Michael Jordan: I was against all white people

Good grief, I'm glad I am not held to what I did when I was 15. :shock:

The Man said:

Right, I read what he said. Paula Deen admitted that she used the N word over 3 decades ago, and she grew up, and it was all over the news and she lost her career. Why does Jordan get a pass?

I'm not saying Jordan should be hated and lose his current career over this, but I also don't think others should have their name smeared and lose their careers either over similar past actions or feelings.

Click to expand...

maybe it is because it was his grandparents and parents who were isolated from the rest of the society in some states in 50s

WCH said:

Who cares? Those of you who haven't used the N word cast the first stone. If you say you never have...you are a liar.

I'm sick of all this whiny race-baiting crap. You all need to grow up and realize Utopia is unreachable. Man is fallible and sinful.

Click to expand...

When I was kid it wasn't "Eeny, meeny, miney,mo, catch a tigger by the toe..."

DiAnna said:

I didn't get that at all from Zyphlin's posts. What I got was that given the time period, 40 years ago, and the conditions under which he had spent those 15 years, Jordan's teenaged anger was environmentally understandable, and he has since matured and evolved beyond those feelings once he had the opportunity to experience other environments, other individuals. There was no "pass" given.

I'll go further and speak for myself when I say that if the situation was reversed, if a white kid was raised in an environment where whites were targeted by black gangs who wielded all the power in his environment and sowed all the terror against him and his race, it would be environmentally understandable for him to develop strong anger against black people. Now if he continued that anger and hatred as he matured and experienced other environments and other individuals, then his viewpoints would be based more on ignorance and lack of ability to self-assess.

Racists of any color are not born; they are made, based on their environment and their experience. To me, at least, that makes perfect sense.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your honest post DiAnna.

There were more than a few references to Jordan only being 15 at the time, so it was (apparently) understandable to some people. That's why I want to know if that is the case with all races, if any 15 year old kid of any race held a belief that (insert other race here) is bad.

I personally find it concerning that any 15 year old would harbor resentment unless there is something concrete behind that resentment, such as (in Jordan's case) the KKK burning crosses on his front lawn, or a group of skinheads beating up his mother, or the white HS coaches not letting him play sports because he was black. According to what I know about his youth, none of that is the case. Which means someone told him to be wary of white people, or if it was from watching Roots, as he mentioned, that isn't a great excuse either given that very few white people in the USA are descended from slave owners, and it was over 100 years ago too.

I come from Irish Catholic people who were victims of the English regime. I was never told I should harbor resentment to the English people for the way my ancestors were treated.

Racists are not born, you are right. They are made.

faithful_servant said:

When I was kid it wasn't "Eeny, meeny, miney,mo, catch a tigger by the toe..."

Click to expand...

Same.

faithful_servant said:

When I was kid it wasn't "Eeny, meeny, miney,mo, catch a tigger by the toe..."

Click to expand...

Who would want to catch Tigger by his toe? That guy is weird.

The Man said:

Why is this not big news in light of the recent Donald Sterling scandal? Paula Deen lost her career simply for saying that she used the 'N' word a long time ago. Why no backlash on Michael Jordan?

Michael Jordan's upbringing detailed in new book - ESPN

Click to expand...

It is socially acceptable for black people to dislike white people in the "White Guilt" society we live in.

Caine said:

It is socially acceptable for black people to dislike white people in the "White Guilt" society we live in.

Click to expand...

No it isn't

tres borrachos said:

You still haven't said why you think it's okay for a 15 year old black kid to say he's against the white race, but you don't think it's okay for a 15 year old white kid to say he's against the black race. Because of that, I'll chalk it up to giving blacks a pass on racism. That's all I needed to know.

Click to expand...

Well, if you want to ignorantly believe something more power to you. What's funny is you're ignorantly believing something based on a strawman, not something I actually said...so, congrats on being annoyed at your own strawman that you for some stupid reason have labeled "Zyphlin".

Let's just highlight all the ways you've strawmanned and distorted what I've said, and why your argument is idiotic.

First, to the notion that I think I've suggested it's "Okay" in any way shape or form. This is unquestionably untrue. I've never once suggested, to any degree, that it's okay. My argument was whether or not it was reasonable that Michael Jordan's statement was worthy of the same kind of scorn, outrage, and media attention that Deen and Silver got. You know, the actual argument made in the OP.

You can see that was my focus in my first response to you:

Zyphlin said:

So yeah...it's not ridiculous to suggest that a single notion from Michael Jordan almost 40 years ago when he was not an adult being highlighted in a book is not going to get the same attention as someone caught making a racial statement this month who has a RECENT history of racially questionable actions, or a woman who was in the midst of a lawsuit regarding racial prejudice whose business partner was at the time being accused of using the word (and her excusing it to a degree) at their business establishment.

Click to expand...

Notice, the focus is on the level of attention...not the level of right or wrong. Something a person did in their childhood isn't likely to get the same attention as something somone did as an adult, because society places a different level of maturity and responsability on children than the ydo adults. Something that happened nearly 40 years ago isn't likely to get the same attention as something that happened yesterday, becuase the more immediete something is the more relevant it typically is.

Next, let's address you're ridiculous notion that somehow I'm suggesting that a 15 year old saying something racist is "okay". Again, this is something I've not suggested at all. Notice in reference to Jordan's statement I stated:

Zyphlin said:

I find it disheartening

Click to expand...

And I also noted that:

Zyphlin said:

If some famous 15 year old in the public eye came out TODAY and said he was "against all whites" then yeah...I'd say that would deserve attention and similar public concern (but probably a different reaction, as it is still the difference between a kid and a well into their life adult) as the Sterling or Deen situations.

Click to expand...

Note how I specifically state the very opposite of what you're claiming I'm saying. That a 15 year old saying something racist would be troubling and something worthy of scorn. The only thing I suggested was that I would probably suggeset a different type of response for a kid then I would an adult.

I don't think it's "okay" for a 15 year old to say he's against the white race. That's definitely not a good or "okay" thing.

I do think I'd treat a 15 year old saying he's against ANY race differently than I'd treat a 35 year old saying he's against ANY race. Just like I'd generally treat a 15 year old that punched someone out of anger differently than I'd treat a 35 year old that punched someone out of anger. Just like I'd generally treat a 15 year old I'm asking to watch my house while I'm out of town differnetly than I'd treat a 35 year old that I've asked to do such.

A 15 year old is still underage. Is still in their formative years. Is still both finding themselves and coming to understand the world. Their views are more malleable and able to change. The expectations placed upon them by societ in terms of maturity and responsability are lower. The experiences they've had in life are significantly smaller on average than those of someone like a 30 year old.

Perhaps if I say it for a THIRD time you'll finally actually understand it and stop beating up the pathetic looking strawman you created, but I'm not hopeful.

Suggesting that the Michael Jordan situation doesn't warrant a similar level of attention or scorn as the Sterling or Deen situations is not, in any way shape or form, suggesting that the opinions expressed by Jordan at that time were "okay".

It's suggesting that something said while being a teenager, that's almost 40 years old, is not worthy of the same level of scorn and attention TODAY (or well, "in the present" of when those two people were in the news) as something that was occuring in the present.

Sterling's accused racism came into the news because he said something controversial during that same time frame.

Deen's accused racism came into the news because she was being sued for racial discrimination during that same time frame.

Michael Jordan's accused racism came into the news because a book talked about something he said nearly 40 years ago.

The first two had situations occuring in the relative present that caused the outrage and scorn. Michael Jordan's situation occured nearly 40 years ago. It's completely understandable and reasonable for it not to cause the same type of outrage.

You can't directly compare it to a 15 year old TODAY saying something similar, and the level of outrage or concern that should happen about that, becuase it completely removes one of the two key factors of the argument...namely, the extreme past nature of it.