gary sheffield needs afirmative action in sports

[blackpowerman]

well....i once ranted about how i think the MLB and NFL should have to recruit minority players- i.e. european americans, irishmen, hawaiins, etc to make up for the under represented minority if law/med/professional schools have to.

obviously, there aren't enough blacks in the MLB and its MLB's fault for not recruiting in the ghettos.  in addition, there are too many latino's and its just not right, or so says gary sheffield.  

"The subject was players of my race and what we deal with and why they don't look in the inner cities for that same talent that they do in other places," he said.  (Gary Sheffield)

read the rest of this blasphemy here:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6891070?MSNHPHMA

[n/a]

They dont look in the inner cities for talent because:

1) There is a whole lot less of it for baseball
2) It is alot harder to find, and often alot more raw than the white suburban kid who's been playing t-ball since he was 3 or the Carribean/Latino who actually goes to baseball SCHOOL once they turn about 12.

[blackpowerman]

i guess thats why there are so many black basketball players- whens the last time you saw a baseball diamond in the middle of the ghetto

also, CAL you are ridiculous

however, you are right- they don't HAVE to, but they do anyways...so they DO recruit minorities

[Shark Week]

you're my favorite poster, princeyanni

[blackpowerman]

thank you shark for your support...

what it comes down to is gary sheffield is crying because "latinos" are taking over the game

hello!  latino's are taking over our country...they are taking over the world!

why does it matter what color you are?  why can't there just be a simple standard

oh, i live in charleston and downtown there are these old black ladies who do wonderful baskets out of sweet grass.  they are truly remarkable, the way they do them and how durable they are. they are also expensive.  but, there are ONLY old, black ladies doing them!  why? well, because its an old black lady custom!

not because they are racist!

wow imagine that!

[philibusters]

His position seems to be weak because if the inner cities were being under-recruited a team would be able to take advantage of that, recruit the creme de la creme from the inner cities for their organization and win world series after world series, and other teams would copy them or suffer through losing season after losing season, and the market would naturally correct that so his argument is not particularly strong.  You would need a competitive market for that to work, but baseball is a hell of a competitive market-anything with as much money involved as major league baseball is bound to be highly competitive.

On the other hand, there might be a barely tapped source of talent that major league baseball is stupid not to develop by investing money into little leagues and such-though that raises a bit of a collective action problem as its probably not worth the money for any one team to make the investments necessary to develop that potential source of talent. 

Its not exactly what he said, but if you change his comments to say baseball would raise the talent level of the game and quality of baseball, make the game more competitive and probably increase its popularity nationwid (but especially in African American communities) by investing in those communities and this would all make baseball better off-that is a defensible position.

[blackpowerman]

you are correct but he did not say that!  what he said was strictly "black pity party" typical of lots of africans who feel they are being stripped from the system.

gary sheffield has the money and the connections to start an inner city baseball commisioning program, yet he will never do it.  he will continue to blame the white big rigs for the dissintigrating state of african baseball population

[ColdBlue]

In South Africa, the racist ANC regime is making the Rugby team, called the SpringBoks, have a certain percentage of their team black. It's safe to say their team is going to suck for now on.

"In July 2006, Springbok coach Jake White told the press he had been unable to pick some white players for his squad "because of transformation" - a reference to the ANC government’s policies attempting to redress the racial imbalances in national sport. The team is currently ranked 4th in the world."

Just one of the millions of examples of apartheid in reverse in South Africa, but no one seems to care because it's cool to be anti-white.

[philibusters]

In South Africa, the racist ANC regime is making the Rugby team, called the SpringBoks, have a certain percentage of their team black. It's safe to say their team is going to suck for now on.

"In July 2006, Springbok coach Jake White told the press he had been unable to pick some white players for his squad "because of transformation" - a reference to the ANC government’s policies attempting to redress the racial imbalances in national sport. The team is currently ranked 4th in the world."

Just one of the millions of examples of apartheid in reverse in South Africa, but no one seems to care because it's cool to be anti-white.

I am sure they care in South Africa.  Its a stretch to imply nobody cares in the U.S. because it's cool to be anti-white when probably less than 1% of the population even knows about the South African rugby team.

Furthermore, it stupid to think that those who support AA in the U.S. are anti-white.  They may be pro-black, pro-hispanic, pro-native american, or they may value diversity so highly that even though they recognize its frustrating a true meritocracy in some instances, they believe the good generated by diversity outweighs the the inefficiency caused by AA, or they believe in equality, and make an assumption that AA helps create more equality where present day inequality exists (an assumption that may or may not be true) and value that more than inefficiencies caused by AA.  They could also have less impressive reasons for supporting AA such as they think they are democrat and thus since democrats support it, it must be a good policy, or everybody they know supports it, so they just assume its a good thing, neither of which is not a good reason to support, but not anti-white. 

[ColdBlue]

Furthermore, it stupid to think that those who support AA in the U.S. are anti-white.  They may be pro-black, pro-hispanic, pro-native american, or they may value diversity so highly that even though they recognize its frustrating a true meritocracy in some instances, they believe the good generated by diversity outweighs the the inefficiency caused by AA, or they believe in equality, and make an assumption that AA helps create more equality where present day inequality exists (an assumption that may or may not be true) and value that more than inefficiencies caused by AA.

When you take a candidate over a better qualified white candidate because they are not white, that’s being anti-white. Please enlighten me on the “good” generated by racial diversity… I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “diversity”. How is having a business that is ran by high qualified white people not as “good” as a business that has half it’s staff there because they’re non-white?

AA helps create more equality? Let’s look at the definition of equality… “A state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced” … I don’t think AA best describes this definition at all.

They could also have less impressive reasons for supporting AA such as they think they are democrat and thus since democrats support it, it must be a good policy, or everybody they know supports it, so they just assume its a good thing, neither of which is not a good reason to support, but not anti-white. 

Democrats also supported slavery and were at the forefront of segregation. I guess the people who were democrats back then assumed it was good policy.