Jim Brown vs. Muhammed Ali by Jason Whitlock

[Lark11]

msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/9730582/Jim-Brown%27s-my-hero,-Tiger-doesn%27t-have-to-be

Jim Brown's my hero, Tiger doesn't have to be

by Jason Whitlock

I figured out years ago it's a good thing everyone doesn't act like me.

Strip clubs would be overcrowded. You'd literally have to call ahead to reserve a champagne room.

Strip-club hostess: "We can get you in with Mercedes on Tuesday at 5 p.m. or there's a 2 a.m. slot on Sunday with Athena. Mr. Whitlock, what would you prefer?"

Selfishly, I'd prefer things stay exactly as they are. The hypocrites can secretly surf the Internet for porn, shop Craiglist for hookers and pretend their twice-a-year sex life with their spouse of five years is satisfying and a one-way ticket to Heaven's gates.

Jesus walked with prostitutes. Jason walks with strippers.

OK, that was a bit of an exaggeration. But the analogy came to mind as I watched Jim Brown slice into Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan about their alleged lack of social conscience on HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.

Jim Brown is the most important athlete in American history. Everything we foolishly credit Muhammad Ali for standing for Jim Brown actually did and does. The reverence we shower on the self-serving, draft-dodging, Joe Frazier-is-a-monkey Muhammad Ali more appropriately belongs at Jim Brown's feet.

His work in Los Angeles and across the country with street gangs, felons and prison inmates is truly Christ-like. That sentence is not an exaggeration. Through his Amer-I-Can program, Jim has chosen to associate with America's underclass in hopes of changing a destructive culture.

My respect for Jim Brown couldn't be any higher. I consider him a good friend.

He's wrong about Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan, though.

Brown wants Woods and Jordan to do what they're incapable of: duplicate their athletic courage in the social arena.

"(Tiger) is a killer, he will run over you, he will kick your ass," Brown said during his interview on Real Sports. "But as an individual for social change? Terrible. Terrible ... He can get away with teaching kids to play golf, and that's his contribution. In the real world, I can't teach kids to play golf and that's my contribution, if I've got that kind of power."

Translation: Brown wants Tiger and Michael to act like Jim Brown.

It's never going to happen. It's a naive request. It's the equivalent of asking Whoopi to be as seductive as Beyonce. Whoopi would make a fool out of herself trying.

The era of professional athletes being the leaders of social change has come and gone. Integration and money disconnected most modern athletes from the plight of the underclass four decades ago.

When you earn the kind of money Woods and Jordan rake in, you become a member of the establishment. It's difficult to fight the power when you are trying to hold onto it.

In my opinion, Woods and Jordan are not the problem. The media are.

We spent the better part of four decades convincing the public that Muhammad Ali was the ultimate black athlete, and now we wonder why Chad Johnson and a multitude of assclowns have perfected an Ali imitation.

Remember, I figured out years ago it's a good thing everyone doesn't act like me.

Think about it. Don Imus was vilified and demonized for uttering "nappy-headed hos" and Ali was celebrated for repeatedly calling Joe Frazier a gorilla as white reporters laughed and fought back tears of joy.

Ali was a pawn of the anti-Vietnam War movement, a cash cow for the Nation of Islam and a symbol of how bigots wanted high-profile black athletes to behave.

You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled and led astray.

Imagine if the media had spent 40 years extolling Brown's authentic commitment to and representation of the underclass rather than speculating about and interpreting domestic disputes. Imagine if Jim Brown had lit the Olympic torch in Atlanta rather than the Louisville Lip.

Imagine if Jim Brown was universally praised as the ultimate black athlete rather than as the angry black man in the funny hat.

Maybe then there would be fewer hey-look-at-me bojanglers and more Baron Davises trying to positively influence the communities that produced them.

This is America, home of capitalism. We're conditioned to follow the money. The media made Ali's buffoonery marketable and profitable. We made Brown's legitimate social conscience dangerous and scary.

There's no mystery as to why Woods and Jordan fall short of Brown's dedication to advancing social change. They've personally experienced little or no injustice. Beyond funding educational opportunities for the poor and carrying themselves in a dignified manner, they have no real clue how they can give back without being exploited.

And, more important, they realize they'd be treated as pariahs if they followed in Brown's footsteps.

When you choose to walk with prostitutes (as Jesus did) and strippers (as I have) and gang members (as Brown has), it's a very lonely stroll.

Jim Brown pretty much walked alone in the 1960s and 1970s. His courage dragged along a few tokens. Where are they now? They're not in the trenches with Jim. They're on the golf course with Tiger and Michael.

Nothing has really changed. Perhaps one day there will be a new Jim Brown. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. I've been waiting 40 years for the next Martin Luther King Jr.

The lesson is an old one: Jim Brown and everyone else just need to continue being the change they want to see. It's the best we can do.

You can e-mail Jason Whitlock at [e-mail].

[psuhistory]

I think the article underestimates the contributions and indirect impact of Jordan and Woods through the establishment and support of institutions. Many thousands of people make contributions to groups that work directly in local communities, without undertaking this kind of local work themselves. To make such "hands-on" work the fundamental standard for commitment to "social change" oversimplifies the process of change itself and undervalues the power of a mass society to bring resources to bear on problems that the owners those resources may never encounter personally...

[The Duke]

I think Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan have done far more than Jim Brown has for adavancing minorities. Tiger Woods and Micahel Jordan are idols and role models for all people, while Jom Brown stirves towards primarlu only the african american community. While Racsim is still alive today, it isn't nearly what it once was in America, and Jordan and Woods making race a non-issue is a better example in my opinion.

[bobroberts]

Jun 27, 2009 10:54:58 GMT -5 The Duke said:

I think Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan have done far more than Jim Brown has for adavancing minorities. Tiger Woods and Micahel Jordan are idols and role models for all people, while Jom Brown stirves towards primarlu only the african american community. While Racsim is still alive today, it isn't nearly what it once was in America, and Jordan and Woods making race a non-issue is a better example in my opinion.

I tend to agree with this, if we strive to become a color-blind society, we have to take race completely out of the picture. Making race an issue, like Jason Whitock repeatedly does through his articles, doesn't really help the cause.

And the strip club analogy is creepy.

[Lark11]

I almost forgot I had posted this.

I rarely agree with Whitlock, but I do respect him for tackling some tough issues and talking about things that people don't ordinarily talk about.

I remember that he was on an HBO Bob Costas special with someone else and he talked about how he could talk about race because he had a history of discussing it. He had a track record, whereas everyone else was afraid to even touch it.

The conversation in this thread has focused on the Tiger/Jordan aspect, but I really thought the more interesting part was the Jim Brown v. Ali comparison. I'm too young to have seen Ali in his prime, when he was relevant and larger than life. All I know is what I have read and seen in old interviews and video clips. That said, I've never been a fan of Ali. I don't care for the trash talk, self-promotion, or arrogance. And, I remember reading somewhere that white America didn't truly embrace Ali until after he had come down with Parkinson's disease. Evidently, the disease robbed him of his inflammatory speech, which made him more sympathetic to the American public. I suppose the passage of time has altered public perception, making his views more acceptable as well.

Still, I can't help but wonder if Whitlock is right. Has the media latched onto Ali and made him into this iconic figure who stands for more than his athletic achievements? If so, does he deserve it? Is he being credited too much for his social conscience?

I've never found Jim Brown to be a likable figure either, but Whitlock may be right about Brown being the true social conscience. It's interesting that Ali may have talked the talk, but Brown walked the walk. And yet, the media focuses on the talker.

Of course, Whitlock makes the obvious point that the media is helping to drive the conduct of the modern athlete. I doubt it started with Ali, but rather with the ESPN highlights that are loaded with the antics of prima donna wide receivers. Clowning around and talking trash are what gets you on TV and that's where people want to be. Ultimately, Ali may have helped lay the foundation for this trend. Still, maybe it would be better for sports and society if the media focused on the athletes who don't play the fool.

I do, however, agree that Jordan and Woods shouldn't be expected to be anything than what they are: tremendous athletes. Maybe it would be nice to have another Jim Brown, but it's not fair to expect the superstars to be anything other than athletes.

In the end, I just think it's an interesting article. Whether you agree with it or not, I think it's worth reading. Unfortunately, I don't think we are anywhere close to being a colorblind society, so talking about these types of issues is still important.