Gods and Generals

I think I want to go back to teaching American Government and History at the precise moment when Donald J. Trump boards Marine One and they take him to Andrews AFB so that he can fly back to his tower in New York City. Or wherever, so long as he is headed out of town NEVER to return as the Commander in Chief.

I know that I might end up teaching a few students who were supporters of his, and that we may or may not debate the disaster that was his Presidency. I know my position on him will be easy to discern from the absolute glee that might emanate from me, but there is another reason: I want students to truly understand how our government and system are supposed to work without the distraction of "alternative facts" and false equivalencies.

I wrote a screed on my FB page the other day in which I invoked the concerns I have about the current President's misleading interpretations of our government functions. How if he were a student of mine, he would fail...but not because I wouldn't have tried my best to impart knowledge, but because I'm convinced he would try his best not to receive it. For only a person who resists sound instruction would believe that there is ultimate power invested in the President despite the fact that our government consists of three co-equal branches. And then continue to act as if his executive powers are not subject to judicial review or congressional veto. Despite the fact that he, as a private citizen, spent the better part of the last four years cheering on the very checks and balances of power as exercised by his co-equal partners.

In addition, I need him to learn a more comprehensive version of American History--the story that offers a more in-depth understanding of both our country's founding after the Revolution and its near destruction during the Civil War. Because if the President understood those two crucial points in our history, he would not have casually and recklessly thrown out the suggestion that once statues of Confederate generals come down, so too would statues of our slave-holding Founding Fathers.

So let's unpack the difference, in anyone needs a tutorial--the Founders established this country, the Confederates tried to destroy this country. And to offer a little more nuance, in case there are more questions, slavery was bad. The Founders who owned slaves have that cloud hovering over their legacies, that stain permanently set in their expensive linens. And there is no denying that the Confederate generals who fought to maintain the southern economic engine fueled by the free labor of slaves also share that same permanent stain. Yet more than a clouded legacy or permanently blood-stained clothing, they also bear the responsibility for the death of every life lost in that struggle. The Confederate generals who took up arms in rebellion against the nation founded by those slave-holding Founders do not deserve an elevation of status on par with the Founding Fathers. In fact they shouldn't even have a proper adjective capitalized with the letter "C"...

But that is where I stray into opinion, so let me pivot back to facts. As difficult as it might be for me to separate the ownership of slaves in the 18th Century from owning slaves and defending that practice to the death in the 19th Century, that is not the point of comparison that distinguishes the two groups of men. And I know this because of my recent trip to Mount Vernon.

My Niece, who loves all things George Washington (thanks to the clever marketing genius of the Nationals' Racing Presidents), my daughter and I visited Mt. Vernon this week. I had tried to take them back in July, but I misread the hours of operation, so when I had a chance to take them on Monday, we took the drive down and had a chance to see most of the property. She loved it, I appreciated being able to see it through her eyes, and my hope is that she will continue to learn more about the founding of this country.

When George Washington decided to seek a second term as President of the entire nation, it was at a moment when it could have fractured along the very same regional lines that divided the nation 69 years later. In contrast, Robert E. Lee (ironically both a distant cousin of Washington and also his great-grandson in-law), chose exploit that rupture in 1861 when he opted to serve the Confederacy against the Union with his home state of Virginia.

Could it be argued that Washington, a traitor to England, should be remembered for that as a permanent sin? Well, the British people have opted to honor Washington in Trafalgar Square with a bronze statue presented to them by the Commonwealth of Virginia! So far, I can't say whether he is honored similarly in Canada, but that is none of my business...

The point is that not all monuments deserve public veneration. These confederate statues of generals might deserve a place of honor in communities where they did more than lead a rebellion against their country. So for example, Washington and Lee University, named for both generals and their contributions to that institution, can and should honor General Lee in whatever manner they deem appropriate. It is a private institution, and as such, the students who choose to matriculate there do so with the understanding that it has a specific history. But that does not mean that Lee deserves to have statues dedicated to his memory maintained at public expense in every city across the Commonwealth, so if some communities decide that he should retired to greener pastures, then that isn't erasing his memory insomuch as it is relocating it to a more appropriate venue.

Our country's history is very complicated, which is the other reason why we need a better understanding of those complexities. We need to agree that there are facts, and various opinions, and that what we teach are the facts and not the opinions. We don't need history taught by pundits who have a vested interest in promoting a certain perspective instead of uncomfortable truths. And we certainly don't need history reduced to 140-word character tweets dispatched by a leader desperate to prove his legitimacy. And as great as it is that most young people develop an interest in history because of interpretations in popular culture, this isn't actually a history lesson either:

But it is funny.

The Last of the Rebel Yells

This piece evolved from an initial intent to post an article on the Busy Black Woman FB page featuring the faces of the "Unite the Right" protestors from Charlottesville. When the article and my commentary failed to post on my FB page (very unusual), I began writing the piece below in response, also in reflection from having attended my family reunion in Fredericksburg, VA. Here is part of what I wrote:

Unfortunately, the article I tried to post yesterday with the photo of the Unite the Right protestors did not post, nor did my message. But today, after all of the chaos, terror, destruction, and the unfortunate deaths, I have another opportunity to express my utter despair at what happened in Charlottesville yesterday.

As all of that nonsense was going on, I was in Fredericksburg for my family reunion. As a child, we would travel to "the country", at least once a year the second weekend in August to reunite those family members who had remained in Fredericksburg with those who had migrated to DC and Philadelphia. I hadn't been to one of these events since my grandmother passed away more than 20 years ago, for a variety of reasons I may share later. On the drive down I-95, we passed an enormous confederate flag that has been erected just past Quantico and right before Warrenton, VA.

So, just over an hour's drive away from the Nation's Capitol, the confederacy has resurrected itself on the side of a major interstate. I saw it the last time I drove down to Fredericksburg for my Aunt's funeral last fall; this time I asked my niece to take a photo so that we could post it online. She didn't get the picture, and now that I have had a chance to digest what occurred yesterday, I believe it was the hand of God maneuvering things so that we would not continue to spread the hate that flag represents. Of course, my reason for wanting to post a picture was to highlight that very sentiment, but it doesn't need to be broadcast by me.

I don't know all of the details of what happened yesterday in Charlottesville because we were absorbed in our bubble of reacquainting ourselves with distant relatives. But I was reminded of the very powerful reason why my grandmother and her favorite cousin left the "county" for DC and Philly so many decades ago--they wanted a better life for their children. They understood the limitations of opportunity for black Southerners, so they joined that Great Migration as young women and later established branches of our family tree in northern communities like so many of their peers. I can only imagine that some incident or mindset, similar to what was on display in Charlottesville yesterday, is what spurred them to leave.

I posted it here because in the days since the protests, I have been reflecting a LOT about what this all means today in 2017. Not that I had no expectations that the backlash to the Obama era had begun and ended with the last election (because, sadly this is only the beginning of the counter-revolution), but it builds on a theme that I felt compelled to express a few weeks back on July 4th. I framed that piece about being woke enough to cautiously appreciate that holiday, but now I want to stake out an even bolder position--that our celebrations of this country serve to appreciate our evolution, and then to demand that we continue to strive towards becoming a more perfect union.

Because these grand American ideals are for everyone.

If your ancestors died to preserve ideals that did not expand rights or that were meant to exclude people, then that is a reason to mourn, not celebrate. Your pride is rooted in something that is the very antithesis of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the ideals of our Founders--not the Confederate generals whose cause you defend. When you choose to stand for racial segregation, gender inequality, religious intolerance, and any other form of systematic oppression, it betrays them and every person who has ever shed blood for this country.

And of course, as I was writing this piece, the Trumpet sounded off again...and so I'm convinced that whenever I think I've missed the window to respond to his nonsense, I just need to give him six hours to say or do something else outrageous.

Too much has happened to unpack everything in one piece. So here are some themes I hope to address as I continue to examine my counter position to MAGA--America is for all of us:

1. We all hear your dog whistle, Mr. President, so no need trying to conceal it by deliberately changing the subject and getting angry. No more fake nuclear crises or hollow threats to fire members of your Cabinet.
2. Ironic that no one thought to be this overt during the tenure of the first black President. The worst you could muster up against Obama were racist cartoons, but this angry white mob thing is really quite a step forward. Feel free to march through the hood on your way back to the suburbs.
3. My Grandma Viola and her Cousin Ruth, and my other Grandmother Amanda and the many other thousands of black folks who migrated out of the South clearly understood why you march to preserve your old confederate monuments. And they aren't spinning in their graves over any of this because Barack Obama was the real shock...this backlash was to be expected.
4. There is no slippery slope when it comes to venerating Founding Fathers and Confederate generals. While many people have issues with our slave-owning Framers, most of us can see the difference between honoring the first President of the United States and honoring the President of the Confederacy. They are not equals.
5. This title of this piece comes from the name of a roller coaster at King's Dominion, an amusement park located in Virginia, north of Richmond. For years, I never knew to associate the name of the coaster with anything connected to the confederacy, but I had a doh moment a few years ago when I was teaching. That's how embedded certain colloquialisms are...yet, we need to be mindful as we evolve as a society. If these truly are harmless symbols, then moving them should not evoke such emotion.
6. Finally, thank you for leaving your bed sheets at home so that the world could really see your faces. Like many people, I was expecting to see more rowdies from the MAGA crowd because they are easier to ridicule. But color me shocked to see the IT guy at work, the guy who sells life insurance, the guy who manages the electronics store, and the kid's soccer coach. All clad in your Ralph Lauren polo shirts (he's a Jew, btw). 

Woke on the Fourth of July

This was initially published on the Busy Black Woman blog on Bastille Day (yeah I know), and I was just going to let that be until I saw this fuckery on Facebook. I have an updated message for folks like him, read on:

My Dad was woke back before we knew that would be the thing to be...because when we were growing up, his woke-ness was uncool. It was the 80s and as a proud, yet jaded veteran of the Civil Rights Movement, he restricted us from participating in anything he deemed to be counter-revolutionary. So we didn't watch the Dukes of Hazzard or any classic cartoons with racial caricatures (at least, not when he was around). He always belonged to a black bank. Our African names, black dolls, and annual observance of African Liberation/Malcolm X Day were nods to his embrace of pan-Africanism before everyone else caught on in the 90s. And my Dad hates Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Elvis Pressley, and Gone With the Wind.

Of course, like most people, his woke-ness could be inconsistent whenever he hit the snooze button. We couldn't play "Cowboys and Indians" although we were avid Washington football fans (even before Doug Williams). He won't celebrate Kwanzaa. For years he thought OJ was framed. And while we could happily spend the day at the beach, eat barbecue, and shoot off our little fireworks on July Fourth, it was never in celebration of America's birthday. So it made me beam with pride upon seeing how so many of my friends posted Frederick Douglass's powerful speech, "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro" last week since Daddy had made me read it years ago as part of his stance against celebrating American Independence.

For the record, my take on July Fourth falls somewhere between my Dad's outright hostility and other folks' unbounded enthusiasm. Which means I have no opposition to celebrating the day for what it commemorates, but I reserve the right to remind folks that the struggle for freedom continues. So no, you probably will not catch me wearing my patriotism on my ass like a cheap pair of American flag leggings (made in China). However, I am happy to wave a few sparklers (also made in China) while I recite the words to Langston Hughes' "I, Too" or Claude McKay's "America" or Maya Angelou's "These Yet to be United States". Or even better, as the Toddlersaurus, my Niece, and I belt out our favorite songs from the musical Hamilton.

Just as my Dad and others were disillusioned by the post-Civil Rights era backlash, I can appreciate how disheartening it is to confront the realities of this post-Obama era. From that race-baiting NRA video to the retreat by the Justice Department from protecting the rights of citizens to outright religious intolerance and hostility, it is easy to understand why folks have lost faith. Unfortunately, hypocrisy is as American as pumpkin pie--literally, ever since those eloquent words of equality and liberty were penned by a slaveowner whose "slave mistress" was his wife's half sister.

Despite the wide gulf between our ideals and reality, we too can celebrate America. We can believe in the hope expressed by both the Declaration of Independence and the Frederick Douglass speech because this is our country too. If we can celebrate both men for their greatness while acknowledging their very human weaknesses (Douglass' extracurricular activities), then we must learn to reconcile our disappointments with American shortcomings to our pride in American progress.

Since I mentioned it earlier, it is the genius of Hamilton that reminded me how we are all inheritors of the American legacy. Only in America could a Puerto Rican rapper write a Tony Award-winning musical on the life of an undocumented Caribbean immigrant who ascends from obscurity to notoriety by aligning with a black/brown George Washington. American History is our story too, so marginalizing or othering us doesn't negate that fact.

And in case you might be wondering, I can celebrate America and stay woke. In the words of the prophet known as James Baldwin, "I can love America more than any country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."

Here's what I added for that idiot in Florida:
I was born here. And since you aren't a Native American, nor did your family come over on the Nina, Pinta, Santa Maria, Mayflower, or on a slave ship, try again. Check your family tree to see if its roots are as deep as mine, because I assure you that your white skin is the only advantage you have. So you can keep your "Go Back to Africa" foolishness.

You can also keep those historical commemorations that have been purposefully sanitized, such as folks' misplaced nostalgia for the Confederacy. Let's be clear that if you insist on dedicating public space to venerate Confederate generals, then it should be okay if we drape those hallowed monuments in white bed sheets...because that is your history too. Or if we install colored water fountain signs nearby, because that is also your history.

And one more thing, now that I'm on a roll, let's address the anti-PC campaigns that want to graft Confederate history onto MLK Day, but don't want to acknowledge Native Americans during Columbus Day...yeah, stop. Ditto for White History Month. Get over yourselves and stop conflating freedom of speech with a license to offend.

It is our history, all of it--the good, the bad, and the shameful. The triumphs and the tragedies. George Washington and George W. Bush. Thomas Jefferson to Barack Obama, and even the current President. Hopefully he'll be history soon enough.

The Politics of Disrespectability

The other day a lot of us imagined that the late Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune rose up from her grave in utter shock and horror during the commencement exercises at the school she founded. The reason for that imagined resurrection is up for debate.

On the one hand, I think she was insulted that her name and legacy had been invoked to justify an invitation extended to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a woman whose credentials for the job of being the nation's school superintendent are, ahem, questionable. On the other hand, it could be argued that her anger was at the students for breaking with decorum. If I had another hand, I would say that she was irate about all of that and then some.

I started tweeting my own rant last week and urged students to walk out of the ceremony. Of course, I have no real followers so that was just my opinion. The official Twitter hashtag urged students to turn their backs on DeVos during the speech, and I guess that could have worked too. But then someone began booing and then the chanting and then things broke down from there. It was a spectacle and an unfortunate avoidable mess.

Part of my outrage over this sparked the campaign I am currently promoting through Busy Black Woman, Just Give. I believe more alumni giving can make our voices heard, even in a room full of tone deaf leaders. For all of the complaining and the anger we express on social media, it will mean nothing if donations to Bethune-Cookman University dry up or remain static. HBCUs should not have to curry favor with every million dollar donor when we have an adequate built-in base of untapped alumni support.

BCUs President and Board probably assumed that by inviting DeVos to speak, they could avail themselves of some federal funding, perhaps in the form of some special pilot grant program or that infrastructure spending that the Trumpet questioned. And I'm thinking that when the invitation was extended, DeVos saw it as an opportunity to reintroduce herself to the HBCU community after her earlier misguided statements and assumed that the students wouldn't really care...after all, aren't most students are drunk at graduation anyway?

Not at an HBCU Graduation! Because Mama and 'nem are there and they got dressed up and they waited 4, 5, 6 or so years for that moment. Folks took off from work to make the trip. Somebody went without so that balance was paid and you were cleared to walk at the last minute. Grandma endured the trip, even though you told her it would be ok if she didn't come, but she insisted because you are her oldest grandchild. Or the youngest. Or somewhere in the middle (no matter). And because HBCUs tend to hold graduations close to Mother's Day, Mama and Grandma and Aunties and that older cousin who is like a sister to you who brought her kids so that they can see you as a role model, they are in that audience beaming with pride, so this is not some corny formality. This is a BIG deal.

And so, despite the fact that Dr. Bethune left us these eloquent words in her famous Last Will and Testament, apparently the powers that be forgot that she had plenty more to say. So on Wednesday morning she rose up from her grave, knowing all of that commotion was about to take place, and she inspired a few of those meme savvy students to release some of her other important words to let the rest of us know why that fuckery was intolerable.

To those of you with your years of service still ahead, the challenge is yours. Stop doubting yourselves. Have the courage to make up your minds and hold your decisions. Refuse to be BOUGH for a nickel, or a million dollars, or a job!

If we accept and acquiesce in the face of discrimination, we accept the responsibility ourselves. We should, therefore, protest openly everything...that smacks of discrimination or slander.

To Miss Betsy, let's be clear that you had a right to speak at the invitation of the University President, Dr. Edison O. Jackson. But he had no right to invite you to be the commencement speaker, and then wait until the 11th hour to announce your selection when it would be too late for the graduates to oppose it. He claimed that he wanted to expose the students to opposing points of view, which might be appropriate when the attendees are current students who are still subject to the school's authority. Commencement is an audience of faculty, alumni, graduates, and families, which means these were not the young impressionable minds that should be compelled to sit through whatever Secretary DeVos had to say. This was not a campus convocation.

And that is why so many HBCU alumni were upset. We have legitimate issues with this Administration and while we can appreciate the assumption that there is a benefit to being exposed to alternative viewpoints, it is not a requirement. Every pronouncement from Trumpelthinskin and Company has been an egregious repudiation of the ideals many of us hold, so why should anyone assume good intentions from Mrs. DeVos' appearance? And why raise the specter of federal funding when we know that is a red herring? Because if she did come in peace, then there would have been no need to shroud her appearance with such mystery.

Thus, the prophetic nature of Dr. Bethune's words and why we must not sell our principles for any price. Bethune-Cookman is a private HBCU, so while it certainly depends on federal funding through student loans and other programs, perhaps it should be made public that DeVos' appearance would ensure the preservation of XYZ so at least folks would know why they were a captive audience at that circus. And knowing that the decision to walk out or turn their backs to the speech would be met with criticism anyway, why not "protest openly" against the slander that somehow we are expected to acquiesce to patronizing contempt and disrespect.

Continue to rise BCU Wildcats and continue to make Dr. Bethune proud!

Get In Formation

This is just a quick public service announcement because I want all HBCU alumni to understand something crucial for future reference: WE ARE NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER FOR DONORS.

I repeat: WE ARE NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER FOR DONORS.

That isn't our cross to bear. So please, before you waste time whining blogging about a high-profile donation to the so-called elite HBCUs, take a step back and do a little research. Recognize that every single one of these institutions needs support, and if every single alumni gave something, anything to his/her own HBCU, it wouldn't matter what the celebrities do.

Because what they do with their money is their damn business. Some of these folk will give that big one-time donation and never give another dime. Or they might give consistently for the rest of their natural lives. Or whatever, but again, it is their money and not ours. Our money is what we earn and how we choose to designate it, so that matters more to our institutions--whether alumni bother to donate.

So again, I repeat (just in case you forgot): WE ARE NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER FOR DONORS.

And because I really, really care that you get this, I just gave to Talladega College, as I said I would when I wrote this. Because I never want another HBCU to go hat in hand to participate in something that they would rather not, but feel compelled to do so because they need the money.

And that is the same reason why I gave to Bethune-Cookman University today, because for the life of me, I just cannot even form the words to express why the invitation to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to be their commencement speaker is just...like seriously, were Omarosa or Ben Carson that busy? (And I'm not signing any petition because I made my feelings clear while making my contribution. Money talks, my friends.)

And to briefly address this gift from Beyonce to Spelman College and Howard University, please save your ire for real nonsense, like the aforementioned invitation to Betsy DeVos from Bethune-Cookman or the participation of Talladega's band at the Abomination in January. Hell, let's debate whether it is too soon for Barack Obama to collect $400,000 for speaking engagements. But let's not spend another minute complaining about how Beyonce should have spent her money; otherwise, we will ensure that the next big gift won't go to any of our schools. No one wants to court controversy for making a GIFT. So just stop.

Finally: WE ARE NOT IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER FOR DONORS.

The Atlanta Riots - Part II

As I was writing the first part of this, I had this strange feeling of deja vu, so I went back to see what I had written in the past about this incident. I could not find it here, then remembered that I had probably written about this experience for the class I taught ten years ago! Although I won't be looking through the crates to see what I wrote then, it was interesting to look back through some of what I wrote here during that time period. Perhaps I need to repost and update a few things to demonstrate how my voice has evolved. Nevertheless, back to my analysis of the Atlanta Riots some 25 years later. 

I confirmed with a friend who graduated that year that my recollection of how the situation ended and quickly returned to what we would call normal was accurate. I went home, started a summer job, and here I am 25 years later trying to understand what we did and how it informs my opinions of what I see in police protests and interactions today.

Rodney King to Mike Brown to Freddie Gray
We were rightfully outraged by the King verdict, which to many of us proved that race almost always colors how people see the same incidents. None of us students felt that King's drug use justified such a savage beating. In hindsight, I still don't, especially as we compare it to the riots that engulfed Baltimore just two years ago or that took place in Ferguson, Missouri months earlier. The names are different, but the results and the finger-pointing are the same--the victims are blamed for escalating police behavior.

As we head into our first summer under the regime of a President who has been overtly supportive of the police tactics that have been practiced in all three of these confrontations, I am worried. It bothers me that when Rodney King was beaten for resisting arrest, we were told that he provoked their response. The same has been said about Mike Brown even though it is unclear if he resisted arrest. And as for Freddie Gray, that situation is so muddled and messy...

But what about those instances when the victim complies and still gets wounded or dies? What about Philando Castille, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland and Tamir Rice? How many more names do we add to that sad roll of inquiry before anyone acknowledges that the power to deescalate a potentially volatile situation resides with the person/people holding the lethal weapons with the power of the state encrusted on their lapels?

Public Protests and Black Lives Matter
I just happened to read another negative reaction to Black Lives Matter (BLM) and as I try not to dismiss that point of view, it occurs in the backdrop of a completely unrelated post a friend wrote about public Confederate monuments. However, in both situations, we are dealing with perspective.

And when I delve into how we perceive race and law enforcement in their historical intersections, then these two matters are not all that distinct. As a BLM supporter, I have never regarded the statement nor the movement as elevating one race over another. It has always been about demanding the humanization of black/brown lives. Similarly, as a person who has absolutely no sympathy for the Confederacy, I cannot regard monuments to the Lost Cause as honorable. Quite frankly, I believe that your revered ancestors died to preserve a system and way of life that did not regard black and brown lives as having any human value. Period.

Yet, when asked to consider the opposite viewpoints--that of law enforcement facing the hostility of an enraged mob or that of a Southerner seeking to reconcile the contradictions of family honor, I get it. Perhaps it is too easy to demonize police actions as overzealous in complicated situations. And maybe it is intellectually lazy to assume that every Confederate was an unrepentant racist. Alternatively, thousands take to the streets to march and protest in support of black/brown victims because we believe they had rights, irrespective of their bad or questionable behavior. If I can see the humanity in my neighbor who is a police officer or of a long-dead Confederate general who sincerely believed in my ancestors' inferiority, then surely you can muster up a modicum of human compassion for the mother whose child was taken from her prematurely under questionable circumstances.

We are all accountable for our actions--victim, oppressor, citizen, undocumented, insurrectionist, civil servant, rich, poor, black, white, President, soldier, civilian, sinner, and saint.

The Atlanta Riots - Part I

I was listening to the radio this morning and the story that caught my attention was a commemoration of the Los Angeles riots 25 years ago. It triggered my memory of the uprising that took place in Atlanta at the same time. This piece is not to compare the events because the country was rightfully riveted by the conflagration of Los Angeles in the aftermath of a very controversial verdict in the trial of the officers charged with beating Rodney King. Even if I could articulate a perspective on what went on in LA, it occurs alongside what I/we experienced in Atlanta and it is through that lens that I offer these thoughts.

It was the end of the semester. The night that the verdict was announced, many of us were at King's Chapel for the Miss Maroon and White pageant, which was to be the final show of the semester before exams. This is the time before smartphones, so the news did not come to us via Twitter. We found out because someone had been watching CNN during a break in the show. While we were waiting for the announcement of the court, someone took to the stage to announce the verdict.

Next I remember a lot of discussion and honestly, I don't recall that we processed the news as being nearly as serious until later on in the dorms. That is when we saw the first news reports of rioting in Los Angeles.

Somehow, we got word that a protest rally would be taking place the next day. Again, this is in the era before the internet or social media, so it was spread via word of mouth, which meant information was all over the place. A few of us decided to attend the protest, and walked out of Spelman's front gate without knowing what to expect.

At this point, I need to insert some commentary about the events that followed, because this is my memory and it is subject to my personal biases. Which may or may not reflect what actually happened to those who were active and visible participants...but it is what I observed, and in some cases, what I experienced. It might not be a flattering recollection either, but I want to emphasize that often in circumstances of chaos, there are not always bright lines of right and wrong.

Oscars So Black?

Every year I offer my take on the Academy Awards, and this year was just WOW! As the title implies, this might have been the blackest Oscar ceremony yet, and yes, I am using the word black to describe how much of a complete 180-degree turn this year was after two straight years of being so white. Here is my (belated) top ten list of great Oscar moments:

1. Jimmy Kimmel: Hands down, one of the funniest hosts of the ceremony in many years. I know how much people love Billy Crystal, Whoopie Goldberg, Ellen DeGeneris, and Steve Martin and I love them all as well. But given how entertaining this new crop of late night talent is, we should never have to sit through another boring four-hour Oscar telecast ever again...

2. Mahershala Ali: Well, I expected this, so my hope is that his moment and enormous talent will not end up wasted like so many other best supporting actors, especially those of color. Hollywood tends to get it right when it comes to this category, with rarely any controversy or undeserved accolades, but then there is the dilemma of how best to showcase that talent beyond that particular film. Here's to hoping for better opportunities for non A-listers who consistently perform on A-list level.

3. The Documentary Film Category: This caught me completely by surprise. I was familiar with a couple of the films that had been nominated, but it did not register that four of the five had African American directors. Perhaps this recognition will offer more opportunities for directing bigger studio projects, which brings me to the significance of...

4. Moonlight: I saw this film on a whim one afternoon and I am so glad that I did. I knew about the film from the heavy promotion it received locally, especially on public radio and ironically, on Facebook. I left the film believing it to be somewhat over-hyped because of its subtlety, but I never felt that it was undeserving of the critical attention it received. Then as the momentum built towards awards season, I watched several interviews with the stars, the screenwriter and the director which offered me the chance to reconsider whether I had missed something. I had. I had completely missed how Moonlight was one of the few films about African American life that was not placed in a historical framework. It was not one of the typical important films, just a really good one that told a story that allowed audiences to discover its merit.

I know that there are various conspiracy theories about the evening's cliffhanger regarding the best picture announcement. I am not all that concerned that Faye Dunaway got it wrong (on purpose or accidentally on purpose)...nor do I feel all that bad about the "lost" moment for the Moonlight cast and crew to bask in the glory of the win. For me, all that matters is that this year a black director got to take home the statuette, and every time that happens, it makes the odds so much more favorable for the next black (brown, Asian, female, gay, etc.) director.

Finally, the Moonlight adapted screenplay win is also very important for future projects. As much as I enjoy historical pieces, it is equally necessary for there to be a variety of options for black directors when it comes to the types of films they get to contribute. If we only hand out statues for so called "important" films that only present black life through struggle and triumph, then we never really move beyond the two-dimensional limits that bring only certain films to wider audiences. I am happy to see a film like Hidden Figures in the mix, but I also want more opportunities to see other films like...

5. Fences: And I will count myself in the minority by arguing that it would have been way too black if Denzel had won (not that I would have objected)...but it is more fitting that Viola Davis finally won for best supporting actress, even if we all know it was a cheat. Denzel probably won't get another Oscar any time soon, but perhaps he can get out-streep Meryl and get nominated for everything he touches, even perhaps earning an Emmy nod for marrying that couple during that bit from the ceremony.

Seriously, I am glad that August Wilson's work will finally be more accessible to audiences beyond the theatre. It is fitting for Viola Davis to finally win an Oscar for Fences since she is one of the many actresses who have brought Wilson's work to life. Denzel now has a stronger platform from which he can help launch some up and coming or undiscovered talent, which is ultimately more important than winning an Academy Award this year.

6. Lin-Manuel Miranda: He is my boo...and as much as I LOVE the Hamilton soundtrack, his song "How Far I'll Go" for Moana sounded a lot like every other song on the Hamilton soundtrack. He is a tremendous talent, though, so he can be forgiven for relying on what works best for him (since it seems to work well for everyone else in the music categories). I am looking forward to watching his career continue to explode.

7. Foreign Language Film: That moment was absolutely the most defiant act of the night! Too bad I never bother to see the foreign language films...of course now, I might have to make an effort. By boycotting the ceremony, Iranian director Asghar Farhadi made the blackest statement ever since Chris Rock's opening monologue last year. Given the injunction against the travel ban, Farhadi could have gotten a visa to come. But it is obvious from his statement that he was far more interested in highlighting how the travel ban had far-reaching implications for various types of visitors to the States. And if protest against injustice is not the epitome of blackness, then I don't know what else is.

8. Emma Stone and Casey Affleck: The two major awardees who aren't hardly black...starring in films that weren't hardly black...but they deserve an honorable mention for being the minorities this year. Congratulations!

9. Gary from Chicago: I mean, yeah. On the tour bus with his boo of 20 years. Grabbing Mahershala's Oscar during a selfie. Getting married by Denzel. Becoming a Twitter sensation and a FB meme. Then being dragged for being a returning citizen. Yep.

10. Halle Barry's Afro: I am absolutely in the minority, but I LOVED her hair! And I think all of the criticism of her choice is a reflection of our need to be more open to unconventional expressions of beauty. On the one hand, we argue that natural hair is mainstream and beautiful, but then we spend half the night dissing Halle for wearing a big fluffy Afro! In the very year that the Oscars were this black, someone needed to rock a fro and why not Halle?

And those are just my initial thoughts on this year's ceremony. I have a little more to offer, so stay tuned.

Going to Meet the Whizard

I have been saving this tirade for weeks, but given the President's little breakfast, little get-together yesterday to launch Black History Month...it's time. Not that I expected any sort of grand gesture that would make up for his offensive and patronizing outreach to "the blacks" (because I honestly think his March breakfast for Women's History Month will really good), but some of y'all have had this coming for a while. This list is not in any particular order and I will address each offender individually. If you got left off this time, no worries because we've got four years of tomfoolery ahead:

1. Steve Harvey: My daughter freaking loves the Family Feud, so do you know how hard it is to find a tolerable alternative program for her to watch in the evenings when we need to do anything other than have her run around in circles??? But it's all good because she will learn to love Jeopardy.

But let me go straight to the heart of the matter--you did not go to the Tower because President Obama asked you to. Admit that you went there to ensure your hosting job on the next Miss Universe Pageant. Admit that you went there because he offered you a deal to license your name to substitute his on those cheap suits he sells at Macy's. Admit that you went up there because you had a temporary loss of sanity, but please do not tell us that you were acting as some kind of hood consigliere to #45 for the African American community. We know better.

2. Dr. Ben Carson: The only chance you have at ever becoming President is to be the guy that gets sent to the bunker during the State of the Union. Which we all know, you will be that guy for every SOTU address, but the kicker is that the rest of us will be dead so no one will care.

3. Pastor Darrell Scott: Bruh, who are you? Like for real, who ARE YOU?

Because are we supposed to believe that a bunch of Chicago gang bangers called you to offer props to the new Prez, and then said that they would stop the violence out of respect for him? Are you sure that wasn't a prank call? Because the utter foolishness of that offer is so apparent that I'm wondering whether you just thought of it on the spot as some sort of fancy gold-plated Black History Month present that you, some random preacher from OHIO, could deliver.

4. Tina Campbell: Girl, I get it. You are a Christian, and you want to be loving and forgiving, and you realize that your sister has moved on, so you need to carve out your own identity. We already know that you are batsh!t cray cray, that you forgave that Mitch of a manager, and you've got other issues, so we are just going to lay your name on the altar and keep it moving.

5. Kanye West: I keep thinking that your visit was really some kind of weird six degrees of separation mission of reality show insanity because you are married to Kim, whose mother Kris was married to Bruce/Caitlyn, who wanted to dance with the Trumpet at his Inauguration. So Kris set this up, you are being held against your will, and that was really a Kanye-bot that was sent to the Tower. 

6. MLK the 3rd: I can't even begin to unpack this one. But again, I am hardly surprised that you allowed yourself to be used for a photo opp on the national holiday set aside to celebrate your father. Or that you allowed yourself to be used as a mouthpiece to explain away the nonsense of the Trumpet's twitter tirade against John Lewis. Or that you are still looking for ways to be taken seriously as a legitimate civil rights leader.

7. My Spelman Sister: So as the folks were being introduced around the table yesterday, I tuned out what was being said because it was clear that everyone in the room had some kind of active role in supporting the campaign. And honestly, I could care less about any of you, but someone told me that one of those eager faces belonged to one of my Spelman sisters. Thus, I have no words for you, just this picture:

8. Chrisette Michelle: I don't know you well enough to judge...but dammit, what were you thinking? Trust, you are not the first nor will you be the last black entertainer to be paraded in front of an audience for the benefit of some wealthy white folks who don't care a whit about you, your issues or what you thought you came to represent (ask Sammy Davis Jr., about that when you get to heaven). But dang girl, you don't even have the good sense not to act surprised that Spike Lee dissed you! And if you notice, Wynton Marsalis' corny ass piped down when he saw what happened to you. Lay low for a few years and come back when you get a clue.

9. Jim Brown, et. al: This was not that much of a surprise. In fact, because I believe your invitation, along with the invite to Ray Lewis, Floyd Mayweather, Don King and every other black athletic figure with issues were just fan calls, I can't be mad at you. I had written you off a long time ago for your toxic behavior towards women so as far as I am concerned, birds of a feather flock together.

10. Talladega College Marching Band: Don't think I forgot about that Inauguration parade performance. I didn't watch, and I suspect a lot of folks who normally would have been beaming with pride about the fact that their babies got to come to DC to march weren't watching either. Nah, scrap that, they watched and we are secretly proud because you are just a bunch of kids. Some of you can't vote, and among you that did vote, well, you have the right to exercise that choice however you choose. However, like the Rockettes whose jobs were at stake, members of a college marching band don't always get to take a stand.

So this criticism is not aimed at the band or the students, but at the alumni and the Administration of your institution. HBCU alumni talk big but don't have much to show for our cyber activism if our schools have to strike Faustian deals in order to raise money. And I don't know anything about your President, Dr. Billy Hawkins (no relation :), but I got issues with him going on FOX with his hat in hand knowing what would be the likely outcome of his appeal...which turned out to be more than $500,000.

But I know the high stakes of being a college president these days, especially at an HBCU, so here is where I put my money on the table and declare that I plan to donate to Talladega. This is NOT a reward, but a challenge. I expect y'all to graduate and to go on to do great things, but I also demand that you set an example by regularly contributing to your institution so this never happens again.

11. Omarosa: Don't worry...I'm saving all my ire for her to be published in a piece over at the Busy Black Woman blog.

Crazy Is as Crazy Does

White America Has Lost Its Mind - Village Voice

Man, I wish I had written this article, but I'm sure that because I am black, it never would have been published and would have been cited as evidence of my inate racism (angry black women are now even scarier than men these days).  And I would have been a lot more diplomatic because I don't think that "White America" is insane; I think the people who are invested in the idea that there still is a "White America" under attack are the insane folks. 

So here is my take...the people who are stirring up all of this anger have been using race as their spoon.  The stuff in the bowl might be based on legitimate gripes about the way the country is being run, but if you use race as an implement to incite people's fears, then it should not be surprising that the folks who are whining about wanting their country back all happen to look a certain way.  And as such, get painted with a broad crazy brush...

Yes, there are brown folks who are joining them at these Tea Party/Restore Honor Rallies and it all looks very Kumba Ya on Faux Noise.  And yes, 95% of black voters pulled the lever for the black guy in 2008...but none of this proves anything, does it?  If the real reason why people are upset is because they hate the President's policies, then fine.  Just say that and dispense with the white Joker-face posters, witch/voodoo doctors, Hitler references, requests for birth certificates, professions of Christian faith, monkey-watermelon-fried chicken jokes, and all other race-tainted stupidity that only seems to send the message that you are really mad that there is a black family in the White House.

See, I still want to believe that Americans, on the whole, are good people who occasionally disagree.  I can believe what I want and you can believe what you want and if they match up, fine.  If our opinions diverge, then that is cool too.  But I refuse to believe that all of our opinions are always informed by skin color.

Regina King Proves My Point

I didn't watch the Emmy's because I don't watch a lot of network TV anymore. But this year, everyone raved about Jimmy Fallon as the host and I did enjoy a few of the clips from the telecast. I even looked at one of those lists of best and worst dressed.

Celebritology means that these award shows and the shows that endlessly deconstruct the meaning of award shows have subject matter for at least three weeks. A week later, actress Regina King penned this open letter that I found on Huffington Post.

Now I've been harping on this very topic for years! Not that the people who commented on her thoughts even remotely get the point, but finally, someone had the balls to call out the industry for its non-existent diversity. And this criticism comes from an insider like Regina King who has been in the industry for a long time, no less.

Of course, no one will get it and very little will change because too many people believe diversity is a cry for lowering standards. Because the nation that just elected a black man as its president has no more problems on the racial front (right Dr.Laura?). And because race is a card game...

Let's get a few things clear so that there is no more confusion about why King's article is so timely. There are many actors of every stripe in Hollywood, and most will never achieve any significant name recognition. Which is fine because that is part of the territory--not everyone can be a star. But must every star be white? And the alternative award shows that folks are fond of citing as examples? These shows were created by blacks and Latinos to offer the recognition that typically does NOT come from Hollywood. If given the choice between receiving a BET Award and an Emmy, I'm sure the Emmy would be much better appreciated because the Emmy has career currency that a BET or ALMA award does not. Please point to the winner of an alternative award whose career prospects improved after its receipt.

So, all we are saying is that this current Hollywood white-out needs to be recognized for what it is. Several new shows in the pipeline will feature people of color more prominently, so that is a start, but there needs to be a lot more opportunity all around. Black folks need to escape the ghetto of CW and TBS, Latinos need a similar get out of jail free card from Univision and Telemundo, and Asians need to get on TV period! Guest roles and buddy parts are nice, but you can do better than token walk-ons. (Yes, it worked for Betty White this year, but so what!)

And maybe next year Regina King will get a nomination.

Hollywood Fading

I saw this blog posting about the career of Chiwetel Ejiofor based on this article in the Guardian and after reading it, I have a broader question about the state of Hollywood in general with respect to actors of color. Why the fade out?

The Guardian author suggests that race is not a factor and cites the stuck-in-neutral careers of Naomi Watts and Eric Bana as evidence that the real culprit might be the American film audience (read: we aren't that sophisticated to know and appreciate talent when we see it). OK, that could be true, but Naomi Watts has been off having babies for the last couple of years and that is certain to slow down a film career. And Eric Bana regrettably starred in the first Hulk movie and I am sure that did him no favors. As for Ejiofor, who has consistently been great in every film I've seen with him in it, there are no alternative explanations why he has not become a star except that he is not: (a) under 25; (b) starring in vampire/werewolf teen flicks; or (c) white and waif-like.

(OK, Naomi nor Eric fit any of these either. But read on.)

Ejiofor just might not be star material at this point in his career. Some of the best actors are character actors who enjoyed long careers, so I am not knocking the fact that he might be attempting to build a solid Don Cheadle/DelRoy Lindo supporting "black guy" actor resume. Let's be honest--that is exactly how Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson got to be A-listers. When the casting calls went out for "a black guy" they always fit the bill. No, Cheadle, Lindo, and most of the others have not made it to Morgan Freeman status yet, but Freeman didn't actually get there until he was almost 70, so there is still time...

Not that the path for other actors of color is any easier. Among Latino actors, Jimmy Smits is probably the biggest TV star and Martin Sheen is definitely the biggest movie star--which would be great if Sheen didn't pass for white in most of his roles. But then again, the other supporting "Latino guy" actors, Edward James Olmos and Hector Elizondo, have had to pass now and then too in order to get regular work, so that might just be part of the deal. As for Asian actors, the best I can think of are John Cho and Kal Penn (Harold and Kumar).

Let's not even go there when it comes to actresses of color because it is even more obvious that there is not much for them. Women generally fare poorly in Hollywood regardless of ethnicity. And no, Madea does not count!

So now that the issue has identified and endlessly debated, what are the solutions? The biggest non-white star in Hollywood is Denzel Washington (who is still fine at 55), but dang someone needs to give that brother a break. Will Smith might be in contention, but let's be honest, Will chooses lousy projects and is more likely to have a career in the mold of Bruce Willis. (Not that there is anything wrong with being an action movie star, but Willis' last movie found him playing straight man to Tracy Morgan...Brian Fellow for goodness sakes!)

Perhaps the problem is that we keep looking for the next black/Latino/Asian superstar when we really just need more opportunity all around for leading and supporting actors (and writers, producers, directors, casting agents, etc.) of color period. Ejiofor gets solid suporting roles because in the mind of the casting directors, he is good enough for them to overlook his race, so he gets that next part--the anti-hero, the sidekick, the "also starring" credit. He is tall, charismatic, British (!) and that gets him work on both sides of the pond, which is miles ahead of just about every other up and coming Morgan Freeman in the business.

The thing about Hollywood is that certain actors have seasons and as such, actors of color are simply not in season at this point. Who ever thought that Mickey Rourke would ever be a star again, so it is possible that actors like Ejiofor, Idris Elba, Jeffrey Wright, Benico de Torro, and Russell Wong will get their chance. (And I'm sorry that I cannot even identify any other male actors of color who aren't black...kind of proves my point in a way).

"N-word" Politics

I was asked by a former teacher to weigh in on the Dr. Laura controversy from last week when she used the "n-word" during the course of a call with a black listener. I offered a quick opinion on the matter and then moved on since my thoughts were that (a) she hadn't done her job in offering the caller any tangible advice about her dilemma; (b) use of this word is always offensive; and (c) black folks who complain about the use of this word by whites are not crying foul only when the offender is white.

Since then, Dr. Laura has decided to end her talk show and has cited the abridgment of her First Amendment rights as her reason. Whatever. Don't let the door hit you on the way out lady!

So here are my fully thought out reasons for taking offense to Dr. Laura and her attempt at educating black folks about our special brand of 'reverse' racism under the guise of offering advice:

a. You are a radio commentator. I don't know or care how many people listen to your show, but your show is on a public frequency supported by my tax dollars. Therefore, when you use language that I find offensive, you better believe I am going to exercise my right to complain. Sure, I can choose not to listen also, and given that I had never cared about your show before and don't give a crap now, you can assume that I am not and never will be a fan.

b. The caller asked for your help, not for "Dr. Laura's opinion on race relations in America."

c. Why she called is beyond me, but I am going to assume that she was a fan of your show. On your show, your job is to offer advice. And this is where you failed since you did not help her, but ended up attacking her for being too sensitive when YOU changed the subject to Barack Obama and HBO comedians.

d. I am still unclear why legitimate questions about inter-personal relationships must become "teachable moments". But then again, I have no idea why people turn to media personalities to get answers to their real-life problems.

e. OK, my befuddlement about advice columns/call-in shows/TV talk shows aside, why do non-black people feel disenfranchised by not getting to say the n-word in public? Is it really that important to you?

f. To reiterate a point that I have lived by for some time now--just because someone else says it (does it, smokes it, drinks it, etc.), that doesn't mean you should too. I think that is one of those things we all learned in kindergarten.

g. If the caller suggested that she was uncomfortable about the use of that word in her presence, then why repeat it? Did you think that she needed to just hear you say it so that it might lose its sting?

h. And what does Barack Obama being the president have to do with why this woman was uncomfortable around her husband's friends?

i. Did I miss the memo, but when did the election of a black president mean that racism ended? Oh yeah, I forgot about that post-racial narrative some folks have been trying to sell...well, nope, not buying it.

j. I don't have HBO so I have no idea if what you said is true about black comedians and their gratuitous use of the n-word in recent years. I seem to recall that the last time this word was an issue, it was because Michael Richards, a white comedian, was caught on tape shouting it at some black patrons who had heckled him at a comedy club...

k. Yes, there have been black comedians who have used the word since Michael Richards. The most prominent would be Dave Chappelle. But he was on Comedy Central (which bleeped the word whenever he used it in its primetime airings).

l. No, that doesn't excuse Dave Chappelle. When he quit HIS show and walked away from millions of dollars, he later told Oprah that he felt his brand of comedy was socially irresponsible. At least he became aware of its destructive power.

m. Most of the other black folks on TV do not use the word. And there certainly are not a lot of black folks on talk radio that use that word either. The Don Imus excuse is lame.

n. Oh snap, Dr. Laura is a fan of rap music. Who knew?

o. OK, but I don't really listen to rap anymore, so whenever I happen upon a video on MTV or a song on the radio, I hear more bleeps than beats. How could I possibly know what they are saying?

p. And just so that you know, most mature folks don't listen to rap music anymore either. So I am guessing that a married woman who listens to talk radio probably isn't much of a fan.

q. When the caller expressed her shock at your use of language, notice that she invoked the euphemism, which suggests that she probably does not use that word herself and unlike you, understood that she was speaking over the public airways AND had the foresight to see that its use would be problematic.

r. The caller was not looking to have a race discussion; YOU wanted to have a race discussion.

s. Well, now that you started it, why are you backing down? If you really want to educate the rest of us on how to be less hypersensitive, why not stay on the radio? As far as I know, no one is picketing your syndicate or burning you in effigy. Who is forcing you off the air? Name names!

t. I want to address the "don't NAACP me" aspect of your tirade. I would like to think that the nation's oldest civil rights organization has better things to do than to worry about what you have to say.

u. When did the NAACP become a verb?

v. When you finally offered some advice, the caller was off the air. And your advice sucked.

w. In your statement to Larry King about quitting your show, you suggested that you want the freedom to say what you want without having to hold your tongue. So should I assume that you want to go on saying the n-word with impunity?

x. If so, then you really did not mean what you said when you apologized for having "done the wrong thing"?

y. Well, that is actually kind of ironic since the reason why I knew anything about this incident was your apology. So the truth is, you are sorry that you had to apologize but not so much that you said anything offensive. Wow.

z. Then I guess I am back to my original point...good riddance and don't let the door hit you on the way out lady!

Race in Fashion

I read a blog posting that made me wince--writer/commentator Michaela Angela Davis decried Essence Magazine's choice of a white fashion director on her Facebook page. An article about her posting is here.

The fallout from her public lament is everywhere and it throws more salt in the already open wound of black to white 'reverse' racism.

I don't fault Davis for wondering aloud why out of all the fashion director jobs available, the position at Essence was offered to a woman whose background is not African American. It is a valid question since the fashion industry is not known for its embrace of diversity of late. The last black supermodel is Naomi Campbell and the only black woman to regularly make the cover of any magazine these days is Oprah Winfrey (although FLOTUS Michelle Obama has done pretty well). Remember when Italian Vogue used all black models to point out their relative absence on the catwalk and other mainstream fashion magazines? That only happened once...

So, it is not racism to question the decision when all indications are that black women and fashion generally do not get mentioned in the same sentence. However, it is racially insensitive to suggest that the job of a fashion editor is somehow informed by one's skin color.

Now I am not an expert, but I am going to go out on a limb and describe the job of fashion editor as that of the person who picks the clothes for the photo shoots. Correct me if I am wrong...

Because if that is all the job entails, then having a white woman in that job isn't a slap in the face or any other major catastrophe. Black women's style choices have been dictated by white women in the fashion industry for years. I saw "The Devil Wears Prada" and if Miranda Priestly/Anna Wintour is really as powerful as the film suggests, then for years, every woman in America from Naomi and Tyra on the runway to Cousin Rita in the hood owes some aspect of her fashion choices to a bunch of gay men and a very shewd woman in an office building in New York City.

I want to put all of this in perspective--I want us to be outraged over racial indifference that reinforces barriers and obstacles in career fields where black and brown women have struggled to gain recognition. It bothers me that for the most part, blacks are still rare in the fashion industry as designers, models, photographers and merchants. But thanks in part to reality shows like Project Runway and America's Next Top Model, we know that the talent is out there. So my hope is that the new fashion director at Essence will make it her business to showcase that talent in its pages...otherwise, Essence will continue to simply be the black version of Glamour or Cosmopolitan.

Zero Sum

I am so disheartened by the state of discourse in this country. I want to take a vacation that allows me to spend at least three days in a spin-free zone (except I can't because I am an admitted news junkie).

So, I watch, cringe, sigh and generally wonder where the hell am I?

I do not recall that politics was this brutal twenty + years ago when my addiction first started. I was a kid in high school and the issue was abortion. The position of my school was that abortion was morally wrong, and until a bomb went off near the bus stop not too far from where I stood every morning to take the bus to that school, my position was the same--abortion was wrong. But after that clinic was bombed and I just happened to have been standing there a few hours earlier before it went off, my opinion changed. I was politicized.

Back then, I did not think poorly of my classmates who fervently believed the total opposite--I accepted that we had different points of view and carried on as girls in high school around that time did. I watched and sang along to raunchy Madonna videos just like they did, played Prince records backwards in search of the demonic under-currents just like they did, and I went to church every Sunday (me Baptist, they Catholic) as well. We all continued with our lives.

When some of my classmates and teachers expressed their affinity for President Reagan, I trumpeted my support of Jesse Jackson. They weren't racists--they were just Republicans and I was a Democrat...that was that. Again, we continued to eat lunch in the cafeteria, take classes together and plan our class activities without any drama. When we disagreed about the need for a Black History program during school hours, we debated the topic and at the end of the day, the school administration made the final decision. When it came time for me to participate in an essay contest about what it meant to be an American, I won an honorable mention.

Fast forward and now I worry if my liberal views will lead some of my former classmates to de-friend me on Facebook. And I wonder if their political opposition to the President is based on some deep-yet-undiscovered lack of confidence in his intellect because he is black. How did I become so cynical?

I went to an HBCU and joined a black sorority. Does this make me anti-white or anti-male? I taught African American history, but I also taught American Government so do I get extra credit? I live in the city and hate the suburbs because I think living out in the middle of nowhere isn't idyllic, it is scary. My husband works for the government because he is a true believer in the power of the government to provide a fair process for everyone--he is neither a redistributionist or a socialist. If my mother in law doesn't speak English fluently after living here for more than 50 years, what harm is she doing to anyone but herself?

Isn't the beauty of this country our ability to be 300 million different individual kings, queens, queers, studs, mammas, poppas, patriots, vegans, carnivores, entrpreneurs, entertainers, ball-players, ball-makers, haters, lovers, friends or foes all inhabiting the same land mass from sea to shining sea?

Time for a Time-Out!

This has been bugging me for months, but I need to say this: the NAACP is not a racist organization! And I also need to say this: the Tea Party Movement is not racist! Although it has become quite fashionable in this post-racial America to throw that accusation around, in fact it is inapplicable in both cases.

At the core, these are patriotic organizations. The difference between them is quite simply a difference of opinion about the proper role of government. On the one hand, the NAACP believes that government is a force for good in our lives whereas the Tea Party Movement believes that too much government is a bad thing.

See, very simple. So can we stop all of the name-calling please?

But as racism is the fly in the ointment, people are always going to see it. Tea Partyers look to the racial makeup of the NAACP and suggest that it is a racist organization because its members are mostly black and NAACPers look at the racial makeup of the Tea Party and come to the same conclusion because of its overwhelming whiteness. Clearly, this is one of those forest but for the trees conundrums for if one does not look closely enough, one tends to miss the full picture.

Thus, a brief history lesson is in order here. Let's start with the NAACP. This is an organization started 101 years ago by a interracial group of activists to fight for racial justice in a very segregated America. That is the short version.

The long version is a bit more involved, including a personality conflict between two very prominent black men, but let's skip over all of that and highlight a key fact of NAACP activism over the years--the NAACP sought to change American within the confines of the law. Challenges to lynching, school segregation, voting rights infringements, and public accommodations were all made by advocates who happened to believe that this was their country too.

Now to the Tea Party. The Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party can be traced to two key points in American history. The first is the protest by a group of disgruntled Americans who dumped tea into the Boston Harbor in defiance of a tax levied by the British crown an ocean away. This led to the American Revolution which led to us becoming a sovereign nation. Then fast forward a couple hundred years to the point when another disgruntled group of Americans began to protest what they deemed was more taxes levied by a distant and imperial government in Washington.

There might be a lot more to it than that, but I would argue that the current manifestation of the Tea Party is based on a philosophical disagreement with government bailouts of the banking and automobile industries (at taxpayer expense) coupled with the potential of a government takeover of the health care system led many of the Tea Partyers to take to the streets. And at some point in the future, their arguments about less government intrusion into the private market might be proven correct. The jury is still out.

The fact that the Tea Party rose to prominence at the same time we were patting ourselves on the back for electing the nation's first black president is coincidental...only because I am convinced that when the most powerful black folks were Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, none of these folks had anything to say. But they cannot deny the fact that his election and their anger over his liberal agenda may have given cover to all of the racists who intermingle with them now.

Conversely, because the aforementioned black power couple of Powell & Rice associated with the likes of George W. Bush and Co., the NAACP criticized them along with their boss. Yet despite the fact that the president is black and more ideologically in line with their agenda, the organization still struggles to remain relevant in the 21st Century, especially among blacks. Who could forget the tongue-lashing they got from none other than Bill Cosby (who is still black, last time I checked)?

So back to my original point, let's not obsess about the cosmetic differences between these two groups because it does nothing to advance the positions of either. The NAACP efforts to achieve and maintain racial equality are no more racist than the Tea Party protests against the policies of the black president with whom they happen to disagree. America is great because we can belong to both the Tea Party and the NAACP with no inherent conflicts of conscience; furthermore, this country is diverse enough to accommodate the viewpoints of both groups and then some.

Dr. King's Nightmare Pt. 1

Last month, I started a piece on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. At the time, I was pretty peeved that she was being maligned for a clumsy statement about race. This occurred before her Senate hearings earlier this month, so this is rather dated, but as I am about to unleash about some of the other racial boogeymen on the national radar, I thought to publish this first as my prologue, if you will:

OK, I have been patient, tolerant quiet so far because I assumed that with the election last Fall, we had finally come to a truce in our so-called culture war. But now it appears that the battle lines have been redrawn over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. According to Rush Limbaugh, the most tolerant and unprejudiced man in America, she is an unqualified racist.

This revelation was not derived from any rational scrutiny of any jobs she held prior to being nominated, but from one controversial statement and one difficult employment discrimination case.

Since the current Supreme Court has yet to announce a decision in the employment discrimination case at issue, I will reserve comment until later.* And whether her statement about a wise Latina versus a white male jurist was really that offensive is a matter of interpretation, but out of respect for those who do find it insulting, I will denounce it and say that she should have known better. However, I would point out that in addition to hundreds of judicial opinions rendered and countless other public statements made over the course of her professional life, if this is the best her detractors have uncovered after an evaluation of every single word she has ever uttered or written...

Whereas, Rush Windbag, who has no distinguishable career accomplishments and has made numerous statements that teeter on the edge of outright racism (and many that go all the way there) certainly must be an authority on the issue since it takes a qualified racist to identify the unqualified ones.

Calling anyone a racist is provocative enough, but branding Judge Sotomayor as one is just a smokescreen for the real issue which is that America’s most endangered species is the disappearing white man from positions of power. Of course there are plenty of white men still in power (just look at the U.S. Senate and the corner offices on Wall Street), but in the alternative universe inhabited by Mr. Limbaugh and his ilk, they are the new American buffalo. Just look at what happened to the Democratic Party: for the first time in more than 200 years, there is a black president! And now that a Puerto Rican woman has been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, it means that we are one step closer to eventual white male disenfranchisement.

Conventional wisdom had been that since our country mended its sexist and racist ways in the 60s, only the hardest working and most deserving individuals excel. Gender and skin color are no longer impediments to advancement, and as such, Sonia Sotomayor, who was raised in a Bronx housing project by a widowed mother, educated at Princeton and Yale Law School should be the embodiment of everything they say is possible in America.

Except now that Rush and Co. have embraced neo-victimhood, Sotomayor’s hard work and merit are neither admirable nor praiseworthy. Instead, she represents the new millennial dynamic where a high-achieving woman with an opinion is a femi-nazi, and a similarly accomplished person of color not in prison is the beneficiary of some residual historic guilt. Thus, her success is not really hers since in order to get to this point she had to displace somebody…

And chances are that somebody resembles the type of person who has taken for granted that his skin color, family name, and gender have opened far more doors than have been closed due to political correctness and unbridled affirmative action.

Which is why Rush has his tightie-whities all in a bunch…it has been tough ceding power to those who were once deemed inferior. It upsets the natural order of things when women and people of color forget our place—the kitchen, the bedroom, the ghetto, or some Third World country—and many of us have become too ambitious. And those white guys who seemingly deny their oppression by aligning with us are either suffering from Stockholm’s syndrome or are just outright traitors (and are probably all still Democrats).

Thus, once Sotomayor is confirmed, the battle will only have just begun. Her fitness for the high court will barely register as a disqualifier, although I’d like to see her detractors try to prove that a former NY city prosecutor lacks respect for the rule of law. Her hearings will be used as a platform to scare people about this New World Order where people of color take too much obvious pride in themselves. (By the way, now that Latinos are the largest minority group in the country, Brown is the new Black…so things will really get interesting soon enough.)

* As expected, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit panel in the firefighter case and have effectively upended the remedial impact of Title VII. Sotomayor will be lambashed for lacking empathy for the aggrieved firefighters...