Afroscribe

Who Made RCX the Judge of Blackness?

I am generally entertained when black radicals call out other blacks as “house Negroes,” coons, and minstrels. I’ve done that before but not so much going forward.  My change in view started about year or so ago when I began reading the complicated history of key black intellectuals and activists in the United States. I no longer had a clear sense of who was a “house Negro” and who was a radical. If history is a poor judge of “house Negro” identity, then what makes contemporaneous observations better? The truth is that the label, “house Negro,” is way of exerting social control over behavior by use of stigma. Some people embrace their stigma and others reject it but we hardly ever consider the motives of the wielder of the label.  

 As a teen influenced by films of black freedom struggle such as Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, I thought any attempt to integrate into American society was equal to rejecting blackness and embracing whiteness. Therefore, any “I’m not black. I am American” reasoning incited me to call him or her a sell-out. A Soldiers Story with Denzel Washington is another film that made me feel righteous in criticizing black people who enjoy performing a little too damn much. “The day of the Geechy is gone” is the line that sticks out as statement of condemnation for blacks who perform for white entertainment.  

Since I grew up in the Golden Age of Hip Hop, my thoughts on who or what was a sell-out were framed by the messages in that music genre. In hip hop, the sell-out was a rapper who made pop music and “crossing over” from an all black audience to one that included whites. West Coast legend Ice Cube criticized blacks who seem to reject his definition of blackness in his classic “True to the Game.” “Crossover,” a joint by EPMD, gets at rappers who chase white audiences for success. Both get at how blackness is devalued by social institutions in the US. The criticism of rappers like Cube and EPMD helped shape my worldview as I grew older but something I read last week forced me reconsider my perspective.

While at a meeting for a production I’m putting together, one of the actors was amused by the cover of a St. Louis based black-owned tabloid called the River City Xaminer. I had to see what was funny so I asked for it. It was a quarter-page head shot of a black man who regularly supports my weekly poetry night with the heading over his pic that read “2 Close 2 Call: 2 ‘House Negroes of the Year’ 2011.”  My dude was called one of the two “house Negroes.”

Damn.

I couldn’t imagine my face anywhere near the phrase “house Negro” but his was. RCX considers itself “an independent voice for a new generation of black St. Louisans.”  I knew that it blasts folks on its pages. I actually appreciate how edgy it is with lambasting blacks who operate in a manner that undermines community. It appealed to the values that shaped me. I once pitched a story to RCX that could have landed a local pol in that spot but I never wrote it.  Like in hip hop, you have to be ready to battle someone you call out. I wasn’t committed to that battle. Besides, a person’s story can have multiple parts and long histories so I try to avoid doing dumb shit that could easily be challenged or, worse, proven false.   

Furthermore, I come from a place where calling a black person a “house Negro” is dangerous. For example, just over the holiday break, I said a joke to my mother that suggested that she wasn’t committed to blackness and she slapped the shit out of me…with her eyes. It was like the Sherlock Holmes films with Robert Downey, Jr.; seeing every move of a fight in my mind and my mom stomping me over a snarky remark.  Perhaps my dude doesn’t care but if my senior citizen-aged mom was ready to put her Zumba strengthened foot in my ass, I would not be surprised if he is considering the same for the RCX publisher. On second thought, I can’t see a physical altercation but I can see lawyers.  Slander comes to mind when I see that cover.

Then, that part of me steeped in black power stories and radicalism wondered if it was true. Sure, it was slanderous but did it have a basis in fact?  That question stayed with me until I arrived at one that resonated with more than the previous. What makes RCX the judge and jury of blackness?

I found my answer on the back page of the tabloid. It reads:

RCX will continue to expose any so-called “African-American” who is an ally to the racist Mayor of St. Louis, Francis G. Slay, as the “house Negro” and traitor that they are.

Well, there are some blacks who are allies of Mayor Slay. He recently made a decision that earned him praise from the St. Louis American, a popular black weekly paper. Conversely, Governor Jay Nixon is lauded on the RCX cover but his 1998 campaign for US Senate was picketed by the NAACP for his role in settling a desegregation case that ended state support for busing students to affluent schools. Besides that, Gov Nixon has yet to flex his power to grant clemency for Reginald Clemons, a black person I believe was wrongly accused and convicted for the murders of the Kerry sisters (white women) even as “new” evidence surfaced casting more doubt on the conviction. 

See what I just did? The same person RCX celebrated, I criticized. Did I call Gov Nixon a racist? No and I wouldn’t, despite the fact that Gov Nixon has had a long political career in Missouri with a record that black folks may find difficult to support. Again, a person’s story is filled with complexity. As a result, that person may not fit the label given them, no matter the size or color of the box.     

In a Relationship but Single

How am I supposed to be in a relationship but contribute to a column called “Black & Single,” regularly?  That’s what I asked myself all the time when I submitted my pieces to the St. Louis American.  It’s not as though I was lying about my status but I felt like I couldn’t bring her into my story. Besides, how can I justify commenting on singlehood while being involved?  

The simple answer is that I have a broad definition of “single.” Single means not married.  I don’t want to state the obvious but it’s true. Unless a preacher brought us together in holy matrimony, we’re just two single people in a monogamous relationship. I see singlehood more like a tax status than something romantic. I can’t get tax breaks for going steady. You think my mama is cool with her grown son having a girlfriend? Of course she isn’t. She wants me to put a ring on it. Not just because she approves of my partner but because I’m a grown man with a girlfriend.

The obvious question is what’s stopping me from taking that step. I have several answers. First, I’m not ready. I don’t have to be in a certain place in my career but I am into my work right now. To have to choose between fulfilling my role as a husband or even father (if I had a child or children) and working on something is a terrible situation. Of course I would choose my partner but I would be thinking about the work as though I’m cheating on her with an essay. What’s worse is that she would know it and my work might be wack, anyway. Furthermore, I don’t define marriage as something that completes or makes me an adult.

 Second, I have a serious loner streak. I would be a recluse if it wasn’t for my jobs (plural). When I was just dating, you wouldn’t find me in a club listening to garbage wrap music, searching for someone to practice porn scenes with. I preferred women at lectures, poetry spots, and places where I can hear the other person talking. Sure, I wanted to rehearse porn scenes with the conscious sistas too but I wanted mind sex (shortly) before actual sex. After all of that, I was good with being alone.

Fourth is religion. I’m not a big fan. She is. We’ve yet to have problems (thank God) but I am so irreverent. I don’t know how Christians can stand me.

Fifth, she’s good with our nonmarital status for her own reasons.

Lastly, I am still working through my misogyny. It’s not that I hate women but I have a basic distrust of women. I would think that a woman I was dating would fuck my boy (this kind of happened on several occasions to me and some cats I know but none of that rationalized this distrust). The root of it is my insecurity about being a man who could not satisfy his woman. This is not to say I haven’t or that the women I dated were not trustworthy. It was more a fundamental belief that women are hoes who require a handsome model, a financially successful man, or long dong silver to keep them in place. I am none of those cats and I don’t believe women have a place that men must put them in. Instead, I was mired in my low self-esteem and, as a result, impugned the character of almost all women by making them hoes in my mind. I grew past most of that but I have other work to do. I’m not looking to be perfectly anti-sexist, just consistently anti-sexist.

To sum it all up, I’m not married because neither of us is ready for all that. However, I will be single (and monogamous) until that time when marriage seems like the best move.

Santorum says…”I don’t want to make black people lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.”

It seems that the context of the quote is based on Santorum’s concern for people not being dependent on the state, blacks in particular. For those who believe in self-determination, this is not the worst point he could make.

But wait he said “I want to give them the opportunity…” as though he’s got it like that. Like he’s the Oprah of opportunities for blacks, “An opportunity for you, an opportunity for you…”

GFOH

Even though it’s a horrible quote from a person who may not be not well versed in American history as it relates to how oppressive the state can be towards its people, his basic point speaks to independence or liberty. I wouldn’t get too hyped about this quote. Dependence on the state is not the best move for anyone. Neither is oppression by the state. Marginalization doesn’t require dependency, Santorum.

Sucker Free Iowa Caucuses…

I’m officially too old for hip hop. In an effort to stay up on what’s played on radio and video shows, I watched Sucker Free Countdown. I was amazed at how much I disliked the music. The hosts entertained me more than the videos. I heard shits like “Rack City” and knew my genre of music passed me by. Even Common’s shit was wack to me. How is this Sucker Free? Clearly, mainstream hip hop is no place for 32 year olds ‘cause I could have missed all of that. You know what else I could miss? The Republican Iowa Caucuses. They don’t have a place for me either.

My partner suggested that I compare some of the wrappers to the field of Republican candidates but I’m not clever enough to BS my way through a group of clowns that I don’t know. Sure, I know Common, Wale, and B.O.B. but what Republican is like any of them? I’ll try to compare the two groups anyway as a mental exercise.

Beginning with Common, I’d say that he and Newt Gingrich are fairly parallel. Both were relevant in the 1990s, fell off, and made a comeback in the 2000s. Com and Newt both get into trouble in interviews. The difference being that Gingrich comes off as a moderate when he is supposed to be conservative while Com sounds inarticulate when he supposed to be conscious.  No political parallels to draw from because I don’t know Com’s politics. Honestly, I don’t think Com knows his own politics. I saw him on Bill Maher and felt bad for hip hop. Not the Sucker Free Countdown hip hop, I mean the Chuck D, KRS-ONE hip hop. Common is the Rick Perry of interviews.

Who else can I compare? I don’t know most of the wrappers by name so every mofo talking about wobbling asses and strange clouds remind me of Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann. Santorum and Bachmann are sideshow acts trying to appeal to their base with the most parochial nonsense a politician can spew. They are a part of the religious right and know that their only chance at winning the Republican nomination is by pandering to the anti-intellectual moralists who support whoever reflects their culture. Big Sean ain’t a moralist, clearly, but he does reflect the values of club-goers. He knows that wobbling ass is a core issue of his constituency so he’s all about that. Is he challenging club-goers to think outside of wobbling ass? Does Santorum challenge social conservatives to think outside of legislating family values? Exactly.

I did recognize Chris Brown on the countdown. Ehh.  No comparison here except for maybe Mitt Romney.  Brown seems viable after the Rihanna situation. Romney seems viable after losing the nomination to McCain. Brown abused Rihanna. Romney is a Mormon in a Protestant country. Neither is talented enough to get beyond their stigmas. That’s the best I can do.

Lastly, Wale has a respectable song on the countdown, which came in at number 1. It works but I think I only like it because it was a break from the wackness that preceded it. This is where Ron Paul comes in.  I like some of his libertarian ideas such as the ones that would stop the government from going all COINTELPRO on the black community. Unfortunately those same ideas wouldn’t stop Jim Crow laws from passing in state legislatures or prevent Jim Crow mortgage practices.  The question is would I buy Paul’s campaign or Wale’s song based on what I heard? Nope. Still, I’m checking out who wins Iowa on January 3rd just like I needed to see who was number 1 of some mainstream hip hop shit I don’t support. My IA caucus prediction:  It’ll be Mitt Reezy in 1st, Big Santorum in 2nd, and Paule in third.