Race and Rosario

[Craig Arko]

As I read through this thread I just get this great urge to quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting as his character shouts at Stellan Skarsgard's character:

 

"It's not about you!!!"

[Mike Sixel]

Racism is a dial, not a switch. That makes using the word difficult, imo. Because no one wants to be called a racist, as was posted above. Words are very important, they are how we frame a discussion. So, when we use that word, it tends to instantly create an adversarial environment, imo. It is the right word, but it is a loaded word. 

 

As for racims itself, I can't see it ever truly going away. We are thousands of years into our development, and people still fear the different. Maybe, almost surely, it will lessen. But I don't know if it will ever truly go away.

 

Systemic racism is imbedded in so much of how the world runs, that I often wonder if it is fixable by acts of government, or if it just needs even more and more generations to fade.

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Racism is a dial, not a switch. That makes using the word difficult, imo. Because no one wants to be called a racist, as was posted above. Words are very important, they are how we frame a discussion. So, when we use that word, it tends to instantly create an adversarial environment, imo. It is the right word, but it is a loaded word. 

 

As for racims itself, I can't see it ever truly going away. We are thousands of years into our development, and people still fear the different. Maybe, almost surely, it will lessen. But I don't know if it will ever truly go away.

 

Systemic racism is imbedded in so much of how the world runs, that I often wonder if it is fixable by acts of government, or if it just needs even more and more generations to fade.

 

Great post.  We don't spend enough time talking about how to have discussions and how to arrive at solutions.  We shout our righteous indignation at each other, feel satisfied the other side "heard" us, and walk back to our camps.  We scoff at the other side for wanting things "their way", we dismiss any attempt at clarity, nuance, and thoughtfulness, and we toss around our pet phrases until we satisfy ourselves.  And that's all we satisfy.

 

The real work is done in the nitty gritty - before, during, and after the discussion and efforts to fix thing.  We can rush into a conversation, but we shouldn't be surprised when the results of those attempts yield nothing.

 

And the ground-work need not take that long.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

Systemic racism is imbedded in so much of how the world runs, that I often wonder if it is fixable by acts of government, or if it just needs even more and more generations to fade.

 

I think this is well beyond generations fading to be honest. There's a huge poverty issue, and that affects blacks in higher proportions than whites, though the real problem is that the ranks of the poor are continuing to grow.

 

The law also is biased against the poor. Our incarceration rules definitely hurt the poor more than the rich. I'm not a fan of incarcerating for non-violent offenses, and that is without question a contributor to this problem. 

 

Education is a problem too, though I think that issue is a lot more complex. 

 

These are things that I think the government needs to have some role in dealing with (though I suspect we wouldn't agree on what that is). Unconscious bias though... that's a different animal altogether and not one that I see simply fading with generations. 

[KirbyDome89]

It sounds like everybody here is in favor of having actual discussion. I guess I'm not certain that everything being floated in the thread will flow towards open and honest talk. 

 

1. With the sit down and shut the **** up thing are we talking about taking a breath to actually listen to the other side, or is it a recusal from the conversation? I'm guessing (hoping) this board intends it to mean the former but I've often seen it shoved across as the latter. I'm only a few years removed from being a student on a college campus, and I'm still working in academia. The sit down and be quiet message isn't usually relayed as "Hey hear me out," it's more commonly stated as "Your view is invalid because of (skin color, SES, geographic upbringing, basically any qualifier desired)" If we're removing people from the conversation, we're asking for a lecture, not a discussion. Diehard had a great post about defining terms and maybe this falls under that category. 

 

2. I'm not a fan of buzzwords like "White fragility," or "White Privilege." The amorphous definitions of these terms have already been pointed out but IMO they're also weaponized in the same way that Levi pointed out "isms," are used as ammo. These terms don't spark discussion, they're intended to antagonize, similar to the hand grenade in the thread analogy earlier. Craig was right, introspection is healthy, and it's often uncomfortable, but calling others fragile isn't going to get anybody there. That's just reality, I don't think it's thin skinned to point it out. 

[Craig Arko]

If there's a way to frame this to advance the discussion, I'm all for it.

 

Please.

[ashbury]

If others have a detriment, you have a privilege.

I'm sorry to press on this, but I just don't see 'privilege' as a useful term in this area.

 

The first online dictionary I tried uses this definition: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

 

Most people have two eyes. The few who are blind in both eyes have a definite detriment, but that doesn't make all the fully-sighted operating under a privilege.

 

Nearly by definition, in most scenarios a majority group in a population can't have a privilege.

 

Why does that matter? Talking about privilege changes the course of the conversation. There is an undercurrent that a job applicant walks in, the boss says "hey, I notice you're white, how about a well-paying job?", and the deal is done. It's one thing to acknowledge the obstacles far too many face; it's another, to use language that suggests things are made artificially easy for the larger group.

 

If we're looking for solutions that matter, rooting out privilege when it's defined so loosely leads down blind alleys. I want to root out obstacles: people who would burn churches, police who react out of fear instead of bravery, bosses who say "hey, I notice you're black, get outta here" (never so explicitly anymore, of course).

 

I've had an easy obstacle-free life; I want that for as many others as we can possibly manage, because more gets accomplished that way. Point out ways to do that, and I'll help. Focus instead on white privilege, and my head swivels around looking in vain for what possibly should be done to make lives worse for some people.

 

I hope you see that I am no-way no-how defending what is called white privilege, or asking to keep the status quo. I just think that words matter.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb, and opine that making people feel guilty for just going about their lives is a good deal of the reason we have an ex-reality show star as president.

[USAFChief]

 

As I read through this thread I just get this great urge to quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting as his character shouts at Stellan Skarsgard's character:

 

"It's not about you!!!"

Then who is it about?

 

You can't ask "does Eddie Rosario get treated differently due to racism" and then say, "but not by you, Craig. Not you, Chief. Not me, either."

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Then who is it about?

 

You can't ask "does Eddie Rosario get treated differently due to racism" and then say, "but not by you, Craig. Not you, Chief. Not me, either."

The aggregate. The collective.  Or if you prefer,  a bunch of people not posting in this thread, whose added weight pull the treatment/criticism towards the problematic in the aggregate of which we end up being a part. 

 

 

[Craig Arko]

 

Then who is it about?

 

You can't ask "does Eddie Rosario get treated differently due to racism" and then say, "but not by you, Craig. Not you, Chief. Not me, either."

It's going to be about kids; similar to the Parkland kids. You and I are already lost causes, Chief.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm going to go out on a limb, and opine that making people feel guilty for just going about their lives is a good deal of the reason we have an ex-reality show star as president.

No one is suggesting that White people should feel guilty for their privilege (though white guilt is another phenomenon, not so dissimilar, still discrete from what we are talking about here).  Rather, I think the use of privilege is to evoke a feeling of being lucky, or feeling of gratitude for circumstances one did not earn.  As opposed to just asserting some base-line of this is how it should always be, and thereby, something we can easily take for granted. 

 

Some of the problem is that white privilege does indeed depend on others detriment.  That the equally-qualified candidate of color did not get the job/(or opportunity, educational experience, etc.) is certainly an unearned boon for you and me.  Equality in this respect may indeed ask white people to give up something, something they may not have asked for, but they have benefited from any way.  (This is scary, and I think this is a big reason why someone like Trump has so much traction.  Especially among the white poor, who may feel they have so little, if there was any advantage, must they give that up, too?)

 

Language does matter.  But let's be real, in this instance we're talking about the effect of language on the already dominant group of people, and we're talking about changing our language to make that dominant group more comfortable with a difficult conversation that should implicate their dominance. There's more than a bit of irony there/here.   For instance, there is no one making (or advocating for making) accommodations to our language and speech so that more women or people of color are willing to engage in this discussion.  (After seeing the past several pages of posts, do you think we've created a welcoming venue to invite such voices? I don't.  Again, this isn't about blame or guilt, it's observing a phenomenon, and being honest about its effect.)  I'm far more interested in bringing in those voices then I am with making certain that white guys don't feel unfairly subsumed by what is obviously a generalization, as it is a phenomenon happening in the aggregate, and not necessarily an indictment of individuals. 

 

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.  I understand your point, but it's one that derails the conversation we should be having, and further marginalizing the very interests of the people this conversation ought to bring to light. 

[USAFChief]

 

It's going to be about kids; similar to the Parkland kids. You and I are already lost causes, Chief.

ha...quite possibly true.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.  I understand your point, but it's one that derails the conversation we should be having, and further marginalizing the very interests of the people this conversation ought to bring to light. 

 

Well, from my recollection, all of us that brought up our discomfort for this also said we have avoided derailing the issue in other opportunities out of respect for that.  None of us want to die on that hill, we're just pointing out that it's a problematic term in the discussion.  We want the same thing you do, we're not "demanding" anything, we're just worried the term has a negative impact on the discussion. 

 

Words matter, but outcomes matter most.  If you're turning people away from the conversation on the very face of it, you're likely diminishing the impact of your conversation before it even starts.  Go ahead, make them uncomfortable with what you're saying and the reality you're hitting them with, but be aware you want their cooperation.  At some point you need it.  Continually making them uncomfortable, purposely, is counter-productive.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 If we're removing people from the conversation, we're asking for a lecture, not a discussion. Diehard had a great post about defining terms and maybe this falls under that category. 

 

This is an important, and well-stated sentence.  

 

For the record though, some lectures might be necessary.  But they should evolve into discussions.  At least, that should be the aim.

[PseudoSABR]

I think it's a lot easier to argue about defining terms, than actually have the discussion. And even conceding that terms like racism and privilege may not make it easy to discuss the underlying phenomenon whatever substitute we've generated hasn't really created any discussion...

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I suspect we are talking past each other here. I don't think you're wrong at all to suggest that white people need to sit down and listen for a couple minutes. You've read what I've said, I've made it very clear that part of the problem is not just listening, but not listening to understand.

 

I am saying that it's the accusatory tone is what deflects a lot of this to semantics. I'm saying that inflammatory (and quite frankly unreasonable) accusations is why no one has the conversation. I get the need to try and filter it out to get to the message. It's really hard to do though when the conversation is killed before it can start.

I get what you're saying, I really do, but what defines "unreasonable accusations"?

 

Because I've sat down and listened to people of color try to have this conversation... and they're beyond frustrated. If they hold protests in the streets, they're thugs. If they silently kneel during the anthem, they're dishonoring our veterans (just two loose examples of various groups trying different tactics). There's blowback no matter how politely or rudely the conversation is brought to the table.

 

One side is trying really hard to get their message out any way they can and they've been pushing the same message as a group for literally 70 years.

 

The other side talks a lot about tone and semantics. I mean, they talk about it a lot.

 

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reach out and find ways to communicate but we have well over half a century of evidence to support that one side is trying its ****ing damnest to get people to listen while the other obfuscates and distracts because it's a hell of a lot easier to do that than actually talk about the subject at hand.

 

So we can talk about being polite, we can talk about semantics, or we can actually face the hard truth that one side doesn't want to talk about this subject at all.

 

We can keep circling the issue or we can start calling out those around us who do everything in their power to avoid actually having a discussion.

 

Because the other side has literally tried everything in their power to get people to listen.

[Riverbrian]

I like to tell myself that if I was a major league player... I would play like Byron Buxton. Meaning... I would be crashing into walls to make the catch, I would be trying to beat out routine grounders, I would break up double plays and plow over catchers.  

 

I believe that I would play the game hard just like Byron Buxton does. 

 

However if I was truly honest with myself. Even if I did play the game hard like Buxton. If I popped up straight up the shoot like Rosario did and the ball was looking foul initially and then the wind carried it slightly fair with 4 major league baseball players in easy range of making the catch. I think it's quite possible... actually probable... that I would have stood and looked at it.

 

The odds of the ball dropping in fair territory and nobody catching it was probably less than 1% and if that indeed did happen in the major leagues. I would have returned to the dug out and told the manager and my teammates that it was my fault and I imagine that I would have been quickly forgiven. 

 

This isn't little league... it's a 162 game schedule... a little complacency is to be expected especially when the odds of that ball being dropped is so minuscule. Running full speed to 1st base on a pop up is something you tell a 10 year old while trying to teach a lifetime of hustle. I don't believe that I would have ran in that situation so I've already forgiven Eddie. 

 

As for the rest of the discussion...

 

Is there racism in the world? Yeah... I'm pretty sure that there is. 

 

Does it apply to Rosario not running on a pop up? Not from my chair.  

 

 

[ashbury]

I don't believe that I would have ran in that situation so I've already forgiven Eddie.

Molitor wasn't as quick to forgive. He gave Rosario's job to the immortal Ryan LaMarre. That lasted for only half a game, and could be covered by the fig leaf of "a lefty starting pitcher", but I'm pretty sure a message was transmitted, and furthermore was received loud and clear.

 

I also doubt that race (much less racism) had anything to do with Molitor's lineup decision, just to circle back to the thread topic.

[Riverbrian]

 

Molitor wasn't as quick to forgive. He gave Rosario's job to the immortal Ryan LaMarre. That lasted for only half a game, and could be covered by the fig leaf of "a lefty starting pitcher", but I'm pretty sure a message was transmitted, and furthermore was received loud and clear.

 

I also doubt that race (much less racism) had anything to do with Molitor's lineup decision, just to circle back to the thread topic.

 

He may have chosen Rosario over Kepler to sit because of his lapse in judgement or he may have spoken to him in his office after the game and that was the end of it. 

 

However...LaMarre started for the first time in Game 6 of the season and the first time they faced a left handed starter.

 

It's more of a turkey blind than a fig leaf. 

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

He didn't need run hard to be safe on that pop up.

A brisk crawl would have gotten it done.

Let's not defend it by saying they can't risk injury, or give 100% on every almost automatic out.

At least half ass it down the line. That would have been enough on this particular play.

[ashbury]

He may have chosen Rosario over Kepler to sit because of his lapse in judgement or he may have spoken to him in his office after the game and that was the end of it. 

 

However...LaMarre started for the first time in Game 6 of the season and the first time they faced a left handed starter.

 

It's more of a turkey blind than a fig leaf. 

If I'm a manager, I'm not too proud to use a little serendipity to send a message through a move I was going to consider making anyway.

 

It allowed Molitor to do it without completely throwing the player under the bus.

 

I don't remember Rosario sitting routinely against lefties, but I'd have to check the record and I'm not gonna.

 

/ edit - it seems like I am thread-jacking, but in my defense it's a Twins-oriented digression.

[Squirrel]

And so much for staying on topic ...

[adorduan]

I'll throw my 2 cents in here on a couple of things.  I been a member of this forum for a few years and I don't know anyone on here personally.  That being said, I think you can get a pretty good feel, at least most of the time, for what people might be like in real life over the course of them making hundreds or thousands of posts. And the quality of people that post here is off the charts good compared to most message boards.

 

As for Rosario, I think it's just the case that he has made a few more bone headed plays that the average player early in his career and he's going to kind of be stuck with that label.  He's one of my favorite players, but I still cringe when he does something nutty, because I know he's going to get some grief about it.  But it's fair to point out his mistakes.  I'll take his good that comes with the bad. 

[adorduan]

 

Molitor wasn't as quick to forgive. He gave Rosario's job to the immortal Ryan LaMarre. That lasted for only half a game, and could be covered by the fig leaf of "a lefty starting pitcher", but I'm pretty sure a message was transmitted, and furthermore was received loud and clear.

 

I also doubt that race (much less racism) had anything to do with Molitor's lineup decision, just to circle back to the thread topic.

Agreed. Rosario  was struggling anyway, but I'm pretty sure Molitor was trying to send Eddie a message.

[ashbury]

And so much for staying on topic ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Kav8e-CDtIU/Sx576ByGwaI/AAAAAAAAAgY/ItYTlenzyxA/s400/sad+monkey.jpg

[Craig Arko]

[Ultima Ratio]

Another bone-head error today.  Probably due to the cold. http://www.gomotes.com/emoticon/shocked.gif

[KirbyDome89]

 

No one is suggesting that White people should feel guilty for their privilege (though white guilt is another phenomenon, not so dissimilar, still discrete from what we are talking about here).  Rather, I think the use of privilege is to evoke a feeling of being lucky, or feeling of gratitude for circumstances one did not earn.  As opposed to just asserting some base-line of this is how it should always be, and thereby, something we can easily take for granted. 

 

Some of the problem is that white privilege does indeed depend on others detriment.  That the equally-qualified candidate of color did not get the job/(or opportunity, educational experience, etc.) is certainly an unearned boon for you and me.  Equality in this respect may indeed ask white people to give up something, something they may not have asked for, but they have benefited from any way.  (This is scary, and I think this is a big reason why someone like Trump has so much traction.  Especially among the white poor, who may feel they have so little, if there was any advantage, must they give that up, too?)

 

Language does matter.  But let's be real, in this instance we're talking about the effect of language on the already dominant group of people, and we're talking about changing our language to make that dominant group more comfortable with a difficult conversation that should implicate their dominance. There's more than a bit of irony there/here.   For instance, there is no one making (or advocating for making) accommodations to our language and speech so that more women or people of color are willing to engage in this discussion.  (After seeing the past several pages of posts, do you think we've created a welcoming venue to invite such voices? I don't.  Again, this isn't about blame or guilt, it's observing a phenomenon, and being honest about its effect.)  I'm far more interested in bringing in those voices then I am with making certain that white guys don't feel unfairly subsumed by what is obviously a generalization, as it is a phenomenon happening in the aggregate, and not necessarily an indictment of individuals. 

 

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.  I understand your point, but it's one that derails the conversation we should be having, and further marginalizing the very interests of the people this conversation ought to bring to light. 

I think this is stepping around what John was saying. He was spot on when he pointed out that it's very different to acknowledge a more difficult path for some, as opposed to suggesting that things in life are handed to others. The last number I saw for total American's living in poverty was around 40 million. That's incredibly high, the number of whites that comprised that was just over 17 million, and that isn't taking into account those living barely above that line. I have a hard time believing those individuals feel lucky or grateful for their living situation, and I certainly don't believe that they haven't earned what little they have in this life. Granted, I've seen privilege applied to more than just economic status, but an individual's SES is pivotal in everything from physical health to social power and upward mobility so I think it's fair to use it in this regard.  

 

I don't know why we need to operate under the assumption that there is a finite amount of social capital. The idea is certainly pervasive in a lot of the social movements today, but I feel that it's only detrimental and leads to a lot of the infighting we see. IMO it's one of the big reasons we see things pride parades being halted and co opted by other social movements. Rather than pulling people down, the idea for society should be to pull everybody up to a place where opportunity and access to resources are as close to equal as possible. That doesn't mean we'll see an equality of outcome, nor should it, but a basal level from which to start from should be the goal. 

 

The point of having defined language isn't to appease the hurt feelings of one group, it's to actually get to a place where conversation occurs. If you were to sit down with someone of opposing views and they started in by telling you that you're a snowflake or an elitist, I'm guessing you would be put on the defensive. I don't think anybody would blame you. It's easy to look past these buzz words in an effort to mine some sort of underlying meaning if you mostly agree with whatever message you believe is being conveyed, it's much more difficult to do so when those words or phrases are directed at you. I feel like we're overcomplicating simple protocol for carrying out civil conversation. The idea of avoiding provocation to ensure valuable conversation isn't novel. 

 

You've used the word aggregate a couple times now to describe who the term white privilege is pointed at, but I think Chief raised a fair point when asked who that is. We've acknowledged that the term is a generalization and that it can't be assigned at any sort of individual level, so what does the term add to a conversation? That's an honest question. From my perspective we have a group seemingly out in the ether, neither you nor I can say who or how many belong to it, and we know that the formation of this aggregate isn't particularly accurate because we've acknowledged that the threshold for entry allows for sweeping generalizations. I don't see how introducing the term to an attempt at honest conversation adds anything other than confusion or frustration.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

 

So we can talk about being polite, we can talk about semantics, or we can actually face the hard truth that one side doesn't want to talk about this subject at all.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with this line at all. I think people want to have the conversation... I do at least. I don't see the problem with peaceful protests, and I continue to support the right of players to protest the anthem. 

 

The real problem is that there aren't good solutions and the focus on race tends to take focus off the real problem. There's some low hanging fruit surrounding what we criminalize in this country, but beyond that, there isn't an easy answer. The problems that people of color have in this country have a lot to do with a system that sets them up to fail (and I personally would argue that this issue isn't an issue of race as much as it is economic). We aren't talking Jim Crow, which was designed to be racially repressive, but we do have a problem with a desperate need to recapitalize the poor and give them a fighting chance to succeed. Welfare didn't do that (if anything, it made it worse). Our economic system is designed to repress the poor which without question disproportionately affects people on racial lines.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

The aggregate. The collective.  Or if you prefer,  a bunch of people not posting in this thread, whose added weight pull the treatment/criticism towards the problematic in the aggregate of which we end up being a part. 

I'd be careful with this line of reasoning to. I'm not sure not posting in this thread is proof that no one wants to have it.

 

As a whole, our entire culture has devolved to the point where any kind of real discussion on any topic doesn't happen. Discussion in the US is very much about a sound-byte that can be condensed into 140 280 characters, not a nuanced discussion that can be had to allow for mutual understanding. There's a real problem with people in this country not knowing how to even have the conversation, especially when it gets boiled down into two sides with each side demonizing the other via wholly inaccurate labels/stereotypes.  We're all a part of the problem, because to be quite honest, we all do it. 

 

I know personally that I don't usually participate in these conversations (or political conversations in general) because so very few people are actually interested in listening to understand. It's all about labeling and stereotypes. The conversation never gets anywhere because no one is willing to have it or even knows how to have it. That doesn't mean people aren't interested in having the conversation.