I see two options: one, you truly are so racially insensitive and historically ignorant that calling an adult black male boy was a naive act; two, you are not that ignorant, and while it was not a conscious act of bigotry, as you say, it did reflect an unthinking bias.
Well, Omni, I doubt that I can be considered so ignorant as not to know anything about racism in America. I was simply ignorant of this one terminology.
As for the latent Freudian slip theory, I don't see that as a credible possibility.
I've scrolled back through a lot of your posts. I couldn't find any examples of you calling an adult white man, boy. You see?
Probably because I used it playfully, like a wife half-jokingly saying about her husband,
Oh, that boy is crazy! Its interchangeable. It doesn't denote a specific race. It doesn't even mean she is trying to say he is immature.
Besides, I think the tone of ones voice gives indication to the motivation used. Obviously the internet is devoid of those kinds of subtle intricacies, so its often that people misinterpret intent.
For instance, the other day, Taz said something about soldiers. He says he was being jocular, but I misunderstood his intentions. I think we forget that body language and vocal inflections are sometimes more critical than what is actually being said.
Referring to "that Bush boy" was a relevant example. I thought you might find the notion of calling the President boy as jarring as African Americans find obnoxious the same term applied to adult men.
Not really, but your point is duly noted.
dogfighting has been an underground sport in the south for a long, long time. I doubt very much that we could find an example of a white man being so raked over the coals on the same charges.
I'm sure we can. I just ran a search engine, and unfortunately the internet is inundated by articles concerning Vick or the articles give no indication of the indicted's race. I'll keep looking though.
While African Americans dominate many professional sports, the position of quarterback (like manager in baseball and, until recently, coach in basketball) is still reserved almost entirely for white athletes.
Do you think that was by design? Is it racist if most running backs or wide receivers are black? Its just what ended up, not some grand conspiracy against whites or blacks it seems to me.
I think the overwhelming reaction from the public and the prosecution alike stems from a sense of outrage at this behavior by a black man who has been so favored.
But I don't understand why do you insist that the words "black" or "man" factor in to their outrage. Is it really so impossible that they are simply disgusted that, anyone, of any race, color, or creed would do something as inhumane as dog fighting?
That notion itself is racist: it's the "I'm don't want to sound like a racist, but he should be more careful about fulfilling his people's sterotypes" type of bigotry writ societally large.
I've only heard one instance of something along these lines. Interestingly enough it came from a black disc jockey here in LA. He said, something to the affect of,
"I guess you can take the Vick out the ghetto, but can't take the ghetto out of Vick."
His prosecution and public condemnation should have proceeded like those of any other person convicted of the same crime. That's not what I see.
Is it possible that you're seeing what you want to see? It seems abundantly obvious to me that the over-coverage of the case has to do more with his stature in the eye of the public than it has to do with the pigmentation of his skin.
I think they also feel how I feel. They are probably thinking, as I have, "
Why would you be so foolish to jeopardize your entire career to fight dogs? And "
Did you really think someone has prominent as yourself could really keep something of this magnitude clandestine?" This is actually what prompted me to ask,
"What in the world was that boy thinking?"
"God creates out of nothing. Wonderful you say. Yes, to be sure, but he does what is still more wonderful: he makes saints out of sinners." -Sren Kierkegaard