White House Press Briefing: 3/27/09

Read more!

It's called the fringe RIGHT

And the hole they dig just keeps getting deeper and deeper . . .

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) had a lot to say in a recent interview with Sean Hannity:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now, in all fairness to Ms. Bachmann (I really do try to be fair) it can be argued that she linked her call for revolution to the act of contacting one's representative at the very end of that interview (listen to a longer clip of the interview over at Talking Points Memo). Still, for reasons noted in the video clip, her language is reckless for a person with her power and influence as a United States Congresswoman.

I'm all for free speech. I'll defend free speech. But I take exception when such dangerous and careless rhetoric comes from our elected officials. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don't have any power over me as an individual. I can always turn them off. However, the power entrusted to a member of Congress . . . the power to make law, influence and speak on behalf of a constituency should demand more care and responsibility than Rep. Bachmann exhibited in that interview.

I wondered which way Republicans might go after the 2008 Elections. Would they show some humility and realize that their ideas had grown stale, their political tactics too divisive? Or would they delude themselves into believing their own spin . . . blame the messenger rather than reevaluate the message.

It appears they've chosen the latter. That's right . . . they get louder and louder only to speak to a smaller and smaller constituency.

It's one thing for a radio host or tv pundit to go off the deep end. But when your elected officials co-sign that very same divisive rhetoric? When failed campaign slogans replace ideas? When you take your queue from the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? When you cow-tow to their audiences and openly promote fear and distrust of FELLOW AMERICAN citizens?

Well, it's safe to say you've been voted into the minority for a reason.

Keep digging guys . . . keep digging!
Read more!

Wow. We spend A LOT of money

Where is the money going? How much of this money gets reinvested into our neighborhoods? How much of our black dollars go to black business?

Seriously . . . just think of what $913 Billion could do for the black community.

Tell me what you think. . . What could $1 Trillion do for African-Americans?
Read more!

Shifting focus to Afghanistan . . .

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read more!

"I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

For those of you who missed President Obama tonight, this is the quote of the entire press conference. As a matter of fact, this quote best symbolizes the difference between President Obama and, not only his Republican opponent from the 2008 Election, but even his Democratic opponent from the 2008 Primaries . . .

"I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

Very simple, isn't it? One of those, poetic "If" moments of clarity . . .

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise (Rudyard Kipling, "If")

But some of his critics still don't get it. They call him a celebrity. They mock his popularity. They imply that he's uppity. . . say he's doing too much . . . call him an elitist. They do all of this as if the President is some clown or court jester sent to entertain the American people for the next four to eight years. It's how we've been trained to think. Media culture has programmed us to view our political discourse as nothing more than a game of the dozens. It's hyperbole, exaggeration and insult disguised as civic engagement.

But it doesn't work with President Obama. His critics still don't get it . . .

See . . .He's not trying to impress you. You're just impressed by him. No, he's not trying to talk down to you. It's just that you can't help but find yourself listening to him. More than any president in my lifetime, it's this president who invites a national dialogue by the way he carries himself.

Think back to the debates. How many times did we see President Obama acknowledge a point from the other side? How many times did we see our President bite his tongue when he could have (and perhaps should have) responded in kind?

It wasn't long ago when a bunch of nervous Dems were wringing their hands over Hillary's gas tax holiday, Joe the Plumber, or Drill Baby Drill. In fact, this time one year ago I remember a whole lotta Republicans and Hillary supporters predicting the death of Obama's campaign over Jeremiah Wright. Remember that? Remember Limbaugh's Operation Chaos? The great "he can't win white voters" meme? Pat Buchanan hoping for riots in the streets of Denver?

And some of us were absolutely beside ourselves because we thought Obama just wasn't playing the game the right way. But he's the president now. Despite all of the naysayers, haters, doubters and pretenders there's only one president. Now, who got game?

As for his competition? Well. . . Hillary now works for him . . . McCain has less respect from his own party than Joe the Plumber and Palin's back in Alaska trying her best to stay relevant in the national media. These were the talkers in 2008. So many people made a habit out of speaking before thinking. Why? Because in our twisted way of thinking we've come to believe that that's just what leaders do. From Hillary Clinton to John McCain to Sarah Palin to Rush Limbaugh . . . they all failed.

It's true. People talk, but they ain't sayin' nothin'. But our President . . .

"I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

Because when he speaks, the world listens. People want to hear what he has to say. Someone who knows the weight of his words. . . that's our President.

"I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

No mention of George W. Bush. He didn't have to. . . we got the message.

No need to belittle the questioner or dismiss the concern . . . just a skillful way to put things in their proper perspective.

"I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

How refreshing. We live in a 24-hour cable news cycle. We live in the era of YouTube, Internet blogs and message board beefs. We live in the era of campaign slogans, twitter and talk radio.

We live in an era where it's perhaps the easiest it's ever been to have someone else think for you . . . where being first is far better than being right . . . where ratings drive content. See, we've got it twisted. That's what followers do. Real leaders think for themselves. Real leaders are flexible enough to know that they don't know everything. Rather than waste energy on being the first or loudest, real leaders just get the job done.

If only more of our leaders were self-confident enough to say . . .

"I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

To not play the game that is the 24-hour news cycle. To not be pressured into following one's gut at the expense of one's intellect. To think for his or herself without following the pack. Sure it's dangerous . . .

but . . .

"I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

Me too, Mr. President. . . me too.
Read more!

Speaker Pelosi finding new fit in Obama era

There's an interesting article out of the L.A. Times this week that looks at the shifting role of the Democratic leadership under an Obama Administration. It discusses the challenge of defining the proper role Democrats should play during a time when there's a friend in the White House.

via L.A. Times:

"It's what we've hoped for, worked for, prayed for," Pelosi said of the Obama administration. "The difference between being the speaker without a president of your party and the speaker with Barack Obama as president is night and day."

But, inevitably, tensions have emerged.

Pelosi wants Bush's tax cuts for wealthy Americans to expire sooner than Obama has proposed. She is more receptive than Obama to a congressional investigation of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap program and criminal prosecution of any officials who used torture as a weapon to fight terrorism.

She was a strong backer of a punitive tax on bonuses paid to AIG employees, a move that has drawn a cool response from Obama. (Richard Simon and Mark Z. Barabak, reporting)

It's a delicate balancing act that lies ahead for those of us who are left of center. Some take the tough love approach while others are strictly "Team Blue." We've got conservative Congressional Democrats threatening the President's agenda on one side and the political left pressuring President Obama on civil rights and the war in Afghanistan on the other.

Yes . . . it's the blessing and curse of the Democratic Party.

Our strength? Relatively speaking, we're not a party of followers.

Our weakness? Well, relatively speaking, we're not a party of followers.

The circular firing squad? Too many chiefs, not enough Indians? Yeah, those sayings pretty much sum up the Democratic Party.

When run efficiently (and, yes, I know "Democratic" efficiency might be an oxymoron) the Democratic Party is the best representation of our democratic values. Democrats pride themselves on being the party of inclusion, standing up for civil rights, looking out for the little guy and building diplomatic strength with foreign nations.

But, boy oh boy, when that circular firing squad gets going? Well, let's just say the Republicans don't have to worry too much about doing any heavy lifting to bring a Democrat down . . . Democrats do it for them.

I'd probably categorize myself as a pragmatic progressive. No, not in that Evan Bayh type of way. No, I'm a progressive who values the pragmatic pursuit and retention of power. What does that mean? It means that while I have strong ideological views they amount to nothing if I'm not in a position to exercise them. Elections are a big deal. Political leverage is a big deal. Speaking truth to power is important, but it means nothing if there's no plan to exercise power once you get it. Real leadership demands a PLAN of action, not just talking points. It's easy to forget that amidst our self-righteous indignation (and, yes, I'm also looking at progressive Independents like myself). And, regardless of whether you're a liberal or conservative Democrat, you're truth to power is fools-gold if it helps usher in a Republican majority in 2010 and President Palin in 2012 (man, I hate I even had to type that just now).

I hope Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of the Democratic establishment can find a way to NOT SCREW THIS UP. Don't forget, it was the Democratic establishment that dragged the Presidential primaries four months too long in 2008. It was a fellow Democrat in Hillary Clinton who practically threatened to destroy the party if she didn't get the nomination. And we've always got those PUMA-folks and third-party supporters to contend with when the smoke clears. Trust, when it comes to ideological warfare, President Obama's got just as much opposition from his own side as he does from the right.

So let's see if the Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time. Can they support the President while challenging him to do his best at the same time? Can they do it without destroying their chance to retain power in 2010 and 2012?

Let's hope so.
Read more!

President Obama's interview with 60 Minutes: Part 2

Watch CBS Videos Online
Read more!

A Conference to "reclaim black manhood"

Always good to see efforts like this:


Read more!

Black Comedy and Why Madea Matters

Say the name "Tyler Perry" and you're likely to get a very passionate response. But depending on the columnist you may be surprised to find that not everyone is a fan. In fact, Mr. Perry's come under a lot of heat from accusations that he makes money through negative stereotypes of the black community. There is also the not-so-small concern over allegations that Mr. Perry might be anti-union (but that's not the focus of this post).

At times there seems to be little room for middle ground when discussing Perry. IF you're taking the time to actually write about the man, chances are you're probably going to take one of two approaches: Either 1.) Perry is the quintessential entrepreneur; or 2.) Perry's nothing more than a sell-out.

The entrepreneurial side is self-evident. Perry is the perfect rags-to-riches affirmation of the American Dream. Most reports tell of how Perry went from homelessness to being a multi-millionaire . . . head of his own entertainment empire in, not only African-American, but mainstream pop-culture. And how did he get there? One word: MADEA . . .

And that's where some get to the sell-out critique.

For some, Madea is a witty, comedic character familiar to most African-Americans in the tradition of Big Mama. To others, Madea is a social stereotype of black women: an angry, overweight and hostile woman with a diva attitude (well damn, now that you put it that way. . . ). Others say Madea is no more than a modern day Mammy.

And the criticism is not just limited to Madea. Rather some critics suggest that Perry's movies are overly simplistic and highly predictable; utilizing a plethora of black stereotypes from the trifling, no good abusive husband (see, Blair Underwood's character in Madea's Family Reunion) to the high-saddity, gold-digging wife (see, Sanaa Lathan's character in The Family that Preys). And if that weren't enough to drive his critics wild, there's always the occasional pimp and/or ho (which can both be found in Perry's latest, Madea Goes to Jail).

So, with all of that said, I should probably use this post to declare my disgust as well, right???

WRONG.

Sorry, but I just can't get too worked up over a Tyler Perry movie. As a matter of fact (GASP) I actually LIKE his movies. Yeah, I said it.

It's important to embrace ALL aspects of the our cultural experience. Doing so means allowing a space for both the serious and . . .. well, not so serious sides of the black experience. And yes, it includes black buffoonery as well. That's right . . . like any other race, we have the right to laugh at ourselves.

Columnist Ellen Sweets breaks it down:

Blacks marched, sat in and spoke out for the right to equality. That quest is only meaningful if accompanied by a willingness to accept the right of black artists to be as raucous, ridiculous and offbeat as anyone else. (Ellen Sweets, The Denver Post).

Sweets continues . . .

We are the race of Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass and the Tuskegee Airmen. Of President Barack Obama, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and television commentator Gwen Ifill. Of golfer Tiger Woods, tennis titans Venus and Serena Williams and of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the Harvard-trained astrophysicist and director of New York's Hayden Planetarium. Of Oprah, and of a bevy of scientists, educators and Fortune 500 corporate execs. The world knows we aren't a mass of "dese and dem," dope-smoking clowns.

And if they don't know that by now, it's because they don't want to know.

We need to get past our hypersensitivity to anything that fails to portray blacks as less-then-perfect. We've got to become more secure in who and what we are. (Ellen Sweets, The Denver Post)

I shared a similar sentiment in a recent conversation regarding comedian D.L. Hughley (e.g., D.L's "nappy-headed" joke and his short-lived show on CNN). A healthy dialogue must save room for us as black people to be able to laugh at ourselves. And that will never happen so long as we let external stereotypes (i.e., white perceptions) dictate black expression. In discussing the matter, I compared Hughley's situation to one of the most successful black comedy shows of all time.:

In Living Color had a skit for almost every type of black stereotype. In fact, I know a whole lot of black men and women that laughed their as*es off every time Jamie Foxx played Wanda.

For me, it's a matter of consistency. We assume to function by a set of unspoken rules of cultural ethics. Yet we have no problem making exceptions when we feel appropriate. And there are times when our words don't match our actions. So when we highlight one incident for rebuke, we run the risk of establishing a zero-tolerance code of ethics that most black folk are unable (and justifiably) unwilling to accept when it comes to black popular culture.

People are angry at D.L.'s "nappy-head" joke, but if Don Imus were to draw a sketch of his "nappy-headed ho" he'd probably draw a picture that fit the stereotype portrayed by such characters as Foxx' Wanda and/or Martin Lawrence's Shenene.

That's why it was so easy for Imus to flip the script back on the black community and divert attention away from himself and back onto black pathologies.

I'd say an overwhelming majority of black audiences laughed at those skits on In Living Color. And if it weren't for the fact that we constantly act in anticipation of white reaction, I believe most black men and women were happy enough to just laugh and have a good time . . . knowing that Wanda is a caricature and in no way representative of all black women . . . just as Damon Waynes' Wino was not representative of black men (even if we all might know one or two Wandas and Winos from our neighborhoods. LOL).

Well, suffice it to say . . . I'm willing to bet that a few of us know some Madeas in our families and communities as well.

Now, is this to say we shouldn't encourage an honest and respectful discussion about the implications (deliberate or otherwise) behind the Madea character? Absolutely not. I personally wouldn't go so far as to say people are being "hypersensitive." I can't walk a mile in each person's shoes and as such can't expect to fully understand that which truly offends someone else.

Just the same, I've often been disappointed when some dismiss the concerns of black men whenever a book or movie comes out that arguably puts us in an unfavorable light. I disagree with Sweets' column in that I happen to think that there are legitimate concerns of male-bashing whenever certain films (The Color Purple, Waiting to Exhale and, ironically enough, Tyler Perry's, Diary of a Mad Black Woman) risk making a habit out of hyperbole.

Still, we must get to a point where we embrace the less-than-perfect as itself having a valuable contribution to black expression. It's one of the reaons I strongly support our First Amendment right to free speech. It's also why I stop far shy of attacking the authors and directors of such works. I wouldn't denigrate anyone for finding inspiration in such films so long as they maintain a balanced view of life (e.g., it's ok to exhale so long as we don't take such as license to bash black men).

Likewise, I believe rap music also serves as a medium through which black men can "exhale" and vent their frustrations. But just as I cautioned the former, I would strongly argue that this right to expression is not unmitigated. The inherent value of such work ends wherever and whenever the constant and routine degradation of black women (the acceptance of hyperbole as habit) begins. We at least owe that much to each other as black men and women.

We HAVE TO STOP thinking in zero-sum terms as black men and women and start appreciating the fact that we can come together as adults and value each other's voices in shaping a more united community. Rather than fighting an either/or principle, we should be honest with ourselves to realize that life is complicated and dynamic enough to strive, not for censorship, but for BALANCE in the representations we see in media and popular culture.

It's all about balance. A positive film shouldn't require us to pretend that negative images and influences don't exist within the black community. On the contrary, a BALANCED, healthy approach would insist that a positive image be put in place to focus the message and make it clear that these negative portrayals are a small part of the black experience . . . a small part that is best understood in juxtaposition to the overall triumph of black men an women who come together to uplift and support each other.

There must be a way to respectfully communicate any, if not all concerns, without first reverting to very serious accusations of racism and misogyny. There must be a way for us to respectfully disagree without labeling one another as sexist or self-hating just because we might like to watch a movie that (however, predictable the plot may be) is a welcomed change from the less positive (if not more serious) roles of death, poverty and despair that we've grown accustomed to seeing.
Perry's audiences are vast and diverse. And let's not overlook the fact that a lot of his supporters are black women who don't see Madea as a negative image, but as a positive image of strength and security. I've never seen them as ignorant of life or self-hating . . . they're just trying to have a good time.

Finally, let's not forget that Perry's movies, for the most part, are comedies. They are there to make us laugh, not necessarily conduct a sociological or anthropological study. Ultimately, ask any patron why they go see a Tyler Perry movie and I'll bet the answer will be: I go to feel good.

Perry's Madea character is a modern-day, hip hop caricature of our beloved "Big Mama." And for as much as she may exhibit certain stereotypes, it would be disingenuous to argue that the sole effect of her character is to diminish or degrade black women.

I've yet to see someone seriously argue that Madea is representative of all black women. And to the extent that she is taken seriously, Madea is almost always depicted as a funny yet inspirational reminder of the strong black women in our lives. Madea may be a loud mouthed, gun-toting diva . . . but she's also the leader of her family and community. She's the solid rock of wisdom that all characters (male or female; black or white) ultimately turn to for advice and guidance. She's the matriarch that sees her family through the storms and isn't afraid to speak her mind while doing it.

That's the Madea that I and a lot of other black folk see when we go to the theater.

Plain and simple, Perry has struck box-office gold because he's tapped a vein of Black America that is left wanting far too often . . . the need to feel good. No matter how predictable or simplistic the plot may seem to some (and I must admit that this particular criticism strikes me as being highly elitist) it's important for us to maintain a space in our popular culture where we ultimately come together and grow as a people. If comedy is that vehicle . . . well, then so be it.

And regardless of the stereotypes, let's be honest with ourselves and admit that hyperbole is often a main ingredient to a good comedy. Sometimes a writer has to exaggerate the lows in order to make the highs that much more meaningful to the audience.

It's important for us as a black community to maintain that distinction between reality and hyperbole. Fact is that our community (just like ANY other) has its fair share of triflin' people. The test for us, however, is to understand that the villains in Perry's films are by no means representative of all black men or women. To his credit, I'd say Perry does a very good job at balancing things out in his films to show a reasonably fair portrayal of black people. For every gold digger there's an accomplished businesswoman; for every drug dealer or hustler there's a hard working black man who provides for his family. And regardless of social status or ambition, for every black man or woman who's turned his or her back on the community, there is ALWAYS a strong brotha or sista working hard to give back.

Let's not pretend that every negative image in a Perry film doesn't have a counter-portrayal of something POSITIVE within the black community. Why not focus on that? I don't care how predictable or cheesy you might think the plot is . . . I'm more than happy to invest 7-10 dollars of my money to see a film where black folks come together to work their problems out for themselves. You can never get enough of a positive message, especially if you get to laugh while doing it.

Now, if someone comes along with a more "sophisticated" (or so they think) plot, I'll be more than happy to support them as well. But, for now I know a lot of highly educated, sophisticated black men and women who enjoy Perry's films.
Read more!

Erin go "bruh"

No, that's not a typo . . . ever heard of "Black" Irish? lol.

So, in the spirit of St. Patrick's Day I'd like to revisit one of my favorite songs from the 2008 Campaign. I found it on YouTube. See why "there's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama!"


Read more!

NAACP files Class Action Lawsuits against Wells Fargo and HSBC

The NAACP has filed class action lawsuits against Wells Fargo and HSBC alleging systematic racial discrimination in the sub-prime mortgage industry. The lawsuit claims that lending practices conducted by Wells Fargo and HSBC constitute disparate treatment/impact upon African-Americans and violate the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Civil Rights Act (sections 1981 and 1982). Among other requests, the NAACP brings this lawsuit seeking equitable and/or injunctive relief and asks that the court order the defendants to modify their lending practices in accordance with the law.

via NAACP press release:

According to the lawsuits, African American homeowners who received sub-prime mortgage loans from these lenders were more than 30 percent more likely to be issued a higher rate loan than Caucasian borrowers with the same qualifications. Other studies cited in the lawsuits demonstrate that disparities are pervasive. In fact, upper income African Americans are more than twice as likely to receive higher cost loans as their lower income white counterparts. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition’s most recent study finds that discrimination against minorities persists in mortgage lending. The Federal Reserve Board, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the FDIC have all made similar observations.

“It is time for these lenders to be held accountable,” said NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous, “We look forward to forcing real change and real relief through this lawsuit.”

Both lawsuits are part of a larger effort aimed at alleged discrimination within the mortgage industry.

continued from NAACP press release:

These two new lawsuits raise the same claims as pending litigation by the NAACP against other mortgage industry leaders. Lenders named in this pending litigation include Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., Ameriquest Mortgage Co., Bear Sterns Residential Mortgage Corp. d/b/a Encore Credit, Chase Bank USA, Citimortgage, First Franklin Financial Corp., First Tennessee Bank d/b/a First Horizon National Corp., Fremont Investment & Loan, GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, GMAC ResCap, Long Beach Mortgage and SunTrust Mortgage.

Read the rest of the press release, here. The original complaints against Wells Fargo and HSBC can be found here and here, respectively.
Read more!

Still Buying Black . . .

I wrote about the EbonyExperiment back in December (read it, here).

MSNBC recently did an interview with the couple behind the project. Check it out:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Okay. Go to any major city and you'll probably find a Chinatown, right? Ever shopped at the local Bodega? Does your city have a Little Italy?

Seems like every other ethnic group gets to build for and support their own EXCEPT for Black people. Chinese-Americans, Hispanics, Indian-Americans, Ethnic Whites . . . all of these groups have no problem supporting their own.

And you know what? More power to them. After all, isn't that the "American Dream"? Isn't this the classic story of the American immigrant? People come to this country to start their own businesses so that they can give back to their families and communities. That's cool.

But let black folk even THINK of doing the same and we get lectures of reverse racism and self-segregation.

Reverse-Racism???

Look around you. Chances are we don't own the local corner store in our neighborhoods. We don't run the local nail salon. We're not the local tailor. We're not the local dry-cleaner?

So how is someone gonna lecture US about racial bias when so much of our hard-earned money goes to businesses that

1. We don't own; and
2. Don't necessarily have an obligation to invest in our communities?

Yet we faithfully patron these businesses despite a full understanding that very little, if any, of the money we spend will ever make it back to the black community.

Let me make it clear. This is not about tearing these other businesses down (like I said, more power to them). Rather, this is about building black business UP! What's wrong with that?
Read more!

15-Year-Old Speaks Out

This is a follow-up to that incident out of Seattle, Wa.

Props to a commenter over at JJP named mypov123 for catching this video:


Watch CBS Videos Online
Read more!

President Obama Picks Sebeilus for HHS

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read more!

Corporate Marketing: It's Cool to be Colored

(Man, I loves me some Toccarra Jones!)

Toccara Jones is a beautiful full-figured black model who would put most runway models to shame. You might remember her from Tyra Banks' America's Next Top Model where she was best known for challenging preconceived standards of beauty in the fashion industry.

Now, I'm sure there are a lot of other women like Toccara out there. It's just unfortunate that we'll never get to see them because they don't fit the typical mold. Seems as though advertisers have a very narrow view when it comes to beauty. And that's not the only casualty. Most marketing has a narrow view of success as well. It has a narrow view of strength and masculinity. Let's face it, for as much as it claims to "push the envelope" pop culture can be one of the most conservative genres out there. Why? Well, people like Toccara are a prime example that pop culture doesn't like to try new things. In other words, it talks a good game, but it's never been a huge fan of diversity.

But, in the Age of Obama, some point to signs that this might change.

The International Herald Tribune has a very interesting article on the emphasis companies are beginning to place on diversity in advertising.

Ads . . . are part of a subtle, yet increasingly visible strategy that marketers refer to as "visual diversity" — commercials that enable advertisers to connect with wider audiences while conveying a message that corporate America is not just "in touch," racially speaking, but inclusive. (International Herald Tribune)

This strikes me as both a blessing and a curse. It's great if taken seriously. I appreciate any efforts to expand opportunity and awareness. But the question remains: how serious are they? Haven't we been here before?

The main issue for me is this . . .

When it comes to these types of ad-campaigns are we celebrating "diversity" or "inclusion"?

I'm all for celebrating diversity. Different faces, experiences, walks of life . . . sign me up! But the celebration of inclusion is a little trickier.

Now, I can hear some people already: Self-segregationist!

Wait . . . slow your roll for a minute. This is not about self-segregation, reverse discrimination or any other phrase people like to throw around whenever the subject of black empowerment comes up. Inclusion is fine so long as we're talking about a shared experience. We should aspire towards greater inclusion as we seek to learn from each other and grow from our different backgrounds and life stories. That's not the problem. . .

Still, there are pitfalls that warrant attention. I've seen this discussed on other forums as well. At what point does a "diversity" campaign become counterintuitive, ultimately doing more to push the same old "white is right" standards of beauty, power and success, but failing to open doors to NEW conceptions of the same? Can we seriously embark on a "diversity" campaign without first taking time to challenge certain preconceived notions?

The problem is that some acts of "inclusion" quickly turn to acculturation and/or assimilation if we're not careful. Both can be problematic.

Acculturation is the act of adopting another culture at the expense of one's own(i.e., immigrants adopt American culture as their own). Assimilation, on the other hand, is the literal racial conversion of one group of people by another (i.e., multiple generations of intermarrying ultimately leads to a merger of two distinct races over time). Now, this might not be a big deal if there's equal give and take. But that's usually not the case. Too often both assimilation and acculturation are defined by the dominant culture. In fact, the dominant culture is routinely defined by the absence of an "other" quality that is shunned by society.

The "other" acculturates by accepting the dominant culture as his own. The "other" assimilates by deliberately marrying into the dominant race over generations (and before you go there, this is not an anti-interracial marriage argument . . . although marrying for the sake of assimilation - and NOT love - is not cool in my book).

And that's the elephant in the room. The article portrays marketing as a means by which society sets the standard-bearers. Our conceptions of masculinity, femininity, beauty, power, success . . . our understanding of these things are the result (in large part) of advertising. Little girls play with Barbie dolls and little boys like G.I. Joe. The extent to which we deviate from these standards. . . .the extent to which these little girls and boys disappoint these standards (e.g., little Johnny prefers Barbie dolls and little Jane is black) reinforces the mainstream at the expense of the "other." Thus, acceptance into the dominant culture comes by way of sacrificing oneself to fit the cookie-cutter images we've been indoctrinated with as children. Little Johnny covers his sexuality and Little Jane bleaches her skin. Little Kwame learns to be a "safe negro" and Little Maria changes her name to "Marry".

We've grown accustomed to vague terms that get lost in translation. Words like "diversity" "tolerance" "inclusion" and the like can mean completely separate things to different people. For example, a school can flaunt it's "diversity" so long as it accepts the "right kind" of minority students. There are universities where you can count the number of African-American students on one hand. However, that doesn't mean that the school can't point towards statistics showing heavy Asian-American, Jewish or International student populations. Ironically, such statistics use "diversity" to compensate for a lack in "diversity".

Likewise, a movie director might hire a black actress for a major film. But she probably won't have a starring role (however, black women make excellent best friends in a lot of these movies so all hope is not lost - sigh) but she better have light skin, straight hair and a petite frame. (side note - black actors make good best friends as well, but they usually get killed off for some reason or another)

This phenomenon is not limited to popular culture. Our recent election shows that we can elect the first black President, but he better be damned-near perfect and as non-threatening as possible (remember, Obama almost lost for simply knowing an "angry black man"). Forget comparisons to Jackie Robinson, Katt Williams said it best . . . this brotha's a clone!

What does this all mean? Well, for starters, let's not substitute our own concerns and insecurities (justified or not) for the ignorance we fight against. Concerns over "Model Minority" myths are no excuse for anti-Asian or anti-Semitic bigotry no matter how "oppressed" one might be. And it should go without saying that these concerns should not diminish a person's hard work and dedication in getting into such institutions of higher education. Likewise, our justified, if not obsessive, struggles with intra-racial colorism does not give those of us who can pass the "paper-bag" test free license to chastise those who can't. Yeah, we know dark-skinned sistas don't get their just-due, but that doesn't mean that the light-skinned sista can't still be talented and fine as hell in her own right (and trust . . .that light-skinned sista still catches all kinds of hell as she fights racism and sexism just like anybody else).

Our focus should remain on those who set the standards . . . those who hire the actors and actresses. . . those who work in the admissions offices, hold a seat on the hiring committee, write the fashion articles and shape the media. The objective is to add, not take away. More importantly, the goal is to acknowledge new paradigms . . . new standards of beauty, understandings of power and appreciation of cultures.

America is not a melting pot.

On the contrary, I've always preferred the saying that America is more like a salad bowl.

Personally, I prefer to see America as a big ole' pot luck dinner. Each group gets to bring a dish that only they can provide. Each dish is wonderful by itself, but it's even better when all of those recipes come together (I like a little arroz y gandules with my fried chicken and collard greens. . . but let me stop before I get hungry).

This is the real issue in advertising . . . how do we define "diversity"? The token-negro is "diversity" for a lot of people. For many, diversity only happens at the approval of white America. Forget the pot-luck dinner, diversity too often gets portrayed as some type of twisted buffet where white diners come to try something exotic . . . I'll try the Latin night-life with a side of gay fashion sense and an extra helping of black sexual fantasy. WTF???

Call me crazy, but I don't think that's what we're aiming for.

Are we marketing "diversity" or are we marketing "white approval"?

Because society can't talk about "diversity" unless it's willing to accept the fact that all black people aren't like the Huxtables. All black men aren't like Barack Obama and all black women don't look like Halle Berry. And here's the important part . . . get ready for it . . . THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS!!! Black success comes in many forms and black beauty comes in many colors, shapes and fashions. There are successful black men who act nothing like the President and there are stunningly beautiful black women who look nothing like Halle Berry.

I'm all for diversity. But not at the expense of who I am. You know when I'll be ready to applaud diversity in the media???

When Hollywood produces a mainstream love story starring an African-American couple. . .

Or how about a show with a token white friend . . .

Or how about (gasp) a show with no white friends at all . . . (I'm not saying this to exclude white people, I'm just wondering if Hollywood could ever pull this off. People of color live their lives through white eyes all the time. We loved Seinfeld, Frasier, Friends and Will and Grace even though you could hardly find a black or brown face on some of these shows. Would Hollywood take a gamble on the reverse? An entire prime time lineup of African-American and/or Hispanic or Asian sitcoms??? Sounds ridiculous, right? I'm just sayin' . . . )

I'll also hold my applause for when the fashion industry recognizes the beauty of more traditionally black female forms (I'll take Toccarra over Gisele Bündchen any day of the week!). . .

I'll hold my applause until the in-crowd on the latest teen television series has more than one black or brown "best-friend" that doesn't shy away from stories about life growing up as a black child . . .

I'll believe this whole "diversity-in-marketing" thing when I'm reassured that this has more to do with a genuine interest in different cultures than simply cashing in on the Obama money-train. And we haven't even touched upon issues of management and access for people of color behind the scenes.

Yes! We know it's cool to be colored nowadays.

We've been here before. I can even remember the "Theodore Huxtable" intrigue some white girls had with me in high school. Any black person knows that America has a long-standing infatuation with our style, sex-appeal, swagger and fashion. That's nothing new.

"Diversity" is real life. It ain't no costume party. It's not a social experiment or anthropological study.

President Obama's victory might symbolize a courtship with diversity. But this ain't love just yet. How do you tell love from infatuation? Well, in the words of Chris Rock, "You gotta to love the crust of a motherf*cka!" Sorry, but we're not there yet.

"Diversity" isn't a fashion trend. It's far deeper than some marketing tool. It's people. . . lives . . . love . . . experience . . . history . . . pain and joy. . .

It means that you have just as much to learn from me as I from you.

But I guess that's for another day. Until then . . .

Toccara, call me! ;)

Read more!

A Damn Shame! Watch the Video

I saw this over at bossip. You can read the full story here, as well as view the news report here and watch the raw video here .

via KOMO News4 out of Seattle, WA:

A security video released Friday shows a King County sheriff's deputy purportedly shoving and kicking a 15-year-old girl in a holding cell after her arrest.

The security video was obtained by KOMO News under the state Open Records Act.

Here's some video from CBSNews (it's graphic):

Read more!