by Irene Daniel
Okay, so a Congressman, a professional football player and the President of the United States walk into a bar. And the sign said, "No Thugs Served." Who would be served in this bar?
So it's not the funniest joke you've ever heard. In fact, it's not really funny at all, is it? But I wonder what we really mean when we use the word "thug." Richard Sherman, defensive corner-back for the Seattle Seahawks, said last week that "thug" is the new "n-word." He offered this insight after being called a thug for his post-game, testosterone-laden winner's rant just moments after making the play of the game, qualifying his team for a Super Bowl match-up with the Denver Broncos.
I don't think Sherman's retractors, or the media, were ready for the non-testosterone laden Sherman, who earned a Bachelor's Degree in Communications from Stanford University, and is currently pursuing a Master's Degree. This Richard Sherman presented himself at the press conference to be the gentleman and scholar that he is, as he explained his comments and used the example of hockey players abandoning their puck to punch each other in the face. Nobody called them thugs. And yet Sherman, who did not threaten anyone with violence, used no offensive language (unless, of course, you're a wide receiver named Crabtree), but proclaimed himself the champion that he certainly was in that moment with great enthusiasm, was called a thug hundreds of times for his post-game conduct.
President Obama has also endured and endured and endured being called a thug, and described in condescending, insulting and just plain racist terms for the better part of a decade now. And yet, as in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, he has never responded in like terms, nor has he taken the haters to task, as many of his supporters wish that he would. He has always taken the high road, refusing to get baited into an ugly back-and-forth that belongs more in the 18th century than it does the 21st. I marvel at his patience and emotional control.
Most successful African-American men will tell you that, at some point in their upbringing, they were told that they must not call attention to themselves in any way that could be construed as violent, criminal or suspect. They are taught, as young boys, not to shout, run, make gestures or faces, or do anything that might be construed as aggressive. The reason that they are taught these things is so that they will not get themselves into trouble by causing alarm in white people, for white people are still mostly in control of who gets jobs and who goes to jail. I think this training is evident in the President's behavior, as well as that of most African-American men I know. African-American men, as well as Latinos, have learned this lesson well. If you don't believe me, ask a successful dark-skinned male about their experiences and, if they are honest with you, they will tell you all about this unwritten, but well-known, rule of their world.
So, what is a thug? My old Webster's defines it as "a brutal hoodlum; gangster, etc." I've also heard it defined as "a violent person, especially a criminal." I've never known President Obama to do or say anything "brutal" or "violent" or "criminal." Richard Sherman's comments could not accurately be described as any of those things. So why are they called thugs?
Let's contrast their conduct and words with, say Congressman Michael Grimm, who threatened the very life of a NY1 reporter by throwing him "over this f*#$king balcony," referring to the 3rd floor balcony of the U.S. Capitol Building. Additionally, the Congressman got right into the face of Reporter Michael Scotto and further threatened to tear him in half, "like a boy." These threats sound both brutal and violent to me. Moreover, getting in someone's face like that and threatening bodily injury is in fact a crime called assault. Physical contact is not necessary for an assault; only that the victim be placed in a position of force or fear.
Several months ago, there was a riot in Huntington Beach. You may not have heard about it because the rioters were young white men. They looted and destroyed property in Huntington Beach, obvious criminal behavior. Where was the national outcry denouncing this white male conduct as thuggery? If the double-standard wasn't already obvious to you, perhaps these simple comparisons can serve to enlighten.
I have long believed that, at some point in history, white privilege will no longer serve as an advantage, but may very well become something of a disadvantage for white males. We are getting closer to that tipping point every day. This disadvantage will not stem from the long-held resentments of women and people of color; although who could blame us? No. This disadvantage to the long-privileged white male will stem from a society which has, for hundreds of years, expected little from him in terms of actual merit. The deck has been stacked in his favor for centuries and generations and, as Robert Frost wrote, ". . . way leads onto way."
Women and people of color have had to learn the "end-run" around privileged white males in order to succeed in a world created by and for the success of white men for generations. The time is upon us when this is no longer necessary because we don't need to please only white men in order to get what we want. We have our own kind in places of power now -- government, board rooms, business owners. Accordingly, we don't need to tap dance anymore.
What this also means is that, while it's not level yet, the playing field is no longer designed exclusively by and for white males. That means that competition is much more fierce and outcomes less guaranteed for pale males. And since white males have not had to compete outside of their own comfort zones, they are woefully unaccustomed thereto. Having been given a pass for so long, they are not able to keep up with those of us who have made the Dean's List while holding down a full-time job and caring for small children and/or elderly relatives.
I don't hate white men, so please save your energy for something other than name-calling. I have observed their competency and/or ignorance up close for 40 years, and I am constantly astonished at how very little white males know about anything that doesn't directly concern or interest them, like Civil Rights, for example. And yet, their mediocrity can land them in the White House, George W. Bush, a case in point. A dark-skinned half-white man, like President Obama, has to be nearly perfect in all respects, and yet he gets called a thug.
Every time we see an example such as those that I have shared here, the long-term consequences of white male privilege become more visible to those who haven't had to think about it; and more and more painfully obvious to those of us who have had to navigate the dark side of white privilege for generations.
So, do you know how to tell the difference between a gentleman, a scholar and a thug?
No comments:
Post a Comment