FREE Marissa Alexander Petition Drive l Sign the Petition

 FREE Marissa Alexander Petition Drive

Change.org Petition ALERT

marissa1

Community groups remain concerned about the case of Marissa Alexander, a woman who was given quite a few years in prison for a situation in which it appeared that she had no other options.  Alexander received 20 years in prison after firing warning shots at a man who she believes had come to harm her. No one was hurt, but Alexander was still sent away for a very long time.

The incident took place in 2010 and Marissa says she was simply standing her ground in the state of Florida, where standing your ground appears to be legal.   But the judge said he had no choice but to give the woman 20 years in prison, even though she is the mother of three children.  The length of the sentence was due to the fact that she’d fired a gun while committing a felony.

Various groups have been fighting for Marissa’s release and say that her case is part of the reason that mandatory minimums should be abolished.  They argue that since no one was hurt and she was only trying to protect herself from an abusive husband, her actions were entirely justified.

The petition, which is at Change.org,  says that Alexander’s sentence was excessive and exceedingly harsh.

It was also suggested by the judge in this case that Ms. Alexander “could have found some other way to flee the home,” yet the law states that “those who feel threatened, have no duty to retreat,” further lending to the ambiguity of this judgment against Ms. Alexander.

Something has to be done regarding all women who defend themselves against their abusers. Too often they receive little understanding and sympathy from the systems supposedly set up to protect them.  Women who are victims of domestic violence need a voice, and it is our intent to be that voice for Marissa and any other potential victim of domestic violence or any other form of injustice.  

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

We interviewed Marissa Alexander on OUR COMMON GROUND in an exclusive from her jail in Florida, less than an hour after she was sentenced.

 Listen to our interview with Marissa.

5-12 aCTION aLERT

 

Critique of ABC’s primetime series, Scandal l SpriritHouse and Johnathan Daniels and Samuel Younge Fellow, Dean Steed

Critique of ABC’s primetime series, Scandal

Written by SpriritHouse and Johnathan Daniels and Samuel Younge Fellow, Dean Steed

A variety of communities, including the Black community, continue to praise the American Broadcasting Channel’s (ABC) latest prime-time television series, Scandal. They celebrate it for being the first one-hour dramatic network television series produced and written by a Black woman (Rhonda Shimes) for an African American woman lead. Among such shows as Basketball Wives, Housewives of Atlanta, and Love and Hip Hop, capitalizing upon the racist mythologies of Black women as Sapphires and Jezebels, Scandal appeared as the beginning or genesis of a new Black woman who does not fit into these stereotypes. Scandal, presents the leading character, Olivia Pope, as an intelligent, independent, and resourceful Black woman. However, contrary to this representation, Olivia is not a new Black woman, Olivia is the quintessential Mammy, Jezebel, and Tragic Mulatto, wrapped into one. As a Mammy figure, she cleans up the messes of White men, covers their flaws, and protects their interests, while overlooking the needs of her own community. Essentially, her work is in the big house. Not only do White men see her as the Mammy, for them she is the tragic Mulatto and Jezebel. With her mulatto-like acceptability, she allows them to think White, while sleeping Black.

John Mayer, a White folk artist, reflects this attitude, when he states in Playboy magazine interview, that he possesses a “white supremacist ‘d–k” and that he would deviate from this and sleep with Kerry Washington, a black woman, because she is “super hot, white girl crazy, and would break your heart like a white girl.”

Although the series presents Olivia as a new woman, the center of gravity remains the same. The real scandal is that we accept the interracial love affair of Olivia Pope and the Republican president without recognizing that the image of Powerful White men, who sexually use Black women, is not new or liberating. It has it’s roots in a racist history that extends back to enslavement.

Olivia is the mistress and not the legitimate heir to the power and status of her White lover. Olivia’s position as mistress, echoes Sally Hemming’s affair with Thomas Jefferson. In season one, Olivia Pope engages in a heated argument with Fitzgerald Grant, over their torrid affair in which she likens their relationship to that of Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress, Sally Hemming. Although Olivia draws on the example of Sally Hemming, she acts if her relationship with the President exists without a history or context. In other words, in a racialized society, the relationship is stripped of any racial meaning.

Despite the fact that many in the audience view Scandal as a groundbreaking series for it’s position in history as the first primetime series to be written and produced by a Black woman to feature and an African American woman as the lead, the show remains profoundly silent on the issue of race. It ignores that racism and White Supremacy are core values and organizing tools of the Republican party. In reality, members of the Republican party exploit and mobilize White resentment towards the gains that we achieved in the 1960s and 70s, viewing these gains as a loss of White power. Building on this resentment, the Republican party strategically uses codified language, distorted images, and a rhetoric of colorblind post-racialism to cover their racist assaults against our community.

The real scandal is that Olivia Pope, helps these men manipulate the public and to promote an anti-black agenda.

As I became further involved in the series, watching episode after episode, season after season, I slowly became increasingly aware of the incredible deception of the the producers who present the Republican party as supportive of democratic values while using a Black face to encourage the support of a Black audience.

In the first season, we witness Republican President, Fitzgerald Grant and his administration lobbying for the passage of the DREAM Act, a bill providing amnesty for young undocumented residents in the U.S and the support of immigration. In reality, the Republican party vehemently opposed the DREAM Act, executed under President, Barack Obama.

In 2011, Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney voiced his opposition to the DREAM Act, vowing to veto it, if elected.

Another prevalent deception in this series is the representation of the Republican party as supportive and accepting of LGBT rights. This is exemplified through the show’s representation of the Republican administration as supportive of the openly gay Chief of Staff, Cyrus. Scandal, presents Cyrus as an out gay Republican who is married to a young, male journalist.

In reality, the Republican party is very vocal in its opposition to gay rights and has strongly advocated against same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples and the existence of gay men and women in the military. It was the Democratic President, Barack Obama who repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” along with vocalizing his support of same sex marriage.

Scandal is inspired by the life of co-producer and writer Judy Smith, Washington’s D.C’s crisis management expert and former Deputy Press Secretary and Public Relations consultant to the George H.W. Bush administration.

Judy Smith involved herself in the Clarence Thomas saga, when she provided her services to clear his image during Anita Hill’s charge of sexual harassment.

Judy Smith and actress Kerry Washington, (cast in the role of Olivia Pope) together lend a Black face to a party that builds its platform upon the continued oppression of all people of color.

The real scandal is that we know this and yet we allow this to invade our living room week after week.

(In my next article, I will reveal the ways in which Scandal mask the racist deeds of the Republican party)

Writer, Dean Steed, is the Lead Educator and Youth Organzinger at the Johnathan Daniels and Samuel Younge Institute and Senior at Georgia State University, majoring in African American studies.

JONATHAN DANIELS & SAMUEL YOUNGE INSTITUTE

What Is the Institute?

Through the program, The SpiritHouse Project: (1) supports and prepares a new generation of peace and justice workers who want to discern a call to social justice and nonviolence; (2) strengthens their courage, hope, resolve, and reason to do this work; (3) prepares them to play leading roles in public policy debates about issues such as racism, poverty, prison industrial complex, militarism, and the shrinking budget for human needs, voting rights, privacy and judicial issues, and neo-conservatism; and (4) helps grassroots communities meet their urgent need for trained and committed volunteers or staff.

Visit The Spirit House

WHAT IS THE SPIRIT HOUSE PROJECT?

The SpiritHouse Project is a national 501(c)3 non-profit organization that uses the arts, research, education, action, and spirituality to bring diverse peoples together to work for racial, economic, and social justice, as well as for spiritual maturity.

The SpiritHouse Project
1884 N. Ponce de Leon Ave. NE, Unit 1
Atlanta, GA 30307
Phone: (404) 228-1715
Email: info@spirithouseproject.org

 

What is Black America’s endgame for HIV/AIDS?

What is black America’s endgame for HIV/AIDS?

On July 10th PBS’s Frontline aired the anxiously awaited documentary Endgame: AIDS in Black America.

The documentary opened with this sobering message:

“Today in America, 152 people will become infected with H.I.V. Half of them will be black. Today in America, two-thirds of the new H.I.V. cases among women will be black. Today in America, 70 percent of the new H.I.V. cases among youth will be black.”

Endgame was written and directed by Renata Simone who in the 1980s created the first national TV series about HIV/AIDS titled The Age of AIDS. Simone’s documentary explores why rates of AIDS and H.I.V. infection is still disproportionately higher among African Americans.

While there is no one answer to the question the silence that still surrounds the epidemic is highlighted  throughout the film.

“And that’s not just about the fact that people who have the virus are keeping silent, but it’s also the silence of others unwilling to push the issue or to talk about it,” Terry Gross of Fresh Air pointed out.

But those willing to speak up illustrate the toll  and trajectory the epidemic has taken.

In the film  Phil Wilson, executive director of the Black AIDS Institute, cites from his organization’s August 2008 report titled “Left Behind” that the number of people living with HIV in Black America exceeds the HIV population in seven of the 15 focus countries in the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) initiative, an initiative helping to save the lives of those suffering from HIV/AIDS around the world in countries like Haiti, Dominican Republic, India, South Africa, to name a few.

In other words, if black America were its own country, standing on its own like Haiti or Nigeria, black Americans would rate 16th with the epidemic in the world. And the epidemic is heavily concentrated in urban enclaves like Detroit, New York, Newark, and the Deep South. The hardest hit, D.C.,  the nation’s capital, where the prevalence of HIV last year among black Americans was higher than in African nations like Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia and the Congo.

“The film is about race in America as much as it is about HIV—how a virus has exploited our inability to deal with our problems around race,” stated Simone. “In part I hoped to show how the big, abstract social issues come to rest on people every day, in the limited life choices they face. The story of HIV in black America is about the private consequences of the politics of race.”

There are many persistent social and economic factors contributing to the high rates of the epidemic in the African American community — racism, poverty, health care disparity, violence, to name just a few — but the biggest attitudinal factor still contributing to the epidemic and showing no sign of abating is homophobia.

And while we know the epidemic moves along the fault lines of race, class, gender and sexual orientation, and HIV transmission is tied to specific high-risk behaviors that are not exclusive to any one sexual orientation, religious homophobia still continues to be one of the major barriers to ending the AIDS epidemic.

“One day my roommate, he asked me to come to his church and there was a minister standing in front of me and he said: There’s a demon here, a homosexual demon. And I thought, I mean, you know, usually in church often you will feel it’s you and they’re not talking about you directly. But he was talking about me,” Joe Hawkins, a social worker, tells “Frontline” in the film.

“And he said we learned that there is a homosexual demon here. He walked right in front of me and put his hand on my head and started trying to cast the homosexual demon out of me. And I felt so crushed and so betrayed by my roommate. You know, I literally got up and I grabbed the guy’s – the evangelist’s arm and twisted it and I said there’s a demon in here and it’s you. And I just walked out of the church.”

Those black churches that attempted to address the problem proselytized to its parishes an abstinence-only view of sex education. Realizing the inefficiency of an abstinence-only approach Hawkins opened a bar and the nightclub became a place where he did outreach, having literature about the virus and a huge basket of condoms at the door.

And leadership from non-religious historically black  organizations like the N.A.A.C.P was conspicuously absent. “I didn’t do what I could have done and should have done,” Julian Bond, renowned civil rights activist and a former chairman of the N.A.A.C.P., states in the film.

Although famous HIV-positive heterosexual African Americans, like tennis great Arthur Ashe, news anchorman Max Robinson, and rapper Eazy all died of AIDS, and basketball giant Earvin “Magic” Johnson, who tells his story in the film and who is still living with the virus, highlight the fact that anyone can contract the virus, many still see the epidemic as a “white gay disease,” suggesting being gay or having sex with someone of the same gender puts you immediately at high risk.

There are many invaluable messages to glean from the documentary, and one of them is this: As long as we continue to think of HIV/AIDS as a gay disease, we’ll not protect ourselves from this epidemic.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 18th, 2012 at 7:40 pm and is filed underBay Windows, Black Commentator, LA Progressive, Opinion, The Advocate, The Bilerico Project, Writing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

 

Rev. Irene Monroe lives in Cambridge and is a Huffington Post blogger , and a syndicated religion columnist. A native of Brooklyn, Rev. Irene Monroe is a graduate from Wellesley College and Union Theological Seminary at Columbia University, and served as a pastor at an African-American church before coming to Harvard Divinity School for my doctorate as  Ford Fellow. As a syndicated queer religion columinist, Monroe columns appear in 43 cities across the country and in the U.K.

Read more from Rev. Monroe

The Personal Is Political: That’s the Challenge: Roe v. Wade and a Black Nationalist Womanist Writer

The Personal Is Political: That’s the Challenge: Roe v. Wade and a Black Nationalist Womanist Writer

Graphic by Imp Kerr

The editors asked for my views on a court decision handed down before I was born. What follows are reflections on Roe v. Wade by a black nationalist, womanist-leaning, hip-hop-generation writer with an unshakable belief in every woman’s right to control her reproductive life but an uneasy relationship with American history, politics, and the struggle attached to obtaining and maintaining that right.

In its June 1992 ruling on Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the central tenet of Roe v. Wade—that states can’t criminalize most abortions. At the same time, this lesser-known but arguably as important decision gave state lawmakers across the country more wiggle room to restrict abortion access on a piecemeal basis.

Because of my age and proximity, the state-based, anti-choice backlash symbolized by Caseyresonates much more than the sweeping feminist victory of Roe v. Wade.

I was a sixteen-year-old living in West Philadelphia during the Casey period. The defining reproductive health issues of my day were teen pregnancy and a new, deadly, sexually transmitted disease called AIDS. For my generation, The Pill was a given and Roe was an abstraction, the subject of an oversimplified historical narrative.

In fact, if it hadn’t been for my afterschool job teaching mostly black and Puerto Rican girls how to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, I wouldn’t have participated in post-Roe activism at all.

Peer education was a fitting gig for me, an idealistic twelfth grader weaned on the sex-positive children’s book Where Did I Come From?, steeped in my mother’s black feminism, and motivated by my household’s black nationalist values of self-determination and community concern. True, I was a virgin for most of my tenure, but what I lacked in sexual experience I made up for in stats and demonstrations with props including a rubber penis model, cervical cap, Today sponge and female condoms the circumference of soup cans.

Under the mentorship of a groovy young white organizer named Jacqueline Ambrosini, I even joined an ad hoc, Planned Parenthood–affiliated sexuality education advocacy group called Teenvoices. While our primary goal was to push Philadelphia public schools to implement the comprehensive sex education curriculum the district had designed, we also discussed the Supreme Court hearing of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. We Teenvoicers learned the pro-choice argument against the state’s 1982 Abortion Control Act, which required a twenty-four-hour waiting period, parental consent for most minors, and spousal notification prior to the procedure. These regulations, we learned, placed an undue burden on girls and women seeking to exercise their constitutionally protected right to undergo a safe, legal abortion. To humanize the lofty and wonky concept of undue burden, we discussed what it might mean for wives in abusive marriages, incest victims under age eighteen, working women for whom two trips to an abortion provider would jeopardize their employment, and rural women without reliable public transportation.

Even without the crash course in my state’s obstructive abortion policy, I was unapologetically pro-choice. Common sense told me that abortion fell squarely in the category of “doing what you had to do.” If you weren’t the person carrying the fertilized egg, and if you weren’t emotionally, socially, financially and legally required to raise or pay child support for the resulting baby, best practice was to mind your own damned business.

In fact, under the rubric of “the personal is political,” I’m going to tell you—with her permission—that my mother had an abortion. She and my father couldn’t support a third little Solomon, so they made the choice. My mom mentions her abortion with the same pragmatism she’s used to discuss her intra-uterine device and tubal ligation. “I’m just not ashamed of it,” she has said, without prompting, on more than one occasion. “I believe in a woman’s right to choose, and I think all women deserve equal access to this choice.”

Based on my inherited pragmatism and the outspokenness I displayed at Teenvoices meetings, Jacqui asked me to speak out against parental consent at a pre-Casey press conference.

I said no.

I was not press-shy. I had already co-written a Philadelphia Daily News op-ed about the failure of sexuality education in city public schools, been quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer about school violence and the devaluation of black life, and provoked television news coverage thanks to an anti-racism speakout my friends and I orchestrated at our school.

But I drew the line at publicly aligning myself with “the abortion issue,” Roe v. Wade, and the institutional white feminists popularly associated with the ruling. Doing so seemed like socio-political suicide in my highly segregated, decidedly African American slice of Philadelphia community life. I just couldn’t see myself standing up on the local news in my six-inch Yoruba headwrap spitting soundbites about teen abortion access, then returning to the Christian faithful in my high school gospel choir and the “conscious,” quasi-Muslim, Afrocentric, and decidedly un-feminist Caribbean boys I dated.

I drew the line at publicly aligning myself with “the abortion issue,” Roe v. Wade, and the institutional white feminists popularly associated with the ruling. Doing so seemed like socio-political suicide in my highly segregated, decidedly African American slice of Philadelphia community life.

Then there were certain “political” adults in my orbit for whom “Mississippi appendectomies,” coercive welfare policies, and the specter of black genocide were very real. I didn’t want them lecturing me about the white supremacist, anti-immigrant eugenics movement of the early twentieth century; about the forcible, secret sterilization of poor black women, including Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party leader Fannie Lou Hamer; or the forty-year-long “Tuskegee Experiment of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male,” a government-sponsored study that allowed hundreds of poor, black Alabama men infected with syphilis to believe that they were receiving medical care for “bad blood” when they were in, fact, being used as guinea pigs.

In her landmark essay “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw describes “gender subordination” among black women as “ambivalence among Black women about the degree of political and social capital that ought to be expended toward challenging gender barriers, particularly when the challenges might conflict with the antiracism agenda.” Based on what I knew of it, mainstream feminism didn’t provide much of an incentive for me to expend my own limited capital.

From the outside looking in, early 1990s feminism had little to do with policies that impacted all women regardless of race, class, or location. As a high school student, I saw feminism as a movement dedicated to the advancement of individuals who just happened to be white, thin, able-bodied, and heterosexual. The questions posed by lipstick-feminist, white-women-centered magazines I flipped through were broad, behavioral, and marketable: “Can women have it all?” they’d ask. “Can you be strong and sexy at the same time?”

Even the Second Wave structural question of women working outside of the home seemed irrelevant, because the women in my family and community didn’t have a choice. Every single African American woman I knew worked a paying job, as did her mother and grandmother. In my grandmothers’ cases, they cleaned—floors at schools, floors at the electric company, and the floors of white women’s homes.

Given my uneasiness about mainstream feminism, I just didn’t have the capacity to take on a potentially controversial issue like abortion.


To convey how the dual influences of my mother’s womanism and our household’s black nationalism empowered me to advocate sexuality education but silenced me on Roe v. Wade, I need to give you more details about how I was raised. 

I lack the poetic acuity of childhood memoirist June Jordan or the structural analysis of a Haki Madhubuti, so it’s hard for me to pinpoint how individual tenets of either system shaped my worldview at sixteen or even now. I can only say that my fiercely loving mom and baba made a calculated effort to place ideas of black affirmation, activism, nation-building, cultural genius, and gender equality at the center of our everyday lives. They did so despite the wicked, wicked early 1980s backlash against black liberation politics and the enduring pan-movement silence about sexism.

Along with my grandmother, Mamie Nichols, a longtime South Philadelphia anti-gentrification activist, my parents modeled the necessity of organizing. Baba was an active member of a Philadelphia group called the Kwanzaa Cooperative. Mom was on the board of the Philadelphia Black Women’s Health Project and a founding member of Sisters Remember Malcolm, a group that honored and made contemporary the legacy of Malcolm X.

For my sister and me, this meant frequent trips to community programs where domestic revolution, South African apartheid, police brutality, the radical group MOVE, political prisoners, news media racism, and the devilish ways of Mayor Frank Rizzo were popular topics. This meant periodic visits by a non-criminal auntie who was nevertheless wanted in several states. It also meant being traumatized at age seven by an image of Emmett Till’s lynched and bloated corpse; mourning the murder of Malcolm X at age eight; and finding out the depressing facts of Reconstruction to counter the Hollywood version of black emancipation with at ten.

I learned the broad strokes of black feminism through my mother’s pronouncements and my baba’s cooperation. I remember her using Alice Walker’s “womanist” nomenclature to sum up her feminism rooted in black liberation struggles. I also recall her screaming at us about equal division of household labor and running down “full of shit, trifling brothers” who demanded the benefits of patriarchy without doing “manly” things like working a damn job. Pink wasn’t a sartorial option. Kwanzaa gifts for two little doll-loving girls included a Radio Shack math and science kit so we’d be ready to run a post-revolution world.

Now, all of this political thinking, activity—programming—was a blessing. But two ironies complicated my childhood and adolescence. First of all, “non-conscious” black people outnumbered us, and I lived in mortal fear of intra-racial ridicule of my nappy hair, Swahili name, homemade African-print dresses, and observance of Kwanzaa.

Second was that my parents, fed up with multiple school strikes, geographic exclusion from the city’s top magnet school, and a series of administrators playing loose and fast with young black minds, sent my sister and me to a predominantly white, rich, all-girl prep school in the suburbs. The plan was for us to acquire the skills we’d need to administer the revolution. For me, that meant a vicious triple consciousness. From third to eighth grade, I was, in turn, a nappy-headed new Afrikan unfamiliar with the rituals of bourgeois Afro-America; a proper-to-white-talking black girl afraid of betraying my parents; and a dark-skinned, working-class black girl navigating a world of extreme whiteness. After dealing with my own issues of racial and cultural identity, I just didn’t have the energy to take on gender.


In June 1992, a deflated, Nepal-bound Jacqui told us that for all intents and purposes, “we” had lost Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The high court upheld parental consent for minors and the twenty-four-hour waiting period for adolescents and grown women. 

Technically speaking, the court used the “undue burden” standard for evaluating each chunk of the law. A provision was deemed an undue burden if, by design or in effect, it created major obstacles for a woman trying to get an abortion before the fetus reached “viability.” Spousal notification was the sole “undue burden.”

Although I wasn’t sophisticated enough to see it at the time—and email, blogs, online progressive media, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and other forms of instant communication weren’t there for organizers to instantly ring the alarm—Planned Parenthood v. Casey provided legal and official reinforcement for an anti-abortion movement that appeared to be on the fringes of sanity.

From the early 1990s to the 2010 Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party, grassroots fanaticism served as the dominant image of the anti-abortion movement. If you weren’t in the trenches or paying close attention, it was easy to perceive radical anti-choice folks as a motley crew of clinic bombers and street-harassers; bait-and-switch crisis pregnancy counselors; demented fetus-doll-waving street preachers; and middle aged, white American terrorists, such as Scott Roeder, who in January 2009 walked into a Wichita, Kansas, church and shot late-term abortion doctor George Tiller to death.

At the risk of sounding overdramatic, I’m going to tell you that I regret my lack of involvement in the fight for reproductive rights. Maybe I would have made a different choice if I had known about Florynce “Flo” Kennedy, a civil rights and black liberation movement attorney and co-founder of the National Organization for Women. Perhaps my ambivalence would have dissipated if I’d learned about Reproductive Justice, a women-of-color-led, grassroots movement that decentralizes abortion and focuses on “the right to have children, not have children, and to parent the children we have in safe and healthy environments,” as the pioneering SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Coalition defines it. After all, the Reproductive Justice framework was born at a 1994 caucus of black women. Among other results, that framework helped Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice organize Vietnamese nail salon workers to protest toxic workplace chemicals. It led to the formation of Trust Black Women, a collective that gave laypeople and sympathetic legislators the language they needed to deconstruct racist billboards that equate black women’s reproductive health choices with black genocide. If I had known that radical women of color were fighting for reproductive rights and health care outside of traditional, white feminist pathways, I think I would have been all in.


While considering the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I’ve been thinking about Angela Davis’s 1988 essay “Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired.” In it, she wrote, “Politics do not stand in polar opposition to our lives. Whether we desire it or not, they permeate our existence, insinuating themselves into the most private spaces of our lives.” 

Given that about 40 percent of American pregnancies are unintended, that black and Latina women undergo abortions at a higher rate than white women, and that financial instability is the foremost reason women give for ending a pregnancy, I think it’s high time for more women of color to get loud about reproductive health rights and for traditional gatekeepers to listen. As my mother recently said, we’re at war. There’s simply no room for ambivalence,  queasiness, or fear.


Akiba Solomon is a freelance writer and editor. She writes about the intersection of gender and race for Colorlines.com.

Read Dissent HERE

Revoke My Black Card: I’ve Never Seen “Roots” (Until This Weekend)

Revoke My Black Card: I’ve Never Seen “Roots” (Until This Weekend)

Roots: The Saga of an American Family

“I’m sorry… what?”

I’m in an editorial meeting at ESSENCE. In my recollection, the room falls silent, and all the editors train their eyes on me. We’d been discussing how we should cover the 30th anniversary of Roots: The Saga of an American Family, a momentous TV event. Each editor had thrown out an idea, except me. My Editor-in-Chief put me on the spot, and I told the truth: I never saw Roots.

I knew the highlights, or I thought I did. Based on Alex Haley’s bestselling book about his ancestry, it’s the tale of an African man sold into slavery and the many horrors that come to him and generations to come.

“Nope, I confirm to my EIC. “I’ve never seen it.”

I had a somewhat valid excuse, I thought: Roots originally aired before I was born. But then there were editors in the room with children younger than me, and they’d sat there brood down for an American history moment.   I am sufficiently shamed.

“Demetria,” a senior editor says sternly, “you must watch Roots.”

Five years later, I’ve finally fulfilled that duty. The Christmas release of Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained, a movie about slavery is here and it coincides — no coincidence, I’m sure — with the 35th anniversary of Roots. Over the weekend, BET began airing the entireRoots franchise. I had nothing better to do, so I bunkered down with delivered Thai food and watched.

Um … yeah. I couldn’t turn away from the start, not with Cicely Tyson screaming in agony as she birthed a baby, not thru the coming-of-age story of that baby, a boy, Kunta Kinte, turning into a man in 18th century Gambia. Riveting is an understatement.

But from the moment Kunta Kinte is captured by the white man, the “WTF?” moments never stopped coming. I now totally understand why my mother wouldn’t, or maybe couldn’t, watch it again.

After that ESSENCE meeting, I’d rushed back to my desk to call my mother at work. I had to know why she (and my father) had set me loose into the world without showing me Roots, a seeming African-American rite of passage.

She sighed heavy. “I probably should have, but …” she began. “I just couldn’t.”

Mum explains that, for me to watch as a child, she would have had to as well in order to explain it. And she just couldn’t do that to herself. Or me.

“It’s a hard movie. Like …” She pauses to search for the right words. “I watched it. It was hard to get up and go to work the next morning and deal with … people. But you should probably watch it anyway.”

Her calling it “hard” was an understatement. I’ll spare you the long list of scenes that made me pause the movie and sigh heavy just like my mother had at recalling it. Instead, I’ll give you the top three thoughts that ran through my head:

1. This. Is. F%^#ed. Up.

2. Ohhhh, so that’s where “that” came from.  *light bulb goes off*

3. The entire African-American race has got to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (… which turns out not to be a far-fetched thought. I looked it up and I’m late on that. All the people who arrived at that conclusion earlier probably saw Roots.)

As horrifying as Roots is, it’s still slavery-lite. But let’s go with Roots’ depiction. A human is captured by weird-looking people who separate the person from their family and tribe. Forever. This person is caged like an animal, then taken on a months-long journey across the Atlantic, in which the person is chained below deck for most of it. People are dying, and vomiting and pissing and defecating and they are living, literally, in it, for who knows how long. The person is poked and prodded like an animal on the auction block, then sold off to the highest bidder, separated from anyone they might have known from home or connected with on the God forsaken journey over.

Any one of these experiences alone would screw up the average person. But we’re still not done.

This person lands on a plantation, and is introduced to a “home”  of horrors where the threat of violence looms and folk that look like them have adopted the White Man’s version of what Africans are, and are in equal measure friends and enemies. As a means of survival, the Black people the person encounters have adapted to a f@#$ed up reality where submission, fear, silence, and you know, delivering your daughter to be raped by the overseer are par for the course.

This goes on for generations. People who have lived under tyranny, have adapted to bizarre modes, and been taught off-klter perceptions of the world and themselves. Overseers have been paid good money to break them so they “know their place.” Stories about Africa, a far off place where Black folk strut free are a distant memory or sound like a fantasy and ain’t nobody got time for that. Live. Die. Get your reward in the After Life. You cling to that either because you really believe it or it’s the only thing that keeps you from going crazier. Maybe both.

Freedom doesn’t suddenly make everything “Kumbaya.” All the trauma and screwy ways you’ve been taught to see and adapt to the world like putting white folks on pedestals (and walls in Black churches), fearing white folk, seeing yourself and people who look like you as less than, eating the sh!t white folk won’t touch, and placing a premium on light-skinned Negroes or Negroes of any color with white folks’ features, remain along with a whole lot of anger, depression, and bitterness.

In 19th Century America there’s no time (or money) for the masses of Black folk to work out all that with a therapist or have long conversations about feelings and collective Black self-esteem. Emotionally shot and physically damaged folk need to focus on survival for themselves and their brood. A hefty chunk of Black folk’s core dysfunctions that the world blames them for having don’t get treated. So their kids watch and do as they do, not as they say. Someone beat them, and they beat their kids, and then they beat their kids and the cycle doesn’t get broken because everyone it happened to says, “Hey, I turned out okay.” And there’s no end in sight for any of this to stop when 165 years after the abolition of slavery, in general, Black folks fear therapy more than they fear God.

A few weeks ago, I went home to my parents’ house for Thanksgiving and stayed for a week, perhaps the longest I’ve been home consecutively since I moved to New York at 23. I’m sitting at the kitchen table where the wi-fi signal is strongest watching Season 2 of The Walking Dead. My father wanders into the kitchen to forage for leftovers and engages me in conversation.

“What are you watching?” he asks.

“The Walking Dead.”

He opens the fridge.

He’s still tinkering around nearby by the time the show ends and I ask him out of genuine concern,  “Hey, do we have guns in the house?”

There’s a shotgun “probably from the late 1800s, I would guess,”  he says. “Doesn’t work. Why?”

“Just wanted to know if we were covered in case there’s ever a zombie apocalypse,” I say.

He decides to entertain me. “The shotgun was my father’s, father’s. He was born in 1862. You want to see it?”

Wayament. What?

“My great-grandfather was a slave?!” I shout.  I’m just now finding this out that just three-generations ago, my blood, literally mine as Type passes down on the Daddy’s side, was owned.  People talk about slavery like it was so long ago, but when people still living can talk about people they met that were enslaved, it ain’t that far back.

“He’s where we get our eyes from, I think,” my Dad says. “My Dad had them, his dad had them. We have them.”

That’s DNA passed down since slavery for sure, and I wonder how much else.

Demetria L. Lucas is the author of “A Belle in Brooklyn: The Go-to Girl for Advice on Living Your Best Single Life” (Atria) in stores now. Follow her on Twitter @abelleinbk

 

Clutch Magazine

http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2012/12/revoke-my-black-card-ive-never-seen-roots-until-this-weekend/

Remembering Jayne Cortez, Jazz Poet

Jayne Cortez, Jazz Poet, Dies at 78

David Corio

Jayne Cortez performing in New York in 1994. Her work was known for its power and outrage.

By           Published: January 3, 2013
Jayne Cortez, a poet and performance artist whose work was known for its visceral power, its political outrage and above all its sheer, propulsive musicality, died on Dec. 28 in Manhattan. She was 78.
Her death, at Beth Israel Medical Center, was from heart failure, her son, the jazz drummer Denardo Coleman, said.

One of the central figures of the Black Arts Movement — the cultural branch of the black power movement that flourished in the 1960s and ’70s — Ms. Cortez remained active for decades afterward, publishing a dozen volumes of poetry and releasing almost as many recordings, on which her verse was seamlessly combined with avant-garde music.

She performed on prominent stages around the world, including, in New York, theSchomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, the Museum of Modern Art and Carnegie Hall.

Ms. Cortez’s work was beyond category by virtue of embodying so many categories simultaneously: written verse, African and African-American oral tradition, the discourse of political protest, and jazz and blues. Meant for the ear even more than for the eye, her words combine a hurtling immediacy with an incantatory orality.

Starting in the 1960s, Ms. Cortez began performing her work to musical accompaniment. For the past three decades she toured and recorded with her own band, the Firespitters, whose members include her son, from her first marriage, to the saxophonist and composer Ornette Coleman.

As performed, Ms. Cortez’s poems were not so much set to music as they were a part of the music. They were chanted more than recited, employing carefully calibrated repetitions, shifts in tempo and modulations of vocal tone.

It was as if her verse, which often took on large, painful subjects like racism and misogyny, had become an instrument itself — an instrument, Ms. Cortez felt strongly, to be wielded in the service of social change.

In one of her best-known works, “If the Drum Is a Woman,” for instance, she indicts violence against women. (The title invokes Duke Ellington’s 1956 composition “A Drum Is a Woman”):

why are you pounding your drum into an insane babble

why are you pistol-whipping your drum at dawn

why are you shooting through the head of your drum

and making a drum tragedy of drums

if the drum is a woman

don’t abuse your drum don’t abuse your drum

don’t abuse your drum

Sallie Jayne Richardson, always called Jayne, was born on the Army base at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., on May 10, 1934. (The year of her birth is often misreported as 1936.) Her father was a career soldier who would serve in both world wars; her mother was a secretary.

Reared in Los Angeles, young Jayne Richardson reveled in the jazz and Latin recordings that her parents collected. She studied art, music and drama in high school and later attended Compton Community College. She took the surname Cortez, the maiden name of her maternal grandmother, early in her artistic career.

In the summers of 1963 and 1964, Ms. Cortez worked with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, registering black voters in Mississippi. It was this work as much as anything, she later said, that caused her to regard art and political action as an indivisible whole.

She gave her first public poetry readings with the Watts Repertory Theater Company, a Los Angeles ensemble she founded in 1964. Ms. Cortez, who had homes in Manhattan and Dakar, Senegal, was also a founder of the Organization of Women Writers of Africa, established in 1991.

Ms. Cortez’s marriage to Mr. Coleman ended in divorce in 1964, after 10 years. Besides her son, she is survived by her second husband, Melvin Edwards, a prominent sculptor whom she married in 1975; a sister, Shawn Smith; three stepdaughters, Ana, Margit and Allma Edwards; and a grandson.

Her volumes of poetry, many illustrated by Mr. Edwards, include “Festivals and Funerals” (1971), “Coagulations” (1984) and “Jazz Fan Looks Back” (2002); her albums include “Everywhere Drums” (1990) and “Taking the Blues Back Home” (1996).

Ms. Cortez, who taught at universities throughout the United States, including Rutgers, was among the artists featured — others include Amiri Baraka, Charles Bukowski, John Cage and Allen Ginsberg — in Ron Mann’s esteemed 1982 documentary film, “Poetry in Motion.”

Despite her work’s eclecticism, Ms. Cortez was comfortable invoking a single genre to describe it, precisely because that genre was itself so encompassing.

“Jazz isn’t just one type of music, it’s an umbrella that covers the history of black people from African drumming to field hollers and the blues,” she told The Weekly Journal, a black newspaper in Britain, in 1997. “In the sense that I also try to reflect the fullness of the black experience, I’m very much a jazz poet.”

A version of this article appeared in print on January 4, 2013, on page A15 of the New York edition with the headline: Jayne Cortez, Jazz Poet, Dies at 78.

 NYT for full version

KineticsLive.com | Emilie Townes named dean of Vanderbilt Divinity School

The pioneering scholar in the field of womanist theology is the author of Womanist Justice, Womanist Hope (Scholars Press, 1993) and In a Blaze of Glory: Womanist Spirituality as Social Witness (Abingdon Press, 1995). Her most recent book is Womanist Ethics and the Cultural Production of Evil (Palgrave Macmillan Press, 2006). In addition, she co-editedWomanist Theological Ethics: A Reader (Westminster John Knox Press, 2011).

Her other broad areas of teaching and research include Christian ethics, critical social theology, cultural theory and studies, and postmodernism and social postmodernism.

via KineticsLive.com | Emilie Townes named dean of Vanderbilt Divinity School.

OCG Feature l “The House I Live In” l A MUST SEE MOVIE l “Must Change Realities”

January, 2013

OCG Feature

 

The House I Live In

From Executive Producers DANNY GLOVER, JOHN LEGEND, BRAD PITT & RUSSELL SIMMONS

A FILM BYEUGENE JARECKI

As America remains embroiled in conflict overseas, a less visible war is taking place at home, costing countless lives, destroying families, and inflicting untold damage on future generations of Americans. Over forty years, the War on Drugs has accounted for more than 45 million arrests, made America the world’s largest jailer, and damaged poor communities at home and abroad. Yet for all that, drugs are cheaper, purer, and more available today than ever before. Filmed in more than twenty states, The House I Live In captures heart-wrenching stories from individuals at all levels of America’s War on Drugs. From the dealer to the grieving mother, the narcotics officer to the senator, the inmate to the federal judge, the film offers a penetrating look inside America’s longest war, offering a definitive portrait and revealing its profound human rights implications.

While recognizing the seriousness of drug abuse as a matter of public health, the film investigates the tragic errors and shortcomings that have meant it is more often treated as a matter for law enforcement, creating a vast machine that feeds largely on America’s poor, and especially on minority communities. Beyond simple misguided policy, The House I Live In examines how political and economic corruption have fueled the war for forty years, despite persistent evidence of its moral, economic, and practical failures.

EVERY DAY MORE PEOPLE AGREE
THE WAR ON DRUGS HAS FAILED
JOIN  THEM AND MUST CHANGE

Comprehensive in scope, heart wrenching in its humanity, and brilliant in its thesis, Jarecki’s new film grabs viewers and shakes them to their core. The House I Live In is not only the definitive film on the failure of America’s drug war, but it is also a masterpiece filled with hope and the potential to effect change. This film is surely destined for the annals of documentary history.

– SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL 2012

FEARLESS! A model of the ambitious, vitalizing activist work that exists to stir the sleeping to wake.

– NEW YORK TIMES

2012′s BEST DOCUMENTARY! The House I Live In should be seen by everybody.

– FORBES

SEARING! One of the most important pieces of nonfiction to hit the screen in years.

– LOS ANGELES TIMES

Expertly researched, brilliantly argued and masterfully assembled, it is easily the documentary of the year.

– TIMES PICAYUNE

Eugene Jarecki’s incisive and incendiary The House I Live In, which won the U.S. documentary Grand Jury Prize at Sundance and might win next year’s doc Oscar, will blow your mind.

Join the movement, Get INVOLVED !!!

Learn More

LEARN MORE HERE

Host A Screening

Look for the 2-Part OUR COMMON GROUND Special Broadcast with the Producers and Consultants on this film in January, 2013.

Subscribe to our Program Newsletter

Women Prisoners Endure Rampant Sexual Violence; Current Laws Not Sufficient

Women Prisoners Endure Rampant Sexual Violence; Current Laws Not Sufficient

Friday, 21 December 2012 00:00

By Eleanor J Bader, Truthout | Report

Mary Thompson at the California Institution for Women in Corona, California, in July 2009. (Photo: Monica Almeida / The New York Times)

Do you

Allowing male guards to oversee female prisoners is a recipe for trouble, says former political prisoner Laura Whitehorn. Now a frequent lecturer on incarceration policies and social justice, Whitehorn describes a culture in which women are stripped of their power on the most basic level. “Having male guards sends a message that female prisoners have no right to defend their bodies,” she begins. “Putting women under men in authority makes the power imbalance as stark as it can be, and results in long-lasting repercussions post- release.”

Abuse, of course, can take many forms, from the flagrant – outright rape, groping, invasive pat-downs and peeping during showers or while an inmate is on the toilet – to verbal taunts or harassing comments. And while advocates for the incarcerated have long tried to draw attention to these conditions, they’ve made little to no headway. But that may be changing thanks to the promulgation of rules, finalized in June, to stem the overt sexual abuse of prisoners. The nine-years-in-the-making Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) is the first law in US history to address the sexual abuse of those in lock-up, and its passage made clear that the sexual abuse of the incarcerated – men and women – is a pervasive problem in prisons throughout the 50 states. But let’s hold off on PREA for a minute and first zero in on the reality of female incarceration more generally.

According to The Sentencing Project, between 1980 and 2010, the number of incarcerated women ballooned by 646 percent, from 15,118 to 112,797; most were convicted of nonviolent offenses. Add in females who are incarcerated in local jails and the number increases to approximately 205,000. In addition, more than 712,000 women are presently on probation, and another more than 103,000 are on parole.

Prisoners’ rights activists note that, more often than not, these women enter the criminal justice system with long histories of domestic and other abuse. Indeed, a 2007 study by The American Civil Liberties Union found that 92 percent of California’s female prisoners had been abused in some way prior to being taken into custody.

via Women Prisoners Endure Rampant Sexual Violence; Current Laws Not Sufficient.

 

Support Truthout’s reporting and analysis? Click here to help them continue doing this work in 2013!

“Out of Our Right Minds – Trauma, Depression and the Black Woman” l Docufilm l Stacey Muhammad

outof

Out of Our Right Minds – Trauma, Depression and the Black Woman

A short docu film from Award Winning Independent Filmmaker, Stacey M. of Wildseed Films / Intelligent Media Group.

OUT OF OUR RIGHT MINDS, Trauma, Depression and the Black Woman from INTELLIGENT MEDIA GROUP on Vimeo.

This film explores Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome and and the experience of trauma, and how the lives of Black women have been affected by these experiences.

Black women and men from all walks of life, speak openly and candidly about depression, mental illness, anxiety, stress…why these discussions are considered taboo in the African American community..and ways in which we begin to … and continue to … heal the wounds.

Dir. by Stacey Muhammad
Asst. Dir. RH Bless
Narrated by: Wise Intelligent
Edited by: Stacey Muhammad
Music by: T. Taylor, Mr. Famous & Masada
Marketing and Promotions: C. Wharton

For more information about booking Wildseed Films / Stacey M. for screenings / lectures / panels, etc. please contact Intelligent Media @ 484-472-3745.