Juan Williams: Lawn Jockey of the Year
Seriously, I thought that I was beyond the point in life where terms like “sellout” and “lawn jockey” were part of my racial vocabulary. At a certain point I concluded that race is too complex an issue and human behavior too variable and complicated for those kinds of terms to be of much use. And it’s true. Most of the time.
But every so often you come across something so base, so plantation-esque that it takes you right back to the X-Clan days. It is in this spirit that I’ve created the first annual Lawn Jockey award for those folk who make me want to drape myself in Kente cloth, break out the kufi and question someone’s blackness.
I’ve disagreed publicly with Juan Williams before but this drive-by assault on Michelle Obama caught me off guard completely. The simpleton idea that a Princeton-Harvard educated lawyer and hospital executive is a “radical militant” is wrong on multiple levels not the least of which is the fact that Williams isn’t even striving for originality here. It is so faulty, in fact, that it is more akin to the intercoastal assaults from 90s hip hop than reasoned public commentary. In his latest incarnation (incarceration?) as a fox news commentator, J-Dub, the Gangsta Commentator, has been compared to Cosby for his public dressing down of black people for everything short of global warming. But he reminds me of Cosby for a different set of reasons — mainly that they’re neighbors in the same glass condo complex.
You may recall that Cosby’s crusade was interrupted by allegations — and a lawsuit — from numerous women charging that he had sexually assaulted them. Williams wrote a defense of Clarence Thomas during the Anita Hill hearings and sparked a 116 person protest from the Washington Post staff who had felt that J-Dub was guilty of the same sins he sought to absolve Thomas of. Here’s a summation from the September 1992 American Journalism Review:
All this is changing in the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings, whose impact on female journalists cannot be overstated. That was the week when newswomen learned that harassment has happened to almost all women in some form, and that they, like other women, had somehow cooperated in denying or deprecating their own most galling experiences.
For many journalists, the crystallizing moment was the revelation that Washington Post writer Juan Williams, one of Thomas’ most ardent defenders, was himself an alleged harasser. The Post had printed a Williams column minimizing the gravity of the charges against Thomas without disclosing that Williams had been accused of verbally abusing female staff members over a period of at least four years. Post management also initially held back the paper’s media writer, Howard Kurtz, from reporting on the angry reaction among Post staff members. It wasn’t until WRC-TV, a local NBC affiliate, broke the story that the Post mentioned the controversy in its pages. And only after a protest by 116 newsroom employees did the paper concede that the charges against Williams were founded. Unlike most incidents of sexual harassment in newsrooms, the Williams case was widely reported, largely because of its intersection with the Thomas hearings and the conflict-of-interest question it raised.
J-Dub is, of course, welcome to his own opinions about Michelle Obama, but the public should also know a bit about where he’s coming from as well. It’s only fair. And balanced.
tiffany
blindspots perhaps? it’s amazing how far they will go to avoid seeing themselves (i.e. cosby, williams, thomas).
Jan 29, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Michael O'Neill
Criticism is great, I’m a big fan of it. But this isn’t criticism. This is intellectually feeble immature blather. I’ve seen great posts here, but this should be considered your reminder of how banal blogging can be.
Jan 29, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
DeAngelo
^I think this comment misses the point. And may have been made because it misunderstands how Juan Williams launched himself into national conciousness with the must-have Eyes on the Prize. Williams once was the progressive voice on McLaughlin-esque panel discussions on television. But then he took a right turn. And has deteriorated (sp?) for a while. And his so-called intellectualism has diminished to the point where he’s says nothing more relevant than Limbaugh, Hannity, or O’Reilly. Now, if you think those guys are astute, Williams is your guy.
Personally, I think it’s a little early to award the Lawn Jockey. But I’m not averse to Williams as a nominee.
Jan 29, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Michael O'Neill
I fully understand who Williams and where his work travels. The nature of Williams may be the point of this post, but it isn’t the point of my comment.
My comment’s point is that this post is poorly thought out, poorly executed and childish in its core nature. These aspects are overwhelmingly not the hallmark of this blog day to day. But here we are.
I think the point of DeAngelo’s comment is that if you agree with a blog post’s point, it simply doesn’t matter how poorly that point is made. For shame.
Jan 30, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
AmericanException
I hear you Michael — which is why I began my post by saying that I thought the Lawn Jockey days were long gone… but like Michael Corleone (They keep pulling me back in!)
But I digress. Aside from the darky emblem attached to his name, Williams was long overdue for some satirical deflation. Perhaps I should’ve gone with the Al Jolson pic?
Jan 31, 2009 @ 12:47 am
Knockout Ed
Eh, I think Michael just doesn’t like the verbiage & is being high-falutin in his descension.
Feb 03, 2009 @ 5:17 am
kgc
Just a technical question: so, is Williams the Lawn Jockey of 2008, then, rather than 2009? Because that would work best: then you could remain watchful the remainder of ‘09 for outstanding incidences of niggetry and award the 2009 title in January of 2010.
Then again, if done this way, Williams’ title might have to be awarded to someone else (Bob Johnson, perhaps?).
Feb 04, 2009 @ 4:23 pm