Peyton Manning and White Privilege

[Arkady]

Over on Salon.com, it seems they have a new editorial mandate that every column must include the phrase "white privilege." "White Privilege" is a catch-phrase of "critical race theory," related to the benefits, in our society, of being white -- the unspoken double-standards that give white people a host of subtle and not-so-subtle advantages in society. Some of these are pretty hard to argue against. For example, a white graduate of any Ivy League school never has his degree mentally marked down as "affirmative action" in a way that a minority often will, even if the minority was actually the finest scholar of any race in his class. But, more often, I'm seeing some really laughable reaching by liberals, to apply the term. Here's a recent example:

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/07/whi...l_field_peyton_mannings_benefit_of_the_doubt/

The argument is that Peyton Manning's legacy got the benefit of the doubt by a sports announcer in a way that a black athlete who'd just suffered a similar drubbing would not. It's hard to disprove this simply by making a straight-up comparison between a black and white NFL player, since no straight-up comparison is even possible. In the history of the NFL, there's never been another five-time MVP, of any race. Hell, there's never even been anyone else who won more than two. The closest counterpart to Peyton Manning, among black NFL players, is Jim Brown (two MVPs). But, let's pretend Brown had five of them, like Manning. In that case, the two men would be comparable. Each would have won just a single NFL championship, despite dominating the regular season in their respective statistical categories throughout their careers. Does Jim Brown's lack of "White Privilege" lead to his legacy being questioned in a way that Manning's isn't?

In a word: no. Pretty much nobody questions Brown's legacy. He is the most frequent name to come up as "best running back of all time," he makes every NFL anniversary list and every list of top players in history, and he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. A recent NFL ranking of the best players in its history put him at number two. His legacy is secure, without any White Privilege. Manning's would, likewise, be secure if he were black. The misapplication of "White Privilege" to this scenario just undermines the whole concept.

 

[Alinvegas]

Over on Salon.com, it seems they have a new editorial mandate that every column must include the phrase "white privilege." "White Privilege" is a catch-phrase of "critical race theory," related to the benefits, in our society, of being white -- the unspoken double-standards that give white people a host of subtle and not-so-subtle advantages in society. Some of these are pretty hard to argue against. For example, a white graduate of any Ivy League school never has his degree mentally marked down as "affirmative action" in a way that a minority often will, even if the minority was actually the finest scholar of any race in his class. But, more often, I'm seeing some really laughable reaching by liberals, to apply the term. Here's a recent example:

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/07/whi...l_field_peyton_mannings_benefit_of_the_doubt/

The argument is that Peyton Manning's legacy got the benefit of the doubt by a sports announcer in a way that a black athlete who'd just suffered a similar drubbing would not. It's hard to disprove this simply by making a straight-up comparison between a black and white NFL player, since no straight-up comparison is even possible. In the history of the NFL, there's never been another five-time MVP, of any race. Hell, there's never even been anyone else who won more than two. The closest counterpart to Peyton Manning, among black NFL players, is Jim Brown (two MVPs). But, let's pretend Brown had five of them, like Manning. In that case, the two men would be comparable. Each would have won just a single NFL championship, despite dominating the regular season in their respective statistical categories throughout their careers. Does Jim Brown's lack of "White Privilege" lead to his legacy being questioned in a way that Manning's isn't?

In a word: no. Pretty much nobody questions Brown's legacy. He is the most frequent name to come up as "best running back of all time," he makes every NFL anniversary list and every list of top players in history, and he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. A recent NFL ranking of the best players in its history put him at number two. His legacy is secure, without any White Privilege. Manning's would, likewise, be secure if he were black. The misapplication of "White Privilege" to this scenario just undermines the whole concept.

I agree. I truly believe that they use the phrase "White Privilege" to hide their "White Guilt".

 

[marvin martian]

I'm glad liberals are spending time on this important issue...

 

[as seen on tv]

so the theory at salon is that a quarterback who breaks every record during the regular season, but loses the final game, is somehow benefitting from racism if he still gets an "attaboy, good job" . . . ?

this will be news to muhammad ali; hank aaron, etc.

even michael vick and tiger woods were given a long leash to come back after they messed up.

 

[Arkady]

so the theory at salon is that a quarterback who breaks every record during the regular season, but loses the final game, is somehow benefitting from racism if he still gets an "attaboy, good job" . . . ?

this will be news to muhammad ali; hank aaron, etc.

even michael vick and tiger woods were given a long leash to come back after they messed up.

Yep.

I don't want to play down the white privilege concept entirely. There are aspects of "white privilege" in sport. For example, the top-paid athletes are white to a degree disproportionate to their success levels, especially once you consider marketing. A black athlete can rise to the top of the endorsements pile by dominating a major sport for many years (like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan), but as between two equally distinguished athletes in the same sport, the white one will generally make a whole lot more money.

For example, Maria Sharapova earned $29 million last year, to Serena Williams' $20 million. On paper, Williams should be the bigger earner. She had more winnings in the year, has been much better for much longer, she's the top-ranked player (Sharapova is fifth), and she holds a 15-2 head-to-head record against Sharapova. Plus Williams is an American, and the earnings numbers are almost always dominated by American athletes, because the US is the largest consumer market. But Sharapova is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white girl, and Williams is black, and Sharapova's "white privilege" comes with a huge dollar sign.

But, when a columnist pushes the "white privilege" concept in a setting where it just doesn't make sense, like Peyton Manning's legacy, it just looks ridiculous, and that undermines the argument in places where it might actually make sense.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Over on Salon.com, it seems they have a new editorial mandate that every column must include the phrase "white privilege." "White Privilege" is a catch-phrase of "critical race theory," related to the benefits, in our society, of being white -- the unspoken double-standards that give white people a host of subtle and not-so-subtle advantages in society. Some of these are pretty hard to argue against. For example, a white graduate of any Ivy League school never has his degree mentally marked down as "affirmative action" in a way that a minority often will, even if the minority was actually the finest scholar of any race in his class. But, more often, I'm seeing some really laughable reaching by liberals, to apply the term. Here's a recent example:

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/07/whi...l_field_peyton_mannings_benefit_of_the_doubt/

The argument is that Peyton Manning's legacy got the benefit of the doubt by a sports announcer in a way that a black athlete who'd just suffered a similar drubbing would not. It's hard to disprove this simply by making a straight-up comparison between a black and white NFL player, since no straight-up comparison is even possible. In the history of the NFL, there's never been another five-time MVP, of any race. Hell, there's never even been anyone else who won more than two. The closest counterpart to Peyton Manning, among black NFL players, is Jim Brown (two MVPs). But, let's pretend Brown had five of them, like Manning. In that case, the two men would be comparable. Each would have won just a single NFL championship, despite dominating the regular season in their respective statistical categories throughout their careers. Does Jim Brown's lack of "White Privilege" lead to his legacy being questioned in a way that Manning's isn't?

In a word: no. Pretty much nobody questions Brown's legacy. He is the most frequent name to come up as "best running back of all time," he makes every NFL anniversary list and every list of top players in history, and he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. A recent NFL ranking of the best players in its history put him at number two. His legacy is secure, without any White Privilege. Manning's would, likewise, be secure if he were black. The misapplication of "White Privilege" to this scenario just undermines the whole concept.

I can't think of a single attempt to apply 'white privilege' that doesn't undermine the whole concept.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Yep.

I don't want to play down the white privilege concept entirely. There are aspects of "white privilege" in sport. For example, the top-paid athletes are white to a degree disproportionate to their success levels, especially once you consider marketing. A black athlete can rise to the top of the endorsements pile by dominating a major sport for many years (like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan), but as between two equally distinguished athletes in the same sport, the white one will generally make a whole lot more money.

For example, Maria Sharapova earned $29 million last year, to Serena Williams' $20 million. On paper, Williams should be the bigger earner. She had more winnings in the year, has been much better for much longer, she's the top-ranked player (Sharapova is fifth), and she holds a 15-2 head-to-head record against Sharapova. Plus Williams is an American, and the earnings numbers are almost always dominated by American athletes, because the US is the largest consumer market. But Sharapova is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white girl, and Williams is black, and Sharapova's "white privilege" comes with a huge dollar sign.

But, when a columnist pushes the "white privilege" concept in a setting where it just doesn't make sense, like Peyton Manning's legacy, it just looks ridiculous, and that undermines the argument in places where it might actually make sense.

Are you suggesting that Sharapova gets paid more for winning the same tourneys that Williams wins because she's white?

Please say yes.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

Yep.

I don't want to play down the white privilege concept entirely. There are aspects of "white privilege" in sport. For example, the top-paid athletes are white to a degree disproportionate to their success levels, especially once you consider marketing. A black athlete can rise to the top of the endorsements pile by dominating a major sport for many years (like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan), but as between two equally distinguished athletes in the same sport, the white one will generally make a whole lot more money.

For example, Maria Sharapova earned $29 million last year, to Serena Williams' $20 million. On paper, Williams should be the bigger earner. She had more winnings in the year, has been much better for much longer, she's the top-ranked player (Sharapova is fifth), and she holds a 15-2 head-to-head record against Sharapova. Plus Williams is an American, and the earnings numbers are almost always dominated by American athletes, because the US is the largest consumer market. But Sharapova is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white girl, and Williams is black, and Sharapova's "white privilege" comes with a huge dollar sign.

But, when a columnist pushes the "white privilege" concept in a setting where it just doesn't make sense, like Peyton Manning's legacy, it just looks ridiculous, and that undermines the argument in places where it might actually make sense.

Mr. Arkady,

In your example, the fact that Sharapova is cute as a button, Williams looks like a dude with tits is the reason for her making more money.

With regard to football, the highest paid players are always quarterbacks, and there are no black quarterbacks comperable to the Manning Brothers, Rogers, Brees, Bradey, and Flaco. The only one that may remotely come close is Cam Newton, but he is not in a big market which would attract a huge salery.

Also, since the highest paid baseball and basketball players are mostly black, your theory falls flat.

 

[marvin martian]

In your example, the fact that Sharapova is cute as a button, Williams looks like a dude with tits is the reason for her making more money.

Now that's just your culturally insensitive, white-privileged ass talking! I'm sure being the dutiful liberal guy that he is, Arkady finds both Ms. Sharapova and Ms. Williams equally attractive. Exactly equally attractive...

 

[fairsheet]

I don't know about "white privilege", but I do think there's something we might call, "Manning privilege". Here are a coupla my thoughts on this one:

-I'm not of Indy, Denver, or the AFC so I don't know Manning all that well, but I do know that he's always been described as a "great guy". Yet, as I watched him during the game and subsequent piece that aired his in-game "miked" commentary, I saw absolutely NOTHING to even hint at he's a "great guy". To qualify, I didn't see anything to suggest he's a "bad guy" either but...."great guy"?...gimme a break. He only chose Denver over all his other suitors, because Denver promised to reform the entire team around HIM. And sure....the African-American Jim Brown absolutely IS acknowledged as one of the finest NFL runners of all time. But...he's ever described as a "great guy"? The only way an African-American will ever be described as a "great guy", is if he actually IS a great guy.

And......If we were to poll NFL fans across the board as to who's the finest QB of all time, we know what names would pop up - Brady, Montana, Marino, Elway (that'd me me), Unitas for the older set, and yes....Peyton Manning.

But...how many Superbowls has he won? Answer, one. But...when have you ever heard anyone put Terry Bradshaw* at the top of any list? How many Superbowls did HE win? Answer, FOUR. And, I think it fair to say that ever since he was dratfted #1, Manning's had a helluva lot more control over the makeup and "identity" of HIS teams, than Bradshaw ever had.

*For the record, when Bradshaw was winning those Superbowls for the Steelers?...I was an Eagles fan!

 

[Colorforms]

Mr. Arkady,

In your example, the fact that Sharapova is cute as a button, Williams looks like a dude with tits is the reason for her making more money.

With regard to football, the highest paid players are always quarterbacks, and there are no black quarterbacks comperable to the Manning Brothers, Rogers, Brees, Bradey, and Flaco. The only one that may remotely come close is Cam Newton, but he is not in a big market which would attract a huge salery.

Also, since the highest paid baseball and basketball players are mostly black, your theory falls flat.

Actually, just off the cuff, I would say it's more of an agent problem than a racial one, until someone can show me different.

 

[Arkady]

Are you suggesting that Sharapova gets paid more for winning the same tourneys that Williams wins because she's white?

Please say yes.

No. What would make you think I was saying that?

 

[fairsheet]

Actually, just off the cuff, I would say it's more of an agent problem than a racial one, until someone can show me different.

Much as I hate to disagree with Ya and the way he puts it, I think he's probably right. "Attractiveness" is a major factor in the compensation of women athletes, especially.

But even as to males, all other stats being equal, the more attractive one will draw better media and money. But hey....that's true even in politics!

 

[Colorforms]

Much as I hate to disagree with Ya and the way he puts it, I think he's probably right. "Attractiveness" is a major factor in the compensation of women athletes, especially.

But even as to males, all other stats being equal, the more attractive one will draw better media and money. But hey....that's true even in politics!

That may be. Sex does sell. I am still apprehensive about making it racial simply based on salary, however.

Despite recent trivialization, racism is a serious issue and the charge should not be levied lightly.

 

[fairsheet]

That may be. Sex does sell. I am still apprehensive about making it racial simply based on salary, however.

Despite recent trivialization, racism is a serious issue and the charge should not be levied lightly.

I hope it's plain that I'm running away from the white privilege angle.

 

[Arkady]

Mr. Arkady,

In your example, the fact that Sharapova is cute as a button, Williams looks like a dude with tits is the reason for her making more money.

With regard to football, the highest paid players are always quarterbacks, and there are no black quarterbacks comperable to the Manning Brothers, Rogers, Brees, Bradey, and Flaco. The only one that may remotely come close is Cam Newton, but he is not in a big market which would attract a huge salery.

Also, since the highest paid baseball and basketball players are mostly black, your theory falls flat.

If you were speaking of Venus Williams, I'd agree, but Serena isn't bad. I agree that looks help, but race is a factor, too. The fact is, peope have a natural tendency to think more positively of those with whom they identify, and some of that identfication is based on physical traits. And since most consumers in the US, and especially most wealthy consumers, are white, that gives white athletes an edge in endorsements that equally distinguished black athletes don't have.

I'll give you another example, where looks aren't a factor. In Denver, in the late 1990s, there were two highly distinguished wide receivers, on those Super Bowl winning teams: Rod Smith and Ed McCaffrey. Smith was, statistically, the better player, overall. But "Easy Ed's" face was everywhere. He was a marketing machine. Same position, same team, same era, neither man particularly ugly or attractive, but one was much more sought-after for product endorsements, and I'll give you one guess what their respective races were.

 

[Colorforms]

I hope it's plain that I'm running away from the white privilege angle.

Yep, I got that.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Have to agree. That's pretty cheesy. Maybe that's why I don't read much from Salon?

 

[NightSwimmer]

With regard to football, the highest paid players are always quarterbacks, and there are no black quarterbacks comperable to the Manning Brothers, Rogers, Brees, Bradey, and Flaco. The only one that may remotely come close is Cam Newton, but he is not in a big market which would attract a huge salery.

I didn't watch the game, but I thought that the QB who whipped the Bronco's tails was a black guy? No?

 

[ya-ta-hey]

If you were speaking of Venus Williams, I'd agree, but Serena isn't bad. I agree that looks help, but race is a factor, too. The fact is, peope have a natural tendency to think more positively of those with whom they identify, and some of that identfication is based on physical traits. And since most consumers in the US, and especially most wealthy consumers, are white, that gives white athletes an edge in endorsements that equally distinguished black athletes don't have.

I'll give you another example, where looks aren't a factor. In Denver, in the late 1990s, there were two highly distinguished wide receivers, on those Super Bowl winning teams: Rod Smith and Ed McCaffrey. Smith was, statistically, the better player, overall. But "Easy Ed's" face was everywhere. He was a marketing machine. Same position, same team, same era, neither man particularly ugly or attractive, but one was much more sought-after for product endorsements, and I'll give you one guess what their respective races were.

Mr. Arkady,

The thing to consider it the wide range of products beyond the normal cars, foods, consumer goods that Ms. Sharapova can promote. Designer clothes, fragrances, body lotions, to name a few.

If you're a designer, unless you're Joe Wieder wanting to sell workout gear for the roid users, you want someone tall, slender, and body proportionate to model your clothes.

It also doesn't hurt that Ms. Sharapova is stylish and classy on and off court, vs. the ghetto train wreck that tends to follow Ms. Williams around.