OPEN LETTER TO THOSE WHO PENNED OPEN LETTERS

Earlier this week Gene Marks, who by all appearances happens to be a middle age white man, wrote a piece for Forbes called 'If I Was A Poor Black Kid'. Problematic title of course. I wonder if it was his choice or the magazine's. The article amounts to a list of suggestions that might be employed by a disadvantaged youth of color to improve his or her circumstances. Some of them were so blatantly obvious and commonly stated that you wonder why Marks bothered to repeat them. Stay in school and study hard. Computer literacy is a good thing. However, since many poor black kids (think I'll shorten to PBK going forward) do not focus and excel in computer class or anywhere else in school, no harm in reminding. A couple of his tips were a little less obvious, possibly even helpful to a MOTIVATED PBK who might stumble upon the article. "Motivated" is capitalized for a reason. The primary curse of poverty is that it squelches motivation to rise above.


The ensuing ridicule heaped upon Mr. Marks (complete with at least one Twitter hashtag for guidance) was swift and relentless. Critics showed their disdain with a few quickly dashed sentences of mockery for starters, then set off to write fully fleshed out responses. I won't name drop them as I've done with Marks, but chances are you've either seen a published rebuttal or else a Google search will lead you to one in an instant.


The annoyance and derision inspired by Marks' article was basically on account of the messenger, even if writers claimed it was the message that got under their skin. How dare a PRIVILEGED (capitalized because it's the curse word du jour) white man dispense advice from his ivory tower to the darker, huddled masses? He isn't one of them, never was, never will be, so he may as well be the teacher talking to Charlie Brown and the rest of the Peanuts gang - Blah blah blah.


No one who felt compelled to answer the Forbes article with one of their own seemed to think that perhaps Marks' heart was in the right place, even if the anatomical result looked more like his foot in his mouth. The rebuttals weren't about providing alternative suggestions, superior recommendations. They weren't about disproving the point that if you find yourself in the worst school, striving to be the best at the worst may give you a fighting chance. Marks grossly under-evaluated a major societal woe and proposed simplistic solutions. But in attacking him, his detractors did not remedy a thing. They merely seized upon an opportunity to make fun and proclaim "how dare you". The rebuttals were much hipper and far funnier than the original piece, so laughs and declarations of agreement were achieved. But not a single PBK's life was potentially improved as result. They remain firmly rooted in their role of political football as we approach the next big election year.


Who is it that actually does have the ear of poor black kids? Hip hop artists for starters. The vast majority of them are not conveying messages that will aid in turning a life around. A very strong argument can be made that certain rap lyrics and videos help perpetuate the mindset of valuing flashy style over substance, leading to a dead end. Yet when the next catchy tune comes out that's all about getting high, degrading women, making a quick buck to throw away on status symbols, there will be few complaints and probably no Open Letters imploring rappers to teach our children well. No, such ire is reserved for a white guy who has poked his nose where it doesn't belong. Apparently you have to prove you're cool enough to give a damn about PBK's, but ironically, if you are deemed cool enough you're given a pass and don't have to care.


Here are some of my suggestions, not for poor black kids but for anyone who legitimately cares to lend them a helping hand. Join a Big Brother/Sister mentoring program. Become a foster or adoptive parent. Donate money and/or time (time is always the best donation) to an organization that provides food/books/shelter/guidance to those in need of any or all of the above. Be a role model in both word and deed, not merely a dime-a-dozen snark generator. If you're really ambitious, consider running for president. Barack Obama has surely convinced a few underprivileged kids that contrary to what Newt Gingrich thinks, their future can hold more in store for them than a janitorial gig. Not that there's anything wrong with being a janitor, although it pays substantially less than windbag historian. Even the punchline that is Herman Cain sets an example of achievement. Go to an inner city school where you're sure to meet plenty of PBK's in the flesh and won't have to think of them conceptually, and if you have nothing wise or useful to say, simply listen to what they have to tell you. Last of all, focus a little less on being clever, a little more on being kind.


Below is the advice I gave to Mr. Marks on Twitter in response to his article. I don't think he follows me so if he follows you, please forward. Thanks!

So I just read the article If I Was a Poor Black Kid that has Twitter abuzz - http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/12/12/if-i-was-a-poor-black-kid/

The article was written by @genemarks for Forbes. With a title like that you're just asking to be mocked. Many won't even go past title.

I tried to read it with an open mind. I also forgave him in advance for sins he is not at all alone in committing. Like the dumb title.

Pretty much every day I see some blog posting with a provocative title & people responding more to the title than the piece itself. I'm not a big fan of that. Focus on making the full piece provocative, not just its entrance point. People will be more likely to read attentively.

The article is a list of things this guy says he would do to make his life so much better as an adult had he started out a poor black kid. None of the items listed is offensive. None of it is illuminating. It's just a list that makes a couple points a poor kid of any race might want to jot down.

The author makes no actual attempt to imagine what poverty feels like, what being disenfranchised feels like, what lacking hope feels like.

The article didn't offend me because I don't think it was mean spirited. Points that were valid for some people were made. Easy enough to do.

Of course you can pull yourselves up by your bootstraps if properly motivated. Odds of that motivation being found in a Forbes article of all places are slim. Not exactly reaching the demographic you’re writing about. When you’re talking about people under the guise of talking to them, you’re doing little more that theorizing amongst your friends.

If you grow up poor in a loving household where better days are planned & hoped for you, chances are decent you'll get there.

If you grow up thinking nobody really gives a shit about you, one parent missing physically & the other going through motions while fighting their demons, life will be hard.

Instead of writing an article about what poor black kids should or should not do, do something tangible to help them reach their potential.

Once you're done actually dealing with a situation, getting your hands dirty instead of moralizing from high horse, THEN write your article.

You don't know what you'd do if you were anybody but yourself. If you could be in a different skin, you'd be a different you.

Here I Am...OR...Hair I Am

Artwork provided by Erin Go Paint on Etsy

The line between a woman either defying or succumbing to peer (or non peer) pressure and her simply making decisions based on personal preference can be mighty thin. How can you tell at a glance which is the case? Or do you simply assume based on your biases?

Black women catch a lot of heat for some of the personal appearance decisions they make. Like it or not, plan to or not, their grooming choices immediately become political statements. At least they are interpreted as statements by certain black women and perhaps by a number of black men as well.

If a black woman relaxes her hair (or adds extensions, or wears a wig sometimes, or whatever other trick has been concocted to create an illusion in place of reality) it’s because she has been bombarded with imagery from white owned fashion magazines. She has succumbed to the Eurocentric definition of beauty and opted to become as white looking as possible. So goes one take on the matter.

Asian women have straight hair. Why can’t black women be emulating them or Native Americans or some other non-white so therefore non-oppressor culture?

There are innumerable versions of beauty and no shortage of ways for a woman to mask perceived imperfections and emphasize her favorite features as she sees best. The sun tans some faces and reddens others. Thin lipped women may desire a fuller pout. Jeans pull off various tricks in showcasing a posterior. A woman looks in the mirror and ponders how to make it a better friend. She works with what she’s got and what she can purchase at a reasonable price. The calculations made are quite fascinating. It’s amazing in some cases how different the After can look from the Before when skill combines with will. But is all powerful vanity not sufficient motivation for these alterations? Must we seek deeper meaning when God given shallowness adequately summarizes?

Why can’t a black woman simply not feel like fighting with the comb, decide to go at least temporarily with a more easily manageable option? Many men shave their head low or bald because it is low maintenance, allows them to spend minimal time fussing with their ‘do. Can’t a black woman desire a style she can quickly run a comb through or twist in a braid or pigtail or whatever without renouncing Harriet Tubman in the process? Can’t a woman desire a little more length? Hey, I’m still talking about hair here, keep your thoughts clean. Black women aren’t the only people who alter the dynamic of their hair. Is a white woman without naturally straight, flowing strands who decides to relax it making the statement that she wants to be perceived as Whiter? If someone with straight hair decides to grow dredlocks (sightings of a White or Asian person with dreds always makes me slightly double take) this is typically seen as paying homage, no? Not a sign of disgust with the race they were born into. Why is it only acceptable for respectful mimicry of another culture to go in one direction? Eminem continues to be a superstar but when is the last time you heard from that Hootie and the Blowfish guy? Okay, maybe I’m stretching a bit too far. Let me stick with hair.

I personally would not make a follicular decision that didn’t allow me to jump into a pool or that equaled the expense of my monthly mortgage payments. But that’s my choice made strictly for practical and economic reasons, not a declaration of either racial solidarity or defection. If I was a woman perhaps I’d reconsider what I was willing to pay monetarily and in convenience. But I’m not, so I proudly pee standing up while my hair does whatever it is it feels like doing.

If a black woman chooses to wear her hair naturally, it’s considered a political statement by many even if not to the woman herself. By doing nothing special she’s supposedly making the commentary that she’s proud of who and what she is. Maybe, maybe not. Since when is doing nothing issuing a statement other than: “Nothing”? Perhaps she is proud of herself and ever so grateful for the ethnicity she was born into, perhaps she barely gives it a thought, but how the hell can we reach a verdict based strictly on her hairstyle? Non-black women wear their hair the way it grows out their head all the time. This isn’t seen as a sign of White pride, Asian pride, Latina pride. It just is. Being natural isn’t supposed to be a complicated negotiation, it’s meant to be no more or less than…natural. Correct?

Life is hard, probably a little harder if you’re a woman rather than penis possessor, probably a little harder the more melanin is in your skin. Why make things even more difficult for yourself by constantly defending when you’re not necessarily under attack, constantly attacking an enemy who has no idea they are supposed to be at war with you?

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe every morning when every black woman walks into her bathroom and decides how she wishes to look as she greets the world that day, she’s composing a political manifesto.

Then again, perhaps she wants to feel reasonably attractive to whoever she finds herself attracted to, but otherwise she mostly just wants to go about her business and could care less what conclusions have been reached about her by you, me, or anyone else she isn’t beholden to.

Plenty of people are out looking for meaning, and purpose, and causes to fight for and against. The result is that they will translate whatever they see as something to either hail or deride. This seems like an exhausting way to live, but it is your right and I’ll do nothing to take it away from you.

But surely there are others: women and men, black and white, kinky, curly, straight, or frizzy headed - who simply wish to be. We should all have the right to just be.

A comb is a tool to enhance her beauty however a woman sees fit. A comb should not be viewed as a sword and will fail miserably if deployed in such a manner. It wasn’t invented for use as a political weapon, and neither should be the hair it goes through. It’s all good.

Naturally Hairy Situation

White Women, Black Hairstyles





p.s. - Apparently it's not all good. Since I wrote the above I learned via Twitter that this advertisement is supposed to offend me as a black man.

Huh? Now I will concede that I don't see anything particularly clever going on. The point that I'd be better off purchasing Nivea face/body shave lotion is weakly made at best. But what is it exactly that's racist about the picture? I saw it said someplace that since the decapitated head has an afro the ad indicates afros are an uncivililzed hairdo. So by this theory black men aren't left out of the wear it natural or else have a sell out hairstyle either, even though I don't see too many brothas walking around with weaves and thank God the conk is mostly a thing of the past. The hair on the thrower's head is just as natural as that on the dude about to be tossed, just cut considerably shorter. Is a close cut dome copying white culture? Nah, that can't be it. I have officially lost count of how many things I'm supposed to be offended by. Plenty of other people though always seem able to find the next thing...and the next...and the next...

p.p.s. - Latest twist of absurdity in hair issue.  Can white women join the natural hair movement too?

p.p.p.s - Some more hair based slander thrown in for good measure

17 Reasons Why Natural Hair Is Not A Good Look

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Demetria Obilor (@demetriaobilor)

Rivalry Revisited

*******************************************************************************

ESPN recently aired their latest 30/30 documentary about the famous/infamous Fab 5 team from Michigan. Their rivalry with Duke was by necessity a major area of focus. Jalen Rose talks about (and as producer he could of course include and exclude whatever he wished) his impression at the time that Duke recruited black players who were “Uncle Toms.” This didn’t go over well with at least one of those former Duke players – Grant Hill. So there was a little back and forth between them, none of it actually face to face, much of it sent indirectly towards the other rather than naming names. On Twitter Jalen wrote: “I didn’t say anything in the doc that I didn’t say to a players FACE”. Okay, not sure how this excuses the idiocy of his thought process. At best it gives him more “street cred”, something that a so called Uncle Tom would of course be sorely lacking. Jalen continued: “For those MOANING about how something or someone was portrayed in the doc note that it was FRAMED from 1991-1993 not 2011 #quit crying.”

The moaning Jalen Rose referred to was an Op Ed piece written by Grant Hill and published by the New York Times in rebuttal to characterizations made in the documentary. He speaks eloquently for himself so I won’t bother to do much summarizing - [Hill's own words]. Bottom line, Grant Hill does not agree with nor appreciate what Jalen Rose had to say. No surprise there. But what I did find somewhat alarming was people taking sides on Twitter, with a surprisingly robust amount on Team Rose. I’m not talking about people who thought Hill overreacted because Rose was expressing the way he felt in the distant past as a teen, not his current opinions as a grown man with public platform. It’s not entirely clear to what degree Jalen has changed his tune but I’ll take him at his tweet that the mentality was “framed from 1991-1993 not 2011”. No, I’m referring to people who believe that what Jalen Rose said and felt in 1991-1993 was then and is today still valid. Certainly if they think Rose was accurately describing Hill then they themselves describe countless African Americans in such manner. For what sins? Growing up in a two parent home? Getting a college degree? Or perhaps a degree is okay but better not be obtained from too “white acting” a college. Having a corporate job? Speaking in grammatically correct sentences? Writing eloquently? Marrying a white woman? Wait up, Grant Hill didn’t even do that last one. But surely he intends to one day dump Tamia for Kim Kardashian. That’s what Uncle Toms do, no? Perhaps I should have picked someone less ethnic than Kim to make a stronger point. Dame Judi Dench?

Grant Hill’s response may very well have been overkill, but I know why he reacted strongly and I’m glad he did. His rebuttal was not merely directed at Jalen Rose but at everyone who ever thought of him (or any other black person) in such a manner, including all those tweeters I just mentioned. What I read in his words is what I’ve always believed in my heart. There is no right or wrong way to be black. There’s no one way to be black at all. There’s simply being human in the best manner you can manage, regardless of your particular set of window dressing. Be who you are and don’t quietly let anyone disrespect you on account of it. But when they inevitably do, it will always say a whole lot more about them than it says about you.

Below are some thoughts I expressed on the matter one tweet at a time, with a few retweets of sentiments expressed by others sprinkled in. What’s your take?

Didn't see the Fab 5 documentary, just tweets about it. Only catching up now to controversial remarks by Jalen Rose & Grant Hill's response.


The concept that if u aren't "keeping it real", speaking mostly slang, dressing 4 opposite of success, classifies u as "Uncle Tom" must die.


I'm tired of black people beating up on black people for not being "black enough". Progress impossible if holding your own self back


The most devout Jew doesn't criticize another for being less Jewish. Super Italian doesn't diss another for not being Italian enough. But blacks…


Complexion adds a whole other layer of complexity. U can wear dashiki & afro & keep fist raised in air all day, but u light skinned? Denied.


As if people are selecting how much DNA from which branches of the humanity tree they wish to have. That's 5 yrs down the road, minimum


Melanin argument is at least tangible. Retarded, but tangible. Calling someone "not black" because they like to read & excel at math? WTF?!


No people are more bigoted against black people than certain black Americans. There, I said it. It's factual. I see proof on here EVERY DAY.


Just let people be whoever it is they happen to be. If they're not personally f'ing with you, their mode of existence isn't your concern.


p.s.- White people are way less preoccupied w/ keeping blacks down than you may believe. Most people of all races are simply looking out for selves.


And by "selves" I don't mean members of same race. I mean you look out for your own damn self, then your family, then out from there.


You give the biggest white bigot a choice between doing something racist for hell of it or accepting $100, cash gets snatched 9 of 10 times.


And that's the biggest bigot I'm talking about. Most of you have been lucky enough never to have actually met that A-hole, whoever he may be.


So in the words of my man Spike Lee - WAKE UP. After that, get smart & get paid. After that, give back to your community & world at large.


And as you'll see if you check out tweets by @ClarenceGaines2 most know zilch about Uncle Tom & are insulting incorrectly. READ A BOOK!!!


Surely there are black men out there named Tom who have nephews & nieces. Does this pose a problem for them?


RT @ToureX Grant notes that in the doc Jalen leaves it unclear what he now feels about Black Dukies. His tweeted "clarification" isn't clarifying much.


RT @rodimusprime: Uncle Tom thing is more abt class at this point than it is about race.
To which I replied - Name 1 white man not named Tom ever called Uncle Tom


Fact: No man of any race ever felt badly about being called an Uncle Nate Dogg. Simply implies improved quality by mere presence.


RT @LLCoolChels Bottom line is GH has a right to respond and defend who he was THEN and where he came from just like JR has a right to tell his story.


There is no intelligent explanation for an ignorant opinion. "I was young & misinformed" is the best anybody has ever come up with.


I'm older but not any wiser is a particularly poor argument.


Calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is not matter of perspective (as I just saw somebody categorize it) in most cases, just plain wrong.


RT @Brandale2221 As a Person who has been labeled BOTH an Uncle Tom & a COON .. both by black folks...IMO the problem is how we label ourselves.


To all those tweeps out there raising your kids in two parent households or being raised in one yourself, keep Tomming.


RT @BritniDWrites Folks shld be happy Rose is able to articulate his past hurt & isn't knocking somebody upside the head cuz he can't express his emotions.
To which I replied - Interesting point. I suppose a documentary is slightly less blunt than a bat upside the head.

Black Literature – Dead or Alive

This posting was written after I was prompted by a question posed at Rawsistaz.com

So called black literature is not quite dead, but seriously injured in my humble opinion as someone who reads and writes plenty of it. This most likely is a temporary, even if rather long lasting condition. The problem isn't that there are not plenty of African American authors writing quality novels. The problem IS that these books aren't the ones being published, or when published, the ones being heavily marketed and promoted. Major publishers, who despite the emergence of self publishing still by far have the biggest say, have decided that only a small segment of fiction by black authors is sellable. This segment is largely made up of so called urban-street-hip hop fiction of a quality that presumably is somewhat superior to most self pubbed books falling into this genre. Thanks to the success of Waiting to Exhale oh so many years ago, "sassy tales of sistahood" bound in colorful covers also manage to get pubbed by the divisions of publishers dedicated to putting out books aimed to attract African American readers. Waiting to Exhale imitators are basically writing so called chick lit with black characters. Erotica with black characters sells nicely as well, with no small amount of credit to Zane. I'm not sure what the difference is (if there is one) between works of erotica and those fake letters published by Penthouse, but apparently it's critical to some readers whether the man's shaft/rod/spear/etc. is compared to ivory or ebony. Who would have thought this genre would have such a strong post-puberty fanbase? Not I.

What I want to know is where is the black authored literary fiction? Too few books too far between take up space on shelves at Borders and Barnes & Noble. Apparently surveys were conducted and tests showed there is not a significant enough audience for such books. Once upon a time pretty much all black fiction was serious and literary in nature. Times were troubled and our literature reflected this. Writers like Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, Claude Mckay, Jean Toomer, Countee Cullen and Ralph Ellison had no shortage of material to work with during the hard times referred to as the black writer’s renaissance. Times are much better now, equality if not quite reached then come "close enough" to, with President Obama's existence being the prime example of this theory. So it has been concluded that there's no need for a 21st century Native Son or Invisible Man or The Chosen Place, The Timeless People, or etc. The civil rights struggle has been waged and won, so we can relax now and bring on the fluff. Such an attitude hurts all African American art, with literature the most adversely affected, although I suppose a very similar argument can be made for the plight of jazz. Walker, Morrison and a couple others have been designated as the official providers of serious African American literature, with no more room left at the table for additional voices. There is plenty of room of course, but it will not be freely offered, it needs to be taken by writers with something significant to say who find a way to grab the attention of an easily distracted audience. This mission is a worthy one, and a necessary one.

With African Americans being a minority group in this country, which makes AA lit a minority amongst genres if it absolutely must be considered a genre, I have no problem with any particular style or subject matter that is being written. Everyone should write in their own voices and about what they're passionate about. But since AA lit is a minority genre unto itself for the time being, it can only thrive through diversity and quality. There must be high brow to accompany middle brow and low brow. We can't allow ourselves to be represented as a group through the equivalent of the cartoon network without also showing consistent capability to both create and appreciate Masterpiece Theater. I'm fine with an outrageous BET reality show or lighthearted Tyler Perry production so long as balanced by substantive screenplays by Spike Lee. Books have a far more lasting impact than TV or movies. Classics of today will be taught in classrooms a century from now. So we must tell the full range of our stories in the widest range of techniques in order for AA lit to be amongst those classics. Neither genre nor subject matter is really an issue. A great literary novel can be written about the life of a drug dealing pimp (even one set in space in the 23rd century) same as a piece of drivel can be written on the same topic. I will always take quality over quantity, although quantity is critical too, not merely the amount of titles but the amount of perspectives being explored by the literary minds of our day. Darwin was right. Only the strongest will survive. This pertains to literature along with everything else. History will not judge the color of writers' skins, only the value of what they had to say and how well they were able to express it.

Ultimately I wait for the day when African American (aka Black) Literature is not considered a genre/category unto itself. It's somewhat ridiculous for there to be both a Paranormal Romance section and a Black Paranormal Romance section. Simply read a review or the back cover copy to learn what the race of the main character happens to be, and if this is at all relevant to the plot. The person who writes the next The Color Purple should not have their book placed (at the very least, not exclusively) on the Black Literary Fiction shelf. A shelf allocated to Literary Fiction by One and All, or simply to Great Books, should be more than sufficient. That's the shelf I write with hope to one day be set upon.

x x x x x

- Roy Pickering (author of Patches of Grey)

Share
|

PART II to this story

The Princess and the "Controversy"

The announcement that Disney would be making its first Princess movie with a royal African American lead was of great interest to me, but what I found truly fascinating was the reader discussion it sparked in the Comments area of the Black Voices web site where I learned of it. The writer purposely worded the final paragraph of his announcement, referencing how much browner the princess is than the prince, to stir up controversy. And based on the reactions elicited, he clearly succeeded. Following is my response to what a variety of people had to say about Disney's daring "casting" choices for The Princess and the Frog.

First off, the Disney movie factory is all about the princesses. The prince is secondary at best. They don't sell Prince Charming dolls (or certainly not too many of them), only Cinderella. Just look at the majority of the movie titles. It's Pocahontas, not Poca & John John. The Little Mermaid, not Lil Mermaid and What's His Face. Beast got top billing alongside Beauty, but look at how much time he had to spend in the makeup chair to earn it. I suspect that not even the carpet riding smooth talker who gave Aladdin its title drummed up many action figure sales. It's all about that temptress, Jasmine. The news here is that Disney finally decided to create an African American princess. When the movie does well, perhaps even better than the typical Disney princess flick due to excess black support (or does all of that go to Tyler Perry for some inexplicable reason?), no doubt there will be others and a black prince will be inevitable. Secondly, Disney is actually taking more of a risk featuring a mixed race couple than if they had made the expected move of combining a black princess with a black prince. No one is shocked or upset by a black couple but plenty of people still have a problem with interracial couples, so kudos to Disney. True they've already covered this territory in Pocahontas, but that movie was loosely (no doubt quite loosely) based on a true story so the races of the characters was not a choice by Disney. This time around it obviously was a conscious choice, and a mildly bold one at that. I say "mildly" because the dude (at least to my eyes) is clearly Hispanic rather than Caucasian, and a black-brown mix is less of a "shocking" statement than black-white. Last but not least, not every decision is a STATEMENT. Cinderella and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty (and their respective suitors) are white because the writers chose to make them so. In this case the writer(s) decided to make the princess African American and the prince a former member of Menudo. The characters are what they are and little to nothing is being preached to the audience in a friggin' Disney cartoon. I wasn't offended that the guy who woke up Sleeping Beauty wasn't Asian or Pakistani so why should I (or anyone else) be bothered that the prince in The Princess and the Frog isn't black. That said, when Disney does get around to creating a black prince I hope they consider using me as the model. See my portfolio below.

- Roy

p.s. - A reader pointed out to me that the name of the Prince is Naveen, which is an Indian name, so that puts Indian as lead candidate for his ethnicity over Hispanic, Caucasian, Philipino, etc. Is Disney basically doing a remake of Mississippi Masala? :-)

x

p.p.s. - The artists who animate Disney/Dreamworks/Pixar/etc. movies are pretty impressive, but if you really want to be blown away check this out.