Calling out NYT’s Bill Rhoden

[GreatLakeState]

From a post on sportsjournalists.com :

This is the real problem with Rhoden:  His predictability.  Ben put it
exactly right, you NEVER get a break in Rhoden's 'orthodoxy.'  Any
possible benefit of the doubt always goes one way, whether it's Marion
Jones or Barry Bonds.  It gets old.  Like Ben says, it is always exactly what
you knew it was going to be.

It's like a voter who every two years just goes in and pulls the "all ______
party" lever; at this point, it's just a reaction, a reflex.

If you want a certain POV, Rhoden will give it to you.  If you want
independent thought, he's not your guy, at least when there is any hint of
race involved.

I miss Ralph Wiley.

Rhoden is Scoop in twenty years, without the Ebonics.  Completely
predictable whenever racial dynamics are involved, legitimately or not. 
Whenever the USA Hoops team beat Spain in the World Championships
two years ago (before Argentina beat the USA), Rhoden wrote a foolishly
triumphalist column about "this is how basketball is played in inner-city
St. Louis," etc.  Needless to say, there was no follow-up column when the
USA team lost.  We all know the drill:  Lob grenades when your side is
romping, hide out of sight when there's any return fire.  Very, very weak. 

Whitlock got it right in his AOL column the other day.  He stated clearly
that he is not what I call a "black athletic supremacist," that is, he doesn't
believe in the concept that Africans or African-Americans are naturally/
genetically superior athletes.  That puts him in good company with many,
including Wiley.

Contrast that with others' opinions.  The "White Men Can't Jump" crowd. 
This brand of writer, when confronted with demographic shifts in the
representation of a particular sport or sports, looks for devious reasons
for the shift instead of taking things at their face.  Thus, you get things
like Rhoden saying that the NBDL and the players an NBA team keeps on
its roster seem suspiciously similar to racist policies.

Of course they do.  Sure.  It's not that the NBA wants to improve its
product for its consumers.  Nope.  It's obviously a devious plot.  Who
cares if a high school kid can't play, and he's watering-down the league's
product?  And that last roster spot on the teams?  It's a transparent
attempt to sign fair-skinned foreigners to sit the pine who will make the
fair-skinned fan base feel better about the product they're buying.  That's
why the USA Hoops triumphalist column was so pathetic.  It's all 'good old
USA' when we were winning, but when we're not doing as well, there are
no corollaries for Rhoden, such as NBA teams might want to sign some of
those players who helped beat the USA team.  No, it's racism, results of
competition be damned.  That's an indefensible contradiction, but one
Rhoden has staked out in the past.  It makes him look like the ostrich
with its head in the sand.  At the very least, it's intellectually dishonest.

What I'm writing might seem outrageous.  Writing about race often
generates that feeling in readers.  But everything I've written here are just
snippets of articles Rhoden has written.  So if it seems outlandish, blame
him. 

I'm not saying Rhoden doesn't raise some good points, but he's always
reacting - instead of acting - when it comes to race.  It's not really
surprising that if a person always goes looking for a bogeyman, they
almost always find one, no matter how outlandish the bogeyman may
be.  Barry Bonds is the American Dream.  Marion Jones has been totally
vindicated.  USA basketball is the best in the world.  Don't believe the
mountains of evidence, just believe the ideology.

Bunk.  And Ralph Wiley, Whitlock and others would tell you so, William
Rhoden.

 

[white is right]

How long until Whitlock is labeled an "Uncle Tom". I swear more conservative blacks would speak out but that label is death within their ethnic community. Militants from the left love shouting down any black conservative.....

 

[GreatLakeState]

More, from that same poster on sportsjournalists.com :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Weltner]

No black sportswriter shows any sense - they're all racist ,on one level,or others.And allowed to have their jobs because of it.


Hey blackie:WHAT "racism"?WHAT "oppression"?