More broadly, yes, you can be those things and not have it define you totally, even if the good aspects of your personality don’t excuse the bad ones.

I’m with the reptile – I have no idea if Scott is a racist or a particularly hateful person. I do know that the first three traits I listed above and the last one are mutually exclusive.

“His teammates and the people close to him don’t have a problem with him,” which flies in the face of “…nobody really knows anyone all that well…” The truth is we don’t know whether some of his current/former teammates have a problem with him. Based on what we know about ballplayers in general and Scott in specific, how surprised would anyone be to find out that someone has a problem with him, but has opted to just keep their mouth shut rather than creating the enormous media firestorm one would expect from revealing as much?

“The fact that he happens to be a good guy doesn’t change that he’s kind of wacky…” I think I lose you about here. Perhaps its a question of semantics, but in this situation, the semantics count. Maybe you’re right that Scott’s awkwardness in discussing race doesn’t come from a place of hate, but in this day and age, acting in a manner that is in many ways consistent with being racist isn’t excusable, especially in an industry with so much public exposure and while being surrounded by handlers who know better. I take issue with calling this ‘wacky’, which strikes me a light quality that could be also be used to describe the guy on the team in charge of making shaving cream pies for shoving in the faces of rookies. I also think there is a difference between being ignorant and being in willful denial of patently indisputable facts just so you can continue espousing an extreme set of political beliefs. This is made worse by the fact that he’s now used his high profile to trumpet these beliefs. ‘Wacky’ is not appropriate here either, as this kind of approach to things in general is a serious character flaw.

Lastly, if I may, I’ll quibble with calling him a ‘good guy’. Again, how you and I define what a “good guy” is may well be quite different, but I don’t think someone is a good guy just because he has a friendly, approachable manner. He may have a way with social graces, and I’ll blindly assume that he does some excellent charity work, but a person who pursues his beliefs and conducts himself as described here doesn’t qualify as a “good guy” to me. If anything, the opposite is true – by appearing superficially ‘good’, he’s getting a free pass on his numerous and serious objectionable qualities. People like that are amazingly persuasive to the multitudes – just ask Sarah Palin or Michael Moore. To me, substance matters far more than style when it comes to being a good guy. This guy is not good, and the less I see of him, the better. I’m glad he’s not on the team my kids follow, having a regular pulpit in my community.

What day did MLB just celebrate? What number is on every stadium in honor of this legendary player? 42, Jackie Robinson. He had to go through way more than Obama. I wonder what Jackie would say to Luke Scott’s comments. I wonder what Hank Aaron would say? They are probably too humble to go on the attack. Which adds to why they are more than great players, they are great men.

Baseball, the fans and the teams are all part of history to move race equality forward. Just as these brave players had to endure hell to just play a game…I wonder how much more Obama or any successful black person has to endure to finally live life without society chiming in and saying, “Sorry, you are over stepping the boundaries society has established.”

So I look at ignorant, uninformed statements by “role models” who play THE sport of baseball that transcended racial barriers and pushed for racial equality, with a little less levity than I would others.

When you take what Luke said in context, he wasn’t saying it in a manner meant to be derogatory.

It looks to me that most people who are calling him racist didn’t even actually read the whole ESPN article. All of the players quoted, all races, admitted he’s a friend and that they give him the same back. And there were plenty of them. I’m sure if he really was racist and somebody felt that way, throughout the years of him playing professional and winter ball we’d have found out about it by now. Somebody wouldn’t hold back. So the excuse that these players are lying to not cause trouble in the clubhouse does not apply. Not to mention that some of the players quoted are not current teammates of his.

In todays world friends of different races do jokingly call each other names that people would feel are derogatory out of context. This situation is a perfect example. Hell, it happens in movies, especially action and comedy, all of the time.

You don’t know their relationship. I don’t know it. By the comments written I’d say I have heard more about it than people here and can offer an opinion that’s more relevant. Hell, just by reading the ESPN article alone it doesn’t leave me thinking he’s racist. It leaves me thinking he’s off the wall and a tad loopy.

The only problem here is that it was written for public viewing where the public really has no way of associating the proper context.

How was what Luke Scott said even referring to Pie’s color? What if he said the same things about a white person?

It’s people own inherent racism that would connect the dots. The term savage, the banana chips. They are irrationally designated racist by the public based on societies racism in the past. Just because Luke Scott is now saying and doing those things doesn’t make them inherently racist. All the more so the opposite when the person he is doing them to is considered a close friend.

The truth is, as Baltimore fans would know, Luke and Pie are actually great friends and Pie has credited Luke for helping turn him around and becoming a part of the clubhouse.

Calling someone racist when you don’t know the full situation is just as bad as what you think Luke Scott supposedly is. And your ignorance for the situation shows just as much as Luke Scotts comments regarding Obama’s birthplace. What makes you any better?

Craig, your take on this situation surprised me actually. I guess I must have perceived YOU differently which goes to show you may just have made an accurate point about Luke. It’s far to easy to assume you know a person from a few blurbs and quotes, but you really don’t. I wish people wouldn’t be so darned sure about how others feel when they don’t even know them really.