We had an earlier indicator of how he felt, by the tweet he sent out the evening of the Roland Martin incident (above). Now, Charles Blow has expanded his thoughts in the
New York Times and really hits the ball out of the park on the Roland Martin's
suspension from CNN in Saturday's column:
Real Men and Pink Suits.
The "pink suit" is a reference to another tweet, than the more popularly circulated one where Martin appeared to be suggesting people should "smack the ish" out of men who enjoyed the David Beckham underwear commercial.
Roland was in fact on a roll that night, and made a handful of tweets that were as CNN said, "regrettable and offensive" and used "language that demeans." [Full disclosure: I was among those
personally demeaned. Roland Martin called me an
"idiot," which you can see here.] The tweet also makes an apparently facetious play about "whipping asses" for an apparent gender role violation of wearing pink. (This is an ironic call to action
from a man who dares to wear an ascot.)
Blow reports the facts of the story, what was said, who said what, and CNN's ultimate decision to suspend Martin.
He doesn't offer an opinion on CNN's call to suspend Martin. Which is fine, in my opinion, CNN's staffing decisions are theirs to make and they don't need Blow to approve or disapprove of them. But Blow does use his platform to expand the conversation. The story is much bigger than just the specifics of this incident: whether we can all agree on who was the butt of the joke, gays or soccer fans; or whether it was funny, or defensible; whether CNN's response was appropriate.
Blow's motivation to speak is clear:
I don’t want to let this incident pass without using it as a “teachable moment” for us all about the dangerous way in which we define manhood and masculinity. At the very least, Martin’s comments are corrosive on this front.
Any added commentary is probably a futile attempt to gild a lily. I encourage everyone to read it in its entirety. Here is a key passage:
I follow Martin on Twitter. I know that he likes to joke and tease. I have even joked with him. So I can believe that, in his mind, he may have thought that these were just harmless jokes in which the violence was fictional and funny.
But in the real world — where bullying and violence against gays and lesbians, or even those assumed to be so, is all too real — “jokes” like his hold no humor. There are too many bruised ribs and black eyes and buried bodies for the targets of this violence to just lighten up and laugh.
We all have to understand that effects can operate independent of intent, that subconscious biases can move counter to conscious egalitarianism, and that malice need not be present within the individual to fuel the maliciousness of the society at large.
As Blow asserts that Martin should feel responsible for the effect of his language, he is fair enough to recognize that does not constitute evidence of Martin's intent.
Blow is also fair enough to include parenthetically for his readers that there is an assembled body of evidence that people may in good faith reasonably question Martin's intentions. Blow points out that Martin is no "egalitarian" on LGBT issues.
Blow tactically seems to find Martin's explanation that soccer fans were the butt of the joke to be unlikely. He says:
Words have power. And power recklessly exerted has consequences. It’s not about being politically correct. It’s about being sensitive to the plight of those being singled out. We can’t ask the people taking the punches to also take the jokes.
I thank Blow for coining that term, "we can't ask people taking the punches to also take the jokes." I think it squares perfectly with the point I was trying to make when I first posted on this story,
Please, CNN's Roland Martin, explain to me what's so darn funny about hate crimes?
There is an unfortunate attempt by some to paint the concern over the 23 percent rise of anti-gay violence as some sort of boutique concern of elitist, white, rich gay men who only care about themselves. When in fact, the latest statistics from the FBI show that overwhelmingly—70 percent—the victims of anti-gay violence are in fact, people of color.
From the Anti-Violence project's 2011 report (pdf):
LGBTQH people of color comprised 70% of all LGBTQH murder victims in 2010 but only represented 55% of total reports. This continues a disturbing trend from 2009 when people of color represented 79% of murder victims.
(The full acronym stands for: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and HIV-affected.)
This is as much a story about violence visited on people of color as it is a story about violence directed at gays. The responsibility to address it is shared, ultimately by all Americans who wish to live in a free and peaceful society.
As if by some cruel, divine cue, within days of this dustup a store surveillance camera in Atlanta caught the brutal assault of 19-year old Brandon White, in an anti-gay attack.
This story must have really struck a cord with Blow, as that evening he tweeted a link to it, with the comment:
Again, Blow's message echos my own, when prior to the news of Brandon White assault circulated
I wrote:
On the left, we can see what Barie Shortell looked like before he got the ish smacked out of him. On the right, we see what getting the ish smacked out of you looks like.
Barie Shortell, before (left) and after (right) someone smacked the ish out of him. (
Queerty)
Roland Martin used
his own substantial platform on Wednesday to give voice to young Brandon White, as he spoke about his experience.
Blow concludes:
We have created this culture, and we can undo it.
Can Blow get a "Yes, we can?"
Martin's engaging on the topic of LGBT violence on Wednesday is admirable work toward undoing the culture that committed a shocking act of violence against Brandon White, and I think that should be recognized and appreciated. The site World Star Hip Hop too deserves kudos for first posting the video of Brandon White drawing attention to the story. White explained to the press, the attention helped prompt him to make the decision to come forward and speak publicly about the incident, which he called "humiliating."
Martin has since evolved from calling GLAAD "clearly out of touch and clueless," to indicating his willingness to meet and discuss this incident with them. Let's hope it's a productive meeting, for all communities involved and something good will come of this for everyone this story touches.
Thanks to TeacherKen for also covering this column.