5 Reasons I'm Not Watching BIA

Ok. So after seeing many Facebook status messages touting the fact that people I know are actually choosing to watch 'Black In America' because they think it's going to be groundbreaking and important, I posted the following status message: "Shani is annoyed at everyone who is watching 'Black in America' unironically." I immediately got two postings on my wall. One from a soror who was giving me props for the status, and one from a cat who wanted to know why I was annoyed. After a brief consultation with the Wife, I came up with five reasons. Here they are. 1. It's on CNN, a network incapable of looking at anything with nuance, simply by virtue of it being a cable news channel. 2. Why do blacks in America need to watch a special on being black in America? Is it to verify that we are, indeed, both black and in America? 3. Considering the fact that all black people aren't from the same background -- slavery, namely -- it's ridiculous to suggest we all have the same vision and experience in the US. 4. If there was 'Hispanic In America' or 'Asian in America' folk would be in an uproar. Mexicans vs. Puerto Ricans, Koreans vs. Vietnamese. 5. I can already tell you what it's gonna cover: it sucks to be a black woman, because sistas are forced to do it for themselves. Also, black men are an endangered species due to institutional inequity and a propensity for commiting violent crime. But blacks have hope for the future. The end. And here's a bonus: it's a ratings ploy! Come ON people!

Spotting the Otherness in Whites

Absolutely fascinating piece on Racialicious. The author reflects on nonwhites who spend a lot of time trying to pick out nonwhite heritage in people who identify as white. It's natural and automatic (and problematic), and almost like a sporting event. You can look at someone and just be certain that they're part black/hispanic/asian/whatever. The author, Nadra Kareem:

My then soon-to-be boyfriend laughed hysterically throughout the reading. He’s not Native American—not by more than a drop, anyway—but he is often assumed to be “other.” In fact, at the reading even I assumed that he was half-something, and the mostly Latino and black students he teaches routinely ask him the question that makes mixed folks worldwide cringe: “What are you?”

The answer he gives is one they don’t expect. “I’m white,” he says.

“You’re not white! You’re not white!” they protest in disbelief. And they are not alone. Both strangers and acquaintances alike take it for granted that my boyfriend is a person of color. When the teachers at the school take count of their few white colleagues, my boyfriend is oft-overlooked. His dark-brown hair, beige-pink skin, prominent nose and lush lips take him out of the running. “You can pass,” one of his coworkers tells him. Only, in his case, she means pass for non-white.

I know I do it. Do you? And more importantly, why? What do we stand to gain by pointing out a presumed white person is really one of our tribe? There's a certain sense of satisfaction, of ... knowingness, maybe.

'How To Tell People They Sound Racist'

Jay Smooth is one sharp dude. This ties into what Ta-Nehisi wrote a while back on Slate. You just can't tell someone they're racist (even if they are) because all of a sudden, you're pulling the 'racist card.' Jay gives us tips on how to tell someone they sound racist, not that they actually are (even if they actually are).

Culture Clash in Harlem.

The new white residents in this one building in Harlem don't like the loud drumming across the street in Marcus Garvey Park (though, it's a park named after Marcus Garvey, for cryin' out loud). That's fine. In fact, I find it to be illustrative of the cultural difference between blacks and whites. H/T RaceWire for the link to this Times piece:

The drummers in the park are African-American and from Africa and the Caribbean. They form a circle and have played in the park, in one form or another, since 1969, when the neighborhood was a more dangerous place. The musicians, who play until 10 p.m. every summer Saturday, are widely credited with helping to make the park safer over the years.

Their supporters, who acknowledge that the drumbeats can pierce walls and windows, regard the musicians as part of the city’s vibrant and often noisy cultural mix. But some in the building at 2002 Fifth Avenue, most of them young white professionals, have a different perspective: When the drummers occupy a spot nearby, residents say, they are unable to sleep, hear their television sets, speak on the telephone, or even have conversations with their spouses without shouting. Some say they cannot even think straight.

While many African Americans may find loud drumming for hours on a Saturday night annoying, they probably aren't going to call the cops on the group that's been doing the same thing every Saturday night for thirty years. I think it's because most black people have a higher tolerance for plain-old cacophony. Also, most black people aren't about to call the cops. We're a loud people, no? And African drums include a subset called 'talking drums.' It's only natural that they're going to be ... attention-getting. (Anecdote alert: My mother used to get on my nerves because she was so loud when she'd talk to her friends. Then, I got to HU and saw that all my friends' mothers, and aunties, and sisters were like that.) Though I'm a pretty quiet person, noise, disorganized or organized, doesn't bother me. It all is part and parcel of the way we communicate. My initial reaction was to take the side of the drummers, but, then I remembered a piece I read recently about a black real estate agent in Harlem who is selling (out?) homes in the area to the highest bidder. This, of course, is her prerogative in a capitalist society. But it does make you wonder how much sacrifice will have to be made in a traditionally black area such as Harlem, where young white professionals move for both the affordability and flava'. As the people who made Harlem what it is are forced out by rising real estate prices, and whites move in (which makes sense, because white people gotta live, too), what happens? In short, does a 30-year-old drum circle have a place if the people who loved and appreciated it are no longer there? And are we asking too much of the new neighbors to adopt the habits of the neighborhood?

Barack Obama is a dream killer...

...or, more likely, just somebody's daddy. ABC News' blog (blog?!) has a small item about Obama speaking to people about the economy in soon-to-be-purple Georgia. Some of the speech included the regular drill: stay-in-school, don't do drugs, you're not a rapper...

You are probably not that good a rapper. Maybe you are the next Lil' Wayne, but probably not, in which case, you need to stay in school.

(Am I the only one who laughed at that?) Considering the fact that Weezy has been making hits since he was prepubescent — which kind of robs him of his street cred, if you ask me — got a GED, and is "attending classes" at the University of Houston, I think this was a flawed analogy. Nonetheless, Obama continues to spread his message of personal responsibility far and wide. This is why I've always said he's your garden variety black conservative in a lot of ways (there's a difference between being a black conservative and a black Republican). He's not moving more to the center. He done been there.

Five Reasons Black Women Are Angry

Fox News pundit Cal Thomas made a point in a recent conversation about Michelle Obama that there are no non-angry black women portrayed in the media.

THOMAS: I want to pick up on something that Jane said about the angry black woman. Look at the image of angry black women on television. Politically you have Maxine Waters of California, liberal Democrat. She's always angry every time she gets on television. Cynthia McKinney, another angry black woman. And who are the black women you see on the local news at night in cities all over the country. They're usually angry about something. They've had a son who has been shot in a drive-by shooting. They are angry at Bush. So you don't really have a profile of non-angry black women.

(CROSSTALK)

PINKERTON: Oprah Winfrey.

THOMAS: Oprah Winfrey. Yes, there you go, Oprah Winfrey.

[H/T WAOD] Some people aren't pleased with the comments. Taken out of context, as these things almost always are, they are inflammatory, but Thomas is right (though his examples suck, as not all black women are angry because their kid got shot in a drive-by, I mean, come ON). Over at Daily Kos, there's an interesting post which strikes me as a teensy bit reactionary. But really, we know that images of black women in the media and pop culture tend to be angry ones. The unhappy bloggers out there seem to think that there's something wrong with black women being angry. I don't think there is. All black women aren't angry, but many (if not most) are, and I say, why shouldn't they be? Here are five reasons why black women have every right to be pissed.

1. Sisters have to do it for themselves. Something like 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. Some of those kids are supported by single fathers, but most are being raised by mothers, grandmothers, and aunties.
2. Mammy, Jezebel, and Sapphire. Black women in the media tend to fall into one of three categories. Either she's an asexual, maternal Mammy (Oprah), an acceptably lustful Jezebel (Halle Berry), or a bitchy, angry Sapphire (Omarosa). Not only are these dangerous stereotypes, but they also are terribly misogynistic, which contrasts nicely with the fact that...
3. "All the Women are White, All the Blacks are Men, but Some of Us are Brave." White women are the baseline for womanhood, and at no time has that been more clear than during this primary season. The myriad articles about women choosing Hillary, while blacks choose Obama (save one Times piece back in October) make little-to-no mention of the fact that black women are — you guessed it — both black and women. I used to think I chose my blackness first, but in the last few months, it's become clear that it was chosen for me. The fights between white and black feminists have been very telling, as well.
4. Professional black women are all at sea when it comes to dating. While I don't buy into the notion that there are no good black men out there for educated, well-off black women, it's clear that pickings are slim. There's encouragement to date outside the race, but like most women, black women are seeking to find a man who's like their daddy, or other important male figure, who is usually black.
5. There's not freedom to be oneself. Granted, this is something that every non-white-male group experiences in some way — anger isn't exclusive to black women, obviously — but black women are beyond the pale of the mainstream, different, in a way that isn't exotic or acceptably fetishizable, like Asian or Hispanic women are. Black women work so hard to fit in — hair relaxers, adjusting speech/code switching, wearing fashions which weren't designed for women with curves, the list goes on. Maintaining the veneer of acceptability is tiring, and when you think about it, utterly enraging.

So there you have it. Five reasons I think black women are angry. I'm a black woman, so I have a little bit of authority on this. Black women readers! What makes you angry? Not-black-women readers! What makes you angry? Let's talk.

Rediscovering of Negritude in France

Very enlightening article in the Times. For Blacks in France, Obama's Rise Is Reason to Rejoice and to Hope There isn't a lot of information circulating in the MSM about blacks in other majority-white countries. I have family in the UK, and I think the not-talking-about-race-in-any-real-way is similar there, as it is in France. Most fascinating passage:

[...] it’s against the rules for the government to conduct official surveys according to race. Consequently, nobody even knows for certain how many black citizens there are. Estimates vary between 3 million and 5 million out of a population of more than 61 million. “Can you imagine if French officials said, ‘Well, we’re not sure, the population of France may be 65 million, or maybe it’s 30 million’?” declared a somewhat exasperated Patrick Lozès, founder of Cran, a black organization devised not long ago partly to gather statistics the government won’t.

Amazing. Truly amazing.

No, not 'Whitey.'

This article on The Root kind of sums up why the whole Michelle Obama saying "whitey" in the pulpit just sounded totally fabricated to me. I don't know any black people who use the word "whitey." It's the kind of insult a white person would make up, not knowing anything about how black people speak. The author, Kim McLarin, writes:

The campaign of Barack Obama has had to rebut, not once but several times, the wild rumors that his wife Michelle used an insulting term for white people while railing from the pulpit of Trinity United Church in Chicago. His campaign has had to set up a website to refute the charge, and Obama himself has had to chastise mainstream reporters for spreading the lie.

What he hasn't done—because he cannot if he wants to win the presidency—is roll out the clearest and most obvious knockdown of Whiteygate. Namely this: "When the hell was the last time you heard a black person call somebody 'whitey?'

I may still be on my Malcolm X kick, but I think 'ofay' is much more likely and effective (with the added benefit of actually sounding pseudo-African).

Barack Obama Channels Bill Cosby, But With Better Results

Or, "Yet another reason why shani-o opted out of mainstream journalism." "Obama Sharply Assails Black Fathers" - NYTimes "Obama Tells Black Fathers to Act Like Men" - AFP "Obama Chides Absent Black Fathers" - International Herald Tribune "Obama Tells Black Fathers to Engage Their Children" - AP These are the headlines I read before I actually watched Barack's speech at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago. And maybe 600 words can't adequately capture the depth and complexities in the 20 minute speech, but reading about it is far different than watching it. I don't have a problem with Bill Cosby's speechification — I see him as a sort of crochety grandpa who has our best interests at heart — but I think people bridle at his message because he's so condescending. He talks at the young men and women, not to or with them. Obama's speech, while it does touch on some of the same issues — personal agency, responsibility, parenting — also addresses his own struggles as a fatherless father. He discusses how he went from self-absorbed to wholly concerned with his daughters. He also makes mention of the failures of the government to help the do-right men out there. I'm sure there are those who won't be satisfied by this speech, but to be honest, it's mostly directed toward the people who are active in their churches and communities, the people sitting behind him, nodding and clapping, singing out, "waaayle..." and "amen!" The voters.

Militant Monday: Perhaps I AM My Hair + 'Malcolm X'

Ok, I promise this won't become a blog where I document the progress of my hair semi-monthly. But after more than 15 years with relaxed hair (son, I don't even remember my first perm), I'm going natural. But first things, first. It's Militant Monday! Last night, I watched Spike Lee's Malcolm X for the first time in close to ten years. Actually, I watched 2 hours of it. I still have an hour and some change to go. While I watched, between putting up the black power fist and snapping soulfully, I was chatting with Lauren on BlackBerry Messenger. I relayed, to her shock and glee, my plans to possibly cut off all of my hair, rather than do the slower transition. 'No more of the white man's chemical fire cream on my natural born black scalp!' I typed, forcefully. And so on. While I've been feeling an urge for natural hair for a while, the restriction the conk has put on my workout routine is the main catalyst. I want to go swimming and not spend two hours fixing my hair every single time. I want to wash and go. I want to stop planning vacations and events around when I do my hair. The list goes on. And it really isn't about getting 'back to my roots' (whatever that means). I went to Howard, where going natural was a aesthetic choice, and there was no guarantee that the fine brotha with the locks had read even a line of Marcus Garvey's, or that the sista with the fly 'fro was as interested in revolution as she was in how fierce she looked on the Yard. In fact, if being au naturel isn't as great as I think it is, I reserve my right to go back to the fire cream. With that said, there's a pretty dope exchange between Malcolm while he's in prison and the brother that leads him to the Nation. He's putting more conk on his head, because on the outside "everybody does it," to which the brother -- who's a bit of a buzzkill, truth be told -- responds, "Why don't you want to look like what you are? What makes you ashamed of being black?" During that scene, I wrote to Lauren.

Shani-o: I'm gonna show up to work bald. Shani-o: and they're gonna be like, "What happened?!" Shani-o: and I'll be like, "I watched Malcolm X, white devil!" Lauren: LMFAO!! Shani-o: This movie is bad. Shani-o: Black people shouldn't be allowed to watch it. Lauren: LOL. No they shouldn't. Lauren: Or 'A Time To Kill.' Shani-o: Or 'Rosewood.'

And so on. One of the benefits of not getting to the last hour of 'Malcolm X' is that you miss the denouement, in which Malcolm makes the Hajj and unpacks his extremist, all-white-people-are-devils mentality and takes a more moderate approach. Well, that, and the assassination. I'm one of those people who hopes that the ending changes whenever I watch a sad movie (like, in 'Love Story,' I'm always surprised and heartbroken at the end). But anyway, skipping the end means you get to stay outraged. I'm sure I'll calm down once I watch the end. But for now, happy Militant Monday everybody!!

How To Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is 101

Spike Lee should teach a class. First, he takes Clint Eastwood to task for whitewashing WWII, twiceover. And then a trailer for 'Miracle At St. Anna' comes out, and it looks awesome.

This can go one of two ways.

Way One: I can respond to Fox's use of the term 'baby mama' in reference to Michelle Obama calmly. Way Two: I can get really, really angry. I'm leaning toward Way Two.

Clint Eastwood vs. Spike Lee: Is it 1993?

"A guy like him should shut his face," said Clint Eastwood, aging badass, referring to Spike Lee's criticism of the director's lack of black soldiers in Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. According to Lee, who is beginning promotion for his own WWII outing, Miracle at St. Anna, "Many veterans, African-Americans, who survived that war are upset at Clint Eastwood. In his vision of Iwo Jima, Negro soldiers did not exist. Simple as that. I have a different version." Eastwood dismissed Lee's comment in a recent interview with the Guardian (which misquoted Lee's original statement), saying "The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn't do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate." Because putting blacks in a historical film amounts to little more than affirmative action, apparently. Another Eastwood gem: "[Should I] make it look like a commercial for an equal opportunity player? I'm not in that game. I'm playing it the way I read it historically, and that's the way it is." He might as well have said Spike was pulling the race card. Oddly enough, two years ago, the Guardian ran an article detailing the 900 black soldiers who were at Iwo Jima, and made a direct correlation to the lack of blacks in Flags. 900 is a little bit more than the 'small detachment' mentioned in the Eastwood interview. From that article, Yvonne Latty (author of We Were There: Voices of African American Veterans):

"No one's asking for them to be the stars of the movies, but at least show that they were there. This is the way a new generation will think about Iwo Jima. Once again it will be that African-American people did not serve, that we were absent. It's a lie."

While blacks were mostly carrying ammunition in Japan, they were there, and to completely ignore the existence is totally irresponsible. My own grandfather fought in Europe during WWII, and if that weren't common knowledge in my family, I probably would have thought all soldiers ever (except for Bubba in Forrest Gump) were white. Update: A white woman on MSNBC's Morning Joe said Spike Lee was "really uppity." Either the person who wrote her lines hates her and wants her fired, or she's an idiot. Or both. Because, who even uses the word "uppity" anymore?

CNN Ruins Everything

Remember how I said I don't like CNN? This is why. In one of their annoying Jeannie Moos videos (which are supposed to be funny, and possibly are, to white people over the age of 50), they tackle the 'fist bump' shared by Barack and Michelle in St. Paul on Tuesday. First off, it's not called a fist bump. That's lame. It's a pound, which falls under the category of dap. And the one thing CNN's cute little video fails to mention, is the black origins of said dap. You'd think they would, considering it was two black people sharing a pound who got all this started. The video hinted that baseball was involved in the evolution of the pound, but... come on. As Ta-Nehisi writes, something can be both black, and mainstream.

"The most interesting, and quite common, response has been "well I'm white as hell and I do the fist-bump with my wife, so it can't be that black." To me that response says more about the speaker--and race in this country--than about any measure of "blackness." It has as its unspoken premise that black is something that's stagnant, mutually exclusive to itself, and incapable of existing alongside other qualities. [...] The fact that you're in Wisconsin somewhere performing an ritual that was perfected on the South Side of Chicago probably means that it's mainstream. But that doesn't mean it didn't come from the South Side. Both are true at the same time."

It's amazing that even a little presidential nominee pound can open up discussions about race. I suspect CNN avoided the black thing purposely, because there's still some desire to paint Barack as post-racial.

Black People : Interracial Marriage :: Black People : Gay Marriage

I wrote about The Root when it debuted back in February. I don't visit it regularly, and really only check it out when there's a link from the Slate home page (like this excellent and enlightening piece on fistula). When I saw one of the little home page article boxes on Slate, that read "If Anyone Should Support Gay Marriage, It's Black People," I should have known it would be problematic. The crux of the article was that because of anti-miscegenation laws (black people couldn't marry white people) that were ultimately overturned, blacks should support the gays' right to marry whomever they want. The author, Casey Lartigue Jr, wrote:

"Given this history, it might be reasonable to conclude that black people in particular would be opposed to laws limiting marital choices among adults. Unfortunately, there are many black people who are not only critical of interracial marriage, but also support banning gay or same-sex marriage today. According to a Pew Research Poll taken after the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriage, far more blacks than whites disagreed with the court's decision. And that doesn't even include what is said at black barbershops."

He goes on to call blacks bristling at the comparison "a case of a former slave putting on his former master's clothing and wanting others to be treated as slaves." And that's where he lost me. In fact, that's where arguments of this kind always lose me, even though I'm not against gay marriage (full disclosure: I used to be, but denying marriage rights to homosexuals is illogical, and I respond well to logic). It seems that these days, pointing out the flaws in the black community is all the rage. I'm down with it, too, because we are not simply a noble people, we're not magical negroes, we're not perfect. That's fine. There is sexism, racism, and sexual prejudice (which encompasses anti-gay sentiment) within the black community. But this blacks are racist! blacks are sexist! blacks are homophobic! hysteria bothers me because it appears to be backlash and overcorrection from the days when it wasn't acceptable to criticize black people, as a group, at all in the mainstream media (say, late 80s to late 90s). Like I said, black people aren't perfect. But. Neither are gays. Neither are women. And in the race to the finish line of the Martyrdom Relays at these-here Oppression Olympics, we're tripping each other up. To be a martyr, you can't be flawed. Acknowledging the flaws in the other two groups who loudly vie for equality (while comparing their struggle to those of blacks during the Civil Rights Movement) is not done nearly enough. There is both racism and sexism in the gay community. There is both homophobia and racism amongst the feminists (and that, that is another post). But do we hear about it? No. Blacks get chided for turning into oppressors, meanwhile some of these so-called oppressed would just as soon see black men in jail as in the boardroom. The problem is one of painting a group with a broad brush. Just as Robinson wrote, there is no such thing as a monolithic black community, and I'm willing to bet there's no such thing as a monolithic gay, or feminist community, either. Not all blacks are anti-gay. Not all gays are colorblind. Not all women are for gay marriage. I'm pretty sure there's a Venn Diagram in there somewhere. I thought I could go one post without talking about Barack Obama, but can I help that he's actually intelligent and makes salient points? In an interview with The Advocate, he's asked to discuss parallels between the gay rights movement and the Civil Rights Movement, and the homophobia in the black community. He says:

"I don’t think [homophobia in the black community is] worse than in the white community. I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed. And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities."

That's one of the things Lartigue gets wrong. He doesn't acknowledge the religious tradition in the black community. He also doesn't acknowledge the flaws in the gay community, while all too easily decrying the flaws of the black community. I skimmed the comments section, and buried in the pile of ignorance ("interracial marriage isn't a sin, but sodomy is!" and "Gays just want to validate their lifestyle choice!"), someone actually said something that made sense, which is really what inspired me to write this somewhat bloated piece. Commenter rjmacadaeg:

"The idea that black people shouldn't be homophobic is as sadly mistaken as the assertion that gay people shouldn't be racist. Where we would hope to see a greater understanding based on empathy and wisdom gained through suffering, we instead find the same old prejudices."

There is truth in that statement. The concept that black people are fundamentally flawed, and that we're living some modern-day version of Animal Farm where all of a sudden we're the pigs wearing human clothes and sleeping in human beds while the rest of the equality-seeking beasts stay outside is laughable. Or, it would be, if it weren't so damaging.

Mocking Hillary at Trinity

I'm not convinced this is actually important, per se, but it surely is hilarious. [Stolen from PostBourgie.]

On Being a Modern Black Conservative, Part Three: What Does It Matter?

What does it all mean? Thus far, I've defined my conservatism, and described my perspective on the so-called "issues." Many, many people get tied up in their beliefs and opinions, and castigate others for disagreeing with them. I don't. Who I am and what I think are linked, but they are not one in the same. I have reservations about so many things, but not about you. — Wilco We are all individuals, with varying perspectives, but I think we're also all trying to do some of the same things: get along with each other, take care of our families, have some fun, and do a little good in the world along the way. How we achieve these goals may vary, but the goals remain the same. Conservatism, like liberalism and centrism, is a filter. That filter colors the way I see the world. It shades philosophy, religion, politics, media, comedy and tragedy. But not people. When it comes to people, all of those high-flown philosophical discussions are moot. I refuse to dislike someone because we don't see eye-to-eye on something that is theoretical. If I don't like someone, it's not because they think the U.S. needs to bomb Iran; it's because they're a jerk. If I like someone, it's not because they support the abolition of the death penalty; it's because they have a sense of humor and great fashion sense. I'm a conservative, but I don't bite.

Bill Moyers' Jeremiah Wright Interview

Before I finish up my modern black conservative series, I just had to share these links to the interview with Howard alum (and member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc.) Pastor Jeremiah Wright. He's been on what I like to call a "Magical Media Tour," making a very difficult (perhaps impossible) point with alacrity, and I appreciate it. I've said it before, I'm not religious, but I think he is coming from the position of a ideal man of God — he realizes this isn't about him, but he is using the interest in him to defend, promote and exalt the traditions and wisdom of the Black Church. As I told my coworker: he's a true scholar, not some crank screeching from the pulpit. How could you expect anything less from Barack's pastor? Part One Part Two

On Being a Modern Black Conservative, Part One: Definition

I suppose this was a long time in coming. In the last couple of years (since I changed my political leaning on Facebook to 'conservative') I've fielded innumerable questions about my so-called conservatism. Some people genuinely thought I was confused, for, how could a young black person, a Howard grad at that, be conservative?? I do not think that word means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya To start, I ought to define what I mean by modern conservative. Or, to add another layer of confusion, a modern black conservative. In my opinion, there are two ways to define something. Way one being, by taking a look at it's etymology and historic usage; way two being what it means to you and the people you know. For example: the term "probate show" when used in the Black Greek community, has two meanings. In the past, a probate show was (and sometimes, but very rarely, still is) a performance featuring the pledges of the fraternity or sorority, prior to their initiation. Today, the term is most often used to describe what is properly called a "new member presentation show," or a performance revealing those who have already been initiated. I've seen many an argument over whether one should use the term 'probate' vs 'new member presentation,' with the debate usually dissolving into the following: it means what most people think it means. Today, "probate show" = "new member presentation" in most circles, and even those who don't equivocate the two know what you mean when you say one or the other. When I say "modern conservative," I don't mean what the term has come to mean in recent years. I'm no Ann Coulter, no Stanley Crouch, no Rush Limbaugh. When I say "modern conservative," I mean to say that I am a person who considers herself to be conservative, yet aware of issues facing those of us living in the present. I don't think we can go back to the halcyon days of old, nor should we. In fact, I don't think those halcyon days were all that great to begin with. But I also think that while we rocket forward in technology and ideology, we're losing ground in pedagogy. Or, more importantly, we're losing sight of why things are the way they are. We can do so much, but just because we can, should we? I call myself conservative because I think the thing lacking most is restraint. And I seem to have it in spades these days (more than I need, probably). When I add "black" to that phrase, I complete the layer cake (vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry, in case you were wondering) that makes up my value system. I'm deeply in love with black people. I think we're awesome, for reasons that number in the dozens, if not hundreds. I once told someone that, if you break down Hillary Clinton's take on the issues vs. Barack Obama's ... well, my support of the latter has more to do with my love of black people than anything else. This of course, was prior to The Speech, at which point, I realized that we had before us a man who had a nuanced, thoughtful view of the race question. You see, I don't support Barack because he's black — if that were all it took, I would have backed Al Sharpton in 2004. But Barack's blackness, his understanding of blackness, his conservatism (and yes, Barack Obama is a black conservative if I've ever seen one) all speak to me. But loving blackness doesn't preclude loving others. And this, this is the biggest problem I see today, particularly amongst liberals (but more on that later); preferring one thing, expressing appreciation for it, desiring it, believing in it, does not mean you do (or must) eschew other things. My love of blackness does not equal a hatred of whiteness, a disgust of Asianness, a revulsion of Latinoness. Modern black conservative. Modern, because I don't long for some golden age of goodness. Black, because that's what I am, and what I love. Conservative, because my beliefs ultimately come back to a simple phrase: 'just because you can doesn't mean you should.' ___ To come: just what exactly is shani-o conservative about?

Tell 'Em Why You're (Not) Mad, Son!

I had a friend instant message me today, asking if I'd seen the Vogue cover with Lebron James and Gisele Bundchen. Of course I have. Stevie Wonder has seen it. Anyway, this friend happens to be a black man who is deeply offended by the cover. I saw the following alternate on Jezebel, and sent it to him. Nope, that's not better, he said. Less blatant, but just as bad. As I told him, I'm the first person to be on the lookout for racism. It's ALWAYS racism. But... this isn't as problematic to me as the fact that Lebron James is the first black man to cover US Vogue (and the first black man to cover French Vogue was a leggy crossdresser - meanwhile Men's Vogue has covered Will Smith, Denzel Washington, and Obama). More problematic is that J.Hud was only the third black woman to cover US Vogue. Vogue is not the most diverse or racially sensitive crayon in the box. But the James-Bundchen cover? It just doesn't scream 'King Kong' to me. They both look like they're having fun. (Oh, and why isn't LeBron in a suit, as my friend and others have asked indignantly? All of the sports figures in the mag are dressed in uniform, while the models, uh, model.) Ta-Nehisi Coates makes a good point about racism debates about magazine covers versus, you know, actual racism. And The Assimilated Negro agrees that this is all a bit much. But what's your take on it?