OJ Simpson is NOT a Litmus Test For Black People!
by Latoya Peterson
Continuing the Spike Lee/Clint Eastwood Discussion, I received an email from reader Elton alerting me to an exchange on the Hannity & Colmes show.
Leo Terrell, a civil rights attorney came on the show to debate the merits of Lee’s position. The conversation starts out fine:
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST:[...]Look, doesn’t Clint have a point, Leo? He was making about a movie about the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. There were not African-Americans as part of that. There were African-Americans who served in the military, but that wasn’t the focus of the Eastwood film. He was trying to be historically accurate. Isn’t that the issue?
LEO TERRELL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: No, because he didn’t show one black face during the entire four hours of that movie. I saw that movie.
Alan, there were 900 black men who fought in Iwo Jima. Fourteen of them got the Silver Star. There was a poor depiction — the fact that there was not a single African-American there, in the case that Clint Eastwood did not correctly tell history.
COLMES: But this was about the raising of the flag. That’s what this was about.
TERRELL: No, no. It was also about who was there, not just the raising the flag. But look at that movie, look at that clip right there. There were black men who served and died in Iwo Jima.
And then, the co-hosts decide to take the argument away from the original context and throw in some background information about the Lee/Eastwood feud:
COLMES: You know, look, Leo, he made a movie about Charlie Parker called “Bird.”
TERRELL: That’s not the issue.
COLMES: Well, no, it is the issue. He was criticized by Spike Lee for that, saying a white guy shouldn’t have made that film. Spike Lee could have made that film, as well, and he employed 90 percent African- American actors in that film. To suggest Clint Eastwood somehow does not care to employ African-American actors, which is the implication here, is wrong.
TERRELL: The issue here is it was a wrong portrayal of what happened in World War II in Iwo Jima. African-Americans died in that movie. They died in that war. They died in Iwo Jima. Nine hundred African-Americans, Alan, landed at Iwo Jima. Fourteen of them got the Silver Stars. Just like Ollie North, there was not a black face. That’s what Spike Lee is saying, not one black face in that entire four-hour movie.
Then Colmes decides to…well…if he was black, it would be called playing the race card. I’m not sure what to say when white people do it*:
COLMES: Isn’t the implication here that Clint Eastwood is racist? That’s the subtext here? That’s not true. He makes “Bird.” He couldn’t put a bunch of white actors in that film, which he did not do.
TERRELL: Come on, come on. It’s not like saying what have you done recently or what have you done lately? The point here is that that was a historical movie…
Now, I don’t believe anyone has called Clint Eastwood a racist. I believe Lee and others were pointing out what could be considered a historical oversight. But since we brought race up, Sean Hannity decides to jump into the fray:
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Hey, Leo — Leo…
TERRELL: … and to not have a single black face is wrong. That’s wrong!
HANNITY: Leo…
TERRELL: Fourteen African-Americans received the silver star.
HANNITY: Leo, let me ask you a couple quick questions here. Do you think Larry Bird was one of the greatest basketball players?
TERRELL: Yes.
HANNITY: And do you think when Spike Lee said he was overrated because of his race…
TERRELL: Oh, come on.
HANNITY: Spike Lee, “He’s overrated because of his race. You listen to the white media…”
TERRELL: Don’t change the…
HANNITY: “… and nobody ever played basketball before him.” That’s your — that’s your friend, Spike Lee.
TERRELL: No.
HANNITY: Is that acceptable language to you, Leo Terrell?TERRELL: I am not — don’t play the — don’t skirt the subject.
HANNITY: Is that acceptable language to you?!
Now, through all this, Terrell is trying valiantly to stay on topic:
TERRELL: World War — black World War II veterans were…
HANNITY: Let me raise it up a notch. Your friend Spike Lee, “Shoot Charlton Heston.” You want to defend that, Leo?
TERRELL: Listen, you are trying to change the subject. Nine hundred African-American men who fought…
HANNITY: Spike Lee, “Trent Lott is card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan.” Is that acceptable, Leo?
TERRELL: Look, you want me to answer those questions? You want to change the subject, Sean. The issue is very simple. African-Americans were in Iwo Jima. Why did…
HANNITY: Next question about Spike Lee and his race obsession. He said about — after Hurricane Katrina and the catastrophe, he said, “It’s not too far- fetched, I don’t think, to put past anything the United States government.”
TERRELL: I am not here…HANNITY: Excuse me.
TERRELL: … to defend all those other issues.
HANNITY: “I don’t find it far-fetched that they tried to displace all black people out of New Orleans.”
TERRELL: OK.
Now, here’s where things get hilarious:
HANNITY: Do you agree with that, Leo Terrell? I know you’re O.J. Simpson’s friend.
Where the fuck did that come from?
Terrell is just as perplexed as I am:
TERRELL: You know what — what? What about O.J. Simpson?
HANNITY: Well, what about it? Do you think — do you think O.J. is a killer? Do you think he was guilty?
What the hell? Is that the ultimate white trump card? It feels like every conversation about race in this country is six degrees away from devolving into a conversation about OJ Simpson. And more importantly, the OJ trial seems to function as a litmus test to determine what kind of a black person you are dealing with. Can we PLEASE stop bringing up OJ? The verdict came in when I was in the seventh grade! We need to move past this because OJ is irrelevant in the lives of most people!
Back to the conversation:
TERRELL: I’m talking here about Iwo Jima, 900 black men serving in that war, fought in that battle.
Good job Terrell. Stay on topic, even if it kills you! Because it might – my blood pressure is going up reading this mess.
Oh wait, no we can’t stay on topic:
HANNITY: Spike Lee — I’m asking you if he — Spike Lee plays the race card continually. I’m asking you, if you have the intellectual honesty to admit it.TERRELL: Why haven’t you asked me one question about that movie? Why haven’t you asked me one question about that movie?
HANNITY: I’m asking you about Spike Lee, who made an accusation about Clint Eastwood, because he portrayed it accurately in the film.
TERRELL: Why aren’t you asking me about the movie?HANNITY: I just did. Didn’t you hear me?
TERRELL: I heard you, and I’m telling you that there were black men who were on that beach!
HANNITY: I agree. And Spike Lee or Clint, maybe one day, should do a movie on it. But that’s not what this movie was about.
TERRELL: Listen, in the entire movie, not one black face!
HANNITY: I’ve got one question.
Ah, dear readers, guess what the question is?
TERRELL: Yes, sir.
HANNITY: You’re friends with O.J. Simpson. Do you think he killed those two people?
COLMES: What year is this? What year is this?
HANNITY: I’m asking. Do you think — you’re friends with him.
Hello.
All right.
COLMES: We’re now doing stills.
HANNITY: The last time I asked that question, Leo walked off the set. I was just going to see if he was going to do it again. Leo, you’re a good friend. God bless you.COLMES: He’s a good friend?
HANNITY: We love you.
Leo is — you’re a friend. You consider me a friend, right, Leo?
And we’ll continue.
Epic Fail.
This is why I don’t watch Fox News. I don’t see the point.
—
Aside: Yes, Leo Terrell may very well be friends with OJ Simpson. It still has no bearing, whatsoever, on this discussion. And keep in mind, OJ finds a way to pop up in random places – like Nina Burleigh’s column for the Huffington Post.
*EDITED: From now on, this tactic will be called reverse playing the race card: When a white person brings up race in a discussion when they have no intent of having a quality conversation about it – it’s just a lead so they can start calling someone racist or accuse a person of color of racism. Nezua’s Wite-Magik Attaxs also apply but this refers specifically to white people on the offensive, not the defensive. Thanks Ottermatic!
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Ottermatic wrote:
I’m not sure what to say when white people do it
How about “playing the race card”? Or if you want to keep with the common vernacular, “reverse playing the race card.” Heh.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:40 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@ottermatic – YES! I’m going to amend the post.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:41 am ¶
Faith wrote:
WTF was that?! That hurt my brain and probably made my BP go up too. That conversation wasn’t even half way intelligent because dumb and dumber decided to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the conversation. I think most network news is stupid and mindnumbing but Fox always seems to top everyone else. PBS forever!
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:43 am ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
OH. MY. GOD.
*bangs head on the wall*
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:47 am ¶
Kendra wrote:
Is this one of those killing kittens moments? Honestly, I think they just murdered two litters with this nonsense.
-_- Oh my gosh. Lay off the OJ.
I know they were trying to provoke the man into sensationalist statements and scary black man fears, but Terell held his ground pretty well. I personally would have walked off the set at the first mentioning of OJ.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:55 am ¶
Kendra wrote:
*Terrell
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 10:57 am ¶
Sarah wrote:
I don’t know who allowed those idiots to have their own TV show. Just reading that transcript might have killed some of my brain cells. They obviously don’t have the ability to argue their point effectively, and had to keep bringing up totally unrelated issues. Good for Terrell for trying to keep things in track and not responding to their bait.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 11:23 am ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
LOL! Wow… just wow.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 11:23 am ¶
nezua wrote:
well….at least we’re TRYING to talk about race a bit more in the media. clearly not doing so well, though.
Hmmmm. maybe its time to add to the glosario. “pulling the reverse race card” is a bit unwieldy.
OJ. hmmm. how about “Jumping the White Bronco.”
i’ll have to write that up later.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 11:32 am ¶
nezua wrote:
will this work?
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 11:44 am ¶
marge twain wrote:
Epic Fail, indeed [screams]
I watch a lot of MSM news and I often wonder what people are thinking, going on those horrible talk shows with the aggressively ignorant hosts. Is there an IQ cap to host political talk shows? H&C is the worst, worse than Bill O’Reilly.
In this case I think Leo Terrell managed to get his point out to a lot of people and he managed to not get cornered. I think a lot of people heard him.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 11:48 am ¶
G.D. wrote:
Did you see the video? It’s hilarious. Leo Terrell gives him the GTFOHWTBS stare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiiMcw-fac8&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=leo%20terrell&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&c
gotta love it.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 11:54 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Nezua -
It’s perfect!
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:00 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Wait, wait – spoke too soon.
Jumping the White Bronco NAILS what Hannity was doing (and thanks for the shout out!) and I will be using it in future posts.
However, what is the term for what Colmes was doing?
Lee and Terrell had a grievance with Eastwood’s representation of history and rightfully so – a lot of history was white washed. However, Colmes jumped the gun and asked if this meant Eastwood was a racist, which was not what Lee or Terrell were trying to convey. To me, that kind of action is based in the assumption that anytime a white person does something a black person disagrees with (and race is involved) the white person is automatically a racist. And considering that neither Lee nor Terrell brought that up, I think it is inserted in the conversation as an attempt to reframe and derail – it plays on the fears of being labeled a racist which in many areas has become worse than actually holding and defending racist views.
So what is the word for that?
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:07 pm ¶
nezua wrote:
wow, you are making me work over here!
great point, latoya. that does happen and i see just what you mean…a sort of fearful way of avoiding discussion and pushing an imagined implication so far that it must be denied, and the whole conversation is, as you said, derailed.
let me think on this one. its a good one, its needed.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:21 pm ¶
Mary wrote:
Oh.
My.
God.
WTF is the matter with people?
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:34 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
Sean Hannity spoke the words “intellectual honesty” out loud.
This post is an irony-free zone.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:46 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Can I just say that I love “Jumping the White Bronco”?
Someone please make a t-shirt.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:55 pm ¶
Philly Phil wrote:
Thank the Lord we Mexicans don’t have an O.J. equivalent to be thrown in our face in a race discussion.
…or do we? anyone?
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:58 pm ¶
YamYam wrote:
Notice how they say “Hollywood Legend: Clint Eastwood,” but fail to make the same assertion for Spike Lee, who can not be said to be lacking that pedigree himself. Clint Eastwood is a white hero, and I think Hannity & Colmes (and the entire American media complex for that matter) are trying to put Spike to shame for treading on Clint’s rep.
And why’d they invite a Civil Rights Attorney for commentary on a tabloid based culture inquiry? Is this supposed to about celebrity journalism or proper historical perspectives?
Naturally this devolved into a thoughtless and belligerent yelling match. And any black perspective becomes marginalized again……
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 12:59 pm ¶
Alexandra wrote:
Wow. ..just wow. The only good thing this video is for beside making Hannity look like an idiot is how to keep your cool and stay on topic when someone tries to bait you.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 1:04 pm ¶
Keke wrote:
Seriously, I was a kid as well when O.J. was brought to trial. He didn’t represent the entire African-American diaspora then, and he doesn’t now. He’s just one guy. Dang, I agree Latoya, can we move on and stay on topic??!!!
The way the exchange was going, I was surprised they didn’t try to bring up Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright. I hate the fallacious assumptions many people have that any figure is representative of a whole group of people and that one issue, one topic, or one case can determine how to perceive any number of complex issues and struggles.
Dang, that kind of thinking is right up there with “All African-Americans regardless of geographical location, personal history, etc., know each other.” *sigh*
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 1:59 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
I’m going to PayPal Leo a drink of single malt.
Is there anyone in flyover country that STILL believes that Fox IS news? Really? If you believe that THIS is journalism, there is something wrong with you.
Colmes (aka Liberal to be Determined) is the foil. He’s Hannity’s wingman for Bullshit to be Spewed.
OJ® made an appearance at John Edwards’ Iowa shindig too! Not Barack, John Edwards!!
(do yall have to point out how young you were with OJ?
)
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 2:27 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
Okay, seeing as how the OJ thing tends to stick in White folks’ craws like nothing else, maybe we should think of OJ Simpson as a litmus test for White people! Let’s fight ignorance with ignorance! (Okay, not really…just annoyed that this is still coming up 13 years later…)
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 2:34 pm ¶
nezua wrote:
thanks carmen!!
to Philly Phil above…we have all of Mexico thrown in our face! but no, you are right. we don’t even have mexican americans famous enough to be hurled in our face like OJ!
here’s another Tshirt: “Nobody Answers for Cheech.”
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 3:02 pm ¶
Max wrote:
I don’t understand what’s hard to understand about this situation.
Though, I really have to wonder why any reasonably intelligent person would voluntarily go anywhere in which a conversation with Hannity could take place.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 3:29 pm ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Just to play the devil’s advocate…isn’t there any validity to Hannity’s assertion that Spike Lee plays the race card occasionally? Even if the answer is no, it seems like a legitimate question. What if Terrell had responded, “Spike Lee may go overboard sometimes, but not in this case. In this case the hard numbers are on his side.”
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 3:33 pm ¶
cacy forgenie wrote:
I am slack-jawed. Wow. OJ will never go away. Never.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 3:34 pm ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:
I doubt that would have mattered, Rob. Any time a guest commentator on Fox makes sense, they are shouted down. The more truth being told, the louder they yell.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 4:11 pm ¶
Clnmike wrote:
Man how can you not laugh when you watch that?
Than my man says
” We love you. Leo is — you’re a friend. You consider me a friend, right, Leo?”
Thats bold right there.
They have turned OJ into the boogie man under their bed at night over the years, that one man given all that power.
My advice would be the same that they give people of color every time matters of racial injustice is brought up, Get Over It.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 4:23 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@ Rob Schmidt
“What if Terrell had responded, “Spike Lee may go overboard sometimes, but not in this case. In this case the hard numbers are on his side.”
Yeah, but that puts the onus on Terrell to have an almost superhuman ability to surf this ridiculous right-wing crap-wave.
This is what I find so brilliant about Barack Obama–I have never seen anyone navigate racial nonsense arguments (both spoken and not) as brilliantly. I’m not criticizing Terrell at all, he did a great job trying to stay on track here (if it were me I would have told that smug mollusk Sean Hannity to eat my ass) but I am struck by how the game has been raised by Obama. Any normal human frustration almost seems like an overreaction in the face of his cool example. And I think the Sean Hannity’s of the world know this and are going to do their level best to goad and bait every person of color they come across to try and create another Rev. Wright-esque You Tube clip they can run on a continuous loop and shake their heads over.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 4:38 pm ¶
DonkeyOdie wrote:
There WERE black soldiers depicted in the film. Pre-invasion, during the instructive “pep talk”.
The film followed the unit that planted the flag in the famous photo, which was not an integrated unit.
Lee overreacted. Eastwood told him to shut his face.
Eastwood overreacted.
How is this even newsworthy? It’s two Hollywood millionaires talking about making fictional films based on real death and destruction.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 5:03 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
@Joseph: I agree with you about BO. Though I don’t like how he’s expected to walk a tightrope of racial acceptability, he does it brilliantly.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 5:08 pm ¶
A. wrote:
When you are getting your ass kicked in a debate, how else can you make your opponent try to get off topic.
STRAWMEN!
OBFUSCATION!
RED HERRINGS~!
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 5:09 pm ¶
Chica Dificil wrote:
@ Nezua
fear/disavowal of a [PROVEN FACT WHEN IT COMES TO RACE AND THE MEDIA] and therefore “avoiding a real discussion by pushing an imagined implication….”
All they had to say was, “Yes Eastwood did not accurately capture Iwo Jima by NOT including representation of African American soldiers.”
What’s the big deal in admitting that fact? It’s too threatening for some white people to admit that they were WRONG. Whether it was intentional or not.
Then a real discussion could’ve been had re: whether or not it was a racist act, poor research by filmmakers, etc…
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 5:24 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Marge Twain
I don’t like it either but he is a savant when it comes to playing that game. If politicians in general are held to a higher public standard then that dynamic is cubed for Barack Obama…and yet is pulling it off in a way that seems genuine and doesn’t neuter him. It’s astonishing.
Even his wife suffers in comparison–we are already starting to see her most ordinary responses being spun into coded “kill whitey” messages by lip-curled conservatives.
I think there are going to be a lot more of these ridiculous non-stories (starring OJ and whoever else) before this election is over.
I aspire to Obamian poise in the face of racial/ethnic nonsense but I have a long way to go.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 5:51 pm ¶
Philly Phil wrote:
@ nezua:
i was afraid we mexicans would get oscar de la hoya thrown in our face forever, due to those fishnet body stocking pics of him, which were recently proven to be false.
that’s all i can think of and those taunts come from mostly puerto-rican boxing fans. de la hoya getting robbed in that fight against trinidad is still used as fodder and it pisses me off!
sorry for the tangent. back to your regularly scheduled program.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 6:29 pm ¶
jsb16 wrote:
Seems like Terrell did an excellent job of standing up for the reality-based community in distinctly hostile terriory. Do you think we could try to hold all white men responsible for Larry Craig? Warren Jeffs? Dubya?
A girl can dream, can’t she?
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 7:27 pm ¶
merq wrote:
SHOOT ME NOW!
That is all.
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 9:17 pm ¶
Donna wrote:
I think we need a new “law” like Godwin’s Law, call it Latoya’s Law and it goes something like, —If a black person puts a white person on the spot regarding race, the longer the discussion goes on, the probability that the white person will use OJ Simpson to distract and derail approaches one.
Posted 12 Jun 2008 at 10:26 am ¶
Ric Caric wrote:
As it is currently used, the whole “race card” idea is a sham. At the heart of the talk about the “race card” is the idea that white and black people normally engage in “non-racial” discourse. In this context, “playing the race card” occurs when black people move outside the “normal” way of talking and “unfairly” use accusations of racism, bias, or discrimination to disadvantage white people (like myself).
In my experience, it’s precisely the other way around. White people do little but play race cards around African-Americans and conservative whites are particularly good at playing “color-blindness” as a race card. Every African-American I know is highly conscious of race as well.
Black and whites have (in some ways unwillingly) created a huge deck of race cards over the nearly 400 years of our co-existence on this continent. Ironically enough, creating this mountain of race cards is one of the major ways in which whites and blacks have defined a “common culture.”
It’s playing other cards besides the race card that’s the exception.
Finally, Eastwood could have replied to Lee by saying “you know that’s a good point. There were black people at Iwo Jima and I should have had black people in that film. I’ll do better next time. ” If he had done that, both sides would have been able to articulate race in terms other than mutual racial resentment.
As it is, we’re back to the same old race cards.
Posted 12 Jun 2008 at 11:15 am ¶
Renee wrote:
This is typical of FOX news. They have a racist agenda to push and they never stray from it. I am of the firm belief that blacks should stop participating in their “news” programs as it only adds legitimacy where there clearly is none.
Posted 12 Jun 2008 at 11:49 am ¶
Ki wrote:
To add to Renee, this is typical of far-right/neo-con talk show hosts. The Republican station here in NY (770, I think?) has had many conversations like that. A caller calls in to dispute/discuss some claim/issue. If what the caller is saying doesn’t agree with their “agenda” (be it racist or not), the host starts talking over them, asking them irrelevant questions… etc. Personally, I enjoy boycotting all neo-con machines.
Posted 12 Jun 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶
Sean wrote:
Faux News as usual.
Recently they said Barack and Michelle Obama gave each other a “terrorist fist-bump” at Barack’s post-primaries, victory speech.
Then, they ran a caption refering to MRS Obama as Barack’s “baby mama”. Ironically, this was aired as Michelle Malkin was talking about “gratuitous and cheap shots” against MRS Obama.
I swear Faux News can no longer hide their contempt for people of color. Unreal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvZEZL2LmA8
Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 11:24 am ¶
Sean wrote:
Follow up:
Faux News has issued a “near-apology” for their thinly-veiled, racist insult against MRS Obama.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/12/fox_response/index.html
Notice how they never say the words “apology” and substitute it with the catch-all sidestep “poor judgement”?
No outright apologies, but hey, I guess we can expect these types of degrading insults to occur more frequently for at least the next 5 months – if not the next 4 years.
Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 11:40 am ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
Its shocking that Terrell managed to resist so calmly. I would have throttled the guy.
Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 3:32 pm ¶