My friend has a “Black, Like My President” mug.

From it, she drinks tea with milk.

Mixed Roots is Saturday…

I read last night for Susan Hayden’s Library Girl series in Santa Monica.   Beautiful time, though my piece scared me.   I had a couple safe ones in my back pocket.   But luckily she asked me to sing a song to start the night.   With that, I figured I could engender some good will before getting into the nakedness of a new body centered essay.   This one was more gender oriented than about race.   But the interesting thing to explore is that like women, people of color – and perhaps especially people of ambiguous racial phenotypes – are consistently the subject of physical scrutiny.     Body discussions are always difficult, but exploring sexuality, acutely aware of the male power dynamic, is one of the toughest areas for me.   (I typically throw in a couple references to lighten up the subject, but you’ll have to read my published work or come to a performance to know exactly what I mean.   I’m feeling reserved in my online presence.)   The piece seemed to go down well, which pleased me.   And connecting with old friend, Dan Navarro, and new friend, Julie Christensen, was a truly grounding experience.

I’ve got a couple more readings for my essay from the Black Body coming up in June.   June 12 I’ll be featured at the Mixed Roots Film and Literary Festival.   Last year I got to close the festival musically.   This year I wanted to try something different, so I applied as a writer.   And on June 23rd, I’m going to be part of the prestigious [ALOUD] series at the Central Library downtown.

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
— Martin Luther King, Jr. 1967 from “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?”

Chaos, Community or Solitude?

On the first MLK Day since Barack Obama’s inauguration, I chose solitude to ponder where we’ve been in this year.

It’s a year later, the first Martin Luther King holiday since America elected it’s first “black” president.   It’s funny, I was going to write the first president of African-American descent, but then I thought, that’s not exactly true.   He is the first black president of the USA and he’s clearly a “hyphenate” of African and American descent.   But he’s not the descendant of American slaves, the people Martin was trying contemporaneously to lift up.   He’s the son of an African culture inspired by Martin Luther King, Jr., like Nelson Mandela and others.   It will truly be something when a dark brown descendant of southern slaves will claim that office as well as the audacity to run as the president for all Americans, while speaking in his true voice.  (I’m thinking in negative comparison of a poseur like Michael Steele who uses ghetto-isms to show he and the Republican Party are down with black “folks.”)   Jesse ran with good ideas but was marginalized because he never truly seemed to speak convincingly as a candidate for all citizens.   Al Sharpton had some good ideas, as well, but also seemed too marginalized by his past and present presentation.   Shirley Chilsolm is the only candidate pre-Obama that really seemed to have an all inclusive progressive agenda.   I watched a great documentary on her a few years ago called Chisholm ’72: Unbought & Unbossed, and I would’ve voted for her had I been old enough — though, ironically, I do remember seeing her as a kid and thinking how odd it was that there was this black woman, skinnier than my grandma running for president.   I was a McGovern kid in my 6-year-old wisdom!

Anyway, what do we have in terms of mulatto moments after a year of Obama?

Obama may not be the descendant of slaves, but he’s certainly suffered the attempts at dehumanization that come from its legacy.   What would’ve been the fall out if George W. Bush had said the police acted stupidly in arresting William F. Buckley inside his vacation home in Zimbabwe because they’d heard reports of a break-in in the black part of town?   (He was alive during the Bush years.)   The whole “Birther” thing was just another old farce to delegitimize the rights of a black man.   If Henry Kissinger’s son were born to a white American mother in Hawaii and wrote a book about it twelve years before he ran for President, where he copped to going to a Muslim school, using drugs and living with an illegal alien, would his honesty have been questioned with regards to his birthplace.   I don’t know about the “Tea-Baggers.”   They seem to overlap with the Birthers, but Americans have always had issues with taxation.   The problem is that people whom healthcare is supposed to help are the ones screaming so loudly about their tax dollars being used to help others.   The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation.   The Tea Partiers have representation.   There’s a legitimate gripe that “Elites” have more representation, but that’s no more the case with the Democrats than the Republicans.   But the vitriol is much stronger against this Administration, which arguably represents the poor more than the last one did.   When anger and distrust of the elites was brought up then, it was combated by saying the aggrieved were un-patriotic, or worse.   Now maybe I’m calling the angry ones racist spoilsports.   Maybe that’s a similar accusation.   It’s been said Democrats are always subject to more vitriol from the “heartlanders.”   But isn’t that also true that the Dems are always considered the party of minorities and women?

More than one friend of mine has remarked that it felt like we were post racial for about a day after the election, then it was back to business as usual.   For me it was that moment walking into the bank coming home from Vegas after canvassing on Election Day.   My teller was a young black man and I just felt so good for him.   I know that’s weird and entirely racial, but it was an exhale that said all opportunities are open to him.   I walked around that day thinking that no one questioned my legitimacy as an American.   The answer to the question, “What’s your nationality?” would be simple.   “American, just like the President.”   It’s sad that I carry around that sensitivity that people will try to delegitimize my status as part of the American community, but if you’ve been asked the question, “What are you?” in addition to “What’s your nationality?” thousands of times before you’ve reached the age of consent, you’re bound to feel suspected of “otherness.”   Sadly, a year after we have the first “black” President and after a year of the sort of racial flare ups we’ve seen, my guard feels up at just about the same level.

I think I’m depressed.  I find myself longing for a time when the Vice President actually controlled the President.

It’s a weird moment for race in the media.  One day I put a picture of Tiger Woods and his wife up on this site to refute the reasonings of an idiotic Louisiana justice that refused to marry an interracial couple. Then he’s everywhere suspected of infidelity and believed to have been attacked by his wife.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khtBvQdxta4

A few weeks ago I was groaning when I saw the trailer for The Blind Side, thinking, “C’mon, really? Another film where whites become saviors to a poor black person? Hasn’t this time passed?” Then I read yesterday that it’s taking off in, what I’m sure I’m unfairly calling,  Palin Country.  (Yes, I’m getting cantankerous, and, no, I haven’t seen the film.  It may be wonderful, but the trailer really pushed my buttons and the media coverage hasn’t helped.  This is a critique of the media and marketing, with a jaundiced eye looking at those buying the campaign not the film.)

Then there’s, Precious.  It sounds like a very interesting film, which I am compelled to see.  But the LA Times commentary intrigues me.

Is all this comfort food to a nation annoyed by our President?

Yes, I feel like I’m back in my college course, The Irritated Black Man, 101.

What do you think?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5FYahzVU44

I dreamt last night that I arrived for a meeting and realized I hadn’t washed my hair before I left the house.   OK, I will head out in a disheveled manner fairly often in real life.   But in my dream it felt like being naked in grade school.   That’s got to be a “mulatto moment.”

This is a big wow!!

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License In La.

And I bet their kids will be fine...

Two walls.   Two acts of violence.   I can’t remember what precipitated the violence, but I do remember that race mattered.   I tore down the pinups of the J5 from my wall.   Dad punched holes through the Angels.

Less than a year after the original moon walk, I saw the Jackson Five play a concert at the Los Angeles Forum.   I wasn’t even five.   At least that’s how I remember it.   Maybe it was when I was 7 that I first saw them there, but it seems like it was twice.   And I remember seeing a change the second time.   Michael was bigger.  His moves were wild… adult, I thought.   He was about to be 14.   Maybe it was too sexual for me.

Sex and blackness.   I was ambivalent.   I was barely seven!   But I was already aware of my father’s libido and my inadequacies.   Somewhere in my Oedipal/Castration Anxiety stage of development, he made me aware.

I don’t know what caused it, but I remember one evening, slamming the door to my room and ripping down all the photos of the Jackson Five.

A few years later we’d moved to Irvine.   We’d bought a house and were living the suburban dream that the Encino Jackson’s epitomized.   I was all about the Angels, and really Farrah.   One day my dad, angry at something or another, started screaming at me and punched holes in the Charlie’s Angels poster above my bed.   It was a slanted roof, so I was stuck there, on my bed, beneath the torn paper and falling plaster.   He was shouting something like, “Do you love those white girls more than me?”

Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett represented two parts of my life I never could embrace without some sort of interference.   If only Michael had stayed black, maybe I would never have had any issues!   Ha!   But he was a model of some subliminal influence that indicated with talent and a non threatening persona you could be loved.   There was even a boyish sexiness that you could use with the girls and especially the older women, to get ahead.

Farrah represented carefree beauty, seemingly free of any calculation, just the privilege of beauty.

I really stopped caring about either Michael or Farrah by the time the first Van Halen record came out.   Then, when I came under the influence of The Clash, around “London Calling,” they seemed to be hopeless artifacts.   I mean, I respected the production of Thriller.   I dug that Vincent Price and Eddie Van Halen were on the record (though I was suspicious of Eddie in my New Wave ethos).   I even got into the ambition and emotion of “We Are the World.” But the stuff never moved my soul the way the Smiths were, or the old school R&B of Marvin and Curtis, or Billy Bragg, Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell.

But I started to bawl when I heard “We Are the World” followed by “Man in the Mirror” driving home from a poetry gathering in Pasadena Thursday night.

There was heart and empowering ambition beneath the glitz of both Michael and Farrah.   The world responded to the glitz.   It seems like they both wanted to express more.   Yet the high of the glitz seems to be what destroyed them both.   The desire for adulation and the compulsion to run away from the falseness it imposes, to angrily reject it, is cancerous.   It can break your heart.   Both of these performers tried to break walls.   People wanted the pinups intact.   How does one make peace with that?   How does one walk in the world knowing who he or she is, while knowing that people are reacting to only a piece of you?   How do you accept the superficial praise and deflect the shortsighted damnations with grace?

My mother’s family came on the Mayflower. My father’s on slave ships, then mated with those who were here before Columbus. And TBP checks my trunk and asks if I’m a US citizen.

I’ve been in “albumland” and trekking around India!   But   a friend of mine posted a link on her Facebook page and I have to share it.   It’s a story in Newsweek about a black family that adopted a white child and the post racial implications.

Hopefully, I’ll get back to more regular entries soon.

Our Oval Office

I always felt American.   I’m the descendent of Pilgrims and slaves.   I know the White House was always supposed to be the People’s House.   Now I really feel it.   Everything is possible.

On Saturday I participated in the nationwide protest against the passing of Proposition 8.   I’m not a fan of the initiative process.   I think it leads to the tyranny of the majority that our Republic was designed to avoid.   And we could argue all day about that, but most of the Civil Rights that were secured in the 20th Century were not by popular vote, but by court cases and legislation that was designed to protect minority rights.

So I’m bringing it back to the outlaw lovers that were my parents and Barack Obama’s parents, and anyone of “mixed race” whose parents were together before 1967.   Procreation is not the primary function of love, nor marriage.   But marriage is certainly a nice symbol and structure to nourish love and a family.

The “mulatto moment” for me Saturday was the echo in the story of a woman, born of a lesbian mother, but raised by two fathers, committed for over 35 years, yet just married this September.   She spoke of the normalcy and security of her family, yet also of the existential invisibility.   It reminded me of the days when I was expected to pick one, when asked for race or ethnicity.   And her ability to share her experience resonated with the gift I feel I’ve been able to use by moving in a black world or white world with an implicit acceptance.   The idea of that “gift” got me excited about Barack Obama initially. I decided I needed to vote for him when I saw this so fully articulated in his speech on race.

The gift of empathy or the ability to listen and communicate with inclusive respect aren’t the sole purview of hyphenates, but we do have to start practicing these things maybe a little earlier than people in a homogeneous home.

Oh, and now I want to start writing about the “mutts like me” joke Obama made in his first press conference.   I loved it!   But, I think I’ll have to leave that for later.

[Show as slideshow]

P.S.   I added some photos and captions to my election night entry.   I hope I’ll write more on that sometime soon.

Had an urge to listen to “Curtis Live” this morning.   This song was originally done by the Impressions in ’67.   I love the live version from 1971.   Seek it out.

We’re A Winner – Curtis Mayfield

We’re a winner and never let anybody say
Boy, you can’t make it ’cause a feeble mind is in your way
No more tears do we cry
And we have finally dried our eyes

And we’re movin’ on up
(Movin’ on up)
Lord have mercy
We’re movin’ on up
(Movin’ on up)

We’re living proof in all’s alert
That we’re two from the good black earth
And we’re a winner
And everybody knows it too

We’ll just keep on pushin’
Like your leaders tell you to
At last that blessed day has come
And I don’t care where you come from

We’re all movin’ on up
(Movin’ on up)
Lord have mercy
We’re movin’ on up
(Movin’ on up)

Hey, hey
We’re movin’ on up
(Movin’ on up)
Lord have mercy
We’re movin’ on up
(Movin’ on up)

I don’t mind leavin’ here
To show the world we have no fear
‘Cause we’re a winner
And everybody knows it too

We’ll just keep on pushin’
Like your leaders tell you to
At last that blessed day has come
And I don’t care where you come from

We’re just go move on up
(Movin’ on up)
Lord have mercy
We’re movin’ on up
(Movin’ on up)

We’ll just keep on pushin’
We’re a winner
Lord, baby
Everybody, hey, you know we’re movin’ on up

I just got in from the celebrations here in Nevada.  Wow.  I’m just completely blown away.  My first calls after my mother and sister were to my elders.  Septuagenarians,  Octogenarians, who never thought they would see this day.  I spent the day poll watching at a Baptist Church in the ‘burbs of Las Vegas, watching children come along with their parents who were casting votes for history.  No major shenanigans ensued.  I was there to check out who actually voted.  Then we went out to ask those who hadn’t shown up to come to the polls.  More with photos tomorrow or Thursday.  Now it’s time for sleep and to pick up that paper in the morning, of which I’d dreamt vividly just a month ago.  I almost relaxed, but I’m glad I came out here to put in the work!

Yes we did.

Here are a few more election photos:

[Show as slideshow]

So I just sent out an email to my music list describing the wedding of a couple friends.   My reference to them was to celebrate their marriage, but because I’m used to describing gay couples as partners, that’s word I used.   But the point is that they’re husbands to each other.   My friend duly corrected me.

Racially tinged language is fun!

A 10 year old interviews Joe Biden (who explains accurately what the Vice President does as opposed to his counterpart on the GOP ticket) after which the youngster proclaims him to be his new homeboy.   It’s so sweet!

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW5X1eaozxQ

Then there’s more John McCain.   He said he admired Obama’s use of language and asked us to parse it in the final presidential debate.   Here he says that “the people are the victims of a drive by shooting” in this economic crisis.   Should we parse this, John?   (It comes in at about the 6:20 in this clip, but watch the whole thing if you want to see him talk about spreading the wealth around himself, or get caught in other inconsistencies.)

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9qs0T3KhE

Colin Powell may believe that Mr. McCain has not a racist bone in his body, but he’s consistently making either extroadinarily stupid statements, or is in fact a keen user of what was known as the “Southern Strategy‘s” language.   (I object to that term.   I agree with Frank Rich.   It’s insulting to the South to think an election can be won by appealing to the worst in human nature.   I’ve got a good chunk of family down there, white and black and I think we’re all smarter than that!)

As I left the house this morning I wondered if my post yesterday was disparaging in any way.   I laugh at myself all the time.   I always have a counter argument spinning in my head.   Usually the optimist wins out.   But when acknowledging the “red meat” of our touchy feelie Camp Obama meeting, I don’t know if it came across as what it really was. It’s a true example that Obama’s campaign is not about him, but us.   The McCain camp says it’s about country first and here we are in this camp talking about ourselves as individuals first before policy.   But look at that:   We’re talking about how in articulating an individual story we can connect ourselves to other individuals, community and country.   It’s not about heroes.   It’s about using honest communication to create bridges.   And it’s not an others be damned sort of individualism.   It’s more of a self-actualized sort of individual citizen.   In fact one of the sections in the training manual is “Respect, Empower, Include.”   What could be more American and patriotic?   OK, so my working title for yesterday’s entry was “Fearing the Kool-Aid…,” and I sound like I’ve drank it, but I really believe in this stuff.   I think the the failings of America has been in times of disrespect and exclusion.   Unfortunately, we have a history of double-speak, where we’ve espoused these ideas of every man being created equal, and yet made second class citizens of different racial and ethnic groups consistently in our history.   The groups change, but the divide remains familiar.

So this is what gets me about the McCain-Palin squad.   McCain says on one day about Barack Obama “I have to tell you, he is a decent person. And a person that you do not have to be scared as president of the United States.”   Then has concurrent ads running saying he’s “too risky for America.”   Which is it?   (Check out the talking points discussed here from Time: In Battleground Virginia, a Tale of Two Ground Games.)

Then you have an invocation at a McCain rally where the pastor says: “I would also pray, Lord, that   your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons.   And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens.   So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day.”

What?   One God bigger than another?   A monotheist talking about more than one God??   I wrote a satire called “The Art of Jerry Boykin” after the Abu Ghraib revelations, that barely altered the quotes of several on the right essentially saying “My God is bigger than yours.”   I thought it was irrelevant by now.   Alas, no.

And I know I’m getting way off the subject of Mulatto Moments.   But maybe not.   The positive power of a   mulatto moment is hearing something shocking then having the opportunity to share your experience from a position of inclusion.   The hope is that whether or not you can sway the offending position, you can at least create a space where respectful dialogue can happen, where the division between an arbitrary “us” and “them” can be minimized.

The Art of Jerry Boykin

You’ve lost your morals
You’ve lost your values…and
My God is bigger than yours
My God is bigger than yours!

My God is real
Yours is an idol
We are Christians and Jews
The enemy’s a guy called Satan

They hate us because we’re a Christian nation
One nation under God
On crusade to stamp out all Evil
Let’s roll, let’s roll, let’s roll

I’ve no trouble saying I’m born again
And you’re with me or you’re against me
Not men, but God, put this man in power
We’ll win in the name of the Lord (Jesus)
(Jesus, we’ll win in your name)

We’re in the Army of God
In the house of God
In the kingdom of God
And we…
Have been raised for times like these

I’ve just written a piece for an anthology on “the Black Body” where I described the posters of The Who, Queen and Led Zeppelin on my childhood walls in Irvine, CA. But today I was thinking of Isaac Hayes and stumbled across this picture and remembered it hanging on my wall at some point. I’m pretty sure it was pre-‘burbs. But it was nice to remember that there was a time when black men held my imagination in the same way that curly-headed white men did in my childhood imagination.

A few years ago, I rediscovered the Black Moses album. I don’t know what drew me back to Isaac Hayes. My father and I share the middle name “Hayes,” so I guess he was never too far away… The story I always heard was that Pops was named after Roland Hayes, the great tenor who’d stayed with our family in Mississippi when there were no hotels for blacks. But after reading the Black Moses disc liner notes, I determined that Isaac Hayes had to be my uncle. Dad and Isaac both had a mother named Eula and the father was a wandering sort in the same Tennessee and Mississippi area. More than that, when I was a kid I always thought my dad had a lot of Isaac in him. Maybe it was because he’d mouth the words along with Shaft or something like that. Dad was definitely that cool, fashionable, player. But my head was completely screwed up by Isaac Hayes’ Penthouse magazine layout that I found in my dad’s stash.

I think what I like most about this photo is that is seems so organic. Isaac Hayes was known for his sexy bald head, muscles and precious metals. But here he’s in wool and cotton, his arms are open for embrace, he’s looking towards heaven beneath those shades. Sure it could be just a jokey, almost blasphemous visual pun. But as a kid that was the sort of image I wanted of my dad, not the flash, but the open, loving spirit. They were both imperfect men, and the flash out-shined some of the substance. But both Isaac and my pops inspired me to open my arms to embrace the large universe they showed me, a universe that transcended the humble beginnings of sons of a Eula with wandering fathers.

Unfortunately, this is just a quick little note…I think. I’ve been writing music and working on an essay I’ll tell you about later. Then there was the tour which exposed me to a lot of ideas, but the pace was a little too frantic to keep up. Anyway, what inspired me to jump on this evening is not really a mulatto moment at all, but a media moment. And I think it also speaks to some of the comments that I’ve received in my absence. It’s the NYTimes article today Poll Finds Obama Isn’t Closing Divide on Race.

I chose not to publish a couple comments from people recently because they felt too negative and inflammatory. But the gist of it was that the articles here were all about race and race isn’t or shouldn’t be the issue in the presidential campaign. Well, race and culture are probably going to be the topic on a blog subtitled “Mulatto Moments in ‘Post Racial’ America,” so you are probably in the wrong place if looking for a “colorblind zone.” But one of the problems with this election is that it’s being talked about in racially divisive ways. A funny thing, Jon Stewart said that the proper response to the New yorker cover that is causing so much noise should have been:

“Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist. Because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists! Of which Barack Obama is not. It’s just a fucking cartoon!”

But I actually liked what Barack had to say on Larry King in response to the smear e-mails and cartoon:

“One last point I want to — I do want to make about these e- mails, though. And I think this has an impact on this “New Yorker” cover. You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim-Americans, something that we don’t spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I’ve been derelict in pointing that out.

You know, there are wonderful Muslim-Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult or to raise suspicions about me I think is unfortunate. And it’s not what America is all about.”

And I think that’s probably more to the point than Stewart’s comedy.

Back to the Times today… It was also on AOL’s front page as the first item of news. The Times article says that “More than 80 percent of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30 percent of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him.” What they could’ve said right next to that as their graphic indicates, only 35 percent of white voters have a favorable opinion of John McCain. And as you can see, the graphic list Obama’s “white approval” at 31% to McCain’s 35%. A four percentage point difference and AOL says New Poll Reveals Trouble for Obama. Huh? What was the white approval rate for the Democrats in ’04 as opposed to the Republicans? Historically Republicans seem to win the white male vote, so I’d venture to say the percentages were about the same. And blacks tend to vote Democrat, so while 80% is high it’s probably not much more skewed than Irish Catholics for Kennedy, Greeks for Dukakis, etc. So why did this inspire an “Is America Ready for a Black President?” poll on AOL? It seems someone is looking for a racial hook.

Then you get the results as of 11pm PST on Wednesday:

Do you think America is ready for a black president?
No 59%
Yes 41%
Total Votes: 403,336

Are you personally ready for a black president?
Yes 53%
No 47%
Total Votes: 393,646

How big a role do you think race will play in the outcome of the presidential election?
Major 68%
Minor 28%
None at all 4%
Total Votes: 309,373

What’s your race?
White 77%
Black 9%
Other 6%
Hispanic 5%
Asian 3%
Total Votes: 295,493

With the caveat:

Poll results are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those users who chose to participate. Poll results are not reflected in real time.

And the New York Times poll? They asked their questions to 1,338 white people and 297 black people.

How many people read this article? And then how many got past the paragraph three where Obama gets “about [a] 30%” favorable rating from whites to the paragraph where McCain’s favorable rating is only 35%. Oh, that’s right, it’s never mentioned in the article’s twenty-seven paragraphs. But if you do click on to page two of the online article you’ll see mentioned that “Over all, Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain among all registered voters by 45 percent to 39 percent.” in paragraph twenty.

Obama leads 45% to 39%. That screams racial trouble! Let’s put it on the front page. 1,796 adults have determined that our world is a mess!

Race needs to be discussed. Let’s just please discuss it in context and in non-alarmist ways. Be honest, be angry, but please be reasonable. And I suppose you could say I missed the point of the NYTImes article because it was really about how black people think race relations are worse than white people see it. Interesting news… There must be trouble for Barack Obama. But it’s not coming from the data in this poll.

I had a rant the other day – when it was the Che Guevara/Obama supporter controversy – and I knew it would be impossible for me to ever be a mainstream politician. I give a buck to the woman selling the Communist newspaper outside the lefty folk singers’ shows. And I’ve bought the bean pie and taken the newspaper. Some of the stuff I read resonates at times, but mostly I’m excited that people are fiercely passionate about questioning the status quo. It may not make sense to me. And there’s enough contradiction in all these dogmas, from communism to religion to the “American Dream” to fuel ironic monologue’s long after the sun dies. But it’s committed work. And the more this poor guy misspeaks, the more I believe in him.

Barack Obama is getting caught in so many mulatto moments, creating a national mulatto moment, and making clear that sometimes in those mulatto moments of multi-lingual encounters, we fall prey to the language that we suspect our listener can hear. Those are the uncomfortable moments when you let a cultural offense slip by and then find yourself in a situation where you’ve said something in a way that could be interpreted as offensive. But you want to avoid the time it takes to deliver “Barack Obama’s Speech on Race” which may or may not be received. So you figure your friends know you’re not elitist, or racist, or sexist and you let it go in the moment. I mean, you probably figure, I’ve spent literal years of my life trying to deconstruct bias in an effort to foster community and understanding, in conversations with lovers, family members, in public, in art…. I’ll just let this one go. Then someone, who hasn’t asked you what you meant by your “gaffe,” decides to interpret it for you. This person shapes it into something that fits his/her world view or aim. Then it’s turned against you.

So a “typical white person” becomes a racist remark, when in fact a “typical person” of any background in America may have the same reaction as Grammy Dunham, if you believe computer test simulations. And expressing that people cling to the things that they have left to empower them becomes an elitist observation, or a borderline racist appeal when Howard Dean said he wanted to bring the Confederate Flag bumper sticker truckers into the fold of the Democratic Party. All of these cases are situations where the speakers are trying to reach out, to say “I feel your pain” (or “their pain” depending on the audience). And yet the great pain feeler of the 90s reacts like the child of privilege when he claims no racial or ill intent in some of his statements recently. And even if you give the benefit of the doubt, to the intentions Bill or Hillary, or anyone else who thinks their “politically incorrect” statement is innocuous, a person who wishes to create real dialogue will acknowledge their words are legitimately heard differently by those from a different perspective.

In debate, I think the rule is to never give your opponent’s perspective any real credence. I prefer a dialogue between interested parties in life and in Government. Admit your mistakes, consider the different perspectives, and let’s move on. I kind of agree with Frank Rich from a couple weeks ago that it’s silly for the Dems to say that John McCain wants a hundred year war. Look at all these candidates’ long records and there’s no need to twist. Obama will be the most effective leader.

So, I got back into this electoral politics thing again…

Well here’s my religious thought of the day: God as a verb rather than a noun. I heard Chris Hedges float that idea the other day and I’m enjoying the chew.

I just sent out my first full blast out about this blog and one of the first dialogues got me to question of why people like me and Barack Obama “only considered and referred to as black” when we’re just as much white. Well, of course, that’s not going to be answered in a quick e-mail or blog entry. But a simple answer is: it’s the power structure. I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but a lot of it has to do with the color dynamic I wrote about in the ¡Sí, Se Puede! entry a couple weeks ago. And it starts with the historic “one drop rule.” In the quick reply to my friend I came up with this: People are defined by others by what sets them apart, what makes them different from what’s considered the norm. People self-define by their source of power. The history of “passing” is about people claiming “white” because that gave the sense of power to elevate above the restrictions of segregation and prejudice. The converse of that is the idea of strength can also come from the triumph over adversity. Outside of racial identification you have people describing themselves as “survivors” over cancer or “(recovering) alcoholics” when they give up their addiction. So perhaps racial self-identification is predicated by the same factors. For light skinned Blacks there is a complicated layer because light skin, “good hair,” etc. often affords more privilege. So to remain engaged with the plight of the struggle for all to be afforded equal rights and opportunities, many decide to identify as Black. (Since I started writing this entry an interesting discussion was posted on the New York Times called Go Back to Black which examines the inclusionary history of the US African American community, but also the exclusion of that term and idea when it comes to Blacks from non American-slave descendants. Another interesting post on the subject comes from my friend Meri Danquah.)

So my preferred identification has always been bi-racial (after I took the term Mulatto to be derived from the Spanish/Portuguese word for “small mule” though some disagree with that etymology), because it acknowledged both the privilege and struggle that has come from either definition in either community. I want to be reminded of how individuals throughout the power spectrum perceive me and by not choosing an exclusionary term, and claiming the white and black, I acknowledge that I’m aware of the perceptions of power and welcome discussion that calls into question my participation in an oppressive system. Sometimes I’m oppressed, sometimes I’m perceived as the oppressor. Sometimes I oppress and sometimes I think that I’m being oppressed by an individual when it’s largely an unconscious act as a result of ideas formed under a White Male Patriarchy.

So where does all this lead us? It’s interesting that Barack Obama would identify as black, aligning himself with achievement against oppression, rather than more strongly identifying with the source of privilege in his life. I’ve read a few posts online saying that he’s not doing himself any favor by not strongly claiming the race of the blood family that raised him, but the reality of it all is that even people like my friend who wrote to me initially recognizes that people like me and Barack Obama are considered black before we’re even asked to identify ourselves.

I’ve often said the great privilege of being biracial is that people from various communities view you as included rather than other, then the biracial person has the opportunity to shed light on how one of the “included” can be treated when perceived as other. So today it’s still a very powerful statement to claim to be black when 1 in 15 black adults (including one in nine black males between the age of 20 and 34) are behind bars when distancing yourself from that classification may make your life easier.

So yes, biracial, with or without the hyphen suggests hybridity and duality, as an offensive idea to some as being aligned to a mule. And to claim that as my identity doesn’t even allude to what the sections of the “bi” are. But it invites questions which I choose to answer or not. I am black. I have an intimate connection to the diaspora that the term African-American was supposed to foment yet has somehow created distance. And I’m white, formed by the love my blood family and the community that I grew up in. Though it’s harder to say the later, because that same community that nurtured me also housed elements that violently reminded me that I was black. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to say every black person in his lifetime has been reminded at one inconvenient time or another that he or she was not part of the white power elite. And though biracial people may get uncomfortable reminders from their community of color, there’s not the same dynamic. Prejudice is prejudice, but racism and all the other so-called “isms” are indicative of an historic and present power structure. And even with a black President of the United States, blacks may still be nearly 45% of all prisoners in the US on “Day One” though representing only 13% of the US population. (Whites are 35% of prisoners, 70% of the US population, Hispanic are 20% and 12%. These are rounded figures based on a 2003 study by Human Rights Watch.) So it also feels like an act of courage to claim your benefits derived from your connection to the power system that has despicable aspects that you’d like to change. (And lest you think I’m going negative by highlighting prison data look at this article from the Associated Press lamenting the loss of Black CEOs for Fortune 500 companies–down to 4 in 2007–including this quote: “10 or 15 years ago, we couldn’t have had this conversation, because there was no one to talk about.”)

Lastly, what does it mean that biracial (black and white for me) doesn’t parse out the English or Scottish of the WASP lineage and the Native American and French of the Black lineage? You know ultimately this stuff can be parsed to the DNA that says white person X has more African Ancestry than black person Y, and in the biology of it all there may be genetic benefits and disadvantages. So the definitions are subjective, but an informed subjectivity acknowledging the objective political and historical reality of racism, colonialism, etc. creates a better dialogue. And that dialogue, acknowledging the historic and present “matterings” of race may get us to point where race matters much less in terms of opportunity and general peace. Mulatto moments may be humorous or learning opportunities, but they’re not inherently peaceful.

I’d wanted to start publicizing this blog last week when I started it but life gets busy and I didn’t jump on it. Today I received a second copy of the “Be Careful, be very careful” email that’s circulating after a conversation last night regarding a golf channel announcer Kelly Tilghman’s “lynch him in the back alley” comment with really good friends of mine who had no idea of the offense that could cause. So my second post after the primary loss in N.H. is a lot less starry eyed about the state of the nation.

The “mulatto moments!”

So let’s start with Saturday night. Me, a Filipino-American, a South Carolinian white American, and a Chinese-American are sitting around after a steak dinner and bottles of wine. Three guys in the neighborhood of 40 and a woman around 30.

“You’re black, right?” says the white man with his characteristic jest. He’s one of my best friends, and has been for years, so I’m used to the silliness and know there’s no malice and potentially ensuing political incorrectness is more Lenny Bruce than Michael Richards.

So did you hear about the white announcer on the Golf Channel and the controversy with Al Sharpton?

I don’t pay attention to golf or Sharpton much, so no.

He explained that she had said in the context of a discussion of Tiger Woods’ dominance, that the only way to stop that was to “lynch him in the back alley.” (It was actually an amplification of her co-announcer’s statement that the players would need to gang up on him to pass him.) Sharpton wants her fired. She got a suspension. I’m with Al on this one. Tiger said that Tilghman and he were friends and it was no big deal.

I’ve bit my tongue. I have and haven’t called friends on offensive remarks in the past. It’s a subjective thing. Like the law, it’s discretionary.

I was asked my opinion and I agreed with someone whom I don’t think is an idiot, however goofy he may seem to me at times. My friend kept asking if I thought she should lose her career, based on one remark, by being fired. I don’t think necessarily that it is career ending to lose a job, but I do think that people in the public communications business have a responsibility to understand the weight of certain terms in a diverse society. And fairly or not, a white woman from the south saying a black man should be lynched, when a good many black men were lynched and castrated for the appearance of an alliance with white women in the not so distant past, carries a skewed weight of offense. (Anyone remember To Kill a Mockingbird?) So I would fire someone who made such a remark because I wouldn’t want one of the faces of my organization to be someone so ignorant or irresponsible. But if in the next awkward breath she said, “Oh my god, that was awful, I’m sorry” I might give her a pass. Jason Whitlock on Fox Sports had a nice discussion of it, and he was cool with the two week suspension. (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7658418) For me, I’d just wish her well and ask her to move on. (I also liked this article regarding the issue: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=112662 which speaks to the comment from Tiger’s Camp of the “non-issue.”)

But what came up in the discussion later while we all were trying to bring up other contexts with other races, etc. surprised me more. One friend had never heard of the Japanese Internments in World War II and another friend kept insisting that the majority of Americans didn’t even know Barack Obama was black, and most likely thought people were talking about Osama bin Laden when they heard the name Obama. Then I had to explain the caucus system to the group. We don’t have caucuses in California or New York or Florida, so it’s understandable to a degree, but it still makes me wonder how people can vote with such little knowledge of the way government works.

Do we all understand at this point that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy? Though the framers were political animals that caved to a 3/5ths ranking of the humanity of “slaves” who were not allowed to vote, they were smart enough to know that Democracy means Mob Rule and a Republic is a more reasoned and protective sort of government for the needs of all, especially those of minority opinions.

So in a way, it almost seems like the major two parties are misnamed. In high school I wrote a Political Science paper where I compared the Republican Party to the “Id,” concerned with individual liberties, “what’s in it for me?” and the Democrats to the “Super Ego,” concerned with the collective good, sacrificing for the poor, etc. Granted this was the 80s, before “ending welfare as we know it” was looked at as a Nixon in China moment. And I’m abbreviating in my haste to blog as opposed to working for the grade. But my Republican friend agreed, saying that under George Bush he was able to get health care, every job he ever considers makes $80,000/year and he got $600, so he votes Republican. (Do you remember the Bush tax rebate based on our budget surpluses during the Clinton years?) In our discussion he kept asking me to “dumb it down” saying that if a candidate offers $600 and another doesn’t most people are going to vote for the one offering $600. I asked if you were a family of three siblings that got to choose your dad and one candidate offered to give allowance and health care to you, but not your siblings would you vote for that candidate knowing that your brother and sister will suffer, but you’ll be better off (in those tangible ways)? I know, though I might’ve had a moment when I was a tyke when that would appeal to me, I would choose the parent that would provide for my family equitably. Suffice to say there was a lot of agreeing to disagree, a few votes of “present” to keep the peace, and a few accusations of people being pissed off. There was also a dispute over which candidate would present a more dramatic symbol to the rest of the world if elected President of the United States.

Then this morning–to speak to the notion of dumbing down–I received the above mentioned forwarded email. And to clarify, both times I received the e-mail it was from a white person sending it on to me with a copy of their rebuttal to the person who had sent it to them. And though I’ve received my share of inane forwards from friends of all backgrounds, it struck me that these e-mails were sent to white people, and not me. Either my immediate community is hipper than my extended network, or some who might’ve sent it to me knew I’d think it was inane or worse. I dunno, but there’s your answer on the symbolism question. In a world where two thirds of the world is brown skinned or “people of color,” many who believe, at best (as do many good, educated Americans) that we would never elect a person of color to be the leader of the free world, and at worst America is an intolerant country that demonizes people of color (despite its tokens) and even more so people of non Judeo-Christian religions especially the “last branch” of the Abrahamic religions, the election of a man (who for the record is Christian), with a non-European, Muslim father, who has lived in the “third world” even if just as a child, would probably seem more significant a symbol than a white woman joining the tradition of Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel as leaders of some of the most powerful nations in the world and as leaders of countries where the head of government is of the same dominant race or ethnicity as its populace. (Add to that list most of the women here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_heads_of_government, think of Corazon Aquino, Indira Gandhi, the late Benazir Bhutto, and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.)

All this reminds me of the old gotcha joke/question: What nationality is Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori?

I don’t know if it’s really smart in consecutive breaths for an Obama supporter to mention that guy who turned out to be pretty bad news. But the idea that the president of a nation is not of that nation’s nationality is a mulatto moment akin to my being asked “what nationality are you?” while my features and skin tone reflect the people who were here before Columbus, the people who came after, and the people who were shipped here in chains.

I like Hillary. I think she’d make a good president. She lacks the charisma and some of the political instincts of her husband, which to me make her slightly less suited for the role of “leader of the free world.” But they make a good team, with her coming down as probably more passionate about some things I care about than Bill. I like the effectiveness of the Clinton machine. [Addendum Feb 3: At this point, after South Carolina, I’ve lost respect for the Clinton Machine, I’m just saddened by them.] And I think she would be a great role model to all Americans as one who remains committed to an ideal even in the face of dramatic odds or shame. (I liked this article on the Incremental Revolutionary, comparing Obama and Hillary Clinton: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91755).

I just think Obama is a stronger symbol of change and probably better equipped to get the job done in terms of negotiations across party lines (the baggage to experience ratio seems to weigh in his favor in my view), symbolism–which is extremely important in politics, charisma and even political thinking.

So here’s the real answer to that question: Peruvian born, Alberto Fujimori, the son of Japanese immigrants to Peru, actually did have dual citizenship secured by his parents for him. So truth and symbolism is more complicated than it appears.

And here’s my response to the email smear: (This was actually a response to the original sender’s second e-mail maintaining Obama has lied to us about being a Muslim, after my friend called her on perpetuating ignorance. Be careful of using “reply to all” with your emails… click here for the entire exchange, names removed of course.)

It’s snopes.com, not snoops.com. And if you look at it you’ll see that most of the assertions in this email are lies and the rest are mischaracterizations. The link is http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp There’s also a good article called “Sliming Obama” on Newsweek’s site: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91424.

Unfortunately, by replying to this email by saying “The fact that he is Muslim isn’t my concern – the fact that he lied is!” without verifying your information shows a really sad pride in your ignorance on this issue. He’s not Muslim (freshman congressman Keith Ellison is and after he was sworn in posed for pictures with his hands on Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Koran) and Obama’s at least as honest as any of the other politicians running for office or running the country. (I’d venture to say more so.) Also Clinton fired a campaign worker who forwarded on a similar Obama smear e-mail. (And please don’t mischaracterize this as a claim that it originated from the Clinton campaign…as politically ruthless as they are, I can’t imagine them organizing something so laughably false. I actually like the Clintons and feel they are really effective leaders on issues of tolerance among many other things.)

I don’t know you “—“, but you’ve sent easily verifiable lies twice two more than a dozen of your friends. I can only hope that most of your friends are smart enough to investigate before they believe a chain email and cast a misinformed vote. Things like this make me really happy we live in a republic rather than a democracy. (The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic…follow the links, it’s edifying).

Jason Luckett

I changed my subject line to the email response from “Be Careful…” to “Please verify before accusing people of not being truthful.” Yet, for a moment earlier in this writing, I was going to attribute these emails as being sent by white people to the white people who forwarded rebuttals to this half-white guy. I don’t know that my mother’s classmate was in fact white, (though being in her mid-60s from Maine it’s likely) nor do I know that my friend’s friend was white. What I know is that assumptions often need to be examined. By all of us.

I know I’d be happy in a world where the word lynch didn’t have horrific associations for blacks. And I’d probably be just as happy in a world where I didn’t know that it had horrific connotations, until I made the mistake of using it in a public forum.

As a six year old child I was happy in a world where the word Nigger meant the same to me as the word Fucker until I called a black boy Nigger and was beat up. My parents educated me and five years later I was beat up by a white kid and told to run home like a Nigger. I knew what it meant.

Did he?

(And PS, I don’t mean to characterize my friends as heartless or unintelligent. These are people I love, who are wonderful people, generous and we’re about as diverse as they come. I’m just amazed that education and the national media as well as the public discourse has been so weak, that vital moments of history and important themes in the larger context of America’s character are unknown to so many of us. What I’m really thankful for is that we as friends, and being of such “diverse cultural backgrounds” have the love and respect for one another to be able to speak frankly, disagree and yet really enjoy each other. That’s what the Obamanation is: people gathering in harmony in situations and relationships that less than 50 years ago were seen as anathema in the eyes of much of the public and the law.)

Peace.

I just switched over to WordPress for the blog and I’d like to post some photos of all of us for this masthead. The branch is groovy, but I’d like to start a revolving gallery. Will you send your best? Please e-mail them to me at info [at] jasonluckett [dot] com. Thanks.