The Black Bot

The cycle of internalized racism continues

2011-12-24T00:11:00.000-05:00

Each time I hear someone complain, "Well, black people say the N-word. Why can't I say the N-word too?" It always sounds to me like, "You engage in self-harm. Why can't I cut you too?" Unfortunately not enough of my fellow AAs hear this as well. Instead, too many of us view the N-word as some sort of privileged that we can say simply because we are black. In any case, what caused me to think about this today was a quite shocking episode of America's Supernanny, which you can watch in full here. The subjects of the episode are an family of 10 kids (with two more on the way), the Carzells. Needless to say, they are out of control, which is rather remarkable in itself. However, their behavior does not compare to the racism that quickly spews from the children's mouth toward their 9 year-old sister Nevada. (This conversation starts at 7:30)

"That girl got something going on with her skin," Desja says, "She is dark!" All Nevada's sisters all begin to laugh at her. "You're the darkest person [in the room], so get out!"
Her brother shouts, "She took a shower yesterday, and she's still dark!"
"That's why no one ever knows where you are," Desja continues, "and every time we're at the store, you always get lost, because you're so dark."
"You is burt! You look like a gorilla."

Later Deborah Tillman (the Supernanny) confronts Desja about why she attacks her sister for being dark.
"Nevada was talking about everyone else," she says. "My mom was like, 'Nevada stop talking 'cause you're the darkest in this family."

This attitude is perpetuated throughout our community. Often, I see AAs highlighting racism coming from the outside. However, the outrage that comes when racism comes from someone who is not black is absent when a fellow AA is racist, which is why we have this absurd notion that it is okay for a fellow AA to say the n-word. "Oh, a Caucasian can't cut us, but we can hurt ourselves." As long as this attitude persists, with or without systematic racism, we will always keep ourselves down. It will only be changed when we start holding a AA who is racist accountable, just as we would if a Caucasian were to us. I don't care if you're black, you do not have a pass to be racist.

What African-Americans should be "taking back" instead of the N-word

2011-05-31T12:08:00.002-04:00

Why do some African-Americans believe that we have to “take back” the n-word? You can only reclaim what was yours to begin with. The n-word was never ours. It has only been used to subjugate us and strip us of our humanity. What self-respecting person would want to claim that poison?

Instead of claiming what was intended to demean us, why don’t we take back what was ours, namely our hair? African-Americans have let go of our hair, to the point that most of us don’t even know what our own natural hair looks like. We, and the rest of America for that matter, think that straight hair is normal for everyone, and view our own natural curls as strange and unusual. More critically, not only have we abandoned our own hair, we readily express contempt for it, calling it dirty and “nappy.” Why don’t African-Americans take back our hair?

Why don’t we reclaim our skin? Instead of using terms like “redbones” and delivering backhanded compliments to each other such as “You’re pretty for a dark skinned girl,” why don’t we celebrate our dark hues?

If we only strived to take these things back, rather than racial slurs, we would make more progress.

Christian bigotry toward Muslims

2011-04-27T22:31:00.002-04:00

It always interests me when I hear Christians talk about Muslims and their practices. They can always give detailed explanations of their motives and intentions, which is fascinating considering that most don't know even know any Muslims or have studied Islam themselves.

Jerry Boykin, here, has an idea that Muslims have nefarious objectives behind their actions. This is something that I hear a lot. In fact, his statement that Muslims claim all places of worship as "holy grail for Allah" particularly stuck out to me because last week a heard a Christian teaching that Muslims build mosques, not to worship, but to claim it for the land for themselves. Apparently, it is all part of an elaborate plot to take over America.

It's also amusing how Boykin condemns tolerant Christians because they "know absolutely nothing about Islam" when he further goes on to say that Muslims get kicks out of "cursing Jesus Christ." Indeed, Muslims hate Jesus so much that their Quran derides him by calling him a "servant of God," a "prophet," and "blessed." 19:30-31
I've noticed that many Christians seem to be under the impression that Muslims all hate Jesus, as in this comic by Jack Chick, for example. (Yes, I read chick tracks. They're amusing.)
Of course, there are several things wrong with this comic, but what I'm getting at is how Muslims are portrayed as angry, violent, Jesus-haters.
It worries me when I hear Christians who have a large platform saying things like this, especially in churches, because most Christians have no way of correcting this misinformation. They are mostly surrounded by like minded people, who shape their perspective, and one of their biggest influences on virtually every issue are the self-proclaimed experts who claims to speak on the behalf of God, such as a pastors and people like Chick and Boykin. Because of them, their image of Muslims will remain bigoted and one-sided.

Gays are after your children

2011-04-06T10:13:00.002-04:00

This is a program on a Christian station claiming that homosexuality is infiltrating schools and brainwashing kids that is okay to have two mothers and fathers. First, I find it ironic that Christians and Conservatives think that it's such a pernicious thing for a child to have two parents. Conservatives cannot call themselves pro-family if they would rather see a child alone in foster care than to have two mothers or two fathers.

The man who is being interviewed here is Michael Brown, an author of a book offensively titled "A Queer Thing Happened to America." The man who is hosting the show, Sid Roth, was impressed by the pun and asked Brown how he could have possibly come up with it. Brown said that God gave it to him. Interesting how God's words always reflect our own values, no matter how bigoted they may be.

Brown continues by saying that homosexuality is further being sold to us by gay characters on TV. It angers him that "every sitcom has a gay character" and that they are always portrayed positively. I find gay characters frustrating as well but because they way they are portrayed, which is not uplifting at all. The treatment of gays on TV is horrendous. Much as African Americans, they are always stereotypical, one dimensional, token cardboard cut outs that are used to give the illusion of diversity.

According to Brown, gays on TV are all part of a plot to "legitimize homosexuality." I hear this from Christians a lot, and I'm confused by why they believe that America is seeking their approval or why we need their it at all. I don't care whether Christians think that homosexuality is legitimate or not, and I don't try to make them accept it. Christians can disagree with homosexuality all they want, but they don't have the right to deny LGBT their rights. Like I've said before, you can disagree with someone without trying to take their rights away.

This statement from the interviewer, Sid Roth was particularly interesting to me:

Is this the course that nations take before they reach their final destruction?

Now that is a real gem. Of all the problems--environmental issues, gender, racial, and class inequalities, the dreadful state of American education--none of theses will bring about the apocalypse. Homosexuality is! Furthermore, although this is a common claim of Christians, not one can explain how a child having two daddies will cause the Milky Way to collide with Andromeda. I'm still waiting.

Other great quotes:

Diversity is the code word for gay activism.

[If same-sex marriage became legal] it would be mandatory that we would have to accept it...Adult incest would also be okay, poly-amorous relationships would also be okay...Christian schools would be required to teach that homosexual practice is fine. Home-schoolers would be required to teach that homosexual practice is fine. Preachers...will go to jail for discrimination.

These are just baseless assumptions, which Brown can't support with any evidence. He is just Henny Penny here, claiming that the sky is falling.

More quotes from Brown:

I'm...making sure the gay and lesbian audience understands my genuine love for them.

Now that's really hilarious. You've practically labeled them as agents of the devil, but you adore them.

Sid Roth:

If God says that you are not to be a practicing homosexual, then you can abstain. I know you can do that!

It's rather contradictory for God to make people gay if he wants them to abstain. Of course, God also said that he makes people deaf, mute, and blind, as well, so I guess I shouldn't expect much logic there.

This whole video:

African-American women are invisible

2011-01-14T11:11:00.002-05:00

A study from Psychology Today stated that AA women are "invisible." Not only are we not noticed, and people have difficulty remembering our faces; but they also do not pay attention to what we say. They think that we are interchangeable with other AA women. Of course, we already knew that. The television tells us everyday, "We won't acknowledge you unless you look white." While we see male AA characters who actually look as if they are of African descent, virtually all female AA characters are subject to a paper bag test. Women who look Hispanic, mixed, or white with a perm are cast in our roles.

"Black" Daphne from Queer as Folk is a typical example

Television on the other hand typically uses male AA actors who actually appear to be Black, so it is no surprise to me that the study showed that they were listened to and noticed by the participants in the study. The phenomena of AA women being represented on TV by women who do not look like they're of African descent is related to why society does not acknowledge us, and I wish that another study would further explore this topic.

In addition, I can also see that AA women feel ignored as well, which is why many seem rather obsessive on topics concerning Interracial and Black-love relationships and dating. Perceiving that they are regarded as irrelevant, they feel a stronger need to get validation from men. When some women don't love themselves, they try to compensate by relying on men for attention.

A day or two ago, I came across a series of paintings by Margret Bowland that express the invisibility that AA women experience because we do not fit into the white standard. Besides their perceptiveness, what makes her paintings even more remarkable is the fact that she is European-American. She has such keen insight into what it is like to be an "other," to not be respected because you are not someone else.

The following is a portion of a statement by Bowland on this issue. You can read it in its entirety here.

We inhabit a purely relative world, in terms of belief structures, yet each of us knows and in a sense, believes in, the need to be beautiful. My work is about beauty—what it means to be beautiful and what significance the idea has in the twenty-first century in the world of art. We all know that being beautiful is as important as being rich, that being beautiful is itself a form of wealth. One must be tall, thin and white. One’s features must be diminutive and regular. We recognize deviations from this norm, but recognize that these deviations, even if appealing, are far from ideal. The need to be beautiful fuels one of the largest and most ruthless industries in our world.

Beauty makes sense to me, has weight for me, only when it falls from grace. It starts to matter when it carries damage. Sorrow allows it to cast a shadow. It becomes three-dimensional. It enters our world.

Looking at Manet’s Olympia, I wondered about the two women depicted—the young, naked prostitute and the black maid servant—about the relationship between them and to the man observing them. His implied presence began to unite them to me, not as lovers, but as the prey sharing a foxhole. In my imagination, the women of my paintings entered that room. What my century brings to the ideas of race and beauty and sexual allure began to overlay Manet’s.

The Myth of Traditional Marriage

2011-01-11T09:12:00.000-05:00

So, I was reading in my sociology book today, and was struck by a passage that talked about love and marriage. Apparently, the two were, and remain in many areas around the world, separate from each other for most of history. Romance only began to be coupled with marriage in modern times, and the whole experience of falling in love emerged during the Middle Ages with aristocrats' extramarital love affairs. While they had romances with others, the relationships they had with their spouses were cold and distant.

I found this amusing because it reminded me of Conservatives "First comes love, then comes marriage..." idealistic view of relationships. They like to delude themselves into thinking that God has ordained one man and woman to fall in love and marry when really it hasn't been that way for most of our history. They don't realize that our perspectives on marriage are the results of centuries of social evolution, and that our perception of them will keep changing. God has not etched on a stone tablet how relationships are supposed to look, and we have not only recently deviated from some social norm. On the contrary, what Conservatives consider to be God's will for marriage is a recent development that the world hasn't seen before.

On a side note, it amuses me how Christians call one man-one woman "traditional marriage" when one can clearly see that polygamy is more traditional, at least in the Bible in any case.

African-Americans supporting racism and ignorance

2011-01-10T17:05:00.002-05:00

I just read this article about Lil Wayne’s hatred of dark skinned women. Now, I don’t care about Lil Wayne nor his statements (as I’ve never listened to his music or that of any other rappers, for that matter), and I won’t discuss the irony of his disgust for dark women, considering that he is dark himself. Also, I’m not surprised by his comments as I’ve heard rappers say similar things. However, I am disappointed that when they make such statements, AAs not only do not bat an eye but continue to lap their music up. If anyone of European descent said that we were ugly or inferior in anyway because of our skin color, AAs would be appalled, yet they throw millions of dollars toward rappers who only demean our worth and refer to us as "bitches" and "hoes". How oblivious are we that we actually pay someone to insult us--especially AA women who idolize singers and other celebrities who have a paper bag test for the women they associate with and allow in their videos? I will not expect the conditions of African-Americans to change in this country while we continue to oppress ourselves. As long as we, and the people that we esteem, associate our worth to the color of our skin and the texture of our hair, the problems that plague our community will continue to persist.

Another reaction to Lil Wayne's statements that I find quite irritating are some people’s dismal of them as just a preference, as if our “preferences” just arise from nowhere and are therefore trivial. We are all aware of the racial hierarchy in this country from when we are just children. These “preferences” of men are merely the racism they learned during childhood manifesting itself when they are adults. We can’t remedy problems when we will not even acknowledge that they exist. The more that we have discussions about colorism, the more likely it is that people will confront the self-hatred and internalized racism that fuels their biases toward skin color.

The Atheist that Stole Christmas (The Christian Perception of Victimization)

2010-11-28T16:06:00.000-05:00

They're trying to take "Christ" out of "Christmas."

It's not even December, but I'm already hearing that familiar cry of victimization. The phrase bothers me, to a lesser extent, because it assumes that just because one is not a Christian that he or she is automatically anti-Christian. To hear many Christians talk, one would presume that it is every non-Christian's aim to stamp out all references of Christ, or that we quail at the mere sight of a cross. But just because we left the religion doesn't mean that we hate everything that is connected with it. Heck, I still listen to Richard Smallwood and Kirk Franklin. So, yeah, I find it rather insulting that the church keeps sending the message that just because I'm an atheist, that I have nothing better to do with my time than to obsess about removing baby Jesus from their nativity scenes.

However, what annoys me the most about this phrase are the privileged connotations that go along with it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "Happy Holidays" condemned as an evil plot against Christianity just because it doesn't recognize Christianity as being supreme. Christians have such a sense of entitlement in America that they feel that every thing that does not acknowledge them is a direct attack. Do you celebrate Chanuka or Kwanzaa? Too bad. Jesus is the reason for the season, so your holidays cannot be recognized at all. Tell me, if Christianity is not a religion but instead is a personal relationship, why is it necessary to force it on everyone else? If Christmas is all about Jesus for you, fine, as it is your "personal relationship" after all, but stop trying to make others join it. I mean really, you don't see Jews protesting when business put up signs that say "Merry Christmas," but Christians protest holiday trees because it does not mention them. A lack of privilege over other religions is a sign of a oppression apparently.

This reminds me of how a couple of times I have heard Christians say that they are oppressed because they are not allowed to proselytize in public schools. It is as if they just cannot understand why someone would not want them to teach children about their religion, when they know that they would raise hell if a Muslim, Mormon, JW, etc. came on school grounds and did the exact same thing. However, because they are Christians, they feel as if they should get a pass.

Have you heard of the Christian movie "Christmas with a Capital C." It pretty much sums up the sentiment I described in this post.

Slavery and Religion

2010-09-23T11:16:00.007-04:00

I don’t want to be one of those people—the anti-religious who think there are absolutely no redeeming qualities in religion, but reading things like this only help to alienate me from faith in general.

To make my position clear, I’ll first start by saying that I don’t believe that any religions are inspired. People create religions for primarily three reasons:

To get answers about things they do not understand, such as why the world works the way it does and were people go after they die
To promote their own agenda and to control the masses
To gain inner peace and tranquility

Reasons one and two are the ones with which I have a problem; however, I will be focusing on two today. But, I probably should just start by saying what motivated this topic before post loses any sense of order.

What caused me to think about this topic today was Phillis Wheatley (1754?-1784), a talented Senegalese woman who was kidnapped and sold to John Wheatley when she was seven. He taught her to read and write. She used her knowledge to create poems that astonished Americans at the time. They didn’t believe that an African girl could be brilliant. She published Poems on Various Subjects; Religious and Moral in 1773, which was praised in both Europe and North America. With her prominence, it would be marvelous if she used her talents and influence to move others to understand the barbarism of slavery, helping to liberate her brothers and sisters, as Olaudah Equiano did for example. Instead, she created poetry like this. (I highlighted the most notable parts.)

‘Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there's a God, that there's a Saviour too:
Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.
Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
"Their colour is a diabolic die."
Remember, Christians, Negros, black as Cain,
May be refin'd and join the' angelic train.

Two things are notable about this poem. The first is Wheatley’s praising slavery as an act of divine providence. The fact that anyone, especially someone whose race is a victim of it, could think that such cruelty and brutality is a gift from God is astonished me. Being someone’s slave is worth it in the end because you will die and spend eternity worshiping a God who put you in that position to begin with?

The second piece of this poem that I found disturbing is the apologetic way that she refers to our race. If we are cleaned up and civilized, we can too can be permitted into heaven behind the Europeans. Oh, joy.

In addition, her reference to Cain is also interesting. Christians have long used the myth that Cain was cursed with black skin by God to advocate racism against Africans. She actually believes this lie, and thinks that we should be tolerated in spite of this fault. But, before I go on, I want to clarify I’m not blaming Wheatley personally for this. She was a victim of a society that has used religion as a medium of control. It disgusts me that not only did Americans use this reasoning to justify slavery, but also they were able to integrate it so much in our psyche that we even accepted inferiority—even to the point where we were grateful for slavery. However, what is important is that this thinking still motivates our actions to this day.

How much does myth and superstition control African-Americans? Do you know someone who routinely wastes her money by throwing it away to preachers or and churches expecting God to “multiply her seed” so that she can “reap her harvest?” What about someone who continues to make foolish mistakes because “God will make a way” or will provide? Have you heard songs like this?

“Faithful Is Our God”

I'm reaping the harvest God promised me
Take back what the devil stole from me
And I rejoice today, for I shall recover it all

“The Blessing of Abraham”

You are the seed by faith receive

The blessing of Abraham

Wherever you are, where er' you go

Whatever you touch is anointed to grow

"God Will Make a Way"

God will make a way

Where there seems to be no way

He works in ways we cannot see
He will make a way for me

From: http://www.musicbabylon.com

It’s about time that we learned that neither God nor prayer nor magic beans will grant prosperity. There is no force that trails you, allows good things to happen to you, or that mops up your messes up when things go wrong. Your life is entirely in your hands. If you seek opulence, then it will have to be through your hard work, determination, and education—not because you gave a seed of a hundred bucks to your preacher. This is just one example, but I look forward to when religion stops holding us back.

Minorities are the Borg

2010-07-19T11:25:00.004-04:00

A great disadvantage of being a member of a minority is constantly being seen as only a part of a collective. For example, European-Americans are regarded as individuals, while a minority is just seen as a member of the racial or religious group to which he or she belongs. If John is EA, his actions are only seen as a representation of himself, and he is not expected to conform to any racial standard. However, as a minority, his every action would be evaluated on how closely he fit into a stereotypical mold, and if he did not, he would just be deemed an exception. I call this perception of minorities the "Borg Effect." We aren't expected to have our own voice, and the actions of a few are seen as the responsibility of all.

I saw the Borg Effect at work today after reading Sarah Palin's objections to a mosque being built two blocks away from Ground Zero. She tweets:

Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing

First, it's interesting that she addresses them as "peace-seeking," as if they by nature they are uncharacteristic. She must distinguish good Muslims from the supposed normal, violent Muslims. Secondly, she, and apparently many Americans, expect all Muslims to take responsibility for the attacks of 9/11. As one narrator said:

On Sept. 11, they declared war against us. And to celebrate that murder of 3,000 Americans [as if Muslims aren't Americans too and none were victims of 9/11], they want to build a monstrous 13-story mosque at ground zero.

So, the responsibility of 9/11 does not rest on the suicide boomers head, or on the terrorist organizations, but on every single one of the one billion Muslims of the world. By this logic, should we forbid any European-Americans from operating near the location where the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed? Lovely.

The Colour of Beauty

2010-07-06T14:12:00.002-04:00

I can't say that I was surprised by anything in this documentary, but there are interesting things that I would like to note.

"We want white girls dipped in chocolate"

I appreciate that they were honest and frank about that matter. There was no need to hide such an obvious truth. However, what got me was how the man described African features compared to European ones. To him ours are harsh, while Europeans' are "elegant." It was if the discrimination against African decent models was understandable because we are not naturally as lovely as European decent models. It is the discrimination against African decent models with European features that is the shame! Throughout the media, we have seen that AA women are accepted on the condition that we show our African ancestry to only a limited degree. If you don't pass the paper bag test, you aren't let through the door. This conditional permitted isn't true acceptance at all, and is designed to maintain the facade of diversity. We should not mistaken it as such. We also should not embrace tokenism. As one woman said, you see the same minority women over and over in the fashion industry. This is not progress, although the media attempts to use it to delude us into thinking that it is such.

We have to give 110%

My mother always told me that I have two strikes against me. 1. I am African-American. 2. I am a woman. Therefore, I have to do better than everyone else. This video pointed this principle out once again. As the models said, Euro women can make due with a few flaws, but Afro women have to be absolutely flawless to get a job. I think this is an important lesson that our community must keep in mind. Since we face greater opposition, working half-heartedly isn't acceptable. We can't simply be good or adequate. We must strive to be better.

How to end the discrimination?
The objective of any documentary is to bring attention to a problem so we can find a solution. The best way, I believe, that we can open doors for our sisters in the fashion industry is to be the leaders of it ourselves. We have to be the producers, directors, and the casting agents--the one's making decisions. If we were, we wouldn't have to beg the European-Americans to give us a chance.

Woman Sues Church For Performing Gay Unions

2010-07-06T13:22:00.003-04:00

It is not enough that she draws her morality from a book that contradicts itself a 1,000 times on basic moral concepts (Matthew 26:52; 1 Samuel 15:3) and over half of which some how doesn't count anymore, she feels as if she has the duty to force everyone else to share these beliefs as well. Why must Christians incessantly impose their personal beliefs on others? If you fell that it is wrong to be a homosexual, fine, but what gives you the right to dictate to others what their lives should be? People think that by just claiming that God mandates that something wrong, they are justified in denying people the right to make own choices. However, a nation cannot be run on people's opinions on what is the word of God.

What if the United States was suddenly a country made predominately of Jews and Muslims? What if Christians were the minority? Both of the previous religions believe that God commanded that they do not eat pork; however, Christians still do eat pork readily. Would the Jewish and Muslim majorities have the right to make the sale and consumption of pork illegal in the United States on the basis that "God said so?"

There are almost 40,000 denominations and countless of independent religions all serving as emissaries, telling us different messages of what God says. However, until God actually comes and gives an order himself, God's word remains man's opinion, and therefore cannot be forced upon rothers.

Should We Celebrate African-Americans' Independence Day?

2010-07-02T14:50:00.010-04:00

Growing up, Independence Day was never a holiday that I was really able to get into. In the back of my mind, I always felt a bit foolish commemorating a holiday that celebrated my supposed freedom when I would have been enslaved and not even recognized as human at the time. The Fourth of July always left me feeling a bit left out.

Today, I am rather disappointed that the freedom of African-Americans is not celebrated. It's unfortunate that America still does not recognize the day when all Americans were officially declared free on December 6th, and I know that many people would censure the holiday as merely an attempt to placate African-Americans. However, the thirteenth amendment was a major civil rights victory that helped to end many atrocities in our country and brought us a major step forward to the dream where liberty and justice are available to all citizens, the dream that nation claimed to stand for. In short, because the thirteenth amendment was a triumph for human rights, I hope it would be seen as a holiday for all Americans as the 4th is now. Of course, considering the climate of our country right now, I think we are a bit away for that happening, but I wish that at least that we would recognize the day, if no one else does.

How you can support other African-Americans with cancer

2010-06-28T12:06:00.003-04:00

Our community has a terrible shortage of bone marrow donors. Seven million people in total have registered as donors, but we make up only approximately 500,000 of that number. Because of the lack of minority donors, we have less than a 30 percent chance of finding someone who is a suitable match. If you would like to help a brother or sister with leukemia or another illness, please visit icla.org or marrow.org and join the bone marrow registry.

American Evangelicals Promote Hate in Uganda

2010-06-03T08:23:00.006-04:00

I saw this documentary a couple of days ago, and decided to post it here. It concerns American Evangelicals encouraging an anti-gay sentiment among Ugandans and the effects if their actions.

There are so many disappointing things about this video. First, the Americans should have taken some responsibility for the flaring of hatred against in Uganda. I can understand why they would feel betrayed. As usual, the Evangelicals portrayed homosexuality as one of the worst possible sins ever, and then they backpedal when they try to implement a crackdown in response. Interestingly, from many American Evangelicals' view point, their actions seem extreme; however, it is light in comparison to the Bible they follow (Leviticus 20:13; Leviticus 18:22; 1 Corinthians 6:9). In their hearts, I believe that most American evangelicals know that most biblical practices are antiquated and do not coexist well with modern values. Unfortunately, regions outside the West continue to take these ancient beliefs and practices seriously because they are repeatedly told that that these spiritual text are the direct word of God. (But I am unfairly implying that this is just an Eastern problem. Americans are just as guilty of trying to govern from an obsolete perspective, but fortunately, we have a greater tendency to just ignore the nasty parts of our holy book.) In addition, another problem lies in that the Ugandans don't see hate and intolerance against homosexuals as a problem. In fact, they are proud of it, so the abhorrence with which Bible views homosexuals wouldn't bother them. In the US, we are expected to be more tolerant and homophobia is relatively looked down upon, so these, in addition to the other verses in which God calls for the stoning of people for minor infractions, have served to embarrass evangelicals here. As a result, the anti-gay message in the Bible would do more harm in Uganda, which is why evangelicals should have been more cautious with caustic message.

Another thing that stuck out to me was an Ugandan preacher's claim that if you had a problem with what he said, you were disagreeing with God, which brings up an interesting observation.

So far, I've only heard preacher's talking, people from the Middle East thousands of years ago talking, but no God talking. I'm sure if God had something to say, he would say it himself, in a more efficient manner no less. That way, we wouldn't have almost 40,000 denominations of Christianity and innumerable other religions all telling us what "God says." He himself would certainly clarify all of this confusion. However, as he has not, the world runs guessing the will of "the Picard. " (Reference to an episode of TNG where a race of people, assuming Picard was a god, were willing to do anything an desperate attempt to fulfill his will.) In any case, it is always dangerous when people believe that they must hate because a god told them to, and the Bible certainly can justify this. It can only be stopped when people understand that they cannot turn to their religious leaders or even their holy books to hear what God says. Religion may provide a useful moral guide, but when it is dogmatic, rigid, and absolute, it is dangerous. I hope Uganda does not allow their attempt to decipher the will of God to erode the rights of their citizens

Draw Muhummad Day

2010-05-20T08:22:00.005-04:00

So today is "Draw Muhammad Day," and I'm saddened that this trend has taken off with such fervor. More importantly, it is disappointing how few people can see through this. This is not an exercise of speech but one of hatred. Those who deny that this is meant to disrespect Muslims are simply naive. If Muslims in turn burned the US flag to demonstrate their power of free speech, we can be certain that the people who are participating in this would feel threatened and would clearly see it as a proclamation of abhorrence to Americans. Likewise, by drawing their prophet in humiliating ways, Americans are announcing their animosity for Muslims and Islam. Americans are demonstrating their lack of tolerance for those who do not adhere to its definition of what is normal and acceptable. It is another declaration of the message "assimilate or else."

An example of this sentiment comes from Mark Steyn who expresses his fear of a West taken over by Muslims. Of course, a predominately Muslim country could have only the worst possible outcome.

Religion has many detrimental effects on societies period, but I do not see the growth of Islam in the West as an affront to my freedom. Steyn seems to forget that religion isn't stagnant but grows and evolves. Culture does not conform to religion, but religion to the culture. It is like water that takes the form of the glass it is in. In addition, Islamic countries around the world are being influenced by the West, and Islam most certainly will change as it enters Western nations.

Arizona is at it again...

2010-05-12T10:19:00.008-04:00

Governor Jan Bewer is turning her guns ethnic study programs this time. According to Arizon's school chief Tom Horne, programs that teach Mexican-American students about their history "teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people." Bewer's spokesperson expressed similar sentiment, "The governor believes ... public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people."

The best way I can express my reaction to yet another Arizona failure

But you know, what I really despise about this (besides the obvious bigotry that spawned this of course) is faulty reasoning behind it. The statements of these officials reflect a common sentiment among Americans: any gain of minorities is an affront to European-Americans. The looming prospect of an equal playing field makes many feel victimized. European-American students can enjoy an entire school system that revolves around them, but as we begin to extend this privilege to students of all races, they cry that they are under attack. I wish America would learn that when minorities advance in this system and work to make a better life for ourselves, it is not to the detriment of European-Americans. On the contrary, equality may eliminate white privilege, but ultimately everyone benefits. As Sean Arce noted in the article, "students perform better in school if they see in the curriculum people who look like them." If ethnic studies encourage minority students do work harder in school, which in turn results in a more educated population, then we should promote the programs rather than restricting on them; however, they cannot see that all of America will profit from furthering the interest of minorities.

There was a portion of this article that did make me laugh. A Republican running for attorney general has been attacking ethnic studies since he heard Dolores Huerta, a Hispanic civil right's activist, tell students in 2006 "Republicans hate Latinos." Way to prove her right! Republicans have always struggled with the racist connotations that are attached to their party, but in recent days it seems that they are really trying to fuel that fire. If they keep it up, they will alienate their rational supporters and will be identified with extremist.

The Prosperity Gospel: We've been suckered

2010-05-02T17:07:00.005-04:00

It's distressing how many African-Americans have become the victim of the "Prosperity Gospel." Far too many of the naive and the poor believe that if they throw their money to some self-proclaimed prophet of God, they will get 10 to a 100 fold more. If they just plant a seed, God will open the windows of heaven and throw cash their way. How these people got this from Jesus who told the rich-young-ruler to give up his riches and follow him, store your riches in heaven, and praised the poor widow who gave everything away, I am not sure. Jesus, Paul, and any of his disciples lived the life of vagabonds, yet God's greatest concern is to lavish us with riches. These prosperity teachers do not even remotely resemble the founders of Christianity. However, African-Americans fail to see this and continue to chant the mantra that If they sow their financial seed, they will reap their harvest, as songs like "Faithful is Our God" and "Blessing of Abraham" show. I wish these people could understand that when they give their income to these "preachers," they aren't sowing their seed, they are buying a these people's jets. Why can't they open their eyes and see that their harvest has never come? You've given $500 bucks away, and not only have you not gotten $5,000, but you're still in the same debt as you used to be. African-American Christians need to understand there are no easy solutions or short cuts in this life. God is not a genie, nor is he your good-luck charm. Yet so many people delude themselves thinking that they can make bad decisions, listen to these prosperity sermons, and magically "God will provide." Your mess or success has nothing to do with God, but your own hard work (or lack of it) and decisions. It's time for many African-Americans to take that responsibility and stop looking into the clouds.

If you or someone you know believes in prosperity teaching, I would recommend reading Charismatic Chaos (John F. MacArthur) or A Different Gospel: Biblical and Historical Insights into the Word of Faith Movement (Dan R. Mcconnell).

Light, Day, and Night: Stars Not Included

2010-05-02T16:44:00.009-04:00

A Christian was talking about Genesis 1. To shorten his overall point, he was saying that if humanity didn't believe Genesis we would be doomed. (His thesis basically was, if man was not made in the image of God, man would have no value. You could just kill someone like a bug because he would be the product of random chance instead of design. Christians freak me out with sort of thinking, but I digress.) In any case, I asked him if he could explain why God creates light, night, and day all before he creates any stars. After rambling on, he could not, and told me I could research this answer myself as it has been debated for a long time. However, I find it curious that Christians think that there is an answer at all. Even when faced with a problem that is as illogical as this, they still believe that there must be some, any explanation, just because it says so in the Bible. They ignore the fact that you can make up an explanation for anything! If the Bible had the following verse: "And God created the world as flat as unleavened bread," I could defend it by saying that the Bible didn't really mean the earth itself was flat. It was referring to the illusion made by the horizon line. Christians would accept this as true because it's the word of God, therefore, any and everything is justifiable. Genocide is justifiable. Slavery is justifiable. Talking donkeys and snakes are completely realistic. Likewise, it makes just as much since to believe that the day and the night are completley logical concepts without the sun. With the Bible, there is an answer to everything, we just haven't created it yet.

Note:
Dr. Lorne L. Dawson summarized this tendency of religions to deny the obvious in the study "When Prophecy Fails, Faith Persist"

Ready for more African-American woman bashing: America can't get enough

2010-04-22T08:54:00.003-04:00

It's no secret that African-American women have been the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in recent days. Study's have been released reporting how we all have herpes and only have a media wealth of $5. Films like Precious encourage our image of having broken, pathological lives. Chris Rock does his part by teaching the world that we have illogical, obsessive relationship with our hair. A plethora of news outlets report on how African-American women cannot find a man and are doomed to remain desperate and lonely. Fortunately for us, dozens of AA men have stepped up to highlight all of our flaws and teach us how if we could just get our act together all of our problems would just disappear. Apparently to America, the African-American woman is a wide eyed lost babe in the wood in need of direction, and everyone has the answers to what our "problems" are and is ready to show us the light.

Naturally, we are sick of this degradation, but it won't stop any time soon. African-American women's aggravation bubbled over last night when NightLine once again broadcast that we can't have successful relationships. I have to say, this didn't bother me too much as I do not watch it because I won't focus on things that are this ridiculously trite. However, this morning on Amazon I a book that was provoking. (The man is the author)

According to Amazon, it was published in February this year. Pettiford said, "Topics will range from: 1) The Media Stereotypes of Black Women, 2) Why Black Men Don’t Want Black Women, 3) The Dark History of Black Women in America, 4) The Weakness of The Strong Black Woman, 5) Why So Many Black Women Are Single, and so much more."

I am so tired of society's constant inspection of us, of all of us being reduced to a stereotypes, and of America self-righteous attitude, acting as if all problems reside within AA women. I'm ready for them to put down their stones and to stop this constant condemnation of us. African-American women need to move on from the position of being America's whipping boy

Assimilate or Face the Consequences

2010-04-21T16:22:00.008-04:00

Two stories irritated me today. The first was about a woman who was denied a job because locks. Her supervisor considered locks to be an "extreme hairstyle." People who consider natural hair styles to be "extreme" our delusional. I wear an afro because that hair texture is what is dictated by my genetic code. There's nothing, odd, unusual or extreme about it. If our natural hair is extreme, so is our chocolate skin. However, it is our fault as African-Americans that this problem persist. We went through so much effort to forget about our afro hair in an attempt to assimilate that no one respects it as a racial trait. If we did not drop the ball in this area, deny someone of a job because her hair texture was not European enough would be seen as racist as telling someone that she was not light skinned enough to get a job. That's why I am so glad when I see other naturals. We must support natural hair to make America understand that our it is our genetic feature so that the discrimination and mockery of our hair will stop.

This derision of our features is in the same class as black face and is not acceptable.

The second unfortunate story I found today is regard's France's promotion of a bill the banning wearing a wearing a full Islamic veil in public. As I have said before, I believe that organized religion is detrimental and I would like to see it lose it's prominence, but this makes me sick. France has no right to deny people the ability to express themselves the way that they choose. These women are not hurting anyone, nor are they affecting anyone else by their choice of clothes. There is no excuse for this, and I hope it gets struck down. This is nothing but an out lash of hatred, but this is evident. The spokesperson for the president, Luc Chatel, said

"We're legislating for the future. Wearing a full veil is a sign of a community closing in on itself and a rejection of our values."

In other words, assimilate or face the consequences. Both of these stories are examples of people being threatened simply because others are different from them. Society must learn that just because someone does not conform doesn't mean they are automatically dangerous.

African-American Women and Dating Desperation

2010-04-16T08:01:00.003-04:00

I cannot stand when African-American act so desperate on the internet. I feel so embarrassed. One can go online now to a plethora of blogs or YouTube videos can see countless AA women making slide shows and blog post expressing their devotion to men of other races. Do these women realize how they are degrading us. It is as if AA women are begging or pleading for any one love us, and it saddens me that we feel that we have to work so hard to get men to show us some attention. Furthermore, why don't AA women see that no one else is obsessing over us online at the volume that we do to others? If other men were so eager to start IR relationships with us, you wouldn't have to beg. This sort of behavior is nothing short of pathetic, and it needs to stop. It's only contributing to the destruction of our image.

Why do African-Americans Celebrate Mediocrity?

2010-04-13T12:06:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, my college had an event that was supposed to commemorate the "Black high achievers" of the school. At first, I was elated. Society shines more light on AAs who do bad things rather than on those who work hard, so I was happy that the college took the time to praise those who did. So when I arrived at the school, I was immediately surprised by how many people are there. (Over 200 people showed up!) Since the name of the program was called "Black High Achievers," I expected the people on the President's list or, at the very least, the Dean's list to be invited. However, it seemed that every man and his brother showed up. Then later in the ceremony, the organizer of the event said that the ceremony was meant to recognize people with a GPA of 2.9 and higher. The rest of speakers went on and on about how hard we worked and so forth, but for the entire evening I was really ticked off. Here were AAs who were saying that for their own people, having a GPA of 2.9 is a high achievement! Instead of telling the students to get their act together and work harder, they praised them how they had arrived. How can we set the bar so for ourselves?! I have a problem with anyone who acts as if being mediocre is an achievement for AAs. You cannot praise someone for staying out of jail, taking care of their kids, etc., because that is what they are supposed to do. This only reinforces the mentality that it is our place to be subpar.

True Blood's Portrayal of African-American Women

2010-03-31T21:14:00.011-04:00

For a moment, I was considering checking out the "True Blood" series, but gave up the idea after hearing about the African-American female character, Tara. I hated that she was simply an epitome of the trite AA woman stereotype: loud and rude, with no depth. Furthermore, I disliked how she was so readily and easily available for sex with the Caucasian male's character without any level of commitment, as if she wasn't worth having a real relationship with him. To compound matters even further the colorism in the casting of this woman was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Every American knows that a light skinned, mixed, or Latina woman will be the first to be cast for an African-American woman role. However, this rule reverses if the character is stereotypical or otherwise obnoxious. True Blood stayed true to that rule. Apparently, the first woman wasn't Black enough to be "ghetto."

Here's the first woman cast:

Here's the second and final:

African-Americans embrace all that is negative and destructive

2010-03-20T01:07:00.017-04:00

They walk down the path of self-destruction...obliviously?

I was reading Clutch Magazine and was struck by an article talking about a writer at Grazia Daily UK describing afros as "ghetto fabulous." I hate hate hate when the word "ghetto" is used as a synonym for African-Americans, and even though I felt motivated to lash out at Caucasian ignorance, I realized that we share a significant part of the blame. It has become part of our culture to embrace and internalize negativity. It is as if we have a campaign to "claim" everything that is bad. We were called "nigger,"so instead of stomping our foot down and proclaiming, "No, I am too a man" we feel the need to "take back" the word. American's dehumanization of us caused us to be in poverty, but instead of saying "I am going to fight out of this quagmire," we accept the ghetto as our home and see it as something to be celebrated. I searched "ghetto" under song title at EndlessLyrics.com and found 108 songs glorifying life in the ghetto! Dang, it's like James and Florida fighting their whole life to get out of the projects just for J.J., Themla, and Michael wanting to stay in. How African-Americans have become so content with being third class citizens is beyond unsettling. How can we get ahead when we glamorize poverty and crime--when we don't even see that we are in trouble in the first place? That is what separated the African-Americans in the 60s and earlier from us today. They recognized they were drowning and were desperate to know how to swim. People to day have their head underwater but are too ignorant to fight to keep their head above. It is as if we look at others, such as our president and the prominent figures in African-American History Month, and use them to delude ourselves that we have equal status. Is it that our eyes are so focus on the past that we cannot see where are today? Has the illusion of a post-racial America made us believe that we are at dead end-- that there is no more to achieve? And most importantly, how can we slap ourselves out of this fantasy?

Using Interracial Dating as a Weapon

2010-02-23T10:17:00.008-05:00

As people don't seem to read my post, but are making assumptions, here's a note so I don't have to say this over and over. This post is about African-Americans, not just AA women (2) this is not an anti-IR post. (3) This is directed at those who IR date because they have problems with AA (wo)men.

A picture says a thousand words

I just heard of this book by CW today. The cover pretty much sums up the depths of self-hated to which we have sunken. It's no secret that there is a gender war of sorts in the African-American community. Scores of us are verbally destroying our Brothers and Sisters in order to justify why we want to date anyone who isn't of our race. However, people who do this fail to realize that no matter how much they deride African-American (wo)men, they are pretty much shooting blanks as far as their argument is concerned. Here's why:

1. Let's just be honest. You just see European as better.
What all of these arguments come down to is a denial of racial bias. Rather acknowledging that they simply have a bias to Europeans, they put the blame on all of those of the opposite sex, saying that their in inadequacies forced them to find a mate outside their race. But anyone who is not in denial can see straight through this. We were all raised in this Euro-centric culture, so we know how you think. We were all trained to judged things by how white they are and only stop doing this when we recognize our behavior and work to correct it. But until we do, we chase after what closely matches the standard. I mean really, why choose an African-American, who doesn't come close to meeting the European Standard, when you can get the genuine item? Those who do this do not want to recognize their behavior, so in order to cover up their biases, they say that the other gender is responsible for their malicious feelings.

2. We come from the same origin.
I never understood how someone could rant about how terrible all African-American (wo)men were when we are raised in the same environments. It is not as if African-American women and men were born and raised on different planets. We grew up together in the same communities and cultures, so the bad soil that turned one of us rotten must have done the same to the other. Therefore, you can't act like the other gender is evil but yours is an innocent angel from heaven.

3. What Makes You Think the EA's Want You?
When you have so many problems with African-Americans, what makes you think that European-Americans wouldn't as well? If you don't respect African Americans, don't expect European-Americans to either.

4. Who made European-Americans demigods?
How can one find so many faults with African-Americans, but none with European-Americans at all? These African-American (wo)men bashers act as if choosing a EA for a mate will give them a flawless relationship straight out of a Disney movie and make their life complete. Their elevation of EA's to god-like perfection just illustrates their poor view of AA's. Secondly, since they love to talk about how superior EAs are a choice for mates, one must wonder what they do when talks about racism roll around. After all, it appears that EA's have more interest in AA's welfare than we do ourselves. They really have nothing to complain about.

What's truly ironic about this picture
Each time I hear someone insinuate that European-American men are better, such as in the cover of this book, the irony just sickens me. The author of this book says, "Black men are continuously being taught to disrespect, dishonor, and disregard the Black woman. The ugly, heartbreaking results manifest themselves with the 'baby mama' epidemic, video vixen mentality, enabling, denial, and other self-defeating behaviors." I agree with that statement, but what makes her think that EA men don't do the same? If your own people don't value you, why would you think that others do? In addition, who do does she think taught AA men to treat us this way? Who does she think taught us that EA women were valuable and worth protecting and reduced AA women to worthless objects? Who perpetuated, and continues to do so, this unbalanced image of EA and AA women in the media:

Choose your loyalties wisely.

As far as AA women bashing goes, it is shameful that men would turn their back on the only ones who stuck by them after 400 years of going through pure hell. How can anyone say such nasty things about AA women when their own sister and even their own mother is one. It reminded of a passage from the Adi Granth that criticizes this behavior well if you put it into the context of AA women:

We are born of woman,
we are conceived in the womb of woman,
we are engaged and married to woman.
We make friendship with woman
and the linage continued because of woman...
we are bound with the world though woman.
We grow up stronger and wiser having drunk milk from the breast of woman.
Why should we talk ill of her,
who gives birth to Kings?
The woman is born from woman;
there is none without her.
Only the One True Lord is without woman.

Black and White: The Bias Ingrained in our Language

2010-02-18T19:17:00.007-05:00

I was reading a book a couple of months ago that mentioned the biases in English. It pointed out how although most words relating to humanity are masculine (mankind for example), the vast majority of those words that are negative are attributed to females. Obviously, the biases in our language are impressed upon our psyche as well, as women are judged more harshly than men in society. The book didn't mention English's bias regarding race, but of course, one has to take this in account as well. Calling Europeans "white" and calling Africans "black" for a life time must lead one to associate the races with the attributes that the words carry respectively. With this in mind, I will post the definition of each (from M-W).

White: free from spot or blemish: free from moral impurity : innocent: not intended to cause harm: : favorable, fortunate: marked by upright fairness: of, relating to, characteristic of, or consisting of white people or their culture from the former stereotypical association of good character with northern European descent (I find it a bit curious how it says "former." They are still associated with good because of this.)

Black: dirty, soiled; thoroughly sinister or evil : wicked: indicative of condemnation or discredit; connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil; characterized by hostility or angry discontent: of or relating to the African-American people or their culture

I refuse to believe that the words we use to describe good and evil everyday has no affect when we use those same words to identify ourselves. I'm not outright condemning the usages of the words black and white entirely, but I'm giving you something to think about. Honestly, however, I look foward to the day when such biased language is not used to describe races.

The Conservative's words came back to bite them...well almost

2010-02-18T18:06:00.009-05:00

I did an earlier post complaining about how the Conservatives had been crying that we need to start racially profiling people because of how the Muslims are all out to get us. But now today we have a white man smashing his plane into a Federal building because of his anger with the government. If his name were Abdul, we would have an uproar right now. Glenn Beck, Palin, and their minions would be waving this triumphantly as another example of why we need to stop being so "politically correct" and start racially profiling people to keep those scary dark sinned people at bay. However, since he has an "American name" (Beck should be happy about that), let's see what sort of reaction from them we get. Of course, so far he hasn't been labeled a terrorist. Apparently, if you are white and crash a plane into a building, you only want to commit suicide, but if you are Arab/Black and want to do the same, you are a terrorist. Well, since we have this rule, the Conservatives won't have to address yet another example of the fallacy of their reasoning. I know you may think this is unfair, but, you see, if we used this (and similar incidences) to prove that racially profiling is wrong, we would have to admit members of the white race can be terrorist just as minorities can be. And we just couldn't do that because then we be denying the principles that the Western society was founded on--that Europeans are superior to all other groups. Rejecting this fundamental value of our society would eliminate white privilege and might even help to bring equality to our land. That's why the actions of Joseph Andrew Stack could never be labeled an attack. If we started to acknowledge things like this, Western civilization could fall apart.

Another observation from this incident: Interesting how the Tea Partiers and their friends are so against the terrorist when they have so much in common: their disgruntlement with the American government, their extreme religious beliefs, and reverence of their martyrs (as the several Facebook and webpages that cropped up directly after Joseph Andrew Stack's ~~attack~~ suicide). You know, if they weren't so rabid, they might just hit it off.

Why Stereotypes Are Unbreakable

2010-02-11T16:26:00.005-05:00

I'm bothered when European-Americans say or imply that the treatment that African-Americans receive is a direct cause of us behaving in stereotypical ways or, in other words, more often that not we live our lives in harmony with a stereotypical script. As a result, many African-Americans fervently hope that if one day we can stop all of us from behaving in a stereotypical way, we will have a better image. I wish for the day when all African-Americans will stop behaving stereotypically as well, but not for the hope that they will be eliminated completely because they never will. African-Americans will always be stereotyped as inferior in every aspect to European-Americans because this has been ingrained even before this country was founded and now is in the fabric of our culture. Successful African-Americans are thought of as being propserous in spite of their Blackness. They are an exception, an example of the positive outcomes of assimilation, or simply they "act white." In short, the more respectable or admirable an African-American is, the more white he or she will be perceived; and the more negative characteristics an African-American has, the more black he or she will be judged. A perfect article that illustrates how "Black" we are perceived based more on our actions rather than our skin color was released on Newsweek about how those who support Obama see him as lighter skinned, and those who view him negatively see him darker:

When it comes to the policies and politics of Barack Obama, it's no secret that liberals and conservatives don't see eye to eye. But according to behavioral sciencist Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, these differences in perspective may literally be a difference in perception. In a new study, Caruso and colleagues Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tillberg University asked a group of undergraduates which of a series of photographs of both Obama--some of them secretly lightened and darkened--best represented who he is as a person. The results were striking: while self-described liberals tended to pick the digitally lightened photos of the president, self-described conservative students more frequently picked the darkened images. The more you agree with a politician, in other words, the lighter his skin tone seems; the less you agree, the darker it becomes. To discuss how political affinities influence perception--and how politicians and the press could take advantage of these findings--NEWSWEEK's Andrew Romano spoke to Caruso. Excerpts:

How did the study actually work?
Essentially we were interested in whether political party influences how people literally see the world, and how they may see different depictions of candidates as representative of who they really are. So to test this we gathered up a bunch of photos of Barack Obama and digitally altered them to create a version where his skin tone appeared a bit lighter and a version where his skin tone was a bit darker than it appeared in the original photograph. And then we just showed people several different photos and asked them to rate each one on how much they represented who he really is. What we found was that participants who told us that they had a liberal political orientation rated the lightened photographs as more representative of Obama than the darkened photographs, whereas participants who told us they had a more conservative ideology rated the darkened photographs as more representative of Obama than the lightened ones.

So how much of a difference between self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives did you find in the results?
It’s a little bit hard to quantify the difference because they were just rating on a 7-point scale of representativeness. So to make it a bit more concrete we looked, for each participant, at which photo they rated as the most representative. They gave us three different ratings—say 1, 4 and 6—and we picked the photo that they gave the highest number to. From there we saw that liberals were about five times as likely to rate a lightened version of Obama as the most representative compared to a darkened version, whereas conservatives were about twice as likely to rate a darkened version as most representative compared to the lightened version.

I’m no expert here, but you’re confident that it’s the skin tone that changes “representativeness” in the eyes of the voter, as opposed to something else about the photographs—like pose, or background, or facial expression?
That’s a great question. What we did was essentially take three different photos with three different poses, and created for each photo a lightened and a darkened version. And then we randomly selected the combination of pose and skin tone that we showed each participant.

So your findings about “representativeness” were consistent across poses—the conservative will be twice as likely to say a “darkened” Obama was representative, regardless of which image of Obama was being darkened?
Right. We were experimentally able to isolate the effect of skin tone because some people saw a lightened version of pose #1 and others saw a darkened version of pose #1—and independent of the pose the lightened versions seemed most representative to liberals and the darkened most representative to conservatives.

Were you surprised by the results?
A little bit. Some of my research deals with how people who have different views on a subject are able to try to understand the views of someone on the other side, and the general finding is that people aren’t particularly good at really coming to understand the perspective of someone with whom they disagree. Beyond that, though, I got interested in this notion of whether our beliefs can actually affect the way we see the world—of whether they can actually affect our perception of objects or people in our environment. And it turns out they can.

Ultimately, what does it mean that someone believes a lightened version of Obama is more representative of him than a darkened version, and vice versa? What are the larger implications of these differences in perception?
Partisanship can affect all sorts of beliefs. It’s not surprising that a liberal and a conservative who read the same health care bill would come to very different conclusions about its merits. But I think our work is more akin to having a liberal and conservative look at the exact same physical copy of a bill sitting on the desk in front of them and disagreeing over how thick it is. That is, even something that we feel we should be able to see similarly, like a person’s racial identity or physical characteristics, can be influenced by our desire to see that person favorably or unfavorably.

That’s fascinating. To extend that analogy, I guess you’d say that when a conservative looks at the current health care reform bill on the table, he sees it as really thick and interprets that thickness as meaning that the bill will create more red tape, more bureaucracy, more spending, whereas a liberal would see it as thinner and interpret that thinness as meaning that the bill will streamline an unwieldy system and reduce deficits over time. In other words, they’re seeing a physical attribute as a kind metaphor about the merits of whatever it is they’re looking at. How does that work with Obama and skin tone?
There’s a long history in Western society of associating lightness with good and darkness with bad. Throughout history, throughout literature, et cetera. And we know now that these associations sometimes apply to the color of a person’s skin, and in addition to associating goodness with white, there’s some recent research in implicit attitudes suggesting that at an unconscious level people have a strong tendency to associate America with white. Which means that liberals, who are going to think that Obama is generally good and generally American, may have these subtle associations linking him to the concept of white, which is reflected in their representativeness ratings. The opposite would be true of conservatives.

But isn’t there a chicken or egg relationship here? Do conservatives see Obama as darker and are thus prone to dislike him, or do they dislike him first and then see him as darker because of it?
That’s a great question. One of the things we’re trying to do now is experimentally try to tease those two options apart. Basically, what we have in our current paper, the one that’s out now, is correlational studies of Obama where we don’t really know what comes first or what’s causing what. The first study in the paper tries to address part of what you’re asking. If we get people to think about a novel candidate and simply manipulate whether they agree with a candidate or not, we can show that people who think this novel biracial candidate agrees with them later report that the lightened photos are more representative of him, suggesting that if you agree with someone then you may come to see him as lighter. From that we can speculate, exactly as you have, about the reverse path—and that is, seeing images of someone when his or her skin tone looks darker may cause people to like that person less than seeing images of that person with lighter skin tone.

Do you plan to study the second option?
We’ve actually just recently completed a new study that’s not in the current paper that looks at this question. We had people read about this new biracial candidate in the Department of Education, and for some participants we had them read this candidate’s biography with an unaltered picture accompanying the biography, while for some participants we had them read the biography with a picture of the candidate that had been lightened or darkened. Then we had them tell us how they felt about the six issues facing the Department of Education, and everyone was told the same thing—which was that this guy agrees with you on three of the six issues on the table, so it’s unclear really whether you like him or not. Then we asked them to tell us how much they supported him and how likely they’d be to vote for him if given the chance. And somewhat remarkably, the participants who’d seen a darkened photo just a few minutes earlier reported that they were less likely to vote for the candidate than those who’d seen the lightened photo.

Could you imagine political campaigns using this sort of research in the future—you know, as more minorities run for office?
I think our findings help explain the ways in which people may try to influence the level of support for, say, a biracial candidate. People have and may continue to strategically expose the public to images that alter certain characteristics of a person in the media spotlight. It reminds us of the Time magazine cover where an illustration had darkened an image of OJ Simpson following his arrest in 1994. Hillary Clinton’s campaign was actually accused of doing the exact same thing in the primary when it ran a television ad with a video of Obama during one of the debates in which the entire ad was artificially darkened. Although we didn’t find any direct evidence of this in our data, it’s possible that news directors may be susceptible to same sort of biases as our participants, without even really being aware of it, such that liberal and conservative media outlets may differ in the types of images of Obama that they tend to select and depict.

Which, in turn, could activate or reinforce whatever biases are already out there among voters as they see the candidates through the media filter—for example, an MSNBC viewer who is continually exposed to “lighter” images of Obama and who therefore tends to think of him as more “good” and more “American.”
I wouldn’t advocate that people strategically try to manipulate things, but certainly political campaigns and ideologically-driven media outlets will always try to show their candidates in the best possible light.

So to speak.
Right. It’s the same as scrutinizing haircuts and clothing to make people as appealing as possible to the voters. With the Clinton ad, the goal was to try to make Obama appear more ominous.

Madame C. J. Walker Passed Us the Ball. We Dropped It.

2010-02-08T11:08:00.011-05:00

"I am a woman who came from the cotton fields of the South. From there I was promoted to the washtub. From there I was promoted to the cook kitchen. And from there I promoted myself into the business of manufacturing hair goods and preparations. I have built my own factory on my own ground." Madame CJ Walker

During this month as we recognize African-Americans' achievements, no doubt Madame C. J. Walker will be a prominent figure, as she indeed should be. She was born of former slaves and was orphaned at an early age. Yet despite her impoverished background, she founded her own company and became the first female to become a millionaire because of her own achievements.

Now, I suppose that if you lived in the days Madam C.J. Walker Manufacturing Company was founded, the future of industry for Black America would seem exceptionally bright. After all, an innovative African-American lady has already taken steps to establishing the hair care industry for us and has become a millionaire. With additional work, we could have a thriving economy. If you fast-forward to 2010, however, you can see that this magnificent dream was shattered because unfortunately, although Blacks didn't realize that big money was to be made in our hair care industry, others did. The Koreans and other ethnicities took over the Black hair care industry and helped turn it into the $9 billion dollar giant that it is today--money that could be used to reduce our poverty and further our own community. What makes this even more disturbing is that Madam C.J. Walker was able to achieve such success even though she was born in poverty and had to confront the enormous set backs of being both African-American and a woman (she even died before women had the right to vote for goodness sake). With all of the opportunities we have today, there is no excuse for us allowing others to takeover our own industry. We control where the money goes, and we are responsible for whether or helps us or lines another's pocket.

Madam C.J. Walker innovation is inspirational but it should certainly not ended. We must follow her example and control our own economies.

Our people have to be made to see that any time you take your dollar out of your community and spend it in a community where you don't live, the community where you live will get poorer and poorer, and the community where you spend your money will get richer and richer. Then you wonder why where you live is always a ghetto or a slum area...it's time now for our people to be come conscious of the importance of controlling the economy of our community. If we own the stores, if we operate the businesses, if we try and establish some industry in our own community, then we're developing to the position where we are creating employment for our own kind. -- Malcolm X, The Ballot or the Bullet. Read here or listen below

Black Owned Manufactures and Non-Black Owned Manufactures

Natural Hair: My Road to Acceptance

2010-02-02T23:01:00.015-05:00

I have made a couple of post about African-American women and our hair issues, but I have yet to share my own journey regarding how I have come to feel the way I do about my hair. My relationship with my hair has taught me many valuable lessons but one that I shall share here is: do not fit a square peg into a round hole.

When I Hated my Hair
My hair has never been permed or straightened at any point in my life, so during my childhood I always felt that my natural hair, in its pigtails, was a curse. The highest point in my elementary school career, during the third grade, was when I got braids for the first time. I was so proud that my hair could swig like "it should." However, my elation didn't last. My hair wasn't long enough. I knew that I couldn't get a relaxer because I had been told that they fry hair to death, and I definitely didn't want to look like the scores of girls I'd seen with relaxers so bad that it looked like their hair had been set on fire. The only option left for me was to get long braid extensions. Those were great to me. I had the long flowing hair without the pain of a relaxer. But they didn't appeal to me completely because I knew they were not equal to the Standard. So when I got older I was determined to get a weave (although I had no idea how weaves actually worked). I thought my natural hair was too long to wear a weave and wanted to cut it short. My mom thought I was crazy, but my reasoning was if you never wear natural hair out what is the use of it anyway? Besides that, I felt painfully embarrassed by hair. I could not go outside with it loose without my head being covered with a scarf or a hooded jacket. The only time I thought you were supposed to see it was when it was being "done" between extensions. (Looking back I think it is so sad that I thought that Black hair was so worthless that I was willing to cut it.) But back to the point, the extensions I had at this time looked too natural (everyone thought I had really long dreadlocks). Subconsciously, I knew I wasn't close enough to the Standard so I took the final step that would bring me closer to perfection. I got a sew-in, which was an ego boost for me (everyone would fawn over "my" hair). I finally had the hair that I'd ask God to miraculously change in elementary school. At the time, I did not make any connection between my relationship with my hair and any biases or prejudices I had against African features. If I heard anyone questioning why African-American women perm/press/weave our hair, I joined in with the scores of women saying it was because of convenience or citing that white women wear weaves too. However, even though my European-styled hair made me feel complete, I still felt uncomfortable. My mind was always on whether my tracks were showing and the like. Even though I felt pretty, I never felt right.

Turning Point
I realized that I was on a spiraling down on a path to no where when I heard a question by Malcolm X , "Who taught you to hate yourself?"

My initial reaction to this and of all of the others who had suggested that Black women who perm/press/weave had a problem was to reject the suggestion altogether. After all hair was just hair. White women style it however they want to, so why couldn't Black women? However, after examining the relationship I had with my hair I realized that it was never the case. From the moment that I became aware of its distinctiveness, I wanted to change it to something straighter or longer. If it was just hair, why did I try to hide it so much? In short, this question caused me to reexamine not only my views on my hair but society as a whole, but at this point, I will expound upon a single lesson that I gained from accepting my natural hair:

Black women as a group are like square pegs created in a society that is designed for round ones. We spend the majority of our lives chipping ourselves down, damaging ourselves mentally and physically, trying to make ourselves fit into a standard that wasn't set for us. I never was happy with my hair because I could was never equal to the Standard. I finally became content when I understood that my hair isn't supposed to look long and straight--that the rules for straight hair were completely different than those for mine. When I stopped seeing myself by how well I fit into European views, my eyes opened to how beautiful natural hair was. When I looked in the mirror, I stopped worrying "How can I get this straighter" or "How can I get my curls more defined." I realized that this is the way my coils are supposed to look and I will never be content if I try to make my it anything less than it is.

We cannot be truly happy or content with our lives until we come to the realization that there is a hole designed specifically for us to fit. When we chip ourselves down to fit the standard for someone else, we are only damaging ourselves.

Pat Robertson and His Haiti Remark

2010-01-14T07:48:00.010-05:00

I wasn't surprised by Pat Robertson's comments on Haiti considering that similarly he had concurred with a statement that America was being judged for abortion and homosexuals during 9/11. But I won't bother talking about his character (because he speaks for himself) but rather his words because they reflect the sentiment of many Americans. This is a bit of a continuation of "American Christianity"

I believe that the story Robertson references about Haiti asking Satan to lead them out of slavery is myth that was another attempt to degrade Africans through religion, such as the tale that Blacks are cursed for being the descendants of Ham was designed to do. The idea has been propagated to discredit the Haitians for their achievement of being the only slaves successful of taking their land back through a revolt in history. Instead of giving the Haiti's the credit they deserve for their courage and determination, the West would rather believe that it was Satan who just gave the Haitians their freedom. Dr. Jean R. Gelin describes how this developed here

Haitian pastor Frantz Lacombe identified a ‘dependence mentality’ in the leadership of the Haitian church, which resulted from the way the Christian faith was brought to the country, historically and through various denominations. Apparently, this unfortunate manner of thinking, which tends to emulate the worldview and culture of North American and European Christian missionaries, has permeated the general philosophy of the Haitian church on many levels, including church planting, church management, music and even missionary activities.
In that context, I would not be surprised if the satanic pact idea (followed by the divine curse message) was put together first by foreign missionaries and later on picked up by local leaders. On the other hand, it is equally possible that some Haitian church leaders developed the idea on their own using a theological framework borrowed from those same missionaries who subsequently propagated the message around the world. Either way, because of this message, Haiti has been portrayed as the country born out of Satan’s benevolence and goodwill toward mankind. Shouldn’t such a fantastic idea be tested for its historic validity and theological soundness? I invite you to take with me a closer and possibly different look at the available records.

He continues to describe where this idea came from in parts two and three of his message. But in any case, Robertson's actions also illustrate that, besides being racially charged, American Christianity is often too ignorant of its own its own history and beliefs. I get tired of hearing about how America is being or is going to be judged because of abortion and homosexuality. Today being a Christian means little more than checking off "I'm against abortion" and "I'm against homosexuality," even though, as Greg Boyd says, "Yet, while we have at most six verses in the Bible that mention homosexuality, we have around 3,000 passages that address greed, gluttony and the need to care for the poor. Not only this, but if there are any sins American Christians are most guilty of, they’re greed, gluttony and apathy toward the poor. And if there are any sins that demonstrably kill people, it’s these ones. Yet Christians go after gays . Why? One can’t help but suspect it might be because it’s one sin they can feel self-righteous in condemning." Besides that, for so many American Christians, sin in America began with Roe vs Wade and the gay and lesbian movements, but what before that? Instead of saying that American is being judged for those sins, why don't they ever take into account the centuries of injustices of Africans, Native Americans, and immigrants at the hands of America. If they are so sure that God is angry at this country for sin, why don't they think His memory extends to those hundreds of years of horror? Why don't they think God is judging America for it's adoration of money or neglect of the sick and poor? They assume that God doesn't care about those matters because they do not matter to them.
Finally, before making statements that God is judging anyone, they should take in account what He Himself said on the matter, verses that they so easily forget.

¹ There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. ² And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? ³ I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. ⁴ Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? ⁵ I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-5, New King James Version)

Scientist Are Working to Cure Our Hair

2010-01-11T13:17:00.005-05:00

I recently read on Essence that an Australian scientist is working to develop a pill that will make curly hair straight. This isn't new, however. Five years ago, ABC reported that L'Oreal researchers are creating a pill that will do the same. Apparently, these pills could replace relaxers and flat irons one day, but as Tia Williams pointed out, as scientist isolate the gene that makes our curly, it may eventually be removed altogether.

Our efforts to integrate diversity in our culture are being counteracted by this type of "progress." Why should we face the stigma our natural hair has when it is becoming increasingly easier just to chemically alter it in order to forget that we weren't born with what the world labels a genetic mistake. Instead of teaching society to embrace genetic diversity, we will jump at the chance to consume a product that brings us closer to the European standard. To make matters worse, as more of us transform ourselves to look European, we support the fear and ridicule of natural hair, reducing it to nothing more than being something foreign or a relic of the 70s. In fact, it practically is already. For example, why is it okay for white people to wear huge afro wigs in an effort to look clownish when it is offensive for them to go in blackface to look silly or pull their eyes mocking Asians. Blacks have no problem allowing them to mock our hair because we continuously try to separate ourselves from it. The uniqueness, respect, and beauty of our natural hair will continue fade as producers make products to match our cravings for straight hair.

Another consequence of this our powerful urge to assimilate and conform is a uniform dull world (sort of like the extreme society that is painted in "Eye of the Beholder"). As skin lighteners, hair straighteners, and surgical procedures bring cultures around the globe closer to a single ideal, encouraging us to lose appreciation for racial diversity, we create a world where everyone has similar features. How beautiful would the world be if it lacked its variety?

On a side note, this article from Essence reminded me of the Coil Review's excellent commercial:

Terrorism and Racial Profiling

2009-12-31T20:35:00.005-05:00

A couple of days ago, ABC World News asked if we should implement racial profiling in response to the attempted attack by the Nigerian terrorist. Of course, this is not the first time that racial profiling has been supported. Many "brilliant"*smirk* minds such as Sarah Palin believe this is a great idea, no doubt because of the effectiveness of the racial profiling of the Japanese during WWII, which caused many to lose their lives and be destitute and resulted in the US paying over a billion dollars in reparations. Also, considering the United States' long history of racial discrimination and genocide, who wouldn't want to return to those happy times again? But besides these obvious reasons for racial profiling, one wonders why it hasn't suggested it before considering the frequent (non-Islamic) attacks that have been planned and implemented before 9/11. I'm not just talking about Columbine, Oklahoma City, and Virgina Tech, but other attacks which, for some reason that I just can't imagine why, the media doesn't like to stress as much as the Islamic extremist attacks. In short, Americans act like this regarding terrorism (yes, hearing those advocates of racial profiling motivated me to draw this. Cute, I know):

Gee, if they are going to start implementing racial profiling, they better target everyone (not just those people).

Avatar

2009-12-22T01:29:00.003-05:00

I am worried because for the first time white people are calling things as racist, and I'm giving a pass. I read this article, which states that Avatar is nothing but a white fantasy about race intended to alleviate their guilt. After reading this, I watched to see for myself. I was blown away. Perhaps it's the sci-fi lover in me or maybe my own philosophies about life distorting my impressions, but I was not rolling my eyes through this film but actually loved it.

A big objection that I hear is that the main character is white. He plays a major role in the resolution of the conflict, and therefore we have the "white man is savior" complex all over again. This year has been overrun with movies like this; however, I do not see this particular movie this way. The white guy, Jake, betrayed and used the Na'vi, and just because he had a heart and fought against his race doesn't make him a savior. He was worng, saw the light, and was redeemed, and there is nothing wrong with that in my mind. I don't like that he was leading the people to battle with the biggest dragon, but in all fareness it wasn't all about him either. The writers did balance the different elements in the story so that it wasn't just the white man's battle. The Na'vi's goddess, Eywa had a substantial part in winning the battle by turning all of the animals against the whites, and Neytiri saves him twice at the end. Another objection is that by having Jake as the main character, the writers are making the story white centered rather than devoting the focus to the aliens. This may be cliche, but it is the writer's prerogative. I see nothing objectionable in it.

After being flooded with movies like the Blindside and Precious, this is one of the most racially honest films this year. Instead of being shown as infallible beacons of light, whites are greedy, lusting creatures who have no sense of what is sacred. They believe in destroying anything and anyone for more money and power. Jake comes into Pandora in with this attitude having no respect for natural life until he meets the Na'vi who teach him differently. Besides a few, most whites see the Na'vi and their world as primitive and worthless, and therefore deride it as such (as we hear them do in real life all the time). However, we learn with Jake that they are more than that as they have their own culture that surpasses the whites' in some areas, and that the whites are barbaric in their own ways as. In short, we learned to appreciate "primitive" societies. This was very refreshing as we are always bombarded with images that "primitives" are just animals, with no brain, mind, or cultures of their own to be respected, and that the "advanced" societies are pure and perfect. A perfect example of this is Star Trek, mostly TNG and later. (Even though I like it, I can point out it's flaws.) Throughout Star Trek, species with greater technology, especially the federation, are portrayed flawlessly. Those who are not as technologically advanced are labeled "inferior species" and "unworthy of assimilation," and basically portrayed in a clumsy, stupid way. We are always left with the impression that species must develop as the federation did, and that is the peak of their perfection. At worse, twice on TNG, Picard let two planets filled with people to die because they had not developed warp drive. Because they were not "advanced" they were are not people, and we can morally justify letting them all die. When you pay attention to the plots of these films and shows, bigotry is evident.

Avatar puts this in reverse. It does not equate technology to true advancement. People can look at the Na'vi without feeling "those are pitiful barbarians in need of a white savior" because they are thriving. They have a society where everyone supports each other and lives in harmony. The idea of destroying the world for wealth as the whites have is deplorable to them. Avatar illuminates that Western culture is not the peak of superiority as it was built on the destruction of life. Contrary to shows like Star Trek, the West has many kinks in its shining armor.

Okay, maybe I may not be entirely fair here. Perhaps I'm giving Avatar too much credit. I watched Avatar with my prejudices and experiences. Someone else may not get this message. However, the life of the Na'vi appealed to me, so for now, this will be a favorite.

The Princess and the Frog

2009-12-19T09:23:00.016-05:00

What are they feeding the next generation of sisters? How did Disney treat its first Black princess? I watched the Princess and the Frog yesterday to find out. First I'll address my concerns about the movie and how they were handled, and then I will say what the positive and negative aspects were.

Was the first Black Princess actually Black?
Yes. I was pleased with this. When I first heard of this film, I was worried that African-American girls would be subjected to more colorism by being given a woman's who race was up in the air. Instead, she's clearly black. I'm also happy that they didn't give her long straight hair to her butt like Black barbie dolls have. Tiana has wavy/curly hair, which is a step forward considering how Black girls are portrayed in dolls and cartoons. (Basically, white with a super tan.)

Was this a minstrel show?
No, not really. It didn't come off to me that way, which is rather strange considering that it is set in the deep South. They have a range of stereotypical characters that you would expect ~~and like to forget~~ exist there such as the Southern Bell, Big Daddy, hillbillies, etc. Even so, I did not feel that this show portrayed Blacks negatively, on the contrary in fact. They showed us as hard workers in comparison to others, which is an interesting feat considering where the show was set as I said before.

Was the "Black" princess really green?
Yes, and this was a big disappointment. The movie is approximately 89 minutes, and she turns into a frog at 29 minutes and stays that way until 86 . This definitely makes Disney's triumph over the color barrier less monumental.

Was the prince Black?
No, but that is actually a good thing as you shall see.

What were the good parts?
The princess herself, really. She is unique in that she isn't a damsel in distress waiting for a prince to save her. (If anything, she saves him.) She's a hard worker, and is a good role model because she is adamant about her goals. This is the first Disney movie besides the Lion King that doesn't teach kids that your dreams will come true because you are entitled to them. Finally Disney is telling them they have to work for what they want.

What were the bad aspects?
The film itself was mediocre. It didn't have the magic of its previous films. This isn't good, it isn't bad. It is simply adequate. I don't know if it's because it was set in the U.S. or what, but it didn't feel special, and I felt disinterested. If the princess was just another white one and I wasn't watching to see how Blacks were being portrayed, I wouldn't have watched past the first ten minutes. It's fine if you want a cute movie, but if you want an captivating story, watch the Lion King or Pocahontas.

Secondly, Tiana seems short changed--not only because she's a frog for the whole film but also because her "prince" is a bum. The only thing he cares about is partying, and he's absolutely broke (which is why it's good he wasn't Black. In comparison, the Black man, Tiana's father, is extremely industrious). Since he has no money, his goal is to marry a rich woman so he can squander more money. Instead, he marries Tiana and they open a restaurant together. By the end of the movie the "princess'" life has no royal aspect to it at all. We don't get to see a castle or anything, and she stays in Louisiana. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad--I'm just saying don't expect anything rather princess-like regarding Tiana.

I don't like how Tiana setled for that prince/playboy/bum. Girls do that anyway, we don't need to teach them to do that through their cartoons.

Disney made a decent movie, but their approach to the first Black princess wasn't what I hoped. With the Arab, Native American, Chinese princesses, they made exotic stories by setting them in their own countries or land. There is nothing exotic about Louisiana. I wish she were an African princess instead. Of course, it's not to late, Disney could make an African princess--unless Tiana is just another token and our first princess will be our last.

Africa Is Equal To AIDS

2009-12-01T13:01:00.009-05:00

AIDS ˈādz\ noun: 1. the continent of Africa. 2. acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. 3. a disease of the human immune system that is characterized cytologically especially by reduction in the numbers of CD4-bearing helper T cells ....

This morning, I was a bit annoyed because I was thinking about how Americans see Africa as one giant country instead of the diverse continent that truly it is. So, I decide to tweet about the topic, but then to my surprise my tweets were in red. I quickly realized that every tweet that mentions HIV or AIDS today is red on twitter. But why were mine in red, as I didn't mentioned either? Apparently, Twitter thought it was a bright idea to put not only tweets that mentioned AIDS and HIV in read, but those that mentioned Africa too.

The fact that the words "AIDS" and "Africa" are apparently interchangeable was not the only thing that annoyed me today. Most of what I saw about AIDS today was about Africans. It is curious that on World AIDS Day, AIDS is being treated as if it is only a problem that affects and concerns just Africans. Why is it so vital that we stress and make the distinction that AIDS kills mostly Africans when it kills around the world? What point are they trying to make here? I'm feeling the air of condescension coming from this campaign. It is as if they are not only promoting AIDS, but the "white man's" burden as well. I got the same feeling from all of this as I got from this video, which attempts to advocate peacein Africa by showing the Whiteman save the warring savages.

Once gain, Africans are projected in the flat stereotypical light of being helpless, needy, and desperate for the white man's help. In addition to Precious and the Blind Side, it looks like this will be a reoccurring theme for the rest of '09.

Minorities are the Stars in This New Picture

2009-11-23T11:16:00.005-05:00

I was rather disappointed about how some of the movies of '09 depicted minorities, Blacks specifically. (This year was filled with "the white-man saves the black-man" films and "Black people and their neurosis/hopelessness" movies.) But as this year comes to a close, I see a glimmer of sun light shining from Hollywood's dismal clouds.

When I saw the trailer of Ninja Assassin, I was actually surprised. Not only is the cast Asian, but the lead is as well. What?! Aren't all of the most skilled martial artist supposed to be both white and raised among or trained by the Asians or some other minority? Asians aren't supposed to get the lead, and when they do, it's not as glamorous as their white counterparts.
.

Ninja Assassin breaks another rule. It has a sister (Naomi Harris) as the female lead, and she gets rescued by the hero in the film!

I hope this movie does well at the box office. Films with a mostly minority cast (that are not designed to be historical or social commentaries or that don't mock or stereotype us) rarely come around. Ninja Assassin appears to be a refreshing relief. I pray that Hollywood is a good grasshopper, learns from this, and makes it a trend. (Wishful thinking, I know.)

Dang, I wish this movie were PG-13. Looks so bloody.

Proud to be an American--Really?

2009-11-20T12:30:00.007-05:00

Everyone identifies with this: When one of your friends or family members aren’t looking or acting their best, you don’t want to be seen with them because it’s embarrassing. Why? After all, he or she is the one who is not appropriate--not you. Even so, you feel that you have a personal stake in their actions. This is because your family and friends are seen as a reflection of yourself, and you want them to do well because you are affected positively when they do.

Americans are totally lost on this concept.

Americans are perfectly content with seeing inequality as long as they are getting theirs now. I understand this because it’s our culture—after all, if it were not for greed, this country would not even be here. However, to maintain a sense of apathy to fellow Americans while having national pride is contradictory. Americans can see poverty, hunger, and disease in their own land and not be moved to remedy it because they see those conditions as a natural part of life that cannot be changed or they think it has nothing to do with them even though the people affected are connected by being Americans. At the most, the average American will be moved to donate a buck or two, but he or she will not be convicted enough to devote much effort to trying to solve the problem. How much pride can Americans have if we are content enough to allow our fellow citizens to live in disgrace? How strong is our national identity?

What makes matters worse is that it can be done—we can greatly reduce these problems we have today. Take Denmark and other European countries, for example. They have practically little crime and poverty, offer health care and education to their citizens, and are considered the happiest people in the world. The United States cannot reach this point, however, because our gratification is derived from the accumulation of personal wealth, in addition to the fact that we do not want to sacrifice to help our fellows because we simply do not care about them. However, what Americans do not realize is that when they help the poor, they are helping themselves, as well. For example, the uneducated who feel desperate and hopeless will turn to crime, but when their needs are taken care of and when we work to remedy their situation, not only do they have a better quality of life but are more productive, helping society as a whole.

What contributes to this apathy is the arrogance that Americans have. We are taught that we live in the greatest country in the world because it’s free (as if America holds the monopoly on that). Anyone can do anything he or she wants to here. This sentiment teaches Americans at an early age that there is nothing wrong, so complacency is welcomed. I often see many who view poverty is a self-caused problem that can be cured simply if people weren’t lazy. After all, since this country is the greatest in the world, if someone’s in poverty, it must be because of her or his own doing. If more Americans didn’t see each other in such a distant way and were more concerned about each other, we wouldn’t have such a one-dimensional perspective of the underprivileged in this country.

(Interesting observation: Why is underprivileged in Microsoft’s dictionary but not overprivileged? Americans have no concept of it.)

The Black Woman's Body

2009-11-17T00:00:00.006-05:00

After hearing a bunch of hoopla, I felt compelled to watch the music video "Video Phone" today--well, not really. It was just a couple of seconds with the sound off. (I have a strong gag reflex, you see.) However, the few seconds I did see utterly disgusted me. Beyonce has become little more than a highly paid stripper, and it is disgusting and hypocritical that she is held in such high esteem and is commended as being a positive role model for Black girls.

What bugs me is that most of the people who praise Beyonce would call any other Black girl who dresses or dances the way that she does ghetto and a whore. Furthermore, people seem oblivious as to why females mimic her behavior and act as if they are the ones who have the problem. When Beyonce and similar Black singers have so much support from the mainstream, why shouldn't women dance or dress like them since they have such general approval? Secondly, why are Black celebrities celebrated when they act like prostitutes and strippers in the name of entertainment, but when black girls do it, it's a sign of the moral decay and the decline of the Black community? How can we expect Black women to value their bodies when we don't even ourselves? We treat it as just a commodity to get extra media attention or record sales--an object of lust, not of respect.

This condition in our community makes me even more discouraged because it causes me to think of Saartjie Baartman. She had no choice in having her body exploited for money, but here are Black women willing to take their clothes off because of their peoples' support and overall lack of respect and appreciation of the Black woman's body.

In conclusion, we as a people need to stop playing both sides by complaining about how women are behaving like tramps and then gush over those in the mainstream that do. If we want the future generation of Black women to carry themselves as ladies, then we must start to show our appreciation for those who are. If there were no demand, there would be no supply.

Waiting for a Disaster

2009-11-10T12:23:00.008-05:00

A great problem Black America (and America in general actually) is that we often are unaware that a problem is developing and only act when something extreme happens.

Consider this for instance. It concerns gun sales skyrocketing despite the fact that we are stuck in a recession:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now, here they attribute rising gun sales to the fear that a Democratic president will take their rights away. I'm not denying that this could be a factor; however, when coupled with other trends, this report is disturbing. Besides, nothing has to do with race anymore according to most of white culture today. I'm not buying their explanation. The number of skin-heads has increased in the US from 5,000 in 2001 to 10,000 in 2007 (National Geographic video). The number of hate groups has increased more than 50% since 2000. The Secret Service has been overwhelmed with threats against the president as they have increased by 400%. Neo-Nazis are joining the military so they can gain the skills to create a Racial War in the U.S. And many conservatives (especially in Texas) are advocating secession (TYT has more videos on this). Just today, a Black man was thrown in a bonfire by white supremest.

Now, it's very easy to dismiss all of this information because this is America. We're "post-racial!" History could not possibly repeat itself, and we could not experience a race war or any similar conflict.
It is because of this kind of thinking that we will not take these reports seriously until a large scale tragedy happens. (Many people are victims of hate crimes now, but they usually do not get much media attention unless the person who is targeted is well-known or if the attack is large scale.) It's no secrete that there is much tension between whites and POC right now. The poor economy and incidents like the attack in Texas just make it worse. Immigration is no longer the hugely popular topic that it once was, but if it gets the attention that it once did again, we can only expect these groups to augment at a faster rate than they are even now. I'm wondering when (or if) our relations are going to get so tense that they break and some sort of attack occurs.

However, I wonder if the United States were subject to a racial conflict, would Black people be able to react to it effectively. Our unity, pride, and self-respect are relics from the past. We're too busy tearing each other down , which makes me question the impact of us banning together to fight any confrontation. The fact of the matter is, Black people cannot afford to not support each other. We're only about 13 percent of the population, so whatever action we take needs to be forceful, meaningful, and effective.

The probability of such an event happening is uncertain, but one thing is sure: we need to be aware that it could happen and be prepared for if it occurs. When we are disrespected, degraded, or attacked, be it physically, in the media, or in some other area, we need to have the power, unity, and influence to let the country know that we will not tolerate it. That is impossible as long as we stay assimilated, keep fighting each other, and promote black ignorance (such as BET).

Please watch at least the first two parts of this video from the National Geographic. You cannot prepare for what you are not aware.

American Christianity

2009-11-05T07:14:00.007-05:00

This morning I logged on to YouTube as I normally do to see if my favorite subscription, The Young Turks, had updated their channel. They had uploaded a new video about Carrie Prejean and her newly found sex tape. After hearing this, my initial reaction was, "HA!" Because this woman is the epitome of what I've been saying about American Christianity all along.

One of the most irritating phrases that I hear is that "America Is a Christian Nation." There never has been anything Christ-like about America. Christianity has just been used in America to create solidarity among whites, to suppress other races, and to keep other races/people out. American Christianity is not about following the precepts of God. It's not about living a holy life. Furthermore, American Christianity was never concerned with walking the Christian walk. This is why it annoys me when pastors and other Christian leaders get in a panic because America is now just turning away from God. "Americans are aborting millions of babies and are going to bring the judgment of God!" they proclaim, as America has just started on a crime spree. Well before that, America was slaying indigenous people and Africans. That's not really a change in its behavior; however, no one likes to bring up things like that. America is not turning away from God, because it was never turned to God in the first place.

But now, I'm being drawn away from my original point. American Christianity is a construct to keep certain groups down or out in order to maintain the supremacy of white values. This is why I must roll my eyes when I hear someone bashing Muslims and using the ever favorite "America is a Christian Nation" line to justify not treating them with the same respect they would give to a European American. I would think that Americans would welcome Muslim immigrants as most of the time they act more holy than they ever could. They could learn something from them. In fact, I remember hearing NPR report a few years ago on a story where Muslim immigrants were absolutely shocked at the wickedness and indecency of the "Christians." Muslims aren't going to destroy these alleged Christian values as the Conservatives fear. But they aren't battling over Christian values. They're afraid of the Muslims coming because they don't want those brown people from the Middle East invading their land. Prejean illustrated this point further. If she was so afraid of her precious Christian values being degraded in America, she wouldn't have posed nude or made sex tapes. American Christianity is all about keeping groups out, suppressed, and maintaining "white culture."

(What's even more ironic about this is that even the most white Americans are "Christians," a recent study by the found that Blacks are the most religious group in America and are more likely to believe biblical principles than we did 15 years ago.)

Tyra Banks and Blackface

2009-10-30T07:13:00.010-04:00

I've never been fond of (though I've not disliked) Tyra Banks. She seems to be the kind of person who tries to hit the mark, but ultimately misses it by a mile. Example: when she initially was talking about the "good-hair/bad-hair" debate, she was telling people to be proud of their African hair, while looking like Goldilocks. Later, she creates this hoopla that she's wearing her real hair, but she comes on stage with it straight. How permed straight hair is more significant than weave straight hair, I do not know; however, I dislike her new assumed role as ambassador to the white folk about black women's issues. She keeps saying, "If you are white, you may not understand that in the black community..." during if-you-do-not-know-you-don't-need-to-know situations. From watching her, one could gain the impression that black women have a neurosis. Even through this, Tyra Banks didn't get on my nerves too much. (I'm such a nice tolerant person you see.) However, she crossed the line with her blackface shot. People like her just make life worse for us in the world who try to stop racism and who want respect for minorities. When black people promote blackface, it sends a message that we see it as acceptable. Racist love to use people like her to justify racism, and man if Tyra didn't give them more firepower in their next argument. Well, it seems that since 2008, blackface has become fashionable, so Tyra had to take part.

October 2009 - Whitney Isleib
October 2009- Tyra
October 2009- Hey Hey It's Saturday
October 2009- Vogue
August 2009 - Mad Men
November 2008-Tropic Thunder

Who will be next, I wonder?

Black People Have No Pride 2: Assimilation

2009-10-22T13:09:00.004-04:00

What were our goals after we gained our Civil Rights? It would have been great if we focused on being more independent and improving our communities, but instead I believe that many Blacks saw it as an open door not to be equal to whites, not just in rights. Whites are perceived to be at the top of the racial ladder. Therefore, by assimilating into white culture, we had the chance to have all of the power we had attributed to them thus far. Assimilation has been our goal since the Civil Rights Movement, and it still is.

High Opportunity Cost

The more you work to gain something, the less you can work to gain something else. You can not hope to assimilate into white culture, which doesn't even value those who are not white, and advance black culture simultaneously. However, Black people seem to be under the impression that we can have it both ways. I do not believe that Black people as a community can thrive under a white system because it was designed to oppress minorities and establish white power. That's why I don't understand why people are surprised when they hear about studies that concern racial profiling or unequal hiring practices. People act as if it should be a surprise when Black schools are underfunded. Black people believe a white culture will act in their best interest--that the more we assimilate the more this will become true. Considering the state of things today, this is definitely faulty reasoning. We should have worked on establishing independence after the Civil Rights Movement. To borrow the words of Malcolm X.

It only means that we should control the economy of our community. Why should white people be running all the stores in our community? Why should white people be running the banks of our community? Why should the economy of our community be in the hands of the white man? Why? If a black man can't move his store into a white community, you tell me why a white man should move his store into a black community. The philosophy of black nationalism involves a re-education program in the black community in regards to economics. Our people have to be made to see that any time you take your dollar out of your community and spend it in a community where you don't live, the community where you live will get poorer and poorer, and the community where you spend your money will get richer and richer.

Then you wonder why where you live is always a ghetto or a slum area. And where you and I are concerned, not only do we lose it when we spend it out of the community, but the white man has got all our stores in the community tied up; so that though we spend it in the community, at sundown the man who runs the store takes it over across town somewhere. He's got us in a vise.

So the economic philosophy of black nationalism means in every church, in every civic organization, in every fraternal order, it's time now for our people to be come conscious of the importance of controlling the economy of our community. If we own the stores, if we operate the businesses, if we try and establish some industry in our own community, then we're developing to the position where we are creating employment for our own kind. Once you gain control of the economy of your own community, then you don't have to picket and boycott and beg some cracker downtown for a job in his business.(Ballot or Bullet)

Black people still depend on white people for whether we have food on our tables or not. Whether or not Affirmative Action comes in for us or not shouldn't determine whether or not we have a job. We seem to have been under the impression, since the Civil Rights Movement, that we "came over hear on the Mayflower"--that now that we had equal protection under the law we are seen as equal to whites in this country's eyes. We tried to be a part of a white system, but didn't recognize that it would always put us at the bottom. Furthermore, not only did assimilation make us dependent on whites and put us at an economic disadvantaged, but adopting its values caused to have a low opinion of ourselves.

It is impossible to be assimilated into a society and not adopt is values. This is why we suffer so much from internalized racism, not just from the values of slavery but from trying so hard to be a part of white culture. We believe that dark skin is inferior to light skin and in "good hair" not only because of slavery, but because those are principles of white culture, and by assimilating into it we have adopted their method of thinking.

I believe that if we had established our own society after the Civil Rights Movement instead of working so hard into integrating into white society, we would have had stronger community both economically and mentally. Self-hatred would have been a distant memory.

Black People Have No Pride: Introduction

2009-10-21T14:51:00.000-04:00

People often ask why did all of the progress stop after the 70s? Why did we lose our pride then? How did all of these problems suddenly crop up? It's amazing how Blacks did a 360 from being pro-Black to being what we are today, in such a short period of time. It's not just that we stopped being pro-Black. We lost any and all self-respect that we had.

Is there any other race that belittles itself to the extreme that we do? I don't see white people running around and calling themselves honkies and crackers. Asians don't call themselves chinks. Black people are the only people who use terms that were meant to dehumanize us as if they were badges of honor, or worse, we use them to disparage other black people. We have no problem degrading black women. When Malcolm X said in the 60's that "The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman, the most unprotected person in America is the Black woman, the most neglected person in America is the Black woman." I wonder if he would have thought the Black people would be perpetrators of this in 09'.

Furthermore, we've just stopped caring when people disrespect us. Starting since 2008 with Tropic Thunder, blackface has seen a revival, and this time Black people are laughing right along with the white. We think that our portrayal in Transformers is acceptable. When we laugh at "comedy" such as the Cleveland's and the Madea movies that make a mockery out of black ignorance, the joke is ultimately on us.

I believe that these and the majority of problems in Black America stem from an overall lack of respect for ourselves--it's beyond self-hatred. I don't even think this problem came so much from slavery, but from assimilation into white culture and from adopting white values. I'll be examining this in my next post, but for now, let me know what you think. What was the biggest cause of our overall lack of self-respect?

Black women need to be more independent

2009-10-19T10:13:00.000-04:00

I know the above statement may seem to be overkill. Black women are stereotyped to be too independent. However, I do not believe this is true, and if it is, it is certainly not a bad thing.

Black women are way too hung up on what everyone thinks about us, and we should complain less about being undermined by society and the media. This is America. Don't expect it to hold you above the light-skinned girl above you. However, many black women act under the assumption that America will come around, and the black women will be glorified along with white. The problem is you can not live by wishful thinking or by your opinion of what America should be or what America should do. Stop expecting America to give black women justice.

Those who make such assumptions allow their self-concept to be defined by whether society gives them its stamp of approval or not. It then negatively affects their self-esteem when black women are persecuted because they take it personally. One thing black people fail to understand is that as long as aspects of your life rely on the majority's acceptance, you are still under their control. Black women should follow the John's advice of "being in the world [or America in this case] but not of it." We should not allow America's injustices to affect us to the point so that we conform to it.

Black women are at the bottom of the barrel in every aspect of American culture. Therefore, it is impractical to remain a part of such a system. I often hear black girls complain that white guys don't like them as they like white girls (not as if these black girls should be worried about getting white approval anyway), but they fail to realize that they are operating in a system that was designed to uplift the white woman and demean the black woman. That's why you are still not appreciated in the media, even though you straighten your hair, bleach your skin, or wear color contacts. The black woman will never be appreciated the way that the white woman is, so stop trying to be. Don't try to be the way that she is and find your own path. We need to find non-conventional goals that works for us. Think of it this way, when lab rats realize that there isn't cheese in a certain part of the maze, do they continue to return to it? They try to find cheese in a different location. Black women keep returning to an empty slot hoping that "cheese" is there, when we need to find fulfillment in places the that we aren't now.

In addition, black women should stop worrying so much about what men think and getting married, especially since black women aren't in demand by men anyway , it is wasted effort. I'm not saying that black women should give up on men or love. I'm just saying that this IR movement among black women is misplaced effort. Date, absolutely, but dating shouldn't be our main goal, and neither should be being accepted. We need to learn skills that enable us not to only survive but to thrive in a racist society. An example of this how the Koreans took over the black hair market. That was a great opportunity to add more power to our community by creating a market that made by black people and target to black people. Instead, our desire to conform to white standards was exploited and a $9 billion dollar industry is going to people who could care less about us. Imagine if we took all of that money that we spend to conform and used it to empower ourselves.

Focus on ending things that matter like black ignorance. Stop worrying about men and dating. Stop worrying about the stand of beauty. Most importantly get out of the Eurocentric mode of thinking because you will always be at the bottom rung of its social ladder if you operate under it.

Why Hair Matters

2009-10-17T18:25:00.001-04:00

This is partly a response to AJR's post where she says how she's sick about the politics of Black hair, and that hair shouldn't matter. I disagree.

Now first of let me say that I don't think it's a sin to press hair or to wear a weave. I don't think that there is anything wrong with changing it up hear and there. However, I do not think that it is "healthy" for Blacks to chemically alter our hair or to always hide it with a weave.

The first thing many women will say to defend their non-natural state is that white women perm, press, curl, and weave up to. However, they fail to recognize that that we are not white. Black women and white women are not in the same situations, are not viewed the same way, and are not held to the same standard, so white women can not possibly be used to justify black hair choices. White women have been romanticized as Cleopatras and Aphrodities for ages. Black women have been forced to be Aunt Jemima's through the years. As a result, white women's hair choices don't impact them the way that black women's do. Most white women don't pretend to have an afro through childhood, and when I see pictures of whites trying to look silly, I see them wearing afro wigs, not long flowing blond hair. Black hair has a stigma. What percentage of black women do you think would walk down the street with an afro?

Anytime that someone puts significant time, effort, and money to change something, it matters. Anytime a portion of a population alters itself to look like the majority, it matters.
If you would never wear your hair in its natural state, hair matters to you.

Hair is not irrelevant because it is a reflection of culture and therefore a reflection of self. What do you think when you see a woman walking down the street in a sari ? You know she has Indian heritage, and any other perceptions you have about her are subject to your possible prejudices about Indians. Likewise, when many people see women in scarfs or burqas, they assume that they are oppressed or think little of themselves. What do people think when they see a woman in an afro. People frequently say that she looks uneducated, unprofessional, or something similar. This is because they recognize an afro as being a Black feature and since one has Black features she must also carry the negative attributes of Blacks.

We're all aware that Black characteristics carry strong negative connotations around the world. Therefore, the more "Black" one looks, the more these negative undertones will be attributed to that person. This is why people bleach their skin. This is why people straighten their hair. We do not choose our hair styles at random because they matter. We not only pick the styles we like based on our own preferences, but the preferences of others. People naturally want to be accepted by other's, and if that means changing themselves to look more white, they will do so. It's important to know why we make our decisions. Every choice we make is relevant because it is based on something learned. This includes hair styles.

Chris Rock Is Not in Black Women's Best Interest

2009-10-16T12:20:00.000-04:00

My perception of people is generally negative, positive, or neutral. Chris Rock was in neutral status, until he produced Good Hair. When I saw the trailer, I was extremely disappointed. It didn't address the politics of Black hair. On the contrary, Chris Rock decided to use the emotional confusion that Black women experience with our hair and capitalize on it. I have been intensely following this Good Hair since it was announced, and I have come to the conclusion that Chris Rock does not respect black women nor is he trying to help black people with this film. He's just as caught up in the concept of good hair as all of us, and has no intention of tearing down Blacks' mental chains. This movie has no other purpose than to entertain whites.

Chris Rock Does Not Respect Black Women
I'll start this from a quote from the man himself:

Barack Obama has a black wife. And I don't think a black woman can be first lady of the United States. Barack has a handicap the other candidates don't have: Barack Obama has a black wife. And I don't think a black woman can be first lady of the United States. Yeah, I said it! A black woman can be president, no problem. First lady? Can't do it. You know why? Because a black woman cannot play the background of a relationship. Just imagine telling your black wife that you'e president? "Honey, I did it! I won! I'm the president." "No, we the president! And I want my girlfriends in the Cabinet! I want Kiki to be secretary of state! She can fight!"

The comment pretty much speaks for itself. Here, Rock is making his sister, a woman who has more education than he will ever have, sound ignorant simply because she is a Black woman. Brava, Chris Rock.

Apparently, black women are stupid and self-absorbed, which is funny. So it makes sense to make a movie out of that. So hear we have a movie mocking black women spending so much time, effort, and money making our hair texture look like someone else's. We're even buying someone else's hair and installing it into our own, and it's...hilarious? Really? According to Chris Rock, this is all a joke. He doesn't address that a whole race of women wouldn't do this for so many decades for no reason. He does not discuss the "why." He does not about talk where this mentality comes from. (He avoids this topic completely because he doesn't want to make his white audience upset but rather amuse them.) There is obviously something seriously wrong if a whole race of people are ashamed of their hair texture. The A.V. Club made great points:

The film is filled with sadly telling moments, like a black beauty student telling Rock that she'd have a hard time taking a job applicant seriously if he had an afro, yet its tone is one of amusement rather than indignation. Rock is an entertainer, not a polemicist, and Good Hair will never be mistaken for a college course in African American Hair And Racial Identity, though it does stress the pain women will endure and the exorbitant prices they'll pay to keep up with follicular trends. To the film's subjects, paying thousands for a complicated, high-maintenance weave is less a luxury than a necessity, even for those low on the socio-economic scale.

In order for Chris Rock to make a movie mocking Black women's insecurities this way, he must have little respect for us. In addition, in order for him to think that it's hilarious that Blacks believe that wearing our natural hair is so unacceptable that we must change it, shows me that he has little respect for his own people. I started to realize this even more after he was on the Oprah show. He could not get his fingers out of her hair, and was practically worshiping it on stage. He then said that Stedman was a lucky man. To make matters worse, he calls Oprah's natural hair "slave hair." And he wonders why his daughter was crying? Give me a break! I remember seeing him have a similar reaction when having an interview with a white woman. He didn't touch her hair, but he stated how he would love to run his hands through it and was practically drooling. Chris Rock believes in "Good Hair" as much as any other Black person.

I also hate how he avoids the real issue behind this "good hair" sentiment among Blacks, and maintains this "It doesn't matter what hair style you have, as long as you like it " stance. If that is true, what was the point of laughing at all of these women for perming and weaving in this movie? The only thing that he did was state the obvious. Black people know what we do to our hair. This was only an eye-opener for the whites, and it was for their entertainment. Of course, they thought it was hilarious how all of these Negroes are changing themselves to look like them. That's was the point of this film, to amuse the white man at the black woman's expense.

I may be irrational, but this just ticked me off

2009-10-13T14:00:00.002-04:00

When I found out that a white woman was just named Miss Hampton University, I was ticked. I hate that a white women are held above black women, even in a black University. In every area in life, black women are told that we are inadequate. In other beauty pageants, we see a sea of white faces. When we turn on the TV, we she extremely light skinned, Hispanic, or even white women portraying black women (unless of course it is a ghetto black woman). Even in black dominated rap and hip hop, Hispanic and light-skin are taking black places. This is why it is disheartening that even in a predominately black beauty pageant, sisters don't have a chance to shine. Is there one place where black women are safe from white privilege and can be appreciated?

Even though Europeans are the standard of beauty, I'm usually not annoyed by this. However, I believe that there is a breaking point to everything. I can see sisters around me, desperately looking for validation because they recognize that, as black women, they are outcast in society. Black girls as young as 4 or 5 are picking up on this, and it is affecting their self-image. (Sisters, I think we all can remember playing with a towel, and pretending it was our hair as young children. It's even worse for girls growing up in '09.) This is why this story concerns me.

Really Alienated Conclusions has a good discussion about this. Be sure to check it out. You won't regret it. http://nerdsevolving.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-black-women-were-white-women.html

Why is Black Ignorance Accpetable?

2009-10-13T10:03:00.001-04:00

The other day a white woman that I know was complaining that she was called racist because she said "black people speak their own language." She was referring to ebonics of course. Now this woman is an English teacher, and if most of her white students spoke the "language" that blacks illegibly do, she would call it bad grammar and correct them. Then, why is it acceptable for blacks to speak this way. (This reminds me of that scene in Roots where the blonde-haired person asks her father why don't they teach blacks to read. If you remember this scene, you know what I'm talking about.)

I'm sure many of my brothers and sisters out there when they have been bestowed the honor of being told that they are "articulate" or that they "speak so well" as if just because I'm black, I shouldn't be able to put a sentence together. However, I'm not...really bothered by these ignorant people stereotyping me. I'm more concerned by the Pygmalion effect of it. When you live in a society where most of the members expect you to be uneducated, how does it influence your life? How does a child develop in a world where most of the people think that being ignorant is proper and right for him? Once one thinks of it this way, these passing remarks become much more serious because people generally fulfill the expectations that others have of them.

But back to the original question. Why is black ignorance acceptable? When we hear about failing white schools, everyone gets in an uproar, but when this happens to black schools, no one cares because it is to be expected. Black schools barely get any funding because putting any effort in them is seen as a waste. Of course, it is unacceptable to treat white schools with this same apathy. People have no problem treating blacks this way because they want blacks to be uneducated. The United States feels threaten by educated blacks, which is why they propagate the idea that blacks are supposed to be ignorant. They will do everything in their power to ensure that blacks stay this way.

However, the ultimate question is how can we change this?

First, I think blacks need to invest much more in their children than they do now. Sending away a child to a public school may be fine for a white person, but it frankly isn't good enough for a black person today. Black people have to work twice as hard for half of what white people get, which is why the school that children are sent to must be chosen very carefully. I believe that children should be sent to private schools or be home-schooled. Making sacrifices to ensure that your child receives a proper education is worth the effort.

Columbus Day and White Supremecy

2009-10-12T07:58:00.001-04:00

Imagine that someone breaks in your house, kills you, and puts your family in slavery. He then proclaims that he "discovered" your house and takes ownership of it as if you were never there in the first place. The city awards the killer, and proclaims the day he killed and stole from you a holiday.

This is why I don't understand Columbus day.

Why is it alright to celebrate the someone who opened the door for genocide and slavery of the Native Americans and Africans? This is morally justifiable only if these groups aren't really "people." In reality, they are not respected as people in American culture. Americans develop this perspective when they first go to school. They are taught that Columbus "discovered" America, even with the logical fallacy that no one can discover a place where someone else lives. By not acknowledging the the Native Americans in this way, children learn that the NA's are lesser than white Columbus. In addition, by not discussing the atrocities of Columbus and the consequences of this "discovery," we reduce the Native Americans' injustice to being as insignificant. It's not worth even addressing after all.

We can see the affects of this demeaning of Native Americans in popular culture. In TV and books, Native Americans are portrayed as ignorant savages who want to tear down the marvelous civilization that the whites have built on their land. However, we fail to address the NA's rich civilization--well, the rich civilization that was there since it was almost destroyed. We are just taught that the white's culture is superior. Therefore, the destruction of the NA's way of life is justifiable. To further illustrate America's respect for NA's, we see how whites use NA's as mascots for their football games and dress up as them in minstrel fashion in order to show their reverence for their culture. We then learn that NA's are no better than a eagle, a bear, or any other animal since they can be used as a mascot.

How can we fix this? Should we end Columbus day? I propose that this holiday should be replaced with one that celebrates Native American culture and serves as a memorial to those who suffered from atrocities because of Columbus and those who followed after him.

In addition, minorities would be respected in America if we addressed their cultures and achievements in schools, instead of giving history from a white or biased perspective.