Seattlest: Seahawks Draft Two Lunchpail Guys, Five Natural Athletes, and a #DIV/0

jeremy in ballard

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:39:29 -0800

You all have way too much time on your hands with that axe to grind.

Cecil

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:41:18 -0800

Kind of like what Dan Patrick has said in the past: if a black athlete can string together a coherent english sentence, he is "articulate". If a white player does the same, he is merely a white athlete.

Daniel

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:10:57 -0800

I will not rest until no Black man anywhere has to suffer the humiliation, ridicule, and indignity of being called a natural athlete

Jake of 8bitjoystick.com

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:29:02 -0800

Your taxes hard at work.

Brad

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:28:18 -0800

Seth, Thanks for the continuing sports commentary... Seattle has plenty of professional and semiprofessional culture commentators. At any rate, I can't believe the Hawks drafted Kent... ugh. At least we can say the Hawks cut him when the day comes.

mmbb

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:43:18 -0800

seattlest needs more culture and less sports. yes, i said it. the more sports i see here, the less worth i assign to seattlest.

Seth

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:29:27 -0800

Hey Ryan--didn't see your post. When you are talking about Isaiah Stanback, who finished 5th in the Pac-10 100m sprint, it's hard not to mention his athletic ability. I'm sure I've described him as athletic myself. My problem is, in the context of a draft of about 250 players, describing more than a handful as great athletes is rather lazy. It would be like an announcer at a dog show pointing out every time a contestant came out that it had four legs. It's dumb, more than anything, which seems to go hand in hand with bigotry.

FrankY

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:23:34 -0800

Gregg Easterbrook made a simiar point on ESPN.com's Page 2 this past week (although I think his point is less founded in actual fact, since he is the only NFL writer pompous enough to refer to these kids as "Collegians") -------------------- This winter I received an e-mail from Jamar Cartwright of Chicago, pointing out that in the same paragraph of a 2006 column, I referred to a white college senior as a "collegian" and a black senior as a "prospect." Race wasn't mentioned in the paragraph or relevant to it, but Cartwright found subconscious significance in the choice of terms: "'Collegian' is a positive word, every father wants his son to be a collegian. 'Prospect' implies some sort of automaton, just a machine for running and tackling." He continued, "I can't back my point with hard proof, but I bet that if you paid close attention, you would find sportswriters and sportscasters rarely call white athletes hoping to enter the NFL or NBA 'prospects,' while constantly using this term for young black males." Is this PC oversensitivity or is there subtle coding involved in describing aspiring African-American players as "prospects"? Draft weekend seems a time to test this question, so I will pay attention and ask readers to do the same

Ryan

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:39:47 -0800

Interesting post, Seth. I wonder, then, if you would take umbrage with my post over at Metblogs describing Isaiah Stanback as a great athlete but not a gifted quarterback. My point was to imply that he has the potential to learn other positions that may be better suited to his skills than quarterback. The Cowboys seem to agree. Eric Crouch (a white guy) was also an amazing athlete. The Rams thought so highly of his athletic ability that they drafted the former Nebraska QB in order to convert him to WR. Listening to Kiper, et. al. this weekend was painful. Really painful. But I think describing someone as an "athlete" isn't necessarily lazy or bigoted.