Wimbledon and Bias

We have come much farther than I anticipated, back in the 1950s. We are going to get there, eventually.

You added "frequently". I just said that we have disagreed.

and in keeping with your arbitrary challenge, I meant name three different people.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. My original sense was that you tend to equate ignorance with dissent from your views. By adding "frequently", I was trying to concede that I was wrong; now you're rejecting what I was trying to concede. Oh well....


It may be what you meant, but it wasn't what you asked. Fair enough though: Before Aleesha, I talked with Claude, who works in business development at my former employer, and whom I'm still in touch with. The last black person I talked to before Claude was a local police officer whose name I don't remember, but whom I meet semi-frequently while waiting in line at our local bagel place. This time we talked about the Arizona law requiring police to check the papers of immigrant. (The conversation was mostly about how this law contrasted with current practice in New Jersey.)

Does that answer your question? If so, may I ask what the point of your arbitrary challenge was?

Yes it answers the question. No point, other than to answer you in kind. You asked me something in an attempt to highlight what you see as my rigidity in my arguments (discussions, debates, etc.) about race. So I replied with a similarly less-than-respectful query to highlight your cluelessness about black people. If you have nothing else to say about the thread subject, I'll consider our little side discussion done.

Except that your answer wasn't in kind. I asked my question to test my views about your rigidity, and admitted that your response contradicted them. You, on the other hand, asked your question without any comparable willingness to be proven wrong. Although you never actually demonstrated any cluelessness on my part, your mind was made up that I was, and nothing I could have answered to your "challenge" would have changed your mind. And in fact, it didn't. (Notice: "what you see as my rigidity" vs. "your cluelessness"---no "what I see as" necessary.) Talk about prejudices and stereotypes....


No thanks, I think I'm done, too.

Well I guess I do have one more thought for you as you go...
You could have simply disagreed to the assertions I made on this thread about there being racial bias evident in the Wimbledon commentary. You could have diagreed strongly; made the case why this clearly wasn't true in this case. You chose instead to play wannabe therapist and make your discussion along more personal lines. You chose to serve up your views about my "need" to "cling" to a "persecuted role". I took it personally because you chose to make it personal. so if this thread took on a little bit of an ugly tang, you started it down that path.

If I happen to be thinking you're a self-deluded arrogant blowhard in any future thread that I disagree with you, I will try to eschew commentary along that line, in favor of simply making a case to the contrary of yours. You'd save us all time and energy if you'd do the same.

I'd like to forward the possibility that you are merely hyper-sensitive and that while he may have been unintentionally patronizing at worst your response was completely, and typically, over-the-top. He had done nothing at all that in any way resembled how you lashed out at him and remained remarkably cool about being subjected to that emotional outburst. You don't get to play a "you started it" card, there is absolutely no comparison between the level of respect you accorded him vs. he to you. He made no such intentional derogation of you, he merely described things in ways you found unflattering.

I'll certainly consider your thoughts, robert g. You've always been pretty reasonable in the past, so I owe it to myself to consider what you say. I gotta tell ya though... at first glance I think you're giving Thomas a bit of a pass...

$@D Love My Majesty
PS we willen de DFL terug !

I totally get why you took it patronizingly, snood there were ways it wasn't flattering (and if you dwell on them enough you can tie them into stereotypes you may see it invoking and let it carry the weight of previous insult as well).

Combined with the right (or wrong, you could argue) read of the tone (he's very congenial, and criticism with positive tone can read to be particularly condescending) I'd find it a wee bit irritating too if I read it the way you did. Before you said anything about it I'd noticed it as something you might take that way (because it'd be something I might).

But you should know Thomas better than that, at worst he's guilty of being patronizing to you. At the very worst. At best he was just a wee tiny bit patronizing (which may be hard to avoid if you give anything other than positive feedback) and the rest might just be a very congenial tone about a very personal issue that you took as criticism (and I'm not saying it wasn't at all critical, just not in any way maliciously so).

And I think this is the crux of my personal difference with you. I just can't take this jump to malice as easily as you do, intent matters to me more than how much the effect reminds me of legitimate historical wrongs. So I almost always see the things you are trying to point out, at the very least the possibility that it is so, if not the certainty. As an example I know the stereotype you are talking about in this thread, of how it's reminiscent (and pardon the references to the crude stereotypes) of some uglier racial stereotypes in sports like the notion that blacks in sports are genetically disposed for roles involving running and jumping and not thinking and finesse. It's essentially a brains over brawn stereotype for black athletes. But I think you are also taking it too simplistically. The bottom line is that blacks do have genetic predisposition to some physical characteristics that favor certain sporting activities. Yes, they are wrong to say that a genetic predisposition to brawn means any lack in brains and are merely making an idiotic read of over-representation in some areas meaning underrepresentation in others (basically, ignoring that they are minorities because of the over-representation and reading the comparative difference of over-representation at wide receiver to underrepresentation at quarterback).

I get all that. But I just don't always think it's as bad as you do, and as evil or pernicious. Sometimes a beautiful woman is underestimated, sometimes blondes are. There are all sorts of stereotypes and in many of the cases you point out they may well be subtle racial cues at play.

But then again how much value you assign to this is another matter. It doesn't have to make you as angry if you just aren't willing to assign as much evil to it. Look, you have plenty of racial bias yourself. Everyone has some. Yours isn't necessarily evil, and I'd find it as much of an overreaction for someone to say you are a racist and being pernicious, at most I think you are the product of different experiences that give you a predisposition to more racial suspicion than I think appropriate. I think you are wrong a lot in matters of race, and exhibiting a bias (a greater predisposition to see malicious racial bias in non-blacks) but I don't happen to think you are being pernicious about it, and recognize that I might be the one whose biases are at play.

I guess, in short, I'm saying I separate things like insentitively touching on stereotypes from real racism, that's just clumsy. I separate things like racial bias from actual racism. Nobody on earth has no racial bias. There are plenty of things we can discriminate about, some discrimination (even racial) must be acceptable.

Want an example? If a black woman says she prefers a black mate, that is an acceptable racial bias to me, but it's still arbitrary racial discrimination. When a black person tells me he prefers a black president I think it's not ideal but also not necessarily pernicious.

And when white people exhibit the same biases, I don't necessarily assume the worst in them. Many people will touch a completely racist nerve without any intent whatsoever to. And yes many people will be completely ignorant to your context, but so will you be to the context of many others. You just can't get so angry at ignorance that isn't willful and is merely a product of not having walked in your shoes. You haven't walked in theirs either, you aren't going to be perfectly empathetic either (as an example I don't think you were to Thomas, who I think would have more right to anger here in this exchange for your own bit of prejudice of him).

People aren't perfect, we all have biases, prejudices and stereotypes. I too am particularly opposed to the racial ones, but advocate against taking all racial bias as racism. Racism to me is pernicious bias, there must be some level of tolerance for bias because lack of bias is not perfect. If someone is merely too quick to ascribe a black athlete's talents to physical characteristics I get the annoyance at the stereotype (I don't think the Williams sisters are good examples because you could paint them pink and still see how much they stand out as physically different from a mile away, I think it's more of a comment on their body types than color) too, but I strongly disagree with not allowing for the possibilities that there are merely clumsily referring to a stereotype, or just being less-than-perfect.

I see racism (as I define it at least) as being very "evil", I don't want that brush used so easily because there's a world of a difference between real racism and just a bit of daftitude in bias and stereotypes. Imus nonsense, now that is racism or at least race baiting. Here? Nah, their physique is the difference, not the color. There's a reason that a lot of them make snipes about them being "men" too. These girls do have a physical edge, and it's not necessarily racial bias to mention it, even though I completely get how it is reminiscent of it. Hell, the white guy is always the captain and quarterback. The black guy is the one struggling with teamwork, has way too much attitude but is supremely physically gifted and who the white guys can get to come around and let those gene-given talents shine.

Yeah, it's a tired old narrative, I get that part. But it's not always this stereotype at play, sometimes it really is a physical gift that sets someone apart and mentioning it isn't bias even if it reminds you an awful lot of cases where it was.

That wasn't the choice I made. That's your interpretation of the choice I make. My actual reason for making this comment was that your over-interpretation of the Wimbledon reporting appears to follow a pattern of your over-interpretating other things. This pattern extends over years; you always seem to conclude that the speaker has some hidden racist agenda, and always seem to reject my dissenting views as clueless about American racism---even when, as in the case of Obama's election, actual events prove me right.

You say yourself that it's okay for me to think you're wrong and to state why I think so. So why isn't it okay for me to think there's a pattern of your being mistaken, and to say why I think this pattern persists?


No promises, but I respect that this is your preference.

As I said, I've always found your posts to be reasonable and I think you are attempting to be as fair as you can. I don't disagree with the vast majority of what you say.
I would just rather that if people disagree with me on my interpretation of racial issues, or over whether or not something is a racial issue, I'd like if they just disagreed with me on that issue, and not tried to generalize any commentary about my psyche or character. There are so many different kinds of subjects that are about race (or are arguably about race). I don't know how well served we are to cast anyone as playing any "role" that's supposed to fit every case.

Contrary to what I said in my second-to-last post, I do have a question for Snood about the actual topic of the thread. Are you following Rafael Nadal's games? If so, are you noticing the frequent references reporters make to his athleticism? If so, how do you think the reporters' treatment of Nadal is different from their treatment of the Williams sisters?

I've noticed that as well. I read one editorial from a confessed Federer fan saying he tended to dismiss Nadal believing his success was all just his athleticism. This allowed him to ignore the other qualities of his game.

Athleticism, hell. It's because he plays left-handed.

Cycloptichorn

The only real weakness in Federer's game is that outmoded one-handed backhand and the worst case situation would be having to hit it against a strong leftie forehand which is the case with Nadal.

THE ONE HANDED BACKHAND IS THE GOLD STANDARD OF BACKHANDS!!! Ok, got that off my chest. Two handed backhands are taught to children and beginning adults because it locks the body into an A-frame shape and requires you to swing properly through the waist instead of flailing your arm. You can also generate decent power from a small body frame. Put a racket in a small child's hands and they will instinctively hit two handed from both sides. That said, the two hander gives up significant reach and while a one handed backhand is much harder to master, it is much faster and has much more lever arm so you can hit it harder. Henin's backhand (before retirement) eviscerated Serena Williams and led her to number one in the world despite her significantly smaller size. Federer is generally considered the best men's player ever and his one hander is a joy to watch (but not as good as Henin.) Before Evert, having a two hander on tour would get you laughed out of the locker room. It's a pity that the game is moving towards getting children in the game earlier and earlier and they are growing up with the two handed shot instead of developing the more natural shot they would have if they started around age 10.

According to the New Yorker article on Federer, you're right on the money engineer

I didn't realize professional tennis players could only hit their backhand to one side of the court.

But then I didn't realize that there were man made faces on Mars either.

You teach us so much gunga.