I suppose because he’s black, Michael Bowen of the Cobb blog is the final authority on such things, but let me take a moment to briefly respond to his post naming me as one of a handful of “mealy-mouthed” “crybaby” “losers” engaging in the kind of “squirrel chatter” he sees in last night’s post about Bryant Gumbel’s Winter Olympics comments.
Writes Bowen:
Some (loser) folks have gone off on mini-tirades against one of the last honest men in broadcasting, Bryant Gumbel over his remarks against the Winter Olympics.
[…]
Now if you’re like me and not particularly interested in finding stupid sniglets of ‘racism’ under every rug, you get to the heart of the matter. Byrant Gumbel’s show is called ‘Real Sports’. Righteous. When I grew up we used to have debates about whether or not something was a sport or an activity. Remember that? Well I’m sure Gumbel had that in mind when he named his show.
[…]
I’m not going to dignify the squirrel chatter about Bryant Gumbel’s remarks being racist, just like I’m not going to ask what kind of beer Dick Cheney drinks. Some people need to grow up. As for the Winter Olympics.. eh. I’d rather watch the new Tour of California.
Well then. If Bowen, who is black, isn’t going to dignify discussion about Gumbel’s remarks being racist (and I don’t know that they were: I called them objectively racialist, and allowed that Gumbel may have been joking, having not seen the show), well then we mealy-mouthed squirrels should just shut our pie holes and listen to the profundity of Gumbel’s Truths about the nature of sport!
Fine. Except that Bowen evidently went trolling through Technorati to look for his squirrel-chattering quarry and didn’t bother to read the posts that he decided to link to—at least, not this one. Because as anybody who reads this site knows, I certainly don’t go looking for “sniglets of ‘racism’ under every rug” (see here, for instance), and in the case of last night’s post, I took issue with Alan Colmes and Juan Williams moreso than with Gumbel, because watching activist liberals who make racial politics a cornerstone of their worldview straining to pretend that what Gumbel said was somehow objectively different from other famous high-profile racial sports “gaffes” of the past (I used Rush Limbaugh’s unforgivable comments about Donovan McNabb and Dusty Baker’s perfectly permissable comments about blacks and latinos being “sun people” as my points of reference)—or that Gumbel couldn’t be racist even in theory because of the institutionalized power dynamic that militates against his being able to take that kind of personal responsibility—jaw-droppingly disingenuous and rather comical, to boot.
That Cobb missed all that in his attempt to show how he is unbothered by trumped up suggestions of racism is a particular shame, because until now, I’d given him a lot more credit for being able to take an argument for what it is, rather than trying to twist it into a cause that he feels leaves him looking thick-skinned and bemused at what he tries to portray as the overreactions of others against whom he evidently measures himself on racial matters.
Do I think Gumbel’s statements were racist? Well, as I noted in my post, the only thing that really bothered me about his remarks was the suggestion that blacks are inherently better athletes. Which, sure, there’s a degree of racial essentialism underlying that assertion—though I don’t know that I’d go so far as to call Gumbel a racist for believing such. I can’t see what’s in his heart—just as I couldn’t see what was in Trent Lott’s heart, and so refused to brand him a racist, either (if I remember correctly, I was one of the few on the right who was appalled at the angry river of self-righteousness that flowed from those remarks [compare the reaction to Lott’s gaffe with Chris Dodd’s similar remarks] though I don’t particularly care much for Lott).
If anything, I believe the charge of “racism” is thrown around way too easily today, and has had the effect of chilling speech and cutting off policy discussion by making coloring social issues taboo. Which would be known to anybody who actually reads my site with any regularity and who isn’t simply looking to score points for being above the fray.
****
update: see “Cobb: Call & Raise”, which essentially questions the usefulness of a post like my initial one that uses “Hannity & Colmes” as its jumping off point into the larger debate over race / anti-racialism; my response to that query, which I placed in Cobb’s comments section, I repost below, beginning with a short blockquoted excerpt from Michael’s post:
Nevertheless, I don’t think any debate about this gaffe or that gaffe contributes in any significant way to an effecive anti-racist politics in America, and if I sound like a grumpy self-righteous curmudgeon about it, then sobeit.
Here is where we disagree. I find it illuminating—and worth pointing out—whenever I see proponents of racial identity politics bending over backward to protect those politics by forgiving gaffes that would seem to expose those politics for what they are: an attempt to use particular groups as voting blocs under the aegis of an interest in said group that is really but an interest in the interests of the groups prevailing voices.
Also, there’s the pragmatic aspect of the thing: I happened to be eating dinner and watching H&C, and was simply amazed at the Colmes statement. In fact, it made me literally giggle aloud (which doesn’t happen often these days). And as my blog is a place to chronicle such events, I did so in a quick post noting what I’d seen.
Do I find this a seminal moment in race-relations or racial dialogue in the current political ethos? No, of course not. In fact, I chided Hannity for overpoliticizing what I saw to be of minor political importance
But I did find it useful to point to the larger engagements within that battle using this mini-debate for my occasional, and taken in that context, that’s what my post does.
Regular readers of my site know that I write an awful lot on the themes of identity politics, mulitculturalism, assimilation, and the way each of these things—as both social and political philosophies and as strategies guided by said philosphies toward the implementation of said policies—is both created by, and dependent upon, certain incoherent (but wildly popular) misconceptions of how language functions, particularly as a communicative tool, and most especially in written form, where context must often be reconfigured after the fact.
My post my hold no sway alone; but placed within the context of what has been well-covered territory on my site, I submit that it is another useful nodal point in an overall philosophical conversation I am having with a particular brand of social organization.
Finally: for my part, I chose to ignore the question of what is a “sport” and what isn’t; although I will say that to disparage people who have spent a good portion of their lives trying to become the world’s best at any one sporting-like activity shows a bit a classlessness that is perhaps beneath Mr Gumbel.
I thought it just made him look lazy and sloppy. But, you are more polite than I am, so…
I particularly like cobb’s point that because the final four has higher ratings, that this somehow mitigates the comments made by Gumbel. I am sure that Gumbel was a proud defender of the football coach who recently made a comment on the athletic ability of the opposition being so good because of all their black players.
You know who would be most proud of all this? King. It was his dream that the black man take the place of the white in terms of acceptable racism. Right?
Like you, I find the most interesting part of this ‘incident’, the level of dissonence being displayed by some, simply because of the skin color of the man who made the comments. It’s really quite a thing to see.
Then again, I’ve always thought basketball needed more hip-checking, so it could just be me.
Oh stop it! He does not call you a ““mealy-mouthed†“crybaby†“loser[]â€Â.”
Clearly, in the list of “some (loser) folks,” you are the folk. I think that’s kind of nice.
When I grew up we used to have debates about whether or not something was a sport or an activity. Remember that? Well I’m sure Gumbel had that in mind when he named his show.
Yeah, but to call them debates when no Asians were there to participate…maybe they were just shuckin’ and jivin’. You down wid that?
Asians excel at being mathletes. Solving differential equations is a sport, right?
Nothing demonstrates the inherent hypocrisy of humans than their eager willingness to accept comfortatble, flattering stereotypes about themselves and to bristle indignantly at those that are not so flattering. Or perhaps, moreso by snickering in enjoyment of the stereotypes of others.
Bowen’s malapropos “sniglets” is one letter away from probably the world’s most popular “sniglet of racism.”
[Rich Hall defense]
I suppose because he’s black
If Bowen, who is black
So, uh, what race is Cobb again? Funny you should know that, since it has nothing to do with the post’s conclusions, nor does he say his race makes him an authority.
Sometimes those flattering stereotypes can be the cause of devastating psychic trauma. My closest friend (RIP) was afflicted with a less than stereotypical endowment (sometimes called honkydonk) for a black man, and was always depressed when the look of wide-eyed anticipation suddenly turned to disappointment on the faces of his white lovers when they got a good look at his equipment. Well, not so depressed that he lost his erection, but you get the point.
Not “funny” at all. I visit his site, which often deals with issues of race.
And I was being ironic here in pointing out his race, because he seems to be using it as a point of implied authority on where and when we are allowed to find “sniglets of racism.”
And funnier still, Cobb avoids the unparalleled blackness of Vijay Singh.
Curious.
Just how many blacks are in the tour of California?
Harsh title…just harsh. Love it!
Just how many blacks are in the tour of California?
Three. One to screw in the lightbulb and two to ask why we’re not using a black light.
Dude. Don’t you realize being black gives him absolute moral authority on matters of race?
What’s gob-smacking to me is Jeff’s misread of Rush’s actual comments regarding Donovan McNabb. Basically, Rush’s comments were directed at the NFL and the Media and their desire to have an iconic black quarterback.
Rush’s remarks had nothing to do with ‘Blacks can’t be Quarterbacks’ or any inherent lack of ability along racial lines. To wit, from your link:
Which, speaking as an Eagles fan who likes McNabb and has since he came onboard, was accurate at the time – which was more than McNabb was as he skipped in 8-15 yard throws to Pinkston.
Which means, I guess, that none of us in the blogosphere is meme-proof.
The more racialist comments in Eagles QB history came when Cunningham was drafted as the QB. The press asked him about his ability to make the switch to wide receiver. The context from the reporting was that Cunningham was too good of an athlete to be a QB.
.
BumperStickerest —
I never misread Rush’s remarks. I was simply pointing out how, given his political leanings, they were framed. In fact, I counterpose the ramifications with those made by Dusty Baker, whose remarks were the pinnacle of thinking based on biological essentialism (filtered through geography).
God I miss Jimmy the Greek. He was the last non-black guy to have the loudest suit on the broadcasting team.
I think Gumbel wasn’t being racist so much as never missing an opportunity to blame the government for some reality. Sio/ECO was his nitty little pick.
Sort of a Katrina in the snow. His comment means –of course, African Americans would blow doors if they had the means to partake in the uppity pampered rich white folk sports…BUT because our stingy government doesn’t see fit to have huge ski, ice skating, snow boarding outreach programs for inner-city poor kids—the Olympics is only attended by Republican Senators sons.
It’s the governments fault — this is why there is a double standard in the appropriateness of his saying such—all liberals agree with him
one of the last honest men in broadcasting
Gumbel is a ninth-degree black belt sports blowhard. You think it’s an accident he’s working for the same place that employs Bill Maher? No, it’s the physics of ego magnetics.
Look, Greg Gumbel is an expert on everything. Just ask him, he’ll tell you.
And that Cobb argues that the debate over sport vs. activity, or REAL sports, is settled, or in some way was settled by Gumbel, is laughable.
I think it goes without saying, Gumbel is a pompous twit, who believes his observation insightful, or perhaps humorous. But Gumbel’s comments were hackneyed, using loaded stereotypes, that, used in the reverse, would whip up a storm of denigration, and demands for apology from the offended community of like-minded Colmes, Williams, and Gumbel.
Forget Gumbel, the revealing story–that Jeff pointed to–was the twisted logic used by Colmes and Williams, waving their arms about in the so typical lefty, nothing to see here mode.
Someone should inform Colmes and Williams that they’re not awarded bonus points for back flips.
And Gumbel’s comment regarding ancient Greek games? Who says they wouldn’t recognize men’s figure skating? And I think ya know what I’m talkin’ ‘bout.
Other than that, what time is Curling on?
For the purposes of racial discussions and racial equality, asians are no longer a race. Please remember that.
I like folk. It reminds of a mandolin festival. Run with that.
Racist.
Well, the Asians picked the belt colors, not me.
Easy on the Greg Gumbel remarks… it was Bryant Gumbel. Greg’s OK – from what I know.
I’d pretty much give him a pass on this. Yes there may be some racialst aspect, but the basic point is that other than hockey there is no other sport in the winter olympics with a large base of high level competitors. The “minor” sports should be seasoning for the majors (e.g. track and field) not the whole meal. Gumble put a racial spin on it, but the basic point is right. Speed skating may be a great sport, but the only people in it are five guys named Sven.
Damn! Just another example of the man keepin’ us down.
I mean, I’m sure you’ve seen a “black” light- did it really look “black” to you?
OF COURSE NOT! It’s f***ing ‘ultraviolet’…
But, what do we choose to call the ’humanoid specific’ blending of the various frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum that are most compatible with our 4 billion years of evolution?
That’s right! We call it WHITE light!
T/W:son— As in- “Okay-y-y-y, but if you had called me a ‘boy’… !!!
Gumball was a racist, a sexist, and a wise A** during his stint on the today show and he’ll never change. It’s Gumball’s way or no way, or at least he thought it was until they showed him the door. Guess like 95% of the blacks that make the big money, a black woman isn’t good enough for Gumball. That’s not a racist statement, but something that’s has puzzled me for years. Why do the black women put up with that BS. Time for them to do some amputations of valuable body parts.
It is curious that Bryant Gumbel would think that the Republican convention was all white, or almost so. In fact, as I noted in my own post on this subject, 10 percent of the delegates to the 2004 GOP convention were black. (The 2000 census found that 12.3 percent of the American population are blacks.)
Here’s the post, with indirect links to my source, the New York Times:
http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/February2006_2.html#jrm3953
And, as I said in the post, I will be cheering for the Kenyan cross country skier.
jdm: Thanks for correcting me. One of those mental slips of the toungue. Greg is the Gumbel I see most often on the tube (so his name was on the tips of my fingers?), as the Today show was never my thing–brother Bryant is the twit.