I’ve Changed My Mind About Two Major Issues

After watching the fallout regarding the recent Curly Nikki mess, I’ve changed my mind about two major issues that affect African-American Black women’s (AABW) interests. First, I’ve changed my mind about remaining silent about the growing pattern of younger AABW bloggers backing away from the term “Black.” Let me emphasize that I don't think younger AABW bloggers are doing this as a conscious, fully thought-out, or deliberate choice. I have the impression that it's something they gravitated to without really thinking about it.

Second, I’ve changed my mind and concluded that the vast majority of AABW can’t afford any attempts at nuance when considering biracial issues. For the sake of younger AABW’s mental health, ALL biracials (whether they’re individually loyal to AA Blacks or not) must be removed from our “African-American Black” category and placed in a totally separate category.

I believe these are intertwined and interlocking issues.

Younger AABW’s Curious Choice to Give Their Online Spaces and Conferences Titles Like Breaking Brown, Blogging While Brown, Brown Sistagirls, Etc. Instead of Breaking Black, Blogging While Black, Black Sistagirls, etc.
Please note that I’m not singling out any particular blogger or writer. There are a lot of AABW using “Brown” instead of “Black” when giving a title to their online presence. I’m mentioning these titles as examples of what I’m talking about.

The labels we choose when describing ourselves say a lot about our levels of consciousness and level of comfort in our own skin. AAs have historically had a tortuous relationship to identity. Our kidnapped ancestors started off self-identifying as members of whatever African ethnic group they were members of. That African tribal identity was deliberately destroyed via mass torture and rape. Despite a few holdouts, such as the founders of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (which was founded in 1816), our ancestors abandoned the label “African.”

Instead, most of our ancestors began to self-describe as “Negroes” or “colored.” Until the mid- to late 1960s, to be called “Black” was a slur among most African-Americans. With the exception of the Nation of Islam who referred to AAs as “Asiatic Black men and women.” Unfortunately, hypocrisy tainted their efforts at claiming the label “Black” and reclaiming racial self-respect, which I’ll discuss later in this post. Most of our efforts as reclaiming ethnic and racial self-respect and pride are tainted with hypocrisy. It’s a human frailty, but there are some other poisonous ingredients.

When I was a small girl during the 1970s, AAs used the terms “Afro-American” and “Black” interchangeably to describe ourselves. A couple of decades later, AAs started using the terms “African-American” and “Black” interchangeably.

It literally took CENTURIES for us to get the word “African” back into our mental self-description.

Likewise, it literally took CENTURIES for us to get comfortable with self-describing as “Black.”

Also keep in mind that whatever terms we used to self-describe our racial and ethnic group were used by both AA men and women. There was unity and a perceived shared interest in those labels.

Something has changed over the past decade or so. I’ve noticed that younger AABW are running away from the label “Black” and instead using the term “Brown” in giving titles to their online presences. Up until now, the label “Brown” was claimed by Latinos in the U.S.

Latinos are now self-identifying as “White” (and for a variety of political and demographic reasons, American White folks are cooperating with Latinos describing themselves as such). AABW are calling themselves “Brown” online. AABM are still calling themselves and their online spaces “Black.” Do you see the change with this? Do you see the divergence between AABW and AABM in this matter?

It looks like this is  largely a generational thing. Younger AABW who’ve grown up during the hip-hop and c/rap era had their self-images formed by the 30 Year War On BW. When you stop to think about it, it’s no wonder young AA Black women are running away from calling themselves “Black” to using the term “Brown.”
 
For the past three decades, AABM in hip-hop and c/rap have been actively degrading Black womanhood in favor of lighter and Whiter women. This rabidly anti-BW poison has permeated throughout modern AA culture. All these younger women know (and have internalized) is an atmosphere of downright rabid gendered racism. All they know is Black women being openly devalued and degraded by the toxic modern AA culture created by hip-hop and c/rap’s warped values. By contrast, younger AA Black males don’t feel mental pressure to run away from self-describing as “Black men” because their identity as Black males has not been under heavy attack from the AA collective.

AABW in my age group are relatively blessed. We were already teenagers when that hip-hop and c/rap mess started up. By the time hip-hop c/rap emerged, our self-image had already been formed by other, mostly healthier cultural influences. Unlike younger generations of AAs, we also grew up listening to our parents’ records. And listening to our parents’ older siblings’ records. So we were familiar not just with the Black music of our era. We were also familiar with the Black music our parents and their older siblings had listened to when they were teenagers.

My teenage friends (male and female) and I hated hip-hop c/rap; and saw it for the talent-free, self-degrading garbage that it was from the very beginning.

We were also repulsed by hip-hop and c/rap on an aesthetic level. We liked music that involves acoustic instruments and musicians who can either actually sing or play instruments. We liked coming from a people who (prior to the hip-hop c/rap age) could harmonize and sing a cappella at the drop of a hat. We were not at all impressed by the influx of no-singing, no-instrument-playing "musicians" yelling and cursing over recordings of other people's melodies and beats.

Since, unlike modern AAs, we were familiar with our parents’ generation of Black music, we automatically recognized the stolen melodies, refrains, and beats the c/rappers were yelling over. And we knew the original versions of these stolen songs were qualitatively so much better than the ripped-off, c/rap version.

As a teenager who played the piano and flute and appreciated the craftsmanship that goes into composing music, I was particularly disgusted by all the “biting” involved in hip-hop c/rap. When you don’t have any talent, you have to bite off real musicians’ work.

But we ultimately allowed ourselves to be silenced by other AAs who accused those AAs who disliked hip-hop c/rap of being “bougie.”

Prior to the Curly Nikki debacle, I had decided not to say anything publicly about how so many AABW were running away from calling their online endeavors “Black” to using the term “Brown.” I didn’t want to say anything potentially divisive unless it was truly necessary. The Curly Nikki episode showed me that it’s necessary to say something about this.

I wasn’t so much shocked by what Curly Nikki did. I had mistakenly assumed that she had built up her own brand. I didn’t know that she had been a Trojan horse for a White-owned media entity from the very beginning. The pattern of White-controlled entities using Black faces to lure Black consumers is not new. I discussed this pattern in terms of upstart cable TV stations during THIS post:

Sojourners know that the traditional opening strategy for many upstart, minimal-quality cable TV networks is to pimp the AA consumer zombies. These networks use cheap, low-quality Black-oriented programming to build an initial audience of faithful AA consumer zombies.

After establishing a stable base audience of AA consumer zombie-viewers, the cable network uses the financial base created by AA slave viewers to develop more expensive programming designed to appeal to their true target audience: White viewers.

Once the new network develops a stable of programs favored by a sizeable audience of White viewers, the network then discards the AA consumer zombies and the Black-oriented shows used to attract AA consumer zombies. The network throws the slaves away like yesterday's trash. Two good examples of this strategy are the WB Television Network and UPN.

I wasn’t shocked at Curly Nikki. I was shocked to see so many AABW caping—hard—in support of that WW’s choice to insert herself into AABW’s “natural hair” issues. I couldn’t believe what I was reading from these Cape-Wearing AABW.

Not only are many of these younger AABW numb (as veteran Common Sense blogger Evia has noted), but they also have NO affirming sense of self. When you don’t have any affirming sense of self, it’s impossible to have boundaries with other people. When you don’t have any affirming sense of self, you try to latch onto somebody else’s identity. By hook or crook. It’s all interrelated.

I never liked or wanted to do anything to encourage the AABW Natural Hair Jihadis because I always knew there was a rotten core of hypocrisy underlying their non-stop screeching about how their natural hair styles reflected elevated, self-affirming consciousness levels. First of all, these women use a hair typing system that puts straight WW’s and Asian women type of hair at #1. While the more typical hair textures and curl patterns found among BW are at #4. What’s up with that? Yet again, we’re buying into something that positions somebody else as first and #1.

While these hypocritical natural hair fanatics were berating other BW for wearing processed or straightened styles, they were doing the same thing. The only difference is that the natural hair fanatical hypocrites called their relaxer type products “pudding,” etc.  

This type of hypocrisy among the most strident “Blacker Than Thou” types is an old pattern. We saw it with all the 1960s-era Black-talking BM activists who chased and married WW. The Nation of Islam also has this problem. While they (correctly, in my view) criticized AA Christians for worshipping the image of an Aryan Jesus, here’s some photos of “Master” Fard Muhammad. The old NOI taught that “God came in the person of Master Fard Muhammad.”

 

 

The idea of rejecting the historically inaccurate, Aryan images of God that the slavemaster taught our ancestors to worship is a good one. The idea of rejecting the servile identities the slavemaster forced upon our ancestors is a good one. The problem has always been with the execution of these good ideas. The same applies to the modern day Natural Hair Jihadis. The underlying idea of affirming your own natural beauty and your own natural hair texture is a good one. As always, the problem is with the execution.

The problems with the execution crop up because AAs have a tendency to import the same old, self-hating thinking into any new and good idea. So, instead of teaching AAs to rally around “Black,” the old NOI was latching onto somebody else’s identity by saying “Asiatic Blacks.” Instead of celebrating our own natural hair textures, many of the modern day Natural Hair Jihadis and followers have been latching onto (and using zillions of products in an attempt to achieve) somebody else’s hair textures—hair textures and curl patterns that are typically only natural for mixed-race women.

Let’s be clear: I wore my hair in a natural and braids during the height of the 1980s Jheri curl era. I wore my hair in these natural styles without using any so-called curl activator-type products. My natural naps were on display in all their unaltered glory. These modern day Natural Hair Jihadis aren’t doing anything new. And they’re doing these natural styles at a point in time when these styles are in fashion. It does not require courage to wear natural hair styles nowadays. In other words, most of the current day Natural Hair Jihadis are following a fad and are NOT on any sincere “hair journey” toward acceptance of their natural hair textures.

Which brings me to why we must—without any nuance—remove Black biracials from our AA Black category. I still have the concerns I raised in THIS post. But after I saw the multitudes of AABW who were caping hard in support of White and other women inserting themselves into AABW’s natural hair issues and spaces, I reconsidered my views.

Because I grew up under different circumstances, I’m not numb like so many younger AABW. I can tell the difference between a pimp slap and a caress. I can see and maintain boundaries between myself and others. I can maintain my own positive sense of self while dealing in nuances. Most AABW can’t. Especially not most younger AABW. This ties into the replacement and erasure of BW that I discussed HERE. It’s all related. And I now see that it’s also generational to a large degree. I agree with the comments that Evia made in the comment section to THIS excellent post.

As you may know, I’m an “old school” AA woman from a certain place and time, so it’s always been easy for me to connect all the dots. But the question that has stymied me since the time I started blogging is WHY is it that so many younger AAbw and similar bw of all income classes and educational levels CAN BE COUNTED ON to act suicidal in so many situations as if it’s a reflex. As y’all point out, even when they’ve been told over and over the smarter or reasonable way to flip the script, they still CHOOSE to make suicidal moves. Even when they’re taking their last gasp, they still make suicidal moves!

So, my approach to this mystery is the same one that scientists use in studying lower life forms to determine why water animals, might for ex., crawl out of the water–to die on land-deliberately. I’m NOT trying to offend anyone but I think that it’s time to “study” these very detrimental choices that SO MANY AA women make and dig out–no matter the underbelly of it–what’s really going on. I call it a death wish. I notice, too, that the bw who do these things rarely ever speak up and say exactly WHY they’re doing them–and some of them do know why. “Low self-esteem” has been worn out!

So, in the last year, I’ve been trying to drill down deep to find out what’s at the bottom of this “death wish.” We’ve got to be brutally frank about this because AA women don’t have much more time. We’re seeing this more clearly now.

I’m convinced that ONE reason they do it is because negative attention (slave movies, reality shows, etc.) is better to them–than no attention at all. And I believe that some darker bw live life vicariously through their lighter friends or lighter other women. That, to them, is better than nothing. AAs have NEVER dealt ruthlessly with the massive colorism that sits in the heart of the typical AA man, and it IS AA men who are the chief makers and distributors of this poison. so it will continue to kill the spirits of many black females since they WILL be rejected in favor of lighter-whiter women.

. . . One of the key reasons I’ve been able to pinpoint for some of this suicidal behavior is that the bulk of AA women feel VERY alone and apart from other WOMEN, as well as men. That’s the #1 reason they’ve stated to me for why they continue with the BAU (business as usual). They feel unsupported and virtually hopeless that things will change.They don’t feel they have anyone at their back and I think this is because they really don’t have anyone at their back. And this has occurred for a number of reasons but we can see some of this online, where bw (who need each other the absolute most will attack and tear each other to pieces psychologically, if they can.) This is because “hurt people hurt people.”

. . . @neurochick, Yep, I know–from interacting with various younger AAbw, that something profound occurred to large segments of them that caused many of them to become numb, and to completely doubt their value.

This replacing of Nina Simone by Zoe Saldana and the whole replacement thing could NOT have occurred in the 70s and 80s. Nina, herself, would have ripped her clothes off in Times Square, if necessary, to bring worldwide attention to her being replaced. LOL! Let’s face it-there were more than enough clueless bw back then, BUT there would have been way more than enough LOUD, unceasing protests from enough of us. A great WRONG is occurring with this replacement campaign, but judging by the overall silence, the bulk of AAbw can’t “feel” that wrong occurring. Like I said, they seem to be numb. Not only do I “know” it’s wrong, but I also FEEL it.

Insofar as going to see any of these movies where AAbw aren’t being lifted up–and spending money on them, the fact is that spending money on anything sends a clear message of APPROVAL and/or that we just don’t care. That’s the message that is being received. And if we don’t care or do approve, then we should never be surprised or not even bat an eyelash when that thing comes back to bite us in the butt. We can’t have it both ways. If there were ample roles for AA women–roles that we could be proud of–I wouldn’t have a problem with supporting selected one of these movies, but there aren’t. And self-preservation is the FIRST law.

I don’t claim to have all the answers. I don’t understand the mindset that makes it possible for so many AABW to cape in support of WW and others intruding into AABW’s natural hair spaces. I just don’t get that at all.

But I do know that AAs are in freefall and moving backwards in terms of self-respect, self-acceptance, and self-love. I do know that AABW rejecting “Black” in favor of “Brown” is not going to help AABW in either the short term or the long run. I believe it would be better actively work on affirming one’s actual self. The first step is to disconnect from the poisonous, anti-BW media that so many of us continue to lap up.

I suppose many women would justify this self-description by saying that they're simply noting their actual skin color. My response would be to note that “Black” (like “White” for persons of European descent and “Brown” for Latinos) has been a short-hand, political racial self-description. The point was not to delineate everybody’s actual skin color. Few European-descent Whites are actually White, many of them have alabaster skin tones with varying degrees of pink undertones.

The other thing about AABW formally self-describing as “Brown” based on actual color is that it opens the door to yet more fragmentation. Because if I picked a self-descriptor based on my actual color, I’d end up calling myself “Beige.” Once we open those floodgates, it’s guaranteed that lots of other formerly “Black” AA women will be calling themselves beige, tan, manila folder and anything else that’s not Black. Foreign-origin Blacks will increase their efforts to avoid the “Black” label by self-describing based on their African, Latino or West Indian ethnicity only. There are nuances to all of that that I discussed HERE.  

AABM have already retrogressed by staging 30+ years of 1800’s-style quadroon balls in their music videos and movies. Do we as AABW really want to join AABM by working our way back . . . step by step . . . (from Black to Brown to whatever the next lighter descriptor will be) toward self-describing as “colored”?

Thank You, Kola Boof!

Thank you, Kola Boof!

I've always been a firm believer in giving credit where it's due. I was greatly relieved to see the news story "Zendaya ‘no longer involved’ in Lifetime network's Aaliyah biopic."

Ms. Boof's online petition against this blatant miscasting regarding Aaliyah raised awareness about the ongoing whitewashing of BW, and surely played a major part in this outcome. As Ms. Boof has said, it's not about this teenage actress. This girl's management put her in a bad position. Furthermore, since she's as much White as she is Black, her management can send her to audition to portray Marilyn Monroe, Madonna, or other historical White women in upcoming biopics. Let's see if Hollywood allows this actress or the rest of the biracial actresses (like Paula Patton, etc.) to portray historical White women.

It's not about this actress, it's ALL about the systematic whitewashing, replacement and erasure of Black women in the entertainment industry. As I discussed HERE, things have escalated to the point that roles portraying African-American Black women are increasingly reserved for women who are not African-American Black women.

Furthermore, it’s obvious that if Angela Bassett, Diahann Carrol and Vanessa Bell Calloway were starting their acting careers now, they would never get hired. As many of the comments I've read in the online discussions inspired by Ms. Boof's petition have noted, the same whitewashing is entrenched in today's music industry. If Ella Fitzgerald, Gladys Knight, Dinah Washington, Dionne Warwick and Donna Summer were starting their careers now, they'd never get any recording deals.

Hopefully, this marks the beginning of the end of the whitewashing and erasure of African-American Black women.

If Angela Bassett, Diahann Carroll & Vanessa Bell Calloway Were Starting Their Acting Careers Now, They’d Never Get Hired—And Many Of You Are Okay With That Result

I would strongly urge everyone to read the latest excellent post over at Not Your Girl Friday. Because she describes the “perpetually surprised” mindset that far too many African-American Black women* (AABW) embrace:

  There are a number of black women online, and I am POSITIVE it transfers to real life, that simply believe ANYTHING.  This is not meant as an insult, but for many black women whether this happens from a lifetime of being gas-lighted or simply refusing to listen to reasonable people assert reasonable things. These black women absolutely refuse to access the system upgrade required to practice discernment.

 These black women, yes I’m probably speaking to you, have the mind-boggling problem of  simply ACCEPTING ANYTHING AT FACE VALUE  without ever doing what is called “fact checking” first.

 This lot, because of their denial of the necessity of fact checking, their absolute refusal  to check the fruit of the vine BEFORE they irresponsibly jump in head long; and their outright dismissal of anyone who has gone before them and knows with certainty the ending results, consequently, leaves many of these women * perpetually surprised*  as many BWE writers have described.

 . . . These women, only after they have been perpetually surprised over and over again (be honest its happened to YOU), then bemoan the fact that their lots have been cast and they are stuck perpetually at the bottom of “whatever” totem pole they have found themselves.

[*By AABW, I’m referring to modern-day BW who have 2 Black parents and who are descendants of the Africans who were held in slavery in the U.S. Since a lot of y’all choose to play “confused” about who’s a member of the AA tribe.]
But here’s another feature of  The Girl Who Believes Anything (TGWBA) mindset that’s even crazier than what One Less Soldier described in her post: A lot of y’all who are TGWBA can’t even see things that are obvious AT FACE VALUE!

You can’t see that AABW are being replaced in the American entertainment industry. You can’t see that AABW can’t get hired to portray other real-life AABW. The roles portraying AABW are increasingly being reserved for women who don’t have 2 Black parents; and for those women who are not descendants of the Africans who were held in slavery in the U.S. In other words, roles portraying AABW are increasingly reserved for women who are not AABW. This casting pattern is obvious AT FACE VALUE:

 

Good God, they won't even let a BW play a BW cartoon character:

 

Instead of seeing the erasure, whitewashing, and replacement of AABW that’s been going on AT FACE VALUE, a lot of y’all have been making various convoluted excuses for why you’re okay with AABW being replaced by non-AA women and non-Black women.

There's nothing random or benign about this pattern. We've had several decades of an all-out assault on AABW's image. This was accomplished through the anti-BW denigration promoted by hip-hop and c/rap; the accompanying worship of the lighter, whiter-looking, half-other and "Cablanasian" women. All at the expense of BW who have 2 Black parents and who look like they have 2 Black parents.

So, to add it up:

• 50+ years of the Harry Belafontes, Sidney Poitiers, OJs, Wesley Snipes, Arsenios, Yung Bergs, Neyos, etc.;
• a little over 30 years of hip-hop, c/rap and the virulent denigration of BW that is part of that mess;
• a little over 30 years of masses of AAs openly worshipping the half-others and "Cablanasians" in our midst at the expense of AABW who look like they have 2 Black parents.

Instead of seeing the whitewashing that's been going on for decades, a lot of y'all don't seem to notice the entrenched pattern that's been in place. You somehow don't notice that, in particular, the bulk of the entertainers who've been occupying "Black" roles and "slots" in the American entertainment industry are White women's children. Here's a partial list:

Halle Berry

Lisa Bonet
Shemar Moore
Persia White
Rashida Jones
Jennifer Beals
Jasmine Guy
Victoria Rowell
Boris Kodjoe
Lonette McKee
Sidney Tamiia Poitier
Clark Johnson
Mario Van Peebles

 

Most recently, yet another WW's child has been chosen to portray Aaliyah. But a lot of you can't and won't see the pattern here. Even after decades of this. Even as this pattern escalates.

This pattern and the destructive fallout associated with it mostly started with negro male celebrities and their insistence on having only lighter, whiter, White and other nonblack women cast in their music videos and other projects. But the majority of AABW aid, abet and perpetuate this pattern by supporting these negro male entertainers. And by supporting entertainment products that erase, displace, and replace AABW.

 

AABW do have a choice. We can make the conscious, deliberate choice to only support the entertainment products that lift us up.

 

When you look at the pattern of what’s going on, it’s obvious that if Angela Bassett, Diahann Carrol and Vanessa Bell Calloway were starting their acting careers now, they would never get hired. Even though she’s dark-skinned, a young Cicely Tyson might be able to slip into today’s industry if she emphasized the fact that she’s of foreign Black (West Indian) heritage. You may be *perpetually surprised* to hear the end result described in this manner; but this is what the casting choices YOU support with your money add up to.

I accuse you of being okay with that end result because: You financially support the casting decisions that EXCLUDE today’s AABW actress equivalents of Angela Bassett, Diahann Carrol and Vanessa Bell Calloway from ever being cast to play AABW.

We’ll probably never know who all of this generation’s Angela Bassett, etc. are because today’s Angela Bassett and others can’t get work. They can't get work and they won’t "do for self" to create their own productions.

I’m sure you’ll be *perpetually surprised* when things get to the point that the only roles in which White Hollywood and negro male directors and producers are willing to cast AABW are either in porn or “reality TV.”

THIS is where all of this is headed.

African-American Women: Here's Some Of The Fruit That You've Earned With Your Knee-Jerk, Rabid Support of “12 Years a Slave,” Part 4

I'll keep this relatively short because the point is [should be] self-evident. {smile}

A lot of y'all got mad when I originally questioned your knee-jerk, rabid, UN-reciprocated crusades in support of 12 Years a Slave.

I've been keeping track of the many bitter fruits y'all are going to reap as a result of this entrenched knee-jerk behavior pattern of constantly throwing on your Superwoman cape in support of any and all random Black-skinned faces. All without ever asking the simple questions of:

(1) What's in it for me and African-American women like me to support this?

(2) Who benefits from this [movie, TV show, record deal, etc.]?

(3) Who benefits the most from this [movie, TV show, record deal, etc.]?
Well, let's see . . .

So far, there's the Vanity Fair magazine cover I discussed HERE. There's the growing bad feeling some of y'all are belatedly experiencing that I discussed HERE. There's the casting of two foreign Black performers as Dr. King and Coretta Scott King in an upcoming biopic about Dr. King that I discussed HERE.

And now there's this: Lupita Nyong'o joins 'Star Wars' cast. Your unsolicited caping in support of 12 Years a Slave has worked out VERY well for the foreign Blacks who are reaping the lion's share of the material and career benefits from that movie. Meanwhile, you and AA actresses are still empty-handed.

Thirty-four (34) years ago, the first negro male actor was cast in the Star Wars franchise (Billy Dee Williams). The second negro male actor was cast in the Star Wars franchise in 2005 (Samuel Jackson).

And now that the first BW will appear in the American Star Wars movie franchise, your unsolicited caping for 12 Years a Slave has helped a foreign BW become that first (and most likely last) BW cast to appear in Star Wars.

Nyong'o's casting is also the first time a black woman will appear in a Star Wars movie. The first time in franchise history, spanning six movies. That's something worth celebrating. But it also makes you wonder what's been going on at one of the most lucrative franchises in movie history for the last 30 or so years. When Nyong'o and co-star John Boyega make their debuts, they will be the third and fourth black characters — Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) and Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) were the only two black characters before this upcoming movie — in Star Wars history to have speaking roles. 

Full article HERE. I agree with this observation by a commenter named Karen over at Not Your Girl Friday about this:

“Caping” has worked out well for Lupita, if reports are correct she will be in the latest Star Wars. Apparently, there were no AA BW actresses to be found and given that in all of the Star Wars movies to my knowledge no AA BW actress was ever given a visible role, it does not bode well for AA BW actresses when they are not even be selected in home grown American movies. Other “tribes”/countries will not go out of their way to cast an AA BW in their movies because they maintain their boundaries and ethnic pride for their own which is normal.

It again shows what happens when AA BW blindly “cape” for others that never asked for their support and therefore will show no reciprocity in return –> namely, AABW receive nothing in return and the reward/benefits go to “others” while we continue to be marginalized and erased. Unless we begin voting with our wallets and send a clear message, this trend will continue and accelerate.

Yep, that sums it up.

The Importance of Context and Nuances, Part 1

Tl; dr version: Stay fluid and stay away from binary thinking and ideological thinking. Take whatever position works for YOU in each situation.

Short version: Do what Whites do, and apply various “rules” in whatever way works to your benefit. Reject the “one-drop rule” in situations when doing so brings you a benefit as an AABW. For example, don’t let modern-day half-Black women replace and erase you.

Adopt the one drop rule when doing so benefits you. For example, don’t let other people use rejection of the “one drop rule” as a way of stripping the AA tribe of those of our historical heroes who happened to be mixed. Our historical heroes that were mixed were (and are) Black in that context. Be flexible and take whatever position works for YOUR benefit in each situation.

Long version: Unfortunately, African-Americans generally don’t “do” nuance. We like to think and operate in hard binaries. We also usually fail to think through the costs/benefits of the binaries we adopt. We lock ourselves into positions, even when doing works to our disadvantage. Meanwhile, other people are experts at keeping context in mind and in keeping their options fluid. All of which works to their advantage.

This post is the result of a couple of things. A few things that I’ve had mentally marinating for a while, and then a more recent question asked at another blog.

For a while, I’ve been thinking through my mixed reactions to the thoughts expressed in reaction to THIS reprinted post. On the surface, this sounds good and self-affirming for AAs. But, as the original writer emphasizes, she’s African. She’s not AA. The positions she advocates won’t necessarily work for you in your AA context the way they work for her as an African. It might not cost her “tribe” anything to reject the American historical “one drop rule.”

But in some contexts and situations, there’s a price tag for AAs in the blind, uncritical and universal application of this “I’m rejecting the one-drop rule!” position. Because many of us are blindly taking this position AFTER we’ve invested heavily—for years— in newly-described-as-biracial folks that we’re now absolving of any responsibility to repay our support.

The pattern with how many AAs use the “biracial” label is that we use it to absolve biracial persons of any responsibility for reciprocating the material, monetary, and career support that AA Blacks have already given them. And the support that most of us continue to give them.

And so, with our hip new slogan of rejecting the one drop rule, we preserve the same old pattern of our resources flying out to others while nothing ever flows back in our direction.

Somehow, we never use the “biracial” label as a reason to CUT OFF the flow of our resources toward these people. We don’t say—like I did when I was in law school—“If this person is saying they’re not really Black, then why are they allowed to have their hand out for a Black student scholarship from a Black women’s auxiliary organization?”

My friends and I had great respect for the monies that had been raised by Black AA church ladies, Black lawyers’ wives,  secretaries, school lunchroom workers, and other BW for the benefit of AA Black students. That money was precious to us because it represented the hopes, dreams and aspirations of generations of AAs who didn’t have access to professional schools. We wanted that money to stay in house among loyal members of the AA Black tribe.

Unfortunately, the older AA Blacks who ran these various organizations and church programs didn’t agree. They were okay with giving the money raised by elderly AA church ladies to mixed students who only said they were Black when there was something to be gained by saying they’re Black. And so some of that Black student scholarship and stipend money went to several mixed individuals who did not speak to other Blacks on campus, and who never reciprocated that material support. During our final year of law school when it was time to give back to the same AA Black organizations who had given all of us material and monetary support during our first two years, these no-speaking mixed people refused to give.

Which brings me to a peculiar position I’ve heard said by some AABW who are in interracial marriages and are raising mixed children. Some of them are making a point of raising their children to reject any connection to AA Black people. So they’re basically pouring ALL their material resources into children they’re deliberately raising to have ZERO affection, respect or loyalty to these women’s own tribe. Sounds to me like a fast track to becoming the Black grandmother whose descendants claim was just a family servant and not a relative.

I don’t get that point of view because whenever I invest in anybody I expect a return on my investment.

Then there was a recent question asked in the comment section to THIS excellent post. The commenter basically asked how membership in the AA ethnic group is defined. I thought it was a good question because it highlights a couple of points about nuance and context. Essentially that there’s a huge difference between modern notions of technical, legal citizenship versus traditional understanding of tribal and ethnic membership.

All the way back from caveman times, membership in most tribes, ethnicities and nations are based on BLOODLINES. In other words, based on SHARED ancestral descent.

The modern, Western, technicality-driven (like “anchor babies”) view of citizenship does not trump bloodlines and shared ancestral descent. Anchor-baby-driven, technical U.S. citizenship does not change a foreign-origin person's bloodlines or ancestral descent.

The children of White/Black/Latino/whatever type of NON-Korean immigrants to South Korea don't get to wake up one day after growing up in South Korea and proclaim themselves as being part of the Korean people. It wouldn't even occur to anybody who lacks Korean bloodline ancestry to try that. Folks only presume to do that with African-Americans because we've been negligent in setting boundaries with other people.

African-Americans (AAs) are those Black folks in the U.S. who are descended from the African captives who were held in slavery in the United States. Anybody who's not part of this shared bloodline is not part of us. Pres. Obama married into the AA bloodlines. His children are AA. But his bloodline (continental African and WW) has ZERO connection to AAs. He's not descended from the African captives who were held in slavery in the United States.

There are nuances to all of this. I'm not as annoyed with Pres. Obama calling himself AA because he's married into my “tribe.” *And I let that slide in mixed company because I feel that overall, it operates as a “credit” to my tribe.

I'm also not annoyed with Min. Farrakhan calling himself AA (even though he's of West Indian bloodlines) because he's married into my tribe (IIRC); and he's been loyal to my tribe. And most of all, he was willing to follow and SERVE the leadership of an AA man (Elijah Muhammad). Too many foreign Blacks want to preside over AAs in the U.S. And tell us what to do about OUR issues—like some of the folks who have entered this conversation and the earlier post's comment section. Which is our own fault because we generally don't set boundaries with people.

*Side note to other AA readers:  I'm leery of people who want to strip the AA ethnic group of anybody and everybody who might be perceived as an accomplished person. I feel that some of y'all need to watch that. In your excitement to call yourself discarding the “one drop rule” you're making it easy for non-AA bigots to subtract a lot of historical AA heroes/sheroes from our tribe.

There are folks out there who hate AAs so much that they don't want us to be credited with anything or anybody who's productive. These bigots are in a hurry to find a way to describe any accomplished AA Black person as anything other than AA and/or Black. And in your fervor to call yourself discarding the “one drop rule,” you're helping these bigots do exactly that—subtract illustrious historical persons from our Black AA tribe.

I notice that there’s an ongoing, persistent effort to change the historical narrative and either destroy, erase or distort AA history. Like THIS situation. I've never watched this TV show, so I can't speak to the merits (or lack of such) regarding this character.

But I was extremely disturbed by this clip in which the fictional head of the historical Universal Negro Improvement Association (which was Garvey’s organization) goes straight from hosting a UNIA meeting in which he's telling members about the equivalent of a “talented tenth” uplifting Black folks to placing an order for $80,000 worth of heroin from White gangsters.

Regardless of whomever the actor involved (and I like and respect Jeffery Wright’s work as an actor) claims to be modeling his character after (a West Indian policy king named Casper Holstein that I mentioned in THIS post), he physically resembles W.E.B. DuBois with that handlebar moustache. That bit about referring to Blacks as "Libyans" is a riff on how the real-life historical Moorish Science Temple calls all Blacks “Moors.”And the writers have apparently used the name of the real historical Black organization, the UNIA.

The writers are showing a DuBois-resembling, historical Black leader character as somebody who peddles heroin to other Black folks. This is a problem because most AA sheeple get their history from TV shows.

In specific terms of lifestyle optimization for AA women, you can see what happens when your history is erased and distorted: People start selling you lies such as the notion that the masses of AA women have always been overweight.

I reject the one drop rule when it benefits me to do so. But if I see that somebody is using the rejection of the one drop rule to subtract some of our historical heroes from my tribe, then I’ll adopt the one drop rule for the purposes of that particular discussion. Context and nuances.

Lest we forget: The historical reason why so many of our early leaders and accomplished ancestors were more immediately “mixed” than is typical for us is because those were the first AAs who were positioned to have access to education. Either as the slavemaster's direct offspring or as (already) “free persons of color.”. In that moment in history, out of all of us, those were the types of Black folks who first gained access to education.

The productive, loyal tribe members Black folks that many of y'all new school individuals are in a hurry to call “biracial” and not Black—like the slavemaster's son Booker T. Washington—used their resources to help lift up other, NON-mixed AAs. Back to nuances, I disagree with a lot of things Booker T. Washington advocated. Nevertheless, he created a college that is still educating AA Blacks today. Not everybody’s going to get into Harvard, like W.E.B. DuBois. Washington built something that is still serving AAs’ needs today. As a Black AA business owner, I’ve seen for myself just how very hard it is to create a functioning institution. Especially one that uplifts AAs.

Ladies, please learn to examine the costs/benefits angle with everything. It helps the AA tribe to distance ourselves from and discard toxic, useless people by calling them “biracial.” It does NOT serve our interests to subtract any of our tribe's esteemed historical members by referring to them as “biracial.” 

Rhetorical question—Why is this so hard for so many of us to understand? White folks have this down pat. When somebody who is half-White & half-Other is a “credit,” they're quick to claim racial & tribal connection to that person. Folks like Keanu Reeves are identified as White by many (most) other White folks. When somebody who is half-White & half-Other is a turd (like this half-White/half-Asian creep who did the latest mass shooting), they're quick to distance that miscreant from the rest of their race & tribe. Nuances, ladies—nuances.

In closing,

My concern is that more AABW learn to perceive nuance and context. And learn to be flexible with rules, the way everybody else is. Instead of AABW continuing the behavior pattern of rigidly applying slogans and rules in ways that undermine their own interests.

I disagree with throwing the “biracial” label on esteemed historical AA/Black heroes/sheroes. Because that serves to subtract too many justifiably acclaimed and loyal people from our tribe.

This is a separate issue from the identification of modern-day biracials and multiculturals. These modern-day folks are mostly used to replace and erase “un-mixed” AA Blacks. Half-Black women in particular have been used to replace Black AA women in the media. I draw a distinction between myself as an AA Black woman and THESE modern-day half-Other folks because it serves my interests to do so. The modern-day biracials, Cablanasians, and multiculturals don’t represent me or AA Black women like me. As far as I’m concerned, there’s a world of difference between these modern-day biracials, Cablanasians, and multiculturals and our esteemed, loyal ancestors who happened to be half-nonblack.

One Less Soldier Says, "Smile When you say that!: The Multi Cultural Editions"

I 100% co-sign what One Less Soldier (blog host of Not Your Girl Friday) said HERE.

Far too many straight African-American women are addicted to knee-jerk muling for other people. Other people like Black men, foreign Blacks, Latinos, gays and lesbians, transvestites, hunchbacks, etc. Anybody and everybody except themselves.

And instead of breaking the muling habit, some of y'all have started coming up with hip-sounding excuses to justify your choice to keep engaging in that same, old behavior pattern of knee-jerk muling for other people.

Furthermore, I would suggest that readers pay close attention to the very first comment to that post, which was made by an African-British commenter named JaliliMaster. She gave an honest description of the dynamics involved when African-American women catch a clue and start looking out for their own interests.

As JaliliMaster noted, a person who is acting in good faith is not going to have a problem with (much less a tantrum in response to) you asking the common-sense question of "How does this benefit me?" before giving knee-jerk support to anything or anybody.

And if a person chooses to have a hissy-fit in response to you asking the common-sense question of "How does this benefit me?" then you know what that person's intentions are toward you: Nothing nice - that's somebody who's looking to use you.

The Overall African-American “Tribe” Is Ruined, But You Can Still Thrive As An African-American Woman If You Get Back To Basics

Evia, who is a social science expert and the blog host of Black Female Interracial Marriage Ezine,  often talks about “indicators” that show where ethnic groups, nations or any other groups of people are headed. Years ago, many of the BWE/Common Sense bloggers saw that African-Americans (AAs) were on the way to becoming a permanent underclass in the U.S. Almost 5 years ago, Evia and I had the following exchange in the comments section of a July 2009 post.

Evia said...

I think Khadija, that some bw are reading our warnings here, but are still NOT connecting the cold, hard, bitter dots.

We've all heard by now about the swim club in Philly that didn't let the black kids use the pool.

This is going to sound harsh, but if as is being reported that the OOW rate among AAs has risen to 82% (???) as ActsofFaith Blog is reporting on her blog (and 70% was ALREADY just mindboggling), why is it that we don't expect for people to not to want to have anything to do with us AAs with either of those rates? We are a FAILED people--as a group.

You've continually warned--ever since I've been aware of you--about the permanent underclass that's forming--that the bulk of AAs will be stuck in.

I've been keenly aware of this too and this is why I've advocated that those AAs with common sense need to try to separate and get a new brand. AAs will very soon become complete pariahs. No one will want to associate with us. Other races and even other black ethnics cannot tell most of us apart from the Sheniquas and DeShawns even now if we're out of context. Most people already consider us a part of that permanent underclass. I know this may be painful to some, but AAs have been written off as a loss.

I even know some working class AAs who don't want their children to socialize with, go to the boys and girls club or any camp with, or associate with other working class AA children because the AA TITANIC is mostly underwater. Everyone knows that way too many AA children tend to be rowdy and out of control. No one wants their children to sink to where Sheniqua and Ray-Ray's children have sunk. Many AA parents I know have already taken their children out of public schools to get them away from Sheniqua and Ray Ray's children. There's going to be a lot of fallout. Things are going to get very ugly!

This is what we've been talking about here all of the time. I'm not quite sure why there's surprise about this story. There are black clubs that wouldn't want those children to use the swim club. The Ywca and Ymca in the last 2 areas I've lived in have raised the fees astronomically high to keep out Sheniqua and Ray-Ray's children. They let a few of them in after a 2-week waiting list and then a screening process. They check police records, school records, family records, etc.

So guess what? Folks will protest and that club may let those black kids in there, but the whites are then going to put their kids somewhere else.

Also, let me point out that many continental Africans ALSO don't want to have anything much to do with AAs these days. AAs have degenerated and everybody seems to know it except for some of us. You constantly talk about this and I constantly talk about the ABC-DBR effect on all of us, yet I think some people think we're exaggerating. LOL!

Many young continental African women here are STRICTLY forbidden not to EVER date an AA man. Some segments of AA women are still considered okay because we're considered education-oriented, ambitious and more responsible, but this general ABC-DBR virus is really a pox on all AAs. Yet so many AAs continue to make excuses, defend, rationalize, enable, cover it up and not call it out for what it is.

Some of us individual AAs will do fine, but the general group had better brace itself. AAs are in a free fall. The bitter truth is that many people in other groups do NOT want ANY connection with AAs unless it's on their terms.

And AAs have sat back and allowed the ABCs and DBRs to do this. There's no point in being angry at anyone else. 'We have met the enemy and he is us' (or those AAs who sat silently and allowed this to happen.)

July 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Khadija said...

[. . . . ]
Evia,

I 100% co-sign your comment. Like you said, other people have quite logically and rationally written AAs off as a liability/loss. And they should do so, because we ARE a failed people.

I saw that 82% OOW rate cited on Faith's blog and I still can't get over it. Even though I know better logically. I know that we're in FREE FALL; but each new indicator that documents just how low we've sunk as a collective is still painful to hear.

This is why I'm so frantic about encouraging as many AA women as possible to get OUT while they can.

Soon, AAs will be TRAPPED in unofficial "quarantine zones." AAs will be quarantined and KEPT FAR AWAY from everybody else for the safety and preservation of these other people. The bulk of AAs will be quarantined socially, economically, employment-wise, and in terms of residential areas!

The quarantine zones will be areas where the DBRbm will be free to rob, ravish, torture and kill Black women and children as they please. These places have already begun to emerge in Black residential areas. Places with names like DUNBAR VILLAGE and HOVEY STREET.-

The TRUE purpose of tv shows like CNN's Black in America is to WARN those few non-AAs who haven't caught the hint that we're to be avoided at all costs! They put all our various pathologies on display as a warning to others about us.

Evia, like you said, "AAs have degenerated and everybody seems to know it except for some of us."-

I know that as you stated,"some bw are reading our warnings here, but are still NOT connecting the cold, hard, bitter dots."-

Well...the unfortunate reality is that these women (AND their children) won't make it through what's coming our people's way in a few minutes: The Endless Night of Permanent Underclass-Pariah Status for AAs.

I just know that I've done what I can to sound the alarm.

Peace, blessings and solidarity.

July 9, 2009 at 5:56 PM

For those folks who understand the connections between things, there have been plenty of “indicators” over the years that demonstrate the final demise of the AA collective as a functional group of people. Ranging from official indicators like the out-out-wedlock statistics among AAs. To casual, everyday life indicators like the Mass-Fatherlessness-Created dysfunctional family dynamics on display in a lot of new school AAs' family portrait photos.

Another indicator of AA collective death and destruction is many new school AA women's penchant for choosing ideology over common sense. One example has been new school colored girls cheerleading casual sex and promiscuity, which was discussed here.

Former blog readers often send me links to various online discussions going on among African-American women. That’s how I became aware of the controversy surrounding the ideas expressed in this blog post. I don’t see anything that warrants genuine controversy. After all, the normalization of casual sex and promiscuity among African-Americans has created an absolute disaster for the (AA) collective over the past 50 years. I won’t bother to repeat the obvious connection between casual sex, out-of-wedlock childbearing (oow), fatherlessness and the deadly violence that currently exists in the dead AA “community.” Anybody who refuses to see the connections between all of this is choosing to remain deaf, dumb and blind. Which is their free and voluntary choice. God respects free will, and so do I.

Casual sex generally does not work to women’s benefit or long-term interests. Casual sex also generally does not work to the benefit of children who are born as the result of casual sex. The exceptions don’t nullify the rule. As I read various pro-casual sex comments, I had the nagging feeling that I've heard this catastrophic level of foolishness before. But I couldn't immediately remember the context.

And then I remembered where I had heard of such controversies before: this type of Ideology Over Common Sense played a large role in the mass AIDS die-off of American gay men in the 1980s and early 1990s. That's the context in which I had heard of Sexual Liberation Ideology Over Common Sense controversies before. I remembered reading interviews in papers like the Village Voice with the handful of sensible gay male activists who were imploring their fellow gay men to reduce their promiscuity and change some of their sexual practices in order to save their own lives. And these sensible White gay male activists were often viciously condemned by other White gay men as a result.

The ruined AA collective is one of two recent examples of what happens when a group of people disconnect sex from binding commitments to each other. The other example that most folks have forgotten about was the mass die-off of American gay men during the AIDS plague years of the 1980s and early 1990s.

The same way that many new-school AAs refuse to see the connection between casual sex, oow, and the death and destruction in AA areas is the same way many gay men from that era refused to see the connection between their promiscuity and their own deaths from AIDS. Even as their friends and lovers were dropping like flies all around them.

Another indicator was the plethora of fervent Never Spank Children ideology spouted by a lot of commenters in response to this post. Another indicator (that was an addendum to this post) is that new school AAs are extremely arrogant in their foolish choice to put experimental ideologies over common sense:

**ADDENDUM** Let me give a concrete example of what I mean. During the Spare The Rod And Destroy The Child post I repeatedly mentioned that I have never seen the “we don’t ever spank the children” parenting style succeed in raising decent children. I’m in my 40s and I’ve been actively paying attention to how relatives and others have been using various parenting styles for roughly the past 25 years. If you’re a “never spank children” believer who has only been alive for 25 years, that observation I mentioned should have raised some concerns for you.

Let me make it plain: I’ve been watching this “never spank the children” parenting style repeatedly fail for as long as some of you zealous “never spank the children” believers have been alive! I’m not saying that this observation by itself should change anybody’s mind. But it should have given some of the “never spank” believers who haven’t been on the planet as long a reason to step back for a minute. And think. But I noticed that not a single one of the 20-something, or even early 30s “never spank” believers gave that 25-year-long observation the weight or consideration that it deserved. That “as long as their entire lifetime” observation didn’t cause them to slow their roll for even a millisecond. They blew off that observation as if it had never been said. This kind of refusal to pause and listen for a moment is exactly what I’m talking about in this post.

That kind of behavior is not how I was raised. When somebody has been watching a particular phenomenon for as long as I’ve been alive, I listen. I don’t automatically believe or agree with them; but I do step back, sit down, and listen.

All of these ideological choices lessen the odds of having a stable, productive family unit. I don’t assume that every newfangled idea always represents progress. And I’m hesitant to discard traditional methods that have stood the test of time in favor of experiments. Especially not when the stakes are so high. Thousands of years of human experience have shown that stable and productive families are based on: (1) marriage; (2) the children being born within marriage; and (3) parental authority over the children during their childhood.

Forty-five (45) people were shot during the recent Easter weekend in my hometown Chicago. Six of those who were shot over Easter weekend in Chicago are children. These shootings mostly occur in Chicago's “Blackistan” areas. Residential areas in which there are very few marriages, very few fathers who live with and raise their children, and very little demonstrated parental authority over minors.

New school AAs like to pretend that there's no connection between the lack of marriage, the lack of fathers, the lack of parental authority and the rampant death and destruction that takes place in “Blackistan.”

If you want to thrive, and if you want the best for your future children, don't play dumb and dishonest. Nobody ever said that spanking guaranteed a good outcome. What I am saying is that any honest observer can see that traditional* methods of family formation and child-rearing on average yield much better results than the experimental practices that so many new school AAs have bought into. And even when there are problems and failures, the baseline quality of life that forms the context of those problems and failures is much, much higher.

[*By “traditional” I'm referring to the best practices of AA old school culture.]

Back to indicators: I recently saw an indicator that, at least for me, confirmed that it's GAME OVER in terms of the AA collective. I saw a number of new school AA women in the Black blogosphere echoing Jada Pinkett Smith's idiotic comments about the photos of her 13-year old daughter in bed with a 20-year old man. Whether or not one considers the photos “sexual,” common sense dictates that a responsible parent would never allow males to have that kind of unrestricted, unmonitored access to their underage daughter.

It's a waste of time talking to any adult woman who doesn't understand this. More than a few men will play dumb and advocate all sorts of irresponsible parenting practices—for girls (specifically for other people's daughters)—because some of them are predators who are looking to have access to underage girls. For large numbers of adult women to be too gullible to see the risk of harm this type of situation creates for underage girls is unprecedented.

Which is why this is an indicator of Game Over for the AA collective. When you have mothers and future mothers who don't understand the need to limit males' access to their daughters, that lets you know the AA "tribe" is ruined. Because this indicates the already-epidemic levels of molestation and rape among the AA collective will only get worse. Real talk: You can't build or sustain a healthy collective composed of increasing numbers of future molestation victims who will grow up to be like Tyler Perry, Mo'Nique or Oprah. Money alone does not create an emotionally healthy or wholesome life. It's a wrap for AAs.

AAs with old school values know that you have to protect your girls from the many males in their environment (which often include "friends of the family") who are looking to exploit them sexually. You have to protect them from the males that you know are trying to get at them. AND from the males that you don't know are trying to get at them. The undercover child molester who's your neighbor, your pastor, your imam, your brother, your nephew, your cousin is not going to tell you that he wants to sex your underage daughter. If you have any sense at all, you'll make sure that nobody has unrestricted, unmonitored access to your daughter [or son, but I'm talking specifically about girls in this post].

It's basic common sense. The same way you don't allow toddlers to play in a group of older children—because the toddlers would most likely end up being trampled by the older children. The same way you don't leave your child unattended with animals. The babies are the ones who pay the price (often in blood) for adult stupidity and negligence. Like this poor little boy who was killed after being left outside alone with his idiot mother's friend's 3 pit bulls.

I understand that a lot of new school AAs gravitate to experimental, newfangled practices because they themselves were illegitimate children who've never seen a wholesome, traditional marriage or family from the inside. I understand that a lot of new school AAs resent the traditional marriage and child-rearing practices that they never got to benefit from. I've noticed an envious, “sour grapes” undercurrent in many new school AAs' bashing of traditional marriage and child-rearing practices. I get that.

Nevertheless, if you want to increase the odds of you and your future children LIVING WELL, you need to get back to basics.

And leave these newfangled, experimental marriage and child-rearing practices ALONE.
 
 

"Bougie throws a massive side eye towards the Black women haters who want us to be outraged over Donald Sterling"

I 100% co-sign what Bougie Black Girl said HERE.

It's been a joy basking in the victory of the BWE social justice movement. In this particular instance it's been delightful watching African-American women like Bougie Black Girl refuse to fight Black males' battles for them.

BM athletes like Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and others can fight their own battles. Or they can see if their non-black wives will protest and fight for them.

Self-proclaimed "New Blacks" like Pharrell can fight their own battles.

Or BM can choose to do nothing about this. Whatever. {shrug}

It's not my problem or responsibility. It's also not any other African-American woman's problem or responsibility. It's a blessing that so many AA women have finally caught a clue and realized this. {big smile}

African-American Women: Here's Some Of The Fruit That You've Earned With Your Knee-Jerk, Rabid Support of “12 Years a Slave,” Part 3

I'll keep this relatively short because the point is [should be] self-evident. {smile}

A lot of y'all got mad when I originally questioned your knee-jerk, rabid, UN-reciprocated crusades in support of 12 Years a Slave.

I've been keeping track of the many bitter fruits y'all are going to reap as a result of this entrenched knee-jerk behavior pattern of constantly throwing on your Superwoman cape in support of any and all random Black-skinned faces. All without ever asking the simple questions of:

(1) What's in it for me and African-American women like me to support this?

(2) Who benefits from this [movie, TV show, record deal, etc.]?

(3) Who benefits the most from this [movie, TV show, record deal, etc.]?
Well, let's see . . .

So far, there's the Vanity Fair magazine cover I discussed HERE. There's the growing bad feeling some of y'all are belatedly experiencing that I discussed HERE. And now there's this:

Carmen Ejogo has been cast to play Coretta Scott King In Ava DuVernay‘s MLK Biopic ‘Selma,’ reports The Hollywood Reporter. The London native will play opposite David Oyelowo, who’s playing Martin Luther King Jr. Already cast in the film is Tom Wilkinson, who will play President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Here's a photo of  Nigerian-British actor David Oyelowo and his wife:

Right. So, two foreign Blacks (one of whom has a White wife) have been cast to play Coretta Scott King and Dr. King in a biopic about Dr. King. Right.

Before some of y'all try to draw a [false] distinction, keep in mind that the AAs who participated in (and/or accepted) these casting decisions with the upcoming Selma flick only did the SAME thing that a lot of y'all African-American women consumers did with your rabid, knee-jerk support of 12 Years a Slave.

Namely, all of these decisions were made by African-Americans who were so fixated on various emotional considerations (oh, such as desperately looking for validation of dark-skinned beauty, showcasing White women's cruelty, etc.) that they didn't notice that they're economically cutting their own throats in the long-run.

You teach people how to treat you. The same applies to consumer behavior. Y'all taught Hollywood (and the AA slaves looking to catch a crumb in Hollywood) that the winning equation when it comes to movies about AA history is to cast foreign Black actors as AA historical figures.

Since you've shown that you're comfortable with financially supporting being replaced by foreign Blacks, you will be replaced. Across the board.

Regardless of whatever you thought you were doing by blindly running out to support this movie, this is the REAL message you sent with your rabid support of 12 Years a Slave.

Bonus Commentary. I've had multiple email conversations about the dynamics underlying all of this. Here's part of what I've said during several of these conversations:

AA women's fanatical caping for Lupita is a microcosm of a larger dynamic:
 
(1) BM happily accept gullible AA women's support and then kick AA women in the teeth (and to the curb) when these BM get where they think they're going.
 
(2) Latinos happily accepted gullible AAs' political support; and then kicked AAs in the teeth (and to the curb) when they no longer needed our support for their illegal immigration (now that they've overtaken AAs as the largest minority demographic).
 
(3) Foreign Blacks are mid-way through this same trajectory. Once foreign Blacks complete the process of replacing AAs in American universities, the American entertainment biz, and so on, the bulk of them will totally kick AAs in the teeth (and kick us to the curb). It's like Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football. {rhetorical question} I wonder how many times do AA women have to see this pattern played out? [A savvy former blog reader replied that AA women will have to repeat this lesson until they finally learn from it, and stop engaging in knee-jerk muling for other people.]