| Author |
Message |
    
Whistlingwoman
Newbie Poster
Username: Whistlingwoman
Post Number: 20
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 01:19 am: | 
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 31, 2004
Black Writers Seize Glamorous Ground Around 'Chick-Lit'
By LOLA OGUNNAIKE
t prompted viewers across the country to plunk down hundreds for Manolo Blahniks, convinced them that gold nameplates and giant silk flowers were must-have accessories and proved, time and time again, that nirvana could be found in an eight-ounce cosmo. But for a few African-American women HBO's series "Sex and the City" had a more profound and wholly unexpected effect: it motivated them to write fiction.
"I loved that show, but when you watched, it was as if the only people in New York living fabulous lives were 30-something-year-old white women, and that's a complete fallacy," said Lyah Beth LeFlore, a 34-year-old television producer and co-author of "Cosmopolitan Girls," a breezy novel about two African-American women in search of love, designer pumps and the perfect martini. "There are a lot of amazing black women living interesting, glamorous lives, and it was time our stories be told."
Published in February and in its second printing, "Cosmopolitan Girls" (Harlem Moon/Doubleday) by Ms. LeFlore and Charlotte Burley is one in a clutch of Manhattan-based novels about black women living high-octane lives. "The Accidental Diva," released this month, looks at the glittering lipstick-and-lashes life of a black beauty editor. "Bling," due in June with an initial printing of 125,000 copies, is set in the flashy urban music industry, while "Gotham Diaries," due in July and already set for a second printing after an initial run of 100,000 copies, delves into the gilded world of New York's African-American elite. More books in this vein, like "Fab," about a group of upwardly mobile black women in the city, will be in bookstores by early next spring.
Six years after Helen Fielding's "Bridget Jones's Diary" established the genre that has come to be known as chick-lit — and just in time for beach-book season — black chick-lit appears to have arrived. While the books are aimed at African-Americans, the publishers and authors hope to score a crossover success with white readers of chick-lit.
Like its white counterpart, black chick-lit often centers on single women with dream jobs, precariously balancing the personal and professional. Similarly, too, these new authors write with insiders' knowledge about the glamorous worlds they chronicle.
Neither racially charged nor didactic, these books seem meant to be read on sandy shores from Sag Harbor to St.-Tropez. The protagonists, educated and decidedly middle to upper class, effortlessly mingle with both black and white characters. Love, not privilege, is the only real speed bump.
"There is no momma figure acting as the conscience; spirituality is not at the core of these books," said Patrik Henry Bass, books editor at Essence, the leading African-American women's magazine. "You won't find any church scenes."
Tonya Lewis Lee, who along with a friend, Crystal McCrary Anthony, wrote "Gotham Diaries" (Hyperion), said, "We didn't want our book to be heavy." Set against a backdrop of museum galas and million-dollar real estate deals, the novel delights in skewering nouveau riche rappers and pearl-clutching socialites alike. "We need levity somewhere," said Mrs. Lee, wife of the director Spike Lee. "We need to be able to laugh at ourselves."
While critics might argue that some of the authors should have expended a little more effort honing the craft and a little less swiping the Amex card, Matt Campbell, the head buyer of African-American fiction for Waldenbooks, said the books would find readers. The market for contemporary black fiction is booming, Mr. Campbell said, adding, "In the past two years alone, sales at our stores have grown 25 percent each year."
According to Target Market News, a research company that specializes in African-American consumer statistics, blacks spent $325 million on books in 2003, an 8 percent increase over 2002. In 1996 the figure was a little more than $200 million.
"Once these black women readers realize that these books are out there, they will really catch on, and they're going to be big," said Janet Hill, vice president and executive editor of Harlem Moon, which besides "Cosmopolitan Girls" has published "Beautylicious: The Black Girl's Guide to the Fabulous Life."
"We think that there is a very healthy market for African-American chick-lit, and we plan to capitalize on it," she added.
Of course, no discussion about contemporary black fiction can take place without mentioning Terry McMillan, author of the watershed "Waiting to Exhale." Published to exuberant reviews in 1992 and made into a blockbuster film, the book, a best seller, told the stories of four affluent black women of the baby boomer generation and their turbulent love lives.
" `Waiting to Exhale' was a wake-up call for the publishing industry," said Mannie Baron, a literary agent at William Morris who specializes in African-American writers. "All these black women who read Danielle Steele and Jackie Collins were hungry for books with characters that looked like them." Mr. Baron called the current crop of black authors "Terry's babies."
While the new authors acknowledge a huge debt to Ms. McMillan, they are quick to distinguish their efforts from hers. " `Waiting to Exhale' was wonderful," Ms. LeFlore said. "But it really wasn't our story. I haven't dealt with divorce, children, estranged husbands, so it's hard for me to really identify with those characters."
Tia Williams, author of "The Accidental Diva" (Putnam), said: "Recent black fiction has been full of whiny, suffering-from-hair-politics, my-man-done-me-wrong women. Sounds pat, but many people still think you need to be downtrodden to be truly black." (Full disclosure: this reporter and Ms. Williams have been having versions of this conversation since they attended college together.)
Ms. Williams, 28, who is a beauty director at the magazine Teen People, said of her protagonist, Billie Burke: "She's not struggling with the perils of being black. She's struggling with staying interested in her glamorous magazine career in the face of unbelievable sex."
Like Ms. LeFlore, Ms. Williams often watched "Sex and the City" and wondered: "Where are the women that look like me and my friends? There may only be a handful of us there, but we're at those parties, and we're definitely invited to fashion shows and restaurant openings."
Sitting in her Midtown office, surrounded by designer fragrances and scented lip balms, Ms. Williams said that in writing her book she was not trying "to prove that black girls can keep up with the Joneses." She added, "The black girls I know are the Joneses."
Hollywood has courted this woman with romantic comedies like "The Best Man," "Love Jones" and "Brown Sugar," and television has done so with the UPN show "Girlfriends." In the fall Essence Communications will begin publishing Suede, a glossy fashion magazine geared to the 18-to-34-year-old woman of color.
But publishing has been slow to acknowledge her, Mr. Bass said. "There is definitely a disconnect between publishing and the young, affluent African-American female reader," he said. "They have not managed to keep pace with her growth and development. They think they are addressing her with things like thug fiction or erotica, but there is more to her life than sex and crime."
It was less "Sex and the City" and more the best-selling book "The Nanny Diaries" that prompted Erica Kennedy to write "Bling" (Miramax Books), a roman à clef about the urban music world.
"Everybody kept talking about how scandalous that book was," said Ms. Kennedy, a former contributing writer for Vibe and In Style. "I really didn't see the big deal. I knew I could write a story about a P. Diddy party and show these people what scandal is really all about."
V.I.P.-studded soirees, orgies, overdoses and trips to exotic locales all figure prominently in Ms. Kennedy's novel about a small-town biracial girl who moves to New York to make it big as an R&B singer, only to end up involved in a Pygmalion-like romance with the head of her record label.
Though Ms. Kennedy was a bridesmaid at the wedding of the hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons and Kimora Lee and is godmother to the couple's elder daughter, "in many ways I'm also an outsider," she said. "I'm not all decked out in bling. I recognize the absurdity of driving around in a powder blue Bentley. I do have to worry about paying bills."
Jonathan Burnham, president and editor in chief of Miramax Books, said Ms. Kennedy was given a substantial six-figure sum for "Bling" as well as film rights. He is hoping that the book manages to cross over to hip-hop's large white audience, he said, adding, "This novel has the thrills and spills of the hip-hop world, but on the other hand it is universal fiction."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 510
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Well, folks it's official! But I think we can assume that at least black-chick lit books will benefit from the services of a serious editor, as opposed to the works of hip-hop authors. |
Thumper
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Thumper
Post Number: 148
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 07:18 pm: |
|
Hello All,
Were these people just hatched 15 minutes ago? The so called black-chick lit done already arrived some years ago. Duh! Black-chick lit, U go girl, is there really a difference? If it walks like a duck, quack like a duck, and leaves its crap in the grass like a freaking duck, then its a damn duck. How is it that these so called people who are supposedly in the know, don't know? |
Evilgoon
First Time Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 1
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 07:41 pm: |
|
I read this article this morning and was left slightly bewildered about it. Must black cultural forms be solely about market factors? Kudos to these sisters on their success, but it seems as though any time I see black culture discussed in mainstream publications, it’s about blacks’ ability to exploit the latest market factors within the black community. The last time, it was an article in the Times about the growth of “street” fiction—and how black males in prison have spearheaded the popularity of the genre. I have nothing against the sexuality of “affluent African-American female(s),” but the continual “dumming down” of what gets called “black literature” is disturbing. No, everything doesn't have to be deep (and "frivolous fiction" does have its place) but as black writers become affiliated with wealthy corporations, they are becoming increasingly brilliant at marketing the salable version of black sexuality, etc. When will there be a literary movement by those whose drive in the black community is about more than “divas,” “thugs,” “pimps,” and the various newfound sambos of our age? |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 07:45 pm: |
|
Thumper, there is no difference, but the brilliance of corporate America is packaging old things as new things--and therefore getting people excited about reading something new (whereas they are actually just reading the same old stuff). *Laughing* |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 514
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 08:23 pm: |
|
Evilgoon, I keep tellin y'all that the masses will not be denied, and that pop fiction is what they want to read. Literary fiction is for the elite. If you are a member of the elite, there will always be books there for you; they just probably won't be best-sellers. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 09:51 pm: |
|
Cynique, I'm instinctively wary of that reasoning. It makes the growth of "pop fiction" a self-fulfilling prophesy. Rather than it being simply that "the massess will not be denied," to me it's a matter of publicity and awareness. If you put a "pop fiction" book (as you call them) next to a more literary book and the reader chooses the pop fiction, then that's one thing. However, the publicity machine runs overtime for "pop fiction" (including in word-of-mouth forums like these) whereas there is little or none for more thoughtful literature. The corporate machine will find millions to publicize nonsense, yet will leave the rest out to dry. Is there any good reason why a movie like "Soul Plane" should be made, for instance? *Laughing* Corporate America will support anything that fits into its marketing schemes; and unfortunately, black America will support anything that is presented in a highly publicized, glitzy manner. Thus, to recap, we make these statements self-fulfilling to a certain extent. I don't consider myself "an elite" in the least, but if the only way to be "down with the masses" is to dumb down, then to hell with it. Maybe we should all get off that boat before it sinks. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 515
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 11:53 pm: |
|
It doesn't matter whether you are down with the masses or not. You've already analysed the problem and correctly concluded that's its all about money and manipulation. And this is nothing new. Thus ever has it been. Look around you. It's not just books. It's TV reality shows, it's the recording industry and music videos, it's sexually explicit and violent movies. The masses are lookin to be entertained. They are lookin for escapism. They want instant gratification. They want eye candy and melodrama and excitement. Would that it was different, but you just have to take heart from the fact that there are also a lot of flexible people who diversify their taste and read all kinds of books. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 4
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 07:37 am: |
|
Cynique, I am enjoying this discussion. Your ultimate point—that there will always be thoughtful literature out there for those who desire it—is well taken, but beside the point. As exasperated as I sometimes become with black people’s cultural choices in particular, and American cultural choices in general, throwing up my hands in defeat and saying, “Well, the masses are stupid anyway, so to hell with it,” is not a viable option to me. The so-called masses are not the only ones who want entertainment and escapism. I was reading The Iliad last night, and to me that’s entertaining escapism—not because I’m an elite who, by some genetic or class predilection, is able to appreciate it, but because it makes me feel good. That is why I can always respect people’s choice to read something like the latest thug erotica book. People should read what feels good to them; the key to me is engaging them intellectually, so that they can broaden the scope of what feels good to them. In this sense, I shy away from the argument that there is something ethical about people’s entertainment choices—even when such arguments are tempting. I do think that some entertainment choices have unintended consequences, many of which are negative and self-destructive, but there is no way to be judgmental of people AND engage them in intelligent conversation.
With this in mind, my main point is not about the (stupid) choices of the masses, but the eventual “dumming down” of the “elites” (of which I’m assuming you consider yourself a member). When the New York Times (the so-called “paper of record”) starts showcasing this stuff (for no other reason that it has deemed that this stuff has market viability) then we all lose out. More than that, when we (as people who think that literature should be more than a showcase of mindless self-destruction) put up our collective hands and start thinking that we should accept this situation—either because we think it’s gonna sell anyway, or because people are stupid, or whatever—then we make it self-fulfilling. My philosophy is that people must constantly be engaged. Let them know of the “good literature” that is out there; talk to them objectively about it, and not in the accusatory, sneering way that the “well-read” usually refer to books that they think are stupid. I actually believe—from a great deal of experience, actually—that the key to coaxing people towards more thought-provoking literature is to talk to them about what they are reading: ask them what they are getting out of it, and what the characters’ actions and beliefs seem to convey; ask them about the larger consequences of the characters’ place in society, etc. Getting people to discuss what they read—as opposed to merely allowing them to trade quips like “Dat was da bomb/off da chain” etc., is the key to getting them to realize that their books, while entertaining on the surface, lack true substance. Once they realize that, they’ll have no choice but to pursue something deeper—just like a young girl, disillusioned by “pretty boy thugs” will eventually seek out someone with more substance.
While I’m on this rant, and playing “devil’s advocate,” let me put something else out there. Where are all the feminists? I was scrolling through a forum on The Color Purple, and someone pointed out that it was a great advance because it countered the “phallocentricism” (*Laughing*) of Richard Wright’s books for instance. Women, who once bristled at being called Mrs. or Miss now seem to have no problem being referred to “chicks”? Is the emergence of chick lit an example of the wonders of “vulvacentrism”?
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 408
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 11:40 am: |
|
evilgoon:
Interesting comments. It seems that your main point from "dumming down" of the "elites," is transformed to "engaging," which I read as edifying, the socalled masses. You have changed from issues of marketing to educating or even what was once called, "uplifting."
I don't know about this, however. What you have said seems contradictory, for on the one hand, you say that you can always respects a person's choice, but on the other hand, you seem to really want to "engage" and show them what is truly profound and what their reading really "lack true substance." In that case, if that is respect then it is only temporary...
Also, I wonder to what degree the publishing companies are worried about the "dumming down" of the "elites," as you are. When I read cynique's post, correct me if i'm wrong, I don't think she is talking about intelligence but tastes, although they certainly overlap. Literary fiction and non-fiction have never been mass marketed, because it was assumed that their readership were in the necessary circles to both have access to and know about the literature...universities, certain catalogues, intellectual circles, etc...now we have the internet...In other words, as it regards tastes or so called quality, it has always been exclusive to the socalled priviledged.
In other words, if your main point, as you suggest is about the dumming down of the elites, then there would be the assumption that the quality of books have decreased and the means of knowing about these books are no longer available...Besides the behavior of the NYT, is it the case that we are less in the know because of the increased marketing of commercial fiction?
With this in mind, particularly you desire to engage, is this really about dumming down or have giving the masses other choices?
Also, what is vulvacentrism? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 279
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Evilgoon,
I agree that there is a broad, definite and deliberate effort to "dumbdown" the masses. I trace the most recent manifestations of this phenomenon to the Reagan Administration (and our current Commander-n-Chief makes narcoleptic Ron look like Einstein). And most of the marketing/PR systems are a very potent party to this.
Frankly, if people are kept dumb, it is easier to sell to them junk food and crappy music. It is easier to sell war to them if the don’t even know a WMD from a SUV. Its easier to sell them an expensive, gas-guzzling Escalade if they have no clue what the Greenhouse Effect is really about (even in spite of all of the CRAZY weather we have had through out the world in recent years). Its easier to make people overpay for drugs in the US when they don’t know they can get the EXACT same drugs (often from even the SAME manufacturers) in Canada for 30 cents on the dollar.
So, it should be NO surprise that profit-seeking publishers (and their multinational parent companies) would work very similar dufus-inducing marketing schemes.
However...
For a LONG time, there is been a decidedly anti-intellectual shroud hovering over Black communities. This is partly because we have often associated book smarts with being a sell-out to the White hierarchy. Many us who grew up the "smart kids" in our respective schools will vouch to this.
And Black people have often harbored a very parochial view of what education should be and how it should be wielded. So even if we value education, we don’t always appreciate all of its benefits and manifestations (e.g., "Can’t you speak ‘regular English?", "Why you always gottah use ‘Big words’?", "You think you know everything.", "Why you acting White?", etc. )
So, if I am a publisher who seeks to earn a profit, do I market literary fiction to a people who have largely been bred to reject much of that which challenges their usual, long-held beliefs and standards? Or do I simply give them more of what they have already gotten - often even clamor for it - at least until they PROVE they want something else?
Therefore; I assert; until WE expand OUR view of what of what we are willing to learn, consume and experience; we will continue to wallow amid mostly redundant, trite and uninspired literary fare.
Cynique,
Yes, many of us lust over "[un]reality shows". And yes, it is largely because we seek escapism and instant gratification (though, I would argue that our major politicians/capitalists encourage such within use because it makes it easier to sell us stuff we don’t really need).
I add that those shows appeal are also popular due to one of the most basic element of the human character: voyeurism. Though we hate to admit it, we ALL like to watch what OTHER people are doing (That is why the porn industry is the most profitable web-based businesses and why people gawk at car accidents.), especially if those other people are charismatic, beautiful, wealthy and/or bizarre.
Also, reality shows are the current rage because broadcasters and TV producers can score the same/higher rating numbers (thus advertising dollars) from a near-endless source of programming (because, theoretically, ever individual person can potentally provide unique and compelling fodder for at least one reality TV program) that cost less than 1/2 of that of producing quality sitcoms and dramas (no need for highly paid writers/actors and little need for fancy special effects, make-up, set-designs, etc.).
In fact, I recently read that reality TV has so depress the market for mid-level actors/actress (you know their face but not their name) that many are fleeing Hollywood for the theatre, oversea gigs, and business/advertising media.
So, seriously, at the rate things are going, Trow may ask all of US to appear on a Thumper’s Corner reality show. HAHA! |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 409
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 12:59 pm: |
|
interestingly, abm...much of how u characterize black folk is the say way "uneducated" whites respond to "educated" whites, except of they don't say, "why u actin black?" The problem is that we have been bamboozled to believe white folk speak standard english and that we have to meet a white standard. In fact, neither their elite meet nor their poorer classes meet the standard...in this case, I say that we we need to teach our children to be the best that they can be and that it has nothing to do with whiteness...As u and others have said, we just need to teach our kids that they need to know standard english inorder to get a job, fill out an application, and basically become successful in this world. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 517
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 01:30 pm: |
|
Everybody makes good points. Maybe if schools did a better job of whetting students' appetites for quality literature, things would improve. But, it might help if first schools just did a better of job of teaching kids to read! One reason people gravitate toward pop lit is that these books are easy to get through. It's sad but true, that there are a lot of people out there who struggle to understand what they read. And I certainly agree that George Bush is a prime example of how mediocrity prevails in this country, and this is evidenced further by his constituency, the simple-minded people who vote for him because he's just a regular guy. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 410
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 01:57 pm: |
|
well cynique, i really don't believe that poor communities will ever get good teachers at these schools. I've seen several cases on 20/20 and other news series how interested teachers and administrators can often "engage" parents and students as evilgood suggests. It seems to me what when folk don't know, then someone needs to tell them(of course there are those that know and arent interested).
At any rate, regardless of class and race, there will always be a few good students and a few good students, as the sage chris rock muses...america is full of c students...lmao! Funny but i think it is true, especially among the wealthy. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 280
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 02:03 pm: |
|
Evilgoon,
I agree with your views about the deliberate "dumbing down" of the masses. That is indeed a real, comprehensive and perplexing phenomenon that many profit from. And I too wince whenever I hear/read people give flat, trite answers to whether/why they enjoyed a book.
But I wonder if part of the issue here is that most of us lack the ‘preparation’ to READ "The Iliad", much less ENJOY, and then clearly DESCRIBE what they like about Homer’s timeless epic. Because if your maximum efficient reading level is that of a six grader (which is reputed to be the case for the average American), reading the ponderous ‘Iliad" would about as ‘enjoyable’ as a root canal.
Also, people can only enjoy that which is within their ability to understand. And if you have no fluency with Greek mythology, you won’t understand, much less appreciate and "enjoy", why the Iliad’s mighty Achilles is considered by even today standards to be the West’s paragon warrior (Brad Pitt’s current cinematic ["Troy"] pretty-boy Abercrombe & Fitch’s version notwithstanding).
Perhaps the issues you cite must first be addressed among children, parents and educators. We must first build within our children a foundation upon which that as they grow/develop, they will be capable of garnering the wherewithal and interest to consume more challenging profound, and provocative literature.
Of course, even the schools are problematic. They too are often held captive by selfish, conflicted and biased views of what should/shouldn’t be taught. For example, there are MANY well-meaning Blacks who might assert that your enjoying the Iliad symbolizes your surrendering your "Black/African Heritage" in favor of that of a long-dead White man’s rambling fantasy.
Therefore, I wonder what specifically can be done. Because, what I fear is that people WANT to be ignorant of many important issues. I suspect many would (fairly) claim to be so overwhelm by meeting substance-level requirements, they hardly have time/inclination to reach beyond that which is not plainly placed before them...especially if it is a book.
Yukio,
I think via "vulvacentrism", Evilgoon offers an intriguing sexual counterpoint to what she says has been presumed to be a penis-focused Black literary canon. I think you can consider the HBO’s Sex In The City and the (ubiquitous) "Vagina Monologue" are cable/theatrical manifestation of her new perspective she proposes. Simply: The "vulva" is the female’s external ‘complement’ to a male’s "phallus".
Now, if I have to explain THIS any further...well, dude...I’ll have to suggest you starting dating some. HAHA!
PS: Evilgoon, I know this is sexist, but maybe many of these sisters are too concerned with trying to score a man to worry about how he may refer to her (e.g., "Miss.", "Mrs." or even "chick") as she’s pursues him. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 281
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 02:21 pm: |
|
Yukio,
I agree with your views about English. No version of English is superior to another per se. Any language or dialect is only useful/useless to the extent that it permits/precludes one from effectively interracting in a given situation.
And I have been the only Black man in MANY business setting and can wholly assert that the "Queen's English" is HARDLY what is often communicated.
I agree one must learn the rules to play in any 'game' they enter. And language/vernacular is part of the world's 'game'. But Black people should NOT be made to feel inferior to others - especially by OTHER Black people for, Christ Sake! - simply because in certain situations they effect a form of discourse that could be deemed 'ghetto'.
Cynique,
Let's clearly consider a question that build upon your point: If the President of the US, the most powerful man on the Planet Earth (who was born/bred in the most privleged circumstance), is...come on...AN IDIOT, shouldn't we all be EMBARRASSED to expect much more out of poor, fatherless inner city kids? |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 5
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 04:04 pm: |
|
Yukio, thanks for your post. Let me try to answer your concerns point by point. To begin with, the entire notion of “educating the masses” is not where I am coming from at all. The difference between education and engagement is that engagement is mutual. I am open to the possibility that in discussing the latest thug erotica extravaganza, for instance, the person I’m conversing with will enlighten me on some aspect that I am missing about the entire genre. I’m skeptical that this will happen, but I am open to it. Education, on the other hand, does not have this openness to possibilities, which I claimed is the key to broadening the literary tastes of black people in particular and Americans in general. That’s the first thing.
The second thing, and this is vital, is that words like “masses” and “elites” are not my terminology. I kept them in quotes because they were Cynique’s terms, and I wanted to answer his/her question. Personally, I find such terms unhelpful, in that they only put up an artificial barrier. I, for instance, would put myself neither with “elites” nor “the masses.” To me, what is needed now is not to bunker down in artificial camps, and scoff at those “on the outside,” but to engage all willing parties in dialogue. In this respect, my point is not literally about the “dumming down of elites” (even though I phrased it as such to converse with Cynique), but the dumming down of people who profess to like thought-provoking literature. In fact, I disagree with your larger point on this issue, namely, “literature…as it regards tastes or so called quality, …has always been exclusive to the so-called privileged.” Beyond the fact that absolute statements are often wrought with pitfalls, literature and art in general are some of the most democratic forms of communication that we have. As I always say, the public library, which I actually just returned from, is the most democratic institution in America: anyone with a willingness/inclination to participate can use it. Most of the novels I’ve read have come from one public library or another. Contrary to your position, literature is not something of privilege and exclusivity, but something that many, because of lack of awareness and exposure (as I mentioned before), have just never experienced.
As for you final question, “What is vulvacentrism?” the term is my play on the term phallocentricism. *Laughing* The vulva, as described in the American Heritage College Dictionary, is “The external genital organs of the female, including the labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, and vestibule of the vagina.” Phallocentricism is looking at the world from the view of the penis (whatever that means); vulvacentricism would therefore be looking at it from the perspective of the vagina.
ABM (In my mind for some reason, I keep thinking “ADM, supermarket to the world)…Anyway, I of course agree with your points, but the nuance, as I see it, is that “dumming down” is not necessarily an active process. I honestly don’t think that any cabal of evil white men sits around thinking, “Let’s dumb down those ghetto Negros, so that we can get them to believe/buy [insert your conspiracy here]. The subtle point is that this is built into the nature of mass marketing/capitalism, itself. No one has to work to bring it about. When you market something, you want to know exactly what the demographics of the most likely consumer are. How do you do this? By looking at what sold before. Therefore, mass marketing, by its very nature, is primarily about selling the same thing over and over again. Thus, in mass marketed products, originality will not only be a rarity, but frowned upon—until it is proven, through some alternative marketing plan, that the product utilizing originality is economically viable; then, it will be copied and mass marketed, and the process will start all over again. This is a general kind of “dumming down.” The type I was specifically referring to is the willingness of those who want originality and thoughtfulness to throw their hands up in exasperation and say to hell with it all—and essentially accept current circumstances. This, to me, is more dangerous, because it engenders the entire bunker down mentality that has been brought up before. As I’ve said several times, engagement is the key.
On The Iliad and opening people up to “difficult” fiction, the essential thing, to me, is again to discuss it with people—show them the universality of its themes. In fact, there is more frank discussion of sex and violence in The Iliad than in any book I’ve encountered in a while. So, I don’t see The Iliad as some elitist text, but as a kind of primordial novel, in which one can see the precursor of the modern novel. Anyone who can open up a dictionary can read The Iliad.
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 520
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 05:28 pm: |
|
Obviously ABM, 2 wrongs don't make a right. You can't say it's all right for inner cities kids to be ignorant just because George Bush is. That's the easy way out. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 283
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 05:43 pm: |
|
Cynique,
I most certainly agree with that. But when you consider the enormity of the idea that the "leader of the free world" proudly claims to not even read the daily newpaper, much less a book, that kind of clouds/distorts any discussion about education and literature. That's worse than the NBA, which is now rife with inarticulate 18 year olds, telling their young fans to "stay in school". |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 521
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 05:47 pm: |
|
Evilgoon, when an animal walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it is a duck. Why quibble about semantics? How can you deny that you are an intellectual elitist after that dissertation you just rendered?LOL! Why fight it. It's nothing to be defensive about? Also, I'm surprised you wouldn't call it to Abm's attention that you dont' have to read Greek mythology to enter the classic realm of literature. You can find all of the tragi-comedy you want in the writings of black authors like Toni Morrison or Jean Toomer. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 6
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 05:54 pm: |
|
*Laughing* Cynique, I will never consider myself as belonging to any "elite" group. I am an individual. More vitally, like I said, such titles/demarcations like "elitist" and "the masses" only make discussion more difficult. As I've already pointed out, it's impossible to have an honest discussion with someone you think is beneath you -- which would always be the case if you consider yourself as being part of "the elite." I don't have any group memberships. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 522
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 05:57 pm: |
|
Well, I didn't want to say it, but the situation is, is that we can't do like whites folks do, cuz dey's white and we's black. They hold all the winning cards. We may have a pair of spades, but they are flush with diamonds. We spend too much time stickin out our chins or working our necks, excusing what we do because white people do it too. We should take advantage of any opportunity to show them we have more sense than they have. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 523
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 06:00 pm: |
|
BTW, the above message was for Abm. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 524
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 06:03 pm: |
|
OK, evilgoon. It is difficult to communicate with a person who, from all indications, is not on your level. I guess the only thing you can do is to "dumb yourself down" so they can relate to what you're saying. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 181
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 06:16 pm: |
|
Evilgoon,
Thank Goodness you clarified your position, because it sure appeared that your stance was rather bellicose in your first post. And that you had indeed subscribed to the "elitist" point of veiw, whereby you look down on those "unfortunate others" who don't happen to enjoy plowing through the tedious and more often than not, quite boring musings of an ancient long deceased white guy, in order to appear "super literary" And take it upon yourselves to teach us the error or even folly of our Psuedo-literary ways.
Further, if indeed entrance/acceptance into the so-called "elite" meant that I had to embrace some(here we go again) European Standard of what is considered "high literary reading material" then I was going to say please burn my card and don't ever allow me in. Because I will continue to read books that I ENJOY reading no matter whether they stimulate my mental dexterity or not, and without regard as to whether or not some might consider reading whatever I choose to read when I want to read it as contributing to the "dumbing down" of all things literary!
So glad that this does not turn out to be your point of view and I don't need to say it though.
Peace. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 411
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 08:40 pm: |
|
evilgoon:
Thanks. The vulvacentrism sounds interesting...
I like you, believe in engagement; it is probably one of the words that i have abused, here. Yet, though u use the word, you don't seem convinced, not quite skeptical as you put it, that there could really be an engagement. Thus, while you speak of democracy, it sounds a bit like guidance, perhaps? So that while you claim not to "bunker in any camps," through your action, your work and effort, you are indeed necessarily doing such.
You are correct absolute states, "are often wrought with pitfalls." I should have qualified the statement. I should have said: For the most part, as it regards tastes or so called quality, it has mostly been exclusive to the socalled priviledged.
I while i appreciate and understand and even promote the notion that, "literature and art in general are some of the most democratic forms of communication," I would have to affirm my previous position. It was not a position, but what is...Perhaps, we differ on our usage of the word "privilege."
Are not privilege and and exclusivity about access, awareness, and exposure? We don't disagree, here. Indeed, we know that privilege is not hereditary, so that it is clear that exclusivity and such is part of the social realm, where class, culture, and politics power...this is what i'm talking about.
Hence, there is not disagreement, here.
Tastes and access are interdependent. Tastes while personal, is often cultivated by the school, teachers, parents, friends, etc...Sociologically or generally, this means that certain classes and cultural groups will have greater access and instruction in socalled "great literature." This doesn't mean that poorer folk or the ambiguous "masses" will not have access, but it does mean that if their tastes are not cultivated in a particular way, you can have a group of folk going to the same library, at the same time, on the same floor, checking different books...many will go to the commercial and the few will go to the "literary." And in fact, that the library in the "hood" will have less books, computers, etc than other libraries. Hence, the issue of availability/access must be evaluated in the context of the question of tastes, education, and class--the social and political spectrum.
Finally, I do believe in using the library. This is what James Baldwin did, as a youth...I have attempted to follow his example...others here have done the same, but this is not the norm. So I'm not saying that it is not possible; indeed, there are dozens of stories of the "ghetto" kid who "uplifted" themselves through individual effort and drive. But at the end of the day, it is about tastes and privilege, for your attempt to engage may only end up in both you and your friend reading eachothers' preferred books and walking away with a new books.
|
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 7
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 07:36 am: |
|
Yukio, let me try to clarify my points once again. I think that where you are having trouble is on the issue of access and privilege. Because something is atypical (a kid from the “hood” as you called it, going to the library and enjoying “good literature”) does not mean that it’s a matter of privilege. …As an aside, I think the notions of privilege and access are a bit misleading here. That kid in the “hood” who has a library (no matter how ill-equipped) is more “privileged” than someone in the mountains of West Virginia, who has no library at all. What are we supposed to make of this? It’s all relative; as such, the issue of privilege, in this instance, is a red herring. At the very least, it doesn’t add anything to our understanding. Availing one’s self of a public library is not, at its core, an issue of privilege: it’s an issue of personal awareness and willingness. There is obviously an issue of access, but if those books are at the local library, the kid does not have to be privileged to access them. More importantly, a personal willingness to do something trumps the issue of access. It’s the classic, “you can lead the horse to water but you can’t make him drink” analogy. There are kids in the “hood” who will access the library and those who won’t; there are kids in the suburbs who will access their (better equipped, supposedly) library and those who won’t. In the end, it’s a matter of choice, awareness and willingness. Moreover, reading is not necessarily a social activity! Reading may have social consequences for me (in that it might change my worldview, my manner of speaking, etc.), but it’s not itself a social activity. I can read all I want and still end up working at McDonalds. Reading is an insular activity for the most part—unless one goes out of his way to discuss the book with others. On the other hand, consider George W. Bush. He may have had every privilege in the world—attended the best schools—but he, by his own admission, didn’t avail himself of the resources within those schools and institutions. What he did was avail himself of the people—social connections—within those institutions. That is what real privilege and access are about. In closing, I stick to my previous point. The public library is the most democratic institution in America. That they don’t exist everywhere may be in indictment on our country, but where they do exist, issues of privilege and access are not an issue.
*Laughing* for whatever reason, you seem bent on branding me as some kind of “uplifter of the race.” Here is what you had: “…though u use the word (engagement), you don't seem convinced, … (you’re) skeptical as you put it, that there could really be an engagement. Thus, while you speak of democracy, it sounds a bit like guidance, perhaps? So that while you claim not to "bunker in any camps," through your action, your work and effort, you are indeed necessarily doing such.” Let’s go through this. In differentiating engagement from educating/uplifting I stated that engagement was mutual. I then went on to say, “I am open to the possibility that in discussing the latest thug erotica extravaganza, for instance, the person I’m conversing with will enlighten me on some aspect that I am missing about the entire genre. I’m skeptical that this will happen, but I am open to it.” What you missed here is that I was skeptical not about engagement, but about people thinking (or wanting to think) deeply about their art form. (I also expressed doubt that they would be able to convince me of the benefits of the thug extravaganza, but more on that later.) We discussed before that besides the standard, “It was da bomb” comment, most people don’t discuss what they read; moreover, as I’ve seen from several forums on here, people get defensive about their reading choices, especially when others deem it to be “trashy,” “stupid,” etc. The key to my engagement, as I’ve stated several times, is not branding people’s choices as anything, but instead urging them just to talk and, more importantly, getting into the habit of being self-aware of their cultural/artistic/literary choices. It’s that simple. I shouldn’t have to state this again, but I belong to no camps. I can talk to anyone on anything—and I have talked to anyone who expressed a willingness to do so. In those conversations I’ve come to understand a little better the appeal that sistagurl and thug novels have for black people. That is engagement. Have I tried to encourage people to consider other possibilities? Definitely, but you seem to be making the assumption that the act of engagement means that those involved don’t/can’t have opinions/tastes beforehand. I want people to try to convince me of the benefits of their cultural choices. That’s exactly my point! You and I don’t necessarily seem to agree on some (seemingly minor) points, but we’re engaging one another, are we not? You’re trying to convince me of your position and I’m trying to convince you of mine. In that, there is mutual respect (I’m assuming), and that’s the most useful form of social interaction.
A_Woman, don’t be so angry. *Laughing* Nobody is trying to convince you of anything. Be who you are and read what you want to read. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 184
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:20 am: |
|
Evilgoon,
Not angry, trust and believe, just speaking my opinion as you did. Don't read things into an inanimate object (board, posts,) that aren't there.
Your trying/not trying to convince me of anything is not the point either. The point is that one group or individual,should never be so foolish as to think they are more educated than another based solely upon what one reads for pleasure. Period.
And as for convincing you of "the benefits of their cultural choices" Why in Hell would anyone want to do that?
But FYI Your pontificating is beoming a bit boring*Big Yawn* |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 284
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:27 am: |
|
Evilgoon,
The following is in response to your "Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 04:04 pm:"
I too doubt there is an omnipotent council of White planetary overlords who are intent on doing dastardly deeds to Blacks. I should think such would prove to be quite unwieldy. And if such an entity does exist, it likely would NOT limit perpetrating its malevolence deeds solely upon us.
Still, I won't wholly disqualify that which I cannot prove or disprove. I CAN'T PROVE the CIA didn't kill JFK (And BTW: Why must we wait until daughter Caroline Kennedy Schlosberg is dead before we can review the results of the "Warren Commission" investigation?). And I CAN'T PROVE the FBI didn't kill MLK. So, whenever I witness others casually rebuff the voracity of assorted "conspiracy theories", I instinctively recall a great line from one of my favorite movies "The Usual Suspects"(paraphrased): 'The greatest trick the devil ever performed was to convince us that he doesn't exist.'.
Thanks for providing a succinct lecture on the standard "marketing" process. Now I'll ask you to do the following: Juxtapose what you have recited with much of what we all have regularly witness amid the common discourse. Then consider how it may contribute to the "bunker down mentality" that you dread.
Because you might, for example, observe how in the last generation words such as 'intellectual', 'academic', 'liberal', 'environmentalist' (a.k.a. the sarcastic 'tree-huggers') and 'elite' have been marketed ing to being changed from very positive, even scholarly attributes to now being considered forms of anathema.
Now, to be called an 'elite' means you are flatly 'exclusionary'. Being called 'liberal' is tantamount to be tabbed a 'traitor'. And being a 'patriot' is considered by many to be inseparable from being a 'conservative'. All of this intellectual fallacy and sophistry are indeed the products of some very slick "marketing" programs.
So when you discuss whether/how our literature is being "dumb down", to effectively cover this phenomenon, you should consider it within the context of the creation and assertion of the broader national/international social, political and economic stratagems. Because, although convincing lipservice is regularly tendered to the contrary, the US/world is largely hostile toward freethinking. Freethinking might cause one to think twice before they spend those trillions on eating that junk food, driving those Explorers, wearing those Nike's, etc. And since great education, learning and literature inspires and fortifies freethinking, they are the natural antagonists of status quo power structure. (That is the reason why in eras past, when a land/people were conquered by others, often the first people who were tortured/killed were writers, artists and philosophers.)
As I said before, we have a President who does not read and illiterate millionaire athletes/entertainers who snidely advise children to "stay in school" while they themselves are a living indictment of that very edict. Is this an environment that can legitimately encourage rigorous/challenging/provocative reading and literature?
Or are people instead compelled to "bunker down" into whatever agenda and/or perspective the powerful relays?
Most who advocate your "originality and thoughtfulness" are STRONGLY coerced into the contrary. And those few who manage to endure this coercion are wholly ignored, debased...and even destroyed.
And I agree with your views about the relative importance of "The Iliad". It (and its companion "The Odyssey") is perhaps the root from which much of the tree of the Western Literary Canon grows. I, however, doubt many of the uninitiated could or would travel Homer's sprawling journey armed only with a Merriam-Webster. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 8
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 12:23 pm: |
|
A_Woman, allow me to extend some of the engagement I was telling Yukio about. To begin with, pointless antagonism, which, for whatever reason, seems to have arisen on your part, is unnecessary. If you think you’ve received a slight, then state your points, and the issue will be addressed; if you disagree with something that has been said, then, once again, state your points and we’ll have a discussion. If, on the other hand, your only grievance is that you’re bored with the discussion, then that is something you’ll have to address for yourself—as boredom is always an individual choice. I have to assume that the latter is the case, as you’ll find no instances (here or otherwise) where I’ve been “so foolish as to think …(I am) more educated than another based solely upon…(what he or she reads) for pleasure.” But again, if you THINK you do, then point them out and we’ll talk. Here is last piece of “pontificating”: When someone is secure in his or her point of view—and is open to new possibilities—the opportunity for discussion is never sidetracked by pointless antagonism. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 185
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Evilgoon,
No Thank you. Any further exchange here between us would be rather pointless. As I said I have had enough, sweetie! *laughing* But please feel free to carry on with whomever cares to continue to engage you! TTFN
Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind later if I so desire  |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 286
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 12:35 pm: |
|
'Whoever',
I find some of the responses to Evilgoon's posts to be unnecessarily confrontational and hostile. I wonder are we unfairly projecting OUR own biases (and maybe even shortcomings) unto her posts?
Evilgoon,
What often occurs around here is interesting game of "King(Queen) of the Hill", whereby if it is perceived that one appears to be (persuasively) over-asserting a viewpoint, others will relentless attempt to topple you from some alleged intellectual incline.
I appreciate (and share) your tendency to be verbose. But I hope you consider that if others are intent on disagreeing with you, the MORE you speak, the MORE you provide them that with which to disagree.
And, of course, I am the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black".
Cynique,
I agree we Blacks should honor our own literary giants. But we all reside in a Western country. So why wouldn't one who endeavors to be a productive, prosperous person - regardless of their respective race/gender/sex/religion - seek to ground himself/herself in the foundational tenets of the society and culture (many of them largely Greco-Roman in origin) to which he/she has been and will be borne, bred and live? |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 9
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 12:49 pm: |
|
ABM, like you, “I won't wholly disqualify that which I cannot prove or disprove.” However, be careful not to use the absence of proof as evidence. Remember, for instance, how Bush argued that the fact that they couldn’t find weapons of mass destruction was proof that Sadam was hiding them? Similarly, the fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God might mean either that He/She/It doesn’t exist or that we cannot conceptualize/find the evidence. However, logically, the fact that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God cannot be given as proof of God’s existence. This is where faith comes in, and I’m of the opinion that faith/personal feelings should not be given as evidence in a discussion—because you can’t argue against what someone else feels.
Again, on “dumming down” I stick to the view that even though it’s possible that a conspiracy is afoot (*Laughing*), everything that has happened can be explained by thoughtlessness and market forces. Like I discussed before, a side effect of mass marketing in particular, and capitalism in general, is to dumb down. Nobody has to scheme for it to take place. These mechanisms have already been built into the system, and our very mindsets. Yes, originality and thoughtfulness are crushed down; but again, that’s merely a byproduct of market forces and our consumer mindset. We want to have the coolest product; and for whatever reason, ignorance has become associated with coolness. Moreover, in our fast-paced world, things which can be easily consumed—be they microwave dinners or novels that take two or three hours to read—will be prized.
On the Iliad, all I’m using is a dictionary. You don’t need to know (beforehand) who Zeus and the other gods were. It’s all in the text. Plus, there is a glossary in my book, describing the relationships between the gods and various mortals—who knocked up whom and so forth. *Laughing* …Who wants to kill whom….That’s all you need. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 186
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 12:54 pm: |
|
oh, whatever abm, you would think that. Please! You and evilgoon can engage until the cows come home, and maybe you can in all your engaging conversations discover if YOU are included in her description of the "newfound sambos of our age" But please once again do not presume to speak or apologize for me!
Knock yourself out! |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 412
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 01:00 pm: |
|
Posters: I apologize for the dissertation. This iz a shout out to my G cynique and my girl on one sixteen and Amsterdam…lmao!:
Evilgoon: Again interesting points. I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say, “A_Woman, allow me to extend some of the engagement I was telling Yukio about. To begin with, pointless antagonism, which, for whatever reason, seems to have arisen on your part, is unnecessary.” I have not been antagonist to you.
At any rate, let me try to clarify my points, because your characterization of my points is incorrect. In agreement that the terms “privilege” and “access” are misleading, I’ll reiterate my point without them. What you chose to address was quite selective and misrepresentative of my point. You post doesn’t address my main point about the relationships among education, class, and the cultivation of tastes (of course, as I stated elsewhere, just because you receive an education in an affluent “hood” doesn’t mean your tastes are of better quality nor intelligence superior than the person receiving their education in the so-called “ghetto”). Instead, you focused on my ancillary point about differences from one library to the other as it regards resources.
1. When I talk about the social realm, I'm talking about politics, culture, economics, etc... Consider educational desegregation. Brown v. Board was supposed to desegregate public education, but it did not. Brown II also failed, because it left the power in the hands of racist southern middleclass whites (the poor whites also lost out because they couldn’t afford the private schools). Now, in this case, the legal and political system contributed to the unequal distribution of resources based on race and class. In this consideration, let me restate my point:
Often, the scope and quality of literature and general education will be “more advanced.” Consequently, certain tastes will be inculcated than others. I made this point before when I stated, “Tastes while personal, is often cultivated by the school, teachers, parents, friends, etc...Sociologically or generally, this means that certain classes and cultural groups will have greater access and instruction in so-called "great literature." And these differences, generally, in tastes is what mutes the democratization of the library, for it is tastes which beget “choice,” as I stated again in the other post, that will lead one to choose Shannon Holmes over the Iliad. You missed this, and ironically it both anticipates and is indeed quite similar to your most recent response to me.
2. Let me deconstruct your point, as I see it and try to place it into the context of my points. “What you missed here is that I was skeptical not about engagement, but about people thinking (or wanting to think) deeply about their art form. (I also expressed doubt that they would be able to convince me of the benefits of the thug extravaganza, but more on that later.) We discussed before that besides the standard, “It was da bomb” comment, most people don’t discuss what they read; moreover, as I’ve seen from several forums on here, people get defensive about their reading choices, especially when others deem it to be “trashy,” “stupid,” etc. The key to my engagement, as I’ve stated several times, is not branding people’s choices as anything, but instead urging them just to talk and, more importantly, getting into the habit of being self-aware of their cultural/artistic/literary choices.”
You make two interdependent points as I see it: (1) one pertains to the engagement, the depth of one’s art form, and finally the potential and possibility of being convinced; and (2) the second point relates to the quality of a person’s analysis of a book.
Your choice of the word “engage” seems like subterfuge…camouflage. The fact that you are skeptical of “people thinking (or wanting to think) deeply about their art form” circumvents engagement, which necessitates openness. Now again, you say your open but at the end of the day your really aren’t. Now, I don’t know you, but the words you’ve chosen don’t signify engagement but instruction. The words you use signify bringing or even transforming the individual’s habits to what you think are habits of self-awarenesss, etc…. This is upliftment. The final result is that although you choose not join any camp or label/brand anyone in speech, the tone and language of your post suggests otherwise. Your characterizations and assumptions about the profundity of their analysis and art form presupposes that their reading choices have something to do with the quality of their thought process, while it could be a question of “escapism” as others have said or plain disinterest. The logic of your posts SUGGESTS people’s choice of reading is fundamentally about their intellectual capacity. You stating, “No, everything doesn't have to be deep (and "frivolous fiction" does have its place),” doesn’t change your constant efforts to allegedly “engage” people. This sounds like elitism, although you are reluctant to acknowledge so.
I appreciate what you say when you state that you wouldn’t place your self in either an “elitist” or the “masses” camp. And you didn’t have to repeat yourself, for I read what you said, but I’m pointing out that what you have written rather than what you have in your head is contradictory. As you have stated, as it pertains to absolute statements and the words “access” and “privilege,” words, statements, phrases and can be and should be qualified, because they are loaded with multiple meanings. In this case, elitist is such a case. When Cynique stated, “Evilgoon, when an animal walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it is a duck. Why quibble about semantics? How can you deny that you are an intellectual elitist after that dissertation you just rendered?LOL! Why fight it. It's nothing to be defensive about? “ I think your response avoided the issues; yet, your posts seem to confirm her characterization of you. There is a difference between preferences and tastes based on what you think is more or less interesting, intellectual, deep, etc…This is what I think you’re trying to convey. Yet your tone, language, and word choice suggests otherwise. It suggests that not only do u have preferences but you project those preferences and tastes on another’s capacity to think, which is where the elitist, I think, often sticks their head out because they want to create an intellectual hierarchy. Of course, this is my opinion, for I do believe that one can say that their choice of fiction is better than others because it is universal and profound without being elitist, but what you have written here is not the case.
Also, if you really want to engage black folk, then perhaps you could democratize your book selection. While the western canon is useful, you should I think go the multicultural route and use African classics, African American classics, Latin American Classics, Caribbean Classics as well as the western canon. If it is the case that one is interested in engaging you, perhaps they would be more interested if some of the books involved and pertained to their culture. As Cynique states,” I'm surprised you wouldn't call it to Abm's attention that you dont' have to read Greek mythology to enter the classic realm of literature. You can find all of the tragi-comedy you want in the writings of black authors like Toni Morrison or Jean Toomer.” Again, folk tastes do involve their intellectual capacity, but it also involves their basic interest and what will make them happy at a particular moment and often cultural relevance.
Finally, If we return to your first post about “dumming down” of what gets called black literature, we could consider the value of the using the “pimp” “thug” “diva” not as “newfound sambos,” but as tropes to elucidate the universal and existential reality of people in the “hood” during this particular historical moment, which is what the best the fiction does. As I’ve tried to argue elsewhere, it is about how you treat these characters not that they are pimps, thugs, and divas. In other words, you can use these same categories in literary fiction rather than commercial fiction. Bigger Thomas was a “thug.” Similar characters can be found in Walter Mosley, though I can’t say that I’m a fan. Chester Himes and others. My favorite John Edgar Wideman has similar characters…. How do we characterize toni Morrison characters…, consider Paradise!
|
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 10
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 01:00 pm: |
|
Incidentally, I am a guy, ABM. And generally, I'm not in competition with anyone. I don't aspire to any trone on this site or on others. ...Is this really the state of dialogue among people in America? My general philosophy, as stated to A_Woman, is that I'll talk to anyone about anything, and I'll do it without antagonism and ego...and with mutual respect. When I make my points, I try to state my arguments as logically and forcefully as I can--which, I would assume is everyone's design. As I say to everyone: if you think you have points to state, then state them. It's that simple. Ego and good discussion don't mix. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 187
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 01:43 pm: |
|
Yukio, Yukio, wherefore art thou, Yukio?
Bravo and very well and clearly stated! You are a man after mine own heart!
Peace! |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 11
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 02:05 pm: |
|
Ah, Yukio, I think I understand your point on the social realm and culture and so forth. However, the reason we “missed” one another so to speak is that I don’t see the inculcation of literature the way you do. Most of the novels I’ve read—even while I was in school—were not school novels. You’re having an argument on how schools (in various communities) foster different tastes—and how this is a matter of privilege (even though we’re not using this term anymore). That’s all fine and good, and I can’t disagree with it in general terms; but to me, reading is an individual choice—regardless of where one comes from. You can’t teach people to love “great literature.” At best, you can hope to engage them.
*Laughing* As for my elitism, you did not seem to read the last paragraph of my post, which I think counters everything you just sent. Here it is again, “…you seem to be making the assumption that the act of engagement means that those involved don’t/can’t have opinions/tastes beforehand. I WANT (emphasis added) people to try to convince me of the benefits of their cultural choices. That’s exactly my point! You and I don’t necessarily seem to agree on some (seemingly minor) points, but we’re engaging one another, are we not? You’re trying to convince me of your position and I’m trying to convince you of mine. In that, there is mutual respect (I’m assuming), and that’s the most useful form of social interaction.” That is what engagement is, sir. It’s that simple. There is no subterfuge. You know what my position is; I know what your position is. Do you think I’m trying to instruct you on anything? Am I trying to uplift you? *Laughing* You state, “The logic of your posts SUGGESTS people’s choice of reading is fundamentally about their intellectual capacity.” WHERE DO I EVER SAY THIS? WHERE DO I EVEN IMPLY THIS? In defining engagement, I pointed out (several times) the mutual nature of it; I pointed out that I’ve learned a great deal about some of black people’s reading choices by talking to them. Have they uplifted me by that definition? By your way of seeing, yes, but by mine, we have merely engaged one another in conversation.
This entire issue of intellectual capacity and cultural choices is one that I’m sorry you’ve misunderstood. I have stated here that cultural choices have CONSEQUENCES, but that is a hell of a far way from saying that it has anything to do with intellectual capacity. Stop accusing me of things you think people like me (i.e., elitists) think. Go from what I have said.
And, to be honest, I’m a little insulted by the various assumptions within your response. If I read your post correctly, my very way of communicating is elitist. You state, “although you choose not join any camp or label/brand anyone in speech, the tone and language of your post suggests otherwise.” Would I be less elitist if I used bad grammar and talked in a more colloquial manner? Again, make your arguments based on what I’ve actually said, not your gut feelings about my intentions. Moreover, what do you really know about my reading list? You think The Iliad is the only book on my shelf—and that I only read stuff from “the Western canon?” *Laughing* Don’t lecture me on “broadening my tastes,” brother. I have everything on my shelf from Zane (signed by the author, I might add), Ayn Rand, Achebe, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Dostoevsky to Chinese philosophy. Lets not start labeling one another, please. In short, debate is only useful if you go from what the person has said, not by what you think a person like him is supposed to think. I think my statements are clear enough—stop searching for hidden meanings. Even if you go back to my original post, you’ll see that my grievance was with market forces and “elites” (to use Cynique’s phrase), not with the intellectual capacity of the people reading “dummed down” books. That’s a key point, which would have avoided much of this. *Smiling*
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 289
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 03:20 pm: |
|
Evilgoon,
First...WHEW! Thanks for clearing up the gender/sex thing up front. Past history suggests that uncertainty in that era can prove troublesome. And pardon me. I don't know why I assumed you were female. But that's neither here nor there.
I'm not sure one can fully extricate his/her "ego" from a "good discussion". There are times when "personal feelings" are a genuine part of an issue that should be acknowledged and appreciated, because it is often "feelings" that motivate people to act (e.g., Can one argue pro or con Abortion rights sans the "feelings" of the impregnated?) .
And the powers-that-be are most EDEPT at wielding the "feelings" of others.
The trouble often starts when there is TOO much "feeling" misapplied that they cloud the matter at hand, that the "feeling" is with scant, if any, basis point and/or when "feeling" and 'facts' become so indistinguishable they cloud the thought processes.
But I would agree that there are times when one should try to limit the mixing of the 2. (And I concede that is something I often fail to do.)
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how I often have (I thought quite courteously) said something in one frame of mind and yet be made to witness it be interpreted (or contorted?) into something wholly different. This place attracts many from differing generational, geographical, educational, social/cultural and economic strata. So, based on my experience, I suggest that if you are going to frequent this 'joint', you'll like have to disabuse yourself of concerns about the possible "antagonism" that your posts may engender.
We are kind doing a tango on this Iliad thing. Yes, I agree with you that someone perhaps like YOURSELF can handle the Iliad with only a dictionary in tow. But could your average 12 or 13 year old or an adult person who seldom if ever reads? I think not.
And if you don't mind my saying it: It seems you and Yukio are engaged a convoluted version of the (classic) Nature vs. Nurture argument. I have yet to witness ANY argument that definitely asserts either influence over the other. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 290
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 03:49 pm: |
|
A_womon,
Yukio maybe after your "heart". I, on the other hand, am after 'something else'. <wink!> |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 413
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 04:16 pm: |
|
Last dissertation for today, at least...lmao!
Evilgoon: Interesting post. Hmmm…you’re right. reading is an individual choice. My interests in “literary” fiction came much later in my life. My point is that, regardless of where or when it comes, tastes are cultivated. And these tastes determine their selection. No disagreement, here.
Let me state something that I think is useful for all of us: language and communication generally, as Derrida argues, is slippery. Here it is: (A) states something with certain points in mind. And (B) reads what (A) wrote, often rendering similar and different readings/interpretations than what (A) intends. Sometimes it is miscommunication on both A and B's part. Other times, it is imprecision in elaboration and misunderstanding of both parties. We can only enrich discusses through asking questions when there are misunderstandings and using quotes and paraphrases as examples to illustrate our points.
Now, as it regards the question of engagement. We'll have to agree to disagree. I read your last paragraph, but I was not convinced. Lets return to what you stated:
“…you seem to be making the assumption that the act of engagement means that those involved don’t/can’t have opinions/tastes beforehand. I WANT (emphasis added) people to try to convince me of the benefits of their cultural choices. That’s exactly my point! You and I don’t necessarily seem to agree on some (seemingly minor) points, but we’re engaging one another, are we not? You’re trying to convince me of your position and I’m trying to convince you of mine. In that, there is mutual respect (I’m assuming), and that’s the most useful form of social interaction.”
I wouldn’t call what you describe here, as well as what you have written on this particular topic as engagement. Lets start with your first sentence or line: No! I don’t assume that that engagement means to that those involved don’t/can’t have opinions/tases beforehand. As my last post stated, “There is a difference between preferences and tastes based on what you think is more or less interesting, intellectual, deep, etc…This is what I think you’re trying to convey. Yet your tone, language, and word choice suggests otherwise. It suggests that not only do u have preferences but you project those preferences and tastes on another’s capacity to think.” Here, I state that I agree that you can have prior preferences and tastes. Yet, as I read what you wrote, I understood what state as something else:
I am open to the possibility that in discussing the latest thug erotica extravaganza, for instance, the person I’m conversing with will enlighten me on some aspect that I am missing about the entire genre. I’m skeptical that this will happen, but I am open to it.” What you missed here is that I was skeptical not about engagement, but about people thinking (or wanting to think) deeply about their art form.
I return to this because the issue of engagement, skepticism, and thought process can not be neatly disconnected; there is a necessary relationship among them. These are your words, so how can u said that I don’t address what you write? Besides the fact that we both come to the table with our own tastes/ opinion, which is really secondary, we have to be fully open to what each speaker has to say and the integrity of their contribution in the discussion(this is not the same as agreement, by the by). To assert that you are “skeptical…about people thinking (or wanting to think) deeply about their art form,” though it may not be your intent, sounds disingenuous, antagonistic to engagement, and lastly that you don’t think there is much depth in what they think. You are already coming to the table with prejudice and bias, which is similar but different from opinions/tastes. Again, this may not be your intent, but this is how I interpret your words.
This leads me, finally, to your accusation about me allegedly insulting you for calling you an elitist, me addressing what you have written rather than my feelings of your intentions, and your reading list. Let me clarify, when I was talking about your tone and language, I was talking about the diva, pimp, thug, and sambo comments, which are racist and elitist(I characterize these terms as such because we should know by now that sterotypes are not representative of black people’s humanity. To fall in to such a trap is to lead us to models of what blacks should be…the socalled “respectable negro,” which we all need to fit. In other words, in order to embrace black humanity, we have to, I believe, embrace the fact that some black folk are criminals, drug abusers, self-hating, etc…and that it doesn’t reflect on who we are. Again, this may not be your intent, but this is my interpretation of the words u used); sentences such as, “I think that where you are having trouble is on the issue of access and privilege,” and the that you consistently tell me what my points are rather than asking me. Besides this, I would also include content, which I’ve addressed, and your discourse on “dumming down.” If there are elitists or people with a certain kind of taste/preferences that are being “dumb downed” then clearly there is a hierarchy, here. But hey, if it is a sin to call u such that is fine. I haven’t called u anything, I just said that what you have written sounds elitist.
I think I have addressed what you have written; the quotes throughout my past quotes demonstrate this; the fact that I’m unconvinced of your position is perhaps the real issue, here. What can I tell u?
This leads us, lastly, to your reading list and what is on your shelf. You are getting a little defensive, here. If you reread my post, I basically said that if you wanted to engage folk then you could consider using a diverse canon which could be more relevant to their interests.
In addition, your comments such as, “I can talk to anyone on anything—and I have talked to anyone who expressed a willingness to do so. In those conversations I’ve come to understand a little better the appeal that sistagurl and thug novels have for black people. That is engagement. Have I tried to encourage people to consider other possibilities?” suggests, though it may not be your intent, that you are trying to move black folk, like a missionary, from the sistagurl thug fiction to the profoundly rich, bedrock of European/western civilization, Greek classics. While I don’t know your “race” or ethnicity (and it really doesn’t matter, since African Americans did similarly to Liberians in the nineteenth century and black elites did so in the national urban league, etc…), you seem like the blond haired, blue eyed Anglican priest who ennobled the African with Christianity and civilization(western). My point is that in order to reach folk you could discuss Achebe and compare it to a european classic, compare John Edgar Wideman’s usuage of the stream of conscious to Joyce and Faulkner, etc…. Again, this was not a challenge, nor a comment or evaluation of your bookshelf or knowledge base. What you have on ya shelf and what u have read is ya business…
PS:
Evilgoon, if you remember, I addressed your market forces and “elites” points. I stated:
“Also, I wonder to what degree the publishing companies are worried about the "dumming down" of the "elites," as you are. When I read cynique's post, correct me if i'm wrong, I don't think she is talking about intelligence but tastes, although they certainly overlap. Literary fiction and non-fiction have never been mass marketed, because it was assumed that their readership were in the necessary circles to both have access to and know about the literature...universities, certain catalogues, intellectual circles, etc...now we have the internet...In other words, as it regards tastes or so called quality, it has always been exclusive to the socalled priviledged.
In other words, if your main point, as you suggest is about the dumming down of the elites, then there would be the assumption that the quality of books have decreased and the means of knowing about these books are no longer available...Besides the behavior of the NYT, is it the case that we are less in the know because of the increased marketing of commercial fiction?”
When you responded, you chose to address these most recent exchanges about tastes, et al…
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 292
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 04:32 pm: |
|
And to think ALL of this was initiated via a post that was intended to discuss something that is as 'benign' as "Black Chick Lit". |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 527
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 05:03 pm: |
|
Damn, you guys are loquacious! These drawn out posts sound more like exercises in one-ups manship than a valuable exchange of ideas. And, it's amazing how some of you are so quick to take offense. I, for one appreciate that "evilgoon" prefaces his remarks with "laughing" because what is being discusssed ain't that serious. The publishing business goes in cycles. Just wait. In a few years, books like "The Da Vinci Code" will be all the rage and these enigmatic cryptic books can't be dumb downed. Not to worry. The hip-hop writers can keep pace by turning rap lyrics into codes and the chick-lit writers can make their heroines mystifying sirens who speak in riddles. LOL |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 415
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 05:30 pm: |
|
hahaha...cynique. you aint neva lie...(loquacious) This is funny, especially since i only expanded some of your posts and added some of my own...lmao! I would have to disagree about it being serious or a question of "one-ups" as my posts are concerned. And prefacing his remarks with "laughing" could be read in many ways, which is why i didn't comment on them.
For as I understand it, if you want to engage black people(or anyone for that matter) particularly younger folk, you have to avail yourself to integrity of their ideas, and Evilgoon's comments, though it may not have been his intent or what he understands in his head, seemed to suggest something other than engagement on this thread. Simply put, to be open but not convinced about the integrity of the person's thought on "their art form" a priori the actual discussion is not engagement at all. But finally, if he says he's gonna engage folk, then I respect him to do as he believes is right and sincere... |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 188
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 05:58 pm: |
|
Cynique,
Have I missed something here or are you saying that as long as evilgoon takes an elitest's viewpoint villifying hip hop and so-called thug books, it is acceptable for him to refer to divas, thugs, pimps and others" as the "newfound sambos"? What is up with THAT? |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 416
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 06:20 pm: |
|
Right...while the "sambo" has historically been understood as something to chastise, which I do, we need to be careful not to reinforce the integrity or validity of the characterization.
I am against the idea that the sambo is representative of black people.
I think the qualities that the socalled sambo perpetuates are intrinic to all humans, which means that it nothing to do with blackness and everything to do with racist whites' dubious characterizations.
To equate divas, thugs, and pimps as "newfound sambos," is, in many ways, it seems to me, to confirm the allegation that such characterizations are representative of black people. So that in order not to be characterized as sambos we need to censor our behavior and the type of fiction we write, ie..."dumbing down" black fiction, so that we can be more respectable, english speakers, as the Cos demands. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 417
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 06:21 pm: |
|
i should have written, so as not to "dumb down" black ficion... |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 189
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 06:30 pm: |
|
Yukio,
EXACTLY! Why didn't anyone else pick up on this point.
And Evilgoon,
Why did you fail to address this issue when I brought it up if in fact you had a further explanation of your use of this inflammatory phraseology? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 295
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:31 pm: |
|
A_womon & Yukio,
Ok, let me see if I understand you. Are you saying there ISN'T any samboing going on in some Black literature and other media? If that is what you argue, I think you may be REACHING a bit to make a point.
Or are you decrying Evilgood's regretting that such exist?
I agree the sambo does not represent Black people. But there are some Black people who are working a sambo act. And the truth is A LOT of the current "thug", "pimp", "hustler", etc. activity IS a form of modern day minstrel show. A lot of it is a racist, self-deprecating form of performance art. And it is manifesting itself amid all of our media.
Come on now. Let's, as you all say...keep it all real.
You can say all of the exaggerated sexuality in hip-hop is a form of samboing. And what was that stunt Snoop Dog (who I recall held chains in each hand that were connected to dog collars around the necks of 'ho's') and 'Bishop' Don Juan pulled at the recent MTV music awards if it was NOT a form of minstrel show? What is Wu Tang mate Ol' Dirty B@$+A&# if he isn't a sambo? Heck, Tupac and Biggie were probably killed because they (or at least mostly Tupac) took their whole thug sambo (let's scare the White people and incite the homies) routine thing too far.
Now I agree that does not inherently disqualify the merits of any/all stories about such being included within our literature. And if that is what Evilgoon assert, here is where he and I part company. But no reasonable person can look at our books, TV, videos, movies, our schools, communities etc. and argue there isn't at least SOME 'samboing' going on!
So I don't think that Evilgoon should be criticized for citing what WE ALL know to be true. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 531
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:57 pm: |
|
A-womon, am I missing something???? You certainly made a leap of faith by drawing the conclusion you did from what I said in my last post. In any case, maybe the context of evigoon's reference to "sambo" lies in the labels that Blacks, themselves, once relegated to the stereotypical figures who were the mainstay of early black drama: there was the "mammy", the "tragic mulatto" the "trickster, the "sambo", the "Jezabel", etc, his point being that today's youth are regressing.
Furthermore, I don't think anybody has to justify a position they take on this subject if that's their true sentiments. I consider myself somewhat of an elitist and if you and Yukio have a problem with that, then get over it. There is no longer a collective black consciousness wherein all blacks have an obligation to think alike. So, don't be too sure that what's inflammatory to one black may be dead-on to another. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 192
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 02:30 am: |
|
Cynique,
You said:
"So, don't be too sure that what's inflammatory to one black may be dead-on to another."
And once again the reverse of that would also be true. What does the fact that you consider yourself an elitist have to do with my question about whether or not the use of the word "sambo" is acceptable? I have made my stance clear about how I feel about elitist positions elsewhere in this post. And that has not changed.
Think about it: what if I made the statement that "all of the white thugs (oh yes, there are plenty of them around!) and white divas(I believe that there was a tv show about them mentioned in the NY times article called sex and the city) what if I refered to them as the new crackers of our generation? would you and abm vigorously defend my right to make that statement?
Judging from yours and Abm's statements maybe its not our generation who is regressing. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 12
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 09:40 am: |
|
*Laughing once again* Okay, Yukio, let me try to address your points succinctly for once, since I have to get ready to catch a plane. On the entire elitism issue (with regards to my notion of engagement), let me ask you this once and for all: Do you think it’s possible to “engage” someone whose position you don’t agree with? If your answer is no, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. It’s that simple. I fail to see how asking people what they are reading (and why they are reading it) is such an elitist/condescending exercise. You keep pointing to my “skepticism” on people being able/willing to discuss their books, as if that points to some kind of nefarious design on my part--or some kind of insult of their intelligence. That skepticism comes from the fact that in the last year alone, I’ve approached THOUSANDS of people in literary settings. Most people are defensive about what they are reading; they assume, like you assume of me, that the question of what they’re reading is inherently judgmental. To me it’s just a question—a prelude to discussion (engagement). Here is my value judgment: Yes, I think much of the art—fiction, movies, music—put out by blacks today (and their corporate masters) is derogatory and self-destructive. I’ve never pretended that my position was otherwise; however, and this is crucial, your assumption is that because I have this view, then my “engagement” is necessarily some kind of “Heathen, turn away from Satan!” approach. *Laughing* The only position I have put forward in this forum is that I want to talk to people—all willing parties—about their reading habits. In my past year’s “engagement” with people, I have made no converts, so to speak—BUT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MY INTENTION! I am a realist about life, and about human nature. The bizarre image you have of me proselytizing the masses is your own construction, not something I have put forward. My position, stated repeatedly here, has only been to talk to people—not about why what they are reading is stupid, but about what they like about it. They will take what they will from that conversation; I will go away with a broadened understanding of people’s choices. It’s that simple. I don’t belong to any Church of the Western Canon, or any such nonsense. In fact, here is another crucial point, which was lost in all the wrangling: even some of the people who read so-called good literature are unwilling/unable to discuss their choices! It’s not WHAT people are reading that intrigues me: it’s good conversation (engagement). I would be very intrigued by a spirited discussion of the latest thug sex extravaganza, for instance—just as I'm interested in a discussion of Native Son or Crime and Punishment; and not once during any of these discussions would I say, “I think that’s stupid!”; my interest is always, “What do you like about it?” You keep saying things like “…not only do u have preferences but you project those preferences and tastes on another’s capacity to think, which is where the elitist, I think, often sticks their head out because they want to create an intellectual hierarchy.” As I said in the last post, don’t confuse me, and what I’m saying, with conversations you’ve had with other people, whom you deem to be elitists. Not once has any intellectual capacity statement been made by me; not once have you seen me putting forward an argument about changing people’s tastes. The extent of my idealism was in the hope that the act of engagement might make people (including myself!) reach some kind of deeper awareness about their reading choices. ALL conversations have this effect (potentially at least), which is why I enjoy conversation and debate. Again, make your arguments based on what I’ve said, not what you think people like me are supposed to think. My position throughout this has been consistent. If I keep saying X, and you keep hearing Y (and you can point out no place where I’ve actually said Y—but can only point to your interpretation of my motives), then we have a failure to communicate. That’s all I have to say.
…I won’t discuss the sambo issue—and my supposed racism—as I think it has been addressed well by ABM. Peace for now. (I guess I wan't as succinct as I would have liked *Smiling*.)
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 535
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Well, a_womon, instead of responding to the post in which I said you took a leap of faith by drawing the conclusion you did, you responded to the post which contained that statement. Confusing? Yes. So was your ambiguous reply. It depends on what context the word "sambo" is used in. If you call an Africa-American boardroom executive a "sambo", then it is, indeed, offensive. If you call a character in a black movie who plays the buffoon and wears his hair in pigtails and his baggy jeans haggin off his ass, then the term is apt because that's the way sambos acted. Obviously we need to define our terms. For one thing, the "sex and the city" crew are anything but "crackers"; they are urban "yuppies", not latter-day rural red-necks. Current whites who fit the new-cracker image are country music divas. And I'd certainly like to know your definition of a thug. Would you feel better if instead of calling hip-hop thugs "sambos", we called them "crooks". And can anything but negative connotation be associatied with the word "pimp"? Bottom line is, if the shoe fits, wear it. Actually, you hip-hoppers need to come up with some new words to describe what you are because you are trying to sanitize the meaning of the words you are now using to describe yourselves. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 195
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Cyn,
Here we go! I'm at work and cant address the lastest post at the moment sooooooooo....can we meet here around 6? Ill be here at any rate!Cya |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 300
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 12:54 pm: |
|
A_womon,
I seriously doubt that I (and I assume Cynique) am much if at all concerned about WHATEVER you called "white thugs" and "white divas". |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 421
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 02:49 pm: |
|
evilgoon: Firstly, I hope you had a safe and pleasant trip. If I may ask, how was the security?
No, your post wasn't succinct. This is not a skill that we have...lmao. Cynique, A_womon, and sometimes Thumper excel, however.
Although you are often “laughing” and “smiling,” your tone suggests something else, so how should I interpret these expressions? Is it sincerity, sarcasm, etc...
I have certainly enjoyed this exchange. I applaud your efforts to “engage” people at literary settings. We certainly disagree on language, as in the question of recent fiction, entertainment, etc…being derogatory. In my response to Abm and Cynique’s post, I will address this further. Ok, let me address your post.
It is strange that you say that I don't address what you've written, since I have consistently quoted your own statements and then addressed the particular quote. To your question, I answer yes. You have misunderstood my point. I have not said that you cannot believe written black fiction and entertainment is crap, ie differing tastes, but that you must be open not to just talking to them, but respect the integrity of their thinking, or as I named it before, thinking capacity. This doesn’t mean that you have to agree. In my opinion you have prejudged the quality of their thinking. IF this is the case, then you cannot really be open to the possibility of engaging them. I questioned your motives based upon what you wrote. At any point, clearly I have not interpreted your comments correctly, but here are some statements from which I drew my conclusions from:
1-“Not once has any intellectual capacity statement been made by me”= “I am open to the possibility that in discussing the latest thug erotica extravaganza, for instance, the person I’m conversing with will enlighten me on some aspect that I am missing about the entire genre. I’m skeptical that this will happen, but I am open to it.” What you missed here is that I was skeptical not about engagement, but about people thinking (or wanting to think) deeply about their art form.” Perhaps capacity is the wrong word. I’ll say that you questioned their intellectual investment.
2-“not once have you seen me putting forward an argument about changing people’s tastes”= “I actually believe—from a great deal of experience, actually—that the key to coaxing people towards more thought-provoking literature is to talk to them about what they are reading: ask them what they are getting out of it, and what the characters’ actions and beliefs seem to convey; ask them about the larger consequences of the characters’ place in society, etc. Getting people to discuss what they read—as opposed to merely allowing them to trade quips like “Dat was da bomb/off da chain” etc., is the key to getting them to realize that their books, while entertaining on the surface, lack true substance. Once they realize that, they’ll have no choice but to pursue something deeper—just like a young girl, disillusioned by “pretty boy thugs” will eventually seek out someone with more substance.”
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 422
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 03:13 pm: |
|
cynique and abm: I don't accept the notion of the "sambo." At the heart of it, whether we're talking about minstrels, hip hop, et al, is the notion that certain "regressive" characteristics are inherent/intrinsic to a black person. So cynique, your elitism is not relevant, here; it would be if we were talkin about "regressing" qualities in non-racial terms. The term sambo is race specific, however. My point is that childishness, bafoonery, etc...is not specific to any race.
Abm: It is a question of time. Again, I understand the term as inherently racist. When the term "sambo" was introduced, black people fought against the term in self-description and action to prove to themselves and whites that they were not inferior, but human and equal to whites; they especially sought to prove that these the "sambo" were not intrinsic to black people (Interestly, the difference between black minstels and white minstrels was that black actors' performance, though inherently racist, expressed an african american idiom, ie form of dance, humor, etc.. Whites sought to do similarly but they sought to fundamentally sterotype and reinforce the assumption that particular characteristics are inherent to black people).
In the present, this need to prove ourselves, in my opinion, is unnecessary. We have nothing to prove. We already accept our humanity. To call other black people "sambo," in my mind, is to presuppose that the notion of the sambo may actually reflect black people. In other words, we are giving power to the substance of the word. Now, does this mean that some rappers, comedianes(sp), actors, actresses, and sterotypical characters in books do not resemble what was characterized as a "sambo." Not at all...What it does mean is that we shouldn't reinforce and use racist terminology in the fear that it will be equated with us. This is reactionary and defensive, since it suggests that we are so self-conscious of what they think that we need to distance ourselves from the socalled "sambo" in order to prove to them and perhaps our that we are respectable, worthiness, and intelligent.
In my opinion, this is an extension of the general/broad debate on black authenticity, where we have discussed blackness, black slaveholders, and most recently hip hop fiction. My general position is that we are human and some of us are criminals, strippers, indignant, irresponsible, republicans, conservative, etc...BUT, these are qualities that are specific to no race or group or culture.
To dismiss a person's blackness because they are conservative and a republican is racist; To call a rapper a sambo because his lyrics lack substance and he makes porn is racist. In both cases, there is a supposition that to be black means that you must fit a fixed identity. In this case, democrat and respectable or conscious rap. NOw, this doesn't mean that republicans politics don't hurt black people; or that the rapper is not a good role model, because that this "regressive" behavior is not intrinsic to their blackness...
At the end of the day, this logic prevents us from being humans. Instead, it is like we are on a team, called the "United States Black Authencities" and if you don't wear the right colors, uniform, or general paraphernalia then you will be castigated and possibly kissed off the team! |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 303
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 03:24 pm: |
|
Yukio,
And my wife says that I am long-winded. JEEZ!
Dude. Seriously. You should apply for a gig at the Encyclopedia Brittanica. 'Cause you could rock that joint!
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 544
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 04:38 pm: |
|
Well, Yukio, if you want to eliminate the usage of the word "sambo", also get rid of the words pimp, thug, gangsta, ho, skeeza, ruff neck, nigga and all the other derogatory names so near, and dear to the hearts of you hip-hoppers. As I say, you folks want to sanitize these labels, apparently thinking that they are cool slang expressions. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. You can't be selective in your outrage. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 425
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 05:44 pm: |
|
ABM: like i said to cynique and evilgoon...u aint neva lie..i am longwinded, but I'm not sure if i got u beat...lmao.
cynique: the words u've enlisted have never been race specific, while sambo is...many folk of the socalled hip hop generation throughout the US and across "race," nationalities, and ethnicity use all of these words. Here again, it is a case of generational difference...
These younger and often impoverished black kids who grow up with poor whites, asians(often filipino or vietnames), hispanics all speak the same lingo...and do not feel offended when these words(nigga, pimp, etc...), are used because they have a difference meaning for them, which is not determined by race but by behavior. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 426
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 05:54 pm: |
|
Cynique: footnote- hip hop is quite diverse...both 2 live crew and chuck d are hip hop, mc hammer and black thought, will smith and talib qweli...in this case, there is a range of perspectives as it pertains to the usuage of skeeza, ruff neck, nigga, etc.... |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 198
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 06:23 pm: |
|
Yukio,
Can you teach me how to speak as eloquently as you while all the while staying on point? Damn!!!
Cynique and AbM
Abm: my question was not do you care what I call the white persons named in my post, it was "would you defend my right to call them "Crackers" as vigorously as you have defended the white boy who called the black counterparts to my post sambo?" That he is white has some significance to me, (yes he has given himself away several times) but even if he were black his terminology would still be very troubling to me. Further, Evilgoon is quite content to let you and Cynique speak for him on this issue, as he acknowledges in his last post, so it appears I will never know what his true intentions were in posting those remarks because the two of you have sheilded him quite well. It's like my grandma always says: Why do we constantly give white people a stick and then bend down so that they can crack us over the head with it?
Cynique, I don't mind telling you that I am quite confused and disappointed with your position in this discussion and don't understand why you were content to go to bat for this person so fiercely?why didn't you let him speak for himself?
another point I'm confused about:
White Divas (such as the ones featured on sex in the city) not ok to label them crackers
Black Divas (those portrayed in books as account execs, attorneys etc with lots of cash) --okay to lable them sambos?
I don't follow that line of reasoning.
Abm again---I call a white equivalent a cracker and you don't defend my right to do so, nor do you give a damn to look at an alternate point of view nor do you offer any rationale as to why I might feel this way.
Evilgoon calls the black equivalent sambo, you not only defend his right to do so, but you lambast me for presuming to speak against it, proceed to agree with and even invent theories for Evilgoon's imagined reasoning behind using the racist term (although he never states his reasons, just sits back and lets you do your normal overly thorough job of defending him,so that's why I say its an imagined reasoning on your part) And finally you pick up Evilgoon's sambo song and sing it loudly throughout the site! Very puzzling behavior to me.
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 427
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 07:34 pm: |
|
A_womon: If it is true that I have stayed on point, then thank u...but as I re-read my post, like others on the board, i really need an editor..lmao!
Evilgoon, Cynique, and ABM:
The issue here is, Are the qualities of the socalled "sambo" intrinsic to black people? If not, then why can't one criticized the characteristics(regressive) and reject the term "sambo" because of its racist connotations? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 547
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 10:39 pm: |
|
A_womon. I'm not so sure, evilgoon is white. He was too dismayed by how the publishing industry is dumbing down black fiction. He was also offended by the way too many hip-hoppers have reverted to the Sambo image. He made reference to not wanting to be accused of being a racist, but blacks can be racists, too. Whatever. I was blinded by his smarts, I'm an intellectual groupie. Also, I wish you would divest yourself of your emotions and read my posts more carefully because you would find the answers to your questions in them. As for my speaking for evilgoon, I did so because I agreed with him. I am always on the side of truth as I see it.
And, Yukio, if "nigga" isn't a race-specific word, I don't know what is. You keep telling me, hip-hop runs a broad spectrum. But what I'm beginning to suspect is that many people wear 2 hats and are only hip-hop when it suits their purposes.
Anyway, I'm really tired of talking about this subject especially because I don't think we are going to reach any common ground. I think we can all agree that it is a generational thing that puts us at odds with each other. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 428
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 10:51 pm: |
|
cynique: Among many blacks as well as some folk in the hip hop generation, "nigga" is not a race specific word, but lets chart this as a "generational thing." |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 310
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 11:06 am: |
|
Ok Yukio & A_womon,
I hear/respect WHAT you are saying. And I understand/appreciate WHY you are saying it.
But I also appreciate Cynique’s criticism about how conveniently selective were are being with respect to how we will and won’t be lampooned ("Thugs" - Yay, "Sambos" - Nay).
Also, I am against the utter censorship of any word. And I find it dangerous that any wielder/enthusiast of language/writing would support disallowing the usage of the very ‘stuff’ of the trade. (On the far side of such are "book burnings".).I believe and live the motto that words are power and more words you can wield, the more powerful you become.
So rather than our keep this "sambo" tug-o-war going ad infinitum, I propose the following. Why don’t we ALL agree to permit each other to call ANYONE be they Black, White or other a "sambo", "coon", "shine" if they use themselves or encourage others to project demeaning caricatures of their respective race/creed/religion? That way, we are NOT singling Black people as being solely capable of such dishonor.
There now. Are we all squared up?
PS: A recent article in africana.com (link below) referred to the popular William Hung, the crappy (non)singing Asian-American contestant on the most recent American Idol run as a "sambo". So, perhaps reference to this term/phenomenom does indeed warrant application to non-Blacks.
http://www.africana.com/columns/izrael/ls20040317hung.asp.
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 312
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Ok, I know I should stop. But Cynique said something really ‘deep’ that should not be ignored: "...many people wear 2 hats and are only hip-hop when it suits their purposes.". That, my Windy City Goddess, is profoundly true.
I am as much an advocate of the essence (though not all the manifestations) of H/H as you will find among my age group who do not himself have an immediate interest in the continued viability of the genre. But I regularly observe what Cynique has insightfully stated. And it is most unfortunate. Because these (not ALL) H/H’ers either don’t know or, worse, don’t care, that such inane intellectual duplicity mares the credibility of their positions BEFORE they have even had the opportunity to fully present them.
I mean, when you start cherry-picking which insulting description ("pimp", "thug", "ho", "coon", "bit@#", "skank", "sambo", etc.) is and is not appropriate, you immediately engender a certain general disregard for almost EVERYTHING else you have to think/say.
Now, I’ll concede that I MYSELF like to ‘play’ with certain controversial (ok, ‘salacious’) words/phrases myself. And I think such makes for lively, engaging discussion.
But to get away with doing that while maintaining some modicum of respect/credibility for what you think/say, you’ve got to present a baseline strata of knowledge and understanding about who/what you really think/are and you must be adept at asserting such to others.
But many H/H’ers lack such flexibility. Frankly, many of you are utterly ALL OVER the place with what you are saying/doing and, worse, you seem to have little awareness and/or justification for such. And because H/H’ers are often so mired amid their chaotic, ever-changing minutiae of their ‘culture’, many smart observers avoid dealing with ANY of it all together.
And Yukio, you say something that is perhaps even more profound than you know: "...hip hop is quite diverse...both 2 live crew and chuck d are hip hop, mc hammer and black thought, will smith and talib qweli...in this case, there is a range of perspectives as it pertains to the usuage of skeeza, ruff neck, nigga, etc...."
I agree with that. And I would assert that that can be part of the charm/allure of the genre. But then, based on that logic, isn’t it entirely possible that...oh...next year, "sambo", "coon" and/or "shine" will be just fine for Black H/H’ers to call each other? Now, I imagine that you doubt that this could happen. Well, let's see...say...oh....50-cent makes a movie where someone one calls his character "sambo" who eventually wins the day. Don't you think with the current media apparatus see pictures of him and the word proudly emblazon all over Billboard, Vibe, Right-On, etc. And don't you think 'cent's young fans might then proudly begin to don that moniker as well?
So tell me, if 50-cent allows HIMSELF to be called a "sambo" (which is certainly more benign then the dreaded "nigga"), would it then also be OK for me (or even White people) to refer to him as such? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 555
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 01:22 pm: |
|
Guess what, Abm? I read your whole post. I guess anything that riffs on something I say qualifies as something to hold my interest.LOL Anyway, last night, I heard a panel of black comedians on the comedy chanel discussing the movie "Soul Plane" and they repeatedly made derogatory references to how the characters were "cooning" it up. So even these hip-hop types are aware that at some point black caricatures become a bit much. I think the word "coon" is on a par with "sambo". Especially since coon is derived from raccoon and we all know what a raccoon looks like... |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 432
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 02:40 pm: |
|
Footnote: I think we need to address the complexities of language. I'll try to do so briefly. Language, slang, etc...is complicated because they are constantly arising through mostly local cultures, and, of course, they begin to have a life of their own. Thus, over time(generations) and space(neighborhoods, groups) they will have different meanings depending on who uses them. At the same time, since we often have our own competing meanings to these words, like "nigga" for example, we come into conflit! Short? No?
cynique: In general, I detailed generational differences, as well as the diversity of perspectives within the same generation. The larger point, as it regards my replies to you is, your blanket states misrepresent socalled "hip hoppers" and more especially your own generation.
ABM: Interesting point. You should address A_womon's question, too! Let me restate my point, also refer, if you will, my "footnote." Sambo is race specific(unacceptable). Skeeza, ruff neck, etc...(acceptable.) If "sambo" is acceptable, therefore, it would have to be non-race specific. If it is not, I will be out there complaining like the next man/woman.
In addition, to rephrase what i said to cynique in a personal way, I do not attempt to "represent" socalled hip hoppers, but I consider myself one of them, nevertheless. As humans we live out multiple subject positions: I am a single, college educated, african american, male, boogie down bronx/harlem usa, "hip hopper," sem-feminist, pan africanist, new world african, intellectual, writer, tennis, basketball(especially street ball)table tennis(i own my own racket and balls), kung fu(shaw brothers), pizza(meat lovers) etc....and of course, my "subject positions" are often competing. In other words, they don't necessarily agree with eachother...but this applies to all of us... |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 433
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 02:55 pm: |
|
abm: u wrote:
"So rather than our keep this "sambo" tug-o-war going ad infinitum, I propose the following. Why don’t we ALL agree to permit each other to call ANYONE be they Black, White or other a "sambo", "coon", "shine" if they use themselves or encourage others to project demeaning caricatures of their respective race/creed/religion? That way, we are NOT singling Black people as being solely capable of such dishonor."
I hear you, but I would go farther. I say that they have nothing to do with their "respective race/creed/religion." Why attach race/creed/religion, etc...to any particular group? And if it does apply, can we just limit to that person rather than the entire race/creed/religion?
In my opinion, if we want to move beyond racialist/racist thinking, then we have to stop assigning particular qualities to race...In other words, If i like watermelon and fried chicken, shouldn't I believe able, without misrepresenting the race, to go to the salad bar and get me sum watermelon and order me some fried chicken and collard greens?
Or if I'm among black folk, and I don't order the aforementioned, and I get thai dish, am i a sell out?
While we are talking about language, my point is that we are humans first, as well as other things... |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 434
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 02:58 pm: |
|
oops, in the chicken and collard green(hmmm...some fried chicken would do me right, right now) query, i wanted to add that i'm having lunch with white folk for lunch/dinner... |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 212
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 03:10 pm: |
|
ABM,
I was going to address what you said, but why bother? I am sick of this whole thread! |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 315
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 05:16 pm: |
|
Yukio,
Do me a favor: Please provide a brief definition (WITHOUT caveats/disqualification’s/editorials) for the word "sambo".
Because may be after we settled on what the word ‘means’, we can finally wrap this thing up.
Yukio Says:
"ABM: Interesting point. You should address A_womon's question, too! Let me restate my point, also refer, if you will, my "footnote." Sambo is race specific(unacceptable). Skeeza, ruff neck, etc...(acceptable.) If "sambo" is acceptable, therefore, it would have to be non-race specific. If it is not, I will be out there complaining like the next man/woman."
ABM Says:
And yet it is ok for foks to use the word "niggas"?
Yukio Says:
"I hear you, but I would go farther. I say that they have nothing to do with their "respective race/creed/religion." Why attach race/creed/religion, etc...to any particular group? And if it does apply, can we just limit to that person rather than the entire race/creed/religion?
In my opinion, if we want to move beyond racialist/racist thinking, then we have to stop assigning particular qualities to race...In other words, If i like watermelon and fried chicken, shouldn't I believe able, without misrepresenting the race, to go to the salad bar and get me sum watermelon and order me some fried chicken and collard greens?"
ABM Says:
You are stretching things here. This has nothing to do with what food one likes. I like ALL of those foods, yet I don’t consider myself a "sambo". What I am referring to is when one deliberately exaggerates certain aspects (real/imagined) of their culture to entertain, garner favor and reap profits from others. (And yes A_womon, this has nothing "intrinsic" to do with being Black, it has more to do with the willful behavior of certain Blacks.)
Look Yukio, you know darn well there are brothahs out there who are putting on a "thug" show to scare money out of suburban White kids. That is a ‘specific’ kind of behavior that has an historical name/context assigned to it. And the fact that we may not LIKE that it is occurring and that it has a name won’t make the whole thing disappear.
And I too WANT to move beyond "racialist/racist thinking". I just wish that some foks, Black and White, would behave in ways that might permit me to so.
BTW: I see White foks consume as much fried chicken and watermelon as Blacks. But I don’t know if I have seen any eat Collards.
A_womon,
Aw com’on now, Baby. Don’t be like dat. I prahmis if yu ack rite, I will pay to git yur ‘hur did’. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 435
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 06:34 pm: |
|
ABM: My point is not to assign characteristics, by race. The present understanding of "Sambo" is the same as the past. It is less the word, but more so the meaning that is assigned to it. This was the reasoning for my footnote. Because of history, space, and time, nigga no longer has the same meaning that whites in the past/present still use it(hence, the generational, regional,etc..different uses of the term).
Your definition is workable with a dew additional comments: "What I am referring to is when one deliberately exaggerates certain aspects (real/imagined) of their culture to entertain, garner favor and reap profits from others."
The issue is that these characters(white and black) in minstrels misrepresented black people and besmirched our struggle, integrity, and our dignity.
My main point: We give power(even validity) to the term through applying it as whites have historically defined it. The terms are empowered by our fear that these caricatures actually represent us and outrage at black people who parody or even perpetuate what was once called a "sambo" or "coon."
Secondary point: The defensive usage of of "coon" and "sambo" by blacks is outdated and unnecessary for we don't have anything to prove to white folks! We know these characterisics aren't racially specific! If these characteristics don't represent us, then why do we defensively use the terms in the same manner that whites had in order to shame/push/convince our own to be better representatives of black people.
This, in my opinion, is an extension of the Cos position, when he said that the lower economic class was not doing their part of the bargain. The same kids who don't speak english, buy $500 sneakers are the same people many of us calls "newfound sambos." |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 436
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 06:44 pm: |
|
I forgot to post a link that demonstates the defensiveness of black people. It is kinda of long, but I'll paste the section that pertains to the recent topic on this thread.
http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Articles/kp%20interview_with_ed_bullins.htm
Interview of Ed Bullins, interview by Kim Pearson:
KP: Twenty-five years ago you wrote about the role of black theater and talked about its mission being one of raising consciousness, altering consciousness for its audience. Could you talk a little bit about that, and talk about the role of black theater today?
EB: Alright. We who began in black theater in the mid 60’s into the 70’s, we felt like we were lending our energies, voices, artistic minds and everything else to the struggle for physical liberation called the Civil Right movement, then the Black Power movement, and so consequently we felt like it was very important to do – and to do that, to achieve that, we had to raise the consciousness of the, for lack of a better word, the black masses or whatever. Alright. Through television their consciousness has, if not raised, at least been put to sleep in a way with the Fox Network and the new minstrel shows and all that. So, consequently, it is questionable what is meant by now raising the consciousness of the people. So, you – So, the mission changes, the mission changes. It becomes doing art, doing culture as an adjunct to education and to understanding, to cultural identity, to cultural understanding about self worth. And so it changes our field. So, the work that we did, if we haven’t completed it, at least it’s been usurped by the mass media or put to sleep by educational TV or, you know, it left.
KP: What are you referring to when you talk about the "new minstrel shows"? And why do you call them that?
EB: The Wayans [Brothers], the stereotypes, the caricatures. You know, the same caricatures of the coons, the Sambos, the Jezebels, the mammies and all that. They’re just played outrageously to the mass audience. The minstrel show was a mass media a hundred years ago – a hundred and fifty years ago. Now, shows of that type are like the mass media minstrel show.
KP: Is there a role, then, for an art that would challenge or would get black audiences or black artists to understand the danger of that kind of stereotype?
EB: No, it’s entertainment. As long as it’s entertainment certain people seeking entertainment are going to look at it, so – this is a democracy. I mean, in a democracy – it’s dangerous having a democracy in that you can’t legislate all the time or control the choices that people will make.
KP: Do you feel that these kinds of shows are damaging?
EB: Damaging? I think so. I think they’re damaging. You have kids aspiring to be a Sambo, you know, to be this kind of figure that’s working on stereotypes and makes people laugh. You know, what kind of future is that for a black or any other kid?
KP: So what kind of arts – what kind of portrayal should there be?
EB: Should? I’m not dogmatic, so I wouldn’t say "should". If I say "should", it’d be all kinds of portrayals, all kinds of portrayals. You know –
KP: What would you rather see?
EB: What would I rather see? I would rather see truthful, realistic, believable, human, uplifting, responsible, challenging stuff.
In other words, he wants to see the Cosby Show!
|
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 213
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 02:42 am: |
|
Yukio,
New minstrel shows! What a laugh, once again, like you said in previous posts, we continue to limit ourselves to some age old racists standard that Black people continue to wave around as some kind of banner of excellence. We have heard the alarm but evidently we are STILL hitting snooze... especially the older and so called elite blacks!
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 318
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 07:24 am: |
|
Yukio/A_womon,
Again...
I find it interesting that you continue to castigate the use of "sambo" yet do not assert the same derision of the various manifestation of the "n-word", which historically has been considered the very worst racial epithet.
You all have invested too must antipathy for a word yet complete skirt the condition/phenomenon to which it refers, a condition/phenomenon that you have not even denied exist.
So, to respect your antipathy for "sambo", let's pretend it doesn't even exit. And I'll ask you 2 the following: Should there exist ANY 'word' for some one who intentionally affects/perpetuates of negative thoughts/beliefs about their own race/creed/religion. If you answer "yes", what should that 'word' be? Or if you answer "no" then, well, as someone who values discourse, language, description, etc. I will respectfully disagree with you. |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 214
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 08:16 am: |
|
Yes, "ABM!" |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 439
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 11:42 am: |
|
abm: For a person who is interested to be done with it, I find it interesting that I've addressed both sambo and nigga, already and you keep asking the same question in different ways. I've been consistent, here. The issue is not the word but the meaning it carries...I've said this before.
Here is an abbreviated version of what I said:
Because of time and space, Nigga has different meanings than it had as used by whites. Time and space has not had the same effect on Sambo, which has maintained the same meaning. This is why i asked you to read the footnote in concert with my points specificly addressed to you!
I even addressed it when u asked the question about 50 cent. Was i not clear, or did u miss it because u skimmed?...did read it?...what? Again, since nigga has non-race specific it is "acceptable." If sambo had non-race specific I would also call it "acceptable." I'm consistent; my selection is determined by if it is race specific or non-race specific.
Yes. We can call that person self-hating, since they deny the humanity of their race/creed/religion.
Nevertheless, we should agree to disagree, because your ask questions only settle what u have asked and on your terms(this is the same point cynique made, elsewhere, about ch).
Address my point/position that black people who call other black people sambo are defensive, reactionary, antedated, and insecure. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 559
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Yukio, and a_womon, what name in the hip-hop vernacular would be assigned to a black performer who projected the most negative, stereotypical traits that white folks associate with the black race? |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 440
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 12:31 pm: |
|
I don't know...cynique, as i said the language changes, and while I'm a "hip hopper," as you like the call it, I'm not so in the loop as teenagers or younger twentysomething folk are...in addition, as i said, my position is my position! I make no attempt to represent "hip hoppers"...why is this so difficult to understand? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 561
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Well, Yukio, since you speak with authority on subjects very relative to the hip-hop culture and since you disagree with what people who are not hip-hop are saying, I made certain assumptions about who you represent. My bad. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 441
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 01:09 pm: |
|
hahahaha....I know a lil bit; hmmmm...i didn't mean to sound so caustic; it is strange how the organization of words can create their own meaning...At any rate, I'm black (african american) music. If that means anything, as you noteed to A_womon on another thread, i listen to jazz, and I must admit that I listen to hip hop the least. Most of my cds are of Prince, Neosoul, Miles, Coltrane.
I can't even say that I like much of the music, fiction, etc...that you guys would characterize as "sambo" behavior. My dislike or disinterest has more to do with the superficiality of the themes, poor writing, absence of craft; Or if it is hip hop, it has to do with again, superificiality of themes/messages, weak lyrics, absence of craft...At no point do I relate this to race. This is why I can embrace eninem because he is a real student of the aesthethics of hip hop. I love the socalled conscious rappers: talib qweli, common, mos def, roots, and others. At the same time, if i wanna dance or get in a bx/harlem usa mood(street), you may find me doin my think to lil jon and the eastside boyz...or 50 cents "up in the club" or 8ball and MJG...Juvy's Slow Motion. Like I tried to state above to you, I am many things, as you are... |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 565
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 07:38 pm: |
|
OK, Yukio, finally I've realized something. You are a Renaissance Man! |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 216
Registered: 05-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 07:57 pm: |
|
Cyn,
How ya doin? Anyway I guess my whole thing has been that we need to quit allowing any group to controll our actions, reading, singing, making movies, dining out, living, BREATHING, based upon some outdated notion that said group can set a norm for behaviors, and because that group invokes that norm and says anything outside of what we deem acceptable and you will wear a lable, thus, a "sterotype" of what we think you are.
My question then becomes, why do we have to succumb to or accept another group's accounting of what is acceptable behaviors? Even if that group remains in power, do they have the right to dictate behaviors to us and do we have to continue to accept it even if they try?
To me it's just more of the same, in other words, continually sending subliminal messages by any and all medium available that we are inferior and need their guidance? Evilgoons posts reek of this theory.
when are we going to stop allowing a different group to set the bar for what is acceptable in our community?
Whew! I gotta stop hangin out with Yukio and ABM
My posts are starting to rival theirs in legnth! |
A_womon
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: A_womon
Post Number: 217
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 08:58 pm: |
|
Cynique, ABM
Here is an article you might find interesting, it's kind of off topic in a way, but still has to do with hip hop.
p551gb9779-10782%2C00.html,http://www.bet.com/articles/0,,p551gb9779-10782,00.ht ml
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 567
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 02:17 pm: |
|
A_womon, I agree that it behooves us to not allow ourselves to be defined by white people. It is left up to us to craft our own self images, images that don't foster things like black-on-black crime, a superficial set of values, a disrespect for women, and a proliferation of the behavior which produces the baby's mama/daddy scenarios, - all of which are reflected and popularized by the gangsta facet of Rap music, and the pimp/playah mentality so wide-spread in the Hip-Hop lifestyle. To be fixated on the word "sambo" is counter-productive. Being preoccupied with it makes it not a part of the solution, but a part of the problem! It detracts us from focusing on more important issues. Continuing to obsess about this word empowers it in a way that defines you as a person who is stifled with resentment by a word that has its origins with the white people whose opinions you supposedly reject. If you want to liberate yourself from the "sambo" dilemma, then neutralize its impact by considering its source. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 446
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 02:23 pm: |
|
cynique...i think we'be been making the same point.
you wrote:
"To be fixated on the word "sambo" is counter-productive. Being preoccupied with it makes it not a part of the solution, but a part of the problem! It detracts us from focusing on more important issues. Continuing to obsess about this word empowers it in a way that defines you as a person who is stifled with resentment by a word that has its origins with the white people whose opinions you supposedly reject. If you want to liberate yourself from the "sambo" dilemma, then neutralize its impact by considering its source."
i wrote:
"The defensive usage of of "coon" and "sambo" by blacks is outdated and unnecessary for we don't have anything to prove to white folks! We know these characterisics aren't racially specific! If these characteristics don't represent us, then why do we defensively use the terms in the same manner that whites had in order to shame/push/convince our own to be better representatives of black people. "
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 568
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 02:55 pm: |
|
I don't think we use these terms defensively. People who use them use them to chastise others who, in their opinion, are disgracing the race. It's all very subjective. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 447
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 09:53 pm: |
|
well it is all subjective. so we'll, again, have to agree to disagree. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 13
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 07:22 am: |
|
Yukio, I am finally back from my trip. Thanks for your concern. I see that you're again making references to my arguments about people's intellectual capacity/investment. Suffice it to say that if you are really set on seeing that which is not there, then that is your decision. Here is a bit of unsolicited advice, which actually comes out of a conversation I had with a woman a few weeks back: It's fun and intriguing to apply psychological motivations to people when you're watching a movie or reading a book, but it's not as useful to apply such motivations to people in real life (especially to people you've never met). Presuming to read people's minds, while giving one a (false) sense of superiority, is not that useful. In fact, I would suggest to you that it makes honest discussion impossible. When I talk to someone, I talk to him or her based on what has been said/written, and not on my ability to read his or her mind and interpret his or her inner/unstated longings. If you and I have a debate on what you think, you will always win. If the debate is on what is there--IS ON THE FACTS--then that is an honest debate. Lets try to keep the debates to the facts. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 14
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 07:55 am: |
|
...ON SAMBOS, PIMPS, THUGS, ETC.
I've actually been thinking about this since Yukio made the satement a while back that Bigger Thomas in Native Son, was a thug. Here is the full quote: "As I’ve tried to argue elsewhere, it is about how you treat these characters not that they are pimps, thugs, and divas. In other words, you can use these same categories in literary fiction rather than commercial fiction. Bigger Thomas was a 'thug.' "
Let me go through why I think that is an untenable position. To begin with, saying things like "I'm a thug," "I'm a pimp..." even "I'm a nigga," have become POLITICAL statements. When Tupac made his thug statements it was essentially saying that being a thug was a good thing. It was saying "I'm on the outside of society, but I don't want to be 'inside.'" Moreover, it presents the "thug" as having wisdom (street knowledge, etc.) which allows him to outwit the larger society. Bigger Thomas was a criminal and a crook, but he was NEVER a thug by today's description, because he ALWAYS wanted to belong to the larger society. He looked at white people and bemoaned the fact that they had everything. He was SUBMISSIVE to white society. Today's thug, on the other hand, would never (openly) do that. Today's thug is blissful in his surroundings--master of his supposed domain. This is the key nuance: Today's thugs, pimps, niggas, et al, present the fallacy that they are happy with their surroundings. Was Richard Wright trying to make the argument that Bigger was happy with his surroundings? Of course not. In fact, I would argue that the KEY to Native Son is that Bigger Thomas (and those of his ilk) is APOLITICAL. They have no awareness of who they are (either as black people, or as people in a capitalist society, as was Wright's bent). I don't doubt that today's Bigger Thomases are "thugs" but the fact of the matter is that sometime in the last 20 years, black people have begun to make the political argument that their marginalization and ignorance (as opposed to stupidity) is a good thing. Never before have black people consciously made that choice. Even when many were mired in the ignorance and marginalization of Bigger Thomas's world, the overriding mindset was one of seeking something better. Now, that is gone, because the thug, pimp, nigger is content with who he is and what he knows. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 511
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 10:49 am: |
|
Evilgoon: I am glad that your trip was safe. Well, this is an old discussion, now, especially since I've said i must have misread you, that I have no idea what your intent is/was, and that I identified the points in your posts which led me to my conclusions...so I'll leaving the "engagement" discourse to the wind...
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 512
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 11:08 am: |
|
My quote that you addressed pertains to rendering a thug, pimp, etc... in fiction, which I thought was the topic...maybe not?
Here is the statement I addressed: "When will there be a literary movement by those whose drive in the black community is about more than “divas,” “thugs,” “pimps,” and the various newfound sambos of our age?"
Your analysis of "thugs" is interesting, especially the question of biggie being apolitical. You characterization of tupac and socalled thugs of today is off the mark...you shouldn't collapse tupac's position with these thugs selling drups on the streets, who are trying to survive....these kids, like people throughout world history, have accepted, unfortunately, their present and are often lifetime criminals...but this is the minority....and in fact most of these kids calling themselves aren't! It is a front of manliness...it is an attitude, it is in their dress and talk, the way they walk, but they aren't really thugs... |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 15
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 07:46 am: |
|
Yukio, I assume you meant "Bigger" and not "Biggie"...
You may have responded to my statement, but if you look at the quote, you'll see that divas, pimps and thugs are all in quotes (and notice sambos is not). As I said in the last post, these phrases have taken on political meanings. They express an attitude towards life: they aren't merely nouns anymore--they are political adjectives.
Please explain how my characterization of today's thugs is "off the mark." Is it your argument that many of the "thugs" aren't living up to the thug ideal, and therefore aren't pure thugs? I of course don't think this is sound reasoning/relevant (if this is actually your position). The nature of mass movements is that the followers rarely if ever live up to the ideals laid out by the progenitors. Do you think all the people listening to Malcolm X (and going off to call themselves Muslims/Black Nationalists) put the same amount of thought and time into their philosophy/religion as X did? Most, I would argue, primarily heard his anger at "the white man" and didn't absorb many of the nuances and intricacies of his philosophy. In the case of hip hop's thugs and those who you say "aren't really thugs," I would argue that there is even less of a difference between philosophy and fact--as "thugism" is a very simple/simplistic approach to life. In short, if you have a philosophy which espouses taking pride in doing what it takes to survive, and you then have millions of youths turning to selling drugs and criminal behavior, then that's not really a surprise.
Besides which, what is really your point on this issue? I read one post and it seems like thugs and pimps were some kind of ideals to you, now you're pointing out the obvious failings in those who claim the philosophy (but don't live up to the ideal). Is it your point that it would be a good philosophy if people lived up to the ideal? What are you really defending here? |
Lambd
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Lambd
Post Number: 145
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 10:10 am: |
|
I think in the minds of young people the words pimp, thug etc. have totally different meanings than what we associate. Of course, we all agree that this is not a good thing, but I understand. I am not defending it...I just understand. As Evilgoon has said, its the 'doing what needs to be done to survive' thing that young people associate with these words. A pimp to us is someone who profits from women on the street making money for them by selling their bodies. The slang 'pimp' to this generation is any man that has the capacity to draw and hold more than one woman at any time. This type of man is looked up to because being able to draw women is a sign of power to youngsters. A thug isn't necessarily a criminal anymore. It's the attitude that this young man won't stand for anything short of getting what he feels is rightfully his. From respect to money. These terms are generational, like Yukio said. We also need to assign these things to individuals instead of bashing entire groups for these phrases and ideals. Like Yukio alluded to earlier, hip-hop encompasses alot of areas that separate and overlap in different places. You won't hear Mos-Def calling himself a thug or a pimp but he is definitely hip/hop. Depending upon your own connotation of 'sambo', does sambo have to be Black?
Jim Carrey looks like a shinnin' and grinnin' sambo to me sometimes. As far as Muslims go, in this country a Black Muslim can be a social activist, a religious fanatic/would-be terrorist, or an African American that studies Islam. It depends on who is asking for the definition and who is giving the answer. I'm sure most of you have your own ideas about what you think hip-hop is as well as what you think certain religions are supposed to stand for depending on what you've heard or read in the past. That don't necessarily make it so. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 518
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 03:07 pm: |
|
evilgoon: yes...i meant bigger thomas, a la richard wright...
Lambd posts addresses why I think u are off the mark.
Also, it is not clear to me what the issue is...how is this all related to your question:
"When will there be a literary movement by those whose drive in the black community is about more than “divas,” “thugs,” “pimps,” and the various newfound sambos of our age?"
So once you clarify for me what your point is, for it seems that there has been a divergence, then i can tell u my position/point on the issue.
In other words, how did we get from the a "literary movement..." to a sociological analysis of "thugs"?
My position is/was that it is not the thug but how u fictionalize/treat the character...
Here are some basics: the real thugs, those selling drups, sticking people up, etc...have their own subculture with its own values, morals, etc...from this culture, through fiction, movies, basic mass media and pop culture, the same language which is reflected in the underworld subculture has been accultured in pop/mass culture, and the meaning as changed...so that rather than referencing real "thugs" it is wearing a do rag, throw back, and walkin with a swagger...it has been commodified in a consumer culture... revamped like malcolm x hats...and bob marley & che t-shirts to signify a mythologized and often impotent representation of the real thing!
Lastly, are u a white person? |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 16
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 05:01 pm: |
|
*Chuckling* Am I a white person? My first impulse is to say, "What difference does it make?" and ask you why it's important to classify me as something. First I was an elitist, then everyone thought I was a woman for whatever reason. What is the usefulness of pigeon-holing people into positions and social groupings, except to foster the laziness which makes people say dismissive things like "You're such-and-such, therefore (insert whatever simplistic conclusion you wish here)"? Stop seeking out shortcuts to understanding people's point of view. As I've said several times now, nothing productive comes from doing so. ...Yet, knowing that this response will only make people even more curious -- and set off more rumors/attempts to categorize me -- let me state simply that I am a black man: 33-year-old, from New York City. Hopefully I won't be asked to answer this sort of question again -- as it obviously has nothing (relevant) to do with what I've said in this forum (nor with anything I WILL say).
I read Lambd's post as well, but as I was neither making general arguments about hip-hop nor Muslims, I don't see how it addressed anything I said, or showed how I was "off the mark" in my discussion of "thugs" etc. My post was very narrow in scope: namely, that Bigger Thomas was not a "thug," because the term has taken on a political connotation. Like you, I have no problem with literature with crooks and bad people in it, however the entire thug/pimp/diva phenomenon is something uniquely modern which has as its basis the "me first"/"git yours at all costs mentality"; and to apply it to anything Wright did is a guaranteed way to "misread" what was going on in Native Son. It's that simple.
As for the larger point (on my often quoted, "When will there be a literary movement by those whose drive in the black community is about more than “divas,” “thugs,” “pimps,” and the various newfound sambos of our age?") isn't it obvious by now? Compare a novel like Native Son with your average pimp nigga novel and you'll see that we've gone from examining pathology to CELEBRATING pathology; more than that, as the NY Times article showed, we're now celebrating pathology for no other reason than it is financially lucretive. That to me is a dangerous development. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 17
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 05:55 pm: |
|
What is your point exactly, A_Woman? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 628
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 05:58 pm: |
|
You chided me for calling you an "elitist". Others have stuck you with labels that you have eskewed. Now, my question is why would you saddle yourself with a screen name like "evilgoon." This title brings to my mind a sisnister person stroking a drooping moustache, grinning maliciously as venom drips from his lips. Most of what you say belies this image, yet I still keeping wondering if your are toying with us, maybe even teaching us a valuable lesson, making us realize that people are not always what they say they are - or not always what they say they are not... |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 629
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 06:04 pm: |
|
Well, I see a_womon is back, full of fire. But I believe you when you say you are black, evilgoon. If she can believe Edmenson is 16, I can believe you're black. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 18
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 06:11 pm: |
|
*Chuckling* Cynique, I picked my name because it amused me. ...In all honesty, however, what does this have to do with anything? (And I'm not saying this in a chiding manner.) If you guys would have spent half as much time reading what I've written, instead of trying to figure out (my seemingly "evil") motives, then we wouldn't have had half as many misunderstandings. Now my race is coming into question. Isn't this a literature forum? I've been on here a few weeks, and yet I've had to fight to introduce literature into the debates. This entire situation is a little disappointing. I'm on here for one reason: to discuss the nature of (black) literature in America. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 630
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 06:39 pm: |
|
Well, evilgoon, I for one, welcome your input. I find it very intellectually stimulating. Which is why I'm surprised that you wouldn't recognize this simple truth: Your name had a subliminal effect on us. You say you chose it because it amused you. Do you now realize that amusing yourself can sometimes come back to haunt you? LOL |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 19
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 06:45 pm: |
|
A_Womon, this is all very silly...but funny on some bizarre level. Let me try to answer those concerns that seem to have some rationality behind then. On the matter of "nigger vs. nigga" both forms are offensive to me. Even the idea that one is "preferrable" to another is...idiotic; and if you go back and actually read what I've written, and look at the context, you'll see that the terms are only used to describe fiction ("thug nigga fiction") which is actually called that by people! That's not my term. If you open up such books, you'll see people calling one another nigga (and Nigger) repeatedly; and as you expressed earlier that you like such fiction, then why all the self-righteousness about the term. *Laughing* That's all I have to say -- and that should have been clear from reading what I've written previously. I still hold out the proposition that I'm open to talking to anyone about anything, but as I said to you previously, if you don't want to talk to me, then don't. I don't know what has precipitated your point of view/antagonism -- besides some belief that I'm white *Laughing* -- but that's your right, ma'am. If you're ready to talk rationally about literature, then I'm here; if not, then be at peace. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 631
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 06:48 pm: |
|
Gee, a-womon, do you think your hostile aggressiveness toward another poster will stand you in very good stead when it comes to getting out of the woods???? |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 20
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 07:03 pm: |
|
A_Womon, obviously I'm using the term sarcastically -- and in order to make my point (that its usage is idiotic). What other conclusion is to be drawn? |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 21
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 07:35 pm: |
|
*Smiling* ...A_Womon, at this point, it might be more useful for you to talk to one of your fellow posters about what I was doing. I argue that it should have been obvious how I was using the terms, and that there was no subterfuge. That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. In truth, I wasn't "trying" to engage you at all -- since you've made it clear that you don't want to talk to me. To argue now that my phraseology blocked off engagement with you when you first called my discussion with Yukio/ABM/Cynique boring then stated explicitly that you did not want to take part, is not logical. If you wish to have an expansive discussion on the use of the term "nigger" in literature, then I'm up for it; if you just want to snipe at me from the periphery, either ignoring what I've written or using only snippets of things that caught your eye, then that will be useful for neither of us. What I've said is only useful if one considers the context within which it was written; taking out a word here and a word there and demanding an explanation is not a productive manner of understanding what someone has written: it is only a way of manipulating a debate in one's favor. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 519
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 07:49 pm: |
|
evilgoon: thanks for the response. No shortcuts, just a question.
Of course, I can apply the term "thug." Of course, bigger thomas is not a "thug" in the sense that some of these rappers and kids claim to be "thugs." But that was never my point, I was basically suggesting that the genre "street and hip hip fiction" can render the same categories--pimps, thugs, etc..--differently than some do now. In other words, that one can do "street lit" and use pimps, etc...and have three dimensional characters...Also, provide titles of lit. that "celebrate pathology"....
I have several critiques:
1. Part of the problem is, You seem out of touch with hip hop culture, so your characterizations are off...this is part of lambd's point...the meanings that these kids assign to "thug" are not the same as the real thug on the street, so they are not celebrating a pathology; instead, they're often celebrating a black male youth angst which partially defines their manliness...it is a front with little substance! Real criminals would never bring attention to themselves!
2. Your critique is based on a form of censorship, since this fiction allegedly negatively represents black people. Yet, it is you who gives power to the image, term, representation, etc… Consider what lambd states:
Depending upon your own connotation of 'sambo', does sambo have to be Black? Jim Carrey looks like a shinnin' and grinnin' sambo to me sometimes.
If we deracialize sambo then the term is based on characteristics that encompass all groups. But to maintain its historical definition, is to empower and even reproduce its racist/racialist connotations.
Furthermore, these images don’t present black people; they certainly don’t represent me. Why can’t blacks be illiterate, thugs, criminals, etc…and it is a bad reflection of the race. All people throughout world history have had criminals, thugs, etc… U don’t see white people blaming jim carrey for the presence of poor white trash in Appalachia and mid America, jerry Springer, etc…
3. You don’t seem to appreciate the fluidity of culture: even in your usage of “nigga” you don’t seem to understand that the meaning is changed; that it is not the historical “nigger.” Of course, you can choose not to use it, because its historical usage is racist. That’s fine! But to not understand, at least, not embrace, its different usage in a subculture is to choose to ignore the reality of the culture, which is also fine. Yet, it welcomes misunderstanding the literature and the subculture, etc… as you’ve done so far... |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 520
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 08:11 pm: |
|
Evilgoon: I need to reword the second to last sentence: But to reject this alternative definition of "nigga" is to choose to ignore the reality of the culture, which is also fine...etc...
Also, there is literature by black americans and african americans whose characters do not "celebrating pathology." This is what i suggested in my first post...that street fiction, etc...is neither representative of black fiction nor reflective of a shortage of whatever it is you like...i don't know...non-celebrating pathology literature? *laughing*
Is "*laughing*" sarcasm or something else? Trying to understand your tone...i come from a culture where terms have mutiple meanings...so the written word is really insufficient at times...if we accept poststructuralism! |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 22
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 09:21 pm: |
|
Okay Yukio, let's address those points. Those arguments stating that I'm out of touch with the nuances of hip-hop/black culture are not ones I can defend -- because like the charge of my elitism, it is pointless to try to defend someone's impression of one's inner thoughts/awareness. One can only logically defend those things that are verifiable. ...So, assuming, as you state, that I am TOTALLY clueless about how "kids" use "thug" nowadays, I would counter that the entire insider/outsider debate (with respect to the effect that culture plays in people's lives), is one wrought with SERIOUS shortcomings. In fact, it's an intellectual no-man's-land. The entire "you don't understand because you don't belong" argument is very self-deceptive, and tends to be self-destructive for a very simple reason: it lulls people into the belief that anyone who talks to them ("from the outside") must be wrong. It is a way of deflecting commentary without looking critically -- because as soon as you've identified someone as "an outsider" then what they say ceases to be relevant. Of course, this is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to hip-hop and your reasoning. Religious sects use the same reasoning to explain the validity of their beliefs and why others are heretics. The only problem with it, of course, is that it is CIRCULAR reasoning. You start off by arguing that the subgroup's culture/beliefs are good BECAUSE GROUP MEMBERSHIP MAKES IT GOOD, then the entire thing keeps going in a loop. You ask, why is it good, and you get: It's good because it's part of us. You ask more pressing questions, and you get: You can't understand, because you don't belong. Under this, it's impossible to address insiders about their culture -- maybe in the same way that it's impossible to address some religious people about their religion -- because as soon as you raise a point, it is negated by the pre-programmed reply that "since you don't belong, then you must be wrong/are incapable of understanding." No matter how illogical something is, this pre-programmed response will negate all doubt in the true believers. However, BY DEFINITION this response is not and will never be a logical explanation of the insider's culture. It is merely a way of side-stepping (self)criticism of one's (sub)culture. That's the first point.
The second point actually follows from the first. Let's consider this statement: "Your critique is based on a form of censorship, since this fiction allegedly negatively represents black people." I don't want to put words into your mouth, and please counter this if you can, but you seem very dangerously close to implying that criticism/comment IS ITSELF censorship. (I don't know what "based on censorship" means, so maybe that may explain my (mis)understanding here.) Anyway, by the logic of what you say, the only way to avoid censoring someone is to avoid talking to anyone who has views different from one's own (we've had this discussion before); and again, the entire insider/outsider argument you put forward previously only compounds the fallacy here, because if an outsider criticizes an insider, then the outsider is censoring him (based, once again, on his ignorance/outsider status).
As for sambos having to be black and all that, I don't see how that is relevant to anything I've said. Granted, you've been talking about that with others, but that's not something that applies to me, as I've never made any points about the racial exclusivity of sambos. In fact, I consider that debate to be a red herring. Again, this is the point underlying everying I've said: never once have you even attempted to explain why the use of various terms (nigga, thug, etc.) is actually a good thing -- BESIDES SAYING THAT GROUP MEMBERSHIP MAKES IT GOOD/COMPREHENSIBLE. That's intellectual quicksand. It's possible that those things are actually good, but that pre-programmed response is not itself an explanation. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 23
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 09:49 pm: |
|
P.S. "*Laughing*" means I'm laughing; "*Smiling*" means I'm smiling;
"*Chuckling*" means I'm chuckling. ...I'm of the view that most of the time, the obvious is true. There is no need to interpret or search for the hidden/phychological meaning beyond the obvious and verifiable. *Amused at the fact that I continually have to say this!*
As for there being street literature that does not celebrate pathology, remember what I told you once before: absolute statements are dangerous and I stay away from them. Therefore, you will find nowhere where I stated that ALL street lit celebrates pathology; and as you know that I go out of my way to avoid making universal statements, you should take similar steps to avoid assigning universal statements to me. Accordingly, the statement that some street lit does not fit the mold, is obvious and does not need to be said/defended/offered for consideration. Peace for now. I'm off to bed. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 632
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 10:18 pm: |
|
I recently reached the conclusion that because hip-hop has evolved into such a nebulous mass of ambiguity, it's a waste of time to argue with anyone who defends it. All hip-hop advocates have to do to refute an argument is to say "it ain't the way it was before." And, obviously an issue can't be resolved when opposing sides define terms differently.
So, as Yukio, and evigoon continue to debate whatever it is they are debating, the only thing being proved is that good articulation does not always make for good communication. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 521
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 10:28 pm: |
|
cynique...u are funny...but don't try to limit your rhetoric to "hip hop"...all generations have terms with different meanings... |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 522
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 10:51 pm: |
|
evilgoon: I just asked for titles..wasn't that obvious?
evilgoon states:
"*Laughing*" means I'm laughing; "*Smiling*" means I'm smiling;
"*Chuckling*" means I'm chuckling
Yukio states:
I can not verify what you mean, for
I can't see you "smile" or "chuckle," etc....it could be sarcastic, sinister, etc...thats why I asked the question...interpretation includes not only reading the words denotively, but understanding them in a particular context, the particular cultural framework, as well as reading for tone, double meanings, irony, etc....
As I stated before, I've never sought to find hidden meaning in your post. I've already identified the sentences that i criticized. You just don't seem to respect the fluidity and slipperiness of language...if words were "verifiable" then I wouldn't have had to repeat the same points to u and others for the past two weeks...but it is okay, because i expect there to be misunderstanding, which is why i often ask questions for clarification...
Having read my post....how would u characterize my tone? |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 524
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 07:05 am: |
|
Evilgoon: *goodmorning*
*Chuckling* wow, for a person so enveloped in being nuanced and empirically sound, why would u state: “So, assuming, as you state, that I am TOTALLY clueless about how "kids" use "thug" nowadays”? And then you flagrantly, erroneously, Kobe Bryantly, state:” remember what I told you once before: absolute statements are dangerous and I stay away from them.” *Really?* As I stated above, I was just asking for some titles so I can read them…*smiling* Is this verifiable enough for ya: “Also, provide titles of lit. that "celebrate pathology"....”?
1. I write: “You seem out of touch with hip hop culture,” and you interpret this to mean: “you don't understand because you don't belong." *smiling* verify that….seem=TOTALLY? Is that logical, evilgoon? Rather than fictionalize my post *chuckling* you should read what I’ve written. I even took the time to rework the sentence: “Evilgoon: I need to reword the second to last sentence: But to reject this alternative definition of "nigga" is to choose to ignore the reality of the culture, which is also fine,” and the last sentence stated, “ Yet, it welcomes misunderstanding the literature and the subculture, etc… as you’ve done so far...” I, "obviously" meant, *chuckle* that there are alternative definitions and if u want to understand another culture, then u must appreciate their language(not agree and embrace it) in order to interpret their culture...this is similar to the british coming to the americas and then the colonists writing books about indians being savages (or let us read Conrad for that), based on the british and british colonists understanding of civilization; this doesn’t preclude criticism, but it does require to rethink things from another perspective for u to understand them as they see themselves.
2. No. “criticism/comment IS ITSELF” is not censorship. But uninformed criticism is a form, as I said. Also, if u care to read what I wrote (or should I say verify?), I made suggested that in order to understand people, then u must appreciate how they define their own terms. You don’t have to agree, but you have to appreciate where they’re coming from to understand them. You can’t tell these kids that when their in their own cultural spaces that they have to communicate using mainstream English. This is quite simple. They understand the difference when a person within their culture uses the term and a person who is not part of it… so it is not about simply about defining terms differently, because the context and the meaning attach to the word is what defines it, not the word in and of itself. Listen to Amiri Baraka’s point black people being bilingual: www.wiredforbooks.org/amiribaraka/
Ok, that was fun. It is ironic that u suggest that my points preclude criticism, yet *smiling* you said so much but so little. Let me make my point again in another way: It SEEMS (I’ve used this word before, but this time I’ve written it in upper case letters for ya since last time you equated it with totally, so I’m trying to make an effort to be “verifiable” for ya *smiling*) that you argue that bad literature (celebrating pathology) is “a dangerous development.” Well, I’m not sure what you mean, however "obvious" u think it is, but the literature doesn’t reflect black people and folks don’t participate in the informal economy in order to be thugs. Again, real thugs don't celebrate pathology...that would bring unnecessary attention.
Finally, when u wrote, ”newfound sambos,” I believed that you meant that the characters in “thug nigga fiction.” Also, as I understood your sentence, you seemed to be talking/referring to a “literary movement by those whose drive in the black community.” But maybe those aren’t your words and if they are, perhaps they don't pertain to black people exclusively, and I’m just trying to find *chuckling* a “hidden/phychological meaning,” but this SEEMS, there goes that word again, to SUGGEST, another relative word, that you were referring to sambo in its historical usage but in the present. Hence, you characterized them as “newfound.” Now, I’ve already stated my position as it relates to the word and its usage, so read it if ya want ta…
Posters:
*Smiling* it sure SEEM that evilgoon did indeed make "points about the racial exclusivity of sambos,” but u aint heard that from me...*laughing*!
|
Lambd
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Lambd
Post Number: 146
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 08:05 am: |
|
Evilgoon, I was only stating examples, I wasn't taking sides. It seems some of us prefer to take certain parts of posts to discuss instead of reading the posts and getting a sum total of the poster's meaning. I mistakenly thought that my imput would help to clear the air and help to define the lines on which we tread. It seems that I have only helped to muddy the waters.
I think the reason some of the members want to know your race is to get some feeling for the motives for some of your comments. They feel that your race/background/environment may give you fodder for your opinons. I am no expert, nor am I half as eloquent as you or Yukio, so I prefer to remain neutral and sidestep any miscommunication that may evolve from my lack of writing skills. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 24
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 08:49 am: |
|
Yukio, I looked over your post; and in responding to it, I'm hoping that something productive will come out of it -- besides some kind of pointless slug fest over minutia, using semantic tricks and so forth (and I'm including myself in this: it's not an accusation towards you). From my standpoint, one thing has been obvious to me for a while now: the entire drive to define me as elitist/white/whatever the case may be, has been the foundation for what you did yesterday -- namely present the "you don't understand because you don't belong" argument. From the beginning I've been telling you guys that the entire drive to give people designations by group membership is only a way to cut off discussion/engagement. Look at any political talk show: one person will come out and call the other a liberal; the so-called liberal will call the other a conservative, and then the next few minutes will be spent with them discussing the conservative/liberal nature of the other. That is not a debate; categorization is not argument: the presentation of ideas. It is merely a convoluted way that people have of ignoring one another. In short, if we debate futher, then let's debate honestly. ...Notice, that I did not fall into the trap of trying to defend my knowledge of the subculture you claim to have expertise in. That to me is irrelevant. If understanding something requires group membership, then that is only the starting point for a ridiculous society, where everyone is hunkered down in his or her camp, self-righteously scoffing at those on the outside. The fact of the matter is that even though you talk about things like "nigga/thug" meaning something different within the subculture (as though this defines some new phenomenon that an old cat like me (with possible white predilictions) can't understand), those are arguments that were being made since the 80s -- and which have shown themselves to be bankrupt, if not irrelevant. Moreover, nobody anywhere on this forum made an argument about these kids having to use standard english when they engage one another -- that's another red herring. How people speak is their own business; but of course, if a culture overwhelmingly produces people who cannot communicate with those on the OUTSIDE, then that cannot be a good development--especially if in order to survive, they must engage the larger society. This is a truism, no matter the culture.
...And please don't send me links to Amari Baraka, or give me any more cultural lectures. As I said to you several times, you don't know anything about me. You don't know what I read; you don't know what I listen to. Stop making the assumption that you can school me on aspects of life that are obvious (not because of my inherent intelligence, but because of common sense).
Now, let's take a step back. If you wish to start over, and explain the inherent benefits of nigga/thug/diva, in a way that does not require me to prove that I have some kind of "ghetto pass," then that will be a useful discussion. Otherwise, we'll just be going in meaningless circles. My last post had one very simple point: if you argue that the only way (or even the primary way) to understand something is to belong, then you've blocked off the possibility of engagement.
...I'm not going to provide a list of street lit that "celebrates pathology" ...That's another discussion for another time--and one that could be easily satisfied by visiting your local black bookstore. Let's have one discussion at a time, instead of raising a million undeveloped points and losing one another in the process. |
Evilgoon
Newbie Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 25
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 09:07 am: |
|
Lambd, I wasn't assuming you were taking sides. In fact, "taking sides" is not an issue, as I welcome all sides. The only thing that leaves me bewildered is people's continued speculation over my status. That entire drive only leads people to pre-judge based upon group status, whereas I think the only useful form of debate is when people deal with one another as individuals. |
Evilgoon
Regular Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 26
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 09:45 am: |
|
Slight clarification for Yukio.
This statement of mine lacks finesse: "...So, assuming, as you state, that I am TOTALLY clueless about how "kids" use "thug" nowadays, I would counter that the entire insider/outsider debate (with respect to the effect that culture plays in people's lives), is one wrought with SERIOUS shortcomings." Accordingly, it led you off on a path I did not intend. The "as you state" should never have been in there -- and I can only offer my tiredness to account for it being included. It should have just read: "...So, assuming that I am TOTALLY clueless about..." Your statement was indeed that I was only "out of touch." Nevertheless, this does not change the fact you rely on the entire ingroup/outsider dymanic in order to curtail discussion. That is the crucial point -- and it is one that is not negated by whether you are implying that I'm totally clueless or only relatively so. Your argument is that I don't belong, therefore, I don't/can't understand. I've already pointed out the consequences of taking this step. |
Lambd
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Lambd
Post Number: 149
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 11:40 am: |
|
But do you understand why people want to know your status? Its not only so that they can prejudge you. It is also so that they can try and understand from what point of view your comments evolve. You see, most white people, because of social/cultural/economic/moral differences, are unable to open their minds enough to grasp the way the majority of young Blacks think. Even if it was explained to them in the simplest of terms, because of the chasm dividing the cultures, some whites still wouldn't understand. On the other hand, because we have been forced to live in this predominantly white society, most blacks presume to be fully aware of the white man's motives and reasoning. I have to assume, that if you are indeed black, I am wasting my time telling you this because you probably presume to already know. Hence the confusion on the other posters' part. If you already know, then you understand why they want to know if you are white and you would have answered the question the first time.
I hope I have thrown another handful of soil into the already muddied waters of comprehension here on this thread. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 361
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Evilgoon,
I hope that you are a teacher. Because you appear to think/write with sparkling clarity. I have enjoyed reading your every post. And, dude, your lecture on the fallacies of "CIRCULAR reasoning" with "subgroup's culture/beliefs" is so profound it should be disseminated in the university and the U.N.
But I fear you are now yourself mired in intractable "intellectual quicksand".
Cynique,
I am not trying to disagree. But can you brief explain how/why whether Evilgoon is "elitist" and/or "sinister" is relevant to this discussion.
Lambd,
I agree that goofball Jim Carey’s (mediocre) comedy routines might qualify as being a type of a sambo act (The Winans quite effectively used him ala a ‘white face’ sambo on "In Living Color".) . And I wouldn’t at all mind referring to him as such.
And, BTW, I find it odd that you all are speculating on Evilgoon's race. I am 'certifiably' Black and have witnessed nothing within his responses that discount him from being likewise.
Yukio,
Why should I be compelled to accept a newfound version of nigger yet be preempted from calling someone who acts like a sambo...a sambo? Let me ask you a question: If an African American dons "black face", bucks his eyes and ‘shines’ for a crowd of White people, wouldn’t he or she THEN be considered a sambo?
And who decides what is and isn’t appropriate for public discourse.
I am a college-educated Black male adult, husband/father, taxpayer, etc. Why am I any less eligible to use sambo as I choose than anyone else might use another racial epithet? What, am I not young or ‘down’ enuff to wield the language as freely as, say, a 17 year old denizen of the inner city? And because suburban White and Asian kids now call each other "my ‘nigga’" (or ‘niggah’, ‘nicca’, ‘nikka’, etc.) means that I should consider the word to be fully ablated of its demonic etymology?
And, AGAIN, I am amazed by how you can continue to castigate ‘using’ a word yet wholly avoid acknowledging the very ‘behavior’ that accurately ‘defines’ it.
You (and many like you) are being quite ‘convenient’ about what is and isn’t appropriate here. And it is this kind of duplicitous sophistry that cause reasonable people to be suspicious of those who would consider themselves to be intellectuals.
My young brother, I think it is time you accept that Evilgoon dun "upped dah game" 'round 'hur'. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 526
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Lambd: people often choose not to open their minds, regardless of race, because a variety of variables. As Cynique often says, black people are not monolithic. Region, class, culture, nationality, ethnicity etc…all create fissures among black people. The point I’ve been trying to make is that whatever the differences people have to be open to learn where others are coming from, regardless of race. There is a thread which talks about this…where Chrishayden, do u remember ol chap?, called Troy New York-centric. I stated the point that although African Americans or black Americans are a nation, like the continent of Africa, we are a nation with different states and tribes, etc…
Evilgoon… aka Mr. Verifiable…aka Mr. Obvious: *Good Afternoon*
You say: “If you wish to start over, and explain the inherent benefits of nigga/thug/diva, in a way that does not require me to prove that I have some kind of "ghetto pass," then that will be a useful discussion.”
Benefits? What do u mean by benefits? I’ve already addressed this when I stated: “Well, I’m not sure what you mean, however "obvious" u think it is, but the literature doesn’t reflect black people and folks don’t participate in the informal economy in order to be thugs.”
What this means is, IF you’re arguing that there are no benefits from the literature because it misrepresents black people or that it inculcates pathological values, then I say it does not represent black people at all. If people read it, it doesn’t mean they’ll go and commit a crime or begin a career in thuggery. Now, IF you just saying that u don’t like the topics, because it’s uninteresting, poorly rendered, etc…then that is fine and a question of taste.
With that out the way!
Evilgoon, I don’t care about your race. My MO has mostly been that identity doesn’t matter unless they’re relying on their identity as the primary resource for their knowledge, exchange, etc… I asked the question because it was already out there and no one had directly asked…and I did so. Straight… NO Chaser…You answered and it has not changed anything. I even stated in this very thread that your race didn’t matter.
Now, you’re setting the rules of engagement. *Smiling* I already stated that your outsider theory was wrong. You state: “Your argument is that I don't belong, therefore, I don't/can't understand. I've already pointed out the consequences of taking this step” and “My last post had one very simple point: if you argue that the only way (or even the primary way) to understand something is to belong, then you've blocked off the possibility of engagement.”
Wrong Evilgoon—that is not my argument.
The basic point is, If you want to understand someone, you should ask them the meaning of their terms, behaviors, etc…and then comment on what they say using their definitions as a means for engagement, as they should do for u… There is a give and take…This is not about belonging, but learning about and/or being open to an alternative views. Yet, you continue to impose your false interpretation on what I have said. If you are to only accept your own interpretation of what I’ve written, then we can go nowhere. There is little basis for common understanding…not much to work with…This, ironically, was the point I was making about u being “out of touch.” Again, this method is one sided with limited possibility of engagement.
You’re correct. It is not about standard English; it is about you claiming that these kids celebrate pathology when they aren’t. This is what lambd sought to clear up. But it *SEEMS* that you think that these kids during their leisure or maybe when they’re suppose to be in school are somewhere plotting a crime and then celebrating their criminality. And that their behavior is fodder for this “thug nigga fiction.” Speakin of the “thug nigga fiction” that celebrates pathology.
I’ve repetitively told you that I just want a list, so I can read the books…I’m not interested in “raising a million undeveloped points and losing one another in the process.” This is, as you like to call it, obvious*smiling* and verifiable*chuckling*:”As I stated above, I was just asking for some titles so I can read them…*smiling* Is this verifiable enough for ya: “Also, provide titles of lit. that "celebrate pathology"....”?”
Don’t be so defensive about your identity. You assume way too much about my intensions. I’m not trying to give u “culture lectures.” Amiri Baraka was a footnote. Verifiable evidence for my position.
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 527
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:57 pm: |
|
abm: We've already went throug this, ol' boy.
You ask:If an African American dons "black face", bucks his eyes and ‘shines’ for a crowd of White people, wouldn’t he or she THEN be considered a sambo?
It depends on the behavior:
If he's in character as bamboozle, spike's flick, showed, then Yes he is a sambo. He is playing the part...he is purposely behaviorin in such a way to convince the crowd, audience, consumer that these his behavior is inherent to black people.
But if he is a rapper who is selling himself as a thug(like 50 cent)for the consumer market, whose behavior you may not like because you feel it misrepresents you and/or parodies the race, then, it *SEEMS*, it is a self-defensive alarm, which stems from the internalization of the view that negative behaviors or ideas that some blacks have and hold is reflective of the "race." If this is the case, then I would say that he is not a sambo, but a person who represents himself and people who do what he does...
I used to call Wayne Brady a sambo. He was/is on that show(carrey) where he sings, dances, and does hip hop for white folk. I've changed my position, however. He is Wayne Brady; he doesn't reflect black people; he reflects Wayne Brady...there it is!
This is my way for taking black people's humanity for granted. I USED to kick black folk out the Black Team because they didn't where black throw backs. I called them sambos, sell outs, etc... I'm still part of the Black Team, but I'm simultaneously on many other teams, and sometimes they don't all agree or meet...and this is fine with me.
This is similar to what thumper said concerning black slaveholders: That our history is full of the good, the bad, and the ugly, like all groups.
Some black folk are criminals others community leaders, some illiterate others possess graduate and professional degrees, some republicans some democrats, independent, etc....some black folk listen to classical music others listen to calypso...most of us, like the three dimensional characters we like to read, are many of these things. |
Lambd
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Lambd
Post Number: 151
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 01:05 pm: |
|
I, like Yukio and Abm, could care less if you are white. I was merely trying to explain why some of the posters were asking. Again, it is not necessarily to prejudge you, but to understand where some of your thinking is coming from based on what they can assume is your background. You would be surprised that I agree with some of what you are saying. However, being secretive about your race in the beginning was only drawing more doubt to your credibility. It will have given some people a reason (in their own minds) to discount some of what you were saying. i.e. "of course he's going to say that, he's white." |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 528
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 01:09 pm: |
|
abm: i haven't castigated a 'word,' but its usage. You should use the word as u wish. You're a grown azz man, as Cedric the Enta tainer would say *smiling*
Put anotha way, if you as a middle aged black man called a 17 year black youth a nigger then you'd get jumped! It is not the word, which would start the fight but the usage, but u know this ol' chap! Your "blackness" would not save u...all i'm talking about is code-switching! |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 637
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 01:26 pm: |
|
Abm, in answer to your question. As I explained to evilgoon; I referred to him as an "elitist" because his obvious intellect sets him apart from the "masses." I further explained that the title "evilgoon" conjured up a certain sinister image, whether intentional or not. These were simple observations. Are they relevant? Maybe not. But, then, relevancy doesn't seem to be a requisite in this discussion. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 532
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 01:35 pm: |
|
cynique: hahaha....i love your tone(even if it may be a stab at the one and only). You say so little, but your tone is thunderous! Speaking of what is "literary"....there it is! |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 639
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 01:38 pm: |
|
I love you, too, Yukio, baby. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 363
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 03:03 pm: |
|
Yukio,
You say to me: "We've already went throug this, ol' boy.". Yet it is YOU, more than anyone else, have kept this posse ridin’, Tonto. Dawg, the only reason I have re-engaged this subject is out of utter astonishment of how deeply you have continued to sink your teeth into this subject.
Thanks. That Bamboozle vs. 50-Cent comparison was a succinct response to my question. I am not sure I buy the distinction you make between the 2 subject matter. But, for now, I shall attempt to build from atop your own sentiment. So, based on your own words, if 50-Cents and others of his thug-ilk ARE in fact putting on act for the pleasure of White people (which I would argue many are), couldn’t they TOO be consider sambos?
How Wayne Brady of ALL people was ingratiated into this discussion alludes me. But...ok. I don’t think Brady is a sambo because he is not affecting or exaggerating any racial stereotypes to garner the favor of Whites. I just find him to be a modestly talented (yet bland) Black entertainer who just happens to enjoy a White fan base.
And on behalf of Evilgoon:
Wasn’t it YOU who asked whether Evilgoon was white? Why would you ask that question if you did not find that to be relevant to this discussion (or to be, as aptly described by Evilgoon, a overt and unfair attempt to use irrelevant details about someone to bias/disqualify their thoughts/words)? And others have asked about or alluded to the same issue. So now how can you in good conscience accuse the man of being "defensive" of something that YOU helped engender?
Editorial Note:
ABM said: "...continue to castigate ‘using’ a word..."
Yukio said: "i haven't castigated a 'word,' but its usage."
Dude, how do we differ?
And man I ain’t kicking NOBODY from off some mythical "Black Team" simply because they engage in something that I might disagree with. I’m just calling things as I see them.
Cynique,
Thanks for the clarification. Again, I didn’t intend to disagree...only understand. Now, you can continue to make-out with Yukio if you like. |
Evilgoon
Regular Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 27
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 04:12 pm: |
|
*Smiling* (And smiling still just means that I'm smiling, Yukio. In all instances, because I'm amused.) ...Let's assume for a moment that you did not make the "you don't belong/can't understand argument." Let's put that behind us. In all instances, all I can do is take people at their word. Either way, just looking at our discussions, it's obvious that we're arguing on parallel but incongruous paths. Consider this (and this will also address some of Lambd's statements about identity): If your mother calls you a fat pig, you might interpret it differently than if I or a stranger called you a fat pig. This, again, is common sense, and this is what I think you were trying to get to, Yukio, when you talked about the slipperiness of language, or however you referred to it. That's all fine and good; but to me, that is a minor point, because it does not get to the issue central to me: if you're actually a fat pig or not (figuratively speaking, of course *Smiling*). In fact, let me take this further. I argue that this is a universal truth: if X is true, it is true regardless of who says it. There is no universal truth that when said by a black person is true but when said by a white person is false. (I can use absolute phrases here because, as I've stated this is a universal truth.) That, to me, is why the entire "black person saying nigger is fine but white person saying it is not fine" arguement seems suspect to me. People can interpret it differently and argue on EMOTIONAL/CULTURAL grounds that it's fine, but they cannot make that argument on LOGICAL grounds; because, again, if X is true, it is ALWAYS true. Culture and emotions mitigate logic all the time, but if we're going to argue on logical grounds, then let us state things as they are, and refrain from emotional arguments. Similarly, during my time on this forum, I've made no attempts to find out personal information about any of you guys -- not because of haughtiness, but because it is not relevant to me. If you say X, and it's true, or seems true to me, then that's all that matters. I don't care about any aspects of your personal lives -- age, race, sex, sexual preference, occupation; I don't need to know "where you're coming from;" I don't need to have some primer, so that what you're saying can make sense. Yukio, I categorically disagree with you on this point: The presumption of needing to know more information about someone so that you can interpret his or her motives has a kind of prima facie logic, but it's a dead end. If even TALKING to someone requires some kind of primer, then what really is the point of pretending to talk? Maybe what differentiates us is that people's motives and intentions and psychological states are just about the least important thing to me when I talk to them. All that matters is the validity of their arguments. At the very least, this is my ideal, and I try to stick to it. The well-intentioned can screw you over just as easily as those with more sinister motives; the well-intentioned can reason just as badly as the bad-intentioned. It's the actions -- or the logic behind the arguments -- that's relevant to me.
While I'm on universal truths, it is also important to differentiate personal preferences from truths (because you have taken some of the things I've stated as truths as preferences). Stating, "Richard Wright is a better author than (insert modern author here)" is a personal preference. Stating, "Richard Wright wrote a polemic about race and class in America" is a fact/truth. Stating "Wright's polemic presents a different depiction of black poverty and deviance than today's 'street fiction,' and this development has consequences for the society" is a fact. Indeed, even while my saying that it has NEGATIVE consequences may cross the line into preference, there are so many verifiable facts laden within the statement that it would be a worthwhile debate. A statement like "Street lit is stupid" is not a statement that I would make. Such a statement is not interesting to me, because it does not get at anything. However, stating, "Street lit celebrates pathology" is a statement I would make, because you can look through it and make your points. Is it a universal truth? Of course not, but it's an interesting polemic, and that's why I'm on this site.
Lastly, when you make a statement like this, the implication is that I've ever argued for something otherwise: "The basic point is, If you want to understand someone, you should ask them the meaning of their terms, behaviors, etc…and then comment on what they say using their definitions as a means for engagement, as they should do for u… There is a give and take…" Have you been reading any of my arguments on engagement? The logic of your post is that I don't account for any "give and take"; that I don't ask them to define their terms. Again, where are you getting these assumptions from? In response to this, don't, as you tend to do, have a quote from me with a cryptic interpretation: point out somewhere where I explicitly state these things. I think I've been explicit to the point of overdoing it in this forum. As such, please, no more cryptic interpretations of my intentions/motives.
...And on a side note, I'm glad that I was able to influence your writing style, so that you now have things like "*Laughing* and *Smiling*" within your text. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 534
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 04:15 pm: |
|
abm: I didn't start this again. Evilgoon returned to the board and addressed me: June 15th. Before this, you and I had parted ways: June 5th.
In other words, after June 5th, you and I have not engaged in this altered discussion. As Evilgoon as suggested, this recent discourse is not really about the geneology of sambo but "celebrating pathology" "thug nigga fiction."
Concerning your question about 50 cents. If he is purposely putting on an act for white people, and this is the distinction, to suggest that his behavior is intrinsic to black people, YES, he is a sambo as it is historically understood. It is not the act, itself, but the notion that the act is inherently black.
Yes, I asked the question if Evilgoon was white, but as I stated above, The question was already out in cyberspace. Reread A_Womon's post on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 06:23 pm to You and and the sagaciously curt cynique.
Editorial NOte: This is a question of language. We differ because of usage. The word "sambo" is a sign for the notion(signified/meaning) that blacks are inherently simian simpletons. Now, my point is if the usage is different, ie as lambd suggests where it pertains to anyone who behaves like a simian simpleton like Jim Carey and it is not inherent to black people, then the word would have a different connotation/meaning. This is what my earlier posts stated along with other points. This is in part my intrusion into structuralism and poststructuralism...IF interested see:http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/struct.html and http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1derrida.html
Finally, I wasn't saying that you were kickin folk out the "Black Team." I was talking about myself and how I used hold black people to a standard that no one can meet and no group is ever asked to meet except if they are the oppressed, subordinated group. I was giving u and the forum my individual background and framework...
Here is more: I would call a black republican an oximoron; people who didn't embrace africans, afro-caribbeans(french, british, spanish, danish, portugues) self-haters. People who were not down for the ambiguous "masses" bourgie sell outs, and finally people who dated white folk sell outs and self-haters.
I was a romantic pan Africanist. I'm still a pan Africanist but the romance has gone. The basic lesson, as I see it, was that while we are all black, but we are humans first...who do bad and good and hold a variety of political perspectives that shouldn't change one's blackness...though it certainly doesn't mean that I agree, but I don't allow the disagree, as I'm suggesting, to kick one off of the team. Of course, belonging to the team doesn't make them my brother, of course....u can be on the black team and be cut too...I'll cut clarence thomas and bro "colon," as amiri calls him, though i know i need to be careful with a trained warrior! |
Evilgoon
Regular Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 28
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 04:17 pm: |
|
Lambd, I appreciate your comments always. I even appreciate A_Womon's, and she thinks I'm a phony. *Laughing* ABM, I will try to avoid intellectual quicksand, but the most useful thing about debate is that others point out your intellectual shortcomings when they see them, so let me know if you see any and I'll be appreciative of your efforts. |
Evilgoon
Regular Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 29
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 04:39 pm: |
|
Yukio, not to pick on you, but I'm sitting here chuckling as I read your explanation of why you asked if I was white. You went out of your way to ask my race: you cannot then say that it never mattered to you. At the very least, you cannot use "the devil made me do it" argument and point to the fact that others had put it out there in cyberspace. As I'm sure your mama used to say, if someone jumped off a bridge, would you jump in after him? YOU took that step; YOU asked if I was white, so either own it if you think it was a good move, or denounciate it if you have now come to the conclusion that it was a silly move. Fumbling around with your, "I really didn't want to ask, and don't really care, but it was already out there" response only makes you look stubborn on a minor point. If you can't own something this minor, then an honest debate with you will be a struggle. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 535
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 04:47 pm: |
|
evilgoon: Again you impose your interpretation. You are still telling me what I meant and have argued, and I'm still telling u you're wrong. Interesting*smile*
You have too much faith in logic and empiricism. You seem to use logic for the sake of logic.
When dealing with questions of empiricism, you should attempt to have a clear understanding of all of the variables. Without such, the use of logic still renders an incomplete examination.
I'm not talking about motives. The basic differneces between us is that I don't assume that words are verifiable. I need to ask, for my definition(s) could be wrong. As I suggested to abm, it is about usage.
Your analogy to my post and being a fat pig is all wrong. We just disagree. I don't think these kids celebrate pathology and you do; its that simple.
Hmmmm...does streetlit celebrate pathology, as I've asked u, give me a list(two), so I can check it out...and i'll get back to ya!
Also, do u account for give and take? If you choose to define other people when they can defines themselves and do so, and u reject it solely because think they are wrong rather than appreciating they're notion, integrating it into your thought process and still thinking they're wrong, is not give and take...The act of talking to them is neither "give and take" nor engagment.
No Evilgoon: My style of writing, if u claim *smiling* is smiling, is closer to Thumper's "eye brows raised"...I believe in tone, simile, metaphors, irony, and hyperbole in prose(fiction and non-fiction). |
Evilgoon
Regular Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 30
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 05:01 pm: |
|
Hmm...you really think that my post (mis)interprets your arguments, Yukio? Can you be explicit please. Also, grammar aside, I didn't understand this at all: "If you choose to define other people when they can defines themselves and do so, and u reject it solely because think they are wrong rather than appreciating they're notion, integrating it into your thought process and still thinking they're wrong, is not give and take...The act of talking to them is neither "give and take" nor engagment. " Please clarify. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 536
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 05:04 pm: |
|
evilgoon:
Fumble along: It is "verifiable" what i have written or is it not? It is YOUR choice to accept what i say OR what YOU think my statement makes me look like. But choosing the latter is not a "TRUTH," as your relative language suggests.
I went out my way...? Really? It was the last line on the post...it was already in the air, and I've only mentioned it when u have brought it up, which has been CONSTANTLY. You wrongly assumed that it had anything to do my post and have persistently inserted it in most of your posts as a foil for your outside theory and belonging syllogism. It seems to have affected your responses not mine *smiling*.
|
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 537
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 05:19 pm: |
|
evilgoon: Yes. Read my post for the past 2 days above.
Grammar--there u go--You could edit it yourself, but I'll bite:
It means that people can define themselves; if you impose your ideas on these people, and reject how they define themselves without consideration of the integrity of their right to define themselves, then your behavior will often preclude engagement and "give and take."
Ironically, you asked me if I think that U (mis)interpret my argument. What u have asked me to clarify is the SAME point I've been making in different ways for the past 2 days*chuckling*. What have u been responding to? Perhaps it has been my grammar the entire time...that is indeed possible *smiling*. |
Evilgoon
Regular Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 31
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 05:22 pm: |
|
Yukio, if you think that either your reasoning (on why you asked about my race) or your subsequent arguments about why you did it, is logically sound, then there is nothing I can say. Verifiability -- the fact that you can look through these posts and see other people's interest in who I am -- does not mitigate the fact that it was you who asked, and you who initiated this. Anyway, enough of that... |
Evilgoon
Regular Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 32
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 05:34 pm: |
|
Yukio, don't interpret my request for clarity as a snub on your intelligence. I'll be willing to bet that few others in this forum understood that paragraph.
...I can't disagree with your re-interpreted paragraph. I would point out, as I've done several times, that the dynamics you describe don't refelect me and how I go about "engagement" but I don't think that doing so again would be useful at this late point. So, thanks for your time. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 640
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 05:43 pm: |
|
Detroit Piston, Ben Wallace, - he of the big thick Afro was quoted as saying that because he was tired of people calling him "Buckwheat", he started wearing his hair in braids when he went on the road. But back in Detroit, some white fans emulated him by wearing Afro wigs. Could Buckwheat be a hip-hop Sambo? |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 539
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 05:44 pm: |
|
evilgoon: like i said, you have too much faith in logic...
U can neither accurately verify my intent nor my ideas unless I explain them to you. Phew, I've made the same point, again...
Perhaps, you're a mindreader?
Finally, again, give me at least 2 "celebrating pathology" "thug nigga fiction" novels, so we can discuss the merits of street literature. You argued that SOME of the literature is a reflection of the black communty celebrating pathology. I disagree with your characterization of the black community, stating that these folk are not celebrating pathology...so lets go to the videotape( ala sportsmachine george michaels)...oops! I mean lets go to the fiction *chuckling*. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 540
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 05:59 pm: |
|
cynique: I don't agree with the buckwheat thing... I thought ben wallace's fro was just what some kids are doing today--they have very little cultural connection to buckwheat. Again, to them it is justing a hair style that is "in" ...every generation has clothes, hairstyles, etc...that mean something different than the generation before.
Even when it is visually the same...this has been my point all along...of course, not all people internalize what their generation embraces...many internalize their parents' generational views(thank god all did not do this during the civil rights movement); in other cases, you have parents or older adults who can appreciate some of the younger generations' culture...this is how I would characterize abm and chrishayden and myself to some degrees... as I stated, I don't agree with everything in hip hop culture and of course there is diversity within hip hop...at any rate, it is unfortunate that Wallace's was a victim of his own innocence and others malice.
|
Evilgoon
Regular Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 33
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 06:08 pm: |
|
Yukio, let me be perfectly frank. When someone implies that logic should not have to apply to his or her beliefs/statements/etc. it makes me less inclined to open up a debate with him or her. Like everything, logic has its drawbacks, but without some standards, we'll merely be talking past one another.
Still, I will take you up on your offer for a discussion on "literature celebrating pathology" in my own fashion. I am loth to list books/authors that I think are "bad" -- as I would always prefer to talk about that which is good than that which is bad. Besides which, I've met and conversed with (and KNOW) a few of the authors that I might be tempted to put on any "bad" list; and as going behind anyone's back in that manner is not my style, let me propose this: there is an award-winning novel by Percival Everett called Erasure, which deals with many of the points (the nature of black lit, purposefully derogatory black lit, etc.) which I would bring up. I've talked to the author about it several times, and I think it would be an interesting novel for you to read -- and for our discussion to center around. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 541
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 07:02 pm: |
|
evilgoon: I never implied:"that logic should not have to apply to his or her beliefs/statements/etc."
I stated: "You have too much faith in logic and empiricism. You seem to use logic for the sake of logic.
When dealing with questions of empiricism, you should attempt to have a clear understanding of all of the variables. Without such, the use of logic still renders an incomplete examination."
I'll adjust this statement: You should have a clear understanding of as many variables as possible...my point is that logic useful, but only to the extent that as many variables as posible are considered...especially in literature.
One can enjoy TM's Song of Solomon and use their logic to make conclusions, but if they don't understand the flying african motif in black culture or the symbolism of the absence of pilate's navel, then their examination of the novel will be incomplete(perhaps incomplete is too strong a word?).
Ok. I've read Erasure...good book. One of my favorites. So start a thread explaining its relevance as you see it to our recent exchange. And I'll retrieve it from a friend i've loaned it to, and we can begin... |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 641
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 09:22 pm: |
|
Well, Yukio, Ben Wallace knew enough about Buckwheat to be insulted when people called him that. And I wasn't aware that the hair style he is sportin is "in". I haven't seen any other black celebrities wearing their hair that way. |
Evilgoon
Regular Poster
Username: Evilgoon
Post Number: 34
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 07:09 am: |
|
Yukio, let me try to make this quick, as I have a train to catch. First you say that I use logic for the sake of logic (whatever that means). I would argue that it is only logic that allows us to understand one another, and to communicate with one another. Discussion without logic is like language with no grammar: all there will be is disconnected words. ...Anyway, from your "logic for the sake of logic" comment, you then used a literature analogy to try to show the limits of logic. Here is how you started out: "...my point is that logic (is) useful, but only to the extent that as many variables as posible are considered...especially in literature. " Beyond the fact that I don't know what "as many variables as possible" means (or how logic tends to block "variables" from discussion) I think your very notion of logic within literature is flawed. (And I'm not saying this to be insulting, but to point out one of those places where our views diverge.) In short, even the most whimsical story MUST have a logic to it, or else it will be incomprehensible. This holds true whether the author is as abstract as Toni Morrison or a member of the realist school, like Richard Wright. A novel is essentially a logical puzzle, which, when solved will make sense -- and be emotionally fulfilling. Don't allow yourself to think otherwise. An illogical novel is an UNREADABLE novel; even the most unexpected occurrence within a novel must hold to the logic of the novel -- EVEN IF IT DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! Without logic, there is no art: there is only confusion and chaos. (I think this is a universal statement.) Similarly, a debate where someone professes that he can disregard logic when it suits him, will be a chaotic, incomprehensible debate. It is pointless to debate someone who holds for himself the privilege of discarding logic when it suits him. That would be like a novel which starts out using realism, then sudden switches into fantasy or science fiction. Using logic is merely a way of ensuring that one's ideas will be understood -- CAN be understood, in fact. Debates where logic can be abrogated, invariably devolve into religious debates where, as soon as you begin to wear away at the opposing argument, he counters that the reason you can't understand is because you are too bound by reason: DON'T HAVE FAITH. I never have religious debates if I can help it. I find them tedious. So, before we start a new thread, just let me know beforehand if you'll be relying on anymore of this dialectical mysticism to make your arguments. [Dialectic Mysticism: coming at the truth through mystical (as opposed to logically developed) means.] Despite the length of my posts, my time is limited, and continuing such debates would only be a waste of your time and mine. Now, please don't see this as an insult: how you choose to debate is your own business and your own right. I'm just letting you know my position upfront. |
Lambd
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Lambd
Post Number: 155
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 07:40 am: |
|
Cynique, I don't think that Yukio meant it was "in" like that. I think,(and I'm guessing), he meant that sports enthusiasts would copy it by buying the wigs for sporting events. Whether they were fans of Big Ben, or because they were trying to make fun doesn't matter. The big hair was meant to represent Ben Wallace. When someone described it as 'Buckwheat', Big Ben took offense because...well,...wouldn't you? I think to most of us it would be a very derogatory statement. Also, you would be surprised to know that even though that hairstyle isn't exactly 'in', it is quite popular in the urban areas among youth that sport the longer braids now. When they let their hair out to breathe, it's real big. Reminiscent of 'Buckwheat'.
To answer your question about Buckwheat and Sambo. I think Buckwheat could be considered a modern day Sambo. Between the little rascals and Eddie Murphy's Saturday Night Live interpretation, our youth sort of missed the point on this one. The 'Our Gang' Buckwheat has to be excused. Eddie Murphy could be excused, too. It depends on how you take it. I would take it as tongue-in-cheek satire. Someone else will undoubtedly say, "Look at him. Shinnin' and grinnin' for white folk! He out to be whupped!" |
Lambd
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Lambd
Post Number: 156
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 07:52 am: |
|
Before you ask, the reason the 'Our Gang' Buckwheat should be excused is that he was a child. Holding him accountable for something he did when he was a child is crazy. However, if he were trying to argue today, that what he did back then was some meaningful work of art that deserves a humanitarian or 'lifetime achievement award', that would be even crazier. Or if Buckwheat was sincerely trying to continue his act after he got older. Right on through the time when the majority of colored folks were starting to stand up for their dignity. Then Buckwheat would have been a real 'Sambo'. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 645
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 10:58 am: |
|
I would certainly agree,Lambd, that Buckwheat was a product of his times. He was in a category with Stephin Fetchit. These 2 are stereotypes who the black theater community has long-ago excused because they did actually open the doors for others.
As for Ben Wallace - he's a strong, black warrior, so I'll let him be. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 547
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 12:20 pm: |
|
"What iz we gon do?"
Cedric the Entertainer
Evilgoon, you are an illogical fellow *smiling*. How can u write so much when u declare that YOU don't know what I MEAN? Is that logical? Yet, we have a Treatise on Logic *eye brows raised*
You are a better object of analysis than my example(not analogy) of song of solomon, which u never addressed.
Ok. Lets return to song of solomon:
I suggested that one can get the plot of the novel, but one could not get the "story" or the subtext without understanding the symbolism of Pilate not having a navel or flight as a motif in black history, mythology and mysticism.
This is why using a dictionary is insufficient to understand the cultural profundity of the Iliad. You can get the plot, but not a fuller sense of the story...
Evilgoon, at no point have I said that i don't use logic or that logic is unnecessary or that literature is w/o logic. I only suggested that u need to "verify" the terms prior to making a conclusion, which u didn't do *eye brows raised*
Anyways, this is uninteresting...lets talk about Erasure. So start a thread and relate it to fiction celebrating pathology...u seem to have an insider's analysis, but i'm up to it... |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 548
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 12:21 pm: |
|
cynique: lambd's interpretation of my post was on point...thanks L! |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 549
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 12:28 pm: |
|
cynique: lets reread song of solomon together!
All:
Of course, anyone is welcome, but I know Cynique likes TM and particulary SOS.... |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 365
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 01:12 pm: |
|
Am I the only one who is beginning to think that Evilgoon and Yukio are long-lost identical twins who were separated at birth. I can't help but visualize that EG was adopted by rich folks who resided in the Hamptons while Yukio was raised in 'the Bronx'. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 366
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 01:28 pm: |
|
You know, sometimes us Black foks have got to lighten up a bit. Fans of Detroit's opponents were not trying to demean Wallace. They did the "Buckwheat" thing because he's a damn good player and were trying to distract him so that he wouldn't kick their team tail.
And, I don't know why, but I have never found "Buckwheat" to be a particularly offensive character. I actually found him to be quite endearing kid. And he never appeared to be presented as if he were inferior to the white kids on the Little Rascals. So what if his fro was a little screwy. For Heaven Sakes...he was a kid!
And I think Murphy's "Buckwheat" rendition actually did more to enhance, not demean, the character. And I defy you to cite anything that you have seen on TV that was funnier than that SNL skit where "Buckwheat" gets shot (save, perhaps, Murphy's SNL James Brown Hot Tub bit.)
Of all the Little Rascals, the one who was most screwed over was that hapless kid who portrayed Alfalfa. |
Lambd
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Lambd
Post Number: 158
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 01:58 pm: |
|
Abm, I think some of what you say coincides with what I meant, only you say what I mean better...but you still a strange dude. |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 550
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 02:36 pm: |
|
abM: I'll go with the hot tub skit...
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 371
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 03:20 pm: |
|
Lambd,
I can't quite determine whether you want to 'kick'...or 'kiss'...my @$$. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 646
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 04:03 pm: |
|
The fact remains that as lovable as Buckwheat was, he was a guiless boy, a stereotype no grown black man should be compared to. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 647
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 04:09 pm: |
|
Yukio, ain't this the wrong juncture to suggest re-reading "Song of Solomon?" "Black Chick-Lit" was the original subject of this thread. LOL |
Yukio
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 553
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 04:29 pm: |
|
cynique: My dearest, if you agree, I would start another thread. |
Carey
Regular Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 45
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 11:42 pm: |
|
Amen!......James Brown in the hot tub.....man! |
Lambd
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Lambd
Post Number: 160
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 04:38 pm: |
|
cynique, none of these threads stay on point.LOL!
Abm: You chose and get back to me. I admire your intellect and your wit so if kiss your ass is what I must do, then bend over my good man. However, if you get out of line and I must kick your ass, then bend over, my good man. |
|
Email This Page