Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by BlueSeats:


And being more offended when a white calls a black woman a bitch, I believe, is a function of his own racial bias.

No its actually a function of social and historical context. White people and black people have a long history around behavior and language that isn't pleasant. We are really only 1 generation removed from being lynched, castrated, called boy, nigger, black bitch, not being able to vote, etc. My father grew up in that era. In fact, when you said I 'speak of myself as black' because i am light skinned side and you assumed that i was mixed, its actually relevant to this discusssion (and a source of great laughter to my mom and I, its now an ongoing joke). I'm not mixed. both parents and all 4 grands are black. However, I wouldnt in the least bit be surprised if somewhere down the line a femal ancestor of mine was raped by a white man somewhere and thats what accounts for my light skin. There was a time not so long ago, when it wasnt really all that unusual.

So put into a historical context, it makes perfect sense to me and millions of other black people why the comments would be offensive coming from anyone but more offensive from a white person. The presumption is that we are dealing with racism + sexism as opposed to just racism. Does not that compound the situation?

You tell me, am I supposed to be more offended if a black woman calls me a pr!ck than a white woman doing the same?

Or when a black woman does it am I supposed to feel racially offended?

Would you let black history excuse Isiah if he raped her?


[Edited by - blueseats on 10-28-2007 9:28 PM]

1. I am not excusing Isiah of anything, if he called her a bitch, its reprehensible, unprofessional, inappropriate, period.

And you miss the point entirely, do black woman have a history of oppressing white men, calling them monkeys, trying to prove they are less than human, less inteligent, hypersexual rapists? NO. However, white people have a long painful history of doing that to black people and an example just popped up a week or 2 ago here: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece
So there is no history that would make you more offended, but there is too much history the other way around.

Killa, I really don't think we'll ever get anywhere with this conversation until you explain why you think Isiah chose to inform the questioner that he felt it less troublesome when a black man calls a black woman a bitch. As you say, if he did it "it's reprehensible, unprofessional, inappropriate, period," and a white man was not involved in the alleged infraction, so what is the relevance of Isiah's racial feelings to the case?

I'm not sure if this relevant


Allow me to interject here if I may but my recollection of the case may be a little cloudy but one of the details that came out was when ABS went to Mills and informed him a Top exec who I believe was white was calling her a *****. He refused to do nothing about it so she took this issue up with I SAY UGH.

I'm not sure if you two have discussed this, if what I'm saying is true.

If I'm wrong and this has no relevancy to the current debate between you two, then my apologies.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 10-28-2007 8:56 PM]

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Killa, we can argue forever over the appropriateness of Brown's approach, or how much time and power he should have been granted, etc, but to dismiss the myriad of factors outside of race that played into people's feelings about Brown is self-serving, IMO.

well it wasnt so much his whitenesss as it was his Jewishness. I think Jewish knick fans gave him a blank check and never wavered one bit, and I think alot of that had to do with him being Jewish. I can't prove it, its not a big deal, but someone brought it up in reference to Isiah, so I thought I'd chime in abotu LB. Its what people do, I'm not really mad at that too much. Likewise, I think the way the media plays up this stuff about Isiah, race is a factor.

How do you even know which posters are Jewish?

[/saracasm]Its either that or many white fans and writers have started to really really care about the welfare of black women and children in this country. [/saracasm]

Right, you are the only fair one here, the rest of us want to go back to slavery.

On the contrary, I am not an Isiah supporter, its just I dont think he is the Ayotollah either, which translates to supporter to many people.

I wouldn't expect you to want much to change so long as Marbury is your favorite player.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 10-28-2007 9:47 PM]
[/quote]

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by BlueSeats:


How do you even know which posters are Jewish?

The same way you know which posters are black.

I only know when they tell me. But I bet I read these boards as avidly as you do and the only posters I remember to be jewish here are Arkrud and Nalod. You're making huge sweeping assumptions about the people who supported brown based on the ethnicity of two or three such people? Smells like ethnic stereotyping to me.

Right, you are the only fair one here, the rest of us want to go back to slavery.

Somehow I feel a cordial discussion is becoming not so cordial anymore. What is this supposed to mean?

Killa, I always feel cordial toward you. The passage I replied to insinuated that white people would never genuinely care about black women or children. I found the assersion offensive enough to warrant a sarcastic and caustic reply.

I wouldn't expect you to want much to change so long as Marbury is your favorite player.

Did you even read what I wrote? I say i dont hate isiah but dont love him and you read that as I dont want change? wow. FYI, Marbury is no longer my favorite player.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 10-28-2007 9:47 PM]

I said I wouldn't expect you to want change. But lets be honest, you were pretty pro Isiah and Marbury at one point in time, as was I. That they have fallen from grace, even in your eyes, speaks to the same troublesome qualities that bothers many others here, including Blacks, Whites, Christians, Jews, Asians, etc.

Why does it always have to be about race?

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by BlueSeats:


And being more offended when a white calls a black woman a bitch, I believe, is a function of his own racial bias.

No its actually a function of social and historical context. White people and black people have a long history around behavior and language that isn't pleasant. We are really only 1 generation removed from being lynched, castrated, called boy, nigger, black bitch, not being able to vote, etc. My father grew up in that era. In fact, when you said I 'speak of myself as black' because i am light skinned side and you assumed that i was mixed, its actually relevant to this discusssion (and a source of great laughter to my mom and I, its now an ongoing joke). I'm not mixed. both parents and all 4 grands are black. However, I wouldnt in the least bit be surprised if somewhere down the line a femal ancestor of mine was raped by a white man somewhere and thats what accounts for my light skin. There was a time not so long ago, when it wasnt really all that unusual.

So put into a historical context, it makes perfect sense to me and millions of other black people why the comments would be offensive coming from anyone but more offensive from a white person. The presumption is that we are dealing with racism + sexism as opposed to just racism. Does not that compound the situation?

You tell me, am I supposed to be more offended if a black woman calls me a pr!ck than a white woman doing the same?

Or when a black woman does it am I supposed to feel racially offended?

Would you let black history excuse Isiah if he raped her?


[Edited by - blueseats on 10-28-2007 9:28 PM]

1. I am not excusing Isiah of anything, if he called her a bitch, its reprehensible, unprofessional, inappropriate, period.

And you miss the point entirely, do black woman have a history of oppressing white men, calling them monkeys, trying to prove they are less than human, less inteligent, hypersexual rapists? NO. However, white people have a long painful history of doing that to black people and an example just popped up a week or 2 ago here: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece
So there is no history that would make you more offended, but there is too much history the other way around.

Killa, I really don't think we'll ever get anywhere with this conversation until you explain why you think Isiah chose to inform the questioner that he felt it less troublesome when a black man calls a black woman a bitch. As you say, if he did it "it's reprehensible, unprofessional, inappropriate, period," and a white man was not involved in the alleged infraction, so what is the relevance of Isiah's racial feelings to the case?

killa, I still would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TrueBlue:


I'm not sure if this relevant


Allow me to interject here if I may but my recollection of the case may be a little cloudy but one of the details that came out was when ABS went to Mills and informed him a Top exec who I believe was white was calling her a *****. He refused to do nothing about it so she took this issue up with I SAY UGH.

I'm not sure if you two have discussed this, if what I'm saying is true.

If I'm wrong and this has no relevancy to the current debate between you two, then my apologies.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 10-28-2007 8:56 PM]

True, I don't remember that, got a quote?

I just don't get it though. You're saying ABS went to Mills complaining that a white exec was calling her bitch, and when he did nothing she took it up with Isiah? Why would she when she asserts Isiah was also calling her a bitch? And who was the exec, was he under Isiah's domain? And did Isiah do anything, seeing how he finds it more offensive when a white man does it?

I'll try to find something on this but yes this exec was under I SAY UGH in some fashion and through discussion according to her he fired back and confirmed she was a *****.

gotta love it.

In another article I looked up he says this about the Frank Murphy allegations

http://www.courttv.com/trials/thomas_isiah/091707_ctv.html

"I am not tolerating that," Thomas said of Murphy's alleged statements. "I am not accepting that."

I'd like to know is Murphy(he was a right hand Chief exec of I SAY UGH) still an employee of MSG and if so what was his punishment since according to his deposition he finds it highly offensive for a white man to call and black woman a *****?

I have a hunch nothing happened to Murphy and he probably got a promotion as soon as it was brought to I SAY UGH'S attention he did so.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 10-28-2007 10:45 PM]

I'm gonna guess that Murphy got canned or punished, so Isiah's statement that it was less offensive when a black man does it was in regard to why Murphy got punished, while being white, but Marbury and Isiah faced no reprocussions for similar behavior.

Posted by BlueSeats:

I'm gonna guess that Murphy got canned or punished, so Isiah's statement that it was less offensive when a black man does it was in regard to why Murphy got punished, while being white, but Marbury and Isiah faced no reprocussions for similar behavior.

In the warped universe that is MSG we both come to 2 different conclusions which are hilarious and at the same time sad in nature.


You believe he got canned

I believe he's been recently promoted

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I'm gonna guess that Murphy got canned or punished, so Isiah's statement that it was less offensive when a black man does it was in regard to why Murphy got punished, while being white, but Marbury and Isiah faced no reprocussions for similar behavior.

In the warped universe that is MSG we both come to 2 different conclusions which are hilarious and at the same time sad in nature.


You believe he got canned

I believe he's been recently promoted

My hunch didn't come out of the blue, the guys name kinda rung a bell, but I needed to confirm:

Sources: Isiah, VP Had 'Wild Argument'
30th January, 2006 - 4:09 am
New York Post - Anucha Browne Sanders and Frank Murphy are listed as senior vice presidents with full-page bios in the Knicks media guide.

Both worked under Isiah Thomas and both are gone now. Sanders left before filing a sexual harassment suit against Thomas. Two sources said Murphy's departure also came under suspect circumstances, despite the club's company line that he retired.

Two sources said Murphy, the senior VP of Basketball Operations who managed the team's salary cap and structured contracts, agreed to a "retirement settlement" late in preseason only after a "wild argument" with Thomas.

"It's been a well-kept secret in the organization what the argument was over," one source said. "Even the top executives like Anucha didn't know."

A Knick official said Murphy actually was the liason between Sanders and Thomas. Hence, Sanders and Thomas did not speak often, the Knick official said.

The Knicks say several different people have inherited Murphy's job. Murphy, 64, had worked for the Knicks since 1990.

"I have no comment," Murphy said. "I'm just enjoying retirement."

Larry was Jewish?

Are we going so secular that we need a "WWW.KnickJew.com"?

I propose we just stop the racial thing and unite in one front!

No matter what facts come out about the Anucha situation, people are still gonna want to believe that Isiah is guilty of saying or doing the things claimed against him. Forget that there really isn't anything more than he said she said. Forget that the taped deposition was doctored to make his comments seems offensive and wrong. None of that matters cuz people don't like him and he's a poor GM. The Knicks have been losing so must be guilty and he's got to pay. The fans at the Garden don't even know why they're booing him. They've been duped and don't even know it. Some here are in the same boat and in time they'll come to see that, but for now it's more convenient to pile on and kick a man when he's down.

The Rutgers Coach got the facts and retracted her statements. The question is will many of you do the same?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10292007/sports/knicks/just_win__isiah_.htm?page=2

Perhaps the momentum Thomas needed to excavate himself from this hole came from Stringer making her apology because it was the only show of support Thomas has gotten since the trial began Sept. 10.
Thomas has even been railroaded by two-faced NBA commissioner David Stern, who has kept this issue alive, perhaps to distract from the real deadly issue facing his league - the integrity of his referees following the Tim Donaghy scandal.
The defamation of Thomas' character has left him in a zombie-like state for too many days this preseason. No matter what he says to try to clarify things, nobody wants to listen. He feels suffocated. It is true Thomas never actually said it was "OK" for a black man to call a black woman a "bitch," something Stringer acknowledged in her apology. That was just a front- page headline in another paper.
Stringer, on Saturday night, said her view on Thomas' dep osition was wrong. After a 20-minute phone conver sation in which Thomas ex plained about the edited dep osition, Stringer came out with a statement.
"It was not my position to insult Mr. Thomas in any way," Stringer said. "I responded to a question of which I had partial information and was not aware of the full text of Mr. Thomas' statement."
During the deposition, Thomas was asked whether it's as severe for a black man to call a black woman a "bitch" than for a white man to do so. "Not as much," he said. "And I'm sorry to say, I do make a distinction. A white man calling a black woman a bitch is highly offensive."
Thomas says the tape was cut before he added it's more offensive because of "perceived racial overtones." During his testimony, Thomas said, "I am highly offended by any male referring to any black female a bitch."
Point taken. Thomas' transgressions may have added to a "hostile work environment," but not sexual harassment.
Thomas has to realize the only place he needs to win now is on the basketball court and everything else will take care of itself.

http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/blog/2007/10/what_he_said.html

What is fact is that this tape was edited by Anucha Browne Sanders' lawyers and presented to the court at the trial. What is also fact is that the MSG lawyers had the right to object to the video, but didn't.
The lawyer who interviewed Isiah in this video asked him about a Garden executive, Frank Murphy, who is a white male, about an incident when Browne Sanders says Murphy called her a "bitch." Thomas was asked if that violated an employee code of conduct.
"Let me put it to you this way, that would have violated my code of conduct, OK?" Thomas replies.
Then after a pause, Isiah adds, "And, maybe I’m not supposed to go there, but I’m going to go there anyway, a white man calling a black female ‘that,’ it’s on with me too. I’m not tolerating that, I’m not accepting that. So if it's going down that road, with a black female and a white male saying that to her, that's a problem for me. Screw this conduct thing.”
The clip ends there and jumps about 42 minutes ahead (there is a clock in the bottom right corner) in the interview (Fact: we don't know if this was a break in the deposition or if the interview continued in another direction).
The lawyer says, "You stated earlier that you found it offensive for a white man to call a black woman a bitch. Do you remember that testimony?"
Isiah (nodding): "Mm-hm."
Lawyer: "Please say 'Yes.'"
Isiah: "Yes."
Lawyer: "Would you find it also offensive for a black man to call a black woman a bitch?"
Isiah pauses a minute, gestures with his hand as if he's considering the differences in his mind before he offers, “Not as much, no, and I’m sorry to say, I do make a distinction.”
Lawyer: "But if I'm correct from your earlier testimony, a male calling a woman a bitch you find to be offensive?"
Isiah: "Most definitely."
Lawyer: "Black or white?"
Isiah: "Black or white. But, a white male calling a black female a bitch is highly offensive to me.”
The interview moves on to Thomas' relationship with Browne Sanders. It's actually almost comical to hear Thomas seriously discuss the usage issues of the word "bitch" in one breath and then hear the lawyer abruptly ask, "Mr. Thomas, do you find Ms. Sanders attractive?"
But that is the extend of the comment that made headlines. You can see that by removing the comment from it's context, the statement "Not as much, no" in response to whether or not he found it offensive for a black man to call a black woman a bitch is condemnable. But within the context of the conversation -- knowing the point Isiah was going out of his way to make -- you eventually see that he does acknowledge that black or white, the use of the word toward the woman is offensive.
What he revealed was, in his mind, there are varying degrees, depending on race, which is also an issue. Thomas has since explained that his statement about the higher sensitivity of a white man calling a black woman a "bitch" has to do with the racial undertones of it.
Isiah reveals that he does see the word in different colors. This notion that we're all the same and should be viewed the same is misguided from a socialogical standpoint. That doesn't mean we can accept, appreciate and respect our differences. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't be treated the same.
But we can't expect to be viewed the same.
Fact is, Isiah never said it was not offensive for a black man to call a black woman a bitch, he said it was more offensive to him for a white man to do it. But the deposition clearly states that he acknowledged it was offensive, black or white. Period.
He created this headache for himself by deciding to go there in the deposition. He is free to speak his mind, but others are also free to criticize him for it. As long as they have all of the facts.