The Fritz Pollard Coaching Pool is Alive and Well | Page 2 | Barking Hard

The Fritz Pollard Coaching Pool is Alive and Well

johnnycomelately said:
Ignoring CRT and DEI doesn’t make it go away
Click to expand...
That's funny, because CRT (around which the likes of Fox News have mobilized a mob with absolutely no understanding of what CRT is) and DEI exist precisely because of ignoring race (!) - which it seems many here (presumably yourself included) wish for us all to do.

CRT 101: Critical Race Theory is not some singular overarching theory, but instead a general theoretical commitment to not only acknowledge but to (gasp!) center race as a means of analyzing all orders of social issues/problems. At its most basic, we might say that Critical Race Theory (which again, is no singular thing but just for sake of simplification) says "race (and, yes, racsim) is a socially constructed, existing phenomenon. It operates throughout, and has meaningful effects upon, the world we all live in. Race should therefore be a central (though certainly not exclusive) component of any serious inquiry into, or analysis of, any social issue/problem"

So let's go back to the horrifying interview that sparked this thread. Jerod Mayo & Robert Kraft were asked by a reporter some question about the significance of Mayo being the first black head coach of the Patriots. Unsurprisingly, Kraft offered a feeble, milquetoast "I don't see color, I am colorblind" response. In other words, he chose to actively avoid speaking to the existing social phenomenon called 'race.' Rather than following up in deference to his employer, and in deference to the everywhere-all-at-once Fragile White Male Ego (which persists unexamined in many if not most of you here, but esp. Nickers), Jerod Mayo dared to go so far as to say, "I do see color. If you don't see color, you don't see race" (paraphrasing). We might simply summarize what Mayo said as "I believe race is an existing social phenomenon and I am comfortable plainly and simply acknowledging as much in public when asked a specific, pointed question about the matter."

OK. Seems like no big deal. But then, well, . . . Nickers. Let's review, without acronyms:

"Thanks to Kraft for hiring a Racist Diversity Equity Inclusion piece of shit for a head coach. This tool is a racist moron. Let the losing begin."

This is really quite fascinating (to say nothing of openly, blatantly racist in and of itself): Nickers claims that anyone who publicly acknowledges 'race' as an existing social phenomenon is... a racist! Those are some incredible - Olympian, even - mental gymnastics.

And the kicker for me is Gabe coming in with "can't blame Nickers for being a little critical." LOL. Sure, if you mean 'critical' in the pejorative, mean-spirited form of the word, where Mayo is a "piece of shit...moron" for simply acknowledging the existence of race.
Because nothing Nickers said was offered, or can be interpreted, as 'critical' in the spirit of intellectual insightfulness or incisive inquiry worthy of appreciation and further dialogue. It was just a racist, mean-spirited attack. Which is why, as I already said, it should have been left to wither and die in the void.
 
I’m assuming Kraft hired him based on merit and because he felt he was the best man for the job. There’s a chance he meant color was not part of the hiring process for him.

I get he’s an old rich white guy, but in he end, he wants to win again.
 
iMogwai85 said:
That's funny, because CRT (around which the likes of Fox News have mobilized a mob with absolutely no understanding of what CRT is) and DEI exist precisely because of ignoring race (!) - which it seems many here (presumably yourself included) wish for us all to do.

CRT 101: Critical Race Theory is not some singular overarching theory, but instead a general theoretical commitment to not only acknowledge but to (gasp!) center race as a means of analyzing all orders of social issues/problems. At its most basic, we might say that Critical Race Theory (which again, is no singular thing but just for sake of simplification) says "race (and, yes, racsim) is a socially constructed, existing phenomenon. It operates throughout, and has meaningful effects upon, the world we all live in. Race should therefore be a central (though certainly not exclusive) component of any serious inquiry into, or analysis of, any social issue/problem"

So let's go back to the horrifying interview that sparked this thread. Jerod Mayo & Robert Kraft were asked by a reporter some question about the significance of Mayo being the first black head coach of the Patriots. Unsurprisingly, Kraft offered a feeble, milquetoast "I don't see color, I am colorblind" response. In other words, he chose to actively avoid speaking to the existing social phenomenon called 'race.' Rather than following up in deference to his employer, and in deference to the everywhere-all-at-once Fragile White Male Ego (which persists unexamined in many if not most of you here, but esp. Nickers), Jerod Mayo dared to go so far as to say, "I do see color. If you don't see color, you don't see race" (paraphrasing). We might simply summarize what Mayo said as "I believe race is an existing social phenomenon and I am comfortable plainly and simply acknowledging as much in public when asked a specific, pointed question about the matter."

OK. Seems like no big deal. But then, well, . . . Nickers. Let's review, without acronyms:

"Thanks to Kraft for hiring a Racist Diversity Equity Inclusion piece of shit for a head coach. This tool is a racist moron. Let the losing begin."

This is really quite fascinating (to say nothing of openly, blatantly racist in and of itself): Nickers claims that anyone who publicly acknowledges 'race' as an existing social phenomenon is... a racist! Those are some incredible - Olympian, even - mental gymnastics.

And the kicker for me is Gabe coming in with "can't blame Nickers for being a little critical." LOL. Sure, if you mean 'critical' in the pejorative, mean-spirited form of the word, where Mayo is a "piece of shit...moron" for simply acknowledging the existence of race.
Because nothing Nickers said was offered, or can be interpreted, as 'critical' in the spirit of intellectual insightfulness or incisive inquiry worthy of appreciation and further dialogue. It was just a racist, mean-spirited attack. Which is why, as I already said, it should have been left to wither and die in the void.
Click to expand...
If Mayo sees color and declares that if you don't see color you don't see race. I will say the same as a white guy.

But I don't have to because Kraft already said it and you called him feeble and milquetoast in his response. What's the difference?
 
jay I'm afraid I don't understand your question. I think anyone who says they "don't see color" is fragile, avoidant, and intellectually and morally spineless. does that help?

fun fact - there is a whole field in academia called Whiteness Studies. (Fox News would surely tell you it is a sub-sect within CRT). It examines race, but specifically whiteness. Not simply phenotypic (ie, skin color) whiteness, because, race is way more complex than skin color alone. But the cultural, governmental, legal, artistic. . . etc etc forms, predilections, tendencies, & manifestations of whiteness.

Anyway, claims of 'colorblindness' are PEAK whiteness. But here's the hard part (for some). People who take critical examination of race seriously acknowledge that people of color can (and, at times, do) speak, act, behave etc in support of whiteness - in support of XYZ white-serving social structures. for example, in support of silencing a critical examination and dialogue around race -- just as Todd Bowles did when asked a similar question in an interview, eg.

Y'all know Jim Brown was a pioneer of player activism vis-a-vis race? He's probably getting tired of rolling in his grave at each mention of 'colorblindness'.
 
Last edited:
iMogwai85 said:
jay I'm afraid I don't understand your question. I think anyone who says they "don't see color" is fragile, avoidant, and intellectually and morally spineless. does that help?

fun fact - there is a whole field in academia called Whiteness Studies. (Fox News would surely tell you it is a sub-sect within CRT). It examines race, but specifically whiteness. Not simply phenotypic (ie, skin color) whiteness, because, race is way more complex than skin color alone. But the cultural, governmental, legal, artistic. . . etc etc forms, predilections, tendencies, & manifestations of whiteness.

Anyway, claims of 'colorblindness' are PEAK whiteness. But here's the hard part (for some). People who take critical examination of race seriously acknowledge that people of color can (and, at times, do) speak, act, behave etc in support of whiteness - in support of XYZ white-serving social structures. for example, in support of silencing a critical examination and dialogue around race -- just as Todd Bowles did when asked a similar question in an interview, eg.

Y'all know Jim Brown was a pioneer of player activism vis-a-vis race? He's probably getting tired of rolling in his grave at each mention of 'colorblindness'.
Click to expand...

As a white man if Kraft said, "I see color", how do you think that would be viewed? And how would you view that?
 
jaydog said:
As a white man if Kraft said, "I see color", how do you think that would be viewed? And how would you view that?
Click to expand...
I myself am a white man, and I unabashedly "see color".

I interpret your question as "If Kraft, as a white man, acknowledged the existence of race (ism), how would you view that?"

I would view it quite favorably!! And only wish more white men could calmly and in a spirit of open-minded curiosity/inquiry, acknowledge race (ism) or -- "see color".
 
iMogwai85 said:
I myself am a white man, and I unabashedly "see color".

I interpret your question as "If Kraft, as a white man, acknowledged the existence of race (ism), how would you view that?"

I would view it quite favorably!! And only wish more white men could calmly and in a spirit of open-minded curiosity/inquiry, acknowledge race (ism) or -- "see color".
Click to expand...
I’ve a serious question? Do you believe in reparations ?

Is everyone ready for this to get moved? :rolleyes:
 
iMogwai85 said:
I myself am a white man, and I unabashedly "see color".

I interpret your question as "If Kraft, as a white man, acknowledged the existence of race (ism), how would you view that?"

I would view it quite favorably!! And only wish more white men could calmly and in a spirit of open-minded curiosity/inquiry, acknowledge race (ism) or -- "see color".
Click to expand...
Kraft can't do that and still be an owner of an NFL team. Cancel culture would destroy him as a rich, white, racist old man.
 
As far as reparations, the calculation would never be enough for some people, and we will eventually end up right back where we are now. Where some will not be satisfied and another will feel they gave too much. All the while people who were slaves were not just black people. There were other races too.

Also, a whole ton of European immigrants came over in the early 1900's. They and their lineage had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Should they now bear the cost of reparations?
 
Back
Top Bottom