but that was well-written and logical, and opened my mind to some other factors going on here.

thank you for a positive contribution.


>particular instance, what's your criteria for making the
>carte blanco statement about what analogies black people can
>and cannot use to describe situations?
>
>the ncaa IS a sharecropping system, as relates to athletes in
>revenue sports (who are majority black). does it matter that a
>dude is not LITERALLY growing cotton and tobacco to enrich
>massa miles brand and the rest of the benefactors of their
>efforts? no.
>
>do i think there's anything uniquely slave-like in TO's
>situation? hell no. the analogy is fucked up there. he did
>some dumb shit to run afoul of a system that is 'generally'
>slave like. my point of contention with you is that i can see
>you or any number of folks expressing skepticism or outright
>derision at whatever was said regarding this situation. but if
>you mean to imply that the analogy cannot be made, or that ANY
>attempt to look at the power relationships between
>professional athletes and their white owners through the prism
>of the institution that formed THE primary relationship
>between black and white for the majority of both of our
>people's settled time on this continent is bullshit.
>
>and for the record, many slaves 'made money', as they were
>craftsmen, and provided services for a fee to other free
>people in their towns and surrounding areas. they may have
>been able to keep a small percentage or may not have,
>depending upon their circumstance. regardless of that economic
>'freedom', however, their very physical survival was still
>dependent upon the whim of the 'master', as rigidly reinforced
>and upheld by every legal, social institution.
>
>black folks in the early days of integrated professional
>leagues were 'earning money', and at rates no doubt, much
>higher than ordinary white folk, let alone ordinary black
>folks, but they nonetheless had to deal with segregated
>accommodations and generally demeaning treatment in comparison
>to their white teammates. and the owners enabled it. did
>their professional status make them any less niggers in the
>eyes of their teams' owners, or the rules that were set up to
>govern the league? no. but they were useful niggers, who were
>paid these sums (above and beyond what, say, factory workers
>or definitely farmers could demand) because they had a
>financial worth to the owners, to the league, which far
>exceeded that relative pittance.
>
>that is the history of all of these professional leagues, and
>of our country, itself. the fucking constitution had slavery
>embedded in it. you think some jive sports leagues don't
>contain vestiges of white superior/black inferior social and
>power relationships because there have been a lot of high
>profile brothers over the last couple of decades?
>
>ok.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>peace & blessings,
>
>x.
>
>sigless for the summer, y'all.