What’s up Unmitigates? I know, I’ve been away for a while. Life and such. You know how that goes. Anyway, in getting back into the swing of things, here are my thoughts on President Obama’s recent (and shocking) support of gay marriage:
In short, I think Obama did the right thing by stating his position. Unfortunately for him, it wasn’t smart and it could wind up being politically costly. We shall see.
The title says it all. No point in building up with any complex narrative. This is just a simple question: can black people be racist?
Whenever I talk to a segment of folks in academia – social scientists and such – they contend that black people can not be racists, arguing that racism is a combination of racial prejudice and the power to reinforce that prejudice. I never quite followed that logic, especially considering that many black people I know live in cities ran by black mayors, black councilmen, black superintendents/school officials, etc. With that kind of political capital at their disposal, doesn’t that mean that at least some kind of racism [i.e. racial prejudice + power to enforce] can take place? I’m not saying it has taken place, just that it can.
I guess that’s why I contend that racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. have less to do with power and more to do with behavior. I don’t have to wield any power to be a racist. All I need is the requisite ignorance. I’m not in a position where I hire/fire people based on their race or where I can provide preferential treatment in shaping their social and financial destinies. I’m not in a position where I can push buttons which control the fate of the entire world. Yet, I can harbor as much racially-motivated disdain and prejudice against another group as they can for me. In my mind’s eye, ignorance and intolerance are the common denominators to racism, not power.
If you guys haven’t heard about the Travon Martin case by now, you should. Here’s a quick background:
Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old Florida high school student, was found shot and killed, in Sanford, Fla., a community north of Orlando. Several eyewitnesses reported that they heard a scuffle, then a cry for help, and then a gunshot.
According to the Sanford police report, George Zimmerman, 28, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, was later found armed with a handgun, standing over Martin. He had a bloody nose and a wound in the back of his head.
Martin was pronounced dead at the scene. He had no weapons on him, only a pack of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea. Yet Zimmerman told the police he killed Martin in self defense. The police, stating there is no evidence to dispute the self-defense assertion, have yet to arrested him, nor administered a drug test, an alcohol test, or a background check.
After hearing about this story, a few thoughts come to mind:
(1) There is a clear difference, which needs to be explored and emphasized, between an actual police officer and a neighborhood watchman. I won’t turn this into an issue of gun control, as everybody has a right to carry to protect themselves (or whatever the argument is by gun enthusiasts), but I will say that a neighborhood watchmen has no earthly business being armed with a gun in this capacity. A neighborhood watchmen’s job – and I use the term “job” rather loosely – is to monitor activity going on in the neighborhood. That’s it.
(2) As Harris-Perry noted, the “Stand Your Ground” law is a breeding ground for vigilantism. On top of that, the law is so vague and subjective that it virtually leaves room for any type of encounter to fall under what could be considered “responsive force.” Despite evidence being uncovered which suggests otherwise, Zimmerman was claiming he felt threatened and the situation warranted the use of deadly force. Unless Martin planned to assault him with a bag of Skittles, Zimmerman’s life was not in danger. This whole “shoot first, ask questions later” situation is dangerous.
(3) I think this story was definitely racially motivated, but it also reaffirms everybody’s tendency to look at minorities a certain way. Normally when we think of racial profiling, we limit it to white people and their perceptions about a minority group. But that’s entirely unfair to white people. We may not want to admit it, but minorities are also guilty of racial profiling, even to each other. Even the most socially conscious amongst us have harbored certain thoughts when a young, black person in baggy clothes and a hoodie is walking directly toward us. As I argued on Twitter, how and what we think about black people is often informed by what is projected in the media or what we’ve experienced in our personal dealings. Which leads me to my next point…
(4) …this is a perfect opportunity for us to once again examine the disastrous affects of the thug culture so many of our young people embrace. This, in my opinion, indirectly led to Trayvon Martin being killed. Something possessed Zimmerman to think that an otherwise innocent black kid was up to no good. I suspect, as I mentioned before, that some of Zimmerman’s thinking was informed by what he’s seen or heard about black youth. Unfortunately for minorities in this country (black and latino men, especially), we are usually defined by the more deviant folks in our group. Is it fair? Of course not. Does it happen? Absolutely.
(5) The Trayvon Martin case represents the very reason why black people fear figures of authority (I wouldn’t call Zimmerman an authoritative figure per se, but him having a deadly weapon and Martin not having one gives him some kind of authority in this situation). My mother – along with countless other black mothers in this country, I suspect – taught me some very important lessons when it came to dealing with police. Always comply. Respect them. Don’t talk back. Never run away from them. Keep your hands in sight. To this day, I’m still shocked (thankful, but shocked nonetheless) that Skip Gates had the kind of encounter he had with police and is still alive to talk about it. Black men , obviously including Mr. Martin, have been killed for much less.
(6) Finally, while I can certainly appreciate how black folks have rallied behind all things Trayvon Martin, it seems to me that our outrage is only evident in the face of violence against black people from some other group. But where is the similar outrage when it comes to black-on-black violence? Twitter and (probably) Facebook (I can’t tell with Facebook. I’ve been off the site for Lent) have been blazing with activism regarding this story. Meanwhile, this same world is mute when it comes to the proliferation of killings in Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit. Gary and Trenton. Compton and Philadelphia. We ignore the reality that approximately half of all the murders that take place in America are against black folks and nearly all those black folks are killed by other blacks.
There is a scene from the 90′s horror flick “Tales From the Hood” (a very underrated movie, I should point out), where a gangbanger is going through rehabilitation. During his treatment – in some Clockwork Orange sort of a way – he is forced to watch flashing images of lynchings shown in juxtaposition to images of black-on-black violence. Some pretty prophetic stuff, especially from around the 1:45 – 4:20 mark:
We get outraged when violence against blacks is perpetrated by non-blacks. But we meet black-on-black violence with a collective “meh.” All that being said, if Mr. Zimmerman been black, would we see the same outpouring of anger and emotion? Not likely.
I’d like to introduce you to a couple of friends of mine. Actually, I wouldn’t exactly call them friends and I don’t know them at all. But I can bet at this point, they can use a friend or two right about now (of course, these young ladies are probably pretty popular with a certain group of neanderthal knuckleheads by now). Anyway, these youngsters – with a chip on their shoulders roughly the size of the national debt – decided to make a name for themselves by invading the internets with a long and drawn out rant about black people. Check it:
Boy, oh boy. Where to start?
First, I should point out that the video above does not belong to the young ladies in question. Their original video has apparently been removed, but not before it was copied by several other YouTube users. So if you feel compelled to visit this video, remember you won’t be addressing them directly. Some people – like me – have posted this video for informational purposes.
Secondly, I freely admit something: I’m actually on board with at least a small part of their rant. Anybody who has frequented my blog, followed me on Twitter (if you haven’t yet, you need to! LOL!), or friended me Facebook would know that I am often very critical of black Americans and many of their socially destructive pathologies. People abuse systems of social welfare all the time. Many black people engage in certain embarrassing and socially awkward behaviors, often motivating my tongue-in-cheek “Reasons Why I Hate Being Black…” commentary. So one would be too hard pressed to say these girls weren’t at least partially correct.
Also, I freely admit that I, along with many middle class folks I know, grow quite frustrated with a system that does very little to benefit people who are doing their best to make ends meet. I can’t count the number of times I’ve winced at the final total of my grocery bill, only to watch the person ahead of me whip out their magical bridge card. I can’t count how many times the fact that I somehow “made too much money” locked me out of services that would be extremely beneficial to me (earning a Pell Grant, for instance). I think it’s for this same reason I understood exactly where Mitt Romney was coming from when he made his comments about poor people (as a side note, there are some fundamental issues with how he perceives poorness and “safety nets.” But that’s a conversation for another day).
For the sake of this argument though, it’s entirely unfair to juxtapose Romney’s comments about the poor and these girls’ commentary. The girls in the video don’t stop at issues of class status; instead they also dedicate a considerable amount of their rant to the way black people speak and their lack of intelligence.
Thing is: I have nothing to say about their comments. I think the video speaks for itself. These girls clearly have some type of repressed and racially motivated sentiments brewing deep down and this was their opportunity to vent. Added to that, their tirade – repugnant as it is – is still protected by free speech. So we’ll leave all of that where it is. But if there was ever a cautionary tale about the dangers of the Internet, this would be it. I can’t begin to imagine how damaging this video might be to these young girls down the road. Immediate consequences have already been felt, not only through expulsion from school, but also from the scores of threats they and their family have received. But from a long-term perspective these girls also face the very real possibility that they have damaged some of their college admissions opportunities, scholarships, internship prospects, or even job opportunities. As I’ve stated before, even when a person is protected by free speech, they are NOT protected from the consequences of their speech/actions.
To be sure, these girls are not a celebrities or some other public figures. So I don’t except them to get thrown into the spotlight over this (one can hope, for their well-being). But they – and indeed all of us – must take away an important lesson from all of this: the Internet should be seen as a permanent entity. The effects of what we broadcast to the world can have a longer lasting impact than the few minutes it took us to become fixtures on the Internet. Use caution when posting. Please.
One thing’s for certain. This experience will definitely served as a learning tool for other youngsters regarding the dangers of the internet. Oh, wait. Scratch that.
The other day on Facebook, one of my sisters and my homegirl both hipped me to the latest antics of Bishop (and I use the term very loosely) Eddie Long and this cult parish over at New Life. In some weirdly ostentatious event at his church, Fast Eddie appears to have been coronated by guest speaker Rabbi Ralph Messer. I can’t call this one, so I’ll just let you see it for yourself (it gets interesting and, uh, stupid at around the 4 minute mark):
Actually, I do I have a few things to say, mostly of an inquisitive nature:
(1) I’m sorry. But how is this not exalting a person of God? And where is this justified in the Bible? I forget.
(2) I can’t help but wonder how much Fast Eddie and his church paid this so-called “Rabbi” to do this mess.
(3) If the whole sex with boys thing isn’t enough for people to stop going to that damn church, will this? My guess is, not likely. In fact, evidence by all the people cheering and marveling at this coonery, I’m pretty sure he added a few members. Sigh. I know.
(4) Do they really expect us to believe that’s a real scroll? They know good and damn hell well they got that mess printed at Kinko’s.
(5) Carrying a throne? Really? What kind of hot mess is this?
(6) I wonder if Fast Eddie got aroused during all that talk about foreskin and raising stuff up (at the 1 minute mark). OK, let me stop.
Apparently, Fast Eddie has apologized for the event, but not because of the “crowning” itself, but because it may have attacked certain Jewish sensibilities:
I’m not Jewish and I don’t know much about the practice. So I’ll defer to them on that aspect of this story. But I will say as a Christian (particularly, but not limited to, being a member of a predominately black church), I’m concerned about how dangerous it is that church members erroneously elevate many of these so-called leaders to the status of God Himself. None of us are sinless, I get that. And I believe God is able and willing to use any one of us to advance His kingdom, despite our shortcomings. But this display is nothing short of flamboyance, arrogance, and nose-thumbing at God. Whether or not this was a deliberately orchestrated event to “restore” Fast Eddie to the ministry and bolster his embattled status, this nonsense was still wrong on every level possible.
So the other day, my homegirl Natasha (please check out her blog. She’s a serious mind) put me on to a pretty unnerving article written by Gene Marks, a business and technology contributor for Forbes Magazine. The article entitled, “If I was a Poor Black Kid” (probably putting money in his pocket each time the link is clicked) offered what Marks considered a cure-all to the inequalities faced by impoverished Black youth in our country. Marks’ commentary, laced with naïveté, posited that the key to economic equality for poor black kids was through education; specifically information technology. In theory, I agree. But if the admission into the technological world of which he spoke was so easy, there would have already been an explosion of smart Black kids finding their way into this country’s elite institutions. But unfortunately for Marks (and many others) reciting the “picking yourself up by the bootstraps” narrative doesn’t work when there are no bootstraps in the first place. Unfortunately, the perfect world scenario to which Marks has alluded can’t exist in a nation where the poverty rate for Black children is around 38%, almost triple that of Whites, where the black incarceration is almost six times that whites, and where inner-city schools are closing left and right while suburban schools are flourishing.
I should make it clear at this point that I’m not retreating to the victimization narrative that so many other people use as a crutch. Not in the least bit. And I do believe that personal responsibility must always be taken into account when examining certain social phenomena. But I’m forever annoyed when individuals like Gene Marks (and for that matter, most of the Republican party) lay out a litany of simplistic solutions all rotating around the contention that Black kids should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without critically examining the precipitating circumstances contributing to certain pathological behavior, or – for that matter – recognizing the privilege he and others like him boast. Until he considers those very complex ideas, his suggestions fall on deaf ears.
Marks says that if he were a poor, Black kid, he would make reading a number one priority, regardless of the state of the school. What Mr. Marks fails to take into account is the fact that schools ARE the problem! Many of the brightest Black students at under-performing schools succeed in spite of, not because of the institutional support they receive. Included in the lack of resources are up-to-date books, modern technological tools, adequate college placement or even a modest amount of career counseling. Additionally, the limited access or exposure to various expensive subscription-based scholarly resources only contributes to the steepness of the learning curve. More often than not, students who already felt failed by a disparate educational system are less likely motivated to push for success, even if they perform well in the classroom.
Mark furthers his rather vacuous argument by citing the role of information technology in black youth social improvement. On that point, I can agree. The emergence of social media has given black youth – and people, in general – more opportunity than ever to develop themselves intellectually and increase their civic engagement via cybernetic activity. However, access and a lack of technological proficiency found among poor folks is in this country is no fantasy. All the technological and educational tools in the world don’t matter if your family can’t afford internet access.
Marks adds to his insulting commentary by suggesting that in addition to getting good grades, poor Black kids should focus on improving their test scores. More nonsense. As a person who has taken hundreds of tests over my lifetime, several of which were standardized tests used for college admissions and placement, I can say these tests were not designed to measure raw intelligence. In fact, many of the tests were merely an exercise in memory and regurgitation. But even standardized testing like the ACT and SAT, which require students to have understanding of the content, support is severely limited. Oftentimes, curriculum is not designed to address some of the content found on these tests. Even then, access to test prep materials, courses, and tutorial services can be very costly. Passing exams like this is with minimal resources is not simply a product of “mind over matter” , contrary to how easy Marks make is sound.
All throughout various political circles, critics incessantly default to the Bootstrap principle to confront societal issues, usually doing so without addressing the systemic barriers impacting the ability of so many young people of color to advance. I don’t disagree that personal motivation, and parental involvement are factors that must be taken into consideration as well. However we can’t have discussions like this when disadvantaged people are faced with disparate access to vital resource. Instead of subscribing to the normative behavior of identifying scapegoats in the victims, perhaps we should focus our efforts on getting to the heart of the problem.
What do you think? Do you think Marks is on to something or that he has to walk a few miles in the other person’s shoes first? Holla at me!
Come here, Wisconsin. Let me holler at you for a second. What the hell is wrong with you people? It’s one thing to protest your idiot governor. It’s another thing to protest a school where 85% of the students who graduate go on to attend college:
For all the good teacher’s unions have accomplished, this nonsense represents the very worst of said teacher’s unions. Let the head shaking commence.
The Discussion Board