Paul R. Lehman, The wrestling referee’s decision to force the teen’s haircut was biased and insensative

December 23, 2018 at 1:01 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, Ethnicity in America, European American, justice, Prejudice, Race in America, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cutting Johnson’s hair was not the problem. No. The action taken by Alan Maloney was not about Andrew Johnson’s hair. Maloney’s action was that of a seemingly ethnic bigot taking advantage of a situation to exercise his bigotry with no expectation of negative, or any, repercussions. Maloney’s actions can be viewed from a biased perspective as bigoted, arrogant, and ignorant.

European Americans are conditioned by society to see people of color as different from them and in some instances to be feared and avoided. One explanation for Maloney’s actions regarding the cutting of Johnson’s hair is that the hair represented a sign of freedom of expression that Maloney did not like or appreciate in a person of color. That freedom of expression by Johnson could have represented a sign of power being loss by Maloney, and that could have triggered the action as a form of defense. The natural response by Maloney under those conditions is to attack the problem which Johnson’s hair represented. In this situation, the rules regarding a wrestler’s hair length might come into play if one was to consider just the rules. In order to follow the rules, Maloney should have given Johnson the option of securing his hair so as not to interfere with his match. One irony relative to this issue is the fact that Johnson had been wrestling all season long with his hair not causing a problem or being of concern until this match.

The primary area of concern in social conditioning for European Americans is the comfort that comes from thinking, feeling, and acting superior to people of color. That comfort comes from the support given by society in general and the lack of any serious repercussions for displaying that superiority through acts of bigotry. Apparently, Maloney felt comfortable in ordering Johnson to either cut his hair or forfeit the match because of his power as a European American and possibly as a referee. In any event, no one including the coach, trainer, parents, or other referees, tried to intervene on Johnson’s behalf. Maloney, evidently, gave no thought to how this public display of symbolic emasculation of a young man of color would affect him and his mental state of mind.

In America the natural assumption of many European Americans relative to people of color is that they must meet the approval of European Americans before they can be seen as human being of like status, not equals, but similar. So, society generally dismisses anything that seems to represent an injustice committed against a person of color because what happens to them is not that important. As in this case, no one questioned Maloney regarding the ultimatum he gave Johnson. The fact that Maloney was a referee gave him the added sense of control over the situation regarding the match and Johnson. None-the-less, what Maloney did show was a gross lack of concern and understanding for a young athlete who he placed in a serious situation regarding his options.

Fortunately, today technology has afforded us the opportunity to record actions and activities in real-time, and the entire episode of Johnson’s hair being cut before and after was all caught on video. The video gives us an opportunity to see and evaluate what happened and the reactions of the participants. What the video cannot show is the mental state of Johnson’s subjection to public victimization. Even though he won the match, anyone could tell by his demeanor and body language afterward that Johnson was not a happy trooper.

As long as the plague of ethnic bigotry continues to exist, we as a society can actually do some things to help in the process of bringing some of it under control. For example, if someone, European American or any other person feels s uncomfortable about a person of color in or near their vicinity, they simply call 911 and the police come to remedy the situation. The fact that these incidents underscore ethnic bigotry, little if any accountability is required from the callers. We have always been informed that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but that does but seem to apply to some people.

Someone should have to answer for Johnson being placed in the situation where he had to decide on having his hair cut or competing in his wrestling match. One way to get the attention of people is through civil courts. In many videos we see that the victim usually gets the bad end of the experience, however, if the victim believes he or she was treated unjustly, he or she should be allowed to go to civil court and seek damages. That way, when the callers have to pay out settlements, they will be reminded of their part in calling 911 on someone for a somewhat inconsequential action. These cases should be made public in an effort to educate the public of consequences of such actions.

With respect to Maloney and his decision to give Johnson an ultimatum, his hair or his match, one should question his ability to serve as a referee since he apparently has little or no regards for the feeling of the students or at least some them. But Maloney was not alone in his decision, the rest of the people directly and indirectly associated with the incident should be held accountable as well. When something unjust or unfair happens in our face and we do nothing, we are just as negligent as the person committing the offense. Although Johnson might have never experienced bigotry at first hand before, this experience with the referee and the cutting of his hair will make a permanent imprint on his psyche and will have a marked influence on how he views the world now. To see and read about young people of color being treated unfairly by some European Americans is one thing, but to encounter it personally is a totally unique experience.

The lesson continues to be too difficult and challenging, but eventually, it must be learned— although we are an ethnically diverse society, all people have the right to be treated justly and fairly, with no exceptions. Anything less is unacceptable in our democracy.



Paul R. Lehman, Limbaugh’s ploy to make Obama a black president flops.

July 13, 2010 at 7:24 pm | Posted in American Bigotry, Media and Race | 4 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

Rush Limbaugh seemingly reached the zenith of his fears and frustrations regarding President Obama recently when he made a statement that America elected Obama because he was black. As for as Limbaugh is concerned that statement was meant to conjure up in his followers and supporters all the negative connotations relative to so-called black people in America. The apparent intent of that Limbaugh statement was to be the most serious insult he could make regarding Obama in spite of all the other labels and titles assigned to Obama, and to show the ignorance of the Americans who voted for Obama.

                Limbaugh in his statement was apparently depending  on the negative stereotypes America created for the African American that included referring to them as negroes, blacks, colored, cuffy, and coons to mention a few. The ploy fell flat on its face because Americans did not buy into the stereotype Limbaugh was trying to invoke. To understand better the game that Limbaugh attempted, we need to go back a few years to 1906 and Oklahoma Governor Alfalfa Bill Murray. Alfalfa Bill was a very biased man who had a great dislike of Jews, Italians, and African Americans. The attitude he promoted regarding so-blacks was that they would be tolerated as long as they were separated from whites and kept in their proper field and factory jobs. He would state publically that he believed that “blacks were inferior to whites in all ways…and must be fenced from society like quarantined hogs.”Many Americans rejected that image and attitude regarding Africans Americans, but many accepted it then and still to this day. The use of the term black brings to mind the attitude and stereotypes popular during Murray’s day.

                Limbaugh’s statement shows that he does not want to use the appropriate term of African American for Obama because that term does not trigger all the negative stereotypes that were associated with so-called black Americans. America’s election of Obama proves the fallacy of Limbaugh’s statement. America did not elect a black man; America elected a talented, young, intelligent, educated poised and mature leader who just happened to be African American. America was focused on the issues, not the complexion of the candidate.

                Limbaugh, in spite of his claim to fame as having his finger on the pulse of America, knows that he continues to dwell in the past with his followers and supporters relative to progress regarding  American ethnicity and diversity. He also knows that by keeping his audience in the past he can keep control of their thoughts and actions. If he was to bring his audience into the 21st century he would refer to himself as European American, not white and so-called blacks as African Americans. He would also stop using the term racist and use the appropriate word, bigot, since all human being belong to one race—the human race. Unfortunately, Limbaugh will not make that leap of informing his audience, because to do so would cause him and them to lose face, power, and prestige they believe comes from being white.

                As long as Limbaugh can continue to create fear and frustration in his audience by using Obama as the whipping boy, he will do so. He knows that the unity of hate and the loss of empowerment serve as an addiction, and he can nurture it in his audience as their leader. He can continue to create fear and frustration in his audience by his ranting and raving of Obama and his actions. He creates frustration by forecasting the imminent destruction of America by Obama and his administration. He combines these concerns, fear and frustration, by referring to Obama and his administration as a regime. His use of that term is to somehow make an association with Obama and some un-American or foreign form of government. The term in and of itself is perfectly legitimate, but most people hear it used in association with a negative connotation.

                Limbaugh’s statement of Obama being a black president shows his bias. Limbaugh is not a bad person, just an uninformed one. He has every right to criticize the president, his administration and his policies. However, what Limbaugh attempted to do in his statement was to cast a shadow on the Americans who voted for Obama. In essence, he was saying that they did not know what they were doing in electing a black president, hoping they would recall the negative stereotypes of the past associated with a so-called black American. What Limbaugh fails to understand is that the American people who voted for Obama are years ahead of him in their thinking. They were voting for change in American. They wanted someone to lead them into the future, not remain in the status quo or worse, go backwards. America has changed and continues to change daily. When Obama’s term is over, then we will have an opportunity to evaluate his performance. To do so now would be premature. The fear, hate and frustration created by Limbaugh does  a great disservice to his audience, followers and supporters in that he is using these scare tactics to maintain unity and control of them.

                When some Americans discover they have been played for a fool because of their ignorance, loyalty and devotion to an individual or idea that created fear and stress in their lives needlessly, they might be able to find some comfort in the old saying that “everybody plays the fool sometimes,” but  do not bet on it.

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.