Fuck Adolph Rupp
co...@wolfenet.com
In the orgy of media hype and hoopla attending Dean Smith's eclipse of
the Adolph Rupp record, the ugly reality of Rupp gets lost and obscured.
Throughout his entire coaching career Adolph Rupp was a virulent,
anti-Black, racist scumbag bigot. The University of Kentucky compounded
the outrage by naming a building in his honor. Ironically, Rupp would be
spinning in his grave if he knew a bunch of "nigras" were currently
playing basketball representing the University of Kentucky. So much
historical truth has been hidden and glossed over by revisionist history
and mass media glorification of that bastard. As a consequence,
unfortunately few, if any, of the African-American players on the Kentucky
team are even aware of the vile putrid nature and loathsome character of
the man, after whom the basketball arena is named.
Fuck Adolph Rupp; may he continue to rot in hell forever.
bp...@voy.net
I quote Dave Kindred in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
"[Adolph Rupp] A racist? No. He'd never had a black player and in 1966
reached the national championship game against all-black Texas Western.
But Rupp, born in 1901 to German immigrants in southeast Kansas, was no
more and no less than a man of his time and place. He coached black
players in high school, coached against college teams with black
players, and he recruited a black the same year Bear Bryant recruited
his first. Thirty years younger, more socially conscious, in his fifth
year at North Carolina, Dean Smith also had an all-white team the
'65-'66 season."
Travis L. Hemlepp
Just curious, are you an expert or is this heresay?
Before Rupp recruited his first black player, how many were recruited
and playing in the SEC?
When did the first black play for Ga Tech, NC State, NC, VA, etc?
Was not the SEC alittle slower at recruiting Black Athletes?
th
Bob Perkins
You forget that during Rupp's career racism was not considered a bad thing.
Don't forget that Rupp coach when blacks were still not allowed into most
places. So even though I am not saying Rupp was correct in his decisions
they were the opinion of the majority back then. Lets just move one with
life and give Mr. Dean Smith his credit. Afterall he won with both blacks
and whites.
co...@wolfenet.com wrote in article <5ge39f$4...@ratty.wolfe.net>...
: In the orgy of media hype and hoopla attending Dean Smith's eclipse of
:
:
Vogelfrei
In article <5ge39f$4...@ratty.wolfe.net> , co...@wolfenet.com writes:
> Fuck Adolph Rupp; may he continue to rot in hell forever.
>
Dan Adkins
co...@wolfenet.com vomited:
>
> In the orgy of media hype and hoopla attending Dean Smith's eclipse of
> the Adolph Rupp record, the ugly reality of Rupp gets lost and obscured.
>
> Throughout his entire coaching career Adolph Rupp was a virulent,
> anti-Black, racist scumbag bigot.
Not so, and you have no proof to back your libel.
The University of Kentucky compounded
> the outrage by naming a building in his honor.
And here, you show your absolute lack of grasp of factuality. UK did
not build or name Rupp; the city of Lexington did so. UK contracts with
Lexington to play games at Rupp Arena. All you'd have to do is read a
few of the posts (earlier this season) on the controversy surrounding
"Pitiner Arener," and you'd have some foundation upon which to spout an
"opinion."
Ironically, Rupp would be
> spinning in his grave if he knew a bunch of "nigras" were currently
> playing basketball representing the University of Kentucky.
By the time he left the team, Kentucky had started playing blacks.
So much
> historical truth has been hidden and glossed over by revisionist history
> and mass media glorification of that bastard.
Yours, my friend, is the revision...
You know not of what you speak.
Dan -- who was glad to see Rupp be retired by UK, but not for reasons
involving any alleged "racism"...
Mitchell Owen
Forget the issue which is far more complex than your simple post can
articulate...
Such language... yuk!
If you are going to critize someone, the least you can do is show more
class than those you critize..
By the way... who is cobra... I wouldn't sign my post either if I showed
such little class..
Mitch
--
Mitchell B. Owen ESFJ Spoken Here!
Computer Training Specialist Mitch...@ncsu.edu
URL://www.ces.ncsu.edu/mowen/Mitch_Owen.html
Extension Technology Services (919)515-8448
North Carolina State University (919)515-3777 fax
N.C. Cooperative Extension Service
P.O. Box 7641, Ligon St., NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7641
Wes Morgan
In article <5ge39f$4...@ratty.wolfe.net>, <co...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
> In the orgy of media hype and hoopla attending Dean Smith's eclipse of
>the Adolph Rupp record, the ugly reality of Rupp gets lost and obscured.
>
> Throughout his entire coaching career Adolph Rupp was a virulent,
>anti-Black, racist scumbag bigot.
I'm going to ask what surely must be an idiotic question, but that
rarely stops anyone in this particular forum...
I've been reading this newsgroup for over a decade, and I don't recall
seeing many "Rupp was a bigot" postings until Smith approached the NCAA
record. Then, as we all know, the virulence came out of the woodwork.
My question is a simple one. Why aren't you folks painting *EVERY*
coach of that time with the racism brush? After all, Rupp was one
of several hundred coaches during that time; doesn't each of them
deserve their share of retroactive guilt/invective/blame? Even Dean
Smith kept all-white teams for his first 5-6 years, I believe; why
aren't you villifying *him*? What about the NCAA executives, uni-
versity presidents and conference commissioners? If you apply the
same yardstick to them, were they not just as guilty as Rupp *and*
Smith? Are you simply villifying Rupp in response to his success?
There has been much discussion of Rupp's position on race, as well as
that of the various conferences and the NCAA, in any number of texts.
Let it rest. Most of the folks playing NCAA basketball today weren't
even *born* when Rupp was coaching - and *none* of them were alive
when Rupp (and Smith) had their last all-white teams.
Was it ugly? Yes. Was it wrong? Yes. Is it over? I think so, at
least as far as collegiate athletics is concerned. Do you folks need
to address *today's* problems of race, instead of dwelling on events
30+ years past? Yes.
--Wes
--
Wes Morgan Network Engineer Databeam Corporation wmo...@databeam.com
My 3-year-old won't even let me speak for her - you *know* DataBeam won't.
Well, evil has been routed, and the babysitter's been paid!
Fight Internet Spam! http://www.vix.com/spam for more information...
James H. Chandler III
Thomas Cunningham wrote:
Most of the founders of our country were racists too,
> probably more avowed then Adolph Rupp.
This is not necessarily true. Being a slave owner does not necessarily
equate with being a racist. You should read some of both Jefferson's
and Washington's views. Robert E. Lee was also a slave owner, but from
many of the accounts that I have read about him, he was far from being a
racist. And before anyone flames me for this opinion, I am Black.
James Hepler
Thomas Cunningham wrote:
>
> Bob Perkins <us...@msn.com> wrote:
> : You forget that during Rupp's career racism was not considered a bad thing.
> : Don't forget that Rupp coach when blacks were still not allowed into most
> : places. So even though I am not saying Rupp was correct in his decisions
> : they were the opinion of the majority back then.
>
> change this. Most of the founders of our country were racists too,
> probably more avowed then Adolph Rupp.
C'mon. We live in our context. Adolf Rupp wasn't a social visionary,
he was a basketball coach.
There's gotta be something that you're against that may turn out silly
to your children. Then what excuse will you have. There's lots of
issues out there. Abortion, Gays, Drugs, Politics, etc. You don't know
how change will affect the past.
I now hate office pools.
James Hepler
hep...@email.unc.edu
Warren D. Cunningham
On 15 Mar 1997 co...@wolfenet.com wrote:
> In the orgy of media hype and hoopla attending Dean Smith's eclipse of
> the Adolph Rupp record, the ugly reality of Rupp gets lost and obscured.
>
> Throughout his entire coaching career Adolph Rupp was a virulent,
> anti-Black, racist scumbag bigot. The University of Kentucky compounded
> the outrage by naming a building in his honor. Ironically, Rupp would be
> spinning in his grave if he knew a bunch of "nigras" were currently
> playing basketball representing the University of Kentucky. So much
> historical truth has been hidden and glossed over by revisionist history
> and mass media glorification of that bastard. As a consequence,
> unfortunately few, if any, of the African-American players on the Kentucky
> team are even aware of the vile putrid nature and loathsome character of
> the man, after whom the basketball arena is named.
>
> Fuck Adolph Rupp; may he continue to rot in hell forever.
>
>
>Hey dumbass,
While you continued to scrutinize Adolph Rupp for his racist
actions, I don't see any FACTS in your work of art. In case you don't
know them I will help you out. Rupp signed his first black player in '69,
only 3 years after Dean Smith(God-himself) signed his first black player.
Also, when Rupp's Runts were defeated by an all black Texas Western team
in the finals of the NCAA tournament, Dean Smith also had an all white
roster. I'm sure Adolph Rupp had many faults as we all do, but you must
remeber the time and environment he lived in. Nothing should overcome the
fact that he is one of the greatest coaches ever. One last fact, check
how many losses Dean has--I think Rupp has a few less!!
tho quy truong
> > : You forget that during Rupp's career racism was not considered a bad thing.
> > : Don't forget that Rupp coach when blacks were still not allowed into most
> > : places. So even though I am not saying Rupp was correct in his decisions
> > : they were the opinion of the majority back then.
> >
> > Popular opinion can sanction, but not justify such evils. Time does not
> > change this. Most of the founders of our country were racists too,
> > probably more avowed then Adolph Rupp.
>
> C'mon. We live in our context. Adolf Rupp wasn't a social visionary,
> he was a basketball coach.
I'd like to think that certain humanistic values (ie. murder is
wrong, slavery/bigotry is wrong) should be timeless. Otherwise, a society
can define cruel practices as standard and therefore just (and its happened).
Racism is considered wrong now; racism was not considered wrong then but
was still and is still wrong then, now and always (IMO). To not hold
Rupp or anyone in the past to the same standard we have now (I'm talking
about in regard to racism) is very similar to saying, "oh racism
was not wrong then". And that is a strong statement. Note "wrongness"
is not the same as "not sanctioned" and "rightness" is not the same as
"sanctioned".
> There's gotta be something that you're against that may turn out silly
> to your children. Then what excuse will you have. There's lots of
> issues out there. Abortion, Gays, Drugs, Politics, etc.
I don't believe these issues are in the same category. These are
obviously important issues but your argument would not, IMO,apply to the
issue of this thread-- ie., my children should never regard my position
against racism as "silly".
>You don't know how change will affect the past.
I agree, but it would be nice if more people had the insight to realize
the effects of the past _on the present_, accept this effect, and
as a result understand where a lot of the anger from African-Americans
comes from.
> I now hate office pools.
Me too. I got screwed when Wake lost. Shoulda respected the Pac-10
more.
Tho Truong
tqtr...@students.uiuc.edu
Captain Crimson
> Throughout his entire coaching career Adolph Rupp was a virulent,
> anti-Black, racist scumbag bigot. The University of Kentucky compounded
> the outrage by naming a building in his honor. Ironically, Rupp would be
> spinning in his grave if he knew a bunch of "nigras" were currently
> playing basketball representing the University of Kentucky. So much
> historical truth has been hidden and glossed over by revisionist history
> and mass media glorification of that bastard. As a consequence,
> unfortunately few, if any, of the African-American players on the
Kentucky
> team are even aware of the vile putrid nature and loathsome character of
> the man, after whom the basketball arena is named.
>
> Fuck Adolph Rupp; may he continue to rot in hell forever.
Is that you Louis Farrakhan? What kind of revisionist truth do you have to
reveal? A lot of nigras should be appreciating the fact he gave them the
opportunity to play in the NBA. But I guess he OWED that to them anyway
huh?
Darald Fischer
Mitchell Owen wrote:
articulate...
Such language... yuk!
Mitch,
Thank you for your response to this rediculus post. I feel the same way.
Darald
Thomas Cunningham
Thomas Cunningham
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
: C'mon. We live in our context. Adolf Rupp wasn't a social visionary,
: he was a basketball coach.
We live in our context but there are some things that are wrong or right
in any context. Racism is one of them.
: There's gotta be something that you're against that may turn out silly
: to your children. Then what excuse will you have. There's lots of
: issues out there. Abortion, Gays, Drugs, Politics, etc. You don't know
: how change will affect the past.
I know that I do not know how future generations will think, but I know
racism is wrong in any context.
You do have a point in other ways. Look at prohibition. We don't think
alcohol is evil. But then again, I don't judge Carrie Nation in the same
way as I see Rupp. Rupp was wrong. Nation was misguided, though meaning
well.
Thomas Wigginton
Sounds like a lot of hate against Adolph Rupp, wanting him to rot in
hell. So stop talking about racism when you are filled with hatred
yourself.
I am no UK fan, but Adolph Rupp was one of the greatest b-ball coaches
of all time, and deserves to have an arena named after him.
Tom Wigginton
twi...@mont.mindspring.com
GO GATORS!!!
I don't have any stupid quotes
Thomas Cunningham
James H. Chandler III <JChand...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: This is not necessarily true. Being a slave owner does not necessarily
: equate with being a racist.
Could you explain your opinion here? Slave owning seems inherently racist
to me. Racism is about power.
Jon Scott
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.97031...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>, tho
quy truong <tqtr...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> There's gotta be something that you're against that may turn out silly
>> to your children. Then what excuse will you have. There's lots of
>> issues out there. Abortion, Gays, Drugs, Politics, etc.
>
>I don't believe these issues are in the same category. These are
>obviously important issues but your argument would not, IMO,apply to the
>issue of this thread-- ie., my children should never regard my position
>against racism as "silly".
>
This is the most self-righteous load of crap I've seen and that's saying
something on r.s.b.c. I don't doubt your position against racism is
noble, but that is based on today's standards. How can you be so sure you
are 100% racist free based on standards in the future. Hint, we're all
racist in one way or another no matter how well we like to think
otherwise. In the future, I don't doubt that people will look back on our
times and see a bunch of racists, animal abusers, child rights abusers,
sexists, homophobes, ecology abusers, third world abusers, etc. etc. etc.
You say your children won't regard your position on race "silly" while you
try to say Rupp was breaking some clearly defined race code that
transcends the centuries. This seems to suggest that if you lived in
previous times you would not have crossed that line and in effect would
have treated others exactly as you do today. Forgive me but there's just
no way that would happen because that means that up until very recently in
history you would have at best been shunned and at worst killed for your
views. Does this also mean that you are in the most nonracist state you
will ever be ? That's the most amazing thing I've read as that means you
have achieved perfection. Congratulations.
I understand the point that racism has always been and will always be bad
and I agree with that aspect of it to a point. My point is that if you
believe that is the way people should be judged and you still want to go
around pointing fingers at people from past generations based on today's
standards, you'd better be prepared to accept that what you do and think
on a daily basis will surely and rightly be damned by future generations.
Happy thought hugh ?
BTW, there is a lot of evidence that Rupp helped blacks during his career
and was one of the major trailblazers in integrating the deep south.
Let's face it. He was the first coach in the South to have a team with a
black player play against him on a major southern college campus. He was
the second coach in the SEC to sign a black player. He never had any
qualms about competing against black players while his contemporaries
wouldn't even consider it, even to the point of turning down tournament
bids for that sole purpose. He even coached a black player in high school
in 1927. While there are certainly stories and innuendo out there to
suggest Rupp was racist, there is a whole lot of information which
suggests the opposite. IMO, based on the attitudes at the time, some of
the things Rupp did in terms of race were quite commendable. On the other
hand, I don't doubt that he was racist (by today's standards) but then I
could have told you that just based on the location and time period he was
born and lived and still been amazingly accurate.
Again, everything is in the context of the time period whether it should
be or not. If you were the coach of a basketball team in a predominantly
white school and you coached a black player, it'd be no big deal,
*today*. But you're living smugly in a time when it's truly no big deal
to do so. By your method of trying to take the time period out of the
equation, you minimize the accomplishments of Rupp in this case who did
coach a black player in high school. But this argument can be extended
throughout history. (Kind of like saying that the invention of the wheel
was no big deal because there's plenty of them around today or saying that
people in an earlier time killing an animal to use it's hide for clothing
is wrong, even if that was their best means of staying warm, because you
certainly don't abuse animals for that purpose) It just doesn't work to
hold all people in the past to your modern standards and it takes a lot of
audacity IMO to even try to do so.
As a side note to the earlier post, an "avowed" racist means that he
declared his racism "openly, bluntly, and without shame" . If this is the
case, shouldn't it be of little trouble to dig up the reference for this ?
Could one of you Rupp haters take time out for a second and dig that up
for us.
>>You don't know how change will affect the past.
>
Amen to that.
>
>Tho Truong
>tqtr...@students.uiuc.edu
Jon
--
N.C. State University
Clarence D. Reed
Rupp's anti-Black views were obviously wrong. But that doesn't
diminish the fact that he had a brilliant basketball mind, and
he was a great coach. It's similar to the way that Ty Cobb's
racist bullshit doesn't change the fact that he was one of the
best baseball players of all time. I (a young Black Man) have
no problem with honoring Rupp's basketball achievements, even if
I don't like everything that he stood for.
It's funny how people use Farrakhan's name to justify their
own bigotry. Although I think that minister Farrakhan has done
a lot to promote Black self-esteem, I don't agree with his
BLACK suprÿemicist views. But it seems like some racists adopt a
"Farrakhan is anti-White, so why can't I be anti-Black?"
attitude. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't consider myself to be superior or inferior to any
other group of people. I'm equal to all people, and they're
all equal to me.
It's also funny how people who hate a group of people have
usually never even known any of the people that they claim to
hate. I doubt that Rupp even sat down and had a conversation
with a Black person until he felt pressure to recruit one.
We are more Alike my friends
than we are Unalike...
- Sister Maya Angelou-
--
----
Have Faith, Be Well.....
Peace!
Darryll (bz914) SeeYa!
Douglas Glass
Thomas Cunningham (cunn...@primenet.com) wrote:
If he'd even considered recruiting a black player, he'd have been fired on
the spot (or taken into the chancellor's office and severely reprimaned
and warned). There was an article last year in SI about the 1960something
Mississippi State team that wasn't allowed to go to the NCAA tourney since
they'd have to play a team that had black players. Compared to that, UK
was positively progressive.
Thomas Cunningham
Jon Scott <jps...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
: otherwise. In the future, I don't doubt that people will look back on our
: times and see a bunch of racists, animal abusers, child rights abusers,
: sexists, homophobes, ecology abusers, third world abusers, etc. etc. etc.
I don't doubt that either, because we won't be judged by the context we
live in.
: Again, everything is in the context of the time period whether it should
: be or not. If you were the coach of a basketball team in a predominantly
: white school and you coached a black player, it'd be no big deal,
: *today*. But you're living smugly in a time when it's truly no big deal
: to do so.
Jon, how do you explain human rights or war crimes? In Nazi Germany
genocide was perfectly acceptable. Once the war was over, Nazis were not
judged in the context of their time period or even of their culture -
they were judged by a set of universal standards.
There has got to be a set of universal human values that are applicable to
any time period or culture. Look at, say, the golden rule. Racism is
clearly antithetical to these.
Captain Crimson
> It's funny how people use Farrakhan's name to justify their
> own bigotry. Although I think that minister Farrakhan has done
> a lot to promote Black self-esteem, I don't agree with his
> BLACK suprÿemicist views. But it seems like some racists adopt a
> "Farrakhan is anti-White, so why can't I be anti-Black?"
> attitude. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Well why don't the major black political players denounce Louis instead of
giving him credence. Clarence, on serious note, by saying Louis has done
any good for anyone is like saying Hitler did some good for Germany by
bringing them out of a depression. Hitler only did so for his personal
gain. Louis is attempting the same methods. Louis whitewashes recruiting
angry black men into a militaristic mindset with all the rah-rah speaches
of self esteem and racial pride and does so at the expense of all other
races. Hitler did the same thing with the recruitment of the "brown
shirts". Louis still is given serious airplay like he is some legitimate
social thinker. If the grand dragon of the KKK was to try to get prime
television airplay to promote some type of charity event every major black
politicist and organization would be crying foul. I consider Louis to be
the equivalent of the grand dragon. I don't like the double standard.
H.B. Elkins
>: Throughout his entire coaching career Adolph Rupp was a virulent,
>: the outrage by naming a building in his honor. Ironically, Rupp would be
>: spinning in his grave if he knew a bunch of "nigras" were currently
>: playing basketball representing the University of Kentucky. So much
>: historical truth has been hidden and glossed over by revisionist history
>: and mass media glorification of that bastard. As a consequence,
>: unfortunately few, if any, of the African-American players on the
>Kentucky
>: team are even aware of the vile putrid nature and loathsome character of
>: the man, after whom the basketball arena is named.
>:
>: Fuck Adolph Rupp; may he continue to rot in hell forever.
If this isn't the biggest bunch of crap I've ever read, I don't know
what is.
First of all, the University of Kentucky did not build Rupp Arena.
That building was built by the city of Lexington. In fact, it's a
common complaint that the arena is not on campus, and the fact that it
isn't an on-campus facility is the main reason many are pushing to
have a new, on-campus arena built.
Second, no one has ever conclusively proved that Rupp was a racist.
This is one of those "guilty until proven innocent" deals, and since
Rupp now rests in Lexington Cemetery, he can never offer evidence to
the contrary. Therefore, in today's society, the charges stick. If you
call someone a racist, they must be a racist.
Fact: Rupp encouraged UK fans who might not be, shall we say,
receptive to people of opposite skin color, to be polite to black
players whenever UK faced a black opponent.
Fact: Rupp recruited black players in the 1960s including Westley
Unseld and Clem Haskins, but they chose not to come to UK. Tom Payne
was the first black player who chose UK. In that day, UK primarily
recruited Kentucky and surrounding states (particularly Ohio, Indiana
and Illinois).
Fact: Rupp's family has continually insisted, as these charges have
persisted, that the man was not a racist.
Fact: There were other all-white teams in 1966. What if one of them
had reached the NCAA finals against Texas Western? Would this "Rupp as
racist" charge then be replaced with "Coach X as racist?" I recently
read that North Carolina's 1966 team was all-white. What if UNC had
made the finals against Texas Western? Would it then be Dean Smith
that was unfairly given the racist label?
Fact: Adolph Rupp was a winner. He wouldn't care if there were five
polka-dotted players on the team now. He'd be proud as could be that
the team is carrying on his winning legacy.
Let's see some cold, hard facts to prove Rupp's racism. If you don't
have any, then innocence is presumed until guilt is proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Winchester, KY
"You must have the courage to believe the truth!" -- Rush H. Limbaugh III
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball & #3 Dale Earnhardt -- A Championship Combination
hbel...@mis.net <or> HB...@aol.com
(Please note: there is a spam-buster in my reply-to address.
To reply by private E-mail,use one of the addresses above)
http://www.users.mis.net/~hbelkins (site under construction
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dan Adkins
tho quy truong wrote:
>
> > > : You forget that during Rupp's career racism was not considered a bad thing.
> > > : Don't forget that Rupp coach when blacks were still not allowed into most
> > > : places. So even though I am not saying Rupp was correct in his decisions
> > > : they were the opinion of the majority back then.
> > >
> > > Popular opinion can sanction, but not justify such evils. Time does not
> > > change this.
>
> I'd like to think that certain humanistic values (ie. murder is
> wrong, slavery/bigotry is wrong) should be timeless. Otherwise, a society
> can define cruel practices as standard and therefore just (and its happened).
> Racism is considered wrong now; racism was not considered wrong then but
> was still and is still wrong then, now and always (IMO). To not hold
> Rupp or anyone in the past to the same standard we have now (I'm talking
> about in regard to racism) is very similar to saying, "oh racism
> was not wrong then". And that is a strong statement. Note "wrongness"
> is not the same as "not sanctioned" and "rightness" is not the same as
> "sanctioned".
It will be interesting, come 30 years from now, for you to look back at
the attitudes you hold today and judge them from that lofty vantage
point. I daresay you will regret many things you are doing and saying
today. Rupp, unfortunately, died in 1977 -- he did not have the luxury
of 30 years to re-evaluate what he did or did not do or failed to do at
a time when it would have made him appear to be a visionary.
Incidentally, for much of the same period of the '60s that Rupp was
playing all white teams, so was Dean Smith. That fact does not lessen
Smith's later contributions to *basketball*; nor does Rupp's racial
blindspot lessen his. As Billy Reed notes in a column in today's
Lexington Herald-Leader, most of those who are criticizing Rupp today
never watched a game he coached; they also don't understand the kind of
man Rupp was: He looked at life with tunnel vision, and the tunnel saw
only basketball.
Dan
Jim Payne (Dobber)
What many of you may not know is that prior to 1954 there was a law in
Kentucky known as the Day law that prohibited Blacks & Whites from
attending the same school. So even if Rupp wanted to he couldn't
recruit any Blacks. co...@wolfenet.com wrote:
> In the orgy of media hype and hoopla attending Dean Smith's eclipse of
>the Adolph Rupp record, the ugly reality of Rupp gets lost and obscured.
>
> Throughout his entire coaching career Adolph Rupp was a virulent,
>anti-Black, racist scumbag bigot. The University of Kentucky compounded
>the outrage by naming a building in his honor. Ironically, Rupp would be
>spinning in his grave if he knew a bunch of "nigras" were currently
>playing basketball representing the University of Kentucky. So much
>historical truth has been hidden and glossed over by revisionist history
>and mass media glorification of that bastard. As a consequence,
>unfortunately few, if any, of the African-American players on the Kentucky
>team are even aware of the vile putrid nature and loathsome character of
>the man, after whom the basketball arena is named.
>
> Fuck Adolph Rupp; may he continue to rot in hell forever.
>
--
Jim Payne
My Karma ran over my Dogma
Alex Gregory Waterson
Douglas Glass (glas...@quean.cims.nyu.edu) wrote:
> If he'd even considered recruiting a black player, he'd have been fired on
> the spot (or taken into the chancellor's office and severely reprimaned
> and warned). There was an article last year in SI about the 1960something
> Mississippi State team that wasn't allowed to go to the NCAA tourney since
> they'd have to play a team that had black players. Compared to that, UK
> was positively progressive.
Just to clear up this fact, it was in the late 50's and early 60's
that Miss St was denied the chance to go to the NCAA tourney because of
a stupid state rule that prohibited any team of a state university
to compete against black athletes. MSU was pretty good in those years,
winning 5 or so SEC titles in 6 or 7 years behind the coaching of
Babe McCarthy and the play of Bailey Howell. For the record, Coach
McCarthy snuck his team out of Starkville, risking arrest of himself
and/or the entire team so that the basketball team might play in the
1961 NCAA tourney. There's a picture somewhere that shows one of the State
players shaking hands with a black athlete from the team that defeated
them in the first round. MSU's team may have lost the game, but they
were winners just for being there.
All this just goes to show that even in the midst of one of the
strongholds of the government sanctioned segregation of that era,
not everyone saw everything in terms of only black and white.
____________________________________________________________
| Alex G. Waterson | Graduate Student |
| awa...@emory.edu | Emory University Chemistry Dept.|
|_________________________|__________________________________|
"A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission" -Neil Peart
______________________________________________________________
Visit my web site: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~awaters
Jonathan C. Enslin
Thomas Cunningham <cunn...@primenet.com> wrote:
>James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>: C'mon. We live in our context. Adolf Rupp wasn't a social visionary,
>: he was a basketball coach.
>
>We live in our context but there are some things that are wrong or right
>in any context. Racism is one of them.
Using your own retroactive view yes. But when Rupp started coaching in
the 1930s, how many people would share those ideas regarding racism. My
guess is not many.
Jon
tho quy truong
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Jon Scott wrote:
Jon, I hope you actually in all fairness, read and understand this before
you flame.
> This is the most self-righteous load of crap I've seen and that's saying
> something on r.s.b.c. I don't doubt your position against racism is
> noble, but that is based on today's standards. How can you be so sure you
You know, I'm not clear on what you have interpreted and why you are
flaming me as "self-righteous" when we both share many of the same
opinions. Well,basically the same-- all I was trying to get across was
that I think racism in wrong in any social context. Whether or not racism
is an "absolute wrong" (ie. whether or there _are_ absolute rights or wrong)
is part of a long standing philosophical debate and I really am not sure of
what the answer to that is. I don't know why you are reacting to this
post-- I never wrote that I was "so sure"-- in fact I wrote more than
once that it's "IMO"--in my opinion..and never did I write (or believe)
that my opinion made me better or nobler than anyone else.
Although, obviously if one holds an opinion, by definition it's b/c it is
her opinion that that opinion is correct..or else she would not be
holding that opinion...It's sad that you'd rather knee-jerk a reaction-post
and get your emotions into it (calling this a "self-righteous" post when
many posts here are of the same opinion and you didn't bother to flame
those people) than to consider the other person's views. It seems that you
assumed what all my views where and then flame me for views I don't have.
Thanks...nice to know humanity is evolving so nicely and people are
taking time to understand each other.
> You say your children won't regard your position on race "silly" while you
> try to say Rupp was breaking some clearly defined race code that
> transcends the centuries. This seems to suggest that if you lived in
> previous times you would not have crossed that line and in effect would
> have treated others exactly as you do today. Forgive me but there's just
> no way that would happen because that means that up until very recently in
> history you would have at best been shunned and at worst killed for your
> views. Does this also mean that you are in the most nonracist state you
> will ever be ? That's the most amazing thing I've read as that means you
> have achieved perfection. Congratulations.
First, let's be clear "my position on race" = racism is wrong in any social
context. You wrote that you understand this point. Btw, I _do_
believe that social context matters. You seem to have assumed that I
didn't. I think reasonable people understand that this is not a black
and white issue; but the idea of my post was that it was my opinion that,
in regard to racism, the standard that we have now-- that "racism is
wrong" should not fluctuate..or one would have to accept that "racism was
not wrong then (in Rupp's time) and if you want to argue that racism was
not wrong then, then have at it. I tried to communicate that it was hard
for someone like Rupp, who was arguably "socialized" to be racist,
but ---> IMO <---was still wrong to be a racist then as it is wrong now
and --> IMO <--- was always wrong (whether or not society realized this
"wrongness" is an entirely different issue).
That is my opinion-- I have a right to write it, and I don't believe that it
is self-righteous to believe this and write it. I am not
forcing the opinion on you or anyone and I do not believe that it makes
me more noble...but I do believe it is the "right" opinion-- or else I
wouldn't believe it, right? But many people see the words "wrong" and
"right" in an opinion and auto-assume that the person who is using those
words are trying to force her moral beliefs on everyone.
> I understand the point that racism has always been and will always be bad
> and I agree with that aspect of it to a point.
This is all I was trying to communicate here..and I even tried to address
your following argument:
> standards, you'd better be prepared to accept that what you do and think
> on a daily basis will surely and rightly be damned by future generations.
> Happy thought hugh ?
I don't know about what exactly you think I think "on a daily basis" (be
more specific), but if what I think on a daily basis is that "racism is wrong
in any context" than I hope (note the word 'hope' is not the same as "I
am soo sure") that future generations will agree-- I think
it is unlikely that society will all of a sudden believe racism is "ok
again" in the future and that in the future I will be damned for
believing that racism is wrong. I tried to communicate that I was
writing about _racism_...not other "daily views" -- you can't (IMO)
lump all types of views into the same category with racism. I tried
to communicate this but obviously you didn't bother to understand. As
for these other views (abortion, gay rights, whatever issue you can think
of). I was referring to the issue of the thread, racism.
> BTW, there is a lot of evidence that Rupp helped blacks during his career
> and was one of the major trailblazers in integrating the deep south.
> Let's face it. He was the first coach in the South to have a team with a
> black player play against him on a major southern college campus. He was
I never wrote that I thought Rupp was a racist, because I don't know
Rupp and obviously the media is not the most reliable thing in the
world. I just wrote that it was my opinion that he should be held to the
same standard of "racial decency" (by this I simply mean that IF he was
a racist then he was doing something "wrong" to others) as we are today--
OTHERWISE one would be saying "racism was not wrong THEN". If this is
indeed what you are saying then our opinions differ. My opinion, your opinion
-- why call my post self-righteous when you are the one flaming someone
else for her opinion?? This is something you never addressed, (do you
believe that racism was not wrong then, because it was socially
acceptable? are you defending that? if you are, then make it clear,
b/c I'm not sure on what we are disagreeing on here).
> Again, everything is in the context of the time period whether it should
> be or not.
And I was merely stating that in my opinion, "it should not be". That
is, "the rightness or wrongness of racism _should_ not be judged in the
context of time period". Note SHOULD not, not IS not. I am not writing
about what reality is-- I was writing in the abstract-- that in an ideal
world, in my opinion...blah blah..
>If you were the coach of a basketball team in a
predominantly
> white school and you coached a black player, it'd be no big deal,
> *today*. But you're living smugly in a time when it's truly no big deal
This is beside my point...anyway, I wouldn't have disagreed with you on
this section...it just doesn't address my point: are you saying that
"racism was not wrong then"? that would be the point of interest
here..that would be the couter to my beliefs (that racism was accepted
but was still "wrong" then) , so if you are
going to disagree with me, this is what you should address. Obviously Rupp
had much social pressure and I can't (and don't) expect him to lead a social
revolution, so I don't know why you think you are countering my point by
writing all of this. The only thing left to conclude is that you were
not clear on what my point was and went ahead and flamed me for stuff I
don't even mention as being against.
> Could one of you Rupp haters take time out for a second and dig that up
> for us.
Did I write that I hated Rupp? I don't know the guy. But at least I'm
aware of both arguments for and against him. Why are you Assuming that
I am in the same category as Rupp haters when I was writing about a totally
different idea? Advocating that someone must hold to the same
standard of what is right IN REGARD to RACISM is not the same as actually
judging that person, much less condemn him and mitigate his accomplishments.
IF Rupp was a racist, then he was a racist..no amount of arguing can
change what he was. Accept it and understand why some people are so mad
about it. That's all we can do-- it doesn't do any good to backlash.
Again, just my opinion.
Tho Truong
tqtr...@students.uiuc.edu
Thomas Cunningham
Jonathan C. Enslin <ens...@uwwvax.uww.edu> wrote:
: Using your own retroactive view yes. But when Rupp started coaching in
: the 1930s, how many people would share those ideas regarding racism. My
: guess is not many.
: Jon
Jon, my counter to this is the old "if everyone else jumped off a bridge,
would you do it too?" Popular opinion of a time period can't justify
racist ideology as morally right.
The point is, Adolph Rupp might not have been a racist in 1930's
standards, but we aren't in the 1930's any longer. We should judge him by
our own standards, not the standards of the day.
Coder
On 17 Mar 1997 20:19:05 -0700, Thomas Cunningham
<cunn...@primenet.com> wrote:
Oh, contrar...Racism is about disliking what another person is or is
not compared to one's self, i.e. race. The most powerful person at
one time in history, Hitler, was not necessarily a racist. He took an
idea of creating a perfect country to the utmost extreme. He went
crazy!
I can be the most lowly of people and still be a racist. I can be ANY
color and be racist. Hell, I can be anything and be prejudice (the
root of all racism) against any other thing.
Rupp was following the social standard. No OTHER school had
African-American students in the South at that time, here in Alabama,
we were ignorant enough to allow voted upon politicians to stand in
the doorways to prevent it. Our ancesters followed what was taught to
them, racism. Thank God a new generation for the most part (you'll
always have those unwilling to change) are more educated and socially
understaning. Congratulations to the Dean of College Basketball!
Coder
Jon Scott
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970318...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>,
tho quy truong <tqtr...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
...deleted for the sake of everyone.
I'll only say this once as this thread is quickly veering away from the
intended content of r.s.b.c.
My point of contention, and what caused me to flame in the first place, is
the assertion that future generations will not look at us and see a
racist. (That is how I read your remark of "my children should never
regard my position
against racism as "silly"" Since that is not what you intended, the whole
reply to you is moot. ) We may consider ourselves to be completely
unracially biased as possible, but deep down inside of everyone, there is
some bit or racism. Whether it's evident or not in our thoughts, our
actions or our inactions, it's there whether we want to accept it or not.
The fact of the matter is that there is so much injustice out there today,
that no one person can possibly battle it all in their lifetime so that we
do what we can, but in some areas, we do nothing. It's only natural that
as society develops and social injustices and prejudices are ironed out,
people will look back on our time and discover these flaws that we may or
may not have known about but didn't see fit to fight for. Does this
make us wrong ? Of course. On that we agree (i.e. racism is wrong under
any context.). Does that make us bad ? Maybe, but I personally would give
the benefit of the doubt. (This is where I have a problem with other
posters, again not you personally, who choose to point fingers at Rupp)
Based on the above, I certainly think that a future generation will look
at us, see our inaction on some issues, see our actions on others which
*we* feel are accomplishments, and conclude that our position on race was
"silly". We agree that the position that "racism is bad" is a universal
timeless constant which should be considered good. But my argument comes
down to the practice. I gave a number of instances where Rupp was
positively progressive in terms of race in the South at the time but it
seems his inaction (i.e. not signing blacks soon enough) is a major factor
in him being labeled as he is. Rupp may well have looked around at his
contemporaries who were afraid to compete against blacks, who did not
recruit blacks, who did not sign blacks, etc. and feel that he was doing
pretty good at the time. But yet, here we are crucifying the man. The
question I posed is how can we be so sure that our inactions will stand up
to future generation's standards (which I posed to your post), and still
go around and hold today's standards against Rupp (which is addressed to
others in this newsgroup, again not you, who seem so bent on trashing
Rupp) ?
I apologize for flaming so hard and I agree that we most likely share many
of the same values. My claim that your post was "self righteous" was
based on my reading your statement as a proclamation that everything you
think, do, and don't do during your life can be looked at by future
generations until eternity and found to be non-racist. Again, since that
is not what you intended to say, I'll retract my accusation. It is
unfortunate that we got caught over these details.
>> Could one of you Rupp haters take time out for a second and dig that up
>> for us.
>Did I write that I hated Rupp? I don't know the guy
I was addressing this to some of the people in earlier articles, not you
personally. Sorry about the mix-up.
tho quy truong
> point. I daresay you will regret many things you are doing and saying
> today. Rupp, unfortunately, died in 1977 -- he did not have the luxury
> of 30 years to re-evaluate what he did or did not do or failed to do at
> a time when it would have made him appear to be a visionary.
confuse what is with the _idea_ I was trying to get across. "Ideals", by
definition, are perfect. If my ideal is that "racism is wrong" then it
shouldn't change in the future. The problem is that we are not ideal and
never were..I of course I understand that...
> man Rupp was: He looked at life with tunnel vision, and the tunnel saw
> only basketball.
Yes, it appears so. And it was a huge factor in his success.
Tho Truong
Douglas Glass
Thomas Cunningham (cunn...@primenet.com) wrote:
: James H. Chandler III <JChand...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: : This is not necessarily true. Being a slave owner does not necessarily
: : equate with being a racist.
: Could you explain your opinion here? Slave owning seems inherently racist
: to me. Racism is about power.
So poor white trash rednecks who don't like blacks aren't racist since the
only power they have is in their pickup trucks.
FiftyEight
The gentleman who started this thread wanted to arouse some folk and he
accomplished that.
May he .................well you know....
I will make these points.
Yes, Kentucky did have a Day law that prohibited blacks from attending
UK.
The SEC was a horribly RACIST conference until the 1970's!
(The ACC was little better)
Adolph Rupp was socialized in an enviroment that taught that blacks and
whites should not play together or even play against each other. Was he
racist? Well, how many white men living in Kentucky in the 1930's were?
To look back at our past and point a finger at a great old southern
basketball coach and compare him to Adolph Hitler is preposterous.
The first black man brave enough to sign a scholarship to play
basketball at UK was Tom Payne in the spring of 1970. Was he the first
offered? Heck no.
Who would have wanted to be the guinea pig who strode into Oxford,
Mississippi with hundreds of Byron Delay Beckwith's sitting in the
stands? Who wanted to run up and down the court in Tuscaloosa, Alabama
with hundreds of "Bull" Conner's in attendance. It would have taken big
kahunas my friends.
Hey, Dean Smith is class and deserves all his accolades but how many
African-Americans ran up and down the court in chapel Hill in the
1960's? Dean started there in '61.
I mentioned this in a previous post (the answer to the multiple choice
was g by the way not e, sorry) and what did my last point prove? I don't
know, but opinions die and records live (although this record may be
somewhat buried). Aldoph Rupp coached an African-American on his
Freeport (Illinois) High School basketball team in 1927. Why? Because
he was allowed to. In Kentucky, he would have not have been allowed to
do so. Do you understand? He could not do it.
Crucify him? Go right ahead, but.........
Judge not (racism) lest ye be judged and let the Baron of the Bluegrass
rest in peace. You never knew him. You never will. He won 876 games
with white boys and he didn't do it with mirrors, but he did do it when
segregation was alive and well in Dixie. Damn it Adolph, you should
have been born in 1950, not 1900! How dare you.........
John (from Paint Lick)
"Old FiftyEight"
UK 84 Seattle 72
The Fiddlers made it to Carnegie Hall and the old racist got his
fourth.
Philip Kasiecki
In article <5gl1j9$d...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
Thomas Cunningham (cunn...@primenet.com) wrote:
: James H. Chandler III <JChand...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: : This is not necessarily true. Being a slave owner does not
: : necessarily equate with being a racist.
: Could you explain your opinion here? Slave owning seems inherently
: racist to me.
I beg to differ on the inherent part- though slave owning seems
inherently degrading, I wouldn't necessarily say it's inherently racist,
being that there have been cases of slaveowners whose slaves were of the
same "race".
: Racism is about power.
This I can certainly agree with, though I think there's more to
racism than just that.
Phil Kasiecki
--
Philip T. Kasiecki
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University Class of 1999
"The more we appreciate our own worth and importance,
the more we are able to recognize and appreciate the
worth and importance of others as well."
-California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem, 1990
Richard Tung
I believe that Rupp stated, after being beaten by UTEP, that the
University of Kentucky still had the best white college basketball
team in the country.
A few more points--judgement should be in context, but how you feel
about certain facts need not be.
A Southerner could have been a slaveowner and not be racist--just as a
German could have fought for the Third Reich and not be evil.
Sharon B Litvin-Schramm
In article <rtung.858729878@merle>,
I wasn't aware that Rupp had taken up arms against black basketball
players. Oh, wait, wasn't he the one that stood in the doorway
to the gym and refused to let blacks in? Maybe he hearded them
into concentration camps! The man was evil incarnate, I realize that
now.
--Marc G. Schramm
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* "It's a universal law -- intolerance is the first sign *
* of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person *
* behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly *
* profound education breeds humility." *
* *
* --*August 1914* *
* Alexander Solzhenitsyn *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jack Baud
Thomas Wigginton
>many of the accounts that I have read about him, he was far from being a
>racist. And before anyone flames me for this opinion, I am Black.
Robert E. Lee actually freed his slaves, and was opposed to slavery.
He fought for Virginia, even though it was a "slave state", because he
was loyal to his state, and wanted to protect it from a foreign
invasion, in his view.
Bernie Spencer
I think if we're going to trash Rupp, we should get in ALL of the
dirt.
He never actively said he was recruiting homosexuals, so he was
obviously a homophobe.
He probably smoked foul cigarettes and not only supported the vile and
evil tobacco companies, but was a pernicious influence on the youth of
the time.
He ate red meat, and ate french fries. Fried in LARD.
He sang My Old Kentucky Home with the original words.
No women ever played for Rupp, so he was certainly chauvenistic.
He lacked the class to drink wine spritzers.
And last but not least he never indroduced the abominable four corners
offense to basketball. Which I haven't read much about this past
week...
Jonathan C. Enslin
Thomas Cunningham <cunn...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Jonathan C. Enslin <ens...@uwwvax.uww.edu> wrote:
>
>: Using your own retroactive view yes. But when Rupp started coaching in
>: the 1930s, how many people would share those ideas regarding racism. My
>: guess is not many.
>
>: Jon
>
>Jon, my counter to this is the old "if everyone else jumped off a bridge,
>would you do it too?" Popular opinion of a time period can't justify
>racist ideology as morally right.
I never said racism was morally right. I'm saying that we shouldn't
judge people in a different social context and expect them coming out
smelling like roses.
>
>The point is, Adolph Rupp might not have been a racist in 1930's
>standards, but we aren't in the 1930's any longer. We should judge him by
>our own standards, not the standards of the day.
That's rediculous. Do you want the people in the 2050s to judge you by
current moral standards, or by theirs?
Jon
Thomas Cunningham
Thomas Wigginton <twi...@mont.mindspring.com> wrote:
: Robert E. Lee actually freed his slaves, and was opposed to slavery.
: He fought for Virginia, even though it was a "slave state", because he
: was loyal to his state, and wanted to protect it from a foreign
: invasion, in his view.
First of all, Tho and I have been arguing not against Rupp per se, but
against the idea that one should be judged SOLELY by the context of the
society and time period in which they live. True heroes have values which
are timeless and universal. Rupp was not a hero.
Second of all, when I argued "the founding fathers" were racist I meant it
literally. I did not pick out George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.
I meant the founding fathers who penned the Constitution. There's a
line in the constitution that each slave be counted as 3/5 of a
man. This is racist, and I welcome any arguments to prove it otherwise.
Third, don't argue with me by using your ignorant Southern pride. If
Robert E. Lee was such a social visionary he wouldn't have fought for the
South. Lee valued the Southern way of life over whatever principle he
might of believed in, which condemns him in my eyes. You can't argue that
the man disliked slavery but fought to preserve it. It is Perryism.
P.S. I'm surprised you didn't manage to drag Lynyrd Skynyrd into this
discussion.
H.B. Elkins
FiftyEight <jlo...@iclub.org> wrote:
>Adolph Rupp was socialized in an enviroment that taught that blacks and
>whites should not play together or even play against each other.
This isn't necessarily true. UK got many NCAA bids in the 1950s and
1960s because the champions of the SEC those years were not allowed to
play against integrated teams. Because the champions could not play
against integrated teams, they turned down the SEC champ's automatic
bid to the NCAA. UK finished second in those years and went to the
NCAA as the conference's representative.
Thomas Cunningham
Jonathan C. Enslin <ens...@uwwvax.uww.edu> wrote:
: >Jon, my counter to this is the old "if everyone else jumped off a bridge,
: >would you do it too?" Popular opinion of a time period can't justify
: >racist ideology as morally right.
: I never said racism was morally right. I'm saying that we shouldn't
: judge people in a different social context and expect them coming out
: smelling like roses.
Jon, there are some things that you should be smart enough to know, in any
social or cultural context. One of them is that you shouldn't jump off a
bridge. Another is that racism is wrong.
: >
: >The point is, Adolph Rupp might not have been a racist in 1930's
: >standards, but we aren't in the 1930's any longer. We should judge him by
: >our own standards, not the standards of the day.
: That's rediculous. Do you want the people in the 2050s to judge you by
: current moral standards, or by theirs?
Theirs. You're ignoring my argument that there is a universal set of moral
beliefs (natural law, the golden rule, the ten commandments) that we
should follow. If I follow these, then I can be judged by people of any
time or culture and not be found wanting.
gelco
In article <01bc33b2$a3648380$cb1d93cf@ken> "Captain Crimson" <kennet...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>From: "Captain Crimson" <kennet...@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: Re: Fuck Adolph Rupp
>Date: 18 Mar 1997 15:42:14 GMT
Bravo, Captain Crimson, (and as a Gator, much respect for the Tide). It's
just like trumping the race card. A lot of blacks can point a finger at a
person or situation and scream "race(ist)" but vice versa is not true. It's
wrong!
Mitchell Owen
How bout killing this thread.. or edit your subject line at the least..
I would hate to have my child reading this subject line.Given the debate
in the courts this week.. isn't a little stupid to be talking about
racism and using the language of the orginal poster...
Enough Said on this one! Kill it.. kill it...
Mitch
--
Mitchell B. Owen ESFJ Spoken Here!
Computer Training Specialist Mitch...@ncsu.edu
URL://www.ces.ncsu.edu/mowen/Mitch_Owen.html
Extension Technology Services (919)515-8448
North Carolina State University (919)515-3777 fax
N.C. Cooperative Extension Service
P.O. Box 7641, Ligon St., NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7641
Thomas Cunningham
Douglas Glass <glas...@quean.cims.nyu.edu> wrote:
: So poor white trash rednecks who don't like blacks aren't racist since the
: only power they have is in their pickup trucks.
No, Doug, they are racist. The color of their skin gives them all the
legal, social, and political power they need to be racist in America.
James H. Chandler III
Chupacabra wrote:
> I think we should concetrate more on the progrss that's been made
> instead of villifying dead men. Let's work toward more equitable
> opportunity for all. Don't try to guarantee success...just the chance.
> If we'll quit fighting about the past and work together for the
> future, that future will be as bright as we care to make it. Comments
> like those of Cobra show a lack of depth and thought. Knee jerk is
> easy, but the changes it brings don't last too long.
>
> Sorry to go on so long,
>
> Eric
>
> E. Schmidt
> University of Tennessee
> Cartographic Information Center
> sch...@aztec.lib.utk.edu
As a fellow UT Alum I say amen to this. The past is dead and can't be
changed. Mistakes and wrongs have been done, and it is unfortunate, but
continuing to beat a dead horse serves no useful purpose. We need to
concentrate more on today and the future rather than the past. Take our
lessons from the past and learn from them, but go on with life and let
sleeping dogs lie.
Dan Adkins
Thomas Cunningham wrote:
>
> Thomas Wigginton <twi...@mont.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> : Robert E. Lee actually freed his slaves, and was opposed to slavery.
> : He fought for Virginia, even though it was a "slave state", because he
> : was loyal to his state, and wanted to protect it from a foreign
> : invasion, in his view.
>
> First of all, Tho and I have been arguing not against Rupp per se, but
> against the idea that one should be judged SOLELY by the context of the
> society and time period in which they live. True heroes have values which
> are timeless and universal. Rupp was not a hero.
Ah. I see.
Then by your definition, Abraham Lincoln does not qualify as a hero. He
repeatedly emphasized the point of the Civil War was not to eliminate
slavery, but to preserve the Union. Also, when he issued the
Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln worded it to outlaw slavery only in
those regions that were not in Union hands. Obviously, in your line of
thinking, Lincoln was a cad whose legacy should be repudiated.
Using your thinking, there are no heroes. After all, each of us, man
and woman alike, have some foibles that ultimately level us.
>
> Second of all, when I argued "the founding fathers" were racist I meant it
> literally. I did not pick out George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.
> I meant the founding fathers who penned the Constitution. There's a
> line in the constitution that each slave be counted as 3/5 of a
> man. This is racist, and I welcome any arguments to prove it otherwise.
Absolutely it was racist, and it was there in order to build a consensus
upon which a nation could be built. Eventually, that nation repudiated
that section. And why do you exclude Washington and Jefferson from
being racist? Both were among the men who penned the Constitution, and
both were slaveholders.
The point that I and others have tried to make, and which you seem
unable or unwilling to grasp, is that people are prisoners of the
overriding views of the times that produced them. There are very few
true visionaries who see issues beyond those that pervade the popular
culture. In a few years, as I said to Tho, you will look back and be
appalled at some of the ideas that are so common today -- ideas that you
embrace today, I imagine.
>
> Third, don't argue with me by using your ignorant Southern pride. If
> Robert E. Lee was such a social visionary he wouldn't have fought for the
> South. Lee valued the Southern way of life over whatever principle he
> might of believed in, which condemns him in my eyes. You can't argue that
> the man disliked slavery but fought to preserve it. It is Perryism.
Idiot! Lee fought to protect *Virginia*. Whether you realize it or not,
the view of the "nation" was quite different 150 years ago than what it
is today. When the United States emerged as an independent nation, the
states generally viewed themselves as sovereign. It was the issues of
having a common currency and sufficient national defense that prompted
it to unite behind the Constitution; Lee's view was shared not only by
Southern states but Northern states as well; any reading of the
controvery during 1860-64 about the reluctance of Northern citizens to
get fully behind the Union's efforts would reveal this.
Now, can we get back to roundball?
Dan
tho quy truong
Ok, one more then I promise to stick to hoops :)
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Dan Adkins wrote:
> > society and time period in which they live. True heroes have values which
> > are timeless and universal. Rupp was not a hero.
> Using your thinking, there are no heroes. After all, each of us, man
> and woman alike, have some foibles that ultimately level us.
Well, yeah; your argument seems to presuppose that there must be heroes or
it's a Bad Thing (not to have heroes). (Perhaps our
definitions of "hero" are different and we need to clarify...).
Personally, I don't believe there are true heroes for the very reasons
you just mentioned (as far as humans go anyway, for those of you who are
theists). I think people should appreciate others' unique
abilities and perhaps even accept a certain amount of "guidance" (concrete
guidance, as with parent(s) or inspirational, etc) from others-- but this is
quite different from unconditional, unquestioned admiration and respect
for the character and values of this person. And not that I am dissing
the character and values of anyone from the past-- I can't know them..etc.
> true visionaries who see issues beyond those that pervade the popular
> culture. In a few years, as I said to Tho, you will look back and be
> appalled at some of the ideas that are so common today -- ideas that you
> embrace today, I imagine.
I am 'appalled' at many of the views held today, but you'd have to be more
specific about which view (you think) I (or Thomas) embrace that future
folks will be appalled at. Not that I am asserting that none of my ideas are
incorrect or potentially appalling, but there are time-related issues and
then there are time-independent values, and it doesn't seem that this
distinction is clear to you (you might not believe there is a
distinction, in which case I understand our differences, but right now I
don't). For me, slavery is a time-related issue, but respecting folks
enough not to owe then is a time-independent value-- this value is more
clear now but was less clear then (even then, there were people who hotly
contested the ethics of slavery). If there is a "wrong value" that I hold
now because I am ignorant as Rupp was ignorant in his time, then I accept
being judged in the future as immoral by those future standards....the
way I see it, this is all the more reason why we should take time to
think about how we are living, what we are (not) doing, and evaluate the
validity of our accepted beliefs.. etc. So perhaps this is where we differ.
> Now, can we get back to roundball?
I think it's generally a good thing that we are discussing this, even if
it's on r.s.b.c. b/c I don't believe it's entirely irrelevant...sports
and culture are connected...
.....sooo....what are your thoughts on the Texas-Louisville match-up
(feel free to start another, more sports-obvious thread). Living in the
Midwest, I don't get much info about the Longhorns.
Tho Truong
Texas-Ex
Golfer
FiftyEight wrote:
>
> The gentleman who started this thread wanted to arouse some folk and he
> accomplished that.
>
> May he .................well you know....
>
> I will make these points.
>
> Yes, Kentucky did have a Day law that prohibited blacks from attending
> UK.
>
> The SEC was a horribly RACIST conference until the 1970's!
> (The ACC was little better)
>
I haven't read all the threads on this post, but there is a significant
difference in Rupp's wins and Smith's. Rupp had a 20 year run in the
SEC with no, and I mean no competition. Also, were there not some NCAA
violations during his watch? If there weren't, Bobby Knight always
thought so(read "Season on the Brink").
Thomas Cunningham
Richard Tung <rt...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
: A few more points--judgement should be in context, but how you feel
: about certain facts need not be.
There's a universal set of principles that one's actions should be judged
by. Call it natural law, the golden rule, the ten commandments - whatever.
It is still there.
: A Southerner could have been a slaveowner and not be racist--just as a
: German could have fought for the Third Reich and not be evil.
Ok, let me see if I get this straight....a German soldier could have
killed innocent Jews and not be evil? A man could degrade another man by
OWNING him and not be racist? Doesn't make any sense to me.
Jonathan C. Enslin
>: >
>: >The point is, Adolph Rupp might not have been a racist in 1930's
>: >standards, but we aren't in the 1930's any longer. We should judge him by
>: >our own standards, not the standards of the day.
>
>: That's rediculous. Do you want the people in the 2050s to judge you by
>: current moral standards, or by theirs?
>
>Theirs. You're ignoring my argument that there is a universal set of moral
>beliefs (natural law, the golden rule, the ten commandments) that we
>should follow. If I follow these, then I can be judged by people of any
>time or culture and not be found wanting.
You hang out in your theoretical, Platonic world....I prefer my
realistic, Aristotlian one.
Jon
(How's that for a post!)
James Hagan
Wes Morgan wrote:
>
> In article <5ge39f$4...@ratty.wolfe.net>, <co...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
> > In the orgy of media hype and hoopla attending Dean Smith's eclipse of
> >the Adolph Rupp record, the ugly reality of Rupp gets lost and obscured.
> >
> > Throughout his entire coaching career Adolph Rupp was a virulent,
> >anti-Black, racist scumbag bigot.
>
> I'm going to ask what surely must be an idiotic question, but that
> rarely stops anyone in this particular forum...
>
> I've been reading this newsgroup for over a decade, and I don't recall
> seeing many "Rupp was a bigot" postings until Smith approached the NCAA
> record. Then, as we all know, the virulence came out of the woodwork.
>
> My question is a simple one. Why aren't you folks painting *EVERY*
> coach of that time with the racism brush? After all, Rupp was one
> of several hundred coaches during that time; doesn't each of them
> deserve their share of retroactive guilt/invective/blame? Even Dean
> Smith kept all-white teams for his first 5-6 years, I believe; why
> aren't you villifying *him*? What about the NCAA executives, uni-
> versity presidents and conference commissioners? If you apply the
> same yardstick to them, were they not just as guilty as Rupp *and*
> Smith? Are you simply villifying Rupp in response to his success?
>
> There has been much discussion of Rupp's position on race, as well as
> that of the various conferences and the NCAA, in any number of texts.
> Let it rest. Most of the folks playing NCAA basketball today weren't
> even *born* when Rupp was coaching - and *none* of them were alive
> when Rupp (and Smith) had their last all-white teams.
>
> Was it ugly? Yes. Was it wrong? Yes. Is it over? I think so, at
> least as far as collegiate athletics is concerned. Do you folks need
> to address *today's* problems of race, instead of dwelling on events
> 30+ years past? Yes.
>
> --Wes
>
> --
> Wes Morgan Network Engineer Databeam Corporation wmo...@databeam.com
> My 3-year-old won't even let me speak for her - you *know* DataBeam won't.
> Well, evil has been routed, and the babysitter's been paid!
> Fight Internet Spam! http://www.vix.com/spam for more information...
No-not every coach was bigoted like Rump. U of L recruited Wade Houston
years before UK had its first black player.
James Hagan
bp...@voy.net wrote:
>
> co...@wolfenet.com wrote:
> >
> > In the orgy of media hype and hoopla attending Dean Smith's eclipse of
> > the Adolph Rupp record, the ugly reality of Rupp gets lost and obscured.
> >
> > Throughout his entire coaching career Adolph Rupp was a virulent,
> > the outrage by naming a building in his honor. Ironically, Rupp would be
> > spinning in his grave if he knew a bunch of "nigras" were currently
> > playing basketball representing the University of Kentucky. So much
> > historical truth has been hidden and glossed over by revisionist history
> > and mass media glorification of that bastard. As a consequence,
> > unfortunately few, if any, of the African-American players on the Kentucky
> > team are even aware of the vile putrid nature and loathsome character of
> > the man, after whom the basketball arena is named.
> >
> > Fuck Adolph Rupp; may he continue to rot in hell forever.
>
>
> "[Adolph Rupp] A racist? No. He'd never had a black player and in 1966
> reached the national championship game against all-black Texas Western.
> But Rupp, born in 1901 to German immigrants in southeast Kansas, was no
> more and no less than a man of his time and place. He coached black
> players in high school, coached against college teams with black
> players, and he recruited a black the same year Bear Bryant recruited
> his first. Thirty years younger, more socially conscious, in his fifth
> year at North Carolina, Dean Smith also had an all-white team the
> '65-'66 season."
U of L had black players before UNC and Ky-being and one of their first
is in the Hall of Fame-Wes Unseld. Rump would like to have has Butch
Beard, but being a racist it was not enough to recruit him hard. Ky is
still red neck territory. Who appointed this Atlanta Journal writer
spokesman for basketball history.
R D Winthrop
"Captain Crimson" <kennet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote on 17 Mar 1997 :
> A lot of nigras should be appreciating the fact he gave them the
> opportunity to play in the NBA. But I guess he OWED that to them anyway
> huh?
Just for points of fact:
1. No one "gives" any college player the opportunity to play in the
NBA -- it is pure economic exchange, my scholarshuip for your talent.
2. Tom Payne was Rupp's onnly scholarship African-American, and he
was recruited by assistant Joe Hall. He left after one year.
3. As a state university with open enrollment, for the University to
deny admission based solely on race is indeed a denial of something "owed"
the taxpayer, including those who happen to be African-Americans.
Beyond that, the language of the post adds nothing to anyone's
understanding of anything, much less their humanity. And no, it isn't the
least bit charming, witty, or funny.
Regards - RDW
RDWin...@mail.arrownet.com
R D Winthrop
Friends,
I'm not interested in either defending or condemning Adolph Rupp or his
institution as racist or not, although it is clear that UK did retain its
segregated status until well into the 1960's. What role Rupp may or may not
have played is immaterial to larger questions of social equity which reach
far beyond the basketball court and which I will let lie, undisturbed.
However, two responses to these recent comments:
> Fact: Rupp encouraged UK fans who might not be, shall we say,
> receptive to people of opposite skin color, to be polite to black
> players whenever UK faced a black opponent.
I don't recall anything like this during my time at the University
(1966-1970), the time during which African American athletes were
integrating the SEC and appearing at Memorial Coliseum. I may be wrong, or
I may just not be aware of such statements (and I'm in no posit tion to say
he didn't do so), but I simply have no recollection of anything of the
sort.
> Fact: Rupp recruited black players in the 1960s including Westley
> Unseld and Clem Haskins, but they chose not to come to UK. Tom Payne
> was the first black player who chose UK. In that day, UK primarily
> recruited Kentucky and surrounding states (particularly Ohio, Indiana
> and Illinois).
This is debatable -- I have heard Haskins, Wesley Unseld, and Butch Beard
all dismiss UK recruiting as token and insincere and have a tape of Rupp's
after-the-fact comments on the topic in which he STILL refers to these
recruits as "boys," a choice of term which I have to accept as intentional
in the context.
I also remember Rupp's commenting following the Texas Western loss that
black players would not play at UK ...
>Fact: There were other all-white teams in 1966. What if one of them
>had reached the NCAA finals against Texas Western? Would this "Rupp as
>racist" charge then be replaced with "Coach X as racist?" I recently
>read that North Carolina's 1966 team was all-white. What if UNC had
>made the finals against Texas Western? Would it then be Dean Smith
>that was unfairly given the racist label?
Duke, who UK beat in the semi's, would have filled the bill - UNC didn't
make the 16-team tourney that year, but they did in '67 with a segregated
team. Charlie Scott's appearance on the 1968 UNC tourney team was, I
think, the first for the ACC (Yes, Kentucky's roster that was still
segregated also).
I should point out that in 1966, my freshman year at UK, there were less
than twn African-American students on campus -- coming from integrated
northeastern school systems, this was quite to shock to me. This began to
change the following year in which there was a substantial increase in
AfrAm students.
Despite the 1954 Brown v. Board decision which marked the beginning of the
end for public segregation in the US, no state of the "deep south" was
anywhere near desegregating their university systems in 1966. (Hell, in
1992 both Louisiana and Mississippi had their university systems ruled
"segregated" by unanimous decision of Supreme Court in suit which stretched
back about 15 years! -- so much for "all deliberate speed").
But let's not blame the basketball coach (and NO, I am NOT condemning the
South so don't respond on that level, please!).
Regards - RDW
RRDWi...@mail.arrownet.com
tho quy truong
(ok, I lied...one more post on this then I'll stop)
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, James H. Chandler III wrote:
> > like those of Cobra show a lack of depth and thought. Knee jerk is
> > easy, but the changes it brings don't last too long.
> >
> continuing to beat a dead horse serves no useful purpose. We need to
> concentrate more on today and the future rather than the past. Take our
> lessons from the past and learn from them, but go on with life and let
> sleeping dogs lie.
I agree that we should "go on with life", but it seems that you are
accepting that the past does not impact the present and the future. Part
of "taking our lessons from the past" (IMO) means respecting the fact that
what happened in the past may very well underlie the ills of the present and
even future problems. Believe it or not, it means alot to some people if
this were realized more folks. In this frame of reference, the horse is
not dead. (my apologies to animal rights people :)
Tho Truong
Thomas Cunningham
Dan Adkins <dra...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
: Then by your definition, Abraham Lincoln does not qualify as a hero. He
: repeatedly emphasized the point of the Civil War was not to eliminate
: slavery, but to preserve the Union. Also, when he issued the
: Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln worded it to outlaw slavery only in
: those regions that were not in Union hands. Obviously, in your line of
: thinking, Lincoln was a cad whose legacy should be repudiated.
No, I never said that, and this seems to me a dubious argument.
: Using your thinking, there are no heroes. After all, each of us, man
: and woman alike, have some foibles that ultimately level us.
Probably. Rupp's was that he was a racist.
: Absolutely it was racist, and it was there in order to build a consensus
: upon which a nation could be built. Eventually, that nation repudiated
: that section. And why do you exclude Washington and Jefferson from
: being racist? Both were among the men who penned the Constitution, and
: both were slaveholders.
Someone sent me mail about Washington and Jefferson. It's easier not to
cloud the issue by naming names, and just hit to the heart of the argument
with the Constitution.
: The point that I and others have tried to make, and which you seem
: unable or unwilling to grasp, is that people are prisoners of the
: overriding views of the times that produced them.
So Jesus Christ, St. Augustine, Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, St. Paul,
and Mother Theresa were prisoners of the overriding views of the times
that produced them? I think not.
: culture. In a few years, as I said to Tho, you will look back and be
: appalled at some of the ideas that are so common today -- ideas that you
: embrace today, I imagine.
Probably, but I don't condone anything as heinous as segregation.
: > Third, don't argue with me by using your ignorant Southern pride. If
: > Robert E. Lee was such a social visionary he wouldn't have fought for the
: > South. Lee valued the Southern way of life over whatever principle he
: > might of believed in, which condemns him in my eyes. You can't argue that
: > the man disliked slavery but fought to preserve it. It is Perryism.
: Idiot! Lee fought to protect *Virginia*. Whether you realize it or not,
: the view of the "nation" was quite different 150 years ago than what it
: is today. When the United States emerged as an independent nation, the
: states generally viewed themselves as sovereign. It was the issues of
: having a common currency and sufficient national defense that prompted
: it to unite behind the Constitution; Lee's view was shared not only by
: Southern states but Northern states as well; any reading of the
: controvery during 1860-64 about the reluctance of Northern citizens to
: get fully behind the Union's efforts would reveal this.
Exactly! Lee saw the cultural issues as secondary to the economic ones.
Another poster brought up Lee, saying that he was some sort of social
visionary. Hardly.
: Now, can we get back to roundball?
There's plenty of roundball being discussed outside of this thread. If you
don't like the thread, don't read it.
Philip Kasiecki
In article <5go80l$2...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
Thomas Cunningham (cunn...@primenet.com) wrote:
I agree that they are racist- but this statement leaves me with a
question- do you feel that Blacks cannot be racist?
Phil "don't tell me he believes *that* bullshit" Kasiecki
Chupacabra
co...@wolfenet.com wrote:
> In the orgy of media hype and hoopla attending Dean Smith's eclipse of
> the Adolph Rupp record, the ugly reality of Rupp gets lost and obscured.
> Throughout his entire coaching career ...
> ...
> F.. Adolph Rupp; may he continue to rot in hell forever.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Lester McClane first walked onto Shields-Watkins Field in
a Tennessee football uniform, he was our first black player ever - and
one of the first in the SEC. When Condredge Holloway took his first
snap from center in a varsity game for Tennessee, he became the SEC's
first black quarterback. Did their timely inclusion in the American
institution of big league college football somehow make Tennessee any
less guilty of keeping with the racial status quo up to that time?
We were the first SEC school to have a black coach of a major
men's athletic program. Wade Houston took over our basketball program
after Don Devoe's tenure and broke new ground for the SEC. (Arkansas
came into the SEC with Nolan Richardson.) Does his hire wash us clean
of any kind of racial guilt?
We've had black athletes for years. We've had black coaches
for years (assistants and a head coach). Have we paid our debt? Are we
clean now? We did our part to brake some racial barriers. When it was
the philosophy of most NCAA coaches (not just in the SEC) to assume
that quarterback was too intellectual a position for blacks, there was
Holloway winning games - not to mention the hearts of the Tennessee
faithful. He's still loved today, and he lives here in town. Are we
free to go on now? Wade Houston broke ground for Tubby Smith and those
who will follow in the SEC head coaching ranks. Can we be excused?
Is every pre-integration coach guilty and every post integration coach
clean? What about Georgetown having an all black basketball squad. Is
that because their coach is black? Should each team be compelled to
have other ethnic groups on the squad? Asian, hispanic, white, and
middle eastern recruiting has really dropped off. Is this OK?
Are there enough ethnic minority head coaches in the NCAA today?
Define enough. Should there be a representative number that has been
established by the NCAA? If we do that, once that number is reached
then would new qualified minority coaches would be required to sit and
wait? Can't exceed the quota, now can we?
I agree with those in this thread who have asserted that we must work
on the problems of today. Coach Rupp's charactor is subject for debate
between those who knew him and those who would hold him up as the
embodiment of all that was wrong with pre-integration college
athletics. Maybe he was just that and maybe he wasn't. I suspect it
was somewhere in the middle, but probably closer to him being
restricted in what he could and couldn't do by his AD. I've never
heard of any college coach who had nearly as much control over who he
recruits as he'd like to have.
Today's problems are pretty hot and heavy on their own. We've got
underclassmen jumping out of school thereby devaluing school in the
eyes of kids who look up to them so. I agree with Charles Barkley that
it's not his job to raise our kids and be their example. But by the
same token, to think that the kids aren't watching is just not
realistic. More timely is the discussion of race in TODAY's athletics.
Chris Webber's attack on Gene Stallings on ESPN was out of line, but
it was typical to the kind of knee-jerk cage rattling that this
"Cobra" person is spouting. Webber's assertion that Stallings only
goes to the ghetto to recruit kids is a pointless comment. So what?
How often does Webber go back to the ghetto now that he's a
millionaire? Was he even from the ghetto in the first place? The kids
who get recruited from the ghetto don't often hesitate or seem to
resent getting the opprtunity to go to college and play. How many
minority kids do you hear of turning down scholarships to Michigan
because they don't care to be expointed by "The Man"? Not many...if
any. Webber's comment has no bearing and makes no point. It was just
good for a knee-jerk crowd reaction. I think that that's all Cobra's
comments were good for too.
I think we should concetrate more on the progrss that's been made
instead of villifying dead men. Let's work toward more equitable
opportunity for all. Don't try to guarantee success...just the chance.
If we'll quit fighting about the past and work together for the
future, that future will be as bright as we care to make it. Comments
like those of Cobra show a lack of depth and thought. Knee jerk is
easy, but the changes it brings don't last too long.
Sorry to go on so long,
John Kohlstrand
This has been a fascinating thread, by the way. A lot of good points
from several different directions, including people I tend to disagree
with.
hb-e...@mis.net (H.B. Elkins) wrote:
>Second, no one has ever conclusively proved that Rupp was a racist.
>This is one of those "guilty until proven innocent" deals, and since
I do not follow Kentucky as closely as many of you, but from what
I've seen in the past few weeks, it seems pretty clear Rupp's
worldview was not exactly modern.
Elsewhere in this thread, he is quoted as saying after the Texas-El
Paso loss that he still had the best all-white team in America. That's
pretty tellling.
>Fact: Rupp recruited black players in the 1960s including Westley
>Unseld and Clem Haskins, but they chose not to come to UK. Tom Payne
>was the first black player who chose UK. In that day, UK primarily
>recruited Kentucky and surrounding states (particularly Ohio, Indiana
>and Illinois).
A recent newspaper article, perhaps from the Washington Post, hinted
that Rupp had a black recruit ready to sign during this time period.
It fell through when Rupp refused to enter the boy's house and meet
the family, instead insisting that the document be signed outdoors.
Considering that it was the Post, I wonder if that story is told by
Unseld. Dunno. The paper described it as a "rumor" and did not source
it.
I raise this only to again speak to whether Rupp's views were modern,
or not.
To sum:
I can understand the arguments that Rupp has been singled out a bit
because of the UTEP game. Lots of coaches appeared no better.
And I understand that he probably had tunnel vision about basketball.
He may have been one of basketball's winnest coaches, but he was just
a coach. I guess it offends me far more that members of Congress had
some of the same attitudes.
(Check out who voted against the Civil Rights Act some time. It's
pretty incredible.)
On the other hand, this is worth talking about. We shouldn't forget
how things were. And, without delving into philosophy, what's wrong
*is* wrong, even if a lot of people failed to realize it 40 years ago
and/or lacked the courage to act on their convictions. Comparing it to
whether Rupp smoked a lot or ate lots of red meat completely
trivalizes the issue. We shouldn't forget this element of Rupp's
legacy.
I would never say Rupp doesn't belong in a college basketball hall of
fame. He won a lot of games. But to me, a Yankee, I guess I have to
wonder if naming an arena after him is in somewhat poor taste. His
tendencies in race relations are almost as widely known as his
prowness as a coach. I would not the name of a man of similar
character gracing the sports facilities at Bowling Green
This has got me wondering about Harold Anderson (Arena) and Doyt Perry
(Stadium), however...
John Kohlstrand
Utica, N.Y. USA
Bowling Green '92
gelco
In article <01bc3549$911fdb00$961d93cf@ken> "Captain Crimson" <kennet...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>From: "Captain Crimson" <kennet...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: 20 Mar 1997 16:15:12 GMT
>> Just for points of fact:
>>
>> 1. No one "gives" any college player the opportunity to play in the
>> NBA -- it is pure economic exchange, my scholarshuip for your talent.
>I think the opportunity is given because any recruitment selection could
>have been overlooked and replaced with another. The operative words here
>are "selective opportunity". The exchange doesn't take place until the
>selection is made.
>> 2. Tom Payne was Rupp's onnly scholarship African-American, and he
>> was recruited by assistant Joe Hall. He left after one year.
>Why do blacks have to use the term African-American? I have Irish, German
>and Scottish roots but I don't call myself Irish-American or
>German-American or....well you get the point. What really gets me is all
>the crying and moaning of equality in this country but yet minority groups
>continually use seperatist terms. Why can't African-Americans just be
>Americans? Why do blacks have their own flag? Why do blacks fly the flag of
>the mythical African nation? Where is the African nation? Africa is made up
>of many nations. Why then have blacks complained about states like GA and
>SC and AL flying the confederate flag above the capital buildings? Double
>standards.
I always wondered about this. You have as much right to be referred to as
"Euro-American" as any black does to be called "African-American". I was in
Jamaca last Summer, believe me, they do not refer to themselves as
African-Americans and will take offense if so addressed.
>> 3. As a state university with open enrollment, for the University to
>> deny admission based solely on race is indeed a denial of something
>"owed"
>> the taxpayer, including those who happen to be African-Americans.
>So do we also "owe" the taxpayers a quota of minorities under affimative
>action guidelines and deny the rights to middle class white "Americans" who
>may be more deserving? If the quota is not representative of the taxpayer
>base then who is actually discriminated against?
>> Beyond that, the language of the post adds nothing to anyone's
>> understanding of anything, much less their humanity. And no, it isn't the
>> least bit charming, witty, or funny.
>Beyond that your arguments fall flat on their ass and provide no valuable
>input to this discussion.
Captain Crimson
> Just for points of fact:
>
> 1. No one "gives" any college player the opportunity to play in the
> NBA -- it is pure economic exchange, my scholarshuip for your talent.
I think the opportunity is given because any recruitment selection could
have been overlooked and replaced with another. The operative words here
are "selective opportunity". The exchange doesn't take place until the
selection is made.
> 2. Tom Payne was Rupp's onnly scholarship African-American, and he
> was recruited by assistant Joe Hall. He left after one year.
Why do blacks have to use the term African-American? I have Irish, German
and Scottish roots but I don't call myself Irish-American or
German-American or....well you get the point. What really gets me is all
the crying and moaning of equality in this country but yet minority groups
continually use seperatist terms. Why can't African-Americans just be
Americans? Why do blacks have their own flag? Why do blacks fly the flag of
the mythical African nation? Where is the African nation? Africa is made up
of many nations. Why then have blacks complained about states like GA and
SC and AL flying the confederate flag above the capital buildings? Double
standards.
> 3. As a state university with open enrollment, for the University to
Dan Adkins
James Hagan wrote:
> >
> > Somebody else wrote: I quote Dave Kindred in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
> >
> > "[Adolph Rupp] A racist? No. He'd never had a black player and in 1966
> > reached the national championship game against all-black Texas Western.
Ky is
> still red neck territory. Who appointed this Atlanta Journal writer
> spokesman for basketball history.
Then again, Jimmy, who appointed you? Dave Kindred, who has written for
the Louisville Courier-Journal (I used to read it when I was growing up
in Kentucky; yesss, we do learn to read), the Washington Post and still
writes for the Sporting News as well as the AJC.
He gets paid for his sports knowledge and opinions.
Do you?
Sorry, unfair question; it's obvious you don't.
Dan
Dan Adkins
Thomas Cunningham wrote:
>
> : The point that I and others have tried to make, and which you seem
> : unable or unwilling to grasp, is that people are prisoners of the
> : overriding views of the times that produced them.
>
> So Jesus Christ, St. Augustine, Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, St. Paul,
> and Mother Theresa were prisoners of the overriding views of the times
> that produced them? I think not.
Well, given your comments on slavery and the Constitution, etc., let me
ask you this: cite me a passage of Scripture where Jesus denounces
slavery. Same for Paul and Augustine.
I do not question the veracity of your belief that Jesus, Paul and
Augustine stood apart from the common views of their times. Is it my
understanding, then, that you fault Adolph Rupp for not being on the
same level of Jesus, Paul and Augustine? of Mother Theresa?
Another question: Have you seen the good Mother coach a college
basketball team? I'd like to see the tape...
Dan
Thomas Cunningham
Jeff Phelps <dontwan...@my.net> wrote:
: Changing what the civil war was over to suit you particular whims is called
: revisionism. Unless you know exactly what Lee's motivations were how do you
: presume to tell us what he fought for?
No, but you don't know enough about Rupp's motivations either.
Thomas Wigginton
Thomas Cunningham <cunn...@primenet.com> wrote:
>First of all, Tho and I have been arguing not against Rupp per se, but
>against the idea that one should be judged SOLELY by the context of the
>society and time period in which they live. True heroes have values which
>are timeless and universal. Rupp was not a hero.
No disagreement there, except that Rupp is a hero to many UK fans for
good reason. He was a great basketball coach.
>Second of all, when I argued "the founding fathers" were racist I meant it
>literally. I did not pick out George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.
>I meant the founding fathers who penned the Constitution. There's a
>line in the constitution that each slave be counted as 3/5 of a
>man. This is racist, and I welcome any arguments to prove it otherwise.
Again, no disagreement. The founding fathers had many good points,
but were weak on racial issues. Thomas Jefferson was of two minds in
that he opposed slavery, but owned slaves.
>Third, don't argue with me by using your ignorant Southern pride.
You show yourself to be a hypocrite here. By being against racism,
but against Southerners having pride in their heritage, and calling it
"ignorant", you demonstrate your ignorance and prejudice. One can be
proud of one's southern heritage and respect the heritage of others.
Remember, Black Americans made great contributions to Southern Culture
and are part of it.
>If Robert E. Lee was such a social visionary he wouldn't have fought for the
>South. Lee valued the Southern way of life over whatever principle he
>might of believed in, which condemns him in my eyes. You can't argue that
>the man disliked slavery but fought to preserve it. It is Perryism.
Lee did not fight to preserve slavery, he fought to preserve the
freedom of his state against what he saw as a foreign invader. To do
otherwise would have been treason. BTW, what is Perryism, some
fancy-pants socialogical term?
>P.S. I'm surprised you didn't manage to drag Lynyrd Skynyrd into this
>discussion.
Lynyrd Skynyrd has nothing to do with it, although they did record
some excellent songs.
Tom Wigginton
twi...@mont.mindspring.com
GO GATORS!!!
I don't have any stupid quotes
Wild Cat
On 15 Mar 1997 12:05:03 GMT, co...@wolfenet.com wrote:
> In the orgy of media hype and hoopla attending Dean Smith's eclipse of
>the Adolph Rupp record, the ugly reality of Rupp gets lost and obscured.
>
> Throughout his entire coaching career Adolph Rupp was a virulent,
>anti-Black, racist scumbag bigot. The University of Kentucky compounded
>the outrage by naming a building in his honor. Ironically, Rupp would be
>spinning in his grave if he knew a bunch of "nigras" were currently
>playing basketball representing the University of Kentucky. So much
>historical truth has been hidden and glossed over by revisionist history
>and mass media glorification of that bastard. As a consequence,
>unfortunately few, if any, of the African-American players on the Kentucky
>team are even aware of the vile putrid nature and loathsome character of
>the man, after whom the basketball arena is named.
>
> Fuck Adolph Rupp; may he continue to rot in hell forever.
>
Please, will people ever stop hounding the dead on issues that were
not issues in their time? Who in their right mind cares if Rupp was a
racist or not?
He is dead, that is in the past and beyond our control therefore it is
a waste of time.
In todays world we tend to overlook the quirks of the successfull in
deference to their talent level. Perhaps that would be an issue for a
current debate, more so than an event of 20, 50, 100 or more years
ago.
Thomas Wigginton
Thomas Cunningham <cunn...@primenet.com> wrote:
>No, Doug, they are racist. The color of their skin gives them all the
>legal, social, and political power they need to be racist in America.
The skin color and amount of power (or lack thereof) has nothing to do
with whether someone is a racist or not. Racism is a disease of the
soul, and racists come in all colors, races, ethnic groups, economic
levels, etc. You find racists in the country clubs and in the slums,
at both Klan meetings and Nation of Islam meetings.
H.B. Elkins
RDWin...@mail.arrownet.com (R D Winthrop) wrote:
>This is debatable -- I have heard Haskins, Wesley Unseld, and Butch Beard
>all dismiss UK recruiting as token and insincere and have a tape of Rupp's
>after-the-fact comments on the topic in which he STILL refers to these
>recruits as "boys," a choice of term which I have to accept as intentional
>in the context.
Rupp called all the players "boys" back then. Didn't the term "boy"
figure prominently in his discussion of the 1958 "Fiddlin' Five?" As
in "these boys would make fine fiddlers at a barn dance, but you need
violinists to play at Carnegie Hall."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Winchester, KY
"You must have the courage to believe the truth!" -- Rush H. Limbaugh III
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball & #3 Dale Earnhardt -- A Championship Combination
hbel...@mis.net <or> HB...@aol.com
(Please note: there is a spam-buster in my reply-to address.
To reply by private E-mail,use one of the addresses above)
http://www.users.mis.net/~hbelkins (site under construction
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Douglas Glass
Coder (ye...@right.com) wrote:
: On 17 Mar 1997 20:19:05 -0700, Thomas Cunningham
: <cunn...@primenet.com> wrote:
: >James H. Chandler III <JChand...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: >
: >: This is not necessarily true. Being a slave owner does not necessarily
: >: equate with being a racist.
: >
: >Could you explain your opinion here? Slave owning seems inherently racist
: >to me. Racism is about power.
: Oh, contrar...Racism is about disliking what another person is or is
: not compared to one's self, i.e. race. The most powerful person at
: one time in history, Hitler, was not necessarily a racist.
Um...he despised everyone who wasn't Aryan (blond hair, blue eyes, etc.)
considered Jews to be a race that was the lowest of the low that were to
be despised and destroyed. If there were more dark skinned people in
central Europe, they would have easily been wiped out without a second
thought, although not with the viciousness that was used against the Jews.
So, since he (and most Germans) considered Jews to be a race (we're a
religion), he was definitely racist. The ironic thing was that (I think)
his mother was Jewish which makes him Jewish according to tradition. But
that was predicted a long time ago in the old testament since he (and a
few others who tried to exterminate the Jews) were said to be descended
from Eisau (Jacob's brother) if I remember correctly.
: I can be the most lowly of people and still be a racist. I can be ANY
: color and be racist. Hell, I can be anything and be prejudice (the
: root of all racism) against any other thing.
: Rupp was following the social standard. No OTHER school had
: African-American students in the South at that time, here in Alabama,
: we were ignorant enough to allow voted upon politicians to stand in
: the doorways to prevent it. Our ancesters followed what was taught to
: them, racism. Thank God a new generation for the most part (you'll
: always have those unwilling to change) are more educated and socially
: understaning. Congratulations to the Dean of College Basketball!
Rupp was a little more than just following the social standard from what I
understand, but he wasn't as bad as most make him out to be.
Thomas Cunningham
Thomas Wigginton <twi...@mont.mindspring.com> wrote:
: >If Robert E. Lee was such a social visionary he wouldn't have fought for the
: >South. Lee valued the Southern way of life over whatever principle he
: >might of believed in, which condemns him in my eyes. You can't argue that
: >the man disliked slavery but fought to preserve it. It is Perryism.
: Lee did not fight to preserve slavery, he fought to preserve the
: freedom of his state against what he saw as a foreign invader. To do
: otherwise would have been treason. BTW, what is Perryism, some
: fancy-pants socialogical term?
Hardly.
Thomas Cunningham
Dan Adkins <dra...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
: Thomas Cunningham wrote:
: >
: > : The point that I and others have tried to make, and which you seem
: > : unable or unwilling to grasp, is that people are prisoners of the
: > : overriding views of the times that produced them.
: >
: > So Jesus Christ, St. Augustine, Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, St. Paul,
: > and Mother Theresa were prisoners of the overriding views of the times
: > that produced them? I think not.
: Well, given your comments on slavery and the Constitution, etc., let me
: ask you this: cite me a passage of Scripture where Jesus denounces
: slavery. Same for Paul and Augustine.
Give it up - you are totally changing your argument. You said "people are
prisoners of the overriding views of the times that produced them." Jesus'
views on gender and race are clearly different than the ones of his time
period (this goes for the others I mentioned too).
: I do not question the veracity of your belief that Jesus, Paul and
: Augustine stood apart from the common views of their times. Is it my
: understanding, then, that you fault Adolph Rupp for not being on the
: same level of Jesus, Paul and Augustine? of Mother Theresa?
No, but I fault Adolph Rupp if he was on the same plain of thought as the
southern man of the 1950's.
mailyman
This is one of those "accepted truths" that rests on taking historical
events out of context. It is always forgotten that the Northern states
wanted slaves counted as ZERO for purposes of population. The two sections
were fighting over House of Rep representation, and the southerners wanted
the slaves counted as full persons so they'd have more reps. The
northerners wanted them not to count at all.
Obviously, slaves were disenfranchised, but so were women. The north was
happy to count women as full people but not blacks.
Thus, one shouldn't blame the south for the particular number--their
approach would have given blacks the status of full persons at least for
electoral purposes. So, 3/5 was a compromise. Which attitude was more
racist?
I think both attitudes were racist, myself. What really happened is that
both sections tried to manipulate the racist aspect of slavery to their own
purposes.
History lesson over. The regional semi's are beginning!
mailyman
Actually, most German soldiers were not involved in the Holocaust directly
--meaning your comment about killing Jews.
And, historically, slavery has almost always been economically and
social/cultural. Imposed on conquered people by the conquerors. But
Greeks owned Greeks in Athens' Golden Age.
If you read Winthrop Jordan's WHITE OVER BLACK you'll find out that what
set American slavery apart, and what made it so insidious and hard to
eradicate, is that it was racially based rather than economically based.
Slavery in America and racism reinforced each other, at least in the
colonies that became the US of A. It was different in the Carribean and
Latin America because racial mixing was so much more prevalent, and more
accepted (kids weren't automatically slaves like they were here).
Thomas Cunningham <cunn...@primenet.com> responded to:
> : A Southerner could have been a slaveowner and not be racist--just as a
> : German could have fought for the Third Reich and not be evil.
by writing:
Douglas Glass
: : So poor white trash rednecks who don't like blacks aren't racist since the
: : only power they have is in their pickup trucks.
: No, Doug, they are racist. The color of their skin gives them all the
: legal, social, and political power they need to be racist in America.
Hmm..can't afford an attorney, have no social status whatsoever (look at
the way they are portrayed in the media), and have no political power
(look who runs Arkansas - a bunch of FOBs). The only thing they have are
shotguns, words and fists. Just about the same thing that your typical
gangsta has (well, uzis instead of shotguns). Despite what your sociology
prof said in class, racism isn't about people having power over someone of
a different race. It may be a hatred spurred on by powerlessness, but one
doesn't need power to be racist. Power (or more to the point, the struggle
over cultural signs) may be an underlying variable in racial views, but
one needs no power to be racist. In fact, most racism is brought on by
lack of power, be it financial, political, physical, sexual or whatever.
It's more complicated than (don't like blacks)+(power)= (racism).
Jeremy Chapman
On 18 Mar 1997, Douglas Glass wrote:
> If he'd even considered recruiting a black player, he'd have been fired on
> the spot (or taken into the chancellor's office and severely reprimaned
> and warned). There was an article last year in SI about the 1960something
> Mississippi State team that wasn't allowed to go to the NCAA tourney since
> they'd have to play a team that had black players. Compared to that, UK
> was positively progressive.
Mississippi State went anyway, even though the coach had to sneak his
players out of town. I know it doesn't add much to this discussion, but
I wanted to point out that not everybody in MS was a racist.
Jeremy Chapman
Mississippi State '92
Wake Forest '94
Daniella Angel Gibbs
Ok, you talk about Thomas Jefferson, I must answer. Recently,
there has been a lot of talk about Jefferson and his views on
race and slavery and how it affected UVA. Now, I must admit
that some of his writings would seem to indicate that he wasn't
quite the racist that everyone makes him out to be.
HOWEVER...I have a problem with people saying, "well, he had
slaves but he wasn't racist." How can you treat someone as
CHATTLE, own them, beat them (granted some didn't beat their
slaves), deprive them of constitutional rights, subjugate them
to decades of Jim Crow, and NOT BE RACIST? That's like saying
men (in general) weren't sexists when women were constantly
denied the vote and shafted in the work place.
Was Rupp a racist? Who the hell knows...probably. Should we
be talking about basketball? YES
Daniella Angel Gibbs
ge...@mindspring.com writes:
> In article <01bc3549$911fdb00$961d93cf@ken> "Captain
Crims <snippity-snip>
>Why do blacks have to use the term African-American? <snip>
What really gets me is all the crying and moaning of equality in this country but yet minority groups
> >continually use seperatist terms. Why can't African-Americans just be
> >Americans? Why do blacks have their own flag? Why do blacks fly the flag of
> >the mythical African nation? Where is the African nation? Africa is made up
> >of many nations.
For one, don't lump all blacks into one category. Not
all blacks like to be refered to as African-American. And
perhaps it is hard for blacks to refer to themselves as
Americans because for so long they have not been treated as
"Americans".
Why then have blacks complained about states like GA and
> >SC and AL flying the confederate flag above the capital buildings? Double
> >standards.
Um, lets see. Granted, the confederate flag is a
symbol of heritage for some people. But, it is also a symbol
of hate, violence, slavery and the list goes on. Would you
want something that has it's roots in your opression flown on
the state capital building??
>
I was in Jamaca last Summer, believe me, they do not refer to themselves as
> African-Americans and will take offense if so addressed.
>
Ok, I can now excuse your post on the basis of outright
ignorance. Why the HELL would Jamaicans refer to themselves as
African-Americans? THEY ARE NOT AMERICAN!!!!!!!! Jesus, our
kids and their geography...
>
> >Beyond that your arguments fall flat on their ass and provide no valuable
> >input to this discussion.
>
You said it better than I could.
Dan Adkins
Thomas Cunningham wrote:
>
> Dan Adkins <dra...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
> : Thomas Cunningham wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : overriding views of the times that produced them.
> : >
> : > So Jesus Christ, St. Augustine, Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, St. Paul,
> : > and Mother Theresa were prisoners of the overriding views of the times
> : > that produced them? I think not.
>
> : Well, given your comments on slavery and the Constitution, etc., let me
> : ask you this: cite me a passage of Scripture where Jesus denounces
> : slavery. Same for Paul and Augustine.
>
> Give it up - you are totally changing your argument. You said "people are
> prisoners of the overriding views of the times that produced them." Jesus'
> views on gender and race are clearly different than the ones of his time
> period (this goes for the others I mentioned too).
No, Tom, let's not "give it up." I've asked you to support your
comments scripturally; I repeat my invitation. If you are going to
assert something as fact that is easily supportable in documentation,
you ought to be able to do it. If not, perhaps it's because you
recognize you can't support it because no documentation is there. Cite
me chapter and verse of Jesus' views on gender and race. C'mon, don't
dodge again...
And I assert my argument has retained constant.
C'mon, Tom, deal with the challenges issued to you to support your
argument. Cite me the scripture. Ignoring the challenge won't make it
go away, it just shows your hesitance to support your position.
>
> : I do not question the veracity of your belief that Jesus, Paul and
> : Augustine stood apart from the common views of their times. Is it my
> : understanding, then, that you fault Adolph Rupp for not being on the
> : same level of Jesus, Paul and Augustine? of Mother Theresa?
>
> No, but I fault Adolph Rupp if he was on the same plain of thought as the
> southern man of the 1950's.
Ah. And will you be as tough on yourself, come 2035, when you discover
that your present attitudes reflected the "whatever part of the country
you're from man of the 1990s?
Tom, you are not the same person you were five years ago. You won't be
the same person 10 years from now. The perspective that time gives will
help you understand some issues you seem bound and determined not to
consider at this point.
BTW, in your statement "I fault Adolph Rupp if he was on the same plain
of thought as the southern man of the 1950's," you inadvertently support
the very position I've espoused from the beginning of this thread: That
Rupp was a prisoner of his times. Thanks.
Dan
Tim Carpenter
Nice rebuttal Daniella. Obviously as a caucasian, I have not walked in
the shoes of an *African American*, so I personally don't know the
struggles, complaints, etc. I am quite proud of my heritage (except for
the enslavement of equal human beings) and hope all groups of people share
in the pride of their heritage. Thanks for educational and uplifting
reading in an otherwise nasty thread.
-Tim
Auburn Tiger in Kansas
Daniella Angel Gibbs <da...@Virginia.EDU> wrote in article
<E7ELC...@Virginia.EDU>...
Thomas Cunningham
Philip Kasiecki <pkas...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
: question- do you feel that Blacks cannot be racist?
Nope.
Thomas Cunningham
Dan Adkins <dra...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
: C'mon, Tom, deal with the challenges issued to you to support your
: argument. Cite me the scripture. Ignoring the challenge won't make it
: go away, it just shows your hesitance to support your position.
Dan, I brought up Augustine, Jesus, etc. to prove that history rewards
those who do not follow the overwhelming beliefs of the time. Somehow you
confused slavery into the issue. Did they believe in slavery? Who knows!
Writings from that time are shaky at best, so I'm not going to posit it.
If you think Jesus was pro-slavery, fine, go ahead and try to prove it.
You were the one trying to dodge me. You prove me wrong. I'm not going to
reward you for clouding the issue.
: Ah. And will you be as tough on yourself, come 2035, when you discover
: that your present attitudes reflected the "whatever part of the country
: you're from man of the 1990s?
Dan, I don't believe my present attitudes are the same as "the prevailing
attitudes from whatever part of the country you're from man of the
1990's".
: Tom, you are not the same person you were five years ago. You won't be
: the same person 10 years from now. The perspective that time gives will
: help you understand some issues you seem bound and determined not to
: consider at this point.
: BTW, in your statement "I fault Adolph Rupp if he was on the same plain
: of thought as the southern man of the 1950's," you inadvertently support
: the very position I've espoused from the beginning of this thread: That
: Rupp was a prisoner of his times. Thanks.
You seek to excuse Rupp by saying "everyone else thought that way too".
That's irresponsible. Should we praise a man, naming stadiums after him,
knowing that his beliefs were antithetical to what we as a society believe
today? Somehow, I don't think "George Wallace Stadium" would pass
anywhere.
I'm not trying to diminish Rupp as a coach. We need to look at Rupp the
man more before we decide to glorify him.
gelco
In article <E7ELC...@Virginia.EDU> da...@Virginia.EDU (Daniella Angel Gibbs) writes:
>From: da...@Virginia.EDU (Daniella Angel Gibbs)
>Subject: Re: Adolph Rupp
>Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:17:19 GMT
The point I was making was they refer to themselves as Jamacans, not
African-Jamacans. Even though the island was populated with slaves from
Africa. I didn't know I had to be so concise. Apologies. But I would try to
refrain from using Jesus' name in vain.
Why is the confederate flag a symbol of hate, violence, and slavery? The
Civil War was about sovereignty not slavery. So by your line of reason, the
Stars and Stripes could be misconstrued in the same manner but for the outcome
of the Civil War.
BTW, this thread is in a sports group. Go figure.
Thomas Cunningham
gelco <ge...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: I always wondered about this. You have as much right to be referred to as
: "Euro-American" as any black does to be called "African-American". I was in
: Jamaca last Summer, believe me, they do not refer to themselves as
: African-Americans and will take offense if so addressed.
Gee, really? Probably because they are "Jamaicans".......
David L. Woodall
twi...@mont.mindspring.com (Thomas Wigginton) wrote:
>Thomas Cunningham <cunn...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>You seek to excuse Rupp by saying "everyone else thought that way too".
>>That's irresponsible. Should we praise a man, naming stadiums after him,
>>knowing that his beliefs were antithetical to what we as a society believe
>>today? Somehow, I don't think "George Wallace Stadium" would pass
>>anywhere.
>
>Why not? We already have "George Wallace Community College" in
>Alabama, and Wallace has repented of his sin of racism. The last time
>he ran for governor, he got a large segment of the black vote.
>
and won!
David726
E-mail for further assistance to:
davi...@mindspring.com
Thomas Wigginton
da...@Virginia.EDU (Daniella Angel Gibbs) wrote:
> Ok, I can now excuse your post on the basis of outright
>ignorance. Why the HELL would Jamaicans refer to themselves as
>African-Americans? THEY ARE NOT AMERICAN!!!!!!!!
Jamaica is in the Americas, so you might make the argument that they
are Americans. BTW, Latin Americans refer to people from the USA as
Norte Americanos to distinguish them from people from other parts of
the Americas.
> Jesus, our
>kids and their geography...
Please do not use the Name of our Lord in vain. It is offensive to
both Christians and to God.
Adam T. McGavock
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:54:26 -0400, ge...@mindspring.com (gelco) wrote:
>
>> Why then have blacks complained about states like GA and
>>> >SC and AL flying the confederate flag above the capital buildings? Double
>>> >standards.
>Why is the confederate flag a symbol of hate, violence, and slavery? The
>Civil War was about sovereignty not slavery. So by your line of reason, the
>Stars and Stripes could be misconstrued in the same manner but for the outcome
>of the Civil War.
Hello,
I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong here, but I am pretty sure that:
A) It is not the confederate flag per se that is being protested, it is the
Georgia State flag (which contains a likeness of the confederate flag) that is
the subject of the protests (the whole holiday Inn flap, etc.).
-&-
B) The confederate flag was _ADDED_ to the Georgia state flag in the
1950s as a symbol of the State's resistance to integration and civil rights.
It was NOT an original feature of the State flag.
Hardly a proud piece of Southern culture and heritage, if you ask me.
Certainly not something I would fight for.
Thank you for your time.
___________________________________________________
Adam T. McGavock --- Arlington, Virginia --- Go Wahoos!
Mark S. Fitton
In article <3332C1...@pop.uky.edu>, Dan Adkins says...
>
> BTW, in your statement "I fault Adolph Rupp if he was on the same plain
> of thought as the southern man of the 1950's," you inadvertently support
> the very position I've espoused from the beginning of this thread: That
> Rupp was a prisoner of his times. Thanks.
Dan, I realize I missed some of your earlier comments in this thread, but
are you suggesting that if a person is a "prisoner of his times" he is to
be excused for his terrible beliefs? Before I comment further on that
hypothesis, I will let you respond. We can continue this discussion by e-
mail if you prefer. I am not looking for an argument, rather a legitimate
discussion between 2 intelligent men. Later
--
PLEASE READ. If you e-mail me, please remove the word REMOVE from
my address. It is there to thwart e-mail stripping programs, which
strip addresses from Usenet posts. I truly apologize for any
inconvenience this may cause. PLEASE READ.
Mark
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of
convenience, but where he stands during challenge and controversy."
- Martin Luther King
Mark S. Fitton
In article <5gsck1$296$1...@news.nyu.edu>, Douglas Glass says...
> Um...he despised everyone who wasn't Aryan (blond hair, blue eyes, etc.)
> considered Jews to be a race that was the lowest of the low that were to
> be despised and destroyed. If there were more dark skinned people in
> central Europe, they would have easily been wiped out without a second
> thought, although not with the viciousness that was used against the Jews.
> So, since he (and most Germans) considered Jews to be a race (we're a
> religion), he was definitely racist. The ironic thing was that (I think)
> his mother was Jewish which makes him Jewish according to tradition. But
> that was predicted a long time ago in the old testament since he (and a
> few others who tried to exterminate the Jews) were said to be descended
> from Eisau (Jacob's brother) if I remember correctly.
Doug, as usual, you make some very sound and valid points, but it wasn't
just Germans that considered "Jews" to be a race, it was PEOPLE who were
German or French or English or Italian, etc. To suggest that most
Germans(and Germans alone) had racist attitudes towards Jews is just not
fair. After all, Neville Chamberlain let Hitler have his sick way with
the Jews, didn't he? It brings to mind the great quote by the 18th
century British statesman and philosopher, Edmund Burke. He said
something to the effect that, "All that is Necessary for Evil to Succeed,
is for Good Men to do Nothing." Many "good men" looked the other way back
then and many of them weren't German.
As far as Hitler having a Jewish mother, I have heard that too,
but it has never been confirmed, as far as I know. I think it is what I
call a "wishful fact of history".
Mark S. Fitton
In article <5gt28p$6dk$1...@news.nyu.edu>, Douglas Glass says...
Sorry, but racism is based on ignorance, pure and simple. Power is power.
The two may or may not connect.
FiftyEight
> Ok, I can now excuse your post on the basis of outright
> ignorance. Why the HELL would Jamaicans refer to themselves as
> kids and their geography...
Jamaica is not in the part of this world known as the Americas?
Man......go figure. I thought they were. Learn something new everyday
I guess.
John (from Paint Lick)
"Old FiftyEight"
UK 84 Seattle 72
Thomas Wigginton
Thomas Cunningham <cunn...@primenet.com> wrote:
>You seek to excuse Rupp by saying "everyone else thought that way too".
>That's irresponsible. Should we praise a man, naming stadiums after him,
>knowing that his beliefs were antithetical to what we as a society believe
>today? Somehow, I don't think "George Wallace Stadium" would pass
>anywhere.
Why not? We already have "George Wallace Community College" in
Alabama, and Wallace has repented of his sin of racism. The last time
he ran for governor, he got a large segment of the black vote.
Tom Wigginton
Thomas Wigginton
Thomas Cunningham <cunn...@primenet.com> wrote:
>:BTW, what is Perryism, some
>: fancy-pants socialogical term?
>Hardly.
Well then, what is it? Inquiring minds want to know.
bamabob
Thomas Cunningham wrote:
> No, but I fault Adolph Rupp if he was on the same plain of thought as the
> southern man of the 1950's.
So I guess you are saying, that all southern men of the 50's are or were
racist, and if Adolph Rupp believed, as all southern men in the 50's
believed he was racist as well.
If what I read was correct and I understood what you are trying to say,
then my father being, quote "a southern man" and in the south in the
50's is also a racist, in fact my whole family is from the south and a
large majority of them were in the south during the 50's are all racist,
only the men of course. Someone mind has narrowed greatly. The past is
the past and we all will have to answer to the MAN for our
transgressions. That is the beauty of my religion, I don't have to
answer for Rupp's transgressions only my own. So in closing lets talk
SPORTS,SPORTS,SPORTS,SPORTS........SPRING TRAINING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Rupp's (and I don't know) was a racist or a unethical man in his life
that is his problem, rest assured the MAN knows and he will be held
accountable for his actions!
Now everyone lets get the SPORTS SOAP BOX BACK OUT AND DISCUSS FOOTBALL
and the lesser sports if we must!!!!!!
BamaBob "ROLL TIDE
ROLL" in "97"
Tom Carney
John Kohlstrand (kohls...@global2000.net) wrote:
first part deleted
: Elsewhere in this thread, he is quoted as saying after the Texas-El
: Paso loss that he still had the best all-white team in America. That's
: pretty tellling.
While I have heard this "qoute" before I have yet to heard anyone say "I heard
Rupp say it". Can anyone give a date for this quote. Having said that, I
obviously don't know if Adolph said it or not. However I did attend an event
following the 1966 season in Lexington where someone else made such a
statement. Rupp was not in attendance at this event. Perhaps he said it
else where perhaps not.
Tom Carney
Thomas Cunningham
Thomas Wigginton <twi...@mont.mindspring.com> wrote:
: Jamaica is in the Americas, so you might make the argument that they
: are Americans. BTW, Latin Americans refer to people from the USA as
: Norte Americanos to distinguish them from people from other parts of
: the Americas.
Canada is in the Americas too, and I wouldn't go around calling them
Americans.
Captain Crimson
> For one, don't lump all blacks into one category. Not
> all blacks like to be refered to as African-American. And
> perhaps it is hard for blacks to refer to themselves as
> Americans because for so long they have not been treated as
> "Americans".
I believe the Irish were discriminated against after landing at Ellis
Island but learned to blend in with the American culture without drawing
150 years worth of attention to themselves. How long is going to take?
> Um, lets see. Granted, the confederate flag is a
> symbol of heritage for some people. But, it is also a symbol
> of hate, violence, slavery and the list goes on. Would you
> want something that has it's roots in your opression flown on
> the state capital building??
I think it ought to be left up to a popular vote of the citizens of that
state instead of a politically correct controlled government. This may even
be revolutionary. Hmmm let's see what shall we call it? Democracy maybe?