....Gaston has a very clear record with how he discusses race.  It's out there for everyone to see and he's made no bones of it....

What on earth are you talking about?  How about some specifics, instead of insinuations?

You appear to be suggesting that Gaston is a racist who favors blacks.  If that's not what you mean, you'd better clarify in a hurry.   If his "very clear record" about race is so obvious to you, why not simply tell us what you think it is?  Why the vague insinuations that you're floating without defining?

The truth is a bit less sinister that you imply.  Gaston has often talked about the history of racism in baseball, and how it has disadvantaged the blacks of his generation (including his roommate Hank Aaron), how they faced blatant racism in the 1960s and 1970s, and how he believes those attitudes have continued to have some influence in baseball even in the 1990s when very few black managers were hired.  All of those are legitimate comments wtih a lot of evidence to support them.  Or do you want to suggest that there were no lingering biases against black managers in recent decades?  Perhaps the virtual absence of black managers in the 1980s and 1990s was purely because of their lack of merit?  Do you think Gaston had no right to raise these questions in the 1990s, even if you disagree with him?

You and WillRain appear to be suggesting that Gaston suggested a couple of black candidates for his job because he has some kind of "racial" belief or preference. No, he is merely suggesting that the Jays should broaden the application process and consider two candidates that he greatly respects.  If you talk to HR managers at any corporation these days, they want a diversity of candidates of all ethnic backgrounds and they're usually grateful for suggestions.

WillRain says (in the other thread) that Gaston "lacks objectivity" on racial questions.  By implication, he is saying that any black person cannot be objective on racial questions, while whites -- presumably -- are more objective.   How is this logical or fair?  It suggests that victims of racism (as Gaston was in his early career, and perhaps later too) have no objectivity, while the comfortable majority is objective.  So we should dismiss anything that the minority says because they lack objectivity?  It's another absurd attack on Gaston.  Should we condemn Gaston for raising the issue of lingering racism in the 1990s?  Isn't he entitled, at least, to his opinion as someone who has first-hand experiences of racism through much of his career?

It's ridiculous to attack Gaston for suggesting a couple of good candidates to be interviewed for his job.  He's not imposing his views, he is identifying candidates. To suggest that we should dismiss Gaston's suggestions -- simply because he is a black man who endured racism and has honestly talked about racism -- is absurd and disrespectful.

What on earth are you talking about?  How about some specifics, instead of insinuations?

It wasn't my comment, but let me help you out. As some of you might know, i live in the U.S. - Specifically, I live in the southern U.S. Every day of my life (except one month spent in Great lakes, IL) i've been living in an area which is 30-35% African American (Raise your hands, all you Canadians with that much up close experience with the Southern U.S. black population....anyone? Bueller?)

Because of the history of race relations in this era, particularly before the 70's, there is a MASSIVE and real (and, in many ways, quite justified) chip on thew shoulder of many blacks who are more than 40 years old (this is also true in inner city neighborhoods too, for similar reasons - discrimination wasn't just in the south) and that feeling of bitterness and predisposition to distrust the motives and actions of ALL white people has been passed down to younger generations.

to be clear, of all the black people I know and interact with on a daily basis, the VAST majority (90% or more) are "post-racial" in their attitude as are almost all white people around here. Very few of us still harbor the old grudges of our grandparents.

but a FEW still do, and for those who do, it's not a matter of hatred or bigotry or any other immoral quality - it's a worldview cooked in the oven of the bigotry they saw in their formative years.

It is perfectly reasonable that there would be that vein of unconcious resentment underlying their thinking.

Is Cito among them? some of his comments seem to indicate that, but again, it's not something that would be unreasonable to expect.

You appear to be suggesting that Gaston is a racist who favors blacks.  If that's not what you mean, you'd better clarify in a hurry.   If his "very clear record" about race is so obvious to you, why not simply tell us what you think it is?  Why the vague insinuations that you're floating without defining?

Again - not my comment but since you and comebydeanchance feels justified in including me in the implications of racism I'll chime in.

He is not a racist that favors blacks - I don't think anyone would argue that. what is being alleged is that MAYBE he unconciously precieves racism in the conduct of "white society" and so it's his responsibility to use his position to leverage opportunity for fellow blacks against the pressure of latent white racism.

The truth is a bit less sinister that you imply.  Gaston has often talked about the history of racism in baseball, and how it has disadvantaged the blacks of his generation (including his roommate Hank Aaron), how they faced blatant racism in the 1960s and 1970s, and how he believes those attitudes have continued to have some influence in baseball even in the 1990s when very few black managers were hired.  All of those are legitimate comments with a lot of evidence to support them.  Or do you want to suggest that there were no lingering biases against black managers in recent decades?  Perhaps the virtual absence of black managers in the 1980s and 1990s was purely because of their lack of merit?  Do you think Gaston had no right to raise these questions in the 1990s, even if you disagree with him?

Exactly what I was implying all along. But just because Cito proceeds from a subconcious ASSUMPTION that the white power structure is STILL holding him and his brothers down doesn't mean that we have to overlook it when he, in effect, calls the rest of us racist. Just as you and CBDC are doing now.

You and WillRain appear to be suggesting that Gaston suggested a couple of black candidates for his job because he has some kind of "racial" belief or preference.

where did I suggest that? I think, yet again, you are reading into a comment that which you expect to see instead of letting the words speak for themselves.

My interest in Baylor and Samuel is in whether or not Cito sees guys who would MANAGE as he does, not those who LOOK as he does.

I promise you - if Cito says tomorrow "I really like the way Nick Leyva manages, I think he'd do things just like I do, especially when it comes to respecting the veterans" then Leyva would crash to the very bottom of my list of favorite choices.

No, he is merely suggesting that the Jays should broaden the application process and consider two candidates that he greatly respects.  If you talk to HR managers at any corporation these days, they want a diversity of candidates of all ethnic backgrounds and they're usually grateful for suggestions.

I take it as a given that Alex's obsessive desire to consider every remotely possible candidate includes both those men as well as many other minority candidates. I find it a completely ludicrious suggestion that Cito was suggesting guys AA had never considered. In fact, IF Cito is under the impression that AA would conveniently NOT consider those men because of their race then he would be all but calling Anthopoulos a racist which would be astoundingly insulting.

That said, AA is known for welcoming input and I'm sure that he want's Cito's opinion about those two, as well as about Butter and Leyva and anyone else on the list he's ever worked with.

I have no beef with Cito speaking up for a couple of friends. I DO have a complaint if AA hires someone who's calling card is that he has the same ideas Cito does about veteran entitlement. if that's Baylor or if it's leyva or if it's a refugee from Alpha Centuri.

I've said before that Cito does a lot of things well that i like, particularly on the pitching side in his second time 'round. But on THAT point, I don't want anyone who's remotely like Cito.

But you reading into that that I'm worried that we might - the HORROR! - have another black manager because Cito spoke up for a black man is insulting, offensive, and, might I add beneath my contempt. I, nor kasi, nor anyone else, don't have to justify ourselves to self-appointed, holier-than-thou, judgmental tools on the internet who knee-jerk to a default assumption that anyone who disagrees with a black man is by definition speaking from racism.

At the risk of violating a lot of rules of conduct around here, the both of you can back the f*** up with that BS and show a little bit of respect for your fellow posters - either that or produce some ironclad proof of racism instead of a big sticky wad of assumptions and inuendo.

WillRain says (in the other thread) that Gaston "lacks objectivity" on racial questions.  By implication, he is saying that any black person cannot be objective on racial questions, while whites -- presumably -- are more objective.  

No. I'm not saying a DAMN thing about "all black people" - I'm saying something specific about a specific person who's own words demonstrate he sees the world through that lens. It is a perfectly reasonable and understandable thing that he would. All of us are creatures of our experiences and associations and our worldview is filtered through that lens.

Without going into inapproriate details, I myself recently (over the last couple of years) had to process a conflict between certain realities and the pre-suppositions I'd picked up from the culture around me over a lifetime.

That's part of being a human being, and there's nothing wrong with it - nor is there anything wrong with taking note of it. Lay race aside and you still find that baseball is laced through with pre-suppsoitions which color the worldview of the individual in question. Everything from the propriety of the DH to whether you want a speedy team or a power team. All of these are subject to prejudicial biases on the part of any given speaker.

Such is life. Cito is not immune to them, and should not be immune to having others point them out simply because being black gives him a "get out of criticism free" card.

How is this logical or fair?  It suggests that victims of racism (as Gaston was in his early career, and perhaps later too) have no objectivity, while the comfortable majority is objective. 

Where did i ever suggest the majority (or more properly stated, a member of the majority) was objective? It is not implied by anything I said.  The terms "objective" and "opinion" are mutually exclusive. NOBODY is inherently objective, certainly not about everything. We come closest to objectivity when we speak to a thing we have no pre-assumed worldview about. For instance, ask me which NBA team is better and i can be pretty objective since i wouldn't notice if the whole darned league disappeared off the face of the earth.

AGAIN i have to point out you have an unhealthy predeliction for reading into a remark that which you expect or desire to see, rather than taking it at face value.

So we should dismiss anything that the minority says because they lack objectivity?  It's another absurd attack on Gaston.

it would be - If anyone had REMOTELY inferred any such thing. Happily, they did not.

Should we condemn Gaston for raising the issue of lingering racism in the 1990s?  Isn't he entitled, at least, to his opinion as someone who has first-hand experiences of racism through much of his career?

Of course he is, no one said any different. If one of the Jays gets tossed from a game for arguing balls and strikes, would it not be true that he lacks objectivity about whether or not he was out? would that lack of objectivity mean he wasn't entitled to his opinion? of course not.

i really can't help it if you'd rather argue with the voices in your head than with what someone actually says, but it gets damned annoying to listen to.

Observing that one lacks objectivity is NOT condeming them for speaking their mind. Again, EVERYONE lacks objectivity to some degree.

It's ridiculous to attack Gaston for suggesting a couple of good candidates to be interviewed for his job. 

Where did I attack Gaston for suggesting those two men? more specifically, where did i attack him for suggesting only black men? to rub your obstinate nose in it one more time - if Gaston recommends ANY manager, I'm skeptical because i don't want the next guy to share some of Cito's philosophy.

to be fair, there ARE traits Cito has which i think will be valuable in the next manager, but i take those as traits Alex will be looking for whether or not Cito had ever been here.

where the hell do you get off implying that I'm "attacking" Cito based on the race of the men he recommended?

He's not imposing his views, he is identifying candidates. To suggest that we should dismiss Gaston's suggestions -- simply because he is a black man who endured racism and has honestly talked about racism -- is absurd and disrespectful.

....Cito proceeds from a subconcious ASSUMPTION that the white power structure is STILL holding him and his brothers down....

Well, there it is -- proof of exactly what I said in my earlier comment.  You believe that Gaston is biased against the "white power structure" and is actively motivated by anger against this power structure.    Now, please provide some evidence that:  a) this is actually his belief;  b) that, even if he has this subconscious belief, it is actually affecting his behavior on managerial recommendations or anything else.  You're just speculating about his "subconscious" beliefs without any evidence at all.  You're claiming that you can read his mind, and you're accusing him of being motivated by racial suspicions and racial anger -- which is quite an accusation to make.  Perhaps you know some people in the southern US who are motivated by racial anger, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Gaston is motivated by racial anger and cannot be "objective" on black managerial candidates.  You appear to be saying that anyone who suffered from racism in the past is inherently so biased and "resentful" that his recommendations should be dismissed as "lacking in objectivity."

Also, I am stunned that you would conclude that I have accused you of racism. Where did I ever say such a thing?  I never suggested that you were racist in any way, and I would never say such a thing about anyone (unless I had a huge amount of evidence).   I am simply disagreeing with what you are publicly saying about Gaston, and I am questioning your claim that Gaston must  "lack objectivity" when he recommends that AA should interview two black candidates for manager.

Bradley's homer was an absolute bomb to dead center. He hit it so high I was sure it was a popup to the pitcher's mound off the bat. But it kept going...