Please Stand By….

I’ve had a pretty hectic last couple of years, filled with personal loss and transition. But I shall return!

Appropriating Blackness

Chapter 1:

This is a short piece about the film “Black Is…Black Ain’t.” I wasn’t able to find an excerpt from the film, but this short doc about Marlon Riggs includes several excerpts from the film. At around 8.50, you will see the footage of Riggs walking in the woods and in his hospital bed.

Chapter 2:

“Delirious”

Warning: Anything after 1.15, view at you own risk…it’s a bit much for me. At around 3.22 he says something referenced in the book.

“Raw”

This is a shorter clip from the second film. It includes the “Sirens” bit.

“Men On….”

Ex. 1

Ex. 2

This is part 1 of 2, the “accident” happens around 3.55.

This is part 2 of 2. If you don’t have time to watch both, then just watch the second video which includes a review of what happened in the first video.

Chapter 3:

Here are a few excerpts from “Paris is Burning.” The first, features house mother Willie Ninja.

“On Race in America”

“Drag Realness”

“Drag Queen Wisdom”

Chapter 5:

Cafe’ of the Gate of Salvation

Clean Heart

The Lords Prayer

Differing views in GOP on voting rights case

(The Associated Press) 

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The GOP’s struggle over its future and the party’s fitful steps to attract minorities are on full display in the differing responses of Republican governors to a major Supreme Court case on voting rights.

The court will hear arguments April 29 about whether federal oversight of election procedures should continue in 16 states, mainly in the South, with a history of preventing blacks, Hispanics and other minorities from voting.

In 2006, as Republicans sought to improve their standing with minorities in advance of congressional elections, the GOP-controlled Congress extended for 25 years the Voting Rights Act provision that says the Justice Department must approve any changes in how elections are conducted. Republican President George W. Bush signed the extension into law.

But some Republicans said the extension was not merited and that some states were being punished for their racist past. A legal challenge has made its way to the high court.

GOP Govs. Sonny Perdue of Georgia and Bob Riley of Alabama have asserted in court filings that the continued obligation of their states to get advance approval for all changes involving elections is unnecessary and expensive in view of significant progress they have made to overcome blatant and often brutal discrimination against blacks.

Perdue pointed out that President Barack Obama did better in Georgia than did Democratic nominees John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000.

“Congress’ insistence that Georgia has ‘a continuing legacy of racism’… is nonsensical when an African-American candidate for president receives a greater percentage of the vote than his white predecessor candidates,” Perdue said.

Riley said blacks in Alabama register to vote and cast ballots in proportions similar to whites and that black lawmakers make up about one-quarter of the Legislature, reflecting the state’s black population. In November’s election, however, Obama attracted the votes of only about 10 percent of white Alabamans; that was his worst showing among white voters anywhere.

Both Perdue and Riley face term limits that prevent them from running for re-election in 2010.

Other Republican governors in states covered by the advance approval provision of the Voting Rights Act — including Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana — are taking a different approach. They essentially are saying nothing about the case even as Democratic attorneys general in those states have said elimination of the provision “would undermine the progress that has been made under the Voting Rights Act.”

About one-third of Mississippi’s residents are black. Barbour said he is not seeking to change his state’s status under the Voting Rights Act. Obama captured about 11 percent of the white vote there last year, according to exit polls.

“I’ve said for 25 years, I’ve testified in front of Congress, that the Voting Rights Act ought to apply to every state. Every jurisdiction ought to be covered,” Barbour said. Barbour also is term-limited, but has not foreclosed running for another office.

Jindal, widely considered a potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, issued a brief statement through a spokesman. “The governor has not reviewed this case or the briefs, but he has confidence in the attorney general to do the right thing for the people of Louisiana,” spokesman Kyle Plotkin said.

Emory University political science professor Merle Black said southern Republican politicians have every incentive to say nothing.

“If they come out against it, then their hope of getting any African-American votes in the future is even worse than it is now,” Black said. “If you don’t mention it, it’s the status quo, and they’ve been able to win with the status quo.”

All or part of three other Southern states with Republican governors must submit election changes. State officials in Florida, South Carolina and Texas have taken no position in the Supreme Court case, which comes from the Austin, Texas-area.

Outside the South, the attorneys general in Arizona and California are on record endorsing the voting rights law. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position about the case, a spokeswoman said.

In Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer supports the provision, known as Section 5. “She has not voiced a problem with Section 5,” said Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman. “She’s very familiar with it.”

Brewer was the state’s top elections official as the elected Arizona secretary of state before she became governor Jan. 20 when Democrat Janet Napolitano resigned after the Senate confirmed her to be Obama’s homeland security secretary.

Eight states are covered in their entirety under the provision: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. In Virginia, all but 15 cities and counties must comply with the measure.

Parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota also need permission to make voting changes.

On the Net:

• Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: http://tinyurl.com/clg2br
• Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder: http://tinyurl.com/dltf56

Gay Is The New Black? Heck, no! Is The President White!?

 This is an article I found, originally posted at Racewire.org. It is a continuation of my post from December 2008 on the “Gay is the new Black” slogan, and how this reasoning/re-appropriation is problematic.

I felt there should be a Black Gay voice out there to speak for themselves….and not the usual ranting “on behalf of others.”  The response is brief, yet well stated.      – kim mcnair

by Ron Buckmire, Bayard Rustin Project

As one of the 18,000 couples who were married while the practice was legal last summer and one of the leaders of the only Black LGBT political advocacy organization in Los Angeles County, I have a unique perspective on how issues of race and sexual orientation are portrayed and debated in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 and will use this piece to discuss why I think Gay is NOT the new Black. Last year’s campaign to amend the California constitution to say that “Only a marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized” was the nation’s most expensive ballot measure fight on a social issue in history: a combined 83 million dollars was spent on both sides. Proposition 8 passed by 600,000 votes out of 13.4 million cast, 52.3% to 47.7%, on November 4th 2008, the very same day that Barack Obama was elected the very first Black President of the United States. Early exit polls indicated that 70% of Black voters had voted Yes on Proposition 8. Later analysis revised this number down to 58% of Black voters supporting a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but a racially tinged firestorm in the LGBT community had already been ignited. On November 15th hundreds of thousands of Americans marched in parades protesting the passage of Proposition 8 in dozens of cities. Many of these protesters correctly (and incorrectly) made analogies between their actions and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, carrying signs with slogans like “Gay is the new Black.”

When (predominantly white) gay people say that “Gay is the new Black” they are invoking a common saying from the fashion world to send the message that discrimination against gay people is the same as discrimination against Black people. This is such a thoughtless exaggeration that it enrages Blacks and increases the divide between the two groups, causing people like myself who are both Black and gay to become even more invisible. It is natural for LGBT activists to want to associate themselves with the successful Black civil rights movement and it is true there clearly are parallels between some of the legal discriminations that Blacks faced in the past (federal ban on serving in the military, state bans against marrying interracially, no laws banning employment or housing discrimination, et cetera). However gay people were never enslaved or murdered openly without legal recourse in great numbers and it is simply frivolous to attempt to equate the two experiences of being Black in America to being gay in America.

The multiple reasons why electing a non-white American President resonated with so much of the country (and the world) was that such an important break from the past reveals how far the country has come from its shameful mistreatment of people of color. Barack Obama’s success eloquently illustrates that race is still a central dividing line in American life while Proposition 8′s passage is simply another example that the rights of minorities should never be subject to the whims of a tyrannical majority.

New Film!

by Kim McNair

New film explores racial tension on a prestigious college campus. 

This brings back a lot of memories for me.  As a student of color at a predominately white institution (PWI) of higher learning, there can be many times were you fell the sting of the hypocrisy that goes hand and hand with “diversity initiatives” and race relations on campus.  It may be an incident where someone leaves a racist note on the door of a student body presidential candidate(who happened to be black); or someone telling an outspoken black student in class to “go back to Africa” during a heated debate on race relations in society; or the constant facade of “we’re all alright,” this university should be “color-blind” and why don’t we just get ride of “affirmative action” rhetoric. Race relations on college campuses is a neglected aspect of student reality, and it is seldom understood or given proper attention by both students and administration.

As a former student leader and admissions officer, I’ve seen both sides of the student vs. administration debate on what should be done to combat the lack of minority presence on campus as well as the treatment of student’s of color once they arrive.

I am unsure as to how this film may play out; but if it does truely provoke dialouge and critical examination of the issue (I doubt it…)  I applaude the film makers for their effort.

This film adaptation of Rebecca Gilman’s 1999 play,  stars Miranda Richardson, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Beau Bridges; and is directed by Mark Brokaw. It opens this Friday, April 3rd….and if you’re anything like me, you’re wondering why we haven’t heard more about this project!  To learn more about the film visit www.screenmediafilms.net/spinning/.

Not derogatory, descriptive: Rev. Wright on the preacher and the politician

by Michelle Chen

Originally posted @ RaceWire.org

About a year ago, the media controversy surrounding Reverend Jeremiah Wright threatened to derail Barack Obama’s presidential run. The candidate then deftly seized the moment to display an ability to balance disparate, conflicting perspectives on race in American politics. In the wake of the political fallout, the President and his former pastor have occupied separate public spheres, seemingly with the understanding that they are each fulfilling distinct roles for distinct constituencies. (The spin still lingers, however, as the Wright controversy serves as a media reference point in Obama’s ongoing jujitsu in defining his public image.)

Last night on Night Talk, a public affairs program on New York’s WBAI station, Rev. Wright expounded on the difference between “a pastor and a politician.” Though he expressed pride in his role in shaping Obama as an individual, Wright incisively described a “paradox” in the Black community’s struggle for representation through faith as well as politics. He focused on the public sentiment that Obama’s election somehow fulfills the vision of Martin Luther King, Jr. Here’s a snippet of the interview (available in its entirety as an audio file here), which (as Wright observes) would probably not be read or heard elsewhere without distortion:

 “Dr. King would never have desired to see himself or a Black man in the position of being the one who now has his finger on the nuclear trigger. When King was preaching against militarism, he would never have seen himself as: ‘My dream has come true, now we got a Black man who’s the head of the number one killer, the number one purveyor of violence in the world.’… Dr. King would not have wanted to be in the unenviable position of being the Black man at the helm of a country that now is trying to put military bases in Africa, nor the head of a country that still refuses to deal with what happened in Haiti when the United States government got Aristede out of there—the CIA, United States Marines. Nor would he have wanted to see a Black man have to say, because of Jewish pressure, AIPAC pressure, we are not going to send anybody to the international conference the United Nations is presenting on the [review of the Durban conference on racism]… 

“That’s not the culmination of King’s dream…. King was a preacher! The President is a politician. When I say that, and when it is said, people think it’s a put down. I’m not being derogatory, I’m being descriptive. That’s simply two different roles, two different allegiances, two different worlds, two different realities. And that gets taken, again, out of context. ‘Cause the press will not let you say what I just got through saying—the corporately owned press in America—without cutting you off, interrupting you, or taking what you just said and trying to twist it into something that will send ratings up, it goes against somebody, something negative.”

Those prowling for another “gotcha” moment will probably find something worth spinning in these statements (as well as in this prescient 2007 interview with Wright here). But whether you agree or not, the message is most remarkable for its frankness. And when it comes to the division between activists and politicians, Wright’s words are a case in point.

Image: Richard Thompson, The New Yorker

RIP John Hope Franklin

It is with profound sadness and deep gratitude for his life that I present to you this article about John Hope Franklin.

As an undergraduate, I once heard Professor Franklin speak at Duke University. He spoke about how as a boy, he and his family had survived the Tulsa (Ok) Race Riot of 1921, and of the other experiences he’d had as a scholar and activist. Professor Franklin was a fierce yet compassionate warrior for racial justice, and it is wonderful that he lived to see a Black family in the White House.

Rest in Peace Brother Franklin

- Kim McNair, www.africameleon.wordpress.com

The Historian Who Lived What He Taught

By Walter Dellinger
Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, March 26, 2009

John Hope Franklin, who died yesterday at 94, was one of the most remarkable Americans of the 20th century. He was the master of the great American story of that century, the story of race. John Hope wrote it, he taught it, and he lived it.

For seven years, he and I taught constitutional history together at Duke, and I never ceased to marvel at how he managed both to embody this history and yet recount it with an extraordinarily candid honesty. Our students would fall into the deepest hush while he recounted his experiences researching his epic 1947 work, “From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans” (reprinted scores of times since, and still widely read), in segregated libraries at Southern universities and Southern state libraries. He would describe the various Jim Crow rules he was required to navigate — a separate table from white patrons, a prohibition on being waited on by white female librarians and similar indignities — without a trace of bitterness.

After the acclaim for “From Slavery to Freedom” and his other writings brought him a place on the Howard University faculty while he was still in his 30s, John Hope thought he had achieved the final academic appointment of his life. He believed that a scholar who was a man of color could aspire to teach nowhere else. History proved him wrong. In 1956, when Brooklyn College made him the first African American to be appointed to chair an academic department at a predominantly white institution, the New York Times reported the story on its front page.

John Hope never compromised on principle. Well, almost never. He told and retold the story of a decision he made as a young teenager in Tulsa to see a performance by a star of the Metropolitan Opera. His parents strongly disapproved of his decision, since it entailed sitting in a segregated balcony. He later wrote, “I am not altogether proud of going to Convention Hall, and there are times, even now, while enjoying a symphony or an opera, when I reproach myself for having yielded to the indignity of racial segregation.”

He worked on a crucial brief for Brown v. Board of Education, he marched in Selma, he lectured all over the world and he taught all of America to see through his uncompromising eye. But it was not just what he did but how he did it that marked his greatness. He understood that the public good was not merely a set of substantive outcomes; it is also defined by how we go about reconciling our competing visions of that public good. It is about how we view one another when we peer across the great divides of policy, preference, political party and personhood. John Hope Franklin looked at those who opposed him and saw fellow human beings.

He was no Pollyanna. He knew, as my son Drew once wrote, that we are still always crossing that bridge from Selma to Montgomery. But John Hope always looked at the state trooper blocking the bridge, the figure standing in the way of freedom, and saw there another child of God. He knew, as Charles L. Black Jr. said, that the tragedy of Southern race relations was drawn from that “prima materia of all tragedy: the failure to recognize kinship.”

When Barack Obama emerged as a possible candidate for president, I asked John Hope how historic it would be if Obama won his party’s nomination. He replied that the historical significance of such a thing was beyond measure. Obama’s nomination, he said, “would counter one of the most dominant narratives of the past 350 years on this continent.” Then he added the thought that it could be even more historically and culturally important “to have that family as the first family than to have Obama as president.”

When the roll was called in Denver and the Democratic convention, by acclamation, made Obama its nominee for president, I stepped outside and called John Hope. I asked him the question so many of us — particularly those of us from the South — have now asked each other: Did you ever think you would live to see this day? In his resonant baritone, John Hope responded, “Well, I never expected to live more than 90 years. But, no, even if I had, I still would not have thought that would be long enough to see this happen.” That he did live into this year seems a special gift from God.