Michael Jordan: The Hall of Fame Induction and a Critique of Sportwriter Responses

Michael Jordan’s

Induction Speech:

A Critique of Sportswriter Responses

Matthew C. Stelly, Director

Uhuru Sasa Research Institute

January, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

The Hall of Fame Speech: Five Viewpoints

• Greenberg, J. (2009, September 1). The man behind the legend: Michael Jordan’s Hall of Fame speech reveals arrogance. ESPNChicago.com
• Moore, T. (2009, September 12). Jordan goes from classy to clown. AOL News.
• Grey, M. (2009,l September 13). When strengths become flaws: Michael Jordan’s induction speech. Players Voice.com.
• Wilbon, M. (2009, September 13). Michael Wilbon: No chance of taking the air out of Michael Jordan on his induction night. Washington Post.
• Welling, M. (2009, September 22). Michael Jordan’s Hall of Fame speech gave insight into what made Jordan. Bleacher Report.

Conclusion

References

INTRODUCTION

In this short book, I focus in on the “acceptance speech” that Michael “Air” Jordan gave during his televised induction into the Basketball Hall of Fame. That is why I am posing the rhetorical question, “Did Air Err on the Air?” As a critical race theorist, my job is to teach young people of all races, about how bias can function even in the minds and beliefs of the most well-meaning. Only in that way can we learn difference between those who are pretenders and those who are truly committed to positive social change in the question to confront racism.

In this document I offer five articles that were penned by sportswriters in response to Jordan’s presentation. The first from a September 12, 2009 article by Jon Greenberg of ESPNChicago.com (“The Man Behind the Legend: Michael Jordan’s Hall of Fame Induction Speech Reveals Arrogance”). The second is an article AOL News, dated September 12, 2009, written by Terrence Moore, titled “Jordan Goes From Classy to Clown.” The third article to be analyzed is from Players Voice/NBA written by Mark Grey, fourth is Pardon the Interruption co-host Michael Wilbon’s Washington Post Column, and finally, Mark Welling of The Bleacher Report, dated September 22, 2009.

What we are going to find is that no matter how great a black athlete is, in the eyes of both blacks and whites, he is black first and an athlete second. But between the two groups, black and white, it is the white man that prefers him to be an athlete first and foremost and, if he has to be black, he should be committed to acting like kind of black person that they find affable, amiable, easy-going and involved as little as possible in the affairs of the black community. That is why so many of these athletes are more involved with United Way and the Salvation Army than they are in the direct issues impacting on the lives of their people.

White sportswriters seem to use the outstanding black athletes that they write about as springboards or stepping stones to voice their own arrogance and embellish their credentials. Like the white reporter who covers black issues and in doing so, think he knows about the black community that he is writing about, the white sportswriter will include his values and viewpoints in an article about a famous athlete as if he (the writer) is some kind of mentor or advisor.

Michael Jordan achieved ultra-icon status all over the world. Personally, I watched hundreds of his games on television and his control of the game was like watching a man toy with little boys. Anybody who saw Michael play could not sanely make the claim, as many do today, that LeBron or Kobe are in the same league. They are not. When you watched Jordan play during his reign, it was like the other players were afraid of him. The only ones who were not, in my view, were Reggie Miller, Allen Iverson, Ron Harper and “The Glove,” Gary Payton. And even with them, Michael used to light their asses up on a regular basis, seemingly doing it whenever he wanted to.

Michael Jordan dominated the game and the white advertising community went crazy. And they continue to do so because he has proven to be the kind of “negro” that they admire: apolitical, quiet, speaks when spoken to and doesn’t show the least amount of interest in any black issues. They therefore reward his lack of concern about his community with these huge advertising contracts because his appeal is international, and not limited to any one group.

Michael gave his induction speech on September 12, 2009. Two of the essays that follow (Greenberg and Moore) were written the same day; two others appeared in their respective forums on September 13^th (Grey and Wilbon). And a fifth, written by Mark Welling, was published on September 22^nd. Some of what was said in each essay is repeated and if that is the case I will delete those sections. However my analyses of the comments and especially of their views on Jordan, will filter in and out. This is a critical race study on economics, the power of marketing, race in America and how the white psyche functions when it comes to athletes of color.

THE HALL OF FAME SPEECH: FIVE VIEWS

Jon Greenberg (September 12, 2009). The Man behind the Legend

Michael Jordan's Hall of Fame induction speech reveals arrogance. ESPN.com

ESPN.com is a credible source when it comes to reporting on sports events, and perhaps it is fitting because that is the only arena where white people behind the microphone appear to be able to view and treat black men as human beings. As they announce games and describe phenomenal acts as the behaviors made by “beasts” and “freaks,” there were only rare utterances of this type when it came to Jordan. More than any other black athlete (except probably Magic Johnson), Jordan was always credited with being a thinking man’s basketball player. And in exchange for these god-like descriptions, it is my view that Michael Jordan sold his soul to the devil.

The Greenberg assessment begins:

The greatest athlete of our time travels on private planes and in very fast, very expensive foreign cars. When he goes somewhere, it's on his schedule and it's always in style. However he travels, Michael Jeffrey Jordan does not take the high road, as he proved in an oddly compelling speech Friday night. Jordan's Basketball Hall of Fame induction speech in Springfield, Mass., was Jordan at his most honest, his most real. He cried, thanked his friends and family, rebuked his so-called enemies and proved that he is -- forever and ever -- the most competitive person alive.

What is described above in regard to Jordan’s lifestyle is known as “conspicuous consumption.” Some call it “flash,” and in the hood we call it “bling,” which doesn’t just refer to jewelry but to most high-end material things. Jordan had all that, and he would lose hundreds of thousands gambling. What Jordan did with his life is just what the white man wanted. In the view of those he could have helped but didn’t (his Jordan Foundation was run by his mother and she gave out a few crumbs, but that was probably for tax write-off purposes) and the communities he could have aided, there is no “high road” in what he was – other than being a stellar athlete.

Jordan did cry at his induction and then he spoke out against those who he believed had harmed him. Nothing about racism, nothing about starving black children in the ghetto. I mean, if he’s going to rant, why not say something that would endear him to black people or address some kind of social ill? Instead, it’s all about him: he’s already been inducted, he’s already got money, so he had nothing to lose. This was his big shot to do something that was much bigger than he had ever been when it came to black people. But he ended up doing what he does best: talk about himself in spite of others instead of in relation to others.

Can it be said that Jordan is the most competitive person alive? Is it being competitive when the arena that you perform in his controlled by white folks? How competitive can you be when the house you are paying for, the cars you purchased and the lifestyle that you lead are all controlled by white people? He might be the most “competitive athlete” that Greenberg ever saw, but he can’t make a statement of Jordan being the most competitive person when what Jordan is competed for – trophies and championships, are sheer and shallow when compared with the real issues taking place around the world.

These white reviewers tend to lose themselves and embellish the accomplishments of people who, in the greater scheme of things, really did so little with their lives. Other than selling expensive shoes and playing basketball and filling up the white man’s auditoriums, what is Michael Jordan known for? We have to remember that “influence” and “power” are two different things. When gangs are warring or police are gunning down black children, where is that influence and that “competitive spirit” when it could really do some good? Nowhere to be found.

Moving on:

In this sometimes funny and sharp-edged speech, the world's most ubiquitous and successful corporate pitchman proved he was still human. He wasn't selling Nike or Gatorade or batteries or hot dogs. He wasn't pretending he was a basketball executive.

This is an insult: Jordan IS a basketball executive, so there would be no “pretense.” But these white boy writers want their words to be the final word, and the more embarrassment they can heap on any black person who insults other whites – even a sellout like Jordan – the better it makes them feel. He wasn’t supposed to be pitching any products and by naming them, the white boy again gets in a dig. Maybe he thinks that because he writes for ESPN.com, the largest sports system in the world, that he can have an impact on those advertisers and have them threaten or sanction Jordan for “talking shit.” Who really knows what goes on in the mind of a closet racist?

More value judgments are in store, where Greenberg writes,

After an earlier news conference where he did his best to sound humble, Jordan's big speech was littered with his own tears and his own jokes, and most were good-natured, but he made it a point to recognize those who have inspired him over the years. It was certainly befitting his reputation, and it wasn't all that funny.

If what Jordan says is his opinion, based on what happened to him, why does this white man think he can “grade” which quips were positive and which were negative? If Jordan actually and accurately describes what was done to him – which he did – then it’s only up to the ESPN reporter to write it down and not give his opinion, the opinion of a man who never came close to playing sports at the professional level. But his words will be around forever, his by-line will always be there as the guy who “took it to Jordan.” This is how cowards operate when it comes to black people: no matter how much we kiss their ass, if we deviate the slightest from white expectations, this is the kind of treatment we receive.

For instance, Michael shared a lot of personal stuff that obviously affected him. Greenberg documents what Jordan shared:

The greatest athlete of our time made sure to point out the high school coach who didn't put him on the varsity his sophomore year. (He was never cut, per se. That's an urban myth akin to Catfish Hunter's nickname origin.) He pointed out the guy who made the team "over" him, who was in the audience; his college roommate, Buzz Peterson; the NBA vets who froze him out in his first All-Star Game, two of whom were there, George Gervin (who presented David Robinson) and Isiah (sic) Thomas (who presented John Stockton); Jazz guard Bryon Russell, who was guarding him on his final shot in a Bulls uniform; and, of course, former Bulls general manager Jerry Krause, with whom he had real conflict during his career. Krause, forever the outsider looking in, made the mistake of claiming he was skipping Jordan's induction because former coach Tex Winter, the originator of the triangle offense, wasn't inducted.

Michael has the right to do what he wants to do, and that is why I don’t have any major respect for him as a black man. He had the money and with money comes life options. He could have done more for his people, but didn’t. Jews would have spread the wealth among their own; Asians would have spread the wealth among their own; Hispanics would have spread the wealth among their own; the white European players go home and spread the wealth among their own; Dikembe Mutombo, a 7’6” African brother used his NBA income to build a hospital in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where he’s doing work combatting the fact that 500,000 kids a year under the age of five die from preventable causes. What did Jordan do? Jordan made white folks rich, pocketed a bunch of money, found him the lightest skinned women that he could, and then hunkered down where few people could reach him.

So then, not only does he have the right to do what he wants to do, he also has the right to say what he wants to say based upon the decisions he has made based upon the actions I have described above. When it comes to his own people Jordan displays sociopathic tendencies. What is a sociopath? A sociopath is someone “whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.” Granted, this is an extreme allegation: but how else to explain how one of the wealthiest men in the world can neglect the community from he hails? Who can do what he does, sell shoes that result in black children killing each other just to wear a pair, and then never does anything or launches a single campaign to get these young people to act responsibly?

Even the words that he used at the induction were somewhat indicative of a sociopath. As you will see later he will tell his children he loves them but then turn and tell them that he feels sorry for the fact that they have to grow up in his shadow. If he felt that his reputation would in any way imperil or handicap his children, he would have done more about it than “wish them the best.” This, in my view, is a sociopath.

Jordan is the one who chose to get personal. He could have just accepted the induction and said “thanks.” No. He is the one who decided to get “payback” on the people he felt he had wronged. Everyone is wrong except him; in the Jordan world he is the victim. There is something sociopathic and somewhat deranged about this kind of thinking.

As for Jerry Krause, he is a racist as well. Another Jew with a great deal of power, he disbanded the team because he felt like doing it. Just because another white man, Tex Winter, wasn’t inducted, he skipped the induction of Jordan. That was his prerogative. But this is the same white man who said that the team should intentionally lose games so that they could get a higher position for the upcoming draft. Jordan snitched him out when he said it, but the media did nothing about it, so Jordan went out and dropped 50 on the Boston Celtics and the Bulls lost a key draft position because of it. I don’t think Krause ever forgot that, and this is what the other Jew who wrote this article, Greenberg, meant when he said that Krause was a man “with whom he [Jordan] had real conflict during his career.”

Greenberg’s rant continues:

Onstage, Jordan adroitly, and unnecessarily, noted Krause wasn't invited before going on a diatribe about how organizations don't win championships, great players like him do -- a reversal of a much-traveled portion of a longer, more balanced quote credited to Krause. Jordan was right, of course, but why bring that up on the stage in front of basketball's upper echelon? Because Jordan is the ultimate alpha male and this was his alpha male moment. He doesn't get those anymore, not in public. This was it for him.

Who is this white man to try to define what’s “unnecessary” for Jordan to do or say at this own induction? Such arrogance! What did Jordan say that was wrong? Jordan should have bought it up “in front of basketball’s upper echelon” because that is who needs to know. Jordan did what he should have done a long time ago, which was use his juice, his “alpha male” power, to deal with white racism and the abuse of his fellow basketball players. Jordan was venting in the only way he knew how: selfishly. When he was being selfish and hoarding all his money and avoiding the low income blacks of Chicago, did white boys like Greenberg have anything to say? Of course not.

Continuing:

Jordan, not known for being cheap, even commented on the high prices the Hall of Fame charged for this evening because of his induction, noting that he had to pay for his tickets. It was a small sniping comment for a man who could be the first athlete to be worth $1 billion, but he hates people making money off him, unless he's getting a cut.

What Greenberg just described is the way that life works in capitalist America: people get mad at actions that they believe are unfair – unless they get a cut. The Hall of Fame made money off of those inductions and they jacked up the price because of Jordan. White people are making money charging for heavyweight fights, pay per view, professional sports of all kinds, the sales of black people’s photographs and posters, and other merchandise and the black people don’t even get a cut. The same goes for college athletes. But when a black man says something, no matter of selfish or correct, people like Greenberg get pissed because in their world, “an educated black man is a good field hand, spoiled.” And he wasn’t that educated: he left college early and then went back and finished his degree in “cultural geography” from the University of North Carolina.

Greenberg adds that,

Michael Jordan isn't just the son of Deloris and the late James. He hasn't been for 20 years. He is the modern sports hero we've created, the fans and the media, through our unyielding appreciation of his athletic superiority, and from the masses (like myself) who bought Nikes because he endorsed them and drank Gatorade because he pitched it. He is the perfect blend of American win-at-all-costs attitude and our thirst for name-brand recognition.

In simpler terms, he’s a house nigger. He’s the “favorite” black, along the lines of Joe Louis, Jesse Owens and the other “coons” that Americans loved – from a distance. Michael is a little different because he is living in an era where enough white asses have been kicked for that segregationist thinking to have ebbed to a degree. He has the benefit of a society that thinks that blacks are now free and that it’s okay for suburban white kids to have pictures of Jordan on their wall or to wear a Jersey with his name and number on it. Michael loves all this attention because it translates into dollars, and these are dollars that he can hoard and keep for himself and his immediate family while thumbing his nose at the rest of the black community. That’s what he’ always done.

Furthermore,

People call Jordan "arguably" the greatest athlete of our time, and really, his only peer is Muhammad Ali. It's amazing how both Ali and Jordan perfectly encapsulated their separate eras. Ali came to power in the turbulent 1960s, when true democracy flourished. He gave up his championship to stand up for his black nationalist beliefs. He was loud and opinionated, and quite a character, for better or worse.

It is clear that the previous paragraph was written by a white man.

To begin with, Michael Jordan cannot be compared with Muhammad Ali on any level, not even an athletic one. How can you compare boxing to basketball? Just because both are competitions? That’s something that only a white man, realizing that both events are dominated by black men, would dare to do. Boxing is individual, mano y mano; basketball is a team sport and despite the fact that Jordan thought he was the entire team, there are still four other people out there who have to rebound the ball, help play defense, pass the ball and so on. So there can be no comparison on this general level and then, with that having been established, we can scale down from there.

Secondly, neither of these black men “perfectly encapsulated their separate eras.” Muhammad Ali was schooled and mentored by Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad. Jordan was self-taught and was drive to prove something. He went to a white university and was “allowed” to do only what the coach said was acceptable. That is why Dean Smith left his black ass off the cover of Sports Illustrated; the other brothers were on there because they were upper classmen and Dean didn’t think Jordan, a freshman, should be on there. In other words, Jordan wasn’t his own man: others made decisions for him and that is a pattern that persisted. He was not perfectly encapsulated as a pro because there were others that were doing the same thing in other areas that made it possible for Jordan to succeed. Black negro politicians, black celebrities and the like.

Ali had the Nation of Islam and that was it. He was a reflection of the times he was bought up in and is a paragon of those times. Black nationalism was strong and Ali bought that nationalism into the boxing ring. Jordan, who benefited from the fact that black nationalism (and civil rights) changed America, bought nothing to the “era” but his own ego and incredible skills. Jordan is no more a black leader than a menu is a meal; Ali transcends boxing and the ring. Jordan doesn’t transcend basketball in any other area except advertising and promotions.

Third, what makes this white man think “true democracy flourished”? Democracy has never fully flourished for black people, which is why, even to this day, we have to have civil rights laws, voting rights rules, affirmative action plans, and so on. If true democracy flourished Ali would have never been stripped of his belt in the first place.

Fourth, the reviewer shows his true racism when he claims that Ali stood up for “his black nationalist beliefs” and that Ali “was loud and opinionated, and quite a character, for better or worse.” All of these descriptors are things that white people do not like about black people. They don’t like it when we get loud and they despise a black man or woman who has an opinion of their own. The white attitude is reflected in the Chuck Norris line from, “Code of Silence” when he says to a Latino brother, “When I want your opinion, I’ll beat it out of you.”

Comparing Ali and Jordan is like comparing Malcolm X and George Jefferson. Both are black and that is about it. Both made money, but Ali spread his around and cared about black people, Jefferson cared only about his cleaning business and living in his “deluxe apartment in the sky.”

Evidence of what I allege can be seen in the next excerpt:

Jordan, cool and refined, once refused to endorse a Democrat against Republican Sen. Jesse Helms in North Carolina, cooly noting that "Republicans buy sneakers too." He was the true child of the Me Decade.

“Republicans buy sneakers too.” This is, of course, a statement of fact. But what it also is more evidence that Jordan doesn’t give a shit about anything more than his endorsements and getting paid. The white reviewer calls him a “child of the Me Decade,” but that shit only applies to white boys and they know it. Black people cannot afford to copy this kind of vile and vulgar individualism. A cultural nationalist once write that, “Individualism is a white desire; cooperation is a black need.” Take Jordan off the basketball court and you have another tall black man with a bullshit degree. None of his intellectual skills or abilities are outstanding. He plays basketball, and that’s it. And knowing this, you would think he would thank the Supreme Being for being in a position to earn a good living and that he would care more about the less fortunate.

Following is conjecture pawned off as fact:

Sure, Jordan has given more money to charitable causes and met with more sick kids than we'll ever know. He shouldn't be thought of as Gordon Gekko in gym shoes. He took advantage of what was out there for a good-looking, charming athlete. In fact, he is probably the only athlete to gain control over his image from his team and his sponsors.

If Jordan had given away anything, the world would know it because it would have to be approved by white folks. His “charitable causes” are a joke when compared to the need that his own home town experiences. His Jordan Foundation, run by his mother, is about as universal in its scope as she is and while she’s a nice lady, she is like her son: parochial in her thinking. She’s country and as a result, thinks more about what’s going on nearby than around the world.

The writer says that Jordan shouldn’t be thought of as “Gordon Gekko in gym shoes.” For those of you who don’t know who Gordon Gekko is, he’s the dude in “Wall Street” who said, “Greed is good.” I have to therefore disagree with the reviewer: Jordan is “Gekko-like;” go back over his words regarding the Republicans buying sneakers. Look at his life-choices and his own statements. Notice that he was never asked to comment on anything that had to do with black people.

The writers says that Jordan “took advantage of what was out there for a good-looking, charming athlete.” Bullshit. His manager, probably a Jew, found those opportunities. Then, add to that the fact that Jordan was apolitical and never had an opinion on anything that was even remotely black (notice how quiet he was when his own father was found murdered), and he was the perfect black man: quiet, docile and greedy.

I cannot believe that this man wrote that Jordan “is probably the only athlete to gain control over his image from his team and his sponsors.” The fact is, Jordan’s image WAS the team’s image and that’s why people packed the stadiums wherever he played. No sports reporter wrote about the Bulls without featuring Jordan. And as for his sponsors, whose silhouette is that which Nike is using – it’s Jordan. But make no mistake about it, those Japanese are in control of that image, and they can use it wherever they want to – Jordan can’t. If he tried, he’d be in violation of copyright infringement. So what his Greenberg talking about?

These sponsors dress these niggas up and make them into caricatures to sell their products, use their names, make up jingles and retain control over all of it. “I wanna be like Mike” – Jordan didn’t write it and he doesn’t control it. He’s just shown on the court playing with little boys and promoting Gatorade. “Grand-mama,” the former basketball great Larry Johnson dressed up like an old woman in a white wig – Converse owns all of that. When Jordan, Bird and Magic made those McDonald’s commercials – that’s all McDonald’s property. None of these black men control a thing other than the ball games that they play. Even when they claim to be making their own shoe, it’s usually just their name and some white company is actually producing the shoe. Greenberg should talk what he knows.

Anyway, back to the induction speech.

The buzz preceding the speeches was how unfair it was to Robinson and Stockton, not to mention coaches Jerry Sloan and C. Vivian Stringer, that they had to share their day with Jordan. It was said that Jordan should get his own day at the Hall of Fame, as if he played a different sport. It was media deification at its finest, the kind of attitude that burnished Jordan's public lifestyle and the mythmaking apparatus that pads his wallet. Not that he doesn't deserve it. The Man could play basketball better than anyone, anywhere.

The “buzz” that preceded the speeches was nothing more than sports gossip. I personally know Vivian Stringer. I met her while she was coaching at the University of Iowa and I was hanging out with one of the doctoral students in sports physiology, Alberta Abney. Stringer was gracious and sweet, but tough on her team. She deserved to be in the Hall of Fame on her own merit, but that was not her decision, nor is it Greenberg’s. As for John Stockton and David Robinson, that’s just tough shit – a roll of the dice. They were “great” in their own way, and it was up to the white man and their marketing agents to promote them the way Jordan’s promoted him. Robinson led the league in scoring one year – when Michael was out trying to play baseball and making and ass out of himself in the process. Stockton dominated in assists and deserved Hall of Fame recognition.

But unlike Robinson, Stockton passed off to brothers who scored baskets and he was credited with an “assist.” He needed other people, black people, to amass his record totals. Robinson got rebounds and scored pretty much on his own. The white man should never shrug a shoulder at affirmative because most of the white boys playing in the NBA – except for the ones from other countries – pretty much are the beneficiaries of teams that have to have at least good white player to sell that shit to audiences. And if the final roster spot comes down to a brother who can do a three sixty dunk and has a dead-eye jump shot, and a white boy known for “hustle” and little else, you can best believe that white boy has got it locked down

Furthermore, who was it that said that Jordan should get his own day at the Hall of Fame? Was Jordan better than Wilt? No. Was Jordan better than, or did he win more titles than Russell? No. Did Jordan lead the league in scoring and assists like Nate “Tiny” Archibald once did (Archibald was only six feet tall)? No. What makes them think he should have a day of his own? Because of all those white sponsors, that’s why. And if he had a day of his own, it would be televised and those sponsors would be right there, selling their shit and promoting their products.

Greenberg, partially correct and partially distorted writes that, “It was media deification at its finest, the kind of attitude that burnished Jordan's public lifestyle and the mythmaking apparatus that pads his wallet. Not that he doesn't deserve it. The Man could play basketball better than anyone, anywhere.”

To begin with any description of Jordan as “the man” should not be capitalized. This, in itself, smacks of the very deification that Greenberg is writing about. Jordan is not God nor is he a disciple. Secondly, Jordan didn’t deserve all that publicity he got because it was selective: they kissed his ass when he did their bidding and then when he fucked up, they ignored it. He would lose tens of thousands betting on golf shots, on pool games and the like. They mentioned it and then dropped it. He treated Juanita like shit, played around behind her back and when they got divorced, the media kept hands off. He was hanging out with white bitches even while he was married and now he’s about to marry another one. The white man lets him get away with it. No mention of prenuptials, no mention of how long they have been dating. Nada.

Third, the white man – people like Greenberg – are too spineless to go into the black community and see the superstars of tomorrow. Jordan knew that his time was winding down. He cannot play basketball better than anyone, any where. Now for his generation, he might have had them scared of him on the NBA courts. But he saw what was coming down the road, because one thing about Jordan is that he does his research. When he tried to come back with the Washington Wizards, he started getting his ass kicked even then; he got his points but his field goal percentage dropped and brothers were posting him up and flying past him on the court. Why doesn’t the white-run media mention THESE facts?

White people sit in judgment of black people and try to “rank us” based on how nice we are to them, how “humble” we are, how nice a “smile” we’ve got and so on. Listen to these homoerotic sportscasters – they act like faggots when they’re describing the feats of black men, and it comes out when they interview them and write about them.

Now, pay attention to the following passage:

If you listened to Robinson's and Stockton's speeches, you could see the difference between the two and Jordan. Robinson made a home for himself and his family in San Antonio, where he runs charter schools and works in the community. He was a star player and a better person. Stockton, wearing what looked like a $150 rented tuxedo with a crooked bowtie, lives in Spokane, Wash., where his father still owns a popular local bar. He was every bit the competitor Jordan was, just less gifted, less talented. Jordan has the highest scoring average of all time, Stockton the most assists and most steals. Stockton now spends his time with his family and scrimmaging with Gonzaga players.

Robinson was a “better person”? What the fuck does this have to do with getting into the Hall of Fame? What is this, the Christian Hall of Fame? I’ve never heard Jordan say a damn thing about God, the church, Christians or the Bible. So at least he’s honest. Robinson served in the Navy and reached the rank of Admiral, so he is going to already have the white man’s stamp of approval. Stockton’s skin color is the same, so he’s got it. The fact that Stockton is a slouch and doesn’t think enough of himself to dress up when he’s getting inducted is just one more example of what real power is: look at how Warren Buffett dresses and then look at how a brother whose homeless dresses on the streets every day: very little difference. Why? Because niggas think that “clothes make the man” when, those of us who have made contributions know full well, it is what the man DOES that makes the man – not what he wears.

How in the hell was Stockton “every bit of the competitor that Jordan was”? Even if it was true, where are the facts? Is there a study or some research that gauges “comparative competition levels”? Of course not. Stockton controlled the ball most of the time and ran the team, a team he played for throughout his career. He also had brothers who covered up his defensive lapses because he couldn’t keep up with the Isaiah Thomases, the Derrick Harpers, the Anfernee Hardaways – none of those brothers. He may have competed, but he had plenty of backup. Who won the most games for their teams? Jordan did. Who had the most rebounds? Jordan did? Who had the most minutes played? Jordan did. Who appeared in the most playoff games and won the most championships? Jordan and Jordan. And the two years that Jordan took off from the NBA to play another game, did Chicago win? No. How then, can Greenberg make such an asinine claim?

Greenberg writes that, “Jordan has the highest scoring average of all time, Stockton the most assists and most steals.” Stockton may have earned those steals, but those assists came courtesy of one Karl Malone, along with a bunch of other players, white and black, that he simply passed the ball to and they made the shots. This makes him more competitive than Jordan?

If Stockton was “less gifted and less talented,” this is the white man’s way of saying that Stockton was smarter. How. That’s how these white people do: they attribute all that black athletes do to their “prowess,” “genetic makeup,” “instincts,” “power,” “speed” and so on. This means natural ability and if you ever wanted to be a coach, you couldn’t teach any of this. But Stockton, by being a harder worker and more competitive, would be the perfect coach because he had to “earn” what he got, he had to “think” about what he did. He had to “anticipate” those passes in order to get those steals and pass that ball.

I don’t know what the fuck Stockton scrimmaging with Gonzaga players has to do with anything, but it’s just one more example of how the petty can be put in writing to make a much larger point when the person being written about is someone who you’re envious of. It translates to mean that Stockton never forgot where he came from, gives back to the community and spends time with his family. And what of Jordan’s family? Scattered and divided.

And the backhanded compliments keep on coming:

Stockton and Robinson have made comfortable transitions into adulthood through retirement, and both gave wonderful, emotional, heartfelt speeches. I was at the gym during Robinson's speech, watching and listening on the elliptical. I'm not afraid to say I teared up. Robinson was often criticized for being too soft on the court, too cerebral. He was, in a lot of ways, the anti-Jordan, as a superstar. The Admiral spent the entirety of his speech thanking people. When he spoke of his family, he gushed over his three boys, calling them his best friends, encouraging them to reach their own goals.

The article about Jordan and his arrogance now becomes a chance for Greenberg to cut Jordan down to size with information about backgrounds and family relationships. So let’s take a look at what was written and then analyze what the underlying message actually is.

Greeenberg claims that Stockton and Robinson have made comfortable transitions into adulthood through retirement. How does he know? Robinson is married and so is Stockton, and neither has been divorced. So what does this prove? It proves that they ran into women who were taken care of and benefited from being the wives of millionaires. Juanita, the professional woman with smarts, was Jordan’s first wife. They got married in September of 1989 and had two sons. They were divorced on January 4, 2002. They reconciled but filed for divorce again and the final decree was issued on December 29, 2006.

But in July of 2006, an Illinois judge found that Jordan didn’t owe his “alleged former lover,” Karla Knafel (a white woman) $5 million. He had already paid her $250,000 to keep her mouth shut and she claimed he promised her another $5 million for keeping quite and agreeing not to file a paternity suit against him. But guess what? Jordan wasn’t even the father of the child it would later be found out. So he has no morals but take note that while Stockton and Robinson have their lives laid out because they follow the “get married and buy a house” script, Jordan gets protected because apparently he can’t keep his dick in his pants.

Check this out: Juanita got $168 million out of the deal. Why wasn’t this reported and investigated, since the grounds were “irreconcilable differences” the first time before they reconciled. What was Jordan doing? This woman isn’t going to go fuck around behind this multi-millionaire’s back and risk all that money. It was Jordan! And the media kept it quiet because somebody had to know.

Now he’s engaged to this Cuban model, Yvette Prieto. Michael is color-struck, and if you’re black, you know what this means. It refers to black people, especially dark skinned ones, who have a preference for lighter skinned people. Black women in the South had a tendency to look for light skinned men to marry so that the children would be light and, according to the theory, receive less grief from the white man than a dark-skinned child would.

What does all this have to do with Stockton and Robinson, you may ask? It shows that it’s different strokes for different folks and that based on the media cover ups that I just cited, doesn’t Jordan have the right to be arrogant? When you can get reporters to watch your back, cover your tracks and even lie for you, then that’s some real power. And it’s the kind that people like Greenberg cover up because they want to continue to curry favor with Jordan because they might need an interview somewhere down the line.

Greenberg didn’t let up. He was going to make sure to “punish this nigger” for being arrogant (an American tradition if you read the history of this country). Take note of what he wrote below:

When Jordan, who is divorced from his longtime wife Juanita, brought up his three children, he told them he felt sorry for them, because of the tall shadow they have to live with. His oldest son, Jeffrey, seated next to a very pretty girlfriend of his father's, recently quit the basketball team at Illinois to focus on his studies. Marcus Jordan is in his freshman year at Central Florida, where he too will play. Needless to say, they know they'll forever be second-class to their pop. How could anyone live up to his standards? It was a telling Jordan moment: honest, seemingly loving and full of hubris. It was not the words of a father, but of a competitor.

Why should you state publicly that you feel sorry for your children because of the “tall shadow” they have to live with? You should be proud of the fact that you were able to escape public scrutiny and have a shadow that most people believe is a positive one. Why humiliate your children with claims of pity for them when the role of the good parent is to leave a productive legacy for the kids to emulate? The boys tried to play basketball and turned out pretty good, and I don’t know about the others. All I know is that he should have just told the world he loved them and then left it at that.

But this muthafucka doesn’t know when to shut up. He just kept on talking about shit and skimming over the stuff that would have bought the same amount of shame to himself. Like the gambling. Like the white boy who wrote the book and said that he won over a million dolllars from Jordan over golf. Like chasing white bitches and offering them bribes to keep quiet. And remember folks: once you been caught like that to the point where the woman goes public, it’s a sure bet that you’ve done it before. This white woman probably found out that Jordan was screwing around and so was she –that’s why the DNA test was negative. She was trying to set Jordan up and had some other dude on the side impregnate her.

Why didn’t he mention this kind of stuff? As Greenberg wrote, “It was not the words of a father, but of a competitor.”

The article continues:

Jordan's lackluster post-Bulls basketball career has done nothing to obscure his spotless legacy as a basketball player. There will never be an athlete of his magnitude again, because he is the archetype of the hero athlete and the living embodiment of success. He is the Michael Jordan of being Michael Jordan.

If the subject of a sentence is distorted, then the predicate which is used to support the subject is more than likely going to also be bullshit. Now, let us analyze the thesis statement of the previous paragraph were Greenberg writes that, “Jordan's lackluster post-Bulls basketball career has done nothing to obscure his spotless legacy as a basketball player.” For this statement to be true, Greenberg would have to prove that Jordan’s post-Bulls career was lackluster. He could have written, “Comparatively speaking, Jordan’s post-Bulls career was lackluster.” But he didn’t, so let’s just pick apart what this “professional writer” actually put on paper.

Lackluster? After Jordan left the Bulls, he continued to kick ass, and it was at the age of 39 years old, a major accomplishment. So not only was he getting props for being the gladiator that he was, but he was getting kudos for being an old gladiator.

Let’s get a capsulized version of what happened after Jordan left the Bulls and decided to join the Washington Wizards, a team known more for losing than anything else. Wikipedia gives us some edited information:

On September 25, 2001, Jordan announced his return to the NBA to play for the Washington Wizards, indicating his intention to donate his salary as a player to a relief effort for the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks … In an injury-plagued 2001–02 season, he led the team in scoring (22.9 ppg), assists (5.2 apg), and steals (1.42 spg) … However, torn cartilage in his right knee ended Jordan's season after only 60 games, the fewest he had played in a regular season since playing 17 games after returning from his first retirement during the 1994–95 season (Wikipedia, 2012).

Bootlicker and sellout or not, does this sound lackluster to you? This man is about to turn 40 years old and he’s doing all of this for a team that nobody ever thought about. So what gives Greenberg the right to tell his readers that Jordan’s career was lackluster? After all the things I’ve shared that shows that he was just a fucked up human being, what would a lie about his post-Bulls work being lackluster prove?

And there’s more evidence about Greenberg’s fabricated assessment:

Playing in his 14th and final NBA All-Star Game in 2003, Jordan passed Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as the all-time leading scorer in All-Star game history (a record since broken by Kobe Bryant) … That year, Jordan was the only Washington player to play in all 82 games, starting in 67 of them. He averaged 20.0 points, 6.1 rebounds, 3.8 assists, and 1.5 steals per game … He also shot 45% from the field, and 82% from the free throw line … (Wikipedia, 20102).

Records galore, and it’s a lackluster post-Bulls career? Greenberg, the hater, must not have realized that

Even though he [Jordan] … turned 40 during the season, he scored 20 or more points 42 times, 30 or more points nine times, and 40 or more points three times … On February 21, 2003, Jordan became the first 40-year-old to tally 43 points in an NBA game …. During his stint with the Wizards, all of Jordan's home games at the MCI Center were sold out, and the Wizards were the second most-watched team in the NBA, averaging 20,172 fans a game at home and 19,311 on the road (Wikipedia, 2012).

I think my case has been made. The reason why his “post-Bulls career” has done nothing to obscure his spotless legacy as a basketball player” is because his post-Bull career was not lackluster! It was a continuation, albeit at an older age, of the same kind of competitive spirit he had always exhibited. This is what makes him even more of a despicable black man: when it comes to dribbling, dunking, rebounding and running, he’s untouchable; but what is he doing other than making donations to the 9-11 fund (mentioned earlier), which was an abstract situation that was more about white people getting killed than it was about the black people, right there in chocolate city (Washington, DC) where he was playing, the the thousands who go to be hungry every night? As Janet Jackson would ask, “What have you done for us lately?

Greenberg closes out his article with philosophy and some added bullshit. Take note of the closing:

So this Hall of Fame induction was unnecessary -- he's been first-ballot since 1991 -- but his speech proved again that heroes best exist in myths and stories, not on a dais with a shiny suit. Michael Jordan the Chicago Bulls guard was invincible. Michael Jordan the Man is vulnerable, complicated and ultimately human. I miss Jordan the Hero. I don't really want to know Jordan the Man.

Racism comes in many forms. To view a black person as “extra-human” or “super-human” is just as racist as viewing us as “subhuman.” Of course he’s just a man. He was made a “hero” by white people and black people who loved the game of basketball, a game that Jordan excelled in. But so fuckin’ what? Will his dribbling ability cure cancer? Will his dunks end black poverty in the ghetto? Will his rebounding address the issues of HIV/AIDS and the black women who are being disproportionately impacted.

When it comes to what Michael Jordan did for black people outside of the stadium or off the court, we have to admit that he wasn’t about shit. And in making that decision, none of us has a thimble-full of choice.

Terence Moore. (September 12, 2009). Jordan Goes From Classy to Clown. The Man behind the Legend. AOL News.

The headline of this article is as insulting as the previous one regarding Jordan’s arrogance. The reason I mention this is because as a former newspaper editor, journalism student and national essay winning writer, I understand the nuances of the printed word.

The purpose of a headline is to bring attention to the story and thereby draw the reader into the copy. I was the editor of a large black newspaper so I was responsible for the headlines, but at some papers and other media the copy editor or some other person writes headlines. It doesn’t matter who writes it: the purpose is still the same.

So when the subject is “Jordan,” you are going to catch people’s eye because that name is one of the most popular in the world: it could be the country of Jordan or it could be Michael Jordan. In either case, the eye is going to stop and check out the read of the headline. When the Greenberg article featured Jordan’s name and then used the word “arrogance,” and when this articles uses the same name but uses the term, “clown,” the reader has an idea that somebody is about to tear Jordan a new asshole.

Most people will read it because if it’s one thing I know about newspaper readers, they love to read negative shit about other people. They love to read about violence, and that has always been the case. To this day the saying around the newsroom is, “If it bleeds, it leads.” That means if the story has to do with murder or death or rape, then it’s going on the front page or will, at very least, have major, favorable placement on a particular page.

So this article appears on a very popular website, America On Line. And AOL has its own news arm. The writer then, mixes humor with fact and, since it comes at the expense of the great Michael Jordan, he’s going to do just what Greenberg did: have a good time at the expense of the facts and Jordan – virtually killing two birds with one stone.

Originating from Springfield, Massachusetts, Moore, the writer, begins, thusly:

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. -- When it's your party, you can cry if you want to, and you also can embarrass yourself if you want to. Just ask Michael Jordan, who spent his induction into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame on Friday night doing his version of dancing naked on a coffee table with a lamp shade on his head. What was that?

The first sentence is a direct contradiction to what the rest of the article is about. He’s trying to paraphrase the classic, “It’s My Party,” an old school cut by Leslie Gore (1963), which brings in another contradiction.

The first one is that he can do whatever he wants to do because it’s his party. In this case it’s Jordan’s induction and he’s allowed to speak and say whatever the hell he wants to say. The second contradiction, since this white boy wants to fall back on old school jams, is that the song is not so much about getting your own way, but also about what happens is something that would make you act in the same manner. Check out the key lyrics:

It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you

“You would cry too if it happened to you.” So if the writer was trying to poke fun at Jordan, maybe he should think about what he would do if he were in the same position. Of course, he would do nothing because he couldn’t carry Jordan’s jock strap, let alone make it to the NBA. So now that I’ve squashed that opening sentence, let’s move on.

Moore insultingly adds, “Just ask Michael Jordan, who spent his induction into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame on Friday night doing his version of dancing naked on a coffee table with a lamp shade on his head. What was that?” Black people do dumb shit at parties, but dancing with a lamp shade on your head is strictly white boy shit. Frat boys, drunk corporate types and so on. There’s something they do that we just look at and shake our heads. Michael Jordan may have humiliated himself, but it’s not because of what he said in my view: it’s what he represents as a black man who has forgotten the fact that he’s black. That, in my view, is the biggest humiliation of all.

Value judgments galore continue in Moore’s article:

Whatever it was, it wasn't good. It rivaled anything you can name through the decades as the most brutal Hall of Fame acceptance speech ever. Soon after receiving a standing ovation of 73 seconds from a packed and adoring house at Springfield Symphony Hall, he went from sobbing to reflective to vicious. I mean, where is Sandman (you know, that guy who yanks terrible acts off the stage at the Apollo Theatre) when you need him?

What about the ones that took place when the NBA was racially segregated? Wouldn’t those be insulting to black people who had been intentionally not allowed to participate? How could it be a brutal speech when everything Jordan said was true? Could it be that “the vicious truth” is something that white people and their negro pals are not accustomed to hearing from a black person? That would stand to reason since few of the NBA’s players ever say anything of relevance, anyway. But the fact that this racist bullshit was put in print by AOL speaks volumes about that website and about this racist. He is engaging in hyperbole and making grandiose claims that are not the least bit rooted in the reality of what Jordan did or said on that induction evening.

He has the timing down – 73 second ovation, the fact that the place was packed, and then come more value judgments, claiming that Jordan “went from sobbing to reflective to vicious.” This is how he (a white man who has benefited his entire life from white privilege) who can understand a black man crying, but who takes it personally when that same black man finds, while reflecting, some incidents that he does not like and wants to speak out on. Uncle Toms like Charles Barkley, Robert Parish and other bootlickers have made “the black truth” look like lies: white folks don’t want to hear it so they label it as “vicious.” What is vicious is the 400 years of maltreatment that we have received at their hands.

One would think that much of what Jordan would be complaining about would give him pause to reflect upon the type of person he is. It seems that in all of the situations that he talked about, he was some kind of ‘victim,’ and that anyone who won something over him, was chosen over him or defeated him somehow was the beneficiary of an “incorrect’ decision or action. This is the true definition of arrogance, but in Jordan’s case I think it’s a little deeper; borderline sociopathic.

And now we move from the use of the word vicious to the word brutal (both terms that have historically been used to describe black men, both during slavery and since) it in the next segment, where he writes:

It was this brutal Friday night: Anybody who bothered Jordan mentally, physically or spiritually in hoops during his 46 years was assassinated with his tongue. The coach who cut him from his high school team in Wilmington, N.C. Buzz Peterson, who was named high school player of the year in North Carolina over Jordan. His archenemy with the Chicago Bulls, Jerry Krause. Several NBA coaches who worked for his teams and against his teams. Doubting media types. Opposing players Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, George Gervin, John Starks and Byron Russell.

What was brutal about it? The truth? The fairy tale world that Moore lived in where he thought that because white people were willing to kiss Jordan’s ass because he could dunk a basketball were owed on-going respect the hosannas of praise by Jordan? Now all of a sudden it is the white man, and approved negroes, who have become the victims.

For instance, he writes that anyone who got in Jordan’s way was assassinated with his tongue on this night. An assassination is a “political killing,” so that means he used the wrong term. The people were insulted, castigated and maybe humiliated, depending on how seriously they took what Jordan had to say. But there’s an African proverb: “If you throw a stick into a pack of dogs, only the one that gets hit, yips.” So if what Jordan is saying doesn’t apply why should the people he mentions act “wounded”?

There is a second point worth mentioning here. Buzz Peterson, who was named over him for high school player of the year, Jerry Krause, the fat Jew that screwed him over when he played for the bulls, several NBA coaches and doubting media types. These are white people. Michael Jordan is such a fucked up human being, such an insult of a black man, that he never once mentioned racism despite the fact that it was white people that made all of these supposed “incursions” into his life possible. They did all that dirt and he’s still walking around as if he doesn’t see the racial angles in all this. Jordan is what Malcolm X would call a “house nigger,” and there’s no two ways about it.

In case you can’t see the comparison between Jordan and what Malcolm X described, check out the following excerpt from “Message to the Grass Roots,” where Malcolm defined “house nigger” to perfection:

This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. (quoted in Breitman, 1965).

This describes Michael Jordan’s mindset and his actions. It is the only reason to explain why he never dealt with racism even when it stared him straight in the face. When white photographers hounded him, when white fans verbally abused him and of course some of the situations that were mentioned above. He was under the control of white corporations that were giving him a lot of money. Before the pros he was a “tom” as well, and again, was surrounded by white folks that he would never confront or insult. Now, when he grows a pair of balls and mentions some of the atrocities that were hurled his way, somehow he is the bad guy.

Michael might have been the youngest, certainly among the youngest, young black people to appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated. I say “might” because Dean Smith pretty much fucked that up for him. Check it out:

Oh, and Jordan even gave a gentle whack to the knees to Dean Smith. According to Jordan, he still is miffed that his former head coach at North Carolina told Sports Illustrated in 1981 to go with four Tar Heel starters on its cover instead five, which would have included the freshman Jordan.

Why didn’t Jordan say something THEN? Because, like Malcolm X said, he’s always been a house nigger and he was getting the scraps that the white man was doling out and was therefore afraid to say anything. But there’s another point: if Jordan really cared, why didn’t he “sic” the media on Dean Smith? I’ll tell you why: Because North Carolina is his alma mater and he loves that school more than he apparently loves himself.

But eventually even the most docile of house niggers turns field nigger if he gets the chance or feels he’s “free” to do so:

If that wasn't enough, Jordan looked at his two sons and daughter, shrugged and then said, "You guys have a heavy burden. I wouldn't want to be you guys." Nice touch, Michael. So was this: With youngsters watching back home during this prime time telecast, Jordan turned to David Thompson nearby and said, "I know I shocked the (bleep) out of you." He was referring to Thompson's likely reaction after he received Jordan's call to be his presenter for the event. Thompson is a fabled alumnus of North Carolina rival North Carolina State.

So he degrades his kids and then, as if to show the white man, “I’ll fix you,” he asks David “Skywalker” Thompson, who played for his college rivals, to present him at the induction. Thompson, who got hooked on dope while in the pros and spent all of the money he earned on cocaine, was just one more “pawn” that Jordan used. And notice, Thompson is black.

Jordan, like the spoiled bitch who has everything but gets pregnant by a homeless hobo, fires back at those he thought were his white “pals.” And this writer for AOL was not about to let him off the hook. So now he feels its his job to go undercover and hypothesize about why the induction included Jordan in the first place:

In other words, it was a blessing that those who decide such things blew it this time. Jordan's meltdown aside, they needed one ceremony for the only person that folks really cared about among this year's class, and they needed another for those deserving but thoroughly misplaced inductees not named Michael Jeffrey Jordan.
I mean, what were those who run the Hall of Fame thinking? They weren't. Well, unless they were omniscient enough to see Jordan racing in his Air Jordans toward that lamp shade.

Meltdown? Even the white man knows when a “house nigger” is getting “uppity.” This means he not acting in a way that he had been programmed to act, that he was deviating from his typically “controllable” ways. It would have to be an act of total deviance for Jordan to act as if he had courage and conviction. So this article, like many others, made the induction about Jordan “acting out of character” instead of following up on his allegations and re-visiting them, re-opening the “cases” so that they could find out, in retrospect, why a fully grown man would hold such profoundly deep grudges for so long.

Making Jordan into more than he was has been taking place ever since he started interacting with white people, because his mother sure didn’t do it. As soon as white folks found out he could play ball, they started conditioning him to act in a certain way. The writer sticks with the company line of Jordan being “the greatest” and, even amid the insults, still writes shit like the following:

Bottom of Form

That said, you can't turn Jordan into a basketball immortal with others, no matter who they are or what their qualifications. It also doesn't matter that such a move of designating Jordan as a solo induction act would be unprecedented. He is peerless, and come to think of it, they sort of understood as much around here.

The writer gets his digs in and now its back to business as usual; painting Jordan as being some kind of demi-God – like Thor. It is incredible how these white men will salivate over a black athlete who does their bidding, and say all these great things about him whether they agree with him or not, but when it comes to black community leaders and such, that kind of benefit of the doubt is not a part of the program.

According to Moore’s account of induction night,

They applauded the others. They roared for Jordan. To say this was awful timing for those others to join the elite of the hoops elite with Jordan is to say the man of the moment fired the only blatant air ball of his life earlier in the day. That's when a considerably more humble Jordan stood at a podium inside of the Hall of Fame's center court, studied those across the way with only thoughts of impossible dunks, Craig Ehlo and an eternally wagging tongue on their minds and said with a straight face, "Contrary to what you guys believe, it's not just me going into the Hall of Fame. It's a group that I'm proud to be a part of, and believe me, I'm going to remember them as much as they remember me."

Maybe Jordan wasn’t talking about the people in the room. Maybe he wasn’t talking about the people he had met during the day or former teammates. Maybe he was talking about white people, in general. Maybe, like the house nigger described earlier, he was saying, "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." And maybe when he said he was going to remember “them,” maybe he was directing those words at the corporations he represents, the advertisers who use him and the business partners he’s got. One thing for sure: he didn’t have jack shit to say about the black community that spawned him, did he?

Skipping over some parts that will be addressed elsewhere in this book, let’s come to the conclusion of the Moore article. He describes a basic fact, and then takes time to hurl a final insult:

Jordan was last to take the stage. Oh, boy. At one point near the beginning of Jordan's speech of 21 minutes and 30 seconds, he asked those listening, "What is it about me that you don't know?" He proceeded to give us the answer in detail -- unfortunately.

He didn’t give all the details. He told the audience what he wanted them to know and how he felt about the ones he felt had betrayed or tried to undercut him. But there’s one thing that he left out: how, despite all those years of all-star games and scoring titles, he never really gave a shit about black people in this country.

Mark Grey. (September 13, 2009). When Strengths Become Flaws: Michael Jordan’s Induction Speech. Player’s Voice.

Another headline, another insult. We’ve gone from “arrogance” to “clown” and now we have the use of the word “flaw” right next to Jordan’s name. Much has already been said, but this essay offers some new approaches to the same vitriolic views of Jordan that the others had. I will work to omit repetition. Grey writes, Last night’s Hall of Fame induction was a true display of both greatness and the power of sports. This year’s class had people from all walks of life and different generations with one common love for the game of basketball and what it has done for their lives. Each member gave an induction speech that gave us a look into their journey of basketball greatness as well as a chance to see who they are as people. While all the other members of the 2009 class took the chance to show how humbled they were to reach this milestone, Michael Jordan showed us his greatest strength is also a weakness. Why would you feel “humbled” to reach a milestone that you had worked your entire life to achieve? What’s wrong with white people and their need to judge black athletes by their smiles or, as in this case, how “humble” they are? The white people that they admire and adore do not show any humility or act humble; they are bold, egocentric and audacious. But when it comes to people of color, the Asian becomes the model minority; the Native American, who doesn’t instigate trouble, becomes someone to admire; the Latino is stereotyped as being lazy and then, when it comes to black people, the ones who are the most ingratiating, the most self-deprecating, are the ones that our youth are supposed to look up to. It was Norman Vincent Peale who wrote, “Believe in yourself! Have faith in your abilities! Without a humble but reasonable confidence in your own powers you cannot be successful or happy.” On a night where John Stockton made us laugh, David Robinson impressed us, Vivian Stringer blew us away, and Jerry Sloan put us to sleep, Jordan just flat out shocked us. No matter where they at or where they go, white people seem to believe that it is up to black people to entertain them. They feel they are judge and jury and they give us “grades” on how we “wow” them. If you talk about race, you can bet you’re going to get put down; if you talk about a white man or woman that helped you when you were young, you will win hands down. This particular writer was at an induction ceremony for athletes and probably had a stereotyped view of what he was going to hear. He didn’t want to hear thinkers or serious-minded people – he wanted to hear people that had a long history of involvement in basketball. According to their logic, Jordan, by being the greatest should have been the biggest bootlicker of all. Although it is true about him being a bootlicker, he had a bone to pick that night with the people who he felt had “wronged” him. So built up was he by the white press and corporate contracts, he has begun to see himself as “transcending race.” That’s what white people call it when you have successfully “crossed over” the way Michael Jackson did in music, the way Oprah has done in talk TV, the way Martin Luther King, Jr., has done because of his philosophy of “never hit a white man back, even if he blasts yo’ ass.” So the stage was set, and the biggest ass kisser of all was supposed to provide more inspiration, more bootlicking tips for the audience. Here’s how Grey described it: Several of the greatest figures in basketball history were on hand to see the greatest basketball player ever be enshrined in the Hall of Fame. It was a room full of basketball icons, some of whom paved the way for the likes of Jordan and some who played alongside and against him. With thousands on hand and millions more watching at home to hear the great Jordan speak, Jordan took the opportunity to personally remind everyone of how great he was. So? It seems alright if the white man earns a living writing about Jordan and playing him up, avoiding all the negative news. He’s getting paid. But when Jordan wants to toot his own horn, these same people take umbrage with his actions and words. Is this racism or what? And when you do that, you can expect this so-called “objective” journalists and sportswriters to turn to doing what they do best: hurl insults and call names. For instance: It was a sad sight to see: the biggest basketball icon in history turned his Hall of Fame induction speech into what looked like a bad episode of Jenny Jones' “geek to chic.” You remember the shows where Jenny brought on the guy who was the skinny little nerd on the math team in high school who couldn’t get a date and was now some super successful CEO with great looks. He was the guy who wanted to show every girl who ever turned him down for a date that they made a mistake. He was the guy who wanted to get the last laugh at the class clown who used to tease him. And what is wrong with that? What is the saying: “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” Comparing Jordan with a loser like Jenny Jones – whose stupidity, by the way, ended up getting a guest killed – is a low blow, even for this vindictive sportswriter. And in case you don’t remember what she did, let me do to her what this white boy is attempting to do to Jordan. Jenny Jones was this nice looking white chick who had a talk show she did not deserve. Even with a staff and crew writing for her, she came off like a nitwit. At any rate, she brings this guy on her show who says he has a crush on his neighbor. Thinking they are both gay, she brings the other guy on and the first guy confesses his love. The second guy, staying cool, informs him that he’s not gay and, supposedly, that was that. Jones’ staff evidently didn’t do their homework. The second guy who was being advanced on went home, got his gun, and killed the first guy because he considered what happened to be a public, Jenny Jones orchestrated, homosexual attack on his reputation. She was taken off the air a short time later. So why compare Jordan with an idiot? If Jordan is this superstar that these same white sportswriters are always slobbering over, then doesn’t he reserve the right to act whatever way he wants to? The description by Grey continues: Jordan used his speech to show everyone who ever doubted him that he hadn’t forgotten, no matter how long ago it was. He spoke about a fellow high school classmate who had the nerve to make the varsity basketball team over him, and also about the coach who made the choice to select him. He then went on to remind the selection committee for the North Carolina High School Basketball Player of the Year that they should have selected him 28 years ago. He let Dean Smith know he should have mentioned him in Sports Illustrated 27 years ago. Grey has a lot of gall. All these white boy sportswriters do is dig into the history of this or the history of that. And why? Because before the 1950s, these dudes had control of all of sports because segregation was the law of the land. What few records that they hold in any sport are the result of them not having to compete against black people. They call them the “golden years,” which translates to mean years with no niggas around! But when somebody else reflects back and wants to address things that were done to him by white folks, all of a sudden there’s something wrong. Even now, these sportswriters are engaged in revisionist history, trying to clean up the image of those sports people that may have been racist or committed some kind of crime. They’re re-done Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Max Schmeling, George Mikan and so many more. You don’t even have to be from this country as long as you’re white. And just as they upgrade the images of men who got what they got through taking or white privilege, they subsequently highlight the black athlete that gets a DWI charge, a sexual assault case and so on. This stuff is preserved and archived for later use. Jordan did dirt but the white media protected him; most black athletes aren’t so lucky. Moving on: After lightly rebuking his early doubters, Jordan brought out the big guns for Jerry Krause. Jordan wanted it known that he didn’t know why Krause was there, and that he had not invited him. MJ went on to accuse the Bulls of trying to lose games in order to improve their draft status. Jerry Krause was a fat Jew that broke up the Bulls team just because he knew he could do it. He made hundreds of millions off of Jordan and if Jordan didn’t invite him, he had no business being there since it was no secret that Jordan didn’t like him and that he and Jordan never really saw eye to eye. As for Krause intentionally losing games, everybody knows they did it. They wanted to use Michael’s sore ankle as the excuse and told him to sit it out, but Jordan said no, and went out and dropped 50 on the Boston Celtics. Just the fact that this white man is on record talking about losing games on purpose should have bought some kind of penalty. Jordan was right in bringing it up; if Krause can’t stand the heat, stay the fuck out of the kitchen. Furthermore, Next, he quickly reminded Krause that the players are the most important part of the Organization, and stopped just short of telling him he should have just shut up and written checks. After that, he wanted to remind NBA legends Isiah (sic) Thomas, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and George Garvin (sic) about the time they put him through some All Star rookie hazing over two decades ago. Just when it looked like Jordan had gotten everything off his chest, he showed us that he was only getting warmed up. How does this white boy know what Jordan “stopped just short of” saying? You know, their actions and beliefs toward us all have historical precedent. Did you know that back in the days when they had us in bondage, they used to spread the lie that they could read our minds? They had us believing that they knew what we were thinking? And because they had all the power, many of us tended to believe it. After slavery, black parents handed down a message that they had received from their parents: “never look the white man in the eye.” The “rookie hazing” was funny as hell. Michael would be wide open and Isaiah wouldn’t give him the ball. Bird followed suit and soon it was clear that Jordan was being frozen out. And this is how he acts when he doesn’t get the ball: he holds grudges, and this was one time he was going to let the world know how he felt about it. To repeat the lyrics from a Leslie Gore song used earlier in this book, “It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to …” Jordan proceeded to remind Pat Riley of his star status and the time he pulled rank at a hotel in Hawaii. Jordan could do nothing more than laugh at the notion that there was such a thing as a “Jordan stopper,” as if to say it was the dumbest idea he had ever heard of. Jordan then referred to Van Gundy as “the little guy.” Jordan was finally acting as if he had some courage but, as most sellouts do, they wait until they feel that they can no longer be touched before they do what they are supposed to do. I don’t know that much about Pat Riley and Jordan, but I do know that Van Gundy tried to act like an expert on black people and announced, just before a game between Van Gundy’s New York Knicks and Jordan’s Bulls that, “you shouldn’t fall for Jordan’s routine. He acts like he’s your friend and then he dogs you,” something to that effect, something to place division between black men who laugh and shake hands during warmups and things that show the kind of unity that assholes like Van Gundy don’t like. When he made that statement, Michael went out and dropped 50 on Van Gundy and every time he scored, he ran past the Knick bench and smiled at Van Gundy. Calling him that “little guy” was not only in regard to his size; it was more about how small his thinking and attitude were. Grey adds that, “Next, Jordan made sure to let the national media know he hadn’t forgotten about them, either. Even though the media treated him like a god and always used kid gloves when dealing with him in the second half of his career, he seemed only to want to talk about his early career when they said silly things like he wasn't as good as Magic or Bird until he won a ring.” Jordan is no more petty than the media has been all these years. These are white men who only wish they could do what black men can do. They write about it but they write with the envy that permeates their very being. They have to find something negative so many of them end up sounding like psychiatrists or therapists. They want to believe that they know what the black man is thinking or what step or move he will make next. Listen to them sometimes as they announce games or write columns: like the slavemaster of old, they think they know the black man better than the black man knows himself. Pay close attention to the paternalistic racism that manifests itself in the words of Grey, as he notes that, Jordan said that all of these things were his motivating forces towards greatness. However, Michael Jordan's competitive nature has already been well documented. We understand that it is his ability to create challenges for himself that made him great, but at some point, you have to let the past go. Last night, Jordan looked like the guy who shows up for a high school reunion with a check list of everyone who ever wronged him. So then he produced a positive from a series of negatives? So then if white people hadn’t treated him like shit, he would not have achieved what he did? If black guys wouldn’t have punked him, he would not have become the all-time greatest basketball player? This sounds somewhat sick to me, because motivations should always be positive. To go out and attempt to succeed based on getting someone back or getting revenge is self-defeating in the long run. But it just goes to show how much priority Jordan gives to white folks and what other people think of him. This explains his lack of involvement in the politics of the black community; in politics, you have to have a mind of your own. Jordan, as far as I can see, is pretty much clueless (unless it involves peddling a product or shooting a basketball). Grey insultingly informs Jordan and his readers that, “Your legacy is sealed. No one showed up last night because they didn’t think you were the best, but they sure didn’t show up to hear you tell them how great you were, either.” This is a man who sits while the song “We Are The Champions” plays in stadiums all over the nation, with lyrics that state, in part, “No time for losers ‘cause we are the champions.” This is a man who listens while the sound system of gyms all over this country blast, “Hit the Road, Jack” after a victory by the home team. Former Packers coach Vince Lombardi is constantly quoted for stating, “Winning’s not everything – it’s the only thing” (a contradiction since everything is the only thing). Furthermore, there is not a single sports fan in this nation who is a good loser. The way these people kiss Jordan’s ass, how would Grey know what they turned up for? And that’s not all. Jordan could smash a cream pie in the face of the average fan and they’d say, “Thank you.” White men would let him fuck their daughters if he wanted to. White women would throw themselves at him in front of their husbands and their husbands would shower those wives with praise. This is how sick these people are, and they call them “fans” because fan is short for “fanatic.” But again, we see where even a lowly reporter for a bullshit website thinks he knows Jordan better than Jordan knows Jordan. In a championship game where Jordan hit the game winning basketball, he made a crossover dribble but in doing so, pushed the defender, Brian Russell, out of the way. Most people know that this is an illegal move, but it wasn’t called and the Bulls won the game. But that wasn’t enough for Jordan, and Grey reminds him of it in the following clip: Jordan told several different stories about his greatness, any one of which would have been funny by itself. However, ten stories about proving yourself gets old. After all the battles he had with so many great players in great games, it was a shame to see him close his speech with a story about Brian Russell. The question is why single out Russell? Because after Jordan retired Russell was talking shit about beating Jordan one on one any time. Jordan never responded at that time, but waits years later and does so at his induction: Jordan played on the original Dream Team, a 71-win team, and spent three seasons alongside Dennis Rodman, and the best story he can come up with is Brian Russell talking trash to him after he already retired? Last night, Michael Jordan, who spent his entire career looking head and shoulders above his peers, looked like anything but the head of the class. So the white man gets in a dig at the end, and now he can go to bed and jack off dreaming about Michael Jordan the way so many of them probably do.

Mike Wilbon. (September 13, 2009). Michael Wilbon: No Chance of Taking the Air Out of Michael Jordan on His Induction Night. Washington Post.

Before analyzing Wilbon’s commentary, let me begin by saying that he is a brother and is well-respected around the media. He sits on a panel of NBA experts during various games, he is co-host of a show called “Pardon The Interruption” (PTI), and is a columnist for the Washington Post, among others. He is the only black man whose views are represented in this short book.

With that having been said, let us begin with the first juxtapositional fact: no insults in the headline. There literally was no chance of “taking the air” out of Jordan that night because Jordan was not to be stopped. He knew what he was going to say and do, and he said and did it.

Wilbon’s commentary begins:

For the better part of 25 years, Michael Jordan was praised to the heavens, but his public utterances were another story. His image, many said, was too managed. Too much corporate input, his critics said, from Nike to Gatorade to Wheaties. He wasn't real enough. He never let his hair down, if you'll pardon the expression. Never took stands, never spoke his mind, never let his adoring public see what made him tick, or let them understand what fueled his ruthless passion for basketball, for competition in general, and for, well, stomping all over other world-class opponents.

Take note that Wilbon, a black man, says what the white boys I’ve already noted, did not have the guts to share. They never said that he was being held in check, but that is exactly what was taking place. He was a house nigger as I alleged earlier, and what Wilbon just described fits that description to a “t.” Jordan acted as if he and the white man were one, as Malcolm X describes in another excerpt from “Message to the Grass Roots;”

"There were two kinds of slaves, the House Negro and the field Negro. The house negroes -- they lived in the house with master; they dressed pretty good, they ate good because they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master, and they loved the master more than the master loved himself ...

They lived in the house with the master – Jordan lives in a gated white community. They dressed pretty good – Jordan is known for being a sharp dresser. They ate good and if you look at him now, it should be apparent that he’s not missing any meals. They lived near the master (see the gated community comment already stated). And “they loved the master more than the master loved himself.” How else to explain Jordan being guilty of all the things that Wilbon wrote earlier? He was controlled because he was in love – with the white man’s attention, with the white man’s compliments and, evidently, with the white man’s woman.

Wilbon continues:

Well, in the ultimate curtain call Friday night, Jordan let it out publicly, for the first time in his career that most of us can remember. He wept at the beginning, then made us laugh, then called out a few folks including some nervous Hall of Famers, then warned us not to laugh about the assertion that he might come back to play basketball again at 50.

This information has already been shared, but let me use what Wilbon wrote and his interpretation of what happened to drive home an essential point.

Michael Jordan did more for white people than he ever thought about doing for black folks. There is not a white man alive who can say that he helped more “negroes” than he did his own. Michael Jordan represents a prototype of what is wrong with the black man today. Not just the black athlete, but the black man in general. When we gain something, we want to hoard it, and in many cases, we don’t even think about our own children. We have become so selfish that we would rather buy a piece of pussy than a piece of meat to give to a hungry family. This is the only way to explain why our communities are so impoverished despite having all these ultra-rich celebrities, athletes, entertainers, musicians and so on. No other community is so blessed in terms of popular culture and sports, and yet our community ranks dead last in terms of socioeconomic status and progress.

What does this have to do with Jordan’s induction, you ask? The reason for our current status is that there are too many people who think and act like Jordan. And the formula is very simple: black man has some skills and is immediately moved on or approached by whites and Jews who want to be his accountants, managers and publicists. A man like Jordan will select a white person because, since they suffer from the “we-ain’t-ready-syndrome,” it is easier to believe that a black agent, attorney or publicist would “rip them off.” Jordan is but one of many who believes, or so it seems, that the white man’s ice is colder than our ice.

He is a house nigger, pure and simple. And just like the enslaved brother only talked shit among his own people so that he wouldn’t piss off “the master,” check out how Wilbon describes Jordan:

It wasn't a speech so much as it was an entertaining rant, something you saw pretty often if you were one of Jordan's golf partners or card-playing friends or, to be honest, a sportswriter with an off-the-record relationship with him.

The black man calls it an entertaining rant; the white sportswriters have other, more insulting terms, for it. Why would this be? Because everybody feels differently, not about Jordan, but about what the people did that led to Jordan’s “outing” them. Wilbon is probably closer to sports and to Jordan than any of the white writers, who are sharing their views based on feelings, vibes and conjecture. Their analyses are, therefore, somewhat abstract. Wilbon is talking based on what he has seen personally, been involved in and is probably the only one of the five men I’ve analyzed who has met and talked with Jordan. But the white boys have the larger following because most of them are on the Internet; nobody reads the Washington Post except people on the east coast, and “Pardon the Interruption” is a cable program and not everybody has cable. Finally, Wilbon probably kept most of his feelings to himself, since he is most likely as afraid of Jordan as the white writers are.

Wilbon again appears to be defending Jordan in the following paragraph:

You can't accuse Jordan of picking on people who aren't his own size. The men who felt the needle Friday night included Pat Riley and Isiah Thomas, both of whom where sitting right in front of him. Even when the story was affectionate it had a little thorn at the end. Jordan said he still can't get over Dean Smith, whom he loves like a father, keeping him off the cover of Sports Illustrated in 1981 because Smith keeps a lid on all freshmen.

Wilbon makes a point worthy of consideration in that Jordan said what he had to say directly to the people that he was insulting or chastising. But here is a point that he misses: Jordan didn’t say it at the time that it happened! This makes him a coward in my book. If somebody insults me or does something I don’t like, I’m going to let that muthafucka know right then and there, at the time of the infraction; not wait damn near a decade and then sit back and hurl retroactive insults! So again, like his white master, Jordan appears to be the type who likes to throw the rock and hide the hand. He did not confront these people in the real world but instead, let his “basketball do the talking.”

Note that Wilbon says that he loves Dean Smith like a father. I’ve actually heard these words come out of Jordan’s mouth as well, so this is not a mis-quote. But isn’t this part of what makes paternalistic racism “paternalistic”? These white men “adopt” these negroes and then transform them into children that can be coached, mentored, scolded, benched, controlled and so on. There are tens of thousands of black men, young and old, in various sports at the collegiate and professional level in this country, who are under the control of these white coaches. And they are controlled to the point that they don’t get involved in anything black or relevant. If they act too militant they are stamped with a “he as an attitude” label and that jeopardizes their chances to continue “playing.”

Like children in an oversized schoolyard or playground, these black men call themselves “players” and “ballers.” Playing around at a critical time in our history while black women fend for the family. Like children they sashay around like bitches wearing diamond earrings, some of them have their hair done, and referring to their woman as “mama” and she calls him “baby.” What do you call it? Jordan is of this type, only he keeps his foolishness to himself – except for the diamond earrings.

Wilbon further writes,

Speaking of another of his old coaches, former Bulls assistant Tex Winter, Jordan told the story of a game the Bulls were losing until he scored the final 18 or 20 points of the game. As Jordan came off the court, Winter looked at him and said, "Michael, there is no 'I' in team." Jordan said he shot back, "But there is an 'I' in win."

How would anyone find out about this off the court exchange between Winter and Jordan? How did the media find out? How could Winter even have the nerve to make that statement when Michael Jordan bailed that team out time and time again? I’ve seen Phil Jackson, during a timeout, map out a play just for Jordan. But that is not what this little parable is about. It is about showing how white people stand up to Jordan, no matter how insignificant the confrontation is. And it is also aimed at showing that Jordan will have the last word even if it totally misses the original point.

Jordan has issues with black people. Although he did insult some white people, it was because of what they did to him as an individual, not to his people. He played in Chicago and I’m pretty sure he had heard about the Robert Taylor Homes, Cabrini Green and the west side. I’m sure he knew that Chicago was an impoverished city. So what did he do? He moved as far away from it as he could, surrounded himself with white people, and convinced himself that somehow he was making a contribution to the city of Chicago and that contribution would “trickle down.” Jordan doesn’t see himself as a black man in any other way than physically: mentally, psychologically, emotionally and aesthetically (meaning what he sees as being beautiful and attractive), this is a white boy, plain and simple.

According to Wilbon,

It's now a rather famous anecdote in the life and times of Michael Jordan that he was cut from the varsity when he was in high school. You think that's merely a footnote more than 30 years later? You think Jordan's forgotten the details or is willing to let go? Guess whom Jordan invited to the Hall of Fame Friday night? Leroy Smith, the kid who took his spot on the high school team. Jordan said he's still saying "to the coach who picked Leroy over me: 'You made a mistake, dude.' "

People who can’t let go of something that happened decades ago is a person with a problem. I’m not talking about people who can’t forget about what slavery did to black people because that’s a whole different ballgame and it is contextual, not personal. I’m talking about grudges about shit that the person who supposedly violated you didn’t even know he was doing it.

A coach who picks somebody over you and a decade down the road you become great? How in the fuck was he supposed to know? He had to deal with what was standing right in front of him at the time. Jordan’s ego is so fucked up that he can’t even fathom the fact that there was a time, back when he was actually black, that he was just another nigga as far as white people were concerned. He cannot accept the retroactive fact that he didn’t deserve any special breaks unless he earned them. He had no track record; he was just another lanky black kid that white people get tired of looking at.

So Jordan invites the kid that was selected over him in high school. For what? To say, “look at me now?” Why not give that man a job? Why not give him a check? What’s wrong with Jordan? But Jordan’s ire goes even deeper and shows even greater sickness in the following example provided by Wilbon:

Bryon Russell, the Utah Jazz defender Jordan shoved aside as he rose for his last glorious championship shot for the Bulls, in 1998, had four years earlier made the mistake of telling Jordan he would shut Jordan down if he ever un-retired. You think that last shot in Salt Lake City evened the score? It's never even. Jordan called out Russell late in his speech Friday night, said he would come after Russell right now if he ever saw him in a pair of basketball shorts. "You heard him say it, didn't you, John?" Jordan said to John Stockton, a fellow inductee and Russell's teammate in Utah. As if Stockton wanted to be dragged into it.

If what Russell said about shutting Jordan down wasn’t true or had no validity, why was Jordan acting like a vengeful bitch about it? Does he think he’s so all-powerful that he dare not even be challenged? There is a term for what afflicts Jordan: megalomaniac. Megalomania is “a symptom of mental illness marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc.,” and/or “an obsession with doing extravagant or grand things.” Jordan fits into both categories because even though he is a great basketball player, he is under the delusion that he is great across the board. So he wants to become a baseball player and fails; he wants to become a great golfer and bets huge sums of money, losing much of the time. He wants to compete with everyone in pool, cards, whatever. Therefore, to be challenged in such a way goes against everything that he’s duped himself into believing.

Then, like a true “tom” who seeks the white stamp of approval, he goes to John Stockton who is sitting in the audience and asks him, “you heard him say it, didn’t you, John?” Childish. Immature. Duplicitous.

Wilbon concludes, thusly:

My brother, Don, called me first thing Saturday morning, having watched Jordan's induction, and said, "Why did Michael, who's the most beloved, the most revered athlete in history need to have a chip on his shoulder on the night he's inducted into the Hall of Fame?" Something you should know about my brother: He named his only son Jordan.

And Wilbon’s brother wasn’t the only one. The great Sheryl Swoopes, former star of the WNBA, named her first son Jordan – then proceeded to divorce her husband and declare to the world that she’s a dyke. People want to name their children after people who are great. But Swoopes was a basketball star herself, so it makes sense that she would want her son to play ball. But what about the other arenas of life? Do you want your son to chase white bitches? Do you want your son to have a gambling addiction? Do you want your son to shun the black community and, instead, opt to socialize and fraternize people like Warren Buffett who are among the group of people who are the source of black problems?

Mark Welling. (September 22, 2009). When Strengths Become Flaws: Michael Jordan’s Induction Speech. Player’s Voice.

This essay starts off making some semblance of sense, because it is both personal but it is also ethically-laden. Welling writes,

Just to let people know, I am not a Michael Jordan apologist. In fact, I hate Michael Jordan for what he did to the Utah Jazz in the NBA finals. He pushed off on Bryon Russell! The only vindication I have is every time Jordan's shot is replayed from the 1998 finals it proves he cheated. Yet, as much as it pains me to say it, by far Michael Jordan is the best player in the history of the NBA.

“I hate Michael Jordan”? I don’t care what the fuckin’ reason is, but it goes to show that the statement I made about “fanatics” is quite accurate. You are going to hate another human being because he kicked your team’s ass? And then you’re going to put it in writing? And then the reason is because the person “cheated”?

Jordan did cheat, but he cheated in ways that counted. He cheated on his wife Juanita countless times before getting caught. He cheated on his girlfriend by telling her he loved her and then he cheated even more by giving her $250,000 to keep the affair quiet. And the list goes on and on when it comes to stuff that is “off the record” that only his white buddies and uncle tom pals like Charles Barkley know about. And if this writer thinks that Michael Jordan is the best player in the history of the NBA, then that makes his statement about “hating” him all the more shallow.

Continuing:

Jordan was unstoppable. Every time you watched Michael Jordan play you knew you were watching something very special. Jordan had the ability to raise his game to any occasion. If he needed to be a facilitator, then he was the perfect facilitator. If he needed to be a scorer, then you couldn't stop him from getting his points. Jordan had an understanding for the flow of the game. He knew when he needed to make big plays to change the momentum of the game. Jordan was also the best finisher the game has ever seen. The game was never over as long as Jordan was still on the court.

What Welling writes is accurate. As I stated, I watched the Bulls just to see how many Michael would score. In all the years I watched him, I don’t think he ever got fewer than 25 points, and in all those years I don’t think the Bulls lost more than five times. In all honesty, in most of those games, for some reason, they seemed to always be playing at home. Maybe it was a coincidence because the same thing can be said for the airing of Laker games, who always seem to be playing at Staples Center.

Jordan put a lot into the game and bought a lot to it. But to show that he was imbalanced, he was more of an athlete in his social life than he was a social being in his athletic life. He just didn’t seem to give a shit about what anybody had to say, unless that person was signing a check or making him some kind of offer. Welling writes that, “There is no questioning the greatness of Michael Jordan. Yet, after Jordan's speech at the Hall of Fame induction ceremony, many writers are attacking the merit of his speech.”

The question is, do those “attacks” mean a damn thing? Do the writers attacking the merits of his speech somehow enrich themselves? Of course they do. Why do I say this? Because they should know that Jordan’s ego is not going to allow any criticism into his zone of indifference. He doesn’t give a shit about anything except himself and his money. So these attacks only serve to make him that much more marketable. We learned in public relations that, “negative publicity is still publicity.”

I didn't watch Jordan's speech live, and I didn't intend to ever view it. I watched Stockton and Sloan's speeches and was very happy with the ceremony. I had only seen a few clips from Sportscenter from Jordan's speech and thought I had seen enough. My father though convinced me to watch Jordan's speech. He said, "If I were a coach of any sport, I would copy his speech and force my players to watch it. Jordan explained what made him great."

This white boy uses the terms “Michael Jordan’s Hall of Fame Speech” in the headline of his article and yet admits in the article that he didn’t even see it; he saw some clips from Sportscenter, and they felt the same way as other white folks did. So where is the objectivity? This is not primary research; it is, at best, secondary. He is using clips from information edited by others and then using his father’s advice – another person who wasn’t there – as a source of how impactful the speech was. You call this journalism?

So this father tapes it, and the reporter watches it after the fact. He writes, nevertheless, that, “While his [Jordan’s] … stunts, stories, and jokes were petty, they were also incredibly revealing.” One can be petty and in being so, can nevertheless be incredibly revealing. But it’s not enough for the white boy; he has to do what almost all white media people do: compare one black man with another:

Jordan was the most gifted player on the court whenever he was playing. For most players (like LeBron for example) this will lead to slacking off, and taking games off. The difference with Jordan is he found ways to stay hungry, and competitive.

Why interject an opinion on LeBron? Why make a statement about what “most players” would do when this white boy doesn’t even know most players? And as they do, they show – based on their own biases and preferences – what the “good nigger” does vs. the one with an “attitude.” And the value judgments just keep on comin’:

Throughout his speech he went step by step and shared how he stay (sic) focused. His logic was undeniably flawed. What Jordan said made little sense to any sane person. Jordan is different from the rest of us, and he is definitely wired mentally in an unique way. For example, Jordan felt his roommate in college had slighted him because he was named North Carolina player of the year.

“Undeniably flawed”? “Made little sense to any sane person”? “Wired mentally in a different way”? As a student and teacher of Black history, I’ve heard this kind of bullshit before. President Thomas Jefferson, in his “Notes on the State of Virginia,” had this to say about black folks:

Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one [black] could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid … We will consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a judgment is to be formed. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move.

This was written by a man who white folks consider a great President and scholar. This was written in 1781 – some 232 years ago. And yet if you compare what that racist wrote, and what Welling wrote in his assessment of Jordan’s intellectual and thinking, what is the difference?

As it relates to the Bryan Russell story, Welling notes, in part,

In the story shared about Bryan Russell, what many people missed is the long term memory of Michael Jordan. Bryan Russell at the time of the story was even more of a nobody than he is now. Most fans only remember Russell because he was the guy that Michael Jordan hit his final great game winning shot on. Russell was a young player, a second round draft pick, who was just trying to make it in the NBA.

The story continues:

Jordan stopped by to say hello to John and Karl, and Russell talked to Jordan. Stop for a second, and think about how many times you have talked to some random friend of a friend? Do you remember him or what he said? Jordan remembered word for word a remark by a then scrub of a player, when he wasn't even playing basketball. A comment which Russell probably said without thinking. Yet, Jordan remembered it, and Stockton from his reaction to the story also remembered this conversation. This kind of recollection from Jordan was eerie, and boarded on psychotic (emphasis added)

Psychotic? I traced Jordan’s actions throughout his life and his relationship with white people I concluded some form of sociopathy as well as megalomania. But psychotic? Even if I agree that Jordan might be (and I do), who is this cracker to make that statement in writing after probably making money from writing about Jordan while Jordan was playing? He certain wrote a well-read column regarding the induction. And recall the headline: “Michael Jordan’s Hall of Fame speech gave insight into what made Jordan.” So this white boy, acting as if he is a therapist or psychiatrist, makes these cognitive and intellectual assessments of Jordan, thereby perpetuating the stereotype of black men being great athletes but slow on the uptake – the same thing Thomas Jefferson said over 230 years ago.

And there’s more

Jordan joked during his speech, "What don't people know about me?" Strange enough he answered that question. He was great because he pushed himself more than any other player. Jordan would go further than what a normal person would find acceptable. He found ways to motivate himself, and trick himself into thinking he needed to improve his game to prove someone wrong. If that included waiting until his induction speech to fly out an old high school teammate, to prove to the teammate and old high school coach that he was right and they were wrong, then so be it. Michael Jordan will not be stopped by anyone but Michael Jordan (emphasis added).

Jordan pushed himself and “would go further than what a normal person would find acceptable.” Normal person? This goes back to that Jeffersonian concept of black people and how “lesser than human” we are supposed to be, does it not? Jefferson said, “They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present.” Compare the two schools of thought and remember there is a 230-plus year gap in the statements. You beginning to get my drift in regard to the myth of “racial progress in America”?

Skipping ahead we come to a summation of sorts:

At the end of his speech he also used his secret to again give himself motivational fuel. Any other player mentioning the idea of playing in their fifties would be a clear joke. Jordan looked dead serious when he stated the idea of playing in his fifties. The laughter from the audience at the apparent joke will surely give Jordan more motivation to succeed at his future goals.

Jordan wouldn’t have the guts to play into his fifties. If he did, he’d make an ass out of himself the same way Muhammad Ali, Willie Mays, Joe Namath, and others did who “stuck around” too long. He’d get posted up, outrun, picked blind (having the ball stolen from him), get his shot blocked, probably foul out and, in a nutshell, get dogged! He knew it when he said it, but that statement was just put out there for the homoerotic white boys who seem to get a nut every time Jordan even pretends that he’s going to come near a basketball again.

Welling concludes with one final racist statement, this one in regard to Jordan playing in his ‘50s: “It is normal? No, definitely abnormal. Just like Jordan, not like the rest of us.” There’s that word again – “normal.” As if the white man, with his no-leaping ass, is the norm. But again, this is not the first time we’ve heard direct statements or insinuations about us. Again, Thomas Jefferson perhaps summed it up best when he wrote,

I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circum-stances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.

And so here we are. An induction speech that every sportswriter had something to say about. A black man who never showed that he gave a shit about black people getting all this attention and when he got it, he did what he always did: shined the spotlight on himself.

The rather silly Desmond Tutu of South Africa once said, “Racism, xenophobia and unfair discrimination have spawned slavery, when human beings have bought and sold and owned and branded fellow human beings as if they were so many beasts of burden.” Tutu talks as if this is a thing of the past. Michael Jordan, house nigger par excellence, proves that on every plantation, there is at least one happy camper.

CONCLUSION

There you have it: five views of the man who is regarded in most circles as “the greatest basketball player in history.” So, therefore, what? Who gives a shit? When basketball season is over, then what does he do? I think after reading these words we all know the answer.

When Chicago Bulls superstar Michael Jordan bet big money with a gambler named Slim Bowler over personal golfing contests, and the media found out, they had a field day but couldn’t find anything more than the fact that Jordan is rich and can do whatever he wants with his money. Andy Avila, a reporter for Chicago’s Channel 2 News (WBBM) concluded on March 3, 1993, “[There is] … no evidence or link of Jordan to the dark side of Slim Bowler.” After Jordan retired, the Bulls did unexpectedly well, rising to the occasion behind the stellar performances of Scottie Pippen. During the January 22, 1993 segment of “CNN Sports Close-Up,” the narrator said, “The Chicago Bulls have won 16 games in a row at home, second best in franchise history … and could be a dark horse to win a fourth NBA title.”

Didn’t happen, but that’s not the point. The point is that the media is as selective as it has ever been, and the treatment of Jordan proves it. He thinks he’s above the law because he is: the law protects him because he’s HNIC – head nigger in charge. In charge of exactly what, I have no idea.

REFERENCES

Associated Press. (2006, December 30). Jordan, wife end marriage ‘mutually, amicably.’ ESPN.

Breitman, G. (ed.) (1965). Malcolm X speaks. New York, New York: Grove Press.

Fox News Channel. (2007, May 24). Forbes: Michael Jordan’s divorce most costly ever.

Greenberg, J. (2009, September 1). The man behind the legend: Michael Jordan’s Hall of Fame speech reveals arrogance. ESPNChicago.com

Grey, M. (2009,l September 13). When strengths become flaws: Michael Jordan’s induction speech. Players Voice.com. http://www.playersvoice.com/NBA/when-strengths-become-flaws-michael-jordans-induction-speech.html

Moore, T. (2009, September 12). Jordan goes from classy to clown. AOL News.

People. (2006, December 30). Michael Jordan, wife to divorce after 17 years.

Welling, M. (2009, September 22). Michael Jordan’s Hall of Fame speech gave insight into what made Jordan. Bleacher Report. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/259287-michael-jordans-hall-of-fame-speech-gave-insight-into-what-made-jordan

USA Today (2003, June 12). Judge says Jordan not obligated to pay ex-lover.

Wilbon, M. (2009, September 13). Michael Wilbon: No chance of taking the air out of Michael Jordan on his induction night. Washington Post.