Race and Rosario

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

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.  

Economics plays a significant role in our current problems, without a doubt... but you read that article from a few weeks ago that showed how black people were less upwardly mobile but far more downwardly mobile than white people. At that point, there's obviously a racial component in all of this and it also plays a significant role, one that should not be diminished nor ignored. Personally, I'd argue that saying that economic component is most important is letting the tail wag the dog; many of the economic issues stem from racial problems going back generations, such as home buying restrictions and corralling people of color into manufactured ghettos (which lead to lower property taxes, which lead to worse schools, which lead to less business investment and innovation, which lead to the next generation being mired in the same muck as the generation before them and creating an inescapable cycle).

 

There are many people in this nation who want to have this discussion and I certainly don't mean to include you in that group but it's almost impossible to deny that there's a significant segment of this nation with absolutely no interest in having this discussion in a meaningful manner. Look at how social media and conservative talking heads blew the **** up over Black Lives Matter (talk about the most benign phrase ever, yet it was somehow twisted into something horrible) and the sheer audacity of football players quietly taking a knee in protest of inequality.

 

If you protest in groups, people scream and complain that you're in their way. If you protest quietly by taking a knee, those same people scream and complain that you're dishonoring (insert badly thought out talking point here).

 

And at that point, how can you claim those people are coming to the table with the intent of having an honest discussion?

[Mike Sixel]

In fairness, I find most of my friends don't want to talk about anything difficult to discuss, let alone race.

 

The comment that this thread isn't talking about race....I don't agree. Even this part is about racism.But, if someone wants to change the direction, start changing the discussion, rather than complaining about how others are discussing it. Or not. Doubt we are going to change anything among the 12 or so people chatting here.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not necessarily endorsing this, but I found it interesting and relevant to the discussion.  (More the second half of the article)

 

I think it has value to consider, even if there are times where perhaps you set it aside.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm not necessarily endorsing this, but I found it interesting and relevant to the discussion.  (More the second half of the article)

 

I think it has value to consider, even if there are times where perhaps you set it aside.

Especially on the internet, I think condescension is easy to lapse into.  This article reminded me of David Foster Wallace's Commencement speech at Kenyon years ago, a fantastic, important read if you haven't come across it before.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Especially on the internet, I think condescension is easy to lapse into.  This article reminded me of David Foster Wallace's Commencement speech at Kenyon years ago, a fantastic, important read if you haven't come across it before.

 

His is well said as well.  We have to find ways to challenge without offending and to be challenged without being offended.  There has been too much injected into this thread, in my opinion, that struggles with one end of that or the other.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Economics plays a significant role in our current problems, without a doubt... but you read that article from a few weeks ago that showed how black people were less upwardly mobile but far more downwardly mobile than white people. At that point, there's obviously a racial component in all of this and it also plays a significant role, one that should not be diminished nor ignored. Personally, I'd argue that saying that economic component is most important is letting the tail wag the dog; many of the economic issues stem from racial problems going back generations, such as home buying restrictions and corralling people of color into manufactured ghettos (which lead to lower property taxes, which lead to worse schools, which lead to less business investment and innovation, which lead to the next generation being mired in the same muck as the generation before them and creating an inescapable cycle).

 

There are many people in this nation who want to have this discussion and I certainly don't mean to include you in that group but it's almost impossible to deny that there's a significant segment of this nation with absolutely no interest in having this discussion in a meaningful manner. Look at how social media and conservative talking heads blew the **** up over Black Lives Matter (talk about the most benign phrase ever, yet it was somehow twisted into something horrible) and the sheer audacity of football players quietly taking a knee in protest of inequality.

 

If you protest in groups, people scream and complain that you're in their way. If you protest quietly by taking a knee, those same people scream and complain that you're dishonoring (insert badly thought out talking point here).

 

And at that point, how can you claim those people are coming to the table with the intent of having an honest discussion?

I did read your article. To me at least, it spoke to a culture that is so beaten down it has no pride at all. No hope. Nothing. I guess the question I'd ask is how you do this without the economic component? You say this is the tail wagging the dog, but it is without question economics that affect blacks at a disproportionate rate to whites and other races. I don't think welfare was the answer (to make that clear), and if anything it made it worse, but there's a real problem in this country right now of a growing class of people living and dying in poverty with no means of getting out. To me at least, that is what drives the hopelessness. That has to get fixed. 

 

To your second point, this ties back into my original point. For one, I think you're stereotyping again. That makes it hard to have any kind of discussion. I probably know more conservatives personally than most anyone in this conversation. It isn't that they don't want to have the conversation. I'll you this though, that conversation never gets off the ground when it's framed in the context of "you're racist." They don't see themselves that way, and the vast majority of them aren't. I tend to echo what Mike said earlier. This is an uncomfortable topic to which no one wants to talk about. People turn on sports to escape things, and right or wrong, they don't want politics tossed into that. For the most part, they don't want the difficult conversation.

 

As to BLM, my sister is a police officer. I've mentioned this a few times. One comment she made was that BLM is going to do nothing but bring out all the racists so we have a race war (and let's be fair if we are going to have the conversation, there's racists on both sides of this one). Then Dallas happened. For the record, she's probably called a racist every day, whether she's trying to help someone or when she's doing her job. My point has been, and continues to be, that BLM's main mistake was framing an issue in race that had little to do with race. Your average police force doesn't have a bunch of Jim Crows running around on it, and people like my sister (who would have been sympathetic to the conversation had it been framed differently), just get angry. There are changes that need to be made in LE, many of which would have had a positive impact in the very issues BLM is concerned about. None of which have to do with race. People need to cry out, but I'm not sure people are interested in understanding. No one looked at the police shooting statistics in terms of economic correlation, and I'd argue that those numbers correlate far closer to the poverty issue being discussed than race. No one looks at the police culture, which has no means of removing a bad apple, where the professionalism that you and I expect is largely missing, where retaliation and sexual harassment is common, where promotions don't happen out of merit, and where there's way too much power up the ranks. 

 

As I said before, people want to have the conversation. That conversation never gets had when it becomes way to easy to simply accuse someone of being racist. That's usually when the conversation ends. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I did read your article. To me at least, it spoke to a culture that is so beaten down it has no pride at all. No hope. Nothing. I guess the question I'd ask is how you do this without the economic component? You say this is the tail wagging the dog, but it is without question economics that affect blacks at a disproportionate rate to whites and other races. I don't think welfare was the answer (to make that clear), and if anything it made it worse, but there's a real problem in this country right now of a growing class of people living and dying in poverty with no means of getting out. To me at least, that is what drives the hopelessness. That has to get fixed. 

 

To your second point, this ties back into my original point. For one, I think you're stereotyping again. That makes it hard to have any kind of discussion. I probably know more conservatives personally than most anyone in this conversation. It isn't that they don't want to have the conversation. I'll you this though, that conversation never gets off the ground when it's framed in the context of "you're racist." They don't see themselves that way, and the vast majority of them aren't. I tend to echo what Mike said earlier. This is an uncomfortable topic to which no one wants to talk about. People turn on sports to escape things, and right or wrong, they don't want politics tossed into that. For the most part, they don't want the difficult conversation.

 

As to BLM, my sister is a police officer. I've mentioned this a few times. One comment she made was that BLM is going to do nothing but bring out all the racists so we have a race war (and let's be fair if we are going to have the conversation, there's racists on both sides of this one). Then Dallas happened. For the record, she's probably called a racist every day, whether she's trying to help someone or when she's doing her job. My point has been, and continues to be, that BLM's main mistake was framing an issue in race that had little to do with race. Your average police force doesn't have a bunch of Jim Crows running around on it, and people like my sister (who would have been sympathetic to the conversation had it been framed differently), just get angry. There are changes that need to be made in LE, many of which would have had a positive impact in the very issues BLM is concerned about. None of which have to do with race. People need to cry out, but I'm not sure people are interested in understanding. No one looked at the police shooting statistics in terms of economic correlation, and I'd argue that those numbers correlate far closer to the poverty issue being discussed than race. No one looks at the police culture, which has no means of removing a bad apple, where the professionalism that you and I expect is largely missing, where retaliation and sexual harassment is common, where promotions don't happen out of merit, and where there's way too much power up the ranks. 

 

As I said before, people want to have the conversation. That conversation never gets had when it becomes way to easy to simply accuse someone of being racist. That's usually when the conversation ends. 

I whole-heartedly agree that "you're racist" needs to not be the knee-jerk reaction to a conversation with another person unless that person is the kind of racist that can't be ignored (but those are rare nowadays). It's super unproductive and you'll never change the mind of a person you just insulted.

 

Which is why I generally try to talk about how the system is racist and leave people out of it. Sure, we're a part of the system but my "contribution" to that system's racism is so small that I need not make it personal. It's a problem much bigger than any one person and I don't expect any one person to take responsibility for it.

 

And I've addressed it in this way to many people over the past couple of years. And I still get pushback on the idea that the system has hurt some and empowered others.

 

Even if I go out of my way to not make it about the person, some people still defend the institutions and I'm not sure why that happens, to be frank about it. I've met resistance at the mere suggestion that there is something wrong with the status quo. I don't get it.

 

And to loop it back to this original thread topic, it's a damned good example of this in action. The OP did not accuse anyone on this forum of being a racist. They (very gently) asked if there's a chance some of the criticism of Rosario is steeped in how the media, coaches, and fans view Latino players.

 

Cue forum explosions of "IRRRMMMM NOT RACCCISSTTTTTT!!!!1!1eleven"

[TheLeviathan]

Yup and Rosario isn't even the best example on this team. The Sano/Hrbek comparison should be clear as hell. That's the one that should be the focal point. Eddie has a knack for boneheaded plays, but the Sano criticisms are of the far more personal type.

 

Good points Brock on the value of talking about systems. It still invites the problematic "privilege" talk but not the same way.

[Mike Sixel]

The police have done little to change their issues. Are people claiming they'll change if no one says anything?

 

Protest ONLY works if it makes people uncomfortable.

[Craig Arko]

 

The police have done little to change their issues. Are people claiming they'll change if no one says anything?

Protest ONLY works if it makes people uncomfortable.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The police have done little to change their issues. Are people claiming they'll change if no one says anything?

Protest ONLY works if it makes people uncomfortable.

 

Would you agree that there comes a point where your efforts to make someone uncomfortable become counter-productive to your effort?

[Mike Sixel]

Would you agree that there comes a point where your efforts to make someone uncomfortable become counter-productive to your effort?

No idea, but the civil Rights protesters that we all worship were accused of that over an over. So probably not. But not sure.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No idea, but the civil Rights protesters that we all worship were accused of that over an over. So probably not. But not sure.

 

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't make people feel uncomfortable.  I'm just suggesting that on the other end of that, at some point you can do more harm than good.  And, in my opinion, that's plainly true.  As an example (one I don't mean to derail with_ - Teacher strikes are happening all over and they are designed to cause discomfort.  That's fine, I support that.  But I'd guess that if teachers decided to make parents uncomfortable by holding their children hostage that it likely wouldn't help the cause.

 

Now unlike my extreme example, determining where you cross the line from what's necessary to cause discomfort and where it is counter-productive probably isn't an easy one to determine.  (And only then, it might be via hindsight) Nevertheless, it does exist and it can derail your movement even in the eyes of reasonable people if you're not aware of that.  

 

At the end of the day you want to cause enough discomfort to spur change of the kind you aim for.  That's a difficult, delicate balance and because of that, I think it is possible to push too hard or in the wrong way and ultimately do more harm than good.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

At the end of the day you want to cause enough discomfort to spur change of the kind you aim for.  That's a difficult, delicate balance and because of that, I think it is possible to push too hard or in the wrong way and ultimately do more harm than good.

To add to this, the "pain threshold" of being uncomfortable is different for every person, which is really the core of my "too many don't want to talk about this at all" point.

 

Short of someone coming up to me and screaming "Racist!" and punching me in the face, I'll stand there and take the discomfort because I earnestly want to hear how other people with different life experiences view the conversation and I have a vested interest in hearing them out. A couple of years ago, my wife and I realized there was an overwhelming chance we'd end up adopting a child(children) of color and that forced me to really listen to an extent I hadn't in the past. If I'm going to raise kids of color, I damned well better understand the challenges they may face in life to the best of my ability.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, you have people who get uncomfortable, then hostile, at the mere mention of racial inequality.

 

Most people fall somewhere in the middle.

 

And it's bloody hard to reach those people because the more nuanced and complicated you get with your conversation tactics, the more likely you are to not offend one person but offend the person standing next to them.

 

My argument is that we all do our best to spur the conversation along and talk as politely as possible but aggressively push back at attempts to talk about the conversation instead of having an actual conversation.

 

Because I've been through this semantical argument loads of times in the past. You know where it usually gets you in the end? Nowhere, because in the process of deflection and distraction, everyone has forgotten to actually converse about the topic at hand, which hands an automatic "victory" to the side that doesn't want to talk about it.

[TheLeviathan]

I was speaking more to the protest angle of things and the need to wake people up to issues by making them feel uncomfortable.  I recognize and acknowledge that necessity.  But there are still limits to that if you want to accomplish your goals.

 

On the discussion part, I think the key distinction Brock is that you have to go into these discussions knowing you'll make people feel uncomfortable.  It is unavoidable that you'll reach that point.  The subject matter itself, the mere mention of it (as you said), is enough to do that.  But what should make them feel uncomfortable is the reality/facts/concerns of which you're speaking about.  Going beyond that to make them feel uncomfortable purposefully with your tone, accusations, or insinuations is where you venture down the wrong path IMO.  

 

At that point you're not discussing, you're giving a sermon.  And I gave up on hearing those awhile ago for precisely that reason.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I was speaking more to the protest angle of things and the need to wake people up to issues by making them feel uncomfortable.  I recognize and acknowledge that necessity.  But there are still limits to that if you want to accomplish your goals.

 

On the discussion part, I think the key distinction Brock is that you have to go into these discussions knowing you'll make people feel uncomfortable.  It is unavoidable that you'll reach that point.  The subject matter itself, the mere mention of it (as you said), is enough to do that.  But what should make them feel uncomfortable is the reality/facts/concerns of which you're speaking about.  Going beyond that to make them feel uncomfortable purposefully with your tone, accusations, or insinuations is where you venture down the wrong path IMO.  

 

At that point you're not discussing, you're giving a sermon.  And I gave up on hearing those awhile ago for precisely that reason.

Agreed. You have to talk to people like they're people, which is doubly hard to do on the internet. There is no back and forth in text communication; i say my piece, you say yours. It makes conversations such as this much harder than in real life.

[Mike Sixel]

I was just giving some job advice (believe it or not, lots of people ask for advice...)....and we were talking about authenticity and transparency.

 

She was stating that she had problems at work because she was "too honest". I suggested it wasn't the level of honesty, but her approach. This is a short summary:

 

Think of every situation as a sales situation. In sales, you  need to build a bridge, from the buyer's current reality to the reality you (and hopefully they) want to be in. When people are too honest, they are skipping the bridge building, and trying to teleport people....and we all know teleporation is impossible. So, rather than blurt out "you need to do X" or "this culture sucks and her's why"....you need to have that conversation starting from where they are, and spend time helping them know there is a different future, and that there is a bridge there. You need to build the bridge, and then take them across it.

 

Same here, though I don't know how to do that on a cultural level.

[TheLeviathan]

"Bridge" is a good word.

[ashbury]

"Bridge" is a good word.

Trouble is, people build bridges to enable those on the other side to come on over. Too often, you find out that those on the other side are interested only in having you come on over. Then you both say, never mind.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Trouble is, people build bridges to enable those on the other side to come on over. Too often, you find out that those on the other side are interested only in having you come on over. Then you both say, never mind.

 

True, it'd be nice if we built from both ends and met in the middle.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Trouble is, people build bridges to enable those on the other side to come on over. Too often, you find out that those on the other side are interested only in having you come on over. Then you both say, never mind.

Actually, I think this is a really poignant statement in the sense of race discussion.

 

One side of this discussion has had literally all the power for centuries and has forced everyone else to cross "their" bridge.

 

I think it's time for us to stop demanding that everyone else cross our bridge to speak to us.

[gunnarthor]

We also now have an ongoing thread where people are suggesting that Sano doesn't have the work ethic to be better and is getting by on talent. Ugh.

[Squirrel]

 

We also now have an ongoing thread where people are suggesting that Sano doesn't have the work ethic to be better and is getting by on talent. Ugh.

No, we don't. It's been addressed. And it won't stand. I, personally, like to give some leeway of a newly posted thread, even if the subject matter is tiresome, which I think this is. I guess I still hope for adult behavior and people wanting to discuss baseball and not dissect the personal characters of players and/or other posters. I think it's fair for posters to be concerned about Miguel the baseball player, I don't think it's fair to address those concerns attacking his personal character. But neither do I think it's fair to immediately jump to conclusions about other posters' characters as being racist when they are frustrated with a player's performance. Yes, I think there is some of that going on, but I don't know from specifically whom, so I don't think it's fair to label everyone in that manner just because they don't like someone's performance and give baseball reasons for it. But character assassinations need to stop, all around.

[TheLeviathan]

 

We also now have an ongoing thread where people are suggesting that Sano doesn't have the work ethic to be better and is getting by on talent. Ugh.

 

At the onset I thought Sano was a far better focal point for this conversation.  I agree with Carole that we have to be careful accusing individual posters, that isn't productive.

 

But my god is the tone towards Sano, in general, racially slanted.

[USAFChief]

At the onset I thought Sano was a far better focal point for this conversation. I agree with Carole that we have to be careful accusing individual posters, that isn't productive.

 

But my god is the tone towards Sano, in general, racially slanted.

No more than yours.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't even know what that would mean.

[USAFChief]

No more than yours.

The only racism I see, on the face of it, is calling anyone who would question Sano a racist.

 

One can criticize a player without being racist.

 

One can’t decide said criticism is racist without forming a judgement about the person making said criticism. And that judgement is based on nothing but the assumed race of the person making the original criticism.

 

“Sano needs to do X.”

 

“That comes from racism.”

 

You’re making that judgement based on nothing but the assumed race of the person who made that comment, Lev.

 

There’s your racism.

[TheLeviathan]

 

One can’t decide said criticism is racist without forming a judgement about the person making said criticism. And that judgement is based on nothing but the assumed race of the person making the original criticism.
 

 

Well, a number of things.  First, at least twice in this thread I've said one should avoid labeling anyone a racist in this conversation and we should talk about the conversation as racist, not those conversing.  (Unless they make it explicit themselves of course)  So most of your post is mischaracterizing. Which is surprising since part of what you quoted even says that.  

 

Secondly - this paragraph is really faulty logic.  I'll try and show it with a simple example.  It is a matter of fact that black men are incarcerated, for the same crimes, at a much harsher rate.  So, under your logic, if I were to say "the general trend of incarceration is racist" I am therefore accusing everyone in the incarceration process - police, lawyers, judges - as racists.  And you could think of far less controversial examples.  "The Twins' offense is not very good this year" does not equate to "every hitter on the Twins is not very good".

 

I don't know if the racist slant towards Sano is due to explicit or implicit biases.  It is probably a wide range from none, to implicit and unknown, to implicit and somewhat aware, to explicitly aware depending upon the individual.  I won't presume to know what's in someone's heart.  Nor will I do so.  

 

But I will assert the conversation itself has a racist slant when we revere Kent Hrbek but concoct ways to bash Sano.  When we say we can just "look" at a guy and know what's in his heart.  How we can call him lazy even though he came back from Tommy John ahead of schedule, played through the death of a child, and has a miraculous life story.  How we can call him "fat" and "obese" and "300 pounds" before a picture of him even surfaces and then quickly slink into a corner when the pictures prove that narrative false.

 

I don't know what's in your heart Chief, I've known you long enough to think you probably aren't a racist.  But if you are actively refusing to see how some of the tone towards Miguel is unfair and that it might be implicitly or explicitly racially motivated....well, I'd encourage you to look again.  It doesn't make you racist to criticize him, but it might be possible others who are do not have such noble patterns in their thought as you.

[Mr. Brooks]

The venom and hyper criticism towards Sano, in some of these threads, certainly does seem to outweigh his flaws on the diamond.

[USAFChief]

The venom and hyper criticism towards Sano, in some of these threads, certainly does seem to outweigh his flaws on the diamond.

As does venom and hyper criticism of Mauer.