The greatest Black films ever - in domestic dollars

Here is a list of the highest grossing films to feature Black actors, directors, writers and on. It's something you never really hear about, but Black film makes money. And lots of it.

1. The Lion King ($576 million inflation adjusted dollars) - yes I know it's animated. And yes I realize that its about animals. But this is Africa. The reality is that this film, if portrayed by human beings (even animated ones) is about Black people.

2. Shrek 2 ($530 million) - there is no shrek movie without one of the most successful Black actors ever, Eddie Murphy. He is a co-star of the film and a central theme. So this film counts.

3. Independance Day ($516 million) - the word is Will Smith.

4. Beverly Hills Cop ($500 million) - An undisputed Black film. And the first film that stars prominently and solely and African America - Eddie Murphy.

5. Blazing Saddles ($471 million) - the film is co-written by Richard Pryor (the Sheriff Bart role was supposed to be his). It stars Cleavon Little. It's about the racist history of America, in a very comical way. Yes, it's a Black film, made by jewish Mel Brooks.

**Note ** The next should be The Passion of the Christ which made $445 million. Because Jesus was Black - unless you think a man with bronze skin and hair of wool describes your average European. But since Mel Gibson chose to depict him as he did I won't include him in this list.

6. West Side Story ($417 million) - ok so they aren't Black but Puerto Rican. So am I. And the Caribbean was filled with African slaves. Ok, it doesn't belong on the list but deal with it.

**Lawrence of Arabia (417 million) - Again a film that was made about Africans and Middle Eastern people, that I define as Black, that were all shown as White.

7. Men In Black ($407 million) - Will Smith again.

8. Aladdin ($391 million) - That isn't a suntan every character in this film (except the genie) had.

That would make the top ten list of greatest grossing Black films ever, if you include the notes I made. I'm sure there is dispute about many of these films. I'd like to hear that dispute.

But the next time you hear some dumb Hollywood exec make an obtuse statement like "American won't watch a show starring an African American/Latino/person of color" remember this list. Because American will watch people of color and African American, so long as the film good. Just like anyone else.

The numbers are from Box Office Mojo

News flash from Chris Matthews: Obama is Black

I realize that most people do not watch MSNBC. There are many reasons for this, but the latest comments from Chris Matthews helps to make it quite clear.





So if I understand this correctly, Chris Matthews forgot that President Obama is (by Matthews comments) a Black, loincloth wearing, spear chucking, Tarzan movie escapee that can stand infront of a crowd of Whites and not cower and simper? And Matthews believes this because America is past the racial divide of the 1950's?

Ok, let's smell the coffee and wake up. President Obama is African American, and there are no Blacks in the modern world that run around in loincloths. To my knowledge there are not tribes of African Americans, not even during the centuries of slavery. And President Obama is not the only African American will and capable of standing in front of a crowd of any and all groups of people in a position of authority and leadership without a loss of respect, power, or anything else.

Yes, in the 1950's African Americans couldn't do a lot of things. Yes, even today stereotypes and small-minded individuals make life difficult for people of color. It's true that loans, for anything, tend to be priced higher for people of color. It's true that inner city schools with high percentages of people of color are more likely to be underfunded and the teachers overworked. It's true that the worst stereotypes and images of people of color are promoted to this day on television, music videos, and every other media. It's even true that right now, in every industry in America, people of color are underrepresented at the top level even though qualified people exist for those positions.

But all of that together does not make President Obama less Black, or any of the numerous insults that Chris Matthews let fly.

I wonder what will happen to Matthews, if anything. If this were a White Conservative, say Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or anyone on Fox News, you could guarantee that there would be an outcry for them to be fired. But I wonder how Black "leaders" like Rev. Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson will respond to this, if at all.

Guinness goes after African American middle class

I saw a really cool commercial for guinness beer today. You might have noticed it recently as it just came out on the 9th of this month. It's called Fortune Favors The Bold.

The concept of the commercial is a lone pint of Guinness beer is poured and then sent sliding down a bar. It continues across a rail, over the hood of a taxi, down the street on a skateboard, across a construction I-beam, to a window sill. Inside the office of that same window sill we see a smartly dress Black guy closing a deal with another businessman. The Black guy obviously has the upper hand and the beer arrives just as he closes the deal to his satisfaction. He then picks up the beer and toasts the deal.

I've been looking for the video of this commercial but have yet to find it. [Update - thanks to a reader, I know have the video]



It's really well done on multiple levels. It's obviously targeted to African Americans and the middle class. It's not about hip hop or being ghettofabulous. It's smooth and interesting.

Of the many commercials that are targeted solely to African Americans this is one of the best I've seen in a long time. In fact I think that McDonald's, Burger King, and American Express can learn a lot from this commercial - just to name a companies that seem to have no idea how to market to the Black community without blaring music and hip hop.

It's yet another sign that some in advertising understand that the Black community is not a single uniform entity that can only be approached with street slang and minstrel-like joviality. Nor are we so unaware of what is happening that we don't notice when we are made to be the butt of jokes or marginalized in a commercial that seemingly is supposed to endear us to this brand or that.

Considering the roughly $1 trillion in buying power that African Americans use every year, the approach by Guinness is a refreshing change of pace.

Now if I can just find that video clip.

BET wrongly accussed of creating gangs in Monroe

There is no end to the things that I don't like about Black Entertainment Television. The music videos, the quality of most of the films shown on the cable network, the lack of news, the ghettofication (yes I just made that word up) of entertainment. The list goes on and on.

But there are some things that I'm not sure you can blame on BET. Just because Viacom is commoditizing Black culture does not mean that every wrong in the Black community is tied to them. That's something that needs to be proven because just making the statement is like throwing around the word racist (which is a popular thing to do these days).

The Monroe Free Press really needs to think about this. Today they published an article that blames BET for the increase in violence and gangs in their area. The article is More Shootouts as teens fight for "Respect" and Headlines. Obviously this article delves into the question of what is motivating teens to join gangs and kill each other.

It's not stated who wrote the piece, but I think they were seriously reaching when they decided to pick on BET. In fact I bet they were just looking to get more coverage, which they did succeed in doing.

The article states immediately

"They are young and out of control, but the arrests keep coming as neighborhood gangs bent on being famous like BET’s American Gangster, fight each other for what one has called “My Respect.”

“American Gangster” is a weekly television program on Black Entertainment Television which profiles gangs in the black community since the 1950’s with photos and storylines that lift the criminals to legendary status."

Now I have no argument that shows like American Gangster and Gangland glorify the criminal and mindless activities the dregs of society have chosen. I agree that such programs are counter-productive in a society that thinks everyone should have a Jackass or American Idol moment. The various Youtube videos of various people breaking the law (like giving babies drugs, or setting up fights to be taped) shows how stupid some can be, and how desperate some are for attention they don't deserve.

But to directly state that the gangs in Monroe are growing simply because of the actions of just this one show on BET is anything but a given. Which is proven by the fact that the article goes on to stop mentioning BET while discussing the problem with teen gang shootings. There is no proof that the BET show encouraged the gangs. There is nothing that connects the recent shootings in Monroe, or the gang growth, to BET.

Problems cannot be fixed by just scapegoating an individual or institution. The very argument that modern television and aspects of the internet promote the worst behavior in teens and some adults is weakened by such a baseless claim. Not once was there even so much as a quote by an accused shooter or gang member about BET. There wasn't even a made up stat or poll or reasonable connection.

Do I think the programming on BET is worthwhile, positive, or beneficial to the Black Community? No. I've stated that many times. I think that Sumner Redstone and the execs at Viacom are too busy cashing in on the commoditization of Black culture to care what they put on or what potential effect it may have. Until all of their kids act out and reference BET, or the other equally horrid programming featuring African Americans on other Viacom channels, they won't even notice.

Still my opinion, and my direct references to shows on BET and their link to stereotypes and negative connotations of African Americans, are not the same as trying to vaguely connect BET to crimes being actively committed. A publication that purports itself as a member of the press needs to have higher standards. Being a publication catering to African Americans does not mean standards are removed or lowered.

Can BET be improved? Only in as much as I am sure the sun will rise tomorrow. But is BET contributing to the rise in gang violence in Monroe? There is no way to be sure, especially considering the "reporting" by the Monroe Free Press. And the readers of Monroe, and the internet, deserve better. Even BET for all its faults deserves better than that.

media tuning of race relations

The following is a question posed to Michael Vass by Logan Calder at Black and White Blog where I am co-author.

Michael,
I would like to get your opinion on what I noticed recently in television. In almost every add that has a mixed race couple, it is always a Black male and a White female. Almost never is there any other type of mixed race shown. This seems disproportionate to me, as I see mixed races of all variety (including my own) and am wondering if you think there may be some political significance to this?

**Rather than responding as a comment, I wanted to add my thoughts to the post of Logan. In this way readers can have a full thought to respond to, in addtion to allowing search engines more access to this post. I hope that Logan does not mind.**

Logan,

Well that is a good question. But I think you are somewhat mistaken in your premise.

There are many, and I believe more, mixed race couples in advertisements that are Hispanic and White than any other group. The reasons for this are

1) Hispanics - light skinned - are often mistaken for Whites. (ie, Andy Garcia among many others)

2) Hispanics are the fastest growing 'minority' group in America

3) Hispanics comprise one of the bigger buying groups, and tend to purchase more big ticket items (which is reflected in the ads they appear in)

But as for the Black/White mix... well that is harder to define.

In part there are the old stereotypes that are continuously promoted in movies and television shows of the mandingo. Add to that the old view of implied status of a Black man with a White woman. I disagree with both thoughts, though I know many who still ascribe to these thoughts.

Another part is the theory held only in Hollywood (I hope) that audiences can only react positively to something if people of the same racial background are represented.

This has been one of the main reasons that television shows (and movies) are 90%+ dominated by White actors in virtually every aspect. That means the background actors, the supports, and the headliners. In fact, in 2007 - 2008 I randomly selected channels several times over several days and investigated various program line-ups. I found that roughly 2% of all television programming, including cable television, involved non-White actors of any nature, COMBINED (movies were slightly higher though not even 10%).

Thus a commercial, according to this theory, must contain Whites to be effective. It is also the reason that most commercials (with the exception of many racially targeted commercials by McDonald's - but not all) that target specific groups of people of color still maintain White actors in the surrounding roles.

Thirdly I suspect that the use of mixed race couples is a subtle acceptance that America, in reality, is far more diverse and intermixed than what television has been promoting since 1950's. That reality must be reflected as fully 1/3 of the audience is a person of color and thus by the archaic standards of Hollywood need to be shown.

Lastly there is the Obama Effect. Advertisers are cashing in on the positive imagery of African Americans that must exist since the President is a person of color. This I feel is the ultimate commoditization of Black culture that has been beforehand seen predominantely in the Hip Hop culture and advertisements.

The political significance of all this is unknown.

In one respect the benefit of all this is to create more acceptance of people of color in political groups, particularly in the Democrat and/or Liberal organizations. Name an ad, movie, or television show where the people of color are Conservative or Republican - as best as can be discerned relative to its content. I cannot think of one off the top of my head.

Beyond that, which is speculation I admit, I cannot think of a political end to using mixed races. Which does not mean there is or is not one.

Perhaps other readers may have a better answer than I.

Would you call Michael Vass a racist?

Recently I received a comment from my discussion of the upcoming Disney film The Princess and the Frog, that made several claims and challenges that I though would be best to deal with in total as a post. You can see the comment from Logan Calder at http://www.blackandwhiteblog.net/2009/04/22/movie-preview-the-princess-and-the-frog/ and in quotes below.

“Ok, fair enough. I want to add that I have no problem with your issues of unfair treatment of Blacks in this country. My issues and responses are based on what I see as your Afrocentrism, which basically is racism against Whites in a costume - why you need to concentrate on diminishing Whites can be understood if you are a racist Black person, but is no different than a racist White person.”

Ok, I am confused. Are there people in America that believe this? That they can state that they understand that African Americans have, and continue, to be treated with bias and prejudice; but if you identify such abuses, and are Black (or Black Puerto Rican in my case), then it is Afrocentrism and racist?

Let’s be clear. I am Black and Latino. I am an American. I love my country, and my heritages. But neither stops me from pointing out that in the greatest nation on the planet – a country I would readily die for as is – there is systemic abuses and problems in regards to people of color. Being American, of any color, does not preclude facts.

By the way Afrocentrism is defined as

“a world view which emphasizes the importance of African people, taken as a single group and often equated with "Black people", in culture, philosophy, and history.[2] The roots of Afrocentrism lay in a reaction to the repression of Black people throughout the Western world in the 19th century and as a backlash against the scientific racism of the period, which tended to attribute any advanced civilization to the immigration of Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants.[3] Part of this reaction involved reviewing history to document the contributions that Black people made to world civilization.”

I do not see myself as such, though aspects of this are surely part of me. As it should be for anyone of any particular group. I am proud of who I am, and what I do, and my ancestors. I will never apologize for that.

And I see no reason not to note the contributions of African Americans in this nation. Something that is all but ignored in basic educations, the media, entertainment, and general life in this nation. America tends to ignore people of color, especially African Americans, because to not do so means the nation has to deal with past and current biases. Which America is unwilling to do.

But is it racist? Am I racist?

Over the years of my writing I have had a multitude of people I know across the world, of most every nationality and background, read my writing. Only in America has anyone found my writing, about race relations, even somewhat disturbing. And of those in America, only those that don’t know me have ever made accusations of racism. Generally after reading just one post, instead of the thousands I have written. And generally they have taken a statement out of context or reinterpeted my words to fit a pre-existing view they have.

Still I wonder about this. When I discuss the fact that a photo of a Black man wading through post-Katrina waters with a bag is called a looter by national media, and an exactly the same photo of a White man doing the same thing is called foraging to stay alive, am I being racist? When I discussed the fact that repeatedly African American males are shot by police, across the country, in a hail of dozens of bullets while unarmed, and that I am unaware of there ever being similar treatment to White males, is that racist? When I note that some 90%+ of all media ignores completely people of color, or that specific and often insulting references are made just for people of color, is that too racist?

Or am I just commenting on a racial bias that is so ingrained in the society that most people ignore it as commonplace. Am I hoping to note the inequality and systemic problem that prevents true respect and societal bonding, or is it just one guy screaming Black Power?

“Ultimately I still dont know why any of this matters, pointing out who is Black and who is White. Blacks and Whites both want to claim king Tut, Jesus, and Bob Marley as theirs, as if they would justify that the race they belong to is the better. It is still a racist thought that is driving the force, to need to claim someone of mixed race is theirs. Do you get it?. Do you need to claim that “we are Gods first” if you are Black?? you are really saying “we are Gods real children and are therefore better than you” and then that same person gets mad if a White person is a racist.”

First off, Jesus, Bob Marley, and with some question King Tut are all Negroid (which I will call Black to simplify). Why is that important? Because in American society, where almost all positive actions and contributions of history and the nation’s development have been either ignored or rewritten, the truth is necessary. In fact the truth is always important. Because lies always lead to a problem down the road.

Plus I think that correcting misconceptions is important. Queen Nefertiti never looked like Elizabeth Taylor. To assume as much steals away the history of my ancestors and perverts history. It diminishes people when you relegate them to nothing. And any people that are nothing can be treated as less than human. Which American history is rife with. Such was the excuses to justify slavery and the invasion of “savage” people across the world. Not to mention the “saving” of Native American Indians. I don’t think it’s racist to correct that.

Though I have never claimed anyone was God’s first. I dare anyone to find such a comment on any post or comment I have ever made. To say that I have is to totally misunderstand everything I have ever written and to place words in my mouth I have never spoken. It is insulting.

“I simply get tired of a racial debate, that continually attacks White people in a racist and/or degrading manner for being racist. It is my belief that racism is absolutely equal among races, and that 80% of us dont really care too much, but do have racial or prejudcial views. The other 10% of radicals are at both ends - one hates their own race and the other hates everyone else. It is definetly NOT a White only thing. In fact, Whites are the only race taught (by the same media you claim is so racist) to be ashamed of being proud of who they are!!. If it were equal we wouldnt have Obama or Sotomayor in office.”

I don’t agree with attacking anyone, without cause. I am as willing to take on the Government, racists, corporations, global warming, political lies, and bad entertainment. The question is not the color, but the content. But I will not back away from critiquing President Obama because he is Black, just as I have no problem taking on ex-officer Mehserle because he is White.

But it is not racist to point out the systemic problems in the nation. Problems that benefit some, and hinder others. Generally those that are people of color. Is it racist to ask why the nation is so focused on Mexico and the potential threat from terrorists, when all terrorists that have entered the nation have come from Canada which is ignored? That’s not an attack on White people, but it does bring up the question of what factors are involved in such a mentality.

Is racism really equal among all people? I don’t know. But in America, my experience says that it is not. Partially that is because there are so many things taken as commonplace that it is not recognized as bias. But there are indeed those that are prejudiced. And it’s not 10%. If you recall the polls done before the election of 2008, fully 20% of those polled directly stated they could not vote for a Black man. And that’s those (in both political parties) that were willing to answer the question.

Because America has not move that far forward since the 1960’s, as much as we try to imagine so. We just generally prefer to avoid the questions or answers. It’s more PC and no one will feel socially awkward. This is not the same thing.

But you are right. Racism is not solely a White thing. While not nearly as common it does exist in some people of color in this nation. And I don’t support that either. But that is not the same as being willing to address the issues in this nation. Black or White or whatever, the issues exist – pointing them out is not racist.

As for Whites being ashamed, where do you see that? Maybe I missed it. Which you might understand as 95% of all characters in movies and television are White. 97% of all commentators and pundits are White. I believe that some 80% of all politicians are White. 97% of all major CEO’s are White. And on and on.

So where is the media saying it’s bad to be White? Considering that most people of color are not addressed in almost every form of media, except when a negative is expressed, how are we being lifted above anyone?

As for President Obama, and Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, they are political and I have addressed my thoughts of both at my political site VASS. Though I will ask, how was a bias of their color created to benefit them? If every African American, hell every person of color in America voted for President Obama (which they did not) he would still need an overwhelming number of Whites to be elected (as he was). And Judge Sotomayor got nominated because she is a woman and liberal, not due to some benefit of her race.

“Lets say we all wake up tomorrow and agree with you, on the absolutely ridiculous notion that America is here because of Africans and would never have made it into the greatest country on earth without slave labor - a completely absurd notion and belief but it is yours, and based on a need outlined above.

Does anything change??? No!! - why not stick to current and the future instead of using the past to make wounds?? I have never yet met anyone, who has told me that their family had been on American soil long enough to have been a slave owner.”

First, you do wake up in that reality. Without slave labor America could not exist. That’s not opinion, that’s fact. Do the math, check the population numbers (where African Americans were counted). Add up the money that the labor of slaves should have made. Remove the manpower they provided and see what would have been left of the nation at the time. To deny the facts is absurd and revisionist dreaming. Thus my need is for people to accept nothing more than what has happened. Because less is insulting, and something that most Americans would not stand for if it were them.

As for families that were slave owners, you are either being obtuse or uninformed. Millions have traced back their lineages to find they were either slaves or slave owners. My family line goes back to about 1860, and the records end because the slave owners before that did not see a need to document their “property”. But I do have that slave owners name in 1860. So do a lot of people.

It’s just that a majority of people don’t want to face that truth. They don’t want to know. Just as they don’t want to know about racism, or prejudice, or bias. Because they feel bad. Because the system helps Whites and hurts people of color. And who wants to have to have that on their back – since the system is not being changed.

So the past is the present. To address one is to address the other. To fix one is to start on fixing it all. And to do nothing is to bask in the benefits some have at the cost of others. Which I do not agree with.

Am I a racist? No, I don’t think so. Those that know me across the world don’t think so. I’m just upfront about addressing what is and is not really going on in America. Which is not an accusation, just a reality. And for some such honesty is too harsh to deal with. And thus I must be at fault since their worldview cannot be so corrupt.

It still doesn’t make me a racist, but I understand why I absolutely have to be for some people.

Bill o'Reilly discusses Black man shot 43 times by police

Tonight Bill O’Reilly will be discussing the shooting of a Black man by police. He was shot 43 times. It’s about time such cases get attention.

I decided to check out which case of shooting O’Reilly might be investigating. Considering the time and number of shots involved I know it was not the Oscar Grant case (which O’Reilly did not cover), Robbie Tolan, Adolph Grimes (the last 3 being all at the start of the year 2009), Sean Bell, or several other more recent actions. So I decided to google it.

Under the term police shooting black man 43 shots there are 221,000 responses. On the first page of Google the time frame covers 2009 – 2001. That’s a hell of a lot of time. But it denotes the number of cases that never get national attention.

I have long stated that there is a national epidemic on-going. That young Black males are the target of police abuse and overreaction. In fact studies have found that the darker the skin, the more likely police are of reacting with violence, where or not the individual is armed.

So which case might Bill O’Reilly be discussing?

As I said before, it’s not the 1 shot in the back of an unarmed Black male in Oakland. Its not the shot against the unarmed Black male in his driveway in Texas as his mother was assaulted by police. But there is no scarcity of incidents across the country where an African American male has been shot by police officers several dozen times.

In fact, when was the last time that an armed White male was shot by police more than 3 times? Seriously. I can name at least a half dozen times where an unarmed African American male was shot by police at least 12 times or more in the last year and a half. But I cannot recall a single instance where even an armed and dangerous White male was shot by police more than 3 times. Not in a decade. Maybe more. Anywhere in the country.

So what will Bill O’Reilly say tonight at 8pm? Do you think it will be a highlight of the national response of police forces towards people of color? Or will it justify a singular case of police action?

No matter which it is, the ultimate truth remains. Police are prone to overreaction towards people of color. They react as if young Black males are the most dangerous people in America (which is factually White males 18 – 30, proven in another post). And that same reaction is also the consistent call of White violent crime criminals trying to obfuscate their own actions (how many times have we heard a supposed White victim claim that some ambiguous Black male did it?). Hell, almost even in the most extreme cases White actively dangerous armed criminals are treated with more care and firing restrictions than people of color – armed or not.

What do I want to hear O’Reilly say? That there is a problem. That the justice system is skewed in the nation. That across the country there is a predisposition towards violence against people of color, and that this needs to be addressed.

Will I hear that? Not likely. Not from O’Reilly, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other major news organization.

And that is the key point that sticks out in my mind. What about you?

41 years and counting for Dr. Martin Luther King

It’s been 41 years so far since the death of Dr. Martin Luther King. In that time, my lifetime as I was born 2 days after his death, many things have changed but some have not. One of the more surprising things is the fact that this celebrated Civil Rights champion has never made it to the silver screen.

Well let me correct that. There was a documentary about Dr. King, shown once on March 24th 1970. That’s it. Every other time he has been shown has been on television. And that is usually just documentaries about his actions and/or death, shown almost exclusively during February (Black History Month).

But it seems that Dreamworks has decided to change that chasm of history. Finally Dr. King will have a film, noting more than just his marches and tragic death. Giving everyone in the nation a bit more than just his speeches. But how much do you want to bet it opens in Febrary?

The thing I hope for in this film, that has no date for production to begin or when it might appear in theaters (bet on it being in either 2010 or more likely 2012), is that it does for Dr. King what Malcolm X did for Malik El Shabazz. That is give the public more than a few quotes, or a static visage of the man.

In allowing us to see Dr. King as the man he was we will get to understand and appreciate what he did and what he sacrificed. Because right now, Dr. King is just “I have a Dream” and not the passion and desperation that fueled that dream. People forget that Dr. King was not some political tool, but a force with goals and issues that were societal in the foremost.

Dr. King these days is seen as a holiday. The aspirations he hoped for African Americans have mostly failed to happen. America is little better off today than in 1960 in many ways. We are improving, but so slowly as to seem as if all forward motion has stopped.

I say this because I don’t know how many people believed that President Obama was the incarnation of Dr, King’s dream. Which is a falicy, promoted by the commercialization of his efforts. Dr. King did not want one man to succeed, he wanted everyone to improve their lives.

Yes, President Obama did a grand thing. But how could Dr. Martin Luther King be happy about that when over 50% of teenage pregnancies are Blacks. How can he be rejoicing the election while over 50% of African Americans are dropping outr of school. Why would he cheer when television still shuns people of color in front of and behind the camera, or when African Americans are highlighted we are stereotyped and objectified?

Dr. King’s dream’s, efforts, and life were dedicated to preventing these very things. While I think he would be impressed with the success of President Obama (which is not the same as approval of his political policies) he would not hold that above the failures that are rampant in the Black community. The success of one is not the success of us all in some cases.

So I hope that seeing Dr. King as the man he was, standing for the things he believed in, advocating changes we still need to see implemented can help to really improve America. Because it’s not happening now. It likely won’t happen even if President Obama is re-elected on the political endeavours he currently proposes. Because that is not what the dream is about.

The fat gene and BMI - wrong about people of color

It’s been a somewhat quiet day for me today, so I thought I’d discuss something that I found interesting. Now I’m sure everyone has heard about the fat gene that was found a decade ago. And you must have heard of the body/mass index (BMI). Both of these things are critical to the current cries of crisis about obesity in the nation.

But what if all that information was wrong? What if all the research was only relevant to a portion of the population. That changes a lot doesn’t it?

Well I wondered about that, and the fact is that the BMI and the fat gene don’t apply to African Americans as they are currently defined. That’s right, they apply to Whites – specifically a portion of them. Thus all the health nut fears, medication and news are faulty.

Fat mass and obesity associated (FTO) is the gene that was found to be linked to obesity. It is found in 45% of Whites, 52% of West Africans, and 14% in Chinese/Japanes people. Of those with this gene, 35% of European Whites have a variation that leads to gaining extra weight. Note that so far studies have not found this variant in non-Whites, inasmuch as I could determine.

Now consider this. The BMI was created based on Whites, generally from European descent, without consideration to age, gender, or race. Considering the facts above, learned in 1999, it should be clear than any absolute scale that is based solely on Whites of a single age is beyond flawed.

Just recently a study done at Baylor College of Medicine and the University of Houston found that the BMI index is wrong.

“Just because you weigh a certain amount doesn't necessarily mean you are overweight. Take, for example, an athlete who is very muscular and still weighs up to 300 pounds.” Dr. Molly Bray - associate professor of pediatrics - nutrition at the USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center at BCM and Texas Children's Hospital

For example, the BMI for African American women is off by almost 2%, making them register on the scale as overweight when they are not. And for Hispanic/Latinas (1.65%), Asians (2.65%), and Asian-Indians (5.98%) the scale is off in the other direction, making them under their actual mass. It may not sound like a big deal, but it is.

That means that out of the 80% of African American women now considered overweight, many are perfectly normal. That means potentially millions of Black women are on diets (both fads and medially directed), taking medication, and suffering emotional stress for no reason at all. That’s potentially billions of dollars being wasted based on a chart that doesn’t work.

For Hispanic/Latinas, Asians, and others this means that they are at even greater risk of heart disease and medical complications to their health, and no one is telling them.

And these corrections to the BMI apply in similar levels for men of the respective race.

This doesn’t mean that suddenly everyone can stop trying to be healthy. But it does mean that money, time, and stress are being wasted on one side while others are put at unhealthy risk. Yet I haven’t heard a word about this in the major media. You aren’t hearing this in the cable news programs when they discuss health and diets. You don’t hear a whisper from the various diet gurus, or mega-corporations with pills for every aspect of weight loss.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming Whites for the fat gene. Nor am I saying the BMI is a bad idea. But I am saying that basing medical facts on a single proxy, as we learn that the proxy is inaccurate is more than just stupid, it is harmful.

Maybe this doesn’t matter to most people. Perhaps a few women (and men for that matter) might have a bit less stress, or get better medical information that can help their lives. Maybe it will help raise the self-esteem of even one woman (or man) who is hurting herself with fad diets to match a BMI target, or fight a fat gene, her body should never match.

If this helps even one, then I feel good.

Reply to John T. Simpson of Big Hollywood

This post is a response to John T Simpson, who cited my post on reparations on his blog. Please review his blog post at Big Hollywood to see what I am addressing.

John T. Simpson,

First I would like to thank you John for citing my blog and one of numerous posts I have made on the subject of reparations. This is a subject that I take very seriously and feel needs to be address for the health and future of the nation.

I will assume that you have read all or most of my blog posts on reparations and thus are familiar with my position. For visitors that are not familiar with the subject or my position I suggest they check here and here. Also searching at either of my blogs for Slavery will bring up other pertinent information.

So before I further discuss your position I will first summarize a few facts. First of which is the fact that millions of Africans did not emigrate to America as you suggest in your post. They were forcibly taken, with an estimate of at least 1 - 3 million dying during the transit from Africa to America.

Another point of fact is that these human beings were shipped in conditions that cargo was not treated to. I'm talking about inanimate objects as well as livestock received better care. The levels of inhumanity are unheard of. Which is important as we are speaking about a punitive judgement, which takes into account facts beyond just hours worked. Once these African slaves were on land they entered a life of 24/7 365 subservience, while regarded about the same as furniture or tools.

The average slave that was born into slavery and lived to be 40 would have worked some 233,600 hours by that time. That is without proper medical care, time off, proper living conditions and questionable food among other issues. If the average slave were to have been only paid .05 an hour, and there were some 4 million slaves from 1619 to 1865, they deserved to receive some $934 billion dollars NOT adjusting for inflation or real 2009 dollars according to my quick math right now.

This is the weakest estimate of what is due. And were it not for these Africans, America would not exist. The foundations of the nation LITERALLY was built upon the backs of these people. Which says nothing of the wars that they fought in. Another fact often overlooked, African Americans have fought in every battle America has fought. Also, there are well over 1000 inventions that African Americans created that allow modern America to exist. That includes stoplights and gas masks used by firefighters, as just 2 examples.

So when people argue reparations they are in fact arguing about America. How it was made, sustained, and improved since BEFORE its inception. We are arguing about the place in history, respect, and inheritance due. Reparations is not merely dollars and cents.

Also, let us remember that America has already set a precedence for reparations, TWICE. To American Indians and to Japanese Americans. In both cases these reparations took place long after the actual damage was done. So far, the American Government - my Government - has never apologized for slavery. In fact the best the nation has been able to do since 1619 is a feeble voice vote in the House of Representatives saying that they were remorseful. The House was not even willing to have their names recorded as being against Slavery.

This leads me to another point that is important. The argument that White Americans neither created or benefited from slavery. Which is only a half-truth.

Every American alive today benefits from the work of the slaves. Whether it is the buildings we work in, the roads we travel upon, the food we eat, or the goods we use. Every item in America can be traced back to the foundations and actions of the slaves. Because without their work, most every city would be without many of its oldest buildings. Without their work the agricultural nation that America was would never have existed and thus could never have survived. The roads would never have been separated from trees, fields never plowed, and on and on.

In addition, it is a fact that after slavery ended, segregation and Jim Crow laws took hold. These are de facto acts of slavery. African Americans were routinely denied schooling, proper pay, the Right to vote, the ability to move freely, and just about every other Right you can name up until at least 1965. Which says nothing of the persecution under the law, for real and imagined violations of law.

I say 1965 because the mere fact that the Civil Rights Movement needed to exist meant that every law and enforcement of those laws were biased prior to that time, at least. Thus Americans alive today did in fact benefit from the active persecution and prejudice against African Americans. Many either actively or passively allowed this to happen, making them culpable too. Which says nothing of the lessons of inequality and prejudice that were passed on to their children. Meaning that at least a residual effect of this instructional prejudice and bias was passed on to Americans that today are as young as 35, perhaps even those being born now.

And what is the effect of these generational actions? Well sub-standard education means that African Americans were denied the opportunity to get jobs. Restricted areas of living means that happiness and quality of life were affected. And the persecution in the law meant that the very Rights we all hold dear were denied. How much are those things worth today? How many billions are we spending on the military, education, and healthcare alone? How many of these things were the reason we created this nation in the first place?

Let me clarify something else. Rep. Conyers did not just start to try to pass a Reparations bill after President Obama was elected. He has been entering this legislation EVERY year for over 2 decades now. It has been ignored by Every President and Every Congress since he first brought it up.

Also, during the election cycle none of the Presidential candidates, except Kucinich, would even discuss Reparations. That's in either Party. Because this subject is considered taboo, and more dangerous politically than Social Security. No elected official who wants to remain elected discusses this on national television.

Beyond that lets take another look at the list you presented. It is a list of massive wealth there is no question. Indeed only in America are such changes in economic and political status possible. But what happens once you take out all the people in your list that are entertainers? It goes almost to zero.

Why is that? Because over the CENTURIES, entertainment has been considered a low profession. It was rarely ever considered a profession to bring sustained wealth. In fact up until the last half century it was a profession of relative minor success. But even with this look at how long it took for African Americans to be given roles that were not complete caricatures. Even in recent years we have writers that balk at African Americans portraying their characters (Shawshank Redemption).

Beyond that we also see the result of CENTURIES of denial and repression. Right now I believe that only 3 Forbes 100 companies are lead by an African American. Right now I believe that less than 3% of all the companies in the nation have African American senior management. Right now there is less than 7% of all characters on television in any recurring or major role, in movies, and the people behind the cameras that are all people of color, COMBINED.

So am I happy that a literal handful of entertainers have done well. Of course. But how many people of color have been denied opportunities because they were never given a chance to learn. How many people have lived lives of strife because they were given sub-standard educations. How many never had the chance to provide more for their families because they could only advance to the ceiling and not thru it.

Am I glad that President Obama got elected? Sure, it's a proud statement. But let's not confuse the facts with emotion. A huge number of people (of all races) voted for President Obama solely because he was Black. And no, Dr. King would not have been glad that President Obama was elected - not on the basis of his political beliefs. Neither would Malcolm X or most any political leader of the 50's and 60's. Because their reported political views at the time were more closely aligned with Republicans today than Democrats.

Yet again, the success of 1 or 2 people does not negate or supplant the difficulties of millions. Nor does it evaporate hundreds of years of persecution, reprimand, violence, and pain.

Will reparations heal all these wounds instantly? No. Will it end all the cycles of mistrust, bias, and inequality? No.

But there can be no remedy, no resolution, until we first admit our wrongs and take penitence for them. That is the basis of our legal system. And right now we are denying justice by not even addressing reparations.

And to address your thought that this will bankrupt America, that is a misconception. There are many proposals out there that provide reparations and BENEFIT America. I have even proposed a means by which jobs are CREATED, and the wealth returned to the nation in the form of GDP increases and technology advances.

If done properly reparations BENEFITS all Americans. But the subject has to be addressed to be possible.

Now I am sure some will feel this is long. But in fact this is a very short summary on why reparations are needed, and in fact are a fact of law. I have written on this subject for years, and I have a passion. It is not some new fad, or some wild idea. There are many who have addressed this, going as far back as the 1880's. I think that 120+ years is more than enough time to finally address this.

John, I could go on. But instead I suggest you review my various writting on the subject and then provide me whatever questions or thoughts you have on the subject. While I am passionate I am open to discussion. And only through reasoned passionate debate can we get to an answer that has eluded the nation for centuries.

Duke Ellington: The jazz, the stamp, and the quarter

What do you think of when you think of Duke Ellington?

Some will instantly hear any number of jazz music selections created by this great musician and performer. Other may reflect on the Presidential Medal of Freedom he received in 1969, or the Legion of Honor from France (both are the highest honors that a civilian can receive from the respective countries). Then there are those that will remember that he was part of the second generation of African Americans to be born free of slavery.

Each of these things are powerful memories, with a history and impact for all those that pay attention. In Washington D.C. they have set about trying to capture all those facts, and countless numbers more, by commemorating Duke Ellington, born Edward Kennedy Ellington in 1899 (34 years after the end of slavery), on an American quarter. As each of the 50 states have emblazened an image representing the State on quarters, D. C. has now joined with its own image of its famous and beloved hometown son.

Ellington, named Duke for his appearance and mannerisms in youth that denoted nobility, was born in Washington D.C. and had President Teddy Roosevelt watch him play baseball as a child. His talent at the piano, in jazz, and with his bands allowed him to play for White and Black audiences - which was virtually unheard of in the 1920 and on. Duke was a groundbreaking, amazing man - proof that color cannot bind music even in a segregated nation.

Duke Ellington is the first and only African American to be featured on a official, functional, U.S. coin by himself. Commemorative coins, like those sold since the election of President Obama, are not valid currency. This too is a piece of history worthy of such a great American. It goes well with the fact that in 1986 Ellington was place on a 22 cent U.S. stamp and his special citation of the Pulitzer Prize.

You may not have heard about this anywhere else, but you should have. It's just one more reason that the world was lucky to have had Duke Ellington in it. It's another reason that every African American should always hold their heads high, not just during Black History Month.

Tiger Woods, Golf, and Black History Month

As we enter the first Black History Month in which we will not only be celebrating the past acheivements of great men and women, but the until recently undreamed of African American Presidency, I decided to look at what else might we celebrate.

That took me to looking, eventually, at Tiger Woods. Being the best in the world, in a sport where Blacks (of any nationality) are as close to virtually non-existent as possible, is always noteworthy. But then I noticed an article that made me think deeper.

John Paul Newport was speaking about Tiger Woods at one of the inauguration parties for President Obama. He speculated on the thought that Obama might one day try for a political office. Which indeed would be interesting. And then I read this quote further on in the article

“If you turn on the golf tournament Sunday and Tiger Woods isn't playing, what do you see? About 140 white guys competing and no blacks," said Eddie Payton, the golf coach at historically black Jackson State in Mississippi (and the brother of the late football great Walter Payton). "What kind of message does that send to kids? That they should watch basketball instead, even though they aren't going to grow up to be 6-foot-10? If we don't get some black players on Tour soon, we're going to lose a generation of potential African-American golfers."

Being a golfer, though a 100 a round player so I’m not bragging, I am used to being one of a handful – if not the only – Black golfer on any particular course. That is usually true even on most courses in major cities. So, like watching television, I hadn’t notice that I was brainwashed into accepting the lack of diversity.

Yet that is a horrible thing. Golf is a great sport. It’s relaxing, intense, challenging, and fun. It’s something that even the less physically fit can play. And those on the course are in almost every case, polite friendly and respectful.

It is a game that anyone can learn, even in the city. In the Bronx, a few miles from where I grew up is a 100 year old 9-hole course that is almost always filled by anything but golfers of color. And the same can be said of the over half a dozen courses in New York City, in my experience.

At a time when our nation has broken through a massive hurdle, when we are openly and finally discussing race relations without breaking into fights, we still are surrounded by obstacles that are firmly in place.

And this makes me wonder about my thoughts on the Obama effect. Perhaps I was too short sighted when I discussed that. Perhaps the Obama effect is not limited to just television. Because in the PGA there is only 1 African American golfer, and almost a mere handful of American golfers of color. The LPGA is even more staggered in the diversity it presents.

But why? Money is of course one reason. And not a small one. Yet the same can be said of those athletes that seek to become baseball, basketball, football or any other sports’ major leaguer. The honest answer is that African Americans are discouraged from the game, and institutional backing ignores them.

The discouragement comes as much from African Americans as any other group. The game is seen as being only-White. To play is a stigma akin to abandoning your race. And that is just a stupid thought. Yet every Sunday that very though is reinforced.

The money though is another matter. I won’t say that colleges, golf clubs, or other institutions purposefully avoid African Americans – I don’t know that to be true. But I can say that from what I know they all do actively pursue White golfers at young ages.

Now I am not saying that any African America should be allowed to play in the PGA or LPGA just because of the color of their skin. I hate and would fight against such an idea. But I am saying that the opportunity to compete should be more available.

Given the chance, players will find their own way to the pros. But the chance has to be there. And in golf it is not.

Every African American is not Tiger Woods or Barack Obama. Nor should we be held to a standard of being equal to them or nothing at all. Yet that does not mean we cannot be involved. That does not mean we shouldn’t be encouraged to try.

If this Black History Month says anything this year, I hope that it says to everyone, of every color and creed and ethnicity, that you should try something different. That you can succeed in things that few are doing today. That if you look up, don’t just reach for the clouds because you think you can only get the sky. Reach for the stars because if you work for it, you can reach them too.

An Obama effect in Hollywood is insulting

There is something that’s been nagging at me for months. The Obama effect on media and television. The very statement is an insult. Let me explain why.

An effect is a reaction to a stimulus. As long as the stimulus is around the effect continues. Once it is gone the effect fades. An Obama effect is a temporary shift in a long held belief system. And I don’t want to accept that as good enough.

Since before, and massively since, the election President Obama has been used as a reason for media to remember that African Americans have been a vital part of this nation since inception, are a rather large part of the population, and an enormous factor to the prosperity of the economy.

Television and movies have long ignored all of that. With the exception of the Cosby Show and a few programs that were on broadcast television at that same time, the small screen in everyone’s living room is devoid of people of color. In fact, once the Cosby Show went off-air (ending the Cosby effect), the executives in Hollywood seemingly scrambled to eliminate what they had created. Proof that Americans will watch a good program no matter the color of the stars.

At this point, the 9th year in a row, the line-up of television features 2 programs with Black actors as lead. They are on the smallest and least seen public television broadcast network, and hold the worst time-slot possible. Beyond this, there are 2 prominent Black actors in drama ensembles. And then there are 2 programs on cable television that feature Black casts. That’s it, out of over 120 programs just looking at broadcast television alone.

But President Obama will cause all that to change. Kiss my ass.

I do not need, nor should it take, the leader of our nation to be Black to make me aware of the abilities of tens of millions of Americans. There have long prior been examples of success in front of and behind cameras. There has long prior been proof of our viability. And to claim that only now people can see or accept this is insulting to generations of African Americans and the American public at large. To say nothing of the even less acknowledge or seen Latino/Hispanic and Asian communities.

Back in November of 2008

“It may say something about the state of American television that there is one more black president-elect of the United States than there are black actors with individual lead roles in a network television drama.”

Recently Bill Cosby had this to say about the supposed Obama effect and television

“No, because these people are stupid," he says, referring to network bosses. "Look at how NBC is struggling. You would think they would make some changes and be talking about trying to get another 'Cosby' kind of show. But they would probably die before putting another show on about a black family and black pride."

And Bishop T.D. Jakes stated

“I think sometimes the only images we see of people of color are the images that Hollywood projects: the hip-hop, the gangs, the street life. Now, it would be wonderful for them to recognize what has always existed in the African-American community and what Obama's presidency suggests: middle-class African-Americans who are articulate, intelligent and thoughtful."

And that is the issue. Hollywood wants African Americans to be limited to gangsta rappers or such ilk. President or not, African Americans are supposed to be bad guys, poor, uneducated and in need of a hand-out. Adding more African Americans because of President Obama is just that. And once he is out of office, just like with the Cosby effect, they can go back on message.

That is insulting. I don’t want laws to tell me that I am equal. I don’t want executives in Hollywood to portray African Americans in a movie or program because they want to enlighten me to success. These things should be obvious to anyone that looks around or reads more than a high school book on history.

America does not need an effect. We need respect. For those that work everyday, that contribute to the prosperity of the economy, of those that aren’t living the commoditization of Black culture. We need to acknowledge that without African Americans, America would have failed before it could have started. And that right this second, there are tens of thousands that are qualified and capable but overlooked because they have a permanent tan.

Jaime Foxx, Denzel Washington, Laurence Fishburne, Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Sidney Poitier, Angela Bassett, Terrance Howard, Gabrielle Union, Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee, Bill Duke, and so many others are not an Obama effect. They are not an effect at all. They are representatives of a far larger, more diverse community that has been right here for as long as America has been around – they have just been mostly ignored.

Trying to placate this vital segment of America with insincere transitional leftovers is not the answer. Though it does answer a sincere question that often is asked and I think best stated in the movie The Tuskegee Airmen.

“Lt. Col. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. – Andre Braugher -
…I ask myself the most difficult question everyday. How do I feel about my country… and how does my country feel about me.”

Oscar Grant murdered by Oakland police in cold blood

Can we even start a year without something racial happening in this country? I have already spoken about my thoughts concerning the Muslim family that were subjected to fear and discrimination while trying to take a flight. But this is something far worse.

On New Years eve, hours into the start of the New Year, police shot a young Black man. In the back. While he was laying face down. And I bet most in the nation are only learning about this today, a week into the month just like me.

Now some may have seen the highly edited video of this murder, as shown by ABC News and a local television station. I warn my viewers this is disturbing, real, and murder in my opinion.



Here are details that are currently known and visible from the video. Police were called to the Oakland train station reportedly because of a fight. Once there we see that initially 2 officers had control over 3 or 4 men, who were co-operating. The crowd observing the event made the officers nervous, as another 5 officers arrived on the scene. Oscar Grant, 22 years old, is seen standing at one point though it is not clear why. The officers have him kneel and then place him face first on the ground. Oscar seems to be handcuffed this entire time. He moves on the ground and one of 3 officers restraining him places his knee on Grant's neck. As this happens another officer, a 2 year veteran, casually stands back, reaches for his gun and fires into the back of Grant killing him.

Another view of this entire incident can be seen below.

This is raw footage. The key moments are from 1:56 - 2:57 . It is clear at 2:37 that 32 officers, joined by a third, are nervous but controlling a crowd that are busy observing the event and video taping it. At 2:52 you can see the officer draw his gun, with 2 officers holding Grant down, 3 officers holding the crowd (4 people apparently and an unknown amount in the subway car) and I believe one other officer in the background.

While the situation was not pleasant, none of the men on the ground were endangering the officers. The crowd was at a distance. and 3 men were close getting video. One of those men was taken down by one officer, but the rest of them were unencumbered or endanger. I say that both from their stance and the video footage of the crowd.



There is no question of the guilt of the officer that fired. There was no threat. Not from Grant, the other men on the ground, nor the crowd. There were 6 or 7 officers at the location that can be observed, with an unknown amount in transit. While quite vocal, the crowd maintained a wide distance, with the exception of 3 men that were under constant observation by no less than 2 officers.

This was a murder.

A murder committed by a police officer, on an unarmed, defenseless Black man. Again. And some dare tell me that I have no reason to fear the police. That stories about the consistent, coast to coast murder of Black men by police is a lie. That this is just a coincidence.

If all that were true, then why has this taken 6 days to be released to the nation? Why has no major media network covered this story nationally? Why is ABC News providing a highly edited video that places doubt on the cause of this event, when I found several videos of this event on youtube in 10 seconds that are clear on what happened.

The innocent can stand in the light of day, and were this murder justified in any way the police would have made it national an hour after it happened. But it is not. And only now, with the family suing for $25 million is it catching attention.

And I think the family deserves far more. A father of a 4 year old daughter has been killed in cold blood for no justifiable reason. A family has lost a son. There is no proper price, but obviously in California the $50 million paid to Rodney King was not enough to make a point.

How can anyone look at this video, and recall the deaths of Sean Bell, the beating of Rodney King, Amidou Diallo, and so many other events - each year - and not wonder if Black men have bull's eye's painted on their backs that police see.

I am angry. At the news media for hiding this for days. At the police department in Oakland for pretending that there could be any justification for this act. They are claiming the officer might have been trying to draw his taser. If so, once his hand was on the gun didn't he know the difference. Once he drew the gun and saw it, why didn't he replace it. And why did he fire when 2 officers had control of Grant on the ground?

And I am insanely angry at the officer. he is a murderer. He needs to be in jail right now. Because I guarantee if I killed a White man who was on the ground, defenseless, and a father of a child there would be national outrage. I'd be in a jail immediately. And the only question would be if I would get electrocuted. And all that is without a video tape.

Justice in America is not colorblind. Like the news media and police across the nation it seems to be color bound.

School teaches about slavery by binding Black children

Over my 40 years I heard of many things teachers have done to teach kids. Some are great ideas, some are bad, and occasionally some create unexpected results like The Wave. But I am still trying to learn what gave a teacher the thought that binding Black children to explain slavery was a good idea.

The teacher was of course White. I say that because only someone who has no direct attachment to the concept of slavery would be so oblivious to the social and personal impact such an act would create. That does not mean the teacher is racist or mean-spirited. I only mean to say they had no idea what this action would mean.

This happened in a 7th grade class, in Haverstraw Middle School, to 2 Black girls about the age of 13. The girls were singled out, but were not the only Black children in the class, had their hands and feet bound with tape, and then told to crawl under a desk to simulate being shipped as slaves across the sea.

There are too many problems with this.

First why couldn't a mix of children be used for this example? Why not a couple of White kids? Why did they have to be Black.

What teacher has a right to bind any child? I doubt there is any reason for such an action. And if the children were white I imagine an outrage among the community that would have reached the airwaves - which this did not.

Once bound why did the children need to be further humiliated by being made to crawl. That could easily be seen as humiliating even without bound hands and feet. Adding to that is the exclusion that occured. Why didn't the teacher give every child a chance to crawl so they all understood it from both views?

And of course there is nothing happening over this. The teacher still has a job and was teaching class. The Superintendent is brushing this off as a class exercise that went wrong - only because one of the girls became upset. And the major media has yet to cover this as far as I have seen.

This happened on November 18th, reported on Friday. A google search barely shows the media, or internet, having paid any attention. It's being ignored and forgotten by the media as I speak. But just imagine if this were 2 White girls and a Black teacher. Imagine the attention then.

The NAACP and one of the girls mothers are outraged. They have asked for action. The teacher has apoligized because one of the girls was upset, not for the actions taken. And I have to ask what if it was your kid?

Maybe when a teacher decides to help kids learn about the Holocaust by asking a couple of Jewish kids to come to the front of the class so they can have numbers written on them in pen and then kneel in a corner of the room facing a wall as eraser chalk is poured on them someone will notice. And the excuse that this is a lesson about the death chambers will be useless, and the entire event will be seen for the tasteless crass insult that this was. Or maybe it will be Asian children and the intenment camps in America. Or Native Indians about how the troops infected them with diseases. And on and on.

Maybe then we will see a reaction that matches the actions. Because the reation in that community now is that

"Parents said they were aware of the incident but few wanted to talk about it."

Sounds just like the national position on slavery in general. And it pisses me off.

If you would like to let Haverstraw Middle School hear your thoughts about this event, this insult, I have found the contact information. You can reach the school at

Haverstraw Middle School , 16 Grant Street , Haverstraw, NY 10927
Phone: 845-942-3400 | Fax: 845-942-3403

The teacher is Eileen Bernstein.

So there a Black guy in an elevator...

Ok, hold the presses. I just saw this video - thanks to On A Whole New Level (which links to my site I found out) - that had me laughing out loud. This is the perfect video about the whole Black man in an elevator situation.

Warning, this contains a small bit of vulgar language that some might find offensive. Of course the subject matter it is dealing with is a whole lot more offensive if you ask me.



Now tell me that wasn't perfect. I had to watch it twice. Thank you ThinkerGoneMad.

Audi television commercial says we are all not the same

Ah the holiday season. It’s a time of credit card debt, long lines at shopping malls and department stores, and occasionally a truly inspired television commercial. I recall somewhere in the back of my mind a time around now that would be called the Thanksgiving and then Christmas Holidays and family gatherings, but that’s a bit fuzzy and a long time ago. And it’s not my point.

The television commercials promoting the purchases you need to make to ensure the happiness of your loved ones are interesting. Often television can provide dramatic insight to the real mood and thoughts of the nation. This is never more true than during a holiday, or the Super Bowl. And Audi really made a statement early into the season.

Now I have to admit that I did not notice the problem in this commercial the first time I saw it. It was a friend of mine who saw it on Friday and asked if I had noticed something glaring in the commercial. I finally found a copy of it and I wonder if you will see the problem.



You only need to pay attention to the details of the commercial to get the message. It’s subtle and visual, and only on for 2 seconds.

Need help? I did at first too. Look at the road that each guy gets. It’s not the design of the road, it’s the size of it. And that says a lot, especially when each home is considered too.

The Black couple have a piece of the road, a very small piece. They have a decent if not plainly decorated home. There is no extravagance, and their clothes are neither new nor impressive.

The next couple is White. They have a far bigger piece of road. The style the room is decorated in seems to imply an apartment while the art, furniture, lamps, and books imply white-collar professionals. That means the apartment is a condo. And this implies a higher income than the Black couple.

The last couple are also White (or at least the man is, and the woman could be argued to have some Latina traits though I don’t see it). They have a huge home, and an equally large section of road.

I realize that Audi included middle-class African Americans in their commercial. I know they are projecting an image of success for them as well. And obviously they want African American customers. But that’s just a secondary thought. They really are saying that they want White customers. And that they value White customers over Black ones.

Some might say I am overly critical of the television commercial. I think not, because when you have only 30 seconds to make a statement everything that is seen is part of your message. There are teams of people making more than I do each, pouring over every detail in this commercial and then another group of even better paid people that approve the idea and pitch it to Audi. And then Audi’s really well paid people go over it all before it gets a greenlight.

Audi doesn’t care if Billy Joe working at the gas station likes the commercial. They don’t care if Santiago working at the printing company watched the commercial. They want people with money and tons of it. And that is reflected in the commercial.

What the commercial really says is if you are Black and can put some money together you might be able to own an Audi. If you are a yuppie in the city you can own their car, and if you relax at the country club you are a member of on the weekend and live in the suburbs you need to own this car. Because it’s the White guy with the big house that gets the car in the end.

Now I will say again that I didn’t pay attention to this commercial the first time I saw it. But I have watched it since a few times. And I’m happy that Audi has joined the growing number of companies targeting African Americans for their products. It’s nice to see that at least commercials are willing to acknowledge the existence of, and buying power controlled by, African Americans. They are ahead of television programming that continues to emphasize a view of the world more akin to 1960 than 2000.

But that does not mean I enjoy the message they are sending out. It’s not as bad as the insulting commercials that McDonald’s puts out that are obvious in their targeting of African Americans via stereotypes in the media. But the message is not as positive as it could have been either. Simply having all the pieces of the road the same size (hell they could have used the same piece for all it mattered) would have been enough. A simple statement that all the customers that could afford an Audi are equal in their eyes, and welcome. But that isn’t what they believe according to their commercial.

Again, commercials are the window to the thoughts in the back of the collective minds of the nation. It’s the backhanded compliment (like when Colin Powell and President Obama are called clean and articulate), or the obliviousness of using terms based on racial segregation and Jim Crow that thankfully stopped being used 25 years ago (Lindsey Lohan ring a bell?).

I’m not saying that every commercial has to include African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Indians (who you really never see at all) and every other group in America. But I am saying that when the majority of commercials exclude all these groups, and when the small portion that do show us imply imperfections and secondary status, I speak on it. It means to me that America still has a long way to go. That it’s not just people in Pennsylvania or West Virginia that have problems. That the world continues to feed upon the negative images our media provides, diminishing the nation by diminishing parts of our nation.

Do I like the Audi? Yes I do. Would I buy one after seeing this commercial? I might. But what I would rather see are commercials for whatever product that includes people just like me, in exactly the same manner as they target anyone else. Because I have the same Rights, money, and dammit I have earned it.

Lindsey Lohan: unpleasant words from an unpleasant mind

I heard about it yesterday, and found it on Youtube today. The brilliance of Lindsey Lohan is stunning to behold I must say. If you have not heard about this I now present you with Lohan handing out a compliment.



The key moment in this conversation is the 13th through 19th seconds. In 6 seconds Lohan both states he thrill at an Obama win, and then insults him harshly. It’s so simple and obviously so common that Maria Menounos of Access Hollywood doesn’t even notice.

Colored. As in the defining word in Jim Crow laws and segregation that prevented Blacks from voting, or even sitting on a bus, for nearly 100 years.

I have a friend, who is 50, and he mentioned to me what she had said and asked why it was a big deal. He honestly had no idea though in several years I’ve never heard him utter the word once. For the benefit of others in the world, it is a big deal to many. NEVER call an African American colored.

That one word was used, along with the n-word in less polite circles, to describe African Americans. And it was meant as a derogatory term. It was a means of separating and belittling. It was meant as a way of inferring both difference and dislike.

Is it a hateful word? Not entirely, depending on the person that states it. But I can say that I have never heard the term uttered by anyone under 60 before. I’ve encountered diehard racists that never used the term, though they did use the n-word with frequency (while they had teeth). And in the years since 1970 the only reference I have been aware of for that usage is when someone is trying to be polite in public and does not want to use the n-word. It’s a tell that would be like jumping up and down at a poker table.

The fact that Lohan uses this term does not surprise me. I am sure that her circle of drug addicted, drunken friends are anything but the most enlightened souls. Often the most ignorant, stupid, small-minded, weak-willed, imbecilic and verbally constrained people are drunks, drug addicts, and/or racist. Which makes perfect sense when considering the crowd around Lohan.

But I did notice that Access Hollywood seems to be taking up for Lohan’s racial remark by stating

“We believe the word in question that Ms. Lohan used was unintelligible.”

Unintelligible? Hardly. I heard it a clear as a day. And it is not some kind of made up word out of the dictionary only Don King uses. It was very intelligible. And no one should be trying to obscure what she said.

I know that the NAACP has stated that they think the use of colored was

“…outdated and antiquated but not offensive.”

And I disagree. Not one friend I know, nor any person of color I have ever known would find her comment inoffensive. Perhaps if I were born in the highly racist 1950’s or earlier in America it wouldn’t matter. But I and most Black Americans alive today were not. Nor was she.

Is it racist? No. Is it racially insensitive and insulting, Yes. The mere fact that as America has become less racist the term has ceased being used is proof enough of that. One day the term Black may be as well. But right now, there is no reason why Lohan would use such a term without being in an environment that fosters and promotes negative stereotypical views of Blacks.

One thing is for sure, the fact that much of America didn’t blink an eye, like Maria Menounos and the editors of Access Hollywood, tells me that thinking of Black people as second-class and offensive still is as much a part of America as it was half a century ago.

President Obama is Black, and that one act did not change America’s racist heritage nor the racially charged problems of today.

Movie Preview: Miracle at St Anna

Spike Lee has a new movie coming out and I’m sure it will bring its share of controversy. In fact the movie, or more accurately Lee, drew media attention earlier this year. The reason was because director/actor Clint Eastwood found it unimportant to show a single African American soldier in either of his critically acclaimed movies based on WWII.

Miracle at St. Anna is the first film that I am aware of besides A Soldier’s Story and The Tuskegee Airmen that depicts African Americans involvement in World War II. I recommend both movies strongly.

There were over 1.1 million African Americans that served in WWII. These soldiers fought and many died even though America maintained segregation and Jim Crow laws, because they agree that the threat to America was too great to be ignored. They served as bravely and fiercely as any other American or Allied soldier. And in all the movies dedicated and based on the war I can only name 5 (including this upcoming film) that feature or include Blacks. That’s just insulting and ignorant.

Obviously Spike Lee agreed with me.



Miracle at St. Anna is based on the novel of the same name and the Sant'Anna di Stazzema massacre where 560 Italian women, children and old men were killed by retreating SS soldiers. The soldiers in the movie are part of the 92nd Infantry Division which was a real division in WWII that fought in Italy.

The 92nd was called the Buffalo Soldiers, were segregated, fought alongside Black Africans, Morrocans, Algerians, Indians, Gurkhas, Jews and Palestinians as well as with exiled Poles, Greeks and Czechs, anti-fascist Italians and the nonsegregated troops of the Brazilian Expeditionary Force.

The 92nd Infantry Division had the slogan Deeds not Words, suffered 5,000 casualties, and had members receive Medal of Honor-2; Distinguished Service Cross (United States Army)-2; Distinguished Service Medal (United States)-1; Silver Star-208; Legion of Merit-16; Soldier's Medal-6; Bronze Star -1,166; Purple Hearts-1891; Orders of the Crown of Italy-8; Military Crosses for Military Valor (Italian)-17; Military Crosses for Merit in War (Italian)-22; Military Cross for Merit in War (Italian) 92nd Division Colors; War Medal (Brazil)-1.

The 2 men that received the Medal of Honor - John R. Fox and Vernon J. Baker – were given this honor in 1997. That was 48 years after their service, which I think is an absurdly long time to wait to recognize the actions of these men. But it is also common as the surviving members of the Tuskegee Airmen had to wait a similar amount of time to be recognized as well.

Given the history of these men, the valor they displayed during the war, and the massive and unjustifiable disrespect America showed these men before, during, and long after WWII I expect this movie to be very well done. Anything else would be an insult to their memory.

Considering that Spike Lee has 2 uncles that served in the war, I have every reason to believe that he did the best job possible which means a phenomenal movie. If I am correct that also means that Hollywood will likely ignore the film and if it has the luck to gain attention for any awards, it will lose.

Go see this movie. It’s a homage to men that American history has ignored, that served their nation even when it did not serve them. Making this film successful is literally the least that we can do.

And here are Spike Lee’s own words about why you should see the film (and I have to add I don’t agree with his political thoughts).

Reuters slaps Oprah Winfrey over donations

When it comes to entertainers and African Americans the major news media really can’t say a positive thing. In fact when they do, you virtually always find any positive surrounded by or minimized by negatives. It’s disgusting.

Let me give you an example.

The worst example that was readily available is the news on celebrity donations. Generosity by some of the wealthiest of entertainers is a great positive. It’s uplifting to see them giving back to their communities and to people in need, here in the U.S. and overseas.

The top of the list goes to Oprah Winfrey. She gave a total of $50 million to children, advocacy for women, healthcare and education in 2007 alone. This amount is more than the rest of the top 5 celebrity donations combined. As donations go she has made a substantial gift to many that need it, and in comparison to other celebrities she stands towering above them all.

Yet Reuters wants to keep this downplayed as much as possible. To achieve this they found the need to state

“Winfrey is a former Bob Hope Humanitarian Award winner, but her girls' academy in South Africa made headlines last year after a former dormitory matron was charged with abusing students.”

Now I ask you this, why is it necessary to mention anything about the negative incident at Oprah’s South African school for girls?

The article is about celebrity donations. The goal was to document how much they gave and who they gave to. For each of the other entertainers (Herb Alpert, Barbara Streisand, Paul Newman, and Mel Gibson) there is not another mention of a negative in relation to their donations. There isn’t a whiff of controversy, except for Oprah.

Why did Reuters find it important to acknowledge Oprah for her voluntary donations, laud her past, and then slap her with an unfortunate event that she had no control over and resolved without delay. I mean if this is what they wanted to do they could have brought up Newman’s illness, or Gibson’s racial comments and lack of sobriety. But those are White entertainers.

Maybe it’s not a racial thing. But I don’t see any other reason.

Oprah doesn’t need media attention, scandal does not help her ratings. Her donations are not tied to publicity, nor is she craving a reward for what she does. She has nothing requiring her to give as much as she does. And Reuters thinks so highly of this that they felt they had to cut her off at the ankles. Wasn’t that kind of them.

I realize that negative news on entertainers and celebrities gets ratings and sells newspapers. I realize that we live in a world where media feed off of mishaps, miscues, and mayhem like vultures feeding on carrion. But sometimes good news doesn’t need to be anything else.

When you read what Reuters states in its article think of this. If you remove all mention of the South African school incident does the nature of the article change? No it doesn’t. So this information is superfluous and solely in there to denigrate Oprah Winfrey. I am insulted by Reuters.

Belinda Goldsmith wrote the article, Miral Fahmy was the editor. Both should be ashamed of themselves and embarrassed to have this published as it was. I would love to hear from either of them, or both, so that they can explain why they felt the absolute need to minimize the outstanding generosity of Oprah exclusively. I would love to hear them explain how this benefits the article or provides any new insight about celebrity donations.

Do you agree?

Comment about Race in America

The following is a response to my post at Black & White Blog, where I am a contributing author.

Sadie Says:
August 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
i dont have much to say on any race issue.. but all the time u hear about a white man callin a black man a nigger then everyone is in an uproar and the white man is seen by most as a rasist asshole but then if a black man calls that white man a honky or a cracker its ok because “we enslaved their people”… hmmm ok no one alive today enslaved “their people” and no im not saying slavery was right.. need to point that out before im called a rasist.. i just think that anytime something happens with more than one race involved it gets turned into a race issue. im tired of hearing it.. i personaly dont call black people niggers but how many black people call white people honkys or crackers? thats all i have to say i just needed to get that out.


Sadie,

Thank you for your comment.

First let me mention that I hate the N-Word. I don’t use it in my speech or in any of my posts – ever. It’s a deplorable word and I dislike its use in any format or for any reason. I do realize that your use of the word was not meant to be disrespectful. I just don’t like that word.

But to your point.

Yes, a White guy saying that to a Black man is a racist commentary. That does not immediately mean the White guy is racists as well, though it does cause reason to wonder.

A curse is used when a person is incapable of using any other term(s) that might convey the thoughts they have. The more limited the vocabulary (and therefore the intelligence) of an individual the more common the use of curses in place of an actual thought. And the purpose of a curse is to inflict rage and anger and hurt, nothing else.

In the American (and English in general to my knowledge) language there is no curse or term more derogatory, insulting, and painful than the N-word. It is defined as “the possibly single worst word in the English language”. There is no comparable or equivalent word for any other group, sex, or race. None.

So when a White uses this term they are not merely cursing the Black person, they are using the most vicious word in the language to inflict the most pain – solely on the basis of their race. Because they have no other word in their vocabulary to either win their discussion, or to express themselves. And that is key.

In the minds of those that use this word is the knowledge that this singular word is violent, degrading and painful to a specific race. That with one word they are insulting a person, their ancestors, their children, the entire race all at once. And there is no comeback, no reply that can top it or equal it.

By comparison a ‘cracker’ was a term created by the North to describe Southerners in a disparaging manner. Since at the time Whites were the only ones considered of worth the meaning only applied to Whites, but it was meant to describe a region. So you have a word created by Whites to describe Whites on a regional basis. Very similar in the manner that ‘yankee’ was used to describe Northerners, and I imagine had the South won the Civil War would hold the same meaning as cracker does today. It’s a word that is specific to a style of life in a region, and therefore has minimal impact today and is not relevant to describe all Whites.

So while your point that you have not enslaved anyone is valid, there is the difference. You may not have acted directly against African Americans, and Native American Indians for that matter, you are the direct beneficiary of those that did. There is no argument that slave labor literally built the foundations of the nation on the backs, bones and blood of millions of Africans. It was the slave labor that funded the growth and wealth of the nation. A line can be drawn from that labor to the wealth and prosperity of the nation today.

And that word relives that pain and inhumanity.

But in America, when a crime has been committed the criminal cannot benefit from that crime. A killer cannot write a book, nor have an insurance policy that pays them because of the crime they committed. And slavery is acknowledged as a vile evil criminal act.

Yet not one American has been asked to return their profits from their crimes. Ever. In fact it was not until this year that any Governmental body ever expressed remorse or an apology for what was done. And when it was done this year it was done by a voice vote, such that not a single name could be recorded either way – and only in the House of Representatives thus preventing it from becoming an official statement of the Government.

So when the N-word is used it is a reflection of an unrepentant nation, which is prosperous because of millions that were enslaved, killed and died without regard for hundreds of years, and are described as being inhuman and without worth. That’s what it means when a White says the N-word (and it only has a slightly less repugnant meaning when said by a Black to a Black).

You may not use this word against a Black person vocally, but you have no problem using the word. Because you do not see or feel the meaning of the word. I do.

And it is because of that sensitivity (or lack thereof) that you do not see why this or that action can be viewed racially (right or wrong). It’s not something that will ever affect a White person in America. It is something that does affect every person of color in America today. And I can prove it.

Pick 5 generic television stations. Watch each station for 1 hour. Mark down every time you see a non-background character that is non-White. Also mark down every White character. This includes commercials.

If you have more than 2 Asians in 5 hours I bet you were watching a kung fu marathon. If you have more than 7 Hispanics you were watching the non-generic Spanish television stations (like Telemundo). If you get more than 15 African Americans you were watching BET. And I guarantee that you will have at least 300 Whites no matter what.

[Based on 4 main characters per 1 hour show, 2 recurring characters or guests, and 3 people per commercial with 10 commercials per ½ hour – which equals 330 people/hour]

If I am right, and I am very sure I’m at least close within a couple of people, then that means that American television reflects a world where .61% of the population is Asian, 2.1% are Hispanic/Latino, and 4.5% are Black. Native Indians or any other group do not exist. [Just for the record, the actual fact is that 1 in 3 people in America are non-White.]

In effect television is saying that America is 7.2% non-White, or essentially that America is an all White nation. It means that any non-White is unimportant and does not need to be shown in any setting – whether based in reality or fantasy. And I’d bet that if you are White and reading this you never noticed or thought about this. But every person of color gets the statement being subtly made to us every hour of every day.

So I am not surprised Sadie, that you are tired about hearing something that you do not directly feel or have affect you daily. But for the rest of us, it’s not the same thing. And the only way to change this is to remind you that your take-it-for-granted view of America is wrong.

So expect that until racism and the use of the N-word ceases to happen or exist you are going to always be tired of hearing about how biased America really is.