My jones for Bomani notwithstanding, I agree with him 100%. I just want to share my thoughts and feelings now, since they're . . . more readily accessible to me at the moment.
Now, there is a reason we jump to defend people with "pristine" images: wider (ie, whiter) America can support Rosa Parks whereas Claudette Colvin presents something of a problem. For them. Me? I got a lot of respect for Colvin, and all the other men and women who've challenged, intentionally or not, our racial status quo.
As well as all the innocent and unarmed men and women who've been shot and killed by the folks who're supposed to serve and protect. And in some cases, watch.
Cause I'm sure Trayvon Martin didn't have this in mind, talking on the cell to his girlfriend while walking home with some skittles (Taste the rainbow?) for a younger brother and a can of Arizona (ironic, huh?) iced tea.
And I hella know George Zimmerman was only supposed to watch. That's watch as opposed to surveille.
I don't think I'll say anything that someone else isn't saying. But I hope that repetition helps drive the point home. The good news is that The Game is come back! January 2011 on BET! Check your local listings. Don't get me wrong. It's not my very, very favorite black sitcom of all time. But it's certainly in the top 5 of recent years, and when it comes out in January, it will immediately be No1 of regular black sitcoms.
I just think this is very important to remember. Washington Post's Richard Cohen, not that I'm a fan, writes:
The governor of Ohio, James Rhodes, demonized the war protesters. They were "worse than the Brownshirts and the communist element. . . . We will use whatever force necessary to drive them out of Kent."
Nevertheless, I agree that something needs to be done to address violence in inner-city densely populated enclaves of high concentrations of poverty, and the media can help. First off, since crime is down and you're giving a false impression of reality and a false and negative impressionblack people,
I imagine a media appealing to millions of indignant citizens who regularly take to the streets and offer solidarity with suffering Haitians – demanding not US military- conducted aid programs (after they have “secured” the areas) but empowerment of Haitians and of themselves. I am dreaming of course – the American dream, which happens only when you’re sleeping.
But I couldn't think of an explanation for the Limbaugh piece in part because I was trying to find good video of the tea tax Obama smacked down Friday afternoon. Then I got caught up listening and before I knew, I needed a break.
I want to remind you of just two things: ACORN isn't under investigation from anyone, hasn't been convicted or indicted of anything; the Congress was a bit premature and hypocritical to look to end all federal funding to ACORN after well more than just "billions" has been defrauded by several war contractors with which the DoD is still doing business.
The people who produced the video, of course, are decry the finding. They say that it's only reasonable that the group paid by ACORN to do the internal review would have a good finding. Though, how else is an internal review done, right? Either from in-group or out-group, but always pay for by the group.
That said, what makes this worse is that the media did none of the basic journalistic investigations that would've uncovered a great deal of what the report found. But instead, they acted make a gossip chain, just repeating what they heard from someone else. And while Rachel Maddow at least highlighted the hypocrisy of the whole thing, at the end of the day, not even MSNBC did much more than discuss the news reporting as though it were news reporting.
And I'm so, so tired of the brouhaha over Tiger Woods. I find it awfully suspect that with adulterers in Congress, even Bill Clinton, and the anti-ED commercial shown during golf - all of a sudden the nation is appalled by the man-hoe. And for a racial angle thanks to Karith Foster (Booooo!! apparently), here's one very good article and here's another.
If you think that just because this guy's last name is "Hasan" this was probably an act of psuedo-Islamic terror, you are an awful, awful person.
That said, you gotta give it up to POW Shoshana Johnson! I've mentioned her before. She was captured along with Jessica Lynch, the white girl who got all the media and money love. I'm not mad at Lynch. I'm not. I just think Johnson deserves the same.
Now, I make no exaggeration. I was actually pleasantly surprised to see this. Mainstream media isn't known honest discussion on race. And with so many people now rallying behind blue, if not white, the issue was being distorted.
I thought two points were particularly key. One, that all his diversity/racial profiling training doesn't make Sgt Crowley immune to racism. After all, Crowley says that he was "surprised and confused with the behavior" Gates showed. But why? What happened to all that racial profiling training? He should've known a black man sitting innocently in his house wouldn't be excited to have the police come question him about being in his own home! Eh, duh!
Two, observing that something done or said was racist is not the same thing as calling a person a KKK Grand Wizard bigot. Adding my on comment, white people need to quit acting like the sky is falling when they're accused of racism. Especially when chances are that you are racist. Racist and nigger ain't, and never will be, the same. And the fact that white Americans as a collective insist that it is is just an example of white privilege and narcissism. Only white people have the privilege of changing the subject to indict the accuser in ways that ignore the actions of the accused. Some in blue even suggested Pres Obama maligned all police officers by saying that Crowley had acted stupid! How exactly does that work? After all, even the Cambridge Mayor called Gates to apologize. And instead of talking about institutional racism that andthe reality of racial profiling; and really, we're not even arguing over whether or not Crowley did a racist thing, but whether or he's racist, which is besides the point!
But let me stay focused. Kudos to Don Lemon and CNN.
As a black person, I find the propensity of white Americans to narrowly focus on "exceptional" blacks quite vexing. Understand, I'm an "exceptional" black myself. Once in high school, a friend and I were pulled out of class for an interview with a local news channel on being high achieving black students. I can't remember everything that was said. I do remember talking about how instead of being "exceptions" to the rule, my friend and I were the rule; we were representative of a legacy of black love of learning.
After the interview, my friend and I talked about how exciting it would be to be on TV. We wondered if they would actually even show the interview. We wondered how it would be edited. Then we realized: it was possible to edit the piece as though we were chastising our black classmates! We panicked! We went back and talked to our principal about our concerns.
Cause Shelby Steele aside, most high achieving blacks don't wanna be portrayed as apart from our community. Shear statistics are that despite racism, you will have blacks who come to great success apart from athletics and entertainment. That doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist. It should only serve as a gauge of what black folks might accomplish if it didn't.
The American obsession with people who are said to transcend race began long before Barack Obama moved into the White House — long before he even thought about running for president. Affluent, well-educated black people were being appropriated as symbols of racial progress — and held up as proof that racism no longer mattered — back when Mr. Obama was still a youth in short pants.
White Americans have little experience with this brand of appropriation. In general, their personal and professional triumphs are viewed as the product of individual fortitude and evidence that the founding ideals of the nation are alive and well.
Successful African-Americans — whether they are sports stars, entertainers or politicians — are often accorded a more tortured significance. In addition to being held up as proof that racism has been extinguished, they are often employed as weapons in the age-old campaign to discredit, and even demean, the disadvantaged.
“Don’t talk to us about discrimination,” the argument typically goes. “You made it. If the others got off their behinds and tried, they would, too.” In this rhetoric of race, there is no such thing as social disadvantage, only hard-working, morally upright people who succeed, and lazy, morally defective people who do not.
Black Americans who find this line of argument appealing, along with the celebrity it brings them, typically end up trumpeting exceptionalism, playing down the significance of discrimination, and lecturing black people (nearly always in front of white audiences) to stop whining about racism and get on with it.
Mr. Obama has refused to play this role, even though people have tried to thrust it upon him. He has made clear all along that the election of the first African-American president, while noteworthy in a nation built on the backs of slaves, did not signal a sudden, magical end to discrimination.
He underscored this point again this week when he commented on the arrest in Cambridge, Mass., of the Harvard African-American scholar (and my longtime friend) Henry Louis Gates Jr. and about the tendency of police officers to target blacks and Hispanics for traffic stops.
These remarks could change how the news media sees the president’s views on race. Up to now, he has been consistently and wrongly portrayed as a stern black exceptionalist who takes Negroes to task for not meeting his standard.
He is not happy with this characterization. That was clear in a recent Oval Office interview with the columnist Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post. Mr. Obama complained about the press coverage of his speeches and seemed especially miffed about the portrayal of the one he delivered before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People this month.
He suggested that the news media had overemphasized his remarks about “personal responsibility” — a venerable theme in the African-American church — while disregarding “the whole other half of the speech,” which included a classic exercise in civil-rights oratory.
The president described disproportionate rates of unemployment, imprisonment and lack of health insurance in minority communities as barriers of the moment. He contrasted them with the clubs and police dogs that black marchers faced in the 1960s and said that solving present-day problems would require comparable determination.
And “make no mistake,” he continued, “the pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and a different gender.”
This was no exceptionalist rant. Speaking to Mr. Robinson, the president used the first-person plural revealingly when he said: “I do think it is important for the African-American community, in its diversity, to stay true to one core aspect of the African-American experience, which is we know what it’s like to be on the outside.”
During the campaign, Mr. Obama tended to avoid direct engagement with racial issues until circumstances (a tempest over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright) made further evasion impossible.
He reached a similar moment when he was asked to comment on Mr. Gates’s arrest at a White House news conference on Wednesday.
In a remark that became instantly famous, he responded that the police acted “stupidly” in arresting Mr. Gates when no crime had been committed and the professor was standing in his own home. Mr. Obama further noted that disproportionate attention from the police was an unwelcome fact of black life in America.
People who have heretofore viewed Mr. Obama as a “postracial” abstraction were no doubt surprised by these remarks. This could be because they were hearing him fully for the first time.
Update: This is the most recent info I could find. Now. There are several out there who feel the whole ordeal was Gates's fault, that had he just complied with the police and been polite, he wouldn't have been arrested - police don't like to be shown up no matter what the other person's race is. All that junk, you'll have to google on your own.
Me? I hope this finally convinces those individuals who believe that it's not about race as much as class that race does indeed trump class. I personally don't believe the police account that Gates became combative and accused the police of racial bias - mostly because Gates doesn't believe in the overarching construct and impact of racism. But assuming Gates did become belligerent, do the cops really arrest every person who becomes belligerent. Are there no white people who became belligerent with cops and didn't get arrested? I know that's not the case because I've already read a few personal accounts to the contrary.
And it's widely documented that white people accept more disrespect or combativeness from other white people than from people of color. It's also widely known, amongst black people at least, that any sign of resistance will be met with a billy-club and handcuffs. Like I said, I can hardly imagine Gates being belligerent. And the plain truth is he could've done everything the police asked and been as perfectly polite as Emily Post instructs, that does not mean that a request for the cops name and badge would not be met with handcuffs. Or maybe, considering all the cases of police brutality that I've seen and heard, I just think a black person has to give 110% effort at demonstrating their cooperation and respect for the police. Including but not limited to keeping your hands visible at all times. I mean for real. I know of a 19-year-old black guy who was the passenger in a car driven by a white person, and the black guy ends up dead. I'm not even sure the white driver was arrested. I know of a situation where a woman was in some kind of state of medical emergency, I can't remember if she had overdosed on some drug or was in a diabetic shock, but she was shot several times by the police and killed even though, and the police say because, from start to finish she did not move.
The other issue that convinces me this was about race is the neighbor. I mean, why was it necessary to describe the possible thieves as "black?" Whatever it may be and whatever the race of the neighbor, there are racial implications and reason for describing a suspect as "black." Maybe you didn't know you had any black neighbors and you're using the descriptor to indicate the people you're calling about don't belong there. Or, maybe you know that saying "dangerous black male" will get a quicker response. And just who is this neighbor and how long has she been living there? Maybe it's because I've lived in the same neighborhood all my life, or because my eyes are wonderfully healthy, but I'd be able to recognize my neighbors across the street even if it were just by their silhouette.
But there's another issue to address, and this no matter how racism-deniers (You know, like holocaust-deniers? My term, my term.) respond to this, is what it says to black kids and maybe even all kids of color. White people don't know it, but within the black community, adults do stress the importance of education. Work hard, go to college, be the best "you" you can be. We tell our young people that the sky is the limit, they can become whatever they want to become, racism is an obstacle but it has been, can and will be, overcome. In fact, I go as far as to say one of the many strategies of assault on racism is to use education to learn how the "system" works and be able to manipulate it, whether from the inside as a lawmaker criminalizing racial profiling or from the outside as a community activist. But here's the hard-hitting truth, the part of Pres. Obama recent speech to the NAACP that mainstream media ignores: at the end of the day, no amount of education or success can shield you from racism. And especially if it's coming from US senators during your confirmation hearing on your nomination to the Supreme Court and you're a wise Latina woman. _________________________________________________________________ I just heard about this. Just heard about this. Here's what racismreview has to say . . . my thoughts, and a Michael Jackson song, later.
A witness, 40-year-old Lucia Whalen of Malden, had alerted the cops that a man was “wedging his shoulder into the front door” at Gates’ house “as to pry the door open,” police reported.
None of the reports I’ve read online describe Ms. Whalen’s race, or why someone from Malden was doing calling the cops about a man entering his own home in Cambridge, but apparently it was her call that began this series of events. Here’s what happened next, according to several reports, this one from HuffingtonPost:
By the time police arrived, Gates was already inside. Police say he refused to come outside to speak with an officer, who told him he was investigating a report of a break-in.
“Why, because I’m a black man in America?” Gates said, according to a police report written by Sgt. James Crowley. The Cambridge police refused to comment on the arrest Monday.
Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him,” the officer wrote.
Gates said he turned over his driver’s license and Harvard ID – both with his photos – and repeatedly asked for the name and badge number of the officer, who refused. He said he then followed the officer as he left his house onto his front porch, where he was handcuffed in front of other officers, Gates said in a statement released by his attorney, fellow Harvard scholar Charles Ogletree, on a Web site Gates oversees, TheRoot.com.
As this story has begun to get out on the web in the last 12-24 hours, it seems to be touching off a tsunami of outrage at the persistence of racial inequality in the U.S., even for one of the most well-known and accomplished scholars. If this could happen to Skip Gates, at his home in Cambridge, Mass., it does not speak well for the state of racial progress in the country as a whole. As Rev. Al Sharpton said, “If this can happen at Harvard, what does it say about the rest of the country?”
But, make no mistake, this outrage is not universally shared. Almost as soon as this story broke, the undertow of white backlash to the reality of racism began to counter the outrage. For example, Bruce Maiman, writing at The Examiner, contends that the Cambridge police were just doing their job, responding to a call about a break-in to a home, and that Prof. Gates escalated the situation. Here’s Maiman:
So I ask you: Who’s the person who caused this encounter? Professor Gates is now being represented by another distinguished law professor from Harvard, Charles Ogletree, and they’re going to claim that this cop was racist and mishandled this situation because the fact that a black male was involved.
I don’t see any racism, do you? Tell me where? No names were called. Nobody was hassled or pushed around. Legitimate requests were made and cooperation was not forthcoming from a man, Henry Louis Gates, who know better than most people on this planet what happens when you escalate a confrontation with the police. But he does it anyway.
Is there racial profiling in America? Sure there is. But if you justify the behavior of Henry Louis Gates because other black men have been hassled by other police officers unfairly and thus you assume every black man has a right to a chip on his shoulder every time he meets a cop, you are asking for trouble.
This doesn’t appear to be racism. It sounds to me like a colossal case of extraordinarily bad judgment on the part of a distinguished African American historian who happens to teach at Harvard, and who certainly should’ve known better.
Here, Maiman’s interpretation of these events is completely steeped in the white racial frame. He says, “I don’t see any racism” and, of course, he can’t from the WRF. He only sees a black man “with a chip on his shoulder,” not the racist behavior of the cop. Maiman further diminishes Gates by referring to him as someone “who happens to teach at Harvard” and questions his judgment because he “certainly should’ve known better.” Known better than to what, try and enter his own home? Maiman is simply wrong on the facts here, and wrong on his interpretation of the events. Maiman is like other whites, as philosopher Charles W. Mills writes, “unable to see the world he has created,” unable to see how his not-seeing-racism contributes to the problem of racial inequality.
The research on the racial inequality in policing, arrest, and incarceration in the U.S. is starkly clear (as we’ve recounted on this blog hundreds of times): those who are black or brown, particularly men, are much more likely to be stopped, frisked, harrassed, arrested and convicted than whites. And, this inequality in criminal ‘justice’ is part of a larger pattern of racial inequality that operates systematically throughout U.S. institutions. The irony, for those that have followed Gates’ scholarship closely, is that he has tended to downplay the significance of institutional racism in the contemporary U.S. Reports are that Gates’ is “shaken” by this experience, as anyone would be. This is a horrifying, and yet all too common, experience for black men in this country. Perhaps Gates’ next volume will be called “Harvard Professor, Still a Suspect.”
More good sociological analysis on this case (and others) from City College Prof. Dumi Lewis, here. ________________________________________________
As a history student, and nerd, I know Gates and hold him in fairly high regard. However, I've always been disappointed in his views, or maybe his lack of outspokenness, on systemic racism. I wonder if this will do anything to change his thinking. Though, regardless, whatever it matters and to the extent that I can, I got his back like black.
I actually meant to say this earlier and it slipped my mind. This whole pattern from the CW/UPN just goes to show why African Americans maybe need to develop more TV networks dedicated to the African American community. TVOne can't do it all alone. And BET is now more or less minstrel shows.20. So when you think of black empowerment in terms of black businesses, or my dreams, a black Wall Steet (or at least a collection of companies on the level of the DOW Jones), you have to remember to include black-owned and operated media for a black audience.
You know what really pisses me off about this? The CW, and before that, UPN, built itself on black comedy. First, In the House, LL Cool J/Todd Smith's initial sitcom. UPN bought the rights to it from NBC. But at least In the House ended with some sense of closure. But Half and Half, Girlfriends, and now Everybody Hates Chris and The Game are being ended abruptly in the middle of a plot line. I mean, does Lynn ever get it together? And Joan married? Maya adopting? And the Toni-replacement a mother? "Yes, more please." Sorry. Not a regular viewer of Everybody Hates Chris, but the last episode I saw had him taking the GED because his teacher wanted to hold him back a year for all his tarties. Whatever becomes of him? And, so okay. Melanie and Derwin get married. I'm almost sure of it. Rick Fox and Tasha get back together. But what about Jason and Kellie Pitts, huh? What? The white girl can't get no love? (Okay, so I'm not as open to interracial dating as popular culture kind of demands, but that's neither here nor there.)
I know what you're thinking, right? Aliens in America was cut after 2 seasons and it was a white sitcom. Tell you the truth, I actually liked the show. But, come on. One "counter-example" to a demonstrated pattern? What's The CW gonna do when it loses viewers en masse? I'll tell you. It's gonna turn right back to urban comedy. And I hope this time, nobody watches.
We should all be reading and working in our communities, anyway.
And for the love of all that's good and holy, will somebody please tell me who Mona (half of Half and Half) ended up with! ~ No1KState
"In just three years, The CW has become TV to talk about, with culturally current, quality programming," Ostroff said in a statement. "We have a full slate of great programming to keep our viewers watching, chatting, texting and tweeting all next season."
Maybe some viewers.
The other African American-targeted sitcom 'Everybody Hates Chris' won't be returning in the fall either.
(Cross-posted, with links, at dangerousNegro. I'll put links in later.)
. . . and BBC One: The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency! starring Jill Scott, Anika Noni Rose, Lucian Msamati, and Desmond Dube, the man who is “very much like a woman.” (That’s a line from the show. It’s funny.) Okay, so I don’t know if it’s actually the #1 show on HBO. I don’t watch a lot of HBO original shows, or, maybe, actually, any HBO original shows. Just this one. But I like it! And that’s all that matters to me.
But I’m not the only one who does. Rick Porter of “From Inside the Box” likes it. Along with Latoya Peterson of Racialicious, Mary McNamara of the LA Times, Alan Sepinwall of the Newark-based Star Ledger, and finally, Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly. I invite you to read their reviews. Mostly because I haven’t written one since college, but let me take a whack, huh? I promise, I’m not an amateur.
Now, initially, I thought some of the things I liked about the show would be negatives for others. After reading the reviews, I’m happy to say I’m wrong. The show is bright, light, and happy. It doesn’t have the darkness and grit that you’d expect from HBO. And, most surprisingly, it doesn’t have the sex you’d expect from a show about black women in Africa. Each episode debuts Sundays at 8p but recur throwout the week. It’s definitely something you can and should watch with kids, be they your own or some neighborhood kids or some kids from church or, maybe even, a foster child you’ve decided to love.
Anyway, while it’s another “detective” show, it doesn’t have the intensity or action most expect. Me? I don’t need the action. In fact, I kinda like that the show is what some might call slow. It’s not slow in the way that you’ve watch 10 minutes of a movie and nothing’s happened. But it has a gentle, baby-rocking sense to its timing and movement.
For the things I love about the show? Well, first of all, lets cheer the fact that there’s another primetime show starring black women! And these aren’t little skinny bitches, as Monique would say, but “proper, African women” (another line from the show). Well, Rose is little and skinny. But Jill Scott ain’t! Now, I’m not promoting obesity or over-eating and under-exercising, but most of us sistahs, even at our thinnest, are still thick. It’s nice to see that lauded in the media. It really is.
I also love the picture it promotes of Africa. Here’s something from Engl 042: the director is probably using an open lens to let a lot of light in, and the natural lighting adds to the beauty of the shot. After all, it is all shot in beautiful Botswana. Don’t get me wrong, apparently not everybody was happy with the more happy portrayal of Botswana. And there is something to be said about the fact that in Africa, “cheating husbands spread AIDS” (Though I would like to point out not everybody in Africa has AIDS. Don’t get me wrong. 29 million AIDS patients is an alarming number. But 664 million who don’t have AIDS is an honest number as well.). But who doesn’t know about the troubles in Africa. Who doesn’t know about the genocide, the hunger, the dying, etc and so on. I’m not trying to downplay it. In fact, because of my commitment to educate and inform, I’m finishing a book that will enlighten us as to some things we can do for Africa. So, I’m not trying to act like Africa doesn’t need our attention and help. It’s just nice to see another side that’s just as real and true of Africa. There are people who eat regularly, see a doctor and dentist regularly, and go about their lives like we do here. That’s important to know. Botswana is one of the more “luckier” countries. It’s not beset by civil war or anything like that. The wealth coming from the countries natural resources are used to benefit everyone. So the 4 D’s of Africa, death, disease, disaster, dispair, aren’t so awful in Botswana as say, the Congo. It’s good for us as a people, as well as other people in the US and around the world, to see something about Africa that we can be proud of.
So the show is light, and the scenes and shots can be gorgeous. But don’t sleep on the characters. BK is a gay hairdresser. Initially, there’s just been some cute moments like Rose’s character Grace’s “that man acts very much like a woman.” But in the 2nd episode, and since I’m not some big-time reviewer, I only see what you see, there was a touch of controversy. Jill Scott’s character left a husband whose abuse caused the death of their baby. And while I thought Grace wasn’t married, in the 2ndepisode, there was some man at her house. Yeah, it’s probably her husband, but in the pilot, someone comments that Grace can’t know about men since she’s never been married and Grace doesn’t argue, so. But anyway, the characters are complex. They have depth. Yes, the picture quality is Disney-like. But the character’s aren’t. Rose isn’t a princess in this show.
Another thing to love about the show is the music. I’m sorry to be going on so long, but I have to say something about the music. It’s great! There are some snippets of the traditional African song/harmony, which is pleasant to my ears. But there’s also some modern African funk/soul/R&B/jazz that sounds wonderful. It’s nice to hear the soundtrack of the motherland. It is.
And let me just stress the racial politics of the show. Again. How often do we see black women portrayed as the standard of beauty, much less fat/thick black women. Our children need to see that. And these women aren’t running around have sex. They’re not the hyper-sexual picture of black women that we usually see. Not the usual “sassy” black woman. Not the fat, mothering, “mammy” black woman. We need to see that.
The show is based on an African woman who lives in a town that’s the capital of a country that’s run and governed completely by people of color. We need that! Hey, I love Obama, but we need more. Right? This show is superb in regard to racial politics. It really is. I mean, really, take a break from wonderbread land, and get yourself some fresh fruit! Imagine! a show based in a world without anti-black racism. It’s like chicken soup for the black soul. I ain’t even lying!
I only have 2 minor problems with the show. One is that it’s on HBO. Not everyone has access to it. But hopefully, it can have the same impact on popular culture as Sex and the City. The other problem is that I always start talking with an accent when I watch it. It’s crazy!
