Battinto Batts » race

Nathan McCall weighs in on Mayor Holley

admin — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:37:04 +0000

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote that embattled Portsmouth, Va. mayor James W. Holley should be allowed a dignified exit. Holley faces a recall election on Tuesday. If successful, it would be the second time Holley has been removed from office – an unprecedented distinction.

Nathan McCall grew up in Portsmouth, wrote for The Virginian-Pilot and The Washington Post, and is now a professor at Emory University in Atlanta. He is the author of the book “Makes Me Wanna to Holler: A Young Black Man in America.” McCall penned a piece for The Pilot’s Opinion section today on the controversy surrounding Mayor Holley, and argues that he should be allowed to serve out the remaining 18 months of his term. I tend to agree.

Here’s McCall’s point of view:

HISTORY AND RACE AND JAMES HOLLEY

The response to LeBron is about race and power

admin — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:38:42 +0000

I rushed home on Thursday night, ate dinner and then parked myself in front of the TV in my office to hear what LeBron James had to say.

LeBron James announces his decision on ESPN

I wasn’t alone.

Millions tuned in on ESPN at 9 p.m. to see where King James would take his basketball talents. We all know, now, that he chose the Miami Heat. One could spend hours analyzing and debating the merits of that choice. Personally, I don’t have a problem with it, being that I am still a fan of South Florida despite having lived there. But I won’t take up space here discussing the basketball aspects of this. I want to talk about the cultural aspects of it. This had the feel of a watershed event; of a changing of the rules of the game — not just the game of basketball, but life and business. It felt like a power shift. Was it just me, or did it seem particularly striking to you that a sports figure could garner so much attention with what he had to say? And not only that, but he could inspire such a range of reactions and debate from it.

In Northeastern Ohio, LeBron is now pretty much hated. In South Florida he is beloved. And elsewhere, the legions fall on both sides, lighting up the airwaves and the blogosphere.

Dan Gilbert, majority owner, Cleveland Cavaliers

It has been fed by the vitriolic reaction of Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert who posted a scathing rebuke of LeBron after the announcement. It was laced with anger and charges of cowardice and abandonment. I wasn’t sure how to feel. Was Gilbert right? Or did he go too far? And, what inspired such a passionate reaction?

I asked my friend Hassan, an educated and well-read observer of culture who tends to take a more radical view on life. We debate quite a bit, each learning from the other. Hassan’s point of view on this one was not completely unexpected, but certainly took this beyond whether the Heat are now favorites to win the NBA championship. He used it to examine the role of race, money and power in our society. Hassan heralded it as an example of a black man being criticized for seizing control of an exploitive system and turning the tide in his favor. Wow, Hassan! That would certainly inspire some reaction from people. So, I decided to share what Hassan had to say.

Here goes:

“1. Do not underestimate the show of unity between three young, influential Black men (James, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade) sacrificing personal glory and money for the chance to reach the pinnacle of their field.

2. The owners treat players like property they own and who they can deal back and forth at their own discretion. Take a guy like LeBron out of the equation and look at the lesser guys who are shipped around at management’s will for the so-called benefit of the organization. Cleveland, in particular, in recent years has turned its roster over many times chasing after a title. When the front office makes a move its business, and they make those moves at their discretion because they have the power to do so. When powerful players like LeBron choose to make moves that’s for their benefit its called selfish and turning their backs on the community. These are labels used primarily on Black athletes to stereotype them as being money hungry and selfish.

3. To substantiate that just go three years back when these guys (James, Bosh and Wade) did not sign contract extensions so they could become free agents this summer. The media took that to mean that they were only interested in signing maximum contracts so they could break the bank. The stereotypical angle once again. No one, not even the inside guys, saw or thought about what could possibly happen. None of them had an inkling until word came out about a free agent summit. Up until then there was mostly the hype about LeBron going to the Knicks to maximize his image because he wants to be a billionaire and make his brand global.

4. The owner ripping him on the way out is unfair. There’s no way a Black man could publicly say those things about a white man and not be held to the fire by the media. What did LeBron do to deserve that? Who knows how many billions Dan Gilbert has made off LeBron James? And though he has the right to say what he wants, a lot of that is motivated by the fact that his meal ticket has left town.

5. In my opinion the negativity is media-driven, especially ESPN. They pound these mostly one-sided elitist angles which casts shadows of doubt over Black players and never gives them the benefit of the doubt. They make me sick with how they constantly go below the belt to even question a man’s moral character and write insinuating commentary as if they can read a person’s mind and know what their motives and objectives are. It’s sickening that we continue to allow this to happen because in my mind the backlash LeBron is getting is very similar to the unfair mess that Obama takes on a regular basis.

I think it’s a new day in sports just like 2008 marked a new day in politics.”

Once again, Hassan made me look at things from a different perspective. What do you think? Any merit to Hassan’s point of view?

Charting new territory is tough

admin — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:43:51 +0000

When President Obama stepped into the controversy regarding the arrest of Henry Louis “Skip” Gates by offering his commentary on the issue, many people became critical of him. They found it foolish for the President to give his two cents worth regarding an issue that has burned in this nation for a very long time. I am talking about the issue of race relations.

Indeed, President Obama could have chosen to stay on the sidelines in this matter. That would have been the safe choice. It is what every other president before him likely would have done. In fact, I have to even question whether other presidents would have even been asked their opinion on the matter. I’m sorry Michelle Malkin, I’m not buying the assertion that this was all orchestrated. And by taking on this issue, Glenn Beck, the President should not be labeled a racist. How stupid.

We have the first African American in the White House. And though Mr. Obama should not be judged merely by the color of his skin, we have to recognize that his ethnicity and experiences bring a perspective unseen before by anyone who has held the office. Bill Clinton was given the title of being the first black president, but he is, still, a white man. Mr. Obama could have withheld his feelings, but he was being true to himself and sharing his honest feelings.

As a result, an issue that was controversial, but might have dissipated by now, has dominated our conversations for two weeks. By President Obama offering his take, we have had many discussions about race and the prickly relationship between blacks and the police. I don’t think George W. Bush would have had a summit meeting over beer at the White House with Gates and Officer Crowley. That would have been the safe approach. But we are charting new territory with Mr. Obama. And though it is forcing us to deal right now with an issue that we probably wish would go away, I would argue that we might all be better for it in the end.

And though some might say it isn’t the President’s place to get involved in a local issue, I would differ. Race relations is not a local issue. It’s a festering problem that we need someone to provide us leadership to help overcome or at least address.

By stepping into this, I don’t think that President Obama has overstepped his boundaries. No, I think he has stepped forward and accepted his role as a leader with a different perspective. And for having the courage to do so, I think he should be applauded. But I worry that I am cheering by myself.