Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

Uppity Updates: Week of February 5, 2012

13 Feb

Every once in a while, the news cycle of the life and times of the goings-on of America produces a completely blog worthy week–and usually that’s the week or so I didn’t blog.  For long, long time readers, you all know that last week was a wonderful week to be a blogger.  From Roland Martin getting suspended by CNN, to Dr. Cornel West calling MSNBC darling Melissa Harris-Perry a “fake” and a “fraud” and a seemingly return of Sarah Palin at the God-awful CPAC convention this was certainly week to be in the blogging business.

Luckily, there are Uppity Updates.

Here’s my rundown of what happened last week.

1.  Roland Martin Gets Suspended from CNN for his Tweets

When GLAAD, the pro-LGBT alliance group made the charge that Martin should be suspended from CNN for homophobic tweets he tweeted during the SuperBowl, I immediately rushed to see what exactly he had tweeted.  Specifically, he tweeted,

If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl

and

Ain’t no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear! #superbowl

Roland Martin

Well, personally, I didn’t see either of those tweets at homophobic.  Not unless the definition of homophobic has changed, I understood the working definition to be any rhetoric or action that specifically disparages those who identify as homosexual.  I didn’t see Martin doing that with those tweets.  What I did see was Martin being anti-masculinist.

The anti-masculinist sentiment was that Martin seemed to be challenging the manhood of any man who wanted to see the David Beckham commercial.  Challenging one’s manhood doesn’t necessarily translate into alleging that one is gay.  Let’s remember words like “sissy” and “punk” do just as much about challenging one’s masculinity as they do to identify one as being gay.

In that regard, I think since Martin didn’t go out overboard with the tweet to say that any man who was hyped about the David Beckham ad was gay, I don’t think it’s fair to charge homophobia—for a few reasons.  If what Martin said were to wholly be categorized as homophobia, I believe that it negates a nuanced conversation that marginalized communities, such as the LGBT community, need to have to see true change occur in this country.  It’s as though GLAAD is a hammer, and therefore sees everything else as a nail, rather than a screw or some other tool.

More so for me, it negates a conversation that we haven’t really held in this country: one on masculinity, manhood and gender as separate entities from sexuality.  While yes all of these can be and are intertwined, we must try and raise the level of conversation.  In this instance, most persons didn’t hold the conversation about masculinity, which is what I particularly saw; everyone raced to have the homophobia discussion.  While one shouldn’t supersede the other, we must not forsake an easier target for one that is more nebulous in the public sphere.

The only article I saw was by a Charles Blow entitled “Real Men And Pink Suits“ out of the New York Times that attempted to have this masculinist and manhood conversation.  I think where Martin lost his witness was when he advocated violence.  In a time and place where violence against gay youth in the form of bullying has led to youth suicides, Martin’s tweets had the finesse of a wild boar hunting for prey.

Martin shouldn’t have tweeted it, but I don’t think it was worthy of a suspension either.

2.  Melissa Harris-Perry, Cornel West and the “Fraud” Alert

Perhaps Dr. Cornel West is the guy who sits and red flags your debit or credit card when it sees and out of town purchase simply because you decided to go on vacation randomly.   Or perhaps, maybe Dr. Harris-Perry is a fraud.

Who knows?

What I do know is that yet again, West came under fire for a war of words from an interview with Diverse magazine (p. 14) concerning some of his fellow public intellectuals.  Specifically, Rev. Al Sharpton and Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry.  We all remember the rather public and vehement disagreement Al Sharpton and West had last year on MSNBC with Ed Schultz looking a bit befuddled.  The two were having the classic activist versus academic debate.  I remember watching a bit chagrined having respect for both gentlemen and saying to myself, so it was obvious, these two don’t talk often.  That is to suggest, how could neither of them not be working with the other.

However, recently, I had a long discussion with a friend about the nature of the rhetoric of the likes of Cornel West.  While I’m not the biggest fan of his “jazz improvisation” speeches, I think mostly what Cornel does is attempt to raise the consciousness of the masses.  The likes of Dr. Harris-Perry and Al Sharpton do nothing more than broaden the conversation.  And yes, I am specifically valuing these theories.  To raise the consciousness requires a different rhetoric, and usually is missed on the majority of people, and West’s, at times, bombastic nature, doesn’t help.

We can all agree, calling your protegé a “fake” and a “fraud” doesn’t help your case at all.

But, if I understand West correctly, I can see why.

If Harris-Perry is your protegé and primarily, you have issue with their level of scholarship, and then they turn around, leave the institution you brought them to only to bad-mouth you the first chance you get, and then to fall in lockstep with the liberal establishment–then yes, to West, you are a fake.  Granted, I’m highly speculating, but perhaps West knows that Harris-Perry sold out some of her core ideals for the sake of getting the MSNBC nod.

I have always understood, however, that the work that I am about requires this and that, not one or the other.  A movement needs people who can work in the system and those outside of the system.  However, tension constantly will arise.  While West clearly stands outside of the larger system critiquing the system itself, the likes of Harris-Perry and Sharpton even to some extent, operate within the confines of that system.  It’s hard for an intellectual ideologue such as West to critique the system when people such as Sharpton have to operate within the system.

To West’s point about the lack of critique that Sharpton and Harris-Perry give to the Obama administration, I have to agree with him without any reservation.  I believe praise should be given when it is earned, and criticism should be given as well.  The moment we fall lockstep into any system, we have compromised ourselves; we are indeed a carbon copy, living on the ends of strings pulled by another.

Or else, he’s saying none of her work is her own.

Whatever, the case, I do think it should be noted that Harris-Perry is the only sitting tenured professor with a news program and that does say something about public intellectualism entering the broader discussion.

3.  President Obama, Birth Control and “Religious Freedom”

Since, I’m not Roman Catholic, I really don’t give a damn about contraceptives as it relates to religious beliefs.  And since I believe public health care should be considered a right under the law, which means I was, am and will always be in favor of a public option, I’m sure you can figure where I come down on this topic.

I really don’t know what Obama’s political strategy was in waging this debate in favor of women’s health knowing he was probably going to have to compromise on the topic.  I don’t know if it was a hat tip to pro-choice and other women’s groups going into the election cycle or was this a true political blunder.  I think the White House can use it in a general election as far as saying Obama stood his ground but was blocked by the GOP operation, blah blah blah.

However, it gets spun, I think women overall lost the debate.  Even those women who were against it in the first place.

I think if you want to offer a health service to the public, you need to play by public rules.  But, let’s remember much of the hubbub was coming from a party where current and former presidential candidates created a hypothetical scene where a non-insured injured person would be turned away from a hospital’s emergency room.  Catholic priests were alleging that their “religious freedom” was being trampled, and suddenly you started seeing black suits and white clergy collars appearing on all the news talk shows.

First things first.

Why are people taking sexual cues from a body of predominantly older white males who have taken a vow of chastity?  Even if they are off having sex somewhere, doesn’t that even still nullify the previously nullified position in which to sit and critique.  And let’s not mention, this is a seriously flawed body of men when it comes to the issue of sexual actions.  The Catholic priest sexual abuse cases still are not over yet.

Secondly, I fail to recognise how is one’s religious freedom opposed when forcing to provide a service for the public.  If the Catholic sponsored hospitals only hired Catholics, I could see how they could make the argument, but we all know that’s highly discriminatory and illegal in a public sector such as health care.  Or even if Catholic hospitals only treated Catholic patients, I could buy this, but we all know how ludicrous it is.  Out of all the debates I heard, none of them really made sense.  The various priests I saw on the news programs spoke as thought they were a part of divine aristocracy in which the rest of us had better get on board.

I do think the deeper, and much more legalistic debate is truly whether or not what precedent does this set as to what rights does a government have about forcing a religious institution to provide a service or a good that given other avenues is free.  To that end, I encourage you to check out another blogging source, Constitutional law really isn’t my strong suit.

Finally, and of the most importance to me, I thought it was quite curious that the country immediately jumped into the conversation about “religious freedom” as a means of protecting this concept, to which I immediately asked where was this level of conversation four years ago when Obama’s church and Jeremiah Wright entered the public sphere.  No one argued religious freedom when the concepts of Black liberation theology were discussed and dissected.  If you let the conservatives tell the story, including the likes of Rick Warren, just the basic tenets of liberation theology are heretical.

All in all, I think the White House could have handled it better, but still, the Catholic church was more of the loser in this case.  Yet, again, the Catholic church came off as a old curmudgeon wielding the same power Constantine exerted over his dynasty.  The fact that I live in a country that legislates policies on contraceptives while at the same time hollering about teenage pregnancy, HIV/AIDS rates and from an institution that comments on children born out of wedlock is mind boggling indeed.

4.  Sarah Palin is Still Here.

This one will be short and sweet.

As to why they decided to trot out Sarah Palin from under whatever rock Fox News had her hidden is beyond me.  Her digs were per usual at the President and full of venom filled one liners that would make a rattlesnake jealous.  What bothered me, was the presence of this character called Peter Brimelow who was asked to speak on a panel entitled ““The Failure of Multiculturalism:  How the Pursuit of Diversity is Weakening the American Identity.”  This guy is considered a white nationalist by some accounts.  Check out the clip below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtkA2yNuARg

And to think Herman Cain was on a stage with the likes of Peter Brimelow.  Diversity indeed.

5.  Chris Brown Come-back or Female Insensitivity

There was immediate backlash amongst those who felt that Chris Brown shouldn’t have been on stage at the Grammy’s last night nor should he have received any awards because it displays that domestic abuse is okay.  I disagree.  I have always disagreed with this line of reasoning.  What I’ve noticed in the three years since the incident happened between him and Rihanna is that women, in generall (emphasis on in general) are going to take a hardline approach as it relates to how they interpret justice in matters such as this.  Men, on the other hand, take a much more restorative approach toward justice.

I think, I comfortably fall in the latter part.

Part of the reason is that usually when I read these blog posts and status messages and tweets that are decidedly anti-Chris Brown, I don’t see them offering any type of logical ways for reconciliation, just retribution.  Many are saying he needs to be in counseling.  Okay, but for how long?  What type of counseling?  Does he need to be medicated?  Hospitalized?  Institutionalized, even?   Some say, he shouldn’t be up on the Grammy’s performing.  Okay, why not?  For how long?  What’s an appropriate punishment.  Usually these are questions that are never answered in their discourse.  If you’re ready to mete out punishment, that means that there will be a time when the punishment ends and then what does that mean for re-introduction back into society.

Moreover, what does that mean for Chris Brown doing what he does?  The music industry isn’t one controlled by a board where you can be demoted or what not as a means of punishment.  As far as I am concerned the Grammy nominating committee nominated who they thought was a good artist, not as a socio-political statement to say domestic abuse is alright.  The Grammy nominating committee isn’t, or rather, shouldn’t be judging based on one’s moral and ethical character, but rather the musical talent and offering of an artist.

Obviously, we have the black female blogosphere to judge Chris Brown’s moral and ethical character; the Grammy nominating committee need not offer their two cents.

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

How The West Was Won: Violence in the American Wild, Wild West

20 Jun

 

A little known factoid about me is that I like modern Westerns.

I don’t know what it is about them, but I do.  Personally I blame the “Back to the Future” trilogy.  That was a movie my parents had taped for me, only had part two and part three, but I watched them on repeat.  The third installment took place in the first week of September the year 1888 in the fictional Hill County, California.  It used all the stereotypes from the old Clint Eastwood movies with women wearing the frilly petticoats and dresses, the men all carrying six shooter pistols, fraught with saloons, blacksmiths, steam locomotives–something straight out of a Hollywood set.

I’ll admit, my intricate knowledge of the frontier is a bit slacking, that is to say that I’m not a scholar of this part of American history, however most Americans have become scholars in the Hollywood narrative of the American west.  My love for westerns, I think came from my liking of the computer game “The Oregon Trail.”  I remember the original game that my parents had on their Packard Bell 386 that you had to access the game from the C-prompt in DOS after you logged out of the Windows 3.1 version.  I remember the oxen dying and morbidly living through the virtual death of family members you named as they died from cholera and dysentery along the side of the 2,000+ mile trail.

I grew older and movies like “Back to the Future III,” “Tombstone” and “Young Guns” and even the comical “Cherokee Kid” and”Wild, Wild, West” were movies that I liked–the modern Westerns.  The remake of “3:10 to Yuma” was the movie that made me pause and think this out however.  The remake of “3:10 to Yuma” was a reaction more toward railroad barons and the expansion of America than the typical cowboys and Indians concept we have of when we think of Westerns.  Then I looked back at all of the Westerns that I had come to enjoy over my short years and I realized that for the most part Indians were non-existent in these movies.

Out of the movies that are a part of my modern Western viewing memory, only one short scene in “Back to the Future III” shows any aggression on behalf of tribal Indians.  In the other movies, Indian portrayal is that of some pseudo-assimilated male who is shown as a skilled warrior who doesn’t have a speaking role.  If an tribal woman is shown in the movie, she’s usually portrayed as some mystic or exotic beauty that transfixes the lead character and becomes some type of romantic interest for the movie.

Like I said, I’m not a historian, but somehow these staid plot lines seem like Hollywood machinations.

What bothers me about this is the gross romanticizing that gets done in this movies.  It’s one thing to portray this fictional historical account about “how the West was won” with regards to American settlers on tribal territories and the reverse barbarianism of whites against Native Americans, but even the false depictions of everyday life have begun to irritate me.

Now I was the geek that watched the episodes of “1900 House” and “Frontier House” set in 1883 Montana on PBS (and yes, I remember seeing Oprah with no makeup when she and Gayle did a guest appearance on “Colonial House”), and trust me, the life was NOT glamorous.  The people were dirty all the time, there was no indoor plumbing, life was hard even on a good day and sicknesses were a constant threat.  So when I watch these movies and see these people in pristine clothing that looks tailor made (as it is a costume), no one exerting more energy than what it takes to saddle a horse and draw a pistol or a knife, I find myself rolling my eyes.  To see these women, as portrayed in “Tombstone” living the grand life of ease and even wearing makeup–by golly, they had makeup out in Tombstone, Arizona that readily available?  Color me surprised.

But, I’m not a historical expert on this.

It teeters into the realm of revisionist history.  I think even the most conservative historians would have to admit that Hollywood has romanticized the view of the “wild, wild, West” to the point of pure fiction.  What personally irritates me is this glorification of Americanity through violence.  The West, as we know it, was “won” through violence.  For as much hard work, endurance and perseverance settlers and homesteaders who emigrated west put into establishing towns and settlements, they were occupying previously inhabited land.  I guess the glory of the slayings of tribal Indians doesn’t go over well in Hollywood.

No wonder we haven’t seen a modern Western movie about the Battle of  Little Bighorn, huh?  Portraying the might of the American military as losers just isn’t a story worth telling for Hollywood.

I had a friend in high school, the son the Polish immigrants to Chicago and a Poland native himself evidenced with a last name full of hard consonantal clusters say in our 12th grade AP U.S. History class that if it wasn’t for the settlers that we’d all be living in teepees.  I think that’s when I stood up and knocked over my chair incredulous that he felt comfortable enough to say that out loud, let alone that this was a belief of his.  And others in the class just seemed a bit indifferent to the statement.  So if the son of Polish immigrants felt this way, one had bought into the American story so wholly as his own, what about the rest of us?

"Manifest Destiny"

Without question, history is written by the victors.  In this case the victors are white, heterosexual males.  The “cowboy” depiction is one of those Alpha-male images that Americans easily identify with.  It’s a defined ruggedness that is equated with the epitome of maleness.  From images of the Marlboro Man wearing the large Stetson to George W. Bush making covert cowboy references with regards to our foreign policy on terrorism and Osama bin Laden.  Such images and rhetoric respectively conjure sensibilities that are familiar and uniquely American.

What I’m having issues with is that a) how we have seemingly revised the history of the American west post-Civil War until 1900 and b) how comfortable we are with “West being won” through means of terroristic violence.

The acts of terrorism on behalf of railroad barons, US military and the pop-up haphazard local law enforcement from local territories toward tribal Indians was merely one small step away from being categorized as a successful genocide.  The calculated and wanton extermination of Indians is absolutely repulsive.  I guess it’s not a hard stretch because of the infuse of theology into the equation.  The historical concept of “manifest Destiny” is just as much of a theological mindset as it was a domestic policy concept.   There was the belief that the American settlers had been ordained by God to inhabit the land.

This isn’t an unfamiliar biblical concept.

The Israelites were sanctioned by God to inhabit the “land of the giants,” which was Canaan and they had God-specified orders to kill everyone and everything.  I’m not making this up–go read the first eight chapters of the Book of Joshua.  We so readily identify with the victors of the story that we rarely if ever see things from the side of the victims of the story.  Honestly, can you imagine Canada saying that God told them to begin inhabiting the city of Jericho Detroit, just on the other side of the river Jordan Detroit and the U.S. would be okay with it?

I was spurred to write this story after seeing the following trailer.

I can only imagine what this plot will hold for us.  No doubt the name of the town is going to have some apocalyptic end-of-the-world terror infused in it and I’d bet money that somehow the cowboys and Indians are going to unite powers in order to defeat the aliens–yet again, history isn’t being told.  I guess when you throw aliens into the story line all bets are off on sticking to historical facts.  To that end, I guess I can concede a bit.  But I wonder will the film fall into the “us vs. them” dichotomy, but still reserving Americanity as superior and therefore “us” is better and will prevail.  I mean, I can hardly see a Hollywood moving diverting from that path; why would we image “them” as better than “us”?

But if the movie goes that way, the aliens being superior–obviously when it comes to technology–then what does that say about cowboys versus Indians?  Does it not admit that belligerent and hegemonic behavior is abhorrent?  Essentially it does, but no doubt the underlying message will still be that America is the best.  No doubt the cowboys of the movie will prevail based on their grit, their endurance, perseverance and their strong belief in American values (whatever those are) thus showing that the alien and Indian narrative are subordinate to theirs.

Is it wrong that the nomenclature of “alien” in the midst of our ongoing domestic immigration policies with ethnic Mexicans is a bit too ironic for me to not laugh at loud?

On another note, why are imaging manliness with a name that refers to men as a “boy”?

Just asking.

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

Promoting Literature for Black History Month — and other Housekeeping rules

16 Feb

I know it's a Bible in that picture, but you get the point.

 

I get a LOT of emails from concerned readers of the personal sort, and I get a fair amount of emails about various blog promotions.  Here’s a rule of thumb for anyone reading this: I usually don’t add blogs that I don’t frequent. If I added every blog that someone solicited to me via email, I’d have a blogroll longer than the blog myself.  And also I get emails with persons soliciting their pieces for me to publish.  Again, if I’m not doing an exchange with another blogger, I’m not randomly going to post your piece just because–that’s why you should start your own blog!  Be empowered!  You can do it!

That being said, I did get an email about a promotion for black children’s books at a site called NorthParan.com and I looked at the site and figured it wouldn’t hurt to do a promotion for them.  Don’t get used to this, but here goes. Check them out.  Truthfully and radically yours, JLL

Let me tell you about a new website that could potentially be a game-changer for black children across the globe. NorthParan.com is adding a philanthropic touch to the business of selling black books. For every book purchased on the site, North Paran will donate a book to a child in need. The site’s slogan is Buy One, Give One.

 

In the life of a child there is nothing more powerful than a book. It has the potential to free a child’s mind, to open up a world of possibilities. Incredibly, the mere presence of books in the home can lead to greater academic achievement: researchers have determined that a child who grows up in a home with at least 500 books will attain three more years of education than a student with no books in the home. But for millions of children in the United States and around the world, their access to age-appropriate books is limited or nonexistent. North Paran’s mission is to change that.

 

Neil Nelson, the site’s co-founder, is driven by the memories of his childhood in Jamaica, when his family only had five books in the house that he and his sister had to share. But Neil read those five books over and over, until he had all the words memorized. Now he wants to change this bleak picture for as many children as he can. After starting a vastly successful celebrity news and video site that reached nearly 30 million unique visitors last year, Neil partnered with husband-and-wife authors Nick Chiles and Denene Millner to create NorthParan.com, a cutting-edge site that will publicize black books and nourish black children. Chiles and Millner have written or co-written 19 books between them—Millner is the co-author with Steve Harvey of the #1 New York Times bestseller “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man,” which was the top-selling nonfiction book in the country in 2009, and the sequel “Straight Talk, No Chaser,” which has already reached #1 on the New York Times list. Chiles co-authored with gospel legend Kirk Franklin “The Blueprint,” which also was a New York Times bestseller last year. Millner and Chiles are both also award-winning journalists and the parents of three children of their own.

 

By spreading the word and making all your book purchases at NorthParan.com, you can help get a book in the hands of every child in our community. If, for every book we bought in 2009, a free book was given to a child in our community, we could give 4 free books to every Black child under age 10 in America.

 

Buy One, Give One.

 



Merry Christmas

25 Dec

Hopefully, you’re not reading this on Christmas Day.

I mean honestly, who blogs on Christmas Day?  This is a timed post, I created this sometime earlier this week.  But, if you’re the lonely sap who’s actually reading blogs on Christmas Day, then I guess a Merry Christmas is in order to you and yours from the Uppity Negro Network.  And I guess if you’re reading this after Christmas Day, I hope you and yours had a great holiday.

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

A Silent Killer: The Raz-B Sensationalism of Sexual Molestation and Abuse

2 Dec

Chris Stokes De'Mario "Raz B" Thornton

 

[Editor's note: I'm not a trained therapist nor a psychologist.  What I have written is strictly my opinion and my armchair diagnosis.  Please do not interpret this as sound medical advice. JLL]

On Sunday our church did the cardboard testimonies that have become somewhat popular in the emergent church.  This is where persons write what they have endured, what they have overcome from personal battles with physical sickness, to death, to drug and alcohol addictions on one side, and then they flip them over to say what their current status is; what used to be a prayer concern into a praise report.  Out of the approximately 20 or so individuals who got up on this past Sunday, perhaps two persons mentioned sexual abuse on one side of their cardboard sign, and it got me to thinking, just how many people have truly been abused.

We live in a society where we’re bombarded with everything and all the time.  For many of us the only time we have to turn everything off is when we’re sleep.  As participants of Western culture we’ve become quite lax in our ability to deal with serious issues in our day to day lives; I don’t necessarily blame the private citizen no more than I blame some faceless government.  It’s just that at the end of the day marginalized segments of our communities are systematically having their voice being taken away from them and the rest of us are still mesmerized by the “rockets red glare” and “the bombs bursting in air” to realize what’s happening under our very noises.

As I write this post one day after World AIDS Day, when we pause to acknowledge the horrors of HIV/AIDS here in our country and how it has ravaged sub-Saharan Africa; after persons have placed red ribbons in their Twitter and Facebook profile pages; after individuals have changed their status updates and tweets, the question is what have we really done?  Have we done something tangible like actually go get tested or has it been something unseen like having a change of mind about the whole HIV/AIDS situation.

Or have we been unaffected by it?

I think far too often, far too many of us fall into this latter category, not just with HIV/AIDS but with many things.  Such is the case for this blog post when it comes to sexual abuse of children and teenagers.

It came out a few years ago that the former manager, Chris Stokes, of the now defunct early 2000s boy band B2K had molested members of B2K, specifically Raz-B.  Raz-B, who’s name is De’Mario Thornton, came forward with the allegations in 2007, then suddenly recanted them shortly after.  The recanting raised suspicion that perhaps Chris Stokes had paid Raz off in order to keep him quiet about the whole situation.  Fast forward to 2010, suddenly the public has gotten treated to Raz-B making the outlets of social media vis a vis YouTube and the wretched WorldStarHipHop, his personal therapy session.  Check out the following clips below, none of which are safe for work (NSFW):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first three clips are in no particular order, but the last one was a clip I came across as I was preparing for this post, and was uploaded December 1st.

As it stands right now, through these series of videos, Thornton is alleging sexual molestation and abuse at the hands of Marques Houston and Chris Stokes.  Combined with his initial 2007 allegation, Thornton is also saying that he was not the only person that suffered abuse.

Naturally, in the heteronormative world that is the music industry the concept of homosexual acts being made public would not only cause a firestorm in the entertainment media world, but it would also force us as a consumerist public how would we handle a now openly gay superstar.  Gossip blogs have long since rumored about the lengths gone to cover up gay affairs amongst celebrities from actors, to singers and even athletes.  The gossip business has metastasized in the the Information Age, where no long do you have to wait for a tabloid rag to publish it, but one need only type in T-M-Z-dot-com to get a scoop–the veracity of which has no bearing.

When Raz-B made his appearance at a pride festival and made an appearance on “Noah’s Arc” everyone was quick to question his sexuality.  Even still now, as a society we have yet to fully grasp the concepts of sex and sexuality and understanding that there really is a difference.  For many people it’s clear cut: you mess with the same sex, one is automatically gay and the concept of being bisexual isn’t entertained.  And also, many people don’t like the “labels” that society place on them.  Whereas they may identify themselves as bisexual, society may just slap the title gay on them and move forward.

I’m not writing this blog post to speculate about Thornton’s sexuality, but I do want to address, from my perspective just how sex and sexuality gets so tragically misinformed because of sexual abuse.

Assuming the allegations are true (and that this isn’t some grand publicity stunt), Thornton’s concept of sexuality is certainly going to be challenged.  This is not to say that automatically because he was molested by men that he’s automatically gay (no that’s bad logic and those two events are mutually exclusive unless otherwise proven based on the individual), but that how he views how sex works in tandem with positive views of how to handle one’s sexuality will definitely need to be addressed.

A warped understanding of sexuality can certainly compound itself and manifest itself in later in unhealthy ways: the abused can become an abuser.  They abuse the young children around them, they mistreat the ones they’re in a relationship with, may even commit rape.  Even benign neglect can occur when they see the signs of abuse happening in the lives of someone else, they turn a blind eye simply because they have projected their own hurt onto someone else, and they are unable to cope with it.

A personal question I have, and a very serious one, at what age, regardless of what some state law deems, does one really have consensual sex?  I ask that question seriously because many of my readers and persons I am friends with lost their virginity knowingly at the ages of 12, 13, and 14.  Oddly enough, 12 months difference at 15, 16 and 17 respectively are relatively common enough ages that persons have knowingly engaged in sex.  For them their journey with their sexuality had begun probably even before the actual act of sex as with most kids when we hit puberty and adolescence.

While I’m not trying to label Raz B as anything, I do question just how non-consensual these sexual acts were.  In this case, as it has been presented to us, particularly as he went into detail about his encounter with Marques Houston, who is a peer of his, that question popped up into my head.  Don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t take much for this to be non-consensual.  But just as much as this may have been forced, it may not have been.

However, it is a problem that a fully grown adult, Chris Stokes, is alleged to have a part in this which ultimately collapses my whole theory.  But, since this was a post about sex and sexuality, I felt it key to dissect some of that dynamic.  Adults who do anything sexually with a child are just reprehensible in my opinion.  When adults do that they can give a kid a complex they have to wrestle with until their old age.

It’s plain to see that Thornton has some serious unresolved issues. Even Ray J in the midst of his probably intoxication asks Thornton why is he putting all of these conversation on YouTube and WorldStarHipHop because these are certainly private moments that he is making public.  Raz B is going public and still failing to file a police report before statute of limitations ends on such alleged crimes makes one wonder how serious these allegations truly are.  I think Raz B is a poster child for what not to do after being hurt.

Understandably it requires courage that many of us who have not been abused can’t fathom even remotely, to come forward and admit out loud that one has been victimized.  That being said, if anyone who has been victimized, going on manic rants like Raz B has done, secretly taping conversation with persons on speaker phone is not appropriate behavior.  From my armchair perspective, Raz B is allowing his hurt to manifest itself in an attempt to hurt other people.

Not to mention, I think he’s doing a damn good job of sensationalizing sexual abuse.

Marques Houston and Raz-B

The sensationalism is occurring in much the same way that the public was pulled into the domestic abuse situation with Juanita Bynum (the first, I suppose) in 2007 and certainly the way the country was treated to the allegations of sexual misconduct with Bishop Eddie Long just a few months ago.  When one feels the need to act manic on the phone with an alleged abuser, or even go into detail about a mole on a certain testicle of the abuser and be eerily cavalier about the whole conversation left me in a daze.  Honestly, I watched the clip and I heard him, and what other reports say to be a relatively unknown singer by the name of Quindon Tarver, and hear them share these stories with salacious and intricate details, my mouth literally dropped as I tried to process what was going through Raz B’s mind as he felt comfortable enough to film this and then post it.  It seems like Raz B is on a personal mission, with a vendetta (rightly so I guess) to just malign Chris Stokes and Marques Houston.

And I want to know who was behind the camera in a few of these clips.

Nevertheless, it sickens me that there are adults out here who take advantage of little kids for their own twisted and personal gain.  It equally sickens me when adults see peer-to-peer abuse, or an older brother molesting a younger cousin and the adults see the signs and refuse to acknowledge it.  Stemming from the “children are to be seen, not heard” approach to parenting has led to formerly voiceless children growing into adults and perpetuating the the same cycle of silence that has opened the door for other youth and young adults to be both victims and victimizers.  Both can grow up to have unhealthy approaches to sex and sexuality that go unaddressed for their whole lives.

We have to stop this cycle of sexual terrorism and violence in our own families.  Let’s listen to our children and love our children.  It’s not okay for our single mothers to leave their children with Ray-Ray and Je’Marcus all day or all night because you had a function to go to.  It’s not okay for parents of celebrity kids to essentially pimp off their children to Hollywood just so they can live a life they always wanted to.

It’s not okay.  And we need to remain uncomfortable with it until times get better.

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

Modern Day Dixiecrats: The Tea Party Movement

24 Nov

I made the comparison in an earlier blog post surrounding the midterm elections at the beginning of this month relating the Tea Partyers to the Dixiecrats.  It was really  after seeing Gov. Haley Barbour, R.-Miss. flanking soon be Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner, R.-Oh. hold a press conference in the following hours after the GOP took back the House.  Little did I know that I had somewhat stumbled onto a pretty appropriate comparison.

The official name of the Dixecrats home party was the States’ Rights Democratic Party.  They were a short-lived political party established in 1948 and dissolved in the same year after the presidential election.  They’re most famous for running then South Carolina governor J. Strom Thurmond.  What categorized the States’ Rights Party was their segregationist stance, their conservative social values, and their investment into Jim Crow laws in the South and viewed such liberal policies as intrusive of the federal government.  The party was formed due to the realignment of political parties coming out of the New Deal era and Franklin D. Roosevelt style of politics from the last 16 years of the Roosevelt-Truman administrations.  Their main point of contention was Truman signing Executive Order 9981 integrating the U.S. Armed Services and proving equal pay to all military personnel according to proper rank.

1948 "Dixiecrat" campaign poster for Strom Thurmond and his running mate

The Democratic National Party at the time of the 1948 convention made the decision to take a civil rights platform coming out of the New Deal that had finally begun to win African American and Latin immigrant support with the creation of programs such as the WPA [Editors note: hint hint Obama] and all of Alabama’s delegates walked out with a significant portion of Mississippi’s delegates and from this group formed the States’ Rights Democratic Party.  The term “Dixecrat” is a linguistic portmanteau from “Dixie” referring to the romanticized name of the Confederate States of America, or those states that seceded from the Union by 1861 prior to the Civil War, and the last syllable of “Democrat.”

While naturally they knew that they could not win that magical number of 50% + 1 in the electoral college vote, they were hoping that neither of the other parties would have had enough either thus forcing the House of Representatives to go into session and ballot until a President was picked.  As a result, they figured they, as a southern bloc of congressmen, would be able to sway the vote away from Truman.  As it would play out, the Dixiecrats got 39 electoral college votes, not enough to prevent one clear winner

Although the official title of States’ Rights Democratic Party was dropped, the moniker of Dixiecrats stayed around through the 1950s and presented itself in the 1964 Presidential election.  The 1964 Civil Rights Act awas the final straw for Southern Dixiecrats who overwhelming switched over Republican and began to rally behind Barry Goldwater who was the Republican nominee.  It backfired horribly for Goldwater who only carried the states in the Deep South with Johnson winning by a landslide.  However, by 1968 the Republicans had developed their “Southern strategy” a GOP tactic still in relative use today.  This “southern strategy” appealed used code phrases such as “law and order” and drove home the idea of “states’ rights.”  Although former Democratic Governor George Wallace of Alabama (famous for his “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” quote) ran in 1968 and garnered 36 electoral votes, it still gave way for the Republican party to make inroads.  By 1972, what had once been a solid Democratic base had now switched over Republican when it came to national elections.

Fast forward to 2009.

We have the seeds of the Tea Party movement which started out as a bad joke that got parodied ad nauseum about being teabaggers, and the vulgar sexual act associated with being tea bagged.  I really don’t think anyone figured they would have been a power to contend with until current Senator Scott Brown, R.-Mass. won over Atty. General Martha Coakley in February 2010 to finish out Ted Kennedy’s term and he had Tea Party endorsement.  Ever since then, in the 2010 midterm election year, many candidates won GOP nominations in the spring primaries over well established Republican candidates.

By all accounts the Tea Party movement is a populist movement, but still it does not have the respect and political capital that it needs.  However, I think that to be honest, the Tea Party can trace its political history to one of the earliest compromises facing the national government: the 3/5 compromise.

The issue of race and how the Anglo-Saxon transplants viewed non-Europeans has been at issue since Christopher Columbus thought he had landed in India in 1492, and was solidified when the Jamestown colonists brought over the first slaves in 1619, a mere eight years after the publication of King James I, publication and translation of the Judeo-Christian holy scriptures.  So by the ratification of the Constitution in 1787 the 3/5 compromise, yes was primarily to address population numbers, thusly how congressional districts and seats were apportioned.  The southern delegates wanted their slaves to count as full persons, the northern delegates said that would unfairly give congressional control to the Southern states–they agreed on counting “all other persons” meaning the slaves as 3/5ths of a person.

Once that was accomplished, the slaveocracy of the South was always embattled with the North until the tipping point of the Civil War.  The Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the death knell of the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857, and Abraham Lincoln’s election in fall of 1860 to the presidency.

At issue for the Southern states then as it is now in 2010 is this damn issue of “states’ rights.”

The Tea Party movement has launched the old school model of conservatism about the intrusiveness of federal government.  But see, for me, this hearkens back to the antebellum South when whites and even those after the Civil War regarded Jim crow laws and politics as “states’ rights” that needed not be intruded upon.  This is why when I hear Tea Partyers utilize the “Dont Tread on Me” mantra I have to wonder which rights are they really concerned about.

The Gadsden Flag

Not to mention, when I hear Sarah Palin and her ilk make mention of “taking back our country” it reeks of the Southern congressional bloc that felt the same way about Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Speaking of which, Senator-elect Rand Paul has taken issue with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed discrimination in private businesses holding to his staunch libertarian philosophy that private businesses should be able to determine who they choose to do business with, while still denouncing slavery.  Granted states’ rights issues are valid at times when it comes to issues like the Patriot Act and unwarranted search and seizure, but those have more to do with individual rights rather than the federal government intervening on civil rights and equal rights issues.

Hearing speeches to “real Americans” and wanting to “take back our country” are code words just like “states’ rights” and “law and order” were key phrases in the 1968 and 1972 Nixon campaigns.  I don’t know what the Tea Party movement plans on doing in the next two years, but I’m not looking forward to it.  Compared to 1948, the election cycle is nearly doubled and the concept of a 24-hour news cycle was unheard of–there wasn’t even the 11 o’clock news. Persons got their news from the closest metropolitan daily that may or may not have had a late edition depending on circulation numbers.  As for us, by March 2011 we’ll already be hearing about presidential candidates with the first caucus and primary still 10 months ahead.  With presidential campaigns easily totally $1,000,000,000+ of combined monies spent from all candidates, it’s no telling what the Tea Party has planned.

For all intents and purposes, the GOP has no solid candidate that I think has a shot at Barack Obama barring a catastrophic fall from the good graces of the people.  Here are a few GOP nominees I could see receiving Tea Party support and possibly making a run for the White House in 2012.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour — Although I predicted that John Boehner was going to make a run for the White House (and that’s still entirely possible), I will admit I didn’t see Gov. Haley Barbour announcing a 2012 White House run first.  I figured Barbour was going to be a major player when I saw him flanking Boehner in his first press conference after his re-election victory speech. Haley Barbour would undoubtedly have Tea Party support–he’s a good ol’ boy from the heart of Dixie.  But like his Dixiecrat predecessors, he wouldn’t make a showing outside of the old Cotton Belt.  Mississippi politics are about as interesting as Maine politics and about as influential as Wyoming congresspersons.  Mississippi, like Alaska, would be another state that the U.S. public would hear about that no one knew about prior to it.

In some cases, the picking of a vice-presidential candidate would make a serious difference, but I don’t even think liberal Republicans want to associate themselves with him.  When I think of Barbour, I think of former Senate leader Trent Lott, and when I think of Trent Lott, I think of Strom Thurmond.  Moreover, I personally don’t think Barbour has a shot simply because Mississippi’s public record is dismal.  Honestly, this list is atrocious.

  • Mississippi, although has the lowest cost of living in the Union, it has the lowest per capita income of just under $27,000.
  • Despite having cut many social welfare programs such as Medicare/Medicaid, public aid and food stamp programs, Mississippi ranks second in receiving federal money on such programs.
  • The National Assessments of Educational Progress ranked Mississippi last in public education when it came to math and science scores; American Legislative Exchange Council’s Report Card on Education ranked Mississippi last when it came to ACT test scores.
  • Mississippi was ranked sixth lowest in states when it comes per pupil spending

Haley Barbour, I’m sure doesn’t want that among other shortcomings to come to light.  And aside from that, I’m sure us bloggers and reporters won’t to want to have to do “Em-eye-crooked letter, crooked letter, eye, crooked letter, crooked letter, eye, humpback, humpback, eye” just to spell out Mississippi.  I’m doubly sure no one wants to get familiar with Mississippi politics the way we have when it comes to Alaska.

On civil rights: Q: What has four eyes but still can’t see? A: Mississippi.

Mike Huckabee

Former Governor Mike Huckabee, R. -Ark. — I have to say, Mike Huckabee is my younger version of John McCain.  For me, all hope wouldn’t be lost if this country elected him.  At least that’s the impression I get of him.  He usually presents himself as calm, well-mannered, keeps a smile on his face, for what it’s worth he doesn’t seem rabid about his politics.  Watching him on opposition television shows like when he’s been on Sunday morning news shows, or even recently when on “The View” he doesn’t present such a hard edge that makes one listen with disdain.  And frankly, he seemed happy to engage persons like Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg–which one can’t always say.

I know I don’t have a lot of support on this one, but I think as of now, going into 2011, Mike Huckabee is the only person who could put up a decent showing against Barack Obama come 2012.  Granted Obama will have a long list of incumbent accomplishments that I think would trounce anything Huckabee could throw his way, but nonetheless I think he could do it.  Although, it depends on his running mate.  A running mate in Huckabee’s case, unlike Barbour, would be crucial in how he will progress amongst the populace.

Former Governor Sarah Palin, R.- Alaska — This woman is certifiable.  One of my blogging big brothers Citizen Ojo over at Desultory Life and Times of a Public Citizen just did a blog post on this banshee of a woman.  I think it does speak volumes to one’s credibility when in the same week two established Republicans make a dig at you in public.  On ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour, George Will read her the riot act and former First Lady Barbara Bush said that Palin should “stay in Alaska.”

 

 

Me and The Critical Cleric joked that her vice-presidential candidacy had devolved into some sick joke from her watching how she played the VP debates and her secrecy when asked by a reporter on a frosty November morning election day 2008 “who did you vote for?”  She had foreseen all of this.  Much to the chagrin of the liberal blogosphere who had predicted that Palin, by now, would be a trivia question on “Who Wants To Be Millionaire?” game show, and not a culturally relevant phenomenon that has capitalized on being politically unpredictable and insane at the same time.

What half an ounce of credibility she had with those outside of the Tea Party vanquished when she quit her job in a rambling speech no one could comprehend not even the grizzlies in the background.  Her tweets on Twitter are God-awful and aren’t worthy of anyone beyond 6th grade school girls.  She claimed to be Shakespeare when she clearly confused the words “repudiate” and “refute” into the nightmarish portmanteau* of “refudiate.”  As the foolishness of pop-culture reigns, this orthographic anomaly has become New Oxford American Dictionary has entered it as the word of the year.

In short, as George Will said, there’s nothing presidential about Sarah Palin.  She’s appearing on reality shows with her daughter and has her own reality show with her clubbing fish that she’s caught on expeditions into the wild.  Aside from this, she spending the majority of her time doing things that do nothing to help the people she’s claiming to want to help.  While raking in money with these speaking engagements, she can’t even do the Sunday news shows because she’d probably come off sounding like failed Tea Party hopeful Christine O’Donnell.

*************************

In short, I’m not sure what the Tea Party has up their sleeve, but certainly, I wouldn’t be shocked if we see them file to get on the ballot in Fall 2012 in many of these states and run their own candidate.  If that’s the case, I’m still holding to my Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin ticket prediction.  Seeing as how it’s hard to see that far into the future, who knows what a presidential race that would go to the House look like.

Worst case scenario neither Obama nor the GOP candidate gets enough votes to get the White House, and the House of Representatives is still split three ways with the Democrats voting on party lines, and the GOP split between a GOP candidate and those who want the Tea Party candidate.  The reason I propose this as plausible is because John Boehner is a darling of the Tea Party movement and poised to be Speaker of the House in 2012 when the electoral college is voting for president.  What they don’t want to happen is a deadlock that would send this vote to the Senate which is still Democratic and that would be the end of the story.

There’s no way to tell if the Tea Partyers have such a political strategy in mind especially because they’re not even a national party, but seeing as how their platform seems like a page out of the 1948 Dixiecrat playbook, I certainly wouldn’t be shocked.

What are your thoughts on those potential Tea Party backed GOP nominees for the 2012 presidential election?  Am I the only one who sees such horrific parallels between Dixiecrats and Tea Partyers?

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

* Yes, I used the word portmanteau twice in a blog. :)

When Fantasy World Hits Home: A Social Gospel of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (and another novel I read as well)

23 Nov

I went to go see “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Pt. 1” today at the local IMAX theatre.  I figured that if I was going to spend $11 on a regular ticket at a downtown theatre that’s closest to me, I might as well go to see it in IMAX.  So, I saw the movie and for me to call it dark was a bit of an understatement.  Certainly non-readers and only movie goers had long since noted the dark turn that the series took by the fourth movie “Goblet of Fire” and the death of Cedric Diggory in the Triwizard Tournament.  The movies had become famous for having that one moment where Harry relishes being a wizard and the audience is treated to some magical fare be it the food magically appearing on the tables at Hogwarts in the first movie, to the Weasley tent revealing a full house inside while at the Quidditch Cup in the beginning of the fifth movie “Order of the Phoenix.”

By this final movie, a two-step finale, there was no bright spot in this movie.  Much of this movie was filmed in remote locales from dense forests to mountainside cliffs; aside from the content being dark, even cinematographically, the movie was dark.  There were no scenes that used sunlight.  Even daytime scenes were always dark and cloudy days.  About the brightest scene, ironically, was when Harry Potter was burying the liberated house elf he had befriended a few years ago named Dobby.

Anyone who has read the books certainly know the gripping fear that has been instilled in the lives of those in both the wizarding and Muggle world alike, and that’s about where I want to take my point of departure for the purposes of this blog.  I think its more than safe to say that J.K Rowling, author and creator of the Harry Potter series didn’t have a political or religious agenda when she wrote these books, but seeing as how each book got progressively longer ending with an 800+ page tome, some of the real world parallels are hard to miss.

To totally Americanize this story and read into characters that Rowling did not at all intend is what I’m about to do with full foreknowledge that I’m making this up. I want to explore the “opposition” so to speak just to make some comparisons with our own existence.  So now you, the reader, is forewarned.

Plot: Without going into the whole background of the story from movie one, Lord Voldemort is back and he has his Death Eaters with him.  His sole purpose is to kill Harry Potter.  Through nefarious acts his Death Eaters subsume control of the Ministry of Magic, and begin this propaganda against Muggles and Mudbloods alike in favor of Wizards as a superior race of creatures.  Concurrently, Harry Potter and his two friends Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley are on a hunt for the horcruxes (if lost, you need to see movie six).  The horcruxes contain fragments of Voldemort’s soul and act as objects, if destroyed, will in turn weaken Voldemort. This movie climaxes with a showdown between Death Eaters and Voldemort retrieving an object needed for his continued immortality.

Yes, he's that terrifying!

Lord Voldemort — Particularly given Voldemort ethereal status until the end of the last movie, I certainly see Voldemort as fear personified.  First making an appearance on the back of a professor’s head in the first installation, he’s come a long way: first inhabiting a person, then becoming a ghost of spirit, not quite tangible to finally having a complete human form.  In our American culture, we certainly operate off of fear.  Most recently, the whole ruckus surrounding the TSA and pat downs versus the body scanners has struck fear in our hearts.  And certainly entities such as the Tea Party and even conservative factions in this country count on instilling fear in Americans surrounding health care, immigration, abortion and other flashpoint topics.

What I thought was great that the movie showed how afraid the Malfoy family had become.  Once portrayed as a towering character of a man, Lucius Malfoy, father of Draco, had been reduced to a cowering wimp of a man, unshaven and acting out of fear of Voldemort.

Bellatrix Lestrange — Bellatrix is one of those fanatical persons who actually is a real life version of the non-tangible fear; she is the reason why we fear.  She has left a blood trail steeped in her fanaticism of pure-bloods [of Wizards] against Mudbloods and Muggles alike.  I think Bellatrix, would be a rabid member of the Tea Party.  She’d be the horrible combination of Senator-elect Ron Paul, R-Ky., and failed GOP candidates Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell.  Bellatrix has bought into the ideal of pure-bloods being better than Muggles and so much so that she has killed on behalf of Voldemort, which is synonymous with fear: so because of her fear, she felt justified to torture, kill and maim others.

She’s one of those nasty characters in the movie that just won’t die.  So far in the movies, she’s done more killing than she’s dong dying.  It leaves a very realistic message in the minds of the readers and viewers alike that people like her do exist and they don’t give up or go away without a nasty and bitter fight and a fight where the good guys take more casualties than the ones who clearly have evil intentions.

Dolores Umbridge — Admittedly, I didn’t like Umbridge for personal reasons.  Honestly, she reminded me of my 1st period World History teacher from 9th grade.  I just remember reading the book and having projection issues.  Every time I read “Dolores Umbridge” my mind translated it to “Ms. M. Sl——” from the 1998-99 school year.  That’s my personal hangup, but we saw her in the fifth installment usurp her power to become the High Inquisitor of the Ministry of Magic under an impotent and ineffective Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge (who for me was a clear George W. Bush parallel).  Aside from being the eyes and ears for a Ministry of Magic on Dumbledore and Hogwarts activities, she was actually a sadistic woman.  She tortured Harry in her class by making him write lines with a pen that would etch what he wrote into the back of his hand.

Dolores Umbridge -- Don't let the smile and tea fool you.

I think what made Dolores Umbridge uniquely evil was that she was sadistic–she got great joy out of others’ pains.  She would wear a smile on her face and let out a chortle as she was meting out her pain.  We saw her utter disregard for other life forms when she met the centaur’s in the fifth installment as well.  Here in this last installment, she has been as the head of Muggle Registry, essentially declaring the pure-blood status of persons, or declaring the real Americans Wizards from those who aren’t.

It wasn’t hard for me to equate Sarah Palin with Dolores Umbridge.  The two have a thing for power and authority over another.  Although honestly, I don’t know who would be worse to be elected in the United States.  By all accounts, Umbridge is a high functioning individual, evil as all get out, but high functioning.  You don’t see Umbridge doing reality TV shows and making guest appearances on decidedly unpresidential venues such as “Dancing With The Stars.”  I don’t know what would be worse, the dumb and deliberate Palin (yes, please believe she knows what she’s doing) or the intelligent and calculated Umbridge.

I will say that based on the book and the movie, it’s unclear whether Umbridge is unaware of who she’s really working for.  She’s never come forward as a Death Eater, but just as a rabid and evil individual interested in maintaining Wizard superiority.  At times I say the same thing about Palin and other Tea Partyers: they’ve latched onto this intangible idea of fear and ran with it.  All are afraid to stand up to it and confront it.

*****************************

I hadn’t read a fiction work since before grad school because of the book load just for classes for the last four years.  I used to be a Stephen King fan all through high school and some of college.  Having amassed over twenty Stephen King novels, placed prominently on my shelf, once I got through his classics, I slowly petered out not necessarily favoring some of his later works.  And personally, I never got into the Dark Tower series.  Nevertheless,  Stephen King is a great American novelist.  His subject matter aside, the man can tell a story and tell you about a character wonderfully.   I feel that I know about the state of Maine because of him and intimately know about the communities and towns of Castle County, ME and Castle Rock, Derry and Little Tall Island in that state.

Suffice it to say, I was in Target this September and a book cover caught my eye entitled Under The Dome.   It’s the story of a small community in Maine that one day experiences an invisible and mostly impermeable barrier that cuts them off from the rest o the world.  No bullets, no missiles or highly corrosive acids can break this barrier.  As a result a power play begins between two men of the community.

Long story short, one of the men plays on the fears of the townspeople, the other doesn’t.  One is an elected official, the other almost has drifter status respectively.  King through his unabashed liberalness and progressive thinking paints the elected official as a crazed megalomaniac with the town as his kingdom.  As I read this story, I saw myself making these real world comparisons, and these were comparisons I didn’t make when I read the unabridged version of “The Stand” when I was in 8th grade.  No, I’m sure King wasn’t writing a political commentary as Arthur Miller was with the fictionalized historical account of the Salem Witch trials and the Red Scare in “The Crucible,” but certainly, my 8th grade naivete had gone.

**************************************

So as I watched the characters of Voldemort, Bellatrix Lestrange and Dolores Umbrige and read about “Big” Jim Rennie in King’s Under The Dome I found myself getting caught up in fantasy world where the characters had become real.  So this was not just a result of good writing from good authors and a director and script writer who caught the essence of the authorial intent, but really an end of innocence.  No longer is Harry Potter just a childhood fantasy world, but rather indicative of real life battles and wars that we as humans and individuals have to fight.  Just as in the Wizarding and Muggle worlds and in the small Maine hamlet of Chester’s Mill, casualties will be endured and loved ones will be martyred all moving toward one greater cause.

I think we can take life lessons from the protagonists of these imagined worlds that victory doesn’t come without some defeats, and that even if you don’t experience victory personally, just to know that you fought on the winning side.

The Dysfunctional Psychology of Cartoons

12 Sep

All This and Rabbit Stew, Merrie Melodies 1941

One of the joys of cartoons is that generally all logic can be suspended.  From the early inception of cartoons from Walt Disney where literally a camera was filming someone flipping pages, to the paneled 3D images that made Walt Disney films notable to the now joint production of Disney and Pixar studios, we all have watched cartoons that have invigorated us.

However, with Disney leading the way, there have been cartoons that have shown the darker side of suspended imagination.  Most famously are the Crows in the 1941 picture of “Dumbo” who were of course depicted the ways blacks in films of that time often were imaged: as ignorant, backwards and lazy. (And honestly, the name of main crow was named Jim Crow.)  There was Disney quite infamous “Song of the South” which retold the stories of Br’er Rabbit to young lily white kids by an avuncular black man who saw strange cartoon birds fly about his head, portraying the wondrous image of race relations.  Disney has never released “Song of The South” to the public.  The last theater showing was in 1986 to which my mother famously says “We walked out of this theater because I did not want that movie informing my babies’ consciousness!”

More recently movies such as “The Little Mermaid” and its portrayal of Sebastian as the “black” character came under fire, and certainly the transgendered imagery of Ursula (which was based off of real life drag queen Divine famous for his role as Edna Turnblad and Arnie Hodgepile the station manager in the 1988 movie “Hairspray”).  Also was Disney movie “Aladdin” for its imagery of the Middle East, and “Pocohontas” for Native Americans, and “Mulan” for Asian culture….shall I go on?

Disney, true to form until recently with the merger of Pixar, has always retold stories that erase the shades of gray that the rest of us live in, and truly make it black and white, light and dark and ultimately good and evil.

But that’s not the case in the retelling of the story of Winnie The Pooh.

In 1966 Disney had a featurette called “Winnie The Pooh and the Honey Tree” which in short told of Pooh’s quest to get some honey because he had no more.  On this quest we meet all of the characters of the Hundred Acre Wood, Rabbit, Piglet, Tigger (Tee-eye-double-gerr-err) Kanga and Roo, Eeyore, Owl and Gopher (the only character added by Disney).  So, in a bit of light humor, here’s the psychology of the characters of Winnie The Pooh. (I’m sure some of you all have seen these on other websites, but here it is fleshed out a bit more.)

Winnie The Pooh — He has an eating disorder, and Freud would automatically recognize it as an oral fixation.  Pooh Bear’s constant quest for food and eating with his hands is unhealthy.  Aside from the weight issues, which cause him to get stuck in Rabbit’s hole (wow! no pun intended) leading out of his warren, Pooh is trying to fulfill the loneliness as well.  His food is acting as a comforter.  Some people shop compulsively, some people drown their sorrows, Pooh eats compulsively.  Just a cursory look at his house, you’d see nothing but discarded honey pots all around; they stand as a memorial to his disorder

Rabbit — Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Rabbit throughout the featurette and even when I was a kid in the late 80s and early 90s in the Saturday morning cartoon “The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” has always been a nag!  Rabbit was always worried about how things looked and would go back and back and back again to make sure things were in order.  From how the carrots were lined up and to how the house was ordered.  And Rabbit would get totally bent out of shape if things weren’t in order.

Tigger — Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.  Tigger couldn’t sit still.  He was always bouncing from one thing to the other.  He was always distracted, and above all didn’t care.  Tigger would mess up Rabbit’s garden and bounce all the way down the road, and not care.  Tigger needed to be on ritalin or some type of psychostimulant drug.  His ADHD was destructive because he always found himself in trouble.  This got more fleshed out in the subsequent cartoon series, but even still, he was a nuisance to the people around him and it resulted in a near alienation from the group.

Piglet — General Anxiety Disorder.  In lamens terms, Piglet was a pussy.  He was a wimp and was always scared.  His fear result in him being anxious about everything.  Piglet could barely function.  This anxiety disorder almost manifests itself in paranoia having irrational and delusional fears about everything.  Piglet has made up fantastic creatures such as “Jagulars” and “Hefflaumps” in his own mind (by the way, how is an imaginary creature going to have imaginary friends?).  Piglet’s main statement is “Oh d-d-dear” and is especially scared of Tigger because he doesn’t know what Tigger is going to do next.

Kanga and Roo — Co-dependency.  Neither of the two want to let the other one go.  Kanga insists on being an overly doting mother, so much so that Roo is rarely let out of the pouch.  Moreover, Kanga is always calling for Roo and never letting him grow up and do things that normal kids his age should be doing.

Owl — Narcissitic Personality Disorder. Owl was quite clear that he had all of the right answers.  He was even given a British accent that seems to speak to his know-it-allness.  Owl was so full of himself that he barely did any work.  He was even a character, owls, associated with wisdom and knowledge and being a flying creature, he always hovered above everyone else.

Eeyore — Major Depressive Disorder.  Frankly speaking, Eeyore was borderline suicidal.  He didn’t much care about anything one way or the other. To say that he was gloomy was an understatement.  He wasn’t bipolar or manic depressive because he never had any bouts of mirth mixed with fits of melancholy; he presented chronically as always being depressed.

Christopher Robin — Schizophrenia. This boy is talking to animals.  Well, that’s one thing, but these animals are actually speaking back, therein lies the problem.  Not just that, these animals have distinct personalities, and psychological disorders to boot.

And in the midst of all of this, these animals don’t wear any clothing.  And the older you get, the fact that Winnie the Pooh wears a shirt with no pants makes it even the more weird and astonishing.

So this makes me wonder what other random subliminal messages are these cartoons sending our kids, particularly the ones with fictional characters.  I much more trust the cartoons with clear images of human beings.  But these cartoons with the personification of animals make me do a double take.

Think about it though, much like many other live sit-coms many of us grew up on, and certainly older cartoons had stereotypical characters.  As I explained earlier about the racial prejudices in Disney cartoons, the same went for all cartoons. I consciously remember watching a Looney Toons episode with Elmer Fudd flying into the “Dark Continent” and watching him go into the darkest part–clearly a reference to Africa, and it being a land full of savage beasts and full of danger.

Better yet, cartoons have stood as bellwethers of the zeitgest of the predominant culture here in the United States.  From having cartoon characters push war bonds in the 1940s to the overt prejudices in that reared their ugly head, even to grappling with sever emotional and psychological disorders as in the Winnie the Pooh stories.  This is the clear instance of art imitating life.  Seemingly cartoon characters act as an adult fantasy world where artists allow their deep emotions to be played out for all of the world to see.

Or maybe this is just clear evidence that cartoons generally aren’t meant for the adults.

Yes, we’ve entered a world where there are adult cartoons such as those are Adult Swim on Cartoon Network.  But we need to still be aware that programming such as “The Simpsons,” “Family Guy,” “The Cleveland Show,” and “American Dad” are billed as family programming.  And I have to be honest, I’m quite remiss to let my under 15 year old watch any of those shows.  Sure they may sneak and watch it, but its not something I’d condone watching with me.  Nor the full-length action movie birthed from “South Park.”

But the apparent benign messaging of cartoons of old may really be shaping the future consciousness of children.  These cartoons are art not just in the sense of creating something for entertainment purposes, but art in the way that an artists pours their emotions into their creation for the public to give their own feedback.  These cartoons don’t exist in a vacuum of vapid  childhood entertainment; they are instrumental in creating and fashioning a set of ethics and morals that these children will inevitably carry with them into adolescence and possibly even adulthood.

No, I’m not calling for the future censor of cartoons, and certainly not trying to be some radical anti-ACLU-type advocate for banning the cartoons of the past, just merely making an observation.

What cartoons from your past do you remember most vividly?  And if you looked back on them would you notice something different than when you were a kid?  Do you think the old Bugs Bunny cartoons should be banned because of the overt racial imagery?

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

How To Be Friends With Someone Who’s Married, But You Still Want…For Dummies

27 May

So, I have a friend who’s going through the similarly titled situation.  Both her and the man have decided to stay friends because he’s in the middle of a divorce and both of them are under 30.

What’s your advice for her?

Jesse and Al or Al and Jesse

22 Feb

This should be easy.

If you’ve read my blog regularly, you know how I feel: for the most part I’m pro Jesse and Al. Perhaps Jesse does have a bit of a more “tainted” past if you want to call it that.  But, I still personally believe that Jesse has always publicly said what was right and appropriate (notwithstanding his castration comment).  And as far as Al is concerned, I definitely find no fault with him.

So….this is easy for you all.  Just comments from you all to the question:

Are your for or against Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Do you just like one of them and not the other? Why or why not? Are the two synonymous with each other, or are they separate.

What say ye?

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers