De-volving Black Discourse …

There is this simmering debate in the opinion pages of the Washington Post about whether Rev. Al Sharpton is relevant or not.  Here’s Ta-nehisi Coates basically blasting Rev. Al:

Toss another one onto the pile of headlines. It has been a banner year for Sharpton. Whether he’s mixing it up with Don Imus, harassing Sen. Barack Obama, raising a ruckus over legal discrimination in Jena, La., or urging a boycott of the New York Knicks because of how they treated a female employee, Sharpton seems to make news every time he opens his mouth.

His presidential run in 2004 landed him far afield of the White House, but it succeeded in perhaps its only real aim: convincing the national media that in all things black, Sharpton is a one-stop shop. Journalists thus follow the good reverend’s every move as though galaxies hang in the balance. At night, he routinely accrues even more face time, matching wits with the squawking chickens of cable news.

This is America’s racial rift transformed into a reality show — a place where Sharpton can cross swords with O’Reilly one day and take him out for fried chicken the next. O’Reilly was, of course, widely criticized for his dim comments. In his defense, he summoned the very man whom he claimed African Americans weren’t listening to: Sharpton.

Memo to everyone everywhere: Al Sharpton isn’t a black leader, he just plays one on TV.

We’re certain Sharpton read this one.  So, he wastes little time to knuckle up and hit back. Naturally, National Action Network Executive Director Charlie King chimes in:

Sharpton has become a civil rights leader across this country despite the media, not because of it, as Coates claims. His leadership and effective advocacy for the people most victimized by injustice in society is apparent. He won justice for victims of police misconduct in cases like Sean Bell, Abner Louima, and Taisha Miller in California. The National Association of Black Journalists and parents of the Rutgers womens’ basketball team reached out to Sharpton for help in taking Don Imus to task for his offensive statements.

Sharpton led, Imus was fired, and a national decency campaign was ignited. His hard-won successes in these arenas are the reason why the press often thrusts a microphone in Sharpton’s face to discuss offensive rap lyrics, hate crimes or police misconduct. He is one of the leading voices of our time on these issues.

Not to mention that King, in reality, works for Sharpton.  Note that no unbiased third party came to the good Reverend’s defense.

 So – we’re not either way on this topic. First, this is really part of a larger generational debate that rages on in the African American community: new school is about fed up with the old school way, and old school refuses to pass the baton to the new school.  What do we say about the unfolding bruhaha on the pages of the Washington Post (which, if you put a torch next to its offices, would dread the thought of having two Black intellectuals engaging in witty sword crossing over some real issues of the day).   Black political discourse, apparently, has matured (?) to the point where we are debating over the media worthiness/substance of perceived “Black leaders” rather than having a conversation on ideas and strategy. 

From DuBois v. Washington over the collective fate of our people to Coates v. King over … whether Rev. Sharpton’s conk is permed tight enough to get a segment on Hardball.   

 In that respect, it’s devolved.  It’s like a modern American presidential election: there is more focus on personality than platform; people vote for a candidate’s comfort zone  than for his/her ability to make good decisions and act. 

Charlie King asks the right question: “If Sharpton’s So Irrelevant, Why’s He in the Post?” Well, Coates column answers that, directly.  But, unanswered, yet implied here is that mainstream media is more interested in the circus of Black life than the serious challenges of Black life that we must solve.  

Sir Romney of Manchuria …

The problem with Mass. Gov. and GOP fundraising front runner lies not in his money-accumulating talents or his ability to stay on the primary radar screen.  Nor is it in his flip-flopping, so much.  There is issue with a politician who may owe the harder elements of the religious right in the event he wins the nomination in 2008. 

It’s already fishy how the Bible-touting right, extolling the virtues of Christian life, would stoop so low as to compromise their own belief system in favor of what they perceive as the strongest general election candidacy (essentially, moral values out the door, enter political expediency).  Compromising many of his core beliefs, Romney has done a good job of putting a “For Sale” sign on himself, leaving him very vulnerable to religious interests controlling his agenda come 2009. 

Let’s Not Get Started on Clarence Thomas …

We’re not going to engage in the typical rant over Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. You know: about how he personifies “Uncle Tom” and how the term “sellout” seems so appropriate.  The infamous image of Thomas wearing an Aunt Jemima handkerchief on the long defunct Emerge magazine’s cover stands out as a testament to the very predictable conversation on Clarence Thomas.  It’s all a bit over the top: we do to each other what White folks did and continue to do to us for simply having an opinion that’s different.  We tell the dominant society that we don’t all think alike, yet we ostracize some folks for not thinking like “us.”  What’s that all about?  We don’t agree with everything the man says or stands for either – but, that doesn’t mean we should stoop so low as to call him names.  And then, of course, there’s that whole thing with Anita Hill and his confirmation hearing.  It’s all a really hot mess that dishonors the notion that there is a Black man sitting on the High Court.  At this point, we forgot that was even the case.  

This is the problem with Clarence Thomas.  Thomas, in our assessment, needs to get to the business of being a Justice.  He needs to get busy earning his life-time keep. One thing we have noticed, amid his long-time argument that he is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice, is that he exercises little – if any – judicial prowess.  He appears to simply sign off on the legal chords of others, particularly his good friend Justice Antonin Scalia.  It doesn’t so much bother us that he has a “conservative” viewpoint since, well, each is entitled to his own opinion.  We may not agree with Thomas … but, see the thing is: what is it exactly that we don’t agree with him on?  The laughable matter of the fact is that in his whiny diatribes on race (this memoir isn’t the first time), we have trouble making a distinction between when he’s pontificating based on serious intellectual reflection or simply puffing on some deep rage due to years of resentment. 

Basically, we are disappointed that while the other justices seem to really take their job seriously, Thomas does not.  How refreshing it would have been if, for once, Thomas would have offered us all some deep look into his legal mind.  The great thing about Thurgood Marshall, which made him more than just the first Black justice, is that we really got the sense that he was a true judicial guru who constantly reflected on the law.  His speeches, writings and opinions offer great insight into the mind of a great legal scholar. 

Instead, whether he realizes it or not, the lone Black justice on the court is the one who has to put on a “show,” and that strikes us most distressing and insulting.  It’s funny because there is a glaring hypocrisy in this, underscored by Black conservatives who complain we are too “race conscious” or “race absorbed,” yet engage in provocative personal diatribes centered in the racial theme.  In the end, Thomas looks like a fool because he actually confirms the entrenched opinions of the White people he so much treasures: rather than write a volume which proves his jurisprudence, thereby silencing the critics to a degree, he opts to continue painting that portrait of the justice who only votes.