Skip Navigation
Ta-Nehisi Coates

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Ta-Nehisi Coates is a senior editor for The Atlantic, where he writes about culture, politics, and social issues for TheAtlantic.com and the magazine. He is the author of the memoir The Beautiful Struggle. More

Born in 1975, the product of two beautiful parents. Raised in West Baltimore—not quite The Wire, but sometimes ill all the same. Studied at the Mecca for some years in the mid-’90s. Emerged with a purpose, if not a degree. Slowly migrated up the East Coast with a baby and my beloved, until I reached the shores of Harlem. Wrote some stuff along the way.

Filtered by articles published this week (Clear filter)

Mad Men's Pimp Move

The internet has gone a bit crazy this week over Mad Men's Joan Holloway sleeping with a client in exchange for a partnership in the ad firm. 

Over at Vulture, Margaret Lyons defends the move:

A lot of the discussion around this episode focuses on would Joan really do this, and hey, she's in a desperate situation because she has to care for her child as a single parent. Yes, it's true that Joan is a single parent, and it's true that that's a difficult situation. Except Joan hasn't brought that up. She hasn't talked about her fears about raising Kevin alone and hasn't seemed all that stressed about money (or alimony?), to the point that she declines Roger's attempts to pay off-the-books child support. 

She didn't sleep with scuzzy car guy just because she was desperate for the stability. She slept with him because she's in a liminal phase. Liminalty is the scary in-between times in our lives, the weird time when we're not who we used to be but we're not quite who we're going to be. Joan's in a classic -- classic! -- liminal phase right now. 

She's not the office vixen anymore, but she hasn't really transitioned to doting mother. And to top it all off, she's in the middle of a particularly traumatic divorce. Joan doesn't know who she is anymore; her entire identity is jeopardized.

I waited all week to post on this hoping to come up with some rational, defensible argument for why this disturbed me. The best I came up with was what I initially felt--that this was one of the few times where I could "feel" the writers in the room with me. I felt like I was watching plot points, more than characters interacting.

I think it would help if I had some sense of why Pete is so good at his job, if they took some time to show us selling in the way that they show writing. I don't really "root" for characters. I don't much care about Joan and Don spending a tender moment together, except as it furthers the ends of story-telling. I don't care if Pete triumphs over all opposition, but I'd like to see more of why. As it stood, I didn't believe that the the other partners would allow Pete to be the sole go-between, that Roger would say nothing to her about it. I simply didn't buy it.

We live in era of cynical art. It's become a badge of honor for critics to say of writers "the characters in this piece are loathsome." Mad Men has always stood out for me in its ability to ride that line between cruel irony and romantic optimism. It's a really tough place to live. Everyone is in fear of making earnest art, and they should be. But often I think we just go the opposite direction, and slip into a reactionary pose. 

Last week's episode felt reactionary to me, almost didactic. It was, as one writer put it
"the most Mad Men episode of any episode of Mad Men, or like what you would think the show would be like if you'd only ever heard people talk about it." 

The Kill List

I'm still in the Mines of Moria (long-form, long-form, long-form) so I'm a little late on the news. But I did make it through the Times piece on Obama's Kill List. I thought this part about Al-Awlaki's killing was especially revealing:

In the wake of Mr. Awlaki's death, some administration officials, including the attorney general, argued that the Justice Department's legal memo should be made public. In 2009, after all, Mr. Obama had released Bush administration legal opinions on interrogation over the vociferous objections of six former C.I.A. directors. 

 This time, contemplating his own secrets, he chose to keep the Awlaki opinion secret. "Once it's your pop stand, you look at things a little differently," said Mr. Rizzo, the C.I.A.'s former general counsel. 

 Mr. Hayden, the former C.I.A. director and now an adviser to Mr. Obama's Republican challenger, Mr. Romney, commended the president's aggressive counterterrorism record, which he said had a "Nixon to China" quality. 

But, he said, "secrecy has its costs" and Mr. Obama should open the strike strategy up to public scrutiny. "This program rests on the personal legitimacy of the president, and that's not sustainable," Mr. Hayden said. "I have lived the life of someone taking action on the basis of secret O.L.C. memos, and it ain't a good life. Democracies do not make war on the basis of legal memos locked in a D.O.J. safe."

I think that last quote is particularly salient. (Whether Romney would do any better is irrelevant to the statement's validity.) I talked to Cornel West for another piece I'm working on, and one thing he said sticks with me:

You have Martin Luther King's statue in your office, but you are sending these unmanned drones out, and bombs are dropping on innocent people. That's not a small thing. That's not a small thing. We know from historic examples that if you engage in a certain kind of foreign policy it eats at your soul on the domestic front.

And there is no real sense of an "end." Has there ever been a point since America's inception when someone, somewhere, wasn't plotting our downfall? I have great difficulty perceiving a time when this won't be true. And so drone strategy comes to self-replicate. We bomb your village. You declare war on us for the bombing. We deem you a terrorist and bomb again. Rinse. Repeat.

The Obama administration considers any military-age male in the vicinity of a bombing to  be a combatant. That is an amazing standard that shares an ugly synergy with the sort of broad-swath logic that we see employed in Stop and Frisk,  with NYPD national spy network, with the killer of Trayvon Martin.

Policy is informed by the morality of a country. I think the repercussions of this unending era of death by silver bird will be profound.

When the Apology Makes It Worse

Heading off to do his 30-day bid, Dharun Ravi "apologizes"

"I accept responsibility for and regret my thoughtless, insensitive, immature, stupid and childish choices that I made on Sept. 19, 2010, and Sept. 21, 2010," Mr. Ravi said. "My behavior and actions, which at no time were motivated by hate, bigotry, prejudice or desire to hurt, humiliate or embarrass anyone, were nonetheless the wrong choices and decisions. I apologize to everyone affected by those choices."
Probably the most grating portion here is the idea that Ravi was not trying to "humiliate or embarrass anyone." The facts of the case really say otherwise. But as I've said before you the justice system isn't really set up to punish people simply for not being honorable. There's obviously a legal argument against admitting any fault. 

But what strikes me about these kinds of apology (George Zimmerman's as well) is this desire to appear contrite, without taking on any of the actual weight of genuine contrition. Qualities like "immaturity," "stupidity," "childishness," and "insensitivity" can be chalked up to ignorance or biology. Whereas "hate" and "bigotry" have been moved into the realm of indelible moral stains carried only by those who sleep under bridges and eat people.

I have long thought of "racism without racists" as merely the product of the color-line. But it's also the result of the American--and perhaps even the human--inability to admit fault. No one wants to be wrong. It is a great failing, not simply of morality and honor, but of imagination. Being wrong is painful. It would be painful for Ravi to tell the world he actually was trying to humiliate a fellow human for his own ends. It would be painful to admit that he actually has tried to spy on people in the past. But people who can't admit to who they are, have little chance of ever becoming anything more.

There's been talk in comments on what some community service, and exposure to different worlds might do for Ravi. I would not count on it. Until you can say "I was wrong" without pausing to defend yourself, there really isn't much hope.

The Lost Battalion

It's yours...

Bart Scott Doesn't Want His Kids Playing Football

The chorus swells a bit:

"I don't want my son to play football," Scott said. "I play football so he won't have to. With what is going on, I don't know if it's really worth it. . . . I don't want to have to deal with him getting a concussion and what it would be like later in life." 

Keeping kids inside a protective bubble has plenty of risks, too -- there are a lot more kids struggling with health problems related to obesity than there are kids struggling with health problems related to football -- but Scott said his 7-year-old son will get his exercise through non-contact sports. 

"He can play baseball," Scott said. "I really don't want him boxing, either, even though he wants to box. I won't let him box. It's not worth it. The most important thing for me is him being around and me being able to spend a long time with him and I'm sure, at the end of the day, all the things I'm able to buy him from playing football, he'd much rather have me."

I keep seeing people say that if you keep your kids from playing football you're keeping them "inside a protective bubble." I don't really understand that. Parenting is, by its very nature, a protective bubble. The question is what the exact nature of that bubble will be. Within reason, I think that's a decision that parents, themselves, must make. I also don't get this idea that obesity is somehow the opposite of playing football. The "football or nothing" attitude has really only steeled me in the idea that it's right to leave. 

On that note. I did a podcast with the PostBourgie crew (now over at HuffPo) in which we tackled this very question. The great Gene Demby hosted, fellow Cowboys fan Dion Nicole joined in, as did ex-TCU running back Joel Bell. For me the best part of the conversation wasn't even the "To watch or not" portion, but when Joel talks about being in the TCU backfield when on LaDainian Tomlinson arrived. Fascinating stuff.

F. Scott Fitzgerald's Small World




Having long railed against The Great Gatsby in 3D, I was obviously really interested in the trailer. It actually looks smashing. I am not a nostalgic, so I kind of love the surrealist, almost sci-fi take on New York in the roaring '20s.

But as impressed as I was by the look of the thing, I'm pretty sure I'll be skipping it. Gatsby, to me, will always be the ultimate study in the oxymoronic—a small book about a really big idea. That contrast—brevity and The Great American Novel, Fitzgerald's small world and the grand idea of American social-climbing—is what I come back to in the book. That, and of course, the characters.

Gatsby is a book that has come to mean something to people (or perhaps simply to Hollywood directors) that sometimes feels disconnected from the book itself. Fitzgerald's great trick was to write about two people who wanted each other, but not write a love story. Of course I root for Daisy to leave Tom every time. But my rooting is wrong, and by the end of the book, Fitzgerald has really shown you why. Daisy is the one that got away—except you have no idea what that means. That "one" isn't some better future. She is a person—a indelibly flawed American. Like you.

Gatsby is something I haven't seen recently in American film—a kind of anti-melodrama, an anti-love story. Perhaps it's my present biases, but I'd have loved to see the French take this one on.

Dorothy Parker in the Twitter Age

Looking through The Paris Review's massive archive of interviews, I found this exchange:

PARKER 

 All those writers who write about their childhood! Gentle God, if I wrote about mine you wouldn't sit in the same room with me. 

 INTERVIEWER 

 What, then, would you say is the source of most of your work? 

 PARKER 

 Need of money, dear.

Parker, of course, enjoys a sacred place in my heart for her hatred of racism and segregation. (She left her entire estate to Martin Luther King, whom she'd never met.) But she was famous for her whit, a fact which the The Review's interview makes clear she came to regard with disdain. You can see how it can reduce a writer and their talents. And yet even through reading this interview, I thought Dorothy Parker would have killed on twitter:

INTERVIEWER 

Do you think economic security an advantage to the writer? 

PARKER 

Yes. Being in a garret doesn't do you any good unless you're some sort of a Keats. The people who lived and wrote well in the twenties were comfortable and easy living. They were able to find stories and novels, and good ones, in conflicts that came out of two million dollars a year, not a garret. As for me, I'd like to have money. And I'd like to be a good writer. These two can come together, and I hope they will, but if that's too adorable, I'd rather have money. I hate almost all rich people, but I think I'd be darling at it. At the moment, however, I like to think of Maurice Baring's remark: "If you would know what the Lord God thinks of money, you have only to look at those to whom he gives it." I realize that's not much help when the wolf comes scratching at the door, but it's a comfort.

Read the whole thing. There's some great stuff in there about the actual craft of writing, and Parker's own assessment of her work.

Just In

View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Afghanistan: May 2012

Jun 1, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

Ta-Nehisi Coates
from the Magazine

Why Do So Few Blacks Study the Civil War?

Ta-Nehisi Coates is an Atlantic senior editor.

Fade to White

A filmmaker maps Austin’s shifting ethnic landscape.

The Legacy of Malcolm X

Why his vision lives on in Barack Obama