definition of the word in our language, is a very dangerous and destructive force. Identifying -that- racism in whatever contexts in which it lies and understanding and eliminating it is a good thing. Period.

However, redefining racism away from its historical definition, and expanding it to include any comment that imputes a characteristic to a race ("lots of latinos play baseball"), has two consequences. As you point out, it allows us to identify the influence of racial identity in places we might not expect to find it. But it also would allow us to find "racism" in contexts where a reasonable man could argue that it is -not- a bad thing. If you keep the idea that "racism=bad thing, needs to be fixed", but remove the context of the word that led society to affix "bad" to racism, you've created something nonsensical, or at the least, something so wholly different from the original (and still commonly-held) meaning of the word as to demand a new word to distinguish it from what John Q. Public thinks is "racism".

I could care less.

DN: But I don't seek or gain power from calling someone a racist.

...contrast with...

But I've never been a victim and if I hear some ####### who has no empathy for Asian Americans or Latinos or whomever on the radio, I don't care if he's overtly "racist", I'm going to take a few minutes out of my day to get him fired. And that's not race specific.

In that case, can't we at least agree that it's better that folks not belong to the majority power group actually have some sort of voice to raise grievances on this issue instead of the historical reality in which an accusation of racism would often accomplish little more than invite further racist violence?

Only if those grievances are legitimate. I don't think unjust uses of power are better merely because someone was formerly a victim. Getting people fired is less bad than lynching, of course, but it's still bad if the firee doesn't deserve it. And it's bad in the long run, as 'zop points out, because all you've done is cheapen the accusation. See "Wolf, Boy Who Cried."

(To pick a topical example (for me, anyway, since I'm a lawyer), Democratic/liberal/leftist interest groups spend a lot of time attacking Republican judicial nominees for being racist. But they rarely succeed in defeating those nominations. Why? You'd think appointing racist judges is horrible. But what happens is that these groups cry racist, and Democratic Senators meet these nominees and interview them, and say, "Hey, I may not agree with this guy on everything, but he isn't a racist. These groups aren't credible. I'm ignoring them and voting for the guy." Whereas if these groups had made more realistic accusations instead of screaming racism, then Democratic Senators would have a reason to vote against them.)

Democratic senators have no balls.

How in the #### do you read Rooney as saying simply "lots of Latinos play baseball"? It's amazing the way people on the Internet lose every critical reading skill the moment race came up.

I know all about Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, but today’s baseball stars are all guys named Rodriguez to me. They're apparently very good but they haven't caught my interest.

How do you read that as anything but, Ruth and Gehrig were worth learning about, "guys named Rodriguez" are all the same and uninteresting? It's obviously his point. Even though he wasn't interested in baseball, he did know about Ruth and Gehrig. Now that Hispanic players predominate, he's not interested at all because they're all the same to him.

The question of whether racism must be disparaging is worth discussing - and I agree with most everything E-X said in this thread - but Rooney, like Imus, was actually doing old-fashioned disparaging racism. In Imus' case, it was taking a common African-American hairstyle and using it as a negative description, as had been done previously by many racists (ie, his slur was citational), and in Rooney's case, he's saying that Hispanic players are not as differentiable or as worth differentiating as the white-skinned stars of his youth.

(To pick a topical example (for me, anyway, since I'm a lawyer), Democratic/liberal/leftist interest groups spend a lot of time attacking Republican judicial nominees for being racist. But they rarely succeed in defeating those nominations. Why? You'd think appointing racist judges is horrible. But what happens is that these groups cry racist, and Democratic Senators meet these nominees and interview them, and say, "Hey, I may not agree with this guy on everything, but he isn't a racist. These groups aren't credible. I'm ignoring them and voting for the guy." Whereas if these groups had made more realistic accusations instead of screaming racism, then Democratic Senators would have a reason to vote against them.)

DMN, doesn't this suppose that no Republican judge could possibly be a racist - that all accusations of racism in this system are completely without merit?

and in Rooney's case, he's saying that Hispanic players are not as differentiable or as worth differentiating as the white-skinned stars of his youth.

I don't read it that way. I read it as if today's players (who happen to be more Hispanic) don't catch his imagination the way the players of his youth did. White-skinned or darker; I like to believe that race is largely incidental here.

And to that point, I argue that Ruth is far more interesting a figure in every way than Alex Rodriguez.

The larger debate needs to be kept separate from the Rooney debate. His comment was clearly racist in the simplest form of the word. We don't need to discuss race on a broad scale to be able to condemn Rooney's comment. People have comically misconstrued his comment.

The larger debate is interesting though. There's just a huge literature in the social sciences on race and racism. Studies on aversive racism show that white people will tend to find ways to disadvantage non-white people in job interviews and the like, even when they claim loudly not to have a racist bone in their body and when it's extremely hard to locate racist intent. This is an unconscious racism that all of us are more or less indoctrinated into as children. It's basically a truism in social science research. So, the idea that racism must be intentional to be "really racism" has no backing. It's an assertion looking for a justification.

In terms of people making statements about races generally, obviously that's not in itself racist. However, it's extremely easy for such claims to slide into racism. The greater "natural athleticism" of non-whites, for instance, has a long racist history dating back into mythologies of powerful slaves, and typically connects to the clearly racist belief in a naturally lower cognitive function. Because so much of our racism is unconscious, it's really important to be self-critical when making statements about race because an intentionally neutral statement can be anything but.

I guess I don't see how people can look at the US - where race is a great predictor of class, where the infant mortality rate among African-Americans is almost entirely responsible for the US being in the 30s or 40s among nations in that statistics, where shocking percentages of African-American men serve jail time at some point in their lives - and not see the effects of racism. Obviously this didn't happen by chance, and it didn't happen because of some "natual" characteristic of African-Americans - to claim the latter is to stand guilty of that old-fashioned racism that you all so powerfully abhor. So, how did this social situation come to be? Given that we have a wide array of social-scientific evidence of unconscious racism permeating society, and we have a society in which race predicts socioeconomic class with frightening accuracy in the broader picture, the answer seems very clear.

And, I should note, this also helps explain why progress is so damn hard. Racism isn't just something that ol' Tommy down the street is guilty of, and once we have some laws on equal protection, racism goes away. It's lodged much deeper in American society, and it can only be excised frustratingly slowly. A lot of people would prefer to ignore the preponderance of evidence and claim against it that race is mainly an issue because non-white people are always whining about it. I find that stance not only distasteful, not only counterproductive to the necessary effort to built a racially just (or post-racial) society, but also deeply ignorant.

I don't read it that way. I read it as if today's players (who happen to be more Hispanic) don't catch his imagination the way the players of his youth did. White-skinned or darker; I like to believe that race is largely incidental here.

But he said "Rodriguezes." He didn't say, "the ballplayers of today." You can retranscribe his comments if you like, but he didn't say that you say he said. He said that the Rodriguezes are undifferentiable or not worth differentiating. The racial content is materially there.

He said that the Rodriguezes are undifferentiable or not worth differentiating. The racial content is materially there.

Only if you assume that the significant difference between A-Rod (I'm choosing him as the person that Rooney was referring to, but it could be someone else) and Ruth is in skin color.

Edit: in response to now deleted #54

Only if you assume that the significant difference between A-Rod (I'm choosing him as the person that Rooney was referring to, but it could be someone else) and Ruth is in skin color.

No, he said "Rodriguezes". That's a plural. Plurals don't refer to individuals, but to classes and groups. As such, Rooney's comment was about the class of people named Rodriguez (and Spanish surnames are commonly used in this way to refer to Latinos in general).

There are lots of interesting non-racial differences between ARod and Ruth. If Rooney had ever mentioned ARod at all, you'd have a point. He didn't. He said "Rodriguezes", a group of people with wild internal differences whose unity is secured only by their surname and predominant racial identification. Alex Rodriguez is a very, very different person from Francisco Rodriguez. Rooney lumped them together becuase of their name and race, in order to disparage them as less worthy of his interest and less differentiable.

Whoops! I deleted the post; thanks for quoting it, Matt.

I don't have the figures available - is professional sport the only industry in which African-Americans are overrepresented? Does the US have the greatest disparity in class along racial lines in the world? I'd assume France is worse.

I'll delete mine, too.

Please answer my question, though. Why are you asking these questions? What do you hope to show?

Surely there are many fields in which non-whites predominate. Just as surely, the macro statistics remain the same. You seem to want to focus only on the outlier fields, and you ignore all the other fields where the population mean holds true. Why?

You didn't need to delete yours - I generally disagree with the "Edit Comment" link (although clearly I use it on occasion) because it allows posters to delete foolish posts, thus making arguers look silly to later readers. I was trying to clarify my statement, not retract it entirely. I wish I hadn't said it, but I did and was prepared to live with it.

I guess I'm trying to show - and they weren't rhetorical; I honestly don't know the numbers - that three "macro" statistics by themselves aren't straight-line convincing evidence of persistent, current racism to me. Now I'm not implying that there is zero racism in the country - I vacationed in South Carolina this past week and was surprised by the "blatantness" of it.

three "macro" statistics by themselves aren't straight-line convincing evidence of persistent, current racism to me

The first one's the macro statistic. Race predicts socioeconomic class exceptionally well. The other two examples were for specificity and emotional content, showing a few of the ways in which the larger phenomenon - the connection between race and class - functions in American society. The examples of several outlier fields in no way affects the fact that race and class are inextricable, and what race you are born predicts well your future class.

Democratic/liberal/leftist interest groups spend a lot of time attacking Republican judicial nominees for being racist. But they rarely succeed in defeating those nominations. Why?

It's not that they attack these nominees for being racist, it's that these nominees very often have a record of judicial opinions that are overwhelmingly pro defendant, irrespective of the facts. The adverse impact of a such body of work is on the poor and economically disadvantaged, who are often African-American or Hispanic.

Mr. Rooney vented his ire on Thursday about baseball, which he said he had never liked.

Communist.

Let me save you from reading the next 500 posts on this dreary topic: the people who find racism in everything from Hostess Ho Hos to Shout! Nappy Carpet Stain Remover will argue passionately that not only is Andy Rooney a racist, but racism is our nation's scourge and we must all feel bad about that; the other half of the next 500 posts will argue with equal passion that the Hostess Ho Ho company, while using Ho Ho in its name, has always disassociated itself with Don Imus, as has Nappy Carpet Stain Remover.

So please, don't read any more of this tired crap.

If you feel this way, I would like to suggest that you neither read nor post on race-related threads. That would be a shame, in a way, because I usually enjoy your posts, but if you think BTF race threads are a waste of your time, why bother with them? And why waste time telling us what we should and should not be reading/discussing, conceding that this was hyperbole?

In any case, that's sort of tangential to the thread, since Rooney's statement wasn't about race at all.

He was picking a Latino surname that he thought was common. I am not a mind reader, but I think it is likely that:

ARod is one of about 20 players--probably all Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, plus Bonds and Griffey
--that Rooney has heard of.
He knows on some level that a lot of Latinos play baseball.
He knows Rodriguez is a common surname.
He wanted to choose the equivalent of "Smith."

Does he think Latinos are "inferior?" Maybe, maybe not. But the way it is worded he manages to disparage a whole group of people who on some level are identified as a racial group and compares them negatively to white baseball stars of the past.

It seems to me that your definition of "racism" is very narrow. As I have said before, like with most things, race issues occur along a continuum. As has been explained many times, overt, individualized, violent or intensely predatory racism is only one form and in today's society not a particularly common one. The form(s) that MCoA discusses in 52 are much more prevalent. Pointing out that Rooney's comment had these negative implications does not mean that Rooney is a "racist" in the most evil sense of the term or that he is a "bad guy." The best way to deal with the issue, as E-X, Andy and others have pointed out, is probably dialogue and to recognize that it is complicated. Saying "it wasn't about race at all" accomplishes zero because all that means is that you think it isn't about race. Others may disagree, and it is not provable either way.

He added, “That’s what I do for a living, I write columns and have opinions, and some of them are pretty stupid."

I like Rooney a little more after this comment.

Let me save you from reading the next 500 posts on this dreary topic: the people who find racism in everything from Hostess Ho Hos to Shout! Nappy Carpet Stain Remover will argue passionately that not only is Andy Rooney a racist, but racism is our nation's scourge and we must all feel bad about that; the other half of the next 500 posts will argue with equal passion that the Hostess Ho Ho company, while using Ho Ho in its name, has always disassociated itself with Don Imus, as has Nappy Carpet Stain Remover.

So please, don't read any more of this tired crap.

A stylistic point:

In order to take a position of "this debate is so tired", it is necessary to mock both parties equally. This shows that you actually do find the debate to be tired. When you mock only one party, you're actually taking sides in the debate you find tired, and egging it on further. The above-it-all stance is shown to be merely a cheap rhetorical affectation in the service of one particular viewpoint within the debate, and you just look sorta silly.

Have always like the game...warts and all.

Are you calling Latino players "warts"? Racist!

We now go to the Ron Bennington Race Relations Forum for its take on this issue:

Ron Bennington: I blame the blacks.
Earl Douglas: I blame the whites.



well, there you have it folks.

But I've never been a victim and if I hear some ####### who has no empathy for Asian Americans or Latinos or whomever on the radio, I don't care if he's overtly "racist", I'm going to take a few minutes out of my day to get him fired.

I don't understand this. Why not just change the station?

There are people that have public radio broadcasts that say, in pretty clear terms, that atheists are morally inferior to theists. I don't call the radio station screaming for their heads. I chuckle or grumble (based on my mood at the time) at their ignorance and I turn the dial.

Imus said a stupid, hurtful thing. He didn't deserve to be fired for saying a stupid, hurtful thing. He did deserve to be fired if the radio station felt his stupid, hurtful thing was going to negatively impact their business.

I think it's a different story if it's a teacher or a government official. This is an entertainer.

I don't understand this. Why not just change the station?

There are people that have public radio broadcasts that say, in pretty clear terms, that atheists are morally inferior to theists. I don't call the radio station screaming for their heads. I chuckle or grumble (based on my mood at the time) at their ignorance and I turn the dial.

I am an agnostic (I assume you are an atheist) and atheists do take a lot of ####.

But that kind of discrimination does not have the same kind of history/context in this country that racial discrimination does.

As to whether Imus should have been fired, I am OK with that being up to his employers, so I myself would not spend any time or effort "screaming for his head." I can, however, see how other people, particularly black people, might have.

9. OCF Posted: August 27, 2007 at 12:35 AM (#2500595)

He should have said they're all named <strike>Alex Gonzalez</strike> Chris Young.

Fixed.

But that kind of discrimination does not have the same kind of history/context in this country that racial discrimination does.

This isn't the 1960s anymore. Certainly some blacks have not recovered to the point where they have the same opportunities as white people, but in most cases that isn't institutional anymore; it is the aftershock of institutional racism.

I think that atheists face more widespread and worse discrimination in 2007 America than blacks do. Atheists are completely disenfranchised politically -- there are no atheist representatives.

In many ways, atheism is like homosexuality, in that even many who accept it prefer that it remain out of sight because it makes them uncomfortable. Homosexual discrimination, though, is at least something non-homosexuals recognize exists in society. Most people don't even believe atheists face discrimination.

I think that atheists face more widespread and worse discrimination in 2007 America than blacks do.

Well, I would suggest it is a different kind of discrimination, and not really "worse" overall, although arguing about that is likely counterproductive.

However:

To bring MCoA's point in 52 to this discussion, I doubt that atheism is a predictor of class/income, and I also doubt it is a predictor of the likelihood of doing jail time. Also, people can't look at you and see that you are an atheist, and decide to label you as such, then alter their behavior immediately and/or subconsciously, the way they can with race.

This isn't the 1960s anymore. Certainly some blacks have not recovered to the point where they have the same opportunities as white people, but in most cases that isn't institutional anymore; it is the aftershock of institutional racism.

No, but it is not 2407, either. The 1960s were not long ago at all in a sociohistorical context. Racism is not legalized institutionally nor is it as overt, but I would suggest it is still "institutional" as I define the term.

Alright, alright, I'll add something of substance to this discussion. Well, substance commensurate with the value-add of this thread over the previous Rooney thread.

Per ESPN Player Rosters, with the manual realization that Jeff Nelson is not active possibly coloring (oops) the entire slate of findings, here are the most common surnames in MLB by first letter of last name:

Anderson (4)
Brown (6)
Cabrera (6)
Diaz (4)
Escobar (3)
Flores (3)
Gonzalez (11)
Hernandez (9)
Izturis (2)
Johnson (10)
Kendrick/Kennedy/Kim (2)
Lopez (7)
Miller (8)
Nunez/Nelson (2)
Ortiz (3)
Perez (10)
Qualls/Quentin/Quinlan/Quintanilla/Quintero/Quiroz (1)
Ramirez/Rodriguez (9)
Sanchez (6)
Thompson (3)
Upton (2)
Vazquez (3)
Wilson (8)
Young (7)
Zambrano (2)

That's 19 Hispanic surnames and only 15 non-Hispanic, counting 3 each for Q, 1 each for N, and multiples for K and Q. (Why yes, this is scientific, why do you ask?) Clearly the following observations are in order:

1. Hispanic names have a lot of Zs in them.
2. Quentin McCracken is still employed? Jesus H. Criminy!
3. If Hispanics were more creative with their surnames, Rooney would have written about something shiny on his desk.
4. I simply can not type "Rodriguez" without first typing "Rodriquez" and then fixing it. Does anyone else have this problem?
5. Even one Sexson is far too many.
6. My employer has way too much bandwidth.

Yeah, we need more unusual names. The Mets should call Joe Smith back up.

But he said "Rodriguezes."

Actually, he didn't. If one is going to use quotation marks, one ought to quote.

My disinterest in baseball as a kid has lasted all my life.

Incidentally, speaking of quoting Rooney, he doesn't know the difference between disinterest and uninterest.

Rich:

It's not that they attack these nominees for being racist, it's that these nominees very often have a record of judicial opinions that are overwhelmingly pro defendant, irrespective of the facts. The adverse impact of a such body of work is on the poor and economically disadvantaged, who are often African-American or Hispanic.

Rich, even if that description of their opinions is accurate -- which I would dispute both from the point of view of them being "pro defendant irrespective of the facts" and from the point of view of this having an "adverse impact" on the poor -- you're ignoring my point, which is that this isn't the charge that leftist interest groups hurl at these nominees. They do call them racist. (They may also make the claim that you make, but they definitely fling around charges of racism.) And by conflating "pro defendant which hurts black people" with "anti black," all the interest groups do is discredit themselves, since it's so obvious when people actually meet the nominees that the nominees aren't racist.

I simply can not type "Rodriguez" without first typing "Rodriquez" and then fixing it. Does anyone else have this problem?

Pep, I'm fairly certain that I've never mentioned this to anyone else, but yes, I have the exact same problem; even stranger, q and g are not next to each other on a keyboard and are struck with different fingers.

I simply can not type "Rodriguez" without first typing "Rodriquez" and then fixing it. Does anyone else have this problem?

Yes.

How do atheist face discrimination worse then blacks? How do atheists face discrimination period? I mean you don't put on your job application that you are an atheist do you? Yet a black person unless he is Michael Jackson cannot hide nor even have it get by without without someone knowing he is black. How does the sales clerk at Sears discriminate worse against atheits then he does against blacks?

I think the statement was extremely silly and naive.

Are you trying to say that an elected official/candidate can't be an atheist and that being an atheist and candidate is worse then being a candidate and black? That may be true but that is a extremely narrow slice of everyday life.

How do atheists face discrimination period?

When theists insist atheists are amoral?

Crazy Joe Bivens Posted: August 27, 2007 at 02:04 PM (#2500970)

How do atheists face discrimination period?

When theists insist atheists are amoral?

Joe, do crazy people face discrimination?

Give it your best shot, big boy!

Pep, I'm fairly certain that I've never mentioned this to anyone else, but yes, I have the exact same problem; even stranger, q and g are not next to each other on a keyboard and are struck with different fingers.

That, and I don't have this problem with any other word. I can type "guidebook" or "quantum" or even "quagmire" without transposing those letters, but try typing "Rodriquez" and it happens every damn time.

See?

When theists insist atheists are amoral?

So when two sets of people who oppose each others views get into an argument atheists face discrimination, that is the position that makes atheists face greater discrimination then blacks?

I wasn't answering that question, McCoy.

I think that atheists face more widespread and worse discrimination in 2007 America than blacks do. Atheists are completely disenfranchised politically --

It's a pineapples and orange spray paint comparison. Sure, there are some people who if you tell them you are an atheist are going to get some bizarre notions in there head. It's also a lot easier to avoid those people for atheists than avoiding honkasauri is for blacks do.

there are no atheist representatives.

Meet Pete Stark! Granted, he's an atheist who goes to a Unitarian Church. If I hadn't moved to the peninsula, I could still proudly say he's my Congressman.

To bring MCoA's point in 52 to this discussion, I doubt that atheism is a predictor of class/income, and I also doubt it is a predictor of the likelihood of doing jail time.

If our society was completely colorblind tomorrow by divine fiat, this would not change for generations. It is no longer because people aren't hiring blacks, or colleges won't allow them to attend, or they aren't allowed to vote. It's primarily because the effects of past policies in those areas.

In other words, it isn't that we live in a terrible oppressive racist society so much as we live in a society that is recovering from being a terrible oppressive racist society.

Also, people can't look at you and see that you are an atheist, and decide to label you as such, then alter their behavior immediately and/or subconsciously, the way they can with race.

Right. It's more like homosexuality in that regard.

The point is not that atheists are easier to spot. The point is that more people have backward-thinking beliefs about atheists than they do black people. Most people in society outright reject the idea that blacks are inferiors to whites, it's a laughable concept. Most people do not reject the foolish idea that an atheist has no moral base because they are godless.

Stark's real name is Fortney Hillman Stark, for Pete's sake.

The point is that more people have backward-thinking beliefs about atheists than they do black people.

I am not at all sure about that one, and I am not sure how you could test it.

Most people in society outright reject the idea that blacks are inferiors to whites, it's a laughable concept. Most people do not reject the foolish idea that an atheist has no moral base because they are godless.

Same with these two.

In other words, it isn't that we live in a terrible oppressive racist society so much as we live in a society that is recovering from being a terrible oppressive racist society.

Even if one accepts this premise, and there is some truth in it, I am not sure that this means atheists have it "worse." The laws that once applied to blacks did not, in almost all respects, apply to atheists. I think it is a very different type of discrimination, as I said.

If our society was completely colorblind tomorrow by divine fiat

then only athiests would be racist?

The point is that more people have backward-thinking beliefs about atheists than they do black people. Most people in society outright reject the idea that blacks are inferiors to whites, it's a laughable concept. Most people do not reject the foolish idea that an atheist has no moral base because they are godless.

This would be funny if you didn't apparently hold it seriously. I have no idea on what basis you're making your sociological claims. I have little confidence that you can point to beatings of, losses of jobs by, and fears about declining home values because of purchases by atheists as opposed to blacks. The most you'll get is, as McCoy was getting at, intellectual debates in law journals about the religious roots of human rights. If Christopher Hitchens is suffering as an atheist, I'll disavow belief in God tomorrow.

I think that atheists face more widespread and worse discrimination in 2007 America than blacks do.

This is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on Baseball Primer.

And I've been here since 2001.

I'm trying to figure out what is supposed to be ironic about this, where the joke is, or what clever inside reference is being made. I'm drawing a blank.

The point is that more people have backward-thinking beliefs about atheists than they do black people.

Nah; they just aren't ashamed of holding those backward beliefs about athiests they way they do about blacks so they feel freer to express them openly.

I am not at all sure about that one, and I am not sure how you could test it.

What about this test, Robin: Take a confidential poll of non-black Americans, asking these questions:

1. In voting for president of the United States, would you be more likely to vote for an avowed atheist or a believing black, if they were the only choices and they had the same amount of experience and held the same positions on the issues you care most about?

2. I would be comfortable voting for a black president:

a. completely agree
b. somewhat agree
c. no opinion
d. somewhat disagree
e. completely disagree
f. what race is Tiger Woods?

3. I would be comfortable voting for an atheistic president:

a. completely agree
b. somewhat agree
c. no opinion
d. somewhat disagree
e. completely disagree
f. what religion is Tiger Woods?

4. In the marriage of one of your children, would you be more likely to choose for your child a spouse who was an avowed atheist or an African-American, if they were the only choices and they were equal in all other significant respects?

5. I would be comfortable with my child marrying a black person:

a. completely agree
b. somewhat agree
c. no opinion
d. somewhat disagree
e. completely disagree
f. what race is Tiger Woods?

6. I would be comfortable with my child marrying an atheist:

a. completely agree
b. somewhat agree
c. no opinion
d. somewhat disagree
e. completely disagree
f. what religion is Tiger Woods?

Nah; they just aren't ashamed of holding those backward beliefs about athiests they way they do about blacks so they feel freer to express them openly.

I think this is a more accurate representation of reality than my original post. Serves me right for multitasking.

Someone would never get fired for saying atheists are frightening because they can't be trusted to adhere to a moral code. Many would nod in agreement.

Someone could get fired because they say blacks are frightening because they are all criminals.

Society makes an effort to protect black people from discrimination. It recognizes (most of the time) that racism is a backwards belief. Criticism of marginalization of blacks in society is acknowledged and many make efforts to change things. Saying that you are "proud to be white" is seriously frowned upon. (I think this is all good for a civilized society, mind you.)

Disdain and ignorance toward atheists is not defended. It is encouraged.

People with persecution complexes face the worst discrimination of all. Why can't you just leave us alone!!?!?

Why can't you just leave us alone!!?!?

Save it. That is what those poor girls were thinking on April 17, 1991, and their frustration didn't show up on GuapoRetrosheet.

By the way, I'm not sure if #93 was made up on the spot, but a similar poll (without the Tiger Woods answer) was given under similar conditions.

A substantially higher percentage of people were more comfortable with a believing black than an avowed atheist.

By the way, I'm not sure if #93 was made up on the spot, but a similar poll (without the Tiger Woods answer) was given under similar conditions.

A substantially higher percentage of people were more comfortable with a believing black than an avowed atheist.

Atheists were the only group that a majority of people were willing to admit they'd never vote for; yep, even a majority wouldn't admit they would automatically not vote for a gay person.

Of course, most people are also under the impression that atheism is an active hatred/petulant denial of god rather than just including whatshisname to the list of fantastical creatures from literature we don't think are out there, and a bunch of other crap like that, sort of like 40/50 years ago when if you asked about homosexuals (since they weren't "gay" yet), they thought it meant a lecherous creep who wants to ritualistical cornhole your 8 year old son to death while doing bad clown paintings and listening to Judy Garland records. I also think that a lot of people kinda suspect their wrong about those thoughts though too; I mean, it can't only be atheists buying all those copies of the latest from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, et cetera.

By the way, I'm not sure if #93 was made up on the spot

It was.

One problem with #93.

I've read that when Douglas Widler ran for govenor of Virginia, polls showed him with huge leads, yet he only won in a squeaker. There was a big mayoral race involving a black candidate at the same time that had the same results. In both cases several polls were far further off than they normally are. The conclusion was that people felt pressured to give the most societally acceptable answer.