The American Dichotomy: To Change With The Same
Forty-five years to the day after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Gave his famous "I Have A Dream" speech in Washington D.C., Barack Obama officially accepted the Democratic nomination for the office of President of the United States. As he accepted the nomination, Americans across this country were moved by how far we have come from the Jim Crow segregation motivated march on Washington.
African-Americans who never believed they would live to see an African-American become or even be nominated to become America’s Commander-In-Chief, beam with pride as they witness this watershed moment. White and Black Americans(as well as all other ethnic groups of Americans) who are hungry for change in American politics, devour the eloquent words of Hope and Promise delivered by Mr. Obama. In a country that for so long has been divided by race, it seems fitting that a son of a Black African father and a White American mother delivers such a poignant message of hope and reconciliation. Barack has the unique ability to simultaneously speak to the issues and concerns of African-Americans, while comforting White America’s uneasiness about treading in topical waters not discussed in depth here-to-fore.
We witness tears flowing from the eyes of African-American men and women raised in a pre-Civil Rights era America who never thought they would personally see this day. Some African-Americans(and White Americans) raised in post-Civil Rights era America use the fact of this nomination as evidence of our arrival into a post-racial, color blind society.
We should readily acknowledge that we have progressed from the "segregated restroom", "can’t eat at this lunch counter", "sit in the back of the bus" era which helped fuel Dr. King’s led march on Washington D.C. 45 years ago. It is amazing, inspirational and exciting to witness such a monumental advancement in the 45 years of time marking the space between these powerful moments.
While we recognize the advancements made over the past 45 years, we continue to hear and see incidents containing elements which would lead one to believe that race continues to be relevant in 21st Century Society and Politics. While campaigning during the Democratic Primary, Barack Obama was subjugated to suggestions, innuendoes and flat out racially charged comments questioning his religious affiliation, his patriotism, his ability to lead and his elect-ability. So many potentially damaging statements, comments and accusations were coming out about Mr. Obama that he felt it necessary to open a website specifically purposed do dispel all of the falsities being told about him. Have we ever witnessed a candidate bombarded with so much negative unsubstantiated fodder(believed by so many to be true) that he would need to set up a website for the specific purpose of dispelling each one? Still we cannot say definitively that it was racial, because it’s not overt enough. Much of what is said is implied or suggestive.
We live in a time in this country where the majority of voting age Americans are not happy with the Bush Administration’s politics and policies. We(as a country) are involved in a very unpopular war in Iraq. Our economy is suffering greatly as well. Most people’s view of the Republican Party is not very favorable due to the Bush administration. An overwhelming majority believe we need "Change". Here we have, in Barack Obama, a candidate who’s very political platform is built on "Change". A man who speaks with such presence and purpose that he makes many people who were initial opponents and those otherwise skeptical of politics believe that, "Yes We Can". In a climate of such disdain for the policies of the past eight "Bush Republican Years", with a loud call for "Change" and a candidate bringing a message of "Change" in such a galvanizing and refreshing manner; How is it possible for him to be in a virtual tie in the polls with a man(Mr. McCain) perceived so closely affiliated with the failed policies and missteps of the Bush Administration?
The Political Environment has changed significantly over the past 45 years; Have our attitudes?
Schools in many Southern states were integrated because of the Brown v. The Board Of Education decision of the 1950's. Making "separate but equal" unlawful and ushering in an era of Blacks being able to get into previously "White only" schools. Move ahead some 50 years to the present and we find that the same schools integrated in the 50's and 60's by Blacks were exited by Whites and subsequently became majority Black populated schools plagued by some of the same under funding and sub-par educational offerings which led to the equality seeking Brown v. Board case of the 1950's. So we find that although the law does not allow discrimination of entrance into a facility, attitudes and prejudices can produce some of the same results and effects.
Let’s make sure that when we vote, that although we may despise the overall wearing, tobacco spitting, hateful Jim Crow of the Civil Rights era, we do not support his more clandestine, subliminally suggestive, suit wearing, politically savvy, yet just as harmful grandson James Theodore Crow Esquire The Third.
Perceptions drive our thoughts and actions more than we may want to acknowledge.
Jonathan Richardson
Author/Speaker/Poet
This Articles is Part of the "perspectives" series By the author of the thought provoking book: The Complicated Life Of The African-American Man(What’s on his mind)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
2 Facts 2 Know
#1. "In perusing the annals of America’s Historical text and media offerings, it is readily apparent that America is conspiratorially willing to minimize the true lasting effectual stain of Racism on the Mind, Body and Soul of those subjugated to it’s debilitating grasp".
*******************************************************************************
#2. "As an African-American surveying the vastness of the entity which constitutes the African-American community, a most troubling ascertainment is the lack of commitment by some of our people to the continual pursuit of greatness. Which has been a constant in our painful yet purposeful navigation through American Society".
*******************************************************************************
#2. "As an African-American surveying the vastness of the entity which constitutes the African-American community, a most troubling ascertainment is the lack of commitment by some of our people to the continual pursuit of greatness. Which has been a constant in our painful yet purposeful navigation through American Society".
In Response To Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan Said What?
Following are some of the remarks Buchanan made:
"First, America has been the best country on earth for Black folks. It was here that 600,000 Black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity Blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American. Is White America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of White America?
Is it really White America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the Black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent? Is that the fault of White America or, first and foremost, a failure of the Black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence.
Is Barack Obama aware that while White criminals choose Black victims 3 percent of the time, Black criminals choose White victims 45 percent of the time? Is Barack aware that Black-on-White rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that Black-on-White robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of Black assaults on Whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago".
In Response To Pat Buchanan:
Over the years, I have witnessed numerous individuals and groups wield statistical data as a weapon to convince people that their (usually biased) stance is one supported by factual numbers. What I find amazing is how two differing groups (like Democrats and Republicans) speaking on one common topic can shape questions and extract data to support their polar opposite views. Depending on How, Who and When we Present, Ask and Collect data, it seems to fit neatly into to biased box containing the desired content of information which supports the view we wish the world to see. So I will not spend this whole article refuting Mr. Buchanan’s statistics with those of my own. Although I have little doubt that I could find a mountain of statistics which contradict his.
First Mr. Buchanan, how can you decide or judge if America has been the best country on earth for Black folks? Have you ever been Black to know what we feel? It is ridiculous for you to make a statement like this when you are not able to know and feel the experience of being Black in America. Many Blacks have traveled to many other countries and found that the level of respect and acceptance of us as a people far exceeds that which we find within our American homeland borders.
You speak as if growing from the 600,000 brought over on slave ships to 40 million was some kind of utopian milestone. We grew in numbers while here; What and How does that represent anything tangible towards your hypothesis that "America has been the best place on earth for Blacks"? While you talk about us multiplying to 40 million here, why don’t you include how White Americans (slave owners) helped grow our population by breeding us like cattle during slavery time?
Do you really believe that you introduced Africans to Christianity? Acts 8:27-38 tells the story of Phillip and the Ethiopian (which by the way is an African my friend). Not only did Phillip expose him to Christ 1800 plus years before you generous White folks did to the slaves you brought over, but the Ethiopian was reading the scriptures of Esaias while in Jerusalem to worship. So while you think that Reverend Wright should get down on his knees and thank God that he is an American, maybe you should learn more about Biblical Scriptures.
You ask, "Is White America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of White America"? You asked this question as if it is answered strictly by a simple yes or no reply. There are some people (no matter their race) who will commit crimes regardless of their Socioeconomic status, their access to quality education, or their family structure. But to think that racial prejudices, poverty, not having access to exceptional legal representation, attending under funded schools ect., does not contribute to this large disparity between Blacks and Whites is preposterous.
It’s interesting how Mr. Buchanan has chosen to use his statistics. He talks about how the African-American community’s illegitimacy rate has reached 70 percent, But he does not touch on the fact that Black women are less likely to have an abortion than White women. How many White children who are counted as legitimate, are living with one parental figure which is not their biological parent? What is the illegitimacy rate of White Americans living in impoverished settings, such as trailer parks? If we just take these three factors into consideration, How much higher would White America’s illegitimacy rate be? If you factor in, The separating of African-American families during slavery, The historical reluctance to allow African-American men access to Family Supporting wage earning jobs and The financial aide system set up to encourage women to be alone with their children, you can see how illegitimacy rates might soar.
Mr. Buchanan goes on about how Blacks commit more crimes against Whites than Whites commit against Blacks. Plainly stated, interracial crimes are a small percentage of overall crimes committed. Most crimes are committed by someone of one’s own race (White on White, Black on Black, Asian on Asian ect.). Now in touching the subject of interracial crimes such as rape (in which Mr. Buchanan states is 100 times more likely to happen Black on White, than White on Black), are we talking strictly convictions? Who doesn’t know that you are more likely to be convicted if you are a Black man accused of raping a White woman? Well, I guess it could be worse, we could still be getting hung just for looking at one (That’s another story though). Are you counting in that number, Public defenders who did not give adequate representation to their Black clients? Are you considering how many Black women do not come forward, believing that this judicial system will not diligently pursue justice in a case of a White man accused of raping a Black woman? You say that the Tawana Brawley and Duke rape cases were hoaxes. But you do not state that the reason there was so much energy behind these cases was the despicable past sexual criminal acts perpetrated towards African-American women by White men. Of course none of those cases would be on your statistical data sheet since those men were not convicted. So in your mind, no conviction, no stat huh?
Life is more than manipulated stats and your nonsensical view of how glad someone should be living in America. Maybe you should take the time to really listen, maybe you would learn something to help you make a true and accurate assessment.
This Article Is Part Of The Perspectives Series
By Jonathan Richardson
Author Of The Thought Provoking Book: The Complicated Life Of The African-American Man(What’s on his mind)
The "Race" Debaters
The “Race” Debaters
The topic of Race has come to be the discussion of the hour during the 2008 Democratic Primary for the Party’s Presidential nominee. Early on in this Primary, all parties involved (including the other candidates who have since dropped out, leaving only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) took great care in either ignoring or downplaying the significance of Race in this Presidential Primary. It has been uttered more than once that Race “should” not matter when deciding whom one should vote for.
As Barack Obama’s ship began to pick up steam and sailed to victory in State after State, racially tinged cannon balls began to be fired across his ship’s bow in a seeming attempt to slow down this once sail boat sized vessel turned luxury liner now plowing “full steam ahead” towards the Democratic nomination. There’s former President Bill Clinton intimating that South Carolina’s Primary was won by Barack Obama simply because Blacks turned out to vote for him as they had for Jesse Jackson in his earlier bid for the Presidency(1984 & 1988). Then we hear from the Governor of Pennsylvania letting the media know that there are some White voters out here that will not vote for a Black candidate. Geraldine Ferraro however, seemed to fire the shot that dwarfed all those before by referencing that Barack Obama’s Race was a great advantage for him in this Primary season.
There were those who probably labeled Ms. Ferraro a “racist”. There were definitely those who labeled her comments as racist. If we are to look in-depth at her comments, we will find (as with many other comments with racial overtones) that there are “layers” to her comments and that it would be unfair, oversimplified and just plain wrong to simply label them as “racist”.
There was a gentleman who works with me, who in discussing with me this Democratic Primary, divulged to me that while he is a registered Republican, he would like to “see the Black guy win”. There is definitely a percentage of White Americans (How large of a Percentage? I do not know) who are fascinated by the phenomenon of a Black man possibly becoming President of the United States. The fact that this co-worker did not know the platform on which Mr. Obama ran, leads me to believe that he (as well as others) are just intrigued by the prospect of a Black President and how it could represent some sort of “ we told you racism no longer exist, because a Black man was voted President” watershed moment.
However Ms. Ferraro, If simply being a Black man gave you an advantage over White men or women of any color (as you said), Why didn’t we have Presidents Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton(2004) or Alan Keyes(1996/2000 & 2008) ? If White men are at some sort of disadvantage, why has every President to this point been a White man? If being a Black man was such a distinct advantage, why do national print media publications and on air News outlets say that Barack Obama has to “win over” White voters to win this election? Aren’t said voters already on his side because he’s a Black man? There are too many cases of racial discrimination, racial profiling and other negative stereotypes connected to the image of the Black male in the country to “simply” say that him just being a Black man is some “great advantage”. Yes there are those who are going to vote for the phenomenal specter of “The first Black President”, but those are far outnumbered by those who are not only NOT going to vote for him simply because he is Black, but are looking at him through the same racially tinted glasses they have viewed other Black men through and are waiting to see him “prove” that he is NOT like “them”.
One of the main reasons for Mr. Obama’s ascension in this Primary is his ability to connect with the people to which he speaks. His oratory skill set is on par (or better) with any other Presidential candidate in U.S. History. When he proclaims “Yes We Can”, he has a large number of those hearing him believing that “We Can”. To try and reduce his meteoric rise to a simple “he’s lucky to be who he is” reference and not exclaim his uncanny ability to connect with people and to give a voice to their aspirations, likes, dislikes and dreams, is like saying that Michael Angelo was a product of his time and proclaiming his paintings to be “just o.k.”.
Race once again was catapulted to the forefront of this Primary when racially charged excerpts from sermons spoken by Barack Obama’s former Pastor began to surface on the News and internet. Mr. Obama Expressed his points of disagreement on certain race related topics that his former Pastor (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) spoke about. For some however, this public condemnation of certain things said by Rev. Wright by Mr. Obama was not enough. They began to question how he could have been so closely associated with this man in the first place. It’s amazing how Mrs. Clinton’s camp could release insensitive, untrue remarks about Obama’s “so called” connection to Islam. A Governor friend of the Clintons could make a “racially divisive” statement of how some whites would not vote for a Black candidate. Then there are the words of Ms. Ferraro and other associates. But who is questioning the very fact that Mrs. Clinton has ties to “such People”? She distanced herself from them and condemned their comments and that seemed to be satisfactory to most voters. But it was (and is) not that simple for Barack Obama. As this firestorm intensifies, Mr. Obama finds it necessary to address the issue of Race in a speech.
In a speech that was all at once Direct, Inspiring, Condemning, Passionate, Personal and Unifying, Mr. Obama challenged America to talk about and deal with an issue which for far too long we have not wanted to address, RACE. This gives America a great opportunity to address an issue that only seems to surface when an incident of negativity is discussed. Although I am concerned with the circumstances and environment in which this topic of Race arose (to the point of this needed speech) I am definitely glad that it did. It is “Time Out” for Americans to be ambivalent to the issue of Race.
This Article Is Part Of The Perspectives Series
By Jonathan Richardson
Author Of The Thought Provoking Book: The Complicated Life Of The African-American Man(What’s on his mind)
The topic of Race has come to be the discussion of the hour during the 2008 Democratic Primary for the Party’s Presidential nominee. Early on in this Primary, all parties involved (including the other candidates who have since dropped out, leaving only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) took great care in either ignoring or downplaying the significance of Race in this Presidential Primary. It has been uttered more than once that Race “should” not matter when deciding whom one should vote for.
As Barack Obama’s ship began to pick up steam and sailed to victory in State after State, racially tinged cannon balls began to be fired across his ship’s bow in a seeming attempt to slow down this once sail boat sized vessel turned luxury liner now plowing “full steam ahead” towards the Democratic nomination. There’s former President Bill Clinton intimating that South Carolina’s Primary was won by Barack Obama simply because Blacks turned out to vote for him as they had for Jesse Jackson in his earlier bid for the Presidency(1984 & 1988). Then we hear from the Governor of Pennsylvania letting the media know that there are some White voters out here that will not vote for a Black candidate. Geraldine Ferraro however, seemed to fire the shot that dwarfed all those before by referencing that Barack Obama’s Race was a great advantage for him in this Primary season.
There were those who probably labeled Ms. Ferraro a “racist”. There were definitely those who labeled her comments as racist. If we are to look in-depth at her comments, we will find (as with many other comments with racial overtones) that there are “layers” to her comments and that it would be unfair, oversimplified and just plain wrong to simply label them as “racist”.
There was a gentleman who works with me, who in discussing with me this Democratic Primary, divulged to me that while he is a registered Republican, he would like to “see the Black guy win”. There is definitely a percentage of White Americans (How large of a Percentage? I do not know) who are fascinated by the phenomenon of a Black man possibly becoming President of the United States. The fact that this co-worker did not know the platform on which Mr. Obama ran, leads me to believe that he (as well as others) are just intrigued by the prospect of a Black President and how it could represent some sort of “ we told you racism no longer exist, because a Black man was voted President” watershed moment.
However Ms. Ferraro, If simply being a Black man gave you an advantage over White men or women of any color (as you said), Why didn’t we have Presidents Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton(2004) or Alan Keyes(1996/2000 & 2008) ? If White men are at some sort of disadvantage, why has every President to this point been a White man? If being a Black man was such a distinct advantage, why do national print media publications and on air News outlets say that Barack Obama has to “win over” White voters to win this election? Aren’t said voters already on his side because he’s a Black man? There are too many cases of racial discrimination, racial profiling and other negative stereotypes connected to the image of the Black male in the country to “simply” say that him just being a Black man is some “great advantage”. Yes there are those who are going to vote for the phenomenal specter of “The first Black President”, but those are far outnumbered by those who are not only NOT going to vote for him simply because he is Black, but are looking at him through the same racially tinted glasses they have viewed other Black men through and are waiting to see him “prove” that he is NOT like “them”.
One of the main reasons for Mr. Obama’s ascension in this Primary is his ability to connect with the people to which he speaks. His oratory skill set is on par (or better) with any other Presidential candidate in U.S. History. When he proclaims “Yes We Can”, he has a large number of those hearing him believing that “We Can”. To try and reduce his meteoric rise to a simple “he’s lucky to be who he is” reference and not exclaim his uncanny ability to connect with people and to give a voice to their aspirations, likes, dislikes and dreams, is like saying that Michael Angelo was a product of his time and proclaiming his paintings to be “just o.k.”.
Race once again was catapulted to the forefront of this Primary when racially charged excerpts from sermons spoken by Barack Obama’s former Pastor began to surface on the News and internet. Mr. Obama Expressed his points of disagreement on certain race related topics that his former Pastor (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) spoke about. For some however, this public condemnation of certain things said by Rev. Wright by Mr. Obama was not enough. They began to question how he could have been so closely associated with this man in the first place. It’s amazing how Mrs. Clinton’s camp could release insensitive, untrue remarks about Obama’s “so called” connection to Islam. A Governor friend of the Clintons could make a “racially divisive” statement of how some whites would not vote for a Black candidate. Then there are the words of Ms. Ferraro and other associates. But who is questioning the very fact that Mrs. Clinton has ties to “such People”? She distanced herself from them and condemned their comments and that seemed to be satisfactory to most voters. But it was (and is) not that simple for Barack Obama. As this firestorm intensifies, Mr. Obama finds it necessary to address the issue of Race in a speech.
In a speech that was all at once Direct, Inspiring, Condemning, Passionate, Personal and Unifying, Mr. Obama challenged America to talk about and deal with an issue which for far too long we have not wanted to address, RACE. This gives America a great opportunity to address an issue that only seems to surface when an incident of negativity is discussed. Although I am concerned with the circumstances and environment in which this topic of Race arose (to the point of this needed speech) I am definitely glad that it did. It is “Time Out” for Americans to be ambivalent to the issue of Race.
This Article Is Part Of The Perspectives Series
By Jonathan Richardson
Author Of The Thought Provoking Book: The Complicated Life Of The African-American Man(What’s on his mind)
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
What Separates Us
What Separates Us
Blacks and Whites in America are divided on the issue of Racism in America. Many Blacks feel that racism in America is a serious problem, while most Whites do not feel that Racism is a serious problem. Is there a REAL problem, or are Blacks just "Playing The Race Card"?
Please find below an excerpt from the book entitled: The Complicated Life Of The African-American Man(What’s on his mind) Available at www.amazon.com and www.authorsden.com
To Get Insight, Is To Get Information;
To Truly Be Informed, One Must Truly Listen;
If One Is Inclined To Listen, One Is Destined To Learn
pg. 107
The Race Card?
"There they go, playing the race card again." This
statement (or a similar variation) is used across the United
States by White Americans in response to a person of
color’s accusation that a particular statement or action
made by an individual, group or system was racially motivated
or influenced.
By making this statement in response to almost every
accusation made by a person of color, White Americans
seem not only to be trivializing said accusations, but
they also allow themselves not to inspect (in all honesty
and sincerity) whether or not the accusations are founded.
By simply stating "they’re playing the race card," White
America pigeonholes the concerns or accusations of
people of color (or more specifically African-Americans)
into their own little neat box ("They’re only saying that to
detract from the real issue;" "They want us to keep feeling
guilty about past injustices;" "Why should we be held
accountable for what our ancestors did?" "Everything is
equal now" ).
I do believe that there are White Americans who truly
believe that race is not an issue in many cases that African-
Americans claim racism. One of the main reasons
that White Americans feel that claims of racism by African-
Americans are baseless is that the historical teaching
in America (including television, radio, and print media)
have done a masterful job of persuading White Americans
that discriminatory practices in America were eradicated
by the freeing of the slaves and by the civil rights
movement of the 1960’s.We find this mentality evident
when discussions of racial equality come up. White Americans
often talk about how they should not be held accountable
for what their ancestors did. They say that they
were not even alive then.
Chapter 4 - Food for Thought
pg. 108
The Complicated Life...
What if racial equality was not achieved in any of
the fifty states that make up the United States? What
if, by simply declaring "separate but equal" unconstitutional,
racism was not eradicated in the South? What if
race does matter, and the amended laws did not eliminate
racism and discrimination in this country?
A United States president signs the Emancipation
Proclamation freeing the slaves that were in the southern
region of the country. Although this president was squarely
against slavery, he did not feel that blacks were equal to
whites. With this anti-slavery, yet "they (black people)
are not equal to whites" mentality prevailing, Americans
began to establish laws that restricted the rights of black
people. These restrictions were not only apparent in the
southern states, but in the northern states as well. Laws
that restricted black land ownership, marriage, and other
activities were designed to hinder a black person’s advancement
up this country’s economic ladder. If true equality
for the African-American had been the president’s
motivation and goal, would there be any place for these
laws restricting the rights of the African-American? The
same mentality of "all men are created equal" (shown historically
as foundational motivation for the Emancipation
Proclamation) when slavery was abolished, should have
been in play so these restrictive laws could not have been
established. Unless, of course, freeing the slaves was not
to establish true equality.
By the way America has taught history, I can somewhat
understand how White Americans would believe that
after slavery was abolished, equality was established. What
we (as African-Americans) have a hard time with is that
even after being presented with evidence which proves
that equitable treatment was not established, that you are
not willing to, one, change the historical teachings to reflect
pg. 109
the true occurrences of the past and, two, try to ensure
that equality is the present day motivation which helps
govern your actions (as it pertains to laws and policies
enacted).
When it comes to dealing with racial injustices of
the past that seem to have a present day effect, White
America seems to take an ostrich-with-his-head-in-the ground
approach. As if by not acknowledging how the
past has affected the present (as well as how present day
injustices still may be an issue), that somehow racial harmony
will be the reality. Yet when you pull your head out
of the ground, you see evidence that there are still issues
to be addressed, so you stick your head back in the ground,
hoping that when you look back up, things will be all
right. Now, when the African-American community comes
to you and says there is a problem (with statistical proof
in hand), you, without even taking a serious look at what
is brought forth and presented, say that blacks are playing
the "race card."
To find examples of how White America has turned
a deaf ear to the early outcry of the African-American
community concerning an issue (only to later proclaim
blacks are playing the "race card" when the demands of
the community grow louder), we look back into the realm
of athletics, which we have already reasoned is a microcosm
of the larger American society.
There are approximately one hundred and nineteen
Division One college football programs in America. There
were only five African-American head coaches at the beginning
of the 2004 football season. In a sport where over
sixty percent are of African-American descent, you would
think that the representation of African-Americans would
be more than approximately three percent of all Division
One head football coaches. The black community has
Chapter 4 - Food for Thought
pg. 110
The Complicated Life...
expressed its concerns to colleges across this country. A
black coaches’ group was established to help promote
qualified black assistant coaches as well as other qualified
African-American individuals. On the professional
football level, the lack of African-American head coaches
was also a concern. Groups went to great lengths to prepare
qualified African-Americans for the process that was
conveyed to them by the leadership of college and professional
football as a possible reason for the lack of adequate
representation of African-Americans in head coaching
positions. After years of portraying those things that
were expressed as needed characteristics and traits to become
a head coach, African-Americans were still under
represented on both the college and pro level. Now the
black community is again speaking up about the lack of
representation. On the pro level, their concerns seem to
have no effect on the hiring practices of the league’s teams.
White coaches are continually hired and re-hired (or recycled).
Race does not seem to be a problem to white
people, because having things go as they have been going
for many years seems to be quite acceptable. So African-
Americans continue to talk about the inequity of the hiring
system, and the system continues to roll along as the
"good ol’ boy" network, hiring, firing, and re-hiring white
men.
Now when the community turned up the heat on the
pro league by threatening its bottom line (profits), the
league implemented a mandatory interview process that
forced teams to interview at least one minority or be fined
by the league. Now some of the same whites who stood
by in silence while qualified blacks were overlooked for
head coaching positions for years, are ready to speak up
for those so called more deserving whites who may be
overlooked because of this policy that "smacks" of Affirmative
pg. 111
Action. Where were you when African-Americans
were speaking out about the "good ol’ boy" network denying
qualified African-Americans access? Did you have
your head stuck in the ground, not dealing with the reality
of the situation at hand?
On the collegiate level, African-American coaching
associations have expressed concerns about the minuscule
number of African-American head coaches of Division
One football programs. As African-Americans bring
up these concerns, the response from those in charge seems
to be one of non-response.
An African-American was hired as the head football
coach at a very prestigious institution. He was the first
African-American hired as a head coach of any sport in
this college’s long and storied history. Up until this point,
all football coaches at this institution were allowed to fulfill
their initial contract (usually five years). Now this
coach, who had led his team to two bowl games in three
years, was fired after his third season.
Why had this university, which had never fired a head
football coach during his first contract, decided to break
precedence with its first and only African-American
coach? As this topic was debated on sports talk radio, the
assertion that it was racially motivated was brought up.
Now, we hear all of these callers (presumably white men)
saying that race had nothing to do with it, and that blacks
were playing the race card. One caller even said that the
fact that blacks would bring up race as an issue would
only hurt their opportunities in the future for employment
as head football coaches.
It is amazing how many of these people come out of
the woodwork to say that black people are playing the
race card when we assert that race plays a part in different
situations. Where were these people when African-Americans
Chapter 4 - Food for Thought
112
The Complicated Life...
were speaking on the unfair hiring practices of these
same institutions as they passed over numerous African-
Americans applying for head coaching positions? Out of
approximately one hundred and nineteen Division One
football head coaching positions, only five were filled by
African-Americans. Blacks make up about twelve percent
of America’s total population and over forty percent
of football players. Yet we make up less than four percent
of the head coaches in football?
One of the problems is the fact that many White
Americans wait until a black person asserts racism as a
motivating factor in hirings, firings, promotions (or lack
thereof) and other actions, to say that blacks are playing
the race card. For YEARS African-Americans have been
speaking up about the almost non-existent minuscule number
of African-American head football coaches in Division
One football. We did not hear these callers speaking
up earlier about how the lack of African-American representation
was outrageous.
African-Americans have been speaking up (for years)
about the lack of diversity in multiple fields of employment.
Before (and after) Affirmative Action was implemented,
the "good ol’ boy" network would hire friends,
family and other people who looked like them to fill the
employment needs of usually white male owned companies.
While these practices went on (and are still in use),
we did not hear large numbers of White Americans speaking
out about the lack of ethnic diversity in their workplaces.
Over time, studies and statistics showed that racial
representation in the workplace was not in line with
racial representation in the communities of America. Affirmative
Action was implemented to bring the racial representation
in the workplace to more closely resemble the
racial representation in the communities.
pg. 113
The point is, race does not BECOME an issue when
whites say that blacks are "playing the race card." Race
has been an issue with blacks for years, as they were denied
positions for which they were qualified. What is
amazing, though, is how many whites who were silent
for fifteen, fifty or sixty years (as blacks sought equality)
are now readily voicing their opinion that blacks are "playing
the race card" when we speak about certain issues.
Now if we have been denied (for years) employment
because of the color of our skin (leaving the workplace
you’ve worked in virtually all white) and the government
(in an effort to rectify past injustices) ensures the hiring
of a certain percentage of people of color to more accurately
represent the societal percentages, and you moan
about "a more qualified white person not having a job
because of Affirmative Action," it sounds like you are the
one "playing the race card."
In general, black people’s conversations and concerns
about race have been pretty straightforward and consistently
direct. The connotation of "game playing" that is
implied by the words "playing the race card," seems to
best describe how White America looks at the issue. White
America sits by silently with an attitude of indifference
as Black America brings forth areas of concern regarding
race, and then conveniently proclaims, "They’re playing
the race card," when confronted with information or allegations,
which they have no desire to seriously investigate
or contemplate their validity. Believe me, when it
comes to racial issues in this country, African-Americans
are rarely "playing."
Jonathan Richardson
Author/Speaker/Poet
Blacks and Whites in America are divided on the issue of Racism in America. Many Blacks feel that racism in America is a serious problem, while most Whites do not feel that Racism is a serious problem. Is there a REAL problem, or are Blacks just "Playing The Race Card"?
Please find below an excerpt from the book entitled: The Complicated Life Of The African-American Man(What’s on his mind) Available at www.amazon.com and www.authorsden.com
To Get Insight, Is To Get Information;
To Truly Be Informed, One Must Truly Listen;
If One Is Inclined To Listen, One Is Destined To Learn
pg. 107
The Race Card?
"There they go, playing the race card again." This
statement (or a similar variation) is used across the United
States by White Americans in response to a person of
color’s accusation that a particular statement or action
made by an individual, group or system was racially motivated
or influenced.
By making this statement in response to almost every
accusation made by a person of color, White Americans
seem not only to be trivializing said accusations, but
they also allow themselves not to inspect (in all honesty
and sincerity) whether or not the accusations are founded.
By simply stating "they’re playing the race card," White
America pigeonholes the concerns or accusations of
people of color (or more specifically African-Americans)
into their own little neat box ("They’re only saying that to
detract from the real issue;" "They want us to keep feeling
guilty about past injustices;" "Why should we be held
accountable for what our ancestors did?" "Everything is
equal now" ).
I do believe that there are White Americans who truly
believe that race is not an issue in many cases that African-
Americans claim racism. One of the main reasons
that White Americans feel that claims of racism by African-
Americans are baseless is that the historical teaching
in America (including television, radio, and print media)
have done a masterful job of persuading White Americans
that discriminatory practices in America were eradicated
by the freeing of the slaves and by the civil rights
movement of the 1960’s.We find this mentality evident
when discussions of racial equality come up. White Americans
often talk about how they should not be held accountable
for what their ancestors did. They say that they
were not even alive then.
Chapter 4 - Food for Thought
pg. 108
The Complicated Life...
What if racial equality was not achieved in any of
the fifty states that make up the United States? What
if, by simply declaring "separate but equal" unconstitutional,
racism was not eradicated in the South? What if
race does matter, and the amended laws did not eliminate
racism and discrimination in this country?
A United States president signs the Emancipation
Proclamation freeing the slaves that were in the southern
region of the country. Although this president was squarely
against slavery, he did not feel that blacks were equal to
whites. With this anti-slavery, yet "they (black people)
are not equal to whites" mentality prevailing, Americans
began to establish laws that restricted the rights of black
people. These restrictions were not only apparent in the
southern states, but in the northern states as well. Laws
that restricted black land ownership, marriage, and other
activities were designed to hinder a black person’s advancement
up this country’s economic ladder. If true equality
for the African-American had been the president’s
motivation and goal, would there be any place for these
laws restricting the rights of the African-American? The
same mentality of "all men are created equal" (shown historically
as foundational motivation for the Emancipation
Proclamation) when slavery was abolished, should have
been in play so these restrictive laws could not have been
established. Unless, of course, freeing the slaves was not
to establish true equality.
By the way America has taught history, I can somewhat
understand how White Americans would believe that
after slavery was abolished, equality was established. What
we (as African-Americans) have a hard time with is that
even after being presented with evidence which proves
that equitable treatment was not established, that you are
not willing to, one, change the historical teachings to reflect
pg. 109
the true occurrences of the past and, two, try to ensure
that equality is the present day motivation which helps
govern your actions (as it pertains to laws and policies
enacted).
When it comes to dealing with racial injustices of
the past that seem to have a present day effect, White
America seems to take an ostrich-with-his-head-in-the ground
approach. As if by not acknowledging how the
past has affected the present (as well as how present day
injustices still may be an issue), that somehow racial harmony
will be the reality. Yet when you pull your head out
of the ground, you see evidence that there are still issues
to be addressed, so you stick your head back in the ground,
hoping that when you look back up, things will be all
right. Now, when the African-American community comes
to you and says there is a problem (with statistical proof
in hand), you, without even taking a serious look at what
is brought forth and presented, say that blacks are playing
the "race card."
To find examples of how White America has turned
a deaf ear to the early outcry of the African-American
community concerning an issue (only to later proclaim
blacks are playing the "race card" when the demands of
the community grow louder), we look back into the realm
of athletics, which we have already reasoned is a microcosm
of the larger American society.
There are approximately one hundred and nineteen
Division One college football programs in America. There
were only five African-American head coaches at the beginning
of the 2004 football season. In a sport where over
sixty percent are of African-American descent, you would
think that the representation of African-Americans would
be more than approximately three percent of all Division
One head football coaches. The black community has
Chapter 4 - Food for Thought
pg. 110
The Complicated Life...
expressed its concerns to colleges across this country. A
black coaches’ group was established to help promote
qualified black assistant coaches as well as other qualified
African-American individuals. On the professional
football level, the lack of African-American head coaches
was also a concern. Groups went to great lengths to prepare
qualified African-Americans for the process that was
conveyed to them by the leadership of college and professional
football as a possible reason for the lack of adequate
representation of African-Americans in head coaching
positions. After years of portraying those things that
were expressed as needed characteristics and traits to become
a head coach, African-Americans were still under
represented on both the college and pro level. Now the
black community is again speaking up about the lack of
representation. On the pro level, their concerns seem to
have no effect on the hiring practices of the league’s teams.
White coaches are continually hired and re-hired (or recycled).
Race does not seem to be a problem to white
people, because having things go as they have been going
for many years seems to be quite acceptable. So African-
Americans continue to talk about the inequity of the hiring
system, and the system continues to roll along as the
"good ol’ boy" network, hiring, firing, and re-hiring white
men.
Now when the community turned up the heat on the
pro league by threatening its bottom line (profits), the
league implemented a mandatory interview process that
forced teams to interview at least one minority or be fined
by the league. Now some of the same whites who stood
by in silence while qualified blacks were overlooked for
head coaching positions for years, are ready to speak up
for those so called more deserving whites who may be
overlooked because of this policy that "smacks" of Affirmative
pg. 111
Action. Where were you when African-Americans
were speaking out about the "good ol’ boy" network denying
qualified African-Americans access? Did you have
your head stuck in the ground, not dealing with the reality
of the situation at hand?
On the collegiate level, African-American coaching
associations have expressed concerns about the minuscule
number of African-American head coaches of Division
One football programs. As African-Americans bring
up these concerns, the response from those in charge seems
to be one of non-response.
An African-American was hired as the head football
coach at a very prestigious institution. He was the first
African-American hired as a head coach of any sport in
this college’s long and storied history. Up until this point,
all football coaches at this institution were allowed to fulfill
their initial contract (usually five years). Now this
coach, who had led his team to two bowl games in three
years, was fired after his third season.
Why had this university, which had never fired a head
football coach during his first contract, decided to break
precedence with its first and only African-American
coach? As this topic was debated on sports talk radio, the
assertion that it was racially motivated was brought up.
Now, we hear all of these callers (presumably white men)
saying that race had nothing to do with it, and that blacks
were playing the race card. One caller even said that the
fact that blacks would bring up race as an issue would
only hurt their opportunities in the future for employment
as head football coaches.
It is amazing how many of these people come out of
the woodwork to say that black people are playing the
race card when we assert that race plays a part in different
situations. Where were these people when African-Americans
Chapter 4 - Food for Thought
112
The Complicated Life...
were speaking on the unfair hiring practices of these
same institutions as they passed over numerous African-
Americans applying for head coaching positions? Out of
approximately one hundred and nineteen Division One
football head coaching positions, only five were filled by
African-Americans. Blacks make up about twelve percent
of America’s total population and over forty percent
of football players. Yet we make up less than four percent
of the head coaches in football?
One of the problems is the fact that many White
Americans wait until a black person asserts racism as a
motivating factor in hirings, firings, promotions (or lack
thereof) and other actions, to say that blacks are playing
the race card. For YEARS African-Americans have been
speaking up about the almost non-existent minuscule number
of African-American head football coaches in Division
One football. We did not hear these callers speaking
up earlier about how the lack of African-American representation
was outrageous.
African-Americans have been speaking up (for years)
about the lack of diversity in multiple fields of employment.
Before (and after) Affirmative Action was implemented,
the "good ol’ boy" network would hire friends,
family and other people who looked like them to fill the
employment needs of usually white male owned companies.
While these practices went on (and are still in use),
we did not hear large numbers of White Americans speaking
out about the lack of ethnic diversity in their workplaces.
Over time, studies and statistics showed that racial
representation in the workplace was not in line with
racial representation in the communities of America. Affirmative
Action was implemented to bring the racial representation
in the workplace to more closely resemble the
racial representation in the communities.
pg. 113
The point is, race does not BECOME an issue when
whites say that blacks are "playing the race card." Race
has been an issue with blacks for years, as they were denied
positions for which they were qualified. What is
amazing, though, is how many whites who were silent
for fifteen, fifty or sixty years (as blacks sought equality)
are now readily voicing their opinion that blacks are "playing
the race card" when we speak about certain issues.
Now if we have been denied (for years) employment
because of the color of our skin (leaving the workplace
you’ve worked in virtually all white) and the government
(in an effort to rectify past injustices) ensures the hiring
of a certain percentage of people of color to more accurately
represent the societal percentages, and you moan
about "a more qualified white person not having a job
because of Affirmative Action," it sounds like you are the
one "playing the race card."
In general, black people’s conversations and concerns
about race have been pretty straightforward and consistently
direct. The connotation of "game playing" that is
implied by the words "playing the race card," seems to
best describe how White America looks at the issue. White
America sits by silently with an attitude of indifference
as Black America brings forth areas of concern regarding
race, and then conveniently proclaims, "They’re playing
the race card," when confronted with information or allegations,
which they have no desire to seriously investigate
or contemplate their validity. Believe me, when it
comes to racial issues in this country, African-Americans
are rarely "playing."
Jonathan Richardson
Author/Speaker/Poet
Comparatively Speaking (Part 2)
Comparatively Speaking (Part 2)
Donovan McNabb recently made the comment that black quarterbacks face greater scrutiny than their white counterparts. Many whites wrote comments denying any racial prejudice, preference or partiality concerning the treatment of quarterbacks whether they are Black or White. Surely the "There he goes playing the Race Card" retort will be used in numerous media outlets in response to McNabb’s comments. Of course, the "he’s playing the race card" does not give definitive proof that his accusations are not true. Let’s look closer at this topic.
Donovan McNabb could have been alluding to the fact that (historically) N.F.L. teams have not been quick to draft and install African-Americans as quarterbacks. Many times, African-Americans who played quarterback in High School, were "encouraged" to switch positions if they wished to keep playing at the college level. Those who played College football as a quarterback, would oftentimes be drafted as an "athlete" and switched to another position at the professional level. Their "athletic" abilities afforded them the opportunity to play professional football, just not (Pro teams seemed to be saying) at the position of quarterback.
When describing the Black Athlete, words like "athletic", "quick", "naturally gifted", "strong" and "fast" seem to be used quite often. The White Athlete on the other hand is usually labeled as "smart", "heady", "decisive" and "getting the most out of his limited natural abilities". When teams have looked for that "Leader on the field", they have tended to believe that the white quarterback had the attributes they desired to "Lead" their teams. The fact that the Black quarterback may have "Athletic" prowess, does not preclude him from also having the other qualities commonly associated with the White athlete. I believe this is were much of the problem lies.
America is comfortable and accepting of the "Athletic" Black athlete and the "Smart" (though less athletic) White athlete. The athletic prowess of the Black athlete has had him excelling at almost every position on the football field. The quarter-backing abilities of the African-American at the College level has demanded that he be looked at by the Pros in this capacity. We find journalist and sports commentators exclaiming that color is not an issue when discussing the quarterback position. It is interesting however, when listening to sports commentators on television or radio, to hear how often they describe the professional quarterback who is Black as "athletic" and the White quarterback as "smart".
The "Smart" guy "Reads" the defenses and makes the "Correct" throws. He leads his team as a "Field General" down the field. "Utilizing" all of the weapons at his disposal". The "Athletic" quarterback is fast and elusive, "but he does not seem to have the same command of the offense as"... "He needs to become a better passer if he wants to become great"... "He needs to stay in the pocket more so he can"... "He led his team to the playoffs, but if he wants to get to the next level he has to"...
Some people believe that the simple fact that Blacks are drafted and implemented as the team’s starting quarterback is proof positive that there is no racial bias. So, does the fact that a family can afford to move into a neighborhood because of their income, be under the protection of laws that make it illegal to harass them, while living in a country of Constitutional guarantees, mean that it is impossible for them to endure bigotry, bias and slander from those living around them? Likewise, simply being able to play quarterback in the N.F.L. does not mean that African-Americans who play the position are not subjugated to biased and tougher scrutiny than their White counterparts.
Donovan McNabb entered the N.F.L. in 1999. He has led his team (The Philadelphia Eagles) to 4 straight Conference championship games within his first 7 years in the league. Leading his team all the way to the Super Bowl after the 2004 season. In 2004, McNabb accomplished something that no one else in the history of the N.F.L. had done. He became the first person to throw for over 30 touchdowns (31) and have less than double digit interceptions (9) in the same year. He has been to multiple Pro Bowls (5) in his first eight seasons. For all of these accomplishments, Donovan McNabb has been the subject of discussions as to whether or not he should be in the future plans of the Eagles as their starting quarterback.
While age and the acquisition of a quarterback in waiting who is of a Pro Bowl caliber is and has been legitimate reasoning for choosing to let go of a great quarterback, neither his age (30) nor his backup are such. We find other quarterbacks (who are white) of his football playing stature under no such scrutiny or debate. What he has accomplished on the field (oftentimes carrying the team on his back) should allow him to "write his own ticket" in Philadelphia.
Michael Vick has been the quintessential "Athletic" quarterback. He led his College team (Virginia Tech) all the way to the National Championship game in his sophomore season. Vick was selected #1 overall by the Atlanta Falcons in 2001. After the 2002 regular season, Michael Vick led his team in accomplishing a feat that had never occurred before. The Green Bay Packers had never lost a home playoff game in their storied history. Vick led the upstart Falcons to a 27 to 7 victory. Two years later (2004) Vick guided his team all the way to the NFC Championship game. Within the first 5 years of his arrival, the Falcons had made it to within one game of the Super Bowl. Yet sports commentators say that if Vick does not do better in his passing, they (the Falcons) may want to move on without Michael Vick. Again, what other quarterback who is less than 3 years removed from an NFC title game (except for age or a top flight quarterback waiting in the wings) is talked about in this manner?
Vince Young performed the "Greatest" individual football feat in the history of football (College, Pro, or any other level). He led the "underdog" Texas Longhorns into the "backyard" of one of the "Best" teams in the History of College football (U.S.C. Trojans- 34 Game winning streak / 2-time defending champion / Reggie Bush & Matt Leinard). Vince Young threw for almost 300 yards (267) and rushed for another 200 yards. After winning this game, Vince declared himself eligible for the N.F.L. draft. Sports pundits declared that he was not ready for the N.F.L. yet. They talked "throwing motion" and about the fact that he ran so much. After taking the Wonderlic test, it was revealed that Vince did not score very high and the critics really piled on. It has been said that Dan Marino did not score very high on the wonderlic; was there a "pile on" there? What Vince Young did "on the field" was extraordinary ! It is hard to believe that if someone of a lighter hue would have done "on th field", those things that Vince did against U.S.C. in the Rose Bowl, that there would even be a discussion about them declaring early for the N.F.L. draft. By the way, Vince Young, the young man that some football "experts" said wouldn’t be ready to play in the N.F.L. for at least 2 years won offensive rookie of the year honors in 2006.
It is true that there are White quarterbacks who get criticized. The criticism seems to be different however than that directed towards the Black quarterback. Peyton Manning may have been criticized for not being able to win the "Big Game"by some (before Indianapolis won the Super Bowl after the 2006 season), but it was never suggested that he should be let go or sat down. When White quarterbacks are spoken of in terms of "the team needs to look in another direction" or they need to switch to a backup, the White quarterback has usually been playing badly for an extended period of time. You would be hard pressed to find a White quarterback who has accomplished "on the field" what these 3 young men of African descent have accomplished in the same time frame and be talked about as disparagingly as they have.
Jonathan Richardson
Author/Speaker/Poet
Jonathan is the Author of the thought provoking book: The Complicated Life Of The African-American Man(What’s on his mind) Purchase a copy today at:http://www.authorsden.com www.authorsden.com (Author Autographed copy) or www.amazon.com http://www.nowitsdonepublish.com
Donovan McNabb recently made the comment that black quarterbacks face greater scrutiny than their white counterparts. Many whites wrote comments denying any racial prejudice, preference or partiality concerning the treatment of quarterbacks whether they are Black or White. Surely the "There he goes playing the Race Card" retort will be used in numerous media outlets in response to McNabb’s comments. Of course, the "he’s playing the race card" does not give definitive proof that his accusations are not true. Let’s look closer at this topic.
Donovan McNabb could have been alluding to the fact that (historically) N.F.L. teams have not been quick to draft and install African-Americans as quarterbacks. Many times, African-Americans who played quarterback in High School, were "encouraged" to switch positions if they wished to keep playing at the college level. Those who played College football as a quarterback, would oftentimes be drafted as an "athlete" and switched to another position at the professional level. Their "athletic" abilities afforded them the opportunity to play professional football, just not (Pro teams seemed to be saying) at the position of quarterback.
When describing the Black Athlete, words like "athletic", "quick", "naturally gifted", "strong" and "fast" seem to be used quite often. The White Athlete on the other hand is usually labeled as "smart", "heady", "decisive" and "getting the most out of his limited natural abilities". When teams have looked for that "Leader on the field", they have tended to believe that the white quarterback had the attributes they desired to "Lead" their teams. The fact that the Black quarterback may have "Athletic" prowess, does not preclude him from also having the other qualities commonly associated with the White athlete. I believe this is were much of the problem lies.
America is comfortable and accepting of the "Athletic" Black athlete and the "Smart" (though less athletic) White athlete. The athletic prowess of the Black athlete has had him excelling at almost every position on the football field. The quarter-backing abilities of the African-American at the College level has demanded that he be looked at by the Pros in this capacity. We find journalist and sports commentators exclaiming that color is not an issue when discussing the quarterback position. It is interesting however, when listening to sports commentators on television or radio, to hear how often they describe the professional quarterback who is Black as "athletic" and the White quarterback as "smart".
The "Smart" guy "Reads" the defenses and makes the "Correct" throws. He leads his team as a "Field General" down the field. "Utilizing" all of the weapons at his disposal". The "Athletic" quarterback is fast and elusive, "but he does not seem to have the same command of the offense as"... "He needs to become a better passer if he wants to become great"... "He needs to stay in the pocket more so he can"... "He led his team to the playoffs, but if he wants to get to the next level he has to"...
Some people believe that the simple fact that Blacks are drafted and implemented as the team’s starting quarterback is proof positive that there is no racial bias. So, does the fact that a family can afford to move into a neighborhood because of their income, be under the protection of laws that make it illegal to harass them, while living in a country of Constitutional guarantees, mean that it is impossible for them to endure bigotry, bias and slander from those living around them? Likewise, simply being able to play quarterback in the N.F.L. does not mean that African-Americans who play the position are not subjugated to biased and tougher scrutiny than their White counterparts.
Donovan McNabb entered the N.F.L. in 1999. He has led his team (The Philadelphia Eagles) to 4 straight Conference championship games within his first 7 years in the league. Leading his team all the way to the Super Bowl after the 2004 season. In 2004, McNabb accomplished something that no one else in the history of the N.F.L. had done. He became the first person to throw for over 30 touchdowns (31) and have less than double digit interceptions (9) in the same year. He has been to multiple Pro Bowls (5) in his first eight seasons. For all of these accomplishments, Donovan McNabb has been the subject of discussions as to whether or not he should be in the future plans of the Eagles as their starting quarterback.
While age and the acquisition of a quarterback in waiting who is of a Pro Bowl caliber is and has been legitimate reasoning for choosing to let go of a great quarterback, neither his age (30) nor his backup are such. We find other quarterbacks (who are white) of his football playing stature under no such scrutiny or debate. What he has accomplished on the field (oftentimes carrying the team on his back) should allow him to "write his own ticket" in Philadelphia.
Michael Vick has been the quintessential "Athletic" quarterback. He led his College team (Virginia Tech) all the way to the National Championship game in his sophomore season. Vick was selected #1 overall by the Atlanta Falcons in 2001. After the 2002 regular season, Michael Vick led his team in accomplishing a feat that had never occurred before. The Green Bay Packers had never lost a home playoff game in their storied history. Vick led the upstart Falcons to a 27 to 7 victory. Two years later (2004) Vick guided his team all the way to the NFC Championship game. Within the first 5 years of his arrival, the Falcons had made it to within one game of the Super Bowl. Yet sports commentators say that if Vick does not do better in his passing, they (the Falcons) may want to move on without Michael Vick. Again, what other quarterback who is less than 3 years removed from an NFC title game (except for age or a top flight quarterback waiting in the wings) is talked about in this manner?
Vince Young performed the "Greatest" individual football feat in the history of football (College, Pro, or any other level). He led the "underdog" Texas Longhorns into the "backyard" of one of the "Best" teams in the History of College football (U.S.C. Trojans- 34 Game winning streak / 2-time defending champion / Reggie Bush & Matt Leinard). Vince Young threw for almost 300 yards (267) and rushed for another 200 yards. After winning this game, Vince declared himself eligible for the N.F.L. draft. Sports pundits declared that he was not ready for the N.F.L. yet. They talked "throwing motion" and about the fact that he ran so much. After taking the Wonderlic test, it was revealed that Vince did not score very high and the critics really piled on. It has been said that Dan Marino did not score very high on the wonderlic; was there a "pile on" there? What Vince Young did "on the field" was extraordinary ! It is hard to believe that if someone of a lighter hue would have done "on th field", those things that Vince did against U.S.C. in the Rose Bowl, that there would even be a discussion about them declaring early for the N.F.L. draft. By the way, Vince Young, the young man that some football "experts" said wouldn’t be ready to play in the N.F.L. for at least 2 years won offensive rookie of the year honors in 2006.
It is true that there are White quarterbacks who get criticized. The criticism seems to be different however than that directed towards the Black quarterback. Peyton Manning may have been criticized for not being able to win the "Big Game"by some (before Indianapolis won the Super Bowl after the 2006 season), but it was never suggested that he should be let go or sat down. When White quarterbacks are spoken of in terms of "the team needs to look in another direction" or they need to switch to a backup, the White quarterback has usually been playing badly for an extended period of time. You would be hard pressed to find a White quarterback who has accomplished "on the field" what these 3 young men of African descent have accomplished in the same time frame and be talked about as disparagingly as they have.
Jonathan Richardson
Author/Speaker/Poet
Jonathan is the Author of the thought provoking book: The Complicated Life Of The African-American Man(What’s on his mind) Purchase a copy today at:http://www.authorsden.com www.authorsden.com (Author Autographed copy) or www.amazon.com http://www.nowitsdonepublish.com
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Comparatively Speaking (Part 1)
"This is not about Race or Color, this is simply about guilt or innocence". "This is not a Black or White issue, it is an issue of Right or Wrong".
As we in America converse about topics involving African-Americans or other people of color, there is a tendency by those of European descent to downplay the role that Race or Color plays in the subjects discussed.
While simple Guilt or Innocence, Right or Wrong may be the logical and appropriate desired result when breaching subject matter that involves alleged wrongdoing by someone of color, simple does not seem to adequately encapsulate all the elements that are present in the Thoughts of African-Americans. We believe that the Who, Why and When of allegations and convictions in not only the court of law but also the court of public opinion is oftentimes decided by those who factor Race and Color into their equation.
We know that historically America has treated Blacks and Whites differently, but since slavery was eradicated, Jim Crow defeated, and Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in Baseball, hasn’t racial equality been achieved? Doesn’t everyone get treated alike now?
Well, Comparatively Speaking...
Michael Vick (Dog Fighter)
&
The Barbie Bandits (Bank Robbers)
Michael Vick is ready to plead guilty to Federal Dog fighting charges. Two Georgia women have admitted or pleaded guilty to robbing a Bank Of America of approximately $10,000.
After it was reported that Michael Vick was being indicted on Federal charges related to dog fighting, the media began to report of the "Ruthless" nature of dog fighting. They (the media) began to show images of "Maimed" dogs and to tell us how some of the dogs had been "Brutally" killed by people on Virginia property owned by Michael Vick. "Hanged", "Drowned" and even "Slammed" to the ground were words used to describe the apparent methods used by these men to kill dogs. Most images of Michael Vick shown on television, the internet or in the print media, seemed to be those of a "Stern" faced man. The fact that this man had played in the N.F.L. for approximately seven years without publicly running afoul of the law, seemed to have little bearing on how he was being portrayed after the revelations of his "Alleged" dog fighting activities. Even before he plead guilty, he lost almost all of his endorsement deals and was protested or picketed by animal rights groups and others. He was lambasted in the media and in the court of public opinion.
The two women in Georgia who presumably robbed a Bank Of America (one woman had already plead guilty at the time of this article) have been portrayed a bit differently. First, they have been dubbed "The Barbie Bandits". "Barbie" seemingly referring to their good looks and blonde hair. The word "Bandit" does not have the same harsh inference as "Robbers". So we have the words "Barbie Bandits" that conjures up images of these pretty people committing an unlawful act. We do not however, have the more "Vile" image of "Bank Robbers" who went into a Bank and "Stole" approximately $10,000 of hardworking American people’s money. The print, internet and televised media often referred to these two as "Girls", giving the impression that these are not fully competent adults, but impressionable youth who may or may not have comprehended the seriousness of their actions. These were two grown women (both were 18 years of age or older at the time of the robbery). Further perpetuating the inference of "Girls" instead of "Women" is the fact that the mother of one of the "Bank Robbers" (oops, "Barbie Bandits", we have to keep it feeling cute and cuddly here) was interviewed by the media and stated that her daughter (and presumably her friend) had gotten involved with the "Wrong crowd". Seeming to imply that if it were not for the influence of these "Undesirables" in their lives, they would have "Never" done anything like that.
One of the women was given an interview on an evening news program before her trial began. We were shown her baby pictures and told of how great a child she was. She was filmed at Church with her family. Then we were able to hear from her and her parents. The woman let us know that she had made a terrible "Mistake" and how she now wants to go to college.
Both Michael Vick and these two Bank Robbing "Barbie Bandits" have committed acts that deserve punishment. The problem is, that "Comparatively Speaking", America has "Vilified" one and "Excused" or "Made Victims" of the other. It is easy to want to condemn the "Brutal", "Barbaric" and "Heinous" acts of the "Man" who took part in this "Vicious" enterprise. But to subject these "Barbie Bandit Girls", who were "Drawn" into being involved by the "Wrong crowd" to a sentence that could "Ruin" their future is unfathomable.
The Court Of Public Opinion has reached it’s verdict: Michael Vick, you get what you deserve you "Brute". "Barbie Bandits", you "Girls" made a "Mistake", watch who you befriend in the future and don’t let it happen again.
********************************
Please find below an excerpt from a book entitled: The Complicated Life Of The African-American Man(What’s on his mind) Available at: www.authorsden.com (Author Autographed Copies) www.nowitsdonepublish.com or www.amazon.com
This excerpt (as well as other topics covered in this thought provoking book) will give the reader a better understanding and feel for the African-American perspective.
To Get Insight, Is To Get Information;
To Truly Be Informed, One Must Truly Listen;
If One Is Inclined To Listen, One Is Destined To Learn
The Complicated Life
Liberal Media? (Portrayals, Perceptions, and
Propaganda)
pg. 114
Click, the television is turned on. Now, are the television
shows simply reflecting the societal norm or are
they influencing and initiating the activities and trends of
their viewers? Is the clothing style shown on television
simply a reflection of the style already established, or is it
helping influence future fashion trends by showing the
next "must have" clothing item? The truth seems to lie
somewhere in the middle. Yes, some of the images shown
are societal reflections, yet some of the images are influential
on the future trends and activities of its viewers. At
times, both scenarios are present simultaneously.
One puzzling element of the theory of cause and effect
(which includes elements of perceptions and insinuations)
is how white and Black America are often shown
as polar opposites. Negative imagery of African-Americans
is shown to be representative of their actual environment,
culture, and activities. On the other hand, negative
imagery of White America is shown not only as not being
representative of the whole, but there are those who view
the negative imagery and conclude that the negative actions
of whites are simply a result of said imagery.
Oftentimes, the negative imagery is directly connected to
the negative behavior of whites. It is surmised (by some)
that if this negative imagery was not shown, White
America would not be involved in as much negative activity
that plagues society today.
So, it is insinuated that White America would be leading
a wholesome existence if not for the corrupting effects
of negative imagery shown by the media, while negative
imagery of African-Americans is just representative
of who "they" (African-Americans) are.
The Complicated Life
Brutal Reality
pg. 142
Are violent images in America portrayed in black
and white? Violent imagery has been shown in America
for many years. Upon closer examination of these images,
we find that there is a difference in the message
sent. As different as black and white.
We tend to find that the darker the skin hue of the
individual or group perpetrating the violence, oftentimes
the more savage the portrayal.
Historically, we have been shown that the violence
which the Calvary used was justifiable force used in defense
of peaceful settlers or to establish order in an otherwise
untamed area of land. On the other hand, the Indians’
use of violence is shown as disruptive to the otherwise
peaceful existence of the Western settler. The scalping,
burning of wagons and all of the war screams portrayed
by the media leaves one with the impression that
the Indians were some beast like savages, devouring everything
in their path without regard for human life.
As we watch the "mob style" movies shown on television,
though violence is shown to have occurred, there
is a certain romanticizing of the European descended
mobster. The movies portray these mobsters with gentleman-
like qualities and seem to infer that violence was not
the main (or sole) ingredient used by them to rule and
keep order in their domain. In contrast, the black gangsters
are shown as brutal, out of control brutes with no
respect for order and no respect for the sanctity of life.
As I watch a hockey game, it is interesting to see
how the violence that occurs (outside of the checking,
which is acceptable game conduct) is accepted by Americans
as appropriate behavior. I do not believe if I look
into the hockey rule book, that I will find fighting as part
of the game. Scoring goals, defending, checking and passing,
143
yes, but not fighting. When I look at a game, however,
I will usually see someone on the team whose actual
hockey-playing ability is questionable. This man’s purpose
for being on the team is to simply be an enforcer (or
goon) used by the team to fight when the other team gets
heavy handed or rough with his team’s star player (or players).
So let me get this right, Americans can accept a player
who may not be able to skate as well as a high school
hockey player, may not score a goal all year, and has no
hockey playing reason to be a professional hockey player,
because it is acceptable for someone to be simply a fighter
in a game in which fighting is not a part of the game’s
rules? I have seen entire hockey teams square off on the
ice (gloves removed, helmets taken off, sticks discarded
and fists flying). Americans seem to have this "Let them
settle it on the ice like men" attitude. They cheer and support
this brutish behavior displayed by hockey players.
On the other side of the coin, however, when there is
a sport with a predominantly African-American player
representation, America’s view on acceptable behavior
changes. If a hard foul occurs in a professional basketball
game and the two players involved begin to fight, it is
viewed as outrageous behavior. All of a sudden, the same
person that cheers the fight at the hockey game he went to
with his son, is now appalled that his son had to witness
such behavior from these "overpaid, unprofessional basketball
players." Even in a sport as violent as football,
where aggressiveness is part of the game, it would be hard
to find many accepting of a team fight on the fifty-yard
line to settle an on field dispute. A hockey team can hire
someone specifically to fight and America accepts this
brute with open arms. We witness a black college coach
send a black player into a basketball game to exact revenge
for what he believes are illegal practices by the
Chapter 5 - Think About It
pg. 144
other team, and we hear cries for the coach’s firing and
the player’s suspension.
Food For Thought
"The Frosting Only Covers The Surface Of The Real Cake Which Lies Beneath"
Translation:
Your Surface Thoughts May Not Reveal Racial Prejudice, But What Lies Beneath Oftentimes Reveal That Race Is A Core Element Of Your Perception
Jonathan Richardson
Author/Speaker/Poet
As we in America converse about topics involving African-Americans or other people of color, there is a tendency by those of European descent to downplay the role that Race or Color plays in the subjects discussed.
While simple Guilt or Innocence, Right or Wrong may be the logical and appropriate desired result when breaching subject matter that involves alleged wrongdoing by someone of color, simple does not seem to adequately encapsulate all the elements that are present in the Thoughts of African-Americans. We believe that the Who, Why and When of allegations and convictions in not only the court of law but also the court of public opinion is oftentimes decided by those who factor Race and Color into their equation.
We know that historically America has treated Blacks and Whites differently, but since slavery was eradicated, Jim Crow defeated, and Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in Baseball, hasn’t racial equality been achieved? Doesn’t everyone get treated alike now?
Well, Comparatively Speaking...
Michael Vick (Dog Fighter)
&
The Barbie Bandits (Bank Robbers)
Michael Vick is ready to plead guilty to Federal Dog fighting charges. Two Georgia women have admitted or pleaded guilty to robbing a Bank Of America of approximately $10,000.
After it was reported that Michael Vick was being indicted on Federal charges related to dog fighting, the media began to report of the "Ruthless" nature of dog fighting. They (the media) began to show images of "Maimed" dogs and to tell us how some of the dogs had been "Brutally" killed by people on Virginia property owned by Michael Vick. "Hanged", "Drowned" and even "Slammed" to the ground were words used to describe the apparent methods used by these men to kill dogs. Most images of Michael Vick shown on television, the internet or in the print media, seemed to be those of a "Stern" faced man. The fact that this man had played in the N.F.L. for approximately seven years without publicly running afoul of the law, seemed to have little bearing on how he was being portrayed after the revelations of his "Alleged" dog fighting activities. Even before he plead guilty, he lost almost all of his endorsement deals and was protested or picketed by animal rights groups and others. He was lambasted in the media and in the court of public opinion.
The two women in Georgia who presumably robbed a Bank Of America (one woman had already plead guilty at the time of this article) have been portrayed a bit differently. First, they have been dubbed "The Barbie Bandits". "Barbie" seemingly referring to their good looks and blonde hair. The word "Bandit" does not have the same harsh inference as "Robbers". So we have the words "Barbie Bandits" that conjures up images of these pretty people committing an unlawful act. We do not however, have the more "Vile" image of "Bank Robbers" who went into a Bank and "Stole" approximately $10,000 of hardworking American people’s money. The print, internet and televised media often referred to these two as "Girls", giving the impression that these are not fully competent adults, but impressionable youth who may or may not have comprehended the seriousness of their actions. These were two grown women (both were 18 years of age or older at the time of the robbery). Further perpetuating the inference of "Girls" instead of "Women" is the fact that the mother of one of the "Bank Robbers" (oops, "Barbie Bandits", we have to keep it feeling cute and cuddly here) was interviewed by the media and stated that her daughter (and presumably her friend) had gotten involved with the "Wrong crowd". Seeming to imply that if it were not for the influence of these "Undesirables" in their lives, they would have "Never" done anything like that.
One of the women was given an interview on an evening news program before her trial began. We were shown her baby pictures and told of how great a child she was. She was filmed at Church with her family. Then we were able to hear from her and her parents. The woman let us know that she had made a terrible "Mistake" and how she now wants to go to college.
Both Michael Vick and these two Bank Robbing "Barbie Bandits" have committed acts that deserve punishment. The problem is, that "Comparatively Speaking", America has "Vilified" one and "Excused" or "Made Victims" of the other. It is easy to want to condemn the "Brutal", "Barbaric" and "Heinous" acts of the "Man" who took part in this "Vicious" enterprise. But to subject these "Barbie Bandit Girls", who were "Drawn" into being involved by the "Wrong crowd" to a sentence that could "Ruin" their future is unfathomable.
The Court Of Public Opinion has reached it’s verdict: Michael Vick, you get what you deserve you "Brute". "Barbie Bandits", you "Girls" made a "Mistake", watch who you befriend in the future and don’t let it happen again.
********************************
Please find below an excerpt from a book entitled: The Complicated Life Of The African-American Man(What’s on his mind) Available at: www.authorsden.com (Author Autographed Copies) www.nowitsdonepublish.com or www.amazon.com
This excerpt (as well as other topics covered in this thought provoking book) will give the reader a better understanding and feel for the African-American perspective.
To Get Insight, Is To Get Information;
To Truly Be Informed, One Must Truly Listen;
If One Is Inclined To Listen, One Is Destined To Learn
The Complicated Life
Liberal Media? (Portrayals, Perceptions, and
Propaganda)
pg. 114
Click, the television is turned on. Now, are the television
shows simply reflecting the societal norm or are
they influencing and initiating the activities and trends of
their viewers? Is the clothing style shown on television
simply a reflection of the style already established, or is it
helping influence future fashion trends by showing the
next "must have" clothing item? The truth seems to lie
somewhere in the middle. Yes, some of the images shown
are societal reflections, yet some of the images are influential
on the future trends and activities of its viewers. At
times, both scenarios are present simultaneously.
One puzzling element of the theory of cause and effect
(which includes elements of perceptions and insinuations)
is how white and Black America are often shown
as polar opposites. Negative imagery of African-Americans
is shown to be representative of their actual environment,
culture, and activities. On the other hand, negative
imagery of White America is shown not only as not being
representative of the whole, but there are those who view
the negative imagery and conclude that the negative actions
of whites are simply a result of said imagery.
Oftentimes, the negative imagery is directly connected to
the negative behavior of whites. It is surmised (by some)
that if this negative imagery was not shown, White
America would not be involved in as much negative activity
that plagues society today.
So, it is insinuated that White America would be leading
a wholesome existence if not for the corrupting effects
of negative imagery shown by the media, while negative
imagery of African-Americans is just representative
of who "they" (African-Americans) are.
The Complicated Life
Brutal Reality
pg. 142
Are violent images in America portrayed in black
and white? Violent imagery has been shown in America
for many years. Upon closer examination of these images,
we find that there is a difference in the message
sent. As different as black and white.
We tend to find that the darker the skin hue of the
individual or group perpetrating the violence, oftentimes
the more savage the portrayal.
Historically, we have been shown that the violence
which the Calvary used was justifiable force used in defense
of peaceful settlers or to establish order in an otherwise
untamed area of land. On the other hand, the Indians’
use of violence is shown as disruptive to the otherwise
peaceful existence of the Western settler. The scalping,
burning of wagons and all of the war screams portrayed
by the media leaves one with the impression that
the Indians were some beast like savages, devouring everything
in their path without regard for human life.
As we watch the "mob style" movies shown on television,
though violence is shown to have occurred, there
is a certain romanticizing of the European descended
mobster. The movies portray these mobsters with gentleman-
like qualities and seem to infer that violence was not
the main (or sole) ingredient used by them to rule and
keep order in their domain. In contrast, the black gangsters
are shown as brutal, out of control brutes with no
respect for order and no respect for the sanctity of life.
As I watch a hockey game, it is interesting to see
how the violence that occurs (outside of the checking,
which is acceptable game conduct) is accepted by Americans
as appropriate behavior. I do not believe if I look
into the hockey rule book, that I will find fighting as part
of the game. Scoring goals, defending, checking and passing,
143
yes, but not fighting. When I look at a game, however,
I will usually see someone on the team whose actual
hockey-playing ability is questionable. This man’s purpose
for being on the team is to simply be an enforcer (or
goon) used by the team to fight when the other team gets
heavy handed or rough with his team’s star player (or players).
So let me get this right, Americans can accept a player
who may not be able to skate as well as a high school
hockey player, may not score a goal all year, and has no
hockey playing reason to be a professional hockey player,
because it is acceptable for someone to be simply a fighter
in a game in which fighting is not a part of the game’s
rules? I have seen entire hockey teams square off on the
ice (gloves removed, helmets taken off, sticks discarded
and fists flying). Americans seem to have this "Let them
settle it on the ice like men" attitude. They cheer and support
this brutish behavior displayed by hockey players.
On the other side of the coin, however, when there is
a sport with a predominantly African-American player
representation, America’s view on acceptable behavior
changes. If a hard foul occurs in a professional basketball
game and the two players involved begin to fight, it is
viewed as outrageous behavior. All of a sudden, the same
person that cheers the fight at the hockey game he went to
with his son, is now appalled that his son had to witness
such behavior from these "overpaid, unprofessional basketball
players." Even in a sport as violent as football,
where aggressiveness is part of the game, it would be hard
to find many accepting of a team fight on the fifty-yard
line to settle an on field dispute. A hockey team can hire
someone specifically to fight and America accepts this
brute with open arms. We witness a black college coach
send a black player into a basketball game to exact revenge
for what he believes are illegal practices by the
Chapter 5 - Think About It
pg. 144
other team, and we hear cries for the coach’s firing and
the player’s suspension.
Food For Thought
"The Frosting Only Covers The Surface Of The Real Cake Which Lies Beneath"
Translation:
Your Surface Thoughts May Not Reveal Racial Prejudice, But What Lies Beneath Oftentimes Reveal That Race Is A Core Element Of Your Perception
Jonathan Richardson
Author/Speaker/Poet
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)