For Colored Girls (and Boys) Who Have Considered “Dangerous” Stereotypes When [Sexual] Violence is Enough

•November 14, 2010 • Leave a Comment

So I just got back from seeing the new Tyler Perry Film, For Colored Girls… and I really enjoyed it- well, not the horror stories told in the film, but the narrative of the film. It was a well-told, well-depicted film with good acting and thorough character development for the fact that there were several main characters.  The rising action in the film flowed naturally as viewers’ minds were stuck on the film (no one got up to use the restroom, get snacks, etc.). There were no cheesy lines and no fairy tale endings. It was just plane good!

But that’s on the surface, and not what I came here to talk about. Before I got to see the movie, I was bombarded with discussions of Tyler Perry and his dissemination of negative black stereotypes. Everywhere I turned (facebook, radio, book talks, daily conversations- all in one week), everyone had a comment on Tyler Perry and how the stereotypes depicted in his film are “damaging” to the black community. Despite my oppositional tone, I do agree that stereotypes are problematic. Depending on them has created some cultural conflicts that are lasting and harmful to society. Where I take issue with discussions of stereotype is that they dominate the discourse when it comes to films portraying social issues related to black people in America. In order to be fair and truthful, I have to admit that I heard many people say they were pleased with this film. That statement was generally made in comparison to Perry’s other film, Precious. Why does this film deserve comparison to Precious? Because people I talk to thought that Precious played solely on stereotypes while For Colored Girls used stereotypes, but at times countered those stereotypes with positive characteristics.

Stereotypes, stereotypes, stereotypes. Can’t get enough of those stereotypes!

Maybe it’s the fact that I’m caught up in the ivory tower, full of academic elites and folks who read a lot of cultural/ critical theory. This takes us away from practical conversations that we could be having about the films content. Both For Colored Girls and Precious contain social issues that are more than just stereotypes, but real and serious issues in black communities. With the portrayal of problems such as illiteracy, teenage pregnancy, poverty, violence, and sexual abuse, we could have meaningful conversations that seek to kill these issues rather than stereotype. I personally think that the aforementioned issues are more dangerous (directly) than stereotype threat. Darlene Clark Hine, who teaches African-American Studies at Northwestern University, talks about a “culture of dissemblance.” This means that people (in this case- and in the case illustrated by Hine- black people) don’t want to talk about their problems in front of others. Instead, we march on pretending as though we don’t have these problems just so we don’t have to address them in front of others because of the damages that would occur from admitting to having those problems.

Well my black brothas and sistas, our secret is out. Whether or not we choose to address it head-0n is up to us. It’s the difference between being in denial and facing reality. If we work towards resolving the issues, the stereotypes wouldn’t have as much power as they do. Stereotypes only have power because there is some truth behind them. Having conversations about sexual violence in our family (as an example, not an essentialized view of black American problems) would be more helpful to us breaking cycles of their occurrence.  Our pride is keeping us down. We need to stop pointing the finger and start the dialogue that turns into direct action. Stop bashing Tyler Perry and his films solely on the basis of negative stereotyping. The man has power, but not as much as we’re projecting onto him. And of course if your sense of taste is different from his, you could always make your own film- one that might bring about meaningful conversations that would help elevate black folks.

The Real Reason Republicans Won the House in 2010 (A Chronology of American Political Participation from 2004-Present)

•November 12, 2010 • Leave a Comment

You know that image where a guy or girl (sometimes a guy and girl) are in a hurry to get dressed, only to finish and look a complete, disorganized mess? (Belt buckle loose, facing the rear; fly open; one sock pulled up the other scrunched at the ankle; blouse buttons buttoned through the wrong hole; bra exposed; hair messed up) Yea, well that’s pretty much what the Republicans look like today…or at least will look like once the new congress is sworn in.  How did it happen? It all started in 2004. The Republican Revolution left Democrats across the country stunned. At the time, I was a freshman in college. Everyone moped around the next day- many people crying- believing it was the beginning of the end of the world. Republicans had a substantial advantage in both chambers of congress, same-sex marriage appeared to bring out large numbers of conservative voters, which tilted the presidential election scale in favor of George W. Bush.  Not long after (still no weapons of mass destruction, Hurricane Katrina, and the other failures of the Bush Administration), the country could no longer blindly accept Bush’s failed leadership. The Center-right and Right-wing political factions (who make up the majority of this country’s political participation) decided they could no longer make themselves look like fools by defending him, so they turned their heads. By the 2006 elections, those turned heads allowed the Democrats to sneak in for the win.

Enter: Nancy Pelosi

WHAT?!?!?! How’d that liberal Democrat get there?

Before they could answer their own question, something extraordinary happened. Something that can’t adequately be explained in a satirical blog post.

Enter: Barack Obama

WHAT?!?!?! How’d that lounging coon get there?

President Obama’s race (his Blackness) distracted the Center-right and Right so much, that they forgot to address the liberal problem they had in Speaker Pelosi. That being said, the genius of Obama-Pelosi led them to act on a different political note. They knew that one day, America would “wake-up.” They then decided to govern from the center: that way, no one could accuse them of being far left extremists who gave everyone health care, put wall street in check, allowed gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military, kept corporations from being able to identify as people so that they could have “free speech” and donate millions of dollars to political campaigns, etc., etc., etc.

I’m afraid to break it to everyone…but that didn’t work. “America” took “its” country back. Yep, that center-right and right-wing majority decided they didn’t have to sit on their hands and bite their tongues any longer. George Bush was long removed so they could stand, shout, and reclaim authority. Whether or not they will go so far as to evict President Obama from the White House has yet to be made clear. What we do know, however, is that this is the death of a Black Liberal Agenda- one that didn’t but probably could have existed in these past two years. It’ll be another lifetime (or 2) before we have a Black President, Liberal Speaker, AND the margin of Democratic control in both congressional chambers that we had as a result of the 2008 elections.

As I mentioned, 2012 isn’t predictable. It all depends on that disorganized mess of a Republican Party I spoke about earlier. If they take their time and redress themselves properly to look neat, cohesive, and organized, then perhaps they will win back the Presidency and the US Senate. The in-fighting and mixed messages being sent were strong enough to “Fire Pelosi,” but maybe not strong enough to gain full control of American government come 2012.

2010 Mid-Term Elections and Obamaphobia

•September 16, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Tea [Bagger] Party members are rallying behind right-wing extremists during these times. When I say “these times,” I’m not referring to the economic recession that your everyday political analyst in the mainstream media is talking about. What I’m seeing when I look at the political field today is not an anti-incumbent wave derived from disgruntled citizens who are fed up with Democrats in control of the federal government during a time of economic turmoil, but an anti-Obama (a.k.a. anti-Black man “running” this country) wave that’s sweeping across the nation. It drives these racist white folks so insane to see him in that position, that they’re rallying behind the likes of Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Rand Paul, and Christine O’Donnell. If this was about turning the country’s economic troubles around or the Republicans regaining the seats in both chambers of the legislature, they would back more electable candidates in this mid term election. Clearly it’s about opposition to Obama rather than gaining a Republican majority in both houses.

Although we’re hearing the topic of race discussed more, the mainstream media is ignoring the racial implications that are the driving force behind these elections. I don’t mean to imply that all tea party members are racist (I’m sure there are a few in there who genuinely oppose Obama’s views, as opposed to Obama himself). These political analysts we see on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are playing on old ideas (anti-incumbancy? for real?!) and not looking at this movement in the context of its unique timing: THE FACT THAT THERE IS A BLACK MAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Obamaphobia is out of control in this country. The sign that reads, “Obama’s Plan: White slavery” leaves me stunned. Do they really think this stuff? Is it a tactic used to scare the middle into joining the right? These things, I do not know for sure. What I do know: if that socialist, communist, Kenyan would stay in his place, things would be safe around here.

Their irrational fear of Obama would be comical if I didn’t think they were envious of this little guy:

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.