MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: silverback on October 25, 2019, 12:38:01 PM
-
Forgive what looks like a click bait headline, but that's the thesis...
The current NCAA football & basketball system (especially in the American South) is an extension of slavery – young, black athletes used for entertainment & then discarded.
That’s my take at Ozy – and it seemed a good time to bring in some MU voices from the past.
Discuss...
https://www.ozy.com/acumen/win-or-lose-college-sports-are-still-failing-black-athletes/97031/ #college #racism #StudentAthlete
-
This should be fun. Although this topic has been debated ad nauseum, this is indeed a different angle.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/fGX80AAczeBEOOwEoK/giphy.gif)
-
I enjoyed the read, and it was nice seeing a guy who has coached at multiple levels acknowledge the obvious.
Otherwise ... IBTL.
-
Forget paying athletes, or even letting them benefit off their likeness, the change that should be instituted ASAP is nearly unconditional access to a degree for as long as it takes.
-
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/xUA7baqmfSmprhlohW/giphy.gif)
-
Seton Hall sucks
-
Slavery isn't how I would describe it since the athletes can walk away at any time. The NCAA and it's member universities do act like a cartel when it comes to how they treat their labor.
-
Forget paying athletes, or even letting them benefit off their likeness, the change that should be instituted ASAP is nearly unconditional access to a degree for as long as it takes.
Do “regular” students on scholarship get that kind of access if they leave school?
-
Although Marquette and the whole system has many flaws I am proud at the great lengths Marquette goes to in educating their athletes and making sure they graduate.
-
Do “regular” students on scholarship get that kind of access if they leave school?
Do regular students on scholarship generate revenue for the school?
-
I can't believe we have to go here again but explain to me how this is slavery when no one is forcing anyone to do anything?
-
Do regular students on scholarship generate revenue for the school?
Well, the schools do provide the platform for the revenue. If the schools stopped sponsoring sports, many of these young people (unless their academics were very good) would never get scholarships, room & board, stipends, travel, academic assistance, etc. and likely never get a degree (or even attend college) and not have the opportunity to show their athletic skills. Other than those few elite (S)As who likely will end up in the NFL or NBA or MLB, most SAs are being provided the opportunity of a lifetime that they could not possibly dream about on their own.
PS, did Duke/ACC/NCAA/ESPN/Etc. generate any more revenue than they would have because of Zion Williamson? Kind of a zero sum game. Again the platform is provided for the SAs.
-
I can't believe we have to go here again but explain to me how this is slavery when no one is forcing anyone to do anything?
It is not (or any where close), the use of the term slavery is a means to generate a reaction. To put it in the same class as the NCAA diminishes the atrocities of slavery.
-
I can't believe we have to go here again but explain to me how this is slavery when no one is forcing anyone to do anything?
I agree about the use of words like "slavery" and "lynching" when they are inaccurate. They are such highly charged words, and the points in that article would have been made just fine without that language.
-
Graduating just 67% of athletes is pitiful -- and that's cited as one of the best graduation rates in the P5. I'm not surprised to learn that the SEC has such a poor record in this regard.
-
I agree about the use of words like "slavery" and "lynching" when they are inaccurate. They are such highly charged words, and the points in that article would have been made just fine without that language.
I didn't see those words in the article. In what context are the players being lynched?
-
When you strip away the hype, there is a legitimate concern about what happens to high profile student athletes whose eligibility ends.
I'm extremely proud of the fact that our Marquette Warriors almost always have graduated. When Coach McGuire was our head coach, we always kept the door open for MU Athletes to return for their degrees. As a result, I think all but maybe two were graduated and even of those two, at least one came back. This is still our university's commitment and we should be proud of it.
For the NCAA at large, there are two questions:
1) Is a school lowering its admissions standards to admit college athletes in big time sports. If you're a university where your average ACT score is 30 or so and your athletes have a 19-21, (ahem... cough... Illinois) it's going to be tough to stay afloat. The kids will stay afloat long enough to be eligible by getting degrees in Horton Row-like classes but their degree, other than the name, is worthless.
2) So you get your degree in Underwater Basketweaving. Now what? Do you have a discernable skill worthy of the workforce?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XEq6XYtMVU
-
Stupid analogy. Slaves never had a choice to walk away like college athletes do.
IBTL.
-
Forget paying athletes, or even letting them benefit off their likeness, the change that should be instituted ASAP is nearly unconditional access to a degree for as long as it takes.
that's already been implemented at the Power 5 schools and other schools have followed suit. And there was always degree completion funding from the NCAA which schools could apply for.
And, while I may have only minored in history I am pretty sure individuals didn't sign up voluntarily to be slaves and didn't receive the benefits student-athletes get (other than housing). They certainly didn't get thousands of dollars worth of Nike gear and travel, in some cases, all over the world (well, after that first boat ride).
Additionally, all of these "slavery" articles focus on the elite programs and kids who are going pro. Nobody talks about the 300+ other colleges that are providing an education to kids who may not have been able to afford a college education and will not go pro. Many of the kids going to schools like Lehigh, Pepperdine, Boston U, Belmont, Loyola Chicago and Marymount are at the schools to play ball and get an education and it's an opportunity sports has provided them.
-
When you strip away the hype, there is a legitimate concern about what happens to high profile student athletes whose eligibility ends.
I'm extremely proud of the fact that our Marquette Warriors almost always have graduated. When Coach McGuire was our head coach, we always kept the door open for MU Athletes to return for their degrees. As a result, I think all but maybe two were graduated and even of those two, at least one came back. This is still our university's commitment and we should be proud of it.
For the NCAA at large, there are two questions:
1) Is a school lowering its admissions standards to admit college athletes in big time sports. If you're a university where your average ACT score is 30 or so and your athletes have a 19-21, (ahem... cough... Illinois) it's going to be tough to stay afloat. The kids will stay afloat long enough to be eligible by getting degrees in Horton Row-like classes but their degree, other than the name, is worthless.
2) So you get your degree in Underwater Basketweaving. Now what? Do you have a discernable skill worthy of the workforce?
I'm of the opinion that the athletes shouldn't need to go to school, since playing their sport is basically a full time job. I think they should be given the option for tuition vouchers to attend school after their playing days are over and they aren't so busy with sports. I'm guessing academic eligibility requirements are needed to keep up the appearance of student athletes rather than employees.
-
Graduation rates are a much bigger deal than paying athletes or allowing them to profit from their likeness. That's not an argument against either of those issues. But the lifetime value of a college degree is far higher -- potentially adding millions more in career earnings than a high school diploma. Even compensating college players at a G-League level ($35,000 a year) pales in comparison.
https://www.fool.com/calculators/how-much-is-a-college-degree-worth.aspx#results (https://www.fool.com/calculators/how-much-is-a-college-degree-worth.aspx#results)
-
Forget paying athletes, or even letting them benefit off their likeness, the change that should be instituted ASAP is nearly unconditional access to a degree for as long as it takes.
I’m not saying this is a bad idea, but most guys that leave school early weren’t even in college to get a degree. It was just the easiest path to achieve their dreams of making it to the NBA, NFL, etc.
-
Thesis: The NCAA tournament, with its “one loss and you’re out system,” is essentially like the Holocaust.
Discuss.
-
Graduating just 67% of athletes is pitiful -- and that's cited as one of the best graduation rates in the P5. I'm not surprised to learn that the SEC has such a poor record in this regard.
Maybe, but we don’t know if it is pitiful unless we know the rate for non-athletes so we can make a comparison.
69% is much higher than the rate for students, in general. So in fact it is the opposite of pitiful.
-
Thesis: The NCAA tournament, with its “one loss and you’re out system,” is essentially like the Holocaust.
Discuss.
Really, are you an anti-semitic individual, the Holocaust was life and death, and death to 6M people. Basketball is a game, no correlation what
so ever.
-
Thesis: The NCAA tournament, with its “one loss and you’re out system,” is essentially like the Holocaust.
Discuss.
Really, are you an anti-semitic individual, the Holocaust was life and death, and death to 6M people. Basketball is a game, no correlation what
so ever.
Dude, he wasn’t being serious. Don’t know how it could be much more obvious.
-
I think he is making a point of how dumb the original thesis is on the subject line.
-
I think he is making a point of how dumb the original thesis is on the subject line.
Yep, it was pretty obvious that he was being facetious because of the OP and subject line.
-
Dude, he wasn’t being serious. Don’t know how it could be much more obvious.
When you lose a family member to the Holocaust, it becomes serious.
-
I didn't see those words in the article. In what context are the players being lynched?
You are correct. "Plantation" was in there. "Slavery" was in the title of this thread. "Lynching" is another example of an over-the-top metaphor in this realm. Wasn't trying to misrepresent anything.
-
Correct. Slavery and lynchings are just as serious. Comparing college athletes to slaves is absurd. Comparing the NCAA tournament to the Holocaust is absurd. That’s his point.
-
I didn't see those words in the article. In what context are the players being lynched?
The words aren’t being used in the article, but one of those words was used by his favorite guy this week so he has to get that out as part of his post...it’s part of his weaving narrative wherever he can in an attempt to get his narrative out. He knows damn well why he said it and did it. What was so funny was watching the videos this week of so many other people using the same word only 20 years earlier in the same situation with only one difference.
-
The words aren’t being used in the article, but one of those words was used by his favorite guy this week so he has to get that out as part of his post...it’s part of his weaving narrative wherever he can in an attempt to get his narrative out. He knows damn well why he said it and did it. What was so funny was watching the videos this week of so many other people using the same word only 20 years earlier in the same situation with only one difference.
Politics
-
I would have preferred an approach of how many student athletes earned a degree that never would have if not for college sports? I can name a number of MU basketball players where this applies.
-
The words aren’t being used in the article, but one of those words was used by his favorite guy this week so he has to get that out as part of his post...it’s part of his weaving narrative wherever he can in an attempt to get his narrative out. He knows damn well why he said it and did it. What was so funny was watching the videos this week of so many other people using the same word only 20 years earlier in the same situation with only one difference.
Because if something was considered acceptable in the past then only SJWs in this PC culture we live in today would ever consider it inappropriate now. If not for all these snowflakes in today's society the rich white man could still legally own other human beings as a piece of property (staying on topic with slavery). Damn, why do all these SJWs need to ruin everything that is good?
-
I would have preferred an approach of how many student athletes earned a degree that never would have if not for college sports? I can name a number of MU basketball players where this applies.
And you know this how?
-
Because if something was considered acceptable in the past then only SJWs in this PC culture we live in today would ever consider it inappropriate now. If not for all these snowflakes in today's society the rich white man could still legally own other human beings as a piece of property (staying on topic with slavery). Damn, why do all these SJWs need to ruin everything that is good?
Holy strawman batman! Hahaha
-
I'm grateful folks read it and reasonably encouraged that only a handful of readers here looked to hide in semantics rather than refute the central idea – arguing word choices rather than acknowledging the problem.
I agree that we're fortunare MU seems very open to welcoiming students back to complete their degrees.
Thanks.
John Scott Lewinski
-
Maybe, but we don’t know if it is pitiful unless we know the rate for non-athletes so we can make a comparison.
69% is much higher than the rate for students, in general. So in fact it is the opposite of pitiful.
I stand corrected. I assumed (should have known that was trouble) the graduation rate for undergraduate students was higher than that. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the 6-year graduation rate at public institutions is 60%, and at private institutions it's 66%.
Graduation rates are higher at more selective institutions (above 80%).
Thanks for checking on this one. Always good to learn something new. I'm now more informed on this issue than I was yesterday.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40 (https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40)
-
I would have preferred an approach of how many student athletes earned a degree that never would have if not for college sports? I can name a number of MU basketball players where this applies.
How many coaches would have become millionares without college sports? How many sports journalists would have jobs without college sports? It's a big business that generates a lot of interest and money from the general public so it's a benefit to everyone involved. Doesn't make it right to artificially cap what the players can make.
-
How many coaches would have become millionares without college sports? How many sports journalists would have jobs without college sports? It's a big business that generates a lot of interest and money from the general public so it's a benefit to everyone involved. Doesn't make it right to artificially cap what the players can make.
Do you think that high school student athletes should be paid as well? High school coaches get paid and there are journalists that make a living off of covering high school sports. High school sports generate a lot of interest and revenue from the public.
No, they shouldn’t be paid either. Value the education that is being provided through playing sports, it will open many doors down the road. Value the exposure that is provided as well, it will open many doors down the road.
-
Do you think that high school student athletes should be paid as well?
If someone wants to pay them for their NIL, then absolutely yes. There's absolutely no logical reason to argue otherwise.
-
If someone wants to pay them for their NIL, then absolutely yes. There's absolutely no logical reason to argue otherwise.
NIL?
-
NIL?
Name, Image, Likeness
-
NIL?
Name, image, and likeness.
Say the local restaurant or grocery store wants to pay a high school kid to be in their commercial or newspaper ad. If they want to give a HS kid $50 to appear, I have no problem with that. If it's the kid that works there part-time as an employee and they get extra to be in the commercial, fine. If it's the recognizable high school player who shoots a basket or scores a touchdown and says that's where they're going after the game, fine.
-
Do you think that high school student athletes should be paid as well? High school coaches get paid and there are journalists that make a living off of covering high school sports. High school sports generate a lot of interest and revenue from the public.
No, they shouldn’t be paid either. Value the education that is being provided through playing sports, it will open many doors down the road. Value the exposure that is provided as well, it will open many doors down the road.
Just a general nitpick. There's a difference between "student athletes should be paid" and "student athletes should be allowed to profit off their NIL."
I think a lot of people who are for allowing student athletes to profit of their NIL are also against student athletes being paid. I'm personally one of those.
-
And you know this how?
Cheeks probably has plenty of clear-cut examples given his time in the AD, but you can also make a pretty solid educated guess with a little simple common sense.
Take Jim Chones, for example. His family was so poor that Al actually told him to take the ABA offer. Chones had almost three years of college credits from his time at MU, and later earned his degree. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1999-05-24-9905240024-story.html
Or watch "Hoop Dreams" and tell me Will Gates would have gotten a degree without a scholarship.
It doesn't stretch the imagination to guess that there are similar stories behind many of Al's "cracked sidewalk" kids...and plenty of kids since.
-
Do you think that high school student athletes should be paid as well? High school coaches get paid and there are journalists that make a living off of covering high school sports. High school sports generate a lot of interest and revenue from the public.
No, they shouldn’t be paid either. Value the education that is being provided through playing sports, it will open many doors down the road. Value the exposure that is provided as well, it will open many doors down the road.
Well if high school sports were generating millions of dollars for individual schools I'd say they should be paid. Some are getting scholarships to private high schools for sports, which I know is a stick in the craw of fans of public schools.
The point is that the athletes are valuable to these institutions, and I think their value should be determined by market forces rather than a cartel-like organization of individual institutions agreeing not to pay their labor.
Opening doors down the road is a nice ambigious source of value, but real money is better, and tangible. All that door opening down the road value would still be on the table as well.
Just lift the amateurism regulation and see what happens. I'm not advocating universities be forced to pay players, rather that they can choose to pay or not pay them whatever they want.
-
Name, image, and likeness.
Say the local restaurant or grocery store wants to pay a high school kid to be in their commercial or newspaper ad. If they want to give a HS kid $50 to appear, I have no problem with that. If it's the kid that works there part-time as an employee and they get extra to be in the commercial, fine. If it's the recognizable high school player who shoots a basket or scores a touchdown and says that's where they're going after the game, fine.
Gotcha thanks for clarifying that. I'd agree. Especially given how big some of those football stadiums for high schools are in the south. Tell me those kids don't deserve a chance to capitalize on their celebrity
-
Gotcha thanks for clarifying that. I'd agree. Especially given how big some of those football stadiums for high schools are in the south. Tell me those kids don't deserve a chance to capitalize on their celebrity
It's even the case to a lesser extent up here. When I went to Arrowhead 25 years ago, the football players were treated like superstars, and the program and money involved has only grown exponentially in the decades since. And that pales in comparison to how states like Florida and Texas treat high school athletes.
-
Do regular students on scholarship generate revenue for the school?
Back in my day when I was a member of the MU Chorus, the Chorus was paid for performances at various alumni and community functions which went back to the University. Some member were on academic scholarships though none were for music or choral singing. Most of us were not on scholarships, we just liked to sing. The revenue generated was not much, but to your question; yes, regular students can generate revenue to the University.
-
College Sports = Slavery
High School Sports =The Gulag Archipelago.
Ban all sports.
-
College Sports = Slavery
High School Sports =The Gulag Archipelago.
Ban all sports.
Nah just the revenue producing ones
-
Ban all sports.
Good God. What would I do with winter without my Warriors? It’s bleak enough in the Midwest without Marquette.
-
Just a general nitpick. There's a difference between "student athletes should be paid" and "student athletes should be allowed to profit off their NIL."
I think a lot of people who are for allowing student athletes to profit of their NIL are also against student athletes being paid. I'm personally one of those.
I wouldn't mind college athletes getting paid. They already do, both under the table and perfectly legally -- an example of the latter is the two-sport athlete who gets to maintain his "amateur" status even if he signs a pro contract to play a different sport.
But I'm mostly for incremental change, and the NIL thing is logical. I mean, of course each college student should be able to profit off his or her own likeness without losing the opportunity to keep doing the activity he or she was doing. Common sense.
No wonder why two-thirds of all Americans agree that athletes should be able to profit off their own likenesses.
-
I stand corrected. I assumed (should have known that was trouble) the graduation rate for undergraduate students was higher than that. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the 6-year graduation rate at public institutions is 60%, and at private institutions it's 66%.
No prob. I assumed the same thing. It was only after my post that I crawled thru the google pipes to find out that fact.
-
Just a general nitpick. There's a difference between "student athletes should be paid" and "student athletes should be allowed to profit off their NIL."
I think a lot of people who are for allowing student athletes to profit of their NIL are also against student athletes being paid. I'm personally one of those.
Actually, not a nitpick, TAMU. There is a very big difference. I think your 2nd point be agreed to by a majority.
-
slavery-college sports=really really bad analogy. just as analogies to hitler, holocaust, death camps, etc make for bad analogies. horrific incidences of the past usually diminish the term from which they really originated and trivialize those who actually experienced the worst of the worst
how about college sports=a tough but chosen adjunctive education
-
Seton Hall sucks
ND sucks more
-
And you know this how?
My first sentence was a question, not a statement.
My second statement I know because the players said so. Bo Ellis, whom I worked with for several years, told us. Jim Chones, whom I worked with, told us. Etc. Not just told us, but said it publicly that without college basketball, they never would have gone to college to begin with. That was the vehicle to college and they were thankful for it.
Not trying to be snarky, did that address your question as I am not sure what you are asking here.
-
Because if something was considered acceptable in the past then only SJWs in this PC culture we live in today would ever consider it inappropriate now. If not for all these snowflakes in today's society the rich white man could still legally own other human beings as a piece of property (staying on topic with slavery). Damn, why do all these SJWs need to ruin everything that is good?
They should try to outlaw the word bitch next...oh wait.
-
I wouldn't mind college athletes getting paid. They already do, both under the table and perfectly legally -- an example of the latter is the two-sport athlete who gets to maintain his "amateur" status even if he signs a pro contract to play a different sport.
But I'm mostly for incremental change, and the NIL thing is logical. I mean, of course each college student should be able to profit off his or her own likeness without losing the opportunity to keep doing the activity he or she was doing. Common sense.
No wonder why two-thirds of all Americans agree that athletes should be able to profit off their own likenesses.
False...selective poll chosen.
Show me all those non revenue athletes being paid under the table...can’t wait to see them. Or even 90% of the revenue athletes for that matter.
-
My second statement I know because the players said so. Bo Ellis, whom I worked with for several years, told us. Jim Chones, whom I worked with, told us. Etc. Not just told us, but said it publicly that without college basketball, they never would have gone to college to begin with. That was the vehicle to college and they were thankful for it.
This is 100% true.
-
This is 100% true.
Also true of many of the guys that played for Al.
-
False...selective poll chosen.
Liar.
If the exact same poll said that 66% of Americans believed athletes shouldn't be able to profit off their likenesses, you'd be standing on top of a mountain screaming about it.
You were so desperate to try to find such a poll you lied about one existing.
-
Here we go again. Can we just drop this whole stupid subject already? We spent the whole summer arguing about this with everyone finally dropping it. The season is here. How about we talk about basketball stuff that matters at least a little besides some ridiculous clickbait headline?
-
Here we go again. Can we just drop this whole stupid subject already? We spent the whole summer arguing about this with everyone finally dropping it. The season is here. How about we talk about basketball stuff that matters at least a little besides some ridiculous clickbait headline?
Yup, everyone in this thread got punk'd (including me, by virtue of this post).
-
Because if something was considered acceptable in the past then only SJWs in this PC culture we live in today would ever consider it inappropriate now. If not for all these snowflakes in today's society the rich white man could still legally own other human beings as a piece of property (staying on topic with slavery). Damn, why do all these SJWs need to ruin everything that is good?
IF I remember my history correctly, approximately .02% of the U.S. population at the time owned slaves.
Some of these owners were people of color, like Michelle Robinson's ancestors. So most Americans did not own anybody and many thousands gave their lives to help end that injustice. So snarkly implying that white people would embrace slavery is offensive to me
-
IF I remember my history correctly, approximately .02% of the U.S. population at the time owned slaves.
Some of these owners were people of color, like Michelle Robinson's ancestors. So most Americans did not own anybody and many thousands gave their lives to help end that injustice. So snarkly implying that white people would embrace slavery is offensive to me
I've never heard a number that low so I decided to do some quick research which seems to indicate that you remember your history incorrectly. I looked a couple of different places and nowhere did I find a number close to .02%. The lowest I found was was 1.4% and that originated from a 2005 article that literally started with the phrase "If you're white like Uncle Jim..."
This article is a good summary, though not admittedly a peer reviewed journal.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/24/viral-image/viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/
They put the % of people in slaveholding state who owned slaves at 4.9%. They also point out the single individuals rarely owned slaves so it's more accurate to look a family units and households. They estimate that around 19% of family units and 25% of households in slave owning states owned slaves.
It's also important to remember that owning a slave wasn't the only way to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Every white American undeniably indirectly benefited from slavery at the time and thousands more directly benefited even if they themselves didn't own slaves.
And yes, there were black slave owners though estimates are that they accounted for less than 0.5% of all slaves in the USA (maybe this is where your 0.2% came from). It should also be noted that many of these black owned slaves were actually family members of their owners. Freed black slaves would often purchase their family members in order to keep the family together.
-
After digesting the article, it simply reinforces the sham of amateurism
Anyway, Xavier sucks
-
I've never heard a number that low so I decided to do some quick research which seems to indicate that you remember your history incorrectly. I looked a couple of different places and nowhere did I find a number close to .02%. The lowest I found was was 1.4% and that originated from a 2005 article that literally started with the phrase "If you're white like Uncle Jim..."
This article is a good summary, though not admittedly a peer reviewed journal.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/24/viral-image/viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/
They put the % of people in slaveholding state who owned slaves at 4.9%. They also point out the single individuals rarely owned slaves so it's more accurate to look a family units and households. They estimate that around 19% of family units and 25% of households in slave owning states owned slaves.
It's also important to remember that owning a slave wasn't the only way to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Every white American undeniably indirectly benefited from slavery at the time and thousands more directly benefited even if they themselves didn't own slaves.
And yes, there were black slave owners though estimates are that they accounted for less than 0.5% of all slaves in the USA (maybe this is where your 0.2% came from). It should also be noted that many of these black owned slaves were actually family members of their owners. Freed black slaves would often purchase their family members in order to keep the family together.
people seem to want to ignore the fact that slavery still exists today. why aren't people going after the drug and the sex industry with the same zeal. it seems we, as a society have been leaning more to the diminishment of "bad behavior" than in the past. either by giving it more excuses or just outright throwing their collective hands up. we used to stigmatize bad behavior which i believe had at least some deleterious affects. back in the "just say no to drugs" days, many will say that it had no affect. today we don't even seem to bother. for heroin addicts, they are putting up "safe" places to inject, giving out "free" needles. that is not preventing people from dying. not to detract from my main premise here, but i believe the legalization of pot is being majorly minimized. so we are more concerned with kids vaping(leaving the straight THC out of it) than recognizing that it is legal to get high. the legalization of pot has had to have introduced it to many who would not have otherwise considered doing it on a semi-regular basis like "having a beer". if you talk to those directly involved with the "side effects" of the legalization of weed, it's not working out nearly the way all the pot prognosticators told us it would...we didn't need one more substance to F'udge up society.
-
people seem to want to ignore the fact that slavery still exists today. why aren't people going after the drug and the sex industry with the same zeal. it seems we, as a society have been leaning more to the diminishment of "bad behavior" than in the past. either by giving it more excuses or just outright throwing their collective hands up. we used to stigmatize bad behavior which i believe had at least some deleterious affects. back in the "just say no to drugs" days, many will say that it had no affect. today we don't even seem to bother. for heroin addicts, they are putting up "safe" places to inject, giving out "free" needles. that is not preventing people from dying. not to detract from my main premise here, but i believe the legalization of pot is being majorly minimized. so we are more concerned with kids vaping(leaving the straight THC out of it) than recognizing that it is legal to get high. the legalization of pot has had to have introduced it to many who would not have otherwise considered doing it on a semi-regular basis like "having a beer". if you talk to those directly involved with the "side effects" of the legalization of weed, it's not working out nearly the way all the pot prognosticators told us it would...we didn't need one more substance to F'udge up society.
Valley fields used to be littered with used needles. Lacrosse practice was terrifying because of it. There should be spaces simply to prevent needles from pricking unintended recipients. I feel that there's a bit of a poor equivalency between hard drugs and weed here and that you jumped right over legal drugs that are pushed.
I don't know enough about the side effect stuff but if legalizing it keeps cartels from lacing it with stuff like fentanyl and PCP then I'm for it
-
I've never heard a number that low so I decided to do some quick research which seems to indicate that you remember your history incorrectly. I looked a couple of different places and nowhere did I find a number close to .02%. The lowest I found was was 1.4% and that originated from a 2005 article that literally started with the phrase "If you're white like Uncle Jim..."
This article is a good summary, though not admittedly a peer reviewed journal.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/24/viral-image/viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/
They put the % of people in slaveholding state who owned slaves at 4.9%. They also point out the single individuals rarely owned slaves so it's more accurate to look a family units and households. They estimate that around 19% of family units and 25% of households in slave owning states owned slaves.
It's also important to remember that owning a slave wasn't the only way to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Every white American undeniably indirectly benefited from slavery at the time and thousands more directly benefited even if they themselves didn't own slaves.
And yes, there were black slave owners though estimates are that they accounted for less than 0.5% of all slaves in the USA (maybe this is where your 0.2% came from). It should also be noted that many of these black owned slaves were actually family members of their owners. Freed black slaves would often purchase their family members in order to keep the family together.
You basically agree with and support his premise.
Let's all move on.
-
You basically agree with and support his premise.
Let's all move on.
How do you figure? I don't agree with any premise meant to minimize our country's role with slavery.
-
people seem to want to ignore the fact that slavery still exists today. why aren't people going after the drug and the sex industry with the same zeal. it seems we, as a society have been leaning more to the diminishment of "bad behavior" than in the past. either by giving it more excuses or just outright throwing their collective hands up. we used to stigmatize bad behavior which i believe had at least some deleterious affects. back in the "just say no to drugs" days, many will say that it had no affect. today we don't even seem to bother. for heroin addicts, they are putting up "safe" places to inject, giving out "free" needles. that is not preventing people from dying. not to detract from my main premise here, but i believe the legalization of pot is being majorly minimized. so we are more concerned with kids vaping(leaving the straight THC out of it) than recognizing that it is legal to get high. the legalization of pot has had to have introduced it to many who would not have otherwise considered doing it on a semi-regular basis like "having a beer". if you talk to those directly involved with the "side effects" of the legalization of weed, it's not working out nearly the way all the pot prognosticators told us it would...we didn't need one more substance to F'udge up society.
What does legalization of weed have to do with being honest about our country's history with slavery?
-
I agree about the use of words like "slavery" and "lynching" when they are inaccurate. They are such highly charged words, and the points in that article would have been made just fine without that language.
Exactly. And that is precisely what makes the difference between an actual journalist and an attention-starved freelancer.
-
What does legalization of weed have to do with being honest about our country's history with slavery?
I believe that would be the "look over here at this shiny object" method of avoiding the topic.
-
How do you figure? I don't agree with any premise meant to minimize our country's role with slavery.
I'm confused. Your statistics don't support his assertion that "most Americans did not own anybody"?
Anyway, everyone knows slavery is a horrible institution perpetrated by people of all races throughout all of human history.
-
What does legalization of weed have to do with being honest about our country's history with slavery?
our country's history with slavery-it was legal, we correctly noted it was wrong, we acted to abolish it and did. people are wasting time trying to revisit our history of slavery and re-litigate it to a certain extent while ignoring the sex and drug slavery that is going on today. that being said, the legalization of weed has not had near the so called "intended consequences" the advocates continue to claim. in fact, i continue to believe, as my aforementioned post stated in so many words, we need to go back to defining and stigmatizing bad behavior.
galway, having needles strewn anywhere is a problem. i read a story somewhere, where a kid slid into 2nd base on a ball field and was stuck by a needle. the way to attend to a problem such as this is not to encourage more bad or problematic behavior, but to make available more treatment. the availability of fentanyl is catastrophic. drug addicts flock to dealers who have provided batches of heroin that have led to overdoses. it's usually laced with fentanyl. it takes such small quantities of fentanyl to give the user it's deadly boost, making it easier to conceal and smuggle. i continue to believe pot is a gateway drug and many more people are taking it in some form that wouldn't have otherwise. i believe there are real benefits to medical maryjane however. real medical issues, not hang nails
-
I'm confused. Your statistics don't support his assertion that "most Americans did not own anybody"?
They don't support his assertion that .02% of Americans owned slavery. My assertion is that the actual number was around 24,500% bigger than the one he gave. And when you look at family units and households the number is actually 125,000% bigger than the one he gave.
Anyway, everyone knows slavery is a horrible institution perpetrated by people of all races throughout all of human history.
But the only race to take it to the scale of the transatlantic slave trade was white people enslaving black people.
-
our country's history with slavery-it was legal, we correctly noted it was wrong, we acted to abolish it and did. people are wasting time trying to revisit our history of slavery and re-litigate it to a certain extent while ignoring the sex and drug slavery that is going on today. that being said, the legalization of weed has not had near the so called "intended consequences" the advocates continue to claim. in fact, i continue to believe, as my aforementioned post stated in so many words, we need to go back to defining and stigmatizing bad behavior.
How is a bunch of bums on an internet forum having a conversation about our nation's history with slavery taking away from stopping the sex and drug slavery industry of today?
-
They don't support his assertion that .02% of Americans owned slavery. My assertion is that the actual number was around 24,500% bigger than the one he gave. And when you look at family units and households the number is actually 125,000% bigger than the one he gave.
But the only race to take it to the scale of the transatlantic slave trade was white people enslaving black people.
You are being purposefully inflammatory with the % above. Anyone with a 3rd grade education can see right through your act. I didn't call it out before to be kind, but everyone saw how you conveniently took the scope of ownership from Americans to the significantly smaller pool of population in slave states only.
Your hatred toward white people is equally as distasteful as any racist bias exhibited durring slavery.
I hope you can find love in your heart for all humans someday.
-
You are being purposefully inflammatory with the % above. Anyone with a 3rd grade education can see right through your act. I didn't call it out before to be kind, but everyone saw how you conveniently took the scope of ownership from Americans to the significantly smaller pool of population in slave states only.
Your hatred toward white people is equally as distasteful as any racist bias exhibited durring slavery.
I hope you can find love in your heart for all humans someday.
He was certainly using stats to advance his position but the bolded is one of the most idiotic statements ever put on here. And that's saying quite a lot. But is in line with your user name
-
our country's history with slavery-it was legal, we correctly noted it was wrong, we acted to abolish it and did. people are wasting time trying to revisit our history of slavery and re-litigate it to a certain extent while ignoring the sex and drug slavery that is going on today. that being said, the legalization of weed has not had near the so called "intended consequences" the advocates continue to claim. in fact, i continue to believe, as my aforementioned post stated in so many words, we need to go back to defining and stigmatizing bad behavior.
Weed was not made illegal because it was dangerous, bad, or because it was bad behavior. I encourage you to read the history on this. At the time it was widely used in medicine. It was made illegal for purely political reasons. To demonize and illegitimatize specific segments of the population.
-
You are being purposefully inflammatory with the % above.
So when I post accurate statistics, I'm being purposefully inflammatory. Why didn't you have the same reaction when the person I quoted used inaccurate statistics?
but everyone saw how you conveniently took the scope of ownership from Americans to the significantly smaller pool of population in slave states only.
Of course everyone saw, I was very clear about what data I was using. It wasn't a secret. I focused on the percentages in states where it was actually legal. Why would I include data from states where it was illegal? Doing that would be purposefully skewing the stats the other way.
Your hatred toward white people is equally as distasteful as any racist bias exhibited durring slavery.
Is your argument that me providing data about slavery in the US is more racist than slavery? I gotta say I disagree.
-
You are being purposefully inflammatory with the % above. Anyone with a 3rd grade education can see right through your act. I didn't call it out before to be kind, but everyone saw how you conveniently took the scope of ownership from Americans to the significantly smaller pool of population in slave states only.
Your hatred toward white people is equally as distasteful as any racist bias exhibited durring slavery.
I hope you can find love in your heart for all humans someday.
????
I don’t think he hates white people....if anything a lot of people have this guilt, but that doesn’t mean self loathing.
-
He was certainly using stats to advance his position but the bolded is one of the most idiotic statements ever put on here. And that's saying quite a lot. But is in line with your user name
Your point is correct. I withdraw that comment. My distaste for bigotry clouded my reason. Thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity. I'm human and make mistakes.
-
You are being purposefully inflammatory with the % above. Anyone with a 3rd grade education can see right through your act. I didn't call it out before to be kind, but everyone saw how you conveniently took the scope of ownership from Americans to the significantly smaller pool of population in slave states only.
Your hatred toward white people is equally as distasteful as any racist bias exhibited durring slavery.
I hope you can find love in your heart for all humans someday.
Lol. You’re a joke.
-
Your point is correct. I withdraw that comment. My distaste for bigotry clouded my reason. Thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity. I'm human and make mistakes.
I appreciate that. But I'm curious, where did you get bigotry in my posts? I'm a very white man from a very white family. I like history and dislike historical inaccuracies. I hadn't heard a number that low before so I wanted to check and see if I was mistaken and posted what I found. I don't think anything I posted was inaccurate or insulting to any race. Our nation has a nasty history with slavery. That is a fact. I don't think that means that white people are bad by any stretch. Just like I don't think Germans are bad because of their history, or Japanese are bad because of their role in WWII.
-
So when I post accurate statistics, I'm being purposefully inflammatory. Why didn't you have the same reaction when the person I quoted used inaccurate statistics?
Of course everyone saw, I was very clear about what data I was using. It wasn't a secret. I focused on the percentages in states where it was actually legal. Why would I include data from states where it was illegal? Doing that would be purposefully skewing the stats the other way.
Is your argument that me providing data about slavery in the US is more racist than slavery? I gotta say I disagree.
I didn't react to the initial statistic because you already had done so.
When he was making an assertion that the majority of Americans did not own slaves he did not limit it to Americans in slave states. You moved the goalposts for your own purpose.
I withdrew my comment about equating your distaste for white people to slavery. That was a stupid comment. I apologize to you and anyone who was offended.
-
How is a bunch of bums on an internet forum having a conversation about our nation's history with slavery taking away from stopping the sex and drug slavery industry of today?
haven't seen near as much(hardly any)blow-back on the drug and sex slavery as i have on the one that has everyone taking statues down over. anywhooo, i just got off on the tangent as i just felt comparing college sports to slavery was a bad analogy. no big deal-carry on
-
I appreciate that. But I'm curious, where did you get bigotry in my posts? I'm a very white man from a very white family. I like history and dislike historical inaccuracies. I hadn't heard a number that low before so I wanted to check and see if I was mistaken and posted what I found. I don't think anything I posted was inaccurate or insulting to any race. Our nation has a nasty history with slavery. That is a fact. I don't think that means that white people are bad by any stretch. Just like I don't think Germans are bad because of their history, or Japanese are bad because of their role in WWII.
Thanks for clarifying your position. I thought your statistics generally supported the poster's assertion that the vast majority of Americans did not own slaves. While his stats may have not been totally accurate they seemed fairly reasonable in light of your stat that about 5% owned slaves in slaves states only, and considering the fact that a large majority of the US population was not in slaves states, I think it is fair to say that tiny percent (<1% ?) of Americans owned slaves.
I interpreted your comments as painting the original poster as intentionally and significantly understating slave ownership in the US when, based upon your own stats, he was off by maybe less than 2%. To many that is statistical anomaly (especially on a MU basketball forum) and not an underhanded attempt to minimize slavery in the US.
In short, your stats and his stats do not seem materially different and your attempt to paint them as significantly different lead me to believe you have an agenda to perpetuate 'white guilt' (for lack of a better term right now).
Also, while the American slave industry was awful, America never enslaved an entire ethnic group like the Egyptians did.
-
Just a general nitpick. There's a difference between "student athletes should be paid" and "student athletes should be allowed to profit off their NIL."
I think a lot of people who are for allowing student athletes to profit of their NIL are also against student athletes being paid. I'm personally one of those.
But the way this works is “progress” will then move in 5 years to paying, or some next iterative step...and further and further erosion. Give an inch and you ultimately give up miles.
-
But the way this works is “progress” will then move in 5 years to paying, or some next iterative step...and further and further erosion. Give an inch and you ultimately give up miles.
Ah, the old slippery slope argument. A favorite of hardcores (left and right) when resisting common sense change.
-
Also, while the American slave industry was awful, America never enslaved an entire ethnic group like the Egyptians did.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/f7dabcf49206a8a635ec5366cf1eace6/tenor.gif)
-
But the way this works is “progress” will then move in 5 years to paying, or some next iterative step...and further and further erosion. Give an inch and you ultimately give up miles.
“Five years to judge”, hey?
-
Butler sucks
-
Butler sucks
They will ride basement with DePaul for the foreseeable future
-
our country's history with slavery-it was legal, we correctly noted it was wrong, we acted to abolish it and did. people are wasting time trying to revisit our history of slavery and re-litigate it to a certain extent while ignoring the sex and drug slavery that is going on today. that being said, the legalization of weed has not had near the so called "intended consequences" the advocates continue to claim. in fact, i continue to believe, as my aforementioned post stated in so many words, we need to go back to defining and stigmatizing bad behavior.
galway, having needles strewn anywhere is a problem. i read a story somewhere, where a kid slid into 2nd base on a ball field and was stuck by a needle. the way to attend to a problem such as this is not to encourage more bad or problematic behavior, but to make available more treatment. the availability of fentanyl is catastrophic. drug addicts flock to dealers who have provided batches of heroin that have led to overdoses. it's usually laced with fentanyl. it takes such small quantities of fentanyl to give the user it's deadly boost, making it easier to conceal and smuggle. i continue to believe pot is a gateway drug and many more people are taking it in some form that wouldn't have otherwise. i believe there are real benefits to medical maryjane however. real medical issues, not hang nails
Unfortunately it took a civil war. Before where I live was part of the US it was abolished by the state without any violence as in most places, and unfortunately in this country segregation continued until late 60's and is in the cusp of coming back.
-
Unfortunately it took a civil war. Before where I live was part of the US it was abolished by the state without any violence as in most places, and unfortunately in this country segregation continued until late 60's and is in the cusp of coming back.
Lol segregation is not on the cusp of coming back. Jfc.
-
The idea that you can just walk away doesn't hold water. Unless your rich it's not a realistic opportunity. A player said recently it doesn't matter how much you make, if you don't have realistic options, you're still a slave (paraphrase). The same issue could be posed regarding an non-union job. This all would be moot if we had free education for all, like other advanced countries.
-
Lol segregation is not on the cusp of coming back. Jfc.
Obviously you're unaware of the state of the US. When I try to use my ID which is not from the 48 contiguous states I get challenged questioned and hassled and that never happened to me since I traveled in the early 70's. You just don't understand what is happening. I don't live in the mainland. Things have changed like we are back 49-50 years in time as I travel to the mainland. There is an agenda.
-
Lol segregation is not on the cusp of coming back. Jfc.
You’re right. De facto segregation never really left.
-
Lol segregation is not on the cusp of coming back. Jfc.
Charlotte schools are as segregated now as they were in the 1970s, and the problem is increasing every year.
https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/education/report-charlotte-mecklenburg-schools-most-segregated-in-nc/275-529759454
And Charlotte is hardly the only major city in which this is the case.
https://www.newsweek.com/2018/03/30/school-segregation-america-today-bad-1960-855256.html?src=longreads
-
The idea that you can just walk away doesn't hold water. Unless your rich it's not a realistic opportunity. A player said recently it doesn't matter how much you make, if you don't have realistic options, you're still a slave (paraphrase). The same issue could be posed regarding an non-union job. This all would be moot if we had free education for all, like other advanced countries.
No such thing as free, it costs money unless professors and admins are not being paid. Higher taxes, etc...nothing is free in life.
College is not free in most advanced countries.
-
Odd considering who runs Charlotte...so odd...
Politics.
-
Politics.
The irony in your posts in this thread...the amazing irony.
-
Odd considering who runs Charlotte...so odd...
Yeah but USA is one of the most uneducated first world countries. Don't even know where states are located, it is sad and unfortunate.
-
Obviously you're unaware of the state of the US. When I try to use my ID which is not from the 48 contiguous states I get challenged questioned and hassled and that never happened to me since I traveled in the early 70's. You just don't understand what is happening. I don't live in the mainland. Things have changed like we are back 49-50 years in time as I travel to the mainland. There is an agenda.
Newsy, we're just trying to keep YOU out. You understand. :o
-
Isn’t all k-12 education free in this country except for private schools? Hmmm....interesting.
Nothing is free in life
-
Nothing is free in life
You're right, it shouldn't be. But there's certain members of society(and unfortunately millions of them), that want/expect things to be free.
-
Newsy, we're just trying to keep YOU out. You understand. :o
+1kabillionjillionzillion. ;D
IBF the effin L
-
You're right, it shouldn't be. But there's certain members of society(and unfortunately millions of them), that want/expect things to be free.
Like the labor of college athletes.
-
Obviously you're unaware of the state of the US. When I try to use my ID which is not from the 48 contiguous states I get challenged questioned and hassled and that never happened to me since I traveled in the early 70's. You just don't understand what is happening. I don't live in the mainland. Things have changed like we are back 49-50 years in time as I travel to the mainland. There is an agenda.
Is it because it has a picture of McLovin on it?