Thought you all might be interested in reading this:
gambling establishment etc
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.