CE Week #11: “Al, Jesse don’t speak for me”
Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
November 12, 2007
Beg pardon, but who died and made Al Sharpton president of the negroes?
Not that Sharpton has ever declared himself as such. But the fact that some regard him as black America’s chief executive was driven home for the umpteenth time a few days ago after TV reality show bounty hunter Duane “Dog” Chapman got in trouble for using a certain toxic racial epithet – six letters, starts with “n,” rhymes with digger – on the phone with his son.
As you may have heard, Chapman was expressing disapproval of the son’s black girlfriend. “It’s not because she’s black,” he said. “It’s because we use the word ‘n – – -’ sometimes here. I’m not going to take a chance ever in life of losing everything I’ve worked for for 30 years because some f – – – n – – – heard us say ‘n – – -’ and turned us in to the Enquirer magazine.”
Naturally, the son sold a tape of the conversation to the National Enquirer. Which leaves me in the awkward position of simultaneously loathing what Chapman said and pitying him for having raised a rat fink son who would sell out his own father for a few pieces of silver. Anyway, with his life and career circling the drain, an apologetic Chapman fell back on what is becoming standard operating procedure for celebrities who defame black folk. He contacted Sharpton.
In so doing, he follows the trail blazed by Don Imus, Washington shock jock Doug “Greaseman” Tracht, and Michael Richards, who sought out Sharpton (or, alternately, Jesse Jackson) after saying what they wished they had not. They were all in turn following the news media, which, whenever a quote on some racial matter is required, turn to the right reverends by reflex. You’d think they knew no other negroes.
I don’t begrudge Jackson or Sharpton their fame. Jena, La., might have gone unnoticed had they not used that fame to direct public attention there. Still, I question whether we ought not by now have grown beyond the notion that one or two men can speak for, or offer absolution in the name of, 36 million people.
Certainly, black America has a long and distinguished history of charismatic leadership, from Frederick Douglass to Booker T. Washington to W.E.B. DuBois to Marcus Garvey to Malcolm X to Martin Luther King Jr. It was King to whom the “president of the negroes” honorific was jokingly applied during the civil rights era in recognition of the moral authority that allowed him to rally masses. Since King’s murder in 1968, a number of men have jockeyed to position themselves as his heir. They have not been conspicuous by their success.
Louis Farrakhan couldn’t do it, handicapped as he is by the fact that he is Louis Farrakhan. Sharpton couldn’t do it; one hardly thinks of moral authority when one thinks of the man at the center of the Tawana Brawley debacle. Jesse Jackson seemed to presage a new era of charismatic leadership when he ran for president, but he is dogged by a perception some of us have that he serves no cause higher than himself.
But beyond the strengths and weaknesses of the men who seek to be charismatic leaders, there is a sense that the job itself has grown obsolete. Who, after all, are the nation’s white leaders? To what one man or woman do you apologize when you insult white folks? Doesn’t the very idea that there could be one person deny the complexity and diversity of the population?
Similarly, black America is served by dozens of magazines, Web sites, television networks and media figures that did not exist when King was killed. So it’s about time news media – and those who will insult us in the future – get past this notion that one or two people are anointed to speak for 36 million. That is a simplistic, antiquated and faintly condescending idea.
I speak for myself. Don’t you?
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/11/12/ce-week-11-al-jesse-dont-speak-for-me/trackback/
I really am kind of confused about this article. I don’t understand if it’s supporting Black people as a whole, or trashing on the people who think they are the leaders of the Black nation? I think it’s the second option I said. I say this because it said that these people were trying to live up to Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy. I don’t think people need to live up to his legacy; they just need to cherish it. Also, I kind of hope that Obama wins the presidential election to show that America as a whole has gotten over the whole issue of race. If and African American won presidency, I think it would kill the notion that all people are not equal, it wouldn’t just kill the notion it would dig a hole and burry it, and I think that is what we need as a nation now. I didn’t understand the beginning of the article when it talked about the father and son talking, and the son ratting out the father but then I realized the whole article was talking about racism when they mentioned all the people that have recently got in trouble for being racist. Can’t America just get rid of racism as a whole? Over all it was a good article to read.
This story amazes me. A son turned his own father in for using a word that rhymes with digger, probably for getting back at him for not supporting his relationship with a black girl. Well, the son definetely won this war, and lost his friendship with his dad for at least a few years. The least the son could do is give the money he got from the National Enquirer by selling that peice of information to his father. I dont know who i am more dissappointed in, the son or the father. On one hand, the father did a wrong that is committed every single day, while the son glorifyed this wrong and pretty much ruined his father’s name. I find it incredibly childish to insist on making souch a touchy subject for so many people public. Everyone knows that racisim still exists. People do not HAVE to bring it up again, reminding everybody that we aren’t past that part in this nation’s history. Personally, this seems as nothing more than a cry for attention, that happens to be very costly for someone else. It discusts me. This article really doesn’t talk about that much, besides how one or two people should not speak for a whole group of thirty-six million people.
Well I’m glad both of you guys didn’t even mention the sole purpose of the article and instead chose to talk about DOG the Bounty Hunter and his son. Both white. Anyways I agree with the author when he says that it isn’t right for one man to be the voice for black people in America but that we need to respect the diversity of all people and even the people in a certain race. It is probably for the better than some of the people didn’t become the voice for black people. People such as Louis Farrakhan and other radicals. Although it was be rather interesting to see what would have happened after 9/11 to have the leader of the NOI as the leader of the black people. There really doesn’t need to be a black leader. Black people are no different from white people and black people don’t live on resevatoins and have their own president. People just need to see character instead of focusing on color and that is one reason I am sick of people always saying barack obama is a black presidential hopeful and will people be ready for him. First of all he’s only part black and second of all he has the best character out of any of the presidential hopefuls.
I really don’t like this Leonard Pitts guy. He really just seems to complain about everything that happens and never seems to report any real news. This really makes me wonder how his stories keep popping up on our blog’s website when all they say is “I’m upset because this is happening or this isn’t happening.” There’s really no news in his articles. As for his and as for what he and Alexander said about “Dog” the bounty hunter, I really don’t think “Dog” was really in the wrong here. All he was trying to say is that if his son’s girlfriend came to where they worked and noticed how often they would say the n word she would be offended and turn him in to the National Enquirer. When the son went and turned in this conversation I’m sure he meant for his father to get in a lot of trouble because of his process of avoiding being turned in, but I don’t think that there is anything wrong with the fact that he didn’t want some girlfriend of his son’s coming into the show and ruining everything. It makes sense to me and I don’t really think it should be such a big deal in the first place. As for whether or not Jesse and Al should speak on behalf of all black people, I couldn’t really care less who speaks for who and I just think its sad when people give them more attention like this article is doing.