Can we stop the perpetration of ghetto imagery

[Eclipse]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
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.

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.

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by Eclipse
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.

You are so right.

[Honeykiss1974]

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.

[Steeltrap]

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.

[TonyB06]

Originally posted by Steeltrap
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.

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...

[Steeltrap]

Originally posted by TonyB06
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...

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.

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.

[Eclipse]

Originally posted by TonyB06
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...

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.

[TonyB06]

Originally posted by Eclipse
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....

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.

[nikki1920]

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.

[Eclipse]

Originally posted by TonyB06
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 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.

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!

[TonyB06]

Originally posted by Eclipse
I definately agree with you on the above points. I'm just saying that Jesse gets a lot more mike time that say....TonyB06

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

[Honeykiss1974]

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.

[Steeltrap]

Thanks for the article. I admit that I also have a consumerism issue. 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.

[Conskeeted7]

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.

[AKA_Monet]

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...