Thought you all might be interested in reading this:
Peppers at 10, which seems low.
Thought you all might be interested in reading this:
Brian linked it in his UV.
Hill owns Rose with this piece.
for Hill to respond to the Fab 5 documentary especially when Jalen made it clear that he's talking from the mind of his teenage years.
Hill was being pompous(for the lack of better word) for stating that he is proud to have beaten the Fab 5, his legacy at Duke and having never lose to Fab 5 in his career at Duke.
Jalen made it somewhat clear that he was talking from the mind of his teenage years, but he definitely didn't make it clear how he feels about Duke and/or Hill today. He backed off the comments a little, but didn't clarify how he feels now.
Also, while it might not be necessary for Hill to respond, I don't see why its not OK for him to respond to a grown man attacking him on national TV through the method of recalling how he used to feel.
I also don't see how there is anything wrong with being proud about beating the fab5 and stating it. If anything it is a compliment to how good the fab5 were. Also, I don't think we'd complain if Chris Perry decided to state how proud he was of beating OSU his senior year if someone from the OSU team decided to recall how he felt about Michigan growing up on national TV.
Why should he have had to say what he feels now? He explained his hatred of Duke at the time, and then said that afterward, they got beat by a better team and he respected Christian Laettner's game. This wasn't a documentary about evolving views on what it means to be Black in America as teenagers grow into adults, it was about the Fab Five, a two year period in time.
"Why should he have had to say what he feels now?"
I never said he had to. But he probably should have if he didn't want Hill or someone from the Duke community responding to the insults thrown at them in the documentary. Which is exactly what people are posting here. "It was 18 yr old Jalen so Hill's response was unnecessary". You can't have it both ways saying "Hill shouldn't respond b/c Jalen only felt that way as a youth" and saying "Why should Jalen have to clarify how he feels now". Because Jalen didn't really clarify, I see nothing wrong with Hill's response is my point.
I wouldn't either if he framed it properly. But he didn't. He made it seem that Jalen still has the exact same feelings; i.e. that Hill is a bitch and an Uncle Tom. Nowhere has it been shown that those were anything but his feelings at the time.
In my opinion, Hill could have addressed it in two ways: (1) attacked Rose's point that Coach K only recruited a certain type of player, and that Jalen didn't fit that mold because of how and where he grew up, or (2) talked about how unfortunate it is that a young black man could feel that young black men from more fortunate backgrounds were somehow "less black" or "Uncle Toms."
Hill only brushed on the second topic while he described his impressive family and the great university he went to.
Those are fair points. I agree with this, especially the (2) point you made. He should have expanded that point and it could have been a very productive piece. I'm not sure the responses here in general have your critiques. To me it seems more like "Hill is arguing against the fab5, so we must find a way to discredit". But you proved me wrong here, as you bring up good content criticisms.
I'm sure BlueintheFace you got it. What's wrong with Grant Hill's piece is that he writes half of it as if he didn't even get it. If Rose explained himself it would have been less powerful. I'm tired of having things explained to me as if I'm an idiot. How many jokes have you seen in movies ruined by an explanation. I was capitvated and engaged. And yes, I was bringing enough effort to figure out immediately what was going on, monitoring my own feelings and was the better for it. Thankfully, the makers didn't take your advice.
Hill could have made a major contribution to the dialogue about race given his somewhat unique perspective, using the "Uncle Tom" intro. And, in fact he start to get there in the second part of the piece. Unfortunately, it's hard to see it given the whiny and rather stupid introduction.
It was mainly about a false claim that somehow the fab5 was more significant than two title-winning teams because Jalen thinks his team had a more lasting impact and that fans remember the fab5's names but not the full starting fives of the title winners.
The fab5 didn't win the Big Ten or the tournament title and they therefore weren't as significant as Duke, NC (or UNLV). Or Michigan '89.
Both you and Hill apparently didn't watch the documentary very closely.
Hill acknowledges that Rose made the "Uncle Tom" comment in context, but he does not explain what that context is, exactly. He does not say, for example, that it was how Rose felt when he was 18 years old. And that he meant simply that Duke shied away from players from rough backgrounds. To a large extent, this is unfair to Rose.
Then again, "Uncle Tom" is a powerful term, and people will not understand, or acknowledge, the context in which that term was used.
On behalf of white people, may I just suggest a safe distance from the "Uncle Tom" debate...
that was a pretty Uncle Tom response by Grant Hill.
JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK JK not funny not funny not funny not funny stop it stop it omg omg
seriously folks, i didn't see anything wrong with what Jalen said. he felt that the whitest black players were all Duke wanted. he contextualized it and it made sense. whether it's true or not is up for debate. Duke can recruit whomever they want but Jalen has a right to that opinion. doesn't mean it's true- just means he felt that way.
Ya, sure, if Hill wrote it 20 years ago, at the time of the sentiment expressed by Rose.
I wish we could pos-bang you for this comment. As soon as pos-bangs are back on line we're going to get you out of Bolivian.
is a strawman
Yes, it is. Hill intentionally gives a misleading interpretation of what Rose meant, when he knows that Rose had something different in mind. Hill uses what the term "Uncle Tom" means to him as a touch stone, when that is not what Rose meant.
If more kids had parents like Grant Hill's, regardless of race, they would be better off. Saying blacks only have themselves to blame ignores a lot. On an individual basis it makes some sense, but in general, attitudes built and confirmed over generations of denied opportunities due to actual racism change slowly. People really were killed in the 1960's for trying to vote while black.
In the documentary?
Boy you said it, how dare Jalen not be more like Grant Hill. He really screwed the pooch when he chose what parents to be born to. Instead of wishing he had a dad like Hill's, he should have been begging your pardon for messing up America.
You're right about the whole fatherlessness and role-modelessness. It's destructive and crappy for any kid not to have a good sense of himself and direction.
Then you stray a bit from normalcy when you BLAME BLACK KIDS FOR NOT HAVING FATHERS.
(apologies to any offended by the use of caps- the author felt it was warranted; unless the offended has no father, in which case he or she should suck it up and stop blaming others)
You can go die in a fire now, K? K.
You're an idiot and clearly not aware of what many black families have to go through on a daily basis. Most blacks in this country still don't get a fair shot at life because cultural oppression is STILL alive and well in this country. Set them up for failure, wait until they turn to crime, and lock them up. That's what we do here.
-1, for the vanity of your screenname.
BTW- Can't wait til your show comes back this summer! FIRE!!!
Hill is basically making a completely unnecessary argument. Rose made it abundantly clear in the documentary that this was his attitude as an 18-year old. He also insightfully pointed out that this was because he was jealous at the time because Hill's dad was active in his life. I don't think that he feels that way anymore.
But the entire response from the media in regards to the Fab Five documentary in general has been completely unnecessary. Yet they won't let it die. Why is it so damn important to get the Duke players response to how Jalen & Company felt about them? So they hated them. Who cares?
The media is acting like it's this HUGE shocking revelation that somebody actually hates Duke. 95% of the country hates Duke! Asking somebody if they hate Duke is like asking somebody if they would hate being set on fire. It's pretty obvious.
And now the media is drooling over the possibilty of us playing Duke in the second round if we can beat Tennessee despite the fact our current squad has nothing to do with the Fab Five. It's so stupid. If we do end up playing Duke, I can just picture the announcers spending more time talking about the Fab Five and those Duke squads than what is actually going on out on the court. That's not really fair to our current team.
99.5% of America hates Duke.
Christian Laettner got it much worse, yet his response was so much more appropriate: (paraphrasing) "we're competitors, of course we hate each other." That's why Laettner got respect and Hill didn't.
for not seeing the link in Brian's UV. I just found the article and wanted to share it ASAP because I thought it was interesting. Also, just because Brian linked to it doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it on the board.
Grant Hill was trying to take the high road then dished out a cheap shot at the end. That says all we ought to know about Grant Hill.
He's entitled, his feelings got hurt, he's well educated, lets let him whine in the NYT. This pretty much proves Jalen's point. Grant Hill is a soft bitch.
He started off fine. Then it got really pretentious and whiny.
The high road would be to not comment at all. Or simply say something along the lines of, I can't emphathize with how he felt as a teen, but I hope that he still doesn't harbor any ill feelings toward me and the rest of the Duke family.
Its an interesting feeling to be on this side of this type of exchange. Where the classier, more eloquent and more intelligent side of the argument is coming from the party not associated with Michigan.
I would say before you condemn Hill for technicalities, or for the response being unnecessary b/c it was "18 year old" Jalen talking in the documentary or for being pompous because he has pride having beat the fab5, imagine this was a response written by a former Wolverine to a former Buckeye. This seems to fit a lot more, and I'm sure a lot of the responses would be different.
All I'm saying is it is interesting being on this side of the exchange, and interesting to see our own fans' defensive reactions reflect that.
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.
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.
So a grown man apparently writes a response in the New York Times?
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Now my Uncle Tom feels inadequate.
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.
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?
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?
If Jalen were the only one talking it would be that simple. Jimmy King and whoever is responsible for chriswebber.com don't seem to have grown up, though.
How about choosing a screenname that doesn't inevitably lead to religious bickering?
Nobody on this board is bickering other than you.
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.
I have changed my name. I hope everyone is happy.
and my compliments on the new username. At least in my mind, this one is clever
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
It happened nearly every time he posted, or often enough anyway. There will be plenty of people looking back at old threads and wondering why everyone was pissed off about a named Banksy.
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
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.
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.
Its all pronounced perfectly and everything ... this guy is for sure a Uncle Tom
Judging from the comments on the article, most people seem to have missed Jalen's entire point as well.
It bears repeating.
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 . . .
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.
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....
I think the argument that Duke is racist or at the very least against the kind of culture Jalen grew up in and therefore not exactly looking to provide social mobility.
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.
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.
I think even Dukies hate themselves, at least a little, deep down.
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.
Reminds me of Ron English's comment about two parent families. Ypsi is pretty legit I think...
My loathing for all things Duke is just below tOSU and when I see K crying to refs it actually exceeds my loathing for tOSU.
I know for a fact that Grant Hill's favorite song is "African Child" by Aldis Snow.
But I respect Grant Hill's response. It is generous and thoughtful. He considers the fab five his friends. Friends can disagree, right?
i love this though. i hope this shit translates to the team come tourney time. it's time to be the leaders and the best.
maybe JB brings in Jalen for a pop talk should we make it to the second round?! Goddamn do I hate Duke
EDIT: and grant hill can pipe his load
Instead of coming off like a whiny bitch, he should have concentrated on the more important point in the article: that successful middle class blacks are somehow Uncle Toms. In fact, if he wanted to he could have tweaked the Fab Five by pointing out how they've bought in too. (Juwan Howard's daughter goes to a chi-chi prep school. Jalen Rose is an obvious success, as evidenced by his successful film production.) If he wanted to make a personal point he could have added that just like Jalen Rose is a more complicated person than the rough, trash-talking exterior he portrayed as a member of the Fab Five, that he is too. That would have been great too.
The whole movie and Jalen's discussion in particular are quality work. It started a discussion. Grant Hill's response is not.
I love how no matter how long the discussion goes on in MGoBoard, someone can always come by and find a new angle to pick apart whatever dumb article has been published on Michigan or past Michigan student-athletes or the like. +1.
Hill wrote a pretty legit piece. Rose complains too much for his own good.
I mean it doesn't have obvious grammatical errors but it doesn't exactly take a compelling argument against what Rose said when he was 18-19.
It is natural to feel additional dislike for people of whom you are a little jealous. Jalen says in the film that he was jealous of Grant's upbringing, that he wished his own father would even acknowledge him.
As a teen I was not above feeling occasional bitterness and resentment towards others whose advantages I coveted. Were I to hang out with those same people now, I would not harbor the same feelings since I have gained some perspective in the past decade or so. That doesn't change how I felt at the time; it wasn't nice and it wasn't right, but I felt it and it colored who I was and how I acted. I'm sure most of us can identify with what Jalen said in some way, shape, or form even if not for socioeconomic reasons.
I think everyone is missing a very important point. Jalen never said he feels that way now. He said that's how he felt then, when he was in his late teens and early twenties. Most of the reactionary comments on this have acted like Jalen said he still feels that way.
Writers are the most guilty of this. Shouldn't you be able to listen, read, and interpret things correctly if you are going to be allowed to write for "objective" major media outlets?
grant hill is a bitch he played for duke thats all that needs to be said
I just hope that JB clips our the last sentance of Hill's piece for when we play duke in Round 2. Then one day Morris and THJR can say the are proud they never lost to duke.
by showing such thin skin has basically just confirmed that he is a bitch as per Jimmy King. By calling Grant an Uncle Tom, Jalen was expressing how a lot of people feel in the inner city about affluent blacks. Now this point may be misguided but it does exist and Jalen was just keeping it real in the documentary. If Grant Hill thinks that inner city kids who have been abadoned by their father, live in parts of town that Grant would last two seconds in do not have chips on their shoulders then he is more out of touch than I thought. Casting aspersions from on high is easy, clawing your way up the hill ala Jalen is the more admirable journey.
I feel like the Clint Eastwood Character in Gran Torino in saying what I am about to say.
I agree with Grant Hill on this one, although his tone was too preachy. Rose in his documentary should have repudiated his prior "Uncle Tom" statement. I get the point that this is what he used to believe, but he doesn't say what he believes now. I have heard that in recent media appearances, he explains his opinion, but he should have done so in the documentary.
We couldn't keep our eyes off of the fab five because (1) they were awesomely talented and (2) there was a fish out of water sense about them - inner city kids who embraced hip hop culture in an elite university setting.
The hip/hop notion that one can act "too white" by studying hard and embracing middle class values is harmful to the vast majority of under privileged inner city kids. Jalen Rose should have clearly rejected it in the documentary. Jalen Rose came from that environment and is a success but very few are blessed with the athleticism to be able to follow him. Grant Hill is a better role model because his focus on educational values will help many more.
One final point: while I loved following the fab five at the time, a little part of me feels guilty because they in no way represented the better values of our University. Some one else made the point that they could have gone to any university and created the same sensation. By mere chance they chose ours, yet they had no real connection to what it stands for. Those who attack Grant Hill merely because he criticises our fab five seem to have adobted the SEC and OSU views that "we don't care if cheating occured, as long as it is not too obvious and we win." As Michigan fans, we are better than that. Our University stands for excellence. Our teams are disciplned, tough, hard nosed, and they play by the rules. Chris Webber by taking money didn't play by the rules, and the wins are tainted.
"Grant Hill is a better role model because his focus on educational values will help many more."
That is nonsense. Jalen has a charter school, he endows scholarships at Michigan. Why do you think that Jalen doesn't value eduation? This is precisely the stereotype -- that because the Fab Five were brash and urban they were a bunch of illiterates. It's not true.
worthy. My point is that I wish he would have softened the harmful "Uncle Tom" talk in his documentary. Again, he doesn't believe that now, but I would have liked that to be clearer in the film. It leaves open the possiblity for some to misinterpret him as still believing that way.
Again, why did he have to make clear exactly what his thoughts are today? Because the media was going to run with it?
The documentary was on the Fab Five, not racial attitudes of poor blacks or black teenagers. His comments were important as it related to a very important opponent to the Fab Five. Going back and clarifying beyond what he did (gained respect for Laettner, thought Duke was the better team) was not part of the story to tell. Stop moving the goalposts on what he should have done and just use your brain. All it takes is looking at the values that the Fab Five show today to know that they don't have the same beliefs on the subject of "Uncle Toms."
Jalen, Jimmy, Ray, and Juwan were all excellent students while at U of M.
Jalen was an honor roll student in high school, and on the dean's list at Michigan. He is, by all accounts, a very intelligent individual.
The media started the whole, "they're just a bunch of thugs" meme, and a number of fans/people bought into it. They ought to be ashamed.
Grant Hill is a bitch who's about as close to the culture Jalen Rose grew up in as I am.
"I'm white and comments about race make me uncomfortable!"
But doesn't that in turn stereotype white people? Is there no end to the racial divide?
This is an interesting topic because this is the type of work I focus on. I am an anthropologist with a focus in slavery studies or as it is more formally known "subaltern". I also do a lot of work in racialized discourses. In anthropology there is a perspective known as the "semiotic perspective". Through intersecting discourses historically between class and ethnic groups, as a culture we have created what anthropologists call "marked" and "unmarked" groups. The marked group is the stigmatized group, while the unmarked group is the group of privilege. A nonracial example of this is sexual preference. When people interact in our culture peoples default position is to assume that other is heterosexual. Heterosexuals in this instance are the unmarked group.
Also, to make my point I need to address some history. Historians agree that during slavery it's fair to distinguish between the mentality of "house slaves" and "field slaves". "House slaves", because of their closeness with the slave master and because they were treated less harshly, tended to identify with the slave master even to the extent of saving his or her life. Field slaves were less likely to identify with the slave master and therefore were less submissive. It should also be noted that house slaves, because of their closeness with the slave master, were usually better off. As a result, house slaves have had greater opportunity to equal access and less likely to be excluded from participating in social relations that were once exclusively white. House slave and "uncle tom" have come to mean essentially the same thing.
I think all this information lends itself to the conclusion that Rose was not out of line. Furthermore, calling someone an "uncle tom" is not out of line. People resisting exploitation have always called out those that lend support to those exploiting them. Malcolm X frequently referred to others as "uncle tom" as a means to call people out so that they will empower themselves, as well as Huey P. Newton, and other important caring revolutionaries. It is a criticism out of love.
By the way, to those who were complaining about poor people not doing anything to not be poor and insinuating that people blame slavery and that they need to get out of the past. Well here’s some news for you. There are millions of slaves (indisputable unwaged slavery) in the world today. It is illegal in every country, yet occurs in almost all, including the US.
I mean didn't Spike Lee already settle this issue for the Black community in School Daze?