Page 6 of 7

Posted: November 19, 2004 12:45 pm
by mexcooker12
captainjoe wrote:
bumper wrote: The reference is successful black man dating/marrying outside of his race, in this case, seeking a caucasion female who just happens to be another sterotyped blond hair, blue eyed barbi.
That still does not make sense. Who is saying this? The only people that I know are saying this are white people. I have not heard anyone in the black community speak out against interracial marriage/dating.
Here you go Captain.
here is an article I posted earlier written by a black columnist for SI

I should've known this latest Terrell Owens story wouldn't vanish quickly. It involves sex, money, sports and, most critically, race. These are topics that make for a lively debate and I doubt that T.O. has any idea what kind of Pandora's Box he jolted open when Nicollette Sheridan vaulted into his arms on Monday night. ABC and anybody else who makes money off Desperate Housewives, is still reveling in all the publicity generated from the segment.

Personally, the skit didn't bother me one bit. What the segment did do, however, was make me wonder if America was ready to see a naked, blonde, white woman with her arms wrapped around an outspoken, controversial, highly paid black man. From what I can tell from everybody's reaction, the country definitely wasn't.

Isn't that what this is really all about? Once we get past all the people complaining about how inappropriate the skit was for the Monday Night Football audience and how so many children will be scarred after being exposed to such a tawdry scene before their bedtime and all the decision-makers in the NFL who have raced away from this topic as if it were a time bomb, this is an issue that comes down to race. Aside from Tony Dungy, nobody wants to talk about that aspect of the story, because that's the really scary part. It might tell us something about ourselves, that our country hasn't come as far in the area of race relations as we'd like to believe. Even now, with so many people still talking about Owens and Sheridan, I doubt we can fully address it like it needs to be addressed.

It's the one issue in this country that remains difficult for us to talk about. If you're black -- or any other minority -- you deal with race every day. It's a fact. If you're white, you deal with race mostly as it impacts you. It's a choice. Moments like the one that occurred on Monday night force us to come face-to-face with how we really feel about the subject and that is a good thing. In fact, I tell you what's been the most amazing moment for me since Monday night. It was a friend telling me that one of his buddies was shocked by the suggestion that all this controversy could've had anything to do with racial attitudes. As my friend's friend said, "Aren't we past the days when we have to think like that?"

No, we aren't. If you want to know how touchy the subject of black men hooking up with white women is, take a quick poll of America. There are plenty of black women who will have something to say about it. There are still plenty of interracial couples who know what it feels like to be stared at when they're out together. And there are plenty of parents, black and white, who are petrified by the thought of their sons and daughters proclaiming their love for somebody with a skin color different from their own. And when it comes to sports, there are plenty of people uncomfortable with the notion of a black man bedding a white woman.

I guarantee you that if Peyton Manning had been the man Sheridan jumped on, there wouldn't be half the controversy. If it had been Eva Longoria, the Latina co-star of Desperate Housewives, there also wouldn't be as much of an outcry. Two minorities locked in a sexual embrace isn't as shocking a thought in some of those red states. This is the same type of thinking that is all around Hollywood. When's the last time you saw Will Smith, Taye Diggs or Denzel Washington smooch a white woman? I can't recall it either because the people who make movies know they'd face the same response as ABC is dealing with now.

Everything I'm talking about here points to one central issue -- how comfortable America is with black men as sexual objects. Dungy had that part right when he talked about the Owens segment reinforcing the racial stereotype of a black sexual predator being chased by a fawning white woman. But I think it's deeper than that. Americans celebrate the black athlete and pay him huge sums of money but many people still have issues when it comes to his sex life. It's too salacious, too disturbing, just too much. But thanks to T.O., we've got an opportunity to openly talk about how we feel about it. I only wonder when we'll all realize that.


Jeffri Chadiha covers the NFL for Sports Illustrated and is a frequent contributor to SI.com.

Posted: November 19, 2004 12:46 pm
by Y-NO-9-O
bravedave wrote: Legalizing marijuana
NORML! NORML! NORML!

And before you all go off on me, remember, Jimmy was a believer in NORML back when.

Posted: November 19, 2004 12:47 pm
by PHBeerman
bravedave wrote:Which of these legislative proposals should be pursued if they enjoy 51% popular support?
  • Ending all 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions Yep
    Reinstating prohibition I have not seen this one. Do you have facts?Legalizing marijuana YepEnacting voter registration IQ tests YepAllowing foreign born citizens to be president Yep
    Allowing presidents to serve 3 terms (not consecutively) Yep

Posted: November 19, 2004 12:48 pm
by LIPH
Key Lime Lee wrote: . . . p*** . . . hands on . . . hard . . .
I'm offended by what your choice of words implies. :o Just trying to lighten the mood a little

Posted: November 19, 2004 12:48 pm
by PHBeerman
Key Lime Lee wrote:
PHBeerman wrote:
Using your logic of individuals should be able to govern themselves. If someone chose to go on a killing spree, we should not infringe on their right to do so. And the majority should not have a thing to say about it.
That's not my logic at all - that's your assumption.

If anything, that's simply another example of your belief that the majority should set the rules in all cases.
What? How do you extract that from my statement? Are you stoned again?

Posted: November 19, 2004 12:50 pm
by bravedave
PHBeerman wrote:
bravedave wrote:Which of these legislative proposals should be pursued if they enjoy 51% popular support?
  • Ending all 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions Yep
    Reinstating prohibition I have not seen this one. Do you have facts?Legalizing marijuana YepEnacting voter registration IQ tests YepAllowing foreign born citizens to be president Yep
    Allowing presidents to serve 3 terms (not consecutively) Yep
They were all spurious. I made 'em up for illustrative purposes.

Posted: November 19, 2004 12:51 pm
by captainjoe
bumper wrote:
captainjoe wrote:What did he say? Did he say that interracial dating is wrong? Did he say that blacks should stick with black and whites should stick with whites? Or were they discussing the racist views of white America?
PHBeerman wrote:Tony Dungy
Facts please!
already gave you the facts
Bumper wrote:Would you be saying the same if Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, oh wait he married a cracker, made the case instead, not on moral grounds but on sterotypical grounds?
Bumper wrote:commentator on espn spoke in depth on the issue.
Both of those quotes were not facts.

Even the espn commentator's article supports my argument. It is white America that is up in arms about this.

Posted: November 19, 2004 12:51 pm
by Key Lime Lee
PHBeerman wrote:
Key Lime Lee wrote:
PHBeerman wrote:
Using your logic of individuals should be able to govern themselves. If someone chose to go on a killing spree, we should not infringe on their right to do so. And the majority should not have a thing to say about it.
That's not my logic at all - that's your assumption.

If anything, that's simply another example of your belief that the majority should set the rules in all cases.[/quote]

What? How do you extract that from my statement? Are you stoned again?
You wrote:
And the majority should not have a thing to say about it.

Which seems to indicate that you believe the majority is solely responsible for determining and establishing the basic rules necessary for a functional society.

Which leads me to conclude you're not well-versed in the social theory the founding fathers relied on to construct the constitution or the bill of rights.

Posted: November 19, 2004 12:55 pm
by LIPH
bravedave wrote:Which of these legislative proposals should be pursued if they enjoy 51% popular support?
  • Ending all 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions
    Reinstating prohibition
    Legalizing marijuana
    Enacting voter registration IQ tests
    Allowing foreign born citizens to be president
    Allowing presidents to serve 3 terms (not consecutively)
You'd need a constitutional amendment for that one, not a legislative proposal. It was always legal to serve more than 2 terms but nobody ever ran for a 3rd term until FDR. Now it's prohibited by the 22nd Amendment.

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:01 pm
by RinglingRingling
bravedave wrote:
PHBeerman wrote:
bravedave wrote:Which of these legislative proposals should be pursued if they enjoy 51% popular support?
  • Ending all 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions Yep
    Reinstating prohibition I have not seen this one. Do you have facts?Legalizing marijuana YepEnacting voter registration IQ tests YepAllowing foreign born citizens to be president Yep
    Allowing presidents to serve 3 terms (not consecutively) Yep
They were all spurious. I made 'em up for illustrative purposes.
and the logic for this is what? Because we benighted, misguided natives are too freakin' stupid to make our own decisions? Doesn't that kinda play into the hands of the half-wits wailing about the black helicopters and one world government? (Why have the whole UN making decisions for the US, when one guy like Kofi Annan can get elected President in the US and make decisions for us..)

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:02 pm
by PHBeerman
Key Lime Lee wrote:
PHBeerman wrote:
Key Lime Lee wrote:
PHBeerman wrote:
Using your logic of individuals should be able to govern themselves. If someone chose to go on a killing spree, we should not infringe on their right to do so. And the majority should not have a thing to say about it.
That's not my logic at all - that's your assumption.

If anything, that's simply another example of your belief that the majority should set the rules in all cases.[/quote]

What? How do you extract that from my statement? Are you stoned again?
You wrote:
And the majority should not have a thing to say about it.

Which seems to indicate that you believe the majority is solely responsible for determining and establishing the basic rules necessary for a functional society.

Which leads me to conclude you're not well-versed in the social theory the founding fathers relied on to construct the constitution or the bill of rights.
I am not talking our founding fathers. I am attempting to clarify your views. You have stated many times that the beliefs of the majority should not infringe on the rights of an individual. So if an individual feels compelled to kill that should be his right. I will admit your way of thinking is foreign to me. I am very utilitarian by nature.

Right now you still seem upset that the citizens of this country voiced their views through their ballots in a way which contradicts your views. Thus, I am led to believe that your view of democracy is not that the voice of the people be heard. Instead, the voice of the individual should trump that of the majority.

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:04 pm
by LIPH
captainjoe wrote:What did he say? Did he say that interracial dating is wrong? Did he say that blacks should stick with black and whites should stick with whites? Or were they discussing the racist views of white America?
PHBeerman wrote:Tony Dungy
Facts please!
From today's NY Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/11-18-2004/s ... 7403c.html

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:22 pm
by captainjoe
He is taking about the stereotype of athletes being sexual predators, not about it being racial offensive. He said nothing about interracial marriage or dating. I agree with Tony on his points but I think we should all just lighten up.
Tony Dungy wrote:That athletes are sexual predators and that that stuff is more important than what's going on on the field. That a guy was more concerned with that than the game, that's a terrible message to send," Dungy said. "I'm particularly sensitive to that. It could have been any player and I would have been outraged, but being an African-American, it particularly hurt me."

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:22 pm
by PHBeerman
captainjoe wrote:He is taking about the stereotype of athletes being sexual predators, not about it being racial offensive. He said nothing about interracial marriage or dating. I agree with Tony on his points but I think we should all just lighten up.
Tony Dungy wrote:That athletes are sexual predators and that that stuff is more important than what's going on on the field. That a guy was more concerned with that than the game, that's a terrible message to send," Dungy said. "I'm particularly sensitive to that. It could have been any player and I would have been outraged, but being an African-American, it particularly hurt me."
Hey that was your 300 post.

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:23 pm
by CaribbnSoul
Why are you guys arguing over morals here?? Did nobody pay attention to my earlier post in this thread? The real injustice here is that they got the wrong desperate housewife to do the skit! It should have been Eva! We need to protest this! lol :lol: :lol:

Here she is:

Image

Image

Stick to the real issues people! LOL

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:30 pm
by LIPH
captainjoe wrote:He is taking about the stereotype of athletes being sexual predators, not about it being racial offensive. He said nothing about interracial marriage or dating. I agree with Tony on his points but I think we should all just lighten up.
He also stressed, more than once, "as an African-American". Is he saying if he was white it wouldn't have bothered him? Either it's offensive or it isn't, race shouldn't enter the picture. If a white coach had said he was offended as "a white man" people would jump all over him.

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:31 pm
by RAGTOP
I always thought Tony Dungy was white :wink:

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:40 pm
by bumper
captainjoe wrote:He is taking about the stereotype of athletes being sexual predators, not about it being racial offensive. He said nothing about interracial marriage or dating. I agree with Tony on his points but I think we should all just lighten up.
Tony Dungy wrote:That athletes are sexual predators and that that stuff is more important than what's going on on the field. That a guy was more concerned with that than the game, that's a terrible message to send," Dungy said. "I'm particularly sensitive to that. It could have been any player and I would have been outraged, but being an African-American, it particularly hurt me."
so its okay that the racial sterotype is that of a black athlete=sexual predator, he should just lighten up a bit? I think I would rather have the trophy white chick sterotype attached.

As I said several times before it was a black commentator on espn talking in depth regarding the broader message sent by a successful black athlete displaying the trophy white female. Now that is a fact, because you missed does make it any less a fact. Again I say not racial offense but a racial sterotype..not sure you are understanding the differnce.

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:43 pm
by PHBeerman
CaribbnSoul wrote:Why are you guys arguing over morals here?? Did nobody pay attention to my earlier post in this thread? The real injustice here is that they got the wrong desperate housewife to do the skit! It should have been Eva! We need to protest this! lol :lol: :lol:

Here she is:

Image

Image

Stick to the real issues people! LOL
I think that the problem was they showed the back instead of the front,

Posted: November 19, 2004 1:44 pm
by LIPH
I don't even agree with the "sexual predator" comment. Wasn't the woman the aggressor in this promo?