I wish I had a nickel for every person who has come up to me recently and asked why there have been so many stories about the Amanda Knox murder trial and why a crime that took place in Perugia, Italy has been given such a high profile, here in America. I don't know about you, but I'm getting really tired of watching that same tape of her being led into and out of the courtroom, with that slight, eerie smile on her face.
At the same time, there actually are lessons for us, in this “Knox-obsession,” no matter how unintended they may have been.
The first, in my opinion, is that, even in this post-racial era, with so many black Americans routinely engaging in international travel, there's the lesson that we should “stay on our toes,” if we travel to Italy --and "sleep with one eye open" in almost any other country.
The second, and perhaps most important lesson, of course, is that in the eyes of Western courts and media, the life of a black man still doesn't seem to be worth very much, in relative terms.
Before we get too far into all of that, let me point out that I’m not anti-Italian. I think Italians are fine people, with a rich and glorious cultural history. Add that to the fact that, over a very long period of time, Italian people constituted the dominant Eurocentric power on earth – and you pretty much have to respect most things Italian.
What I don’t respect is what recently happened to a guy named Patrick Diya Lumumba, a transplanted resident of Perugia Italy, who was born in the Congo. Mr. Lumumba, you might recall, was a former businessowner in Perugia, who was falsely accused of murdering Ms. Knox’s British roommate, on November 1, 2007.
The trial has received “Tiger Woods” kind of coverage in Europe and in most Western media outlets, including here in the U.S.
In fact, when the proceedings began early this year, 86 media outlets sent 140 journalists to cover the story. Italian newspapers following the trial began referring to Knox, the 22 year-old co-defendant in the murder trial from Seattle, Washington, as “Foxy Knoxy.” She was even featured on the cover of People Magazine.
As if that wasn't already enough, Ms. Knox was voted “top woman” in an online “Person of the Year” poll by an Italian television channel, receiving more support than Carla Bruni, the Italian-born, French First Lady. One media account said, “The case has given Knox almost pop star status.”
Not bad for a woman who had been charged with repeatedly stabbing her roommate in the neck until she died, and who almost certainly, but very sloppily, tried to shift the blame for the murder to the very innocent African, Mr. Lumumba.
When asked who had committed the murder that took place in her own apartment, with a knife that carried her fingerprints, “Foxy Knoxy,” reportedly scrolled down a list of names on her cell phone and blurted out, when she came across Lumumba’s name, “It was him, it was him, he was crazy, he killed her.”
Largely on the strength of that statement, Mr. Lumumba was promptly arrested and charged with the murder of Amanda Knox’s roommate, Meredith Kercher, a university student from Surrey, in the United Kingdom.
However, under further interrogation, Ms. Knox later admitted: “I know I didn’t kill Meredith. I see Patrick in flashes as the murderer, but I can’t verify the truth the way it appears in my mind, because I don’t remember with certainty if I was there.”
Ms. Knox said she “didn’t remember with certainty” if she had actually been in the apartment at the time the crime was committed. She was able, nevertheless, to be absolutely certain that Mr. Lumumba, the man who owned the pub where she worked as a waitress, was the one who committed the murder, and that he was, in her humble opinion, “crazy.” Remember, this young woman who was calling Lumumba "crazy" was the same one who proclaimed on her Facebook profile: "I don't get embarrassed and therefore have very few social inhibitions."
Then, again, maybe Ms. Knox was confused about the exact details of the murder because, as an Italian judge who upheld her detention noted, “she had smoked hashish that night.”
After digging just a bit into "Foxy Knoxy’s" outrageously contradictory and, perhaps, drug-induced accusations against her own employer, the Italian authorities had little choice but to free Mr. Lumumba, who, by that time had spent two weeks in prison, and had lost his business and his reputation.
Not surprisingly, after being released from incarceration, Mr. Lumumba, filed a lawsuit against Ms. Knox for 500,000 pounds ($800,000), claiming that he had been wrongly accused of the murder, that he had been falsely incarcerated and that his life, as a result, had been ruined, including personal, social and financial losses.
Now, here’s the part to which black readers should play careful attention: After just two weeks of deliberation, the Italian court ruled that Mr. Lumumba, the law-abiding, African businessowner was entitled to just 7, 340 pounds in damages, rather than the 500,000 he had sought. That's the equivalent of $11, 973.89 in American currency.
If you’re black and you’re traveling to Italy, please know that the value of your life and reputation has been officially established prior to your arrival and it is – by determination of the courts-- $11,973.89.
Apparently, a black life isn’t worth much over there; you should remember to conduct yourself accordingly.
Now, compare that to how "Foxy Knoxy’s" life and reputation are being valued.
Immediately after Ms. Knox had been convicted and sentenced last week to 26 years in prison, her family, which has, reportedly, already spent $1 million in legal and related fees to fight for her release, asked the U.S. government to intervene in the Court’s decision, claiming that she had been, believe it or not, “wrongly accused.”
In fact, Knox’s father has called Amanda’s guilty verdict a “flat failure of the Italian legal system."
After being contacted by Mr. Knox, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, from Knox’s home state of Washington, said that she had “serious questions” about the trial. Cantwell then pledged to seek the support of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and wrote to Italian President Silvio Berlusconi on Amanda's behalf, and contacted the U.S. Ambassador in Rome.
Ms. Clinton said last week on ABC TV that she is “willing to hear any concerns about the case.”
Maybe Western media are still sympathetic to "Foxy Knoxy" because during the trial, an unrelated African man – Rudy Hermann Guede of the Ivory Coast – was also implicated in the murder, along with Knox's Italian, former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito. While it was clearly Knox’s fingerprints on the handle of the knife that was the alleged murder weapon, and not Guede’s, Guede’s fingerprints were found in the apartment unit and his DNA was “linked (sexually) to Kercher’s body.”
It’s interesting to note also that Knox received a 26-year sentence, while Guede, somehow, got 30 years.
At the end of the day, the Knox trial and its attendant, world-wide media coverage, constitute just one more piece of evidence of the very different and diminished way in which black life is valued, not only here, but also in other Western nations and in their media outlets.
Word to the wise: If you find yourself in a position where you have to, or just want to, travel internationally, and you happen to be black – be really careful.
#######
Friday, December 18, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The President is Insensitive to Black Concerns: Even Stevie Wonder Can See That.(12/4/09)
It’s never been politically correct to use it, but, over the years, black folks have always had an expression that described situations that were so painfully obvious that absolutely no one could ignore them.
You know the one I’m talking about: “Even Stevie Wonder could see that.”
It’s never been malicious. It has not been meant to demean Mr. Wonder because he was “visually impaired.” It was just a fun, culturally unique, readily understandable way for us, as black people, to make a point. Older black folks would use the same figure of speech, but they would, of course, insert the name “Ray Charles” in the space where “Stevie” was used.
Stop me if I’m lying...
Well, for all those people in our community who have wanted to hold on to the belief that Barack Obama was, somehow, sooner or later, going to finally begin to focus on the issues that have brought disproportionate hardship to black communities nation-wide, Thursday was a “Stevie Wonder kind of day.”
Recently, the president "discovered" that America’s most critical problem is a coast-to-coast, longstanding, rapidly growing, unemployment crisis. Following that epiphany, the president decided to hold a so-called “Jobs Summit.” Even though it sounded more like something a neighborhood community development organization might sponsor, we were willing to give him, once again, the benefit of the doubt. After all, many of us thought, the president has access to the world's most learned economists and has his hands, literally, on the levers of the economy, why does he need to ask "common people" about ways to create jobs?
Especially disappointing, however, was that when he was asked by reporters, at the "Jobs Summit," how he intended to address the special hardship of unemployment among African Americans, the president said, according to the New York Times, “It would be wrong for him to focus narrowly on blacks or any other minority group.”
At this point, black people all over the country should have immediately gotten up, removed those old “Hope” posters from their walls--and burned them.
Partially as a result of comments like that from Mr. Obama, and the growing perception that the president simply doesn’t care about black jobs, black businesses, or even black children, other than his own, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have decided to take matters into their own hands.
In fact, last month, the Caucus went directly to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to emphasize that they would no longer just show up and play the political game, while the national black economy-- jobs, auto dealerships, newspapers, banks and government contractors -- continues to suffer and die.
Among their concerns was one fairly important black owned-business, a company called Inner City Broadcasting, which owns a network of 17 broadcast stations across the country, and that was founded by 89-year-old black entrepreneur, attorney and power-broker, Percy Sutton. The company's future, like that of most radio and TV stations, is now at risk due to recession-related declines in advertising revenues.
As the Caucus has made clear, we have so few credible, black-owned broadcast properties in this country that we simply can’t afford to let Inner City be lost. For black folks, Inner City Broadcasting, the second-largest radio network in the country focused on black audiences, certainly fits the description of being "too big to fail.”
The Caucus has requested that the Obama administration take steps to ensure that lenders such as GE Capital, and the already bailed-out Goldman Sachs, provide short-term relief to Inner City Broadcasting and to other black-owned radio stations, by renegotiating the loans they’ve made to them.
And what was the response from the “First Black President?”
According to the New York Times, the Obama administration raised objections to the Black Caucus’s requests and has said that it does “not believe it is appropriate to pressure national institutions to make concessions for specific loans or businesses.”
Hey, can President Obama spell A.I.G.? Are bailed-out companies such as General Motors and Chrysler specific enough for him? Has he already forgotten the $700 billion in bailout money that he personally fought to have funneled into the “specific” pockets of financial institutions named Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, etc., etc.?
When the Black Caucus began to understand, finally, that the Obama administration was not prepared to be helpful, its members moved on to “Plan B.” What they did next was virtually unprecedented but, certainly, long overdue. Last Wednesday, ten members of the Congressional Black Caucus simply decided not to attend a crucial meeting of the House Financial Services Committee, at which an Obama administration proposal on regulatory reform was being voted upon.
It sent a clear signal. If members of the Black Caucus vote against the bill when it eventually moves to the full floor of the House of Representatives, the administration’s reform legislation will, in all likelihood, go down to defeat.
In these desperate economic times - especially for black folks - I can only say “thank God for the Black Caucus,” and for any other clear-thinking person in our community.
We should also understand, however, that this issue goes far beyond the impact on large black businesses, banks, and media outlets, and extends throughout our national black community, on a door-to-door basis.
In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently disclosed that the unemployment rate for black male college graduates, at 8.4 percent, is almost twice as high as the 4.4 percent unemployment rate for white male college grads.
Embarrassingly, some unemployed black college grads have resorted, recently, to re-writing their resumes to remove any sign that they might actually be black (Historically black college attendance; black fraternity or sorority memberships; addresses with "black zip codes," all deleted, now, from the more racially palatable resume).
Another report last year proved that people with black-sounding names receive 50 percent less responses to their job applications than people with white-sounding names. As a result, many black college graduates are actually removing their too-black-sounding first or middle names from their job applications.
They’re finding, however, that when the potential employer actually hears their black-sounding voice during a phone interview or sees their clearly black face at the personal interview, the previously interested company, far too often, suddenly loses interest.
If even the most well-educated African Americans are still being treated in this disgraceful fashion, what do you think is happening at the level of people with lesser educations?
If you don’t have a job, you can’t afford health care, at any cost, Mr. President. If you don’t have a job, it’s difficult to keep your family together. If you don’t have a job, as is the case for far too many black people, you can’t afford to buy food for your kids.
With that in mind, I wasn’t surprised to learn that nearly 12 percent of all Americans are now on food stamps, but that the number jumps to 28 percent for black people.
These conditions, and this uncaring attitude from our own government, are producing a growing sense of national unrest, especially among black folks. It’s no wonder that Chicago Congressman Bobby Rush is talking about organizing a "March on Washington" for jobs.
If Barack Obama continues to pretend that he doesn’t see the disproportionately cruel, race-based impact that this economy is having on the people who have supported him most, and when those same people wake up and recognize that he is not representing their interests as they “hoped” he would, then he will be well on his way to being just like Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush ─ a one-term president. And that would be entirely appropriate.
Hey, even Stevie Wonder can see that.
###########
You know the one I’m talking about: “Even Stevie Wonder could see that.”
It’s never been malicious. It has not been meant to demean Mr. Wonder because he was “visually impaired.” It was just a fun, culturally unique, readily understandable way for us, as black people, to make a point. Older black folks would use the same figure of speech, but they would, of course, insert the name “Ray Charles” in the space where “Stevie” was used.
Stop me if I’m lying...
Well, for all those people in our community who have wanted to hold on to the belief that Barack Obama was, somehow, sooner or later, going to finally begin to focus on the issues that have brought disproportionate hardship to black communities nation-wide, Thursday was a “Stevie Wonder kind of day.”
Recently, the president "discovered" that America’s most critical problem is a coast-to-coast, longstanding, rapidly growing, unemployment crisis. Following that epiphany, the president decided to hold a so-called “Jobs Summit.” Even though it sounded more like something a neighborhood community development organization might sponsor, we were willing to give him, once again, the benefit of the doubt. After all, many of us thought, the president has access to the world's most learned economists and has his hands, literally, on the levers of the economy, why does he need to ask "common people" about ways to create jobs?
Especially disappointing, however, was that when he was asked by reporters, at the "Jobs Summit," how he intended to address the special hardship of unemployment among African Americans, the president said, according to the New York Times, “It would be wrong for him to focus narrowly on blacks or any other minority group.”
At this point, black people all over the country should have immediately gotten up, removed those old “Hope” posters from their walls--and burned them.
Partially as a result of comments like that from Mr. Obama, and the growing perception that the president simply doesn’t care about black jobs, black businesses, or even black children, other than his own, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have decided to take matters into their own hands.
In fact, last month, the Caucus went directly to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to emphasize that they would no longer just show up and play the political game, while the national black economy-- jobs, auto dealerships, newspapers, banks and government contractors -- continues to suffer and die.
Among their concerns was one fairly important black owned-business, a company called Inner City Broadcasting, which owns a network of 17 broadcast stations across the country, and that was founded by 89-year-old black entrepreneur, attorney and power-broker, Percy Sutton. The company's future, like that of most radio and TV stations, is now at risk due to recession-related declines in advertising revenues.
As the Caucus has made clear, we have so few credible, black-owned broadcast properties in this country that we simply can’t afford to let Inner City be lost. For black folks, Inner City Broadcasting, the second-largest radio network in the country focused on black audiences, certainly fits the description of being "too big to fail.”
The Caucus has requested that the Obama administration take steps to ensure that lenders such as GE Capital, and the already bailed-out Goldman Sachs, provide short-term relief to Inner City Broadcasting and to other black-owned radio stations, by renegotiating the loans they’ve made to them.
And what was the response from the “First Black President?”
According to the New York Times, the Obama administration raised objections to the Black Caucus’s requests and has said that it does “not believe it is appropriate to pressure national institutions to make concessions for specific loans or businesses.”
Hey, can President Obama spell A.I.G.? Are bailed-out companies such as General Motors and Chrysler specific enough for him? Has he already forgotten the $700 billion in bailout money that he personally fought to have funneled into the “specific” pockets of financial institutions named Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, etc., etc.?
When the Black Caucus began to understand, finally, that the Obama administration was not prepared to be helpful, its members moved on to “Plan B.” What they did next was virtually unprecedented but, certainly, long overdue. Last Wednesday, ten members of the Congressional Black Caucus simply decided not to attend a crucial meeting of the House Financial Services Committee, at which an Obama administration proposal on regulatory reform was being voted upon.
It sent a clear signal. If members of the Black Caucus vote against the bill when it eventually moves to the full floor of the House of Representatives, the administration’s reform legislation will, in all likelihood, go down to defeat.
In these desperate economic times - especially for black folks - I can only say “thank God for the Black Caucus,” and for any other clear-thinking person in our community.
We should also understand, however, that this issue goes far beyond the impact on large black businesses, banks, and media outlets, and extends throughout our national black community, on a door-to-door basis.
In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently disclosed that the unemployment rate for black male college graduates, at 8.4 percent, is almost twice as high as the 4.4 percent unemployment rate for white male college grads.
Embarrassingly, some unemployed black college grads have resorted, recently, to re-writing their resumes to remove any sign that they might actually be black (Historically black college attendance; black fraternity or sorority memberships; addresses with "black zip codes," all deleted, now, from the more racially palatable resume).
Another report last year proved that people with black-sounding names receive 50 percent less responses to their job applications than people with white-sounding names. As a result, many black college graduates are actually removing their too-black-sounding first or middle names from their job applications.
They’re finding, however, that when the potential employer actually hears their black-sounding voice during a phone interview or sees their clearly black face at the personal interview, the previously interested company, far too often, suddenly loses interest.
If even the most well-educated African Americans are still being treated in this disgraceful fashion, what do you think is happening at the level of people with lesser educations?
If you don’t have a job, you can’t afford health care, at any cost, Mr. President. If you don’t have a job, it’s difficult to keep your family together. If you don’t have a job, as is the case for far too many black people, you can’t afford to buy food for your kids.
With that in mind, I wasn’t surprised to learn that nearly 12 percent of all Americans are now on food stamps, but that the number jumps to 28 percent for black people.
These conditions, and this uncaring attitude from our own government, are producing a growing sense of national unrest, especially among black folks. It’s no wonder that Chicago Congressman Bobby Rush is talking about organizing a "March on Washington" for jobs.
If Barack Obama continues to pretend that he doesn’t see the disproportionately cruel, race-based impact that this economy is having on the people who have supported him most, and when those same people wake up and recognize that he is not representing their interests as they “hoped” he would, then he will be well on his way to being just like Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush ─ a one-term president. And that would be entirely appropriate.
Hey, even Stevie Wonder can see that.
###########
Monday, December 7, 2009
What's "Precious" About Self-Hate?
Without even seeing the demeaning, new black film, “Precious,” I learned in one, cold-blooded sentence in a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal what the whole movie, based on a fiction by a former, Harlem-based, remedial reading teacher, was about, and why it was in the theatres in the first place.
According to the first sentence in Journal reporter Lauren A.E. Schuker’s story, “Precious," based on the novel, "Push,"” is a “raw movie about an obese, black teen growing up in an abusive Harlem household.”
To learn how a film with such a distasteful premise had been made, at all, I had to move quickly to the second part of that same first sentence. It was there that Schuker wrote that the movie: "...got off the ground with some unlikely angels: A wealthy Denver couple, new to the film business." As Schuker explains, the couple included a woman named Sarah Siegel Magness, whose family started the Celestial Seasonings Tea Company (A brand that I will not touch again with a ten–foot pole), and her husband, Gary Magness, whose parents started a powerful cable company. The two of them invested about $12 million to finance the film.
Hey, I wonder if the Magnesses ever seriously considered putting up 12 million other dollars to finance the definitive movie about obese teens of European descent who grew up in abusive, incestuous, white households.
Probably not.
In any event, the Magnesses apparently thought that sharing the story of “Precious” was a wonderful idea; and when African-American director Lee Daniels bought the rights to the fictional story, “Push,” from the author, Sapphire (I’m not making this up), the Magnesses pressed him to make the film as soon as he had completed another movie, “Tennessee". I read, somewhere, that Sapphire had been concerned that if she had not written the story, no one else would have done so. She was probably right.
The frightening thing about all of this is that once Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry lent their names and reputations to the project, "Precious" instantly became a “household word” and immediately became more palatable to trusting black audiences across the country.
Primarily with Oprah’s support, the movie has “crossed over” into the mainstream entertainment community. Subsequently, it’s been very unsettling, but not surprising, at all, to read that "Precious" received a 15-minute standing ovation from people at the Cannes Film Festival (each of whom, I’m sure, have a deep and supportive understanding of life in the African-American community), that it took down major awards at the Sundance Film Festival and that there is, now, “Oscar buzz” for the film.
In its opening weekend, "Precious" was released to just 18 movie screens and generated $1.9 million. But, by its third week, this poisonous cinematic vehicle had been spread by its distributors, like H1N1, into a total of 629 movie screens and had generated $21.9 in box office revenues. The plan, now, according to the distributor, Lions Gate, is to further expand the number of theaters beyond the Thanksgiving holiday.
For those of you who think "Precious" is “just a movie” and that we should just “get over it” and let it run its course in this free country of ours, let me remind you of something that Stephen Balkaran, author of "Mass Media and Racism," wrote in 1999: “The mass media have played and will continue to play a crucial role in the way white Americans perceive African Americans.
"The history of African Americans," he continued," is a centuries-old struggle against oppression and discrimination. The media have played a key role in perpetuating the effects of this historical oppression and in contributing to African Americans’ continuing status as second-class citizens."
In my opinion, there are clearly other factors – lack of economic access, educational opportunity, etc.-- that contribute to these circumstances. At the same time, however, the perception that conditions such as those found in "Precious" accurately define the norm in black communities is spread and sustained by movies, and by print and broadcast news outlets.
According to researchers in the Communications Department at the University of Oklahoma, “Viewing a single movie or exposure to a specific media message may be sufficient for effects on people’s beliefs, thus forming a perception.”
Audiences that watched “The Day After," a television movie about nuclear attacks, were more likely to believe the possibility of a nuclear war, and audiences that saw the movie “JFK” believed there had been a conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States.
According to the Media Awareness Network, “Many movies still perpetuate common misconceptions about groups of people. Such oversimplified and inaccurate portrayals can profoundly affect how we perceive one another, how we relate to one another and how we value ourselves." The absolute proof of that lies in the fact that more than 70 years after the height of his mainstream movie popularity and nearly 25 years after his death, the name and image of Lincoln Perry, the first black millionaire movie star, who played the lazy, "coon" character, Stepin Fetchit, are still remembered--by blacks and whites-- and still poison the image of black people in this country.
Within that context, we now have "Precious," which may very well rank among the most damaging films about black life ever made. In fact, after seeing "Precious," one reviewer called it the worst film depiction of black people since D. W. Griffith’s Ku Klux Klan-sympathizing film, “The Birth of a Nation.”
In another review of the movie, Evann Gastaldo, of the online news outlet,"Newser," described the film as a story of “A big, black sullen-faced, illiterate girl who lives in the depths of the ghetto and, in all likelihood, will stay there.”
Gestaldo went on to say that “Precious stands in for all the blacks who have looked in the mirror and wanted “better" hair, less body mass, lighter skin, more confidence, more assurance that we’re worthy ….”
What is there about Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey that causes them to believe that what the world needs now is the narrow, fictional, stereotypically negative, black images of the movie, "Precious?"
Has it not occurred to them that they really do have the capacity to finance and promote film projects that depict the achievements of African-American people? Or, in their opinion, have there already been too many Hollywood films about the greatness of Africa, of African civilizations and kingdoms? Or, has it been acceptable to them, so far, that virtually every Egyptian in films, including Cleopatra, has been played by people of European descent, speaking in clipped British accents? Were they satisfied that the great African general, Hannibal, who brought elephants across the Alps to invade Rome, was played in the movie carrying his name by Victor Mature, an actor of European descent?
When Steven Spielberg, who is himself Jewish, wanted to show the strength of the Jewish people and their dignity under oppression, he produced a movie called Shindler’s List. A similar route was taken by Leon Uris, also Jewish, when he wrote the pro-Zionist and sympathetic book that became the movie, "Exodus."
In that same vein, when Francis Ford Coppola directed "The Godfather,” one of the most popular and successful movies of all time, he was careful to make Italian organized crime figures appear to be heroic, kind, loyal, religious, business-like and family-minded.
With the rare exception of Spike Lee, the current crop of black film makers seems to have little or no appreciation for the tremendous power of the medium in which they participate. What's wrong with us?
Unquestionably, there are tremendous numbers of yet-untold, compelling stories about Africans and African-Americans. Unfortunately, "Precious" ain’t one of them.
The next time you see Tyler and Oprah, please mention that to them.
Oh, and do yourself, and our community, a big favor, don’t, under any circumstances, spend even a dime to see the movie, no matter how many times Oprah tells you to do so.
########
According to the first sentence in Journal reporter Lauren A.E. Schuker’s story, “Precious," based on the novel, "Push,"” is a “raw movie about an obese, black teen growing up in an abusive Harlem household.”
To learn how a film with such a distasteful premise had been made, at all, I had to move quickly to the second part of that same first sentence. It was there that Schuker wrote that the movie: "...got off the ground with some unlikely angels: A wealthy Denver couple, new to the film business." As Schuker explains, the couple included a woman named Sarah Siegel Magness, whose family started the Celestial Seasonings Tea Company (A brand that I will not touch again with a ten–foot pole), and her husband, Gary Magness, whose parents started a powerful cable company. The two of them invested about $12 million to finance the film.
Hey, I wonder if the Magnesses ever seriously considered putting up 12 million other dollars to finance the definitive movie about obese teens of European descent who grew up in abusive, incestuous, white households.
Probably not.
In any event, the Magnesses apparently thought that sharing the story of “Precious” was a wonderful idea; and when African-American director Lee Daniels bought the rights to the fictional story, “Push,” from the author, Sapphire (I’m not making this up), the Magnesses pressed him to make the film as soon as he had completed another movie, “Tennessee". I read, somewhere, that Sapphire had been concerned that if she had not written the story, no one else would have done so. She was probably right.
The frightening thing about all of this is that once Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry lent their names and reputations to the project, "Precious" instantly became a “household word” and immediately became more palatable to trusting black audiences across the country.
Primarily with Oprah’s support, the movie has “crossed over” into the mainstream entertainment community. Subsequently, it’s been very unsettling, but not surprising, at all, to read that "Precious" received a 15-minute standing ovation from people at the Cannes Film Festival (each of whom, I’m sure, have a deep and supportive understanding of life in the African-American community), that it took down major awards at the Sundance Film Festival and that there is, now, “Oscar buzz” for the film.
In its opening weekend, "Precious" was released to just 18 movie screens and generated $1.9 million. But, by its third week, this poisonous cinematic vehicle had been spread by its distributors, like H1N1, into a total of 629 movie screens and had generated $21.9 in box office revenues. The plan, now, according to the distributor, Lions Gate, is to further expand the number of theaters beyond the Thanksgiving holiday.
For those of you who think "Precious" is “just a movie” and that we should just “get over it” and let it run its course in this free country of ours, let me remind you of something that Stephen Balkaran, author of "Mass Media and Racism," wrote in 1999: “The mass media have played and will continue to play a crucial role in the way white Americans perceive African Americans.
"The history of African Americans," he continued," is a centuries-old struggle against oppression and discrimination. The media have played a key role in perpetuating the effects of this historical oppression and in contributing to African Americans’ continuing status as second-class citizens."
In my opinion, there are clearly other factors – lack of economic access, educational opportunity, etc.-- that contribute to these circumstances. At the same time, however, the perception that conditions such as those found in "Precious" accurately define the norm in black communities is spread and sustained by movies, and by print and broadcast news outlets.
According to researchers in the Communications Department at the University of Oklahoma, “Viewing a single movie or exposure to a specific media message may be sufficient for effects on people’s beliefs, thus forming a perception.”
Audiences that watched “The Day After," a television movie about nuclear attacks, were more likely to believe the possibility of a nuclear war, and audiences that saw the movie “JFK” believed there had been a conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States.
According to the Media Awareness Network, “Many movies still perpetuate common misconceptions about groups of people. Such oversimplified and inaccurate portrayals can profoundly affect how we perceive one another, how we relate to one another and how we value ourselves." The absolute proof of that lies in the fact that more than 70 years after the height of his mainstream movie popularity and nearly 25 years after his death, the name and image of Lincoln Perry, the first black millionaire movie star, who played the lazy, "coon" character, Stepin Fetchit, are still remembered--by blacks and whites-- and still poison the image of black people in this country.
Within that context, we now have "Precious," which may very well rank among the most damaging films about black life ever made. In fact, after seeing "Precious," one reviewer called it the worst film depiction of black people since D. W. Griffith’s Ku Klux Klan-sympathizing film, “The Birth of a Nation.”
In another review of the movie, Evann Gastaldo, of the online news outlet,"Newser," described the film as a story of “A big, black sullen-faced, illiterate girl who lives in the depths of the ghetto and, in all likelihood, will stay there.”
Gestaldo went on to say that “Precious stands in for all the blacks who have looked in the mirror and wanted “better" hair, less body mass, lighter skin, more confidence, more assurance that we’re worthy ….”
What is there about Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey that causes them to believe that what the world needs now is the narrow, fictional, stereotypically negative, black images of the movie, "Precious?"
Has it not occurred to them that they really do have the capacity to finance and promote film projects that depict the achievements of African-American people? Or, in their opinion, have there already been too many Hollywood films about the greatness of Africa, of African civilizations and kingdoms? Or, has it been acceptable to them, so far, that virtually every Egyptian in films, including Cleopatra, has been played by people of European descent, speaking in clipped British accents? Were they satisfied that the great African general, Hannibal, who brought elephants across the Alps to invade Rome, was played in the movie carrying his name by Victor Mature, an actor of European descent?
When Steven Spielberg, who is himself Jewish, wanted to show the strength of the Jewish people and their dignity under oppression, he produced a movie called Shindler’s List. A similar route was taken by Leon Uris, also Jewish, when he wrote the pro-Zionist and sympathetic book that became the movie, "Exodus."
In that same vein, when Francis Ford Coppola directed "The Godfather,” one of the most popular and successful movies of all time, he was careful to make Italian organized crime figures appear to be heroic, kind, loyal, religious, business-like and family-minded.
With the rare exception of Spike Lee, the current crop of black film makers seems to have little or no appreciation for the tremendous power of the medium in which they participate. What's wrong with us?
Unquestionably, there are tremendous numbers of yet-untold, compelling stories about Africans and African-Americans. Unfortunately, "Precious" ain’t one of them.
The next time you see Tyler and Oprah, please mention that to them.
Oh, and do yourself, and our community, a big favor, don’t, under any circumstances, spend even a dime to see the movie, no matter how many times Oprah tells you to do so.
########
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
This Time, the "Word of the Year" is Useful to Black Folks.
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the "Word of the Year" for 2009 is "unfriend." The dictionary's spokespeople define "unfriend" as a verb that means "to remove someone as a friend" on a social networking site, such as Facebook."
Okay.
At first glance, I pretty much let that one go right by me, as it was repeated over and over on newscasts and in the press.
Again this year, the New Oxford American "Word of the Year" turned out to be one that I didn't happen to use very much, and I wrote it off, initially, as just another cultural phenomenon. It reminded me of the time, years ago, when I happened to pass by a newsstand and saw a picture of a man on the cover of Time or Newsweek magazine (one or the other), who was being touted as having the number one song in America and, right there, next to his face, in bold type, was his nickname, "The Boss." Right away, I'm wondering: The Boss of what, the Boss of whom? He certainly was no "boss" of mine, not to my knowledge, anyway.
It turns out they were simply talking about a man named Bruce Springsteen, who, up to that point in my life, I had never even heard of. I hadn't seen his face, hadn't listened to his music, didn't know he was called "The Boss," and certainly didn't know that he had the country's best-selling recording.
That was one of those times when I really began to appreciate just how culturally separated we all still are, here in the good old U.S.A. As I mentioned, I felt pretty much the same way when I saw the big news about "unfriend." I was, of course, well aware that people were being added as "friends" on each other's social networking sites, but I had absolutely no idea that there was now a verb that described the action people were taking when those same friends were removed from their sites.
In the real world, when you're finished with a friendship, you just don't call anymore, you just don't visit, you just don't return the person's email or text message. You no longer send letters or holiday cards. There's generally no need for a specific action word to represent the changing nature of the friendship. In the real world, when you no longer want to be friends, people can usually tell by your lack of action, or the simple lessening of such actions, toward them. Usually, over time, they do get the idea.
Among "social networkers," however, I guess you actually have to take the specific step of "unfriending."
In reality, I can't be too hard on this year's "word of the year." Actually, I don't remember being all that impressed with the New Oxford American 2008 word, either. That, of course, was the word" hypermiling", which, as you'll certainly recall, described actions people take with their cars to maximize their gas mileage.
And who can forget the same dictionary's 2007 word, "locavore," which, they carefully explained, was a noun that described a movement that encourages people to buy from farmer's markets, or to grow or pick their own food? Locavores, they pointed out at the time, also frowned on shopping at supermarkets because shipping foods over long distances consumed too much costly energy.
Come to think of it, I've been frowning on supermarkets, myself, lately--and not because I want to be especially environmentally friendly. I just don't like the fact that each time I go to one, I seem to come away having spent more and more money for smaller and far fewer little plastic bags of food. Maybe I'm a "locavore" and didn't even know it.
As I looked back, I got the feeling that the "word of the year" thing was pretty much a bust as far as I was concerned, a lot of arcane, ecological,"techno" kinds of terms that weren't in much use, generally -- especially in the black community. But, then, I started looking at this year's word, "unfriend," again, and I began to think that black folks really could get some good use out of it, if we just paid attention to what was going on around us. In fact, I came up with a pretty good starter list of people, organizations and institutions that should be "unfriended" by African Americans," right now, if we knew what was good for us.
My definition of "unfriend," however, goes far beyond removing them from our Facebook pages. I'm talking about totally and finally rejecting, un-electing and refusing to ever support these worthless "unfriends," again. This is meant to be pro-active, clear and permanent on our part.
Here it goes:
---Government purchasing agents and minority business officers who get paid every day, even though they produce virtually no meaningful contract participation for black businesses --- Unfriend them!
--- Teachers in public schools, who, with their union's support, get paid very attractive salaries and great benefits, even though black kids are not really being taught well and are not really achieving --- Unfriend them!
-----Credit card companies and banks that now offer pre-paid debit cards with criminally high fees, designed to appeal to low-income blacks and to others who can't get normal checking accounts or credit cards from financial institutions ---- Unfriend them!
-----Certain elected officials who are not responsive to the needs of their black constituents, despite the fact that black voters are the primary reason they are in office, in the first place --- Unfriend them!
-----People whom you've known, perhaps all of your life, who tell you that because you're black, you might as well stop trying to succeed because it's "hard out here for a black man, or black woman" ---- Unfriend them!
-----People you know who explain that, because the economy is difficult and they can't find a job, they were "forced" to go back to "slinging" --- Unfriend them, definitely!
----- African Americans who say that we shouldn't expect to live and work cooperatively with blacks from the Caribbean or with recent African immigrants because "they think they're better than us" ---- Unfriend them!
-----Black folks who tell you that it's too much trouble to make any attempt to "buy black" for the upcoming holidays, even, amazingly, for Kwanzaa gifts ---- Unfriend them!
-----People in your community who, despite sound evidence to the contrary, continue to carry themselves and talk as if we are actually living in a "post-racial society" ----Unfriend them!
------People in our own community who believe that 96 percent of black people who voted for a new president in 2008, voted for Barack Obama primarily so that one man would have the honor of being the "first black president," and so that we could be proud of him. Those same people who, after being in this country for nearly 400 years, still don't believe that nearly 40 million African Americans need an elected official at the very top of the government who can and will set about removing the long-standing, institutional impediments to black economic advancement ---- Unfriend them, right now!
Whew!
That was a much longer list than I thought it would be, but the more I started getting into it, the more I realized that -- for black folks-- maybe "unfriend" really should be the "word of the year."
I know this: It's definitely a word we should consider putting to good use more often.
##############
Okay.
At first glance, I pretty much let that one go right by me, as it was repeated over and over on newscasts and in the press.
Again this year, the New Oxford American "Word of the Year" turned out to be one that I didn't happen to use very much, and I wrote it off, initially, as just another cultural phenomenon. It reminded me of the time, years ago, when I happened to pass by a newsstand and saw a picture of a man on the cover of Time or Newsweek magazine (one or the other), who was being touted as having the number one song in America and, right there, next to his face, in bold type, was his nickname, "The Boss." Right away, I'm wondering: The Boss of what, the Boss of whom? He certainly was no "boss" of mine, not to my knowledge, anyway.
It turns out they were simply talking about a man named Bruce Springsteen, who, up to that point in my life, I had never even heard of. I hadn't seen his face, hadn't listened to his music, didn't know he was called "The Boss," and certainly didn't know that he had the country's best-selling recording.
That was one of those times when I really began to appreciate just how culturally separated we all still are, here in the good old U.S.A. As I mentioned, I felt pretty much the same way when I saw the big news about "unfriend." I was, of course, well aware that people were being added as "friends" on each other's social networking sites, but I had absolutely no idea that there was now a verb that described the action people were taking when those same friends were removed from their sites.
In the real world, when you're finished with a friendship, you just don't call anymore, you just don't visit, you just don't return the person's email or text message. You no longer send letters or holiday cards. There's generally no need for a specific action word to represent the changing nature of the friendship. In the real world, when you no longer want to be friends, people can usually tell by your lack of action, or the simple lessening of such actions, toward them. Usually, over time, they do get the idea.
Among "social networkers," however, I guess you actually have to take the specific step of "unfriending."
In reality, I can't be too hard on this year's "word of the year." Actually, I don't remember being all that impressed with the New Oxford American 2008 word, either. That, of course, was the word" hypermiling", which, as you'll certainly recall, described actions people take with their cars to maximize their gas mileage.
And who can forget the same dictionary's 2007 word, "locavore," which, they carefully explained, was a noun that described a movement that encourages people to buy from farmer's markets, or to grow or pick their own food? Locavores, they pointed out at the time, also frowned on shopping at supermarkets because shipping foods over long distances consumed too much costly energy.
Come to think of it, I've been frowning on supermarkets, myself, lately--and not because I want to be especially environmentally friendly. I just don't like the fact that each time I go to one, I seem to come away having spent more and more money for smaller and far fewer little plastic bags of food. Maybe I'm a "locavore" and didn't even know it.
As I looked back, I got the feeling that the "word of the year" thing was pretty much a bust as far as I was concerned, a lot of arcane, ecological,"techno" kinds of terms that weren't in much use, generally -- especially in the black community. But, then, I started looking at this year's word, "unfriend," again, and I began to think that black folks really could get some good use out of it, if we just paid attention to what was going on around us. In fact, I came up with a pretty good starter list of people, organizations and institutions that should be "unfriended" by African Americans," right now, if we knew what was good for us.
My definition of "unfriend," however, goes far beyond removing them from our Facebook pages. I'm talking about totally and finally rejecting, un-electing and refusing to ever support these worthless "unfriends," again. This is meant to be pro-active, clear and permanent on our part.
Here it goes:
---Government purchasing agents and minority business officers who get paid every day, even though they produce virtually no meaningful contract participation for black businesses --- Unfriend them!
--- Teachers in public schools, who, with their union's support, get paid very attractive salaries and great benefits, even though black kids are not really being taught well and are not really achieving --- Unfriend them!
-----Credit card companies and banks that now offer pre-paid debit cards with criminally high fees, designed to appeal to low-income blacks and to others who can't get normal checking accounts or credit cards from financial institutions ---- Unfriend them!
-----Certain elected officials who are not responsive to the needs of their black constituents, despite the fact that black voters are the primary reason they are in office, in the first place --- Unfriend them!
-----People whom you've known, perhaps all of your life, who tell you that because you're black, you might as well stop trying to succeed because it's "hard out here for a black man, or black woman" ---- Unfriend them!
-----People you know who explain that, because the economy is difficult and they can't find a job, they were "forced" to go back to "slinging" --- Unfriend them, definitely!
----- African Americans who say that we shouldn't expect to live and work cooperatively with blacks from the Caribbean or with recent African immigrants because "they think they're better than us" ---- Unfriend them!
-----Black folks who tell you that it's too much trouble to make any attempt to "buy black" for the upcoming holidays, even, amazingly, for Kwanzaa gifts ---- Unfriend them!
-----People in your community who, despite sound evidence to the contrary, continue to carry themselves and talk as if we are actually living in a "post-racial society" ----Unfriend them!
------People in our own community who believe that 96 percent of black people who voted for a new president in 2008, voted for Barack Obama primarily so that one man would have the honor of being the "first black president," and so that we could be proud of him. Those same people who, after being in this country for nearly 400 years, still don't believe that nearly 40 million African Americans need an elected official at the very top of the government who can and will set about removing the long-standing, institutional impediments to black economic advancement ---- Unfriend them, right now!
Whew!
That was a much longer list than I thought it would be, but the more I started getting into it, the more I realized that -- for black folks-- maybe "unfriend" really should be the "word of the year."
I know this: It's definitely a word we should consider putting to good use more often.
##############
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The New York Mayor's Race: Another Missed Opportunity for Barack Obama
You know that gesture where you take your open, right hand, palm down, and push it, sharply, straight back, about two inches above the top of your skull?
Usually, you do that when you want to admit that something has just gone “right over your head.”
I just did that while watching the national election returns.
Believing that the media were telling me all that I needed to know to be politically well-informed, I went into Election Day “knowing” that there were three important elections taking place on November 3. They were the governor’s race in Virginia, the governor’s race in New Jersey, and, in New York State, they told us to focus on something that came to be known as “N Y-23,” the congressional race wherein Sarah Palin endorsed a little-known and really strange-looking Independent named Doug Hoffman, over the party-endorsed Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava.
There wasn't much talk about the mayor’s race in Atlanta, so most of us paid virtually no attention to the fact that Mary Norwood, a conservative Democrat and former Republican, was poised to become the first white mayor in predominantly black Atlanta in 36 years.
There was that election in New York City, where the incumbent, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, had changed the city’s term-limit laws so that he could qualify for a third run at the office. This race wasn't deemed newsworthy because everyone on earth assumed that Bloomberg, and his $100 million campaign expenditure, was going to win…period. There was almost no discussion, in national media, about Bloomberg's unfortunate opponent--the City's Comptroller, an African American named William Thompson.
Reading the "crawls" at the bottom of the TV screen on Tuesday night, I saw Seth ahead with 75 percent of the vote; Butkovitz leading with 72 percent; McDonnell trouncing Deeds in Virginia; and Christie, not unexpectedly, whipping the deep-pocketed Corzine in New Jersey(Ho, hum). All of a sudden, however, it was being reported that the invincible, all-powerful, more-money-than-God, Michael Bloomberg was only ahead of his opponent – some person named Thompson – by one point. In my mind, that seemed to be impossible. As the evening wore on, however, Thompson wouldn’t “go away.”
Thompson did wind up losing, by a narrow margin, to the man who outspent him by 14-to-1. In reviewing that race, however, I realized that our friend, President Obama, was, arguably, the single biggest reason for that loss.
For some strange reason, Obama, whose 2008 campaign certainly benefited by wide support from other African-American political leaders – including Bill Thompson – made a conscientious effort not to swing the full support of the White House, or the party he now controls, to Bill Thompson’s campaign. If he had done so – and, here, I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb – Thompson would have beaten Bloomberg in one of the greatest political upsets since… Barack Obama’s own campaign for president.
Hey, Barack Obama didn’t have to aggressively support Thompson simply because he was, and is, black; he should have done so because Thompson was, and is, a Democrat.
Was the president just “too busy” saving Afghanistan, Iraq and the Health Care Reform bill to help Bill Thompson, as his “Stepford” supporters will surely say?
He didn't seem "too busy" to campaign aggressively with and for Corzine, on several occasions. Nor was he “too busy” to pop down to Virginia to support Creigh Deeds – even after Deeds had gone out of his way to explain to the entire world that he did not consider himself an “Obama Democrat."
When he did travel to New York City, the president didn't go to support Thompson; but, rather, to appear at a fundraiser for “fat cats” who eagerly paid $30,400 per couple to generate cash for the DNC and for local Democrats (Thompson not included).
While in New York, the first black president showed no real “love” for Mr. Thompson. In fact, Thompson was reduced to tracking Obama down at a healthcare rally to beg for a few minutes of his precious time. News outlets reported that, during a brief backstage meeting, Obama reminded Mr. Thompson, who, with no support from the White House, had, by that time, managed to reduce Bloomberg’s 16-point lead in the polls to 8 percent, to just “keep working hard.”
Indeed, it wasn’t until the New York Times denounced the arms-length treatment of the Democratic mayoral candidate that Obama finally “endorsed” Thompson. In a headline describing the Obama/Thompson relationship, the Times said: “Obama Pays Scant Attention to City Candidate.” In the body of the story, the Times reporter said: “The President has all but ignored the Democrat running on a message of change, and has embraced the incumbent running on the Republican ballot.”
Shortly thereafter, on October 9, Mr. Thompson received his “endorsement," but it was done in a way to minimize its impact. October 9 happened to be a Friday, a horrible day for generating news coverage, as everyone knows. It was also the day that the Obama administration joined in announcing the President's Nobel Peace Prize.
The Times presented it this way: “An Obama Endorsement, Sort of, for Thompson.” The story described the announcement as “an unusually lukewarm expression of political support from the White House," pointing out that the White House didn’t even bother to mention Thompson’s name in the announcement, nor did the statement actually include a quote from Barack Obama. Instead, the endorsement was attributed to a White House spokesperson.
When the Democratic Party was trying to beat back the same Bloomberg the first time he ran in 2001, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe got personally involved. Four years ago, DNC Chair Howard Dean and Democratic Senators John Kerry and John Edwards were dispatched to "the Apple” to fight the fight against Bloomberg.
What, you might be asking yourself, did Thompson do to deserve such cold treatment?
Was it his early endorsement of Barack Osama’s own campaign while he was New York City’s sitting Comptroller? Was it that he then went on to volunteer in Pennsylvania for the Obama campaign? Was it the fact that, in speaking engagements, he reminded New York voters that if Obama could be elected President in 2008, it was certainly reasonable to believe that Bill Thompson could be elected New York City’s mayor in 2009.
Maybe Thompson should have taken a more Bloomberg-like posture with the new President. Maybe, instead of being so supportive, he should have referred to Obama, as Bloomberg did early in the Presidential campaign, as “inexperienced at running things” and “too willing to make political compromises.”
No matter, the opportunity has now been lost and, at the risk of sounding like a “party pooper” to all of my friends who are busily engaged in celebrating the one-year anniversary of Barack Obama's election, I want to go on the record, once again, as saying that, “So far, I’m not feeling it.”
It seems that the White House that was absolutely desperate to appear victorious in any major election on November 3 would have gained significant credibility in unseating Bloomberg. It would, unquestionably, have been a huge feather in the president’s cap. Maybe he just didn’t want that kind of feather.
Here’s the problem: I voted for Barack Obama, but the treatment of Bill Thompson’s viable candidacy and the president's continuing pattern of disinterest in addressing black-specific issues is making me wish there had been a credible, third candidate on the ballot.
More and more, every day, I’m feeling like I’ve been “had.”
How about you? Or is this all just one more thing that’s going right over our collective black heads?
###########
Usually, you do that when you want to admit that something has just gone “right over your head.”
I just did that while watching the national election returns.
Believing that the media were telling me all that I needed to know to be politically well-informed, I went into Election Day “knowing” that there were three important elections taking place on November 3. They were the governor’s race in Virginia, the governor’s race in New Jersey, and, in New York State, they told us to focus on something that came to be known as “N Y-23,” the congressional race wherein Sarah Palin endorsed a little-known and really strange-looking Independent named Doug Hoffman, over the party-endorsed Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava.
There wasn't much talk about the mayor’s race in Atlanta, so most of us paid virtually no attention to the fact that Mary Norwood, a conservative Democrat and former Republican, was poised to become the first white mayor in predominantly black Atlanta in 36 years.
There was that election in New York City, where the incumbent, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, had changed the city’s term-limit laws so that he could qualify for a third run at the office. This race wasn't deemed newsworthy because everyone on earth assumed that Bloomberg, and his $100 million campaign expenditure, was going to win…period. There was almost no discussion, in national media, about Bloomberg's unfortunate opponent--the City's Comptroller, an African American named William Thompson.
Reading the "crawls" at the bottom of the TV screen on Tuesday night, I saw Seth ahead with 75 percent of the vote; Butkovitz leading with 72 percent; McDonnell trouncing Deeds in Virginia; and Christie, not unexpectedly, whipping the deep-pocketed Corzine in New Jersey(Ho, hum). All of a sudden, however, it was being reported that the invincible, all-powerful, more-money-than-God, Michael Bloomberg was only ahead of his opponent – some person named Thompson – by one point. In my mind, that seemed to be impossible. As the evening wore on, however, Thompson wouldn’t “go away.”
Thompson did wind up losing, by a narrow margin, to the man who outspent him by 14-to-1. In reviewing that race, however, I realized that our friend, President Obama, was, arguably, the single biggest reason for that loss.
For some strange reason, Obama, whose 2008 campaign certainly benefited by wide support from other African-American political leaders – including Bill Thompson – made a conscientious effort not to swing the full support of the White House, or the party he now controls, to Bill Thompson’s campaign. If he had done so – and, here, I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb – Thompson would have beaten Bloomberg in one of the greatest political upsets since… Barack Obama’s own campaign for president.
Hey, Barack Obama didn’t have to aggressively support Thompson simply because he was, and is, black; he should have done so because Thompson was, and is, a Democrat.
Was the president just “too busy” saving Afghanistan, Iraq and the Health Care Reform bill to help Bill Thompson, as his “Stepford” supporters will surely say?
He didn't seem "too busy" to campaign aggressively with and for Corzine, on several occasions. Nor was he “too busy” to pop down to Virginia to support Creigh Deeds – even after Deeds had gone out of his way to explain to the entire world that he did not consider himself an “Obama Democrat."
When he did travel to New York City, the president didn't go to support Thompson; but, rather, to appear at a fundraiser for “fat cats” who eagerly paid $30,400 per couple to generate cash for the DNC and for local Democrats (Thompson not included).
While in New York, the first black president showed no real “love” for Mr. Thompson. In fact, Thompson was reduced to tracking Obama down at a healthcare rally to beg for a few minutes of his precious time. News outlets reported that, during a brief backstage meeting, Obama reminded Mr. Thompson, who, with no support from the White House, had, by that time, managed to reduce Bloomberg’s 16-point lead in the polls to 8 percent, to just “keep working hard.”
Indeed, it wasn’t until the New York Times denounced the arms-length treatment of the Democratic mayoral candidate that Obama finally “endorsed” Thompson. In a headline describing the Obama/Thompson relationship, the Times said: “Obama Pays Scant Attention to City Candidate.” In the body of the story, the Times reporter said: “The President has all but ignored the Democrat running on a message of change, and has embraced the incumbent running on the Republican ballot.”
Shortly thereafter, on October 9, Mr. Thompson received his “endorsement," but it was done in a way to minimize its impact. October 9 happened to be a Friday, a horrible day for generating news coverage, as everyone knows. It was also the day that the Obama administration joined in announcing the President's Nobel Peace Prize.
The Times presented it this way: “An Obama Endorsement, Sort of, for Thompson.” The story described the announcement as “an unusually lukewarm expression of political support from the White House," pointing out that the White House didn’t even bother to mention Thompson’s name in the announcement, nor did the statement actually include a quote from Barack Obama. Instead, the endorsement was attributed to a White House spokesperson.
When the Democratic Party was trying to beat back the same Bloomberg the first time he ran in 2001, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe got personally involved. Four years ago, DNC Chair Howard Dean and Democratic Senators John Kerry and John Edwards were dispatched to "the Apple” to fight the fight against Bloomberg.
What, you might be asking yourself, did Thompson do to deserve such cold treatment?
Was it his early endorsement of Barack Osama’s own campaign while he was New York City’s sitting Comptroller? Was it that he then went on to volunteer in Pennsylvania for the Obama campaign? Was it the fact that, in speaking engagements, he reminded New York voters that if Obama could be elected President in 2008, it was certainly reasonable to believe that Bill Thompson could be elected New York City’s mayor in 2009.
Maybe Thompson should have taken a more Bloomberg-like posture with the new President. Maybe, instead of being so supportive, he should have referred to Obama, as Bloomberg did early in the Presidential campaign, as “inexperienced at running things” and “too willing to make political compromises.”
No matter, the opportunity has now been lost and, at the risk of sounding like a “party pooper” to all of my friends who are busily engaged in celebrating the one-year anniversary of Barack Obama's election, I want to go on the record, once again, as saying that, “So far, I’m not feeling it.”
It seems that the White House that was absolutely desperate to appear victorious in any major election on November 3 would have gained significant credibility in unseating Bloomberg. It would, unquestionably, have been a huge feather in the president’s cap. Maybe he just didn’t want that kind of feather.
Here’s the problem: I voted for Barack Obama, but the treatment of Bill Thompson’s viable candidacy and the president's continuing pattern of disinterest in addressing black-specific issues is making me wish there had been a credible, third candidate on the ballot.
More and more, every day, I’m feeling like I’ve been “had.”
How about you? Or is this all just one more thing that’s going right over our collective black heads?
###########
Monday, November 9, 2009
The Myth of Black Political Power in Atlanta(10/30/09)
If you're a student of history, you can't go wrong by digging into the stuff that happened in 1973. If you like sports, that was the year that George Steinbrenner and his team of investors bought the New York Yankees from CBS -- for $10 million; and the year that George Foreman defeated Joe Frazier for the heavyweight boxing championship of the world.
If geo-political events are your thing, it was the year that the last U.S. soldier left Vietnam, and the year the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was founded. It was also the year of the Arab Oil Embargo, and that President Nixon told 400 Associated Press managing editors, "I am not a crook."
For those who closely follow black electoral politics, however, 1973 was also the year that Maynard Jackson became the first black mayor of Atlanta, by defeating that city's first Jewish mayor, Sam Massell. That made 1973 noteworthy in that it was the last year that Atlanta, the so-called "Black Mecca," the revered African-American educational, cultural and business center, "The City Too Busy to Hate," had a white mayor. That was 36 years ago.
Since then, whenever black politically engaged people have wanted to talk about a city that epitomized sustained black political power and that produced economic inclusion and visionary leadership, they simply brought up "Maynard Jackson" and that was, usually, the end of the conversation.
All heads would automatically bow, and we would all pay homage to the greatness of Atlanta.
For us, here in the City of Brotherly Love, it has never mattered, somehow, that Philadelphia is, literally, three times as large as Atlanta, nor that Atlanta's 296,710 black people and 8,453 black-owned businesses are actually dwarfed by Philadelphia's 625,706 African-American residents and 10,586 black-owned businesses. The perception of Atlanta as the "Land of Oz" for black achievement has been so ingrained in the national black psyche that we, like blacks in many other cities, have always looked to Atlanta, waiting for a sign that would point to the next big cultural or economic move for Black America.
I know, for a fact, that all three black Philadelphia mayors have been specifically challenged, at the start of their terms, to "be like Maynard Jackson," and to, please, "make Philadelphia more like Atlanta."
How many times have you heard these statements? "If this were Atlanta, we would have a more focused black political strategy;" "If this were Atlanta, we wouldn't, routinely, have three black candidates in the Democratic mayoral primary election, splitting the black vote;" "If this were Atlanta, black folks simply would not accept the kind of political back-sliding and the half-hearted efforts we seem to be experiencing on issues such as black-owned business procurement, involvement in the construction industry, black teachers in the public schools, neighborhood gentrification, true control of the local Democratic Party, which we dominate by our registrations, and a number of other issues.
"If this were Atlanta," we say, "black folks just wouldn't be putting up with it."
That's what we say.
However, as I look at what is currently taking place in that city, I'm becoming all the more convinced that there isn't much there, anymore, for us to emulate.
In fact, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out last week, if next week's Mayor's election produces a result that reflects the recent polls, that city might have a new, not-so-progressive reputation to live down. According to the Journal, if Mary Norwood, a very well-to-do, incumbent, white conservative Democratic councilwoman and former Republican, from the city's exclusive Buckhead section, wins Atlanta's General Election for mayor, on Tuesday, she will become the first white mayor in Atlanta since Sam Massell. Consequently, Atlanta would be distinguished as the first majority-black Southern city to return its mayor's office to a white candidate.
While there is, certainly, nothing inherently wrong with voting for a white candidate, in a city wherein blacks still constitute 51 percent of the electorate, as compared to 39 percent for whites, a victory by Ms. Norwood, in purely political terms, would be a clear sign that Atlanta's legendarily powerful black political machine may be operating, now, on fumes.
Here's another question: Is it still fair to believe that Atlanta's black politicians are still savvy, goal-oriented, no-nonsense, charismatic little clones of Maynard Jackson? I think not.
In Atlanta, a city wherein African Americans, just one year ago, voted overwhelmingly for the first black president, for example, one of the mayoral candidates has these words on their website: "You tell me you want change. You want a new direction. You want someone to stand up for you for a change."
That's a statement that has been unquestionably ripped directly from the Barack Obama political playbook. Curiously, however, those words don't appear on an African-American candidate's website but, rather, on the website of politically conservative Ms. Norwood.
Here's where the whole political climate in Atlanta gets more complex: While the African-American population of that city has actually declined from 66.5 percent in 1990 to 54 percent in 2004, Atlanta has, over the same period, experienced the fastest-growing Korean population in the nation, from 42,000 in the year 2000 to 80,000 in 2006, and the fastest-growing white population in the country, from 31 percent to 35 percent, over the same period. That was, by the way, double the white population growth in the city during the last ten years of the 20th Century.
The big political issues in Atlanta, people are saying, have to do with reducing the violent and property crime rates. There has also been great controversy around the recent move by Mayor Shirley Franklin (the black mayor who's playing the "incumbent-to-be-avoided" role in this election) to close fire stations and lay off police officers.
So far, not surprisingly, Mayor Franklin has not endorsed any of the candidates, and the candidates, themselves, are not exactly knocking down the doors of City Hall seeking her support, not even Kasim Reed, the candidate who managed Franklin's own mayoral campaigns.
When black, Georgia state representative Ralph Long endorsed Norwood, in September. It was just one more sign that black political unity in Atlanta is now more myth than reality.
As to Atlanta's black political machine not putting up with multiple black candidates? There are at least four black candidates running against Norwood, who currently leads in most polls. They include the city's incumbent City Council President, a Georgia State Senator, a Harvard Law School grad/Rhodes Scholar, and a 2004 graduate of Clark Atlanta University named Tiffany Brown, who is one of two write-in candidates.
Looks like Ms. Norwood's campaign has covered every political base -- twice. Keep your eye on this one.
I know this sounds like heresy, but it seems to me that we, in Philadelphia, the nation's sixth largest city should immediately stop looking to Atlanta, the country's thirty-third largest city, for political and economic wisdom. It appears that Atlanta lost a great deal more than its former mayor when Maynard Jackson died prematurely, in 2003.
Let's start charting our own course on Tuesday, Election Day, by getting out and voting to elect Seth Williams as the first black district attorney, anywhere, in the history of the state of Pennsylvania. That's easy to do when he's also the hands-down, most-qualified candidate. While you're out there, also re-elect City Controller Alan Butkovitz, who's been very supportive of black business issues.
After that, we're going to need a clear, well-thought-out strategy to support the best candidate for mayor in 2012. Some people are already talking about that. We should be, also.
Hey, it's time for Atlanta to start looking up to us.
xxxxxxxx
If geo-political events are your thing, it was the year that the last U.S. soldier left Vietnam, and the year the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was founded. It was also the year of the Arab Oil Embargo, and that President Nixon told 400 Associated Press managing editors, "I am not a crook."
For those who closely follow black electoral politics, however, 1973 was also the year that Maynard Jackson became the first black mayor of Atlanta, by defeating that city's first Jewish mayor, Sam Massell. That made 1973 noteworthy in that it was the last year that Atlanta, the so-called "Black Mecca," the revered African-American educational, cultural and business center, "The City Too Busy to Hate," had a white mayor. That was 36 years ago.
Since then, whenever black politically engaged people have wanted to talk about a city that epitomized sustained black political power and that produced economic inclusion and visionary leadership, they simply brought up "Maynard Jackson" and that was, usually, the end of the conversation.
All heads would automatically bow, and we would all pay homage to the greatness of Atlanta.
For us, here in the City of Brotherly Love, it has never mattered, somehow, that Philadelphia is, literally, three times as large as Atlanta, nor that Atlanta's 296,710 black people and 8,453 black-owned businesses are actually dwarfed by Philadelphia's 625,706 African-American residents and 10,586 black-owned businesses. The perception of Atlanta as the "Land of Oz" for black achievement has been so ingrained in the national black psyche that we, like blacks in many other cities, have always looked to Atlanta, waiting for a sign that would point to the next big cultural or economic move for Black America.
I know, for a fact, that all three black Philadelphia mayors have been specifically challenged, at the start of their terms, to "be like Maynard Jackson," and to, please, "make Philadelphia more like Atlanta."
How many times have you heard these statements? "If this were Atlanta, we would have a more focused black political strategy;" "If this were Atlanta, we wouldn't, routinely, have three black candidates in the Democratic mayoral primary election, splitting the black vote;" "If this were Atlanta, black folks simply would not accept the kind of political back-sliding and the half-hearted efforts we seem to be experiencing on issues such as black-owned business procurement, involvement in the construction industry, black teachers in the public schools, neighborhood gentrification, true control of the local Democratic Party, which we dominate by our registrations, and a number of other issues.
"If this were Atlanta," we say, "black folks just wouldn't be putting up with it."
That's what we say.
However, as I look at what is currently taking place in that city, I'm becoming all the more convinced that there isn't much there, anymore, for us to emulate.
In fact, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out last week, if next week's Mayor's election produces a result that reflects the recent polls, that city might have a new, not-so-progressive reputation to live down. According to the Journal, if Mary Norwood, a very well-to-do, incumbent, white conservative Democratic councilwoman and former Republican, from the city's exclusive Buckhead section, wins Atlanta's General Election for mayor, on Tuesday, she will become the first white mayor in Atlanta since Sam Massell. Consequently, Atlanta would be distinguished as the first majority-black Southern city to return its mayor's office to a white candidate.
While there is, certainly, nothing inherently wrong with voting for a white candidate, in a city wherein blacks still constitute 51 percent of the electorate, as compared to 39 percent for whites, a victory by Ms. Norwood, in purely political terms, would be a clear sign that Atlanta's legendarily powerful black political machine may be operating, now, on fumes.
Here's another question: Is it still fair to believe that Atlanta's black politicians are still savvy, goal-oriented, no-nonsense, charismatic little clones of Maynard Jackson? I think not.
In Atlanta, a city wherein African Americans, just one year ago, voted overwhelmingly for the first black president, for example, one of the mayoral candidates has these words on their website: "You tell me you want change. You want a new direction. You want someone to stand up for you for a change."
That's a statement that has been unquestionably ripped directly from the Barack Obama political playbook. Curiously, however, those words don't appear on an African-American candidate's website but, rather, on the website of politically conservative Ms. Norwood.
Here's where the whole political climate in Atlanta gets more complex: While the African-American population of that city has actually declined from 66.5 percent in 1990 to 54 percent in 2004, Atlanta has, over the same period, experienced the fastest-growing Korean population in the nation, from 42,000 in the year 2000 to 80,000 in 2006, and the fastest-growing white population in the country, from 31 percent to 35 percent, over the same period. That was, by the way, double the white population growth in the city during the last ten years of the 20th Century.
The big political issues in Atlanta, people are saying, have to do with reducing the violent and property crime rates. There has also been great controversy around the recent move by Mayor Shirley Franklin (the black mayor who's playing the "incumbent-to-be-avoided" role in this election) to close fire stations and lay off police officers.
So far, not surprisingly, Mayor Franklin has not endorsed any of the candidates, and the candidates, themselves, are not exactly knocking down the doors of City Hall seeking her support, not even Kasim Reed, the candidate who managed Franklin's own mayoral campaigns.
When black, Georgia state representative Ralph Long endorsed Norwood, in September. It was just one more sign that black political unity in Atlanta is now more myth than reality.
As to Atlanta's black political machine not putting up with multiple black candidates? There are at least four black candidates running against Norwood, who currently leads in most polls. They include the city's incumbent City Council President, a Georgia State Senator, a Harvard Law School grad/Rhodes Scholar, and a 2004 graduate of Clark Atlanta University named Tiffany Brown, who is one of two write-in candidates.
Looks like Ms. Norwood's campaign has covered every political base -- twice. Keep your eye on this one.
I know this sounds like heresy, but it seems to me that we, in Philadelphia, the nation's sixth largest city should immediately stop looking to Atlanta, the country's thirty-third largest city, for political and economic wisdom. It appears that Atlanta lost a great deal more than its former mayor when Maynard Jackson died prematurely, in 2003.
Let's start charting our own course on Tuesday, Election Day, by getting out and voting to elect Seth Williams as the first black district attorney, anywhere, in the history of the state of Pennsylvania. That's easy to do when he's also the hands-down, most-qualified candidate. While you're out there, also re-elect City Controller Alan Butkovitz, who's been very supportive of black business issues.
After that, we're going to need a clear, well-thought-out strategy to support the best candidate for mayor in 2012. Some people are already talking about that. We should be, also.
Hey, it's time for Atlanta to start looking up to us.
xxxxxxxx
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Knowing Ourselves and our History: A Source of Strength
In the middle of several wars being waged across the globe, while we’re dealing with what is, most likely, the onset of the second “Great Depression,” here, in this country, and while some African Americans are all-too-slowly coming to grips with the cold realization that the much-publicized “post-racial” society is no more than the latest cruel hoax on black people, I’ve begun to realize, more than ever, the importance of knowing our own history.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…I know we’ve all heard that line about history a hundred times before. But, you know, it really is true. Knowing precisely who you are, through a knowledge of family origins, experiences and achievements, can be a critical source of strength – especially during difficult times.
What do I mean by that?
Well, if you were Caucasian and born in the United Kingdom and your surname happened to be "Windsor," you would know that you are a member of the British Royal family. Automatically, you would tend to carry yourself in a certain, self-important way, you would grow to maturity with built-in expectations that you would do significant things, that you would literally “walk with kings” and that people would take note of what you say and would even be anxious to do your bidding.
If you were born in Kenya, into the Maasai tribe, you would know from being exposed to the lessons of thousands of years of your people’s history that females have responsibility for building the family’s house, for managing the family’s herbal and medicinal needs and creating the elaborately beautiful Maasai beadwork and clothing. You'd also know that young Maasai men have responsibility for safeguarding the tribe’s cattle and that they are expected to defend the herd against lion attacks, single-handedly, if necessary.
As, arguably, the most fierce warriors on the African continent, the Maasai also made it clear that they didn’t condone or participate in the slave trade. Consequently, the parts of Kenya and Tanzania that they called home were scrupulously avoided by Europeans who had slavery-related intentions.
So, if you were born a Maasai, and knew your history, you carried yourself accordingly, from a very early age. That was a source of strength.
A retired Japanese engineer named Jobu Suzuki once told me that he could trace his family’s history back for 500 uninterrupted years. His wife, who was Ainu, the original, indigenous Japanese people, could trace her own family history back for 3,000 years. Mr. and Mrs. Suzuki both knew precisely who they were and what was expected of members of their respective families.
One evening, as he was giving me my thrice-weekly Japanese language class, Mr. Suzuki asked me, once again, where I came from and who I really was. When I told him I was a descendent of African people, he pulled out a map of the Continent and asked me to show him exactly where my family came from.
I told him that I couldn’t, and reminded him that we had had a thing called slavery, here, in the United States, and that most ancestral records of African Americans had been lost. Mr. Suzuki was not impressed. He looked me straight in the eye and said he could not believe that I had not made a more concerted effort to find out who my ancestors were and exactly where they came from--slavery or not. In his opinion, I could never achieve my full potential without such knowledge and there was no acceptable excuse for not having it.
It was probably my single most important “Japanese lesson.”
Mr. Suzuki’s lesson finally came home to me last year when I decided to conduct more detailed research about who the Crawley’s actually were. I found that it was very difficult to get much past 1831 in Winston Salem, North Carolina, on my grandmother’s side of the family, or past the late 1800’s, in Smithfield, Virginia, in my grandfather’s family.
In my research, however, I was especially fascinated to “discover” a great uncle (my grandmother’s brother-in-law), who was born in Smithfield, in 1900. His name was Wilton Crawley and he, much to my surprise, turned out to be one of the most important early jazz clarinetists in American history. In fact, Uncle Wilton, whose band included his soprano saxophone-playing brother Jimmy, was a well-known performer on the old “Chitlin’ Circuit” (black vaudeville). He made numerous recordings as a band leader on the Okeh and Victor record labels and his CD, “Wilton Crawley, Showman, Composer, and Clarinetist” is available online on Jazz Oracle. Included on the CD were songs composed, sung and played by Uncle Wilton, such as “Crawley Blues,” “She’s Nothing But Nice,” “Crawley Clarinet Moan” and “Old Broke Up Shoes.”
Perhaps most astounding about my great uncle’s recordings and career was that on many of those songs, Wilton's sidemen included trumpeter Henry “Red” Allen, Jazz guitarist Eddie Lang and legendary pianist Ferdinand “Jelly Roll” Morton, who was famous, among other things, for claiming that he actually "invented" jazz music.
Having "Jelly Roll" as a sideman, of course, presented its own set of unique problems. Not surprisingly, jazz historians recount that both Jelly Roll and Wilton “had strong ideas of their own importance” and argued on numerous occasions about how recording sessions should be done.
Uncle Wilton, who wrote hundreds of songs and toured the United Kingdom with his band from 1930 to 1932, died in 1967.
While my siblings and I didn’t know very much about Wilton, we knew, and stayed in fairly close contact with his brother Jim, because he lived in South Jersey up until his death in the 70’s. My brother, “Booby” (given name: Morris) still has one of Uncle Jim’s original Conn 1920’s-era, vintage, soprano saxophones, which he still plays, to this day.
How, you might ask, did that family history impact my own, personal expectations? Well, equipped with all of that information, late last year, I went out and bought my own soprano saxophone and began taking one-on-one lessons every Saturday and jazz improvisation and ensemble classes, on Fridays, at the Settlement Music school.
Having been inspired by that history, I’ve discovered that I actually do have a strong attraction and, perhaps, a genetic predisposition, to playing the saxophone. I now practice on the instrument three hours a day, seven days a week.
But, here’s the "other shoe."
My brother, Mike, who has been singing professionally for more than 30 years, now, even as he excelled in his own business career, is now in the process of working with the great Bill Jolley to produce a new CD. To my great surprise, Mike has invited me and “Boop” to join in on our horns and to have our musical contributions included in the final "mix."
Hey, don’t be shocked; I might still make something of myself, musically.
Somewhere, Uncle Wilton and Uncle Jim are probably really proud, or laughing out loud.
The great shame is that it took me so long to learn of my family’s musical heritage. Many good years, in that regard, were unnecessarily wasted.
I hope there’s a lesson in there somewhere. In my opinion, finding out who we actually are, and knowing our own family histories is the most direct path to success for us as, individuals, and as an entire community.
Please go out, if you haven’t done so already, and discover your own.
######
Yeah, yeah, yeah…I know we’ve all heard that line about history a hundred times before. But, you know, it really is true. Knowing precisely who you are, through a knowledge of family origins, experiences and achievements, can be a critical source of strength – especially during difficult times.
What do I mean by that?
Well, if you were Caucasian and born in the United Kingdom and your surname happened to be "Windsor," you would know that you are a member of the British Royal family. Automatically, you would tend to carry yourself in a certain, self-important way, you would grow to maturity with built-in expectations that you would do significant things, that you would literally “walk with kings” and that people would take note of what you say and would even be anxious to do your bidding.
If you were born in Kenya, into the Maasai tribe, you would know from being exposed to the lessons of thousands of years of your people’s history that females have responsibility for building the family’s house, for managing the family’s herbal and medicinal needs and creating the elaborately beautiful Maasai beadwork and clothing. You'd also know that young Maasai men have responsibility for safeguarding the tribe’s cattle and that they are expected to defend the herd against lion attacks, single-handedly, if necessary.
As, arguably, the most fierce warriors on the African continent, the Maasai also made it clear that they didn’t condone or participate in the slave trade. Consequently, the parts of Kenya and Tanzania that they called home were scrupulously avoided by Europeans who had slavery-related intentions.
So, if you were born a Maasai, and knew your history, you carried yourself accordingly, from a very early age. That was a source of strength.
A retired Japanese engineer named Jobu Suzuki once told me that he could trace his family’s history back for 500 uninterrupted years. His wife, who was Ainu, the original, indigenous Japanese people, could trace her own family history back for 3,000 years. Mr. and Mrs. Suzuki both knew precisely who they were and what was expected of members of their respective families.
One evening, as he was giving me my thrice-weekly Japanese language class, Mr. Suzuki asked me, once again, where I came from and who I really was. When I told him I was a descendent of African people, he pulled out a map of the Continent and asked me to show him exactly where my family came from.
I told him that I couldn’t, and reminded him that we had had a thing called slavery, here, in the United States, and that most ancestral records of African Americans had been lost. Mr. Suzuki was not impressed. He looked me straight in the eye and said he could not believe that I had not made a more concerted effort to find out who my ancestors were and exactly where they came from--slavery or not. In his opinion, I could never achieve my full potential without such knowledge and there was no acceptable excuse for not having it.
It was probably my single most important “Japanese lesson.”
Mr. Suzuki’s lesson finally came home to me last year when I decided to conduct more detailed research about who the Crawley’s actually were. I found that it was very difficult to get much past 1831 in Winston Salem, North Carolina, on my grandmother’s side of the family, or past the late 1800’s, in Smithfield, Virginia, in my grandfather’s family.
In my research, however, I was especially fascinated to “discover” a great uncle (my grandmother’s brother-in-law), who was born in Smithfield, in 1900. His name was Wilton Crawley and he, much to my surprise, turned out to be one of the most important early jazz clarinetists in American history. In fact, Uncle Wilton, whose band included his soprano saxophone-playing brother Jimmy, was a well-known performer on the old “Chitlin’ Circuit” (black vaudeville). He made numerous recordings as a band leader on the Okeh and Victor record labels and his CD, “Wilton Crawley, Showman, Composer, and Clarinetist” is available online on Jazz Oracle. Included on the CD were songs composed, sung and played by Uncle Wilton, such as “Crawley Blues,” “She’s Nothing But Nice,” “Crawley Clarinet Moan” and “Old Broke Up Shoes.”
Perhaps most astounding about my great uncle’s recordings and career was that on many of those songs, Wilton's sidemen included trumpeter Henry “Red” Allen, Jazz guitarist Eddie Lang and legendary pianist Ferdinand “Jelly Roll” Morton, who was famous, among other things, for claiming that he actually "invented" jazz music.
Having "Jelly Roll" as a sideman, of course, presented its own set of unique problems. Not surprisingly, jazz historians recount that both Jelly Roll and Wilton “had strong ideas of their own importance” and argued on numerous occasions about how recording sessions should be done.
Uncle Wilton, who wrote hundreds of songs and toured the United Kingdom with his band from 1930 to 1932, died in 1967.
While my siblings and I didn’t know very much about Wilton, we knew, and stayed in fairly close contact with his brother Jim, because he lived in South Jersey up until his death in the 70’s. My brother, “Booby” (given name: Morris) still has one of Uncle Jim’s original Conn 1920’s-era, vintage, soprano saxophones, which he still plays, to this day.
How, you might ask, did that family history impact my own, personal expectations? Well, equipped with all of that information, late last year, I went out and bought my own soprano saxophone and began taking one-on-one lessons every Saturday and jazz improvisation and ensemble classes, on Fridays, at the Settlement Music school.
Having been inspired by that history, I’ve discovered that I actually do have a strong attraction and, perhaps, a genetic predisposition, to playing the saxophone. I now practice on the instrument three hours a day, seven days a week.
But, here’s the "other shoe."
My brother, Mike, who has been singing professionally for more than 30 years, now, even as he excelled in his own business career, is now in the process of working with the great Bill Jolley to produce a new CD. To my great surprise, Mike has invited me and “Boop” to join in on our horns and to have our musical contributions included in the final "mix."
Hey, don’t be shocked; I might still make something of myself, musically.
Somewhere, Uncle Wilton and Uncle Jim are probably really proud, or laughing out loud.
The great shame is that it took me so long to learn of my family’s musical heritage. Many good years, in that regard, were unnecessarily wasted.
I hope there’s a lesson in there somewhere. In my opinion, finding out who we actually are, and knowing our own family histories is the most direct path to success for us as, individuals, and as an entire community.
Please go out, if you haven’t done so already, and discover your own.
######
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
