Please excuse my shaking hands, a sister was trying very hard not to pass out.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Damn! Damn! Damn!
I knew Reverend Wright's speech was going to be troublesome when every clip I watched was from the conservative government propaganda news channel. As I watched I found myself in complete internal conflict. For the first time, I felt like I could relate to what it must have felt like for black people to watch as Washington and DuBois or Dr. King and Malcolm X were pitted against one another. Having those historical debates as a vantage point I'm able to see that at the end of the day all that each of these individuals ever wanted was to help their people. Up to this point I could never understand why they couldn't just work together and not have the discussion about the advancement of the race in the public sphere. But as I watched Reverend Wright speaking to every possible media outlet I realized that the desire to be right and to win can be very powerful even if detrimental.
Apparently Rev. Wright didn't get the memo that every other "leader" is adhering to; be easy so Barack can get at least some semblance of a fair shake. A good friend of mine once said "if a person doesn't have a reason for doing something then they definitely don't have a good reason." That's what I was struggling to understand from Reverend Wright; why now and who was he reasserting his position with? Most reasonable people, who watched the sermons in their entirety came away thinking that the "controversy" was media generated and that whether you agreed with his delivery or not, you couldn't really dispute the historical accuracy of most of his statements. Even as he delivered his speech to the NAACP there was a great deal of audience participation and support so why did Reverend Wright feel the need to preach to the choir in front of a national audience? I respect my elders but I really wished as I watched every speech including the interview with Bill Moyers that when asked about Barack that the Reverend Wright would simply respond:
"Given Barack's background and life experiences he has a different perspective on the possibilities for all people in America."
He referred to a media agenda in his interview with Bill Moyers, so did he really think that he could change the minds of those who were trying to caricature him? Was he trying to? I'm not of the mindset that the reverend was out to hurt Barack but at what point do you realize that the media that is demonizing you can't then fairly represent you? That's just counter intuitive.
Apparently Rev. Wright didn't get the memo that every other "leader" is adhering to; be easy so Barack can get at least some semblance of a fair shake. A good friend of mine once said "if a person doesn't have a reason for doing something then they definitely don't have a good reason." That's what I was struggling to understand from Reverend Wright; why now and who was he reasserting his position with? Most reasonable people, who watched the sermons in their entirety came away thinking that the "controversy" was media generated and that whether you agreed with his delivery or not, you couldn't really dispute the historical accuracy of most of his statements. Even as he delivered his speech to the NAACP there was a great deal of audience participation and support so why did Reverend Wright feel the need to preach to the choir in front of a national audience? I respect my elders but I really wished as I watched every speech including the interview with Bill Moyers that when asked about Barack that the Reverend Wright would simply respond:
"Given Barack's background and life experiences he has a different perspective on the possibilities for all people in America."
He referred to a media agenda in his interview with Bill Moyers, so did he really think that he could change the minds of those who were trying to caricature him? Was he trying to? I'm not of the mindset that the reverend was out to hurt Barack but at what point do you realize that the media that is demonizing you can't then fairly represent you? That's just counter intuitive.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
It's When They Wanted Randal to Share the Apprentice All Over Again
I used to be the biggest apprentice fan in the world. I even skipped going to work one day to stand outside NBC studios in the hopes of hearing Donald Trump say "you're hired." Then Randal won and just as I was about to do my victory step in the name of Kwame Jackson, the Donald asks Randal to share his win with Rebecca. When Randal replied appropriately "this is the Apprentice not the Apprenti," fake outrage like this ensued. I haven't watched the Apprentice since, even when they attempted to use the lure of the ever entertaining Omorosa to trick me into coming back, I still felt some kind of way about the Donald implying that Randal shouldn't be able to have his 15 minutes without some other chick getting 7 1/2 of them.
Fast forward to the 2008 Democratic primary and the stage is being set for more fake outrage. Pundits all over the idiot box are speculating about a so called "dream ticket" which to me is synonymous with this chick can't win but you should let her come and steal your thunder so as not to appear selfish despite the fact that had you been in her shoes everyone would be calling you a loser and telling you to fade into obscurity already. I sure hope Senator Obama doesn't acquiesce.
Fast forward to the 2008 Democratic primary and the stage is being set for more fake outrage. Pundits all over the idiot box are speculating about a so called "dream ticket" which to me is synonymous with this chick can't win but you should let her come and steal your thunder so as not to appear selfish despite the fact that had you been in her shoes everyone would be calling you a loser and telling you to fade into obscurity already. I sure hope Senator Obama doesn't acquiesce.
I told y'all she was crazy
So it appears that Hillary does share Lyndon B. Johnson's sentiments. Now apparently Barack is an elitist. I'm not going to take the path that somehow a black man in America can not be elitist. I've met plenty of black elitists who cling to legacy and an inherent sense of superiority with the best of them. However Hillary's constituency and possibly Hillary herself don't claim Barack is elitist due to an observation of some sort of inherent superiority complex, they are referring to Barack as an elitist for being an educated, well spoken, married, black man. Essentially they are suggesting that he is an elitist for the same reasons that they initially claimed that he isn't black enough-he does not fit their stereotype of what it means to be black.
Every bullet point on Senator Obama's resume challenges Hillary's perceived entitlement to the oval office due to the fact that we all did a little better financially while her husband was in office; I've got a whole nother blog in mind to analyze that. That the media is complicit in the perpetuation of Hillary's baseless claim demonstrates the institutionality of the racist belief that somehow education reduces or negates "blackness" and results in elitism. This elitist atack is parallel to other colloquialisms referring to black people who dare to take pride in themselves including but not limited to "chip on the shoulder," "arrogant," and Lyndon B. Johnson's term of choice "uppity negro."
What about Barack's observation that rural/working class,(code word for poor) white americans habitually vote against their own interests and are diverted by issues of no relevance to their everyday lives due to their bitterness about their personal circumstances was untrue or elitist? In fact I think that Barack was too lenient in his observation of this demographic. Bottom line poor white people have aligned themselves with rich white people against their own self interests due to racism, and the notion that somehow whiteness trumps all for centuries in this country. In fact it was Dr. Kings astute observation of this fact and his attempt to unite all economically and politically disadvantaged people white and black that resulted in his fall from grace among white elites including but not limited to Lyndon Johnson.
I wish that Barack could ask Hillary to clarify what aspect of his statement was elitist or historically inaccurate. Alas he can not as that would play into the other institutionalized cultural doctrine that a black man can not question or offend a white woman, however slight the offense, without bringing down the wrath of all of white america. Which leads me to ponder the cultural implications of white women lying to implicate black men...
Every bullet point on Senator Obama's resume challenges Hillary's perceived entitlement to the oval office due to the fact that we all did a little better financially while her husband was in office; I've got a whole nother blog in mind to analyze that. That the media is complicit in the perpetuation of Hillary's baseless claim demonstrates the institutionality of the racist belief that somehow education reduces or negates "blackness" and results in elitism. This elitist atack is parallel to other colloquialisms referring to black people who dare to take pride in themselves including but not limited to "chip on the shoulder," "arrogant," and Lyndon B. Johnson's term of choice "uppity negro."
What about Barack's observation that rural/working class,(code word for poor) white americans habitually vote against their own interests and are diverted by issues of no relevance to their everyday lives due to their bitterness about their personal circumstances was untrue or elitist? In fact I think that Barack was too lenient in his observation of this demographic. Bottom line poor white people have aligned themselves with rich white people against their own self interests due to racism, and the notion that somehow whiteness trumps all for centuries in this country. In fact it was Dr. Kings astute observation of this fact and his attempt to unite all economically and politically disadvantaged people white and black that resulted in his fall from grace among white elites including but not limited to Lyndon Johnson.
I wish that Barack could ask Hillary to clarify what aspect of his statement was elitist or historically inaccurate. Alas he can not as that would play into the other institutionalized cultural doctrine that a black man can not question or offend a white woman, however slight the offense, without bringing down the wrath of all of white america. Which leads me to ponder the cultural implications of white women lying to implicate black men...
Thursday, February 21, 2008
I Love Michelle Obama...
Ok so I'm watching the replay of Larry King live with Michelle Obama and I find myself clapping ridiculously in my cubicle. I love Barack too but I think a part of me loves him because he loves Michelle. Someone asked me why I'm voting for Barack and part of my response was because of the impact that having him as president would mean for my nephew as a young black man. The second part of my response, one that I didn't realize I felt so strongly about until I started saying it, was because he loves, is married to and supports a black woman. But he doesn't love just any woman he loves a brilliant, sophisticated and accomplished black woman. As I watched Michelle finesse her responses to Larry I thought I can't wait until she becomes first lady. She inspired me. She inspired me in an Oprah sort of way where immediately after hearing her speak, you want to make a positive change in the world. I love Michelle Obama because she is proud and honest. She says what Barack can't say, but in a way that's so smooth and calm that you can't tell if you've just been complimented or condemned.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Hillary's Lesson in Black History
Late last week, Hillary Clinton taught us a very interesting lesson in revisionist history. It turns out despite what’s being covered in curriculums across the country, and the greater public understanding, it wasn’t the real sacrifices of Martin Luther King Jr.— including his own life—that served as a major impetus for the passing of the Civil Rights act. It wasn’t the courage of the thousands of people who faced death, dogs, and lynching that fomented change in this country. It was apparently the power of Lyndon Johnson.
Ignoring the fact that recordings of Lyndon Johnson’s comments in the White House make Dog the Bounty hunters rant sound like the I Have a Dream speech, Johnson never supported the Civil Rights Act, nor would there have been such an act for him to pass had it not been for the Philip A Randolphs, James Farmers, Rosa Parkses and Martin Luther King Jrs of the world. However I take personal offense to the Senator’s comments for greater reasons than its inaccuracy. Obama’s campaigners got it right, Hillary Clinton was attacking Obama’s very desire to hope to be president or to hope for change.
Essentially what she said to black people was even the one hero that we allow you to have every year on the third Monday in January, in some states, was essentially powerless. What she said to every black child across the country is that this eloquent, educated, leader no matter how large his constituency had less value in the acquisition of advancement for the cause of his people than a racist who signed a piece of paper in the hopes that black people would become distracted enough to stop their financial and political assault on the United States. She believes this garbage at the core of her being. For her, it wasn’t possible for Martin Luther King to foment change then and it’s not possible for Senator Obama to foment change today. What does that mean for the hopes and dreams of African American children?
If Senator Obama who has successfully obtained degrees from two ivy league universities, been elected to state congress and now serves in the US congress can not dare to hope to be an harbinger of change in our society, what does that say for black peoples ability to hope to effect change in their lives and their communities? I wonder if she shares Lyndon’s sentiments:
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Ignoring the fact that recordings of Lyndon Johnson’s comments in the White House make Dog the Bounty hunters rant sound like the I Have a Dream speech, Johnson never supported the Civil Rights Act, nor would there have been such an act for him to pass had it not been for the Philip A Randolphs, James Farmers, Rosa Parkses and Martin Luther King Jrs of the world. However I take personal offense to the Senator’s comments for greater reasons than its inaccuracy. Obama’s campaigners got it right, Hillary Clinton was attacking Obama’s very desire to hope to be president or to hope for change.
Essentially what she said to black people was even the one hero that we allow you to have every year on the third Monday in January, in some states, was essentially powerless. What she said to every black child across the country is that this eloquent, educated, leader no matter how large his constituency had less value in the acquisition of advancement for the cause of his people than a racist who signed a piece of paper in the hopes that black people would become distracted enough to stop their financial and political assault on the United States. She believes this garbage at the core of her being. For her, it wasn’t possible for Martin Luther King to foment change then and it’s not possible for Senator Obama to foment change today. What does that mean for the hopes and dreams of African American children?
If Senator Obama who has successfully obtained degrees from two ivy league universities, been elected to state congress and now serves in the US congress can not dare to hope to be an harbinger of change in our society, what does that say for black peoples ability to hope to effect change in their lives and their communities? I wonder if she shares Lyndon’s sentiments:
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)