Pop music’s race problem: How white artists profit from mocking hip-hop

Hey 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!


Pop music’s race problem: How white artists profit from mocking hip-hop

Black Suicide: When Prayer is Not Enough

Hey all!

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.

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.

Let me know what you think!

Here is the link:  NNED | Black Suicide: When Prayer is Not Enough

The Politics of Being Friends with White People

Hey all!  Here is an interesting article by Brittany Cooper. Let me know what you think!   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.

Here is the link:

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/13/the_politics_of_being_friends_with_white_people/

The Cost of Being a Muslim!

Well, the cost of being a Muslim is that you have the distinct honor of being the target of vitriol and stupidity.

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:

“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.”

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.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/31/fox_guest_on_reza_aslan_if_hes_just_a_scholar_then_hes_not_a_very_good_muslim/

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.

Dave Zirin's Analysis on "42" The Jackie Robinson Story

Hi all!

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.

Dave Zirin 

April 17, 2013

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.

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, Latino players live in fear of being stopped by police for not having their papers in order.

The recent film 42 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.

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 42 rests on the classical Hollywood formula of “Heroic individual sees obstacle. Obstacle is overcome. The End.” That works for Die Hard or American Pie. 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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

But if the focus of 42 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.

You would never know this from 42. 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.

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.

Well, Mr. White Male Senators: Happy Now?

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.

Opps!  I forgot.  Her name had been floated, right?  She hadn't even been officially nominated, as far as I can recall.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Stolen Moments!

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.

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!

http://youtu.be/ip0IPEJwHD0

Here are the lyrics:

Here's a slick way to steal an election
You just sort out the darkest hues
next, you attach the label FELON
bottom line, an unconscious cue.

If you snivel
the drivel
don't matter
these felons
whose melons
imbued
yes they're screwed
but you know
that your guilt
is a quilt
for the truth
WHEN CAN WE SEIZE THE TIME?

Here's the next way to steal an election
Do I hear Ohio now?
Flip the people's agenda backwards
Trojan horse or sacred cow?


If you snivel
the drivel
don't matter
these felons
whose melons
imbued
yes they're screwed
but you know
that your guilt
is a quilt
for the truth
WHEN CAN WE SEIZE THE TIME?