DISAPPEARED

DISAPPEARED

Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely. Luke 24:46-47

DISAPPEARED | Recently I had an opportunity to visit First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens, in Somerset, New Jersey. I am not a member of First Baptist, and only attended the church this particularly Sunday, after learning the first Black President of Princeton Theology Seminary, Reverend Dr. Johnathan Lee Walton, was scheduled to speak. Now I didn’t know Dr. Walton, had never heard him preach, but I was intrigued knowing he was the First Black man to lead such an elite organization. I figured to have obtained such a position, he had to be at the very least an apologist. I love listening to preachers who break down the bible in a way that is easy to understand and was excited to attend the service to hear Dr. Walton.

Before I begin, let me state, for the record, that the pastor of First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens, Reverand Dr. Dante Quick, is a heretic. I say these words in the most respectful way possible. Despite the constant reminder of his many degrees and his insistence that his sexual preference is for women, he supports abortion, affirms homosexual behavior and makes a mockery of scripture—his most recent study of the Book of Revelation is incoherent and lacks foundation. However, I am skilled enough with the Word of God to eat the meat and spit out the bones. So, I didn’t let my opinion of Dr. Quick, deter my visit.

That Sunday morning, Dr. Walton looked the part of an astute preacher, able to deliver a powerful word. As he took his place at the podium, he reminded me of Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. Walton articulated with gravitas every consonant and clearly annunciated every vowel attesting to his educational prowess. He used that familiar roll in his tongue and just the right jargon as he spoke about the power of institutions, like Princeton Theology Seminary and Morehouse college, those organizations that bring people together. After a lengthy introduction, he finally got to the Word.

His scripture of choice was Luke 4. It is after Jesus had left the wilderness, filled with the Spirit he returned to Nazareth. Awhile later, on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue.

6 [Jesus] stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18 The Spirit of the Lord is on me because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[f] 20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. 23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’” 24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy[g] in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.” All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

Dr. Walton's topic was entitled, Being Suspicious of Praise Reports. His focus was the crowd, individuals who were amazed at Jesus,

all spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips.

But in almost the same breath, they questioned his authority, “Isn't this Joseph's son?"

While Jesus was in the wilderness, he had been tempted three times by the devil, but according to Dr. Walton, that was not his true temptation.  Jesus’ true temptation happened while he attended the synagogue. Walton shouted, to the warm applause of the audience, "He longed for their embrace." At this point. The audience was going wild. They stood with hearty “Amens” and "Praise the Lord" as Dr. Walton expounded on the scripture. I was a bit confused. If Jesus did long for the embrace of the crowd, he knew their hearts and understood the depth of their disbelief.

Luke 4 is about the unbelief of the Nazarene. Yet somehow, Dr. Walton reshapes this narrative to confirm to the narrative perpetrated by the world. As I listened to the words he spoke and the jubilant response Walton received from the crowd at First Baptist Church, I realized just how woke our churches have become.

Walton places Jesus on the cliff. Doesn’t actually matter that Jesus was never on the cliff. Walton stills warns the audience to be leery of the crowd. In one minute, they will praise you and in the next will kill, oppress, and shun you. Although these things maybe true, none of those things happened to Christ in this scripture. Christ walked through the crowd and left them Nazarites in their unbelief. Jesus, who is presumed to be all loving and kind, leaves individuals from his hometown in their sin. President Walton takes liberties with the text and constructs a strawman for the audience.

Like every other Black pastor who believes they can properly exegete the text for us laypeople, he uses three historical individuals to support his narrative. In an attempt at mere perfect symmetry, he selects three diverse individuals and places each one of them on a pretend cliff.

An alarming indicator of his 'wokeness.' His chosen three represent the intersections of religion, gender, and sexual preference. His chosen three were: Elijah Lovejoy, a Quaker journalist; Mrs. Lucretia Mott, a Quaker suffragist; and Bayard Rustin, a Black activist.

Dr. Walton compares the lives of these three individuals to Christ.  As if that is possible.  He attempts to create a narrative, after being dazzled by the crowd, each one his chosen three was later murdered, oppressed, and shunned by a crowd. He warns the audience that we should be weary of the crowd, as he highlights key points about the lives of his chosen three.

Elijh Lovejoy had been a Quaker journalist, who aggressively published articles that opposed slavery.  He was later murdered by a crowd in 1837.  Ms. Lucretia Mott was a feisty Quaker woman, an abolitionist, preacher and advocate for women’s right to vote.  While Lovejoy's story at least supports Dr. Walton's premise (he was murdered by a crowd), Mrs. Mott's story is much more ambiguous. She may not have been allowed in certain circles, but there was no crowd and no cliff. Mrs. Mott seemed to have lived a relatively happy life and passed away peacefully at the age of seventy-five (according to Wikipedia).

Walton, like a magician mixes truth and lies to support a narrative that Jesus was a merciful prophet that had been morally challenged.  Like the devil in the wilderness, Walton tests Jesus’ humanity.  He contends there are many out here that ignore Jesus’ human nature, and only see him as a “Superman” figure.  Playing to the adoration of the crowd, Walton says, 'Many affirm Jesus’ divinity, but we don't want to discuss the implications of his humanity.' Like the crowd, we question Christ's authority.

Our narrow perception of Christ as a Superman is being inverted in this scripture. Instead of us seeing the Anointed One, Dr. Walton points us to be what he believed to be Christ’s temptation. Jesus sought the applause of men but was disappointed. Without further explanation, Walton shifts his focus to shine a light on the last of his chosen three: Bayard Rustin, the long-suffering Black gay activist.

In today’s woke culture, the church, or so-called followers of Christ teaches us that salvation is about being merciful and accepting, empathetic to the struggles of others.  Every person has the right to live as they so choose. To behave in any other way is to be part of a judgmental crowd.  To build on this narrative, Walton presents the crowd with a fantasy.   Dr. Walton does what Storm Thurmond, accused the Washington Post of doing back in 1963. A few weeks before the March on Washington, The Post ran an article that painted a picture of Rustin as an upstanding, respectable man leading the Civil Rights Movement.  That all seemed to be true, until Storm Thurmond pulled back the curtain to reveal the true character of Rustin.

Rustin had been a long-time advocate of Civil Rights.  He organized Freedom Rides and participated in Bus Boycotts and, according to many, he had been the mastermind behind the 1963 Voting Rights: March on Washington.  Rustin had been a teacher of non-violence and a close confidant of Dr. Martin L. King Jr.  Yet he had been shunned by the crowd when the world discovered the man dubbed, “Mr. March on Washington,” was gay.    

This whitewashed narrative is similarly told by the world. Individuals like President Barak Obama, Gavin Newsome and the soon to be released Netflix movie, entitled Rustin perpetuates this lie.   Walton has no qualms grasping this worldly narrative and presenting it as revelation of scripture.   His pointed is centered on affirmation—his motivation was to silence Christians who believe a homosexual lifestyle is sin.  If you believed that then you are part of the crowd. 

In Luke Chapter 4, after being tempted by the devil in the wilderness, Jesus returns to his hometown filled with the Spirit. He is the Anointed One—the Messiah. However, the crowd does not believe in Him. He is the Truth standing in the flesh, and they ask, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” The crowd lacked faith. A great number of social justice advocates today present this narrative of Jesus as a social reformer without recognizing that Jesus is the Anointed One. Setting the captives free means setting men and women who believe in Him free from the bondage of sin. Due to their unbelief, they don't see the Truth.

 “Truly I tell you...no prophet is accepted in his hometown.” Luke 4:24

Ironically, this is the same place where we find Dr. Walton. Yet he would never imagine himself to be part of the crowd. The crowd was part of the elite. They were the ones who sat in the synagogue. They had studied the laws and the prophets but didn't recognize the Truth.

In Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, he longs for a world where his children will one day be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Jesus, when looking at the crowd, rebuked them not for who they were (Israelites) but because of the condition of their hearts. Yet, Dr. Walton inverts this and places our Civil Rights, religious, and political leaders in a crowd. To shouts of "Amen," Walton asks the audience to consider Rustin's race and disregard his sin. Walton purposely leaves out key components of Rustin's story to support his false narrative. He omits any details of Rustin's 3-year prison sentence because he refused to sign up for the draft. This omission is egregious enough. There were plenty African Americans that refused to sign up for the draft. Yet, they call themselves American Citizens. Walton also left out any details concerning Rustin’s 60-day jail sentence. He never mentioned Rustin at the age of 43 was caught in a parking lot practicing sodomy with two boys in their early twenties. These facts were exposed in 1963 by Strom Thurmond on the Senate Floor and are recorded in congressional documents. Perhaps it was these revelations that caused King and other civil rights leaders to have concerns regarding Rustin’s behavior.

If Rustin had been silenced by a crowd, it had nothing to do with his sexual preference and everything to do with his character. When a 40-year-old man is caught having sex in a parking lot, that is no trivial matter. If Donald Trump had been caught having sex with two women in their twenties in a parking lot, the media would have gone on a blitz. I guarantee you the word 'rape' would have been tossed around. Such behavior from a Civil Rights Leader, marching with religious leaders for the rights of Black Americans, was detestable. Rustin lacked self-control. That was his character. His behavior was akin to a pedophile. Rustin’s affinity for young men continued throughout his life, and at the age of 67, he adopted his 28-year-old lover as his son.

If Rustin was on any cliff, Jesus would have called for him to repent. Yet, Dr. Walton implies that Jesus would not have questioned this man’s character. Instead, he suggests that Jesus would have been all-accepting and all-inclusive. Dr. Walton separates himself from the crowd. He is not the type to judge. Blinded, Walton fails to see himself as part of the crowd. Just as the religious leaders questioned Christ’s authority (not his identity)—so to today, the crowd questions Jesus's authority.

'Isn’t this Joseph’s son?'

The point the crowd was making, was that Jesus was nothing short of a man, subject to the same proclivities as you and me. Today's woke crowd asks an equally disturbing question: 'Is sin—sin?' Jesus rebuked the crowd who questioned God with contempt and disbelief. But according to Walton, the heroes are those who ignore behavior, and the villains are those who have the audacity to judge a man’s character.

 Verse 25: "I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time when the sky was shut for three and a half years, and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian."

 Jesus pointed out to the crowd that in the days of Elijah, when there was a famine, those among the house of Israel were not fed; only a widow from Zarephath. He reminds the crowd that during the days of the prophet Elisha, only Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army, was healed of leprosy, though many in Israel were sick with the same condition. Why weren’t the Israelites freed from the Paings of hungry or freed from the bondage of sickness and death? It was because of their sin. Jesus is the bread life; he came to heal the infirmities of those who believe. Jesus is making the point, as the Messiah, he came to set believers free from sin and the bondage that enslaves them to death. This is the Good News. And he was not just sent to the Jews. His ministry extended to the world (i.e., the widow of Zarephath; and Naaman the enemy to Israel). Believers must repent. Yet, Dr. Walton takes this scripture that reveals the authority of the Anointed One and tries to fit it into a twisted narrative.

Unfortunately, the foundation of Dr. Walton’s point crumbles if we had the opportunity to consider another anecdotal story from the pages of history. Consider James Baldwin. He was well-respected by the Black Community. He marched in Washington. He served his country. He had not been shunned by Civil Rights Leaders. He had not been silenced. During the 1963 March on Washington, Baldwin shook hands with many leaders, black and white.

There is a difference between Rustin and Baldwin.  It had to do with moral character.  Baldwin had his struggles—but his level of self-respect, respect for God and the Civil Rights community was unparalleled.  His struggle between truth and righteousness was real.  It didn’t boil down to his sexual preference. You feel Baldwin’s pain and the burden he carried in his book, “Go tell it on the Mountain,” and other writings.  Yet he was never so low down as to be caught having sex in a parking lot with men—not even once.

Had Dr. Walton wanted the audience to think objectively surly he would have presented the entire truth about Rustin. But Truth doesn’t actually matter to the crowds that men like Walton dwell among. Clearly, the First Baptist crowd didn’t see themselves as judgmental believers—they fell for the narrative. The problem is not the sinner. The problem is those that point out sin, “let him without sin cast the first stone.” Men like Dr. King, and Thurgood Marshall and Storm Thurmond, represented the crowd that shunned the sinner.

How dare these civil rights leaders question Rustin’s sin! The First Baptist audience, stood with applause. They didn’t care that the narrative didn’t align with the Word of God. They felt good about removing themselves from the crowd. They shout, praises to the Lord. Jesus came to set the captive free, to set the oppressed free, as if Jesus never called for men and women to repent from their sin.  Without repentance there is no salvation—there is only death.

The problem with Walton’s narrative is it doesn’t call for men to repent, by the authority of Jesus. Jesus walked away from the crowd in Nazareth understanding they were enslaved by their own disbelief. Unbelief leads to death—and Jesus walked away understanding many in that crowd would die from their sins. How evident this narrative becomes when you examine Rustin’s life. Here is the final ending of this story—Walton conveniently left out. Rustin died childless. Later in life he gave up the fight for Civil Rights, in his speech from 1986, Rustin contended the black man was no longer oppressed, “The new nigger in America was the gay-black man.” when Rustin died, he lifts his entire legacy (material) in the hands of the white man he had married.  If his story hadn’t been dug up by the likes of President Obama, Gavin Newsome, Netflix and Dr. Walton, it would have disappeared—and clearly it should have.

I have a dream…

that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character

LOVE BEGETS LOVE: The Problem with 21st Century Protests

LOVE BEGETS LOVE

BLACKS in America today are not ready for real protests.  We’re not willing to put everything on the line in the name of justice.  We talk that tough talk—but our follow-through makes it abundantly clear that all we do is talk.  Our actions are ineffective and tired.  We can’t even comprehend the depth of the meaning behind the seven-letter word--PROTEST. We can’t fathom the implications behind the term as it had applied to racial injustice.  

Since the days of Rodney King, the term has degenerated to the point where it’s become superficial. A façade.  Hidden behind images and snippets and soundbites.  That’s because the circumstances that created protests and sparked war, in the name of civil injustice and racial disparity before 1970, no longer exist in America.  No matter how we try to reshape the narrative of injustice, no matter what political designation we try to assign to the movement or the moment we are not the same nation today as we were back in the day. .

Historically the term protest implied decisive action.  The word was used as a verb—not a noun.  Its use expressed a true call to action, by any means necessary.  Meaning life or death.  This term had been used with the knowledge that deliberate action and strategic execution exposed injustice, and as a consequence bred deadly animosity.  The mindful decision to strategically defy the norm, sparked a reaction that would be costly but necessary.

During the years of the fight for Civil Rights in America, protests were devised in response to the Jim Crow laws imposed on blacks in the South.  Blacks understood their reactions would cost them a great deal.  Many willingly sacrificed because they understood the reward would impact generations.  Many blacks took seats in white restaurants fully aware they were going to be escorted to jail or beat down or hosed.  Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat knowing she was going to jail.  Many willingly stared death dead in the face in the name of Justice.  Medgar Evans faced daily threats on his life before he was shot in the back and killed outside his own home in 1963.  Martin Luther King had been arrested 29 times before he was murdered in 1968.  Fred Hampton had faced threats from the FBI before he was murdered in cold blood while he slept.

Protests weren’t just Social Media calls to meet up for posts, they were strategically organized to get arrested, to be beat down and hosed down. In February 1963 Malcolm X held a protest on the streets in New York City during rush hour, to garner attention.  Of course, we all remember the scene captured in the Spike Lee movie, Malcolm X, when he led a protest from a police station to a hospital after a man was violently attacked by the police.  

The Black Panthers were militant with their protest, they were the type to walk into state buildings with guns drawn, or they stood outside courthouses holding flags that contained messages like, “Free Huey.” I’m in no way saying get your gun and walk inside of a state building, but I’m saying if you want to be militant, be militant with a purpose. The point must be significant and have meaning to shift thinking.  Burning down a random building on the streets in Philadelphia is meaningless. Setting fire to a church building is shameful and looting is just plain greed.

What’s happening in America today can in no way be classified as effective protests—they’re more like mini, media, marketing riots. News Stations and non-prophet organizations see these protests as tools for marketing or to build a brand. Then there are those groups that infiltrate the system to chase chaos and shed a violent light on protest.. All the violence and burning of buildings and bashing of storefronts does is create the space for opportunity and even more chaos.  It’s a huge distraction from the point. In this case it’s to address the senseless killing of George Floyd.  It’s a shame, the story of Floyd has gotten a great deal of traction.  We see protests happening in places like the UK, Germany, and Toronto, but protesters are not burning down buildings and stealing from stores. 

George Floyd, a black man was strangled to death by four white police officers. That was tragic.   Not only because it’s a modern-day lynching, but because justice has not been served.  Originally, the officer responsible for the crime only faced third-degree murder and the three accessories had not been arrested. But our response is even more tragic. Rather than stand in front of the police station, wearing all black with our fists raised, we fake anger and kick down the windows of storefronts to steal big-screen televisions, designer clothes, and sneakers. I understand not all protesters have participated in these acts, but we can’t deny some are guilty. It’s embarrassing.  Misplaced rage.  The storefronts and store owners haven’t done a thing. 

Honestly, I don’t blame blacks for our misinterpretation of the term protest.  In truth, this generation of blacks haven’t truly faced the real unrighteousness that blacks born in the Antebellum South faced, or the type of racism and bigotry blacks faced during Civil Rights and Jim Crow.  We don’t understand what it means to be hosed down after taking a seat in a restaurant reserved for whites only.   We don’t understand what it means to have to get up and give your seat to a white man on a bus.  We don’t understand what it means to enter a building from the back because we’re black. We don’t understand what it means to work every day to build a nation, to plant seeds and pick cotton without financial or fiduciary gain. 

Situations like Treyvon Martin, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddy Gray, Philando Castile, Ahmaud Arbrey, George Floyd and Breonna Taylor open the curtain and reveals a glimps of animosity blacks face by some whites due to deep rooted hate. .Then there’s the immediate outrage and the sudden appearance of Benjamin Crump and Black Lives Matter. After a few weeks the cameras disappear, families receive a lump sum settlement and the name of the deceased becomes just another name to jot down on a list of other names.

I don’t mean to stand in judgment as I understand our plight, being born with black skin in America is a gift and a curse. So, I have mercy on some of my black brothers and sisters that equate looting stores and stealing televisions as actual protesting or steps towards progress.  I have mercy on our black sons and daughters as they chase behind camera crews to be captured on video, or stand on top of cars gyrating. All the while members of ANTIFA build structures to burn and crash storefronts and Black Lives Matter quench their thirst for highlights and recognition.  It’s all just a media hoax a marketing panacea for organizations that tout the words racial injustice or civil rights, and exploitation for so many others.

I’m not saying that people shouldn’t protest.  We as a community should express our outrage when an innocent young man like Ahmaud Arbrey is shot in the back, or when men like George Floyd are murdered in cold blood, or when a woman like Sandra Bland dies after being stopped by a white cop, for a busted headlight.  Protests are necessary.  But the looting and the burning of random buildings and overturning cars is completely unnecessary.   If you must protest, protest with a mission, and be prepared to face the consequences.  Protests should be strategically organized, and they should exclude groups like Black Lives Matter and even the New Black Panthers.  Signage should not evoke an organization but should speak to the victim.  Tee-shirts should be avoided altogether and definitely not sold.

We are living during a period in time where the unfortunate reality is leaders like Malcolm or Martin, Huey or Bobby, David, Frederick and Harriet are mere images of the past.  So how do we rework the way we protest? It’s simple, how about we take a pause. Then look back to find the answer. How about we organize a Rally the way Blacks did after Emmett Till was beaten down and murdered. Or dress in all black and walk from where George Floyd was strangled to the grave where he’ll rest, the same way the did when blacks protested the death of Medgar Evens.  How about we stage another March on Washington and walk arm and arm, as they did in 1963 when Martin Luther King Jr., delivered his I Have a Dream Speech.  How about we protest by standing outside the courthouse when Chauvin and the other three officers are tried, the way the Black Panthers had done for Huey Newton and Assata Shakur.  How about we protest in peace and protest in love knowing this truth—violence begets violence, but—

The Numbing-Down of Blackness In America

Jennifer Lopez’s performance at the 2019 Grammys was trash and I mean that in the in the nicest possible way.  I have nothing personal against Jennifer Lopez, but if I have to be frank, she’s no friend of the African American Community and that makes this honor even more absurd.  As a matter of fact, I think Jennifer Lopez has made certain shifts in her personal and professional life to purposely disassociate herself from the African American Community. 

J.Lo left the dance floors of “In Living Color,” hopped into the left side of an unmade bed with Puff Daddy and rolled out right into the arms of Ben Affleck.   Dear sweet Jennifer transformed herself from Jenny on the block to Maid in Manhattan in a heartbeat and she never looked back at the African American community, until her Grammy performance. 

Speaking of the performance, Jennifer Lopez misrepresented Motown.  During her performance not only were her vocals weak, but all that gyrating and swinging around her long hair like a cabaret dancer was unimpressive and uninspiring.  It was clear from her salsa she lacked any real historical knowledge of Motown, even while giving her heartfelt thank yous, she neglected to thank Barry Gordy, the Founder of Motown, seated in the audience. 

So why did the Grammys choose Jennifer Lopez to perform the Motown honor?  I dare say it was because she had just enough color without being black.  In other words, The Grammys wanted to honor Motown and carefully chose a woman of color—as opposed to a black woman.  I guess they did this in the name of inclusion.  I suppose it didn’t occur to them that there were plenty African Americans they could have included to pay real tribute to the Motown Sound, but with colorism as their main motivation it’s no wonder they considered no alternatives.

I could just be cynical in accusing The Grammy’s of committing such a crime, but then there’s the winner of the best Rap Album of the year.  Not only did this grand honor go to a woman, it went to a woman of color as well.   CardiB won Rap Album of the year for, “Invasion of Privacy,” an album that glorifies bitches and hoes that makes money, popping pussy.  CardiB beat the likes of PushaT to win this honor and even more important, she did something, Mc Lyte, Queen Latifah, Missy Elliot, Eve and Lauren Hill, (the greatest female rapper of all time), never accomplished.  It’s clear like J.Lo, CardiB fit the color script

Maybe I’m being too hard on the Grammys, after all Danny Glover broke records for “This is America,” winning four Grammys for that song.  Ironically the song goes against everything the Grammy’s stand for—but I digress, at least Glover is a true African American.   H.E.R. won a Grammy for Best R&B Album and best R&B Performance, so I do give them some credit, but not much.

In all honesty, I don’t think this idea of colorism is restricted to the Grammys.  You can gleam this in the programs we watch on television.  We live in a day that have limited amount of African American Shows.  And most shows depict images of skinny lighted-skinned or coffee colored blacks with long straight hair.  All too often black shows will force a white character to make the point:  I have white friends too.  As an African American I feel like I’m forced to watch these water-down versions of myself and my community.

There is some consolation to this overindulgence of fakeness, every Saturday BET airs reruns of the sitcom “Good Times.”  That’s a show that deals with black issues faced in America.  The episodes are generally about the African American struggle for survival in a world systematically designed to hold them back.  There is no coloring in Good Times, the characters are black.  There isn’t a great deal of integrating others or pretending the other is down or friendly or real.  Black is not convoluted with light skin and straight hair and even when whites are introduced its natural and unforced.

African American sitcoms today have a light skin mother and a dark-skinned father and children with light skin and straight hair, except that one kid with the dark face, that’s included because it’s politically correct.  It wasn’t that way in the 70’s when shows like “Good Times,” or “The Jeffersons” or even “The Cosby Show,” depicted blacks as blacks.  Not some watered-down version of blackness.   One could argue the Cosby children were a mix of blackness.  Theo, Venessa and Rudy were darker skinned.  Venessa had thick hair and Ruby had straight hair.  Denise was fair, and Saundra was fairer.  It was the same with “A Different World” and “Living Single,” blackness and black culture was celebrated by black people.

What’s clear to me is America and the overreaching media is strategically replacing blackness with light-skinned people of color.  It’s okay to be black—but you better not be black-purple and most certainly shouldn’t be the size of Hattie McDaniel.  There are very few opportunities for dark-skinned black roles, unless you’re starring in Black Panther, Power or even more awful--Precious.     

This same style colorism is prevalent in politics.  While the world embraces Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as an intellectual woman of color, they’re overlooking people like Ayanna Pressley.  Recently, Ocasio-Cortez was praised by the Huffington Post and other Liberal outlets for her performance during a House of Representative committee meeting on voter rights, ethics and campaign finances.  While she was considered brilliant and intellectual, Huffington Post ignored Pressley all together, even though her questions were much more enlightening.  It’s the same for Kamala Harris, she’s embraced by the African American community for being a woman of color; Meanwhile they all but ignore Stacy Abrams—treat her like a step child. 

I think African Americans need to start opening our eyes, recognize the program and call-out the Grammys and other social media groups for numbing down blackness.  Terming every other race, outside of White American as people of color is blatantly ignoring African Americanism.   Even more than that I am not a person of color, I am now and will always be African American.  When I watch shows like the Grammys I expect no less than a true representation of my community.  Anything else really is colorism and that is racism.

Who's To Blame For Social Media Out Rage And Identity Politics?

Recently, my identity as an African American was questioned by a now ex-Facebook friend, after I posted a comment about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. My comment was in response to an article written by Huffington Post entitled: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes The Dark Side Of Politics In 5 Incredible Minutes.” This article put the darling House of Representative star in a glorious intellectual light after her performance during a Campaign Finance hearing. The House was meeting on HR 1 For the People Act, a bill introduced by Nancy Pelosi in January that seeks to establish new rules in regards to voting rights, campaign finance laws, lobbying and ethical rules.

The House committee invited five experts and each House Member had 5-minutes to address the panel. Ocasio-Cortez addressed the panel with a scenario. She sat in a big black leather chair, with a giddy smile on her face and looked and sounded intellectual and quite studious. She purported herself to be a really bad guy who used campaign funds to silence individuals, influenced by Corporations and Super PACS. This bad guy shapes laws in favor of donor’s interest, deregulate industries and invest in company stock options to gain infinitely more wealth for themselves and their Corporate donors.

After Ocasio-Cortez presented her scenario one of the panel members, Bradley Smith, a staunch advocate of Citizens United and the Former FEC Chairman, was given the opportunity to respond. In his response he pointed out the problems with Ocasio-Cortez’s scenario:

• First he pointed out the use of campaign funds for hush money was illegal.

• Second he clarified the difference between campaign funds and dark money.

Mr. Smith basically made Ocasio-Cortez look seriously unprepared and juvenile. Huffington Post apparently didn’t watch the entire hearing, or intentionally misled the public when it ran the article about Ocasio-Cortez’s break down of the dark sides of politics. Huffington Post ran the article from the premises that Ocasio-Cortez exposed something deep and profound in our current political system, that an average American that followed politics, hadn’t figured out in 2016 when Donald Trump was elected president. Instead of focusing on real news, (i.e. Elijah Cummings passionate comments regarding voting rights), they choose to focus on theater and classified her performance as clever and highly intelligent. The Post wanted to paint Ocasio-Cortez as an outspoken, articulate, smart female, “woman of color” so they intentionally left out that part of the hearing that debunked her theory.

When I saw the article and its misrepresentation of the facts, I couldn’t help but reply. Huffington Post perpetrated a fraud when they presented only one part of an argument. If the Huffington Post wanted to adequately address truth, they would have presented both sides of the debate. I posted a link from a twitter account that presented Bradley Smith’s response to Ocasio-Cortez.

Well my ex-Facebook friend responded with outrage. She went into a liberal rant, “why would you repost a tweet from a conservative account that seems to take joy in a white man trying to make this woman look stupid? I feel like, as a Black woman (if that’s how you identify) that there are more edifying ways to call out an argument you disagree with than by pointing to tweets and videos like the one shared.”

My ex-Facebook friend dismissed me with righteous indignation, Girl bye! She claimed I was regurgitating a conservative 101 Manuel, then she questioned my identity and implied I had a motive. To suggest because I’m a black woman, I have no right to respond to a tweet with a comment from a white conservative, is narrow minded. But I’ve come to learn that many liberal-minded people will play this card of shame if you speak out against another woman, especially if it’s supposedly a person that identifies as, woman of color—and these days many races have become people of color—but they stay away from being identified as Black. People who play this card hope to espouse guilt because you disagree with their view. I am African American and there’s no need for me to question my identity. My motive on the other hand was a different story all together.

I don’t blame my ex-Facebook friend for her tyrant liberal outburst. I blame Huffington Post. She fell for the ookie—dookie perpetrated by the Post. She really believed that Ocasio-Cortez made a grand argument that exposed the dark-side of politics and campaign funding. But the narrative is the epitome of fake news. Perhaps Ocasio-Cortez put on a brilliant performance—but why not present the response by Bradley Smith and let people decide. Maybe Ed Mazza, the writer of the piece, was aware Ocasio-Cortez comments lacked substance. Maybe he knew she was an utter spectacle and decided it was best to cut her clip with her comments, thereby removing all truth to the piece. This omission is the very reason hateful people like Donald Trump can declare fake news without a moment of hesitation.

More importantly, Ocasio-Cortez was seated next to Ayanna Pressley, an African American Massachusetts Congresswoman. During Pressley’s 5-minutes she presented a solid, concise, and well thought out discussion about voting rights. Pressley had her facts together and she had a clear understanding of voting rights and the plight of African Americans. She also broke down her reasons for supporting the house bill and was much more profound and thoughtful compared to Ocasio-Cortez. For that matter, so was Rashida Tlaib who thoroughly presented Trumps conflicts of interest, and Debbie Wasserman Shultz was on point with her line of questions on ethics. Yet the Huffington Post chose to run a story glorifying Ocasio-Cortez that was a clear fallacy. Even my ex-Facebook friend acknowledged Bradley Smith’s clip made Ocasio-Cortez look stupid.

In my view Huffington Post should retract its initial story and present the entire truth. If they want to make a credible argument that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a brilliant intellect they need a restart because this story doesn’t support that premise.

Black Face Outrage--STOP IT

When NBC terminated Megan Kelly, I remember thinking how silly it was for a corporation to get rid of an employee for defending blackface.  It was as if NBC had another agenda for firing her and used her comment to settle an ax they already had to grind.  I had similar feelings when news about Ralph Northam and a blackface photo from 1984 appeared on my timeline.  I really didn’t care to much about it, until I noticed a great deal of people, especially African Americans, were so outraged.   I still couldn’t help but wonder, why?

The outrage was fierce.  News shows were all running stories with guests that were livid and offended by the snapshot.  I expected Fox News guests to be fake-offended, after all Northam is a Democrat, but when guests appeared on CNN demanding Northam resign, and Al Sharpton said the same thing on MSNBC, my eyebrows rose.  I was baffled.  Baffled because to think something a person did 30-years ago would suddenly crop up and destroy their career wasn’t very liberal and very disturbing.  Even more importantly in this last election cycle Democrats suffered huge upsets in the governor races with the losses of Stacey Abrams in Georgia, and Andrew Gillum in Florida, now here we are trying to oust another Democratic Governor over a 30-year old photo. 

Don’t get me wrong I understand why blackface can be offensive.  During the nineteenth-century white men in Minstrelsy shows painted their faces black, enhanced the size of their lips and depicted African Americans as violent, outrageous and stereotypical caricatures.  These shows traveled around the world depicting images of black men as rapists or stupid; black women as fat ugly Mammy-like or overly sexualized characters. These shows often twisted the slave experience presenting happy go-lucky slaves that danced around with glee as if slavery was sanctioned by God himself.  But minstrelsy shows are a thing of the distant past.  So, the question I had as an African American was:  does this mean no whites could every wear blackface?  It’s absurd.  Especially when you consider the fact that blacks have worn black face themselves.

Meet Egbert Williams an African American man considered by some to be the First American actor and the greatest comedian that ever lived.  He’s a black man that wore blackface.  And he’s a trailblazer that paved the way for many African American Actors all because he wore blackface.  He brought the first all-black minstrelsy show to Broadway:  In Dahomey in 1903.   Was he racists?  The answer of course is no, his record makes it clear he had African American interest at heart when he performed.

What I concluded is just because a person paints their face black doesn’t make a person a racist.  No more than it would make people that paint their face red, white or blue racist.  And we certainly can’t just claim a person is a racist because of a photo taken 30-years ago that may or may not be the person in the frame.  The only way to determine if a person is truly a racist would be to check their record. 

So, I checked Mr. Northam’s record.  Northam was an army medical doctor and a Pediatric Neurologist, he’s probably saved countless lives, including the lives of African American babies.  He’s a Democratic governor that supports pro-black policies and his interest seem to fall in line with interests of my own.  Heck, Northam had the State of Virginia remove confederate statues. That doesn’t sound like a racists. So why should he resign?

I’ve heard all the arguments. Some say people wore black face to make fun of African Americans, particularly slaves—when the facts are some people did, some people didn’t.  Some say the photo is cringe-worthy because those in the photo are’ future doctors—and may have to one day deliver black babies.  They speak in present tense to leave out the fact that some of them were doctors and probably delivered many black babies, including Northam. I even heard arguments that Northam should resign because he can’t lead; and yet he has led. 

I think this situation speaks to an even bigger problem with social media and the internet.  The fact that someone could go back 20, 30, 40 years and dig up something from your past and use it to destroy you, is terrifying. That shouldn’t be condoned, unless you committed some heinous, vicious act against someone, such as the sexual assault Christine Blasey Ford claimed Judge Kavanaugh committed against her, and even in that situation Blasey Ford only spoke her truth because Kavanaugh was vying for a seat on the highest court in the land.  Other than that, your record should be used to determine your character. The media needs to realize you can’t condemn people for their past, unless a person has demonstrated a continued pattern of racism or hate—like Donald and Mitch.

In my opinion I think African Americans need to stop acting as if we have the power to ban certain things because racists people have used them against us in the past.  Black paint and words like nigger are not racist—wake up!

WILL THE REAL KAMALA PLEASE STAND UP

Kamala Harris is not only a polished politician but also a shrewd lawyer with an impressive array of credentials. A first-generation American born in Oakland, she attended Howard University, pledged Alpha Kappa Alpha, and worked in the DA’s Office in San Francisco before becoming District Attorney (DA) of San Francisco, Attorney General (AG) of California, and now a U.S. Senator. Clearly, she has dedicated her life to public service. But despite her impressive resume, she reminds me of a cubic zirconia—big and flashy but ultimately fake.

My first doubts about Harris arose during the Kavanaugh hearings. On the second day of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony, Harris began questioning him about the Mueller investigation. Her demeanor suggested she had something significant on Kavanaugh. I remember standing in front of the TV, excited to see a Black woman challenging the Judge. With my hands on my hips and my mouth open, I waited eagerly.

Harris asked, “Judge Kavanaugh, have you ever discussed Special Counsel Mueller or his investigation with anyone?” Kavanaugh appeared flustered, stuttering and listing possible contacts. Harris pressed further, “Are you sure?” with an authoritative expression and a smirk that seemed to say, “I’ve got you.” But it turned out she was merely putting on a show.

When I first heard that Harris might run for president, I was excited. However, after the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, I had my doubts. I decided to research her background and found some troubling information. She was propelled into the political arena by Willie Brown, a man twice her age with whom she had an extramarital affair. This raised questions about her moral character, especially given the current president’s own ethical shortcomings.

Further scrutiny of her career as DA and AG of California only deepened my concerns. Harris supported three-strike laws and, as DA, dismissed 600 drug cases because her office failed to inform defense attorneys about a crime lab technician, Debbie Madden, who had a history of tampering with evidence and a prior conviction. In 2015, Harris opposed legislation requiring investigations into police shootings. When California faced a Supreme Court case over prison overcrowding, Harris argued that prisoners were essential for labor and fighting wildfires.

Despite her claims of being a liberal, Harris’s actions contradict her stated values. Her consensual affair with a married man for political advancement undermines the #MeToo movement and questions her merit. She misled the public on LGBT issues, falsely claiming that the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 8, which sought to define marriage as between a man and a woman, when the court had actually sent the decision back to the state. She has also been inconsistent on the death penalty, opposing it while previously arguing in favor of it in 2014. Most troubling to me is her treatment of Black issues; her record shows a disregard for Black lives, even as she panders to African Americans for our votes.

Last night, Harris donned her Senate uniform and shifted into the role of a full-blooded African American woman. She appeared with Mary J. Blige, using African American sermon techniques, speaking in clichés, quoting Black songs, and acting as if she’d spent her entire life in Oakland among African Americans. She omitted her years of growing up in Canada and didn’t mention that her parents were elite Democrats, instead referring to them as immigrants who supported civil rights. In other words, Harris portrayed herself as just another African American woman.

Her performance was excellent. She really sold the crowd, and to further solidify her newly crafted African American image, her spokesperson appeared on MSNBC and repeatedly emphasized that Kamala Harris is African American, almost ten times in a two-minute clip. It was then it occurred to me that Kamala Harris will not hesitate to shift into any position that suits her goals, regardless of the cost. She played the role of the mistress to secure prominent government positions, and once she landed those roles, she stopped playing the part. She wanted to be seen as a strong prosecutor, so she eagerly donned the tough prosecutor persona. She had no reservations about incarcerating countless African Americans. In fact, she even supported a truant law that would have disproportionately imposed prison sentences and fines on minorities.

Since 2016, she has become the female version of President Barack Obama. But last night, she emerged as an African American woman raised in Oakland, who attended Howard and pledged Alpha Kappa Alpha. Harris is essentially telling African Americans that she’s aligned with our struggles.

Her mistake, of course, was not doing her homework before attempting to play the African American role. Had she done her research, she would have realized that African Americans don’t vote based solely on race. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are clear examples of this fact. Don’t get me wrong, I understand her message—she can use the term African American to identify herself, after all, her father is Jamaican, and Jamaicans have African roots, so technically, she can be considered African American. But theoretically, it’s not that simple.

I made the decision to cast a “no” vote for Harris because, given her background and her apparent tendency to shift into beneficial positions for political gain, I find her too disingenuous for my taste.

We Hold These Truths

I AM not the type to of black person that jumps on the black bandwagon just because everyone else in the African American community jumps on board.  In 1987 when the black community was outraged with Tawana Brawley’s claim of rape, I was skeptical; in 1988 if I had sense enough to vote, I would not have cast my ballot for Jessie Jackson; I favor Malcolm more than I do Martin; I don’t want to jump over no broom, I think Kwanzaa is a made up holiday guilty of commodification and I didn’t like the movie Black Panther.  But, when it comes to the NFL protest, I am in complete agreement with the players.  I believe African Americans must stand up against blatant injustice, racism and inequality and protesting in sports arenas during the national anthem is the perfect venue to do so.

I must confess when I first heard about Colin Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee during the national anthem, I was torn between my beliefs that we as African Americans have overcome and the reality, that's demonstrated over and over again, showing we have not.  Because I was torn I decided to get all my facts together and make an honest decision as to whether it’s appropriate to take a knee or not. 

So, I went back—way back—back in time to 1619.  The year the first Africans came to America.  They came not as slaves, but as immigrants—immigrants who bargained repayment for passage to the new world by working 1-7 years as servants for the white  colonist in the new world.  Originally these indentured servants must have believed seven years a fair price to pay for freedom, but tides changed quickly--with a single stroke of a pen, slavery became the law of the land.  In 1641 the Proclamation of Prince Charles II of England declared slavery for blacks in the US a legal institution and white colonial land owners seized upon this opportunity to make themselves a great nation.  

It was then blacks were forced to participate in an economic system that would keep them shackled and chained for generations and generations and generations and generations.  White landowners justified keeping blacks in bondage by perpetuating the lie that those born with black skin were inferior, or less than human.  They even went so far as to deny the truth and classify blacks as cattle.   Amazes me how everybody went along with the fallacy. 

The outright mendacity of these white colonists was demonstrated in 1776 during their own fight for freedom and independence.  The American Revolution was a revolt against England,  white Patriots desired to build a perfect union free of taxation and annexation with England.  While the Patriots fought for their Independence, they coveted black slaves like diamonds.   Interesting enough free blacks fought alongside America, knowing their brothers and sisters,  their aunts, and uncles were still held captive under the bondage of slavery.  

May 11, 1812, America declared war on Great Britain for seizing American ships. At that time Great Britain took advantage of the American hypocrisy and started a campaign that enticed slaves to join Britain in their fight in exchange for freedom.  More than 4000 blacks escaped US slavery and fought alongside Great Britain.  This is significant because after the final battle between the US and Great Britain, at Fort Francis, Scott Key penned the poem that would become our national anthem.  In one stanza of this anthem Key admonished those slaves that had the audacity to stand up for themselves and fight against the country that kept them in bondage:

"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.

This all may sound disjointed:  Slavery, The American Revolution, and the War of 1812, just like black football player's decision to protest during the national anthem may seem disjointed.  But when you dig deep and consider the circumstances, you see it's not disjointed at all.  There's a single connector, a pattern of usury and disrespect that has stained American History since 1641.  Many people want to believe this stain has been removed, blotted out by the false promise of forty acres and a mule, or the civil rights movement, or Barack Obama.  

After considering these things, I've concluded the animosity and opposition to NFL Players taking a knee is because that very act shines too big a light on the American duplicity that started in 1641, was ignored in 1776, inked in 1812 and continues to exist even today.   The world believes America has transcended other nations because we embrace freedom for all regardless of race, nationality or religious beliefs, but our history tells a different story.   Taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem is like placing a mirror in the front of all America and showing them a reflection of America’s past sins and exposing the current condition, revealing they're one the same.  

Three questions remain: Should African Americans sing the national anthem with their hands over their chest, a song whose lyrics admonished their ancestors for escaping the plight of slavery?  More than that, should we continue to place our hands over our hearts, and sing along with this anthem, ignoring the fact that black men and women continue to be profiled, stopped, beaten, and murdered by police officers?  And more than that, should African Americans ignore the fact that our denial makes us complicit in the American hypocrisy.  

I know there are some folk that will argue, only 1-2 innocent blacks die at the hands of police officers, but Isn't a single innocent life, one too many?  When Kaepernick took the knee on that faithful day in August, he was saying that he would no longer place his hands over his heart and sing an anthem that condoned racial inequality and condemned blacks for fighting for freedom.  He was unequivocal saying, Black Lives Matter!  

Since 2016 countless analysts, media sources, and NFL commentators have waged arguments for and against Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee.  Black NFL players that have taken a stand with Kaepernick have faced outrage from people who cry, “It’s a disrespect to our military.”   Blacks that refuse to stand for the anthem have been disparaged, even by people amongst our very own race—Uncle Tom black folks that ignore those two stanzas in the anthem, make excuses for police that shoot and kill blacks in cold blood, because they have convinced themselves that today is a different day and racial bias only exist in the past, at the same time they tout along with others who hope to MAGA.    

Here we are in 2018 and we're debating the same question.  Owners, like Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys, with his slave mentality, has threatened to suspend players that don’t stand for the anthem.  The NFL Protest has become such a divided issue that even Donald Trump has weighed in against the protesters. 

.....Be happy, be cool! A football game, that fans are paying soooo much money to watch and enjoy, is no place to protest. Most of that money goes to the players anyway. Find another way to protest. Stand proudly for your National Anthem or be Suspended Without Pay!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 10, 2018

"Be happy be cool," words tweeted by a man that pledged to be the President of a United State, yet he wants to root out everything the only black US President has accomplished.  He wants to put a stain in place of achievement and is so desperate to rid the country of President Obama's legacy, he will even debate crowd size to make himself appear superior to a black man.  Trump wants black NFL protesters to acquiesce to his subtle command, or suffer the consequences--perhaps the doom and gloom of the grave. 

NFL players could have protested in different ways.  They could have done something as extreme as burn American flags, like they did in 1968 when Americans protested the Vietnam War.  They could demand that stanza be stricken from the national anthem--but have not.  Instead, they have decided to take a knee--even that's too much for people like Jerry West, Donald Trump and other so-called patriotic Americans.

I say—take a knee NFL players, take an audacious knee!

The rights to the content and images on this website are owned by Jacqueline Session Ausby, and you have no right to use any of the content / images without her expressed permission.  If you would like to contact Jacqueline Ausby, please email jmbeausby@aol.com. 

This is America--Really?

This is America By Donald Glover:  A Piece of Art or Propaganda?  

I get it...I get it...I get it...

The video “This is America,” by Childish Gambino is disturbing, alarming and brilliant all at the same time.   The video starts with Childish Gambino—a Bojangle like caricature moving to the beat of a guitar in a snake-like fashion.  Music is played by a black man strumming the guitar.  At first the beat of the music is happy, uplifting, almost inspiring, but then the tune changes.  It becomes deep and dark.  The black man now has a burlap sack on his head and a noose around his neck.  Gambino shoots the man, point-blank in the head.  Then, he carefully hands the gun to a black boy, who swaddles the gun in a red garment.  The body is dragged away and Gambino continues his dance as if nothing happened.

The beat of the music returns to the happy go-lucky tune and a group of black boys and girls, dressed in preppy uniforms, start to follow Gambino like he’s the Pied Piper.   In the background things are happening, but they don’t seem to notice or care.  Eventually Gambino enters a red door and finds a church choir. with all black members.  The choir is draped in robes, singing gayly like happy black folks.  You know the type that fasted and prayed for the Mercy of God?  Black folks that believed they’ve finally overcome in America.  But like before, the music switches to that deep, disturbing beat.  A boy hands Gambino an automatic rifle.  BAM! Blood spews everywhere.  Gambino shoots the entire choir.  He hands the assault refile off to another black boy that wraps it in a red garment.  Hostility from the crowd is captured, the absence of God eerily evident. 

No emotions are shown by Gambino or the kids, when the melody changes again, they continue to dance around in the same happy fashion.  All the while the backdrop becomes saturated with violent scenes.  Chaos and riots and people running about with wrangled arms and horrid faces amid utter madness.  Things become increasing out of hand and absurd: a car is aflame and a white horse trots around.   Gambino and the kids are seemingly oblivious to everything that is happening around them.  Some of the kids even use their cell phones to capture everything that’s taking place, as if they’re numb to the violence and the mayhem. 

Like a music round, the chorus of “This is America,” is repeated until—just like that--the music stops.  Gambino lights a blunt and takes a hit.  After a few seconds, the music starts again he’s standing on a car and a bunch of outdated cars are spread-out before him, like Christ stood on the mountain top, with all the world before him (might be too much).   Ultimately in the final clip of the video Gambino is running down a long hallway, like a slave.

I read and listened to several commentaries that said, “This is America,” is about gun violence—a referendum on guns in America.  I read some place where the video was highlighting gun violence and drug addiction.   But after watching the video, over and over, I’m not convinced that’s the message. 

It’s true the very first scene in the video is a black man being shot in the head.  I can see how many would interpret that as an image about black on black crime.   And the clip does raise the question of gun control in America.   But the church shooting made me think otherwise.  As the majority of the random acts of gun violence, such as the one committed in Charleston, were committed by white men—but Gambino (clearly black)  fires the assault weapon,  Besides that, there’s also the juxtaposition of the images such as, the black man with a burlap sack over his head and a noose around his neck.  This image is symbolic to something more.  If the view was just about gun violence, why cover up the man’s head and take the time to apply the noose?  In my opinion, these images in this video are used to demonstrate the crude and violent dismantling of the black man and his psyche.   

In so many ways this video reminds me of Jean-Michel Basquat’s paintings.  There’s something disjointed, yet tangible and true and sad about the message.  Originally, I wasn’t sure what to make of the video.  I went back and forth watching the video and listening to the lyrics.  After a time, I concluded this video depicts the way African American men and women have been systematically violated since the days of slavery, Jim Crow and Civil Rights.  It also addresses the way American ideology  indoctrinates  African American Youth in the American Matrix, creating black boys and girls in its own image and likeness, (i.e. a generation of children consumed with social media and images of themselves).  

Gambino doesn’t recognize this until he hits the blunt.  When the music stops and he takes a drag his eyes are opened.  He’s enlightened.  He recognizes the trap when he stand atop the red car and starts to think outside of the box.  He finally sees America for what America really is, a place where people are bred by an economic system whose only motivation is greed.  Consumption.  Black Americans have been programmed to buy into this matrix, our minds have been brainwashed.  Fact or fiction there’s some truth in that idea.

The reality is disturbing and begs the question, is there any way to escape?  Is there a way to get out of the Matrix? Trying to escape the American ideology is difficult.  So, begins the chase of the black man, like the black slave that ran away in the brush of the black night, with wide-white eyes and sweat dripping down his black chest and back, as he desperately tries to escape his oppressor. 

This video is brilliant because it asks the question is this the picture of America?—or is Glover trying to uses violent images to make a point about gun violence?

Black Panther

BLACK PANTHER – I AM confused.  I liked the movie it was exciting.  I’m not a big Marvel fan, but I think this movie was well done and in comparison to other Marvel movies I've seen, it's far better.  Kudos to the young African American director.  But I don't see Black Panther as a political narrative.  Let me repeat, Black Panther the Movie is not the political narrative so many of us African Americans make it out to be.  Let me also state, that I think this movie is good for young black boys and girls to see themselves on the big screen.  But the fact of the matter is, Black Panther is just another American tale.

Let’s start with giving a little background about the movie.  It centered around a brother killing his brother (Cain vs. Abel), because the brother (living in US) wanted to use the resources from his home land (Wakanda in Africa)  to help other oppressed brothers in the community where he resided.  When the King of Wakanda discovered his brother’s transgression, thanks to a snake— (oh…my bad, Forest Whittaker) he murdered his brother.  All to preserve the resources of Wakanda—in Wakanda (greed).   Then he lies to cover the truth and left his nephew stranded in the US.  Talk about black on black crime.

My problem with this movie is it was hailed as having an all-black cast.  But when I watched the movie I discovered that just isn’t the case.  There’s a white CIA agent – why is he even a part of the movie?  Whose telling us this story??? (Can’t be the uncle or cousin, they're dead, perhaps it’s the new King of Wakanda--or maybe it's Stan Lee—the white creator).  I haven’t forgotten about that scene at the entrance to the movie, where the son asks the father to tell him the story again, I believe that’s called a set-up.  Also the new King of Wakanda doesn't save the day.  Nope, it’s Stan—my bad—the white CIA Agent who really saved the day. Oh but he had direction from the King’s sister, the Wakanda most like an African American Girl (got that). 

Because of Wakanda’s technological prowess, they were able to save the white CIA Agent, but couldn’t save their own black brother.  In Game of Thrones when John Snow died his brothers used every resource in their power, (including—dark magic) to bring him back to life (ijs).  I know, I know, Cuz wanted to die, he wanted to meet his ancestors (got that too).  

This movie depicts the image of black brother vs black brother, while the white man ends up benefiting the most, hence the real story of slavery.  Black tribe sells his brother to the white man—white man uses that resource to build a nation (stretch?  Maybe—you decide).  Or perhaps slavery is a bit much, maybe it depicts what king Leopold did in the Congo, without the truth.

In the move the CIA Agent survives due to Wakanda’s ingenuity.  He lives and goes back home and tells the story of Wakanda.    Next thing you know the King of Wakanda, having been enlightened by the truth, stands side by side with his bride at the National Assembly, before the United Nations, giving the world access to Wakanda’s resources; meanwhile, Stan the man--sorry, the white CIA Agent is seated in the audience, wearing a nice suit and a proud smile on his face.  Mission accomplished—divide, conquer, control.

Lastly, that jab at African American women and our hair is duly noted because this black film wouldn’t be a black film  if it didn’t make fun of African American women and our hair.  Maybe it's petty, but so is the black boy in the monkey tee shirt.  Or so is this unspoken dynamic that supposed to exist between African American women being fake, and African women being real.  When the truth of the matter is we are all genuine, have black skin, bleed red blood and worry about our hair.   

Maybe my synopsis is not that deep.   I can go on and speak about the way the movie glorifies aspects of African tradition and tribal life, while consciously ignoring facts about customs and beliefs that need to be changed.  I could go into how places in Africa continue to oppress and mutilate women, I could speak about President Obama's 2015 speech in Kenya that condemned such practices, or talk about how tribal communities force young girls to marry old men under the guise of tradition, but none of these ugly subjects were captured in this beautiful American tale.  So I’ll leave that right there.

This movie is no political narrative, but African Americans are so happy to see ourselves lit up in Magnificent lights, with a predominant black cast, that we will overlook every detail, just to have that glory.

😂#getthatdirtoffmyshoulder; #dahtruth.com.