Black History Month is an opportunity for respectable negroes to wallow in the muddied waters that is the politics of Black authenticity.
To that end, we live a lie. We pretend to like certain types and examples of music, culture, books, historical figures, etc. in order to be deemed sufficiently Black. Because of our love/hate affair with this most auspicious of months in the negro pantheon of holidays, we are forced to live a lie. No longer.
Behold! we have created a safe space where you can let down your guard. Here, in this most private and anonymous of spaces you can surrender, you can unburden yourself, and lay forth those secret shames that threaten to compromise your Black authenticity.
James Brown is the patron saint of all Black people for he is the one figure whose greatness we can all agree upon. Ultimately, James Brown is a unifier--a greatest common denominator--that transcends the diversity that is the tribe of respectable negroes and it is to him that we give our secret shames.
Come my brothers and sisters, enter the Church of James Brown and share your pain as you preface your offerings with the following prayer as we mark the end of Black History Month in the year 2009:
"Oh most amazing James Brown, greatest of all negroes, I offer you my lies and secret shames. All these years I have yearned to share those things which I have pretended to like and adore in the name of being authentically Black.I cast my words into the wind so that you can take our secrets and make these shames unintelligible as you sing them for all time in your unique and spirited language."
As an example for all of you, I will be the first to share three of my secret shames:
I, Chauncey DeVega, do not like black eyed peas.
I, Chauncey DeVega, do not like the television miniseries Roots.
I, Chauncey DeVega, do not like the Black Church. Come my friends and unburden yourself!
**** It is day three of the James Brown Church and it is moving the negro Earth beneath our feet! Do you feel the excitement! Can I have an amen!****
We have some great prizes to give away courtesy of our friends at the Hachette Book Group.
How will we decide who get's our swag?
As a way to make this difficult choice, we will be holding a contest called "the James Brown Church" where you can confess the secrets and lies that you hold closest to your heart in order to maintain your Black authenticity.
And as an incentive for your sharing those deepest burdens and lies necessitated by the politics of Black authenticity, the best 2 confessionals will receive the following 8 books--
The American Journey of Barack Obama By The Editors of Life Magazine
There are two main problems with popular approaches to history in general: history is frequently reduced to mere fact-listing, and “history” often amounts to uncritical hero worship.
The same is true of popular Black history narratives. Too many times are we forced to sit through lectures like this one: “Winston A. Freeman, a BLACK MAN, invented the screw that holds together toenail clippers!” And forget the Barbershop controversy, my colleague Chauncey is quite familiar with black folks who think it’s disrespectful to tell the truth: that Parks’ protest was planned.
Unless we cultivate nuance and complexity in our traditional historical narratives, Black history will be little more than trivia to build black kids’ self-esteem and “educate” others about our contributions. By nuance and complexity, I don’t mean just acknowledging that our heroes are subject to the same human failings as the rest of us (though we need that too); I mean re-examining the core of why we celebrate the subjects of traditional Black history.
Consider the Buffalo Soldiers. While they are celebrated as paragons of courage and patriotism in the face of American racism, it’s incredible how rarely their defenders question their missions: displacing Native Americans during the so-called Indian Wars, beating back Mexican insurrections, aiding imperialist efforts in Cuba and the Philippines.
Essentially, The Buffalo Soldiers were used to do the dirty work of (arguably racist) American imperialism. As such, it doesn’t make much sense to praise them unconditionally. We arrive at a fuller, more complex and interesting history if we acknowledge the dubious nature of their missions. Imagine if the dominant narrative of the Buffalo soldiers changed from “hey black men served with distinction in the military!” to “black people, hopeful that their service would lead to improved conditions in society, were used to aid the subjugation of other oppressed people. Tragically, black folks never reaped any social benefits from aiding American imperialism.”
By the way, I just don’t buy the argument that they deserve to be honored strictly based on their military service independent of whom they fought. Praising military service independent of the cause is questionable to say the least. I don’t think we want to go there.
Consider Madame CJ Walker. Her story is inspiring—self-made, independent black woman makes fortune through her business savvy in creating and marketing her line of black beauty products. That’s good stuff.
Now think about the vigor with which her defenders deny that Walker invented the hot comb (they’re right, actually) and sold skin-bleaching creams (they’re wrong on this one). This is clearly the desire to praise a black female entrepreneur clashing with later “Black is Beautiful” norms. But what’s wrong with placing Walker’s beauty products in context, noting that they were based on facilitating European notions of attractiveness? Doing so doesn’t diminish her accomplishments; it merely situates her among the racial norms of the time.
In short, we promote a more mature and more relevant Black history if we draw out tensions instead of ignoring them or attacking those who highlight them.
We respectable negroes believe in equality among all peoples. Thus, no person, be they male or female, straight or gay, rich or poor, religious or agnostic will escape our long and mighty grasp.
This is especially true in matters of discommendation. As you know, we have successfully voted 2 lapdog Tom Negroes out of the tribe (Cowboy Troy and James T. Harris). Today, in this most auspicious Black History Month, I move that we vote our first woman out of the tribe. Her name: Tara Wall, Deputy Director of the Washington Times and former Senior Adviser to the Republican National Committee. Her offense: playing the colored race apologist aka "slave catcher" in her CNN editorial critiquing Attorney General Holder's speech in which he called Americans "cowards" on matters of race and justice.
I am all for ideological diversity, but this is simply outside of the bounds of common sense, propriety, and race pride.
Tara Wall's seditious editorial, "Americans are not Cowards on Race" is presented as evidence. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- First, we're a nation of whiners; now, we're a nation of cowards.
The coward comment comes from none other than President Obama's newly minted attorney general, Eric Holder.
The remarks were part of a speech Holder delivered for Black History Month. Yet, even in that context, the words came across as arrogant, condescending and not at all becoming a statesman.
One dictionary definition of coward is "lacking courage." Stinging words for a country at war, where white and black soldiers are shedding the same color blood. Are they cowards?
Ironic too that Holder's remarks come at a time when the nation has just elected its first black president and witnessed the confirmation of its first black attorney general (Holder himself). Forget that more whites than blacks cast their ballots for a black man to lead the nation. So this is how Holder says thanks?
Did the attorney general not think about the weight his words would carry? Was he simply trying to be provocative? Is this his way of bringing the races together? Does his position or his color give him the bravado to think that he can get away with calling us cowards?
Imagine for a moment if John McCain or George W. Bush uttered those words. The criticism would have known no bounds.
You'll recall, it was just a few months back that a media frenzy erupted when former Sen. Phil Gramm called national leaders (not the nation) a bunch of "whiners." Media pundits and broadcasters blasted Gramm for weeks, until he was forced off McCain's campaign.
Gramm's words, while true, were mild in comparison to Holder's. Where is that same outrage and moral condemnation over Holder's loose lips? It's a rhetorical question, of course.
And as much as we are constantly reminded of the past "mistakes" this country has made, is there nothing worth celebrating, no times when racial harmony brought racial reconciliation? Little of that made it to Holder's speech. Instead, he chose the celebratory occasion to exact punishment by way of guilt.
It makes one wonder, why does every race speech by those on the left have to begin (and end) with repudiation and insult? Why must there be a constant reminder of what went wrong without giving due recognition to what went right?
I will acknowledge that the country can always do better when it comes to race, but as much as Republicans are accused of refusing to admit racism exists, assuredly Democrats exploit it for every inch of territory they can garner. They point fingers, threaten and name-call without offering real solutions or substantive conversation.
One regular reader of The Washington Times, a Democrat, forwarded me a letter he sent to Holder, telling the attorney general how much he "applauds" his remarks but saying he had one request: "I would like to recommend that your office take the lead in ensuring the appointment of at least one African-American on every committee and task force that is created by the President of the United States and current cabinet Secretary's."
How's that for affirmative action on demand? More like affirmative extortion. The writer also stated in closing: "Let us (by "us," he means black folks) take advantage of every opportunity that is before us." I was particularly struck by the words "take advantage." It is a line of thinking and supposed reasoning to justify black Americans getting what's "due."
This was just one person's opinion, but it reflects a sentiment shared by many liberals. It also reveals a get-it-all-while-you-can mentality that has nothing to do with parity, equality or justice but rather with guilt trips, paybacks and quotas. This is not how the "case for race" should be made.
To be fair, there are some points Holder made with which I do agree (at least in part). "We, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race," Holder stated. It is a challenge for each of us, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, to go outside our comfort zone and reach out to someone "different" from ourselves (though I've done it my whole life).
It is an observation that, while true, shouldn't just apply to white people. It applies to black folks, too. Yet that's where the discussion of race loses traction among liberals. Holder doesn't really want to "talk" about race, because that would entail not only encouraging blacks to reach out, but it would mean addressing black racism -- which we've seen in the likes of one Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- in addition to white racism (and all racism).
Yes, we are sometimes too "socially segregated," as Holder put it, but cowards we are not. And mere rhetoric and rancor does nothing to elevate the discussion.
In contrast to Holder's bombastic speech, President Bush's Black History Month speech last year was refreshingly retrospective without being pretentious. While condemning present-day acts of racism (i.e. hanging nooses), Bush also offered a way forward.
"We renew our commitment to securing liberty and justice for every American," Bush said, focusing on the present instead of the past: "We honor four Americans who ... are leading the way toward ending racial injustice across our land."
Rhetoric aside, what was lacking from Holder's remarks was a way forward. Instead of "hope," Holder offered more hate veiled in subtle anger.
Last year, Obama gave a famous speech on race, addressing the controversy about the remarks of his former pastor, Wright, and urging people not to wallow in resentment:
Obama said, "The profound mistake of Rev. Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static, as if no progress had been made, as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."
Obama's speech sums it all up. Holder's is a contradiction.
@@@@
Do you respectable negroes have the courage to show this handkerchief head the exit? Or do you cower and quake with fear at the call of battle?
Per our procedures, I propose that Tara Wall should suffer discommendation from the tribe of respectable negroes for the following offenses:
___ Driving Miss Daisy
X Bagger Vancing
X Clarence Thomas Lap Dogging
___ O.J.'ing
___ Blatant Victimology a.k.a. the Jesse Jackson Offense
X Black Lap Dogging before a Conservative Audience
X Consistent and Chronic Lack of Race Pride
___Cooning and Lawn Jockeying a.k.a the Crime of Committing the Flava Flav
As a senior member of the We Are Respectable Negroes leadership council, I need the agreement of one other founding member, and the votes of 5 other members of the respectable negro tribe (or alternatively, 4 lifetime members and one white honorable ally) to complete the expulsion of Tara Wall. If I have indicated the incorrect offense, or if Tara Wall should suffer discommendation because she has instead violated some other unstated and auxiliary regulation not listed above, please indicate this discrepancy according to our established rules and procedures.
As per our procedures we will notify Tara Wall of her expulsion. In addition, all respectable negro friends and allies should query Tara Wall at CNN's website regarding her lack of race pride and cowardly behavior.
I have a deep interest in the man-ape dynamic. As longtime readers know, I still hold that I can defeat one of those wild beasts by wielding my belt. I also believe that the man-ape relationship could in fact hold the solution for many of the social problems that continue to plague our society (a monkey Rosetta Stone of sorts). I also have an exhaustive mental Rolodex of man-ape factoids at my disposal. Yes, Gordon will tell me that apes, monkeys, and gorillas are not the same...he simply doesn't understand the wisdom of the simian tripartite. My ape reflections are so nuanced that I am of 3 minds on the controversy surrounding the New York Post and its much discussed Ape Stimulus Bill cartoon. Thus, I bring you part 1 of my thoughts on what I have come to call "Monkey-Gate."
Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the New York Post and Fox News has finally seen the light of day and apologized for the recent cartoon that attempted to satirize Barack Obama's stimulus bill. Ultimately, Murdock wanted controversy and he certainly received it--in spades (you have to love that Oscar Wilde like wordplay).
As I noted in regards to the controversy surrounding the New Yorker magazine and its failed effort at lampooning the Islamophobes and those Right-wing paranoids who were convinced that Michelle Obama was Angela Davis redux and Barack was an Al Qaeda fifth columnist, the best satire both provokes while also speaking to some deeper truth. One that is not readily apparent. Likewise, as I suggested in the New Yorker case, the New York Post cartoon fails the latter test because it is so utterly obvious.
One cannot forget that the New York Post is a tabloid. And by extension, the raisond'etre of the New York Post is to be tacky, heavy handed, and clod-footed. Thus, it is incapable of subtlety by virtue of its very nature and design.
With those qualifiers noted, yes the cartoon is racist. Yes, Murdoch's publication was intentionally linking Barack Obama to a monkey. Yes, this is quite different from those editorial cartoons that parodied George Bush as being chimpanzee like in his countenance. Yes, as researchers at UCLA have demonstrated, the relationship evoked by the New York Post cartoon speaks to a far deeper and more dangerous racial dynamic in this country. And yes, I still believe that folks need thicker skins and that they should reorient their energies towards addressing real matters of public concern.
Consider: the world is on the cusp of a second Great Depression. We have inner city communities that are virtual Hobbesianstates of nature. We have failing schools. We have communities that are struggling for their very existence. We have a contracting--if not disappearing middle class. In short, we have real problems, real concerns, and real worries as this generation of Americans, and their children, will likely see a radically diminished quality of life. These are concerns that cut across the colorline. Moreover, and as United States history has repeatedly demonstrated, while white supremacy and racism were a consistent narrative, economic adversity exacerbates, rather than minimizes, racial animus. Alternatively stated, when is the kumbaya, basking in the glow of inter-racial, post-Obama bliss going to turn into a let's throw the bums out--starting with those black bums in the White House and anyone who looks like them--clarion call for a political housecleaning?
And I must ask the provocative question, will this be a general purge or a racially hued Pogrom?
I am writing this before Mickey Rourke accepts (what I hope will be) his Oscar for best actor.
The Wrestler and Dark Knight were my two favorite movies of the year--I have not seen Wall-E but expect it to be my 3rd favorite once my list is complete.
For you Wrestler marks, here is a great roundtable discussion on the film and the accuracy of how it depicted the world and characters that are/is professional wrestling:
As a service, I am posting Holder's speech in its entirety. Respectable negroes and others, just what is all the fuss about?
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice African American History Month Program
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Every year, in February, we attempt to recognize and to appreciate black history. It is a worthwhile endeavor for the contributions of African Americans to this great nation are numerous and significant. Even as we fight a war against terrorism, deal with the reality of electing an African American as our President for the first time and deal with the other significant issues of the day, the need to confront our racial past, and our racial present, and to understand the history of African people in this country, endures. One cannot truly understand America without understanding the historical experience of black people in this nation. Simply put, to get to the heart of this country one must examine its racial soul.
Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation’s history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more- and we in this room bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must - and will - lead the nation to the "new birth of freedom" so long ago promised by our greatest President. This is our duty and our solemn obligation.
We commemorated five years ago, the 50th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. And though the world in which we now live is fundamentally different than that which existed then, this nation has still not come to grips with its racial past nor has it been willing to contemplate, in a truly meaningful way, the diverse future it is fated to have. To our detriment, this is typical of the way in which this nation deals with issues of race. And so I would suggest that we use February of every year to not only commemorate black history but also to foster a period of dialogue among the races. This is admittedly an artificial device to generate discussion that should come more naturally, but our history is such that we must find ways to force ourselves to confront that which we have become expert at avoiding.
As a nation we have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace. We work with one another, lunch together and, when the event is at the workplace during work hours or shortly thereafter, we socialize with one another fairly well, irrespective of race. And yet even this interaction operates within certain limitations. We know, by "American instinct" and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character. And outside the workplace the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between us. On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some fifty years ago. This is truly sad. Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.
As a nation we should use Black History month as a means to deal with this continuing problem. By creating what will admittedly be, at first, artificial opportunities to engage one another we can hasten the day when the dream of individual, character based, acceptance can actually be realized. To respect one another we must have a basic understanding of one another. And so we should use events such as this to not only learn more about the facts of black history but also to learn more about each other. This will be, at first, a process that is both awkward and painful but the rewards are potentially great. The alternative is to allow to continue the polite, restrained mixing that now passes as meaningful interaction but that accomplishes little. Imagine if you will situations where people- regardless of their skin color- could confront racial issues freely and without fear. The potential of this country, that is becoming increasingly diverse, would be greatly enhanced. I fear however, that we are taking steps that, rather than advancing us as a nation are actually dividing us even further. We still speak too much of "them" and not "us". There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest. Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced. We are then free to retreat to our race protected cocoons where much is comfortable and where progress is not really made. If we allow this attitude to persist in the face of the most significant demographic changes that this nation has ever confronted- and remember, there will be no majority race in America in about fifty years- the coming diversity that could be such a powerful, positive force will, instead, become a reason for stagnation and polarization. We cannot allow this to happen and one way to prevent such an unwelcome outcome is to engage one another more routinely- and to do so now.
As I indicated before, the artificial device that is Black History month is a perfect vehicle for the beginnings of such a dialogue. And so I urge all of you to use the opportunity of this month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters. In this way we can hasten the day when we truly become one America.
It is also clear that if we are to better understand one another the study of black history is essential because the history of black America and the history of this nation are inextricably tied to each other. It is for this reason that the study of black history is important to everyone- black or white. For example, the history of the United States in the nineteenth century revolves around a resolution of the question of how America was going to deal with its black inhabitants. The great debates of that era and the war that was ultimately fought are all centered around the issue of, initially, slavery and then the reconstruction of the vanquished region. A dominant domestic issue throughout the twentieth century was, again, America's treatment of its black citizens. The civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's changed America in truly fundamental ways. Americans of all colors were forced to examine basic beliefs and long held views. Even so, most people, who are not conversant with history, still do not really comprehend the way in which that movement transformed America. In racial terms the country that existed before the civil rights struggle is almost unrecognizable to us today. Separate public facilities, separate entrances, poll taxes, legal discrimination, forced labor, in essence an American apartheid, all were part of an America that the movement destroyed. To attend her state’s taxpayer supported college in 1963 my late sister in law had to be escorted to class by United States Marshals and past the state’s governor, George Wallace. That frightening reality seems almost unthinkable to us now. The civil rights movement made America, if not perfect, better.
In addition, the other major social movements of the latter half of the twentieth century- feminism, the nation's treatment of other minority groups, even the anti-war effort- were all tied in some way to the spirit that was set free by the quest for African American equality. Those other movements may have occurred in the absence of the civil rights struggle but the fight for black equality came first and helped to shape the way in which other groups of people came to think of themselves and to raise their desire for equal treatment. Further, many of the tactics that were used by these other groups were developed in the civil rights movement.
And today the link between the black experience and this country is still evident. While the problems that continue to afflict the black community may be more severe, they are an indication of where the rest of the nation may be if corrective measures are not taken. Our inner cities are still too conversant with crime but the level of fear generated by that crime, now found in once quiet, and now electronically padlocked suburbs is alarming and further demonstrates that our past, present and future are linked. It is not safe for this nation to assume that the unaddressed social problems in the poorest parts of our country can be isolated and will not ultimately affect the larger society.
Black history is extremely important because it is American history. Given this, it is in some ways sad that there is a need for a black history month. Though we are all enlarged by our study and knowledge of the roles played by blacks in American history, and though there is a crying need for all of us to know and acknowledge the contributions of black America, a black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular. As a former American history major I am struck by the fact that such a major part of our national story has been divorced from the whole. In law, culture, science, athletics, industry and other fields, knowledge of the roles played by blacks is critical to an understanding of the American experiment. For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, become commonplace. Until that time, Black History Month must remain an important, vital concept. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in our schools and becomes a regular part of all our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as so called "real" American history.
I, like many in my generation, have been fortunate in my life and have had a great number of wonderful opportunities. Some may consider me to be a part of black history. But we do a great disservice to the concept of black history recognition if we fail to understand that any success that I have had, cannot be viewed in isolation. I stood, and stand, on the shoulders of many other black Americans. Admittedly, the identities of some of these people, through the passage of time, have become lost to us- the men, and women, who labored long in fields, who were later legally and systemically discriminated against, who were lynched by the hundreds in the century just past and those others who have been too long denied the fruits of our great American culture. The names of too many of these people, these heroes and heroines, are lost to us. But the names of others of these people should strike a resonant chord in the historical ear of all in our nation: Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Walter White, Langston Hughes, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Joe Louis, Jackie Robinson, Charles Drew, Paul Robeson, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Vivian Malone, Rosa Parks, Marion Anderson, Emmit Till. These are just some of the people who should be generally recognized and are just some of the people to whom all of us, black and white, owe such a debt of gratitude. It is on their broad shoulders that I stand as I hope that others will some day stand on my more narrow ones.
Black history is a subject worthy of study by all our nation's people. Blacks have played a unique, productive role in the development of America. Perhaps the greatest strength of the United States is the diversity of its people and to truly understand this country one must have knowledge of its constituent parts. But an unstudied, not discussed and ultimately misunderstood diversity can become a divisive force. An appreciation of the unique black past, acquired through the study of black history, will help lead to understanding and true compassion in the present, where it is still so sorely needed, and to a future where all of our people are truly valued.
For now, I always marvel at the response, quite predictable as it may be, in the comments section of Fox News and other conservative "news" outlets, towards any efforts at having an adult conversation about race or the persistence of racial ideologies in this country.
You have to love conservative mouth breathers as they are a source of never-ending joy and entertainment value. Moreover, it always strikes me how those who have immersed themselves in the cacophonous musings of the Right-wing echo chamber really do in fact live in an alternate reality.
What a surprise, some one in husseins cabinet is talking negatively about the country and our people...this goverment has become a complete joke and is completely out of touch with americans
It's funny how black people always call the race card. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. We have "black history month", "asian heritage", "gay pride", etc. where's the white pride. Oh I forgot, that's racist. Anyone who thinks that whites are bad and always have to use to race card towards the whites are cowards. I am white and I am proud. Am I racist for that? Well if so, let me ask you a question. Are the other ethnicities racist for thinking the same way? This cowardly way of thinking by Mr. Holder sends a message to all races to be ethnically irresponsible towards the white race. What really pi$$es me off is that other whites think this way. Stand up and be proud of who you are. And yes I will use the same quote all other people do while expressing their undying beliefs, "It's my constitutional right to be allowed to say what I want". I'm standing up for my race and what I believe in....if I don't then noone else will. I am a proud WHITE man.
Oh the irony- Holder calls the US a nation of cowards on the heels of the election to where an African American was elected as president of his "nation of cowards" and then takes it further when he suggest we use "Black History Month" to inspire the discussion. The hypocrisy of it all!
Remember the obese black minister that spoke at the first black presidents inauguration? Remember that he said "White will do right". The overwhelming majority of blacks in this country are the racists and they don't want racism to end. It's how all of you start and end your day. Racism is your issue and you have the solution. Grew a few, step up and show you're willing to be a part of this country. When things get tough don't cry racism everywhere you go.
By the comments it appears AG Holder is right. I've never seen some many victims in all my life. I have many friends from every ethnic background. It's amazing how much you can accomplish by walking up to people and extending a open hand. That approach has worked well in every community I've lived in and I have lived in several states and countries all over the world. Time to end the excuses. Who's racist? If we must proclaim "Black History Month" are not those that do so the racist people? If you want to eliminate racism, eliminate all references to race, but that will include all references. Be careful what you ask for. You might get it. I believe America's black people have been experiencing a greater degree of favoritism in hiring, retaining, recruiting, etc. in the past decade. How about we treat all people the same, and base it on merit, not race.
Barack Obama and Caligula do in fact resemble one another, no? And if Obama does in fact share some of Caligula's predilections then the White House will certainly be a much more interesting and fun filled place than it has been these last few years.
Interesting, mighty interesting...
Maybe Henry Louis Gates will do a PBS special and trace Obama's family tree back to the great emperors of old?
Random thought: I love how so many of us black folk want to claim a little Native American blood and then find out we ain't got none.
Daniel Carver of Howard Stern fame is one of my favorite people. His political analysis of Obama's campaign, and his nuanced understanding of America's racial politics is the stuff of legend. In fact, I would suggest that Daniel Carver is such a powerful and insightful voice, that he would be a wonderful addition to Meet the Press or National Public Radio.
To that point, Carver has outdone himself again with the following interview where he discussed Barack Obama's victory and historic inauguration...an event which Carver has rechristened "iniggeration."
It is Black History Month. More accurately, it has been Black History Month for some two weeks now and we respectable negroes have been otherwise involved...you all know how we can be a little late with things.
Don't fret, we have some fun activities planned for this most auspicious of months. And yes, the above video clips hint in not so subtle fashion at our love hate relationship with Black History Month.
In the upcoming weeks we are going to be holding some contests--contests where we give you folks some pretty good prizes (if I do say so myself) that have been graciously provided by some of our friends in the book publishing industry.
So please stay tuned, we will be back at the same respectable negro time and the same respectable negro station!
I have to admit the fact that my spirits are a little low today. I called upon the tribe for some of that Shaka Zulu energy and I still failed despite your assistance. This failing was mine and mine alone, and I was brought closer to my goal because of your help and not despite it. I am indebted to you because of the assistance you have rendered to me.
But, you know what? The creator is a bit of a trickster with a master plan and I know there is something good in store for a brother in the near future. Things may be hard today, but I hope things will be easier tomorrow.
When I am disappointed, I consult my mental Rolodex for life lessons and inspiration.
Frankly, I sold ice to an Eskimo last week and it still wasn't good enough. I know that I am my own worst critic. Yet, I also know that I brought it the way that Ric Flair did during his glory years and I still came up short:
Why? As my dad would say, "there was someone better." Sometimes you just have to own that fact.
Alternatively stated, you can play a perfect game and still lose. I think that is how I will frame last week's happenings. It has to be said--damn the academic job market this year! Okay, I feel a little better now.
By example, for my wrestling fans and others, a life lesson from Wrestlemania 23: Sean Michaels wrestled a perfect match against John Cena. The Heartbreak Kid still lost the bout. It happens. The lesson Sean was sharing in that match was how one should graciously accept such a loss. We can all benefit from his example:
I feel a certain tingling in my nether regions. It must a geekgasm!
Enjoy.
Awesome. But, they couldn't find room for the obligatory black actor a la the Dirty Dozen or the Guns of Navarone?
How many characters from Marvel canon do we see in the trailer?
The "fallen" transformer looks cool, but I am much more amped to see Devastator in action, you?
@@@@
A Ghetto Nerd Bonus: Quentin Tarantino knows his movies, here is a clip from the "original" Inglorious Bastards, the Italian exploitation flick known as Quel maledetto treno blindato:
Even though it didn’t go as smoothly as I would have liked and turnout wasn’t what I expected, I got a lot out of this dialogue, and I know that others did too.
Hopefully, we will be hosting a C&G installment once every few months, so be on the lookout for more intrepid tales of Black-Jewish adventures.
I want to thank all the participants and everyone else who talked to me about this project. I know firsthand how difficult it is to write on this subject.
I’ll leave you with this classic Eddie Murphy SNL skit, which is how I first learned about Black-Jewish tensions and which still holds up 25 years later:
A few months ago, T.R.O.Y.’s RHS penned an extraordinary piece on the Juggaknots song “Generally,” a song he describes as “a dissection of the racial subtext of The Dukes Of Hazzard television show.” As thorough as his analysis is, RHS doesn’t mention what I think is the song’s defining line:
“sure was a brainwashed kid but never had a fad with rockin’ a swastika.”
It comes as rapper Breeze reflects on the fact that, through The Dukes of Hazzard, the Confederate flag became a symbol stripped of its history and mass marketed to an eager public—a feat Breeze deems unimaginable for the ultimate symbol of modern anti-Semitism. Initially, I read the aforementioned line as a simple condemnation of mainstream America’s callousness toward blacks: “white people don’t respect us because they don’t value black lives.” I now see Breeze’s line as a critique of black offense politics, especially as measured against Jewish offense politics. To me, the topic underlying this line—black self-conceptions vis-à-vis the perception of Jews—is even more interesting than personal interactions between Blacks and Jews, positive or negative.
Old school African American race men and women often say that black folks should model their behaviors after those of a host of ethnic groups: Koreans, Arabs, Mexicans, Jamaicans—basically, any group but our own (for a variety of reasons, previous generations of black people are like a foreign ethnic group to modern black folks).
Black people regularly praise other ethnic groups’ success, work ethic, commitment to education, cohesiveness, and self-sufficiency. What all of this says about our estimation of ourselves is a topic for another day (no, really. Chauncey will be tackling this subject soon).
In any case, black folks’ “model minority” envy extends to Jews as well, of course, but Jews represent something else in the black imagination, namely, the idealized vision of what right wingers call “grievance politics” and “PC identity politics.” At the heart of this idealization is the practice of defending the collective public image from a constant stream of attacks. While “Generally” never explicitly mentions Jewish activism, Breeze could very well have added to his lyrics the following appeal to his black brethren:
“White folks continue to disrespect us and ignore our indignant cries of offense because we don’t stand up for ourselves. We need to be more like the Jews. Jews would never allow mainstream America to get away with such levels of disrespect.”
Jewish elites stick to the public script (on the Holocaust, Israel, anti-Semitism), and they devote waves of resources to shaming and punishing those who depart from it. Jewish people who critique this process have their authenticity questioned and are labeled “self-hating Jews.” We should be that disciplined. We must stigmatize offenses against black dignity and history to the extent that Jews have stigmatized offenses against Jewish people…or so the story is told by black race men and women.
Black folks are certainly aware that we have our own rigid public speech norms (on the middle passage, American bondage, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Movement) and our own authenticity- questioning slur (Uncle Tom). We just think that our forms of speech policing are nowhere near as effective or serious as Jewish people’s. Ask a politically-inclined black person to name the third rail of public discourse. Anti-Semitism will likely be the response. Incidentally, if you were to ask the same question to a politically-inclined Jewish person, the answer you’d get would probably be anti-black racism.
Triangulation is central to the internal and external politics of blacks and Jews. This triangulation—this psychic bond of mutual (mis)perception, this constant measuring against the other, this notion that the sympathy grass is greener on the other side—forms the core of our “special relationship” and is a big reason why calls for more Black-Jewish dialogues won’t subside any time soon.
Been traveling and am now back...and quite ready for some Black History Month high jinks. And please respectable negro tribe members, use your collective Shaka Zulu, witch doctor inspired powers to send me some good fortune in the next few days (What is the point of having a blog if you can't beg for positive energy from your online peoples?):
I have 2 episodes of BSG to catch up on and will certainly have some commentary to offer.
Heads up to Ta-Nehisi Coates for posting this following bit of journalistic musing on Battlestar Galactica on his great blog at the Atlantic magazine's website.
Plus, they call a brother out in this piece--more shameless self-promotion--I will likely see if I can get a proper rebuttal submitted for publication in the Atlantic's most esteemed pages. Courtesy of the Atlantic:
@@@@
Is Battlestar Galactica a great television epic—or proof that there is no such thing?
by James Parker
In the expert view of L.Ron Hubbard, there was nothing futuristic about the genre called (flippantly, by some) “space opera.” The alien host, the spongy nebulae, the zip and twang of the photon torpedo, the bluster of the starship captain at his bridge—these, according to Hubbard, were not the idle tropes of pulp-fictioneers and drugged-up sci-fi hacks but the stuff of deepest prehistory, somber emanations from the memory of the species. It had already happened, in other words—it, or something rather like it. Humanity trickled down from beyond the stars. Billion-year colonial wars were fought and fought again. And that cold buzz of awe that we get from galactic-scale science fiction? Just the rumbling of our “implants” as they salute their origins in deep space.
Hubbard, of course, founded an extraordinarily profitable religion, incorporating the virgin science of Dianetics as well as a sprawling mythos of interplanetary invasions and implantations—Scientology! The makers of Battlestar Galactica have not demonstrated a similar ambition—no temples for them, as yet. They can lay claim, however, to a decent-sized viewing cult. The original show ran on ABC for one season in the late 1970s, with Lorne “Bonanza Greene in Aquarian robes as the Galactica’s Commander Adama. After its cancellation, various attempts at revival were made, but nothing significant panned out until the project passed into the hands of writer-producers David Eick and Ronald D. Moore in the early 2000s, at which point the great “reimagining” of Battlestar Galactica began.
Ratings for the new show, now beginning its concluding run on the Sci-Fi Channel, have wavered, but fandom and critical interest have been maintained at a heady pitch. Hailed as “the best show on TV,” “one of TV’s boldest and best dramas,” and “a fleet of red herrings flapping majestically through space” (that last one is mine), Battlestar Galactica boasts a fierce corps of geeks and a professorial secondary literature to rival that of ABC’s Lost. (I had to look up, for example, the word diegesis—n. A narrative or history—while reading Cylons in America: Critical Studies in Battlestar Galactica.)
Hubbard might have smiled upon this show’s basic premise. We—mankind, that is—come not from Earth, which is out there somewhere, but from the planet Kobol, whence we set forth long ago in our ships to found the Twelve Colonies: Caprica, Leonis, Gemenon, and the rest. All went well until the Cylons, a race of man-made androids turned hostile, descended from their glassy star-bower to wipe us out. They took us by surprise, the bastards. Copious nuking, enormous loss of life—but one military vessel, or battlestar (the Galactica), survived, along with a few charred and limping people-carriers and their inhabitants. This rump of humanity, 50,000 or so, would hereafter be hounded across the universe by the implacable Cylon horde. The survivors’ goal: to find Earth, the fabled 13th colony, and begin civilization anew...
As always, We Respectable Negroes are a democratic group. When we see something good we ask, "how can we be included?" When someone offers a corrective or insight, we say, "sure, here is some time to shine." Thus, enter our guest blogger Heavy Armor of the site Evil Giant Robots!, and his suggestion that THE (notice the irony and self-deprecation) Chauncey DeVega may have been a bit off in his assertion that Michael Steele of GOP fame is the DC character "Steel." As Heavy Armor suggests, the current Tom Negro of the GOP could perhaps be closer to the character, Bizzaro Superman.
Guess what? Me thinks Heavy Armor may in fact be right!
As always, we love to host folks with interesting ideas on our site, so if you have a piece to contribute, or something noteworthy to share, by all means send it along.
****
In response to a blog post here which compared new GOP Chairman Michael Steele with John Henry Irons (after making the assertion that President Barack Obama is Superman), I opined that perhaps Michael Steele's selection as GOP chairman fits not so much with John Henry Irons, but rather as Bizarro Superman.
Like most comic book characters, Bizzaro has many incarnations and histories spanning decades. In the interests of making a concise comparison, however, I've decided to use the version from the last Superman Animated Series to demonstrate the creation of Bizzaro and how it related to Michael Steele's selection as GOP chairman.
The GOP, desperate to find their own "Superman" (especially seeing as how their 'Republican Wonder Woman' project failed miserably) , decides to "emulate" the flavor of the moment once again. And, on the surface, the GOP's Superman will have many of the same powers and abilities. However, this Superman is answerable only to Lex Luthor (admittedly, this version is not as smart).
Michael Steele's main ability, it would seem, would be the ability to leverage the press to attack Obama, the Democrats, and their policies while making the claim that the attacks are not racist in nature. However, the attacks will still be framed around the usual ideological talking points of the GOP, even when the talking points are outrageous, inaccurate, or outright distortions. However, this will be one of the primary methods by which Republicans will attack the Obama Administration in the years to come.
Unfortunately, there is a fatal flaw in the logic, as demonstrated in Superman TAS.
The problem with cloning a popular personality is that the results are always unpredictable - and that the results don't follow a predictable pattern. Michael Steele may be an actual bid to take the GOP closer to the "center" and make it more representative of Americans in general, but first, he'll have to overcome the image of the GOP, which is composed of people like Joe (plumber, war correspondent, GOP advisor?), Sarah (who, not too long ago, accused a sitting United States Senator of aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. This crime was never reported by Governor Palin to the authorities, but instead exploited for political gain), David (noted White Supremacist and current/former Klansman), and that's just on the surface. It's not even including those like Grover Nordquist (he of "Starve the Government so that he could drown it in a bathtub" fame), or Senate Republicans (who scream "Tax Cuts" at the top of their lungs, happily vote for bailouts for rich investment bankers, but yell foul when the money is being directed at average Americans when the word "Union" is somehow involved).
So, is Michael Steele the real deal, or more of the same from a Party whose face hasn't changed in more than 40 years? Only time will tell.
Maybe I'm horribly naive, but I've never seen Black/Jewish relations as optional, largely symbolic, or defined solely by Crown Heights. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about "Jews were the Blacks of Eastern Europe," or "Blacks identify with the ancient Israelites, so THERE!" About the most shared identity I'll cop to is the following, written in response to Chauncey's opening salvo: "Blacks and Jews have stayed Black and Jewish in ways that the Irish and Italians haven't, and the story of Asian isn't (however unfairly) front and center in the story of this country."
Then again, the African-American experience and Jewish-American experience are so radically different, I don't even know if that similarity is anything more than a curiosity. As far as cultural narratives go, they're almost polar opposites: Jews came to America as a solution to their problems and now run the country (on the low); Blacks didn't get a say in their relocation, and have had every institution in the land conspiring against them ever since. One of their own is now the very conspicuous leader of the free world, and yet this one exceptional man is, well, the exception that proves the rule of day-to-day inequality. Not to mention that, as long as they're never asked to state their last name or reveal their privates, most every Jew can move through life like he was any other white person.
If Jews and Blacks aren't the same, then why talk? Because in addition to the indifference and acrimony, there's an affinity, a sense of having worked together well at times that have helped each define its contribution to American culture. History's no accident if it yields something worthwhile.
Most people—well, most Boomer Jews—who hold this view would point to Civil Rights, specifically the hopeful, integrated, idealistic movement that took to the South in the mid-1960's. When I tried my hand at writing pro-Obama letters to Jewish papers in Florida, I'd immediately point to the important bond formed between us at this crucial moment in history. But really, I know better than that. I'm not so sure Civil Rights really created a bridge between peoples, since only a few years later, a more radical, identity-conscious movement rejected this alliance. The bitterness some older Jews feel about the schism that emerged in the late 1960's are read by Blacks of the same generation as arrogance or condescension; the fact that the state of Black/Jewish relations has for the past 20 years been hung up on Farrakhan and Hasids is particularly sad, since it turns fringe elements into spokesmen for the two groups.
All of which brings me to the email from Gordon that started it all. I don't think it's by accident that it included the following line: "a series of collaborative blog posts exploring Black-Jewish relations from the perspective of left-leaning 30(ish)somethings whose formative years were informed by rap and sports." I'm sure everyone reading this knows that (pre-Obama), too many whites, including Jews, were most familiar with, or at least interested in, Blacks as athletes and entertainers. At the same time, too many young Blacks saw the NBA or a record deal as their only path to success. I can speak with anecdotal certainty in asserting that young Jews are more likely than other white people to develop a strong interest in Black music or or a more nuanced appreciation of sports. Like, in an all-consuming way.
Presumably, this just makes us the worst of all the appropriators and exploiters. The problem with Lou Reed's "I Wanna Be Black" isn't that it's inherently offensive, but that we can't ever fully believe that Lou Reed doesn't mean it. Less pointedly, it backs up Dr. LIC's theory that Jews are forever aspiring to a stereotypical Black form of "cool". On the other hand, if you comb through the annals of (Black) entertainment and sports, you'll also find a disproportionate number of Jews actually involved in some way. Were they driven to this role by some fetishitic urge? Or does their presence throughout history testify to a real collaboration, one that, if not readily explicable or always apparent, has left a lasting stamp on America without subsequently falling apart at the seams.
The ugliest form of this partnership is the money-grubbing agents, or "kosher lawyers." But in music, there are key figures—if almost always behind the scenes—like Jerry Wexler, Rick Rubin, Benny Goodman, Lou Adler, Lyor Cohen, David Axelrod, Lieber and Stoller, and yes, Phil Spector. Sam Cooke wrote "A Change Is Gonna Come" after hearing Dylan's "The Times They Are 'A Changin'", albeit because he felt it should be African-Americans writing this kind of anthem. The Beastie Boys, whatever their flaws, brought hip-hop to the pop mainstream. In sports, Jews once owned the sport of basketball, and then legendary coaches like Red Auerbach, Red Holzman, and Larry Brown cast a long shadow over the game as it became identified with African-Americans. Granted, this was often an unequal partnership. Even if the Jews weren't outright shady, they still occupied the position of power. Then again, as Gordon pointed out, how many people did James Brown swindle? And what, if anything, do we make of the strange saga of Bob Johnson?
If you outright reject placing too much, or any, significance on pop culture, then this relationship is all but meaningless. However, if you feel that these forms of production are never just about making a buck, or doing what comes naturally in front of an audience, then there's a connection there that was around before Civil Rights and outlasted its fragmentation. Sports and music should never be the extent of America. Nor do they have the gravity of a voter registration drive. But they're an important part of former, and were never completely unrelated to the latter. Besides, the impetus for this project was our shared interest in sports and hip-hop, which is at least a vestiginal trace of this relationship. And while this isn't a reason for instant familiarity between the two groups, it's at least a start. Not a common heritage, but two sides of one history.
Of the countless factors that explain my early dissociation from any sort of Jewish identity—from being one of three-and-a-half Jews in my high school, to the constantly weird goings-on with my congregation’s rabbis (everything from megalomania, to sex scandal to one of the temporary rabbis engaging in fisticuffs with a student), to forced viewings of Molly’s Pilgrim during Sunday School, to congregational “retreats” to a dismal camp area in northern Minnesota where my peers would disquiet the night with racist jokes and gay innuendo, to a Hebrew school teacher who once accused me from cheating on a test of the Hebrew alphabet(!)—one of the most underrated issues was my lack of exposure to extrafamilial positive Jewish role models.
Sure I was aware of crumpled old males like Elie Wiesel and Victor Frankl, as well as obligatory syllabus inclusion, Anne Frank. But it wasn’t until college that I started to realize that pretty much everyone I gave a shit about was Jewish: Daniel Kahneman, the Coen Brothers, Red Auerbach, Mel Brooks, MC Serch. It was unbelievable. I felt like I had stumbled on a gold mine of self-affirmation. The feeling of surprise I experienced at this awakening I believe stems directly from my previous exposure only to the stereotype of the American Jew: physically Woody Allen, mentally Harold Ramis’ Egon, and, in terms of sexual magnetism, Ben Stein teacher from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. The archetypal American Jew to me was—and still is—paradigmatically uncool.
Imagine my surprise when I found out about James Caan, Henry Winkler, and Gene Simmons. Imagine when I found out that we are essentially the Rahm Emanuels of LIFE. That our sandwiches and our guns kill people. That, as my close friend once told me, stuff-white-people-like doesn’t apply to us. These days I am [culturally] proud as hell. Learning of those great semitic icons later in life and all of the perks that come with being Jewish, however, does nothing to change the fact that entering the world as a Jew means entering it as a nerd.
Now I ask you this. What is a ying supposed to do, but seek out its yang? And if the American Jew is the paradigmatic nerd, then the obvious question with an even more obvious answer is what constitutes paradigmatic cool: Miles Davis slam dunking the ball on a Klansmember’s head of course! I’m sure there are one thousand some odd dissertations written on this very notion, so I need not go into depth like I did on the Jewish side of things, but—and I want to remind everyone that we’re dealing strictly with the stereotype here—American blackness is as close to unmistakable cool as you can get this side of age 18. And to a certain degree I personally sought to attain that cool.
By age 11, I had completely connected to Motown and hip-hop (which I would have done regardless of my religion). In my tweener years, I wore a Cuban X Giants baseball school, rented every Blaxploitation movie in Blockbuster, and read Soul on Ice. I should stop you right there and note that this type of cultural consumption was done rather tastefully and as privately as I could. I was attracted to non-Black signifiers of cool (e.g. Kurt Cobain, an Armani shirt) to an equal degree and in no way was some caricatured wannabe. In fact, my entire ‘attentiveness’ to black culture only reinforced the notion that I was not black, and should therefore not attempt to ‘act black.’ Point being, I think what I went through around puberty is a fairly typical process for the Young Jew to go through: seeking “coolness” through at least one ethnic identity primarily responsible for the “cool pose” in the first place.
Think about all the major white hip-hop figures, from 3rd Bass, to the Beastie Boys, to Lyor Cohen, to Rick Rubin, to El-P and Aesop Rock, to Mark Ronson. And those are just some of the few who have operated tactfully in this sphere. Now think of all the Adam Mansbach-looking white guiltified schmos who keep trying with embarrassing results. Now think about the curious case of Andy Samberg, who amazingly has made the only humorous parody rap video in the history of parody rap videos…
When I watch “Lazy Sunday,” as when watching the videos from Samberg’s previous comedy trio, The Lonely Island, it seems apparent that at one time Samberg possibly entertained the thought of rapping for real. He probably has some discarded notebooks somewhere with some halfway decent rhymes written on them. And one day, he decided, you know what, I can’t do this, this isn’t me. While I appreciate Samberg’s self-honesty, it is this stunted attempt at achieving cool that allows the Jew-geek stereotype to persist. Another thought for another day…
Now, having never been an African American myself, I’m asking you to brace for some serious armchair sociology, as I postulate that the Jew/Black exchange is bidirectional. We have something they want as well. Of course it’s easy to cherrypick examples, from Sammy Davis Jr. to Rod Carew to Shyne and Boyz II Men, to Rastafarianism’s reappropriation of the old testament, to Raekwon shouting out Meyer Lansky, Ghostface criminally implicating “Big hatted Jews out in Crown Heights,” and Chris Rock paying homage to Don Rickles. But I think I can hone in on something specific that African Americans seek: Anti-Cool. The exact attribute I referenced earlier signifies some odd sort of appealing status and makes the Jewish-Black relationship truly symbiotic.
Consider former legendary coked-out Knicks star and CBA coach Micheal Ray Richardson who bragged that he had some “big time Jewish lawyers” working for him and observed, “If you look at a lot of most successful corporations and stuff, more businesses, they're run by Jewish. It's not a knock, but they are some crafty people.”
Consider The Wire’s Maurice Levy who was the only character universally respected by the Barksdales, Stringer Bell, and Marlo Stanfield.
Consider Cam’ron’s decision to title his DVD, “Here’s Cam’ron (You Little Yentas), accompanied by a warning cry of “Killa Season again, you little yentas!!!…Cam’ron is anonymous. Dipset!” When Cam’ron was asked if he knew what a yenta was, he responded, “Hahaha, of course! You know my lawyers are Jewish, they be saying that all the time. So then I was watching Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Larry David—I fucks with Larry—he called Ted Danson a ‘yenta.’ Yo, I fell out laughing. That shit was crazy. I said, that’s exactly what all these folks are doin’, gossiping about me. Yentas. That’s where the ‘Cam’ron is anonymous’ came from too. Did you see that episode? That’s my shit. You have HBO On Demand? Its episode 52….”
Consider Mars Blackmon/Mookie’s debt to Woody Allen’s charismatic New York geekwad characters who always get the girl.
Consider Nas’ claim that “Halle Berry blew [him] a kiss at the Barbara Streisand concert. It’s almost as if Streisand’s massive lameness that signifies status.
[pause as I go in for the last paragraph which owes a lot to a conversation with Shoals]
And it is this specific lameness (as well as the unawareness of this lameness), the anti-cool that Judaism affords, that African Americans may in fact prize. The mucosal phonics of Yiddish, the “craftiness” of kibbitzing laywers, and the balding scalp of Larry David, these are somehow sought-after attributes that at once reject WASPiness, and relieve one from the obligation of ‘holding it down’ for one’s eternally swag-ful race. For as much press as Obama’s “cool” got him (41 million more Google hits than searching for: ‘McCain’ ‘angry’), it had to be relieving seeing those photos of him with the bike helmet and too-high dad jeans. It had to be calming to read about his comic book lust and his Blackberry obsession. I guess in the end we both embrace outsider status, and can only truly attain it—if we don’t try too hard—through a little culture-swapping.
