Don’t Call Me ‘Nigga’, Honkey: Should Certain Whites Deserve a Pass on Racial Epithets?

First of all, I want to begin this text by saying, “I have called myself, family members, close friends, and Negroidian acquaintances, and even Black Americans I don’t know from Adam, ‘nigga’ for the majority of my life without pause.  As a matter of fact, I think I use the word ‘nigga’ more than a Southern planter during Reconstruction.  But to hear of Hollywood A-List actress Gwyneth Paltrow tweeting “niggas in Paris for real” during a ‘Watch The Throne’ tour stop in Paris, France this past week made me reevaluate my verbiage when verbally referencing my fellow brethren of (mostly)African descent—because aren’t most African Americans mixed with something?  What made Paltrow believe she had a rhetorical ‘pass’ in using this pejorative yet exclusionary term of endearment that, throughout the course of modern History has been infused in the psyches and American History textbooks, is sacred in the Black American community? Whether Jay-Z or Kanye made you ‘think’ it is usable by non-Blacks or not—Even though their duet “Niggas in Paris” is catchy, I believe this to be an epic fail on the part of the thespian Gwyneth Paltrow.  

I would like to avoid the issue of whether or not Blacks should use the word in a commodified form (i.e. slanguage, comedic endeavors, cinematic dialogue, and songs—particularly and gratuitously in Rap), but it would be impossible to deconstruct the ideological notion that non-Blacks cannot use the term when Black Americans have given the world the rhetorical ‘pass’ that Paltrow cashed- in via Twitter due to our exhaustive and haphazard use of the term whether it be used as an affectionate label of a friend or fellow brethren or as a checkmate of sorts to bring another Black American back to the reality of their social positioning within America’s, and the world’s, hierarchical structure that posits Blacks and those of African descent as different, or inferior, and even attempts to otherize the Negro with the persistent and consistent subjugation and discriminatory nuances of racial inequality and societal status.  But Paltrow used ‘nigga’ because it is a word used in a song with the word in the title?  ‘Niggas’ wrote, produced, arranged, and recorded this song and titled it in a studio with no overseers, police with German shepherds and water hoses or Anglo-Saxon mobs with nooses, torches, and white robes—so who’s  to blame?  The kings of Hip Hop, Sean Carter (Jay-Z) and Kanye West or their fan and friend, that just so happens to be a Hollywood and international celebrity, Gwyneth Paltrow?

Before we condemn Paltrow for taking liberty to use the term and Jay-Z and Kanye West and even the entire Hip-Hop community, including the ‘conscious’ and ‘gangsta’ and ‘pop’ artists for commidification of the term and profiting from the usage thereof, we must briefly and concisely address the original (though who really in the existence of the Earth known something’s definitive origins) of the signifier-turned-epithet-turned-salutatory term of ‘nigger’ and its variations (i.e. nigga, negra, negro, etc).  The original term for Africans or those of a darker skin hue was the Spanish and Portuguese noun ‘Negro’ which was a derivative of the Latin adjective ‘niger’ which is commonly translated as the color black and was translated to the French word ‘ne’gre’ meaning ‘nigger.’  True, these terminologies were used as signifiers because of the beginning of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and British colonization of northern Africa, but in and of themselves they were used as descriptors of people of a certain regional and visually definitive similarity.

 By 1619, when U.S. historians presume the ‘first’ Africans were brought to North America, colonists were writing the word ‘neggars’ when referencing the selling or purchasing or acquiring of African/Black slaves.  Whether or not the term had morphed from a signifier or label to a pejorative term of social subordination and demonization is debatable.  Yet, in the 393 years since the African ‘arrival’ in what is now the United States of America, ‘nigga’ and ‘nigger’ have been used to create a chasm between fellow citizens, enjoy windfalls of financial reciprocity via the entertainment industry, demoralize the internal spirit of the darker-melanined citizen in this nation, negatively categorize an individual’s worthlessness, and positively qualify the validity and authenticity of one’s ‘blackness’ in numerous, if not most, African American social circles. The question remains, “Who gets a pass?”

As a proponent of Black Arts and even the notion of  the Black Arts Movement (BAM) that Black Americans should embrace their culture, both past and present, I do not personally see a problem  with Black or African Americans using the word ‘nigga’ yet with the avid and exhaustive use of the term in popular culture and particularly within the African/Black American community which I am a proud part of, my mind wanders in the gallows of psychological perplexity when reconciling ‘nigga’ being uttered from the mouths of non-Blacks.  Well-known activist, professor, author, and social commentator Cornel West, once said, “There’s a certain rhythmic seduction to the word. If you speak in a sentence, and you have to say cat, companion, or friend, as opposed to nigger, then the rhythmic presentation is off. That rhythmic language is a form of historical memory for black people,” and I believe that is one of the reasons why the term should be acknowledged as sacred both within and outside of the Black American community which has such a shared heritage and history of both of negative and positive connotations.

 Sure, I believe that Paltrow was just tweeting her excitement through the guise of ‘tweeting’ the title of the song, yet she, just as any cognizant individual in the world (particularly ones that have lived in America if not only for a day), should feel some form of trepidation and exclusion from adding this lexicological quandary-of-a-term to their casual utterances and public vocabulary.  While most African Americans know the difference between being called a ‘nigger’ and a ‘nigga’ and are capable of discerning the intent of the intonation used when non-Blacks, and Blacks alike, say ‘nigga’, we must figure out if we will abolish the term all together or make it a normal and often used term synonymous with “friend” or even racial/ethnic adversary.  What if I was on a Hollywood set with Gwyneth Paltrow and I tweeted, “On a Hollywood set with my nigga—Gwyneth”, would you be offended?  Would you voice outrage?  Would you even be perplexed?  Better yet, would it make it to the media and the online blogosphere?  Would I even be writing this, ‘nigga’?

                                                                                                        Gee Joyner

Blacks and the 'Black' Church: Monkey See, Monkey Don't

                                                                          



 

When the President made his stance regarding Same Sex Marriage I feared that there would be a certain backlash from a contingency within the black church.  What I didn’t prepare for, however, was the current media’s local and national recapitulation of the black preacher, church and community being consistent with the stance of a particular segment.  If one is novice or untrained regarding the particularities of the black faith experience it may be easy to assert that all black people of faith are homophobic, hypocritical, anti-intellectual and that black faith leaders are all pimpish priest and not prophets.  To be clear, there have been a few exceptions projected nationally (and even fewer locally, in Memphis).  Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Rev. Otis Moss III, Pastor Leslie Callahan, Dr. Renita Weems and even a couple of those on the Faith in Memphis Panel and Rhetoric Race and Religion blog have expressed views in opposition of those opposing the President.  Yet, in a broader and more vast sense there has seem to be a strategy by some to demonize, reduce and re-project black faith as buffoonery at worse and misguided spirituality at best.  I believe this mythical, monolithic portrayal has compartmentalized our faith based expressions of love, hope in the American Democratic system, and the activism that is the bi-product of our spirituality. 

This strategy is not new.  In 2008 Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. was ostracized by pundits, public commentators and various others of the political and priestly persuasion.  We have recently seen the soon to be Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s constituency plan to represent Rev. Wright as the quintessential model of the “worst” of the black church.  To expose the irony here would be a convenient dissertation topic.  Instead, what I’d like to push back against is the notion that any ONE person, church, group or geographical location can adequately represent a people of faith with a legacy as long as the Nile and Mississippi River’s combined. 

People of faith, who are also people of color, many of whom have been actively involved in the political process, have never collectively been one value voters, in complete agreement with any theological premise or political legislative stance.  We are a complex people, and that is a good thing.  We never agree totally on anything, just like other ethnic groups.  The diversity of thought, theology, expression and practice of the black faith community is part of our beauty and when it is disregarding and reduced it becomes a tautology of xenophobic slave master sensibilities that stem from a hermeneutic of privilege. 

We have warred against this throughout our history in our attempts towards spiritual liberation, communal emancipation, racial desegregation and other issues of discrimination not limited to sexual orientation.  And to be honest, we have seen several setbacks on this sojourn.  This ought to be expected when a group of diverse and complex humans gather and seek to progress collectively.  Sometimes we are our own worst enemies; most responsible for our own stagnation. 

But we have never been defined by one group or one era.  The civil rights vein of the black prophetic tradition was not limited to the 50’s and 60’s.  The prophetic element can never be monopolized.  When the attempt is made to do so, the movement ceases to be prophetic.  It is commoditized for the sake of profit and disregards the voices of true prophets. But prophetic movements don’t succumb to commodification.  In all of our diversity we stay committed to the struggle for justice because of the call and cause of our Christ and never for the sake of compensation and conceit (even though sometimes money and notoriety accompany prophetic persona in a hyper-technological, social networking culture). 

It seems clear to me that faith in our current climate has political requirements and implications.  This is not to say that our ministerial leaders need to be politicians, but if our theology is disconnected from practical life and the political ethos, our theology becomes irrelevant.  This is why the prophetic narrative is not Ameri-centric.  True prophetic persona and presentation is universal at its core.  Therefore one cannot, in my opinion, faithfully interpret the life and ministry of Jesus devoid of his political realities (i.e. the treatment of lepers, Sabbath, the status of women and other politically affirmed cultural values of his day).  Doing so is to be reductionist relative to Jesus’ prophetic ministry, the prophetic tradition in which he stood and his divinity in general. 

I believe God CALLS us ALL in our various vineyards to raise our voice (not always in agreement, that’s unison, but still in harmony) to adequately represent the beautiful hues of our humanity and the complex cords and tones of our theology to continue to help us progress.  We must find a way for all of these voices to be adequately and authentically represented. 

                                                                                               Rev. Earle J. Fisher

This is America, Jack: The American "Fuck 'em"-ism of Gays and Blacks

                                                                        

Recently, the citizens of North Carolina decided to ratify an amendment to the N.C. State Constitution. Amendment One, as it was known, states, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”  The people of the state very clearly demonstrated how they felt about gay marriage. The people have spoken and American democracy has again proven its fairness.I, however, do not understand why some members of the gay community are surprised. This is America, Jack. This is what America does. You need to learn to stay in your lane; otherwise America will put you there. America doesn’t care that certain citizens want to enjoy the U.S. Constitution but can’t. America says, “Suck it up. Shut up. Play your role.” There is a long history of American “fuck ‘em”-ism, and this history can’t be ignored or dismissed, for understanding American aggression is requisite to successfully negotiate American aggression.First, we must look at how America has dealt with black folk.

An analysis of American history would easily provide a framework of systematic oppression. A force, described almost as a bogeyman in this world of colorblindness, works to oppress another group of people.  One person’s life of abuse is another person’s luxury and decadence. Rich white people have set out, since day one, to exploit other people. Africans, and later their descendants, were those “other people.” As soon as a rich white person set up some type of shop in the colonies, the exploitation started. These rich white people decided to use African as free labor. Furthermore, these rich white people showed no hesitation to murder, poison, torture, and/or rape millions of innocent people. These rich white people set up industries that created immense revenue. These new American industries generated so much revenue that no one cared that it only took a couple million families to be torn apart.  According to Michele Alexander, in her great book The New Jim Crow, “Before democracy, chattel slavery in America was born” (Alexander 54).

Starting in 1662, the colony of Virginia made slavery legal and protected by the government.  Contrary to popular belief, the legalization of slavery followed the social trend.  Society used some form of democracy and said, “Those people are not people, they are of an inferior race. Therefore, we can treat them like animals.” The rich white people made eleventeen tons of money, and created a society that supported that profit generation. Alexander says, “It may be impossible to overstate the significance of race in defining the basic structure of American society” (Alexander 54).

Following the abolishment of the slavery in 1865, rich white people found themselves in a strange predicament.  The foundation of all things economic and social was just made illegal. How can this 200 year old capital system survive? They concocted a series of laws that became known as Jim Crow.  Slavery was replaced with Jim Crow. For many black people, the only difference between slavery and sharecropping was that Master became Mister. And even though slavery was abolished, the murder, poison, torture, and/or rape still occurred.

In “The New Jim Crow,” Alexander argues that today’s new Jim Crow is mass incarceration.  Once a citizen is convicted of a federal felony, they can become slaves again.  A prisoner can become the property of the government, as per the 13^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  These prisoners today are used as free labor for many of the world’s largest and most recognized brands. The War on Drugs, Alexander argues, is the legal justification for packing privately owned and operated prisons with colored bodies. 

American history is rife with change, so much so that in a scant 236 years, America has a black President. Even still, somehow—some way, the system has changed and adapted, but it has never gone away. Race, more specifically blackness, has always been used to cut a profit. Black folk have been exploited for so long, no one really cares what effect almost 400 years of American “fuck ‘em”-ism has had. So gay community, America has never just enacted sweeping legislation.  America changes grudgingly. America never wants to let go.  America says one thing but does another. America lies so many times, deception becomes truth.  But either way, understand the system you are fighting.

 

                                                                                                           Anjan Basu

Same-Sex Marriage: Barack’s New Black

                                                                                   

   Is same-sex marriage the new black for Barack Obama? I think so. Since Barack Obama’s historic “support” of gay marriage, critics and defenders alike have kept a buzz alive about the issue, heaping both praise or blame on the president’s shoulders about his public statement, pondering whether or not his position makes him a good or bad president. Although Obama’s subject matter was groundbreaking, his actual words avoid the responsibility for taking any concrete action on gay marriage, and are therefore not very groundbreaking at all. In fact, Obama’s statements reflect his muted racial politics as much as, if not more than, they do his sexual politics. Same-sex marriage is in fashion with Barack Obama now, but it is only a passing fad, a by-product of political expediency.

            The president is using gay marriage as a “hot button” issue to boost up his street credentials as a progressive, while at the same time down-playing his “otherness” as an African-American. Once we look at Obama’s same-sex marriage rhetoric as rhetoric, we see that his “courageous stance” is primarily political double talk aimed at re-branding an embattled POTUS, making him seem edgy, yet non-threatening. Obama’s exact position on gay marriage is as non-committed as his position on African-American rights. According to Obama, “I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that…sex couples should be able to get married” because “in this country we've always been about-- fairness. And-- and treatin' everybody-- as equals. Or at least that's been our aspiration.” Essentially, Obama is saying he is not against gay marriage, but his administration isn’t going to push the issue “because historically, this [marriage] has not been a federal issue.”

            I beg your pardon Mr. President, but marriage has been a federal issue since Loving v. Virginia (1967), which declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional, thereby  ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. This decision had bearing on the current gay marriage debate because what was at stake was which American citizens had the right to claim their relationship a “marriage.” Apparently, brother Obama (a law professor, mind you) forgot this little hiccup in American history. If he hadn’t, he could have been honest with Robin Robinson and said that marriage has a long-standing tradition of being a federal matter, and also that it has been so because the United States has never been a country that didn’t have to force citizens into “fairness.” That would have been controversial and progressive. “Equality” is not the oil that makes this machine run. Barack knows this, but he can’t say anything about it because he is the first President of the United States with clear African ancestry. His mere presence is as progressive as American politics is going to become during his tenure.

            Clearly, Obama’s rhetoric does not match up with the facts. Obama, considering the Loving case in his statement on gay marriage, would have reminded Americans of two things: 1) There is a precedent for federal intrusion into marriage laws. And, 2) Barack Obama is—in so many ways—a beneficiary of federal intrusion into state marriage laws. Unfortunately, this is an election year, and Obama is an unpopular president among progressive democrats and white independents. Although he is still wildly popular among African-Americans, his team has decided to boost his profile at the expense of a truth that would too closely associate him with his strongest base support. (This happens all too often in American politics.)

            I refuse to deride Obama for his wishy-washy stance, or his crafty political maneuvering to try to stay relevant. But I have to ask a question that has burning in my mind since May 9^th.  Why is okay for Obama to be progressive on gay rights issues, but non-controversial when it comes to issues dealing with Blacks, and other minorities? It’s not a new question, or an unfair one. Despite his rhetoric claiming otherwise, I don’t think Barack’s championing of the gay rights cause was a decision he made with his heart-- it was made with his head. Public opinion and political expediency are the real culprits behind Barack Obama's public support of gay marriage.

                                                                                                     Armondo R. Collins

Shaft’s Mis-Education of the Negro

            The movie Shaft promotes a white racist agenda. The narrative arch of both Shaft films promotes African-American self hatred, as well as the superiority of white wealth. The subtlety with which these promotions occur are so nuanced, it’s as if they are designed to stay hidden from unsuspecting viewers. Shaft’s racist undertones are propaganda in the mental war destroying Blacks.

            Many will disagree with my analysis of Shaft, but I hold firm to my position that the Shaft movies embody is a negative fantasy designed to miseducate African-Americans about themselves and the world. Contrary to popular arguments in support of the films, Shaft does not portray a Black man challenging white authority and speaking truth to power. Quite the contrary, John Shaft was, and is, a pawn of the oppressor. Shaft embodies the veneer of a spirit of racial pride and resistance. But his character in no way transcends the inferiority heaped upon him and the masses of poor African-Americans. Nor, in his victory in any of his movies, does John Shaft not continually represent the power structure that he is given credit for subverting. A brief examination of the 1971 version of the movie, and its year 2000 counterpart will shed more light on the meaning of my statements.

In the original film, Shaft is a messiah-like champion, who saves Black people from the evils of whiteness. In this instance, white people, in the form of Italian mobsters, are plotting to push more drugs into the Harlem ghetto. In this version, detective John Shaft gets unwittingly sucked into a war between the Italian mob and the Black mafia, who are both fighting for control of the Harlem drug trade. Each faction in this war metaphorically symbolizes the racial category “white” and “black” respectively. In this drama, John Shaft is the underdog trickster, who through his wit and strength of conviction, winds up beating the white mob to a standstill. Shaft never rids the ghetto of crime itself, but the white criminals are at least put at enough of a loss that they leave Shaft and his friends alone.

In the 70’s, Shaft’s character gave Black movie goers hope that they could fight through the criminal capitalism heaped upon them by white thugs. In this sense, Shaft provided African-Americans with cultural clues about who they are, and how to behave, in order to “make it” in America. (i.e. You’ve got to be “cool,” and “take life as it comes.”) In Black folk lore, Shaft became a signifier of the African-American fight for survival in the United States. The problem with Shaft’s signifying, however, is that the hero narrative that demarcates Shaft’s cultural importance is narrative space that promotes the perpetual servility of African-Americans. Today, Shaft’s image has been co-opted by the status quo media again, and this time, he has been refashioned into a new type of training tool for racial inferiority.

In part, the Shaft movie series is a trick to get Black people to conform to white aesthetic values. By getting African-Americans to buy into the Shaft series, Hollywood studio executives are also getting Blacks to accept stereotypical notions of their selves, laden with negative connotations of what poor Black life truly entails. In essence, African-Americans are subjecting themselves to a subtle, yet negative, cultural training that has the effect of normalizing African-American inferiority. Phrased another way, an hour and a half of “feel-good” entertainment, is the man’s way of programming Black people to be America's continued slaves. Nowhere in the narrative arch of the original Shaft movie, for all of its critical praise, do we find any hope that Black people are actually saved by this so-called “Black hero.” In fact, Shaft actually does more harm to the Black community, inside and outside, of the movie than he does to help it. Rather than viewing Shaft as a champion, look at him for who he truly is: a pawn of the oppressor. Sure, Shaft defeats the mob, but only temporarily. In the process of his “win,” Shaft gets the entire Black liberation army slaughtered; he essentially becomes a hired gun for Black crime; and in the final analysis, none of the fundamental issues surrounding poor Black life in Harlem are resolved by any of Shaft’s actions. Movie goers are forced to settle for the fact that the hero gets a little money for himself and gets to have sex with pretty women. Now ask yourself, is this really a champion of the people? Compare Shaft to a character like Dan Freeman from The Spook Who Sat by the Door and it is easy to see the liberating ethos of Shaft may be a bit undeserved.

Shaft 2K serves pretty much the same purpose as the original. John Shaft is a shadow of a hero; or, rather, a villain in disguise. This latest incarnation is supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek revival of the well-loved 70’s cinematic hero. But the 2000 version of the character does even more to undermine African-American progress than did the first. In this installment of the series, Samuel L. Jackson is the namesake nephew of the legendary private eye originally played by Richard Roundtree. He is assigned to investigate a racially motivated murder case. A black college student played by Mekhi Phifer is killed in front of a restaurant by Walter Williams Jr., played by Christian Bale. Walter Jr. is the son of a wealthy New York construction tycoon, accustomed to white privilege, and unflinching in his abuse of African-Americans. Williams flees the country rather than face prosecution for a crime he does not feel is actually a crime. Of course, Shaft eventually catches up with the bad guy, but true to form for the Shaft series, all of John Shaft’s heroic deeds only serve to reinforce white superiority, rather than nullify it. After catching Williams for a second time, he is freed by a white judge who has to bow down to the Williams' family fortune. When Shaft catches the bad guy for a third time, justice is not really served because an innocent Black mother, who knows the law is not on her side, is forced to exact vigilante justice against Williams in order to make sure he pays for her son's death. Although an act of retribution temporarily provides a feel good moment of release for the audience, the implications of the scene are that white wealth, power, and privilege have turned yet another African-American into a criminal.

One thing that most, if not all, Blacks should know about American society is that the media is not on our side. More pointedly, the U.S. media, in most of its different guises, is in fact the instrument used to mete out the racist education that used to be reserved for the school system and public square. No longer are African-Americans lynched, or fed an intellectual diet of social Darwinism, instead, today, they are bombarded with racist images that quietly creep into their subconscious mind conditioning them to conform to a world predicated on inequality that constantly operates at their expense. A book called Racism and the Press puts it this way:

Groups [Whites] can remain dominant only if they have the resources to reproduce their dominance…Hence, it is essential for the reproduction racism that also the ‘means of ideological production’, such as education and media, are controlled by the white dominant group…this means that white elites control the contents and structures of the system of ideological ethnic representation, which is essentially a form of positive group self-presentation. In other words, through education and the media the white group controls the definition of the ethnic situation…(Van Dijk, 32-33) 

Understood in these terms, Shaft in whatever form he is manifested, becomes the latest weapon in the arsenal used to assault positive African-American identity formation.

            African-Americans should be leery of elevating Shaft to the level of a “cultural hero.” John shaft is not a leader, and should not be emulated or venerated. As Carter G. Woodson warns, leadership of the Shaft type is usually “superimposed” for the purpose of “directing the course of the ostracized group along sane lines” (88). These supervisors of the conduct of African-Americans conduct prevent Black people from learning the truth which might make them “unruly” or ambitious to become free (88).

                                                                                                                       Armondo R. Collins

Works Cited

Parks, Gordon. “Shaft.” Los Angeles: Warner Brothers. 1971.

Singleton, John. “Shaft.” Los Angeles: Warner Brothers. 2000.

Van Dijk, Teun. Racism and the Press. New York: Routledge, 1991. Print.

Woodson, Carter G. Miseducation of the Negro. New York: Clear Words.org. Web. GoogleBooks.com. 5 April 2011.  

Gay or Nay: Reconciling Race, Religion, and Homosexuality in Black America

                                                                            



“At a certain point, I've just concluded, that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

 And with that one sentence, our President Barack Obama, both created and stirred a conversation amongst his supporters and detractors alike. In America, we are more than ready to speak superficially within our circles and with our friends, but yet we are completely unprepared and unwilling to discuss who we really are with anyone. Our comments are vanilla and lack depth and insight into who we really are and what we really believe. With this being true, how then can our President take a side? How can he make (and subsequently defend) such a strong and defined statement? What about those he’s alienated? Will they vote against him? Will those he has now openly supported return the favor come election time? Will it even matter?

In America, we have a history of denying who we are and how we feel. We live lives that are almost counter to everything we supposedly stand for....because we must in order to provide for our families. We host conversations with one another but we very rarely divulge how we really feel about the real issues plaguing us. Most of the conversations seen on a site like Facebook can be described as simply rhetorical Mancala. A game being played in which one is looking to dominate the others playing through the use of large words, abstract concepts and misleading intentions, collecting “likes” as our marbles and dropping them into our containers stamped “EGO”. An issue as large as the “acceptance of homosexuality,” cannot and should not be seen on such a small egotistically driven scale. The views you are about to read (and hopefully absorb) are nothing of the aforementioned.

I am a homophobe.

But exactly what does that mean? According to Dictionary.com; Homophobe is defined as: A person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

With convoluted definitions like that, there is no wonder why so many have a hard time accurately describing their emotions and divulging their real opinions on touchy subjects. The suffix -phobia simply means “fear” or “fear of”, how hate became involved in the definition of Homophobia is unclear. Let’s see if I can be more focused in my description of how I feel about homosexuality.

I have a fear of how the acceptance of homosexuality impacts the community which I consider myself a part of. Because Black America has so many unresolved issues negatively affecting our progression, I do not believe it is wise for us to adopt a culture which surely will cause even more confusion before it is properly sorted out. 

Black America, more than any other subset of American culture, has had to fight and die for the right to live in peaceful harmony with others in this country. Hell, we’ve had to fight and die to live amongst ourselves in peace (Black Wall Street, Tulsa Oklahoma Riots). To compare our struggles for equality with that of any other (in American History) should be considered blatantly disrespectful towards our martyrs whose rewards are found in my ability to speak directly to you right now! Equality for Black America is found in going from a human being considered 3/5th human being, to simply one whole. From being included in sales and trust deeds as chattel to my being able to purchase a home for my family and sign a deed of trust myself. From literally standing on a selling block and being purchased, labeled and used a breeding cow or stud, or the sole purpose of being overworked as mules in the field to being able to establish a company as an entrepreneur in order to provide the means of living for one’s family. I won’t even get into the lynching, the sheer terror campaigns endured, disingenuous laws such as Jim Crow, and others. Black America, our struggle to survive first, prosper second, the Cointel Pro operatives to murder our leaders and spokespeople as well as infect our communities with disease and psychotic drugs, and eventually place an African American man into the White House, is not comparable to any other culture or group in the history of this land.

Time and time again, however, our struggle and movement has been hijacked by some other who feels they are not being treated “equally.” The same songs are sung, the same stances are reconfigured and re-presented and because of our lack of self identity, Black Americans log on and co-sign this behavior. Equality in America can never truly be achieved. We have too many different cultures and factions to make it possible. Too many have enjoyed too large of a head start, and others have been dropped in and endured too deep of a hole which they would have to get out of to get started in the first place. So to make things fit in our contemporary capitalistic society, we have transformed the meaning of “equality”. Today “equality” means “sameness” rather than “oneness.” We have splintered off into so many different camps to satisfy our need to belong that we have completely lost track of what it means to treat someone equal: To allow people to be different without making them the same as us. We want to view homosexuals as the “same as” heterosexuals, and because so many Americans (homosexuals included) suffer from separation anxiety, they happily oblige. If we truly viewed them as equals, we would be celebrating their differences, rather than subliminally coercing them to join the ranks of ours. If we truly want to respect homosexual culture, we will take more time to know more about them, how they came into being, what is the motive of their love, and what role they may be able to play in the overall advancement of humanity or at the least American society.

“The polarity of the sexes is disappearing, and with it erotic love, which is based on this polarity. Men and women become the “same”, not as “equals” as opposite poles. Contemporary society preaches this ideal of unindividualized equality because it needs human atoms, each one the same, to make them function in a mass aggregation, smoothly, without friction; all obeying the same commands, yet everybody is being convinced that he/she is following his own desires.” -Eric Fromm, The Art of Loving 1956

Historically speaking, in a religious context, equality meant we were all Children of God. Each given a unique job or task which when carried out was paramount to the overall cohesiveness of society. Husbands were expected to be strong, both mentally and physically, and this strength was used to create and fashion a livelihood for the family....it was also a foregone conclusion that they were men. Women were expected to reign in terms of practicalities and thoughtfulness. While the men were away working, wives tended to the children and to the household. Thus using the very natures endowed to us by God herself. Through God’s divine wisdom or natural selection (you choose) both men and women have adapted to these natures. Men are typically physically stronger than women and share a common bond for rationality and reasoning. Women are the more emotional, but equally necessary counterparts to that. Their tremendous capacity and willingness to love and nurture is what keeps the world from being at war with itself. But of course, too much of anything has the tendency to create an overcompensation of some sort. The yin/yang of man/woman relationships is what is needed to create life. The masculine and feminine energy that is visible in every aspect of nature is required to recreate and stabilize life itself. Women love simply because....as does Mother Nature. No one has to do anything to expect the sun to rise in the morning or for life to spew forth from the ground. It’s intrinsic. This “Motherly Love” is the type of love that young babies need. They are unable to do for themselves and need the love of someone who does not require anything from them. Men are very different in their makeup. Like Father Time, we have defined expectations.
“You can use my car once you clean your room.” 
“You can go to the dance if you make straight As.”
“I’ll buy you a car of your own when you graduate high school/college.”
Because of a man’s nature to rationalize his actions, things are given once earned. Young children around the age of 8 begin to yearn for this type of love. It satisfies a need for the sense of accomplishment within them. This is why it is very common for a child to spend a large portion of their lives aiming to make their father proud. This is something you very rarely hear concerning mothers. Unfortunately we live in a time where it is not uncommon to be surrounded by young people who have grown up with only one of the necessary two formats of energy. Single parent moms, no matter how hard they try do not possess the natural aura of a man. The same can be said for single parent fathers and the feminine energies needed. I contend that our current state of confusion, as to what is and what is not homosexuality, is directly related to young men being given too much feminine energy too often. In an act of rebellion against their choices of male mates, females are choosing themselves to share their intimacy with.

"The awareness of human separation, without reunion by love-- is the source of shame. It is at the same time the source of guilt and anxiety."

All in all, the wage of sin is death. Nature reproduces, life is constantly recreated. This is not a reality for homosexuals as it is impossible for their lifestyle to sustain itself through natural means. Homosexuals cannot mate and create more homosexuals. Replication can only be achieved through Conversion. This is one of the central tenants in After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90s.

It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us--we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this..... Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. 

And this is where my fear is rooted. Black America has been used as a harbinger for enough of America’s unresolved issues. We are the same group of people used to test the long term effects of syphilis unknowingly through experimentation from our government. Our families have witnessed enough separation. Our foundation is being mended as we speak. I fear that this particular load, homosexual indoctrination as it is currently being unveiled, is simply too much for us to bear. Let us find our way back to the table of harmony with the rest of the world. We need to allow ourselves time to recreate the image of love and marriage within our community before we extend an offering for others to join us in our misery. We too are the Children of God. Some would even point to us in the bible as the referenced Lost Tribe of Judah, stuck in a land not our own. Let’s recommit ourselves to ourselves and turn this thing around before it’s too late. 

 -Mustafa Ahmad Shakur

Don't Ask and Don't Tell God: The Quandary of Homosexuality in America

                                                                         




It has been a couple of weeks since President Barack Obama openly admitted that he supports Gay Marriage and all the rights and privileges thereof. All forms of media have been inundated with opinions and viewpoints either in support of the President’s proclamation or demonizing his attempt at creating a discourse in this nation, which was allegedly founded on the ideological concept of “liberty and justice for all.” Yet, somehow, the United States’ separation of Church and State has been reconfigured by the religious, particularly Christian, zealots in an attempt to discriminate and further disenfranchise those citizens who identify themselves as gay or homosexual.

 It has always been my belief that every person, regardless of ethnicity or religious beliefs or socioeconomic status should be treated fairly and I believe this civil right should be extended to our homosexual brethren as well. It would be unjust for the laws of the self-proclaimed “greatest country in the world” to disallow same sex marriages on the pretense of the Judeo-Christian biblical texts’ stance on homosexuality. Do we not exist in a realm of national governing that separates the Church and the State? I, for one, am no expert on the origins or the causes or even the totality of comprehension of homosexuality, but with the aforementioned stated, how can any of us vilify one’s sexual preference if we do not know if it is due to nurture or nature?

 There has been a major outcry from Christian pastors, preachers, ministers, and parishioners concerning the President’s decision to publicly support same-sex marriages and, particularly, in the black Church and its respective ‘community’, a divisive demon of epic proportions has ensconced itself around the psyche of the African American Christian. This demon has warped the psyche of the black Christian and reconstructed their understanding of the major tenant of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ, which transmitted by John, states, “As I have loved you, so must you love one another” (John 13:34 NIV). Or one can also reference another book of the Gospel which states, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39 NIV). How are discriminatory practices against our fellow man an exhibition of Love? In my most humble opinion, I believe that it is the exact opposite—Hate.

 Now, I am almost positive that many readers will think my use of the word ‘hate’ is going too far, but if you are intolerant of a particular thing or individual or behavior, the detesting of these things or individuals or behaviors manifest themselves in the form of intolerance which is the next-door neighbor to Hate. Many Christians, theologians, and pious hypocrites, particularly those of Facebook residency, have been selectively cherry-picking the biblical scriptures to support their anti-Gay marriage and homophobic diatribes. Ironically, most of the cherry-picking comes from the Old Testament’s book of Leviticus. I have seen Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind” and Leviticus 20:13 (KJV), “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Or do you know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor landerers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” All of this seems contradictory. Most Christians adhere to the New Testament and utilize the Gospels as the definitive words, teachings, and accounts of the life and travels of Jesus the Christ and this becomes rhetorically problematic because if readers use juxtapositioning in the analysis of these texts they will find that contradictions abound and what we deem as immoral can be applicable to any and almost every facet of human existence and interaction with one another. Are there not believers of the Christ that are drunkards, sexually promiscuous, and adulterers? Are there not Christians who worship God and Jesus yet have created a false God/idol out of money and material possessions? I won’t answer. I will let you, the reader, pray for discernment and derive at a conclusion.

 What is it that Christians and the religious zealots of this nation want? Do they want to ‘play God’ or do they want to ‘be’ God? If an individual is a homosexual, wouldn’t the omnipresent and omnipotent Creator know this? How, if the aforementioned is true, would the homosexual hide his or her sexual orientation or preference? Should they not tell God and should he or she not ask their sexual orientation or preference? Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe gay marriage is an attempt by homosexuals to taint the ‘sacred’ institution of marriage with perverse intentions. This is a laughable idea, I understand, but so is the idea that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry one another under the auspices of Love. Better yet, how is demonizing a culture of individuals illustrating the unconditional Love that God has for his creations. Did God not love us so much that, “He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life”? (John 3:16 KJV) Are we to think that LGBT believers won’t be accepted by the Lord? Should John have inserted an asterisk behind this piece of scripture?

 If we as a people allow the castigation of the homosexual in America, what will be the next discriminatory technique used to further cement xenophobic behavior? Will the Church disallow homosexuals to worship in the houses of the Lord that are almost on every corner of every street in the United States of America? Will we revisit the miscegenation laws of the past that banned interracial intimacy and marriage? (Loving v. Virginia was the last anti-Miscegenation law to be defunct in 1967) Surely not—I hope. The issue at hand is not whether you agree with the homosexual lifestyle or endorse same-sex relationships and marriage but that equality for all is under attack—by the Church of all institutions. We must stand up for the equality for all and resist the subjugation of our fellow man by the efforts of some to reconfigure a social hierarchical structure by creating yet another subclass of people. The problem with inequality and discrimination is that it reinforces the social hierarchical structure that posits some people, in this case heterosexuals, as ‘better’ than others and that is not only problematic but also troubling and destructive in a ‘civilized’ society. It is unjust to ban same-sex marriage on the pretense that some people do not have the same type of sexual intercourse as others do, and as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. said in his ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’, “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” -Gee Joyner