You've Got the Right...Maybe?

Rights

Relationships to me are hilarious. It's not really the actual relationship that's funny but the delicate dance that goes into making it happen and sustaining it. What happens when your dance partner steps on your toes or takes a crazy solo in the middle of the dance, or decides to toss you in the air and flip you around. How far is too far? How much trust do you have in your partner to be a good partner and someone that you can last the entire song with? Across the boundaries of sexual preference, gay/lesbian to straight, it seems like everyone, and i do mean everyone, wants to be loved, wholly and healthily.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson puts forth life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights of humanity. Now despite the vicissitudes of Jefferson's proposition and the realities of his life, he makes a good point. We often get bogged down in the realities of what he, and other theorists, did and the assumption of their intent that we miss the importance of the theory in and of itself. If in humanity, we are all entitled to pursue happiness as we define it, why are so many people concerned about dictating the happiness of other groups? Does the happiness of one have to come at the expense of another? I don't think so. All of this leads me to something that I find a little disconcerting...homophobia and the the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

Often there is this raging debate about the similarities and differences between the Civil Rights fights of the Gay community and the Black community. I think it does a great disservice to both groups to compare pain. It seems very immature to me. Neither group will ever be able to understand the complexities of the discrimination that the other has felt...unless you happen to be both Black and gay/lesbian and that seems to suck because in a large way, from my research, you're a man or woman without a country. The pervasive homophobia in America, most noticeably in minority culture, seeks to muzzle the "liberty" that we all purport ourselves to be about. Be it rap lyrics that uses the homosexual lifestyle as the ultimate slur, the awkward silence around the table when a same sex partner is brought to a family dinner, the uncomfortable glances across the locker room as everyone is changing and thinks someone's going to spread "the gay," it's unavoidable. We are not as free as we say we are.

In the quest to create the ideal equality of mankind, we have allowed the definition of mankind to be co opted by the greedy and disingenuous. This subversion of mankind allows room for inequality, subordination, and the disenfranchisement of man. When the rules of humanity only apply to select humans, we have entered what Nietzsche would term a slave-master paradigm. We have moved away from what appears to the universal doctrine of the equality of man and their inviolable right to be joint heirs in what Immanuel Kant called "the Kingdom of Ends." But as with the majority of philosophies, the perceived inclusion is always exclusive. It appears as though "gays" have always been the other. Even in ancient Greece, where homosexuality was rampant and the beauty of the male body was admired, it was not a unanimously accepted sentiment throughout the Greek world to say the least.

Most often in life, as I was trying to explain to a friend, the fear we feel others is genuinely a fear of self. That's the reason that I believe that laws exist because everyone is afraid of his or herself. I feel that laws exist because each individual can imagine a scenario in which they would commit a crime and that if they can do so reasonably, what's going to stop someone who is unreasonable from committing a crime against them? Nothing. I think with homophobia, maybe its a stretch, that people are afraid of that part of themselves which is deemed as irregular, so instead of dealing with that fear of self, they project that unto others. Some people say, " I hate that gay shit cuz it's gross." But, there are plenty of things that are gross that I don't hate, like eating food off the floor or people who don't wash their hands once they leave the bathroom. But I don't hate them. I don't wish death on them. I wouldn't bash them or seek to destroy them as individuals. I just would leave them the hell alone.

I couldn't care less about two women or two men getting married. What does it have to do with my life? Not much. Does my happiness end because theirs begins? No, well, not unless I'm extremely immature. We constantly talk about how joyous and wonderful true love is. If two people are truly in love, does gender matter? It seems rather envious and hypocritical to me. I was listening to the Russ Parr morning show a week or so ago and they were discussing gay/lesbian marriage. One of the callers stated that he didn't object to gay/lesbian marriage in the sense of two gay/lesbian people coming together in a union but he objected to the term marriage and went on to ask essentially, why would gay/lesbian people want to be a part of a religiously-defined tradition that doesn't involve them? I said to myself, "Wow, that's quite a question." But the question itself assumes that gay/lesbian people are automatically outside of the Christian community. If the basis of their exclusion is their "life of sin," I think Jesus said it best in saying, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Christianity is necessitated by sin. When it comes to homosexuality and religion though, I'm very confused. If homosexuality is in itself an explicit sin, how can one atone for it or be absolved of it, if one continues to do what one feels is natural? How can you forgive your own nature? If sins are to be forgiven at least. In that sense,Conservative Christians are right, homosexuals are doomed to hell and are really outside of the Christian community.

Religion

I find myself asking, are those who live homosexual lives and even those who support those who live homosexual lives complicit in the bastardization of Christianity? Have we essentially pooped on the bloody corpse of the Christ right after his crucifixion? I guess that really depends on how you interpret the Christian myth. It kind of reminds me of what the elders in the church always say, "You got to know God for yourself." And that's true; but, that also limits the universality of God. How can he be everywhere, in everything, and do anything, if his relationship with you is not the relationship he has with others who claim the same faith? God is a personal, individual experience. So how can we collectively evaluate the individual? If our understandings of God, vastly differ, who's to say which perspective is the correct one? Most Christians will tell you the bible is. That in and of itself is a troubling proposition. A document transmitted to man by God that is in no way altered, adulterated or misinterpreted? Hmmm...

And if you take the stance, "that yes, some of it may be corrupted but the essence remains true," how much lying does it take to make the whole thing a lie? It requires the kind of "leap to faith" that Søren Kierkegaard discusses in his writing. He posits that one's relationship with God is internally and can only be discovered through intense self-reflection and only expressed through devotion. He uses the story of Abraham's sacrifice to illustrate that point. True love can only be shown through the act of sacrifice to illustrate one's devotion. No one can experience what you are experiencing the way you are experiencing it. True love, even the love of God, is irrational and inexpressible through words, that's why faith is necessary. It's easy to criticize someone's faith. It's illogical. But the passion of real faith is unbreakable. (An interesting aside here is Obama, his election proved that the faith America had in him was strong than the faith they had in White supremacy). Faith is a continual active exercise with permeates all areas of life.

I often question my own faith. Wondering why if God is who he says he is, then why does the world look, act, and perform the way it does. If he is the manifestation of PURE GOODNESS, why is darkness so pervasive? Why are there so many different forms of God? If there is one God, presumably He's the one God of all people, and his law equally applies to everyone, and those in faith have to assume that while it may not in this life it will in the afterlife when he corrects all of man's wickedness. Even though I grew up in the church, I don't always feel God the way that I feel like I should. The Christian life is a life of abstention, a life of denial, and I find myself asking sometimes, why deny myself if there may or may not be a God and there may or may not be an afterlife? If one is to be a good person, a truly good person, it has to be of one's character to be that, not some facade to keep you of Hell.

People get up and give these grand testimonies about how God delivered them from all sorts of nonsense, craziness, and distress. And I look at my life and realize, "I don't have that kind of story. Am I somehow incomplete?" Was I supposed to get hooked on drugs? Even though my life isn't awesome, it's definitely not awful. And often when people get up and talk about God, they talk about how they "could've been crazy, could've been homeless, could've been poor, could've been dead." But you also, "could've been rich, could've been a genius, could've been wiser, could've been a superhero."

Often people talk about how "you need to be grateful because there is someone less fortunate than you."What a terrible reason to be grateful. You are essentially reveling in the fact that you're "not that guy." What if you are "that guy"? Who do you rejoice in not being? The guy who has too much? I don't think so.That's part of what makes unity so hard. Often the unity that is extolled is the unity of hatred, the unity of division, not the unity of love. Like what happened in the Iranian Revolution and kind of like what happened in the Iraq War, it's like, "Woohoo, we all banded together to stop that guy...but wait a minute, now what? Who's gonna lead now?" And that's when you get the kind of division that comes from a unity of hate. In a lot of ways, that's what has retarded the Christian faith (see slavery, Jim Crow, and the Crusades).

Relationships

A couple of my friends had been haranguing me to watch the two new Beyonce videos. I'm not a big fan of hers; but, I respect her as an artist and a creative being. Anyway, I watched both Single Ladies and If I Were A Boy. As far as Single Ladies goes, I think it's a pretty cool video. Some of the moves reminded me of Tina Turner back in the day. But when I saw If I were a Boy, it really made me stand up and take notice and really watch it intently. I like the video and it presented a worn concept in a very fresh and tangible way. However, the premise that the video, song really, is based on troubles me deeply. In this video, Beyonce takes on the stereotypically male role, the masculine role, if you will, and leaves the male to take on the feminine role.

The flirtatious and promiscuous nature that Beyonce put forward while taking on the masculine role supports the notion that men, well masculine characters in relationships, are naturally both flirtatious and promiscuous. Simultaneously, the video also makes femininity tantamount to fidelity and virtue via the apparently sympathetic nature with which the feminine character is treated. This notion troubles me, as a masculine man who has never EVER cheated. Am I supposed to be out "bussin down" random chicks? Do I need to go get me a "shawty", a "boo", a "buss it baby" to just "break off" with no attachment? Is this is a birthright of manhood? Have I missed the boat? Am I less of a man for keeping my penis in my pants?

The fidelity and "emotionality" that the man put forward while taking on the feminine role supports the notion that women, well feminine characters in relationships, are doggedly faithful to their mates even when their mates have apparently disrespected them. C'mon B. I'm not the most experienced man with women but I believe that they are intelligent enough to leave when they've been disrespected. We always talk about how the "sistas don't take no mess (perfunctory neck roll, finger snap, and eye roll included)." So why is it that when they have a good reason to leave, they won't leave? This idea that it can't be the woman's fault or the feminine character's fault that the relationship ends is, to me a dangerous proposition and counter-revolutionary for the rights of women.

In stating all this, I must directly say that I no so much support the notion of men naturally being masculine and women naturally being feminine; but more so that, one sex shouldn't allow themselves to be limited be the titles of masculinity or femininity as being transfixed by sex but allow themselves to embrace the meshing of the two traits. It's just that when one has to transcend one's gender to do what one wants and desires to do that individual has given far too much credence to the differences of gender stereotypes and their roles in society.

When discussing relationships and the courting process, I think it's interesting to note how much we give into our gender biases. Things like who's paying, who asked who out, who pursues who, and who makes the plans dominate the real interest interest each person should have in genuinely getting to know the other. I find that very disturbing. Women want to step out of the kitchen but still have car doors opened for them obligatorily. And when it comes to pursuit, whether you are masculine or feminine, you want to be found attractive; you want someone to show interest in you.

On Seinfeld, the character, George Costanza, starts dating his friend Elaine's named Paula. After George and Paula's first date, George starts grilling Elaine for information. Elaine says, "She really likes you...she's not into looks." And of course, the ending sentence sent George into a tizzy of self-doubt and introspection. As much as we all want to appear to "not be shallow" and "looking for something deeper" and "not into looks," we are all, at least in my opinion, fully aware of the aesthetic attractiveness of our potential mate and use that as a chief criteria in selection. And often when we are told that we are not attractive, the most natural and honest reaction is to ask "Why?" I had to become aware of my own biases, having often been aesthetically discriminated against, and realize that I was just as discriminatory if not in that area than in others. Although we often deride looks in intellectual circles as not being substantive, it really is. It is our first sensual perception of the individual. It gets the foot in the door.

Final Thoughts

But, I have digressed, I believe the central concept here is faith. Do we believe in our common humanity? If so, on what basis? What constitutes our belief in one another? What does it really mean to be human? Can we all be human? I believe that we can and we are. I believe that we are all potentially equal contributors to the culture of man. So what is it that inhibits us from doing so? Is it our humanity that keeps us from being human? If you believe that humans are naturally envious and power-hungry, then that is a definite possibility. That's kind of the question I asked my professor, when I posed, "How do theories and ideas survive? I'm sure that other people have thought the same thoughts as these people; but what separated the others from the notable people that we all study?" One of my other professors, answered the question, in his own way, in saying that the people who become icons do it, through the full affirmation of self beyond the society in which they live, beyond the mass culture in which they are mired via the transformational light which they carry within themselves them emanates onto society as a whole.

If that's true, then we are truly the greatest inhibitors of self. Anthropologist Benedict Anderson in his book Imagined Communities talks about the Janus-faced nature, facing both forward to modernize and backward to tradition. This is an idea that Anne McClintock advances in her discussion of the gender ramifications of nationalism. She states that men are modernizers of society while women are the keepers of tradition, even going so far as to transmit the traditions of gender inequalities and inferiority. Have women also transmitted to us our ideas of masculinity and femininity, our views of homosexuality? Is it because of men that we have continued to advance socially but not to the point of true equality? I suppose it is. But then that makes me ask, are gay men actually men in society? Are lesbian women actually women in society? By that I mean, in a very circuitous way to the top of the discussion, are gay/lesbian people, who actively affirm their sexual preference, able to truly influence culture? I don't think there has been that transformational character in the LGBT community; that could really bring their issues mainstream. But I'm also not a student of LGBT culture (lol). One of the most unique things about humanity is that, in culture, we are all both students and teachers. So, as we assimilate, we disseminate. But at what point, do we take responsibility for the culture we create?

P.S. This is what makes me angry about all this Obama buzz...

The Reality of Perception

A Curious Proposition

The most intriguing paradox in life is how real the unreal can get like the rumor that's completely untrue that gets a life of its own, the casual comment, which becomes your life's footnote, that one day that you're off your game that becomes your legacy (see Marion Barry). I was talking to my friend Nicole the other night as we sat in Hooters and watched the Redskins lose for America (OBAMA! Woohoo, got that out). We were discussing Clinton Portis MVP-esque season. I was like "Yeah, he's racked up a lot of yards this season but he doesn't have that signature run." And she was like, "What are you talking about?" And I said, "Look, he's just been getting a lot of quiet yardage. He hasn't done anything to warrant a highlight." She said, "What do you mean? You want him to hurdle somebody and then do a backflip into the endzone or something like that?" I was like, "Yes, that would be nice. I want some craziness, ya know. I want him to start off one way, completely reverse field, spin off three guys and then hurdle the last defender as he dives into the endzone." She was like, "Whatever, you're crazy." And I said, "I know but that's what I want."

I think in a lot of ways that's what happens in our own personal lives though. We're so busy focusing on the highlights that we miss the reality of the situation. It's kind of like Larry Brown, the Dallas Cowboys Superbowl MVP cornerback. In Super Bowl XXX, he won MVP for make 2 key interceptions on passes thrown by Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Neil O'Donnell. Immediately after that season, he became a free agent and translated his Superbowl MVP to a very lucrative contract with the Oakland Raiders a team for whom he completely underperformed and only played 12 out of 16 games for before returning to the Cowboys to end his career. Yes, Larry Brown had been a starting cornerback. Yes, he was a Super Bowl MVP. But, he simply wasn't worth the money. The interceptions he caught...were thrown directly to him. The Raiders, in their infinite wisdom, ignored his suspect body of work and took that shining moment as an indication of what he truly could be. Unfortunately, for the Raiders, who still seem to be giving away free money, he simply wasn't going to be that, for them or anybody else(lol).

On the flipside, you have a career like Leon Lett's. (And no I'm not picking on the Cowboys, because I love the Redskins lol) Anyway, Leon Lett played in the NFL for 11 seasons, two-time pro bowler, lynchpin of the dynamic Dallas Cowboys defense during their Super Bowl years at defensive tackle. But rarely is his productivity discussed in as great a length as his two very infamous blunders. In Super Bowl XXVII, Leon Lett recovered a fumble on the Buffalo 45 yard line and proceeded to run his hardest and fastest(for a 6'6, 290 lbs man who wasn't the most fit) up until he got to the 10 yard line where he started to slow down and was trying to "pull a Michael Irvin" and dance his way in holding the ball out over the endzone. His plan almost worked to perfection except for the fact that he didn't notice, as he was looking at the Jumbotron, a streaking wide receiver named Don Beebe, coming to strip the ball from. Only one man was successful, can you guess which one? That's right. Don Beebe. He knocked the ball away, sending it through the endzone costing the lethargic Mr. Lett his touchdown and the Cowboys the record for biggest margin of victory(like that really matters lol).

In an equally imfamous play, in the 1993 Thanksgiving Classic, a snowy day in Dallas, the Cowboys were hosting the Miami Dolphins. The score buttcheek close, 14-13 with seconds left in the game. The Miami Dolphins line up to take a final swing at a victory with a field goal attempt. The attempt was BLOCKED! The Cowboys begin celebrating. Everyone except for the lovable Mr. Lett that is who proceeds to try to recover the ball and fails. The Dolphins hurry and recover the ball. They rekick. IT'S GOOD!!! The former winners, the Cowboys, are now losers, 16-14. DOLPHINS WIN!!!! As horrendous as these boneheaded plays were, they collectively were a matter of maybe 45 total seconds that will live on in infamy as opposed to the 633,600(approximately) that he spent on the field. How fair is that? To have 0.000071% of your career be your career in a nutshell.

It's the same phenomenon that we describe in the dating world and in the working world when we talk about making a good first impression. No matter what else you do on that date or in that interview(unless it's completely outrageous or horrendous), you will be remembered for that first 45 seconds. Your eyes, your smile, your hair, your clothes, your posture, your demeanor, your breathe, your smell, your speech- all of that carries you into the rest of the date or interview. While I believe that that concept is utter bullshit and is very elitist, judgmental and superficial, I accept the fact that it is real to many people and is part of what society calls "playing the game." Everyone talks about being "forreal" and "serious" and "insertanyotheranalogousenvoguehoodtermhere" but most of us are navigating a series of societal games that we call life. Doing enough to get by without making too many waves. Practicing double standards. Offering up insincerity enveloped in a faux expression. All a part of the "game."

Triple H would be proud (lol). His intro music, by Motorhead (probably my favorite metal band), features lyrics that may give some insight. "It's all about the game. And how you play it. It's all about control. And if you can take it. It's all about pain. And who's gonna make it." Be it love, work, family, we play it all like a game. Asking ourselves how we can get over (how you play it), how we can manipulate the situation (and if you can take it), and what cost are we willing to endure for our success (and who's gonna make it). Most of us are caught up not in the games that we create for ourselves but in the games that society creates for us that we think we have created for ourselves. We believe that we have co-opted the game and made it our own and that we're playing everyone around us, ignorant to the fact that our game playing keeps us from the truth of life- that there is life. Life doesn't happen in socially-defined constructs of beauty or fashion or intelligence or acceptability or propriety or morality. Life happens when we live spiritually, emotionally, sexually, physically and morally in the fullness of ourselves. "WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR!" The words penned by June Jordan in her poem Poem for South African Women, used as a title by Alice Walker (author of the Color Purple), as a slogan by former President Bill Clinton and President-elect (still sounds weird) Barack Obama and believed to have been a Hopi Native American saying.
________________________________
Closing Notes

Some people have criticized me for my very reserved response to Barack Obama's presidential victory. That's just who I am- reserved. Despite my seemingly very high-spirited, zany and excitable image, I am pretty stoic and I subscribe to a very panoramic view. When I think of all that Barack Obama represents in terms of racial solidarity, American unity and the socio-political changing of the guard that is afoot, I am moved to tears. And I celebrate the historical nature of this event but not at the cost of turning a blind eye to the reality of the world. President Obama will face the most scrutiny that an American president has possibly ever faced. I keep reminding my friends that "Yes, he is the president; but, he actually has to be the President." The greatest strength that Obama's campaign has exhibited thus far is an uncanny ability to capitalize on momentum and to realize potential. They asked, "Who is this man?" He told them. "Does he even stand a chance against HIllary?" He toppled the Clinton machine. "Ok, but, does he really think he can beat John McCain, the maverick, the war hero?"And he did. As the economic fortunes of America hung in the balance, he captivated the imagination of the people by playing to their fears and taking sole ownership of the chance for hope for the future.

I personally practice guarded optimism, especially given the position America is in. Barack Obama is a president who happens to be Black; not a Black who happens to be president. If Barack Obama isn't as "Black" as "we" would like for him to be, how is the Black community going to handle that? Are they going to brand him a sellout or really see across racial lines and not focus on his ethnicity. Obama's ability to traverse racial minefields thus far, the largest being the extremely ignorant comments of Jesse Jackson, is honestly amazing. I just wonder how long he can keep it up, especially when the economy gets better. At this juncture, I have more questions than answers, which is why I'm encouraging everyone to back off with the racial pressure.He is not his race. He is not the president of Black America but all of it. We have to wait, watch, and support. Not predict, assume and point fingers.The reality of who Obama is far more important than who we perceive him to be.

President Obama's first major decision, hiring his chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel was a very important and well thought out one. Emanuel is known for his intellect, interpersonal skills, financial acumen and policy experience. Emanuel has held a variety of key posts in the Democratic party, top Clinton aide, chair of the Democratic Caucus, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and a member of the House of Representatives Ways and Means committee. This pivotal office for the Bush presidency was held by both Andrew Card, who resigned amidst turmoil in the War on Iraq and Joshua Bolten, who has been held in contempt by Congress for failing to turn over information related to the investigation of the suspicious dismissal of U.S. attorneys, most of whom had received either exemplary or satisfactory marks on their most recent evaluation. This position is also where Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made their mark. How Obama builds his staff and cabinet will in large part determine how he is remembered. The secrecy and lies and deception of the Bush staff and Cabinet is to me the most significant stain on Bush's legacy. Those issues prevented any real work from getting done!

SO GOBAMA! GOBAMA! GOBAMA! Because as you go, so do we! You do realize that for those of us in college and college age, this term will probably define our adult lives!

I Pledge Allegiance...

So Sexual

One of the most interesting and subverted side notes of this presidential election process has been the interplay of race and gender. As a male who defines himself as a man, there is a certain gender bias and privilege that I must be actively aware of as I write this particular entry. A friend of mine, one of her friends and I were having a conversation on the yard under the Caribbean Tree as is par for the course between or after classes. One of the points the friend of the friend raised was the myth of the Howard Man and how he, for all intents and purposes, does not actually exist. Immediately taking offense, I rushed to defense of all Howard men but honestly more so myself. In this conversation, which in the end came out as a wash via my crafty political maneuvering around the topic via statistical loopholes and social theories and general relativism, I began to really ask myself, “Am I man? And if so, what makes me that?”

Most people often begin and end this discussion, or at least in the dozens of derivations I’ve heard, by claiming that a man is made a man by his ability to take care of his responsibilities and duties. And that’s great. But does that imply that women are not thusly obligated to do the same and that they are free to flitter about and do whatever they please “becuz the man is handling things. **crotch grab and scratch**” I believe that the ability to take care of one’s responsibilities and to be dutiful in such is a right of personhood and is not and legitimately cannot be assigned by gender. Having stated that, the next logical question, and in my opinion the most relevant to how we obtain these gender biases in the first place, is which responsibility falls to which gender? If we are looking to physiology for an answer, then the only differences are chromosomes, hormone proportion, predisposition to higher muscle density, and reproductive organs.

If men and women looked the same as they do now but reproductive processes were reversed. Would you still be able to call yourself a man? Would your manhood still exist? The answer is no because manhood and womanhood are predicated on maleness and femaleness respectively. The burden of our differences are vastly outweighed by our similarities; but the schism comes from the emphasis that we put on those differences. Here is where I believe that in a lot of situations, race comes into play. Race is a faux-unifying camouflage of gender issues. A man is simply a male person as a woman is simply a female person. Our personhood is hinges on our ability to claim it and to maximize the gifts that we have individually been given through responsibility, maturity and vision.

Women often decry the sexism that is pervasive throughout American culture without looking at their own role in it. Women advantage themselves off of double standards and then complain about how stifling they are. It is hard to complain about a system which has in many ways advantaged you. Like Black folks who complain about racism yet live off the culture of racism. I am not stating that racism and sexism don't exist but they are obstacles to be moved past not platforms to be propped up.

Victimhood should, at best, be a temporary state not a lifestyle. While, I, as a man, am privileged to be able to say this because of my manhood, my maleness, that doesn't diminish the veracity. Often when we establish a "pro-something" agenda, we automatically feel as though we have to be "anti-somethingelse" which isn't true most times. We have to be careful to not grow complacent with the social roles that have been handed to us via gender, race, sexual preference, disability, or any other thing we can't control.

Political Culture

As a “Black” man, “Colored” man, “Negro” man, “Nigger” man, “African-American” man, ”Afro-American” man, etc., my main form of political reference is the Civil Rights movement/Black Power Struggle, upon which I will now draw. If we were to merely look at the hierarchy of “Black” institutions and organizations put forth at that they time, they were pretty much across the board devoid of women across the board; yet, the platforms they put forth sought rights for all “Black” people, male and female. “Black” women have all too often been made to choose between their sex and the race. This election most notably presented three, really four different actual or potential firsts- currently oldest president, first “Black” president, and first female vice president and formerly first female president (it’s still in play if McCain dies or leaves office).

Many of my “Black” female friends were torn between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and given their closeness on policy, mainly along the lines of race and gender loyalties and which one trumped the other, if at all, in making this decision. Interestingly, it seemed to be about split, with the slight edge to Obama among my friends. And if we take this small sample size as a microcosm of the dilemma that millions more Black women were faced with at the polls because they are the ones that truly keep the Black vote viable. According to the NY Times, “Black” women make up approximately two-thirds of the Black electorate and are expected to come out strong this year in the South especially. With the dimpled chad of Sarah Palin still dancing in women’s heads as the only one of them left alive, it seems as though “Black” women have firmly pushed through onto the Obama ticket; but, is it without some remorse for the inefficiency of Hillary or the idiocy of Sarah, I don’t think so.

If you are wondering why I have chosen to put all the denotations of race in quotation marks, it is simply because of the pervasive question which clouds my judgment and I think that of most of the world. That is the question of allegiance. Are you a man or woman who happens to be Black or are you a Black who happens to be a man or a woman? When forced to choose between that which benefits the artificial constructs of pigmented unity and the socio-political ramifications of that which has been genetically predetermined, where will we turn? Each of these debates has asked the candidates to do, what we the voters have long sense been asked to do since the outset of the presidential race- prioritize.

In Nas’ song Black President, he articulates just that in saying, “But on a positive side, I think Obama provides Hope - and challenges minds. Of all races and colors to erase the hate. And try and love one another.” Due to the military and economic catastrophes we are now living through, the bigoted electorate is forced to look outside of traditional racial values and really evaluate which president is best suited to get them out of the shithole that we are all currently mired in. An election that for many, not too long ago, would have been all too easy to decide has become muddled by exigent circumstances. Prejudice is a luxury afforded by domestic and international socio-economic security, which is what made slavery so powerful. Symbolically, Obama’s candidacy is monumental- a man who by the very Constitution he could be sworn in under would not have been able to achieve that post de jure (by law) a few hundred years because he was simply not a man and probably a decade ago de facto (by virtue of fact).

The War in Iraq, which many pundits thought at the beginning would be the undoing of Obama and the rise of McCain, has ceased to be a main issue and has become a side note of additional spending in the eroding American economy. This fact seems to be setting the stage for an Obama victory. Obama’s popularity with the young and urban has branched itself out into across the board national support because of his economic intelligence and strategy, which the media also constantly emphasizes and certifies, tacitly lending its support for Obama. If there’s one thing that the national electorate should learn particularly from this election, is that we set the political table for our representative hopefuls and that if we don’t clearly put forward the issues that matter most to us, they will most assuredly play only to their base and the special interests with the deepest coffers.

Ohh, and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention all of this Obama paraphernalia. I know you support the guy; but, we are dangerously close to trivializing the man by making him more of a fashion and racial statement than a political and social statement. If you’re going to go out and be an Obama supporter and wear all the damn Obama gear, please…PLEASE…be familiar with the man’s policy agenda. It takes me back to high school when everyone was wearing the Che Guevara shirts and had no clue who the man was. Don’t support Obama just because he is Black; don’t shut off to McCain because he is White. Vote for the best candidate! That’s it.

Final Thoughts

But, I have digressed. The key to this entire discussion is priority or allegiance. Generically, we all have the same basic needs, wants, and social agendas but it’s the priority and emphasis given to them which divides parties, groups, countries, genders, races, nationalities, ethnicities, religions and people. If we fall too far to the right or to the left politically, we ignore utilitarian policy. If we overinvest ourselves in our manhood or womanhood, we miss our personhood by trying to create internal reflection of external values which we may or may not ever achieve. An interesting aside here, is sexual preference, if a man is sexually and romantically interested in another man, he has socially divorced his manhood in the eyes of society, because “somebody’s got to be the woman.” If a woman behaves in a manner that is more than what society deems is acceptably masculine, she is automatically a lesbian without any regard to her actual preference. And if she is found to be a lesbian, “she just wanna have a dick man.”

Humans create their own social death by daring to be unashamedly who they feel they are naturally. We preach respect while we constantly disrespect others. We work our way up the established social ladder on the backs of those “who were too slow to get to the top” and “are just jealous of us” yet when we are outpaced by another up-and-comer we immediately claim victimhood, contempt and disgust as we are bumped down another rung by the same process that put us in the position we are in. That to me sounds like a social structure predicated on self-hatred and denial. The trailblazers are simply that- those who blazed their own trail instead of seeking the beaten path that will only lead you were you have been conditioned to think you ought to be. Society is changed only by those who stand up in full affirmation of the self and really impact the system in their own self-evincing way. Change cannot come from the sidelines- and that’s a status quo you can BELIEVE in!!!!

What About The Children? Really, what about them?

There's something about the light of innocence that glimmers in the eyes of a child. I've wondered about how my life would end, what twists and turns would occur, what adventures would I have but one thing I've always wanted is children. It's always been non-negotiable. I love kids. Watching them succeed and fail, stand and fall, and just develop as the years go by just brings a tear to my eye. What I don't understand is how anyone could ever harm a child, under any circumstances. I'm not talking about the occasional whooping, which I feel is necessary but has to be dictated by the circumstances in which it becomes necessary, something you have to learn and observe in your child as you mature as a parent. Sometimes hard discipline is the best discipline; but, as with everything, there is a line.

Child Welfare

The rampant child abuse and neglect that goes on in the world and definitely in this country is utterly deplorable. From the rape, molestation, and incest to actual murder and assault, what could a child possibly have done so great to deserve that? Personally, I feel that rape and molestation are the most virulently revolting action that can be committed against another human being. They not only ravage the physical self, but the emotional, spiritual, and psychological self as well. Fortunately, no one in my family, that I know of, has been raped or molested- Thank God; but I have friends who have experienced that, for some of them, it has completely altered, in their opinion, the person they would've been.

Some of my male friends who have been either raped or molested by males are now in some way now attracted to men. I'm not saying that homosexuality is wrong; but what I am saying is that, how can you forcibly subject someone to that? You have taken choice away from them; and choice is the most fundamental part of life. You have killed a part of them that is difficult to resuscitate. But the part that makes me so upset- is that it's completely unnecessary. What sexual pleasure can a child give you that you can't either a.) Give yourself or b.) Receive from another consenting adult? The only way I can even begin to comprehend it is as some sort of power mechanism meaning that you, a rapist/molester, feel so powerless in your own life that you have to assert some sort of physical power over someone weaker than yourself so as to boost your own pathetic ego. How absolutely pathetic is that?

Generally, I'm of the belief that God will sort it all out and that no one deserves to die; but, when it comes to rape or child molestation or child abuse, my body seizes up with blind rage such Jesus better intercede quick or there will be no need for intercession, ya dig. The recent news story of the woman in Lusby, MD who had "unwittingly" been living in a house for months with frozen remains of her dead children in the refrigerator is testament to the type of mental illness, depravity, ignorance, disillusionment, or perversion that we have somehow allowed to seep into our social consciousness. How the hell do you not know that your "missing/dead" kids' remains are in your fucking freezer?

It turns my stomach when I think of the dastardly reprobate who would dare to do something like that. These two girls, who the police believe have been dead for a year or more, would be 11 and 9 years old now and supposing that it has been just a year, what the hell could a 10 and an 8 year old have to piss you off so badly that they deserved to die? The woman, Renee Bowman, has an adoptive daughter, 7 years old who was also being abused and was the key to discovering the other daughters. We all have only one life…JUST ONE LIFE…and who the hell are you to take it away from a child? I just don't get it. As I'm writing I'm holding back the tears, because this shit hurts to think about.

Another issue I have is this Safe Haven law, that most states have which allows you to drop your child off with a health care worker, if you are unable to take care of it. I don't have an issue with that in general. I'd rather you give it away and let it live than keep it and kill it. But, in Nebraska, the law intended to protect infants has taken an unexpected turn. The Nebraska statute, which in the infinite wisdom of the lawmakers strove not to piss people off, doesn't give a specific age limit for the decriminalized drop-off and utilizes the very broad, very ambiguous term "child." Last time I checked, we were all somebody's child. Parents and grandparents have been taken liberty with the law and construed it to mean anyone under the age of 18. So, in Nebraska, you have parents leaving teenagers to become wards of the state because after 16+ years of more than likely doing a poor parenting job you realize that you simply can't cut it. I understand that there are some kids who are horribly misbehaved; but, the last time I checked, it's your blood flowing through their veins. Take care of your kids. Bottom Line.

Darfur/Congo

I was listening to a 60 Minutes podcast the other day that really reminded me that there was still a crisis going on in that region. The Darfuri people have been mass-murdered to an extent that can only be described as genocide. Even President Bush recognizes that; but, yet again, we expend our military might in fighting a war in a country that at the time was not an immediate threat while we watch millions of people be savagely murdered, raped, and killed. The refugees, survivors of these atrocities are then herded up into villages where essentially they go to die, generally because they are left unprotected or have sustained wounds, injuries, or diseases that cannot be treated in time by the very limited medical staff on hand. Millions of children are left orphaned in all the violence. But hands down, the most disturbing part of it all is the rape.

The Human Rights Watch has a 44-page report out detailing the rape and sexual violence in Darfur. The rapes are systematic and are designed to instill fear into the hearts of the survivors and their families: "Soldiers, militia, rebels, and ex-rebels also rape women and girls outside displaced persons camps and in rural areas. A 12-year-old girl described how an armed Arab man in uniform lured her and her younger sister into a secluded area by pretending to help them find their lost donkey. He said if we went with him he would show us. He grabbed me and took off my clothes to do bad things to me. My younger sister ran back to the camp…In another case, an 11-year-old girl was raped by three armed men when she went to collect grass with her 7-year-old sister. The attack left her so badly injured she had to be evacuated by an African Union helicopter to the nearest hospital for treatment."

"'The victims of these horrific attacks have little or no hope of redress in Darfur's current climate of impunity,' said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director of the Human Rights Watch. 'By failing to prosecute the perpetrators, the government is giving them a license to rape.' Despite the presence of Sudanese police – at least in main towns of Darfur – and a somewhat functional judicial system, most attacks on women and girls go unpunished. Survivors are often too afraid to report their cases and lack confidence that authorities will assist them. Even when women do report incidents of sexual violence, police routinely fail to register and properly investigate reports. Some police exhibit a dismissive or antagonistic attitude toward the survivors. In addition, police and judicial authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute most crimes committed by soldiers or militia. For example, during a large-scale attack on the village of Abu Sakin, North Darfur in late 2006, government soldiers and Janjaweed militia abducted eight women and girls, brutally raped at least three, and forced them to walk back to their village naked. The suspects were identified by the victims, but to date the military has refused to hand them over to the prosecutor. In other cases, police openly admit that they cannot take action if the case involves the military."

CBS also reported on a secret deadly war that was going on in the Congo in the last 10 years. The genocide in Rwanda spilled over into the Congo after the "end" of that genocide. The war over territory and resources is tearing the country apart. Each new battle has brought rape and pillaging. The fleeing people have run to U.N. refugee camps which are overcrowded. Women are still subject to daily rape. "Rape is the norm…this is not rape because soldiers got bored… it is a way to ensure that communities accept the power of that particular armed group," says Annika van Wootenburg, the top Africa researcher for the Human Rights Watch. In one story, a young 24 year old woman was living with her 2 kids and younger brother when militia men busted in, tied her up and raped her one by one. They forced her brother to hold the flashlight so he could clearly see them rape him. They asked him to join in the very savage and brutal rape but he refused. They turned to him and stabbed him to death. They took the young woman and dragged her to their camp and forced her to be their sex slave and she was raped daily. She escaped to find out that her children were. Her husband left as is common of husbands of rape victims. And to put the cherry on top of this shit pie, she had been impregnated by one of her rapists. Pregnant, single mother of 3 now, abandoned- Where is the justice? These women have been violated by bayonets, broken bottles and are even sometimes shot between the legs. One of the top surgeons in the region has seen female patients ranging from age 3 to 72. The efforts to repair the vaginal damage are largely successful but not always, living women often barren, unable to use the bathroom properly or to even control their bodily functions at all. I can only strain to imagine the type of psychological damage that goes into having the essence of both your womanhood and personhood violently destroyed. And for the young girls, even before you come to know what it means.

All of this simply begs the question: What kind of a world are we living in? The answer, and the only one, I can really come up with is a world of disinterest, a world that largely is completely disengaged with issues that do not profit itself. America, in your infinite nobility and valor and Christian piety, how can you overlook this? But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised because global issues only matter to America when we are either A.) Pretending to give a damn for the sake of public image or B.) subverting our main objectives of deeper global greed by continuing to rape the planet as the energy whores we are. For once, before I die, I would love to see the president be completely honest about where we are going and what we are doing.

Black Men

Now to everyone's favorite topic, Black men. This summer I had the pleasure to work with the Mayor's Green Summer Job Corps as a team leader. My job was to supervise groups of young men in various ecological and environmental efforts throughout the summer while also seeking to help improve their socialization skills and general livelihood and welfare. The youth range in age from 14-21. I worked primarily with the older young men who were all 17+ at the sites I worked. I personally supervised about 20 young men between the two sites I worked. Of these 20 young men, 3 were expectant fathers, one of a set of twins. And I asked myself, how does this happen nowadays? How do people have unplanned pregnancies? There a wide variety of prophylactics and contraceptives on the market now. We have the morning after pill, birth control pills, female and male condoms, most of which you can either get for cheap or free.

So I asked them, in as serious a manner as I knew how, "how did you get her pregnant?" All of them looked at me and laughed. And I repeated, "No, really, how did you get her pregnant? I know the physiological workings of reproduction, we all know that, but let's put that to the side for a minute. Did you just not use a condom, if so was it on purpose or accidentally? Was she not on the pill? Did she poke holes in the condom while you weren't looking? Did you bring your own? Did the condom break and just say was, "Ohh, it just happened man," and laugh. And instantly, I was paralyzed by fear for the children yet to be born to these young men, all of which are either engage or were engaged in some sort of illegal activity that could potentially put them behind bars and make them purely another statistic.

As a side note, despite the propaganda machine to the contrary, more Black men are in college than there are in jail, shocking, I know, particularly among college age inmates; but the statistics are kind of wonky, I'll get back to this. Funk it; I'll just explain it now. Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2000 Census, there were 816,000 Black men in college as opposed to 791,600 Black men in the total prison population at that time. But if you look at the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) analysis, their 1999 numbers show 603,032 Black men in college during that time. The discrepancy comes in with the fact that the NCES numbers are hand counted and total each and every student, it's "a mandatory institutional survey of all degree-granting institutions eligible to disburse federal financial aid funds (the overwhelming majority),"according to an op-ed piece in the Baltimore Sun. However, when you dissect the numbers into a college-age bracket of 18-24, there are more Black men in college than in prison by approximately a 4 to 1 ratio. So ladies, you can go ahead and let out a little sigh of relief, we're not all locked up! (lol)

Something else I found interesting and will mention only briefly. Dallas Mavericks Small Forward Josh Howard was caught on tape saying during a flag football game for Allen Iverson's charity, "The Star-Spangled Banner' is going on. I don't celebrate this [expletive]. I'm black," while the national anthem was playing. Josh Howard has admitted to being a marijuana user and has had a few skirmishes with the law. When PTI briefly covered this story, I didn't appreciate the way that I feel Michael Wilbon attacked Josh Howard for expressing himself. His sentiments there, in my opinion, are representative of what most people of color during a real moment of reflection as to what this country has really given to them and have thought quietly to themselves at one point or another. I feel like it was a sentiment that needed to be expressed publicly given his semi-celebrity status and media-accessibility but I think it was honest and not just the ramblings of an ignorant, immature young man. Media have decried his comments as simply unpatriotic without giving any real weight as to the possibility veracity of his comments.

Parenting/Role Modeling

Sometimes, I just sit back and think about all the advice that I've given to other people that I really should've given to myself; but, I guess that's how it always is, easy to say, hard to do. In life, when we really look back on all the things we did that damn near killed us but didn't, all the pearls of wisdom that have been passed down to us, and all the silent moments of unconditional love and unwavering support that we have been blessed to experience, there are generally a very small group of people responsible for that. These magical, wonderful people, who have given us all the tools to live beyond our imaginations, didn't just come out of nowhere. They were made. They were forged by the fires of indecision, discrimination, retaliation, ignorance and hatred; but, they were cooled by the waters of love, patience, and tolerance. I realized that the things that mother and father have told me, have said to me are the things I end up saying and telling others, and the things that were said and told to them.

My family didn't come together by happenstance; no one's family did. It is a series of defined decisions that brought us to this moment. Each and every one of us has millions of great grandparents; if any one of those people had made a different decision, we would not be here at this moment sharing this moment. To me that's the beauty of the chaos of the universe, the infinity of possibility that we have to play with, if we really think outside of ourselves. I believe it's one of the driving forces of man. But while we cannot choose our lineage, we can choose our legacy and in doing so redefine our lineage. So many of us who were born in poverty complain about, how about we decide not to carry that legacy to our progeny and make the money that our parents couldn't make because they were too busy sacrificing.

Too often in life people forget the simple things. The simplest being that you are the one you have been waiting for. You know that change you want to make? Go make it happen. We can't choose who births us but we can choose who influences us. If we allow ourselves to be taken in by the sheep, then we are simply sheep; but, if we sit at the feet of the shepherd, we will become shepherds. That's why to me role models are so important. While my father was never rich, he never quit and always did what he had to do to make things happen. While my mother hasn't always done things the way I like, she has never stopped loving me. If you have someone in your life that needs to be loved on, love on them. That's what I tried to do in all my attempts to really be a mentor. I didn't always succeed but I have gotten better and I am getting better.

Anyone can mentor but not everyone will. So that's why it's so important that we take each other seriously. That's kind of why my experiences with the AmeriCorps Heads Up and Manhood Training Rites of Passage programs are so important to me. It forced me to be the leader that I said I was. If I call you for help, will you answer me? Real mentors aren't there to give you the answers; but, merely serve as a conduit for unlocking the answers within yourself. I think of it this way: I can tell you all day that the stove is hot; but you won't know it's hot until you touch it. Information without experience isn't knowledge; it's simply retention.

Final Thoughts

There are too many parents who never should have been parents, in my opinion. All life is sacred and intended to live; but I suppose the question is, live how? My response would be according that person's own individual plan for their lives; but, I suppose, the overwhelming majority of us never get to that point in our lives because we are simply too busy reacting to our sociological and psychological conditioning of the illusion of life as opposed to living in the real reality which is solely based on our individual ability to forge ahead and press on with our personal virtues, aims, and goals. It is the belief of the individual that makes the individual an individual. We grow; we develop; we mature, and the day we stop doing that, is the day we start to die. Let the world see your passion. It does the world a disservice to hide your light under a bushel.

The Power of Language

Politics

As I sat on the bus, on my way home from another excursion into the land of Black Academia, I started reading this article in the Post that posed the question, “Is Obama too liberal?” In the article, the author discussed how both the Clinton camp and the Republican Party assailed Obama’s left-leaning politics and cast aspersions on his ability to lead and to distance himself from the “racist” values of his pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But what is it that makes Obama too liberal? Will they tell you? No. On the subject of faith, how many people know where Hillary Clinton or John McCain worship? Nowhere as many as the number of people who now know the name, face, and probably address of Rev. Wright. By slapping the tag of “down-the-line liberal” on Obama, they hope to destroy his appeal to moderates. The Clinton campaign is truly confused as to how to really stop Obama and slow his momentum, which is apparent in their castigation of him as a liberal but also stating that Obama is too “fond” of Ronald Reagan’s ideology, the guiding principle of the neo-conservatives. It doesn’t make sense. The term “liberal” has brought the campaigns of Walter Mondale, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis to a halt, when the issue of electability and nationwide appeal were raised. I think it’s up to the nation to determine whether they want politics of a more liberal and progressive bent, not the pundits and spin doctors behind these campaigns.

William Safire, in an interview of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, discussed how politicians utilize language to create associations or separations where there ordinarily wouldn’t be. The genius of the Bush Administration is the way in which they used language to create and perpetuate a state of panic and fear in America and punk us all into giving them much more power than they constitutionally should have had by painting everyone who opposed the war and by extension President Bush as being unpatriotic. What I find paradoxical is how we can extol virtues of liberty and democracy and improving conditions of our fellow man internationally but so openly fail to do so domestically. We speak so glowingly of liberating Iraq; but when it comes to liberating minorities and the rest of the dregs of society we openly lampoon and privately cripple efforts by anyone to do so. We are quick to castigate and denounce countries and powers who point out our blatant hypocrisy. France is a good example of that. I still am in shock that America tried to take the French off of everything and replace it with Freedom. Freedom Fries my ass. The French gave us the Statue of Liberty, ingrates.

Niggas/Bitches/Hos

How in the hell did we become this? Not too many generations ago calling any Black person any of these words was cause for an ass-whoopin’, plain and simple. How did we come to engage ourselves in this intraracial dialogue and accept these external limitations? When I think of the word “nigga/nigger/nucca/nicca/niggah/(however else you choose to spell it),” I immediately think of the shiftless, jobless, unproductive, uninterested, uneducated, irresponsible, negligent Black men out there who consistently don’t take care of their kids, don’t take care of their communities, don’t take care of their families, and don’t take care of themselves. And I’ll be damned if I allow someone to call me that and have me accept it. When your homeboi, is like “You my nigga,” my first thought is to some sort of reverse master philosophy. When I think of a nigga, I think of someone who is in bondage mentally, financially, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. But maybe I’m too old school, too orthodox in my thinking. I try to view the word “nigga” through the modern paradigm of being“a friend, a homie, compadre, road dog, etc.;” but, I just cannot shake loose the hurt associated with the word. I think of my ancestors who believed that they to be more than that literally having the black beaten off of them by whips and lashes, ripping their skin off of their bodies for merely attempting to have the type of freedom that is supposed to be associated with humanity. I just can’t get with it.

When did it become okay to be a bitch, ladies? When did it become okay to become a ho? When did we decide to disassociate ourselves from our dignity and allow ourselves to be denigrated by us. I see more Black men calling Black women “bitches” and “hos” than any other ethnic group. It disgusts me. I’m not here to argue or in any way to assert that “niggas,” “bitches,” and “hos” don’t exist because they do. They are real. They are interwoven into our everyday lives. What I am saying is that we don’t have to allow ourselves to be that. The first step to changing our perception of ourselves is by changing how we address ourselves and how others address us. It’s not what you are called, it’s what you answer to. Fellas, if you think the way you get at some of these females is cute, then you need to open your eyes forreal.

I guess it’s become cliché by now, but you have to realize that every woman is someone’s sister, someone’s aunt, someone’s cousin, someone’s mother or future mother, someone’s wife or future wife. If those women mean anything to you and you wouldn’t want to see them called “bitches” and “hos”, how can you dare to be so hypocritical as to call them out of their names and to address them in such a manner. Ladies, if you stop responding to it, a dude who is really and truly interested in you will eventually get the hint and address you the right way and in a more respectful way. We only do it because it works. I guess the same could be said of that “nigga” mentality. I assume it makes you sound more rugged, more tough, more “street,” more “hood,” more “thug,” if we speak in such an uneducated, inarticulate manner. And a lot of you ladies like and respond to that shit. Again, you do what works. A lot of dudes use the word “nigga” to get over as being tough. There’s no reason to do that. A punk is a punk. You can use the roughest, toughest, ‘thoroughest” language that there is, but at the end of the day, if you’re soft, then you’re soft. We have the potential to be far more than the nomenclatures of “niggas, bitches, and hos” will carry us; and until we shake that off, we will still be niggers at the beck and call of the social master, beating at our backs to keep us on the bottom rung of social stratification.

Homosexuality

“Queer”, ”Faggot”, “Homo”, “Dyke”, “Cunt”, “Sissy”, “Fairy”- some of the words we casually use to disparage homosexual people. Sexual preference is but a small part of who we are as people. Too often, society tries to make sexuality the determining factor in how we treat others. Openly homophobic sentiments are still part of the popular lexicon and culture. We like to compare racism and homophobia. While racial discrimination is for something that is plainly visible, open homophobia is much more accepted and pervasive. From the way in which we scold our children, “To stop being such a tomboy” or “to stop being such a sissy,” it is readily apart of conversation in which we teach our children that homosexuality or anything not standard is unacceptable.

It took me a long time to realize how offensive the term “faggot” or “faggie” is to homosexual men. Casual expressions like “that’s so gay” or “that’s some faggie shit” are definitely symptomatic of an unempathetic culture. The struggle for gay rights and gay visibility is inexorably linked to the over-arching goal of civil rights, which was freedom from the oppression of anyone for everyone. In a discussion with a friend of mine who happens to be homosexual about gay rights I told him, “I support it but I’m not the kind of guy who’s going to be out there on the front lines campaigning; but I wouldn’t be averse to signing a petition or waving a sign. I don’t feel passionately enough about it to be as enthusiastic in my defense of it as others would. I just don’t feel as connected to it, as say fighting racism but I understand the connection.”

What I found most interesting is the dilemma of race and sexuality. In reading J.L. King’s book, “Coming Up From the Down Low,” I really began to understand and connect with the variety of reasons men of color do not open up about their sexuality, primarily because we don’t present a space for them to be open. King articulates in his book that often Black men must choose between pursuing their interests and the very culture that has sustained them. If I knew that revealing one aspect about myself, namely who I kept in my bed, I would keep that a secret too. That’s a hell of a dilemma. Black women, especially, take issue with men who are on the DL and aren’t out, but as King presents, it comes to more so an inability to be honest as opposed to a lack of desire. Sexuality has been the basis for castigation and erasure of all other aspects of a person’s character. There’s got to be more. Black men on the DL must often decide which identification is most important to them, race or sexuality. And generally out of racial obligation, many men decide to hide, especially in hopes of creating and strengthening the Black family.

Psychological Disorders

Minority communities continue to see psychological disorders (i.e. anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bi-polarity) as a White person’s disease that has nothing to do with us. Recently actress Jennifer Lewis (You may not know her name but you know her face) revealed that she was bi-polar and that she was receiving treatment. Bobby Brown also discussed being bi-polar. His admission was met with a lot of scoffs and disdain and accusations of dishonest. Black folks saying, “That boy just high and crazy- bi-polar my ass,” is merely a result of our lack of understanding of the issue. I feel a lot of that stems from the need of people of color to close ranks and to see ourselves as strong and self-sufficient and that any form of non-physical infirmity was merely personal weakness.

Many often sacrificed their personal well-being in their commitment to the larger goal of keeping the family strong, i.e. Mama taking her private pains to the bathroom as she cried all alone. The Black community in their devout religious belief has often moved away from established medicine. It was common for Blacks to say, “Doctor, I don’t need no doctor. I’m gonna pray and go get me some herbs.” That dogged commitment to the traditional didn’t allow many Blacks to really understand that science and medicine are gifts from God. Why would he put it here for us not to use? American ideology has always viewed the mental health profession with open skepticism, calling them “quacks” and “head shrinkers.” The kind of understanding that can come with a knowledge of the human psyche and how it relates to human physiology is key to repairing the human spirit which is crucial in promoting overall wellness. It is our skepticism that keeps us from healing.

Masculinity vs. Femininity

Society has always placed a premium on masculinity and maleness, part of the reason why male homosexuality is so openly vilified and female homosexuality is a bit more tolerated. In the back of pretty much every heterosexual male’s mind is the fantasy of seeing multiple women committing lesbian acts in front of them. Not every heterosexual man is overtly masculine, and for him, life must be very confusing, often being pushed in directions that he wouldn’t normally. In terms of language, we often portray our preference in the way in which we address people and objects. First off, the majority of job titles confer the masculine or feminine upon a position, i.e. stewardess, chairman, postman, seamstress. Often, when naming inanimate objects, e.g. cars, we choose feminine nicknames for them. Men are known to remark in reference to a car, “Ain’t she a beaut!” Even R. Kelly’s song, “You Remind Me,” features several references that equate a woman to something non-human.

Black society is giving into the growing trend of the more effeminate male and the more masculine female, which often complicates accepted household roles. The ideal of the late 80’s/90’s/early 2000’s was that of the thug male, who wore his masculinity on the outside and wore thug apparel, i.e. tims, wife beater, baggy jeans, chain; but as of late, Black males have traded in the loose and baggy for the tight and fitted and begun openly engaging in practices that not too long ago that would have labeled him as a “faggot” or a “sissy” or a “homo,” i.e. facials, having a stylist, wearing pastel colors, fitted shirts, manicures, pedicures, and using beauty cosmetics. Conversely, females have been stepping increasingly out of the home and into the workforce in greater numbers and holding higher level positions in male dominated fields, i.e. real estate, energy, and banking.

More and more men are becoming stay at home fathers as well. All of which often challenges commonly accepted gender roles. I know as a man I would have a problem, at least initially, with my wife making considerably more money than me. This issue is becoming more and more frequently faced by couples in which the man feels the need to assert himself as a man and take care of his family. The accepted standard was that the man brought home the bacon and the woman fried it up in a pan. What do you do when she comes home with steak and hands you a skillet? I think that all of these complications can be overcome if a basis for compromise is there. Men were once able to dominate women via finances; but now many women are able to turn the tables, increasing their freedom and simultaneously forcing us males to redefine our masculinity and our maleness. We can see by the overwhelming majority of males to females in college that they have put themselves in a position to increase their earning power despite the sexism and discrimination ion pay.

Issues of Race

Inter-racially there is great distrust. We don’t understand each other’s culture, attitudes and practices. Be they a “towel-head,” “chink”, “nigger,” “cracker”, “injun”, “kike”, “kaffir”, “jungle bunny”, “cholo”, “wetback”, “coonass”, “curry-muncher”, “gook”, “wop”, etc., we allow others to define what or who is acceptable in society. Something I’ve always made a note of is that I’ve never met a White person who is offended by the term, “cracker.” And that indifference is the luxury of dominance, the luxury of socially defined superiority. Reports estimate that in 2050 whites will be the largest minority group given the expansion of the Hispanic population and immigration. On the surface that sounds like something for minorities to root for; however, if the White community as the minority still dominates music and big business and basically the American economy, would the demographic difference really matter?

Beyond that, without minority solidarity to protect a collective agenda of increased representation, the aforementioned divisions will only continue to factionalize race and create an internal civil war for domination allowing Whites to continue to purport their domination. The privileges that come with Whiteness, while not always intended, are nonetheless prevalent and cannot be ignored. For White children growing up, no matter what you want to do, there are a variety of White faces that you can place with that goal, for minorities it is not always that readily available. The Native American population, which has almost been completely written off, probably has the worst of this particular situation. The agenda is solidarity, which comes through sacrifice.

In Randall Kennedy’s book, Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal, he discusses the idea of “outing.” He speaks about how in terms of both sexuality and race “outing” people forces an often reluctant association, either as a form of punishment for the person for betraying the confidences of the membership or as a form of uplift for that community giving them an example of what they can achieve, a symbol of aspiration. People of mixed heritage by whatever name they are called are often caught between worlds and associations and are often “outed” when they achieve some sort of notoriety. I automatically think about Barack Obama, Colin Powell, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and Tiger Woods. People went out of their way to dig through and often question their ethnic backgrounds to find out “what kind” of Black they were.

Final Thoughts

We often overlook the power of language and self-definition but it is pivotal to our understanding of self and our relationship to the global community. Beyond that, terms are up for re-evaluation and re-association. The growing assertiveness of the female is putting that forth for the male. A situation in which, he can either accept being the helpmate or work to create greater equity in the home from the beginning, because fellas, the ladies are getting theirs. Also in terms of race and sexuality, we have to begin to see race and sexuality as merely a portion of someone’s thought process and life experience and not the totality of what they are or who they could be. Religion is often a breeding ground for division, whereas spirituality is a common balm of healing. I think it would be beneficial for all of us to go back to the roots of why we believe what we believe and determine whether or not it’s worth continuing to believe. What I also find interesting is the discussion of diversity. Diversity is such a loose and vague term in my opinion. You can have diversity in any grouping. Often in education, we talk about creating diversity, but I ask, what kind of diversity? Ethnic diversity, economic diversity, linguistic diversity, religious faith diversity? Howard often touts its diversity and it is diverse; but diverse amongst young Black people. I never realized that kind of diversity could exist. If we can have it, then there’s diversity amongst Whites, Jews, Hispanics, Asians. Humans were born to differ; but difference shouldn’t end the conversation or the quest to create understanding.