“Big and black??” I’ll say if I’m feeling cheeky. “Oh no.”

The story usually falls apart from there.

This isn’t to say there aren’t imposing and intimidating black men, as there are imposing and intimidating men of every race. Some rappers purposely strike an intimidating pose to show how tough and strong they are. That intimidation, though, also has to do with perception.

In a New York Times piece about white female rappers, Touré writes:

For many Americans, black male rappers are entrancing because they give off a sense of black masculine power — that sense of strength, ego and menace that derives from being part of the street — or because of the seductive display of black male cool.

In that passage, he writes as much about rappers as the public’s view of them: Menacing. Seductive.

Dangerous!

The same is true for the person who tells the story with “the big black guy.” That description often says more about the storyteller than the person in the story.

When talking about your Saturday night or your commute home, there should be a reason to disclose someone’s race. If you ran into a guy who you perceived as big and intimidating, then just say, “There was this big intimidating guy…” There’s nothing wrong with a black man being intimidating, but is it his blackness that makes him intimidating? Openly using “black” as a substitute for “scary” reinforces the stereotypes that blacks are to be feared simply for being black.

If it’s assumed that blacks are to be feared, then every black man and woman is under suspicion for something. It becomes acceptable for blacks to be disproportionately stopped and frisked by police, to be pulled over for Driving While Black and to be followed around a store as if they’re going to steal something.

So unless there’s a particular reason to indicate that the tall, imposing man in your story is an African-American, please don’t mention it.

Just say he’s a big guy.

As I was writing this post, I searched “big black guy” on YouTube. The video below was the first result and the featured selection.

As I said: menacing, seductive.

Dangerous.

See also:
Personal Impact Of The NYPD’s Stop-And-Frisk Policy

Connect with me on Twitter, follow my Tumblr and Like me on Facebook.

It’s hypocritical for African-Americans, like Sherri Sheppard, to say “nigger,” but think people of other races are barred from saying it under any circumstances. It doesn’t take into account the intent of the person using the word. Saying it recklessly or maliciously is very different from reporting a story as Barbara Walters was doing in the segment above.

Yes, it’s a very offensive word, but to have an honest and respectful conversation about the word “nigger,” you need to say it. Clarity is important when talking about race. Calling it the “n-word” isn’t protecting the delicate sensibilities of others. It’s immature. If you’re having a discussion with adults, use adult words.

Connect with me on Twitter and Facebook.

Here’s the entire interview.

Thomas, Nasr, Sanchez and Williams were let go for expressing personal opinions in informal settings or places where they were the interview subjects. Because they put themselves in positions where the public was looking for the them to offer insight, perspective and a bit of their personality, their opining put them in positions to get in trouble with their employers.

Embracing the new media age where journalists and news organizations are trying to get their brands on many different platforms is turning out to be tricky. Some embrace this, but it’s also making it hard to appear impartial, and for some, stay employed. Not all personalities or opinions are likable, and everyone has fears and prejudices. It’s a balance – or tension – between getting more of the personal brand or personality “out there” to help grow the professional brand, while not having either brand offend anyone. It’s like the new digital age is telling them, “Put more of yourself out there, but don’t let anyone see who you really are.”

I’m not condoning what any of them said, but terminating someone isn’t necessarily the way to handle mistakes like these. If media companies want more content, how about having a substantive discussion with the journalist about why the offending remark was made? If a remark wasn’t made out of gross recklessness or unadulterated bigotry, there maybe an opportunity to explore where the remark came from, why it was made and inform the public about the issues surrounding it. News organizations are constantly looking for content to put on air, online and in print. There’s your content.

In the case of Williams, a good idea would have been to have thoughtful discussion about the origins of bigotry and fear how and to overcome them.. and have it on NPR.

A quick recap: Arizona’s immigration law passed; the NAACP took on Tea Party racism, and the Tea Party came back in a bad way; Andrew Breitbart took on the NAACP and Shirley Sherrod making all parties involved look bad, including Barack Obama; 1/5 of Americans think Obama is a Muslim in spite of factual evidence to the contrary and none to support it; there’s the controversy over the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” that isn’t located in Ground Zero and is more of a community center than a mosque; and Dr. Laura used the word “nigger” 11 times to a black caller.

These moments and the lack of any progress on race show the country isn’t ready to engage and have an honest conversation about how race and ethnicity affect Americans. What’s worse is President Obama doesn’t appear ready to lead the country in this matter. This is a shame because he is the perfect person to do it.

First, he’s already done it before. In a 2008 speech responding to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal, Obama spoke brilliantly about race:

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams.

That’s what a lot of the racial and ethnic stories that captured our attention this summer are about (except, perhaps, the Dr. Laura rant): Someone different from me is getting something I’m not. These issues aren’t just about race. They’re about class, immigration and jobs, too. They’re about race and money.

Obama is the embodiment of an American who can and has crossed multiple racial and economic groups and this is the second reason he should be talking more about these problems. He is the son of a white American and black Kenyan. He grew up in a working-class family in Hawaii as well as some time in Indonesia. He attended two elite Ivy League schools in the East, and he was a community organizer in Chicago. His life is a range of race and class in America. It’s multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and spans different geographic regions and economic classes.

Race and ethnicity make up part of who we are as individuals. For some, money is viewed as the means to make lives and families better. It’s viewed as opportunity. So, they are very emotional issues. Obama has proven himself to speak intelligently about them. At the same time, he can speak from his own life story to connect to many different American experiences.

In that 2008 speech Obama said, “Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.” Indeed. And getting heated and screaming at the people who don’t look like you isn’t the way Americans should be addressing it. He shouldn’t let political opportunists like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Breitbart take the lead and bring attention to themselves by preying on the fears and insecurities people feel about race and class.

Obama can’t do it alone. Americans will eventually have to talk to each other honestly and calmly about race and class. If anyone can get the conversation going, though, and guide the nation toward a better understanding of itself, it’s Barack Obama.

See Also:
What Did We Learn About The Ground Zero Mosque Debate?
The NAACP Was Right About The Tea Party

Besides the political pressure on Reid to resign, his remarks also prompted talk about a national conversation on race. Professor Michael Eric Dyson said Reid’s remarks were a “teachable moment” for Barack Obama and the president needs to deal with the issue of race. Dyson added that Obama “runs from race like a black man runs from a cop.” That’s not an accurate analogy, nor is it particularly helpful when talking about race, but Obama would be an ideal choice begin a national conversation on race. Dr. Boyce Watkins, though, has a few reasons why Obama shouldn’t begin the conversation. One of which, alienating some white voters, Obama himself probably realizes.

It’s fitting that the issue of race comes up around the time we celebrate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday while at the same time looking back at Obama’s (historic, though disappointing to some) first year in office. While his ascendancy to the Oval Office is proof that America has come a long way regarding race, the national hissy-fit we just had over Harry Reid ungracefully speaking the truth is proof we have a long way to go. Former Al Gore Campaign Manager Donna Brazile said this about the Reid gaffe: “We don’t have a common language to discuss issues – especially issues like racism and the sensitivity around discussing race. And because of that, people often trip over themselves.”

Finding that common language would help start a national conversation on race. But what exactly is a “national conversation?” If the United States is going to make an effort to talk about race on both national and local levels, how would that actually happen? Logistically speaking, how would a conversation on a national scale work?

 
Is it a series of town hall meetings? Would there be a Facebook page and website? (There actually is a website.) Would it be similar to Live Aid where there are concerts in order to promote the issue and get the conversation going? Is it like a campaign to raise money for cancer or other diseases with ribbons, walks and runs? Would there be corporate sponsors with the mainstream media on-board doing stories and interviews?

Then how should it start? Again, Obama might be a logical choice to initiate it. If he does, he should start and steer the conversation. He shouldn’t wait for “teachable moments.” After the series of talks, meetings or events began, he would jump-in the conversation when appropriate. He wouldn’t be front and center all the time. He would have to let it grow and flow organically.

But if it’s going to be a national conversation on race, it has to reflect the racial diversity and the conversations happening in the country. This “conversation” could have been framed between blacks and whites in the 1970′s and maybe even the 1980′s, but it has to be different now. America’s racial make-up is dramatically changing. Between now and 2050, Latinos are projected to go from a projected 15% to almost 25% of the U.S. population. This conversation couldn’t just be about color (black, white, brown), it would have to be about ethnicity and nationality (Latinos, Asians, Arabs), which would lead to other issues (immigration, jobs, terrorism). It would have to be more than just black and white.

It’s not that having a conversation on race isn’t a good idea. It’s just unclear how this national chat would take place. Maybe “conversation” is the wrong word. Maybe it’s a focus. Maybe it’s a movement. Whatever it is or will be, many of us will have to be brave enough to speak the truth about how we feel, have the strength to listen to others, even when we disagree or it’s uncomfortable, and have the will to honestly look at ourselves for who we are individually and as a nation.

All of those, especially the last one, are difficult for many people to do.