Alright, so there's a HuffPost article in which the author is mad at - and demanding an apology from - Brent Musburger for referring to Tommie Smith and Juan Carlos as "black-skinned storm troopers" in an article.
Ease back: I'm not going to defend Musburger's comment. Instead I'm going to rationalize it using four statements.
1. It was 1968.
People seem to forget that it was as cool to be racist then as it is uncool to be racist now. Musburger was going with a societal flow that had yet to be corrected. I would imagine that a majority of white people were racist then, and that even some white people who weren't racist were preturbed by the Black Power salute.
In a job that's dependent on eyeballs and emotions, Musburger tapped into the societal mood and likely upped his readership in the process.
Just a few years earlier, Hillary Clinton - yes, that Hillary Clinton - supported Barry Goldwater. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act. People have called out Hillary for supporting Goldwater, but not because of his beliefs on civil rights. No one's calling Hillary a racist now, nor should they. Why the harsh treatment for Musburger? For saying something a bunch of people were thinking over 40 years ago? Has Musburger said anything even close to that lately?
Then, of course, there's the other side of the coin.
2. Are we going to pretend black people aren't racist?
One of the great racial injustices/double standards in society is that minorities get free passes to generalize majorities. I can't remember the last time I've seen a minority comedian go through a show without making fun of white people, but we get bent all out of shape when Don Imus offers commentary on women's college basketball.
Those of us who are black (and most likely other minorities) know full well that we've heard and/or said quite a few things about our lightly-complected European descendent brethren. "But Musburger wrote it in an article: he put it out there in public"...let me scroll through a few Facebook pages and see how long it takes before finding similar statements. If Musburger's racist, then we all are (which I believe to be the case, as minimal as the degree may be).
Shoot, of the four people who I'd be least likely to ever call racist; three of them are white. I still contend that minorities in general - and black people in particular - are much more occupied with racism than white people are. Reasons are understandable, but explanation of facts doesn't erase them.
3. Musburger explained his statement and offered a renewed perspective - although that perspective was wrong, and I'll get to that.
Asked about the comment in 1999, Musburger said that while his usage of words left something to be desired but he stood by his general sentiment that athletes shouldn't make political statements at the Olympics.
I agree with that. Problem is that it wasn't a political statement: it was a social statement. The Olympics are by definition a social statement (that people can come from all over and compete without the pressures of government and politics). The Olympics are about kinship, something that Smith and Carlos did not feel was present in America.
A look into Musburger's early life shows he needed to change his perspective on a few things anyway. Let's just say Brent was no angel in his younger days and leave it there. As a society, we love to tell people to grow up without allowing them a genuine opportunity to do so. The man was brought up in a racist country and reflected that in a column. Anyone asking for the editor of Time to apologize (and if you don't know what I'm talking about, that's a major point in this direction). Musburger probably wants to forget about many misdeeds from his younger days...and what would be the point of bringing it back up anyway?
4. An apology at this point would mean nothing.
I'm willing to bet than an apology would be considered insincere and/or totally due to this round of public pressure. It wouldn't enrich the lives of Smith or Carlos one bit. It'd get no press unless ESPN did a Decision-like show (which I'm almost certain would not take place). It wouldn't validate the salute any more, as it was quite valid already. I fail to see the good that could come from an apology, and I'm not one for useless gestures. Someone probably just wants to be able to come up off Musburger and say they made him apologize.
Even in the worst-case scenario, there's still a "so what" element. Say Musburger's racist and chooses not to apologize for that reason. What does that mean? As long as he leaves it out of his work and doesn't impede our progress as a people, I'm cool. Even if Musburger is racist (which I highly doubt), he isn't "the man" that's supposedly keeping us down. He's a sportscaster. Worry about Boehner. Worry about your governor or ranking legislators. Worry about the cop who pulls you over. Shoot: in many cases, we can find that man or woman in our mirrors: in some instances due to irrational witch hunts like this one.
---
Shake the haters off, Brent - and don't say a word.
No comments:
Post a Comment