I hung out with my fraternity brothers last night at the Northland Skating Rink in Detroit. First time I've been there in approximately 20 years at least. I never learned to skate backward much less two-step with a partner, but I loved being there and talking to people I haven't seen in bleems. Whereas before I would've caught most of the people I wanted to see at the club, now I'm finding that I'm increasingly turning to the playdate as a way to catch up when I'm back in the city. I've pretty much got a gang of kids (the Spence motto? "This is a gang...and I'm in it.") and while I've got a class inflected bias against Jack and Jill I'm all for getting my kids together with folks of like mind, whatever the level of attainment.
I didn't get much sleep last night for a number of reasons, but while browsing I found this. I appeared on C-Span this week and among the well wishers was Lawrence Ross and Stephen Carter. Prof. Carter's wife Enola Aird started the Motherhood Project. Her question is a central one, not just for black families but for Americans in general. What would our society look like if mothers were truly valued?
My boy Cobb's been on a move to integrate the Republican Party for some time now. The number he's pushing for is around 10-12 percent, which is about the amount that Nixon got if I recall correctly. I believe that Cobb's goal is a worthwhile one even though my colleague Paul Frymer's work on the subject is pretty definitive for me.
But I'm reminded of JMS' Babylon 5--until the dawn of the 21st century teledrama THE best television program I've ever seen.
TO make a 5 season epic short, human beings are engaged in an intergalactic war between two god like races....the Vorlons (Who are you?) and the Shadows (What do you want?). JMS plays the banana in the tailpipe trick in that for much of the epic, the viewer is firmly convinced that the Shadows are actually the antagonists of all antagonists. Their appearance is sinister, their actions are violent and evil, and the characters that represent them on screen have few redeeming characteristics. Only near the end of the epic do we become aware that the battle between the Vorlons and the Shadows is a battle of dueling philosophies--the Shadows believe in growth through conflict, the Vorlons in growth through order and control.
Neither race gives a damn about humanity. And in the end the humans make a choice to take them both out.
We're the humans in this scenario. Neither the dems nor the gop give a fuck about us. The GOP scapegoats us to get the nascar dads, the Dems pay off Jackson (and soon Sharpton) to get us to the polls in exchange for high end trinkets.
In my most elitist PhD having tone I say this: fuck them BOTH.
We need a set of core policies that move people to the point where both parties have to grapple with them. Then it wouldn't MATTER what party id black people have on either the aggregate or the individual level. Because both parties will be dancing to our tune. Or they will be destroyed.
A meme like "free college education" can be easily touted as democratic policy (gives the locked out a chance to compete) and a republican policy (rewards individual initiative and builds wealth). Bickering over party id is nothing more than set-claiming. And I've done my fair share of it over the past several years. But I'm trying to move beyond that. And not just because it is a new year. Though I've unofficially changed my birthday to Jan. 1, I've never been one for resolutions.
Debra Dickerson's got a new book, and Prometheus is pretty happy about it. The title is pretty provacative... The End of Blackness: Returning the Souls of Black Folk to their Rightful Owners. Dickerson's got skills...and as she is a native St. Louisan she's got a lot to teach me about the mores of the STL.
I'm going to pick this up. Hopefully I can get a copy for free and review it for the Post-Dispatch for February or something.
On one level I can appreciate her willingness to fight for an individualized notion of blackness. Such a move is on one level a decentralized democratic one. It is dangerous for a number of reasons to rely on hustlers for our communal conceptions of blackness. A couple of critiques.
Take the following quote:
" The assumption has always been that those martyrs died to change America but do blacks require no attitude check, no modification, no critique? If not then, they certainly do now, so the question is whether blacks repay that debt by being the best Americans and human beings possible, or by being the best African-Americans?"
I didn't pay for the West/Dyson/Smiley love fest. But I'm willing to bet that at least half of that event was devoted to listing all the random and trifling ways of black folk. My wife tells me often how she's often harder on herself than anyone else is. I find that the same dynamic holds true for most black people. Listen carefully to any speech given by Farrakhan...or even Sharpton if you think I'm lying. How many times have we compared ourselves to other ethnic groups. "You know the Koreans or Jews would NEVER do something like this." "Why is it that the Chaldeans have all TYPES of businesses and we don't?" These comparisons are often ignorant and wrong...but they reveal a deeeeep seated willingness to question, to critique, to excoriate black people for not being perfect.
Here's another one:
"Blacks must accept that they are a numerical and political minority and must master the dominant bodies of knowledge even as they fight for the inclusion of worthy multicultural knowledge. As rational adults, they should concede that, forced to choose, it should be Churchill over Patrice Lumumba, the Inchon Landing over the Zulus' David vs Goliath victory over the British."
I get what Dickerson is saying here. What she's saying is that in order to embrace our American-ness, we have to embrace American culture. We can't continue to say we aren't Americans we just happen to live here. And I agree with that. But I also don't think we have to constrain our choices about what is and is not a valued part of our heritage. WE have a much greater existential range than DIckerson is giving us credit for. BUT if we do have to choose...I am not sure what choosing Churchill over Lumumba actually gives us. ON the other hand though it is clear what we lose. The key to code-switching is having something to actually SWITCH TO.
I remember reading an interview with Albert Murray. He talked about how he longed for a time in which whenever black people were wronged they wouldn't go to the media, they wouldn't boycott or protest...they would just TAKE CARE OF IT. No histrionics. I think this is what Dickerson is getting at here. The Art of War is considered part of the basics for a reason.
I'm listening to a couple of tracks from Outkast's new double cd. Hey Ya and The Way You Move. Some of the heads are screaming that this isn't hip-hop, the same way that some made noise about how Lauryn Hill's Miseducation didn't quite fit that bill.
Once any artform begins to congeal it becomes easier and easier to pigeonhole and exclude.
But damn these tracks are hot. If the heads aren't claiming this, then there's a problem.
I consider myself a democrat. I believe in expanding structures of opportunity such that everyone gets a chance to fulfill his/her destiny. I believe that the public sphere should be truly public, with every citizen given a chance to participate and express him/herself. But I also believe that democracy isn't moved forward by "the masses" but by cell groups, who are dedicated and driven by the pursuit of a new vision.
I think what we have here with the work of Outkast is an attempt (probably not a conscious one but an attempt nonetheless) to expand hiphop past the tyranny of the bling dynasty.
I've never really been a blues man. I thought it was too rural, too southern. I didn't dislike it mind you, I just couldn't really roll with it. It wasn't my bag. Even though I was a knucklehead in many ways, I still considered myself an urbane knucklehead. More prone to listen to Miles, Coltrane, and even some Wynton before I listened to ANYONE named "gutbucket."
I still feel the same way more or less. One of the guys I play ball with suggested this blues cd set by an old guitarist that I KNOW has got to be the shit. But I politely blew him off.
When we've talked about what it means to be old school, I think the values that we've concentrated on don't really touch on what is our signal strength. Our ability to laugh in the face of adversity. Our blues aesthetic.
Over the past year one of my best friends has succumbed to a gambling addiction. A good colleague has just had divorce papers dropped on her, leaving her to take care of her daughter alone. My own family is barely making ends meet on a month to month basis. One of my boys from undergrad just got sent to the pen for a couple of years...convicted of a white collar crime. Another boy from undergrad may have to go deeeeeeep undercover because he may have to testify against a crew of stone cold killers. Another set of friends has taken up ponzi schemes to make money. I suspect they'll be taken out soon.
And that's just part of it.
So I'm talking with my girl undergoing divorce...and we're dropping sob stories about our friends like bombs over baghdad. And at one point we actually start laughing. Laughing as in "damn this shit is jacked, and we have to laugh to keep from tearing up." Laughing as in "man, I don't think RIchard Pryor could've written up a scenario funnier than this." LAughing as in "fuck it...at least we know we're not alone!"
That's the majesty of the blues to quote Marsalis. The blues wasn't performed to make people sad...it was performed to make people HAPPY through a recognition of one simple reality. While there are days of joy....there are YEARS of pain.
Let's make the most of these days shall we?
Happy holidays.
I'm calling this one "party politics" but we're talking about a different kind of party here. I got on the road midnight Monday to make the bi-yearly drive to Detroit. Takes about 8.5 hours, so we usually get there around 9:30 or so (we lose an hour because of the time shift between cst and est). We drive this late because I've got a black nation, and we don't want any of them to be awake during the drive.
But we drove this late on MONDAY rather than last night, because I wanted to hit Half Past Three. Now I've talked about the superpromoters before. Whereas Black Diamonds should probably be considered third generation (and half of those folks have Detroit ties) Half Past Three's co-owner JD Simpson is probably second generation. I knew that if I made it there I'd see pretty much all the folks that I wouldn't be able to contact personally to let them know I was back in town for about a week.
The spot has changed...but in a way that is truly refreshing, and indicative of the degree to which class integration is possible in black spaces.
When Half Past Three first opened almost four years ago...maybe a bit more...it was largely a spot for Our Kind of People. In the Detroit case you're talking about either the scions of Jack and Jill or the folks who slipped through the cracks through affiliations created in undergrad or high school.
Me and my wife slipped through because we both went to Michgan.
Whenever I was back in the city, and I didn't know where to find the folks, I'd stop by Simpson's place. And here I'd get the dish. Who made partner, who finished his residency, who got divorced, who just got a fat county contract. So in the beginning it was a spot for male and female professionals.
But try as you might, you simply can't keep a joint like that secret for long. Now usually when the working class brothers and sisters start to come in large numbers, the professionals find another spot. But that didn't happen here, at least not to a significant degree.
So last night I saw plant managers, janitors, doctors, lawyers, judges, millionaire DJs, basketball players, gangsters, drug dealers, social workers, accountants, and executives all in the same spot. All dressed to the nines.
Literally a thousand different shades of black. And when the DJ dropped the new Outkast in the blue room EVERYONE STARTED TO MOVE.
Kwame Kilpatrick is representative of this type of integration. I don't know if it'll get translated into an integrated politics...but on the eve of xmas eve, and I'm seeing Detroit's east and west side meet, I can roll with it.
The seems in No Child Left Behind are being revealed as we speak. The concept of choice, given the freedom of destination schools to refuse admittance, is illusory. And for some reason we just don't see a flood of policy entrepreneurs looking to fill the gap. This story in the Washington Post lays down the gauntlet pretty well. There was a similar story sometime ago in the Chicago Tribune I believe.
David Brooks in an article in the NY Times about Bush's upcoming major domestic initiative makes what is actually a strong argument for Bush's vision of conservatism. Bush's thing--which I believe emanates from his battles with alcoholism and drug abuse--is simple. We want to give YOU the ability to make choices....but at the same time you have to take personal responsibility for the consequences of those choices. So it isn't a small government conservatism (it can't be the way he's spending our tax dollars), but a conservatism based on the core principles of personal initiative and responsibility.
But the problem is clear here--you give people the choice to recognize their schools are failing, and the choice to take their kids out and place them in a better performing school, what happens? They take their kid up to the door, where someone stands in the way and says "no admittance."
What type of choice is that?
I've participated in a number of listservs devoted to discussion about black popular culture for around 10 years or so. Recently on a list devoted to detroit techno, a number of heads started talking about Outkast and Hey Ya. I can't remember the last cd I bought, but I'm thinking hard about picking Outkast's cd up. They're refreshing in so many ways...not just in comparison to hip hop.
Anyway, the subject of misogyny in hiphop came up. I think the issue is a compelling one to wrestle with and it neatly ties into some of the questions we've been dealing with...particularly questions of class. Anyway, I jotted off a response that is fairly representative of my position on black pop culture as it relates to issues of politics.
To give you further context, the question is "to what degree is hip hop misogynistic?"
When I think about these issues this is what I try to keep in mind.
*As African Americans live in the American context, it is important that we keep in mind the impact that larger processes that impact ALL Americans influence them.
So here we're talking about the commodification of women largely for the purpose of profit that has the added "benefit" of keeping women subjugated. This dynamic isn't unique to African Americans, but is part and parcel of the larger American culture. Take a look at a Victoria Secret ad that 25 years ago could've never made it to the screen.
*While popular music is considered to be the raw undiluted voice of the
young (and in hip-hop's case the black young), popular music is SOLD AND
MARKETED.
Chuck D. said that rap is black America's CNN. He's both right and wrong. Rap is not news. It is entertainment. Rap isn't an undiluted image of what is "really going on" in black communities whether they be working class, or blueblood. But in as much as CNN's news is itself highly packaged and marketed, rap too has been niched in order to sell product.
I'm working on a book about youth and politics in American cities, and I'm including a substantive section on pop culture (hiphop). Thinking about this in depth I'm realizing that it just isn't possible to refer to hiphop as an artform without taking the political economy of it into consideration.
There is a REASON why my students know that 50 Cent has been shot nine
times. And it has nothing to do with truth telling.
*While African Americans are indeed Americans, they also serve as
America's Other.
In the past, miners used canaries as an early warning system. The gases the miners had the most to fear were both odorless and invisible. The only way they would know whether the gas was present was by the behavior of the canary. When the canary keeled over...the miners broke camp.
Black people (and other "people of color") serve as America's canary. The fault lines in the American project usually become most visible in these communities. But rather than taking the troubles of black people and using them to predict, contain, and cure problems of the wider community, a very different route is taken. These troubles are used to sell "black" product for the culture mill, and at the same time are used to further justify black exclusion.
Just trying to keep these three ideas (blacks are american, blacks are the other, pop music is an economic product) in my head simultaneously is a difficult feat. but suffice it to say that because of these dynamics I'm willing to bet that the following assertions hold true about misogyny in hiphop:
1. Misogyny in hip-hop is a hyperextension rather than an accurate reflection of misogyny in black life.
2. Misogyny in hip-hop may be more pervasive than misogyny in rock... depending on how we are measuring it. Only looking at the use of the terms "bitch" or "ho" for example would be an overly conservative measure.
3. The social ills impacting black men in America are beginning to impact their white counterparts. So in as much as #2 holds true, I don't expect it to hold true for long.
One of the many goals of this space as I understand it is to jack previous notions of what it meant to be conservative and reframe it in a much more humane (and correct) manner. To envision conservatism as an old school mode of being.
I claim the old school...or at least attempt to (if you're old school you don't run around saying "I'm old school damnit!" ...that's indiscrete). While not a conservative like Bowen, I do believe that at an individual level whether we want to be a professor, or a pipe fitter, or an MC, you've got to work hard and exert discipline.
But thinking about conservatism as an American ideology, I've had the same problem claiming it as I have claiming the American flag. And while I've gotten to the point where I now claim America as mine, claiming conservatism has been a harder road to hoe.
The central reason is simple. For me it's been exceedingly difficult telling the conservatives apart from the racists. Specifically when it comes to policy preferences. I know I know...not all conservatives believe (for instance) that black people are inherently inferior, or that they are unAmerican, or that they are genetically predisposed to criminality. While I can't say that my best friends are conservative, I can say that I know a number of conservatives personally, and that many of them are good and decent people.
But when it comes to policy preferences, being good and decent doesn't really count for much to me.
To get a sense of how intertwined conservatism and white supremacy has been historically check this story out. I've always thought William Buckley to be eminently respectful and well-spoken. And I suppose there is a subtle argument that can be made against Brown v. Board...or giving black people in the South the right to vote. But if you're making that argument, no matter how subtle, no matter how nuanced....you're on the other side as far as I am concerned.
Now the American Renaissance suggests that the tide is shifting...and given the modest efforts of moderate black conservatives (here I'm thinking Fletcher rather than Sowell...the new Loury rather than Armstrong) perhaps this tide will come sooner than we think. But probably not quite soon enough.
As an aside I am currently grading, juggling all types of postdoc applications, and quite a few other things. I'll be in the city (translation: Detroit) next week on vacation, so I'll probably try to stuff a few pieces in before I jet. We'll see.
I've written here in Cobb that there is a dirty little secret in black politics. Perhaps some of Dean's campaign team has taken an object lesson. Those African Americans who hold out for hope in the world of politics of all places have apparently been placated by Mr. Dean's clever rhetoric.
What is astounding about this sleight of hand is that Dean has gotten away with getting endorsements without having made one documentable campaign promise. Sensible people expect politicians to dissemble, and those things that are sacrificed first are campaign promises. So what kind of fool gives the benefit of the doubt to a politician whose not even willing to make a promise? There is nothing so irresponsible as a man who makes no promises and states no case, something most of us recognized when pressing Clarence Thomas. But if there is, then it is the voter who trusts such a man. Fools following liars.
Let us start with the gushing of the Black Commentator.
Howard Dean’s December 7 speech is the most important statement on race in American politics by a mainstream white politician in nearly 40 years. Nothing remotely comparable has been said by anyone who might become or who has been President of the United States since Lyndon Johnson’s June 4, 1965 affirmative action address to the graduating class at Howard University.
BC seems to desire nothing more than acceptance of Dean as a mainstream candidate so that his vague histrionics can give air to BC's studied radical notions. BC is clearly anti-corporate, but do they actually expect Dean to endorse that form of economic strategy?
The core of BC's economic mythology is plain.
Negro poverty is not white poverty. Many of its causes and many of its cures are the same. But there are differences – deep, corrosive, obstinate differences – radiating painful roots into the community, and into the family, and the nature of the individual.These differences are not racial differences. They are solely and simply the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice. They are anguishing to observe. For the Negro they are a constant reminder of oppression.
This is the farce at the heart of Dean's legitimacy in the eyes of the Black Commentator. They refuse to separate economics from racial politics, therefore it is not sufficient that African Americans themselves know the facts of history. There has to be a Great White Father who also sees it that way. Blacks don't recover themselves, they do so under the aegis of a friendly politically revisionist history. This is all Dean delivers: talk and promises to talk.
I said it once, and I'll say it again:
I challenge anyone to show exactly what it is that the Democrats have done for African Americans that they haven't done for everyone else. Whatever you find, I will bet my nickel that it doesn't get any larger than a quarter of a billion in any one program out of the Federal budget. But what the Democrats do that the Republicans don't is insure that they say a lot of nice things about blackfolks. The dirty little secret is that this covers a lot of what the black electorate will settle for. If you ask someone who hates the idea of Black Republicans what it is that the Democrats will give blacks that the Republicans won't, it will all come down to warm and fuzzies. Try it. Get them to name programs when they disagree. Materially, most folks are hard pressed to talk about black patronage in dollars and cents. But they know what kind of rhetoric they like. Ask how much federal money goes to support HBCUs. Nobody knows. Ask what kind of support Affirmative Action should get and you'll hear a litany of legalese words, qualifications, provisos, tests, and other verbal requirements. What a twist of fate! It's not all about the Benjamins.
Check out his speech yourself. At least six paragraphs begin "We're going to talk about..". That wouldn't be so bad if the paragraphs weren't so damned thin. But then again, Dean has to prove himself mainstream, otherwise the formula doesn't work. That means he has to sell out principles for the sake of wide acceptability. I keep telling blackfolks that this is the fundamental problem.
Yet the BC keeps hope alive:
Where does this leave Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich? Exactly as they are, preaching the same social democratic, anti-racist, pro-peace message as before, for as long as their energies can sustain them. Dean’s political leap would not have been possible in the absence of Sharpton’s energetic Black candidacy and Kucinich’s principled, progressive white voice from the Left. At this historic juncture they dare not go anywhere. Dean has picked up the torch that Sharpton and Kucinich have been carrying and they must stay in the race to make sure he doesn’t set it down.
If there is any mark of delusion, there it is plainly and simply. To imagine that Dean couldn't survive without Sharpton and Kucinich makes about as much sense, as my old feminist buddies used to say, as a fish without a bicycle.
I am willing to bet money that this infatuation will be short-lived. It's too bad that the Black Commentator and those who follow this rationale are so soft-headed and willing to compromise. But that is their fate, tied as they are to the ritual of hope and disappointment which is the standard fare of the African American voters and the Democratic Party.
I know George W. Bush's weaknesses, and as a hard headed Republican, I'm not afraid to call him on them because I am vested in his practical success. Practical success is the difference between Cobb and the dreamers over on the Left. Apparently everybody can have a dream. It's just a matter of time before Dean reveals his dreams to America. "I too have a dream", he'll say. I'll hold back my puke until that moment. But it's coming.
I have one last barb to pitch. Where is the Congressional Black Caucus in all this? I haven't been looking, but if their opinion mattered enough, it would make news loud enough to hear. Considering small incidents that make enough news for Jesse Jackson to be mentioned, I'm sure I hear quite enough. And my ears are telling me that the CBC's opinion doesn't matter.
Take a look at this piece at blackcommentator.com. Dean gave a campaign speech a couple of weeks ago that expands his ideas about getting the nascar dads to vote for him. Blackcommentator argues that it is the most important statement on race and politics given by a mainstream politician in 40 years.
They are so on the money it ain't even funny.
For over 40 years Republicans have used racially coded messages to drive a wedge between voters of similar economic backgrounds. Whether using "quotas" or Willie Horton or Sistah Souljah or welfare queens, Republicans AND Democrats have used black bodies to fuel regressive policy agendas. While some may argue that Dean is taking a courageous stand, I actually argue that he's taking the RATIONAL stand. Largely because research has shown that when the cover is removed from the racial code, people tend to respond positively toward the candidate removing the cover. (For more information check out THE RACE CARD by Tali Mendelberg.)
If he continues talking like this I think it is going to be hard to beat him. I certainly wouldn't want to put my money on Bush come the debates. This is what leadership is about.
Glen Engel-Cox finds much to admire in the possible pairing of Howard Dean and Carol Mosely-Braun. Now that Dean is gaining momentum, such possibilities are enticing.
..it would be a bold move and be reflective of the diversity and appeal of his campaign. My hope is that she can obtain a position in Dean’s cabinet, as a woman of her intelligence and honesty is sorely needed, and it would be a shame to lose her skills to her family farm, which is where she had expected to spend the rest of her life before September 11.
Things that make you say Hmmm.
I've been a voracious reader of comics for the last 30 years of my life. Contrary to the belief of some, growing up reading the exploits of Superman, Batman, and the X-Men did NOT make me want to be white. It did NOT make me less "proud" of being black. It did though expose me to a life outside of the mundane, a life rich in possibilities.
Christopher Priest is one of the best comic book writers in the business. But for factors some of us understand all too well, his work does not get the credit from what he calls TPTB (the powers that be). The penultimate smack in the face was the cancellation of his work THE CREW....which only lasted seven issues.
For a while Priest thought about quitting the game. In comic book terms he's getting a bit long in the tooth to be still fighting the good fight. Think about it...who the hell WANTS to be still fighting the good fight into his forties?!? But he held out...and now he's back. Writing CAPTAIN AMERICA AND THE FALCON of all books.
I write about this here, because I think Priest's plans for the comic remind me of the curious relationship we have with American values and with America. And the way he plays with time and space remind me of the best of African American high culture. So check out his plans, and his views. I think it would be worth it.
And if you hadn't picked up a comic in some years, that might be worth it too.
Tavis' Pass the Mic Tour is about to start very soon if it hasn't already. Smiley's already been critiqued among some circles for the cost of his event. To see Smiley, West, and Dyson "pass the mic" it costs $50 (and if you pay $60 you get a copy of one of Smiley's, West's, and Dyson's books). He responds to his critics in two parts. Part one. Part two.
Now I've already said my piece. While I think all three of them are pretty trifling for different reasons, if you're willing to spend the same loot on Stevie Wonder or on Prince or on JayZ, then spending the loot on these guys should be comparable. I don't think the mileage will be the same because the level of artistry required is different in the case of comedy or musical performance. But let's say for the sake of argument that it is similar.
But in defending his pricing structure, Tavis ends up buying into some very problematic notions about black culture and black life.
Tavis argues for example that black people overspend as far as entertainment, but underspend as far as empowerment.
What exactly does that mean? The entertainment thing is straightforward. Black people spend a whole lot of money on music. Now I don't know where he got his figures from...and this isn't on him necessarily. I can't remember the last time someone footnoted a radio commentary. But what the hell is "empowerment spending?"
If I recall correctly, Tavis himself sponsored a series of talks with economic and political leaders that was then broadcast on C-SPAN. I don't think those events were free....and I think they were standing room only. When Minister Farrakhan would make his various tours, he'd speak in basketball stadiums to standing room only crowds. And I know black people love some self-help books.
But this is besides the point.
One of the central problems I've had with speakers since about second year in undergrad is that they seemed to be in the entertainment business rather than the education business. As speakers they would give you JUST enough to want to bring them back again...and you would be left on a serious high that would last about three days. Then you'd be back where you started, until you shelled out the loot for the next speaker.
Empowerment IS entertainment. It just has an educational shell. Come on. You ever SEEN West or Dyson talk? It isn't like either of them plays the role of a staid traditional professor, no matter how nice their suits are. Even though Dyson is pushing 45 or so he isn't afraid of quoting Nas (at length) to show his street cred. BOTH West AND Dyson are ministers remember.
Tavis starts with a reasonable take. They are travelling, and appearing in some nice venues. These venues aren't free, and aren't cheap. So in order to have the event in the FIRST place, someone's got to pay. West is about $20 grand a speech. Dyson is probably $10 grand a speech. The venues probably cost around $25 grand...and then there are other incidentals....
Hmm.
If those numbers are anywhere near right, that leaves a substantial profit for what is basically three men talking--without rehearsal--for a few hours with a mic in their hand.
Maybe Tavis SHOULD stick with the arguments basically saying that black people don't know how to spend their money.
I've stumbled across a polite discussion on decorum. If I had a better grounding in the classics, I'm sure that I could find some period piece, one excoriating the dictates of excruciating manners which aptly applies here. I'm impressed.
It's rather stunning to me that such a detailed analysis of racism takes place in an environment in which racism is so patently weak. And I think it goes to the question of the not only the bizarre directions of anti-racism (which I think is failing) but also to the inability for us to recognize the challenges of civil society. As these outrages in microcosm keep finding their way to us on a regular basis, what are we to think?
As I was learning and coming to the evaluate the finer points of developing an anti-racist ethos I dealt with a seeming contradiction. That was that as a member of the upper middle class of blackfolks and whitefolks I was more sensitive to racism than my downscale peers. A racist comment against a black judge for example, is both more egregious in its audacity and less painful in its effect than the same slur directed at a black janitor. For what we understand about the racist stereotypes against blacks, intelligence and probity said to be lacking. Since a judge, by the very nature of the work they do demonstrates such qualities regularly, we must conclude that it must certainly be a more insidious racist who would slander a judge.
It was this sensitivity that made me wrong-headed at the time. I used to brag about such sensitivity ("I'm sensitive like a mighty telescope") Yet the idea that being able to pick out the weakest singals of racism as if they were trace evidence of the big bang, attractive as it might seem, may not be particularly useful. In fact it can be counterproductive if it drowns out the noise of complaint for more consequential racist actions. This what I hear in such polite conversations.
It is a simple fact that racism is stupid and wrong. It is stupid because it is so amply evident that it is wrong, so anyone who argues from a racist position does so in contravention of the science and sociology of generations. Although there are many intelligent people who believe racist ideas, there are very few criminal masterminds using subtle strains of racism in their conspiracies. So the point of raising the charge in such situations is a questionable one. Is it racist? Yes. Racism which is subtle is costly nonetheless, but decorum is not politics. Consequently, the response to an egregious breach of manners in a business meeting should vary greatly from that of dealing with a racist police department. What is required in such situations is a good shushing, or a literal slap on the wrist (with a metal ruler, as we suffered to our benefit in Catholic School). What is not required are the trappings of politics including grand public announcements, new rules of conduct, or heaven forbid policy and speech codes.
It is the failure of the extra-sensitive to recognize that they are demanding decorum and not justice. Such offenses as the use of racial epithets either directly or indirectly are not injustices, they are lapses of tact and restraint. People who speak ugly might be racist plotters, or they might not be. So the line of inquiry one should pursue if one is indeed sensitive should determine whether or not said scofflaw is masterminding a racist conspiracy, or if they are another ordinary Joe with skidmarks on his underwear.
What certainly needn't be done is a great loudmouthing or self-congratulation as if the outing of someone who said 'nigger' is the fulfillment of MLK's prophecy. For my part, I'll suspend the Bubble Boy Awards until the world has read this essay.
I'm thinking about those tables in No Excuses again. The ones comparing blacks to whites to asians? I already noted one reason why these simple comparisons reflected ignorance on the part of researchers--no controls for other factors. Not region, not education level of parents, not amount of school spending (which ITSELF must be measured carefully, as old schools spend a LOT less on students than newer schools do because old schools have infrastructural problems), etc. This would be akin to measuring voting patterns of blacks and whites in the fifties and coming up with the conclusion that black folk don't give a damn about politics because they didn't vote at the same rates.
There is another significant problem in making blanket comparisons between Asian Americans and African Americans. The Asian American population is a conglomerate of several different ethnicities. Thai, Laotians, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indian, plus several others...all fall in the same pot. These groups have very different trajectories, and by lumping them together we are ignoring significant differences. I am fairly sure that scholars actually CAN disaggregate the "Asian" population they choose not to. Perhaps this is because only by aggregating them are the populations SOMEWHAT comparable in size (black population is around 40 million, the asian population is around 12 million). I also think though that aggregating them (particularly without controls) presents a statistical picture that is in line with the "model minority" myth. If for example, every Asian ethnicity other than the Japanese were shown to have lower incomes, and educational levels than whites, what would that do for the idea that Asians have this culture that causes them to succeed?
Last week it was announced in the New York Times that Savoy, Honey, and Heart and Soul would be shut down. While I liked Honey (kind of a hip-hopped out Essence), I thought Savoy was horrible. It was bad on its own terms, and in no way could it hold the jock strap of its predecessor, Emerge. I'm glad it is gone, and knew this moment was coming. If anything, the story of Emerge and Savoy tells us about the pitfalls associated with large scale black capitalism and black power.
First a bit of history is in order.
Emerge magazine was founded in 1989 as an attempt to deliver a hard hitting black-centered newsmagazine to the homes of black folk. Though there were some problems (a few of my colleagues criticized Emerge for their hiring practices, and some for its content as well), for my money Emerge was the best thing since Black World (a seventies attempt to do the same thing). George Curry's covers (and stories) about Clarence Thomas were legend. And Emerge's cover article about Kemba Smith (who was originally sent to prison for 25 years for her peripheral role in a drug deal involving small amounts of crack cocaine) arguably played an important role in the commutation of her sentence by President Clinton. It wasn't like Emerge didn't have a faithful consumer base--the magazine had a circulation of 150,000 which rates favorably in comparison to other news magazines--but was losing money at the rate of 1 million/year. So after eleven years, Bob Johnson cut his losses, shutting Emerge down and bringing in Keith Clinkscales (formerly associated with Vibe) to ring in a new era.
Keith's response to Emerge? Savoy.
Reading Savoy was like watching a train wreck. Instead of hard hitting articles about how the Contract With America was a Contract ON black folk, we got....Tom Joyner butt nekkid in the American flag. (I'm not making this up.) Clinkscales vision of Savoy was simple--neuter the political content, and make it a lifestyle magazine for middle to upper-income African Americans. Have puff pieces about pop stars, and fill the rest with new age self-help mantras.
Now to be fair Clinkscales had a plan that made sense. The reason that Emerge lost money was NOT because "black people didn't support it" (could we toss that tired phrase out?!?) but because the way magazines make money is ADVERTISING REVENUE. Circulation doesn't mean DIDDLY--except for the identification of prominent niche markets for advertisers. Clinkscale believed that advertisers didn't support Emerge because of its content. Create a magazine with different content but geared to the upper-income black market and ad revenue should POUR in right?
Nope. Though advertising execs will create niches where they didn't exist before and shill all sorts of products (does the phrase "metrosexual" ring a bell?), there are some niches that will continue to be woefully underserved. The sophisticated black market is most likely not deemed large enough to compete for or to sell to (as an entity in and of itself) with the exception of donations to super promoters.
This is key. For all the talk about starting our own and supporting our own, when we are dealing with large scale corporate enterprises (as opposed to regional or local ones) it is very very difficult to promote the old school values of integrity and pride, unless we're talking about Kwanzaa Cadillac commercials. We supported Emerge as much as our counterparts supported Time or US News and World Report, but because advertisers run the magazine business we were simply out of luck.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the future lies in cell-networks and regional ties, at a political, economic, and cultural level.