Free Speech Costs pt 3.0

Good Evening/Morning/Afternoon Brothers:

Let me start this by saying that I come to you all in the sprit of love. In some of the emails that have come back on this topic, particularly from my post; apparently I struck a nerve, which in my opinion was a pretty good thing. After all, Nietzsche says Out of Chaos Comes Order. That said and knowing I am addressing diverse intellectuals, I cannot assume that our bases of knowledge or even our perspectives on ontology will be the same. I celebrate the different opinions. The difficult thing for me is that as I try to examine this media debacle and smear on our sisters I want to look at this as objectively as I can, not just the portions which automatically can be incendiary provoking passionate rhetoric. Now if one takes a real good look at my posts, past and present, I initially stated that Imus’s remarks raised the question of revisiting the first amendment on the basis that this may be “hate speech.” Delgado and Stefancic (2004) define hate speech as speech that targets the characteristics of a person or a group which is aimed such as race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or nationality. Further, my initial post was based from the regulations across the globe in which Imus could possibly face arrest. In Canada, no question according to the CBSC clause 2 and 3 strictly prohibit this type of conduct. In certain countries in Europe, Holocaust denial is punishable by mandatory prison time. In fact when the Janet Jackson Super bowl performance, also known as the wardrobe malfunction occurred, she faced a $200,000.00 from our own FCC. When the 2 Live Crew were facing obscenity charges, if I am not mistaken Kimberly Crenshaw faced a crisis of conscious as she was one of their defense attorneys. Under CBSC clauses 2 and 3 these episodes would not have taken place in the first place ergo my question on the control of speech. This point was countered rather well by one of our brothers, I believe Brother Martin. In fact it is the position of the ACLU and the Supreme Court that speech not be controlled as to allow for solutions through discourse. This is easily demonstrated by our list serve. On point two, the second email generated I think as we all know black folk are exponentially sensitive about our hair. By me, an African American (African by design/American by trade © 2005) articulating this statement, some of my brothers took the nappy hair reference out of context and out of their own consciousness. I have nappy hair, in fact locks which extend all the way down to my spine. Our culture has used the phrase nappy hair/head ad nauseam. Again, our parents (don’t want to sound sexist) used the phrase in the spirit of love and sometimes as a term of affection. As for the ACLU and our parents, grandparents (specifically mothers and grandmothers); that was meant to be satirical. Then again, some of us may have felt the need to call the authorities on our parents but didn’t have the gumption to do it. Back to business, if we take a look at the hegemonic constructs of beauty in this country, even globally one can see that these constructs were not by our design because we do not represent the dominant class in this market driven media economy. The dominant class in this case would personify heterosexual WASP men of the ruling elite. One of the ill effects of globalization is this notion of cultural imperialism which touts culture from the West-predominately the Anglo culture as being supreme. This is why we see Beyoncee, Halle Berry even Queen Latefia pushing covergirl products to straighten out our kinky hair into some Eurocentric fallacy of beauty. Lets not forget about the brothers either. What was the expression, “If your hair is short and nappy, Conkaline will make it happy?” The hard pill to swallow is that we buy into it hook line and sinker. In fact, to go deeper Queen Latefia has gone a serious transformation from her initial outing to now. How does she go from Afrocentric Queen spouting UNITY to Comodified Dana Owens playing mammy in “Bringing Down the House?” Then if we look at the press conference at Rutgers today only one person had their hair in cornrows while the others had their hair straightened. Clearly their prerogative but I know in a game, their hair would be pulled back, possibly braided out of necessity. This was an obvious photo op. That said, those who take criticism with what I offer, I ask with all due respect, do you consider yourself a product of the hegemonic social construction of reality/race/gender? As I stated before, many of us have or have had at one time nappy or kinky hair. Is this something to be ashamed of or something to be embraced? Another binary to consider is Alicia Keys and India Arie. Let’s think about it if we can for a moment. Has anyone sat back and really examined critically the meteoric rise of Keys and the mediocre reception of Arie. Keys is a construct of market driven hegemonic design where as Arie is not. Both are equally talented well almost as I sincerely believe Keys rips off riffs where as Arie is strictly organic. One is dark complexioned and does not buy into the industry design while the other is bi-racial having the backing of white male elite backer. Arie even celebrates the hair politic. In fact I sincerely believe Patrice Rushen the pentacle female R&B and never has received her due credit partially due to the politics of race, gender and value in this country. Nappy hair by itself does not represent a racial slur but when you put nappy head/hair and hoe together, you have a verbal Molotov cocktail. As volatile as it is, the ACLU would come to Imus’s defense in a heart beat. In fact they could use Flynt vs. Falwell as a possible defense under the umbrella of satire. Hell, Mel Brooks in his comedic masterpiece “Blazing Saddles,” laughed all the way to the bank with his use of satire on race. As for the other remark which received criticism: here’s what I had to say offline:

Thank you for the response and I am sorry if my response came across as callous and offensive. That said, I guess my question goes back to what was offensive, degrading, or racist? In the context of what I said, hegemonic femininity, I am sure you realize that hegemony centers around the dominant reading of cultural texts. Taking a look at those who create the norms and standards in this county, I think you and I would both agree that its white men who control the ideological constructs. Within this particular discourse, those constructs are with race and gender. Taking a look at race and sport in this country, sports can be said to be raced and gendered. Billie Jean King, a public lesbian, lauds the Williams sisters not only on their style of play (athleticism) but also on their proud display of their muscular –well toned bodies. Unfortunately, they and other female athletes, particularly black female athletes are in a catch 22. They want to equally participate in sports however, we men folk want to dictate how we see them play. This might be why my post may have caught you off guard. The same positive qualities, including the hair, are icons we have come to associate with our male athletes, but not in our female counterparts. It’s a double standard that until I was brought on the carpet about it, there was these male biased expectations I had about females and athletics. Last, since when was being a homosexual a crime? As I advocate for human rights, I can’t do it a la carte. As I am not homosexual, I do realize they do have an equal place in the world next to me. I think Isaiah Washington and Tim Hardaway’s remarks were reprehensible, but did our leaders come out against these people? No. But their comments were just as hurtful, as you say.

So in short brothers, I feel we can’t have it both ways. If we want to be treated with respect we must start with self respect and complete acceptance of who we are and what we have accomplished in spite of the circumstance placed in front of us as a people. I come from people who kinky/nappy hair. Is that my sole definition? God no, I come from kings and queens from the cattle of civilization. That is how I carry myself and that’s how I try to treat others I come in contact with until I have reason to do otherwise.

Now as for my brother card being in question, I invite any of you to check out my blog “My Life and Times With White Folks” located at http://stayblackordietrying.blogspot.com/

Not that I have anything to prove about my ethnicity but let me just say though I choose to have a different POV on the issue, which is my own does not extend one right to challenge my ethnicity or my validity. Figuratively or literally I don’t live in a box but rather I try to re-conceptualize the box from my own sphere of personal context. Isn’t this one of the prerequisites of being an “intellectual?”

Peace

Russell