Black Face Outrage--STOP IT

When NBC terminated Megan Kelly, I remember thinking how silly it was for a corporation to get rid of an employee for defending blackface.  It was as if NBC had another agenda for firing her and used her comment to settle an ax they already had to grind.  I had similar feelings when news about Ralph Northam and a blackface photo from 1984 appeared on my timeline.  I really didn’t care to much about it, until I noticed a great deal of people, especially African Americans, were so outraged.   I still couldn’t help but wonder, why?

The outrage was fierce.  News shows were all running stories with guests that were livid and offended by the snapshot.  I expected Fox News guests to be fake-offended, after all Northam is a Democrat, but when guests appeared on CNN demanding Northam resign, and Al Sharpton said the same thing on MSNBC, my eyebrows rose.  I was baffled.  Baffled because to think something a person did 30-years ago would suddenly crop up and destroy their career wasn’t very liberal and very disturbing.  Even more importantly in this last election cycle Democrats suffered huge upsets in the governor races with the losses of Stacey Abrams in Georgia, and Andrew Gillum in Florida, now here we are trying to oust another Democratic Governor over a 30-year old photo. 

Don’t get me wrong I understand why blackface can be offensive.  During the nineteenth-century white men in Minstrelsy shows painted their faces black, enhanced the size of their lips and depicted African Americans as violent, outrageous and stereotypical caricatures.  These shows traveled around the world depicting images of black men as rapists or stupid; black women as fat ugly Mammy-like or overly sexualized characters. These shows often twisted the slave experience presenting happy go-lucky slaves that danced around with glee as if slavery was sanctioned by God himself.  But minstrelsy shows are a thing of the distant past.  So, the question I had as an African American was:  does this mean no whites could every wear blackface?  It’s absurd.  Especially when you consider the fact that blacks have worn black face themselves.

Meet Egbert Williams an African American man considered by some to be the First American actor and the greatest comedian that ever lived.  He’s a black man that wore blackface.  And he’s a trailblazer that paved the way for many African American Actors all because he wore blackface.  He brought the first all-black minstrelsy show to Broadway:  In Dahomey in 1903.   Was he racists?  The answer of course is no, his record makes it clear he had African American interest at heart when he performed.

What I concluded is just because a person paints their face black doesn’t make a person a racist.  No more than it would make people that paint their face red, white or blue racist.  And we certainly can’t just claim a person is a racist because of a photo taken 30-years ago that may or may not be the person in the frame.  The only way to determine if a person is truly a racist would be to check their record. 

So, I checked Mr. Northam’s record.  Northam was an army medical doctor and a Pediatric Neurologist, he’s probably saved countless lives, including the lives of African American babies.  He’s a Democratic governor that supports pro-black policies and his interest seem to fall in line with interests of my own.  Heck, Northam had the State of Virginia remove confederate statues. That doesn’t sound like a racists. So why should he resign?

I’ve heard all the arguments. Some say people wore black face to make fun of African Americans, particularly slaves—when the facts are some people did, some people didn’t.  Some say the photo is cringe-worthy because those in the photo are’ future doctors—and may have to one day deliver black babies.  They speak in present tense to leave out the fact that some of them were doctors and probably delivered many black babies, including Northam. I even heard arguments that Northam should resign because he can’t lead; and yet he has led. 

I think this situation speaks to an even bigger problem with social media and the internet.  The fact that someone could go back 20, 30, 40 years and dig up something from your past and use it to destroy you, is terrifying. That shouldn’t be condoned, unless you committed some heinous, vicious act against someone, such as the sexual assault Christine Blasey Ford claimed Judge Kavanaugh committed against her, and even in that situation Blasey Ford only spoke her truth because Kavanaugh was vying for a seat on the highest court in the land.  Other than that, your record should be used to determine your character. The media needs to realize you can’t condemn people for their past, unless a person has demonstrated a continued pattern of racism or hate—like Donald and Mitch.

In my opinion I think African Americans need to stop acting as if we have the power to ban certain things because racists people have used them against us in the past.  Black paint and words like nigger are not racist—wake up!

WILL THE REAL KAMALA PLEASE STAND UP

Kamala Harris is not only a polished politician but also a shrewd lawyer with an impressive array of credentials. A first-generation American born in Oakland, she attended Howard University, pledged Alpha Kappa Alpha, and worked in the DA’s Office in San Francisco before becoming District Attorney (DA) of San Francisco, Attorney General (AG) of California, and now a U.S. Senator. Clearly, she has dedicated her life to public service. But despite her impressive resume, she reminds me of a cubic zirconia—big and flashy but ultimately fake.

My first doubts about Harris arose during the Kavanaugh hearings. On the second day of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony, Harris began questioning him about the Mueller investigation. Her demeanor suggested she had something significant on Kavanaugh. I remember standing in front of the TV, excited to see a Black woman challenging the Judge. With my hands on my hips and my mouth open, I waited eagerly.

Harris asked, “Judge Kavanaugh, have you ever discussed Special Counsel Mueller or his investigation with anyone?” Kavanaugh appeared flustered, stuttering and listing possible contacts. Harris pressed further, “Are you sure?” with an authoritative expression and a smirk that seemed to say, “I’ve got you.” But it turned out she was merely putting on a show.

When I first heard that Harris might run for president, I was excited. However, after the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, I had my doubts. I decided to research her background and found some troubling information. She was propelled into the political arena by Willie Brown, a man twice her age with whom she had an extramarital affair. This raised questions about her moral character, especially given the current president’s own ethical shortcomings.

Further scrutiny of her career as DA and AG of California only deepened my concerns. Harris supported three-strike laws and, as DA, dismissed 600 drug cases because her office failed to inform defense attorneys about a crime lab technician, Debbie Madden, who had a history of tampering with evidence and a prior conviction. In 2015, Harris opposed legislation requiring investigations into police shootings. When California faced a Supreme Court case over prison overcrowding, Harris argued that prisoners were essential for labor and fighting wildfires.

Despite her claims of being a liberal, Harris’s actions contradict her stated values. Her consensual affair with a married man for political advancement undermines the #MeToo movement and questions her merit. She misled the public on LGBT issues, falsely claiming that the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 8, which sought to define marriage as between a man and a woman, when the court had actually sent the decision back to the state. She has also been inconsistent on the death penalty, opposing it while previously arguing in favor of it in 2014. Most troubling to me is her treatment of Black issues; her record shows a disregard for Black lives, even as she panders to African Americans for our votes.

Last night, Harris donned her Senate uniform and shifted into the role of a full-blooded African American woman. She appeared with Mary J. Blige, using African American sermon techniques, speaking in clichés, quoting Black songs, and acting as if she’d spent her entire life in Oakland among African Americans. She omitted her years of growing up in Canada and didn’t mention that her parents were elite Democrats, instead referring to them as immigrants who supported civil rights. In other words, Harris portrayed herself as just another African American woman.

Her performance was excellent. She really sold the crowd, and to further solidify her newly crafted African American image, her spokesperson appeared on MSNBC and repeatedly emphasized that Kamala Harris is African American, almost ten times in a two-minute clip. It was then it occurred to me that Kamala Harris will not hesitate to shift into any position that suits her goals, regardless of the cost. She played the role of the mistress to secure prominent government positions, and once she landed those roles, she stopped playing the part. She wanted to be seen as a strong prosecutor, so she eagerly donned the tough prosecutor persona. She had no reservations about incarcerating countless African Americans. In fact, she even supported a truant law that would have disproportionately imposed prison sentences and fines on minorities.

Since 2016, she has become the female version of President Barack Obama. But last night, she emerged as an African American woman raised in Oakland, who attended Howard and pledged Alpha Kappa Alpha. Harris is essentially telling African Americans that she’s aligned with our struggles.

Her mistake, of course, was not doing her homework before attempting to play the African American role. Had she done her research, she would have realized that African Americans don’t vote based solely on race. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are clear examples of this fact. Don’t get me wrong, I understand her message—she can use the term African American to identify herself, after all, her father is Jamaican, and Jamaicans have African roots, so technically, she can be considered African American. But theoretically, it’s not that simple.

I made the decision to cast a “no” vote for Harris because, given her background and her apparent tendency to shift into beneficial positions for political gain, I find her too disingenuous for my taste.

We Hold These Truths

I AM not the type to of black person that jumps on the black bandwagon just because everyone else in the African American community jumps on board.  In 1987 when the black community was outraged with Tawana Brawley’s claim of rape, I was skeptical; in 1988 if I had sense enough to vote, I would not have cast my ballot for Jessie Jackson; I favor Malcolm more than I do Martin; I don’t want to jump over no broom, I think Kwanzaa is a made up holiday guilty of commodification and I didn’t like the movie Black Panther.  But, when it comes to the NFL protest, I am in complete agreement with the players.  I believe African Americans must stand up against blatant injustice, racism and inequality and protesting in sports arenas during the national anthem is the perfect venue to do so.

I must confess when I first heard about Colin Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee during the national anthem, I was torn between my beliefs that we as African Americans have overcome and the reality, that's demonstrated over and over again, showing we have not.  Because I was torn I decided to get all my facts together and make an honest decision as to whether it’s appropriate to take a knee or not. 

So, I went back—way back—back in time to 1619.  The year the first Africans came to America.  They came not as slaves, but as immigrants—immigrants who bargained repayment for passage to the new world by working 1-7 years as servants for the white  colonist in the new world.  Originally these indentured servants must have believed seven years a fair price to pay for freedom, but tides changed quickly--with a single stroke of a pen, slavery became the law of the land.  In 1641 the Proclamation of Prince Charles II of England declared slavery for blacks in the US a legal institution and white colonial land owners seized upon this opportunity to make themselves a great nation.  

It was then blacks were forced to participate in an economic system that would keep them shackled and chained for generations and generations and generations and generations.  White landowners justified keeping blacks in bondage by perpetuating the lie that those born with black skin were inferior, or less than human.  They even went so far as to deny the truth and classify blacks as cattle.   Amazes me how everybody went along with the fallacy. 

The outright mendacity of these white colonists was demonstrated in 1776 during their own fight for freedom and independence.  The American Revolution was a revolt against England,  white Patriots desired to build a perfect union free of taxation and annexation with England.  While the Patriots fought for their Independence, they coveted black slaves like diamonds.   Interesting enough free blacks fought alongside America, knowing their brothers and sisters,  their aunts, and uncles were still held captive under the bondage of slavery.  

May 11, 1812, America declared war on Great Britain for seizing American ships. At that time Great Britain took advantage of the American hypocrisy and started a campaign that enticed slaves to join Britain in their fight in exchange for freedom.  More than 4000 blacks escaped US slavery and fought alongside Great Britain.  This is significant because after the final battle between the US and Great Britain, at Fort Francis, Scott Key penned the poem that would become our national anthem.  In one stanza of this anthem Key admonished those slaves that had the audacity to stand up for themselves and fight against the country that kept them in bondage:

"No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.

This all may sound disjointed:  Slavery, The American Revolution, and the War of 1812, just like black football player's decision to protest during the national anthem may seem disjointed.  But when you dig deep and consider the circumstances, you see it's not disjointed at all.  There's a single connector, a pattern of usury and disrespect that has stained American History since 1641.  Many people want to believe this stain has been removed, blotted out by the false promise of forty acres and a mule, or the civil rights movement, or Barack Obama.  

After considering these things, I've concluded the animosity and opposition to NFL Players taking a knee is because that very act shines too big a light on the American duplicity that started in 1641, was ignored in 1776, inked in 1812 and continues to exist even today.   The world believes America has transcended other nations because we embrace freedom for all regardless of race, nationality or religious beliefs, but our history tells a different story.   Taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem is like placing a mirror in the front of all America and showing them a reflection of America’s past sins and exposing the current condition, revealing they're one the same.  

Three questions remain: Should African Americans sing the national anthem with their hands over their chest, a song whose lyrics admonished their ancestors for escaping the plight of slavery?  More than that, should we continue to place our hands over our hearts, and sing along with this anthem, ignoring the fact that black men and women continue to be profiled, stopped, beaten, and murdered by police officers?  And more than that, should African Americans ignore the fact that our denial makes us complicit in the American hypocrisy.  

I know there are some folk that will argue, only 1-2 innocent blacks die at the hands of police officers, but Isn't a single innocent life, one too many?  When Kaepernick took the knee on that faithful day in August, he was saying that he would no longer place his hands over his heart and sing an anthem that condoned racial inequality and condemned blacks for fighting for freedom.  He was unequivocal saying, Black Lives Matter!  

Since 2016 countless analysts, media sources, and NFL commentators have waged arguments for and against Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee.  Black NFL players that have taken a stand with Kaepernick have faced outrage from people who cry, “It’s a disrespect to our military.”   Blacks that refuse to stand for the anthem have been disparaged, even by people amongst our very own race—Uncle Tom black folks that ignore those two stanzas in the anthem, make excuses for police that shoot and kill blacks in cold blood, because they have convinced themselves that today is a different day and racial bias only exist in the past, at the same time they tout along with others who hope to MAGA.    

Here we are in 2018 and we're debating the same question.  Owners, like Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys, with his slave mentality, has threatened to suspend players that don’t stand for the anthem.  The NFL Protest has become such a divided issue that even Donald Trump has weighed in against the protesters. 

.....Be happy, be cool! A football game, that fans are paying soooo much money to watch and enjoy, is no place to protest. Most of that money goes to the players anyway. Find another way to protest. Stand proudly for your National Anthem or be Suspended Without Pay!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 10, 2018

"Be happy be cool," words tweeted by a man that pledged to be the President of a United State, yet he wants to root out everything the only black US President has accomplished.  He wants to put a stain in place of achievement and is so desperate to rid the country of President Obama's legacy, he will even debate crowd size to make himself appear superior to a black man.  Trump wants black NFL protesters to acquiesce to his subtle command, or suffer the consequences--perhaps the doom and gloom of the grave. 

NFL players could have protested in different ways.  They could have done something as extreme as burn American flags, like they did in 1968 when Americans protested the Vietnam War.  They could demand that stanza be stricken from the national anthem--but have not.  Instead, they have decided to take a knee--even that's too much for people like Jerry West, Donald Trump and other so-called patriotic Americans.

I say—take a knee NFL players, take an audacious knee!

The rights to the content and images on this website are owned by Jacqueline Session Ausby, and you have no right to use any of the content / images without her expressed permission.  If you would like to contact Jacqueline Ausby, please email jmbeausby@aol.com. 

This is America--Really?

This is America By Donald Glover:  A Piece of Art or Propaganda?  

I get it...I get it...I get it...

The video “This is America,” by Childish Gambino is disturbing, alarming and brilliant all at the same time.   The video starts with Childish Gambino—a Bojangle like caricature moving to the beat of a guitar in a snake-like fashion.  Music is played by a black man strumming the guitar.  At first the beat of the music is happy, uplifting, almost inspiring, but then the tune changes.  It becomes deep and dark.  The black man now has a burlap sack on his head and a noose around his neck.  Gambino shoots the man, point-blank in the head.  Then, he carefully hands the gun to a black boy, who swaddles the gun in a red garment.  The body is dragged away and Gambino continues his dance as if nothing happened.

The beat of the music returns to the happy go-lucky tune and a group of black boys and girls, dressed in preppy uniforms, start to follow Gambino like he’s the Pied Piper.   In the background things are happening, but they don’t seem to notice or care.  Eventually Gambino enters a red door and finds a church choir. with all black members.  The choir is draped in robes, singing gayly like happy black folks.  You know the type that fasted and prayed for the Mercy of God?  Black folks that believed they’ve finally overcome in America.  But like before, the music switches to that deep, disturbing beat.  A boy hands Gambino an automatic rifle.  BAM! Blood spews everywhere.  Gambino shoots the entire choir.  He hands the assault refile off to another black boy that wraps it in a red garment.  Hostility from the crowd is captured, the absence of God eerily evident. 

No emotions are shown by Gambino or the kids, when the melody changes again, they continue to dance around in the same happy fashion.  All the while the backdrop becomes saturated with violent scenes.  Chaos and riots and people running about with wrangled arms and horrid faces amid utter madness.  Things become increasing out of hand and absurd: a car is aflame and a white horse trots around.   Gambino and the kids are seemingly oblivious to everything that is happening around them.  Some of the kids even use their cell phones to capture everything that’s taking place, as if they’re numb to the violence and the mayhem. 

Like a music round, the chorus of “This is America,” is repeated until—just like that--the music stops.  Gambino lights a blunt and takes a hit.  After a few seconds, the music starts again he’s standing on a car and a bunch of outdated cars are spread-out before him, like Christ stood on the mountain top, with all the world before him (might be too much).   Ultimately in the final clip of the video Gambino is running down a long hallway, like a slave.

I read and listened to several commentaries that said, “This is America,” is about gun violence—a referendum on guns in America.  I read some place where the video was highlighting gun violence and drug addiction.   But after watching the video, over and over, I’m not convinced that’s the message. 

It’s true the very first scene in the video is a black man being shot in the head.  I can see how many would interpret that as an image about black on black crime.   And the clip does raise the question of gun control in America.   But the church shooting made me think otherwise.  As the majority of the random acts of gun violence, such as the one committed in Charleston, were committed by white men—but Gambino (clearly black)  fires the assault weapon,  Besides that, there’s also the juxtaposition of the images such as, the black man with a burlap sack over his head and a noose around his neck.  This image is symbolic to something more.  If the view was just about gun violence, why cover up the man’s head and take the time to apply the noose?  In my opinion, these images in this video are used to demonstrate the crude and violent dismantling of the black man and his psyche.   

In so many ways this video reminds me of Jean-Michel Basquat’s paintings.  There’s something disjointed, yet tangible and true and sad about the message.  Originally, I wasn’t sure what to make of the video.  I went back and forth watching the video and listening to the lyrics.  After a time, I concluded this video depicts the way African American men and women have been systematically violated since the days of slavery, Jim Crow and Civil Rights.  It also addresses the way American ideology  indoctrinates  African American Youth in the American Matrix, creating black boys and girls in its own image and likeness, (i.e. a generation of children consumed with social media and images of themselves).  

Gambino doesn’t recognize this until he hits the blunt.  When the music stops and he takes a drag his eyes are opened.  He’s enlightened.  He recognizes the trap when he stand atop the red car and starts to think outside of the box.  He finally sees America for what America really is, a place where people are bred by an economic system whose only motivation is greed.  Consumption.  Black Americans have been programmed to buy into this matrix, our minds have been brainwashed.  Fact or fiction there’s some truth in that idea.

The reality is disturbing and begs the question, is there any way to escape?  Is there a way to get out of the Matrix? Trying to escape the American ideology is difficult.  So, begins the chase of the black man, like the black slave that ran away in the brush of the black night, with wide-white eyes and sweat dripping down his black chest and back, as he desperately tries to escape his oppressor. 

This video is brilliant because it asks the question is this the picture of America?—or is Glover trying to uses violent images to make a point about gun violence?

Black Panther

BLACK PANTHER – I AM confused.  I liked the movie it was exciting.  I’m not a big Marvel fan, but I think this movie was well done and in comparison to other Marvel movies I've seen, it's far better.  Kudos to the young African American director.  But I don't see Black Panther as a political narrative.  Let me repeat, Black Panther the Movie is not the political narrative so many of us African Americans make it out to be.  Let me also state, that I think this movie is good for young black boys and girls to see themselves on the big screen.  But the fact of the matter is, Black Panther is just another American tale.

Let’s start with giving a little background about the movie.  It centered around a brother killing his brother (Cain vs. Abel), because the brother (living in US) wanted to use the resources from his home land (Wakanda in Africa)  to help other oppressed brothers in the community where he resided.  When the King of Wakanda discovered his brother’s transgression, thanks to a snake— (oh…my bad, Forest Whittaker) he murdered his brother.  All to preserve the resources of Wakanda—in Wakanda (greed).   Then he lies to cover the truth and left his nephew stranded in the US.  Talk about black on black crime.

My problem with this movie is it was hailed as having an all-black cast.  But when I watched the movie I discovered that just isn’t the case.  There’s a white CIA agent – why is he even a part of the movie?  Whose telling us this story??? (Can’t be the uncle or cousin, they're dead, perhaps it’s the new King of Wakanda--or maybe it's Stan Lee—the white creator).  I haven’t forgotten about that scene at the entrance to the movie, where the son asks the father to tell him the story again, I believe that’s called a set-up.  Also the new King of Wakanda doesn't save the day.  Nope, it’s Stan—my bad—the white CIA Agent who really saved the day. Oh but he had direction from the King’s sister, the Wakanda most like an African American Girl (got that). 

Because of Wakanda’s technological prowess, they were able to save the white CIA Agent, but couldn’t save their own black brother.  In Game of Thrones when John Snow died his brothers used every resource in their power, (including—dark magic) to bring him back to life (ijs).  I know, I know, Cuz wanted to die, he wanted to meet his ancestors (got that too).  

This movie depicts the image of black brother vs black brother, while the white man ends up benefiting the most, hence the real story of slavery.  Black tribe sells his brother to the white man—white man uses that resource to build a nation (stretch?  Maybe—you decide).  Or perhaps slavery is a bit much, maybe it depicts what king Leopold did in the Congo, without the truth.

In the move the CIA Agent survives due to Wakanda’s ingenuity.  He lives and goes back home and tells the story of Wakanda.    Next thing you know the King of Wakanda, having been enlightened by the truth, stands side by side with his bride at the National Assembly, before the United Nations, giving the world access to Wakanda’s resources; meanwhile, Stan the man--sorry, the white CIA Agent is seated in the audience, wearing a nice suit and a proud smile on his face.  Mission accomplished—divide, conquer, control.

Lastly, that jab at African American women and our hair is duly noted because this black film wouldn’t be a black film  if it didn’t make fun of African American women and our hair.  Maybe it's petty, but so is the black boy in the monkey tee shirt.  Or so is this unspoken dynamic that supposed to exist between African American women being fake, and African women being real.  When the truth of the matter is we are all genuine, have black skin, bleed red blood and worry about our hair.   

Maybe my synopsis is not that deep.   I can go on and speak about the way the movie glorifies aspects of African tradition and tribal life, while consciously ignoring facts about customs and beliefs that need to be changed.  I could go into how places in Africa continue to oppress and mutilate women, I could speak about President Obama's 2015 speech in Kenya that condemned such practices, or talk about how tribal communities force young girls to marry old men under the guise of tradition, but none of these ugly subjects were captured in this beautiful American tale.  So I’ll leave that right there.

This movie is no political narrative, but African Americans are so happy to see ourselves lit up in Magnificent lights, with a predominant black cast, that we will overlook every detail, just to have that glory.

😂#getthatdirtoffmyshoulder; #dahtruth.com.