Reading an old Sports Illustrated article about Mike Tyson, especially from the vantage point of hindsight, it’s fairly clear that even with everything that was around him, he was very self-aware. The things he was saying then, and the lens through which the writer framed them, ring absolutely true now.
While most of us might have been enthralled by the money, it was never the money for Mike. If it’s true, as he said in the article, that freedom was not in having money but in having no money, then it almost makes sense that he doesn’t have any now.
What am I going to do with all that money?” he groans. Twenty-one years old, 60 million dollars this year, six-sevenths of what Ali earned in his entire ring career. He buys a Mercedes, a Jaguar, a Rolls-Royce, a Corvette, but a week later every one of them bores him. “Real freedom is having nothing,” he says. “I was freer when I didn’t have a cent. Do you know what I do sometimes? Put on a ski mask and dress in old clothes, go out on the streets and beg quarters.”
Maybe in some way, Tyson never really wanted the money. It was there, and it was a part of his reward for excelling at his chosen profession (or very possibly, the profession that chose him), but that’s probably not drew him in the first place.
The real tragedy is that, particularly early in his tenure as champion (which, frankly, only seems like it was long enough to have an early part), there was nobody Tyson trusted enough to let them check him. While there were obviously unscrupulous people around him, looking to take advantage of him at every opportunity, there had to have been some people who legitimately wanted what was best for him. Because there was so much money involved, it seems especially tragic, but on a less-noticeable scale, the same thing happens on a daily basis. Hourly, even. People are constantly making decisions without the benefit of knowing who they can really trust.
There are two challenges: 1) the person who’s giving the good advice has to be close enough to really make an impact, and 2) the person receiving the advice has to do more than know that it’s good advice, he actually has to follow it. Depending on the particular method, self-destruction can seem to be a lot more fun than self-preservation in the short run, so number two is actually the big one. When it comes to giving people advice on what they need to do, we hafta bear in mind that often times, the wrong choice long-term actually is enjoyable in the short term, but re-focus the attention onto the long-term goal. But in order to do that, you actually hafta get close enough to let the person know that you care.
Thinking about it from a broader and *gag* political perspective, particularly when it comes to Black folks and their political allegiances, this is what I see as the limitation to the approach a lot of Black conservatives take. It’s all well and good to be right (or Right, as the case may be), but if the question is how to take more Black folks in that direction, then the answer can’t be something based on technical veracity. Put it like this: the advantage that the Democrats have is not that they actually do anything for Black folks. You can look at the state of a lot of major cities that have Black mayors and majority-Black city councils and see that ain’t the case. It’s not about actually doing, it’s about the perception of caring. Somethin’ like, “Maybe they ain’t gon’ do nothin’ about it, but at least they’re concerned enough about my problems to know what they are.” Most Black conservatives – even the ones who are well-intentioned – tend to eschew that sort of sentiment. Thing is, 1) the people are used to it, and 2) there’s no trust factor. If the people trust you, in part because they believe you care, they’ll ride wherever you’re going. If they don’t, even if they agree with everything you’re saying, they’re only gonna go so far, and up to this point, the threshold has generally been short of the voting booth.
So basically, as I’m seeing it, Black conservatives writ large can complain about the fact that Black folks vote as a Democratic bloc all they want to, but until they change the style of their message, it’s not gonna get through, even if the people agree with the substance. Maybe somebody might argue that it shouldn’t be that way, that the only thing that should matter is stands on policy, but the reality is, if you’re suspicious of somebody, it doesn’t really matter what they have to say. Black conservatives and Repubs, if they’re ever gonna make any inroads, gotta geek down on that “BUT THEY AIN’T DOIN’ NOTHIN’ FOR YOU” and come in on some fairly quiet, “we’re here, we care, and we’re actually doing something.” Build a track record the people can trust, and then see what happens. One-two.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The worst thing that happened to Mike is that there is no real structure in the (formerly) big business known as boxing. Think about the NBA or NFL. There are structures in place so that if you are good enough to make a team, you have the team structure, a players union, the league office and your own agent. Sure, cats get way off the track and ruin their lives, but they have fallen through a series of safety nets to get to that point.
In Boxing, it begins and ends with your management team. Get the right trainer/manager/promoter, you can have a chance to work your way into contention for a belt. Get the wrong team, you may never see the light of day. Mike was fortunate to have come up with D’mato/Jacobs/Rooney, who I believe say his humanity, but with the deaths of Cus and Jimmy, and his eventual intanglement with Don King, who saw him as a cash cow, he lost his way. He didn’t see Robin for what she was until she had ruined his life, and anyone would be better off with a tape worm and leeches than Don King and Ms. Givens.
As it regards politics, you are correct about the black conservative recruiting effort. My informal polling tells me the majority of black males under 50 are actually not registered with political parties, so with the right approach, they could be swayed to vote with conservative politicians. But I can’t be swayed “to” your cause with negativity.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Bam. Bullseye, Ave on both the Iron Mike an BCon counts. It may be something of a stereotype but in my experience too many of them Black conservatives dish out their cold “advice” along with heaping spoonfuls of distain. Who wants to swallow that?
October 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
This was a great post on a lot of levels.
the person receiving the advice has to do more than know that it’s good advice, he actually has to follow it.
Very good point that bears repeating.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I remember that quote, Gary Smith prolly penned the piece. What IM did was capture the essence of Buddhism in a sentence.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:14 am
While professional boxing is, and always has been, a corrupt industry (like entertainment in general), it’s also clear Mike Tyson is, and always has been, emotionally disturbed. Really. He was nothing more than a ward of D’Amato, Jim Jacobs, and Bill Cayton. As the first two died and the other sold Mike off, his entire support system vanished and the wolves devoured him.
Now he pines for the Old Days when he bore no responsibility… like a little kid. I’m not sure that counts as someone who’s self-aware of anything but their inability to cope with life.
I disagree, however, that politics for Black voters is more about style than substance. If it were true, there would be more successful Black Republicans/conservatives than there are — being that their agenda is mostly about esoterica than nuts and bolts. (Not that what passes for the Black Republican aesthetic is attractive either, BTW.) Like Tyson, Black GOPers take no responsibility… no ownership… for their feeble politics. They’re going to have to do much more than give “the perception of caring”; they have to earn Black voters’ trust. It would help if more of them actually set foot in predominantly Black communities rather than signifying and… haterating… from the ivory towers of academia and electronic media.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:50 am
well, i say that he was self aware for reasons that are a lot more tangential to what i was talkin about in this piece, but he KNEW that the people around him were shady. if you read the whole article, that was part of his angst in the first place. he knew that if it weren’t for his ability to cold-cock just about everybody in sight, none of those people would have had anything to do with him. no doubt that there were some elements of mental illness in there too, but i don’t think that mike was oblivious to what was goin on, within himself nor with the people around him.
now when i say “the perception of caring” i’m not using that in a cynical way. i’m saying that to allow for the case that some Black cons/repubs really DO care, but the way they come off doesn’t give that impression. the trust factor is the key.
funny thing is, a lot of the Black cons/repubs i know accuse Black libs/dems of pontificating from the ivory towers too. in their case, advocating for some long, drawn-out sociological theory about why people do what they do, instead of letting the vernacular theory – people’s explanations for what they do – have some explanatory power.
August 10th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
you are professional.