tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60433084643391009842024-03-08T03:22:18.734-08:00Angry Black Man ForumMatundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-59977423440847794472013-11-20T16:57:00.001-08:002013-11-20T16:57:28.214-08:00Pop music’s race problem: How white artists profit from mocking hip-hopHey all! Here is a great article from Salon.com. I've been saying this stuff for quite some time. Now it's good it's being discussed again!<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/11/21/pop_musics_race_problem_how_white_artists_profit_from_mocking_hip_hop/"><span style="color: #741b47;">Pop music’s race problem: How white artists profit from mocking hip-hop</span></a>Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-50512593708233118062013-09-22T07:59:00.001-07:002013-09-22T08:05:47.622-07:00Black Suicide: When Prayer is Not EnoughHey all!<br />
<br />
Here is a great link to an issue that we in the black community are in denial of: mental health and mental health issues. Seems like we would be glad to embrace at least the idea that mental health and mental health services are something that is so needed in our community. I mean, damn, you can't have 400 years of slavery, degradation, exploitation and institutional discrimination and NOT be affected by those dynamics long after official slavery had ended.<br />
<br />
But as it was stated in this article, admission to a problem like this is seen and can be seen as a sign of "weakness." That's so sad because the dialectic is the more operative here: what makes us most weak is denial of a problem that is so readily apparent.<br />
<br />
Let me know what you think!<br />
<br />
Here is the link: <a href="http://nned.net/index-nned.php/NNED_content/news_announcement/black-suicide?goback=.gde_78785_member_273330521#!">NNED | Black Suicide: When Prayer is Not Enough</a>Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-75616943882189395042013-08-18T13:37:00.000-07:002013-08-18T13:37:44.896-07:00The Politics of Being Friends with White People<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.333333969116211px; line-height: 16.99652862548828px;">Hey all! Here is an interesting article by Brittany Cooper. Let me know what you think! </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.333333969116211px; line-height: 16.99652862548828px;"> We live in a society that sees a win-win situation as an anomaly when it comes to race relations (in terms of understanding all the subtle dynamics and structural impediments to better race relations), and accepts a lose-lose situation as being par for the course because trying to overcome 350 years of racism's effects is just too difficult a task to partake.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.333333969116211px; line-height: 16.99652862548828px;"><br /></span>
Here is the link:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/08/13/the_politics_of_being_friends_with_white_people/">http://www.salon.com/2013/08/13/the_politics_of_being_friends_with_white_people/</a>Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-91174459244871028872013-07-31T13:32:00.000-07:002013-07-31T13:32:32.412-07:00The Cost of Being a Muslim!<br />
<br />
Well, the cost of being a Muslim is that you have the distinct honor of being the target of vitriol and stupidity.<br />
<br />
I watched recently the interview on Fox News with Reza Aslan, who was being interviewed by Lauren Greene about his new book entitled Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Here is the best quote from the interview:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;"><i><b><span style="color: blue;">“It’s pretty clear that there are those who actually do not like the book, who are unhappy with its general arguments,” said Aslan on Friday. “That’s perfectly fine. I’m more than willing to talk about the arguments of the book itself. But I do think it’s perhaps a little bit strange that rather than debating the arguments of the book we are debating the right of the scholar to actually write it.”</span></b></i></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;">And here is the link of the latest interview response of Fox contributors who just keep piling it on and proving Mr. Aslan's point.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/07/31/fox_guest_on_reza_aslan_if_hes_just_a_scholar_then_hes_not_a_very_good_muslim/">http://www.salon.com/2013/07/31/fox_guest_on_reza_aslan_if_hes_just_a_scholar_then_hes_not_a_very_good_muslim/</a><br />
<br />
As I have said before in this Angry Black Man blog forum: we, as a country, are headed in the direction of a civil war. Why? Because of the extremes we live under: class polarization, racial polarization and cultural polarization. It's scary, but historically predictable.Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-79221607588371889242013-04-22T16:24:00.000-07:002013-04-22T16:24:46.326-07:00Dave Zirin's Analysis on "42" The Jackie Robinson Story<b>Hi all!</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>I have not seen this movie yet, but intend to. I wanted to share my blog followers Dave Zirin's analysis of the film and the larger questions it poses. As soon as I see the film, I will write my own analysis and share with you.</b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://www.thenation.com/authors/dave-zirin">Dave Zirin</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br />
April 17, 2013<br />
<br />
This week in Major League Baseball was Jackie Robinson Day. This is when
Commissioner Bud Selig honors the man who broke the color line in 1947 and pats
MLB on the back for being “a leader in the Civil Rights Movement.” It’s
possible to appreciate that Selig honors one of the 20th Century’s great
anti-racist heroes. It’s also possible, out of respect for Jackie Robinson, to
resent the hell out of it.<br />
<br />
Ignored on Jackie Robinson Day are baseball’s decades of racism before Jackie
broke the color line. Ignored are Robinson’s own critiques of baseball’s
bigoted front office hiring policies. Ignored is the continuance of the racism
that surrounds the game in 2013. Ignored is the fact that today in Arizona, <a href="http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9096405/arizona-immigration-law-spring-training">Latino
players live in fear</a> of being stopped by police for not having their papers
in order.<br />
<br />
The recent film <a href="http://42movie.warnerbros.com/"><i>42</i></a> about
Jackie Robinson’s entry into the Major Leagues shares this contradiction. I can
certainly understand why many people I respect love this film. I can understand
why a teacher I know thinks it’s a great primer for young people who don’t know
Jackie’s story. I understand why, given the high production values and loving
depictions, Jackie Robinson’s family has been outspoken in their appreciation.
But I didn’t like it, and with all respect, I want to make the case that I
don’t believe Jackie Robinson would have liked it either.<br />
<br />
Early in the film, Jackie Robinson, played by newcomer Chadwick Boseman, says,
"I don't think it matters what I believe. Only what I do."
Unfortunately that quote is like a guiding compass for all that follows. The
filmmakers don't seem to care what Robinsona deeply political human beingbelieved
either. Instead <i>42</i> rests on the classical Hollywood formula of “Heroic
individual sees obstacle. Obstacle is overcome. The End.” That works for <i>Die
Hard</i> or <i>American Pie</i>. It doesn’t work for a story about an
individual deeply immersed and affected by the grand social movements and
events of his time. Jackie Robinson's experience was shaped by the Dixiecrats
who ruled his Georgia birthplace, the mass struggles of the 1930s, World War
II, the anti-communist witch-hunts and later the Civil Rights and Black Freedom
struggles. To tell his tale as one of individual triumph through his singular
greatness is to not tell the story at all.<br />
<br />
This is particularly ironic since Jackie Robinson spent the last years of his
life in a grueling fight against his own mythos. He hated that his tribulations
from the 1940s were used to sell a story about an individualistic, Booker T.
Washington approach to fighting racism.<br />
<br />
As he said in a speech, “All these guys who were saying that we've got it made
through athletics, it's just not so. You as an individual can make it, but I
think we've got to concern ourselves with the masses of the people not by what
happens as an individual, so I merely tell these youngsters when I go out:
certainly I've had opportunities that they haven't had, but because I've had
these opportunities doesn't mean that I've forgotten.”<br />
<br />
This was a man tortured by the fact that his own experience was used as a
cudgel against building a public, fighting movement against racial injustice.
He wanted to shift the discussion of his own narrative from one of individual
achievement to the stubborn continuance of institutionalized racism in the
United States. The film, however, is a celebration of the individual and if you
know how that pained Mr. Robinson, that is indeed a bitter pill.<br />
<br />
The film's original sin was to set the action entirely in 1946 and 1947.
Imagine if Spike Lee had chosen to tell the story of Malcolm X by only focusing
on 1959-1960 when he was a leader in the Nation of Islam, with no mention of
his troubled past or the way his own politics changed later in life. Malcolm X without
an “arc” isn’t Malcolm X. Jackie Robinson without an “arc” is just Frodo
Baggins in a baseball uniform. The absence of an arc means we don’t get the
labor marches in the 1930s to integrate baseball. We don’t get his court
martial while in the army (alluded to in the film without detail). We don’t get
Jackie Robinson’s testimony in 1949 at the House of Un-American Activities
Committee against Paul Robeson. We don’t get his later anguish over what he did
to Robeson. We don’t get his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement when he
was a barnstorming speaker across the south. We don’t get his public feud with
Malcolm X, where Malcolm derided him as a “White man’s hero” and he gave it
right back saying, "Malcolm is very militant on Harlem street corners where
militancy is not that dangerous. I don't see him in Birmingham.” We don’t get
his daring, loving obituary to Malcolm after his 1965 assassination at a time
when the pressblack and whitewas throwing dirt on his grave. We don’t get his
support of the 1968 Olympic boycotters. We don’t get the way his wife Rachel
became an educated political figure who cared deeply about Africa, as well as
racial and gender justice in America. We don’t get the Jackie Robinson who died
at 52, looking 20 years older, broken by the weight of his own myth. We don’t
get Raging Bull. We get Rocky III.<br />
<br />
But if the focus of <i>42</i> is only going to be on 1946 and 1947, then there
is still a lot to cover: namely Brooklyn Dodgers owner Branch Rickey, Jackie
Robinson and their relationship to the Negro Leagues. Rickey with Robinson’s
support established a pattern followed by other owners (with the notable
exception of Bill Veeck), of refusing to compensate them for their players. On
the day Robinson signed with the Dodgers, Rickey said, "There is no Negro
League as such as far as I'm concerned. [They] are not leagues and have no
right to expect organized baseball to respect them." This led to the
destruction of the largest national black owned business in the United States.<br />
<br />
You would never know this from <i>42. </i>Instead, the film chooses to affix a
halo to Branch Rickey’s head. Instead, under a prosthetic mask, Harrison Ford
plays Rickey as a great white savior, and not even Han Solo can make that go
down smoothly. Fairing better than Ford is the terrific performance of Chadwick
Boseman as Robinson. Jackie Robinson could be sensitive about his voice, which
was clipped and somewhat high-pitched. Boseman’s voice is so smoky it could
cure a ham, and his eyes and manner give hints of an internal life the film
otherwise ignores.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt in my mind that Jackie Robinson, if alive, would call on Bud
Selig and Major League Baseball to stop using his history as an excuse to do
nothing about the racial issues that currently plague the game. But there is
also no doubt in my mind that Jackie Robinson, ever the pragmatist, also would
support this film publicly. He was an honorable person who would have been
humbled by the effort made to make him look like a hero. He would have seen the
value in being a role model of pride and perseverance for the young. But at
home, alone, he would have thought about it. And he would have seethed. <br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></span>Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-82790805138443236112012-12-14T07:49:00.001-08:002012-12-14T07:50:23.878-08:00Well, Mr. White Male Senators: Happy Now?<h4>
I am sure that Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, and the rest of their group are in their smoke-filled back rooms crowing over their triumph at scuttling Susan Rice's nomination to be the next Secretary of State.</h4>
Opps! I forgot. Her name had been floated, right? She hadn't even been officially nominated, as far as I can recall.<br />
<br />
When I heard the news this morning, I got this sick feeling in my stomach that turned into a long-held knot. Let's see. When have I had that feeling before? Van Jones? Lani Guinier?<br />
<br />
Yes, I understand the "win one for the Gipper" cliche. What I mean is that given all the issues the country is facing and our duly elected leader, Barack Obama, is facing as the President, the last thing he needs is another distraction. But is there any time where a so-called "distraction" trumps the so-called "unpleasantness" it may cause?<br />
<br />
When the claim of an undue distraction is used to keep us from addressing the REAL issues of distraction, you have an interesting paradox. And the paradox is two-fold: one, using the excuse of this nomination being a distraction from all the other things that the president has on his plate is to relegate the importance of this nomination to a manufactured "subservient" position. And second, you also, at the same time, relegate the subtext to a subservient position. The subtext was so easy to see. They just did not like this up-front black woman. Period. What was the word that was constantly used to describe her: BLUNT. You just can't have a Secretary of State who is blunt. At last look, I always felt that one of the things that made me proud of being black was my cultural upbringing, and with that, being blunt. Being upfront. Telling it like it is. Not couching dialogue in inferences that you feel people will just intuitively pick up the cues without hand signals. But then again, I also know personally how that "bluntness," and "upfrontness" has continually gotten me into trouble within my white circle of friends, alternative movement politics and job interviews and advancement. It all smacks so much of racism, and by extension, sexism. And who do we have now to nominate? Susan Rice taking herself out of the nomination clears the way for who, did I hear? None other than John Kerry, who would SAIL through with no problem. Why? Well, because "he's one of us." "He's one of the good ones." Subtext: a white male who knows how to swivel and articulate the language instead of using that same language to be blunt, to tell the truth; no speak loudly and carry a "blunt" stick here.<br />
<br />
But let's just suppose the argument of distraction was true. So where does that leave as a country? Are we better now quantitatively, qualitatively, or both? Quantitatively, one less distraction. Qualitatively, without this distraction, are we now further along in coming to an agreement before we fall off the fiscal cliff? Without this distraction, can we concentrate now on getting the unemployment rate below 6%? Without this distraction, are all the areas in the world that are about to explode, because their people want a more democratic society going to get our full attention, in whatever way we feel is important to make that happen?<br />
<br />
You see, the real argument here is that distraction is not the real argument because it does a poor job of covering up what the real arguments are. You think you can move on, to take on other problems, but what you end up seeing is that all the other problems are tainted and painted with the same brush. And what will happen is that the next "distraction" is not far behind. The real distractions are the ones that are below the surface, the racism that is apparent around cultural expression, thought and ultimately, the qualifications of a woman because of race and gender conflict. (I just flashed on Anita Hill). Until subtext issues (distractions) are addressed, we will flail about, lost, trying to find our way, and continually use these same distractions to walk backwards into the future.<br />
<br />
Is that what we want as a country? I'm sure there are some in power that would be just fine with that. I'm not one of them. And I will continue to celebrate being "blunt," telling it like it is.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-40126552264680392482012-10-25T20:02:00.000-07:002012-10-25T20:02:12.257-07:00Stolen Moments!<br />
<b><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; padding: 0in;">Finally! It's finished! Stolen Moments! For those of you who aren't familiar with the song, it's a jazz tune written by Oliver Nelson years ago. The lyrics that you hear people singing (I think they were written by Mark Murphy) are nice, but mainly talking about a failed relationship.</span></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">This is a video I produced to raise awareness around the fact that black felons, and felons of all colors for that matter, are systemically excluded from a basic American right. But it's larger than just felons. The subtle (and these days, not so subtle ways) that people of color, students and people without either money, prestige or political power are insidiously kept out of exercising their rights should be a concern for EVERYONE! Stolen Moments is a traditional jazz tune with a new set of lyrics! Pass the message on! And DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!</span></b></div>
<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://youtu.be/ip0IPEJwHD0">http://youtu.be/ip0IPEJwHD0</a></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Here are the lyrics:</b><br />
<br />
<b>Here's a slick way to steal an election</b><br />
<b>You just sort out the darkest hues</b><br />
<b>next, you attach the label FELON</b><br />
<b>bottom line, an unconscious cue.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>If you snivel</b><br />
<b>the drivel</b><br />
<b>don't matter</b><br />
<b>these felons</b><br />
<b>whose melons</b><br />
<b>imbued</b><br />
<b>yes they're screwed</b><br />
<b>but you know</b><br />
<b>that your guilt</b><br />
<b>is a quilt</b><br />
<b>for the truth</b><br />
<b>WHEN CAN WE SEIZE THE TIME?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Here's the next way to steal an election</b><br />
<b>Do I hear Ohio now?</b><br />
<b>Flip the people's agenda backwards</b><br />
<b>Trojan horse or sacred cow?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>If you snivel</b><br />
<b>the drivel</b><br />
<b>don't matter</b><br />
<b>these felons</b><br />
<b>whose melons</b><br />
<b>imbued</b><br />
<b>yes they're screwed</b><br />
<b>but you know</b><br />
<b>that your guilt</b><br />
<b>is a quilt</b><br />
<b>for the truth</b><br />
<b>WHEN CAN WE SEIZE THE TIME?</b><br />
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-57460440332829649732012-08-27T17:16:00.000-07:002012-08-27T17:17:16.076-07:00Race, Obama, Romney, Lies and the Upcoming Election!Hey all!<br />
<br />
I am going to be posting a series of articles on race, Romney and Obama. Here is the first one by Earl Ofari Hutcheson.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://huff.to/RTdbSe"> huff.to/RTdbSe</a><br />
<br />
<br />
More to come!<br />
<br />
MatunduMatundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-31645049872244246372012-03-26T14:38:00.000-07:002012-03-26T14:38:56.025-07:00Racially-Approved American Murder: They Kill Because They Can<strong>Hey all!</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>Here is a recent short piece by Glen Ford. I am reposting it on my blog because I think it is an important perspective.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford</strong><br />
<br />
Why did Staff Sgt. Robert Bales kill 16 Iraqi civilians in the deep of night and, supposedly, all by himself in the countryside of a foreign land? Why did George Zimmerman stalk and then kill 17-year-old Trayvon Martin as the 140-pound kid talked on a cell phone with his girlfriend in a gated community near Orlando, Florida? Bales and Zimmerman did it because they could, because they felt they had permission to snuff out the lives of Iraqis and Black teenagers who had never even thought to offend them. The only reason that these two instances of murder are of such deep importance in the larger scheme of things, rather than just to the families and neighbors of the victims and the killers, is because both murderers had good reason to believe that American society would approve of what they did.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Certainly, Sgt. Bales thought so. He had served three tours in Iraq, after joining the Army at the ripe old age of 27 right after 9/11. The hyper-nationalist media constantly told him and the rest of American public that the troops were “heroes” who were not only serving their own country, but also doing a great favor for the Iraqis and the Afghans. If the people of Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t appreciate the presence of Sgt. Bales and his fellow soldiers and marines, well, they were ingrates of the worst kind, unworthy of the sacrifice of even one of Sgt. Bales’ buddies. Besides, they were all Hajjis – a slur for Muslims that has the same venomous connotation as “nigger.” Sgt. Bales was not ashamed to use the term “Hajji” in letters to his wife, so I guess he had reason to believe she was a racist, too. The U.S. military preferred to descend on villages late at night, when they had the advantage of surprise and night vision goggles and could wipe out whole extended families of Taliban – or people who were pronounced to be Taliban, post-mortem – usually without suffering a single casualty. We own the night – that’s what the Americans said. And nighttime is for killing Hajjis. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
George Zimmerman had every reason to believe that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law was written especially for him. And, actually, it was. The Sanford, Florida police department clearly thought the law was meant to protect Zimmerman from murder charges, which is why they claim they didn’t arrest him. When Zimmerman called the local cops from his SUV to tell them he was stalking Trayvon Martin, he confided to them that “assholes” like the unknown Black kid “always get away.” But, this one wouldn’t get away – not with his life. Florida and lots of other states in recent years have noted that too many Black people are getting away with life, and need to be stopped, so they crafted legislation that would allow white fear to trump Black rights to breath air. In such jurisdictions, evocation of white fear now provides the same justification for summary murder as claims of rape of white women did for mob lynchings, back in the day. It is as if the Florida legislature had put out a call for Black people to be summarily shot all over the state, when it passed the bill. The racial intention was clear, the results totally predictable. George Zimmerman doesn’t seem like a very bright young man, but even he knew that Florida civil society wanted some Black folks dead.<br />
<br />
Sgt. Bales and Steve Zimmerman murdered Afghans and an African American kid because they could, and because American society told them that they should. <br />
<br />
For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.<br />
<br />
<strong>BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com</strong>Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-80183241331055152462011-11-24T04:39:00.000-08:002011-11-24T04:39:30.961-08:00Andronico's Community MarketsHaving been employed by Andronico’s Community Market for 8 years, I wanted to share with you my story and give a voice to the voiceless; employees who have dedicated years of their life to this company, and consequently, they need to be heard and you need to hear their story. <br />
<br />
Andronico’s Community Markets had been struggling mightily for the last few years, given poor management and leadership from the very top, the overextending and building of new stores that ended up being closed (and sold for pennies on the dollar), the recession in the early part of this decade and the competition from Whole Foods, Berkeley Bowl, Monterey Market and Trader Joe’s. Additionally, Andronico’s has never wanted to address its pricing structure and as a result, has consistently been undercut by the competition. <br />
<br />
In the summer of 2010, Bill Andronico brought in a so-called “top-notch” team (most were high in management at Whole Foods) to help turn the franchise around. Given my discussions with this leadership team, they said that they would give it a year. They didn’t say what would happen in a year if they could not turn it around. But that’s where the next part of this story takes place.<br />
<br />
In early September 2011, a majority of employees (I worked at the Solano Store) were gathered in the employee lunchroom and informed by our Operations Manager, Sean Thomas, that Andronico's Community Markets had officially filed for bankruptcy that morning. We were all assured at that time that we all still had jobs, and as events unfolded, we would be kept in the loop and our status would be updated accordingly. <br />
<br />
When we were updated about a week later we were told the following: that we were all going to be terminated and then officially rehired by the new company, with a 30-day probationary period, a 5% pay cut, and a mandatory drug test. After the 30-day period, we would be notified if we passed probation and were to be retained as employees.<br />
<br />
In the week of October 9th – October 15th, all employees were "reinterviewed." This process was chaotic, to say the least. All 300+ employees were reinterviewed in the course of 3-4 days, with 3 members of the HR Department and one store director conducting 15 minute interviews, one right after another. The questions were straightforward, questions that normally would be asked in an interview. But then a question was asked that immediately raised a red flag for me. That question was: “Have you had any disciplinary procedures brought against you within the past 6 months?” Given the sequence of questions that had been asked in the interview process, I felt that question was incongruent. I felt that question was being inserted to have an additional criteria/reason to terminate an employee, but still be within the bounds of legality (more on that in future blogs).<br />
<br />
During that same week (October 9th-15th) and the following week (October 16th-October 22nd), ALL of the Andronico’s Market stores were interviewing for new employees. Numerous employees in other stores informed me that the interviews were nonstop, from 9am in the morning to 5 or 6pm in the afternoon. Given this development, employees questioned: <em><u>Why would they be interviewing so many people if they assured us that we were going to be employed through the official “change of ownership” transition?</u></em> Since I, like most employees, could not answer that question, we just let it go and trusted that the bankruptcy proceedings and Bill Andronico had our best interests in mind.<br />
<br />
The official change in ownership happened on Thursday October 27, 2011. Andronico’s was officially sold to Renovo Capital (an equity company out of Reno, Nevada). At 4:47pm in the afternoon, my cell phone rings and it's my store director and assistant store director on speakerphone. I am told: "The new company is changing hands as of midnight tonight and they are not offering you a position at this time." <br />
<br />
I will say here that I was one of the fortunate ones. At least I got a phone call and was spoken to directly. There were employees that reported to me that a message was left on their answering machine. Two employees in particular told me that they were asked to work late because of a shift shortage, then told 7 minutes after the store closed that they were no longer employed as of midnight.<br />
<br />
I want to keep this story in the news because of the labor issues involved and also the deplorable ethical standards used by Bill Andronico and Renovo Capital to decide what employees to retain and which employees to let go. Basically, employees were mislead, or to put it bluntly, lied to. They knew all along that they were going to lay off close to 25% of the work force, and most of that 25% being journeymen, meaning the top of the labor pay scale. Why else would they be interviewing employee’s non-stop for 2-3 days? These new employees would be brought in and paid entry-level wage. So, from a strictly economic standpoint, their thinking is to get rid of as many journeymen as possible, employ entry level wage employees, and close as many stores as need be to make the franchise profitable.<br />
<br />
And here’s another question. What will be the criteria used to decide what employees to retain in 30 days, when the “probationary” period has expired (and the 30 days is fast approaching)? Will that be the same criteria used in the first round of layoffs? Will most of the employees laid off be journeyman again? Right now, you have employees who are scared, insecure and definitely not working up to their potential because they are just trying to keep under the radar, hoping that in 30 days they still have a job. There are also employees that have been fired in the last 30 days for no reason other than the fact that they are on 30-day probation. Hopefully, the union will be able to address their issues promptly and fairly. But the union is in a delicate position because they have an ongoing relationship with the new company that they have to honor and protect. <br />
<br />
What has happened to Andronico employees is not unique. It is happening all over the country right now. But what does make this situation unique is that a most of the employees that were laid off were dedicated employees, some of them having worked their whole employed life at Andronico’s. And the bottom line was that they should have been treated better. They should not have been informed 5-6 hours before midnight that they did not have a job. And the employees that had more than 10 years with the company (some employees having 20+ years) should have been given some sort of severance package (the excuse used of course was that they are bankrupt). Ironically (and sadly) Bill Andronico has consistently stated over the years, both publicly and privately, how we Andronico’s employees are “family.” Is this the way you treat family? If so, maybe the employees that are still employed by Andronico’s should file for adoption.Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-49754292870591073972011-10-20T09:20:00.000-07:002011-10-20T09:20:19.852-07:00Is There Any One Way To Be Black?No, of course not. There is no one way to be black. We have pundits that try to pigeon-hole it, to make people (and of course) society feel that there is just one way out there. Also, let's not forget the role of stereotypes. Stereotypes have been consistent and successful in institutionalizing that one-way view. And, of course, the paradox about stereotypes is that there is a part of them that is true.<br />
When I was six years old, I remember hearing two words on the radio quite often. Those words were guerrilla and Negro. I had been to the Bronx Zoo with my family a few times, so I thought I knew what a guerrilla was. Much to my surprise, after asking my father, I found out it wasn't the kind of animal I had in mind.<br />
<br />
"Well then, what is a guerrilla?" I asked.<br />
<br />
"The guerrilla they were talking about on the radio is a liberation fighter. As I explained to you before, there are all kinds of wars going on around the world, and this "guerrilla" wages war differently than what you see on television or have been taught in school."<br />
<br />
"OK. And what is a Negro?" I asked.<br />
<br />
"Look in the mirror," my father said tersely.<br />
<br />
The curtness of his answer both surprised and shocked me. But being that I had politically active parents, I came to realize that something was terribly wrong with a society that puts distinctions on individuals or groups based solely on color. I was also grateful that my parents encouraged me as a youth to work with my peers to design “rap” sessions and workshops that seriously addressed the questions of the day. As the next few years of my life unfolded, through these rap sessions and informal workshops with my peers, I realized that as a "Negro," in order to be considered equal to white people, I would have to spend much of my time de-emphasizing the distinction of color. This realization was very painful for me because I had also been taught to appreciate the distinction of color as it related to cultural achievement and pride.<br />
<br />
These experiences brought me full circle insofar as developing, as a teenager, working models for social change. But interestingly, within that context, I started to see that there was not one way to be black. There were so many ways black folk were expressing "themselves." Some were productive, some were mysterious and lost, some were profound, some were negative, and some were just too real.<br />
<br />
Funny. I had a choice of "blackness" to pick from. And I have chosen all of them in my life. Some were safe. Some were familiar. Some I just hung on to (and still hang on to to this day) because I was and am too scared to venture out on my own and define it for myself. It is safer sometimes to let dominant culture define it for me. That way, I don't have to discover my path or the truth. But within this context WAS how I looked at change. Was I comfortable in my black skin? At that age, yes, but no too. I admit that I was working the stereotypes; the good ones to help define my blackness, the negatives one internalizing. As a teenager, I knew or had a more intellectual understanding of change. I knew that if change is inevitable, I needed to direct the change instead of just watching it pass on by. I also knew that there was a relationship between consciousness and action, and that it was important to always remember that, even in times of great fear and trepidation.<br />
<br />
So yes, I take these lessons forward to this day. And I feel there is positive movement in my quest to define my blackness, but where I still feel diminished/stuck is outside of my inner self, my heart, and in what I allow the larger society to define for me. And I think that I have internalized the subtle values of my white friends/relationships and dominant culture in terms of them shaping my identity instead of shaping it on my own.<br />
<br />
I have to understand that my level of understanding attained is the beginning of the change and not the end result of change. I have to be vigilant about what I do once I reach certain levels of political consciousness, and not become complacent because I feel that the work is over and there is no more left to accomplish. Or, that what is left to accomplish is either too hard (internalizing the feeling of being diminished) or too easy (succumbing to white guilt and using it as a negotiating tool with my white friends and my blended family).<br />
In conclusion, I feel that I must take responsibility to develop frameworks that translate historical lessons into a language I can not not only understand, but can mobilize and educate people as well. That would be the best way to define myself as a black person, one with a healthy identity that can't be taken away from me.Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-42264421363882148932009-10-02T19:43:00.000-07:002009-10-02T19:43:17.607-07:00Van Jones: Barack Obama's Lani Guiner<strong><em>It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.</em></strong> <br />
Mark Twain<br />
<br />
I have always loved Mark Twain. Why? Because he had a way, in his time, of both looking at the world and being at peace with its hypocrisy. But remember, you can be at peace with something, but still have the fire in your belly. The fire in your belly to know that it's your DUTY to make change. To stand up for what's right. To do, as Spike Lee's movie so eloquently said, the right thing.<br />
<br />
I wonder sometimes what it takes, in terms of mental fortitude or physical courage, to fall on one's sword. Is character defined by what you allow others to do to you, or is it defined by how you gracefully walk away, knowing that you got the shaft; knowing that in your heart, you were right? In this sense, does physical courage trump moral courage? And I also wonder what it means to be in a position of power (Barack Obama) and know that you are letting someone you respect; someone who's politics you know intimately, get "carved up" by right wing forces, right wing lies and distortions? And even more important, are you too afraid, from a political standpoint, to confidently wave this moral flag with courage, fortitude and ultimately, a sense of deep conviction? A sense of knowing that moral fortitude will trump the lies, distortions and political posturing?<br />
<br />
I hate getting transported back in time for THE WRONG REASONS. It was so painful to watch the way Lani Guiner was "carved up" by right wing political forces. I was so disappointed in Bill Clinton right then; I wanted him to stand up and challenge the lies, lies that he knew were operative, distorted and not true. But his "political" calculation was one of sacrificing moral fortitude and moral conviction and standing behind this person, especially if it interfered with moving the larger agenda forward.<br />
<br />
Sometimes I wonder, and maybe that is just who I am, sometimes I wonder what would happen or what would have happened if both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had said: No! I am not going to back down from this character assassination! If that means that my larger agenda gets compromised and goes up in flames, then so be it! But would their larger agenda be compromised? The lack of conviction here does not leave the forces of change necessarily dormant. These historical forces will come back to haunt you, to make sure that you don't go to sleep at night knowing that you denied America a really true patriot. An individual whose ideas would have made a difference in our lives. <br />
<br />
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama knew clearly the politics, agenda and direction Lani Guiner and Van Jones took in their lives, their paths. They both knew who they were bringing in to their administration's. So it's disingenuous at best to then hang both of them out to dry when you get attacked by the right wing. If you are going to bring them into your administration, then you need to be honest. You need moral conviction and fortitude. You need to understand that the reason you brought them in was that it would help forward your agenda, not compromise it. So, by extension, you have no other choice but to stick up for them, otherwise, you are saying (or inferring) that your agenda is not a true reflection of your leadership, philosophical ideals and moral character.<br />
That's why the way that Barack Obama dealt with the attacks on Van Jones reminded me so much of Bill Clinton. I was transported back in time faster than I had a chance to resist! Why would I want to go back there? Why would I want to be reminded of that time, where I so much hoped that the person who occupied the Oval Office would have the courage to know that standing up to these types of attacks would not only the correct path, but would strengthen the country at the same time? This country has always been strengthened by resistance. Resistance, like competition, goes to the moral center of an individual and challenges the individual to do better, to embrace moral courage and existential fortitude. <br />
<br />
Let's all learn from this lesson. If we don't, the third time won't be a charm.Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6043308464339100984.post-11465959229412470402009-07-26T21:41:00.000-07:002009-07-30T10:53:54.927-07:00Who Are They Going To Believe?: The Epistemology of Racial Profiling<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I think I was 16 years old, maybe 17. I was riding in a friend's car, coming back from a party. Just to give you a short geographical sketch, I grew up in central New Jersey, about 35 miles from New York City. Where I grew up was relatively rural the further you got away from New York City. The towns were small and quaint; farms, dairies and roadside produce stands.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The neighborhoods were set up in such a way that you had to go through more "exclusive" neighborhoods, white neighborhoods to be exact, to get to more " racially diverse" neighborhoods. Of course, there were neighborhoods that were exclusively black too.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">We were heading back from this party when we went through one of the small towns and stopped at a red light. As was common in New Jersey, there was an island that separated traffic going in opposite directions. And usually situated on these islands were the town cops, if not the State Police. We pulled up to the stop light, looked left, and there was a cop looking directly at us. I caught my friend's eye and the understanding was instantaneous: we are going to get pulled over. As a black person, it's just something you know. It's our "generic" sixth sense.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The light turned green, we proceeded and of course the cop followed us. We were just about at the edge of that small rural town when he flashed his lights and pulled us over. The exchange started out as "routine." "Drivers license and registration." My friend handed it over. "Ok, get out of the car!" "Excuse me Officer, is there a problem?" "Get Out of the Car!" "Are we under arrest? Do you have "probable cause" to have us get out of the car?" The Officer glared at us and said in a low voice (under his breath) "some smart-ass niggers here." He the said "You want probable cause. I'll give you probable cause!" He then proceeded to go to the front of the car, pull his nightstick out of his waistband, and smash the front headlight. "Now there's probable cause!" "Get out of the car!" "Great," my friend moaned. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">We got out of the car and the officer proceeded to berate us for being cognizant and knowledgeable about the law. He then proceeded to search the car. He had finished searching the front and was about to search the back of the car when he stepped back, reached into his shirt pocket, pulled out a bag of marijuana, threw it into the back of the car and said "Look what I just found!" "You're both under arrest!"</span> </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">To make a long story short, my friend hired a lawyer and through alot of "pre-trial" machinations, ended up pleading it down to a misdemeanor. And what prompted that was the signature line that runs through all black men's mind: <strong><em>If this goes to trial, who do you think they are going to believe? Two teenage black boys or a white policeman?</em></strong> </span></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I shared this story with you for two reasons. First, when I was completing my Master's in Public Administration at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University in 1996, it was right at the same time the O.J. Simpson trial was captivating the nation. After the verdict, a few white students that I had gotten to know asked if i would facilitate a discussion regarding race and the O.J. verdict. I gladly obliged. These students knew I had done a lot of work over the years in this area and had heard me lecture on the topics of race relations, racial profiling and diversity many times, both inside and outside the classroom. The second reason is that I want to weigh in with my opinion on the arrest of Henry Louis Gates. There has been so much discussion around the issue of racial profiling and the relationship between communities of color and law enforement. How does racial profiling occur? How do these two events intersect, if at all?</span> </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">When I faciliated the discussion with the white graduate students, I was surprised at how upset they were with the verdict. Over and over again their frustration bubbled to the surface. They kept referring to the "overwhelming" evidence, the fact that black folks and specifically their black friends were "close-minded," and that the police were being maligned for just doing their job. After giving them the space to "vent" their frustrations, I shared with them the above story. I wanted to put the epistemology of our "experiences" in front of us; in front to make the discussion more salient and real. I gave them one of the main working assumptions I use in my unlearning workshops: <strong><u>Reference determines value!</u></strong> What your reference point is determines the value you put on that particular experience. I asked them: Have the police ever planted evidence on you? Have you ever been stopped, pulled over or harassed because you are white? Have you ever been arrested in your own house? Have you ever been questioned because the assumption is that you either were in the wrong neighborhood, stolen something (assumed) or looking for something to steal (like being followed in a department store)?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I could tell from the looks on their faces that these were questions they never really thought about, and quite frankly, never had to think about or give any thought to. Why? Because that was the privilege, their privilege for being white. For them, because they never had similar types of experiences with the police, they were more inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt; more inclined to view the police in a more favorable light. Their narrative didn't unfold the same way a black man's would. I remember telling them, after about the 5th time of hearing about the glove (but the glove, what about the glove? The police found a bloody glove on his property!): Nobody's disputing that there was a bloody glove found on his property. The question is: <strong><em>how did it get there?</em></strong> <em>Reference determines value.</em></span><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I also shared with them the fact that in and of itself, each of these experiences, taken separately, depending on the experience, seemed inconsequential. But aggregate, putting them all together, at best, makes one either relegate themselves to a subservient position by lowering their sense of security or self-esteem, and at worst, induces the behavior that is called "black rage." </span></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">When I heard of Mr. Gates experience, I wasn't surprised. What did surprise me was that President Obama would say that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly." Of course they acted stupidly. They arrested a man in his own home for disorderly conduct. But to comment on the issue, especially when you are trying to keep the country and congress focused on health care reform is the height of naivte. What was he thinking? Doesn't he know how race, class and the police are always a toxic combination? Didn't he realize that just the mention of that toxic combination would unintentionally take everyone's eyes OFF of whatever prize you were working to attain?</span><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Will something positive come from this incident? I hope so. Will this incident serve as a springboard for a discussion of the larger issues of racial disparity, racism, the disproportionate amount of men of color incarcerated, sentencing disparities, affirmative action and oversight of police behavior? I hope so. But we should not leave it to politicians. Nor should we assume that hanging out and having a beer will be the start of much long-awaited policy changes. It is up to us, the people, to educate each other, to raise our level of understanding that race issues are much more insidious than we care to admit. We need to develop a more socially-cognizant perspective. We need to take the initiative and implement a paradigm shift. We need to start from the premise that race and racism plays into <strong>every</strong> situation like this. There is nothing wrong with accepting that premise as a "working assumption." And because it plays into every situation doesn't mean that we are bad people. It is not a terminal illness. It is learned behavior. And if it is learned, it can be unlearned. What does make one a "bigot," is the understanding that those attitudes and behavior are in play and <strong>not</strong> want to change around it. After that recognition, it then becomes the social cognitive question we must ask ourselves: <strong><em>How do we educate people around experiences that they have not had and behavior they are not aware of?</em></strong></span><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">Finally, we need to take responsibility to help each other develop frameworks that translate these historical lessons into a language we all commonly understand. We also need to understand the power and necessity of building these very coalitions with each other and the fact that any movement like this is bound to self-destruct unless it links up with segments of the community we come to understand have been institutionally excluded from the halls of power and decision-making processes. This building of understanding, of community is a viable alternative, but it must remembered that we must work to close the loop and force the larger institutional structures to meet our needs, our desires for a more "color-conscious" (not color blind...there is a difference) society and not rely on surpluses coming from the very institutional structures we expect to replace.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"></span>Matundu Makalanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550115204597526541noreply@blogger.com0