Sunday, May 29, 2011

When they say _____, what they really mean is _____.


When sports announcers, commentators, and fans refer to a sportsman or sportswoman as "the most athletic person" playing a given sport, (with some exceptions) what they mean to say is "that black person is physically gifted and an incredible natural talent, but is still somewhat unpolished."

Athlete

When sports announcers, commentators, and fans refer to a sportsman or sportswoman as "gritty" or "scrappy", (with some exceptions) what they mean to say is "that white person is not particularly talented or physically gifted, but he tries really hard and he makes me feel proud to be a member of the Herrenvolk."

Grit and scrap personified

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Now introducing "Little Fast Latinos" for our Spanish speaking audience!


Kyle Scott is the proprietor of a shitty (but "popular") Philadelphia sports blog.












It's funny, Kyle Scott has that prepoid, frat boy, douchehandle, cross-the-street-when-black-people-are-coming white kid look, and he's actually every one of those things! The Greek lives, indeed.

This just needed to exist on the internet somewhere long after he inevitably deletes it or it goes wherever old tweets go to die. True things.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

He said WHAT?! or, Donovan McNabb finds a friend


Yesterday, a well-known media personality and political commentator chimed in on the Donovan McNabb-Bernard Hopkins controversy.

Here's what he had to say:
This is just the latest in what has been a long line of attacks on Donovan McNabb from black individuals and organizations. …They have accused -- and I can't use the term. It's a purely totally unacceptable term, but they refer to McNabb by using the N-word, and they say he's a sellout; that McNabb befriends the white power brokers of the Eagles.

[...]

This poor guy cannot, he cannot catch a break. And it’s disgruntled African Americans that are jumping down his case, about the way he was raised? It is horrible, it is distasteful. His parents are out there having to defend the way they raised him, and all they tried to do was give him opportunity after opportunity, expose he and his brother to various things. It’s just amazing to watch this.
So who could have said this? It's obviously someone white, and a male. It also seems to be someone who is rational and perhaps even has a reasonably firm grasp of American racial politics.

Any guesses? See who our mystery man is after the jump.

Albert Haynesworth Doesn't Even LIKE Black Girls


Thanks for making my job THAT much easier...
In my life, as an assimilated negro, I have heard more than one joke regarding my affinity for women of the lighter hue. Since we’ve stopped getting lynched for it, the black man/white woman narrative has actually become quite comical and as such, I allow people to run with it. Realistically, however, I am nothing more than an equal opportunity lover who finds beauty in all shades of women. I’m like a by-product of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

But, what about those individuals that still give into color politics when they’re dating? As much as I shake my head at those who castigate my occasional dealings with white women, every so often I recognize that there are legitimately some black men that simply refuse to get down with the brown. For these men, their hatred for melanin runs so deep that they couldn’t even be charged with LOOKING at a black woman. That’s how much they don’t bangs with my Nubian goddesses.

And this brings us to Albert Haynesworth. Recently, the oft-troubled defensive tackle was charged with sexual abuse stemming from an incident that took place in a Washington, D.C. hotel. Apparently, Haynesworth fondled the breasts of the waitress serving his party, who just so happened to be black. Like most guilty athletes, he pleaded not guilty. His defense?

"I don’t even like black girls."

Yes, folks, you read that right. At the crux of Haynesworth’s legal defense is the undeniable fact that he doesn’t even like black girls.

When I first heard this story, I just knew it couldn’t be true. Not because I believe that Haynesworth turns on "Brown Skin Lady" every morning when he wakes up, but because (I thought that) he’s not that stupid. I’m really not sure why I erred on the side of Haynesworth's intelligence, but I did. That was my bad. Because Haynesworth did, in fact, make that EXACT comment--and stands behind it. Upon confirmation of this epic reality, my initial reaction was laughter. Any time asinine racial remarks are made in public, I can only laugh.

But after I got past the hilarity, I said to myself, "This might actually play in court."

I’m no lawyer, but I really feel like this has a chance.

The deadly combination of black male and professional athlete guarantees the existence of at least 20+ white women who can step in as character witnesses and testify to the disturbing extent to which Haynesworth exclusively loves the white jawns. But hey, this is just people talking…let’s concretize this case with some legitimate data.

Recently, Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa presented a controversial statistical study that concluded that black women simply aren’t that attractive. Do I agree? No. Could it play in a court of law? Why not? If I’m Haynesworth legal team, I drop the hammer on the whole court room with this study followed by a Chris Rock-esque “Black women be triiiiiiiiipin’!” routine. That should lock it up in Haynesworth favor.

What we should all learn from this situation is that everyone hates black women. You can fondle them in public, ridicule them under the guise of “science”, and its just business as usual. To my black queens: thanks for absorbing most of the hate that has historically been reserved for black men. Good looks.

[Insert Positive Black Women Lyrics Here]

…I don’t know any outside of "Brown Skin Lady"…sorry, guys!

Monday, May 16, 2011

Atlanta Braves fans celebrate Civil Rights Weekend by mindlessly doing their racist chant


The Phillies and the Braves met this weekend in Atlanta for MLB's annual Civil Rights Extravaganza. It was certainly an interesting choice of two franchises and cities with less than sparkling racial pasts.

The Phillies notoriously heaped racial epithets on Jackie Robinson in just his fifth major league game and were painfully slow to integrate. It was ten years and seven days after Robinson broke the color line that the Phillies debuted their first black player. And then the city of Philadelphia was hardly a colorblind utopia.

Meanwhile, Atlanta is Atlanta. Much is made of the city's role as the hub of the Civil Rights Movement--this fact is supposed to absolve the city of its history of segregation, violence, and terrorism against blacks. After all, if Atlanta was such a beacon of racial progress, it wouldn't have needed to be the freaking hub of the Civil Rights Movement. Atlanta's centrality in the Civil Rights Movement speaks to just how backwards the city was--how deeply entrenched the racism was and how ferociously reactionary the white population was.

So back to baseball and Civil Rights Weekend. It was cool for the most part. The teams got to show off some snazzy Negro League throwback uniforms:

Joe Blanton: first white man in the Negro Leagues
Also, some famous non-white people got awards and, in the ultimate culmination of the Civil Rights Movement and the attainment of Martin Luther King, Jr's dream, rapper Ludacris provided post-game entertainment. It was a grand affair.

Except for the Braves fans and their godforsaken "tomahawk chop." Perhaps it was foolish of me to expect a reprieve from this grotesque ritual on CIVIL FUCKING RIGHTS WEEKEND, but alas.  I understand that the vast majority of people who partake in the chop do so without even thinking about it, much less with a full appreciation of how offensive it is. The fact is, when you get a stadium full of southern white people, put a few runners on base, and start beating a drum at the right cadence, they are helpless to resist the primal urge to do a mock Native American war chant.

Yes, I understand that the tomahawk chop was only adopted by the Braves upon the arrival of Deion Sanders in the early 90s, who brought the tradition with him from Florida State University where it originated. That doesn't make it less repugnant.

Some claim the chop is not intended to be offensive but rather an homage to Native American culture. But this is hard to accept coming from a state with a history of treating Native Americans as poorly as it treated black people. It is even harder to accept in a country that saw all but eradicating the native population as a matter of public policy. It seems a little bit like dancing on the grave.

And finally, there is the argument that the chop is a "tradition" for Braves fans, just like beer and hot dogs and singing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." It would be wrong to disturb this tradition because baseball is at its core a game of traditions.

You know what else was a tradition? Slavery.

Personally, I am quite glad we got rid of that one.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Bernard Hopkins doesn't know his history (and neither does anyone else)


Field Negro
On May 21st, 46-year-old pugilist Bernard Hopkins--the pride of Philly--will be facing off against Jean Pascal for The Ring, WBC, and IBO Light Heavyweight titles in a rematch of their December 2010 bout that ended in a draw. So how does the Executioner choose to spend the days leading up to his title bout? Some training, carefully monitoring his diet, and doing interviews in which he dumps on former Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, of course. In a column by Marcus Hayes that appeared on Philly.com today, Hopkins gets his Jalen Rose on:
According to Hopkins, McNabb had a privileged childhood in suburban Chicago and, as a result, is not black enough or tough enough, at least compared with, say, himself, Michael Vick and Terrell Owens.

"Forget this," Hopkins said, pointing to his own dark skin. "He's got a suntan. That's all."

Hopkins also implied that, while Vick and Owens remained true to their roots, McNabb did not, and that McNabb was rudely awakened when the Eagles traded him to the Redskins last year.

"Why do you think McNabb felt he was betrayed? Because McNabb is the guy in the house, while everybody else is on the field. He's the one who got the extra coat. The extra servings. 'You're our boy,' " Hopkins said, patting a reporter on the back in illustration. "He thought he was one of them."

Replace "guy in the house" with "slave in the house," then replace "on the field" with "in the field," and Hopkins' message is Uncle Tom-clear.

McNabb's publicist, Rich Burg, said McNabb would have no comment.
So on behalf of McNabb, I will respond to this by historicizing the frequently reoccuring "house slave"/"field slave" dichotomy. This formulation (which draws on the archetype of the subservient, docile slave, portrayed most notably in Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin as the eponymous main character) can trace its origins to Malcolm X's memorable 1963 speech, "Message to the Grass Roots," in which he offered this explanation:
To understand this, you have to go back to what the young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro back during slavery. There were two kinds of slaves, the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes -- they lived in the house with the Master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good because they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved the master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house -- quicker than the master would. If the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.
Taking hold amid the radicalism of the 1960s to describe class and ideological fissures within the black population, this metaphor has maintained its rhetorical grip to the present. But, quite simply, Malcolm's formulation is historically inaccurate. Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner, and Gabriel Prosser had two things in common. First, they led some of the best-known slave revolts in U.S. history. Second, they were all "house slaves". In addition, as political scientist Adolph Reed notes, the assignment to house work was a decision imposed on slaves by slave owners. In many cases, house work could be more demeaning and offer less autonomy than work in the field.

House Negro
So basically, this oft-repeated dichotomy is built entirely on bullshit and should stop being used, even if Malcolm X didn't initially intend for it to be considered serious historical analysis. Reed writes:
Whether or not Malcolm meant the house Negro/field Negro antagonism to be an accurate description of a dominant historical pattern rather than simply a rhetorical device, the metaphor draws its force from the implication of sedimented tension and historical continuity.  
If anything, the poles and their implicit moral positions should be flipped. McNabb can thus rest assured that as a "house Negro," he stands in the tradition of Vesey, Turner, and Prosser. Meanwhile, Hopkins--and everybody else who still deploys this metaphor--should really find a better way of expressing his naive belief that the black population exists (or should exist) in a state of organic unity and that there is a such thing as "racial authenticity."

McNabb is no stranger to racially-charged criticism--over the course of his career, he has been something of a lighting rod for it. From being too black in the eyes of Rush Limbaugh to not being black enough in the eyes of people like Philadelphia NAACP president J. Whyatt Mondesire and Hopkins, maybe one day people will just let Donovan be Donovan.
                 

See also: Bernard Hopkins Promotes Upcoming Fight By Calling Donovan McNabb A House Negro

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

NFL Lockout Begins To Affect Little Black Kids


The extent to which the NFL lockout affects its players clearly goes beyond the game of football. The lockout directly affects their opportunity to play, which indirectly affects their ability to get paid. And using my very vague understanding of the Reagan “Trickle-down theory,” if the players aren’t getting paid neither is babymoms. And if babymoms isn’t getting paid, what happens to all of the chilluns?

As Fuqua pointed out, it’s pretty messed up how we tend to label the brown folks as “babymommas” and yet you white folks get to live life free of implicitly disparaging labels.

And this works conversely, as well. Because today, CBS Sports released an article about how the lockout has pushed players to consider readjusting their child support payments.

Now I wonder, in an article like this, who do you think they chose to highlight?
And when I think of an NFL player who owes a great deal in child support, my mind automatically springs to Jets CB Antonio Cromartie, who has nine children by eight women.
[...]
One player who can make his payments, the news service reports, is Raiders RB Darren McFadden, who has three children by three women.
Cromartie Family Portrait Unavailable
Listen, I’m fully aware of the obvious hilarity in Antonio Cromartie having nine kids by eight women. But by now we’ve reached the point of blatant mockery. And I’m not even sure what specifically explaining McFadden’s particular situation advances the article, besides making another joke about (black) athlete’s and their babymama drama.

You know what would have been interesting? I wonder how the NFL's top name and reigning Most Valuable Player is handling this situation. After all, Tom Brady also knocked up someone who wasn’t his wife. But we all know that Antonio Cromartie and Darren McFadden are more relevant to the game of football than one of its highest paid players.

I’ve made more Shawn Kemp jokes than anyone I know, but can we please start making fun of the white tomfoolery when it takes place, as well?

Oh yeah…NBA HEAD COACH and certified Caucasian Scott Skiles has a CONFIRMED (some claim more…) SIX illegitimate kids. Take that, white people.

"I gets it in..." - Scott Skiles
For a comprehensive list of sports figures doing something that I’ll inevitably find myself doing, click here.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

I cannot wait to get my hands on John Rocker's forthcoming memoir


Kidding. Actually, I don't give a fuck about John Rocker's self-published memoir, "Scars and Strikes," which is scheduled for a June release.

According to a profile of Rocker in this month's Atlanta Magazine:
The book, he says, is a mixture of baseball and politics, as well as some of his “philosophy and feelings.” Rocker describes it, with momentary restraint, as “how the conversation would have gone had that writer gotten it right.”
I think a "Mein Kampf" joke is called for. But in fairness, that is what I think whenever a bigot writes a book. "The conversation" he is talking about is of course the notorious 1999 Sports Illustrated article in which he recorded the bigotry triple crown. Money quotes:
On ever playing for a New York team: "I would retire first. It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the [Number] 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you're [riding through] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing."
And,
On New York City itself: "The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?"
So essentially Rocker blames the reporter for the things he is reported to have said, which has thus led him to be branded permanently as a bigot, which he maintains he is not. No, John Rocker is just the victim of a writer with an agenda. Rocker is so NOT bigoted, in fact, that he launched a completely NOT bigoted "Speak English" campaign (complete with T-shirts). He has since backed off of the campaign, which he describes as "misunderstood," but definitely NOT bigoted:
“People have tried to tie it into the racist overtones that Sports Illustrated created, that Speak English is biased, bigoted. Coming to America, if you want to truly realize why you came here—for a better life, better opportunity for your family—the only way to do that is to speak English.”
Indeed, history has proven that the best way to encourage immigrants to the United States to learn English is for a bunch of white people to wear T-shirts beseeching them to do so.

That's odd
Like Amy K. Nelson's recent ESPN.com profile of baseball's current biggest bigot, Luke Scott, the Atlanta Magazine piece on Rocker makes sure to point out that Rocker has a Close Friend Who Is Black™. In Rocker's case, it is former Braves centerfielder Otis Nixon. Nixon says Rocker is
“Like a brother or a son. He came to the majors looking like he thought he owned half the locker room; he did and said things I didn’t agree with, but he’s grown. I told him the other day that I’m proud of him. He’s finally getting past that article.”
So that settles it.

Tomorrow marks the thirteen year anniversary of John Rocker's major league debut and Saturday, May 14 marks the eight year anniversary of his last major league appearance. I was going to write a post commemorating the latter occasion next week, but I guess this saves me the trouble. So on behalf of Big Black Kids I salute you, John, you paragon of tolerance and torchbearer for democracy.
_______

See also: John Rocker tells magazine he’s close to publishing memoir

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Bobby Valentine on Japan: "It's a little man's culture"


I, like so many other statistically inclined baseball fans, never liked Joe Morgan. He was, by and large, a cranky ignoramus. That's why when he was canned from his longtime position as the color commentator on ESPN's Monday Night Baseball, I rejoiced. It seemed like no matter who they brought in to take his place, it could only be considered an upgrade.

Stylin' on em.

Well, during tonight's Phillies-Mets game on ESPN Monday Night Baseball, Bobby Valentine made me long for the days of yore. In the sixth inning of a fairly boring pitchers duel, the obligatory cheesesteak patter (there is a rule that every national sports broadcast in Philadelphia must say the word "cheesesteak" ten times and show people making cheesesteaks five times) died down long enough for new play-by-play guy Dan Shulman to ask former Mets manager Valentine about the current Mets manager Terry Collins. Wouldn't you know that the two of them managed against each other in Japan? And apparently, Bobby Valentine has a high opinion of the Liliputian Japanese people and their culture:
Shulman: “[Collins] managed against you a little bit in Japan, right?”

Valentine: “Yeah, he didn’t last too long over there. He really didn’t like the culture. For a little guy, I couldn’t understand why. It’s a little man’s culture!”



So, I'm confused. Who is more of a racist here? Terry Collins for not liking Japanese culture or Bobby Valentine for well...yeah, Bobby Valentine wins (loses?). Not even up for debate.