Ned Beatty sums it up...

not to put too fine a point on it, but i think ned beatty rather succinctly sums up the state of broadway shows and the hollywood/fame star power deemed necessary to run them effectively in this new york times article.

it's more than a notion that there's a movie star-studded all black revival of cat on a hot tin roof that's up and running right now with terrence howard making his broadway debut as brick, the male lead. the reviews have been interesting, to say the least.

now that puffy has had his moment in a raisin in the sun on broadway (his first play and consequently, his broadway debut -- but of course you already guessed that, if you didn't know) and on television and india. arie is slated to appear this summer in for colored girls, who's the next star to grace the broadway stage to hone those acting chops and "stretch out in another direction"? 50 cent?

hm...he did make several movies recently...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Movie Stars Onstage: Big Daddy Speaks Out

By ROBIN POGREBIN

Published: November 25, 2003

They say you need sexy young movie stars to sell Broadway shows these days, particularly when it comes to long, literate plays like Tennessee Williams's ''Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.'' The current revival of ''Cat'' meets this requirement with Jason Patric, in silk pajamas that reveal his hairy chest, and Ashley Judd in a form-fitting slip.

But it is a slightly rotund, largely nondescript, highly experienced 66-year-old actor who critics say makes this ''Cat'' worth seeing. Ned Beatty is a movie star himself, though not the big box-office kind. And he says Broadway has come to rely too heavily on celebrities, thrusting them into challenging roles they do not have the acting chops to handle.

Tucking into a plate of shrimp scampi after a recent matinee -- hold the angel-hair pasta, per the Atkins diet, please -- Mr. Beatty engaged in a candid assessment of his co-stars. He said he very much liked his glamorous colleagues personally: Mr. Patric, best known for the film ''After Dark, My Sweet,'' and Ms. Judd, who starred in ''Ruby in Paradise.'' He simply thinks, he said, that they are ill equipped for their parts: Brick, a brooding, boozing former athlete mourning his friend's death, and Maggie, his long-suffering wife who craves his attention.

Mr. Beatty said of Ms. Judd: ''She is a sweetie, and yet she doesn't have a whole lot of tools. But she works very hard.''

And of Mr. Patric: ''He's gotten better all the time, but his is a different journey.''

Mr. Beatty had no similar criticisms for Margo Martindale, a veteran stage actress who was also praised by critics in her role as Big Mama. When asked whether she agreed with Mr. Beatty's perspective on their co-stars, Ms. Martindale said, ''These are lovely people, and I don't share his view.''

Ms. Judd and Mr. Patric did not return calls seeking comment. Mr. Beatty says Broadway is wasting the talent of better-trained anonymous actors all over the country. ''It's interesting to have people from film and television who can bring people into theater,'' he said. ''But the reality is, we have a lot of actors out there doing theater.

''In theater you want to go from here to there, you want it to be about something,'' he continued. ''Stage actors learn how to do that. Film actors often don't even think about it. They do what the director wants them to do, and they never inform their performance with -- call it what you wish -- through-line, objective.

''I think we've got those actors out there, and I think Broadway could be richer if it exploited that.''

Mr. Beatty seemed nostalgic for the cast of the revival's original London production. He was nominated for an Oliver Award there for his performance as Big Daddy, the bullying yet tender Southern plantation owner. ''I lucked out because I drew Brendan Fraser the first time,'' he said, speaking of the actor who played Brick. (Frances O'Connor played Maggie.) ''He's great at stagecraft, knows how to go from the beginning to the middle to the end.''

''I must tell you, that can be lacking in what we're doing.''

At the same time, Mr. Beatty said, his two young colleagues were giving him as good as they had. ''Nobody goes out onstage in front of people and does anything but their very best,'' he said. ''You just use it. That's what's there.''

Critics have hailed Mr. Beatty's performance as a high-water mark. ''What Mr. Beatty does better than any other Big Daddy I've seen is to convey without caricature the monstrous, exhilarated egotism of a man who believes he has outrun death,'' Ben Brantley said in his review in The New York Times.

Mr. Brantley also said: ''From the moment Mr. Beatty first shows up in the play's second act, he brings with him the invigorating breeze of passionate, scrupulously detailed acting.''

By contrast Mr. Brantley called Ms. Judd's performance that ''of a self-conscious pupil in an elocution class'' and said Mr. Patric ''appears to have spent many hours watching Marlon Brando and James Dean movies'' and ''takes Brick's self-anesthetized state to sometimes exasperating extremes.'' Similarly Entertainment Weekly called Ms. Judd's Maggie ''more of a fashion lynx than an alley feline'' and said Mr. Patric ''compacts Brick into cement.'' Even critics who liked their performances put Mr. Beatty's in a different category.

Anthony Page, who directed ''Cat'' in London and then New York, also suggested his own disappointment, saying that had he not had to leave for London to direct another play, he might have improved the performances of Ms. Judd and Mr. Patric. ''I think they're growing just by playing it,'' Mr. Page said. ''I wish I could have stayed in New York longer.

''I've been very happy with it certain nights,'' he added. ''It's not always completely consistent.''

Asked whether he agreed with critics who said that the production seemed lopsided because of Mr. Beatty's strong performance, Mr. Page said: ''It's been very helpful to have someone who's very much at home on the stage -- which Ned is -- to be in the center of the production.''

Mr. Beatty is, indeed, at home onstage. Although certainly best known for his career-defining performance in the 1972 film ''Deliverance,'' he spent much of his early professional life in regional theater, including eight years at the Arena Stage in Washington.

''I was probably averaging through a lot of my younger days 13 to 15 shows a year onstage,'' he said. ''And one time I figured out I was onstage more than 300 days most years.''

A poor student and weak athlete from Louisville, Ky., the young Mr. Beatty thought he was going to be a singer. But when he couldn't get cast in musicals, he started doing plays. ''I got lucky,'' he said. ''Theater was always lucky for me.''

He said he was never that picky about roles. ''Shoot, somebody offered me a job,'' Mr. Beatty said, ''I took it.''

Mr. Beatty made his Broadway debut in ''The Great White Hope'' with Jane Alexander and James Earl Jones, which originated at Arena Stage and moved to New York in 1968. Mr. Beatty rejoined the cast a few months into the run. He had not been back to Broadway until now, and said he was not particularly excited about it.

''I've done better theater other places,'' he said.

Mr. Beatty isn't crazy about New York. ''New York is what it is, a haven for millions of people,'' he said. ''My game plan for the rest of my life is not to live my life with that many people.''

He's been busy in his career making more than 100 movies, among them ''Network,'' for which he received an Oscar nomination; ''Nashville''; the first two ''Superman'' movies; ''All the President's Men''; and many for television. He also spent three seasons on the series ''Homicide,'' had a recurring role on ''Roseanne'' and has starred in various television specials.

It is Mr. Beatty's natural quality that made Mr. Page decide to cast him as Big Daddy.

''Not being highly educated or bred, Big Daddy came to the plantation in the Depression with no money or background,'' Mr. Page said. ''Ned himself has this terrific instinctive wisdom that makes him salt of the earth.''

Squinting through thick glasses to read his menu, Mr. Beatty did seem as human as the other imperfect souls twirling pasta in his midst, a regular guy with thinning hair who regrets his third divorce though he is happy in his fourth marriage; who says he does not see his eight children enough; who hasn't quite managed, despite the best of intentions, to stop working.

The role scuttled his plans for retirement, to spend more time cooking in front of ''Emeril Live'' on the Food Network in the new house he designed himself in the Sierra Nevada in California. Mr. Beatty had played Big Daddy in a summer stock production when he was 21. He liked the idea of going back at it.

Now, Mr. Beatty said, he plans to revive those retirement plans. For an actor who has done everything from Shakespeare to ''Showboat,'' enough is enough.

''Anthony keeps asking me about doing 'Lear,' '' he said. ''But I've done it. I've played The Fool.''

random sightings from the gym

i ran into cameron at NYSC in harlem yesterday. we were working out next to each other on those machines that are like long distance ice skating. when he heard my name he balked and reached out to grab me. how sweet!

cameron and i did a production of the wiz in the round at the arena theater in houston, texas some time ago. i was addapearle. i was in the show for probably all of 15 minutes -- the beginning and the end, really, with one hot number to make me really happy. i heard that it might go to broadway, so i did the part because i wanted to be a serious consideration if that happened. george faison choreographed/directed this one. i'd heard the stories about him and how crazy he is, and somehow instinctively i knew that if i was funny, he'd leave me alone. and he did. we had something outrageous like 3 weeks to rehearse and that he got the whole thing choreographed and up on its feet in 9 days.

when cameron told me that he was still doing theater, i told him to stop. on-camera work pays so well, i'm not so sure i'll ever do theater again -- unless it's something that i'm writing/developing, or something that i can originate. we talked about our options on broadway and otherwise. cameron told me that india.arie is going to star in the broadway revival of for colored girls who have considered suicide when the rainbow is enuf as the woman in purple, with whoopi goldberg producing it. i had no idea she knew how to act. if you are a musician with little or no theater experience, is broadway really the place to learn? especially if you're doing an iconic black feminist play? hm...

i remember when molly ringwald did her star turn on broadway. and christine applegate. and john stamos. and deborah cox. and toni braxton. and p diddy. these people don't originate work. they guarantee ticket sales, bolster sagging box office reciepts and give themselves a little credibility. but at what price for the rest of us? at what price for broadway?

and therein lies the irony: for actors like cameron and i who want to originate work, it's a bleak scenario for us because we haven't done lots of film/tv. we're not famous musicians. not yet, anyway. as far as the acting stuff is concerned, all we can do is keep auditioning. all we can do is stay in a constant state of readiness. all we can do is wait our turn.

well. this isn't a waiting room situation for me. i don't like to wait for the phone to ring, so i'm doing all this other stuff -- like writing another one person show or making another CD -- while all of that acting stuff does whatever it's going to do.

of course, none of this has anything to do with being talented or being good enough. go figure.

random sightings from my couch

i'm always seeing people i know on tv. it's the wierdest thing. this one gets a sit com, this one gets another national commercial, that one gets a psa. i'm watching the trajectory of everyone else's career from my couch. actually, that's what got me off the couch and actively pursuing on-camera work. i saw one too many people that i'd done theater with and i thought, i could do that. and as it turns out, i can.

last week was no exception. i was watching oprah the other day while i was doing lots of other things, like checking my email and cleaning house and everything else. there was a promo blurb about the show oprah's big give that caught my eye. a black woman on the show from the series who had caused a bit of controversy. everyone said that she had an attitude, that she was always snapping at people on the phone, that she wasn't a team player, that she had an ego. i stifled a yawn, disinterested. what black woman are they NOT going to say that about?

why did she look so familiar, i wondered. and then it hit me: i know her...it's rachael hollingsworth!

i met rachael quite a few years ago when, after an audition and 3 callbacks, i did a master class for the disney musical "the lion king" wherein they taught us how to sing in several african dialects. for weeks we came in and clicked our way through it. rachael was tall, elegant, beautiful -- and funny. she had a great voice. i remember the african conducting the class kept flirting with her. her sister was a dancer -- also tall and elegant and beautiful -- and was already in the show. rachael was singing regularly with hank lane music and eventually i followed her there and did a few club dates, too. i liked her. i thought she was mad cool.

as it turned out, she was dating larry doberman, a friend of mine who was a broadway stalwart from georgia. larry was the only male negro in that lily-white musical crazy for you -- amongst many others. he has a truly beautiful voice. perfect lilt of a tenor, with range and power and grace. and he could dance -- and tap dance -- his butt off. how did i meet larry? we went through the governor's honors program in georgia together, with a concentration in theater. he's also an excellent photographer. (i'm still using his shots!)

anyway, i recall that rachael and larry were an item for awhile and after they broke up she headed west -- but not before she and i worked on that spectacular catastrophe, Marci X. i couldn't go to LA. i didn't know how to drive and the people -- black, white and otherwise -- freaked me out. so i knew that my transition to film/tv/commercials would have to happen on the east coast. but i distinctly remember telling her a heartfelt good-bye and wishing her well. some time later, i saw her on that courtney cox series dirt with a nice chunk of a role as a fashionista and i thought, good for you. hats off to any black woman in this day and age that can work in LA, no matter what she looks like.

so what was rachael doing on oprah? as it turns out, she was one of several contestants on oprah's big give. she made it all the way down to the final four -- her and three other people. whoa. now i had to stop all that other stuff i was doing and really take this in. this was crazy huge.

as it turns out, she'd gotten booted off the show and she was coming on to do this whole big explanation thing with oprah that continued after the show. ugh!

i saw clips of the controversial episode and as i watched the discussion online, i understood. as a performer, you're pushing yourself out there so hardcore with any opportunity that comes along. especially if you're on the verge. and let's face it -- you're always on the verge. as i watched rachael's interview, i remembered this wonderful interview i read on naomi watts where she was going on about how she was in LA and unknown and her agent/manager/person was reprimanding her because she was going into auditions and the producers that were considering her work could see how desperate she was, and it was turning all of them off. and her friend nicole kidman who was hugely famous, was telling her things like, no matter how bad you think you're doing, there's someone out there who'd love to trade places with you. and she would console herself by saying, okay -- i have a ratty old car, but it runs. i have a ratty apartment, but at least i'm not homeless. and so on.

i'm not sure how ms. watts turned off that "i'm getting old! i'm desperate! hire me!" approach when she would go into auditions, but she did eventually and now she's huge. i think i had that when i first came to nyc but after i finished college and fell into music and songwriting, my priorities shifted and i found myself not caring about a lot of that stuff anymore. my problem, i think, is that i should have shifted to film/tv/commercials a lot sooner, instead of sticking to theater.

i can't even imagine being consumed by "fame" and "money" and "making it" at this point. graduate school is an ever-present possibility and the auditions for on-camera work come and go but right now, all i can think about is getting better at playing guitar and writing better songs. i'm way more interested in developing ideas and writing stuff than i am in being the center of attention.

regardless, i know what that "pushing yourself out there" thing feels like. after awhile, it's like a reflex. so i could understand what happened with rachael and the carnegie hall moment and i could totally relate.

the idea of getting out of the way with your ego so God can work is an important one in Christianity, so this wasn't a new concept. the mechanics of how to do it is what's tricky. i think that oprah was clear with her explanation of what it is and how to approach it -- and in the end, the scenario was much the same as many online "after the show" moments: rachael sat there, nodding and crying and smiling and holding oprah's hand tightly, while oprah went on dispensing new age wisdom and courage, like a modern day yoda.

where are our black leaders?

there are some who ask: why don't we african americans have more black leaders at the helm? the answer is, they killed them.

martin luther king, jr. wasn't the only one who was murdered. here's my personal favorite: fred hampton -- pre-law student, leader and tireless organizer for the black panthers. fred was shot down at the age of 20 in a chicago police raid. when a crossdressing closeted j. edgar hoover decided fred and his constituents were dangerous, the CIA, the FBI and the Chicago police department worked in concert to murder him and many others. of course, no one was jailed for any of this.

what was so dangerous about fred, anyway? was it the free breakfast program that the black panthers facilitated for underprivileged black children? was it his ties to communism and socialism? or was it his reigning cry: power to all people -- black, white and otherwise?

i think the argument was shifting from a racial to an economic one, and this made the government and the status quo very uncomfortable. remember: upon his death, dr. king was planning another march on washington, this time for the poor and disenfranchised. it had been building up for months in other parts of the country in 1967 - 1968. many thought that there would be some sort of an insurrection. and then they killed king, and the march never happened.

ever since then, the unspoken mantra seems to be -- distract them with race and gender issues, so no one will address economic issues. while we're squabbling, they're running us into the ground with outsourced jobs, non-electric cars, wars we don't want and debt that we could never hope to pay.

but i digress.

i love the way fred addresses a crowd. he talks as though he's speaking to one person, not a hundred. like it's just him and you, discussing things. and the call and response he initiates -- so southern, just like that twangy accent he refuses to gentrify. it's almost like he's chewing what he says before he says it. i LOVE that.

mostly, i love how impassioned he is and how knowledgeable and how much he cares.  he would have been a tremendous leader...

telling it like it is

on this, the 40th anniversary of martin luther king, jr's assassination, i think that it is important to pause and reflect on the state of our nation. as i solemnly watched the marches in memphis and atlanta on cable tv, it seemed rather obvious that the concerns of this generation are quite different than those of our parents. but not really. we can all use the same public bathrooms and water fountains -- but why would we? (ew.) yes, we can all vote (except when we are barred from the process, as in florida in 2000) -- but many of us do not vote, anyway. and no, we are no longer segregated socially -- except when we segregate ourselves. and if we're completely honest with ourselves, we'll admit that's most of the time.

the fact that his birthday is a national holiday is hardly enough.

this is about our collective lack of empathy. somewhere in there, all of this boils down to perception, to assumption, to racism, to our refusal to change or accept change in others. it's also about white privilege and the white progressives who refuse to acknowledge white privilege as a very basic tenet to the fabric of their american way of life.

i watched a news clip of obama's supporters chanting "race doesn't matter!" over and over again, triumphantly -- like their saying it made it true. of course, race matters. when you and your excellent credit are applying for that bank loan, when you and your master's degree are filling out that job application, when you're looking for a new place to live in the "wrong" neighborhood, race matters a great deal.

i think a part of what fuels the anger in my generation is that we were the promise of that dream. we were told that if we made good grades and went to college and finished our degrees and assimilated into the mainstream of american society, that dream of "race doesn't matter!" would be our reality. so we put blinders on, we ignored the naysayers, we worked hard, we did what we were told. and somewhere in there, we woke up and realized that assimilation is a lie. slowly, certain realities began to surface.

when dave chappelle walked away from that $50 million dollar deal and said, "the bottom line was, white people own everything," i understood completely. and then when he continued by asking, "and where can a black person go and be himself or say something that's familiar to him and not have to explain or apologize?" i thought, that pretty much sums it up. let's face it, people. if you want your dreams to come true, the first thing you have to do is wake up. if you think race doesn't matter, you're sleepwalking. how can the dream ever happen if we don't wake up and dismantle the status quo?

white privilege is real. as black folk, we aren't overly sensitive or paranoid to say that it exists. we're just telling it like it is.

Don't miss this CNN Special Report

on tomorrow night at 9pm, CNN will air Eyewitness to Murder: The King Assassination -- the day before the anniversary of the dreaded event. supposedly they've been given access to material that was completely off limits previously, including eyewitnesses, FBI documents, and the killer's room. this should be interesting. how cool that i don't have to turn to (white owned) BET for some kind of acknowledgement, that i can watch a program on a news channel that's fairly mainstream to see my story, my history. my theory is that when it comes time to making programming decisions at these networks, there are more and more black people in the room in positions of authority that can at least pitch an idea or make viable suggestions.

i have to admit: when i heard about this, i rolled my eyes and thought about last year's NBC News special about black women in america and how far off the mark they were. nevertheless, something in me is hopeful that CNN gets this right. trying just isn't enough. not anymore. we don't have that kind of time.

this is the first installment of CNN's Black In America series, so maybe the NBC News special got this ball rolling.

i know there's a documentary about it but here's what i want to see: a comprehensive expose about the chicago raid on the black panther party by the FBI's COINTEL-PRO that left fred hampton dead at the age of 20.

something in me knows that i'll see that movie when i make it.

a little bit of good news!

shocking but true: thanks to all the on-camera work i did last year, i have health insurance with SAG! i'm as happy as a clam at high tide about this. being an artist in NYC without health insurance is an unbelievably precarious situation. at least this way, if something happens and i have to go to the hospital, i'm covered.

too bad musicians don't have a union that provides health insurance. there is a musician's union but i don't know of very many musicians that are members. that union seems to be for people who do broadway and who are in symphonies and orchestras. everybody else is way too busy hustling up gigs in bars and whatever with their own bands to adhere to the unions' rules and regulations about where and when and with whom and for how long you can play. everybody else can hardly read music -- unless they're a jazz musician.

i'm already vested with Equity. the kicker is, if i keep this on-camera acting stuff up with SAG for a while longer, i'll be vested.

oh, ed!

couldn't help posting this one. Time Out New York caught ed durante in the street -- in monkey fur! (oh, ed.) he's the illustrious director of jake gets paid, the indie i was in last spring. enjoy!


I, New York

Time Out New York / Issue 652 : Mar 27–Apr 2, 2008

Public eye Ed DuRanté, 41/7th St and First Ave

Photograph: Jay Muhlin

Can we take your picture for the magazine?
[Laughs] This is too funny. My brother has been going around with this homburg hat and pipe, and I’ve been telling him he’s gonna get into Time Out because of it.

I don’t think I’d notice any hat within ten feet of your jacket.
It’s Mongolian monkey.

Sure it is.
I am dead serious! My ex-girlfriend got it years ago as a gift from her mother. She wouldn’t wear it, so I took it.

What do you do?
I’m a filmmaker. I just finished my first feature, Jake Gets Paid. It’s a black black comedy. It’s about a woman who, after discovering that her boyfriend is having an affair, decides to give him a surprise party. She invites the mistress, Jake’s parents, the friends. Everyone knows this party shouldn’t happen, yet they all come because they all love Jake. I just sent it to Cannes.

Anything autobiographical about the plot?
Well, you know. These things happen.

Monogamy is not a natural human inclination.
[Laughs] You said it, not me.
[Editor’s note: Wikipedia lists 16 different forms of non monogamy.]

Does the girl with the monkey jacket play into this?
Um, no comment? All my scripts are inspired by things in my life that hurt or were great. It took me three years to get this one right—mostly because it took so long to be truthful with myself.

Black black comedy is a catchy term. Do you think other people will start using it to describe their work? That’d be great. As long as they give me credit.

More thoughts from Ed

“I want to see Passing Strange. The show is political and deals with race and sex and so many other things that I deal with in my own work.”

“I worked for Ed Koch at City Hall for awhile. Eventually, I was like, Why am I doing this? I’m an artist. So I quit and started Talking Drum Theater Company. Then I started a hip-hop rock band. Then I applied to NYU’s film program and they gave me a full scholarship. How did I fit all that in? I did a lot of cocaine.”

“The ring and bracelet were my dad’s. When he died I put all his jewelry in a box because I didn’t feel like I was man enough to wear it. Then at a certain point in my life, I was like, You know what? I’m ready now. Our dad had a lot of style—he was a painter, very much a dandy. That’s why the brothers DuRanté roll with whatever we feel like wearing. [Laughs]”

—Kate Lowenstein

oh, lebron

why is it that whenever a black male athlete is on the cover of a nationally distributed and well-respected magazine, he looks like a wild beast of some sort that someone just unleashed onto an unsuspecting public -- yet when his white counterpart is featured on the cover, he looks like a strong, handsome (sexy, even!) conquering hero, with his foot on his helmet and his shirt off and him looking out past you, into the horizon and everything, like he can see the next game he's going to win?

come on, now. i can't be the only one that sees this distinction and wonders about it.

what's especially heinous is that this is the first black man on the cover of VOGUE magazine. all of the black male models we know and love, black models that were ruling the runways in paris and milan and gracing everyone else's magazine cover, these people waited until 2008 to feature a black man on the cover? then again, that shouldn't be surprising when you consider that they didn't put a black woman on the cover until 1977. (and yes, it was beverley johnson.)

lebron james (also called "King James" by the way -- i like that) says he was putting on his game face for this shot -- but why would he need that look for a VOGUE magazine cover? shouldn't he save his game face for the actual game?

he certainly hasn't pulled out this game face for the commercials he's done. we've all seen "the lebrons" in the sun, haven't we: lebron, dressed in an all-white suit and carefully shaped spherical afro looking for all the world like an elegant dandy, pulling off a spectacular swan-dive in slow motion into a large swimming pool and smiling at the camera beatifically as he seems to lounge underwater, all the while surrounded by various and sundry characters at poolside who turn out to be lebron himself, a la eddie murphy/the nutty professor.

not surprisingly, it's my favorite one: lebron as comedian and character actor is so unexpected, and what with all the assumptions/stereotypes about black people not knowing how to swim/being afraid of the water, a poolside oneupsmanship/showdown against his many selves was effing brilliant. what's next, i wondered? will "the lebrons" go skiing?

oh, you haven't seen my favorite lebron commercial, you say? well, here it is.



what's in this commercial is a far cry from what i see on the cover of VOGUE for the month of april: a King Kong for the 21st century, with giselle as fay wray.

i suppose one could say that i'm being overly sensitive or touchy, that it's just a magazine cover, that it doesn't matter. but actually, it does. in a media-saturated world where such images are carefully thought out and planned by people who are supposedly intelligent and educated and worldly, any visual inference that portrays black men as dangerous, angry, violent animals is not a good thing and it really shouldn't be celebrated as such. subconsciously, people are absorbing those images as truth and they treat black men accordingly.

you don't even want me to get into the images that are floating around out there about black women. you really don't.

the racism inside all of this is so obvious, it feels idiotic to explain it. it's like my friend ralph, driving up on a white skateboarder in the middle of the street at 120th and 5th and yelling at him to get out of the road. the kicker was that marcus garvey park was right there, mere inches away, but he'd rather skate in the street. (seriously, that really happened...)

interestingly, there are a lot of people who disagree with me on this. and one of them is lebron. hey, it's the april issue, it's out there. at this point, what else can he be but magnanimous?

boy. they'd better hope i never get famous.

congresswoman shirley chisholm did it first!

before there was obama, before there was hillary, there was former schoolteacher mrs. shirley chisholm -- the first black woman elected to congress and the first black woman to run for president of the united states in 1972. of course, they didn't take her seriously -- but that doesn't mean that she or her campaign weren't serious. what a powerhouse.

check out the documentary about her run for the white house: unbought and unbossed. essential viewing for every american anywhere.

how curious, how very interesting that with all of this gender vs. race talk from the likes of roseanne barr and gloria steinem, with their ongoing "dialogue" of gender bias and the constant positing of feminism as an inclusive sisterhood (ha! i've never believed that whopper), no one in the feminist movement has thought to mention congresswoman chisholm and her historic presidential bid.

seriously, i have a question: after listening to what ms. barr or ms. steinem have to say about the gender issues in this election, is anyone wondering why black women aren't voting for hillary in droves?

Charles Bronsom is...MANDOM!

i loved charles bronson when i was a little kid. he was a man's man -- the ultimate tough guy. now that those million dollar japanese commercials that american celebrities have been doing for years have come to light, gems like this one are starting to surface. he must have done this in the 70s.

as i watched it, all i could think was, that's totally the life i thought i'd have when i grew up: there i'd be, all dressed up and having a cocktail of some sort while some nat king cole look-a-like tickles the ivories. and then some midget doorman would give me that hearty "goodnight" along with my car keys, and i'd zip through gotham, feeling powerful and arrogant and in control. wheeee!

i wonder what that stuff smells like. do they still sell it? or has it gone the way of right guard and hai karate, two other very important emblems of my manly childhood...

...and now, i give you the song "ken lee"...

why does everybody want to sing?
why does everybody think they can really sing when they really can't?
why can't anyone tell them how bad they sound?
why can't they hear how bad they sound?

with the worldwide onslaught of american idol, has bad singing become a cottage industry? is it really so mesmerizing, to listen to bad vocalists?

listening to this woman sing with such absolute conviction and be so far off the mark all the way across the board -- she even thought she was singing in english! -- was nothing short of astonishing. but then again, people lie to themselves all the time, about all kinds of things. this is just more blatant and obvious -- and funny! -- than the rest. i think it freaked me out because it made me wonder what i was unconsciously lying about to myself.

maybe bad singing is relative. for years, i couldn't stand bob dylan's voice. then one day i sat and listened to "tangled up in blue" and after i pushed "replay" for the fourth or fifth time, i knew the deal. i know some singers who feel the same way about billie holiday, and i've always loved her. but i think it's universally understood that as a vocalist, billie holiday is bringing way more to the table musically than ashanti or mya or beyonce or andre 3000 or a lot of others i could name. the question isn't whether or not any of them can sing. the question is, will anyone be sitting around listening to their music in 50 years?

chocolate rain, anyone?

america the divided: dunbar village and why you don't know about it

nowhere is the racial divide in this country more evident than during the evening news. i can't believe that everyone in america doesn't know what happened at dunbar village last june. aside from bet news and other african-american news sources (programs that most americans that aren't of color don't watch, to put it lightly), i have yet to see any national news coverage to discuss or address this issue whatsoever.

this is why so many black people are angry and in a panic. this is why we have our own news sources and radio programs and newspapers. because the resources that are for the common good and that are supposedly for all of us aren't reporting about what's happening in our communities. so we have to do it. we aren't being divisive. they aren't being inclusive. they never have been.

i can certainly tell you all about what's happening in your collective community. why can't you tell me what's happening in mine?

until basic issues like reporting the news are rectified, i will never believe that there is equality or justice here. those are buzzwords used to pitch this country favorably in a global marketplace. it's all a marketing ploy. as always, we're selling the idea of what america is. what's funny is that everyone else in the world can see right through it.

but i digress.

the thing that is so profoundly disturbing about the entire dunbar village issue is that a black woman was assaulted to this extreme -- as many as 10 black youths beat and sexually assaulted her in front of her 12 year old son and forced both of them to do some pretty sick things -- and the nationally recognized so-called leaders of the black community have rushed to defend and protect the accused and not the victims. for a long time, i was fairly convinced that we have been conditioned to denigrate black women. unfortunately, this entire situation proves me right.

now what?

----------------------------------------------------------------

DEAR READERS:

This mass open letter is a call to action for all black people who care about the safety and welfare of black women and children in America. If you are concerned about the recent developments about Dunbar Village, please copy the post below, and email it to all of your friends and coworkers.

WE WILL NO LONGER BE SILENT ABOUT VIOLENCE AGAINST BLACK WOMEN.

Copy and email below, and title your email: Stop Al Sharpton and the NAACP from endangering Black Women!

Let us know in the comments section if you are supporting the movement to protect black women from black on black violence.

______________________________

Stop Al Sharpton and the NAACP from endangering Black Women!


Right-thinking black people everywhere are stunned by the recent betrayal of Al Sharpton and the NAACP in a situation that is just too outrageous to ignore.

This is a painful story to tell, but it's important for the moral, law-abiding majority of black Americans to understand exactly why Al Sharpton and the NAACP must be immediately stopped.

On June 18, 2007, a black woman was gang raped by 10 youths and forced at gunpoint to have sex with her own 12 year old son in a housing complex called Dunbar Village in West Palm Beach, Florida. The young men not only viciously punched, kicked and sliced this sister and her
son with glass objects, but they also blinded her boy by pouring nail polish remover into his eyes.

The young men forced this sister and son to lay naked in a bathtub together, and attempted to set them on fire (they could not find matches). The youths boldly took cell phone pictures so that they could enjoy their violent, immoral and sadistic acts at a later time. The violence continued for more than three hours, and although this sister's neighbors heard her screams, no one called the police or came to her aid.

This sister and her son had to walk a mile to the hospital, because the assailants stole her car, and threatened to kill her and her family if she told the authorities.

Only four of the young men have been apprehended, while the remaining six are on the loose, doing Lord knows what in our communities. There is no manhunt for the remaining suspects.

As devastating as this story is, what the NAACP and Al Sharpton have done about it will simply take your breath away:

Not only did the NAACP ignore hundreds of requests to assist this woman because it was 'outside the scope of their mission', but they joined forces with Al Sharpton, and sent their lawyers to speak out IN SUPPORT OF THE RAPISTS.

You heard me right.

Even though there is conclusive DNA evidence and signed confessions, the NAACP and Al Sharpton are saying that it is 'unfair' to not offer bail to these four alleged rapists. They even had a press release about it.

IT IS TIME FOR SENSIBLE BLACK PEOPLE TO STOP THIS KIND OF NONSENSE, ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Al Sharpton and the NAACP are banking on the belief that you and I will be just like this black woman's neighbors. Join me by saying NOT THIS TIME. We will not turn a deaf ear to when we hear calls for help from one of our sisters and brothers who are being victimized.

Stop the NAACP and Al Sharpton's National Action Network from committing this disgrace in our community. Just this once, let's stand up and be counted by saying that we demand safe neighborhoods for our women and children.

Here is what you can do:

1. Spread the word. Forward this email if your conscience and concern have been raised. Send it to every concerned black citizen that you know.
2. Demand an explanation from your local NAACP chapter about thiscase. Cancel your membership to these organizations, and write a letter explaining that you will return when they prioritize the public safety needs of black women and children.
3. If you know an African American reporter or a black radio talk show
   host, forward this story them and ask them to follow up on it.
4. If you do not belong to these organizations, call and write them to tell them of your outrage and displeasure:
   

NAACP National Headquarters
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore MD 21215
Toll Free: (877) NAACP-98
Local: (410) 580-5777

National Action Network
Rev. Al Sharpton
106 W. 145th Street
Harlem, New York 10039
212-690-3070
877-NAN-HOJ1

Each Friday at 9:00am, visit any of the websites below, which will give you an update on the status of this situation. DO NOT LET THIS GO. Let us start working for safer neighborhoods in black communities.

Read the history of the Dunbar Village problem here:

http://www.dunbarvillage2008.blogspot.com

i know this sounds stupid but...

when you live in new york city, it’s so easy to fall into a daily grind that blots out the world. and that’s kind of bizarre, because compared to other parts of the country, everything is here. it’s kind of like going to a lavish exotic smorgasbord every night for dinner and walking away with a tuna sandwich on your plate.

some time ago, i promised myself that i wouldn’t live that way, that i would make the best of my time in the city. i got a membership to the Met and set aside one day a week to visit museums. i figured that since there was at least 100 of them in the city, i’d stay busy. and i was right. it got the ball rolling in the right direction. my fun day expanded to include apontaneous day trips, exotic foods, long winding walks exploring the city and of course, cool friends. like beauty day, when fun day isn’t there, i feel it in the rest of my life eventually.

that was an important lesson to learn: that if you don’t set the time aside for whatever it is that you want to do, it just won’t happen.

being a part of this group is one of those tools i have in my secret arsenal that guarantees me a certain amount of equilibrium in my world. i’m elated that this ball is still going to roll. count me in. it’s going to be a great year.

See more progress on: enjoy the second quarter of 2008 by having one new and fulfilling experience in April, May, and June. Woo Hoo!

"black women who date interracially" - the support group!

someone sent me an invitation to a mixer for an organization called Black Women Who Date Interracially, or BWWDI for short. i don't know when it is exactly but i'm thinking about finding out and going, purely out of curiousity. this is a group that seems to go beyond the "sitting around talking about where are all the brothers" conflamma and gives a lot of support and encouragement to sisters who are reaching out in that direction. because evidently, they need it.

i guess i'd need it too, if i actually gave a crap about what anyone thought about who i was seeing. but whatever.

we all know the stats, don't we? as it stands, 70% of black women are single.



when they run over these numbers, no one launches into who isn't interested in marriage because they're gay/lesbians. hm. that would be an interesting documentary.

evidently, i can join this BWWDI group whether i'm married or not. they want supportive sisters, that's all. and i understand. but more and more i think that anyone's comfort level with interracial dating has everything to do with not just being open but also emotionally mature and grounded. you really have to know who you are and be sure of who you are. it's easy for me to not care because i know that all of those "other people" (the proverbial "them," i suppose) don't matter.

why do black women have to be so deliberate about interracial dating? do we really need a 12 step program, a support group, a prayer circle and a how-to manual to say yes when that white guy at work asks us out for the thousandth time?

good grief.

still and all, it's good that black women are discussing this stuff. i know i've posted about this before, but it bears repeating: it's not about dating the white guy, or a guy of any race, for that matter. it's about dating the cool guy, no matter what he looks like. whether the two of you are compatible and get along matters way more than what race he is.

then again, i don't know what i'm saying. there are still way too many black women who can't stand to look at themselves unless their hair is straightened...(check out that video above from the Oprah show. an audience full of black women, and not an afro or a dreadlock in the bunch!)

the problem with obama's minister

i think it's important to read as much as possible from every and any perspective about the issues that concern this campaign (and of course, the war). this article is one that you're not likely to hear on the "fair and balanced" reporting that doesn't happen at ultra-conservative right-wing arch-republican FOX News. so i thought i'd post it here.

frankly, when taken in context, i agreed with much of what obama's minister said. i challenge anyone to take what he said in context and examine his words closely. want an example? it's true that the Klu Klux Klan in its inception was a terrorist organization that was condoned by the government -- and truth be told, they still are. they systematically murdered hundreds of thousands of black men, women and children and used terrorist tactics to intimidate and control them.

no one has ever acknowledged this publicly on a national level. no one puts this in schoolbooks and such so we can all learn about our collective past as americans. and definitely, no one has EVER apologized for it.

how could hard-working, tax-paying american citizens be treated this way? how could the american government stand by and let this happen to its citizens for more than a hundred years? why is the Klu Klux Klan still alive and well in this country? why hasn't the government called them the terrorists that they are and dismantled them?

i was talking to this aging white hippie the other day who agreed with much of what rev. wright said as well. and in a way, that's to be expected. think about it. old hippies are always going off about "the man" and "the government" and "foreign policy" and our tax dollars being used to fight unnecessary wars, because they lived through it in the 60s and 70s. the war in iraq is only the latest in a long line of dirty deeds done at our expense. there are many people in the world who've observed our foreign policy from a distance for quite some time and many more who are still living through its damaging aftereffects. it's lunacy to think that we could do so much harm in the world under the guise of freedom and democracy and not eventually have any of it impact us in some horrible way. according to that old white hippie, that's just not the way karma works.

the problem with obama's minister isn't that he's divisive or racist or homophobic or anti-semitic. (i mean, come on. didn't i just describe most of the presidents we've ever had? didn't i just describe nixon? get this: president wilson loved the movie birth of a nation and was completely and utterly pro-KKK. but i digress.) the problem is that rev. wright is not a well-dressed, well-heeled conservative white man -- because if he was pat robertson or jerry falwell, people may have batted an eyelash but it wouldn't have upended someone else's presidential bid. remember when they said that hurricane katrina happened because new orleans was a modern day sodom, that 9/11 happened because of the sins of the nation? who rushed to denounce them? i don't recall a national furor on a level that would come anywhere near what rev. wright has experienced. well. actually john mccain made a statement against what they said. but he needs the votes of the religious right, so he's taken all of that back now.

why isn't anyone focusing on the divisive things these conservatives said in comparison to rev. wright, or john mccain's latest flip-flop? you tell me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said The Same Thing, He Was An American Hero by Frank Schaeffer

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.

Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.

Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.

And this:

In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union....

Then this:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...

Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements.

Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."

We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany.

The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.

Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. As Jane Smiley writes in the Huffington Post "[The Clinton's] are, indeed, now part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/im-already-against-the-n_b_90628.html )

Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back

finally!

for all of you folks out there in foreign countries, those of you who don't have televisions or who categorically refuse to watch them, here it is: the prego commercial i did last year! yes, it's still running. yes, as long as it's still running, i'm still getting paid. yes, residuals are a beautiful thing. yes, yes, yes!



by the way: i had an audition today at HOUSE, for the fast food folks at sonic. more on that later.

the swedish cottage in nyc

my friend and i were tromping around walking through central park after the last big snow in february after spending the early afternoon in MoMA. somewhere in there, we came upon this sign:

"imported from sweden in 1876?" my curiousity was piqued. it was a beautiful little place. immediately i thought of gunnar and wondered what he would think of this little bit of sweden in the middle of the city. is it authentic? it must be.

sometimes its really overwhelming, the way the unexpected can overtake you so suddenly in this town. sweden? who would've thought it? everytime i turn around, i trip up over something wonderful in the city to explore that i've never seen before, that's been there forever and that is decidedly and distinctively not american. i've criscrossed the park a jillion times but i'd never walked from central park south (midtown) to central park north (harlem). and i'd definitely never seen this cottage. but this is located beyond the popular zones like sheep's meadow and the bandshell and all that. further up isn't as congested and so it feels more like a sanctuary, like its my own private back yard.

if gunnar ever came to visit, we could actually have a day of swedish everything, right in the city. i suppose we'd have to end up at aquavit. i really love the food there.

sunday's gig

here's a cool photo of jef lee johnson and naisha watson at soundcheck. the gig on sunday at the brooklyn museum was stellar, for many reasons. read more about it on my rock and roll blog here.

the one reason i couldn't stop dwelling on was that this was the first time that i could hear the new songs -- material that i'd written all by myself -- out of the confines (and the safety) of the sofa in my living room. not that i'd never written a song by myself before but i've written so many all at once this time around that they're starting to tell a story that reflects a lot of what i've been going through recently. i know that as an artist, what you create is supposed to be a reflection of you, but this is much more transparent than i expected, and all of it sounds better than i'd hoped for.

after awhile, whatever brought me to the song is what i leave there inside of it when its done. i've gotten it off my chest, as it were. the emotional weight that brought it out of me only exists when i sing it, and that's a passing momentary thing. i left it in the song for someone else to feel. and so i'm on to the next.

i didn't mean to write about these things in such a direct way, i never meant to be so deliberate about it. i didn't think to myself, let me write a song about that situation. i just happened to be thinking about or reliving a moment in that situation and the song came out.

i realize now more than ever that this is the way it works creatively. to be inside the moment-to-moment work as this process is unraveling inside of me and all around me is overwhelming and humbling and strange. the songs are becoming jigsaw puzzle pieces that, when placed together just so are a complete picture, a snapshot of whatever i was going through at that moment in my life.

actually, i'm still going through it. i'm still writing it all out of me. it's not over yet.

everyday i'm hustlin'

kat williams is right. it doesn't matter if you're actually doing illegal business or not. if you're out there working the fryer at mc donald's hustling to make ends meet, then this is your theme song.

and yes, i'm seriously considering dropping major coinage to see katt williams at radio city music hall in april. and chris rock when he comes to madison square garden in may.

charleston sc and beyond

i spent last weekend in charleston, sc looking at churches and talking to officiants with my friend. although there was a chill in the air, it was still sunny and beautiful. i love this cooper river bridge (also called the arthur ravenel jr. bridge). crossing it feels epic, somehow.



trust me, it's much more overwhelming when you're standing on it.



thankfully,we still made it to the isle of palms to stick our feet in the ocean before we left.

good news, sort of

i got picked for a SXSW showcase, thanks to Music Gorilla. i'm not so sure i'll go, though. read all about it here.

i'm versatile

every once in awhile, a voiceover gig would fall into may lap and i'd tell myself that i would make a demo and start my voiceover business for real. and then i'd forget about it until some other voiceover gig came out of nowhere and i'd go, wow, i really have to get it together and make a demo. and then i'd go back to whatever i was doing before. back and forth i went. you'd think i would have learned my lesson from the voiceover work i did in lackawanna blues, but no. it took a year of residual checks from that oh so happy afternoon in the recording studio with george and most of the cast of caroline or change that made me think, am i nuts or what? and then another gig fell in my lap: a musician who'd seen me with jc hopkins' biggish band found me via j walter hawkes for a PBS children's cartoon called Word World that had me playing "elephant" and singing a little song called "bit by bit" about putting words together. sooooooo cute. i was in and out in less than an hour and the check was lovely. and it was fun! hm, i thought. wouldn't it be great if i could do this all the time?

i'd been getting newsletters every month from dan and carol duckworth at AAA Voiceover Casting/Voiceovers Unlimited for God knows how long, so when their "january jumpstart" came around this year, i jumped on it. their total package is more like total immersion. they don't just help you put together a demo, they show you how to run your business, for real: classes to develop and maintain your skills, regular mailings to business contacts, seminars to teach you how to market yourself, workshops and one one one sessions to hone in on your weaknesses and strengthen them. everything is so goal-oriented. and i'm a compulsive list-maker, so that's going some, for me to say that. i loved the way dan kept referring to everyone as the president of our respective companies.

once i realized that recording at home to audition and take voiceover work via your laptop, garageband and a mic was the wave of the future, i thought, hm -- wouldn't it be great if i didn't have to leave the house to go to work? then again -- wouldn't it be even better if i could do this voiceover business anywhere?

dan said it in our first marketing seminar, but i've always known it to be true: most actors just call themselves actors. they don't know how to treat acting like a business. they don't know how to hustle, how to make it rain, how to generate work for themselves whether the phone rings or not. they don't know how to market themselves. here's a perfect example of what i mean: most actors don't do mailings regularly -- that means a postcard with updates every month, to keep everyone up on the latest things you've done, after you've sent a headshot and a letter of introduction. it goes without saying that you having all the talent in the world doesn't mean anything if the casting agent in question with the perfect gig for you has no idea that you even exist.

i have one friend in particular who is convinced that the postage to spend on such things is a waste of money. whatever.

all i know is, i'm versatile. and i'm pretty sure that's a part of what can keep the residual checks rolling in. whaddya know: i'm only a few weeks into this total package and i just found out today that an in-house corporate gig just landed on my head. nutty.

Chris Rock's election coverage

glumbert - Chris Rock's 2008 Election Analysis

white privilege, white progressives

this is a really well-written article that attempts to dissect the gender/race issue that's at the core of the hillary/obama divide. while i don't agree with everything it says, i think that this is the stuff that the media ignores and that we refuse to address. frankly, i can't imagine how anyone could think that black men in this country have ever had more power than white women, simply because white women have always had the luxury of white privilege at their disposal. once upon a time in our not too distant past, the word of a white woman could get a black man killed, whether she was lying or not. black men were killed for looking at white women. look at what happened to emmett till. and he was fourteen! nowadays, no matter how loudly they scream things like gender bias, that white privilege is always within reach.

it's an interesting juxtaposition: as a woman, claim solidarity with your sisters of color in the struggle, as well as oppressed people everywhere to "fight the power"; as a privileged white person, grab all the gusto you can -- and maintain the status quo by any means necessary because in the end, you know that it's in your best interests to do so.

and who did you vote for on Super Tuesday?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

White Privilege, White Progressives and the Audacity of Obama's Definition of Hope by Edward Rhymes, PhD

"In the highest halls of the state and federal government we have proven that a white woman can and does receive more opportunities than Black men."

In light of the comments made by Hillary and Bill Clinton in the past week, Roseanne's bigoted diatribe and the "racism-laced" New York Times op-ed of Gloria Steinem's, I felt it necessary to come out of my long writing hibernation to speak to these concerns.

It appears that when the stakes are high and the psychic shades are opened, many so-called white feminists and white female liberals run to the familiar confines of latent racism and white privilege. Let me make myself perfectly clear, in this writing I will not put forth an argument for or against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in regard to the presidency, but rather I want to offer a counter to the erroneous assertions made by the aforementioned players.

Darren Parker in his article “White Female Liberals aka ‘Progressives’” touches on an aspect of racism and white supremacy that is often overlooked: “The reality is that white women represent the second most privileged category of human in the US. In spite of the reality of sexism no category of man of color has the level of wealth, power, privilege, education, or control as white women.”

When Steinem writes something as asinine as Blacks receiving the vote after the Civil War and women not receiving the franchise until 1920 as some sort of indication that gender trumps race as the most crippling and restricting factor in American society, it should be a powerful eye-opener that white women, by and large, have not been our allies in the struggle for racial justice. Steinem’s ominous omission of Jim Crow is deceptive and irresponsible given that even as recently as the 60’s, Blacks were being killed for trying to exercise their right to vote --- prompting the need of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of the mid-1960’s. To date, I can’t recall one white woman being lynched for voting or trying to vote in America.

Steinem goes on to say that if a woman ran for president with Obama’s lack of qualifications, she would not be taken seriously. In response to that I say: would Hillary be the U.S. Senator from New York and a possible nominee for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, if her husband wasn’t Bill Clinton? The years of experience as the first-lady that she touts, is a privilege that 42 other women have had the opportunity to enjoy, none of which were the hue of Michelle Obama.

Over the past year or so the question has usually been framed as thus: Who would America elect first for President, a woman or someone who is Black? This is a misleading question and choice. The more direct question that we should be asking is: given a choice, would America choose a white woman or a Black man? If we look at this at the state and federal level, that question has been asked and overwhelmingly been answered. Thirty-four white women have been elected or have served in the U.S. Senate compared to 2 Black men since Reconstruction (Carol Mosley-Braun was the first and only Black woman elected to the U.S. Senate in 1993) --- presently, there are 16 white women serving in the U.S. Senate compared to one lone Obama. Thirty White women have served as state governors compared to two Black men since Reconstruction (the latest being Deval Patrick of Massachusetts elected in 2006). So in the highest halls of the state and federal government we have proven that a white woman can and does receive more opportunities than Black men to serve and to lead.

Additionally, since the economy has now come into play in this presidential race, let us take a look at the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Survey, 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. In it we see that white women ($32,683) outdistance Black ($31,732) and Hispanic ($26,921) men in annual earnings --- sadly Black and Hispanic women are the most woefully at-risk making 29,145 and 24,255 respectively.

Hillary’s allusion to Dr. King’s ability to inspire as compared to LBJ’s ability to make the Civil Rights Act a reality smacks of racism at its most pernicious level. The old Blacks “sho can talk” but are short on ability stereotype is very evident in this analogy. Once again, the acclaimed and much-heralded liberal Mrs. Clinton, like Steinem, ignores the racial realities of American history; that politics in America has been a game that almost has been exclusively reserved for whites until recent history and proves that when push comes to shove and white power and privilege is threatened, she is not above stoking the fires of racial prejudice. It is also important to note that in invoking the MLK and LBJ comparison she also resurrects the reality that after King’s now famous speech in opposition to the Vietnam conflict, he was referred to by LBJ from that moment on as “that nigger preacher,” --- in other words, “how could he do this to me when I’ve done so much for his people?” Sound or look familiar? This is further accented and buttressed by former President Bill Clinton’s reference to the 46 year-old, Harvard-educated, elected-U.S. Senator Obama as a “kid” --- coming dangerously close in tone and temperament to the familiar racist designation of “boy.” If the Clinton campaign wants to draw a distinction between the record and experience of Barack and Hillary, then that is a conversation that can and should take place. However, that’s not what I heard or felt in Bill Clinton’s words. I heard the arrogance of a man who believes because of Black America’s love affair with him (for reasons I don’t understand) he has the right to say to Obama: “know your place boy” or “wait your turn boy.” It is a tone and attitude that I am all too familiar with and the liberal label or the progressive tag does not make one immune to it (and if the truth be told, the Clintons have always been far more centrist than they ever were liberal or progressive). Furthermore, as I have stated in other writings, during the economic boom in the Clinton years of the 90’s, Black men were the only group who lost ground. And it also has to be further recognized that part of the Clinton legacy is a sinister capitulation to the racist characterizations and misrepresentations leading up to welfare reform and a less than lukewarm defense of affirmative action.

Even though the gains enjoyed by white women, were secured in large part by the struggles of the Civil Rights movement; it is this allegiance to whiteness that when given a choice to support their sisters and people of color (and their own self-interests as well) by keeping affirmative action measures in place, they invariably choose their sons, their husbands, their fathers and their brothers who have been enjoying the benefits of centuries of good ole American written and unwritten affirmative action measures --- in 1996 when Proposition 209 came before the people of California, 57% of White women voted in favor of it; in Washington (1998) 51% of white women voted against affirmative action and in the recent defeat of affirmative action programs in Michigan, 59 percent of white women voted to approve Proposal 2 (82 percent of non-white women voted against it) .

So in what construction, or rather reconstruction, of reality by Steinem, Clinton and their ilk are Black men wielding more power in this country than white women? Many white liberals and progressives have allowed themselves to be convinced by the hyper-exposure of certain Black figures, that a certain level of vigilance is no longer necessary when it comes to racial justice and equality when practically every indicator (economic, educational, health etc.) says otherwise; that the absence of fire-hoses, dogs, lynchings and burning crosses also means the absence of racism and the achievement of racial equality.

This brings us to the Senator from Illinois. Shelby Steele, in his interview on PBS with Bill Moyers, stated that to fit into the current and popular definition of Blackness, that many Blacks live an existence of betrayal to their own desires, ambitions and dreams while subordinating themselves to a group identity that is at its core “grievance-driven.” He went on to say that many Blacks manipulate and prey upon “white guilt” or the perceived need of absolution by many Whites because of America’s racist history. Viewpoints such as Steele’s have always been a perplexing to me and I believe there is a reason why such viewpoints are out of the mainstream of Black thought. It is not because we as Blacks have a herd mentality nor is it that we, by-and-large, expect something for nothing, but rather it is because it runs counter to the historical record, the facts, the numbers and our own personal experiences.

Moreover, if there are whites who are guilty of racism and bias; if there are whites who are guilty of enjoying the benefits of white privilege without examining the damaging consequences of that privilege, then I believe some level of guilt is appropriate. The murderer who murders; the rapist who rapes; the embezzler who embezzles should feel some level of guilt. Shouldn’t I, for the woman I disrespect or the man that I injure, feel some angst? By guilt I do not mean a pit of despair and hopelessness; or that whites should be beholden to me as a Black person in any way, but rather a guilt that spurs action and real personal and societal transformation. Guilt, at its core, is just another word for conscience. Dietrich Bonheoffer, Nazi holocaust victim, in his Christian classic The Cost of Discipleship talks about and details the phenomenon of “cheap grace.” His central point was that cheap grace represented forgiveness without requiring repentance (or a change of heart and conduct); an enjoyment of the consolations of absolution without restitution. I believe this is where we find ourselves today in the struggle against racism and the quest for racial & social justice.

Americans, for the most part, want an easy route to change or societal transformation in regard to race and racism; a “cheap morality” if you will, that pays lip-service to the virtues of equality and justice without any serious challenge of institutional & systemic racism or white privilege. It is a “cheap activism” that says “fight the power,” but avoids self-examination and an honest accounting of American society and history. I have never agreed with much Shelby Steele has said, but I do agree with him when he says that, for many whites, Obama is absolution. When his stance on the issues is closely examined, other than the color of his skin, what real change from the status quo does Barack offer? Obama, to his discredit, has helped to foster this cheap political and social grace scenario with statements like Blacks are 90% of the way too equality; class was more in play in Jena than race and the incompetence during Katrina was colorblind. This, by the way, should silence all those who say that Obama hasn’t talked about race during this campaign because he has, and what he has had to say is disheartening and has ingratiated himself to any and all who believe that colorblindness equals equality. And that is the audacity of Obama’s definition of hope, it is “cheap change;”he offers to America societal conversion without controversy. James Cone, noted theologian and activist, made a profound statement that lends itself to this paradigm: “…if America could understand itself as not being innocent, it might be able to play a more creative role in the world today. And you see, America likes to think of itself as innocent.

And we are not.” This is not about not letting whites off the hook, but about unfinished business and working until we have given our “last drop of devotion.”

Currently we live in a society where White men with prison records receive far more offers for jobs than Black men with identical records, and are offered jobs just as often -- if not more so -- than Black men who have never been arrested; where the income gap between black and white families has widened in spite of the gains of the civil rights movement (a key reason for the disparity is that incomes among black men have declined when adjusted for inflation. They were offset only by gains among black women); where mass incarceration of black men have decimated our communities. This is not an us-against-them clarion call; nor should this serve as a basis for hatred or animosity against any person or group of people. However, what I hope it does accomplish is a demand within the Black community for more. Demanding more of our politicians and elected officials; demanding more of white liberals and progressives who say they believe in racial justice and equality. Have we as Black folk been so spiritually devastated that we are willing to treat the mere mention of equality and justice as if they are the actual fulfillment of those things? That overtures, and only overtures, can satiate a desire for real equity? We have, in times past, demanded far too little and gotten exactly what we have asked for… far too little.

I know that I will be accused by some of pessimism and divisiveness --- especially in light of Obama’s declarations of hope --- and yet it still amazes me how merely stating the realities of Black folk in America elicits that same response from white folk wherever they are on the political and ideological spectrum, which is: “just get over it.” The harsh reality is that no amount of “can’t we all just get along” rhetoric is going to change the fortunes and everyday circumstances of the millions of Blacks in this country. So the questions still remain: do we as Black people have the political and moral will to accomplish the task at-hand and are white liberals and progressives truly committed to social and racial justice? The information provided in this writing is readily available to any and all who choose to seek it. So the issue is not my addressing of these concerns, but rather why aren’t more white liberals and progressives addressing them? What Gloria Steinem, the Clinton campaign and, regrettably, Obama shows us is that until white privilege is addressed and eradicated, it will continue to be the serpent in any and every Garden of Eden of feminist, liberal or progressive creation.

sister rosetta tharpe

i'm reading a bio on sister rosetta tharpe called shout sister, shout! that's really changing the way i see her as a rock and roll prototype and the way i see myself as a musician and performer.

look at how amazingly cool she is!

wierdly enough, she and i are a lot alike. we both grew up as members of the pentecostal church, in the sanctified church, otherwise known as C.O.G.I.C. we both had our first moments as vocalists and performers there -- although the image of her as a 5 year old standing on a piano and wielding a guitar is pretty stultifying. she's very much a holly roller and not surprisingly, she's a showgirl, a real comedienne and entertainer, a flashy, schmaltzy frontperson that believes in entertaining the audience. the photo to the left is pretty cool but in my favorite images of her, she's got on a long elegant glittery gown, she's wearing beautiful jewelry, she's flawlessly made up and gorgeous, and she's got a bonafide electric rock and roll guitar -- not some folksy, quiet, acoustic number.

i must say, i for one have never understood the urge to not dress up when appearing onstage. i'm the one that dresses up to get to the gig, so i can dress up all over again. any excuse to wear a gown of some sort -- even if it's denim -- and i'm probably going to take it.

in the videos i've seen, she's slinging her guitar with an authority and ease that's positively ballsy. and of course, absolutely unheard of, then and now. she's not a quiet strumming wallflower. everything about her is loud, from her amped up guitars to her over-the-top showmanship. and i love loud.

this is really inspiring me to dig in and continue to learn how to play guitar. but looking at the video clip below and watching her go at it is enough to make anyone want to plug in and rock out.

guitar-slinging blackgrrls have always been -- and continue to be -- legion. there are a lot of us out there to inspire me. (memphis minnie, anyone?)