In the midst of all the fun I was having watching March Madness a more serious issue, on the topic, arose. First, the Fab 5 documentary on ESPN and then Grant Hill's response.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/grant-hills-response-to-jalen-rose/
I wanted to take a brief pause to comment, and to commend Mr. Hill for his response.
I think that is it is unfortunate that Jalen and some of the other members of the Fab 5, brought the attacks on Mr. Hill and other AAs who play at Duke, in that manner that they did in the documentary. I love that the Fab Five, as Grant suggests, represented a new movement, a new attitude in America. A brashness that five talented freshman could compete, and almost win, on the NCAAs biggest stage. That said, some of the comments raised by Jalen and the other Fab 5’ers are even worse that the “crabs in the barrel” mentality that often plagues our community. Even more than being jealous of another’s success, or opportunity, I think the remarks by some of the Fab Five are tantamount to encouraging our youth toward the glory elements of the “hip hop” movement, or path to the fastest buck, at the expense of a good quality education, which is in most cases actually required to achieve such aspirations. I would be ok with the Fab 5 saying “we are tougher than they are”, “play a different brand of ball, etc”, but to put down an AA, or anyone, for that matter for taking advantage of one of the finest educational experiences our county has to offer is just wrong. We as AA leaders, should be bringing glory to such opportunities, and highlighting the fact that only the smallest percentage of us will ever make it to major D1 sports, let along professional sports, and that without a quality education to fall back on we are doomed to a very second class set of opportunities as we pursue our life’s work outside of sports. We need to look no further than certain of the members of the Fab 5, who did not get an education, and their attendant struggles, to see the importance of this point.
As a person of color who attended (and is very proud and blessed to have had the opportunity) a predominately “white” HS, college and grad school, I reject that distinction between “down” or “real” blacks and “fake” or “uncle tom” blacks as false. We are all black. The distinctions, and ensuing judgments, between people generally, or even within a race should spring from actions, not one's stations in life or where they were fortunate or unfortunate, as they case may be, to go to school.
I applaud Grant for responding in the manner in which he did. His response was one of high minded reason, rather than name calling or trash talk. His response was thoughtful, well laid out and unemotional. In this situation it clearly would have been easy to give way to emotion. I hope by “being the change” he hopes to see in the world, Grant will serve as an example to Mr. Rose (who, as a TV analyst, is in position to influence many of our youth), the rest of the Fab 5 and kids more generally. I think he showed real courage in living up to the challenge set forth by Dubois in trying to lead, realizing the implications of the Fab 5 documentary go beyond any mere war of words between Duke and the members of the Fab 5. Clearly, unlike Mr. Rose, Mr. Hill is mindful, that many are watching and taking notes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Unfortunately I think this has spun a bit out of control allowing media to once again pit AA's against each other. For one, Jalen Rose issued a response to Grant's commentary stating: "this is what I thought when I was 17". To this end, I think we all can relate to having different perspectives on the same issue at different points in our lives. Jalen essentially says this in his comment and owns up to the fact that he was a lot younger with a limited view when he said this. And 2nd, ESPN owns final production rights, so who knows what was said and in what context it was said when they were filming versus what was edited to create the final piece (I think Jalen's actions in apologizing to Grant before the documentary aired corroborates my point). Finally, I am not saying what Jalen and his teammates said in reference to Grant and his Duke teammates was right, I am shedding a different light on the issue people seem to be most focused on.
I believe Grant's response was well-written (and his comments quite correct) but misses the context and he overplayed it a little bit. It was clear Jalen's comments were from the perspective of an angry 17 year old from the hood who would have no idea what the implications of thinking "Uncle Tom" were. He was jsut jealous as evidenced by his statements, "I was jealous of Grant Hill. I was bitter that I had a professional athelte that was my father that I didn't know. I resented THAT moreso that I resented him." He clearly wasn't thinking about it from the context of two-parent families being sellouts but a personal 17 year old place. Could he have followed those statements up with stating that's how I felt then as an ignorant 17 year old and now that I know better, I'm in a position to talk to young men and educate them? Sure, he could've. But the documentary was about THEN.
Additionally, while I would not say any of the Duke players are Uncle Toms (I agree with you, we're ALL black), I WOULD say they DO recruit a certain kind of player. That it is accurate to say there is a sense of elitism and a kind of player they would not recruit. If you have braids and tattoos all over the place, chances are you are not going to get recruited by Duke. And Coach K is applauded for NOT recruiting those kinds of athletes. So there is some legitimacy in segments of the population feeling, "Since they don't think we're good enough, then screw em and the Uncle Toms that they do want."
Irony- when asked if Duke would recruit him today, Jalen responded "I think they would recruit my kids." Ah, the beauty of progress.
Tiff. Well said. Still I wished he had put his comments in perspective as there are many young, impressionable kids that will not get that some of that was the rantings of an immature 17 year old and will also rebel and rather than consider all the alternatives, including Duke, will eliminate it out of hand when the real key is using our athletic talents to get an education that you can use later in life.
Your comments re type of kid that is recruited also right on. However, is that the worst message to send. It applies in our society. I.e, if I want to work at a Fortune 500 company as an exec are they more likely to take me clean cut in a suit or with lots of tats and a slick GQ look? Same person, but the company has an imagine. If I wantto be a part of that there is some conforming of my behavior that I must do
Agree on the corporate image piece. Unfortunately, hood kids don't have that kind of perspective. They look at it as not conforming in a meaningless way but selling out. Sounds like you (you meaning all well-educated, in the know black men) have some work to do my friend. lol
[Terence Hawley comment]
1. When you call someone a "Tom" and then bring his family into the picture to boot, all bets are off. So Hill was well within his rights to respond as he did. That said, Hill is getting way too much credit for this. I've even heard it referred to as one of the best op-ed pieces ever. Please. He's Grant Hill; not Cornell West.
2. Hill mischaracterizes Rose's remarks; Rose was offering a candid assessment of how he felt as a kid. As to the other knuckleheads from Michigan, I haven't seen all of the relevant footage and cannot comment.
3. Rose raises (awkwardly) legitimate issues about elitism, value judgments, Duke's approach to recruiting, and perceptions of Black men and Black athletes that go way beyond basketball (i.e., "good" kids v. "thugs," etc.). Hill does not really address those issues. Instead, he defends (glorifies) Duke's program without acknowledging any potential flaws.
4. Hill's response is not as even-handed as people make it seem. He takes a number of cheap shots. More importantly, why all the references to Duke grads in the Ivy League and pros? Do any Duke grads coach inner-city high school kids, and if so, do they still get to come to the BBQ? On the one hand, Hill's comments can be read as emphasizing the importance of high achievement. I can respect that. However, they can also be read as elitist, i.e., "You weren't one of us then, and you're not one of us now." It seems like whenever an academically accomplished Black person is criticized by another Black person, people say the critic is condoning ignorance. But the issues are more nuanced than that. Maybe the critic is just urging people to remember the kids with potential who weren't good enough for the U.S. News Top 20. Or maybe the critic is saying don't be too quick to praise the Ivy Leaguers and the Wall Street types. As a law professor pointed out to me shortly before the '08 election, Obama supporters would generally mention that he was President of the Harvard Law Review before they'd mention that he turned down a boatload of loot to become a "community organizer." But which says more about his character and fitness to lead?
Not that I have any strong opinions on this . . .
I will take issue with anybody who attacks Jalen Rose for his comments about duke and Grant Hill. I finally heard what Jalen said! Jalen stated that he was jealous of the family life Grant had. He went on to state that Grant's mother was roommates with Hillary Clinton, while his mom had to work hard just to get by. He further stated that Grant had a good relation with his father who played in the NFL, while he did not have a relationship with his father who played several years in the NBA.
What in the world is wrong with AA's?! Have we lost our ability to understand? I kept expecting something negative to come out of Rose's mouth and it never materialized.
Now I have questions!! Why are African-Americans taking issue with Rose's comments? Why have they been taken out of context? How can praising the family situation of Grant Hill be so misunderstood by so many people? When Rose said there are AA's who are acceptable and others who are not, was he being truthful? Have we forgotten the reasons why Jackie Robinson was chosen to be the first AA to break the color barrier when there were better players in the Negro Leagues?
I'm disappointed in Grant Hill. In my opinion, he attacked Rose in order to defend duke university and their preferences--there is nothing wrong with duke having preferences. I refuse to believe Grant watched that documentary and concluded Rose belittled the 2 parent family. If he does, maybe that duke education ain't what people say it is.
Post a Comment