Ed Jovanovski for the Norris

[larionov_8 12]

Yeah I watched HNIC. It was just Grapes being Grapes. He always says silly stuff like that. Probably why I love him.

Did you see him after that though? He was visibly emotional when talking about the Canadian soldier who died. His heart is in the right place.

Exactly. Let's not take Don too seriously: he's just trying to commend Jovo for a good season. Don definitely has a bias towards North American players, but he doesn't hide it, and he's entitled to that opinion. To his credit, he knows a lot about hockey, and he is not 'always wrong' as many of you suggest. In fact, he goes to pains to point out many of the times he is right

Now, bias is one thing, but Don Cherry is no racist. He's not saying that Europeans are lesser persons on account of their race. He just believes they might not be as good hockey players on account of different styles (that would be a cultural/national thing, certainly not raciall). Nationalism? Absolutely. Discrimination? Probably. Racism? Definitely not.

Is this getting pretentious? Almost certainly. I'll stop now. Let's just not go overboard with the judgments.

[Chairman Maouth 97]

What?

Cherry isn't really hiding that fact. Racism is the same anywhere in the world, buddy. Just because it happens in Canada doesn't make it any more romantic despite what you might think.

You need to go look up the definition of racism.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

You need to go look up the definition of racism.

Reading your earlier post, it suggests that it probably has different meaning in Canada, but I seriosly doubt it. I can't believe how some people try to defend Don Cherry's comments saying that he isn't a bigot and a racist. He doesn't even sugarcoat around it for crying out loud. What more could he do to prove it?

[Turkey 0]

Ok, I can't believe I'm doing this but:

Racism relates to race. Race is a an incredibly problematic category because it does not exist in reality. Race is solely a cultural construction with no genetic reality. Thus, the idea of race is very fluid, meaning that a person who would be considered african american in the US (due to our propensity toward the "one drop" rule) would not be considered black in a more racially complex country like Brazil. That said, even if race did exist, Cherry's bias against Europeans would not be racism. It cannot be racism because it is predicated on nationality and not race. Even in a world where race is accepted as a category, it is not commensurate with nationality.

There. Sheesh.

[Salviaman 104]

Ed Jovanovski will never win the Norris Trophy....EVER

[eva unit zero 271]

Ok, I can't believe I'm doing this but:

Racism relates to race. Race is a an incredibly problematic category because it does not exist in reality. Race is solely a cultural construction with no genetic reality.

Race does have genetic reality. Things such as lactose tolerance in adulthood, or other types of resistances or vulnerabilities are often genetically present or absent depending on a person's heritage.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Race does have genetic reality. Things such as lactose tolerance in adulthood, or other types of resistances or vulnerabilities are often genetically present or absent depending on a person's heritage.

I agree with Turkey

I think given a big enough sample that this is probably not true. It doesn't matter what ethnic background you are from, given a large enough sample you'll find people of all backgrounds having similar maladies.

Of course we can nitpick this and say this type of person has a 5% chance of having this thing wrong with them which is greater than that type of person because of their race or ethnicity or whatever.

I think that's redundant though. We're all humans and no skin tone or place of origin will stop us from suffering the same ills given a large enough sample group.

[Turkey 0]

Wikipedia

American Anthropological Association

Now...anymore on race can go to the WC.

PS: Jovo is never going to win the Norris and Don Cherry is an amusing lunatic. Let's get back on topic.

[Doggy 130]

Race does have genetic reality. Things such as lactose tolerance in adulthood, or other types of resistances or vulnerabilities are often genetically present or absent depending on a person's heritage.

Where are your stats?

[Doggy 130]

I'd like to agree with you because Nicky is probably my favorite player in the NHL, but I don't agree that he should win the Hart.

The Hart is hard for someone like Lidstrom, or anyone on a complete team like Detroit to win.

The way I look at it, and it's just my opinion, but the Hart should go to someone who basically carries the team by themselves. Nicky certainly contributes more to the Detroit organization than anyone else, but Detroit would still have several top notch defensemen and great fowards. There's no doubt that Nicky would be missed in Detroit and wouldn't be the top notch team they are today, but they wouldn't instantly drop to last place without him. Nicky holds down the defense like no other, but Detroit could still field defense without him. He makes a lot of offensive plays, but at the end of the day, it was likely someone else that put the puck in the back of the net after Nicky made the play.

A player like Alexender Ovechkin though, he basically is the Capitals. If he's not scoring and generating offense, they probably aren't winning. He carries the team and I think therefore deserves the Hart more than Nicky.

It's just too hard for a player like Nicky who has other brilliant team mates to earn the Hart. Allthough he's still the best player in the NHL.

Dude, I can't remember the last time a Hart trophy went to a player from a team that didn't make the playoffs. It could have been decades ago. AO could win it but my point is, without him they would be what, second last as opposed to 4pts ahead of second last??

If a player needs to carry a team to win a Hart he should at least carry them into the playoffs. Like Hasek or Theodore or Thornton or Jagr, etc.