Michel Martin and civility
Editors like to think they know their audiences,
but it’s not always true. We
were surprised by the volume of email answering Michel Martin’s
open letter taking to task poet Ishmael Reed, the “Black left”
in general and BC in particular for our alleged lack
of civility.
Here's what Janet Brown of Oakland CA had to say:
In the April 20, 2006 issue, Ishmael Reed published a trenchant
and substantive criticism of black media figures who chastise
and demonize blacks in ways that pander to white audiences.
Among the numerous specific examples of this behavior, he mentioned
journalist Michel Martin just briefly.
This has prompted not one, but two long
responses by Martin, one of which was published in the
May 4, 2006, issue of BC. Her main complaint? That Reed was
"uncivil": more or less saying that Reed hurt her
feelings. Well, it takes a lot to make me cry.
Nowhere in Martin's long, rambling, off-topic
sermon on the virtues of civility does she actually bother to
specify exactly how Reed was supposedly uncivil. Additionally,
nowhere does Martin critically address or dispute the specific
examples that Reed gave. Of course, Martin's entire response
was a personal PR exercise in misdirection.
Perhaps Martin means that it's uncivil
to criticize Cynthia Tucker for promoting (and never retracting)
false reports of generally, so-called, "bestial" behavior
by black victims of Hurricane Katrina. Or maybe that it's "uncivil"
to take Bob Herbert to task for trotting out that hackneyed
claim about how Gangsta Rap is responsible for all the ills
of American society.
Or it might be "uncivil"
to suggest that Martin herself could have engaged in actually
substantive questioning of Cynthia McKinney, reviewing the facts
of the case and what are the requirements or customary – or
differential – treatment of Congresspersons rushing to cast
votes. Martin could have mentioned the lawsuit that black Capitol
Hill police have against racial profiling and harassment by
white Capitol Hill police.
But that would tend to objectively legitimize
McKinney's claim, now wouldn't it? Martin could have done that,
instead of questioning why McKinney changed her hairstyle or
if McKinney is too "militant," thus playing to the
racist white stereotypes of intelligent, strong black women
as "too angry" or "too uppity."
Perhaps Martin could have even questioned
McKinney's position in – what is really behind all of this –
speaking truth to power about issues of war and peace and who
dies as a result of American foreign policy. Instead, Martin,
a black woman, concocted a sexist, stereotyping and trivializing
'hit piece' marginally less noxious than, say, a Bill O'Reilly
might have against another black woman. Yet it's Martin that grouses about "be[ing] victimized by black
career assassins" and a lack of "civility." Apparently,
Martin believes that she herself is above criticism.
Not satisfied with promoting the negative
stereotyping of strong black women, Martin even goes on to more
stereotyping in her BC response. Just a few of Martin's examples:
Blacks have a "pneumonia of shredded
relationships [and] uninhabitable neighborhoods." She cringes
as black mothers curse and berate their children. She holds
her breath as young black men curse and insult each other on
the corner and wonders when the last word will turn to deadly
violence. Kind-worded black women, she says, are met on the
streets "with a barrage of epithets and crude sexual remarks"
from "our own." Even black leftists are "uncivil,"
"rude," "mean-spirited" and lack "ethics."
This is the stereotypical black world that Martin sees – noting
nothing positive, only dysfunction.
If civility is abstaining from criticism
of certain black media figures for pandering to whites in promoting
the racist demonization of black people, then it may be time
for less, not more civility.
Louisiana's Anthony Kennerson had these observations
on Martin's plea for civility:
It’s interesting to see
Ms. Martin calling out Ishmael Reed, CounterPunch
and BC for their alleged lack of civility.
Ms. Martin seems to feel a need to throw accusations
at blacks on the left while leaving those on the right alone.
Ms. Martin could not possibly
have been unaware of the volume and virulence of vile and racist
epithets slung
in the direction of Georgia's Representative Cynthia McKinney. Nothing that Ishmael Reed wrote on that article
could even begin to approximate Neal Boortz's “ghetto slut"
smack – and that was among the more printable insults.
Where was our black guardian
of “civility” then? Why
didn’t we hear her voice telling how establishment media programs
were selling a line about McKinney being nutty, almost slutty,
dangerous and ultra-radical Black Leftist?
It seems that the definition of civility always
depends on who does the defining and why.
Ruling the term “Uncle Tom” out of our lexicon as “uncivil”
as Martin seems to want to do, besides being in line with current
right wing complaints about the dialog African Americans have
with each other, is just plain wrong. Banning that highly useful term is a way of
shutting down discussion and analysis, a way to deprive us of
a potent, historically and politically loaded term to describe
a kind of dangerous and politically loaded behavior.
Lana Floyd puts a cap on it like this:
I read Michel Martin's entire article. She not only did not address Reed's points, but provided an unnecessary
and condescending lecture about civility, a concept which she
did not adhere to when she called Representative McKinney out
about her hair. Still, Martin has the nerve to be offended? To accuse others of being jealous of her success?
Ms. Martin, I don't get it or you – what is your point sistah?
More on Economic Advancement vs. Economic
Development
How many times have we read in the media or heard
it broadcast or from a pulpit that “black America is the eighth
or ninth largest nation in the world in spending power” and
that if we just harness all that to the engine of black businesses,
most of our problems would go away.
And how often is there anybody to counter that most of
the gigantic but meaningless “spending power” is spent on mere
survival – expenses like rent, food, diapers, health insurance,
and gas to get to work. How
often is it pointed out that a huge proportion of the “spending
power” is actually consumer debt, like car notes, credit card
bills and payday loans? Or
that 1% of America's population owns roughly 50% of all the
stocks, bonds and financial instruments, and the next 5% have
a substantial portion of the rest, leaving not much at all for
the rest of us to throw around in the name of community economic
development, whatever is meant by that term.
Our
self-interested black business class has limited the conversation
about economic advancement to their own quest for set-asides
and contracts, and preaching to the rest of us about their importance.
In the real world, Roger Toussaint and the New York City transit workers union did more in a three day strike to advance the fortunes and secure the economic
well-being of a greater number of black families than black
America's three known billionaires, Bob Johnson, Bill Cosby
and Oprah Winfrey have in their entire careers.
Good examples do not go unpunished, and Toussaint
was imprisoned for several days in April as a message to labor
unions that would stand up for the pensions, dignity and livelihoods
of their members. BC
published an
open letter from Toussaint in last week's issue, and received
this note from regular reader Howard Gaffney, a transit worker
himself.