Yahoo Sports :Adrian Peterson : NFL is like "Modern day slavery"

[Tweedr01]

reading comprehension, mainly does not mean solely.

From the get go I have said AP is the only one to blame.

And you continue on with your irrelevant points. White males have said stupid things in the media as well, I sure hope no one judges me personally on what they said just because we have a few common dna markers.

you are and will be

I'd venture to say that 75% of my posts have said AP was wrong he should back off what he said and he's the one to blame.

they have, but you did kinda started off excusing it

So if anyone other than a black athlete in the NFL had said this it would be completely different in your eyes.

not necessarily, but the media would have ripped them a new one, especially if they were white, lol

I didn't make the rules, this is just how it is man

[Brotherz]

reading comprehension, mainly does not mean solely.

From the get go I have said AP is the only one to blame.

Yea yea I know "mainly" because of how us idiots will all overblow it. I get it.

And you continue on with your irrelevant points. White males have said stupid things in the media as well, I sure hope no one judges me personally on what they said just because we have a few common dna markers.

I get what you are saying but you are asking me how I come up with the idea that any of this is racist because I can't literally read AP's mind. You acknowledge that you can't either and as a result you fall on the side of he didn't mean it, which is just as bad quite frankly as assuming he did. The difference is I have a context - circumstantial evidence - to support that he knows exactly what he is saying and that the guys who are now tweeting that he was right in his analogy know exactly what they are endorsing.

I will have to agree with you that I have to make assumptions about my circumstantial evidence. I am going to assume that AP knows what slavery is. I am going to have to assume he knows the owners are all white. I have to assume he knows he is black. I have to assume he knows that in the past white slave owners owned black slaves. I have to assume that he is in tune with general media outlets and might be familiar with the Lebron thing for example. I might have to make an assumption that he in fact already heard and knows the analogy between white sports owners and their black athletes. I have to assume he knows about racial struggle and guys like jesse jackson and Al sharpton.

I have to assume he knows about Don Imus and Michael Richards and maybe even the story of Jimmy the Greek, Jalen Rose and his uncle tom comments, the historical evidence of discreet racism against black quarterbacks. I have to assume that maybe he saw the movie "Any Given Sunday" where the same analogy is made. I have to assume that he is a 25 year old man with a television in the United States of America. You have to assume that none of the above is true. Because if it is - he's a racist and he made a racist comment. But I suppose you could qualify that as an "irrelevant point". We don't live in a freakin vaccuum. Its adorable that to defend AP you are willing to pretend he doesn't know ANY of the things I just referenced but quite frankly, I think I am probably closer to reality than you on that.

I'd venture to say that 75% of my posts have said AP was wrong he should back off what he said and he's the one to blame.

I know, mainly because of how we will all overblow it. I get it. Its sorta his fault for saying he is a slave. I get it.

So if anyone other than a black athlete in the NFL had said this it would be completely different in your eyes.

Not in my eyes. But the response from the media certainly would have been and I guarantee we don't have other players coming out to endorse such a statement if Cutler says this. So yea, I guess I am saying it would be different. I think it was a racist comment. We can dance around it but I do. I think AP demonstrated his racism with that comment. I can't get into his head so I suppose I can't prove it and like I wrote above, I have to assume he is paying attention to the world we live in but if you do you can only come to two conclusions - he is a racist who is willing to openly say something racist to get his own personal agenda in a business dispute across to the public in an absurd attempt to gain some support (and ask yourself who he will get such support from with a comment like that?) OR he is just an idiot.

[ATLredskin]

What are some examples of slavery in the US....

[DarrellsMyHero28]

What are some examples of slavery in the US....

The NFL, duh.

Where the players aren't paid, are subjected to horrible working conditions, abused by their owners, bought and sold without consulting them, have no ability to leave their forced work, can be shot on sight, have no rights....

Oh wait, nevermind.

-------------

I don't think AD is that stupid as to really think of the NFL as literally being modern day slavery but its such a stupid and inappropriate comment to make.

[Brotherz]

sorry need to say something lol, the proof he is looking for is very similar:
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/...&videoid=11926

at least dave chappelle is honest about it, lol

hysterical!!

[Koolblue13]

What are some examples of slavery in the US....

Next to the illegal trades in drugs and arms, human trafficking is the third-largest and fastest-growing criminal enterprise in the world, according to government figures. The departments of Justice and State, as well as anti-trafficking groups, estimate there are about 27 million people worldwide in modern-day slavery.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2981327&page=1

[Brotherz]

Next to the illegal trades in drugs and arms, human trafficking is the third-largest and fastest-growing criminal enterprise in the world, according to government figures. The departments of Justice and State, as well as anti-trafficking groups, estimate there are about 27 million people worldwide in modern-day slavery.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2981327&page=1

Plus the 1,800 that play professional football.

[SirClintonPortis]

Hmm, does All Day have to pay a grandfather tax, get stuck in a "credit trap" and have to sharecrop for a long while in the burning heat with no air conditioning.
Is All Day unable to go to court, at risk for being lynched willy-nilly if he falls out of line, unable to own property of any sort.
BTW, does the NFL have a "slave code".

[redskins55]

Whoa, first of all when did I attack you personally?

Im sure redskins 55 was saying the exact same thing when Michael Richards went crazy in his stand up routine.

I didn't defend Michael Richards. I pointed out the utter hypocrisy of people like YOU who rush to defend Adrian Peterson

These are your quotes. You claim that you haven't personally attacked me, but what do you call that? You've called me a hypocrite without knowing anything about me! You've taken my stance on Adrian Peterson's comments and made a sarcastic assumption about my thoughts about Richards! I never even mentioned Richards so why would you assume you knew my stance on his incident. Then on top of it call me a hypocrite without even knowing my stance. You also stated that I am defending Adrian Peterson's comment when clearly I am not. Several times I have said AP's comments were wrong.

#1 Was it the right term to use?? Of Course Not!!!!
#2 He used a poor metaphor to make the point
#3 I haven't read one person's comment suggesting that AP's comments were fine.

But just because I think the comment was wrong doesn't mean I cant use common sense to deduct what he was trying to say. I don't have to paint him as a racist or a moron like you and others have especially if he hasn't said racial comments before. There's an old saying that goes " let the works I've done speak for me" . I'm a firm believer that people will ultimately show you who they really are and we wont have to assume. Well AP has many years ahead to prove to me that he is indeed a moron and a racist. So lets move on

They let Don Imus have it. They let Rush limbaugh have it. They let white guys have it. Its BS. Its the worst form of affirmative action left out there.
If a white guy said those words what would have happened? Seriously. Answer that for me.
As far as me being racist, im not the one who thinks AP should be treated like a child at 25 years old when he is a multi-millionaire. You are the one who claims he is a kid and I have to wonder why a 25 year old man should be treated like a child to you.

Once again IRRELEVANT!! You can attempt to compare AP's comment to Don Imus or Rush Limbaugh. You can invoke Affirmative Action, You can bring up AP's millions, his popularity, his age or even the hypothetical question "what if he was a WHITE MAN"? You can bring all that up as supporting points, but in the end none of that is relevant. Just because you think 25 is a grown enough age to refrain from misspeaking doesn't mean it is. Just because you think his millions of dollars should entitle him to use better judgment doesn't mean it will. Just because you think that if a white man had said the same thing that it would've been a **** storm, doesn't mean that it would've been. But to answer your question I can honestly say I think the response would be exactly the same. And I believe black players would rally around the white player for saying it, just as some are defending Peterson. But like I said before, none of that even matters. Because we are injecting our own biased prejudice thoughts into this argument.

Last quote...

Oh, and I do think he was "likening his privileged to play in the NFL to slavery". Ya know why? Because he said "IT'S MODERN DAY SLAVERY YA KNOW?" That's a quote man. Its a QUOTE. He didn't even say its "like" slavery. He said it IS slavery. THAT my friend, is a FACT.

This again is your own SPECULATION not a fact. You are speculating what he meant by saying " IS SLAVERY". But slavery has a broad definition. It encompassed more than just lynchings, rapes, and murders. It also entailed loss of rights, loss of pride, and loss of dignity as well. Slavery is not just whips and chains, slavery is also mental. There were many black slaves that did not want to leave their master's homes because they thought it was good. These were called "House Negros". They were slaves but had it pretty good living in the master's barn so they wanted to remain in slavery.So you are assuming that AP is referring his NFL job to whips and chains of slavery and not the mental aspect of it. But if you think AP is likening his playing in the NFL to whips, chains, murders and rapes you are entitled to your opinion ok. Just be mindful that when we are so quick to condemn without attempting to understand we are no better than slave masters! But I guess I'm calling you a slave master right?

You seem like a lawyer and I happen to know a little something about that after many years myself. But with all do respect if you are a lawyer, you sound like a tax attorney arguing a murder trial. You are not arguing or debating the relevant facts, you are making them up as you go based off what you have observed in your life (affirmative action, reverse racism, bigotry) This debate should not be about what you think, it should be about what you know. And we know that Adrian Peterson for the first time on camera made a controversial comment about a billion dollar company the NFL. (BTW you never answered my question about what if AP would've said Walmart or AIG is like modern day slavery, would you be as mad?)

I will say that I have enjoyed this little debate even though we are both saying the same thing that AP's comment was wrong. You think it was wrong because he is a moron and I think it was simply metaphorically wrong. I'll leave you with this article to read. You dont have to agree with it, but maybe you can get a better understanding of what myself and some others on this board are trying to say. BTW you do make excellent points, just not in this thread ..Hey its ok to be wrong sometimes brothaz!

HTTR!!!!

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011...rely-off-base/

[Brotherz]

These are your quotes. You claim that you haven't personally attacked me, but what do you call that? You've called me a hypocrite without knowing anything about me! You've taken my stance on Adrian Peterson's comments and made a sarcastic assumption about my thoughts about Richards! I never even mentioned Richards so why would you assume you knew my stance on his incident. Then on top of it call me a hypocrite without even knowing my stance. You also stated that I am defending Adrian Peterson's comment when clearly I am not. Several times I have said AP's comments were wrong.

Hmmmm. Ok, I can see your point here. I apologize for the personal attack. I did make assumptions about you based on your "stop piling up on the kid because he didn't mean it" thing. That being said, I did NOT say I defended Michael Richards or Don Imus (although I didn't think Imus should have been fired). I am making conclusions about you based on your position and I can see how that comes off as personal and unfair. At the same time i do the same thing for AP but as I explained in my debate with the other poster in this thread I think the assumptions are reasonable and to assume the other way is to give way too much benefit of the doubt to AP. I think he knows his position is racially motivated or at least smart enough to be taken that way and he went ahead withthe analogy anyway and didn't back off it later.

But just because I think the comment was wrong doesn't mean I cant use common sense to deduct what he was trying to say. I don't have to paint him as a racist or a moron like you and others have especially if he hasn't said racial comments before. There's an old saying that goes " let the works I've done speak for me" . I'm a firm believer that people will ultimately show you who they really are and we wont have to assume. Well AP has many years ahead to prove to me that he is indeed a moron and a racist. So lets move on

You blast me for making assumptions based on reasonable conclusions about the media world that AP lives in coupled with what HE ACTUALLY SAID, and then fly to the assumptions about what he "really means" being benign and without racial undertones with absolutely zero proof other than you wanting to give a "kid" the benefit of the doubt and yet you call that "deduction". Sorry but THAT isn't even a tax lawyer arguing a murder trial its a janitor arguing a murder trial. As for your pithy saying about letting works so the speaking, this guy said the NFL is modern day slavery. That is an act. That is why we are having this conversation. It isn't guilt by association. It came right out of his mouth and by the way, where is his clarification? Where is his explanation? You are doing a better job of explaining what he "meant" with absolutely NO facts than the guy who actually said it and could have easily explained it himself or minimally softened the blow with a little mea culpa. Instead he offers us nothign and lets his compatriots endorse his statement. You CAN deduct from that. Deduction requires some alternative indication of intent other than "I like people and think they never mean harm"

Once again IRRELEVANT!! You can attempt to compare AP's comment to Don Imus or Rush Limbaugh.

Please go back through the thread and see who first invoked the name of Rush Limbaugh.

Just because you think 25 is a grown enough age to refrain from misspeaking doesn't mean it is.

Again, maybe he should lay off the microphone if he is too young or immature to make an apt analogy that doesn't wreak of racial insensitivity. And again, you tell me that me saying he is 25 and old enough to be accountable for his actions and statements doesn't make it so, yet, you call him a "kid" and excuse his statement because of his age. So you know he is too young but I can't know he is too old. You tell me I can't make assumptions and my points are irrelevant and then in the next breath you make a conclusion based completely on assumption without even qualifying it. Similarly, AP's statements are racially insensitive minimally and full blown racially exploitive at worst and he did nothing to clarify his comments so I deduce he is either racist or ignorant.

Just because you think that if a white man had said the same thing that it would've been a **** storm, doesn't mean that it would've been. But to answer your question I can honestly say I think the response would be exactly the same. And I believe black players would rally around the white player for saying it, just as some are defending Peterson. But like I said before, none of that even matters. Because we are injecting our own biased prejudice thoughts into this argument.

So just because I say it would be different doesn't make it so but just for the record based on nothing, you can opine it would be the same. Seriously? And you attack my logic?

This again is your own SPECULATION not a fact.

No, I quoted the guy. That is a fact. That is what he said. To the contrary you saying "well that's what he said but he meant something else even though I have absolutely no proof he meant something else and even he hasn't tried to explain what he meant" THAT is SPECULATION. We may not have as a big a disagreement as we think, you just don't know what these terms mean. I quoted him verbatim. That is the textbook definition of a fact. He said that. That's a FACT. You saying he meant something else without any evidence is speculation.

You are speculating what he meant by saying " IS SLAVERY". But slavery has a broad definition. It encompassed more than just lynchings, rapes, and murders. It also entailed loss of rights, loss of pride, and loss of dignity as well. Slavery is not just whips and chains, slavery is also mental. There were many black slaves that did not want to leave their master's homes because they thought it was good. These were called "House Negros". They were slaves but had it pretty good living in the master's barn so they wanted to remain in slavery.So you are assuming that AP is referring his NFL job to whips and chains of slavery and not the mental aspect of it. But if you think AP is likening his playing in the NFL to whips, chains, murders and rapes you are entitled to your opinion ok.

So you think he meant he likes being a slave? You think maybe in the context of an interview about the owners locking out the players AP meant that he misses being a "house negro"? You aren't serious are you man? That isn't actually your argument is it? I can't even wrap my mind around your point here. So even though you have repeatedly said you disagree with the statement and it was wrong etc etc here you are defending his statement. So please explain to us how AP's analogy was even remotely apt. You can't argue that you don't agree with the statement and then try to argue he meant something different when he used the term slavery (again with absolutely no evidence). Either he made a good analogy or he didn't. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and you've been doing it for 3 pages in this thread now. That's why I have asked you about half a dozen times to tell me WHY the statement was wrong or inappropriate or unfortunate or whatever phrase you want to use. You keep saying it wasn't racial. It wasn't insensitive. It wasn't invoking old south slavery. It wasn't nefarious in any way. We are piling on by saying it was and he should be accountable. Then in the next breath you distance yourself from "defending him" and say his statements were wrong. I have told you exactly why i think they were wrong. Why don't you tell me why you think they were wrong because you are very quick to tell us all what AP actually meant and the gazillion permutations on what "slavery" could mean etc etc and yet you out of the other side of your mouth still say the statement was wrong. Well which one is it? If the statement isn't racial than defend the statement. If the statement was invoking the pre-civil war slavery then defend the statement. If the analogy to slavery is to house negroes then defend the statement. If the analogy between being a modern day slave and a collective bargaining dispute about how to share revenues is apt then defend the statement. You blast those that disagree with the statement and have the guts to risk being called a bigot in subtle and overt ways while at the same time keeping one foot in "it was a misstatement" and the other in "you are misunderstanding poor AP". I understand the concern that you look like you side with AP and the majority of this thread disagrees with him but take a stand if you believe he didn't say anything wrong. Its intellectually dishonest at worst and cowardly at best to argue both however.

You are not arguing or debating the relevant facts, you are making them up as you go based off what you have observed in your life (affirmative action, reverse racism, bigotry) This debate should not be about what you think, it should be about what you know. And we know that Adrian Peterson for the first time on camera made a controversial comment about a billion dollar company the NFL. (BTW you never answered my question about what if AP would've said Walmart or AIG is like modern day slavery, would you be as mad?)

I think its hysterical that you are arguing that I am making up the facts as I go. I have started and and ended with the quote. YOU are interjecting a ton of "benefit of the doubt" and "he could have meant this" and "maybe he means house negroes" with absolutely nothing to support any of it. Again you indicate the debate shouldn't be about what I think. But then you think it should be about what you think. HAHAHAHA. I agree with one thing. It should be about what we know. We don't know what AP "meant" in the recesses of his brain. What we know is what he SAID. When he said it. Where he said. What he offered as an explanation after he said it. We know its 2011. We know AP probably has a TV and a radio and knows what a statement by him like the nfl is "modern day slavery" is going to invoke in this country. You treat him like he is 4 years old man. You make assumption upon assumption about this guy having no clue where he is what he is saying, to whom he is saying it and in what context and then say I am speculating. Its amazing that you see your argument as logical. You have absolutely nothing to give him "the benefit of the doubt" with but your own guesses (wishes?). I have his statement. His words. The context of those words. The media outlet he said them too. The age we are living in. Cmon you can't possibly be this naive. Then to put the cherry on top, in the same paragraph that you attack me for speculating and not sticking to the facts you ask me a hypothetical about AP working at walmart and saying this. Here's a secret for you, nobody would give two craps what Ap said if he worked for walmart. That is speculation. But I suppose I can take the bait since you took mine. If a black vice president of walmart was in a union and had a nationally televised labor/employer fight and went on the radio and said he is a modern day slave - depending on his skin color he'd probably be utterly criticized. If he was a white guy, yea, I think he'd be in pretty hot water.

I will say that I have enjoyed this little debate even though we are both saying the same thing that AP's comment was wrong.You think it was wrong because he is a moron and I think it was simply metaphorically wrong.

Why was it metaphorically wrong again? You still haven't explained why its wrong to me and I think I might be able to understand how we are saying the same thing if you offered me anything other than excuses for this guy. Why exactly is it metaphorically wrong. Incidentally, I have enjoyed the debate too and no hard feelings. You have taken me from my relatively boring day at work (yes as a lawyer -Oh and I am a trial lawyer - ).

[HailGreen28]

So it's agreed. Peterson's comment was idiotic. Moving on....

[Brotherz]

So it's agreed. Peterson's comment was idiotic. Moving on....

See that wasn't so hard was it?

[HailGreen28]

See that wasn't so hard was it?

Maybe you're confusing me with someone else. That's what I've been saying all along.

[ouvan59]

Did Adrian Peterson hire Dan Snyder as his public relations man?

LOL No kidding!

[redskins55]

Why was it metaphorically wrong again? You still haven't explained why its wrong to me and I think I might be able to understand how we are saying the same thing if you offered me anything other than excuses for this guy. Why exactly is it metaphorically wrong. Incidentally, I have enjoyed the debate too and no hard feelings. You have taken me from my relatively boring day at work (yes as a lawyer -Oh and I am a trial lawyer - ).

Ha haaa.... I KNEW IT!! I knew u were a lawyer! Your a good one too I can tell.But I swear you're all over the place though .. I mean following you is like following a dog in a hubcap factory!! But like I said, if you cant understand me, then maybe you can read this and understand my counter argument. Which by the way isn't that AP's comment was ok,but that he was trying to compare the NFL to elements of slavery not actual slavery. But anywayz.. Again great discussion. Go get em!!!

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011...rely-off-base/


"Adrian Peterson called the NFL players’ predicament “modern-day slavery.” Obviously, it was a poor metaphor, destined to be processed literally and to provoke manufactured outrage. His word choice was awful, but his point, better articulated, has some validity.

Here’s Peterson’s full quotation. His agent stresses it should be taken in context. The context doesn’t help him much.

AP: It’s modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it’s how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, ‘Hey — without us, there’s no football.’ There are so many different perspectives from different players, and obviously we’re not all on the same page — I don’t know. I don’t really see this going to where we’ll be without football for a long time; there’s too much money lost for the owners. Eventually, I feel that we’ll get something done.

Football players are not slaves. No one forces them to play. Most would accept coercion and some form of bondage to receive a $10 million base salary. Peterson, presumably, wasn’t comparing his pampered material condition to that of a slave. He was trying to say there isn’t a free market for his labor, which is true.

The NFL is a trust, not a capitalist enterprise. Owners ensure profitability by collaborating and by limiting labor costs. Adrian Peterson could not choose his place of employment. The Vikings drafted him. Unable to solicit competing offers, he had no leverage to negotiate his salary. His team may “franchise” him to block him from exercising free agency. Even if he does become unrestricted, his earning potential is constrained by a salary cap. Peterson can never obtain the true market value for his work.

Peterson’s work places him at grave risk for catastrophic health issues later in life. His contract is also not guaranteed.

Players accept this system, because many of them make an obscene amount of money. They sacrifice a claim to fair labor practices in exchange for a draught from the treasure bath. Observers let the NFL’s arrangement slide because we must watch football on Sunday.

NFL owners tried to force through a change to this bargain. They opted out of the CBA. They gamed the television revenue so they would get it even if there was no season (overturned by a court ruling). They tried to put players in the position to accept less money for a longer season or enter a lockout they were not positioned to withstand. Not surprisingly, players pushed back by decertifying the union and suing to challenge the NFL’s unfair labor practices.

Adrian Peterson’s word choice was awful. NFL players have nothing in common with slaves. They have little in common materially with ordinary laborers, but it’s only viewing it through that guise that we understand the players’ position. The money involved inspires little empathy, but their labor predicament should.

NFL players aren’t ordinary people, but if ordinary people were treated in the manner NFL owners treat the players it would be profoundly unjust."