Matthew C. Stelly
OPENING
COMMENTS
America
only wants to discuss or address issues of race when it is on the
political level and in the abstract. When it comes to down defining
black people based upon their relevance to other black people, the
system believes that such determinations are theirs to make. Having a
viewpoint about a black person who makes a great deal of money for
the system is a no-no, and anyone who would dare do so will feel the
wrath of a system that, to this day, continues to use tokenism,
favoritism and white supremacy-based selections to make its down
decisions in determining who black people in general and black
children, in particular, should listen to, believe in and/or follow.
The
statement used by sports analyst Rob Parker about some black people
being “real” and “down to earth” is true; while I’ve never
heard the comment about “Cornball brothers,” that may because I
am not from the east coast. Although we are black and unified in a
lot of popular culture issues (e.g., handshakes, greetings,
terminology, etc.), there are some differences. For instance, the
brothers on the east coast refer to a penis as a “cock,” but
brothers from the west coast use the terms “pussy” and “cock”
interchangeably. The same can be said, perhaps, for Parker’s
labelling of Griffin. Some might call him an Uncle Tom, others might
use words like “sellout” and so on.
Personally,
I am a fan of “First Take” because it provides insightful
information and informed opinions.
For
instance, what Parker revealed to me about Robert Griffin III are
things I did not know. And now that I know them I am no longer as big
a fan as I was. First of all, he’s engaged to a white woman, and
I”ll deal with why that’s taboo later in this paper. And
secondly, he’s allegedly a Republican. I don’t believe in the
American political system at all, even though one of my Master’s
degrees is in Political Science. But I do know that Republicans hate
blacks more than Democrats do (even though both are cut from the same
cloth) and as a result, I view any black person who would openly
admit that he’s a Republican is making a statement.
He’s
either trying to (1) appease some white man; (2) curry favor with a
group of whites; (3) preparing to run for office or (4) letting
people know that he loves white folks and should therefore not be
considered the way “the other blacks” are considered. A point
that Parker made (in regard to Griffin trying to distance himself)
and one that I wholeheartedly agree with. There are black people who
do this, and most of them are not involved in sports.
Rob
Parker is what I would call “an intrepid iconoclast.” What
Stephen A. Smith has in terms of flash and what Skip Bayliss offers
in terms of experience, Rob has in what could be called “grass
roots honesty.” He doesn’t do all the name-calling that Smith and
Bayliss engage in, although I find it humorous. He comes on the air,
makes his points, endures the on-going interruptions by Stephen A.
Smith, and says what he has to say.
If
the question about RGIII was not asked, the crew and audience would
not have gotten the honest answer they got from Parker. If I’m not
mistaken, these people go over the questions that are asked before
the show is aired – they knew what was coming. And therefore what
happened is what they intentionally designed and anticipated. I think
Rob Parker was set up.
Finally,
a lesson that I leave my Black Studies students at the University of
Nebraska with. As Claud Anderson reminded us, “The Constitution
defined the equality of the races in America and provided the
foundation for the way the contry develioped and allocated resources.
According to the Constitution, Black Americans were considered to be
3/5s of a White human. It took 200 years of revolts, marches, riots
and federal legislation to establish the principle of Black equality”
(Anderson, 2004: p. 4). I believe Stephen A. Smith and Rob Parker
both knew this; I don’t think that Robert Griffin III does not it.
This is the best way to explain why he can say what he says and do
what he does and why it takes people like Rob Parker to bring it to
the fore.
Following
are my views regarding Rob Parker’s statements, the handling of the
situation by ESPN, some speculations and reasoning surrounding
Parker’s statements, and finally, Robert Griffin III’s views on
race.
PARKER’S
JOURNALISM BACKGROUND
Rob
Parker was born on January 18, 1964 in Jamaica, Queens, New York, and
has been active in journalism since 1986.
Parker
attended Southern
Connecticut State University
and Columbia
University
for graduate studies in journalism.
Before becoming the second black sports columnist at The
Detroit News
after Terry Foster in 1993, Parker was a reporter for The
Times Leader
in Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania,
The
Daily News
in New York and The
Cincinnati Enquirer.
He was also the first black sports columnist at Newsday
in New York in 1995. (Wikipedia, 2012).
Rob
Parker had every reason to adopt a “I’m not a black reporter, I’m
just a reporter” mentality akin to that of Robert Griffin III’s.
But he didn’t. It must have been difficult being “the first” or
one of a very few, a feeling I can personally relate to as a graduate
student at the University of Nebraska, the University of Iowa and the
University of Wisconsin. He was in prestigious newsrooms for study of
journalism and them moved to somewhat obscure sites and was
undoubtedly the token minority. But just because you’re hired as a
token doesn’t mean you have to act the part. And I don’t think
Rob Parker ever sold out on his basic values.
This
is not to say he hasn’t bedded some white women himself. When a
black man is visible and vocal, those are the women that are going to
be attracted to him because they expect little in return, other than
sex. Sisters want a commitment, a man with a job, a ring on their
finger and, if possible, a DNA test. You can’t really blame them.
But at any rate, Parker’s background is impeccable as a journalist.
The only thing is that he’s a “sports analyst” and that leaves
lots of leeway for his opinions and views, biased though they may be.
And that is why ESPN was wrong for suspending him for the remarks he
made regarding sharing his views on Robert Griffin III.
PARKER
AND PAST “CONTROVERSIES”
I
didn’t really know Rob Parker from Adam’s House cat until I saw
him on ESPN’s “First Take” and most of the time he was talking
about baseball, a sport I do not like one bit. But I am glad that a
black man covers it and since he spoke intelligently and didn’t
seem shy with his views, he won my respect from the get-go.
To
begin with, what is a “controversy”? I know what one is, but I
want to share with you what the connotative definition is, not the
one prescribed and outlined in a dictionary. When the variable of
“race” is involved, the concept of being involved in a
controversy could mean almost anything. And why is that? When the
white man is the final decision maker and arbiter, when the white man
has his discretion to use in the final assessment of whether or not
something is “controversial,” then that is what the final
definition will be.
For
instance, denotatively, the word provides a basis for enhanced
understanding of the nebulous nature of the concept of whether
something is “controversial” or not. That which is controversial
is that which causes a lot of
disagreement,
because many people have strong opinions about the subject being
discussed and, according to the Oxford Dictionary, something
controversial is something is likely to give
to public disagreement. Synonyms include argumentative, contentions,
disputatious and “hot button.”
Most
people avoid controversy because most people in America are cowards.
One need only watch shows like “What Would You Do?” and read the
research on citizen involvement to see that this is the case. But the
concept of “controversial” and determining what is or is not, is
in the hands of the white man. You don’t hear black people defining
what is controversial or not,e ven when we are involved; it is a
white value judgment in most cases. Even when we are engaged in
discussing an controversial issue, we are discussing two views: that
of the topic that is controversial and secondly, the other side, that
of the white man and why he has labeled it such.
One
source provides information about some of the “controversies”
that Parker has been involved in and with. According to the internet
site Wikipedia,
Parker,
who is African
American,
is not shy to discuss the racial aspects of current sports events,
such as the NBA off-court dress policy, or the lack of African
Americans in NFL
coaching positions. He penned a much-maligned column where he called
Hank
Aaron
a "coward" for declining to attend when Barry
Bonds
would break the career home
run
record. (Wikipedia, 2012).
This
is a real black man and as such, he has the right to define what is
“real” in his mind, and what is not – he leads by example.
Stephen A. Smith talks a good game and is probably conscious and
well-read, but he wouldn’t take the stands that Rob Parker takes
unless it involved one of his family members. He is careful because
he is grateful for the opportunities that he’s got – and I, for
one, am glad he’s got them. But he surely has no right even
thinking about calling Rob Parker’s courage into question. And I
hope he never does.
Parker
has taken his lumps from other sources, though. For instance,
In
October 2008, Parker erroneously reported that Kirk Cousins, a
quarterback
for the Michigan
State Spartans,
was involved in a fight with members of the Michigan State hockey
team. At the time of the fight, Cousins was at church with his
parents. After being publicly reproved by head coach Mark
Dantonio
at his weekly news conference, Parker was suspended by The
Detroit News
for two weeks. (Wikipedia, 2012).
What
is sited above is a journalistic mistake and Parker should have known
better. This has nothing to do with “controversy” other than the
fact that he pissed off a few people. Ironically, Kirk Cousins was
drafted by the Washington Redskins and is now the second string
quarterback for that team behind, guess who? Robert Griffin III! Be
that as it may, this mistake about Cousins is not even close to being
as intrusive as what ESPN did to Parker in terms of punishing him for
having an opinion. In the case cited above he was acting as a
journalist and was in violation of not doing ample research, a major
mistake. But his own personal views aired on ESPN? After he was asked
what his views were? On a show that does nothing more than spew forth
opnions day after day? Unforgiveable.
Another
mistake by Parker is documented below:
On
December 21, 2008, at a press conference following the Lions' 42–7
loss to the New
Orleans Saints,
during the Detroit Lions historic 0-16 season, Rob Parker caused some
controversy when he addressed a question at Lions head coach Rod
Marinelli
about Lions defensive coordinator Joe
Barry,
Marinelli's son-in-law, inquiring whether Marinelli wished that his
daughter had "married a better defensive coordinator."
The
question was criticized as unprofessional and inappropriate. The next
day, Parker wrote that the comment was "an attempt at humor"
and not a malicious attack.
Parker
wrote no further columns forThe
Detroit News,
nor did he attend any press conferences, following the incident. On
January 6, 2009, The
Detroit News
announced that Parker had resigned from the newspaper the previous
week. (Wikipedia, 2012)
Parker
does have a tendency to joke around about serious topics, a habit
that shouldn’t extend into his job; but it is clear that if often
does and , as you can see above, he paid the price. His point was
probably that why is this coach hiring his son in law – isn’t
that nepotism? White people hiring their own relatives at a time when
so many more qualified people are available and, at the time, the
Lions were losing almost every week? I think it was a valid point,
but should have been stated that way, not as a “crack.”
Now
there are times when Parker has the right idea, as he did in the
Lion’s coach case, and he just speaks out to people who are
basically cowards. For instance, “In 2007, Parker called Hank Aaron
a “coward” because he wouldn’t attend the game in which Barry
Bonds broke his all-time record for home runs.” You don’t think
it was chickenshit for Hank not to show up? Willie Mays is Barry
Bond’s godfather and as far as I know, Aaron and Mays were not the
closest of friends. Maybe that’s why Hank stayed away. But it’s
still chickenshit for him to do so, because it makes him (Aaron) look
petty, as if he didn’t want the kid (Bonds) to break his record.
“Coward”?
That is Parker’s opinion. Did he document it ? Does he have proof?
Did he write it or just state it? I don’t know because I wasn’t
there. But just the fact that he would call Hammerin’ Hank a coward
doesn’t hurt anybody, especially if Hank’s fans know how strong
Hank was to go after that home run record held by the all-American
white man (and alcoholic) Babe Ruth and the death threats that he
(Aaron) received during that chase. If everybody knows Aaron is not a
coward, but one reporter says he is one, then who gets hurt? It is
only an opinion.
Here’s
what I see: a talented black writer bumping heads with a system that
wants to protect people who generate money for them. The Lion’s are
a potential revenue stream for that Detroit newspaper, and Parker
insults the coach. Hank Aaron is an icon and a humble man that white
people want black kids to look up to because Hank never gets involved
in any community issues outside of Atlanta. And Parker calls him a
“coward.” Parker gave his opinion in each case, and in neither
case would it take a stretch of the imagination to ask the question,
“Does Rob Parker possibly have a point?”
Finally,
there is no doubt that Parker could back up his position in regard
to either the Marinelli or Aaron cases. He is articulate and doesn’t
just say or write things for “shock value.” So behind closed
doors his bosses probably commended him but told him, “we’ve got
to send a message to the public so we’ve got to let you go,” or
something along those lines. This is what happens to blacks who are
deemed “controversial.”
I
speak from first-hand experience.
ESPN
AND “FIRST TAKE”
Farrar,
a critic of “First Take,” intelligently explained his views this
way:
Nobody
will ever mistake ESPN's "First Take" show with anything
remotely resembling insightful, important, or accurate journalism.
The trainwreck bookmarked by Skip Bayliss and Stephen A. Smith has
adopted the slogan "Embrace Debate" to put a nice little
hat on the fact that the show is actually the kind of dreck that
makes the worst political commentary programs look like great
television. As a result, it's tough to come on that show and actually
be an embarrassment … We tend to expect preposterous stuff from
this show -- after all, that's what that show does. (Farrar, 2012).
Farrar
doesn’t speak for everybody, so these views only go as far as he
does. He has no constituency. He says that “nobody” would mistake
ESPN for anything insightful, important or accurate, so then he’s
done the very thing that they are pissed off at Rob Parker for doing:
expressing a personal viewpoint and making it sound collective and
political. The only difference is that I don’t give a shit about
Farrar’s opinion; Rob Parker was ASKED what he thought and then
they asked him again after he gave his preliminary response.
A
show can be insightful and important and not be accurate, or it can
be accurate and not be important. These are the same types of value
judgments that Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayliss make each day. The
mistake they make is not in addressing the information, it is that
the rally back and forth between sports information and areas that
they are not astute in: psychology, sports anthropology and
occasionally, marketing and business promotions. The show is designed
to stimulate debate, and that is what it did, quite by accident. But
once the decision makers saw that this was what was taking place,
even before Stephen A. Smith arrived, they turned it into a marketing
plan for the program and began airing promos and commercials
admonishing us to “Embrace Debate.”
Early
on, the first host of the show, Dana Jacobson, according to Sports
Business Daily,
… tweeted
that “she was leaving ‘First Take’ for other assignments,”
but she “was pulled from the show, and has been reassigned into the
‘SportsCenter’/’Outside The Lines’/general assignment hosting
pool,” according to SI.com's Richard Deitsch. Under "First
Take’s" new Coordinating Producer Jamie Horowitz, the show has
been redesigned around Skip Bayliss “debating and defending his
position like a modern-day F. Lee Bailey.” Horowitz is “liked by
Bristol execs because of his ability to generate ratings and social
media buzz, which he did when he helmed ‘SportsNation.’”
Deitsch noted ESPN is starting to use “specific hashtags created
for Bayliss (i.e #WhenSkipMetTebow) because it's part of the Horowitz
playbook.”
They
wanted social media buzz and that’s just what they got. ESPN has a
good thing going because, in general, they use the “hip and urban”
terminology (which they borrowed from black youth) to deliver the
news. In other words, were it not for us (black people), they would
be another dry sports channel. But they are the leader because of the
way they cover sports and the “cool way” in which they deliver
it. They use black lingo, slogans and argot and that is their hook.
ESPN should be the last nation to try to judge black people and their
viewpoints since, when all else is said and done, we are the ones
racking up the yardage, making the big plays and fantastic catches,
performing the greatest dunks and providing a disproportionately high
percentage of the exciting plays that are aired all over that station
and its shows.
Continuing
with the “host chronology:”
In
addition, the show “will now be anchored solely by Jay Crawford,”
who is “considered a stronger anchor by the suits than Jacobson.”
Crawford reportedly “was up for the evening ‘SportsCenter’ gig
after Brian Kenny left (that job went to John Anderson) and no one
would blame him for trying hard to hold onto” the ‘First Take’
role, which “affords him a very nice work week.” Deitsch wrote,
“What I think bothers me most for Jacobson is that she now returns
to the pool of ESPN talent that never gets pushed externally. Why?
Because it's not [an] easy sell. Because they deliver news and do
their jobs without shtick or screaming” ... USA TODAY’s Michael
Hiestand notes the changes to “First Take” comes as the “show
gets rejiggered to stress more debate and pontificating” (USA
TODAY, 12/28).(Sports
Business Daily, 2011).
So
media buzz and pontificating is what the white boys wanted, and that
is what they got. Then, when they hear something they don’t like –
a black man providing a judgment of another black man – they lose
it. But more on that in a minute.
To
my knowledge the next host was this white dude, Jay Crawford who more
than held his own when Smith and Bayliss would go at each other. And
that may well be why he was snatched; the person who serves in that
position of “moderator” is really nothing more than a referee
serving up the topics and then, apparently, is supposed to keep his
mouth shut. So they replaced a white male presence (so it wouldn’t
look like Smith was being “double-teamed” by Crawford and
Bayliss) with intelligent eye candy – a female. Somewhere down the
line it was determined that Stephen A. Smith would join Bayliss and
instead of Skip just cracking on people, the two would debate one
another. In recent times the theme has been “Embrace Debate.”
Then
they snatched Craword and sent him elsewhere to do sportscasting, and
replaced him with this sister named Jemelle Hill. I never saw Jemelle
when she was in that position, but when she appeared on the show she
was very cute, knowledgeable and was rarely wrong. Maybe she didn’t
have the look that they wanted because out of nowhere came Cari
Champion, who used to be on the “tennis network” of all places,
knows her sports, but she is more likely to put in her “two cents”
than Jemelle Hill did. That is, I believe, how this controversy about
Parker’s comments came about in the first place. More on that
later.
Between
Champion, Bayliss and Smith, there is a lot going on in terms of
subject matter. They now bring on guests such as Lomas Brown, former
coach Eric Magini and Christian Favria. They even have special guests
like rappers Snoop Dogg and T.I., Brandy (don’t ask me why) and
present-day athletes like Terrell Suggs, Kevin Durant and others.
According
to one source, Parker gained fame as a regular on
“First Take”,
where he debated Skip
Bayliss
on the 1st and 10 segment, and is still a frequent contributor to the
show. He also is on ESPN Numbers
Never Lie.
He is also a regular on WDIV Local 4 Sports Final Edition.
(Wikipedia, 2012).
Deitsch
(2012) of Sports Illustrated.com, is no big fan of “First Take.”
In his story that informed the public that Parker had been suspended,
he wrote: “ESPN suspended First
Take
panelist Rob Parker on Friday following his offensive comments about
Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III -- another malodorous chapter
of a rancid sports television program.”
Why
were the comments offensive? As I address later, what Parker was
talking about was whether or not Griffin was a true, down home
“brother” or not. Why should this offend white people? They have
spent billions of dollars and millions of man hours working to divide
black people along these kinds of lines. They know what they are
doing when they pick their “favorites” and annoint the ones who
would and would not make “positive role models.” How do they
think black people feel when we see them (White folks) trying to tell
us who we should follow and who we should reject (e.g., Reverend
Jeremiah Wright, Sista Soulja, Louis Farrakhan, etc.)?
This
is when Stephen A. Smith formally came on board. McCarthy (2012)
announced (warned?) in May of 2012 for us to,
Get
your earplugs ready America. Those noisy Stephen
A. Smith
vs. Skip
Bayliss
TV debates are about to become a permanent fixture on ESPN2's First
Take
weekday morning show (10 a.m. ET). On Monday, host Jay
Crawford
prematurely let the cat out of the bag that Smith will become
Bayliss' permanent, five-day-a-week sparring partner. Both looked
pleased. The two already have their shtick down, with Bayliss leaping
out of his chair at the camera to make a point and Smith declaring he
doesn't want to talk to Bayliss any more while pretending to read the
paper and sip coffee.
Of
course the show is far more than that. But this information is
important to know because it was Bayliss’ show first – and Smith
was added after the fact. So it may be that Smith, who is good
friends with Bayliss (they know each other’s families and discuss
racial issues openly, etc.) took a step back during the Robert
Griffin III issue because he knew that Parker was right. Instead, he
said that he didn’t get involved with or had no concerns about “the
race of someone’s fiancé” or their political views. But guess
what? The black public does.
And
I’m not just talking about sports nuts. I’m talking about
everyday people, the kind that Parker was talking about who come to
the barber shop. They care if a rich black man is engaged to yet
another white woman; they care about how these white girls trap black
men on college campuses, give them some head and next thing you know
they’re “engaged.” We know that the parents really don’t care
for black grandkids, but if the father is a millionaire, then,
“honey, go for it.” After all, if things don’t work out you can
always divorce him and “take half his shit.!” This is what
happened to O.J. Simpson, Mike Strahan, Jason Kid, Alex Rodriguez,
and Tiger Woods, to name but a few. All married to “non-black
women” and they paid the price. This is not to imply that sisters
won’t do the same thing – Evelyn Lozada being one – but the
interracial thing deals with race and so does Stephen A. Smith. But
when it came to this particular subject, he handled it with kid
gloves (as did Bayliss).
Interestingly
though, when Chad Johnson was on the show a few weeks earlier and was
having problems with his Puerto Rican (she claims) wife Evelyn, Smith
hinted around about it. He claimed he didn’t want to get involved,
but even before that, he had made some statements about how she acted
on her reality show (“Basketball Wives”) and implied that she was
crazy. But then again, Evelyn is a black Puerto Rican: Griffin’s
wife is about as white as they come.
Smith
has been appearing more often in the debate chair opposite Bayliss.
ESPN2's old Cold
Pizza
has basically morphed into the Skip
Bayliss Show
since moving to Bristol from New York, with former co-host Dana
Jacobson
on her way out at the Worldwide Leader and most of her old
athlete/celebrity interviews jettisoned in favor of Bayliss debating
a rotating list of ESPN analysts, guest athletes and rappers
(McCarthy, 2012).
And
so it came to be. And this is where Cari Champion joins the fray as
“moderator.” In yet another insulting assessment and overview of
the show, Yoder (2012) opines that,
The
Big Lead
reports the soul sucking ESPN2 morning show First Take has finally
selected a permanent new host after the transfer of Jay Crawford to
SportsCenter. The lucky person who gets to sit between Skip Bayliss
and Stephen A. Smith every weekday morning is a relatively unknown
face, Cari Champion, most recently of the Tennis Channel. While the
First Take assignment is a fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy,
the career trajectory isn't a bad idea for someone wanting to move up
the ladder. It's no secret that Bristol thinks very highly of First
Take and producer Jamie Horowitz. Horowitz is the
man responsible
for bringing you two hours of Skip Bayliss every morning and was
promoted
to the new role of VP, Original Programming & Production
earlier this year.
So
this guy thinks that being associated with “First Take” is
nothing more than a stepping stone for better positions at ESPN? It
seems so. Check it out:
While
Dana Jacobsen left ESPN completely, Jay Crawford was given a
legitimate SportsCenter slot, Jemele Hill has a new sideline gig, and
the only thing that could cap off Stephen A. Smith's resurrection
from the dead is the return of Quite Frankly. People associated with
First Take have found additional successes at ESPN outside of First
Take. Until that day comes for Cari Champion, our thoughts and
prayers are with her. (Yoder, 2012).
I
don’t know if this is true or not, but he seems to have his history
down pat. I don’t think ESPN is going to bring back “Quite
Frankly” because Stephen A. Smith was more hard-core on that
program than he is on “First Take.” He had a live studio audience
and would often go off on them. I’m sure that his
“I-can-never-be-wrong” attitude also pissed off quite a few
people.
At
the closing of each “Quite Frankly” segment, Stephen A. used to
tell the viewers and audience, “It's
my house, but you're welcome anytime.” Evidently it wasn’t his
house, and he didn’t do much to make people feel very welcomed. The
pattern, in both instances, seems to have carried over to “First
Take.” The new Stephen A. phrase should be, “It’s Skip’s
house, and no opposing black views are welcomed, any time.”
RGIII
AND THE MILITARY’S IMPACT
Had
Rob Parker done his research, the answers to his questions regarding
RGIII’s lack of “blackness” could have been easily reached:
he’s a military brat and his father has served for more than two
decades! His mother served as well, so can you imagine the kind of
lifestyle they were bought up in? Show me a military brat and I’ll
show you someone who, if black, is going to grow up to be one
confused sonofabitch!
I
am going to break down this military scenario as it relates to RGIII
and show how “the process of niggerization” works. Perhaps Rob
Parker, upon reading this, might want to take some notes because this
is the kind of information that he could have used to buttress his
arguments during the show and it would have put everything (more than
just his personal viewpoints) into perspective.
According
to a Washington
Post
article titled, “RGIII:
Redskins Star Has Become a Role Model for Military Kids, one can see
the orientation that this system has for someone who has such high
visibility, such incredible athletic skills and also the
“socialization and assimilation” background that, without a
doubt, are going to combine to make him a “good nigga.” The
articles begins by stating that,
If
RGIII set foot inside Meade Senior High School, he’d cause a
stampede among the students. Not because he’s the hottest
football player
around, one whose gear is already being collected for the Pro
Football Hall of Fame and who gets props from John Madden, Donald
Trump and Dale
Earnhardt Jr.
all in the same news cycle.
It’s
because he’s one of them. (Dvorak, 2012).
“It’s
because he’s one of them.” Get it? These white people did their
research, and they know a compliant black man when they see one. You
hear it even today on the sportscasts, where they talk about a black
athlete “being humble” and “having a great smile” and all
that. This is the same way they described us during slavery and, of
course, that’s where we learned the art of being humble to a fault
and smiling when wasn’t nothing funny. Rob Parker is not of that
ilk – RGIII definitely is.
The
military is a total institution. As a former sociology instructor,
let me school you. A total institution is one that provides for your
needs. It provides food, shelter and when it comes to clothing,
everybody wears the same uniform. It is also an institution that
depersonalizes you: you become a number or a code. Examples include
insane asylums, prisons and, of course, the military. You respond to
bells and whistles and learn how to OBEY. This is the ideal black man
or, as they used to say back in the day, “an educated black man is
a good field hand, spoiled.” Rob Parker is a field negro; RGIII is
a house negro.
Continuing:
Robert
Griffin III grew
up in the military, just like many of them are doing. “I think if
he walked on the campus right now, there would be a riot,” declared
Rich Holzer, head football coach at Meade High School, which is
tucked into the Army base at Fort Meade. “We’re closer to
Baltimore, but you’d think this was Redskins country. Everyone is
obsessed with RGIII.” (Dvorak, 2012).
And
why do white people become obsessed with black people? Because, on
some level, we have successfully done their bidding. They won’t be
turning out in droves to see Farrakhan or Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And
why? Because these men have a point of view that is “different”
from the one that white people feel most comfortable with black men
exhibiting. RGIII, with his statements, his smile, his claims, his
choice of mate and his lifestyle, is what I would call “the
prototypical coon.” He is no threat to the white man. He is “safe.”
And
this is what Rob Parker was up against: an intergenerational family
of “negroes.” He had no chance. Here is this brash black reporter
who has a track record of telling it like it is up against
well-trained and “accepted” negroes who got their stripes by
keeping their mouths shut and obeying orders. What did Parker EXPECT
to happen?
More
evidence follows:
“They
can look at an example like RGIII and say, ‘Wow, he made it through
his dad’s deployment and he is making everyone proud,’ ” said
Joyce Wessel Raezer, executive director of the National
Military Family Association
in Alexandria. And for a growing population
of kids
whose lives are dictated by a war that much of the rest of America
forgot, it’s refreshing to have a hero to relate to (Dvorak, 2012).
Just
because a person’s father went to war or was in the military
doesn’t make the kid a hero any more than a cop helping out a
homeless man or a fireman saving a child from a fire does. This
society is “hero hungry,” but they won’t honor brave black men
who helped make this society better. They selectively choose the safe
ones – like Martin Luther King, Jr. because he had a doctorate in
theology – but forget about the brothers and sisters on the
streets, fighting the dogs, and the ones involved in the Black Power
movement and the Black Arts Movement. Griffin III was a “chosen
one” because his father had passed the “coon test,” which means
serving this country despite the fact that this country had done
little for his people.
Now
the problem with RGIII is that he has continually been surrounded by
situations where he was “culturally confused.” As a young black
man he didn’t have anyone who was truly “black” around him. He
had exposure to no real history or cultural education and as a
result, ended up being nothing less than “a set of reactions to
white people.”
Want
proof? Check it out:
As
a kid, Griffin, who was born in Japan, learned about beignets in
Louisiana, rain in Tacoma, Wash., and football in Texas.
Much
of his childhood was spent on base or at the PX or at a relative’s
home when his parents were deployed. His 13th birthday was rung in by
a phone call telling his dad to pack for Kuwait. These are kids who
go to five schools before the fifth grade, who get up, get themselves
dressed, make themselves breakfast and get to their school in —
where? Which state are they in now? Is mom in Afghanistan now? She
just left Iraq (Dvorak, 2012).
Learned
about beignets in Louisiana? First of all, Louisiana is a state, not
a city, and who cares about what he learned about food? He learned
about football in Texas, and again, what specific city? When it comes
to a white area, they mention the city and state (Tacoma,
Washington). None of these places is a cultural mecca in terms of
blackness. If “much of his childhood was spent on base or at the
PX,” then no wonder he’s so out of touch with black reality. If
his mother and father were in service to this country fighting for
freedom that they still don’t have, that means that RGIII had no
serious guidance and no reason to believe that he had a commitment to
black people. These facts, in themselves, do more to address Rob
Parker’s concerns than whether or not he wears braids in order to
have an “urban” look.
When
a black man says, “Yes sir” and “Yes ma’am,” that is a
trigger for white males to know that this is someone who can be
controlled. And because of the centuries we’ve had dealing with
these people, they know when we’re faking it or not. Far too many
black comedians have exposed the “games” we’ve run on white
people by faking it (Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy),and they realize
that we know how impotent they really are. Since the 1960s some of
our leadership has even voiced it, and since that time they’ve
tightened up to make sure that any “negro role model” had better
pass muster and be someone they can control.
Karenga
(1967) had a saying back in the day: “The white man has three ways
of controlling blacks: the missionary, the mercenary and the
military.” If RGIII was exposed to Texas, he was exposed to
religion and black people’s obsession with it. If he was raised by
military parents, then he learned to follow orders, get the
assignment done, and work hard – things that he admits during
interviews. As for the mercenary, that is basically the role that his
parents had, but it was cleaned up because they were “American
soldiers.” But when you’re over there shooting at brown targets,
and the man giving the orders is white, then as far as I’m
concerned you’re nothing more than a government hit man.
When
a parent is deployed, they take on parenting roles and
responsibilities that give them the ramrod posture and the “yes
ma’ams” and precision you don’t find in other kids (Dvorak,
2012). But military families aren’t whiners, and they’re not
victims. They
shoulder the burden of a childhood lived
between deployments, a childhood of perpetual wartime, the product of
duty. And they are often quiet about it (Dvorak, 2012).
This
is why quarterback is the perfect position, for are you not the
“parent” of the team once in the huddle? And most recently, even
as a rookie, RGIII was voted to be one of the team captains. Now if
you don’t think those white folks consider him to be “safe,” do
you think he’d be voted captain?
His
pedigree is that of the perfect “negro.” His parents were in the
military, his mother serving 12 years and his daddy serving 21 years
and that includes two wars. He was disciplined and ordered to do what
his parents and others ordered him to do. According to the article by
Dvorak, “You’ve got to have that kind of structure in your
life.”And so these are the kids who become kung fu masters of a
quality called resilience (Dvorak, 2012).
Resilience
– but do you know what you have to be resilient to? You have to be
able to resist someone coming along, pulling your coat and saying,
“hey brother.” You have to be able to resist in detail and
defiance anyone who would speak out against your master. And you have
to resist being identified as “black” because, after all, you’re
an “American” and in your mind, “race doesn’t matter.”
Parker made a reference to the fallacy of being “colorblind” and
I’ve written extensively on how stupid such a concept is. If you’re
talking that “colorblind” bullshit, that means you see everybody
as white, period. Being “colorblind” means you don’t have to
acknowledge any cultural differences, racial differences or beliefs.
This would make the white man feel oh, so proud.
This
is what RGIII represents, and that is what his life and socialization
process shows. A friend of mine, LaRue Nedd, just finished a book
called, Why
We Shouldn’t Call Our Foreparents Slaves.
In that book he describes what a “slave” is and after reading it
again, it is clear that RGIII’s actions, values and thought process
would place him squarely in such a category.
As
Nedd (2012) writes:
What
type of person would a slave be? Who would give up their right to be
human? What would it mean to actually be a slave according to the
definition? In this context, it means that the slave would not be
able to resist the will of the master. The slave would not even want
to resist the master’s will because the master would not want the
slave to want to resist. The slave wants what the master wants for
the master even if it is to the detriment of the slave. According to
the definition, the slave is wholly
subject
to the will of the master. The slave is one whose mind, will power
and nature are totally possessed by one of a different mindset, will
and nature. This means mind control. In order for this to happen, the
slave’s beliefs and thoughts must be the same as the master’s
thoughts and beliefs. When this happens, the slave speaks and acts as
the master wants (p. 31).
RGIII
has been raised to be a set of reactions to white people. Did he even
graduate from Baylor? Yes he did, and graduated a year early in high
school. He therefore knows the value of education, graduating from
Baylor
in December 2010 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, and
he’s supposedly pursuing a Masters in Communications. Here’s my
question: how many Black Studies courses are on those transcripts. As
someone with a Master’s in Political Science, I know how
pervasively white that area of study can be. Someone like Griffin
would surely digest an even greater love for the presidency, white
people who run the country and the rule of law.
Chancellor
Williams once wrote that it is doubtful if even a devil could write a
book that is totally without truth. In like manner, the article by
Dvorak contains what he views as a compliment but one that I view as
more evidence of RGIII’s “negrophobia,” if you will:
“One
of the great things about coaching military kids is you have
discipline, a work ethic and, most of all, a sense of commitment to
something larger than themselves,” he said. Remember when Griffin
batted away questions about being the “face” of the Redskins?
(Dvorak, 2012).
And
there you have it. Dvorak thinks that the refusal to be “the face
of the Redskins” is a result of Griffin’s belief in being
committed to “something larger than ourselves.” I don’t think
so. First of all, that Indian symbol of the redskins is dark brown,
and that brings us to a second reason: that brown skin would
represent a proud race of people and Griffin doesn’t want to be
known for doing anything “racialist.”
The
then, has been my view of the military’s impact on RGIII and his
value system. Rob Parker was reading him correctly, but he had the
book upside down. RGIII has been programmed to avoid racial issues,
including his own blackness. Those braids are there because it takes
too much time to comb out an Afro on a daily basis – it’s
laziness, not some kind of “urban black” cultural statement (as
Skip Bayliss might believe).
PARKER,
ESPN AND THE ROBERT GRIFFIN III COMMENTS
White
people in general, but their “reporters” in particular, have
always been instigators; some would call them provocateurs. In other
words, they like to keep shit going. If they are covering a story
that has to do with race, they will find a way to fan the seeds of
discord in some way, with the goal of “exposing” the individual
or individuals involved for their racial views. This informs the
higher ups of whether or not this person is a “safe” or
“acceptable” black or if this individual is someone to be feared,
ala the more confrontational brothers like the members of the Nation
of Islam, the New Black Panther Party or, heaven forbid, the NAACP!
On
the morning of December 13th,
I was watching “First Take” as I do each morning after watching
two half hour airings of the comedy, “Wings” that comes on
another channel. After changing over I noticed that once again,
Stephen A. was not in the studio but was being telecast from
someplace else, probably Miami or New York.
The
show was going smoothly and then the subject of Washington Redskin
quarterback Robert Griffin III came up. It seems that at a December
12th
press conference, Griffin was asked about his race and being a
quarterback in the NFL. This goes back to what I was saying early
about these white reporters doing whatever they can to play games
with the political viewpoints and the futures of black athletes. They
know these black men are sellouts and bound by contracts to always be
on their best behavior. They apparently cannot have any relevant
political viewpoints because few of them every express any.
At
any rate, during the press conference, Griffin was asked about his
race and being a quarterback in the NFL. Griffin stated, among other
things: "“For
me, you don’t ever want to be defined by the color of your skin,”
He then added,.
“You want to be defined by your work ethic, the person that you
are, your character, your personality. That’s what I strive [for].
I am an African American, in America, and that will never change. But
I don’t have to be defined by that.”
In
my view this statement is bold because most black athletes would not
have even acknowledged that much. And when Griffin said he doesn’t
have to be defined by being black, all he’s doing is showing his
own abysmal ignorance of race relations in this country (but reflect
back on the influence and impact of the military on his life, as
outlined in the previous section). Maybe HE doesn’t define himself
in those terms, but white boys sure do. To them he is a BLACK
quarterback, and he’s treated as such; the commentators imply as
much as they go out of their way to not use the word black. It’s as
if they’re saying “he’s one of us.”
In
fact, Stephen A.Smith often makes it clear that he believes that
Andrew Luck is the better choice for quarterback even though Griffin
is the superior athlete. This is the same view that the white man
has: Luck, who is white and tall, fits the bill as a quarterback;
Griffin is a world class sprinter who has a cannon for an arm and
therefore, “gets the job done.” This seems to be what is always
implied.
So
then we fast forward 24 hours to the “First Take” show and Rob
Parker is asked, “What does this say about RGIII?” Such a stupid
question could be nothing more than a set up because the answer spoke
for itself. And yet the question was posed, by Cari Champion, to get
a response from Parker who everybody in the studio knows has a
history of speaking his mind, dealing with race issues, and not
biting his tongue just because a few white people might be around.
And he fell for the trap, hook-line-and-sinker.
Here
is how Parker responded.
“This
is an interesting topic. For me, personally, just me, this throws up
a red flag, what I keep hearing. And I don’t know who’s asking
the questions, but we’ve heard a couple of times now of a black guy
kind of distancing himself away from black people. I understand the
whole story of I just want to be the best. Nobody’s out on the
field saying to themselves, I want to be the best black quarterback.
You’re just playing football, right? You want to be the best, you
want to throw the most touchdowns and have the most yards and win the
most games. Nobody is [thinking] that. “But time and time we keep
hearing this, so it just makes me wonder deeper about him, and I’ve
talked to some people down in Washington D.C., friends of mine, who
are around and at some of the press conferences, people I’ve known
for a long time. But my question, which is just a straight honest
question. Is he a brother, or is he a cornball brother?” Is he a
brother, or is he a cornball brother”?
To
begin with, Parker tempered his remarks by saying, “For me,
personally, just me.” Isn’t that good enough, or is Parker not
supposed to have the same opinions as Smith and Bayliss? Every day,
you can hear the latter two pontificating, even delving into social
psychology, to address issues that is really nothing more than their
assumptions, guesswork and suppositions that are rooted in
conjecture. They are both articulate, so it sounds good, but there’s
little that is objective about what either Smith or Bayliss say? So
then, why should Parker be held to a different standard when he made
it clear it was HIS opinion?
I,
too, sicken of black men having to apologize for being black. Griffin
wants to be known as “a quarterback” and acts as if he isn’t
black. That’s why later on Parker would interject that Griffin had
a white fiance and was a Republican. These pieces of information shed
light on the way that Griffin thinks about himself – he thinks IN
SPITE of the black community and not IN RELATION to it.
The
way that Griffin answered that question bought back memories of a
scene from “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” which starred Sidney
Portier, a black doctor who was about to marry a white woman who had
nothing on the ball. This is one similarity between Griffin and his
white fiance: she’s a nobody and he’s an athlete, they met in
college, as did Portier and his white woman and I am sure these white
girls knew that these brothers had a bright and wealthy future ahead
of them. This is what they do. Now they’ve got somebody that will
not only marry THEM, but also help out their family as well – the
way that O.J. did when he hooked up with his white woman and helped
her family out financially.
Anyway,
the scene from “Guess Who’s Going to Dinner?” takes place in
the library/office of the father’s home. Portier is talking with
his father and his father is concerned about his marrying a white
woman. The father gives him some advice and speaks his mind and then,
when it’s Portier’s turn to respond, he says, “That’s the
difference between you and me. You see yourself as a black man, and I
see myself as a man.”
What
kind of bullshit is this? What he’s saying to his father is, “you
see yourself as a black man, and I see myself as a white man.” What
else could it be? Is he not black? So if there is a differentiation
to make, it means that he is a “different” kind of man. This is
the same thing that RG III was saying and Parker spotted it right
away. Were it not for Warren Moon, Marlin Briscoe, Jefferson Street
Joe Gilliam, Doug Williams and the long line of BLACK quarterbacks
that came before him, Griffin would not have been given the time of
day. These were the brothers who showed the white man that they were
MORE than his equal. The fact of the matter is, the black quarterback
has revolutionized the position and the white man, although
begrudgingly, is having to accept it. And Griffin – along with
black quarterbacks Cam Newton (Carolina Panthers) and Russell Wilson
(Seattle Seahawks) – are just what the white man ordered.
So
there was no need for Griffin to kowtow because he’s calling the
shots. He could have said something of relevance because he’s doing
that team a favor. But no, he wanted to distance himself from other
black people and he didn’t want to be seen as black because, after
all, the woman he claims to love and has pledged to marry – is a
white girl. And how would that make HER feel? She has all the proof
she needs that he’s black, you can believe that. But he need not
get political lest he be looked down upon by other whites. He’s in
an all-black city, on a team that is at least half black, and he
(Griffin) nevertheless chooses to make that distinction. I’ll say
it: he’s an Uncle Tom.
If
Parker had stopped at that, it would have been consciousness raising
enough and white folks probably could have overlooked it the way that
they overlook some of the diatribes uttered by Stephen A. Smith and
Skip Bayliss. But no, there was more. After all, Parker is not a
regular on the show so when he does appear, he tries to make it
count: complimenting Cari on how lovely she is, engaging in banter
with Smith who always seems to have something insulting to say about
Parker’s wardrobe.
So
following is the coup de grace – the stroke that kills.
When
asked to explain what he meant when he said that Griffin wasn’t
“down with the cause” by both Bayliss and Cari, Parker said,
“He's
not real. OK, he's black, he kind of does the thing, but he's not
really down with the cause. He's not one of us. He's kind of black
but he's not really, like, the guy you want to hang out with because
he's off to something else."
Most
of the friends I’ve had in life were not conscious and, just
because I was more aware and gifted than they, did not stop us from
associating. Parker cannot come out and call Griffin a sellout, but
that appears to be what he is. He’s from Texas, a state filled with
mealy-mouthed, white folks loving black people. He’s got a white
fiancee and he claims to be a Republican. How much more of a
reactionary can you be? I don’t want to “hang out” with him
either, and Parker is right: the reason is “because he’s off to
something else.” He actually said, “He’s off INTO something
else,” and that something else is white folks.
But
Parker just kept on talking – as if he owed Skip, Cari and Stephen
some kind of explanation. Stephen had already jumped ship on him and
let him know that the race of the fiance and the like were issues he
(Smith) wasn’t concerned with. Just a month ago he was on the air
crediting Parker with being “a mentor” for him. But I can see
Stephen A. Smith’s point: what little voice black people have on
the air is well represented by him, so he has to keep his mouth shut
on such issues or he will be judged by the company he keeps. So when
he talks personally, its about his family, his sister’s biscuits,
Skip’s wife and that kind of thing.
On
another point, Smith had already been canned once by the station. As
it was reported in April 2008 by Raissman,
Stephen
A. Smith, who had a meteoric rise at ESPN, screaming his way into his
own show, is out at the all-sports network. ESPN will not renew
Smith's contract. His last day at the network, where he was a
featured NBA reporter, will be May 1. "We decided to move in
different directions," an ESPN spokesman said. Smith, a former
Daily News sportswriter and ESPN could not come to terms on a new
deal. Industry sources said ESPN wanted Smith to take a paycut.
Stephen
A. is no stranger to dealing with political views having been ORDERED
to take his off his website when he worked for the Philadelphia
Enquirer a paper that, by the way, took away his title as
sportswriter and made him a general editor because they said that at
$225,000, he was making too much money. So it stands to reason that
he would be gunshy when it came to standing up for Parker (which I
still think he should have done).
At
any rate, here are more words uttered by Parker in regard to RGIII:
Well
because that's just how I want to find out about him. I don't know
because I keep hearing these things. We all know he has a white
fiancee. There was all this talk about how he's a Republican, which,
I don't really care, there's no information at all. I'm just trying
to dig deeper into why he has an issue. Because we did find out with
Tiger Woods. Tiger Woods was like, 'I've got black skin but don't
call me black.' (Wikipedia, 2012).
First,
the Tiger Woods issue. Skip recalled that Parker told him, back a few
years ago, that after Woods appeared on “Oprah” and made the
statement that he (Woods) wasn’t black, Parker said that he took
all of his Tiger Woods memorabilia and donated it to the Salvation
Army. Skip turned around and said that he was proud of Parker for
doing that – as if Parker needed his white stamp of approval.
So
it was alright to make that statement about Tiger. Now the second
point regarding Parker’s desire to “dig deeper” and “find
out” more.
For
centuries white people have been getting jobs, padding their resumes,
getting grant money and making a name for themselves checking out,
investigating and “finding out” about black people. Names like
Thomas Kochman, John Howard Griffin, Grace Halsell, and many others
come to mind. They have the right to find out whatever they want to
because they choose to. John Howard Griffin, a self-described “race
expert” who changed his skin color to black and then made millions
when he wrote Black
Like Me,
and Grace Halsell, a woman who did the same thing and then wrote Soul
Sister,
didn’t give a shit about black people. They were showboating and
thinking long-term: they knew there was money to be made.
These
people were curious. Thomas Kochman goes around lecturing white
people on how to talk to black people and how to translate what black
people say. He had the nerve to write a book Rappin’
and Stylin’ Out
and white folks swear by it. I exposed him once in Chicago when my
fiance and I attended one of his seminars and shut him up by asking,
“If you know so much about black people, then you must know that by
doing what you’re going, you’re talking a job away from a black
person that these whites should be consulting.” He couldn’t say
shit and after my question, the session was adjourned.
I
say this to back up Rob Parker’s “right to know.” He’s a
reporter but he’s also a “sports analyst,” which is his title
when he appears on “First Take.” Parker has as much right to
state his views as those white reporters did to ask Griffin that
question about being a “black quarterback.” It seems that the
people at ESPN who suspended Parker forgot about how intrusive naïve
white people have been, presently are, and apparently will always be.
Skip
showed his racism when he bought up a subject trying to defend
Griffin’s being “urban” because he wore his hair in braids. And
Parker played right along with it, although it’s bullshit. Nobody
wants to come out an Afro every day for a game – so you get your
hair braided, plain an simple. And I’ll bet you one thing: that
white girl that Griffin is engaged to ain’t braidin’ it!
So
when Skip makes the comment about the braids, Parker responds,
thusly:
“Now
that’s different … To me, that’s very urban and makes you feel
like…wearing braids, you’re a brother. You’re a brother if
you’ve got braids on.”
That
is such bullshit because it implies that Griffin cares enough to be
seen as “a brother” although when he gets the chance, he tells
people something different, his choice of lifemate tells people
something different, his choice of political party tells people
something different. I say he wears braids because he’s with a
woman that doesn’t know SHIT about braiding hair and therefore he
gets his sister or some relative to do it, pays them big bucks, and
this keeps him from having to comb it out every night. Plain and
simple.
Wikipedia
claims that “Later, Parker was given an opportunity to clarify
whether he was judging Griffin’s blackness.” And there is what he
said:
I
didn’t mean it like that … We could sit here and be honest, or we
can be dishonest. And you can’t tell me that people in the
barbershops or people that talk, they look at who your spouse is.
They do. And they look at how you present yourself. People will say
all the time, you’re not gonna get a job in corporate America
wearing those braids. It happens all the time. Let’s not act like
it doesn’t, because it does.”
And
Parker is 100% right. It’s all about being honest and stating how
you feel – something Skip Bayliss and Stephen A. Smith do every day
on “First Take.” But when you stop glossing over the periphery of
issues and get down to the nitty gritty and start talking about the
barber shop (the white man will be investigating these businesses
next), then all of a sudden it’s off base. How is what Parker said
any different than the value judgments that Stephen A.Smith makes
about pro basketball players and other athletes he has never met? The
same for Skip? All they go by is what they hear the person say, what
they read about or what they’ve seen. That is exactly what Rob
Parker did.
And
here is something that Parker said that wasn’t addressed. While
explaining why people admitting that they belong to the race was
important, at one point he says, “I’m black, you’re black
(pointing to Cari Champion) and then he turned to Christian __ and
said “you’re mixed” and then went on to make his point. Mixed?
Why was he willing to castigate Tiger Woods for denying being black
but points to Christian and labels him “mixed”? Even if Christian
is mixed, its clear he’s a light-skinned black man. Why wasn’t
this made an issue during the debate on race and one’s political
views as a result of race?
ABOUT
ROBERT GRIFFIN III AND THOSE OF HIS ILK
A
recent program aired on NBC-SN (December 15,2012) claimed that Robert
Griffin III generated $250 million for Baylor University during his
Heisman bid. We have long known of the exploitation of black college
athletes by these universities, but even in that, what Griffin
allegedly generated – and saw none of – is reason enough why
white people would love him, cuddle him and once he turned pro and
began making the real money, would question him about his views on
race, just to make sure that he was truly a “reliable nigger.”
The
“ilk” or type that I am talking about applies to those who want
to look at life descriptively and evocatively instead of
analytically. They want to hunker down in suburban homes and lay back
with their own families while other people starve. They want to use
their power to define the extent to which people can voice their
concerns about “the system.” Griffin is like this because he is
the product of two parents who spent time in the military and this
fact in itself speaks volumes. I address this point later in this
section.
Of
Griffin’s “ilk,” then, means those who have been programmed.
Either by an education system that paints American history all white,
by a college system that offers Western Civilization and claims that
the white man invented the world, programmed either by their churches
that tell you to take your time and that God will handle it, by their
parents who are passive and warn you to “don’t talk too much –
you’ll make people hate you.” And it goes on and on. Most black
people have been programmed by whites and all whites have been
programmed by their own. The product is an illusion of life that
exists only in the minds of the “patriots” and those who are so
starved for acceptance that they often doubt their own humanity.
According
to CBS-DC.com, “The Parker controversy came about after Griffin
responded to a question in a press conference on Wednesday after
practice about Martin Luther King, Jr. To begin with, King has long
been over-rated by black and white people. What he and those of his
ilk marched for ended up biting us in the ass. With one-way
integration (as I call it) came a number of black people being happy
and duped, but we lost black-owned motels, movie theaters, and so on.
This thing about King being a great civil rights leader may be true,
but I liken civil rights to a pacifier: it may satisfy a need (keep
the baby quiet), but it offers nothing nutritious and is only good
for a short time.
In
response to this question on King, the young black man who had made
all this money for a Texas college responded, “For
me, you don’t ever want to be defined by the color of your skin …
You want to be defined by your work ethic, the person that you are,
your character, your personality. That’s what I’ve tried to go
out and do …I am an African-American in America. That will never
change. But I don’t have to be defined by that.”
And
that’s what set Parker off.
Your
work ethic? We are the descendants of a people who gave over 300
years of “work” to these white people, and it was work that we
were not compensated for. When all the cotton had been picked and all
the shoes had been shined, we became expendable, so they went out and
got themselves some “new niggas” – the Mexicans. Here in Texas,
where I live, I see these hard working Latino brothers building up an
economy, constructing interstates, landscaping mansions and
performing the same type of high quality work that we, as black
people, must have done in the South when we were making the Southern
economy the largest in the world.
Defined
for his personality? What personality? You’re not even allowed to
be yourself in this country. Look at what they did to Rob Parker. If
you show you have a personality – other than the laugh when ain’t
nothin’ funny/scratch when don’t nothin’ itch type – than you
will be isolated, alienated and, as in the case of Rob Parker,
suspended with extreme prejudice. Is that why Griffin is smiling all
the time? Is that the kind of personality he’s talking about? Never
speaking out on critical issues that impact on his “African-American
heritage” but instead, chilling with his white fiance, raking in a
lot of money and then stating, for all young people to read (the few
that can) that it’s better to be known for what you do than what
you are?
Defined
by your character? How does he define that? The definition of
character is, “the
particular combination of qualities that makes someone a particular
type of person.” What “particular type of person” is RGIII? A
military brat that was raised never to question authority, to follow
orders and to “do a good job” no matter what it is you’re
doing? A football player with a bright smile? Someone who will risk
injury playing a million dollar “game” in stadiums that most
black kids can’t afford to get into? A man who makes commercials
for fast food outlets and other retail stores that, in turn, use that
image to sell their crap to black customers? So he’s a slave on all
counts: football player, colorless citizen, no political views having
lackey and someone comfortable using his visibility to promote all
that is “American” (white).
Where
was Rob Parker wrong?
That’s
just it. He wasn’t. But the white industrial complex, of which ESPN
is a key part (sports is a therapeutic catharsis, not a social
engineer) is not about to have one of its leading puppets exposed on
a talk show that spends its time glorifying black men who do NOTHING
in their respective communities. Time spent arguing over who should
be MVP, who should make the all-star team, who is going to be traded
or drafted, and none of these “niggers” cares enough about the
community to do something positive, other than to move their mother
out of it. Griffin is not the exception. He
is the rule.
After
Parker’s suspension was made public, ESPN came out with a statement
of their own:
Following
yesterday’s comments, Rob Parker has been suspended until further
notice,” ESPN spokesman Mike Soltys tweeted. “We are conducting a
full review.”
A
full review of what? Where are the race experts? What will be the
criteria for the review? If they didn’t have a full review, then
what was the suspension based on – a partial
review? ESPN is full of shit: they make billions reporting on,
analyzing and commenting on black athletes (we are the ones who get
into the end zone, perform acrobatics on the basketball court and
dominate sports, in general), but they want to tip toe around race
when the issues become linked to the lives of those who they want to
spoon feed (e.g., Robert Griffin, Michael Jordan, etc.)
All
of these people are of the same ilk as Robert Griffin: the
“ostrich-in-the-sand syndrome. Hide your head or do damage control
when an issue comes up that is not of your liking. White people have
a long history of this childish tactic, and yet they persist in
imposing it on people of color who they don’t like: those from the
political left, black grass roots community organizers, civil rights
leaders, and others who attempt to deal with this system’s number
one problem: racism.
Liz
Raftery of TV
Guide
wrote that, “Parker went on to mention that Griffin is married to a
white woman and is rumored to be a Republican.” At no point did
Parker say that Griffin was “married” to a white woman; he said
that Griffin’s fiance was white. Raftery added that, “In full
context, Griffin's
initial comments were related to his passing game versus the running
game. "That's the negative stereotype when it comes to
African-American quarterbacks, that most of us just run," he
said. "I like to think I can throw it around a little bit."
What
Griffin said is true about perception that black quarterbacks run a
great deal. But Griffin had an obligation to go into greater detail
than to just flippantly add, “I like to think I can throw it around
a little bit.” What this young man is going to learn is that
whether he runs it or throws it, he is in a system that will discard
him like yesterday’s tampon if he dares to act like the kind of
black man that Parker is talking about; if he puts his hands on his
white fiance; if he speaks out about or against racist mistreatment
of his fellow blacks in the Washington, D.C. inner city. To
paraphrase Malcolm X, “I don’t see any football dream; I see a
gridiron nightmare!”
There
are those who promote the kind of black person who is guilty of what
could be called “avoidance.” For instance,
DeMaurice
Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association, told
the Post
in an email:“Robert can certainly take care of himself.
Nonetheless, I hope that our men and for that matter, my own kids,
will never beg for authenticity from someone who can only talk about
the things that other people have the courage to do. People need to
be held accountable for the offensive things that they say.”
(Boren, 2012)
If
what Parker said was offensive to him, that was his opinion. But when
it comes to “begging for authenticity, no one could be more guilty
than an NFL player who struts around on the field every Sunday and
then drives to his suburban home while the majority of his people
starve and serve as the butt of jokes of the same white people who
pay his salary. You don’t think white people find it laughable the
way these black athletes carry on with their money, jewelry, big
cars? Then, many of them retire and end up broke. This, from a
system, that set all this up.
Now
I hear that these “negroes,” the ones who DeMaurice Smith thinks
have the courage to do so much, are now taking Viagra before games to
“give them an edge.” These are people of Griffin’s ilk: think
about yourself, make the “game” your life, do what you want to do
and you’ll get paid. The people who write about Parker are getting
paid to do it; the people commenting on him via radio and television
are getting paid to do it; the people who have positions like that of
DeMaurice Smith get paid to support the same system that has priced
football tickets so high that black kids can’t get in to see a
game.
They
say, “like father, like son.” Robert Griffin II told USA TODAY
Sports on, “I wouldn’t say it’s racism. I would just say some
people put things out there about people so they can stir things up.”
How
could it be racism? That man has served in the military, which means
that he stared racism square in the face for two decades, and his
wife stared it in the face for another four years. They should be
able to recognize it when they see it. Instead, what do they do? They
do the same thing that far too many black parents do: work on
steering their kids around racism by pretending that it’s a thing
of the past and that it doesn’t exist any more.
White
folks and black folks of this ilk want to “tiptoe through the
tulips” of the race issue because if they discussed it, somebody
would have to be held accountable. Typical of the criticisms by
people of Griffin’s ilk was an article by Farrar (2012) that
asserted,
But
what Rob Parker said went far beyond the parameters of "opinion"
and veered quickly into something that should have ESPN seriously
considering whether they want Parker representing even their worst
traffic jam of a media product (Farrar, 2012).
What
was that “something” that Parker’s comments veered into? White
people are good at pointing out what they view as problems, but they
usually fall short when it comes to solutions – that is, solutions
that don’t include their white stamp of approval.
In
this case it is clear that Farrar (whoever he is) can’t define any
parameters in the first place. If it’s a “talk show,” then
there are no parameters. Parker’s website and slogan, which
includes t-shirt insignias, states, “no way. No how.” Maybe he
means that he won’t be taking any shit. At any rate, ESPN promotes
the slogan on their website and they have to know that Parker is no
“yes man.” They (ESPN) also had to know that Griffin had a white
fiancé. So how can a station that will do stories on the kinds of
pets that athletes have, the impact of their mothers on the athletes’
lives, kids that might also be interested in sports, kids with
handicaps and so on, all of a sudden show a hesitancy to deal with
race and the fact that disproportionate numbers of black athletes are
marrying white women? More profoundly, that white women (read: Kim
Kardashian) are “out there” looking for black men to bed and wed
them?
Of
all people, Cari Champion should have been sensitive to, or at least
had something to say, about Parker’s ref erence to RG III’s
“fiancé” being a white woman. But she didn’t say squat. Read
back to the earlier statement about how “First Take” hosts
usually leave the show for greener pastures. Maybe this is what she
wants or looks forward to and as such, realizes that interracial sex
is not an issue that she wants to broach.
And
people of this ilk – RG III’s ilk – are people who will veer
from the topic because if you do, you have to deal with black genetic
superiority. That’s why all of a sudden Christian Favrio, in
Parker’s own words, becomes “mixed.” And that’s why nobody’s
saying anything about the fact that those Latinos who are supposedly
taking over baseball are BLACK Latinos. The white man and those of
his ilk feel that they owe no one an explanation – apparently the
same way ESPN and RGIII feel. A point that Farrar also displays in
the following excerpt:
Unlike
Parker, I've met Griffin a couple of times. Not nearly enough to know
him or his particular thoughts on any particular cause, but enough to
know that he knows how to carry himself, and that he's never made any
particular statement claiming that he isn't in line with whatever
Parker seems to believe he's supposed to be in line with. His
teammates respect him, his coaches can't say enough good things about
him, and everyone I've talked to who spends any time in his orbit
seems to believe that Griffin is absolutely all that he's cracked up
to be (Farrar, 2012).
In
other words, he (Griffin) has “the white stamp of approval.” And
when you have that, can you honestly expect white people to give a
damn about whether or not you have “street cred”?
CLOSING
THOUGHTS
Personally,
I think Cari Champion had something to do with the decision to
suspend Parker.
I
paid close and special attention to her reaction during the entire
time that Parker was explaining himself. Champion was reacting as if
either she had heard someone say the same thing about her, say
something similar about a male or female friend of hers, or maybe say
something about her because she dates white boys (if she does). She’s
normally skinning and grinning up in Parker’s face after he gives
her one of those cheesy grin compliments (that she richly deserves,
don’t get me wrong), but on this day, on this subject, I think
Parker, for whatever reason, hit a raw nerve.
When
Parker made his comment about Griffin not being “real,” Champion
was the first to ask, “What does that mean?” She was either
trying to dupe him into going into more detail and further expose his
street-level black views, or she was offended and wanted to get
clarification. In either case, what was she up to? Was she perturbed
when Parker bought up the fact that Griffin had a white fiancée?
Most black women would side with Parker on that subject: they can’t
stand the idea of rich black men hooking up with white women. But not
Carrie Champion on this day – she went the other way. Maybe she was
trying to curry favor with Skip Bayliss, and this brings me to
another point.
I’ve
heard both Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayliss say far more insulting
things. Let’s deal with Bayliss first
I’ve
heard Skip Bayliss refer to Shaquille O’Neal as “Shaquille
O’Whale” after Shaq gained some weight. He’s continually
lambasting Oklahoma Thunder guard Russell Westbrook and refers to him
as “Russell WestBRICK,” implying that he shoots the ball too
much. He referred to New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez as a
“brain-locked basket case.”
Now,
let’s deal with Stephen A. Smith’s tendency toward hyperbole. He
referred to Lomas Brown as a “big teddy bear,” he continually
critizes Rob Parker’s ties and jackets, and he dogs out Tim Tiebow
and Diago Splitter. Doesn’t he think these people have families?
What gives him the right to say that “Tim Tiebow” can’t throw a
football even though he won two national college championships and
can obviously throw or he wouldn’t have been drafted. Now, he might
not throw very well, but one thing is for sure: he can throw better
than Stephen A. Smith can.
I’ve
heard him say that Dwight Howard’s low free throw percentage was
“trash;” and he’s continually making references to Skip’s
wife as “the beautiful Ernestine” and acts as if he knows her
better than Skip does.
Both
Stephen A. and Skip are known more for insulting people than for
their razor sharp analyses, the latter which they do also bring to
the table. But the reason why they picked on Rob is clear: Rob is
what we call a “race man.” Stephen A. claims, from time to time,
that he, too, is “a proud black man” but that is more a matter of
opinion. He is aware of the issues but that doesn’t mean he acts on
them. Rob Parker, on the other hand, doesn’t just show that he can
talk the talk; it
is clear that he can also “walk the walk.”
Right
on, Rob.
REFERENCES
Anderson,
C. (2004, Fall). Myths that Black Americans live by. The
Harvest Institute Report.
Boren,
C. (2012, December 14). Rob Parker suspended indefinitely for RGIII
comments. The
Washington Post.
Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2012/12/14/rob-parker-suspended-indefinitely-for-rgiii-comments/
CBS-DC.com.
(2012, December 14) ESPN’s Parker Suspended For ‘Cornball
Brother’ Comments Toward RGIII
Retrieved
from
CBS.DChttp://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/14/espns-parker-suspended-for-cornball-brother-comments-toward-rgiii/
Deadspin.com
(2011, December 28) Soon, ESPN will be nothing but 24 hours of people
disagreeing with Skip Bayliss. Retrieved from
http://deadspin.com/5871669/soon-espn-will-be-nothing-but-24-hours-of-people-disagreeing-with-skip-Bayliss
Deitsch,
R. (2012, December 14). ESPN suspends analyst Parker for comments on
Griffin. Sports
Illustrated.com.
Retrieved from
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20121214/rob-parker-espn-suspended-robert-griffin/
Dvorak,
P. (2012, December 6). RGIII: Redskins star has become a role model
for military kids. Retrieved from
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-06/local/35673515_1_military-kids-military-families-rgiii
Farrar,
D. (2012, December 13). ESPN’s Rob Parker says ridiculous things
about RG3, takes ‘First Take’ to new levels of depravity.
Retrieved from
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/video-espn-rob-parker-says-ridiculous-things-rg3-195448822--nfl.html
McCarthy,
M. (2012, May 1). Stephen A. Smith joining Skip Bayliss on ESPN’s
“First Take.” Retrieved from
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/05/stephen-a-smith-to-join-skip-Bayliss-on-espns-first-take-espn-dana-jacobson-jaw-crawford/1
Nedd,
L. (2012). Why
we shouldn’t call our foreparents slaves.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin: FNNC Publications.
Raissman,
B. (2009, April 17). Sephen A. Smith out at ESPN as network opts not
to renew contract. Retrieved from
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-04-17/sports/17919528_1_espn-all-sports-network-smith
Reftery,
L. (2012, December 14). ESPN’s Rob Parker suspended after calling
Robert Griffin III a ‘cornball brother.’ TV
Guide.com.
Sports
Business Daily. (2011, December 28). Dana Jacobson is out at ESPN’s
“First Take” as show is being redeveloped around Bayliss.
Retrieved from
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/12/28/Media/ESPN.aspx
Wikipedia
(2012). Robert Parker. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Parker_(sports_journalist)
Yoder,
M. (2012, September 11). God speed, New ‘First Take’ host Cari
Champion. Retrieved from
http://www.yardbarker.com/all_sports/articles/god_speed_new_first_take_host_cari_champion/11681803
No comments:
Post a Comment