It’s STILL Not Steve Nash’s Fault: A Response to Jack McCallum
This past weekend after being inspired by an over-the-top Steve Nash cover story in Men’s Journal, I literally ran to my computer to write the article: “It’s Not Steve Nash’s Fault: A Study in White Privilege”. Then came the following sequence: I placed the article on Ball Hype and expected a few responses; the article received many favorable reviews; Bethlehem Shoals of AOL Fan House picked it up; article floats around blogosphere; Henry Abott of ESPN’s True Hoop profiles article; more reaction from blogosphere; and Jack McCallum of Sports Illustrated directly responds to article with "The Nash Dilemma" followed by some more follow-up by Abbott. Before issuing the following response to Mr. McCallum, I would like to thank all the previous parties involved in helping to have what I personally believe to be a very important discussion in how sports coverage and racial bias intersect. I would also reiterate that having such an honest and open discussion does absolutely nothing to detract from the brilliant player and even better person that Steve Nash is. By no means are these two issues mutually exclusive.
First things first: And even though Mr. McCallum, a writer that I respect and who I find genuine in his search for truth, took exception to many points in the column, I would like to also thank him for encouraging that the COSELLOUT article be read in its entirety rather than perpetuate the sound-bite-ification of sports journalism. While the original article covered four separate areas of bias (MVP voting; perceived athleticism; political stances; and community service), McCallum limited his commentary to 25% of the article: the MVP vote. Fine. Let’s discuss that one area:
Where We Agree: Mr. McCallum and I both agree that: the Men’s Journal article will not win the Pulitzer Prize this year; Steve Nash did not invent fast-break basketball, and as McCallum puts it, when “much of mainstream America looks at the NBA, they do see race. They see — all together now — the cornrows and the tattoos and the baggy shorts, and they don’t see the player.” He also offers this observation of many fans: “During a year I spent with Nash and the Suns writing a book ("Seven Seconds or Less: My Season on the Bench with the Runnin’ and Gunnin’ Phoenix Suns"), I was urged any number of times to emphasize more strongly the idea that Nash and Company were introducing a different and unique element to the NBA, as if they had invented something never before seen. … I resisted that notion. Nash is not the greatest point guard who ever lived, nor are the Suns the first team to be entertaining and fast-break-oriented.”
So while we both agree that many sports FANS perceptions are biased by race, McCallum ends his agreement when the subject turns to the perceptions of sportsWRITERS that vote for NBA MVPs. McCallum writes: “But then COSELLOUT extrapolates his point about the Men’s Journal article to indict the MVP voters, suggesting that race was a factor among the "90+% white sports-voting body."… “By and large, we in the basketball press do not see color when we vote.”
The first red flag is that he separates sportswriters from the same dynamics that might bias fans. The second red flag is that McCallum is speaking for the “colorblindness” of an entire group. The third is the wishful and dubious concept of "colorblindness" itself. Abbott’s response is helpful here on this third red flag:
"I don’t know that I agree with Cosellout on everything, but I do find it impossible to believe race is no factor in this. I just don’t see the evidence to support the idea that any group of people as large as the voters for this award is enlightened enough to be truly color blind. Every voter might be racially well-meaning (which is all you can ask for, I guess). But that doesn’t mean they’re equally comfortable with player A and player B. It works on your subconscious, you know?"
The “POSSIBILTY” of Race as “Ridiculous Point”: McCallum states: “COSELLOUT suggests that the race issue didn’t get nearly enough attention in ‘05, when Nash drubbed Shaquille O’Neal in the voting for his first MVP. It didn’t get nearly enough attention for this reason: It’s a ridiculous point. I can’t remember an easier vote I’ve ever cast.”
Since I already conceded to “agree-to-disagree” and extend the benefit of the doubt in the original article, it would not be productive to belabor a Shaq vs. Nash rehash. But what IS productive is to point out just how dismissive McCallum is in considering that race played a role. Miami Herald Dan Le Batard was virtually the only mainstream writer to bring up the mere POSSIBILTY of race. One single mainstream writer (maybe a couple of others) out of hundreds! What does that say about the sports journalism field? Yes, I would say that the subject did not get enough attention. Consider that if only a handful of more than 100+ writers were even influenced on a sub-conscious level to vote for Nash, then the MVP trophy would have switched hands. To dismiss this possibility as a “ridiculous point” is not only ridiculous itself, but demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of how human bias operates. Even if we were to make the absolutely absurd assumption that not one single sportswriter had overt racial bias, it is simply human nature for people to subconsciously favor those that remind them of themselves. Finally, McCallum views Nash over Shaq as a no-brainer, and then selects Chauncey Billups as MVP for the following year. No more words.
The Dismissals: More McCallum: 1) “Nash’s victory in ‘06 wasn’t so clear-cut. …in the end, Nash won. Why? Because he was white? Nonsense.”; 2) “So, what about LeBron, whom COSELLOUT suggests has been overlooked in the MVP voting because of race? I don’t buy it… it had nothing to do with him being black.”; 3) Hey, don’t forget that “ridiculous point” about Shaq. …Two things are striking: Firstly, McCallum is not saying, I don’t THINK race was a factor, he is absolutely certain that it is utter "nonsense". He KNOWS it is not! Secondly, that McCallum can speak for a body of over 100 VOTERS speaks the volume of 100 voices. It is one thing to claim, rightly or wrongly, “I’m not biased”, but it is quite another to make that claim that no one else is either. These statements apart or coupled together smack of arrogance.
The Grand Omission of the “Landslide Vote”: Surprisingly, McCallum focused on the smaller less relevant points about the MVP awards and failed to mention what was CLEARLY the articles’ CENTRAL assertion of MVP bias: THE LANDSLIDE VOTE during the second year. To recap: Lebron’s 2005-2006 season wasn’t just MVP-worthy, it was historic. He joined all-time greats Oscar Robertson, Jerry West and Michael Jordan as the ONLY players in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in a single season. Please read that short list again. His team won 50 games, and, although he certainly played in a weaker conference, his supporting cast was far worse than Nash’s (Larry Hughes was injured the majority of the year). But McCallum simply did not address the fact that Nash had 57 first place votes to Lebron’s 16. I read the whole article just waiting to see his response… and I was sorely disappointed. How can a direct response to an article not even address the most damning piece of evidence! Perhaps he didn’t address this point because there was simply no rational explanation. Only collective incompetence and bias on the part of voters could explain such a drastic margin.
Who Should Get to Vote?: McCallum writes: “But one of the few things we do well is vote. We do it extremely well. COSELLOUT suggests that MVP voting should be handed over to coaches, and I can tell you that coaches are no more objective than writers when it comes to voting.”
Really? The facts tell us otherwise. General managers and coaches actually plan and strategize against opposing players. In 2006, The Sporting News selected Nash and Lebron as CO-MVPs based on a tie in return-ballots it received from NBA front office management and coaches. The tie vote, whether one favors Nash or Lebron, suggests that General Managers and coaches are far more competent than our nation’s sportswriters. If David Stern has any power over the situation, it would be wise to add one more rule change to his portfolio – immediately. But the problem is bigger than Steve Nash, MVPs, and award bodies. It is about a sequence of logic that is stifling all honest debate on race and white privilege in sports columns everywhere. And it is called:
Anything-But-Race (ABR): McCallum states: 1) “Voters have their prejudices: We’re prejudiced toward passers…”; 2) toward “team-oriented set-up guys”; 3) “we’re prejudiced against guys who foment discontent on their own teams”; and 4) “we’re prejudiced toward guys on winning teams.”; 5) “I think voters looked at LeBron over the last two years and saw an incomplete player leading an incomplete team.”… 6) “Maybe we voters are "age-ists," but we are not racists”
Before we begin, let’s bury the word “racist” right now because it tends to always serve as a “discussion ender”. The word has come to conjure up a meaning of “evil men who burn crosses at Klan rallies” instead of the more common biases that even many good and well-intentioned people have (which Jack McCallum, 100+ other voters, or myself are certainly not immuned). I should also state up-front that I actually agree with many of McCallum’s points about the other biases. However, I would NEVER be so presumptuous to dismiss his cited factors as cavalierly as he dismisses race. Interestingly enough, biases #1 - #4 listed FAVOR Lebron James status, so McCallum, naturally kept reaching for new biases, ANY biases… “anything-but-race” biases.
Sportswriter Race Rules: McCallum’s analysis, which includes a grand total of SIX biases, is a common sportswriter staple for race discussions in the mainstream sports media. The common flaw is the “either-or” thinking that states “It’s not race, it’s (fill in the blank)”. If any of this is confusing, then just try and visualize Mitch Albom or Mike Lupica on virtually ANY episode of The Sports Reporters. If you are still not getting it, picture them talking about Barry Bonds. Because the sportswriter race rules dictate that a racial bias and any other bias can’t simultaneously be true. Of course, there can be 27 OTHER co-existing biases – just not race! Generally speaking there will be no stone or bias unturned before arriving at a more warm and fuzzy conclusion. Sportswriter Race Rules and Anything-but-Race Syndrome have severely hampered the prospect of honest and productive dialogue about race, white privilege, and by extension, racial progress. Oh, and by the way we are waaaaaay past Jack McCallum who I do NOT want to characterize as a frequent offender.
Did He Say That?: McCallum stated at the top: “It’s about four months too early for a discussion about the MVP voting and about 40 years too late for a discussion about race.”
Perhaps I read this one wrong so I leave that possibility open, but considering some past quality columns that I have read by Mr. McCallum, this caught me off guard. The second part of this statement I found to be both highly objectionable and revealing. Is Mr. McCallum suggesting that racial bias is no longer a serious issue to be discussed and dealt with in our country? At a time when: there has been a 40% rise in # of hate groups since 2000; the Jena 6 may have all been facing 20 year sentences without intervention from activists; 14 year old Shaquanda Cotton received 7 years for pushing a hall monitor; 17 year old Genarlow Wilson received 10 years for consensual sex with a 15 year old; last month this umpteenth report came out about the severe racial disparity in arrests, convictions, and incarcerations of non-violent offenders. Did I mention our public schools?
The Big Picture: And what exactly do MVP votes and the media’s coverage of Nash’s athleticism, politics, and community service have to do with all that. Well, just about everything. If “Anything-But-Race” syndrome dictates that we are unable to diagnose fairly straight-forward collective biases in sports, then how exactly are we as a nation going to properly assess and diagnose major racial institutional disparities when the stakes are far greater than distributing MVP trophies? Could there be a common connection between our collective unwillingness to, say, properly identify racial bias in MVP voting disparities and our mass unwillingness to identify crack vs. cocaine disparities? The first might be relatively meaningless, but the second is not. And for those commenters who keep wondering why I “waste so much time talking about white privilege and Steve Nash”, it is PRECISELY because if I ever talk about white privilege and cocaine laws, I can’t get as much as three people to visit this blog. Like the entire history of sports as a reflection of our society, Steve Nash is merely a symbolic laboratory to tell us more about ourselves. Perhaps we should all use him to look in the mirror.
—————————————-
Added October 21: Sometimes you look over an article a day later and want to add what may have been missed. Here goes: McCallum has since expressed to me that the "40 years too late" comment was poorly communicated on his part and not what he meant at all. More accurately, he agrees that race relations are still 40 years behind the times. This makes far more sense as the updated clarification is much more consistent with McCallum’s larger body of work. And, even if it wasn’t, we will naturally extend Mr. McCallum the benefit of the doubt because he is white ! :-). …..About NBA sportswriter voter incompetency: If the thrust of McCallum’s argument is that a good portion of voters are not biased because of race, but are biased because of a whole other host of reasons, well that statement doesn’t exactly comfort the soul as far as the competency of voters. Shouldn’t the most deserving player win the award free of ANY bias? Should I be comforted that Lebron may have lost an award because he may have been too young? In explaining voter biases, EVEN IF MCCALLUM WERE TO BE 100% CORRECT that race bias was no factor, doesn’t he still spell out a pretty good case to remove the vote from the writers anyway?
…I don’t know if it was articulated well enough, but I do appreciate McCallum’s willingness to respond and extend him credit for engaging in the discussion at all. And while I clearly found his response to be a flawed one, I make it a habit to not judge journalists and reporters on their worst days or worst articles or poorly-communicated sentences. Since athletes get unfairly judged in this manner by journalists all the time, as a media critic, COSELLOUT must have a fairer standard. Judging from McCallum’s larger body of quality work, the profession of sports journalism is certainly better off with him in it. There are enough people already out there whose worst days are Monday thru Friday every week for COSELLOUT to focus on. — Charles "MODI" Modiano
Sphere: Related Content
Modi,
October 19th, 2007 at 11:47 amYou are putting down some very serious stuff!!! ABR-Syndrome is all to real. Keep up your good work.
MODI, keep doing you. The ridiculous idea that it’s 40 years to late to discuss race after the Jena Six incident and subsequent rash of noose incidents shows a deliberate decision to ignore reality. But, people really don’t want to change, that’s what I’ve found. They are comfortable thinking the way they think, and they are uninterested in examining their base motivations and the possible motivations of their ancestors. Case in point, have you ever noticed how often the mainstream media and white America discusses the failures of parents in the black community to prepare their kids for life? The thought is that your parents give you most of your values, prepare you for the world and are the most important influence on your life. Contrast that belief with the fact that many white people talk about how they don’t share the racist beliefs that their parents or grandparents shared because they were able to move past that. So, parental guidance in extremely important to black folks, but white people have a special ability to completely filter out the racism from their parents and become completely colorblind individuals? Absurd.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:49 amMODI:
“McCallum states: 1) “Voters have their prejudices: We’re prejudiced toward passers…”; 2) toward “team-oriented set-up guys”; 3) “we’re prejudiced against guys who foment discontent on their own teams”; and 4) “we’re prejudiced toward guys on winning teams.”; 5) “I think voters looked at LeBron over the last two years and saw an incomplete player leading an incomplete team.”… 6) “Maybe we voters are “age-ists,” but we are not racists”
Perhaps what is most comical about that is “race” is the one area where Americans of all hues have had four centuries of explicit visual INSTRUCTION on the cultivation and expression of bias. In other words, McCallum would have you believe that the one area to which the greatest effort has been expended has been LEAST TENACIOUS. How odd. How utterly stupefying.
To borrow from SNL: “Really Jack? Really?”
October 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pmJust about 40 years…I love his math…they hadn’t even capped King 40 years ago. We’ll have to pick this up again on April 4, 2008. Jack can kiss my ass.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:31 pmgreat stuff.
Just one point on the Cavs/Suns comparison pre06. Clearly at the end of the season you would look at the Suns as having much more talent. But as I believe someone mentioned in a previous thread, the expectations going into the season after Amare got hurt were low to say the least. Yes Barbosa, and Diaw became very solid players. But one can certainly at least argue that Nash played a very important role in making them, along with Bell and a couple of others the players they became.
And of course Marion is a very good player, but don’t be mistaken. Nash makes Marion the dynamic lane filler he is. Marion simply wouldn’t be the same player playing alongside Lebron but without a top quality point guard. All of this makes Marion’s talk of wanting to leave all the more ridiculous. I almost wanted to see him go just to prove my point.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pmthis is bigger than basketball. Good job as usual Modi. I especially enjoyed the breakdown you provide in “The Big Picture”.
“and about 40 years too late for a discussion about race.”
Yeah. I had to push myself to read beyond that line. It was a head scratcher.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pmModi:
October 19th, 2007 at 1:43 pmDeep stuff.
The white man is never a racist until you buy a house next to his. See how he reacts then.
Racism is something that’s deeply rooted because of the environment you’re brought up into.
Keep up your good works!
EXCELLENT rejoinder, Modi. I too was stunned by the “40yrs too late” bit myself, I had to read it twice. What the hell does that mean?!
Anyway, what it all boils down to is this old idea that if you can find any halfway credible explanation for something other than malice, then malice goes out the window as a possible cause.
McCallum was in full denial mode, guns packed with hot indignation (oh, the temerity!), firing off squishy, confident-sounding yet ultimately unsupported statements of pish-tosh (I think his “best” argument was that the sportswriters have voted for Black players in the past). His words carry weight for those who suddenly felt uneasy by your first article because he’s an established, publishified, bona fide Sportswriter. I’m proud you didn’t bend in the hot blowback.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pm[…] PrivilegeTemple3 on An Open Letter to George Steinbrenner: SAVE JOE TORRE!Charles Follymacher on It’s STILL Not Steve Nash’s Fault: A Response to Jack McCallumTemple3 on Whitlock-Gone-Wild: Jena Six Article Seals Cosellout-of-the-Month for JasonAfrican on […]
October 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm“The white man is never a racist until you buy a house next to his. See how he reacts then.
Racism is something that’s deeply rooted because of the environment you’re brought up into.”
How ironic…
This is the problem with racists of all colours… there’s always a scapegoat. Imagine if a white man started a sentence with “The black man..” to generalize and stereotype a race of people. The same people who said Larry Bird was overrated because he’s white are the same people who are saying Steve Nash is overrated because he is white. Ask Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson what they think of Bird. Ask Tim Duncan and Jason Kidd what they think of Nash.
Do you think that perhaps the only reason Dan LeBatard brought up race (aside from the fact he is a hack journalist) is that he is a Miami Heat beat writer… you know… who writes about Shaq everyday… you know… who might have a pretty big bias towards the guy he sees in the locker room every day. FYI: beat writers are unabashed homers (huge shocker).
I do think that race is a factor, because I think if Steve Nash was black there wouldn’t even be a discussion about this. Steve Nash won two MVP awards, he deserved three. The guy is simply doing things that haven’t been done since Magic was running the Laker’s in the ’80’s. But McCallum is right on one thing, Nash will always have an advantage over Kobe because people like him and he is a good guy, which is why LeBron will have about 10 MVP’s on his mantle when he retires.
October 19th, 2007 at 5:49 pmNick
The same people who said Larry Bird was overrated because he’s white are the same people who are saying Steve Nash is overrated because he is white.
Let’s set the record straight! NO BODY EVER SAID THAT LARRY BIRD WADS OVER RATED!!!!!
Just in case you are deaf or cannot read. Dennis Rodman said “if Bird was Black he would be just another good player”. This was co-signed by Isaiah Thomas, AFTER prodding by the media to comment on that initial statement.
Now, Nicky baby, I know you are not a baler (that’s the highest expression of skill level and respect) and I know you are not a basketball player (the average expression) maybe you are just a fan, props to you because basketball is a tremendous game.
However no “Baller “or basket ball player would ever say Larry Bird is over rated…period.
I didn’t like the sucker…, not because he was white, but because at that time I was a Sixer fan and then a Laker fan (actually I am a fan of good ball playing which is why I appreciated the teams Bird played on).
Do not use incorrect information to justify wrong headed views or dismiss this excellent break down by MODI.
P.S
MODI. When I grow up I want to be able to investigate shit like you do! LOL
Peace
October 19th, 2007 at 6:23 pmMODI,
McCallum, for what it’s worth (or no damn good reason at all) de-cloaked your blog name in his article. I’m uncertain that he HAD to do that to make his point. I mean, he could write about Prince without having to divulge his birth name. I suppose that was the first expression of his privilege (to be able to decipher your name) and then his arrogance as you correctly concluded. I suppose that the two go hand-in-hand. I’ve tried to get the former by expressing the latter but it is a tough trick to turn. In other words, you can act arrogant with privilege but you can’t get privilege by being arrogant. You simply get ridiculed.
I’m not sure where Nick (above) is writing from but he clearly has not been reading the “homers” in NYC and their coverage of the NY Knicks. Some “arrogant” fans banded together and fixed that problem on www.knickdefense.com hosted by an equally “arrogant” alpha dawg cloaked Starburyfan (some of us also call him Blogzilla). There, we do our own analysis, pontification, prognostication, and punditry.
In McCallum’s article he tips his hand to the very problem and myth you continue to debunk here at Cosellout. In his arrogance (bordering on stupidity) he paints the communitiy of voters with one race-blind brush and confirms that there is one lens with which all the MVP voters view each candidate each year. Were these four points always so clear-cut Jack? Isn’t ageism or any ism of that matter just as detestible? Sounds like you voters have colluded to establish “your” standards as opposed to ones that any sensible observer of the game could independently accept. The BEST player in the league based on statistics and performance should be the MVP. Therein lies what I often call the view through the veil of hypocrates. This is your platform Modi and I’m too lazy to break out of the min-mode so I’ll leave that thought there.
Now I’m to believe that the journalists are so knowledgeable of the game that they can establish criteria jointly to make a determination on the outcome for the MVP award? The privilege of doing so should give them the RIGHT(otherwise arrogance) to jam their selection down the public’s collective throats? I’m selling Jack. You’re 40 years too late.
Keep doing what you do MODI.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:08 pmThe complete Isiah quote:
“I think Larry is a very, very good basketball player. He’s an exceptional talent,” added Detroit’s Isiah Thomas. “But I have to agree with Rodman. If he were black, he’d be just another good guy.”
I don’t think anyone can argue with the first part of the quote. It’s the second part of the quote that gets people angry. I dear say that it is also what gets folks angry about MODI’s comments on the media over-reaching regarding Steve Nash.
Isiah’s implication is that it is the concept of white privelidge that allows the Media to raise Larry Bird above the other superstars of his day: Dr. J, Kareem, Magic and Isiah. It was as if Bird was looked at in a different light because the Media characterized him as “heady”, “scrappy”, “great work ethic”, “not blessed with natural talent”. Go back to the first part of the quote. Bird is an “exceptional talent” [just like me and Magic]; and if he were black “he’d be just another good guy” [ just like me and magic]
In essence Isiah has been made a pariah in the Media because he dared to say that Bird was just like he and Magic. He didn’t say he was better than Bird, he just said Bird was just like him. For this he has been branded a racist. This situation amazed me from day one, I could never quite understand it. Isiah is a racist because he states that Larry Bird is in effect just like him “another good guy”. Wow, what a standard.
As an aside,
Bringing Bird into the commentary regarding Steve Nash only makes sense to illustrate MODI’s point regarding media bias, cause in terms of accomplishments on the basketball court there is absolutely no comparison. Bird’s basketballl resume is amongst the 5 to 10 best in basketball. Nash’s probably resides somewhere between 75 and 100.
Ahead of Mark Price and Mark Jackson, but behind John Stockton and Lenny Wilkins.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:41 pmI love when people talk about race and bias, throwing out accusations without the benefit of solid evidence (mere conjecture on the “subconsious” feelings of voters is not valid), all the while exercising those same fallacious tendencies that they complain about.
So, McCallum, a journalist and MVP voter, isn’t qualified to speak on behalf of others in his position, but this guy is?
“Racism” isn’t a subconscious act, as this writer would have us believe. The tendency towards aligning with those who are similar to us is a natural psychological phenomenon - the existence of varying societies and cultures are indicative of this. To attribute racism to this notion is irresponsible and reckless, and THAT’S why your mainstream media won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.
Nash’s MVPs are certainly not an example of race issues intersecting with sports. It is simply a matter of coincidence. For the first time since Larry Bird, a white player was good enough in the eyes of the basketball-viewing world to gain consideration for the award without dominant black competition (Stockton vs. Jordan). But for some reason, people like the writer here flipped the switch, and took their biases to the other extreme. You’re so used to big men and black players winning it, you are unable to digest the notion that a white player indeed was worthy of the award.
All last season, Nash was being compared to black players (”could be the first since Magic and KJ to average 19 points and 11 assists”). It was easy to justify Magic as an MVP due to similar numbers, but suddenly Nash should be questioned based on HIS skin color?
Seems to me that the only people guilty of racism are the ones looking for reasons outside the arena for reasons why Nash won the award, and why a black player didn’t.
In short, your arguments are irrational and your reasonings convoluted.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:59 pmFrom American Psychological Association
Racism is racial prejudice that has been incorporated into the activities and procedures of major institutions, corporations, social systems (such as those related to housing, education, and health), and other arenas of major social activity (such as politics, the media, finance, and banking). Racism serves both to discriminate against ethnic minorities and to maintain advantages and benefits for White Americans.
It would be nice if prejudice and racism were on the decline. But it doesn’t seem to be that way. A 1990 study found that a majority of Whites rated African Americans and Hispanics as less intelligent than themselves. A majority of Whites also thought African Americans and Hispanics are prone to violence and would rather be on welfare than work. These attitudes are not harmless. These prejudices not only are the basis for individual acts of discrimination, but they also allow people to justify unfair and destructive institutional and corporate practices.
Prejudice and racism are about real power, they’re not just something that is in people’s heads. Social issues like prejudice are complex and operate at many levels. At one level, issues of economics, political power, and domination are important. But individuals must perceive, interpret, and value differences in these “real-world” factors in order to act on them. Some psychologists have been interested in how people come to define real-world situations in terms of competition
Any difference could be used to make distinctions between groups. But evidence shows that we tend to emphasize those aspects of stereotypes that relate to our most closely held values. For example, if we value intelligence, then we may be quick to see another group as stupid. Or if hard work is valued by a group, then it may label others as lazy. Other values and their corresponding negative stereotypes are: clean/dirty, honest/liar, fair/exploitive, strong/weak, reasonable/emotional, mature/childlike. It seems that one function of stereotypes, or prejudice, is to help us feel good about ourselves and our group by focusing on comparisons with other groups on issues that are most important to our personal and group identity.
There are a variety of mechanisms that we employ to help us feel better about ourselves and our group. For example, we like to believe our group is unique, and we tend to overestimate the uniqueness of our good features. But when it comes to our negative qualities, we like to share these with others and, thus, overestimate how widespread these features are among others.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:56 pmJey,
You posted too soon. You really could have learned something by reading OOO in #15.
Furthermore, any person who is not a minority today and who cries racism or is insulted/offended by the expression “the white man…” (as cried by Nick in #10), read the definition above. More specifically, RELAX, it’s not about you (who is offended/insulted). You see, “the white man” is so privileged, so arrogant, s/he has unmitigated gall and could care less what an underprivileged person of color might have to say about “the white man”. Therefore, as an offended member of the white community, join the masses. White privileged ones do not care about you either, they looked at you with negligence in your despair during Katrina in New Orleans. Slowly but surely, the battle isdrawing closer to class (economic well-being) and away from skin color. Either way, we’re in a struggle for a lifetime.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:06 amModi
I read Jack MaCallum’s article in response to your article (“It’s Not Steve Nash’s Fault: A Study in White Privilege.”) and I came away with the impression that he didn’t really appreciate your critique of his work. He was quite dismissive of you opinions. In fact he was down right condescending towards you. That’s one of the first signs of racist behavior. First you disparage the message, then you dismiss the messenger as either being an alarmist or an agitator. It’s very difficult for many (white) to admit that they could be the least bit racist in any of the decisions they make on a daily basis or that race could be a deciding factor in some of them. To a larger degree many believe that race is no longer a factor in the day-to-day developements of this country.
I’ll be honest, I never considered Steve Nash the MVP in either year. Though I was more accepting the first time, I was dumbfounded that LeBron didn’t win it last year. I believe the only criteria should be IMPACT on the game. No one has had a larger impact on the NBA the last three years than LeBron James and he hasn’t been rewarded for it.
When people talk of “fundamentals” in sports and this should have been put to death decades ago, its just a cover for racist conjecture. I doubt many know what they’re talking about but repeating what they’ve heard said before. But it has always been used in elavuating black and white players. One with more and one with less getting by on “natural talent!” The flow of the game is not controled by the players’ but by the coaches. A lot don’t know how to coach a running game but rely on what’s in vogue to get by.
If anything Steve Nash’s play is predicated more on his physical talents, instincts, familarity with player movement, and schemes that are as old as baketball itself than on just being a fundamentally sound basketball player. If you want to see fundamentals played out more often go catch the Globetrotters the next time their in town.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:09 amI’m well aware of the APA’s definition of racism. That is not a hard and fast rule. It is merely a reflection of the attitudes present in modern society.
The Diagnostics and Statistical Manual (current DSM IV TR3) is notorious for changing definitions based, not on scientific evidence, but predominant social attitudes. This (APA) is the same organization that defined homosexuality as a mental illness 40 years ago (DSM II), only to change it when it gained acceptance in mainstream society in the 1970s (DSM III).
Again, racism is not about subconscious tendencies. That is simply an effect of “framing”, which is how human beings make order out of an otherwise disordered environment. Racism is an overt mind set. The definition only changes as it suits the needs of the accusers.
I am not saying that institutional racism does not exist (which is what this issue is supposedly about). I am saying that when it becomes harder to justify the choice betweem one person and another (i.e. Shaq and Nash), when those decisions aren’t understood by those who did not make the decision (readers disagreeing with voters), then the tendency is to look for the most overt difference between the choices…in this case, white and black. That is lazy and irresponsible, and it has no place in this MVP discussion.
The truth is, a valid case can be made for any of the candidates. But to go straight to race as a leading factor is to deny the arguments that favor or discount any candidate. It lessens the accomplishments of all involved, and only serves to start a fire where there was no kindling.
This all started because Dan LeBatard, a Miami Heat beat writer, didn’t like the outcome of the 2004-05 MVP voting.
The argument goes like this…
1. Shaq’s stats were better than Nash’s (discounting the difference in team records between seasons).
2. Nash is white.
3. 90% of the voters are white.
Conclusion: Nash won because he was white.
That is an insult to Nash (who’s been phenomenal since coming to Phoenix, turning the franchise around, drawing comparisons to the best point guards in league history), the Suns (who have been contenders since Nash’s arrival), the voters (who are more than likely more intelligent than to be blinded by skin color), the league (which is 85% black), Dwyane Wade (who was and still is the best player on the Heat), and Shaquille O’Neal (who is allowed to believe that he is the best player in the league, despie evidence to the contrary).
“Race” is an argument in this issue because those who disagreed with the voters could not and/or would not argue against the merits of Steve Nash.
In 2006-06, Nash was at the bottom of the list of top candidates until he took his team back to a Pacific Division championship, and overtook LeBron and Kobe based on their inability to carry their teams farther than they did, as well as their lack of leadership.
Last year, Dirk won it, and nobody complained. There was no need to bring up race because “he was the best player on the best team”, even though several other players had better statistical seasons. (People couldn’t argue that Nash was the best player on the best team, even though he was the sole reason the team maintained its excellence.)
As far as Bill Walton’s and Jon Barry’s comments…those are more indicative of the belief that white players aren’t as good as black players. That’s what is now known as “reverse racism”…which is to say, presumption of inferiority despite mainstream appearance. In other words, “It’s so amazing that a white player could accomplish so much on the court because they are inferior to black athletes.” (That is a combination of both negative and positive stereotyping.)
October 20th, 2007 at 1:50 am“Bird is an “exceptional talent” [just like me and Magic]; and if he were black “he’d be just another good guy” [ just like me and magic]”
That made no sense. Either Isiah and Magic were exceptional talents, or they were just good guys. I dare say that (cultural hindsight) Bird would have been an exceptional talent even if he were black.
Ever notice how “exceptionally talented” black men get offended when an exceptionally talented white man gets raised to their level? It’s as if they’re saying, “How dare you say this white boy is as good as I am?” Yeah…that would be racism, as well. Go figure.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:54 amHere’s a real example of race and sports intersecting…
http://phan-x.blogspot.com/2007/04/controversy-me.html
October 20th, 2007 at 2:10 amRacism and White Nationalism were interjected fullspeed into this country, when Africans were first imported onto this land as chattel as justifications for the practice of slavery in the Americas. Africans where portrayed as subhuman in order to make it palatable to Christian tenets. Racist ideology was used to propagate the inferiority of Africans and to booster white superiority among different European ethnic groups, who never before considered they had anything in common. At one time, the Irish, Italian, and the Jew were not considered of the white race. During this time edicts were issued as to the treatment of Africans, which were intended to keep them out of social and cultural inclusion with whites. This was the beginning of systemic racism in America. By dehumanisming and degrading them on all levels of social strata, negative stereotypes of Africans became culturally acceptable and rigorously promoted and enforced.
Even with the advent of emancipation, it didn’t afford exslaves a comfortable vehicle to enter into main stream American society. Once again the racists were devising methods to use to keep blacks out of the loop of citizenship. During this time racism became more and more entrenched into cultural and social institutions in this country, that even after 140 years since the civil war ended, many of the same stereotypes still exists today.
Nowhere was this more played out than in the segregated sports world and the banner carriers of this bias were the journalists and sportwriters of the period. You can’t name one of the so called great writers who wasn’t at his heart a race promoter. One who believed in the superiority of white athletes and the white race. Most supported separation of the races, it was part of the times. It’s not hard to rationalize that racism would still exist in this institution as it does in all other aspects of America life. Why would it be exempt? Many sportswriters romanticized about the players and created an idyllic picture of their sports heroes and made their feats symbolic of the superiority of their race. They feed these stories to sports fans who virtually had no other source to rely on for information. They thought of the Negro as being inferior in sports as well as other aspect of life. Integration had an impact on them also. They went through as a group the same pains the rest of America has with integration. To say today that prejudice doesn’t exist within sportswriters’ institution and that it doesn’t or wouldn’t reflect in any of their judgements would be asinine to a rational thinking individual. Why wouldn’t it be easier to vote for a person who looked liked themselves, it wouldn’t have been the first time that it had happened. Check out the early voting for the Heisman Throphy when blacks started being considered for it. It reeks with racial favoritism. Somehow or another it is rationalized through racial lines. I mean it’s done everyday in life somewhere in America.
the new phenomeon that exists today is the rampant denial by the white race that racism is even still around. Its as though it just got up and walked out of the room. In fact, thanks to the propaganda machines it has now been assessed that Blacks are now responsible for the position they’re in today. That they’ve had or have better chances of improving their lives in today’s society than whites. If they can’t get ahead it’s because they’re lazy or stupid. Blah, Blah, Blah.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:02 amHere’s a link to an article that speaks to the “Anything but Race Syndrome”
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10157
October 20th, 2007 at 6:45 amArticles such as this just drag racism out of nowhere and prolong its existence in our society. How can you claim the race card when there is no evidence to support it? Theories and assumptions do not equal facts and evidence. Those who want to claim racism will always find a way. They do not have to prove it. Now all of the responsibility is on everyone else to prove that they are not racist, but it seems the only way to do that is to always reward the minority. It’s a double-edged sword for the majority who try hard to be socially aware and honest. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
This is how Steve Nash won the MVP twice and has become the NBA poster boy for the maintstream media.
1) He is quiet and reserved. He does not seek the limelight. He wants to win and will fight to the end. No doubt, Nash knows that he is one of the top point guards in the NBA. But Nash is not flamboyant and does not showboat. It is refreshing in a sport that encourages the in-your-face attitude. That is evidenced by the past 6 MVP votes: Duncan, Garnett, Nash, and Nowitzki. What do we like as fans? Tough players who do not talk about how great they are; they just prove it.
2) Nash knows how to win. The MVP should absolutely come from a winning team. How can you justify awarding a player for his individual efforts (no matter how good his stats are) when his team loses. It is still a team sport and even Bryant should not win the award if he scores 50/gm and his team only wins 45 games. There is not an award for Best Player.
3) Most fans can be categorized as NY or LAL lovers or haters. The teams always have too much drama. Something is always wrong. There is never harmony (see number 1). Fans are tired of watching the imploding teams and their drama. It’s refreshing to watch a team that likes to play together.
4) The Suns are the most consistently fun team at the right time. A few seasons earlier, everyone wanted to watch for the back-to-basics Spurs. It was nice to watch a game with a pattern. Well, we have short attention spans and after we remembered the basics we all wanted the Showtime Lakers again.
Yes, Sacramento and Dallas were running earlier and they helped bring the fast pace back into the game and the Suns owe a lot to those teams, but SAC and DAL were still too sloppy and were missing pieces to the puzzle.
5) Nash is a good guy. And a good athlete. And role model. And… Nash has the intangibles that many others don’t. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is white.
6) Basketball is a business. Not just for the teams and the league, but a business for the media as well. I am sorry that other causes or players may not get their due attention, but a business measures the market and stays with what is hot. The attention on PHX and Nash will cool down. It will move on to someone else. But I sure hope it doesn’t happen for at least a decade, because the Suns are fun to watch again.
There is so much more but I am going to bed.
Drop the Race Card act because it is just breeding racism and it is unfair to the real racial issues that deserve attention.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:49 amVery well said, Dabooth.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:03 amWow Modi,
October 20th, 2007 at 7:25 amYou know you’re right when hit dogs holler THIS loud! LOL!
So…the decibel level of response determines correctness? THESE are your readers? Wow.
My official response…
http://phan-x.blogspot.com/2007/10/blast-from-past.html
October 20th, 2007 at 8:06 amWow. I just read McCallum’s thing, and this dude here TOTALLY misrepresented his argument. Talk about picking out soundbites…
In light of that, this will be my last response here. Anyone have an issue with my comments may post them to me on my response piece.
Wow. Talk about irresponsible. Pathetic.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:21 am– Statesman - If we can only find a cure for ABR we can get somewhere.
– Allen, Temple, BARF, Charles - McCallum’s “40 years” comment was inexcusable and also identifies how much bigger this problem is. Good analysis Charles and Yes, T3 we will definitely pick this up on April 4, 2008!
– b. while of course Nash makes Marion better, you should know that Marion first became an all-star BEFORE Nash arrived
– Sankofa, thank you for handling Nick. Nobody was making any comparison to Bird who for at least those 3 years was simply the best player in the NBA with Magic not far behind. I love Steve Nash but Nash is no Larry Bird… and that is not a knock at all.
– Steady, GREAT POST! Bias of ANY SORT is not good! Essentially McCallum is saying: “Hey, MVP voter are incompetent for DIFFERENT reasons!” And even if he is wrong in his assessment that race plays no role, it doesn’t exactly make for the greatest defense for backing his voting colleagues! Also, I have absolutely no problem with MCCallum using my full name. I post it and my email in “About COSELLOUT” section. I ain’t runnin’, I ain’t hidin’, I’m right here.
– I have feedback later on some of the other thoughtful posts, but am running out now.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:26 amJey,
I’m sattisfied to see you leaving the debate evidenced by your first para and last two words in #27.
Modi never began this “mini” about race. However, it called out the ABR subscribers with their heads buried in the sand. And it also inspired provocative and educational pieces by OOOO and Phil G. Not calling out instances of racism, however it is defined, does not make it go away. I still believe that the benefit of Katrina was that it proved a narrowing down of the deeply rooted problem in America as poor whites were treated with the same disdain and neglect as the Blacks, Hispanics and other people of color victimized in Louisina.
Jey makes a compelling argument about the inefficacies of the DSM IV as it portrays the social construct prevailing that day. What did you say during the Michael Vick situation when, by today’s definition, he was criminilized as inhumane for an activity that was once glamorized as a sport of the Southern gentlemen. Shouldn’t Vick have gotten that same sensible argument from your breath then Jey? I do admit that as viewed in your posts, you have been educated by this discourse as I have been. For those two new (and one idiot) savants, I’m certain that Modi’s gratified by his efforts.
Phil G,
October 20th, 2007 at 11:05 amDo you live in NJ? Are you a NYK fan? Just wondering!
Jey
Isn’t it possible to be both an “exceptional talent” and a “good guy”
Wasn’t Isiah simply saying that both he and Bird are “exceptional talent[s]” as well as “good guy[s]”?
Where in this statement was he “get[ting] offended”?
As I read it the statement is quite simple. He is accepting Bird as an exceptional talent and a good guy just as he is.
I do think that Rodman’s statements were stupid, but Rodman is stupid.
Isiah’s mistake, in the eyes of the Media, was that he didn’t directly disavow himself from his teammates statements. This is the classic Rush Limbaugh tactic of smearing someone not because of his own words, but because he doesn’t distance himself of the words of someone else.
October 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pmJey states: “The tendency towards aligning with those who are similar to us is a natural psychological phenomenon”
Yes, Jey this is exactly my point and went out of my way to make it in the article. And that natural tendency has a racial aspect to it. The “natural psychological phenomenon” that you call it, and the “subconscious” that I referred to are precisely one and the same. Although you write how much you disagree with me, you in fact AGREE. I also went out of my way to bury the word “racist” which you have unburied. I can only guess that you STARTED reading the article with a predisposition against it. But Jey, since you remark that I have “no solid evidence” let me ask you a very straight forward question about two pieces of voting evidence around Nash’s 2nd year trophy: Do you believe that Nash’s race played a role in the landslide margin which concluded in 57 1st place votes for Nash and 16 for Lebron?
Dabooth, I pose the very same question to you while I point out that most of your list also applies to Lebron.
OOO - oh, like I said before you can comment on this blog anytime
Phil - same statement goes for you! And yes, McCallum was incredibly dismissive and that is a bit scary. Not for me personally, but to know the lengths that someone will go to not even consider white privilege as a factor while speaking for over 100 of his colleagues. Yes, even CONSIDER it. And the fact that he never addressed the 2nd year voting gap was EXTREMELY dissappointing… also, that is a great piece by Tim Wise that I have referenced in a couple of other articles. Thanks for the repost.
October 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm“I’m sattisfied to see you leaving the debate evidenced by your first para and last two words in #27.”
I stand by my statements. I call it like I see it, and that’s exactly what I saw.
So the ends justify the means, Steady? Not to sound too cliche, but screaming FIRE! in a crowded theater is no way to instigate a discussion on the value of clearly defined emergency exits.
It is my (very strong) opinion that an issue as inflammatory and emotionally charged as race should not be tossed around lightly. There are far better examples in the sports and media world. As I said earlier, it is terribly irresponsible to call into question a person’s integrity for the simple fact of making a point. He effectively accused the voters of racism. That is dangerous.
This has become a “politically correct” world, which, for all intents and purposes, is the beginning stages of censorship on a societal scale. Hiding behind arbitrary definitions that change with mainstream attitudes only exacerbates the problem, as that censorship is now being forced into people’s psyches. It is one thing to attempt to change the way a person perceives the world. It is quite another to try and manipulate the basic functionality of the human brain.
Using the MVP issue as a mode for discussing racism is one of the many ways to plant the seeds of doubt in people’s minds regarding society’s progress on the matter. If this is racism (or racially driven), even though there is no evidence of it, then let’s find out where else we can lay the accusation. It becomes too easy to set aside any legitimate argument, resport to our natural tendency towards (what I term) lazy thinking, and ultimately leads to the degenration of cultural intelligence. “Can’t argue X point? OK. It must be due to race.”
Just because a person does not allow for race to be brought up in a critique of his decision making does not mean that he is guilty of avoiding the issue for the sake of not discussing it. “He’s not acknowledging race, so that must be it.”
As far as Michael Vick, I don’t see how that is relevant. He broke the law, there was undeniable evidence to support the charge, and he pleaded guilty in the face of that evidence. If you’re questioning my consistency in general, then I’ll point out two important problems.
1. The Vick question is a case of progress. Would you not agree that the elimination of unnecessarily violent behaviour is a societal “good”? Attitudes changing from negative to positive is a sign of progress. This issue of racism is an example of attitudes expanding a negative. Finding negative where it does not exist, or where it exists at a nominal level, only serves to undermine progress. How can we overcome racism if everything we do falls under the scope of racism?
2. You assume that my opinion of the Vick case would differ on that basic level. My opinion of his case is that he knowingly broke the law. I do, however, understand that it is a part of the culture in which he grew up. Do I think he was unfairly singled out due to the color of his skin? It’s hard to say because the matter is complicated by celebrity. I generally don’t like to work with hypotheticals, as they are not proofs. So I won’t even speculate on how his case would have gone were he white.
I’ll be honest. I do not like this subject as a whole because the idea of argumentation in this country tends to be that two people express opposing opinions, both trying to get the other to change sides. Being that this is such an emotionally driven issue, we already know that no one is going to do that. People are too attached to their emotional beliefs. If you know anything about cognitive dissonance, you’ll have an idea as to why that is. (If you don’t know, then I recommend www.changingminds.org as a wonderful reference for all kinds of psychological phenomena and argumentation techniques.)
OOO…you didn’t address the salient point of my criticism. Admittedly, I misread the original quote. The second point still stands, as Shaq questioned Nash in a similar fashion.
October 20th, 2007 at 4:55 pm“Although you write how much you disagree with me, you in fact AGREE.”
No. I do not. I was pointing how you are attributing racism to a natural psychological phenomenon, instead of the hatred, anger, and fear that is the root cause.
As you did with Jack McCallum, you cherry picked a single quote from my entire collection of replies, and manipulated it to serve your purpose.
“I can only guess that you STARTED reading the article with a predisposition against it.”
I see that you like to make a habit out of making assumptions.
“I also went out of my way to bury the word “racist” which you have unburied.”
Hiding it does not make the issue go away. I have handled it in a very calm and analytical manner, which should tell you that I have no problem facing it. (My offense comes when people deny their own hypocrisy and abuse the art of argumentation.)
“Do you believe that Nash’s race played a role in the landslide margin which concluded in 57 1st place votes for Nash and 16 for Lebron?”
No, I do not. (Of course, I already know that you have the ol’ ABR card ready when I discount race.)
I attribute it to the simple fact that EVERYONE had the Suns written off the year the team lost its #2 playmaker in Joe Johnson, its All Star Center in Amare Stoudemire, and its 3-point gunner in Quentin Richardson. The Suns finished with a Pacific Division championship, third best record in the league, and fighting through a dominant Western Conference.
LeBron James had an amazing statistical season, just as Kobe does every year. But they both lack the one quality I hold as a tiebreaker in any such competition…leadership. It shouldn’t have been surprising that it was a landslide given that Nash won it the previous year, so voters felt comfortable voting for him again when “there was no clear-cut favorite”, as well that reporters had been saying the entire second half, “Yeah, but LeBron plays in the East.”
Go here, and make of it what you will…
http://phan-x.blogspot.com/2007/06/i-didnt-vote-for-him.html
Until you learn to make valid points with sound reasoning, as well as not to build strawman arguments, I am done with your blog. You may feel free to reply to me at mine or e-mail me if you have any further questions.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:18 pmCosellout keeps talking about how ridiculous it is for McCallum to speak for all sportswriters, but I think it is more ridiculous for Cosellout to speak of all sportswriters.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pmHere is my reason for why McCallum is more qualified to guage the racial biases of sportwriters: A.) McCallum is a sportswriter and knows sportswriters.
As far as MVP voting goes, I am going to blow your minds here! I am 22 and Nash was the first white guy that I can remember being the MVP. Was there some sort of social change in the past decade that would lead to a new feeling of racist white pride amongst sportswriters? Not that I know of. However, the game has gained a lot of ground internationally in predominantly white countries, leading to an influx of new talent into the league. Maybe Nowitzki and Nash’s (both foreigners) MVP trophies are evidence of a fully mature foreign game and the end of a USA monopoly on basketball talent and not a racist conspiracy. This is further evidenced by the fall of the USA basketball program at the same time.
The “athletic” thing is just really racist though (Nash is fast and a good shooter, he isn’t smarter and definitely not more fundamentally sound (Iverson is probably smarter and better trained, that dude is ancient and still killing people)), but it is slightly counterbalanced by the fact that it is the new chic to compare Durant to Nowitzki (which is the first prominent interracial comparison=PROGRESS!).
This post was not meant to discourage racial discussions as America is still a racist institution ready for revolution, but I thought maybe in this case the issue could be better explained by the rising International game, not by racism.
Modi:
Amazing post, amazing response. You totally nailed it, while maintaining a professional demeanor. Impressive.
Jack McCallum made a nice argument, and was pretty diplomatic for the most part. He deserves some credit for stepping up and speaking the mind of MVP voters.
Of course in doing so he incriminated himself!
One little point I’ll add to the discussion: Often the success of the Suns is attributed wholly to Nash - you’ll read stuff like “he turned the franchise around” or “he turned them into a 60-win team”, etc. The Suns were not a bad team at all before Nash’s arrival. They had made the playoffs every season since 1989, with two exceptions, and were one of the winniest franchises in the NBA.
They failed to make the playoffs the season before Nash arrived. But they traded Stephon Marbury and Penny Hardaway in January, and had no real point guard for the rest of the season (Howard Eisley and Joe Johnson, essentially). It was a talented team, with lots of young talent -rookie of the year Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion and Barbosa. Add a point guard to that team, and it’ll go back to being a playoff team (admittedly Nash made them far better than just a playoff team, but the point being that it wasn’t a bad team to start with).
That 2003-2004 season the Suns opened 7-7 with Marbury as the point. A rough December stretch (1-9) doomed their season, and the Suns started shopping Marbury. They went 4-4 in their next 8 games before dealing Marbury. At the time the Suns record was 12-20. They would go 17-33 the rest of the season without a decent point.
Just saying, the Suns weren’t talent-less as they were leader-less.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pmIt’s obvious that this Jey fellow is an intellect and likes to pontificate on ideas that aligns nicely with his view of the world.
Yet intellectualizing is not the same as dealing with certain reality vis-a-vis, White Supremacy. I understand that racism is an insipid and vulgar form of personal expression, White Supremacy is an institutional mechanism developed and implemented to supress those who are considered “non-white” by those who considered “white”.
To be effective White Supremacy must operate on multiple levels to be self sustaining. Thus nine areas of people activities are designated as vehicles of of White Supremacy.
(1)Economics,
(2)Education,
(3)Entertainment,
(4)Labor,
(5)Law,
(6)Politics,
(7)Religion,
(8)Sex and
(9)War )
These are the vehicle with whitch White Supremacy controls the minds of the masses of various ethnicity and social classes. by utilizing the established symbols of power, e.g,..
Europe and European=Whites=civilized and civilzers=smarter=more powerfull=godlike=good=pure=…get the picture?
Now all others designated as “non-whites” are compared to this standard and are left lacking because they don’t full fill the basic criteria, being white.
Jey talks about cognitive dissonance, but what about self full filling stereotyps and the need to fit a square peg of “non-whiteness’in a round whole of whitness.
Now when people like yourself who buy into the White Supremacy mindset of “us and them”, then you will always have the Jack McCallums of the world and the Jeys’ of the world rallying around each others point and damn the others who will have a different view.
It’s interesting that the site you recomend-which seems intreresting,as a tag line that states…
“the largest site in the world on all aspects of how we change what others think, believe, feel and do.”
October 20th, 2007 at 7:11 pmJey,
Didn’t know there was a salient point?
Do you mean:
Ever notice how “exceptionally talented” black men get offended when an exceptionally talented white man gets raised to their level? It’s as if they’re saying, “How dare you say this white boy is as good as I am?” Yeah…that would be racism, as well. Go figure.
Who are you talking about? Do you mean Shaq? I tell you if I were Shaq I would question Nash’s MVP award as well. That wouldn’t be racism on his part, it would be common sense.
I guess we have moved from Media criticism to what athletes say to one another. You can’t really go there, cause like Rodman, most athletes are stupid. (not to imply that Shaq is stupid) Sportswriters are not. At least they are not supposed to be?
October 20th, 2007 at 7:29 pmGood work again Modi. I agree with this on all levels. Reinforces the conversation we had the other day. Wish I read this piece before we spoke.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:31 pmYou know, it’s important to note that without Kobe or Lebron the Lakers would be a less than 20-win team and the Cavs would probably have trouble breaking into an 8th seed. You talk about how Nash makes his team, what about Kobe or Lebron? Kobe makes the playoffs every year despite the rest of the team mostly consisting of overpriced specialists and prospects.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:41 pmSince MODI doesn’t want to re-hash the Shaq vs Nash debate of 2005, let me.
And I will do it real simple like-
Nash Dallas left via free agency, Dallas got nothing back in return. Dallas record improved by 8 games from 2004 to 2005 (58 games without Nash, 52 with him)
So, obviously Nash wasn’t the MVP of the Mavericks.
Same off season, Shaquille O’Neal was traded from Lakers to Heat. Lakers actually got players in return for their superstar: Lamar Odim, Caron Butler, Brian Grant + 1st Round Pick. They went from 56 wins with Shaq to 34 wins without him (-20). The Heat went from 42 wins to 59. (+17).
Obviously Shaq was MVP of Lakers and of Heat.
Shaq’s movement resulted in a 37 win difference and a trip to the East finals.
Now on the plus side for Nash. The Suns had a 33 win difference, so he was obviously the most valuable player to the Suns.
So let’s total it up. Demonstrably, Shaq was the MVP of both the team he left and the team he went to. Demonstrably, Dallas improved after getting nothing in return for Nash. (ie. they were a better team without him). Granted, the Suns did improve dramatically by getting Nash.
A rational person would have to conclude that Shaq was more valuable to the League, and that Nash was indeed the MVP , but only of the Phoenix Suns.
I would love to hear the counter argument, cause so far I have yet to hear one.
PS. Please can anyone tell me when in the history of sports have you seen a player leave a team for no compensation, that team actually get better, and people conclude that the player that left is the most valuable player in said league?
October 20th, 2007 at 8:12 pmjey, racial bias can result from a “natural psychological phenomenon” OR it can result from “hatred, anger, and fear”. One is benign and subtle and the other is malicious and overt. One does not have to know the source of the bias to know the result. So while I have no information to be in any INDIVIDUAL voter’s mind, one can still draw a COLLECTIVE conclusion based on a 57 - 16 vote that will just have to agree-to-disagree about… and we will probably also agree-to-disagree about every other aspect where Nash receives more favorable media coverage that extends beyond MVP voting… I simply find that the amount of evidence that you require to make a diagnosis of preferential treatment on account of race is simply not a reachable bar.
– As far as “cherry picking” goes, I thought that I was actually generous in DIRECTLY quoting about half of McCallum’s article whereas he failed to directly address my most salient MVP point (the 57-16 margin). If there is anything that I didn’t address fairly in McCallum’s article for you or ANY critic who believes there was unfair “cherry-picking”, I will gladly include an update on the subject at the end of the post.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:32 pmBadastronaut,
– To your question, as I said I many times, these things can be much more subtle and benign than “racist white pride”. The fact of the matter is that in all of these other years since Bird won his three in a row, there simply were not any top-level white serious contenders. As incredible as Stockton was, no one was ever sure if he was MVP of his own team.
– Of course McCallum knows the individual voters better than I do. But he or no one else is qualified to speak to a body of over 100 people and claiming that it is NONSENSE that anyone in this body harbors any racial bias (conscious or subconscious). Just from a statistical perspective this is ridiculous. If I tally up 100 people that I personally know who I feel most comfortable believing that they are not racially biased, I STILL would never make such a reckless statement. I have known people for more than 10 years before discovering any array of biases that they had without previously knowing.
– finally, good point about Durant-Nowitski. I always find it annoying how sportscasters will never make interracial comparisons even though they might be much more accurate than the same race ones. It was pissing me off that during Adam Morrison’s last year in college he was getting all these Bird comparisons. Besides the obvious quality factor, Morrison never rebounded OR passed, two of Bird’s great qualities. There are 100 other examples where sports casters show that they DO see race.
– thanks SML, yes I do give credit to McCallum for addressing the issue on behalf of the voters. I do believe that he is sincere in his attempt. And of course, as a voter himself he probably felt a need on some level to defend the voting body, since I recommended that it be handed over to the GMs/Coaches.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:37 pmJey:
Too many errors, too little time. I did appreciate your comment re: the political nature of the professional psychology community. Nonetheless, you’ve missed the boat and your frequent willingness to ‘argue from absence’ is not compelling.
Maybe we’ll pick it up another time.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:34 am“It’s obvious that this Jey fellow is an intellect and likes to pontificate on ideas that aligns nicely with his view of the world.”
Um, hello? Isn’t that what this dude is doing?
I have returned because something has been bugging me.
I find all this talk about the “90+% white voters” odd. What about the nonwhite voters? Are you implying that they all voted for Shaq? Or are you implying that they are “Uncle Toms”?
Is that omission racially motivated?
“Too many errors, too little time.”
We’ll just go ahead and take your word on that one, I guess.
October 21st, 2007 at 2:00 amI’ll get to you soon enough. Quick question though. You didn’t actually write that STOOPID shit at #20 - did you?
It includes this asinine, ignant, reeeedickulous comment: “Where was the NAACP’s outrage with John Singleton? After all, he is a black man that is presumably representative of the so-called race, isn’t he?”
Does Woody Allen represent you?
If you didn’t write, perhaps you should clarify the articles’ value. In any event, don’t run…I’ll get to you soon enough. I promise.
October 21st, 2007 at 3:03 amActually, on second thought, I’ll leave it alone…You are too far gone for the demonstration to have any value. You get a pass today. After reading your inane comment about why there aren’t any Mexicans in the NAACP, I decided to wash my hair.
October 21st, 2007 at 3:05 amMy mouth is still open after reading all these arguments about a MVP vote in a sport… Don’t get me wrong I love the sport & have been a fan for 20yrs but we are talking about a vote, or am I missing something?
Look at any other vote anywhere around the world & you will see people vote based on personal preference. Whether that personal preference is right or wrong is not relevant, people have and always will vote according to a preference (a bias if you will). Simply because the truth is a bias. We have agreed on certain things and we think those things make up for the truth but in fact they just represent our agreements.
So, there is no official truth, so also no right or wrong, just opinions. If we can all just respect each others opinions without using them against one and other (yes that’s where racism falls through because people use that against each other…) we would have far less problems (I know: it will never happen).
October 21st, 2007 at 5:30 amOOO (post 40)- try Babe Ruth.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:11 amTemple3,
You’re killing me with laughter. When faced with idiot savants on a blog, the next thing to do is wash one’s hair.
Killjoy,
October 21st, 2007 at 9:47 amDid you have your coffee before posting 48? Did you try Babe Ruth? How much better were the Red Sox after Ruth left Boston?
Jey states: “I find all this talk about the “90+% white voters” odd. What about the nonwhite voters? Are you implying that they all voted for Shaq? Or are you implying that they are “Uncle Toms”?”
This is a fair question. The answer is that there are probably a number of non-white voters who just like a number of white voters who concluded that Nash was the MVP for reasons that were free from racial bias. No one is suggesting that everyone who voted for Nash was racially biased. Only that when judging from the collective landslide vote that many WERE effected by bias. Which specific people, we don’t know as we are not in their heads.
– plato, there is a “bigger picture” here that Ironically I explain in the final paragraph called “The Big Picture”. Sports gives us an open window about how the world views a variety of social issues. And while you are write that the MVP vote is meaningless itself, what the vote tells us about bias is EXTREMELY important as it relates to far more important political and social decisions. Sports is merely a laboratory. We should study it and take it seriously because of the bigger picture.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:43 pmNote: The following addendum was just added to this article:
Added October 21: Sometimes you look over an article a day later and want to add what may have been missed. Here goes: McCallum has since expressed to me that the “40 years too late” comment was poorly communicated on his part and not what he meant at all. More accurately, he agrees that race relations are still 40 years behind the times. This makes far more sense as the updated clarification is much more consistent with McCallum’s larger body of work. And, even if it wasn’t, we will naturally extend Mr. McCallum the benefit of the doubt because he is white ! :-).
…..About NBA sportswriter voter incompetency: If the thrust of McCallum’s argument is that a good portion of voters are not biased because of race, but are biased because of a whole other host of reasons, well that statement doesn’t exactly comfort the soul as far as the competency of voters. Shouldn’t the most deserving player win the award free of ANY bias? Should I be comforted that Lebron may have lost an award because he may have been too young? In explaining voter biases, EVEN IF MCCALLUM WERE TO BE 100% CORRECT that race bias was no factor, doesn’t he still spell out a pretty good case to remove the vote from the writers anyway?
…I don’t know if it was articulated well enough, but I do appreciate McCallum’s willingness to respond and extend him credit for engaging in the discussion at all. And while I clearly found his response to be a flawed one, I make it a habit to not judge journalists and reporters on their worst days or worst articles or poorly-communicated sentences. Since athletes get unfairly judged in this manner by journalists all the time, as a media critic, COSELLOUT must have a fairer standard. Judging from McCallum’s larger body of quality work, the profession of sports journalism is certainly better off with him in it. There are enough people already out there whose worst days are Monday thru Friday every week for COSELLOUT to focus on. — Charles “MODI” Modiano
October 21st, 2007 at 12:45 pmMODI,
October 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pmThis last entry seems to close the chapter, allowing others to understand the lenses required to view these “insightful” articles posted by MSM. Yet, many readers do notmake the distinction between INCITEFUL and “insightful”. Great point of closure. Anything else would be revisionist or too late on the bandwagon ;-). So many COSELLOUTS, so little time. Can’t wait to see who/what you’ve lined up next.
Been busy doing this and that MODI. I happened across the McCallum article and it simply made the point once again of one of the wisest things anyone has ever said to me. A friend of mine once told me that the particular genius of white America is that they assume that they are masters of the universe. Therefore, they get to define reality. In his piece of tripe response to your post, McCallum-and make no mistake, I don’t hold the him in anywhere near the regard you do as I’ve found him to be part and parcel of the same sensationalist, moralistic, white supremacist lynch mob that defines white American Sports media-uses as the basis of his argument that notion that racie played no part in Nash’s MVP awards and his proof was……BECAUSE HE SAID SO!
F him and his piece of Shit rag.
October 21st, 2007 at 5:18 pmSteady:
The funny shit is that I don’t have any hair. Been shaved for more than a decade. ROTFLMBAO.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:45 pmTemple3,
October 21st, 2007 at 8:27 pmI guess that’s why some of us come to these blogs–for the comic relief and reading some of the idiocy that comes from people’s minds. Knowing you have no hair makes it funniest.
“Only that when judging from the collective landslide vote that many WERE effected by bias.”
So, wait…are you talking about the 1st MVP or the 2nd? Because the first one was no landslide.
Tenmple3…
Yes, I wrote that, and yes, you completely missed the point. But funny how you try and use the same argument that got blasted here. “Ridiculous” is dismissive, remember?
I will not bother explaining those two quotes to you because you failed to make an argument as to their faultiness. (That, and the comment has caused me to judge you as cognitively simple, making any further explanation of such nuanced statements pointless.)
I suggest you all…ALLLLLLLLL…look at the website I left before, www.changingminds.org, and familiarize yourself with the theories and argument topics contained therein. If you are unwilling to examine yourselves for fault, then you cannot possibly do so with others.
All of you have allowed your own biases to direct both your comments to Charles’ article and reactions to my rebuttal. In doing so, you have each missed a major part of the larger picture that I have attempted to paint for you.
I’m well aware of my biases and how they work. It is a shame that none of you can say the same.
So long, and forgive me for trying to open your minds.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 amThat site looks awful. It looks like a hodge-podge of Marketing 101 definitions___ “Arousal: When I am aroused I am full engaged and hence more likely to pay attention.”
To borrow from Rakim: “Is this the best that you can make, cuz if not, if you got more, then I’ll wait…but don’t make we wait too long cuz I’ma move on the dance floor when they put somethin’ smooth on.”
Since you’re not a ducker and dodger - and have some appetite for the conversation, I just might tackle some of these issues.
You can start us off by explaining your comment about Mexicans in the NAACP. That sounds like a wonderful place to start. Then I’ll come back to your weaknesses in argumentation posted above. Really, I will.
Then we get into all those goodies about how open your mind is - and how closed my mind is - this oughtta be guuud.
“Turn up the bass, it’s better when it’s loud…’cause I like to Move the Crowd!!”
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 amI’m this first guy to be cynical about race relations in America. And I have no doubt that few sportswriters (of any color) are colorblind.
That said, this is total BS. Yeah, keep pounding the square peg into a round hole, and you’ll get more media attention. Gotta do it somehow, I suppose.
Just a couple points: 1) O’Neal MVP in 2005? Please. Fat, terrible foul shooting and getting the benefit of every call in the lane, Shaq was not an MVP in 2005. A strong case for two or three could have been made for him in his most dominant years, but not in 2005.
2) LeBron: 4 things occur to me. a) you gotta pay your dues. Sure, there are exceptions, but LeBron is too young to win quite yet. He’ll get his share in the future. b) holes in his game. Yeah, if we award MVP for going to the hole, LeBron wins. If we award it for mid-range or 3 pt shooting, or defense of any sort, he isn’t even in the consideration. c) Or how about making your teammates better? LeBron isn’t all that great that way: the stats say his teammates are worse when he’s in the game, his assists notwithstanding. In contrast, Nash is the best in the game in that regard. d) Winning. For better or worse, 50 wins doesn’t necessarily bag you an MVP, especially in the Leastern conference. You can diss his team, but that’s when you focus on offensive stats. But given that his team was and is one of the better defensive teams in the league, that puts his teammates in a whole different light, especially since LeBron himself is consistently a clueless traffic pylon on defense.
So how about we drop the race baiting? Nash is clearly one of the best players in the NBA. Generally a combination of that plus a good team gives you an MVP.
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pmDave, how exactly does Dirk make his teammates better? Lebron is clearly the engine that runs that Cavs team. And talking about defense in a conversation about Steve Nash is one of the worst things you could ever do. Nash has been getting torched since he played at Dallas.
Doesn’t anyone find it odd that Nash’s rise to an NBA level of play only happened after he began playing Amare and Marion? He never showed that potential in Dallas, and in fact appeared to be on the decline his last year in Dallas. Yet, he came to the Suns and in his first year played with Amare, Marion, Q-Rich and Joe Johnson, and everybody gave him credit for being great? Really? Three of those four players are all-stars, all of them averaged over 15 points a game before they even met Steve Nash.
Barbosa and Diaw have played better with Nash, but has anybody noticed that Barbosa typically doesn’t play at the same time as Nash? Or that Diaw wasplaying out of position at the point guard in Atlanta? Or that Diaw’s amazing year coincided with his contract year, and is an aberration when you look at his total career stats?
How can people ignore this?
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:52 pmNash’s parents have an interesting story:
http://www.canoe.ca/2000GamesNash/nash_00sep27-sun.html
Can you imagine if all beneficiaries of settler-colonial white supremacist regimes had the same ethical code - and just packed their shit and said, “Nope, I don’t want to live in a nation where an entire CLASS of people are treated like second-class citizens.”
I can imagine the overcrowding in Canada and Europe after the mass exodus of Americans, Afrikaaners, Australians and Rhodesians. The airports would have been packed - and then no one would be tired of hearing about “race.”
But…folks decided to stay and keep all the shit their ancestors snatched up - like land, access to credit in non-competitive markets, jobs in segregated unions, homes in red-lined suburbs and all that other good stuff. Not the Nash’s. They saw clearly that no matter how hard they worked in South Africa - it would have all been a sham because whites controlled 87% of the land and a greater percentage of the wealth. Nope - they packed up the bambino and headed to Canada.
And you sorry bastards with your “racial fatigue” and your rose-colored Americana glasses think folks are here to attack Nash, but you sit on your fat asses in passive receipt of the most immoral of gifts. Hail to the chief. I am ROTFLMBAO. Don’t change, don’t worry. Tick, tock. You’re as anachronistic as a Timex.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:08 pmJey
“If you are unwilling to examine yourselves for fault, then you cannot possibly do so with others.”
Wait, so this dude is pissed at us because we don’t ascribe to his “church”. And insist on intellectualizing our perceived perception of what we think racism is, from his point of view?
As an indiot and an obvious appologist for white supremacy, you have and continue to prove the original premis behind this article. You also validate what has always ben said about the blinders of Europeanization and whitification of all discorse surrounding class, ethnicity, culture and skin color.
Linking to a site of a bunch bullshitting intellectuals who feel their ’superior’ postulations should superceed any and all emotional and physical experiences of non Eurocentric peoples you don’t know shit about, does prove the notion that racism as a belief and has a tie in to white supremacy is alive and well and living most promenently in America Inc.
You are an arrogant bastard Jey. You feel superior to us and as such you are here to lecture to, guide and correct the ‘children’ from hurting themselves.
Pay attention to what others are saying, get a clue that if so many people point out a prevailing theme surrounding a particular phenomina, it may very well mean that the presence of that theme is real.
if it’s not real to you, it’s real to me and others who see what i see.
One more thing, in order to change how I think, you must first hear what I am saying, sympathize if you can’t emphasize and step outside of your ‘whiteness’…wait, that’s the point of the article isn’t it?
Intellectualization with out any emotional content, put the brain as the centre of the universe, that is egotism.
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:58 pmKiljoy,
I think you mean Babe Ruth??
Funny MVP voting didn’t begin in MLB until 30’s.
I believe the Babe was traded/sold in 1919. BTW The Red Sox improved from a below .500 team to a slightly better below .500 team. I also think Babe pitched as well as played the field for the Sox.
Close, but no cigar. The fact that you have to go here kind of makes my point, doesn’t it?
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:26 pmFirst of all, thank you Modi, for starting this discussion, I disagree with those who think race and issues of race should not be talked about. A lot of interesting and well thought out points have been raised.
Now having said that, here’s my two cents. America obviously isn’t a colorblind society so to say that race played absolutely NO role in MVP voting, is extremely naive. However I am not willing to concede that race is the reason (the main reason, or a deciding factor) in Nash winning two MVP’s. To me a 57 - 16 victory over LeBron signifies that enough sportswriters found concrete reason to vote for Nash rather than bias. Personally I’d be more suspicious of bias playing a factor in a closer vote. (i.e. these candidates are fairly even so I’ll give it the white guy.) So while in your opinion (supported by various statistics) LeBron was the clear choice, I am sure those who voted for Nash have concrete statistical support for their own opinions. (As I didn’t vote or study the candidates that closely I can’t venture what they were)
Secondly, I like your ABR theory, I’ve had similar thoughts but had been unable to express them as clearly. I agree that this mentality exists. However, (and I realize I’m about to sound like a ABR-er) I think other factors most likely played a much much larger role than race in explaining why Nash won his MVPs to such a degree that i doesn’t even make sense to play the race card. I think that’s what McCallum was trying to explain (and did successfully for me) in his article. So while the biases he lists aren’t mutually exclusive to race, they, in my opinion, carry far more weight with the voters than race would. For instance, I think (and this in conjecture), the fact that Nash is a small guy (relatively) dominating a large man’s game played a much larger role is swaying some votes in his direction than race.
Are these biases bad? Do these biases make sportswriters unqualified to vote for the MVP? I don’t think so. Obviously it would be nice not to have biases affect the voting but Coaches and GM’s have their own biases, so having them vote wouldn’t solve the problem. The only method free from bias would be a purely statistical method, but as the MVP isn’t even specifically defined, and statistics such as assists can be counted differently, and other important aspects (alterting shots) aren’t measured and some (leadership, intimidation) can’t be measured, a statistical MVP isn’t likely to happen.
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 pmJey - when referencing the landslide, I am obviously taking about the 2nd MVP vore. Like I said in the original article. Nash over Shaq was benefit of doubt #1, Nash over Lebron was extreme B-O-D #2. With the landslide vote = The End of All Charity.
Dave _ Why does Lebron “have to pay his dues”? Where in the MVP voting criteria does it have this requirement? 30 points, 7 board, 6 assists and 50 wins playing with a bunch of scrubs sounds like dues paying to me. Also, “clueless traffic pylon” on defense, but Lebron’s defense is SUPERIOR to Nash’s! Another check for Lebron. You also state: “the stats say his teammates are worse when he’s in the game”… would you like to provide me with “point-differential” of when Lebron is in the game vs. when sitting to support such a statement?
– Temple - great link on Nash’s parents! DAMN! I really wish I read it before I wrote the article. His parents background in South Africa obviously provide a rich dimension into the type of person that Steve Nash is. I merely mentioned his parents ATHLETIC influence, but not his parents MORAL influence… no small point. Actually it is a HUGE point. A CENTRAL POINT towards what resisting white privilege is about! Maybe I’ll weave it into an addendum. DAMN! Thanks again…
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pmJones, you state: “LeBron was the clear choice, I am sure those who voted for Nash have concrete statistical support for their own opinions.”
No, there is no “concrete statistical support”… and certainly nothing that remotely separates that margin for Nash. The beauty of sports over every other discussion is that we have a statistical basis to work from. Subjectivity can only travel so far. Your rational for the margin is what psychologist like to call the “just world hypothesis”. We are predisposed to thinking the world is just. So why must the drastic margin be just? Because it is. Because THAT many people CAN’T BE WRONG! It is not comfortable to conceive that so many good people be biased in their judgements.
Now, allow me to belabor the point of the “just-world-hypothesis” because — while MVP voting is meaningless– every evil in history was allowed to persist was because of the human pull of the “just-world-hypothesis”. Roman Gladiators? Slavery? Women’s suffrage? All these thing seem so simple now, but if most people were born into these environments, they would (and did!) naturally accept these things as just. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS! And because there was so many people that “could not be wrong”…. Now, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease don’t mistake what I am writing here to a “comparison” with Nash. I take that you will understand that I’m merely discussing a natural mindset and phenomena that allows us to accept the “unjust” as just — no matter how significant or insignificant the matter is.
– Also, NO BIASES are a good thing. But since you mention the “little guy bias”, let’s go there. I agree that there is a “little guy bias”, but this bias is intertwined with race in a way that can’t be separated. Through a lifetime of watching basketball and listening to fans and journalists, I have seen “small white guys” get far more little man credit than “small black guys”. A guy like Iverson is a couple inches shorter than Nash, but just doesn’t resonate with a lot of people as the little-guy-feel-good-story-of-overcoming-the giants. No, on some vicarious level, Nash reminds voters of THEMSELVES where Iverson does not — besides being SMALLER! That is why we here all this bullshit about Nash being “unathletic”. It’s like many white people just HAVE to relate more to him that will make him more of a “regular guy”. Race is a complex subject and doesn’t neatly separate itself from other competing biases.
– I have already shown the evidence of Lebron-Nash as co-MVPs by GMs and coaches (by Sporting News) that seem to demonstrate a greater grasp on reality. For me this piece of evidence is more valuable than McCallum’s, yours, or anyone else’s conjecture that says otherwise.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:46 pmhere’s an idea. have the media vote for mvp as they do today with the same system. but also, in a separate vote, have every current nba player do the same thing.
the player that gets the most combined votes (equally weighted) wins mvp.
this new mvp voting system would include the players in voting for their peers, which would seem to make sense, and still give the media — who cover the game closely and (ideally) objectively — their chance to get things right, without being the sole judge of who wins mvp.
since the league is overwhelmingly african-american (no revelation there), and the media is overwhlemingly caucasion, the voting would reveal if race is influencing voting in a subconscious way … or it could demonstrate (when both the media and the players vote for the same person) that the mvp went to the right guy, no matter what the race of the voter.
then again, yao ming might get royally screwed… (joke)
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 amCharles, I have returned to inform you (though you probably have already seen) that some jackass is making you look very bad on my blog. If you look at the replies, then you will see how it is irresponsible to bring race into this particular discussion. It gives stupid people bad ideas.
As far as the 2nd MVP vote, I can give you a million arguments as to why it happened that do not involve race, though I’m sure that it wouldn’t change anyone’s mind.
“Wait, so this dude is pissed at us because we don’t ascribe to his “church”. ”
No, I am not pissed off. I am giving valuable advice. I have explained on my own blog why I don’t like discussing race issues, and it has to do with the futility of trying to change a person’s mind when they don’t even realize what they are doing. All I am trying to do is get people to look at it from a perspective other than the two that invariably dominate these discussions. I have pointed out people’s misconceptions on how the human mind works, and I have given information that corrects the misconceptions. Whether ot not you choose to follow through with the thinking is entirely up to you.
“As an indiot and an obvious appologist for white supremacy”
You either did not read or you missed the point of my piece on the Confederate Flag. If you read it slowly enough to take in the words, you will see that I rail against white supremecists in it.
“You are an arrogant bastard Jey.”
I may be arrogant, but my parents were married before I was born. It was close, though.
I linked to a site that says, “Here’s how people think, here’s how salesman get you to buy things, here are the fundamental mistakes people make when debating.” There is no bullshit involved. It is a useful tool when constructing persuasive arguments. I can understand if you’re intimidated by intelligence, but that’s no reason to get upset at me. I’m just relaying information that existed long before I was born.
“it may very well mean that the presence of that theme is real.”
Or it may mean that people are falling prey to the “availability heurstic,” which leads people to make decisions based on the data that is most commonly presented to them. It is why people were so afraid after 9-11. Everyone thought there were terror cells all over the place because that’s all the news talked about for weeks. It was false. Consider that hundreds of years ago “most people believed that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe.” It’s now called “Wikiality.”
“One more thing, in order to change how I think, you must first hear what I am saying, sympathize if you can’t emphasize and step outside of your ‘whiteness’”
You assume that, because I presented an argument against the content of the article, I did not hear anyone’s argument. You also assume that I’ve never heard any arguments for it. Most disturbingly, that statement implies that “white” is by definition unsympathetic. And I believe you meant to say “empathize.”
1. If you did not read the first article I linked, then you cannot assume the color of my skin.
2. You cannot assume my educational background, despite the clear and methodical way I type.
3. You cannot assume that I am unsympathetic and that I am somehow privileged because you do not know under what circumstances I was raised.
4. You cannot assume that others should think like you simply because you say so.
5. You need to take the advice that you quoted.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 amRE: Just World Hypothesis
I don’t know if this is what is happening, but it seems like it — Why is it better to assume an unjust world in this case? Why does it automatically become race, simply based on the fact that it is very difficult to quantify Nash’s impact on a team?
For example, I love Nash as a player because, on the court, he reminds me of a lot of old school point guards, color notwithstanding. He’s a witty interview, a crappy dresser, a great leader on the floor, and none of that has to do with the color of his skin. I can point to several black athletes that I enjoy watching for similar reasons (Allen Iverson is one of my favorites…no, seriously).
Bottom line — when it comes to complex explanations, why do we feel the need to simplify it using race? It’s just as bad to assume that racial biases did play a major role in voting as it is to ignore that it was a possibility. But like I said in my blog, once you acknowledge the possibility (which is very easy), you then have to address the probability (which is unprovable in this case). Just seems counterproductive to the whole idea of discussing it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 amLOL! You know Jey, even though that first post was a complete (and very well done!) mockery of me, I have to tell you that on some level, I found it a quite enjoyable read! I’ll come by your site sometime later today and do my best to respond for whatever that might or might not be worth.
Listen Jey, I’m a big boy. If I write an article exposing racial bias and white privilege I know full well that I am going to take some shit for it no matter how much evidence is presented. When you live in a country where white denial is rampant as ours, that simply comes with the territory. And it ain’t going to change anytime soon. That is PRECISELY the reason that so many reporters who DO see bias on a dialy basis won’t write about it. They will tip-toe around it, maybe even cite a list of double standards, but that is usually it.
As a rule my condition for responding to critics is predicated on something about their response that I perceive that the other person, like me, is sincerely and genuinely, wanting to find TRUTH beyond just being a lawyer in a court room. When I come on your blog, those are the commenters that I will respond to.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 amJey, you state a fair question: “Why is it better to assume an unjust world in this case? Why does it automatically become race, simply based on the fact that it is very difficult to quantify Nash’s impact on a team?”
Jey I am assuming NOTHING. The 57 to 16 vote was UNJUST. Period. End of story. I did not manufacture that vote. Bill Walton’s characterization of Nash’s athleticism– which mind you I have heard countless other similar characterizationa from fans– was UNJUST.
Nash receiving accolades for his community service while Mutombo getting no love for a 30 million dollar hospital was UNJUST. Extra media attention probably meant more dollars for that hospital. Marbury, who has done 10 times the community service as Nash getting NO PRESS this summer (unless you are counting consensual sex and free spirited interviews) was UNJUST. More than unjust. It was a TRAVESTY. I know full well that none of the article’s critics will ever get outraged enough to remedy any of these things.
So there should be no debate here on WHETHER there is a problem. And I will readily concede that MULTIPLE biases can be at work, to exclude race given all these preferential levels of treatment is absurd. I have a question for you, McCallum, and anyone else who requires more evidence to make a race-based diagnosis than sending someone to the electric chair:
Did you hold up McCallum’s 6 OTHER biases up to the same level of scrutiny that you did “race”? Are you going to put McCallum through the wringer on his proposed “ageist” bias as you do me with race? Or will you readily accept WITHOUT ANY RESISTANCE any other possible bias that comes down the pike…
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 amOne last point, and once again I love a good discussion, but you seem to be arguing that because the GM and coaches had Nash and LeBron as co-MVP that means they are unbiased, huh? So are you saying because there conclusions agree with yours or are more similiar to yours they are unbiased. That makes no sense, coaches and GM’s would be subject to the same biases as sportswriters, although perhaps you could argue that they are a more diverse group, but even then it doesn’t elimate bias. Coaches may tend to vote for players who remind them of themselves, or that played for them, or who they’ve heard are coachable, etc. It seems to me you are arguing for a pure statistical basis for the MVP, which would be the only way to elimate ALL bias.
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pmJones, I am not arguing a PURE statistical basis. If that were the case, then the tropy goes to Kobe in a unanimous decision. I have factored in hard statistics, winning, supporting cast, and intangibles. But stats cannot be completely IGNORED! 30-7-6 is simply ridiculous. 50 wins with Drew Gooden (and NOT Shawn Marion) as your 2nd best player is simply ridiculous. A 57-16 vote is simply ridiculous.
You can NEVER eliminate ALL bias, like Michael Jordan, you can only hope to contain it. Yes, GM’s and coaches are certainly not immuned to bias (racial or otherwise), but they are also the ones planning on how to stop an opposing player. That means a lot.
And no, the GM’s conclusions do not agree with mine. My personal conclusion is that Lebron should have WON the second award outright, not have it in a tie. But what even NASH SUPPORTERS must concede is that by no objective measure should Nash have won by 57-16. That vote — EVEN IF WE DISAGREE ON WHY THAT IS– is a vote of collective incompetence. In conclusion-again- reasonable people could possibly disagree on the choice — but not the final vote. So, GMs and coaches seem to be more in line with reality. The fact that my own personal opinion is also grounded in reality is purely incidental.
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:33 pmNo, I am not pissed off. I am giving valuable advice. I have explained on my own blog why I don’t like discussing race issues, and it has to do with the futility of trying to change a person’s mind when they don’t even realize what they are doing.
If you don’t like discussing race issues, why are you on here doing so?
All I am trying to do is get people to look at it from a perspective other than the two that invariably dominate these discussions.
What other two points are there? There is or is not!
I have pointed out people’s misconceptions on how the human mind works, and I have given information that corrects the misconceptions. Whether ot not you choose to follow through with the thinking is entirely up to you.
The human mind is influenced by it’s environment, it does not arrive at a position from a void and since emotion is greater than environment, your emotional context and influence affects you subconsciously more than any conscious intellectualization.
You either did not read or you missed the point of my piece on the Confederate Flag. If you read it slowly enough to take in the words, you will see that I rail against white supremecists in it.
There is conscious and unconscious support for a white supremacist system, I will give you some information to read slowly so you’ll understand that the KKK are racist, but don’t practice a SYSTEM of white Supremacy.
I linked to a site that says, “Here’s how people think, here’s how salesman get you to buy things, here are the fundamental mistakes people make when debating.” There is no bullshit involved. It is a useful tool when constructing persuasive arguments. I can understand if you’re intimidated by intelligence, but that’s no reason to get upset at me. I’m just relaying information that existed long before I was born.
How intelligent can your conversation be, when you dismiss the premes and the views off the bat? Yeah I am so intimidated by your intelligent argument, because of your parroting arguments not your own but appears intelligent to you
Or it may mean that people are falling prey to the “availability heurstic,” which leads people to make decisions based on the data that is most commonly presented to them. It is why people were so afraid after 9-11. Everyone thought there were terror cells all over the place because that’s all the news talked about for weeks. It was false. Consider that hundreds of years ago “most people believed that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe.” It’s now called “Wikiality.”
Obfuscation and misdirection will not change the fact that on this topic your intellectualization does not carry weight.
You assume that, because I presented an argument against the content of the article, I did not hear anyone’s argument. You also assume that I’ve never heard any arguments for it. Most disturbingly, that statement implies that “white” is by definition unsympathetic. And I believe you meant to say “empathize.”
Thank you for correcting my English, fine sire, yet as you deduced I know you only hear what you want to hear. The statement about “white” being unsympathetic…. wait for the information on White Supremacy, though I have no hope or care if you take your blinders off.
1. If you did not read the first article I linked, then you cannot assume the color of my skin.
Where did I mention or refer your skin color.
2. You cannot assume my educational background, despite the clear and methodical way I type.
Where did I assume your educational background?
3. You cannot assume that I am unsympathetic and that I am somehow privileged because you do not know under what circumstances I was raised.
Where did I assume you were privileged. I care not how you were raised, but you’re right I assume you are unsympathetic.
4. You cannot assume that others should think like you simply because you say so.
But…that’s exactly what you are trying to get MODI and the rest of us to do!
5. You need to take the advice that you quoted.
In the matter of ethnicity and the conflict around skin tone and white supremacy, I cannot advise me…you can seek same from me.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:57 pmI meant you cannot adivse me.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:57 pmSankofa:
It would help me a great deal if you put the speaker’s positions in quotes or italics or something. Thanks.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 pm