|
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
|
Posted by sebstar:
Papabear is perhaps getting a bit carried away, but those sort of sentiments surface when one sees a campaign waged against Marbury where he is called everything from a retard to a cancer.
I know everyone feels justified for one reason or the other, but last I checked he is still wearing orange and blue, he is coming off a really good year, and he was granted a very strong piece in the form of a productive power forward.
If you guys want to use this board as a "first wives club" or sorts where people can vent their spleen and indict Marbury over past sins, fine; Marbury has a checkered past that is defined by his self-created disappointments. It just sucks that all it takes is a few losing season for NY fans to jump ship and turn into insufferable, whiny, a-holes.
Not to overly press the matter, but do you or do you not think Bear's comments were off the mark? You say "perhaps." Is it fair to insinuate that an isolated "campaign against Marbury" underlies a hidden agenda against "outspoken" black men? I would even give you the benefit of the doubt and say "maybe" if the attacks were couched in a camouflaged inductive argument, littered with historically charged language. But, they are not - not in the least. Any remaining evidence would lie in the general views of posters on this site but they only further crush any claim of racism: in other words, the distribution of appraisal of black players is largely favorable. The only other player mocked for his "intelligence" is Nate, who of course initiated the brawl last season. Eddy is criticized for a lack of effort but he is notorious for weight problems, poor defense, poor rebounding and restricted minutes played. Jeffries isn't criticized for anything other than gross incompetence on the court. Mardy, Balkman, Frye, Chandler, Crawford, Malik Rose and Richardson are praised among most and, in my estimation, certainly not criticized with regard to intelligence or effort. While the current sample size of white players is too small to afford a meaningful comparison, I'd say the overwhelmingly positive evaluation of our black players makes any large-scale bias against black players unlikely. Once again, 8 of 11 get positive "intelligence and work ethic" reviews and, of those, I'd call Rose and Richardson oustpoken. The 3 players that receive extra-curricular criticism are also the ones most objectively deserving - as shown easily by an abominable history of media reports.
Also consider the reaction Bogut received for his comments - many by the same posters that criticize Marbs. Bogut, for his oustpoken and inarticulate tirade against the "NBA" life, was called a retard and a hypocrite, the same labels with which Marbury is tagged. So being an outspoken black player is hardly the criteria for censure on this board; instead, outspoken nonsense, unqualified by race, is what is not tolerated. Look further at what Bogut said. He made an argument that one might infer to be inductively racist (likely incorrectly), due to his selective criticism of patently "black" luxury items (ex. "bling") and a failure to clarify or reject the implied causative relationships with wasteful behavior. Regardless of whether you believe his comments to be racist, note that he received harsh criticism for both his confused ramblings and potentially racist motivations. In other words, the faulty inductive argument which posters (like Trueblue) ardently condemned then is the same offense with which they are now being accused. So, again, history is in their favor and, barring a major conspiracy, any suggestion of racism is unjustified and insulting.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
|
8/2/2007 10:48 PM