1
   

Crying racism...

 
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 02:23 pm
So they look great with a strap on?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 02:27 pm
So they can beat the living sh!t out of any man who makes fun of them?
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 02:28 pm
Picture of last year's Ms. Olympia...notice the "feminine" jaw line and facial features.

http://www.ifbb.com/contestresults/2002olympia/166.jpg
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 02:31 pm
The last couple of world's strongest woman I've watched, one of the leaders is this "little" Finnish woman. 150 lbs, no, like, freakish huge muscles going on, veins you couldn't pass french fries through, and kicking ass.

Yeah, I watch lumberjack competitions, too. And sumo wrestling, if it's on. Gotta stop drinking less on Friday nights so I can make it off the couch on Saturday mornings.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 05:29 pm
cavfancier wrote:
I give Sosa the benefit of the doubt just because I think he really is too dumb to have realized he used a corked bat...and that has nothing to do with his race.


Why do you think he's dumb?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 05:32 pm
patiodog wrote:
Stuff's addictive, man!

Joe Morgan said that he used a corked bat during bp in his day because it was somehow easier on his hands -- dampened vibrations or something.


I heard Sosa say he sometimes used them during batting practice because he liked to put on a good show for the fans, and he got a little more distance from them.

Now for you logical types, If Sammy was going to use a corked bat in a game, wouldn't he have used one when he was on page one of every newspaper, and the first 5 minutes of every news show, chasing the record? They checked those bats, and found them clean.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 05:49 pm
I just found this discussion, and I don't know nothin' about corked bats. But a question about this:

fbaezer wrote:
We don't have racial classification in Mexico, but about 15% of the population is considered to be "white"; 75% is considered "mestizo", a mixture of white and native Mesoamerican; 10% is considered "indian": pure Mesoamerican. You see all shades. And -except for the non-Spanish speaking indians, who are discriminated against by many- we don't care. We just don't notice.


In L.A., I knew many Mexican immigrants -- people who had come to America directly themselves as small children, or whose parents had come here before they were born. That group really noticed shades. One woman I am thinking of had light skin and European features and talked quite a bit about how her ancestors were Spanish, and she was different from those dark-skinned Mexicans. There were lots and lots of variations of this, with light-skinned at the top, dark-skinned at the bottom. They seemed to identify it as a Mexican thing -- "oh, that's just how we talk in Mexico" (when I would express some sort of surprise). Were they making that up? Is it a socio-economic thing? (Most of the people I'm thinking of were very, very poor.) Is it something they picked up when they came to (or were born in) America?
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 10:33 pm
I must weigh down my former response, and divide the question into several elements:

1. Racial classification. It is nonexistant. No one is officially of any race.

2. Racial history, The country used to be divided by race, when Mexico was a Spanish colony. There were castes, with the Spanish born on top and the very few black slaves on bottom. Slavery was abolished with the birth of the nation in 1810; racism was not. Until the beginning of the XX Century, there were clear cut differences in race. The 1910-1917 Revolution was, among other things, a revolt of the mestizos and the indians against their white oppressors. It meant a change of the ruling class.
An nationalist ideology went with it: "the Cosmic Race": Mexicans as the synthesis of mankind. Matter-of-factly, during the prime of the PRI years (say, from 1929 to 1988), the "cool" thing was to be a mestizo, at least culturally: to consider oneself as different from both "indians" and "westerners".

3. Racial identification. It's very rare. An anecdote will help: at the newspaper I was talking politics with a group of sports reporters, one of them Cuban, and the head of photography. At one moment, the photographer moved a few meters to answer a phone call, and we kept on talking. Suddenly, the Cuban spoke in a low voice, and gave signs to mean that we were "white" and the photographer was "indian". The reporters and me looked at each other, stunned. None of us had never noticed -nor cared- that the photographer was dark-skinned and had some "indian" features.
Hardly anyone considers the color of the skin to choose as a friend or a spouse. I insist: this is not thought of.

4. Race and social condition. In all the country, you see a lot of well-to-do whites & mestizos, and the middle class has all three "races". But only in the north you see poor whites. In the center and the south, a poor blond is a rarity. There is, in fact, a correlation between color of the skin and social condition. Almost all monolingual indians are very poor. The majority of the Spanish speaking indians are also poor.
Differences in social and cultural condition breed some sort of "racism", where customs and behavior, not skin color, is what matters. But, alas, the not socially plausible behavior is more often associated with darker skinned persons.

5. Racism. Mexicans, like every other nationals, have some racism in their hearts. It goes several ways: there is antisemitism, blond people are shunned by the least educated as "non-Mexican", and in the US many Mexicans are quite ready to discriminate against blacks.

6. Migrants. Even if the trend is changing, for many years the bulk of the Mexican inmigrants to the US had two things in common: boldness and a low level of education, even for Mexican standards.
Old time migrants who went to the US in the early XX Century, or who came from "porfirista" families (formerly well-to-do whites, ruined by the Revolution) saw the newcomers with disdain.

7. Pochos. It was not until the last quarter of the XX Century that migrants and Mexican-Americans were generally accepted as true Mexicans. For decades, the official ideology saw that migrants and their offspring took very easily the "American-way-of-life" and would "contaminate" the country with "foreign" ideas. Hot cakes instead of huevos rancheros (democracy instead of authoritarianism), rock'n'roll instead of boleros (rebelliousness instead of obeying Father Government), etc. They were not "mexicanos", but "pochos".
This, among many other things, changed in the 60s and 70s.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2003 10:49 pm
snood, he just comes across as dumb in interviews, but I have a bias towards thinking most sports stars are dumb. I never liked jocks in general, and I was half-joking in that post.

All I can say for Slappy's girlfriend there is "That's a MAN baby!"
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 07:29 am
Thanks, fbaezer! Interesting. I think the woman I spoke of may well have come from a "porfirista" family.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2003 08:59 am
Whassa' matter, cav? Did the big dumb jocks steal your lunch money in high school?

I wonder if any men really like having sex with a thing like that...bodybuilder chick. Imagine the damage she could do with her thighs? One little squeeze....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Should cheerleading be a sport? - Discussion by joefromchicago
Are You Ready For Fantasy Baseball - 2009? - Discussion by realjohnboy
tennis grip - Question by madalina
How much faster could Usain Bolt have gone? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sochi Olympics a Resounding Success - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Crying racism...
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 06:21:36