Shocker! A writer is going to wax poetic about the importance of words and the use of language. LOL. But I promise they're important. No, the power is not in possessing a complex vocabulary of hoity-toity words but truly understanding the power of language. Here's an example:
Words predate our memories. We've been learning sounds, building towards being able to form sentences and express thought since birth. If an alien hopped out the UFO whip and asked you how you spoke words you couldn't say. You couldn't explain it. By this point, it's second nature. But in the process of thinking about this, here's a question, do you ever stop to dissect the words you use? Do you ever think about the weight of your words? The implications? In the clip above, Muhammad Ali refers to how everything 'white' has a positive connotation and conjures up good memories, yet everything black is the opposite.
One such phrase I've tried to remove from my Batman utility belt is the tendency to label things as not being "black or white" - as in expressing that something is not this or that but rather complex in nature. Yes, I understand the idea of the difference between the colors themselves, making the statement factual in origin. But these are also the words we've chosen as a society to label people of African descent and people of a Caucasian or European descent. Since there's no way we're coming up with a new Dewey system for people, the entire phrase should be thrown away as it reinforces the difference between people, a weapon used to justify hatred and discrimination. This is how sneaky the system is. Yet, I've gathered you here not because I want to speak broadly about the use of language but because I want to talk about one word in particular and why, I know this will be controversial so hear me out, I think it does us more harm than good. Racism, racist and it's family of words. In short, it's incomplete. But you came here for the long version, so off we go. Too often we want things to be short and sweet. Twitter, a platform of words, has a character limit. But even as creatures we often prefer to take in information in bits and pieces. That's why a headline is so great. It can tell you what you're getting yourself into before you dedicate x amount of time to reading the article or post you clicked on. This does hold value. Time is of the essence, and sometimes yes, we need to gather information quickly and be able to plan and proceed accordingly. But dismantling systemic oppression and having uncomfortable conversations about race in America is not suited for Twitter. It may not even be suited for the constructs of an article or even a book. There's too many layers to uncover. Too many topics to go into. It's verbose. It's wordy. There is no short and sweet. It's multi-dimensional and convoluted. This is something we need to get used to as we use social media to engage in discussions of this sort. And part of that process means weeding out words that are what I call 'catch-all words'. A dresser is the word we use to describe a piece of furniture that is used to store clothes. What you mean to say is the definition but we can't go around saying this long ass descriptor and so we came up with a name - dresser. I say dresser and you know what I'm referring to. I say armoire or wardrobe and you know what I'm referring to. Racism, or calling someone a racist, is believe it or not one of those terms. In fact it's worse because there's so many layers to what a racist is that by simply labeling it as such allows you to miss out on so much good, 'nougat'-y nuance. Let's take a racist White guy. What's this person's level of education? What's this person's relationship with their family? What's this person's relationship with his "race"? What was this person's upbringing like? What's this person's story? Did this person have a particular encounter with someone of the race they're talking down upon? What are this person's fears? Are there any societal institutions this person belongs to? There's a number of stones to turn over and steps to retrace in learning who this person is. America has managed to have one great leap in matters of race and that's in successfully labeling the term on a similar pedestal to that of the cigarette. It's so marinated in this is wrong sauce that people saying or doing something deemed to be patently racist will tell you they aren't racist. And by the book, they might not be. This system is so steeped into their socialization, so steeped into their norms and values that they don't see their offending behavior as racist. It's just how they grew up. It's like me saying dresser and you've never seen a piece of furniture that holds clothes. I say dresser and it doesn't compute. That's what's happening here. You're describing something as 'racist' and the person has no compass for where to direct the word you're saying to anything they've experienced. Don't call them racist. That's a cop out. That's a convicted pedophile committing suicide after being faced with multiple life sentences in prison with no chance of parole. No, point the mirror directly to their upbringing and show them the cracks in the code. Show them the holes in the fairy tale they were brought up on. So much of mainstream life in America is based on a lie anyway, right? Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter bunny. Add another one to the list for them. But since racism doesn't have a mascot, unless the Washington professional football team's logo or the old Cleveland Indians logo has entered the chat, this is what it needs to be. Explain, don't let them off the hook. Don't just tell them their fearless leader, 45, has them sipping the Kool-Aid - a la Jim Jones - tell them about how he doesn't respect their intellect and that's why he chose to run on their platform. Don't just tell them that donning the Confederate flag makes them a bigot. Hammer home how it doesn't make sense to champion America as being the global winners of Planet Earth but then they proudly parade the symbol of the side that lost the Civil War. Not only lost but had to come back to America with their tail between their legs. That's the flag that's supposed to offend me? Don't let them off easy but simply calling them a racist, ask them how it feels to have had a 400-year head-start and we've still managed to be in the race. Ask them how it feels that their children are coming up in our culture. Ask them how it feels that Whiteness, this thing held over our heads like a trump card, could be so great yet Black culture seems to be the dominant way of life in this country. If most could be vulnerable, maybe they'll admit to fear or uncertainty about what a world looks like where they are the minority. And no matter how much we say loudly and clearly that we are only looking for equality, again it doesn't compute.
Why?
Because this country and its fabric was never intended for equality. That wasn't just baked into the institutions of slavery and Jim Crow, it was woven perfectly into socialization - as natural to the instructions of the world as the cutting of the umbilical cord. âWhat's felt and lived doesn't need to be expounded on or explained. The nod Black people give complete strangers they pass by, especially when there ain't much of us around, can't be explained to someone who isn't Black. But we understand it. I don't need to explain why Black is better. I mean it's there in plain sight. With every attempt to hold us down, we still rise. So no, I don't need to yell and scream and call someone a 'racist'. I just need them to understand that I see through it. I read between the lines. I see your hurt. I see your faulty programming. I see you still believing in the Easter bunny. Still believing in this fictitious framing of the world. I see it and I know it hurts you to see us shining. No, you're not racist. You're weak. You lack functional intellect and critical thinking about the world around you. I won't call you a bigot. I'll point you to your own cognitive dissonance. The key to defeating your neighborhood racist, and coon too I ain't forget about y'all, is holding the mirror up. If they were idiotic enough to bait you by throwing out a hard -ER or an "All Lives Matter", make the battle worth their while. Give them something to stew on that'll fuck up their week. â All destinations are arrived at via a path. In most industries studying and adhering to these paths serve as blueprints to achieve similar success. Learning from the missteps of predecessors and taking advantage of a paved road, should lead to growth in a given field.
It is common to forget how young the hip-hop genre is, as much of its history is still being formed. So much so that Jay-Z can arguably be described as its first true businessman. Yes, there are other pioneers such as Puff Daddy, Dr. Dre and Ice Cube. Yet, these men - all multi-millionaires - paused their rapping careers in the face of their rising business profiles. While Puff is still the head over at Bad Boy, he hasn’t released an album since 2006. As for Dre, we’re STILL waiting for Detox. Besides comprising his role as mega-producer, the Aftermath founder cashed in after Apple acquired Beats by Dre in 2014. Dre’s N.W.A bandmate Ice Cube hasn’t had a RIAA charting album since 2006’s Laugh Now, Cry Later but has been busy as an actor, screenwriter and director since starring in the 1991 film Boys n the Hood as well as running the popular 3-on-3 basketball league, the BIG3. Jay-Z has laid the blueprint - pardon the pun - for rapper-turned-businessman while continuing his career as a top-tier musician. Many after have followed suit whether creating their own record label imprints, scoring endorsements from alcohol brands, or entering into sports management. But it was Jay-Z who taught us best from The Blueprint 3’s “Reminder”: “Men lie, women lie, numbers don’t” Besides the success of his own career, perhaps this line was also inspired by the Great Battle of 2007 between 50 Cent and Jay-Z protege Kanye West; where the artists duked it out over which September 11th release would sell more records. Mix in a change of scene with the ushering out of physical albums and the industry has truly become a game of page views and streams - the new currency as I would lament in my recent article about longevity in hip-hop today. In a world lived entirely on the internet nowadays the name of the game is attention. One of the casualties of this new normal is the extinction of the gangsta rapper. What was once a Turnitin.com-level of authentication of the life an artist rapped about, a musician’s connection with a gang is no longer good enough to capture the focus of fans. Today’s act must be able to gather as many as possible to their Instagram Live stories, not for music but for entertainment. Brooklyn rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine had a plan to merge the two in a way no other rapper, suddenly associated with a gang, had done before. Adorning himself with numerous “69” tattoos and sporting rainbow-colored hair, Tekashi was obnoxiously loud and abrasive to any and everyone. Backed by Treyway Entertainment founder Shotti and a sect of the Nine-Trey Bloods street gang, Tekashi moved with reckless abandon making countless enemies in his year of stardom following 2017’s introductory track “Gummo” until his November 2018 arrest on racketeering charges. Ultimately, this was a contract. Tekashi would provide the gang with capital to fund their operation while Shotti and the gang gave 6ix9ine credibility in his persona. We have seen this trick plenty of times with musicians under the same premise, yet it seems obvious these predecessors were smarter about the terms of their agreement. In retrospect, what transpired was Nine-Trey's own doing; allowing an unknown entity to have a level of access that would be used against them when Tekashi agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors. Fast forward to today, a year-and-a-half later, Tekashi 6ix9ine made his first “public” appearance on Instagram Live upon his early release from prison amidst the COVID-19 outbreak. With fans and foes alike eager to hear 6ix9ine address his rationale for testifying against his co-defendants, a record-breaking 2 million viewers tuned in to hear the braggadocious emcee explain his experience with the Nine-Trey Bloods as well as the large fanfare he returned to. In addition to the live session, the rapper released new music shortly before the appearance. the song, “Gooba”, attaining a whopping 15 million views within its first eight hours on YouTube. Understandably, many within the hip-hop community were not pleased that the artist mockingly-labeled “Snitch9ine” had been welcomed with such a warm embrace. Besides the condemnation snitching has usually enjoyed, it has been the subject of increased controversy coming off the killing of LA rapper Nipsey Hussle and the incarceration of fellow Brooklyn emcee Bobby Shmurda. Hence, there is little surprise at the shouts of how seemingly unfair it is that Tekashi would not face public shame for his selfish actions. Yet, between the insatiable craving today’s music scene has for entertainers and an illogical expectation of honor amongst thieves, this is a move many should have anticipated. Typically, gang membership requires an initiation or a vetting process. Current members need to gauge one’s loyalty and comprehension of what it truly means to part of the syndicate. As it is theoretically easy to sensationalize the perks of gang life, membership is advertised as for life and despite inconveniences. The prospective gang member is taking an oath to uphold these expectations levied upon him or her, giving oneself to this enterprise for whatever they may gain in return. In other words, a contract is entered. Usually as the recruit has sought out the gang, and not the other way around, it can be surmised the person has already internalized this oath and its responsibilities. This is not the same contract nor terms that Tekashi made with the Nine-Trey Bloods, so to have expectations of compliance while not under similar circumstances of “vetted” gang members is baseless. Nevertheless, gang life and culture are and have been intertwined with hip-hop. For an artist that may have previously been involved with “street dealings”, the combination of legal, relatively stable income and the pressure of being a target amongst have-nots may lead an artist to slowly divorce him or herself from this lifestyle. Look no further than the case of rising podcaster Taxstone, whose online beef with rapper Troy Ave turned into an altercation that led both men to be imprisoned - severely halting the progress in their careers. Even for the street figures operating in the shadows, they have adapted to a new playing field with new rules. When called to action, these entities ensure their involvement is not public knowledge, something certainly not applicable to Tekashi and the Nine-Trey Bloods. I don’t fault any hip-hop fan that desires to boycott Tekashi 6ix9ine on moral standing - in fact I’d welcome it as I often question the presence of individuality in today’s game. If anything I am requesting that logic be applied in understanding Tekashi did not create this situation by himself. In the streets, one mistake or miscalculation can be the difference between life or death, whether gang affiliated or not. Shotti and the Nine-Trey Bloods made a mistake in dropping typical vetting measures with Tekashi and they paid the price for their miscalculation. While it is a weird sight indeed for someone to take pride in being a snitch, it is further proof that entertainment is king in this era. Don't hate the player, hate the game. You're gone. Well the physical you is. I can't believe I'm typing this sentence. Yeah, he's a human. Humans are born and humans die. But Kobe Bryant wasn't supposed to die. That energy, that fervor for greatness. That felt eternal. It is. It hurts right now but it's true. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another." Mamba Mentality is forever. You channeled your passion and drive into a relentless pursuit to accomplish your goals. Whether the 8 you wore at the beginning of your career was a constant reminder of the amount of championships you wanted to win in the NBA. To the 24 you switched to as a reminder of the amount of hours needed to master your calling. You retired from the game. Most assumed you couldn't stay away. All you did was enter into a new arena as a writer and director. You won an Oscar for crying out loud! You transferred that manic work ethic and attention to detail to go be great somewhere else. You are an inspiration. An inspiration to me, looking to find my footing in this craft that I care about. Determined to not simply fit into a box and eager to explore all topics and areas that I am passionate in. An overthinker and always cautious with words, I want to be great in this discipline. I want to inspire and encourage others. I want to attack a topic with such depth that there's no rebuttal. I want to learn. I want to educate. I want to grow. I wrote about you two weeks ago. You sat down with Matt Barnes and Stephen Jackson, reminiscing about your career but I was so enamored with the father you are. How you wrote as an ode to your daughter wanting young girls to have athletes to look up to in bedtime stories their parents read to them. How you only came back to watching basketball because your daughter picked up your obsession with the game. What's wild about all this is I grew up an avid Allen Iverson fan. I hated the Lakers so much for that Finals series! As I got older I grew so impressed with your longevity and re-invention. As I started back writing on Par 4 and What You Expect and I would dedicate prime sleeping and eating hours to writing, I came to understand your mind. I felt the same passion. The same energy. My life is the Earth and writing is the sun. And while it's stressful with all the things to do, I fucking love it. It's almost all I want to talk about. I have so many notes filled with content ideas and people to reach out to. Basketball was the conduit to getting to know you. And when that adventure was over, you went on to the next. It was never just about basketball. It was deeper, there were lessons. A bigger picture. It hurts you won't be here to continue that path. To continue to inspire and influence. To continue to teach. Just as some were beginning to see. It hurts that it seems like the people with so much "lust for life" leave us so unexpectedly. And while I am not religious in even the slightest, I feel that it's a lesson to those of us that get to experience these people to keep their energy alive. To incorporate their passion, their mantra, their essence into our lives. The man, the physical entity, known as Kobe Bean Bryant may not longer be here with us but we have been so fortunate to be introduced to Mamba Mentality. Thank you for blessing us with this knowledge and I hope to utilize the way you attacked the craft of basketball, writing, directing, coaching, fatherhood, etc., into my writing and my relationships as well. Mamba Forever. Housekeeping: I'll be rolling out new, regular content on here soon called B Squared. This will feature me sitting down with people--hopefully folks I know and maybe getting to meet people through referrals and the like--for you, the viewer, to hear their stories. I am excited to get started as it's a project I've had in mind for quite some time now. Of course, I'll need to dot the I's and cross the T's and so that's what's standing in the way at the moment but I'm truly pushing to get started before the new year comes. Stay tuned! I would imagine most of America has now heard the name Colin Kaepernick.
Sports has the ability to bring together people from walks of life that may not otherwise have an opportunity or a vehicle to ever cross paths. This narrative is typically present in any heartwarming tale we may come across related to athletics. Sometimes though, sports shows us exactly how far we have to go. How different our worlds and realities are. Those events offer us a chance to try to bridge those gaps but often time fail due to a lack of listening and the penchant to run away from conflict instead of staying put and reaching a breakthrough. Part of this is rooted in communication which I'm going to simply label as a common human flaw. Colin Kaepernick made waves as the quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, made infamous by his decision to protest during the playing of the national anthem before a pre-season exhibition match. When asked about it afterwards, Colin would go on to express a desire to bring attention to what had become rampant acts of police brutality in America. In fact, he would later go on to reveal the exact incident that led to his awakening. Personally, I don't think Colin knew the ramifications of his actions fully. I don't believe he knelt with the idea in mind it would lead to everything that has since transpired. I'm also willing to bet he doesn't regret a thing either. Fast forward three years later, the greater San Francisco native has gathered his bearings. He operates Know Your Rights Camp, a multi-faceted initiative aimed at education and increasing awareness and knowledge in interactions with law enforcement. He has also been an avid supporter of other causes, donating $1 million to various organizations dedicated to fighting oppression. In between these acts, Kaepernick finds time to stay in shape and continue to work at the craft that introduced him to this newfound lane. Still technically a free agent, Kaepernick has remained ready--awaiting an opportunity to resume what was a promising career for the former Nevada Wolf Pack signal caller. It can be assumed that the time for said opportunity was presented to Kaepernick this past Saturday as the NFL offered to conduct a workout for the embattled QB. Why? What suddenly changed on a random Saturday before Week 11 action? I would imagine the man that kept a ticker since he was denied employment also had the same line of questioning. Despite doubts, Colin showed up to town. What happened next has created the recent back and forth between those following this weekend's adventure closely. Kaepernick's crew alleges the NFL's workout featured multiple stipulations: the signing of a waiver--typically not utilized--which would have forced the QB to forfeit the ability to sue the league, no control of the private footage from the workout that would be available to all 32 teams, as well as no knowledge of the receivers whom would be linked to his one, true shot at getting back in the league. Kaepernick's response--which we now know had to be in action well beforehand--was to move the location and time of the workout to a different venue roughly an hour away from the original site. The change of plans, complete with the QB's own production team, would be live streamed allowing the public the transparency Kaepernick desired. The conversation that would follow ranged from questions of Kaepernick's desire to play to applause at the quarterback executing a crafty Machiavellian maneuver. It is said the average NFL career lasts roughly three seasons. At 32 years old, Kaepernick's tenure spanned double, logging six seasons since his debut in 2011. For a man doing quite well equipped with a new path and purpose, exactly what is the reason to prostrate oneself in what one could easily deem to be a farce of a workout put on by the NFL? While people are excusably led astray in Kaepernick's insistence that he is awaiting a job, no one also could have seen his venue switch happen either. What does he stand to gain in feigning interest in a NFL gig? It plays further into the idea of the NFL actively playing a role in keeping the former Super Bowl participant out of the league; adding credibility to the backstory of a football player so moved by an epidemic that he put his career on the line in his attempt to draw attention to the matter. And arguably, the NFL--and the parties acting on its behalf--really haven't done much to disprove his narrative; in part, because this entire situation has been handled expertly by Kaepernick. While many were annoyed at Kaepernick's silence, the quiet enabled the quarterback to make the most of the undivided attention he had during his workout. Quiet has also allowed the NFL and their missteps to speak loudly. This out the blue workout attracted representatives from 25 teams, despite no updates or reports from Kaepernick of any teams having been interested after Kaepernick's first offseason as a free agent. And yet, the public is set up to believe that if Colin Kaepernick complied, the smoke would be cleared and all would be forgiven? Colin Kaepernick has his detractors: Stephen A. Smith of ESPN being a prominent one and one would imagine after allegations that Jay-Z played a role in the workout taking place, he would be a new foe as well. Yet there seems to be this loud cry for Kaepernick to tuck his tail and beg for mercy. Instead of being angry at Kaepernick for wearing a Kunta Kinte shirt to his workout, maybe inquire why. Maybe try to piece together the puzzle of what statement he may be leaving for people that share his sensibilities. It seems a bit sad to me to see people simply fold at the notion of "oh well, politics as usual" or "this is America". Yet when someone dares to take on 'the machine', he's left out to dry. Am I advocating for boycotting the NFL? No, I have not stopped watching the NFL and don't plan on doing so anytime soon myself. More so, I'd like to know where the 'community' goes from here? The same community that has no problem extolling the virtues of the late Nipsey Hussle and his calls for Black empowerment have been gifted a player that's willing to put comfort aside in the name of standing up for what's right. And what does he get in return? Ridicule. He is told to shut up and throw a football. Not by Laura Ingraham or anyone else from the side of the aisle those remarks are usually expected. Often the Black community questions why it cannot create a luxury brand the likes of Gucci or Louis Vuitton. Maybe it is because when we have a Phat Farm or FUBU, we underappreciate its value and importance. At the same time, Black people are not monoliths. This is part of the difficulty in a call for a united stand. We have grown to occupy various upbringings and points of view. But my call isn't for everyone to outright agree with Kaepernick but simply to appreciate his act. He is not the perfect messenger. But who was? King was not. Malcolm X was not. Yet we have the ability to understand the bigger picture with those leaders. And seem to fight the ability to do the same here. So much of the micro, and its influence, dictate our views today. We have social media. We are in an age where we want our news in 140-280 characters. We want instant gratification. We don't want to look at the long term play. We don't want to speculate as to how Kaepernick may be viewed down the line. All we know is he said he wanted to play and he didn't follow instructions. He deserves to be punished. He's a clown. Pathetic. How would the generations of yesteryear take to us simply laying down and accepting the status quo? What points does Kaepernick receive in an age where athletes left and right can't stay out of the courtroom? For someone that signed himself up for all of this, he's answered the call. The impact of what Colin Kaepernick's name is today, what it will be 20 years from now has reached a level the NFL would not have been able to manufacture for him. But sure Stephen A, tell us how he's such a bad example for the kids. Kaepernick may not be successful in getting employment in the NFL. If I am a betting man, I'd say he's probably come to terms with that a while ago. But you appreciate a small step in understanding how the path forged allows the next person to walk that much further. Many lauded Jay-Z's signing with the NFL as an ability to change the organization from the inside. Yet there was one man trying to do that and getting slandered by the people clamoring for the change the most. Say less. At some point the actual conversation needs to commence.
Throughout the many injustices of police brutality towards particularly unarmed people of color, at some point the microscope needs to zoom out to allow for actual progress to be possible. I believe this is the special situation that can spark the change the Black community has especially been clamoring for. Today, Amber Guyger--a 31 year old former Dallas police officer--was sentenced to 10 years in prison after being found guilty of the September 2018 murder of Botham Jean. Guyger claimed that the apartment she was entering the night of the incident was her own, and upon coming in contact with Botham--the true inhabitant of the apartment--fired two fatal bullets in reacting out of fear to the prospects of a potential burglar. The details of the case can be inspected and debated ad nauseam. After watching the testimony, I believe Amber Guyger was guilty of the crime in question and should have been sentenced to serve time in prison. Under questioning, Guyger's lack of appropriate follow-up action in face of what had been admitted to be a mistake--an intentional mistake--felt most damning. Yet the most poignant pieces, for me, came in the discussion of training; the prosecutor drawing a parallel to Guyger utilizing her training in assessing danger and incapacitating said threat to seemingly not continuing with training in administering aid such as CPR that could have saved Botham's life. While the temptation is within arm's reach to levy this charge of inconsistencies regarding training on Guyger, I have a better target in mind: Guyger's profession. The shooting did not take place in the line of duty, this circumstance could have befallen any of Guyger's co-workers on any given day. Being a police officer is not an easy job and there are bound to be grueling, disorienting days that may result in inadvertently being on the wrong floor or keying into the wrong apartment. There is no context to battle over here, where Botham Jean's actions or deeds could be misconstrued and misinterpreted in a rationale to justify Guyger's decision to fire her weapon. And it is just that action Guyger took in response to the emotion she faced in that moment that perfectly aligns her profession in the cross-hairs that the job should have found itself in similar cases of 'excessive force'. The prosecutor cross-examining Guyger spent a decent amount of time focusing on the training the former officer had in de-escalation. In my estimation, this appeared to be a topic Guyger did not feel too drawn to from her time in the academy. The point the prosecutor attempted to get across was that Guyger should have taken the time to figure out why a strange man could have been in her apartment in the first place. There was mention of repairs that were taking place around the general time of year the incident occurred. Even the door being ajar or noticing distinctions within the unit that did not coincide with Guyger's abode all serve as inquiries that might have come up in a de-escalation situation compared to what actually took place. This bit on de-escalation and the police is not solely lost on Guyger alone--it is a point I made previously in Protect and Serve--in calling to question exactly what role guns ultimately need to play in diffusing a tense situation. In the instances of Philando Castile or even Trayvon Martin, the stench of the true culprit is loud: fear. Particularly, the authority to respond to fear using lethal--and unnecessary--force. And yet instead of having this conversation, as a whole we get wrapped up in a question of if the assailant's primary motive was born out of racism. Here's what 'you' sound like when questioning Guyger, Zimmerman, or Daniel Pantaleo's penchant for racism; the same people that rush to point out that the perpetrators of mass shootings are mentally ill. That is, 'you' are assisting in pigeon-holing progressive dialogue by individualizing an epidemic. One mass shooting is not about the gunman, the same way Botham Jean's death is not about Guyger. The question of the latter should be: what is it about police and the concessions they are afforded that loans itself to the justification of numerous, uncalled for homicides of people of color? Again, it is that these humans--who may or may not be afflicted with possessing subconscious biases against people of color--have the authority to respond to these often times irrational-in-the-moment fears by shooting first instead of de-escalating first. And as I asked in Protect and Serve related to the profession of a police officer and mentioned regarding society overall in So It Goes: A Weak and Stupid Country, if we keep proving time and time again that we cannot responsibly handle guns then why do we have them? I ask again, of police officers specifically, if there are officers within the ranks and there is no ability to spot these people in the vetting process then is it truly asinine to begin to question the role guns play in de-escalation strategies? Might the de-escalation training have greater impact and effectiveness if officers did not have the authority to utilize lethal and excessive tools that seem more geared towards killing than it does calming tense situations? When 'you' are ready to have the real conversation, come see me--I've been waiting.
Why is the sky blue? Why is the ocean salty? How does a bird fly?
These are questions every young kid should have. This curiosity hopefully is encouraged, particularly in the internet age. As one matures, curiosity should continue as well especially once introduced to critical thinking. While not all information is available, research begins from just asking a question and can typically snowball from there. When I first heard about Brooklyn rapper, Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter, partnering with the NFL my first question was 'why'? Why was Jay-Z interested in working with the NFL and why was the NFL interested in working with Jay-Z? I had these questions coming off what seemed like support for the embattled former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick --the player at the center of the anthem protests in the NFL. Also very aware of Jay-Z and how the artist has carried himself, especially pertaining to social justice issues, this partnership appeared to be off-brand to say the least. Those questions I had led to research that I sought to answer in Moral Victories Is For Minor League Coaches. Many within the culture ecosystem have chimed in with opinions on the matter on social media and through various platforms; some critical like myself --and the writers I attributed in my article-- others in defense. Anyone that knows me can speak to my penchant for debate and especially given the time it took to craft an article I certainly looked forward to having a discussion on this topic. I'm a fan of the musical artist that is Jay-Z, I'd love nothing more than to have my opinion changed. But, even as of typing this post, I have yet to come across someone in defense of Jay-Z that seems informed. What I've heard is blind optimism and staying far away from a conversation that dares to even acknowledge the fairness in questioning the motives behind such a partnership. Every 'debate' ended the same way: me answering a question of theirs that in their eyes seem to absolve the rapper of any wrongdoing in inking the deal, me asking questions I had and researched and then radio silence --soon followed by "let's wait and see". A few people immediately came to mind when mulling over similar cases where we as a culture and a society may have also taken this approach: Bill Cosby, R. Kelly and Donald Trump. All feature varying levels of consequence for our naiveté but have allowed each man to continue business as usual despite the presence of damning evidence. Let's start with America's Dad: Jay-Z is a decorated artist, where a number of fans can relate to the 'Hard Knock Life' as well but few have ever amassed the influence of Bill Cosby. To gain the title of America's dad, as a man of color, is a legendary feat and the nation shared in being unable to come to terms with the accusations against the actor and comedian. This is someone that has done wonders for America as a whole, not just the African-American community, holding many honorary degrees as a show of deference and homage. Then we saw the domino effect happen after one brave soul went against the grain, against the hypnotic spell Cosby had on the country. To venture a little closer to home, we learned about another blind spot we had for singer/songwriter R.Kelly. Ironically, Kelly and Jay-Z have history --working together on 2002's The Best of Both Worlds. Caught in the middle of this pair was --Roc-A-Fella Records co-founder Damon Dash-- who was acutely aware of Kelly's budding reputation through Dash's romantic relationship with, now deceased, singer Aaliyah. Kelly's annulled marriage to Aaliyah served as the beginning of Lifetime's documentary Surviving R. Kelly. The six-episode exposé did provide new information on allegations of sexual misconduct and manipulation of young women by the I Believe I Can Fly singer. Yet, a majority of the series was dedicated to pointing out just how shielded Kelly was from being held accountable even after his six year trial from 2002 to 2008 brought his accusations to light. After Kelly's acquittal and welcome back into good graces, it would take nearly ten years for true accountability to land at the his doorstep. This issue would play out on the national stage as then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump tested the lines of inappropriate behavior throughout his campaign. A 2005 recording between the real estate magnate and a former Access Hollywood host unearthed the vulgar phrase "grab 'em by the p***y". In a previous era where decorum was appreciated, this would have been the death knell for a Presidential hopeful's chances at taking up residence at the White House. It appears Trump knew this all along and the public was late to the party with this decree nine months before the release of the recording:
.
All four of these men have two things in common: they have massive levels of influence and they are human. Despite the former, we should never forget the latter. We should never forget these people are prone to mistakes. Criticism does not strip away their magic or take away from their strengths, accomplishments or accolades. It reinforces they are human. Society could use a crash course on what it is to hold someone with fame accountable. We appear to have a tendency to skip to ring the Cancel Culture bell --naturally --prompting fans to be defensive of their favorite rapper, actor, singer or politician. But what are the consequences of enabling someone? And is it possible we can take our fandom too far by withholding criticism and accountability? Jay-Z's deal with the NFL will not result in the same level of terror we've seen from the aforementioned celebrities. But the unconditional attachment shown to Carter proves we have not learned any lessons from the dangers of putting our idols on pedestals.
I've been told my favorite term is microcosm.
I appreciate its versatility. Many prevalent issues in sports have mirror examples, if not its source, coming from the greater society outside the field of play. Perhaps the best example is the player empowerment saga happening in the NBA and response to it from the team's governors. Politics -- or better yet, the two-party system -- is also a microcosm. I think the two microcosms -- sports and politics -- are more alike than they are different. In fact, I've always found the criticism of sports ironic when the same critiques of sports fandom seem to also be the case in how people identify politically. Interestingly enough the word fan, short for fanatic, is defined as "a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause." Examples are plentiful of sports fans in various capacities acting foolishly yet one can argue this happens in the world of politics as well. How so? In Origins, Marc Horger thoroughly breaks down America's "love affair" with the two-party system. Particularly Horger's identification of James Madison's Federalist Paper 10 greatly warns of how factions ultimately crumble popular governments. Remember that "excessive and single-minded zeal" from the fanatic definition? Here's Madison's take on factions from Federalist Paper 10: "A zeal for different opinions concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good." For all the zeal in sports, fans have shown the ability to co-operate for the common good, this being one memory that sticks out: Yet on the other hand politics, even when it hasn't made sense, has stuck firmly to this two-party rule. Horger recounts the 1924 and 1928 Democratic National Conventions and the in-fighting the party endured being the home of the racial segregated South as well as the nation's big cities. In addition, there included five candidates -- three being former Presidents -- that ran as third party candidates in breaking off from their previous affiliations one would surmise due to philosophical issues. The sixth, and most popular, candidate to do this was recently deceased H. Ross Perot. As Horger's article was published before the 2016 election we would see another third party candidate rise to prominence in Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. As the characteristics of the Democratic and Republican parties have changed often, as Horger highlights, there hasn't been a quest to veer from the two-party system. Instead parties simply found new 'shticks'. Yet even if a candidate like Bill Clinton, as David Abraham -- from the previous linked article -- suggests, isn't "that kind of Democrat" voters still tend to side with their party of choice. While other candidates exist outside of the two parties -- ones that might align ideologically -- but your team is your team right? This has felt especially relevant in the last election cycle and certainly set to rear its head in 2020. Bernie Sanders wasn't deemed popular enough to defeat eventual President Donald Trump leading the Democrats to give the nomination to Hillary. Yet voting for Bernie Sanders felt frowned upon as the sole objective seemed to be 'Beat Trump at all costs'. Fast forward to the upcoming election and it feels as if most Democrat nominee candidates have adopted similar stances from Sanders' 2016 run. History looks primed to repeat itself, with Bernie running again among a sea of new contenders. Sports fans are viewed -- while sometimes dysfunctional -- a key to the cog that is a team and its connection to its community. This type of relationship is one voters should aim for in being part of the political process compared to simply being along for the ride. "Identity, not ideology, held them together" as Horger explained about people's political party should be something we use to describe sports fans not the group in charge of selecting our country's President.
While the title of this post's origins speak to a citizen's relationship with the government, nothing could spell out the importance of representation more.
We've used representation, and the idea that one---or a group---speaks on behalf of a whole, as the backbone of our own government. City councilmen represent various wards in their municipality. Mayors represent the entire city. Governors represent the state. Congressmen also represent the states they hail from but on the legislative level. A president represents the country. Everything seems to come back to representation. It is then not surprising to see the backlash over Halle Bailey being cast in the new, live-action version of Disney's The Little Mermaid. What those up in arms fail to recognize is by participating in the Twitter hashtag #NotMyAriel, the case for why representation is important is solidified. Look at other entities of note that share Ariel's 'known' race/ethnicity: Jesus Christ, Santa Claus, Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, Peter Pan, Frodo Baggins...the list goes on. Nevertheless, I appreciate coming up in an age that showcased figures in the media that resembled myself. Albeit fictional, the stories and portrayal of Black families as normal I'm sure did more to help the Black cause than it did to harm. From animated series such as The Proud Family and Static Shock to sitcoms such as A Different World and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, it wasn't simply the representation but the content itself that was so powerful. For instance, who could forget this iconic clip from the Fresh Prince: These shows were influential beyond measure and related, specifically, to an audience that Sleeping Beauty nor Malcolm In The Middle could ever dream to reach. For a population so forgotten and downtrodden, it meant the world to see representation not only in skin color but in lived experiences. The power was to see that American 'normalcy' was indeed attainable, that the nuclear family model was also a story that could be told of a Black family. Privilege is kin to perspective, and when you have a privilege---particularly one you did not work towards earning---it is nearly impossible to understand how something seemingly so minuscule like Ariel from The Little Mermaid looking like you could be a groundbreaking concept to someone else. This too explains Barack Obama and why there existed, and still does, a fervor of support for him. As his policies and effectiveness during his eight-year tenure as President are certainly up for critique; he is a proxy in the realm of representation that even he, himself, has no control over. This extends to the four Congresswomen of color affectionately referred to as 'The Squad' that has met the ire of the sitting President. It is imperative that these women represent the experience they do outside of any ties to the political affiliation they belong to. As trailblazers in the way they have gone about the platform afforded to them they are one in this collective, amplifying voices that have been stifled for far too long. It is because of this that I will go see the new Lion King film that has Donald Glover and Beyonce headlining its cast. I will see Lion King---and The Little Mermaid---the same way I, and others, flocked to Black Panther. The same way I have supported Jordan Peele's films. Its acknowledgement of the power of representation. And as a heterogeneous nation comprised of many cultures and ethnicities the truly American action is to champion this newfound accessibility to representation. I would hope this trend continues and extends especially to the Native American and First Nations population. Every culture deserves to see itself portrayed. Not because this casting of Bailey will inspire young Black girls to try to become mermaids but because it actually reinforces that inclusion is a tangible action and not just a buzzword that feels like the right thing to say.
Society operates on a rather simple premise: I won't harm you if you don't harm me. Since we moved away from the 'I'm bigger and stronger than you and therefore I can take everything I want from you with no repercussions' worldview, we have collectively decided to be governed by ethics and an agreed upon framing of what should be. From this foundation we get laws. We get morality. We have a contract. An agreed upon existence. As a contributing member of the collective society you are agreeing to adhere to these laws and code of morals. Agreeing to this premise of not interfering with someone else's world. We have even created a career path for people we have entrusted to ensure we maintain this credo:
Police officers. As a police officer you are held to a higher standard as the practitioner of what is right and what is just. Are you expected to be perfect? No, of course not, you're a human being. But at a minimum, you are expected to care about the community you serve beyond this being a job. Especially considering that the work being done is often times a thankless task and you know the whole potential of losing your life in the line of duty bit. On that note consider this: we ask police officers to diffuse tense, sometimes dangerous situations. The skill in which we seek is more artistic, more of a people person; a person that can soothe and reason with someone. Besides the authority we prescribe to the position (cough what some people say about the Presidency cough), what proves your effectiveness is your impact. This is felt not given. It can also be assumed that--as civilians would be as well--police officers are just as afraid and fearful of their safety entering into some of these dangerous situations. Despite being equipped with bulletproof vests, a baton stick and/or taser, handcuffs and--what is the true game-changer--a gun; this is not enough to guarantee excessive force is not used in the diffusing of tension. While it may appear like a lot to ask for police officers to enter these unknowns 'completely blind', no one stated this was an easy job or responsibility. When a police officer is called to a scene it is never to serve as a hitman. It is never to serve as an assassin. It is to diffuse. When a police officer pulls a car over it is in the name of safety. Someone is driving too fast, or too recklessly and poses a danger to the rest of society in that moment in time. The police officer's job in this instance is to stop this person's action and reinforce safety. This is done by pulling the vehicle over, observing the person's current status and either issuing a citation or letting them off with a warning. Even in a hypothetical where a person is less cooperative and maybe has a weapon threatening the lives of innocent bystanders, a police officer's duty here is to calm and diffuse. If the weapon wielder is not listening to commands to cease their behavior that person is to be removed from the situation. Not have their life taken from them but have the weapon separated from the person. Apprehend the person and take them to a place away from society where they can await an opportunity to be dealt a consequence for the social contract they breached. A police officer is not judge, jury or executioner. A police officer is the middle man. Bringing the person alive to a court of their peers to answer to the disturbance that person initiated. The end. This is all common sense. Enough is enough. If there are no measures for police to answer to the 'fear' that causes them to shoot first and ask questions later than I simply ask this: why have guns? If we cannot identify the subconscious blind spots where an officer sees a person and becomes more inclined to shoot and kill out of fear, then we should proactively take the ability to end a life with the pulling of a trigger from that authority figure. Is that how you would describe what happened here? Or how about here? So in the case of a Starbucks barista asking a group of police officers in Tempe, AZ to either leave the premises or relocate away from a customer, maybe the customer is not wrong for being fearful. We are asked to understand when police officers armed with the ability to shoot without punishment are afraid. Given the current temperature, that first video being in Tempe, that Starbucks customer has every right to feel threatened. I'd say when a group of people reports being afraid of the force that is supposed to keep them safe, we may have a broken system on our hands. I know nothing of the type of city that Tempe is. But with the relationship many people in our most vulnerable cities feel about police, something needs to be fixed. It is interesting that the ones most at risk of being victims of crime seem to be the people who need the police most. Yet these are also the people that seem most distrustful of police. These incidents aren't even the biggest issue we have with guns. I haven't mentioned Parkland or Sandy Hook or Vegas yet. I haven't mentioned Charleston yet. In a country seemingly obsessed with guns, there is a lengthy discussion to be had in changing our association with these weapons of mass destruction. I do not have an answer for ridding America of mass shootings. However, a starting place is our police force. Instead of viewing this as a move that makes police officers susceptible to violence perpetrated against them, view this as a sense of calm to the people these officers serve. Think of this as a pledge to, I don't know, protect them. A soothing voice to say 'I want to help make sure you and everyone around you is safe' compared to the 'scared and react' voice likely heard as a police officer has just fired numerous bullets into someone who ultimately posed no danger at all. As Independence Day has just passed, we often hear people proudly boast about America. I'd also make a correlation that these same people feel a comfort and pride in its institutions. That a segment of the population does not feel that, and openly clamors for it, should be telling. With the comical history that is the great gun debate, making a small concession to restore faith in the Blue Lives that matter so much seems like the social contract we really should be agreeing to.
There lies a long list of trends happening in society that truly encompasses "comme ci, comme ca". I studied French in high school and for some unbeknownst reason it was my favorite phrase. Not that it didn't have an English translation (so-so, for those too lazy to Google) but it gave 'so-so' some spice and pizzazz, which yes!
From that long list will come posts on those topics because like this first one, it truly requires a deep dive on the subject. As you may have noticed from the title, this is Part 1. Part 2 will actually be the sports version of this exact piece on another platform that I'll be writing on. Stay tuned for that. The accountability to which I speak of comes from one of the hot, new phrases to have joined the lexicon in quite some time: cancel culture. Yes, cancel culture is the illusion. To get to that we need to first define very specifically what cancel culture is and when it comes up. As best as I can label it, cancel culture describes a phenomenon where the consumers of a product, brand or entertainment entity seek to hold said product or entertainer accountable for conduct detrimental to society. Maybe this is best explained by real life examples: Bill Cosby being cancelled for allegations of aggravated indecent assault , Gucci receiving backlash for its Sambo sweater and H&M being called out for it's very tone deaf hoodie. The illusion comes in the actual cancelling of these people/brands. In instances where we do see 'cancellation' (Cosby or R.Kelly) it takes everyone being on board. Yet it appears when a call is made for people--especially of color--to band together and withhold support due to a problematic incident; that 'boycott' either falls on deaf ears or people openly chime in on that not being a good idea. Gucci--and to a lesser extent H&M--can avoid a full boycott due to influence. Influence--as I defined in my car on the way to go grocery shopping this morning--is a mixture of content and reputation. Gucci is a fashion line that creates clothes, handbags, accessories, etc. That's the content. Not all Gucci branded items are appealing to the eye but their reputation is such that someone would (and has) chalked up $1590 for those shoes in the last link. This is how you get Floyd being an idiot about refusing to boycott Gucci but its also how you get people on the other end that may speak to their disgust in the moment and but be 'back on the train' when the artist, brand or company releases something new. Now don't get me wrong. Not everything is boycott or cancellation worthy. Very few offenses are actually. Let's take Chris Brown as an example. While an egregious action, the outcry should have been demands for the 19 year old singer to enter therapy. Instead of treating this kid as a monster; some calm in the face of chaos could have been a suggestion for Brown to realize this act continued the cycle of the same sickness he was witness to as a child. What occurs instead is: Chris Brown fans attempting to diminish the incident and in turn barely holding him accountable at all whereas the other side of the fence preaches for all out excommunciation. What is lost is the handling of the moment where this can be a teachable moment for Brown. With this public reaction to a vulnerable scenario, potentially Brown is afforded the ability to be open about the incident, his past and hopefully a sincere vow to learn from the mistake. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20 and there is no certainty that my hypothesis would have yielded the results I painted. The point still stands that instead of pouring water on an oil fire, that we don't rush to vilify. Chris Brown is human. The people at Gucci and H&M are as well, and while they may all deserve to hear of the disappointment they caused people do mess up and this should be a thing the world understands. With that said, accountability is also important particularly in the era of social media. Now that consumers have a direct line via Twitter and Instagram consequences are swift and fierce; forcing these companies and brands to act. This in action looks like Pepsi's response to the backlash they faced from the Kendall Jenner commercial. Is it a perfect apology? No. But I'm sure what came out of it was an understanding that there maybe ought to be a few more brown people deciding what winds up on the cutting room floor. The blame finger also needs to be pointed at us (in society) for all of this. We actively search for it. Take the case of Twitter user @CraigNoFridayy. Also present in the age of social media is going viral. The man in the video above, CraigNoFridayy, said in a reply about his own cancellation, "I am just a normal person who went to work yesterday, I had no idea that today I would wake up with all this attention". How could such a hero be cancelled? Easy. Man becomes the face of handling racism in the workplace and before his key to the city is done being copied at Home Depot ,someone goes out their way to find old dirt. This particularly bothers me because--as I'll argue more in Part 2 of this piece--here is a moment where someone is lauded for one, standalone event. Nothing about that video suggested Craig is a proxy for any other sense of good in the world. He is not suddenly a hero that has done no wrong. Appreciate the man for this moment and the funny memes that accompany it. Why does his tweets from nearly 2 years prior to the incident require digging up? This unfortunately gives slight credence to DogAvi Twitter's claim of "everyone wants to be offended at every turn". While I disagree with it in the dogwhistle sense of "I (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) get to say what is offensive and what is not because this is my country" it's hard to argue against when you're going into a search bar in Twitter looking for trouble. Ultimately, let's not make cancel culture the new boy-who-cried-wolf. Holding celebs and companies accountable for their output is a great tool to reshape 'outdated maps' (worldviews and ways of thinking) and when done correctly there should be next steps for progress identified. When done haphazardly, these same entertainers and brands are able to call out the fickleness of your cancellation, moving on to the next act knowing their influence is too strong for you to truly abandon them. |
Details
Ty FosterQuestion everything. WQHC Archives
June 2020
Categories |