Dave Zirin's Analysis on "42" The Jackie Robinson Story

Hi all!

I have not seen this movie yet, but intend to.  I wanted to share my blog followers Dave Zirin's analysis of the film and the larger questions it poses.  As soon as I see the film, I will write my own analysis and share with you.

Dave Zirin 

April 17, 2013

This week in Major League Baseball was Jackie Robinson Day. This is when Commissioner Bud Selig honors the man who broke the color line in 1947 and pats MLB on the back for being “a leader in the Civil Rights Movement.” It’s possible to appreciate that Selig honors one of the 20th Century’s great anti-racist heroes. It’s also possible, out of respect for Jackie Robinson, to resent the hell out of it.

Ignored on Jackie Robinson Day are baseball’s decades of racism before Jackie broke the color line. Ignored are Robinson’s own critiques of baseball’s bigoted front office hiring policies. Ignored is the continuance of the racism that surrounds the game in 2013. Ignored is the fact that today in Arizona, Latino players live in fear of being stopped by police for not having their papers in order.

The recent film 42 about Jackie Robinson’s entry into the Major Leagues shares this contradiction. I can certainly understand why many people I respect love this film. I can understand why a teacher I know thinks it’s a great primer for young people who don’t know Jackie’s story. I understand why, given the high production values and loving depictions, Jackie Robinson’s family has been outspoken in their appreciation. But I didn’t like it, and with all respect, I want to make the case that I don’t believe Jackie Robinson would have liked it either.

Early in the film, Jackie Robinson, played by newcomer Chadwick Boseman, says, "I don't think it matters what I believe. Only what I do." Unfortunately that quote is like a guiding compass for all that follows. The filmmakers don't seem to care what Robinson­a deeply political human being­believed either. Instead 42 rests on the classical Hollywood formula of “Heroic individual sees obstacle. Obstacle is overcome. The End.” That works for Die Hard or American Pie. It doesn’t work for a story about an individual deeply immersed and affected by the grand social movements and events of his time. Jackie Robinson's experience was shaped by the Dixiecrats who ruled his Georgia birthplace, the mass struggles of the 1930s, World War II, the anti-communist witch-hunts and later the Civil Rights and Black Freedom struggles. To tell his tale as one of individual triumph through his singular greatness is to not tell the story at all.

This is particularly ironic since Jackie Robinson spent the last years of his life in a grueling fight against his own mythos. He hated that his tribulations from the 1940s were used to sell a story about an individualistic, Booker T. Washington approach to fighting racism.

As he said in a speech, “All these guys who were saying that we've got it made through athletics, it's just not so. You as an individual can make it, but I think we've got to concern ourselves with the masses of the people­ not by what happens as an individual, so I merely tell these youngsters when I go out: certainly I've had opportunities that they haven't had, but because I've had these opportunities doesn't mean that I've forgotten.”

This was a man tortured by the fact that his own experience was used as a cudgel against building a public, fighting movement against racial injustice. He wanted to shift the discussion of his own narrative from one of individual achievement to the stubborn continuance of institutionalized racism in the United States. The film, however, is a celebration of the individual and if you know how that pained Mr. Robinson, that is indeed a bitter pill.

The film's original sin was to set the action entirely in 1946 and 1947. Imagine if Spike Lee had chosen to tell the story of Malcolm X by only focusing on 1959-1960 when he was a leader in the Nation of Islam, with no mention of his troubled past or the way his own politics changed later in life. Malcolm X without an “arc” isn’t Malcolm X. Jackie Robinson without an “arc” is just Frodo Baggins in a baseball uniform. The absence of an arc means we don’t get the labor marches in the 1930s to integrate baseball. We don’t get his court martial while in the army (alluded to in the film without detail). We don’t get Jackie Robinson’s testimony in 1949 at the House of Un-American Activities Committee against Paul Robeson. We don’t get his later anguish over what he did to Robeson. We don’t get his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement when he was a barnstorming speaker across the south. We don’t get his public feud with Malcolm X, where Malcolm derided him as a “White man’s hero” and he gave it right back saying, "Malcolm is very militant on Harlem street corners where militancy is not that dangerous. I don't see him in Birmingham.” We don’t get his daring, loving obituary to Malcolm after his 1965 assassination at a time when the press­black and white­was throwing dirt on his grave. We don’t get his support of the 1968 Olympic boycotters. We don’t get the way his wife Rachel became an educated political figure who cared deeply about Africa, as well as racial and gender justice in America. We don’t get the Jackie Robinson who died at 52, looking 20 years older, broken by the weight of his own myth. We don’t get Raging Bull. We get Rocky III.

But if the focus of 42 is only going to be on 1946 and 1947, then there is still a lot to cover: namely Brooklyn Dodgers owner Branch Rickey, Jackie Robinson and their relationship to the Negro Leagues. Rickey ­with Robinson’s support ­established a pattern followed by other owners (with the notable exception of Bill Veeck), of refusing to compensate them for their players. On the day Robinson signed with the Dodgers, Rickey said, "There is no Negro League as such as far as I'm concerned. [They] are not leagues and have no right to expect organized baseball to respect them." This led to the destruction of the largest national black owned business in the United States.

You would never know this from 42. Instead, the film chooses to affix a halo to Branch Rickey’s head. Instead, under a prosthetic mask, Harrison Ford plays Rickey as a great white savior, and not even Han Solo can make that go down smoothly. Fairing better than Ford is the terrific performance of Chadwick Boseman as Robinson. Jackie Robinson could be sensitive about his voice, which was clipped and somewhat high-pitched. Boseman’s voice is so smoky it could cure a ham, and his eyes and manner give hints of an internal life the film otherwise ignores.

There is no doubt in my mind that Jackie Robinson, if alive, would call on Bud Selig and Major League Baseball to stop using his history as an excuse to do nothing about the racial issues that currently plague the game. But there is also no doubt in my mind that Jackie Robinson, ever the pragmatist, also would support this film publicly. He was an honorable person who would have been humbled by the effort made to make him look like a hero. He would have seen the value in being a role model of pride and perseverance for the young. But at home, alone, he would have thought about it. And he would have seethed.

Well, Mr. White Male Senators: Happy Now?

I am sure that Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, and the rest of their group are in their smoke-filled back rooms crowing over their triumph at scuttling Susan Rice's nomination to be the next Secretary of State.

Opps!  I forgot.  Her name had been floated, right?  She hadn't even been officially nominated, as far as I can recall.

When I heard the news this morning, I got this sick feeling in my stomach that turned into a long-held knot.  Let's see.  When have I had that feeling before?  Van Jones?  Lani Guinier?

Yes, I understand the "win one for the Gipper" cliche.  What I mean is that given all the issues the country is facing and our duly elected leader, Barack Obama, is facing as the President, the last thing he needs is another distraction.  But is there any time where a so-called "distraction" trumps the so-called "unpleasantness" it may cause?

When the claim of an undue distraction is used to keep us from addressing the REAL issues of distraction, you have an interesting paradox.  And the paradox is two-fold: one, using the excuse of this nomination being a distraction from all the other things that the president has on his plate is to relegate the importance of this nomination to a manufactured "subservient" position.  And second, you also, at the same time, relegate the subtext to a subservient position.  The subtext was so easy to see.  They just did not like this up-front black woman.  Period.  What was the word that was constantly used to describe her: BLUNT.  You just can't have a Secretary of State who is blunt. At last look, I always felt that one of the things that made me proud of being black was my cultural upbringing, and with that, being blunt.  Being upfront.  Telling it like it is.  Not couching dialogue in inferences that you feel people will just intuitively pick up the cues without hand signals. But then again, I also know personally how that "bluntness," and "upfrontness"  has continually gotten me into trouble within my white circle of friends, alternative movement politics and job interviews and advancement. It all smacks so much of racism, and by extension, sexism.  And who do we have now to nominate?  Susan Rice taking herself out of the nomination clears the way for who, did I hear?  None other than John Kerry, who would SAIL through with no problem.  Why?  Well, because "he's one of us."  "He's one of the good ones."  Subtext: a white male who knows how to swivel and articulate the language instead of using that same language to be blunt, to tell the truth; no speak loudly and carry a "blunt" stick here.

But let's just suppose the argument of distraction was true.  So where does that leave as a country?  Are we better now quantitatively, qualitatively, or both?  Quantitatively, one less distraction.  Qualitatively, without this distraction, are we now further along in coming to an agreement before we fall off the fiscal cliff?  Without this distraction, can we concentrate now on getting the unemployment rate below 6%?  Without this distraction, are all the areas in the world that are about to explode, because their people want a more democratic society going to get our full attention, in whatever way we feel is important to make that happen?

You see, the real argument here is that distraction is not the real argument because it does a poor job of covering up what the real arguments are.  You think you can move on, to take on other problems, but what you end up seeing is that all the other problems are tainted and painted with the same brush.  And what will happen is that the next "distraction" is not far behind.  The real distractions are the ones that are below the surface, the racism that is apparent around cultural expression, thought and ultimately, the qualifications of a woman because of race and gender conflict. (I just flashed on Anita Hill). Until subtext issues (distractions) are addressed, we will flail about, lost, trying to find our way, and continually use these same distractions to walk backwards into the future.

Is that what we want as a country?  I'm sure there are some in power that would be just fine with that.  I'm not one of them.  And I will continue to celebrate being "blunt," telling it like it is.

Stolen Moments!

Finally!  It's finished!  Stolen Moments!  For those of you who aren't familiar with the song, it's a jazz tune written by Oliver Nelson years ago.  The lyrics that you hear people singing (I think they were written by Mark Murphy) are nice, but mainly talking about a failed relationship.

This is a video I produced to raise awareness around the fact that black felons, and felons of all colors for that matter, are systemically excluded from a basic American right.  But it's larger than just felons.  The subtle (and these days, not so subtle ways) that people of color, students and people without either money, prestige or political power are insidiously kept out of exercising their rights should be a concern for EVERYONE!  Stolen Moments is a traditional jazz tune with a new set of lyrics!  Pass the message on!  And DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!

http://youtu.be/ip0IPEJwHD0

Here are the lyrics:

Here's a slick way to steal an election
You just sort out the darkest hues
next, you attach the label FELON
bottom line, an unconscious cue.

If you snivel
the drivel
don't matter
these felons
whose melons
imbued
yes they're screwed
but you know
that your guilt
is a quilt
for the truth
WHEN CAN WE SEIZE THE TIME?

Here's the next way to steal an election
Do I hear Ohio now?
Flip the people's agenda backwards
Trojan horse or sacred cow?


If you snivel
the drivel
don't matter
these felons
whose melons
imbued
yes they're screwed
but you know
that your guilt
is a quilt
for the truth
WHEN CAN WE SEIZE THE TIME?

Race, Obama, Romney, Lies and the Upcoming Election!

Hey all!

I am going to be posting a series of articles on race, Romney and Obama.  Here is the first one by Earl Ofari Hutcheson.

huff.to/RTdbSe


More to come!

Matundu

Racially-Approved American Murder: They Kill Because They Can

Hey all!

Here is a recent short piece by Glen Ford.  I am reposting it on my blog because I think it is an important perspective.

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

Why did Staff Sgt. Robert Bales kill 16 Iraqi civilians in the deep of night and, supposedly, all by himself in the countryside of a foreign land? Why did George Zimmerman stalk and then kill 17-year-old Trayvon Martin as the 140-pound kid talked on a cell phone with his girlfriend in a gated community near Orlando, Florida? Bales and Zimmerman did it because they could, because they felt they had permission to snuff out the lives of Iraqis and Black teenagers who had never even thought to offend them. The only reason that these two instances of murder are of such deep importance in the larger scheme of things, rather than just to the families and neighbors of the victims and the killers, is because both murderers had good reason to believe that American society would approve of what they did.



Certainly, Sgt. Bales thought so. He had served three tours in Iraq, after joining the Army at the ripe old age of 27 right after 9/11. The hyper-nationalist media constantly told him and the rest of American public that the troops were “heroes” who were not only serving their own country, but also doing a great favor for the Iraqis and the Afghans. If the people of Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t appreciate the presence of Sgt. Bales and his fellow soldiers and marines, well, they were ingrates of the worst kind, unworthy of the sacrifice of even one of Sgt. Bales’ buddies. Besides, they were all Hajjis – a slur for Muslims that has the same venomous connotation as “nigger.” Sgt. Bales was not ashamed to use the term “Hajji” in letters to his wife, so I guess he had reason to believe she was a racist, too. The U.S. military preferred to descend on villages late at night, when they had the advantage of surprise and night vision goggles and could wipe out whole extended families of Taliban – or people who were pronounced to be Taliban, post-mortem – usually without suffering a single casualty. We own the night – that’s what the Americans said. And nighttime is for killing Hajjis.



George Zimmerman had every reason to believe that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law was written especially for him. And, actually, it was. The Sanford, Florida police department clearly thought the law was meant to protect Zimmerman from murder charges, which is why they claim they didn’t arrest him. When Zimmerman called the local cops from his SUV to tell them he was stalking Trayvon Martin, he confided to them that “assholes” like the unknown Black kid “always get away.” But, this one wouldn’t get away – not with his life. Florida and lots of other states in recent years have noted that too many Black people are getting away with life, and need to be stopped, so they crafted legislation that would allow white fear to trump Black rights to breath air. In such jurisdictions, evocation of white fear now provides the same justification for summary murder as claims of rape of white women did for mob lynchings, back in the day. It is as if the Florida legislature had put out a call for Black people to be summarily shot all over the state, when it passed the bill. The racial intention was clear, the results totally predictable. George Zimmerman doesn’t seem like a very bright young man, but even he knew that Florida civil society wanted some Black folks dead.

Sgt. Bales and Steve Zimmerman murdered Afghans and an African American kid because they could, and because American society told them that they should.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com

Andronico's Community Markets

Having been employed by Andronico’s Community Market for 8 years, I wanted to share with you my story and give a voice to the voiceless; employees who have dedicated years of their life to this company, and consequently, they need to be heard and you need to hear their story.

Andronico’s Community Markets had been struggling mightily for the last few years, given poor management and leadership from the very top, the overextending and building of new stores that ended up being closed (and sold for pennies on the dollar), the recession in the early part of this decade and the competition from Whole Foods, Berkeley Bowl, Monterey Market and Trader Joe’s. Additionally, Andronico’s has never wanted to address its pricing structure and as a result, has consistently been undercut by the competition.

In the summer of 2010, Bill Andronico brought in a so-called “top-notch” team (most were high in management at Whole Foods) to help turn the franchise around. Given my discussions with this leadership team, they said that they would give it a year. They didn’t say what would happen in a year if they could not turn it around. But that’s where the next part of this story takes place.

In early September 2011, a majority of employees (I worked at the Solano Store) were gathered in the employee lunchroom and informed by our Operations Manager, Sean Thomas, that Andronico's Community Markets had officially filed for bankruptcy that morning. We were all assured at that time that we all still had jobs, and as events unfolded, we would be kept in the loop and our status would be updated accordingly.

When we were updated about a week later we were told the following: that we were all going to be terminated and then officially rehired by the new company, with a 30-day probationary period, a 5% pay cut, and a mandatory drug test. After the 30-day period, we would be notified if we passed probation and were to be retained as employees.

In the week of October 9th – October 15th, all employees were "reinterviewed." This process was chaotic, to say the least. All 300+ employees were reinterviewed in the course of 3-4 days, with 3 members of the HR Department and one store director conducting 15 minute interviews, one right after another. The questions were straightforward, questions that normally would be asked in an interview. But then a question was asked that immediately raised a red flag for me. That question was: “Have you had any disciplinary procedures brought against you within the past 6 months?” Given the sequence of questions that had been asked in the interview process, I felt that question was incongruent. I felt that question was being inserted to have an additional criteria/reason to terminate an employee, but still be within the bounds of legality (more on that in future blogs).

During that same week (October 9th-15th) and the following week (October 16th-October 22nd), ALL of the Andronico’s Market stores were interviewing for new employees. Numerous employees in other stores informed me that the interviews were nonstop, from 9am in the morning to 5 or 6pm in the afternoon. Given this development, employees questioned: Why would they be interviewing so many people if they assured us that we were going to be employed through the official “change of ownership” transition? Since I, like most employees, could not answer that question, we just let it go and trusted that the bankruptcy proceedings and Bill Andronico had our best interests in mind.

The official change in ownership happened on Thursday October 27, 2011. Andronico’s was officially sold to Renovo Capital (an equity company out of Reno, Nevada). At 4:47pm in the afternoon, my cell phone rings and it's my store director and assistant store director on speakerphone. I am told: "The new company is changing hands as of midnight tonight and they are not offering you a position at this time."

I will say here that I was one of the fortunate ones. At least I got a phone call and was spoken to directly. There were employees that reported to me that a message was left on their answering machine. Two employees in particular told me that they were asked to work late because of a shift shortage, then told 7 minutes after the store closed that they were no longer employed as of midnight.

I want to keep this story in the news because of the labor issues involved and also the deplorable ethical standards used by Bill Andronico and Renovo Capital to decide what employees to retain and which employees to let go. Basically, employees were mislead, or to put it bluntly, lied to. They knew all along that they were going to lay off close to 25% of the work force, and most of that 25% being journeymen, meaning the top of the labor pay scale. Why else would they be interviewing employee’s non-stop for 2-3 days? These new employees would be brought in and paid entry-level wage. So, from a strictly economic standpoint, their thinking is to get rid of as many journeymen as possible, employ entry level wage employees, and close as many stores as need be to make the franchise profitable.

And here’s another question. What will be the criteria used to decide what employees to retain in 30 days, when the “probationary” period has expired (and the 30 days is fast approaching)? Will that be the same criteria used in the first round of layoffs? Will most of the employees laid off be journeyman again? Right now, you have employees who are scared, insecure and definitely not working up to their potential because they are just trying to keep under the radar, hoping that in 30 days they still have a job. There are also employees that have been fired in the last 30 days for no reason other than the fact that they are on 30-day probation. Hopefully, the union will be able to address their issues promptly and fairly. But the union is in a delicate position because they have an ongoing relationship with the new company that they have to honor and protect.

What has happened to Andronico employees is not unique. It is happening all over the country right now. But what does make this situation unique is that a most of the employees that were laid off were dedicated employees, some of them having worked their whole employed life at Andronico’s. And the bottom line was that they should have been treated better. They should not have been informed 5-6 hours before midnight that they did not have a job. And the employees that had more than 10 years with the company (some employees having 20+ years) should have been given some sort of severance package (the excuse used of course was that they are bankrupt). Ironically (and sadly) Bill Andronico has consistently stated over the years, both publicly and privately, how we Andronico’s employees are “family.” Is this the way you treat family? If so, maybe the employees that are still employed by Andronico’s should file for adoption.

Is There Any One Way To Be Black?

No, of course not. There is no one way to be black. We have pundits that try to pigeon-hole it, to make people (and of course) society feel that there is just one way out there. Also, let's not forget the role of stereotypes. Stereotypes have been consistent and successful in institutionalizing that one-way view. And, of course, the paradox about stereotypes is that there is a part of them that is true.
When I was six years old, I remember hearing two words on the radio quite often. Those words were guerrilla and Negro. I had been to the Bronx Zoo with my family a few times, so I thought I knew what a guerrilla was. Much to my surprise, after asking my father, I found out it wasn't the kind of animal I had in mind.

"Well then, what is a guerrilla?" I asked.

"The guerrilla they were talking about on the radio is a liberation fighter. As I explained to you before, there are all kinds of wars going on around the world, and this "guerrilla" wages war differently than what you see on television or have been taught in school."

"OK. And what is a Negro?" I asked.

"Look in the mirror," my father said tersely.

The curtness of his answer both surprised and shocked me. But being that I had politically active parents, I came to realize that something was terribly wrong with a society that puts distinctions on individuals or groups based solely on color. I was also grateful that my parents encouraged me as a youth to work with my peers to design “rap” sessions and workshops that seriously addressed the questions of the day. As the next few years of my life unfolded, through these rap sessions and informal workshops with my peers, I realized that as a "Negro," in order to be considered equal to white people, I would have to spend much of my time de-emphasizing the distinction of color. This realization was very painful for me because I had also been taught to appreciate the distinction of color as it related to cultural achievement and pride.

These experiences brought me full circle insofar as developing, as a teenager, working models for social change. But interestingly, within that context, I started to see that there was not one way to be black. There were so many ways black folk were expressing "themselves." Some were productive, some were mysterious and lost, some were profound, some were negative, and some were just too real.

Funny. I had a choice of "blackness" to pick from. And I have chosen all of them in my life. Some were safe. Some were familiar. Some I just hung on to (and still hang on to to this day) because I was and am too scared to venture out on my own and define it for myself. It is safer sometimes to let dominant culture define it for me. That way, I don't have to discover my path or the truth. But within this context WAS how I looked at change. Was I comfortable in my black skin? At that age, yes, but no too. I admit that I was working the stereotypes; the good ones to help define my blackness, the negatives one internalizing. As a teenager, I knew or had a more intellectual understanding of change. I knew that if change is inevitable, I needed to direct the change instead of just watching it pass on by. I also knew that there was a relationship between consciousness and action, and that it was important to always remember that, even in times of great fear and trepidation.

So yes, I take these lessons forward to this day. And I feel there is positive movement in my quest to define my blackness, but where I still feel diminished/stuck is outside of my inner self, my heart, and in what I allow the larger society to define for me. And I think that I have internalized the subtle values of my white friends/relationships and dominant culture in terms of them shaping my identity instead of shaping it on my own.

I have to understand that my level of understanding attained is the beginning of the change and not the end result of change. I have to be vigilant about what I do once I reach certain levels of political consciousness, and not become complacent because I feel that the work is over and there is no more left to accomplish. Or, that what is left to accomplish is either too hard (internalizing the feeling of being diminished) or too easy (succumbing to white guilt and using it as a negotiating tool with my white friends and my blended family).
In conclusion, I feel that I must take responsibility to develop frameworks that translate historical lessons into a language I can not not only understand, but can mobilize and educate people as well. That would be the best way to define myself as a black person, one with a healthy identity that can't be taken away from me.