Memo to the Media: Hate Matters.

Have we reached the point where the media can no longer ignore the elephant in the room? For reasons that I'll discuss later, this question is somewhat rhetorical, but the following clip at least begins to talk about the problem in more direct terms (Note: sans the obligatory Is the White House responsible? introduction). . .



Don Lemon asks for an answer. I'll address the media as a whole.

Read more »

Who does he think he is . . . The President?: Obama's impact on "masculinity" and "power" in American culture

Following up on my past article, "Oh, the Possibilities . . . Obama and Black Men," I maintain that one of the greatest impacts Obama's election will have is, at a minimum, the beginning of a redefinition of "masculinity" in America. We are talking about the juxtaposition of "power" with black skin. . . we are talking about the juxtaposition of authority with black skin.

And some people just can't handle that fact. The following op-ed gets to the point:

There are many Americans for whom the image of a well-educated, articulate, African-American man running the country simply does not fit into the worldview with which they grew up and are comfortable and familiar. When the emotions aroused by that disconcerting fact are combined with legitimate political differences, their behavior has transgressed the boundaries of civil discussion and rational debate and become something much uglier. Comparing the president to a monkey, irrationally questioning his citizenship, calling for him to be ''shipped back to Africa,'' carrying signs that call for the elimination of ''Obama, Michelle, and their ugly daughters,'' keeping kids home from school so they won't have to hear the president's speech to schoolchildren -- these are not rational responses to the important policy differences that require vigorous and thoughtful debate. These are the voices of people who are having a difficult time realizing that their assumptions about the natural order of things aren't working anymore, a realization that makes them profoundly uncomfortable. It is easier for them to respond by shouting angry insults than by researching facts and developing reasoned counter arguments. (Peyton R. Helm, president of Muhlenberg College - The Morning Call)

Make no mistake. We as a country are not accustomed to associating such power, RESPECT, and, yes, admiration with black men when it comes to "masculinity." No. Black men have been and continue to be depicted as the absolute opposite of "masculinity" . . . the antithesis to the qualities that we associate with the "hero" the "white knight" . . . the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Indeed, black men have been the perpetual "other" to the traditional, white, imagery most often associated with responsible "masculine" leadership.

It's what I meant when I wrote:

Thank you for giving voice to the concept that black men do have a voice. Too often, society convinces us that black men have nothing to say. In fact, it seems that the only time a black man is expected to speak is if he’s on the pulpit, in a rap video, in a sports locker-room or at a court arraignment. Well, not anymore! For the next four year’s this country will have a front-row seat to black intellect. And many Americans will sit in awe as they learn that a black man can, not only speak in full sentences, but can also speak (even better, lead) on matters of war and peace, foreign and domestic policy, the economy, health care, the law . . . the list goes on and on.

And finally, thank you, Mr. President for showing young black men another option in life. My hope is that they’ll learn to see that your excellence is not rare. My hope is that you’re historic victory sparks our young black men to seek out the black lawyers, doctors, teachers and community organizers in their own neighborhoods. . . that they might learn from the entrepreneurs in their neighborhood. . . . that they might learn from the hardworking, blue collar black men that are often overlooked by society, but still find a way to take care of and provide for their families. . . that they might go to their local library and learn of the great achievements of men who look just like they do; a history rich in intelligence and leadership. (B-Serious, "Oh, the Possibilities . . . Obama and Black Men.")

It's a hard shell to crack, but it's beginning to crack nonetheless. And as Mr. Helm suggests, the shrill, whiny, paranoid incoherence of the fringe elements of our society is just another example of the fear some have at the realization that they've lost control of what they thought was theirs and only theirs to enjoy . . . the American Identity.

Perhaps that's the driving force behind those who question his citizenship or those who whine "I want my country back." It is the belief (subconscious or otherwise) that a black man in such a position of power and respect is so . . . "foreign" . . . so . . . "unAmerican."

So, why the inherent distrust? Why the presumption of malicious intent? The conspiracy theories? The threats?

It's about reification. It's the fact that history has long held that the least among us might share in the American dream so long as they could identify with the leading class. . . so long as the powerless might make concrete that which for them is the abstract concept of "power."

Such has been the cycle of the powerless and the powerful in American politics. And though social status, class and gender have always divided the haves from the have-nots, there is one common denominator that has allowed the social stratification to persist despite the lack of a tangible benefit to the latter group at the expense of the former. . . RACE. Poor whites have a history of siding against their own interest for the fear that someone else might get what they themselves never had. So, instead of coalition politics, it's easier to rant against a welfare society, fear Willie Horton, and shame the welfare queen. . .so long as the object of such contempt has black skin. For "those people," some say, are not like "us." "They" deserve to be where they are. "They" are lazy. "They" are uneducated. "They" are irresponsible. . . unlike "us" who pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.

But now????

See, reification is the concept of vicariously realizing upward mobility and success through someone else's experience. However, what throws some people for a loop is that, for the first time, our nation's understanding of success, power and leadership is being realized through a Black experience in the White House.

It's hard to live vicariously through someone else. Some might say it's unnatural. And to those who wilt at the thought of this powerful black man speaking to your children . . . for those who faint at the fact that young white children (in fact, all children) continue their ADMIRATION for the office of the presidency despite it's darker hue . . . for anyone who cringes at the idea of TRUSTING someone who neither looks like them nor shares their specific background to make such important decisions about their lives . . .

I say "Welcome to the club". Black folk have been doing it for centuries. Don't worry . . . it'll be alright!

This is not to say that all criticism of Obama is driven by race. It is not to say that all who oppose the President are racist (though, the media should do a better job at confronting those who are). However it is to say that this president is reshaping our preconceived notions of what it means to be a "man" in our society. We finally have a counterbalance. For all of the negative imagery we see, there is and will always be the counterbalancing image of this president. And this imagery . . . this daily infusion of the "other" in a position of power, challenges us as a nation to reacess our preconceived notions that have kept so many from powerful positions simply because they did not look the part or fit the script.

This is not about politics. This is not to say that racism is an exclusive trait of the left or right (it is what it is and it comes from all sides). Rather, this is about the future potential that might be realized now that young black boys and girls have seen one of their own achieve the highest, most influential . . . most powerful office in the world. And that scares the hell out of some people. Do NOT be fooled by their false bravado and belligerence.

It scares the hell out of the weak.

It scares the hell out of the vulnerable.

It scares the hell out of the ignorant.

Sorry folks, but Obama is just the beginning.

Oh, the possibilities.

Read more »

Imus is Not the Issue / Imus and the Dependency of Reactionary Politics

(Parts 1 and 2 of a piece I posted over at JJP)

I’m sure you’ve all heard of Don Imus’ most recent case of foot-in-mouth disease. Seems Imus has a sweet spot for black athletes. The latest controversy involves comments Imus made about Dallas Cowboys cornerback, Adam “Pacman” Jones. ESPN covered the story, here.

The controversy came Monday when word broke that the troubled cornerback wished to officially drop his nickname, “Pacman,” in hopes for a fresh start. Anyone familiar with the NFL knows that Jones has been the poster-boy for everything wrong with the league for the past couple of years. His career of unquestioned talent has been spoiled by numerous arrests, suspension and multiple encounters with the league commissioner stemming from a shooting that took place at a strip club last year.

Suffice it to say, Jones always keeps the media on its toes. So, after hearing a quick rundown of the player’s rapsheet, old Imus couldn’t help but perform his journalistic duty by asking the most important question:

Imus: “What color is he?”

Answer: “He’s African-American.”

Response: “Well, there you go. Now we know.”

Now how’s that for consistency? Slightly more than a year since calling the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team, “nappy-headed hos,” good ole’ Imus is back like clockwork for another foray into black stereotypes. And doesn’t the media just love a repeat offender like Imus. It’s simple to follow and anything involving race is ratings gold.

For what it’s worth, Imus issued a clarification. . .

via Reuters:

"Obviously I already knew what color [Jones] was. The point was to make a sarcastic point. . . What people should be outraged about is they arrest blacks for no reason . . . There's no reason to arrest this kid six times, maybe he did something once, but I mean everybody does something once."

Do you buy that excuse? Me neither.

Of course, people are outraged. And why shouldn’t they? As one sports commentator said this morning, given his less-than-stellar career in race and gender relations, Don Imus lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago.

Undoubtedly, many of us hear Imus' comment and detect an implied “duh” quality that conveys a familiar, “well, what do you expect from a nigger” type of sentiment.

This does, however, bring a few questions to mind . . . Are we surprised by this? Why should we be surprised by this? And why am I not inspired to join the next round of protest that may come as a result of Imus’ most recent comments?

This is what I’m getting at: Are we missing a larger opportunity whenever we’re confronted with a situation like this?

Imus and the Dependency of Reactionary Politics

Enter Rev. Al Sharpton . . .

Like clockwork, Sharpton released a response saying,

via ESPN:

“We will determine in the next day or so whether or not [Imus’] remark warrants direct action on our part.”

Brotha Al . . . respectfully . . . please don’t.

Such a response assumes a mandate from the black community that you may or may not have, to convey a consensus message that may or may not exist. I don’t begrudge Rev. Sharpton’s passion. However, I certainly wish that he and other black leaders would begin to invest in more proactive forms of leadership.

This is a lesson we’ve learned far too often when we make moral arguments that lack reciprocity. By that I mean it’s too easy to change the subject to debates of double standards and fake cries of “reverse racism” and “oversensitivity,” when you’re vulnerable to the same criticisms you levy against others. Fact is that, following the Rutgers situation, Rev. Sharpton issued an edict of zero-tolerance that we in the black community were not and still are not willing to embrace (and for good reason).

Following the Rutgers incident, we quickly realized how hard it was to institute a zero-tolerance approach to offensive language when we failed to anticipate the response we’d get once critics turned their attention to similar language in rap music, comedy and other forms of popular black culture. Let’s be clear . . . this post is not a critique of rap music. Though I see the need for reform, I maintain that black culture should be held responsible to, and ONLY to, black people. It’s a matter of autonomy.

Instead, this post has more to do with the style, rather than the substance of modern black protest.

Looking back on the Rutgers incident, the following seems quite clear: We weren’t ready for the internal conversations our response to Imus’ bigoted and sexist comments triggered once he effortlessly morphed our objections into a national debate on rap music. By extension, this invited the inescapable stereotyping of black men and women through a different means. Ironically, objections of racism and sexism resulted in a national debate focusing on black pathologies perceived in hip hop culture.

Collectively, we weren’t prepared for the contemptuous backlash from white conservatives who retorted, “What about you.” It was too easy for them to argue that we had no moral authority because there was no consistency between our words and our actions.

The media sees no value in complexity. What resulted was a conversation that, while overdue, lacked proper context due to a rushed attempt at a moral consistency that may have been lacking from the beginning.

It was at that moment when we lost the moral authority behind our outrage and, with it, the power to control the debate. And it was with the short-sightedness of zero-tolerance, knee-jerk, reactionary politics that we exposed our vulnerability to charges of hypocrisy. These were charges of hypocrisy and insincerity that came back one year later when that same media had a chance to condemn a black man, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for transgressions that, while different from Imus in context, were far too similar in the practice of short attention spans and gotcha politics that we accepted when it was Don Imus under scrutiny instead of one of our own.

Even more, in case you haven’t noticed, white media LOVES debating Sharpton because past controversies, such as the Tawana Brawley and Duke rape cases, make him an imperfect vehicle for otherwise reasonable and sincere messages. Much respect to Al Sharpton, but he should know that a story involving him is a story ABOUT him. Again, too much distraction.

Finally, it’s important to understand the perspective through which such controversies are viewed by the media. “Racism” is not some stupid comment by a shock jock on the verge of retirement. No, racism is the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in our nightly news, local broadcasts and cable networks. And while we’ve made some progress to see more black faces in a year when the first African American has a shot at the White House this does not change the fact that most if not all major news broadcasts are hosted by white men.

Again, this is not a matter of justified outrage, but a question of focus. As I see it, constantly focusing on the Don Imuses of the world inherently marginalizes the scope of racial bias in the media, which leads to far worse transgressions than stereotypes and offensive rhetoric. Political correctness is fool’s gold whilst the true treasures of ACCESS and SELF-DETERMINATION lay dormant; nothing more than mere aspirations for some future generation to tackle.

Again, where should we be focusing our time and attention? Is the extent of black liberation and respect limited to that which “offends” us? Or is there a co-equal, perhaps even dominant, branch of our collective struggle that begs us to look within to build the image, life and community that we hope to see?

Need I remind you that we are more than “offended?” We are incarcerated . . . we are dying . . . we are sick . . . we are underemployed. As a matter of fact, we are a lot of things before we even get close to being “offended.”

We’ve got much larger problems than being “offended.” And we’ll never get close to solving those problems unless and until we abandon the reactionary (and quite passive) politics of being “offended” and place more time and resources into the proactive, self-determinative politics of black empowerment.

Firing Don Imus from CBS and MSNBC was not a matter of black empowerment, but rather a success in white punishment. There’s a difference. The latter focuses on white influence while the former pushes towards black agency. And I fear that a reliance on such protest as we saw after Rutgers will only deepen the chasm between awareness and empowerment that many of our black leaders experience today.

It would only serve as a distraction from bigger issues with more significance. . . a distraction that steals life from the innovation and creativity that has always been the backbone of our survival as a people.

In truth, I cannot take offense to that which holds no significance in my life to be offended about. And, while I dream of a day where others might respect my diversity, I know that my survival as a black man does not and cannot wait for that magical moment when white apologizes to black for all of its transgressions. I’d be waiting for the rest of my life if I tried.

Our government won’t even apologize for slavery. What makes you expect an apology for hurt feelings? As if anyone other than black folk ever truly cared about the hurt feelings of black folk?

I make no excuses for Don Imus. However, I do admit that there is a small part of me that appreciates open bigotry, not for its hate, but for its honesty. At least I know where we stand with people like that. At least I’ll know how to prepare; what to look out for; what to expect. It’s oft-times far better than the false sense of security brought about through forced coercion resulting from efforts to shame white corporate institutions into disciplining white radio jockeys on behalf of white consumer dollars . . . oops, I mean black outrage.

Where’s our focus? Our focus should be on proactive means to obtain full power and self-determination of our image, culture and message. I’m tired of waiting for someone to apologize, or “tolerate” my diversity. I’m tired of begging white corporations to fight on our behalf.

You don’t shame the Don Imuses of the world . . . you confront them. You challenge them. It’s not easy, but we must carve out our own space for black expression. We’ve started that in the blogosphere. And I’m excited to see what the Black Television News Channel has in store for us when it launches next year.

Don Imus is not the issue. I refuse to give him that much power. Unlike a politician, he has no control over my life and well-being as a black man in America. And, though I’ll continue to hold a higher standard when it comes to our elected officials and concerns for their safety (see O’Reilly’s tasteless comments about not wanting to “lynch” Michelle Obama) I will take solace in one ultimate form of self-determination the next time I hear Mr. Imus . . .

I will change the channel.

Be Somebody,

Be Serious

Read more »