Scoop on Bonds

i got that as well, dog.

 

good deal. yeah, it's kind of unbelieveable of a stance to take, but hey, there are nuts all over the place. I guess Scoops has no argument then if terrorists attack us - after all, aren't they just resisting western culture in their minds? Yes that is extreme, but so is his thinking.

 

the guy should lose his fucking job. he's a racist fuck.

 

SCOOP GOT IT RIGHT AND HE LIVES IN A DIVERSE COMMUNITY THAT SUPPORTS FREE SPEECH

ALSO:

 

the 14-year-old boy is funny.

 

I doubt sport bra even realizes the unintended comedy of using that picture with that sig.

 

Is that Mike Tirico in the middle trying to peer over Charles Dutton's shoulder?

 

Fixed

 

I wonder if he does, and this was all a big joke?

If he posts a bucket of KFC, followed by a photo of the dad from Fresh Prince of Bel-Air glancing hypnotically at it, then we have a winner.

 

thank you tyler.

 

The end of the piece was what stuck in my mind.

A young black man at a public library had on a Michael Vick jersey one day last week. I walked up to him, thinking about my Bonds jersey. Said, "You big for wearing that." He simply said, "Thanks." Then, almost as an afterthought, he said, "I think he's guilty as hell, but I still got his back."

We too had something in common. As we should.

At first it pissed me off, for reasons which are presumably obvious. But I challenged myself to come to an understanding of why Scoop and the guy in the Vick jersey feel this way. Even if I don't agree with their ethics, I think it's important that I be less baffled by the whole thing.

So I'm taking from the above the following ethical premise: Solidarity within the black community is more important than damn near anything. It's more important than whether or not, for example, an individual person was or was not an animal abuser. Or a cheater.

Well, I can understand how a people can come to that attitude. Black people achieved the gains they've achieved through solidarity. They didn't do it through money or through the formal political system...sure there were efforts in those areas, but the main force behind the civil rights movement was grassroots change at the community level. You can say the same thing about any group of people who made advances against oppression...women or other ethnic groups. When you don't have money or influence, numbers and solidarity are where you have your power. Solidarity is central...divisions weaken the whole.

Problem is, creating an ethical system with solidarity at the center as some sort of ultimate good- making it what ethicists call a prime directive- leads to some absurd attitudes. Same thing happens any time a means becomes an end in itself.

I'm not suggesting Scoop or the Vick-jersey guy change their thinking. They know their experience better than I can guess about it. They will have to answer their own questions to their own satisfaction.

I will say that to me, the moral authority of the civil rights movement lay in the fact that the civil rights movement was and is about what's right and wrong. Right and wrong, not just "us and them." If you say that "us and them" is more important than right and wrong, to me, you're undermining your moral authority.

 

I guess if you weren't brought over her in chains in a boat that only 40% survived:

then told to cowtow to inferior beings

then promised EVERYTHING

then LIED to and took EVERYTHING BACK

The created laws to keep you down

Then created gangs to do such

and the worse of them all. Turning the people against one another.

Then I guess you simply CANNOT understand.

and NO amount of YOUR saying "that was in the past" will ever do when we can still see that EVIL.