Dr. Laura Schlessinger and The Dreaded N-word

I'm sure you've heard all about it, but just in case you haven't, here's a quick recap.

Recently, radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger addressed a call from a faithful listener that led to a heated, rather one sided dicussion of race, hypersensitivity among African Americans as relates to race, and the dreaded N-word and its derivations.

(If you want to hear the dialogue for yourself, this blog has both audio clips and a transcript of the conversation: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008120045 )

The caller was a Black woman who was married to a White man. She called in to discuss how displeased she was with how her spouse would handle some of the racially charged questioning she would endure when near her White family members and how she felt she was being attacked. Dr. Laura then goes on to minimize the caller's feelings, to call her and many other Black Americans "hypersensitive" and "lacking a sense of humor" as relates to certain comments and stereotypes about Blacks. And really at this point, she was fine with most listeners though approaching the point where many Blacks are thinking "I... I kinda wanna fight this wench."

Then came the N-word.

CALLER: How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around --

SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is "nigger, nigger,nigger." ...I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate. It's very confusing.

Shortly thereafter, the caller, who is clearly in "HEY! THAT'S RACIST!" mode is now clearly offended and Dr. Laura, as so many whites with airtime do when in a racial situation, digs herself in a bigger hole by repeating the word nigger enough times to be considered Kramer's comedic assistant.

As you can imagine, it didn't go over well.

In the fallout following this particular call, Dr. Laura Schlessinger apologized for her use of nigger and, subsequently, resignated from her post as radio talk show host and her contract was cancelled (or some stuff like that). In this time, numerous people - mostly Blacks - have had to revisit the age old topic of the use of the term nigger and its derivations, who should use it (if anyone), and why it pisses people off so much when Whites use the term.

...I mean, if there were ever a great topic for discussion, this is it!

1) Should we still be using the N-word?

This is the most pressing question that needs to be addressed, so I made it first. Obviously.

And the short answer to this question? No, we shouldn't.

Do you remember when you were young and limited by what things you could and couldn't say to or around your parents? Do you remember what would happen if some obscenity or some otherwise deemed inappropriate word was said in their presence? Some parents went as far as to wash their children's mouths out with soap (which is a little...special, in my opinion) with the point being that what was said was bad and inappropriate should not be said, right? Fast forward to now, where many of us and our peers have children that we're trying to raise to be decent, contributing, functional members of society. With our understanding that the parents are often the most influential people in a child's life (at least until the time they start watching BET), we make the very conscious effort to watch our language in the company of young children, hoping not to create in their minds the idea that using such otherwise forbidden words is ok, namely because you don't want to be embarrassed when you're out with company and your frustrated child says "FUCK!" at the top of his lungs.

...aaaaaaawkwaaaaaaaaard!

So, of course, when this does happpen, you reprimand your child (also known as "beat that ass") and educate them that there are certain words that are inappropriate to say, such as curse words.

Would you want your child to say the N-word in front of company? Most of you would answer "no." The natural follow-up question then is: Why would you use the word if you didn't want your children to? Anyone with children or younger siblings will tell you that children are masterful imitators of what they see and hear and not always what they are told. The point inherent in your avoidance in using the term in their presence is, obviously, that the term is bad and shouldn't be used. If you wouldn't want your offspring, your physical, living legacies to use a word that has such a connotation that they could be punished for merely uttering such in your presence, why on earth would you use it yourself? Would you smoke in front of your children and tell them not to? Get drunk in front of them and say don't drink? I can't speak for you all, but I duckin HATED it when my parents would tell me not to do something and then do it right in front of me. It made me wonder what the hell was so special about them that I couldn't use the word if I wanted to.

Speaking of being jealous that you can't use a word...

2) Should we be mad when White - or any other - people use the word?

Now, there's sooooo much that can be said in response to this question, so I won't be able to touch on it all. But it's yet another damned good question that should be answered. Should you be upset with Randolph lets the word "nigger" slip from his lips in regards to the dancing buffoon with sagging jeans and a Lebron James jersey on who bumps into him while dancing on the subway? I mean, were YOU thinking "That n____ over there dancing on the subway with a jersey on is a n____"? So why be upset when they use it, especially if you're inclined to agree?

Oh... I see. You want to know why White people feel this need to use the word to begin with. Gotcha
I will admit. It is rather funny to hear [some] white people complain about how they aren't "allowed" to use this word. You've enslaved several races and oppressed them beyond imagination and have a hand in every profitable thing in existence and are the leaders and owners and designers of just about everything around us... but you pitch a fit about being unable to have a little "nigger" in the morning with your coffee and your New York Times, ha? Interesting.

All silliness aside, it's no wonder others want to use it. Just like every other taboo or unhealthy practice you can think of, when you've been told you shouldn't do something, human nature is just designed in a way to make you want to do it even more and get an even bigger rush from doing it. Don't act like it's a brand new phenomenon. Whether it was sneaking out your house, or talking on the phone after 11pm, or taking a sip of beer or wine or bourbon from your dad's bottle in the fridge when you were 16 or 17 without his knowing, or, hell, we can go back to GENESIS where that gotdamn woman ate off that gotdamn tree that she KNEW she wasn't supposed to and got this whole ball of Hell rolling, people LOVE doing what they're told they shouldn't. Why should White people be the exception? You want to ensure something is done? Tell someone they can't do it and follow up "Why not?" with some poorly conceived explanation about owning Blackness and whatever whatever, since we've already established it was a bad word anyway...

3) Should the N-word still have so much power?

I hear this question a lot. And I think it's kinda stupid to debate, personally, but I'm sure someone will want to so I'm including it on the list.

Debating words meanings are pointless because the significance of EVERY word is decided upon by the people and forever holds its given power. The word "love" is just that as well - a word. But what makes "love" significant isn't the four letters in said sequence but the idea that the word represents. The same applies for "nigger." And whether you want to admit it or not, you know what the word "nigger" implies. You just don't want to accept it. And that's where the failure is. Besides, if we begin to remove the meaning from one word, what's to stop us from removing the meaning from other words? Or hell, from all words? I mean, as a man, that'd be great because then we'd be justified in not paying attention to whatever women say since nothing from their mouths would have meaning.

Damn... That's a good idea!

Final Thought:

I'll leave you with a story and a quote that came to mind when I heard this debate initially.

In her conversation with Dave Chappelle regarding the use of "the n-word," Dr. Maya Angelou offered him this thought:

"I perceive that a word is a thing. It is nonvisible and audible only for the time that it's there. It hangs in the air. But I believe it goes into the upholstery and into the rugs and into my hair, into my clothes, and finally even into my body. I look at the word, the 'n-word,' which I really have no oblige to call it that, because it was created to divest people of their humanity. Now when I see a bottle come from the pharmacy, it says p-o-i-s-o-n. And then there's skull and bones. Then I know that the content of that thing - the bottle is nothing - but the content is poison. If I pour that content into Bavarian crystal... it is still poison."

Richard Pryor, while in New Orleans, explains a night in Africa where something, "a voice" he called it, got him to change his mind on the use of the N-word. I'd type out the text, but I really think it has more power if you hear him and see the seriousness in his face and in his voice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rThK85uXFMw

Two people with two very different outlooks on life - and language, for sure - came to the same conclusion on the word's usage - that it SHOULDN'T be used by anyone. Hell, even Paul Mooney, who claimed he used to say "nigger" 50 times each morning to keep his teeth white, has stopped using the term in light of Kramer's blast a few years back. And I'm inclined to agree with them all. Fact is, the mirror is often a painful reminder of how far we all have to go as a people and as conscientious adults, and the use of the n-word by whites is a constant reminder that, basically, many of us are still messin up. I'm not mad at Dr. Laura. She's human, just like the rest of us, and she wants to fulfill that urge to tap into the taboo like anyone else would. The bottom line: No matter how it's packaged, no matter who says it, "nigger" and its dressed up derivatives is still a very ugly, dangerous word. And for good reason, given its origin. It's best left alone. Don't try to justify it. Don't try to dress it up. Just... don't. It's better in the end.

And when you see that Black person again on the subway, or in the street, or wherever they are, doing something that brings the N-word to the tip of your tongue, why not just call them what they are?

Ignorant.

Female Friends, Friends “by Default,” and Healing A [Woman’s] Broken Heart

There are two questions that women often ask men that always make me laugh whenever I’m close enough to hear it being posed:

(1) Do you have a girlfriend?

(2) Who is (insert unknown woman’s name)?

I won’t be addressing the former at this time (although the responses I’ve heard to it are HI-LARIOUS!). Instead, I will focus on the latter question and some of the underlying issues posed both directly and indirectly.

In my experience, the question of identification occurs most often when a woman who is already fairly interested in you is uncertain of some particular woman about whom I had not spoken (else she obviously wouldn’t have to ask). What I find even more particularly interesting is the set of answers that I and other men have come up with to answer this question.

“Oh, that’s my homegirl.”

How many of you gentlemen have said such? How many of you ladies have heard such from a gentleman? Well, if you have, then you should inquire much more about said interaction. In a past conversation, a young lady pointed out to me that men tend to use the term “home girl” to describe a woman with whom they are seemingly plutonic friends BUT have either (a) already had sex or (b) have tried to have sex but it fell through for some reason they don’t likely want to discuss readily. In analyzing the usage of the term in my own life, I’d have to say that ish was pretty damn accurate. The home girl is often the “friend” that probably could have or should have been the significant other but ultimately wasn’t for some reason that likely has a rather elaborate story that may just lead you to question the boundaries of that friendship, especially if they still talk or hangout alone.

“Oh, she’s like my little sister.”

Ok, so I have several “little sisters” but they’re all legit. One is my blood sister, whom I love muy mucho. The others are the sisters of my ace boon coons whom I have adopted as my own as well (although there is one in particular that I adopted begrudgingly because she’s pretty gotdamn fine…and I’m sure it’s not hard to figure out if you know my MC circle).  Beyond that, I don’t find too many other situations where “little sister” is someone safe from getting smashed. “Little sister” is, as the adjective suggests, often someone younger for whom they may provide “brotherly” services, such as school tips, life guidance, and the occasional trip to the liquor store if they’re underaged. The problem with this title is that most guys are extremely shallow, likely much more effed up than most ladies could ever conceive. We’re not going to adopt some Aflac-ass geezer as family. Hell naw. We’re adopting the sexy ass younger chicks as “little sisters” with hopes of either getting with their young friends or even being incestuous and getting with little sister ourselves.

This is the deal. Handle accordingly.

“Oh, we’re just friends.”

I can’t speak on this too specifically because it’s just plain too broad. You need to ask more follow-up questions to get a more detailed history. Chances are, she’ll either be a REAL friend who he hasn’t tried to smash or she’ll fit into one of the other two categories, which have already been addressed.

Since I am writing my stream of thoughts, I feel it necessary to share with you all a thought that’s really been running around in my mind pretty frequently as of late. If you’ve read any significant amount of my works, you know quite well that I’m a VERY pensive person, analyzing and dissecting every word, thought, event as though it’s a piece of evidence in a forensic lab. The notion I’ve really had trouble explaining and accepting as it stands is the notion of “friends…by default.”

Say I meet person A at revisit 2007. I make some sly remarks, pour her a few drinks, dance with her all night at the club in a very suggestive manner, take her out to eat and whatnot during the fall… basically court her for some extended period of time, after which (for whatever reason) we ultimately do NOT enter a relationship together but still choose to interact with each other socially. Seeing as how we already likely have some intimate knowledge of each other and have developed some repoire, it wouldn’t be so far-fetched for most to consider us “friends.”

…but that’s not the job I wanted. I wanted to be that guy; I wanted to be HER guy. And I’m not. I am the relationship equivalent of Hillary Clinton and am what many may consider the next best thing – the friend by default. And we move along with our lives amicably, for the most part, still interacting in some socially acceptable manner and chit chatting like we are and have always been “just cool” knowing well, in the back of one or both of our minds, that we are in a suboptimal place in this two person dynamic.

The part of this that gives me pause is a question of motive:  If we become good friends, is it truly because we both want to be good friends or is it because one of us is hoping to be that penis/vagina in a glass case that will be broken in the event of an emergency? Can she really trust me with all her deep, dark secrets if I’m covertly trying to creep my way into her heart? These questions are rhetorical to me. In this case, I’m simply playing my role, buying my time until the opportunity arises where I can get that promotion and become Head of State.

…but I’m a guy. And guys are more prone to doing that. Women? …not so much.

Having spent so much time as a single man over the past 3 years, I’ve had lots of female “friends” come in and out of my life, quite a few of whom I’d actually grown rather close to and made some connections I sincerely thought would last a lifetime. However, last year, I lost a good, oh, 6 or 7 of those friendships when I very publicly announced that I was in a relationship with someone other than any of them.

Now why would that be?

While most of you could very likely formulate several reasons for this, the one that seems most likely (and was the case upon further evaluation) was that ALL of them wanted to be the Mrs. They wanted the title that mattered.

My first instinct was to be flattered that so many really thought so highly of me that they turned down the advances of so many other men in hopes that I would “put a ring on it” (hate that duckin song, btw). My next thought wasn’t quite as happy:  How much of our interactions in the past were influenced by her desire to be with me? Was she really playing Guitar Hero because she loved to play or was it to appear cool in my eyes? Was she watching football because she loved the sport or was it to win favor with me? Sure, these things appear harmless to some, but to me they smell of insincerity and illusion. Since much of why we enter into a particular relationship is based on what we’ve experienced and gauged for ourselves as worthy of commitment, the possibility that I was interacting with and in some cases loving someone’s representative for long periods of time has the latent effect of making me very untrusting of women who seem “too perfect.” And what happens every time we try to generalize in our dealings with potential significant others? We miss out on the great ones.

Speaking of missing out on great ones, it really breaks my heart to see really good women go bad or sour because of a messed up relationship from their past. They gave their all to the wrong guy and now they’re pissed at anything with a penis. And while the part of me that’s all about self preservation is understanding of this, there’s another part of me that’s experienced enough to note that men with a good and ready heart often sense this in women and run to their aid, often offering their own love and service in not only getting this woman back onto her emotional feet but also in helping her to run faster and longer than she did before in a relationship that will help her grow and become a better woman than she was before. Instead, these men often receive the cold shoulder and are dissed as just another man “running game” or their used as shoulders on which to cry and express their anguish but are passed over for yet another guy with bad intentions.

Explain this one to me, ladies.

If you’re sitting alone at night, wondering why no one wants you or why all the men who approach you aren’t shit, take a second to pause and establish those who are in your life and their capacity. If there’s a guy who’s always been there, who’s given you that shoulder to cry on, to listen to your rants about all the ducked up things men have done to you in your past, to take you out to eat or to the movies when you don’t want to go alone, take a page out of the men’s book and be logical about that friendship and ask yourself “Why not him?” The man you’ve always wanted may have already been there, just waiting for you to give him the chance.

Yes. He was your friend “by default.”

Going, Going, Back, Back to Cali, Cali?

To the people of Minnesota, Los Angeles already took your basketball team; they’d love to have your football team too. Yes, the "L.A. Vikings" doesn’t really have the ring to it that say the “Hollywood Stars” would, but neither does the Utah Jazz. Since I know you all are involved in a little stadium imbroglio up there right now, let me offer up this cautionary tale.

There is an excellent documentary, Sonicsgate, on the last days of the Seattle Supersonics (now the Oklahoma City Thunder and one of the most promising young teams in the NBA). The film begins gradually giving a history of all of the sports teams in Seattle. This part is something that is probably only interesting if you have some connection to the Pacific Northwest; however, it is necessary to set the foundation for what has become a crucial issue in sports today: the public financing of the palatial athletic cathedrals in which these teams play. The vast majority of current facilities seem to place more emphasis on the peripheral entertainment experience (shopping, restaurants, and amusement for the kids) than on the actual sporting contest. As someone who has worked in both the public and private sector and at one point specifically in the area of economic development, I can attest that it is rare that the public receives the full return (jobs, infrastructure, tax revenue) promised by the private the investors. In this current era of economic uncertainty, it just perpetuates the concept of public risk and private gain. When the story shifts to this argument with a peek at the behind the scenes machinations that ultimately led to the relocation to OKC is when the documentary really starts to shine. Some of the highlights or lowlights include the following:

• The political leadership of the City of Seattle and the Washington State assembly was über weak. They thought they were being tough guys, but at the end of the day got played.

• The Sonics “vanity owner” Howard Schultz (of Starbucks fame) sold the team to OKC businessmen who “promised” to keep the team in Seattle, except for one small problem: they specifically barred anyone from Seattle from being part of the ownership group. (C’mon Son! GTFOOHWTBS! You knew them cats weren’t keeping the team in Seattle after they did that!)

• OKC’s ownership group was a bunch of immoral individuals who would do or say whatever was necessary to position the team to move.  Also of note considering current events, they were heavily connected to the oil industry. (Need I say more?)

• NBA commissioner David Stern is as big of a jackass as we all thought.  He may also be secretly gay (you’ll understand when you see the film), not there is anything wrong with that. More than anything, it showed that the NBA front office acted in extremely bad faith in dealing with Seattle.

• Finally there is a gut-punching scene at the end, which I will not give away, but any former Sonics fan will want to go burn down city hall and the state assembly building in Washington or the Ford Center in OKC after the revelation. Seriously, they will.

The biggest takeaway for fans everywhere has to be “DON’T THINK IT CAN’T HAPPEN TO YOUR TEAM!” If your team is struggling financially I can guarantee you that another city is staring them up and down, as if they aren’t real, ready to snatch them from your hometown. Just like when you are dating an attractive woman and dudes are circling like sharks waiting for you to mess up so they can slide right in, it’s the exact same concept. And yes, I am speaking directly to you Jacksonville Jaguars, New Orleans Hornets, Phoenix Coyotes, and Memphis Grizzles fans. Heck, I might have to add in Cleveland Cavaliers fans if LeBron leaves considering what the financial experts say it will do your team’s value. Other cities want to take your team(s) and do not think for a second that your current team owner is too altruistic not to sell you out. These teams are just toys to most of those guys.

You can watch the whole movie below or check it out in HD on the official site Sonicsgate.org. The website also has a hilarious trailer about a random city preparing to steal your team.

Part One: She's Cool, But...She Smashed The Homies!

Over the hundreds of years that I’ve been here at Columbia P&S, I’ve played a fairly active role in the recruitment and support of students of color. In particular I’ve focused on the Atlanta University Center, but I’ve still been receptive to students from any other college or university so long as they were of African descent somewhere along the line. Recently, I was given the duty of giving a tour to yet another Black prospective student, a woman who was making her final decision on medical schools. I am and was genuinely excited to have another opportunity to sell our great school to another future physician, so I took to the task with all intent of having a new commitment to P&S minority community.

The one variable in how this interaction was different from the others lies in the fact that I was, for the first time in almost a year, single yet again. The few fellas reading this already know that this means every woman you encounter is evaluated as a potential prospect, her pros and cons weighed heavily before ultimately deciding whether or not to offer a date or ask for the digits…assuming of course that she passes the “look” test.

And damn did she.

She was dressed in a mildly unprofessional but otherwise sexy manner, hair all long and curly, face as pretty as could be, body was right…she was NICE! It made the flow of the conversation fairly easy and casual, and selling the school wasn’t hard to do either – uh thank you! Being that she was from Harvard, I had a feeling that she likely was familiar with some of the current students also from there.

“So do you have any friends here now that are helping pull you to Columbia?”

“Yeah, I’ve met quite a few people here that were cool. Plus my ex is here as well. I think you know him. (Insert name)?”

As it turns out, I did know her ex. Very well. He is in fact a pupil of mine, learning the art of…well I can’t put that out there in public, but truth remains I’m on a first name basis with her ex.

Scratch her off the list.

Some time later, I thought about what I had done on a bigger scale. I’d met an attractive young lady who seemed to have a lot of things going for her and was cool overall and I eliminated all potential of dating her because of a past lover of hers.

Yep…sounds about right.

Ray J encountered the same scenario on his “For the Love of Ray J” when he found out that Danger, one of the final women of the group, had had relations with a friend of his, leading to the Tom Green inspired chant of “Danger! She smashed the homie!” And I, as well as the rest of the young black male contingent, also deal with the issue of deciding whether or not to eliminate a potential mate from the dating race based on her past relationships, which is like everything else that’s held against someone because of their past, unfair and likely superficial. As with EVERYTHING else, you know I had to over-analyze this phenomenon to identify its central parts and hopefully come to some humorous yet insightful conclusion on how we should deal with it going forward.

So what’s the REAL problem here?

Premise Number One: It’s all about HIM! Many men build their ego on their perceived sexual prowess.

But even in this case, the REAL issue is rooted in the dominant male insecurity that is truly best defined as “Penis Envy.” I addressed this phenomenon many years ago in a blog piece I did entitled as such where I dissected this obsession with the male genitalia among men (and in this case, heterosexual men in particular).

In this piece, I posed that the primary motivation behind everything men do, material and not, stems from motivations from the groin outward. If you talk to sexually experienced women, many will tell you that they can often tell when a man has “the broom.” It’s typically something about the way they talk or walk or carry themselves in general – yes, I refuse to call it “swag” – that gives clues to their sexual superiority. But, as has been made painfully obvious throughout countless blogs, tv shows, sex toys, and R&B songs, not every man can choose his penis, and, as expected, some fall before the national poverty line as relates to size. Now, while some men have developed other “penile extensions” if you will to compensate above for what they lack below, adopting the Mannie Fresh moniker of doing “everythang real big.” The jewelry, the hair, the clothes, the muscles, the house, the cars – everything that can be controlled by his own energy and efforts to woo in women to sleeping with them at the very least. BUT, if you continue to question women about these men, who have the “bling” but not the “sling,” they’d tell you that these guys are often the MOST insecure of them all. And of course they do. All that other stuff doesn’t make up for the fact that they aren’t bringing much to the table sexually.

Fortunately, most women learn at an early age that most men are HORRIBLY insecure about their sex game (and everything else for that matter) and that permanent ego damage can be done by giving a man a bad sexual review. So they, the loving and supportive creatures that they are, keep their resume of lovers under tight lock and key, doing the best they can to protect their man from his own insecurities. Hell, some women even go as far as to fake their own sexual pleasure, thus the concept of “fake orgasms” (which still to this day absolutely blows my mind). What more do you need?

Obviously the answer is exclusivity.

You ever been to a party or some other social event and seen someone wearing the same shirt/tie/dress/shoes as you’re wearing? How’s it make you feel? In my case, it pisses me off to no end. I do my best to pick out unique styles and patterns and combinations of my own, so when I see someone else wearing MY stuff, it immediately cheapens whatever I’m wearing. A similar principle applies to women in dating: A woman who hasn’t been with many men is more valuable than a woman who’s been with a larger number of men, though this way of thinking has become increasingly less significant over the years.*

What’s even more awkward than having a woman who’s been with a large number of men is having a woman who’s been with someone you know personally. Like…REALLY awkward. For the most part, many of the men in your past are people we don’t know and likely will never have occasion to meet, which is a contributing factor to a decreased emphasis on “how many?” and a shift to “who?”

Speaking of “who,” lets discuss the homies…

Premise Number Two: We KNOW our boys, and them niggas is nasty!

Barney from The Simpsons might suggest that men won’t seriously date women who’ve dated friends so as to avoid conflict with their boys, in his suggesting that men always choose “Bros before hoes,” opting to choose the security of friendship over anything that can be had with someone of the opposite sex… but there’s a deeper reason for its adherence in general. Though women have taken most of rap for being gossipers, I think it’s fairly common knowledge that men have the capacity to gossip just as much as women do, especially amongst the bruhs.

When your boy drafts a new woman onto his team, there’s a whole informal ceremony of meeting her, getting the look and personality approval, and in some cases sharing any known dirt on her so your boy is fully prepared. In the case that the woman is unfortunate enough to be just another number, the details of what went on are shared with all the homies that can keep a secret. And when I say details, I mean DETAILS! Sights, smells, sounds…we’ve basically smashed vicariously by the end of the story. On the other hand, if it’s a prospective significant other who goes on to get the title, we never hear word of what goes on sexually, though it’s not entirely needed because we know about all the other stuff that he’s into sexually because of his other freaky tales.

In sports, having thorough knowledge of what a current player can bring to your team is looked upon as a good thing – they call it a scouting report. But in the case of the dating scene, the scouting report handed over from the homies is almost never something that makes you want to take the woman seriously. Sure, you may still smash cause “It ain’t no fun if the homies can’t have none,” but as far as making her your girl or (gasp) putting a ring on it?! Cmon son. It’s not going down. There’d be too tough of a time trying to get the images of all the nasty ish he did with her out of his mind AND he runs the risk of losing a friend, either because he’s pissed you’re now dating her or because you’re pissed that he clowned you for it (and the latter is definitely the case if you’re with someone I smashed. I’d be TOO quick to laugh at you and be on some “You kissed her in the mouth, didn’t you?” type ish, but my boys know this already). It all adds up to being a situation no man wants, no matter how tight the lady friend is.

Confounding Factors

The biggest problem I foresee with living by these principles is our tendencies in partner selection: Most people of a certain race and class choose partners from within their pool of race and class. It’s not a surprise when black medical student A marries black medical student B. Or even marries black law student C and so on. And you know why – the black professional network is TINY! When people speak of six degrees of separation, it REALLY applies in our community. Facebook is the biggest evidence of this, especially when you meet someone and become their digital friend. Though you may have never knew they existed prior to actually meeting them, there’s a good chance that they have at least 10 mutual friends with you, one of whom you probably know on a first- or nickname basis. And it works the same for future friends. I had an occasion where I met and became cool with one of my ex’s ex lovers. I didn’t hold it against him (though I knew a lot about his “shortcomings” from her…womp womp) and still kicked it with him and he’s actually a cool guy – all to say that as our networks grow, we’re bound to make new friends and contacts who may potentially limit our dating pool EVEN FURTHER if we adhere to the Ray J principle.

…And we haven’t even addressed how it’d change the dating scene for us as men if WOMEN truly held to this principle.

Closing Thoughts

For most of us abiding by these general principles of same race and class selection, avoiding the awkwardness of the situation where your potential significant other or soul mate involves a history with someone with whom you’re cool with or close is a pretty tough task. In the event that it does happen, some serious decisions will need to be made, but hopefully for the right reasons. No person, man or woman, should come between good friends – period. But to deny what you feel because of an otherwise harmless aspect of their past is really a disservice to yourself and that special someone. Be real with yourself and them. Discuss your worries and insecurities with your potential mates and the homies – you’d be amazed at what conversations and growth can be had.

...And try to keep your numbers as low or as unknown as possible.

Empty Vessels

Imagine for a second this scenario. You are up for a new job and the following exchange takes place with you starting the conversation.  

"I am perfect for this position.”

"Well, have you done this type of work before"?

"No."

"Well, this job requires dealing with individuals with strong personalities and opinions. Are you comfortable working in such an environment"?

"Maybe."

"The decisions made in this job will shape the lives of millions of people for years to come. I will list a few of issues and ask your opinion on them."

"I’d rather not."

"Excuse me"?

"I’d rather not say." "This job requires you take a position, how do you feel about these issues"? [she runs through a quick list]

"I cannot say that I feel strongly either way."

"Are you ever going to give me a straight answer to a question"?

"I may."

If this exchange happened in a normal interview process you would probably be swiftly escorted out of the building sporting a boot print on your behind; however, this pretty much summarizes the Supreme Court selection process. It is truly a condemnation of our political system that in a job in which you will be rendering opinions daily, the #1 qualification for the job appears to be the ability not to express an opinion or have a “paper trail.”

Tomorrow the new Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be selected. I expect to be completely underwhelmed by whomever the pick may be and for them to pale in comparison to the legacy left by retiring Justice Stevens.

The Truth is Back

Quite possibly the most relevant show on television in regards to social commentary has returned. The Boondocks kicked off its third and final (say it ain’t so) season this past Sunday night. It examined, documentary style, the 2008 election that led to the ascension of the first African American President of the United States. In true Boondocks fashion, no party involved escaped unscathed from its biting criticism:

• From the people who didn’t know why the hell they were voting for Obama: “He represents hope or change or something. Well, he’s black.”

• To the rappers whom had no idea who he was: Here’s looking at you, DMX!  This spawned the night's best line with “Otis has found success like many Negro-Americans entertainers today… by being a professional baffoon.”

• To the entertainers using Barack’s fame to boost their own profiles: Hello, Will.i.am! You still “d*ck-riding Obama”?

• To Obama himself for saying all of the right things to get elected and subsequently breaking the campaign promises that people cared about the most: Iraq – still there, Afghanistan – still there, Gitmo – still open, Bush’s illegal surveillance programs – still going on.

• To Black people acting like they had won the “O.J. Prize” . . . again.

• McCain, Palin, and the rest of the republicans didn’t escape scrutiny either.

Uncle Ruckus, as he does in any episode he is featured in, absolutely stole the show. His complete lack of tact usually allows him to make the most relevant points. The show may offend some and many people are put off by the rampant use of the “N-word”, which ironically is done to demonstrate how offensive and prevalent the word is in our society. However, if you are brave enough to endure those minor quibbles, you will be rewarded with the type of compelling observations of life that may not grace our television screens again for a very long time.

The Boondocks can be seen on The Cartoon Network on Sunday nights at 11:30.


http://www.boondockstv.com
http://www.adultswim.com/shows/theboondocks