What Some Don't Understand

In recent years, bullying has become a major issue within American education.  This past week, it has dominated headlines in America’s number one sport – professional football.  Miami Dolphins’ offensive lineman Jonathan Martin left the team without explanation and over this last week, it has been determined that teammate Richie Incognito was the reason.  Evidence emerged that Mr. Incognito sent some pretty vile texts and tweets to his teammate.  This seems to have been done with the acknowledgement of the coaching staff in order to toughen up Mr. Martin.  While outsiders have jumped to the defense of the offended, there is a dynamic with which few critics are familiar. 

One of the developments is the near complete lack of support for Mr. Martin coming from his former teammates.  I believe this to be the product of team, not individual, thinking.  Mr. Martin has taken something in-house out into the public – a public that neither can or wants to consider the team context.  A team works on the basis of trust.  A part of that trust is an understanding that the internal conflicts do not become public fodder.  Critics might suggest that people like Mr. Incognito thrive on that type of culture but it is that type of culture which creates the fidelity and fraternity that are instrumental toward team success.  

Then, there is the issue of hazing or initiation that is often present in group or team dynamics.  Such things are quite common and serve a group purpose.  A newcomer into a group must quickly understand the values of the group and integrate into the relationships.  Doing this shows a commitment to the group, the people within and the goals of the group.  Typically, everyone has done something that serves as an initiation and they oversee the process for newcomers.  As a member of the military, I went through various traditions and I’ve doled them out as well.  The purpose is never to hurt necessarily but to ascertain the character of the person seeking entrance into our team.  This is not a capricious concern but one that could determine our future success or failure.  If one has never been a part of this type of relationship, it might seem strange, even sadistic, but it serves a purpose.   

The other feature to all of this is the proposed racism involved.  When I was in the military (certainly a team environment), the teasing and needling was part of the bonding.  It is too early to tell if this is really racism or not.  I would suggest it is not always racism but the absence of racism.  Race meant nothing to my platoon – everyone was called everything.  As a Jew, I was called a kike and Heb and Holocaust jokes were slipped in frequently.  Whether you were a redneck, Asian, Hispanic or black, there was not a label or slander not heard.  In these types of environments, race means nothing and therefore the words mean nothing.  One’s worth is based simply on what one contributes to the group.  Words based off this were the ones that hurt – if you were called a slacker or weak.  People outside these groups cannot understand but that is the reality.  When the individual no longer matters, one’s ability to fit into and work within the group is all important. 

There is a good chance that Mr. Incognito is just a jerk and a racist (the kind that typically gets weeded out in a true team environment).  This article is not in defense of him or what he allegedly has done.  What I do defend is the group/team culture.  This can sometimes include things considered unacceptable in the outside world.  I cannot make “civilians” understand because they never will unless in that position.  Yet a system cannot be punished simply because others do not understand.  There is value here and such teams or groups have changed the world (or brightened an occasional weekend).  We would all do well to reflect on that. 

The American Dilemma

In 1964, in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s death, Lyndon B. Johnson signed into the law the Civil Rights Act.  In short, it became illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, skin color, national origin, religion and gender.  It was the culmination of decades of work by civil rights activists and a step towards a promise fulfilled in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.  Since the passage of the law, the country has tried to live up to the best intentions of the act.  Perhaps, the country’s measure of progress is highlighted by the actions of “civil rights’ leaders” on issues of little racial importance.   

In light of the Treyvon Martin case, the acquittal of George Zimmerman and the context in which both transpired, we have a classic example of what has happened to the civil rights’ movement.  More importantly, we have an idea of what has happened to its standard bearers.  To put succinctly, the civil rights’ activists have turned what is not racism into racism and have turned a blind eye to the true issues that face the black community.  To exemplify their lack of interests in solving real issues and in the midst of all of the protests, gesticulations and prognostications, there is a demand for a “conversation” on race.  Generally, when someone tells me there needs to be a conversation, it is never a true conversation they seek.  What they seek is a one-way channel of dogma to be digested and swallowed whole.  Anything short of that and the labels come out, be it racist or whatever.   

Reverend Al Sharpton, a man who built his career as a racial ambulance chaser, throwing out racist epithets toward Jews and other groups, has somehow, by the media and other interested parties, been re-cast as an arbiter of racial harmony, justice and equality.  None of his actions seem to support that image.  Mr. Sharpton’s power stems from the continuation of outrage and victimhood, following a two-step process.  First, he turns his rage upon things that has little to do with racial justice or equality, such as the Duke lacrosse team rape fiasco or George Zimmerman.  The real threat, in his mind, lies outside the community and not within.  Second, he continues the role of outraged speaker, stoking and maintaining support by not focusing on the community.  In short, his support is based on finding fault with others.  Fortunately, not all black leaders have been so detached.

Actor, comedian and activist Bill Cosby has drawn much criticism for his remarks about how the black community needs to get its own house in order.  He has gone after parents who are failing in their job in raising their children.  He has attacked the black community for accepting that which denigrates them such as certain entertainment and community standards (teen pregnancy, single-parent homes and some music).  He has further faulted its leaders for not calling enough attention to the problems tearing at the fabric of black society.  In recent weeks, there has been much attention drawn to the fact that since Trayvon Martin was killed, hundreds of black youths were killed in Chicago alone at the hands of other black youth.  However, Mr. Sharpton has nothing to say about that.  There is no “day of outrage” or mass demonstrations throughout the country on this subject.  There are no speeches, no threats of boycotts on the city (as Mr. Sharpton has threatened on Florida) and no bombastic charges about the threat the city poses to the black community. 

Ultimately, tactics used by men like Mr. Sharpton are counter-productive – certainly for the black community.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that destructive means cannot create constructive ends.  However, the politics being played by the good reverend as hysteria over reason and thought have held the black community back, creating a perpetual victimhood mindset.  It has also created a national atomism that can be ultimately destructive for the country as a whole.  Let me be clear.  There are real examples of racism that need to be dealt with and done so in a way that fixes the problem and does not exacerbate already high emotions.  One who deals with racism must also keep the legacy of past leaders in mind.  They can do this by rationally addressing real concerns and not focusing on trivial (from a racial point of view) matters that only stoke fear and distrust.