Racism Still Alive We just been concealing it....

On Nov. 4th, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States of America. A Black Man was elected President in a nation that still lives with the wounds and memory of slavery. While this is a historic moment in our nation's history, we must realize that the work put in to elect Barack Obama as President must not end! There are still battles to be fought, still wrongs to right. We must not think for one single moment that because he is elected President, all of the problems of the world will magically disappear. That is not the case. We must not think for one single moment that because he is elected President, the world is a much better place. That is not the case. Most importantly, we must not fall into the trap of thinking, for ONE SINGLE MOMENT, that because is elected President, racism does not exist. THAT IS NOT THE CASE!!

I am a very proud 2008 graduate of Colgate University. I will hold, forever, that it is one of the best institutions of higher education in America. However, occurrences at Colgate a week ago, let us all know that Racism is still alive. Last week, a student found disgustingly racist remarks in a bathroom in Colgate's Alumni Hall. When I first heard that someone wrote a racist remark, I was upset, but I (like most people) assumed that the person wrote "nigger" and continued on their racist way. However, I received pictures last night of what exactly was written. Needless to say, I was heartbroken. After reading what was written and carved into the bathroom, there had to be more than one person involved. For them to have the time to write "No Nigger will ever rule the White House", "Lynch them all", "They were born to be slaves and serve white people bout time for them to start doing it again", and "South will rise again", indicates that they had plenty of time to think and write and reflect (although they did not proofread).

As a graduate of Colgate University, I am outraged. As a Black Man, I am outraged. As a former leader at Colgate, I am outraged. I am not the only one who shares in this outrage. There are a number of students, alumni, faculty, and staff who are outraged. While that outrage is important and definitely well-founded, outrage is an emotion. What I'm getting at here is a very simple question: where is the action? Colgate is a very good institution, however, the students (and the university as a whole), are extremely sheltered. So when something like this occurs and there needs to be a response on the part of the students, the first inclination is to ask for permission or get approval to respond.

Colgate as an institution has a pretty clear history of what happens when something of this magnitude occurs. In 1969, members of the Association for Black Collegians held a sit-demanding an cultural living center. From their demands, both the HRC and ALANA cultural center were created. In 2001, when Colgate professor Barry Shain (who is still a member of the faculty) made incendiary remarks in an email to a black female student, that black students took easier courses, and that liberal-minded professors were easier on black students, there were meetings and then there were sit-ins.

So what is the major difference between those events and the events of last week? ACTION! I commend the current Colgate students for what they have done thus far. It's easy for me as an Alumni to sit here and say what I would have done if I were there, but until thrust into that situation there's no telling. And while, I know that we as Alumni support you all, I'm hesitant to make this an Alumni event of sorts. I say that in order to convey to current students that we as Alumni cannot overtake your experience. You are at Colgate right now. You are the future of that institution and of this country. And you do not need permission from anyone (administration or alumni) to express your feelings in whatever way you see fit!

Let me repeat that: YOU DO NOT NEED PERMISSION FROM ANYONE (ADMINISTRATION OR ALUMNI) TO EXPRESS YOUR FEELINGS!!!!

Some may ask, well, what are your demands from these protests? And while you may very well come up with demands later on or have them now, the reasoning is very simple: Some people got together and decided that writing racist remarks in a bathroom was a good idea and disrupted my day, education, life, so I want them to be just as disrupted by my presence despite their actions. That's what protest is about. Its not about appeasement, its about discomfort. And from that discomfort, reaching a place of coexistence.

Considering where we have come from in our nation's history, I think most major pundits are erroneously correct when they say that as a result of Barack Obama's selection, "we have come full circle". Instead of doing a 180 and having some change, we are back, in many ways, to where we started. The only way to effect change is to continue fighting. As the fight song indicates, Fight fight fight for Dear Old Colgate. But most importantly, FIGHT FOR YOURSELF!!

Sarah Palin and Tall

After about a month long hiatus, I have finally gotten a breather to blog again. Clearly from the title, my aim is Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin, the current governor of Alaska. In a very transparent move to try and woo the disgruntled Hilary voters, John McCain decided to "pick up" Sarah Palin as a running mate. Now the question of why I have pick up in quotations may arise, so let me explain. In "pick-up" basketball, there is really no thought process involved in choosing who will be on your team. You simply choose someone based on their physical appearance at the time. While I'm sure Palin's physical appearance as a "milf" did not play any factor in her being chosen, to John McCain she was the best looking player on the team at the time. She has undoubtedly energized the Republican base (well, at least about two weeks ago she did) and brought in a very interesting dynamic to the race. In one sweeping motion, John McCain has single-handedly removed himself from the race for President. The two major characters of this campaign are Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and while some joke that McCain will not survive his first-year in office, it is remarkable how quickly he has become an afterthought in the campaign.

So why the title? Why the play on the Patricia McLachlan children's book? Well, quite simply, Sarah Palin is plain. There is nothing remarkable about her outside of her newfound celebrity "milf" status and her down-right ignorant view of the world. To believe that her experience as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska where the biggest event to come before her was the debate over the installation of a new skating facility. Compared to Barack Obama's experience as a community organizer on the Southside of Chicago, where he dealt with issues facing the actual livelihood of people, not their forms of entertainment.

And thats what Sarah Palin has become for a number of people: a form of entertainment. Tina Fey's SNL spoof was by far one of the funniest things I have ever witnessed, and I had the common sense to have the sound up, unlike some VP candidates. Her foreign policy credentials are sub-par at best. Barack Obama did a major tour around Europe and even gave a speech in front of thousands. Palin met with nine foreign dignitaries (one of whom was Bono) in New York City. My best friend, Gabby, is meeting with the President of Iran today. In New York City. Is she more qualified than Palin to run for VP or even President? (My honest answer to this question is yes. She's truly amazing) John McCain has run himself out of the race. Its apparent that even his own voters are more energized by his running-mate than him. Should we sit around and wait for John McCain to die, in order to reenergize the country via a VP pick who's presidency, as so eloquently put by Matt Damon (aka, Jason Bourne, who definitely has more foreign policy experience than Palin), would be "like a really bad Disney movie"? I think Walt is rolling over in his grave.

Musings on Change and Christianity

You got to make that change man
Cuz they don't come too often
And when they do come
You gotta be smart enough to know when to change
Like Sam Cooke say change gon' come nephew
And you better believe that
-Snoop Dogg in John Legend's "I Can Change"

I know that it has been a while since I last blogged, but as many of you know I'm making the move down to Atlanta tomorrow (CRAZY!!) . While I've been packing my things and reminiscing about my time at Colgate, I have continuously thought about the concept and idea of change. While I've been thinking about change, the quote by Snoop Dogg popped into my head. I never thought I'd be quoting Snoop in my blog but you never know when the quote fits. With that said, undoubtedly, the biggest change and challenge I am going to experience. First off, I'm moving to Atlanta. While I am definitely excited, I have been in upstate New York, for four year. I have been in the Northeast and exposed to the liberal ideologies which pretty much have had a huge impact on my thinking. So, going to the stereotypically conservative South is a major change that I will have to get used to. While the move is huge, I think the education that I am going for is probably going to be the most challenging part of this whole thing, so the remainder of this blog post will be dedicated to my thoughts on that and the Change I think necessary both within myself and in my prospective field. With change, though, you have two options, get run over or adapt. So like Snoop says, I'm gonna be smart enough to adapt.

Most of you know I'm going for my Masters of Divinity at Candler which is a great school. There are leading scholars that will definitely provide with the in-depth education necessary to be a leading scholar in the field of religion. But the decision to attend Candler does not come without some reservations. My biggest concern, as I have told Gabby numerous times, is that I am far too liberal for the degree I am pursuing. I have very liberal ideas about religion and Christianity and I believe they may conflict with the thoughts of many of my classmates (if you know me, you know what I'm talking about).

Outside of my liberal ideologies, I also believe that there may be some major contention between myself and so-called Evangelicals. In fact, I find myself to be totally antithetical to Evangelical ideas. In many ways, they scare me. If you've ever seen Jesus Camp , then you can understand part of what I mean. I have somewhat of a problem with a political Evangelical lobby as I believe that it directly violates the separation of church and state, as well as perpetuate a staggering dependence on Christian privilege that America has developed.

Therefore, so I don't sound like someone who complains all the time without offering a solution, I will attempt to explain some of my thoughts. First off, I feel that Christianity is offered as an option to any and everyone, but I don't feel that I have to approach people and tell them that they can be saved today. Since I use a lot of sports analogies, I'll use one here to further explain. When you're on a team, there are two types of leaders. There are the leaders who are always yelling and telling you what to do and essentially marginalize members of the team. When that happens the team gets divided and nobody accomplishes anything. On the other hand, there are leaders who lead by example. People who do everything right and people approach that person and they pull a team and country together. I imagine myself as one of the latter type of Christian leaders. So I would rather have someone approach me and ask me about my faith than to go and proclaim it to someone who may have an abject opinion of it after talking to me.

Secondly, I feel that Christianity's biggest message should be that of love for fellow humans. I feel that Christianity has a pretty bad habit of judging many different people who don't fit the traditional mold. In my life, I have met some very interesting people who I might not have met if I had prejudged them. So in my opinion love for fellow man should be a guiding principle for Christians.

Finally, my major point of contention is my personal belief that sin is equal. I feel like sometimes there are people who say that homosexuals are such a bad thing, but are cheating on their wives. People who condemn someone as a sinner and ignore there own sins. I feel that if people would consider themselves sinners as well, this world would be a little more compassionate and a little more understanding.

Well, as many of you can see, my idea of Christianity is a little more progressive than most. We'll see how it plays out once I get down there. But since I like feedback. I know many of you have an opinion on religion and Christianity and I want to hear your perspectives. So, thoughts?


P.S--Some people might find the picture above offensive. I'm sorry if it does. But I feel like, If you can't laugh at yourself a little, then you are missing out on life.

NaS' Masterpiece

About a week and a half ago, I became the owner of one of the greatest hip hop albums ever. Trust me when I say that I am not exaggerating. Nasty NaS makes a triumphant return with this politically-charged, controversy-laden polemic set to incredible beats. Everytime I listen to this album I get goosebumps. It has the feel of Hip-Hop is Dead, but its more raw. It has more emotion in it. Needless to say, NaS really brings it in this album but doesnt get the credit he deserved. Unlike a certain artist who sold "A Milli" on incredible hype and codeine-laced lyrics, NaS actually takes a stand against adversaries Bill O'Reilly and Fox News in both song and petition. In a time where we are on the cusp of our first Black President, but still at war and in need of a "Hero", NaS comes through like the Dark Knight.

I am somewhat upset at the media uproar over NaS' decision to change the title of the album from Nigger. I think there was, in many ways, an infringement upon his freedom to artistically express himself. I really dont believe, after listening to the album nonstop, that NaS attempted to title it nigger because he does a very good job at attempting to rewire the thinking behind the word. His album does not limit the term to simply black people but all oppressed people. I mean, there was not nearly as much of an uproar when Randall Kennedy published his book titled Nigger. It also does the same thing in trying to "defang" the word. Your thoughts?

Frenzy Friday - State of the Race

As promised, I begin my Frenzy Friday (working title) with this post. I recently watched CNN's Special Report: Black in America. While the special was only 4 hours total, I feel it gave a minor glimpse of of how it is to be a Black person in America, however, it is the responsibility of Black people throughout the country to provide our own voice. It is not CNN's responsibility to provide solutions to the problems of the community (although they did provide examples), it is our responsibility. With that said, I want to focus my thoughts on one segment of the show that I think is extremely important for our community to discuss: the issue of Black male/female relationships.

There is a pervasive problem in the culture with male treatment of women. Women are not seen in a very positive light by male members within the community and it seems to spread out into the general population. In watching CNN's special, there were three main areas that they focused on that I want to tackle. Issues of the Black Family, Dating and Relationships, and Portrayal in the Media. It is generally my practice, and probably academically driven, that I provide some history and for the sake of some credibility I will do so here, albeit less than I normally would.

Historically speaking, the Black Family was doomed from the day it set foot on this continent. It benefited slave traders to break up the family, so they did just that. Needless to say, the lack of men in the families, led enslaved women on plantations to lead an almost matriarchal society. The men married and had children on plantations and were shipped off to another plantation without any care or concern for the welfare of the family. So many men ended up fathering many families and wedding many different women on different plantations. So from a historical standpoint, its no wonder that there are 70% of Black women who are single parents. However, to place the blame solely on a historical basis would be irresponsible and wrong.

So this problem of the Black Family, and also the lack of men in these families, stems from the breakdown in the relationships between Black Men and Black Women. Some Black men who I have spoken to have said that Black Women are "materialistic", "too picky", "setting the standard to high". Personally, I believe that this thought process is what dooms the Black Male to the life that he lives, and in many ways is dooming the Black family and ultimately the Black race. In the CNN special, the 3 major factors that separated Black Men from Black Women were education, economy, and incarceration. In many ways the disparity begins with the fact that Black Women have an overwhelming command of the academy compared to Black Men (a 3:1 ratio). This of course leads to poorer economic conditions, which lend themselves to increasing incarceration. But is that the brunt of it? Black Women have been the staple of the race, being both the bearer of life and, in recent years, the bread-winner. So is that where the problems lie? Has systematic racism completely emasculated the Black Man and left the woman "in charge"? Or is the Black Man simply intimidated by strong, intelligent, educated, beautiful women who will challenge the establishment and status quo? Part of me thinks he is. Why you ask?

I remember thinking about the image of the Black Man in prison and the Black Man in school and thinking that the scholarly Black Man is an exception rather than the rule. I'm not sure how the stats reflect on that but its something that the majority of people undoubtedly believe. However, I cannot help but think about the fact that the majority of the images that the world sees of Black Women are them showcasing their assets on music videos with some rapper or other male in a power position. Yet, the stats actually show the exact opposite. Black women are effectively running the show in Black America. So, why is there a disparity in the real and the actual for Black Women?

I must admit I was asked to write this post by my best friend, an incredibly strong and brilliant Black woman. Her concern, which is the concern of Black Women from coast to coast, is what must or can Black women do to marry or even date inside of the race? My belief is that they keep being themselves. The problem isn't Black Women, its Black Men. Believe me, there are plenty of Black Men doing the positive thing and fighting stereotypes and making a way for themselves in legitimate ways around the country. But those stories are not being broadcasted and Black Boys have no legitimate role models outside of mediocre, misogynistic rap stars. They absorb the images of the Black man in dominate positions on TV, although those positions are often the result of some illegitimate activities. I used to believe that my difference in opinion came from my experience with positive, strong females in my life (read: My mother, sisters, aunts, friends). However, I have seen the exact same experiences used to explain reasons why they shouldn't respect women because these women are not their mothers, sisters, aunts, friends, and therefore are not deserving of this respect.

So where do the repairs begin? It has to start with Black Men. It has to start with us holding ourselves accountable and holding each other accountable for respecting ourselves and our beautiful sisters. We have to take responsibility for the plight of our people. Its only through us that we can make the change necessary.

Wow, that was a ton, but its definitely a discussion that needs to happen. So let's discuss. Your thoughts?

Quick Update

Just checking in to let you all know whats up. Some of you know about the "groundbreaking CNN Special Black in America" that debuts tonight at 9pm. Its a two day special with today tackling Black Women and Family and tomorrow tackling The Black Man. Needless to say, I have had this special on my calendar since I first heard about it and Im glad its finally here. I've read great reviews thus far, but I have read some skepticism from Black people. Im sure there will be some critiques and things of that nature.

But here's a quick rundown of what Friday's blog entries (Yes, entries as in multiple) will address:

-A review of the Black in America special
-A beginning to a discussion on Black Female/Male relations as requested by my best friend, Gabby.
-Also, seeing as how I'm going into Seminary (ETA in Atlanta: 20 days), I want to have a frank discussion about church issues, from my own very liberal standpoint and get some feedback.
-There may also be a review of two really good albums. Tryin to mix it up a little.

I'm tempted to do multiple entries that are really thought out every friday and I'm working on a title for it. Stay Tuned because this week ought to be good.

Check out The Blueprint!!!

Arkitekt and I joined up on a blog post to talk about Obama's recent appearance on the cover of the New Yorker. Its the first in what will hopefully be a good conversation series. Check it out here.

Self Reliance and the NAACP

Watching Bill O'Reilly and his talking points made me start to think about Barack Obama and the so-called "Self-Reliance" tour. There seems to be a disconnect by O'Reilly and many others in understanding Obama's message on self-reliance that he has delivered. Obama's message is one of personal reliance. O'Reilly, in his brilliance of No-Spin reporting, attempted to portray Obama's message of self-reliance as being something that only Obama could do in front of the NAACP. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but duh Bill. Barack is talking about personal accountability, specifically within the Black community of which he is a member. He has the right and, in many ways, the responsibility to preach personal accountability to the Black community. The personal accountability that Obama preaches should lead to holding our government to a higher level of accountability. Is not that what we need now? A government who the people can hold accountable. A government who the people can trust. We must start by trusting ourselves.

Legacy of Leadership

I originally planned on posting about Jesse Jackson's ridiculous comments but my man Nellz did as good of a job as I would have, so I definitely urge you to go and check it out (arkitekt's blueprint). Yet, there is something I want to address with this entry and thats the legacy of leadership. Since before the end of the Civil Rights movement (or what tons of people say is the end, seeing as how the movement isnt over), there has been a fight for prominence and leadership of the "black community". I have argued before, and again argue now, that beginning April 5, 1968 (the day after the assassination of Dr. King), there has been a constant struggle for the control of the continuation of the movement. With no recognized leader present to take the lead, the movement lost its luster and was in an uproar. However, it would be historically myopic to constrict the power struggle to this time period. In fact, there were noted struggles between King's SCLC and Stokley Carmichael's SNCC over the direction of the movement and perceptions of leadership. Carmichael and SNCC were upset that King was getting most of the media attention, while they were doing "most of the work". They were also fed up with the continued non-violence of the movement and were seeking to convert the movement to the militant strand that preached Black Power. King feared that the slogan of Black Power would confuse white people, as it did, and further hurt the movement, again as it did. So the fight over mission and strategy, as well as recognition plagued the movement early on, however, after the death of King, the leadership struggles of the movement were amplified by a need for a leader to continue the movement. The death of King led the selfless to become selfish and led them to stray away from the flock like sheep without a master. It is known by many that King declared Ralph Abernathy to lead the movement. However, Abernathy's lack of leadership ability and vision (at least in comparison to MLK) led to his losing control of SCLC and lead to the rise of Jesse Jackson amongst other people. So what then is the legacy of Dr.King's Leadership? Barack Obama seems to be next in the trend of charismatic, compassionate, intelligent leadership needed to transform this country into what it claims to be: One nation, under God, indivisble, with liberty and justice for all. So why the hate from Jesse Jackson? The answer is that it is a problem that is endemic to the Black Community, as well as our national community. You see, the Civil Right generation is exiting the stage and they are having a hard time dealing with a society that is working to be more integrated and globalized. The problems that people of color faced during the Civil Rights generation's heyday have become problems for more than one group of people and the post-Civil Rights generation is looking to correct all problems not just one. It is a multifaceted attack on the social and institutional ills of our society. So it is a shift from the days of marching and boycotting that is understandably unsettling for them to experience this dramatic shift. What Jesse Jackson said is inexcusable. To make matters worse, the questionable Al Sharpton came to his defense. It didnt help much. There is new leadership in place to take this country to the heights that it should be taken to. While the "old guard" is much appreciated, it is time for a change that can be seen and felt. Besides, Jesse and Al, in the past 21 years, havent spoken for a cause that I think they should be speaking on. Neither of them (both Reverends) defended Jeremiah Wright. They both remind me of the Rev. Rollo Goodlove . Your thoughts?

Stadium Seating + Change= Win?

Barack Obama and the DNC has decided to hold Obama's nomination in Mile-High Stadium, home to the Denver Broncos. The stadium hold 75,000, which is monstrous compared to the original venue which would hold 20,000. I mean, the man can pack a house, but 75,000 people. He's officially reached Rockstar status. With the message of change, is this a good direction for politics? Barack Obama has run on the message of change, and it has successfully carried him through the primaries. But how long, will simply the message last in the general campaign? McCain is constantly attacking Barack Obama for not having a firm stance on issues, but is it possible for someone (read McCain) to have too firm of a stance? There's an excitement in this country, and even around the world, in hopes that Barack Obama and his message of change will take the election. I must say personally, that I am extremely excited for the future of this country. But can America take 4 years of McBush policies? To put it bluntly, this country is going to hell in a handbasket, when most of the world hates us, gas costs an arm and a leg, the economy is shit, and Iran telling America to "Just Bring It" if it wants to go to war. We are in dire need of change and I may be the only one who believes that even symbolic change may change the attitudes of this country. Colgate University President, Rebecca Chopp, has said numerous times, somtimes you have to believe in something before you can change your actions. Does America qualify for that type of attitude now?

Independence Day...but for whom?

So I am in the process of writing a really good blog entry about my thesis project on the Black Church, but its a really involved entry and I dont want to mess it up. However, I just thought about independence day since its July 4th (well at least on the east coast and in the flood ravaged midwest). Thinking about independence day and the fact that it ended the fight for the country we live in now, my DuBoisian double consciousness makes me think about the ramifications of Independence Day on Black people. You see 17th Century slavery was essentially breaking in the slaves. It was, in comparison, one of the harshest times for those who were enslaved. Beatings were brutal, rapes were rampant, and families were separated relentlessly in order to further cement the horrible institution. In the 18th century, things were better, but not by so much. So in 1776, there were no distinct difference for those forced into the condition of slavery, when the whole of teh country celebrated its independence. While I understand that it is the day the colonies of the United States becomes independent, there was no immediate benefit to those who were enslaved. So I propose a new Independence day: Juneteenth. A little history, June 19th or juneteenth (as the derivation from the portmanteau of the two words June and 19th), is not the day of the signing of the emancipation proclamation (September 22, 1862) or the day in which it took effect (January 1, 1863). Its not even the day in which the Emancipation Proclamation was ratified into the Constitution as the Thirteenth Amendment (December 18, 1865). Instead, it commemorates the day, June 19, 1865, in which the federal government rode into Texas to enforce the passing of the law, thereby using federal authority to free the slaves. It became the day when the United States government (for not so noble reason, but they did it anyway) used their full military force to free the enslaved African Americans. So why is it not considered a federal holiday like Independence Day? As it stands only 29 states recognize it as a state holiday. Where are the other 21? For a country that is still reeling from the after effects of slavery, the celebration of a holiday like Juneteenth can do wonders for the nation and would be the first in a few steps that hopefully would lead to a federal apology for slavery. I mean, the federal government has already apologized to Native Americans for the way they were (mis-) treated. Why not apologize to African-Americans? If not an apology, lets at least make it a federal holiday and begin repairing the psyche of the United States.

Hip-Hop vs. America, II: My Thoughts

The BET Special is back and this time they dealt with the relationships between black women and men, a topic for the ages. I really like the intellectual wing of BET, BET News, too bad its only a seemingly minor venture for a company that is concerned with keeping the masses numb (I'll talk about my dissatisfaction with BET on another day). Yet, this special was good. I love the mix of intellectuals and hip-hop artists/industry people and media insiders. It allows everyone to have the opportunity to speak and represent their different industries. However, this time, it seems that the Hip Hop/industry people came with a bit of a chip on their shoulders. They were really on the defensive from the start and it seems like the show opened with yelling and screaming. While the program was great, I still feel that it is too short of a program for BET. They need to do something major on this issue (kinda like CNN's Black in America coming in July), but I doubt we will see that anytime soon. I must say though that I am completely appalled by the comments and ideology of Rev. Eugene Rivers. Rivers is a Pentecostal minister and "christian activist", however he had some incredibly conservative, narrow-minded and misogynist viewpoints. He tried to make the argument that Black Women wanted to see more strong black men and not an increase in strong black women. At first I couldnt believe a man who preaches the gospel could make statements that were so unfair, unjust and misogynistic. One of my favorite intellectuals, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson (who was also on the panel and began to look increasingly more frustrated by Rivers) on the first part of this special last year coined the term "ecclesiastical apartheid" to describe the way in which women constitute 75-80% of the congregations but cannot lead the church, and not only did Rivers scoff at the use of the term, but also at the idea that there was a problem. He said that since Black Women weren't on the whole leaving the Black Church then there was no problem. As Dyson and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (another respectable brother who is on my blogroll), tried to explain the misogynistic pathology that these women have ingrained in them, Rivers refused to accept this idea and even resorted to referring to David Banner as "Doc", commending him for agreeing with his claim. This is a problem that I have with the Church as a whole. Well, one of the many. Its my honest opinion, that the Church has been used for so long to subjugate different groups of people (i.e., non-christians Post-Constantine, Blacks during Slavery, and now women). The Bible is read with an oppressive ideology and once a group steps outside of the realm of the oppressed, they take on that "empire" theology that all is well with the world because all is well with them. If they see someone from the oppressed group actually making it, they believe that it is very possible for everyone of that group, not understanding that the person is the exception, not the rule. We as black men (and I'll be the first to admit that I haven't always been the best at this, but I am working on it) need to stand up for the black women who love us unconditionally. We need to see strong black women on TV, who are focused on making a change to the patriarchal system that controls the world right now. And since everything in the Black community seemingly starts in the church, it needs to start with more black women, and women in general, being put into the leadership roles within the church. We need to end the patriarchal pathoology that America has pimped since the beginning. We need a change and we, as Black Men in America, need to stand arm in arm with Black Women in pursuit of that change.


Update :

Thank you to Tommy D for asking a very relevant question about the pathology that Black Women, and women in general, have that affects them. What Dyson and Hill were referring to in explaining that there are women in power positions, but are still held captive to patriarchy is the fact that patriarchy looks for a certain type of women to lead. The woman must, in many ways, be very much like a man. Look at the Democratic primaries. There was a lot of sexism thrown at Hilary, especially after she cried on national TV. People began to question her ability to lead because she was showing too much feminine emotion. That is the problem with this patriarchal pathology it forces a stereotype of what women in power should look, or act like. And the common standard is a woman who can hang with the good old boys as long as she doesn't try to take over or make any distinct changes. Hope that explains the baseline problem with patriarchal systems.

Former Sheriff Shaq

At an event in a NYC nightclub, Phoenix Suns Center, Shaquille O'Neal spit a freestyle that included the now oft-quoted line "Kobe, tell me how my ass taste". The free-style diss was directed towards LA Lakers star and NBA MVP Kobe Bryant. As a result of this, Shaquille O'Neal has had his sheriff status in Maricopa county revoked. The sheriff, Joe Arpaio, who describes himself as America's toughest sheriff, explains that if any of his other deputies were to use that type of language, the same would have happened to them. But I cannot help but see the hypocrisy in this. The Sheriff who criticizes Shaq's behavior, is known for feeding his inmates green bologna and clothing them in pink underwear. Granted they are prisoners and have been convicted of some crime, to place them at a health risk with spoiled food and to humiliate them is morally wrong. Who is this guy to try an impose some values onto Shaquille O'Neal? Where is the government in looking into the way these prisoners are treated? It seems the detainees at Gitmo have more rights than the inmates in Maricopa County. While Shaq's freestyle has sent shockwaves, it is decidedly whack with minor pithy lines and it is worth nowhere near the attention that it is getting. Besides, its overshadowing Shaq's platinum (who knew) album, that was also decidedly horrible, Shaq Diesel.

Talking White

Ralph Nader has stepped out of his damn mind and said that Barack Obama is "talking white" and taking advantage of "white guilt". Nader says that Barack has yet to speak on what can be blanketed as black issues (i.e., the housing market, payday loans, etc.) and is trying to stay away from the issues that Jessie Jackson used in his campaign. I agree that Barack has not explicitly spoken on black issues, however after hearing his economic and social change plans, I think they will help America as a whole and that is by far the constituency that I think the President should respond to. I think Obama needs to essentially prove himself to the everyone in America and we as Black people should hold him to the same standard as we would hold a white candidate. However, Nader, is totally off base with his comment and somebody needs to shut him up. He says that Barack is pretending to be white so that he doesnt challenge the establishmnet. Two things, I think about when I hear this statement is what does pretending to be white mean? Is white a state of being that educated people attain? I dont think so. Outside of pigmentation, race, biologically speaking, has very little to do with how a person acts or behaves. So Nader's comments are not substantial on that point. The second thing that comes to mind is, does being white mean you automatically dont challenge the status quo, or cannot challenge the establishment? I'm troubled by Nader's comment (and the fact that he has decided to re-enter because he is not satisfied with the candidate) because it is these type of senseless attacks that continuously bring the focus off of the issues. If Nader wants to draw attention to himself do it in another way. America is ready for change. There have been 8 years of continuous deception and ignorance on the behalf of the Bush Administration, and I for one am very excited to see what happens with the next President of the United States. But with Nader coming out, Barack has said that he simply is trying to get attention, which is entirely believable. Barack is going to do what he did when Hilary tried to pull the same stunts. If you dont remember, let me refresh your memory...

The Return of Don Imus

So after Nappy Headed Hoes, Don Imus got another show. While I would talk about the ADHD-like behavior of "outraged" people like the Rev. Al Sharpton (seeing as how they were outraged until he was fired, after which they dropped the issue and its relation to hip-hop), there are more important issues to address. Imus recently talked about Adam Jones and addressed race in his talk. Now the entire world is in uproar and again calling Imus racist. But unlike some people, I cannot co-sign it. If Imus is telling the truth (which I think he is), we cant possibly condemn the guy for actually trying to make an issue thats constantly researched and condemned: disparities in arrests and convictions for Blacks. So why is this such a big deal for America? No one has even addressed the turnaround of the Player formerly known as Pacman. Jones, who has began working with NFL Legend, Deion "Primetime" Sanders, and is actually turning his life around. Seems like DuBois was right when he said the problem of the twentieth, and I would argue America, is the problem of the color line. Your thoughts?

Allow me to reintroduce myself...

So, at the urging of one of my friends, I have decided to start my own blog. It will undoubtedly give me something to do and a place to vent on a wide range of issues. The name of the blog is The Redmond Report which is a throwback to my old high school column. While that column focused primarily on sports, I think I'm gonna talk about a lot of things on here. But if there's something that you wanna know my position on, let me know. So for now, this is the first entry.