The Resurrection of Milton’s Fiend in “LOST”

So I’m an avid “LOST” fan. We know who we are. We refuse to read spoilers. We burn through 2 seasons in 3 days only taking bathroom breaks and getting up to tip the pizza delivery guy. We spend hours on forums discussing theories. We look on people with disdain who don’t have the stamina and dedication to have watched all the seasons. We text each other during the commercial breaks of the seasons premieres and finales. And if we don’t have cable we stay up til 4 a.m.until the episode is released on some bootleg website. Yes, that it us. I plan to post portions of these theories on the best “LOST” Theory website out there, DarkUFO.com. But I just wanted to give a preliminary shout out to my LOST brothers and sisters.

The following blog includes references to the Season Six premiere, so if you haven’t gotten to that episode yet, I suggest you stop reading.

there are two pieces in this game. one light and one dark.

For those of you who haven’t read John Milton’s Paradise Lost I suggest you read it immediately, it is undoubtedly the best work of literature that has ever been written. I say that with utmost and unwavering confidence. The following blog seeks to parallel the epic poem’s protagonist, Lucifer, The Fiend, to the Nemesis in “LOST.” It will additionally make thematic links between the poem and the post-modern television show.

He Who Cannot Be Named

One of the most interesting things in Paradise Lost, besides the awesome intellect of the author and everything else about the text, is that the protagonist of the poem, Lucifer, has no name. Interestingly, the poem is anachronistic, Tarantino-style, the reader starts the poem completely lost, as the hero is. He is chained to rocks in Tartarus, an abyssmal pit of fire and lava, wondering how he ended up there. After his fall from heaven, Milton only refers to him as the Fiend. Slavoj Zizek in The Sublime Object of Ideology describes how names are used as descriptors to identify an object. Behind every descriptive name is a quilt of many free-floating descriptors that signify an object  or a person. So for example, while Lucifer is in heaven he can be called Lucifier because he embodies an identity that encompasses many elements. Once he falls from heaven and loses his “primal baptism” he earns an anti-descriptive name, a name that only suggests a purpose, like the name “table”suggests an object on which we set things upon, as opposed to the name “Peter” which suggest characteristics beyond purpose. Lucifer himself retains many of his qualities, vanity, pride, and arrogance. However, once he falls from Heaven these characteristics becomes subsumed in his purpose. He is the Fiend whose only desire is to defy God and corrupt his human creation. Likewise, the Nemesis in “LOST” has no name. Throughout the entire show, no one has been able to describe or define him except for in antagonistic anti-descriptives. He is called the “security system” which denotes a function on the island. Ben calls him a monster, which the Nemesis takes offense to, another name suggesting an antagonistic purpose. Indeed, the only time we ever see him exist in possible true from is in the first scene of the Season 5 finale, and even here his function is only to kill Jacob and question his authority.

The Father/Son Abandonment

The father who turns his son away or disowns him indefinitely is a major theme in Paradise Lost and in “LOST.” Nothing Dr. Jack Shepard does seems to be good enough for his father Christian Shepard. More importantly, nothing John Locke ever does is good enough for his father. The religious undertones in John Locke’s essence happen in his birth, he is told he was immaculately conceived and that is a lie. Through this false religious illusion told by his mother he falls under the spell of his father and all he seeks is  his love. He sacrifices everything for him, gives him his kidney, and when he questions his father’s motives in starting a new family, his father pushed him from a 30 story bulding, Locke falls, and is paralyzed. Likewise, in Paradise Lost, Lucifer was a devoted follower of God, he felt that he was his son, and God chose to appoint another son in his place. When he questions God’s authority and wages a rightful war against him, he also falls, slammed into Hell through the Cosmos, by the Son or God, but does not die.

The Con-Artist and the Use of Influence and Manipulation

i'm henry gale... i'm from minn-e-sota...

In Paradise Lost, Lucifer chooses not to use violence to act out his will, although all of the angels and God know that he is capable of it. We see how powerful he is in the war in heaven. He has the ability to change form however and influence people to do his bidding. In the poem he takes on the form of the cherub to visit Heaven and when he seduces Eve into eating the apple he transforms into a snake. The Nemesis on “LOST” uses his form to commit violence as the “Smoke Monster” but he never uses the threat of violence to act out his will. He only kills people who are opposed to him and his plans. He does not use influence people to force actions through duress. He could have changed into the “Smoke Monster” and banged Ben against the wall to get him to kill Jacob, but he chooses not to. He wants Ben to act of his own free will, a topic I discuss later. Additionally, the Nemesis takes on the form of dead people to influence their actions. Some of the most intelligent characters on the show use influence and manipulation to get what they want. Both Ben and Sawyer are con-artists and masterminds. Even though Sawyer’s intelligence is questioned because he isn’t as textbook-smart is Jack, this assumption is countered in Season 4 when Sawyer says that he reads a book every night, also in Season 3 when he quotes “Of Mice and Men.” Extremely intelligent people who want others to do their bidding need only use their mind and do not need to resort to violence. For example, Michael kills two people to set Ben free when their murders were unnecessary.

Previous Allusions to Hell, Heaven, and Eden in “LOST”

Many of the survivors have committed or are directly responsible for some grave sin and could therefore be in Hell, the island, as a form of punishment.

Kate is a murderer. Jin is the proximate cause of a suicide. Sawyer is a murderer and a liar. Sayid is a torturer. Son sold her husband’s soul to her father to become a murderer by accepting $100,000. Jack betrayed his father. Desmond is a coward in the military. Charlie is a drug attic. Hurley is a glutton and is responsible for the deaths of many people because of his weight. (Desmond, Charlie, and Hurley have not committed recognizable sins for the purposes of the Ten Commandments)

John Locke’s father states that he was in an ambulance and awoke in Hell on the island.

The dead bodies of the plane crash were presumably found at the bottom of the ocean. Although this was a hoax, notwithstanding Charles Widmore’s purpose, there was no explanation by the media for the lie.

Mr. Eko abandons the construction of a church on the island as futile.

Aaron is baptized and Charlie almost drowns him to persuade Claire to perform this ritual.

The new John Locke, the Nemesis, appears on the island by coming through the water, as Jesus walked through the water.

The island is similar to what we would imagine Eden to be.

Until the fall of Adam and Eve there is no knowledge of how humans and animals procreate to create life.

Save for Aaron, human birth is impossible on the island. New life is impossible in Hell.

Innocence of children is incompatible with the influence of the island, and all must be rounded up by the others or taken off the island (the children on the plane, Walt, Aaron, Sun’s baby, and Kate’s potential baby)

The Egyptian Ankh and religion was a predecessor to the Christianity and possibly the crucifix.

When Locke approaches the house of his father after he gives him his kidney, he puts his face up to the gate in a similar way that Lucifer approaches the gates of Heaven when he is banished by God.

Hell is only the Absence of Heaven

“Whereto I fly is Hell; Myself am Hell.” The Fiend, Paradise Lost IV. 75.

i want to *DO* lucifer, and since im only talking about the fictional character, it's not sacrilegious...

For the Fiend in Paradise Lost, once he has been expelled from Heaven everything around him reminds him of his utter loss. There is a recurring theme of artifice and truth that runs throughout the poem, and although the Fiend in Hell could set up great halls and has the ability to construct the palaces and likeness of heaven, because they would be imitations they are inferior. And the artifice itself reminds him of his great loss. Even while he is in Eden he marvels at the beauty of nature, but is unable to appreciate it because he realizes what he lost. And for this reason, the Fiend can never be content. The island on “LOST” has similar Edenic characteristics. I myself wouldn’t mind being shipwrecked there. The survivors have everything they need: meat, fruit, pre-packaged goods, running water, other people, the beauty of nature. Yet while some realize the truth in the Island, (John Locke, Rose, and Bernard) others feel like it is a purgatory and are rightly so. Even when it makes sense to stay on the island, especially for Kate whoknowingly  faces a murder trial upon return, these characters want to answer for the sins they committed while they were off the island. I feel like the representation of the island as Hell is a propos when the Nemesis tells Ben that all he wants to do is “go home.” He feels like a prisoner on the island. He is summoned by a certain tool in Ben’s home and the sonic barriers prevent him from being free. But even more so, I would make the analogy that his home is some Heaven like place, and like the Fiend in Paradise Lost, he would influence a man to commit a grave sin to find his way back. Furthermore, the Nemesis comments on the “chains” Richard Alpert was wearing, which to me may be a reference to the fact that all of the fallen angels were chained in Tartarus.

Immaculate Conception: Claire and Aaron

So, I know what you are thinking…If I’m are comparing Paradise Lost to “LOST” where is the Son? Well, first of all, Milton never outright says the Son is Jesus but most make that parallel. I venture that the Son in “LOST” is baby Aaron for a few reasons. First, we have excessive foreshadowing about the baby from the psychic and that he would live a horrible life. Most would agree that Jesus being executed and abandoned by his friends at at such a young age sounds pretty unpleasant. Secondly, Claire’s baby stops moving once the plane crashes and then miraculously does a few days later. Could this be an intervention by the Island or some other supernatural figure? Did the Island give Claire’s child some type of new life? Thirdly, there is an interesting scene with Charlie before he almost drowns Aaron. In a dream he envisions Claire as the Virgin Mary and his own mother as Madonna. Coincidence?

you have to save the baby charlie. you have to save the baby charlie.

I think not. Finally, the Nemesis separates Claire from the baby so Aaron leaves the island while he is planning his attack. Also, Claire in a vision to Kate, warns her not to bring Aaron back.

Death and Consciousness

Most of you are familiar with the scene in Genesis where the Serpeant seduces Eve. He tells her that “she will not surely die” from biting the apple. In Paradise Lost, the Fiend says the same thing but in a much more elegant way. I’m sorry but I had to post this. You can skip it if you like.

Queen of this universe! do not believe

Those rigid threats of death: ye shall not die:

How should you? by the fruit? it gives you life

To knowledge; by the threatener? look on me,

Me, who have touched and tasted; yet both live,

And life more perfect have attained than Fate

Meant me, by venturing higher than my lot.

Shall that be shut to Man, which to the Beast

Is open? or will God incense his ire

For such a petty trespass? and not praise

Rather your dauntless virtue, whom the pain

Of death denounced, whatever thing death be,

Deterred not from achieving what might lead

To happier life, knowledge of good and evil;

Of good, how just? of evil, if what is evil

Be real, why not known, since easier shunned?

God therefore cannot hurt ye, and be just;

Not just, not God; not feared then, nor obeyed:

Your fear itself of death removes the fear.

Why then was this forbid? Why, but to awe;

Why, but to keep ye low and ignorant,

His worshippers? He knows that in the day

Ye eat thereof, your eyes that seem so clear,

Yet are but dim, shall perfectly be then

Opened and cleared, and ye shall be as Gods,

Knowing both good and evil, as they know.

That ye shall be as Gods, since I as Man,

Internal Man, is but proportion meet;

I, of brute, human; ye, of human, Gods.

So ye shall die perhaps, by putting off

Human, to put on Gods; death to be wished,

Though threatened, which no worse than this can bring.

Paradise Lost, The Fiend Book IX

I would soooooooo of eaten that apple. But my point in this is that no one in Paradise Lost has a concept of what death is. After the angels fall from heaven they wonder if there is any way they could be punished more by continuing to disobey God. They wonder if the absence of consciousness and reason are to follow but as of yet have no idea if this is even possible. Likewise, Adam and Eve have no concept of Death. They discuss what it is and are afraid of it because it is a form of punishment, but even more ignorant than we are now of it, they have never seen Death to discern its meaning. It is a word of fear to them but no one, even us, to this day knows what it really means. To the Fiend in a spiritual sense, since he commits the worse sin ever, Death is a type of ending but the spirit continues to live and think and reason. Likewise, in “LOST” many dead people, who don’t seem to be the Nemesis exist to Hurley. Yes I know he’s crazy but often in literature and in film, insane people are the only ones who are capable of seeing the truth. Charlie makes a statement to Hurley in Season 4 when he says “I am dead but I am also here.”

i still don't understand why charlie had to close the door in the submarine

And in the Season 6 premiere Locke comments on the fact that even though Christian’s coffin is missing, it doesn’t mean that anyone knows where he is. To me this seems like “LOST” is commenting on our confusion about what Death may actually be.

Free Will and Foreknowlege:

As if predestination over-rul’d
Their will dispos’d by absolute decree
Or high foreknowledge they themselves decreed
Their own revolt, not I; if I foreknew,
Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault,
Which had no less proved certain unforeknown.” God, Paradise Lost, Book III

Yeah God is pretty confusing throughout the whole book. And he plays mind games. Just think about Job!

Free Will and Foreknowledge are two other huge themes in the poem. How can one have any free will when God already knows what is going to happen? He can see everything before it happens. He knows when Lucifer is going to wage a war. He knows how the Fiend will corrupt his creation of mankind. He also knows that both Adam and Eve will eat of the tree because of the Fiend’s influence. “LOST” also presents these themes with Desmond and in the Season 6 Premiere. Desmond has the gift of foresight. He can see what is about to happen and can also see when someone is going to die. He knows that Charlie is going to die, and even though he prevents it in many ways, Charlie inevitably meets his end. He is warned by Eloise that his intervention will only prolong the death for a time because nature has a way of “course correcting.” My friend Paco also pointed out that in the Season 6 Premiere, Charlie was going to die in the bathroom on the plane, but for Jack saving him. So it would seem that fate or foreknowledge controls people’s lives on the show. Likewise, Jacob seems to appear at every significant moment in the survivors’ lives. He is with Kate when she first steals. He is with Jack when he almost botches a surgery and paralyzes a patient. He is with Locke when his father pushes him out of the window. How would Jacob know where and when to be if fate was not a factor?

yeah im not thinking this was random...

Then we have the aspect of free will. This only seems to be mentioned when Jacob tells Ben he has a choice. It seems like a weak argument though doesn’t it? Jacob is inside, waiting for Ben and the Nemesis, and does not put up a fight. This is why I think foreknowledge beats out free will in literature and film, and I would venture, in our own lives. I believe that every one can take certain turns on their path in life, but I think that all paths lead to the same place. As my friend Sara once told me when I was worried about my admissions into graduate school, “you’ll end up where you are supposed to end up.” And looking at my life, I think she was right.

Eternal Youth

if im stranded on an island, i hope he is the only other survivor.

Of course we know that angels do not age. Adam and Eve don’t age, presumably, until the fall since they were immortal. Likewise, we have three characters who do not age at all on the island: the Nemesis, Jacob, and Richard Alpert. To me this seems like they are angels or some other type of heavenly creatures. And interesingly, Richard Alpert, if his name is rearranged, spells RAPHAEL, with a few letters left over. I always though his name was weird. Raphael was a sort of counsel to Adam and Eve warning them about the fall and was an intermediate between God and Man. And he was always passing out all sorts of judgment. He shows Locke Sawyer’s “file” showing that he was a murderer. And how pray tell, did they know that Sawyer shot the guy in the shrimp truck? When Locke tries to get Kate to go with the others Richard shows him her “file.” Coincidence? I don’t think so.

The Problem with the Theory: Mr. Eko

mr. eko doesn't give a what

Most theories have flaws, and to me there only seems to be one issue with mine: Mr. Eko’s death. It seems that the Nemesis is plagued by Mr. Eko and is unsure if he will be useful to him or not. But then, when he presents himself to Mr. Eko as Yemi, he decides Eko must die. Most people would say that because Eko refused to asked God for forgiveness, this would make him a viable candidate to do to Nemesis’ work because, like the fiend, he has too much pride to ask for forgiveness. I disagree. I think the fact that Mr. Eko is a strong character and willful proves that he is completely resistant to the Nemesis’ influence. The scene in which he presents himself as Yemi reminds me of the scene in the Bible where Satan attempts to tempt Jesus three times. In his refusal to ask for forgiveness, and decision to stand behind the fact that he sacrificed his own innocence for the innocence of his brother, makes him more religious than a superficial confession that would give him entry into heaven ever would. I don’t think anyone would disagree that if there is a Heaven within the fictional world of “LOST” Eko should be afforded a place there. And anyway, God commands people to kill all the time.

So, there you have it. It’s just a theory. No, I’m not saying Jacob is God. He can’t be since he was killed. I think he is connected however. And I don’t discuss time traveling because I’m not a physicist. I may be disproved in the next episode. But I would like to hear your thoughts!

The Perfect State Actor: Society’s Unconscious Death Wish for Criminals in “Dexter”

There are two topics of conversation that will kill a dinner party when you are unaware of your guests’ political stance: abortion and capital punishment. Primarily, the idea of government regulated murder is so difficult for people to accept because what happens after death is so unknown. Where do we go when we die? What happens when we leave this earth? Nothing is certain. But this isn’t a blog about the metaphysical aspect about the thing, it’s about the governmental regulation of it.

Most people’s views toward the death penalty are usually one of the three options:

The Death Penalty Always Works:

Such advocacy for the death penalty usually comes from people who have been the victim of some heinous crime or are involved in some regulation of it. There are a few reasons why people who are pro-death penalty see it as a necessity in American law. Although death is the “most irreversible of criminal sanctions” (J. Scalia) it functions to deter criminals and enact retribution upon them. While it may not deter crimes of passion, the fear of the death penalty may prevent a planned murder from happening. If we imagine a hitman planning a murder, he will probably acknowledge all the risks involved in the crime and the risks involved if he gets caught. Therefore, if he knows that his own death may result from his actions, he may be dissuaded from committing the crime. Additionally, if the death penalty did not exist, inmates that have life sentences without the possibility of parole would never receive any subsequent punishment from killing other prisoners. The death penalty also works as a form of retribution for the victims of the crime. To prevent you from taking revenge on the murderer who killed your child, the state will step in and do it for you, and with one legal injection, it may end the cycle of violence.

I’m on the Fence

This type of advocacy usually comes from people who may agree with some of the above reasons and could hypothetically imagine why the State would put someone to death. In certain circumstances the death penalty could seem appropriate and in some it is not. Furthermore, these people are aware that some people who are on death row or have been put to death are or were innocent. They also disagree with the idea that the state can be a level-headed actor facilitating retribution because the state has its own interest at stake. For example, the state argues on the victims behalf, yet without the victims’ consent a deal for a confession and whereabouts of partner or upper level criminal will take the death penalty “off the table”or provide a shorter sentence. And advocating any type of system that kills innocent people or lets criminals go free because of a corrupt state or inept lawyers would make anyone feel uneasy.

The Death Penalty Never Works

These type of people want the death penalty to be abolished. Even if the culprit killed 20 children he should only get life imprisonment and not have his being extinguished by the state. Most of these supporters believe that since the death penalty has or is capable of punishing innocent people it must be abolished in toto. Some also believe that it is a waste of government spending. And I just want to state, for the record, that I respect everyone’s opinion on the issue and everyone is entitled to have one, of course.

Many critics of those who are anti-death penalty feel that even though these people staunchly oppose it, they would not do the same thing if they saw what had happened to the murderer’s victims or were related to a victim themselves. And if the best argument is that the death penalty should be abolished because the court makes mistakes, would your position change if no mistakes were ever made, if the only the guilty were punished?

“Dexter” puts this theoretical idea in practice, by having a serial killer sentence criminals to death. He embodies all the reasons that support the use of the use of the death penalty in a perfect system. First, we don’t have to worry about the executioner’s guilt after switching on the electric chair or sticking in the needle because Dexter enjoys it. Dexter actually learns more about himself from his serial killers. Secondly, Dexter has his own code for determining culpability, and unlike most sentencing in most court proceedings, Dexter only takes a life when he is certain that the criminal will kill again. So in this sense, he deters and prevents future deaths of innocent people. Dexter only steps in when the system has failed representing its victims, so he is the state – by virtue of working on the police force and making testimonies at trial – who enacts retribution.

However, the main reason why Dexter is able to determine guilt so easily is because he doesn’t respect the soon to be deceased criminals’ constitutional rights; namely the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The state has to find probable cause to search someone’s house or property and Dexter completely bypasses the step. The irony of it, is that while we do love our constitutional rights, the only person who would regret an illegal search warrant after the incriminating evidence is found is the criminal himself or the lawyer representing said criminal. Let’s be honest, no one sheds a tear when Dexter finds the bloody baseball bat in the suspect’s house or the corpse in the basement and then dumps the killer’s body parts in the river. On the contrary, we rejoice. And like the state, save for one criminal in the entirety of all four seasons, Dexter usually gets a verbal confession.

i just love this image

The sensationalization and romanticization of state action seems novel to the 21^st century. While there have been many films and television shows with detective murder-mysteries in the past, nowadays we can see the chain link between the victim, the detectives, the prosecutor, the defense attorney and the judge. As a fan of horror films myself, I am usually asked how I can stomach so much gore and why I am attracted to it. Horror films that follow serial killers, (the fictional ones) just seem fantastical to me. However, Dexter isn’t some mindless vigilante, and the reasons for his work are based on legal fact. Which makes me wonder if the success of this show is premised on the idea that even anti-death penalty advocates could get so swept up in the accuracy of Dexter’s convictions and their own contempt for the criminals, that for a second they agree with what Dexter’s form of governmentalized murder. I don’t think anyone would argue after seeing the scene with the Trinity Killer and the little boy that he shouldn’t be put down, but that is just me and I am sure anti-death penalty folks would disagree. Especially in light of his near 100 murders. And if so, then opposition of it is more concerned with incapacitation rather than retribution for the victims.

However, during the progress of the show Dexter has made a few mistakes, the catalyst of which are his time management between his new wife, adopted children, and his own child.

In Season 2, when Dexter is caught by his colleague dumping body parts in the river he contributes to his murder even though it was his ex-girlfriend Lila that committed the crime. But for her involvement, Dexter would have killed him and the false imprisonment of Sgt. James Doake was one of the direct causes of his death. Yet we sympathize with Dexter because, in a way, Sgt. James Doake was guilty of murder, albeit police-sanctioned murder, but murder nonetheless.

In Season 3, when Dexter is attempting to kill a murderer he gets sidetracked and accidentally kills the district attorney’s brother. He kills Oscar Prado in self-defense but through proximate cause (the man would not have died had Dexter not been attempting another murder) he is guilty of taking an innocent life. Yet again we sympathize with Dexter because this victim was a “drug dealer” and seemed to be incapable of redemption.

In Season 4, Dexter neglects to get a verbal confession from a photographer for a string of murders and then after his death realizes that the assistant was the guilty one. Yet we sympathize with Dexter’s act because this man is abhorrent and misogynistic.

In Season 4 Dexter also kills a child molester. I thought this move was interesting since it brings attention to the fact that South Carolina and Florida all can impose the death penalty on child molesters. Yet again we sympathize with Dexter because in this situation the child molester was going after his daughter.

Finally, the rest of Season 4 seems like a cluster fuck for Dexter, he is so consumed with his work and his family he all but forgets to focus on the code and to distance himself from the murderer.

This in turn causes a little boy to be kidnapped and Rita’s death (if indeed the Trinity killer murdered her, which I am not sure of all though all my friends disagree )What I find interesting about the relationship between Dexter and the Trinity killer is that in the previous seasons Dexter usually stepped in only when the State could not meet its burden. Either the prosecutor failed at trial, there wasn’t enough evidence, or no search warrant was granted. If one of the main purposes of the Death Penalty is to give retribution to the victims, how do any of the victims get justice when Dexter purposely misleads the police or refuses to give them information that would ensure a trial? It is one thing for Dexter to give retribution in absentia to a victim when there is no choice, but to deny a victim or that victim’s family the right to try their accuser seems selfish and disrespectful. However, maybe Dexter is arguing that the justice of the death penalty is only for the victim and the future people the killer could injure, not the people who are left behind. Hmmmm.

It seems that “Dexter” complicates the ways in which we think about the death penalty: who profits from it, who should receive it if at all, what crimes should be punished with it if at all, the flaws and successes of the legal system, whether rehabilitation in prison can ever occur, and whether or not Dexter, the symbol of the death penalty enacted, as the government itself, could ever be impartial enough to determine a guilt when the punishment for that assertion is the finality of death.

Thoughts?

The Princess and the Frog: The Black Fairy Tale that Apparently Wasn’t Politically Correct Enough

Whispers that Disney was finally going to make a fairy tale movie about a black girl caused black folk to get in an uproar. There were mixed reactions from the community. They consisted of “Yes! Finally Disney is giving our black youth a positive role model when they’ve ignored us for 50 years!” and “This isn’t going to be good, it’s gonna be racist or offensive in some way.”

Actually, there was such commotion about “The Princess and the Frog” before it was released, I was surprised Disney even released it. They changed Tiana’s name, they changed her job, even the title of the movie. It was supposed to be the Frog Princess but blacks got offended. The original fairy tale was the Frog Prince. I mean, come on people.

I admit I had the same mixed reaction when I heard about the film, yet any hesitation I had was silenced by the fact that it was going to be a fairy tale, a genre with different motivations and expectations, and that now, black children, hey, even black adults could have an option when they went to BlockBuster Video.

thank god disney didn't make her light-skinned, we'd never hear the end of it

I just watched the film last night and I was very pleased. In one sense it was a post-racial (the idea that society has, or will soon, move past race) because it employed a strong Protestant Work Ethic. In another sense there were signifiers suggesting that young black children had a specific connection to the main character Tiana. However, since the film arrived in theatres, critics have argued that it is racially offensive because :

1. The character’s name is Tiana, which to them is a stereotypical or “ghetto” sounding name.
2. The characters themselves are stereotypical in their dialect.
3. Disney tends to portray its heroine as a conservative black Republican (arguably not a majority political stance within the community) because she works hard and doesn’t accept welfare or handouts.
4. Black women are forced to work hard and white women don’t have to if they come from old money.
5. Tiana ends up in an interracial marriage; she doesn’t marry a black prince.

All of these claims are valid yet they seem to be irrelevant when black critics forget that this is a fairy tale for black children. Fairy Tales are inherently politically incorrect especially through a feminist lens. The females in these tales are manipulated until they grow up and get married. If that isn’t politically incorrect I don’t know what is. The Princess and the Frog, adapted from the Frog Prince is an animal-groom tale in which the prince, while he is a frog delves into his unconscious until he is ready for marriage. In the Disney tale both of them transform into frogs until they find out who they are.

Disney actually Negates Stereotypes

ick, boy parts

Interestingly, the premise of this film alone dispels stereotypes about black women and women in general. First of all, Bruno Bettelheim has argued that the use of the frog in “The Frog Prince” and the princess’ refusal to kiss it, is a metaphor for women’s primary disgust with the male penis. In the tale itself, the frog forces the princess to allow him to sleep in her bed when she doesn’t want to. And after that, miraculously, the princess doesn’t mind kissing him. In the film, Tiana has the same aversion to the frog, and the frog prince himself is laden with sexual energy. The prince doesn’t like to be tied down and has had “dates with thousands of women.” Additionally, I would argue that frog form is sexually charged because the characters repeat that the secretions on their bodies “are not slime, but mucus.” Hypersexuality is a negative stereotype associated with blacks, and ironically, the only hypersexual woman in the film is Tiana’s white friend Charlotte. Furthermore, by having a multi-racial prince, his hypersexuality and refusal to be tied down is not a criticism of black men. Finally, unlike most fairy tales, this one is extremely modern. Young girls don’t need to wait around for a prince, they can actually work hard and find one on their own.

“Ghetto” Black Characterizations

First of all, we have to remember that this is a fairy tale for young black children, not black adults. The film takes place in New Orleans and to me I think the dialect and the characterization is a propos. Frankly, the behavior and accent of the firefly and the witch startled me, until I remembered that my grandparents usually spoke in the same way. Most black children do have grandparents with the same dialect. Tiana even asks the firefly about his accent, and he explains that it is Creole. I also don’t have a problem with the name Tiana. I mean what will make black people happy? If her name is Jane, Elizabeth, how about Snow White? It seems like the more accurate Disney is in its characterizations of black life, blacks feel more shamed that they are associated with it and would prefer the portrayal to be post-racial. Yet, if Disney made this film with no cultural reference to blackness with only a black heroine, critics would argue that the film wasn’t “black” enough.

I Ain’t Gonna be no Welfare Chick

This criticism just seems unfounded. It is a positive characteristic that Tiana wants to work hard and would even hold down two jobs for her accomplishments. I know I have and this doesn’t mean I’m Republican. She doesn’t even dance when her friends invite her to a party. Can we just let that one go? I am so not gonna waste any time writing about how Tiana “is” or “isn’t” black because she doesn’t spend her days dancing.

disney is saying all black people do is dance! that's RACIST! oh wait, tiana doesn't know how...well what else can we find that's racist?

The fact that she doesn’t take “welfare” from the shadowman is not a criticism of blacks who accept welfare, because…well , because the shadowman functions as a demon, and as such is not a symbol of the government. I mean, come on. It wouldn’t be a free ride if she’s giving up her soul. Tiana doesn’t refuse handouts altogether anyway. The prince promises to help her with her restaurant even if he marries her friend. Additionally, the welfare criticism seems moot because she already had enough money to buy her restaurant but she was prevented from doing so because the bankers didn’t want a black woman to own her own business. And in this sense, the government is against her, and is not giving her a free ride. Black critics are also upset that she had to marry to become a princess and wasn’t one naturally. I’m sorry wait, weren’t Cinderella, Belle, Snow White and Rose Red, and Rapunzel only princesses through marriage? I mean at this point it’s like what will make us happy. Should Tiana be a black princess by birth, no wait, then she represents the black elite and that isn’t black enough. Maybe she shouldn’t have to work, what if she’s pricked with a needle by the shadowman like Sleeping Beauty? Oh wait, that’s black on black crime.  What about if she’s locked in a tower like Rapunzel? Oh wait, that would be a symbol of slavery or bondage. No that won’t do. Rapunzel also won’t work because black girls will want to get relaxers and have long straigt hair like the heroine. Get over yourself people, it is a fairy tale and supercedes your own cultural standards!

I would also argue that criticism suggesting that Tiana represents the republican ideal is also meritless. The only character in the film who represents conservative republican ideology is her friend, Charlotte . She hasn’t worked a day in her life, comes from old money, and at the end of the film is punished. Her idleness prevents her from marriage and she ironically will continue to wait until the prince’s adolescent brother grows old enough to court her.

Black Women don’t Marry Black Men

First of all, this a modern fairy tale and is supposed to give an accurate portrayal of a black woman, or any woman’s options in marriage. I read “Race-talk’s” blog, which was very humorous. He points out that while Pocahontas marries a white man in the Disney tale, it can be justified by the historical narrative surrounding the story. Whereas, he argues, if in Beauty and the Beast, Beast transformed into a black prince and not a white one, parents may have become upset. And yes I agree. However in this film we are presented with the multi-racial prince from the getgo. It would be one thing if we were only acquainted with the frog and when they kiss he happens to be a tan prince, but this is not the case. What really pisses me off is that black folk were upset when they saw the image of interracial couple BEFORE the film came out. I mean isn’t that what racism is? These critics are suggesting that an interracial marriage is inferior before we even meet the people in the marriage.  So for all their misgivings about the film, they display their own unconscious racism. By having an interracial marriage Disney is making a post-racial move that is representative of our current time. Tiana doesn’t “need” to get married to a black man and there are positive black male role models throughout the film, especially Tiana’s dad. And let’s be clear, black folks would have REALLY gotten into an uproar if the prince was black and his choice was between marrying a rich white woman and poor black waitress.

thank god it wasn't a black man serenading white women, we'd never hear the end of it

Aren’t you glad Disney dodged that bullet? Angry black women would be making a fuss everywhere. Bottom line is black women can marry whoever they want, and they shouldn’t feel ashamed about it.

The Black Unconscious

At first I didn’t understand the relevance of the scene where Tiana and the prince are being hunted by white men. Then I remembered that in fairy tales, when people transform into animals they are usually confronting issues in their unconscious. Tiana and the prince both have to tackle the issue of readying themselves for marriage. Tiana has to learn to let love in her life while pursuing her dreams and the Prince has to learn that he needs to be more committed. Yet there is another nightmare Tiana and the prince have to face: the nightmare that they will be racially persecuted by whites.

Indeed, this scene would be very scary for black children. These white people are trying to murder Tiana and the prince to devour them. Although the “white trash” characters say they want to kill them for frog legs, it is obvious that Disney connects its black viewers to its black characters through this fear of victimization and cannibalism. For some black children racism hasn’t happened yet and for some it has. But Disney realizes that black youth, although it is unfair, may be faced with these hardships. They may feel persecuted by whites, they may feel like they need to work a lot harder than their white friends, and even when they have worked hard and saved enough money to achieve their dream, external forces may still prevent them from being happy.

I am thankful that Disney has finally recognized its black community and we have something more than Snow White to watch. Hopefully there will be more representations of race for our children, as long as black folk don’t stand in the way.

© the siren, 2009

When Does Privacy End and Full Disclosure Begin? The Politics of ‘Outing’ a Lover in a Relationship

  “Gay, Bi, Straight: Pick a Side and Stay there” – Charlotte York

 There are many reasons why a person would not want to disclose their sexual preferences to the world. There is the fear that once this sexuality is exposed you may lose your job, your family, your friends. There is the fear that you may be publicly persecuted for this disclosure. And finally, your sexual preference really isn’t anybody’s business. The public world, this includes parents, bosses, and friends, have no right to penetrate the privacy of your own bedroom. But does the person already in the bedroom have a right to know?

salvatore on mad men

We live in a world in which homosexuals are persecuted for not “coming out of the closet,” not defining themselves publicly as homosexual, when ironically, heterosexuals are not held to the same standard. I definitely agree that the choice or the refusal to identify yourself sexually is personal and private. Most people don’t have to say, hi, my name is Jim and I have a foot fetish, or hi, my name is Sally and I’m into erotic asphyxiation, or hi, my name is John and I’m into orgies, or hi my name is Casey, and I’m into watching two women get it on. Within the dichotomy of homo and heterosexuality, there are a million types of sexualites that people may choose or not choose to identify themselves with. But do you owe it to your lover to disclose your sexual preference when it is undoubtedly going to have an effect on the relationship?

 For the purposes of this blog I would like you to imagine:

1. You are in a relationship with a person, and this person has not yet told you they prefer the sex that you physically or biologically cannot be.
2. There is no possibility that this person, by exposing themselves to you, would have to fear that he or she would be “outed” to the public.

 One of my male friends. Timmy*, was dating a girl, Alisha* for about 5 years. They lived together and got married. One night I was at a party with my gay friend, Shane*. After the party Shane said, oh my god, Timmy was all over me. He was totally wanting to suck my cock and get me to leave the party with him” My reaction to this was: What the Fuck?! And then : Poor poor girl. He probably rationalizes his adulterous behavior by claiming that since he would be sleeping with a guy, it wouldn’t count. Or that since Shane* was the opposite sex, she wouldn’t be so offended by the act.

 What a disaster! A girl marries the man of her dreams or so it seems, she’s thinks she special, that she’s the one, when really she’s just the female one, Timmy likes to have male ones as well.

And this got me thinking, in defense of privacy, is it just selfish for one partner to demand to know about the sexual secrets of their lover? And how far does this go? Or, is it just outright deceptive not to tell your lover that you a prefer a sex that he/she is not. And is it still deceptive if you choose not to act on your bisexual desires?

 This topic has also been portrayed in television. On “Will and Grace” Will deceptively enters into a committed relationship with Grace and hides that he is gay. Grace isn’t upset that he is gay but that he used her for years. On Six Feet Under, David is engaged to a woman, and wastes two years of her life because he doesn’t tell her that he is gay. And recently on Mad Men, Salvatore punishes his wife by flirting with other men in front of her, yet refuses to tell her he is gay. For these characters, their refusal to broadcast their sexualities to the world was not their crime, their crime was trapping another person in a deceptive relationship.

 Although I loathe to compare sexuality to race, I feel that it may be beneficial to compare bisexuality to biraciality, and for the purposes of this blog, the concept of passing with African-Americans. The term passing describes a choice a biracial person makes to publicly identify themselves by one race and hide the fact that they belong to another.

halle berry in alex haley's queen

Since slavery, African-Americans realized that they could protect themselves from racism and profit from the privileges of whiteness by claiming that they were white. Nella Larsen’s Passing, written during the Harlem Renaissance, depicts this internal and external racial turmoil of the tragic mulatto. One of the protagonists, Claire, is only 1/8 black. She feel strong ties to her black community and black friends, but she chooses to “pass” for white because she can escape prejudice, marry a rich a white man, and have children who don’t have suffer the stigma of blackness. At the end of the novel, she reveals her identity and her husband, who is in fact a bigot, is very upset. Her friend, who is also light-skinned but chooses to claim blackness is even more furious. Claire falls from the window and dies, and it would seem that her friend, not her husband kills her.

 The concept of passing is interesting because it balances the personal choice of racial identification with public pressure that forces people to racially identify. It suggests that our society desires people to classify themselves; they cannot oscillate between categories or hide their identities from others.

Every one is pissed off at Claire because she derives pleasure from both worlds. She goes to the speak-easy and dances to drums with her black friends and then goes home to her white family, with no race being the wiser. But Claire should be able to “do” both because she “is” both. While race isn’t relevant to the way a person acts in a relationship. I would argue that sexual preference does have a bearing on a relationship.

 If we think of serious exclusive relationships as agreements, it is easy to see that each person gives sufficient consideration for being a part of the relationship. The biggest consideration involved: our agreement to only sleep with each other, is conditioned on the fact that we both forfeit any and all attempts to sleep with others. In a sense, when you decide to be part of a relationship you bargain for something. In heterosexual relationships, most women know that there is a chance their mate will sleep with another woman. And in homosexual relationships most men know their mate might sleep with another man. But we don’t bargain for the fact that our lover would sleep with our opposite sex. There is usually an element of control over another person when you are in a relationship and we all know it. Both parties need to check in frequently with the other. Both parties need to identify the people they are associating with. Both parties need to give excuses for not coming home at night.

 But when your lover has refused to disclose their true sexual preference, there is an unfair bargain. You have disclosed your whereabouts and made it clear you are not fraternizing with a person that could tempt you into committing adultery. You ask your mate the same thing and you only get half-truths. For heterosexual women, “guy’s fight night” could mean your husband will literally be pinned up against the wall. For heterosexual men, “going shopping with the girls” could mean they really do enjoy going downtown. For homosexual men, “watching movies with the girls” isn’t about show tunes. And for homosexual women, “handiman Joe” may be attending to other pipes than the the ones below the sink.

 It seems that if you honor a person in a relationship you have a duty to disclose to them that, in addition to them, you are interested or have been seriously been interested in another sex. Some people certainly have issues with it and some people do not. But before I engage in a life-long journey with someone, he’s gonna have to lay all of his cards on the table.

Thoughts?

*All names have been changed.

  © the siren, 2009

The Failure of Forced Religious Morality on an Amoral Subject: “New Moon” Just Bloody Sucks

So before I rip the film New Moon, and yes, the writer Stephanie Meyer apart, I want to list some positives.

1. The male actors were breathtakingly gorgeous.

2. The shot of Bella’s depression juxtaposed against the changing seasons was novel.

3. The action sequences were impressive.

And… I’m done. So let’s get into it, shall we?

The Tired Portrayal of the Depressive Teenage Girl and her Apathetic Boyfriend

so like yeah, um, we're breaking up, like, don't get depressed or anything

So the plot in this film revolves around Edward dumping Bella because he doesn’t want to commit to a long-term relationship. And can I say, the break-up scene was one of the worst in film history. It can be summed up with, Edward: “Bella, I don’t think this is gonna work, I’m leaving” Bella: “What, why?” Edward: “Because, I’m no good for you.” And scene. The film has aesthetic appeal but the acting is just completely lacking. At this point in the film I was just bored. Some of the best break-up scenes in films are extremely passionate or are laden with emotion and the lack thereof in this film set the tone for its lukewarm climax. Most vampire buffs have seen the human/vampire break-up before. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” was wonderful in its use of metaphors.

 Bram Stoker’s Dracula was full of tears when Mina left him, but the relationship between Bella and Edward was like an adolescent interaction on the playground. Then we have to sit through Bella’s depression and not only are the spectators annoyed, but so are the characters in the film. Her immortal beloved dumped her for no reason, she turns away a man who would have never left her, and at the end of the film she ends up staying with the man who injured her in the first place and drove her to attempt suicide. Meyer, if your intent is to create a didactic love story for young women where women are only really happy when they stay with their victimizers, you may be moving in the wrong direction.

Misappropriation of Literary Themes and Devices

It is an extremely cliché move to set the tone for a movie on a work of literature being discussed in the classroom as this film does with “Romeo and Juliet.” But it’s a confounding move to base a novel on a literary work that has nothing to do with matter at hand. Although Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” is based on the trope of suicide for love, we don’t have the same motivation in New Moon. Precisely because Edward didn’t really love her. Romeo and Juliet couldn’t be together because their houses wouldn’t let them. In New Moon, neither Bella’s family nor Edward’s really opposes the relationship. Therefore, Meyer, maybe from her misreading of “Romeo and Juliet,” assumes a parallel exists between a couple who actually loved each other and a dysfunctional relationship in which one is apathetic and one is obsessive.

I’m also troubled by the idea that these vampires don’t sleep at all. Most literary horror or fantasy is based on some type of scientific truth or mythological history. Frankenstein was based on the fact that after death certain body parts begin to grow and the heart can be resuscitated through electricity. The werewolf-human/animal hybrid is based is mythology. But what kind of earthly creatures never sleep? None. Unless Meyer is trying to say that vampires are gods, but since she is a Mormon, she probably isn’t leaning toward polytheism.

Additionally, where is the foundation in the story for the fact that the werewolves’ transformation is motivated by negative stimuli and not the full moon? “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” did this years ago, but Meyer feels that she doesn’t need to explain it. Shouldn’t writers or at least those who purport to be writers give credit where credit is due?

you really shouldn't make me angry

The Stereotypical Portrayal of Native Americans as  Savages

did it just get hot in here or is it me?

Now, I’m all for the display of a handsome man’s six pack and glistening arms, but the 496 scenes of Taylor Lautner with his shirt off compared to Edward’s one scene was just fucked up. Clearly, this poor boy was being used for his exotic sex appeal. Yes, the dark-skinned boys are nice to look at but young white girls shouldn’t touch them. So Bella is tangled up between two super hot guys, how can she choose? Oh, I know, even though both Jacob and Edward are blood-hungry creatures, Jacob will play the role of the savage. We see him and his wolf pack constantly shirtless/naked, running through the forest, unable to restrain their savage tendencies in their wolf state. They also smell like dogs.

Bella is warned when she sees the disfigured face of the wife of a werewolf who couldn’t control his savage nature, so pretty much in this instance, she chooses Edward. But wait, I’m sorry, I thought vampires couldn’t restrain themselves either when blood is around? I seem to recall in an earlier scene Jasper Cullen almost kills her when she gets a scratch and in the last movie Bella was in the hospital because Edward couldn’t stop licking her wounds.

I mean what’s the chance of Bella getting a papercut with Edward. I mean really, if Flo comes to town she’d probably be dead in the morning. Jacob points this out when he says she is being a hypocrit for dismissing one monster for another. And he’s right, the entire film is nonsensical and filled with hypocrisy.

Sexual Restraint for the Purposes of Marriage has no place within the Vampire Genre

It is a bold move by an author to use vampirism, a symbol of sexual penetration, to make an argument for sexual repression and abstinence. I understand the propaganda behind it, and I may be influenced by my own opinions on sex and marriage, but I assume that Edward will decide to bite her (have sex with her) after they are married. But why would a vampire, who has his own superior laws, lower himself to have his relationship defined by the state, a state that doesn’t recognize him anyway? What is the purpose of having legal documentation, e.g. a marriage certificate define a relationship that in itself is immortal? It would be one thing if Bella wanted her Daddy to walk her down the aisle, but it appears that Bella doesn’t give a flying fuck about her human life or her ties to it. It would also be another thing if Bella was going to continue to be mortal and wanted to be married to escape the shudder, gasp, shame of sleeping with a man when the knot hasn’t been tied, but she wants to shed her humanity immediately. And the Cullens have been lying to the state for a long time about a lot of things, their age, their identity, etc. The number one problem with this lame scenario is, if they aren’t getting married for the purposes of civil union, is there religion behind it? But why would vampires be religious and worship God even though they are immortal, are not punished for their actions, and never face any type of judgment? God ceases to have much authority when you are as immortal as he is.

although we are immortal and are not in god's likeness, since he had to rest on the sabbath and we never sleep, we still need to get married, it's the only way!

Things that just don’t make no sense

I realize this is a fantasy and you have to use your imagination, but some things in this film just aren’t credible.

The fact that Edward claims he can’t read Bella’s mind yet knows when she is being reckless.

The fact that Edward knows when Bella is being reckless yet cannot tell if she is dead.

The fact that Edward says he has to see the Volturi to die because vampires cannot be killed, yet we have seen them be killed by both vampires and werewolves.

The fact that Bella is ready to give up her soul and has not fully explored or contemplated what her soul actually is, e.g. the heroine of this film is an idiot.

The fact that a vampire would need to get married to define a long term relationship when his existence is imbued with immortality.

The fact that Meyer is attempting to use impotent vampires as a metaphor for abstinence until marriage when the man in question behaves like a dick. Pun intended.

In conclusion, Meyer’s use of vampirism is a failed attempt to push her own agenda for sexual abstinence because she is completely ignorant of the literary genre and theory and behind it. Her neglect to address the motivations behind her characters’ actions actually mirrors the use of religion that influences the youth who blindly follow. That is until they find out they have a brain and realize that it just doesn’t make any sense.

  © the siren, 2009

Where Feminism and Fashion Runways Collide: The Paradox of the Boyfriend Blazer



You walk into a clothing store. One of those salesgirls approaches you and asks if you need help. You reply that you need a suit with a blazer. She responds, “oh…you mean a ‘Boyfriend Blazer’? I have exactly what you need!” Before you say a word she rushes to the back of the store and brings back a fitted blazer. Dumbfounded, you look and her and the blazer and think, what the hell is going on here?

wait, it's called a WHAT?

The “Boyfriend Blazer” was coined during the revivification of 80’s fashion in 2009 and is modeled after Lisa Bonet’s eccentric character Denise on The Cosby Show. When the term first received notoriety it referenced slouchy loose fitting blazers.

i dont remember denise being in a long term relationship until after college

The idea behind it is that no woman would wear an unfitted blazer unless it belonged to her boyfriend. The term itself is surrounded with an atmosphere of college life: a girl sleeps over at her boyfriend’s place, rolls out of bed frantically because she is late for class or some other engagement, can’t find her clothes, so she throws on her boyfriend’s blazer. The disapproving looks of her friends for her bad fashion sense are nullified when she tells them it belongs to her boyfriend. Now she is special. However, the stereotypical assumptions of the boyfriend blazer are no longer confined to oversized articles of clothing, they now refer to fitted blazers as well. Why does professional business wear for women have to owe its existence to heterosexual relationships?

Fashion isn’t supposed to be politically correct. French Vogue has had pregnant women smoking cigarettes and women in blackface for their photospreads. It is art and cannot always be confined in conventional or proper etiquette. If that were the case the mini-skirt would have never happened. However, terms for articlse of clothing, unless they identify the purpose of the clothing or accessory, e.g. bridal dress, usually do not involve another person. There are “offensive” names for articles of clothing such as hot pants and stripper heels but these terms describe the desires of the woman wearing them, and any males are under her gaze. While those terms are usually correlated with lasciviousness, they also are imbued with a sense of power. The woman who wears these clothes is in control or at least in her mind wants to be.

i admit i have a girl crush on natalie portman, but this scene was genius

The problem with the term boyfriend blazer is that the majority of women who wear blazers and are in positions of power do not consider their careers to be derivatives of their relationships. Is the irony completely lost by fact that most female managers, directors, professors, lawyers, chairs, deans, doctors, and businesswomen have to forego relationships, marriage, and children in order to acquire and keep the job they have?

i was looking for a picture of a female c.e.o. but i thought this would be cuter instead.

The appropriation of masculine clothing for women became most popular during World War I when woman had to take off the corsets and the petticoats, put on a pair of pants, and go down to factories and work because the men… well the men were gone. Here, masculine clothing is worn in the absence of men, or by women in business settings to reify the idea that intellectually there is no difference between genders within the workplace. And yet the boyfriend blazer would suggest that a woman who wears a blazer would have no need to wear one unless it belonged to her boyfriend. The boyfriend blazer would suggest that a woman is inferior if she doesn’t have a boyfriend or even twist the knife deeper if she just got of a bad relationship with one. But lastly, the boyfriend blazer completely ostracizes lesbians from fashion because a woman can’t be in business without having some type of sexual relationship with a man, right?

So I’m assuming very soon any ring from a fine jewelry store that is not an engagement or wedding ring will be called a promise ring, since a single woman should never have a reason to buy expensive jewelry for herself. I bet pants for women who are a size 6 and above will become mommy pants; why else would a woman be that big unless she had a bunch of kids? And let’s start calling graduation attire, daddy robes, no woman without a man could pay her way through college. The only way women can really be happy and successful is if they owe it to a man. If you’re happy and successful and don’t have a boyfriend something is wrong with you, and you can be sure the saleslady won’t let you forget it.

© the siren, 2009

Can Michael Richards Really be Redeemed? I think not, but good try Larry David, I still love you.

I want to preface this blog hailing Larry David as a genius. I love him. I love him. I love him. I admit I was a bit worried with the plantation genre and the stereotypical ending in Season Six of “Curb Your Enthusiasm”, but he managed to dodge that lingering bullet almost effortlessly in Season 7. Vivica A. Fox’s character Loretta Black  and Larry break up in the second episode of the season, “Vehicular Fellatio” and it had nothing to do with race. Larry was planning on dumping her because she got cancer. He is so unsympathetic and sympathetic you just have to love him.

So Larry’s project in Season 7 is winning his wife’s affection by letting her play the role of his actual wife in a “Seinfeld” reunion season. And everyone is on board. We get to see Julia play Elaine, Seinfeld play himself, Larry’s mirror image George Costanza, Jason Alexander ironically as Larry’s complete opposite….and there is….. Michael Richards….. as Kramer. Ehhhhhhhlllllllllllll.

the pink elephant in the room-racist richards

We know he had to be on the show to fulfill the myth of the reunion season, but there is just this bad taste in my mouth when I see him on screen. I’m sure most of you remember his infamous racial fuck-up. It was a fuck-up so bad it wasn’t even excusable. It was the fuck-up heard round the world, Lexington and Concord style.  Here’s a link to his comedy routine.

Okay I just watched it again I am pissed!!!! Arrggggh! When will it stop? Here are just a few unsettling savory bits:

“Fifty years ago we’d have you hanging upside down from a tree!”

“They’re going to arrest me for calling a black man a nigger?”

“Throw his ass out! He’s a nigger, He’s a nigger, He’s a nigger!”

oh LAWD

After a while the black man he was talking to called him a cracker, which I discuss in my earlier blog, is embedded with a notion of racial superiority on the part of the white person who is being called said name.

I’m not really sure what pissed Michael Richards off so much. But I am gonna assume it was some loud mouth Negroes, yeah I said it, talking too much during a performance which is why he told them to shut up. And yes, really my brothers and sisters, you know who you are, you need to stop talking through movies, it’s annoying. I wanted to cut a bitch the last time I was in the theater.

But there is no reason to say what Richards said. I mean come on. A good shut the fuck up would have sufficed. He didn’t need to offend everyone in the place. And he forgets, black folk actually paid to see him perform. I mean can you imagine, taking your lovely black boyfriend or girlfriend on a date to a comedy show, and thinking wow, we get to see the guy who played Kramer, I’m so excited, and while you’re sipping on your Long Island Iced Tea you get taken back to 1865 with some white dude talkin bout hanging niggers from trees. NIET KIEL DAWG.

Hence, the icky taste in my mouth. But in the last episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry addresses the issue of harboring a known racist on the show. He does this in three ways.

1. Michael Richards looks like crap compared to everyone else in the show. Even though everyone has aged, they still look the same. Maybe they have led healthy lives, maybe it’s the make-up job, but clearly they skipped over Richards. Additionally, the hair that made Kramer so noticeable is almost all but gone. Larry wants him to look that way. By presenting Richards as visually unattractive, his appearance clearly faltering since his racist comedy routine, Larry is reflecting on the accepted myth that sin is written on the body. (A topic heavily discussed in Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray and The Libertine)

if you hadn't been fucking all those whores, maybe God would have spared you leprosy

2. To reify this idea, Larry also gives Richards a life threatening illness, Groat’s disease(a fictional illness) that may cause his death. He is literally paying for the sins externally and internally that he committed when he pledged his allegiance to supremacy on that unforgettable day.

3. He cleverly has a scene with Leon and Richards, in which Richards has a valid reason to be pissed at Leon (he lied about his identity and duped him into giving $200,000). While he is screaming a crowd of people are watching Richards yell at this black man and we laugh because ironically he an actual reason to be pissed. It is really funny and makes it a bit more acceptable for Richards to be part of this season.

However, I recently read a blog, by the African American Environmentalist Association-Hollywood, and while I agree Larry made a smart move in the “The Table Read”, it really doesn’t redeem or reform Richards as a person. It only redeems Richards within the fictional world of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” that Larry himself has created. And then we have to think, well if Richards’ previous act of racism had to be addressed to us, how will it be addressed to the fictional audience that would be watching the Seinfeld reunion season? And, ignoring the fact that humor on a fictional show doesn’t excuse an act of racism in the real world, we were too busy laughing at the scene to deconstruct what it fails to address. When Richards says “if there were any word i could use to show how angry i am…,” David seems to be juxtaposing valid reasons to be pissed off (leon lying/getting 200g) against using racial slurs without a valid reason. But is there ever a valid reason to use racial slurs? And I say valid reason cuz clearly the heckling at his comedy show did not warrant “nigger,nigger, nigger”, but because Leon lies it might? And are we ignoring the real irony in this scene, that Richards could have “slipped up” again because Leon did what a white man told him, and most likely Leon had to lie because his livelihood (living in Larry’s mansion) depends on it?

Larry also depicts this representation in “The Anonymous Donor,” Season 6, when a dry-cleaner loses his baseball jersey. He then has Leon approach a man wearing the similar jersey(we don’t know if it is Larry’s or not) and from then on the white man Leon has robbed may engage in stereotyping of black men as criminals. But the crazy thing about it is that Leon himself didn’t care about the jersey, he stole the jersey because Larry, the white male, wanted him too. Is Larry making a statement, by having Leon bear the brunt of his iniquities, that blacks are unfairly stereotyped not by their own acts, but the acts that are guided by the white man. Basically, are whites are hating blacks because of whites. I mean that is why Richards gets pissed at Leon, Larry doesn’t take the rap for the incident, at least we don’t get to see it.

If so, whoa Larry, and Bravo, Bravo. I now love your show even more, can we be best friends?

Of course, it is not up to Larry David to rectify Richards fuck-up. He shouldn’t have to alter his whole season cuz Richards can’t keep his mouth shut. I think David makes amends to his avid black fans by at least addressing the issue, and I thank him for it. But Richards has a long way to go. A fictional confrontation on the issue will not redeem his racist soul. And although most black folk are forgiving, sorry Richards, you don’t get my vote.

Thoughts?

P.S.

J.B. Smoove on the scene with Michael Richards:

“I can’t see someone being so upset with it that they’d never want him to be on TV again. You can pass the blame along, or you can accept your responsibility, and he accepted his actions. Sometimes, when you get a girl pregnant, you blame the condom. His condom broke that night.”

Mad Men’s Season 3 Finale: Verdict’s In: Betty Sucks

So, my dear friend Jean and I, at a lovely dinner at the Olive Garden, while slurping up yummy parmesan noodles and finishing off dinner with a super deluxe decadant chocolate mousse cake, started talking about the season finale of Mad Men. And of course, when you’re talking about Mad Men, a huge focal point of the conversation is always gonna be, who sucks worse? Don or Betty?

don likes to tap a lot of different ass

princess for life!!!!

At first I was actually defending her, and I feel that as a woman perhaps, ignoring the extreme hotness of Don and how we wish we were Betty just so we could get him in bed, we all sympathize, some of us even empathize with her situation. We think, God, I feel so sorry for her, I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes. I mean, here she is, stuck with three kids, and when she actually has the guts to confront Don about his infidelity, she finds out she is pregnant and has to stay with him. And Don isn’t just having one affair, he is sleeping with women ALL over New York. And yes, I am aware that Betty committed adultery also, but not until she found out who Don was, and in any sense, her one indiscretion does not compare to Don’s likely hundreds.

But then I suppose the question is, is Betty really trapped in an unhappy marriage? Or was it her choice? Does her denial of Don’s numerous betrayals make her less sympathetic? Or more precisely, did Betty only become “unhappy” in her relationship when Don’s infidelity became apparent to others?

I myself, usually have a bias against women in denial. Most likely because I have been the other woman. (Sorry it is kind of fun. Oooops?) Also, if there are signs of infidelity, it could even be catching my boyfriend in a lie, I’m out. People say that ignorance is bliss, but the idea of being in a relationship, knowing that my lover is cheating on me (yet demanding that I stay faithful and I remain so), and that everyone is laughing at me behind my back is something that I cannot stomach. I have weird philosophies about relationships, but I feel like, if you are gonna be in a marriage, and you wanna fuck around, at least let your partner fuck around too, otherwise it is just selfish. So yeah the fact the Betty didn’t do anything about Don’s numerous affairs made me dislike her. And a woman knows when she’s being cheated on when she’s being cheated on the way Don cheated on her. Beside the obvious signs, not coming home, weird phone calls, inaccurate stories, there is the different sex style which Betty describes to her therapist as an indication of infidelity.

And I am sure a lot of you are thinking, well actually, she did confront Don about his adultery. However, let’s analyze the events surrounding that situation. Betty’s neighbor’s husband had an affair and Betty’s first reaction was to tell her friend not to say anything about it. In turn this was her philosophy about her marriage. We see her having anxiety attacks in the beginning of the first season, and we all attributed these attacks as a reaction to Don’s absence. But when I think about the instance in which she did confront him about his affair, it seems she did so for all the wrong reasons.

In “The Comedian” When Betty finally confronts Don, it is instigated by Jimmy Barrett. He tells her that Don and his wife have been having sex. And she knows that it is true. She probably knew it was true for a long time. But instead of asking him, what are you talking about, how do you know this, how long has this been going on, are you serious? She tells him to stop talking about it and to go away. And it is really interesting if we parallel this to when Sterling tells Don about Betty and Henry’s relationship/affair. Even though it is a masculine reaction, Don is at least inquisitive about the details of the affair and if it was based on fact. Betty seems more concerned with the fact that someone knows about it, and may shatter the image of her picture-perfect marriage. And the worst insult to Betty was that the gossip came from a comedian. Nobody likes to be laughed at, but Betty really doesn’t like it. Recall when she got pissed off at Don for not telling her that at the dinner party he predicted she would buy Heineken.

I feel as if she is more preoccupied with the exposure of her flawed image to others. This is ironic for two reasons. 1. She used to be a model, which is a business built on making things prettier than they seem, as it is in advertising. 2. The fear of her flawed image being visible to others is why she is unsympathetic to Don’s painful life story.

When you see an alpha-male like Don cry, you pay attention. I have only seen my father cry three times in my life, and they were at funerals. And likewise, this was Don’s time to mourn. It was the first time he could really be himself, reclaim his own name, mourn his brother who committed suicide, and really mourn the death of his former self. And Betty….well….. Betty listened to the story but she didn’t really care. I mean, she gave him the “there there” pat. As Jean pointed out during dessert — that chocolate really got us going “Betty left Don because he no longer was the picture perfect, upper class man who came from old money that she thought she married.” – Jean/Ledefile

wait, come again, you used to be...POOR???!!!! ICK!!!!!

Don-  “I gave you everything you wanted – EVERYTHING! And you loved it! And now I’m not good enough for some spoiled main line brat?!”

Betty- “That’s RIGHT!”

It is also interesting to note that when she broke into Don’s hidden box and found out he was married, she was more concerned with the deed than the divorce. Most women would be wondering are my children illegitimate, and Betty is jealous that Don bought his ex-wife a house and she didn’t have one of her own yet. She also asks her lawyer if what Don did, (taking on a different identity) is “something he could go to jail for.” Of course she doesn’t want to be associated with that. She ain’t gonna be visiting Don in prison. But I was even thinking, it really is a good thing that Don decided not to fight her, cuz I bet she would have blackmailed him with that information, the same way Pete did, if she didn’t have her “life raft,” aka Henry.

But then again Betty is the trophy wife. She is beautiful, and a nice person, but also self-centered and uninteresting. She doesn’t have very many complex thoughts. And in analyzing the women Don had affairs with, it seems he was using them to fill Betty’s non-stimulating void. The Jewess, Rachel Menkin was loyal, exotic, a feminist, and a true business woman. Midge was not very attractive but had a passion for music,culture art, and drugs and gave Don an escape from his monotonous life.  The comedian’s wife Bobbie Barrett was overtly masculine and business-savvy.  And although the scene near the restaurant bathroom could be interpreted in many ways, he may have penetrated her in the restaurant (when he put his hand up her dress) to establish himself as the more dominant male/the Phallus. Bobbie stops demanding extra money for her husband’s apology after that. The schoolteacher was very philosophical and her job itself demands the ability to be selfless, caring, and giving to children. Betty had none of the qualities these women possessed. I mean how many times, are we gonna have to hear Betty say, “GO PLAY IN YOUR ROOM” to her children? And her apathy toward her daughter mourning the grandfather? Atrocious. And clearly, Sally loves her father more.

So what else should Don expect? He married her for image alone, so why should he be so pissed when she wants to leave him when he presented a false image to her, and not just his identity, but the adultery as well. He doesn’t even stop after she catches him.

Well, I feel as if some characters can be redeemed if they have the ability to grow and change. And in their situation, I feel that they had already established love as possession because Betty was the trophy wife, and Betty by virtue of marriage possessed Don’s material assets. Clearly they have experienced love as an illusion as I have described in the aforementioned reasons. Yet, love between Don and Betty could not exist outside of illusion. When Don and Betty got into fights, usually to end the fight, instead of addressing the problem at hand Don would ask, “What do you want me to say?” This clearly shows that Don is aware that Betty doesn’t really want the truth, she wants his words to be a reflection of what she innately wants. However, I feel as if Don was ready to take the next step in exposing his true character, and Betty even commented on the fact that “he wouldn’t have left the box in the house unless he wanted her to find it.” Clearly, Betty is the one who is incapable of loving a person who is not a projected reflection of hew own desires. And in sum, this is why she runs into the arms of a politician, a man whose profession yet again revolves around misrepresentation.

So….I still think Betty sucks. I mean she has children, a newborn, and we see her leaving her two kids behind and flying off to Reno with a man she hardly knows. She would rather ditch the people she loves than be associated with a scandal. Not only is this exemplified by her leaving Don, but when one of her married friends admits to her that she slept with the engaged horseback rider, Betty dismisses her good friend from her life. She shows that she is oblivious to the plight of others when she says “it really isn’t the right time for Civil Rights” in front of her hardworking black maid. And the entire first season focuses on her being self-indulgent in the therapist’s office. And I am in no way saying therapy is self-indulgent, some people need it, but the way in which those specific scenes are shot, Betty lying on a chaise, not talking about anything important when she knows what the problem is (the affair) while wasting Don’s money on psychiatric help that she doesn’t need. The visits stopped after the first season. I mean it’s just sickening. So, yeah, Betty sucks.

Thoughts?

you know you want it...

P.S. I am really excited for Season 2.  Jean and I were discussing the fabulousness of the possible Don-Joan-Sterling triangle. And while the love triangle might be a cliche move…it would be HOT! Tension between Don and Sterling, Joan and Don, Joan and Sterling, Joan and her fiance, Sterling and his new wife. It would be a lot more nuanced than the tired, using a woman as an outlet for male aggression. I mean you know something is gonna happen in that tiny ass hotel room! Fingers crossed.

French Vogue does Blackface: Now Black Women are Finally Pretty

Fashion isn’t supposed to be politically correct. If it was it wouldn’t be so fun and so daring. And we know that the French especially don’t give a fuck. Which is why I love them. Just last month, my dear friend Jean, creator of the fabulous fashion blog Ledefile, alerted me to a previous issue of French Vogue with pregnant models wearing strappy high heels and smoking cigarettes.

loving the baby stuffed in the handbag

That obviously wouldn’t fly in American Vogue mostly because Americans have sticks up their ass. But I actually enjoyed the pregnancy photo spread. Sans the cigarettes , the photos alleviate the insecure feeling most women have about what pregnancy will do their bodies and how unattractive they may become because those models were HOT.

However, in the October issue of Vogue, in a photo spread, is Dutch supermodel Lara Stone,…wait for it….wait for it…in Blackface.

And a bunch of questions popped in my mind. Is this blackface or is this art? Why not just have a beautiful black supermodel on the cover? Should the French and more specifically other countries who don’t have the same kind of sadistic historical treatment of Blacks like in America, have to tiptoe around racial issues that wouldn’t offend the majority in their country? Do they have to pay for crimes that racist Americans committed? And if they should, should Americans as well be extra-sensitive to seemingly harmless stereotypical portrayals of race when that race does not have a prevalent history of victimization in our own country?

First of all, blackface itself aggrandized negative characteristics associated with blacks. It arose in the 19^th century in the US and Britian, and the characters belonged to the plantation genre. There was the mammy, the mistress, the pickaninnies, the house slave, and they were coons to be laughed at by whites at minstrel shows. The skin color was accentuated, the lips were made more red, the whites of the eyes were emphasized, and the Negro dialect was imitated.

once he puts on the black paint, he becomes an irrational buffoon

But looking at these images in French Vogue, I don’t necessarily see it in the same way I would see blackface propaganda. While even thinking about a white person covering herself in black make-up is shocking, these photos don’t have the same agenda as blackface performance. It is more artistic and beautiful than funny and coon-like. Primarily, in blackface the “ugliness” of blacks is amplified, and in this picture, the woman is beautiful. Beauty and Blackness were not correlations made to buttress racially hegemonic ideals.

But, why do we need a white woman to be in blackface for the image to be beautiful? Vogue already has a history of not putting black models on the covers, or only in the summer issues because the majority of their customers wouldn’t buy them. And in many letters to the Editor after Michelle Obama was featured on the cover, even though it was for politics, many readers were pissed that Vogue would put someone so unmodel-like and fashionless on the cover, e.g. black woman on the cover. Is the photographer saying something about art, or about masks? Is blackness only beautiful when it is false, or is blackness only beautiful when we see there is some underlying white characteristic? Hmmmmm.

Most of the reaction to these images have been shock by the fashion world and its readers. Especially in the wake of the recent reality show in Australia in which white performers sang Jackson Five songs in blackface and called themselves the Jackson Jive. Harry Connick Jr. was so pissed he gave them a zero.

Jackson Jive, just look over your shoulders honey... Oooooh!

But like Australia, France hasn’t had the same intricacies with racism towards African-Americans. France’s hegemonic power was largely enforced in North Africa, sometimes in the Caribbean, and the majority of their racism was geared toward Arabs. Additionally, America is one of the few countries that premised its’ mission of colonization on the assertion that African-Americans were sub-human. However, countries like France and Britian entertained the idea that through education and culture, the “inferior races” could be assimilated and acculturated into their society. In Macualay’s Famous Minute on Education he stated that the British wanted to have “Indians in blood and colour but European in thought and intellect.” Additionally, during the Harlem Renaissance many black writers and activists such as Richard Wright, Langston Hughes, Jessie Fauset, Josephine Baker, and James Baldwin, ex-patriates if you will, left the States for France specifically because it wasn’t racist and they felt free.

are we gonna get in a huff because the french put josephine baker in a banana skirt? is this minstrelcy or art?

So do the French and any other country without a perverse history of racism towards African-Americans really have to be held to the same politically correct standard as the racist Americans who started the whole damn thing anyway? Are we limiting freedom of speech (blackface) because the Americans fucked up?

And if you agree that no country should endorse the use of blackface for art, humour, etc. is it because it is a badge of victimization for blacks or is it because no one should be imitating a different race for humor? A couple years ago when I was teaching a class on Television and Literary Genres which focused on humor, we watched a few Dave Chappelle episodes from “Chappelle’s Show.” We specifically watched the episodes in which he performed comedy in Whiteface.

"since reparations have been paid to blacks the crime rate has fallen to zero, wait that can't be true, did the Mexicans get paid too? Ooops am i still on the air?"

When Dave is in whiteface he speaks in a stereotypically white way, is mildly racist, and is sexually repressed and impotent. After watching the episodes I asked my students if they were offended (they were all white) and they said no. And then I asked why is it that blackface is offensive and whiteface isn’t? They came up with the conclusion that it has to do with the history of victimization of blacks. When people are in blackface it connotes black inferiority, yet whiteface does not do the same because it would be historically inaccurate, because whiteness is seen as superior in America. I was even thinking about racial slurs, and even the one for whiteness, “cracker,” isn’t a term of inferiority per se because it alludes to a slavemaster who cracks the whip on the back of slave. So even the term itself is laden with dominance and power. Hmmmmm.

i am ashamed i did see the movie, but i do love my wayans! -white chicks

Why isn’t it offensive to make fun of a race, and you could even extend this to class or gender, when that race, class, or gender, in respect to its counterparts, is the most dominant, powerful, or not had a history of victimization? Thoughts?

Supremacy Performed in Blackface: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

“I am Sick and Tired of being a Nigga and I’m not gonna take it anymore!!!!” Man-Tan-Bamboozled

savion glover in bamboozled, bloody brilliant

“You ain’t so tough now, little nigga. I hate your black bastards, you *stink*! I hate your black skin. I hate your black pants. I hate black pepper. I hate black keys on a piano. I hate my gums, because they’re black. I hate Whoopi Goldberg’s *lips*. I hate the back of Forrest Whittaker’s neck. Most of all, I hate that black-ass Wesley Snipes.” Officer Self Hatred-Don’t be a Menace to South Central while Drinking Your Juice in the Hood

Why oh why does Clarence Thomas have to suck so hard? After reading his most recent dissenting opinion on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act I just had to blog. I put up with his bullshit arguments on Affirmative Action but this is where I draw the line.

Most people who aren’t law nerds might be thinking…well we do have a black justice on the Supreme Court. Isn’t that awesome?

Well, no. Not if the black justice is opposed to  assisting the progress of minorities through almost all State and federal programs.

Usually, I am opposed to any implication that a minority isn’t “performing his racial stereotype” and therefore is not a member of his own race.

For example: A black person who is educated isn’t really black. A black person who speaks English properly isn’t really black. A black person who marries outside of their race isn’t really black. A black person who is wealthy isn’t really black. And even more appalling is the unsaid joke that all black males in university settings are only there through either affimative action or a football scholarship.

These were stereotypes used as propoganda for slavery and Jim Crow, and usually whiteness was represented in the opposite. These stereotypes still exist today and we are familiar with representations that make fun of these “Oreos” and “Uncle Tom’s,” People say they are betraying their race. We all saw Dave Chappelle’s “Racial Draft” where representatives of the black community wanted to disassociate themselves from blacks in positions of power who seemed opposed to helping their own kind, e.g. Condaleesa Rice and Colin Powell.

In “How High,” the movie centers around a black dean who fits all of the above stereotypes. Dean Cain, ironically named of course as the first Biblical murderer who kills his own “brother,” does anything he can to prevent the black students played by Method Man and Red Man from continuing their education at Harvard.

"i shoulda known y'all two ghetto asses would be up in here"

Dean Cain is the Self-Loathing Negro. He hates all things that are associated with blacks and is afraid of his own mirror image. However, Dean Cain projects his own racism on targeted black students that represent the negative stereotypes of blackness. He does not harass Lauren,  who is dating one of the university’s benefactors, and the Vice President’s daughter  Jamie, because they come from privileged backgrounds.

But Clarence Thomas is a bit different. Not only does he project his racist ideologies on any black person who is subject to his judgment, but his position on the Supreme Court affects everyone, even himself, INDEFINITELY.

So who is Clarence Thomas? Well he grew up in the South. He went to Catholic private school and college. He went to Yale law school. And was appointed by granddaddy President Bush to serve on the US District Court of Appeals and was then appointed by same to be a US Supreme Court Justice. He was also involved in a sexual harassment suit and charges were dropped.

The man himself

He was appointed precisely for his conservative mindset and extremely textual interpretation of the Constitution. But blacks everywhere started to get worried. Even the NAACP opposed his appointment. Probably people were hoping against hope that Thomas was using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. Feign conservatism to get on the Supreme Court and then show your true colors when you are on the stand. Because Clarence Thomas has experienced racism. He was a huge fan of the Harlem Renaissance author Richard Wright who often wrote about racism during Jim Crow. He walked out from school during an incident in which black students were getting punished more severely than whites for committing the same act. When he tried to get a job after law school none of his employers believed he was as educated as he claimed and implied that the only reason he was accepted into Yale was affirmative action. And since he grew up in the South I can bet he’s been called a nigger a few times by some racist asshole. So what Clarence, did you forget that all this shit happened to you? Or is it because you live in this little plastic bubble of power on the Supreme Court that you have become apathetic to everything that goes on under your nose?

The act of racism isn’t attributed to a color and certainly isnt confined to whiteness.  Nor is it perceived by the majority to be a white characteristic. Anyone can be a racist. There is no such thing as black person who “acts” white. But there is such a thing as a supremacist. And this is precisely what Thomas is. He is a black man that regurgitates white supremacist ideologies which in turn are legally accepted because they come from a blackface. It’s one thing to be a black Republican. It’s another thing for a black man to say racism is over and blacks need to stop blaming themselves for their own problems. Hey Thomas, why don’t we get rid of the 14^th amendment! It was enacted when the KKK existed and now they aren’t so rampant. People aren’t seeing lynchings before ever Sunday dinner, we have a black president, so blacks don’t need any protection at all. Right?

The most appalling thing is that if a white man spoke these words he would be called a racist, but somehow since Thomas has black skin, it’s coo de lah. Since his words are spoken in blackface, it’s all right. As an evil mastermind, what Bush did in appointing him was brilliant, have a black puppet who spouts supremacist ideologies and when people question his judgment he can say, oh but wait, I’m black. I just never thought a person could say the things he said. Especially when his job doesn’t depend on him being racist. He’s appointed for life.

Thomas, in three separate Supreme Court cases on affirmative action pitched forth the same argument, that pretty much stated affirmative action should no longer exist because blacks will hang onto their victimization and use it as a crutch. Guess what Thomas, affirmative action doesn’t just let blacks get into school or obtain careers for lack of diversity. It also exists because BEFORE even looking at the resume or test scores of Laquisha Johnson, Tyrone Smith, or Hakeem Jackson, recruiters pass these people over. You know, kind of like when YOU couldn’t get a job after law school, even though YOU actually did finish in the top of your class at Yale. Oh that’s right, it’s because the door was closed on you even before you had a chance to prove yourself. That is why we need Affirmative Action, and you should know this, man.

It seems as if although Thomas is black, and understands that fucked up shit happens to black folk everyday, which in turn effects the way their children are raised, he assumes that no matter where you come from, any black person should be able to lift themselves up from his bootstraps. I mean Thomas did it, now Obama did it, why haven’t you? Stop playing the victim. Stop thinking you are owed something…

EXCEPT FOR the fact that when Thomas himself was the defendant in the sexual harrasment case with, Anita Hill, he claimed that he would be “lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree” So wait, Thomas as blacks we can’t use the race card but YOU can when YOU’VE been accused of a crime.

In a recent opinion on the Voting Rights Act, a Texas district claimed that the act was unconstitutional (this act prohibits the district from using discriminatory tactics to prevent minorites from voting) because since Obama is president, and we have come so far since the days of Jim Crow and segregation, that the Act should not exist. In an 8-1 opinion, the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia, felt that the act was still necessary. But Thomas on the other hand, claimed that since we don’t have extreme racist acts in the massive amounts that existed before, eg “blacks aren’t lynched or tied down to railroad tracks, that the act is no longer necessary because INTENTIONAL RACISM NO LONGER EXISTS. Ummmm, excuse me what???? Wait a second, what???????

First of all, it does. It exists everywhere.

And secondly, unintentional racism is still racist. Sentimental racism is still racist. When you were passed over that legal job because of the color of your skin I am sure the bosses weren’t thinking, what I am doing is racist. I am sure when those cops arrested Henry Louis Gates for being scholarly while black they weren’t thinking, this is racist. I am sure that when the cops who were so apathetic to the missing black women in the Sowell case weren’t thinking, this is racist. I am sure that the woman who told the pool owner that one of the black kids stole something for her son which subsequently caused a Civil Rights Case, the private pool owner wasn’t thinking what I am doing is racist. Racism is a knee-jerk reaction. It is in our unconscious. It is a gangrene. It exists in different forms, in different levels of severity, it is projected onto different races, and as Thomas has exemplified, can be projected onto oneself.

So Clarence Thomas, it’s not too late to change. It’s okay you won’t get fired. Cuz I really hope you don’t get caught up in Harlem at 2 am looking for a cab that won’t stop to pick you up. I really hope you don’t get pulled over by the cops while driving your fancy car for no reason. I really hope you don’t have to stop in Martinsville, Indiana for gas. Cuz that law degree won’t help you. Some people still notice skin color first.

“And you just might get Got” – Mos Def