Pro Wrestling is racist?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Neptune, Dec 16, 2015.

  1. WWE Forums is giving away a copy of WWE 2K18 for any platform! More info: WWE 2K18 Giveaway (PS4, Xbox One, Steam)
  1. Watch out Big John40 stud man, looks like the wwe may have a race "issue".

    Read More

    This is like, a year or so old but the writer has made valid points of past events. I don't see racism being an issue now but I can bet is certainly was at one time. Share your thoughts on the matter. I am curious to see how everyone views these things. There is a lot more (a HUGE article) with the read more link. You can skim to each black wrestler to read about his points.
  2. Remember when JBL chased Mexicans at the border on Smackdown?

    But WWE makes a lot of very exaggerated characters and those characters persona's usually deflect a common generalization of a particular race.
  3. I agree, and so does everyone else. Most of the time it is in the name of comedy.
  4. What African american should have won the title, though?

    Personally when the brand split was still a thing I'd consider the WHC to be a perfectly fine accomplishment, but know to be in the minority on that and don't see why
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Exactly, and for the argument of there never being a black WWE Champion as the face of the company you could argue that there has never really been anyone good enough. The only person worthy would be Booker T. But who else could you even consider being the face? Mark Henry, Bobby Lashly, Shelton Benjamin, Kofi Kingston?? All of them are great wrestlers, but not good enough to be the face of the company.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. And to be fair, there are far more white and Mexican men who aspire to wrestle than there are black men. The best wrestlers in the world aren't even white... They are Japanese. lol Second to them I would put my money on Mexican.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Agreed. And there have been quite a few Mexican WWE Champions like Eddie Guerrero, Del Rio, Rey Mysterio. Huge black male athletes that could be wrestlers are usually just better enough to compete in legit sports like Basketball and Football lol
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Yup! I mean I can't see anyone who is in charge or at least at the top of WWE being racist, that is just bad for business.
  9. The way this guy wrote on the subject, he made good points but when it comes down to them not getting their credit, you have to look at the industry as a whole. When Booker was at his best other wrestlers outshined him by the fans. He was a great wrestler but to act like his color held him back seems a bit much.
  10. Wrestling by itself is not racist. But a lot of people at the top in wrestling are or have racist tendencies. which makes the institution of wrestling racist by proxy.

    So in short, wrestling is all the things
  11. That sig is great haha
  12. #12 Jacob Fox, Dec 16, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2015
    Before reading this, it's probably important to know that I am 25% American Indian and I am directly descended from a black slave... a fact of which I am immensely proud. My response to this article has NOTHING to do with race and EVERYTHING to do with bad arguing. Anyone who knows me well knows that I couldn't care less about someone's opinion but what I do hate is bad arguing, committing fallacies and skewing facts to support one's premise.

    I like Mark Henry but to claim he has one of the greatest resumes in WWE is hyperbole in its truest form. Mark Henry has been around a while and is pretty strong and has been a part of some entertaining angles, but to rank him with WWE's elite shows a real lack of knowledge of history. More often than not, Henry lingered in the midcard while occasionally being given a title run. He's strong, but not that outstanding of a wrestler, relying on power moves and very limited flexibility in an age when fans wanted fast action with tons of arial moves and such. Don't get me wrong, I like Mark Henry, but he never would have been successful as face of the company.

    In regards to Booker T's championships in WCW, he was also 5 times champion of WCW when WCW was in its nosedive NOT when WCW was beating WWE in the ratings. Unlike what this writer claims, Booker did not win his first championship until WWE was destroying WCW in the ratings. They more than likely called Booker an underdog because he was WCW champion and the WWE was portraying holding that belt as a lesser accomplishment than holding the WWE belt. I personally don't think that matters at all, but it was the article writer who brought it up as if if it did, not me.

    Arguably the most popular wrestler in the history of pro wrestling is half Nova Scotian black and half Samoan. He's a ten time world champion and basically has his way with ANYONE on the roster when he comes back. So because the Rock is half Samoan, he doesn't count as a black man who was the face of the company? And the claim that the Rock only identifies as Samoan is not only WRONG but irrelevant. Did we forget the Nation of Domination? Even if he did, that doesn't negate the fact that he IS black and he WAS WWE World Heavyweight Champion a total of 8 times.I think the author's poor treatment of these facts is pretty lousy if you ask me.

    This guy actually tries to make the case that because the Rock identifies as Samoan, that he doesn't count as being a black WWE World Heavyweight Champion. How stupid is that thinking? You can't change your ethnicity because of how you think... and the Rock doesn't even think the way this guy claims he does. The irony here is that by claiming that the Rock was NOT the first black WWE Champion, the writer of this article is making a racist statement against the Rock. He is negating the Rock's heritage because he's not 100% black.

    While there may be a race problem in the WWE, I won't say that there isn't, this is a poorly written article that twists facts to support it's premise. The real sad thing about it is that people who read it will recognize the flaws and assume that there isn't a race problem because the author had to lie and distort facts to support that premise. He could have supported his premise with actual research and there are more than enough facts to support it.. but he chose not to do this and caused more damage to his own cause than help.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Well for the first three years, it was the championship on Raw, not Smackdown, and Raw was still the number one show. It was the championship defended in the main event of Wrestlemania's 20, 21, and 24. Sounds about the same to me.

    Honestly I think the author designated it as lower simply because it supports his premise and allows him to leave Booker T and Mark Henry's reigns out of the argument.
    • Like Like x 2
  14. I've only been watching since 2008 (did see some AE back when I was like nine years old, so can't claim to know shit lol), so can't claim to know anything about the history of the company like you do. Maybe you could argue Triple H should have dropped the strap to Booker at WM19, but...

    As a casual getting into wrestling, I saw the two top titles as being "the top wrestler of that brand". When Mark Henry won the World Heavyweight Championship, congrats, he was at the top of the mountain. Awesome. Didn't think "Oh, this title didn't main event PPVs over the Raw one so it doesn't mean as much." Never understood that argument. Oh, so being the top guy on Smackdown doesn't mean anything because the belt opened Wrestlemania 27. Cool, lol

    In recent history, I've heard "Mark Henry should have won the WHC after doing the fake retirement promo!!!!"... and messed up Daniel Bryan vs John Cena at Summerslam? No!
    "Oh, but the Hall of Pain gimmick was great! He could have carried the company!" Yeah, bring over Mark Henry to Raw instead of doing the Summer of Punk just to avoid this random stat. Great idea.
    I'm all for guys like Shelton and Kofi getting title shots, because being a "midcarder for life" is a MASSIVE problem in WWE. But their skin pigmentation isn't why they haven't been champion.
    Hell, I've even heard about people throwing out Titus O'Neil for this, despite usually not being in the top 20 guys you think of to push in WWE lol

    And the other story that comes to mind is December to Dismember 2006, the show that drove Paul Heyman away as he and VKM were feuding over who should win the main event. Heyman wanted CM Punk to look strong coming out of the show (and even talked about Big Show agreeing to tap out to him early in the match), while Vince wanted Bobby Lashley to be a big star, and obviously Vince got his way. And he gave Lashley the rocket ship and really wanted to make something out of that guy, but that always gets conveniently left out of the argument.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Anyone would of have to ate the loss to Triple H at WM19. Thats when Hunters ego was probably at its peak. Austin and Rocks careers were dwindling down, so he knew it was his time to rule the locker room. Im sure thats why guys like Brock, Taker, and Angle all got put on Smackdown because they were all big enough to take the title off Triple H. Meanwhile guys like Booker, RVD, Jericho, and Kane all had to job. Shawn Michaels and Kevin Nash are Hunters friends so of course they'll put him over. Goldberg and Scott Steiners careers in WWE were a joke. Goldberg had a short run with the belt. He defended it for only 1 PPV and then dropped it at the next. Surprisingly enough Chris Benoit got put on Raw and Triple H put him over. Only for Benoit to put over Triple H's buddy and partner Randy Orton so then Randy Orton would drop the title in a month to Triple H.

    I think if The New Day went anything beyond the Tag Team Division but were still together that Big E could get the push to become WWE Champion. Even though it'll never happen though. Also maybe Apollo Crews could years down the road.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Couldn't agree more.

    Well I did miss a few years and when I came back, WCW was gone and we had 2 world titles in WWE. I never for one moment thought the WHC was a lower belt and can't really understand that thinking anymore than if someone claimed the WCW Championship was a lesser belt than the WWF belt in the early 90s... they are both the top belt.
  17. To use Mark Henry to try and prove a point is lol worthy. Great gimmick but he is a total bore to watch in the ring, plus whc was still credible at a time.

    They are racist to Brits:eww2:
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Racism is just a convenient excuse to slam the company for not pushing the people you want them to. So-and-so who's black didn't win the world title or didn't get the push they deserved (or that you thought they deserved), so it must be because the company doesn't like black people. The problem with this line of thinking is that for every black wrestler that didn't get a main event push, there's probably at least anywhere between five to ten non-black wrestlers that you could argue were deserving and got nothing either.

    Also, people need to smarten up and realize that racism isn't limited to only hating on blacks. It means a person of any one race thinking they're superior to any other race. You can love black folks and still be racist if you hate any other ethnicity. Reason I'm pointing this out is because WWE has given championships to Mexicans, Samoans, Filipinos, Asians, etc. and yet all of that conveniently gets ignored. Blacks have won multiple championships too, just because they didn't win the top prize shouldn't mean anything.

    As for Booker T. losing to HHH at WM19 goes, that had everything to do with Goldberg having just signed with the company (he actually made his first-ever WWE appearance the very next night) and nothing to do with Booker's skin color. The idea was to keep the title on Hunter for as long as possible so that Goldberg finally being the one to dethrone him would be a bigger deal. Booker winning it and then losing it back to HHH a month or two later just so Hunter could then immediately lose it again himself to Goldberg does nothing for no one. Such a short and insignificant title reign does nothing to 'make' Booker or give him any kind of serious rub, and it arguably takes some of the sting out of Goldberg beating Hunter for the belt if HHH had only been champion again for a very short time again, too. Don't get me wrong - even if Goldberg had shown no interest in signing around that time, Hunter would have likely just found some other reason not to drop the title to Booker, but there WAS a valid justification for why HHH went over that night. Race certainly played no part in it. Hell, Booker was only a back-up opponent for Hunter that year anyway - it was supposed to be a returning Austin losing to HHH but due to other circumstances, they were forced to rearrange the card a bit.

    Plus, Booker ended up later winning the WHC back when the WHC still meant as much (or nearly as much) as the WWE Title. He headlined three PPV's as champion (four when you count the one where he won the title), and one of those included pinning John Cena. He did just fine for himself.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. There's no race issue, that's absurd. The fact is that there's also far fewer black pro wrestlers in the world. People forget that. And the only who came close, and decided to leave, was bobbly lashley. I have no doubt in my mind that he would've won and been on top for a bit. But he left and didn't. Booker t and mark Henry have both been on top too. This is all propaganda. Read this list of all black pro wrestlers:

    Category:African-American professional wrestlers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    That's like it
  20. #20 Nobody, Dec 16, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2015
    Started watching Wrestling in 2008 - brings up 2006.

    Is "blacks" a PC term Lock? lmao.
    • Zing! Zing! x 1
Draft saved Draft deleted