BigBlue02

March 16th, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^

Your point is moot. That would have never been said by a former wolverine because a former wolverine would have actually understood the context of what was being said and realized he didn't need to defend himself from what a 17 year old kid thought nearly 20 years ago. How is it that so many people don't understand what jalen was saying? I swear, people heard the phrase "uncle tom" and just stopped listening and switched straight over to ANGAR.

Mitch Cumstein

March 16th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^

I didn't realize there was a rule against defending oneself when a grown man calls you an "Uncle Tom" and a "bitch" on national TV through the guise of recalling how he used to feel as a teenager and never really clarifies how he feels now.  Is that the major criticism of Hill's response?  That he isn't allowed to respond b/c it was "18 year old Jalen" talking?  Why can't Hill respond to "18 year old Jalen"?  I think he makes some important points about not being ashamed to have 2 parents involved in your life.

That was pretty classy of Jalen also to tweet an apology to Hill. Thats definitely the way a man goes about doing things. 

Mitch Cumstein

March 16th, 2011 at 5:08 PM ^

So Jalen's apology tweet was sufficient b/c Hill later wrote an essay response to the documentary in the NYT?  Not sure where you're going with this one.  Are you saying that Hill writing in the NYT is a "bitch" move, as is Jalen's tweeting of an apology?  Or are you saying that Jalen's tweet apology is cool b/c Hill later wrote an essay in the times?

MI Expat NY

March 16th, 2011 at 5:14 PM ^

I'm saying that neither one is exactly "the way a man goes about doing things."  I thought that was pretty obvious.  I also think it was pretty obvious that you felt a more personal communication was in order from Rose.  All I'm saying is that the "tweet" (god, I loathe twitter) was more personal, than a NY Times letter, albeit very slightly.

STW P. Brabbs

March 16th, 2011 at 7:48 PM ^

It wasn't some kind of clever wordplay. It wasn't a 'guise' for Rose to take shots at Hill.   If you don't understand that Rose was trying to honestly assess his feelings of anger and jealousy at the time, I'm guessing the experience of being on the less intelligent side of the debate aren't really as novel as you say. 

I think it's pretty admirable for someone with Rose's background to look back and say, "I was angry because I was jealous - Hill came from a great African-American family."  It takes some strength to own up to the fact that, deep down, Rose was hurt that his father wasn't involved in his life, while Hill's was there for him every step of the way. 

This exchange between Hill and Rose is fascinating, because it shows the kid who grew up rough in Detroit has become more comforatable in his own skin as a successful, wealthy adult than the kid who grew up middle-class with far more privilege and social support. 

I know who looks like a more admirable human being to me.

Mitch Cumstein

March 16th, 2011 at 8:50 PM ^

"I'm guessing the experience of being on the less intelligent side of the debate aren't really as novel as you say. "

Its quite "admirable" of you to take a cheap shot at the intelligence of a message board poster you've never met based on a few posts.

"I think it's pretty admirable for someone with Rose's background to look back and say, "I was angry because I was jealous - Hill came from a great African-American family."  It takes some strength to own up to the fact that, deep down, Rose was hurt that his father wasn't involved in his life, while Hill's was there for him every step of the way. " 

So you're saying Jalen couldn't have possibly articulated this without calling Hill an Uncle Tom or a bitch?  If Rose was only assessing his feelings of jealousy and anger at the time, why did he feel the need to apologize via twitter?  There should be no need for apology, especially publicly,  unless he was looking for outside attention. Apologizing via twitter is quite "admirable" I might add. 

If you look at my post above, I claimed Hill to come off as more intelligent, eloquent and classy.  I fail to see how your post both insulting my intelligence and admiring Jalen's ability to so readily remember and share how he felt when he was 18 counters any of those. 

 

Cope

March 17th, 2011 at 2:16 AM ^

This is very wise... and we are looking very biased right now. Hill's response was sweet, right up to the last line, which had a strong currant of anger in it. But when I stepped aside from my very pro-Fab Five bias, I realized I didn't fault him even for that. It takes a big man to admit defeat, and we have our Fab Five, but I don't mind admitting we didn't beat Duke. (And yes, I get the 18 year old Jalen argument. Hill was right. Though they interpreted some ideas differently, his was a very balanced, well written, even respectful -until the last line-, response.) Edit: I also don't blame Jalen. He was honest in a documentary. That's okay and made for good film-making. But I'm certainly not going agree with any of the posters who belittle Grant for his response. He manned up and I'm cool with it.

michgoblue

March 16th, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^

I am conflicted by Hill's article. 

On the one hand, I agree with what he said - being from a successful, 2-parent family does not make Hill less black - it just makes him fortunate.  He should not have to apologize or feel ashamed to have been raised in a secure, successful background.  And, while Hill does not come right out and say it, the attitude that Jalen expressed was racist. 

But, Hill's response was not necessary.  Why?  Because Jalan has made clear that his views about Duke recruiting "uncle Toms" was the view that he had as a 17-year old kid.  He has even admitted that the view was born of jealosy on his part.  If Jalen came out and said that he NOW feels this way, then it might require a response along the lines that Hill put furth.  But, to me, Jalen's whole take on this comes off as a mature adult reflecting on his views from the past - when he was a 17 year old kid from a rough background that did not tolerate "white" black kids.

Personally, I think that Hill comes off as over-sensitive, and on balance, his response was not necessary.  To the extent that he said anything, it should have been to take the positive - i.e. Jalen's mature adult commentary on his immature youthful opinions - and make them into a lesson for other youths.

Bluemandew

March 17th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^

If someone you knew from the past came out and said basicly you sold out your race nd were a bitch. But I only thought that then and doesn't realy explain what he thinks now would you have the right to respond? Would you think the person that said those things about you was more classy and inteligent?

ihartbraylon

March 16th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^

If you asked Jalen now, I'm sure he doesn't think black Duke players are 'Uncle Toms', he was just stating what he was feeling as a young 18-year old kid with a shitty upbringing. What doesn't Hill (and others) get about that?

Bodogblog

March 16th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^

And don't choose Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or Muhammed (with his image for an avatar), because those aren't clever either.  Those gems are for the Huffington Post or Fox News or some other liberal/religious or otherwise non-sports related non-mgoblog site.  I'm sure they'll appreciate your hidden genious.

bigmc6000

March 16th, 2011 at 6:02 PM ^

I'll tell ya reading through all of that about the name and not realizing he changed it until the end of the mini-thread was so confusing! haha

 

I just kept thinking I was missing some obvious MGoMeme about "Banksy" and felt stupid for not knowing ;) haha

2Blue4You

March 16th, 2011 at 4:15 PM ^

HERE WE GOOOOOOOOOOOO!  Beat Tenn on Friday and let's get this rivalry going w/ the Dukies!  Turn this bitch into a winning streak.  GO BLUE

Section 1

March 16th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^

and that he thought, said, and did some stupid things as an 18 year old freshman.

But of course he doesn't have that excuse now, and his comments in the documentary were inflammatory; they required a lot more explanation after the fact.

Anyway, operating off the original presumption -- that Jalen was a bit dumb and reckless in his thinking as a freshman -- why would anybody take the Fab Five seriously as anything more than a wonderfully watchable group of young basketball players?  They weren't particularly wise, or credible, or moral, or honorable, or, ultimately, successful. 

BRCE

March 16th, 2011 at 4:34 PM ^

They weren't successful? They were 10-2 in the tournament! I find you, Mr. Rodriguez Hill himself, having such insanely high standards for the word "success" to be most amusing.

This "they didn't win anything" meme, laregely related to the absence of a Big Ten title, is ridiculous. They went to the national championship game twice. That is BIGGER than a conference championship.

It's like saying the Minnesota Twins won something in 2006 (the division) but the Tigers didn't.

 

 

 

Section 1

March 16th, 2011 at 6:16 PM ^

They weren't "ultimately" successful.  They didn't win any championships.  Not their conference, not the NCAA Tournament.  No "ultimate" successes.

They could have.  They might have been wonderful as Juniors and Seniors.  Why wouldn't they?  They might have won back-to-back NC's.  It wouldn't have been for lack of talent.  But Webber, then Rose and Howard, jumped for the money of the NBA.

Heck, let's be clear about it.  A lot of Duke's success is due to the fact that its guys habitually stay to their Senior years.  I find that reason to admire the Blue Devils, not hate them.

In reply to by Section 1

BRCE

March 16th, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^

It is typical of Michigan's base, full of football junkies and basketball ignoramuses, to put this great value on conference championships. They don't mean the same thing in both sports.

Michigan won something more important than the Big Ten conference during the Fab Five era. It's called the Southeast and West regions.

 

 

BRCE

March 16th, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^

As if people in Detroit didn't need another reason to hate that pussy.

However you feel about the definition of "Uncle Toms," there is validity to Coach K being selective with the black players he recruits. Duke recruited Chris Webber because he went to Country Day. Had he gone to Southwestern as he wanted to, Duke wouldn't have even looked at him.

 

profitgoblue

March 16th, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^

I think Grant Hill was right on point with his article.  I have nothing but respect for Duke as an institution and a basketball program.  I loved the Fab Five as much as anyone and I loved the documentary.  But I have to admit that I was more than a little disappointed that Jalen felt the need to expand on his simple statement that he hated Duke (whether he was talking about hisprevious feelings as a teenager or today).  I understand what he was trying to express, but it could have done in a much better way.  There was no reason to single out Duke and definitely no reason to single out Grant Hill.  He could have simply described his upbringing and background and stated that there were a lot of schools that avoided him because of his background.  Because he chose to do so, Jalen deserved the response from Hill, including whatever jabs he chose to employ.  Jalen insulted Hill without provocation and it necessitated a response.  That's my opinion, but I think many of you would have also responded to Jalen's comments if you were in Hill's shoes . . .

MI Expat NY

March 16th, 2011 at 5:43 PM ^

I agree that he could have addressed it in a better way (If he doesn't use the phrase "Uncle Tom" does it get any real play in the media?), but you ave to talk about Duke!  The first Duke game was the coming out party for the Fab Five and the second was in the finals.  How do you not talk about how important that opponent was?  And for the record, they also talked about Ohio St., so they didn't exactly single out Duke.  

JMK

March 16th, 2011 at 6:34 PM ^

You can't talk about Jalen and company without talking about their polar opposites, Grant Hill and Christian Laetner, any more than you can talk about Super Man without talking about Lex Luthor; it's just not as interesting to tell one side of the story.  It also bears emphasis that this was the narrative at the time:  ghetto thugs of Michigan, epitomized by Jalen, vs. Coach K's boy scouts, epitomized by Hill & Laettner.  It was pretty overtly racist (and I am not one who throws the race card very often), and there was a pretty stark contrast drawn between the actual players at the time. 

Man, I still hate that Duke team....

Beegs

March 16th, 2011 at 5:23 PM ^

I always sort of got the feeling that the Fab 5 needed to be hated or at least feared...wanted that motivation.  They clearly like to play "angry" as if the whole world was against them. I think to a degree, that mindset of 18 year old Jalen leads to the Uncle Tom stuff.  It was a way to provide motivation.

ixcuincle

March 16th, 2011 at 5:57 PM ^

Why is there controversy? Everyone outside Durham hates Duke. The Fab Five reinforced what the rest of the nation thinks, Duke sucks. Michigan hates Duke, Maryland hates Duke, etc.

Feat of Clay

March 16th, 2011 at 6:17 PM ^

I didn't think that Jalen was claiming Grant Hill is less "black"  or less "authentic" than a kid coming from the mean streets of urban wherever. 

What I took away from Jalen's comments was that JR felt that Duke (& their coaches and maybe their fans?) seemed to feel that way.  That Duke was okay with black kids from two-parent suburban backgrounds, but shied away from inner city kids. 

Is that true?  I don't know, but I know exactly what Jalen was talking about.  The use of the term "Uncle Tom" was pretty charged and I wish he hadn't spoken it.  But he was talking about a phenomenon which wasn't new then and isn't gone yet.