Awkward Moments with People who are "Not Racists"

Over the past few days, I've been gritting my teeth in dealing with a person at work who seems to not understand that some jokes aren't funny. I guess this person has become very familiar with me, maybe too familiar. I tend to be a person who can tolerate a certain amount of ignorance, usually because some of these ignorant folks know when to draw the line (usually when they get the sideways glance or the "that's not funny look"). But some people are just too ignorant to know that they are really that stupid.

I know that we live in a time period where many people claim that we, as Americans are "too sensitive". I don't think it's a coincidence that this time period just happens to be during the tenure of our nations first Black president. While jokes at the expense of political figures and individuals in positions of  authority are nothing new (George W. Bush was the butt of plenty during his time in office), the type of jokes about President Obama seem to not only hinge on people's opinion about him, but heavily on his race. Jokes about his policies hang on race as well. My coworker said to me the morning after a recent state of the union address: "Someone said the only thing that was missing from Obama's speech last night was him asking 'Do you want fries with that?'". I didn't quite get the joke so I asked him to explain. He said: "You know, because everyone who voted for Obama works at McDonald's" (that joke being told to a person who voted for Obama and who obviously does not work for McDonald's).On the surface, this is hardly a racist comment; there are plenty of white Americans that work for McDonald's. But in the context of the joke, you can definitely recognize the intent. And this example is very mild compared to some of the other comments and jokes I'm sure many of us have heard.

Some will say "it's just jokes". I disagree. Many people who either tell these jokes or think these type of jokes are funny shroud their intent with that mantra. Others cry freedom of speech or say that we have the right to express our views even if they are offensive. But when you look at the way indifference towards others is viewed today, these arguments don't stand up in most cases. It is socially unacceptable to call gay people "faggots" when just a few years ago, that word was used freely  and accepted by many. Even saying that a certain action is "gay" is looked upon unfavorably. So is the use the word "retarded" when speaking of people with learning disabilities or in regards to an action viewed as dumb or unintelligent. There has been no national debate on the use of these words or the views that are associated with the people that these words were once used to describe. Jokes about these groups of people are deemed taboo by most. Yet jokes regarding our Black president and those who voted for him, namely minorities, spark debates with those who find them offensive and those who believe America has gotten soft, too sensitive.

A common retort amongst those who find themselves in defense of these jokes or statements is that they're "not racists". The problem here is that you don't have to necessarily be racist to be offensive. One need not be racist to have racist views. If one has the viewpoint that they are free to be offensive if they choose to be, then doesn't the same right exist for those who the one may offend? The climate in this country in recent years has grown, in some areas, to be intolerable to insensitive views and practices. But it seems that the topic of race, since it includes to a very large extent the political climate in this country, gets grouped into the right of Americans to disagree with the government. So all the offensive jokes and comments directed towards president Obama and his administration, which in turn includes all Black Americans, are seemingly disguised under the cloak of discontent. So we end up with discussions that aim to "educate" close minded individuals on "race in America". CNN broadcasts a weeks worth of programming dedicated to understanding what it means to be 'Black in America'. We have profiles on famous Black celebrities, leaders and even ordinary Americans to give insight to those who "may not understand" the everyday experiences of Black citizens in this country. You have Black politicians, Barack Obama included, trying to relate to all Americans without alienating one particular group. You have people being described as "too Black" or "not Black enough". Controversy looms when issues arise concerning civil rights and our Black president may or may not want to speak on the issue. Debates arise over what aresocially accepted terms to refer to Black people as. This in 2013, not 1955 when one shouldn't need 'sensitivity training' to know what to say nor how to act around those who are of a different color, gender or sexual orientation. People shouldn't have trouble differentiating between real life actions of people of any race verses what they may see on television or in the movies. Yet general ignorance is often said to be the cause of situations that come up, like with the Paula Deens and Rick Perrys of the world. Black stereotypes are often the said to be the reason why Black people are depicted and reacted to the way we are. Any exceptions to these are classified as 'out of the norm' or exceptions to the rule when the complete opposite is commonplace more times than not. An explanation of this is not even necessary yet here I am writing about it, again.

So, what does a Black person do in that awkward moment when confronted with a joke or a comment by someone who isn't a racist, but brings an offensive joke or comment to them? In my opinion, since such jokes or comments are commonplace, any reaction will do. Adverse or not, if one is ready to say and/ or do whatever it is that they feel in the name of freedom of speech, they should be ready for whatever response they get. That is, since we live in a free country.

The N-word 2013: Is it Really That Serious?

I thought about some controversial way to title this blog, something like "Nigger, Niggaz, Nigga" to display the many different ways it's used this day in age. But I decided against it. I didn't want the seriousness of this topic to be diluted with, what I feel are dumb explanations and interpolations of an offensive word.

Before I continue, let me state that I am guilty of using this word in pretty much everyday conversation. I use it as a term of endearment to close Black male friends of mine, I use it to describe the way society still views Black people in many circumstances and I use it to differentiate some Black people from other Black people. I've even used it in various ways to reference myself. I have no justification for it and I won't make any excuses for my use of it. It's wrong. With that being said, it's wrong for anyone to use the word, just like it's wrong to curse. But many people use it. Some use it to demean dark skinned people, others use it because they are used to it being a part of their vocabulary. This word has been the subject of controversy for decades and I don't see that changing. The word 'nigger' is here to stay.

2013 has been an interesting year for the N-word and for the way society views race in America. Most notably, Paula Deen and the Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman trail have put race in the forefront in a way we haven't seen in quite some time. Since Paula Deen's comments ("Yes, of course", when asked if she's ever used the N-word) and her subsequent fall from TV cooking grace, many people have come to the defense of her and others, namely white people, who have used the word publicly and have been vilified for it. People have said that the word 'nigger' doesn't mean the same thing today that it did 50 years ago. People have justified their use of it by saying that Black people call each other nigger all the time. Some people have said white people can't use the word at all. Others have wondered why anyone would want to use it. Still, many people say things like this get blown way out of proportion and even blame it on reverse racism ( a term, by the way, that I personally despise).

So what's the big deal about the dreaded N-word? It sounds mysterious whenever it's printed or said that way (at least I think so!). Well, for one, it's a word that many Black people automatically associate with racism. The word has no positive connotation at all in the English language, or any language for that matter. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary's first definition for the word is "usually offensive: a black person". It's second definition is "usually offensive: a member of any dark skinned race". The third definition? "A member of a socially disadvantaged class of people". That is the definition of the word. Just because people have tried to dilute it by trying to change the way it's viewed in society doesn't make a difference. As a Black person, if another Black person calls me nigger and I don't know that person, it would offend me. As a kid, I remember my mom calling me a nigger after I did something stupid. To this day, the memory of that hurts a little bit because I knew my mom was seriously disappointed in me.

I grew up listening to rappers like Nas and groups like Wu-Tang who used the word in their lyrics, so as a fan, it became part of my speech. But that doesn't change what the words true meaning is. The word was created to break down a person who was considered to be a nigger. Words like 'colored' and 'Negro' were used in an attempt to be more 'polite' to people of color. But anyone who's ever been called colored or Negro by a person who wasn't Black doesn't even view those words as more polite than being called a nigger. So it should be pretty clear why so many people, Black people in particular, take offense when people like Paula Deen so nonchalantly admit to their usage of the word. But because of the acceptance of the word in the Black community as a term of endearment in some cases, the consistency of Black people being opposed to the use of the word often comes into question. When Michael Richards, the actor who played Cosmo Kramer on 'Seinfeld' went on a nigger yelling tirade during a stand up routine in a Los Angeles comedy club in 2006, it was a hot topic and many Black people who loved the Seinfeld TV show stopped watching it. But ask many people today and they will say it's a moot point by now and pretty much a forgotten thing. Then you have people like Tim Allen who defend Paula Deen's use of the word because the Black actors that he's worked with use the word so freely. He also asked that, as a person who is "clearly not racist,...how can nigger be bad coming out of my mouth?"

I look at it this way. Paula Deen lost her show because her sponsors know the buying power of Black people in this country. They did not want to lose any potential dollars due to the casual ignorance of a TV personality who was too dumb to understand the cutthroat nature of Corporate America. She got on TV and pleaded with whoever would listen to believe she wasn't a racist. She wasn't sorry that she used the word, she was sorry it cost her her job. Most of her viewers still support her, because many of them feel just like she does. There are Black people who feel like she was treated unfairly and they are entitled to their opinion. But I feel that any white person who uses the word or wants to use the word should be prepared for whatever consequences come with that.

But some may ask: "Really, what's the big deal?" As I mentioned before, some of music's biggest stars use the word  freely in their lyrics. Quentin Tarentino along with other directors, Black and white, use it in their movies whether it is a historical piece or not. White teens who emulate their favorite rappers may call their friends 'nigger'. People of all races, when singing along to their favorite rap song sing right through the word. So would the fact that numerous media outlets and people use this word so freely soften is historical significance and meaning? Not in 2013, maybe not ever. I personally don't ever want to see the day when it is acceptable for a white person to use the word in any shape, form or fashion. But I would be remissed and hypocritical if I didn't acknowledge the fact that if nigger is ever going to be abolished from everyday language, it's going to have to start with Black people. Rappers are going to have to stop using it in their music. Everyday Black people like me are going to have to stop calling each other nigger. People in general are going to have to be more responsible in their use of the word. It does have a place, in reminding us how hurtful and destructive that word is and was in the past. In short, people are going to have to care about it more, not just when a famous white person says it and it's the hot topic all over the morning and evening news. Yes, the use of nigger in 2013 is really that serious. We just all have to admit it.

Obama on Race in America: What Does He Know?

It's pretty certain that whenever President Barack Obama speaks, he's going to receive some sort of criticism. When he speaks on the economic crisis, some feel he's pandering to the wealthy under the guise of caring about the poor. When he speaks on jobs, many feel he's saying what needs to be said while playing politics with his opponents. And while opinions when it comes to the political aspect of these topics and others like it can be argued either way, sometimes politics doesn't play a part. Or, at least, it shouldn't.

Obama's comments on Trayvon Martin last week was a candid look into a man who wasn't just addressing the nation not as the first Black President of these United States of America. He was speaking as a Black man who grew up during a time when racial tension in this country was at a peak. As the son of a Black man from Nigeria and white woman from the U.S., the challenges Obama faced growing up can be compared to many who grew up during that time. In some cases, as a person of mixed heritage, Obama more than likely faced criticism from not only white Americans but from Blacks as well. So in addressing the topic of race in this country and by saying "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago", he broached the topic from an interesting angle. Not only has he experienced the "door lock" and "purse clutching" scenarios, he grew up with people (his grandparents, both white) who may have at one time or another felt threatened by Black people, particularly Black males. As the nation's first Black President, I'm sure he's encountered episodes of racial discrimination, either directly or indirectly. When dealing with our nations politicians, mostly old white men who may have at one time supported racial discrimination, the specter of racism looms heavily in the background. So, in my opinion, there was no better person to speak directly to the nation on this particular subject than President Obama.

Not surprisingly, his detractors would disagree. Directly after his comments were aired live from the briefing room inside the White House, the news shows were on fire. One guest said that Obama's comments were inappropriate, given the fact that protests over the George Zimmerman's 'Not Guilty' verdict were due to take place the very next day. He went as far as to say that his comment were giving those protesters the green light to be violent. Others agreed, saying that Obama was intentionally trying to further divide the country along racial lines. It was even said that Obama made those comments not as the President for all Americans, but as the President for Black people. The criticism seemed to be politically and racially charged, with the racial aspect probably weighing heavily on the political opinions of some of those who felt like Obama had crossed the line.

Presidents have often made comments regarding issues not directly related to the White House or to the day to day running of the country. It's always been a sensitive area because many people feel that the opinions of politicians regarding the day to day lives of Americans are usually out of touch with the reality we all face. While this can be said to be true in some cases, this is a unique situation where President Obama knew the reality in which he was speaking of. In fact, he knew it well. He faces it everyday. But it was more than Obama just making comments in defense of Black America. This was the leader of what is considered to be the greatest nation in the world by many, trying to give some insight into why many Black Americans were saddened and angered over the Trayvon Martin case. This was a Black president trying to explain to a nation of many races the feelings that most Black Americans have regarding race in this country. When the slaves were brought to America, they were viewed as savages, mainly because of the way they were presented on the slave trading blocks. They spoke a language unfamiliar to white Americans of the time. They were stripped of their dignity and their clothing, reduced to an almost animal like demeanor purposely to keep the distinction of the superiority of the white man, similar to what was done to the Native Americans earlier in history. Through the generations, as Black people came up through society, that imagery hasn't really changed much. Sure, we have a Black President, but young Black men are still viewed as "savages". This opinion is evident in the comments that have been made in criticism of the protests that have taken place. Comments such as "Black people kill Black people everyday," and "You have Black men killing Black children in Chicago" show how some white Americans still view Black people, especially males, in that inferior cast. The fear of rioting was pronounced. Even if you just look at the way Zimmerman's defense attorneys aggressively painted Trayvon Martin as this "wannabe gangster" or thug looking for a fight, it shows that there are still many Americans that accept this view of Black men in America as the norm and see Black men like President Obama as an anomaly. Even Black Americans are guilty of a similar perception, surprised that a presidential candidate like, then candidate, Obama even existed. Some Black (and white) comedians used that notion as punchline fodder (Katt Williams said: "You mean to tell me he don't have no baby mama drama, don't owe nobody $5!", etc.). So when Obama took it upon himself to address what can be seen as the incident that may cause another American racial divide, it was more than appropriate. It was necessary.

Obama also questioned the Stand Your Ground law, which was also met with ire. As a lawyer, Obama knows the law and should be able to speak on it freely. But politicians and citizens alike felt it was out of line for a President to question a law of the land, much like Lincoln drew the ire of many during that time when he questioned slavery. But if the President, with and extensive knowledge of law, can't question questionable laws in this country, then who can? In Florida, the Stand Your Ground law, is vague at best. It leaves too much room for interpretation on when it can and cannot be used. So much so that the defense team that represented George Zimmerman didn't use the law as a defense, but they alluded to it in their claim that Zimmerman felt like he had to use deadly force to defend himself against Trayvon Martin. The jurors, at least by the account of juror B29, could not convict Zimmerman based on the law, even though some of them felt that he was guilty of murder. The law, which states in part, "...a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.." seems to cover a broad variety of possibilities, without necessarily leaving any burden of responsibility on the person defending themselves. In Zimmerman's case, the fact that Trayvon Martin was killed gave the defense too much liberty to craft the perfect story, based on the law. B29 even went as far as to say, according to the law, the case should have never gone to trail. Many Americans, Black and white have questioned the law and it's application to this case. But by it being questioned by the President, who happens to be Black and who seems to sympathize with those who disagree with the verdict, his questioning was inappropriate to some.

By questioning the law, and all Obama said was that it needs to be looked into (along with, surprisingly, John McCain), the President presented a national opportunity for people to understand how Black people in this country view the judicial system as a whole. Historically, the system hasn't worked too favorably for Black Americans when compared to white Americans. While this case involved two minorities, with Zimmerman being Hispanic, many have tried to deflect the racial aspect away from the case. Obama's comments were intended to draw attention to perceptions and feelings not just of Black America, but of white America, too. While many Black Americans would most certainly agree with his comments, some white Americans would disagree. While I am not going to claim to know exactly why some white Americans disagree, I honestly think it's less about disagreeing and more about wanting to believe that race is no longer a problem in America. Sure, you don't have Black people being hung from trees and there are no longer "white only" designations. You see more interracial couples now more than ever. And, as previously mentioned, we do have a Black President. While these represent some sort of progress, it is far from a sign that racism has been exterminated. While many Americans of many nationalities may or may not approve of the job that Obama is doing as President, those who do not approve have often taken to comments with intense racial overtones. There have been slogans such as "Let's Take America back!" which may mean one thing to a white person but mean something entirely different to a Black person. In fact, many things that can either be said or done can mean one thing to white America and mean something else to someone who is not white or in, some cases, not American. There was a time in this country when the "American Dream" did not apply to non-white Americans. To see a slogan such as "Let's Reclaim the American Dream!" in opposition to the current administration, it's hard for me as a Black American to not feel a way about that.

Looking forward it's safe to say, as unfortunate as it may seem, that we will probably not see another Black President for some time. While there are no current Black candidates that seem poised for a successful run at the White House, the stigma that has been placed on Barack Obama's current administration may leave future Black candidates wondering if they want to go through what Obama has and will go through for the rest of his 2nd term. There has been a lot of political wrangling in Washington during Obama's time in office, with many politicians vowing to say no to everything he proposes and to repeal as many laws as they can. This may translate to some voters that having a Black president is too polarizing and causes more trouble than what it's worth. In any case, having a Black president now, one that can speak to the issues of race, perceptions of Black and white Americans and the need for all Americans to work together to form a better Union, is uniquely important for our time. Whether it works or not is a different story.

Black Unity and White Confusion

In the wake of the 'Not Guilty' verdict of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a lot of raw emotion has been seen from those who feel like the verdict was unjust. We've seen media coverage of peaceful protests around the nation (I had the privilege of participating in one here in Greenville, SC) and violent riots in Los Angeles. We've seen thousands on social media sites show their support of Trayvon Martin and his family by blacking out their profile pics or replacing them with Trayvon Martin himself, themselves in hoodies and other artistic expressions. It's an act of unity that shows the way people can unite when faced with tragedy.

Of course, this act of unity and this tragedy has divided our nation. While the nation pretty much unanimously united over the tragic shooting in Newtown, CT which included the deaths of 20 children, the death of Trayvon Martin sparked a debate not only on the perception of the young Black male in America, but also on the way Black people responded. The questions that have been raised range from "Why are Black people protesting when they don't protest over Black on Black crime?" to "Why are Black people making this a Black and white thing when George Zimmerman is not white?". The question of race has long been a sensitive issue in American history and now, with race relations under the most intense scrutiny we've seen since probably the 70's and 80's, the potential for unrest is very real.

Recent events, for example, the Paula Deen situation, show that there are still some Americans who have not evolved in their perception of Black Americans. While many will often harp on this being a white issue, the Black perception is pretty universal among all other racial groups. Some will say that it doesn't help that we are portrayed on television and through some popular music the way that we are. During a conversation I had with a white person on facebook, the comment was made that this person talked to some Black people from "the 'hood" and asked them why Black people don't protest when a Black person shoots another Black person. He said they responded "that's just 'hood life." He also mentioned that 'Lil Wayne performed talking about violence while wearing a Trayvon Martin T-shirt. He said it was things like this that confused him regarding the reasoning of Black people and what they choose to support or not support. The problem in this instance is that this person is using just two examples in which his perception is based on. Those individuals that said "Oh, that's just 'hood life", to me represent a small, ignorant portion of those living in the "'hood". In areas like Chicago, where shooting deaths of young Black people have been receiving major media coverage, there have been all sorts of rallies and protests to try and stop the gun violence. Growing up in a pretty rough area of South Jamaica Queens, NY, I've personally witnessed organizational efforts to stop Black on Black crime and gun violence. Acceptance of the death of any young Black person due to violence of any sort is not 'hood life. Those who say that are part of the problem. As far as basing your perception of Black people on a millionaire rapper like 'Lil Wayne? Well, I think that says more about the person than it says about anything that 'Lil Wayne does.

Another common response to the verdict and the resulting outcry has been the notion that this case was "spammed", as the above mentioned facebooker said, by the media to push a government agenda. As we all know, gun violence has been a hot topic over the past year. I refer back to the Newtwon shooting here as well, noting that many feel the same way regarding that particular tragedy. Whether you feel that way or not doesn't change the facts of either shooting or it's tragic impact on all those involved. Trayvon's case is no different than Melissa Alexander's case or Jordan Davis' case or Darius Simmons' case. Although the media has not covered these cases with the same vigilance as they did with the Martin case, the outcry over anyone of these situations is an outcry for the others. It's not like the cry for justice has just been for Trayvon Martin. The cry for justice has been for everyone involved in situations like this in the past, during the present and for those cases that are sure to happen in the future. Part of the outrage is that we continually re-visit these events because they are still happening. Another part is because our outrage is continually trivialized by bandwagon accusations and confusion as to why Black people are upset. It's like white America is wondering why Black people haven't gotten used to these things because they've happened so much before and happen so often now. They use the same reasoning when someone like Paula Deen is held accountable for her actions towards Black people. It burns me to hear someone ask why Black people get offended by white usage of the word nigger when Black people use it in regards to each other all the time (maybe that has something to do with that little thing called slavery and the creation and usage of the word to demean those slaves. Black usage of the word today amongst Blacks is a separate issue altogether). It burns me just the same when people ask now why we're so outraged by another death of a young Black person when young Black people kill other young Black people all the time. Some even say that white people don't protest when a Black person commits a crime against a white person. The reason for that is because white people don't have to. It is pretty much assumed by all that a Black person who commits any crime against a white person will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Some will bring up the case of OJ Simpson, who was acquitted of a double murder charge when he was accused of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Some will say Black people celebrated his acquittal, while we protested the acquittal of George Zimmerman. I think in the case of OJ Simpson, it was the fact that he wasn't railroaded as many thought he would be. The facts in that case were presented and when the evidence lacked to prove that he did it, he was acquitted. Many Black people were elated that he got off, but we all knew OJ would pay the price someday. As he serves time right now for essentially trying to steal back his own property, many in the Black community know why and have accepted that fact. OJ got off on a technicality. Many people on both sides of the racial divide think he did it and won't dispute that his current incarceration is linked to that. But even that convoluted reasoning goes back to one thing, OJ is a Black man believed to have killed 2 white people and seemingly got away with it. To those who were outraged over his acquittal probably feel justice was served, just slower than they would have liked.

Now, I know there are many white Americans that feel the same way many Black Americans do when it comes to the Zimmerman verdict, so I hope I don't come across like I am not recognizing that fact. In fact, that is kind of the point I am aiming to make. Since the crux of this situation is not based on a white man killing a Black teen but on the perception that George Zimmerman, a Hispanic man, had of young Black men, white Americans should know what this is about. But the condescending tone that some of the comments that are being made carry and the trivialization of Trayvon Martin's death that certain questions bring about is disturbing. The fact that Trayvon Martin was someone's child is getting lost in this whole thing. The jury seemed to base their verdict on the fact that they felt that George Zimmerman was not a racist. They have said that they think he would have done the same thing over again regardless of the race of the person. But what they fail to admit is that since he was Hispanic, if it was a white person that he shot and killed, chances are his case could have turned out different. If Zimmerman was black and Trayvon was white, it would have most certainly turned out different. Why? Because the evidence clearly showed that Zimmerman was at the very least guilty of unnecessarily shooting an unarmed person. Many reports have said that Trayvon could have ran away from Zimmerman. The recorded call to the dispatcher shows that George Zimmerman purposely pursued Martin when he could have well enough just listened to the dispatcher and stayed in his car. If Trayvon had run, George most likely would've kept up the pursuit. His history of calls to the non-emergency dispatcher shows he would not have reacted the same way if Martin was white because he never did. A white person would have been assumed to be a resident of the community. All of this was overlooked. That's the reason for the outrage of the verdict. That's the reason for the protests. That's the reason why the white confusion confuses Black people. Why wouldn't anyone be outraged over the killing of an unarmed young man, regardless of his race? What if, during the alleged struggle, Trayvon Martin had somehow gained possession of Zimmerman's gun, shot and killed him, then claimed self defense? Wouldn't the phone call that Zimmerman had made to the non-emergency dispatcher have proven that Zimmerman was the aggressor and that Trayvon had a legitimate self-defense claim? If what Zimmerman claimed was true, that Martin punched him then repeatedly slammed his head into the ground, shouldn't the fact that Zimmerman pursued him and approached him and had a gun give Martin just as much a claim to self defense? Shouldn't Zimmerman, at the very least, have been charged with negligent use of a firearm, since he wasn't even supposed to have one on his patrol? That blame can go on the prosecution, but you should see where I am going with this. Zimmerman is guilty of a crime here, in one way, shape form or fashion. It's just that the jury decided that he wasn't a racist, and they decided that he didn't shoot and kill Trayvon because he was black. Seems like he got off on a technicality of interpretation to me.

This case will long resonate with Black people, but it should resonate with white people as well. This was a situation where two minorities were involved but the white perception prevailed. Zimmerman's white attorney's played upon this perception when they characterized Martin as a thug, as a threat, as "suspiciously" walking through his own neighborhood. They played upon the white superiority complex that some white Americans have by questioning why didn't Martin comply to Zimmerman's authority. They even said Martin had time to run if he felt like he was being threatened. The problem is, the jury took everything that Zimmerman said happened as fact and took the actual facts that they could gather from phone records, defense testimony and the like as speculative. Trayvon couldn't defend himself. At least one of the jury members is a registered gun owner. All of the 6 jurors (5 white women and one Hispanic woman) agreed that George acted wrongfully in his pursuit of Martin. Black confusion turned to outrage and the white confusion enrages Black people further. Why are we so upset? Why are we protesting? Why are we not accepting the verdict? The real questions all of us should be asking is why isn't EVERY AMERICAN angry? Why is anyone confused? Why are we struggling with acceptance in America when we have a Black president serving a second term? Why haven't we changed AT ALL as a nation yet? I think a truthful answer to that last question can also all those before it.

NOT GUILTY???!!!! What the George Zimmerman Verdict Really Means

Shocked. That is the only word I can use to describe what I am sure many of us who were awaiting the outcome of the Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman case. Personally, I figured that Zimmerman would walk, but I held out the slightest hope that the jury would convict. Not because I hate George Zimmerman, but because it seemed pretty clear cut that he acted in an unlawful manner when he gunned down Trayvon Martin. You can comb through the facts of the case with a blind eye and still come to the conclusion that he shot and killed an unarmed child. Was it murder? The jury said no. The jury could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman had ill will and intent to injure or kill Trayvon. Maybe the jury didn't want to send a man to prison. Maybe the jury bought the endearing appearance that the defense carefully crafted for Zimmerman; the clean shaven face and the extra weight that gave him a much different look than the one he had on the night he fatally shot Martin. Maybe the jury bought the notion that Trayvon was a thug and that Zimmerman was afraid for his life when he drew his gun during the ensuing struggle. Maybe they bought the idea that George Zimmerman was just doing his job as neighborhood watchman when he decided to follow Martin because he looked suspicious wearing a hoodie in the rain and carrying candy and iced tea.

Maybe the jury looked past the fact that Trayvon was someones child. Someone who lived in the neighborhood where he was gunned down. Someone who was less culpable in this case than the one who was holding the gun. Someone who had no idea they were being approached by a neighborhood watchman who had aspirations to be a police officer, but for some reason wasn't one as of yet. Someone who was doing absolutely nothing wrong. Someone who had just as much a right to 'Stand Your Ground' as did the person who claimed to be doing just that. Someone who was engaged in a gunfight with nothing but his fists.

Maybe the jury had already had enough of this case. For 5 weeks they'd been dealing with it, from jury selection to the verdict. For two weeks they heard testimony from both sides. The defense had a pretty good strategy of painting Trayvon as a thug and of discrediting the prosecution's witnesses. The jury endured over 4 hours of closing argument. Maybe the jury just wanted to go home. I have a hard time believing all 6 of those jurors honestly thought George Zimmerman was not guilty. There had to be one person in the room who thought that Zimmerman's testimony didn't add up. Maybe they were the reason why it took 16 hours to come to the conclusion they ended up with unanimously. Maybe the other 5 jurors convinced them to look at things a little differently.

In the end, with all the waiting those involved with this case and all of us who watched from home did, with over a year having gone by, this is what we are left with. A not guilty verdict for a person who was guilty of, in the very least, having no regard for human life. I can't even begin to imagine what Trayvon's family is experiencing now. They had to deal with the loss of their son, wait for almost two months, from February 26th to April 11th, to get an arrest and see charges filed against the man who killed their son, their brother, their nephew, their cousin. They had to wait as the defense charged them with trying to manipulate the media by releasing photos of their son that made him look like an innocent child. The defense countered with pictures that made him look menacing, threatening and much more intimidating than the family photos. They showed him blowing smoke circles, claiming that Trayvon smoked marijuana and was under its influence the night he was killed. Martin's family had to deal with this and more for over a year while they watched Zimmerman receive financial donations to take care of his defense and his personal expenses. They had to watch their son get vilified in death as George Zimmerman walked free on bail, even after deliberately misleading authorities in regard to his finances. Once the trail began, they had to watch an aggressive defense of the man who shot and killed their son, while those who the prosecution called as witnesses were discredited. They watched as the prosecution tried to defend their son, when it wasn't him that was on trial. They watched as Trayvon was portrayed as the aggressor. They watched George Zimmerman refuse to testify and, finally, they watched as the jurors found their son's killer not guilty.

What this verdict means, essentially, is that Trayvon Martin was the one who was guilty. Yes, a not guilty verdict on behalf of George Zimmerman means that Trayvon Martin, somehow, ends up being the guilty one. It means that George Zimmerman had the right to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager who was walking to the home in which he was staying during that time. It means that George Zimmerman, although he acted against directions from a police dispatcher to not follow Martin any further, did nothing wrong according to the law.

What's sad is that this outcome was probably predetermined at the outset of the trail. It was long questioned why the State Attorney, Angela Corey, decided to charge Zimmerman with only 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter charges were later considered before the case was handed to the jury, but it was an all or nothing approach from the beginning. Maybe it was because the evidence against Zimmerman was so clear cut. But it is not outlandish to think that George's father Robert Zimmerman, the retired judge, didn't have an influence here. Couple that with the prosecution failing to drive home a number of important facts of the case, mainly of which was that Zimmerman was the head of an unarmed patrol as neighborhood watch leader. It would seem that should have been a major sticking point in an effort to dispute the weight the Stand Your Ground law had in this case. Also, George Zimmerman pursued Martin, defiantly against police dispatch direction, establishing himself as the aggressor. Now, I'm no lawyer, but those two facts seem to stack the deck heavily against Zimmerman. But the jury didn't see it that way.

So now the public gets to weigh in from both sides. While it's obvious support will be split among racial lines, we are starting to get a real sense of the racial climate of this country. While the death of Trayvon Martin will probably not be carried in the same historical context as Emmit Till, the social ramifications may well be. Zimmerman's lawyers defiantly postured in front of the cameras during the press conference after the trail, painting their client as the victorious victim. The lead attorney, Mark O'Mara threw race right into the mix by charging that if Zimmerman had been Black, he would have never been charged. There are many people like O'Mara who feel the same exact way. Others feel like Black on Black crime isn't cared about in the Black community and that we use race as an excuse to create martyrs out of thugs when someone of another race commits a crime against a Black person. They say we defended Michael Vick, who killed dogs. They say we defended OJ Simpson, who murdered a white woman. They say we continue to stand by Barack Obama and he is destroying our country. They say Black people are the real racists. I say, as Melissa Harris-Perry said, that Black people are the only group of people that experiences racism from all other groups, even from within. There is a racial stigma that only Black people face. The pending results often show up as disparity when it comes to the Justice system. But what also occurs is criticism of the public outcry that comes from the Black community. It has been stated many times in regards to this case that George Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white. Many people who aren't Black, and some who are, have stated that since this is the case, then it's not an issue of race. The same thing was said when Sean Bell was shot, due to the fact that some of the cops that were involved in that shooting were Black. But the truth of the matter is that it is about race. If young Black Trayvon Martin just happened to be young white Kyle Mickelson, this situation doesn't happen. George Zimmerman never made any calls to the non-emergency dispatch regarding suspicious young white men. You never hear of 4 Black cops shooting an unarmed white man 41 or 50 times. You don't hear about people locking their car doors when a menacing group of white teens dressed in khakis and polo shirts approach their vehicle. But you have cases where young Black men are not allowed to fly on airplanes or where they are ticketed or asked to leave malls because their pants "sag". You have curfews instituted in small towns when young Black kids decide to venture into the downtown areas. And you have Newt Gingrich saying that "500 people died in Chicago last year but no one protested that". So, while the case may not have been about Black vs. white, it was about race. It was about how a race of people, Black people, are depicted and perceived in society and how the law isn't designed to supersede that. In fact, as demonstrated in this case, it is designed to reinforce that stigma. George Zimmerman is a free man today because of that fact.

As We Wait for Justice: The Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman Trail

Over the past few weeks the trail of George Zimmerman has had many of us engaged, wondering what the final outcome will be. While some of us have paid very close attention to the case, many have just caught the daily highlights as it is reported on the news. We've heard about the holes in the defense's argument that Zimmerman was protecting himself, we've seen the video re-enactment that Zimmerman gave the police and the animated re-enactment that the defense has used to show the jury what supposedly happened that night. Unfortunately, all we are left with is the word of the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin and the strategy of his defense team to paint Trayvon as the aggressor.

George Zimmerman says Trayvon Martin attacked him. He had the cuts and bruises to supposedly prove it. He says he was just doing his job. He says he only got out of his car to get an address for the non-emergency dispatcher that he was speaking to when he called to report a suspicious looking black male walking through the neighborhood. He says he was the one who was afraid for his life. He said during the scuffle, he felt his gun against his skin, which he processed as Trayvon reaching for it. He says in the midst of that struggle he was able to grab the gun, apparently away from or before Trayvon could get it, and shoot him. He said he shot in self defense. He said, he said, he said.

What I'd like to focus on are some other things that Zimmerman said. During that call to the non-emergency dispatcher, he was recorded as saying "these fucking punks, they always get away" to the dispatcher. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Trayvon. He said that he was. The dispatcher told him not to. We all know that he ignored those instructions and followed him anyway. He said that Trayvon jumped from behind some bushes that apparently do not exist in the area where he says the confrontation took place. He said that when he drove up alongside the teen, Trayvon asked him if he had a problem. Zimmerman says he responded "No". My question is, as the leader of the neighborhood watch group, if he was following Martin, wouldn't his natural response have been "Yes", or at least "just making sure everything is okay"? Zimmerman said Martin seemed to be checking out the houses. As a neighborhood watchman, he probably should have made it known that he was part of that group and that he was on patrol. I would like to think that could have aided in any de-escalating of that situation. As a Black male who has had a number of unwarranted run-ins with various police officers from a number of states and other persons of various authority, I can see how tensions between Trayvon and Zimmerman could have been elevated from the start. A simple announcing of who George Zimmerman was could have been the difference in this situation, if we are to believe Mr. Zimmerman's account of how things transpired. If he did, in fact, make that announcement, I haven't heard or read about it in any of the reports of his version of what happened. The defense has done an extensive job at painting Trayvon as some sort of thug who was waiting for a moment to fight and took the opportunity with Zimmerman. That depiction bodes well for Zimmerman's story, saying that he was the one who was afraid of Trayvon.

The prosecution also has pieced together what they believed happened as well. Since Trayvon Martin is deceased and cannot tell his version of what happened, that's all they can do. All they have is the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Trayvon while things were unfolding between him and Zimmerman. All they have is the eyewitness account of one person who says they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin. All they have is the history that George Zimmerman had of profiling young Black males in that community. All they have is Robert Zimmerman, George's father, who is a retired judge and obviously had a hand in George not being immediately arrested and questioned after the shooting. All they have is the "Stand Your Ground Law" that is in place to give people the ability to protect themselves if they feel their life is in danger. All they have is Trayvon's hoodie that has no remnants of George Zimmerman's DNA on it, something that has been said should be on the hoodie if there was any type of struggle. All they have is some solid evidence that George Zimmerman isn't being 100% honest with his version of the story and an example of his dishonest recent past when he lied and told his wife to lie about their finances when he was having his bail hearings. All they have now is a jury of 6 women who have to decide, with just one side of the story, if George Zimmerman displayed ill will or hatred or acted with intent to kill or to injure Trayvon Martin when he decided to draw his gun and shoot an unarmed teen who, technically, lived in that neighborhood.

So now, all who have an interest in the outcome of this trail, we wait. We wait to see if the justice system works. We wait to see if Zimmerman will be found guilty of 2nd degree murder or even a lesser charge of manslaughter or if he will be acquitted. We wait to see if those 6 women on that jury see what many of us on the outside looking in see, a man who voiced his opinion of young Black males to a police dispatcher and ended up shooting one dead. We wait to see if the defense's strategy of painting Trayvon as a weed smoking, MMA watching thug who was looking for a fight will win over the jury. We wait to see if the jury will stand up and say it is not okay to randomly profile someone and kill them and claim self defense later. We wait to see if Trayvon Martin will be another statistic or if George Zimmerman will get a jail number. We wait to see if society still views young Black men stereotypically as threatening. We wait, we wait, we wait.

Still, with the Fried Chicken Jokes?

As most of us already have heard, the infamous "fried chicken" reference that often is used to stereotype black people has made its way back into the headlines. Sergio Garcia, a.k.a The Choker, recently was asked if he and Tiger would bury the hatchet, in regards to their long running spat. Apparently, the person asking was joking and Garcia responded:

"We'll have him 'round every night. We will serve fried chicken.''

If you are keeping count, folks, this is the second time a rival golfer has referenced fried chicken when attempting to "joke" in regards to Tiger Woods. In 1997 golfer Fuzzy Zoeller said this, in part:

"...tell him not to serve fried chicken next year...or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve."

Zoeller was referring to the tradition of the Master's Champions Dinner, where the defending champion picks the menu. Tiger was playing well at that point and Zoeller referred to him as "that little boy" when commenting on his play. Tiger would go on to win the '97 Master's and later would accept Zoeller's apology for the comment. There was no fried chicken served at the following year's dinner, but there was grilled chicken sandwiches on the menu.

It's just jokes, right? The fried chicken line, when referring to Black people, has been going on for decades. If it's said in jest, it should be ok, right? No, not at all. I've been on the back end of a few fried chicken jokes myself and I've laughed most of them off. I've had white friends and friends of other nationalities ask me to make them some fried chicken because they knew I could cook and assumed I knew how to make it. While those particular instances weren't offensive to me, I felt a certain way before I shrugged it off and fried up some chicken for my friends. But everyone knows what it means when a white person "jokes" about Black people and fried chicken. And it's not funny.

Sergio Garcia wasn't "joking", as in just trying to get a laugh. He doesn't like Tiger, he has said so numerous times. I'm sure he reveled in Tiger's misery while the world's no. 1 golfer was losing tournaments and events left and right. I'm sure he did not feel sorry for Tiger when his business about his marriage troubles and his infidelity was all over the news and sports programs. And while Rory McIlroy took advantage of Tiger's temporary drop from no. 1, Sergio continued his 2nd fiddle act to Tiger. So, in the context of his relationship with Woods, his comments come off as a bitter rival who has never won a major event. Tiger, on the other hand, has won 14 and has re-established himself in his pursuit of Jack Nicklaus' 18 major championship victories. It's a safe bet to say that Sergio won't be challenging any of Tiger's accomplishments anytime soon. So on with the racially charged "jokes", right?

The problem with these types of "jokes" is that they are, in fact, jokes from the perspective of the person telling them. I'm sure he thought it was a funny dig at a person he has no love for. And Sergio knew exactly what was going to happen once Tiger heard about it. He knows what fried chicken means to a black person when it is used in the context that he used it in. Sure, he said he was sorry and that it was just a silly joke. But it was a racially charged joke meant to demean and intimidate. At the very least, he was looking to hurt Tiger's feelings. What he ended up doing was hurting his public image.

What bothers me is that these high profile individuals who often find themsleves in the middle of a flap regarding something that they said always back track after they get called on it. Sergio said right after the dinner, he had a sick feeling and that he couldn't sleep. It was even said that he considered withdrawing from the European Tour event. Was it because he felt guilty about his racist remark that made him look more ignorant than he already did after complaining about Tiger's fan gallery making too much noise while he was playing his shot at TPC the previous week? Was it because he knew the comment would be on all the sports shows and in all the papers the next day and that his corporate sponsers would hear about it and possibly drop him (it is rumored that Taylor Made-adidas has already threatened to do so)? If he felt so bad about it, why didn't he apologize immediately. It's because he thought he was funny and he thought it would make Tiger look insignificant, even if for only the few seconds it took to make the comment.

What else concerns me is that there are no reports that anyone at the European Tour Players Awards Dinner reacted like the comment was inappropriate. Maybe everyone there thought he was just being a dumb ass who hates losing over and over and over again to Tiger Woods (exaggerating a little, there). But there is no accountability here, except when it comes to possibly losing money and/ or looking bad when you have to apologize for saying something stupid. I'm not calling Sergio Garcia a racist, even though he does not seem to be the type pf person that has black friends. If he did, he'd have known how that comment would've been perceived by Tiger or other Black or mixed people (for the record, Tiger doesn't consider himself to be Black, if you didn't know this already). One of my favorite journalists, Jemele Hill, mentioned in her article on espn.com that people of all ethnicities love fried chicken. I'm pretty sure Sergio isn't one of them.

Listen, it's time for the fried chicken jokes, the shuckin' and jivin' jokes and all the other "jokes" to stop. What's said in jest isn't always received as such. Tiger Woods took the high road after rebuking Sergio for his "hurtful" and out of place remarks by saying let's just move on and talk about golf. I know Tiger is not the squeaky clean young kid he was when he first hit the Tour like a wildfire, while his dad was still alive. We all make mistakes. It's just that this "fried chicken" remark wasn't a mistake, not when it has happened before. Sergio claims that he was unaware of the backlash Fuzzy Zoeller experienced when he made his fried chicken comments back in 1997, but I'm sure he knows about the joke. Maybe it's true that he didn't know how Fuzzy got reamed for it and that could be the resoning behind why he copied Fuzzy. But he had to know there was gonna be some backlash for him once he made his own particualr comment. Saying sorry doesn't cut it, Mr. Garcia. And the PGA and European Tours should let that be known.

UPDATE: Since this post was created, Euro Tour CEO George O'Grady made this statement in an effort to defend Sergio Garcia:

 "We (O'Grady and PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem) spoke to Sergio and, after what was really a very full and frank discussion on the whole issue, decided to accept his really heartfelt apology and we were convinced that he was trying to be funny, that it was a lighthearted remark. We know the connotation in the United States. We accept all races on the European Tour, we take it very strongly. Most of Sergio's friends are colored athletes in the United States and he is absolutely abject in his apology and we accepted it ... All races play on the European Tour and that's how we want to keep it. He is abject in his apology and we are moving on."

Wow...I guess the Euro Tour CEO isn't aware that Black people NEVER like being called colored. They are "convinced" that Sergio was just trying to be funny. Right, and I'm sure this George O'Grady guy loves fried chicken.

The New York Knicks: Was this season a failure?

It's over. The 2012-13 New York Knicks' season, one that started with a ton of uncertainty and then excitement, has ended miserably. For the fans this was a season that, once it got rolling, was supposed to end one of two ways: either with a tough Eastern Conference Finals exit to the Miami Heat or with a trip to the Finals. The latter was a bit of a reach, of course and anything more than that was surely fantasy, at best. These Knicks were not going to beat Miami. But they weren't supposed to struggle with the Celtics and they weren't supposed to lose to the Pacers. They did, however, and now they have all offseason to think about what went wrong and how to correct it.

But was this season a failure? As a die hard fan like myself, many of us might say that it was. This team was obviously built for the here and now; guys like Jason Kidd, Marcus Camby, Rasheed Wallace and Pablo Prigioni weren't brought to NY as parts to some sort of 3 year plan. Those guys were put in place to do one thing and that was to win now. Most of them didn't make it through the whole season, with Rasheed slipping back into retirement well before the playoffs, due to injury. These seasoned vets were supposed to be the graybeards to 'Melo's dynasty; the guys who were going to show him what it took to be a winner and a leader. In the end, it was a good thought but a gamble that didn't pay off. While Anthony had probably his best season overall, he was mired in an awful shooting slump that spanned between the Boston series and Game 5 of the Pacers series with him finally having a great game stat wise in Game 6. J.R. Smith, Robin to Carmelo's Batman for most of the regular season, never reclaimed his game after his 1st round Game 4 suspension. After struggling with Boston, a team that they could've swept but realistically should've finished off in 5 games, the Knicks confidence was shaken after their chin was tested. Dropping Game 1 to the Pacers on their home floor all but prophesied what was to come.

But to call this season a failure is a little harsh. Disappointing? Yes. The Knicks had a season long strategy of moving the ball to maximize their 3 point shooting ability. Mike Woodson took a little bit of what Mike D'Antoni had implemented while he was head coach and added a bit of tough defense early on that surprised many onlookers and opponents alike. But many analysts stated early on that there was no way they would be able to keep that torrid shooting up for an entire season and on into the playoffs. The Knicks also lost their defensive swagger as the season went on, with 'Melo regressing a bit from his early season defensive efforts. While they shot well for most of the year, their flaws were glossed over enroute to a 54 win season and an Atlantic Divison title. The Knicks haven't seen success like that since the 1999-2000 season. Their bench wasn't as deep as the front office and the team itself had initially projected, due to age and nagging injuries. The late season aquisitions of Kenyon Martin and Quentin Richardson only proved to be a band-aid on the glaring fact that the Knicks had no real defensive identity and was not a good rebounding team. Rasheed Wallace, who had been lured out of retirement by Woodson to stretch the floor for the jump shooting Knicks, was fools gold with his age and conditioning. And while Jason Kidd proved to be worth the investment with his leadership and mentoring of 'Melo and Raymond Felton, his age as well betrayed him in the end. The Knicks overacheived during the regular season, but pretty much played par for the course during the playoffs. This was an untested team that, at the start of the season had only one major goal: win a playoff series for the first time since 2000. The rest was icing on the cake once that was accomplished. When the Pacers chin checked these unproven Knicks, they hit the canvas and couldn't get up. Carmelo Anthony needed to lead this team, and he tried valiently Saturday night with a 39 point performance. But they needed more from him. They needed him to be Patrick Ewing all those years ago when he had to slap John Starks in the back of the head for headbutting Reggie Miller. They needed him to grab a hold of J.R. when he elbowed Jason Terry and got ejected and suspended (as suspect as that elbow was). They needed the 'Melo Fellow to get in the faces of Raymond Felton and Tyson Chandler and say "C'mon, guys! Don't lay down like this! These are the Pacers! They are not better than us!" They needed him to be the Captain. Maybe this loss will show Carmelo Anthony that the Knicks need more than points while he's on the floor.

The Knicks front office needs to be held responsible, not for a failure of a season, but for the upcoming offseason. While having wiley veterans on your team is always good, overloading on them may have been a mistake. New York has players approaching 40 in crucial roster spots, with no discernable back up. They were fortuante to pick up Kenyon Martin because had they not been able to, they surely would have had a tougher time with Boston and may have been swept by Indiana. With Wallace gone, Marcus Camby not being used and Jason Kidd not being effective, Tyson Chandler got into foul trouble and was rendered just as ineffective as Camby was. Had Iman Shupert not caught fire when he did, this game would've have been a massacre. The Knicks must get younger, even if that means another short run to the playoffs next year. Carmelo is 29 years old and in the heart of his prime years. If he wants a chance to compete w/ Lebron James, he's going to need the kind of help that A'mare Stoudemire and J.R. Smith can't give him. He's going to need another offensive All-Star level player that can make Anthony's workload a little bit easier. J.R. Smith did well during the regular season but flamed out in the playoffs. Raymond Felton did well but came up empty when he most needed to be effective. Iman Shumpert isn't consistent enough.

The Knicks have to grow up as well and this is where Mike Woodson and Carmelo need to be on the same page. Granted, the officiating sucked all series against the Pacers. But the Knicks fell into the trap by arguing and whining about calls, being assesed a vew technicals and and losing a few possessions along the way. They lacked discipline at times and clearly lacked the confidence they had earlier on in the season. Champoinship teams are tested when things aren't going there way, when they drop a game at home, when the other team makes a run. Championship teams come together and say they have one another's back; that if a defender slips by one player, another will come and rotate and help out. Championship teams trust each other. The Pacers played like champs in this series. Unfortunately, the Knicks played like they weren't ready. But that is okay for now because champions aren't built in one year, in one season. Miami lost to Dallas before they went back the following year and won the ring they were built for. Chicago, during the Jordan years, had to deal with Boston and Detroit, with legends like Bird and Isaiah Thomas before they broke through. The Knicks will have to deal with Miami for years to come as long as LeBron is there. They are going to be tested ever more.

  So all we have now is next year. Miami will more than likely win a 2nd consecutive title and be well on their way to becoming the dynasty that everyone thinks they are going to be. It's like deja-vu all over again for fans who've been following the Knicks for the past 20 years or more. Michael Jordan tormented us through 2 three-peats, robbing Hall of Famers like Ewing, Barkley, Stockton and Malone along the way. LeBron James is shaping up to be this generation of NBA players' ring nemesis, already knocking off Kevin Durant on his way to his first championship with Miami. Unless the Knicks can pull off either one more blockbuster deal to get a guy like Chris Paul or even Dwight Howard to take less money to play in New York alongside No. 7, Carmelo will share at least one thing with Patrick Ewing. He'll have a good reason why he never won a ring, having the misfortune of playing during the same era as another generational talent who has a penchanet for finger jewelry.

A Racial Service Announcement via Kanye West

Before I get started I have to say this: This blog was written after hearing snippets of Kanye West's performances on Saturday Night Live. I haven't heard these songs ('Black Skinheads' and New Slaves') all the way through as of yet so my opinions of them at this time are limited. This post is based on the reaction of those who commented on the performances.

As we all know, Kanye West is the most arrogant artist of our generation. Or, at least, he is perceived that way. Or he just comes off that way. Either you love him for that or you hate him for that. I, for one, love him for it. He's perfectly imperfect and has found the perfect way to present that to the world, through his music. He comes off as a pompous jerk most times, but there are other times when that arrogance can be clearly seen as defiance to a system that exists only for the elite (and for celebrities like him). The responses to what he creates are often negative, mainly because those individuals see Kanye West but are not listening to what he says. Granted, not all of what Kanye says is worth listening to. From what I have heard, so far, from the two songs he performed on SNL off of his frorthcoming album "Yeezus", it might be worth it to take a listen.

The song that caught my attention (and again, I've only heard snippets) was 'New Slaves'. On the song, it seems that West is speaking in regards to the perception that many white Americans have on Black people. At one point in the opening verse he says "All you Black people, wanting the same thing...", referencing, I believe, things that are trendy amongst Black entertainers and their fans, or talking about how Black people often speak of racial equality. Once I heard that, I immediately went to the comments section to see what was being said about the songs and about Kanye. Of course, it was the typical hate and that is ok because Kanye does what he does probably to spur some sort of reaction. But this comment stood out to me:

"We have enough racial lyrics in this world. Yes it’s reality, what you have in your heart is what comes out of your mouth. Sorry Kanye."

Not quite sure what the person meant when they made that comment but it seems like they either meant the topic of racism has been over-discussed or that Kanye is racist.

I saw this one, too:

"Kanye it's 2013. Most America's (sic) came to this country after slavery was abolished. (1865) They have nothing to do with it as neither do you. The only slaves in this country are the middle class and they come in all shapes, colors and sizes"

Now, while I get what this guy is saying, that no one who is alive right now has actually experienced slavery in this country (and by that I mean none of us were actual slaves, brought here from Africa), his comment on the middle class being today's slaves makes me a bit uneasy. I say that because that comment seems to be directed toward another Black man, who just happens to be our President. Without going off on that particular tangent, I will say this: Either you get it or you don't.

What I mean by that is racism is still here and it is not going anywhere. The most common way people use to spark any type of dialogue on the subject is to bring up slavery. And while notable artists like Kanye who are very wealthy and aren't subjected to being denied opportunities to succeed in the same way a regular person would be, they are still affected by it. It seemed to me, though that Kanye, while touching on the subject of slavery, was actually talking about people being slaves to society, being followers instead of leaders, trendy instead of trendsetting. I thought it was interesting that these two people sought to discredit West immediately because he mentioned slavery. Kanye is an artist; whether you think he's a particularly good one or not is another story. Artists who decide to conduct social commentary through their work are basically telling us what they see. Can a rich person who notices those not as well off as him/ her speak out against the injustices that said wealthy one sees others go through? Can they speak out about this country's injustices through their platform, in Kanye's case, through his music? People often use our right to free speech to defend people who make comments that might rub someone or some group the wrong way. But a lot of times, when a wealthy Black person mentions slavery or speaks on racism, they are shunned because they are seemingly not being oppressed. But, as the above commentor said, it is 2013 and we are still subject to the after effects of what our ancestors had to go through. Unless a high profile individual is speaking on the subject, racism is often viewed as an "old scar" on this country's history that many would easily soon forget. One other person commented to the affect that they were sure Kanye never picked cotton; in other words, if you didn't go through it, you can't talk about it. So does that mean a Jewish person of this current generation can't talk about the Holocaust? What about the current generation of Japanese Americans, can they not talk about their family members who were placed in internment camps during World War II?

The issue of this nation's history is that it tries to brush under the rug the atrocities it has committed against those who do not look like the majority. Nowadays, terms like "preserving the American Dream", "Taking back America" and "entitlement groups" are used when some white Americans, usually politicians and/ or the wealthy, try to defend their "questionable" views on the modern state of America. Unlike in the past, say during slavery times or during the Jim Crow era in the South, when racism was overtly obvious, today it is mostly covert. A politician won't go on television and call the President a nigger per se, but in some cases, the sentiment is there. In a lot of cases, the way Predsident is viewed has a direct affect on how Black people an other minorities as a group are viewed and vice versa. It's no mistake that Black entertainers and other high profile indidviduals that white America once embraced are now looked upon in an unfavorable light. Even with President Obama, once the mistique of him being the first Black President wore off, the vitriol statred to spew. Criticism of policy by the Presdident is one thing. Criticism of Black athletes and entertainers performances is one thing. Attacking their character for being human and or prone to make personal mistakes is completely another. Saying that Obama is "destroying the fabric of this once great nation" without giving any real concrete reasons, other than he doesn't have a clear understanding of what this country is about, is code for "He's Black and he couldn't possibly understand why wealthy white Americans want to be able to continue to live high on the horse at the expense of the poor being taxed to no end so that the goverment can pay its debts. Again, I'm not saying criticism of Obama or Kanye or any other Black person is racist. I'm merely pointing out that sometimes that criticism is baseless or it is based on people "not being used to" or "not being ready" for certain things, change being amongst those "things".

Kanye West is a loud, arrogant voice of a wealthy man who knows he's only where he is because of his own hard work and the help of other hard working artists who gave him an opportunity to be heard. When he stood on television during the telethon for Hurrican Katrina victims and said "George Bush doesn't care about Black people", I'm sure he knew exactly what he was doing. He was using his celebrity to give a voice to those who were literally being ignored. He may have also been using that moment to boost his own star power, but the method was effective. Now that he has acheived his current global status he's at it again, only this time he's speaking on how he feels when he sees what is happening to people who look like him. It's funny how events in history can happen and while they are happening, it is expected that these events be accepted. Once they are stopped, it's like it's taboo to ever talk about them again. "Things are supposed to be improving", people might say. "Don't bring up the horrible past, it'll only open up old wounds". But in the case of race relations and racism in 2013, the old wounds never fully healed and new ones are always being administered. Some people feel like if they turn a blind eye or if they convince themselves something isn't happening, then it really isn't. Fortunately for those living in the real world, we have people like Mr. West to remind everyone that just because YOU don't see it or YOU convince yourself it's not there, that doesn't mean your right. It just means you want everyone like Kanye to shut up and stop bringing up old stuff. He's no revolutionary, at least not in the formal sense. But he poses as one pretty nicely.

Sensitive Content: Providing a Voice Through Social Media

There are many topics in which bloggers, like myself, decide to write about. Those of you who may not necessarily blog may voice your opinions through other social media outlets like facebook, instagram, etc. (I tend to use my facebook status updates as well). Now that it is 2013, information is disseminated at a rather maddening rate. Misinformation and propaganda is dispensed at the same rate. Therefore, it is important that those who write, blog or talk about certain issues keep themselves informed and make sure that the information they dispense is accurate.

In an attempt to create a small amount of, I don't know, "revenue", through advertising on this blog, I was told that my blogs contained "sensitive content" that was not in line with the requirements to be qualified for ad placement. At first, I had the typical reaction most bloggers or writers would've had if presented with such a rejection. I questioned the definition of "sensitive content". After thoughtful consideration, I agreed with that assessment. The information that I choose to blog about is "sensitive", in that it evokes feelings in those that may read my blog. Of course, when I blog about sports or what some may deem as not-so-heavy topics, those feelings are usually neutral or without much extreme emotion. But when I blog about social issues like race and politics or about the perception of gays in our society, these topics can and do evoke more "sensitive" emotion.

The fact that such topics can be considered sensitive in that certain companies would not want to be associated with any biased views of any subject is understandable. These companies appeal to a broad spectrum of individuals and to be linked to anything of a sensitive nature could damage their ability to reach or continue to appeal to the masses. While this can be sort of a hinderance to individuals like myself who constantly broach topics that may rub some readers the wrong way, it should not prevent bloggers and writers from continuing in that vein. Of course, any hurtful or imbalanced views would be viewed through numerous "filters" and, in some cases, discredited. But one should not be afraid to speak their mind when trying to enlighten others.

When I first started my blog, I weighed heavily in on the perception of our President through the eyes of a Black man in this country and the way I see him being perceived by many Americans, mostly white but some Black and other minorities as well. The terms "racist" or "racism" appeared quite a few times. As I continued on in my social commentary, I dove into the ideas of "Post Blackness" and reverse racism as well. Certainly, these topics can be deemed "sensitive" to those who may not agree with and to those who do agree with my views. The sensitivity that could be experienced, should be experienced because it forces the reader to either evaluate themselves or to analyze the topic from a different, or even similar point of view. When the topic of "double standards" come into play (and by that I directly mean when something is accepted or overlooked when done by one person or one group of people but rejected and/ or subjected to criticism or prosecution when done by others) sides are quickly taken to debate the reality or acceptability of these standards. Case in point: just today, it was announced that singer Lauryn Hill, formerly of the Fugees, was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for failure to pay taxes over the course of a number of years. Even though she paid $970,000 over the course of a few days, she was still given jail time and will be on probation for 1 year and under house confinement for the first three months after her release. She will also be required to pay an additional $60,000 fine. Just recently, actor Wesley Snipes was released from prison after serving over two years for a misdemeanor tax charge of "willfully failing to pay taxes", even after being acquitted of felony tax fraud and conspiracy charges. Snipes had admitted to his failure to pay, saying that he was going on the advice of his accountant. Snipes offered to pay the entire amount owed but that offer was rejected, along with his request for an appeal, citing that the prison term was too lengthy for the misdemeanor he was charged with. The truth of this particular matter is this: These were statement convictions and sentences. These were two Black entertainers who challenged what many people in this country, Black and white, consider to be an unconstitutional institution where individuals are required to pay a tax on income they earn through their own hard work. Of course, it is usually the people with the most money who try to evade paying taxes, and most of them are successful at doing so. There are people who, instead of defiantly refusing to pay taxes, hire tax lawyers to show them how to beat the system. They avoid criminal charges because they either are among the "privileged class" in this country of unaccountable wealthy white Americans or they are given an opportunity to pay and save face. Those few who are held accountable, we either do not hear about (and this is the benefit of the doubt being given by me) or they are held for relatively short periods of time in facilities hardly considered "prison". Now, I personally only know about the situations that are reported, so I admit that my point of view is a bit limited. But with the Wall Street corruption that has been revealed that plunged this country into the recession we are just climbing out of to the countless legislators that fight tooth and nail for millionaires and billionaires to avoid paying fair percentages of their due tax responsibilities, I feel that this viewpoint is not far off.

But I digress. This particular post is about sensitive content. Social media gives everyone a chance to air out their grievances on pretty much everything, from personal relationship drama to topics like I discussed in the previous paragraph. And even though, at times, individuals tend to run amok without filter, spewing hate and bigotry in an attempt to hurt those who may hear or read their words, not everyone has that on their agenda. Having ones blog listed as containing "sensitive content" isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just means that there might be some folks who may not agree with your opinion. And that you will not be able to get some advertising dollars along the way.

Jason Collins is Gay? But Why Him?

First off, I want to say congratulations to Jason Collins. I can't even imagine what it feels like to hide who you really are for such a long time. When I read another article on him today that talked about how he was a month away from marrying his fiance before he called it off, I tried to picture what he went through during that time. I couldn't. All I could think about was him going back in forth in his mind trying to convince himself that this was the best thing to do; to marry someone you love dearly, knowing the possibility of breaking their heart after the wedding at some point in time was real. Option 1, do it now to avoid worse emotional scarring later. Option 2, see if you can live this lie for the rest of your life. That has got to be the ultimate Catch-22.

When I first heard the news that he decided to come out, my first though was "Ok, so he's gay. No big deal". But then I realized this wasn't the same thing as when Brittney Griner acknowledged her sexuality. That was no surprise to anyone, even though her acknowledgement was just as courageous. Brittney was taking her "role model" status by the reigns early in her career so that other girls who may admire her for being who she is would see that it was ok for them to do the same. Jason Collins, on the other hand, is something totally different. He and his situation shouldn't be.

Men's sports in America is deeply rooted in the male ego. Manliness, toughness and other somewhat chauvinistic descriptions shape the sports and their athletes. If a guy gets into a skirmish and backs down, he's labeled soft instead of smart. If he shows the wrong kind of emotions (crying, for example, in any situation other than winning), his toughness is questioned. So the idea of a gay male athlete carries the stigma of being soft, womanly even. What it also carries is the real possibility of being ostracized by the same teammates who, maybe just a few days ago, treated you like family.

Jason Collins is gay. But he's so not gay, at least when it comes to what society dictates a gay man to be. As an NBA player, he was rough around the edges, good for a elbow in the ribs as he fought for rebounds. During his younger years, he was instrumental in giving teams like the forner New Jersey Nets a defensive identity. He was sort of a throwback to the days of the enforcer type guys who took it as there job to knock an opposing player on their ass if they came in the paint. Some people called him soft, even some players. But once they challenged him near the rim, they found out soon enough that he wasn't. Usually, it was while they were looking up at him from the floor.

So for Jason Collins, a fringe player at best with no offensive skill set to make any player or coach nervous, his "coming out" is probably the most attention he's ever received during his 12 year NBA career. That has been a sore point for some who feel like he's just grabbing for attention. People ask, "Why did he feel like he had to be the one to do it first?" I saw one comment to where a person said he was using the "gay angle" as an excuse so that if he wasn't picked up by a team next year, he'd have something to blame it on other than the fact that teams may not want a 34 year old center who can't score like a young Shaq. It's like he's damned because he came out and he's damned because he came out.

What I find really interesting is no one seems to mind when women athletes and celebrities come out of the closet. Male celebrities who are not athletes seem to get kind of a pass, too. But the whole idea of a male athlete in American sports seems to have spawned this witch hunt of sorts. As much as society seems to feel we're not ready for it, we've been clamoring for it, wondering if it's going to be the guy who just scored 30 points and wears the nerdy glasses and weird shirts to the post game news conference. Is it going to be the guy who just threw for 5 touchdowns and seems to have the best head of hair in the world. Is it the guys who feasts on quarterbacks like a lion hunting gazelle in the jungle but just seems too clean cut for some reason. When we got what we were looking for, it wasn't what we were looking for. Jason Collins wasn't supposed to be first. But he is. Why? Because no one else was ready to carry that cross. Who knows? It may take another 10 years for someone else to build up the courage to be the second male gay athlete in American sports and come out. And you know what? It may be another guy just like Jason Collins.

Chris Broussard, a columnist and analyst for ESPN found himself in a bit of hot water because of his defense of some who do not support Collins' coming out. Broussard said as a Christian, he looked at homosexuality as a sin, just as he saw heterosexual sex outside of marriage as a sin as well. While saying that Collins was indeed courageous for his act, he said that the Christian athletes would definitely have an issue with Collins. Even though I do believe that every person is entitled to his/ her own opinion, I find the "Christian" argument to be just another cop out. Your faith dictates what you do but true Christian faith (and pretty much any faith) also reminds one to not judge others, to not condemn anyone for no one is without sin. The same Christians who condemn gay and lesbians for their lifestyle should really look deep within themselves. You don't have to agree with a person to accept them as a human being, regardless of who they are attracted to and what they do in in their private life.

Other comments have been of the macho ignorant sort. Larry Johnson, a former Knick who still holds a position with the team, said that if he were still playing he'd have a problem with playing with an openly gay teammate. The argument is still the "uncomfortable" one. Funny things is, each athlete who says they would be uncomfortable playing with another player who is gay has already done it. How many former teammates who have played with Collins felt that way? And all of them were just fine because they were ignorant to the truth that only Jason knew. So much for that argument. It's not about the gay teammate, it's about all the other straight ones.

In the end, Jason Collins is now a pioneer, whether other people agree with his lifestyle or not. It's not fair that a gay or lesbian person has to "come out", especially when it can have a negative impact on what they do to earn a living. That's why Jason and Brittney and Sheryl Swoopes and countless others who have taken the step to say "This is who I am" should be able to do so, or not do so, without the rest of us having something to say about it. But of course, we'll have something to say, either negative or positive. And even though we all have the right to say and do whatever it is that we want, so does Jason Collins and those who may be waiting to do the same thing he did but fearing the backlash. A supportive as a lot of people have been, those who have been critical have attacked his integrity and questioned his motives. All because Jason Collins was tired of living a lie. I wish that that we, as people were better than that. 

The HUGE question mark that is Kobe Bryant and the Lakers

Ok, so the disaster that was the season undone of the Los Angeles Lakers is now over. It ended pretty much how most fans expected it to, once Kobe Bryant went down with that Achilles injury. Now that the train wreck if finally over, what should Lakers fans, KB8 fans and NBA fans expect? The unexpected, of course.

Now, obviously, I'm no GM. Many people have weighed in on what the Lakers should do or will do. As we all have seen, the Lakers have done pretty much the exact opposite of what basic logic would deem they should have done from the moment they hired Mike D'Antoni. There have been suggestions that the Lakers should/ will amnesty Kobe for financial relief, since they will be heavily penalized under the new luxury tax structure due to take effect next season if they go over the salary cap. This wouldn't be such a bad idea, if not for one inexplicable fact: THIS IS KOBE BRYANT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, FOLKS! The same Kobe who found the fountain of youth and willed this rag tag bunch of battered bodies, egos and psyches through a season that wasn't supposed to be that tough. The same Kobe who put the franchise on his back and made sure HIS TEAM didn't suffer through the embarrassment of not making the playoffs. The same Kobe who played way more minutes than he should have because there simply was no other choice. The same Kobe that, after tearing his Achilles, got up and walked back to the bench under his own power then walked back to the free throw line, shot and made those free throws and walked back to the bench a second time under his own power! I could go on and on with the "same Kobe" references but I think the point is made. Kobe Bryant IS the Lakers and to amnesty him for cap relief would not only be the biggest PR blunder since the NY Yankees offered Joe Torre a ridiculous 1 year "take it or leave it" deal (or, at the very least, since they decided not to re-hire Phil Jackson), it would also be the biggest slap in the face to the man who helped the franchise to 5 NBA titles. You don't amnesty the best player of his post Jordan generation for ANY reason, not even if it saves the franschise a few million dollars.

You also don't re-sign Dwight Howard. I just don't feel the "leader" vibe from him. Don't get me wrong, D12 is still the best big man in the game when 100% healthy. If the Lakers are looking for a face of the franchise after Kobe retires (sooner than later?), he's not your guy. Dwight has shown he needs another established veteran NOT named Kobe Bryant to be the impact player that he was in Orlando. While it's still a mystery that he has not been able to take advantage of being the little brother to Kobe's big brother, it is no mystery that Howard is not mature enough to take a large market franchise on to greener championship pastures. Although the Lakers front office knows the importance of putting a championship caliber team on the Staples Center floor, watching the Lakers struggle this year should show them that this seasons results would have been about the same without Dwight Howard. Although you don't want to lose a player of Dwight's caliber for nothing in return, they may not even have a choice. That brings me to my next point.

Dwight Howard should spare everyone who has an interest in the Lakers the drama of not living up to a huge contract and sign somewhere else. The LA Experiment did not and will not work. He's not built for the bright lights that a big market team comes with. He showed that in Orlando, and that's not even considered a "big" market city. There's no shame in not being a big market player. Howard is 27 years old and I'm sure once his back heals fully, along with his shoulder and other nagging injuries, he'll be back to playing with the dominance that made him so attractive to the Lakers. But he's not Hollywood material. He's not even Brooklyn material. He might be better suited in Atlanta or even Milwaukee, if they're looking. Cleveland could also be a good fit for him since their biggest star, Kyrie Irivng, is still up and coming. Maybe pairing D12 with a budding superstar can help him with his leadership abilities, thus maturing him to where he can bear the responsibility of carrying a franchise on those broad shoulders of his without the burden of lofty expectations.

But the Lakers can keep everyone on board and try again next season if they do this one thing. It would take an extreme amount of crow eating, but it would be the best thing that they could do to make keeping Howard, Bryant and Nash together for the immediate future make sense. The Lakers have to fire Mike D'Antoni. Listen, big market teams waste millions of dollars every year trying to swing for the fences and when they come up short they have to pay the bill. The Lakers' decision to hire Mike Brown was a mistake but the least they could've done was let him get to the All-Star break to see if the team would gel under his direction. If all else failed, they could've either let him finish the season and fire him if it was a disaster (as it turned out to be anyway) or let Bernie Bickerstaff take over at the midway point and try to steady the ship. While waiting on D'Antoni to be physically able to patrol the sideline, Bernie did a good job of holding the team down, going 4-1 during that brief stretch as interim coach. Needless to say, the Lakers could not have done any worse, aside from missing the playoffs altogether (and that may have been a better result than to see Dwight Howard foul out during an elimination game when he was the only superstar left to defend the pride of a team very short on it). They need a coach that can reign in superstar egos, manage minutes to aging veterans and know when to take responsibility for the teams successes and failures. Too many times, Mike D'Antoni resorted to excuses instead of answers. Regardless of who's playing or not playing, the coach is the leader of the team and he has to lead. Trying to pull rank on a superstar of Kobe's stature isn't easy and if you're the right head coach, it isn't even necessary. D'Antoni never made it to the Finals in Phoenix, even though he enjoyed a measure of playoff success there. He failed miserably in New York with Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire (even though it was pretty much a given that he would) so to think he would have been successful in Los Angeles was a joke from the beginning. He's a point guard's coach (as can be seen by the success that he had in Phoenix with Nash all those years and, to a certain degree, the brief success he had when Jeremy Lin saved New York's season last year while 'Melo and STAT sat out for an extended period of time). With the personnel the Lakers had, they were built to dominate the post and be somewhat of a defensive force in the paint with the 2012-13 version of the twin towers in Howard and Gasol.  D'Antoni chose to overlook what he had, tried funnel the offense through Nash and Kobe, wanted Gasol on the perimeter as a facilitator and a shooter with no real role in the offense and, in the process, ran Kobe into the ground until the wheels literally fell off. To me, that's poor job performance. In the real world, that would garner a pink slip and D'Antoni should have gotten his as soon as Kobe crashed to the floor grabbing his Achilles.

But my opinion is neither here nor there. Coaching options are in short supply currently and unless Phil Jackson decides to give coaching another shot (which, reportedly, is not going to happen since he is looking to return to the NBA in a front office role) the Lakers could be faced with another season of unmet expectations. But Lakers management has to take responsibility for their failures as well, in that they chose to put together this aging roster with essentially the wrong coach. The best thing for all invested parties would be for them to at least admit to the coaching failure, take the offseason to rectify that mistake and try one more time. At least then, the onus to perform would squarely be on the team and the right coach.

(SN: In the EXTREMELY RIDICULOUS  case that the Lakers do, in fact, amnesty Kobe: If he returns anywhere between 85-100%, I would totally LOVE IT if he signed with the Clippers for the veteran minimum on a 1 year deal, just for the hell of it AND to prove my initial point. You don't amnesty the Black Mamba.)