Wednesday, July 4, 2012
REFLECTIONS ON THE 4TH OF JULY
Once again America is taking its annual day of self-congratulatory celebration and I must admit, I am feeling disappointed, disrespected, and a tad bit bitter on behalf of my Ancestors and the way in which their American stories are ignored.
Listening to the media programs of the day, you would think that the experiences of Africans and their descendants in this country -- federal and state sponsored and supported kidnappings, enslavement, torture, rape, Black Codes, Jim Crow, and the modern day James Crow Esq. (still!!), etc. -- never happened.
The fact is that on this day, African Americans are left out of the popular American Narrative. We do not fit into America's description of itself as ". . . land of the free" where ". . . all men are created equal".
We do not fit.
Our very presence is a "gotcha!" to America's sense of itself as a fair country; a meritocracy; a land of opportunity where ANYONE can get ahead if they only work hard enough.
Our history here -- despite President Obama and the myth of a "post-racial" society -- proves the lie of that.
And this is not to say that there haven't been opportunities for success at all points in American history for African Americans. However, what success has been achieved -- and there is more than plenty on which to brag --has been more as a result of the drive, perseverance, resilience, and heart of African American individuals, families, and communities than as a result of any inherent fairness and equity of America. We have had to shed massive amounts of blood and have had to swallow generations of American race-based injustice to advance this far.
In other words, African Americans have succeeded DESPITE American obstacles of structural racism and white supremacy, and policies that -- for the majority of its history -- advantaged whites.
For example, white Americans have always received that extra support and bounce from federal and state public policies that -- despite being seen as "race neutral" (even when, in reading the policy, you can see that it is not) -- have served to advance the hopes, aspirations, and economic interests of whites.
From the Homestead Act of 1862 to the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932 to the Serviceman's Re-adjustment Act of 1944 (otherwise known as the GI Bill), this has been the case. When you look at the disparity in wealth between whites and African Americans, these public policies -- special gifts to generations of white Americans -- must be factored in.
The same can be said for "the new Jim Crow": the system of race-based drug prosecutions and incarcerations that has targeted and decimated African American families and communities. The Controlled Substances Act of the 1970s/80s -- the public policy responsible for the racialization of drug prosecution and sentencing, mandating that it takes 100 times the amount of cocaine (a drug used more often by whites) to generate the mandatory minimum sentencing time that users of crack cocaine (for which African Americans are more often convicted) receive. This year -- after millions of African American lives have been destroyed through incarcerations because of that policy -- the quantity disparity was reduced to 18:1 -- again, in favor of white usage.
Looking at the often dismal statistics of African Americans in all social indicators, including college completion, unemployment, and health, to name but a few, it is tempting -- as so many of our political candidates and others in society do -- to believe that there is something defective about African American culture, values, or intelligence. This lack of understanding about the continuing realities of African American experiences in a country where structural racism and implicit bias still reigns promotes this type of thinking.
On this "Independence Day" which celebrates American freedom, values, and culture, what
is so often left unspoken and ignored in the celebration is that only since 1965 has the government mandated that African Americans and (since 1967) women be afforded opportunities and access in employment, education, and contracting "equal" to those received by whites.
And for all the debates about whether President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 -- popularly known as "Affirmative Action" -- violates America's mythology of a meritocracy while advancing swarms of supposedly "unqualified" African Americans, one never hears complaints about white women being primary beneficiaries of this policy. (The argument about supposed "preferential treatment" only seems to surface when people of color, specifically African Americans, are the subjects.)
Sooooooooo . . .
On this day, I will continue to look past the propaganda of "American history" that is being promoted on radio and television programs. I realize that what is really being discussed is how America WANTS to see itself, not the reality of how America was and -- too often -- still is. I realize that the story of my Ancestors is whitewashed and relegated to the sidelines on this day, especially. The American narrative cannot fit certain American truths in the story and still keep its popular mythological framing.
But I will look forward to the time -- in this country that is becoming increasingly Black and Brown -- when the 4th of July incorporates, at its core, the lenses of African Americans and others whose journeys and experiences here were different, and who have always formed much more of the backbone of America than for which we are ever given credit.
Until then, "Independence Day" -- in this America which is still held firmly in the grip of "whiteness" as a central concept and central framing of its story -- is as much a fiction as the myths it celebrates. And it enslaves white America in ignorance through its incomplete framing just as much as it continues to ignore the stories and realities of all Americans who are not white.
Happy . . . if you are satisfied with that . . . 4th of July. . .
Moving Forward,
Adar
Monday, March 26, 2012
The Murder of Trayvon Martin: The Larger Issue at Stake
Like many across the country, I have been watching this case unfold with growing horror, sorrow, disgust – and a sense of familiarity, because we’ve seen this and similar scenarios play out many times before across the span of this country’s history.
And it is because of this situational familiarity that I find my feelings about this shooting compounded by the way in which this case is being prepared, packaged, and served to the general public by many in the media as an isolated tragedy instead of yet another in a long series of race-based profiling, stalking, and murder.
Once "mainstream" media finally found this story worth reporting (yes, it was in the public consciousness of Black media for more than a minute before breaking into the consciousness of “mainstream” media the way it finally has. . .), the question de jure seems to be some variation of "was this really about race or was it just a bad law?" And the self-admitted shooter, George Zimmerman, is increasingly being "packaged" as a person with "mental problems", thereby cutting off any discussion of how his racialization and stereotyping of a Black youth fueled and informed his stalking and shooting him. Just as importantly, this type of packaging serves to truncate needed discussion of the examination of the history and racial climate that supports those stereotypes and the continuing dehumanization of Black males in public consciousness.
Much has been made of the shooter’s ethnicity -- Latino -- without any acknowledgement that the racial spectrum within the Latino community ranges from those with white-skin privilege and those who are seen as of Afrikan descent. There is no acknowledgement that the experiences of Latinos without white-skin privilege often mirror those of African Americans in this society.
But with all of this historical perspective, there are still the questions and hand-wringing regarding the issue of whether race really, truly played a role in this stalking and shooting.
Can there really be any doubt of this, even after listening to the 911 recording of George Zimmerman's call? To me -- and I refuse to believe that I am the ONLY one who holds this opinion -- this George Zimmerman call confirmed that HE knew what role race plays in America; that he acted based on that racial difference; and that he acted on American assumptions and perceptions of that difference: i.e. the historical American stereotype of Black men as dangerous madmen that are always guilty of something and must be stopped at any cost.
Just weeks ago, we have seen this stereotype and others (. . . lazy, trifling, broke, etc., etc., etc.) being played out in the remarks made regarding African Americans by Republican presidential candidates, so it is no surprise that some of them have used this shooting as yet another flame-thrower to stoke the flames of white racial resentment against President Obama in particular and African Americans in general.
Newt Gingrich -- who prides himself on being a historian -- dared to say on a radio show about President Obama's statement of empathy to Trayvon's parents (regarding thinking about his own children when he thought about Trayvon):
“What the president said in a sense is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like.” He continued "Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background. Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?”
Another (former) presidential candidate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, agreed with him, saying ". . . the president should not have brought Martin’s race into the forefront and connected it to his own".
In other words, we must remain "colorblind" to the fact that -- according to the shooter’s 911 call, at least -- race was the very heartbeat of this.
For Gingrich and Bachmann to ignore the racialized nature of this shooting -- and to cynically and strategically accuse the president of race-baiting – without any significant public outcry is what helps support the continued climate for more Trayvon Martin-type cases.
As I see the protests across the nation and people -- including white progressives -- throwing on hoodies and holding signs that say "I am Trayvon Martin" I wonder why they are not protesting the larger issue of the racial -- the "anti-Black male" -- climate in which we live. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need to want to DO something "touchable" and immediate, like a rally. But really, focusing on this ONE tragedy removes it from the larger context that allows such tragedies to continue to happen: that of white privilege and structural and cultural racialization, exploitation, and bias.
The murder of Trayvon Martin is one of the many race-based tragedies involving Black men, who remain the boogeymen of America's racialized imagination. From Emmett Till to Medgar Evers to James Byrd Jr. to the hundreds and thousands of unknown, un-named Black men who have lost their lives to America's racial psychosis,” Negrophobia” (the fear of Black people), the Trayvon Martin tragedy reminds us how deep in the psychotic clutch of “Negrophobia” -- manifesting as "the assumption of guilt of Black men (for any and every reason)" -- America still remains.
And that presumption of guilt was in full display on message board and comment sections of the web when "mainstream" media first finally caught up to Black media's exploration of this case. Commenters suggested that Trayvon Martin himself was somehow responsible for his own death. They claimed that he should not have been wearing a hoodie, that he somehow was "aggressive" toward the shooter, that his very presence as a Black youth was enough to warrant a death sentence as it was his responsibility to let the shooter know that he was not a threat. Moving along this train of thought, commenters had no hesitation in stating that, in not adequately letting the shooter know that he was not a threat, he left the shooter with no alternative but to "protect" himself against the deadly combination of skittles, iced tea, a hoodie, and -- oh yeah -- a Black person who felt he had a right to walk the street "innocent until proven guilty".
A dear friend of mine always says that "learning is a journey, not a destination" but after 400+ years you have to wonder whether white America has some kind of learning disorder when it comes to race.
When will there be a public outcry at our questions of WHETHER race played a role in this? At our willingness to de-contextualize these incidents from America’s history of race? To continue to look at them OUTSIDE of the context of America's DNA of structural racism?
Because every time we do that, we give tacit permission for it to happen again.
When there is no public indignation at the political battle cry of "take our country back" or the misrepresentation of remarks like those made by Gingrich and Bachmann; when there is no front-and-center acknowledgement by those -- and especially those who are white -- who participate in rallies and who proudly wear their hoodies in support of Trayvon Martin about how white privilege continues to operate in society; when there is no acknowledgment that had it been THEIR sons in Zimmerman's cross-sights we would not even be having this conversation; and when communities of color stand shoulder to shoulder with them without demanding these conversations, then we all collude in supporting the climate for this to happen again.
This issue is larger than the murder of Trayvon Martin; it is the continuing legacy of the 400 years of history that fueled it.
To just focus on this one murder, as tragic as it is, is a mistake that lets us off the hook of discussing the larger, harder issues of structural racism, American anti-Blackness, and the dehumanization of Black people – and specifically Black men -- while making us feel as if we are doing something other than guaranteeing more of the same.
If we really want to do something for Trayvon, let's do more than throwing on a hoodie. Let's face the racial realities of this country, and the danger it creates for African American men and those of us who love them.
Because the truth of the matter is that we are NOT all Trayvon Martin, no matter how big the hoodie. Race trumps dress. To pretend any differently -- especially in the name of solidarity -- promotes the false concepts of colorblindness in the ways in which we are "differently placed" in society based on race. It ignores the prime position that the privilege of white skin still holds in America.
And we owe Trayvon -- and all our sons and daughters -- the opportunities that they will gain in life if we face that reality. And we owe society -- who would benefit from their talents, skills, intelligence, numbers, earning potential, and cultural richness -- the opportunity to have that.
Speaking of “reality”: the reality of this situation is that if we had honestly done this sooner instead of fostering and legitimizing an atmosphere of “colorblindness” and the denial of continuing structural racism and anti-Blackness, Trayvon Martin and other young Black men like him, might be alive today.
Moving forward,
Adar
And it is because of this situational familiarity that I find my feelings about this shooting compounded by the way in which this case is being prepared, packaged, and served to the general public by many in the media as an isolated tragedy instead of yet another in a long series of race-based profiling, stalking, and murder.
Once "mainstream" media finally found this story worth reporting (yes, it was in the public consciousness of Black media for more than a minute before breaking into the consciousness of “mainstream” media the way it finally has. . .), the question de jure seems to be some variation of "was this really about race or was it just a bad law?" And the self-admitted shooter, George Zimmerman, is increasingly being "packaged" as a person with "mental problems", thereby cutting off any discussion of how his racialization and stereotyping of a Black youth fueled and informed his stalking and shooting him. Just as importantly, this type of packaging serves to truncate needed discussion of the examination of the history and racial climate that supports those stereotypes and the continuing dehumanization of Black males in public consciousness.
Much has been made of the shooter’s ethnicity -- Latino -- without any acknowledgement that the racial spectrum within the Latino community ranges from those with white-skin privilege and those who are seen as of Afrikan descent. There is no acknowledgement that the experiences of Latinos without white-skin privilege often mirror those of African Americans in this society.
But with all of this historical perspective, there are still the questions and hand-wringing regarding the issue of whether race really, truly played a role in this stalking and shooting.
Can there really be any doubt of this, even after listening to the 911 recording of George Zimmerman's call? To me -- and I refuse to believe that I am the ONLY one who holds this opinion -- this George Zimmerman call confirmed that HE knew what role race plays in America; that he acted based on that racial difference; and that he acted on American assumptions and perceptions of that difference: i.e. the historical American stereotype of Black men as dangerous madmen that are always guilty of something and must be stopped at any cost.
Just weeks ago, we have seen this stereotype and others (. . . lazy, trifling, broke, etc., etc., etc.) being played out in the remarks made regarding African Americans by Republican presidential candidates, so it is no surprise that some of them have used this shooting as yet another flame-thrower to stoke the flames of white racial resentment against President Obama in particular and African Americans in general.
Newt Gingrich -- who prides himself on being a historian -- dared to say on a radio show about President Obama's statement of empathy to Trayvon's parents (regarding thinking about his own children when he thought about Trayvon):
“What the president said in a sense is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like.” He continued "Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background. Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?”
Another (former) presidential candidate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, agreed with him, saying ". . . the president should not have brought Martin’s race into the forefront and connected it to his own".
In other words, we must remain "colorblind" to the fact that -- according to the shooter’s 911 call, at least -- race was the very heartbeat of this.
For Gingrich and Bachmann to ignore the racialized nature of this shooting -- and to cynically and strategically accuse the president of race-baiting – without any significant public outcry is what helps support the continued climate for more Trayvon Martin-type cases.
As I see the protests across the nation and people -- including white progressives -- throwing on hoodies and holding signs that say "I am Trayvon Martin" I wonder why they are not protesting the larger issue of the racial -- the "anti-Black male" -- climate in which we live. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need to want to DO something "touchable" and immediate, like a rally. But really, focusing on this ONE tragedy removes it from the larger context that allows such tragedies to continue to happen: that of white privilege and structural and cultural racialization, exploitation, and bias.
The murder of Trayvon Martin is one of the many race-based tragedies involving Black men, who remain the boogeymen of America's racialized imagination. From Emmett Till to Medgar Evers to James Byrd Jr. to the hundreds and thousands of unknown, un-named Black men who have lost their lives to America's racial psychosis,” Negrophobia” (the fear of Black people), the Trayvon Martin tragedy reminds us how deep in the psychotic clutch of “Negrophobia” -- manifesting as "the assumption of guilt of Black men (for any and every reason)" -- America still remains.
And that presumption of guilt was in full display on message board and comment sections of the web when "mainstream" media first finally caught up to Black media's exploration of this case. Commenters suggested that Trayvon Martin himself was somehow responsible for his own death. They claimed that he should not have been wearing a hoodie, that he somehow was "aggressive" toward the shooter, that his very presence as a Black youth was enough to warrant a death sentence as it was his responsibility to let the shooter know that he was not a threat. Moving along this train of thought, commenters had no hesitation in stating that, in not adequately letting the shooter know that he was not a threat, he left the shooter with no alternative but to "protect" himself against the deadly combination of skittles, iced tea, a hoodie, and -- oh yeah -- a Black person who felt he had a right to walk the street "innocent until proven guilty".
A dear friend of mine always says that "learning is a journey, not a destination" but after 400+ years you have to wonder whether white America has some kind of learning disorder when it comes to race.
When will there be a public outcry at our questions of WHETHER race played a role in this? At our willingness to de-contextualize these incidents from America’s history of race? To continue to look at them OUTSIDE of the context of America's DNA of structural racism?
Because every time we do that, we give tacit permission for it to happen again.
When there is no public indignation at the political battle cry of "take our country back" or the misrepresentation of remarks like those made by Gingrich and Bachmann; when there is no front-and-center acknowledgement by those -- and especially those who are white -- who participate in rallies and who proudly wear their hoodies in support of Trayvon Martin about how white privilege continues to operate in society; when there is no acknowledgment that had it been THEIR sons in Zimmerman's cross-sights we would not even be having this conversation; and when communities of color stand shoulder to shoulder with them without demanding these conversations, then we all collude in supporting the climate for this to happen again.
This issue is larger than the murder of Trayvon Martin; it is the continuing legacy of the 400 years of history that fueled it.
To just focus on this one murder, as tragic as it is, is a mistake that lets us off the hook of discussing the larger, harder issues of structural racism, American anti-Blackness, and the dehumanization of Black people – and specifically Black men -- while making us feel as if we are doing something other than guaranteeing more of the same.
If we really want to do something for Trayvon, let's do more than throwing on a hoodie. Let's face the racial realities of this country, and the danger it creates for African American men and those of us who love them.
Because the truth of the matter is that we are NOT all Trayvon Martin, no matter how big the hoodie. Race trumps dress. To pretend any differently -- especially in the name of solidarity -- promotes the false concepts of colorblindness in the ways in which we are "differently placed" in society based on race. It ignores the prime position that the privilege of white skin still holds in America.
And we owe Trayvon -- and all our sons and daughters -- the opportunities that they will gain in life if we face that reality. And we owe society -- who would benefit from their talents, skills, intelligence, numbers, earning potential, and cultural richness -- the opportunity to have that.
Speaking of “reality”: the reality of this situation is that if we had honestly done this sooner instead of fostering and legitimizing an atmosphere of “colorblindness” and the denial of continuing structural racism and anti-Blackness, Trayvon Martin and other young Black men like him, might be alive today.
Moving forward,
Adar
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Presidential Campaign "Rite of Passage": The Flogging of Black America
Okay, first let me say that I am soooo not being "political" here. But I always have an eye on public policy and am mindful of the ways in which it shapes life's chances and choices, and it is in that spirit that I am writing this.
You'd have to be willfully and deliberately oblivious not to notice that the flogging of Black America is a time honored "rite of passage" for all presidential candidates -- Democrat and Republican. From the GOP strategist Lee Atwater –- whose playbook of intentional and strategic use of coded race-baiting is still being used by candidates today –- to President Barack Obama, who, on his way to a presidential win, famously lectured Black America to be better fathers and to “. . .stop praising yourselves for mediocre accomplishments. . .” (Apparently, it is okay for white America to continue praising themselves for mediocre accomplishments as he had no such comparable message for them on this subject. . .)
In the presidential campaign, the “flogging of Black America” is a rite of passage that cannot be skipped, and every candidate wants their –- as it is described in political terms and yes, this is a real political phrase -- “Sister Souljah* moment” in the sun.
So now we have the newest crop of GOP candidates, who seem to be vying for their “Sister Souljah moment” like it is the Holy Grail. They are sending signals as bright as high beam spotlights to America that they understand the prevailing social order, engaging in a public whole sale "beat down" of the African American community by reinforcing typical American stereotypes of them that have little to do with reality but everything to do with the stereotypes and fears that white America holds of them.
Below are just some of the quotes GOP candidates have made about 40 million Americans – African Americans -- that have been uncritically received by much of “mainstream” media and much of the general public:
Newt Gingrich in Iowa: "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”
Rick Santorum in Iowa: "I don’t want to make Black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to earn the money and provide for themselves and their families..."
Ron Paul in a December 1989 edition of his Investment Letter: that "racial violence will fill our cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves'." (NOTE: This is just one of many, many, many comments [older and more recent] that he and/or others in his name have made about African Americans.)
Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum in July 2011: Both signed a pledge claiming that African American children were more likely to grow up in stable families during slavery than in contemporary times.
So what does this sick rite of political passage – the “Sister Souljah moment” -- say about the role, place, and perspective accorded to and about African Americans in American consciousness?
For all the candidates’ campaign rhetoric about their visions of “freedom” and “liberty”, their characterizations of African Americans are more like the popular 19th and 20th Century stereotype of the lazy, ignorant, recalcitrant, child-like African/African American “slave” that continues to live in the American popular cultural narrative. Which makes me wonder whether their visions of “freedom” and “liberty” are –- like their speeches –- color-coded.
Should African Americans be comfortable with a president who has such mindsets about the African American community?
WOULD YOU be comfortable with a president with such mindsets about African Americans setting public policy?
From their statements, these candidates seem to believe that the “Sister Souljah moment” is still good political capital for capturing votes.
In November, we’ll see whether America agrees that that is true.
Moving Forward,
Adar
*A “Sister Souljah moment” happens when a candidate obviously and deliberately –- and often in a forum that is considered “Black” by white America–- repudiates the realities, issues, concerns, and agendas that are being put forth as having special impact on “Black America.” This is often done through racialized coding that is embedded within the surface remarks of that candidate. NOTE: Even the phrase “Sister Souljah moment” -- and the context in which it is used -- demeans, mangles, and denigrates the context in which her remarks were made as well as turns attention from the historical context from which she was speaking.
You'd have to be willfully and deliberately oblivious not to notice that the flogging of Black America is a time honored "rite of passage" for all presidential candidates -- Democrat and Republican. From the GOP strategist Lee Atwater –- whose playbook of intentional and strategic use of coded race-baiting is still being used by candidates today –- to President Barack Obama, who, on his way to a presidential win, famously lectured Black America to be better fathers and to “. . .stop praising yourselves for mediocre accomplishments. . .” (Apparently, it is okay for white America to continue praising themselves for mediocre accomplishments as he had no such comparable message for them on this subject. . .)
In the presidential campaign, the “flogging of Black America” is a rite of passage that cannot be skipped, and every candidate wants their –- as it is described in political terms and yes, this is a real political phrase -- “Sister Souljah* moment” in the sun.
So now we have the newest crop of GOP candidates, who seem to be vying for their “Sister Souljah moment” like it is the Holy Grail. They are sending signals as bright as high beam spotlights to America that they understand the prevailing social order, engaging in a public whole sale "beat down" of the African American community by reinforcing typical American stereotypes of them that have little to do with reality but everything to do with the stereotypes and fears that white America holds of them.
Below are just some of the quotes GOP candidates have made about 40 million Americans – African Americans -- that have been uncritically received by much of “mainstream” media and much of the general public:
Newt Gingrich in Iowa: "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”
Rick Santorum in Iowa: "I don’t want to make Black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to earn the money and provide for themselves and their families..."
Ron Paul in a December 1989 edition of his Investment Letter: that "racial violence will fill our cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves'." (NOTE: This is just one of many, many, many comments [older and more recent] that he and/or others in his name have made about African Americans.)
Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum in July 2011: Both signed a pledge claiming that African American children were more likely to grow up in stable families during slavery than in contemporary times.
So what does this sick rite of political passage – the “Sister Souljah moment” -- say about the role, place, and perspective accorded to and about African Americans in American consciousness?
For all the candidates’ campaign rhetoric about their visions of “freedom” and “liberty”, their characterizations of African Americans are more like the popular 19th and 20th Century stereotype of the lazy, ignorant, recalcitrant, child-like African/African American “slave” that continues to live in the American popular cultural narrative. Which makes me wonder whether their visions of “freedom” and “liberty” are –- like their speeches –- color-coded.
Should African Americans be comfortable with a president who has such mindsets about the African American community?
WOULD YOU be comfortable with a president with such mindsets about African Americans setting public policy?
From their statements, these candidates seem to believe that the “Sister Souljah moment” is still good political capital for capturing votes.
In November, we’ll see whether America agrees that that is true.
Moving Forward,
Adar
*A “Sister Souljah moment” happens when a candidate obviously and deliberately –- and often in a forum that is considered “Black” by white America–- repudiates the realities, issues, concerns, and agendas that are being put forth as having special impact on “Black America.” This is often done through racialized coding that is embedded within the surface remarks of that candidate. NOTE: Even the phrase “Sister Souljah moment” -- and the context in which it is used -- demeans, mangles, and denigrates the context in which her remarks were made as well as turns attention from the historical context from which she was speaking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)