I'm A Horrible Blogger

I'm sure many people would agree with that. They think I must suck complete ass. I'm a sucky blogger because as of late, I've been lazy. I'm uninspired. I'm running out of ideas. I'm also extremely hormonal (thanks p17 shots) and stuck on bed rest until my due date. I'm not set to deliver this child until March. I've been in the hospital. I might be going back, so yeah I'm sucking right now. This baby better love me. Between the surgery, hospitalization, weekly ass shots, and bed rest, I'm going a bit crazy. This child better stick around.

I promise I will try to improve on my piss poor blogging as of late. In the mean time, anyone have any books to recommend. In particular books on history, religion (a comparative analysis, not the religious texts themselves), or political theory. I'm currently reading a book on Ayn Rand. I can't stand the heffa or her philosophy, but I find it an interesting read.


Hugging Is Sinful?-Christians Yall Need To Get Your Folks Off The Stage

Christian Side Hug from The Fathers House on Vimeo.

I've never known it to be considered sinful to hug in the traditional sense. Like this:

I might give you the side eye if you hug like this:

::Warning might not be safe for work::

::giving you scroll warning::

It might not be right, but if you are greased down and hugging, I just find that sexual. Otherwise, I never thought of hugs in general to be sexual. They can be sexual, but when I hug my momma, my daddy, and sometimes even my husband, sex isn't entering my mind.

I'm curious about this video, why are there gun shots and an ambulance in the song. Why is it cool to be considered a "rough rider", as I thought Ruff Ryders disappeared circa 1998.

Are rabbis and priests excluded from this rule of no front hugging? What are these folks thinking if their aunt hugs them at Thanksgiving dinner, does it really give them impure thoughts?

Does Angelina Jolie buy babies? Is it a diss to adopt children now? I didn't know it was out of vogue to adopt, I will tell my parents next time I talk to them.

Did anyone notice the boo as Obama's name is mentioned, because we all know he's the anti-christ. Also I don't quit understand why folks are mentioning the Democratic shift in the Congress. I mean what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I didn't know Jesus thought hugs were sinful either.

What this video taught me, co-opting thug and hip hop culture, getting shot, and side hugs are ok; but regular full frontal hugs and adoption are completely evil.

I'm a nasty heffa I guess. I hug folks all the time.


Black People Aren't Marketable In International Markets

Do you notice anything differences in the two pictures above?

Yeah some other folks noticed too. Apparently in international markets films with black people don't do very well. Mind you, it is understandable that the two black actors aren't as well known as some of the other actors, but is Kristen Bell or Malin Akerman international stars? Why not put Jean Reno on the poster, he is well known in France and other European countries?

Why is that even Will Smith as big as he is in America doesn't fare well with international audiences.

I guess I am perplexed because there seems to be this notion that America is a racist country, but other places are more enlightened? Any other countries more enlightened or just racist in a different way?

What Color Is Obama Exactly And Why Does It Bother People He Chooses To Be Black?

I recently came across a blog posting written by Juana Bimba titled "What Color Is Obama? It Depends On Where You Stand." It rubbed me the wrong way a little bit, and it could be my racism coming out, but it seemed to completely ignore the history of race and race relations in America, and downplay the racism that occurs all over the world, particularly in hispanic nations. Since I couldn't comment there, I decided to comment here. Please read the post I am responding to here.

No, really. Because if you’re standing, say, in Minnesota, then Barack Obama is definitely Black. But if you stand in the Dominican Republic or, for that matter, anywhere else in Latin America, then he’s not Black, but Brown. An important distinction.

The problem with this is many "non-biracial" blacks would be considered this as well. I find it kind of hard to understand why people of other races try to define Obama as biracial or multiracial, when he himself identifies as black.

To begin with, Latinos see race differently, because we realize that in the world, there are different takes on race.

There are different takes on race, but to deny the history of America and pretend that race here does not matter or has no impact on our present does nothing to help race relations in America.

But Latinos, by and large, are an aggregate of in-betweens, and that’s how we see ourselves. We also believe in an individual's right, within reason, to call him or herself whatever he or she wants.

I don't necessarily think this is true, I look at the economic disparities between the latinos of slave ancestry and their lighter hued counterparts in many parts of Latin and South America, the fact that blackface can still be found on hispanic stations, that people don't understand why Memin Pinguin might be considered offensive, or why folks like Vicente Fox can make comments about Mexicans taking jobs even blacks won't do, that many of the darker persuasion are denied "professional jobs" based on skin hue, or denied access to certain clubs make me think that many hispanics are race conscious and that there are racial lines established, regardless of ancestry. I don't think that on the whole looking at these experiences folks are considering themselves "in-betweens." I already know that per some American hispanics like Fernando C. de Baca that hispanics, per him consider themselves above blacks, because blacks came here as slaves and hispanics came here a conquerors.

And that he did so because, among other things, it was politically expedient. So he joined a Black Church, married a woman much darker than himself, and began working with Chicago’s Black community.

So he could not have made the decision to be identified as black for social and societal experiences that aligned him more with the black community? Was it strictly politics that made his decision? When he met Michelle, how do we know he even had political aspirations to become a Senator, much less President? Could he not be attracted to a college educated, fit, attractive darker hued woman, simply because he was attracted to her? I think that is where the frustration lies, placing the blame of racial identification on American blacks, when in fact, many American whites, hispanics, and asians embrace and accept these definitions as well. I've met many biracial people in my lifetime who have white family members who do not acknowledge them, that deal with the racism that I deal with, and who if you go on appearances alone, could look black. I think your argument also fails to acknowledge that in America, blacks with slave ancestry are overwhelmingly mixed with other, mostly white, and some Native American. It's a fact that many white Americans fail to acknowledge as well.

Even Tiger Woods who has embraced his biracial identity has dealt with racism, and most of it had nothing to do with his asian, native, or white ancestry. The Fuzzy Zoeller comments begging Tiger not to order fried chicken and collard greens come to mind.

African Americans themselves later adopted the “one-drop rule” as a way to ensure political unity in the group (or prevent the lighter-skinned from defecting to the White side).

This comment completely ignores the fact that whites weren't willing to embrace lighter skinned blacks into their homes and families, except in instances of servitude and that lighter hued blacks were often seen as leaders in the black community, and openly embraced. Again, lighter hued blacks weren't necessarily forced into choosing black by other blacks, but by whites.

While Blackness is an absolute in America, Whiteness is an added value, with Whites deciding who profits. Meaning, it has always been Whites who decide who’s White and can benefit from all privileges thereto attached.

This I agree with, but I would venture to say this doesn't just happen in America.

For Latinos, the rules of race are very simple: you are what you look like. Go to the mirror: if a White individual stares back, then you’re White. Even if your parents were not. For us, there’s no such thing as “passing”, because if you LOOK Caucasian, then you are. End of discussion.

Is that actually true though. I get mistaken as something other than black all the time, but there are times people have no problem making out that I'm black, so where in the context of race would I fit?

This is why Latinos so resent the pressures of racial labeling in the United States, and conversely, why our take on race confounds others. We bring a totally different perspective to this subject—and also the belief that we‘re entitled to our own views, that self-definition is a personal right, and that nobody else should try to mess with it on behalf of group politics.

Is it really group politics, or societal standards that have made things this way? This article seems to blame blacks for the racial designations in this country and that blacks are determined to hold on to the one drop rule, when in reality whites, hispanics, and asians do this as well, and not just in America.


I'm Not A Real Wife-NSFW

Twitter is at it again, on Friday a trending topic was born, #arealwife. Now I asked my husband what he thought a real wife was, and thankfully his definition falls in line with mine, but according to some, I'm not a real wife:

If a man beats me, I'm going to snitch. Maybe you shouldn't be concerned with snitching, but maybe some anger management classes or therapy. No person should ever have to take a beating from their spouse, that isn't being a good spouse, but being a victim of abuse.

I'm all about being submissive, at times, just like my husband is submissive towards me. That is part of compromise, sometimes you take a step back and let the other lead, but you don't do it without question and one spouse does not have authority over another.

I am sorry, but I didn't go to college and get a job for the sole purpose of cooking. If I wanted to cook, I would be a chef. I cook for my husband because I want to cook for him, not because it is required of me. My husband sometimes cooks for me.

I thought give and take was part of every relationship, I guess I was wrong.

I didn't know my purpose in life as a wife was to fuck and feed my husband. I thought I had other qualities and characteristics he found attractive outside that realm. Yes I like to cook, yes we have sex, but I thought marriage was more than cooking and sex. I also thought my husband was actually interested me and my opinions, maybe I was wrong.

If my husband has to go to another "bitch" because he isn't getting sex from me, than there are other issues to discuss such as, why is he not getting sex from me? Am I frigid? Is he doing something I don't like? Maybe I'm sick or actually have a headache? If I don't "suck the shit out cha dick" properly, I would really like for my husband to at least be able to talk to me about it. If I am casual enough with you to put your penis in my mouth, we can have a conversation about what I do when said penis is in my mouth.

My husband has never asked this of me. I am glad, I don't think I could buy my husband a lap dance and watch some other woman dance for him topless. It might make me uncomfortable. Much like I don't think my husband would be cool with some man gyrating his crotch in my face. Maybe we are insecure, or maybe, just maybe, we don't partake in strip clubs? Crazy I know as all men are supposed to love strip clubs, but my husband does not. It kind of creeps him out.

Uuuhhhhmmmmm NO. If my husband is having "downlow" relations with another woman, and I find out, more than likely I will not be sticking by him, as I would feel betrayed. I did not sign up for an open or polyamorous relationship, so that is not something that is going to work for me. I know this sounds horrible, but I don't understand the purpose of having an exclusive relationship, unless it is monogamous. That is my belief system though, if others are ok with this so be it.

I think the thing that amazed me about these comments were the fact that many came from women. I wonder if they are married, or if they are single and trying to impress some internet men. I think it is also scary to see these comments because I thought the younger generation of men and women had left misogyny behind, but it seems it is out in full force. What causes this archaic view of women in the year 2009?


As Long As You're Cute And Can SANG, Domestic Violence Is The Fault Of The Victim

I'm sorry I haven't been posting. I've been away for a few days, but I'm back. I was able to moderate comments and tweet from my phone, so I know this is late, but I had to discuss it.

This is Rihanna sharing her account of what happened between her and Chris Brown. Chris Brown responds to the interview. In the defense of Chris Brown, he at least owned up to what he did. He didn't make excuses or try to play it off like Rihanna is to blame for the situation.

Now let's go to the fans. I can say I'm not a fan of either. I am a bit old for Rihanna and Chris Brown. Now when the story first came out, the first thing folks wanted to say is let's get both sides, as if there is a legitimate reason for beating the hell out of a woman. The police department got enough of both sides to arrest Chris' ass. The pictures of Rihanna's face show what Chris did, but we still want to hear both sides of the story? Then we got the "Rihanna must have done something to Chris" first argument. That she was pushing him mentally or physically and he just snapped. Apparently abuse is ok, if you are pushed to do it.

Now I understand good music or being a fan of someone will cause you to overlook abuse, but honestly, why now is it that Chris Brown fans are going around hating on Rihanna as if she is the cause for all of his issues? You know I was on twitter, and the comments from the Chris Brown fans are crazy and make no sense to me. I understand you like Chris' music, but what did Rihanna do to you? Maybe his fans enjoy beat downs or think domestic abuse is ok as long as you have a good album?

Oh yeah, I forgot, when it comes to situations between black women and black men, black women are always at fault.


Black Students Told To Act Like Slaves

I remember being one of few black children growing up in my schools. Whenever we mentioned any type of black history we talked about slavery and the Civil Rights Movement. This usually occurred in February. This usually entailed white people being upset and or crying at the horrible practice of slavery and personal apologies to me as if I was personally a slave. As a person who has never been a slave, I just looked at them crazy and went on. I was uncomfortable about talking about slavery because I knew those kids always saw me differently, and looking back now, that discomfort came from the fact that these kids were influenced by parents, grandparents, and vast other relatives who had views of black people based upon the concept that we were slaves, and then after that inferior enough to need to be segregated from. They knew I was different, I was other, and even if they would never admit it less than in many cases of my classmates. The same ones who were shocked I was in advanced/honors classes, that I didn't live in a ghetto, that my parents were degreed and expected me to go to college, and that I didn't fit into the black "stereotype" they expected most black people to be.

Recently, a black historian at Latta Plantation in N.C., Ian Campbell decided to uphold historical accuracy by choosing three black kids out of a majority white 5th grade class to put a bag on their shoulders and pick cotton. Some parents at the school were upset. Mr. Campbell, the historian felt that he wanted to be historically accurate instead of politically correct. You know my feelings on the political correctness scapegoat.

I wonder if Mr. Campbell thought of other ways to discuss slavery. Like showing how hard slavery was, or retelling the account of a slave through a slave narrative, or did he go all out and make some of the white students overseers complete with whips?

Did Mr. Campbell have no other options to express historical accuracy without singling out black children to pick cotton? Did he not think it would make them uncomfortable? Did he not think that now these kids are going around thinking that black folks did nothing in the span of American history but be slaves and pick cotton?

I understand you want historical accuracy, and I know Mr. Campbell is black, but does his blackness make his actions ok, or less racist?

Here is a link of Campbell defending his actions.


The Terrorist Talk Comes Out

This is the Larry King Show discussing the horrible events that happened at Fort Hood. This was before they had much information on the shooter, and most of the information given was speculative.

Notice Shoshana Johnson challenges Tom Keniff, and he is quick to question her experience and authority, but not Dr. Phil. She is a POW of the Iraq War. She was shot in the ankle and held captive from March 25, 2003 to April 13, 2003 . She has PTSD. She and Dr. Phil agreed that using the shooter's last name (Nidal Malik Hasan) to determine if this was a terrorist act was irresponsible. It was, we have no proof he had any ties to any extremist Islamic groups.

I find it odd that Tom Keniff was quick to say he was a veteran of the Iraq War, and then question if Ms. Johnson had ever been to Iraq.

I wasn't surprised her authority was questioned by this man, it seems typical that whenever you are a woman, in particular a woman of color, this is the norm in the workplace and in schools. He assumed she was just a low level no one, who had no idea what was going on. It turns out she had more credibility than him.

I also find it odd that whenever a Muslim person commits a crime, it is assumed it is an act of terrorism, but he isn't the first soldier to shoot fellow soldiers at a military base. We should also note that Hasan is an American born citizen. What he did was horrible, but why must we put racial stereotypes on his motives? What motives did Dean Mellberg have? Or Timothy McVeigh? What was the motive of a fellow soldier killing five other soldiers earlier this year in Camp Liberty, Iraq? Did their last names make it any easier to speculate the motives of their horrible acts?


Facebook Republicans Keeping It Classy

Note to Republicans: Please take your crazies off the porch, and put them in the house and hide them.

The RNC just lets fools post whatever the want on their facebook page, and only took them down because someone called them out on it.

I guess the biggest fear is that if a black man and white women have a child, the child will do something horrible like become President of the United States of America.

Thanks Zirgar for showing me this.


Things Darkies Say

Yesterday on twitter, there was a trending topic that threw people completely off. It was the number one trending topic on twitter, and from all appearances, I was appalled. The trending topic was #thingsdarkiessay . Now I'm an American, you can't call me darkie, I can't call white folks whitey. It's an old school derogatory word for black folks. Apparently in other parts of the world, particularly in South Africa, it doesn't have a negative connotation. The topic was started by a black South African, it was intended to make fun of stereotypes.

#thingsdarkiessay : Started in South Africa, where "darkie" does not have the same negative connotations as it does in the United States, as a joke about stereotypes. It has since cause controversy including being removed from the list of Trending Topics by Twitter and the hashtag #SouthAfricansArePissed

Of course from an American context darkie means :

darky, darkie, darkey [ˈdɑːkɪ]
n pl darkies, darkeys Informal
1. an offensive word for a Black
2. Austral an offensive word for a native Australian

In other parts of the world, the term Darkie is associated with black people as well, and we have the asians who associate darkies with nice, white teeth:

As a result culture wars started. Black Americans, like myself were outraged, angry, and looking at it from the perspective of Stormfront invading Twitter. I was steady scratching my head because from first appearances from the stream of trending topics, I saw tweets like these:

I see this, I'm ready to curse out folks. These people aren't from South Africa, they're not black, and they are using black American stereotypes. Doesn't seem all that innocent of a trending topic.

A culture war ensued. South Africans were upset saying that Americans shouldn't be offended, and that America was pushing it's own morals on the rest of the world, like usual. Twitter removed the tag from it's top listings. It was still possible to contribute to the #thingsdarkiessay debate, it just wasn't listed on the trending topics list. The hashtag #SouthAfricansArePissed arose as a result. I guess in many South Africans minds, removal of this from the trending topics list was another case of American Imperialism. Then the whole stereotypes of black people get upset over "any little thing" and are "culturally ignorant" came forth to further ensure that there would be more tension and more divide.

I don't understand why it is cool to refer to yourself as a "darkie", much like I don't understand when people refer to themselves as "niggas." I just don't do that, it is offensive to me, and the biggest reason it was trending was because it got people in an uproar. I understand that "darkie" as a derogatory term does not apply to South Africans, but I know that the word "kaffir" or "nig nog" does. It doesn't mean I should go around using these words, even if they don't have any impact on my personally. I have no negative connotation to "kaffir", "nig nog", or many other words used around the world to refer to black people, because they don't personally impact me. I think that if you are using a global platform to express your opinions, you shouldn't be shocked when someone from another culture or region of the world might find something you say as offensive, strange, or just down right mean, especially if what you say takes on a different meaning in that part of the world.

I think this debate to be about ethnocentrism. The question now is who are being ethnocentric, the black Americans or the South Africans?

I think what angered me most is the South Africans were outraged at the black Americans having issues with the term "darkie", but not outraged at non South Africans using it in a derogatory way to stereotype and offend black Americans, taking "darkie" out of the "African pride" context they were proclaiming. They seemed more upset and focused on the "Us vs. Them" mentality of which blacks are better or more enlightened.

Again, it goes to show that just because we share a complexion, does not mean we share the same culture.