Writer's block tried to take your boy out.
Leave it to an article that elicits a reaction out of you to get the creative juices flowing. But before I get into the story in question, a little background is necessary. I studied Sociology in college and to say I love the field would be an understatement. It's the lens through which my worldview is comprised of. Matching my curiosity with this worldview leads to questions. And questions being answered gets you a Par 4 post. The 'accelerant': https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals My initial reaction: A bit ambivalent. Wanting to find the net positive yet overwhelmingly skeptical of the research into this in the first place. The questions my Sociology-based brain conjures up: So even if there were to be a gene or even identifiable genes for 'same-sex behavior' then what? Simply, what would the study of sexual orientation and its "root" be useful for? What good would this information do? Society has seemed to always have an issue with homosexuality. The 21st century, by and large, has introduced T,Q, I, A to the ring to perform this same fight scene the previous letters acted out over the course of time. Knowing what I know of humans, research into sexual orientation is not born from the same cradle as pathology. The questions raised in response to this study on 'same sex behavior' is valid because society's relationship with the LGBTQ community cannot be ignored in the why of the study. It is certainly plausible that a motive could be the idea that homosexuality is a disease and research here does fall into pathology. Or at least that's how my brain processed the piece. It read as a reach, with the findings feeling rather statistically insignificant despite the "large" sample size. Due to the question posed inquiring about a singular incident of 'same sex behavior', the parallel could only be made to someone having a penchant for new experiences. Even the connection to male baldness and an unique olfactory system appeared to be a case of correlation not implying causation. While the author was very forthright about the lack of substance with the study--pointing out its flaws and arthritic grip--the question of why this research even exists still lingered. Insert CRISPR. CRISPR represents both the best and worst of society, as the video accurately illustrates. One on hand, yes, society should explore any path that may lead to a cure for cancer or HIV. The genetic modification of food and animals have also been major benefits as bananas are a top five fruit (this is not up for debate) and dogs are "man's best friend". One of the first major feats of genetic engineering was the creation of insulin as medication for diabetics. Genetic modification has not only saved lives, it has also created them--providing hope and a family for those battling infertility. Whereas this process has previously been expensive and time-consuming, CRISPR is a frugal, faster and more accessible engineering tool. It would be asinine to picture the possibilities of CRISPR without mentioning human tendency to take a mile after being given an inch. A realistic conversation about CRISPR and who would have access to this privilege tells you all you need to know. If a family could remove the hypothetical 'DNA code for cancer' in their soon to be born child, why would they stop there? If this is truly Build-A-Kid, surely any rational family would opt for all the fixings. So where is the line? While CRISPR is snipping away at all these undesirable traits and characteristics, we can't be foolish enough to think 'same sex behaviors' isn't on that list. Right now, in August 2019, conversion therapy is "only banned for minors in 18 states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C., while adults can legally be offered the service in all states and jurisdictions." I receive flak for my somewhat reluctance to dive headfirst into the inevitable Technological Revolution. I would say it's more from understanding human greed than it is Orwell's classic 1984. While science is a beautiful, amazing entity we mustn't forget the individuals behind it can oftentimes interject the wrong letters into what is a seamless, natural code. To learn more about CRISPR, visit: https://www.npr.org/tags/419142387/crispr
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.
Discourse in this country doesn't seem to work very well. So what better way to start than with a few laughs and a sobering truth. Also anyway I can continue to prove that (good) comedians are some of the smartest people we have in society is a win in my book.
To set the stage, here's Jim Jefferies: Patriotism is defined as "love for or devotion to one's country". The President campaigned using the mantra, Make America Great Again. This phrasing -- regardless of how it falls apart once dissected -- is something that should appeal to all Americans. Everyone, across the globe, wants their country to be 'great'. In The Real Fanatic, I made a comparison between sports fans and Democrats/Republicans. In spite of differences in political affiliation, everyone should be a 'fan' -- in theory -- of their country. Part of being a fan is accepting when your team, your country in this instance, simply isn't a playoff caliber team. Such criticism is understood as love and affection when it's done in relation to a sports franchise but isn't viewed this way when applied to something that truly matters in the grand scheme -- i.e. the state of your country? "In the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who "kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location" (Krouse and Richardson, 2015)." Adding El Paso to World Atlas' list of The Deadliest Mass Shootings in History, America now accounts for 10 of the top 25 deadliest mass shootings of all-time. Of the 12 deadliest shootings on American soil, six have occurred in the past four years: San Bernardino (2015), Pulse (2016), Sutherland Springs (2017), Vegas (2017), Parkland (2018) and now El Paso. The incident Jim Jefferies refers to in Bare is the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania. Australia's response to this incident has resulted in only one mass murder since its automatic and semi-automatic gun ban. While Australia and America are not perfect 'apples to apples' comparisons of each other, the point is clear: make a firm, decisive decision and results will show. In Protect and Serve I linked to NPR's Gun Show episode. The WYNC production chronicled how the NRA, which began as an organization seeking to train draft-eligible Americans in marksmanship, turned into the 'don't-take-our-guns', lobbying and campaign-funding entity we know today. Yet the irony is that what remains true to this day is the initial need Huey Newton and Bobby Seale saw to carry guns in their neighborhoods in the first place: policing the police. Whether it is a police officer, a mass murderer or simply one person committing a homicide; what is abundantly clear is that too many bad apples have spoiled the bunch as it relates to trusting Americans to own guns responsibly. America's response to Sandy Hook should have been the same as Australia's response to Tasmania. Of the 27 deaths, 20 were six or seven-year-old first-graders who would have been starting the eighth grade this upcoming September. While smaller scale measures were enacted post-Sandy Hook, as a nation there should have been a stronger response. This could have done after Parkland as well, yet the changes we attempt to make are simply putting Band-Aids over gaping wounds. Rather it appears as if we are waiting for the next tragedy to happen on our doorstep to speak up about enacting change. In the meantime, we'll keep justifying the need for guns in our society and the dangerous 'us vs them' rhetoric spewed by Trump and his followers. We'll keep shouting Make America Great Again although Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Parkland and now El Paso all occurred during this president's tenure. As a fan of a quite dysfunctional sports team, let me help you out: America is pitiful. It is a country that lauds its freedoms, democracy and top-tier status but blatantly ignore what it has become today. Better yet, here is someone who can deliver that point a lot better than I can:
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.
I assume every black person has heard about 40 acres and a mule. Doing research for this post, I actually learned details but the gist was always known: The idea of what is owed to us to make amends for slavery, Jim Crow and like-policies/laws both overt and subtle.
I'm on the fence about reparations to be honest. The sociologist in me hates the idea that reparations has become weaponized. It's cool and in, the new fad. Yet the conversation exists solely on the surface with people discussing the basis of reparations without going into particulars. The pro-crowd needs to be well versed on the subject. Know what you are asking for. Know what your value is. My side of the argument, or really just my hesitancy on the topic, stems from history. Being aware of America and how this country plays ball, the idea that anything being given to anyone on the 'bottom of the totem pole' doesn't ever actually work out. Some see green pastures ahead, I see it as par for the course. For the uninitiated, 40 acres and a mule speaks to a post-slavery 'Special Order' that sought to provide the formerly enslaved a piece of the land they toiled on. Everything appeared all set with this measure until President Lincoln's successor reversed the order giving the lands back to the slave owners. No, I don't think all would've been fixed from Special Order #15 but here you have a specific initiative with the idea that this 'good' goes to former slaves. The same can be said in the present conversation about reparations: who is to say a future President doesn't try to reverse whatever reparation is decided upon, as surely this wouldn't be executed for quite some time even if HR-40 continues on. My second warning is the phrase: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Although far from reparations (in fact still very much the act of oppression) the entire story of Native American reservations give me pause in this idea that the government will give away land and suddenly we have this fantasy level of autonomy and sovereignty. Maybe this is where my skepticism turns to cynicism but I see more Native American reservation (or really any inner city you want to select in America) than I see this real life version of Wakanda. Nevertheless, these are my initial thoughts. My pleas to handle this topic in a delicate fashion. Michael Render (professionally known as Killer Mike), creator of Netflix's Trigger Warning, had this to say: Mike drops way too many gems throughout that entire interview and I encourage you to check out the entire 26 minutes when you have the time. But in the section I used, Mike expresses the same--much better worded--caution that I share. If reparations is something tangible like the $2 million example Mike gave, what happens then? Does this $2 million reparation turn into the 'We gave you a Black president' line? Injustices will not disappear with the giving of land or the giving of money. $2 million is not the cost of Trayvon Martin or Sandra Bland. $2 million does not take back what happened to Kalief Browder or better yet the Central Park Five. I don't draw those lines of comparison to equate reparations with payment for those heinous acts but simply to introduce this into the discussion overall. Gentrification proves society doesn't have a problem with throwing money into the revitalization of cities. As such, shouldn't your push and pursuit of reparations be centered around atoning for the fear/hate that isn't so visible? If money can be burned through as Mike alluded to in the clip, and simply having the land doesn't say anything else about the state of the people on it, then shouldn't we be appealing to amending the real element of all of this that truly threatens our safety and progress: the minds of those with the power to maintain the status quo? At the Sunday meeting Mike mentioned, that would certainly be receiving my vote. I have a running joke with most with myself (because I was raised an only child) about the IHOP senior citizen discount. Basically when you hit 55--or one of those ages--you get a discount on your meal apparently. I don't know if this is actually a thing but I saw it at an IHOP one day and 'dreamt' (how is dreamt not a word red squiggly line?!) about having all the short stacks on my plate. What that's turned into is me looking forward to these birthdays and instead of frowning about the age counter going up, really looking forward to it.
I could get very specific about everything I've learned in the past year and I have those handy as I tend to get reflective on the year that's passed and what I want to focus on for the next year but I'll keep this light. I want to write more. I can recall those fights with my mom when dealing with anything about writing. Her grammatical corrections. I used to hate it and then I became the grammar/spelling police (still not perfect, hence my surprise over dreamt). I wrote in college. After a writing prompt my professor said I should write for the school newspaper. Took a while--confidence issues and doubt--but eventually I did it. Had athletes (I covered sports OF COURSE lol) compliment me saying they liked my articles. Had a former boss tell me about a connect she had at the Boston Globe. Ultimately, I didn't think writing--while I had confidence in it-- was something I wanted to do. Yet in spite of that thought I still kept up with the blog I had. Not as frequently as maybe I should've but that itch was always there. After doing a post inspired by Nipsey Hussle (RIP King) on said sports blog I felt that itch come back. My girlfriend has a spot for writing on her website and after reading her posts I wanted in again. After three posts and a sample post for my boy's podcast website here I am. But I needed this journey with writing. I needed to walk away. Chase this other dream for a while. Before realizing happiness was right here all along. My family is filled with artists. My uncle was an art teacher. My great-uncle has a record label. Every Mungin had that art bug. I hated that I couldn't draw and while it took 28 years I finally learned that my art was words. Nevermind that people have been saying this about me because of how talkative I am lmfao! Are things perfect? Abso-fucking-lutely not. But things are exactly as they need to be. And that's life honestly so I've learned with 28 years and a little over 3 hours on this Earth. I've learned not to be so hard on myself--we'll see how long that lasts--and to chase/do what fulfills you. Who fulfills you. Cherish family. Cherish moments. I thought about my great-grandmother affectionately known as Mama today. I miss her and her stories like CHiPs and As The World Turns. All I want is to make her proud. I suppose this is my art, my expression, my openness. After all, all you have to speak for you when you're gone is how you made people feel and the art you left behind. I'm very here for analogies. I'm shit at them in my mind. But other people? Amazing. Michelle Wu. You got my vote boo.
I am of the belief that the current political structure is BS. I think it's faker than professional wrestling. These two parties work together to create a monopoly, drawing the line splitting issues and topics and then watching them play out against one another in their very own Super Bowl. I find this backwards and stupid. In no other arena would you be wholly dependent on these two parties without questioning the structure of the party, the purpose of the party. Basically I think we act like baseball does about issues pertaining to the Democrats and Republicans and just chalk it up to one of the worse words in the English language: tradition. Now that you've gotten my two cents, here's Michelle Wu--an at-large Boston city councilor--giving her three cents. "Want to fix our broken democracy? Have a block party" Basically, Michelle says when people are thinking of these hot button issues like immigration or abortion they are acting alone and out of a lack of trust. This distrust comes from not being able to anticipate other people. And instead of viewing this simply in the macro sense it's actually very micro. You don't know your neighbors. From her op-ed in the Boston Globe, "Forty years ago, 1 out of 3 Americans spent time with their neighbors at least twice a week. Today 4 out of 5 people don't see their neighbors regularly, and one third don't interact with any neighbors at all." Now a certain someone already told you about social media and that's part of it for sure but the absence of block parties really does feel significant. I grew up with them in the Weequahic section. Looked forward to them as a kid to ride my bike down the street without having to look out for cars, to go in anyone's backyard for food, just seeing everyone on the block happy and festive. In fact, I'd honestly say that did a lot for the community in the Weequahic section. That helped everyone to get to know who their neighbors were and through that those people became part of your extended family. I'd also guess that this is where that phrase 'It takes a village to raise a child' might have come from. Not only did we have block parties (and go to neighboring streets block parties (I see you Pomona and Weequahic Ave) but the Weequahic section itself used to throw a festival down Bergen Street in the summer with music and food. That was my childhood and that's why I'm so fond of where I grew up despite well Newark being Newark. I wouldn't have been able to express it so eloquently, so effortlessly but this is the fix. People getting to know their neighbors. People getting to know the stories of the people they judge from afar on the nightly news. This puts a face to topics like immigration and abortions. Not so much that those are things you learn about your neighbors at block parties lol but maybe you think twice about those topics knowing people outside of your typical comfort zone. Politics aren't black and white (which speaking of analogies and phrases that one is the absolute worst). Yet that's exactly what the two party system wants you to think. They want to ask you a question and have you answer and that answer is where you fall on the matter. That answer dictates who you vote for. But the world is very much a shade--multiple in fact--of gray. It's nuanced and complex. Just like people are. And so maybe you aren't having attending a block party soon (you should) but maybe try striking up a conversation with your neighbor, it might help you feel attached to the place you live and feel happier about mankind in the process. Maybe. |
Details
Ty FosterQuestion everything. WQHC Archives
June 2020
Categories |