Posted by Papabear:

I don't know why you brought up Larry Bird. Did he call Anucha a bitch?

Papabear Says

That my point!!! Why in the hell are you guys comparing on bringing up Zeke to Imus??? You can't have it both ways. Bird and Zeke had thier run ins. And Bird was good at calling brothers names in games.
You miss the point. Slavery is not 150 years old. We were trained to use the word bitch and other names and it will take time to get it out of our systems. If I'm on a bus sometimes I go straight to the back when there seats in the front and I have to catch myself. Thats because as a kid down south I had to sit in the back of the bus. Old wounds are hard to heal. But I'm over it. I will say the same thing Zeke said and only a black man who has been through things can understand, unless he is an uncle Tom.
If a white man called a black woman a bitch or black bitch I would be more offended than a black saying it. I still would not like it if a black man said it and I would correct him and tell him that it was wrong. If a white man told me to sit in the back of the bus I would be very offended. If a black bus driver told me to sit in the back of the bus I wouldn't like it but I'd be less offended.

Papabear

Posted by Papabear:

Bear, I feel like I'm going in circles with you. You're not really addressing any of my points and bringing up Larry Bird, whose relevance to this conversation remains below zero, won't help. Plus I know the history well.

Zeke and Imus are being compared with regard to how their statements may encourage such behavior among the African American community. This is of growing concern, Hill claims, because of the already enormous misogenistic message in rap and black comedy. Since Zeke is more of a role model than Imus to the African American community, especially young males, his comments are more destructive in that context. That's really the whole argument.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

I think the main point Papabear is missing is that Hill isn't saying Isiah is "as bad or worse" than Imus, whatever that means. She is saying that, since Isiah is an influential African American, the destructive impact of his statements on the African American community is greater.

Isiah isn't an influential African American anymore than Larry Bird is an influential Caucasian. That claim is completely and totally absurd. No one cares or is influenced by the things Isiah Thomas says, his views and statements hold no weight in the black community. Any argument she makes on those grounds is flimsy especially when one compares it to Imus, a man whose radio listenership is 2 million a day, if he likes a book, its on the best seller list. Thats influence, read the article I posted.

Comparing Imus to Oprah would be more appropriate, kind of, Oprahs primary audience is middle class white women.

I think you're missing the context. Its absurd to think Imus is more influential than Isiah in terms of encouraging young African Americans to engage in similar behavior. Hill clearly means "influential" in terms of being viewed positively and likely to be emulated by African Americans.

Posted by arkrud:

Agree.
White people of America should look ot Meggy Teatcher, Napoleon, and Winston Churchill.
By the way what half Kenian/Half white Obama and south African Nelson Mandella have to do with African Americans.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

I think the main point Papabear is missing is that Hill isn't saying Isiah is "as bad or worse" than Imus, whatever that means. She is saying that, since Isiah is an influential African American, the destructive impact of his statements on the African American community is greater.

Isiah isn't an influential African American anymore than Larry Bird is an influential Caucasian. That claim is completely and totally absurd. No one cares or is influenced by the things Isiah Thomas says, his views and statements hold no weight in the black community. Any argument she makes on those grounds is flimsy especially when one compares it to Imus, a man whose radio listenership is 2 million a day, if he likes a book, its on the best seller list. Thats influence, read the article I posted.

Comparing Imus to Oprah would be more appropriate, kind of, Oprahs primary audience is middle class white women.

I think you're missing the context. Its absurd to think Imus is more influential than Isiah in terms of encouraging young African Americans to engage in similar behavior. Hill clearly means "influential" in terms of being viewed positively and likely to be emulated by African Americans.

An average black man on the street is more influential to black kids than Imus, that still doesnt make an average black man on the street influential. I'm not missing any context at all, Isiah Thomas is not influential, black kids are not looking up to him, period. I know who black kids think are influential and I know it isnt him, he is not a player and he retired before they were even born. They dont care about him at all.

So the argument now is that Isiah is warping the minds of black children?!?! ROFL. This is a weak argument and it is baseless. Every black person with a good job who is tangentially related to sports or entertainment is not influential. It simply doesnt work that way and you'll have to trust me on this.

Dean Killa, I suggest you re-think your opinion on who is so obviously not influential to African Americans. Just as you know many African Americans who don't look up to Thomas, I know many that do. So, its a bad starting point for you to presume that you are undeniably right.

I think you're going to great lengths to miss the point here. How absolutely influential Isiah may be isn't even that important. This is an opportunity for the black community to set a standard - to rebuke harshly a sexist comment from Isiah/Marbury just as Imus was rebuked. To really make sexism a major issue, separate from racism. Hill obviously feels that African Americans entertainers are major culprits in perpetuating sexist culture and she thinks, that by making a fuss about Isiah, we can emphasize that sexist behavior is unacceptable in any community and in any arena.

Remember, there was no other prompt for Isiah to add race to the issue. I am interested in knowing your opinion of that, Killa. When Isiah muddled the situation by giving his opinion on white people using the b-word, he ends up putting forth a statement that seems to be making an excuse for Marbury (and maybe himself). This is what appears to have set Hill off. And rightfully so.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

Dean Killa, I suggest you re-think your opinion on who is so obviously not influential to African Americans. Just as you know many African Americans who don't look up to Thomas, I know many that do. So, its a bad starting point for you to presume that you are undeniably right.

I think you're going to great lengths to miss the point here. How absolutely influential Isiah may be isn't even that important. This is an opportunity for the black community to set a standard - to rebuke harshly a sexist comment from Isiah/Marbury just as Imus was rebuked. To really make sexism a major issue, separate from racism. Hill obviously feels that African Americans entertainers are major culprits in perpetuating sexist culture and she thinks, that by making a fuss about Isiah, we can emphasize that sexist behavior is unacceptable in any community and in any arena.

Remember, there was no other prompt for Isiah to add race to the issue. I am interested in knowing your opinion of that, Killa. When Isiah muddled the situation by giving his opinion on white people using the b-word, he ends up putting forth a statement that seems to be making an excuse for Marbury (and maybe himself). This is what appears to have set Hill off. And rightfully so.

We are talking about young black people who Isiah Thomas is allegedly influencing badly by a comment he allegedly made in private, correct? We'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm black, live in Harlem, have many young people in my family, worked with young people in this and other neighborhoods most of my adult life. I'm pretty confident I know what young black kids are into. As coincidence would have it, I also grew up as a young black kid, so I am familiar with the pattern for how this influence develops, and it almost always has to do with the player, the singer, the actor, etc. Not the hype man, the back up singer or the coach. But I will concede that I cannot be absolutely certain about IT's influence among young people.

Before I go any further, are you a member of the community you are opining about/on? I ask because it contextualizes remarks you are making about things you think African American community ought to be doing.

Hill obviously feels that African Americans entertainers are major culprits in perpetuating sexist culture and she thinks, that by making a fuss about Isiah, we can emphasize that sexist behavior is unacceptable in any community and in any arena.

I disagree with this premise. This Isiah thing is hardly the watershed moment you and/or she is trying to paint it as. The comment was alleged to have happened for one. If he said it, its bad in general, and completely inexcusable in the workplace. This however, has no broader significance for the black community. Isiah Thomas is an individual and if he behaves in the way he is being accused of, hes an *******. Black people have *******s in their community, should we start a movement over all of them? What makes what he did so egregious that a movement ought to be started based on this incident?

That many black entertainers perpetuate sexist culture is undeniable. That they ought to be the starting point for a debate or attack against sexism seems misguided to me. The sexism of black entertainers isnt the mother of sexism in the larger society, its the other way around. Sexism is as American as apple pie. If anyone is serious about dealing with sexism, they need to start at the root cause, not at the edge of a branch.

Lastly, she mischaracterized his opinion. She said:

"Nevertheless, Thomas is now on record giving quasi-approval to calling black women "bitches," and that's just as reprehensible and damaging as Imus labeling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos."

This statement is false. He never gave quasi approval. He said he makes a distinction in terms of the degree of disaaproval. In his mind, and mine, its bad both ways, one is worse. How much worse one is than the other is left open to interpretation. Maybe he quantifies the offensiveness of a black guy saying it as 98, and a white guy saying it is 100. Maybe its 50 vs. 100. We dont know.

But what I can say with absolute certainty, is that her characterization of his stance (which many on this board have done as well), is false and misleading.




[Edited by - Killa4luv on 09-23-2007 09:09 AM]

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

Dean Killa, I suggest you re-think your opinion on who is so obviously not influential to African Americans. Just as you know many African Americans who don't look up to Thomas, I know many that do. So, its a bad starting point for you to presume that you are undeniably right.

I think you're going to great lengths to miss the point here. How absolutely influential Isiah may be isn't even that important. This is an opportunity for the black community to set a standard - to rebuke harshly a sexist comment from Isiah/Marbury just as Imus was rebuked. To really make sexism a major issue, separate from racism. Hill obviously feels that African Americans entertainers are major culprits in perpetuating sexist culture and she thinks, that by making a fuss about Isiah, we can emphasize that sexist behavior is unacceptable in any community and in any arena.

Remember, there was no other prompt for Isiah to add race to the issue. I am interested in knowing your opinion of that, Killa. When Isiah muddled the situation by giving his opinion on white people using the b-word, he ends up putting forth a statement that seems to be making an excuse for Marbury (and maybe himself). This is what appears to have set Hill off. And rightfully so.

We are talking about young black people who Isiah Thomas is allegedly influencing badly by a comment he allegedly made in private, correct? We'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm black, live in Harlem, have many young people in my family, worked with young people in this and other neighborhoods most of my adult life. I'm pretty confident I know what young black kids are into. As coincidence would have it, I also grew up as a young black kid, so I am familiar with the pattern for how this influence develops, and it almost always has to do with the player, the singer, the actor, etc. Not the hype man, the back up singer or the coach. But I will concede that I cannot be absolutely certain about IT's influence among young people.

Before I go any further, are you a member of the community you are opining about/on? I ask because it contextualizes remarks you are making about things you think African American community ought to be doing.

Hill obviously feels that African Americans entertainers are major culprits in perpetuating sexist culture and she thinks, that by making a fuss about Isiah, we can emphasize that sexist behavior is unacceptable in any community and in any arena.

I disagree with this premise. This Isiah thing is hardly the watershed moment you and/or she is trying to paint it as. The comment was alleged to have happened for one. If he said it, its bad in general, and completely inexcusable in the workplace. This however, has no broader significance for the black community. Isiah Thomas is an individual and if he behaves in the way he is being accused of, hes an *******. Black people have *******s in their community, should we start a movement over all of them? What makes what he did so egregious that a movement ought to be started based on this incident?

That many black entertainers perpetuate sexist culture is undeniable. That they ought to be the starting point for a debate or attack against sexism seems misguided to me. The sexism of black entertainers isnt the mother of sexism in the larger society, its the other way around. Sexism is as American as apple pie. If anyone is serious about dealing with sexism, they need to start at the root cause, not at the edge of a branch.

Lastly, she mischaracterized his opinion. She said:

"Nevertheless, Thomas is now on record giving quasi-approval to calling black women "bitches," and that's just as reprehensible and damaging as Imus labeling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos."

This statement is false. He never gave quasi approval. He said he makes a distinction in terms of the degree of disaaproval. In his mind, and mine, its bad both ways, one is worse. How much worse one is than the other is left open to interpretation. Maybe he quantifies the offensiveness of a black guy saying it as 98, and a white guy saying it is 100. Maybe its 50 vs. 100. We dont know.

But what I can say with absolute certainty, is that her characterization of his stance (which many on this board have done as well), is false and misleading.




[Edited by - Killa4luv on 09-23-2007 09:09 AM]