Revisiting the racism at Team Foxcatcher

[drag it 336]

3 minutes ago, Katie said:

Whether the plaintiffs won their lawsuit, lost it, dismissed it as part of a settlement, or dismissed it for other reasons has no bearing on whether they believed they were discriminated against on the basis of their race.

I'll help what you see as your argument by reporting that it looks to me like the case was settled.  The docket references settlement discussions and then eight days later recites that the case was dismissed.  To me, however, this doesn't make any of this any more relevant or helpful to the discussion, for all the reasons discussed by many above, which goes to your other point which I'll agree with -- I do fervently wish I had never opened and subjected myself to this thread.

[TripNSweep 507]

8 minutes ago, Katie said:

Whether the plaintiffs won their lawsuit, lost it, dismissed it as part of a settlement, or dismissed it for other reasons has no bearing on whether they believed they were discriminated against on the basis of their race.

You can believe anything you want. Just because you believe enough to file a lawsuit doesn't make it any more real, since it's your opinion you were wronged. Now if there was some kind of result of your lawsuit, like a settlement was paid out, or the judge ruled in your favor, etc. that's something. There was a guy who filed a multi billion dollar lawsuit against Barack Obama years ago alleging he had conspired with Michael Vick to steal his dogs and sell them to fund weapons purchases on behalf of Iran. Does thast mean his claim is just as valid?

[Katie 806]

1 minute ago, TripNSweep said:

You can believe anything you want. Just because you believe enough to file a lawsuit doesn't make it any more real, since it's your opinion you were wronged. Now if there was some kind of result of your lawsuit, like a settlement was paid out, or the judge ruled in your favor, etc. that's something. There was a guy who filed a multi billion dollar lawsuit against Barack Obama years ago alleging he had conspired with Michael Vick to steal his dogs and sell them to fund weapons purchases on behalf of Iran. Does thast mean his claim is just as valid?

According to drag it, it looks like the case was settled. So there you go.

[Katie 806]

7 minutes ago, drag it said:

I'll help what you see as your argument by reporting that it looks to me like the case was settled.  The docket references settlement discussions and then eight days later recites that the case was dismissed.  To me, however, this doesn't make any of this any more relevant or helpful to the discussion, for all the reasons discussed by many above, which goes to your other point which I'll agree with -- I do fervently wish I had never opened and subjected myself to this thread.

FWIW, I didn't have an argument in mind. I was simply recalling an episode that astonished me. And again, I do believe USA Wrestling did they best they could, given the circumstances.

I'll exit this thread now, as well.

[Plasmodium 1,693]

24 minutes ago, drag it said:

We know that du Pont technically discriminated against them on the basis of their race, don't we?  As others have explained, he removed everything and person with a black exterior from his property.  I didn't dispute that technical point and it wasn't my (and others') problem with the discussion.

I disagree that I was required by good faith to acknowledge that several of the people who were discriminated against because of the color of their skin sued this highly unstable person, just as I didn't need to recite that Nancy Schultz sued (and got a settlement for a reported substantial eight figure sum) for driving up to her husband, pointing a gun at him, and firing several bullets into him in order to kill him.  A fact in support of an established point is no more relevant than the established point.  My stated concern in my post was the overall relevance and helpfulness of the topic of the post in the greater context of the very, very real issue of the experiences of black U.S. citizens, in this case wrestlers.

For instance, the original post gave as a rationale for dredging up the quarter century old du Pont mess in the context of the current political and social upheaval the failure of the wrestling governing bodies to make du Pont "face any consequences for" his discrimination against black Foxcatcher wrestlers.  But in your post reacting to mine, you said that "I think USA Wrestling did the best they could under the circumstances."  My (rebuttable) presumption is that they botched du Pont on many levels, but regardless, if you do think they did the best they could, why have we gone through the rancor of this post's discussion when the governing bodies' handling of the situation was a, if not the, stated news hook for raising the topic?

There was a perfectly good original post regarding black wrestlers' experience.  It's essential to have the discussion about race and wrestling.  And I could think of other, relevant topics for specific discussion that might merit a new thread, such as the experiences of black coaches, or how our greatest black wrestlers' accomplishments are viewed compared to white peers.  I think there are focused, tough, relevant questions that could be asked on those subjects that might be provocative without being needlessly inflammatory.  But for the reasons I gave earlier, I believe that this thread was unhelpful and impeded rather than fostered the conversation about race in the wrestling community.

 

This thread is unsettling to people because it hits too close to home.  USAW tolerated his racism. Why?  Money and preserving end of quad training environment for whites.  People can't make up enough excuses for the guy.  No different from society at large.  The topic is absolutely relevant. 

[drag it 336]

 

28 minutes ago, Katie said:

FWIW, I didn't have an argument in mind. I was simply recalling an episode that astonished me. And again, I do believe USA Wrestling did they best they could, given the circumstances.

I'll exit this thread now, as well.

Fair enough.  Totally understand why you posted, and agree that everything about the du Pont cluster#%@! was astonishing.  I just think it's better to let this aspect of du Pont go and focus on more recent events and/or situations where the alleged discrimination is not inextricably linked with an overriding insanity.  

[JHRoseWrestling 183]

Using an out-of-court settlement as evidence of wrongdoing is careless and dangerous.

Innocent parties agree to settlement on a daily basis when the settlement amount is exceeded by the potential cost of litigation, or for a variety of other reasons.

Disclaimer, this point is not one in defense of DuPont's discrimination against black athletes.

[1032004 940]

17 hours ago, Katie said:

FWIW, I didn't have an argument in mind. I was simply recalling an episode that astonished me. And again, I do believe USA Wrestling did they best they could, given the circumstances.

Honest question, what exactly did USA Wrestling do about it when it happened?

[Plasmodium 1,693]

22 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Honest question, what exactly did USA Wrestling do about it when it happened?

The murder or the racial cleansing?  This is an interesting article.  Very gutless.  https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-01-30-9601300034-story.html

Edited June 15, 2020 by Plasmodium

[1032004 940]

9 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

The murder or the racial cleansing?  This is an interesting article.  Very gutless.  https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-01-30-9601300034-story.html

Removing the black wrestlers.  Thanks for the link...so basically nothing?

Katie, then how can you say “USA Wrestling did the best they could”?

As mentioned above, the lack of action by USA Wrestling is probably more relevant to the current climate.   Maybe it could be argued whether or not DuPont was a racist person, but that was a racist act and USA Wrestling’s affiliation probably should have ended there (not to mention also due to other incidents such as pointing a gun at Chaid).