Why is it A BIG DEAL the Jeremy Wariner is white?

This is straight from Bev's bio on texassports.com. But I guess it's only racist if someone is proud of the accomplishments of white people.

"By winning the 1992 NCAA Division I Indoor title, Kearney became the first black female head coach to accomplish that honor and just the second black head coach ever (John Thompson was the first black head coach to win an NCAA Division I team title with the Georgetown Hoyas in 1984)."

Stuff like this goes on all the time for black people. Utopians would like to pretend we are all color-blind yet still support a month dedicated to the accomplishments of only black people. Either the standards change for everyone or you learn to live with it.

BigTex wrote:

But I guess it's only racist if someone is proud of the accomplishments of white people.

you know who was a real drag?

jackie robinson!

1st black to play in the major leagues, hah! whites had been playing in the majors for more than 50 years!!!

I understand that some people are proud of the accomplishment and it being inspirational to whites that they can attain success like Jeremy in a sport where African-Americans/ black-decent dominate. There are some people who are more excited because a white beat the blacks, like the NBC broadcast said today (in relation to another typic but it fits here), "sometimes it not who you cheer for but rather who your cheering against."

I saw Jeremy race as a talented AMERICAN MAN who won the Olympic 400m title in a time few have ever run-who just happen to be white! It seems that when an white American or white from Great Britian attains success in track and field its historic and primetime newsworthy. Why is it not just as big news and inspirational when Russians or white S. Africans do the same?

VIPAM

It's important because for decades whites have been at the end of an orchestrated campaign to browbeat them into thinking that they cannot compete with blacks and others.

Sprints have always been dominated by black in Texas high school track. Jeremy was the first in a long time to break that trend. It was no surprise that people noticed he was white. At the Texas state meet, there was a huge buzz in the stands when he ran. People were impressed that he ran so fast and was white. If you've never been to the Texas state, the attendance is about 60-70% black. However, everyone was talking about "that white boy from arlington". Same thing happened this year at the Texas Relays and NCAAs. Everyone noticed and talked about it. It wasn't a racist issue there, just something to talk about because it was rare to see.

I still find it funny that it is only controversial when someone talks about a white person's accomplishments. I guess some people just like to scream racism about everything.

Vipam, I agree with and admire many of your posts here, but listen to the points that others are making. If 1,000 races are run (of distances from 100 meters to 400 meters), and 926 of them are won by BLACK men (Okay, men of West African heritage with skin a lot darker than mine), it's NOT racist to say BLACK men (Okay, men of West African heritage with skin a lot darker than mine) are better sprinters---it's just numbers. When WHITE men (okay, pasty colored men of European heritage) win 500 of those thousand races---or more---then opinions will change. Blacks are better sprinters (except my wife!)

"Ethnicity/race/whatever you call it is NOT a factor in running."

Yes, but it is a factor in sprinting.

More importantly, doesn't anyone remember Roger Black??? One of the top 400m runners from the late80s to late 90s, won silver in Atlanta 400m to Michael Johnson.

skylon

I can appreciate your opinion and response as with several other posters on this particular thread, not all of the posters are celebrating the 400m Olympic Champion who just happened to be white-some are celebrating because he is not black. We can't indentify who they are but you can be sure that some are celebrating for the wrong reason. Jeremy was an outstanding athlete in high school and I thought back then once: that high school boy is fast, oh he is white! The thought after that was yeah he is white but he is also and American. The reason white don't succeed in the 400m like blacks because too few of them try, so I can see why its inspirational-but I don't remember when the great Kevin Little was a top 200m sprinter being that inspirational or was it because he didn't be all the blacks? Seriously why wasn't he as inspirational as Jeremy Wariner to so many people and posters on this board?

VIPAM

I think it friggin' GREAT that Jeremy Wariner won....AND it's surprising that a white guy won based on historical numbers. In that specific, non-racist order.

I don't think that anyone is taking this as a good thing because a black runner didn't win. And if people are, they're not the ones with enough sense to matter anyway. It is a big deal that he is white and that fast. I'm a white 400m runner from NYC and for years I've stood out for no other reason besides my race. However, there has always seemed to me to be a barrier that my race puts up that stops me from entering the next level (which I know is a feeling other white sprinters I talk to have). What is important about Jeremy Wariner is that he just shattered that barrier. It is a positive thing whenever barriers are broken. I see that as the point, not just the fact that it was a white barrier.

Look, I just root for the person different from the norm:

Svetlana Khorkina because she's a foot taller than every other gymnast

American 200m runners because they could all stand to eat some donuts or something

Lauryn Williams because she stands about about everyone else's elbow

The Jamaican Bobsled team because they were the only team to be portrayed in a movie with John Candy

Jerermy Warriner because he has light skin (It would have been the same if he had blue skin, or pink, or maybe even paisley)

Running is entirely to racist.

100m, 200m, 400m, 5000m, 10000m, marathon....

What's with all the different races?

Can't we all just run together?

Why is it A BIG DEAL that Jeremy Wariner is white?

Because his parents are black!

trackshard wrote:

I don't think that anyone is taking this as a good thing because a black runner didn't win. And if people are, they're not the ones with enough sense to matter anyway. It is a big deal that he is white and that fast. I'm a white 400m runner from NYC and for years I've stood out for no other reason besides my race. However, there has always seemed to me to be a barrier that my race puts up that stops me from entering the next level (which I know is a feeling other white sprinters I talk to have). What is important about Jeremy Wariner is that he just shattered that barrier. It is a positive thing whenever barriers are broken. I see that as the point, not just the fact that it was a white barrier.

Well said, I wish I had a dollar for every time someone was shocked to learn that I was a sprinter! Usually they say something like 'But that's a black guy's race!' So it's good to see someone at this level break the stereotype just like it was good to see a black QB break through in the NBA. It's more of an American stereotype anyway and like all such things deserves to be consigned to the trashcan. I've run against some great white sprinters, the likes of Alan Wells, and also some great black sprinters, Lee Evans, Steve Riddick and to me it didn't matter what color they were they're just another guy on the track.

Vipam

You're all over the map with this theory -- and I have to say on many points of that map you're simply wrong.

To begin, you seem to believe that "white" (whatever the hell that means. Are Jews "white"? sub-continent Asians of fair skin?) athletes outside of the US/GB duality receive scant attention for their achievements. Ian Thorpe would be the easiest refutation of that statement, but there are many, many others.

And surely, as an admited athletics junkie, will agree that Kevin Little was never, ever a "top" 200 metre runner on the world outdoor stage - a lifetime best of 20.10 ranks as the 250th fastest of all time. Fast, but hardly "top".

Clearly, Warnier's win came on the biggest possible stage : the Olympic Games. The win also came after years of psuedo-scientific drivel that seriously suggested a "white" man could never win another global sprint title. (Are you watching, Jon Entine?)

That's a good story - plain, pure and simple. Is it racist? Perhaps, in the sense that the story is based on race (the average sports fan isn't really interested in the 400 metres -- once the 100 is over, they switch back to professional sports), but is it sinister?

I don't think so. A lot of posters are pleased to see any athlete break down barriers, be the mental, physcial or otherwise.

The more frequently racial barriers are pulled down, the sooner we can all get to the point where we don't have to talk about race any more. Like it or not, Wariner's win is a step in that direction.

Martin

Did anybody notice that this very thread was linked to in an article in the liberal journalism website Salon.com? Interesting read.

Wariner suffers from the same conditionas Michael Jackson

Martin wrote:

And surely, as an admited athletics junkie, will agree that Kevin Little was never, ever a "top" 200 metre runner on the world outdoor stage - a lifetime best of 20.10 ranks as the 250th fastest of all time. Fast, but hardly "top".

Martin, newsflash: if you are the 250th best in the world in history at anything, YOU ARE NOT ONLY "TOP," YOU ARE EXTREMELY RARE.