A very peculiar thing happened last week, Willie Randolph went from bad manager, to bad guy in the eyes of the media. During the past couple of weeks, the Mets have continued to fall in the National League East, a division they were favored to win. Willie Randolph is cool, sometimes too cool, he sticks behind his players, he doesn't throw water coolers, he gives you glimpses of his immense frustration with grown men who can't seem to throw, catch or hit a small ball. But Randolph became the center of a media storm recently when he interviewed with the Bergen Record (yeah, I never heard of it either) and he commented on the way the Mets network SNY portrayed him. He felt that the network was portraying him unfairly and in many ways attempting to vilify him. The article says,
"Is it racial?" Randolph asked. "Huh? It smells a little bit."
Asked directly if he believes black managers are held to different standards than their white counterparts, Randolph said: "I don't know how to put my finger on it, but I think there's something there. Herman Edwards did pretty well here and he won a couple of playoff [games], and they were pretty hard on Herm. Isiah [Thomas] didn't do a great job, but they beat up Isiah pretty good. ... I don't know if people are used to a certain figurehead. There's something weird about it.
"I think it's very important ... that I handle myself in a way that the [African-American managers] coming behind me will get the opportunities, too ... ."
Those words, set off a firestorm in NY. No longer was the issue was Willie a poor manager, but it was Willie is playing the race card? (I'm glad that Matt Cerone had the courage to "question" the notion of the race card) Like most Black folks who realize their job hangs on a string, Randolph quickly apologized for his statement.Here I excerpt from the NYTimes' coverage.
“I want to apologize to Met ownership and SNY and my team for the unnecessary distraction that I created, and I caused, the last couple days,” Randolph said. “I shouldn’t have said what I said. It was a mistake; there are no excuses for that.He continued on
“The fact of life is we have not been playing well as a team. When that happens you are going to get criticized for that. I take full responsibility for what I said out of frustration. I wanted to publicly apologize.”
“I never said anything about anybody being a racist,” Randolph said. “What I said was kind of like what it felt like to me.”
Asked why he issued an apology, Randolph said, “I just felt like it was something I needed to do.” When asked if we was told to apologize, he said, “No."
Randolph said he tried to contact the Mets’ owners Wednesday, but did not reach them.
This morning I visited Metsblog to see why my team keeps sliding further in the hole but I was quickly greeted with a post on Randolph's meeting with the Mets front office. Now with a team that is below .500 you expect this meeting to be about "changes" on the field, they suggest the meeting is first about Randolph's comments to the media.
We live in a society where the smallest mention of the role of race, can set off a firestorm. The idea that we live in a perfectly equal society should be laughable. A few years ago Gary Sheffield resurfaced the issue race and baseball, only to be met with heavy resistance. Willie knew that if he was going to actually keep his job, he would have to squelch a legitimate dialogue. While some folks argue the race card is the way that people weaken race relations, in reality, we all too seldom acknowledge the vulnerability that people of color face to discrimination. Saying something happened to you because of your race is sometimes more of a hazard to your well being than the original race-related offense. The culture of fear that Americans live in regarding racism has lead folks to truncate or all together eliminate dialogue about the consequences and meaning of race and racism (yes, they are different).
I'll close with a recent anecdote from a close friend who is a successful African-American male. A week or so ago, my friend walked into a late night convenience store to get a snack. As he thumbed the snacks, he reached into his suit pocket and pulled out his wallet, as he realized they didn't have his snacks, he put his wallet back into his pocket. As he began to walk out of the store an entering White customer in cut offs and a tee shirt said to him, "You gonna pay for that?" To which he looked back in bewilderment. My friend, with constitution said, "Excuse me, who are you?" To which the man responded, "A friend of the owner. Are you gonna pay for that or just take it?" At that moment my friend had a crossroads. He could either reach into his suit's pocket and retrieve his wallet to demonstrate he had not taken any snacks or could ignore the man accusing him of theft.
Before completing the story, my friend asked me, "What would you have done?" I thought and offered a measured response, "I don't think there is a 'winning answer.' It's like the tipping dilemma. You go to a restaurant, a waiter or waitress treats you poorly because they think Black people don't tip well. You in turn can either tip well for poor service and try challenge the stereotype or tip poorly given the service." As we sat on the phone discussing options, I was reminded that no matter how much education (we both have PhDs), income (we have successfully broken into the middle class), or accolades we gather, we remain vulnerable to racism and sometimes paralyzed by it. No degree, clothing, or social analysis can fully protect us from the pollution of racism. People argue that racial bigotry is wrong, but have we reached the point where calling out the bigotry is even worse in public opinion than the bigotry?
2 comments:
Great Post, Dumi. Discussion of racism has been stigmatized to a point where, unless it is overt, bringing up an issue possibly effected by racism will cause more backlash than it will a positive discussion on the matter.
Ironically, the statement "Playing the race card" has become the newest trump card in the media, instantly pushing the issue of race out of the spotlight and replacing it with an attack on character of the person. So in the day and age where you know you only get one opportunity to substantiate your claims of racism before you are lambasted by the media for "playing the race card", Randolph ended his turn with "It smells a little bit." Game over.
I want to believe that the majority of the public, like me, knows that racism is alive and well existing in the insidious form described only by attitudes and opinions and can not be easily linked to cold hard facts. I am also aware of situations where race is made the issue when it shouldn't have. That said, to win over the open minded, the burden lies with the accuser. Obviously, asking Randolph to PROVE that media criticism of him is linked to racism is ridiculous, but throw something out there to allow us to separate "criticism of a slumping manager" from "criticism of a slumping, black manager". Unfortunately, that was Randolph's only opportunity to make it a legit issue it is tagged with "the race card" by the media and dismissed.
And to throw my opinion into the story about your colleague stopped at the convenience store, he should have absolutely showed the person who stopped him that he wasn't stealing anything. Righteous indignation does nothing except conserve his sense of pride. Whereas maybe, just maybe, had he showed the accuser that he was wrong in assuming your friend had stolen something, the accuser would have felt foolish enough to really consider what made him so sure of the theft in the first place, and a change for the positive might be the outcome. I know I'm always most open to reconsideration while I am pulling my foot out of my mouth.
Also, is it hypocritical, in a story that criticizes judging based on appearance and stereotypes, to paint the picture of the accuser as an ignorant redneck (no other reason to describe what he was wearing)? It seems like superfluous information that only furthers a stereotype. It reminds me of the Michigan Daily "crime beat" pointlessly describing the race of the suspect.
I Look forward to your reply.
Go Cubs!
--Andy
Yeah legitimate talk about race has been a huge hurdle and will continue to be one. I was disappointed that while retreated so fast, but it's understandable given the circumstances.
On my friend and showing he had nothing, I think that his producing the lack of product validates the other person's accusation. In a country where Black folks were often disallowed their own testimonies unless they were validated by Whites, this still rubs me the wrong way. And though I did not include it in the original post, he did indeed produce his empty pockets much to the accusers chagrin.
In terms of the dress, I brought forth the point of dress because it says something about "presentation". A Black man in a store after midnight in a White tee, doorag, and jeans is likely to get different treatment than a Black man in a suit after midnight... I would have argued, but in this case he did not. My intention was not to convey the accuser as a redneck (your term, not mine) simply to provide info on both sides. I figured it would have been "conspicuous" to leave out the accusers attire if I left in the accused, which I think is more defensible then the Daily's "non-arbitrary" presentation of information (which were really Public Safety's descriptions also).
And no Cub rooting will be tolerated on this site ;)
Post a Comment