As an African-American and someone that has studied African-American history, you simply cannot use words like "Uncle Tom" and not expect a reaction. The history of that term is long and complicated, and African Americans in this country still have no clarity on what it truly means. So while I understand Brian's views on the matter, I still think that Hill was justified in his response. Mainly because those words are inflammatory. But also because it wasn't as clear as many think that those were views that were held in the past and no longer. And it wasn't just the documentary that adds to the lack of clarity.
I couldn't help but notice a conversation on twitter between Jason Whitlock and one of his followers a few days ago, in which Whitlock pointed out that Jimmy King essentially backed up his views on the definition of the term, and gave no indication that it was all in the past tense. The other guy was making the same point that others (including Brian) have made, that those comments were all past tense. Yet, I would watch the video below and then draw your own conclusion.
As you can see, these comments made recently, coupled with the documentary, suggest that it's not exactly clear whether they still held those beliefs, notwithstanding Rose's insistence that they do not. While I don't think that Rose still holds those beliefs, I do think it's fair for Grant Hill to respond as he did.
This to me just illustrates why RR must go. I'm not at all sure how anyone (including Brian) could look at the defensive philosophy on this team and not draw the conclusion that Rodriguez is woefully inadequate in his position as head coach.
Logic would dictate that if the defensive scheme is incoherent, but the head coach fails to draw that conclusion from obvious facts, then the head coach may not have the requisite knowledge of schemes he's previously run to continue in his position. You simply can't reconcile one with the other. You might disagree with Brian's analysis of the 3-3-5 (Michigan v. WVU). But if you agree with Brian's analysis, then I don't see how anyone can't think RR just doesn't understand one major aspect of his job.
Recent Comments
As an African-American and someone that has studied African-American history, you simply cannot use words like "Uncle Tom" and not expect a reaction. The history of that term is long and complicated, and African Americans in this country still have no clarity on what it truly means. So while I understand Brian's views on the matter, I still think that Hill was justified in his response. Mainly because those words are inflammatory. But also because it wasn't as clear as many think that those were views that were held in the past and no longer. And it wasn't just the documentary that adds to the lack of clarity.
I couldn't help but notice a conversation on twitter between Jason Whitlock and one of his followers a few days ago, in which Whitlock pointed out that Jimmy King essentially backed up his views on the definition of the term, and gave no indication that it was all in the past tense. The other guy was making the same point that others (including Brian) have made, that those comments were all past tense. Yet, I would watch the video below and then draw your own conclusion.
http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-basketball/fab-five-member-jimmy-king-talks-duke-definintion-of-an-uncle-tom-a-sellout/
As you can see, these comments made recently, coupled with the documentary, suggest that it's not exactly clear whether they still held those beliefs, notwithstanding Rose's insistence that they do not. While I don't think that Rose still holds those beliefs, I do think it's fair for Grant Hill to respond as he did.
This to me just illustrates why RR must go. I'm not at all sure how anyone (including Brian) could look at the defensive philosophy on this team and not draw the conclusion that Rodriguez is woefully inadequate in his position as head coach.
Logic would dictate that if the defensive scheme is incoherent, but the head coach fails to draw that conclusion from obvious facts, then the head coach may not have the requisite knowledge of schemes he's previously run to continue in his position. You simply can't reconcile one with the other. You might disagree with Brian's analysis of the 3-3-5 (Michigan v. WVU). But if you agree with Brian's analysis, then I don't see how anyone can't think RR just doesn't understand one major aspect of his job.
ngandu.com: the case against Rich Rod