Got this outta this month’s Vibe magazine. If Curtis Jackson (50 Cent) had bared Brittney Spears’ breast during the Super Bowl, do you think he would’ve gotten off as easily as Justin Timberlake has?
Archive for April, 2004I’m in the middle of a take-home exam in my Transportation Planning class. It’s…very involved. Parablemania has this great racial classification test that I’m going to sink get down on sometime next week when I have some real free tme. Check that piece out pronto. 1. James Brown – Can I Get Some Help This is amazing. I’ve never had so many songs by so few artists unless I did it on purpose. What’s weird is that I have more Stevie Wonder and James Brown on than anybody else, so if anybody was going to get multi-play, especially back-to-back, I would expect it to be one of them. Not that I mind getting a lot of De La. Last time I talked about what constitutes Blackness, or more accurately, what doesn’t constitute Blackness. Well, reading around as I do, I ran up on one brother who described what I’m calling Blackness as having three components: color, consciousness, and connection. There will probably be time for me to break that down a little later. For now, though, we’re just going to suffice it to say that if you’re really interested you can read the link. I may get to it, I may not. Depends on how I’m feeling. Anyway, when I left off, I was talking about Black culture and how it’s intermingled with American culture. Sometimes, they’re virtually indistinguishable. Depending on the context in which I’m speaking, that’s not such a bad thing. One problem that raises, however, is the need to define Blackness as what “whiteness,” i.e. mainstream American culture, is not. John McWhorter, in Losing The Race, describes this as a symptom of separatism. I’m not going to go into a whole lot of detail about this. For a good summary, you can check out Parableman’s post about that section of the book. What I will say, however, is that the whole “white=not-black” definition fails in part because we don’t even have a solid definition of what Black is. It’s color, but it’s not just color. It’s politics, but only vis-a-vis color. It’s culture, but only within a certain context. So really, by the time you get down to what some people would define as Black, you’re really only talking about a very small part of the Black community. But those who don’t fit into that box are at best “confused,” and getting worse, heading past “sellout” going to Uncle Tom-hood. And how are they supposed to be confused? Because they “don’t want to be Black.” Well, I’m still stuck on my original question. What the devil does ‘don’t want to be Black’ mean if we can’t even determine what it means to be Black? In other words, I could come up with this obscenely long list of “do I have to—” questions of thoughts and behaviors that some people think makes one Black. The answer to all the questions would be no. You can make up your own list, if you like. The answer is still no. But just to kick out a few, do I have to like Black music? (I’m not even gonna go into the whole discussion of rap vs. hip-hop) No. Do I have to eat soul food? No. Do I have to not-eat pork? No. Do I have to vote Democratic? No. Do I have to sound Black when I talk? No. (Now there’s something I’ll probably sink my teeth into at some point. Being a former English major, that’s the stuff I talk about just for the sheer enjoyment.) Do I have to…No. All you have to do is be yourself. So what happens when there’s a phenotypically black person who grows up around all white people? All of his “cultural” attributes will indicate whiteness. Some people would say that makes him an “oreo.” (Which is still the best cookie on the face of the earth. Keebler soft bake chocolate chips are good, but Oreo is just the best cookie, bar none.) How so? It seems to me that there are two options: either deny that person his Blackness or expand the definition of Blackness to include that person. My opinion is probably obvious. The funny thing to me is that many of the Black-definers are postmodern when it comes to other thought processes. Ask them about Black people vis-à -vis white people and they’d be quick to point out the importance of naming and defining one’s self and how doing so emphasizes agency as opposed to objectification. I remember talking to one sister about Lenny Kravitz and she was like, “That brother needs to find his soul.” What, he ain’t got no soul because he plays rock music? To quote Funkadelic, “Who says a funk band can’t play rock?” Really, P-Funk is the perfect example here, because as we know, Parliament and Funkadelic were essentially the same band. The sounds of the music was very different, however. Funkadelic was a much more guitar-heavy, rock-sounding outfit while Parliament played music in the traditional R&B mold. Listen to “Maggot Brain” and tell me that’s not a rock record. Ain’t nobody in their right mind gon’ tell me that P-Funk ain’t Black! (not without gettin’ stole on, at least.) Same thing applies when looking at celebrities. At the beginning of Barbershop 2, the conversation is centered around how Black people want to “claim” certain celebrities when they’re doing well, and then distance themselves when that person starts to fall off. The funn thing is that for the celebrities, the process seems to be reversed. For example, remember when Tiger Woods first turned pro? Back when he was burning up the links, looking like he might win all but to or three tournaments a year, we were jumpin’ out the balloon talkin’ about he’s Black. Then, when Tiger was like, he’s “Canibalasian” or whatever, there was this big stink about how he was distancing himself from the Black community. Like, “he’s Black because we say he is, nevermind what he want to call himself.” Well what’s that all about? How can I practice kujichagulia, or know and define myself, and deny that to somebody else? Conversely, ever notice how black celebrities who as a matter of course do not seek to embrace the Black community always seem to “find their way home” when trouble comes? Look at Michael Jackson. Back in ‘92, when he was still selling records in America, it didn’t matter if he was Black or White. Fast forward to 2001, when his numbers aren’t looking so spectacular, and he’s in NY with Al Sharpton talking about how the recording industry is racist. Evidently, Al’s coffee wasn’t strong enough, so now when he gets in more trouble, he goes to the NOI. Not like Mike’s by himself. O.J. did the same thing, even before Johnnie Cochran used it to spring him, going to restaurants in the Black community and whatnot. (And as an aside about Johnnie, how come people try to make Johnnie Cochran out to be this racially polarizing figure? Yeah, he defended O.J., but wasn’t he also the attorney for Reginald Denney? I think that part gets lost in there.) While I try not to tell my self that so-and-so “doesn’t want to be Black” because of some trait or action I observe that doesn’t gel with my concept of what it means to be Black, some things just don’t add up to me. Last week, when I linked to that Black dude who was marching through some SC town, carrying a confederate flag, I think that was my mentality, even if I didn’t say it outright. But really, I can’t say that he didn’t want to be Black, or that he was trying to deny his Blackness. His stated goal was to educate people about the “reality” of the confederate army, which, like it or not, did include some Black soldiers. So for me, that’s an easy case of “expand your definition of Blackness.” On the other hand, I listened to Rev. Jesse Peterson’s radio show last week. (Man, this internet is truly mind-boggling. When I think about the technological advances that have been made during my grandmother’s lifetime…) Now, I’ve read a couple of his books and every once in a while I hike down to his website to see if he’s talking about anything besides Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, so I’m pretty familiar with what he’s got to say. Still, sometimes, I’m just amazed at the things that come out of people’s mouths. When the show started, he was deriding the use of the term ‘African-American,’ saying that he was American. Okay. No harm there. But then, he jumps out and starts talking about, “Why would I want to be associated with Africa?” Like that’s the worst thing somebody can say about another person. What got me was, he didn’t just say it once and leave it alone. He kept on going, repeating it and embellishing it. Still, in the interest of letting people speak for themselves, I skipped to another part of the broadcast. There was a White caller on the line from Chicago, who was talking about the new Black fire chief. (The last one resigned because of the dust-up after some firemen were heard over FD radio spending the N-word, like it has some currency. At the crib? That’s one thing. A public employee at work? No excuse.) J. Peterson, on hearing that the new Fire Chief is Black, is like, “Uh-oh. You better get out while you can.” Now, I know all about irony and tongue-in-cheek and hyperbole and all that stuff. My natural language is hyperbolicsyllabic. The key is context. If a white conservative said that, even one who does not garner a lot of national attention, progressives would be at his door with a battering ram. And if a white liberal said the same thing, conservatives would be elbowing each other, giving knowing smiles, as if to say, “See how hypocritical they are? (Like they’re doing now because of Senator Dodd) If a Black liberal said this, I think the assumption would be that it was tongue-in-cheek, but only because of how that statement would sit when juxtaposed with everything else that person said. Jesse Peterson? Having read two books and every article published on the website, I can’t come up with 10 things he’s said about Black people that are good. Now, I could be wrong here, but I can’t come up with 10. Taken in that context, all that anti-Africa talk and the “get out while you can” comment don’t come across as tongue-in-cheek, even if they are. Still, it’s not my place to question that man’s love for Black people. After all, he is out there working with some of the most troubled youths in his Los Angeles community. Maybe it doesn’t matter what he says if he’s doing what he does. But still, it makes me wonder, what would make a person say things like that? I know I’m an American. Nobody had to tell me or convince me or anything else. I don’t think everything America does is right, but this is my home and I wouldn’t wanna live anywhere else, even if I could. Even with all that, I don’t have any animus towards Africa and I don’t think it’s ridiculous that people call themselves African-American. I don’t use that term because I recognize the difference between myself and my friend from grade school, Aaron (who was phenotypically white), who was born in Africa. He’s African-American but he ain’t Black. My mom likes the term A-A, though; says it connotes a sense of culture where Black is just a skin color. Well, I think from all this typin’ I’ve been doing, it’s clearly more than just that. Still, if some people wanna use that terminology, I’m comfortable with it. (But it’s funny to me that we have all these conservative Black folks who don’t wanna use the term A-A and when they state their reason, it’s what Farrakahn said in 15 years ago, almost verbatim.) Next time…we’ll jump off that bridge when we get to it. Probably talk about Paul Mooney’s toothpaste. “…Flip Wilson said this, he said, ‘I reserve the right to be a nigger.’ And I absolutely do, at all times.†-Aaron McGruder If I didn’t know better, I’d put that on my description line. Anyway, here’s where you can find the article in which the above quote is contained. I got hipped to it first at Negrophile. But really, though, that’s why I looove The Boondocks. I don’t agree with all McGruder’s politics, but then again I don’t agree with all of anybody’s politics. If I don’t agree with my mama all the time, the rest of y’all can forget it. Anyway, in The Boondocks, there’s gonna be some left-leaning humor, but then I can count on there being some critique of popular culture, usually Black within a couple days. The Boondocks was the first place I heard about R. Kelly and the NAACP. Long before any columnist had even thought about writing, McGruder had already done his impaling. I remember the first series I read, back in 2000, he was clowining Bush as a candidate. In the last panel, Huey was like, “Bush couldn’t lead O.J. to a white woman.” All politics aside, that’s funny. You can change the name and it’s still funny. 1. 3rd Bass – The Gas Face Uncle Sam’s Cabin beat me to the punch. I’ve been planning to write about Blackness for a good little while now, but I’ve been trying to think about what I wanted to say. For the last couple of weeks, I’ve been wishing there could be some kinda brain typer that lets your thoughts go straight from brain to computer, where you can then edit them into some type of coherence. Come to think of it, it would hot to see what people are thinking as they think it. Not for the purpose of being nosy, but just to look at the way people think. For instance, I believe that some people think in words while some other people think in pictures. Then too, I think it’s just wild to see what stimulus triggers what thought. But I’m getting way off topic. Sam writes, “Blacks in the Americas have a new heritage born on the shores to the New World. To ignore it while pining over what was left behind in Africa generations ago is a dishonor to those who survived and thrived in the New World.” Word. Now I’m ’bout to add some. W.E.B. DuBois wrote about what he called “double consciousness” 100 years ago. A hundred. Think about that for a minute. One hundred years. Sadly, many chapters in Souls of Black Folk are still relavant today. (Anybody who hasn’t read it needs to leave this page and hop down to the used book store and get a copy. You don’t hafta agree with everything he said, but you should at least have read it to know what you do or don’t agree with.) Most problematic is that notion of double-consciousness. I, however, don’t see it as many black Conservatives do. I don’t think it’s an anachronism to recognize the difference between my Blackness and the fact that I’m American. I don’t think they’re necessarily incongruent, and really, I don’t even think they’re all that different in concept. Black people who demand that other Blacks “toe the line” are actually no different than various factions who seem to believe that in order to be a real American one must espouse certain ideals or forgo any other identity. It’s the same stuff. The ideologies may sound radically different, but it’s really the same demand. “Give up that other business and take your place among us, your real people.” That’s why so much of what I hear and read gets on my nerves, people don’t even recognize that they’re saying the exact same thing they’re ridiculing other people from saying. Some of the same people who say that Black people embrace their Blackness to the exclusion of their Americanness are just as busy embracing their American identity while trying to distance themselves from their Blackness. What is an American? Is it somebody who flies the flag? Is it somebody who thinks everything America does is right? Am I not a “real” American if I question the war in Iraq? (Just to pick an issue.) If I think all that God talk in the country’s founding documents is just talk and had no relavance to the way people actually lived, then what? Would I be less of an American if I used a hyphen? Of course not. Some people might think so, but who are they to tell me that I’m not American? It reminds me of an exchange between Archie and Meathead on All In The Family. If I remember correctly, they were arguing about the war in Vietnam, when Archie broke out singing “God Bless America.” Meathead was trying to talk over him, explaining how he protested, not because he hated America, but because he loved it; because he wanted to see America live up to its ideals. I think this is the unfortunate point we’re getting to now. For some people, the only way to love America and therefore be a real American is to cosign on anything America does…as long as your party dictated it. Same thing goes for Blackness. What is Blackness? I know what “black” skin looks like…sort of. I think Jason Kidd is “black,” but I’m not sure. I know some Italian cats darker than him. My usual litmus test is Jet magazine. If a person shows up in Jet, then he or she must be Black or at least black. Of course, melanin can’t be the only determinant. There’s some Indians out there blacker than me, (and that ain’t all that easy to be) but that doesn’t mean they’re Black. They’re just dark. So what other phenotypes can we plug in? Big nose? Full lips? Other “racial” groups have that. Nappy hair? Well, that’s fairly unique, but is the ability to grow an Afro the only determining factor? That’s pretty shaky. It’s obviously not just physical. On “Welcome To The Terrordome,” Chuck D said, “Every brother ain’t a brother/cuz a black hand squeezed on Malcom X the man.” So what’s Black? Well, even as I’m saying that Blackness isn’t just physical, it’s obviously a big part of it. Otherwise, why fuss at/about Clarence Thomas? Many people who claim Black would deny that to Justice Thomas, but I don’t hear those people talking about how Black Justice Scalia ain’t. So this example leads us to the idea that Blackness has something to do with political ideology. But what? Is it solidarity for solidarity’s sake? “Black people” think such-and-such, so I think it?” That makes no sense. At this point, we’ve pretty much moved past skin color as a divisive factor in the Black community. Not all the way, of course, but we don’t deny light-skinned people their Blackness. Nowadays, the paper bag test is political or ideological, I guess. If a person doesn’t see their connection to other Black people, or if they don’t believe in some litmus test policy (Affirmative Action, anyone?), then they’re not really Black. That’s why black Conservatives get branded as race-traitors or whatever. Which is, of course, retarded. Just because a person doesn’t believe in Affirmative Action doesn’t mean they don’t have Black people’s best interests at heart. I know a couple friends of mine, pro-Black to the core, think that Affirmative Action has generally outlived its usefulness. So what, are they not Black because of it? Then there’s the cultural element. This is probably the most liquid of all the definitions, because whatever “Black” culture is is quickly soaked into “American” culture. Really, they’re indistinguishable from each other. “…the popular music that all Americans cherish, sing, and dance to today would not exist of Africans had not been brought to this country,” John McWhorter writes in Authentically Black. A person doesn’t hafta be Black to talk “black” or even better yet, sing “black.” Ever heard of Teena Marie? Or to give a personal example, I remember when Lisa Stansfield first came out with “All Around The World,” it didn’t even occur to me that she might not be Black. A couple times, my mom and I tried to figure out her complexion, weight, and hairstyle. Needless to say, when I finally saw the video I was dumbfounded. Yet, we wouldn’t call Lisa Stansfield or Teena Marie Black because they can sang. So what’s the deal, then? I guess the first level of Blackness is some measure vis a vis physical appearance. Not that any of that is valid, of course. I’m not really critiquing it yet, I’m just trying to break it down into something manageable. Next time (next time I write about this, not next time I write) I’ll see what’s the deal with “wanting to be white.” Is there really such a thing, and if so, what are the symptoms? Butterscotch E and I kicked around some names for kids yesterday. Not for any reason in particular, just trying out the sounds. What was funny was that I bought this name book because it had interesting lists. I thought it might be good for developing names for characters whenever I start back to writing fiction. (I’m not to the funny part yet.) What amazed me about the book I bought was the fact that all…well maybe not all, but almost all the name definitions are wrong. They’re in there assigning meaning to absolutely made-up names. It’s bananas. Now I ain’t gon’ lie, I’m postmodern to the core, but I also know when to turn it off. This book is an exercise in postmodernism imploding upon itself. I mean, really, the fact that they’re attempting to assign a meaning to names is probably more modern than postmodern, but the haphazard meanings they come up with suggests that there is no real connection to any other definitions. It’s like they made them up as they went along; this is what the name connotes to us (the authors), so this is one possible meaning. My name, Avery, means ruler of the elves. Even websites that don’t have that exact meaning either contain a reference to ‘ruler’ or ‘elves’. So in this book, whose name I will not call, how do they have Avery meaning “softspoken?” Or better yet, how ’bout the made-up name, Deshette? The meaning? “Dishy.” What? That’s funny. Even when I talked to Butterscotch about this, I guess it sounded like I was more upset than I was. It’s just weird to me, that’s all. Just watched an episode of the Chappelle Show, where he showed pieces of skits they didn’t actually use on the show. I bought the 1st season DVD of the Chappelle Show and I’ve been generally familiar with his comedy for a young minute, so I know that there’s a definite political awareness there. It’s fun and jokes, and sometimes it’s just for the sake of fun and jokes, but a lot of the time, it’s an invitation to think. In this case, the skit was a sendup of a Frontline episode in which they explored the two Americas: straight and gay. Not in the political sense, though. There’s a ‘gay’ everything from DMVs with gay photographers to Don King promoting fights between two gay boxers. The skit was funny, but the larger issue is worth a thought. Is this the direction that we’re generally headed in for real? At one point, I would’ve thought yes, but I’m not so sure any more. I think that there are some gays who basically just want to be left alone to do their thing in private, but then there is a more vocal faction that wants to legislate homosexuality into all our lives. They would want the (openly) gay fighter to fight a (we think) straight fighter, claiming discrimination otherwise. Maybe. It’s a weird situation. Speaking of which, I was reading a forum on the topic of gay marriage, and one dude was like, Frankly I don’t give a sh-t. who or what a person chooses to f—, barring that it’s a little kid, is their business. But my thing is Why is it that when it comes to the rump rangers wanting to bang out each other’s a–h—s, all of a sudden it’s “what two consenting adults do is their business”, but that doesnt apply to a straight man who would rather just pay for some…? At first, I thought he was going to take a different tack, which is one that Thomas Sowell used a while ago, citing the reversal of position by gay activists. Not too long ago, it was “keep the government out of our bedroom” or “what two consenting adults, etc.” Now, it’s all about giving governmental sanction to homosexual relationships. That’s interesting to me…in a detatched observer-type way. Personally, I look at the whole thing as none of my business. If a dude believes that he was born that way, that God made him that way, that’s between him and God. I have not seen enough evidence to prove that homosexuality is genetic and I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that it isn’t. People can tell me that God wouldn’t make people like that, but if babies are born with three sets of sex chromosomes (xxy, xyy) and spina bifida and all sorts of other mutations, I don’t see where it’s so outside the realm of possibility that people could be born gay. I think that the most accurate thing anybody can say about the origin of homosexuality is that they suspect [insert pet thesis], but they don’t know. In that respect, it’s like hand preference. Don’t know how it happens, but we know that it does. That doesn’t mean that I think homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice, but I do know the only person I have the authority to make the decision for is my mother’s son. When it comes to anybody else, all I can do is point that man to the truth. What he does after that is on him. Speaking of which, not from a scriptural standpoint, because I understand that well, but from a legal standpoint, why is prostitution illegal? Like I said, the spiritual element is there, but that’s not what I’m talking about right now. Because really, if we’re going to take the spiritual aspect as reasoning for what should and should not be illegal, then why are cigarettes legal? Why is alcohol legal? So let’s respect that we live in a place where ‘not biblical’ is not necessarily ‘illegal.’ Now. Why is it illegal for a man and a woman to agree upon a price and get busy? If fornication for free is legal, what’s the difference if some money changes hands? Today represents the most important day on the Christian calendar. It recalls the event that separates Christianity from Islam; the resurrection. I went to a sunrise service at Arlington National Cemetary this year. Being from a Baptist background, it was very different for me. The chaplain who gave the sermon(?) used mostly poetry and some prose. I think she did a fairly good job, but I’m not quite used to that style. Same thing with the music. I think hymns are important, but personally, I want to hear somebody who can sang too. I think that there’s a degree to which the performance element can be distracting, but there’s also a degree to which good singing can be an integral part of the worship experience. I’ll probably try to break this down some more at some point. I’ll probably really talk about those first two Love Alive records while I’m at it. I finally got the 2nd season of Good Times last weekend. (I also bought that pop culture version of Trivial Pursuit. And let me tell you, the box opened and the beating commenced. If I hadn’t had such a hard time with the dice, it would have been a full-fledged mauling.) As I mentioned last time, the first two seasons of Good Times were very different than the later shows. Going through the first season, however, it’s getting easy to see how JJ started to take over. And really, as a character, JJ was probably the least interesting one on the show. Maybe this is me with a little age and education talking, but I’m much more interested in Thelma and Michael than I am in JJ. JJ can provide comic relief, but the strength of that character was as a foil to the more serious characters. He was at his best as a sort of in-house Willona. Come in, crack a joke, make a sociological comment, crack a joke, say Dy-no-mite!, put on a funny outfit, make a face, be out. Instead, what happened was, JJ gradually became the focus of the show. Now, a lot of people I know have played up the racial element, saying that JJ represents the ‘coon’ stereotype and that that character was emphasized in an attempt to diminish the social impact of the show. There’s no question that there are certain stereotypes of Black people that have been prevalent down through the years, and there’s no question that JJ pretty well fit the coon stereotype, but I don’t know that his takeover of the show was all part of some insidious plot. The same thing happened on Happy Days. JJ is to Good Times as the Fonz is to Happy Days. If Seinfeld had been any less centered on al four characters, it’s easy to imagine was about race so much as it was about the network trying to capitalize on a popular Kramer taking over the show just like JJ and the Fonz before him. In short, then, I don’t think JJ’s takeover character. Having said that, I think that Good times really suffered when the focus shifted to JJ. Like I said before, Thelma and Michael were infinitely more interesting characters – or at least, they had much more potential. Thelma, especially. If it were me writing the show, I would have made Thelma the centerpiece. According to the traits of that television character, I can imagine her turning out to be similar to Claire Huxtable if James had lived. She was good-looking, smart, and ambitious. Of course, those characteristics don’t necessarily make for funny television. I mean, Thelma had her share of featured episodes, but it wasn’t the same as with JJ. (Of course, I might only be thinking this because Thelma was fine. If Thelma had really looked like JJ’s sister, I might not be so interesting in seeing too much of her, no matter how smart and ambitious she was. Thelma was the truth; especially when she was rocking the natural. Whether it was the fro, the afro puffs, or the braids (especially the braids) Thelma had it goin’ on! Some of my friends have tried to tell me different, but I kick the truth to the youth: when it comes to the little sister characters, ain’t no rap: Thelma was the best, hands down.) Of course, this trend just represents the problem of popularity. The question is, when you have a popular product/show/etc., do you go with what the “market” seems to dictate, which would mean emphasizing the popular element, or do you focus on quality, which may not translate to sales? This plays out in more than just television programs. Hip-hop is stuck in this conundrum today. So far, hip-hop in general is going the way of Good Times. Whatever element used to represent the ‘James’ element is gone. Like EPMD once said, rap is outta control. Back to Good Times, though, do they still make shows where the teenage girls are virgins and are not afraid to say that’s it a good thing? Or where the father was in charge, even if he didn’t make a whole lot of money, or wasn’t highly educated? I don’t think so. |
Entries (RSS)