Via The Black Snob, I think Juan Williams' defense of Rush Limbaugh is wrong. But I think Warren Ballentine telling Williams to "go back to the porch" is both wrong and self-damaging. When you find yourself name-calling, you've probably lost--if not in substance, then at least in your own mind. Moreover, you end up not convincing people who don't agree with you, and repelling others who actually do. It probably doesn't help to then brag about it on Twitter.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Warren Ballentine then proceeded to say:
"Now if you want to take what I said about Juan Williams as racial, you go right ahead. All I said was he could go back to the porch. I didn’t call him a house negro."
Hmmm. Sounds some other people we know. Of course it wasn't racial. It's not like he called him a house negro. He just told it was okay to get back on the porch. Not racial at all.
I've seen Warren Ballentine a few times before. Judging from his appearances and his 'tweets,' he just doesn't seem like too bright of a guy to me. I'm not even saying he's wrong about Juan Williams, but he has to realize that this only confirms what Fox viewers already think. He might not care, but he probably should if he's going to go on.
He should at least have the rocks to stand by what he said. This "I know what you are but what am I crap" is ridiculous.
Also, I find myself unreasonably angry at anyone who makes me feel a moment of sympathy for Juan Williams.
Calling him 'not bright' probably isn't fair, but he seems to lack a little awareness.
Of course the reason Fox picks him as their token liberal in a case like this is because they are counting on him doing exactly what he did
Coates,
he called it like it is...Juan Williams is House Negro. All the shinning, grinning and cooning he does on Fox, giving a Black face for their repeated attacks on Black people...
go Warren.
And he convinced how many Fox viewers?
None. But he wasn't brought on to convince them. He was brought on for entertainment purposes. That's how Fox treats its "liberal" guests and commentators.
He absolutely told the truth and the only thing I am mad at all about is that he walked it back. Jackasses that go on FoxNews to give cover for their biases get no passes in my book. Whether its Juan Williams who has never heard a racist statement unless it came out of a black man's mouth or its a member of the LGBT community who goes on there and rails against hate crime legislation. Ain't nobody watching FoxNews on a regular basis who Ballentine is going to convince any damn way. Screw it might as well go all in and tell em how you really feel.
If Juan Williams doesn't like it then he can stop lying for racists like Rush Limbaugh. It is what it is.
Mmmhmmm.
Juan really showed his true colors this past election season. I will NEVER forget what he said about Michelle. NEVER.
ITA.
There are ways of being abundantly clear without being insulting.
I suppose a better way to handle such a thing would have been to ask him who signs his paycheck. It seems rather cheap to tell someone to "Get back on the Porch." Have we really fallen to that level of playground discourse? If that's the case then I have a few words:
"I'm rubber you're glue whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you NYA NYA."
Dude needs to go back to pundit school. That was bush league. The Limbaugh issue is either racial or not, pick a tack and drive home your point. Ballentine's argument was like the rebus puzzle on the cap of his namesake beer: hard to read and easy to ignore.
The icing on the cake of course was Ballentine scoring on his own net at the end, giving Williams the victory.
If we could run the imaginary numbers would the costs outweigh the benefits?
I would suggest that this remains an open question, like so many in our political landscape.
Which is why in this instance I would favor an ethical argument.
It is wrong to appropriate the language of racism and use it to keep other black folks "in line."
Not just harmful to Williams who certainly deserves very little sympathy (after his years of questionable poltical and racial commentary including the HyperFAIL incident where he reffered to the First Lady as "Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress") but harmful the the community ethos in general.
Internalized racism is wrong no matter how deserving the target may be of a swift kick in the butt.
It's wrong when Williams did it and wrong when Ballentine added his lick.
What you said, except the very best argument against name calling in political discourse is President Obama. He does not indulge and have you seen his poll numbers lately? After being called everything but a child of God, a solid majority of Americans still support him while only 20% self-indentify as republicans.
This is why I ignore most of that garbage, and so does the rest of the country.
"Obama is a socialist fascist racist Affirmative Action president and negroes will beat down your children under his orders while you lose your guns and voting rights unless you're black!" "You're a racist!" "No, you calling me a racist proves that YOU'RE a racist!" "He's not racist, don't say that about people!" "You're a house n***r Uncle Tom!" "I didn't mean that in a racial way!"
****CLICK****
It's not civility and good sense most Americans are interested so much as being comfortably reassured of their own innocence.
I guess each of us is basing his (/her) read of the American public on personal experience and the impression gotten from experience with the culture. Most people I know and many of those I've met in the past would just roll their eyes at this uncivil stupidity - it's part of what routinely discourages 60% of the electorate to vote. (of course, in addition to busy lives, long work hours, general apathy / complacency about the system, ignorance, etc.)
Most Americans don't really like civility they'd just rather believe that about themselves than that they don't actually know anything about the issue being debated.
We disagree. :) Do you feel that, cable "news" being so obviously in the entertainment business, what we see on it is what sells, that the public has told them, via the market, that this shit is what they want to see? I submit (and again, I admit to being short of actual data on this point) that this market is representative of only a small subset of actual voters.
I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing your position, but I'm fairly certain that well over half of this country, including libs, conservatives, libertarians etc, thinks that right wing talk radio and the cable TV shoutfests are completely stupid, even if most of may not be aware of how many lies are repeated there.
Do you think this country truly is that polarized? I think there's a fairly cynical middle that has a tendency to throw its hands in the air and give up on its political system. But I also think that it has a tendency to get sick of, you know, "mudslinging" and polarization and chattering that's n degrees removed from reality or the concerns of ordinary people; I think there's a strong desire among Americans to minimize the distances between political factions, and that the finger-pointing is mostly bullshit (and I'm not just pointing to Obama's election as proof).
Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought all parties involved did a pretty good job of making their case. And of the three, Mr. Ballentine made the strongest points: 1), the NFL is mostly white and conservative, so this wasn't about race, 2), that even false comments attributed to Mr. Limbaugh could get the attention that it did says more about how divisive he's been than about the fibers who put it out there, and 3) in a free market economy, businesses are entitled to enter or exit agreements as they wish. In this case, the business believed Rush wasn't worth the trouble. Ipso facto.
If anything, that last comment--in the LAST few seconds, you failed to mention, TNC--was just a flourish to a spirited debate that... "Juan" lost handily. I mean seriously, Rush was just kidding when he mocked the entire NFL as "Crips and Bloods?" Good grief.
Right. But I don't think anyone is defending Rush. As for what I "failed to mention," the clip is right there. Why would I be trying to hide that? I don't understand your point.
No, no, you weren't hiding just inflating. The point I'm making is his argument was quite cogent and not at all as vitriolic as it could have gotten. But to my mind the way you described the segment (before watching) it appeared far more churlish than it actually was. And his comment of note did not come into the conversation until the very, very, very last few seconds. Honestly, hearing that segment you were distracted by a few seconds of trash talk? And Juan was defending Rush Limbaugh. And that's what got him called out, rightly so, I might add.
We can differ on whether he was right, or not. But claiming that I was "inflating" and intentionally failing to mention facts, cuts to my motives.
If you don't think the post was honest, then you really shouldn't trust what I'm saying right now--I could be inflating again. And if you can't trust what I'm saying, there really isn't much point in debating.
I'm not sure I understand where that's coming. I have been a fan of this blog and of your writing for quite sometime, and value this taste of back-and-forth. But the idea that I don't trust your words is not the case. What I do believe is that you should not let a few seconds deflect what, on the whole, excellent points made by Ballentine. Most of Juan's arguments were red herrings that were never directly related to the topic: was Rush Limbaugh a victim of liberal backlash? Williams wanted to debate race and Rush's comments contextually, as if there is ever an appropriate time to compare athletes to thugs. That is offensive and Mr. Williams should be ashamed of himself for defending a broad characterization of young Black men. As a young Black man myself I am very offended by that assault on our Brothers.
And to close on this point, even if Rush is right to say what he says. The point he (Ballentine) was making, and I think we're missing, is that in America you're responsible for what you say and do. Rush is just the "victim" of his words coming back to haunt him. If he can't handle it, that's his problem. (That's a response to Juan Williams; not to Ta-Nehisi Coates, the best writer on this blog--except for Andrew Sullivan).
I hope that clarifies things.
I don't really disagree with you or Ballentine on Rush. I guess that's what's confusing. I've made it perfectly clear how I feel about this whole Limbaugh/NFL thing. I guess I see inflating as a dishonest tactic, and if that's what I'm doing, then why trust me to be honest in any other dialogue.
That aside, I want to be clear about what we disagree over. It's not about Limbaugh--we agree on that. It's about implying that another black man is a "porch monkey." Morally, I find it repugnant--that Juan Williams is capable of equal ugliness doesn't make it OK. Morality isn't a favor you extend. But beyond that, I don't find it useful. It doesn't help the argument. It doesn't convince anyone who wasn't already with you.
Your second point is now being used by Gov. Rick Perry to defend his own execution order of Mr. Willingham. It goes something like this: Willingham was a monster, so even if the "evidence" of arson is really dicey, his past actions prove he COULD have done it. As much as I loathe Limbaugh, this line of attack is almost as ugly when applied to him as when applied to Mr. Willingham. Almost, because Mr. Willingham can no longer defend himself.
And as much as I disagree with Juan, telling him to go back to the porch (aka calling him an "Uncle Tom") is reprehensible. Juan is wrong on the facts, why isn't that enough? Why provide the right wing and the MSM with "proof" that this kind of name-calling is as wide spread on the left as on the right? Why can't we finally lay to rest the "not Black enough" canard?
Ms. Perez, there is nothing any Black liberal can say or do that won't be "proof" to Fox News of some wicked, communistic, socialist agenda, etc. etc. (See: Lamont Hill). Any point in trying to prove something to them is lost in translation and a waste of time. And though I wouldn't personally call Juan an Uncle Tom or tell him to "go back to the porch," I must say it was damn funny!
Now, your analogy makes no sense. Equating comments to a cover-up is nowhere close to being the same thing. Because whereas Rush Limbaugh gets to return to his multi-million dollar Florida mansion, Mr. Willingham is dead. Period. His character is being maligned in order to possibly salvage the political career of a dastardly governor. Limbaugh's character is being maligned by... Rush Limbaugh.
If a few false statements are being tossed abound that is unfortunate, because there is certainly no shortage of actual comments made by Rush to make a case. And that is the point I think many of you are missing: Rush Limbaugh convicted Rush Limbaugh. Not a liberal press. Not Rev. Al. El Rushbo himself.
Not Black enough? Being a conservative is not the issue here, and that was never introduced. Ballentine's comments are taking on a life of their own. The point was that Juan was defending racially offensive comments that warranted no such defense. That had nothing to do with whether he's "black enough."
That's all I have to say about it.
If you read my comments on earlier Limbaugh threads here, you would find we are in "violent agreement" about his character. Because his opponents have so much factual material, using false statements to malign him, therefore, is really dumb. Going on to say that, well, we know he's a monster, so he COULD have said it, doubles downs on dumb and is exactly what Gov. Perry is doing to Mr. Willingham. I would call it "retro-profiling."
I also noted in my comment that Mr. Willingham is no longer able to defend himself, so that does, indeed, make Gov. Perry a blot on humanity. Finally, I did not use the term "conservative" but I do think the terms "cooning" and "go back to the porch" are equivalent to "not Black enough." It doesn't matter what color you are, if you are wrong on the facts, you're wrong and if you don't get that, then, well, you're, at the least, stupid. Juan is clearly wrong on the facts and he may well be stupid, but that's enough for me.
Oh, one last point, calling out folks, perjoritively for being "house Negros" is a slur on all the Black people who were forced to work as house slaves, including the ones who provided valuable intelligence to American revolutionarly and Union forces.
I'm with rikyrah, sgwhiteinfla and nem on this one. Juan smells, acts, and talks just like a house negro. Maybe he's not, but he certainly plays one on T.V. yes the name calling was silly and shows lack of discpline. Too bad Juan wasn't up against a better speaker or someone more skilled at debating but then again this is Fox and they aren't fond of picking someone who would whoop their silly asses.
This, from my desk, looks like an easy one especially when Bill had the nerve to list some of the left's attacks against Rush and ilk. Limbaugh, Bill, hanity, Beck and others have told dozens of lies and have witch hunted dozens of people like Ludacris. The list against Bill is a mile long and this was an easy argument. I could've won this one by simply directly quoting the commenters on a few of the threads here.
But I'm not exactly sure anyone is disagreeing with rikyrah or sgwhiteinfla. I'm probably not in a position to determine who is a house negro, and who is not, but the description does seem to fit Juan Williams. But I didn't think that's what we were discussing. I thought the point was whether or not those kind of insults 'helped' the discussion. It's clear that some people don't care, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that anyone is defending Juan Williams.
I'm disagreeing with them. It appears that Juan is not supposed to think a certain way or say certain things because he is Black. If he does think or say these things, its not enough that he is simply and egregiously wrong on the facts or even that he is really stupid. No, the thought police have to figure out his motives--what could make Juan Williams think or say these things? The only explanation: he's a house Negro, not Black enough, or "cooning."
Lately, there's been a lot of discussion about whether the "LimBecks" actually believe the drivel they spew or are they just following the money/influence or a combination of both. But apparently in some circles, Juan's drivel merits no such discussion. Soley because he is Black, off we go to the "Uncle Tom" default position. So no, I don't agree with them.
I feel you SG and Rik and Jamilah but Im rolling with Anna and TNC.
If he was already eviscerated, lambasting him as a Tom was overkill.
If he wasnt, then the Tob jab certainly didnt rescue the arguments.
Bottom line, Warren threw that blow not for his "side" but for himself.
Anna,
I disagree with a number of people on philosophical reasons. But, Juan's never met a Black person that he wouldn't insult for Fox News. He shuffles, shins and grins and is their go-to-guy when they want to use a Black face to denigrate someone else Black. Oldest game in town.
Cosign. This was obnoxious identity policing. It doesn't matter if the person it was done to has despicable political positions or behavior. You can trash those without using whatever slur your particular ethnic group has for "sellout" (house Negro, self-loathing Jew, whatever).
Interesting. As I watch the video, what stikes me most is that all three take for granted that a reference to Crips and Bloods is somehow racial. I thought Limbaugh was just updating Jets and Sharks for modern audiences. I checked out both groups on Wikipedia, and learned that the Crips are mainly black; the demographics of the Bloods aren't as easy to pin down.
It never occurred to me that these gangs were ethnically different from the cities that they operate in. So yes, less monochromatic than my town, but as diverse as LA (or the NFL), or so I thought. I guess I learn something every day.
Well now you know. I know that you're trying to be cute and snarky here, but it comes off as disingenuous.
Actually, it's the first half of a post where I deleted the second half before pressing "submit", in order to think it through some more, so perhaps it's incomplete.
But it's true. Not meant to be cute or snarky.
When debating language a good rule is that common usage applies "Crips and Bloods" equals "sterotypical black street gangs."
Yeah, for Kristo to suggest otherwise is insulting. Does he honestly think that Rush, or any American for that matter, views the Bloods and Crips as being ethnically diverse? Are we really having this conversation?
Yes.
Until a few hours ago, I thought these gangs were much more diverse than I am now discovering that they are.
I learned something today. I'm sorry that my learning something is insulting to you.
-Kristo.
Weren't the Jets and Sharks ethnic too? Maria was Puerto Rican, right?
The Sharks were Puerto Rican, the Jets were White.
The Bloods are a confederation of Black LA street gangs that united to counter the growing threat of Crip gangs in their neighborhoods.
Those gangs are almost completely Black, with a few Pacific Islanders and Latinos here and there. And you did way more research into both groups than Limbaugh did when he said it, of that I can assure you.
Juan Williams is a "porch negro" willing to do the shilling for a bunch whose stated goal to to destroy the President. Maybe one of these days he will get his own big time tv show on Fox.
He is just a despicable excuse for a black man, another Crab in the Barrel.
Why would I care that he is called out on the same tv network that the sells himself on to disrespect other black people and the President, of whom he is obviously jealous.
And those of you who are blovating about how how bad it looks for Juan Williams to be called out, you really make me ill. Why aren't more black people with the resouces (media, such that it is) calling out the bunch of black hucksters who are selling themselves on tv for a couple of bucks at the expense of the President and Mrs. Obama and black people in general
Recent comments by Limbaugh can be found at Media Matters and FAIR, by date made. You can see the VIDEOs and hear the AUDIOs.
Partial listing because the entire list requires too much space.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049
* Obama "wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya" and "wants to be the black FDR."
* Sotomayor "a reverse racist" appointed by Obama, "the greatest living example of a reverse racist."
* "God does not have a birth certificate. Neither does Obama"; Obama "has yet to prove he's a citizen."
* "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman."
* Suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he'd known they were "actually young, black Muslim teenagers."
* "Minorities never do anything for which they have to apologize."
* Basketball "the favorite sport of gangs."
-----
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3928
* "You can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right. It's not fair. He's such a victim."
* "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president."
* "In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, 'right on, right on, right on.'"
* Praised former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal": "He's not encumbered by being politically correct.... If you want to know what America used to be--and a lot of people wish it still were--then you listen to Strom Thurmond."
* When Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: "Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out."
* "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
* Discussing a Chicago inner-city schoolteacher punished for using a math question that focused on the price of prostitution and cocaine habits, Limbaugh suggested that the teacher should be credited for "understanding the culture these kids come from." The math question began: "Rufus is pimping three girls."
Sammy-thanks for the links and examples about the actual comments Rush has made.
I'm pretty tired of people defending egregious behavior because "Juan Williams defended Rush" or some such nonsense. People here in the South say it's unfortunate that poor Rush is being railroaded because, you know, that Juan Williams on FOX said he wasn't a racist. Meh.
From what I can tell, there's only one person in this thread defending Juan Williams' actual position. Saying that it's wrong to call someone a porch monkey, isn't the same as saying Rush is right.