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!!!!