PDA

View Full Version : Wow, Jason Whitlock


CC.SD
10-18-2007, 02:27 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7343980

Normally I think this guy is a buffoon, but I think this is one of the more poignant and interesting pieces on the state of the NFL that I've read this year, and I thought some people here might be interested.

Shiver
10-18-2007, 02:30 PM
Alright, normally I would let a thread play out before pulling the plug. There is no chance that this will create any productive discussion. This is an overtly racial discussion and even though Whitlock pretends that it isn't, he still insinuated that having rosters with more white guys is a good thing. This will get ugly fast and I don't want to hand out six infractions in the first page of this thread. Maybe if I had more trust in the intelligence and tact of the posters here this could work, but I don't.

Scott Wright
10-18-2007, 05:04 PM
Even though I'm definitely not a Whitlock fan I think this is an interesting article and definitely worthy of discussion. I guess this will be a good test case to see if our posters can have an intelligent conversation on a controversial topic without it getting out of hand.

Personally, I really don't know if I agree or disagree...

Flyboy
10-18-2007, 05:11 PM
That article made me laugh.

Geo
10-18-2007, 05:14 PM
The bit about pointing out the number of non-African-American players on the Colts and Patriots was a hollow point, I felt. If they couldn't contribute well to the team, they wouldn't be there no matter their skin color or heritage. Both Belichick and Dungy are defensive-minded coaches, and their defenses are predominantly black, no? So it's a rather stupid point to try to make, in my mind.

Undrafted free agent rookie defensive tackle Ed Johnson is starting over third round pick and All-American at Ohio State Quinn Pitcock, but how can that be when Johnson is black and Pitcock isn't, Whitlock? And Johnson was suspended twice at Penn State? omg he must have been a product of a "hip-hop culture." http://cubloc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Also, I couldn't put much credence in attributing the behavior/attitude of Chad Johnson and Larry Johnson to a "hip-hop culture." LJ has some deal with Jay-Z's media company/interests, but it's still stretching it, in my mind.

I've never respected Whitlock much at all, and I'm probably not going to comment on this article further, as it strikes me to have been written for the sake of inciting response than any actual merit. Unfortunately, this isn't a rare tactic in the world today.

Flyboy
10-18-2007, 05:15 PM
"LJ has some deal with Jay-Z's media company/interests, but it's still stretching it, in my mind."

For some reason, it surprised me that you knew that Geo. Kudos, sir.

diabsoule
10-18-2007, 05:19 PM
I found that to be one of the most thought-provoking, well-written, and poignant articles I have read about football. He makes two interesting points: the first being how the Indianapolis Colts and New England Patriots rosters contain league high white and non-African American players. The second point is about how Hip-Hop culture has been affecting the league performers, most notably Chad Johnson and Larry Johnson.
In my opinion we have seen how Hip Hop culture has already effected one of the major leagues in professional sports, the NBA. We see how players like Ron Artest and Allen Iverson act and are punished for their actions and we are beginning to see those type of actions in the NFL. Whether or not we see a brawl like the one that occurred at the Palace in Auburn Hills or a player attack his coach like Latrell Sprewell did remains to be seen. However, like Jason Whitlock stated, the rise of Hip-Hop culture and the need to rebel just to rebel in the NFL is having an adverse effect rather than a positive effect.

Vikes99ej
10-18-2007, 05:25 PM
I still don't see where he gets Chad Johnson from.

princefielder28
10-18-2007, 05:26 PM
The NFL is a refelction of today's society like everything else. It is an entertainment industry. People love when they get entertained whether it be sports, sex, or violence. The NFL falls obviously under the sports category and some players feel it is necessary to do more than just play the game. Celebrations, arguing, and other media gestures are used so an individual gets noticed and provides an "entertaining" game for the audience. If people didn't care or it wasn't a part of our culture then people wouldn't do it quite as frequently. I will not dive into the race aspect of this, but I love what Whitlock had to say.

stephenson86
10-18-2007, 05:28 PM
the only thing working against african americans athletes in this area is that, the majority of problem players in the NFL are african americans so they are all being scrutanised really

scottyboy
10-18-2007, 05:29 PM
A lot of these players act like primadonnas. They feel they're invincible. TO, come on, grow up man. Yea the sharpie thing was cute, and the camera thing was hilarious, but the note in front of the locker? The nap celebration? Alot of these guys feel they're invincible and can do whatever they want. Look at the "love boat", Pacman and Henry's multiple run ins with the law. I'm not one to say the for sure this is influenced by hip-hop/rap culture, but some of the lyrics in certain artists' songs sure dont help.

GB12
10-18-2007, 05:29 PM
I thought this article was pretty rediculous. It did make me think of something though, why do people make such a big deal out of the number of black QBs? If you're going to do that why is there never any talk about the number of white RBs? Ask almost any football fan and they'll come up with at least twice(I'd even say higher, but let's go with that) as many black QBs than white RBs. I just find it odd how we make a big issure out of one but nothing out of the other.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-18-2007, 05:43 PM
this article is worth less. Sure teams are looking to avoid character concerns but the fact that most of the recent headcases have been black has little to do with their race and more to do with their environment while growing up. Sure the fact that a higher percentage of black families are poor plays a role but again attributing that direct directly to their race is just stupid.

Moses
10-18-2007, 05:54 PM
Yuck, couldn't even get through it. Just more senseless racist garbage that isn't drawing outrage because it is written by a Black.

Average OT LB
10-18-2007, 06:00 PM
The bit about pointing out the number of non-African-American players on the Colts and Patriots was a hollow point, I felt. If they couldn't contribute well to the team, they wouldn't be there no matter their skin color or heritage. Both Belichick and Dungy are defensive-minded coaches, and their defenses are predominantly black, no? So it's a rather stupid point to try to make, in my mind.

Undrafted free agent rookie defensive tackle Ed Johnson is starting over third round pick and All-American at Ohio State Quinn Pitcock, but how can that be when Johnson is black and Pitcock isn't, Whitlock? And Johnson was suspended twice at Penn State? omg he must have been a product of a "hip-hop culture." http://cubloc.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Also, I couldn't put much credence in attributing the behavior/attitude of Chad Johnson and Larry Johnson to a "hip-hop culture." LJ has some deal with Jay-Z's media company/interests, but it's still stretching it, in my mind.

I've never respected Whitlock much at all, and I'm probably not going to comment on this article further, as it strikes me to have been written for the sake of inciting response than any actual merit. Unfortunately, this isn't a rare tactic in the world today.

wow very well spoken article. I agree with many of your points, but despite that i still find whitlocks article to be very truthful and intriuging. In my mind, the bottom line is the pats and colts are the two best teams, and they have the most white players.. and i find that astonishing

Average OT LB
10-18-2007, 06:06 PM
I thought this article was pretty rediculous. It did make me think of something though, why do people make such a big deal out of the number of black QBs? If you're going to do that why is there never any talk about the number of white RBs? Ask almost any football fan and they'll come up with at least twice(I'd even say higher, but let's go with that) as many black QBs than white RBs. I just find it odd how we make a big issure out of one but nothing out of the other.

thats a different issue though, as the quarterback position seems to be one developing into a costly position. I read an article a while ago about a qb coach who had trained jp losman big ben leinart and jimmy clausen and he cost alllot of money..

one could also point to the CB as a position prodiminately black as well, seeing as how jason sehorn was the last white corner in the leauge.. and that was quite some time ago..

The issue however is basically whitlock sayin culture affects the attitude of the players, not so much what positions they play..

Moses
10-18-2007, 06:08 PM
thats a different issue though, as the quarterback position seems to be one developing into a costly position. I read an article a while ago about a qb coach who had trained jp losman big ben leinart and jimmy clausen and he cost alllot of money..

one could also point to the CB as a position prodiminately black as well, seeing as how jason sehorn was the last white corner in the leauge.. and that was quite some time ago..

The issue however is basically whitlock sayin culture affects the attitude of the players, not so much what positions they play..

It has nothing to do with the colour of their skin. All these players go to college in the same environment. They're all mature adults by the time they enter the NFL. Whatever poor decisions they make can only be blamed squarely on themselves, whether they are white, black, purple, or green.

Average OT LB
10-18-2007, 06:12 PM
It has nothing to do with the colour of their skin. All these players go to college in the same environment. They're all mature adults by the time they enter the NFL. Whatever poor decisions they make can only be blamed squarely on themselves, whether they are white, black, purple, or green.

so you feel that the culture affects them all equally and its up to the person to respond? and i dont believe i understand you correctly because implying that they all live in the same enviroment would suggest they are all affected by the same culture.. is that not a correct assumption? If it is, i believe that to be wrong.

SchizophrenicBatman
10-18-2007, 06:14 PM
edit: nvm
.....

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-18-2007, 06:18 PM
It has nothing to do with the colour of their skin. All these players go to college in the same environment. They're all mature adults by the time they enter the NFL. Whatever poor decisions they make can only be blamed squarely on themselves, whether they are white, black, purple, or green.

How many people do you know who grew up in environments where most people were below the poverty line? I can't argue that people from environments like that aren't raised differently than people from middle class or upper middle environments. You're right that race has nothing to do with it but more black players come from poor environments.

Moses
10-18-2007, 06:18 PM
so you feel that the culture affects them all equally and its up to the person to respond? and i dont believe i understand you correctly because implying that they all live in the same enviroment would suggest they are all affected by the same culture.. is that not a correct assumption? If it is, i believe that to be wrong.

In college, they're all in the same environment. How is it any different for a white or black player?

Moses
10-18-2007, 06:19 PM
How many people do you know who grew up in environments where most people were below the poverty line? I can't argue that people from environments like that aren't raised differently than people from middle class or upper middle environments. You're right that race has nothing to do with it but more black players come from poor environments.

So essentially it has nothing to do with race is what you're saying...

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-18-2007, 06:23 PM
So essentially it has nothing to do with race is what you're saying...

I've been saying that since my first post, but your point that the only reason players do stupid things is they're own mistake is wrong.

Moses
10-18-2007, 06:25 PM
I've been saying that since my first post, but your point that the only reason players do stupid things is they're own mistake is wrong.

"their".

Who's/what's fault is it when a mature adult who has been given every chance to succeed messes up?

Green Bay Scat
10-18-2007, 06:31 PM
what is this so called "hip hop attituded?" i dont understand that, its like hes puting all the eggs in one basket. its funny cause my friend calls our 1 and only white CB, hope, Hope that more white people can play corner. But really this all stems from College where they dont recruit white RBs(D-1a) it seems and if they do its to convert them to FB, and most White corners move to saftey or go to WR. i dont understand the whole thing, if some can ball in a position does it really matter what Color they are.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-18-2007, 06:46 PM
"their".

Who's/what's fault is it when a mature adult who has been given every chance to succeed messes up?

if the adult feels what he did was wrong and did it anyway, you blame the adult. If not you've gotta blame not only the adult but also their environment, everyone from the parents to the people around the adult.

duckseason
10-18-2007, 06:52 PM
African-American football players caught up in the rebellion and buffoonery of hip hop culture have given NFL owners and coaches a justifiable reason to whiten their rosters.
Wow what an ignorant statement. Since when is hip-hop culture exclusive to "african americans?" Thought provoking my ass. This dude is perpetuating racism and emboldening the dividing lines between the different shades of brown that exist within humanity.

I find it hilarious (and sad) that he lumps all non dark-skinned players together as being in one group which he refers to as "the whites" and separates them from the "blacks." What the heck makes Junior Seau any more "white" than Tony Dungy? Is Hines Ward "white" too? What the heck is wrong with people? We all belong to the same race. Our ancestors may have come here from many different places across the globe, but they're all human. And everybody who was born in the same neighborhood as me shares a lot more similarities to me than somebody born in Czechoslovakia.

You don't judge people by the color of their skin. Sorting and lumping large groups of people together based on pigmentation is only useful if you place meaning behind those colors. Placing meaningful judgments on people based on their skin color is an exercise in ignorance. You judge people by their individual character; not rob them of it. Whitlock's 'us versus them' mentality disgusts me. I look forward to the day that people stop perpetuating racism in the name of cultural advancement or some other nonsensical bs reason cultivated by ignorant minds. Somehow I doubt we'll see that day in our lifetimes. Whitlock is doing harm with this piece, not good. It does provoke thought within me. The first of which was- "wtf is wrong with this guy?"

SeanTaylorRIP
10-18-2007, 06:56 PM
I think people are overthinking this it's nothing more than an old guy who is making a generalization about a culture he knows little about and trying to find a scape goat or a reason for some dumb individuals actions, because in America we can never blame an individual for their own actions, we always have to find something to blame which could have triggered it. As for the rest I read some pretty offensive posts in this thread towards blacks as if we are the bad guys when really the bad guys are bad despite race, it isn't about race. I just don't like how people will say that we should not be racist, and in the next sentence knock on blacks as if we are all one people, which I personally find very offensive, but again that's just my 2 cents.

TitanHope
10-18-2007, 06:57 PM
what is this so called "hip hop attituded?" i dont understand that, its like hes puting all the eggs in one basket. its funny cause my friend calls our 1 and only white CB, hope, Hope that more white people can play corner. But really this all stems from College where they dont recruit white RBs(D-1a) it seems and if they do its to convert them to FB, and most White corners move to saftey or go to WR. i dont understand the whole thing, if some can ball in a position does it really matter what Color they are.

Jason Sehorn FTW!!!

Ahem, the point about the Colts/Patriots, in my view, is the ability to take data and turn it into an argument. How about their front offices are two of the best in football? Or that they draft incredibly well? They have won a Super Bowl in the last 5 years? They have the two best QB's in the league playing for them? Or possibly that their head coaches are also among the best in the NFL? I think race has little to do with everything. They look for high character guys, but I know more jerks who are white than I do that are black. Besides, last time I checked even the kids in the suburbs of Tennessee listened to rap music. If it's about culture and not race, then why do black players need to be singled out? This argument is meritless in my view and is just something his stat guy found for him.

Larry Johnson indeed has ties to Hip-Hop with Jay Z. The symbol he makes with his hands when he scores a touchdown is supposed to referrence to this connection somehow. Some rap does teach that money, possessions, and women are cool to have and the more that you have the better. Johnson is the only credible argument he makes, due to the Jay Z ties. He's seen that lifestyle up close, and he wants it. His hand symbols in the endzone reinforces this idea.

I love Chad Johnson.

But I think hearing it is one thing and acting on it is another. I kill aliens on Halo but I'm not firing a pistol at the stars. It's an influence, and I think to say an influence like music or something like that is an insult. I blame it on ego. These guys make a lot of money and are constantly in the spotlight. They have the, "I can do what I please due to my status" mentality. Punks is punks no matter how dark the pigment of their skin is.

The Unseen
10-18-2007, 07:07 PM
Jason Whitlock making race a point in his columns.

What else is new?

Scott Wright
10-18-2007, 07:08 PM
All I can say is it's wrong to lump Chad Johnson into the same category as Pacman Jones. If Whitlock limited his argument to guys like Pacman and Tank I think he'd get a lot more support for his stance but even though some people love him (I do) and some people hate him it's not like Chad Johnson is getting into trouble with the law on a weekly basis. There are however plenty of bad apples in the NFL right now, both black and white, and I am glad to see Commissioner Goodell taking a hard line with them.

EdReedUnstoppable
10-18-2007, 07:16 PM
Good article, I disagree with it because the black athlete is the better athlete and as long as you can play the game at a higher level you'll always have a job.

Moses
10-18-2007, 07:26 PM
if the adult feels what he did was wrong and did it anyway, you blame the adult. If not you've gotta blame not only the adult but also their environment, everyone from the parents to the people around the adult.

I don't understand, you'll need to rephrase.

Adults are 100% responsible for their actions, period. If you go out and kill somebody, the blood is on your hands. Not your parents. Not your friends. Not the police. Not video games. Not movies. Not music.

Paranoidmoonduck
10-18-2007, 07:28 PM
All I can say is it's wrong to lump Chad Johnson into the same category as Pacman Jones. If Whitlock limited his argument to guys like Pacman and Tank I think he'd get a lot more support for his stance but even though some people love him (I do) and some people hate him it's not like Chad Johnson is getting into trouble with the law on a weekly basis. There are however plenty of bad apples in the NFL right now, both black and white, and I am glad to see Commissioner Goodell taking a hard line with them.

I read Whitlock's lumping of Johnson and Jones together in regards to their impact on winning. Of course, Johnson's is less so considering that he is actually playing on Sundays, but Whitlock seemed more concerned with locker room presence than police run-ins.

As for the actual article, it strikes me as an interesting idea muddied by poor writing, inconsistent thought, and a needlessly injected sense of urgency. The fact that the Colts and Patriots are two of the least black teams in the NFL is an interesting statistic, but I don't really think it is terribly indicative of anything. In fact, I'd be more interested in seeing the racial makeup of all teams, because I'm betting that there's little relation to winning or locker room peace when you look at all 32 teams.

The worst part of this article is Whitlock's insinuation that somehow Chad Johnson and Adam Jones are going to shut the door that Jim Brown and others opened. I don't think a few misbehaving players is going to change a single thing except make teams pay more attention to how much a potential discipline issue incoming players will be (something teams have already been doing for a long time). Add in Whitlock's love of the word "buffoon" and this was a thoroughly poor article.

LonghornsLegend
10-18-2007, 07:51 PM
I wish people would stop trying to talk about the reasons black athletes act a certain way, and everyone is so sure..."oh he doesnt listen to his head coach, and he loves to be the center of attention, he must listen to hip-hip" :rolleyes: Im so sick of that, I guess Marilyn Manson teaches respect in the community, now if a black athlete doesnt act the way he should, he is a product of hip hop...

Is there some sort of poll for these types of things? How do you know whats to credit for their behavior? Does Marvin Harrison and Torry Holt not listen to rap music because they act like they have some sense? Any time a black athlete acts like he doesnt have some sense people always have an alterior motive, must be hip hop, did anyone think maybe its those guys personalities, they probably acted the same way in pop warner when no one was listening to rap that heavy at that age...

They probably always cared more about their stats, how they played over who won the game, but because their grown and it must be a reason for it, lets blame hip hop, because Im pretty sure Soulja Boy teaches Chad Johnson to not listen to his coaches, and yes Larry Johnson rolls with Jay-Z, what messages does Sean Carter give in his music that supports the attitude that LJ has?? Ive yet to hear it, how about the white athletes who act just as crazy, they MUST listen to rap music because that is the source of all problems, rap is why people rob stores, kill eachother, and are rebels in society today, smh...im so sick of that argument its not even funny


Add in Whitlock's love of the word "buffoon" and this was a thoroughly poor article.


Thats why I cant, and usually dont read ANYTHING that has his name or picture at the top, he was loosely using terms like "bufoon", "bojangle", etc that leads me to believe its biased towards blacks as a whole, I dont care what color he is...If you want to list statistics and form an opinion fine, but how about not throwing around terms some would mistake for being a racist, especially seeing as how these terms were definately not needed to make his case

Borat
10-18-2007, 07:58 PM
Linking the Pats/Colts whiteness to winning is ridiculous. It's nothing more than coincidence. Oh, and it doesn't hurt that they just happen to have 2 hall of fame QBs leading them. Not to mention great management and very detailed coaches.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-18-2007, 08:15 PM
Well, I've yet to read the whole article, but based on the first few lines, he does have a point. However, I believe he shouldn't be pointing his finger at black players as a whole, because obviously Marvin Harrison is a high class guy, same with Torry Holt. Both black players. Jared Allen, a white guy, has/had DUI problems. This should be aimed at problem players, period.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-18-2007, 08:31 PM
Wow what an ignorant statement. Since when is hip-hop culture exclusive to "african americans?" Thought provoking my ass. This dude is perpetuating racism and emboldening the dividing lines between the different shades of brown that exist within humanity.

I find it hilarious (and sad) that he lumps all non dark-skinned players together as being in one group which he refers to as "the whites" and separates them from the "blacks." What the heck makes Junior Seau any more "white" than Tony Dungy? Is Hines Ward "white" too? What the heck is wrong with people? We all belong to the same race. Our ancestors may have come here from many different places across the globe, but they're all human. And everybody who was born in the same neighborhood as me shares a lot more similarities to me than somebody born in Czechoslovakia.

You don't judge people by the color of their skin. Sorting and lumping large groups of people together based on pigmentation is only useful if you place meaning behind those colors. Placing meaningful judgments on people based on their skin color is an exercise in ignorance. You judge people by their individual character; not rob them of it. Whitlock's 'us versus them' mentality disgusts me. I look forward to the day that people stop perpetuating racism in the name of cultural advancement or some other nonsensical bs reason cultivated by ignorant minds. Somehow I doubt we'll see that day in our lifetimes. Whitlock is doing harm with this piece, not good. It does provoke thought within me. The first of which was- "wtf is wrong with this guy?"

I essentially agree with what you're saying. But the bolded part, this is probably just nitpicking but it actually helps out your argument as well, if we wanna get technical we all came from East Africa. From there, we migrated north, some stayed, some went into Europe, some Asia, some across the Bering Strait into the Americas. It was from adapting to the climate where we received certain "mutations" for lack of a better word over the 2 million or so years to properly adapt to our environment. Asians have thinner eye openings and high cheeks to block the snow in winter from getting into their eyes. Black people have dark skin because the sun reacted with something in their bodies causing deep pigmentation. They also have faster twitch muscles most likely because they needed to chase down prey which was faster than the average European animal, because of the open space. And Europeans are white and hairy because it's cold, and for some other reason I can't exactly remember at the moment. Either way, if we all lived in the same place for the 2 million years we've been a species, we'd all look the same.

ks_perfection
10-18-2007, 08:38 PM
Yup, Hip-Hop made me do it.

If only Pacman had used this defence, he'd be still playing in the league right now. Afterall its not his fault, he's the victim here.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-18-2007, 08:47 PM
I don't understand, you'll need to rephrase.

Adults are 100% responsible for their actions, period. If you go out and kill somebody, the blood is on your hands. Not your parents. Not your friends. Not the police. Not video games. Not movies. Not music.

I wish that were the case too many people in this world aelre weak willed and so are dominated by the people around them.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-18-2007, 08:47 PM
Yup, Hip-Hop made me do it.

If only Pacman had used this defence, he'd be still playing in the league right now. Afterall its not his fault, he's the victim here.

The best defense is still "It seemed like a good idea at the time". It shows a bit of remorse, even.

"Why did you start a fight at the strip club?"

"It seemed like a good idea at the time"

"Why did you illegally keep so many guns in your house?"

"Seemed like a good idea at the time*"


*zombie defense is also acceptable as a response.

yourfavestoner
10-18-2007, 08:56 PM
Wow what an ignorant statement. Since when is hip-hop culture exclusive to "african americans?" Thought provoking my ass. This dude is perpetuating racism and emboldening the dividing lines between the different shades of brown that exist within humanity.

I find it hilarious (and sad) that he lumps all non dark-skinned players together as being in one group which he refers to as "the whites" and separates them from the "blacks." What the heck makes Junior Seau any more "white" than Tony Dungy? Is Hines Ward "white" too? What the heck is wrong with people? We all belong to the same race. Our ancestors may have come here from many different places across the globe, but they're all human. And everybody who was born in the same neighborhood as me shares a lot more similarities to me than somebody born in Czechoslovakia.

You don't judge people by the color of their skin. Sorting and lumping large groups of people together based on pigmentation is only useful if you place meaning behind those colors. Placing meaningful judgments on people based on their skin color is an exercise in ignorance. You judge people by their individual character; not rob them of it. Whitlock's 'us versus them' mentality disgusts me. I look forward to the day that people stop perpetuating racism in the name of cultural advancement or some other nonsensical bs reason cultivated by ignorant minds. Somehow I doubt we'll see that day in our lifetimes. Whitlock is doing harm with this piece, not good. It does provoke thought within me. The first of which was- "wtf is wrong with this guy?"

THANK YOU. Race is nothing more than a social construct anyways. At it's roots, skin color means absolutely nothing. It's no different than a person's eyes being a different color than somebody else's. It's a worthless variable to categorize people as.

I agree that he's not doing anything except trying to get a reaction from his readers, and the only reason why he's not catching hell for writing this is because he's black. He's also pretty much insinuating that the Patriots and Colts are racist teams, who intentionally have more "white" players on their roster to create a "stable environment."

The reason why the "hip hop culture" (which Whitlock is obviously clueless on anyways") is so prevelant is because it has a HUGE CULTURAL FOLLOWING. LOTS of different people, from different backgrounds are entertained by it. That's why some of these players act out in the way they do. Because the media broadcasts it, because it drives up ratings because people eat it up.

God, Whitlock is such a dumbas..

Moses
10-18-2007, 08:57 PM
I'm impressed. For once, a discussion like this seems to have the majority of NFLDCers thinking rationally.

Flyboy
10-18-2007, 09:04 PM
i'm disgusted that ANYONE thinks this garbage is "thought-provoking".



you people seriously believe that crap is interesting? or that "hip hop culture" has some vague relevance? or maybe it's that i should be shocked that non-african-american (what the hell does that even mean? should we lump william joseph [haiti] in with christian okoye [nigeria] just because they both look similar on a color pallette?) players suddenly suck a little bit less (even though there are still 10% more "black" players on indy's roster?

no, i was wrong. disgusted doesn't even begin to describe how i feel about anyone who thought this crap was interesting. i'd recommend some of you leave the suburbs for a few hours. the real world is an interesting place.

Holy crap, for once I agree with njx. Let me check to see if it's snowing outside.

ShutDwn
10-18-2007, 10:13 PM
I think the biggest difference between the Colts and Patriots compared to other teams is that they just seem to want to win more. Regardless of color they have pretty good character guys. (Though the Patriots can be huge douche bags on the field). However, you can always say they have ___ white players, but how many are impact? For the Colts, Peyton and Dallas Clark are the only guys outside the oline. Addai, Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Sanders, Bracket, they are all African American.

I just think the difference between them and others is that they just get guys who want to win and have great work ethic.

CC.SD
10-18-2007, 11:00 PM
I think the point he is seriously missing when he talks about how the Pats and Colts are white, is that they are the two most successful teams of the last decade. Clearly the players are doing something right, regardless of race.

ks_perfection
10-18-2007, 11:27 PM
Does anyone know how big of a difference between those 2 teams and an average team in terms of "non blackness".

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-18-2007, 11:42 PM
Does anyone know how big of a difference between those 2 teams and an average team in terms of "non blackness".

Giants have 14 not counting Koets and Boss, we might have another white olineman, not sure

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-18-2007, 11:48 PM
although both the giants and pats have 10 non-black starters

CC.SD
10-19-2007, 12:18 AM
Also:

Thanks Whitlock for introducing the term "non-black starter" into the world.

I'm also not crazy about his use of the word "bojanglers."

TitanAddict
10-19-2007, 12:27 AM
It has nothing to do with the colour of their skin. All these players go to college in the same environment. They're all mature adults by the time they enter the NFL. Whatever poor decisions they make can only be blamed squarely on themselves, whether they are white, black, purple, or green.

I'm not so sure ... Just because you go to the same college doesn't mean you share the same environment. There are 80 something players on most college teams. It's not as if there aren't "good guys" and "trouble makers" on all teams. Some kids on the football team study at night, some hang out with their girl friends, others get into trouble. Birds of a feather flock together ...

I agree with Whitlock about the culture bit. He should have used 28 Days Later as a source -- you know, the part about how monkeys were force-fed violent images and ended up contracting "The Rage" ??? Maybe Pacman and Chris Henry contracted some sort of "Rage" virus at West Virginia ...

Moses
10-19-2007, 12:32 AM
I'm not so sure ... Just because you go to the same college doesn't mean you share the same environment. There are 80 something players on most college teams. It's not as if there aren't "good guys" and "trouble makers" on all teams. Some kids on the football team study at night, some hang out with their girl friends, others get into trouble. Birds of a feather flock together ...

I agree with Whitlock about the culture bit. He should have used 28 Days Later as a source -- you know, the part about how monkeys were force-fed violent images and ended up contracting "The Rage" ??? Maybe Pacman and Chris Henry contracted some sort of "Rage" virus at West Virginia ...

If you go to the college, live in the same dorms, etc. as all the other players, you cannot blame your environment for the way you act. You have every opportunity to pick your friends, etc. It's not like their are guys living in extreme poverty in college and guys that are living the high life. Everybody is on relatively equal footing.

VoteLynnSwan
10-19-2007, 12:48 AM
the reason the Patriots and the Colts are the two best teams in the league is because they have the two best quarterbacks in the league, not because they have more white people.

Whitlock makes one legit point here though... That teams need to look exclusively at the high character guys... however what he fails to mention is that high character is not limited exclusively to white players.

VoteLynnSwan
10-19-2007, 12:51 AM
If you go to the college, live in the same dorms, etc. as all the other players, you cannot blame your environment for the way you act. You have every opportunity to pick your friends, etc. It's not like their are guys living in extreme poverty in college and guys that are living the high life. Everybody is on relatively equal footing.

I don't agree with this... You're acting as if where someone was brought up has nothing to do with the way they end up acting...

You can't honestly tell me that one person on a college football team who is from a farm somewhere in the bible belt would act the same way as another player on the same team from say a poor community in a metropolitan city.

You keep mentioning that all the blame is on the individual. I'd agree with this, but to say that their culture, or their friends does not effect the way they act simply cannot be considered true.

VoteLynnSwan
10-19-2007, 12:58 AM
oh stop it. how many nerdy kids go to college, decide they don't want to be the dorky kid who gets picked on anymore, and change accordingly. if someone wants to change, it's not difficult. if they don't, it's because they have personally chosen not to. ESPECIALLY if they're being handed a free college education simply because they run fast. the environment excuse is interesting only in the context of people who aren't capable of changing their surroundings. a college athlete has already done that.

Well I'm not arguing that it isn't the person's personal responsibility to change to act accordingly to their situation... I'm just saying that the culture that they grew up in affects who they are.

Moses
10-19-2007, 12:59 AM
oh stop it. how many nerdy kids go to college, decide they don't want to be the dorky kid who gets picked on anymore, and change accordingly. if someone wants to change, it's not difficult. if they don't, it's because they have personally chosen not to. ESPECIALLY if they're being handed a free college education simply because they run fast. the environment excuse is interesting only in the context of people who aren't capable of changing their surroundings. a college athlete has already done that.

Exactly. These guys have all been given the chance to succeed. It's up to them to realize that opportunity.

Moses
10-19-2007, 01:02 AM
Well I'm not arguing that it isn't the person's personal responsibility to change to act accordingly to their situation... I'm just saying that the culture that they grew up in affects who they are.

These players are 17 or 18 years old when they arrive at college. There is still PLENTY of time for personal development.

Geo
10-19-2007, 01:29 AM
Thanks Whitlock for introducing the term "non-black starter" into the world.
Got to love how we don't have to give a **** about other minorities because Whitlock is black and that's all that matters, so let's just group the rest in a non-black designation. Ugh.

adschofield
10-19-2007, 02:28 AM
As a Kansas City native who reads his articles weekly, I tell you to take the article with a grain of salt...Whitlock always exaggerates to make a point, so just keep that in mind.

Cashmoney
10-19-2007, 02:42 AM
i didnt take time to read everyone elses posts so sorry if this has already been said, but i believe the "problem" teams are having with african american athletes is largely due to the fact that the major majority of the NFL is african american. if the NFL was 70% white, then it would probably have many "problems" from them as well. he makes it sound as if all white football players are not problems. ryan leaf had an attitude problem, how did that turn out? i could go on and on....

duckseason
10-19-2007, 02:53 AM
If you go to the college, live in the same dorms, etc. as all the other players, you cannot blame your environment for the way you act. You have every opportunity to pick your friends, etc. It's not like their are guys living in extreme poverty in college and guys that are living the high life. Everybody is on relatively equal footing.

I partially disagree with this. I don't think you can "blame" your environment for the way you act, but it does have an impact on who you are. And environment is more than just a physical thing. Your own head is your constant immediate environment, and everybody's head has been on a different roller coaster. The environmental impact on your personality that you've experienced throughout those first 18 years trumps whatever your surroundings are in college.

These players are 17 or 18 years old when they arrive at college. There is still PLENTY of time for personal development.

Definitely true. But I believe that early childhood is where we form the foundation of our identities. For example, if you never really received adequate nurturing from your parents or others, you may be more susceptible to grow into a more violent or shy adult. Maybe you'll have a hard time trusting people. Or perhaps your parents were over protective and spoiled you, resulting in a person who relies greatly upon others and has trouble dealing with adversity. The point is that what you experience as a child has a profound impact on who you become for the rest of your life.

Your behavior traits and other individual characteristics are constantly being influenced by what is going on around you. You control how you react to your environment, but your environment is something that most people have little to no control of until they become independent adults. Another thing to consider is genetics/epi-genetics. Part of your identity has already been created by the time you drop out of that flesh cave. I hear what you're saying about being responsible for your own actions and having complete control over every choice you make, but I think most people have formed the majority of their identity by the time they reach college age. Your past has an impact on every choice you make in your future. These football players don't show up at the dorm room with a blank slate.

thule
10-19-2007, 03:05 AM
This article lost all credibility with me when he lumped Two people who have had multiple run-in's with the law...with two entertainers.

I mean TO and Johnson love to get on the field and give people a show...hell sometimes even off of the field..but it's not like they are breaking laws.

Both Tank and Pacman are law breakers...I just don't get how you can lump them together and make an article.

Moses
10-19-2007, 11:11 AM
I partially disagree with this. I don't think you can "blame" your environment for the way you act, but it does have an impact on who you are. And environment is more than just a physical thing. Your own head is your constant immediate environment, and everybody's head has been on a different roller coaster. The environmental impact on your personality that you've experienced throughout those first 18 years trumps whatever your surroundings are in college.



Definitely true. But I believe that early childhood is where we form the foundation of our identities. For example, if you never really received adequate nurturing from your parents or others, you may be more susceptible to grow into a more violent or shy adult. Maybe you'll have a hard time trusting people. Or perhaps your parents were over protective and spoiled you, resulting in a person who relies greatly upon others and has trouble dealing with adversity. The point is that what you experience as a child has a profound impact on who you become for the rest of your life.

Your behavior traits and other individual characteristics are constantly being influenced by what is going on around you. You control how you react to your environment, but your environment is something that most people have little to no control of until they become independent adults. Another thing to consider is genetics/epi-genetics. Part of your identity has already been created by the time you drop out of that flesh cave. I hear what you're saying about being responsible for your own actions and having complete control over every choice you make, but I think most people have formed the majority of their identity by the time they reach college age. Your past has an impact on every choice you make in your future. These football players don't show up at the dorm room with a blank slate.

I disagree with a lot of this. How does your past environment trump your current environment? People adapt to their surroundings. That's how the maturity process works. Example:

Kid lives in projects, surrounded by violence, no positive role models, etc.
--> Adapts to this. Likely becomes a troublemaker, hardened, and violent.

Kid is a star football player and is recruited to a top college program under full scholarship
--> Will likely start off as a troublemaker. However, soon he will see that this is not accepted in his new culture. If he doesn't adapt, it's a problem with him, not his environment. Why wouldn't he adapt? Likely because he's just stupid and doesn't have the mental capabilities to understand the need for change. Few people are actually this stupid which is why only a small group of people remain troublemakers.

That's just a rudimentary example. There are few guys that don't adapt in the grand scheme of things. For every Pacman, there is 10 Warrick Dunn's. The NFL is looked upon like a group of thugs, when in reality there is only a very small percentage of bad apples. A lot of the so-called bad apples aren't even terrible people. They make mistakes just like the rest of us. I wouldn't consider somebody failing a drug test, getting in an altercation at a nightclub, etc. indicative of a problem-person. This happens to millions of people every year. The difference is they are under the microscope.

duckseason
10-19-2007, 04:39 PM
I disagree with a lot of this. How does your past environment trump your current environment?
What I mean by that, is that the environment you were exposed to as a kid has a much more profound effect on who you become for the rest of your life than does any other period of your life. We're constantly maturing as people, but the bulk of your identity has been formed in the earliest stages of your life. By the time you reach college age, the foundation of your personality has been solidified. You'll continue to mature and certain characteristics will change, but at nowhere near the rate they were formed as a young child. You no longer have a blank slate. Like I said in my previous post, your past has an impact on every choice you make in your future. Every experience you've had in your life is felt in butterfly effect form for the rest of your life. I believe that these effects lose strength with age. The experiences you had as a young child have the most powerful effect, while things you experience today may not effect you noticeably at all. A big reason for this is maturity level. You can't help but be influenced deeply by everything you're exposed to as a baby. But you are in complete control of yourself as a young adult.


People adapt to their surroundings. That's how the maturity process works. Example:

Kid lives in projects, surrounded by violence, no positive role models, etc.
--> Adapts to this. Likely becomes a troublemaker, hardened, and violent.

Kid is a star football player and is recruited to a top college program under full scholarship
--> Will likely start off as a troublemaker. However, soon he will see that this is not accepted in his new culture. If he doesn't adapt, it's a problem with him, not his environment. Why wouldn't he adapt? Likely because he's just stupid and doesn't have the mental capabilities to understand the need for change. Few people are actually this stupid which is why only a small group of people remain troublemakers.
I'll first respond to the part I italicized. It's important to remember that your environment is more than just your physical surroundings. Your immediate and most impactful environment is your very own head, and it doesn't change with the wind or a walk down the street. Not all these college kids share identical circumstances just because they attend the same university. Far from it. As I stated before, your past experiences are continually having an effect on the way you react to your current surroundings. Again, you do not arrive at the dorm with a blank slate. You need to keep in mind that your background will forever have an impact on you to some degree.

I do agree that it's a cop-out to blame your environment for your choices and actions, but in reality we are all unavoidably influenced greatly by what we experience throughout life. As we grow older, we have more and more control over these experiences, but never will we have complete control.


That's just a rudimentary example. There are few guys that don't adapt in the grand scheme of things. For every Pacman, there is 10 Warrick Dunn's.
Are you implying that these two guys come from the same place? For all I know, Warrick has adapted to his surrounding no more than Pacman has. He appears to be the more mature of the two, but that does not mean that he needed to adapt from the same things that Pacman does or did. It kinda sounds like you're saying that Warrick was a little Pacman as a kid, and then woke up one day at FSU and became a great guy, because he was able to adapt to things that Pacman couldn't. But perhaps I'm reading too much into those few sentences. I realize you're just using those names as an example, but the implication is that we know where different players came from and we know what they had to adapt to throughout their lives.

The NFL is looked upon like a group of thugs, when in reality there is only a very small percentage of bad apples. A lot of the so-called bad apples aren't even terrible people. They make mistakes just like the rest of us. I wouldn't consider somebody failing a drug test, getting in an altercation at a nightclub, etc. indicative of a problem-person. This happens to millions of people every year. The difference is they are under the microscope.
I agree with this in its entirety.

Race for the Heisman
10-19-2007, 06:25 PM
This 'thought-provoking/controversial discussion' is really just the result of the author's inability, or choice (conscious or otherwise) to link cause and effect. As many have pointed out, the Patriots and Colts are not winning franchises because of the presence of white players on their rosters. Their successes are the culmination of a number of factors, and while the perceived 'whiteness' of the respective rosters may in fact be a factor, it is surely negligible when compared to other factors which have also been mentioned, such as the successes of their front offices, unless Whitlock would argue that everything, from (draft) position prioritization to winning mentality to preparation habits are all superior in these organizations due to the higher concentration of white athletes.

With regard to the author's reasoning, there are two chains, the first is that white players better contribute to a team's success than black players which is indicated by his statement that the actions of black players give coaches a "justifiable reason to whiten their rosters." This isn't necessarily a poor argument but it is hampered because if this were the case the NFL would not be pre-dominately black. Because the NFL is pre-dominately black it can be deduced that assuming NFL organizations are run by competent chains of people (a stretch in the minds of some, but because incompetence leads to pink slips let us assume so for a moment), these organizations would realize that having more white players would increase the odds of success, and go out and 'whiten their rosters.' Since this is clearly not happening, it could be said that white athletes do not give their teams better opportunities to succeed.

The second train of thought, the ideology that black athletes are "caught up in the rebellion and buffoonery of hip hop culture" is also flawed to an extent. If you were to look at what defines a population, you would begin with the population pool and dissect it based on commonalities between the members of that society. However, because exposure to hip-hop, appreciation of hip-hop, and acceptance/embrace of hip-hip culture is not universal to all black players in the NFL, it is wrong say that what comes second is to blame for what came before it.

That might not be in accordance with what everyone believes but that's what I feel about it.

Xiomera
10-20-2007, 09:28 AM
I would have never thought Whitlock was capable of such thought. Good article.

nhlkdog411
10-20-2007, 09:59 AM
in actuality, the whiteness of the colts and pats COULD have something to do with their winning although not for the reasons stated by Whitlock. There is a large amount of stereotyping and racial slotting of players (even Tony Dungy a black man has admitted this before you argue with me) and if you just listen to the way media and coaches talk about players you can see the stereotyping exists (watch brian leonard at the combine on youtube for an example). This means there are probably less white players in the league than there could be as a result of the view that they aren't athletic enough to compete and the patriots and colts as teams that seem more willing to have large amounts of white players on their team are basically drawing from a larger talent pool if you think about it.

ncst8fan83
10-20-2007, 10:36 AM
Good article, I disagree with it because the black athlete is the better athlete and as long as you can play the game at a higher level you'll always have a job.

what kind of ******** statement is that? if i said something along the lines of "good article, i disagree with it because the white businessman is the smarter race and as long as you can do your job at a higher level because of your intelligence you'll always have a job" i'd be getting crucified on here. That type of **** attitude is what causes divides between races.

Do i agree with the article? Of course not. The fact of the matter is "white" america MOSTLY goes to the NFL games. Unfortunately you have to cater to your customers. If you can have an average team with glitzy me-me-me players I doubt you'd appeal to the average white american.

It's more about attitude than anything. When you think about the Colts, who is glitzy? I suppose Randy Moss would be a bit of a "me" guy, although we haven't seen that yet this year. Character counts more than culture. Torry Holt didn't grow up with wealth, but his parents raised him right and he respects the game. In my opinion, average joe's look at chad johnson like he's selfish, brash, and generally vain. That doesn't appeal to me regardless of the talent a person possesses.

Geo
10-20-2007, 10:37 AM
Coach Tony Dungy's take on the article. (http://blogs.indystar.com/philb/2007/10/dungys_take_on_whitlocks_story.html)

MaddHatter
10-20-2007, 10:43 AM
I think Whitlock is a little behind the game. I mean what about guys like Michael Irvin and other "african-american" players who had many off-field issues long before TO or CJ ever came to the league? The black players who came into the league after them weren't affected by their actions.

At the end of the day, it's all about talent. Nobody cares about skin color, just who can give them the best shot at winning. Plain and Simple

Addict
10-20-2007, 01:06 PM
I think Whitlock is a little behind the game. I mean what about guys like Michael Irvin and other "african-american" players who had many off-field issues long before TO or CJ ever came to the league? The black players who came into the league after them weren't affected by their actions.

At the end of the day, it's all about talent. Nobody cares about skin color, just who can give them the best shot at winning. Plain and Simple

read his article again, he doesn't say skin colour matters, but that the individualism and senseless rebellion that comes with the hiphop culture, and that athletes who act this way (all those Gangstahz and OG's, Pacman for instnace) interfere with winning. So it is about winning, plain and simple, that's exactly his point.

Shiver
10-20-2007, 01:23 PM
read his article again, he doesn't say skin colour matters, but that the individualism and senseless rebellion that comes with the hiphop culture, and that athletes who act this way (all those Gangstahz and OG's, Pacman for instnace) interfere with winning. So it is about winning, plain and simple, that's exactly his point.


What he wrote had everything to do with race, and the 'reverse racism' that Jason Whitlock has built his entire career off of. He tried to say it wasn't, but how else am I supposed to take statements like:

A little-publicized fact is that the Colts and the Patriots the league's model franchises are two of the whitest teams in the NFL.

African-American football players caught up in the rebellion and buffoonery of hip hop culture have given NFL owners and coaches a justifiable reason to whiten their rosters.


He couldn't just write about how NFL organizations are trying to build with character, and how selfish players destory sports teams. He had to add in the fact that being "whiter" is better and that more teams should "whiten their rosters." If that doesn't involve skin color mattering then I don't know what does. He intentionally wrote that article in such a way that it would be controversial and would create more buzz. Because we are discussing it we are playing right into his hands. If a white writer would have written that article, quoted those "stats," he would have justifiably called a racist by many.

BX
10-20-2007, 01:40 PM
He didn't say that organizations "should" whiten their rosters, he said that he saw this as a developing trend.

Addict
10-20-2007, 01:49 PM
He couldn't just write about how NFL organizations are trying to build with character, and how selfish players destory sports teams. He had to add in the fact that being "whiter" is better and that more teams should "whiten their rosters." If that doesn't involve skin color mattering then I don't know what does. He intentionally wrote that article in such a way that it would be controversial and would create more buzz. Because we are discussing it we are playing right into his hands. If a white writer would have written that article, quoted those "stats," he would have justifiably called a racist by many.

I agree he's reading waaay too much into the racial part of the problem. On the other hand he does have a valid point when he says the individualism of the hiphop culture, brought along by certain players who are influenced heavily by that music (meaning they don't listen to it but live by it as well) interfere with team spirit and bring a negative sound into the dressing room, simply because they feel they're the biggest thing to hit football since turf.

In a way you could also the fact these disruptive characters are a product of the enormous commercialisation of the NFL, or more accurately the change in the commercialisation. It seems to me it's very similar to what's happened in soccer in Europe (which is a sport I'm more familiar with). What happens is that while in the past it required being a team player and truly skillfull to become a fan favourite and a guy who was 'marketable', these days, being visible is enough. I see a similar devellopment in football.

Shiver
10-20-2007, 01:49 PM
He definitely inferred that is what teams should do. "Hey, the Colts and Patriots are whitening their rosters and they are successful!"

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 01:59 PM
although both the giants and pats have 10 non-black starters

The Giants do not have 10 non-black starters. I think it is more like 6. TE, 4 out 5 Olineman, and our FB. All the predominantly non-skill positions. Which is the case with most teams. It's no seceret that African Americans are generally most atheltic than other races.

I'm not sure where all the Pats non-black starters are. Probably 5 O-lineman. Lets not forget that the 3-4 defense often emphasizes size and strength over speed and athleticism. Guys like Bruschi and Vrabel fit it perfectly and probably couldn't play in many schemes.

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:00 PM
The Giants do not have 10 non-black starters. I think it is more like 6. TE, 4 out 5 Olineman, and our FB. All the predominantly non-skill positions. Which is the case with most teams. It's no seceret that African Americans are generally most atheltic than other races.

absolutely, it's the build, the african roots that does it for them.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:09 PM
absolutely, it's the build, the african roots that does it for them.

This is an interesting topic. I don't know that there is any evidence to support that opinion though.

I have not been able to find any proof that blacks are any different physically than whites (with the exception of skin colour of course). I have heard various things like they have smaller hips, more dense muscles, etc. but I haven't found sufficient documentation to back it up.

Shiver
10-20-2007, 02:11 PM
The Giants do not have 10 non-black starters. I think it is more like 6. TE, 4 out 5 Olineman, and our FB. All the predominantly non-skill positions. Which is the case with most teams. It's no seceret that African Americans are generally most atheltic than other races.

I'm not sure where all the Pats non-black starters are. Probably 5 O-lineman. Lets not forget that the 3-4 defense often emphasizes size and strength over speed and athleticism. Guys like Bruschi and Vrabel fit it perfectly and probably couldn't play in many schemes.

It's the same with the Colts. The only way to be at the top of the "non-Black" starters list is just so happening to have an all "white" O-Line.

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 02:15 PM
This is an interesting topic. I don't know that there is any evidence to support that opinion though.

I have not been able to find any proof that blacks are any different physically than whites (with the exception of skin colour of course). I have heard various things like they have smaller hips, more dense muscles, etc. but I haven't found sufficient documentation to back it up.

I read an article a long time ago about the difference in the amount of fast twitch muscle betweens the two races. It wasn't exactly conclusive but it was interesting.

It hard to ignore the breakdown of races when it comes to positions in the NFL. The one position where you need the most speed, agility, and fluidness is probably CB and the fact that isn't one white CB in the league kind of stands out at you.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:17 PM
I read an article a long time ago about the difference in the amount of fast twitch muscle betweens the two races. It wasn't exactly conclusive but it was interesting.

It hard to ignore the breakdown of races when it comes to positions in the NFL. The one position where you need the most speed, agility, and fluidness is probably CB and the fact that isn't one white CB in the league kind of stands out at you.

Socioeconomic reasons are likely a big contributor to that. I'm not sure there AREN'T differences based on race, but there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest there is.

Also, it should be noted that a lot of sports are dominated by non-blacks. Soccer, hockey, marathons, weightlifting, etc.

Shiver
10-20-2007, 02:20 PM
Don't forget about European Basketball leagues, which are a lot more racially balanced than the American equivalent. For what reason, I have no clue.

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 02:25 PM
Don't forget about European Basketball leagues, which are a lot more racially balanced than the American equivalent. For what reason, I have no clue.

And if any of those guys Eurpean Basketball teams went up against a team even as mediocre to bad as the Knicks, they would get beat pretty easily.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:26 PM
And if any of those guys Eurpean Basketball teams went up against a team even as mediocre to bad as the Knicks, they would get beat pretty easily.

Team USA is doing pretty well against those European teams...oh wait...

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 02:26 PM
Socioeconomic reasons are likely a big contributor to that. I'm not sure there AREN'T differences based on race, but there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest there is.

Also, it should be noted that a lot of sports are dominated by non-blacks. Soccer, hockey, marathons, weightlifting, etc.

Kenyans win marathons every year. But again most of those sports are non "skill" sports.

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 02:26 PM
Team USA is doing pretty well against those European teams...oh wait...

It is a different game though too. Although I haven't paid attention to how Coach K's team USA has done. Also a lot of the troubles team USA has had pre-Coach K, can be atrributed to selfish behavior and this hip hop culture that Whitlock speaks of.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:29 PM
It is a different game though too. Although I haven't paid attention to how Coach K's team USA has done. Also a lot of the troubles team USA has had pre-Coach K, can be atrributed to selfish behavior and this hip hop culture that Whitlock speaks of.

Are you seriously blaming hip hop culture on Team USA's struggles in International Basketball?

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:30 PM
This is an interesting topic. I don't know that there is any evidence to support that opinion though.

I have not been able to find any proof that blacks are any different physically than whites (with the exception of skin colour of course). I have heard various things like they have smaller hips, more dense muscles, etc. but I haven't found sufficient documentation to back it up.

well I can't give you any written evidence (other than I think it has something to do with evolution, european (incl. american) background vs. african ones, something like that)

But stat-wise, just look at the records in athletics, most are held by black athletes, which to me means they're just better built for sports.

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 02:30 PM
NFL teams should also stop drafting young players from certain schools so high. You can't be upset at a player with behavorial problems when you are drafting from Va Tech, FSU, or WVU. There are serious problems at all those schools with discipline and it apparent that the schools don't care as long as they can continue to bring in the best atheltes.

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 02:31 PM
Are you seriously blaming hip hop culture on Team USA's struggles in International Basketball?

The all about me attitude and selfishness of the players. Which seems to have a strong correlation with it, yes.

Shiver
10-20-2007, 02:31 PM
The NBA's primadonna, selfish, me-first players are a reason the USA Basketball team has failed. I agree with that point. The NFL has to make sure that doesn't happen in their league. Whitlock's point that players like Chad Johnson, Larry Johnson, Terrell Owens, Pacman Jones, are destructive and a result of today's culture (or lack thereof) is fine. I just don't think pointing out successful teams and claim that they are intentionally "whitening" their rosters is necessary or accurate.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:33 PM
well I can't give you any written evidence (other than I think it has something to do with evolution, european (incl. american) background vs. african ones, something like that)

But stat-wise, just look at the records in athletics, most are held by black athletes, which to me means they're just better built for sports.

It depends what sports you are looking at. Socioeconomic factors also play a huge role in blacks domination of traditional American sports.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:34 PM
The all about me attitude and selfishness of the players. Which seems to have a strong correlation with it, yes.

What does being selfish have to do with "hip hop culture"?

nhlkdog411
10-20-2007, 02:34 PM
someone just said soccer isn't a skill sport? are they serious? and weightlifting (powerlifting) is one of the greatest tests of athleticism and explosion there is..anyway, here is the best article i've ever read on the subject of the supposed african/african american athletic advantage: for example it talks about how the people who ran the study that claimed that africans have more fast twitch muscle fibers than europeans compared people from completely different environments, but that a later study compared people from similar environments (both mountainous) and found no differences whatsoever. I recommend you all read it as it is pretty damn awesome.


http://www.gladwell.com/1997/1997_05_19_a_sports.htm

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:35 PM
It depends what sports you are looking at. Socioeconomic factors also play a huge role in blacks domination of traditional American sports.

I was talking Hurdles, most sprinting events, marathon, long jump that kind of thing.

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 02:37 PM
What does being selfish have to do with "hip hop culture"?

I dunno exactly. But doesn't it seems that the players who are most involved and live in that hip hop culture also tend to be the most selfish.

Shiver
10-20-2007, 02:37 PM
What does being selfish have to do with "hip hop culture"?


It has everything to do with it. The vast majority of "hip hop" artists have lyrics that promote the selfish lifestyle; 50 Cent's "Get Rich or Die Trying" says it all. Are there socially conscious rappers? Sure, but in general it is all about having the most women, bling, and success that you can accumulate. When athletes have that very same attitude you see examples such as Pacman Jones, who is living a life that permeates most hip hop.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:40 PM
It has everything to do with it. The vast majority of "hip hop" artists have lyrics that promote the selfish lifestyle; 50 Cent's "Get Rich or Die Trying" says it all. Are there socially conscious rappers? Sure, but in general it is all about having the most women, bling, and success that you can accumulate.

This is absurd. I can't believe people are using hip hop as the scapegoat for Team USA's struggles and people being selfish.

First of all, what does obtaining wealth or women have to do with being selfish? When a white person says they want to accumulate wealth and be successful, that is seen as a postive. Yet when a rapper says the same thing, they're selfish? Give me a break.

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:41 PM
I dunno exactly. But doesn't it seems that the players who are most involved and live in that hip hop culture also tend to be the most selfish.

well it's not even hiphop per say it's more the whole gangsta-rap thing the 'I'm king of the world'-syndrome... it's all about ego, being the master of the hood and a 'businessman'.

Shiver
10-20-2007, 02:43 PM
There is a difference between the music of hip hop and "hip hop culture." Pacman Jones is one example of what happens when someone tries to live according to the standards that are often discussed in hip hop.

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:45 PM
There is a difference between the music of hip hop and "hip hop culture."

yes, 'culture' just refers to the attitude and demeanor that is often associated with hip hop music.

Shiver
10-20-2007, 02:46 PM
Well I added in an edit what you just said before you posted that.

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:49 PM
Well I added in an edit what you just said before you posted that.

Yeah, well pacman is maybe an extreme example, you could say Chad Johnson is too, although in a less illegal manner.

He's just as self-centered, just not as stupid as pacman.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:49 PM
Yeah, well pacman is maybe an extreme example, you could say Chad Johnson is too, although in a less illegal manner.

He's just as self-centered, just not as stupid as pacman.

Chad Johnson is self-centered because of hip-hop culture. Wow. I'm in awe.

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 02:50 PM
I just want to also say there are plenty of mature, bright, and great african-american football players you can draft who are very successful. I really think there are a lot of teams who do well in getting these guys, my Giants are one of them.

I feel the same way about this as Shiver. There is no doubt that the hip hop culture does effect some players negatively. And those players tend to be in the news often. But to even hint that the Colts and Pats have been the most successful because of having the most non-black players is ridiculous.

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:52 PM
Chad Johnson is self-centered because of hip-hop culture. Wow. I'm in awe.

no, he's self-centered and demanding of attention because he feels he's the best thing in football, which is similar to all the rappers, producers and whatnot in hiphop culture who think they're the best ever. They're very comparable in terms of mindset.

Moses
10-20-2007, 02:53 PM
no, he's self-centered and demanding of attention because he feels he's the best thing in football, which is similar to all the rappers, producers and whatnot in hiphop culture who think they're the best ever. They're very comparable in terms of mindset.

What is wrong with having confidence? I don't get it. He IS one of the best.

Also, because he's SIMILAR to somebody else, they are to blame for his actions? Give me a break.

Shiver
10-20-2007, 02:54 PM
I think me and Jughead see this 'issue' in the same light: today's culture overwhelmingly promotes selfish tendencies, regardless of race. For every upstanding Human being like Warrick Dunn, LaDainian Tomlinson, and I could go on and on, there are a few idiots that are completely self-centered and ruin it for the good people. Whitlock refers to this as "hip hop culture" because a lot of the traits that players like Michael Vick and Pacman Jones have made headlines about are common elements of that field of entertainment. It has nothing to do with the music itself, but rather the attitude that permeates most of it. However, Whitlock's point about the Patriots and Colts is absurd and is by no means a product of those organizations "whitening" their rosters.

duckseason
10-20-2007, 03:07 PM
It has everything to do with it. The vast majority of "hip hop" artists have lyrics that promote the selfish lifestyle; 50 Cent's "Get Rich or Die Trying" says it all. Are there socially conscious rappers? Sure, but in general it is all about having the most women, bling, and success that you can accumulate. When athletes have that very same attitude you see examples such as Pacman Jones, who is living a life that permeates most hip hop.

That generalization is just as fitting when speaking of our entire society. People need to realize that hip-hop music is just a reflection of what's going on in this country, and what people want to hear. It's capitalism personified. The mainstream rappers are just giving the people what they want. What if these players listened to Paris Hilton or Britney Spears? Would we be blaming the music and the "culture" that surrounds it when these guys act like dumbasses? People make mistakes. Not music. And how is Chad Johnson any more selfish or less "socially conscious" than Robert Kraft?

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 03:08 PM
That generalization is just as fitting when speaking of our entire society. People need to realize that hip-hop music is just a reflection of what's going on in this country, and what people want to hear. It's capitalism personified. The mainstream rappers are just giving the people what they want. What if these players listened to Paris Hilton or Britney Spears? Would we be blaming the music and the "culture" that surrounds it when these guys act like dumbasses? People make mistakes. Not music. And how is Chad Johnson any more selfish or less "socially conscious" than Robert Kraft?

I think the problem here is that younger America listens to crappy music in general.

Moses
10-20-2007, 03:11 PM
I think the problem here is that younger America listens to crappy music in general.

I didn't know you were put in charge of determining what is good and what is bad music.

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 03:13 PM
I didn't know you were put in charge of determining what is good and what is bad music.

I wasn't. It's just my opinion. Although personally I find hard to even consider rap as music. Too much of it is made with computers rather than with any actual talent.

The Unseen
10-20-2007, 03:14 PM
I didn't know you were put in charge of determining what is good and what is bad music.

What, there's a problem in him saying what he thinks is crappy music or not? I don't get it.

Moses
10-20-2007, 03:15 PM
What, there's a problem in him saying what he thinks is crappy music or not? I don't get it.

He said that the problem is that young people listen to crappy music. How is it a problem if he simply doesn't like the music others listen to?

Moses
10-20-2007, 03:16 PM
I wasn't. It's just my opinion. Although personally I find hard to even consider rap as music. Too much of it is made with computers rather than with any actual talent.

I think you would be surprised with how much computers are used in the production of all music nowadays. Also, I don't see how playing the guitar takes any more talent than arranging an entire instrumental arrangement for somebody to rap over top of. Simply different types of talent.

The Unseen
10-20-2007, 03:17 PM
He said that the problem is that young people listen to crappy music. How is it a problem if he simply doesn't like the music others listen to?

Because he thinks that crappy music causes crappy effects. I dunno.

Look, like he said, it's just his opinion. I don't know how you could construe that into him not having the right to call the music what he thinks it is.

duckseason
10-20-2007, 03:18 PM
I think the problem here is that younger America listens to crappy music in general.
I'd agree if you replace the word 'younger' with 'the majority of.'

But really, I don't see that as the problem. People are who they are. The type of music you listen to doesn't make you a bad person. Watching violent movies about axe murderers won't make you thirsty for blood. Pacman is who he is, and Warrick Dunn is who he is. They may both have the exact same playlist playing right now, but it won't make them go out and act the same way today. Ignorance is the problem here.

Jughead10
10-20-2007, 03:20 PM
BTW, my comment was meant as a joke to lighten up what tends to be a general controversial thread when talking about a subject like Whitlock's article.

duckseason
10-20-2007, 03:27 PM
I wasn't. It's just my opinion. Although personally I find hard to even consider rap as music. Too much of it is made with computers rather than with any actual talent.

Like moses said, most music is made with computers and high tech equipment. I'd like to see you sit in front of a Korg and see how long it takes you to make a quality beat. It requires just as much talent as any other art form. I can make ok beats, but I have a friend who is extremely gifted with it. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he never took a class or anything. Never read an instruction manual. His dad gave him a little casio keyboard when he was a kid and he just learned the notes and which sounds melded together best. Just natural talent. You can sit down at a music production station and be far more confused than you would if you sat down with a guitar or in front of a piano.

Average OT LB
10-20-2007, 03:44 PM
Like moses said, most music is made with computers and high tech equipment. I'd like to see you sit in front of a Korg and see how long it takes you to make a quality beat. It requires just as much talent as any other art form. I can make ok beats, but I have a friend who is extremely gifted with it. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he never took a class or anything. Never read an instruction manual. His dad gave him a little casio keyboard when he was a kid and he just learned the notes and which sounds melded together best. Just natural talent. You can sit down at a music production station and be far more confused than you would if you sat down with a guitar or in front of a piano.

wasnt he talking about rap? not beats?

Moses
10-20-2007, 03:49 PM
wasnt he talking about rap? not beats?

Well he mentioned the use of computers so I would assume he was talking about the instrumentation, not the rapping.

osi+ap=allshallperish
10-20-2007, 07:46 PM
The Giants do not have 10 non-black starters. I think it is more like 6. TE, 4 out 5 Olineman, and our FB. All the predominantly non-skill positions. Which is the case with most teams. It's no seceret that African Americans are generally most atheltic than other races.

I'm not sure where all the Pats non-black starters are. Probably 5 O-lineman. Lets not forget that the 3-4 defense often emphasizes size and strength over speed and athleticism. Guys like Bruschi and Vrabel fit it perfectly and probably couldn't play in many schemes.

Eli, shockey, hedgecock, diehl, seubert, o'hara, snee, Mitchell, feagles and tynes vs. Brady, maybe their fb (i just don't know), their oline, bruschi, vrabel, gostkowski and their punter, so 10 vs 10 or 11