Is the expression ‘self hating’ or ‘racist’   justified for someone that speaks out negatively about his own race to an extent that another race or ethnic origin could not?

     It is not surprising at time the levels of attentions that sports figures achieve in United States. After all, we do have young men who the last time I checked could not pass an SAT exam, yet have   made more money per year than the past ten US Presidents combined during their terms of office. Needless to say, their lives garner even more attention when they are blacks for several reasons that we’ll leave unsaid for the moment. Baseball, football, athletics, even tennis and golf has gotten their share of attention over time, but it is basketball that can be the real big player. So you have a commissioner that dictates how they should dress, when they can join the sport, and if any make the monumental mistake of taking sneakers, take a ride to practice or obtain any form of charity from an organization while developing basketballs skills as a kid, then its good bye NBA and the American dream.

     My attention was caught by an article recently on Fox Sports by bombastic Kansas City Star Sports columnist Jason Whitlock. He is one of the writers that can and have been known to call out black sports personalities, entertainers and leaders for their many social failures and foibles. There are a few critics from within that community that feels he is only popular to mainstream dominant America, simply because he says the things that they would like to but cannot for fear of being labeled a racist. His most famous comment was about these personalities in his words that “Bo jangles for dollars.” What this means is that they simply entertain and do silly routines- sometimes at the expense of their own community-for the money. Of course in most instances this falls on black lower cast Rappers and similar miscreants that would not hesitate to useand exploit their community. So you get the picture where a Mr. Whitlock is coming from, and those are mainly is words.

The general theme of his article was that present high ratings in the NBA are occurring primarily because the present players are less inclined to cover themselves in tattoos. Not that the tattoos made a difference, but the characters of the players. Yes the quality of play has improved and many exciting players were excelling, but from his observation, a correlation exist between a drop from the league of gangster like ,thuggish, prison oriented characters  with a penchant for hideous tattoos and a spike in local ratings . Once more, it is common knowledge that in many cases, this will refer to black young men that emerged from lower middle to working class backgrounds in many cases raised by a single mom or grandparent. He said, “It's a television show. Pleasant smiles, non-threatening people sell products better than menacing, tattooed brutes.”[1]He also chided them for having low self confidence and hiding their insecurities via tons of ink. Of course he did not fail to single out a few of the prominent proponents while at the same time highlighting some of the noteworthy present stars- many of whom also have tattoos but were completely ignored  for this purpose.

     I believe that many people understood where he was coming from and that he meant absolutely no harm or derogatory feeling to these stars that he still depended on for a living as far as interviews or comments etc. I also believe that it explains why Don Imus of “Nappy headed hoe”fame , got his job back in radio after he was fired by shaken CBS media giant. It is possible for Imus to have some personal unpopular views about some blacks, women athletes, or any race .in this case he was obviously doing a type of radio that entailed some form of shock and entertainment. Don Imus is a well respected radio personality with ability to blend humor and at the same time discuss serious and topical social and political issues of the day with a wide cross section of the population and probably meant no harm to black women with cane rows, high GPA’s and tattoos from Rutgers University.

     I had a wonderful Jewish Political Science Professor at one time. In today’s popular jargon he might be considered as radical and liberal. He had very strong views on what constitute terrorism, and role of American power elites. Ok, he had a Phd from London School of economics and so that may possible explain … He loved the people of Cuba, admired what was occurring in Venezuela under Chavez , loved America but was critical of some of its policies ,loved Israel obviously , but likewise was critical of some of her actions especially with regards to Palestinians. Nevertheless, he was a very popular and competent teacher. It was not only due to the fact that he was prepared to say what others only could  think about but  was afraid to say .He  was lively, knowledgeable , made you think as well as ask questions of those in authority. My point is that no other Professor tenured or otherwise would dare to question the policies of Israel and America as he did, and live to tell the tale. 

     These two examples go to the heart of my question, and ask are some groups allowed a   bit more wiggle room to criticize their own? Should they be deemed racist and self haters, or adored for having the courage to speak up in the hope of elevating that group? In my own embryonic empirical studies people are more tolerant if one of their own do the chastising It is something worth studying as the issues  such as this would rear its head again and again as  the relatively young Republic still seeks to find its way . It was French Sociologist, historian and political thinker that said, “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” He was referring to 19^th century America then, or is he?