|
|
|
|
 Contemporary high school history teachers might just want to prescribe The Dead Guy Interviews to hook their more reluctant students. Sardonic wit and irreverent quips characterize the tone of Michael Stusser’s historical treatise in which he “conducts interviews” marwith deceased historical figures. In addition to the basic dates, significant accomplishments, downfalls, etc., Stusser provides salacious peeks into the personal lives of the humor-invigorated, rigomortized celebrities.
Laid out in alpha order, Stusser covers Alexander the Great through Mao Zedong, from pharaohs to presidents, philosophers to plain ol’ pop culture figures. He moves through 45 historical notables with whom even 21st century adolescents would be acquainted, and if they weren’t, the introductions to each larger-than-life figure would surely spark further interest…in at least most of the characters.
The bottom line of The Dead Guy Interviews is that it is the most entertaining historical text I have ever read, with most of the three-to-five-page interviews striking chords of interest in learning more about the characters. In most historical texts or biographies of Albert Einstein, there is surely something included in the text that explains how Einstein struggled in school. However, few would put it the way Stusser does in his interview:
Stusser: Some people say you may have actually had a learning disability.
Einstein: Yah, I haff a disability to learn vat zey vant to teach me. My problem vas zat I clashed at times with my professors – unt vas usually correct in my argument, I might add. Zen I began to skip classes to study vat I vanted. School vas a bit of, how you say, bust.
(more…)
If you like this site, Donate to help keep us going!
---------------------
Written by Tamaj13 - Visit Website |
|
|
|
My local newspaper, The News-Press, and several major news outlets reported on a Justice Department Study that concluded, “blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be searched and arrested” and police were “much more likely to threaten or use force against blacks and Hispanics than against whites in any encounter, whether at a traffic stop or elsewhere…” After reading the article, I couldn’t help but think that while some things have changed, as far race issues are concerned, much remains the same. The results, from 2005 data, were consistent with results of a similar study published in 2002.
Justice Department Study Results
|
|
The aforementioned article reported that Hispanics and people of African descent (Blacks) were more than twice as likely to be searched than people of European descent (Whites). Blacks were more likely to be arrested than Hispanics, and more than twice as likely to be arrested than Whites. Police also used force or the threat of force almost four times as much in cases involving people of African descent when compared to cases involving people of European descent.
The report supports the contention of many who claim that police actions are often racially motivated. In April, the Sikh Sangat News reported that Kuldeep Singh Nag, an former member of the US Navy and Bronze star recipient, was viciously assaulted by a police officer who also hurled racial slurs at the victim. Nag’s crime? He had the audacity to suggest to the officer that his van with expired tags parked in his driveway had every right to be there because it was on private property.
Police and Racial Incidents
The infamous Sean Bell incident in New York and the multitude of others that come under public scrutiny suggest, despite law enforcement claims to the contrary, that race is a significant factor in how people are treated by officers of the law, and those who happen to be non-White are subject to less than equal treatment under the law.
|
Police brutality protests are not uncommon, but despite citizens’ outcries, law-enforcement incidents with racial overtones persist. It isn’t much of a stretch to conclude that such incidents negatively influence attitudes toward police held by people of color.
60 Minutes Stop Snitchin’
Recently CBS’s 60 Minutes ran a segment critiquing the “Stop snitchin’” doctrine promoted by various rappers, and highlighted the rapper Cam’ron. The doctrine supports the notion that one should not speak to police when they are investigating crimes, even if you have valuable information that can help solve the crime. Although most who responded to the 60 Minutes segment at the cbsnews.com readers’ forum spoke out against the “no snitchin’” perspective, others suggested that the “stop snitchin’” mentality was justified because police were not to be trusted and discriminated against people of African descent.
Advocating a perspective that allows criminals free reign in any community, particularly in communities where criminal activity is already rampant, seems self-defeating. Yet, one can at least understand why many might be reluctant to interact with police when statistics and media reports support the notion of racist police forces across the country.
First Step of a Solution
Until police departments uniformly commit to wiping out incidents that are, or appear to be, racially motivated misconduct by police officers, hostile relationships will prevail amongst police departments and the communities they are mandated to protect. Instituting community relations panels and oversight committees in all police departments where there is potential for such animosity between police and the communities they serve may be one initial step in addressing this lingering problem.
If you like this site, Donate to help keep us going!
---------------------
Written by Tamaj13 - Visit Website |
|
|
|
Among the US population, the calls for a troop withdrawal from Iraq grow steadily stronger. However, I rarely hear among those calls a strategy to address the devastation brought upon the people of Iraq by the US invasion. In a culture where responsibility and accountability are perpetual buzzwords, the failure of our society as a whole to address the needs of the people whose lives we’ve destroyed is worthy of comment. An ongoing conversation with a dear friend who supports the notion of an immediate withdrawal prompted the following analogy.
|
|
Across town from Mr. Jones there is a home that sits on a wealthy estate. The father of the home controls his family (his second wife and six kids) with an iron fist. Three of the kids are the wife’s from a previous marriage and they don’t get along very well with their half siblings. They grumble all the time about how the father treats them, but they eat well, their home is well cared for, and things could be much worse. Due to the father’s rule, things stay relatively calm at home and on the estate.
Mr. Jones doesn’t like the way the father across town raises his kids, because he doesn’t raise them like Mr. Jones raises his. Mr. Jones also resents the fact that the man across town has a wealthy estate that affects Mr. Jones’ own estate. Mr. Jones thinks something should be done about the way the dad runs his estate and treats his kids. Mr. Jones’ dad, Mr. Jones Sr. had felt the same way about the wealthy man across town. Mr. Jones Sr. got into a fight with the wealthy man and he claimed to have won the fight, however, it didn’t change the way the man ran his home or his estate.
Mr. Jones has never been happy that his father expended all that energy for nothing, and he wants to finish the job his father started. Mr. Jones is a big man who has beat up many smaller men in his time and he figures he should have no trouble with this man.
|
He decides to go to the man’s house and pick a fight, telling everyone that the man is really bad and that once he kicks this man’s butt, it will make the man’s wife and kids very happy and improve the home. Although he doesn’t mention this, Mr. Jones also figures that once he puts the dad in his place, the man’s wife and kids will share some of the estate’s riches with him.
Mr. Jones’ friends and family buy his argument about needing to “rescue” the wife and kids, and support him in his effort to kick the man’s butt and straighten out the man’s household.
Mr. Jones goes across town to the man’s home, picks a fight, and beats up the man. While Mr. Jones is still there, the man’s kids start to fight each other. They break all the furniture in the home, destroy the structure and foundation, neglect the property, and are destroying everything the man and his family built for years.
Mr. Jones gets caught in the crossfire among the kids. His nose gets broken; he loses an arm, and is not having a good time at all. Although his effort to “straighten out the household” (actually get some benefits from the estate) has failed, and he continues to reap nothing but heartache, Mr. Jones keeps trying to beat up the kids, like he did the dad, to get them to stop fighting. It doesn’t work.
Mr. Jones’ friends and neighbors gather around telling him that he should get out of the house and off the estate while the getting is good. They tell him that it doesn’t matter what he has done to the household, the kids, the wife, etc., that he needs to get out and save his own skin while he can. They tell him that it really doesn’t matter now, because he has already ruined things anyway, and his sticking around isn’t going to help anything.
Mr. Jones knows that if he leaves the house with nothing good to show for it, he will be admitting that he, like his dad, failed, and the Jones family will look like buffoons who really never knew what they were doing. Most of Mr. Jones’ friends and family never liked the man across town and his family anyway, and since it doesn’t look like there will be anything for Mr. Jones to gain, they can’t understand why he stays on the man’s estate.
“Responsibility is not at issue here Mr. Jones,” they say. “Whether you ruined that family and that estate or not is irrelevant. All that matters is that you save your own skin!”
How long Mr. Jones will stay is anyone’s guess. He is getting too weak to continue taking the hits from the kids’ crossfire, and the pressure from his family and friends is becoming too much to withstand. Eventually, like most interfering bullies who bite off more than they can chew, Mr. Jones, or what’s left of him, will run back to his side of town, to his nice home and estate that are still intact, and the family across town will be left to figure out how to go about living again amidst the destruction Mr. Jones left behind.
As Mother’s Day fades into the next major commercialized event, I remember that my mom always taught me to clean up my messes, and she certainly wouldn’t approve of me going to someone else’s home and leaving a mess for them to clean up. At the very least, she would insist that I help clean up the mess I made.
If you like this site, Donate to help keep us going!
---------------------
Written by Tamaj13 - Visit Website |
|
|
|
It has been some time since Senator Barack Obama, the highly touted senator from Illinois, announced the first step in his bid for the United States Presidency. He did so, quite appropriately, as closely as he could to the celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday and the dream he shared with the world.
|
|
Hopes and dreams are the kindling that fuels the fire of human striving. They form the springboard from which we spring into life, from birth through death. Whether or not they come to fruition in no way diminishes their import in our daily lives. We play the lottery scarcely believing that we will win, but we savor the sweet flavor of fantasy with each unredeemed dollar that escapes our grasp at the corner gas station.
Despite the condition of our society, our planet, we continue to propagate little self-replicas whose futures extend our hopes and dreams. Hopes and dreams have little to do with the tangibles that permeate our lives. They seem to survive almost blissfully free from the fetters of facts.
Corporate executives, advertisers, and politicians know this…the media thrive on it. And so it should be no surprise that Senator Obama’s presidential bid is all the rage, despite the fact that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW is less likely to become his address than is my winning the lottery (and I do play sporadically when jackpots jump high enough to fuel my fantasies). Senator Obama’s becoming the President of the United States may be the dream of a portion of the US population, but is more than likely the nightmare of the majority.
|
What makes me believe the above? Well, after reading about Senator Obama’s presidential bid on page three of the local newspaper this morning, I turned the page and read that a 24-year old mother of African descent who killed her three sons (ages 16-months to six years) by throwing them into the San Francisco Bay, in plain sight of witnesses, was convicted of second-degree murder.
This tragedy reminded me of Andrea Yates case, who killed her five children and is now in a mental institution. It reminded me of Susan Smith, who killed her two sons and claimed an African American man had driven away with them. It also brought to mind Charles Stuart who shot his wife and claimed that an African American male had done it.
I don’t believe the two convicted killers who blamed a man of African descent for their crimes would have done so were they not aware of the culture of racism that exists in our society. Some may argue that racism is passé or certainly much less present than it was in the past.
I contend (in accord with many who consider the issue) that a culture of racism persists in the United States, and that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream, is still but a dream. It is that belief which raised immediately in my mind the question, "Would LaShaun Harris have been convicted of murder if she were not of African descent?"
The answer to that question isn’t of utmost relevance (Both Susan Smith and
Andrea Yates were convicted, although Yates’s conviction was overturned). What is relevant is that the belief exits and is shared by most of the country’s population of African descent, and I suspect a sizeable portion of the country’s population of European descent as well.
Relatedly, the article that pertained to Senator Obama’s potential candidacy also mentioned Hilary Clinton’s. In a society where biological and immutable human traits, such as skin color and gender, play such a major role in perceptions of worth and character, it is highly unlikely that either Obama or Clinton will ever call the White House home…much less as presently as 2008.
|
Despite 40 years of dreaming, in today’s world, many fail to heed MLK’s call to evaluate individuals by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin. Those who are trumpeting the pending campaign of Senator Obama are either unaware of the millions who continue to ignore Dr. King’s message, or are pretending that the racist tide that has flooded all elements of life in this country has ebbed.
|
|
The pretense is patently, disingenuously, and almost criminally condescending. Yet, they are peddling dreams and pushing hope, products we can’t help but buy. Even those of us who know in our core of cores that Senators Obama and Clinton have less than the proverbial snowball’s chance of being President will be sucked into the media whirlpool from time to time. After all, we’re no less than human, and our hopes and dreams, no matter how dormant, live as long as we do…and sometimes beyond.
If you like this site, Donate to help keep us going!
---------------------
Written by Tamaj13 - Visit Website |
|
|
|
Shortly after the Michael Richards "n-word" uproar, I read a column in the News-Press (a Fort Myers, Florida daily) by Leonard Pitts, a Miami Herald columnist of African descent, entitled: "Richards wakes black people to N-word hate." In the column Pitts asserts that if you are "black" and you use the word "nigger" or "nigga" that means you hate yourself and, of course, every other person of African descent. In addition, in reference to the word "nigger," he writes, "…this word still hates us." Can a word hate?
|
|
In any event, he was responding to the incident where Michael Richards, former stand-up comic wannabe, laced his response to hecklers with the word "nigger." I had intended to script a short, comical, tongue in cheek response to this entire episode, but reading this column prompted me to take it just a tad further in this response. I’ll address three elements of Mr. Pitts’s column that I find questionable:
1) His contention that if you are of African descent and use the terms "nigger" or "nigga," then you hate yourself and the entire group of people who are of African descent
2) The use of his access to the public forum to demean those who hold a perspective different from his, in a manner similar to those who use the term "nigger" in attempts to demean people of African descent
3) his use of the socially acceptable and disingenuous "N-word" substitute for the term "nigger."
Regarding the self hatred element, I don’t use the terms "nigger" in public discourse because I know that it would be offensive to others, and I would have no reason to use it in private, unless it was to refer to someone else’s use of the term. I don’t use the term "nigga," because I don’t happen to move in circles where that term is used as a matter of course.
|
Were I a part, and/or interacting with members, of a culture wherein the term "nigga" is used affectionately, or as a term equivalent to "person," I would have no problem using the term. I don’t think I would hate myself or anyone else anymore than I do now if I did use the term. It seems rather absurd to me to contend that merely using a word that represents a derogatory manner of referring to a group to which you ostensibly belong constitutes self-hatred. But then, I’m sure Mr. Pitts and I have different definitions of hatred. It seems to me more "hateful" to try to force your interpretations of a word on others as opposed to accepting their interpretations of the same word.
There are many who hold a perspective different from Pitts’s who don’t have access to a daily newspaper column to publish those perspectives. Among these individuals are language scholars who make it their life’s work to understand language and how members of various groups use it, and they have had their perspectives published in peer-reviewed academic journals.
Some of these individuals contend that the co-opting or reversing of word connotations, as in the conversion of "nigger" to "nigga," is one technique used by slaves to thwart their oppressors, as a form of rebellion against the powers that be. Utilizing language in such a way would constitute neither self-hatred nor hatred of one’s subjective identity group.
I think it important for the uninformed who read Mr. Pitts’s column to know that many of the "pseudo-intellectuals" at whom Pitts (surely a "real" intellectual) aimed his ad hominem attack are scholars of African descent who are well respected in their fields.
Pitts notes that "anyone with the barest historical memory already knew" that the term "nigger" (and by association, "nigga") is hateful, "demeans, denigrates, diminishes and denies," and wonders how come it has taken Richards’s racialized outburst to stimulate this call to arms. He refers to as a "Negro" anyone one who provides "pseudo-intellectual justification for that self-loathing," i.e., anyone who offers an argument for the legitimate usage of "nigga."
I assert that those who have any understanding of the historical identity politics of naming within the African American community would know that calling an African American a "Negro" is tantamount to calling him/her an "Uncle Tom," which would be the equivalent of an individual of European descent calling him/her a "nigger." It seems to me that Pitts intends to demean, denigrate, diminish and deny anyone who doesn’t share his perspective on the terms in question. Let those who live in glass houses…
I can certainly understand Mr. Pitts’s distaste for the words "nigger" and "nigga" and for those who use them. During my sophmore year in high school, I had only been playing tennis for a year or so when I made it to the quarterfinals of the high school state championships. Early in the match, I was doing well against one of the top seeds in the tournament.
We were changing sides after a game and he said something to me using the word "nigger." "What did you say?" came my classic response, complete with temperature skyrocketing, heartbeat thumping, fists clenching, and generally making ready for some well-warranted violence…at least that’s how I looked at things when I was less mentally and emotionally mature.
I was practically apoplectic during that episode, and it was 30 years ago so it’s kind of hazy now, but I think the coaches had to come onto the court to keep me from outright physical assault. I do remember spending the rest of the match trying to hit my opponent with the ball, seething the entire match. I don’t believe we exchanged the customary handshake after the match.
Essentially, that kid was smarter than I was at the time and he knew the impact of the word. I don’t know if he was a racist, but he certainly used the word guaranteed to get you labeled "racist" and draw the most extreme responses. I responded extremely in that instance and ended up losing the match.
His use of the word controlled me as easily as if he had a leash around my neck and a whip in his hand. Being a teenager at the time, my personal identity was tentatively forming and heavily invested in perceived group belonging. Any perceived attack on that identity was guaranteed to elicit my most intense ego-defense mechanism.
As I have matured, I have come to understand that my personal identity does not need to be so heavily invested in physical characteristics that are used to define group membership, especially since I had no say in possessing those characteristics. I have matured enough to learn that my self-worth is not contingent upon what someone else thinks or says, especially when that individual has no knowledge of who I am, and is so underdeveloped a human being as to resort to racial slurs.
My identity is more invested in how I treat others (as in whether or not I demean them with my words or actions) rather than how I look or how others think of or treat me. I have even matured enough to believe that others have the right to use the words "nigger" and "nigga" regardless of whether I find them offensive or not. Whether others have the right to use the two terms, one a racial slur, the other a co-option and positive redefinition of the slur, is a debate that will continue to wage.
The final thought on this matter that I will explore here pertains to Mr. Pitts’s (and just about anyone who holds a public position) use of the term, "n-word" as a substitute for "nigger." It seems disingenuous and somewhat asinine to write and say "N-word," when everyone who sees and hears it understands that it means "nigger."
Are we that foolish?
Sorry to offend here, but it’s just to make a point: Who is the F-word A-word that came up with the notion that all you have to do is not say the whole word and that makes it okay? And how is it that so many "smart" people have gone along with this piece of brilliance. I can just see the characters from the Guinness commercial now (replete with Irish brogue):
"Since they’re always complaining about ‘nigger,’ let’s use ‘N-word,’ that way they can’t say we’re being racist for saying ‘nigger.’ BRILLIANT!"
Let me indulge in a little more brilliance for a moment. Substitute the Guinness characters with two Gangsta Rappers:
Rapper/Gangsta 1: Yo, wassup my Nigga?
Rapper/Gangsta 2: Yo dawg, we can’t use "Nigga" no mo man. The NAACP, Reverend Jesse, Big Al, and all da peeps wit da juice is down on it son.
Rapper/Gangsta 1: Word?
Rapper/Gangsta 2: Yeah dawg. Pretty soon we ain’t gon be able to use "bitch" no mo.
Rapper/Gangsta 1: Hell, I don’t use "bitch" no how. I say "beeyatch"
Rapper/Gangsta 2: Right! Listen mah n-word, here’s da poop: as long as we don’t say the actual word, we’s straight. Everybody’s using "N-word" now dawg.
Rapper/Gangsta 1: "N-word?"
Rapper/Gangsta 2: Yeah, everybody know what it mean, but as long as you don’t use the real word, you ahight
Rapper/Gangsta 1: Oh snap! I got it! Check this: I’m straight up spitting mother-f-word-ing b-words if you don’t like it, f-word you cuz I’m bad like dat and so f-word-ing smart it’s absurd
Rapper/Gangsta 2: Yeah, yeah, I’m down wid it. Check ma flow: Yo mother-f-words kiss ma black a-word, Ahma kick da s-word back in you face cuz you jes a punk from da pas
Rapper/Gangsta 1: Yeah mah n-word, ain’t no stopping a n-word now!
Both Together: "Brilliant!"
Pretty silly, don’t you think? I understand that hearing the word "nigger" stirs deeply rooted feelings, calls to the forefront the knowledge that we, the group of people classified as "black," "of color," or "of African descent," were and still are considered inferior by many.
I understand that the word "nigga" is a derivative of that word, and therefore holds the same connotation for many. My question is: "How is saying "n-word," which everyone knows means "nigger," any different? If Richards had used "n-word" instead of "nigger" would that have made his tirade better? Is it that in using "n-word" we acknowledge that there is something to be talked about, but that something is so heinous that we can’t even say it out loud?
|
This discourse about the "N-word" has prompted me to think about some other terms that we use. In particular, it seems that we are able to use the term "bitch" on television, at work, and just about anywhere without there being an outcry, without the users losing their jobs, and without celebrities and intellectuals coming out against those who use it. Now why is that?
It seems to me that to call a woman a "bitch" is no less degrading than calling someone of African descent a "nigger." Is it okay to use the term "bitch" because women as a group are somehow less deserving of dignity than people of African descent as a group? Is it because women themselves use the term?
Is it okay to use the term "bitch" because women’s rights groups haven’t raised enough of a stink? Is it because women didn’t go through a historical phenomenon as properly labeled as slavery was?
According to Mr. Pitts’s logic, anyone who uses the term "bitch," regardless of context, in reference to a woman must hate women, and any woman who uses it must hate herself as well as all women. As you know, I don’t buy Mr. Pitts’ logic, but if you do and you use "N-word" instead of "nigger," then you might consider using the term "B-word" if you use the term "bitch."
|
|
In closing, I’d like to call on all socially conscious and conscientious women and men reading this to join PAWW (People for the Advancement of Weary Women- women weary of being called and treated like bitches), an organization that lobbies for the use of the socially acceptable term "B-word" instead of "bitch."
By the way, I don’t use the term "bitch" either for the same reasons that I don’t use the term "nigger." It has little to do with hate, and a lot to do with common courtesy to my fellow human beings regardless of skin color, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, language, or ability-including intellectual.
If you like this site, Donate to help keep us going!
---------------------
Written by Tamaj13 - Visit Website |
|
|
|
|
|
|
