Author | Thread |
AUTOADVERT |
firefly
Posts: 23224 Alba Posts: 17 Joined: 7/26/2004 Member: #721 United Kingdom |
![]() Posted by misterearl: Not sure how you mean. Zach was seen as a troublemaker because he, well, made trouble. He came to NY and didnt make a peep. No trouble whatsoever, and people commented on that. Good for him, he changed peoples minds around. He then got traded, regressed and caused more trouble and people said "Boy its lucky we traded him, we thought he had changed but he failed himself again". Thats the way it goes. He came to NY and people gave him a second chance. He then made the same mistakes again and the more times he does, the less likely people will be to trust him to change again. Not sure what your point is, but if you want to use the way people percieve Zach Randolph as a racial commentary, I would ask you to read about Joey Barton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton. People will give you a chance regardless of color until you prove them wrong one too many times. And if your point is that historical context skews peoples view of current events, I would say that each situation should be judged on its own merit, like the cases of Zach Randolph and Joey Barton, unless discrimination is seen to be institutional. If the cops werent racist to Gates, then they werent racist regardless of how racist other cops were to other victims. Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not?
|