Bill Rhoden makes me puke

Whoa.
I miss Ralph as much as anyone does, but the difference between his columns and Rhoden's in this particular context is negligable at best. I think RW wrote better, but that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is people who put race front and center in such a way that people get uncomfortable and start talking about "the race card" as though it's something across the room that you have to go find, instead of being something that's marbled throughout every part of our culture, every one of our institutions, the entire history of the American nation, and every debate we have, social or political.

 

Saw the headline and the pic of Troy Smith online this morning and said to myself:
Nope, not going there again.

 

Yer getting smarter in yer older aged...

 

Couldn't agree more. I didn't even read it, just saw the lede. Someone needs to create a "robot column-generator" for Rhoden, like what was recently down for Bill Simmons. Insert topic and you can absolutely predict what you will get, without fail.

 

Good idea. That would work for numerous posters here, as well.

 

So being a douchebag with a ridiculously large head, phony stats and no World Series titles is the real American dream? It's good to know that.

 

That might be the issue for you, FB, but it's not the issue for me. I'm going beyond the "putting race front and center" aspect. That's been done. What that mentality leads to is a facile "hunkering down," "we can't criticize ANYBODY who brings up race (or whatever the issue de jour is)" mentality. That's what's known as a false dichotomy. Sorry, I'm past that stage.

I don't want to sound like a jerk here, but I don't need anyboy to tell me the difference between Rhoden's and Wiley's writing; I'm at least as familiar with their writings as you are, and likely more so. So cut the condescension, or expect to receive it back in kind. Keep your ignorant "Whoah's" to yourself.

I went through this analysis before in the "Scoop v. Whitlock" threads, but it obviously bears repeating: I'll again use the example of Malcolm X to make my point. As most know, Malcolm espoused The Honorable Elijah Muhammad's Black Muslim views, which included the personification of whites - all whites - as 'devils.' Malcolm - as virtually every African-American citizen in this country has faced in one way or another - had been a victim of racism in his youth, and what Muhammad said made sense to him on a experiential level. Malcolm hated white folks, and his hatred had justifiable roots. Malcolm's position vis-a-vis whites softened some with age and experience, but the seminal moment of change for him came when he did his pilgrimage to Mecca. There he saw Muslims of all colors, and he realized what he had been taught by Muhammad, et. al was a perversion of true Muslim teachings. Not a completely unreasonable perversion, given the history of race relations in America, but a perversion nonetheless. Thereafter, Malcolm ceased to hate white folks, and rather embraced them as legitimate brothers and sisters, courageously casting aside his own mistreatment by whites in his own life. Not coincidentally, Muhammad and other Black Muslim power brokers started to have problems at this time with Malcolm, who was calling them out for their falsehoods. Malcolm had 'broken ranks' from the party line.

Ok, enough background to make my analogies. If you take Scoop as an example (their are many, of all backgrounds) of the "Pre-Mecca Malcolm," Wiley sits at the other end of the spectrum, or at least he did in the last few years of his writings. That's the Wiley I'm talking about when I compare Rhoden to Wiley. Not the early Wiley, but the late Wiley.

Rhoden is not in the same space as Scoop, for sure, but he sure as hell isn't where Wiley ended up either. For example, Wiley could speak honestly about Barry Bonds (whom I personally like and root for, but I realize his flaws). You would never get a column like what Rhoden wrote about Bonds the other day from the Wiley 2.0 version. Nope. It's too simplistic, too in-your-face, too damn easy and misguided for him to write. Let's be honest, it was a cheerleading column, nothing more. Scoop could've written that column in his sleep. I wasn't impressed, to say the least. Sadly, I also wasn't surprised.

(continued)

 

(continued from previous post)

Race 'insights' or 'epiphanies' are NOT gained from someone incorrectly trying to shove down 'their guy (of their race)' down your throat, no matter how accurate their observations may be. That's Malcolm saying (with some justification) that all whites are devils, and all blacks are Allah's people. Crap. Biased. Bogus.

For Rhoden, every 'athletic' (read: black) QB is 'revolutionary.' Um, no Bill, they might just suck. Barry Bonds might just be a juicehead (though I think he's not just a juicehead). The point is, there's no dialogue with Rhoden, he just throws it out there and expects his readers to swallow it. Foolish, and childish. Fanboy stuff.

Wiley 2.0, however, wrote things like (to paraphrase) "Yeah, I remember when (insert white player A here) played receiver; he was so fast. What happened to all the fast white guys?" You see, Wiley doesn't just accept the false premise that blacks are naturally faster humans. Not only does he not accept it, he offers counterexamples to refute it. That's writing from a professional, not a fanboy rooting on 'his' side. I don't have time to point out all the examples, but I suggest you look up some of my previous posts to see more, if you'd like. And Whitlock gets put with Wiley here because: A) He, unlike yourself, realizes and appreciates the difference between a Wiley and someone who merely 'raises the issue' of race, and (B) He just wrote in his last AOL column that he's not trying to say that blacks are necessarily the best athletes. He's earned my praise from that perspective.

Rhoden doesn't come out and say that blacks are better natural athletes than whites and other races. He's not that stupid. Instead, he implies it. That's why Barroid's the American Dream, and Vick, etc. are 'misunderstood pioneers,' and the Team USA demonstrated the superiority of inner-city basketball when they beat Spain in the World Championships a few years back (before Argentina beat them, which of course did NOT earn a column from the red-faced Rhoden).

I like Rhoden, and I often read his stuff. But he is what he is - a fanboy for 'his' guys. Wiley 2.0 was so far past that point, he was at a completely different level. That's why he could develop a friendship with Rush Limbaugh after Rush was fired by ESPN for his McNabb remarks. You think Rhoden would even consider that? No freaking way. Why try to reach out to a racist like Limbaugh, right?

That's why I miss Wiley. There is no one to fill his shoes right now, no one. Whitlock's the closest, and he's got a long way to go (as he'd tell you). Whitlock's "Bojangling" discussion started for similar reasons: Not all black columnists and journalists are the same, even if they all discuss race. As with the Malcolm X analogy, some are way Pre-Mecca, and almost none are Post-Mecca. Wiley was Post-Mecca, and so is Whitlock. He doesn't want to be confuse with the pre-mies, and I don't blame him one bit. Rhoden is somewhere past the midpoint, but he's universes away from Wiley 2.0, at least in his writing. That's why so many miss him so much.

If you ever want to piss me off, tell me that the "difference between Wiley and Rhoden is negligible at best," particularly concerning writings regarding race. That's patently false - slanderously so - and it does a huge disservice to Wiley's legacy. Rhoden can't carry Wiley's jock when it comes to writing about race; Wiley's a Ph.D. and Rhoden's a freshman who's away from home for the first time. The only similarity is that they're both black. That's it. And we certainly don't want to get into "they all write the same" territory, now do we? I'm out. For everyone who's heard me vent on this before, I'm sorry. But this just drives me nuts when I hear stuff like this.

To summarize: Wiley 2.0 showed enormous sohpistication and nuance when discussing issues involving race; Rhoden does not, which is why you always know what you're going to get. No one is surprised, because they've read it before and will read it again from him. Rhoden's writing isn't horrible stuff, but it's not helping any but the ignorant when it comes to matters of race. Wiley's, by comparison, moved mountains. Rhoden is the USA Today of pieces involving race, Wiley the Smithsonian Magazine.

 

FB,

I just wanted to apologize for jumping back on you so hard. I tried to post a long apology / elaboration last night, but it got lost as I tried to post it. I then tried to post another, shorter post, and it also got lost.

Hopefully this post will work. The issue of race and sportswriting - in all its facets - is an important one to me, and that's why I reacted so strongly.

Again, sorry to come off so strong and juvenile. I stand by my points, but they could have been delivered in a kinder tone.

Have a great night.

 

Thanks, bw. I really appreciate that, particularly regarding a subject that means a lot to me.

Hopefully the apology was equally well-said. It deserved to be, given my puerile tone in response to FB.

One good thing with me is that, though I fuck up a lot (particularly in regards to over-reactions), I don't have any problem admitting that and saying I'm sorry. As many on here - with FB now among them - are a bit too familiar with, I just need to keep working on my 'first draft' of reactions, as it were.

Again, thanks bw.

 

Wow.... who ran off with RokSki? kidding

Very well articulated.

 

Thanks a lot, Columbo.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were talking from experience with that over-reactor. : )