Acts of Faith In Love & Life » Black Solidarity

Are Blacks Frenemies or Mortal Enemies Of Each Other?

Faith — Thu, 07 May 2009 10:59:00 +0000

Are Blacks Frenemies or Mortal Enemies Of Each Other? is a post from: Acts of Faith In Love & Life

I really want to know. When the majority image you see of us beamed around the world shows:

1. Criminals

2. Anti-Intellectuals

3. Overbearing, loud people of both genders

4. Children that can’t make it until they’re inspired by a great white father (or mother)

5. Overweight people

6. Schemers

7. Lack of morals

8. Represented Black women as the most racially ambiguous or

9. A total exaggeration of a sexual image

10. Men who are “hard” and thuggish

Have I missed anything up there? Shucking and jiving? I have also noticed a trend of an increase in violence against children…and women (see 99.999% of the entries at WOAD). Now I’m going to point out that these acts of violence are being committed by SOME Black men – just so that we’re clear I’m not saying ALL behave this way. Some people get so riled up over the mere mention of the misdeeds of others that they don’t actual DO anything to stop this madness. They’re just trying to provide COVER.

Shouldn’t a group of people, particularly the MEN be outraged that a group of other men are spreading mayhem and destruction even though THEY THEMSELVES aren’t? Or are they expecting WOMEN to put themselves in harm’s way and try to wrangle a lion’s share of trouble ALONE? Talk is cheap baby.

Speaking of women, have you ever entered a room and seen another Black woman and either a) gotten excited on some internal level and reacted positively or b) sucked in your teeth and mumbled “she’s not all that” under your breath. Would the appearance of that woman determine your response, i.e if you thought she was “cuter” than you would that be a permanent mark on her record or c) just looked at each, offered cursory smiles and quickly parted ways. You know how some people act as if they can’t get away from others fast enough.

I was having a conversation with a male someone on Twitter and about my posts from this week. He tried to claim that I was being “negative” against Black men by pointing out examples of unacceptable behavior. I do re-read my posts once they’ve been published and tweak them if necessary. He was directly implying that I was (mis)labeling a majority which I clearly was not. He was very quick to comment about what he’d read “other Black women do on their blogs” – not clarifying that he meant (some) which I brought to his attention. Since we don’t know each other I replied that if he knew himself to be the exception why was he more concerned about the criticism of the guilty rather than the real-life negative impact to innocents?

Why do so many get upset about Bill Cosby or even Barack Obama as was the response after his Father’s Day speech last year? Remember that? Is there a legit grievance or do people just NOT want to stop behaving badly? Are we that ashamed of ourselves that we’d rather continue to allow that wound fester? We must know who are in order to move forward powerfully.

We also have to recognize how accurate the phrase, “skin folk aren’t always kin folk” is. If there is a particular segment of people that are behaving like the lowest common denominator being allowed to flourish aren’t we all a little bit responsible? This makes it easier for those who are posing as our friends to use these situations against the majority and align with the descendants of the oppressors.

Isn’t it true that specific Black women have been fed a false bill of goods whereby they were told to put race loyalty above everything – even their well-being? Those women would always be thinking about other people – who can never seem to get out of peril by the way – letting themselves fall apart mentally and physically. They’re being told they’re not worthy, they have an attitude, feminism is for white women, having a child out of wedlock is okay because they’re “strong” and hey can you cough up another lung for me and my interests while you’re at it!

Isn’t it true that a group of fatherless children would have a near insurmountable task before them to become productive citizens? If a woman is shrill or a “gold digger” might that be because she had no one protecting her growing up? Young boys can’t be taught how to be men by women. Anyone with working organs can produce offspring but it takes a specific effort to be a (good) parent.

Ethnicity is one more thing that can divide us. Class privileges are not always generated from the simplicity of choice. Just as every criminal is not prosecuted. The contempt that some of our people have for each other needs to be addressed. Everyone is NOT looking out for each other or wants to come together for a common purpose of empowerment or uplift.

This is why we have been able to find allies from different races many times more often than those of our own. There’s no pride for those who aren’t part of our “club”. It’s like an overweight woman trying to overcompensate. She may think she’s still attractive, she may find clothes she likes, she may have friends/family/love but until she admits the extra pounds REALLY bother her AND does something to address it she is not going to be able to really BE ALL SHE CAN BE. Likewise some women in her situation DON’T care and can live a full life, but another woman will not and may spend a lot of time trying to justify why she doesn’t. Other people can pick up on it and may not be as receptive to her. Some will be outright hostile. Some may insist they ALL feel x,y and z because that’s the agenda they’re pushing to make the women feel bad about themselves.

It could be about needing to create an “image” by leasing a flashy car, speaking a certain way, having an entourage, bragging about something you did five years ago like it just happened yesterday – or it’s like when an insecure person latches on emotionally to a romantic interest. The attention may be flattering at first but then it becomes stifling. You don’t want to have to be responsible for that person’s entire happiness, but they’ve made it so that what was given freely becomes an obligation. Suddenly you don’t want to be near or have anything to do with that person. You may like or even love them but they need to “get it together”.

If we’re all Black with separate identities (ethnic, class, birthplace, religion, gender, orientation) coming together against the evils of forced enslavement and discrimination, why do so many fragment so quickly when white supremacy offers them an escape hatch from the “collective”? It’s the light skin/field negro scenario all over again. And we need to make sure for all of our empowerment/get over it discussions that we don’t forget that.

If there was still a certain amount of affinity for each other Blacks wouldn’t be out killing other Blacks in a race to outdo the 400 year head-start whites had. What is that other than intense hatred? So the question is, are people becoming more depraved or was a bad situation allowed to get worse until it became too big of a problem to ignore? Are we going to heal rifts or continue to dance to the beat of destruction? I haven’t even touched on the rampant homophobia!

Do We Create or Regurgitate News As Bloggers?

Faith — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:29:00 +0000

Do We Create or Regurgitate News As Bloggers? is a post from: Acts of Faith In Love & Life

This ongoing investigation regarding the racist attacks against Dr. Yolanda Pierce at Princeton Seminary begs the question how blogs – especially those hosted by female bloggers with empowerment themes – have evaluated their processes for generating posts and in discussing this. What do we consider newsworthy? Who do we use as sources for stories? Why do some bloggers base their posts on things they read in the newspaper or watch on the television almost exclusively? Why are those sources considered “credible” when we know the information we get is tainted and controlled by conglomerates with an agenda? What others sources are we reviewing for inclusion as a story idea generator? Do we even need to do so as “non-professionals” and push any limitations? After all, I heard a failed Vice Presidential candidate say that bloggers are ‘liars’ who live in their mother’s basement.

Prosecutors have tried murder cases on circumstantial evidence or even without a body when they believe a crime has been committed. In a local case Hans Reiser eventually took a plea deal after such a conviction in exchange for revealing the location of his mudered wife’s remains. He had claimed his innocence the entire investigation and trial. People don’t demand “proof” from children who tell an adult they’ve been sexually abused. They are questioned of course, but the general consensus is that they are credible witnesses to their own abuse and telling the truth. Why should someone who claims a racial attack against a Black woman has occurred have to jump through hoops to establish their claim beyond a shadow of a doubt to those that would deny them no matter what? Why does someone need conditions met when a distinguished witness first brought it to the blogosphere’s attention before believing such a claim and/or taking action? Are we less likely to take someone’s word if they are non-white and female?

Some of those in the blogosphere consider themselves activists against social injustices, while others want to strictly report on celebrity happenings. Blog posts can be very personal. Others talk politics and choose to focus on local or national issues. Still more just want a catalog of their personal journeys through life or swap recipes and baby pictures. Each blog has its own voice, can capture a particular audience and encourages active participation from a variety of readers. They can also face the scorn of those that oppose their voice and will argue with them ad nauseum.

It can certainly be productive to hear many sides to an issue but the boundaries have to be drawn somewhere. People tend to forget these are public forums and can lose all methods of decorum when they post anonymously or with a nickname. A fly in the soup can derail a conversation quickly if the blog administrator doesn’t control who they allow in their space or set the rules for engagement.

I find many so-called progressive blogs (kos, Open Left, etc) just as caustic an environment as the staunchest of right-wing sites because I feel the same level of intolerance, sense of entitlement and exclusionary attitudes from those that claim to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum and stick to their viewpoint. The readers easily fall into group-think and try to police out dissent – even if it’s coming from those who offer constructive criticism.

Running a blog requires that you put a bit of yourself out for public consumption – that is if you are to have any impact or level of authenticity. The purpose and intent behind starting a blog of course has as many reasons as there are people running them. Not everyone who blogs is a so-called journalist and those with prior media careers have steadily switched to blogging in addition to their traditional work. There are many excellent writers who’ve used this form of technology to bypass the gatekeeper walls of exclusion. Corporate media has seen a 15% decrease in non-white journalists just this year alone when they were already underrepresented to begin with.

The only caveat with blogging is that anyone can start a blog. That is the great equalizer but there are certain skills those trained in journalism/writing use to investigate stories and produce content. They’re also paid to do it. For most of us blogging is a side gig and labor of love. As Web 2.0 continues to offer new technology and people gain access to and comfort with the internet we need to look at ways of combining our collective voices into sustainable ways and increase our audience – and influence over the narrative.

We need to start looking outside the ‘mainstream’ white middle class Americuh for Americans corporate media where George Bush is just misunderstood and the United States never does anything wrong. Depending on the impact of media coverage that day I can go to several blogs for their perspective on the same news story. Now that perspective may certainly be vital and interesting but it isn’t exclusive – especially if you’re like me and you read several blogs more than once per day. Telling lesser known stories certainly has value and can positively shed light on issues ignored by corporate media. We just need to decide if we – as bloggers and readers of blogs – will continue to wait for others to deem them worthy before we do.

Salon’s 1-2 Hit Job on Michelle Obama

Faith — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:56:00 +0000

Salon’s 1-2 Hit Job on Michelle Obama is a post from: Acts of Faith In Love & Life

The mis-education about the Negro continues. Now that Michelle is slated to be our next First Lady she’s being set up to represent all Black women and our fortunes may rise or fall with her. We can argue against it (we are individuals) or deny it (she’s working class and not a socialite) but I’d rather tackle this head on. Of course we’re responsible for our own lives and having Michelle as FLOTUS isn’t going to wave a magic wand and turn us all into Cinderella at the ball. This should be just the beginning of many First Ladies of Color. This should be the realization for Black women that we can remove all barriers for any who doubted. This should be the established precedent for those that would think less of us. That time is over. She has been positioned well and isn’t a creation of the entertainment industry. She will be an icon!

Now comes the maintenance. We can try to ignore the media coverage at our own peril. There’s discussion about whether the Obamas sending their daughters to private school is a good thing. As if putting them in substandard schools is an option. Now Salon is taking it’s cues from Fox News.

Last week Salon writer Rebecca Traister poo-poo’d that poor Michelle has to give up her career to be a ‘mere’ mother and wife in the “Momification of Michelle Obama”:

“In all the worrying about how Sasha and Malia will adjust to having their lives turned upside down, in all the fretting about how Obama will move his Chicago-style shop to Washington, why is there so little curiosity about how Michelle will adjust to the loss of her own private, very successful, very high-profile and very independent identity? How will Michelle Obama feel as she becomes what she has long resisted — an extension of her husband?”

What loss of identity? The Obamas are in a very unique position. As for the rest of us, it’s my understanding a lot of women would love to stay at home and raise their children but can’t for financial reasons. Other women want to pursue a challenging career path. It’s not about the ‘right’ choice it’s about being able to make the ‘best‘ choice as you see fit, not society. This is one of the arguments for those that oppose feminism in theory as being a cause for the destruction of the family structure. Individual pursuit at the expense of everything and everyone else. That in no way fits Michelle Obama.

Besides the majority of Black women have not had these options historically. We were feminists before the term was coined, not from a need to be ‘liberated’ from oppressive men and not to follow our bliss. It was for survival and it was not fun. Also can I add that raising children is not easy. The writer is thinking from a prism of white female privilege and a particular class structure to lament another woman’s choices as if she were the rightful authority on how Michelle (and other women) should live.

Michelle is not interested in using her husband’s political currency to cash in on her own. She will not try to insert herself into his administration. Barack has shown solid moral leadership so far and has not embarrassed his family with public indiscretions. Though they may share a political party, the Obamas are not the Kennedys and they’re certainly not the Clintons. As anyone with two eyes can see Barack and Michelle adore each other. I don’t think she’s suffering, lol!

To add insult to injury, now it’s all about her boo-tay. In an article by Erin Aubry Kaplan titled, “First Lady Got Back” (no – seriously) she writes:

“But what really thrills me, what really feels liberating in a very personal way, is the official new prominence of Michelle Obama. Barack’s better half not only has stature but is statuesque. She has corruscating intelligence, beauty, style and — drumroll, please — a butt. (Yes, you read that right: I’m going to talk about the first lady’s butt.)”

Somehow because she’s a Black woman we’re supposed to give her a pass for writing this drivel?! I don’t think so. Imagine if a man had written this, a white man. Would all of you who think this is nothing still be okay with the article as is? You’re not gonna convince me. Why? I have two words in response: Hottentot Venus. It will never be okay to reduce a woman to her body parts – and definitely not the First Lady – but if you’re a Black woman any such deference goes out the window of course. This is the epitome of raciallized sexism. I can recall Salon contributor Joan Walsh made it a point to decry sexism during the primary season and state it was the most virulent form of oppression out there.

So we can see the newest tactic to be deployed in racial arson will be not just come from whites but will also include other Blacks (pseudo-intellegentsia, haters, contrarians, slave catchers and lawn jockeys). We will use social media to bring light to and counterbalance any attacks. Why? It’s for our own good. We need to join together and not just protect what’s going on with the First Family but pool our resources to determine our futures collectively so they are the best they can be.

In case you disagree and think this is harmless here’s the response from Joan Walsh.

“I have loved Erin Aubry Kaplan’s writing since before I joined Salon, and I’m proud of this piece. If having a black president and first lady is going to narrow what we talk about, wow, that would be sad. But I promise it won’t — at least not on Salon.”

So there you have it. Joan Walsh already wrote a piece earlier this year where she called Barack “uppity”. It’s open season on the First Family. If we ignore it we can expect further denigration of Michelle and by extension other Black women. Up yours Joan Walsh and Salon. I’m not going to stand by and let the most prominent woman in the country be reduced to a someone’s idea of a misguided cowed woman or a body part.

NetRoots Nation: Is It the Latest Approximation of Them Vs. Us?

Faith — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:06:00 +0000

NetRoots Nation: Is It the Latest Approximation of Them Vs. Us? is a post from: Acts of Faith In Love & Life

I’ve been sorting through my thoughts and feelings since I got back from Austin. I am new to blogging afterall and must do the work of defining this blog and my goals for participation. I had a very distinct impression of my time spent at NetRoots Nation, but I wanted to sit on it for a spell. I’ve come away with mostly positive thoughts but I am troubled by the lack of representation of PoC who attended and topics covered. I had the opportunity to speak with the outgoing Executive Director and to the Daily Kos founder. I know, I know officially these are separate entities. I am certain a more detailed review of the money trail and relationships would yield a very close involvement between the two and other parties of interest however. I was angry that after 3 years I saw less than 20 Black people in attendance. One was a campaign advisor and sponsor and two were/had been elected officials. Not everyone was a blogger. I had posted a diary about how bored I was and got 237 responses, mostly negative, from people who were not even there and ignored the crux of my complaint. Link.

It wasn’t that I was bored, per se but I didn’t have a sense of recognition and acknowledgement. It’s not that people weren’t nice. I made some valuable contacts even. Donna Edwards nearly had me screaming from the rafters her speech was that good. But something was missing and I just wasn’t feeling it. There was a distinct lack of participation by PoC who support PoC and who were in fact calling the shots. How could I tell? What was missing was sincerity and commitment.

You don’t open a restaurant, accept reservations only to serve vegetables without indicating you’re a veggie-only establishment. Using a term such as “NetRoots” is rather generic and all-encompassing, no? The potential for misleading others is right up there with using the words ‘hope’ and ‘change’ in one’s campaign. There are people who show up expecting to order a dish containing meat. Or perhaps they just want a dessert and coffee. You don’t say, “Well anybody can eat here we don’t stop people from coming”. You don’t tell someone it’s up to them to show up but not offer a proper full-balanced meal! You don’t serve wine to a thirsty alcoholic and tell them it’s their choice to not drink it but not offer any water. You don’t get offended by dissenting voices – you address those concerns.

It’s not just about number of attendees. It’s about content, inclusion and full participation. You can’t go basking through life enjoying your privilege telling yourself you’re a good person while stepping over that homeless person lying in the gutter. Or your neighbor who’s getting evicted. Or the young girl that’s afraid to leave the house for fear of male aggression. Or a potential ally who’s trying to get your attention if only you’d stop looking at your reflection in the mirror.

Some of us may decide we won’t be relegated to standing by the bar when you say your restaurant is overbooked and we want a table. We’ll start our own restaurant.

Faith — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:27:00 +0000

is a post from: Acts of Faith In Love & Life

5:35p - Have Black bloggers been approached by the Obama campaign and what has that outreach produced? Those that have been approached have been given tremendous access but the response time and breadth needs work. We should not rely on the campaign for setting the agenda when we are better able to approach the campaign with solid advice and a perspective. For example with regards to the recent New Yorker cover being correctly labeled racist and egregious.

One of the weakness of the Obama campaign is not having enough surrogates and specifically Black surrogates with stature and aplomb. The Black blogosphere can be extremely helpful in getting a message of importance [i.e ongoing Katrina fatique, public housing demolition and replacing them with million-dollar condos that are not selling] out.

Faith — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:17:00 +0000

is a post from: Acts of Faith In Love & Life

5:27pm - Topic of conversation is how Obama’s lifestory and history of not being a descendent of slaves and is there a cultural disconnect between his experiences and the average African-American voter. How the Obama campaign has served as an impetus to take ownership in the political process. What he looks like has had an impact on how people see him. It informs our own individual walk in life and how we’re treated.

Faith — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:11:00 +0000

is a post from: Acts of Faith In Love & Life

5:17pm - Open discussion: Race issues and how it relates to the Obama campaign. How a lot of white progressive blogs may not know [care or understand] how to frame this discussion. The importance of the concerted voices of POC. How dangerous John McCain’s campaign is to POC and his continued free ride in the corporate media.

Live Blogging from African American caucus at NetRoots

Faith — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:57:00 +0000

Live Blogging from African American caucus at NetRoots is a post from: Acts of Faith In Love & Life

500pm – We’re doing introductions. We have some cool people here!!!! This panel is being monitored by Cheryl Contee from Jack & Jill Politics – one of the go-to blogs and James Rucker from Color of Change. Pam Spaulding is here. Black kos. Pantagone.net. A great mix of involved people.

Live Blogging from African American caucus at NetRoots

Faith — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:40:00 +0000

Live Blogging from African American caucus at NetRoots is a post from: Acts of Faith In Love & Life

443pm – While waiting for the panel to start I was interviewed by someone who wanted to get perspectives from NetRoots attendees regarding Obama’s FISA vote. I think it was someone working with the Obama campaign but the introductions flew by quickly. I had to emphasize that I enthusiastically support the “Michelle Obama for First Lady” political endeavor. If Barack gets elected that’ll work too, but I have my priorities lol! Seriously though, I think the entire idea of government monitoring individuals has gone of before he decided to run and will continue long after we’ve crossed over. This was not a breaking point for me, but I may post more on that at another time. I didn’t want questions posed to me with a particular intent so I made it clear that one vote is not the sum of the existence for this country. This isn’t a popularity contest and if anyone thinks the government won’t find a way around any such laws they are delusional, but anyway…..

Live Blogging from Women’s Caucus at NetRoots

Faith — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:07:00 +0000

Live Blogging from Women’s Caucus at NetRoots is a post from: Acts of Faith In Love & Life

I arrived at the Convention Center and was approached by Greenpeace members at the building entrance requesting support for HR1590 regarding Climate Change.

3:14 pm So the room is cozy with about 30 participants, some of whom are repeat attendees. There are quite a few women who are computer programmers who started in the industry 20 years ago. It’s an informal setting and everyone is introducing themselves.