Does the majority of NBA players being black ...

[Tilted]

evince systemic or pervasive racism (against non-black people) in the league?

Follow up: Would a minority of NFL and NCAA Football head coaches being black (even an under-representative, as compared with the general population, minority) evince systemic or pervasive racism (against black people) in those worlds?

If the answers to the questions are different, I'd be very interested to hear some elucidation as to why.



Also: Would a rule requiring NBA teams to give a try-out at least one non-black player before they sign any player to their roster (or trade for or draft any player) be reasonable and/or appropriate?

 

[aps45819]

Ask Jimmy the Greek

 

[Toxick]

evince systemic or pervasive racism (against non-black people) in the league?

No more than the preponderance of Europeans in the NHL does.


Just a demographic preference, IMO.

 

[ftcret]

or Rush

 

[desertrat]

evince systemic or pervasive racism (against non-black people) in the league?

Follow up: Would a minority of NFL and NCAA Football head coaches being black (even an under-representative, as compared with the general population, minority) evince systemic or pervasive racism (against black people) in those worlds?

If the answers to the questions are different, I'd be very interested to hear some elucidation as to why.



Also: Would a rule requiring NBA teams to give a try-out at least one non-black player before they sign any player to their roster (or trade for or draft any player) be reasonable and/or appropriate?

Yeah, WTH. just 'cause a black dude can play ball better doesn't mean the white boy don't need a job too.

 

[MMDad]

evince systemic or pervasive racism (against non-black people) in the league?

No. The NBA has one systemic and pervasive standard: earn money. They wouldn't care if a player was an albino aboriginal pygmy with one leg and three arms as long as he could excel at his position, win games, and most importantly sell tickets and merchandise.

Follow up: Would a minority of NFL Football head coaches being black (even an under-representative, as compared with the general population, minority) evince systemic or pervasive racism (against black people) in those worlds?

See above answer. Even if an owner was racist, the greed will surpass that and they'll hire anyone who will make their team win.

Follow up: Would a minority of NCAA Football head coaches being black (even an under-representative, as compared with the general population, minority) evince systemic or pervasive racism (against black people) in those worlds?

Maybe, at lower level schools. Most of the top 25 are most concerned with the money. As the $$$ involved gets smaller there is more room to allow prejudice to influence decisions.

 

[limblips]

evince systemic or pervasive racism (against non-black people) in the league?

Follow up: Would a minority of NFL and NCAA Football head coaches being black (even an under-representative, as compared with the general population, minority) evince systemic or pervasive racism (against black people) in those worlds?


If we want equal representation in the coaching staff then we should have equal representation in the player ranks. That would put a lot of blacks out of work! Can't have it both ways.

 

[Zguy28]

Just as an "on the surface" answer, it appears that blacks are more athletically capable of playing sports involving running and jumping than whites. At least proportional to the population.

Coaching is based on intellectual ability, not athletic, and as far as I know, whites are not genetically inclined to higher raw intelligence than blacks proportionally.

Its an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[PsyOps]

Sports is the one place where hiring and firing is based on performance and not requiring some sort of hiring quota based on race or sex. In the corporate sector performance and abilities are not first and foremost; ensuring fairness and equality are priority and performance and results are secondary.

If ever there was a case to be made that hiring based on abilities and results in success, sports is it (wel... except for the Redskins ). Why do they have a different standard in hiring?

 

[Tilted]

Just as an "on the surface" answer, it appears that blacks are more athletically capable of playing sports involving running and jumping than whites. At least proportional to the population.

Coaching is based on intellectual ability, not athletic, and as far as I know, whites are not genetically inclined to higher raw intelligence than blacks proportionally.

Its an apples to oranges comparison.

Do you mean to suggest that blacks being inclined to be better at something might explain why they are better represented in a profession where that something is important, but at the same time completely dismiss the notion that whites being inclined to be better at something could explain why they might be better represented in a profession where that something is important?

Also, as you've indicated that "it appears that blacks are more athletically capable of playing sports involving running and jumping", do you think there's anything that it appears whites are more capable of?

Lastly, is it racist to suggest that blacks are more capable of X than whites? Would it be racist to suggest that whites are more capable of Y than blacks?

 

[Tilted]

Ask Jimmy the Greek

Unfortunately, he's on the wrong side of the living/dead divide, and I'm not in a hurry to crossover to his side so I can pick his brain on this subject.

 

[Tilted]

Maybe, at lower level schools. Most of the top 25 are most concerned with the money. As the $$$ involved gets smaller there is more room to allow prejudice to influence decisions.

I think this is an insightful observation that probably travels well to general, non-sport, application.

 

[Toxick]

Also, as you've indicated that "it appears that blacks are more athletically capable of playing sports involving running and jumping", do you think there's anything that it appears whites are more capable of?

Stomaching mayonnaise?

Does that count?


Based on my observation of demographics, I would have to say that blacks are under-represented in engineering and computer programming. By far this field is dominated by whites and asians.

It could be argued that this isn't representative of skill or capability, but rather demographic preference, but it's just an example off the top of my head.

Lastly, is it racist to suggest that blacks are more capable of X than whites? Would it be racist to suggest that whites are more capable of Y than blacks?

Neither one is racist... if true. To say that blacks make better athletes is not racist, because anyone paying attention can clearly see that black people (as a rule) are more physically adept than whites. (This is probably also why they dance better, although dancing "skill" is way more subjective than athletic ability).

I would submit that to deny "X is better than Y at Z" is racist - when it's apparent that X is better than Y at Z.

Well, maybe not racist per sé, but it's certainly stupid to deliberately blind yourself to facts in order to follow silly Politically Correctness protocol.

 

[Tilted]

Neither one is racist... if true. To say that blacks make better athletes is not racist, because anyone paying attention can clearly see that black people (as a rule) are more physically adept than whites. (This is probably also why they dance better, although dancing "skill" is way more subjective than athletic ability).

I would submit that to deny "X is better than Y at Z" is racist - when it's apparent that X is better than Y at Z.

Well, maybe not racist per sé, but it's certainly stupid to deliberately blind yourself to facts in order to follow silly Politically Correctness protocol.

So, the nature of race-based observations as being either racist or not, hinges on the accuracy of those observations? I've always tended to agree with similar posits.

In the U.S., blacks are more likely to be convicted criminals. <-- not racist

You can't trust black people, they're all thugs. <-- racist


On the dancing subject: From my own observations (and I had a good view to observe more than more than my fair share of different people dancing, in all kinds of situations and to all kinds of music), it would be fair to say that black people tended to be better dancers than white people did (at least if, by being a better (non-performance) dancer, we mean that one's body is better at finding the rhythm of the music and coordinating its movement there with). That said, non-performance dancing is really about how it makes the dancer feel and the opportunity it provides to engage with another person (or other people), so I don't know that it's meaningful to consider any dancing as better or worse other than as measured by those criteria.

I would make this observation: when it came to non-hug (i.e. 'slow') dancing, more whites seemed to prefer faster music, whereas more blacks seemed to feel comfortable dancing to music in all speed ranges. I always theorized that the tendency related to feeling comfortable and confident with one's dancing in general, or at least not being self-conscious about it. With faster music, it's easier to appear to have the movement of one's body in sync with the rhythm of the music - there are so many beats, you're bound to be landing on some of them. But with slower music (e.g. in the 75-90 bpm range), being 'out of rhythm' is generally more noticeable. Fortunately, the drunker people got, the less self-conscious they seemed to be and the less they seemed to give a #### (i.e. the more they seemed to get the point that it wasn't about looking good to others or being a 'good' dancer). I'd also not that the difference in tendencies that I've just referred to were somewhat less noticeable in younger people, and that, at any rate, they were just that - tendencies (perhaps even subtle ones) - not fixed, consistently observable, dynamics.

 

[Toxick]

So, the nature of race-based observations as being either racist or not, hinges on the accuracy of those observations? I've always tended to agree with similar posits.

In my opinion, yes, that's exactly correct.

Denying facts is idiocy, and I have little respect for someone who is militantly ignorant.

 

[Pete]

So, the nature of race-based observations as being either racist or not, hinges on the accuracy of those observations? I've always tended to agree with similar posits.

In the U.S., blacks are more likely to be convicted criminals. <-- not racist

You can't trust black people, they're all thugs. <-- racist


On the dancing subject: From my own observations (and I had a good view to observe more than more than my fair share of different people dancing, in all kinds of situations and to all kinds of music), it would be fair to say that black people tended to be better dancers than white people did (at least if, by being a better (non-performance) dancer, we mean that one's body is better at finding the rhythm of the music and coordinating its movement there with). That said, non-performance dancing is really about how it makes the dancer feel and the opportunity it provides to engage with another person (or other people), so I don't know that it's meaningful to consider any dancing as better or worse other than as measured by those criteria.

I would make this observation: when it came to non-hug (i.e. 'slow') dancing, more whites seemed to prefer faster music, whereas more blacks seemed to feel comfortable dancing to music in all speed ranges. I always theorized that the tendency related to feeling comfortable and confident with one's dancing in general, or at least not being self-conscious about it. With faster music, it's easier to appear to have the movement of one's body in sync with the rhythm of the music - there are so many beats, you're bound to be landing on some of them. But with slower music (e.g. in the 75-90 bpm range), being 'out of rhythm' is generally more noticeable. Fortunately, the drunker people got, the less self-conscious they seemed to be and the less they seemed to give a #### (i.e. the more they seemed to get the point that it wasn't about looking good to others or being a 'good' dancer). I'd also not that the difference in tendencies that I've just referred to were somewhat less noticeable in younger people, and that, at any rate, they were just that - tendencies (perhaps even subtle ones) - not fixed, consistently observable, dynamics.

Racist!

 

[PsyOps]

Racist!

Not Tilted!!!!!!!