Patronization of Black People

Do you find it hard not to notice the patronizing undercurrent when a black person is discussed or interviewed by whites? Today on the radio, former NBAer Rick Barry praised some African American high school basketball player for not wearing all kinds of gold chains and earrings like LeBran James. Called him nice and level-headed.

It’s not mean-spirited. It’s a kind of nervous boosterism. It’s way too earnest. The praise of Tony Dungy, former coach of the Tampa Bay Bucs, had this ring to it. Yeah, he’s a good coach, but you don’t spend that much energy lauding an equally-good white coach.

Undercover Brother had a great dig at this attitude. After the Collin-Powell like would-be presidential candidate speaks, the white news anchorlady says, “He’s SO articulate.”

What’s the debate?

I dunno. I suppose someone could say they don’t see this phenomenon.



Thank you for informing me of your lack of interest in this thread. Perhaps you could reveal other mundane facts about yourself here, too.

Perhaps you could tell us why this is a debate, not an IMO?

FWIW (and surprising people with my contribution to yet another “race” thread), I have noticed this too.

In comparison to his boss? :smiley:

I think we may be stretching our theory just a tad with the Tony Dungy reference.
Perhaps Cap’n Caustic can flesh out his hypothesis with a tabulation of all the sports references to “blue-collar players”, broken down by race.

Or not.

Jim Rome talks a little more “street” when he interviews (some) African American athletes. I don’t think thirty-eight year old white men should be using the term “dog” as in “what up, dog?” It’s as ridiculous as adopting a British accent when interviewing an Englishman.

I realize he’s not trying to be insulting, but is over-reaching in a hey-I’m-down-with-you sorta way. I’m not like those RACIST white folks. I’m cool.

I find it embarrassing.

it’s not “dog”, it’s “dawg”. :wink:

It seems to me that the only way to get over this whole race issue is to quit making such a big deal out of it- wether your black or white. On the other hand you cant ignore the fact that blacks and whites and any race for that matter, are different. Different is perfectly fine, but we really need to just get over the race issue, or else we fuel the fire.

I mean we need to take a point of view that differences exist between races, ages, locations, beliefs etc… We dont go around making a big deal about age discrimination or religious beliefs so why is race so special? Probably because of such “taboo” (lack of better word) that has existed in the past. Its time to get over it and move on- i dont care if your the KKK or an affirmative action(aka reverse discrimination) supporter, there are many more important things to worry about, leave the past behind…

I’d agree if your last demand (“leave the past behind”) didn’t imply that it’s only blacks making a big deal about race all the time. Search the archives for thread titles with the word “blacks”, or “black” in them and you’ll see scads of “what’s wrong with black people” threads.

Dont get me wrong, I think EVERYONE is making too big of a deal over it. “Leave the past behind” does not imply black people are to blame, NO, NO- dont put words in my mouth. I think white people do it as much or maybe more… The point is stop making such an issue over race so that we can better understand each other and get along without the race issue clouding things- thats all…

But, don’t totally forget the past-“those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”


But people sort of do this. People don’t take a full flung British accent, but people will try to talk a little more “properly” when speaking with a UBster or someone uv a “higher” class. You’re just trying to fit in with the people around you.

I don’t know much about this Jim Rome, so maybe he does go overboard with the “black accent” which would make my point completely moot.

Have you ever heard Dan Rather when he’s interviewing down home country folk? It’s probably not concious, and almost certainly not malicious.

This thread reminds me of a statistic I saw in my Stat 241 textbook earlier tonight. I don’t have it right in front of me right now though.

Basically, it was to show how many people kill themselves within a year of entering jail. It kept track of things such as what day they entered jail, whether it was a murder or a nonmurder charge that put them in jail, and race. But the in the column labeled “race,” they put either W (white) or NW (which, I presume, to mean nonwhite).

I’m not sure how to interpret this. Any thoughts?

Not having seen the statistics, I’d think that the researchers are acknowledging the practical fact that if you’re in jail and you’re white . . . you’re fucked.

Well, what I’m wondering is why would the statistician differentiate between whites and everyone else? Why wouldn’t s/he list each person’s individual race? Why just White and Nonwhite?

BTW, if someone insists on me citing the source for that statistic, I can go out to my car and get my textbook. It’s just that it was snowing last night and it was late and I was lazy.

Lord Ashtar: I was a little flippant just now, but I would think that it has something to do with the premises and purpose of the study. I’ve heard some anectodal evidence to the effect that whites and nonwhites have very different experiences in jail or prison, so maybe that’s the implicit issue that the researchers were focusing on. Just an idea (shrug).