I Thought We Were Beyond This: Reminders of Race in a Few Short Snippets

1. Something to think about as we watch Pres. Obama's State of the Union Address when we see the Republican party's contemptuous display of disrespect for the President. And did I mention they invited this asshole to the SOTU address?

2. In the days of Arthur Kunstler Black Rage would have been an arguable explanation for the asymmetrical warfare launched against the notoriously corrupt LAPD.

3. And the children of our country continue to be slain, some are slain faster than others.

                                                                  Hadiya Pendleton
                                

The Art of Conversation

Peace, Progress and Policy: Happy King Day

  Given the momentous nature of today January 21st, 2013, we at Jambangle believe it right and proper to take time to recognize the momentous nature of today's occurrences. We simultaneously celebrate the birth date of Martin Luther King, Jr.(activist and theologian) whom, if he were still alive, would be 84 today. And we also recognize the beginning of the second term of the 1st African American president, Barack Hussein Obama.  These events speak to the possibilities of human achievement. King whose message and adult life was committed to achievement of a radical peace, that would embrace all of humanity and the establishment of pervasive justice as the foundation of our civilization, is celebrated, honored and followed as a model for the most one of the most progressive visions offered by a citizen of this nation. King's unqualified commitment to peace, are deeply relevant to the times in which we live. The US' constant state of war (Iraq, Afghanistan) have done irreparable damage to the people's of those nations, strain the credibility of international structures of governance and wear away at the fabric of our own society, reflect the same hunger for war that enshrined the nation 4 decades ago. King's message remains tragically necessary for our times. The necessity of King yet lives even as his body has expired. Yet, despite our failure to grow beyond the fear and violence of our international domination, the fact that we take time to remember his commitment to the creation of a more perfect state of living, his "Beloved Community", the fact that there still burns the flame of his vision and the desire to nurse it to higher degrees, suggests there may yet be hope for us as a nation and a species. Today is a day of celebration as we remember King and his work we implicitly celebrate the better angels of our own collective natures, for he is but a small piece of a larger possibility within us all. I believe in peace.I believe in justice. And I believe peace and justice can be achieved.
  "Fondly do we hope and fervently do we pray, that this great scourge of war will pass away." And fondly do we hope that our newly sworn in President will take to heart the work of Dr. King and truly embrace it as the center of his policies. For all of his rightly celebrated accomplishments President Obama, and the history making achievements of his elections, the President continues the ways of war against un-offending communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Vietnam ate away at the hope for an America renewed, drone strikes and inflated Pentagon budgets eat away at the lives of America's poor and working peoples. In the midst of today's celebrations, in the midst of the pomp and pageantry we can not forget that the point is to work toward the more perfect union and the work of our ancestors is not yet done.

Of "N-Words" and "Niggers"

This recent report on Quentin Tarantino's backstage presser at the Golden Globe leads me back down well traveled paths regarding America's most debated, provocative and complex phrase. The Salon.com article states that in a back stage interview with the press Tarantino's use of the word "Nigger" so disturbed the reporters that issued "audible gasps" due to his word choice. It would seem that Tarantino assumed the press would return to the question of the use of "nigger" in his character's mouths and was prepared to continue the conversation. Though the conversation was not reported on verbatim (despite the seeming explosiveness of his word choice), Tarantino apparently was on the verge of violating all that is sacred and holy among the Hollywood beat reporters. Clutch the pearls! I am not going to defend nor condemn, Quentin Tarantino and his choices, there are moments in his films where I believe his use of "nigger" is gratuitous, incredible (as in lacking credibility) pornographic.

This is a cringer due to the lack of organic placement of the term and Tarantino's visible excitement at its use. However, there are times when I believe his placement to be reflective of his characters and their social/cultural dispositions.

The ultimate merits of these two types of instances I leave to the reader but I will say that if Tarantino in his interview was using the word as an object, as in "the use of 'nigger' in my movies" vs. as a subject or signifier as in, "that nigger right there pissed me off", if even in vapor inducing repetition, than I would prefer that to the use of the weak kneed, "n-word". I for one could not support the absolute banishment of the word, nigger, from public use. There are moments clearly where it is not appropriate or appreciated but it remains a part of the English language and substituting it with a passive aggressive attempt to be sensitive to the feelings of Black people is as cowardly as the use of the word itself can be malevolent. I do not write this out of some attempt to justify the use of the word among Black people. I use the word and understand what I mean when I use it in the various ways that I use it and have come to understand the irrationality of trying to explain that. Either you know or you don't. However I refuse to buy into the "n-word" until this society shows as much passion for prison abolition as it does for the substitution of the "n-word" for the word "nigger". I refuse to buy in to the "n-word" until this society shows as much shock over the liquidation of our civil liberties under the "War on Drugs as it does over the use of the word "nigger" as an object in context of larger points. And finally I will buy into the "n-word" when the the disgust and outrage over the history and circumstances that gave the word "nigger" such atrocious power equals the disgust and outrage that is ginned up over the use of the word in reasonable context.

Update: This is an example of the problematic use of the word "nigger".

Making Sense of "Django", Part I

In this special edition of Jambangle, Charles Peterson (CP) and The Detective (TD) hash out Quentin Tarantino's latest movie Django Unchained. Part one is below.

TD: Hope you had a good holiday season, brother. Where to start on the monster that is Django? There's so much in this thing.  So, I'll start off with my initial impressions.  First and foremost, I have to admit that, when it comes to movies that dare to even brush up against the issue of slavery - let along forcefully confront it - I feel like we're starved and stunted. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a movie that dealt with slavery in any significant way? Lincoln simply gave us the standard stoic black characters - you know, the ones that smile and nod approvingly before shuffling off of the screen, never to be seen again. Who's given us a halfway decent depiction of slaves or black folk in the age of slavery prior to Lincoln? Who's given us a character that we can sink our teeth into?  Do we have to go back to Amistad circa 1997? I just finished another article that mentions that Reginald Hudlin, one of the producers of Django, and a successful director and producer in his own right, has been trying to get a movie on the Middle Passage done for the last two decades, to no avail. Danny Glover's biopic of the Haitian Revolutionary Toussaint L'Ouverture is in a state of suspended animation, a 30-year old ball of potential energy. So, it's not like there's a lack of interest on the part of black directors/producers to make films that deal with slavery. It's just abundantly clear that black directors/producers will never, ever, get all of the green lights necessary to make a cadre of movies pertaining to slavery. Historian and writer Jelani Cobb, a thoughtful critic of Django, starts his critique of the movie saying as much. So, when we get down to it, isn't this titanic dearth of representation the first fact we have to deal with as we contend with this movie?

CP: It goes without saying that a Black director could not get a film about slavery made. But that to me is not the question, rather what would be the tone of such a film? Lincoln suggests the manner in which such a film would be made. I think it may be necessary to step back from the film about slavery as some sort of religious icon. I am not convinced that overtly committed political directors could avoid the necessary reverence. The solemn, stoic, long suffering Negroes of Lincoln and Amistad seem to be the way to depict the enslaved. Tarantino's mash-up breathes something vivid in to a rare yet strangely moribund depiction of Black people. I am not sure if the analysis of the film should start on Hollywood's fear of righteous Black anger. Let's take that as given. I am not sure this connects to Spike Lee's criticisms of Tarantino but it may be worth it to ask what about Tarantino (aside from being white) that gives him the green lights to make a film. Let's be honest it is not just Black director's inability to get films about slavery made, Hollywood in general isn't interested in the topic. So why Tarantino?



TD: You're certainly right to suggest that the reverential depiction of slaves has been (and will no doubt  continue to be) a problem. When it comes to depictions of slavery, we don't have a whole lot to choose from.  The stoic slave has been the cinematic corrective to the depiction of black folks as beasts and such. So, when we get slaves shown at all, they're given gravitas and...wait for it..."dignity." As others have said, slaves are usually foils to set up benevolent, anti-slavery white folks who are determined to "give us free." Sadly, that image is far from moribund - it's vibrant and well-fed. Interestingly, one of the more consistent critiques of the movie that I've seen from black folks (scholars in particular) is that the movie shies away from more substantive depictions of day-to-day subversion and resistance.  "Why aren't there more rebellious people in this movie?" goes the line in a number of places.  At any rate, I think QT is uniquely suited to make this type of flick. First off, as a student of film, he's stated in an interview that he was seriously worn down by the "soul-killing...victimization" that defined most movies that dealt with slavery.  I'm with him on that. On the other end of the spectrum were historical "capital H" documentaries that told the story of slavery from a factual basis. He didn't want to do that either. Instead, he wanted to give us, as you say, the mashup: part western adventure, part travel film, part romance - where a brother gets to save the love of his life and, in QT's words, "have the catharsis of painting the walls" with the blood of slaveholding tyrants.  Secondly - he's been gearing up to do something like this for some time. Let's review his body of work: western-style, lone avenger type flick? Check. Revenge flick? Double check. Fantastical riff on historical narrative? Check. Willingness and ability to give us buckets of blood in the process of redemption and revenge? No doubt. Plus, when you take into account QT's ability to mash different genres together - I think that may be the linchpin that makes this whole endeavor possible, because I can't see this movie being made any way except as a  spaghetti western of sorts. Slavery purists and folks overly burdened by the need for authenticity (regardless of that pesky fiction/nonfiction divide) were never going to get a movie that would make them nod with approval. But the rest of us got a movie that, in my view, worked on multiple levels and did what it set out to do. So, do you think QT is suited for this type of endeavor?

CP: That damnable dignified Negro! Better than what has been presented and yet still not completely who we are! Certainly the Mother Jones review of Django touches upon QT's failure to show more regular and elaborate forms of resistance amongst the community of the enslaved. I believe his focus on the conventions of the narrative and investment in an American atomic portrayal of heroism (I can't call it exclusively masculimist because there is KIll Bill Vols. 1 and 2) limits a more possible accuracy (trying to get the proper level of speculative language when discussing the expectations of historicity in a fictive work). In short John Wayne, Alan Ladd, Clint Eastwood, Henry Fonda, Gregory Peck, Kirk Douglass, et al, when gun slinging all worked alone (Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and The Magnificent Seven are spectacular exceptions to the rule). And they tend to save damsels instead of working with women. So QT's commitment to genre specs limits the community driven nature of historic resistance to slavery. And arguably, his writing of history could have indulged far greater revenge fantasies. If Adolf Hitler could burn to death in a Parisian movie theater in Inglorious Basterds then why not have Django's ("the D is silent") revenge on Candieland spark a mass revolt among the enslaved in that part of Mississippi? So a truly epic scale was missed as QT loses the opportunity for swarms of sweaty, angry Black people to surge across blood drenched cottony white fields.

Despite this I will accept the emotional and cultural historicity of the film as we see many of the tropes of Black cultural life on display and get a strong sense of the psychological dynamic from which they arose. From warrior to trickster, the film gives us a complex range of ways Black people functioned in the institution.  I feel as if Django should have kept the early Afro, astride his horse like the bastard child of Frederick Douglass, Nat Turner and Jim Brown as an amalgamation of assertive personhood in Black culture and history. And we cannot ignore the flip trickster side of that in Sam L. Jackson's turn as the disingenuous Star Wars Emperor, like, Steven. All of this to say. I continue to reflect on a certain level of engaged cultural truthiness within the film and am dubious about pinning the film to any sort of historical accuracy.

Twas the Night Before . . . .

I am not sure which of these classics is more representative of me and my feelings about this time of year.

or

or

 or

or

or

Perhaps I should put down the either or thing and just embrace that I am fully of the late 20th century. Each one of these songs carries me back to such almost transcendent moments in my life . Each one speaks to the hopes this time of year carries with it. They are creative, inventive and emblematic of an earnestness  and timeliness that popular culture can capture. Each in their own way have meaning and beauty and the grace of renewal that is the harbinger of year's end and it is our sincere hope that you are swaddled in the promise of wonders to come.
Season's Best to you and yours from Jambangle!

Election 2012 in Historical Perspective, Maybe (Part II)

In the wake of the presidential election, Chihambuane wondered what I thought about an article on Naked Capitalism by Richard Kline. In his piece, Kline makes some notable comments about the actual motivations of the voting electorate. He's not buying the standard narrative that suggests that the 2012 election was the harbinger of some significant political realignment. As he tells us at one point, "The main reason this vote 'seemed close' was that Obama's side had little faith in him or his record, and did not turn out in close to their actual numbers." All Obama had to do, according to Kline, was "convince his side of the electorate that 'he cares about people like us.'" As for Romney, a candidate who had "little love from his party", his path to victory rested on his ability to convince the base of the Republican Party that "he was a nativist bigot."  Interesting and provocative, but these bon mots are not the main portion of Kline's post.

What Kline spends the bulk of his time exploring is the possible implications of the fact that the rural vote in the country is almost completely contained within one party - the Republican Party.  Mind you,  Kline's not trying to construct an operational theory of post-20th century American politics here; it's just a blog shot. But he does an admirable job of laying out one of the more noticeable schisms in American politics, one that does (even after all of these years, cuz this ain't new) remain under-analyzed. Blue urban centers surrounded by a sea of Red - what's that about? Well, as it turns out, it's about a host of things. Initially (from, say, the 1740s to the middle of the nineteenth century) rural folk across the country were culturally (and therefore largely politically) homogenous; they had a lot in common with the elites who ran the cities they were closest to.  Moving into the 19th century, rural folks were still  beholden to the local political elites, though the Civil War and other political/economic realities softened this allegiance, making people politically more fluid, and likely to join the party that appealed to their interests. The Great Depression also served to keep rural folks beholden to the political party of local elites.  We see the rate of Democratic Party affiliation for rural whites seriously erode during the Civil Rights era. This is a story that's been told many times before: race, economics, culture, regionalism and a host of other factors conspired to send rural whites into the Republican Party, where they remain to this day. It is from this perch that rural whites and other conservatives have launched into an urban/blue-rural/red antagonism that, to hear Kline tell it, is going to be an intractable element of American politics for the foreseeable future. Rural red wants to starve Urban blue of federal funds; Urban blue doesn't "get" rural red, "and really doesn't care to." Besides, the demographics are increasingly in Urban blue's favor; they're growing, while Rural red continues to shrink.  "There simply isn't much of a basis for compromise because the factions are culturally distinct," Kline tells us. "It's not just a matter of political leanings, or a simple few issues. It's everything."

Robert O. Self, an associate professor of history at Brown University, has written a book that will go a long way towards helping us figure out our current political landscape, and towards filling in some of the blind spots in Kline's musings.  Self's book, All in the Family: The Realignment of American Democracy Since the 1960's gives us a new tool with which to view the shifting politics of the post-war period - the American family.  Self contends that the struggles of the sixties over race, sexuality, gender and economics, all centered on competing notions of the nuclear family, and on the shift from "equal rights" to "family values." In the center of the conversation is the mythic notion of the nuclear family, neatly defined (as most myths are) as white, middle class, heterosexual. Even while this iconic and largely artificial construct was being contested by blacks, women, gays and others, it's political power remained formidable; both sides of the American political spectrum sought to define its parameters.  According to Self, liberal social/economic policy from the New Deal to the Great Society were designed to make the ideal family structure "attainable for more Americans than ever before." Self calls their operating system "breadwinner liberalism."

By 2004, the nuclear family had been transformed into a repository of conservative ideology. Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Pat Robertson and a host of other conservative "culture warriors" had successfully shifted the national political impetus from one that sought to expand the notion of family towards to one that wanted to defend traditional notions of family and cast the liberalization of the nuclear family as a moral (and also political and economic) assault on American families and values.  Self asserts that it is this battle, the battle to define what a "family" looked like, that "drove the larger transformation of American democracy over three generations, remaking a center-left social welfare polity established between 1934 and 1972 as the center-right free market system that emerged from 1973 to 2004." Richard Nixon's "silent majority", the political rise of conservative christianity in the 1970's, the legalization of abortion and the fracturing of the New Deal coalition paved the way for the right's "opposition to the broad liberal left's idea of expanded citizenship - of an expanded body politic." Self calls the operating system of American conservatives in this endeavor "breadwinner conservatism." The family became the central battleground for a moral re-visioning that had explicit political and economic consequences; indeed, the family was the first front in the right's successful reframing of the federal government's role in American life.

Suffice it to say, Chihambuane, I think there's a lot in Self's book that can help us to wrap our minds around the urban/rural divide we see in American politics.