STELLY SPEAKS...: April 2013

Matthew C. Stelly

OPENING COMMENTS

America only wants to discuss or address issues of race when it is on the political level and in the abstract. When it comes to down defining black people based upon their relevance to other black people, the system believes that such determinations are theirs to make. Having a viewpoint about a black person who makes a great deal of money for the system is a no-no, and anyone who would dare do so will feel the wrath of a system that, to this day, continues to use tokenism, favoritism and white supremacy-based selections to make its down decisions in determining who black people in general and black children, in particular, should listen to, believe in and/or follow.

The statement used by sports analyst Rob Parker about some black people being “real” and “down to earth” is true; while I’ve never heard the comment about “Cornball brothers,” that may because I am not from the east coast. Although we are black and unified in a lot of popular culture issues (e.g., handshakes, greetings, terminology, etc.), there are some differences. For instance, the brothers on the east coast refer to a penis as a “cock,” but brothers from the west coast use the terms “pussy” and “cock” interchangeably. The same can be said, perhaps, for Parker’s labelling of Griffin. Some might call him an Uncle Tom, others might use words like “sellout” and so on.

Personally, I am a fan of “First Take” because it provides insightful information and informed opinions.

For instance, what Parker revealed to me about Robert Griffin III are things I did not know. And now that I know them I am no longer as big a fan as I was. First of all, he’s engaged to a white woman, and I”ll deal with why that’s taboo later in this paper. And secondly, he’s allegedly a Republican. I don’t believe in the American political system at all, even though one of my Master’s degrees is in Political Science. But I do know that Republicans hate blacks more than Democrats do (even though both are cut from the same cloth) and as a result, I view any black person who would openly admit that he’s a Republican is making a statement.

He’s either trying to (1) appease some white man; (2) curry favor with a group of whites; (3) preparing to run for office or (4) letting people know that he loves white folks and should therefore not be considered the way “the other blacks” are considered. A point that Parker made (in regard to Griffin trying to distance himself) and one that I wholeheartedly agree with. There are black people who do this, and most of them are not involved in sports.

Rob Parker is what I would call “an intrepid iconoclast.” What Stephen A. Smith has in terms of flash and what Skip Bayliss offers in terms of experience, Rob has in what could be called “grass roots honesty.” He doesn’t do all the name-calling that Smith and Bayliss engage in, although I find it humorous. He comes on the air, makes his points, endures the on-going interruptions by Stephen A. Smith, and says what he has to say.

If the question about RGIII was not asked, the crew and audience would not have gotten the honest answer they got from Parker. If I’m not mistaken, these people go over the questions that are asked before the show is aired – they knew what was coming. And therefore what happened is what they intentionally designed and anticipated. I think Rob Parker was set up.

Finally, a lesson that I leave my Black Studies students at the University of Nebraska with. As Claud Anderson reminded us, “The Constitution defined the equality of the races in America and provided the foundation for the way the contry develioped and allocated resources. According to the Constitution, Black Americans were considered to be 3/5s of a White human. It took 200 years of revolts, marches, riots and federal legislation to establish the principle of Black equality” (Anderson, 2004: p. 4). I believe Stephen A. Smith and Rob Parker both knew this; I don’t think that Robert Griffin III does not it. This is the best way to explain why he can say what he says and do what he does and why it takes people like Rob Parker to bring it to the fore.

Following are my views regarding Rob Parker’s statements, the handling of the situation by ESPN, some speculations and reasoning surrounding Parker’s statements, and finally, Robert Griffin III’s views on race.

PARKER’S JOURNALISM BACKGROUND

Rob Parker was born on January 18, 1964 in Jamaica, Queens, New York, and has been active in journalism since 1986.

Parker attended Southern Connecticut State University and Columbia University for graduate studies in journalism. Before becoming the second black sports columnist at The Detroit News after Terry Foster in 1993, Parker was a reporter for The Times Leader in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, The Daily News in New York and The Cincinnati Enquirer. He was also the first black sports columnist at Newsday in New York in 1995. (Wikipedia, 2012).

Rob Parker had every reason to adopt a “I’m not a black reporter, I’m just a reporter” mentality akin to that of Robert Griffin III’s. But he didn’t. It must have been difficult being “the first” or one of a very few, a feeling I can personally relate to as a graduate student at the University of Nebraska, the University of Iowa and the University of Wisconsin. He was in prestigious newsrooms for study of journalism and them moved to somewhat obscure sites and was undoubtedly the token minority. But just because you’re hired as a token doesn’t mean you have to act the part. And I don’t think Rob Parker ever sold out on his basic values.

This is not to say he hasn’t bedded some white women himself. When a black man is visible and vocal, those are the women that are going to be attracted to him because they expect little in return, other than sex. Sisters want a commitment, a man with a job, a ring on their finger and, if possible, a DNA test. You can’t really blame them. But at any rate, Parker’s background is impeccable as a journalist. The only thing is that he’s a “sports analyst” and that leaves lots of leeway for his opinions and views, biased though they may be. And that is why ESPN was wrong for suspending him for the remarks he made regarding sharing his views on Robert Griffin III.

PARKER AND PAST “CONTROVERSIES”

I didn’t really know Rob Parker from Adam’s House cat until I saw him on ESPN’s “First Take” and most of the time he was talking about baseball, a sport I do not like one bit. But I am glad that a black man covers it and since he spoke intelligently and didn’t seem shy with his views, he won my respect from the get-go.

To begin with, what is a “controversy”? I know what one is, but I want to share with you what the connotative definition is, not the one prescribed and outlined in a dictionary. When the variable of “race” is involved, the concept of being involved in a controversy could mean almost anything. And why is that? When the white man is the final decision maker and arbiter, when the white man has his discretion to use in the final assessment of whether or not something is “controversial,” then that is what the final definition will be.

For instance, denotatively, the word provides a basis for enhanced understanding of the nebulous nature of the concept of whether something is “controversial” or not. That which is controversial is that which causes a lot of

disagreement, because many people have strong opinions about the subject being discussed and, according to the Oxford Dictionary, something controversial is something is likely to give to public disagreement. Synonyms include argumentative, contentions, disputatious and “hot button.”

Most people avoid controversy because most people in America are cowards. One need only watch shows like “What Would You Do?” and read the research on citizen involvement to see that this is the case. But the concept of “controversial” and determining what is or is not, is in the hands of the white man. You don’t hear black people defining what is controversial or not,e ven when we are involved; it is a white value judgment in most cases. Even when we are engaged in discussing an controversial issue, we are discussing two views: that of the topic that is controversial and secondly, the other side, that of the white man and why he has labeled it such.

One source provides information about some of the “controversies” that Parker has been involved in and with. According to the internet site Wikipedia,

Parker, who is African American, is not shy to discuss the racial aspects of current sports events, such as the NBA off-court dress policy, or the lack of African Americans in NFL coaching positions. He penned a much-maligned column where he called Hank Aaron a "coward" for declining to attend when Barry Bonds would break the career home run record. (Wikipedia, 2012).

This is a real black man and as such, he has the right to define what is “real” in his mind, and what is not – he leads by example. Stephen A. Smith talks a good game and is probably conscious and well-read, but he wouldn’t take the stands that Rob Parker takes unless it involved one of his family members. He is careful because he is grateful for the opportunities that he’s got – and I, for one, am glad he’s got them. But he surely has no right even thinking about calling Rob Parker’s courage into question. And I hope he never does.

Parker has taken his lumps from other sources, though. For instance,

In October 2008, Parker erroneously reported that Kirk Cousins, a quarterback for the Michigan State Spartans, was involved in a fight with members of the Michigan State hockey team. At the time of the fight, Cousins was at church with his parents. After being publicly reproved by head coach Mark Dantonio at his weekly news conference, Parker was suspended by The Detroit News for two weeks. (Wikipedia, 2012).

What is sited above is a journalistic mistake and Parker should have known better. This has nothing to do with “controversy” other than the fact that he pissed off a few people. Ironically, Kirk Cousins was drafted by the Washington Redskins and is now the second string quarterback for that team behind, guess who? Robert Griffin III! Be that as it may, this mistake about Cousins is not even close to being as intrusive as what ESPN did to Parker in terms of punishing him for having an opinion. In the case cited above he was acting as a journalist and was in violation of not doing ample research, a major mistake. But his own personal views aired on ESPN? After he was asked what his views were? On a show that does nothing more than spew forth opnions day after day? Unforgiveable.

Another mistake by Parker is documented below:

On December 21, 2008, at a press conference following the Lions' 42–7 loss to the New Orleans Saints, during the Detroit Lions historic 0-16 season, Rob Parker caused some controversy when he addressed a question at Lions head coach Rod Marinelli about Lions defensive coordinator Joe Barry, Marinelli's son-in-law, inquiring whether Marinelli wished that his daughter had "married a better defensive coordinator."The question was criticized as unprofessional and inappropriate. The next day, Parker wrote that the comment was "an attempt at humor" and not a malicious attack.Parker wrote no further columns forThe Detroit News, nor did he attend any press conferences, following the incident. On January 6, 2009, The Detroit News announced that Parker had resigned from the newspaper the previous week. (Wikipedia, 2012)

Parker does have a tendency to joke around about serious topics, a habit that shouldn’t extend into his job; but it is clear that if often does and , as you can see above, he paid the price. His point was probably that why is this coach hiring his son in law – isn’t that nepotism? White people hiring their own relatives at a time when so many more qualified people are available and, at the time, the Lions were losing almost every week? I think it was a valid point, but should have been stated that way, not as a “crack.”

Now there are times when Parker has the right idea, as he did in the Lion’s coach case, and he just speaks out to people who are basically cowards. For instance, “In 2007, Parker called Hank Aaron a “coward” because he wouldn’t attend the game in which Barry Bonds broke his all-time record for home runs.” You don’t think it was chickenshit for Hank not to show up? Willie Mays is Barry Bond’s godfather and as far as I know, Aaron and Mays were not the closest of friends. Maybe that’s why Hank stayed away. But it’s still chickenshit for him to do so, because it makes him (Aaron) look petty, as if he didn’t want the kid (Bonds) to break his record.

“Coward”? That is Parker’s opinion. Did he document it ? Does he have proof? Did he write it or just state it? I don’t know because I wasn’t there. But just the fact that he would call Hammerin’ Hank a coward doesn’t hurt anybody, especially if Hank’s fans know how strong Hank was to go after that home run record held by the all-American white man (and alcoholic) Babe Ruth and the death threats that he (Aaron) received during that chase. If everybody knows Aaron is not a coward, but one reporter says he is one, then who gets hurt? It is only an opinion.

Here’s what I see: a talented black writer bumping heads with a system that wants to protect people who generate money for them. The Lion’s are a potential revenue stream for that Detroit newspaper, and Parker insults the coach. Hank Aaron is an icon and a humble man that white people want black kids to look up to because Hank never gets involved in any community issues outside of Atlanta. And Parker calls him a “coward.” Parker gave his opinion in each case, and in neither case would it take a stretch of the imagination to ask the question, “Does Rob Parker possibly have a point?”

Finally, there is no doubt that Parker could back up his position in regard to either the Marinelli or Aaron cases. He is articulate and doesn’t just say or write things for “shock value.” So behind closed doors his bosses probably commended him but told him, “we’ve got to send a message to the public so we’ve got to let you go,” or something along those lines. This is what happens to blacks who are deemed “controversial.”

I speak from first-hand experience.

ESPN AND “FIRST TAKE”

Farrar, a critic of “First Take,” intelligently explained his views this way:

Nobody will ever mistake ESPN's "First Take" show with anything remotely resembling insightful, important, or accurate journalism. The trainwreck bookmarked by Skip Bayliss and Stephen A. Smith has adopted the slogan "Embrace Debate" to put a nice little hat on the fact that the show is actually the kind of dreck that makes the worst political commentary programs look like great television. As a result, it's tough to come on that show and actually be an embarrassment … We tend to expect preposterous stuff from this show -- after all, that's what that show does. (Farrar, 2012).

Farrar doesn’t speak for everybody, so these views only go as far as he does. He has no constituency. He says that “nobody” would mistake ESPN for anything insightful, important or accurate, so then he’s done the very thing that they are pissed off at Rob Parker for doing: expressing a personal viewpoint and making it sound collective and political. The only difference is that I don’t give a shit about Farrar’s opinion; Rob Parker was ASKED what he thought and then they asked him again after he gave his preliminary response.

A show can be insightful and important and not be accurate, or it can be accurate and not be important. These are the same types of value judgments that Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayliss make each day. The mistake they make is not in addressing the information, it is that the rally back and forth between sports information and areas that they are not astute in: psychology, sports anthropology and occasionally, marketing and business promotions. The show is designed to stimulate debate, and that is what it did, quite by accident. But once the decision makers saw that this was what was taking place, even before Stephen A. Smith arrived, they turned it into a marketing plan for the program and began airing promos and commercials admonishing us to “Embrace Debate.”

Early on, the first host of the show, Dana Jacobson, according to Sports Business Daily,

… tweeted that “she was leaving ‘First Take’ for other assignments,” but she “was pulled from the show, and has been reassigned into the ‘SportsCenter’/’Outside The Lines’/general assignment hosting pool,” according to SI.com's Richard Deitsch. Under "First Take’s" new Coordinating Producer Jamie Horowitz, the show has been redesigned around Skip Bayliss “debating and defending his position like a modern-day F. Lee Bailey.” Horowitz is “liked by Bristol execs because of his ability to generate ratings and social media buzz, which he did when he helmed ‘SportsNation.’” Deitsch noted ESPN is starting to use “specific hashtags created for Bayliss (i.e #WhenSkipMetTebow) because it's part of the Horowitz playbook.”

They wanted social media buzz and that’s just what they got. ESPN has a good thing going because, in general, they use the “hip and urban” terminology (which they borrowed from black youth) to deliver the news. In other words, were it not for us (black people), they would be another dry sports channel. But they are the leader because of the way they cover sports and the “cool way” in which they deliver it. They use black lingo, slogans and argot and that is their hook. ESPN should be the last nation to try to judge black people and their viewpoints since, when all else is said and done, we are the ones racking up the yardage, making the big plays and fantastic catches, performing the greatest dunks and providing a disproportionately high percentage of the exciting plays that are aired all over that station and its shows.

Continuing with the “host chronology:”

In addition, the show “will now be anchored solely by Jay Crawford,” who is “considered a stronger anchor by the suits than Jacobson.” Crawford reportedly “was up for the evening ‘SportsCenter’ gig after Brian Kenny left (that job went to John Anderson) and no one would blame him for trying hard to hold onto” the ‘First Take’ role, which “affords him a very nice work week.” Deitsch wrote, “What I think bothers me most for Jacobson is that she now returns to the pool of ESPN talent that never gets pushed externally. Why? Because it's not [an] easy sell. Because they deliver news and do their jobs without shtick or screaming” ... USA TODAY’s Michael Hiestand notes the changes to “First Take” comes as the “show gets rejiggered to stress more debate and pontificating” (USA TODAY, 12/28).(Sports Business Daily, 2011).

So media buzz and pontificating is what the white boys wanted, and that is what they got. Then, when they hear something they don’t like – a black man providing a judgment of another black man – they lose it. But more on that in a minute.

To my knowledge the next host was this white dude, Jay Crawford who more than held his own when Smith and Bayliss would go at each other. And that may well be why he was snatched; the person who serves in that position of “moderator” is really nothing more than a referee serving up the topics and then, apparently, is supposed to keep his mouth shut. So they replaced a white male presence (so it wouldn’t look like Smith was being “double-teamed” by Crawford and Bayliss) with intelligent eye candy – a female. Somewhere down the line it was determined that Stephen A. Smith would join Bayliss and instead of Skip just cracking on people, the two would debate one another. In recent times the theme has been “Embrace Debate.”

Then they snatched Craword and sent him elsewhere to do sportscasting, and replaced him with this sister named Jemelle Hill. I never saw Jemelle when she was in that position, but when she appeared on the show she was very cute, knowledgeable and was rarely wrong. Maybe she didn’t have the look that they wanted because out of nowhere came Cari Champion, who used to be on the “tennis network” of all places, knows her sports, but she is more likely to put in her “two cents” than Jemelle Hill did. That is, I believe, how this controversy about Parker’s comments came about in the first place. More on that later.

Between Champion, Bayliss and Smith, there is a lot going on in terms of subject matter. They now bring on guests such as Lomas Brown, former coach Eric Magini and Christian Favria. They even have special guests like rappers Snoop Dogg and T.I., Brandy (don’t ask me why) and present-day athletes like Terrell Suggs, Kevin Durant and others.

According to one source, Parker gained fame as a regular on “First Take”, where he debated Skip Bayliss on the 1st and 10 segment, and is still a frequent contributor to the show. He also is on ESPN Numbers Never Lie. He is also a regular on WDIV Local 4 Sports Final Edition. (Wikipedia, 2012).

Deitsch (2012) of Sports Illustrated.com, is no big fan of “First Take.” In his story that informed the public that Parker had been suspended, he wrote: “ESPN suspended First Take panelist Rob Parker on Friday following his offensive comments about Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III -- another malodorous chapter of a rancid sports television program.”

Why were the comments offensive? As I address later, what Parker was talking about was whether or not Griffin was a true, down home “brother” or not. Why should this offend white people? They have spent billions of dollars and millions of man hours working to divide black people along these kinds of lines. They know what they are doing when they pick their “favorites” and annoint the ones who would and would not make “positive role models.” How do they think black people feel when we see them (White folks) trying to tell us who we should follow and who we should reject (e.g., Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Sista Soulja, Louis Farrakhan, etc.)?

This is when Stephen A. Smith formally came on board. McCarthy (2012) announced (warned?) in May of 2012 for us to,

Get your earplugs ready America. Those noisy Stephen A. Smith vs. Skip Bayliss TV debates are about to become a permanent fixture on ESPN2's First Take weekday morning show (10 a.m. ET). On Monday, host Jay Crawford prematurely let the cat out of the bag that Smith will become Bayliss' permanent, five-day-a-week sparring partner. Both looked pleased. The two already have their shtick down, with Bayliss leaping out of his chair at the camera to make a point and Smith declaring he doesn't want to talk to Bayliss any more while pretending to read the paper and sip coffee.

Of course the show is far more than that. But this information is important to know because it was Bayliss’ show first – and Smith was added after the fact. So it may be that Smith, who is good friends with Bayliss (they know each other’s families and discuss racial issues openly, etc.) took a step back during the Robert Griffin III issue because he knew that Parker was right. Instead, he said that he didn’t get involved with or had no concerns about “the race of someone’s fiancé” or their political views. But guess what? The black public does.

And I’m not just talking about sports nuts. I’m talking about everyday people, the kind that Parker was talking about who come to the barber shop. They care if a rich black man is engaged to yet another white woman; they care about how these white girls trap black men on college campuses, give them some head and next thing you know they’re “engaged.” We know that the parents really don’t care for black grandkids, but if the father is a millionaire, then, “honey, go for it.” After all, if things don’t work out you can always divorce him and “take half his shit.!” This is what happened to O.J. Simpson, Mike Strahan, Jason Kid, Alex Rodriguez, and Tiger Woods, to name but a few. All married to “non-black women” and they paid the price. This is not to imply that sisters won’t do the same thing – Evelyn Lozada being one – but the interracial thing deals with race and so does Stephen A. Smith. But when it came to this particular subject, he handled it with kid gloves (as did Bayliss).

Interestingly though, when Chad Johnson was on the show a few weeks earlier and was having problems with his Puerto Rican (she claims) wife Evelyn, Smith hinted around about it. He claimed he didn’t want to get involved, but even before that, he had made some statements about how she acted on her reality show (“Basketball Wives”) and implied that she was crazy. But then again, Evelyn is a black Puerto Rican: Griffin’s wife is about as white as they come.

Smith has been appearing more often in the debate chair opposite Bayliss. ESPN2's old Cold Pizza has basically morphed into the Skip Bayliss Show since moving to Bristol from New York, with former co-host Dana Jacobson on her way out at the Worldwide Leader and most of her old athlete/celebrity interviews jettisoned in favor of Bayliss debating a rotating list of ESPN analysts, guest athletes and rappers (McCarthy, 2012).

And so it came to be. And this is where Cari Champion joins the fray as “moderator.” In yet another insulting assessment and overview of the show, Yoder (2012) opines that,

The Big Lead reports the soul sucking ESPN2 morning show First Take has finally selected a permanent new host after the transfer of Jay Crawford to SportsCenter. The lucky person who gets to sit between Skip Bayliss and Stephen A. Smith every weekday morning is a relatively unknown face, Cari Champion, most recently of the Tennis Channel. While the First Take assignment is a fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, the career trajectory isn't a bad idea for someone wanting to move up the ladder. It's no secret that Bristol thinks very highly of First Take and producer Jamie Horowitz. Horowitz is the man responsible for bringing you two hours of Skip Bayliss every morning and was promoted to the new role of VP, Original Programming & Production earlier this year.

So this guy thinks that being associated with “First Take” is nothing more than a stepping stone for better positions at ESPN? It seems so. Check it out:

While Dana Jacobsen left ESPN completely, Jay Crawford was given a legitimate SportsCenter slot, Jemele Hill has a new sideline gig, and the only thing that could cap off Stephen A. Smith's resurrection from the dead is the return of Quite Frankly. People associated with First Take have found additional successes at ESPN outside of First Take. Until that day comes for Cari Champion, our thoughts and prayers are with her. (Yoder, 2012).

I don’t know if this is true or not, but he seems to have his history down pat. I don’t think ESPN is going to bring back “Quite Frankly” because Stephen A. Smith was more hard-core on that program than he is on “First Take.” He had a live studio audience and would often go off on them. I’m sure that his “I-can-never-be-wrong” attitude also pissed off quite a few people.

At the closing of each “Quite Frankly” segment, Stephen A. used to tell the viewers and audience, “It's my house, but you're welcome anytime.” Evidently it wasn’t his house, and he didn’t do much to make people feel very welcomed. The pattern, in both instances, seems to have carried over to “First Take.” The new Stephen A. phrase should be, “It’s Skip’s house, and no opposing black views are welcomed, any time.”

RGIII AND THE MILITARY’S IMPACT

Had Rob Parker done his research, the answers to his questions regarding RGIII’s lack of “blackness” could have been easily reached: he’s a military brat and his father has served for more than two decades! His mother served as well, so can you imagine the kind of lifestyle they were bought up in? Show me a military brat and I’ll show you someone who, if black, is going to grow up to be one confused sonofabitch!

I am going to break down this military scenario as it relates to RGIII and show how “the process of niggerization” works. Perhaps Rob Parker, upon reading this, might want to take some notes because this is the kind of information that he could have used to buttress his arguments during the show and it would have put everything (more than just his personal viewpoints) into perspective.

According to a Washington Post article titled, “RGIII: Redskins Star Has Become a Role Model for Military Kids, one can see the orientation that this system has for someone who has such high visibility, such incredible athletic skills and also the “socialization and assimilation” background that, without a doubt, are going to combine to make him a “good nigga.” The articles begins by stating that,

If RGIII set foot inside Meade Senior High School, he’d cause a stampede among the students. Not because he’s the hottest football player around, one whose gear is already being collected for the Pro Football Hall of Fame and who gets props from John Madden, Donald Trump and Dale Earnhardt Jr. all in the same news cycle.

It’s because he’s one of them. (Dvorak, 2012).

“It’s because he’s one of them.” Get it? These white people did their research, and they know a compliant black man when they see one. You hear it even today on the sportscasts, where they talk about a black athlete “being humble” and “having a great smile” and all that. This is the same way they described us during slavery and, of course, that’s where we learned the art of being humble to a fault and smiling when wasn’t nothing funny. Rob Parker is not of that ilk – RGIII definitely is.

The military is a total institution. As a former sociology instructor, let me school you. A total institution is one that provides for your needs. It provides food, shelter and when it comes to clothing, everybody wears the same uniform. It is also an institution that depersonalizes you: you become a number or a code. Examples include insane asylums, prisons and, of course, the military. You respond to bells and whistles and learn how to OBEY. This is the ideal black man or, as they used to say back in the day, “an educated black man is a good field hand, spoiled.” Rob Parker is a field negro; RGIII is a house negro.

Continuing:

Robert Griffin III grew up in the military, just like many of them are doing. “I think if he walked on the campus right now, there would be a riot,” declared Rich Holzer, head football coach at Meade High School, which is tucked into the Army base at Fort Meade. “We’re closer to Baltimore, but you’d think this was Redskins country. Everyone is obsessed with RGIII.” (Dvorak, 2012).

And why do white people become obsessed with black people? Because, on some level, we have successfully done their bidding. They won’t be turning out in droves to see Farrakhan or Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And why? Because these men have a point of view that is “different” from the one that white people feel most comfortable with black men exhibiting. RGIII, with his statements, his smile, his claims, his choice of mate and his lifestyle, is what I would call “the prototypical coon.” He is no threat to the white man. He is “safe.”

And this is what Rob Parker was up against: an intergenerational family of “negroes.” He had no chance. Here is this brash black reporter who has a track record of telling it like it is up against well-trained and “accepted” negroes who got their stripes by keeping their mouths shut and obeying orders. What did Parker EXPECT to happen?

More evidence follows:

“They can look at an example like RGIII and say, ‘Wow, he made it through his dad’s deployment and he is making everyone proud,’ ” said Joyce Wessel Raezer, executive director of the National Military Family Association in Alexandria. And for a growing population of kids whose lives are dictated by a war that much of the rest of America forgot, it’s refreshing to have a hero to relate to (Dvorak, 2012).

Just because a person’s father went to war or was in the military doesn’t make the kid a hero any more than a cop helping out a homeless man or a fireman saving a child from a fire does. This society is “hero hungry,” but they won’t honor brave black men who helped make this society better. They selectively choose the safe ones – like Martin Luther King, Jr. because he had a doctorate in theology – but forget about the brothers and sisters on the streets, fighting the dogs, and the ones involved in the Black Power movement and the Black Arts Movement. Griffin III was a “chosen one” because his father had passed the “coon test,” which means serving this country despite the fact that this country had done little for his people.

Now the problem with RGIII is that he has continually been surrounded by situations where he was “culturally confused.” As a young black man he didn’t have anyone who was truly “black” around him. He had exposure to no real history or cultural education and as a result, ended up being nothing less than “a set of reactions to white people.”

Want proof? Check it out:

As a kid, Griffin, who was born in Japan, learned about beignets in Louisiana, rain in Tacoma, Wash., and football in Texas. Much of his childhood was spent on base or at the PX or at a relative’s home when his parents were deployed. His 13th birthday was rung in by a phone call telling his dad to pack for Kuwait. These are kids who go to five schools before the fifth grade, who get up, get themselves dressed, make themselves breakfast and get to their school in — where? Which state are they in now? Is mom in Afghanistan now? She just left Iraq (Dvorak, 2012).

Learned about beignets in Louisiana? First of all, Louisiana is a state, not a city, and who cares about what he learned about food? He learned about football in Texas, and again, what specific city? When it comes to a white area, they mention the city and state (Tacoma, Washington). None of these places is a cultural mecca in terms of blackness. If “much of his childhood was spent on base or at the PX,” then no wonder he’s so out of touch with black reality. If his mother and father were in service to this country fighting for freedom that they still don’t have, that means that RGIII had no serious guidance and no reason to believe that he had a commitment to black people. These facts, in themselves, do more to address Rob Parker’s concerns than whether or not he wears braids in order to have an “urban” look.

When a black man says, “Yes sir” and “Yes ma’am,” that is a trigger for white males to know that this is someone who can be controlled. And because of the centuries we’ve had dealing with these people, they know when we’re faking it or not. Far too many black comedians have exposed the “games” we’ve run on white people by faking it (Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy),and they realize that we know how impotent they really are. Since the 1960s some of our leadership has even voiced it, and since that time they’ve tightened up to make sure that any “negro role model” had better pass muster and be someone they can control.

Karenga (1967) had a saying back in the day: “The white man has three ways of controlling blacks: the missionary, the mercenary and the military.” If RGIII was exposed to Texas, he was exposed to religion and black people’s obsession with it. If he was raised by military parents, then he learned to follow orders, get the assignment done, and work hard – things that he admits during interviews. As for the mercenary, that is basically the role that his parents had, but it was cleaned up because they were “American soldiers.” But when you’re over there shooting at brown targets, and the man giving the orders is white, then as far as I’m concerned you’re nothing more than a government hit man.

When a parent is deployed, they take on parenting roles and responsibilities that give them the ramrod posture and the “yes ma’ams” and precision you don’t find in other kids (Dvorak, 2012). But military families aren’t whiners, and they’re not victims. They shoulder the burden of a childhood lived between deployments, a childhood of perpetual wartime, the product of duty. And they are often quiet about it (Dvorak, 2012).

This is why quarterback is the perfect position, for are you not the “parent” of the team once in the huddle? And most recently, even as a rookie, RGIII was voted to be one of the team captains. Now if you don’t think those white folks consider him to be “safe,” do you think he’d be voted captain?

His pedigree is that of the perfect “negro.” His parents were in the military, his mother serving 12 years and his daddy serving 21 years and that includes two wars. He was disciplined and ordered to do what his parents and others ordered him to do. According to the article by Dvorak, “You’ve got to have that kind of structure in your life.”And so these are the kids who become kung fu masters of a quality called resilience (Dvorak, 2012).

Resilience – but do you know what you have to be resilient to? You have to be able to resist someone coming along, pulling your coat and saying, “hey brother.” You have to be able to resist in detail and defiance anyone who would speak out against your master. And you have to resist being identified as “black” because, after all, you’re an “American” and in your mind, “race doesn’t matter.” Parker made a reference to the fallacy of being “colorblind” and I’ve written extensively on how stupid such a concept is. If you’re talking that “colorblind” bullshit, that means you see everybody as white, period. Being “colorblind” means you don’t have to acknowledge any cultural differences, racial differences or beliefs. This would make the white man feel oh, so proud.

This is what RGIII represents, and that is what his life and socialization process shows. A friend of mine, LaRue Nedd, just finished a book called, Why We Shouldn’t Call Our Foreparents Slaves. In that book he describes what a “slave” is and after reading it again, it is clear that RGIII’s actions, values and thought process would place him squarely in such a category.

As Nedd (2012) writes:

What type of person would a slave be? Who would give up their right to be human? What would it mean to actually be a slave according to the definition? In this context, it means that the slave would not be able to resist the will of the master. The slave would not even want to resist the master’s will because the master would not want the slave to want to resist. The slave wants what the master wants for the master even if it is to the detriment of the slave. According to the definition, the slave is wholly subject to the will of the master. The slave is one whose mind, will power and nature are totally possessed by one of a different mindset, will and nature. This means mind control. In order for this to happen, the slave’s beliefs and thoughts must be the same as the master’s thoughts and beliefs. When this happens, the slave speaks and acts as the master wants (p. 31).

RGIII has been raised to be a set of reactions to white people. Did he even graduate from Baylor? Yes he did, and graduated a year early in high school. He therefore knows the value of education, graduating from Baylor in December 2010 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, and he’s supposedly pursuing a Masters in Communications. Here’s my question: how many Black Studies courses are on those transcripts. As someone with a Master’s in Political Science, I know how pervasively white that area of study can be. Someone like Griffin would surely digest an even greater love for the presidency, white people who run the country and the rule of law.

Chancellor Williams once wrote that it is doubtful if even a devil could write a book that is totally without truth. In like manner, the article by Dvorak contains what he views as a compliment but one that I view as more evidence of RGIII’s “negrophobia,” if you will:

“One of the great things about coaching military kids is you have discipline, a work ethic and, most of all, a sense of commitment to something larger than themselves,” he said. Remember when Griffin batted away questions about being the “face” of the Redskins? (Dvorak, 2012).

And there you have it. Dvorak thinks that the refusal to be “the face of the Redskins” is a result of Griffin’s belief in being committed to “something larger than ourselves.” I don’t think so. First of all, that Indian symbol of the redskins is dark brown, and that brings us to a second reason: that brown skin would represent a proud race of people and Griffin doesn’t want to be known for doing anything “racialist.”

The then, has been my view of the military’s impact on RGIII and his value system. Rob Parker was reading him correctly, but he had the book upside down. RGIII has been programmed to avoid racial issues, including his own blackness. Those braids are there because it takes too much time to comb out an Afro on a daily basis – it’s laziness, not some kind of “urban black” cultural statement (as Skip Bayliss might believe).

PARKER, ESPN AND THE ROBERT GRIFFIN III COMMENTS

White people in general, but their “reporters” in particular, have always been instigators; some would call them provocateurs. In other words, they like to keep shit going. If they are covering a story that has to do with race, they will find a way to fan the seeds of discord in some way, with the goal of “exposing” the individual or individuals involved for their racial views. This informs the higher ups of whether or not this person is a “safe” or “acceptable” black or if this individual is someone to be feared, ala the more confrontational brothers like the members of the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party or, heaven forbid, the NAACP!

On the morning of December 13^th, I was watching “First Take” as I do each morning after watching two half hour airings of the comedy, “Wings” that comes on another channel. After changing over I noticed that once again, Stephen A. was not in the studio but was being telecast from someplace else, probably Miami or New York.

The show was going smoothly and then the subject of Washington Redskin quarterback Robert Griffin III came up. It seems that at a December 12^th press conference, Griffin was asked about his race and being a quarterback in the NFL. This goes back to what I was saying early about these white reporters doing whatever they can to play games with the political viewpoints and the futures of black athletes. They know these black men are sellouts and bound by contracts to always be on their best behavior. They apparently cannot have any relevant political viewpoints because few of them every express any.

At any rate, during the press conference, Griffin was asked about his race and being a quarterback in the NFL. Griffin stated, among other things: "“For me, you don’t ever want to be defined by the color of your skin,” He then added,. “You want to be defined by your work ethic, the person that you are, your character, your personality. That’s what I strive [for]. I am an African American, in America, and that will never change. But I don’t have to be defined by that.”

In my view this statement is bold because most black athletes would not have even acknowledged that much. And when Griffin said he doesn’t have to be defined by being black, all he’s doing is showing his own abysmal ignorance of race relations in this country (but reflect back on the influence and impact of the military on his life, as outlined in the previous section). Maybe HE doesn’t define himself in those terms, but white boys sure do. To them he is a BLACK quarterback, and he’s treated as such; the commentators imply as much as they go out of their way to not use the word black. It’s as if they’re saying “he’s one of us.”

In fact, Stephen A.Smith often makes it clear that he believes that Andrew Luck is the better choice for quarterback even though Griffin is the superior athlete. This is the same view that the white man has: Luck, who is white and tall, fits the bill as a quarterback; Griffin is a world class sprinter who has a cannon for an arm and therefore, “gets the job done.” This seems to be what is always implied.

So then we fast forward 24 hours to the “First Take” show and Rob Parker is asked, “What does this say about RGIII?” Such a stupid question could be nothing more than a set up because the answer spoke for itself. And yet the question was posed, by Cari Champion, to get a response from Parker who everybody in the studio knows has a history of speaking his mind, dealing with race issues, and not biting his tongue just because a few white people might be around. And he fell for the trap, hook-line-and-sinker.

Here is how Parker responded.

“This is an interesting topic. For me, personally, just me, this throws up a red flag, what I keep hearing. And I don’t know who’s asking the questions, but we’ve heard a couple of times now of a black guy kind of distancing himself away from black people. I understand the whole story of I just want to be the best. Nobody’s out on the field saying to themselves, I want to be the best black quarterback. You’re just playing football, right? You want to be the best, you want to throw the most touchdowns and have the most yards and win the most games. Nobody is [thinking] that. “But time and time we keep hearing this, so it just makes me wonder deeper about him, and I’ve talked to some people down in Washington D.C., friends of mine, who are around and at some of the press conferences, people I’ve known for a long time. But my question, which is just a straight honest question. Is he a brother, or is he a cornball brother?” Is he a brother, or is he a cornball brother”?

To begin with, Parker tempered his remarks by saying, “For me, personally, just me.” Isn’t that good enough, or is Parker not supposed to have the same opinions as Smith and Bayliss? Every day, you can hear the latter two pontificating, even delving into social psychology, to address issues that is really nothing more than their assumptions, guesswork and suppositions that are rooted in conjecture. They are both articulate, so it sounds good, but there’s little that is objective about what either Smith or Bayliss say? So then, why should Parker be held to a different standard when he made it clear it was HIS opinion?

I, too, sicken of black men having to apologize for being black. Griffin wants to be known as “a quarterback” and acts as if he isn’t black. That’s why later on Parker would interject that Griffin had a white fiance and was a Republican. These pieces of information shed light on the way that Griffin thinks about himself – he thinks IN SPITE of the black community and not IN RELATION to it.

The way that Griffin answered that question bought back memories of a scene from “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” which starred Sidney Portier, a black doctor who was about to marry a white woman who had nothing on the ball. This is one similarity between Griffin and his white fiance: she’s a nobody and he’s an athlete, they met in college, as did Portier and his white woman and I am sure these white girls knew that these brothers had a bright and wealthy future ahead of them. This is what they do. Now they’ve got somebody that will not only marry THEM, but also help out their family as well – the way that O.J. did when he hooked up with his white woman and helped her family out financially.

Anyway, the scene from “Guess Who’s Going to Dinner?” takes place in the library/office of the father’s home. Portier is talking with his father and his father is concerned about his marrying a white woman. The father gives him some advice and speaks his mind and then, when it’s Portier’s turn to respond, he says, “That’s the difference between you and me. You see yourself as a black man, and I see myself as a man.”

What kind of bullshit is this? What he’s saying to his father is, “you see yourself as a black man, and I see myself as a white man.” What else could it be? Is he not black? So if there is a differentiation to make, it means that he is a “different” kind of man. This is the same thing that RG III was saying and Parker spotted it right away. Were it not for Warren Moon, Marlin Briscoe, Jefferson Street Joe Gilliam, Doug Williams and the long line of BLACK quarterbacks that came before him, Griffin would not have been given the time of day. These were the brothers who showed the white man that they were MORE than his equal. The fact of the matter is, the black quarterback has revolutionized the position and the white man, although begrudgingly, is having to accept it. And Griffin – along with black quarterbacks Cam Newton (Carolina Panthers) and Russell Wilson (Seattle Seahawks) – are just what the white man ordered.

So there was no need for Griffin to kowtow because he’s calling the shots. He could have said something of relevance because he’s doing that team a favor. But no, he wanted to distance himself from other black people and he didn’t want to be seen as black because, after all, the woman he claims to love and has pledged to marry – is a white girl. And how would that make HER feel? She has all the proof she needs that he’s black, you can believe that. But he need not get political lest he be looked down upon by other whites. He’s in an all-black city, on a team that is at least half black, and he (Griffin) nevertheless chooses to make that distinction. I’ll say it: he’s an Uncle Tom.

If Parker had stopped at that, it would have been consciousness raising enough and white folks probably could have overlooked it the way that they overlook some of the diatribes uttered by Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayliss. But no, there was more. After all, Parker is not a regular on the show so when he does appear, he tries to make it count: complimenting Cari on how lovely she is, engaging in banter with Smith who always seems to have something insulting to say about Parker’s wardrobe.

So following is the coup de grace – the stroke that kills.

When asked to explain what he meant when he said that Griffin wasn’t “down with the cause” by both Bayliss and Cari, Parker said, “He's not real. OK, he's black, he kind of does the thing, but he's not really down with the cause. He's not one of us. He's kind of black but he's not really, like, the guy you want to hang out with because he's off to something else."

Most of the friends I’ve had in life were not conscious and, just because I was more aware and gifted than they, did not stop us from associating. Parker cannot come out and call Griffin a sellout, but that appears to be what he is. He’s from Texas, a state filled with mealy-mouthed, white folks loving black people. He’s got a white fiancee and he claims to be a Republican. How much more of a reactionary can you be? I don’t want to “hang out” with him either, and Parker is right: the reason is “because he’s off to something else.” He actually said, “He’s off INTO something else,” and that something else is white folks.

But Parker just kept on talking – as if he owed Skip, Cari and Stephen some kind of explanation. Stephen had already jumped ship on him and let him know that the race of the fiance and the like were issues he (Smith) wasn’t concerned with. Just a month ago he was on the air crediting Parker with being “a mentor” for him. But I can see Stephen A. Smith’s point: what little voice black people have on the air is well represented by him, so he has to keep his mouth shut on such issues or he will be judged by the company he keeps. So when he talks personally, its about his family, his sister’s biscuits, Skip’s wife and that kind of thing.

On another point, Smith had already been canned once by the station. As it was reported in April 2008 by Raissman,

Stephen A. Smith, who had a meteoric rise at ESPN, screaming his way into his own show, is out at the all-sports network. ESPN will not renew Smith's contract. His last day at the network, where he was a featured NBA reporter, will be May 1. "We decided to move in different directions," an ESPN spokesman said. Smith, a former Daily News sportswriter and ESPN could not come to terms on a new deal. Industry sources said ESPN wanted Smith to take a paycut.

Stephen A. is no stranger to dealing with political views having been ORDERED to take his off his website when he worked for the Philadelphia Enquirer a paper that, by the way, took away his title as sportswriter and made him a general editor because they said that at $225,000, he was making too much money. So it stands to reason that he would be gunshy when it came to standing up for Parker (which I still think he should have done).

At any rate, here are more words uttered by Parker in regard to RGIII:

Well because that's just how I want to find out about him. I don't know because I keep hearing these things. We all know he has a white fiancee. There was all this talk about how he's a Republican, which, I don't really care, there's no information at all. I'm just trying to dig deeper into why he has an issue. Because we did find out with Tiger Woods. Tiger Woods was like, 'I've got black skin but don't call me black.' (Wikipedia, 2012).

First, the Tiger Woods issue. Skip recalled that Parker told him, back a few years ago, that after Woods appeared on “Oprah” and made the statement that he (Woods) wasn’t black, Parker said that he took all of his Tiger Woods memorabilia and donated it to the Salvation Army. Skip turned around and said that he was proud of Parker for doing that – as if Parker needed his white stamp of approval.

So it was alright to make that statement about Tiger. Now the second point regarding Parker’s desire to “dig deeper” and “find out” more.

For centuries white people have been getting jobs, padding their resumes, getting grant money and making a name for themselves checking out, investigating and “finding out” about black people. Names like Thomas Kochman, John Howard Griffin, Grace Halsell, and many others come to mind. They have the right to find out whatever they want to because they choose to. John Howard Griffin, a self-described “race expert” who changed his skin color to black and then made millions when he wrote Black Like Me, and Grace Halsell, a woman who did the same thing and then wrote Soul Sister, didn’t give a shit about black people. They were showboating and thinking long-term: they knew there was money to be made.

These people were curious. Thomas Kochman goes around lecturing white people on how to talk to black people and how to translate what black people say. He had the nerve to write a book Rappin’ and Stylin’ Out and white folks swear by it. I exposed him once in Chicago when my fiance and I attended one of his seminars and shut him up by asking, “If you know so much about black people, then you must know that by doing what you’re going, you’re talking a job away from a black person that these whites should be consulting.” He couldn’t say shit and after my question, the session was adjourned.

I say this to back up Rob Parker’s “right to know.” He’s a reporter but he’s also a “sports analyst,” which is his title when he appears on “First Take.” Parker has as much right to state his views as those white reporters did to ask Griffin that question about being a “black quarterback.” It seems that the people at ESPN who suspended Parker forgot about how intrusive naïve white people have been, presently are, and apparently will always be.

Skip showed his racism when he bought up a subject trying to defend Griffin’s being “urban” because he wore his hair in braids. And Parker played right along with it, although it’s bullshit. Nobody wants to come out an Afro every day for a game – so you get your hair braided, plain an simple. And I’ll bet you one thing: that white girl that Griffin is engaged to ain’t braidin’ it!

So when Skip makes the comment about the braids, Parker responds, thusly:

“Now that’s different … To me, that’s very urban and makes you feel like…wearing braids, you’re a brother. You’re a brother if you’ve got braids on.” That is such bullshit because it implies that Griffin cares enough to be seen as “a brother” although when he gets the chance, he tells people something different, his choice of lifemate tells people something different, his choice of political party tells people something different. I say he wears braids because he’s with a woman that doesn’t know SHIT about braiding hair and therefore he gets his sister or some relative to do it, pays them big bucks, and this keeps him from having to comb it out every night. Plain and simple.

Wikipedia claims that “Later, Parker was given an opportunity to clarify whether he was judging Griffin’s blackness.” And there is what he said:

I didn’t mean it like that … We could sit here and be honest, or we can be dishonest. And you can’t tell me that people in the barbershops or people that talk, they look at who your spouse is. They do. And they look at how you present yourself. People will say all the time, you’re not gonna get a job in corporate America wearing those braids. It happens all the time. Let’s not act like it doesn’t, because it does.”

And Parker is 100% right. It’s all about being honest and stating how you feel – something Skip Bayliss and Stephen A. Smith do every day on “First Take.” But when you stop glossing over the periphery of issues and get down to the nitty gritty and start talking about the barber shop (the white man will be investigating these businesses next), then all of a sudden it’s off base. How is what Parker said any different than the value judgments that Stephen A.Smith makes about pro basketball players and other athletes he has never met? The same for Skip? All they go by is what they hear the person say, what they read about or what they’ve seen. That is exactly what Rob Parker did.

And here is something that Parker said that wasn’t addressed. While explaining why people admitting that they belong to the race was important, at one point he says, “I’m black, you’re black (pointing to Cari Champion) and then he turned to Christian __ and said “you’re mixed” and then went on to make his point. Mixed? Why was he willing to castigate Tiger Woods for denying being black but points to Christian and labels him “mixed”? Even if Christian is mixed, its clear he’s a light-skinned black man. Why wasn’t this made an issue during the debate on race and one’s political views as a result of race?

ABOUT ROBERT GRIFFIN III AND THOSE OF HIS ILK

A recent program aired on NBC-SN (December 15,2012) claimed that Robert Griffin III generated $250 million for Baylor University during his Heisman bid. We have long known of the exploitation of black college athletes by these universities, but even in that, what Griffin allegedly generated – and saw none of – is reason enough why white people would love him, cuddle him and once he turned pro and began making the real money, would question him about his views on race, just to make sure that he was truly a “reliable nigger.”

The “ilk” or type that I am talking about applies to those who want to look at life descriptively and evocatively instead of analytically. They want to hunker down in suburban homes and lay back with their own families while other people starve. They want to use their power to define the extent to which people can voice their concerns about “the system.” Griffin is like this because he is the product of two parents who spent time in the military and this fact in itself speaks volumes. I address this point later in this section.

Of Griffin’s “ilk,” then, means those who have been programmed. Either by an education system that paints American history all white, by a college system that offers Western Civilization and claims that the white man invented the world, programmed either by their churches that tell you to take your time and that God will handle it, by their parents who are passive and warn you to “don’t talk too much – you’ll make people hate you.” And it goes on and on. Most black people have been programmed by whites and all whites have been programmed by their own. The product is an illusion of life that exists only in the minds of the “patriots” and those who are so starved for acceptance that they often doubt their own humanity.

According to CBS-DC.com, “The Parker controversy came about after Griffin responded to a question in a press conference on Wednesday after practice about Martin Luther King, Jr. To begin with, King has long been over-rated by black and white people. What he and those of his ilk marched for ended up biting us in the ass. With one-way integration (as I call it) came a number of black people being happy and duped, but we lost black-owned motels, movie theaters, and so on. This thing about King being a great civil rights leader may be true, but I liken civil rights to a pacifier: it may satisfy a need (keep the baby quiet), but it offers nothing nutritious and is only good for a short time.

In response to this question on King, the young black man who had made all this money for a Texas college responded, “For me, you don’t ever want to be defined by the color of your skin … You want to be defined by your work ethic, the person that you are, your character, your personality. That’s what I’ve tried to go out and do …I am an African-American in America. That will never change. But I don’t have to be defined by that.”

And that’s what set Parker off.

Your work ethic? We are the descendants of a people who gave over 300 years of “work” to these white people, and it was work that we were not compensated for. When all the cotton had been picked and all the shoes had been shined, we became expendable, so they went out and got themselves some “new niggas” – the Mexicans. Here in Texas, where I live, I see these hard working Latino brothers building up an economy, constructing interstates, landscaping mansions and performing the same type of high quality work that we, as black people, must have done in the South when we were making the Southern economy the largest in the world.

Defined for his personality? What personality? You’re not even allowed to be yourself in this country. Look at what they did to Rob Parker. If you show you have a personality – other than the laugh when ain’t nothin’ funny/scratch when don’t nothin’ itch type – than you will be isolated, alienated and, as in the case of Rob Parker, suspended with extreme prejudice. Is that why Griffin is smiling all the time? Is that the kind of personality he’s talking about? Never speaking out on critical issues that impact on his “African-American heritage” but instead, chilling with his white fiance, raking in a lot of money and then stating, for all young people to read (the few that can) that it’s better to be known for what you do than what you are?

Defined by your character? How does he define that? The definition of character is, “the particular combination of qualities that makes someone a particular type of person.” What “particular type of person” is RGIII? A military brat that was raised never to question authority, to follow orders and to “do a good job” no matter what it is you’re doing? A football player with a bright smile? Someone who will risk injury playing a million dollar “game” in stadiums that most black kids can’t afford to get into? A man who makes commercials for fast food outlets and other retail stores that, in turn, use that image to sell their crap to black customers? So he’s a slave on all counts: football player, colorless citizen, no political views having lackey and someone comfortable using his visibility to promote all that is “American” (white).

Where was Rob Parker wrong?

That’s just it. He wasn’t. But the white industrial complex, of which ESPN is a key part (sports is a therapeutic catharsis, not a social engineer) is not about to have one of its leading puppets exposed on a talk show that spends its time glorifying black men who do NOTHING in their respective communities. Time spent arguing over who should be MVP, who should make the all-star team, who is going to be traded or drafted, and none of these “niggers” cares enough about the community to do something positive, other than to move their mother out of it. Griffin is not the exception. He is the rule.

After Parker’s suspension was made public, ESPN came out with a statement of their own:

Following yesterday’s comments, Rob Parker has been suspended until further notice,” ESPN spokesman Mike Soltys tweeted. “We are conducting a full review.”

A full review of what? Where are the race experts? What will be the criteria for the review? If they didn’t have a full review, then what was the suspension based on – a partial review? ESPN is full of shit: they make billions reporting on, analyzing and commenting on black athletes (we are the ones who get into the end zone, perform acrobatics on the basketball court and dominate sports, in general), but they want to tip toe around race when the issues become linked to the lives of those who they want to spoon feed (e.g., Robert Griffin, Michael Jordan, etc.)

All of these people are of the same ilk as Robert Griffin: the “ostrich-in-the-sand syndrome. Hide your head or do damage control when an issue comes up that is not of your liking. White people have a long history of this childish tactic, and yet they persist in imposing it on people of color who they don’t like: those from the political left, black grass roots community organizers, civil rights leaders, and others who attempt to deal with this system’s number one problem: racism.

Liz Raftery of TV Guide wrote that, “Parker went on to mention that Griffin is married to a white woman and is rumored to be a Republican.” At no point did Parker say that Griffin was “married” to a white woman; he said that Griffin’s fiance was white. Raftery added that, “In full context, Griffin's initial comments were related to his passing game versus the running game. "That's the negative stereotype when it comes to African-American quarterbacks, that most of us just run," he said. "I like to think I can throw it around a little bit."

What Griffin said is true about perception that black quarterbacks run a great deal. But Griffin had an obligation to go into greater detail than to just flippantly add, “I like to think I can throw it around a little bit.” What this young man is going to learn is that whether he runs it or throws it, he is in a system that will discard him like yesterday’s tampon if he dares to act like the kind of black man that Parker is talking about; if he puts his hands on his white fiance; if he speaks out about or against racist mistreatment of his fellow blacks in the Washington, D.C. inner city. To paraphrase Malcolm X, “I don’t see any football dream; I see a gridiron nightmare!”

There are those who promote the kind of black person who is guilty of what could be called “avoidance.” For instance,

DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, told the Post in an email:“Robert can certainly take care of himself. Nonetheless, I hope that our men and for that matter, my own kids, will never beg for authenticity from someone who can only talk about the things that other people have the courage to do. People need to be held accountable for the offensive things that they say.” (Boren, 2012)

If what Parker said was offensive to him, that was his opinion. But when it comes to “begging for authenticity, no one could be more guilty than an NFL player who struts around on the field every Sunday and then drives to his suburban home while the majority of his people starve and serve as the butt of jokes of the same white people who pay his salary. You don’t think white people find it laughable the way these black athletes carry on with their money, jewelry, big cars? Then, many of them retire and end up broke. This, from a system, that set all this up.

Now I hear that these “negroes,” the ones who DeMaurice Smith thinks have the courage to do so much, are now taking Viagra before games to “give them an edge.” These are people of Griffin’s ilk: think about yourself, make the “game” your life, do what you want to do and you’ll get paid. The people who write about Parker are getting paid to do it; the people commenting on him via radio and television are getting paid to do it; the people who have positions like that of DeMaurice Smith get paid to support the same system that has priced football tickets so high that black kids can’t get in to see a game.

They say, “like father, like son.” Robert Griffin II told USA TODAY Sports on, “I wouldn’t say it’s racism. I would just say some people put things out there about people so they can stir things up.”

How could it be racism? That man has served in the military, which means that he stared racism square in the face for two decades, and his wife stared it in the face for another four years. They should be able to recognize it when they see it. Instead, what do they do? They do the same thing that far too many black parents do: work on steering their kids around racism by pretending that it’s a thing of the past and that it doesn’t exist any more.

White folks and black folks of this ilk want to “tiptoe through the tulips” of the race issue because if they discussed it, somebody would have to be held accountable. Typical of the criticisms by people of Griffin’s ilk was an article by Farrar (2012) that asserted,

But what Rob Parker said went far beyond the parameters of "opinion" and veered quickly into something that should have ESPN seriously considering whether they want Parker representing even their worst traffic jam of a media product (Farrar, 2012).

What was that “something” that Parker’s comments veered into? White people are good at pointing out what they view as problems, but they usually fall short when it comes to solutions – that is, solutions that don’t include their white stamp of approval.

In this case it is clear that Farrar (whoever he is) can’t define any parameters in the first place. If it’s a “talk show,” then there are no parameters. Parker’s website and slogan, which includes t-shirt insignias, states, “no way. No how.” Maybe he means that he won’t be taking any shit. At any rate, ESPN promotes the slogan on their website and they have to know that Parker is no “yes man.” They (ESPN) also had to know that Griffin had a white fiancé. So how can a station that will do stories on the kinds of pets that athletes have, the impact of their mothers on the athletes’ lives, kids that might also be interested in sports, kids with handicaps and so on, all of a sudden show a hesitancy to deal with race and the fact that disproportionate numbers of black athletes are marrying white women? More profoundly, that white women (read: Kim Kardashian) are “out there” looking for black men to bed and wed them?

Of all people, Cari Champion should have been sensitive to, or at least had something to say, about Parker’s ref erence to RG III’s “fiancé” being a white woman. But she didn’t say squat. Read back to the earlier statement about how “First Take” hosts usually leave the show for greener pastures. Maybe this is what she wants or looks forward to and as such, realizes that interracial sex is not an issue that she wants to broach.

And people of this ilk – RG III’s ilk – are people who will veer from the topic because if you do, you have to deal with black genetic superiority. That’s why all of a sudden Christian Favrio, in Parker’s own words, becomes “mixed.” And that’s why nobody’s saying anything about the fact that those Latinos who are supposedly taking over baseball are BLACK Latinos. The white man and those of his ilk feel that they owe no one an explanation – apparently the same way ESPN and RGIII feel. A point that Farrar also displays in the following excerpt:

Unlike Parker, I've met Griffin a couple of times. Not nearly enough to know him or his particular thoughts on any particular cause, but enough to know that he knows how to carry himself, and that he's never made any particular statement claiming that he isn't in line with whatever Parker seems to believe he's supposed to be in line with. His teammates respect him, his coaches can't say enough good things about him, and everyone I've talked to who spends any time in his orbit seems to believe that Griffin is absolutely all that he's cracked up to be (Farrar, 2012).

In other words, he (Griffin) has “the white stamp of approval.” And when you have that, can you honestly expect white people to give a damn about whether or not you have “street cred”?

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Personally, I think Cari Champion had something to do with the decision to suspend Parker.

I paid close and special attention to her reaction during the entire time that Parker was explaining himself. Champion was reacting as if either she had heard someone say the same thing about her, say something similar about a male or female friend of hers, or maybe say something about her because she dates white boys (if she does). She’s normally skinning and grinning up in Parker’s face after he gives her one of those cheesy grin compliments (that she richly deserves, don’t get me wrong), but on this day, on this subject, I think Parker, for whatever reason, hit a raw nerve.

When Parker made his comment about Griffin not being “real,” Champion was the first to ask, “What does that mean?” She was either trying to dupe him into going into more detail and further expose his street-level black views, or she was offended and wanted to get clarification. In either case, what was she up to? Was she perturbed when Parker bought up the fact that Griffin had a white fiancée? Most black women would side with Parker on that subject: they can’t stand the idea of rich black men hooking up with white women. But not Carrie Champion on this day – she went the other way. Maybe she was trying to curry favor with Skip Bayliss, and this brings me to another point.

I’ve heard both Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayliss say far more insulting things. Let’s deal with Bayliss first

I’ve heard Skip Bayliss refer to Shaquille O’Neal as “Shaquille O’Whale” after Shaq gained some weight. He’s continually lambasting Oklahoma Thunder guard Russell Westbrook and refers to him as “Russell WestBRICK,” implying that he shoots the ball too much. He referred to New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez as a “brain-locked basket case.”

Now, let’s deal with Stephen A. Smith’s tendency toward hyperbole. He referred to Lomas Brown as a “big teddy bear,” he continually critizes Rob Parker’s ties and jackets, and he dogs out Tim Tiebow and Diago Splitter. Doesn’t he think these people have families? What gives him the right to say that “Tim Tiebow” can’t throw a football even though he won two national college championships and can obviously throw or he wouldn’t have been drafted. Now, he might not throw very well, but one thing is for sure: he can throw better than Stephen A. Smith can.

I’ve heard him say that Dwight Howard’s low free throw percentage was “trash;” and he’s continually making references to Skip’s wife as “the beautiful Ernestine” and acts as if he knows her better than Skip does.

Both Stephen A. and Skip are known more for insulting people than for their razor sharp analyses, the latter which they do also bring to the table. But the reason why they picked on Rob is clear: Rob is what we call a “race man.” Stephen A. claims, from time to time, that he, too, is “a proud black man” but that is more a matter of opinion. He is aware of the issues but that doesn’t mean he acts on them. Rob Parker, on the other hand, doesn’t just show that he can talk the talk; it is clear that he can also “walk the walk.”

Right on, Rob.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. (2004, Fall). Myths that Black Americans live by. The Harvest Institute Report.

Boren, C. (2012, December 14). Rob Parker suspended indefinitely for RGIII comments. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2012/12/14/rob-parker-suspended-indefinitely-for-rgiii-comments/

CBS-DC.com. (2012, December 14) ESPN’s Parker Suspended For ‘Cornball Brother’ Comments Toward RGIII

Retrieved from CBS.DChttp://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/14/espns-parker-suspended-for-cornball-brother-comments-toward-rgiii/

Deadspin.com (2011, December 28) Soon, ESPN will be nothing but 24 hours of people disagreeing with Skip Bayliss. Retrieved from http://deadspin.com/5871669/soon-espn-will-be-nothing-but-24-hours-of-people-disagreeing-with-skip-Bayliss

Deitsch, R. (2012, December 14). ESPN suspends analyst Parker for comments on Griffin. Sports Illustrated.com. Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20121214/rob-parker-espn-suspended-robert-griffin/

Dvorak, P. (2012, December 6). RGIII: Redskins star has become a role model for military kids. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-06/local/35673515_1_military-kids-military-families-rgiii

Farrar, D. (2012, December 13). ESPN’s Rob Parker says ridiculous things about RG3, takes ‘First Take’ to new levels of depravity. Retrieved from http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/video-espn-rob-parker-says-ridiculous-things-rg3-195448822--nfl.html

McCarthy, M. (2012, May 1). Stephen A. Smith joining Skip Bayliss on ESPN’s “First Take.” Retrieved from http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/05/stephen-a-smith-to-join-skip-Bayliss-on-espns-first-take-espn-dana-jacobson-jaw-crawford/1

Nedd, L. (2012). Why we shouldn’t call our foreparents slaves. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: FNNC Publications.

Raissman, B. (2009, April 17). Sephen A. Smith out at ESPN as network opts not to renew contract. Retrieved from http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-04-17/sports/17919528_1_espn-all-sports-network-smith

Reftery, L. (2012, December 14). ESPN’s Rob Parker suspended after calling Robert Griffin III a ‘cornball brother.’ TV Guide.com.

Sports Business Daily. (2011, December 28). Dana Jacobson is out at ESPN’s “First Take” as show is being redeveloped around Bayliss. Retrieved from http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/12/28/Media/ESPN.aspx

Wikipedia (2012). Robert Parker. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Parker_(sports_journalist)

Yoder, M. (2012, September 11). God speed, New ‘First Take’ host Cari Champion. Retrieved from http://www.yardbarker.com/all_sports/articles/god_speed_new_first_take_host_cari_champion/11681803

STELLY SPEAKS...

Sunday, April 28, 2013

The NBA, Black People and "Hate:" It's All Part of the Program

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

The Firing of ESPN's Rob Parker and the Robert Griffin Controversy: Substance and Structure