Raines, Race, and the Hall of Fame

Some thoughts on race and baseball on Dr. King's Day.

Two weeks ago, Ricky Henderson and Jim Rice were elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the Baseball Writers Association of America (for the most complete list of BBWAA members on the net click here). Henderson received 94.8% of the votes and Rice received 76.4% (for full election results click here). A chorus of sabermetricans have been campaigning for the elections of Bert Blyleven, who received 62.7% of the votes, and Tim Raines, who received 22.6%, both of whom fell short of the required 75% vote.

In this article, ESPN baseball writer, Keith Law, uses statistical analysis to make a convincing argument for Tim Raines' entrance into the Hall and compares his career to Paul Molitor's, suggesting something else may be to blame for his omission.

So Raines was perhaps the best base stealer in the game's history, the second-best leadoff hitter, one of the best hitters at reaching base (the most important thing a hitter can do, after all) and a good defensive player. One common excuse for omitting Raines from Hall ballots is his admitted cocaine use in the 1980s, including his infamous confession to sliding headfirst to avoid breaking the vials of snow in his back pocket. Raines was clean for the majority of his career and became known both as someone who talked about his recovery from addiction and just generally a good character guy, yet voters are still bringing up the drug use from the first two or three years of his career.

Yet another candidate who reached the ballot with similar off-field indiscretions, Paul Molitor, sailed into the Hall on the first ballot with more than 85 percent of the vote and 299 more votes than Raines received in his first year. Molitor also played the first few years of his career with a serious cocaine problem. So why does Molitor get a free pass while Raines struggles to reach even a quarter of the vote? It's not about their playing careers; Raines was the better offensive player and played a thousand more games in the field than Molitor did. Molitor accumulated more bulk statistics at the plate, but his inability to play a position was a big part of extending his career. No, it might be about something far more insidious.

The electorate for the Hall, comprising BBWAA members who have at some point held their badges for 10 consecutive years (although they need not be active badge holders now), is overwhelmingly white; the organization's secretary, Jack O'Connell, did a quick count of African-American voters and came up with 19 in the history of the organization, at least one of whom (Hall of Famer Larry Whiteside) is deceased. Even if O'Connell undercounted current African-American voters by 50 percent, that would give us 36, out of a total electorate of over 550. Are we just looking at an example, then, of a white electorate treating drug use by a white player differently than it would treat drug use by an African-American player? Many academics, including Princeton professor Cornel West, have written about the way that the American media treats white drug users differently from African-American drug users; perhaps this inequity has seeped into its treatment of baseball players with distant histories of drug use as well, because any gap between Raines' and Molitor's on-field performances could not begin to justify the gap in their Hall of Fame vote totals. This is not to say that any individual voter is racist, but that pervasive societal stereotypes may be hurting Raines' Hall chances.

I do not think Keith Law is suggesting that racism is to blame for Tim Raines' extremely low vote total. I can think of some other factors that explain the ridiculously low vote totals. For instance, the majority of the BBWAA has been extremely reluctant to considers a player's Hall case using quantitave analysis of baseball statistics, and the new categories that have resulted in the last couple decades. These categories go beyond the traditional HR, SB, R, and RBIs. Some examples include OPS, OBP, WARP, and VORP. Considering Raines' Hall case rests largely on the acceptance of quantitative analysis and these new categories, it is reasonable to conclude that there are just too many old farts in the BBWAA who still believe the earth is flat for Raines to stand a chance as a first ballot Hall of Famer.

That said, Law makes a compelling argument, and one that can't be ignored. It would be easy to simplify Raines' omission as the oversight of a bunch of old flat earth cranks, but that might be a mistake. Law's argument certainly deserves more consideration: social stereotypes could be influencing Hall of Fame voting.

(Check out Tim Raines' and Bert Blyleven's Hall of Fame websites. Very convincing.)

Why China is to Blame for Global Warming

Ok, so maybe I've taken that image a bit out of context.

The Story of Stuff

"Our enormously productive economy...demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption...We need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate."

For the entire Story of Stuff click here.

Crumbs

The last week of school, in U.S. history, I asked students to share examples of social and political commentary from their music collection. Well, here is mine. After visiting a hospital in Malawi with 300% bed occupancy and failing to receive support from American Christian leaders for his ONE campaign, Bono wrote "Crumbs From Your Table" during a night of drinking. The "crumbs" in the song refer to a passage from Matthew 15: 27. I've included a few more verses below for context:

²¹ Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

²² A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly."

²³ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

²⁴ He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

²⁵ The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

²⁶ He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs."

²⁷ "Yes it is, Lord," she said. "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table."

²⁸ Then Jesus said to her, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Crumbs From Your Table

From the brightest star
Comes the blackest hole
You had so much to offer
Why did you offer your soul?
I was there for you baby
When you needed my help
Would you deny for others
What you demand for yourself?

Cool down mama, cool off
Cool down mama, cool off

You speak of signs and wonders
I need something other
I would believe if I was able
But I’m waiting on the crumbs from your table

You were pretty as a picture
It was all there to see
Then your face caught up with your psychology
With a mouth full of teeth
You ate all your friends
And you broke every heart thinking every heart mends

You speak of signs and wonders
But I need something other
I would believe if I was able
But I’m waiting on the crumbs from your table

Where you live should not decide
Whether you live or whether you die
Three to a bed
Sister Ann, she said
Dignity passes by

And you speak of signs and wonders
But I need something other
I would believe if I was able
I’m waiting on the crumbs from your table

Lessons from Danny Ainge on Race Relations

Just finished a workshop on equity and religion in public schools. Workshops suck as it is, but they are worse when presenters don't practice what they preach. The facilitators of the equity discussion gave us norms to follow as we participated in this discussion about equity and religion in the public schools (they anticipated conflict). During that discussion, much to our surprise, one of these presenters decided the list of social norms did not apply to her, and chastised a grown man who expressed a dissenting view from that which the equity folk were preaching.

However tasty the equity kool-aid may have been, teachers were not drinking after that exchange.

Sometimes I think this equity discussion gets too complicated. I'm the heterosexul, white, english-speaking, able-bodied, Christian guy, so that gives me power and privilege in this society. I get that. But do we have to argue over semantics? Seriously. Look at how former rotund black Portland Trailblazer, Kevin Duckworth recalls white teammate Danny Ainge,

"We knew Danny was Mormon [Kevin Duckworth said]. I drilled Danny about everything I didn't know, why there were no black Mormons and that kind of thing. When you're with all black guys, you don't learn about other cultures. Danny was great. It was like Danny Ainge, the brother.
And during the Finals, when Spike Lee sent along some Malcolm X hats and t-shirts to the Blazers to help promote his new movie, the players made sure Ainge got one. "Danny was part of the team, too," Duck said.
"We called him token, in a light-hearted sense," said Abdelnaby. "I called him 'Ritz' for cracker and he called me 'Mandingo.' I've played with a lot of white people, and I don't know too many other people who could have handled it as well as Danny. That's probably the thing I most respect him for. There was never an inkling of anything from him of racism, of being uncomfortable... I don't think I could have handled it as well as Danny. We would talk black-white relationships. Part of the reason Danny and I got along so well is he was naive to what was going on as a black person. He never even saw the color."

He never even saw color. Wow. Multiculturalists would say we cannot ignore people's race or culture, we should learn about it, celebrate it. I don't know what a multiculturalist would say to Duckworth's comments. Heck, who knows, I might even be a multiculturalist. These arguments always seem so circular and pointless though (if you've been in these workshops you know what I'm talking about). Usually, when it comes down to it, it's a bunch of well-intentioned white people, who are privileged in some way, sitting in a room, arguing with each other about semantics. But, when it comes down to it, it's all about treating people right. Not just people of color, non-whites, minorities, subordinates, etc. (whatever you want to call 'them'), but all us privileged types too.

"Do unto others..." and leave semantics to authors and consultants.

"Commodify Me Oh Lord..."

For the past couple of years my brother-in-law, Todd, has been researching how American consumerism pollutes the Church, and blogging about it along the way. It has been fascinating to read his conclusions. I can't wait for the book. Here's a nugget from one of his most recent posts,

An advertising and marketing paradigm of evangelism and theology internalizes an exchange mentality in both the evangelist and the target—one where salvation can be “obtained.” It is made into a transaction. Not one where people are purchasing an object with money but, rather, one where their payment is in the form of their conscious attention. Their regard toward God and their conversion is objectified nonetheless. Christianity is possessed—something one “has” rather than what one “is.” In this way, faith is mediated through the advertising and marketing paradigm.

When the church markets the gospel the same way Nike markets it's shoes, it creates consumers rather than people who are genuinely transformed. Not exactly what Jesus had in mind, methinks. Thanks for this Todd.

For more of this post, read here. It is one part of five separate posts, and I'm assuming more are on the way. Search his blog for much more on this topic (and some Apple propaganda).

Martin Luther King Jr. (More Thoughts)

Just read Beliefnet's interview of Mike Huckabee. He answers various questions in it, but I want to focus on one answer specifically in light of this holiday.

Q. There’s something interesting going on now in the evangelical world – there’s a conversation going on about what the agenda ought to be that seems broader. There was a little bit of a sense that the religious conservative leadership, while emphasizing important things like abortion and family, had neglected issues like poverty and the environment. Do you think that’s true?

A. I’ve said that, that I’ve felt like as Christians and particularly even as Republicans, we needed to address issues that touched the broader perspective, and that included disease, hunger, poverty, homelessness, the environment. And it’s not a matter that we’re going to become left-wingers. I don’t think that at all. I think taking care of the earth is a matter of stewardship. It’s not about global warming, it’s about stewardship and responsibility. Things like hunger and homelessness. And it’s not about having a government program, it’s about simply reminding each of us as individual citizens that this is an area of our own responsibility. At my own church… our church is very, very engaged in everything from dealing with hunger, poverty, and we reach out to a lot of people. We don’t ask the government to do it. We do it ourselves as a church. It’s part of our ministry. The only reason the government would get involved would be that the other social institutions – primarily the family the church the neighborhood – failed. If the family or church does its own work and does it well, then there’s no reason for government to ever get into these things at all. The ideal is that they wouldn’t, that they’ll do a lousy job of it generally.

So, Huckabee gives the classic conservative response here--small government--leave social welfare to private institutions. Fair enough.

Juxtapose this quote with the USA Today article, "Why Christian's Should Seek MLK's Dream, Despite Gains" by Tom Krattenmaker. Krattenmaker argues that "Christians could be this country's greatest force by rejecting the temptation of complacency--and a me-first prosperity gospel--while leading the way to racial justice." The article begins by convincingly outlining the numerous ways blacks continue to suffer racial injustices, falling short of King's "Dream," and finishes by asking whether racial progress is the responsibility of the individual or society.

Americans err if we believe that it's only a black responsibility to right the social wrongs of racial inequality. It's a white responsibility, too — and a Christian responsibility. Why Christians? It's not that other faiths can't do their part as well, but Christians — by sheer number and religious tradition — could be our best hope.

History shows that the teachings of Christianity hold an undeniable power to inspire positive social movements and call Americans to conscience, as they did during King's time. Many Christians will be the first to tell you they should be held to a higher standard — because their religion insists on it.

As the distinguished columnist Roger Cohen recently reminded, it is on the matter of race where one finds the greatest gulf between American behavior and American ideals. Will history find the same gap between Christian behavior and Christian ideals?

Sociologists have recognized that Sunday is the most racially segregated day of the week, suggesting that the church is not as integrated as the rest of society. So, if Mike Huckabee's conservative philosophy is correct, and we are to leave social welfare up to private institutions, how are we to expect racial progress when the church has yet to integrate at the same pace as society on the whole? What makes us think the contributions of homogeneous churches will create a more equitable society?

I am a Christian, and I would like to believe that the church would create a more equitable society where all races are reconciled, but I am weary. Until Martin's "Dream" is fulfilled within the church, maybe the government should do what it can to maintain a level playing field for all people outside the church.

(Kind of a hopeless post for MLK Jr. day isn't it?)

Martin Luther King Jr.

Every time I watch this speech from the 1968 March on Washington it gives me goose bumps and brings me to tears.



I absolutely agree with Greg Boyd's take on MLK Jr.,

Before marching, King would always tell his audiences he didn't want anyone marching who could not genuinely say she loved her white oppressors and was marching not only for her own freedom, but for the freedom of her oppressors (for King saw that oppressing another is as much a form of bondage as being oppressed). Not only this, but King would tell audiences he didn't want anyone marching who couldn't commit to refraining from all violence, even in self-defense. King explicitly based all this on the teaching and example of Jesus.

This makes what King did not simply a good and necessary social movement. It makes what King did a Kingdom movement. Indeed, I'd argue that the early civil rights movement, led by King, was one of the clearest expressions of the Kingdom [of God] in history.

Beliefnet posted a series of quotes from MLK's sermons. One in particular seemed relevant for American's today,

"In the terrible midnight of war men have knocked on the door of the church to ask for the bread of peace, but the church has often disappointed them. What more pathetically reveals the irrelevancy of the church in present-day world affairs than its witness regarding war? In a world gone mad with arms buildup, chauvinistic passions and imperialistic exploitation, the church has either endorsed these activities or remained appallingly silent. ...A weary world, pleading desperately for peace, has often found the church morally sanctioning war."

It was at this point in history that the cuddly black King became a nuisance to white America. It is one thing to target bigots who sic dogs on black teenagers and use fire hoses on peaceful protesters, it is quite another to criticize a war against Godless communism in Southeast Asia.

The American church today would do well to reflect on the teachings of Martin Luther King Jr. on more than just one day a year.

Christmas Gifts

I've read multiple blogs on the nasty consumerist nature of Christmas (a sentiment I'm in basic agreement with), and heard numerous sermons echoing that fact. There's even a movie about it. But, to be quite honest, the extremist nature of some of these messages have only left me feeling guilty. Guilt is quite different than conviction.

I enjoy giving gifts to those I love, and I don't think I'm alone on this one. So, I'm going to continue giving gifts, guilt-free.

At what point in history did Christmas giving become a quid pro quos operation? Why would I spend $30 on a gift for 'Bill' and expect him to give me a $30 gift in return? That's not a gift, that's an expectation. Pretty sure "Bill" would just assume I not give him a gift in the first place if I expect to receive a gift of equal value in return.

Scott McKnight has some really good thoughts on Christmas Gifts over at Jesus Creed. He writes, "We give worship to God at Christmas as regifting what God has given to us. We give gifts to others as regifting what God has given to us."

Merry Christmas. Enjoy time with family and loved ones and regift--guilt-free!

"The Continuing Indian Wars"

On Oct. 6, 2006, the University of North Dakota sued the NCAA for the to right retain the Fighting Sioux nickname, and logo, even though many other NCAA schools using Native American nicknames and logos have rightly capitulated on this issue (Thanks Todd, for the reference).

At first glance the logo does not look too offensive. Certainly, it is less offensive than Chief Wahoo. One might even argue that the "Fighting Sioux" nickname is honorable. That person might say the Sioux fought honorably, and for something good. Besides, there are many mascots that are based on acts of war (Knights, Raiders, Vikings, etc.), right? But, to get into this argument is to miss the point. Clay Jenkinson, Theodore Roosevelt scholar-in-residence at Dickinson State University states in Nick Coleman's November 18th column that, "North Dakotans are not racist, but they are racially insensitive...They think, 'I am not someone who doesn't like Indians; therefore, there isn't a problem.' What they don't understand is that one culture doesn't have the right to appropriate the iconography of another." I might add that this is especially true when given the history between whites in America and Native Americans.

A settlement in the lawsuit between UND and the NCAA was finally reached on October 26th. It gives UND three years to convince local Native American tribes that the nickname and the logo are not offensive. If the university is not successful in that time, the "Fighting Sioux" logo and nickname must go. The decision was handed down by, "Judge Lawrence Jahnke, who, it turned out, was a youthful member of a UND pep club that promoted the Sioux nickname and a cartoon stereotype named "Sammy Sioux." Thanks for that nugget Nick Coleman.

On the surface, this looks like a victory for Native Americans, but, in reality, it may turn out to be just another defeat in the long line of Native American defeats. Some thoughts from Clay Jenkinson, who wrote a piece for the Bismark Tribune immediately after the settlement was handed down,

The "settlement" not only prolongs a controversy that has already gone on far too long...[but] imposes impossible pressures on North Dakota's Indian communities. The settlement will create new and entirely unnecessary tensions between the white and Indian community. Notice that the tense debate is being moved from its proper sphere (UND) to a completely innocent sphere (the reservation).

The compromise is likely to do damage to North Dakota's Indians, particularly the Dakota and Lakota (Sioux), and it is likely to worsen white-Indian relations in North Dakota. If UND manages to "convince" the Indian leadership that "Fighting Sioux" is inoffensive, many white people will make cynical comments about the "payoff," the annuities wagon of programs, gifts, emoluments, research projects and other benefits that UND will be offering North Dakota's Indians in return for their "understanding.

I can already hear whites whispering about how lucky Native Americans are because they all profit from casinos.

Is history repeating itself?

Extravagant promises already have been made by UND to North Dakota's Indians. More are coming.

But here's the worst of it. If, in the course of three years, North Dakota's Indian community refuses to be convinced of the "harmlessness of Fighting Sioux," all the angst that this silly controversy has generated - anger, sense of betrayal, feeling of persecution by the NCAA and the forces of "political correctness," loss of control, the charge of racism - will be turned on the people who least deserve it.

This is a very old and sad story. Historically, when white people have wanted something from Indians, they have sent emissaries with presents and promises. The presents typically have been patched together to get the job done at the least expense. The promises have been as empty as they sometimes have been offered in good earnest. Historically, when Indians have balked at the white man's blandishments, the pile of presents and promises has grown, and the threat level has been increased from orange to red. As often as not, white emissaries have then sought out more cooperative leaders (divide and conquer is the rule), and employed liquor as a mode of persuasion. On those occasions when Indians have refused to sell at any cost, the whites historically have just taken what they wanted, as de Tocqueville put it, with as much violence as necessary, but under the happy cloak of legality.

This is the procedure by which the Black Hills were stolen from the Sioux (Lakota) and the Cheyenne. This is the method by which the boundaries of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara "reservation" were steadily shrunken from the 1851 Fort Laramie settlement (12 million acres) to the current fragment (1 million acres). This is the procedure by which the Mandan, Arikara and Hidatsa were "persuaded" to cede their best 152,360 acres to be inundated by Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea.

Hopefully, Jenkinson is wrong and history fails to repeat itself. "Now, the last hope for decency is that the University of North Dakota behaves like an institution of higher learning. There's always a first for everything." Well said Nick Coleman.

The Watchdogs Are Coming After Televangelists

Iowa Senator Charles E. Grassley (the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee) has launched an investigation into the finances of six prominent televangelists: 1) Creflo A. Dollar; 2) Paula and Randy White; 3) Benny Hinn; 4) Joyce Meyer; 5) Kenneth and Gloria Copland; and, 6) Bishop Eddie Long. Because these are tax exempt ministries, all contributions must be used for tax exempt purposes. Grassley is investigating whether these ministries are using contributions for personal use, a violation of the tax code. The New York Times story is here.

Following Ben Witherington's advice, I checked out Ministrywatch.org, a reliable Christian watchdog organization that has been featured on 20/20, and so far it has investigated over 400 churches and Christian ministries, providing detailed reports of many. The goal of Ministry Watch is to facilitate "the practical expression of one's stewardship calling by creating an environment that promotes increasing confidence in, and generosity towards, the Lord's causes." Currently on the Donor Alert list are TBN, Benny Hinn ministries, and the Christian Children's Fund. Usually, the common denominators among ministries that make this list include a lack of financial transparency and leadership that is not held accountable. I encourage you to check out Ministrywatch.org.

The irony in all of this is that I am now more compelled to give my money to this watchdog organization than any other ministry it has investigated.

We Are Responsible for Chief Wahoo

When the Cleveland Indians were in the midst of their collapse against the now World Champion Boston Red Sox, Kansas City blogger Joe Posnanski wrote an interesting piece about the Cleveland Indians' logo, Chief Wahoo (the logo in the top left quadrant pictured above). After writing a detailed history of Cleveland's mascots and logos, which I suggest you check out, he rightly concludes,

Wahoo is an inherentry racist symbol. Nobody could really deny this. Nobody could look at that grinning mug and say, “No, it’s really a flattering portrayal of Native Americans, who were conquered, nearly wiped off the planet by our ancestors and then forced to live on reservations.”...The thing is, I think so many of us were raised to think of Indians as cartoon characters, as movie villains, as the Native American who had a tear in his eye because people kept dumping garbage all over this great land, that we have become desensitized.

Native Americans are not the first minority group to be caricatured, and shaped into an archetype. Images of the lazy, foolish African-American Sambo, based on the blackface minstrel were popular throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries until challenged by the Civil Rights Movement in the '50s and '60s. Japanese Americans were depicted as devious, cunning villains in World War II propaganda even though not one Japanese-American betrayed the United States during the war. Finally, Jews were portrayed as untrustworthy, and evil by Nazis, and used as scapegoats for the collapse of the German empire.

So, where is the outrage? Does no one else see a relationship between these images? If we were to slap any of the above mentioned racist images on the Cleveland ballcap, the entire nation would be outraged. Imagine the blackface minstrel as your local sports team's logo? Would that be ok? Or the Nazi image of the Jew. Ok? Or what about the Minnesota "Japs" complete with a logo that has the steretypical big teeth? Not gonna fly. So, how is it that Chief Wahoo gets a free pass? How has Chief Wahoo gone untouched since 1950? Posnanski has an answer,

The only reason Chief Wahoo is around is because Native Americans don’t have a strong enough voice in this country to put a stop to it. When Native Americans protested at the 1997 World Series, they were mostly laughed at. Three were arrested. Is this really the kind of country we want to be? And for what? To stand up for our inherent rights to enjoy a racist sports logo?

In 2001, the United States Commission on Civil Rights issued a statement offering guidelines for the use of Native American symbols, suggesting they not be used in non-Native American schools (read it here), effectively denouncing Chief Wahoo. However, the statement has spurred no real change, and as Posnanski pointed out, Native American civil rights organizations don't have the "strong voice" that similar organizations of women, African Americans, or Latinos have, making change more difficult. This is one of the many tragic effects the policy of assimilation and allotment to reservations have had upon the Native American community.

So, that leaves this issue to the non-Native American community. We can assist Native American civil rights organizations, strengthening their voice, or we can speak up ourselves. Maybe Chief Wahoo is not your battle, but is there a local high school who is ignoring the the 2001 Statement of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the Use of Native American Images and Nicknames as Sports Symbols? Ultimately, it comes down to the kind of society we want to be apart of, "one that stands up for the inherent rights to enjoy a racist sports logo," or one who responds to victims of discrimination, no matter the strength of their voice.

Busted!

I know it's late, but I had to post this cover of the New Yorker. Hilarious. In case you missed it, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, satirically pictured above, stated in his address at Columbia University, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country [America]...In Iran we don't have this phenomenon, I don't know who's told you that we have it." See for yourself.

White Privilege, Steve Nash, and My Love for Larry Bird

TrueHoop linked to the following post by Cosellout, "It's Not Steve Nash's Fault!: A Study in White Privilege.”

Some highlights:

It was the media that often used Nash as a tool to: denigrate black athletes; to perpetuate tired racial stereotypes; to revise current and past basketball history; and, by contrast, to ignore or give token treatment to the incredible community service of men like Marbury, Mutombo, Kevin Garnett, Shaquille O’Neal, Alonzo Mourning, Carmelo Anthony, Richard Jefferson and so many others.

…But the truth is, it’s YOUR fault!

That’s right, it is your fault if you like up-tempo basketball and tuned into the Suns in the playoffs last year, but did not watch the Warriors-Mavericks historic series; if you appreciate the finest of pure point guard play, but didn’t witness last year’s playoff series’ that featured Jason Kidd AVERAGING a triple-double or the coming out party of Utah’s Derron Williams; if you praised Nash’s politics [protesting the American policy in Iraq], but never acknowledged the existence of Etan Thomas; or if the reason why Marbury’s community service can’t garner a magazine cover is because the big bosses know full well that you won’t buy a copy. Yup, it is YOUR fault!

(If you haven’t read any of Etan Thomas’ stuff, you should.)

More takes from the Steve Nash-White Privilege post:

Nor is Nash to blame because commentators can’t see past the white athlete stereotype. Like when former NBA great Bill Walton marveled at Nash’s achievements a couple of years ago in part because he was "the least athletic point guard in the NBA." While Nash has never been a great leaper, perhaps Walton never took notice of Nash blowing by most opposing guards in the league on a nightly basis. We could only guess that lateral quickness and agility have absolutely nothing to do with athleticism. Because such a reality might put a dent in the romantic notion that Nash is just like every other white guy on the couch with a TV remote, but just worked that much harder than all those “natural black athletes”. But the truth is that Nash was a highly gifted three-sport star (soccer and hockey) who had professional potential besides basketball…

So from now on, I will go back to rooting for Steve Nash, and for everything that he represents. I’ll root for his game, his community service and most urgently, for his anti-war stance to be heard by as many people as possible. And if he is not facing my beloved Knicks in the finals, I might even root hard for him to get that championship ring. But it is simply not fair or ethical to wildly root for Nash, but not challenge the white privilege that he regularly receives by a media that predominantly looks likes him, lives vicariously through him, and probably wants to BE him. Rooting for Nash comes with the added responsibility of demanding the very same accolades, credit, and attention be given to any other athlete who is just as worthy, if not more worthy of our praise. So yes, it is clearly my fault because while I was innocently cheering for Steve Nash, enjoying his on-court game, and admiring his off-court causes, it took me this long to write why “It’s Not Steve Nash’s Fault”.

You really need to read this post in its entirety, it’s very good. As difficult a pill as it may be to swallow, I can’t say there’s much I disagree with in this post. I’ve often asked myself, “Why choose Larry Bird as your favorite player? Why not Magic Johnson, Isaiah Thomas, or Michael Jordan?” I think it had a lot to do with living “vicariously through” him like Cosellout accused members of the media of doing. I’m sure much of it had to do with the fact that we were both white, but I also think my choosing him had a lot to do with our lack of athleticism (unlike Steve Nash). There was this idea that even though we couldn’t jump as high as our opponents, or run as fast, we could still dominate (or at least compete) by doing the little things on the basketball court. It was obviously an ideal that could only by realistically attained by a few, but it made him relatable, and isn’t that the point?

Thoughts on Columbus Day

So today is Columbus Day and I'm trying to figure out why many American states honor his legacy with a holiday. According to the Library of Congress, President Benjamin Harrison urged Americans to remember Oct. 12th, the date of Columbus' landing. The Knights of Columbus followed by lobbying state legislatures to make it a legal holiday, and Colorado was the first to do so in 1907. Columbus Day was made a federal holiday in 1971. So, we continue to honor this day because it's been tradition?

Virtually no one believes Columbus was the first European on American soil. The Vikings landed on the shores of Newfoundland 500 years prior to his arrival. Furthermore, some historians believe the Chinese arrived in the New World around 1421, trumping Columbus by 71 years.

If that's not enough, his arrival on Hispaniola, killed the entire Taino population. Sure, he could not have predicted the effect European diseases would have upon these natives, so we can't hold him and those Europeans followed totally accountable, but many Taino did die because of forced labor, and that is something we can hold them accountable for.

Many historians and certainly Native Americans will also argue that the Conquistadors were a direct result of Columbus' arrival (which seems perfectly logical to me). So, Columbus wasn't just an explorer who challenged the flat-world assumptions of the day to find a new trade route, but was instead the first of a long line of dominoes that led to the Spanish colonization of Latin America, a legacy that is still crippling natives today.

So, again I ask, what about Christopher Columbus' legacy deserves a holiday? If we are just honoring tradition, shouldn't we stop and ask why? Some traditions are worth changing.

"Pro-Life" Shouldn't Be About One Issue

On Saturday, Sept. 29th fifty leaders of the social conservative movement gathered in Salt Lake City, Utah to discuss their plan of attack in the event that the presidential nominee for the Republican and Democratic parties are both pro-choice. To clarify the events that took place at that meeting, James Dobson wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times. In it he writes of the conclusions the group came to, "If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous."

He continues to ponder with pen the possibility that voting for a pro-life candidate could cost social conservatives the presidency,

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.

Another issue discussed on that Saturday was the possibility of backing a third party candidate that would run as the pro-life alternative. There was less unanimity on this topic. Rasmussen Reports ran a poll on how such a third party candidate would effect the election, and the results aren't very encouraging for social conservatives. If it comes down to Giuliani, Clinton, and __________ (3rd party candidate), the poll indicates that the 3rd party votes would tip the election in favor of Hillary Clinton. I can't imagine James Dobson and his 49 friends thrilled about that outcome.

Of course, I cannot imagine James Dobson failing to foresee such an outcome either. One can't help to think this is more of a political threat than it is actual contingency planing (you don't actually think these leaders would support a pro-life Democrat do you?). Something along the lines of, "Lest you forget Republican party, social conservatives carry serious capital every election cycle. We delivered the White House to President Bush, and we can do the same for the next Republican nominee, but do not take us for granted. Our vote does not come cost-free. Bend on abortion or we'll take our votes elsewhere."

So, for social conservatives, I ask this one question: Are there other ways to protect the sanctity of life? I understand the opposition to abortion. I am father to a beautiful 8 month old baby girl. I am aware of the outrageous numbers of abortions that occur in this country. I've heard the commercials on my local Christian radio station calling abortion "genocide" and citing it as the number one killer in this country, however, I can't help but to think there might be other issues dedicated to preserving the sanctity of life. Here are some examples of such 'pro-life' issues :

• Opposition to war. Not just the U.S. war in Iraq, but wars in general. Are the lives lost in war not as valuable as an unborn fetus? Can one support war and be pro-life?
  
• Opposition to the death penalty in all fifty states.
  
• Support pouring resources into improving inner city ministries and charities where the cycle of drug use and gang violence leads many to the conclusion that death is inevitable.
• Support Stem-cell research. Tell Michael J. Fox you value life in one sentence and don't support stem cell research in the next. See how he responds.
  
• Support any U.S. legislation that increases financial assistance for AIDS relief in Africa and in other parts of the world.
• Support efforts to end the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. If abortion truly is the American "genocide," why is this "genocide" worth more activism than the Sudanese?

It seems as if Mr. Dobson and his friends have simplified the issue of 'life' to one single issue, abortion. Either you are pro-life and you value life, or you're pro-choice and you don't. While I agree that abortion is an important issue, I also agree that life is not about one single issue, and social conservatives would do well to broaden there view to reflect this. Because, the way things are looking now, there's going to be a pro-choice candidate in office.

So, I'd recommend finding out how Republican and Democratic candidates feel about these other issues of "life." Or are social conservatives only concerned about certain types of lives?