Television and radio journalist Michel Martin
(ABC Nightline, National Public Radio) took issue with Ishmael Reed’s
article,
“How the Media Uses Blacks to Chastize: The Colored Mind Doubles,”
first published in CounterPunch
and a week later in BC. Ms. Martin does some chastising
of her own, including accusing BC of lacking “civility.”
From Michel McQueen Martin:
I was one of the people Ishmael Reed criticized in
a piece entitled: “The Colored Mind Doubles: How the Media Uses
Blacks to Chastize Blacks.” It was originally posted at Counterpunch
and on NABJ Forum,
where I saw it and posted a response.
In
that response I discussed some of what I found most objectionable
about Reed’s piece: his leaps of logic; statements that smacked
of resentment of other people’s success masquerading as political
argument; his tendency to draw conclusions based on slim evidence
– such as his interpretations of other peoples’ demeanor of all
things – and his insupportable underlying assumption that black
officials (presumably of the left since I’ve see no similar protectiveness
of those on the right) are somehow beyond questioning (or chastising
for that matter).
Now that Blackcommentator.com has seen fit to reprint
the piece, I would like to add to my response on a different topic:
its tone. And let me set a tone up front by thanking the publishers
for agreeing to post it.
First, let me say I can see why Reed’s piece may have
struck a chord despite its shortcomings. What I consider most wrong
about Reed’s piece: that it was uncivil. One reason may be that
we have all been struck by those people whose claim to the black
community’s support seems unmatched by any commitment to it. Many
of us are troubled by the fact that views that are well outside
the political consensus of the black community seem to find a ready
audience in the mainstream media, even when those attitudes supported
by the community are marginalized or dismissed.
And let’s admit it, haven’t we all privately speculated
about the mental health of a rare few black people (“What’s wrong
with that brutha/sistah?”) who seem to go out of their way to support
people or policies that most of us consider hostile to the needs
and goals of the rest of us? Finally, on a more personal level,
haven’t at least some of us working in corporate America been victimized
by black career assassins who seem to take it upon themselves to
hold black people to higher standards than they would ever hold
whites; and to punish us excessively when we fall short?
Some of these issues are unique to our community but
most aren’t: this year’s study on the State
of the Media by the Project for Excellence confirmed what many
have long suspected: there are more news outlets but they are covering
fewer stories…which means less coverage of a lot of important topics
because everybody’s chasing the latest missing (white) woman. The
consolidation of media companies has affected the coverage of local
issues and voices across the country – consider how little radio
programming these days is locally produced. It is also a fact that
the media are drawn to the critic-on-the-inside: Think John McCain
or Chuck Hagel or any classic whistleblower. So it shouldn’t be
surprising that blacks criticizing other blacks might find willing
ears, as do Republican lawmakers criticizing a Republican president.
But none of that excuses what I consider most wrong
about Reed’s piece – and quite frankly too much of what I read from
the black left: that it was uncivil. Not just rude, or mean spirited
–although I think it was those things. It was more than all of those
things: it was uncivil to a degree that is at least as destructive
to community consensus as that which he criticized.
This is no trivial matter.
Civility has its roots in the Latin civitas,
which means city, the same word from which civilization comes. Thus,
its defining characteristic, as the writer P.M. Forni reminds us
in a helpful little book called “Choosing Civility,” is its connection
to society and community. Civility is not a matter of putting on
a false face, of lying, or of covering up hard truths. It is not,
to paraphrase the prophet Jeremiah – a matter of crying peace, peace
when there is no peace. It is a matter of choosing respect for others
as an extension of respect for oneself. But civility is a matter
of ethics.
A lack of civility in our public discourse is not
unique to the black community, but like most other social maladies,
we suffer more from its effects. While others get the cold – hurt
feelings, coarsened communications – we get the pneumonia of shredded
relationships, uninhabitable neighborhoods and leaders too diminished
to make much difference. Who among us has not cringed to see a black
mother cursing and berating her young children, their eyes widening
in fear at her rage, or worse, not reacting at all? Who among us
has not held our breath as young men curse and insult each other
on a corner, and wondered when the last word will take a turn to
deadly violence? What woman among us has not passed a kind word
to one of our own on the street and been rewarded with a barrage
of epithets and crude sexual remarks? What man has not wondered
whether spilling a drink or a minor traffic accident might cause
him to lose his life?
How
many among us have not damaged a relationship, professional or otherwise,
by saying one thing too many or too loudly, or too hurtfully? And
how many qualified people with something to offer the community
through public service have refrained from doing so because they
do not wish to have every aspect of their identities – their skin
color, relationships, choice of college, religion, etc. – turned
into a litmus test of racial loyalty?
It’s not hard to understand why we are so rough with
each other. One legacy of slavery and ongoing oppression has led
many of us to believe that no matter what Jesus said about the meek
inheriting the earth, that in this life the strong do what they
will and the weak what they must. Many of us still whip and beat
our children in the misguided belief that we must teach them their
place so white people won’t kill them; conversely many of us have
such a tenuous hold on self respect that we react to slights as
if our very lives depend on it. Many of us have only each other
to insult; we have no wider world.
But many of us do. And while some of us don’t know
any better, most of us do. And those of us who do know better have
a responsibility to speak and act toward each other in a matter
that seeks to bury the legacy of the lash once and for all. We have
a responsibility to create the kind of society where we can truly
experience the respect, the humanity, and yes, the love, that has
been too long denied us.
What disheartened me about Reed’s piece – and frankly
what I see too often in Black commentator – are strong ideas weakened
by cheap shots. For example, this publications’ otherwise cogent
and legitimate critiques of black policymakers too often degenerate
into name calling that makes it impossible to distribute to a wider
audience. In the same way that the widespread use of the word “nigger”
among our own folks now makes it harder to deny its use to our enemies,
so does the slash and burn style of political discourse legitimize
the hate speech masquerading as commentary by others. How do you
call out a white talk show host for calling one of our own “a ho”
or a “ghetto whore” when we consider it appropriate to call each
other “Uncle Tom” and the like? All political conversations are
now public; there is no closed door. And thus it behooves us to
set the tone for how we wish to be spoken to, by speaking to each
other that way.
Rudeness is not radical; Civility is radical. It is
radical because it is rooted in love: the transcendent, prophetic
love of a Gandhi, or a King. Civility is rooted in strength, not
weakness. And as I said before it is rooted in respect for self.
Brother Reed, I respect you. And all I ask is that you do the same.
|