The story so far: last week, breast cancer research foundation Susan G. Komen For The Cure announced that they were ending all funding to Planned Parenthood. Komen says it’s because they no longer fund organizations under federal investigation — and last September, Planned Parenthood was targeted for audit by anti-choice legislator Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL). But there’s more going on. As Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said in a statement last week,

“Over the past five years, Komen funds have enabled Planned Parenthood health centers to provide nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and referrals for more than 6,400 mammograms. These cancer detection and prevention programs saved the lives of women who often had nowhere else to turn for care.

But when anti-choice groups began criticizing the Komen Foundation for partnering with Planned Parenthood, the foundation ended its support for Planned Parenthood health centers. We know our opponents put their ideology over women’s health and lives. What we never expected is that an ally like the Komen Foundation would choose to listen to them.”

Also, Komen’s new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, has previously pledged to defund Planned Parenthood… during her Sarah Palin-endorsed run for Georgia governor. Handel and other Komen spokespeople have been running nonstop damage control, but for a lot of former supporters, their decision’s made.

Here at Colorlines, our Gender Matters columnist Akiba Solomon broke down the impact of Komen’s decision on poor women and women of color — who, by the way, are disproportionately at risk of breast cancer. (And from our archives, don’t miss Stokely Baksh’s infographic illustrating the same, using some of Komen’s own numbers.) And at the /Now blog, Jorge Rivas kept us up to date when the news first broke, when Komen experienced both website hacks and resignations in protest (while Planned Parenthood received an outpouring of support), and when Komen apologized… sort of. The whole thing is a reminder of the power that the Internet has, to unite voices and work for good.

And speaking of the Internet, media technologist and ARC board member Deanna Zandt launched a Tumblr to collect the women’s stories she was hearing from her family and friends. Check out Planned Parenthood Saved Me for a reminder of what the fight is about — and to share your own story.

In the Colorlines.com community, we saw testimonials as well, along with anger, resolve, and strategies for moving forward. Here’s what you had to say.

Hilary Tone:

I have NEVER BEEN a fan of the sham organization that is Susan G Komen. Breast Cancer is not a bandwagon, and you can’t pink everything in the name of a cure, ESPECIALLY when your organization is funded by pharmaceutical companies who benefit from breast cancer patients! They are shameful, and this announcement just gives me another reason to support Breast Cancer Action. You should check them out, and if you were sending money to Komen before, give it to these guys. They’re the real deal. Think before you pink

Lmaris Lmaris:

Komen lost the plot years ago when they began suing other charities, including breast cancer charities, who use the phrase “for the cure”. More and more donations going for legal fees for this nonsense as if only Komen is allowed to raise $$ for health care. Will never give to them again.

MistinguetteS:

Karen Handel is a politician whose historically centrist perspectives have been altered by where the money is and where the loudest voices are. So, who she hears from matters, a lot. Thus, I wrote her an email to say that this decision to withdraw breast cancer screening support from Planned Parenthood concentrates Race for the Cure’s services on middle-class and wealthy women. Because I don’t see how leaving poor and working class women to die of undiagnosed cancer is a “pro-life” position, I plan to share this perspective with anyone wearing or selling Komen branded merchandise.

If you want to share your own message directly with Karen Handel, her work email is
khandel@komenadvocacy.org.

Melissa Austin disagrees:

This is just the kind of vindictive response I’ve come to expect from PP zealots. It is that tendency to over-react and impugn echoed in this hit-n-run piece that played perhaps the most significant role in Komen deciding to go forward with this difficult decision. The relationship between the two organizations has been mostly 1 way with PP as the benefactors – it is thus no great surprise to see PP zealots to respond so negatively such as the occassional self-centered welfare recipient who considers their case as one of pure justified entitlement. It’s surprising to me Komen didn’t cut the ties earlier than they did … it doesn’t surprise me however that the PP question that they ask is not “we’re we an equal partner and what could we have done to justify that relationship but instead as Akiba Solomon has done here will the sole intention to harm and malign those whom they never fully appreciated to start with.

Xeginy responds:

How exactly was the relationship between PP and the Komen Foundation one of “equals”? The Komen Foundation, like many huge non-profits, have grant programs that they use to help smaller organizations achieve the funding they need each year. PP is a non-profit medical clinic that relies on, among other things, grants from larger foundations like the Komen Foundaton.

What was PP supposed to do for the Komen Foundation? Endorse it? They did. Talk about it? They did. Acknowledge the positive impact the Komen Foundation has had in making sure poor women (including woc) are able to get proper breast cancer screenings? They did that, too.

The Komen Foundation withdrew their funding for political reasons, and the fact that Handel is anti-choice just added fuel to that fire. This shows that the Komen Foundation is much more interested in maintaining their political power then actually reaching out to women who need information and testing about breast cancer.

Terry Stephan disagrees:

What many appear to be missing is that SGK is not taking the money and sending it to China. SGK is putting the money where it will do the most good and not be subject to diversion to other projects. Take emotion and politics out of it, and you get a good, logical, business decision. I give my $ to SGK for fighting cancer, not funding women’s health clinics that provide a variety of services.

humancaring responds:

Terry, may I suggest you reread what you wrote. “The most good” is fighting breast cancer with education and regular checkups and mammograms. This is done mostly at annual exams and sometimes when we are in the office for other services.

“Not funding women’s health clinics that provide a variety of services…” In my 58 years, I have never heard of anyone who regularly goes to one place for their annual exam, excluding cancer detection, so they can then go to another place for that part. It is an integral part of the annual exam. Doctors’ offices and health clinics provide other services in addition to annuals and cancer detection. How do you propose to fight cancer by not funding clinics? Also, have you ever been a woman with no health insurance who can only get health care at a clinic? If not, I suggest you educate yourself.

Lastly, do you think you would ‘feel emotion’ if you found your cancer at too late a stage to recover because the only healthcare you can get doesn’t provide cancer detection?

akil:

My personal view is anti-abortion with the very limited view except in cases of rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother. With that said, I am disturbed that the Komen Foundation would allow itself to be the instrument of right-wing extremists in defunding a breast cancer research and development program just because its host is being audited!

My mother died of breast cancer 40 years ago at a time when research and other programs aimed at poor black women DID NOT exist, and probably would not have catered to them if such programs did exist then! Aside from the political aspect of this decision, there is the foul and rank smell of racism beneath the surface emanating from the right-wing camp that underwrites these efforts.

Theresa M. Trujillo:

As a breast cancer survivor, I was shocked to learn that under pressure from anti-women’s health political organizations, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has announced that it is ending future funding for lifesaving breast cancer screenings and breast health education at Planned Parenthood health centers.

During the course of my diagnosis, treatment, and recovery – I was certainly conscious of the great contribution Komen makes to the fight against breast cancer. Because of their work, I have been willing to use my voice and my story to support and raise money for Komen. But, Komen’s actions today make it impossible for me to donate or assist in future fundraising events.

By pulling funding, Komen puts at risk low-income women, many located in rural and underserved communities. So, I am redirecting my efforts to try and help make up for the $680,000 funding shortfall that Planned Parenthood must now compensate for to provide breast health education, screenings, and referrals for mammograms — lifesaving care for women where Planned Parenthood is their only source of health care. My contributions will barely make a dent in that shortfall but I am compelled to find some some way to contain my frustration, disappointment and outrage.

If you don’t know what a lacefront is, says Tracy Clayton, get familiar, “if for no other reason than to increase your daily laugh quotient by roughly 22 percent. If something ridiculous is happening, chances are that there’s a lacefront not far away.”

Clayton, a writer and humorist from Louisville, Kentucky, is the woman behind Little Known Black History Facts, a hashtag-among-friends turned Tumblr that’s sprung to life every February since 2008. And while Clayton produces both razor-sharp social commentary and straight-up absurdism at various portals across the internet, LKBHF gets the most clicks — and hate mail — by far. 

It makes sense. After all, it’s the only site on the Internet celebrating such milestones as the first person to use the phrase “I will cut you” in an argument, and the first man to dance on stage after being declared “not the father” on the Maury show, and the first person to refer to a flavor of Kool-Aid as “red.“

“Lots of them come from my own life and childhood,” says Clayton. “I’ve absolutely put batteries in the freezer to make them last longer… My grandmother will tell you in a heartbeat that she don’t have to do shit but stay black and die. I can name for you, right now, 10 different women who won’t go swimming because they don’t want to get their hair wet.

“The problem is that when we laugh about these things in the public eye, we fear that we’re giving everyone watching permission to laugh at them, too.”

Clayton honed her voice at the small private college she attended, a school she says had “three percent diversity, counting redheads and left-handed people.” 

An English major with a minor in Women’s Studies, Clayton also had a semi-regular gig at the school paper, which she mostly used when something pissed her off. And while she values that experience today, she’s selective about what gets her energy: “It’s easier to attack things like [the n-word] because they’re more accessible. It’s easier to say, ‘hey, stop using this word’ than it is to comb back through history and look at why the word exists. It’s a lot easier to treat the symptoms than the disease.”

“As far as teaching the history of marginalized groups, I’d opt for integrating those histories (black history, gay history, women’s history, etc.) into the alabaster world of American history. Normalize them so that they don’t need special months anymore. … The intent [of LKBHF] wasn’t to lampoon Black History Month, but when I think about it, I feel like these goofy facts serve the plight of black folk just as well as the watered-down black history menu we get served every year does — refried ‘I Have A Dream’ speech topped with pureed ‘slavery is bad’ with a side of ‘Rosa Parks was really tired one day.’

“If I heard someone else say that, my response would be, ‘but if you’re displeased with Black History Month, why not do something to make it better?’ My answer to that question: I don’t want to, and I don’t have to. One of the most important freedoms we (should) have is autonomy, and it’s not in my job description as a black woman to never laugh about my history.”

The usual defense of ‘edgy’ humor is to volley it back: if you laugh, you’ve got perspective, but anyone protesting too much at a joke must be fighting some secret shameful thoughts. 

Bigotry, however, isn’t objectively absurd just yet. And the same qualities that make comedy an effective social justice tool have also made it a great way to plant stereotypes, to dehumanize, and to indoctrinate. And while the heyday of Al Jolson is behind us, there’s still a demand for catchy one-dimensional portrayals of black society — especially if they’re being said by black people. 

Chris Rock’s career-defining 1996 “I love black people, but I hate n—-rs” routine has long been treasured by white people who also hate ‘n—-rs,’ seeking legitimacy and hipness. Bill Cosby’s criticisms of slang and single-parent households can’t even keep up with white populist demand; he’s had to denounce multiple racist chain emails written in his name. And in 2004, Dave Chappelle walked away from his own show, citing among his reasons a fear that his racially charged satirical sketches had become “socially irresponsible.”

“Marginalized comics lose even more control over who is allowed, who has permission to laugh at potentially inflammatory material,” says Clayton. “It’s common to feel pressure to represent the whole of your group or groups — darn that double-triple-quadruple consciousness — and that’s a heavy weight to have to lug around while trying to be creative.

“Today, I think the effort that we put into behaving in front of white people would be far better served elsewhere. … Anyone who’d use this site as ammunition or confirmation of their bigoted beliefs will think that whether this site exists or not. Being able to be myself and laugh when and where I want to is worth running that risk.”

As the medium has changed, so has the dynamic between audience and entertainer. While the Internet has lowered the barriers of access — Clayton’s able to be funny without a studio exec’s signoff, and has fans all across the world — it’s also complicated issues of anonymity and identity. Clayton, a private person by nature, only recently attached a photo of herself to the site, and only then because “nearly every complaining email I got regarding Little Known Black History Facts referred to me as male, and many of them also assumed that I was white. That really annoys me, because the implication, as I read it, is that women aren’t funny, so a funny faceless person just has to be male.

“You can’t control who will respond or how they will do it. Expect that backlash from your own people is a definite possibility, throw it out there and hope it lands in a safe place. And be equipped, ready, and willing to step in and fiercely defend yourself and your art when someone steps out of line, whoever they may be.”

Not that Clayton’s never stepped out of line herself. She becomes serious when I ask her about how she feels now about her jokes from a few years ago about 50 Tyson, a teenage rapper whose home videos went viral on YouTube. Clayton stopped making jokes when she discovered in an interview that he has autism — the rest of the Internet hasn’t been as gracious — and then became a fully vested fan upon reading about his advocacy work to change public perceptions of people with autism.

“I’m human,” says Clayton. “I was talking to my best friend about the interview the other day, and we were talking about 50 Tyson and the evolution of our response to him. Both he and I reacted the same way; first humor, then admiration. And I told him, ‘you know, as awesome as you and I are, we’re still products of the same machine that everyone else is. Realizing and then unpacking our own privileges is hard for everybody, and we’re not an exception. But it is possible.’”

Reading through LKBHF and the rest of Clayton’s comedy, I’ve found myself, a white dude, reacting to each joke in one of a few ways. Half the time I spent giggling, or seeing something that my own family does (I thought the freezer-battery thing was legit!). And the other half of the time, I’d have to look up a word or a reference to get a joke, or I’d get the joke and wouldn’t feel comfortable laughing at it. The latter two reactions intrigued me. Part of white male privilege is being the intended audience for just about everything; it’s rare that we have to be invited anywhere, since we’re assumed to have been there already. So, if someone puts a joke on the Internet that I don’t get or don’t think I have the right to laugh at, it means someone’s doing good work to upset the status quo.

“That’s kind of what the Little Known Black History Facts blog is founded on,” says Clayton. “The material there comes from the collective history and consciousness of a people who, generally speaking, have shared the same highs and lows, people who have had to laugh to keep from crying, people who have had to learn to look back on tough times and bitter pills and smile. After so many centuries of trying to prove to white people that we can be what they thought we can’t, it feels great, to me, to try and shake loose that skin and let my own get some sun.”

It’s Oscar season! Actually, the Oscars aren’t until the end of February, so we’ve got another few weeks of hype and speculation and scathing critical analysis. Fun stuff!

But before we get into all that… Gender Matters columnist Akiba Solomon takes down a new Washington Post report that seeks to dissect (in Akiba’s words) “Blackus Womanamina Americanus,” and yet manages to ignore every structural force that might make a black woman’s life the way it is. The Washington Post concludes that black women haven’t defined themselves. Akiba concludes differently:

Black women have been defining ourselves since before Sojourner Truth made her infamous 1851 “Ain’t I a Woman” speech. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, black women tell, no scream, about our humanity, complexity, legacy, pride, sisterhood, spirituality, money problems, romantic desires, bone-deep sadness, moral conflicts, sexuality and joy. Some of us are dying for a “Sunday Kind of Love.” Some of us think we’re cute and “Cleva.” Some of us aren’t that damn deep. The problem isn’t that black women haven’t defined ourselves for ourselves. It’s that mainstream media DON’T LISTEN.

Reader parkwood1920 cosigns and adds:

And after screaming to anyone who will listen about your basic humanity for three-plus centuries, you get fucking tired. And that’s when the sharks really go in for the kill. That’s exactly what I think about the corporate media’s attack on Black women now—sharks, the lot of them.

We don’t need to look far to see how this plays out in Hollywood. Akiba wrote a beautiful rejection of The Help‘s ‘historical whitewash’ way back in August, but unfortunately for all of us, Akiba’s not on the Oscars committee. So The Help is up for a slew of awards, and the resulting media coverage is ripe for examination.

When our superstar pop culture blogger Jorge Rivas isn’t shooting interviews with the director and star of black lesbian coming-of-age film Pariah, he’s keeping us updated on breaking news at Colorlines.com’s new /NOW blog. And with Oscar season in full swing, The Help is generating all kinds of headlines — and not always constructive ones, like when Best Actress nominee Viola Davis started to talk about structural racism in Hollywood, then got derailed by Charlize Theron and George Clooney. Really. As reader cantankerous_crone said:

Yes, Theron was speaking from white privilege–I mean really, saying “I have to stop you there” in order to focus on Davis’ looks? But Clooney, although smoother than Theron in his timing, dominates the entire conversation using his double-barreled white + male privilege. He positions himself as the best qualified person to speak about sexism in the film industry which is ridiculous. Notice how few words the other women present have while he relates his anecdotes, subtly making himself the authority on the issue.

Seriously, isn’t it time to stop let charming white men off the hook for their racism/sexism just because they claim to be on the right side and they’re smooth? A few years ago, at the Oscars, Clooney praised the film industry for a history of being forward thinking about race because Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for Gone With the Wind. Yet he completely failed to mention that McDaniel had to sit at a separate table at that awards ceremony. The man is blind to his own enormous privilege, but his looks and smooth public persona get him a pass.

Instead of shooting fish in a barrel by criticizing only those who have a sliver of the privilege pie (and true, should learn to own up to that fact), let’s look at those who hog practically the whole pie and use a veneer of charm and liberalism to get away with it. The myth of Prince Charming on a horse of white privilege righting all wrongs needs to die.

Jorge also reported this week that the Association of Black Women Historians released a statement condemning The Help for its distortion of history — and also, that The Help was invoked in a more positive light at a domestic workers’ rights rally in Sacramento, as a hook for constituents to understand the issues at stake. Not everyone thinks social justice should be making nice with Hollywood whitewashing. Here’s an excerpt from a comment by Brickbat Revue, kicking off a thought-provoking conversation about the tough choices organizers make within their campaigns:

Why would people use this movie. I just don’t understand. It’s not an independent film. It’s insulting to African-Americans, especially those who are most active in regards to being allies in the fight for social justice. This is disturbing on so many levels. Did they not hear the very valid complaints that African-Americans had of this film. This film as well as the book was a lie. Why use a lie to push your truth forward. This film is an untruth filled with stereotypes that that totally minimize the African-American experiences in the US. I’m insulted that Colorlines would run this story without a very critical eye.

[...] Being a domestic worker in the Jim Crow south wasn’t like this, it wasn’t fun, it wasn’t light. Being black in the south in this 30s, 40s and 50s was about something way deeper than this movie portrayed. People who did it in the 30s mothers may have been born slaves, they themselves may have been born slaves. Women were raped, men were lynched their testicles were cut off. My great aunt was raped every week for years by respectable white men of the community until she fought back and they burned her house down and got away with it in the south. That’s the south that they left out. I had an uncle who was lynched as a boy just north of where this movie took place….I’m just appalled that people in the struggle can with a straight face defend the lie that this movie vomits onto the American public.

And here’s Jessica Mowles, in the same thread:

I’ve been a domestic worker, following my mom, who was for years. Questioning these domestic workers’ motives for supporting this film further erodes their/our agency, which is already so lacking. Yes, the movie was horrible for all the reasons above. But the fact that domestic workers/activists are strategically latching onto such an incomplete representation of domestic work says A LOT about the level of visibility of such work in our culture (virtually zero).

And so, as Hollywood takes agency away from Etta James over her own life’s portrayal, it packs the Oscars with white actors. The result? A good person-of-color narrative is hard to find. As reader Aliza Flores writes:

For Halloween, my sister and her roommates dressed up as The Incredibles. We were exactly 7 (the mom, the dad, the boy, the girl, the baby, the costume designer and the friend). My cousin got to be Frozone, the friend (If you have not seen the movie, Frozone is a cool superhero that can freeze anything… and he’s black – ftw!). Most of the white kids when they saw the whole group went for the baby or the dad, but most of the black kids went for Frozone. Why? Well, let’s just say that there is not enough positive representations of people of color in movies, especially black. This is just a cartoon-ish movie, but it is the case for most of the media. Remember the outburst that the black/Latino Spiderman caused? Yeah, that’s what happens.

And urbanskin:

Racism and Hollywood go hand in hand. Look no further then Marlon Brando rejecting his Oscar for Best Actor in 1973 for his performance in the Godfather, because of Hollywood’s historical RACIST portrayal of Native Peoples.

Show producer Howard Koch threatened Sacheen Littlefeather, who rejected Brando’s award for him, to be arrested if she spoke more then 60 seconds.

Flash forward to 2012, Johnny Depp has been casted to play Tonto and Indian character. WTF! Depp go the nod over a REAL Native, Adam Beach, Flags of our Fathers, who also auditioned for the role.

The racism continues.

And finally, while George Lucas deserves major props for defying Hollywood and producing Red Tails with a black cast and director… well, reader Daniel Dušek Wilkes‘ review is hard to refute:

I think the cast of Red Tails deserve recognition for their valiant efforts in the face of the worst-written script of the year.

Each week, we round up the best comments in our community. Join the conversation here on Colorlines.com, and on Facebook and Twitter.

At present, Newt Gingrich is still a longshot for the GOP presidential nomination, much less the general election. But his recent victory in South Carolina means he won’t be leaving the race any sooner than he has to — and that means more press for his decades-old racebaiting populism, like his repeated references to Obama as the “food stamp president”, a line that’s been met with audience cheers at GOP debates.

Our reporter Seth Freed Wessler has written extensively on the impact of racialized attacks on the safety net, speaking with families, caseworkers, and organizers for ARC’s Race and Recession report. And as Seth wrote on Thursday, putting Gingrich’s comments into context,

Gingrich’s attack on the food stamp program is not surprising; it’s the kind of politics that he’s been helping to perfect for over 30 years. He’s been waging the conservative counterrevolution against economic justice for a generation, using whatever Southern Strategy relics he can get his hands on.

For two decades, Gingrich and the GOP, often with the support of Democrats, have torn to shreds many of the New Deal and Great Society era programs that kept poor folks from total destitution — and that specifically sought to close the racial gaps in economic opportunity that black children inherit from generations of American apartheid. The conservative assault on these programs has often come with racially loaded caricatures of benefit recipients as lazy, greedy and criminal.

Yet, the food stamp program is among the last functional parts of the nation’s economic safety net. Food assistance has actually expanded to meet growing need.

The program, now officially called the Supplemental Food Assistance Program, serves 46 million Americans, 13 million more than in January 2009 when Obama took office. While cash assistance, Section 8 housing assistance and other programs have been slashed close to death, food stamps have held on and expanded thanks to an infusion from the stimulus package. For many families, it’s now the only thing that’s stopping hard times from turning into total catastrophe.

Is appealing to the worst part of the white American psyche a viable campaign strategy, even in the year 2012? Or is the campaign just a vehicle for the message? Here’s what you had to say.

Churchlady320:

Gingrich embodies one of the prevalent conservative Christian mantras – the “deserving” vs. “undeserving” poor. That harks back to Social Darwinism of the late 19th century and the notion that the rich are rich because they are more “fit” while the poor starve and must labor at the worst tasks because they are undeserving. Add in Dominionist Christian views, with some Catholics participating, that GOD determines “The Elect” with the rest of us deserving of nothing, and this becomes a truly pernicious idea of embedded inequality in America. No services, no rights, no Constitutional protections can come to those of us who are undeserving.

If you think of all he says, and the implied and overt racism within, you can see that the dismantling of the “Great Society”, the “New Deal” social contract, are both just the tip of the iceberg. Newt, Santorum, Perry, and all the others want people of color, the poor, and liberals all to be stripped of their RIGHTS as well as resources. We are beneath their contempt.

Macdadione:

[...] Gingrich never referred to George W. Bush as the “food stamp president”, even when the economy turned south and the deficit swelled under his watch. His suggestion that black children don’t have working role models ignores the reality that there are millions of hard working African-Americans, and that those who aren’t employed don’t have jobs available to them. He didn’t suggest that white kids get janitorial experience, when the majority of those receiving food stamps are whites.

Politicians like Gingrich pander to the racist lowest denominator because it reinforces the bigoted perspective of their constituents, the same one’s pump primed to accept all manner of baseless lies because it poses no contradiction to their core bigoted and hypocritical beliefs. The baseless implication of Gingrich is that Obama prefers handouts to a work ethic. He’s a representative of a party that went to the mat over tax breaks for the wealthy, yet that’s somehow not considered a “handout.”

poyweson:

Don’t forget most poor work, and most unemployed are temporarily unemployed. Every time I hear Gingrich use the word “fact” I want to explode. It’s really scary when people cheer for lies, especially when they know they are cheering for lies.

KateNW:

It’s easy for the “haves” to scorn the “have nots” and perhaps they forget that the basic food stamp program was put into place to avoid malnutrition and starvation in this country. Consider the alternative! There is no shame in avoiding hunger through this support – it’s a valid and necessary program. He should be ashamed of criminalizing poverty. I believe that his comment was a thinly veiled code word that slams families of color, but reality is that the majority of persons on public assistance are white.

A civilized country should always care for their most vulnerable persons, of any age. Believe me, being poor is a full time job in itself. Ever try to stay on top of weekly job search, applying for unemployment, public assistance, social security, etc.??? The amount of paperwork, follow up tasks, documentation, appointments, travel between offices, trying to find childcare and transportation to achieve everything needed- it’s never ending! All he does is to emphasize that Newt has never eaten a USDA subsidized school lunch, gotten a food bank donation or eaten a free sack lunch because he’s a person of privilege. Is that something to emphasize? He should remember that the poor may not be privileged, but they can vote, too.

Each week, we round up the best comments in our community. Join the conversation here on Colorlines.com, and on Facebook and Twitter.

Last week, our news editor Jamilah King dug into the hype around Tim Tebow, a noted football… player… guy. Look, I don’t know sports. Fortunately, Jamilah does:

There’s no doubt that Tebow is a world-class athlete [...] but the fervor surrounding Tebow has little to do with his actual playing ability. He’s an evangelical Christian who proudly and publicly backs conservative causes. That, of course, is not an anomaly in professional sports, nor should it be all that controversial. Yet it’s a prominent part of the narrative being written about Tebow as sports’ supposedly most endangered species: the underrated “good guy.” Or, through another lens: the white, God-fearing athlete who believes in so-called “traditional” family values.

Through that latter lens, Tebow’s narrative represents an enduring double standard in sports, one in which athletes are free to endorse conservative causes, while others are hounded as bad apples for progressive political stances, particularly those involving race.

Jamilah goes on to break down the history of pro athletes’ political options in a way even I can grasp, and puts Tebow’s relationship with far-right Focus On The Family in context, with input from Dave Zirin and David Leonard. Race, politics, religion, reproductive rights, and football. No contentious topics there! Here’s a very small sample of what you had to say.

Gari Buttar:

So, according to Tim Tebow, I do not face discrimination, which is total bullshit. And, according to Tim Tebow, I’m a person who is deviant and immoral, simply for trying to live my life in as honest and true a manner as possible. I’m sorry, but this does not in any way seem to me to be a position of love towards ALL human beings. Tebow is a very exciting player to watch, but he holds some personal beliefs which are quite damaging to others, and which have led some to even end their lives via suicide. So, sorry if I am not jumping on the Tebow bandwagon.

wadegraham:

Hadn’t heard about the backlash against Hodges, that’s shameful. Was heartening to see several Green Bay Packers players (although not the big names) last year come out in support of the mass protests in Madison against Gov. Walker’s attack on labor and teachers. There are definitely professional players out there ready to stand up for something, but they rarely get media support unless it’s backed by a professional, expensive campaign (i.e. Focus on the Family).

Shelli Victorino:

Wow, what a logically unsound and narrow-minded article. First off, your comparison of Tebow and Rashad is not a very solid one. If you are going to make an issue about about race, present some better examples. Secondly, you make a huge assumption when you say “Tebow explicitly endorses a political agenda” just by thanking God at games. I have never heard him say anything about politics.

As an ardent feminist, I honestly do feel it’s a breath of fresh air to hear a public figure say that he’s excited to spend time with a little girl who’s had 73 surgeries, rather than public figures who publicly degrade women. How can you hate on that? You spend more time talking about Focus on the Family than Tebow himself. It is quite clear that although you obviously consider yourself a progressive, you are very narrow-minded in your analysis. Don’t be so quick to judge, and open your mind to the idea that not everything is so binary.

Respectfully yours,
A brown, gay, Stanford educated Christian liberal.

shannahk:

The big point here (and i’m not seeing too much on it) – the way Tebow getting lifted up onto the pedestal/altar, whatever you want to call it is exactly what the article says – the boy is WHITE.

More evidence – i’m in the laundrymat, listening to some Clear Channel station DJs babble about him. I’m neither proud nor embarrassed of my football ignorance, but couldn’t remember exactly who this guy is. The moment they said, “sure, I get tired of the hype, but it’s so nice to have a football player who’s being recognized for something other than drug use or violence against women…” — as soon as they framed it like that, i says to myself, “damn, i get it – this guy’s white! that’s why they’re so excited.”

So what it really says to me (other than pissing me off that people once again want to tell my what MY uterus produces and when) is the level of hate dished out on black football players.

Jnique27:

As a Christian and women’s and Black rights activist, I am sad that in today’s culture Christians are always portrayed as right-wing, anti-abortionist, anti-Gay haters. There are some of us who have Christ as our head and also believe that the State should not determine a woman’s right to choose and that white supremacy, racism, homophobia, and sexism are not of God and should be eradicated to create a society based on compassion and Love.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13: 34-35, New International Version)

Each week, we round up the best comments in our community. Join the conversation here on Colorlines.com, and on Facebook and Twitter.