As many Knicks fans were, I was absolutely pissed when they decided to let Jeremy Lin sign with the Houston Rockets this off-season. After the 'Linsanity' craze swept New York and revitalized Knick fans, restoring faith in a franchise long mired in ineptitude, I was convinced that anything less than bringing Lin back was not to be considered. Once the Knicks didn't match Houston's offer sheet to Lin, opting to bring back Raymond Felton as a replacement after trading him in the Carmelo Anthony deal two years ago, the front office's next series of moves baffled me. They signed an already aged group of veterans that included former Knick players Kurt Thomas and Marcus Camby, point guard Jason Kidd and (what??!!!!) Rasheed Wallace. All of these players are knocking on the door of 40 years old, with their best playing days ways behind them (with an allowance for the brilliance that Jason Kidd can still conjure up). At the time, comparing these gray bearded vets with the young and craze inducing Lin, I felt like the Knicks had once again wasted a golden opportunity to become relevant again. I mean, it seemed like they had the golden egg and the goose with him.
Fast forward to this season and the Knicks are a surprising 8-2 and share the best record in the league. Carmelo is playing the best basketball we've seen from him in a Knicks uniform, Raymond Felton is playing like he did during his first stint as a Knick and Rasheed Wallace? Well, anything 'Sheed would have been able to contribute would have been more than anyone could've expected, and he has contributed well past those expectations. So the Knicks seem to be doing fine without Lin and, despite his early struggles in Houston and his recent comments that things could've worked out with him and his former teammates (namely 'Melo), Lin seems to be doing okay without the Knicks. The question of whether or not the Knicks are better off seems to have an obvious, resounding answer: A throwback, Marv Albert style "YES!"
Many will argue the fact that Lin's talents fit better in former Knicks and current Lakers coach Mike D'Antoni's system; the same system that Anthony and other team mates not named Jeremy Lin had trouble buying in to (or refused to buy in to, take your pick). Until 'Linsanity' came along, the Knicks didn't have a point guard who could effectively run that "7 seconds or less" type offense. With Lin's ability to have that system run through him and be an effective ball handler and scorer, Carmelo didn't have enough iso plays ran for him, thus somewhat rendering his skill set ineffective. He was no longer the main cog of the offense and he needed to be to have a positive impact on the team. When Carmelo went out with an injury and the Knicks continued on towards a 7 game winning streak, everyone saw problems on the horizon. "How would things work out when 'Melo gets back?" was the question everyone was asking. Would Anthony be able to share the load with Lin, letting the offense run through him? Nope! When Carmelo came back he sulked, management peeped that, the Knicks went on to lose 6 straight and D'Antoni resigned. Assistant coach Mike Woodson stepped in and catered to Anthony, reducing Lin's role in the offense and craftined an 18-6 record for the remainder of the season. Facing Miami in the playoffs without an injured Lin, the Knicks would win just one game in that series (their first after 13 straight playoff game losses). Right after the playoffs, the #1 question on everyone's mind wasn't if the Knicks would bring Lin back because everyone kept saying they were going to. Mike Woodson said the Knicks were "absolutely" bringing him back, even though none of the Knicks brass would confirm nor deny it. The number #1 question was 'WWMD (What Will 'Melo Do?)?' Would he be willing to give it another go with Lin?
Then, the strangest thing happened. The Knicks front office didn't offer Jeremy Lin a contract right away. Most teams in the league thought it was a forgone conclusion that the Knicks would re-sign Lin quickly. When they didn't the Houston Rockets, who had plenty of offseason moves on tap, made Lin an offer they knew he wouldn't refuse and probably knew the Knicks wouldn't match, due to luxury tax concerns. The Rockets has passed on Lin early in the season and released him. After seeing what he accomplished in just a short period of time in NY, they went after him again. When questioned during the Olympics about Jeremy Lin's offer sheet from Houston, he called the contract 'ridiculous', saying: "It's up to the (Knicks) organization to say they want to match that ridiculous contract that's out there." Tongue in cheek, he also said: "I would love to have him back." To me, that said a lot about how 'Melo really felt about the whole 'Linsanity' thing. He was basically saying: This is my team, but if they want to hand the reins over to this kid, see what happens. I'm sure Knicks management saw that their superstar was unhappy and decided 'for basketball reasons', decided to let Lin go to Houston.
So what we are seeing is a happy Carmelo Anthony, who after his Olympic experience stated that he learned a lot during that time, being the player Knicks fans thought they were getting but didn't really get the last season and a half. The signing of all those graybeards seemed to be an attempt to pump some maturity into a young Knicks locker room, and it's working; J.R. Smith, a guy many thought was a huge risk for the Knicks chemistry, has proven to be a valuable commodity. The Knicks are playing unselfishly on offense, largely in part to Jason Kidd's youthful vigor and veteran leadership on the floor, and disciplined defense (a trait we saw in flashes when Woodson first took over). It seems everyone has a defined role on this team, none more defined that Anthony's. He's the guy, their guy. And honestly, better off because of it. Now if only they can figure out what to do with Amar'e Stoudemire when he returns from injury...
Friday, November 23, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Black Thursday? Corporate America's Slap to the Face of the Underemployed
Every year I find myself saying: Damn, it seems that the holidays start earlier and earlier every year. Well, for many this year, that will be the reality. Thanks to the earliest start of Black Friday by retailers, many workers will find themselves helping other families enjoy a holiday tradition while they miss out on one. What used to be known as Black Friday is now becoming Black Thursday, with retailers such as Walmart, Kmart (which includes Sears) and Target looking to open their doors as early as 8pm on Thanksgiving Day. Some retailers are even considering being open all day, offering additional savings to those who may be looking to get an early jump on their holiday shopping.
Having worked in retail for a better part of my employed life, I've experienced working on Black Friday and it has to be one of the most stressful times of the year for retail employees. I've never seen, in any of the stores that I've worked in, one instance where opening earlier than the year before translated into a significant increase in sales. Sure, there have been times when we beat last years numbers, but in the grand scheme of things, the most those extra hours did was give the store a little bit of a boost. There was never an indication that those sales would not have come even if we opened at our regular time.
This year, though, there is an underlying factor that is usually played upon anyway but has more significance considering the unemployment crisis the nation is facing. Usually, retail workers who are hired as seasonal workers or those who may already be employed work extended hours. Most of these employees don't make much above minimum wage. Retailers seem to feel that if these employees want a job, they will work whatever schedule they are given. With many workers, notably Walmart employees, threatening to strike, the retailers seem to not be worried at all. There are still too many Americans that are either unemployed or underemployed. For every one worker who plans to strike and not report to work, there are five who would gladly work any hours they are given, Thanksgiving Day or not. The employers know this, so there is no real fear that a strike will effect their bottom line. The truth of the matter is, it probably won't.
I grew up not celebrating holidays, due to my family's religious convictions. But that's not to say that my family didn't take advantage of the time off my parents may have had from work and that the kids had off from school. We visited our extended family during the holidays, mainly because those were the times of the year that everyone would gather at one place, usually at my respective grandparents homes. The best part of those times was being able to spend all day with the family and not be in a rush to go home. Sure, there were times when a family member or two had to miss out because they had to work, but those individuals usually had to work early in the day and were still able to enjoy time with the family after they got off. To require that workers cut their holiday short to be at work for Midnight Madness on Black Friday was bad enough, but understandable; Black Friday is a shopping tradition that goes back further than I can remember. But to pull that into Thanksgiving, the one of probably only a handful of days that retail employees look forward to being off, is based on nothing but greed. It isn't justifiable in any way.
But there will be people who are willing to work. There will be people who cut their evenings short voluntarily to go out early to catch any deals that they possibly can on gifts that they will be buying for loved ones and even for some people that they don't even like. That is where the problem lies. Shoppers hold the power when it comes to companies who have something to sell. Since these retailers know that people will be lined up, ready to elbow their way through to the shelves to pick up those flat screen TVs, iPads and the like, they see potential dollars. They know shoppers will line up in places where the temperatures will be freezing and stand outside for hours so they can save 10% during the first hour the store is open. If the retailers even thought the buyers weren't going to be there, they would not spend the money to keep the lights on and pay the employees. How do I know this? I've been sent home on Black Friday on a number of occasions because the shopper turnout wasn't as expected.
The public outcry on this matter has been tremendous, to say the least. Many people, some who work for other retailers, have shown support for these workers who are faced with earlier Black Friday hours. Thousands of signatures have been collected for petitions. The fear that I have is that these petitions will go unnoticed, and the striking workers may strike for no beneficial outcome. Why? Because people will shop. They have the right to and for some, these earlier Black Friday hours may work best for them and their respective work schedules. So corporate America will win, as they usually do, for a few bucks that really won't matter in the end.
Having worked in retail for a better part of my employed life, I've experienced working on Black Friday and it has to be one of the most stressful times of the year for retail employees. I've never seen, in any of the stores that I've worked in, one instance where opening earlier than the year before translated into a significant increase in sales. Sure, there have been times when we beat last years numbers, but in the grand scheme of things, the most those extra hours did was give the store a little bit of a boost. There was never an indication that those sales would not have come even if we opened at our regular time.
This year, though, there is an underlying factor that is usually played upon anyway but has more significance considering the unemployment crisis the nation is facing. Usually, retail workers who are hired as seasonal workers or those who may already be employed work extended hours. Most of these employees don't make much above minimum wage. Retailers seem to feel that if these employees want a job, they will work whatever schedule they are given. With many workers, notably Walmart employees, threatening to strike, the retailers seem to not be worried at all. There are still too many Americans that are either unemployed or underemployed. For every one worker who plans to strike and not report to work, there are five who would gladly work any hours they are given, Thanksgiving Day or not. The employers know this, so there is no real fear that a strike will effect their bottom line. The truth of the matter is, it probably won't.
I grew up not celebrating holidays, due to my family's religious convictions. But that's not to say that my family didn't take advantage of the time off my parents may have had from work and that the kids had off from school. We visited our extended family during the holidays, mainly because those were the times of the year that everyone would gather at one place, usually at my respective grandparents homes. The best part of those times was being able to spend all day with the family and not be in a rush to go home. Sure, there were times when a family member or two had to miss out because they had to work, but those individuals usually had to work early in the day and were still able to enjoy time with the family after they got off. To require that workers cut their holiday short to be at work for Midnight Madness on Black Friday was bad enough, but understandable; Black Friday is a shopping tradition that goes back further than I can remember. But to pull that into Thanksgiving, the one of probably only a handful of days that retail employees look forward to being off, is based on nothing but greed. It isn't justifiable in any way.
But there will be people who are willing to work. There will be people who cut their evenings short voluntarily to go out early to catch any deals that they possibly can on gifts that they will be buying for loved ones and even for some people that they don't even like. That is where the problem lies. Shoppers hold the power when it comes to companies who have something to sell. Since these retailers know that people will be lined up, ready to elbow their way through to the shelves to pick up those flat screen TVs, iPads and the like, they see potential dollars. They know shoppers will line up in places where the temperatures will be freezing and stand outside for hours so they can save 10% during the first hour the store is open. If the retailers even thought the buyers weren't going to be there, they would not spend the money to keep the lights on and pay the employees. How do I know this? I've been sent home on Black Friday on a number of occasions because the shopper turnout wasn't as expected.
The public outcry on this matter has been tremendous, to say the least. Many people, some who work for other retailers, have shown support for these workers who are faced with earlier Black Friday hours. Thousands of signatures have been collected for petitions. The fear that I have is that these petitions will go unnoticed, and the striking workers may strike for no beneficial outcome. Why? Because people will shop. They have the right to and for some, these earlier Black Friday hours may work best for them and their respective work schedules. So corporate America will win, as they usually do, for a few bucks that really won't matter in the end.
Us vs. Them (the 99% vs. the 1%)
As we all know, over the past 4 years, the subject of race in America has been on full display. I've already touched on a number of subjects in which race has played a part in the perception of Black Americans, our Black President, the reasons why people voted for and against him, etc, etc.
A friend of mine commented on one of my blogs and mentioned that even though the race issue isn't, by any means, a moot point in the year 2012, it's not as cut and dry as that anymore. He mentioned it's more about economic status; simply put, the wealthy vs. the poor; the working class vs. the elite. And while the wealthy elite in this country is comprised more of white Americans, there are a vast number of white Americans who are not in that group. They are working class citizens just like everyone else who must go to work everyday to make basic ends meet. Many of them have been affected by the unemployment crisis as well. Whereas for a time in our country's history it was mainly minorities who were not afforded opportunities to have access to 'The American Dream' (whatever that is supposed to mean, nowadays), it seems now that color no longer is the end all be all to whether or not you may end up poor, already be poor or are on the verge of being poor.
Comedian Katt Williams made an interesting, if not already well known, observation concerning this matter in his stand up performance, Kattapacalypse (which is probably the funniest social commentary that I've seen since Chris Rock's Don't Kill The Messenger). During one segment of his routine, he said that it was no longer going to be about race in 2012. In reference to how black people in society, of course, are often referred to as 'niggers', he said that "we are all niggers now". Then he made reference to the '99%' and asked: "You heard about the 99%? That's niggers!" Now some may view Katt's choice of words as crude (as he acknowledges by saying that the white people in the audience were like "We're niggers?" "Oh, yeah," he went on, "we're all niggers now!") there is an amazing about of brutal truth in that statement. In our nation's history, it was widely acknowledged that white citizens had the best opportunities to be successful and to become rich or wealthy. They had better access to education and better chances of being able to earn top dollars in their professions. Many will argue that this is still the case and they still have a pretty good leg to stand on when it comes to that argument. But when this country went into it's recession around the end of George W. Bush's 2nd term in office, white Americans found themselves in the same situations that many Black Americans had been dealing with for generations. The housing market was sent into a tailspin, forcing many already poor Americans as well as a significant amount of Americans who were considered to be well off to scramble for the survival of themselves and their families. Shortly afterward companies started laying off workers in all sectors when the financial markets approached crash status, trickling down from high paying executives to manufacturing workers. The need for a government bailout for the auto industry saved those companies from going bankrupt but didn't save nearly enough jobs. Subsequently, we would eventually see unemployment numbers rise to 10% in 2009. Needless to say this affected Americans from all backgrounds, with some still struggling to recover. So while Katt Williams' interpretation and the use of the word 'nigger' when referring to Black and white Americans might not be politically correct, it does show the vast separation between the working class and/or poor Americans and the wealthy elite. We're all grouped into somewhat the same category. It is truly us, the poor and working class 99% versus them, the wealthy elite 1%; race, color nor creed have no bearing in one's inclusion into the 99%.
One may ask, why is knowing this important? Well, and of course this is my opinion, it may help some of us understand a bit more some of the issues our country is facing and will face in the near future. With the election and recent re-election of Barack Obama, our country has been forced to deal with the sensitive topic of modern day racism. Many once thought that it could have been said that racism no longer existed in the modern era, due to the acceptance of more Blacks and other minorities into arenas where they were once prohibited. As I grew up during the 80's and 90's, there were few areas where poor inner city youth could say they could strive to excel in and know that they could be successful. Entertainment (mainly music) and sports (predominantly pro basketball) were the two major areas that had examples of people that looked just like us becoming and remaining successful. As these individuals broadened their outlooks and saw that there was more that they could accomplish, we now see former NBA superstars like Magic Johnson excelling in the business world, aside from his successes in the NBA. Michael Jordan, (obviously) well known for his exploits as a basketball superstar, became the first player to have a majority share in an NBA franchise. In the entertainment world, we see actors like Will Smith and Tyler Perry owning production companies and studios (in Perry's case) and branching further out into the film making industry. Rapper's like Jay-Z, who was once a protege' of the late Christopher Wallace (better known as the Notorious B.I.G or Biggie Smalls), have figured their way into many areas of the elite world. From holding the title of CEO of his own record label, Roc-A-Fella Records to spending time as the president of the largest Hip-Hop label in the world, Def Jam Records to brokering a very substantial merger of his label with the promotional company Live Nation and forming Roc Nation to owning a minority but very influential stake in the now Brooklyn Nets, Jay-Z has taken on the look of a man who sees no area where he can't get into and be successful on some level. His example alone has been, pardon the pun, the blueprint for many young aspiring entrepreneurs trying to find their way through a world that may soon not show fruitful benefits to a blue collar worker. Sure, there will be blue collar workers who are able to make a decent living and support their family, but those opportunities seem like they will be far and in between in the future. The new reality is that you have people who are making between $80,000 and $250,000 per year and many of them are struggling to make ends meet. The lines between the elite and the poor are no longer blurred. They are clear, stark. Red.
So what happens when there is a very small, elite group of individuals who own and/or control a huge portion of a nations wealth? In most other countries, those individuals usually are the ones in power, the ones who run the government. In our country, we like to believe that those who run our government truly do have our best interests at heart. But as each election cycle passes, we see that most, if not all, of our elected officials have their own agendas that have very little to do with the average American citizen. More and more often, we see companies and huge financiers influencing our lawmakers. Just during this past election we listened as Mitt Romney flat out told those who had attended one of his fundraisers that he didn't care about the 47% of Americans that was projected to vote for Obama. He mentioned that these were people who didn't pay taxes, who felt like the government owed them something, who felt like they were victims. He was obviously talking about poor Americans, black and white. That fundraiser was hosted by Marc Leder, a hedge fund manager. The people who attended paid $50,000 to be there, obviously pretty wealthy people who agreed with Romney's ideals. And even though President Obama seems to have a heartfelt agenda in wanting to give every American the opportunity to succeed, he's backed by some pretty heavy hitters in the financial world as well. So instead of our government being totally run by the wealthy elite, they are at the very least the influential powers that be.
So in 2012 and beyond, we can expect color lines to be replaced by financial ones. Whereas there may still be, as Nas said in his song Durags "…a lot of nigger calling in the corporate offices…", there may be less of that downstairs on the street where people from all races, color and creeds may be finally joined and equalized by one thing: Poverty.
A friend of mine commented on one of my blogs and mentioned that even though the race issue isn't, by any means, a moot point in the year 2012, it's not as cut and dry as that anymore. He mentioned it's more about economic status; simply put, the wealthy vs. the poor; the working class vs. the elite. And while the wealthy elite in this country is comprised more of white Americans, there are a vast number of white Americans who are not in that group. They are working class citizens just like everyone else who must go to work everyday to make basic ends meet. Many of them have been affected by the unemployment crisis as well. Whereas for a time in our country's history it was mainly minorities who were not afforded opportunities to have access to 'The American Dream' (whatever that is supposed to mean, nowadays), it seems now that color no longer is the end all be all to whether or not you may end up poor, already be poor or are on the verge of being poor.
Comedian Katt Williams made an interesting, if not already well known, observation concerning this matter in his stand up performance, Kattapacalypse (which is probably the funniest social commentary that I've seen since Chris Rock's Don't Kill The Messenger). During one segment of his routine, he said that it was no longer going to be about race in 2012. In reference to how black people in society, of course, are often referred to as 'niggers', he said that "we are all niggers now". Then he made reference to the '99%' and asked: "You heard about the 99%? That's niggers!" Now some may view Katt's choice of words as crude (as he acknowledges by saying that the white people in the audience were like "We're niggers?" "Oh, yeah," he went on, "we're all niggers now!") there is an amazing about of brutal truth in that statement. In our nation's history, it was widely acknowledged that white citizens had the best opportunities to be successful and to become rich or wealthy. They had better access to education and better chances of being able to earn top dollars in their professions. Many will argue that this is still the case and they still have a pretty good leg to stand on when it comes to that argument. But when this country went into it's recession around the end of George W. Bush's 2nd term in office, white Americans found themselves in the same situations that many Black Americans had been dealing with for generations. The housing market was sent into a tailspin, forcing many already poor Americans as well as a significant amount of Americans who were considered to be well off to scramble for the survival of themselves and their families. Shortly afterward companies started laying off workers in all sectors when the financial markets approached crash status, trickling down from high paying executives to manufacturing workers. The need for a government bailout for the auto industry saved those companies from going bankrupt but didn't save nearly enough jobs. Subsequently, we would eventually see unemployment numbers rise to 10% in 2009. Needless to say this affected Americans from all backgrounds, with some still struggling to recover. So while Katt Williams' interpretation and the use of the word 'nigger' when referring to Black and white Americans might not be politically correct, it does show the vast separation between the working class and/or poor Americans and the wealthy elite. We're all grouped into somewhat the same category. It is truly us, the poor and working class 99% versus them, the wealthy elite 1%; race, color nor creed have no bearing in one's inclusion into the 99%.
One may ask, why is knowing this important? Well, and of course this is my opinion, it may help some of us understand a bit more some of the issues our country is facing and will face in the near future. With the election and recent re-election of Barack Obama, our country has been forced to deal with the sensitive topic of modern day racism. Many once thought that it could have been said that racism no longer existed in the modern era, due to the acceptance of more Blacks and other minorities into arenas where they were once prohibited. As I grew up during the 80's and 90's, there were few areas where poor inner city youth could say they could strive to excel in and know that they could be successful. Entertainment (mainly music) and sports (predominantly pro basketball) were the two major areas that had examples of people that looked just like us becoming and remaining successful. As these individuals broadened their outlooks and saw that there was more that they could accomplish, we now see former NBA superstars like Magic Johnson excelling in the business world, aside from his successes in the NBA. Michael Jordan, (obviously) well known for his exploits as a basketball superstar, became the first player to have a majority share in an NBA franchise. In the entertainment world, we see actors like Will Smith and Tyler Perry owning production companies and studios (in Perry's case) and branching further out into the film making industry. Rapper's like Jay-Z, who was once a protege' of the late Christopher Wallace (better known as the Notorious B.I.G or Biggie Smalls), have figured their way into many areas of the elite world. From holding the title of CEO of his own record label, Roc-A-Fella Records to spending time as the president of the largest Hip-Hop label in the world, Def Jam Records to brokering a very substantial merger of his label with the promotional company Live Nation and forming Roc Nation to owning a minority but very influential stake in the now Brooklyn Nets, Jay-Z has taken on the look of a man who sees no area where he can't get into and be successful on some level. His example alone has been, pardon the pun, the blueprint for many young aspiring entrepreneurs trying to find their way through a world that may soon not show fruitful benefits to a blue collar worker. Sure, there will be blue collar workers who are able to make a decent living and support their family, but those opportunities seem like they will be far and in between in the future. The new reality is that you have people who are making between $80,000 and $250,000 per year and many of them are struggling to make ends meet. The lines between the elite and the poor are no longer blurred. They are clear, stark. Red.
So what happens when there is a very small, elite group of individuals who own and/or control a huge portion of a nations wealth? In most other countries, those individuals usually are the ones in power, the ones who run the government. In our country, we like to believe that those who run our government truly do have our best interests at heart. But as each election cycle passes, we see that most, if not all, of our elected officials have their own agendas that have very little to do with the average American citizen. More and more often, we see companies and huge financiers influencing our lawmakers. Just during this past election we listened as Mitt Romney flat out told those who had attended one of his fundraisers that he didn't care about the 47% of Americans that was projected to vote for Obama. He mentioned that these were people who didn't pay taxes, who felt like the government owed them something, who felt like they were victims. He was obviously talking about poor Americans, black and white. That fundraiser was hosted by Marc Leder, a hedge fund manager. The people who attended paid $50,000 to be there, obviously pretty wealthy people who agreed with Romney's ideals. And even though President Obama seems to have a heartfelt agenda in wanting to give every American the opportunity to succeed, he's backed by some pretty heavy hitters in the financial world as well. So instead of our government being totally run by the wealthy elite, they are at the very least the influential powers that be.
So in 2012 and beyond, we can expect color lines to be replaced by financial ones. Whereas there may still be, as Nas said in his song Durags "…a lot of nigger calling in the corporate offices…", there may be less of that downstairs on the street where people from all races, color and creeds may be finally joined and equalized by one thing: Poverty.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Are These 5-0 Knicks the Real Deal?
The New York Knicks have come out the gate this season looking pretty good, starting 5-0 for the first time since the 1993-94 season. That year, the Knicks ended up in the NBA finals where they lost to Hakeem Olajuwon and the Houston Rockets. This year, under coach Mike Woodson for his first full season, the Knicks seem to have 'bought in' to Woodson's defensive philosophy and are playing pretty well offensively. After Jeremy Lin was allowed to sign with Houston this offseason, many Knicks fans, including myself, were not very optimistic when it came to this upcoming season. Add to that the signings of aging veterans Jason Kidd, Marcus Camby, Kurt Thomas and the formerly retired Rasheed Wallace, it was pretty hard to see much success past what the Knicks accomplished last season. Needless to say, no one saw a 5-0 start coming.
So the Knicks have surprised many during the first 5 games of the season. Their overall play leads many to believe that what we are seeing developing may not be an aberration. With Carmelo Anthony playing in the power forward slot while A'Mare Stoudemire recovers from knee issues, the offense seems to be flowing much better. Unlike past seasons, 'Melo is not isolating as much and, with Jason Kidd looking as spry as ever at the point, the Knicks seem to be causing serious matchup problems for opposing defenses. The aforementioned veterans are providing a balance to the team that was sorely missing the last few years, providing the type of guidance to rein in guys like J.R. Smith, relieving Anthony of some of the leadership duties that he may not be suited for. AND Anthony and the rest of the team is actually playing, dare I say it, DEFENSE!!!
So, with this type of start, the obvious questions arise. Are the Knicks for real? Can they contend with the likes of Boston and Miami? Will Carmelo continue to trust his teammates and do other things like rebound well and play some sort of defense? Can the Knicks, with all the old guys, stay healthy enough to make a serious run deep into the playoffs? But the most glaring question, to me at least, is what will Mike Woodson do with A'mare Stoudemire when he returns from his knee injury?
We saw this play out last season when Jeremy Lin was infecting Knicks fans with 'Linsanity!' while both Carmelo and STAT were out with injuries. When 'Melo returned, he didn't mesh well with the freestyle type offense the Knicks ran with Lin. When A'mare came back, things got worse. The season ended with D'Antoni resigning, the Knicks finishing the regular season 18-6 under Mike Woodson and exiting the first round of the playoffs with just one win over Miami. Now 'Melo is in full control and is picking up from the vets around him. The experts say A'mare should come off the bench when he returns. With 'Melo showing excellent productivity playing in the power forward position, it's hard not to agree with that sentiment. The floor seems to be spread much better with him there and on defense, Anthony wins most of the match-ups he'll face with other PF's since he's going to be quicker and more athletic than his opponents on most nights. He defended Glen Davis most of the night in their win over Orlando Tuesday night, grabbing 8 rebounds in the process. Coming off the bench would allow for Stoudemire to operate with a second unit that he will be the focal point in, drawing defenses in with his post play and leaving room for the Knicks perimeter players to go to work. At the end of games, you'll have 'Melo in a groove along with STAT and that should leave two very viable options to close out games or grind out close contests.
But, as a die hard Knicks fan for the past 22 years, I can't help but not be a little hesitant to get overly excited about this great start. The Knicks haven't put together a decent season in over 10 years. The last time the Knicks won a playoff series, Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell were on the roster (2000 East semi's vs. Miami). The last two seasons ended with first round exits (swept by Boston in 2010-2011, 4-1 series loss to Miami last year). We've seen so many seasons end up being disasters for every reason in the book (bad coaches, bad personnel moves, Stephon Marbury's antics, etc). I'd like to think that 'Melo has finally arrived and that this team is for real. And even if they are, the road to the Finals will go through Miami and this seems eerily reminiscent of those dream deferred years in the 90's when the Knicks had some great regular seasons and postseasons, only to run into Michael Jordan and the Bulls. I'm sorry, but I just don't see Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler and a banged up, older than his years A'mare Stoudemire beating LeBron and Co. in a 7 game series. And if by some miracle they do, can they bring the ring home against, say Kobe and the Lakers or Kevin Durant and OKC? Right now, I say no. And we aren't even considering if the team implodes or if 'Melo and STAT don't mesh. What if Raymond Felton gets hurt? What if the senior citizens don't make it through the season? There are just too many variables that can derail this thing. If the Knicks can win 50 games and lock up a 3rd seed in the East, then I'd be ready to see what they can do.
But they should be very entertaining to say the least. It seems like they can hang with anyone right now (San Antonio tomorrow night should be a better gauge of where they are). If 'Melo can maintain his elite level of play on both ends of the floor and lead this team, the sky is the limit. Mike Woodson is a good coach for this team, the vets are a good influence (Rasheed Wallace a good influence?!!) and it looks like NYC will be behind this team, as opposed to the Brooklyn Nets, who are looking like the same team they were when they were the New Jersey Nets. A playoff series win would be a big step forward. A deep playoff run would be an even bigger one. A championship? Probably not this year. Here's to hoping we can at least see one on the horizon. Soon.
So the Knicks have surprised many during the first 5 games of the season. Their overall play leads many to believe that what we are seeing developing may not be an aberration. With Carmelo Anthony playing in the power forward slot while A'Mare Stoudemire recovers from knee issues, the offense seems to be flowing much better. Unlike past seasons, 'Melo is not isolating as much and, with Jason Kidd looking as spry as ever at the point, the Knicks seem to be causing serious matchup problems for opposing defenses. The aforementioned veterans are providing a balance to the team that was sorely missing the last few years, providing the type of guidance to rein in guys like J.R. Smith, relieving Anthony of some of the leadership duties that he may not be suited for. AND Anthony and the rest of the team is actually playing, dare I say it, DEFENSE!!!
So, with this type of start, the obvious questions arise. Are the Knicks for real? Can they contend with the likes of Boston and Miami? Will Carmelo continue to trust his teammates and do other things like rebound well and play some sort of defense? Can the Knicks, with all the old guys, stay healthy enough to make a serious run deep into the playoffs? But the most glaring question, to me at least, is what will Mike Woodson do with A'mare Stoudemire when he returns from his knee injury?
We saw this play out last season when Jeremy Lin was infecting Knicks fans with 'Linsanity!' while both Carmelo and STAT were out with injuries. When 'Melo returned, he didn't mesh well with the freestyle type offense the Knicks ran with Lin. When A'mare came back, things got worse. The season ended with D'Antoni resigning, the Knicks finishing the regular season 18-6 under Mike Woodson and exiting the first round of the playoffs with just one win over Miami. Now 'Melo is in full control and is picking up from the vets around him. The experts say A'mare should come off the bench when he returns. With 'Melo showing excellent productivity playing in the power forward position, it's hard not to agree with that sentiment. The floor seems to be spread much better with him there and on defense, Anthony wins most of the match-ups he'll face with other PF's since he's going to be quicker and more athletic than his opponents on most nights. He defended Glen Davis most of the night in their win over Orlando Tuesday night, grabbing 8 rebounds in the process. Coming off the bench would allow for Stoudemire to operate with a second unit that he will be the focal point in, drawing defenses in with his post play and leaving room for the Knicks perimeter players to go to work. At the end of games, you'll have 'Melo in a groove along with STAT and that should leave two very viable options to close out games or grind out close contests.
But, as a die hard Knicks fan for the past 22 years, I can't help but not be a little hesitant to get overly excited about this great start. The Knicks haven't put together a decent season in over 10 years. The last time the Knicks won a playoff series, Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell were on the roster (2000 East semi's vs. Miami). The last two seasons ended with first round exits (swept by Boston in 2010-2011, 4-1 series loss to Miami last year). We've seen so many seasons end up being disasters for every reason in the book (bad coaches, bad personnel moves, Stephon Marbury's antics, etc). I'd like to think that 'Melo has finally arrived and that this team is for real. And even if they are, the road to the Finals will go through Miami and this seems eerily reminiscent of those dream deferred years in the 90's when the Knicks had some great regular seasons and postseasons, only to run into Michael Jordan and the Bulls. I'm sorry, but I just don't see Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler and a banged up, older than his years A'mare Stoudemire beating LeBron and Co. in a 7 game series. And if by some miracle they do, can they bring the ring home against, say Kobe and the Lakers or Kevin Durant and OKC? Right now, I say no. And we aren't even considering if the team implodes or if 'Melo and STAT don't mesh. What if Raymond Felton gets hurt? What if the senior citizens don't make it through the season? There are just too many variables that can derail this thing. If the Knicks can win 50 games and lock up a 3rd seed in the East, then I'd be ready to see what they can do.
But they should be very entertaining to say the least. It seems like they can hang with anyone right now (San Antonio tomorrow night should be a better gauge of where they are). If 'Melo can maintain his elite level of play on both ends of the floor and lead this team, the sky is the limit. Mike Woodson is a good coach for this team, the vets are a good influence (Rasheed Wallace a good influence?!!) and it looks like NYC will be behind this team, as opposed to the Brooklyn Nets, who are looking like the same team they were when they were the New Jersey Nets. A playoff series win would be a big step forward. A deep playoff run would be an even bigger one. A championship? Probably not this year. Here's to hoping we can at least see one on the horizon. Soon.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
4 More Years!!! Now What?
The day after election day…I honestly was very nervous Tuesday night as I waited for the results of the election. I don't remember being nervous the last time around because that was such a new concept, the thought of our country electing it's first Black President. It was like an eighth seeded team or a wild card team making it to the championship game. I was just happy to see such an event taking place. A part of me then had a good feeling that the country was ready for the change that Obama campaigned on. It turned out to be true.
This time around, different ball game. After seeing how many in our country viewed and disrespected the office of President like no other time in our country's history, I was extremely unsettled. As I watched the polls and, early on, watched Mitt Romney jump out ahead, I wondered: Did the hatred work? Did the propaganda machine with all the lies and misinformation work? Were the citizens of this country going to elect the worse option over the best option for reasons outside of political qualifications? My heart repeatedly and calmly said 'No'. But my mind was saying 'Maybe'.
Turns out, Obama had it hand, and convincingly so. After weeks of talk of a possible tie, a very close race, ridiculous negative campaigning (from both sides) and, of course, your everyday run ins with seriously ignorant people and conversation, Obama nabbed 303 electoral votes to Romney's 206. Not the landslide we saw in 2008, but convincing nonetheless. That's what I was hoping would happen. I was really worried about a close call; I definitely did not want to see this country go through the same episode we saw in 2000 with Bush-Gore. I honestly think no good would've come out of any scenario there, with recounts and legal battles and a Supreme Court ruling. This country could not have withstood the ramifications of another such debacle. At least not with this election.
So, it seems the majority of Americans feel like Obama is the right person for this country for the next 4 years. Of course, the race in many states was very close and there are more individuals this time around who opted to go with the Republican nominee. Overall voter turnout seemed to be down considerably from what it was in 2008. So more vitriol, more hatred, more disrespect is very much expected. I have seen a number of my friends on social media express concern that things are going to be much worse this time around. Unfortunately, I can only agree with them. Here's why.
Early Tuesday, while at work, I was told of a co-worker who ran into a customer with a shirt that read something like "I'd rather let my son shower at Penn State than to have Obama as President". Now, I know how rumors get started and stories can be greatly exaggerated. So I went online to see if these shirts existed. Maybe this person could have just made this shirt themselves. Unfortunately, a derivative of that sentiment does exist here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251189655
So this is what it has come down to, folks. People are MAD! Mad enough that they would go so far out of their way to make themselves look silly to prove a point. And that point is? They don't like Obama? They don't like Black people? They don't like the fact that Obama is Black, that he is STILL the President and that the one thing they thought they were still in control of, they have realized that they no longer have sole control? I don't know, but what I do know is this: Positives always outweigh negatives. As I mentioned in yesterday's post, Obama has made progress and the country is on the path to recovery. Anyone who cannot see this is either ignorantly closing their own eyes to the facts or hopelessly helpless. Those people can continue on living their lives in their bubble of ignorance. I hope the air is good in there.
Aside from that, the main question of 'Now What?' or 'What Happens Next?' is out in the forefront. Obama still has his work cut out for him. Republicans are still the majority in Congress and Democrats still hold the Senate. Many have labeled the President 'toxic' when it comes to bipartisanship, due to either his "refusal to work with Republicans" or his "inability to" work with his colleagues across the aisle. I put those terms in quotation marks because I've heard this many times over the past couple of months (not that I hadn't heard it before that). But we cannot afford another four years of this. Real compromise has to established, and soon, because any resistance on either side can wipe out the little bit of progress that we've made so far. There is a new budget crisis looming at the end of this year with the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 set to go into effect on December 31, 2012 at midnight. This means deep automatic cuts in defense spending and Medicare and the end of the temporary payroll tax cuts (which will mean a 2% tax increase for workers) and certain taxes for businesses and the beginning of the taxes related to Obama's healthcare law. Some of these are unavoidable due to new laws (i.e, healthcare reform) but some of these cuts and increases would be the result of our lawmakers not being able to come to an agreement on budget issues, therefore automatically putting these things into effect (remember the Super Committee that was formed to prevent this?).
If that isn't enough, we are also dealing with a virtual split in the feelings American citizens have towards our Government, namely our newly re-elected President. There is a lot of hatred towards him, more so now because there was a very prevalent feeling that Obama would not be re-elected. Many Americans, mostly older white males, supported Mitt Romney and knew the country would too, or at least felt that they should. When this didn't happen, the disappointment seen on the faces of those who were at rallies supporting Romney were almost reminiscent of the type of faces that you would see at a funeral. Many people feel like America died on Tuesday night, for a second time. That's really unfortunate, because those feelings are based on nothing related to the future of this country. They are based on feelings of our nations past.
We must move on. This country is changing. We are no longer the dominant nation the world once felt like we were. That is no fault of Obama's or any politician for that matter. The world is changing as well. The election and subsequent re-election of Obama seems to be a positive when it comes to the way the US is viewed by the rest of the world. Mitt Romney and the Republicans and the Tea Party often referred to American exceptionalism and and eliteism during these past four years saying that we needed to get back to that, that Obama had taken our country away from that. The truth is, the domineering, militaristic approach that the United States had taken to foreign affairs over the last 20 to 30 years had slowly done that. The way our country has viewed immigrants, mainly those of Hispanic background had slowly done that. Obama's presidency showed the world that maybe the last standing 'superpower' of the world was changing; that maybe they were ready to embrace new ways of thinking, new ways of doing things. Politics aside, maybe that feeling can continue. But it has to start here, with all of us. Elections can be bitter, and this has to have been the most bitterly contested campaign in the history of our country's modern election process. But it is now over. There is a healing process that some of us have to go through. But things must change and they must change now. If not, there will be a constant divide in this country and we will have wasted not just the progress that we have made over the past four years but also the progress this country has made over the past 60+ years.
This time around, different ball game. After seeing how many in our country viewed and disrespected the office of President like no other time in our country's history, I was extremely unsettled. As I watched the polls and, early on, watched Mitt Romney jump out ahead, I wondered: Did the hatred work? Did the propaganda machine with all the lies and misinformation work? Were the citizens of this country going to elect the worse option over the best option for reasons outside of political qualifications? My heart repeatedly and calmly said 'No'. But my mind was saying 'Maybe'.
Turns out, Obama had it hand, and convincingly so. After weeks of talk of a possible tie, a very close race, ridiculous negative campaigning (from both sides) and, of course, your everyday run ins with seriously ignorant people and conversation, Obama nabbed 303 electoral votes to Romney's 206. Not the landslide we saw in 2008, but convincing nonetheless. That's what I was hoping would happen. I was really worried about a close call; I definitely did not want to see this country go through the same episode we saw in 2000 with Bush-Gore. I honestly think no good would've come out of any scenario there, with recounts and legal battles and a Supreme Court ruling. This country could not have withstood the ramifications of another such debacle. At least not with this election.
So, it seems the majority of Americans feel like Obama is the right person for this country for the next 4 years. Of course, the race in many states was very close and there are more individuals this time around who opted to go with the Republican nominee. Overall voter turnout seemed to be down considerably from what it was in 2008. So more vitriol, more hatred, more disrespect is very much expected. I have seen a number of my friends on social media express concern that things are going to be much worse this time around. Unfortunately, I can only agree with them. Here's why.
Early Tuesday, while at work, I was told of a co-worker who ran into a customer with a shirt that read something like "I'd rather let my son shower at Penn State than to have Obama as President". Now, I know how rumors get started and stories can be greatly exaggerated. So I went online to see if these shirts existed. Maybe this person could have just made this shirt themselves. Unfortunately, a derivative of that sentiment does exist here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251189655
So this is what it has come down to, folks. People are MAD! Mad enough that they would go so far out of their way to make themselves look silly to prove a point. And that point is? They don't like Obama? They don't like Black people? They don't like the fact that Obama is Black, that he is STILL the President and that the one thing they thought they were still in control of, they have realized that they no longer have sole control? I don't know, but what I do know is this: Positives always outweigh negatives. As I mentioned in yesterday's post, Obama has made progress and the country is on the path to recovery. Anyone who cannot see this is either ignorantly closing their own eyes to the facts or hopelessly helpless. Those people can continue on living their lives in their bubble of ignorance. I hope the air is good in there.
Aside from that, the main question of 'Now What?' or 'What Happens Next?' is out in the forefront. Obama still has his work cut out for him. Republicans are still the majority in Congress and Democrats still hold the Senate. Many have labeled the President 'toxic' when it comes to bipartisanship, due to either his "refusal to work with Republicans" or his "inability to" work with his colleagues across the aisle. I put those terms in quotation marks because I've heard this many times over the past couple of months (not that I hadn't heard it before that). But we cannot afford another four years of this. Real compromise has to established, and soon, because any resistance on either side can wipe out the little bit of progress that we've made so far. There is a new budget crisis looming at the end of this year with the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 set to go into effect on December 31, 2012 at midnight. This means deep automatic cuts in defense spending and Medicare and the end of the temporary payroll tax cuts (which will mean a 2% tax increase for workers) and certain taxes for businesses and the beginning of the taxes related to Obama's healthcare law. Some of these are unavoidable due to new laws (i.e, healthcare reform) but some of these cuts and increases would be the result of our lawmakers not being able to come to an agreement on budget issues, therefore automatically putting these things into effect (remember the Super Committee that was formed to prevent this?).
If that isn't enough, we are also dealing with a virtual split in the feelings American citizens have towards our Government, namely our newly re-elected President. There is a lot of hatred towards him, more so now because there was a very prevalent feeling that Obama would not be re-elected. Many Americans, mostly older white males, supported Mitt Romney and knew the country would too, or at least felt that they should. When this didn't happen, the disappointment seen on the faces of those who were at rallies supporting Romney were almost reminiscent of the type of faces that you would see at a funeral. Many people feel like America died on Tuesday night, for a second time. That's really unfortunate, because those feelings are based on nothing related to the future of this country. They are based on feelings of our nations past.
We must move on. This country is changing. We are no longer the dominant nation the world once felt like we were. That is no fault of Obama's or any politician for that matter. The world is changing as well. The election and subsequent re-election of Obama seems to be a positive when it comes to the way the US is viewed by the rest of the world. Mitt Romney and the Republicans and the Tea Party often referred to American exceptionalism and and eliteism during these past four years saying that we needed to get back to that, that Obama had taken our country away from that. The truth is, the domineering, militaristic approach that the United States had taken to foreign affairs over the last 20 to 30 years had slowly done that. The way our country has viewed immigrants, mainly those of Hispanic background had slowly done that. Obama's presidency showed the world that maybe the last standing 'superpower' of the world was changing; that maybe they were ready to embrace new ways of thinking, new ways of doing things. Politics aside, maybe that feeling can continue. But it has to start here, with all of us. Elections can be bitter, and this has to have been the most bitterly contested campaign in the history of our country's modern election process. But it is now over. There is a healing process that some of us have to go through. But things must change and they must change now. If not, there will be a constant divide in this country and we will have wasted not just the progress that we have made over the past four years but also the progress this country has made over the past 60+ years.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Election Day 2012: Four More Years or The New Guy?
Today, many of us will go to the polls and vote for this country’s next president. Some will vote to keep the incumbent, President Barack Obama, in office for four more years. Some will vote for Mitt Romney, feeling like he can turn around (an already recovering) economy and move our nation forward.
I’m voting for Barack Obama for a number of reasons, one of which is he’s the first President I ever voted for. After spending most of my life with different views than I have now, the timing for me to cast my first vote ever couldn’t have been better. Our nation was on the brink of, probably, the second worst economic crisis in its history. The young junior Senator from Chicago was a rising star in the political world and, oh yeah, he just happened to be the first Black candidate with a legitimate chance of being elected. History was being made and I was going to be a part of it.
Then, the rose colored glasses transitioned back to clear. The honeymoon was over and the gloves were off. Politics as usual ran amok, much to the chagrin of not only our newly elected President but also to those who had voted for him. He promised change in the way politics were done in this country. He promised! We all should’ve known, himself included, that there was no changing the way politics are done in this country. Barack Obama would later admit his naivety on this subject, calling it his biggest failure during his presidency, near the tail end of his first term.
But, in spite of a unsupportive Congress, consisting of many politicians who made it “their #1 priority to make Barack Obama a one term President”, Obama actually got some things accomplished. He reformed healthcare, giving millions who either lacked health insurance or lacked sufficient coverage an opportunity to have access to affordable options. He saved the auto industry with a very unpopular but very successful bailout plan (originally put in place by the preceding administration), and eliminated the decades long unwritten code of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell regarding our gay and lesbian servicemen and women. Obama also made decisions to slowly aid in the recovery of our nation’s economy, bringing us out of a recession that was seemingly driving this country towards another Depression period that was predicted to be worse than the Great Depression. Barack Obama made some good decisions and he made some questionable ones. But at the end of the day, our President made decisions that put our country back on the right track after the Bush Administration dragged us through a war that lasted over 10 years and drained our financial resources.
Simply put, Obama has honestly put the concerns of the average American citizen on his agenda and has worked very hard to keep those concerns at the forefront. I’m sure there are other things that Obama has on his agenda, a lot of that being personal political gains. But the progress this country has made during his time in office, as slow as it has come, cannot be overlooked. Unemployment skyrocketed to 10% in 2009, but as of the last jobs report on November 2, 2012, that number dropped drastically to 7.9% (a number that many critics say is not a “true” number). Obama vowed to get unemployment under 8% by 2009, so I guess you can say it took a little bit longer than he promised it would. But he got it done. While it’s a little bit difficult to tally up the exact number of jobs that have been created under Obama, it is safe to say that the gains, taking into account the number of jobs lost as well, are pretty significant.
“So what?”, some people might say. Many people feel that even though Obama has done some good while he’s been in office, it just isn’t good enough. Unemployment is still too high, gas prices are ridiculous, the price of pretty much everything is steadily rising, the national debt is insurmountable, the average citizen probably isn’t making enough money and the economy is still struggling. I agree with all of that. Many political leaders say Obama has failed the country, has not shown adequate leadership, and should not be granted a second term. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. For the same reasoning that George Bush was granted a second term, Obama should be re-elected. Bush thrust this nation into a war that could not be won, and the intent was not to win the war. He was re-elected to “finish the job” and bring the troops home (remember Mission Accomplished? That was in 2003). When Bush left office after his second term, there was no clear timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama put the finishing touches on Bush’s plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq and drew up plans for complete withdrawal of combat forces from Afghanistan and began that drawdown last year. Just like he inherited those two wars, he inherited a crumbling economy. His administration has worked tirelessly to put the economy on the road to recovery. Just like politicians and voters were wary of letting a new commander in chief take charge of that precarious situation in the Middle East, they should be equally confident in allowing President Obama to finish the job of economic recovery.
Ask anyone what Mitt Romney’s plan to continue economic growth is and I’ll bet they won’t know. What we do know is he initially planned on reversing pretty much every policy and piece of legislation that Obama has put into place (If he were to be elected and he attempted to do just that, it would take at least an entire term just for that to occur. Sounds like another wasted four years by a Republican). But as recently as the last debate, Romney stated that he agreed with a lot of Obama’s policies and ideas. If that is the case, why would anyone want Romney to take over? If a coach guides a team to a championship, do you fire him/ her? If a businessman brings a company out of the red and into profitability, do you allow the board to relive him/ her of their position? If a President is showing progress, do you bring in a new guy who is obviously unsure of what he would do to continue that progress? Would you bring in a new guy who nobody wanted there in the first place, but ended up being “the guy” by default?
Today, I’ll be voting for a second term for the President. I see no reason why I should not. I’m asking; if anyone who reads this blog plans to vote for Mitt Romney, and it is your prerogative to do so if you choose, just answer this question honestly. Why?
Monday, November 5, 2012
White People and The Race Issue
I had an interesting conversation with my boss a few days ago. She was relating a story to me about a conversation she was having with someone regarding segregation. The person had made the comment that the segregation that had gone on in our nation's past was "a good thing". Needless to say, this was a white man having this conversation with my boss, who is a black woman.
He went on to (hopelessly) explain his comment this way: Say if you have a dandelion. All your life you have been told that dandelions are the worst plant on the face of the earth; they're poisonous, they choke out vegetation, etc, etc. You would feel that way until someone told you or showed you different and eventually you would get used to not seeing dandelions in a negative light. So white people just needed time to get used to the idea of black people no longer being viewed negatively.
Insert your WTF???!!!'s, SMDH's, ROTFL's, LMAO's and other shorthanded expressions now.
As ridiculous as this statement is (and I am using the term ridiculous very loosely), I wasn't exactly shocked by it. This is something that I have run into many times when discussing the race issue with white people. I've come to the conclusion that this is a topic that Black people really cannot discuss with their white counterparts. There is such a huge disconnect when it comes to how Black people feel about the race issue, especially now, in this country and how white people feel about it, again, especially now.
For one, the race issue for Black people is, obviously, literally imbedded in our physical makeup. We look in the mirror and we see our Blackness as plain as day. But it is also imbedded in out mental makeup as well. We know the history of our people and the horrible things our forefathers experienced, from being brought here from our native homeland and having to endure generations of slavery to being lynched for things like walking on the wrong side of the street, or whistling at a white woman (see Emmett Till). These incidents remind Black people of the insensitive nature this country has had towards our race from the day they packed us into those slave ships. No one knows that pain like we know that pain. No one can relate to that pain like we can relate to that pain. It is a part of who we are, just like immigrants from other countries pass on their experiences to the generations that follow.
Change is a hard thing for any person to accept. A lot of us are creatures of habit and any time we have to deviate from our normal routine or our normal way of living, a certain amount of resistance is always expected. When the Jim Crow laws of the South were abolished, a change occurred that many white people had to get used to. That is a fact. But just because it is a fact, that does not mean it can be used as justification to explain why Black people experienced the things they did during that time. But what it does explain is the un-evolved view that some white people still have when it comes to Black people.
I don't expect a white person to relate to the struggle that Black people have had to endure and still go through even now. Every ethnic group has gone through some sort of racial insensitivity at one point or another in our country's history. Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps during World War II. Native Americans were slaughtered by the Pilgrims, duped out of land that clearly belonged them because they inhabited those areas first and later were placed on government reservations that they still live on today. Hispanic Americans face challenges every day due to stereotypes and perceptions that people have of them. Gay and Lesbian Americans have had their struggles as well. These groups may not be able to directly relate to the other ethnic groups individual struggles but they can understand to a certain degree. In discussing these struggles with people, it is hard to justify any of the conduct that has been exhibited towards these groups, but many people try to do it. With the Japanese Americans, the justification was national security during war time. With the Native Americans, it was European exploration and colonization. Later in the 19th century, the concept of Manifest Destiny was used to justify American expansion to the western territories. With Hispanics, the immigration issue is the main driving force behind a lot of discrimination and insensitivity. With gays and lesbians, religion and morality is used to justify the condemnation they go through and, unfortunately, this condemnation comes from every direction. So, I guess what I am saying is that this country is, in many ways, based on the discrimination of people who do not look and act like this nations founding fathers.
I think, for the most part, the average white person who may engage in this sort of conversation is probably not a racist. A person in their shoes may say something like: "I never had Black friends growing up so I wasn't exposed to them", or "I went to a predominantly white school so I never really interacted with Black people". Others may say things like: "I don't have a problem with Black people, I have black friends". Still others may say: "My parents raised me in a household where Black people weren't seen in a favorable light". All these statements may well be true, but it lends some insight into the people who utter them. There is an air of 'it's not my fault that I feel this way about that group of people'. Granted, almost every person on this planet has had some stereotypical view of another group of people. Black people often make jokes about white people liking cheese and not being able to dance or being athletically challenged in sports like basketball. Think about the last time you were in an airport or on a subway and you saw someone who looked like they were of Middle Eastern descent. So I am not absolving other ethnic groups, including Black people, from being racially insensitive. I am speaking on the subject of racism between white and Black people and the often uncomfortable conversations that spawn from that.
I think what it all boils down to is the pain that can be traced back to slavery. Black people were oppressed by white people. Unfortunately, history shows that most of the oppression that has occurred in this country towards other groups have been by the hands of white people. So this would be an uncomfortable conversation between any white person and a person from another ethnic group. It has not been often that I've had a conversation with a person who was openly racist, but I have had conversations with white people who have made comments such as the ones I've mentioned here. It's been hard to peg those people because in most cases, they are relating their own experiences and absolutely mean no harm by it. But I think there is one thing we can apply to almost every situation and that I can apply to myself as well. When discussing matters of race, whether it be a Black person to a white person or vice versa or to any other person of another ethnicity, we should all try to put ourselves in the other persons shoes before we have these type of conversations. That way, we can, at least, try to see where the other person is coming from. In the case of a Black person, it would be extremely hard for us to empathize with a white person who is trying to understand us as a group of people. Some may carry a certain amount of guilt for the things that Black people experienced at the hands of their ancestors. Some may honestly feel the way that they do and mean no ill will at all. But trying to offer up an explanation as to why things like slavery and segregation occurred and using 'adjusting to something new' as a possible reason is insulting and will do nothing to endear those who were directly, or indirectly affected by racism, discrimination and/ or oppression.
He went on to (hopelessly) explain his comment this way: Say if you have a dandelion. All your life you have been told that dandelions are the worst plant on the face of the earth; they're poisonous, they choke out vegetation, etc, etc. You would feel that way until someone told you or showed you different and eventually you would get used to not seeing dandelions in a negative light. So white people just needed time to get used to the idea of black people no longer being viewed negatively.
Insert your WTF???!!!'s, SMDH's, ROTFL's, LMAO's and other shorthanded expressions now.
As ridiculous as this statement is (and I am using the term ridiculous very loosely), I wasn't exactly shocked by it. This is something that I have run into many times when discussing the race issue with white people. I've come to the conclusion that this is a topic that Black people really cannot discuss with their white counterparts. There is such a huge disconnect when it comes to how Black people feel about the race issue, especially now, in this country and how white people feel about it, again, especially now.
For one, the race issue for Black people is, obviously, literally imbedded in our physical makeup. We look in the mirror and we see our Blackness as plain as day. But it is also imbedded in out mental makeup as well. We know the history of our people and the horrible things our forefathers experienced, from being brought here from our native homeland and having to endure generations of slavery to being lynched for things like walking on the wrong side of the street, or whistling at a white woman (see Emmett Till). These incidents remind Black people of the insensitive nature this country has had towards our race from the day they packed us into those slave ships. No one knows that pain like we know that pain. No one can relate to that pain like we can relate to that pain. It is a part of who we are, just like immigrants from other countries pass on their experiences to the generations that follow.
Change is a hard thing for any person to accept. A lot of us are creatures of habit and any time we have to deviate from our normal routine or our normal way of living, a certain amount of resistance is always expected. When the Jim Crow laws of the South were abolished, a change occurred that many white people had to get used to. That is a fact. But just because it is a fact, that does not mean it can be used as justification to explain why Black people experienced the things they did during that time. But what it does explain is the un-evolved view that some white people still have when it comes to Black people.
I don't expect a white person to relate to the struggle that Black people have had to endure and still go through even now. Every ethnic group has gone through some sort of racial insensitivity at one point or another in our country's history. Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps during World War II. Native Americans were slaughtered by the Pilgrims, duped out of land that clearly belonged them because they inhabited those areas first and later were placed on government reservations that they still live on today. Hispanic Americans face challenges every day due to stereotypes and perceptions that people have of them. Gay and Lesbian Americans have had their struggles as well. These groups may not be able to directly relate to the other ethnic groups individual struggles but they can understand to a certain degree. In discussing these struggles with people, it is hard to justify any of the conduct that has been exhibited towards these groups, but many people try to do it. With the Japanese Americans, the justification was national security during war time. With the Native Americans, it was European exploration and colonization. Later in the 19th century, the concept of Manifest Destiny was used to justify American expansion to the western territories. With Hispanics, the immigration issue is the main driving force behind a lot of discrimination and insensitivity. With gays and lesbians, religion and morality is used to justify the condemnation they go through and, unfortunately, this condemnation comes from every direction. So, I guess what I am saying is that this country is, in many ways, based on the discrimination of people who do not look and act like this nations founding fathers.
I think, for the most part, the average white person who may engage in this sort of conversation is probably not a racist. A person in their shoes may say something like: "I never had Black friends growing up so I wasn't exposed to them", or "I went to a predominantly white school so I never really interacted with Black people". Others may say things like: "I don't have a problem with Black people, I have black friends". Still others may say: "My parents raised me in a household where Black people weren't seen in a favorable light". All these statements may well be true, but it lends some insight into the people who utter them. There is an air of 'it's not my fault that I feel this way about that group of people'. Granted, almost every person on this planet has had some stereotypical view of another group of people. Black people often make jokes about white people liking cheese and not being able to dance or being athletically challenged in sports like basketball. Think about the last time you were in an airport or on a subway and you saw someone who looked like they were of Middle Eastern descent. So I am not absolving other ethnic groups, including Black people, from being racially insensitive. I am speaking on the subject of racism between white and Black people and the often uncomfortable conversations that spawn from that.
I think what it all boils down to is the pain that can be traced back to slavery. Black people were oppressed by white people. Unfortunately, history shows that most of the oppression that has occurred in this country towards other groups have been by the hands of white people. So this would be an uncomfortable conversation between any white person and a person from another ethnic group. It has not been often that I've had a conversation with a person who was openly racist, but I have had conversations with white people who have made comments such as the ones I've mentioned here. It's been hard to peg those people because in most cases, they are relating their own experiences and absolutely mean no harm by it. But I think there is one thing we can apply to almost every situation and that I can apply to myself as well. When discussing matters of race, whether it be a Black person to a white person or vice versa or to any other person of another ethnicity, we should all try to put ourselves in the other persons shoes before we have these type of conversations. That way, we can, at least, try to see where the other person is coming from. In the case of a Black person, it would be extremely hard for us to empathize with a white person who is trying to understand us as a group of people. Some may carry a certain amount of guilt for the things that Black people experienced at the hands of their ancestors. Some may honestly feel the way that they do and mean no ill will at all. But trying to offer up an explanation as to why things like slavery and segregation occurred and using 'adjusting to something new' as a possible reason is insulting and will do nothing to endear those who were directly, or indirectly affected by racism, discrimination and/ or oppression.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Presdent Obama and the Black People Who Vote(d) For Him
A good friend of mine (David Bridges) showed me an article titled "The Price of a Black President" by Fredrick C. Harris (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/the-price-of-a-black-president.xml). In it, the author addresses the lack of criticism that seems to be apparent among the majority of Black voters that support him. The point that stuck out to me was this when he wrote:
"... for those who had seen in President Obama's election the culmination of four centuries of black hopes and aspirations and the realization of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of a "beloved community," the last four years must be reckoned a disappointment. Whether it ends in 2013 or 2017, the Obama presidency has already marked the decline, rather than the pinnacle, of a political vision centered on challenging racial inequality. The tragedy is that black elites - from intellectuals and civil rights leaders to politicians and clergy members - have acquiesced to this decline, seeing it as the necessary price for the pride and satisfaction of having a black family in the White House."
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. For those who believed that "A Change We Can All Believe In" was in the making, they had to be disappointed. For those who felt like Obama was going to make everything alright when it came to racism in this country, they had to be disappointed. I wasn't.
Many people who voted for Obama (and a lot who did not) thought we were getting a President who was going to change the way Black people were viewed and treated in this country. Many thought that he would pass legislation that was going to be specifically designed to help Black people. Many can and do look to the legislation that has passed or the dialogue that has been started for the rights of gays and lesbians and some legislation and dialogue for rights for Hispanic Americans and wonder how come the same has not taken place for the rights of Black Americans. The answer may be more revealing than one might imagine.
There is no way that Obama could have passed specific legislation designed particularly for Black people. There is a fine line that a Black president would have to walk and Obama is walking that line. The aforementioned article pointed out the times when Obama spoke out in relation to issue regarding race during his presidency; the Henry Gates incident and the Trayvon Martin murder. In both of those cases, some people criticized Obama for the way he reacted, and in some cases for publicly reacting at all. As a Black man, the race issue obviously must always be on Obama's mind. There are people in this country who do not let him forget how they feel about him and about black people in general. Obama has been the most scrutinized president in the history of our country, even less scrutinized than Bush was the entire 8 years he was in office. Imagine the kind of coverage Obama would get if he went to a Baptist church in the ghetto and told the congregation there: "I'm going to do all I can to help Black people get off welfare, find jobs and live the American dream!" Of course, that would be favorable among Black voters but he would be vilified by white Americans who would think that the President is only looking to help out those who look like him. The reverse racism claims would be off the charts. Look at the propaganda that has already been put out with movies like Obama 2012 books like The Great Destroyer and The Roots of Obama's Rage. He's already been labeled as a person who hates America. I do not doubt for one second that if Obama took that hard line as far as Black people went that he be assassinated, or at the very least impeached.
But I couldn't agree more with another point Mr. Harris made. He said this in regard to Black people in "elite" positions:
"INSTEAD of urging Mr. Obama to be more outspoken on black issues, black elites parrot campaign talking points. They dutifully praise important but minor accomplishments - the settlement of a longstanding class-action lawsuit by black farmers; increased funds for black colleges; the reduction (but not elimination) of the disparities in sentences for possession of crack and powder cocaine - while setting aside their critical acumen."
He also mentioned this in regards to Black politicians:
"Black politicians, too, have held their fire. "With 14 percent unemployment if we had a white president we'd be marching around the White House," Representative Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told The Root last month. "The president knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white.""
Obama once said in an interview, in regards to this topic, that he's "the President of the United States". That means everyone. Obama could definitely focus on race issues more than he has, but what would that do to his perception from white Americans, the ones who still support him? Would they feel alienated? Would they agree with his stance, say, if he mentioned during his State of the Union address that racial prejudice in this country is as alive as it ever was, even in 2012? Do you remember when Michelle Obama said, that for the first time, she could honestly say that she was proud to be an American (speaking on Barack Obama being elected as the nation's 1st Black President)? Do you hear the critics that call Obama 'the Food Stamp President' and those that say he makes it easier for Black Americans to stay on welfare and to stay out of work with extended unemployment benefits? Barack Obama knows the fine line he has to walk to show white America that he is not just a Black President for Black people. He's in a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation. Unfortunately, his attempt at neutrality on this issue has alienated quite a few Black American's. The funny thing is, it is not the poor Black Americans whom the elite Black Americans say are feeling disenfranchised. It is some of these elite Black Americans who feel Obama isn't doing enough for the poor, as these elites sit back and do nothing as well.
The past Presidents who weighed in on race relations in this country had one obvious advantage over President Obama; they were all white. The majority of the country looked just like them and regardless of political affiliations, most Americans had no problem taking direction, advice or suggestions from them. But over the past four years, this new anti-government movement has taken shape and I find it absolutely not a coincidence that this movement surfaced immediately after Obama's election into office. No one (hardly) mentioned that government had too much of a role in the lives of Americans while George W. Bush was leading us to a purposeless war in pursuit of Saddam Hussein due to a vendetta Bush had against the Iraqi dictator. So it just seems like this 'question of leadership' has more to do about Obama being Black than anything else. It is that dynamic that puts Obama in between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place' when it comes to the issue of race, and the Black voter. It seems the price that Black Americans are paying to be able to say that we saw a Black president in our lifetime is not that we don't have a Black voice speaking for us. It is that the election of Black president (and hopefully, his re-election) has done nothing to improve race relations in this country, in this 21st Century. It, really, has set the issue back a bit. And that cannot be blamed on Barack Obama, at all.
"... for those who had seen in President Obama's election the culmination of four centuries of black hopes and aspirations and the realization of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of a "beloved community," the last four years must be reckoned a disappointment. Whether it ends in 2013 or 2017, the Obama presidency has already marked the decline, rather than the pinnacle, of a political vision centered on challenging racial inequality. The tragedy is that black elites - from intellectuals and civil rights leaders to politicians and clergy members - have acquiesced to this decline, seeing it as the necessary price for the pride and satisfaction of having a black family in the White House."
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. For those who believed that "A Change We Can All Believe In" was in the making, they had to be disappointed. For those who felt like Obama was going to make everything alright when it came to racism in this country, they had to be disappointed. I wasn't.
Many people who voted for Obama (and a lot who did not) thought we were getting a President who was going to change the way Black people were viewed and treated in this country. Many thought that he would pass legislation that was going to be specifically designed to help Black people. Many can and do look to the legislation that has passed or the dialogue that has been started for the rights of gays and lesbians and some legislation and dialogue for rights for Hispanic Americans and wonder how come the same has not taken place for the rights of Black Americans. The answer may be more revealing than one might imagine.
There is no way that Obama could have passed specific legislation designed particularly for Black people. There is a fine line that a Black president would have to walk and Obama is walking that line. The aforementioned article pointed out the times when Obama spoke out in relation to issue regarding race during his presidency; the Henry Gates incident and the Trayvon Martin murder. In both of those cases, some people criticized Obama for the way he reacted, and in some cases for publicly reacting at all. As a Black man, the race issue obviously must always be on Obama's mind. There are people in this country who do not let him forget how they feel about him and about black people in general. Obama has been the most scrutinized president in the history of our country, even less scrutinized than Bush was the entire 8 years he was in office. Imagine the kind of coverage Obama would get if he went to a Baptist church in the ghetto and told the congregation there: "I'm going to do all I can to help Black people get off welfare, find jobs and live the American dream!" Of course, that would be favorable among Black voters but he would be vilified by white Americans who would think that the President is only looking to help out those who look like him. The reverse racism claims would be off the charts. Look at the propaganda that has already been put out with movies like Obama 2012 books like The Great Destroyer and The Roots of Obama's Rage. He's already been labeled as a person who hates America. I do not doubt for one second that if Obama took that hard line as far as Black people went that he be assassinated, or at the very least impeached.
But I couldn't agree more with another point Mr. Harris made. He said this in regard to Black people in "elite" positions:
"INSTEAD of urging Mr. Obama to be more outspoken on black issues, black elites parrot campaign talking points. They dutifully praise important but minor accomplishments - the settlement of a longstanding class-action lawsuit by black farmers; increased funds for black colleges; the reduction (but not elimination) of the disparities in sentences for possession of crack and powder cocaine - while setting aside their critical acumen."
He also mentioned this in regards to Black politicians:
"Black politicians, too, have held their fire. "With 14 percent unemployment if we had a white president we'd be marching around the White House," Representative Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told The Root last month. "The president knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white.""
Obama once said in an interview, in regards to this topic, that he's "the President of the United States". That means everyone. Obama could definitely focus on race issues more than he has, but what would that do to his perception from white Americans, the ones who still support him? Would they feel alienated? Would they agree with his stance, say, if he mentioned during his State of the Union address that racial prejudice in this country is as alive as it ever was, even in 2012? Do you remember when Michelle Obama said, that for the first time, she could honestly say that she was proud to be an American (speaking on Barack Obama being elected as the nation's 1st Black President)? Do you hear the critics that call Obama 'the Food Stamp President' and those that say he makes it easier for Black Americans to stay on welfare and to stay out of work with extended unemployment benefits? Barack Obama knows the fine line he has to walk to show white America that he is not just a Black President for Black people. He's in a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation. Unfortunately, his attempt at neutrality on this issue has alienated quite a few Black American's. The funny thing is, it is not the poor Black Americans whom the elite Black Americans say are feeling disenfranchised. It is some of these elite Black Americans who feel Obama isn't doing enough for the poor, as these elites sit back and do nothing as well.
The past Presidents who weighed in on race relations in this country had one obvious advantage over President Obama; they were all white. The majority of the country looked just like them and regardless of political affiliations, most Americans had no problem taking direction, advice or suggestions from them. But over the past four years, this new anti-government movement has taken shape and I find it absolutely not a coincidence that this movement surfaced immediately after Obama's election into office. No one (hardly) mentioned that government had too much of a role in the lives of Americans while George W. Bush was leading us to a purposeless war in pursuit of Saddam Hussein due to a vendetta Bush had against the Iraqi dictator. So it just seems like this 'question of leadership' has more to do about Obama being Black than anything else. It is that dynamic that puts Obama in between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place' when it comes to the issue of race, and the Black voter. It seems the price that Black Americans are paying to be able to say that we saw a Black president in our lifetime is not that we don't have a Black voice speaking for us. It is that the election of Black president (and hopefully, his re-election) has done nothing to improve race relations in this country, in this 21st Century. It, really, has set the issue back a bit. And that cannot be blamed on Barack Obama, at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)