COLUMN: Revealing the great divide, again

From Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96 From Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96An analyst's commentFrom Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96An analyst's commentduring basketball paly-by-From Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96An analyst's commentduring basketball paly-by-play demonstrates how farFrom Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96An analyst's commentduring basketball paly-by-play demonstrates how farwe still are from equality.From Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96An analyst's commentduring basketball paly-by-play demonstrates how farwe still are from equality.My first thought when I heard about it was, "Here we go again." From Jamil Smith's, "Invisible Man," Fall '96An analyst's commentduring basketball paly-by-play demonstrates how farwe still are from equality.My first thought when I heard about it was, "Here we go again." Last Saturday, during the telecast of the Villanova-Georgetown men's basketball game on CBS, veteran announcer Billy Packer made a comment about Georgetown point guard Allen Iverson's tough move to the hoop late in the game. Packer described the acrobatic Iverson as "a tough little monkey." He reportedly apologized for the reference -- possibly after CBS' switchboard lit up like Times Square on New Year's Eve with complaints, or possibly after he realized later, on his own, that what he had said could have offended someone. Amazingly (or perhaps not?), Packer's comment didn't make the papers the next day. Outside of sports talk radio, it was conveniently forgotten. Many might say that Packer, an analyst with over 15 years behind the mike, should have known better than to say something so ignorant. Using the term "monkey" in reference to a black player in any context is certainly a faux pas in this society, where sensitivity to ethnic slurs is quite high. These same people might also contend that to use such a slur on national television during the telecast of a high-profile college basketball game requires a baser (but not unprecedented) level of stupidity. However, in confronting this issue, others would contend that Packer didn't know what the connotation of the word "monkey" is when it is used in reference to a black person. Most likely, these people would assert, he didn't mean to hurt anyone -- and therefore, it is surprising that people are so oversensitive to others' words. This very debate brings a lot of questions into play. For instance, did Packer resent the fact that he used the word "monkey" in referring to Iverson? Are we -- black peoples, the whole American society -- oversensitive to issues like this? To the first inquiry, I would say that there is a possibility that Packer did not intend for his usage of the word "monkey" to have a racial connotation. A white caller to WIP-610 AM, the Philadelphia sports talk radio station on which I first learned of this incident, said that without a doubt, certain words have different connotations to different cultures. The caller added that he sometimes refers to his young son as "a little monkey." As unusual as that sounds to me, I feel I should accept his as a valid perspective. I will explain how I feel about the caller's statement shortly. A debate about the issue of oversensitivity requires a deeper examination of the underlying issues at hand. Sentiments about oversensitivity to racial issues, including possible slurs and defamations, have shown a tendency to separate along ethnic lines when incidents like Packer's comment occur. People of color (in particular, black Americans) calling in to the WIP show found Packer's "slip-up" blatantly offensive and called for disciplinary action against him. While most white callers felt that what Packer said was rather unenlightened, they also thought he probably didn't mean it -- and that certain people were overreacting to it. Although it is certainly true that some members of both groups disagree with the designated "black" or "white" points of view, I have every reason to believe that feelings about Packer's remark are nearly as racially polarized as those expressed by callers to WIP. Here, I am not speaking of cases like those of former Los Angeles Dodgers General Manager Al Campanis, former CBS football analyst Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder or former golf announcer Ben Wright, all of whom have made bigoted comments about the inherent abilities of black sports executives, black athletes and female golfers, respectively. The men in these cases made ignorant statements that were certainly more direct than Packer's. It is regrettable that incidents like this reveal time and time again to everyone the divide that still exists between our various racial perspectives. What is more of a shame is how wide that divide remains -- and that apparently little has been done to close it up. As I examined my conscience for a response to Packer's comment, I considered both sides of the argument. As a person who enjoys learning about different cultural perspectives, I was forced to reconsider -- as I often have -- the reasons why people have such divergent views about the racial connotations inherent in the word "monkey." While I recognize the potential for innocent error on Packer's part, I cannot help but wonder how a veteran announcer speaking to a national audience in our racially conscious environment would just throw a word like that out and (honestly?) not know that it could have offended someone. I hesitate to deem Packer a racist because that is a word that is thrown around much too often by all races, but "foolish" would just about cover it. Some callers to WIP wondered why black people would take offense to this incident, since the callers themselves may have used "monkey" to refer to their own children. Other peoples' sensitivity may be questioned. But who is anyone to judge what should or should not offend another person? It is almost as if someone tells another person a funny story and tells that person not to laugh. The person who is provoking the emotion (or the person who is defending the provocation) is telling the other that he or she should be passive and not feel the emotion. Now, does that make much sense? Manning Marable described a fascinating view of race in the introduction to his book Beyond Black and White. To paraphrase, he pointed out that race has been constructed as a boundary, and each of the various cultures present on this planet have their own set of coordinates on that boundary. What may not have been considered within this definition, however, is the possibility that black and white might be standing on completely different sides of the boundary, not possessing the tools to break it down.