Can we stop the perpetration of ghetto imagery
 

Good morning all:

I'd like to pose a discussion scenario.

In view of the imbroglio surrounding Ghettopoly and the continual degrading, insulting images of African Americans in the mainstream media, do you believe it is correct for an organization such as a graduate chapter of an NPHC group, which has a mission to serve and uplift people (IMO), to honor a recording artist whose art perpetrates the pimp/prostitute/"ghetto" aesthetic?

Do you feel that this creates an impression that we condone such behavior? Do you feel that it may create an environment where "others" feel free to do isht like Ghettopoly, "ghetto fab" parties and the like?

Discuss, please.

(Soror-Moderators, if you feel this is inappropriate for the forum, please delete this or combine it with an existing topic.)

Re: Can we stop the perpetration of ghetto imagery
 

Steeltrap,

I feel you on this (and props to you for the word-of-the day "imbroglio" :D )

I think you're on point regarding the NPHC honor. (and I don't know who did it so no flames, please). If we're going to set a new standard, who better --with the exception of the church -- to lead it than us, the supposed intellectual leaders of our community?

But it is a slippery slope. Because after we get done speechifying, we allow our kids to hear the music, and wear the saggy clothes, etc., and we call it their "self-expression." So really no one's hands are clean on this.

And yeah, I agree that when those in other communities see us honoring this type of expression, we look a tad foolish when we get on them for what they try to do.

Good points Tony!

I do not think it's appropriate, to be honest. While I applaud the ingenuity and savvy it took for entertainers to get to that 'next' level, I can't support it when I see that they present the worst images of our community to the masses.

I mean, on some level I think that we are way too sanctimonious about some of these issues- we think that NO one should EVER say ANYTHING bad about us but US while ignoring that the images they see are being sold by the wealthiest of us (Bob Johnson I am looking at you). But at the same time, I don't see that we should applaud the people who are exploiting our community heritage and values.

Re: Re: Can we stop the perpetration of ghetto imagery
 

Very thoughtful points, Tony. It does get into a slippery slope, particularly if those of us who are parents (I'm not one) can pontificate and turn around and let our kids continue to watch the booty videos, buy the baggy gear, etc.

Very interesting question Steeltrap!!!

I do have a problem with organizations that have sworn to uplift the race promoting such negative stereotypes of us. In the college atmosphere, I have witnessed several incidences of organizations hosting a seminar or panel discussion on the enlightenment or upliftment of the race while throwing a party that same night where only music promoting negative stereotypes is played. It comes across, to me, as speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

The solution to this problem is not going to come easily, for several reasons. For one, the negative stereotypes of our people are being promoted and sold to our people. Often in discussions of this topic, the biggest concern voiced is that White people will see these images and assume that all African Americans behave and speak in the same manner. What is more important to me is that these images are being sold to young African Americans living comfortably. Many of our young people begin to think that the only way to be truly black is to have to struggle to survive, sell drugs, work as a stripper, or something else that they heard on the radio or saw in a video.

Next, we have to deal with the problems of censorship. Many people, including members of the organizations in question, are going to have problem with a national mandate or some other directive indicating what artists are acceptable and those that are not. Personally, I feel that Lil Jon and the Ying Yang twins promote negative stereotypes. There are plenty of people who vehemently object to banning this kind of music at a party or social gathering.

Until, we can lift the consciousness of our people as a whole, I think we will encounter more problems than solutions.

Another point to consider. I talked recently with a friend of mine on the role/responsibility of our people in business. Surely we all have to turn a profit, and effectively manage the bottom line to stay in business.

But after you reach a certain point, does not say a Bob Johnson, when taking into account the severity of the problems in "our"community," and realizing the image/impact of his product on Black youth, owe it to the point of sacrificing perhaps the profit of one or two less booty-shaking videos for the overall betterment of our village?

Sure, the easy and obvious answer is that B. Johnson should grab as much cheddar as the next guy -- but look past the obvious. If you're the black Bill Gates, and you made your empire on the support of your community, do you have any more responsibility to us than a white businessman might have to the majority community?

Re: Can we stop the perpetration of ghetto imagery
 

Great question Steeltrap!

I believe that we (as in AfAm) have created an environment of acceptance when it comes to the images of "ghetto life" (bling, bling, smokin' blunts, rim, etc.) and the glamourtization(sp) of such life. Granted, that is the reality of some of us, but not all or even the majority of AfAm today.

Sadly, because "ghetto fab" in ingrained into the minds of many people, when something postive that is based on the other end of the "AfAm life spectrum", it is quickly seen as boring, square, "white" :rolleyes:, or us "not keeping it real".

To be honest though, I don't think the majority of our youth today even believes that this a problem (the image of being "ghetto fab"). A lot of the youth today don't have a problem with their non-black friends using the word n***a around them or even cares to know about the civil rights movement and how the struggle continues today. :(

Have yall heard about the 'flava dolls'? They are made by barbie... the white barbie has braids, the black barbie has long blonde hair:eek: , and the black ken is named P-Bo:rolleyes:

Matel sure knows how to make that money mayne

P-Bo?:rolleyes: :eek: :mad: Dag, they might as well have called him Pookie! 3 year old kids name their dog P-Bo.

Pic f the dolls
 

http://www.mattel.com/images/home/feat_img_flavas1.jpg

In an article I just peeed about them from Newsweek, they were described as all "bling-bling" and "Baby's got back" and seem to be some sort of attmept at a hip hop doll.

From Mattel.com
Mattel Asks Girls “What’s Your Flava?” in an All-New Line of Fashion Dolls

Flava, according to “Hip Hoptionary: The Dictionary of Hip Hop Terminology” by Alonzo Westbrook, means personal flavor or style. With
the introduction of Flavas (pronounced FLAY-vuhz), the first reality-based fashion doll brand that celebrates today’s teen culture through authentic style, attitude and values Mattel has created a hot hip-hop themed line that allows girls to express their own personal flava.

Flavas embraces the highly-popular hip-hop trend with breakthrough concepts never seen before in the older girl toy market. Flavas also represents several other firsts in the doll aisle. Just like real teens, Flavas reflects true individuality through a variety of sizes, face sculpts and styles unique to each character within the line.

Guaranteeing the Flavas crew maintains its distinct identity, each character has an individual face sculpt, ensuring that all six Flavas crew members reflect the look of real teens while differentiating each character from the other. The members of the Flavas crew are also all different heights, ranging from 10 to 11½ inches. The dolls feature more articulation than other fashion dolls: 10 points of articulation to allow for a variety of poses and a creative way for girls to reflect more “attitude” through the dolls.

Reflecting how today’s teens change their looks based on their personality and mood of the moment, Flavas will also feature multiple looks of the same character in every product wave. Each Flavas crewmember :rolleyes: will have two very different-looking dolls at launch, with different fashions, hairstyles, make-up and even eye color. As an example, one Happy D doll will showcase a sporty look, while a second will feature Happy D’s street style – each with unique fashions, hair accessories, make-up and style.

Each Flavas doll features two highly detailed fashion outfits, including rub-on decals that allow girls to “DIY” (do-it yourself) their own custom Flavas looks, another form of unique self-expression.

The Flavas launch campaign includes an innovative marketing and advertising push, including a sponsorship of this summer’s Christina Aguilera tour, who herself personifies the idea of fearless self-expression.

The dolls, the Flavas Tuner Car and Bike Date Motorcycle sets are now available at retail.

An interesting take on these dolls
 

hijack/

although this relates to Steeltrap's original question, it is a bit of a hijack.

I came across the blog when I was searching for info on the dolls.


From the WOnderchild blog at http://wonderchild.blog-city.com/read/161275.htm

Wednesday, 30 July 2003
So Mattel has come out w/ a new line of Barbie Dolls called Flavas. Now this line is made to compete w/ the Bratz who are a line of dolls that have big lips. Now my girl actually worked on the line of the Bratz and helped come up with the design/concepts, clothing etc. The Bratz have done well, b/c although they have a urban edge, it is not planned nor is it trying to capitalize on a particular segment of the market. The Bratz never set out to be hip-hop or urban. They just tried to be cool and thus captured the teen market. What is cool to tweens
Mattel, in response to declining Barbie sales have come out w/ it's own line of dolls called Flavas. Now I read about this in the WSJ and coudln't tell if I was offended or not (typical white male response was why would this offend you?) But now I know. I am hugely offended and will tell you why.

One, these dolls are supposed to be hip-hop. I mean what is hip-hop? Newsweek had it right when they said these dolls are ghetto fabulous. They make a mockery of what the supposed hip-hop culture is. Hip-hop is not about the bling-bling or wearing baggy clothes or some projected lifestyle that mainstream can't see - prime example is how the mainstream has embraced emninen and 50, while not understanding the complexities of common, the roots or rakim.

Now you know how barbie used to have her dream house? Well, Flavas don't have a dream house, they have a a street corner. According to the most recent issue of Newsweek, the instructions state "Pull my street stand from the box, so I have a place to hang out" What the eff? Mind you her street stand is a graffiti covered wall. Again, according to the article and something the WSJ didn't mention, Mattel did not use any hiphop consultants when designing flavas. Now I am not going to comment on the diversity of Mattel's toy design deparment, but I can't imagine that it is a hotbed of ideas and thoughts from a variety of people. If you are going to desing a doll that is supposedly hiphop wouldnt it make sense to at least consult those mainstream hiphoppers? But then again if you consulted P. Diddy, Flavas might be wearing full length minks and real platinum.

Here is my open letter to Mattel:

Dear Mattel toys:

I have read about your Flavas dolls in both the Wall Street Journal as well as the current edition of Newsweek. As a member of the hip-hop generation, I find Flavas to be an insult to the very tenets of what hip-hop is and that is honesty and truth in its story telling. I understand your need to compete w/ the Bratz. However, The Bratz line differs from Flavas in very distinct ways. One, The Bratz do not claim to be hip-hop, hard or keeping it real. They, better then the promotional pictures I have seen of Flavas, better reflect trends in the teen market. This is due to one very important fact that your designers have seem to forgotten - teens are more then just hip-hop. The teen market is Eminem as much as it is Britney Spears and your line of dolls do not reflect this. Secondly, I know for a fact that the Bratz was designed with a diversity of people's opinions and ideas. Based on what I have seen thus far and what's in your press release, I cannot say the same about Flavas. Anytime you have to tell people how to correctly pronounce the name of your line is not a good idea. I mean if Flavas really represented your target audience of "tweens" and what they are about, then the market place will already know what Flava is and what it is about.

Also, I have a huge problem with the graffiti cardboard boxes and the instructions "Pull my street stand from the box, so I have a spot to hang out." One, why is hip-hop associated with hanging on the corner? Second, most of your market who is buying this doll will live in houses in very residential neighborhoods. The idea of hanging out on a street corner is as foreign to them as a backyard in New York City. What is next, you will sell bodegas that the Flavas dolls can go to to get a pack of Now & Laters?

Flavas smacks of phoniess and pandering to the teen market. As I am sure your marketing people can tell you, teens run from anything they perceive as being false. I have no doubt that you will sell these dolls b/c you have millions of dollars in advertising. However, next time you create a doll that is supposedly hip-hop, I would suggest you consult some of those who are hip-hop and maybe they can give you a better feel of what the "flava" is of hip-hop.

Re: An interesting take on these dolls
 

Say what? :eek: I am offended by that mess!! My momma (and a lot of other AfAm mommas) would have snatch my lil' butt off that street corner, talking about "hanging out". :rolleyes: Dang, did they at least consult ONE black person?

SMH

Dag they are "killing us softly" in so many subtle ways that it ain't even funny. :( :mad:

ETA:
I wasn't sure what The Bratz dolls looked like, so I did a search and here they are. In case other people are wondering as well:
http://www.bratzpack.com/images/styl...ut_it_2003.jpg

I don't mind the hijack at all
 

Honeykiss and Kimmie, I don't mind the hijack at all. Again, the idea is what can we, as fortunate and educated people, do to help cut down or at least give some balance to all the negativity out there.

Re: I don't mind the hijack at all
 

Cool. OK, here is another slight hijack, but does anyone else notice the STANCE of the dolls? :cool: I wonder could someone on the creative team be a member? :D :confused:

Yet another 'jack, but something else to think about
 

I'm going to withhold comment on the dolls and their poses. :p

But here's an interesting Chicago Sun-Times piece:

Davis calls on young black men to shape up
October 17, 2003
BY CURTIS LAWRENCE Staff Reporter

Many a night, a distraught Danny Davis says, he drives through his West Side congressional district and sees a group of out-of-work black men hanging out on a corner. Or he pulls into a gas station where he watches a "sister" pumping gas in the rain while her male companion relaxes in the car. :mad: Thursday he said he had watched enough and that it was time to take action.

"There is a crisis in our community as it relates to the African-American male," Davis said in a conference call from Washington touting an initiative -- "The State of the African-American Male."

Davis, who has raised concerns about the disproportionate numbers of black men in prison and lack of resources for ex-offenders, said the initiative will focus not only on what government should do but will also call young black men and
their parents on the carpet to take responsibility. A weekend conference in Washington starting Nov. 14 will kick off the effort, which will include similar meetings across the country.

Not mincing words, Davis talked of his frustration with a lack of chivalry toward black women and with the isolation of young men who show an interest in academics or staying on the straight and narrow.

In one example, Davis talked about seeing a young black woman drive into a gas station.

"The sister gets out of the car to pump gas and he continues to sit there and rock," Davis said. "I don't think that's appropriate."

Davis also talked about young men being ostracized if they "appear to be straight-laced or wear normal-looking clothing as opposed to designer baggy pants or the highest-priced Nikes.

He said some black men "generate a quality of life activity that diminishes not just the individual who is participating, but diminishes the quality of life for the entire community."

Davis said he focused on black men because of the alarming statistics:

"There are more African men in prison than in college," Davis said, citing a litany of questions including "why a staggering 31.9 percent of African males are not employed and why African-American youth drop out of school at much higher rates than other groups."

Davis stressed that while he is calling on black men to be responsible for their actions and for successful black men to reach back to help. But "we're never going to give up on trying to force government to treat us fairly and to make use of public policy," he said.

In the East Garfield Park community Davis represents, his call to action got good reviews.

"To me it's degrading when you see young men not being respectful to themselves and to others," said Columbus Brooks, 87, :cool: outside of Edna's Soul Food Restaurant on Kedzie and Madison, where he is a regular.

Brooks, who worked for the city doing community outreach before he retired,blamed part of the problems in the community on a breakdown in two-parent families.

"When you don't have a solid foundation, then you can expect a kid to go astray," Brooks said.

"We were certainly not raised to disrespect women and elderly, and the younger generation for some reason has lost that lesson, said Larry McDonald, who works at the Family Start Learning Program at the city's Department of Human Services
office near Madison and Kedzie. He tied the root causes of the problems to underfunded neighborhoods and "elementary schools that don't have what they need to bring students into a technical society."

Sabrina Bell, a cashier at Edna's, said that when she talks to young men selling drugs, "they say there are no jobs or they lack education."

While Bell says young African-American men bear the responsibility for staying in school, she acknowledged that many have an uphill battle, especially those getting out of prison who find themselves locked out of many jobs because of felony records.

Dr. Carl Bell, a leading mental health expert at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a phone interview he has no problem holding black men accountable, but he cautioned against the further "demonizing" of black men, especially young men.

"I don't know how you hold them accountable if they're raising themselves,'' he said.

He hammered away at "a society that is unfairly slanted against black people and, in turn, black children. The quality of education you get is dependent upon the tax base where you live. How is education a right if that's the case?''

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,
or redistributed.

Re: Re: An interesting take on these dolls
 

The reality is they didn't "have to" consult any black people because the image WE put out there is so negative. From the rappers to the movies (Bringing down the House and others) we are selling ourselves out. We no longer can talk about what THEY are doing to us. We are doing it to ourselves.

Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on these dolls
 

You are so right. :(

A Good Question.............
 

LEONARD PITTS: WHERE WAS BLACK OUTRAGE FOR RAP ARTISTS?

I guess I'm obligated to be offended by this new board game. After all, Al Sharpton says I should. And not just the Rev. Al, either. Many other people -- including NAACP president Kweisi Mfume and radio host Tom Joyner -- have pronounced themselves offended by the game. Not that I blame them.

It's called Ghettopoly, a takeoff on Parker Brothers' venerable Monopoly. Except that this game isn't about moving a car or a top hat around the board, buying properties and landing on Boardwalk after somebody has put up a hotel. In Ghettopoly, your token might be a crack rock, a 40-ounce bottle of malt liquor or a basketball, and your goal is to build crack houses while pimping "hos" and getting carjacked. The game reportedly features an image of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. scratching the front of his pants and proclaiming, "I have an itch."

So, no, you won't find Ghettopoly under my Christmas tree. Nor does it break my heart that retailers have been pressured into removing it from their shelves or that Hasbro, which owns Parker Brothers, last week filed suit against the game's creator, David Chang of St. Marys, Pa.

For all that, though, I am not angry at Chang, who seems more misguided than malicious. To the contrary, it's the campaign against him that gets my dander up -- not because it's wrong, but because it's about 15 years late.

I keep wondering where all this fury was when rappers such as 50 Cent, Nelly, Ja Rule and Snoop Dogg first started pimping, drug-dealing and drive-by shooting all over the video channels. Where were the boycotters when these people and others were creating the template Chang drew from? Where was the moral indignation when black people were reducing black life to caricature?

Or is it just easier to raise rage against Chang because he is not black?

With a few isolated exceptions -- activist C. Delores Tucker, the Rev. Calvin Butts -- blacks have been conspicuously silent as black music, once the joy and strength of black people, has detoured into an open sewer of so-called "hardcore rap." The vast majority of that genre's practitioners are nothing more and nothing less than modern-day Uncle Toms, selling out black dreams by peddling a cartoon of black life unencumbered by values.

It is a cynical, knowing act, promulgated by young men and women who get rich by selling lies of authenticity to young people, white and black, who are looking for lessons in blackness. They are as much minstrels and peddlers of stereotype as Stepin Fetchit, Bert Williams or any black performer who ever smeared black goop on his face or shuffled onstage beneath a battered top hat.

The only difference -- the only one -- is that Bert Williams and Stepin Fetchit had no other choice.

My personal theory is that black people of my generation -- I'm 46 -- have resisted speaking forcefully against this because, like all baby boomers, we are deathly afraid of appearing less than hip. But as I recall, our parents never worried about that. They understood their role to be not hipness but guidance.

I am of a generation that has largely failed that role, that turned "judgment" into a four-letter word. The fruit of that failure lies before us: an era of young people who traffic in stereotypes that would not be out of place in a Ku Klux Klan meeting.

And I'm supposed to be angry at David Chang? I'm not. He's just a good capitalist, just regurgitating what he has been taught in hopes of turning a buck. My anger is not for the student, but for his teachers. And not just my anger, but my sorrow, too.

I'm not losing sleep worrying about what David Chang thinks of black people. I'm more concerned with what black people think of themselves.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Pitts, a columnist for The Miami Herald, appears on Opinion Monday.

Again, we need to clean up our own house
 

I heart Leonard Pitts. He makes a lot of sense, and I do believe that it was easier for us to scream at Chang because he wasn't black.

It speaks to personal responsibility and making sure that our house is clean. How the h*** can we rail at others when our house isn't in order? The era of the larger society feeling guilty is over, done, especially since the prevailing media stereotype/image isn't the classy, dignified lunch-counter sit-in people. It's the thugs/hoodrats/chickenheads. :rolleyes:

Re: Again, we need to clean up our own house
 

I like Leonard Pitts and generally agree with his commentary -- but who is he really blaming here? After all, to blame everybody is to blame nobody. Is it really up to the civil rights leaders on CNN to explain to my children why 50 cent's CD is not coming into the crib? If we leave it to the "leaders," is it then okay for parents to let it slide when they hear the music because the kids are just "rebelling like we did back in the day?"

Yeah, we can blame the rappers but they're just vendors moving, in this case, mentally poisonous product.

I agree ST that the dominant society's guilt trip is over and has been so for quite a while now. I think that's what gives rise to the wide distribution of the Ward Connerlys, Larry Elders, etc...

ok, Ima put my soap box away now...

Re: Re: Again, we need to clean up our own house
 

Now that you mention it, it really is up to the parents and responsible adults in the children's lives to stand up and say the mentally poisonous rap won't be allowed into the crib. If I have kids (big if because of my age and single status), I will do my darnedest to make sure they only listen to jazz.:p

Also, good call on the rise of the Connerlys and Elders of the world. Even though I do believe in personal responsibility and such, those guys are quite unnerving.

Re: Re: Again, we need to clean up our own house
 

I think what Pitts is saying is that our so called black leaders, because of their postions of authority and their visability in the media should challenge the 50 cents of the world. Their visability brings new light to an old problem and, hopefully, expand the thinking of people. I know there were people who were not, at first glance, offended by Ghettopoly, but when they heard someone reasonably articulate the problems with the game they changed their minds. We need to have the same kinds of dialog around the stuff we do to our selves.

I remember a case in Atlanta recently where 15 - 20 young, AA males from about 16 to over 21 gang raped a young mentally handicapped AA female. The outcry from the "black leaders" of the community was silent. It wasn't until folks begin to call them out that they stepped up to the plate. Sadly, I know it would have been different had the perpatrators been white.

We have to call evil when we see it. I was never a big Tupac fan, but I remember someone (Black national figure--I can't remember who) criticizing him for his lyric choices. Tupac said something like, well teach me differently. Give me some other choices. I am not in a position to influence the 50 cents and Snoop Doggs of the world, outside of not buying their music and encouraging other not to do it as well, but Sharpton, Jackson, et al, are in the position to provide direct influence and they are missing the boat.

Re: Re: Re: Again, we need to clean up our own house
 

Good points, Eclipse, (you're making me think) but I think you've hit on the dirty little secret. How much "authority" do the leaders or our so-called leading organizations really have today?

I give great respect to those who put it on the line so that we could come through and have what we have, but truly how effective is the NAACP today? I know the branch in my city throws a hellified 3-hour Negro dinner tribute but in terms of being effective, NO.

I think the days of a dominant titular leader (like MLK) are gone. While more culturally alike than not, the AA community may be too diverse at this point to follow or be led by the call of any one person, group or band of media-appointed "CNN leaders."

I think solutions now have to be bottom up --- "this is what we tried in my community and it worked, so you might try it in yours." The days of national directives, be it the NAACP, Urban League or others, are prolly over.

TonyB06, I agree with you completely. Remember when Jesse Jackson fathered that child out of wedlock? I dont remember hearing ANYONE in the Black "leadership" saying SQUAT. I dont listen to Al Sharpton, or anyone else b/c their views arent mine. They dont help me raise my daugther, or pay my bills or get through life as a single black mother NOT on public assistance. The only time I see or hear from our so called leaders is during sound bite opprotunities.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, we need to clean up our own house
 

Oh, don't get me wrong....I definately agree with you on the above points. I'm just saying that Jesse gets a lot more mike time that say....TonyB06 ;) HE can put pressure on the Dr Dre's, P-Diddys of the world to make change. I do think folks like Tavis Smiley and Tom Joyner have a lot of sway in the black community. Look at some of the boycotts they have arranged just by speaking out on their radio show. But will they speak out against rappers and thier ilk ;)....I think not, that's where their bread is buttered.

During the Ludicris (or however the heck he spells it) controversy with Pepsi, a local DJ, Frank Ski, had listeners calling in with their thoughts. People were saying that the radio stations should not play that kind of music and he responded by saying they only play what we want to hear and if "we" didn't request it they would not play it. Now anyone who knows a little bit about radio knows that that is a bunch of bunk. Radio stations play what they are paid to play. Requests have a little to do with it, but typically after they have played something to death so now you like it enough to ask for it cause you can't get the dang-on song out of your head! :rolleyes:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, we need to clean up our own house
 

...I'm working on that. Can I count on your vote? :cool:

From the editorial board of my local paper
 

Posted on Fri, Oct. 31, 2003

Consumerism habit hurting blacks
MARK E. MCCORMICK: CONSUMERISM HABIT HURTING BLACKS

Perhaps the sweetest gift my mother gave me was her almost daily lessons on how to spend -- or not to spend -- money.

My father always jokes about my mother's frugality by saying she squeezes a nickel so tight that the Indian on one side of the coin ends up riding the buffalo on the other side.

She saves like a Florida Marlins closer.

Whereas most people enjoy shopping, such outings fill her with dread.

I vividly remember her sighing heavily and whispering sharply to herself, "My goodness!" when the grocery-store checker announced our total.

Mother Dear rarely allows herself the luxury of a new dress or a pair of nice earrings or much of anything, really.

While I was growing up, she saved and stretched everything we had in case our old Impala broke down, the water heater had a heart attack or I needed a new coat.

Blacksploitation?

Her money savvy crossed my mind recently, reminding me of the pitfalls of consumerism in the neighborhood where I grew up.

Just about every black neighborhood I've ever lived in -- from Louisville, Ky., to Oklahoma City and even here -- seemed to have the same set of businesses. Among those:

A check-cashing place.

Roughly 4,327 liquor stores.

A pawnshop.

A furniture-rental store.

These businesses reflect our buying habits, and they certainly don't reflect well on us.

Check-cashing windows, which attach fees to their services, cater to people who either can't or won't use banks.

Neighborhoods that can least afford to have any liquor stores, because of high rates of alcohol-related illness there, often have more than their share of them. Many also double as grocery stores, selling marked-up goods in the absence of supermarkets.

Pawnshops and furniture-rental businesses have been known to tattoo consumers with prices far exceeding the items' value. People could probably buy that new watch or washer much more cheaply with a little planning and patience.

These businesses play on some of black folks' deepest insecurities, but that's not the whole story.

Freedom and responsibility intersect where we spend our money, and too often we've acted irresponsibly.

If money is power...

People in my mother's generation -- children raised in the ashes of the Great Depression -- saw money as something to save.

She'd always say, "Just because you have a little money, Mark, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it."

That doesn't seem to be the prevailing view of my generation, however.

We aren't saving, investing or preparing for our long-term financial futures as much as we should be.

I'm not allergic to nice things, but so much of what we buy seems so shortsighted and superficial -- FUBU, Tommy Hilfiger, Sean John, Nike, K-Swiss, jewelry.

Superficial ideas of wealth tend to develop when you don't have much. Perhaps we're grasping for the dignity long denied us by buying things we associate with status.

Award-winning Detroit Free Press columnist Mitch Albom told a Wichita audience a week or so ago that people on their deathbeds don't whisper to loved ones to please roll the big-screen television closer to the bed for one final picture-in-picture experience. Rather, they want their loved ones gathered close, because possessions aren't nearly as important as people.

You'd never know that considering how strung out so many of us are on the drug of consumerism.

But we'll have to kick this habit if we're going to make any progress. We should ask ourselves, "If money is power, why are we giving it away?"

No price tag for stability

It's no coincidence that my thrifty mother maintained an incredibly stable home. Sound money management can help make for a stable home.

The way she fretted over every dime drove me crazy when I was a kid, but now as an adult, it's like she's some kind of Harvard Business School professor. Leaning on her example, I've tried to clean up my act.

Her thesis boils down to this:

What we spend helps to carve our economic landscape. The world is what we want to make of it. We have more power than we realize.

What a gift.

Wichita
 

Thanks for the article. I admit that I also have a consumerism issue. :o It just speaks to the fact that real wealth will take a long time to accumulate, and as a sidebar, I wonder if grass-roots unity will ever be effective in creating wealth, which I believe is the only real avenue to power in this society.

That article on consumerism was great. It is really disheartening how many people live their lives in search of more material goods and do nothing to prepare for their financial futures. So many of our people are satisfied if they drive a nice car and have every brand of jeans in their closets.

It does not help that there are several tv shows that feature the material items that celebrities buy. Their fur coats, SUVs, and flamboyant jewelry give the impression that materials equal success. I wish MTV Cribs would do a realistic portrayal of someone...speaking with an accountant and lawyer trying to figure out how to pay for all of these items they've accumulated when the money runs out. :eek:

There is a difference between the "consumers" versus the "investors"...

There are "venture capitalists", "private investors" that hold shares and assets in S-corporations...

Then there are "consumers" that have liquidable assets that are not held on tax sheets...

I think the reason why we see this "instant gratification" in our communities is that back in the mid 1970's to the late 1980's, there was this concept of "back taxes" and the burden of proof from the IRS.

Numerous African American businesses and corporations that were unwittingly organized got nailed by the IRS, oweing tens of thousands of dollars that essentially bankrupted a lot of folks. Many folks were not as saavy as they are today with accountants, tax attorneys and other legal help. Moreover, the RICO law had just passed in 1974, which basically annihilated those African American groups that were devoted to helping the community... Meaning, if your house had a tax lien on it and the IRS says you owe $45,000 in back taxes, which is it going to be? Your business or your home? Because if you don't pay, you WILL go to jail...

Moreover, the IRS historically targeted African American businesses in the 1970's and 1980's for auditing--and they did this quite often... More than one would want to admit... And they used every inane law in the book to nail these businesses. So the only folks that did not get annihilated were those that were forced into selling their "shares" to those "venture capitalists" or "private investors"--many of them lived overseas...

So as far as the situation today:

Many of the folks born after 1975 grew up in this world filled with cable channels and E.T. They grew up under "Fame", "Flashdance", "Madonna" and "Breakin'"...

So now we see more of an acceptance for "urban" "hip-hop" culture, when those of us that graduated from high school before 1988 had to fight to even hear "The Dream Team" and "Run DMC" at our high school dances. Now, if you play "Whitesnake" or "Motley Crue" one would cut it off. Hip hop culture is now mainstream... So now, folks are making money off it just like they did in the 1960's...

Should we be upset? I dunno...

But it is true that there is a biased view one observed when what is all out there...

Is the answer a parenting issue?
 

If we are talking about why black people aren't critical enough of our popular image, I think it is much deeper than parenting. Many parents nowadays don't see anything wong with the images of black people in the media. I think that the acceptance of the "ghetto-ization" of the popular black image has more to do with a more essential crisis in our community- illiteracy.

Now, when I say illiteracy, I am not talking about not being able to see a word and say a word, that's more of a phonic-word attacking skill. I am talking about a level of literacy that is about comprehension of ideas, analysis of the ideas, criticizing the value of the ideas, and synthesizing new ideas. This is the level of literacy that is necessary for our people to be able to think critically of the images, no matter who produce them.

This year, I decided to take a job as a special ed teacher in the public school system. So far I have learned some fascinating things about education in general and special ed in particular. Over half of all students who recieve special ed services in the US are labelled as Learning Disabled (LD). Officially, (Under federal law) LD is defined as "A defect in the psychological/cognitive processes involved with learning that result in a significant difference in demonstrated ability and measured achievement in students". LD is an educational diagnosis (not medical), which means that a team of people that are directly interested in the education of the child actually make the call as to who is LD. If a child has a high IQ but poor achievement test scores and grades, and there is nothing medically wrong with the child, chances are the team of educators and the parent will come to a conclusion of LD. Now, in LD research it is found that the main problem with LD is a severe lack of reading skills. Basically, if you cannot read on a third gade level by the time you leave the 4th grade, chances are eventually you will "get" LD, end up in special ed and drop out when you turn 16. Why? because so much of learning after the 3rd grade is based on you having mastered those basic literacy skills learned in K-3rd grades. So LD is "legal-ease" for "I can't read worth a squat!!!" It is important to note here that an LD diagnosis really means nothing in the real world. You can't sue a company under the Americans with Disabilities Act because they won't make accomodations for your literacy problems. So what does all this have to do with the ghetto image being accepted by black folks?

In His Book, Black children and Middle Class Teachers, Dr. Jawanzaa Kunjufu notes that as many as 40% of the kids that recieve Special Ed. services in the US are black, with 80% of those kids being boys. Many states project their future prison population by looking at the literacy rates of their 4th grade students, because chances are those who haven't learned to read by then will make up the bulk of the new prison inmates in the next 10 to 15 years. Kunjufu notes that 75% of the black men that enter prison are functionally illiterate-which means that their reading skills will not allow them to function productively as adults, hence why they end up in prison. Do these kids end up this way because they never learn to say "jump" when they see the letters"j-u-m-p" in sequence? No, most of the kids I teach can call out plenty of words, but they have a very limited vocabulary, thus they have very low comprehension. They end up this way because reading becomes so difficult that they don't do it on their own. Since they don't do it on their own, their academic potential never fully develops because they only rely on natural ability when it comes to learning things, never putting forth the effort and discipline it takes to read the content of a lesson and wrestle with the complex ideas that help develop critical thought. To put it plainly, we are not critical of these images as a whole because we don't know how to be.

My job entails teaching kids who have been diagnosed with LD about the US Government. The textbooks that I use are on a 3rd grade level. The kids are officially in the 9th grade, but most of their reading level is somewhere around the 3rd to 5th grade. What this does is makes it really hard for them to grasp certain concepts like liberal and conservative views of government, democracy, justice for all, etc. I do not have time to teach these kids how to read, at least the amount of time it would take for them to develop critical literacy skills, and teach the mandated curriculum. So most of the kids flunked my class the first quarter, and looking at yesterday's quiz scores, they will probably continue to flunk. A bunch of 15 and 16 year old (mostly black) kids flunking a class that has at its core a 3rd grade textbook is just pitiful :( .

Another thing that Kunjufu notes is that the culture of many of our homes dictates that children are raised in a home that has multiple stimuli that only attain to the physical (not cognitive) senses. In other words, the only stimuli children are gettng is entertainment. Since things like government, history, and literature are not entertainig, children don't know how to attend to them. With no attention to these things, there will be no development of critical thought. My question is why now, all of the sudden, does the black commuity have this immense literacy problem? It wasn't always this way.

When Bro. Dr. W.E.B. DuBois was the editor of The Crisis it had a circulation one time of over 50,000 readers, even though at the time, the NAACP only had about 4,000 paid members. People from all walks of life read the magazine, with its history lessons, literature corners, and political commentaries about the day. Nowadays, I would venture to guess there are more black households subscribing to The Source than to The Crisis if they are reading anything at all. My questions is why? You don't have to have a degree in order to be a critical thinker (in fact, many would say having a degree is no indicator of your true intelligence). The masses of black folk in fact do not have a college education. Yet this is no reason not to be critical and smart, and to make decisions that reflect that you have critical thought. The article on consumerism hit the nail right on the head with the notion that folks back then understood to have money didn't necessarily mean one had to spend money. The lean towards consumerism is great example of people making decisions uncritically. Vesting so much of your esteem in material possessions I think is a spiritual-identity issue that I will not spend time here discussing, but I think it is a very valid point.

How has this happened? How did black people, decendants of people whom developed the pursuit of knowledge in all of its forms, come to a point where we value that pursuit so little now? I think the answer to that question will give us insight into how we become so accepting of not just stereotypical imagery of us by us, but larger values that we accept in general, like our acquescence to captialism and inequality in general.

Blackwatch!!!!!!

hmmm very interesting question..........
 

How has this happened? How did black people, decendants of people whom developed the pursuit of knowledge in all of its forms, come to a point where we value that pursuit so little now? I think the answer to that question will give us insight into how we become so accepting of not just stereotypical imagery of us by us, but larger values that we accept in general, like our acquescence to captialism and inequality in general.


very interesting. from my experiences, we have have become extremely complacent with what society has dealt us and also we have allowed our focus to shift to things and issues that are far less irrelevant. it seems that more often than not, parents are not advocating effectively for our children. for whatever reason, they are leaving the education of their children completely up to the teachers and school system who may or may not care about the academic success of their child. there are many reasons for it and one that i can think of off hand is that schools are hiring employees disguised as teachers. these are people who for whatever reason have chosen to teach and do not understand what that entails. for example, a good friend of mine who is a principal, recently fired a teacher. why? when asked, "what made you go into teaching?" his response was along the lines of, " so i can get a paycheck and have my student loans paid" he included in that conversation that he really doesn't like kids and they should be seen and not heard. another teacher at this same school was having a hard time engaging her students on a particular subject. when asked what tools had she used to encourage dialogue and excitement on this subject, the teacher had none. these are the types of people that we have educating our children.

when i was a child, if my mother had not advocated for me, i would have been placed in one of those special ed classes you talked about blackwatch. as child my mother told me that i talked alot and did not pay attention. i sometimes seemed bored in class. i could have possibly been placed on ritalin by today's standards.


also, for a variety of reasons we are no longer our brother's keeper. we tend to go along our day not focused on the world around us and specifically what our kids are doing. last week, i was waiting a a bus stop and there were a number of kids there. this one girl, about 12 y.o. was trying to get the attention of this boy. during the course of the 'exchange', this girl blurted out something vulgar associated with her breasts. i went up to her, pulled her to the side and let her know that is not the type of language a young lady would use. my husband knows that i am infamous for talking to kids or pulling them to the side when they do something that is just plain wrong. sometimes he gets concerned for my safety; my response to him was "i must be an example. if there weren't folks on my block pulling me to the side when i did something wrong, who know where i could have been?"

we can't sit idly by and allow media images dictate our children. we need to teach them that there is more to life than play station, xbox, the upn, the latest r kelly album and the fine art of being a playa or a hootchie:rolleyes: . we are a great people. we come from kings and queen. we ruled continents! not the penal system.

thank you for the insight blackwatch!!!