NationStates Jolt Archive

"By asking Wake Forest freshman coach Joe Madden to
stop calling him "Willie", running back William Smith
ensured that he'd be called nothing but for all of the
1964 season and because Smith refused to answer to the
name, every communication between coach and player had
to pass through an assistant. A freshman game against
Clemson, near his hometown of Greenville, S.C., sealed
the end of Smith's brief career. Members of Smith's
racially mixed Baha'i congregation had driven over for
the game, and before kickoff Smith fixed them all with
hugs. Furious, Madden refused to play Smith for
weeks.
("Ground Breakers" in the November 7, 2005 issue of
Sports Illustrated, page 60)

I have no idea if race played any part in the above quote. What is your point?

I have no idea if race played any part in the above quote. What is your point?

In 1964 white people called black people by their nick names. Like Willie instead of William. White people called other white people by their full name. Using the shortened name was a from of disrespect to black people. I am sorry I didn't post the part about that clearly showed the football player was black. Any black person in the USA would have known instantly.

I don't know enough about it, but from what I do know I would surmise that while things are not necessarily perfect, they are a hell of a lot better than they used to be.

In 1964 white people called black people by their nick names. Like Willie instead of William. White people called other white people by their full name. Using the shortened name was a from of disrespect to black people. I am sorry I didn't post the part about that clearly showed the football player was black. Any black person in the USA would have known instantly.
:rolleyes:
The way I read that quote was that the coach was being an ass, and calling someone something just to make a point. Which is something people STILL do...whether they are of the same race or not. Some people rub each other the wrong way and make no effort to change their behaviour. Calling anyone by a nickname without that person's consent is disrespectful, regardless of race.

IMHO, Race Relations would be a hell of a lot better if we got rid of this Affirmative Action bullshit.

Race relations have made slow but steady progress since emancipation. Twenty years ago it was unbelievably rare for multiracial couples to be seen. Forty years ago it was a death sentence to be in a multi-racial couple.

Racism still exists, on all sides. It's getting better though.

Sounds to me like the real offense here is testosterone-based stubbornness.
He's an asshole, but it's a bit of a reach to assume he's a racist asshole based on what you've posted.

IMHO, Race Relations would be a hell of a lot better if we got rid of this Affirmative Action bullshit.
Most of that 'affirmative action bullshit' is a fantasy created in the minds of those who like to justify their continuing dislike of certain people. Most people have very little understanding of what affirmative action is, and how or if it is actually applied on a case-to-case basis. Canada is a good example of this kind of ignorance. People talk out of their asses CONSTANTLY about aboriginals getting tax cuts and free education (as examples of a form of affirmative action). Rather than learning about the subject, they take their suppositions as truth, and off they go, content in their ignorance.

I am not Canadian. I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable in Aboriginal AA. All I know is that AA gives a certain group of people an edge in employment and college admissions.

I object to the fact that any group of people would get a leg up just because of race, creed or anything other than their own merits.

In my opinion, the only way to improve 'race relations' is to stop making a distinction in the first place.

In my opinion, the only way to improve 'race relations' is to stop making a distinction in the first place.I agree.

Here is how I see a lot of race relations right now.

BEFORE: certain ethnicities were seen as culturally inferior, inherently flawed and therefore not worthy of respect. These 'inherent flaws' explained why people of certain ethnicities could not be allowed into positions of power or trust. Resentment between ethnicities festered and sometimes exploded.

NOW: certain ethnicities are seen as culturally inferior, inherently flawed and therefore not worthy of respect. These 'inherent flaws' explain why people of certain ethnicities should not be allowed into positions of power or trust. Yet, 'bleeding-heart liberal' policies are 'allowing these inherently flawed ethnicities unwarranted access' to such positions, to the 'detriment' of the 'more qualified' people. Resentment between ethnicities fester, and sometimes explode.

In both situations, people felt completely justified in their prejudices. Then, it was openly about race. Now it's about 'affirmative action':rolleyes: . But it's really about race.

In 1964 white people called black people by their nick names. Like Willie instead of William. White people called other white people by their full name. Using the shortened name was a from of disrespect to black people. I am sorry I didn't post the part about that clearly showed the football player was black. Any black person in the USA would have known instantly.
That was obvious to anyone white or black (due to the topic itself), I still miss your point. And insisting that "any black person in the USA would have known" hurts race relations. I could go to school, pick out ten random black people and they would have no idea that that was the case unless they were history buffs. I reject your topic as racial hippocracy.

In my opinion, the only way to improve 'race relations' is to stop making a distinction in the first place.
If it's not the colour of your skin, it's going to be your religion, your sexual orientation, your gender, your language, your culture, your socioeconomic status, your taste in cheese, the way you dress, the music you listen to...

We'll always find ways to be divided. It's becoming less about race in some parts, and more about other stupid things.

Here is how I see a lot of race relations right now.

BEFORE: certain ethnicities were seen as culturally inferior, inherently flawed and therefore not worthy of respect. These 'inherent flaws' explained why people of certain ethnicities could not be allowed into positions of power or trust. Resentment between ethnicities festered and sometimes exploded.

NOW: certain ethnicities are seen as culturally inferior, inherently flawed and therefore worthy of respect. These 'inherent flaws' explain why people of certain ethnicities should not be allowed into positions of power or trust. Yet, 'bleeding-heart liberal' policies are 'allowing these inherently flawed ethnicities unwarranted access' to such positions, to the 'detriment' of the 'more qualified' people. Resentment between ethnicities fester, and sometimes explode.

In both situations, people felt completely justified in their prejudices. Then, it was openly about race. Now it's about 'affirmative action':rolleyes: . But it's really about race.

Can I get an AMEN! ?

Can I get an AMEN! ?
No.

I am not Canadian. I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable in Aboriginal AA. All I know is that AA gives a certain group of people an edge in employment and college admissions.

I object to the fact that any group of people would get a leg up just because of race, creed or anything other than their own merits.
Yeah. Non-whites have been saying the same thing for centuries. AA hardly flips that the other way around. That 'certain group of people' still don't make up a very large percentage of college applicants or eligible applicants for high-paid jobs.

My point about AA is not that it totally does not exist...but that most people don't really know much about it except what they've 'heard', and that it isn't as big a deal as it has been MADE out to be. Even if you got rid of all forms of AA, you are still going to have racial tension. AA didn't cause the tension. It's just an excuse to maintain it. The problem lies elsewhere.

Yeah. Non-whites have been saying the same thing for centuries. AA hardly flips that the other way around. That 'certain group of people' still don't make up a very large percentage of college applicants or eligible applicants for high-paid jobs.

Be that as it may, that group still does get a leg up. (I'm going to talk about college admissions, because thats the one I know the most about)

Take the University of Michigan's previous admissions scale. It was a points based system. If you got a perfect SAT score (something almost impossible to do), you got 10 points (I believe). If you were black, you got 20. you got a huge boost just because you were colored. To me, this is objectionable.

No.
Are you in favor of continuing to classify people by race?

I am, by my Austrian relatives' definition, a mongrel. That is, I'm not white, and I'm not black, and I'm not Native American, and I'm not Korean, and I'm not (fill in the blank).

And I can't pass for any one of them - not in any of their communities - but I have their blood in me (all except the Native American, to my knowledge).

When the Census came around, I checked nearly every racial category (they've added a few), and added some they didn't have.

It's racist to classify people. It's obscene.

My point about AA is not that it totally does not exist...but that most people don't really know much about it except what they've 'heard', and that it isn't as big a deal as it has been MADE out to be. Even if you got rid of all forms of AA, you are still going to have racial tension. AA didn't cause the tension. It's just an excuse to maintain it. The problem lies elsewhere.

Oh, of course there will still be racial tension. But to say that ending this form of positive descrimination would not improve race relation would, in my opinion, be faulty.

Oh, of course there will still be racial tension. But to say that ending this form of positive descrimination would not improve race relation would, in my opinion, be faulty.
Are you sure about that?

I really doubt that getting rid of AA is going to make a huge difference in race relations. I'm sorry...I don't believe that it truly has that kind of power.

But you are obviously speaking of race relations in a very limited geographical sphere...because AA does not exist in most nations in this world, and racial tension in those countries is much higher than it is in North America.

Are you in favor of continuing to classify people by race?
...
It's racist to classify people. It's obscene.
Regardless, people must classify things. That is how they remember things. You can believe whatever you want.

If it's not the colour of your skin, it's going to be your religion, your sexual orientation, your gender, your language, your culture, your socioeconomic status, your taste in cheese, the way you dress, the music you listen to....I agree with this too, but I personally feel if we stopped making a concerted effort to point out differences, maybe somewhere along the line we'd all just be seen as people - not people of x background/race/religion/gender/sexuality etc etc etc. It's probably deeply idealistic, I admit, but to eliminate all discrimination, I don't see any viably better way.

Commuity relations between Catholics and Protestants here have definitely improved over the last 10 or so years. While I understand the existence of some the affirmative action programmes, for both sides they only end up creating resentment, so far as any evidence I've seen suggests. General cross-community programmes, that see both sides interacting with each other without favouring one over the other, have proven rather successful. In my own (admittedly somewhat limited) experience of cross-community exercises, you are introduced simply as equals and realise that the other person/people involved are simply human beings like yourself, rather than being some alien 'other' figure(s).

In my opinion, the only way to improve 'race relations' is to stop making a distinction in the first place.

I wish that this were an option, and I wish that if it were an option that it would work. Not only is it the nature of the brain to categorize and put all things (including people) into distinct groups, but ignoring race and racial issues wont make them go away. In fact, it will make them worse. I mean, look at France. They refuse to admit that they have racial problems; they refuse to recognize that their north african population has a different experience than their white citizens. And what happened? Mass rioting.

Ignoring racial inequalities and issues will only make them worse. A continued and open dialouge is needed.

As for my opinion on the state of Race Relations, and I'm assuming we are speaking within America--I think they have gotten better. Very much so. But I don't think that that means everything all good and peachy now. There are still inequalities, there is still prejudice. The fight now isn't against institutionalized racism, but against the racism that is passed down through generations and stereotyping.

Or thats how I see it at least.

Regardless, people must classify things. That is how they remember things. You can believe whatever you want.
You're talking about a different kind of classification. You don't NEED to classify people in order to 'remember them'. And not all classification serves the purpose of 'remembering things'.

Are you sure about that?

I really doubt that getting rid of AA is going to make a huge difference in race relations. I'm sorry...I don't believe that it truly has that kind of power.

But you are obviously speaking of race relations in a very limited geographical sphere...because AA does not exist in most nations in this world, and racial tension in those countries is much higher than it is in North America.

Honestly, I do speak of it in a limited geographical sphere. I have little knowlege of race relations in other areas of the world. I am Ignorant. I admit it. Unlike some people, I won't pretend to be knowlegible in an area of the word that I know little about.

And I disagree with you about the end of AA. I believe it will do good for race relations, especially in the middle class. In my opinion, most of the tension seems to come from the majority, the white people. Many white people see a successful black man, and wonder if got the job, or went to college, on his own merits, and not because of AA.

You're talking about a different kind of classification. You don't NEED to classify people in order to 'remember them'. And not all classification serves the purpose of 'remembering things'.

When applied to people, it usually serves the purpose of rounding them up for some government purpose.

I think we would be better served by interbreeding - to eliminate the possibility that teh_pantless can do anything except say we're all the same.

I agree with this too, but I personally feel if we stopped making a concerted effort to point out differences, maybe somewhere along the line we'd all just be seen as people - not people of x background/race/religion/gender/sexuality etc etc etc. It's probably deeply idealistic, I admit, but to eliminate all discrimination, I don't see any viably better way.

Commuity relations between Catholics and Protestants here have definitely improved over the last 10 or so years. While I understand the existence of some the affirmative action programmes, for both sides they only end up creating resentment, so far as any evidence I've seen suggests. General cross-community programmes, that see both sides interacting with each other without favouring one over the other, have proven rather successful. In my own (admittedly somewhat limited) experience of cross-community exercises, you are introduced simply as equals and realise that the other person/people involved are simply human beings like yourself, rather than being some alien 'other' figure(s).Pointing out difference, in many cases, is essential to cultural survival. Pretending everyone is the same, or that they should be (and I'm not talking about equality or equity here, I'm talking about worldview and culture), is assimilationist, and generally heavily favouring the 'dominant' culture.

We need to be mature enough to understand differences...not pretend that those differences don't exist. People with sight are never going to stop noticing the colour of other people's skin. They CAN learn to stop associating bullshit stereotypes to those colours though.

If you understand someone's culture a bit better, you can interact with them in a more respectful manner. If you simply want everyone to act the same, you are ignoring the fact that diversity is a good thing.

Now, I think you're talking about differences being reasons for discrimination. They absolutely are. But you are NEVER going to get rid of those differences, and people are NEVER going to honestly stop seeing those differences...and some of us want to remain different, than you very much. That doesn't mean that we can not eventually accept both the differences and the humanity of one another...and make our humanity the more important and immediate issue.

Honestly, I do speak of it in a limited geographical sphere. I have little knowlege of race relations in other areas of the world. I am Ignorant. I admit it. Unlike some people, I won't pretend to be knowlegible in an area of the word that I know little about.

And I disagree with you about the end of AA. I believe it will do good for race relations, especially in the middle class. In my opinion, most of the tension seems to come from the majority, the white people. Many white people see a successful black man, and wonder if got the job, or went to college, on his own merits, and not because of AA.
That IS sad. But I simply don't have the faith that you do in thinking that getting rid of AA will get rid of the 'excuse' (as I see it) to remain resentful towards a particular group. I'm not really a supporter of AA, but I feel pretty strongly that even if it didn't exist, even if it had NEVER existed, people would continue to resent the success of those who are different.

For example...look at the physically handicapped. Because there is more accesibility for them, and laws that prevent discrimination based on their handicap (if they can still do the job, the handicap should not prevent them from gainful employment). People still like to believe that handicapped people receive preferential treatment. The idea being that they aren't actually capable of the jobs they get.

The same can be said of women...especially in certain jobs. Women still make up a very small percentage of construction workers...even in the positions where 'strength' is not an issue at all...driving trucks or operating heavy machinery for instance. Many people resent these women, for no good reason. And I believe the same will continue to happen, AA or no AA.

That IS sad. But I simply don't have the faith that you do in thinking that getting rid of AA will get rid of the 'excuse' (as I see it) to remain resentful towards a particular group. I'm not really a supporter of AA, but I feel pretty strongly that even if it didn't exist, even if it had NEVER existed, people will continue to resent the success of those who are different.
I'd rather that affirmative action be put in place on a class basis, rather than on a racial basis.

"Race Relations getting better or worse?"

Although I voted "way better" in your poll, I would have preferred more options, such as "mixed." I suspect the view of race in America depends more upon where you stand than upon any objective improvements or lack thereof. If you're a relatively affluent person, white or black, you're probably going to say that things have improved at least a bit. If, on the other hand, you're a poor African-American, you're probably going to say either that things haven't improved or that they've gotten worse.

I'd rather that affirmative action be put in place on a class basis, rather than on a racial basis.
It would make more sense...there are plenty of underprivileged whites out there too. Class is more of a barrier to education than race...race just happens to often coincide with certain classes.

:rolleyes:
The way I read that quote was that the coach was being an ass, and calling someone something just to make a point. Which is something people STILL do...whether they are of the same race or not. Some people rub each other the wrong way and make no effort to change their behaviour. Calling anyone by a nickname without that person's consent is disrespectful, regardless of race.

In 1964 there may have a few black coaches, but not in white schools. The quote pretty well shows that the coach was white and the player black. The coach did NOT play him because he was asked to use his full-name and then was hugged by white people. Shame. Shame.

If, on the other hand, you're a poor African-American, you're probably going to say either that things haven't improved or that they've gotten worse.
Or a poor caucasian, or a poor whatever...

It would make more sense...there are plenty of underprivileged whites out there too. Class is more of a barrier to education than race...race just happens to often coincide with certain classes.
I think there would be less resistance to affirmative action if it was class based.

But my theory is that the parties that embrace race politics (usually the Democrats) do so in order to blind people to populism, and to obscure the fact that most of our problems are problems of class, not of race. While racial discrimination is a problem, it's not the main problem - which is poverty and class.

I think there would be less resistance to affirmative action if it was class based.

But my theory is that the parties that embrace race politics (usually the Democrats) do so in order to blind people to populism, and to obscure the fact that most of our problems are problems of class, not of race. While racial discrimination is a problem, it's not the main problem - which is poverty and class.
I agree. In Canada, we also obscure the issue, but race is not as effective a mask as it is in the US. Here, we use geographical tensions, pretending they are the real problem...West against East, or Provincial versus Federal. And of course, French versus English. These are easily manipulated issues, and politicians run wild with them. But they are not the real problem.

I agree. In Canada, we also obscure the issue, but race is not as effective a mask as it is in the US. Here, we use geographical tensions, pretending they are the real problem...West against East, or Provincial versus Federal. And of course, French versus English. These are easily manipulated issues, and politicians run wild with them. But they are not the real problem.

We could start with - "the problem is not that you are First People, the problem is that you are poor, in the middle of nowhere, with severely limited economic and educational opportunities..."

For example...look at the physically handicapped. Because there is more accesibility for them, and laws that prevent discrimination based on their handicap (if they can still do the job, the handicap should not prevent them from gainful employment). People still like to believe that handicapped people receive preferential treatment. The idea being that they aren't actually capable of the jobs they get.


If there are more qualified applicants that were passed up, then yes, the minority does not belong there. It has nothing to do with race, the most qualified person should always get the job/spot/admission, no matter the race.

We could start with - "the problem is not that you are First People, the problem is that you are poor, in the middle of nowhere, with severely limited economic and educational opportunities..."
That is nowhere NEAR as fun as making it a 'cultural flaw'...because if it's a cultural flaw, assimilation is the only way to drag us out of the gutter. Voila! Problem solved!:confused:

If there are more qualified applicants that were passed up, then yes, the minority does not belong there. It has nothing to do with race, the most qualified person should always get the job/spot/admission, no matter the race.
That is a wonderful idea. A meritocracy. And yet, this has never been the case. The most qualified person does not get the job. The person with the best connections does. And that's simply the way it works, hate it or love it. Race is not the problem. Nepotism and ass-kissing is. But these two things currently make the world go 'round.

I love the suggestion that before this push for 'equality' came, the most qualified applicant always won...and now that wonderful system is ruined by all these broads, retards, and coloured folk 'stealing' the jobs.

Qualifications are also a bit subjective, though. Since some social groups dominate, these groups would simply continue to do so unchecked if it weren't for some forms of AA, even if they didn't do it consciuosly.

Race relations have made slow but steady progress since emancipation. Twenty years ago it was unbelievably rare for multiracial couples to be seen. Forty years ago it was a death sentence to be in a multi-racial couple.

Racism still exists, on all sides. It's getting better though.

Nobody killed my wife's parents. And she is forty-six years old. Her late father was black and her mother is white.

Where she was born and raised, Altadena California, there were many interracial couples, and still are.

And when I was young, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, my parents owned a huge house, and our black neighbors did as well. We had an architect living on one side, and a doctor on the other. And the poorest house on the block belonged to the white people.

Of course, there are always exceptions. I had a white friend who was verbally attacked in Los Angeles while out for a walk with her black husband, and my wife had that happen with her first husband.

On the other hand, because I don't sound black on the telephone, I am certain that I have missed out on a couple of job opportunities because the person on the other end was black, and I had been recommended by a non-black for the jobs, so my impression was that the personnel administrator assumed that I was non-black as well. Suddenly, the job was no longer available!

Oh yeah, and once, when I was a kid, I walked on some old lady's lawn, and she ran out of her house screaming "get off my lawn you black devil!" She didn't even use the "n-word"!

"Race Relations getting better or worse?"

Although I voted "way better" in your poll, I would have preferred more options, such as "mixed." I suspect the view of race in America depends more upon where you stand than upon any objective improvements or lack thereof. If you're a relatively affluent person, white or black, you're probably going to say that things have improved at least a bit. If, on the other hand, you're a poor African-American, you're probably going to say either that things haven't improved or that they've gotten worse.

Very true, Eut.

Many of the poorer black people I have known, as well as some middle-class, constantly whine about conspiracies and "the man."

Of course, some affluent blacks do as well. I seem to remember Bill Cosby saying something about AIDS being a conspiracy, some years back...

Qualifications are also a bit subjective, though. Since some social groups dominate, these groups would simply continue to do so unchecked if it weren't for some forms of AA, even if they didn't do it consciuosly.
Yes...before someone runs in here and says 'qualifications are totally objective'...

People hire you. And people are biased. It isn't all about your resume...it's about how you present yourself too. And if you have an accent the interviewer considers to be déclassé, or 'uneducated', you are classified as this as well. If you are older than what they are looking for, you may be passed up. If you are younger, weirder, uglier, prettier, whateverer than what they had in mind, you may be passed up. I've been on many interview panels, and heard things like, "she's too intense" or "he seemed a bit strange". Sheesh...how can those things POSSIBLY be objective? And yet, they played the deciding factor in whether someone got the job or not.

You people worried about AA should be more outraged at the more prevalent practice of nepotism. It is FAR more common for the boss's son/niece/nephew/sister/friend/acquaintance to get the job that it is for someone based on their race alone. Qualifications notwithstanding.

Of course, some affluent blacks do as well. I seem to remember Bill Cosby saying something about AIDS being a conspiracy, some years back...
Yeah. That's pretty ridiculous. As silly as saying that the CIA sold crack in poor black neighbourhoods to buy arms from Iran...oh...wait...:D

(and you wonder why people become paranoid about everything?)

Very true, Eut.

Many of the poorer black people I have known, as well as some middle-class, constantly whine about conspiracies and "the man."

Of course, some affluent blacks do as well. I seem to remember Bill Cosby saying something about AIDS being a conspiracy, some years back...
Plenty of the poor white people I've met whine about 'women' and 'minorities' stealing the jobs. (Yeah, even women bitch about other women getting the jobs...which makes no sense, because you'd think if that were true, then you as a woman would be stealing jobs too...?)

Some affluent whites bitch about AA, despite the fact that they have nice, cushy jobs, and so do all of their friends, and very few non-whites if ANY make up that inner-circle.

I tend to believe people who whine about "illegals" (illegal immigrants) "stealing" (getting hired at) US jobs are xenophobes at best or closet racists.

I tend to believe people who whine about "illegals" (illegal immigrants) "stealing" (getting hired at) US jobs are xenophobes at best or closet racists.
Yeah. Unless you're a fruit picker, a janitor, or a whatever-area-'illegals'-are-most-employed-in who actually lost a job to an 'illegal', it'd be nice if you stopped talking shit. Hearing that a friend of a friend of your second cousin three times removed did, doesn't count.

*snip*Yes, I was talking about differences being reasons for discrimination. I did not intend to imply that diversity was a bad thing; merely that seeing people as human beings with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, regardless of those differences, was a positive thing.

I live in a tremendously divided country (despite improvement, divisions are still deep. The context is different to the specific subject of this thread, but I think the principle is similar). It would be incredibly naive at best, and completely fucking stupid at worst, for me to claim that our differences are going to go away - or that they even should. I definitely agree with you that we ought to seek to understand the differences between different cultures, but what I really meant to imply was that labelling people - black, white, Catholic, Protestant, gay, straight etc etc etc - can (and does) engender those bullshit stereotypes of which you speak. As far as I can tell, attaching such labels to people from whatever group only makes them more alien to other groups.

In short, I suppose what I mean broadly speaking is that instead of saying something like "there's a black person", we come to the point where we, without thinking, say "there's a person who just happens to be black".

In 1964 white people called black people by their nick names. Like Willie instead of William. White people called other white people by their full name. Using the shortened name was a from of disrespect to black people. I am sorry I didn't post the part about that clearly showed the football player was black. Any black person in the USA would have known instantly.

How unfortunate that people, whatever their intentions would propagate such a rediculous notion that you just did. I was alive then and what you are saying is completely and absolutely false. Unlike today, people then did not go looking for someone they can safely insult. People called other people by the name they called themselves (except for teachers). If someone introduced themselves as "Willie" I was required by common sense and good manners to address him/her as "Willie". If they said, "William", again I would call them only "William" until such time they said otherwise. In some circles however, if the individual was an adult and I were a child, I would be required to call the individual either "sir" or "Mr (last name)".

Teachers were another story. Teachers called everyone by their full names regardless of their wishes. I remember asking why was met with a variety of reactions, ranging from standing in the corner to a smack on the hand for not already knowing the answer, but I never ever remember recieving an answer. I alway attributed it to teachers maintaining unquestioned control, but I never really knew for sure.

The one thing that is for certain. The color of someones skin was never a factor. It was never even considered and whoever taught you it was, should be bitch slapped for propagating hate their damn selves.

The one thing that is for certain. The color of someones skin was never a factor. It was never even considered and whoever taught you it was, should be bitch slapped for propagating hate their damn selves.
Huh? NEVER a factor? Aren't you going a bit to far in the opposite direction now?

In any case, the whole name thing in that original post seems like SOME sort of power struggle...else the coach would've dropped it and called the guy "freaking Miss Pumpkinstine" if he asked. I don't doubt that race had something to do with it at that point, but I certainly don't think that is the 'obvious' conclusion to draw from that little excerpt.

How unfortunate that people, whatever their intentions would propagate such a rediculous notion that you just did. I was alive then and what you are saying is completely and absolutely false. Unlike today, people then did not go looking for someone they can safely insult. People called other people by the name they called themselves (except for teachers). If someone introduced themselves as "Willie" I was required by common sense and good manners to address him/her as "Willie". If they said, "William", again I would call them only "William" until such time they said otherwise. In some circles however, if the individual was an adult and I were a child, I would be required to call the individual either "sir" or "Mr (last name)".

Teachers were another story. Teachers called everyone by their full names regardless of their wishes. I remember asking why was met with a variety of reactions, ranging from standing in the corner to a smack on the hand for not already knowing the answer, but I never ever remember recieving an answer. I alway attributed it to teachers maintaining unquestioned control, but I never really knew for sure.

The one thing that is for certain. The color of someones skin was never a factor. It was never even considered and whoever taught you it was, should be bitch slapped for propagating hate their damn selves.

The man asked to be called by his full first name. The coach refused. When the football player was seen hugging white people,the football player was benched. In 1964 most primary and high schools where still segregrated. I did not make the story up it was published in Sports Illustrated.

Huh? NEVER a factor? Aren't you going a bit to far in the opposite direction now?

In any case, the whole name thing in that original post seems like SOME sort of power struggle...else the coach would've dropped it and called the guy "freaking Miss Pumpkinstine" if he asked. I don't doubt that race had something to do with it at that point, but I certainly don't think that is the 'obvious' conclusion to draw from that little excerpt.

It was NEVER a factor when it came to the way we were taught to address others. There were no exceptions based on color, or any other criteria except for when the inidividual was an adult and deserved a higer degree of respect than when addressing one's peer. I might add however, the same degree of higher respect applied to an adult addressing an older adult in the same manner it would apply if addressing ones employer.

The way we intentionally insult one another has not changed in the least. Calling someone by their nickname was not ever a color designated insult, like it or not.

The way we intentionally insult one another has not changed in the least. Calling someone by their nickname was not ever a color designated insult, like it or not.
So....you're saying that calling this person by their nickname was an intentional insult, not based on colour? Are you ruling out the possibility that white people on the whole tended to intentionally insult non-whites? This seemed pretty intentional to me...that's not what is being argued.

It was NEVER a factor when it came to the way we were taught to address others. There were no exceptions based on color, or any other criteria except for when the inidividual was an adult and deserved a higer degree of respect than when addressing one's peer. I might add however, the same degree of higher respect applied to an adult addressing an older adult in the same manner it would apply if addressing ones employer.

The way we intentionally insult one another has not changed in the least. Calling someone by their nickname was not ever a color designated insult, like it or not.

When a cop would stop a black person in the sixties, seventies and even eighties I am sure they would call them by the informal version of their name--Sammy for Samuel, Billy for William, it was intended to belittle the person. This was not done to white people. I have had too many black people tell me this to not believe it. Perhaps, where you were raised it was different.