Tavish wrote: StlSluggers wrote:
Old_Style wrote:I like how white folks go crazy when something like this comes up.
I think everyone should get upset about this. Besides the double standard, aren't we supposed to be a color-blind society?
Without actually having seen the context of the discussion they were having, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to discuss the topic. Simply talking about black and white doesn't make a conversation racist. The topic in the right context is no different than talking about if a team has too many old players or not enough players that appeal to the target market or so on. Pretty much the only time it becomes a racist conversation is when you put it a racism context, ie the Pacers don't want black players on their team.
A color-blind society is an unrealistic ideal, embracing differences is ultimately a more worthwhile goal.
Being old brings your abilities into question because aging effects everyone. Being locally relevant is an issue of community makeup. Being white, or Dominican, or Jewish, does not impact your athletic ability one bit. Talent, work ethic, mental fortitude, parental genetics, economic surroundings... These things make athletes what they are. A good, white basketball player isn't good in spite of being white just the same way that being born black doesn't mean you will have better odds of being able to slam on a regulation rim. Being born white or black might mean that you're socially or economically more likely to pursue certain paths with respect to basketball, but the mere color of your skin does not solely dictate the outcome of that path.
You're right that simply talking about black and white does not automatically make a conversation racist. That headline, at least at face value, is racist, because it implies that skin color is indicative of athletic ability.
I'll drop the color-blind society discussion. It's a tangent from this one, and I shouldn't have brought it up.