This has been an interesting week, to say the least. While my views on race and racism have evolved over the years, they remain matters of which I am sorely conscious. That said, there is a white man, ten years my junior, with whom I discuss somewhat weighty topics from time to time - the types of topics one tends to avoid for fear of rousing "sleeping bears." Most recently, our exchange addressed the Obama Presidency.
Those who really know me know I am suspicious of politicians, in general. I don't trust them. In my mind expecting a politician to represent my best interests is akin to expecting a fair verdict from a jury of "peers" of which few, if any, have had life experiences even remotely similar to my own. Most politicians, like said jurors, cannot understand what drives me on the deepest levels - nor I, what drives them. Hence, I believe it is not possible for them to represent my interests accurately, anymore than the aforementioned jurors can be expected to understand my motives.
Enter Barack Obama, an African-American in the truest sense of that label. In fact, he can one-up most African-Americans because he knows his forefathers' country of origin. He is Kenyan-American; he is not a man with a blurred identity. He is not like me or most African-American males in this respect. I cannot relate to the challenges of being a half-black, African male raised by the white daughter of a bigoted grandmother. I cannot walk in the circles where Ivy League educated black men tread. So in my mind, the United States has conducted business as usual in (s)electing Barack Obama president. They have once again chosen a black man they perceive to be of the least threatening among us. Back in the day it was, "If you're light, you're all right...if you're black, get back." This stance toward African-Americans has become much more nuanced, but the prevailing attitude of accepting black folks whites find least threatening persists today, and Barack Obama is their poster child.
As I alluded to in a previous essay, Obama's election was significant. It has had a profound affect on a great many people of African descent, both here and around the world. But politics in this country is and has always been about preserving the wealth of the wealthy and the power of the powerful. Contrary to what many of us would like to believe, Obama fits a mold the wealthy and powerful find useful or he could not have risen through the ranks of our political system as he has done. Yes, a grass roots movement gave him the needed momentum to go all the way to the Oval office, but nonetheless, he was merely one in a pool of politicians presented by the media and given to the masses from which to choose. It's not like he was a write-in candidate whose elevation stunned the American body-politic.
Now because of the illusion that he is in this office because "we the people" wanted him there, there has been an uplifting affect on the common man in this nation, particularly among African-Americans. There has been a bit of a "me too" affect in that the psychological bonds around the aspirations of many - young people, in particular, have been broken. It has also given rise to a greater sense of responsibility in many black men; "We've got to do better," has almost become cliché. A number of whites will come to realize blacks are far more patriotic and capable than they once believed us to be. Still more will feel that his election to the Presidency - made possible by white support - frees them from the guilt of their antecedents' sins. All well and good, but why should I be satisfied with that? As I said before, the acceptance of blacks whom whites find least threatening is business as usual when it come to strides in social progress within the United States.
So, where do I set the bar? When will I be most proud of my fellow citizens? It's going to take the election - by overwhelming popular vote - of a capable, black, male descendent of slaves with a socially progressive agenda before I believe United States citizens have matured and moved past bigotry. If my interpersonal relationships are any indication, this may be possible within a generation. Why must he have a socially progressive agenda? Because conservatism in this country has always doubled as a thin veil for keeping the inequities fostered by racism and classism as the status quo. In no way has Obama's presidency struck me as being a real departure from this thus far. However, I'm not an unreasonable man. I realize he may have to go along to get along during his first term if he wants to be re-elected, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. What he does in the first half of a second term in office will reveal who and what he really is. I just hope going along to get along in the meantime doesn't do us irreparable harm.
Headroominations...
Header pic
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Our Country Grows Up A Little
I wrote this right after Barack Obama won the Presidential election and was encouraged to share it, so here it is.
It is the 4th of November, 2008, in the fortieth year of my life. This day, a man – a black man – only a few years my senior was elected President of the United States of America. The significance of this event in my life may be difficult for many to understand. The sympathetic and empathetic heart and mind can imagine but never fully comprehend its importance to my own and the collective black American psyche.
Today we are made to feel a little more American. Today we are made to believe we really do belong. Yes, the vestiges of white supremacy still linger, but today we see that its power and influence, its grip on American society and its ability to shape America’s collective attitude are but shadows of its former strength. Make no mistake; there are those on the fringes who will be emboldened. They will seize this moment as an opportunity to justify acts of desperation meant to preserve their sense of entitlement. Words like “senseless” and “depraved” will be used to describe their actions and speech, but we need only keep in mind that these are the last gasps of a dying monster. With its demise comes the need for an even greater work – reconciliation.
We cannot be whole and live in denial. We cannot move forward by trying to forget the past. Until white people confront the sins of their forefathers and the benefits gleaned from them honestly and openly, they cannot free themselves of their guilt. And until black people recognize and correct our own self-destructive vices, we cannot demand to be accepted as equals. Both of our spirits are damaged. Both our spirits need healing. Only after we have been painfully honest with ourselves, can we begin to become whole. Then we will be fit to embrace each other with soundness of mind and emotional freedom. When I can see myself as a man rather than a black man, I have enabled myself to see others as, merely, men. I may have met this challenge with a few individuals and prevailed, but until I can reform my attitude towards entire groups of people who on the surface do not resemble me, I have much work to perform on myself. The events of this day help me to see that my efforts are not all for naught.
Don't get it twisted. I do not want my ethnicity ignored. It is an integral part of my identity which I embrace wholeheartedly, because my life experiences - positive and negative - have been influenced by it greatly. Nor do I wish for a world where tolerance of differences is the norm. Tolerance is a dirty word in my lexicon. I don't want others to feel they must endure my presence. What I desire is a future when no one takes my ethnicity into account when making assumptions about my character. A future when I don't feel the need to filter my perception of others through my own racial biases. A future when I am always comfortable being myself. Just let me...be. Don't place glass above me, boxes around me or stumbling blocks ahead of me. Most of all do not lower you expectations for me, rather, raise the bar and I will meet the challenge, then turn around and do the same for you. That future somehow seems just a little closer now.
It is the 4th of November, 2008, in the fortieth year of my life. This day, a man – a black man – only a few years my senior was elected President of the United States of America. The significance of this event in my life may be difficult for many to understand. The sympathetic and empathetic heart and mind can imagine but never fully comprehend its importance to my own and the collective black American psyche.
Today we are made to feel a little more American. Today we are made to believe we really do belong. Yes, the vestiges of white supremacy still linger, but today we see that its power and influence, its grip on American society and its ability to shape America’s collective attitude are but shadows of its former strength. Make no mistake; there are those on the fringes who will be emboldened. They will seize this moment as an opportunity to justify acts of desperation meant to preserve their sense of entitlement. Words like “senseless” and “depraved” will be used to describe their actions and speech, but we need only keep in mind that these are the last gasps of a dying monster. With its demise comes the need for an even greater work – reconciliation.
We cannot be whole and live in denial. We cannot move forward by trying to forget the past. Until white people confront the sins of their forefathers and the benefits gleaned from them honestly and openly, they cannot free themselves of their guilt. And until black people recognize and correct our own self-destructive vices, we cannot demand to be accepted as equals. Both of our spirits are damaged. Both our spirits need healing. Only after we have been painfully honest with ourselves, can we begin to become whole. Then we will be fit to embrace each other with soundness of mind and emotional freedom. When I can see myself as a man rather than a black man, I have enabled myself to see others as, merely, men. I may have met this challenge with a few individuals and prevailed, but until I can reform my attitude towards entire groups of people who on the surface do not resemble me, I have much work to perform on myself. The events of this day help me to see that my efforts are not all for naught.
Don't get it twisted. I do not want my ethnicity ignored. It is an integral part of my identity which I embrace wholeheartedly, because my life experiences - positive and negative - have been influenced by it greatly. Nor do I wish for a world where tolerance of differences is the norm. Tolerance is a dirty word in my lexicon. I don't want others to feel they must endure my presence. What I desire is a future when no one takes my ethnicity into account when making assumptions about my character. A future when I don't feel the need to filter my perception of others through my own racial biases. A future when I am always comfortable being myself. Just let me...be. Don't place glass above me, boxes around me or stumbling blocks ahead of me. Most of all do not lower you expectations for me, rather, raise the bar and I will meet the challenge, then turn around and do the same for you. That future somehow seems just a little closer now.
Women Do It, Men Can't
Fellas, I hate to go here, but sometimes it's necessary to consider the things we do and their ramifications. It is no secret that men and women are very different creatures although we belong to the same species. We're wired differently. We react to the same stimuli in different ways. Our overall outlook is different. We are different in ways that are meant to complement each other. Those differences are what have ensured our survival as a species for many thousands of years. I find it interesting that at a time when our species has become very conscious of its fragility and the relative ease with which we could face our own extinction, we have attempted with limited but still significant success, to erase or ignore those invaluable distinctions. We are rapidly becoming neuters. It has become politically incorrect to assign labels that disclose gender, but being gender neutral is contrary to our very nature and, in my opinion compromises our continued survival. We cannot continue to cast aside the characteristics that allowed us to thrive for thousands upon thousands of years and think we will come out of it unscathed. Nature is a powerful thing, and if we continue to strive against it, nature will simply eliminate that which opposes it...us.
With that in mind, I got to thinking about the differences between the sexes beyond the obvious ones in our respective physiology. Why are men and women so naturally different yet codependent? I think we first have to look at our basic nature. This may offend some folk's sensibilities, but human beings are just one of several species of animal inhabiting this planet. Everything on Earth is vegetable, mineral or animal and we fit squarely into that last category. I realize religion has taught us that we are something more, but on a fundamental level we are just animals. As animals we have instincts that drive us to fulfill our purpose - our meaning of life - survival and reproduction. By nature, men are protectors and women are nurturers, essential traits in ensuring the continued survival of any species. It's a complementary pairing. Of necessity, there must be a dominant and submissive in this pairing for it to work. Those are dirty words in modern, civilized societies, but they should not be. I'll explain.
Fellas, do you really, fully comprehend what is taking place when a woman engages in sexual intercourse with you? The character traits that allow her to take part in this act are female specific and cannot exist in men naturally. The basic nature of a woman is that of a serial monogamist. Under most circumstances she can only have one ovum/egg fertilized at a time for a short period during a twenty-eight day cycle. Relative to the millions of sperm we produce daily, that ovum is a treasure to her on an instinctual level. As such, she wants to do everything in her power to ensure it will go to term once fertilized and have the greatest possible chance for survival once it leaves her womb. She has a natural tendency not move on to another mate unless that move will yield greater chances for security and offspring survival. Can you blame a woman for having high, yet realistic standards, and for being very selective about potential mates? There is strong biological component acting in her. It's also a good biological reason for a woman to wait until she is completely comfortable with her selection before have sex with him. [Realistic standards will be addressed in the future.]
Now here's the deep part; no pun intended. You know how the mechanics of intercourse work, but let's consider it from a psychological vantage point. In order for that precious ovum to be fertilized, the woman must allow you to enter her. Let that marinate. What does it take for a woman to allow a man to enter her? The leg muscles are the strongest muscles in the human body. Absent some form of coercion, most women have the physical strength necessary to deny a man entry. So she must willingly allow a man to place a part of him within the core of her being. That in itself is an act of submission. It requires an incredible amount of trust to allow one to expose that degree of vulnerability. She is then allowing you to dominate her physically for however long it takes, completely yielding her whole being to your will, trusting that you will dominate her with compassion. In the end, she is agreeing to accept and retain possession of a deposit of your physical being within her indefinitely. It takes a special mental and emotional make up to allow what I just described to take place voluntarily. Is it any wonder why rape is so devastating? Is it any wonder why heterosexual men are so repulsed by gay male sex? Straight men cannot voluntarily allow themselves to be dominated sexually. It is contrary to our basic nature. In an unadulterated world, it is a uniquely female attribute and illustrates vividly some of the fundamental differences between men and women. Should we not embrace and appreciate all the things that nature has done to make men and women different yet mutually dependent? Chew on that...
With that in mind, I got to thinking about the differences between the sexes beyond the obvious ones in our respective physiology. Why are men and women so naturally different yet codependent? I think we first have to look at our basic nature. This may offend some folk's sensibilities, but human beings are just one of several species of animal inhabiting this planet. Everything on Earth is vegetable, mineral or animal and we fit squarely into that last category. I realize religion has taught us that we are something more, but on a fundamental level we are just animals. As animals we have instincts that drive us to fulfill our purpose - our meaning of life - survival and reproduction. By nature, men are protectors and women are nurturers, essential traits in ensuring the continued survival of any species. It's a complementary pairing. Of necessity, there must be a dominant and submissive in this pairing for it to work. Those are dirty words in modern, civilized societies, but they should not be. I'll explain.
Fellas, do you really, fully comprehend what is taking place when a woman engages in sexual intercourse with you? The character traits that allow her to take part in this act are female specific and cannot exist in men naturally. The basic nature of a woman is that of a serial monogamist. Under most circumstances she can only have one ovum/egg fertilized at a time for a short period during a twenty-eight day cycle. Relative to the millions of sperm we produce daily, that ovum is a treasure to her on an instinctual level. As such, she wants to do everything in her power to ensure it will go to term once fertilized and have the greatest possible chance for survival once it leaves her womb. She has a natural tendency not move on to another mate unless that move will yield greater chances for security and offspring survival. Can you blame a woman for having high, yet realistic standards, and for being very selective about potential mates? There is strong biological component acting in her. It's also a good biological reason for a woman to wait until she is completely comfortable with her selection before have sex with him. [Realistic standards will be addressed in the future.]
Now here's the deep part; no pun intended. You know how the mechanics of intercourse work, but let's consider it from a psychological vantage point. In order for that precious ovum to be fertilized, the woman must allow you to enter her. Let that marinate. What does it take for a woman to allow a man to enter her? The leg muscles are the strongest muscles in the human body. Absent some form of coercion, most women have the physical strength necessary to deny a man entry. So she must willingly allow a man to place a part of him within the core of her being. That in itself is an act of submission. It requires an incredible amount of trust to allow one to expose that degree of vulnerability. She is then allowing you to dominate her physically for however long it takes, completely yielding her whole being to your will, trusting that you will dominate her with compassion. In the end, she is agreeing to accept and retain possession of a deposit of your physical being within her indefinitely. It takes a special mental and emotional make up to allow what I just described to take place voluntarily. Is it any wonder why rape is so devastating? Is it any wonder why heterosexual men are so repulsed by gay male sex? Straight men cannot voluntarily allow themselves to be dominated sexually. It is contrary to our basic nature. In an unadulterated world, it is a uniquely female attribute and illustrates vividly some of the fundamental differences between men and women. Should we not embrace and appreciate all the things that nature has done to make men and women different yet mutually dependent? Chew on that...
The Gay Marriage Debate
Usually, I'm a live and let live kind of guy. What you or I do in the privacy of our respective homes is nobody's business. I don't just agree with a "don't ask / don't tell" policy, I practice it. I've never felt the need to make casual acquaintances aware of my sexual gender preference and have never asked anyone about theirs. Have I made assumptions about other's preferences? Sure, I have, but let me add this: I find overly conspicuous displays of machismo as off-putting as the flamboyant behavior of some (I'm sure a minority of) gay men and "thuggish" conduct of a few lesbians who've crossed my path. In general, I just don't care for "extra" folks. You can add to the three types I just described, prissy and high saditty women, hyper-competitive men and snobs of either gender. I just don't like "extra!" I fail to see what exaggerated finger snaps and runway walking have to do with men preferring other men as life partners. But let me move on to the focus of this blog.
I am not one who believes homosexuality is a normal human tendency. This next statement will offend some of you, and I regret that, but I must be honest about my thoughts on this subject. While I accept that there may be differences in gay/lesbian brain structure and that many gays/lesbians are born gay/lesbian, I do not accept that being born a certain way makes it right or normal. People are born with extra digits, missing limbs, as Siamese twins and a host of other conditions all the time, but that doesn't make these conditions right or normal either. That said, I also believe in treating people fairly and that discriminating against folks because of their differences is wrong. So, in my mind it is wrong to deny gay/lesbian life partners all the legal rights and privileges afforded straight, married couples. I do draw the line at recognizing their unions as marriages.
I see the gay/lesbian battle for fair treatment as a noble cause. No, I'm not ready to run out and actively support that movement, but I will not oppose it either. Personally, I think the biggest blemish on this country's legacy is its reluctance to treat all its citizens fairly. However, if fairness was the only factor being considered, I would not be writing this piece. After listening to some interviews of gay marriage proponents, I've come to see that some elements within their movement have goals that go beyond securing equal access to presently denied rights and privileges. For some this is an ideological battle as well. To paraphrase one interviewee who, if I recall correctly, was an editor for the Washington Blade: Language is important in the United States; civil unions may be acceptable for gays in Europe where the word marriage doesn't carry as much weight, but here, we want our unions defined as marriages. That individual wants to impose his way of thinking on the entire U.S. population. I have a serious problem with that. White supremacists believe they are superior to blacks. They have a right to think and feel that way. They don't have the right to make me adopt that belief.
Human beings exist in two complementary forms - male and female. Occasionally there are hermaphrodites, but this is an aberration. Now, some would have us believe the only differences between men and women are breasts, penises and vaginas. This is an intentionally, overly simplistic argument tailored to fit an agenda. If there are no real differences between men and women, the word "marriage" can be applied to a union between any two people regardless of the gender pairing, but men and women are different in many important ways. Evolutionary biology has taken advantage of those differences to ensure the survival of our species for many millennia. Male-female pairing simply works; our very existence is evidence of this truth. That pairing has come to be known as marriage. The parties in the marriage are husband and wife and these labels are gender specific. So while I can support a gay/lesbian struggle for fair treatment under this country's laws, I cannot support the struggle for gay/lesbian "marriage." Chew on that...
I am not one who believes homosexuality is a normal human tendency. This next statement will offend some of you, and I regret that, but I must be honest about my thoughts on this subject. While I accept that there may be differences in gay/lesbian brain structure and that many gays/lesbians are born gay/lesbian, I do not accept that being born a certain way makes it right or normal. People are born with extra digits, missing limbs, as Siamese twins and a host of other conditions all the time, but that doesn't make these conditions right or normal either. That said, I also believe in treating people fairly and that discriminating against folks because of their differences is wrong. So, in my mind it is wrong to deny gay/lesbian life partners all the legal rights and privileges afforded straight, married couples. I do draw the line at recognizing their unions as marriages.
I see the gay/lesbian battle for fair treatment as a noble cause. No, I'm not ready to run out and actively support that movement, but I will not oppose it either. Personally, I think the biggest blemish on this country's legacy is its reluctance to treat all its citizens fairly. However, if fairness was the only factor being considered, I would not be writing this piece. After listening to some interviews of gay marriage proponents, I've come to see that some elements within their movement have goals that go beyond securing equal access to presently denied rights and privileges. For some this is an ideological battle as well. To paraphrase one interviewee who, if I recall correctly, was an editor for the Washington Blade: Language is important in the United States; civil unions may be acceptable for gays in Europe where the word marriage doesn't carry as much weight, but here, we want our unions defined as marriages. That individual wants to impose his way of thinking on the entire U.S. population. I have a serious problem with that. White supremacists believe they are superior to blacks. They have a right to think and feel that way. They don't have the right to make me adopt that belief.
Human beings exist in two complementary forms - male and female. Occasionally there are hermaphrodites, but this is an aberration. Now, some would have us believe the only differences between men and women are breasts, penises and vaginas. This is an intentionally, overly simplistic argument tailored to fit an agenda. If there are no real differences between men and women, the word "marriage" can be applied to a union between any two people regardless of the gender pairing, but men and women are different in many important ways. Evolutionary biology has taken advantage of those differences to ensure the survival of our species for many millennia. Male-female pairing simply works; our very existence is evidence of this truth. That pairing has come to be known as marriage. The parties in the marriage are husband and wife and these labels are gender specific. So while I can support a gay/lesbian struggle for fair treatment under this country's laws, I cannot support the struggle for gay/lesbian "marriage." Chew on that...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)