Mushnick!

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

Azrael

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
28,883
Unflinching social critic? Or out-of-touch firestarter?

Gang colors and money.

www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/color_of_money_b8aBxH641G1ecMlrYFiIfJ
 
2865905_f496.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He's been ranting about it for 25 years now.

And I say this as someone who gets very tired of nearly every uniform having black in it, and who also hates "third" "fourth" "fifth" and "sixth" jerseys.
 
I keep trying to form an intelligent thought on the matter. But I think Uncle.Ruckus got it right.
 
His basic premise has merit. You all don't like it because it has the name Phil Mushnick on it, and, to a more insidious degree, because the writer is (gasp) more than 55 years old.

It's a fact that gangs gravitate toward specific Yankees merchandise. Is that disputed here?

And one other thing. Younger people can roll their eyes until they fall out of their heads when older people bring up that some things were better 20, 30, 50 years ago. That doesn't make it wrong.

But hey, posting a photo of Grandpa Simpson is edgy.
 
jr/shotglass said:
His basic premise has merit. You all don't like it because it has the name Phil Mushnick on it, and, to a more insidious degree, because the writer is (gasp) more than 55 years old.

It's a fact that gangs gravitate toward specific Yankees merchandise. Is that disputed here?

And one other thing. Younger people can roll their eyes until they fall out of their heads when older people bring up that some things were better 20, 30, 50 years ago. That doesn't make it wrong.

But hey, posting a photo of Grandpa Simpson is edgy.

There's a pretty big ****ing difference between red Yankee hats and Pro Combat jerseys. Which gang wears Oregon Ducks uniforms?
 
Forgive the “When I was a kid” stuff, but when I was a kid no one associated with a sport or sports encouraged kids and young adults to do anything illogical, anything stupid, anything dangerous and certainly nothing that would leave civil society at a loss.


Seriously?


www.flickr.com/photos/67827566@N00/5314128221/


Mushnick!
 
Versatile said:
There's a pretty big ****ing difference between red Yankee hats and Pro Combat jerseys. Which gang wears Oregon Ducks uniforms?

I don't get why you would want to dispute the connection. Just so we can share a laugh at old Phil Musnick's expense?

Of course it's not a perfect correlation. But there's a correlation.
 
Yes. Football players and New York City gang members are black listen to rap.
 
I don't want to be an expert on New York City gang members. I'm thinking they're not all black listening to rap. But whatever.
 
My point was not that I think football players or gang members listen to rap/are black.

Phil Mushnick comes at this with a rather simplistic world view. It's the same one that led him to say Jay-Z shouldn't be allowed to own the Nets because he's rapped about selling drugs. Mushnick fails to understand where that culture comes from and what it means, which makes him an entirely worthless commentator on it.

There was time when he could have said (and is old enough that he very well might have said) that tie dye T-shirts are being sold to propagate draft dodgers. He paints with a broad brush. I don't think he's a racist as much as out of touch.

He's written very directly about hip-hop culture, and I'm sorry if I can't help but see that as a sneer toward black culture.
 
It would be very easy to get pummeled like Mark right now. I don't want that.

I guess I didn't totally equate "hip hop culture" with black culture. I would never look down on black culture. I don't know if I feel the same way about the hip hop culture.
 
Here's what I'm thinking. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm thinking you (and Phil Mushnick) see football players, of all races, listening to Rick Ross and wearing baggy jeans and athletic gear. Then you see Rick Ross, who raps about using drugs, taking advantage of women and committing occasionally violent crimes while he wears his baggy jeans and athletic gear. The fallacy, one which I really do have a problem with, is the connection that wearing the clothes and listening to the music lead directly to acting out the songs, to wanting to be the musicians.

To draw some parallels: This would mean that kids wearing tie dye and listening to Jimi Hendrix in the late 1960s are high most of the time. This would mean that kids who wear black and listen to Nine Inch Nails cut themselves. This would mean that kids wearing leather jackets and flat tops did cocaine and beat Whitney Houston.

The culture doesn't create the person.
 
Sometimes colors are just colors. The majority of people aren't in gangs, so without some marketing research indicating otherwise I think its safe to assume that the majority of jerseys sold aren't sold to gang members. To suggest that Nike or Under Armour are undertaking an entire operation, the cost of design and outfitting a school with new duds, just to sell to a gang, to me is drawing a line that's not there.

Are there really enough members in even the largest gangs to justify the evil marketing genius he suggests exists?
 
JimmyHoward33 said:
Sometimes colors are just colors. The majority of people aren't in gangs, so without some marketing research indicating otherwise I think its safe to assume that the majority of jerseys sold aren't sold to gang members. To suggest that Nike or Under Armour are undertaking an entire operation, the cost of design and outfitting a school with new duds, just to sell to a gang, to me is drawing a line that's not there.

Are there really enough members in even the largest gangs to justify the evil marketing genius he suggests exists?

There certainly are when it comes to hat designs that a team will never wear. Football jerseys actually worn on the field ... I don't have the data required to answer that, but I find it to be a stretch.
 
Versatile said:
Mushnick fails to understand where that culture comes from and what it means, which makes him an entirely worthless commentator on it.

Where's it come from? What does it mean?

I have no use for Mushnick's take on it. But yours I do.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top