Racializen and playwright Shawn Harris will premiere her play, Tulpa, or Anne and Me, this Thursday, June 2, at NYC’s Robert Moss Theater, the eco-friendly performance space located at 440 Lafayette Street in Manhattan. The show starts at 6PM.

Tulpa, or Anne&Me explores a strange friendship that begins with an artist whose lonely world gets turned upside down when Anne Hathaway crawls out of her television. As their friendship blossoms, they begin to examine how race impacts their lives as women, as friends, and as human beings.

The 90-minute show will also run on these dates:

• Friday, June 3rd @ 4:00PM
• Thursday, June 16 at 8:00PM
• Sunday, June 19th @ 8:15PM

The play’s proceeds will benefit the anti-racism organization People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond. While anticipating the show, you can follow behind-the-scenes convos about it, check out the show’s musical inspirations, and much more here and here!

On Monday, Madonna broke ground on a new school project in Malawi; today, she takes to the Huffington Post to ask for donations. Her megawatt star power helped engage media attention – but are high profile celebrities actually hurting progress?

In the new issue of Arise, reporter Hannah Pool examines the idea that “all Africa ha[s] to offer the world was begging bowl.” The article, titled “Good Will Hunting” starts off with a bang:

“When high profile celebrities get shown visiting disadvantaged areas in Africa and those images get beamed out to the rest of the world, I believe they almost do more damage than good,” says Moky Makura, Nigerian-born, Johannesburg-based author, M-Net presenter and founder of the Africa our Africa blog. “We don’t want to keep reinforcing the image of a helpless continent. We will only eradicate our problems when we build economies based on commerce, not charity. To do this, Africa needs to be seen as an investment destination or trading partner, not as a charity case.

Pool then delves into the conundrum that faces many activists on the African continent – if many people are embracing the idea of “trade not aid” as a way to push forward development, who benefits from this “charitainment?” Pool elaborates:

The merging of charity and entertainment – or, as Time magazine called it, charitainment – has led to some damaging consequences. Celebrities (and their agents) have realised that being seen to care about Africa brings instant cool. About 25 years after Live Aid, A-list celebrities are forever falling out of the pages of magazines such as Hello! or OK!, tearfully waxing lyrical about how spending five minutes in an African orphanage changed their whole view on life. And thanks to Madonna and Angelina Jolie, some Western media appear to be under the impression that the best way to empty Africa’s orphanages is not the eradication of poverty but mass adoption by wealthy pop stars.

“Whether it’s Bono shilling for AIDS dollars, Angelina and Madonna toting their African offspring, Gwyneth [Paltrow] and David Bowie declaring they are African, or Matt Damon and George Clooney rallying for Darfur, it appears that a new generation of philanthropists have taken up the ‘White Man’s Burden’,” says South African academic Zine Magubane on the pan-African blog Zeleza Post.

As soon as Pool mentioned Matt Damon, I immediately thought of this bit from Entourage:

“Gimme the fucking check Vince!”

At any rate, Pool dropped the bomb that’s been hovering over any discussion of aid and Western involvement in Africa. The idea of The White Man’s Burden actually stems from a Rudyard Kipling poem of the same name:

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Scholars have long debated if White Man’s Burden is a love letter to imperialism or a satirical take-down – Kipling was an avid imperialist but was also a satirist, and his intentions with the piece aren’t fully understood. However, the poem and the term have been propelled to the heights of infamy due to the application of the core concept around the globe.

Personally, I prefer Henry Labouchère’s acid-tongued retort, The Brown Man’s Burden:

Pile on the brown man’s burden
To gratify your greed;
Go, clear away the “niggers”
Who progress would impede;
Be very stern, for truly
‘Tis useless to be mild
With new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Pile on the brown man’s burden;
And, if ye rouse his hate,
Meet his old-fashioned reasons
With Maxims up to date.
With shells and dumdum bullets
A hundred times made plain
The brown man’s loss must ever
Imply the white man’s gain.

Pile on the brown man’s burden,
compel him to be free;
Let all your manifestoes
Reek with philanthropy.
And if with heathen folly
He dares your will dispute,
Then, in the name of freedom,
Don’t hesitate to shoot.

Fascinating how both of these poems were written in 1899, but still resonate to this day. (By the way, these are excerpts – the full poems are available by following the links.)

The line from Labouchère – Let all your manifestoes/Reek with philanthropy – cuts to the quick of how a “trade not aid” movement developed on the African continent. All this “philanthropy” normally comes with strings and conditions, and it can actively undermine those looking for long term solutions to a problem. Pool then discusses the work of Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist whose book, Dead Aid, who argues that aid only breeds dependency:

“Aid has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated political, economic, and humanitarian disaster for most of the developing world,” says Moyo. Rather than wanting to promote Africa as a place of business and opportunity, the West prefers to have Africa as its needy child. After all, imagine how scary a strong capitalist Africa would be. Moyo argues that aid keeps Africa politically and economically pliant, and that celebrities, with their passion for doing good rather than doing business, simply help maintain this status quo (whether they mean to or not).

However, there is quite a bit of dissent to these ideas, by those who believe any attention that directs awareness and funds to needy causes is beneficial.

For some, ‘glamour aid’ is a non-topic. Africa needs money and fast. Getting people to focus on anything else – business opportunities, the arts or tourism, for example – is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The fact is, celebrities raise billions of dollars for Africa, and they generate immeasurable amounts of press coverage for previously ignored causes. Who in the West had given Malawi a second thought until Madonna pitched up, bringing with her the international media and, undoubtedly, valuable donations? And wouldn’t thousands of African children be without antiretroviral drugs if it wasn’t for Keys and her Black Ball fundraisers in aid of Keep a Child Alive? [...]

“Africa as a continent is torn by many issues, which are beyond the people’s control, including poverty, AIDS, and genocide, says [Paschorina Mortty, of events company The One Event which deals with foundations], “so the more celebrities who want to support this beautiful continent, the better. Celebrity support opens up media space and allows the issues to come to the attention of the public and policymakers. Rightly or wrongly, we live in a society where the media and public have a strong interest in celebrities.” [...]

Does this interest translate into the public good, or does it just become another way to prolong a problem? In the case of Madonna, I’m not too sure. Her earlier interest stunk to high heaven with the white savior complex, and the controversy over David Banda’s adoption added further fuel to the fire. After spending some more time in Malawi, she seems to have shifted out of the idea that one raises awareness by adoption and horrific images of suffering, and has shifted to promoting projects and infrastructure. The new school is a good start, and a step in the right direction. But what will Madonna do next? Will she continue learning and implementing projects that contribute to long term solutions? Or will she go back to the standard celebrity charity junket? (If her plea on the Huffington Post is any indication, we are heading back to “your one time donation” territory.)

As Pool says:

But if all celebrities do is talk, demand money and portray the same old Africa of war, famine, and poverty, should they really be congratulated? Shouldn’t we challenging them to come with something new to say about Africa?

Madonna launches Malawi school construction [Reuters]
Official Site [Arise Magazine]
The White Man’s Burden [Wikipedia]
The White Man’s Burden [Modern History Sourcebook]
The Brown Man’s Burden [Dan McDowell's History Projects]
Dead Aid [Amazon]

Related:

Meet the Neo-Colonialists: Madonna and Vanity Fair [Racialicious]

On Sunday night, I sat down to watch the premiere of The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency after catching two or three specials on the making of the series while browsing HBO.

Now, let me just put this out there: I approached the series with some trepidation. First, I have never read the books. The novels, written by Alexander McCall Smith, are generally well received but knock up against some very strong views I hold about the narrative and stories of people of color. Since the voices of both women and PoCs tend to be marginalized in mainstream publishing, I try to seek out and support authors who would not otherwise be heard. So, instead of buying McCall Smith’s story about a woman from Botswana, I’d rather track down a book written by a woman from Botswana. I’ve written about this before in White Authors, Ethnic Characters and fleshed out my thoughts about times when it goes right and times when it goes wrong, but have decided to err on the side of supporting smaller authors (and smaller publishing houses).

However, the series was tempting to me from the get-go, as I love Jill Scott and like to support her work. In addition, the series is on HBO with a predominantly black cast in a time when diversity on television declines with each passing year.

Jill Scott stars as Precious Ramotswe, a kind hearted “woman of traditional build” with a penchant for mysteries and bush tea. Anika Noni Rose is Grace Makutsi, Precious’ quirky secretary. Lucian Msamati (J. L. B.Matekoni) and Desmond Dube (B K) round out the cast.

The New York Times review notes:

[Precious Ramotswe] has longed for the independence of city life, but she loves her printed caftans and bush tea (the equivalent of coffee in a Greek cup on “Law & Order”), contentedly resisting the newly cosmopolitan pressures to remodel her body closer to a Western dictate.

The tension between tradition and modernity is rendered as broad subject and passing detail: in an early scene three young women right out of “Sex and the City: Manolos Below the Sahara” walk by the newly opened No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency to ask how a woman could be a detective, and how anyone at all might go undercover who is “the size of a small elephant.”

Feminism is encroaching with the staying power of the Spartans at Attica, a reality that seems to be felt most intensely by Grace Makutsi, who serves as a secretary to Precious in a makeshift office with a manual typewriter. (Recording an outgoing answering-machine message, she plugs the agency’s areas of specialty: “Did your husband go missing? Did someone steal your cow?”)

Makutsi, played with an endearing, ramrod rigidity by Anika Noni Rose, scored 97 percent on her secretarial exam, a fact she keeps repeating, baffled as she is that all the best-paying jobs are still going to the short skirts.

I watched the episode and I was charmed by the whole series. There isn’t a lot of grit in this detective story, and it isn’t the typical hard-boiled crime drama that I tend to gravitate toward. But there was a lot to like in the series. Starting with Precious’ relationship with her father, the series features lots of love between characters, particularly in families.

The series also passes the Bechdel Test with flying colors. The women of the series are normally talking about the business or a case and occassionally about their personal lives. While there are some men who will eventually become part of the story line (like Precious’ abusive ex-husband, Note) the premiere spent most of its camera time on women talking to other women.

The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency also took some pains to dispel certain myths. I liked the interplay between the more rural area where Precious grew up and the city center where she lives now. It was interesting to see the shift in ideals and values, particularly as they mirror some of the dynamics that exist here in the U.S. (Did anyone else notice that a modern body type was not only slim, and rocking western style clothing, but also had hard relaxed hair or a weave, compared to Precious’ natural?)

The role of Precious’ weight also played a significant role in the series. Jbrotherlove remarked on twitter “watching The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency on HBO. I’m disturbed by how many characters have negative comments about Jill Scott’s weight.”

It is harsh. Most of the female characters on the show do have negative things to say about Precious’ weight, though she seems unfazed by it. She often remarks “many men prefer this way.” And this is proven in the series, as Precious becomes quite the seductress, normally using her feminine wiles to coax men into assisting her. However, I am not quite sure yet how this will all pan out. I like Precious’ character because she is complex and independent. The scenes involving her abusive ex-husband, Note, hint at some of the emotional depth of the character. Yet, taking all this into consideration, I am not sure what statement – if any – the series will make about gender, though it is referred to often.

A review of the show on Kansas City.com also points out a broader criticism:

And that brings me to my qualm. For most Americans, this is the only glimpse of Africa they will see on TV all year, and such an odd vision of Africa it is. It looks like it was filmed in 1975. Watching “No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency” you will have no clue as to the humanitarian challenges being faced in sub-Saharan Africa. Botswana, in fact, has one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world, and its 1.6 million inhabitants can expect to live on average less than 34 years.

Squaring the realities of Africa against the fairy-tale Africa of “The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency,” where the worst thing Precious and Grace were likely to stumble upon was a cheating husband, was proving surprisingly difficult for me. That is, until I had a simple four-word epiphany.

Cheating husbands spread AIDS.

So maybe the stakes weren’t as low as I’d originally thought.

I can hear that criticism. However, one of the reasons that so many of the actors signed on to the show was to display a more positive image of an African country. And, based on the way in which the topic of domestic violence was discussed, I think that a large topic like the AIDS crisis will require a few more episodes before the writers delve into that topic.

Overall, I enjoyed the show. The pacing was slow at points, and some of the plots were resolved a little too neatly. (Yeah hi – murderous crime boss selling kid bones for witchcraft, and he was immediately apprehended by the police based on a tape recorded confession? Riiiight.) Still, I have high hopes for the series. Jill Scott is wonderful in this role and the series has a lot of potential to develop into something great.

(Psst – I know we had five readers from Botswana come to the blog last month. If any of you are around, I would love to hear your thoughts on the series, especially on the casting.)

The story, according to People Magazine:

Sunday night, R&B’s hottest couple, Chris Brown and Rihanna, were supposed to light up the Grammys.

Instead, the normally affectionate twosome were embroiled in a domestic violence drama that left Brown, 19, booked on felony criminal threats charges and posting $50,000 bail after turning himself in to the LAPD on Sunday at 6:34 p.m. PST.

Sources say that Rihanna (real name: Robin Fenty), 20, was the victim in the alleged assault which occurred around 12:30 a.m. on Sunday. Responding to a 911 call about a disturbance, the LAPD took statements from a female with visible injuries, who named Brown as her attacker.

Chris Brown has turned himself in; Rihanna has canceled some high profile performances as well as her birthday party. Rumors are swirling, and there isn’t much confirmed. They have not even confirmed that the “female with visible injuries” was Rihanna, though this is widely assumed to be so.

It is entirely too early to see how this is going to pan out – no one knows if Rihanna will ever admit to being the woman who called 911, if the woman involved will press charges, or what will become of Chris Brown if he has to go to court.

However, one thing I do want to mention is how this could turn into a case study on how communities – especially communities of color, deal with domestic violence.

Journalist Elizabeth Mendez Berry wrote a piece for Vibe Magazine in 2005 dealing with domestic violence in the hip-hop community. In “Love Hurts” Berry shows how many of our beloved hip-hop icons barely bothered to conceal their physical aggression towards women:

BEFORE GOING TO SLEEP, many little girls pray for a new Barbie, an Xbox game, or a trip to Disney World. At age 7, Vanessa Rios asked only that “Papi would stop hitting Mami.”

It was May 1999, and Vanessa was staying with her aunt, Penelope Rios Santiago, in Miami. After Santiago overheard her niece’s bedtime prayer, she confronted her brother, Christopher Rios. His reaction? It wasn’t true, he said. Though he had much in common with other abusers, Christopher Rios was also different: He was Big Pun, a famous rap star. He first hit his wife, Liza, when she was 16, and over the course of their 1o-year relationship, she claims he sent her to the hospital three times and prevented her from seeking needed medical attention on many other occasions. “One time he told me to change the batteries in his beeper,” says Liza Rios, now 31. “I totally forgot about it, and he took this lead pipe and started swinging on me. I had my daughter in my arms, and I told Cuban [Link, who was there] to take the baby. After he finished beating me, my elbow was twisted out of place. I was limping for two months.” [...]

SEVERAL WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD relationships with well-known abusers declined to speak on the record for this piece and said they feared reprisal. The ex-girlfriend of a famed MC mentions a chart-topping rapper who attacked his wife (and mother of his children) with a champagne bottle; a multiplatinum producer tells VIBE matter-of-factly that he has seen many physical fights between artists and their romantic partners over the years. Neither witness cares to elaborate.

Berry’s piece is a much read, and while the circumstances surrounding this particular case are currently unclear, I’m wondering if this case will follow the same script of denial and secrecy as they have in the past.

UPDATE: Afrobella on stereotyping:

Take a gander at any of the popular gossip blogs right now, and read those comments if you want to feel your blood pressure rise. I’m not about to link to any of the posts that REALLY got my goat, but I need to get this off my chest. As a proud Trinidadian woman, a West Indian woman, a woman from the islands… I do NOT appreciate the stereotypes that are being thrown around by commenters seeking to condone or explain this act of violence. I’m seeing all kinds of nonsense. And I quote:

“He better watch himself, those island women are crazy.”

“Who didn’t tell chris that island women were nutso?”

“Caribbean women are crazy, she probably cut him.”

“That island b***h probably put some roots on him.”

“Chris Brown laying the SMACKDOWN on Carribean joints. [frank lucas voice]. My ni**a!”

Then there’s the other kinds of offensive comments, the ones that don’t just put the blame on Rihanna because she’s a “crazy island woman.” These other comments blame her simply because she’s a woman.

“She must have provoked him.”

“I believe Rhianna probably started it first and it got Chris mad. Rhianna looks like she is a ish starter.”

And my least favorite of all: “Its so stupid how if a man hits a woman its his fault and we should feel sorry for the woman. You all know how it goes, these hoes get snappy, she probably annoyed him and hit him herself. lol at everyone feeling sorry for Rihanna.”

Hold. UP.

Where do these kinds of twisted interpretations and stereotypes even begin? When did we get to this point, where we instantly blame the victim?

UPDATE 2: From Necole Bitchie, stereotype watch on Chris Brown:

Unfortunately, for Chris Brown, the longer he stays silent, the more time the media has to paint him as a criminal that’s dangerous to society. I’ve read over 50 sites that have used words like “woman beater”, “temper” and “monster” to describe Chris while using words like “poor girl”, “princess” and “victim” in their descriptions of Rihanna. After my last blog, I have to make it clear that I am not taking sides, I just feel that this story is very one sided and I put most of the blame on Chris’s team at this point for keeping quiet (under legal counsel of course).

UPDATE 3: Via Jezebel, “The LA Times is defending it decision to out Rihanna as the victim of Chris Brown’s domestic violence case. A reporter explains: “The Times has a blanket policy when it comes to not naming victims of sexual assault. There isn’t a set policy when it comes to physical assault or a criminal threat. In that case, there’s a decision internally and on a case-by-case basis of whether to name somebody. In this case, obviously there was a discussion among the editors about this. The nature of this case – against the backdrop of the Grammy’s, the delay in changing things, the explanations put out by both camps – the decision was made that this was fair game.” [E&P]

Update 4 – Necole Bitchie, on the rumors surrounding what actually happened:

Yesterday morning a few sites started reporting that the altercation started with a “booty call” from a female which set Rihanna off. Rihanna then starts to hit Chris while he is driving which caused him to crash into a parked car. He then gets out and tries to pull her out and she continues to hit him until he has no choice but to hit her back. Note: from the looks of the above photo, the car does not look like it was involved in a crash. (the spotting is from the cops dusting the car for fingerprints)

Also, yesterday I pointed out that the descriptions of Rihanna’s injuries change from day to day. The first day she suffered bite wounds, 2 black eyes and broken teeth. Later her injuries were described as two contusions on her head, a bloody nose and her lip was split. Yesterday, E Online! Reported that Rihanna claimed Chris said he was going to kill her and he choked her until she lost conscious. Does anyone see where I’m going with this? (What is the truth????). It reminds me of grade school when the teacher used to line us up and she’d whisper to the first student who would pass the message along until it reached the last student. When the last student revealed what she had been told, it was completely different than what the teacher told the first student. Catch my drift?

Where were their bodyguards or members of their entourage during the altercation?? I have a feeling that someone from their entourage assisted Chris with leaving the scene in the first place. Also, Rihanna was escorted to the hospital in an Escalade truck. From the photos at the gas station (taken the day before) their team of people normally trail their vehicle for security reasons. If Chris had time to get out the car, choke Rihanna until she was unconscious and leave her with black eyes, a split lip, broken teeth, bite marks and however many injuries the different outlets are reporting she had, I know someone had time to see what happened (outside of the car) and had time to break things up. Also, the police “supposedly” took photos of Rihanna’s injuries on the scene which they presented to the District Attorney’s office yesterday along with other evidence from the case. The District Attorney felt as though they needed more evidence and sent the case back to the LAPD for further investigation. In my opinion, this further proves that what’s been presented in the media has been overly exaggerated! No one has seen her injuries because the photos were kept sealed (with no copies made) so that they didn’t leak to the public. Where is the media getting their description of her injuries from?? Also, are there conflicting stories by eye witnesses?

(Photo credit: Popsugar)

Now, what did the Spanish Olympic basketball team say when they did it?

Oh, right, it was a “wink.” A sign of “affection.”

Here’s what other bloggers are saying – I don’t really have any words on this one.

Angry Asian Man:

For those who don’t know who the most popular teenager in America is, Miley’s third from the left. Is this how kids are posing for photos these days? Hey! Look at us spoiled punkass hipster kids making racist gestures! Because it’s fun, and we just don’t care. And it’s, like, totally ironic or something, you know? Our friend here is Asian and the rest of us are white! Get it? Watch us all do the silly squint-eye!

Who is the Asian guy, anyway? Sitting there like a tool and letting his “friends” getting away with racist gestures. Not funny. And is it me, or is he actually trying to make his eyes look wider? Couldn’t resist getting to hang out with the cool kids, I guess. Even if it means having to deal with this idiocy. Or maybe he’s forgotten what it feels like when some jerk on the street does that out of real-ass hate.

Rachel’s Tavern:

As a culture, Americans need more avenues for young people to talk openly about racism and racially insensitive behavior. I wish we didn’t totally avoid race as a topic of discuss with the youth. As I write this I’m trying to think how I would explain the problems with this to a 9 year old Hannah Montana fan like my step son.

Disgrasian:

Maybe when you first peeped it, you were like us, and commented on the one Asian schmuck in the picture. Like any douche worth his seat next to Hannah Montana–the tool undoubtedly bit his lip (“Yeah! Slanty! Hee! No, it’s funny cuz I’m here! You guys are great!“) and giggled while his friends talked to him in buck-toof. And then wondered at night why he doesn’t get laid.

Exactly what part of post-racial America are we in again? Think we got turned around somewhere…

I admit, I spent most of Inauguration Day taking it all in quietly. Even my cynical heart warmed a little during the day. I didn’t have a thing to make fun of. Thank the stars ABC gave me the Neighborhood Inaugural Ball.

8:10 — Delayed start, but: Mary J. looked GREAT, and Will.i.am struck a good note — addition by subtraction of Fergie, perhaps?
8:19 — W. had Ricky Martin. O has Maroon 5. This is progress?!
8:20 — Robin Roberts! Yay! I remember when she was a SportsCenter rookie …
8:21 — Nick Cannon is as much a DJ as George Bush was a Decider.
8:22 — Mariah has a blinged-out mic stand. Take that, Mary J.!
8:25 — Oh shit, Denzel is there?
8:30 — Denzel arrives! PLYMOUTH ROCK, GET THE F-K OFF!
8:31 — Mariah can’t lend the President her mic stand?
8:32 — “How good-looking is my wife?” Epic.
8:34 — Is that Faith Hill next to Denzel?
8:34 — Beyonce nails the first note …

8:35 — Beyonce’s mic also had some bedazzle to it. Is this the next arms race?
8:40 — Homeland Security U.S.A. advert — Good to know Republicans still have some programs to watch.
8:41 — For a comedian, Jamie Foxx is a hell of a singer
8:42 — Shakira’s music sucks nowadays, but DAMN
8:43 — Nice to see Sting is growing another rainforest on his chin
8:45 — We have a president who bumps people. This might work out after all.
8:45 — My friend Chris: “The President may think he’s got good music at his party, but I get to see Sharon Jones & the Dap-Kings this week. I win.” Can’t argue with that.
8:49 — These “all-star jams” rarely go well. Damn you, ABC, for not trusting Stevie Wonder to do his own damn song.
8:50 — For a comedian, Ray Romano is a hell of a waste of space.
8:51 — “I can’t believe I’m here.” I can’t believe you’re there either, Romano.
8:53 — This moron is DYING out there. Somewhere, there’s a hotel lounge missing a headliner …

8:55 — Ooo-wee-ooo, Jigga looks like Buddy Holly!
Oh Oh, where’s Beyonce Tyler Moore?

8:57 — Is it me, or does Jay sound like he’s out of breath?
8:59 — Y’know, when I wore glasses like those in fourth grade, I got my ass kicked. Now they’re in fashion?
9:03 — “Destiny calls.” You go straight to voicemail, Lost.
9:03 — Who in the blue hell is Kate Walsh?
9:05 — I don’t think I’ve ever seen Alicia Keys do a song badly.
9:08 — This might be the song of the night, up there with Beyonce
9:09 — Send in the clowns tumblers people jumping around on weird-looking sh-t!
9:10 — Info from my friend Paul on miss Walsh: “Best known for playing Addison Sheppard on Grey’s Anatomy/Private Practice on ABC. Don’t judge me for knowing that.” No, but I will quote you!
9:11 — The crowd doesn’t know what to make of the tumblers. Was the wrestling bear booked?
9:12 — The tumblers are cut off. For the first time in my television-watching life, I wish we’d gotten more commercials.
9:16 — If I sent a text from Tijuana, would Mexico get a star on the Map of Vague Good Feelings?

9:17 — Shakira’s butchering “The Right Side Of The Road,” but DAMN.
9:18 — Shakira, harmonica. Harmonica, Shakira.

9:23 — Stevie! Seriously, who needed The 5 Maroons?
9:26 — SW is stealing the show right from Alicia
9:30 — Grover on Scrubs? I thought Zack Braff was the only sock puppet allowed on that show.
9:32 — Even Biden gets a cheer!
9:33 — Even Biden gets an “AWWWWW”!
9:34 — Even Biden gets a dance!?
9:36 — Make that half a dance.
9:38 — Which final 20 minutes will be worse: the Neighborhood Ball’s or the average SNL’s?
9:40 — Who in the blue hell is Carrie Washington?
9:40 — Faith Hill just answered my question. I apologize, Lorne Michaels.
9:44 — Playing Joan Jett as bumper music is just a f-king cruel tease.
9:46 — Hey, Gitmo might be closing soon — are the CMT Awards looking for a new site?
9:49 — Sting + Stevie doing “Brand New Day.” Could be worse — that could be Shakira playing harp.
9:50 — My friend Chris: “Looks like Sting is practicing tantric shaving”
9:52 — If we’re rehashing ’90s inspirational pop for this, why not just book Jesus Jones?
9:55 — Watching the Frost/Nixon advert, wishing for the sequel: Olbermann/Bush.
9:57 — Looks like the end of an SNL episode, doesn’t it? Too bad Obama didn’t close with “Thanks to all of our guest-stars … and Ray Romano.”
9:58 — We’re closing with the tumblers? I miss Ray Romano!
10:00 — ABC News says, “The balls are in full swing.” Now that is how you end a party. YES WE CAN change the channel now.

So, the lesson of the night? The audacity of hope can conquer anything … except bad music. If it wasn’t for Beyonce, Alicia and Stevie, the Ball would’ve made Dick Clark’s NYE show look like Soul Train.

Normally you could blame this on events like MTV and the Youth Ball (what would you rather have watched, Sting and his kite-eating beard or Kanye and Fall Out Boy?), but for cripes’ sake, Common was at the Obama Home States Inaugural Ball. That’s like deciding the national football championship at the Humanitarian Bowl. I can only hope that someday, we as a nation and as a people can come together to get actual hip-hop and rock artists on a “major network” gala event. But hey, there’s always 2012, right?

* All photos courtesy of Reuters

The September 25 issue of Time Out New York (TONY) featured a list of their favorite 40 New Yorkers who have made an impact on the city in the past 13 years. I was appalled to see that out of the 40 cultural leaders that they highlighted, only three were people of color (Jay-Z, Derek Jeter, and Junot Diaz), two weren’t even human (Spider-Man and the MetroCard), and the other 35 were white.

Right after reading the issue, I and probably hundreds of other readers wrote letters to TONY to call them out on their list’s glaring lack of diversity as it tried to represent one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world. In my letter I said, “Rather than reminding us that white people are still in power, you could have been a little more creative with this list.” And I proceeded to list several people I would have liked to see on the list: Rosario Dawson, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Jean Grae, David Paterson, Chang-Rae Lee, Rosie Perez, Majora Carter, Rosie Mendez, etc.

They must have gotten quite a number of these letters, because a week later they had posted a piece online called “Where are all the people of color?” In the article, a TONY editor basically continued to defend and justify the lack of diversity in the list, and sparked even more angry comments from readers. The response piece, in some ways, was even more appalling than the original list because it showed no sign of regret and stated even more clearly (in case we didn’t get the point the first time) that they believed that New York’s “cultural elite” was made up of mostly white people.

After commenters threatened to cancel their subscriptions and criticized the editorial staff for being clueless and lacking in diversity themselves, TONY must have started to realize the significance of their mistake. I received an email from another editor saying that they were preparing for a future issue on the topic and were looking for suggestions of more people of color that readers would have liked to see on the list. So I wrote back listing a few more people I had thought of since, such as James McBride, Pauline Park, and Nydia Velazquez. Even though my respect for TONY was waning, I was eager to see what they would do next.

The November 6 issue displays the result of their scrambling to make things right. The feature of the issue focuses on what is most essential to New York City, and the first topic they address is diversity. They asked questions about diversity and multiculturalism to a panel of 15 well-known New Yorkers including Santogold, Talib Kweli, James McBride, Vijay Iyer, and Young Jean Lee. TONY showed themselves to be naive with some of their questions; for example, “Are we a melting pot or a mosaic?” and “Is ‘color-blind’ the right approach?” But I did appreciate the fact that that they published these panelists’ responses, including some harsh criticisms of TONY, like Danny Hoch saying: “Only entitled white people who are in charge possess the cluelessness to ask these benign questions in 2008.” I get the vibe that TONY still doesn’t fully understand what the problem was in the first place, but is at least willing to host conversations about racism, gentrification, and diversity.

On the last page of the article about diversity, there’s a box that says, “Despite NYC’s diversity, it’s not often that you find yourself amid a nice racial mix. Here are some of our favorite places to break out of the monochromatic social scene.” They list 10 places you can go to hang out among a mixed crowd (like TV On the Radio concerts and the New York Public Library). It got me thinking about the places I hang out and whether it is actually difficult to find racially diverse spots. Sure, there are plenty of bars and restaurants and venues in the city that are chock full of people from similar backgrounds, but I don’t think you really have to look that far to find a place with a more diverse crowd. (I might not use Time Out New York to find it, though!)

Readers in New York and other culturally diverse places, what has your experience been? When you go out, is a diverse crowd the norm or the exception?

Note: My boyfriend sent me this on September 23. As so often with conversations on OkayPlayer, the forums purge and the conversation is lost. The original link he sent to the topic comes up with an error. However, he did copy ?uestlove’s response to the thread, which was really a meditation on what it means to be a large black man, going about your daily business.

—

51. “well….i really wanna say skin”
In response to Reply # 41

but its like those are the small adjustments i have to make in everyday life to make white people happy.

here are some others.

-i remove the afro pick when im going to a city on a plane and we (the roots) are the only blacks aboard. im use to being a goldfish to people by now. but sometimes i just give up.

-i talk EXTRA job interview whenever the flight attendant reads the beautiful name my parents gave me aloud. just to assure the wall street journalites that im not going to pull the act you think im going to pull simply because you just heard two arabic names read aloud in first class.

-i turn my body hard to the left (as if in the dunce corner) when im on an elevator alone….

-actually part 2: i will get OFF the elevator sometimes cause the fear of entering the elevator is such a shock to some white women they will just play it off like they dont have to get on. so i get off….

….and next thing you know….they get on.

part 3 (i know this is some sad shit on the uncle rukus tip)- i also stand smack dead center in the elevator to avoid the always embarrassing scenario of: door opens, they walk in unsuspecting then they look in the blind spot where i am hidden in a corner and they “YELP!!!!….oh god you scared me”.

part 4- i never travel in an elevator with dixpop cause that to me is the nightmares horror scripts are made of.

–yeah it gets worse.

all the roots acknowledge that we colgate smile in our passports so that we look harmless. and PRAY to god we get no trouble (ive done 6 anal searches in my 17 years of travel—that is 7 too many)—mos spoke on this (heathrow mr nigga) back in 2000. i’ve had 2 more situations go down since buffalo (see myspace blog) but after awhile its just broken record time.

i mean i tape my snare drum as to not sound too soulful for viacom just in case they play our shit.

–small shit—

always small shit.

i OVER OVER OVER tip just to overcompensate in restaurants.

and not because i got money.
and not because i dont want my food tainted.

but because i know they think blacks suck at tipping.

EVEN me getting the car is a reaction to adjustment in america

(i mean granted yes….it was free and its afro friendly and i enjoy riding it….)

but shit is so fucked up that NOW the right thing is to get a baller car because no self respecting cat would get a mini (my other jawn) or a prius (my next jawn)—

i mean i “see” your point and i know you “get ” my point.

but my point is…

if my choice of car is based on what car will make me look more innocent.

—-just read that again.

if my choice of car is based on what car will make me look more innocent.

MORE innocent.

they dont know about the nice guy shit.

or the scholarships

or the santa quest shits

or the benefits

or the community service

or the bailouts from jail ive posted

or jobs i provided

or the lectures

or my “proper english”

or me taking care of my mother, father, sister, 3 nieces, 2 cousins, paralyzed childhood friend, and my hero’s mother.

they see none of that yo.

im just a dude cheating on his trainer.

that’s my real crime.

the 1:40 am fish samich.

the taste and smell bring me back to a place that only soul train reruns can evoke:

1200 block of S 49th street. my grandma’s house.

i know this seems overdramatic (it is)

but not hardly overexaaaaagggggeeeerraaated. (W hotels are the darkest most sinsiter looking elevators in the USA. and if you are on your 5th vodka and the doors open and you see me…..lol)

but in closing….

if my choice of car is based on what car will make me look more innocent.

then something has got to give.

i’ll be 40 in a couple of years.

im sooooooo at the end of my rope when it comes to adjustments for survival in america that are so small and miniscule that sometimes it aint worth mentioning.

this is why Wright was so amped.

and america was so shocked.

i love my car.

what car is out there that is as cool as my car….that they won’t even stop to think twice to see if i stole some white dudes shit.

(Photo Credit: Island/Def Jam)

Last year, a friend of mine told me that actress Juliette Lewis started up a band and that their sound was seriously a rockin’.

I was like “Really? Cool!” since I’d always appreciated the versatility Lewis demonstrated in her acting craft with movies like “The Other Sister,” “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” or even “Old School.”

Off to Google I went searching for her website, when I came up with this image:

Oh no, not again.

Another appropriator.

A quick glance at their website and various other fan photo materials reveals even worse.

So then I typed in the words “racism” and “Juliette Lewis and the Licks” since I know sumbody’s prolly talkin’, and I came up with this open letter crafted online to send to her:

(Sent to the myspace account of Juliette and the Licks, in response to Ms. Lewis’ feathered-headdress-as-rock-and-roll-image.)

Hi Juliette (or if not Juliette, Hi Whomever Is Reading This Message),

Someone recently called to my attention how you use a feathered headdress as a part of your “Rock and roll warrior” image. I checked out your website and myspace – it seems like you’ve been using it pretty extensively, and how other people are imitating it at your concerts.

Heads up – the way that you are using of this symbol, which is a clear (and from the gist of what I read of your comments, intentional) reference to “native americans,” is careless and really pretty disrespectful.

I’m not writing this message to jump on your ass, or pretend like I’m some superior person. I have nothing to gain from that. And this has nothing to do with whether or not I like your work (from what I’ve heard, it sounds reasonably cool – kudos for following a different path).

I’m putting this out there because I can’t complain about anything anyone does if I’m not willing to back it up with some action that seeks to change things. And you should have a chance to learn about what people are saying, and change the behavior and (more importantly) the system that supports it, if you are so inclined.

You’re in a position to be heard by a lot of people, and the image you’re putting out there takes advantage of the painful history of native americans in this country without paying any respect to it. This is problematic in the extreme. (And I say ‘native americans’ specifically because your feathers refer to an idea and not any real tribe or nation, from what I can tell.)

You go, you person out there!

But it’s not like this all isn’t a usual occurrence. We in the Native community have to witness this with every kid who dresses up like Pocahontas on Halloween, or every time we turn on the TV to watch the Redskins, Braves, or Indians play. In fact it’s been going on for so damn long that we’re kinda the only race who it’s still happening to on this extreme, public level, to the point where the fight has basically died down. Or has it?

What I find most interesting though about all this imagery, and in particular Lewis’s choice of dress with her band, is actually coming from my raging feminist point of view. In an attempt to appear strong, raw, and unapologetic, people, and in this case, a woman, feels like she has to appropriate Native culture to a pretty extreme extent in order to do a good job of it.

And, as an Indigenous feminist myself, I’m at a crossroads on how I’m feeling about that, because I’m someone who recognizes that the strong, raw, and unapologetic womaness (or feminism for that matter) that permeates mainstream activist movements, in reality was rooted in Indigenous, matriarchal cultures around the world. (I’m tired of having to justify the matrilineal/matriarchal wording battle folks; women had respected positions of power and significance in leadership roles in lots of our societies, so let’s just stick with the matriarchy one, mkay?)

Although you might never even see any of that coming from many of the public awareness campaigns that exist in our communities to, for instance, stay away from drugs and prevent domestic violence. What I see most often are these docile, gentle images of woman and baby saying “Don’t do this, we’re precious!” which while I truly believe are totally valid and worth having, I’d be lying if I said that it wouldn’t be nice to see some of that brute strength and sheer fighter style representation coming from our own community, with our own women seen doing it.

I can’t always personally relate to these peaceful, calm images when I’m fed-up, can’t contain myself angry or feeling oppressed to the max. It’s actually funny that people still think we’re drunk savages who are so primitive in existence, since clearly from everything I’m saying here, I see the total opposite going on.

So why is it that so many of the women in my community don’t want to associate themselves with these shrill, pro-woman imagery tactics or identification? Is it just something that is factually inaccurate about us? Or is there some sort of gender-based, internalized oppression from White, Western, colonial folks going on?

I think it’s a bit of both.

One click onto the Native American House’s department at the University of Illinois will easily lead you to numerous videos from the 2006 Native Feminisms Without Apology conference. They are a constant inspiration and source of vindication for me, who has long identified as an Indigenous feminist to the chagrin of many naysayers, who think I’m just buying into “whitey’s” game and tell me rather vocally that “we don’t need feminism.”

(From the website):

The purpose of the conference was to explore the development of Native feminist thought in the United States and Canada.

Because relatively little has been published by Native women on feminist theory, the scholarly and activist public tends to over-simplify Native women activists’ theories about feminism, the struggle against sexism both within Native communities and the society at large, and the importance of working in coalition with non-Native women.

This seminar provided a groundbreaking opportunity for indigenous women to develop indigenous feminist theory and politics, and centered around questions such as: What is specific about indigenous articulations of feminism? How do these articulations vary among indigenous communities?; Many indigenous nations have instituted gender-discriminatory policies in the name of “tradition.” What do pro-sovereignty, indigenous feminists interventions into these policies look like?; How can critiques of gender oppression and violence be made central to anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty analysis and politics?

While the language of the conference was exceptionally academic (and obviously so since it was being hosted and participated by universities) the ideas and messages that came out of it were quite clear: gender has always been part of the discussion in many of our communities, and our women didn’t take things sitting down.

“Where are your women?” This is what we used to say to the Europeans when they came over to broker manipulative deals for our lands and resources, since it was totally out of order for women not to be present or be disallowed to even make these kinds of major decisions themselves.

Indeed, we are coming from this foundational being of firm woman power that we have so much to honour in and be proud of (that is sorely needed today!), but maybe we didn’t feel like we always had to project ourselves in such a vociferous light since that’s just the way things were, and we accepted it.

In comes colonialism, Christianization, residential/boarding/mission schools, and other forms of genocidal oppression that are still happening, and you now have a majority of tribes that are being lead solely by men, women who have lost their rightful title to the land and even status as being Native if they married outside the community, and soaringly high rates of sexual assault and violence against our women that surpass every other race.

So yeah, we’re in a bit of a perplexing bind where perhaps we don’t know how to identify with our strong woman beginnings since they’ve been A) stolen away from us and B) re-owned, re-furbished, (and I’ll say it) appropriated in many ways by the White, mainstream feminist movement who still rarely acknowledges us.

It’s all definitely worth reflecting on how different things might be if our next generations knew about where we came from and called on their ancestral female strength to make it through these gender-based oppressions that we nonetheless face. I think our job now is to find practical ways to translate all of this into modern terms for our young people to use so they can recover what past generations may have lost, and re-assert themselves as the resilient, fierce, ain’t-gonna-take-any-crap females we’ve always been. Who are also feminists!

And maybe even so Juliette Lewis can re-think her choice of dress the next time she decides to sing. Our culture is not up for grabs to exploit anymore, and it really never was. It’s disrespectful, it’s ignorant, and it’s simply not for her to do.

I look to my community now to reclaim our feminism and put it out there as it once was: strong, sexy, powerful, and most of all; unapologetic.

For the past week or so, I’ve spent every night watching Tivo’d episodes of The Wendy Williams Show. It’s been my new secret obsession and (yay!) I just found out that the show has officially been picked up by Fox. (Hat tip to Stereohyped.)

I’ve been trying to figure out what it is about the show that I like so much, and last night it finally dawned on me that there are two factors that are particularly appealing.

First, it’s the first TV talk show I’ve ever seen that captures the authentic essence of social media. Wendy makes no pretense that she’s a TV pro. When she’s not picking synthetic wig hairs off her outfit, she’s barely holding back her belches. When she’s not asking the producer how much time there’s left in the segment, she’s messing up the pronunciation of people’s names. And just like here at Racialicious, comments from her viewers are an integral and seamless part of the show’s content.

Second, it’s so refreshing how her show completely normalizes queerness among people of color. So many of her audience members, mostly black and Latino, are casually open about their sexuality. Plus when she had Margaret Cho on the show, they actually touched on trans issues.

At a time when other prominent TV personalities *coughTyracough* only include gay people in the most stereotypical or exploitative situations (drag queen pageants! down low homothugs! Mr. and Mrs. Jay!), and mainstream media pretends that all African-Americans are vehemently homophobic, there’s something quietly subversive about demonstrating that gay people of color are just a fact of life, and no big deal.

Have any of you been following the show? What do you think?

Last week I went to the Jay Brannan show at the Highline Ballroom on 16th Street. It was a fun show, complete with great performances of “Housewife” and “Soda Shop” and Jay’s (mostly endearing) talking-too-much routine.

Toward the end of the show, Jay busted out with a cover of N.W.A.’s “Straight Outta Compton.” (See the video and Logo’s glowing review here.) Although I was surprised to hear him say the “n-word” twice, unflinchingly, during the song, the cover was nicer than it could have been—it was actually quite a beautiful rendition, and it didn’t really even seem like he was making fun of the song or gangsta culture.

He could have left it at that, and I might not have thought too much about it.

But right after the song ended, he had already started defending himself. “Now, before you all email me to complain,” he started; and went on to explain that he was just covering a cover of the N.W.A. song by Nina Gordon. “If you don’t like the lyrics… I didn’t write them!”

Then he said something like, “Before you say that I’m making fun of black culture…. I think I know some black people who would take issue with you equating black culture to gang violence.” The audience clapped at this, but I was left uncomfortable. It’s an interesting point, but did he really just pull the “I have black friends” card?

I was also left wondering if Jay really would have felt comfortable doing that song if there were many (or any) black people in the audience.

All that aside, I did really enjoy the show. He did a very nice cover of my favorite Joni Mitchell song, “All I Want.” And he was decidedly cute and gay as usual. I think he should tour with Girlyman.

So, I was browsing Jezebel and came across this Photoshop of Horrors entry:

And I thought to myself, what person is this supposed to be? I don’t quite recognize the…wait a sec, that’s supposed to be Beyonce?

Now, Beyonce is a style chameleon.

But I looked at this shot:

And this one:

And a few others, and she still looks like Bey. Even with the changes in make up, hair, and the application of Photoshop, she is still recognizable.

But what did they do to her skin? And her nose?

(Thanks to Jezebel for letting me snatch their scans.)

Edited:

I’m going to add another photo:

And commentary from Cheryl Lynn:

Can we please lay off Beyonce? I highly doubt that this woman, who we have all seen get blissfully darker as she gallivants across the globe with her husband, fired up the ol’ Photoshop in order to lighten her skin color for this advertisement. Why direct your ire at Beyonce? [...]

You want to do something to stop it? Contact the companies that do this and inform them that you will no longer be buying their products until the situation has been rectified. But giving the side-eye to fair-skinned black women who are just trying to make a living? Lame. Especially when these women have been some of the most vocal about the rampant colorism taking place in the entertainment industry. Why? Because they get a front row seat when it comes to viewing the damage that is inflicted upon dark-skinned women who are told that they will never be worthy enough. They see what has been done to their daughters and sisters. And it cuts them deeply. Why yell at the only people trying to keep you from falling while the rest of the world tries to knock you down?

Part 1:

Part 2:

You can read the recap here.

Y’all knew we had to do it, eventually. Sex and the City is an event, and though none of the Racialicious staffers have seen the movie yet, we got enough tips and articles sent in we decided to do a post. (Carmen and I are both opting to catch the film on DVD.)

Random Trivia

In the July 2008 issue of Marie Claire, Willie Garson (who played Stanford Blatch) said this about his character:

I didn’t audition for the role of Stanford at all the way he’s played in the show. I just read it as a guy who happened to be homosexual. Then when we went to shoot the pilot, I remember Darren shouting at me, “Gayer!” You know, to the point where it felt really kind of artificial to me. But people loved it.

The Women Themselves

Dodai from Jezebel breaks down why the movie was all kinds of wrong:

To be honest, I was a fan of the TV show when it first aired. A female writer living in New York and dealing with messy relationships? Of course I could relate. Of course I was attracted to the glitter, the nightlife, the search for love and the dating psychodramas. And what the show did really well was to tell those modern urban love legends: The Guy With The Funky Spunk, The Guy Who Died Before The Second Date, The Time The Writer Fell On The Runway, The Time Your Friend Had A Brazilian Lesbian Lover For Like A Week. But the movie made me want to cut myself. It was a showcase for how hollow and soulless these characters were. Do they have hobbies, aside from shopping? Interests? Do they read anything beyond Page Six? They are just rich bitches who don’t even have the decency to be over-the-top, and therefore amusing, like Absolutely Fabulous. I was seriously offended when Charlotte wouldn’t eat anything except packaged chocolate pudding on their trip because “It’s Mexico.” I was also offended by Miranda’s rudeness to her nanny and Samantha’s “Honey, we can pay people to do the stuff we don’t want to do” attitude. Then it dawned on me: These women are assholes. [...]

While the SATC TV show often presented silly conundrums easily solved and then post-mortemed over cocktails; SATC the movie insists that the audience empathize with these fools. Carrie cares more about herself and her elaborate gown than her groom, and we’re supposed to feel sorry for her? I always thought Big was a smug cad who dyed his gray hair black, so I didn’t care if she ended up with him or not. Samantha breaks up with Smith by saying “I love you, but I love me more,” and that’s supposed to be empowering? Is getting a lapdog really a happy ending for a 50-year-old? I found myself hating every single one of them: Idiotic, superficial Carrie; stuck-up, naggy perfectionist Charlotte; cold, ruthless Miranda and bitter, narcissisitic Samantha. The worst part is that these women have spawned a new generation of materialistic empty-headed women: When Carrie thanks Jennifer Hudson’s character, Louise (rightfully called a magical negro by Moe’s sister) for bringing her back to life, Louise replies, “And you bought me my first Louise[sic] Vuitton.” Because the only thing more important than soul-searching is having a thousand-dollar bag that will be out of style in three to six months.

The BBF (Black Best Friend):

This piece from the Root examines a phenomenon we are all familiar with:

In August 2007, Greg Braxton of the Los Angeles Times first coined the term BBF — black best friend — in the article “Buddy system; They’re wise, loyal and often sassy. Black Best Friends help white heroines, but do they limit black actresses?” One unnamed source joked that celluloid BBFs should form a support group to save “woefully helpless white girls.”

Here are the specs on the BBF: “They are gorgeous, independent, loyal and successful. They live or work with their friend but are not really around all that much except for well-timed moments when the heroine needs a dining companion or is in crisis. BBFs basically have very little going on, so they are largely available for such moments. And even though they are single or lack solid consistent relationships, BBFs are experts in the ways of the world, using that knowledge to comfort, warn or scold their BFF.”

Of Hudson’s “bossy” Louise, one article said the character had “an uncanny ability to help her boss get her life back in order.”

Seriously?

Interesting contrast:

It’s no wonder most women of a certain hue never got into SATC. Instead many tuned in to Mara Brock Akil’s Girlfriends, often rightly referred to as the black Sex and the City. Airing for eight seasons, Girlfriends followed the careers, sex lives and friendships of four (then three) women trying to make it big in the big city. Sound familiar? Except this time the chicks looked like us. And to be fair, just as SATC lacked main black characters, GFs lacked white ones—sans Toni’s lovah Dr. Todd Garrett. Sound familiar?

NYT Looks for a Different Kind of Fan

The New York Times did a piece seeking out women who were fans of the show from different economic, social, and racial backgrounds:

“I think the ‘Sex and the City’ women do portray the single life in New York City for the most part,” said Alkia Thompson, a 36-year-old single woman who lives in Harlem and plans to see the movie Friday night. “ ‘Sex and the City’ is my little fantasy. When I watch it, it gives me a chance to get away from everyday life. I can escape into their world.

“I mean, who can afford Jimmy Choos? I can’t even afford one pair! But the way New York City is changing now, you’re going to need a lot of money to live here. I don’t mind changes like this, but I don’t like the fact that people are being pushed out.”

Sung ea Parke, a 33-year-old married Korean immigrant who works in a dry cleaner in Jackson Heights, Queens, said her existence could hardly be more different than the lives of Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and especially Samantha, a devotee of no-commitment sex.

“I’ve never experienced that kind of lifestyle, but the drama of the show is very interesting and very funny,” she said. “I’ve seen every show. I understand that kind of life, but I cannot live it. I am married.” [...]

Like most of the women who talked about the series, Ms. Marshall said the friendships among the women and the relationship problems they had with men were what had pulled her in. And like many others, she said she overlooked the fact that the series featured few immigrants or minorities.

“Race,” she said, “is not a factor. It’s a girl thing.”

Another Black Perspective on Sex and The City

On the Spout Blog, Steven Boone talks to three black women about Sex and the City. The article opens:

The most idiotic comment I’ve heard in reference to Sex and the City is, “Who wants to watch a bunch of old ladies having sex? Yuck.” (uttered by a 23 year old co-worker who looked like Wally Cleaver). The second most idiotic comment I’ve heard in reference to Sex and the City is, “That show’s just for rich white chicks.” What rot! There are armies of black women who adore the show and were doing cartwheels in anticipation of the movie. But there is some ambivalence, some trouble among the ranks…

The three women quoted – Annette Lathan, Janelle McNeil, and Susan Lyerly – range in age from 19 to 40 and are in a variety of occupations.

Money quotes:

The show completely changed the way I dress. Best I’ve ever looked in my life. Rich white people knew about stuff like Manolo Blahniks but I didn’t know about it ’til Sex and the City. Inside I feel like that hot, skinny blonde chick. Inside I’m Carrie, but the world doesn’t see that. – Susan Lyerly

I appreciate the show or what it was and don’t try to make it more than it was. In a way, the people behind he show were being small-minded. But what about other minorities? I don’t know why black people would complain so much, because at least Miranda had a black boyfriend at one point. [...]

New York City, for all its gays and liberation, is still segregated. What bothers me more is how we’re portrayed sometimes in these shows. There was one episode where the girls were waiting on line at a club and a black woman was there, all loud and cursing. The producers must have been, like, “Be black, be loud and curse.” – Susan Lyerly

Girlfriends? That was LA. And it was a terrible show. Sex and the City is a great show. Girlfriends was, on some level, the black Sex and the City, but it was fake, a sitcom with a laugh track, where Sex and the City was real. The girls on Girlfriends didn’t even act like real black women. They were white women dipped in chocolate. [Editor raises an eyebrow here- LDP] The question isn’t, “Why not more black shows?” The question is, “Why not more real?” – Susan Lyerly

To me, they should show African-American women like that also. Why can’t it be us also? African-American women have that style, too. They should have given Jennifer Hudson a role as a professional woman, same as them, instead of being a secretary for Carrie. – Janelle McNeil

The problem I have is that they always portray white people to be like that and always portray young black people to be hood and like we’ll never amount to anything, never go far in life, but that’s not true. Even though my generation seems like it’s not going far, there are a lot of people around my age who really are trying to get into the same positions as those white people. I feel that America as a society, as a whole, shouldn’t just down black people because there are very intelligent black people out there, and the images that they show to these little kids is that white people are always the ones who are going to amount to something, they’re the ones who will make all the money. – Janelle McNeil

[A]s far as making unusual strides for black women, The L Word was the show to watch. – Annette Lathan

Gentrification

Reader Naomi C saw the film and sent in this interesting little tidbit:

In a scene from the new “Sex and the City” movie, Miranda scouts out an apartment in Chinatown. She explains to her Ukrainian maid how Chinatown is the new up-and-coming area. Then she sees a white man with a baby walking down the street, exclaims “See! There’s a white man with a baby! Follow him! Let’s see where he’s going!”

I didn’t find much humor in the gentrification displayed there.

A View from Across the Pond

Lemn Sissay, poet and artist at The South Bank centre, is quoted in the Guardian with an apt observation on how television operates:

Like everyone else I had to watch the programme – it had the word ‘sex’ in the title and I am a guy – and to be frank I enjoyed the sex, the women and the city, New York. They’re all gorgeous. But if Sex and the City is as honest about women as it is about race then by watching I was entering the sticky realms of fantasy. Let’s not pretend it was anything else.

Every black American male or female, knew from the start that like the other international hit, Friends, Sex and the City was just not about them. By exclusion from one of the most cosmopolitan and racially mixed cities of the world, the message was abundantly clear – this one is not for you.

Jeez, you cannot get more cosmopolitan than Manhattan: Hispanic, Asian and black people make up more than 50 per cent of the population of the city. You can’t step on a passer-by without having to apologise in four languages.

The truth is, there’s nothing wrong with a show about white girls and their inner city lives – black folks have had their inner city lives portrayed throughout TV’s short history. If there were too many black people in the show it couldn’t be called Sex and the City anyway. It’d have to be called Sex in the Inner City or Sex in the Urban Environment or Sex on the Streets. Yawn.

Asians in the City

Angry Asian Man did a list exploring how many Asians had screentime during the film:

1. Charlotte’s cute adopted daughter from China, Lily, played by Alexandra and Parker Fong (twins). The gals teach her to say “sex.” I guess it had to happen sooner or later.

2. Carrie and Mr. Big’s realtor. An older lady wearing lots of makeup.

3. Woman having wild sex with Samantha’s neighbor. Very, very naked.

4. Man with an extremely impressive resume interviewing for the job of Carrie’s assistant… wearing bright pink heels. Goes from overqualified to emasculated in about nine seconds.

5. Dude with a ponytail, serving Samantha a drink. Seen at a distance. No lines.

[...]

UPDATE: Okay, I totally forgot about the Sikh man driving the cab. Also, there were a handful of scattered Asians roaming around the scene in Chinatown. Of course! Gentrification of the lower east side and all. And that’s it. Those are all the Asians in “the City.” Just like real life, right?

Some Black Fashionista Perspectives

The Fashion Bomb put up a quick piece on the movie. Claire asked her readers ” Were you happy with the ‘sister’ representation???” The commenters verdict? Hated it!

Gina said…

I agree with Anonymous 11.15a. It’s like Patricia Field just sent her to Sears with $200 and a product placement deal with Bag, Borrow, or Steal. Against the backdrop of all the other sartorial wondrousness, Poor St.Louise faded into the background. No pretty dresses, no edgy coats or tops for poor Louise. Just those damned bags. *sigh* I was so looking forward to some non-skinny fashion, too. Oh well.

Brooklyn said…

this is funny because I paid no attention to her until my friend was like what the hell is up with JHUD look then it dawned on me THE BLACK GIRL FROM ST LOUIS=A HOT ASS MESS what is the world coming to must we be misrepresented all the time? I mean bad enough they exclude us from everything but when they do find it in their heart(or lack there of) to include us they represent who we are totally not…oh well I guess until we define who we are others will continue to do it for us….

jetta said…

YSL was one of the greats, he will be missed.
I personally thought they could’ve done ‘better by’ Jennifer Hudson. The film is all about fantasy. The journalist who can afford Manolo Blahnik’s, Christian Dior Dresses, and Chanel bags. So why on earth did they feel the need to ‘keep it real’ with the assistant? They could’ve pushed the envelope with her and really draped some labels on her. Miranda was wearing a Chanel scarf….when, in the series, was she ever so fashionable and label conscious as to wear a Chanel scarf for a walk in the park??
Basically, they did a disservice to Jhud. Maybe ALT should’ve put his LV case down and taken some pain to really style her.

Ridiculous Marketing Tie In

Fabsugar reports on some new trinket to buy:

At Patricia Field online, you can purchase this Custom Carrie Nameplate Necklace ($189). Choose from silver or gold, add a diamond or two, and decide between small, medium, or large font. Look at you, following in Carrie’s (Manolo Blahnik) footsteps!

Or you could say fuck the diamonds and just buy one at the mall.

(Thanks to Xavier, Jasmine, Naomi C and Tze Ming Mok for the tips.)

Looks like the Pied Piper of R & B will continue to walk the streets.

Gina from What About Our Daughters notes some of the comments on predominantly black websites, like Essence:

I think justice was served. We have several of our black men in jail for these crimes, that they actually do commit, but without knowledge. The teenagers today look and dress like grown ups, and there parents see this and don’t care. I don’t think people should do time, when they do not know the person is a minor. Another thing the girl denied that it was her, even if it was her you can only go by what she says. The problem is R Kelly is making to much money doing him and people are jealous. Kelly keep doing you. I’m

-Mona Harris

I know R.Kelly did it but so what! He likes young love oh well!!! She allowed herself to be done like that. Why was she at a grown ass man house anyway.EXACTLY!! She wanted it…they wanted it and it doesnt really matter because he was found not guilty so get over it.Im sure he will do it again i just hope next time he leaves the camera at home…Go R. Kelly!!!yeaaaa

-Queenipoo

JUSTICE WAS SERVED !!!! IT’S PROVEN THE MAN IS INNOCENT…I BELIEVED ALL ALONG THAT TAPE WAS CORRUPT.AND SO WAS THE TESTIMONY OF SPARKLE AND THE LIL MONEY HUNGRY TRAMP WHO JUST WANTED MONEY FROM ANY AND EVERY SOURCE SHE COULD GET IT FROM. THE MOLE ON R.KELLY BACK COULDN’T BE EXPLAINED, WHY IT WAS NOT IN THE TAPE.

-REAL JUSTICE

I think that only God knows what happen.And what does it matter what happened anyway.Its not like R.Kelly forced the girl to have sex and I am so sick of people giving young woman the freedom to do what they want and blame the man for their inpurities. That girl knew exactly what she was doing!Furthermore, not only Kelly should’ve been on trial, but her aunt and mother should be too. Why is a girl that young at R. Kellys home in the first place???It’s neglegence on the parents part as well.So don’t blame Kelly for taking a

-Crystal J.

Gina calls this ignorance personified, I am inclined to agree.

In discussing the case with some of my friends, a few pointed out that it may not have been R. Kelly on the tape. (This was also the main strategy of the defense.) When I asked who they thought it was, they mentioned R.Kelly’s brother, who looks a lot like him. However, Carey Kelly denies being involved. A 2006 report from MTV news states:

A few years back a rumor circulated that R. Kelly planned to claim that it was actually his brother featured on the sex tape that prompted child-pornography charges against the singer. But R. Kelly’s younger brother has a tape — and a few claims — of his own.

Carey Kelly has resurfaced in a new low-budget DVD in which he puts forth a number of allegations against his more famous brother. Chief among them, Carey says R. offered him $50,000, a record deal and a house if he would perjure himself on the witness stand. Previously Carey had expressed concern when he heard that his resemblance to his brother might be used as a defense strategy to cast doubt that it was really the singer on the tape (see “R. Kelly’s Brother: I Support Him But Won’t Take The Fall”).

“I got a call about a year and a half ago,” Carey says on the Drahma Magazine-produced DVD, which was first available on MediaTakeOut.com and was released Tuesday. “My brother wanted me to do some sh– pertaining to this case that would leave me behind bars with a record deal. It doesn’t make sense, so I turned it down. … Since I couldn’t lie for him in a court of law, we’re back to beefing again, and we ain’t brothers no more.”

Carey Kelly also accuses R. Kelly of a litany of other crimes:

Carey also claims that R. abuses his wife (see “R. Kelly, Wife Separate — Petition For Restraining Order Tells Of Alleged Abuse”), tried to molest their other brother’s daughter and molested their 12-year-old second cousin. And if those claims weren’t enough, Carey also says R. is bisexual (“He in the closet for real,” Carey said on Hot 97).

Sista Toldja wrote a long post titled Nobody Loves a Black Girl, which just about sums up my sentiments on the case:

If insanity is, as people like to say, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results…then call me crazy. Cause for all the times the justice system, the media, the Black community and America as a whole have reminded us that they don’t truly care about little Black girls, I actually thought that R. Kelly was gonna be convicted. I feel so stupid right now. Like, smacking myself in the forehead stupid. WHY AM I SURPRISED? It took six years to get the trial to even start, the victim has refused to cooperate, there has never been any real outcry from Black “leaders”, nor victims rights advocacy groups. The man has only recently fallen out of favor with listeners because his music has gotten SO shitty, that even the purveyors of Soulja Boy and Rihanna are like “Hmm, this kinda sucks.” But there are still plenty of people, an embarrassing lot of them in my hometown, who see the Kelly trial verdict as a victory: one less Black male in prison.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! SOME BLACK MEN NEED TO BE IN PRISON. [...]

First of all, the defense presented a piss poor case in Kelly’s favor; in perhaps the most pathetic argument ever heard in the history of law, defense lawyers held the movie “Little Man” up as evidence that CGI technology can be used to digitize someone’s head on to someone else’s body. If I were the judge, I would have ordered that lawyer out of my courtroom immediately.

Secondly, everyone in the world knew it was R. Kelly on the tape and half-the victim’s family came forward like “Yeah, that was our girl and yeah, she was about 14 then.” The girl’s best friend told stories of Kelly giving the girl one to five hundred dollars at a time for shopping trips. I guess the money he ponied up to keep her butt lying to the police was enough to buy a few more pairs of Jordan’s than that.

Dammit. I’ve said all this before, haven’t I? It seems like a waste of my breath now. In the past two years, I’ve written about the R. Kelly fiasco no less than five times. I guess I will let this be the end of it. There is one more element of the case I feel I failed to address. You see, in the SIX FUCKING YEARS it took to get this case botched, I have heard one really disturbing thing from brothers and sisters alike: “She was fast”. Because the girl was a willing participant in the sexual activities on the tape and because “she looked like she knew what she was doing”, a lot of folks have chosen to ignore the girl’s age and the responsibility of the adult in question.

There is a term for sex between willing youths under the age of consent and adults: statutory rape. And it is illegal. This isn’t some obscure law, so why do people (ahem, Black people) want to act like it’s not relevant here? In fact, every time I’ve heard anything about an underage Black girl messing with a grown man, there has been somebody there to say “She was fast”. Yet, I’ve never heard anyone of any race refer White victims of pedophiles that way. Why is that?

I saw the tape when I was a freshman in college. From what I can remember, while it wasn’t a “Superhead vs. Mr. Marcus”-level performance, yes, the girl did look comfortable. It didn’t seem to be her first time doing this sort of thing. But I wouldn’t care if she was putting it down like a porn star, it was illegal and wrong because she was a CHILD and not of the age of consent! It wouldn’t matter if she came to R.Kelly’s house buck naked with a notarized letter from her parents stating that they approved of her actions, it is the legal and moral responsibility of adults to protect and prevent children from having sex with adults. But she didn’t have to chase Kelly, he had a years-long reputation of preying on little girls and she was one of many girls.

We can’t do this to our little girls, y’all. We can’t write them off as “fast”, when they are being taken advantage of.

I hate when women say “I would have known better than that at her age.” Would you really? Yeah, you might not have messed with R. Kelly, but imagine it was one of YOUR teenage crushes or idols. I can only imagine what would have happened in 1998, had Maxwell or Lenny Kravitz or LL or someone else I thought was the bomb came to me (in my most insecure years) and told me I was pretty. What would I do if he wanted to spend time with me, buy me things, ride me around in cars I had only seen on TV and touch me like I was a woman? There is no way I can say honestly that I wouldn’t have at least tried to go with their program. Perhaps fear or intelligence would have set in and stopped me from going too far….or would it? Maybe I would’ve turned on some BET videos and learned how to pop my thang like a pro. Maybe I would have loved every minute of it. Without the guidance of an adult, there are a lot of things 14-year-olds will indulge in that they have no business dealing with.

Edited to Add:

Brownfemipower’s two sentence summary of the whole situation:

R. Kelly was just cleared on all charges.

So I guess that makes the young woman in the video tape a vixen rather than a survivor of rape.

Pretty much.

Your thoughts?

When events in history are adapted for the silver screen, how accurate do we expect them to be? And what version of history does that present?

Clint Eastwood and Spike Lee have apparently gotten into a tiff about the historical accuracy in Eastwood’s films. New York Magazine’s Vulture blog summarizes:

At Cannes a few weeks ago, Lee blasted Eastwood for not including any black actors in his duo of World War II movies, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima. “Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total and there was not one Negro actor on the screen,” Lee said. “If you reporters had any balls you’d ask him why. There’s no way I know why he did that — that was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed it. It’s not like he didn’t know.”

Today Eastwood fires back in an interview with the Guardian, in which the director snaps, “A guy like him should shut his face.” He defends his movies by noting that no black soldiers were among the ones who raised the flag at Iwo Jima, which is true, but not exactly the point — Lee wasn’t demanding that Eastwood change a real-life person’s race. Those movies had plenty of soldiers in them, not all of whom were based on actual people (say, Marines 1–4 in Letters From Iwo Jima) — couldn’t one or two of them have been played by black actors?

The actual Guardian article alluded to in the blog post clarifies Eastwood’s position a bit more:

“Has he ever studied the history?” he asks, in that familiar near-whisper.

The “he” is Spike Lee, and the reason Eastwood is asking is because of something Lee had said about Eastwood’s Iwo Jima movie Flags of Our Fathers, while promoting his own war movie, Miracle at St Anna, about a black US unit in the second world war. Lee had noted the lack of African-Americans in Eastwood’s movie and told reporters: “That was his version. The negro version did not exist.”

Eastwood has no time for Lee’s gripes. “He was complaining when I did Bird [the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker]. Why would a white guy be doing that? I was the only guy who made it, that’s why. He could have gone ahead and made it. Instead he was making something else.” As for Flags of Our Fathers, he says, yes, there was a small detachment of black troops on Iwo Jima as a part of a munitions company, “but they didn’t raise the flag. The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn’t do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people’d go, ‘This guy’s lost his mind.’ I mean, it’s not accurate.”

Lee shouldn’t be demanding African-Americans in Eastwood’s next picture, either. Changeling is set in Los Angeles during the Depression, before the city’s make-up was changed by the large black influx. “What are you going to do, you gonna tell a fuckin’ story about that?” he growls. “Make it look like a commercial for an equal opportunity player? I’m not in that game. I’m playing it the way I read it historically, and that’s the way it is. When I do a picture and it’s 90% black, like Bird, I use 90% black people.”

Eastwood pauses, deliberately – once it would have provided him with the beat in which to spit out his cheroot before flinging back his poncho – and offers a last word of advice to the most influential black director in American movies. “A guy like him should shut his face.”

Well, well, Clint, tell us how you really feel.

I find both Eastwood and Lee’s comments fascinating as historical truth is a strange thing to discern. I can see Lee’s perspective clearly – non white people often find that their contributions to history are whitewashed, relegated to footnotes, or omitted completely. And to continue this view of history – after certain “facts” have been disproven, or new information has come to light about the role of people of color in certain conflicts – is a smack in the face.

Eastwood, from his quotes, appears to be both baffled and resentful that Lee is advocating for a more inclusive view of history because in his mind, research points to a certain set of white characters who were involved in this event – end of story. However, he is right on one count – the flag raisers at Iwo Jima were not black. (Eastwood did not provide a justification for the second movie set in the same period – that movie apparently focused on the lives of Japanese soliders.*)

Is Eastwood doing the best job with the information he has? Is the onus on white directors to provide a full version of history? Or is their main goal just to tell the story?

(Thanks to readers Joan and Marjannaa for the tips!)

*Edited to provide the correct information.

As I wrote last week, my inbox was filled with so many tips I didn’t have time to tackle them before the week was out. So, here are a few of the ones we can get done quickly:

Rachel Ray and the Paisely “Islamic Jihad” Scarf

Rachel Ray is wearing a scarf. She is not sending a message for Islamic Jihad!

Will someone please tell that to Dunkin’ Donuts and Michelle Malkin?

Jehanzeb says:

This is nothing but shameless racism. I really hope more people speak out about this because it is not only outrageous, it also reflects the ridiculous amount of paranoia and xenophobia that’s tarnishing our society. Yesterday morning, I heard about Rachael Ray’s new commercial for Dunkin’ Donuts getting pulled because of complaints from the right-wing blogosphere, specifically from the notoriously anti-Islamic and xenophobe Michelle Malkin. What were the complaints about? Well, according to Malkin, the black-and-white colored scarf worn by Rachael Ray in the commercial heavily resembled the keffiyeh, which she defined as the “traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad.”

Are you kidding me? The commercial was yanked because of a black-and-white patterned scarf with paisley designs? The bigots from the right-wing were so offended and worried that Dunkin’ Donuts was “promoting terrorism” or “Palestinian jihad” because their sponsor wore a scarf?

Alisa says:

Two: Where are the stories about how terrifying it is that we live in a country where right-wing nutjobs dictate what TV hosts can and cannot wear in advertisements for donuts?

And

Three: Since when is it okay for us to hate any group of people based upon nationality, religion or scarf preferences? Am I the only one who sees Dunkin Donuts ad-pull as a nod to fascism?

I would say something like boycott Dunkin’ Donuts to protest their stupidity at bowing to the demands of petty wardrobe fascists, but I can’t remember the last time I ate there.

Gawking at the Indigenous in the Amazon

From Yahoo:

Amazon Indians from one of the world’s last uncontacted tribes have been photographed from the air, with striking images released on Thursday showing them painted bright red and brandishing bows and arrows.

Survival International has the scoop on what’s been going down in that region:

A French company is locked in a legal battle with Amazon Indians over its plans to drill for oil in parts of the jungle inhabited by some of the world’s last uncontacted tribes. A hearing is due on 30 May.

The company, Perenco, is working in a remote part of the Peruvian Amazon where at least two uncontacted tribes live. It is believed to be the biggest oil find in Peru in thirty years and the Peruvian president, Alan Garcia, has expressed hopes it will transform the Peruvian economy.

The case has been filed by Peru’s Amazon Indian organisation, AIDESEP. It urges the judge to prohibit Perenco and other companies from working in the region and making contact with uncontacted tribes.

A quick scan of their website reveals articles from all over the globe, based on efforts to preserve the last bits of traditional lands and culture for these groups of indigenous people.

Mena Suvari Gets Cornrows to Play Black Character

Dodai (of Jezebel) says:

The plot is based on a true story — the woman’s name was Chante Mallard, and she hit a homeless man in 2001 after she spent an evening smoking pot, drinking and taking Ecstasy with friends. Her boyfriend later ditched the body in a park. Mallard is now serving a 50-year jail sentence. Mallard, it should be noted, is black. Mena Suvari is not. But she does wear cornrows to play the role of Brandi. [...]

There’s a lack of parts for women in Hollywood altogether — do actresses of color have a chance if white women can just put on some corn rows (or a curly wig) and play “a particular kind of girl from a particular place” ?

Suvari said, “Look, I could put on a bikini and make a lot of money,” she says. “But I’m trying to stimulate myself as an actor.”

Oh really? Somehow, I get the feeling the bikini may have been the smarter choice.

Sharon Stone Learns About Karma

Sharon Stone decided to share some special celebrity understanding on how the world works in Cannes:

“They’re not being nice to the Dalai Lama, who is a friend of mine,” Stone said on camera at the time, discussing the Chinese. “And then all of this earthquake and all this happened and I thought, is that karma? When you’re not nice, that bad things happen to you?”

Disgrasian says:

Although, hmm. There’s just something–and I haven’t quite put my finger on what it is–about nonchalantly attributing a natural disaster that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions of Chinese citizens… to karma. A massive “punishment” unleashed upon innocent citizens as payback for the decisions being made by their ruling Communist government.

FabSugar says:

Well Sharon, karma’s a bitch and her China Dior ads have been pulled as a result. As well, the house of Dior is distancing itself from the actress, who has since apologized. Her words: “In the course of the interview I made inappropriate remarks and for any harm created towards the Chinese people I am extremely sad and apologize,” Stone said. It is still to be determined if the actress will continue to represent the house.

Stone herself said:

It was only after reviewing the video in her home toward the end of the interview that it seemed to dawn on Ms. Stone why her comments had caused such an uproar. “I had absolutely no intention of saying that, which I did say,” she said, “and now, looking at it on the tape, I look like a complete ding-dong.”

Agreed!

Jake Gyllenhaal to Play Prince of Persia in Movie Adaptation

This is the Prince of Persia (based on the video game art):

This is Jake Gyllenhaal, who was tapped to play him in the movie adaptation of the game:

And here are the Arab American Actors who will not be playing the Price of Persia:

Al Issmail

Philip Shabaz

Jake Yacobi

Haaz Sleiman

Better luck next time, gents! I’m sure the next great role for Arab-Americans is just around the corner! [/sarcasm]

(Thanks to readers Allison, Alexandra, Marge Twain, Jess, Joan, and lfresh for sending in your tips!)

In a recent interview with People magazine, retroacculturated Latina actress Eva Longoria recalled how, as the darkest of four sisters, she was constantly referred to as “La prieta faya” [sic], which then the magazine translates as “the ugly dark one.”

Either Mrs. Longoria’s family flunked Spanish in junior high (faya is not a real word; I want to believe she meant “fea”) or she actually said “fea” but People’s editors didn’t bother to have sister mag People en Español help with the spell check.

Either way, the whole thing looks very “faya” to me. And don’t get me started on the “dark ugly one” part. I will let that one for you to munch on.

Ay, ay, ay!

Reader Natalia sends us this casting notice posted by Perez Hilton:

Here’s the casting notice an industry insider sent our way:

Casting for Models for Look book Shoot- Looking for diverse, multi-cultural, mixed races, an “off beauty” is good as well as “beautiful”.. No Blondes please.

CASTING FOR: The Look Book Shoot for 6126 – a new contemporary collection of leggings designed by Lindsay Lohan

USAGE: web, look book, worldwide
RATE: trade
DATE of SHOOT: May 9th 6am call time in Los Feliz (address TBC)
CASTING DATE: May 8, 2008 430pm
ADDRESS OF CASTING: 450 N Roxbury Drive (Little Santa Monica and Roxbury) 6th floor (Membrane Offices) ask for Sarah or Ken.

No phone calls please.
Please do not send models to the casting unless they are available for shoot and call time and they agree to trade terms.

C-H-E-A-P.

Part of me wants to just be happy that multi-ethnic models are getting any kind of play whatsoever. Even if it is for no pay.

But the other part of me thinks Dov Charney- style fetishization.

What say you?

(Photo Credit: BuzzBeyotch)

Latoya’s Note: If you have a good grasp of world trade, the issues on the African Continent, and media bias as it relates to first world nations, read this article as it is presented. If you are unfamiliar with any of these concepts, please scroll down to where I say “Part of the solution is asking the right questions.” That section will explain why I take offense to a lot of the seemingly innocuous parts of the text.

In the last month, I’ve spent about 8 hours of my life stuck under a hair dryer. Imprisoned under this evil little bonnet hood, my only escape and sanctuary are the magazines stocked by the salon. I’ve perused countless copies of W, Everyday with Rachel Ray, and Allure – magazines I would not pick up on my own, but quickly become interesting reading once I run out of other material.

A couple of weeks ago I had run through all those and decided to turn to Vanity Fair. It’s heft appealed to me, as did the long form articles. I skipped past a lot of the front of the book pieces, thoroughly enjoyed an investigative article on how the Monsanto corporation is locking down the global seed market, and stopped at the cover profile on Madonna.

The photos pulled me in, with their stark, bare treatment of Madonna’s form juxtaposed against steel which reminded me of Atlas Shrugged.

I read the opening paragraph:

The world is a series of rooms, which are arranged like concentric circles, or rooms within rooms, joined by courtyards and antechambers, and in the room at the center of all those rooms Madonna sits alone, in a white dress, dreaming of Africa.

Oh hell no.

Remember that old Margaret Cho joke, where she says if you’re Asian-American and you’re watching TV, and you hear that “wa-na-na-na-na-na na-na-na GONG!” sound you know you’re fucked?

I get that same feeling when an article describes a white person dreaming about Africa.

Especially if they aren’t fondly reminiscing over their childhood spent overseas.

But who knows? I could be wrong, right? I continued reading.

To reach her, you must wait for a sign. When it comes, if you are pure of heart, you begin to move toward Madonna, and move fast. One moment you are in Connecticut, wondering if it will snow, the next moment you are swept up by a force greater than yourself. You’re in a car on the highway, flashing past sleepy towns, moving closer and closer to the center, which you approach deftly and humbly, in the manner of a pilgrim. Like a pilgrim, you set off before first light. Like a pilgrim, you remove your shoes—to pass through security at the airport. Like a pilgrim, you read and reread sacred texts: profiles and reviews, the first published in the early 1980s, the most recent published just a second ago, which constitute a kind of record, the good news, the Gospel of Madonna.

Okay, so we’re taking a religious tone to the whole affair. Fine.

The author continues to describe the major milestones in Madonna’s career, criticism, and her continued reinvention. Then, the piece shifts to describe her Madgesty’s newest project:

The lights went down, and for 90 minutes I watched a documentary Madonna has written and produced, I Am Because We Are, which is African folk wisdom that means something like “It takes a village.” It too is about community—about identity and how it’s rooted in place. The movie sings of Malawi, a landlocked little nation in sub-Saharan Africa, ravaged by aids, filled with orphans—a world without adults that has become, in her middle years, the great cause of Madonna’s life. With this movie, it seems, she hopes not only to raise awareness but also to explain her own obsession with the motherless children of Africa.

Okay, I’m with you.

It opens with Madonna walking in a crowd of Africans.

Ick. Okay, I have a problem with people conflating certain countries with Africa as a whole, but as a broad descriptor, I guess it will stand.

Then her voice, which is the voice of the upper Midwest painted in Oxford glaze: “People always ask me why I chose Malawi. And I tell them, I didn’t. It chose me. I got a phone call from a woman named Victoria Keelan. She was born and raised in Malawi. She told me that there were over one million children orphaned by aids. She said there weren’t enough orphanages. And that the children were everywhere. Living on the streets. Sleeping under bridges. Hiding in abandoned buildings. Being abducted, kidnapped, raped. She said it was a state of emergency. She sounded exhausted and on the verge of tears. I asked her how I could help. She said, You’re a person with resources. People pay attention to what you say and do. I felt embarrassed. I told her I didn’t know where Malawi was. She told me to look it up on a map, and then she hung up on me. I decided to investigate, and I ended up finding out much more than I bargained for, about Malawi, about myself, about humanity.”

Interesting backstory to the film. I can understand receiving a call with a plight so great you feel compelled to help. I am a little less fond of the next bit:

If anyone ever won a lottery, it’s this child, David, who one moment was living in poverty in Africa and the next had been flown to a palace in the great frozen North. You see him in the film, bowlegged and stocky in the endearing way of the destitute man-child, looking adult, wizened.

Okay, I get it. Tragedy, poverty, redemption.

It was this adoption—the fact that Madonna went into an orphanage of aids-infected children and somehow came out with a child who did not have aids and is not an orphan—that set off the furor, especially in the British press, that the movie seems meant to address. Laws had been brushed aside, the request expedited. As if the dynamic of colonialism or First World/Third World were being played out between this one superstar and this one child.

Now I am wondering how she managed that. Good call on the dynamic of the First World/Third World, though I am a little wary of painting the First World with a savior brush. (More on that in a minute.)

Then David’s father, Yohane Banda, turned up. He told reporters he had placed his son in the orphanage only temporarily, and let him be adopted at the urging of authorities. “The government people told me it would be a good thing for the country,” he told The Christian Science Monitor. “They said he would come back educated and be able to help us.”

Hmm…okay. Starting to get that sinking feeling, but everything is technically correct. David will most likely have a better shot living with Madonna than staying in Malawi.

What a strange life for David, being carried off to London—like Pocahontas, the beautiful Indian girl found in wild America—because, as Conrad wrote of London, “this also has been one of the dark places of the earth.” Like Pocahontas, who marveled at the brick buildings and endless streets and was shown off and fêted, but still lonely, because the Empire has everything but what is most important—a kind of purity or righteous connection to the land.

Yes, they did just compare him to Pocahontas.

Yes, they did say “Wild America.”

Yes, they are playing into that whole “poor noble savage” shit with language.

The condescension goes deeper:

“Africa is not doing great,” Madonna told me, “but, on the other hand, how much have they contributed to the destruction of the world? Nothing compared to what we have, and we have everything.” In other words, Madonna brings this boy into her house and gives him everything, but gets something in return: a living totem of life as it was lived before machines.

Oh, how big of you all to remind us that the modern world is not all shine and gleaming gold.

Wait, it gets better:

When I began to ask Madonna about Britney—specifically in relation to the paparazzi—she stopped me (before I even said Britney’s name) with a raised hand, saying, “Yes, I know. I know exactly what you’re going to say. It’s very painful. Which leads us back to our question: When you think about the way people treat each other in Africa, about witchcraft and people inflicting cruelty and pain on each other, then come back here and, you know, people taking pictures of people when they’re in their homes, being taken to hospitals, or suffering, and selling them, getting energy from them, that’s a terrible infliction of cruelty. So who’s worse off? You know what I mean?”

Because she’s obviously been to all 53 countries, despite only mentioning Malawi.

And because obviously, all people in Africa practice Witchcraft. I guess someone needs to contact Wikipedia:

Different Africans profess a wide variety of religious beliefs[46] and it is difficult to conclude accurate statistics about religious demography in Africa as a whole. Estimations from World Book Encyclopedia claim that there are 150 million African Muslims and 130 million African Christians, while Encyclopedia Britannica estimates that approximately 46.5% of all Africans are Christians and another 40.5% are Muslims with roughly 11.8% of Africans following indigenous African religions. A small number of Africans are Hindu or Baha’i, or have beliefs from the Judaic tradition. Examples of African Jews are the Beta Israel, Lemba peoples and the Abayudaya of Eastern Uganda.

African Muslims and Christians? Oh no, that’s way too normal, better to talk about that old time tribal religion from quaint, backwards lands.

The piece goes on to discuss Madonna’s current projects, influences for her new album, and ideas for the future. Her last thought on Africa is:

Madonna spoke of Africa: “If you’ve got one iota of compassion, you can’t ignore what’s going on. You have to figure out a way to be a part of the solution.”

Interesting that she should say that.

One has to be part of the solution, right?

Part of the solution is asking the right questions.

So here is my main problem with the article – it never answers the logical follow up questions to the statements presented. The two largest ones are never even engaged.

Why, exactly, is Malawi poor and unable to provide for its children?

And why, exactly, are so many people dying of AIDS to leave over a million child orphans?

Care to guess?

I found this article fascinating as it demonstrates the assumptions made by the Western world when reporting on issues in developing nations. Oftentimes we do not ask the bigger questions and we do not ever hear the full answer.

For example, take the first question. Remember back when I created the Activist Resolutions and pledged to stop talking about Africa as if it were a country and not a continent? And how about a month after that, I stumbled across that New York Times article on how the IMF fucks over African nations? Let’s revisit that for a second.

The New York Times article comes with a provocative headline: “Ending Famine By Ignoring the Experts.”

Malawi hovered for years at the brink of famine. After a disastrous corn harvest in 2005, almost five million of its 13 million people needed emergency food aid.

But this year, a nation that has perennially extended a begging bowl to the world is instead feeding its hungry neighbors. It is selling more corn to the World Food Program of the United Nations than any other country in southern Africa and is exporting hundreds of thousands of tons of corn to Zimbabwe.

In Malawi itself, the prevalence of acute child hunger has fallen sharply. In October, the United Nations Children’s Fund sent three tons of powdered milk, stockpiled here to treat severely malnourished children, to Uganda instead. “We will not be able to use it!” Juan Ortiz-Iruri, Unicef’s deputy representative in Malawi, said jubilantly.

Farmers explain Malawi’s extraordinary turnaround — one with broad implications for hunger-fighting methods across Africa — with one word: fertilizer.

Over the past 20 years, the World Bank and some rich nations Malawi depends on for aid have periodically pressed this small, landlocked country to adhere to free market policies and cut back or eliminate fertilizer subsidies, even as the United States and Europe extensively subsidized their own farmers. But after the 2005 harvest, the worst in a decade, Bingu wa Mutharika, Malawi’s newly elected president, decided to follow what the West practiced, not what it preached.

Keep going:

The quick and dirty explanation is this: each of these organizations purports to assist developing nations improve their global standing by lending money (the IMF), attempting to reduce poverty (the World Bank) and governing the rules of international trade (the WTO).

The country’s successful use of subsidies is contributing to a broader reappraisal of the crucial role of agriculture in alleviating poverty in Africa and the pivotal importance of public investments in the basics of a farm economy: fertilizer, improved seed, farmer education, credit and agricultural research.

Malawi, an overwhelmingly rural nation about the size of Pennsylvania, is an extreme example of what happens when those things are missing. As its population has grown and inherited landholdings have shrunk, impoverished farmers have planted every inch of ground. Desperate to feed their families, they could not afford to let their land lie fallow or to fertilize it. Over time, their depleted plots yielded less food and the farmers fell deeper into poverty.

Malawi’s leaders have long favored fertilizer subsidies, but they reluctantly acceded to donor prescriptions, often shaped by foreign-aid fashions in Washington, that featured a faith in private markets and an antipathy to government intervention.

These expert organizations continued to misdiagnose the problems of Malawi until their leader finally decided to break from tradition and try something radically different – to do what the country required, rather than what free-market theorists wanted. The result? Increased self-sufficence! Go Malawai!

The harvest also helped the poor by lowering food prices and increasing wages for farm workers. Researchers at Imperial College London and Michigan State University concluded in their preliminary report that a well-run subsidy program in a sensibly managed economy “has the potential to drive growth forward out of the poverty trap in which many Malawians and the Malawian economy are currently caught.”

Progress! So, what did the US say?

The United States, which has shipped $147 million worth of American food to Malawi as emergency relief since 2002, but only $53 million to help Malawi grow its own food, has not provided any financial support for the subsidy program, except for helping pay for the evaluation of it. Over the years, the United States Agency for International Development has focused on promoting the role of the private sector in delivering fertilizer and seed, and saw subsidies as undermining that effort.

But Alan Eastham, the American ambassador to Malawi, said in a recent interview that the subsidy program had worked “pretty well,” though it displaced some commercial fertilizer sales.

Why is the global food crisis so severe?

Why are so many African nations starving and in debt?

Could it be that donor organizations that were supposed to lend them money to develop their countries actually prescribe horrible advice that takes the emphasis away from self-sustaining agriculture and directs money toward purchasing food from other countries? And could it be that this forced reliance on other nations for food has created a cycle of debt and payment with other nations without providing for a way out? And could it be that many of the nations involved are either not able to turn down the billions of dollars in development funds it would lose by defying the experts? Or that some countries have leaders who have no interest in what is best for their people, but would rather just keep collecting the development dollars and let their people starve? Hmmm…

Back to the second question – why are there so many orphans from AIDS?

Now, I don’t have the hard hitting evidence that I did above with Malawi. I do have some vague connections though that may play a hand in the spread of AIDS in Africa – the global gag rule, the reduction of foreign family planning services abroad, and awarding government funds to faith-based programs which may or may not promote abstinence only education in their foreign service work.

So, in light of that information, what is the way to a solution?

It is nice to see a celebrity raising awareness about a cause, but wouldn’t that time be better spent lobbying the IMF/World Bank/WTO to change their policies toward African nations? Or lobbying congress to lift the global gag rule.

One of the main problems, from where I sit, is the general reluctance of people in the media to challenge their bias in reference to developing nations. This is why we have reporting on horrible catastrophes and the darker side of the human condition without any explanation of why or how these things happened. How does a country have a food crisis that spans ten years? How do we explain that? We do we gloss over key information like the role of the IMF/WTO/World Bank in the global economy?

It is because we like to think that America always plays fair.

It is because we like to think people are poor because of actions they took, not because of the circumstances that they were dealt.

Because we would rather flick through a magazine and order a bracelet to end poverty instead of critically analyzing why some problems never seem to get solved.

And people like Madonna, and this reporter for Vanity Fair, seem to buy into this idea, that Africa is a dark continent begging for a savior, never realizing that our governments directly contribute to their plight.

But at the end of the day, who cares? After all, the article isn’t about Malawi. It’s about Madonna.

And she’s got an album to sell.