When Christians praise themselves for not rioting . . .

Dear fellow believers in Charleston, South Carolina, who are also black like me:

I thank God that you have praised Him through this trial. The loss of nine sisters and brothers is a tremendous burden for a church and family to bear. The recognition that racial hatred still breeds in your state and this nation is frightening, but as witnessed on national television, you have a strong faith.

From this tragedy Americans have shared the moving experience of grieving family members offering forgiveness to the killer. That obedient response is a testimony to these families' faith and the teaching they have received. Indeed, I think what we’ve witnessed through you in Charleston is an instance of how God may be glorified in suffering. And yet, I must caution you.

In Charleston, I have also observed on television a troubling response. A few black Christians speaking to reporters have patted themselves on the back for “not rioting.” I cannot help but think that they praise themselves in reference to the #BlackLivesMatter protests that have turned violent in the last year in places such as Ferguson, New York, and Baltimore. So, it sounds to me that what these black Christians in Charleston want the world to believe is that they are better people than those who have rioted since the deaths of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddie Gray.

Yes, it’s good that more violence did not the result grief and anger over the massacre at Emmanuel AME Church, but comparing the response of mature Christians to the reaction of young black people in Ferguson and young black people in Baltimore is not fair.

First, the comparison sounds similar to the Pharisee praying “I thank God that I am not like that sinner over there,” not that you are pharisees, but it does seem strange that you would praise yourselves and appear not to understand what has happened in the rest of the country. Second, in terms of protest, your situation in Charleston and what has happened elsewhere are not truly the same.

The shooter in Charleston was not a government representative, such as a police officer, and your police department did not behave as though nothing had happened (as Florida police did following Trayvon Martin’s death). Your police chief and mayor sprang into action to condemn the murders and find the perpetrator.

So, who would you have rioted against, the police department and mayor for doing their jobs? Or is Dylan Roof someone to riot against? Did you pay taxes for Dylan Roof to protect you? The white supremacist culture in general may seem like something to riot against to some people sometimes, but who riots against a wind?

It's understood that peaceful people prefer peaceful protest. Still, even Dr. King understood why oppressed people sometimes riot. Understanding rage and condoning its actions, of course, are not the same thing. Then there's the reality that Christian people who actually believe what Jesus taught tend not to become violent.

The question for you is this, Has your dignified response to these murders and the evil acts against you come by your own grace and power or by God's?

My heart goes out to you and the nation, but I hope none of you, including preachers, will use this tragedy to compare yourselves to other black people in pain in order to condemn them. I hope that you will not stand on the necks of other black people to lift yourselves in America’s eyes.

But I'm sure you will move forward in grace because you have the Humble Servant in your hearts. And nothing will separate us from His love.

Peace and Grace to you,
your sister, Nordette

Everybody Loves Rachel Dolezal (Video)

If you used to watch "Every Body Loves Raymond," then you may have seen the episode called "Robert's Date" in which Raymond's brother begins to dress and behave like how he thinks black people talk and behave. Robert also quickly jumps to a conclusion about how Judy thinks of him.

I immediately thought of that episode when I first heard of Rachel Dolezal pretending to be black for years.

UPDATE: Rachel Dolezal has resigned as head of the Spokane Chapter of the NAACP. MSNBC interviewed her parents. Her mother thinks she still hasn't taken responsibility for her deception, but hopes Rachel gets the help she needs. Her father got a tad choked up thinking how she used to call him "Papa." And then there's the news that while at historically black Howard University, she identified at white and sued the school alleging that they had discriminated against her because she's white. However, the courts disagreed.

Late night, June 13, I wrote this post but did not get back to it until today. When I heard about this perplexing and vexing story last week, I thought I would not comment, but I've found myself dropping thoughts everywhere such as tweeting about what's wrong (partly) with applying a term like "transracial" to Dolezal's identity issues.

I ended up writing that tweet after watching Melissa Harris-Perry's show on Saturday. I was surprised that discussing this mess with Alysson Hobbs she risked playing into the hands of white conservatives by accepting the term "transracial" could be legitimately applied to Dolezal's presumption. What an unwise move!

Also, the discussion on the MHP show Saturday did not clarify how passing for white and passing for black are not the same. They seemed eager to legitimize the possibility that Rachel Dolezal truly has a black identity. Hobbs said, "There certainly is a chance that she identifies as a black woman and their could be authenticity to that."

But on today's show she attempted to clarify what she meant. As you may guess, I was among many who found her position troubling. She said today that she is trying to find the language to discuss that some people may feel like they belong to another "race" more than to their biological kin. (Of course some people feel that way, but should they do what Dolezal did?)  However, on Dolezal herself MHP slowly backed away, saying Dolezal's lecture on black hair was too much. Finally, the depth of the woman's deception hit her.

Regarding the term "transracial," Megan Willett at Business Insider has already covered why it" should not be applied to Dolezal's misrepresentation of her ethnicity, and I add to her point that I wouldn't use it for no other reason than how the term will be used politically.

I could have also also written a long piece arguing that the head of the Seattle NAACP's actions -- wearing dark make-up, kinking and braiding her hair, claiming a black man is her real father when that's not true--are proof of her white privilege, but Michael P. Jeffries writing at the Boston Globe has covered that point well.

I think some people are cutting her too much slack by applying identity theory inappropriately to this woman. However, there may be any number of psychological issues underlying her condition.

The Huffington Post interview with her parents (end of this post) touches on the possibility that she may be unstable.

@nordettewrites this gave me clarity ... pic.twitter.com/BpDE8vBvjE

— ~ Dwana (@JustDwana) June 13, 2015

Also, today a fellow blogger sent a link to Alicia Walters's article at the Guardian addressing why she, as a black woman, objects to Dolezal's masquerade, "I became a black woman in Spokane. But, Rachel Dolezal, I was a black girl first." Walter writes:

"Rachel Dolezal may have perfected her performance of black womanhood, and she may be connected to black communities and feel an affinity with the styles and cultural innovations of black people. But the black identity cannot be put on like a pair of shoes. Our external differences from the white majority might be how others categorize us as black, but it’s the thread of our diverse lived experiences that make us black women."

I've considered that she may have resented her parents' adoption of black children. My daughter tossed that notion aside and generously suggested that Dolezal has some kind of "racial dysmorphia" akin to body dysmorphic disorder.

And while others have decided Dolezal is simply another narcissists on the loose, Elisa Camahort noted on her Facebook page the high number of racial harassment incidents the woman's reported and decided she may have some kind of one-off  Munchausen's By Proxy syndrome, a Blackhausen By Proxy, if you will. An amusing concept, but that notion occurred to me as well when I first began reading about the controversy.

I do have some sympathy for Dolezal if her pretense is rooted in some kind of mental distress and self-loathing. Never healed, that sucks no matter how it comes about. As I wrote on Elisa's page, in some situations whites have been known to wish they were black. Harry Connick Jr. said he used to wish it as a boy because all the great jazz musicians he knew were black men.

Then there is the "race is a social construct" crowd. I agree that race is a social construct, but I also believe Dolezal's choices indicate she may not. She thinks race is physical;

But who really knows. I find this mess all rather headache-inducing, which is why I think I'll just watch the "That's Not My Baby" scene with Katt Williams again, and remember the funny clips from the Everybody Loves Raymond episode I've posted above. Both involve someone trying to pass whiteness off as blackness. In both cases the people fail. But for more video commentary, try this link.

The video below is an excellent interview with Rachel Dolezal's parents followed by commentary from scholars and journalists. It's moving. No parents who love and believe they've done their best with a child wants to have that child reject them.

Beauty, Race, and the Death of Amede Ardoin

On Facebook, I have written briefly about the beautiful book of poetry, If you abandon me, comment je vas faire: An Amédé Ardoin Songbook, by former Louisiana poet laureate Darrell Bourque, but I have not said much about the man honored by the book, Amédé Ardoin.

Ardoin was a black man who is considered to be the father of Zydeco/Creole/Cajun music by many in Louisiana. At the very least, he was a singer/songwriter and "accordion virtuoso." Sometime around 1940, the story goes, Ardoin was assaulted by a group of angry white men and later died.

While playing at an event before a white crowd, the singer asked for a towel to wipe the sweat from his brow. A white woman handed him her handkerchief. This gesture angered some white men who may or may not have been from Louisiana, and they followed Ardoin home, beat him, and ran over him with a car or carriage, crushing his vocal cords.

Unable to sing again, he fell into a deep depression. He died in an asylum later and was buried in an unmarked grave. I can't help think but of Zora Neale Hurston now who died in a home for the indigent and was also buried in an unmarked grave until Alice Walker resurrected Hurston's legacy.

The video below tells more about this gifted man, Ardoin, whose life was brutally shortened.

You can listen Bourque's interview with Susan Larson on WWNO at this link and hear him read some of his work from his Ardoin chapbook and other collections. I love to hear him read and talk.

Profits from If You Abandon Me go toward creating a memorial of some sort for Ardoin.

When a movement grows organically: Why #CrimingWhileWhite complaints waste time

A friend of mine on Facebook asked me what I thought of this article by Kara Brown at Jezebel, "The Problem With #CrimingWhileWhite." And here is what I said with some additional information added to the post today:

I saw arguments like Brown's the same night I posted on this #CrimingWhileWhite after I saw it on Twitter. I think she's wrong.

Sometimes black people sound like they live in bubbles as much as some white people do. I'm not saying Brown's in a bubble, but she does seem to assume a lot, such as everybody sees what she sees when she says people in general don't need it "spelled out" that black people are treated differently from white people by the police. She says this is so because we're "literally watching it happen in real time."

Oh, yeah? Tell that to the Grand Jury in Staten Island. It's not like there weren't examples of disparity in treatment before the Eric Garner decision. Unfortunately, I don't have time to list in this post all other incidents that have been caught on tape and reported that did not result in death but remains evidence of different treatment. I'm including these three, though: one from 2009, "Choked for Challenging," another from last year, "NOPD officers shoot man to death in bed," and another, "CHP officer beats black homeless woman on side of road."

Following these incidents police and their apologists used everything from declaring the person "was a threat" over to "the particular officer involved is a bad apple" in order to get people to look the other way.

A pivotal talking points for people who agree with the decision of the Grand Jury in Eric Garner's case is, "This wasn't about race." The family of Eric Garner is also saying his treatment and killing had nothing to do with race. People declare it's not about race because they either don't want to see race as an issue ever or because they do not understand what people mean when they say "systemic racism." They look at individual cases. No forest because eyes on trees.

Blacksplain vs. Mansplain vs. Whitesplain vs. Poem

I wrote the poem "Song of the Fatigued Blacksplaining Folk" during National Poetry Month of this year, and recently turned it into a digital poster that's embedded farther down in this blog post. As the title indicates, and to borrow the words of Fannie Lou Hamer, "I am tired of being sick and tired" of explaining racism in America and how racist policies hurt not only people of color but the entire country.

Of course, living under Jim Crow laws, Ms. Hamer had a much tougher life than I did. Still, I get frustrated sometimes because some of the words that come out of the mouths of some white people sound like they'd be fine with returning to Jim Crow. Yes, there are many "white allies," who want America to live up to its credo, but there area also many who refuse to even attempt to understand systemic racism and how it contributes to many of the problems found in black communities, especially poor black communities.

Also, the last two years have been more difficult than usual because of the increase in the number of unarmed black people killed by either police officers or by white citizens. Both the officers and the vigilantes tend to claim they felt threatened even when the black person, often a young black male, is unarmed. Essentially they assert black people's bodies are weapons.

I had the pleasure of reading my poem at the Poetry Buffet at Latter Library on St. Charles Avenue earlier this fall. The multi-ethnic audience appeared to enjoy it.

© 2014 Nordette N. Adams

Click picture to enlarge.

You may have heard the invented words mansplain, which is a combination of man and explain, and whitesplain, as in white people explaining. The word blacksplain is a combination of black, meaning black people, and explain. However, unlike mansplain, which is the word given to a condescending explanation a male gives to a female, the word blacksplain is usually not associated with condescension, unless, of course, a white person is defining it who's shown him or herself to be a racist jackass. If that's you, then a black person may have blacksplained something to you in a condescending manner before.

Usually to blacksplain is to explain some aspect of black culture, history, heritage, or experience to a person who is not black. That person may be a sincere person who is asking a potentially offensive question but does not mean to offend. Or that person may be a racist jackass who still doesn't understand that America works this way: A black person has to be able to shift between white culture and black culture/white world and black world easily in order to be successful. But often white people don't have to know anything significant and factual about black people in order to be successful.

Frequently black people end up blacksplaining on some racism-related topic. For example, at UrbanDictionary.com, the first definition of blacksplain is actually an example of racist hate speech that's allowed to remain there probably because their editors are hipsters (see hipster racism) who think it's okay to have the offensive defintion since a more accurate definition follows it. In reality, the definition of blacksplain on that website is very similar to how n*gg*r used to be defined in the Webster's dictionary as "a Negro person." Only the worst stereotypes are included in the definition, but they let it ride because I guess they consider themselves "urban."

The word urban is often used as a euphemism for people of color, primarily black people, Latinos, and Mexicans, but as is the often the case, on one hand its used to marginalize people of color and on the other a white person uses it to make money. An even better example of that phenomena would be the success of Thug Kitchen. At CNN, healthy food activists Bryant Terry does an excellent job of blacksplaining why Thug Kitchen is problematic.

Now for the term whitesplain, it usually means that a white person is speaking condescendingly to a black person or other person of color when giving a white person's definition of racism (often wholly inadequate and stuck on overt racism) or is explaining why everything in America is fair and just: black people just need to work harder, and what about that "black on black crime" and those fatherless households. Another example of whitesplaining involves a white person telling a black person that in their eyes skin color is irrelevant. "I see everyone as the same. I'm color blind," they say, even as they speak to the black person in ways that make skin color very relevant.

It's possible also for a black person to whitesplain the world because frequently you may come across black people who have internalized the white supremacist propaganda against black people and don't think much of their own black skin and culture. For instance, it's possible that a black person wrote the first blacksplain definition at UrbanDictionary.com. Ironically that definition reads like whitesplaining.

But I'm not going to write here again all the reasons I am tried and worn out from blacksplaining. If you're interested in why that may be, though, please read my post on Toni Morrison's 1975 lecture. I'll just say here that I was a lot less tired before Trayvon Martin's death and the violent deaths of black people who have followed him since then and who were pre-judged and killed because they are black. And I'm really disappointed in myself that I've written this blog post that has some blacksplaining in it again.

#Ferguson to #ICantBreathe

I really should take up fine art again because I need a more physical art for the sake of mental therapy. But I haven't seriously drawn or attempted to paint in decades. I'm a writer. Still, lately I have found myself making little digital graphic cards to capture moments during this stressful period of seeing justice fail. We have received less than two weeks apart the decisions of two Grand Juries not to indict white police officers who have killed unarmed black men, namely Mike Brown and Eric Garner.

While making these documentation cards and digital protest signs have given me a measure of relief, they're not the what a trained graphic designer would produce. And that's okay with me because sometimes the most effective signs at protests are amateurish, ones written crookedly on piece of a box cardboard.

All of these have been posted on Twitter or Facebook or both, but I thought it made sense to put them in one post on my blog. They have been presented it here in order of most recent to earliest.

The list includes the side eye for Pat Lynch's insensitive statement, "If you're speaking, then you can breathe!"; a picture of Missouri's attorney general's statement that the law that allowed Darren Wilson to escape indictment needs to be eliminated and that it's unconstitutional; a recap of part of a CNN discussion with Sunny Hostin and men who support the Staten Island Grand Jury's decision; a Van Jones quote; a snarky commentary on McCulloch's failure to prosecute Wilson; a poem, and a video. For a look at the cards in their actual size, click here.

© 2014, Nordette N. Adams

#NOLA #Ferguson March and Rally, Sunday Nov. 30 (Pics & Videos)

The picture above was taken at the Circle for Michael Brown rally and march in New Orleans this Sunday. Organized by the Black Youth Project of NOLA, #BYP100NOLA, the rally began at Lee Circle on the city's famous St. Charles Avenue. The circle is named for confederate general Robert E. Lee, and the organizers noted that in New Orleans, black people are surrounded by memorials to confederate heroes, people who wanted to keep black people enslaved. One organizer and activist, poet A Scribe Called Quess, declared that the Lee monument and others need to come down.

The BYP100 organization is run by and focuses on black people between the ages of 18-35, folks considerably younger than I am, but I went with my daughter. She and I attended the first Ferguson-related rally--National Moment of Silence--in August.

Today's group marched from Lee Circle to Congo Square, Louis Armstrong park, stopping at the midway point on Canal Street to perform a #DieIn. A die-in is a variation of the old fashioned 1960s sit-in. During a die-in, however, protesters lie down and mimic being dead to represent all the black people who have been killed by police. The BYP organization has organized DieIns around the country to protest police brutality in the wake of Mike Brown's killing and Darren Wilson's non-indictment.

 The New Orleans organizers also mentioned victims of neighborhood crime, such as young activist George Carter, 15, who was shot to death near his home in October. His body has been described as being "riddled with bullets."

Along with photos, I also captured Vine video at the event.

A little Bob Marley kept the crowd focused while awaiting the beginning of the rally.

#nola #ferguson pic.twitter.com/qN4I86MtSR
— Nordette Adams (@nordettewrites) November 30, 2014

Shortly after DieIn, march continues down Canal Street chanting "Black Lives Matter."



End of march rally, Congo Square

Congo Square #nola #ferguson https://t.co/5JsoVQGpbL via @vine around 2pm today.
— Nordette Adams (@nordettewrites) November 30, 2014

Congo Square #NOLA I made blue #BlackLivesMatter sign, but gave it to my daughter's friend #Ferguson March/rally pic.twitter.com/uJ05DBD2XY
— Nordette Adams (@nordettewrites) November 30, 2014

Another facet of the protests:

White Allies in the Ferguson Movement 

White allies guarded perimeter while ppl of color had #diein #NOLA #ferguson pic.twitter.com/3d0RFLP7os
— Nordette Adams (@nordettewrites) November 30, 2014

Black organizers of the rally asked white allies to guard the perimeter to create a buffer between police officers in case an officer became aggressive. According to the speakers (and I have heard of this as a non-violent direct action tactic), white allies played a similar role in some organized protests during the Civil Rights movement. For instance, young white people went down to Mississippi where they had to learn how to take directions from the black people who were being oppressed. Also, they weren't used to being attacked by police officers or white racists themselves either, so there was much to learn.

As the PBS documentary Freedom Summer explains, black activists in the South were tired, and they needed the help of young white activists from the north.



That said, the NOPD, which was not out in high numbers, kept its distance, blocking off streets so the protesters could walk and watching on the sidelines. Nontheless, according to organizers, the police have been highly visible at night when protesters meet at Congo Square/Armstrong Park.

Nearing the End of One Struggle in the Unending Struggle

Promoting inclusion of all members of the African-American community, a number of representatives from various groups spoke to the protesters at Congo Square, such as the director of Women with A Vision, and a young activists representing the LGBTQ community within the black community (young person pictured below). Poets recited their works as well, all part of the drum circle.

Ferguson case is not only about what happened at the car

Yes. I have given Officer Darren Wilson the benefit of the doubt, considered that his version of events may be true. And yes, I did read Darren Wilson's Grand Jury testimony about the killing of unarmed teenager Mike Brown. I read it because I like to read documents first-hand and not have network talking heads or biased prosecutor Bob McCulloch tell me what to think.

Assuming that Wilson's account of events is true, I believe he was afraid when he wrestled in the car with Mike Brown, a young, muscular black male who was 6 ft 4" tall and near 300 pounds. Wilson says Brown was beating him in the face and calling him "a pussy" who wouldn't shoot him. (Manhood on the line there, if Wilson is telling the truth.)

Wilson gives a detailed explanation for why he chose to shoot rather than mace Brown, including that he prefers not to wear a Taser, and he says the teen went after his gun. He also says that Brown made him feel small. When he grabbed Brown's arm, he says he "felt like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan," page 212 (BTW, Hogan is 6 ft 7). Wilson is 6 ft 4 and about 210 pounds.

Later he describes Brown on page 225 as having a look of intense aggression on his face, "like a demon." And he also says that he believes if Brown hit him again, Brown would kill him. Finally, he shoots twice while the two are at the car, hitting Brown in the hand. Then Brown takes of running, stirring up dust in his wake.

So, as it says in the screenshot above, after Brown takes off, Wilson calls for more police cars and then he takes off after Brown. This is where Wilson's story begins to get shady for me. After thinking about it a while, I believe Wilson, knowing that if he shot Brown to death he would face no penalties whatsoever, pursued the teen. The moment Wilson chased Brown, he had made his decision to shoot to kill. He had already decided that Mike Brown's life didn't matter.

The Michael Brown case is not about what happened at the car

While media outlets have made a big deal about what happened at the car, and indeed it is serious to assault a police officer, the focus on the what happened at the car is a distraction designed to convince everyone that Officer Wilson feared for his life. But the reason the Grand Jury could decide not to indict Officer Wilson rests legally in Missouri's unconstitutional law that gives police officers the right to shoot a fleeing, unarmed felon.

All those documents McCulloch dumped on the jury, dumped with no instruction or recommendation of charges, were provided to overwhelm the jurors' brains, making it easier for them to decide whatever McCulloch wanted them to decide. The center of that big fecal cake, however, is that outdated law.

If you attack a police officer, you are deemed a Class A felon in Missouri. So, if you believe Wilson's story about what happened at the car, then he had a right to pursue and shoot Brown because Brown was a felon based on the officer's say-so. Officer Wilson, and I'm sure every other police officer in Missouri knows that this law will always protect them. It gives them a license to killed unarmed people. All they have to say is, "He attacked me."

In Wilson's case, he took the incident account a step further. He not only said Mike Brown attacked him, but he played into the fear of big black men, dehumanizing Brown, making him sound superhuman, demonic even. (See study that many whites think black people have superhuman powers. Nine of the jurors were white, three were black.) Later when he describes how Mike Brown came at him after the teen had run more than 150 feet away, he uses language that makes Brown sound like a charging bull"

"He turns, and when he looked at me, he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound and he starts, he turns and he's coming back toward me. His first step is coming towards me, he kind of does like a stutter step to start running" (227).

But Mike Brown ran away after the first shots at the car. That's where I see a big hole in Wilson's story. Wilson called for extra police cars, but those cars had not arrived when he chased Mike Brown. When Wilson decided to chase Mike Brown, he knew that Brown was unarmed. The only way Brown posed a threat to Wilson was if Brown were close enough to grab Wilson.

Here are my questions: If Wilson were that afraid of Brown, then how did the officer think he was going to subdue Brown and handcuff him by himself? If he were that afraid of Brown, and since the teen had already allegedly shown he would attack a police officer, then why did Wilson pursue him alone unless he'd already made up his mind to gun him down if the opportunity arose? Do we need a law now that says if you're a little or thin guy with a badge, don't pursue an unarmed person who's bigger than you and who you already know you can't beat in a fight?

So, this is where we are, where I am--Wilson decided before he ever left his car that it was okay to kill Mike Brown because Mike Brown was a big black man. Yes, it's open season on black people in Missouri and much of the rest of the country, too. The Grand Jury's decision made that much clear.

Racism Insurance for White People offered by DWP

"Racism Insurance: Coverage for White People," the funny video promo for new movie Dear White People goes Viral on Facebook, where it has more than 1.4 million hits.

Twitter's tripping over Raven Symone's colorless approach

On twitter, folks have been tripping over a statement actress Raven Symone made in her recent interview on the Oprah Winfrey Network. The Disney-groomed star has declared herself colorless. Oprah, great mother to the misguided, tried to warn Symone that she'd take some heat for her assertion, but the younger woman didn't care.

And Oprah's probably already let it go because she knew the furor was coming. Look at how the Queen of TV hugs the former Cosby Show star in the picture below, showing the girl lots of love. Don't be mad. I'm not. Raven Symone and the rest of us need all the love we can get. But Symone, in this case, may need more because she's swallowed a chunk of racist propaganda and doesn't know she's in danger of choking.

E! Online quotes the conversation:

"I'm tired of being labeled," she said. "I'm an American. I'm not an African American; I'm an American."

"Oh, girl," a surprised Winfrey said. "Don't set up Twitter on fire...Oh, my lord. What did you just say?"

"I mean, I don't know where my roots go to," Raven explained. "I don't know how far back they go...I don't know what country in Africa I'm from, but I do know that my roots are in Louisiana. I'm an American. And that's a colorless person."

She says that she connects with Caucasian, Indian, Asian, and Black. I do wonder where she thinks the Black comes from, though, if not Africa.

Despite being "from Louisiana," Symone apparently has forgotten that there's a term for being of mixed ethnicity down here. It's called "Creole." (Side note: Beyonce's family also has Louisiana Cajun/Creole roots.)

But even within that category, people still make a distinction. There's "Black Creole" and "White Creole."

So, what people hear when a person of African descent talks like Symone's talking is this: "I don't want to be Black." And they're not being unfair when they say that's what they hear. Notice that Symone did not specify first that she would not like to be labeled any of those other "races" or ethnic groups with whom she connects. And she didn't sound as though she merely has a philosophical or spiritual objection to being "labeled" a specific "color." She said she was "tired" of it, which indicates irritation, frustration.

I've got to quote Jesus here, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" because I've observed that whenever people make statements like hers in this so-called "post-racial" era, they focus on eliminating the Blackness label not Whiteness, which shows what's really in their hearts or on their minds even if they don't know it.

However, this is not just a Raven Symone issue. Many of the light-skinned "Black" Creoles of the past down here, those who appeared racially ambiguous said for the longest the same kind of thing Symone did. They declared that they are a group in between. Nonetheless, if you read the histories of such discussions, rarely is anyone decrying that they have sometimes been mistaken for White and want people to also acknowledge their Blackness. Almost always what angers them is that someone has called them "Colored, Negro, Black, or African-American."

Here I acknowledge that many light-skinned Black people do not think that way. I'm just making this point about "Black" Creole complaints because it's a fact that some take pride in their French, Spanish, and Native American roots but actively seek to distract attention from their African roots.

Symone is also not alone in her age group with this attitude. I've run into multiple 20-somethings, all of them dark brown to nearing blue black, who have said, "I'm not African-American! I'm an American." All of the Black 20-somethings that I've heard say this are educationally privileged, meaning they have college degrees.

Our education system is doing a poor job if these young people don't see the implications of the "Don't call me African-American. I'm just an American" statement. And they really think it's a perfectly logical assertion that shows how fair-minded and enlightened they are, as one young lady's tweet illustrates.

Raven Symone's intention was to say that she wants to be seen more than just her skin color and sexuality. She wants to be seen as EQUAL.
— Sabrina Ann (@SsabrinaAnn13) October 6, 2014

I get it. I get it. These young people want to feel accepted in America and for who they are, which is more than their physical appearance or ancestral origins. This desire to be accepted for who we are does not go away as we age. I do hope, however, that with age a sociological and political maturity arises in people that let's them see how short-sighted and insular that statement reveals them to be, not so much in terms of how they feel about themselves, but in whether they care about perpetuating the subjugation of African peoples, their descendants, and other oppressed groups.

Also, this "I'm colorless" mantra is not strictly an American phenomenon. Two years ago, a woman whose parents came to America from the Dominican Republic wrote on Blogher, "I'm Not Black. Why Do You Care?" I don't think I commented on that post, but I'll say here now, "I don't care what she calls herself," but I do care about how these kinds of statements feed into the racist rhetoric that to be of African descent, to be Black, is to be undesirable.

Generally, I don't argue with young people who make these kinds of statements. I try to cut them slack when it comes to opening their mouths and revealing their youthful ignorance. Symone and other people who are insufficiently-educated on global race matters and history are African-Diaspora illiterate. They are unaware that they are victims of Euro-American cultural brainwashing.

When I say African Diaspora, I'm referring to the dispersal of Africans from Africa as well as their displacement and oppression brought about by slavery, colonization, and segregation. Being Diaspora literate helps people understand Black culture on its own terms. When combined with the practices of critical literacy, Diaspora literacy can help people dissect and decipher rhetoric within texts categorized as academic or scientific as well as those that are political and "historical." These literacies encourage readers to examine the rhetorical methods these texts employ to perpetuate dehumanizing societal beliefs or persuade action against specific ethnic, religious, or gendered groups. In other words, people who are Diaspora and critically literate can see the bullshit being shoveled down society's throat that keep its members believing lies about Africa and its peoples.

Scholarship, scientific inquiry, policy proposals, and historical texts, no matter how much the authors declare themselves objective, have the world views of their authors embedded in them either boldly or subtly. Honest researchers, however, fight the human tendency to favor data that favors what they already believe or to ignore information that contradicts their beliefs.

 A good example of scholars failing to resist that tendency would be the work of archaeologists who either consciously or subconsciously accepted white supremacist rhetoric about sub-Saharan Africans and therefore denied for more than a century that the "Kushites overthrew the ancient Egyptians." With this denial, they perpetuated negative stereotypes of sub-Saharan Africa as a land without language, skill, or culture.

And even literary texts, such as Conrad's Heart of Darkness, have ideological pillars that should be examined. For more about racist tropes in that book, see Chinua Achebe's Hopes and Impediments.

All that said, Symone and other miseducated people can believe whatever they choose to believe and live under whatever philosophy that helps them sleep better at night or love themselves adequately. I, however, prefer to live with truth even if it means I endure some restless nights. Living with the truth furthers hope that one day we will all be free and live in a country of sincere inclusiveness not imprudent erasure. Denial of the truth hinders that day's arrival. People don't solve problems they can't see.

So, herein lies the truth: To deny or try to bury your African heritage knowing you are of African descent is to co-sign white supremacist policies and doctrines that oppress people of African descent. This denial flows from internalized racism and magnifies self-hatred.

To shun being called African-American or gay when you are Black and gay and to also make the statement, "I just want to be equal" or "I'm just American" is to cooperate in your own oppression. Such statements logically imply their inverse, which is people of African descent and people other than straight cannot be considered equal or American.

The question is if race, color, sexual orientation really don't matter to you and you know you have Black roots and are gay, why does it bother you that people refer to you as either?

The question is if you mean no disrespect to your African genes, why go out of your way to bury references to the African in you?

This instinct to bury Blackness makes you complicit in Black erasure, genocide, both physical and psychological. In other words, when you publicly promote the color-blind, gender-blind, or sexuality-blind approaches to solving social justice issues or, supposedly, to promote harmony, you are doing the opposite. You are complicit and a potential collaborator with the very systems you supposedly want to condemn.

We have keep having to review these elementary principles. Why can't there just be a book we give people when they show their ignorance on this topic? Don't answer that. I know the answer.

Nonetheless, just as Raven Symone is "tired of being labeled . . . African-American," I'm tired that people keep making statements that disparage being of African descent. The next time someone does an interview and they've got these issues about Blackness, I hope they'll keep it to themselves, and one day, maybe, when they wake up, they can attend remedial classes and figure out not who the hell they are but who do they want to be. For all our sakes, I hope it's someone more concerned about how the oppressed are treated than they are about being "labeled" a member of the oppressed

Each new generation of historically oppressed peoples must be educated to critically assess the targeted, dehumanizing propaganda of hegemony or that generation will unwittingly dance down a path to its own slaughter.

Race is a social construct, true, but the same world that constructed it has neither abolished its construction nor is it willing to let us demolish it without a fight. Race may not be real, but perception is everything. Race as construct, therefore, is real. Declaring alone "there is no spoon" does not topple the power that created the illusion of the spoon.

Blackness and how we perceive Africa and peoples of African descent is also a construct in terms of the qualities and attributes society assigns to Blackness and African. Reshaping negative perceptions does not rest in denying who created those perceptions and how they continue to have power over people's lives.

Self-ascribed colorlessness or declarations of color-blindness are manifestations of human dysfunction not progress. But if you don't get what I'm saying, then maybe you'll get it when Jane Elliot explains it here. Ironically, she said what she said on The Oprah Winfrey Show.

All that said, let's leave Raven Symone to her own devices. When you have fame and money in America, you can live in whichever bubble you choose, even the ones that contribute to the oppression of others and keep you blind. Let her live in her imaginary colorless world.

Toni Morrison's 1975 lecture on race, politics, and art freed me to say, "Do your own work!" (Audio)

Here is the audio of a lecture novelist and scholar Toni Morrison delivered in 1975 in Portland, Oregon. It includes the question and answer period and is posted on the Portland library's Sound Cloud page. Portland University's Special Collections describes the audio:

This discussion, presented by the Portland State Black Studies Center, was Part 2 of 2 in a "Public Dialogue on the American Dream Theme." Panel members were novelist Toni Morrison, poet and PSU professor Primus St. John, Lewis & Clark professor John Callahan, Judy Callahan, and Lloyd Baker.

The audio quality could be better, but I listened to it and then searched for the transcript, which I found at Dr. Keisha E. McKenzie's website.

Here is the Morrison quote that resonated with me:

"[K]now the function, the very serious function of racism, which is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and so you spend 20 years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says that you have no art so you dredge that up. Somebody says that you have no kingdoms and so you dredge that up. None of that is necessary. There will always be one more thing."

When I first saw that quote on Facebook, before I knew its source in Morrison's ouvre, I felt it so deeply that I immediately knew it was true, and grasping that truth liberated me. I decided to stop blacksplaining Black people to White people, which is something too many White people on the Internet demand that Black people do. They approach with direct questions or uninformed comments. "How can you say that?" or "Slavery's in the past. Why can't Black people get over it?" or "If you people wouldn't talk about race, we would not have these problems."

Some White people think it's Black people's obligation to explain to White people the Euro-American (White)-construct of Blackness that White people's ancestors created and White people living today perpetuate. They demand that we explain how it operates to oppress us, never acknowledging that structural racism exists and continues to oppress us. They also seem to think that they get to define what racism is and is not just as their ancestors sought to define us.

I don't mean that I won't ever write another essay on race in America. I mean that I will attempt to avoid answering those White people in depth who rudely or disrespectfully respond to anything I've written or said in a way that shows me they either did not read my essay or blog post. I tend to provide links and sources to support what I say, so I think commenters are stupid when they ask questions for which a detailed response is readily found in the essay itself.

If someone doesn't have enough respect for the work on the page or screen to read what's already been said and to check out the links or sources before they challenge assertions, then I don't have enough respect for that person to respond to the foolish comment. Usually people's resistance to reading and checking out sources indicates they really don't want to know about the Black struggle and are set on insulting my intelligence, so then I'm through. It's as simple as that. Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as a dumb question or comment.

And I will take and have taken this approach with Black people, too, who don't know their own history and ask questions disrespectfully or whose comment shows that they are coming strictly from an ideological perspective without any foundation in history and current facts. In general, I mean Black people who think that because they are Black they can say the same dumb crap that racist White people say and engage me. NO. For instance, don't begin speaking to me with false statements such as, "If our youth would pull up their pants, everything would be wonderful and the police would not bother them."

However, if the person seems to sincerely want to have a conversation and listen because they read my essay or post, then that's different. We can talk. I'll listen to them and respond. But I reserve the right to respond with a reading list.

Here is the Portland lecture:


I also appreciated this clip from an interview with the author.

The last post on "Black people are apes and monkeys," I hope

This post has been syndicated at BlogHer.com.

I hope this will be the last thing I ever write about the history of White people portraying Black people as monkeys, but unfortunately, at some point I'll probably have to write something on this topic again. This racist insult repeats, repeats, repeats.

Did you hear about the Just Add A Kid T-Shirt debacle? The clothing company is in hot water over this picture that someone took and shared on Twitter. The picture of the black child placed above a monkey's body with a banana is not on the T-shirt itself, but on the hanger cover used to display the monkey T-shirt. The covers make it possible for any retail worker to match the any one of the company's T-shirts with any child on a cover.

The T-shirt manufacturer is claiming "it's all a misunderstanding," but some concerned consumers are saying that the T-Shirt manufacturer should have foreseen that eventually a black child would be matched with one of the monkey shirts in a sales display, and the fall-out would not be good for the company. So, either they should not have made the monkey T-shirt, or they should have found another way to promote the shirts.

I must say this as clearly as I can: White people who consider themselves “educated” in America and yet claim to not recognize the false, tired, and cruel doctrine that portrays people of African descent to be “more ape than human” either have not been paying attention or are being disingenuous in the fruitless effort to distance themselves from their privilege. The racist equation that monkey or ape=African or of African descent is a centuries-old and well-known Euro-American (and white supremacist) teaching that has been exported to other parts of the world.

This propaganda began to be promoted more aggressively during the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" when African identity began to be used as a foil to European identity. Europe was positioned as the continent of light; Africa was positioned as one of darkness. (This image of Africa was later re-enforced in popular culture via the highly-touted novel Heart of Darkness.)

Linnaues' System Naturae published in the 1700s and long upheld as “scientific” information encoded the message that black=closer-to-ape and did so with images. Even the "great" thinkers of Europe, such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, and Kant, accepted and perpetuated the doctrine that Black people were subhuman, near ape status (see Elliot P. Skinner’s essay on Black identity as well as other sources).

Later in the 1800s, Charles White of the Royal Infirmary under so-called “scientific race theory” perpetuated this racist message with his classification of races. He designated black people as inferior and more related to apes.

It’s been documented that during World War II, White American soldiers circulated rumors that Black men had tails in their pants in an effort to stem miscegenation. When Black soldiers arrived in Hawaii, the local people ran from them, thinking they were animals.

During attempts to integrate schools, more than one White parent exclaimed, “I don’t want to send my children to school with monkeys and apes.” A little research of the era bears this out.

Since President Obama’s been in office even the national news has covered racist pictures of him portrayed as a monkey. And a quick search in Google images using the key words “Obama and monkey” will support that statement.

So, given that this trope has been perpetuated by science, has bled into popular culture, has been exported to countries around the globe—China included---and has remained active for more than 300 years (it was even used to justify slavery), I doubt that a store clerk matching hanger heads to T-shirts was unaware of it and its implications. Consequently, I agree with any commenters who have said that the manufacturer should have foreseen this.

If someone says that they saw this T-shirt display or picture and did not immediately see the racial implications, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of civil discussion, but I will not accept an argument that extends that doubt to a corporation. Marketing professionals should know these cultural angles, and if they don’t, they’re in the wrong business.

Recommended reading for Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Because I keep a reminder of Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy constantly posted in the side bar of this blog; because I have written two poems as a tribute to Dr. King that children, college students, and speakers recite every year on MLK Day and again in April; and because I have a page at my first website dedicated to him and his sacrifice, I hadn't planned to post anything this Martin Luther King Day. However, I have been sharing an article on Facebook by HamdenRice at the Daily Kos that I think is one of the best pieces I've ever read about Dr. Martin King Jr., and his legacy.

HamdenRice's article is entitled, "Most of you have no idea what Martin Luther King actually did." Yes, that's a confrontational, but it's also right.

No matter what your ethnic background, you should read that article. It will free you from seeing Dr. King through the "Care Bears" lens our culture's crafted of him, disabuse you of thinking "all King did was march," and force you to consider the kind of world African-Americans faced daily before Dr. King got to work. The article will also help some people understand why African-Americans are so protective and possessive of King's legacy. And that's all I'll say because I don't want to give anything else away about the piece. Just please read it!

On another note regarding general ignorance about Martin Luther King Jr., CNN's has an article up entitled "The greatest MLK speeches you never heard." If the only thing you know of MLK is the "I Have A Dream," speech, then read the CNN article, too, and if that is the case then you definitely need to read the article at Daily Kos.

Happy Martin Luther King Day!

I hope we all use it as a day of service and reflection.

What's Wrong With Being "Color Blind" to Race? Teacher Jane Elliott Explains (Video)

In the Oprah Show video below, diversity trainer Jane Elliott explains the fallacy hidden in the statement "I don't see color." Elliott is known for the famous blue eyes/brown eyes exercise she created and conducted in the 1960s. This Oprah show aired in 1992.

You've probably heard people say "I don't see color" to assert that they are not racist or are more fair than others. Elliott says bluntly that people who say this are actually racist whether they know it or not because the statement implies there's something wrong with being a person of color. In fact, research indicates that adopting a color blind philosophy about race does not make it possible to not see color; it makes people likely not to recognize racism and racist images when they see them.

One thing Elliott does in the video below is unpack that color blind statement. She begins with a common delcaration from teachers: "I don't care if you're black or brown or green with purple stripes; I'm going to treat you all the same." She asks, "How many of you have seen earthlings that were green with purple stripes?" And then she says the "purple stripes" statement is problematic (racially biased) "because it lumps all people of color with aliens. And it's what we do in this country: we consider those who are people of color not really citizens of this country," Elliott says.  (Somebody say, "Obama birth certificate.")



I examine the problem of saying "I don't see color" in my poem "Behind the Color Blind." Students have recited the poem at Martin Luther King Jr. celebrations and anti-racism vigils. Perhaps they do so at Martin Luther King Day events because so often people reference King's dream that one day his children would "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" to justify an "I don't see color" approach.

In various blog posts and online comments in the past, I've said that people of the dominant culture often won't acknowledge that society conditions us to believe in white supremacy and therefore it's likely they are at least subconsciously racist. The teachings of White supremacy infect the mind in this culture, even the subconscious of people of color. A few years back, an episode of the cancelled show Lie To Me examined subconscious racial bias. It also publicized the Harvard's bias test, which you can take online

Part one of this Oprah Show video may be viewed at this link and you can see the blue eyes/ brown eyes experiment as conducted on the Oprah show here. People lost their minds.

President Obama Didn't Play the Race Card on Trayvon Martin--He Played the History Card

President Obama spoke at the White House today about the Trayvon Martin case saying that 35 years ago, he could have been Trayvon. He said what he had to say diplomatically, making this salient point:

. . . [W]hen you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn't go away," he said.

That last part, "that [it] doesn't go away" seems to be lost on many people enjoying the fruits of white privilege and sometimes even on black people enjoying economic privilege.  History does not go away and wounds with associated memories do not fade unless a healing takes place. America is far from healing from the wounds of racism because too many Americans who have benefited from the oppression of black people would prefer to think the wound will heal by ignoring it. They forget that ignoring a deep wound generally leads to infection and infection spreads.

Already, political conservatives are fighting mad over the president's comments, but as I tried to express on Twitter today, their objections prove racism against black people clearly still exists. The evidence of white privilege becomes more apparent when the POTUS is attacked for sharing his own experiences as a black man in America. Even his voice is discounted, and the objections make it more obvious that the default for human citizen, especially powerful leader, is still considered to be white in many circles of power. There the experiences of those who are not white are considered unimportant, deserving of censure.  Could it be any clearer that conservatives are still smarting over America voting in an African-American president? The criticism swells most when he acknowledges his blackness.

But, God! I'm bone tired of blacksplaining.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Conservatives are again calling the president the "Racist in Chief," according to reports. How ignorant is that?

I've addressed this kind of ignorance before as well as the verbal shenanigans of more clever racists in a 2010 post, "Define Your Racist: 12 Examples." I should go back to that post and add a Number 13: "The person who calls the president a racist because he acknowledges his own black experience while addressing the killing of a black boy is a "blackflip contortionist racist." But again, I'm tired of blacksplaining. Who has the time? I'll leave it to the people who get paid to do it such as Melissa Harris-Perry. I'll defer to a paraphrase of something she said here, President Obama doesn't have to play the race card here. He can play the history card.

Anyway, I think the supposed conservative leaders who are calling President Obama a racist for discussing historical racism know better. They just don't care because they want this nation to implode. Remember some of them have said of this POTUS, "I hope he fails." They hope, perhaps, that such an implosion, such failure, will give a rebirth to white supremacy as law. At least, that's how it looks from the black seats.

In Pictures: Trayvon Martin Photoshopped as White, George Zimmerman as Black -- Did Race Shape Your Opinion?

I have been very quiet at this blog on the George Zimmerman trial because it feels more like the defense has been prosecuting Trayvon Martin than defending George Zimmerman. It's been painful to hear and watch, especially for those of us who have black sons and perceive that what's being said is "all young black men are dangerous criminals."

Nevertheless, I had to share this picture which I saw on Twitter. It shows a picture of Trayvon Martin photoshopped to look white beside a picture of Zimmerman photoshopped to look black. The photo has been around since last year, but I didn't come across it until now. It asks in graphics a question that's been around since this story broke in the news last spring: "What if Trayvon Martin had been white and Zimmerman had been black?" My answer to that is that if Trayvon Martin had been white, then Zimmerman would have at least been arrested within 24 hours of the shooting and the police would not have been so willing to believe it was simply a case of self-defense.

But who do I blame most for the death of Trayvon Martin? I blame the state legislature of Florida for passing loose handgun laws and crazy self-defense laws that make it possible for someone to follow a person, shoot that person, and claim self-defense. I don't care who threw the first punch. I think that if you are following a stranger, especially after the police told you to stand down, then you are the person who started the trouble, and you are the person at fault for putting the person you followed in the challenging position of making decisions while in a scary situation.

On imagining how we might feel if the races of the parties involved could be switched, I think race matters here and anyone who claims that it doesn't make a difference in this case is blind. George Zimmerman's repeated 911 phone calls about African-American males combined with his statement that "they always get away," makes it clear he was not simply on the look-out for all strangers; he was on the look-out for black strangers. I think that many of the pro-Zimmerman people out there that I've observed on Twitter and commenting on the case at news sites are not seeking justice for Zimmerman. They are seeking absolution for themselves.

I think many of these pro-Zimmerman people believe in their hearts that all black people, except the ones they know amicably, are criminal by nature and deserved to be punished, which means that if they hear that a black person has been accused of a crime, they are more likely to assume the black person is guilty. If that were not the true, then why have so many of them been intent on painting Trayvon Martin as a criminal? I think many of them are looking for a way to exonerate themselves and justify their own racist thinking. Perhaps they want the right to shoot black men first and ask questions later.

But what they should be thinking about is this: what if they had been the one Zimmerman followed? If they had been fearful when he came close to them and he had tried to apprehend them, would they have calmly let him do so? What were Trayvon Martin's rights? Must we all now be subject to other people who on a whim decide to stop us because they don't like the way we look?

It's one thing to argue that the prosecution did not prove its case; it's another to argue that Trayvon Martin was a criminal.

When Paula Deen Found Out Her Ancestor Owned 35 Slaves . . . (Video)

Reading a post about Savannah's history at Examiner.com, I discovered a link to a video in which Paula Deen, appearing on the finale of NBC's Who Do You Think You Are? last year, discovered that her great-great-grandfather, John Batts, owned 35 slaves.

Deen had denied for years, she says, that her family ever had anything to do with slavery; however, she did not seem particularly shocked about the revelation. Her facial expressions even had elements of duping delight indicating she may have denied her family's history but always suspected they'd owned slaves. However, sometimes people look like that when they're uncomfortable. In any case, a white person whose family's had any whisper of wealth at some point and who traces itself through a Southern state should do some genealogical research before assuming his/her family never owned slaves. It's possible the family had at least one slave. But Deen's family, with 35, was a planter family, which means her great-great-granddaddy owned a plantation.

Discovering that one's family owned slaves should not make anyone feel ashamed because we don't control the past. We can, however, influence the present, so, slaveholders' descendants should try not to justify and perpetuate racial oppression and social injustice today with declarations such as, "I personally never owned slaves. You black people need to let the slavery complaint go." Oh, really?

On the practical side, black people in the South can't afford to hold any personal grudges that show. This is why it's stupid for people to assume black folks are going to one day rise up and take revenge for slavery. African-Americans who are upwardly mobile can't even limit their friendships, acquaintances, or employers down here only to whites whose families have never owned slaves. That would be dumb and unfair.

In most cases, the current generation doesn't even know who did what pre-Civil War. However, I've gotten to the point that I recognize the names of slaveholders' descendants because I do genealogical research. That information coupled with knowing the parish a person's family came from generally tells me that a person I know or meet comes from a slaveholding family.

But I have to put that information in a mental box. I never comment when I encounter people of that lineage that I know something of their family's slaveholder history. What purpose would such a comment serve?

And I only feel anger when I perceive through their attitudes, behavior, and speech that they'd be comfortable with owning a few black people even now and have that smug sense of entitlement to privilege without even so much as a glimmer of recognition that they stand where they stand because of slavery. Politicians and their old-family influential supporters are the ones most likely to step in that kind of mess. I mean, don't act superior and start complaining about the welfare state or black people getting free stuff and entitlements when you know darned well your family's social status and wealth came to you through the free labor of Africans your family held in chains.

Also in New Orleans, even some people who identify themselves as African-American (I say identify as African American because sometimes they are clearly of mixed ancestry in appearance) or those with a combination of African and European lineage who live elsewhere but know their ancestors once lived in Louisiana should also not assume their families never owned slaves, especially if that family's inherited wealth for more than four generations.

It should be noted, however, that although there were some well-known free people of color who owned slaves to work land, often African-Americans who bought slaves in Louisiana were buying the freedom of family members. I come across entries in the Louisiana Slave Records often that have notes such as "Mulatto buying his wife and child."  And once reconstruction kicked in, these family's were persecuted in the backlash right along with everyone else of African descent, which is why so many of them fled Louisiana.

With the current controversy surrounding Deen, which I wrote about yesterday, I'll say here that the lawsuit against her, her brother, and her company in which they are accused of racial discrimination and sexual harassment was filed two months before the broadcast of the Who Do You Think You Are? finale. So, if Deen told the truth on that show when she said she didn't know her family owned slaves, then her desire to have a plantation wedding with only black people serving springs not from her awareness of her personal history but from something else like the collective white Southern psyche.

Her denial aside, I have seen people ranting on Facebook who say they know people who work for Deen and these people insist that Deen is a bit obsessed with the idea of being a Southern Belle and has romantic notions of life in the antebellum South. If so, she's the third white female from Georgia that I know of who has such fantasies while also claiming not to be racist.

We think this story is about Deen, and it is, but it's also about this nation's history and its dysfunctional human relationships. This story is a karmic singularity that demands some national navel gazing, but more than likely, America will miss that opportunity to mature again. I hope at least Deen herself recognizes what's going on, that the universe is giving her a time-out so she can sit down and consider, "Who am I really, and how does my existence influence the universe?"

Lagniappe: If you read this, you may also appreciate Cassandra Jackson's post: "Paula Deen, the N-Word, and Sh*t Black Folks Can't Say."