tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2013:/weblog5//5 2013-04-10T03:08:05Z Dr. J. W. Wiley has possibly orchestrated and engaged in more conversations about diversity & social justice than anyone else in the North Country of New York. He is as eager to get in your ear as he is to have you share your thoughts. Movable Type 3.33 tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2013:/weblog5//5.1131 2013-04-10T01:49:02Z 2013-04-10T03:08:05Z

There is a chance that both nature and nurture are right. We may all be born bi-sexual and moved to our sexual predilection by the continual perpetuation of heterosexuality over homosexuality modeled by our parents, sanctioned by religion, our communities, and our society. So, those who gravitate towards bisexuality have stopped fighting their nature and won the battle over their nurture while all the rest of us who live heterosexually or homosexually wage a never ending war against ourselves.

J.W. Wiley What an Interesting time to be an American, or even a so-called American. We are living through the era of a reelected Bi-racial president whom the country continues to insist is Black; a moment featuring controversy about an Academy Award nominated film about a rambunctious ex-slave who literally kills a whole lot of White folks when not kicking their racist-rears during his effort to reunite with his lady love; an ongoing dysfunctional debate over gun control in the aftermath of one of the most heinous crimes in American history; and a major college basketball coach caught on camera psychologically as well as physically bullying his athletes. What do all these things have in common? They each contribute to informing us about the construction of the American Identity, how that identity construction rules us, as well as the rules that apply in terms of how we respond to the many dimensions of our American Identity. In terms of his identity is our president Black and not Bi-racial? Once upon a time one drop of Black blood in an American not only forcibly designated that person as Black but also earned her/him a permanent hyphenated American status. To avoid that reality Bi-racial people can cloak the less-than dimension of their identity until they are seen never applying sunscreen while continuing to not get sunburned amidst a plethora of their White friends who bathe in lotion to avoid it. Of course Italians didn’t need racial amnesty because of their olive skin until that damn Quentin Tarantino wrote the scene in True Romance between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken. In that scene the Moors historical impact upon Sicily as a result of war and the victors taking advantage of their spoils was articulated. Supposedly that historical happenstance changed the complexion of Sicilians forever. It is interesting though how the one drop rule only applies to the Black-White racial phenomenon of this country. In America a Bi-racial status does depend upon what the racial mix is too. Black and Latino is less of a problem in most Black communities that I’ve experienced, but can be a problem in some Latino communities from what I’ve seen and heard. For example, there is a racial reaction to darker skinned Latinos probably as a result of the hegemonic culture in America being White. If Whiteness is the standard in general American culture then the lighter you are in any sub-cultural racial group the more status you may have as well. This includes the slavery phenomenon of field vs. house Negroes, though Negro isn’t quite the term that was being used back then. Speaking of back then and yet somehow now, the historically situated Oscar nominated film Django brought a great deal of controversy over language to the forefront. While I am an avid fan of Tarantino’s work and could eloquently articulate reasons for some of his films to have received Academy Award nominations, Django would not be on that list. The Batman show of the ‘70s could be campy. The Brady Bunch and Partridge Family shows could be campy. Even the Jackson Five’s cartoon could be campy, but not a depiction of slavery that also featured many of its horrors. I applaud Tarantino’s introducing a new generation of viewers to the reasons so many Black people today are still paranoid around Whites, perhaps even giving some Blacks who know little of their history new found reasons to be paranoid. However, telling that tale in one frame and then watching super Negro Jamie Foxx wading through a deluge of bullets unscathed to rescue Kerry Washington is another. Was it just me, or did Jamie look a lot like Clint Eastwood in black face (pre-chair, of course [You have seen the Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns I presume? If not, then you missed this reference]. However, Django’s controversy over the word “nigger” is ridiculous. The way we hear the word used today with political correctness being what it is, you’ve got to be kidding me that it was overused in a film that depicted an era where White folks in power could say and do whatever they wanted to say and do to their property. At the same time White folks without power could guarantee themselves status by saying and doing whatever they deemed necessary to avoid being at the bottom of the barrel. Malcolm X’s famous saying (By any means necessary) was probably introduced to Malcolm while he considered these two groups. And filmmaker Spike Lee must realize that if he is truly an admirer of Martin Luther King Jr. then Dr. King’s adage “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” must be considered relative to his challenges against Quentin Tarantino’s usage of the word “nigger” in Django. Spike claims that Tarantino as a non-Black has no right to use language that far too often disparages Black people, even if historically accurate. However, Lee as a male must realize that he can’t logically avoid applying the same rationale to his own projects. To avoid hypocrisy he couldn’t excessively use the word “bitch” in any of his films, right? From my perspective the only controversy justified around Django was the timing of its release in light of the Newtown tragedy. Out of respect for the Newtown families it should have been delayed, though if it had been delayed it may never have been released, you would think. Campbell Brown’s recent article (Wall Street Journal, 4-3-13) challenging President Obama about the pass he’s given Hollywood and the violence in its films while chastising the NRA speaks truth to power. The necessary conversation can’t just be about the NRA’s role in contesting gun control. If America is to create a culture where our children are safe everyone must be present. His identity as the first social justice president is in jeopardy. He must challenge Hollywood’s power brokers, or leave them looking like Wayne LaPierre and other soulless politicians selfishly trying to spin what just can’t be spun to hold onto their constituencies/jobs. It just can’t be about the box office on this one. Also interesting is how the bi-identity rules differ if you are gay in America. Homosexuals can ease their way into their full identity by first proclaiming that they’re bi-curious, not to mention pass as heterosexual if they choose to stay in the closet. Women get a pass if they explore dimensions of their sexuality due to men’s dominant status in our society and the male desire to indulge their own fantasies. Men however incur a rare experience with marginalization if they decide to examine the dimensions of their sexuality openly. While a woman can have multiple bisexual experiences and not be framed as gay forever, one such experience for men can have them framed as gay for eternity. The ironic thing about these rules of engagement is that it can be argued that while nature vs. nurture has been the prevailing argument, another dimension of this reality may have been framed by the Robert Downey Jr. character in the film “Tropic Thunder” when in response to a gay rapper’s denial of his homosexuality, Downey’s character says “everyone’s gay once in awhile.” There is a chance that both nature and nurture are right. We may all be born bi-sexual and moved to our sexual predilection by the continual perpetuation of heterosexuality over homosexuality modeled by our parents, sanctioned by religion, our communities, and our society. So, those who gravitate towards bisexuality have stopped fighting their nature and won the battle over their nurture while all the rest of us who live heterosexually or homosexually wage a never ending war against ourselves. And then there is our infamous Coach Rice. While people are discussing the physicality of his actions I haven’t seen much of a discussion on how his privilege played out. Beyond the fact that he violated the trust he postured while negotiating with parents about how safe he would keep their young men, his modeling of ideal adult behavior was atrocious. First, there is no doubt that many of the young men on his team have family members and/or friends that are gay. Six degrees of separation is always in full effect. However, his use of terms “fairy” and “faggot” were not just an affront to gay people, but to their allies as well. I would not want my children consistently around any adult whose language choices were so abysmal. I always challenge people to try not to be judgmental. Of course to avoid hypocrisy as well as doing the right thing I try not to judge as well. Instead I encourage people when faced with learning moments to learn. However, too much of this type of behavior would drain anyone, even those of us with a heightened sense of social justice. If I had control over such decisions I would opt for another scenario to immerse my athletes in other than one steeped in homophobic rhetoric, as well as overt machismo. What is also worth mentioning is that Rutgers, a NCAA Division 1 program, is not a basketball powerhouse. Many of the athletes playing for this unsophisticated coach did so with insecurities that may have had them enduring his abuse for lack of better/other options. Being dismissed from the squad could mean an end to their basketball dreams and college careers, at least on scholarship. What Rice did do was bring to light a behavior that many people may have thought ended with Woody Hayes and Bobby Knight. The question “Would he do what Woody did?,” is rhetorical because we know that any given night people in power sometimes unfortunately act like Bobby Knight. I wasn’t just steamed, but fried by Rice’s actions. All of these different considerations of identity should have you curious about just how much these actions and other actions and decisions currently taking place in our so-called land of the free are results of our identity rules, and just how much our identity rules. tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2012:/weblog5//5.1130 2012-11-21T19:29:07Z 2012-11-21T19:35:45Z

While relationships begin and end daily, often we don’t necessarily attribute a more sophisticated way of seeing differences as possibly beneficial to assisting couples in negotiating/navigating the often treacherous terrain that they must travel during their relationships.

J.W. Wiley In the films Unfaithful and Closer, infidelity is a primary reason for tremendous strain on the marriages/monogamous relationships within both films. Julia Roberts and Clive Owen, Richard Gere and Diane Lane as married couples, and Jude Law and Natalie Portman as an unmarried couple all exemplify relational struggles similar to those we see and encounter daily. While relationships begin and end daily, often we don’t necessarily attribute a more sophisticated way of seeing differences as possibly beneficial to assisting couples in negotiating/navigating the often treacherous terrain that they must travel during their relationships. What are some of the diversity & social justice implications (ability, gender, socio-economic class, and privilege) that one can assume may have contributed to the strain or demise of their relationships when infidelity occurs within their marriages or putative monogamous relationships? Still considering diversity & social justice, what might they have done better to avoid losing their way? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2012:/weblog5//5.1129 2012-10-07T10:37:26Z 2012-10-16T00:49:18Z

Sometimes the best lessons are learned from using dysfunctional images.

J.W. Wiley Additionally, name two other films that you may think I haven’t seen (and that we aren’t using in the class—check your syllabus) that you would recommend for me to use in the class and how/why I should use them. Keep in mind that teaching these topics isn't always done from an idealistic depiction of romance, sex, love, and/or marriage. Sometimes the best lessons are learned from using dysfunctional images. Also, remember you need to refer to the themes (Ability, Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Socio-economic Class, and Privilege) when you recommend how/why I should use them. Oh, beyond the obvious need for the title, please include the year the film was made/released and the director. Lastly, what is the one song that you would recommend for the RSLM course that I haven’t used yet and why? Also, which category would you recommend I use it in and why? One last thing, please play devil’s advocate and challenge at least one (blog post on this topic) recommendation of a film or song, at least pretending as if you see it as problematic. This will make all blog posts stronger in anticipation of being challenged. You don’t have to be enrolled, or have been enrolled, in my Romance, Sex, Love, & Marriage course to participate in this conversation. Please contribute your suggestions as well. Who knows, they may end up on my syllabus. tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2012:/weblog5//5.1128 2012-08-26T14:28:41Z 2012-08-26T22:46:41Z

Is it a stretch to imagine the same thing being done to Obama, especially after we have knowledge, journalistically framed by Michael Grunwald’s investigative book “The Party of No,” of the meeting that occurred by Republicans during the early days of the pre-inauguration as well as during the inaugural ball. Here is a quote from Grunwald himself: “TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

J.W. Wiley Though most people seldom if ever process the socio-economic class implications of how they see race, once we stop and really ponder it, it is hard to deny the relationship. The pejorative phrase, “poor white trash” immediately conjoins the two so the need to unpack the phrase probably would feel like overkill. However, when we look at the word “nigger” the undertones of its meaning are vast if not duplicitous. Nigger originally meant property, which morphed into a problem for those who either had to compete against the so-called Negroes attempting to define themselves, or those who no longer had legally sanctioned control over niggers-as-property that of course were once viewed as second class if not the bona fide underclass; criminal (though as newly liberated without resources what were their options), and less than human (legally 3/5 of a person). While all of these aren’t always consciously in a person’s mind when they say or think “nigger,” subconsciously perhaps they are. At least, that is what I’ve discovered from teaching “The Philosophy of W.E.B. DuBois,” African American Culture from 1865 to the Present” and “Examining Diversity through Film” at a predominately white university, working around the country with Dr. Eddie Moore Jr. presenting The Nigger Word” workshops, and reading a plethora of scholarship on the topic. Has that definition changed? I would make the argument that is hasn’t. Subtlety being what it is, or isn’t, I would make the argument that a wealthy, well educated Black person who is bold enough to have been successful in America, could still be seen as a nigger subconsciously by Blacks suffering from self-hatred/internalized oppression. As well, many non-Blacks who think they are of a liberal mindset when it comes to race struggle with seeing once so-called Negroes as anything other than niggers the moment a Black person threatens to adversely affect their reality. This isn’t a reaction racially restricted to non-Blacks ways of seeing. Any seeming oppressive gesture by a White person, for many Blacks, is conveniently considered Cracker-like (as in the overseer cracking his whip over the back of a slave). As an example of how it plays out for the prevailing racial hegemony though, consider our current president, Barack Obama. Though not technically Black, but more Bi-racial, it isn’t real difficult to associate some, if not many, of the descriptors of nigger with Obama in terms of the way he was initially received. So, just this once if you haven’t ever done it before, put aside his performance as president and consider his ascension to his office and the possible perspective on him by others attempting to put him into a perspective that benefits them. He is definitely a problem because he represents the floodgates opening to an array of different perspectives that would/could threaten those who don’t welcome change, or at least a change that might have their value lessened. With hindsight being 20/20 there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton might have been preferred over Obama, though the can of whip-ass political policy that she may have thrust upon the American public may have had the GOP once again wishing for an Obama White house. Before you dismiss this take on competitive pettiness as over the top consider Isaiah Thomas, ex-basketball great of the Detroit Pistons (now more known as inept coach and general manager). If you’ve heard it said that sports are a metaphor for life, contemplate this. Upon recognizing during his playing days that there may be a threat to his elite status/superstardom as one of the leagues premiere guards, Thomas allegedly attempted in the 1984 NBA All-Star game to organize a freeze out (denying the ball) to Michael Jordan. He then further demonstrated his professional immaturity and self-centeredness by not just avoiding shaking Jordan’s hand when the Bulls finally got past the Pistons in the '91 NBA playoffs, but also as their leader, influenced others on the team to ignore respectfully if not appropriately acknowledging the Bulls’ victory and encouraging them on to winning it all. And for those of you who remember the Jordan Rules, Thomas’ pettiness came after Jordan took physical beatings from the Pistons Bad Boys Rick Mahorn, Bill Laimbeer, and Dennis Rodman (who would become a teammate of Jordan’s) that could have ended his career. Is it a stretch to imagine the same thing being done to Obama, especially after we have knowledge, journalistically framed by Michael Grunwald’s investigative book “The Party of No,” of the meeting that occurred by Republicans during the early days of the pre-inauguration as well as during the inaugural ball. It may be a new thought that some of you have yet to imagine, but the pettiness that exists in humans is as real as it is sad. Think about it. Under no circumstances should it ever have been the case that the Obama presidency and fear of the loss of governmental power should take precedence over the need to do the right thing for the American people. Unless the conspiratorial members of the GOP vainly believed that they alone held/hold the keys to what is the right path for America, how could they be planning to throw a newly elected president under a bus when he hadn’t even surfaced on the street? Especially after eight years of a Republican administration they unabashedly supported that situated the American economic system on the brink of bankruptcy. Here is a quote from Grunwald himself: “TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” Now, Time magazine is as reputable as they come. So let your conscience be your guide as you process this excerpt. And like Chuck Daley, who coached the Pistons throughout that period where the Pistons were the kings of swing (and I’m not speaking of dancing), if Daley doesn’t get a pass from me as their Coach during that period where the Jordan Rules were unfairly implemented, neither should others who know exactly what is taking place but choose to stay comfortable in their roles as bystanders. This would include the American voter who blindly ignores the antics of their elected officials. It's like looking at the January 1, 2012 interview of Rick Santorum in Iowa where he clearly refers to Blacks as welfare recipients in a state where 80-90 percent of the welfare recipients are White, only to deny he said it, emphasizing ridiculously that instead of Black he was merely saying "blah," though there is incontrovertible proof that he did. On some level the recent political scenarios that have played out are more farcical than real. In terms of our Bi-racial leader, figuratively, if not literally, how do you logically and fairly judge someone’s ability to run a race when one of their hamstrings has been cut before they even start? Assessments of Obama's presidency that don't seriously engage the unprecedented obstacles he has had to endure are about as fair as prejudging a single mother's ability to ensure her 3 children are doing their daily homework when she is working 60 hours a week out of necessity. Obama was/is seen as a problem because of his popularity, different way of seeing which could result in a more caring president in terms of the underrepresented, and potential to further make his predecessor look even worse. Obama was/is seen as ignorant dependent upon the context (though so-called Negroes’ ignorance was a function of their being systematically denied the opportunity to read which parrallels the systematic antics of the Party of No). Obama is/was seen as criminal by association with the interpretation/allegations against Attorney General Eric Holder, for his policies that are often framed as socialist in a capitalist society that struggles with stomaching anything counter to it, and as well as the way he has been painted by the Birther movement (because if he isn't an American born citizen then his presidency is illegitimate, if not criminal). Why don’t those who refused to respect him before he took office, and continue to disrespect his presidency just stop veiling it and just call our first Black president a "nigger." After all, that's how he has been treated. to paraphrase the saying, "If it appears to be a duck, and we treat it as a duck, well then it… Lastly, If you’ve never heard my full take on bullying, then let me reacquaint you with the fact that while I think far too many people don't see themselves for the bullies they actually are, I see bystanders as bullies as well. If for no other reason than their empowering bullies to continue on with their victimizing, bystanders are often as repulsive as those bullies that entertain them. And tragically, I don’t think that we focus enough on the bullying that we model daily, locally, regionally, nationally, and politically. Yes, I said it, and I’m not just saying… tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2012:/weblog5//5.1127 2012-06-23T11:54:52Z 2012-06-23T12:00:07Z

He told me “It ain’t what you do; it’s the way that you do it.” I sat and thought about how applicable his personal mantra was to my life and the lives of many invested in trying to advocate for the disenfranchised.

J.W. Wiley I recently received a phone call from Tabatha Finnegan, granddaughter of one of the North Country’s most active citizens, Harold Brohinsky. She informed me that this founder of the region’s Human Rights Commission and long-time local business owner was deathly ill and requesting a conversation with me. I immediately rearranged my schedule. Sitting with Harold in his hospital room, he talked about how he wanted certain people to not hear from others that he was dying/dead. I was quite flattered that our mutual commitment to human rights had designated me as one of those people. I had admired his passion for engaging present-day issues in his point-counterpoint series in the Press-Republican with retired professor John Middleton. I often embraced the eloquent ways he would challenge perspectives that he felt were dysfunctional and apt to create unfair policies. Harold never lost his voice when it came to social justice. Quite often, Harold made me feel as if I wasn’t alone in publicly challenging people that seemed to be preoccupied with entrenching their often unearned advantages over others. Regrettably, I never made an effort to thank him, commiserate with him and/or at least break bread with him. I never opened myself up to being mentored by this new-age abolitionist. Considering all of this, with this gravely ill man staring me deep in my eyes, I had to fight back emotion and manage my shame. Sometimes it takes so little to make the greatest statements. I realized then that I was being given a second chance. He then shared with me that he wanted to finish a book he started years ago titled, “I Pray Alone.” I remember thinking, that depends on what you must be praying for Harold, because I can imagine we must have been praying for similar things at similar times. I did let him know how honored I was that he desired to chat with me in what may be his last days. His response was that he was honored we were on the same side. He also mentioned that local human-rights advocate, Jackie Archer, was someone he greatly respected. Harold stated that she and I were amongst the people he had ties to that he felt had figured a few things out. He told me “It ain’t what you do; it’s the way that you do it.” I sat and thought about how applicable his personal mantra was to my life and the lives of many invested in trying to advocate for the disenfranchised. He smiled broadly when he shared with me that he thoroughly enjoyed challenging people to speak “truth to power.” This man who originated from Brooklyn had unrelentingly fought the good fight. Harold mentioned that he measured the advance of civilization by how “people treated people.” He believed that we had failed mightily in fully embracing the concept of “All men are created equal.” When I suggested perhaps we failed in fully implementing that concept because it was flawed from its inception by not speaking to personhood instead of an overgeneralized manhood, this 84-year-old man gave me his all-too-familiar grin. That was so cool. He spoke about the pride he had in the role he played in the demise of a controversial black university president. He acknowledged he avoided being considered racist by most because of his reputation for advocacy. He even told me that while he always knew I was younger looking, he needed to admit to me that I was better looking. This dying societal servant had me blushing. This man who loved 1930s jazz told me he was now ready to go because he doesn’t feel incomplete. Then, contradictorily, he told me that in choosing to not exist on life support he felt he had quit the larger struggle. I reassured him that he was just fatigued and necessarily eased his burden. Others he inspired who hadn’t done their share yet or felt there was more to do would pick up his burden and continue to work diligently to advance it. Just as Jackie Archer lived on in Harold Brohinsky, he will live on in me, and others, who are committed to human rights. tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2012:/weblog5//5.1126 2012-03-12T04:36:01Z 2012-03-12T04:40:07Z

This is why U.S. Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell’s statement that the G.O.P.’s number one goal was to assure that Barack Obama would only be a one term president could not have been associated with race.

J.W. Wiley I know, just like most Americans, that the Obama presidency has not been inhibited by his race, that his being a bi-racial president, and as a result, also construed by many as a Black president, hasn’t affected him one iota. That is why I am asking my readership to assist me in proving that America is finally colorblind to our leaders racial difference. This is why U.S. Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell’s statement that the G.O.P.’s number one goal was to assure that Barack Obama would only be a one term president could not have been associated with race. After all, Kentucky’s history of race relations could not have adversely influenced McConnell’s perspective on the ascendance of a two-term Senator to the highest political position in the U.S. Just in case you somehow missed it though, recently Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich attempting to appease their audiences made statements about their perspective on America. I was wondering where did these statements take you? Romney’s statement about living in the “real streets of America,” is no less problematic than Santorum’s statement that “there are no classes in America. We are a country that doesn’t allow for titles, We don’t put people in classes,” and Gingrich’s referral to President Obama as a “Food Stamp President.” So my questions are: 1. Is it possible to disassociate their comments from African American culture/history? If so, how? 2. To what varying degrees and relative to what dimensions/themes of African American culture are any of these statements problematic and/or justifiable? 3. How does a country like America ever move beyond its racial scars when some in this country complain about the same racial bias that others vehemently deny and/or are in denial about? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2012:/weblog5//5.1116 2012-01-16T16:40:55Z 2012-01-16T17:01:17Z

You tell me, have we gotten past the sentiment in the poem below, a wish for leaders that are capable of helping us advance diversity & social justice, and not just in terms of racism, but all the other socialized ills that we buy into blindly, or use to justify some of our own inadequacies? Is it too much to ask for leaders, hopefully beginning with parents, but also friends and neighbors that are committed to building a world free of hate? Is it too much to take the time to consider what we ultimately are doing to one another by not finding ways to promote love instead of acquiescing to jealousy, stupidity, or duplicity?

J.W. Wiley COACH KING Martin, Where is it that you placed your dream and why is it that as a team we always appear to be in a game we cannot win. How badly we need you to return and coach again. Our squad needs direction Some type of game plan. We have yet to learn how to score on “The Man,” who blitzes us often and stunts quite a bit, intentionally roughs the passer and doesn’t give a shit as to the penalty flags that might be thrown on the play. He knows all close calls will be called his way. With the referees on the take the commissioner too, it’s no surprise player loyalty may not remain true. Many feel that a victory is just a momentary thing. It hurts me how soon you are forgotten Coach King. I have faith that we’ll discover the plays you would have called, that we’ll pick up the fumble and run with the ball, where even if we don’t score, the yards we will have gained will at least tell the world you coached not in vain! -- J.W. Wiley (1987) As a young man in Southern California looking for answers to how people can treat others so poorly, if not hatefully, years ago I wrote a tribute to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At the time I was relatively obsessed with sports, so the poem I ultimately wrote to honor Dr. King’s memory was written as a sports metaphor. On this day that the United States celebrates his memory, it is ironic and actually quite sad that the poem I wrote about him 25 years ago, still applies today. As I write this blog post I have in the backdrop of my mind four recent and local occurrences that remind me of how much work is still required to advance Dr. King’s mission. 1. An ex Teacher’s Assistant of mine walks to her car and finds a brochure affixed to her car window. She kept it and ultimately passed on a copy of this document to me. It is a six paneled marketing piece titled: “’N….’ Owner’s Manual.” It is quite an extensive document and is proof of the racial enmity that continues to exist in our society. 2. A White middle school student at a local school, who has African American friends, is so-called dating an African-American, nonetheless attempts to teach another middle school student how to say a dysfunctional sentence that includes the N-word, as entertainment amongst other ill-advised goals. 3. One high school teammate (who happens to be White-American), attempting to joke with another (who happens to be Black-American) is comfortable asking if the Black teammates’s prior city with an odd name was a “plantation.” When laughing about it afterwards, he was totally comfortable with having used the joke, though he acknowledged that he wouldn’t have said it if he was in the midst of a racial majority as a minority, instead of being a member of the racial majority speaking to a minority. 4. A White high school student who attends a local school posts on FB a conversation with his father that reveals his father’s ignorant attempt at wit, his father’s racism, and the student himself’s cluelessness about how he paints himself with a whole lot of people who he may think are laughing with him, but sadly are laughing at him. However, conversely, the fact that he would/could post such a thing on a social network with no apparent compunction also reveals how acceptable it still is to publicly use hateful language. You tell me, have we gotten past the sentiment in the poem above, a wish for leaders that are capable of helping us advance diversity & social justice, and not just in terms of racism, but all the other socialized ills that we buy into blindly, or use to justify some of our own inadequacies? Is it too much to ask for leaders, hopefully beginning with parents, but also friends and neighbors that are committed to building a world free of hate? Is it too much to take the time to consider what we ultimately are doing to one another by not finding ways to promote love instead of acquiescing to jealousy, stupidity, or duplicity? Can we huddle on this...or at least take a time out? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1115 2011-11-19T06:39:39Z 2011-11-19T06:54:45Z

Am I saying that even when a couple decides to chat about their day or opt for a not so silent massage as opposed to silent ones there may be some social justice overtones?

J.W. Wiley When you hold hands, situate yourself for a kiss with a potential lover that doesn’t happen though both want it, badly; when you actually do kiss, or don’t allow foreplay to become an afterthought; or actually put some thought into the style of love making that is apropos this coming Friday as opposed to last Sunday; do we really consider any and/or all those intimate gestures related to notions of diversity & social justice? How so? To what varying degrees and relative to what dimensions/themes of diversity are any of these actions? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1114 2011-10-18T08:59:40Z 2011-10-18T09:22:25Z

Who knew that change would come as a result of some of his mistakes, some of the political games others played against him, after some Tea Parties that left no one sober,

J.W. Wiley Occupy Wall Street! Presently, is there a phrase more spoken in the world? Because of Steve Jobs and Steve Zuckerman it isn’t hard to believe that people who have reached the threshold of what they can endure would one day refuse to be oppressed anymore. More-so, that they would launch an international movement by occupying a high profile street to make a socio-political statement-is visionary at its best, and gangsta as a quest. I must admit that I myself have also been preoccupied. Even prior to the occupation of Wall Street I had become preoccupied by Steve Jobs contribution to technology, not just from the uniqueness of the I-phone, but the user friendliness of most technology now-a-days within what now feels like a Jobless universe, making it so simple for the world to be connected. Zuckerman—who was no sucker man—figured out early what no one else had done up to that point; that people’s vanity and curiosity would be a potent two-some to recruit, cultivate, and somehow continue to associate with your product, especially if one wanted to define and capture a new market. Apple technology, FaceBook, Skype, are only some of the things that have contributed to the occupational hazards. Then inspired people would find their way into a unified struggle to dispel perhaps the one true universal, greed. How intriguing it is that greed unfed will leave many dead, but greed fed creates more hunger instead. Though what the hungry then want surprisingly is not to eat, but to just ensure that they won’t ever be hungry. It is this mentality that as a consequence, birthed the 99% Movement in response. The 1% Movement, The Wall Street Tyrants, the Wall Street Proprietors, the Manipulative Capitalists, the Inconsiderate Citizen, or any other name that could be given a group of individuals that have finally been caught without a yarn to spin. There are no rocks for them to crawl under, no shadow to hide in. The so-called Wall Street Tyrants exhibit a mentality that has no qualms standing on the chests of others too ignorant to question the lack of rent control. It is not a problem for these so-called Wall Street Proprietors to be the one out of a hundred to benefit so inequitably. It is a shame that everyone else relative to the duped citizenry (the other 99 individuals) should all be comfortable with the manipulative capitalist having a grossly disproportionate slice of a pie that, even when thinly sliced, may not consistently feed everyone expecting a slice as an adequate meal. Instead, with the disproportionately oversized slice there is no doubt that others will not receive a slice. What I find myself also preoccupied with is how Occupy Wall Street so resonates with what will one day be the Obama legacy. Come on, you can’t disconnect the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon from Obama. Yes, critics will forever link him to it as the president of the U.S. when/where it started. But his legacy is greater than that, relative to that. Obama is the president that made much of this technology “cool,” and/or “hip” to use. He is the technology (FaceBook, I-Phone, Skype) president.. His swagger, intellect, and youthful vitality, especially in contrasts to Bush’s outgoing persona, and McCain’s as the other choice, made his election a no brainer, a non-issue. He said he was going to bring a change that they believed in, but people thought he was going to do that work himself. No, he is in the trenches, and while fighting conspiratorial efforts (Mitch McConnell) to deny him any type of political victories, battling overt classism (Joe Wilson) packaged inadequately as covert racism, while living as a bi-racial man who can only be seen as Black, just in case he actually did want to be seen as White, or Bi-racial, he still made it happen. Yes, don’t get it twisted, the Occupy Wall Street Movement is proof of the change he said he would bring. Perhaps his Black presidency, his previous political inexperience, the Birther movement, something inspired McConnell to make his comment, Joe Wilson to blurt out to the President of our country, “you lie,” but I think it is sheer folly to believe that this cool catalyst, this cool cat, A-list Obama wasn’t invaluable in getting our youth interested in, if not passionate about politics. As a result, perhaps consistent with Obama’s posturing against the Republican resistance to his jobs plan, finally seeing that the quest for wealth has cost some in our country its soul while others have found their heart. This is an interesting time in American history. The Republican party, so committed to correcting what DuBois years ago identified as “the problem,” is creating its own “Ruckus” (check out Boondocks, the animated series) by parading around Herman Cain, who might as well be John McCain, except McCain couldn’t Mac, and Cain is Black, or is he? The black experience is widely conceived in this country, but like a gendered experience, or hetero-sexist experience, there are some universals experienced within every collective that are undeniable. How it appears that Herman Cain can’t relate to that pain, or abstain from gloating over his gain will remain outside of my domain, of understanding. If Cain were a democrat he would be respected far less by the Republicans if he weren’t more than ready to shuck and grin up in the big house, a house he hasn’t fully entered and may be more likely to clean. But Cain isn’t the only one I’m preoccupied with. I’m curious about how many of the so-called “occupants” are going to grow from this experience beyond the thought that they took into the protesting. There are so many agendas to be served in any given moment, but has someone taken to naming the common theme that they can all operate towards achieving. How about themes? Respect! Consideration! Awareness of Unearned Privileges! Call me an idealist, but if every one of Wall Street’s so-called inhabitants had been educated from their youth to consider how their privilege oppresses someone our country would not be leading the world in the overthrow of dysfunctional governmental behavior. It would have been eradicated long ago. Lastly, Obama promised upon his arrival in the White House that there would be change. He promised it would be significant. Who knew that change would come as a result of some of his mistakes, some of the political games others played against him, after some Tea Parties that left no one sober, and a group of disenfranchised people that decided to stand in line for days on end, only this time to not receive tickets, but to instead hand out walking papers. If I were Boehner, Cantor, and others that have bet against Obama I would be seriously considering ways to make some things happen before the next election. I would find some way to support his support of people who now have a movement behind them that transcends political parties about nothing more than maintaining the status quo of politicians instead of starting quixotic revolutions for its people. Every one continues to wonder how this is all going to turn out once the Occupy Wall Street Movements wind down. Who knows, but it could end up that a group of angry American just may be cantankerous enough to grant a second term to a president that is slowly convincing a populace that at the very least he cares. Yes, I’m preoccupied! I think I’ll hold onto my change for a while longer… tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1113 2011-09-25T18:30:49Z 2011-09-25T18:37:19Z

First, if I were bi-racial I’d be very upset about the fact that the first bi-racial president is being put into a box that eliminates the richness of his identity.

J.W. Wiley It’s been a while since I’ve blogged. I wanted to really be passionate about the next thing I wrote so that the words would just flow. I’ve had many topics that I’ve considered but dismissed them almost as soon as they popped in my head because of their already being overtly discussed. The Obama presidency is always an easy route to go because whether we want to believe it or not, we are undergoing a period in American history that historians further down the road will be salivating over. The fact that people want to downplay this bi-racial president’s Black presidency is almost as comical as it is tragic. First, if I were bi-racial I’d be very upset about the fact that the first bi-racial president is being put into a box that eliminates the richness of his identity. Secondly, bi-racial or Black, anyone, including Obama himself, who doesn’t want to discuss his racial reality is ignoring the biggest elephant to ever saunter though our political discourse. As well, the fact that we have political legislative bodies more invested in the return of their political party to prominence than the good will of the people is the epitome of dysfunctional if not exceedingly selfish. And to know you are doing dirt to thousands, no, millions of people who count on you to do the right thing is abominable. But I don’t want to talk at length about that or I’ll just get pissed off and morph into another rendition of the angry Black man. So, I’ll just admit to being peeved. I could talk about the recent execution of a so-called convicted killer, after the recanting of testimonies by many of the witnesses who initially contributed to his being placed upon death row. While I understand how long this case had been on the books and bureaucrats need to clear their coffers for other so-called more pressing concerns, it doesn’t escape me that if one of their family members were the one perhaps being falsely accused of a crime now being reconsidered, they would have found some way to be more considerate. But this reeks of the type of consideration given to people speeding 11 miles over the speed limit in contrasts to the citing officer’s favorite niece being verbally chastised, but not cited for the same offense. I could even talk about relationships, those that perhaps we should have never entered, those that could have been greater than inadequately synchronized watches allowed, those that failed because the lovers talked to each other—but not with each other, those that we stay(ed) in too long, those that we are in to leverage escape from the ones we stayed in too long, and those that we might still be in if we hadn’t bought into a degree of hype that prevented us from seeing what was before us. But we’ve talked about those topics before and are now blue in the face as a result. Because I’m Black and now blue, it may appear that I’ve taken a bit more of a beating, but not necessarily, so don’t fret over me too much. However, understanding that the depths of diversity resonate just as profoundly in romance as anywhere else, it always helps to listen carefully enough to be better equipped to explore the grey areas that at first glimpse seem black and white. I could talk about my current visit and stay in NYC. It was initially supposed to be me primarily teaching a diversity & social justice class across a weekend. Instead it became more about a personal epiphany I experienced seeing a billboard for the play Wicked, which affected me as much subconsciously as professionally. Shortly thereafter I found myself visiting the jazz club Birdland and processing what the club’s tribute to jazz giant John Coltrane, essentially a celebration of what would have been his 85th birthday, did to me. I should have known I was headed towards trouble when I chose to let down my guard and listen to music that I only listen to when seeking my deepest level of cogitation. As a result it reinforced the fact that I’m probably not alone thinking I have everything figured out. Then I turn a corner and almost instantaneously it becomes apparent that all the logical thought I thought I had situated logically was illogically situated in a context so loaded with pretext that it is hard to even consider the subtext. [I suggest you reread that prior sentence slowly, but not aloud or you could lose your mind]. Suffice it to say, when you start to consider how the Wicked Witch of the West was not an evil bitch to detest nor a human glitch of whom to make jest, but a person that challenged us to be our best, it becomes apparent that we failed miserably. It is all too easy seeing someone who is unceasingly framed as a perpetrator as a criminal and nothing more. Postulating what motives others have for accusing someone who is verbally under siege as being defensive when they have every right to defend themselves, is like not considering the reasons a so-called criminal who has been systematically disenfranchised might have a criminal response. These assertions are as ridiculous as: 1. A so-called elected leader publicly avowing to make a newly elected country’s leader a one term leader (and yet everything that follows is not supposed to be consistent with that earlier avowal). How does this happen? Are we stupid or what? 2. People who don’t know anything about someone professing insight into their reality based totally on hearsay and hype (as if there aren’t other motives in place). Why don’t we just ask the simplest of questions, like “so, how do you know this for a fact?” 3. Only caring about the welfare of those related to us, or only caring about news that directly impacts us, until something directly does affect us..only then we’ve already assisted in the construction of a world that is so desensitized that nobody cares (and yet we claim we don’t know why things always seem so bad). If we don’t care about what’s happening outside of our homes, down the street, and/or around the corner, why should anyone else? 4. Claims of loving someone that you never could possibly love because you never knew her/him, and were too busy loving whom you wanted that person to be. More so, until we know ourselves in our current context, are we even capable of loving another, romantically? It would behoove those of us who posture as if we know ourselves, or care about making this world a better place to try being the only Green person in the country. Labeled inadequate, aberrant, deviant, different, dare I say, wicked just because someone can label us, knowing others will buy into it. One day perhaps after experiencing the hype of being the unfathomable prototype we will, though self-reflection come to recognize the assault on our psyches that we must engage before we can see how we see. Additionally, perhaps we will all see who is going out of their way to invite us into their world, not to mention caring enough to understand ours. Until then, though, we are in jeopardy of not recognizing something is rotten in Denmark. That lack of recognition often makes a “mark” out of you…and me. tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1112 2011-08-11T18:32:17Z 2011-08-11T18:43:02Z

Yet in the not forsaking of our dreams for what we deem for what society deems as reality we may come to realize the finality of the fact that maybe, just maybe, we are sleeping through our reality and awake in our dreams

J.W. Wiley I recently had a friend tell me that when I was asleep I had said to her that “I can see myself in my dreams.” I wondered what I could have meant when I said that. Was it my vanity revealing itself, some preoccupation with seeing myself? Was it a throwaway statement, so obvious it wasn’t worth unpacking beyond the fact that everyone probably stars in their own dreams. But then I realized that, because of the work I do it might resonate a bit deeper if I dared to go there. So, I dare to go… Dreams of Reality by J.W. Wiley It's okay to dream for dreams are silver lined hopes and if we have wisely learned the ropes we will not dwell on them upon awakening. Yet in the not forsaking of our dreams for what we deem for what society deems as reality we may come to realize the finality of the fact that maybe, just maybe, we are sleeping through our reality and awake in our dreams and things are never what they seem which makes it even more okay to dream Now, no doubt there are so many dimensions to the various ratios that reflect the probability that most of my dreams will be more positive than negative. I could lose energy over an argument with a friend, an academically struggling child of mine, heartbreak from love or what I thought was love, a job loss, and carry that tweaked energy into any given night’s thought. However, losing energy to those types of moments is called being human. At some point the experience of some degree or variation of that type of energy loss will occur and hence, should be expected by everyone. But I wondered how it must feel to go to bed with the possibility of any of these occurrences looming in your subconscious—threatening to morph into a dream—along with the reality that beginning the next morning, you have the possibility of those occurrences occurring, alongside something more daunting. That thought threatens to shatter the sensibilities. If you are born very different, and understand that you live in a society that far too often sees and even worse, has framed you as less than, is it possible for you to be free in your dreams? I know an oppressed person can dream of freedom, but these dreams of freedom don’t guarantee them freedom from experiencing images of their disenfranchisement when their eyelids close. I’ve never had a dream about struggling to walk, or drive, or reproduce/make love, or read, or write, or laugh/cry? If I had I’m sure I would have considered it a bad dream/nightmare just because I couldn’t do something or lived in a society that said I couldn’t. I’ve never had a bad dream about expectations of my intellectual ability or courage, physicality or economic means. Have you ever considered what types of dreams different people have? If you know the peace you find in slumber, why have you not stopped and considered how peacefully others may/may not sleep? I know, most of us just haven’t done that, but does that mean we shouldn’t? Wouldn’t we want others to reflect on that part of our reality? Is it possible that if we all attempted to consider the serenity of one another’s dreams, awakening to genuinely care how each other slept, rested, refreshed, that we might walk more “awake/aware” through our intersecting lives, resulting in a consciousness that defaults to care. ]]> tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1103 2011-06-22T15:02:00Z 2011-06-22T15:16:19Z

She acknowledged that she was perturbed from his lack of contact with her immediately after such a great evening. He then asked her was it not the case that he had driven over an hour to see her including border crossing drama, brought her a bottle of wine as a gift, took her out to an expensive dinner and picked up the entire bill. With that effort, was he still obligated to also be the one to make the “morning after” phone call? If so, why? Her response was that her visceral reaction was inexplicable to her, she actually owned the fact that she didn’t know why.

J.W. Wiley Sexism is an intriguing thing in our current society. You can see this in the way many people responded to ex Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and are now responding to Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. Both of these women are often mocked as intellectual lightweights, as if all men who are seeking forms of higher office are intellectual giants. Somehow Hillary Clinton avoided the complex criticism of her aptitude to do the job that both of her female Republican counterparts couldn’t avoid. It could be related to her ability to answer both complex and simple questions with a level of clarity that the others often appear to struggle with. However, no matter how you see what should not be seen as the phenomenon of women in politics, the evaluation of a female candidate will always require teasing out sexist’s views. But a question that might be quite intriguing for you to consider is exactly to what extent does this work both ways in our society? For example, New York State has a female politician that appears to be so invested in entering the good-old boys club that she continues to throw a disenfranchised group under the bus in terms of their civil rights to marry the one they love, even though she herself belongs to a group (women) whose civil rights were denied along similar rationale (it’s always been this way). Another example is how some feminists with scars from their interactions with some men (not all) still default to seeing most men (if not all) as overtly oppressive/sexist while they try to convince themselves they can’t be racist, classist, etc. because of their level of sophistication/expertise with one “ism.” Is this just an instance of the pot calling the kettle black? Regardless, the sexism card, like a similarly powerful card—the race card—often is played as a wild card when it serves the purpose. Some time ago a friend of mine mentioned he was dating a woman who was quite brilliant. Foreign born and reared, she was one of the best communicators he had ever met, actually quite a linguist, having literally mastered five languages (German, French, English, Italian, and Spanish). Seldom was there a joke, quip, conundrum, or display of wit from anyone within her range of hearing that she didn’t totally understand and/or have a response to. This woman was quite the social commentator having a familiarity with so many cultures she could easily juxtapose the best/worst of any culture with another. As a result, her depth was unparalleled relative to the people that he said he had met in his lifetime. But she was still a woman in contemporary society who carried scars that were quite surprising to witness, admittedly, even to her. Case in point, once when he traveled to Quebec to see her they spent an evening together. They had wine at her place, then went out to a very nice dinner and practically closed the restaurant they stayed there so long, chatting one another up in a dark corner. The next morning he left her place early to return home to attend to some time-sensitive family commitments. It turns out that they didn’t talk that day at all, nor the next day, or the next. He said he did however, text her once during that period to wish her well on her son’s first communion. She responded with a thank you, and nothing more. He said he should have recognized her very brief reply as a harbinger of things to come. He said he actually thought about calling her many times, but also thought she could have taken the initiative to contact him just as much as he could her. Up to that point, he had seen her twice and both times he had made the effort of driving to her town. Both times he had picked up the tab. And after the first meeting he claimed he had called her afterwards. So, he said he wanted to see if she would take some initiative to acknowledge their evening. Well, after a few days she finally broke the ice and sent him a text message that had no amicable salutation within it. It simply requested that he return a film to her that she had loaned him. He then responded to her that he was curious about her tone and wondered if the undertone was in response to their lack of conversation after a very romantic evening. She acknowledged that she was perturbed from his lack of contact with her immediately after such a great evening. He then asked her was it not the case that he had driven over an hour to see her including border crossing drama, brought her a bottle of wine as a gift, took her out to an expensive dinner and picked up the entire bill. With that effort, was he still obligated to also be the one to make the “morning after” phone call? If so, why? Her response was that her visceral reaction was inexplicable to her, she actually owned the fact that she didn’t know why. She honestly stated she just felt bad having shared an intimate evening with him and not received a call from him for closure on that evening. After pressing her a bit further, she admitted she was a bit nervous about contacting him afterwards, a bit uncertain about how he would process the romance that had occurred that evening. They eventually laughed it off because they were both cool with the fact that they were finally at least talking, but he later admitted to me that he couldn’t get past the fact that somehow, in her mind when she hadn’t heard from him, he had become a “dog,” the stereotypical designation many men receive when they don’t conform to some women’s expectations. He had become just another typical male whom after the so-called conquest that had taken place in her mind was done with her. At that point I weighed in, saying to him, “So somehow, due to her lack of courage, you had acquired fleas.” We then both pondered what dysfunctional amorphous stereotype could be affixed to women who also don’t acknowledge an exhilarating evening with a man, and then label that man something that they themselves might aptly resemble. We mutually agreed that the wisest course of action was to just leave that thought alone! At what point will women—claiming to want equality long denied them—put away the “gender card” and step into that equality by moving beyond the hypocrisy of certain realities that continue to undercut their movement. Or is it okay for a woman in today’s society to continue to believe it is okay for her to be the victim when it serves her purpose. While Palin and Bachmann should not be held to a higher standard, they should not be held to a lower one either. Neither should my friend's engaging companion be able to suggest that he's carrying fleas that she isn’t. Ultimately, or perhaps even more so, ironically, if the deck of cards that represent life is stocked with an array of cards in it that one must play, if we don’t play the ones we are fortunate enough to have been dealt, do we have any chance of winning? After all, how many of us are ever truly in the position to deal, or even cut the cards? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1102 2011-05-07T13:51:03Z 2011-05-07T14:32:00Z

My colleague revealed how much Donald Trump’s insistence on seeing Barack Obama’s birth certificate had racist overtones not dissimilar to the scene we had watched, or the fact that Black men, during slavery time, had to show their papers at the bequest of any White man. Was this racist?

J.W. Wiley I often refer to a very close personal female friend of mine as “a voice of reason,” because she always has tremendously insightful things to share. When I am lost at sea she finds ways to guide me back to shore, and for that I very much appreciate her. Recently, I was drifting, floating, and reached out to her to assist me in pondering the Obama-Osama conundrum, the awkwardness that abounds relative to the celebration of Osama Bin Laden’s demise at the hands of a Navy Seal covert operations team sanctioned by President Barack Obama in response to 9-11. During that conversation I shared with her a conversation I had with my daughter who was taken aback by what she saw as bizarre adult behavior. My daughter felt that many adults should be admonished for their overt celebration of the end of Bin Laden’s life. In that regard I have a couple of philosophical points to make before I crescendo into a Churchill (Winston or Ward, you decide) conclusion. First, why is it that we call Osama Osama? We don’t call Barack Barack! Bin Laden’s not a rock star or entertainer, so he hadn’t earned the single stage moniker that Cher, Sade, Sting, and Michael (both Jordan and Jackson), though he did infamously alter people’s worlds with his heinous crimes and other attempted felonious acts. I recall him being called Bin Laden a lot earlier in his career. Is there a relationship between Bin Laden being identified as Osama and President Obama’s middle eastern sounding name? Is it possible that the media took advantage of this and lyrically leveraged the Obama-Osama rhetoric to further play up the angle of his citizenship? After all, in our capitalist culture it is about ratings, and news isn’t news unless its news. Secondly, one of my nursing colleagues in a NYSNA workshop I conducted recently in NY city on racism dropped a pearl that I thought I should share. We watched a scene from Rosewood, a John Singleton film that frames the decimation of a Black township in 1923 over the false accusation by a White woman of abuse followed by insinuations of rape by a Black man. The scene featured Ving Rhames as a Black war veteran—being asked after bidding at an auction for a price of land deemed beyond his reach—to show his papers which verified his identity. Within the scene it was apparent that the White men saw him as uppity and making him show his papers was a more subtle move of showing him his place in society. My colleague revealed how much Donald Trump’s insistence on seeing Barack Obama’s birth certificate had racist overtones not dissimilar to the scene we had watched, or the fact that Black men, during slavery time, had to show their papers at the bequest of any White man. Was this racist? Who knows what truly occurred in Trump’s mind. The possibilities of it being an instance of subconscious racism looms about as large as Mitch McConnell’s assertion that the one goal of the Republican party was to ensure that President Obama was a one-term president, or the vocal assertion that President Obama was a liar by Joe Wilson. But perhaps I’m overstating the case here, though the saying “just because you are paranoid does not mean you aren’t being chased” definitely comes to mind. And finally, in considering the vitriolic hatred for the mass murderer Osama Bin Laden, and overwhelming glee at his subsequent execution, is it okay for Americans to hate Bin Laden based upon the rationale that he was responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans as well as his other global terrorists acts? If your answer is yes, then how does America reconcile the contempt Japanese Americans must hide for an American government that publicly humiliated a very proud people by interring them in response to Pearl Harbor? Before you say that the Japanese Interment during WWII was a completely different situation, the murder of a people (9-11) and murder of a culture (Japanese Internment) may not be siblings, or even cousins when we think of the subtleties of the social injustices that are occurring, but they are related. How deep are the wounds of being uprooted from not just your house, but your home? How deeply scarred is someone who must cast off the specter of not being a loyal citizen? Not every American will ever fill the sting of such a designation, but isn’t it nice that we now have a President who can relate to that feeling? If that doesn’t do it for you, then how does America reconcile the disdain that Native Americans must manage when considering the systematic defilement of their culture and mass murder of their people at the hands of an American government hungry for land and too impatient to identify with its indigenous population. Native American scholar Ward Churchill was taken to task when he inconsiderately, while a nation was reeling/mourning from the 9-11 attacks, implied that the “chickens had come home to roost.” He was admonished by many including then Governor George Pataki who called him “a bigoted, terrorist, supporter.” While this is understandable, what would Pataki have me say to my precocious daughter if Native Americans started celebrating something horrible that occurred to America in response to how they were treated (which is essentially what Churchill did). How does America reconcile the scorn born out of forlorn acts of brutality, rape, and murder, followed by covert codes, segregation, and duplicitous acts that sadly/retrospectively don’t leave many duped. The once so-called Negro, so-called Colored, so-called Afro-American, is still struggling to move beyond an ideal framed and accentuated by Muhammad Ali when asked why he wouldn’t go to fight in the Vietnam war, which ultimately cost him three years of his fighting career. His response was “No Vietnamese ever called me a nigger.” Oh really champ, well nowadays you wouldn’t be called that either in America. You’d just have to show your birth certificate in a way no other president has done. Far too often people will say we need to forget the past and move on. They will argue that it serves no purpose to remember things we can’t change and that carrying that type of anger is energy misspent. But our children just had a front row seat to the epitome of American hypocrisy, celebrations of the demise of the orchestrator of one of the worst calamities in U.S. history, while similar celebrations by victims in this country would be frowned upon if not ostracized. So, tell me, what advice do you have for me on counseling my eleven year old about the exuberant celebrations of the unarmed murder of a man that (I agree) needed to die, when in a few years she will begin to understand the relative exoneration of her own government for its orchestration and complicity in what could be construed as equivalent to Bin Laden’s actions, only strategically and systematically implemented over a longer duration of time so as to go almost unnoticeable. I told her that he was an evil man that got what he deserved, but that he didn’t deserve people celebrating his death, unless it was totally in a context of the fact that he couldn’t/wouldn’t kill any more. I also told her to refer to him as Bin Laden, so that we could do our part in eradicating any subconscious association with our current President as a result of their names. She said, okay Daddy! tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1101 2011-04-05T03:35:03Z 2011-04-05T03:57:08Z

Personal prejudices rear their ugly heads inadvertently as a result of our blind spots, or sometimes deliberately as a result of how we play the game of leveraging ourselves at other’s expense. This is often called playing the ______ card (insert the identity construct that applies). Get this through your head though, everyone carries a deck, but some or just more adept at playing it.

J.W. Wiley It dismantles my sensibilities (essentially blows my mind, but that saying has become a bit trite, don’t you think?) when people immediately want to fight off the accusation that they are racists. They’ll own the fact that their thoughts on women may be limiting, disrespectful, or antiquated. They somehow find a way to attribute their thoughts and behavior to the way they were raised and somehow also find a way to rationalize their sexism as not so much of a problem because they don’t really mean anything by it. Have you found this to be true? Yes, it obliterates my rationale when people immediately will often own to varying extents the fact that they are homophobic or heterosexist, but not want to own the fact that they are racist. Their discomfort or unintended biases towards people with a different sexual orientation are often framed as having been served to them in sermons, or biblical canon, or subtly situated in language that they’ve grown accustomed to using (sissy, act like a girl, soft, etc.) and therefore, it isn’t really their fault that they’ve acquired the habit(s) of being inconsiderate of others. Is this the case, or not? Obviously I could go on. People are wrapped up in their classist behavior and comfortable with it, with the underclass striving to become middle class, the middle class striving to become upper class, and the upper class, when not with others of their ilk, often downplaying their class status. Off handed comments about this or that, inconsideration of the privileges that they have strictly by the luck of the draw, and they therefore are dismissive of others less fortunate. People are ableist along some of the same routes. Posing as if they are empathetic, but rolling through life as inconsiderately of people who are differently-abled as they do the homeless when they have just exited a shopping spree having purchased frivolous goods that probably won’t even be worn while the homeless person they just passed has only the clothes on her back and is scrambling for tonight’s meal. I have never minced words when I speak to audiences on the subject of race/racism. I firmly believe that if you were socialized in this country, educated, or mis-educated around the subject of race, you are as racist as you are sexist, heterosexist, and ableist. How can you not be if you have never really participated in a discussion about how it feels to be oppressed, or the many ways that we disrespect others. There is a misconception however that if you are a kind person, or someone educated in doing work in the field of Cultural studies, Jewish Studies, Women and/or Gender Studies, LGBT Studies/Chicana-Hispanic/Native American/African American/ Asian-American Studies that you automatically get it because you know and have studied the oppression of one group and logically wouldn’t purposely put that onto others. GIVE ME A BREAK!!! People in every one of these camps have scars as profoundly deep and troubling as the ones non-educators sometimes carry. Just because you are the director of a Diversity Studies program doesn’t mean you don’t see Gay men as less manly even though you may purport to being an advocate for equal rights. Just because you are the chair of a Gender Studies program doesn’t mean you’ve been introduced to Angela Davis’ Myth of the Black Rapist and are capable of seeing underrepresented men in a light that doesn’t automatically frame them as sexual deviants if they deviate slightly from your expectations. Just because you are the director of a educational enterprise (consultant), a dean, provost, president, principal, or superintendent, you are not absolved from succumbing to your own biases, albeit at times subconscious biases. Personal prejudices rear their ugly heads inadvertently as a result of our blind spots, or sometimes deliberately as a result of how we play the game of leveraging ourselves at other’s expense. This is often called playing the ______ card (insert the identity construct that applies). Get this through your head though, everyone carries a deck, but some or just more adept at playing it. So, what’s my point? Well, what is the point? Why do we accept a certain amount of ownership around our ill-treatment of others in these other problematic identity categories, but are ready to fight the accusation of racism? Does racism trump the other isms? Somebody please explain to me how it is possible to not be racist in American society if you are a product of our educational system? Oh, and when we own the fact that we may be sexist, homophobic, and yes, even racist, we then can start to entertain some of the other problematic dimensions of our socialization/indoctrination and examine even deeper how we may have dysfunctionally responded to some of society’s other poorly taught/strategically implemented lessons (what might those be?). After all, as Albert Camus once said: “beginning to think is beginning to be undermined...” tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1095 2011-02-25T16:07:42Z 2011-02-25T16:18:26Z

As the discussion ensued, it was pointed out to her and of course the rest of the class that the reason they often don’t/can’t see their racial privilege is that it is a dominant attribute and we are less apt to focus on those qualities that give us unearned privileges.

J.W. Wiley In the Examining Diversity through Film class I co-teach with colleagues at SUNY-Plattsburgh we had a very intriguing moment arise as we exited our much less anxiety ridden "ability" theme and cautiously entered our "race" theme. A young woman, who often is very much in the game in terms of the energy and insight she brings to a conversation, admitted that she struggled with the notion that because she is White she is privileged. She argued that she has never felt that way and that when she accomplishes something of merit she doesn’t want it undercut by assertions that her race might have been a factor in her achievement. As the discussion ensued, it was pointed out to her and of course the rest of the class that the reason they often don’t/can’t see their racial privilege is that it is a dominant attribute and we are less apt to focus on those qualities that give us unearned privileges. They were then asked if they thought men had an advantage (privilege) over women in our society. They were then asked did they think it was more advantageous to live a heterosexual lifestyle, or to not have a so-called disability. Upon agreeing with the fact that some cultural groups in our society do have advantages (privilege), why would the dominant race in our society be any different? The other day a 14 year old Black boy in a local school was sitting in his class, when a rarity occurred in the North Country, another Black boy entered the classroom. Now, before you start to act as if I’m being racist (because I know some of you love putting that jacket on the diversity guy), catch your breath and realize that still, to this day, the majority of the time I am in a restaurant, I am the only Black man in that restaurant the entire time. However, just yesterday I was in Kotos at the bar, sitting with Matt Salvatore, director of the SUNY Plattsburgh Fitness Center, who I just happened to encounter there. All of a sudden two other Black men entered the restaurant within a five minute period of one another and flanked Matt and I. Okay, so I'm name dropping a bit, but the other two men were Bill Price, president of Plattsburgh Ford, and Shaun Smith, new V.P. of Human Resources for CVPH. Yes, Matt was surrounded by three professional Black men, all craving Sushi, but discovering a rarity, that the stars don’t necessarily have to converge for three Black men from different places and locally different spaces to share social graces while they meet and touch bases. We kicked it with Matt,giving him honorary (albeit temporary) “brother” status while everybody was getting their grub, or should I say, “sushi” on. We , discussed this, that, and the other thing (you don’t really think I would tell you), and for me I must admit it was one of the best impromptu moments I’ve ever had in Plattsburgh. Now, be real with me, other than a crew of college students, how many of you have ever seen three professional black men sitting and dining in a restaurant? How about two? How about three Black women? How about three Latinos? Latinas? Asian men or women? How many times have you even considered the fact that the person(s) you are dining with understand some dimension of your struggle? Perhaps you've never had the thought because in terms of race you've had no struggle. Do you think it is significant or cause for celebration for racially underrepresented people to have access to one another? If not significant, why not? What would be some reasons people wouldn’t see it as significant? Back to the 14 year old Black boy story. So, the other Black boy comes into the class and the one already there greets him with these words, “What’s up, my Negro?” That’s right, his salutation to the other Black boy entering the classroom was a slight twist on the popular culture greeting that has permeated Black vernacular for years, “What’s up my Nigger?” So, while all he said was hello to his friend in a very informal, comfortable manner, the response from the teacher was to send him to the principal’s office. Please tell me your theory on why? Was he wrong in extending this greeting to the other teenage? From what I understand he didn’t yell it out, but definitely said it with no shame. Is there a problem with expressions of culture like this that are not profane? If an Italian had said to another Italian, “What’s up my Italian?” would the student have been sent to the principal’s office? Come on, be real? Were there any implications of unearned privilege being given or denied in this scenario? Lastly, in terms of privilege, I was saddened recently to hear that President Obama has been mentioned as stating his position on same-sex marriage is challenging for him. I applaud his earnestness in identifying the fact that as a leader he is not always clear on the issues he must engage. Far too often our leaders act as if uncertainty on an issue is something to be ashamed of. And in this economical/political climate with countries going bankrupt and nations clamoring for democracy, many of the positions Obama takes are greatly influenced by keeping America situated in a safe, resourceful space. However, as a Black man (or at the very least, a Biracial man) you would think that his understanding of the struggles of Blacks to entertain an egalitarian status within American society would make him not just more sympathetic to other’s struggles to achieve the same with the U.S., but more committed to being an ally in assisting others to overcome their struggles. Is his hesitance to support the eradication of homophobic practices political posturing, or earnest angst? If I’ve quoted soulful song stylist Marvin Gaye once before I’ve quoted him a thousand times, all this inconsideration “makes me want to holla, throw up both my hands…”