Stick To Basketball, Dukies

General109

Irony, thy name is Duke Basketball Report.

In a spittle-flying screed entitled “Cheap Shot From A Cheap Site,� the DBR fulminates over the Giant comparing the Atlantic Coast Conference to France (our alma mater), England, (UNC), and Germany (Duke) – the last of which I describe as the new strength arising under a malevolent leader.

“But, but, but… Coach K is the son of Polish immigrants,� sputter the outraged Dukies. And the awful Giant, they say, has compared Coach K to HITLER… “Just an incredibly thoughtless, ignorant, and uneducated thing to say.� It’s true, they say – if you can’t go to college, go to State.
Does SFN, they rave, have no sense of history?

Actually, yes we do, and somewhat more of one (by all appearances) than the nerdish jock-sniffers who populate the DBR. The Giant’s often pondered that the supposed “superior education� offered at Ivy League wannabes like Duke is somewhat dubious when the rubber hits the road. The DBR’s March 21 hack job on the Giant’s jocular little column certainly adds grist to that mill.

You see, as anyone who’s taken a reputable European history course can attest, the DBR’s talking through its hat with this rant. The classic European struggle for power between England, France, and Germany reached its essence between 1870 (the end of the Franco-Prussian War, when Germany was created) and 1914’s “Guns of August,� which signaled the start of what became World War One. During that period, a new and resurgent German Empire arose from a collection of fairly fragmented states into a military and political juggernaut that soon supplanted France as the powerhouse of continental Europe. Sort of the way, you know, Duke supplanted State basketball in the ACC.

And Germany enjoyed this rise under the malevolent (to those who, well, didn’t want to be German) leadership of – Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, the “Iron Chancellor,� a master geopolitical strategist, who incidentally never abused a Pole in his life. And it was Bismarck, not Hitler, to whom the Giant was comparing Coach K. Not the nicest guy to his enemies, Otto, but you have to give the man credit for genius – as the Giant was crediting Coach K.

“Mein Gott – Dukies Schiesskopfs Ist!”

I suggest remedial reading in the form of Robert K. Massie’s “Dreadnought,� which explains all of this – assuming mein Kameraden at the DBR can put down the latest recycled John Feinstein dreck long enough to learn some history.

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/images/massie_cover.gif

Now, precisely who needs to go to college again?

General

109 Responses to Stick To Basketball, Dukies

  1. HeelsFan 03/21/2006 at 1:41 PM #

    Avid Tar Heel fans who enjoy SFN (which I think is the best sports blog around) are really enjoying this Dook v. State spat. I’ve only seen a couple of references to the Heels (UNC=Russia being one).

    I personally feel the original entry about “the malevolent leader” was referring to Hitler. But props to Cardiff for the comeback.

    I’m Tar Heel but I will be proud to send my daughter to NC State for her education. She actually is attending the Kay Yow camps this summer and I’m very proud of that as well. Dook sucks.

  2. Cardiff Giant 03/21/2006 at 1:50 PM #

    Herb, 74, mp99, James, and others thank you for your kind comments.

    Carlos, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point, I suppose. It just really seems odd to me that one would think I would praise Duke arising as a behemoth that supplanted my own school and in the same breath compare Coach K to Hitler. But whatever. I am convinced, however, that I have clearly underestimated the ability of the Duke fan base (at least, as seen here) in many cases to appreciate historical nuance, even of the most obvious (to me) sort.

    As for the Howler monkeys – David and the like – who have shown up here, I am quite confident none of them attended State, Duke, or any other institution of higher learning, so we’ll continue to delete their poo throwing.

    Dear me. And to think I thought the “Lucky Pierre” reference would create the most controversy.

  3. WolfInVolCountry 03/21/2006 at 1:53 PM #

    Giant, wasn’t your inset of a French Soldier a clue to the clueless? Isn’t that circa 1900? Certainly did not look like Free French.

    Something smells Vichy to me (sorry, I could not help myself), and I think it is the lack of a History Department at Duke.

  4. BJD95 03/21/2006 at 1:57 PM #

    Hey, I go to lunch, and this thread turns all reasonable! Cool.

    And yes, I’m even glad for some Tarheel fans to read and enjoy our blog. The work colleagues that I usually discuss sports with are primarily UNC fans.

    Can’t we all just get along?

  6. cfpack03 03/21/2006 at 2:03 PM #

    Giant… only had admin rights for 2 weeks and already this!
    I love it, very entertaining

  7. Cardiff Giant 03/21/2006 at 2:12 PM #

    “Giant, wasn’t your inset of a French Soldier a clue to the clueless?”

    Yes, Lucky Pierre is a picture of a World War One poilus.

    To make amends to my friends at the DBR, I post with approval, re this thread, the pic below, taken from their site:

    http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/images/20060321-pye.small.jpg

  8. ARWolf 03/21/2006 at 2:40 PM #

    Despite conventional wisdom, it is possible to talk about a leader of Germany and not be referring to Adolf Hitler. And there can be no doubt that the author was referring to Bismarck and not the tyrant who would later and tragically rule Germany.
    I submit the proof: Many posters kept asking what college should the U.S. be? But the U.S. was not assigned a college because the author was thinking of and ONLY of the European power struggle that dominated the last half of the 19th century and the early 20th century. The United States, though enjoying a robust economy, was not a significant military power just yet, and many other countries (i.e. Japan) that would later become great powers were not in a position to dominant the geopolitical world. IF the author had meant to compare Duke to Nazi Germany, then his analogy would become erroneous: How can UNC be Great Britain when, during the Second World War, Britain was constantly on the verge of defeat, despite its proud resilience. Obviously he was speaking of Victorian Britain when the country was a near hegemon. Though (sadly), the comparison of State and defeated France might still work, there would be holes within his argument.
    The author exemplified both his formidable understanding of history and basketball when he made this insightful post. His critics, be they Dukies or others, only proved their profound ignorance.

  9. Cardiff Giant 03/21/2006 at 2:46 PM #

    ^ Thank you AR, and well said.

  10. Duke92 03/21/2006 at 4:22 PM #

    Well, AR, the posters, even before discussing the US, started and continued comparing Lee Fowler to Neville Chamberlain. I think we all know that the good PM was a contemporary of one of the German leaders at issue, and not the other.

    Moreover, I can find plenty of references to “Lucky Pierre” as a 1940s term, and none to it from the days of Bismarck. And the fake poster mocking “Ultimate Surrender” is a clear WWII reference; I mean, the loss of the Franco-Prussian War was humiliating to France, and caused them to build Sacre-Couer, but it in no way represented “Ultimate Surrender,” especially compared to June 1940, Paris being declared an open city, Vichy collaboration, etc.

    Bottom line: the intended reference in the original post may not have been to Hitler, but there was far too much clear evidence pointing in that direction for the follow-up article here to have been one that sneers at DBR, as opposed to one that might have said, “Sorry for the ambiguity; we didn’t mean to compare Duke to Nazi Germany.” But it’s ridiculous to continue insisting that the reference was clearly and unambiguously to Bismarck, and that only an uneducated dolt could have thought otherwise.

  11. Carlos 03/21/2006 at 4:24 PM #

    AR – Like the original premise, I think that your proof is very suspect in its logic. You state that many posters kept asking what college should the US be but it was unassigned because the author was thinking of and ONLY of the European power struggle that dominated the last half of the 19th century and the early 20th century. While it’s clear that the scope of the metaphor was limited to Europe, your time frame is a pretty subjective snapshot.

    In fact, there is no way to ascertain what time frame the author had in mind given that he used historical references of French wars with Germany and England. While it’s true that the French suffered a defeat to Germany in the late 1800’s the most predominant of the many, many, many French defeats would be in either of the World Wars. That image is only reinforced by the “Lucky Pierre” poster with a WWI image and his admission that the slang reference from the 1940’s was intentional.

    Since WWI took place more than 2 decades after Bismarck was forced to resign it would seem a bit of a stretch to say that the reader should automatically assume he was the subject in the author’s metaphor.

    You attempt to place a time frame on the piece is also flawed by the author’s reference to Jacque Chirac who, to the best of my knowledge, wasn’t much of a factor in Bismarck’s days.

    I would also add that if only the profoundly ignorant would not pick up on the fact that Giant was “thinking of and ONLY of the European power struggle that dominated the last half of the 19th century and the early 20th century” then you have a good number of those people in your own fan base. As you said, many posters kept asking about the US as a possible metaphor. But beyond that, there were also references to Neville Chamberlain, the Vichy government, and de Gaul [sic]. If there can be no doubt, how could so many of the readers been so off base with their comments?

    Clearly there is substantial room for interpretation on this.

  12. Cardiff Giant 03/21/2006 at 4:38 PM #

    “You attempt to place a time frame on the piece is also flawed by the author’s reference to Jacque Chirac who, to the best of my knowledge, wasn’t much of a factor in Bismarck’s days.”

    He wasn’t during Hitler’s either.

    “But beyond that, there were also references to Neville Chamberlain, the Vichy government, and de Gaul [sic]. If there can be no doubt, how could so many of the readers been so off base with their comments?”

    The latter two were, I think, just references to France in general. As for Neville Chamberlain, that reference was more of a hack on Fowler as a generalized appeaser, I believe.

    “I mean, the loss of the Franco-Prussian War was humiliating to France, and caused them to build Sacre-Couer, but it in no way represented “Ultimate Surrender,â€? especially compared to June 1940, Paris being declared an open city, Vichy collaboration, etc.”

    I can’t think of the one being more humiliating than the other, really, but I am not French. Either way, nothing you post removes the historical fact that it was during the period 1870-1914 that France fell into firm third place status in Continental Europe, and my post was a play on that fact.

    “but there was far too much clear evidence pointing in that direction for the follow-up article here to have been one that sneers at DBR, as opposed to one that might have said, “Sorry for the ambiguity; we didn’t mean to compare Duke to Nazi Germany.â€?

    Let me get this straight – I am supposed to respond to that offensive jeremiad in the DBR with an apology? In a word, bullshit.

    Again, neither you explain why I would concede that Duke surpassed State as Germany surpassed France, and at the same time wish to refer to Coach K, the author of that, as Hitler – when, again, Hitler had nothing to do with Germany surpassing France in the first place but merely swept away the remains in 1940.

    Finally, if I was referring to Hitler’s Germany rather than Wilhelmine, why would I refer to it as a “relatively new behemoth”? Wilhelmine Germany arose in 1870 and grew through 1914 – relatively new. Germany as a nation was almost seventy years old in 1939 – do you refer to the “relatively new” Poland, which was created in 1945, sixty six years ago? Or would the more apt comparison be, say, the actually “relatively new” Republic of Germany from 1990?

  13. Duke92 03/21/2006 at 5:02 PM #

    Cardiff Giant: DBR wrote what you call a jeremiad because they made the entirely plausible assumption that the unnamed “malevolent” German leader who vanquished France was Hitler. Had you responded by clarifying your intent, even if you didn’t apologize, and even if you took a “lighten up, Francis” tone, you might have gained some readers. As it is, all I’ve seen of this site, and particularly you, is smugness bordering on self-righteousness, condescension, vitriol, and some pretty ugly elitism.

  14. beowolf 03/21/2006 at 5:12 PM #

    If DBR hadn’t got involved in this, I would suspect that Duke92 et al. were part of a rather obvious attempt on the part of some enterprising tarheels to make their blue rivals look rock-stupid.

  15. Duke92 03/21/2006 at 5:13 PM #

    P.S. For all the pretension here about superior historical knowledge, reputable European history courses, this is my favorite part of the original post

    “Think of the Triangle as Continental Europe. There’s England … .”

    Yep, when I think of “Continental Europe,” England is the *first* thing that usually comes to mind! 🙂

  16. Cardiff Giant 03/21/2006 at 5:38 PM #

    ^ Given the subject of the article was us as France, you should have.

    A Dukie calling me smug and elitist? Now there is a compliment. Thank you!

  17. MurphNCSU 03/21/2006 at 5:56 PM #

    I think the funny thing is that if anyone was going to make a 20th century analogy to BIG 4 or even Triangle ACC BBall, that it would be NCSU as pre-Hitler Germany. NCSU is a once great power that has been stripped down by sanctions, that in the very least were WAY to strong for the infractions created by it’s leadership. Here we would compare the post-WWI German gov’t to the post-V era Athletic Department leadership, giving into rediculously harsh restrictions becuase of their own embarassment. Resctrictions which in-turn created economic stagnation for Germany (read here – Lack of basketball success under Les and Herb) and helped aid in the rise of a new economic power (USA = Duke).

    My point here is that what NCSU has now is a beaten, fractionalized, and hungry (starving) fanbase (populous) that is looking for a strong, passionate, and worthwile leader who will instill in us the same “national” (here I mean, actually being respected in the present national sports media as a BBall power) pride which we used to have. We need new leadership for our program. Leadership which can both return us to power and perserve the academic status quo. And yes, it is possible.

  18. Carlos 03/21/2006 at 5:58 PM #

    “Finally, if I was referring to Hitler’s Germany rather than Wilhelmine, why would I refer to it as a “relatively new behemothâ€?? Wilhelmine Germany arose in 1870 and grew through 1914 – relatively new. Germany as a nation was almost seventy years old in 1939 – do you refer to the “relatively newâ€? Poland, which was created in 1945, sixty six years ago? Or would the more apt comparison be, say, the actually “relatively newâ€? Republic of Germany from 1990? ”

    This one’s not my point, but the problem is that you called the country “relatively new.” Since the meaning of relatively is in comparison with something else, and since the other examples in the metaphor are countries that have been European powers since 800AD or so, then it’s perfectly reasonable to consider something 70 years old to be “relatively new.” By French and English standards, the US is still “relatively new.”

    “He wasn’t during Hitler’s either.”

    Correct, but my point was that one can’t contend that “the author was thinking of and ONLY of the European power struggle that dominated the last half of the 19th century and the early 20th century” when you were using references outside of that time period. If you were thinking of and only of that time frame what’s with the Chirac reference? I think that most folks would assume you were cherry picking political figures from a wide range of time to support a premise. Personally, I think we could just blame this whole thing on France since they’ve been a collection of brie-eating, smelly wimps without any true political or military strength since Napoleon got his butt kicked. The problem is that France has been inept for just too damn long.

    I also think that you fail to look the positive side of behaving like the French on the basketball court. Think of just how strong you could be in transition defense as it involves running backwards with your hands in the air.

  19. MurphNCSU 03/21/2006 at 6:04 PM #

    Just in case anyone wants to know:

    The other players in my analogy would be UNC as England and Wake as Russia.

    UNC/England is still powerful, maybe unreasonably confident in their power, but still fears that the once powerful and previously ambitious Germany/NCSU would regain its previous power.

    Wake/Russia is a entitiy steeped in tradition and containing great potential, but has always neared greatness but never quite acheived it, prefering to keep out of the Western European (Triangle) affairs.

  20. WolfInVolCountry 03/21/2006 at 7:59 PM #

    All in all, this is a pretty incredible stream of comments to a rather nice piece of satirical blogging.

    I think that the Dookies reasoning/outlook/sense-of-humor have all been corrupted and skewed by:

    1. sitting in their little Hooverville waiting to get into Cameron
    2. politcal correctness run amok
    3. listening to the bullshit of K defending Herb
    4. watching pirated copies of “Brokeback Mountain”

    Way to stir things up Giant! George Hull would be proud!

  21. Cardiff Giant 03/21/2006 at 8:29 PM #

    ^ Ha!

    Carlos:

    “Personally, I think we could just blame this whole thing on France since they’ve been a collection of brie-eating, smelly wimps without any true political or military strength since Napoleon got his butt kicked. The problem is that France has been inept for just too damn long.”

    I agree with this 100%! 🙂

  22. beowolf 03/21/2006 at 8:29 PM #

    Speaking of satire, it appears that one of the mods here couldn’t tell that IPSE DIXIT DUKE!!!!11!!eine was satire of the DBR/Duke92 types.

    Oh well.

  23. rzelin03 03/21/2006 at 9:27 PM #

    Duke fan, Fuqua grad, DBR reader.

    Step off DBR, you didn’t analyze Giant’s article as well as you disect an oppononent’s game plan.

    Get over it and give me the scoop on this LSU team I know nothing but “Big Baby” about.

    Take comfort in the fact that even if we lose to LSU we don’t have to worry if we have the right coach or not.

  24. WufPacker 03/22/2006 at 3:32 AM #

    Ya know what, DBR? It was an ANALOGY. You even called it an ANALOGY yourselves in your response “Cheap Shot From a Cheap Site”. It was not meant to be an in depth comparison of two individuals or their qualities as a person.

    Even if Hitler had been the “malevolent leader” to whom the author was referring, it by no means indicates that said author believes that K has the personal or political attributes of Hitler, or any other “malevolent leader” to whom he might be compared (I’m sure there have been many over the years). It simply means that he is the “leader” that for one reason or another is viewed as being “malevolent”. To most opposing fanbases that fits Duke Basketball and K quite well…and not because he has done anything personally or politically heinous. In fact, it should be viewed as a compliment because the main reason I, and many opposing fanbases, would even call K “malevolent” is because he routinely beats my team’s brains in on the court.

    It is an ANALOGY…

    For Duke fans to find offense in this, especially when the aim of the article was to point out and satire the impotence of NC State’s basketball program, is quite laughable. The ANALOGY was merely used to attempt to humorously make the point regarding the NC State basketball program, which again, for those not paying attention, was the butt of the joke in this satire…Not Duke Basketball…Not K.

    Has political correctness really gotten this bad?

    Besides, if you (DBR and/or Duke fans) think that this site is such a useless and laughable one, and think those of us who frequent this site are idiots (as your comments on YOUR site, as well as many of your posts here on this blog would indicate), why did you, as a group, seem to feel the need to continue to debate this point with the author for the better part of the day?

    Perhaps rzelin03 (above) has a valid point and your concentration today should have been more on LSU?

    One last thing…in OUR eyes, calling this site “the epicenter of the dump Sendek movement” is not the insult that you seem to think it is. In fact, those of us that want to see our program continue to progress and ultimately reach elite status (and don’t feel that it is possible under the current coach) would likely argue that as being a compliment, regardless of what you might think. We would like to get to a point where we are beating YOUR brains in on the court with regularity. We would like to have a “leader” that YOU view as being “malevolent”, rather than one that our rivals feel the need to defend at every opportunity.

  25. class of '74 03/22/2006 at 6:12 AM #

    For all of you Dukies who have tried in vain to disrupt our merriment return to your methodist roots and pray we don’t really try to point our humor in your direction!

1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply