The questions I'm going to pose are serious and I expect nothing less than mature behavior from the members here, and as this is a VERY sensitive subject, I will not hesitate to take extreme measures against folks that get out of hand in this thread.

Now that that is said:

Can we talk about Mike Vick and the reaction from certain members of the African-American community? This is something that's been on my mind for a while.

For the sake of simplicity, allow me to recap:

In July 07, Mike was indicted for dog fighting and gambling.
He denied culpability for months and Al Sharpton, Whoopi Goldberg, and others defend him.
To paraphrase: Mike's getting a raw deal 'cause he's black

In August 07, a couple of former associates were given plea deals and he changes his mind.
This bears repeating: HE PLEAD GUILTY OF HIS OWN FREE WILL AND ACCORD

Now this should be a done deal, right?

Nope... last week Roddy White flashes a "Free Mike Vick" T-shirt after a touchdown.

So why is it that after Mike admits to what he's done AND IS IN JAIL these nutjobs are still defending him? Does Rev. Al apologize? Not a chance, but then again he didn't apologize when he backed the wrong side in the Duke Lacrosse case or Tawana Brawley.

Now as a white male, I can say that I haven't been subjected to persecution either perceived or actual that I assume is a fact of life in the African-American community.

I can also say that you will never see me defend anyone (or accuse anyone for that matter) based on race. Let me go further out on a limb... most people (white or otherwise) don't either. So is it a fair perception that black people defend their own regardless of guilt or innocence?

Consider this... the overwhelming majority of serial killers are middle-aged white males.
Nobody holds press conferences to defend the BTK, Bundy, Kaczynski, Manson or any of the whackos who happen to be white... other than their defense lawyers and they do it 'cause they are paid to.

So why is it acceptable and accepted that a convicted criminal and his actions are still being defended?

Let me take it to the next logical step...

Imus was fired for racist statements he made on the air (Look... no defense of this idiot either). He's back on now, but still...

Are Sharpton's actions any less racist? And if so, why isn't his livelihood in jeopardy as well?

If we are ever going to get past racism, shouldn't this double standard also be eliminated?

For those of you in the PCApex family who are African-American (or African-Canadian or African-Briton) do you find yourselves siding with a high-profile defendant based on race? If so, why?

I have to agree that this case in particular shows the double standard pretty well. He's a criminal, there is evidence that he is a criminal who has done terrible things, he admits to it; and yet somehow defending an admitted and convicted criminal is acceptable behaviour?

When Imus was shut down and bashed, the first thought that came to my mind was: would the reaction have been the same if the sportscaster had been African-American? Or would it have been acceptable, because it's alright for someone who is of the same race to use that language? I didn't like the answer that appeared to me.

It's things like this that not only hinder social progression, but have brought it to a grinding halt for much too long. It's been a long time coming, I don't see why certain members of both sides have this burning desire to fight the fight. Instead of progressing together as human beings, as Americans, we're just making the lines between us clearer and clearer.

Racism has become a sword that cuts both ways. Who has the hardest time getting money for college? As a middle-class white student with average grades and no physical or mental disabilities, I think I might know the answer. I don't have schools and organizations falling over me to get me into school because of the color of my skin. Everyone should have a fair chance, your skin color should not be a gauge for how much money you do or do not get.

But I think I've strayed off topic a bit. Maybe it wasn't just because of the color of his skin, maybe his status as an NFL player was a motivational factor for the public defense and the somewhat lenient sentence (but that is a biased opinion on my part, being an animal lover. Anyone who abuses animals like that deserves a slow and painful death, no exceptions.) but even that isn't fair. I don't think I'll live to see the day when every man and woman, regardless of skin color or disability, is judged equally not because of who they are, but the skills and qualities they possess as a human being. I doubt my children will live to see that day. But until that day, we will only be hindering ourselves by perpetuating a hate war that should have stopped long ago.

And that's all I have to say.

Is racism alive and well in the USA , oh HELL YEAH!! but in 2007 its now just as much white oppession as black and for that matter any other race/color. The sad fact is that people like Al Sharpton do more to inspire racism than to eliminate it, the same goes for Duke and his ilk (David Duke ).

Criminals should be tried for thier crimes and justice should be blind , but just isnt gonna happen until people like Sharpton, Duke etc etc stop talking or poeple stop giving thier voices any credibility.

I'm so very tired of the whole " I didnt get whatever because I'm "*insert any race here*" or this or that is just because Im "whatever race"

STOP FUKKIN' WHINING YOU SISSY A$$ BYTCH'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you dont like the hand your delt , its up to YOU to change it. People like Al sharpton ( in this case ) use these types of things more to gain more TV time or spotlight time for themselves than to actually help out a "fellow black man". If they actually were just trying to help, then saying "I was wrong, sorry , toss his ass in jail" would happen.

................. I HATE repeat HATE anyone who thinks that because thier "insert race here" they deserve some special treatment. YOU are the reason racism is alive and well and the sooner this country/world starts judging people on thier merits alone the sooner racism will go away. If you deserve jail, a promotion, a million dollars it should be because you "EARNED" it not because of skin tone or religion or anatomy or anything else.

To all the Al Sharptons and David Dukes of the world , do everyone a favor "lower your blood pressure by slitting your wrists"

The following words are being written by a 40-year old white male ...

I'd like to believe that the Rev. Al and others that defend their "fellow black man" started doing that for good reason: they were needed to offset the apalling amount of anti-black sentiment. I believe there's still plenty of that sentiment that needs fighting, but any fight must be fought with open eyes and open ears, and a good sense of being able to tell the truth from a lie.

Also, for that matter, what Mace brings up is also true: we must all be judged by our own merits, not the effect of bias due to race, creed, or color. I believe the Equal Employment Opportunity Program had a place, at one time, as well. Probably still does, based on the fact that we still have racial prejudice. But I also think it results in negative impacts when someone is chosen for a job not because they are the best one suited for the position, but because an employer needs to meet a percentage of minority working for them in order to be eligible for particular government benefits. But it's still a necessity as well, as I said. So ... that one is kind of at a stalemate.

Finally, I'm concerned about the concept of hyphen-Americans. People who call themselves African-Americans, or Italian-Americans, or Polish-Americans, or Irish-Americans, or Hispanic-Americans. That's bullsh!t. We're Americans. The French are French. Canadians are Canadians. When we put a hyphen in front of that nationality to differentiate ourselves, we are endorsing segregation on a national level. We are not celebrating the difference, we are creating the difference -- that one group is different from the rest. I don't fight anyone wanting to remember or celebrate their culture, but don't segregate yourself from the rest of America and then complain when America segregates you, too.

That's just my opinion, stated from, as I mentioned above, a 40-year old white male. And also a Polish-Italian-German-Norwegian-Native-American.

-godling

Mike Vick - as an Atlantan I could write pages. Y'all would be bored to tears.

One of his supporters, surprisingly, was Mayor Shirley Franklin [black female head of Atlanta]. In my opinion, perhaps the major misstep of her political career. Considering how f'd up Atlanta politics is [like all big cities], shes been a welcome change from the likes of Bill Campbell.

But l don't think you have to look too hard to find blacks who WON'T defend Michael Vick.
Try:
Bill Cosby
Condi Rice
Alvin Poussiant [sp?]
Alan Keyes
Bishop Desmond Tutu [in Atlanta frequently at Emory in fact]
Nelson Mandela
Barack Obama

and so on.

Have you heard from them in the media? No. Why? 'Cause Reverend Al and Whoopi make for better news for a White Media which seeks daily to reinforce certain stereotypes that sell media.

How do the following feel about Vick [no fair Googling; see if you already know]: Steve Harvey, Frank Ski, Tom Joyner? All are nationally syndicated black radio morning show hosts. I'm sure they have had much to say. What it is I don't know.

Come to Atlanta for a week. Listen to the morning news programs on Star94, Q100, 97The River. Compare them to the same days news on Jazz107, 102.5, V103.

WHAT is covered is amazingly different. HOW it is covered is amazingly different. WHEN [in what order] it is covered is amazingly different. Especially considering it is all 'local' news.

And the white apologists? Some we call neo-Nazis [Hilter wasn't so bad...the trains ran on time]. Some we call Republicans [Nixon wasn't so bad]. Some we call Democrats [*Nobody died when Clinton committed perjury*]. Some folks think what Michael Vick did was an 'abomination' but think Abu Grahib 'no big deal'. I think we call them hypocrites.

I do not believe the black viewpoint on Michael Vick is any more monolithic -look it up noobies - than how white people feel about George W. Bush. I do believe that perhaps the media isn't providing much perspective. And that perhaps white media and black media MAY see this story very differently EVEN if the agree on the facts.

It would be interesting to know how many white guys are doing 23 months federal time for dogfighting wouldn't it?

-MF

I deleted my post-in-progress because I decided MF said it right. Race is a huge issue in America right now and the fact that it's often shrugged off only makes it worse, but this is mostly a non-issue exaggerated by the press

Meh, I feel that this White dweeb was probably wearing "Free OJ!" shirt before then... I detest people who hoist the flag without thinking about WHY something may have occured.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about Vick. Dog-fighting is sick and somewhere in that tiny, repeatedly-injured brain of his he might have actually known was he was doing was wrong.

In my opinion, he got off easy...

I honestly think that some Black people take it a bit too far just because they were slaves, and oppressed for so long. They take the extra inch after inch after inch. And I kid you not in every setting I have seen in which they are "Wrongly accused, the first words out of their mouth is 'its 'cause I'm black ain't it?' ". I mean no stereotype, but this is just what I have seen.

Furthermore, other races as well have been oppressed, and they do not make claim after claim, stating oppression, ie, mostly Native-Indian Americans (If you don't know an example, you should go back to High School, and Asians (Railroads). I know not any instances of Asians claiming that they have been mistreated, and I can only think of one of the Native Americans, in which a certain baseball team was involved.

One more thing... If you ration the number of black people to white people with the population of the USA and prison, you'll see that black people out number 3-to-1 I believe? So what does that say about the integrity, motivation, and ideals of African Americans?

And Quite frankly, I think African Americans is a terrible euphemism. It sounds so resentful.

Quote: Some folks think what Michael Vick did was an 'abomination' but think Abu Grahib 'no big deal'. I think we call them hypocrites.

Personally, I find it a lot worse to abuse dogs than to abuse humans. There may be some logic or ineffectual twisted justice about abusing humans. For example, didn't the Abu Ghraib disaster really start from poorly planned and ineffectual attempts to retain order through arresting percieved threats and stuffing them into an overcrowded prison system? I see no remote justification that can be attached to abusing dogs. Plus, I don't like humans. They tend to call me and ask stupid questions at inopportune times. No pit bull has ever decided to launch a six-month project on a Sunday evening when I want to relax.

We all fall on the same spectrum... while, no doubt, measurement can show that different ethnic groups may have slightly different mean and standard-deviation for various things, there's a massive degree of overlap on almost all non-trivial issues.

It would be interesting if we had one group which was uniformly off-the-charts when compared with others. (i.e. a race where everyone was 200cm tall, lived to 140, or had an average IQ of 170) Would racism then make sense, because there would be distinctly superior and inferior groups to acknowledge and potentially accomodate differently (different pension schemes if you live to 140)?

Quote: Originally Posted by Monsignor Funkibut Have you heard from them in the media? No. Why? 'Cause Reverend Al and Whoopi make for better news for a White Media which seeks daily to reinforce certain stereotypes that sell media.

So do you suppose it's the White Media reinforcing stereotypes, Rev. Al reinforcing stereotypes, or a combination of both?

Quote: Originally Posted by Monsignor Funkibut I do not believe the black viewpoint on Michael Vick is any more monolithic -look it up noobies - than how white people feel about George W. Bush.

Excellent point.

Quote: Originally Posted by Monsignor Funkibut And that perhaps white media and black media MAY see this story very differently EVEN if the agree on the facts.

Reminds me of the spinning newspapers at the end of Stripes showing the headline "Local boys repel yankee aggressors"

This may be incredibly naive of me, but if they agree on the facts, how can the story be different?

Quote: Originally Posted by Im_gumby This may be incredibly naive of me, but if they agree on the facts, how can the story be different?

There are plenty of ways to portray facts to make a story appear to be in your best interest. Favorite example of mine, pure propaganda from the 60's ... US and Russia have a 2-car race. US wins the race. Russian newspaper reports: Russia came in 2nd, and US came in 2nd to last.

True facts. They left out that there were only 2 cars, of course, but the statement was true.

This is, of course, a hyperbole but the same concept applies to the White / Black media.

So ... why do we have a White media and a Black media?

Again, we are causing our own segregation issues.

After reading this thread, I could write pages to represent my feelings and opinions on the topics discussed, but I will try to keep it short and to the point. So let's start out with "where I am coming from." I am a white male, 39yrs old, and have lived in the NY metro area pretty much my entire life (except when I was away at college). I think I am fairly open minded when it comes to race, but I know that I also will dump people into a general stereotype if I do not know them as an individual. Do I have prejudices? Sure, we all do to some point. So that's me, now here is my opinion:

1. All to often when a crime is committed that involves people of different races people take sides based solely on that fact. I despise Al Sharpton for that very reason. He will *always* get his fat butt on TV claiming all kinds of things simply because some white person did something bad to a black person, especially if that white person is a cop. And facts be damned. I have seen him do this time and time again. Sometime he is right, sometimes he is wrong, but he never backs down or apologizes when he is wrong. I personally think he does more to fuel racism than defuse it.

2. Michael Vick. It is hard to determine if people supported him because he was black, a star quarterback, or a star black quarterback. The problem is, it doesn't really matter anymore. Once he admitted to doing wrong, all support for him should have disappeared. It's not like he got some sort of crazy sentence or the book thrown at him. He got off easy.

3. Affirmative Action. Baka Sempai mentioned about college financial aid and race. Let me tell you, that was an issue in the 80's when I went to college as well. If you have two students who took the same course, got the same grades, were in the same extra-curicullar clubs, and come from households making the same money, but one is white and one is black, why is it that the black on will get more financial aid? Why does he have colleges recruiting him and not the white guy? Why is it that colleges can have scholarships that you must be "African-American" to qualify for, but none that are for "Caucasians" only? It's all bull****. We are all human. We are all Americans. And we should all be treated the same by "the system". It is too much to expect individual people to be color blind, but "the system" can and should be.

4. Imus. Persoanlly, I think he is a jerk. But I thought that a long time before this incident. Was what he said wrong? Yes. Racially insensitive? Yes. Stupid even? Yes. However, if a black radio host said the same thing, would there have been such an outcry? I will let you come up with your own answer for that one. The thing about this incident that cracked my up is that CBS (I think they are the ones that own the station) fired him over it when it clearly stated in his contract that one of the things they expected from the "shock jock" was controversy and, well, shock. Well, he gave them what they wanted....

5. Abusing people vs dogs. What Vick did is worse than what happened at Abu-Gharib. Why do I say that? In theory, all the people in that prison were there for a reason, they were a threat to the security of the region. We won't get into wrongful imprisonment or all that here. So the bottom line is that something they did landed them their. Something that they *CHOSE* to do. What did those dogs do? Did they attack Vick? Attack someone else? Nope. They were abused simply because of their breed. It's just like abusing someone simply because of their race.

6. Right now there is a trial going on here on Long Island where a black man is accused of shooting a white teenager. I won't go into all the details as to what happened other than the son got into a disagreement with some white boys at a party. He went home and told his dad they were "out to get him". The boys pulled up in front of the house yellign and screaming and being stupid obnoxious teenagers. Instead of calling the police, the father give his son a shotgun and takes an unlicensed pistol and goes outside to confront the kids. One of them tries to circle around the father and grab the gun from him. The father shoots the kid, he dies. During the trial the father went into this whole thing about when the family lived in the south when he was a kid and the Klan would come to the house and so on. He gave this whole sob story of oppression and racism and how he feared for his life. The result is that the jury can consider a lesser charge than manslaughter. My question is this: Why? If he was really that afraid for his life he should have stayed in his house and called 911. If the kids broke in and he shot them, there would be no crime (other than possession of an unlicensed handgun) since they broke into his house. Would this type of defense have worked if he was white and the kids black? I doubt it.

Anyway, enough of my ranting. Hopefully I didn't bore you too much or piss anyone off too much.

Quote: Originally Posted by Master Yunk One more thing... If you ration the number of black people to white people with the population of the USA and prison, you'll see that black people out number 3-to-1 I believe? So what does that say about the integrity, motivation, and ideals of African Americans?

That they are not getting the educational and financial comfort that white people get because of institutional oppression. Do you think they try to go to jail? Crime usually happens because somebody doesn't have something and I think most black people would tell you that it's much harder to get anything as a black person than a white person, including higher education opportunities despite affirmative action which really just helps the rich black kids go to more elite schools.

But this is kind of a derail from the original point.

I almost posted a big rant. But I hit the delete button.
Personally I luv Bill Cosby, he's smart and to the point.

Why a White media and a Black media? It's more than about race. It's about dollars.

There's a Korean newspaper in ATL. Big operation - I think they are national. Now I can't read Korean but I believe their headline was "Michael Vick - Who Cares?"

You target a demographic. You shade the truth the way that's tastiest to your readers. You sell advertising and please advertisers.

Just compare stories in Mother Jones and the Wall Street Journal [both I think White Media]. It's sometimes hard to believe they are discusiing the same thing.

The "truth" is a servant of the dollar in a capitalism. Cynical I know...

-MF

Quote: Originally Posted by Monsignor Funkibut The "truth" is a servant of the dollar in a capitalism. Cynical I know... -MF

Well, I guess that's my problem, then. The newspapers should be selling facts -- news -- information, not slanted perspectives based on projected sales reports. The newspapers are supposed to be UN-biased. Reporters are supposed to report the news, not extrapolate, highlight, emphasize, or color the news.

So the tool called "media" that was once used to unite the nation is now being used to divide it, all in the name of profit.

Hey, if he gets back in the NFL, are they all gonna call him Convick(t)?

Con Vick - that's funny!

You know ... I had a plan all worked out. I'd done my research. I was gonna get Mike Vick back in the NFL, back with Nike, everybody was gonna forget what he'd done and would only talk about the "new" Mike Vick. I had his redemption scripted. Wasn't gonna be cheap and redemption is never easy.

And then the stupid !@#$% went and was smoking marijuana while awaiting trial. He knew he might be tested and he was still sparking up. And thats when I knew - Mike Vick was just too dumb to follow the plan. He wouldn't understand it. Wouldn't feel it necessary. Couldn't man up and do the work.

So I walked away ...

I don't think the NFL will take him back. I've been wrong before but my guess is if OJ still could put up 100+ yards in an afternoon they wouldnt take him either. NFL commisionner Goddell likes playing hardball with the "head cases" and I bet Vick will have to take them to court to get reinstated - and I'm not sure he will have any money for that left. But after Steve Howe got reinstated SEVEN times by MLB, I suppose anything is possible.

-MF