What can I say, I like Hemingway. His short stories are always fun and food for thought as well. His novels I have always enjoyed. Obviously - to me - he is not in one class with people like Faulkner and Twain, but he definitely is up there in the canon of American literature. The Fifth Column apparently is the only play he ever wrote, under shells stuck in a Madrid surrounded by Franco's forces I might add for melodramatic benefit. Hemingway tells the story of an American counter-espionage agent working for the Republic (and a greater, future - socalist - good). He falls in love with an American girl, working in Madrid as a writer and in the end has to choose whether to pursue his current life or follow her into the glamorous life-style of well-off American expatriots in Europe. This being Hemingway, you should know what he chooses, I will not tell you.
I liked the play, but I cannot claim that I was overly thrilled about it. Somehow - and paradoxically - Hemingway's method of telling a story, through factual descriptions, and uninterpreted dialogue does not really work in this play. Maybe because the factual descriptions of what people are doing, what they are looking at and so on are missing and he relies nearly solely on dialogue (kind of like Richard III, which I just read actually, but absolutely different nonetheless of course). Yet, what bothered me most was not the way Hemingway told the story, but rather what he implied in it.
The girl, which is called Bridges, but according to Hemingway himself could have been called Nostalgia as well, is described as beautiful with a remarkable body, but lazy and inept most daily activities. In a way she represents what men are supposed to long for in a woman, and that is actually what tempts the main character, Philip, to turn his back on his life as a killer - for political reasons and in a war, surely, but a killer anyway. Yet, that what she stands for does not come across as tempting to me, she is shallow, naive, vain; if that is what Hemingway looks for in a woman - and that's how it comes across - good for him, it doesn't work for me - a nice body and good looks simply don't cut it.
Finally, a feminist critique of her role would be necessary as well I believe, in the beginning of the book, she chooses Philip over the man with whom she has been living up until then, mainly - if not solely - on the basis of him being a man's man. Philip is not just a writer sitting in a hotel room, afraid of the shells, he is a tough guy that does not mind using his force to take advantage of other people. He treats Bridges badly, mostly for reasons associated with his job, yet she doesn't know this. The whole thing just makes me wonder whether Hemingway really believes women decide on who to fall in love with, based only on these traditional masculine elements. I doubt it.
Having explained how I disagree with the author over his main characterisations, I have to say that the play was fun to read anyway. I would recommend his short stories or novels for people that don't know him, but for further reading this play is definitely good. The Spanish Civil War is a very interesting subject anyway, as you have in a micro cosmos the forces fighting out the 2nd World War and the Cold War already. I would love to read more about it, and hope I do get that chance at some point.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Richard III.
A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!
Sounds familiar? That's actually from Shakespeare's Richard III. I knew it was from Shakespeare of course, but I hadn't read the play in which it was featured. This king-centered play is in some ways very similar to Macbeth. Again you have a famous warrrior who conspires to kill the king and crown himself. There are two main differences here, Richard does not only murder the king but also his sons (the king's), his wife (Richard's), and about 5 or 6 other nobles, additionaly he is not just a famous warrior but actually related to the king and his family. Not that family strife is anything all that new in Shakespeare but this one definitely is extreme by any standard.
I enjoyed the play and would recommend it to anyone, Shakespeare is just too good to pass up in the end, but I disliked two impacts, that I felt were missing (again, especially in comparison to Macbeth which I immensely enjoyed). One, there was no comical relief whatsoever in the play. I always thought that Shakespeare pepped up his tragedies' cruelty by some impromptu comedy like the porter in Macbeth. More importantly, Richard has no kind of moral argument with himself. He wants the crown and he takes it and does whatever he needs to do to secure it. There is no real reasoning for this, no self-doubt, he seems like an amoral human being. I found that a serious flaw in Richard III., as it kept the main character more at a level of a stock character - the true villain - than anything else.
Sounds familiar? That's actually from Shakespeare's Richard III. I knew it was from Shakespeare of course, but I hadn't read the play in which it was featured. This king-centered play is in some ways very similar to Macbeth. Again you have a famous warrrior who conspires to kill the king and crown himself. There are two main differences here, Richard does not only murder the king but also his sons (the king's), his wife (Richard's), and about 5 or 6 other nobles, additionaly he is not just a famous warrior but actually related to the king and his family. Not that family strife is anything all that new in Shakespeare but this one definitely is extreme by any standard.
I enjoyed the play and would recommend it to anyone, Shakespeare is just too good to pass up in the end, but I disliked two impacts, that I felt were missing (again, especially in comparison to Macbeth which I immensely enjoyed). One, there was no comical relief whatsoever in the play. I always thought that Shakespeare pepped up his tragedies' cruelty by some impromptu comedy like the porter in Macbeth. More importantly, Richard has no kind of moral argument with himself. He wants the crown and he takes it and does whatever he needs to do to secure it. There is no real reasoning for this, no self-doubt, he seems like an amoral human being. I found that a serious flaw in Richard III., as it kept the main character more at a level of a stock character - the true villain - than anything else.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Eurosceptism
The Times argues in a column that a revised Constitutional Treaty (which would be purged of certain national elements (anthem....) and not be called constitutional anymore (which was incorrect and a PR debacle in the first place)) is not wanted nor needed in Europe. They also demand, not to be cheated out of a referendum on this treaty. They obviously have a point in regard to the referenda (I will get back to that in a second), but their overall argument is quite faulty.
The implication is that the treaty gives 'still more power to the European bureaucracy.' This completely ignores the fact that the treaty in its current form actually strengtens national parliaments as well as the EP. Also, through qualified majority voting (meaning that not as many issues would require unanimous deciscion-making anymore) the clout of democratically elected politicians would be strengthened (even if at the expense of the nation state, yet definitely not favoring the European bureaucracy).
Fear of the 'Franco-German alliance' dominating the EU are invoked, which suggests that the author has not kept up to date on his politics for a while. Ever since the accessions of 2004 France and Germany simply cannot dominate as much anymore, two countries, no matter their size or historical/traditional EU-powers, cannot impose their will on 25 others. If Britain was willing to take a more active role in EU-politics, its influence would rise accordingly and no would be able to (nor really want to) prevent this from happening. A case in point for this would be developement of the European Defense and Security Policy in which Britain played a decisive role (plainly speaking, it would have never gotten off the ground if not for British involvement).
Finally, William Rees-Mogg claims that 'a number of countries' would prefer no new treaty. I don't see that. Poland, yes. The UK, maybe (not so sure whether Blair or even Brown would agree). But that's kind of it, I believe 18 countries have ratified the Constitutional Treaty, showing open support to it, two have rejected it. I wonder a little where those numbers that he talks about are coming from.
Lastly, in regard to possible referenda, I agree that it would be elitist to ratifiy a new treaty based on the old Constitutional one, especially in France, the Netherlands (where the people rejected the earlier one) and the UK (where a referendum had been promised to the people). Yet, I would argue that a referendum should take place on a European level, on one day, involving some kind of mixture of states and absolute votes won to pass the treaty. Thus, the people would have their say, but at the same time would not pass judgement on Blair, Chirac or Balkenende and turn Europe into a scapegoat. This obviously will not happen, national politicians are not really interested in creating a European political arena, but it would be a strong signal of taking the people and European democracy serious while at the same time strengthening an emerging European society (yes, it is still a long way to go, but what do you want? I am a progressive utopian sometimes, not just a cycnic all the time).
The implication is that the treaty gives 'still more power to the European bureaucracy.' This completely ignores the fact that the treaty in its current form actually strengtens national parliaments as well as the EP. Also, through qualified majority voting (meaning that not as many issues would require unanimous deciscion-making anymore) the clout of democratically elected politicians would be strengthened (even if at the expense of the nation state, yet definitely not favoring the European bureaucracy).
Fear of the 'Franco-German alliance' dominating the EU are invoked, which suggests that the author has not kept up to date on his politics for a while. Ever since the accessions of 2004 France and Germany simply cannot dominate as much anymore, two countries, no matter their size or historical/traditional EU-powers, cannot impose their will on 25 others. If Britain was willing to take a more active role in EU-politics, its influence would rise accordingly and no would be able to (nor really want to) prevent this from happening. A case in point for this would be developement of the European Defense and Security Policy in which Britain played a decisive role (plainly speaking, it would have never gotten off the ground if not for British involvement).
Finally, William Rees-Mogg claims that 'a number of countries' would prefer no new treaty. I don't see that. Poland, yes. The UK, maybe (not so sure whether Blair or even Brown would agree). But that's kind of it, I believe 18 countries have ratified the Constitutional Treaty, showing open support to it, two have rejected it. I wonder a little where those numbers that he talks about are coming from.
Lastly, in regard to possible referenda, I agree that it would be elitist to ratifiy a new treaty based on the old Constitutional one, especially in France, the Netherlands (where the people rejected the earlier one) and the UK (where a referendum had been promised to the people). Yet, I would argue that a referendum should take place on a European level, on one day, involving some kind of mixture of states and absolute votes won to pass the treaty. Thus, the people would have their say, but at the same time would not pass judgement on Blair, Chirac or Balkenende and turn Europe into a scapegoat. This obviously will not happen, national politicians are not really interested in creating a European political arena, but it would be a strong signal of taking the people and European democracy serious while at the same time strengthening an emerging European society (yes, it is still a long way to go, but what do you want? I am a progressive utopian sometimes, not just a cycnic all the time).
Monday, June 18, 2007
Wo Spinnen Ihre Nester Bauen
Ich weiß gar nicht mehr, wo ich mir Italo Calvinos Wo Spinnen Ihre Nester Bauen gekauft habe. Ich entsinne mich nur noch, daß es super billig war und ich es kaufte ohne irgendetwas über den Autor oder das Buch vorher zu wissen. Ich habe es jetzt in den letzten Tagen relativ schnell gelesen (ja, irgendwie mache ich das gerade öfter so, schalte meinen Rechner morgens nach dem Email-, Zeitungslesen und Vokabeltraining einfach aus und kriege dadurch viel mehr andere Sachen hin) und es hat mir sehr gut gefallen.
Calvino erzählt die Geschichte der italienischen Resistenza (?) gegen die deutsche Besatzung nach dem Sturz Mussolinis aus der Sicht eines kleinen Jungen. Dieses Kind ermöglicht es Calvino seine gesammelten Erfahrungen, weil er wie Babtschenko schreibt über einen Kampf an dem er selber teilnahm, aus einer gewissen naiven Perspektive mitzuteilen. Pina, wie der kleine Junge heißt, mit der Grausamkeit und Rücksichtslosigket eines Kindes nimmt kein Blatt vor den Mund und deckt die Scheinheiligkeit der erwachsenen Welt erbarmungslos offen. Er stiehlt dem deutschen Matrosen, der zu den vielen Kunden seiner Schwester gehört - diese gehört als Dienstleisterin dem vielmals als ältestem der Welt bezeichneten Gewerbe, seine Pistole, er verrät die Äffäre, die der Kommandant seiner Resistenzgruppe mit der Frau des Koches hat vor versammelter Mannschaft. Er muß, auch wenn er es nie wirklich tut, lernen zwischen den Worten und Taten der Erwachsenen zu unterscheiden, welche ihn durch starke Worte zum Widerstand animieren, nur um dann selber bei geringstem Druck ihre einstigen Kameraden zu verraten und zum Feind, zur Schwarzen Brigade, zu wechseln.
Pina hat in einer gewissen Art etwas von Huckleberry Finn, seine leicht naive Ezählweise, in welcher er kontinuierlich Wörter einwirft, welche er nicht wirklich versteht (zum großen Teil kommunistische Begriffe wie Trotzkist), seine Abenteurodysee verweisen beide stark auf Mark Twains jugendlichen Helden.
Es bleibt anzumerken, daß die Erzählweise meistens aus der 3. Person bei Pina bleibt, außer in einem eindrucksvollen Kapitel, wo ein intellektueller Führer der Widerstandsbrigade - ich habe keine Ahnung, ob Calvino sich hier verstärkt selber einbrachte, es wäre eine Möglichkeit in Anbetracht der Tatsache, daß er selber im Widerstand kämpfte - sich darüber Gedanken macht, was die Gründe für den Kampf seiner Mitstreiter sind. Diese erscheinen profan, und ohne Richtung, die wenigsten von ihnen arbeiten hin auf ein sozialistisches - oder anders geartetes - Ziel, die meisten versuchen einfach ihnen angetanes Leid wieder gutzumachen oder zu rächen. Sein innerer Monolog ist eine sehr anregende Reflexion über die Gründe dieser Männer ihr Leben zu riskieren und gibt dem Rest des Buches dominiert von menschlichem Versagen eine Art theoretische oder philosophische Basis.
Ein sehr schönes Buch.
Calvino erzählt die Geschichte der italienischen Resistenza (?) gegen die deutsche Besatzung nach dem Sturz Mussolinis aus der Sicht eines kleinen Jungen. Dieses Kind ermöglicht es Calvino seine gesammelten Erfahrungen, weil er wie Babtschenko schreibt über einen Kampf an dem er selber teilnahm, aus einer gewissen naiven Perspektive mitzuteilen. Pina, wie der kleine Junge heißt, mit der Grausamkeit und Rücksichtslosigket eines Kindes nimmt kein Blatt vor den Mund und deckt die Scheinheiligkeit der erwachsenen Welt erbarmungslos offen. Er stiehlt dem deutschen Matrosen, der zu den vielen Kunden seiner Schwester gehört - diese gehört als Dienstleisterin dem vielmals als ältestem der Welt bezeichneten Gewerbe, seine Pistole, er verrät die Äffäre, die der Kommandant seiner Resistenzgruppe mit der Frau des Koches hat vor versammelter Mannschaft. Er muß, auch wenn er es nie wirklich tut, lernen zwischen den Worten und Taten der Erwachsenen zu unterscheiden, welche ihn durch starke Worte zum Widerstand animieren, nur um dann selber bei geringstem Druck ihre einstigen Kameraden zu verraten und zum Feind, zur Schwarzen Brigade, zu wechseln.
Pina hat in einer gewissen Art etwas von Huckleberry Finn, seine leicht naive Ezählweise, in welcher er kontinuierlich Wörter einwirft, welche er nicht wirklich versteht (zum großen Teil kommunistische Begriffe wie Trotzkist), seine Abenteurodysee verweisen beide stark auf Mark Twains jugendlichen Helden.
Es bleibt anzumerken, daß die Erzählweise meistens aus der 3. Person bei Pina bleibt, außer in einem eindrucksvollen Kapitel, wo ein intellektueller Führer der Widerstandsbrigade - ich habe keine Ahnung, ob Calvino sich hier verstärkt selber einbrachte, es wäre eine Möglichkeit in Anbetracht der Tatsache, daß er selber im Widerstand kämpfte - sich darüber Gedanken macht, was die Gründe für den Kampf seiner Mitstreiter sind. Diese erscheinen profan, und ohne Richtung, die wenigsten von ihnen arbeiten hin auf ein sozialistisches - oder anders geartetes - Ziel, die meisten versuchen einfach ihnen angetanes Leid wieder gutzumachen oder zu rächen. Sein innerer Monolog ist eine sehr anregende Reflexion über die Gründe dieser Männer ihr Leben zu riskieren und gibt dem Rest des Buches dominiert von menschlichem Versagen eine Art theoretische oder philosophische Basis.
Ein sehr schönes Buch.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Taking Shots
Keith Glass, a basketball agent, wrote Taking Shots about his life as an agent in the NBA. I had not expected his book to be of any true worthiness from a literature point of view, but I did think that it would have a couple of interesting stories to tell. Would give some interesting insight into the world of professional basketball.
Instead, it is badly written (he abounds in repetitions, bad sounding phrases and lame colloquialisms), none of the stories really held my interest for any extended period of time and Glass is intent on preaching all the time. Even content-wise: criticizing what is wrong with the NBA is all fine and dandy, and he has some valid points, but this general attitude problem aspect I find to be absolutely lame. If you can't pinpoint what you actually dislike, then don't criticize.
Summing up, even if you are die-hard basketball fan, don't bother. I hope Paul Shirley's book will be better.
Instead, it is badly written (he abounds in repetitions, bad sounding phrases and lame colloquialisms), none of the stories really held my interest for any extended period of time and Glass is intent on preaching all the time. Even content-wise: criticizing what is wrong with the NBA is all fine and dandy, and he has some valid points, but this general attitude problem aspect I find to be absolutely lame. If you can't pinpoint what you actually dislike, then don't criticize.
Summing up, even if you are die-hard basketball fan, don't bother. I hope Paul Shirley's book will be better.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Die Farbe des Krieges
Ein Kumpel hatte mir Arkadi Babtschenkos Die Farbe des Krieges ausgeliehen und dies mit der Aussage verbunden, es sei ein gutes Buch und ich würde schnell damit durch sein. Ich kann beides nur bestätigen, habe glaube ich nicht mal mehr zwei Tage an dem Roman gelesen und es war sehr eindrucksvoll.
Die Erzählweise erinnerte mich sehr an Tim O'Briens The Things They Carried, Norman Mailers The Naked and The Dead sowie Hemingways A Farewell to Arms. Dieser Kriegsbüchertradition folgend erzählt Babtschenko aus Tschetschenien. Unzusammenhängende Episodengeschichten ermöglichen dem Leser einen Einblick in die Grausamkeit und Unmenschlichkeit des Krieges. Bei seinen Beschreibungen kommt hinzu, daß die russische Armee durch eine weitverbreitete (und bis in die höchsten Ränge hineinragende) Korruption geprägt ist und durch ein körperliche Gewalt förderndes System, in welchem die Großväter neue Rekruten als persönliche Sklaven und Aggressionsablassmittel mißbrauchen. Der Autor benutzt dazu eine Sprache, welche nicht vor falscher politischer Korrektheit zurückschreckt und stellt auch dadurch dar wie der gemeine Soldat ein Opfer des imperialistischen, machthungrigen russischen Systems ist. Politische Anschuldigungen beschränken sich zwar auf ein Minimum (Jelzin und Putin werden beide, wenn auch nur einmal, beschuldigt), aber seine Episoden reichen aus um die moralische Verdammtheit dieses Krieges im Besonderen wie auch des Krieges im Allgemeinen und nicht zuletzt der russischen Armee zu verdeutlichen.
Ich persönlich fand, daß Die Farbe des Krieges den Leser (also mich) leer hinterläßt. Es bleibt einfach nichts mehr hinzuzufügen. Die sinnlose Gewalt, die Folterpraktiken, das Morden, es hinterläßt nichts als eine angewiderte Faszination für diese Abgründe menschlicher Existenz.
Holts Euch, lests.
Die Erzählweise erinnerte mich sehr an Tim O'Briens The Things They Carried, Norman Mailers The Naked and The Dead sowie Hemingways A Farewell to Arms. Dieser Kriegsbüchertradition folgend erzählt Babtschenko aus Tschetschenien. Unzusammenhängende Episodengeschichten ermöglichen dem Leser einen Einblick in die Grausamkeit und Unmenschlichkeit des Krieges. Bei seinen Beschreibungen kommt hinzu, daß die russische Armee durch eine weitverbreitete (und bis in die höchsten Ränge hineinragende) Korruption geprägt ist und durch ein körperliche Gewalt förderndes System, in welchem die Großväter neue Rekruten als persönliche Sklaven und Aggressionsablassmittel mißbrauchen. Der Autor benutzt dazu eine Sprache, welche nicht vor falscher politischer Korrektheit zurückschreckt und stellt auch dadurch dar wie der gemeine Soldat ein Opfer des imperialistischen, machthungrigen russischen Systems ist. Politische Anschuldigungen beschränken sich zwar auf ein Minimum (Jelzin und Putin werden beide, wenn auch nur einmal, beschuldigt), aber seine Episoden reichen aus um die moralische Verdammtheit dieses Krieges im Besonderen wie auch des Krieges im Allgemeinen und nicht zuletzt der russischen Armee zu verdeutlichen.
Ich persönlich fand, daß Die Farbe des Krieges den Leser (also mich) leer hinterläßt. Es bleibt einfach nichts mehr hinzuzufügen. Die sinnlose Gewalt, die Folterpraktiken, das Morden, es hinterläßt nichts als eine angewiderte Faszination für diese Abgründe menschlicher Existenz.
Holts Euch, lests.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Le Vicomte de Bragelonne II
Alors, j'ai fini la deuxième partie du Vicomte de Bragelonne (jusqu'à côté, quelqu'un m'a dit ce soir que Alexandre Dumaus aurait été le fils d'un esclave et un aristocrat francais, je ne sais pas encore quoi faire exactement avec cette information, assez bizarre en tout cas). Je ne veux pas dire trop sur ce bouquin parce que enfin c'est plutôt un tier d'une histoire qu'un livre singulier. Seulement, je dois avouer que la première partie m'avait plu vachement plus que ce. La deuxième n'était pas mal non plus, mais il y avait moins des histoires d'aventure avec Artagnan, Athos et al, et plus des intrigues de cour de Louis XIV. Les histoires amoureuses entre lui (Louis) et quelques femmes (sa belle-soeur et la fiancée de Bragelonne surtout) ont dominé cet episode. Encore, c'était une plaisir de lire ca aussi, surtout parce que Dumas a fondé presque tous personage sur les personnes réeles, mais enfin je préfère les aventures, comme dans la première, Les trois Mousquetaires ou Vingt ans après. J'ai déjà fait la commande pour la troisième partie et j'espère que ca sera plutôt comme ca.
Friday, June 08, 2007
The Wealth Effect
I had not initally wanted to publish this essay because I wasn't really happy with it. But, I decided not to chicken out and hide it just because I feel not as sure of my argumental skills when it comes to economics. The essay deals with the wealth effect on consumption. Meaning how an increase in different kinds of wealth (housing and financial) impact one's consumption.
Monday, June 04, 2007
The Poverty of Philosophy
- Immortal Technique - The Poverty of Philosophy
This guy is just plain amazing.
When you try to change the system from within, it is the system that will eventually change you.
His rhymes definitely, makes you stop and think. - I am a little confused about this suite against a Canadian Al Qaida fighter. He was only 15 when he was caught, so obviously he would have to be treated differently then an older terrorist. Yet, I wonder more generally how he can be even defined as a terrorist and charged of war crimes when 'the shrapnel from the grenade he is accused of throwing ripped through the skull of Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer, who was 28 when he died.' How is that terrorism or even a war crime? Isn't that a regular act of war, he gets attacked (or even attacks first, that doesn't change anything really), throws a grenade, kills the guy. Horrible, but isn't that what the Americans are doing everyday in Iraq? What they did in Europe during the Second World War? I just don't get how you can accuse someone of war crimes who acted the way soldiers are supposed to. He didn't after all torture someone, rape or kill civilians or anything like. Would appreciate it if someone could explain this to me.
- Apparently, trained police officers in a study shot less often at unarmed men because of racial premises, than do regular citizens. I wonder how I would score on this exam. But then, maybe, even if subconsciously you have a racial fear of some people and not of others, it is a question of controlling this irrational fear in every day situations. After all, you will usually not have to make split-second decisions like this.
- 'Mr. Bush’s comments to federal law enforcement trainees in Georgia on Tuesday, in which he took the rare step of going after conservative critics in terms usually reserved for Democrats, has charged the Republican ferment, specifically his suggestion that those opposed to the plan “don’t want to do what’s right for America.”
Presidential aides said later that Mr. Bush did not mean to impugn anyone’s patriotism, and that he had ad-libbed the line during a passionate address on an issue he holds dear.' (NY Times)
What a sad state of political rhetoric when all the argument Bush can find is that people don't want to do what's right for America. I guess this is nothing new, nor only existent in the USA, but think about it for a second. Is that an argument, does it further his position, convince his opponents? I guess that is what politics have stooped to, accusing the other person. Sad. (And, I do of course realize that this is a prevalent thing, that quote just struck me when reading the news this morning.)
Friday, June 01, 2007
Afghanistan, Playin' Ball & Obama
- Deutsche Polizeiausbildung ein Desaster
The Germans have failed completely with their police training program. They were sending local, provincial policemen, aged 45 or 50 years old, who had no concept of Muslim culture and no concept of training. That has been a disaster. But we need the police to provide security, keep the peace, fight drugs, establish the writ of the state and to establish the writ of Karzai. Now the Americans have taken over, they are training an 80,000 member police force. This failure has been very critical. (From an interview with a Pakistani journalist who is somekind of a specialist on Afghanistan, no real surprises here for any regular reader.) - Obama has just changed my perception of him some, the guy plays ball! What I found really interesting, and what the NY Times mispresents in their article ('Cut to the future Mrs. Obama asking her brother to take her new boyfriend out on the court, to make sure he was not the type to hog the ball or call constant fouls.'), is that Obama's brother-in-law who was interviewed in accompanying video claims something which I have always believed in as well. It is possible to psychologically analze people through the way they play ball. I cannot really explain this, how it works precisely, but I sincerely believe that playing ball with someone tells me more about his character than talking to him for any extended period of time. You can pretend to be something you are not in virtually every situation, yet, that does not work on the court. Obama's wife back then did not want to know how he played ball of course, but rather what kind of an impression as a human being he made.
Friday, May 25, 2007
North Carolina Slave Narratives
I stumbled across North Carolina Slave Narratives - The Lives of Moses Roper, Lunsford Lane, Moses Grady & Thomas H. Jones by accident in the JFKI library. Just saw the North Carolina in the title while walking past a shelf and decided to grab it as some kind of an early introduction into where I am actually going to be living starting in August. It turned out to be a really good read. I skipped most of the lengthy introductions, just because I was interested in just the primary source content and none of the supplementary comments and explanations, but I thoroughly enjoyed the narratives.
Four former slaves autobiographically recount their lives' experiences and how they managed to escape the slave system and settle in the British colonies and England (for the most part). All four of them were written earlier than Frederick Douglass' famed account during the 1830s, also unlike him they testify on exactly the way they escaped (Douglass, in order to protect the people that helped him, skips over this part in his narrative) which makes for a very exciting read. The experiences of all four were immensely different.
Moses Roper continuously tried to run away, being caught, whipped and put in chains countless times, yet never giving up and finally succeeding in getting to the Northern states where abolitionists financed his continued flight to England (according to federal laws at the time any slave that had fled the South had to be deported back into slavery when being caught in the slavery-outlawing Northern states).
Lunsford Lane on the other hand had a lenient owner who rented him out to himself (a rather bizarre practise where the slave would pay the owner a fixed sum every year, which he had to accumulate himself by whatever enterprise he chose to enroll in, everything above that sum he could keep for himself). After a couple of years he had amassed enough savings to buy himself from his owner and thus liberate himself. He then proceeded to save up money to buy his wife and children as well and being of an industrious nature succeeded financially with this as well. Yet, a self-liberated entrepreneuring black man like him posed a threat to the system as it caricatured the image of the lazy, child-like, incompetent slave that without the slave owner would degrade and finally die because of his incapability to nourish himself. Thus, he was chased out of North Carolina by use of the law (there were no free blacks allowed to enter the state of North Carolina and since he had gone to New York for a while this law was used against him) and the threat of mob violence.
Moses Grady like Lane toiled for himself in order to pay his master out. Unlike Lane though his masters cheated him out of his money twice by simply accepting the money for his liberty after having made an oral contract for the same, yet then not granting this liberty to him. While this was morally condemned even by most white people, legally he stood on safe grounds simply because as an owner you could not cheat your property as everything he earned or did belonged to you anyway. The third time he paid money to his - then - master, that white man tried again to cheat him out of his liberty, yet in the end succumbed to moral pressure on the part of the white community.
Thomas H. Jones was the last and least interestingly written account. He fled to the North and later Canada after having had a friend bought his wife and children. His flight went uneventful (luckily for him) and smooth. His narrative was in my opinion the worst, because he, a preacher, wrote in a sermon style with constant and very repetitive references to God. His writing simply did not suit me and his Christianity of forgiving even the worst slave holder in the name of Jesus I found hard to believe and even harder to relate to.
All in all, I would recommend this to virtually every one as the accounts detail and make one aware better of important aspects of the Southern slave system. The way families, husbands and wives were split up for example and how people dealt with that. How common corporal punishment was, yet how blacks and whites lived together. Thomas H. Jones' sermons in rural North Carolina are visited by blacks and whites alike. Also, how older slaves were left in the woods own their own, because their masters considered it economically unsound to feed and clothe them any longer. Lastly, as a more positive aspect I guess, how many slaves seem to have worked for themselves, rented themselves out and thus enjoyed a relatively high amount of freedom. Again, read something like this if you care about the American South, history or simply human beings.
Four former slaves autobiographically recount their lives' experiences and how they managed to escape the slave system and settle in the British colonies and England (for the most part). All four of them were written earlier than Frederick Douglass' famed account during the 1830s, also unlike him they testify on exactly the way they escaped (Douglass, in order to protect the people that helped him, skips over this part in his narrative) which makes for a very exciting read. The experiences of all four were immensely different.
Moses Roper continuously tried to run away, being caught, whipped and put in chains countless times, yet never giving up and finally succeeding in getting to the Northern states where abolitionists financed his continued flight to England (according to federal laws at the time any slave that had fled the South had to be deported back into slavery when being caught in the slavery-outlawing Northern states).
Lunsford Lane on the other hand had a lenient owner who rented him out to himself (a rather bizarre practise where the slave would pay the owner a fixed sum every year, which he had to accumulate himself by whatever enterprise he chose to enroll in, everything above that sum he could keep for himself). After a couple of years he had amassed enough savings to buy himself from his owner and thus liberate himself. He then proceeded to save up money to buy his wife and children as well and being of an industrious nature succeeded financially with this as well. Yet, a self-liberated entrepreneuring black man like him posed a threat to the system as it caricatured the image of the lazy, child-like, incompetent slave that without the slave owner would degrade and finally die because of his incapability to nourish himself. Thus, he was chased out of North Carolina by use of the law (there were no free blacks allowed to enter the state of North Carolina and since he had gone to New York for a while this law was used against him) and the threat of mob violence.
Moses Grady like Lane toiled for himself in order to pay his master out. Unlike Lane though his masters cheated him out of his money twice by simply accepting the money for his liberty after having made an oral contract for the same, yet then not granting this liberty to him. While this was morally condemned even by most white people, legally he stood on safe grounds simply because as an owner you could not cheat your property as everything he earned or did belonged to you anyway. The third time he paid money to his - then - master, that white man tried again to cheat him out of his liberty, yet in the end succumbed to moral pressure on the part of the white community.
Thomas H. Jones was the last and least interestingly written account. He fled to the North and later Canada after having had a friend bought his wife and children. His flight went uneventful (luckily for him) and smooth. His narrative was in my opinion the worst, because he, a preacher, wrote in a sermon style with constant and very repetitive references to God. His writing simply did not suit me and his Christianity of forgiving even the worst slave holder in the name of Jesus I found hard to believe and even harder to relate to.
All in all, I would recommend this to virtually every one as the accounts detail and make one aware better of important aspects of the Southern slave system. The way families, husbands and wives were split up for example and how people dealt with that. How common corporal punishment was, yet how blacks and whites lived together. Thomas H. Jones' sermons in rural North Carolina are visited by blacks and whites alike. Also, how older slaves were left in the woods own their own, because their masters considered it economically unsound to feed and clothe them any longer. Lastly, as a more positive aspect I guess, how many slaves seem to have worked for themselves, rented themselves out and thus enjoyed a relatively high amount of freedom. Again, read something like this if you care about the American South, history or simply human beings.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
The American Welfare State
I have to write an essay on the American welfare state and an exposé for that essay is due today. So, if anyone of you cares to find out why the American welfare state developed later and differently than most European welfare regimes. Have fun.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Naivität
- Die internationale Medien (EU Observer & NZZ) haben Deutschlands butterweiche Position auf- und angegriffen. Ich bin jetzt mal gespannt, ob die deutschen Medien da auch kritisch darüber berichten werden, oder ob der deutsche Außenpolitik Konsens Kritik und negative Aspekte wieder mal (1, 2 & 3) verschweigt.
- Aus dem EU Observer:
"Under the scheme, an EU member state – in order to fill its labour gap – would temporarily hire non-EU workers, as long as they respect the key condition and return to their home country after their contracts expire.
"The idea is that people come and work in the EU for a couple of months, then return home and later come again," one EU official explained."
Behaupten wir mal ganz theoretisch ein Mitgliedsland (Deutschland zB), würde Arbeiter aus einem anderen Land (die Türkei um bei einem möglichst abstrakten Modell zu bleiben) als Gastarbeiter anwerben, ob die wohl alle irgendwann wieder nach Hause gehen würden?
Le Vicomte de Bragelonne I
Quand j'étais un jeune adolescent, j'étais obsédé avec d'Artagnan et ses amis. Je crois que je lisais Les Trois Mousquetaire et Vingt Ans après au moins cinq ou six fois. Or, quand j'ai vu à Paris qu'il y avait une troisième livre sur cette histoire je l'ai acheté tout de suite. Ca c'était en été de 2006 en fait, quand je travaillais à Paris, et un ans avant que je suis venu faire Erasmus là-bas. J'éssayais de lire Le Vicomte à l'époque mais j'n ai pas réussi, parce que le vocabulaire était trop dur pour moi, en plus Dumas utilise le Passé Simple, Passé Antérieur et Subjonct if souvent, lesquels je ne connaisas pas du tout (il faut admettre que même si mon francais s'a amélioré, je ne suis pas encore capable de former ces trois temps, mais je me promets de bosser au-dessus). Aujourd'hui le livre n'était plus trop difficile, bien sûr, je ne comprenais pas tout - comme dans Les Bienveillantes les déscriptions de nature ou des batîments étaient le pus difficile - et parce que je n'aime pas lire avec une dictionaire à côté de moi - je l'éssayais plusieurs fois, le résultat pour moi ce que j'arrête à lire, parce que je déteste chercher pour les mots dedans tout le temps - je suis sûr qu'il y avait beaucoup des choses qui m'ont passé.
Mais, ce bouquin est un d'eux qui on déteste à arreter à lire. Je continuais plusieurs fois quand j'aurais dû dormir déjà. Je ne vais pas dire grande chose sur quoi ce livre s'agît. Je suis sûr que tout le monde connait d'Artagnan, Porthos, Aramis et Athoas. Ils sont plus agée, le fils d'Athos est très important aussi, mais sauf ca, il n'y a pas une grande différence en qualité et suspense en comparasion avec les premiers deux. Le seul problème ce qu'il y a trois livres qui compose Le Vicomte de Bragelonne, j'ai déjà fait la command e pour le deuxième, mais je ne sais pas quand c'arrivera, et hier soir quand j'ai fini le premier tier, j'étais vraiment faché que je pouvais continuer tout de suite avec le deuxième.
Mais, ce bouquin est un d'eux qui on déteste à arreter à lire. Je continuais plusieurs fois quand j'aurais dû dormir déjà. Je ne vais pas dire grande chose sur quoi ce livre s'agît. Je suis sûr que tout le monde connait d'Artagnan, Porthos, Aramis et Athoas. Ils sont plus agée, le fils d'Athos est très important aussi, mais sauf ca, il n'y a pas une grande différence en qualité et suspense en comparasion avec les premiers deux. Le seul problème ce qu'il y a trois livres qui compose Le Vicomte de Bragelonne, j'ai déjà fait la command e pour le deuxième, mais je ne sais pas quand c'arrivera, et hier soir quand j'ai fini le premier tier, j'étais vraiment faché que je pouvais continuer tout de suite avec le deuxième.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Race & The NBA
I've already discussed the study by two economists that empirically prove that there is a racial bias in foul calls by white and black referees respectively. The NBA of course denounced this and offered up an apparently ridiculous - from an academic point of view - study (check the input box by Tom Jolly the NY Times sports editor) to counter this. It is hard if not impossible to simply discount the findings of Wolfers and Price considering they analyzed 13 seasons, adjusted their results to role player, all stars and the such, all in all a very sound piece of work as it seems (I haven't obviously read it, but that's how most everyone not directly associated with the NBA portrays it).
Yet, John Hollinger discards it on the notion that playing a black player when a white officiating crew presides for 48 minutes instead of a white one, results in a foul call increase of only a negligible increase of 2.5 to 4.5%. Assuming that a team plays with an all black line-up this of course would imply a rise in foul calls against that team of 12.5 to 22.5%, which makes the word negligible sound doubtful already. Also, even if one considers the results of the study to be so low as to not hold any importance for the outcome of games - which I doubt - the basic premise that - subconscious - racism on the part of the referees is persistent. Hollinger excuses that by explaining that 'refs are human too, after all, and when they step on the court they unwittingly bring their life experiences and values with them.' The logical conclusion here being that life experiences and values of white referees necessarily have a racist edge to them, because otherwise how would the statistical correlation be explained? Finally, even if the statistical numbers are low that of course changes a players' behaviour anyway. Someone with two fouls will play defense differently or may not even be on the court anymore than someone who only has one in the first or second quarter of a game.
A friend of mine brings a more valid argument to the table which argues that white players less so than black players are considered defensive specialists resulting in black players such as Marion, Camby or Bowen being called for fouls more often than white shooters such as Kapono, Korver or Stojakovic. On the first and second all-defensive team for the 2006/2007 season there is not one white player he offers as further proof of this theory. While I agree with the general premise of this argument I wonder whether it could not be turned around. From my own experience of being a rather bad defender - and a slightly better offensive player - I would argue that a guy such as Kyle Korver trying to defend against the opposing team's small forward (say LeBron James) is going to rack up more fouls than Bruce Bowen doing the same thing. Obviously both of these arguments do not have any statistical back-up, just some food for thought.
Lastly in my big race and the NBA entry (hope I have not chased away the female half of my 4 daily readers with this), Richard Lapchick explains on ESPN that the NBA's big picture actually is really pretty when compared to the other major leagues in the USA. According to a study done by him (and Horacio Ruiz and Marina Bustamante) 75% of NBA players are black, 36% of all referees are either black or latino, 40% of the head coaches, 15% of team vice-presidents are black, 34% of professionals in the league office were minorities and the NBA also has the only black CEOs (5) and presidents (2) in professional sports. Also of course Robert Johnson is the only black owner of a franchise in American professional sports. While all this implies that the NBA is a front-runner in regard to integration when compared to the NFL or MLB, I have to differ with the view that it shows a pretty picture. Take a simple look at the amount of players and compare it with the rest of the numbers, especially the number of head coaches (and presidents too I believe) since most of these used to be players themselves. To me, this makes clear that basketball is (and will continue to be) a sports played by blacks (I wonder how high the percentage of of black players would be if you only included Americans) and controlled by whites (I am not even claiming that this is due to inherent racism or anything like that, probably is more related to the economic realities of racial life in the USA, am just stating a fact that I feel Lapchick is misrepresenting).
Yet, John Hollinger discards it on the notion that playing a black player when a white officiating crew presides for 48 minutes instead of a white one, results in a foul call increase of only a negligible increase of 2.5 to 4.5%. Assuming that a team plays with an all black line-up this of course would imply a rise in foul calls against that team of 12.5 to 22.5%, which makes the word negligible sound doubtful already. Also, even if one considers the results of the study to be so low as to not hold any importance for the outcome of games - which I doubt - the basic premise that - subconscious - racism on the part of the referees is persistent. Hollinger excuses that by explaining that 'refs are human too, after all, and when they step on the court they unwittingly bring their life experiences and values with them.' The logical conclusion here being that life experiences and values of white referees necessarily have a racist edge to them, because otherwise how would the statistical correlation be explained? Finally, even if the statistical numbers are low that of course changes a players' behaviour anyway. Someone with two fouls will play defense differently or may not even be on the court anymore than someone who only has one in the first or second quarter of a game.
A friend of mine brings a more valid argument to the table which argues that white players less so than black players are considered defensive specialists resulting in black players such as Marion, Camby or Bowen being called for fouls more often than white shooters such as Kapono, Korver or Stojakovic. On the first and second all-defensive team for the 2006/2007 season there is not one white player he offers as further proof of this theory. While I agree with the general premise of this argument I wonder whether it could not be turned around. From my own experience of being a rather bad defender - and a slightly better offensive player - I would argue that a guy such as Kyle Korver trying to defend against the opposing team's small forward (say LeBron James) is going to rack up more fouls than Bruce Bowen doing the same thing. Obviously both of these arguments do not have any statistical back-up, just some food for thought.
Lastly in my big race and the NBA entry (hope I have not chased away the female half of my 4 daily readers with this), Richard Lapchick explains on ESPN that the NBA's big picture actually is really pretty when compared to the other major leagues in the USA. According to a study done by him (and Horacio Ruiz and Marina Bustamante) 75% of NBA players are black, 36% of all referees are either black or latino, 40% of the head coaches, 15% of team vice-presidents are black, 34% of professionals in the league office were minorities and the NBA also has the only black CEOs (5) and presidents (2) in professional sports. Also of course Robert Johnson is the only black owner of a franchise in American professional sports. While all this implies that the NBA is a front-runner in regard to integration when compared to the NFL or MLB, I have to differ with the view that it shows a pretty picture. Take a simple look at the amount of players and compare it with the rest of the numbers, especially the number of head coaches (and presidents too I believe) since most of these used to be players themselves. To me, this makes clear that basketball is (and will continue to be) a sports played by blacks (I wonder how high the percentage of of black players would be if you only included Americans) and controlled by whites (I am not even claiming that this is due to inherent racism or anything like that, probably is more related to the economic realities of racial life in the USA, am just stating a fact that I feel Lapchick is misrepresenting).
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Blair en francais
Oui, quelq'un écrivait ca pour lui probablement. Oui, son accent est aussi fort, que même moi je le remarque. Oui, il l'avait exercé sans doute plusieurs fois. Mais, il parle francais mieux que beaucoup de ses - plus jeunes - compatriotes n'importe quelque langues. Il parle mieux que notre ancien chancelier, Schröder, se pouvait exprimer en anglais. Et surtout, il essaie de faire quelque chose qui existe pas assez dans la société européenne pour l'instant. Il s'adresse à un autre peuple, dans une autre langue, il essaie d'avoir une dialogue intra-européenne. Est-ce que vous pouvez imaginez Chirac ou Merkel s'adressent au peuple francais/allemand dans l'autre langue respectivement? Je trouve ca - notamment si on prête attention à son age - remarquable.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Istanbul
Ich hatte Orhan Pamuks Istanbul von meinem Vater geschenkt bekommen, kurz bevor ich dort ein langes Wochenende verbrachte. Die Stadt war sehr eindrucksvoll und deswegen freute ich mich sehr auf das Buch. Ich muß ganz ehrlich eingestehen, daß ich am Anfang nicht so beeindruckt war. Der Nobelliteraturpresiträger erzählt in seinem Roman die Geschichte seiner Heimatstadt anhand seiner eigenen Lebensgeschichte, sowie parallel dazu durch Berichte, welche andere Schriftsteller über Istanbul verfassten - hier sowohl türkische als auch westeuropäische. Ich würde fast behaupten, daß man das Buch nur schlecht als Roman bezeichnen kann. Es gibt keine kohärente zusammenhängende Geschichte, vielmehr erscheinen die Kapitel als Ansammlung von Essays, welche sich alle mit Istanbul und zum Teil mit Pamuks Kindheit befassen, aber es gibt kaum Stringenz zwischen den Erzählteilen.
Aber, je weiter ich las, desto mehr gefiel mir das Buch. Die literatische Geschichtsstunde Istanbuls - Flaubert und Twain sind nur zwei der Autoren, welche Pamuk zitiert und fast die einzigen die ich (wirklich) kannte - war faszinierend und auch die Beschreibung der Entscheidung, welche Pamuk als 20jähriger treffen mußte, ob er sein Studium abbrechen solle und Künstler - Schriftsteller oder sogar Maler - werden solle, wird fesselnd dargestellt.
Letzten Endes kann ich zusammenfassend sagen, daß ich das Buch im Prinzip eigentlich jedem empfehlen würde. Die einzige Bedingung wäre vielleicht, das der- oder diejenige vorher kurz nach Istanbul sollte. Viele der architektonischen und geographischen Beschreibungen waren für mich bereits verwirrend, ohne je da gewesen zu sein, erscheinen sind diese unmöglich zu verstehen.
Ein letzter negativer Punkt ist das 'hünzü'-Konzept, welches laut Pamuk die Schwermütigkeit, die Lethargie, das Trarige ist, welches die Einwohner von Istanbul seit Jahrhunderten geprägt hat. Teilweise bedingt durch den Abstieg des Osmanischen Reiches und darauffolgenden tiefen Fall in eine arme Obskurität. Pamuk behauptet, daß dieses Konzept nur für Menschen, die in Konstantinopel gewohnt hätten zugänglich wäre und dies mag stimmen, ich kann es nicht beurteilen. Aber, ich finde, wenn man einen Text schreibt und dabei auf ein solches Konzept zurückgreift bedarf es einer stärkeren Argumentation dahinter, mir ging es nicht vollkommen auf, ich konnte es nur sehr bedingt nachvollziehen. Dies könnte natürlich auch meine Beschränktheit sein, falls noch jemand dieses Werk gelesen hat, würde ich insofern weitere Erklärungen dankend entgegen nehmen.
Aber, je weiter ich las, desto mehr gefiel mir das Buch. Die literatische Geschichtsstunde Istanbuls - Flaubert und Twain sind nur zwei der Autoren, welche Pamuk zitiert und fast die einzigen die ich (wirklich) kannte - war faszinierend und auch die Beschreibung der Entscheidung, welche Pamuk als 20jähriger treffen mußte, ob er sein Studium abbrechen solle und Künstler - Schriftsteller oder sogar Maler - werden solle, wird fesselnd dargestellt.
Letzten Endes kann ich zusammenfassend sagen, daß ich das Buch im Prinzip eigentlich jedem empfehlen würde. Die einzige Bedingung wäre vielleicht, das der- oder diejenige vorher kurz nach Istanbul sollte. Viele der architektonischen und geographischen Beschreibungen waren für mich bereits verwirrend, ohne je da gewesen zu sein, erscheinen sind diese unmöglich zu verstehen.
Ein letzter negativer Punkt ist das 'hünzü'-Konzept, welches laut Pamuk die Schwermütigkeit, die Lethargie, das Trarige ist, welches die Einwohner von Istanbul seit Jahrhunderten geprägt hat. Teilweise bedingt durch den Abstieg des Osmanischen Reiches und darauffolgenden tiefen Fall in eine arme Obskurität. Pamuk behauptet, daß dieses Konzept nur für Menschen, die in Konstantinopel gewohnt hätten zugänglich wäre und dies mag stimmen, ich kann es nicht beurteilen. Aber, ich finde, wenn man einen Text schreibt und dabei auf ein solches Konzept zurückgreift bedarf es einer stärkeren Argumentation dahinter, mir ging es nicht vollkommen auf, ich konnte es nur sehr bedingt nachvollziehen. Dies könnte natürlich auch meine Beschränktheit sein, falls noch jemand dieses Werk gelesen hat, würde ich insofern weitere Erklärungen dankend entgegen nehmen.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Einwanderung
Falls Ihr jemals in eine Diskussion über Immigration verwickelt werden solltet, lest diesen Text. Das Argument ist im Prinzip, daß Einwanderer im Durchschnitt mehr Unternehmen gründen (Intel, Google und Ebay werden als Beispiele für die USA benannt, in Deutschland sind damit wohl eher Restaurants und Lebensmittelläden gemeint) und dadurch das BIP steigern und Jobs schaffen. Außerdem ermöglichen sie den Einstieg qualifizierter Personnen (Frauen vor allem) in den Beruf durch niedrige Löhne in Dienstleistungsjobs (Haushaltshilfen, Kindermädchen...). Letztlich geben Einwanderer vor allem am Anfang einen hohen Prozentsatz ihres Einkommens aus, eine hohe Konsumnachfrage mit all seinen Effekten (höherer BIP, mehr Jobs) folgt. Abschließend würde ich gerne mal wissen, was eigentlich diese andauernde Nennung von Kreuzberg (oder auch Neuköllns) als Symbol der gescheiterten Integration soll. Ich wohne hier (in Kreuzberg) und hatte nie irgendein Problem, wo ich mich unwohl fühle sind eher Bezirke wie Lichtenberg, Marzahn und Hohenschönhausen mit ihren hohen Glatzenanteilen, ist da die Integration auch gescheitert?
It seems that I am one of the people 'who think they should run the country.' While the list is of course way too business centred, it is quite funny.
It seems that I am one of the people 'who think they should run the country.' While the list is of course way too business centred, it is quite funny.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
le 6 mai
Je lisais le NY Times et LeMonde commenter sur le débat entre Sarko et Ségo hier, je dois avouer que je l'aurais aimé regarder. Mais, j'étais dans un café pour le foot avec mon père. Tant pis. Je crains en tout cas que Sarko gagnera. Sa position sur l'immigration surtout et la façon comme il piquait les votes de Le Pen m'inquiètent. Mais oui, je peux même pas voter en tout cas.
Sarko & the NBA
Si vous ne savez pas encore pour qui voter, peut-être ca vous intéressez (je les trouve un peu trop populiste parfois).
An independent study has established that there is a racial bias in NBA refereeing. White referees (who are the majority) discriminating black players and black referees (a minority and less pronounced) discriminating white players. John Hollinger counters these finds based on the little impact they have on a game ('a black player will [only] rack up approximately 0.16 added fouls per 48 minutes). While his (Hollinger's) argument does make sense, there seems to be no counter argument towards the fact that this racial bias exists. Quite shocking, even if the effects are more or less negligible.
An independent study has established that there is a racial bias in NBA refereeing. White referees (who are the majority) discriminating black players and black referees (a minority and less pronounced) discriminating white players. John Hollinger counters these finds based on the little impact they have on a game ('a black player will [only] rack up approximately 0.16 added fouls per 48 minutes). While his (Hollinger's) argument does make sense, there seems to be no counter argument towards the fact that this racial bias exists. Quite shocking, even if the effects are more or less negligible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
