"Negro dialect"

Those are part of the words that Sen. Harry Reid used to describe President Obama during the 2008 Presidential campaign. "Negro dialect". It just keeps running through my mind.

What is "negro dialect" Senator Reid? How exactly are African Americans supposed to speak? Is it somehow different than himself, or Hillary Clinton, or even Rush Limbaugh? Is there some kind of class required to learn this language?

Let's take this from the beginning. Negro, a term used before and through the 1960's to describe African Americans. It replaced the N-word, which was a step forward indeed. But EVERY conotation of the word was intended to denote a second-class of citizenship, a substandard way of life, and inferiority. It is a term embedded with racial disparity and prejudice. And it is a term no longer used because of those very reasons.

In using these words, combined with the backhanded compliment of how light the skin of President Obama is, an image is made. It's an image no different that the one I would have if the words were said by a person in a white hood made them. And there is nothing that makes that statement better.

Reid has run for the hills, with Democrats of all types covering his tracks. He is proclaiming his record of acheivements absolve him of the thought process that made those words enter and escape his mouth. He is trying to project his liberal image, as a defense to his racial verbage.

But why, in 2008, would ANYONE of whatever political background use such terminology? What is it that makes this ok for some? [Notably the "Black leaders" - who themselves share the same political ideology]

Shallow minds might point to rap music as the cause of the statement. But think about that. Slang words have been used by every generation of Americans since before there was an America. Those in the South, the West Coast, even in various cities in the same region, all have slang. Yet I have never heard anyone speak of a politicians "White dialect", let alone praise them for it (or the lack thereof).

Who promotes the slang used in rap music? Not the entertainers. They are merely the tool used to market it. They don't control the production of CD's, the production of music videos and television commercials. That's all done by the music industry executives. The very same people that decide that this style of clothing will sell, or that gospel should be emphasized in the South, and country music in the mid-west.

Yes it's music executives that promote the rap slang. And they sell it to White youth that are all too willing to buy the records, dress in the clothes, and emulate the style in a music video like a child might emulate the family puppy because it's funny.

But that's all business. That has nothing to do with the educations of the entertainers, or their fans. It has nothing to do with their ability to speak or think. It has nothing to do with the shades of color (or lack) of their skin. All that has to do with is money.

So I really want to understand what "negro dialect" Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada is talking about. Is it the way I speak? Is it the way that my father spoke? Or the way Rev. Jesse jackson speaks? What is it exactly?

In my life I have heard some with doctorates that have thick Southern drawls, business owners with the quick tempos of New York City speech. I have heard people with perfect diction that are winos, and others who mumble that are multi-millionaires. I even recall a stock brokerage owner who you would swear sounds just like Mickey Mouse. Do any of those styles of speech make these people smarter, richer, better? Would revealing the skin color of those same people elevate their intelligence and abilities?

Sen. Reid wants to point out all the things he's done to better race relations in America. As if that alters his apparent thought that African Americans need to be fixed. That somehow the color of my skin impedes my mental abilities in some manner.

Was Dr. Martin Luther King any less intelligent because he had skin darker than mine? Was Malcolm X an less of a man because he could speak jive, like many New Yorkers? Is Jay-Z any less of a success because he can rap on an album that music executives want to promote? Is Michael Jordan, or Muhammad Ali, or Tiger Woods any less talented because of their skin or how they speak?

Sen. Harry Reid slipped when he uttered these comments. He spoke his true mind, and not the polispeak spin of a politician when in front of a crowd or camera. In the past when celebrities and politicians have done this there was an outcry to have those people removed. Think of Don Imus, Dogg the bounty hunter, and so many more. How is what Reid said any differnt?

Better yet, to understand if this was really racial bias and wrong let's change the color of the statement. If it's insulting when any other group is used, then it's insulting. And if any other group would be outraged, Harry Reid should be removed from his political position.

If the statement was 'Jewish dialect' or 'Chinese dialect', or 'Hispanic dialect', does it sound any better? What if he had said 'that's a lght-skinned Arab' or 'light-skinned Italian' does it sound just as supposedly innocent?

'XX should be President because they are a dark-skinned Caucassian... who can speak without a Christian dialect if they want to.'

Does any of that sound fair, or simple? Does it sound innocent, or does it hint as if the speaker is saying something less than positive? That somehow the person being referred to is less than what they are being touted as?

I say that in each case, substituting whomever you wish, the statement is an insult. Which means that, if we are consistent, Harry Reid should lose his position (and hopefully be voted out of office). Because if Rush Limbaugh, or Kanye West, or Bill O'Reilly said it, Liberals and Democrats, and all the "Black leaders" rushing to the defense of Harry Reid would surely demand their scalp.

Danger for kids on the internet

I have a nephew that is pre-teen, and is on a social network. Recently I found that he had made changes to his page on that site. And I was amazed and upset by what I saw. And I wonder if other children have done the same thing. [By the way, all the things have been since changed and discussed with him by his father - so he understands why they were inappropriate.]

One of the first things that was on the site was the fact that he had pictures up that showed him and his friends holding up the moronic 'westside' and other similar gang signs. Beyond looking as bad as anyone who does this, it alarmed me to think that some fool was trying to recruit him and his friends into the dead-end life that is a gang member.

As it turned out he and his friends had no understanding of what the symbols meant. They had just seen them many times on television and thought it looked cool. Which is the idea I suppose. But he also did not realize that fools that believe in this kind of lifestyle also might hurt or kill him and his friends, because it was an insult to their gang or he represented an invasion to their 'territory', or simply because he had no connection to their abusive, illogical, warped group.

Another problem was the fact that his age was incorrect. This was done because he and his friends did not want to be seen as kids. For some reason they felt that being their actual age was a bad thing. That they were left out of some major positive the website provided only to adults.

They had no idea that this minor act helped to put them in danger of the pedophiles and other warped individuals that surf the net. They roam around enough as is, they need no help in finding children. And when my nephew mentioned that he would never be tricked into meeting with or otherwise contacting a stranger because he is too smart - I had to remind him that many adults are far smarter and have more experience than even the highly intelligent boy he is.

But the really big things that bothered me was the ease he had in finding and using graphics from a site that had an altered image of Microsoft's Word package.

The Word graphic is a box that has the picture of 5 famous rappers on it. Each in a state of rapper ghettofabulousness. Underneath were the words "Yo it's Word (n-word)". This was thought to be funny. Yet when asked there was no reason why it was funny, it just was.

So I then asked a simple question.

"Does it make sense that all these rappers and people want to be 'ghettofabulous' but everyone in the ghetto, especially the rappers, all want to get out? How good can the ghetto be, and living a life based on the 'ghetto', when no one wants to be there - even with money - except drug dealers."

His answer was simple as well. "It doesn't make sense at all."

I then asked the really big question.

"Do you know what the n-word means?"

He did not. He had no clue, though he has heard it in music and movies. He just thought it was another word.

That might sound great to some but that troubled me. Because the meaning of the word has not changed. If the CEO of Procter&Gamble used it in a interview he would be fired and sued if possible. The same would happen to the record executive that rappers work for (many of whom will not allow that word to be used in their own home). Because the meaning never changed, no matter the color of who says it.

So I told him about the fact that the n-word was used to describe slaves. That it was used to describe people just like him and I that were treated worse than dogs. And I told him about all the people that died so that he would never have to be called that word. Like uncounted numbers of slaves, Blacks that fought in the Civil War, WWI & II, Korea, Vietnam. Men like Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All those that died in the civil rights movement and so many others.

I told him the truth of the meaning of the word, and how it is defined in part as the single worst word in the english language. That to be called that has no comparison or equivalent come-back.

And then I told him how lucky he was to be alive today. Because he has never been called that. But I have been, as has my mother and father and so on. That he never has to fear being called that (I hope) because he was playing in school with a White kid, or because a White girl liked him. The world is mostly better than that, but not entirely.

And I told him the truth that the legal system once said that if a White person called a Black person that word, and the Black person hit them they would not go to jail. Because it was an incendiary term, a provoking term. And that's why the White owners of record companies can't say the word, but pay rappers to do it for them. And I asked him this

"How important do you think it is that the law was made about this word? How big a word do you think it is?"

He thought it very important. And he understood it in a very different and unfunny way.

I say all that to bring up this point. It's not enough to just watch what children are doing on the internet. We all, uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents, need to be involved. We all need to explain why some things are wrong, and what the history of these things are. Because if we don't kids will use them, act on them, to their detriment.

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.

British chaplin wants to use tattoos like Nazi stars

I was considering taking a look at some news on tattoos and happened to do a search on what has been happening. There of course was news on Angelina Jolie getting tattoos for her twins, and that was kind of interesting. I considered speaking on that until I saw something that really made me stop.

In a flash I read the title of this article and saw the Nazi’s forcing Jew’s to wear yellow stars and gays to wear pink triangles. I was reminded of the horror of small minds acting in the most horrific manner to eliminate anyone that was not just like them.

The title was

Homosexuals should carry warning tattoos, says chaplain

Upon reading the article I found that Rev Dr Peter Mullen, who is titled as chaplin to the London Stock Exchange (a hobnorary title it seems as the LSE claims), wrote in a blog interview

“Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS."

The blog was uncreditied and it seems that the entire post was removed. Still that does not change the fact that the comments were made. Rev. Mullen defends himself essentially stating that this was just English humor, and if readers were smart enough they would recognize this and get a chiuckle.

I’m sorry Rev. Mullen, I am familiar with and enjoy English humor. I love the bawdy nature of it, and the often dry delivery. I have lived overseas and had many friends from Britian. I understand British satire well, and those statements are not humorous.

Rev. mullen has also written in that blog post on homosexuals

“clearly unnatural, a perversion and corruption of natural instincts and affections, and because it is a cause of fatal disease.”

So that comment coupled with his wish for branding is supposed to be a joke? I suppose that a KKK member in a white hood burning a cross on my lawn and calling me the N-word in the middle of the night would be a belly-aching raucous laugh riot.

Bollocks!

Tattoos are meant to be an expression of the person with the tattoo. A piece of body art that highlights the essence of the person tattooed. They are NOT a means of branding, discrimination, or persecution.

The outright evil that statement embodies is almost unmentionable. It is difficult to accuately convey in words the anger this evokes in me. And I have to wonder who else is on the list of greatest jokes Rev. Mullen might have. Short people, those of different races, different religions?

Humor is a fine line in many cases. Some jokes don’t translate countries or other demographics. That being a given there is an obvious and dramatic point at which you know you have gone so far as to be just vile. And I often find those who go that far are more expressing their own personal bile and miniscule thoughts than anything else.

In Britian there are calls for the Rev. Mullen to resign or be fired. That is at least what should happen. I would love to see Rev. Mullen explain the humor and “satire” of his comment to Holocaust survivors on British television live.

This is not the light or popular post on tattoos I intended. But I think it is far more, it is vital and potent. Because if this were taken by anyone as a joke, as something of a trifle, then we all start on the road that leads to Auschwitz for any number of people that don’t meet the racist, bigoted, small-minded, irrational, fearful, disgusting standard of some twisted gene pool reject.

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.

Moment in time 40 years after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - 4.4.2008.1

Today, 40 years after the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and 2 days before my birthday I pause to reflect on what has happened and what could have.

I’ve read a lot on Dr. King in the recent days, far more than what was written during this past Black History Month. And I’m reminded of comments made by Jeff Johnson when I saw him at Ithaca College this year. I consider what Dr. King was moving forward to do at the time he was killed, and how he has been frozen in time. I look at the society of America and of African Americans.

I am a child of the Civil Rights era. I have benefited in numerous ways from the struggles and strife made by those before me. And there are numerous things today that have gone backwards in time or have wasted the efforts made. Those children beyond my generation have no idea of what has changed, and seemingly few have an appreciation that they don’t know things have changed only recently.

If Dr. King had not been killed 40 years ago, do you think there would be a BET today? Perhaps there would be, and a TV One as well – but not the only 2 and not in the manner that we see now on Black Entertainment Television I imagine. I doubt that Bob Johnson would have been the first with a national cable channel, and it would not have been built upon the back of scantily clad Black women gyrating to lyrics promoting drugs and violence.

If Dr. King had lived, he honestly would have diminished in some of his stature – as all great leaders do as they age. Yet his voice would hold more power than all the so called Black leaders of today combined and then some. He would long ago have questioned the infusion of drugs into our communities, the ridiculous face value actions of “Just say no”, and the promotion of money over education values that have integrated into our communities via music videos, video games, and other genres.

If Dr. King had lived, there would be a voice to speak with fanatical Muslim extremists. Perhaps there would never have been a 9/11, nor a war in Kuwait, nor a bombing in Lebanon. And even if these events did happen, there might have been a voice to provide an alternative just a step short of war.

If Dr. King had lived unions would be far different than they are now. There would have been a powerful voice questioning America’s involvement in Viet Nam, and questioning how the Government ran the war.

I imagine that television networks and movie studios would have rushed to integrate the big and small screens for fear of boycotts. Today there would not be worlds of imagination segregated to a virtually uniform racial make up of the world. There would not be just 2% of the entertainment industry representing every person of color combined. Spike Lee would not have to be heralded as a unique and groundbreaking director (based on his color), but just a great director among others.

I imagine that the African American middle class would not be a ghost, but a viable and growing community. I imagine that I would not have been able to get through high school with a college preparatory physics class textbook that was 3 years older than me. I imagine that a better alternative to Affirmative Action may have been found.

I would hope that had Dr. King lived, America would have come to terms with the need to apologize for slavery, something that I think still festers in the background causing separation and ill-will. I would hope that America could realize that reparations are part of that contrition and the fact that every American today benefits from the 246 years of work that built the foundations of everything that exists today. I would hope that we all would further realize that another 100+ years of segregation and prejudice were instead built upon the back of slavery with Jim Crow laws and that the cycle of judgment based on skin color needed to be broken.

I believe that as some of these things came to pass the history of the nation, the full history, would be revealed. Men like the Tuskegee Airmen and every other African American that has fought in every war America has ever had would not be new revelations to our children today. That the innovations and inventions that make life modern would be attributed to the Blacks that created them. That no person in America would wish to use a word like the N-word because it had no relevance and its meaning is too vile to repeat.

I believe that there would be no need to be distinguished by skin color when being described as an American. I would not need to be African American or Mexican American and so on. We could simply be Americans, one and all.

I believe that the Tuskegee Experiment would not have lasted until 1972, and that the Government would have been smitten for such actions. That there would not need to be a question of whether the government had made AIDS and brought it into communities of people of color because we could be sure they would never act in such a manner again.

I believe that Dr. King would never have become a politician, but other people of color would have been inspired, supported and welcomed as such. That there would be no place in America that could still herald the fact an African American ran for or was elected to a political office. That the first viable Black Presidential candidate would have ran, and possibly been elected long before the 21st century – 388 years after the first recorded slave was sold, 235 years after creating America, 142 years after abolishing slavery, 85 years after lynchings became a crime, 42 years after Jim Crow and segregation laws were declared illegal, 23 years after the first Black Miss America, 8 years after the first Black Secretary of State, 7 years after the first African American President of an Ivy League College and first Black billionaire, and 1 year after the first Black American (and youngest person) that flew around the world solo [which went virtually unreported].

There are many things I think that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. could have done had he lived, and others that he would have influenced that would have benefited America. But I am left with one other thought.

Why haven’t these things happened even without him?

Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman to return to cable television - 2.20.2008.1

Ok, time to re-focus. As is obvious I have been spending a huge amount of time on the Presidential election of late. From my I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign to the multiple posts on all the candidates and vote results [all found at VASS] I have expressed by belief that this election will critically impact all Americans. To that end I am promoting voter registration, and following everything about the candidates.

But, I have not forgotten the core purpose of this blog. So let me get back to those basics.

The first thing I want to touch on is Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman. He is getting back on cable television. Roughly 4 months after his tirade of the N-word and his, in my opinion, pathetic ‘save my job’ apology he will be going back to work.

The A&E cable network has stated

"Since the premise of "Dog The Bounty Hunter" is about second chances - we have decided to give him one."

That’s a load of crap. Lest I misunderstand the program, which I admit to having never seen more than 30 seconds of, it is the reality-styled coverage of a bounty hunter capturing fugitives from the law and forcing them to face the legal system. There is no second chance but forced responsibility. A responsibility that I feel ‘Dog’ Chapman has sought to avoid. And A&E is going to reward that evasion.

When the story first broke I stated

“The mindset that allows the use of the N-word and other disparaging terms against people of color is the issue. It’s that mindset that is angering. He isn’t upset with the words he uses, he is angry if others find out he uses these words. He knows he’s wrong, and doesn’t care.

That is racist. To cowardly use terms to disparage and degrade people, but not be willing to let anyone of the race in question to hear it is racist. Add to this that in the presence of his minister of 7 years, who is Black, he would not use this term but has no problem saying other curses in front of him adds to his deception. He is more than just racist; he is the hidden racist that acts in secret, in a way similar to the KKK.”

Obviously I did not accept the apology made to gain public sympathy. I did not accept his faulty reasoning. I did not excuse his actions. I still don’t to this day.

But I also stated that he should not lose his job. My reason for this has nothing to do with Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman and everything to do with the First Amendment and the fact that it was a private conversation that was made public without his knowledge. It is those factors alone that prevent me from decrying the actions of A&E.

But that does not mean I will support his return.

I hope this program fails miserably. In fact I would suggest that if you did watch this program you discontinue to do so. A message needs to be made, and diminutive ratings would be a nice step in that direction.

I will say it again, I think Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman is a racist. He is the sort of racist of the worst type. One that would smile in the face of an African American – like his preacher of 7 years – and them stab them in the back when no one is looking (and Mexicans and women as well). He is a cowardly racist that deserves no sympathy for his actions.

Let him go back to work. He was duped into being recorded without knowledge. That is a low blow. But his own admissions on national television (speaking with Hannity of the Fox News program Hannity & Colmes) were that this word and other defamitory demeaning comments were used by his cast and co-workers regularly. Thus the failure of his program would be apt justice.

The N-word is not a common plesantry. It’s not a term that is positive for any group of people to use. It promotes the perception that far to many in America are ready to support, that African Americans are lazy, ignorant, repugnant less than human creatures. That is the impression that the N-word has meant for centuries, and it has not changed as ‘Dog’ Chapan so clearly proved.

A&E is counting on the fact that Americans, of all colors, have short memeories. ‘Dog’ Chapman is counting on the same thing. This blog, and I, do not forget easily the use of a word that is meant to equate my family, friends and myself as less than feces.

So the question is do you?

Golfweek sought attention on Tiger Woods lynching - 1.19.2008.1

Tiger Woods. It is a name that when uttered brings up images and thoughts of success, achievement, dedication, fame, recognition, respect and wealth. To some. For a few the only image is that of a Black man in a White sport. Like Fuzzy Zoeller who’s only comment about the success of Tiger winning his first green jacket (an honor few professional golfers ever get – and Tiger now has several) was a stereotyped reference to fried chicken. Or Kelly Tilghman who envisioned Tiger Woods hanging from a tree.

Before I go further I want to take a moment to reflect on something. In 2007 there were several events that stood out. A few were highly covered by the major news media; others were followed and discussed in blogs like this one. Those events included Don Imus verbally attacking the Black members of the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team without provocation, Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman hurling the N-word as he rebuked his son for the interracial relationship he was in, the kidnapping torture and sexual abuse of Megan Williams in West Virginia, the reports of roughly 50 nooses throughout the nation, and the Jena 6.

Let’s focus on the Jena 6 and the nooses. It was a noose that caused the inflammation of that event. In fact it caused multiple events, all racially based, across the country. The sight of a noose from a tree, implying the potential lynching of African Americans, evoked violence and highlighted the imbalances that exist in the application of the law in America.

All of these things are facts.

Given these facts, it should be obvious to most that a noose is little different than the swastika or the confederate flag to most African Americans. They are all symbols of hate and violence unleashed for the pleasure of people too absorbed with the skin tone of those around them. These small minds needed big symbols to evoke the fear they felt and they made them huge.

How powerful are these connotations? Considering that the conservative counts of African Americans that were lynched numbers at least 3500 over 93 years (which ends in 1958). That after 7 years of debate and stalling, lynching became illegal in the United States in 1922. That given those numbers and the recent timeline, most African Americans need only look back 2 generations to find members of their family that were affected directly by either lynching or the Jim Crow laws and prejudice that fueled it. That’s 2 generations, even if you are just 20 now.

So yes nooses are not jokes or objects of laughter any more than say Nagasaki, or a concentration camp, or the Japanese internment is. It is a visceral reminder of violence against Blacks merely because we exist. And there is no equivalent that I am aware of that White Americans have ever known.

Perhaps it’s the fact that there is no equivalent that makes it so easy for some White Americans to minimize the impact of a noose, or to call for lynching a person. Perhaps the fact that far fewer White Americans can point to any time in America and their family trees when they were considered, by law, property or less than human or deserving of death because they exist. IF a nuclear bomb had destroyed Kansas City, I’m sure they would understand as I do. IF from say now until 2254 every White American was hit with a whip, 5 times every day for a half-hour each time, I guarantee they would understand.

But the fact is most don’t understand and never will. And that is why Tiger Woods is involved in a news story that deals with golf in the most meaningless way. That is the reason that Ms. Tilghman said the remarks she made (which I discussed previously – Tiger Woods comment impacts Dr. Martin Luther King birthday), why she only received a 2 week suspension, and Golfweek thought a noose on the cover of their magazine was appropriate.

Because if anyone stopped to think about it, or the events that filled the hours between intense discussion about Sanjiah still being on American Idol, how Anna Nicole Smith died and why (it was a drug overdose and she was an addict – seemed simple to me), and Ellen DeGeneres crying on television about breaking a contract and losing a puppy she had no right to give away, then you might have noticed that the prominent display of a noose pisses off most African Americans.

Obviously the editor at Golfweek missed all the abovementioned events, though I would bet that they know about American Idol. I would have thought the comments by the Golf Channel and the reaction of most (not Tiger Woods sadly – he missed a huge opportunity to make a valid and needed point) Blacks would have been a clue. Obviously they took that, and the entire Jena 6 situation among others, as the elephant in the room.

"...we consider Golfweek's imagery of a swinging noose on its cover to be outrageous and irresponsible. It smacks of tabloid journalism. It was a naked attempt to inflame and keep alive an incident..." - PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem

There is no justification for the noose on the cover. It was a blatant attempt to profit off of a serious and offensive event. It seems apparent that they must have felt that since golf in America is so predominantly White their actions would slip through the cracks and the major news media would ignore it. Mostly they are correct, but not enough thankfully.

Let me say this clearly, I hope many in the major news media hear this and remember it. A noose is required for lynching. Neither is a positive nor funny (as many in Americas past felt they were). Both evoke memories of a time in America when we were not the land of the free, not for all not for a long time. Both evoke thoughts of words whose only use is the degradation and minimalization of an entire race of people for no reason other than their genetic birthright. The use of either of these things is no more worthy of profiteering than using videotape of 9/11 to promote political gain or an air ionizer.

There is a manner and way of using both the term lynching and a noose such that a positive is reached. That would be education and sensitivity on what those things mean and what they involved. That would help fill in some of the missing parts in American history, where African Americans are concerned.

But that would involve an understanding that I mentioned previously is missing, and that Golfweek seems far too obtuse to understand.

Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 3 - 11.7.2007.2

Concluded from Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 2...

And lastly the interview ends with his written public apology, and his claim he would rather die than inflict pain on the Black community. Some how I doubt that. Had that been true he would not use, nor allow use around him, of the n-word. He would not have spit out the bile and malicious wording that is now the testament of his thoughts. Again I say his apology sounds hollow and as false as a poorly tuned piano.

But that is not the end of his annoying attempt to get back his lucrative television show and audience. The last thing he mentions is his efforts to get in touch with God and to go to a gravesite of African Slaves and to place a gravestone for each of them buried there.

I’m sorry but my anger cannot be bought so cheaply. My anger that has grown immensely as I hear him continue to speak. Now he thinks that telling me he is going to get in touch with God, and that this should excuses his intent and actions? That his taking the out that all entertainers and celebrities are using now, treatment for deplorable actions, is going to gain sympathy? Not with me.

And to even mention the graves of those Africans that were taken from their homes to become less than furniture enrages me. How dare him. Placing grave markers will not buy my anger off. Providing due respect for the lives of human beings is something everyone should do. America didn’t for over a century, and the paltry hollow actions of one White man who has compounded that insensitivity will not make up for it.

I mentioned that I expected Dog to seek some kind of ‘aid’ for his words. He has done so. I expected that he would apologize in public. And now he has. I did not expect him to lose his cable television show for the private phone call, but having heard his apology I am glad at A&E’s decision.

As I said to a friend about this whole incident,

“He may not be a racist, but he does a damn good job of acting like one.”

Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 2 - 11.7.2007.1

Continued from Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 1...

Has this guy grown up in America?! Has he not lived enough years to recall the 70’s and know of the 60’s? Has he been in a coma? Of course he knew it caused pain. I have no doubt that while he was in prison on his murder conviction he heard someone use the word, and knew it was used to create pain. I’m sure he was aware enough of the vile nature of the n-word that he never used it in front of his Black reverend, Rev. Storey. Had he a real separate meaning, or thought it had no effect I’m sure he would have had no problem using it in front of the reverend. But he hid that aspect of himself, meaning he knew.

The interview then jumps away from his words, and his hollow apology (I felt), to discuss his son’s birth. What the Hell did that have to do with anything? It was an attempt to gain sympathy. It was an attempt to show his humanity. Nice try, to bad that humanity seems reserved to people of his own color.

But that was not enough for Dog Chapman. He goes on to blame the Enquirer for offering money for recordings or video of his actions. It was their fault for enticing his son to get this recording. And it was the fault of the girlfriend for being around his son and possibly being a bad influence on him. That is he thought she was encouraging his son to behave badly, according to rumors he heard of his son acting badly. Notice that the rumors did not say she did that, but he assumed it. Again this is distraction and an attempt to gain sympathy.

Something that is important to note. If Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman was so sorry, why did he wait to apologize? The conversation was from March of this year. I realize this was a private conversation, so I can understand the lack of public apology. But why not apologize to Rev. Storey? Why not seek atonement for God, or within his religion? Because if he had, Rev. Storey would never have had to say “I’ve never heard him use that word.”

Perhaps the most insulting part of the interview is when Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman announces that he ‘now knows that he is not Black.’ That he had thought he was Black, and accepted by African Americans as one of our own. That bull is the worst attempt at sympathy I have heard in maybe decades. “Now I know I’m not Black”, like looking in a mirror for his entire life never gave him a clue. Like being Black is something you can purchase in the store and wear like a pair of jeans. Like the daily strife, injustice and inequality I and others have lived is a commodity that he can pick up and gain sympathy for when he acts badly.

‘Hey I’m sorry for shooting that guy, but I had my ‘African American’ jeans on. My Bad.’

Concluded in part 3...

Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes - 11.6.2007.2

So I was watching Hannity & Colmes tonight and listened as Duane ‘Dog' Chapman tried to apologize and explain his phone conversation with his son. I can sum up my thoughts of his interview in a few words. Dodging blame, lame, and insufficient.

To start with, Dog starts the conversation with the comments that he was sorry for using the N-word and that he knew it was wrong. But nearly in the same breath he admits that he uses the word. This at least is consistent with his phone comment. But he tries to excuse this use of the n-word by stating 5 times in the first segment that he has a different definition of the word than the general public.

Now take that in for a moment. He tries to lessen what he said by using an excuse that the n-word has a separate meaning than the one that is acknowledged as the potentially most insulting word in the English language. He emphasizes this 5 times in 10 minutes. But not once does he offer what his meaning might be. Not once does he attempt to explain that he has ever used the word in any way other than to degrade, belittle and insult African Americans.

Towards the end of the show he does mention that he has used it as a form of common greeting. Yet that does not mean, nor does it seem to be implied, that this is how he uses the term all the time. It does not seem to be the way that he feared being taped using the word. That does not seem to imply the way that the others working with him use the word. And it still does not give the type of definition he wants to claim his use of this word conveys.

Plus there is the admission that when he did use the word as a greeting, or at other time, he would not say it out loud. He would not do this because

“I’d get beat up for it.”

Again he confirms that his meaning is the meaning we think it to be. That he knew exactly how his words would be understood and that he wanted that.

To the detriment of Sean Hannity’s interview, he was never asked to explain that meaning he supposedly had. In fact it was accepted that he could have a meaning separate of the historical, or the one used by youth today. But I interject that his use of the term in that phone conversation held a single meaning, and it was the historical and only meaning that the n-word has. And it was that meaning that he admittedly knew he was using both in the phone conversation and with his colleagues, in my opinion.

But the next thing Dog Chapman says in the interview really ticked me off. He says that he thought he could use the n-word. That he could say it as some African Americans do. That he had no idea that using the word, as he did in the phone call, could inflict pain to Blacks.

Continued in part 2...

Duane 'Dog' Chapman - 11.1.2007.1

Here it comes. Now that Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman has been shown for what many call a racist, the question comes out what he means and how offensive the N-word is. I will state what I think in one second. But there is a statement of apology out today as well.

The first thing I want you to be able to hear is the actual comments he made. This conversation comes from the Enquirer and can be heard in full at http://www.nationalenquirer.com/2007/popup/full-wmv.html. I warn you that it is filled with offensive language.

I think it’s clear that, by his own words, Dog uses the N-word often, as do those he works with. It’s used to describe African Americans in the meaning that is the historical vile meaning, and in no way the “new” meaning that kids today wish it to be. Not to mention his demeaning inference to Mexicans and women.

Now I realize that this conversation was intended to be a private one. I realize that this is between Dog and his son. Perhaps he spoke in anger, perhaps he has reasons to dislike and/or distrust this woman. But that is not the issue I want to address.

The mindset that allows the use of the N-word and other disparaging terms against people of color is the issue. It’s that mindset that is angering. He isn’t upset with the words he uses, he is angry if others find out he uses these words. He knows he’s wrong, and doesn’t care.

That is racist. To cowardly use terms to disparage and degrade people, but not be willing to let anyone of the race in question to hear it is racist. Add to this that in the presence of his minister of 7 years, who is Black, he would not use this term but has no problem saying other curses in front of him adds to his deception. He is more than just racist; he is the hidden racist that acts in secret, in a way similar to the KKK.

I don’t accept the apology of ‘Dog’ Chapman (an ex-convict convicted of murder). It’s insincere. He knew the words he chose. He knows them in this conversation and with those on his show. His often use of the word, and more importantly non-use in front of some people shows his fear and true feelings. I don’t know the man, but I am lead to these conclusions by his actions.

Now A&E has suspended his program. There has been constant conversation all day on this controversy. His minister, Rev. Tim Storey, has been on Hannity & Colmes has come to his defense. And the arguments are being spun to rap and hip hop.

Does he deserve to lose his show? No. I have to say that. Why? Because this was a private conversation, and not place on the airwaves. If he said it in his television show, I’d say pull him off the air just like Don Imus. [Though I think Imus deserved to stay off the air just a bit longer] Had he said it in public, like Michael Richards, I’d be happy to lead the charge to see him unemployed. But he did not, and private conversations, no matter how objectionable cannot be punished. If we do we violate the First Amendment and invite policing of our words everywhere.

Continued in part 2...

Taking a look at the past and present race relations - 10.31.2007.1

** This can also be seen at Black & White Blog, where I am a co-author. You can comment either here or at that site, which is a forum for views on race issues from many sides. **

I was going through some of my favorites at YouTube yesterday and I ran across an old Saturday Night Live skit that is classic and funny on so many levels. But it’s more than that as well. It features Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor, from the 70’s when SNL was at its best and most biting social commentary.

I’m sure everyone my age and older have had the joy of seeing this long ago. For those who are younger, check out the clip.



Now the point is this. What really has changed since then? While there is PC this and that, and Blacks have gone from being “Black and Proud” to ‘Forshizille my nizzelle’, has anything become better?

Yes there is more interracial dating, yet it is still shunned as the recent death threat against the Boise State player that asked his girlfriend to marry him on national television proved. Yes there are Black doctors, lawyers, and even Secretaries of State yet Blacks still have disproportionate poverty and unemployment levels. While Senator Obama is running for President of the United States, the number of CEO’s of major corporations (on the stock market) can be counted on 1 hand.

In the 70’s the N-word was understood to be a negative term, and even this video showing its use to evoke humor recognizes the absolute anger attached to the word. Today kids, of all races, routinely play on pronunciation and use the term daily as a greeting. Yet its use has not changed its meaning as we have seen in the Jena, West Virginia and Lititz cases.

The KKK, and neo-nazi groups still exist. Cops still beat and kill Blacks (name one year where there have not been several unjustified explosions of police abuse since 1980, whether or not it got national media attention). The legal system (the word Justice is unwarranted in describing the system we have) routinely continues to convict innocent Blacks, and invoke penalties so harsh as to be ludicrous to compare on those Blacks convicted of crimes, as with the Jena 6 and Genarlow Wilson.

While the surface of the nation may seem like calm waters, it’s not. There is as much or more racial tension in this nation than ever before. Political Correctness may prevent hearing all the tension, but it’s doing little to nothing to prevent the action itself. The media, without uttering a single slur, has never stopped presenting slurs or negatively portraying African Americans.

In 1977, the year Roots was on television (I haven’t seen it on ever since), there were 24 Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian characters on all of television (not less than 69 shows). That number includes 5 shows where the characters had starring roles, but does not include a cartoon (Fat Albert) or a dance show (Soul Train) which was only on Saturdays. It also includes 2 programs that ended that year, Sanford & Son and Electric Company, and one star (Freddie Prinze) that died.

While it’s harder to define all the shows on television today, including cable and reruns, looking at the top 100 first-run programs I get an estimate of 18 African Americans. I’m sure I’m missing a few characters (only counting leading and featured support characters) and television shows. My previous efforts, including reruns, came to less than 2% of all characters are African Americans and less for other minorities. That’s sad when there has been an increase of 1000% in television channels since 1977.

So what has really gotten better? Yes some individuals are doing better, but not society. The realization is pitiful. At least in 1977 we were honest, but the main thing I see that improved the most is our ability to hide the anger that exists.

Do you agree?

Nas insults every Black American with one word Part 2 - 10.16.2007.3

Continued from Nas insults every Black American with one word Part 1...

Recent Congressional hearings have gone virtually unreported, with entertainers, media corporations, and radio stations all denying any culpability for the content that is made or any negative effects it my encourage/create. With no one to blame, and pressure from the media seeking to blame someone, individuals like Nas are perfect targets. I can’t say I’m sorry when he chooses to adorn album covers with language depicting the worst insult known in the English language.

Nor can I feel pity for a genre of individuals that appear virtually incapable of avoiding legal difficulties. Take the most recent act of idiocy, the arrest of TI (Clifford Harris Jr) for illegal gun possession. Now that may not be a big deal, virtually every rapper has been arrested on a similar charge, Mr. Harris took it to the next level with an attempt to buy machine guns and ownership of multiple assault rifles and handguns. Can anyone explain why he would need this? And how many other rappers have been arrested this year alone? 2 dozen or so? And how many repeatedly, perhaps a dozen? Or am I low-balling the numbers?

The lack of discipline and personal responsibility displayed by the gangsta rap genre is bewildering. The use of the N-word, multiple arrests for crimes ranging from assault to drugs and more are just too much. Some may disagree on whether my argument of their being sell-outs is accurate, but I cannot see how any might dispute that in the current form and the exclusion of any other format, rap is hurting the Black community.

Mr. Creekmur is correct that 1 bad act does not invalidate 1 or 2 good acts. But when we look at the balance, I see dozens of bad acts and barely a handful of good.

We need change. Not by Congress, or from some corporation. We need to take action ourselves; because that is the only way we will see things improve in a meaningful way. If not, I fear that in 15 or 20 years we will wish for the respective charm of what we have today.

So when Nas releases his new album with a title that blatantly insults every living and dead African American, I would suggest not buying it or getting the bootleg or download. Or is that too much to ask?

Nas insults every Black American with one word - 10.16.2007.2

Oh the joy I feel in knowing that Nas will be shortly debuting a new album. I have no idea what his album will contain, but if the title is any indication of the content I have no doubt that this will be an insult to every African American. How can I say that unheard? Because the title is reported to be the N-word.

[If you play the following video, be aware it states the N-word multiple times, but I feel it makes my point.]



But going beyond this. I felt bad when Mr. Chuck Creekmur, was brought onto Fox News for the Big Story and was asked to defend Nas and this blatant use of the N-word. One point that I think needs to be paraphrased

“Many of our elected officials have done bad things, that does not invalidate the good that they have done.” – in reference to the positive songs by Nas as opposed to the more media targeted negative songs

[When you read this Mr. Creekmur, you can contact me for any correction if needed.]

But the problem I see is not just Nas and the low quality songs that he performs. As I’ve noted before

“I’ve long said that executives are laughing as they go to the bank to deposit the money accumulated from the work of Ja Rule and other rappers. They are making boatloads of money (literally) for words they would never use in public (as Don Imus learned) by having rappers say it for them. And all it costs them are pennies paid out to the performers. That by definition sounds like a sell-out to me.”

I understand and respect the fact that the First Amendment allows the artists to say words like this. At the same time I realize that the courts noted that certain words are inciteful and incendiary. I realize that there are consequences of words and they are not always what one might expect.

Gangsta rap and rappers are not the cause of all the ills of the Black community. But they are part of those ills. They condone and actually promote the worst problems our children face everyday. Unprotected sex, drug use, illegal activities, and a general aversion to education. Not one of these things is good for the Black community, yet they continue.

Continued in part 2...

Response to 'Average American' comment on comparing news coverage - 9.28.2007.1

This is in response to a comment from Average American on my post Compare White and Black news coverage Part 2 - 9.25.2007.2. My response was so long I felt it was better as a post of it's own. Please refer to the link to see the comment that lead to this post.


Thank you for responding Average American.

I too feel I am an Average American. I’m 39, of Black Puerto Rican decent and grew up in the Bronx going to public schools. As I state in my bio, I did not grow up in any special way and wealth was never a factor in my young life.

Given that, I do recall how the N-word was used back in the 70’s and throughout my life, including recently. I can recite multiple events, in New York City and the Northeast, where race and law enforcement directly collided against me. Oh, let me add another fact of my life. I’ve never been arrested nor involved in any crime. Yet off the top of my head I can recall several incidents where I have had police draw guns on me, while at college or driving on the parkway, or driving down Hollywood Blvd with friends (White and Asian). I have lived with the knowledge first-hand and through observation that race is a MAJOR factor in how the law and justice are applied in America.

I also have spoken with friends of mine of other races and found that consistently White Americans are not faced with these same events and outcomes. To deny the fact of how race affects issues in my decades of life is to ignore facts that exist. You may not have experienced them, or not recognized when they happened, but that does not change that they happen.

While I agree that if, in the Jena 6 case, race is not considered there is no question that there was an attack made. There is no question that there were 6 against 1. There is some dispute, as stated by Rev. Jesse Jackson and others, whether or not the victim was kicked and/or when he became unconscious. That makes this a crime and prosecution is justified. No one has questioned that.

The question is the application of the law. The victim was not seriously injured. He attended a dance, or some other social event, later that same day. If murder was the intent, 6 people are more than enough to accomplish this, especially if he were unconscious. This was a fight, lopsided but a fight all the same. To charge attempted murder is over the top.

In comparison, days earlier a White student brought a shotgun to school to intimidate one or several Black students. That student, in a nation that has endured Columbine and college shootings, was not charged or reprimanded. Is not a firearm attempted murder when used in this manner? Where is the justice and equal treatment under the law?

While you might say this is a hate crime, I disagree. Were this a random White male selected you might be right. But this student was part of a group of White males that attacked one of the Jena 6; I believe it was Mr. Bell, the day prior striking him allegedly with a bottle. The attack by the 6 Black males was an opportunistic attack in retribution. If the first attack the day earlier, and the shotgun being brought to school, are not hate crimes, then neither is the Black males fight. In fact because this was retaliation on other violence it can be easily argued that race was never a factor.

Continued in part 2...

Black Enterprise vs Eddie Griffin - 9.6.2007.2

Some just can't see the forest for all the trees.

Many pundits and the major news media often like to comment that the black community does little to curb the use of some derogatory terms such as the N-word. If you were to only gather your knowledge from these sources then you would probably believe they are correct. Of course, this is as far from the truth as Pluto is near the sun.

For almost 2 decades there has been a steady and committed voice presented in the black community against the use of the N-word and other terms or forms of entertainment that diminish black culture. Miss C. Dolores Tucker was one of the first to take charge in this matter.

“Ms. C. Dolores Tucker started a movement that rings as true today as when she started it in the 1990’s. Gansta rap “is a crime that we are promoting these kind of messages. The whole gangster rap industry is drug-driven, race-driven, and greed-driven.”

She was hardly the only person making commentary. Others such as Mr. Chuck Creekmur have discussed this often on his website long before the events of Mr. Michael Richards and Don Imus. The major news media just didn't pay attention.

In another example of the willful ignorance of major news media, in particular cable news networks, is the fact of what happened to Mr. Eddie Griffin. On Friday, Mr. Griffin was performing at a Black Enterprise magazine event, where, in his routine he was using the N-word consistently. Due to that repeated use Mr. Griffin was pulled from the stage in the middle of his routine. This is not a new thing or something astounding but rather something that has been going on for some time. The black community has paid attention to the issue of disparaging terms used commonly and has acted on this issue on a regular basis.

But if anything is to be heard about this action, it will probably be in the form of the words used by Reverend Al Sharpton. That's really a shame. The reason is, Reverend Sharpton, never saw the performance. He wasn't there. Yet, he came out and made a statement about the performance, which has already been quoted and probably will be repeated if this story catches any attention. Reverend Sharpton is noted as commenting on the reaction the crowd had to the interruption of Mr. Griffin's performance, which is impossible for him to know since he didn't see the performance. Rev. Sharpton goes on to say

[He] "expressed gratitude that the nation's pre-eminent magazine for African-Americans stands behind the efforts of National Action Network in getting rid of the N-word."

How humble of him to presume his organization was responsible for the actions of Black Enterprise magazine on an issue that is sensitive and has been addressed long before his name has ever been attached to it.

That is the problem that seems to be enveloping coverage of this issue. The major news media seemed uninterested in providing coverage of organizations that routinely take a stance counter to the one promoted by music corporations and their associated music videos. It's this blind eye to the significant truth that exists that creates the opportunity for pundits to ignorantly state that nothing is being done, and to defend individuals such as Michael Richards and Don Imus. For that, I say shame on the major news media.

On a separate thought, I have to say that I like Mr. Eddie Griffin. I think he is an incredible performer. His standup comedy routine is quite good, though it does rely heavily on the use of the N-word and other negative terms. This is not a new development; his comedy routine has always contained this terminology. It's not a surprise.

I believe in the freedom of speech. I believe in the right and the opportunity for an individual to entertain the masses in a medium and the manner that they are qualified at. When Black Entertainment magazine hired Mr. Griffin for this event they knew what they were getting. Their reaction to his comedy routine is a bit surprising. If they had an issue with the words he was going to use they should've gotten someone else. It's really that simple.

It's a bit two-faced to hire someone based on what they are qualified and consistently do and then to fire them for doing exactly that. Either you're against what they do or you’re for them. Unless of course there was a prior agreement stipulating that Mr. Griffin would not use those words in his routine. Since I am not privy to the terms and conditions that Mr. Griffin was hired on I can only assume this is not the case.

I will note that I contacted Black Enterprise and I have been told that there is a press release forthcoming on this issue. I'll comment further once I have received a copy of this press release and have had a chance to receive further comment from Black Enterprise.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Further thoughts on the Black Entertainment Television PSA Part 3 - 8.13.2007.4

Submitted from Further thoughts on the Black Entertainment Television PSA Part 2...

I want to mention something for Mr. Williams, it’s an old saying. A mind that must use a vulgarity to express something where words are common and available is a small mind. Words are merely the vocalization of thought, and those small words reflect a small closed mind.

I would also like to remind Mr. Williams something else. Being a bit older than I think he is I actually remember what rap music was when it first started, when it first got placed on albums (vinyl not a CD or cassette tape), and when MTV created the concept of a music video. I can say based on growing up and watching the phases rap music has gone through, that Mr. Williams seems to have no idea what rap music intended or was capable of.

If you want to know what rap music was about, listen to Grand Master Flash and the Furious 5. If you want to know what rap music is capable of being, listen to Public Enemy or KRS-One. To say that the mindless, money-grubbing, record company driven, commoditized, lateral sales targeted, repetitive, lyrical vomit that is gansta rap (originally a mere sub-genre of rap pre-1992) today is all that rap can attain is both narrow-minded and insulting.

But staying focused on my original point, this Public Service Announcement that Black Entertainment Television has on its cable network airwaves sickens me.

Now I know some may read this and say, ‘well you just don’t get it. You aren’t Black enough. You are too busy trying to be White.’

Time to wake up and stop hiding from the truth. I was born in the Bronx with a tan that never fades, summer or winter, in the sun or not. My color of skin is dark enough to have gotten me lynched in the 1600’s, the 1800’s, and in 1965. I have been called N-word too many times to count, and as recently as 2 weeks ago. That wasn’t the rose colored glasses view of a salutation some hope it is, but meant as the word is defined.

I’m Black enough to have been denied jobs, and have women held their purses tight in an elevator. I’m Black enough to have police draw guns on me for a simple traffic stop. I’m Black enough to watch some people smirk and deny that I own a business, just because they don’t.

If the fact that I earned my education instead of buying the latest overpriced sneaker offends, be offended. If the fact that I have never been to jail and prefer to wear suits as opposed to platinum teeth intimidates weaker minds, be intimidated. If I use a vocabulary that doesn’t include words found on a rap album, don’t feel bad because they are the same words that the executives that own the record company you are funding use everyday.

So perhaps someone who has been around long enough to know what things were like before the internet, and gangsta rap, can be Black. And that same person can see when a television network is using the people it claims to serve. It’s not a unique vision. But as long as some cow-tow and praise actions that degrade the people it supposedly represents, things won’t get better.

Here is perhaps the most obvious point on how “classic” or “ironically positive” this PSA may be. Every other network, especially the national broadcast television networks, will not play this PSA. Viacom, which owns BET, won’t play this PSA on any of its other channels. This isn’t quiet because it won’t be played; it isn’t being played because of the embarrassment and insult it is.

If that isn’t an example of exploitation and insult, I can’t wait to hear what is.

This is what I think; I want to hear what you think.

The secret anti-ganst rap movement - 4.30.2007.3

I’ve noticed something lately. Since the well publicized departure of Mr. Don Imus the gansta rap genre has been the focus of a lot of attention. I can’t say that this intense review of the medium is unwarranted. Yet, part of the arguments being posed are completely unfair and disproportionate.

On the one hand we have the use of defamatory, derogatory words by multiple rap hip-hop artists for well over a decade now. There is no question, in my mind at least, that there is no excuse for this. I have yet to hear an argument that justifies the use of words like n-word, hoes, and their ilk. That is except one. The only thing that can justify the use of these words if the fact that the First Amendment allows any citizen to utter virtually any comment. Note that I said virtually any.

I do not believe in censorship. Artists should be able to express themselves. All music genres should have the opportunity to reach the portion of fans that exist for the genre. Even if part of it is objectionable. If a government can help fund an artist that hugs a dead pig as art, gansta rap can be made. But it’s exclusive existence, and the daily ramming of its objectionable material (to me) goes beyond mere protected speech. It’s widespread availability to minors is detrimental, and unnecessary. The argument can be made that it deserves to exist, but it can’t be said for proliferation like a virus without a thought to containment. In addition, just as a person does not have the right to yell fire in a crowded room for no reason, some words incite violence and should be limited if not worse.

Mr. Imus tried to state that his use of the now famous statement was inspired by rap music, and that it was no different than words found in music videos everyday. I’ve heard various pundits and regular people try to float that same thought. They are partially correct. Music videos today do convey words and images that portray ALL African Americans in the worst type of light. The emphasis on ignorance, drug addiction and criminal behavior is primary. The terminology used is no less insulting than that used by Mr. Imus. The difference is that Mr. Imus, without provocation and without comical context, attacked a group of unknown young women and compounded that act by making the attack racial while on national airwaves. I’ve spoken about this in depth in my posts Imus, Rutgers basketball, and Rev. Al Sharpton - 4.9.2007.1, Don Imus vs Rap music - 4.11.2007.1, Now that Imus is gone - 4.12.2007.1 among others.

But that does not excuse the language in rap today. Nor does it give Black Americans the opportunity to play both sides of the fence. The language and imagery is wrong. It does not become more or less appropriate depending on the color of the skin of the speaker.

Continued in Part 2...

Dark brown means... Part 2 - 4.19.2007.3

Continued from Dark Brown means... Part 1

I would bet that the controversy over Mr. Imus makes no sense in most countries, if the story was covered at all. In countries where commercials that contain Black Americans (or just Blacks) are called the N-word, I would guess the controversy never was covered. And don’t delude yourself to think that I’m speaking of 3rd world nations. In my opinion overseas, Germans, Italians, Belgians, Arabs, and so on all hold similarly negative views. In each case, in my experience, they all point to music videos as well as news footage to confirm their reasoning.

So I’m not surprised that a Chinese translation (given that it was old, but still used) would define dark brown as it did. I’m not surprised that foreigners fear and shun Black Americans on sight. I’m not surprised that the words N-word, felon, criminal, drug addict, and Black American can be often used interchangeably. We use it in this manner in music videos and conversation, why shouldn’t they.

Words are power. The meaning and the understood meaning affect action intimately. They affect potential business transactions, reinforce cultural beliefs, and personal attitudes. If you think that how the world views African Americans isn’t important then you don’t understand how the world works. What may be a misguided greeting to you is a reason for a CEO not to build a store or factory in Detroit or in D.C. or other parts of the country, thus preventing jobs or giving opportunities to improve the lives of some people. Bling may be an impressive word to you, but to an overseas corporation it’s a reason to sell sub-prime loans in an area, or to market over-priced clothing, or sub-standard goods. Presumed ignorant, drug-addled, poor with one of the strongest currencies in the world are always a good target for profit without consideration of morality. I mean why should a corporation care if it is gouging prices or selling inferior goods to people who refer to their mothers and children with terms worse than used to describe a dog?

And that’s how a couch gets labeled the N-word in Canada. By the way, when was the last time you checked the label on anything that has a dark brown or black color in your home or possession? If you just wondered about checking them, maybe the disparaging words, like N-word, don’t mean what you think or want them to.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Dark Brown means ... - 4.19.2007.2

Some people have wondered why I have such a crusade against the N-word. I’ve been asked why it’s a big deal, I’ve been told that the meaning has changed. Some claim the word is now empowering, when used by African Americans and those in the hip-hop/rap community. Yet, I feel that there has been no difference in the word in my lifetime, and never will be. Any other thought or excuse is just ignorance of the facts.

Since the events involving Mr. Don Imus and the Rutgers women’s basketball team renewed attention has been placed on the disparaging terms used in this nation casually. But I feel most people have no concept of what these disrespectful terms mean to, or how they affect, the rest of the world. As Americans we have a very isolated view of the rest of the world, but our actions have great impact. Having lived overseas for a time, I have gotten an understanding of this that exceeds that of the norm.

A case in point is the description found on a couch in Canada. There may not be a lot of news on this but it seems that a mother purchased a new couch whose description referred to its color as “N-word brown.” As the furniture store that sold the couch, the supplier, and a software company that designed the tag all point a finger of blame at anyone but themselves the damage is done. The international insult has been made and no one would have notice if not for a child asking her mother what the N-word meant.

Why was the color of the couch described in such a manner? Because a 10 year old translation dictionary equated the words dark brown with the N-word in Chinese. Not 100 or 50 years old, just 10. The definition was so accepted that when the dictionary was updated, no change was made to the software. But why should it?

Across the world music videos and songs proliferate the use of the N-word, and other inflammatory comments, to describe and talk among African Americans. Non-native English speakers seek out tools to define this word, and many have a description that is without any context of the harm of the word. Of course the context is then supplied by the media that the word came from.

You might say so what. Think about it. The N-word does not convey a meaning of just color, but a negative context as well. In the eyes of the world it means criminal, drug dealer/addict, prostitute, and violent savage animal as presented by gansta rap and hi-hop. Almost 15 years ago when I was in Moscow you cannot imagine the surprise when Russians learned I was an American. In their eyes it could not be possible. Black Americans were not smart enough to learn their own language let alone another, we could not understand business or hold jobs, where we went random violence follows as does rampant drug use. In essence we were the N-word. Since I could not fit any part of that description I had to be from Cuba, or Africa, or South America. I was even asked if I was originally from any other country and then became a U.S. citizen. Resolving the image they had in their head of the word and image in the media, and me in person was too extreme to be the same thing. Simply put, since I was not the N-word I could not be African American.

Continued in Part 2

Michael Richards - 11.21.2006.2

I wanted to wait a while before speaking about the Mr. Michael Richards incident at the Laugh Factory last Friday. There were a few things I wanted to hear about and understand before forming a comment. Obviously when I heard via the media that Mr. Richards had made a tirade, using the n-word and other equally derogatory words, I was incensed. But I wanted to hear more, to get a full understanding, because we all know the media is hardly above sensationalizing a story, and slow to admit a mistake or retract a commentary. [See my comments about a Fox News comment at Letter to Fox News on Duke rape case news - 10.30.2006.1]

So as I worked today, I had the news on (like usual) and heard as things developed. I did not see the apology on the David Letterman Show last night. I have not heard Mr. Jerry Seinfeld’s comments. But I have heard the comments of Mr. Richards, and portions of his apology.

The news of this came out Monday, the show it happened on was Friday, and Mr. Richards performed another show on Saturday. I have not heard of him apologizing on stage Saturday for the previous meltdown. Mr. Richards was being heckled harshly while doing a stand-up routine. He is not a professional stand-up comedian, nor is he seasoned at it. In trying to go after the hecklers Mr. Richards lost it and hurled racial epitaphs including the N-word and a reference to being a klansman lynching a Black American. As he continued this barrage, the crowd which included many Latinos/Hispanics and African Americans became insulted and walked out. The owner of the Laugh Factory gave everyone a refund of their money, which was the first time he has done so in 20 years (according to his comments on Fox News with Mr. Neil Cavuto A 5:00 pm). According to the owner, speaking with Mr. Richards afterwards Mr. Richards wanted to go on-stage and apologize, he had tears and felt badly on what happened, and was told not to go out as right then it an apology would not be received well.

Those are the facts that I have been able to discern in various media so far.

I do not condone the actions of Mr. Michael Richards. I do not accept the excuse that Mr. Richards is inexperienced at stand-up comedy and had little practice dealing with hecklers. While Mr. Seinfeld’s belief of Mr. Richards not being a racist may be true, it is no excuse. I agree with Mr. Paul Rodriguez and many others in denouncing the manner in which Mr. Richards acted.

To be continued in part 2....