The Martyrdom of Don Imus

Even in his demise talk show host "nappy-headed hos" Don Imus has attained a form of popular martyrdom. Read any of the many comment boards or blogs or gauge the reaction from commentators and regular citizens alike, and Imus is painted as a scapegoat—a sacrificial lamb (albeit a tainted one) that was vilified by a hypocritical black lynch mob that does not speak out equally against the use of derogatory language towards black women in rap music. Black commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson even advocates that Don Imus is rapper Snoop Dogg’s “Frankenstein Monster." But did Don Imus really die for our Black sins? Or is the media elite protecting one of their own in order to restrict and limit our discussion?

Click to see the full blog, and judge for yourself:

The Martyrdom of Don Imus
or
The Devil Wears Hip Hop

A Martyr and the Devil ?

Did Don Imus really die for our black sins?

Even in his demise talk show host Don Imus has attained a form of popular martyrdom. Read any of the many comment boards or blogs or gauge the reaction from commentators and regular citizens alike, and Imus is painted as a scapegoat—a sacrificial lamb (albeit a tainted one) that was vilified by a hypocritical black lynch mob that does not speak out equally against the use of derogatory language towards black women in rap music. Imus had as much to say. "That phrase [nappy-headed hos] originated in the black community….I may be a white man, but I know that these young women and young black women all through that society are demeaned and disparaged and disrespected…by their own black men and that they are called that name." This defense has been cited repeatedly by defenders of Imus, and by those who assert it is rap music that is to blame for his slur. Increasingly conservative commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson even advocates that Don Imus is rapper Snoop Dogg's "Frankenstein Monster."

However there is a glaring problem with the impending martyrdom of Don Imus—it rests on a series of omissions.

"Nappy Headed Hos:" Chances are if you heard the news story repeatedly, you mostly got the abridged version. Here's the larger context. Imus began by saying the women on the Rutgers team were some "rough girls" with "tattoos." It is the executive producer of the show Bernard McGuirk who interrupts to say, "Some hard-core hos." Imus responds, "That's some nappy headed-hos" and begins to compare them unfavorably to the women of the Tennessee team. McGuirk then jokes, "The Jigaboos vs the Wannabes," alluding to Spike Lee's School Daze. He and Imus go on to talk about the lack of femininity of the Rutgers players. A fellow regular on the show, sports announcer Sid Rosenberg, adds "It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors." This larger context brings up an entirely different angle. What we have here are several white men indulging in an age old intersection of sexism and racism that degrades black women as either sexually exotic or physically unattractive—at least in comparison to white women. Put together, along with words like "Jigaboo," we have a story more offensive than the "nappy headed hos." But the media inexplicably leaves this context on the cutting room floor. And now our conversations and debates are restricted to, "well don't rappers use ho' too?" and "why is Imus being singled out?" Perhaps it's because "Jigaboo" wouldn't fit into the "it's the rappers fault" theme.

"Bitch is Going to be Wearing Cornrows:" Executive producer Bernard Guirk, who instigated the disastrous remarks about the Rutgers team but goes unmentioned in news stories, just weeks ago made comments that were even more inflammatory. Just one month ago, on the March 6, 2007 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, executive producer Bernard McGuirk stated that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) was "trying to sound black in front of a black audience" when she gave a speech on March 4 in Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the infamous 1965 "Bloody Sunday" Civil Rights march. McGuirk added that Clinton "will have cornrows and gold teeth before this fight with [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] is over." Earlier in the program, in reference to Clinton's speech, McGuirk had said, "Bitch is gonna be wearing cornrows." McGuirk also said that Clinton will be "giving Crips signs during speeches," alluding to the infamous Los Angeles-based street gang. The entire time McGuirk is stating this, denigrating an important moment in Civil Rights history, Imus jokes along, never stating the words himself but urging on the comments and certainly never calling McGuirk out for them. Although all of this happened just a month ago, and McGuirk was intricately involved in this current controversy, somehow he escapes mention in most media depictions of the story. So, again, we are presented with no context by which people can make a sound examination of both the initial controversial event and the very recent history of the show.

"Whitey plucked you from the jungle"…and "took away your spears:" Bernard McGuirk made those statements just one month ago, on the same March 6, 2007 edition of Imus in the Morning mentioned above. He was doing a mocking imitation of African-American poet Maya Angelou. Don Imus, playing along, urges McGuirk to do his imitation of "that woman…the poet" who another guest (Rob Bartlett) compares to "Esther Rolles from Good Times." McGuirk eagerly indulges with a poem where he jokes about slavery and the stereotype of blacks being lazy: "Whitey plucked you from the jungle for too many years, Took away your pride, your dignity, and your spears, With freedom came new woes, Into whitey's world you was rudely cast, So wake up now and go to work? You can kiss my big black ass." It's only after a good laugh that Imus playfully warns McGuirk to stop because "I don't need any more columns."

"Bernard McGuirk is there to do 'nigger' jokes:" That was a quote attributed to Don Imus by producer Tom Anderson in 1998. Imus was speaking to CBS journalist Mike Wallace. At first denying that he had said so, when called to the carpet about it by Wallace, Imus laughed and admitted it—but said it was "off the record."

"That Animal [Venus Williams]….She's an Animal:" That was sports announcer Sid Rosenberg, a regular guest on the Imus show in June of 2001, talking about tennis player Venus Williams. Rosenberg was also part of the crew involved in this latest controversy [comparing the Rutgers women to a male basketball team] who disappeared from the headlines. "That animal…" Rosenberg says of Venus Williams in her appearance at the 2001 U.S. Open, "She's an animal." Commenting on the Williams sisters together, Rosenberg says, "I can't, I can't even watch them play anymore. I find it disgusting…They should play with the men." In his normal way, Imus calls this stupid, but allows Rosenberg to continue with his disparaging remarks. "A friend, he says to me, 'You know what,' he goes, 'Listen, one of these days you're going to see, find Venus and Serena Williams in Playboy.' I said, 'You gotta better shot at National Geographic." To this Imus responds, "That'll be fine." After a small furor erupted over this, Imus fired Rosenberg but re-hired him within a week after an apology was made on the air. Rosenberg would insist that his comments about the Williams sisters weren't racist, "just zoological." After a string of later offenses, including referring to Palestinians as "stinking animals" and mocking singer Kylie Minogue's cancer, Rosenberg was let go in 2005. However earlier this year he returned, and picking up on his old habit of demeaning women, especially black women, he referred to the Rutgers team as "a tough watch" and that "they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors."

As the above illustrates, the Imus show's problems with gender and race are not new. It was part of a larger pattern, one that had long been noted by others like Media Matters.org or FAIR, though glaringly overlooked by the mainstream media and tolerated by both CBS and MSNBC. Imus often walked a delicate tightrope, never straying directly into the most inflammatory remarks himself, but encouraging and allowing it from both Sid Rosenberg and Bernard McGuirk (the one hired to do "nigger jokes."). A May 30, 1996, column in The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina, protesting the show's treatment of Maya Angelou, summed it up thusly:

"As the show's resident racist, Bernard [McGuirk] allows Imus to remain above the fray. When he wants to. For instance, they recently discussed poet Maya Angelou, who said she no longer watched 'Jeopardy' because the TV show seldom had black contestants. The reason for that, Bernard opined, is because 'Jeopardy' doesn't recruit contestants in prisons or have an affirmative action recruiter. Imus' response? A feeble, insincere 'Stop that.'

In 2000, the show's treatment of blacks became so dismal, that African-American Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page appeared on the show and asked Imus to pledge to "cease all simian references [to] black athletes" and "references to noncriminal blacks as thugs, pimps, muggers, and Colt 45 drinkers." Imus responded, "I promise to do that." Page also asked that Imus put an end to black minstrel-like "Amos 'n Andy cuts," to stop the "comparison of New York City to Mogadishu," and cease with "all parodies of black voices." Imus joked, "I think Bernard should be doing this," but accepted the pledge, only to break it almost immediately.

And so the show has long operated. What was different this time was that Imus broke his own rule. Rather than letting McGuirk and Rosenberg make derogatory comments for him, he jumped into the fray, calling the Rutger's team "nappy headed hos." At first refusing to recant, when the heat was turned up he invited himself onto activist Rev. Al Sharpton's show to apologise. And it wasn't long before the media elite--from The Boston Globe's Tom Oliphant to Newsweek's Howard Fineman--rallied around him. However this time it wasn't enough. Key advertisers began to abandon him. MSNBC and CBS, perhaps fearing of opening a Pandora's Box into the show's sordid history, decided to finally cut ties with Imus and take their losses.

This has happened before. Right wing radio host Rush Limbaugh was invited in the summer of 2003 as a Sunday sports announcer for ESPN, even despite a long history of insensitive racial comments. By October of that year Limbaugh found himself mired in controversy when he made disparaging comments about black quarterback Donavan McNabb. Fearful of bad publicity, ESPN jettisoned Limbaugh quickly. Why was Limbaugh axed for what was normal fare on his radio show? Because what is usually allowed in right-wing radio commentary cannot be tolerated on a big name mainstream television station like ESPN.

For Imus, a great deal was tolerated by CBS and MSNBC for a long time. But unlike Snoopp Dogg and the other purveyors of derogatory and sexist "thug" rap, or the radio landscape of insensitive commentary by Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Laura Ingrams, Don Imus was able to have a program on mainstream television outlets that reached millions of viewers. Unlike the explicit drug-dealer glorifying Young Jeezy or the violent fictional mob boss Tony Soprano, Imus interviewed members of the media elite, presidential candidates, influence peddlers, and more. 50 Cent is derogatory in nearly every aspect of his lyricism, no doubt. But much like soft-core porn stars on Cinemax, he and other pushers of smut and violence, aren't afforded these privileges. Imus was. And when he crossed that line—wanting his cake and eat it too—he fittingly had his "ho" card pulled.

Special thanks to Media Matters.org for the invaluable information.

Read More...

Summary only...

Black Radio Host Calls Volleyball Team Stringy-Haired B*tches

A furor erupted last week when black radio host Ron Immons referred to members of the Wilmington College Beach Volleyball Team as "stringy haired b*tches." The comments took place on-air, as millions listened to the popular morning show. Immons, joking with his fellow black producers and several guests, disparaged the Wilmington all-woman, mostly white, collegiate team—going as far as comparing their match against Cal State to the movies Once Upon a Time in America and The Godfather. "It's like the Hymies vs. the Guinea-wops," Immons producer joked.

Controversy Rages On- But is the Sex Industry and Mass Media to Blame?

At first defending his actions and refusing to apologise, Immons has recently done an about face, and today appeared on the white community action network FOX News channel to make amends to white community leaders. Immons called his comments "insensitive and ill-conceived," adding that "[i]t was completely inappropriate, and we can understand why people were offended." However, after being pressed by FOX hosts, Immons became irate, saying he was being held to a double standard.

"This phrase that I used didn't originate with me," Immons stated in his defense. "It originated in the white community. I'm not stupid. I've seen porn before. Pornography in America is a multi-billion dollar business. White men consume most of it. Most of it, not all, but most of it—stars white women. And in those films they use those kind of words…b*tch…slut…whore…all the time, towards other white women. I know that these young white women all through that society are demeaned and disparaged and disrespected by—by their own white men and that they are called that name, and I know that doesn't give me, obviously, any right to say it, but it doesn't give them any right to say it. That didn't give me a right to use it, but that's where it originated."

A frequent white community activist at FOX News had this to say in response:

"Just because white men use that term towards white women, doesn't mean everyone has a right to do so. It's wrong when white men do it. It's wrong when black men do it. And it was wrong when Immons did it."

Some in the white community however, aren't so sure.

"I've been called b*tch numerous times by other white men, at bars, or even during sex," one online white blogger Buffy137 said. "And I know where it comes from—the porn industry, the sex industry, our whole societal obsession with white women as sexual objects. You see it everywhere—beer commercials, movies, rock-stars with flashy women. I don't see how we can get mad when some black radio host says it, but we don't get mad when our own white men say it? We're just being hypocrites!"

Another anonymous white blogger, Megan36, however countered:

"Just because there are shortcomings in the white community doesn't mean someone in the black community can join in. I'm not a b*tch. I'm not some bimbo in a beer commercial, or a rock and roll video, or some online porn star. And neither were those women at Wilmington. If I want to perm my hair curly, that's my business. If I want to wear it natural and stringy, that's also my business. Using the porn and sex media industry is a cop out. Immons needs to be fired."

And today just that happened, as both advertisers and broadcasters dropped Immons. With a history of insensitive remarks on his show, many think this recent flap was considered as too much of a liability. But even with his dismissal, a controversy rages on in America, and especially within the white community, over the use of language in our culture.

© 2007 Your Ass Has Just Been Satired! Institute. All rights reserved

Read More...

Summary only...

Dancing with the Devil

http://foxattacks.com/

Recently the Congressional Black Caucus Institute agreed to air a series of debates on black issues on FOX News. For anyone who has watched the right-wing conservative turn in the media, it should be well established that FOX News is the mouthpeice of the Empire. FOX News is run by Roger Ailes, who engineered the political campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.--and was also responsible for the racist Willie Horton type ads of the 1980s. When it comes to black America, as evidenced in the above video, FOX News is deplorable. The CBC's decision to partner with it is a bad move that sense a terrible message.


Fox News is part of the global media empire run by right-wing corporatist Rupert Murdoch--who in 2005 even bought myspace. In 2000, it was FOX News consultant John Ellis (cousin to George W. Bush Jr) who called the election in favor of George Bush and against Al Gore. It was FOX News after 9/11 who championed American jingoism that has led to the colonial misadventure in Iraq. During Hurricane Katrina, it was FOX News that first and foremost focused on false reports of black rampaging criminality rather than on the thousands of victims. It was, and still is, FOX News policy to remain the media darling of the Bush White House, the GOP, right-wing pundits, institutions and advocates. FOX News is the only channel Vice President Dick Cheney demands upon his arrival anywhere in the world. Despite being repeatedly called out for blatant misrepresentation, outright lies and disinformation by its core of right-wing bullying pundit like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, FOX News remains unrepentant in its propaganda. And its affect on the overall journalistic news media--who in order to get ratings have attemtped to simulate it--has been to lower the standard of the profession whose responsibility it is to keep the citizenry informed about its leadership and those in power.

When it comes to black America, as evidenced in the above video, FOX News is deplorable. If the regular news media helps push negative depictions of blacks, FOX News takes it to extreme heights that can only be compared to the Old South of Jim Crow. It is mean-spirited diatribe dressed up as journalism, that exploits tragedy, glorifies stereotypes and pulls on white America's fears of the "other."

When the Democratic National Convention signed on to partner its debates with FOX News earlier this year, there was immediate resistance from grassroots Democrats and progressives--who recognize FOX News for what it is. The DNC pulled out of its partnerships, after realizing that any Democratic debate on FOX News would be spun and twisted to favor the right-wing. It is hard to imagine that a debate on issues of sensitivity regarding the black community would fare any better. Why the CBC cannot see this is hard to understand. So perhaps, we should make them understand. Below is a letter and links to a petition, urging--demanding--the CBC drop its partnership with FOX News, who is not worthy of their presence.

In support of the petition, I submit the following from ColorofChange.org:

Fox News has consistently attacked Black people, Black leaders, and Black cultural institutions. Despite this, the Congressional Black Caucus Institute has announced that it will partner with Fox to co-host presidential debates.

The Congressional Black Caucus is letting us down at a time when Black Americans need strong and strategic leaders more than ever. We are beginning a campaign to make it clear to key CBC leaders, and the voters in their districts, that the majority of us are not with them. We must keep raising our voices, making it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Black America is speaking out against this kind of irresponsible and disrespectful representation.

While we work to shame the CBC Institute into dropping out of this embarrassing partnership with a network that consistently denigrates our people, we will also focus on the presidential candidates. The candidates should take the stand that CBC members have been afraid to take—refusing to participate in debates sponsored by a network that is hostile to the interests of Black America.

Please add your personal thoughts or simply sign the petition, stating your opposition.

UPDATE: Following Senator John Edwards, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have pulled out of the debate. However the CBC is still defending their partnership.

What others are saying about the CBC-FOX News Partnership:

"I am disappointed by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute's partnership with FOX, and strongly encourage them to reverse that decision. Why would presidential candidates, or an organization that is supposed to advocate for Black Americans, ever give a stamp of legitimacy to a network that continually marginalizes Black leaders and the Black community? FOX moderating a presidential debate on issues of importance to Black Americans is literally letting the Fox guard the henhouse – FOX should be rejected."--- Jesse Jackson

"There is a difference, however, between compromising preference and compromising principle...The latter is what happens when you represent black interests in the U.S. Congress, but get in bed with a television network that has a history of rank disregard for black interests because you want to be a player in the presidential primary debates. Principle, along with integrity and prestige, is what the Congressional Black Caucus Institute has laid on the line in its partnership with Fox News...So far, it only seems to be another misstep by a group that thinks that 'forgive and forget' are words to live by. That may apply to normal human relations, but not in politics. Not these days. It's a blood war now, and the Congressional Black Caucus, in all of its constructs, would be wise not to let its guard down for a minute."--Tom Joyner's BlackAmericaWeb.com

"Why would the Congressional Black Caucus co-sponsor presidential debates with Fox News? How much does it really cost to rent the CBC Institute?... The CBC-Fox News scandal clearly illuminates the bankruptcy of corporate funded black leadership. The CBC Institute and the CBC Foundation are "not for profit" money pockets created to receive corporate contributions."-- Black Agenda Report

"What were they thinking? What possible justification could the Congressional Black Caucus Political Leadership Education Institute have for picking Fox News to partner with on an upcoming presidential debate? 'Fox News is not a "fair and balanced" source of information or political debate, and it has repeatedly proven itself hostile to the interests of Black Americans... Fox on-air personalities and regular guests consistently marginalize Black leaders, culture, and institutions,' said ColorOfChange in a letter to activists. And they are right. ... Case in point: Fox's recent sustained stain campaign against presidential candidate Barack Obama-they place undue emphasis on his middle name 'Hussein,' say he went to a fundamentalist Islamic school and question his religious affiliation, suggestively characterizing his church as having 'unusual doctrines.' And the network's framing and interpretation of Black (and Brown) issues and culture are often bigoted and lacking in any attempt to truly understand and present a fair picture."--Afro American Newspapers

"Fox has a long history of treating Black people unfairly. They are not a trusted news source for most Black Americans."--Benjamin Todd Jealous – former executive director of the National Newspaper Publishers Associations (NNPA), a 98-year old federation of more than 200 Black community newspapers.

"Why is the Congress Black Caucus condoning the anti-Black and, specifically, anti-Obama onslaught waged by the Fox New Channel, and remaining silent on the CBC Institute's recent announcement to collaborate with Fox to air two presidential debates?"--Afro-Netizen.com

"Anyone who has been watching the news the past few years should know that Fox News is nothing but a right-wing platform for conservative Republicans. So if that's the case, why were the Democrats even thinking about holding a debate on Fox News in Nevada? I understand the whole idea of reaching out to the other side, but Fox News is not just the other side. They are the opposition. It's one thing to debate Bill O'Reilly or the Fox News anchors. Everybody knows what's going on there. It's another thing to give Fox News a forum it doesn't already have where they can pretend to be 'fair and balanced.' But if the Democratic Party gets it, why doesn't the Congressional Black Caucus?"--Keith Boykin

"I don't think the explicit bias of Fox News is in line with the mission of the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, which if you are wondering, "is to provide political education and training to the next generation of African American leadership"...the prejudices and biases should outrage Black people regardless of their political persuasions. And for that reason, I will make my voice heard to let the Congressional Black Caucus Institute to cancel their agreement with Fox News...Please help us Lord."--Black Blog - SuperSpade

"Why on earth would the Congressional Black Caucus choose to align itself with a network that has proven itself to be racist as a course of normal business operations? As part of their branding strategy? If the Ku Klux Klan or Council of Conservative Citizens had a cable news network, would it be appropriate to collaborate with them on hosting presidential debates, particularly when one of the candidates is black, a CBC member and a consistent target of the network's hatred and misinformation? Like Jesse says, why let the Fox guard the henhouse?"--Jack and Jill Politics

Read More...

Summary only...

300 Spartans, 1 Million Persians & The Altering of History

So I saw 300 last week. Driven by action, the movie had enough blood and battle to dazzle the senses and up testosterone levels. As cinematography it was a visual CGI masterpiece—though one might ask when and where reliance on computer generated imagery enhances or devalues a movie. The acting was tolerable—not like Ghostrider where I wanted to gnaw off my left leg rather than sit through the excruciating dialogue. As plots go, it was mediocre— not bad but not exactly filled with complex intrigue. Syriana or Babel this movie was not. Noble Greeks fight scary Persians to Alamo type finish. Freedom. Honor. Glory. The End. But my anticipation of 300 was only partly based on my expectations of it as a film.


300 is based on the Frank Miller graphic novel of the same name, and is a retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae between Spartan Greeks and the Persian Empire in the 5th Century BC. I read the comic back in 1998, and found it fascinating—yet discomforting. The story itself is a surreal fantasy. And though the film's director Zack Snyder makes the grandiose claims that "the events are 90 percent accurate," I hardly expected it to be factual. So that these Spartans fight bare-chested with CGI enhanced abdomens straight out of Chippendales, instead of in breastplates as would have been common, wasn't really of consequence to me. I took it for Hollywood cosmetic to sell tickets—and maybe even reach that coveted gay male audience. I was more concerned with the changes to the movie—and before that the comic—that had deeper meaning, and give us an interesting mirror into the society we live in.

The Spartans

In 300 there is much celebration of Sparta—the Greek city-state known well for its warrior cult, who pose as the heroes of the film. But these are not the Spartans of history; they are instead, something else. For instance, though it's alluded that Spartans were known for killing infants who may have been born with defects or bad omens (this might be a physical deformity or a birth mark), this ritual infanticide is toned down to ambiguity. While the harsh life of a Spartan male, who endures years of brutality to become a warrior, is portrayed, it too is softened and made noble—in its own way. In the movie Spartan boys are forced out into the wild and must face fierce animals, not becoming a true warrior until they kill one. In reality however, Spartan youths didn't go out and kill animals to prove their worth. They actually had to go out and kill a slave—a Helot, fellow Greeks of nearby Lakonia and Messenia conquered and reduced to bondage by Sparta's "free" militaristic elite.

Perhaps because this sounds too much like a modern gang initiation rite (and the comparison certainly fits), it is altered for the viewing audience. As told by the film, slavery is absent in Spartan society—and is something only their enemies practice. This sanitizing of Spartan history may be because in 300, there is much made about Sparta being a land of "freedom." In fact, this is the central theme of the story—the entire reason for the war against Persia. These Spartans are even mildly homophobic, laughingly scoffing at homosexuality among their fellow Athenian Greeks. This is ironic, as ritualized homosexual liaisons among Spartan boys in training was both common and obligatory at the time. In the film Spartan women are not altogether equal, but gender relations have an air of egalitarianism hard to find in the historical record.

The reality, that Sparta was actually a slave society that conquered fellow Greeks, practiced state sponsored eugenics, and was run by a patriarchal male-dominated military oligarchy who maintained their power through force and violence, is radically altered—as it would no doubt clash with the cries for liberty and the "new era of freedom" Spartans boast of repeatedly throughout the film. Altogether, Spartan culture is re-arranged to fit modern (mostly American) ideas on democracy, masculinity, sexuality and gender. And this is necessary not merely to glorify Sparta, but to make certain they were seen as different from their enemies as ever.

The Persians

One of the first things I noticed when I read Frank Miller's 300, was the main villain of his story—the Persian King Xerxes. He was black—a towering bald giant with earrings in his ears and face and nose, like a brown-skinned Michael Clarke Duncan merged with Dennis Rodman. More than a few of Xerxes soldiers and generals were also black. I found that odd, because the historical Xerxes was Persian—modern day Iran. While the Persian Empire was certainly massive and assimilated all sorts of people, its black population was probably nowhere near that pronounced. And there are enough depictions of Xerxes to not mistake him for the average brother. So why make Xerxes a black giant?

Frank Miller's version of the Battle of Thermopylae took its cue from age-old western notions of Orientalism—a Western perception of the East as alien, inferior and yet menacing. The Persia of 300 is the opposite of the Greeks, the opposite of the Occidental West: a fantastical imagining of the mysterious East, both exotic and frightening, with bizarre peoples and customs, ruled by superstition and tyrants. Most of all the "Orient" is dangerous, and holds the power to destroy the West if it isn't controlled or beaten back. For Miller, Xerxes as a Persian wasn't enough to embody this dark symbolism. He had to be transformed into a more threatening figure—one that only blackness seemed able to conjure up. The movie version changed this somewhat. Xerxes is no longer black. He is however still a giant, garbed in a speedo and decked out in about two tons of bling—from earrings to body chains. As opposed to the hyper-masculine Spartans of the film, Xerxes is effeminate, foppish and a gender-bending sexual deviant. His army is either dark and faceless, or horribly monstrous—and as we are told, all slaves whipped into the service of their tyrannical king.

But like Sparta, this depiction of Xerxes and the Persian Empire has more to do with modern western—and especially American—imagination than reality. The actual Xerxes of history probably dressed little different than many of his Greek enemies, though much better—in velvet robes or tunics, as Persia was an opulent kingdom. As far as his rule went, while he was probably not someone you'd elect to the local city council, for a monarch of an Empire of his time, he and the other Achaemenid kings of Persia were not precisely the tyrants of Hollywood depiction. They actually instituted what some have called one of the earliest declarations of Human Rights, detailing religious tolerance and (albeit limited) expressions of personal freedom. They even debated the merits of democracy, though choosing against it. Now don't get me wrong. Kings like Xerxes were undoubtedly conquerors, and were no nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize. By our standards, his empire would be unilateralist, rapaciously imperialist and ignore many aspects of international law. But Persian rulers also allowed their territories to have limited independence, demanding only tribute and conscript soldiers. And in what is probably one of the greatest ironies that the movie manages to reverse, under the Achaemenids, for religious reasons, slavery was nominally opposed—though by no means non-existent. This is at least a step-up from Sparta, where the enslavement of fellow Greeks was not a topic up for debate. In the end Xerxes and his fellow rulers were not saints, but neither were they the bloodthirsty tyrants of 300.

The Battle of Thermopylae

Centered on the famed Battle of Thermopylae, 300 depicts fantastic fight scenes—as endless hordes of Persians bash themselves against Spartan soldiers who skillfully hold them off. For Frank Miller's graphic novel and the movie, 300 Spartans led by their king Leonidas hold off 1 million Persians. In reality, the Persians probably numbered between 60,000 to 120,000. The Greeks were actually a force of 7,000—some 4,000 of which were killed—whose success was based mostly on better bronze weapons and a tactical strategy of utilizing the natural landscape. While it's true that fellow Greeks abandoned the Spartans in the final battle, some 700 remained and also fought to the end. As for the Athenian navy who kept Persia occupied at sea and unable to deploy their full might, these Greeks are wholly absent from 300. The movie instead is certain to give the full glory only to the 300 super-manly Spartan soldiers (not those wimpy "gay" Athenian sailor boys), who in death achieve a cinematic display of quasi-Judeo-Christian sainthood. The undignified beheading of Leonidas and the eventual burning of Athens with the Greeks scurrying away in fright before the Persian forces, is erased from Hollywood-created history, to be sure our Spartan heroes are able to keep their manliness intact.

Just a Movie?

So in the end, what's the point of all this? 300 is just a movie after all, and before that a comic book. It's not history—even if it's director tries to pass it off as such to his audience. It's a story. And it doesn't have to follow the facts. If we're looking for historical accuracy, we'd be better off sticking to a classroom. Films are sold to us as entertainment, not lessons. But at the same time, like any work of art, we would be remiss to leave it at that. Films reflect our culture, our values, our perceptions, what we think of as normal or perverse, right or wrong, good or bad. And they can reinforce larger societal thoughts we take for granted. That Hollywood alters history isn't particularly surprising or even relevant. But how that history is altered, what history is altered and why the altering takes place can reveal a great deal.

The Battle of Thermopylae has long been more than just an ancient event, a comic book or a movie, in modern western imagination. European colonisers and conquerors often portrayed themselves similar to the Spartans, facing hordes of usually darker-skinned enemies—be they Native American Sioux, East Indians or Afghans. In 1964, using the Battle of Thermopylae as partial inspiration, the movie Zulu depicted several British soldiers who make a last stand against hordes of fierce African warriors. (Curiously, no one seemed to catch the irony that these latter-day Europeans, unlike the Spartans, were the invaders.) In this way, an ancient battle was changed to not only support European colonialism and the "white man's burden," but also the claimed physical and moral superiority of western civilization, as opposed to the savage multitudes of the East.

Some have accused 300 of being intentional propaganda, portraying (embodied by the Spartans) as noble freedom fighters and Iran (Xerxes and the Persians) as dangerous threats to freedom and democracy. The film even comes equipped with a local Spartan anti-war movement, who in the end are corrupted or weak and ineffectual. In Iran, the movie has caused uproar—with protests against what are seen as negative and even racist portrayals of their beloved ancient Persia. Many Iranians even charge 300 is a precursor to a US invasion. Paranoia? Certainly. But given current US threats against Iran, coupled with daily images of US bombs caving in homes in next-door Iraq, those fears may be justified.

Still, I don't think that's the case. I doubt Frank Miller or this movie rendition has anything to do with current US foreign policy maneuvers. This isn't 24—where Jack Bauer's torture acts have literally been tied to the current White House And the average American may not even know Persia is one-in-the-same with modern Iran—though hordes of veiled and monstrous enemies from "that" part of the world might serve the purpose just as equally. Rather, what 300 portray are common images of ourselves—or how we would like to see ourselves—with themes of masculinity, whiteness, freedom and moral virtue. And in order to create that image, a foil is needed—darker in both skin and deed, threatening and powerful, but at the same time able to be overcome if we just show the courage to do so. It is Orientalism—part of a long history of western perceptions of the "other," made exotic to fit our ideas of how different "they" are from "us." On some level these perceptions help define "us"—as it previously helped generations of conquerors and colonizers—by defining "them." In that sense Frank Miller's 300 is not dangerous new propaganda. Rather, it's the same old propaganda—just more entertaining.

Read More...

Summary only...

The G-Word: The Dark Side of Humanity

I was recently talking about Darfur with a group of people, mostly activists who have been fighting (and rightly so) to bring attention to the trauma inflicting the people of Western Sudan, where the government in Khartoum has been trying to brutally repress a rebellion through ethnic cleansing and all the atrocities that usually entails. There was dispute and confusion about what was going on, namely over complex Sudanese notions of ethnicity as the self-described "Arab" Janjaweed militias, who carry out some of the most heinous acts, look little different to Western eyes from the "black Africans" that are their victims. The "G"-Word--genocide--was wielded strongly, and put to use to show moral outrage. And no wonder. Since the horrors carried out by the Third Reich, genocide has been drummed into us as possibly the most extreme expression of man's inhumanity to man. Say the "G"-Word and our minds conjure up images of emaciated bodies at Buchenwald and mass graves at Sobibor. In the long list of human atrocities, genocide ranks foremost in our collective abhorrence.


And yet, as I listened to these varied persons speak about Darfur, and genocide, I noticed a strong disconnection in their tone. The "G"-Word was something that happened "over there." It was something "recent" in human history. And it was considered "rare." In fact, to many its very rarity speaks to how evil it is, and how hideously monstrous its perpertrators must be. But is genocide that simple? Is it something wholly divorced from our reality that only happens in far off places? Is it just a product of modernity? Is it actually as rare as we'd like to think? And if not, are its perpertators monsters performing inhumane acts, or all too human individuals performing monstrous acts?

In a recent article, Human, All Too Human for The Nation magazine, author and journalist Adam LeBor through several book reviews sheds some history on the "G"-Word. The article traces the origin of the term in the 1930s but points out that the act itself stretches far back in human history. It turns out genocide has been with us for some time. Flip through the pages of the Biblical Old Testatment, and genocide is not only detailed but condoned as a normal part of warfare, and sanctioned by God. In NU 21:3 the Israelites claim to utterly destroy the Canaanites, "them and their cities," at the behest of the Lord. In DT 2:33-34 the Israelites utterly destroy "the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city," of Sihon. The words of extermination are chilling: "we left none to remain." This plays out repeatedly in the Old Testament. And it wasn't only there, as LeBor points out that the ancient Near East saw many scenes of carnage that called for the complete decimation of one's ethnic enemies--down to the last child if need be.

Genocide played its role in the Americas, against an indigenous population that succumbed to both warfare and especially disease. European explorers and migrants destroyed whole cultures, societies, ethnic groups and civilizations. Speaking of Native Americans, Thomas Jefferson declared, "In war they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them." Genocide continued, reshaped to fit the purpose of the emerging nation-states of the 19th century. From the Ottoman Turks mass atrocities against the Armenians, to the exterminationist policies of British settlers in Australia and Tasmania to Stalin's purges and the killing fields of Pol Pot--genocide has been a part of dictatorships and democracies, fascists and colonialists, capitalists and communists. No form of government or social system yet seems immune.

Today the "G"-Word is still with us, as are the atrocities that define it. Names like Rwanda and now Darfur remain etched in our minds as both terrible and unexplainable. LeBor details some of his own work interviewing both victims and perpertrators of genocide in Bosnia. He recalls Milan Kovacevic in particular, who ran the Serb detention camp at Omarska where between 1992 and 1995 some 5,000 Bosnian Muslims perished. Kovacevic years later himself could not explain when and where the march towards genocide began. "It was planned to have a camp for people, but not a concentration camp... ," he would recount puzzled. "I cannot explain the loss of control.... You could call it collective madness."

What LeBor points to in his article, and what may be the most disturbing lesson for us to swallow, is that genocide seems to be part of the human condition. There is nothing that inherently points out that one group is more prone to committing genocide than another. Everyone seems able, both state and ordinary citizen, if and when the time comes. Most are in denial, even while they are carrying it out. "Every group is inherently capable of violence;" Turkish historian Taner Akcam points out, "when the right conditions arise this potential may easily become reality, and on the slightest of pretexts. There are no exceptions."
Read Adam LeBor's article and his literary review here:

Human, All Too Human

Read More...

Summary only...

GOD: Creator, Savior, Free Market Capitalist

So the other day, I'm sitting watchin VH1 Soul (everything BET should be, but isn't) and there's a video by Common--one of the finest emcees out today--where he's performing before a live crowd. Being part lyricist and part philosopher, Common often prologues his songs with a bit of witty words on politics, spirituality, activism, etc. This time would be no different. Sometime during the performance, he urged people to give thanks to God that both he and they are able to live in a place where food and goods are bountiful--rather than in some of the more impoverished regions of the globe. Those words got me to thinking. Are the trappings of the modern Western world due to some benevolence of God? Is God a Free Market Capitalist who sends plauges of odious debt on poor nations and smites them with unfair trade practices? Is this a God who performs miracles through legacies colonialism and exploitation that blesses the West and curses the rest? Or are we trying to use "faith" to avoid an ugly truth.


To paraphrase and summarize, Common began to recount the many ills affecting much of the world--from Katrina to the Iraq War to global poverty. He then asked the crowd to count their own blessings, and to give thanks to "God" that we (presumably "we" in the West) are able to partake in such bountiful amounts of food, a higher level of living, Puma kicks and Ipods. Because, afterall, we could be as bad off as so many other parts of the world. To this Common was greeted by a round of applause from the audience. Watching through the flat screen of my television, I was only left frowning with alot of disturbing thoughts.

This is not a slight on Common, whose music I've enjoyed since he was Common Sense. But it is part of a larger issue that's troubled me all throughout this holiday season, including our current move towards the Greco-Roman derived New Year, where many will be giving their thanks and blessings for their fortunate lot in life.

If the reason we in the West are able to enjoy our Blackberrys and deck ourselves in diamonds or designer apparel is because of God--then I'm assuming this God figure is a free market capitalist who works through neoliberal trade policies that favor rich nations, destroying the fragile economies of poor countries, making them dependent on those who would exploit them, including helping to sow the seeds of conflict that always follows poverty and disease, and endorse past events from slavery to colonialism that helped set up this system to begin with.

Common's words, while superficially nice, seem to exist in a world of disconnection. There's a false ideology that the rest of the world is poor, simply because that's the way things are, or--even more disturbing--because some God entity has seen fit to bless the West and curse the rest. But this ignores the reality that in fact we are all very connected.

Poor nations are kept poor today because rich nations have made it so. They've been able to do so because a legacy of colonialism has allowed them to retain economic power, writing the laws of trade unfairly to benefit themselves and keep everyone else mired in poverty or something close. Its no coincidence that the nations that make up the G8 come primarily from the old colonial powers. It's no coincidence that many nations like those in Africa are in debt to the very nations that once conquered and held them as colonies. Without slavery, much of the West--including the US--would not exist as a power today, or perhaps have existed at all. Without colonialism, the riches of Britain and France and Belgium would not have come about. The divide of rich and poor on this planet is written in a history of blood and conquest, and its legacy continues with us strongly today. It is far from happenstance.

The God that supposedly favors the West must also not mind environmental destruction, as the US drains a vastly disproportionate amount of the world's resources. Today, the average US citizen consumes well over *thirty* times what the average citizen in the Third World does. The developed nations of the world account for only 20% of the global population, but are responsible for pumping out over 75% of the world's pollution and waste. The richest 20% of the world consumes some 86% of all the goods and services used. In short, we in the West are literally devouring the planet, and as the rest of the world tries impossibly to follow in our footsteps, we are depleting forests and oceans to feed our capitalist-driven gluttony. Global warming is but one of the side-effects we'll be reaping as a result.

Basically put, this is a vastly unfair world. And its not by coincidence that it is so. No, I'm not talking about some conspiracy theory where a few men get together and have secret meetings to decide the fate of the 6 billion and growing members of the global community. Those are fictitious tales created to deflect us away from our own responsibility. The truth is much more mundane and much more damning.

The world is unfair because of a global economic system maintained by trade agreements that are passed as we tune into American Idol; it's maintained everytime we buy a pair of sneakers or some clothing that is being sewn together by the desperate in places like the Saipan or Bangladesh; it's maintained by our desire for flashy diamonds that send the poverty stricken into war in Sierra Leone, and even the coltan in our mobile phones that help drive mining/resource wars in the Congo that kill millions; it's maintained by a massive arms trade, of which the US is remarkably the number one death merchant. It's the real world that we'd rather not see, as we don our little white ONE bands and try to act as if we are the saviors of the world's poor, and not a key factor in their continued existence. The troubling reality is that in some way, we're all complicit--even if by varying degrees of responsibility.

Lest I seem to be standing too high on my soapbox, let me state that I don't set myself apart here. I'm as much a part of the system as all else. And like everyone in this consumerist driven society, I want nice things too--and would rather not think about what has to be done in order to acquire it. But at the least I try not to delude myself, into believing the world that exists to benefit some today, while keeping others poor, is the work of some God entity.

Unless of course in the end, this God people worship in the West really is a God of free markets, neoliberalism, sweat shops, poverty and hunger--with prophets with names like Creflo Dollar, inducing their flock with divine pyramid schemes and Horatio Alger parables of eventual wealth. And if that's the case, then maybe we should think on overthrowing that God and replacing Him/Her/It with a better one. Or perhaps, if this is the best a God can inspire, maybe we could do without such a being at all.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Unfortunate Duping of Russell Simmons- Blood Diamonds

The recent problems in particular regions of Africa with conflict diamonds--that once fueled bloody civil wars in hotspots like Sierra Leone, Angola and Congo--has sparked a war of words between two unlikely figures: Director Ed Zwick of the recent film Blood Diamond and Hip Hop mogul Russell Simmons.

After a "fact-finding" mission to South Africa and Botswana--Russell returned and declared to the world that the conflict diamond era was over. Conditions had improved immensely he said, and the sale of diamonds to fund wars in Africa had dropped to just 1% since the installed Kimberly Process established in 2003. Ed Zwick retorted that the Hip Hop mogul had been duped by the diamond industry, which funded his trip. And it has turned into a tit-for-tat bit of sniping since then. So, who's right and who's wrong? From the title of this post, I think you pretty much see where I stand. But here, let me tell you why...

Russell Simmons & Blood Diamonds

Interestingly enough, Russell Simmons trip was funded by a PR group attempting to reform the negative image of diamonds in Africa, which has affected sales of the gems worldwide. In the mother-of-all-coincidences, this fact-finding mission took place right around the release of Ed Zwick's Blood Diamonds, which prior to its release was being heralded as a film which would portray the diamond industry in a negative light and potentially harm sales during the holiday season.

Ed Zwick however was less than impressed with Russell's assertions. Smelling a rat, he publicly stated that in his opinion the Hip Hop mogul had been hoodwinked and bamboozled:

"If you want to know about conflict diamonds, you don't go to Botswana and South Africa. You go to Sierra Leone and Angola. Russell Simmons is being embarrassed."

Russell Simmons, though not an emcee, has not been known for his shyness in front of a microphone, and quickly shot back at not only Ed Zwick, but his film, claiming Blood Diamonds would damage Africa's "legitimate" diamond business:

"This is the arrogance of Warner Brothers pictures. They were selfish, self-centered, greedy and hurtful to the indigenous people of Africa... This messaging should have been changed after Nelson Mandela and other African Presidents asked Warner Brothers to change it. Period. I am going to continue to focus on the positive that can come out of this dialogue and work to help empower black Africa."

Okay. First let me state that I have no direct need to publicize the movie Blood Diamond. I have not seen the film, as of yet. And I have been skeptical about seeing it, simply because I'm innately suspicious when serious (and oft-neglected) current issues in parts of Africa are turned into semi-fictional action films with big-name stars, car chases, fiery explosions and Michael Bay type special effects. They tend to get the story wrong and portray complicated matters as one-dimensional with clear-cut "good guys and bad guys," starring a central well-meaning white hero or groups of white heroes (both real and imaginary), with the particular African populace relegated to theatrical props who endure untold sufferings. Tears of the Sun and Black Hawk Down top my flagrant offender list. I have not reached a conclusive verdict on where I stand on the semi-fictional tale of the monstrous Idi Amin, The Last King of Scotland. I'm not saying Hollywood can't approach these matters of geo-politics correctly. After all, I was a big fan of the film Syriana, and its exposing of the underbelly of the oil-trade. But when it comes to Africa's varied issues, I tend to prefer Independent African Films over Hollywood blockblusters.

(Update: Still haven't seen the film Blood Diamond, but sources whom I trust have given reviews that have thus far supported my misgivings: Within the Context of No Context: A Review of Blood Diamond Unfortunate.)

Secondly, I have no personal bias towards Russell Simmons. Yes I certainly have my criticisms of his role in the modern corporatist exploitation of Hip Hop. But his place in the culture as an early driving force--from Kurtis Blow to Public Enemy--can't be denied. And he at times tries to bring the respect to Hip Hop that the genre is often denied, or denies itself.

All of that being I think in this issue of blood diamonds, I have to agree with director Ed Zwick. And Russell Simmons, as well meaning as he might be, is indeed being used, pimped in fact, by bigger fish. Here, let me tell you why.

First off, I think Russell Simmons key problem is that his innate good intentions (and he's had many positive activist stances in recent years) tend to run into his love of unbridled free-market capitalism and his immense ego. So Russell can often be found at the forefront of political issues that he may not exactly have a clear handle on.

Going to Botswana on a fact-finding mission funded by the diamond industry's PR group, isn't going to tell you anything about the larger issue of blood diamonds. And this centers on a key problem in Russell's analysis, one that many of us in the West suffer from. Listen closely everyone. Because this is going to come as a surprise.

Africa is a c-o-n-t-i-n-e-n-t. No really, it is. Look on the map. Right there between the Americas and Eurasia. Its that big land mass. Can't miss it. Very unique shape.

What's more, there are different nation-states on this c-o-n-t-i-n-e-n-t. And just like what is going on in say, Guatemala or Honduras in Central America is different from what is going on in the US or Canada, there is also a difference from say the Congo from Sierra Leone from Botswana--all different polities on this c-o-n-t-i-n-e-n-t. I think if you asked the average person in the US to name the governor of a nearby state, they'd have a hard time. Ask them to name the president of next door Canada or Mexico, and they'll need Google. Therefore, for Russell to think Botswana could give him insight into Sierra Leone--which is practically on the other vertical end of Africa--reveals many of the false assumptions we all start with regarding foreign politics.

Besides the differing history, peoples, languages, environment, cultures and vast distance that lie between Botswana and places like Sierra Leone, there's also another key bit of relevant information to ponder. Botswana is not in conflict, nor has it had any recent conflict fueled directly by diamonds. There is no history in Botswana similar to the tragedies of the murderous RUF in Sierra Leone, or the inter-state regional conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo that cost a staggering 4 million or more lives.

While Botswana's issues with diamonds and the legacy of multinational companies like DeBeers--an empire built on colonialism, theft, racism and oppression--is hardly "clean" in any sense of the word, it is at the same time diferent in many respects from the recent issues of conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone or even closer Angola.

It is tempting to collapse all of these different issues together--and they certainly do bear similarities, with DeBeers and other European countries engaged in these machinations in one way or the other--but Botswana is its own unique case. Despite a high HIV rate, and a standard of living still far beneath most of the world's better standards, it now boasts one of the fastest growing economies, is relatively stable, and has managed to reach some form of detente with the diamond industry--called by many a "Gem of a Deal." Through this arrangement, Botswana has recently been able to use its natural resources to develop its own infrastructure--including new buses, roads, schools, hospitals and more.

None of this isn't without its own controversy of course. There was an incident with land removals of the indigenous Khoi-San peoples that was murkily linked to the diamond industry, but the courts have since granted a reversal on this policy. So Botswana has made out relatively well in recent years. I say relatively, because that's about as best as you can put the situation of an ex-colony once in the midst of apartheid South Africa who must negotiate a better life for its citizenry between the vice grips of a diamond industry and neoliberalism who partially own (through historical theft) its resources. The world ain't fair. And cosmic karma must be on an extended holiday.

At any rate, this is why the diamond industry uses Botswana as a poster child for its Kimberly Process. And it's why they took the probably well-meaning, but unfortunately gullible and impressionable, Russell Simmons there to show off progress. They didn't take him to the shattered infrastructure of Angola or the amputees of Sierra Leone.

What Russell should know is that the Kimberly Process was only enacted by the diamond industry when worldwide outcry occurred over the issue of conflict diamonds, and sales began to slump. Before this companies like DeBeers and other diamond cartels had no problem wading in African blood to get what they wanted. In some instances, they've been accused of helping spur on the violence, even possibly to the point of directly or indirectly negotiating transfers of cash and arms for diamonds.

Russell should also know that the much touted Kimberly Process is still thought to be rife with problems. Illicit diamonds still flow through various parts of Africa and fuel mini-wars and aftershocks of now-ended larger wars, ever threatening to flare up again into greater conflicts, as peoples pushed beyond the margins of global society in desperation seek a way out of poverty. The letters from "African Presidents" to Warner Brothers that Russell was talking about, was most likely a letter by former South African president Nelson Mandela, asking Warner Brothers to remember to distinguish between relative successes like Botswana and the more numerous horrors elsewhere.

Russell's heart may indeed be in the right place. And his attempts to find a way for Africans in places like Botswana and South Africa to profit from the resources that a foreign minority has long exploited is just. But it's Russell's arrogance that in the end dooms him to duplicity. Though Russell wasn't there to speak out loudly about Sierra Leone's war, when men, women and children were losing lives and limbs, and the artists he backed were draping themselves in bloody "bling," he now feels confident enough to stride forward as an "expert" on the issue. (To be fair, neither was Hollywood) Yet he lacks an understanding of the gulf of difference between states like Botswana and Sierra Leone or the Congo, and thinks one snap-shot in one locale is the big picture. He's confused the spotlight of celebrity with the light of understanding. And can't see--or is unwilling to admit--that he's being played, and thus in his protestations, continues to play himself.

Read More...

Summary only...

Africa & Evolution

As a former anthro major, proud primate, contemplative hominid and one who has had more than a passing interest in human evolutionary theory, it was a sad day last week as I read the recent news from Kenya. Pentecostal Christian fundamentalists were attempting to have some of the most important finds in hominid anthropology removed to the back of the country's museums? Why? None other than the dreaded "E" word--Evolution. It seems Creationism has come to the birthplace of modern mankind, and now threatens to rob the world of an important part its history.

From ABC NEws.com:

Some of anthropology's greatest scientific treasures rest in the National Museums of Kenya. But they may soon become all but invisible if Christian fundamentalists get their way.

The museum is home to the most complete skeleton found yet of Homo erectus, the 1.7 million-year-old "Turkana Boy" unearthed by famed paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey more than two decades ago near Lake Turkana in northern Kenya

The museum also holds bones from several specimens of the first hominid to walk upright, four million years ago. In short, the museum contains the most convincing historic record of the origins of Homo sapiens. That's us, we're talking about.

Now, leaders of Kenya's Pentecostal congregation want the fossils de-emphasized. They'd prefer the bones be relegated to a backroom in the museum where fewer visitors would observe them or learn about the evolutionary theory of man.

Bishop Bonifes Adoyo who heads the largest Pentecostal church in Kenya, the Christ is the Answer Ministries, is leading the campaign.

"The Christian community here is very uncomfortable that Leakey and his group want their theories presented as fact, " Adoyo told the Skeptical Inquirer. "Our doctrine is not that we evolved from apes, and we have grave concerns that the museum wants to enhance the prominence of something presented as fact which is just one theory."

Ironically Kenya, and much of East and Southern Africa where many finds of early man have been found, have long looked upon evolution favorably. While most of the world may know the remains of the 3.2 million year old Australopithecus afarensis as Lucy, in the Afar region of Ethiopia she goes by the Amharic name Dinknesh--meaning "you are wonderful." Far from the battles carried out in the West by the religious right against evolution, Dinknesh was accepted with pride as an ancestral treasure (direct or indirect: afaraensis place on the human evolutionary tree is "bushy") in Coptic Ethiopia--which has incidentally known Christianity since the 2nd century AD, when two charges of captured Syrian monks managed to convert the royal family of Axum. Throughout East Africa, a generation of African paleontologists--such as Dr. Berhane Asfaw of Ethiopia and Kamoya Kimeu of Kenya--have sprouted up over the decades, and have played key roles in many of the most recent finds.

In fact, a recent evolutionary find related to humans was discovered in none other than East Africa:

Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution

By Nicholas Wade

Dec. 10, 2006

The New York Times

A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.

Now however, in places where Western-styled evangelical Christianity has taken a hold, human evolution is under attack, to be replaced by dogmatic literalist religious ideologies like Creationism or the faux tautology of Intelligent Design. It is an ironic twist of fate that on the continent upon which humanity emerged, the evidence is in danger of being re-buried.

So I suppose whether it's Africa or America, the attack against science that doesn't fit with cultural norms is ongoing. As evidenced by the quote from the Kenyan Bishop--"Our doctrine is not that we evolved from apes"--what detractors of evolution on the religious right usually have in common, no matter where they thrive, is that they don't have much of an understanding about evolution. So, seems about as good a time for a primer. I hope the good Bishop is paying attention.

Seven Quick Pointers on Evolution for We Big-Brained, Up-right Walking, Chimp-cousins to Heed So as We Don't Get Too Big for Our Britches:

1. Isn't Evolution just a theory?

Yes and No. Yes it is a theory. But not just. Biological evolution is both fact and theory. That it has happened, is happening and will happen is a fact. How it happens and works is theory. You know what else is a fact and a theory? Gravity. That it occurs is a fact. How it works, is still theory. The fact that Einstein's theory on gravity made advancements on Isaac Newton's didn't change the reality of gravity's existence. Need a second example, see electricity. That it exists is as obvious as the energy that powers the computer you're using. Yet we don't know exactly how electricity works. All we have are theories. So like evolution, both gravity and electricity are theory and fact. Yet I don't see anybody denying gravity's existence by walking off a cliff, or denying electricity's existence by sitting in the dark.

2. Didn`t Charles Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed?

No. Chalk this story up to sub-urban religious right mythology. Even if it were true (which it's not), it wouldn't matter. A scientific premise is not based on a figurehead or prophet. It stands on its own merit. Evolution's most basic tenets existed before Darwin; it has evolved since him, and will continue to do so based on scientific evidence.

3. Evolution says humans came from apes. Yet animals like gorillas haven't evolved into people.

Not quite. Evolution does not say humans evolved from any modern apes. Rather evolution states that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. Modern apes are distant cousins to humans, not ancestors. We evolved one way. They went another. Chimpanzees and gorillas have evolved in ways that suit their ability to adapt. Evolution does not mean they will get big brains and ride horses and rule a world of "damned dirty apes!" That is Planet of the Apes science-fiction. Evolution does not equal "bigger brains" and "smarter." It's about adaptation. So no one expects shrimp to automatically one day become hyper-intelligent and make mp3 players--though be real cool if they did, because those gadgets would be very tiny. Regardless, that's not how evolution works.

4. Isn't Evolution for atheists?

Its for everyone. Many people of varied faiths, or non-faiths, accept evolution as the scientific explanation for Earth's biodiversity. In fact many religious leaders denounce Creationism and assert their acceptance of evolution and other aspects of science, such as geology and astronomy. Since 1987 the Episcopal Church has repeatedly and consistently acted to "affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner", rejected "the rigid dogmatism of the `Creationists` movement", and supported "scientists, educators, and theologians in the search for truth in this Creation that God has given and entrusted to us." Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences before its meetings on Cosmology and Cosmogony in October 1981, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the statement of Pope Pius XII that the universe was created "millions of years ago" (it's actually 14.5 billion, but sure beats the Creatioist notion of 6,000) directly contrary to Creationist views. The Pope declared, "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise..." Christians of varied faiths, Jewish groups, Muslim scientists, Buddhists, and others have stated much the same. So whether one wants to believe Evolution began with a God, or gods, or nothing at all or pixie dust--feel free. Evolution does not provide any evidence for the existence of God, or against the existence of God. It's neutral.

5. Isn't Creationism an Alternative to Evolution?

Not a scientific one. According to Newsweek in 1987, 99.86% of trained scientists accept evolution and denounce Creationism. There's hardly a larger bit of consensus to be found in the normally contentious scientific community. And the 0.14% that give Creationism a chance don't all have the same views.

6. If Evolution is right about life and Physics/Geology is right about the age of the Earth and universe, does this mean Genesis is a lie?

One way to look at it. Another way, would be that it makes the Genesis account like all other accounts of Creation the world over - symbolic. To quote the New Catholic Bible, "...it is a naive and futile exercise to attempt to reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern science... The first eleven chapters of Genesis are much closer to mythical forms of writing..." The World Christian Encyclopedia contends that there are 19 major world religions that are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many thousands of smaller ones. Among these various faith groups, there are probably about 500 different creation stories. Each one of them is different-of which Genesis is but one. There is no such thing as "religious exceptionalism."

7. How can Evolution be true? Doesn't it have missing links?

Evolution does indeed have so-called "missing links." It also however has alot of very "found links." These are transitional fossils between species. Basilosaurus isis of the Ecoene epoch found in Egypt is a prime example. It's a fossil of a whale--with legs. It is a found link: a transitional form between itself and the legless seafaring whales we know today. There will always be "missing links." It would be a near impossible statistical feat to find the link for every single species that has ever existed for the past few billion years. But we have found so many that the pattern is obvious.

And that completes this week's Common Sense Moment. Join us next time for a brand new episode: 20 Problems with a Global Flood. Hijinks and hilarity ensue as Noah and his crew try to locate a pair of missing termites--on a wooden ship!

Read More...

Summary only...

Kramer- Say It Ain't So!

Damn. Damn! DAMN! James!
Kramer said the N-word... and it turns out, alot more.
Say it ain't so Cosmo! But it is. My initial reaction and brief
thoughts on Michael "Kramer" Richards' tirade.

So by now everyone's heard of Micheal Richards rant at the comedy club the Laugh Factory in LA this past weekend. Richards, who played Kramer on the hit show Seinfeld, launched into a series of racial slurs and epitethets after being heckled by two black men while doing stand up.

According to news stories:

[The tirade apparently began after two black audience members started shouting at him that he wasn't funny.

Richards answered: "Shut up! Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a f--king fork up your ass!"

He paced across the stage taunting the men for interrupting his show.

"You can talk, you can talk, you're brave now mother-f--ker. Throw his ass out. He's a n*gger!" Richards shouted before repeating the racial insult over and over again.

An audience member heckled back: "That was uncalled for, you f--king cracker-ass motherf--ker."

Richards retorted: "Cracker-ass? You calling me cracker-ass, n*gger?"

While there was some audible chuckling in the audience, someone could be heard gasping, "Oh my God."

Another audience member is heard to call out: "It's not funny. That's why you're a reject, never had no shows, never had no movies. 'Seinfeld,' that's it."]

As the news made its away around the world--appearing in headlines from New York to Sydney, Australia--Michael Richards at first refused to speak to news reporters. He later apologized on CBS Late Show Monday via satellite:

["For me to be at a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, I'm deeply, deeply sorry," the former "Seinfeld" co-star said during a satellite appearance for David Letterman's "Late Show."

"I'm not a racist. That's what's so insane about this," Richards said, his tone becoming angry and frustrated as he defended himself.]

The public apology was urged by former co-star and show creator Jerry Seinfeld, who came forward to issue his own strongly worded statement on the incident:

I am sick over this. I'm sure Michael is also sick over this horrible, horrible mistake. It is so extremely offensive. I feel terrible for all the people who have been hurt.

Damn.

I don't know what to be angrier over, that Michael Richards made such remarks in a hate-filled rage, or that he has managed to ruin what has years been a source of humor for me. From Soup Nazis to Low Talkers, I know that show back and forth. I even accepted the lack of diversity on the show as par the course. Besides, didn't want any tokens inserted for no reason. Now I can never look at it the same way. Of course I expect that racism can come from any white person--that's how white supremacy works after all, as a system, as an institution, as a cultural force; makes each and every white person a possible accessory. Yet there is something very different from participating in a system larger than yourself, and spewing rage. Pay attention to Richards words. There's not only the venom of hatred there in racial slurs, but distinct references to past acts of violence carried out against blacks, invoking America's long history of lynchings, murder, etc.

Of course, read the online comments, and while most on blog boards say they are equally sickened by Richards words, a few find a way to excuse it. They point out the use of the N-word among blacks, etc. And whatever qualms one has with that, you'd have to pretty blind to not see that this was not simply a mistake in semantics (sorry Jerry, I appreciate the statements, but I think this goes beyond a mere slip-up), but an intentional bit of racist-mongering. It touches part of a deep seated hatred--an actual sickness--that found its way to the surface.

Richards says he was angry. Reminds me of when Mel Gibson blamed his anti-Semitic rants on being drunk. I'd like to believe such was the case in those instances, except for one thing--I've been drunk before; I've been angry before. It doesn't turn me into a fire-breathing bigot.

"I've never seen anything like this is my life," publicist Michael Levine said Monday. "I think it's a career ruiner for him. ... It's going to be a long road back for him, if at all."

End of a career is what many are calling Richard's racist tirade. But its actually more than that. It's a stain on what was once seen as a light-hearted comedy show, one of the best, that defined an era. Talks of a Seinfeld movie are now in jeapordy, and this ugliness will stay for a while.

Oh well. It could have been worse. Could have found out Homer Simpson owned slaves... DOH!

You can view the video of "Kramer Gone Wild:"

http://www.sootoday.com/content/arts

Read More...

Summary only...

Is Bill Cosby Wrong ?

A few summers ago when Bill Cosby went into a tirade against the black poor--and the black community as whole--I was part of the distinct but vocal minority who were disappointed with his words. Much of white America clapped at having America's favorite "Black Dad" tell it like they always wanted to hear it. Cosby's words served as the perfect apologist stance for whiteness which has never taken any form of responsibility for centuries of oppression. Many blacks chimed in, clapping along at Cosby for finally "telling the truth." Duped and beaten into believing that racism and oppression is somehow "our fault," much of the black community embraced Cosby's words as a means to engage in an orgy of self-flagellation. None of this should be surprising. Abusers and oppressors rarely acknowledge guilt unless they are forced. And victims always blame themselves. So it was good to see an article, by people who study the very things Cosby was ranting on, say "wait a minute...the Cos might be way off on this one."

I know of course this is a controversial and hot topic in black america. I remember when Bill Cosby first made his comments several summers ago. Most black folks I spoke to agreed with Cosby--out of frustration I suppose, personal experience, etc. Myself and a distinct but vocal minorty, contested Cosby's statements. The debates we had in barber shops and online forums would last weeks. And though it was an uphill battle, we held our ground that Cosby was wrong. And it wasn't because we thought he was airing dirty laundry, or that we did not see problems that existed in varied black communities, or that we did not believe in the basic principles of "do-for-self." We weren't blind. We disagreed with Cosby because of his seemingly blistering attack on the poor, his disparaging of single black mothers, and his continuation of fallacies like the discredited "acting white" hypothesis. Mostly however, we asked if all these mantras of "self responsibility" and "self-help"--put forth by everyone from Bill Cosby to black conservatives to the Million Man March(es)--were allowing the larger 800lb gorilla of inequality, wealth disparity, and more to go unheeded. And I in particular wondered, at what point have we so over-racialized matters (treating all-American problems like "gross materialist consumerism" as endemic of only the black poor) that we miss the forest for the trees?

We asked questions like the following: if Hip Hop is to blame for black-on-black crime, then why was violence so much higher during the 1980s era of much less violent Hip Hop and in some areas (like the South Bronx of the post-Vietnam era early 1970s) even before Hip Hop existed? Whatever the misgivings of our glorification of "thug-lifestyles" in the black community, how different is it from the Stagolee mythos that made heroes of "bad-men" jazz and blues players--who talked about fast lives, sex, drugs, violence and toted weapons? How different is it from the all-American obsession with the bad-boy figure--from Billy the Kid to The Sopranos? Is violence in the hood an anamoly, or a further extension of America's long-held obsession with violence (from the decimation of Native Americans to the Irish gangs of old New York to lynchings and anti-black/chinese riots to the numerous militarist campaigns carried out by the US during the 20th Century, from the Phillippines to Vietnam to Iraq)? Is the act of making Johnny a soldier who is to delight in killing for country, flag, patriotism and oil, far removed from Antown the thug who kills for the block, colors, honor and money? In a country where the populace often votes for charisma, hot-button issues, put a guy they thought was "cool" into the White House, over the guy they thought was too brainy (Bush vs Gore 2000), a country that attempts to replace science with religious dogma, and shows greater pride in entertainers than school teachers, are any notions of black intellectualism any different from America's anti-intellectualism? In fact, since according to statistics it was blacks (especially black women) who thought the Iraqi war would be a bad idea, perhaps we exhibit more intellectualism than white America--particularly white males. Can any of the ailments afflicting the black community be separated from the larger American society? Or is it simply that economic disparity, social oppression, etc. simply allows America's normalized problems to explode in a way that allows us to place a lens directly on it, while missing the larger picture? And are we often so hard on ourselves, we never even stop to savor the accomplishment that after several centuries enduring oppression, we are still here.

Not saying I have all the answers. And I know many disagree. Just saying that for those, like Cosby, who think they do, and that simply finding husbands for single black mothers and telling everyone to just "try harder" or "pray harder" will cure all that ails us, I am highly skeptical. And I think perhaps, we need to expand our focus.

My humble opinion. Peep the article below. Yes it is very-one sided. I figure everyone already knows Cosby's side, as it is the most popularly publicized and accepted as a matter of conventional wisdom. Besides, as I fall on the opposite side of the fence, it was about time someone spoke up for my viewpoint.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Bill Cosby is Wrong
Don't Blame Black Culture for Economic Decline

By ALGERNON AUSTIN and JARED BERNSTEIN

For decades, scholars and opinion makers have been seduced by cultural explanations for economic problems. Recently, comedian Bill Cosby has caught the bug, leading him to inveigh against aspects of black culture he views as intimately linked to problems among African-Americans, from poverty to crime and incarceration.

Mr. Cosby is merely the latest and most visible in a long chain of cultural critics. Researcher Charles Murray (before turning to genetic explanations) and columnist Thomas Sowell have been making the "bad culture" argument about African-Americans for decades. David Brooks has a long-running column in The New York Times linking culture and economic outcomes.This work is misguided at best and destructive at worst.

One key to the success of the cultural argument is the omission of inconvenient facts about social and economic trends. For example, people arguing that African-Americans are suffering from a culture of poverty stress that blacks are much more likely to be poor than whites. True, but this fact misses the most important development about black poverty in recent years: its steep decline during the 1990s.

Black poverty fell 10.6 percentage points from 1993 to 2000 (from 33.1 to 22.5 percent) to reach its lowest level on record. Black child poverty fell an unprecedented 10.7 percentage points in five years (from 41.9 percent in 1995 to 31.2 percent in 2000).

The "culture of poverty" argument cannot explain these trends. Poor black people did not develop a "culture of success" in 1993 and then abandon it for a "culture of failure" in 2001.

What really happened was that in the 1990s, the job market finally tightened up to the point where less-advantaged workers had a bit of bargaining clout. The full-employment economy offered all comers opportunities conspicuously absent before or since. Since 2000, black employment rates have fallen much faster, and poverty rates have risen faster, than the average.

What this episode reveals is how we squander our human resources when slack in the economy yields too few decent employment opportunities for those who want to work.

Black poverty is only the most visible example. The "bad black culture" argument also overlooks positive trends in critical areas such as education, crime and teen pregnancy (pregnancy and birth rates among black teenagers are down 40 percent since 1990).

Those same critics are too dismissive of anti-black discrimination in the labor market. Mr. Cosby says black people use charges of discrimination to avoid dealing with their cultural failings. The Manhattan Institute's John H. McWhorter claims they "spit in the eye of [their] grandparents" when they say their lives are limited by racism. Journalist Juan Williams argues that poor black people are squandering opportunities opened up by the civil rights movement.

Yes, there are far more opportunities available to black Americans today, but the conclusion that racial discrimination is no longer a serious issue is simply not supported by the evidence.

In two recent studies, Princeton University sociologist Devah Pager showed that young black men who have played by the rules and have no criminal record are much less likely to be offered a job than similar white men. In fact, white men with criminal records had an equal or better chance of being hired than did young black men with no record. Contrary to Mr. McWhorter's assertion, ignoring this racial discrimination is "spitting in the eye" of everyone, black and white, who struggled for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s.

Don't think for a nanosecond that we are satisfied with the progress that's been made. Even if black poverty remains low in historical terms, having a quarter of blacks in poverty is a national tragedy. But by creating an erroneous causal link between "bad culture" and black poverty, the "Cosby consensus" prevents the country from recognizing success and building on it to create the economic opportunities that are missing for too many African-Americans.

The cultural argument of the Cosby consensus succeeds because conservatives and liberals both tend to exaggerate the cultural differences between white and black Americans. We forget that white and black audiences enjoyed The Cosby Show in the 1980s; that white and black youths listen to rap today; and, most important, that neither white people nor black people like being poor.

The record is clear: When economic opportunities are available to black Americans, they take them. When opportunities are scarce, they fall behind, and culture has very little to do with it.

Algernon Austin is a sociologist and director of the Thora Institute.

Jared Bernstein is a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

Read More...

Summary only...