A Rejoinder to David Zirin
I first came across Jason Whitlock's prose after a friend mentioned an article penned by Whitlock that took ESPN's Scoop Jackson to task for suggesting to young African-American school kids that they had a better chance of making it as professional basketball players than they did as sports journalists. The friend also happened to send along Whitlock's infamous interview with The Big Lead, where he referred to Jackson as a "clown" and took issue with his "fake ghetto posturing." Perhaps most striking was his employment of the term "bojangling" in describing Jackson's unorthodox writing style. While many were shocked at Whitlock's lack of nuance or subtlty in criticizing his former colleague, there were those among us who agreed in concept with Whitlock's remarks. Though we may not have entirely agreed with his bombastic tone or use of merciless adjectives, the time had come for someone to call out Jackson.
Jackson's frequent incoherent ramblings on race, misuse of the English language and inability to shake his XXL persona had worn thin. Each week, one was presented with a hackneyed reason as to why white society didn't "understand" or "accept" today's modern African-American athlete. Each week, one was presented with material so poorly written and contrived that Florida QB Chris Leak could have breezed through it. But this rebuttal isn't about Jason Whitlock v. Scoop Jackson. This entry is about David Zirin's lack of insight in criticizing and lambasting Whitlock for having a series of "Bill Cosby moments" (Whitlock's words). While Mr. Zirin contends that Whitlock's recent spate of columns have only exacerbated white America's ingrained racist attitudes towards African-Americans, in fact, Whitlock's words serve as a reminder that there are African-Americans who believe that a drastic change is needed within the black community, that African-Americans can no longer blame others entirely for the problems with which they face.
Mr. Zirin employs the use of a number statistics to defend his stance that we reside in a country of "institutionalized racism and poverty." Let me be absolutely clear: Racism is still a malicious, malignant and persistent problem in this country. Growing up in the melting-pot of Brooklyn, New York did not hide me from its pernicious effects; in fact, it may have even heightened it. But the African-American community is facing a fantastic crucible as we speak. It needs answers, not excuses. It needs role-models, not artifical religious crusaders. But citing the normal, run-of-the-mill statistics is not going to stir the pot that is so needed now.
Additionally, Mr. Zirin takes Whitlock to task for avoiding the scour of "institutionalized racism and poverty" that bedevils the African-American community and placing blame on "kids with baggy pants" in his latest Las-Vegas-based reporting stint. Sadly, Mr. Zirin fails to comprehend Whitlock's targets of derision. Whitlock is not targeting the rebelliously benevolent teenage kid in jeans four sizes too big, but those who repeatedly resort to violence and ignite mayhem. Those like Titan's corner Pac-Man Jones, who has faced charges of assault, vandalism, disorderly conduct, public intoxication and misdemeanor assault all in the past two years. And lest we forget, was also involved in an NBA All-Star weekend melee that has left three people critically wounded due to gunshot wounds. I wonder if Mr. Zirin will use the time-honored "institutionalized racism and poverty" to defend Jones' actions. It would be ironic, considering the riot allegedly began due to Jones'decision to spray the strip-club floor with $81,000 from a plastic bag. $81,000 that could have been used to open a local Boys & Girls Club, YMCA or after-school center in Jones' urban hometown of Atlanta.
It is clear that Mr. Zirin is most upset by Whitlock's controversial descriptions and characterizations of today's black youth. Yet, I ask Mr. Zirin to take heed of Bill Cosby's "Pound Cake Speech," delivered on the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. Rather than pontificate on this surely monumental event in American history, Cosby delivered a harsh, stunning and utterly provocative condemnation of certain segments and aspects of the African-American community with which he took issue with. Immensely troubled by the rise in single-parent African-American families, senseless violence plaguing the country's urban steets, and a lack of African-American educational achievement, Cosby morphed from the lovable father-figure we grew to love on the Cosby show into a man with little regard for political correctness. Throughout this deeply moving and earnest speech, I hope Mr. Zirin pays attention to the intermittent sounds of applause emanating from the largely African-American audience. While many could have taken umbrage with Cosby's decision to use the event as a platform for such pointed, harsh criticism, it is hard to make out any sounds of disapproval or disavowal. Perhaps it was because Cosby's words spoke directly to the heart of what many in the audience might have felt, though they may have been too scared to express themselves for fear of being a pariah.
Jason Whitlock has decided to use the venue provided him in a way that will continue to produce disharmony and discord amongst the sports journalist community, African-American community and American-athlete community. His thoughts on the current condition of the African-American community in this country will undoubtedly lead other writers like Mr. Zirin to take up arms (pens, I surely hope). And with their words, they will become accountable and responsible for something bigger than themselves. Something constructive, honorable and worth emulating. Something Whitlock's writing has helped to inspire, energize and ignite.
Thank you, Jason.
10 comments:
"...the time had come for someone to call a spade a spade."
interesting and enlightened choice of words
That's the thing. Whitlock isn't constructive. He's destructive. He tears down without offering solutions on how to rebuild. The one sided nature of his writing suggests that he doesn't care about the problems, he just wants to self-promote. There's nothing wrong with that, just don't sell me on being socially concerned.
I think it is inappropriate to compare Whitlock to Bill Cosby. As a previous commenter said, it is obvious that Whitlock is self-promoting. Bill Cosby's words are eloquent and sincere and he has backed them up with actions and donations to institutions that reflect his ideology. Whitlock is merely sitting behind his laptop and spewing junk to mostly 18-34 white males. Cosby primarily communicates his message directly to the community it concerns.
And, let me just state the obvious. Whitlock is not as eloquent a communicator as Dr. Bill Cosby. Bill Cosby would never slur another Black man by inventing the term "bojangler". He does not label tourists "thugs." And he would never speak of a Black KKK, whatever that is.
You mentioned that you only read a couple of Whitlock's articles. It's important to consider his message in context. Many bloggers are upset that his message varies dramatically whether he is writing for ESPN, the Kansas City Star or AOL. He has begun merely pandering to the audience. He is not genuine.
I must admit I am more on Zirin's side. I think Whitlock's use of the term KKK is particularly reckless.
Edmonds-
I think I agree with alot of what you say regarding Zirin's letter, but I am not so sure we agree on Whitlock. Like most here, I think Whitlock went a bit overboard particularly with the KKK comparison, however Zirin's response was typical of the blind reationary lashing out that liberal guilt has produced in abundance in the modern media. In trying to defend black youth from Whitlock's "uncle tommery" Zirin completely misread whom Whitlock was calling out: PacMan, et al. About that you are absolutely correct. Zirin can't possibly win this argument as a white man telling a black man how he should treat others of his own race. Furthermore it seems both of these fairly respectable writers missed an opportunity to touch upon a serious issue, which you have touched upon: namely, the circumstances under which PacMan found himself in all of this trouble over all-star weekend. What in the world is a man with millions of dollars, and a reputation and (like it or not) responsibility to be a role model doing showering strippers with 81 Large and then trying to swipe it back? It's a sick objectification of women, it's a blatant act of disregard to the disparity of wealth in this nation that has perpetuated socioeconomic issues such as racism, and poverty, and it is downright foolish. Maybe if Zirin and Whitlock each got over themselves enough to write about the actual issue for five minutes, instead of trying to make themselves the story, we could talk about these serious problems, intelligently.
I found Zirin's piece to be nearly laughable. Some here criticize Whitlock for not offering answers, but Zirin's diatribe really boils down to blaming George Bush, and the Iraq War, for PacMan Jones's misanthropy in Las Vegas. That's not an answer, it's inane scapegoating that does nothing to address the real problems and was tired by the mid-seventies. It also evidences a remarkably naive, or perhaps willfully ignorant, political understanding on the part of Mr. Zirin.
The point that Zirin was making is that African American culture and problems are reflected by the NBA, not rooted in it. If the NBA disbanded tomorrow, "those people" would still be somewhere else scaring self loathing negroes like Whitlock. It's naive to ask David Stern to solve a problem that existed before his sport was even invented.
I think you're missing the point in suggesting who Dave is calling out. He's not calling out Pacman Jones or a rich professional athlete. He's suggesting that there are societal factors which mitigate against the success of black men, other than, if by chance, they are able to succeed in sports or entertainment. And he's calling out Whitlock for putting those who might engage in some minor crime or something along with millionaire athletes who should know better. Whitlock is not being constructive. He is rhetorically flailing about, as head chick wrote, largely writing for white men aged 18-34, while if he really cared about young black men of that same age group, he would address them in a different forum and in a different tone.
First, Whitlock speaks for far more people than you might imagine. We're the same age so I understand his post-integration antipathy for how some tread on the legacy of those who were hosed and bitten for something better than the "Tip Drill" video and a 50 Cent shooting anecdote. And for the uninitiated, "bojangling" is a reference to "pulling a Bill 'Bojangles' Robinson," aka tap dancing for The Man. Second, criticizing Whitlock for "playing the race card" is like criticizing the ocean for being wet. It is what it is, and America was like this when our generation arrived -- we didn't create the "race problem." You may find it uncomfortable and incovenient to have to discuss race (black folks don't have a choice) but that doesn't mean Whitlock is playing anything. Race is an omnipresent and serious issue in all factes of American society, not the least of which are sports and entertainment. Just what do you mean when you say "the race card" anyway? Isn't that just a way of saying "I'm uncomfortable because this black man is forcing me to confront attitudes and notions in my subconscious mind, of which I was either unaware or to which I was willfully blind, and I dislike him for doing so?" Third, columnists are paid to create controversy because it sells newspapers. I hope this does not come as a surprise. However, that makes Whitlock no less sincere in his opinions. He writes for a living and if you think some of his writing is disingenuous you may be right but that's the job. All journalists who take the ESPN money concede some of their integrity. I respect Whitlock for keeping his and pushing ESPN's money back across the table. Not enough people in sports/entertainment make such decisions. Like his manner or not, it took courage to call out another young black writer for lacking style, substance, and technical ability. I wish it were not necessary, but, like in the Cosby blast, it was. It also took nerve for a young black man to take on a senior white man in corporate media America. Slapping back Mike Lupica was necessary and overdue but obviously nobody else at ESPN had the nerve to do so. Whitlock spoke his conscience, even if the object of his valor was Barry Bonds, who may or may not have been worthy of it. Point being, it wasn't about Barry -- it was the principle and Lupica was treating Bonds unfairly. I hope Whitlock continues to speak out and provoke thought and disagreement, something in short supply under the Bush/Cheney new McCarthyism. Maybe free thought will grow from sports and permeate the rest of civil discourse.
Head chick got it right. Props.
Seriously, Jason Whitlock's flip flop, to the hip hop ya don't cop, journalistic slop has got to stop.
I want to see this guy in the Black commnunity spitting this bullcrap.
He would be dismissed...running away self esteem destructed peeking out of his Black KKK hoodie.
Oooh, if only I didn't have to say bullcrap ;)
He knows what's best and his Robinson Whitlock tap dancing for the man Armstrong Williams crusade is making a mockery of an issue that needs to be immediately addressed.
Speak to the people Jason, your words would then possibly appear genuine.
Appeared with Zirin on Chuck D's Air America radio show.
He's alright with me. No questions asked.
Eminem the writer without all the Kim blue and yellow purple pill drama.
Whitlock is pandering to the stereotypes that divide us.
Counterproductive.
My interview with Whitlock:
http://www.positiv-media.com/Michael_Tillery/jwhitlock.htm
My interview with Scoop:
http://www.positiv-media.com/Michael_Tillery/scoopjack.htm
Had the honor of interviewing Bill Cosby recently. He spoke to me in a different light--but stil Pop like Theo Huxtable scolding.
Should be up by the end of this week.
Whitlock is Cosby not. Not now, not ever.
The Kansas City Star had me fooled. Shame on me.
How does a respected journalist write totally opposite pieces for different demographics and then attempt to bojangle his way out of it by?
Speak to the people Jason, not the abyss.
He's posturing for another career move.
There's just no other explanation.
Bring your metaphysical endocrin matter to the debate Jason and I'll be your Lawnmower Man.
Stop running dude. It's just not cool.
Post a Comment