I didn't see anything wrong with what he said. Too many young people in this country go out of their way to be offended and they have no right to be. As was stated earlier by someone else the older black generation went through a lot so their distrust and dislike is understandable, not right but understandable. I laugh when I see a young black man or woman tell me how tough they have it because of slavery.

Rob Parker criticized Robert Griffin III because Griffin doesn't want to be seen through a prism of race.

Parker promoted the racist philosophy which says that people with certain external features must live, act and believe the same way. Parker promoted the racist idea that people are siblings if they the same outward "racial" features.

It doesn't surprise me if people who practice Parker's form of racism won't admit that they are practicing racism.

I thought it was understandable for some to be offended too though, in the end, its up to the network and their demographics

I wouldnt have stopped watching a sports commentator for this type of 'questioning' comment, but I would avoid voting for a politican (herman cain) for saying someone was more or less black than another


from what I Read of this sports commentator, he was asked his opinion about something,,, a question which had 'race' as an element to it,,, and his response about race was specific to one 'brother' who he had heard certain things about

I wish we didnt have 'down with the cause', just like I wish we didnt have 'acting white/acting black',, the truth is that many people feel that way though and this person seemed to have been asked how he personally felt,,,,

even then, he seemed to leave room for error and questioning and not to condemn

like calling someone a nappy headed hoe, or claiming one race is categorically better or worse,,,


but,,,I dont really care, to be honest,,, its up to the employer

I dont hold sports commentators to that high a standard anyhow ,,,lol

see, from what was posted , I didnt get that at all

what I got from it was that he was questioning why Griffin had answered the way he did,,

I got from it that the speaker viewed Griffins choice of answer and his behavior (Based upon others around Griffin) , he felt there was a chance that something else was there

I got from it that he was wanting to know more before deciding anything at all about Griffin,, but that he had QUESTIONS about why this particular issue was an issue for Griffin,,,,,

I don't see the "SPECIAL" folks wanting equality.
That would mean they were willing to give up all their benis.

Consideration of race over qualification in schools, jobs, etc.

Although, the Mexicans have one up on them.

To qualify for many private jobs, they are requiring Spanish speaking.

Hell, it's hard enough for Gang Bangers to speak or write English, let alone Spanish.

So, that group is chit-outa'-luck.

There you go illustrating the racism of Rob Parker.

Robert Griffin III is not Rob Parker's brother. The two men are not siblings. The two men are not family.

You are indeed practicing a form of racism if you claim that a man is your brother because the man has outward "racial" features that you have.

In an interview aired by WDIV-TV, Rob Parker continued expressing racism when Parker claimed that Griffin was pushing away from "his people".

Well, Griffin is doing no such thing.

Washington Redskins quarterback Kirk Cousins is one of Griffin's people because the two men are members of the same football team.


Kirk Cousins

Christian preacher Rick Warren is one of Griffin's people because the two men are both devout Christians.


Rick Warren

Parker criticized Griffin because Griffin refuses to participate in the kind of racism that Parker practices.

Trying to justify rape or murder doesn't make it right. Same with racism.

brother doesnt have to be restricted to biology just because it offends people

brother is a term referencing a similar background or connection

non biological adopted children use it with each other, church members use it with each other, those from similar geneology use it with each other,,,,


from webster:


1: a male who has the same parents as another or one parent in common with another


2. one related to another by common ties or interests


3. a fellow member —used as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations


4. one of a type similar to another


its truly a time to stand up to hateful and harmful use of 'race', and then there are other times when its time to sit and listen to the REALITY that people face as a result of their 'race' and where it has placed them SOCIALLY within their environment

there is nothing negative about the term 'brother', no matter how hard people want to find something negative in it,,,

and I agree, the men are also 'brothers' with their teammates,, the word has many uses to imply INCLUSION in a similar 'group' of people

and I also agree with you that the criticism was for not practicing the same kind of 'racism'

for indeed, trying to persuade people to be COLORBLIND or to not notice your race is another form of racism just as detrimental as persuading people to FOCUS on it,,,,,but just a more socially acceptable one

OK. Here is some simple English for you. I hope what I say does not go over your head!

Like God 'just is' so are the evil qualities of man. Becasue Rape, murder, and RACISM are human concepts and people either abstain or participate in them only means one thing and one thing alone, THEY ARE, THEY ARE REAL, AND THERE IS NOT A LOT ABOUT BEING ABLE TO NEGATE THEIR EXISTENCE!

So much like God said, "I am," and offered no explanation or rational for his existence in the bible so are these man made forces much like war, greed, hate, and sin in general. This is not a justification.

THEY JUST ARE PART OF THE HUMAN CONDITION! I could care less what moral yardstick you dare to wave in my face!

So now what? Wanna hen peck me some more?



So again with those sharp clawed one liners?

Being judgemental is also a natural part of the human condition. People are so caught up with political correctness, they are afraid to offend anyone by speaking their minds and true feelings get repressed. As you can see, I do not fall into that category.

Repressing one's feelings can be dangerous. Trying to please everyone is an exercise in futility. People need to grow some balls these days.

Racism in any form,by anyone is STOOPID!
___________
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.


“Racism,”
The Virtue of Selfishness

Ayn Rand

that is one form of racism, yes

its also a form of 'categorization', just like gender or nationality,, to categorize people that have a similar (biology, geographical base, ancestral line,,,etc)

People do need to grow some balls and stand up against these things, rather than just saying they're part of life and people should put up with them.

I think justification, and taking account of what causes the behavior in question, are different things. So is accepting that a certain % of the pop is going to exhibit these behaviors.

Before the argument stated this was all that I had read into the posts from IamwhoIam1, just my .02

Justification involves oughts'. I saw no oughts'.

Obviously we know that some people are going to exhibit these behaviors. I saw her posts as acting like there was nothing to be done/nothing should be done about it. And that we shouldn't be disgusted by it.