Kiss My Black Ass

The Myth of the Bootstrap: The Permission of Poverty as a Legacy of Cultural Ideology

2011-11-09T14:07:00.000-08:00

All this Occupy stuff has inspired me to post a paper I wrote about two years ago about Americans and our attitude regarding poverty. If I weren't lazy I'd update it to include specific Occupy issues, but it's still relevant. Hopefully Occupy and even more progressive movements around the economic situation in this country will someday make it obsolete.
****************
Whydoes the United States allow domestic poverty to persist in near “Third World”conditions more than a decade into the 21^st century? Advocates ofsocial reform have been examining poverty for decades and have generated aninordinate amount of data on its causes, effects and potential solutions. Scholarswho support multiculturalism focus on poverty at its inevitable intersectionsof racism, classism and sexism. Since these mechanisms as they relate topoverty have been explicated ad nauseumelsewhere, my goal is not to reproduce such scholarship here. Instead, I wouldlike to propose a fourth mechanism that allows poverty to thrive. It admittedlyoperates on a more philosophical level than the other three, which the whitemale power structure transformed into concrete social institutions upon thefounding of the United States of America. This mechanism is nonetheless imbued with the sameself-actuating facility as its companions but, unlike its companions, is uniqueto the American psyche. I have dubbed it “the myth of the bootstrap.” This is an introduction to the myth, its main components and itsorigin.

Assigning Blame

Themyth of the bootstrap is a nostalgic and delusional psychology which at itscore demands individual upward mobility from everyone in spite of a modern sociopolitical environment thattends to restrict this opportunity to a select few. It is reinforced by theinclination to blame the poor for their own predicament, across the spectrum ofpolitical philosophies. Jonathan Kozol quotes a psychiatrist colleaguedescribing the views of his suburban neighbors on life in inner cities. “Theysay, ‘We didn’t have much money when we started out, but we lead clean anddecent lives. We did it. Why can’t they?’”[1]

AHarris Interactive poll[2]on the subject, conducted in 2000, discovered:

Three-quarters of all adultAmericans believe that most people on welfare would find paid work if they werenot on welfare, and that most people who are unemployed could find work withoutmuch difficulty if they really tried. Furthermore, a plurality believes thatthe poor are mainly to blame for their poverty; only just over a third believesthat they are mostly poor through no fault of their own.

Chairman of the Harris Poll, Humphrey Taylor,speculated that the survey revealed a certain “American exceptionalism” regardingthe issue of poverty:

The result of this surveyhelps to explain why the United States, alone among western democracies, hasnever had a significant socialist party. Americans, perhaps more than people inany other country, tend to believe that everyone should be able to find workand make it into the middle class, and that if they do not it is their ownfault, not just bad luck. The welfare state, many Americans believe, just makesit easier for those who are lazy to avoid work and still survive.

Beyond even the question of survival, there exists a perceptionthat welfare recipients are abusers of the system who spend their money onfrivolous material goods. See Ronald Regan’s infamous apocryphal tale of the“Chicago welfare queen” who stole $150,000 from the government and drives aCadillac. Then there is this cynical quip about a man snapping a cell phone photoof First Lady Michelle Obama serving food at a D.C. soup kitchen: “If thisunidentified meal recipient is too poor to buy his own food, how does he afforda cellphone? And if he is homeless, where do they send the cellphone bills?”[3]It is as though the author is suggesting that all the poor and theircircumstances must be identical in order to fulfill the criteria for “needy.” Thevery expression “deserving poor” suggests that a certain segment ofimpoverished citizens deserve help and others—“the ne'er-do-well, the slacker,the vagrant, the addict, the drunk, the able but lazy burden of the state,”[4]—do not. Rather than rectifying the circumstances that create poverty, we arequick to dismiss a significant portion of the impoverished as undeserving poor.

The Bootstrap Myth as An Inherited Cultural Ideology

Although the familiar expression to “pull oneself upby the bootstraps” is believed to have originated in the 19^thcentury,[5] themyth of the bootstrap has its origins in colonial America. The progenitors ofthis principle were the Puritan settlers themselves, who would lead Germaneconomist and sociologist Max Weber to popularize the term “Protestant workethic” in his 1905 book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. The term became synonymous with people whoseem to possess a indefatigable impulse toward hard work. The Puritans believedthat such labor not only benefitted both the individual and the community, butalso lead to personal salvation in the eyes of God.[6]

Another 18^th century source feeding thebootstrap myth are seminal works admired in their time and that the keepers of posteritywould come to regard as central to American thought. Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography (1771-1789) is essentiallyan instructional treatise for his son about striking out from the protectivefamily circle to make his way in the world, carrying with him the spirit offree market entrepreneurship. The writings of Thomas Jefferson gave rise to the“Jeffersonian ideal,” positing that the United States economy should becomposed of small business- and/or landowners who produce for themselves, in noway reliant upon large government and industry. Letters from an American Farmer by J. Hector St. John Crèvecoeur(1782) rings with the idealism of a pioneer throwing off class shackles, cultivatinghis land and building a legacy to bequeath to future generations:

[America] is not composed,as in Europe, of great lords who possess every thing and of a herd of peoplewho have nothing. Here are no aristocratical families, no courts, no kings, nobishops, no ecclesiastical dominion, no invisible power giving to a few a veryvisible one; no great manufacturers employing thousands, no great refinementsof luxury. The rich and the poor are not so far removed from each other as theyare in Europe…We are a people of cultivators, scattered over an immenseterritory…united by the silken bands of mild government, all respecting thelaws, without dreading their power, because they are equitable. We are allanimated with the spirit of an industry which is unfettered and unrestrained,because each person works for himself.[7]

We cling to this romantic vision ofthe America of our “Founding Fathers.” Politicians in particular are notoriousoffenders; if they can regale us with promises of a new America by conjuringvisions of American antiquity, we are too often lulled into a complacency thatsaps our capacity to enact radical progress. Below is an excerpt from RonaldRegan’s 1981 inaugural address:

Inthis present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; governmentis the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that societyhas become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elitegroup is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one amongus is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity togovern someone else?

Allof us together…must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitablewith no one group singled out to pay a higher price. We hear much of specialinterest groups. Well our concern must be for a special interest group that hasbeen too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries, or ethnic and racialdivisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and womenwho raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach ourchildren, keep our homes, and heal us when we’re sick -- professionals,industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, inshort, “We the People.” This breed called Americans.[8]

Similarrhetoric can be found in the inaugural speech of Bill Clinton and the secondinaugural speech of George W. Bush, demonstrating that even in a new millenniumour leaders were still looking backward at a fictitious golden age when “We thePeople” included everyone. Thatpopular 18^th century sentiment, which posits that if one is“animated with the spirit of an industry which is unfettered and unrestrained”then one can succeed in America, has become an enduring cultural meme. Itpersists while at the same time it has failed to adjust itself to the characterof today’s capitalism—a monopolist power pyramid wherein a handful ofcorporations control the majority of the country’s wealth. Still we continue toplace the onus on the individual to pick himself up by his proverbialbootstraps then blame him when he fails, despite the fact that oursuperstructures have grown titanic, labyrinthine, arcane and anti-democratic.

Yet the greatest error in clinging to such nostalgiais that for certain demographics within the population, it has always been a myth. An explicit integral theme common tomany canonized works of early American literature is the definition of anAmerican as patriotic, industrious, autonomous, unflappable in the face ofhardship. The implicit definition isthe American as white male. Colonial cultural norms were “politicallyconservative, patriarchal, and white-dominant.”[9] Theonly “citizens” whose civil rights were protected and guaranteed were whitemale property owners. Lawmakers did not have to account for the complexities ofan integrated, multicultural society because the systematic deprivation ofNatives, African Americans and to a lesser extent, white women, was a matter oflegislative policy. Scholar Dana Nelson argues that the cultural elite, i.e.rich white men, bypassed the opportunity to author a truly radical democracythat incorporated women and people of color as equals in order to definenationhood as white manhood. [10]

Franklin’s Autobiographymay have intended his son to be the primary audience, but his son representedall the young, upwardly mobile white men who would become the wielders ofeconomic power. Who, after all, were Jefferson’s landowners and small businessowners who would compose the country’s economic base? Crèvecoeur may not haveperceived America’s white elite as “aristocratical families,” but the mainelement they lacked in this regard were hereditary titles. He saw little dividebetween the rich and the poor because he himself would have been able totraverse the gulch from the latter to the former without trepidation. And arewe really expected to credit that Reagan did not understand that the governmentis run “by an elite group?”

Crèvecoeur asks in Letters, “What, then, is the American, this new man?”:

Heis either an European or the descendant of an European…He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancientprejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he hasembraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.[11]

It can be argued that the modern definition ofAmerican has not evolved much from Crèvecoeur’s imaginings. What do we mean,for example, when we use the term “all-American?” Often without a consciousawareness of it and despite the cultural plurality in which we live, we use it todescribe clean-cut, conventional, middle-class people. The images traditionallyassociated with it are Rockwellian—white (and quite often blonde-haired,blue-eyed) youth smiling beatifically against a small town or rural backdrop.The expression suggests that in the 21^st century, the identity“American,” and by extension, “citizen,” still carries 18^th centurycoding regardless of contemporary legal stipulations to the contrary.

The Hypocrisy Withinthe Myth

Adherents to the myth of the bootstrap, like thesuburban neighbors discussed by Kozol’s colleague, embrace the fallacy of hastygeneralization, one that is “committed when a person draws a conclusion about apopulation based on a sample that is not large enough.” [12] Inthis case it proclaims, “If I can do it, you can do it.” American pop cultureis littered with the propaganda of self-determination and improvement, whether couchedas the latest quick fix diet scheme, or multimillionaire Tony Robbins hostingelaborate seminars costing upwards of $1,000 teaching us to Unleash the Power Within. Unfortunately, the superstructuresactually responsible for bolstering the will to self-improvement too oftencountervail that will and, at their most egregious, foster an atmosphere thatconveys to the poor and minorities that the bootstrap devotées do not inreality expect them to succeed.

Nowhereis this more graphic than in sections of the public school system that servepoor minority children. Kozol quotes the principal of Camden High, RuthieGreen-Brown: “There is that notion out there that the fate of these children isdetermined by their birth. If they fail, it’s something in themselves. That, Ibelieve, is why Joe Clark got so much praise from the white media. ‘If theyfail, kick ‘em out!’…I’ve worked in upper-middle-class suburban schools. I knowthe difference.”[13]

The evidence reaches beyond the deplorableconditions of the inner city schools Kozol explored in the 1990s. It extends intoinitiatives such as the No Child Left Behind Act. Introduced by PresidentGeorge W. Bush in 2001, it purported to be a blueprint for raising achievementin low-performing schools. Among many criticisms of the act is the practice of “teachingto outcomes” (also known as “teaching to the test”) which detractors believe encourageseducators to focus on methods for passing mandated standardized tests ratherthan lessons emphasizing supple learning and critical thinking.[14] Asrecently as 2004, a researcher discovered that, “in schools where more than 71%of the students eligible for subsidized school lunch programs, only 35% ofstudents are assigned research using the Internet, compared to 61% of studentsin high-wealth schools. And this is true even though there is only a 7%difference in their access to computers in classrooms.”[15] Furtherevidence is the practice of “tracking,” placing students into groups based onalleged academic ability. Critics have found that the low-track students aredisproportionately low-income minorities while the high-track students tend tocome from socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds—all of this while theorizingthat the placement of poor minorities does not necessarily reflect their actualfacilities for learning.[16]

Kozol’s colleague interprets the true meaning of hisneighbors’ rhetorical question, We didit, why can’t they? “Whatthey mean is [poor minorities have a] lack of brains, or lack of drive, or lackof willingness to work.” Kozol himself summarizesthis paradox of the bootstrap myth perfectly when he writes: “Placing theburden on the individual to break down doors…is attractive to conservativesbecause it reaffirms their faith in individual ambition and autonomy. But toask an individual to break down doors that we have chained and bolted in advanceof his arrival is unfair.”

The Broken Bootstrap

Given that we as a society havechosen to interpret the phrase “all men are created equal” to mean every humanbeing, that the United States is a country of vast wealth, and that mostAmericans believe we are living in a free, democratic society, it isunderstandable how we might become exasperated with those we perceive aslacking initiative. To some extent, the enfranchised have little excuse; thoseof us who are educated, familiar with the workings of bureaucracy and the methodsto access our abundant resources must account for ourselves when we choose to letothers do the bootstrapping for us. For the disenfranchised, we exemplify thoserare cases who lift themselves out of poverty and hold them up as examples ofhow this can be achieved in the face of enormous odds: They did it, why can’t you? Of course they are to be lauded, butnot to the extent that we use them as an indictment against those who remaintrapped by poverty. The myth of the bootstrap fails to consider how exceptionalit is to be exceptional, even among the racial and economic demographics itfavors. How many of us, from our positions of relative advantage, are bothwilling and able to strive against the common banalities of everyday life toaccomplish uncommon goals? Does an attitude of futility among the impoverished differso much from one of complacency among the privileged?

What we as individuals ultimately believewe owe the marginalized is a matter of personal morality. That can only bedetermined by an honest assessment of self. We need not all agree upon the mostefficacious means to battle poverty. However, it is incumbent upon those of uswho agree it must be combated to engage in unflinching discourse with ourselvesand with each other; we must first accept that we are all indoctrinated withinherited prejudices before we can interrogate them. Failure to do so is toperpetuate hypocrisy of word and deed that will delude future generations intopermitting poverty to persist.

Postscript

“boot(-)strap”…the original sense was not simply “toraise or better oneself by one’s own unaided efforts”, but to try to do so in aludicrously far-fetched or quixotic manner…Even in the 1927 article I cited ina previous post ("The Bootstrapper", reprinted from the Times ofLondon), the headstrong American belief in self-improvement is presented asrather preposterous.[17]

[1] Kozol, Jonathan. SavageInequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Harper, 1991.

[2] See full survey results,along with tables and methodology, at the conclusion of this paper.

[3] Malcolm, Andrew. “MichelleObama serves food to D.C. poor and homeless, but...” Top of the Ticket.Los Angeles Times/Blogs. March 6, 2009. < http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/03/michelle-obama.html>

[4] Ironcross One-One. “TheDeserving Poor.” The Brutality of Reason. 2005. <http://ironcross11.blogspot.com/2005/01/deserving-poor.html> March 8, 2009.

[5] Zimmer, Benjamin.“figurative ‘bootstraps’ (1834)” American Dialect Society. 2005. <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0508b&L=ads-l&P=15085> March 2, 2009.

[6] Survey of AmericanLiterature I. Lecture notes. Mills College, Sept. 9, 2008.

[7] Lauter, Paul, ed. HeathAnthology of American Literature, Volume A: Colonial Period to 1800.Boston: Houghton, 2006.

[8] “Ronald Reagan: FirstInaugural Address.” Top 100 Speeches. American Rhetoric. 2001-2009.

<http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreagandfirstinaugural.html> March 7, 2009.

[9] Heath.

[10] Nelson, Dana D. NationalManhood: Capitalist Citizenship and the Imagined Fraternity of White Men. DukeUniversity Press, 1998.

[11] Heath.

[12] Labossiere, Dr. Michael C. FallacyTutorial Pro 3.0. 1995.

[13] Kozol.

[14] World of the Black Child.Lecture notes. CSUEB, January 20, 2009.

[15] Lewis, Ann C. “WashingtonCommentary: Redefining ‘Inexcusable.’” Phi Delta Kappan. October, 2004: 8.2.Phi Delta Kappa International. <http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v86/k0410lew.htm>February 27, 2009.

[16] Oakes, Jeannie. “Tracking inSecondary Schools: A Contextual Perspective.” Educational Psychology, 13.2(1987)

[17] Zimmer.

The Graduation Speech That Wasn't

2009-05-21T21:35:00.000-07:00

I just graduated on May 16th, eighteen years after I would have originally started college had I matriculated in a so-called "normal" fashion. That is, had I entered as a knucklehead 18-year-old, snored, fucked and drank my way through 30- or 40-large of my parents'/the government's/the bank's/some bleeding heart liberal sucker's money, only to emerge as a knucklehead 21-year-old with not a whole lot to contribute to society beyond the spewing of regurgitated pablum of a burnt out, self-serving prof with a hard-on for ditsy coeds and the tenure track.

Fortunately, I am not normal. Instead, I entered as a knucklehead 34-year-old staring down the double-barrel of wasted potential and enough detours behind me to shake Master Waller's hound dog off of Kunta Kinte's ass. At Mills College in Oakland (go Cyclones!) I had the great fortune of encountering a cache of amazing educators, from my Comp Sci prof to my African American Women's History prof, all of whom, in their own unique ways, helped me piece together what it means for me to be the fabulous black queer woman writer that I am today.

But the point is, none of this would have happened were it not for the eclectic cast of characters around me. If you're reading this, my peeps, you know who you are and what you did. I will never be able to thank you enough.

I wanted the opportunity to try, though. From the moment I laid pen to paper to apply to Mills, I dreamed of making a speech at commencement that would serve as a public display of gratitude to my ancestors, family and friends. Two and half years later, I received an email announcing a contest to determine who would deliver the undergraduate commencement speech. I had always just assumed that the student commencement speakers of years past were the valedictorians or similarly laureled nerds, handpicked by doting faculty to do the deed. In fact I would go toe-to-toe with any chick possessing the nads to match her literary skills against Yours Truly. [insert condescending laughter from my adoring claque here.]

Well I lost.

Boots' speech garnered a standing ovation at graduation, even from me, because it was genuinely great. I wasn't bitter because I thought my speech was better; I was bitter because [real reason deleted] I wouldn't get to fulfill that two-and-a-half-year-old dream of telling 3,400 people how much I appreciate everything my people did for me, and to speak for all black Americans then and now who never had the chance to do what I did.

If I had had the chance, this is what I would have said:

A summer or so ago I was enjoying lively and diverse conversation with family and friends at my cousin’s backyard barbecue, and eventually we turned to the subject of education. This is a hot topic in my crowd; we’re all really smart and well-educated, and those of us who aren’t are highly skilled at faking it. At one point a family friend mentioned her son who’d just been conferred his Masters degree from Harvard University. I was fulsome with praise and no modest amount of envy. But she just kind of shrugged and said, “Yeah, well, it’s no big deal. That’s what you’re supposed to do, right?” The Reactionary Arwyn took it as slap in the face. The first thing out of my mouth was, “Damn, it’s a big deal to me! I’m thirty-whatever still trying to get my Bachelors!” I’m grateful now that she didn’t hear me because it gave me time to reflect. A few glasses of chardonnay later, the Mills Arwyn emerged. And she said, wait a minute—that’s a whole lot of heavy lifting that created the opportunity for this African American woman in her sixties, who’s seen and experienced God knows what, to sit back and say of her black son and his Masters from Harvard: no big deal, that’s what you’re supposed to do. The heavy lifting that fostered that mindset involved nearly twenty generations of collaboration.

The knowledge I have gained at Mills has fortified what I have always felt in my soul—that one by one my ancestors moved earth and heaven to get me here. Some labored with a conscious effort to construct a future worthy of their descendants, others labored just to live hour to hour, but all of their hands have touched me. I invite my sister graduates to look around you, not just into your physical space but into your emotional and spiritual spaces, and acknowledge all of your collaborators, past and present, who occupy this moment with you. We took the tests, we wrote the papers, we sweat it out in the labs. But none of our toil would have born fruit were it not for those who offered pep talks, who brought raffle tickets, the ones who took out second mortgages, who asked too many questions; the ones who were dragged here in chains, those who were born here, those who sacrificed everything to get here. Collaborators, look at us now, the glorious result of your ceaseless love and dedication to our success.

Sisters, if ever you find the fire faltering as your blaze your path to victory, pause…feel their fingertips resting lightly on your shoulders…remind yourself: This is what we are supposed to do, not only to honor them, but to craft ourselves into exemplary collaborators for those who will follow after us. Thank you.

Video available on YouTube: "Arwyn's Graduation Speech"

Disclaimer: I'm not actually that fat.

Confessions of a (Not So) Liberal

2009-03-20T19:04:00.001-07:00

It's too much work to be a liberal in the 21st century. Back in the day, one only needed to get firehosed for the occasional pesky [insert pet civil rights cause here.] But now, if your finger's not cramped up from clicking "accept" for all your Facebook event invitations to antiwar protests, anti-police violence candlelight vigils, stop global warming fundraisers, save the children of Zimbabwe campaigns, save the wolves/polar bears/meerkats (of Zimbabwe) film festivals, all of which take place during your work hours, then you're clearly a stone-hearted right wing jackboot. The addition of a black president isn't helping matters, either, especially if you didn't quit your job and default on your student loans so you could move to Iowa and pitch a tent inside an Obama campaign office.

Personally, I'm wrung out from the paroxysms of guilt I suffer whenever I delete a MoveOn.org or ColorOfChange.org email without reading it. (And no, clicking on every petition in every email they send you isn't enough to qualify you as a proper liberal.) I'm thinking I might need to move to a state where they tend to follow a don't ask, don't tell policy regarding political philosophies. After all, the amount of work it requires to live authentically as a liberal varies from location to location. In Dallas, for instance, all that's necessary to be considered a liberal is going out of your way to find a recycling bin for that bottle of Ethos water you got from Starbucks. Here in San Francisco it's about, like, six-thousand times harder than that. This is a place where Democrat is the new Republican—it's Green Party or bust, baby. Sure people might let you slide if you display the proper bumper stickers on your Prius, but if you slap that "Free Leonard Peltier" puppy on there you damned well better know who he is or consider your membership card revoked. I, for one, do not know who he is and have not twitched a pinky to find out. Nor do I drive a Prius, wear hemp instead of leather or starve if I can't find organic, vegetarian-fed, free-range, sustainably farmed, humanely slaughtered cow. (Although, I suppose I deserve to starve since meat is murder.) To top it all off, I also happen to think you ought to learn English if you move to this country and I root for the United States during the Olympics—winter and summer.

*phew* It feels good to get that off my chest, even though it's over for me now. The PC Police will be busting down my door any moment, but at least I go to my fate with a soul unburdened. I mean, I tried to be the best liberal I could be, ya' know? I went about $80,000 in debt to attend an all-girls, er, womyns private college and took a class called Third World Industrialization and Globalization. The prof managed to convince me that the WTO is bad. Doesn't that count for something? Shit! I know I'm going to get a pissy comment about taking a class with a privileged fascist term like "Third World" in the title...

Hmmm, Third World...poor...colored...Wait a damn minute. Being African American, I don't have to work that hard to prove my liberal mettle. I get a pass, because my people have been oppressed since we ran aground on this motherfucker! Hell, I'm female and queer, too! Every breath I take is a statement for liberal politics. Screw it, I'm gonna bypass all that heavy lifting. From now on, I'm just a broke, lazy black girl livin' in the ghetto—drinkin' my 40s and eatin' my beakless fried chicken from KFC—content to let the white liberal intelligentsia from Pacific Heights proxy for me at the protests then come through the BVHP and enlighten me about how oppressed I am.

The True Spirit of Christmas and Sports Collide

2008-12-23T10:48:00.000-08:00

I thought these two amazing articles about the redemptive power of sports were appropriate considering my last two posts. Happy holidays.

"There are some games where cheering for the other side feels better than winning"

The San Quentin Giants are no ordinary baseball team

We Miss Our Tribes

2008-12-17T17:29:00.000-08:00

I need to get away from politics for a minute. Yes, I know, it's been almost a month since I last posted, but I've been mired in end-of-the-semester hell. Now I'm back and I need a break from Obama, especially because he's pissed me off again. If you don't know why, click here. Moving on...

I've finally found a legitimate sociological reason to justify my obsession with sports. It's because I miss my tribe, whatever that tribe might have been back in the day. I think all sports fans miss our tribes. People from every culture can appreciate this, because at one point we were all in tribes. For those of us who prefer sports to say, I dunno, WAR, but who do love some good healthy chest-thumping on occasion, sports fills a gap in our ancestral link. Specifically, the one where we used to suit up, paint up, armor up, dress up, drug up our best warriors and send them howling into mortal combat against the neighboring tribe's best warriors to defend turf, women, cattle, bragging rights. Just as it was back then, we cannot all be warriors, but we admire our warriors. Sports fans are wannabe, modern-day warriors. Why else would we paint our faces, don our tribal colors and throw rocks at each other in stadium parking lots? (Dodgers fans, insert "throw shanks at each other in stadium parking lots" here.) Sports brings together a whole spectrum of different types of people by the hundreds of thousands for one unified purpose: KICK THEIR FUCKING ASSES! And our warriors are kicking ass on our behalf, because in our day-to-day lives we can get arrested for kicking people's asses. Witnessing semi-authentic violence is wonderful catharsis, especially when we can imagine that, as representatives of a specific a geographical region, the players are doing it for us. Also in our day-to-day lives most of us haven't reached the highest level of, well, anything. It's a thrill to watch insanely skilled people match wits and athleticism with others of similar caliber. (This last point is the only reason I can fathom that anyone watches golf. Minus athleticism.)

Sports is social networking. Nothing else prompts us to spark up conversations with total strangers like sports. I wouldn't talk to half the straight white guys in the world if it weren't for sports. Guess what I discovered? They're not all morons! (They're also not all straight, but that's another story.) Sports helps us reconnect with our hometown roots, especially when we're living away from the city in which we grew up. I hated Philadelphia when I lived there, but don't let some nimrod in a sports bar start bashing Philly, 'cause it's on like Donkey Kong then. It warms my cockles when someone peeps my colors and runs up on me like, "Are you from Philly? I'm from Philly, too!" Then it turns out they're from some weird suburb I've never heard of 30 miles outside of Philly or like, Camden, New Jersey, but I wouldn't admit being from there, either. Whatever. You get my point. If you're from Philly and you are a Philly sports fan, you're part of my tribe. Together you and I can recreate that lost link to our ancestors that make us feel a part of a larger family unit, a common mind, and a whole lot of bragging about shit that we had absolutely nothing to do with.

Other, Non-Tribe Related Bennies of Sports:

Sports gets us free drinks. Just ask all the lucky bastards who happened to wander into the Overtime Sports Bar the night the Phillies clinched to move into the World Series this year. That's all I'll say about that.
Sports is the safest hot button topic. It's actually fun to argue about sports, unlike arguing politics and religion, which sucks. You can definitely get a chair broken over your dome in a sports argument, get cheap beer poured on your autographed authentic Mitchell & Ness throwback, but generally you won't get a cross burned on your lawn or labeled a baby-killer.
That's about it.

Play the Race Card at Your Own Risk

2008-11-28T17:27:00.000-08:00

Please pay attention to what your president-elect is doing, black people (and people of all colors who voted for him.) Now is not the time to wipe your brow and go *phew.* Just because he's black doesn't mean that you can go back to being political couch potatoes; just because he's black doesn't mean you ought to agree with all his policies, nor expect that he's always working with our best interests in mind. It does not mean we can kick back and relax, or that we are now considered full and worthy citizens in this country. And it especially does not mean you need to get your ass on your shoulders when a white person criticizes him. Dr. Cornel West, one of the most righteous brothers on the face of the earth, expressed this sentiment quite succinctly: he is both one of Obama's biggest supporters and his one of his biggest critics. All of us who cast our votes for him would be very wise to take a similar tact.

This is a perfect case of be careful what you wish for. We've got ourselves a black president. The historical significance of this can never be diluted or disputed. But I exhort you to keep this in mind: we have ourselves a president (who's black.) He was elected President of the United States of America, not President of the United States of Black People. He's not going to decide on signing this policy or enacting that law like, "Hmmmm, will black people like this?" Forget about it. PAY ATTENTION, but pay attention with a critical mind. He will get raked over the coals by people who want to see him fail because he's black. There's a whole bunch of folks lining up to say I told you so. You cannot allow this to cloud your judgment. Watch out for them. Call them on their shit because it's foul. But if you get mad and play the race card just because a non-black criticizes him (like Al Sharpton does every time someone sneezes in a black person's direction) you will be doing so at your own risk. You are risking being reactionary, risking acting like the victim, risking missing the opportunity to critique what might really be going on. Ask yourself, why is Whitey jumping all up in Barack's face? Then ask yourself, why is Whitey jumping all up in Barack's face? Maybe he's doing dirt. Because he will, you know. Some think he already is. For instance, he's electing people to his Cabinet, like Bush's defense secretary Robert Gates, who have a history of supporting the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, when part of his campaign hype was promising to end these horrendous, unjust wars. Was he talking out of his neck to get elected? Maybe, maybe not. These are the type of issues that require further investigation. While Barack's Cabinet candidates so far are both Democrat and Republican, none of them are especially progressive.

Conversely, let us also resist the urge to sling around that tired-ass epithet "Uncle Tom" as soon as we perceive Barack as "selling out" to Whitey. First of all, read the book, because you're ignorant for using that term if you don't know where it comes from or understand its historical context. Secondly, if he does something you don't like, it's way too easy to call him a sell-out. That is not critical thinking. Lack of critical thought creates such things as bigots, Sarah Palin, bricks, and other undesirables we don't want participating in our political processes. If Barack pisses you off, that's good—it means you're paying attention. It means you're not just drinking the doped up Kool Aid. Get involved in activism. Write him a letter. Start a blog. Do something. Sitting there calling him names will not make him accountable, nor will it improve your status in this society.

Let the man do his job and remember always what his job is: President of the United States. I don't know about you, but I really hate it when one famous black person speaks and the rest of the world thinks he or she is speaking for all of us. Last I checked, we weren't the Borg. Barack is not our spokesperson. Be aware of bigoted critics, but also be aware of following him like a blind dog. Whether you like it or not, there are other issues on the table besides us and him. He knows it. So should you.

Don't Ask Barack for No 40 Acres OR a Mule

2008-11-19T13:58:00.000-08:00

Okay, my peeps, I'm not exactly telling you to stop huffing the Obama glue yet. We need to enjoy the love affair for as long as we can, because the man has to clean up eight year's worth of a big steaming pile of you-know-what—he's going to get his hands dirty. What I am encouraging you to do is temper your expectations.

Mainly, don't go clamoring for reparations for slavery.

Does the government owe us? No doubt, but it shouldn't come in the form of a big ole' check that you'll just run out and blow on some Jordans and a Caddy. Nor should you expect the first black president to push the issue of reparations. It's not a case of whether we should worry "about what white people think." We shouldn't. But the fact of the matter is, they hold a much larger portion of the voting bloc than we do, and as far as I'm concerned, Obama's margin of victory in the popular vote was entirely too close for comfort. This means his margin for error is much tighter. His opponents are wringing their collective hands waiting for him to give black people some sort of unfair advantage, whatever the f*ck that could be. You KNOW this. And the public is fickle. As soon as a Democrat screws up they vote in a Republican and vise versa (except for the last eight years of mass mania.) So what I'm saying is, just because your brother got himself a phat job doesn't mean he's going hire you to be his personal assistant.

What you should expect, in fact, demand, is that Barack begins to build social programs that will invest in the long term elevation of disenfranchised people from across the rainbow. This includes, but is not limited to a few basic reforms:

Eliminating ghettos. Ghettos are created when poor people are confined to a few areas within a city typically as far as possible from "everybody else," and when transportation to other areas is inadequate at best. This sets up an "us" vs. "them" mentality in both the rich and the poor, leaving no room to imagine a scenario where people of all income levels can reside together. This means building mixed-income housing developments, where a $400/month apartment exists in the same complex as a $2,000/month apartment; building HUD houses in middle-class neighborhoods. It can and has happened in cities across the country, and should become standard practice. Of course there will always be gated communities and the like, but that's fine. We don't want to live with them anyway.
Socializing health care and education. If you're afraid of the word "socialism," do some research about how well Canada has done with FREE health care and education. And they're still a capitalist society. The two can be integrated successfully.
Investing in truly effective job training programs. I'm not talking about just teaching people how to type so they can work a cash register. I mean building well-funded community centers in the 'hood where people can receive anything from high-quality academic enhancement tutoring to training in the latest computer technology. You want folks off of welfare? This is a good place to start.

Now when I say "basic reforms," I don't mean simple or fast. But a well-fed, skilled, healthy black person is a lot less likely to bust a cap in your ass than one who's doing whatever to survive or because he feels like his little three block stretch of turf is the only thing he can really call his. These and other reforms will take a while to get rolling and will require a concerted effort to keep rolling, but in the long run, perpetual motion will kick in and they have the potential to correct the decades of ill we've been combating since Emancipation.

Don't hold your hand out to Barack. Hold your fist up, and make the man that YOU put in office do right the right way: invest, invest, invest in the poor and working class for generations to come. Then we can buy our own damn mules.

"Halfrican-American"? Since When?

2008-11-18T21:29:00.000-08:00

As I was persuing CafePress.com, preparing to spend inordinate amounts of money on Barack Obama gear, I came across a t-shirt with an illustration of our president-elect's handsome face bisected vertically, with the left half missing. The text that accompanied the image read: "Halfrican-American." I stared at this thing for about five minutes, trying to decifer its meaning. Is it something created by a person of mixed-raced origins? A hater who wants to remind us that he's not actually black but half-white? Or someone who conjured a clever phrase and just had to put it somewhere? I may never know the answer (though if you do, please, by all means, enlighten me.) All I know is that it pissed me off...a little bit.

Obama has always embraced his mixed-race heritage, and was raised primarily by white family members (including his beloved grandma, rest her soul. I'm still so sad she couldn't hang on long enough to see him win the presidency...) In a campaign where race could have been a time bomb, I applaud him for the classy way he handled the issue while at the same time being open and proud of his origins. But this t-shirt thing stirred up quite a bit of bile for me, for reasons that I can only describe as cultural inheritance.

Ever heard of the "one drop rule"? It is a sticky and complicated concept, but it originated during the late 19th century as an attempt by Southern legislators to maintain "racial purity" among whites and perpetuate the disenfranchisement of blacks in post-slavery US. The parameters of "one-drop" varied from state-to-state, but whether a person had one-eighth, one-sixteenth or one-thirtysecond black ancestry (and the rest white) by the "one drop rule" he or she was black in the eyes of the law. Not mixed, not even "mulatto," but straight up black. If you looked like a member of the Swedish volleyball team, by this rule you were still black. And of course your own sense of identity meant absolutely nothing. People who lived under these laws learned to view themselves as black whether they wanted to or not, because the legal system that enforced Jim Crow segregation never let them live otherwise without fear of "discovery."

The Supreme Court didn't declare the "one drop rule" illegal until 1967, and the concept has been used in court cases as late as the mid-80s to reclassify people from white to black no matter how they had identified or lived their lives. This "rule" remains in the lawbooks of many Southern states to this day. But regardless of the legality of such race-classification, the spirit of the "one drop rule" lives on in the collective American consciousness. People of biracial heritage read as"half-XXX" (black, Native, Asian, Latin, etc.) rather than as "half-white;" it is the "dark" part of their heritage that is called out rather than the white, which is considered to be the default race. (That is a whole other problematic notion...)

Barack Obama is a poster boy for this concept; blacks and whites and for that matter probably everyone else has completely elided his white side. He was the African-American senator from Illinois; on January 20th, 2009 (a date that can't come fast enough) he will be the first African-American president. Anyone who claims his race wasn't an issue in this election is lying or deluded by wishful thinking. It is not a coincidence that such a high percentage of first-time black voters ran to the polls because he reads black. It certainly helps that the man is brilliant and progressive and fresh, but I for one would not have been nearly as excited about an equally brilliant, progressive and fresh white candidate. Why shouldn't we claim him? Everything else in our society, from slavery to this minute, has conspired to label him black. I've never seen a single news story about him containing the words "Biracial presidential candidate Barack Obama," or "Mixed-race senator Barack Obama." Of course it's about race, damn near everything in this country is whether we like it, agree with it or not. And in this case race pretty much means black and white, because that is the specific pathology that has festered in this country for its entire history.

So all of the sudden, here comes this CafePress.com t-shirt that calls Obama "Halfrican-American." Oh really? Do you look at Barack Obama and see a half-white man? Do you look at light-complexioned black people and wonder if they're half-white, or are they just light-complexioned black people to you? You can be darn skippy that when he screws up he'll be black. What if Michelle were white? I bet he'd be even blacker in the eyes of America then.

I have already clarified that I am pleased the man ackowledges everything that he is. And if it is a person of mixed black origins who created that t-shirt, more power to you--you have every right to claim him as well. But I hope you can relate to my point of view. "One-drop" has been used to oppress and punish us (and those who consider themselves not quite "us") for decades. In this country, we have been conditioned that white + black = black. Now, in the highest office of politics in the United States, we can take the "one drop rule" and turn it on its ear, claim it as a rally to empowerment, rub it in their faces. To those old Southern lawmakers and their adherents past and present, guess what? Your president is BLACK.

Why the Passing of Prop. 8 Makes Some of Us Hypocrites

2008-11-13T21:58:00.001-08:00

The most important point that supporters of Proposition 8 seem to have missed is that this is a matter of civil rights, not religious beliefs. Those who would cite religion as their reason for voting in favor of this proposition are caught up in a game of semantics. If you believe that the state should not interfere in matters concerning religious freedom, then by simple logic you ought to believe that religious beliefs should not interfere in state legislation.

The amendment to the California Constitution called for by Prop. 8 reads:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

The ProtectMarriage.com website states the following reasons to support Proposition 8:

It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.

It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

Here is where semantics come into play. I believe that the word "marriage" is what's causing all the brouhaha. Those who oppose Prop. 8 are not demanding that religious institutions perform same-sex marriages. Religious institutions have the right, and will always have the right (provided there is no change to the First Amendment) to practice as they please without undue interference from state or federal legislation. This is as it should be. One of the principles that makes this country great is our access to religious freedom without political persecution. However, there is a difference between "marriage" as recognized by one's religion and a civil marriage as defined by the state. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a "civil marriage" is defined as, "A marriage ceremony performed by a civil official." CIVIL official, not religious. All that news footage you saw of same-sex couples running to city hall showed people clamoring to engage in civil marriages, performed by a secular body. California law clearly states:

“no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

This also applies to the tax-exempt status of religious institutions: it will not be tampered with. And not to be forgotten, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Along with protecting freedom of speech, it also protects the right to exercise your religion as you see fit. No state legislation can counteract that right. In the case of Prop. 8 and the word "marriage," do not confuse the issue: voting against it is not voting against your religious beliefs or the right to practice them. It is voting for civil rights. (On the same note, the US Constitution contains zero verbiage prohibiting same-sex unions.)

Regarding the "activist Supreme Court judges," they have the authority to overturn laws that they deem unconstitutional regardless of voter sentiment. If a white power group gathered enough signatures to place a proposition on the ballot that would rescind the right of blacks to vote, and the country voted it in to law, wouldn't you want the Supreme Court to have the ability to overturn it?

As far as children being taught that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, this assertion has no basis in fact. First of all, "same-sex" marriages, which are civil marriages, are not the same as marriages performed in a religious ceremony, any more than civil marriages between heterosexual couples are the same as religious marriages between heterosexuals. I was never taught anything about any type of marriages in school, neither have any of my friends with children currently in school mentioned anything of the sort. This is not required by the California Public School System curriculum. If you're worried about your children being exposed to gay issues, it is your duty to teach them whatever it is that you believe regarding homosexuality. Schools are not responsible for raising your children, you are. (I will also go out on a limb and say that hearing about gays will not make your children gay.)

Barack Obama, the man that most of us voted for to assume the office of the 44th President of the United States, has expressed two different, but not contradictory, viewpoints regarding "gay marriage." He is a Christian man, and as such, believes that a Christian marriage is defined by his religious beliefs as a sacred union between one man and one woman. No disrespecting that. However, he also opposed Prop. 8, because he recognizes civil marriage as a right that should be extended to every American. He is a supporter of civil rights at the same time that he maintains his religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive. How much research did you do regarding his position on this issue?

How does all this apply specifically to African-Americans? You already know. What other minority in this country ought to understand the necessity of civil rights more than we? Some controversy has erupted since the polls closed on November 4th about whether or not the unprecedented number of black (and Latino) voters were responsible for the success of Prop. 8. This feels like scapegoating considering blacks only make up about 10% of the voting bloc. We definitely did not all vote for it, because unlike what some believe, we are a diverse people who don't operate as a hive mind. But I don't care if only two of us voted for it—ya'll done did dirt. If you understand the history of Christianity and African-Americans, you know it is a complex one fraught with both salvation and degradation. (To my brothers and sisters who follow a religion other than Christianity, please don't think I'm excluding you from the conversation. I am speaking on Christianity as the religion of the majority of African-Americans and the longest standing religion of our people in this country. Rest assured, non-Christians have much to learn from this as well.)

My great-grandfather, Rev. Roland C. Lamb, Sr., helped found Providence Baptist Church in Philadelphia in 1938, and various family members have served there ever since; I understand the role of the black church in the black community. The black church has been the center of our culture since slavery. While white Christian slave holders used the Bible to justify slavery for more than 250 years (in much the same way the Bible is being used to justify homophobia) the black church focused on the teachings of Jesus, which emphasize love, compassion and brotherhood, and condemns hypocrisy among religious leaders, messages that our ancestors dearly craved while they were being systematically stripped of their humanity. Enslaved blacks who wished to be married were often forced to seek the approval of their so-called masters in order to do so, and even then their unions were considered outside of lawful marriage. If you haven't read Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, you need to get on that yesterday. He breaks down the heinous hypocrisy of alleged Christian slave holders from his standpoint as a former slave. It is a perfect example of how religion can be employed to justify any oppression.

"This sort of marriage is not in the best interest of children."
"God has a plan for marriage and this isn't it."
"Allowing this kind of marriage will pave the way for all sorts of moral depravity."
—Comments from the 1960s on the interracial marriage of one man and one woman: Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving
(From ReligiousTolerance.org.)

Sound familiar? Perhaps these are similar to words you've uttered yourself or were spoken by your preacher regarding gay marriage. Do you, as a heterosexual, want the state to dictate to you who you can and cannot marry, regardless of how you feel about marrying outside of your race? Oh, yes, another note about the black church: it was integral to the organization of the Civil Rights Movement.

This is just the beginning of the hypocrisy of voting for Prop. 8. Do you know who funded this campaign? Mormons from Utah, in collaboration with the Catholic church. They raised over $35 million to tell you what you ought to believe. Do you know the history of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints (the Mormon religious institution) and African-Americans? Black (men) were not allowed to hold priesthood in this church until 1978. The following information can be found at the Black Mormon Homepage:

"From 1832 when the Church was founded, until 1848, there were no restrictions upon Black Mormons, and Black Mormons worshiped on equal status with white Mormons in the Church. But from 1848 until June 8th, 1978, Black Mormons were "banned" from the priesthood (which all male Mormons over 12 hold), and from worshiping in Mormon Temples. This was called "The Priesthood-ban". During those 130 years (1848 to 1978) Mormon Church leaders taught, as official Church doctrine, that Negroes were the "cursed" children of Cain, that the Mark of Cain was a black skin, and that Negroes were "less valiant" in the War in Heaven (a battle between Jesus and Lucifer before this planet was created in which all human spirits were involved)".

Read the rest of the explanation; it attests that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion, was not racist, and explains the repeal of the "The Priesthood-ban." I encourage research on the matter, as it bears much consideration. The point is, restrictions were placed on the participation of blacks in this church until well after the Civil Rights Movement began. (And if you want to know how this belief system positions women, further research is absolutely necessary.) It is to their credit that they have since rescinded this restriction, but just because you may agree with Mormons that same-sex marriage is a sin, this doesn't mean they hold you in true solidarity. Legacies of racism die hard. Consider the source and reconsider your stamp of approval.

Now I ask you, how does same-sex marriage really affect you in a negative manner? Does it negate "traditional" marriage? Does every gay civil marriage performed in California cancel out a heterosexual marriage? Does it drive up the already high divorce rate among men and women? Does it discourage heterosexuals from marrying in the first place? If you can show me statistics or valid anecdotes that gay marriage = the demise of heterosexual marriage, I will eat every word on this page. The notion of "protecting" or "restoring" traditional marriage is nothing more than word-play. If you truly believe that gay marriage somehow undermines the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, then you need to seriously question the integrity of heterosexual marriage; if it can so easily be undone by gay marriage, then the weakness lies within these unions, not in the "evil" of gay marriage. Let us as black people look to our own if we're so anxious about the erosion of traditional marriage.

If you think about the rights civil marriage bestows upon people, many are essential rights that everyone who is a citizen of a free country ought to enjoy. (For that matter, many ought to be bestowed to people whether they're in a committed union or not.) I challenge you to examine these rights, and ask yourself, as one who has professed to embrace the New Covenant, embraced the teachings of Jesus, as a person whose ancestors were deprived of civil rights by so-called Christians who considered them 3/5 human at best, who used the Bible to enslave them, can you honestly look yourself in the mirror and say you are not a hypocrite? The following link outlines the rights bestowed to married couples. Review it and ask yourself why any human should be deprived of these rights on the basis of who they love and to whom they want to commit.

NOLO Press on Marriage Rights

And if you think there is no religious support for same-sex marriages, you are mistaken. Many religious institutions recognize the necessity of civil rights being bestowed upon every citizen. Here are just a few links:

Interfaith Working Group Online
ReligiousTolerance.org
United Church of Christ Backs Same-Sex Marriage
Mormons Divided On Same-Sex Marriage Issue

I would like to leave you with this: If you are thinking, Why should I care about gay civil rights? Don't we, as African-Americans, have enough of a hot mess on our plates as we wage war against the institutionalized racism that continues to hound us, nearly 150 years after Emancipation? Of course we do. But this is not a matter of "our oppression is worse than their oppression." The issue is a group of people's ability to have their love recognized by the state in an official way, one that grants them access to the rights of civil marriage, one that has nothing to do with your religion. Love, and the free expression of that love, is a not privilege that we can think about only once we stop smoking crack and shooting each other. Love and companionship is not only a white gay issue because they do not bear the burden of slavery. This is a black issue, because a society that permits any sort of discrimination is an unstable and untrustworthy one. It is a society that is unwilling to commit fully to social justice. We cannot afford, as people who have not long been considered citizens in this country, to throw up our hands and say, well, that's their problem. Whites, gays, Jews, etc. all participated in the Civil Rights Movement, they all marched with Dr. Martin Luther King. Do you think Dr. King would have voted in favor of Prop. 8? He was not simply fighting for blacks. He believed in a just society for all people. Remember the adage, "None of us are free unless all of us are free," and reexamine what gives you the authority to denounce anyone's freedom.