Writer's Block!

Please bear with me, faithful readers. I am suffering this week from severe writer's block, and it's not for want of reflecting on a number of different issues. I'm just freezing up when I get to my keyboard. How absolutely frustrating!

So, I think I will just read through other people's blogs and, hopefully, my creative juices will start flowing again.

I think I just need to relax, now that the school year is over, grades are in, and I'm almost done with end-of-year reports that need to be completed this coming weekend.

Oi! At least I'm able to write this much today.

Starting the Week with Some Attitude

Back from the holiday weekend, having taken a brief hiatus from my blog. So, to get started, I thought I would begin the new week with some old-school, feminist remix - courtesy of spoken-word poet Sarah Jones, whose "Your Revolution" received an FCC fine back in 1999. Because, you know, heaven help us when black women reclaim our bodies for ourselves.

So, Who's Surprised by This, Really?

Got this from Black Women Vote!

Bragging Rights

When my students shine, I'm a proud teacher (translation: as proud as any mama would be!) .

This is a video created as a final project for one of my courses that I taught this semester. The video artist had uploaded on You Tube, and I'm just posting here. Enjoy! :)

America Votes!, Media Spin, and Missed Opportunities

So, last week, I called it and predicted David Cook to be this year's American Idol (despite backing a completely different horse), which he was just crowned earlier tonight. And, when a good friend called me last night to ask how I thought it would all go down, I boldly told him: "If David Archuleta beats out David Cook, this bodes very well for Obama's chances when (not if) he goes up against McCain. But if he loses, I really think Obama will follow the same fate...you know, younger guy and all that."

Crazy? Yeah, I know, especially since general elections and cheesy reality shows don't mix (except that all three of our presidential candidates made an appearance this season!). Here's why I would make such a claim, having followed American Idol since season 2 and American politics since the Clinton years. And it isn't just the youth thing.

Like Obama, David Archuleta emerged really early as the frontrunner in the race in 2008. His good looks, strong vocals, and wide-eyed innocence won the hearts of many who tuned into the show, not unlike how Obama's youthful outlook and fresh perspective became a force to be reckoned with during the Iowa Caucus. During semifinals, David A. was the runaway favorite, and many had predicted months ago that he would win this season. The show's producers saw Disney potential and started promoting him to the nth degree, which really wasn't necessary since he was already popular.

But, people hate lack of suspense and, more than anything, hate being manipulated (except when they don't know when they are being manipulated). But, Archie, being true to himself, didn't quite fit into their cookie-cutter mold. He had flawless vocals but other flaws, with his awkward gait, shy personality, and timid presence on stage. Because his flaws were visible, the producers got scared he wouldn't be as marketable as they had hoped. This, combined with his rumored-to-be-impossible stage dad (the equivalent of Obama's preacher?), made them switch horses mid-season.

Enter a viable contender, David Cook, the older generic rocker dude, who was clever enough to do some interesting rock-emo spins on old pop standards. And definitely someone more polished, or someone not so risky to put out there as the next best-selling Idol winner (because, now, in the wake of Carrie Underwood, this show has stopped being about finding the best undiscovered talent and finding the most studio-ready individual). For all the talk about Cookie being this "brave" "risk-taker," I find him very safe and very reliable. And there is just something so very cynical about the show backing such an obvious "record-sales pusher" over the more rough-around-the-edges Archuleta, whose pipes would give any musician enough ammunition to work with.

This cynical move on the show's part is not unlike the Clintons bringing out the tried-and-true political tactics of mudslinging and "race-baiting." It's not working for the Clintons because they have underestimated how much Hillary is hated. But, oh, when this race moves to the national stage, yipes! Media spin will determine the outcome, the way it determined the win on this year's American Idol.

So, just like that: Archuleta went from America's boy wonder to the "uncool" Mormon dork, loved by tweenies (I guess I belong to this age-group even though I'm in my 30s) going up against the way cooler David Cook. That's some serious media spin to pull off, for someone as adorable as Archuleta and as weird-looking as Cookie. But, it just goes to show: he who is backed by the media and the powers that be takes all. The same AI watchers, who had fallen in love with Archie earlier in the season, didn't trust their instincts and instead went with the show's spin, and overnight bashing and full on hatred started. From questioning his humility to wondering if he's mentally challenged or physically abused by his daddy, the criticisms were pretty cutting. Meanwhile, Cookie became the most original contestant ever (apparently rocking out to Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" is original, even though Cookie admitted as much that he used another band's cover), and the mere thought of Archie beating him in a duel became as sacrilegious as Sanjaya Malakar being crowned American Idol.

It was this acrimony that had me drawing comparisons between "hard masculinity" and "soft masculinity" when the show came down to these two Davids. Yet, Archuleta redeemed himself so remarkably Tuesday night, I had to add a comment to my post last week about how proud I was of his finale performance. He threw down and reminded everyone, lest we forgot, that the show is about a singing competition, that Cook can't touch him when it comes to vocal performance. After that show, just about every media outlet predicted Archuleta would win the season. Except those reporters, much like my students, are not very good at reading subtext.

Tuesday night, after that ridiculously cheesy introduction of a faux boxing match (and right then and there, before they even started singing, I knew Cookie was going to take it - since the show wanted to subliminally remind us that this competition should be about choosing hard masculinity), Simon advised David Cook that he needed to really hate his opponent if he's going to win. Of course, it's so obvious the two guys are fond of each other and already have forged this big brother/little brother bond. However, this message was not delivered for Cookie; it was delivered for his fanbase. Unexpectedly, Archuleta - the puny "100-pound" 17-year-old with the pure and soothing voice - came out swinging. None of the judges saw that coming, and the crowd at the Nokia theater couldn't stop with their exhilarating applause. He was at the top of his game, and Simon Cowell (the only judge whose opinion matters and who had been traveling the talk show circuit promoting David Cook's inevitable win) surprisingly kept proclaiming that Archuleta was the better contestant, until at the very end, he said David A. delivered the "knockout" punch. And, of course, the media all chimed in by erroneously declaring that Simon Cowell predicted an Archuleta win.

I, of course, heard the subtext: "David A, I will give you credit where it's due and say you were the better competitor. But, you ain't winning this thing." Because, anyone who's been watching this show knows that, at the finale, Simon ALWAYS calls the winner. He's not subtle about it. He simply states, "You just won American Idol." Archie never got that declaration, so I knew something was not kosher.

Sure enough, Simon manipulated the media spin at the very end (clever bastard!) by making sure the average AI viewer believed Cookie was the most original and most talented contestant on the show, who had Simon in his corner. When his fans got wind that Simon was essentially "throwing him under the bus" on finale night, as many were proclaiming all over the Internet on Tuesday, the hate was in full force. And, just like that, they mobilized and voted their behinds off (some even bragging that they went so far as to disconnect Archuleta's phone lines, however that's done - seriously, I wish our fellow Americans were as riled up about politics and the vote as they are about this show). So, they all heard that subliminal message: "To win this thing, you have to hate your opponent."

And they did: to the point where tonight, Ryan Seacrest declared that the winner won by 12 million votes. So, lest anyone assume this was a close race, they made sure to deliver the message that the winner was far ahead of the game. The manipulation was so thorough and complete, I am now anticipating the same foolishness to play out come November (the same audiences following this show are also being catered to for votes in our presidential election, if they're old enough to vote, that is, and many are). And, if you think I'm exaggerating, just think of how Obama's eloquent, history-making speech on race relations was deliberately downplayed or spun into something it was not by the mainstream media.

In a reality show, the fallout for this kind of spin is that you have to suffer watching young teenage boys, who just put their heart and soul on the line to try and win a damn contest, come close to their dreams and lose it all (yeah, my heart sank when poor Archie quickly scurried off the stage as soon as Cookie was declared the winner - even though David Cook was all graciousness and tried to pull him back on stage to share in his victory), but in a general election, it could cost us our national security, our jobs, our economy, and our very future!

I have not overlooked that this type of show emerged in the wake of our collective disenfranchisement in Election 2000, as well as post-September 11. Both events built a need to believe our votes can count for something and to also believe in something trite and fun, like a talent competition. But, as Clay Aiken said this year, the show has definitely lost its innocence (not just its freshness), and these competitions are starting to take on the air of serious campaigning and sabotage and endless spin, spin, spin.

If the show's producers can't leave it to chance and trust that "voters" will vote for whom they like best (whether that contestant is "marketable" or not), then they need to end it, for they are taking themselves far too seriously. Likewise TV viewers, who don't trust that the contestant they first embraced in their hearts is worthy enough to take the win, need to find a different pastime and obsession (Honestly, the kinds of conversations that viewers have, about whether or not a contestant is truly going to "sell well" or "end up on Broadway", as if Broadway is a terrible place for a singer to end up, only illustrate the point that media can spin even the kinds of conversations we have about music and "talent").

Of course, the stakes are higher in a presidential election, and campaigners really can't afford to leave it to chance, but I suspect that if voters could trust their instincts, even their hearts, and vote for the best candidate because they believe in that person (and not because of that candidate's race or gender), they won't have to rely on "spin" to dictate how they vote come November.

With all the dreary news of late about our economy and our perpetual wars, we really need a presidential candidate who can inspire and touch our hearts and help us persevere through the darkness. An adorable, talented boy with a soothing, crystal-clear voice could also do similar things, but if we go by the party line, that's not as marketable as a grunge rock singer, and, you know, we're in such a privileged state, we don't need any soothing anyway (wait till we really start feeling the recession!).

Missed opportunity! (And, yeah, after Melinda Doolittle, and after David Archuleta, I really, really need to quit following this show now. Even though I too will give credit where it's due and congratulate David Cook for being a worthy competitor and winning the title. Not my cup of tea, but at least someone with talent still bears the crown.)

In a different voting scenario, let's hope we can get it right this time in November!

Speaking of "Affirmative Action for White Guys"...

...which I hope my trusted readers realize the tongue-in-cheek humor with which I utter that phrase in this post and the previous one, I came upon an interesting article (htp Classical One) about how this week really is about white guys thriving as an "underrepresented group" and meeting with success.

It appears that history is in the making as Joshua Packwood becomes the first white valedictorian at one of our top historical black colleges, Morehouse College, in its 141-year history. In light of another post this week, in which I reported on the controversy surrounding the Martin Luther King national memorial plans (from the choice of an Asian artist to the dislike of the sculpture itself), it appears that black communities are being called upon to rise to the challenge of being racially inclusive and diverse. And, while I had also discussed on my blog, during the time of the movie The Great Debaters, that it would be necessary for HBCUs to become more fully integrated if they wished to thrive, I must say that the way the story of Joshua Packwood is reported gives me just enough reason to pause. There is so much white male privilege connected to his success that few people are willing to discuss.

i.e. here are some choice quotes from the AP article included on C-1's blog:

"'I've been forced to see the world in a different perspective, that I don't think I could've gotten anywhere else,' [Packwood] said." (Where have I heard this before?)

"He also drew attention with his looks — some Atlanta University Center coeds took to calling him 'Tom Cruise.' His photo album on Facebook shows a smiling Packwood posing with dozens of young, black women who fill his page with notes." (So many levels, so many levels to unpack - ESPECIALLY at HBCUs that have a history of being "colorstruck.")

"'Right now we live in a time where people say the black institution is obsolete, that you can get a better education at a majority institution...To see a white guy who had declined Harvard for Morehouse, I figured it was good enough for me.'" (Just...wow!)

"Packwood raised 'the bar for everyone.'" (But, of course he did!)

In a CNN article, the quotes are even better!

"'I gained this interest in African-American studies and I thought that Morehouse would probably be the best experience,' says Packwood. 'I think of it in terms of 'study abroad.' If I really want to learn it, if I really want to understand it - maybe it's best if I immerse myself in the culture.'" (Wow! Who knew that HBCUs would be the equivalent of traveling to Africa or Latin America and encountering exotic others!)

And how brave of someone like our underrepresented minority who dealt in
his four years with black men who held such opinions like these:

"'I don't necessarily support him being here, but because he's here and we can't discriminate against other races, I support him and his mission to be successful in life," says Muhammad, a junior. 'I just kind of wish he had done it at a different institution.'" (Thanks for expressing black bigotry, my brother.)

"'I think that it should be a wake-up call to an all black campus,' says Muhammad. 'At Morehouse we're supposed to be at the top as black men. We only have a few white students and to see a white student will rise to this - is something unsettling to me because it shows that we need to work harder.'" (Well, my friend, if you weren't aware of that before, next time, make sure you apply to and attend a predominately white university. You'll never forget that lesson again!)

And, wouldn't you know that Joshua Packwood just started his job at the prestigious Goldman Sachs banking firm on Wall Street this week?

I wonder how many other "Morehouse men," who don't benefit from the same white privilege, received similar offers - whether they were valedictorians or not?

Look: don't get me wrong. This weekend is commencement at my university, and I'm always proud of my and every students' accomplishments. What I find disturbing in both reports is the complete dismissal of how power and privilege would shape such a student's experience. This is not "reverse Affirmative Action," nor is it "reverse discrimination." Joshua Packwood sounds like a sharp, popular guy who can be credited by his own merits. But, when he thrives under certain environments, his white male status will offer him a cushion - whether he was at Harvard or Morehouse. Now, he can work at Wall Street with the extra credentials of "working well with diverse communities."

How many of us have thrived in predominately white colleges, universities, and working environments? Do we receive similar credit for "working well with diverse communities?" How many of us are equally celebrated and honored, even when we reach the top? What exactly is the novelty here when Packwood's success is based on being the "first white guy?"

Congratulations to him, but I do not believe this story qualifies as "progress."

Now, if both reports had actually focused on what it would mean for HBCUs to embrace diversity and support white and other non-black students to thrive while also redefining their roles in the 21st century, Packwood's success might be worthwhile in this context. But the "white boy travels to the jungles of black campuses and emerges on top" angle?

Not so much.

David vs. Goliath: Thoughts on Competing Masculinities

Wow! Last night, American Idol made history by previewing - for the first time ever in seven seasons! - a showdown finale between two white boys! (Or should I say white-identifying?) Talk about confirming that this show really is Affirmative Action for non-black and male singing talents!

Okay, I've already gone on record here about what I think of American Idol and how a certain contestant this season (David Archuleta! - pictured) drew me back into this show when I swore I would stay away. I've also talked ad infinitum about the show's racial politics, but I haven't really talked about its gender/sexual politics. Nothing like a competition - in which race and gender differences don't figure in - to refocus us on the more typical contest: you know, the penis-measuring contest.

Beyond reality TV is the world of politics in which President Bush, Jr. decided today to do the "he may be a black man, but I doubt his penis is as big as mine!" nonsense while alluding to "misguided" and "softer" public figures who think it's not out of the realm of possibility to try negotiations ("with terrorists and extremists") before pulling out the big... uh...guns. (See today's New York Times). Of course, John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell offered a critique of these U.S. Superpower strategies through the most masculine American narrative of them all: The Godfather series.

Back to American Idol. In one corner is the sweet, fresh-faced, gorgeously-voiced, piano-playing 17-year-old David Archuleta (Mormon-raised innocent who says "Gosh!" when he's overwhelmed or "Dang it!" when he's frustrated). In the other corner is the growly-voiced, guitar-playing, sometimes called "smug" rocker, 25-year-old David Cook. Who will eventually be crowned American Idol? I'm not sure I can easily call this one.

If it weren't for the thousands of fangirls (who were shown screaming their heads off and mobbing our cutie when he made his homecoming visit to Utah last weekend) who are also notorious for going into overdrive using go-phones and text messages to vote for their favorite contestants, and all the rainbow fanboys whose gaydars must have shot through the roof when he first appeared on their TV, I would easily predict Cookie for the win. Our homophobic nation prizes hard masculinity over soft masculinity every time (not saying I think Archie - whom I've been crushing on all season - is gay; he's such an obvious cherry, I doubt he would even know it if he were!). Even so, with the news today of a California ruling affirming the right to gay marriage and previous contestants who appeared on the show this season (the flamboyant and divaesque queen that was Danny Noriega, who was barely a year older than Archie, and another David...David Hernandez!... who created a scandal when the press revealed that his previous line of work included giving lap dances at a gay bar), our nation might actually be loosening up. Or maybe not.

I find it fascinating that, earlier in the season, David Archuleta was the presumed frontrunner. What with his crystal-clear voice, his adorable looks, and instant popularity with the audience. I imagine the show's producers, when they first got a look at him (as well as an earful), saw huge dollar signs and an opportunity to tap into Disney's youth market. But, his style was soft, and his songs were much more mature than bubble gum pop. Lest anyone question the marketability of his "soft masculinity," what do the judges do? They let through flaming Danny and scandal-laden David H. Interesting ploy, don't you think? Before questions of "is he, or isn't he?" abounded, they threw the audience off by featuring obviously gay and gay-associating contestants into the mix. They then focused on all the squeeing teens, tween girls, (and older women channeling their "inner tween girls," if I must include myself in the group) who adored him.

Sometime later, the less attractive but musically gifted Cookie (that's the Other David) made a strong showing by rearranging and rocking out to Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean," a moment already counted as one of the Idol highlights of all seasons and the night when he became a serious threat to Archie's frontrunner status. Curiously enough, stories about Archie's father Jeff Archuleta (a.k.a. "Stage Dad from Hell") surfaced, and comparisons between Archie and Michael Jackson were discussed (child prodigy, controlling dad, and soft masculinity). Coincidence?

As I said, fascinating narrative about competing masculinities. And not since Season 3 have I had a favorite contestant make it into finals. So, you know, I should be over the moon that little Davey made it. But, I would have been just fine if he placed third this week, which would put him on par with a far worthier alumni than past winners, like Elliott Yamin during Season 5 and Melinda Doolittle during Season 6, previous contestants who had amazing vocals and the nicest personalities. Such a placement in the competition would have given him an opportunity to not work with the folks associated with that evil empire called AI/19E (if they had decided to pass on him). This season, the honor of third place goes to Syesha Mercado, last woman standing. When David's name was announced last night for the finale, he looked so shocked and had to be helped over to the "couch of safety" by his finale opponent, the Other David. So cute, my little boy wonder (and how nice of Cookie to immediately take on that "big brother" role)!

My poor Davey Pooh was completely wound up, looked terribly nervous, and now, it all comes to this: winning American Idol and offering one's soul to the evil empire that is AI/19E.

Just before the announcement, the show provided us with highlights of little David's visit to his hometown in Utah last weekend, and he was such a different boy: all stoked and amazed and overwhelmed by his many adoring fangirls. He kept saying "Gosh!" and cried at several points, then apologized for showing his emotions, and then said the dorkiest thing ever -- "I wonder where they parked?" -- when greeting the thousands who showed up to see him at a local shopping mall. So much Awwww to this! :)

This kid had me at hello months ago with his sunny smile, good looks, and smooth vocals, and now I'm going to see this season to its bitter-sweet end (If I must call it, then I will say that I don't think he will beat Cookie next week, who is perceived as a cooler, more masculine rock musician, unless the tween girls pull him through). And, for the first time in a long while, I'm concerned about the winner who takes all, for this very innocent, sheltered cute boy will be forced to work with such shifty, underhanded folks.

This is what I mean by underhanded. On Tuesday night, the show's producers displayed a nasty side that clearly indicated they were none too pleased with his meddling stage dad, who has been in headlines of late, and were getting even through David. They're having a war, and the producers struck out at our boy wonder by 1) forcing him to sing shlocky, treacly songs like Dan Fogelberg's "Longer" and Billy Joel's "And So It Goes," 2) banning his daddy, who's been his emotional and musical support throughout the competition, from backstage, 3) making him look extra dorky during a "chat" with Ryan Seacrest before he stepped onto the stage to perform an awkward rendition of Chris Brown's "With You" (as an aside, I must say I find it fascinating that everyone thought it incongruous that he did a straight cover of an urban/R&B song, which he admits to enjoying this genre, while the Other David gets praised to the max for turning similar R&B songs into rock/emo concoctions - I won't get into the entertainment value of witnessing the adorable dorkiness of little Mormon Boy, who couldn't even channel his Latin roots for some street cred, singing lyrics like "I need you boo," or "Hey little mama," but I digress), 4) pimping the Other David, even when his performances were not up to par last night, and 5) bad-mouthing him to the press (like when Simon mocks him in an interview for having no personality, even though he has never offered similar critiques on the show to David's face, which Simon is capable of doing, for he leveled the same accusations at two other female contestants this season).

There has always been a mean streak on this show since its inception (why else do people get a kick out of the horrible "auditions" early in the season - which I never watch - other than to delight in other people's humiliations, and especially with Simon's harsh criticisms?). This time, however, is the first that I'm remembering backbiting and "leaks" to gossipy sites like TMZ. For whatever reason, David's "gosh golly gee" persona has inspired a huge fanbase, but it's also ignited the haters.

And, when I'm watching my morning news program and see respected anchors repeating gossip from TMZ and Perez Hilton, basically tearing apart this 17-year-old because of his rumored "stage dad from hell" or his "boring, zero personality" performances, I seriously had to step back: what is wrong with this picture?

So, of course, this is Reason #9587 why American Idol will bring about the Apocalypse. Last year, when 17-year-old Sanjaya (another girlie-type teen boy) was ridiculed, the mean streak was definitely there. And when he was finally voted off, the "good riddance" cheering that occurred spontaneously in the audience was truly a sight to behold. I should have known then and there that Mindy Doo had no chance in hell of winning because her goodness would never be taken at face value among a nation of cynics and meanies.

This year, though, the cruelty seems more blatant. At least Sanjaya was cool enough and self-aware enough to make fun of himself and to play to his obvious popularity. Little David is very much like Melinda: just a genuine, painfully shy, sweet, humble, good little Christian boy who's getting by on his natural pulchritude and outstanding singing voice. He is very much the anti-Sanjaya. So, when he is ridiculed by the media and on various discussion boards, it is easy to forget that these kids are just that: kids.

Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of reasons to make fun of my baby boo: his awkwardness on stage (when he's not singing), his nervous habits, his constant giggling, and - of course - dear old Dad. But, while I and others who like him merely find these things endearing, there are those who not only slam him for his lack of composure but have sworn outright that they would riot if he won the title over the older, equally talented (because, unlike anti-Archies, I think their talent is matched, just very different styles) Cookie. I mean, I watch this show too, but can we please not get carried away? Cookie losing to Archie is not a sacrilege - UNLESS one IS invested in a certain representation of masculinity, which is my point in posting on this issue.

I personally think we need a wide range of masculinities in this day and age. The fact that this competition - or the world of politics - can always reduce masculinity to either "boy band" variety (read non-threatening) or "rocker dude" (if he's white)/ "hip-hop gangsta" (if he's black) (read very threatening) means that we need to change it up.

So, here's hoping that David Archuleta, despite his flaws that he still has time to grow out of (cause, you know, he's only 17), can actually topple the Goliaths of this world (not necessarily referring to the Other David, who strikes me as just as nice as Archie, to be honest, even if I haven't quite forgiven him for destroying my beautiful memories of Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean," the first MTV video I ever saw, featuring the girliest of the soft masculine types I've ever crushed on, but more thinking of the evil empire that is AI/19E - who would make his controlling dad seem like the most passive and permissive parent there ever was).

"Gosh," is all I can say at the moment. *giggling Archuleta-style.*

"Raw Racism" Encountered by Obama Campaigners

This just in from an article, "Racist Incidents Give Obama Campaigners Pause," by Kevin Merida, in today's The Washington Post:

Danielle Ross was alone in an empty room at the Obama campaign headquarters
in Kokomo, Ind., a cellphone in one hand, a voter call list in the other. She was stretched out on the carpeted floor wearing laceless sky-blue Converses, stories from the trail on her mind. It was the day before Indiana's primary, and she had just been chased by dogs while canvassing in a Kokomo suburb. But that was not the worst thing to occur since she postponed her sophomore year at Middle Tennessee State University, in part to hopscotch America stumping for Barack Obama.

Here's the worst: In Muncie, a factory town in the east-central part of Indiana, Ross and her cohorts were soliciting support for Obama at malls, on street corners and in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and they ran into "a horrible response," as Ross put it, a level of anti-black sentiment that none of them had anticipated.

"The first person I encountered was like, 'I'll never vote for a black person,' " recalled Ross, who is white and just turned 20. "People just weren't receptive."

For all the hope and excitement Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president.

The contrast between the large, adoring crowds Obama draws at public events and the gritty street-level work to win votes is stark. The candidate is largely insulated from the mean-spiritedness that some of his foot soldiers deal with away from the media spotlight.

Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

Read in Full.

Controversy over Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial

Taking a quick break from my busy grading schedule to post here a memorial of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., sculpted by Chinese artist Lei Yixin, which will be erected on the national Mall in 2009.

Adding to earlier criticism expressing outrage that the artist is not African American, and that the sculpture, when completed, will be shipped in a crate "Made in China," there are now those who find the pose of Dr. King too "confrontational."

What do you think?

I, personally, don't find the arms-crossed posture very inviting, but that's just me. (I certainly, however, would not call it "confrontational.")

Happy Mother's Day!

A few art pieces on exhibit here to globally celebrate all our mothers.

Images (from top to bottom): Amor a Todas Horas by Simon Silva; The Love Embrace of the Universe, the Earth by Frida Kahlo; Housewives with Steak-knives by Sutapa Biswas; My Beloved by Shirin Neshat; from Yo Mama Series by Renee Cox ("Yo Mama" and "Yo Mama: Pieta").

Can the Democratic Party Be Saved for 2008?

Here's an insightful article by Peggy Noonan from Wall Street Journal, "Damsel of Distress":

To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.

"She has unleashed the gates of hell," a longtime party leader told me. "She's saying, 'He's not one of us.'"

She is trying to take Obama down in a new way, but also within a new context. In the past he was just the competitor. She could say, "All's fair." But now he's the competitor who is going to be the nominee of his party. And she is still trying to do him in. And the party is watching.

Again: amazing.

Who can save the situation? The superdelegates.

You know them. They're the ones hiding under the rock, behind the boulder, and at the bar.

They are terrified, most of them. They want the problem to go away. They want it handled, but they don't want to do it. They don't want to tell Hillary to stop, because they would likely pay a price for it, and not just with her.

They are afraid of looking as if they're jumping on a train that's speeding down the tracks and is about to roll over the damsel in distress.

Which is how Hillary -- and her supporters -- will paint it. Even though she's no damsel, and she causes distress.

Some insight from a superdelegate I spoke to Thursday:

It's not math anymore, it's psychodrama. If she can't have it, no one can have it. If she has to tear the party apart, she will.

Nancy Pelosi can't make her drop out. The Clintons think the speaker is for Obama anyway, her San Francisco district went for him 70% to 30%; they'll dismiss her. Chuck Schumer can't do it, he'd offend women in New York. Harry Reid can't do it, he'll offend women, period. If black political figures go to the Clintons and make a plea, they'll be dismissed as Obama partisans.

So who, I asked, can do it?

White women have been Mrs. Clinton's most reliable base of support and readiest crutch, the superdelegate said. And maybe they're the only ones who can break through, both to Mrs. Clinton and to the country, and tell her to stop. "If it's a man, she goes back to gender: Men are always picking on me, you just don't want women in power. If it's a black, it's You betrayed us, how can you call on me to get out after what I've done for you?"

I don't know that I trust white women to publicly make the call, but this may need to happen. And I do wonder about this dogged pursuit. Thoughts?

Read in Full.

See related animation by Ann Telnaes.

Time to Get Back to the Movie House! (Thoughts on Some Movie Trailers)

Now that classes are over, and grading/finals will preoccupy me for the next two weeks, I was hoping to take a break this weekend and go see a movie. Only to discover that there is absolutely nothing that I want to see. After PBW's review of Iron Man (not that I even considered it), I think I will pass.

You would think with all the trashy, gimmicky, thrills-loaded projects they throw at us, that they would at least take the "dry season" (usually the rainy spring season) to give us some substance. Instead, they give us a full serving of Meh. I guess that's all to whet our appetites for the junk food coming our way this summer?

Either way, since I don't have another film review to add to my sidebar, I will instead give a review of five movie trailers (because these are so much fun in building up our excitement or utter disgust):

In Order of Preference:

1. The Dark Knight (opening July 18), directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Christian Bale (as Batman) and Heath Ledger (as the Joker).




Wow! That joker make-up is beyond disturbing, and this picture looks really dark. Because I'm a fan of the late Heath Ledger, you know I have to see his last film, an act that a good friend of mine is exasperated by since she knows that I and a legion of other Heath lovers will be flooding the multiplexes to "ruin the movie experiences" of all Batman/D.C. comic addicts. Sorry, all you Batman fanatics, but you've got to make room for us this summer. Besides, I liked Nolan's Memento, so I'm willing to see what he's got in store for us with this Batman sequel. Still, that joker make-up...whew! If this character really did drive Heath to prescription pills, I can almost see why since this joker looks decidedly more deranged than the one I saw on the TV series or the one Jack Nicholson channeled.

2. The Happening (opening June 13), directed by M. Night Shyamalan, starring Mark Wahlberg.



OK, by now Shyamalan's track record is pretty lame. I loved his Sixth Sense (even though he hated the trailer using the now famous "I see dead people" line, which he was sure gave the entire movie away) and appreciated Unbreakable (the trailer was even better, now that he got maniacally protective about revealing the storyline). The problem, of course, is that after those two movies, the trailers have been the best part of his movies: Signs, The Village, and The Lady in the Water. Craptastic movies, all three; I didn't see the last one (universally trashed) since I learned my lesson with Signs and the Village, which is that the best parts will only appear in the trailer! So, looking at this latest film, the trailer is very tempting, but until Shyamalan steps up his game, I will have to pass. The trailer looks great either way!

3. Wanted (opening June 27), directed by Timur Bekmambetov, starring Angelina Jolie, James McAvoy, and Morgan Freeman.



Not a fan of Jolie (especially after her "blackface" performance of a woman of color in A Mighty Heart), but the action looks tight, and McAvoy looks hot, and I still respect Morgan Freeman.

4. Hamlet 2 (opening August 22), directed by Andrew Fleming, starring Steve Coogan.



Rock me sexy, Jesus?! Seriously? Admittedly this looks really stupid, but it appears like the kind of trainwreck that could actually be entertaining. Will first have to see what the buzz is like before I see it opening weekend.

5. Hancock (opening July 2), directed by Peter Berg, starring Will Smith.



After watching this trailer, I now realize something I didn't before: I hate, hate, HATE Will Smith with the fire of a thousand suns! His relentless and tired performances of "cocky black man" is just so ridiculously stereotypical, and it amazes me how he can become a bonafide box-office smash when so many other charismatic, good-looking brothers are still struggling to prove their box-office potential (Terence Howard, Don Cheadle, Chiwetel Ijiofor, even Denzel had to go through the struggle), and this fool brings in the summer profits effortlessly doing his shtick. I get there is this irony the movie is playing on with the whole "superhero" renaissance that has captured the summer movie box office, but I'm still waiting for the ironic parody of "Mr. Smith Goes to Hollywood," which exposes his lame adventure into the movies. This is the same fool who passed on the role of Neo in The Matrix to make Wild Wild West, in which he does a comical scene referencing the lynching of black men! (I won't even critique what the hell he and Martin Lawrence were thinking when they did that KKK scene in Bad Boys 2). How Jada Pinkett went from Tupac to this Republican-make-massa-smile "brotha" is beyond me. I guess living the high society lifestyle of a Hollywood wife has its trade-off.

Last Day, New Subjects

After the fiasco that was last week with that disturbing student video project, imagine my elation that both my graduate and undergraduate students did fabulous jobs synthesizing all that they've learned in their original projects.  My mood is significantly different, and I'm feeling successful in my pedagogy. :)

One of my students did a provocative presentation on hip-hop feminism in global perspective and, in that vein, offered an eye-opening critique of M.I.A.'s second album, Kala. I showed my ignorance when I said I had not heard of her.  So, I already searched through the various You Tube videos and was so intrigued, I bought the CD at Borders (only $9.99). 

Apparently, M.I.A. was denied a visa to visit the United States, where she had hoped to collaborate with Timbaland on her second album. When that didn't happen, she traveled to several different continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Latin America, etc.) and recorded her world-influenced tracks.  Love the political slant both in this action and in the music itself. (I love it when students expand my worldview!)

Here's her video for "Paper Planes."

Mildred Jeter Loving: Important Footnote in History

Mildred Jeter Loving (1939-2008), the black female half of the historic 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, which struck down anti-miscegenation laws, died this past Friday of pneumonia. She was 68 years old.

In light of blog discussions of late, which explore the troubled history of white men and black women, or blogs like White Men Who Prefer Black Women, which tend to treat such couplings as if they are some kind of anomaly, let's remember the important work of such a quiet, unassuming couple, Mildred and Richard Loving, who tried to make their relationship and their children legit.

This important ruling is one that many LGBTQ advocates reference to try and strike down the ban on gay marriage and one that has paved the way for all other kinds of interracial marriages to flourish: if white male/black female marriages are the least common of such marriages, then there's a certain irony presented here when we place the Lovings in historical context.

On the one hand, no way would a black male-white female couple successfully strike down the anti-miscegenation law during that era, due to the fears around black male sexuality and power; on the other hand, there's a certain white male privilege that shapes the gender politics here - coupled with the advancements made during the Civil Rights movement.

Either way, let us all remember that love, sex, and marriage are very political acts and one that we today can only begin to take for granted, thanks to everyday black women like Mildred Jeter Loving.

Read Further.

So, What Constitutes the "Black" in Black TV?

I am extremely ambivalent. Over on Black Women Vote!, I have learned in the past few weeks of two new television networks in the making - Black News Television Network (BNTN), a 24-hour news channel modeled after CNN (I assume) that focuses on "black" issues, and Essence TV, a station supported by Essence Magazine and Warner Brothers, focusing on black women. Not too long ago, Oprah announced that she would launch yet another TV station, in partnership with Discovery Channel, called OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network - Oi! ). I get what Oprah is doing: "I OWN this," which has been her message from everything else that she owns (seriously: do we need anymore signs of her intense narcissism when every single issue of her O magazine features her portrait?). But, what exactly is the agenda of either BNTN or Essence TV?

How do we know that they will rise above and beyond what BET is doing (which, from what I understand, according to a Washington Post article, linked from WAOD, BET will be launching UK and South Africa versions of itself - Ugh!)? And what exactly constitutes a "black" news network, or even a black women's TV network? I have to ask these questions because over the weekend, on Black Women, Blow the Trumpet!, black women bloggers have been embroiled in a debate about what constitutes black solidarity and non-black alliance, and in the process have redrawn the boundaries, yet again, about what constitutes blackness. One blogger has had to rethink who counts as a "sista" (she didn't realize a number of us who were blogging were in fact a generation removed from the foreign blacks whom she didn't count as "African American").

As Lisa, the blog owner, had to remind everyone: "My West African ancestors, like yours, didn't come over here on a cruise ship."

Not to mention that U.S. black folk need to think globally: most of those Africans were brought to Latin America and the Caribbean, with only five percent who were brought to North America. Yet, African Americans are still setting the terms for what constitutes blackness, and the "black experience." How much of this hegemonic discourse is shaped by the fact of being U.S. citizens, hence perpetuating our U.S. privilege in shaping discussions of race?

Still another blogger expressed her disapproval of interracial relationships, even though at least two of the women participating in the conversation were married to white men, and at least one I believe is mixed-race. See the problem? Just in a simple blogosphere discussion, our conversations had to redefine just who "counts" in this vision of blackness. It certainly gave new breadth and depth to all of the "Is Obama black enough?" question raised during this year's presidential race.

If being a second-generation "immigrant" or being biracial is enough to question one's black credentials, no wonder this question was thrown at him since he's "twice removed," as it were.

Then, there is the issue of why, I believe, these two TV networks are already on the table. As more critics voice their outrage over BET, that thorn on our collective sides, the more we are offering a public discourse of blackness, and our mythic construction of ourselves is constantly undermined by the prominence of gangstas, video vixens, buffoons, and sellouts on BET. As negative as these representations are, there is no denying that the prevailing criticism is based on a politic of respectability and an elitist dismissal of low-income black people as being worthy enough to "represent." We need to be self-critical in our assessment of what's wrong with BET, while trying to offer a counter-narrative.

For, I remember the old-school BET, which offered news programs and Teen Summit in their program line-up, along with the videos, and I was very clear that it was extremely colorist in mainly featuring light-skinned anchors like Ed Gordon (and I'm blanking on the name of the beautiful light-skinned, long-haired host of Teen Summit, the first one featured). In abandoning the negativity of present-day BET, will these new programs have an equally narrow vision of what our "positive" representation would look like?

Or, maybe the program executives need some ideas for where they need to go. If they read blogs as regularly as CNN reporters visit the blogosphere, then let me start listing some program possibilities:

1. Cover the Diaspora! BNTN, you will have me hooked if you expand news coverage beyond what's happening in the U.S. and (better yet) connected policy issues globally. Making links between the environmental and corporate devastation in the Gulf Coast and what's happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo is the way to go. Grassroots activists do this all the time, I see no reason why community journalists (if you intend to include such grassroots reporters) can't be counted on to do the same.

2. In that vein, COVER AFRICA PROPERLY. I want some local voices for a change!

3. Don't forget to include, along with Latin America and the Caribbean, black folks in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia.

4. Bring the voices of the marginalized to the center - that includes feminists, LGBTQ people, rural folks, etc.

5. Issues that need investigative reports to highlight them, as they impact "black" communities - HIV/AIDS pandemic, global economy, gentrification, global impact of racism, sexism, decline of education, etc. That way, when someone like Rev. Wright makes "controversial" statements, at least give us a news network that can properly contextualize where he's coming from.

6. Profile our non-celebrity artists, advocates, filmmakers, musicians, etc. alongside the celebrities.

7. I love me some history (as my "Black Herstory" series attests) and absolutely am hooked on the History channel, so imagine how my love would grow exponentially if historical programming (documentary-types, movies, and A&E-style biographies, etc.) was part of the line-up! :)

Hmmm, is that an idea for the History channel to develop? A Black History channel? That's something I might actually leave the academy for - I say half-jokingly - if I was offered the job.

8. Essence TV, please employ Julie Dash, Kasi Lemmons, and Euzhan Palcy (whose Bessie Coleman biopic movie looks like it still has yet to be financed), and bring Gwen Ifil on board! We need some stellar black women involved with this project.

If you've got any other ideas for possible programming for either network, please share your comments.

Sunday Shorts

1.) You know the Democratic primary is beyond nitpicky when Guam's vote count makes the headlines (2 delegates per candidate). I mean, are we for real?

2.) Poor Eight Belles (may she rest in peace and find a horse's paradise), but seriously: who knew some chauvinistic pigs would take the opportunity to consider this three-year-old filly's tragic fate a "symbolic" foreshadowing of our presidential race? (See Shakesville's blog). Who knew Senator Clinton would have seized the Kentucky Derby to make a lame statement about female advancement when playing with the "big boys"? I would chuckle at how this all blew up in her face, especially if she thought a filly running with colts in the biggest horse race around were some kind of "feminist" bid, had there not been a real death - caused by animal cruelty, elitism, and capitalist profits - involved. See this enlightened commentary on the state of thoroughbreds and why we should question the "great tradition" of horse racing.

3.) Speaking of women's advancements (or the lack thereof), looks like we won't have too many "chick flicks" to choose from, as the long line of testosterone-filled summer blockbusters promise more thrills and chills for the big and little boys. See why women won't be at the multiplexes this summer.

4.) htp Shecodes for posting this provocative cartoon that's got me thinking about the global and local implications of our high gas and food prices:



5.) The New Orleans Women of Color Resource & Organizing Center (a joint project of the New Orleans Women's Health & Justice Initiative and INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence New Orleans Chapter) is seeking book donations to establish a "Radical Women of Color Lending Library Project," which sounds like a fabulous idea and one I think we should all work on establishing for our own local communities. All books - fiction, non-fiction, poetry, zines, articles, resource books, anthologies, photodocumentaries, etc. - and videos, documentaries, and music are welcome. Please send these items to:

New Orleans Women's Health Clinic
c/o WHJI
1406 Esplanade Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70116

For more information, please contact whji_info@yahoo.com or call 504-524-8626.

6.) AMC 2008 (Allied Media Conference) will be held June 20-22 in Detroit; this year's theme: "Our Evolution Beyond Survival: Media Strategies for the Next Ten Years."

Here's hoping our upcoming week is promising!

Reflections: Race to the Bottom

I am posting here an excerpt from a provocative May 1, 2008 article in The Nation by Betsy Reed, titled "Race to the Bottom." It provides a concise summary of the Democratic primary race, from early this year to the present, and offers thought-provoking insight on how what started as the promise of hope, change, and "yes, we can!" has deteriorated to the ugliest race and gender politics of late.

In the course of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the White House--in
which she became the first woman ever to prevail in a state-level presidential
primary contest--she has been likened to Lorena Bobbitt (by Tucker Carlson); a
"hellish housewife" (Leon Wieseltier); and described as "witchy," a "she-devil,"
"anti-male" and "a stripteaser" (Chris Matthews). Her loud and hearty laugh has
been labeled "the cackle," her voice compared to "fingernails on a blackboard"
and her posture said to look "like everyone's first wife standing outside a
probate court." As one Fox News commentator put it, "When Hillary Clinton
speaks, men hear, Take out the garbage." Rush Limbaugh, who has no qualms about
subjecting audiences to the spectacle of his own bloated physique, asked his
listeners, "Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before
their eyes on a daily basis?" Perhaps most damaging of all to her electoral
prospects, very early on Clinton was deemed "unlikable." Although other factors
also account for that dislike, much of the venom she elicits ("Iron my shirt,"
"How do we beat the bitch?") is clearly gender-specific.

Watching the brass ring of the presidency slip out of Clinton's grasp as
she is buffeted by this torrent of misogyny, women--white women, that is, and
mainstream feminists especially--have rallied to her defense. On January 8,
after Barack Obama beat Clinton in the Iowa caucuses, Gloria Steinem published a
New York Times op-ed titled "Women Are Never Front-Runners." "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House," Steinem wrote. Next came Clinton's famous "misting-over moment" in New Hampshire in response to a
question from a woman about the stress of modern campaigning. For that display
of emotion, Clinton was derided, on the one hand, as calculating and
chameleonlike--"It could be that big girls don't cry...but it could be that if
they do they win," said Chris Matthews--and, on the other, as lacking "strength
and resolve," as her Democratic rival John Edwards put it, in a jab at the
perennial Achilles' heel of women candidates. Riding a wave of female sympathy,
Clinton won New Hampshire in what was dubbed an "anti-Chris Matthews vote."

Thus, feminist opposition to the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton
has morphed into support for the candidate herself. In February Robin Morgan
published a reprise of her famous 1970 essay "Goodbye to All That," exhorting
women to embrace Clinton as a protest against "sociopathic woman-hating." In the
Los Angeles Times, Leslie Bennetts, author of The Feminine Mistake, wrote of
older female voters fed up with the media's dismissive treatment of Clinton:
"There are signs the slumbering beast may be waking up--and she's not in a happy
mood." A recent New York magazine article titled "The Feminist Reawakening:
Hillary Clinton and the Fourth Wave" described how "it isn't just the 'hot flash
cohort'...that broke for Clinton. Women in their thirties and forties--at once
discomfited and galvanized by the sexist tenor of the media coverage, by the
nastiness of the watercooler talk in the office, by the realization that the
once-foregone conclusion of Clinton-as-president might never come to be--did
too."

The sexist attacks on Clinton are outrageous and deplorable, but
there's reason to be concerned about her becoming the vehicle for a feminist
reawakening. For one thing, feminist sympathy for her has begotten an
"oppression sweepstakes" in which a number of her prominent supporters, dismayed at her upstaging by Obama, have declared a contest between racial and gender
bias and named sexism the greater scourge. This maneuver is not only unhelpful
for coalition-building but obstructs understanding of how sexism and racism have
played out in this election in different (and interrelated) ways.

Read in Full.

When Bigots Appropriate Progressive Language

I'm still in shock. Jaw-dropping shock that one of my students - who has been expressing the most neoconservative, bigoted ideas the whole semester - presented with his group a video project that was straight up Aryan Nation propaganda.

Yep, he's booooold like that!

What was absolutely disheartening, enraging, and horrifying was the way he applied the language that I've been teaching them - the language of antiracism and feminism - to cover up what were subliminal messages and images of white supremacy. Bold, I tell you!

It was so subtle. The subject matter was the history of racial stereotyping with the question of whether or not these images lead to hate crimes. He does the acceptable thing - explores a variety of racial stereotypes in history, parallels them with contemporary images of today - and then half-way through this near 15-minute video (most of the other students' video projects are 5 minutes, no more than 10), the narrative changes with some heavy-metal type music and several flashes of the swastika (interspersed with various images of Hitler and Nazi Germany and several images of "Aryans," "Hitler's Youth", etc.), and the warning that stereotypes would lead to the Holocaust (he provides an elaborate montage of concentration camps, cut to the falling of the twin towers, fade to white supremacists flashing the Nazi sign, cut to an image of Osama Bin Laden, fade to an image of the Iranian president, slow fade out on the atomic bomb mushroom cloud, fade to black). All of these images, set to that music, with a voice-over narrative using all of the progressive rhetoric he learned in our course.

Clever, isn't he? As if the anti-racism message of the voice-over even comes close to undermining the far more powerful presentation of racist images!

What's worse is that he was part of a group of five people - half of whom are women and people of color - and they let him dictate the project!

I remained silent when the presentation was over, did not applaud with the others, waited to see if I wasted my semester teaching students to dismantle racism or if they would actually demonstrate that they learned something from this class. My older black female student, who does not know how to read subtext to save her life, dramatically said: "Wow, that was so powerful and so moving. This was so amazing!"

My heart sunk.

A white male student raises his hand: "I so don't get what that picture of the president of Iran is doing there!"

OK, he didn't tear him to shreds, but at least he didn't succumb to the propaganda of the video.

A white female student raises her hand: "Just so you know, I'm a double major in Judaic Studies, and I know this history that you looked at, and ... I'm onto you."

I smother a smile; all is not lost.

And that comment seemed to open the flood gates. More hands went up; different students talked about what worked, what didn't, what was historically inaccurate, a bunch of "Did you really have to flash so many swastikas? We all know the symbol - one image would have been enough" and "take out all those Hitler images, they just undermine the point," and a genuine discussion of whether or not stereotypes were critically examined or reinforced developed.

At the end of it all, I simply said (while looking at the remaining group members): "It's important to remember this history of antisemitism and an important message that someone said in response to the Holocaust: 'evil triumphs when good people say nothing.'"

Maybe my students heard what I said, but the main culprit certainly knew what I was saying, like my white female student already said: "I'm onto you." Perhaps this will get me landed on Horowitz's list (if I'm not already there). Either way, I'm grateful that, after what was such a hate propaganda video that could easily double as a Klan recruitment tool, I had given enough of my students the appropriate tools to understand how they could begin to dismantle racism. In that regard, my job is done.

Still, it is beyond disturbing to think that white supremacists are deliberately taking progressive classes so that they can learn to "talk the talk" while spewing forth the same old hatred. I may be able to change minds, but in accomplishing this task, have I also empowered the hatemongers too?

More on That Show: Last Woman Standing, Racial Politics, and America Votes!

On this May Day, I thought I would blog, not about international workers and women's place within this arena. No, I'd rather talk about that show that I swore up and down last year that I would never tune into. That's right. I was distracted by the various antics of American Idol. And, since no one else is going to go there, I will also talk, once again, about the racial politics that shape this pop cultural distraction from current events and popular notions of voting and American democracy.


So, first thing: Go, Syesha Mercado! Last woman standing! And she's Afro-Latina. Woo hoo! The reason why I'm all about my racial pride for this talented woman of color is simply based on an anonymous post I came across expressing disbelief that this black girl rose above the other female contestants, despite the lack of media attention, emotional breakdowns displayed by other contestants, and her constantly hitting the bottom three seal for the past few weeks. This is the anonymous comment that just made me do a double take:

What kind of country am I living in when they can vote for a Syesha over a Brooke or Carly?

OK, Mr. (or Ms.) Bigot: let me help you. That country you're living in is the same country where presidential candidate Barack Obama is in the lead with delegates in the Democratic primary race. He could become the next president of the United States. Get with the program, or get over it!

Not that I'm placing American Idol on the same pedestal as the Presidential Elections, mind you, but don't be surprised if the show garners more votes than our general elections. American democracy is a crazy thing, isn't it?

Here's what bothered me about that thinly veiled racist comment about Syesha Mercado outlasting Brooke White (who was voted off this week) and Carly Smithson (who was voted off last week). Brooke White is a blond Arizona-raised, Mormon singer-songwriter-type who admitted during her audition that she had never seen an R-rated movie. She sings and plays the piano and guitar. She had that wholesome, natural "independent artist" thing going on during the show - until she started falling apart, messing up on lyrics, and coming close to full on breakdowns during results show. Wholesome girl quickly turned into emotional wreck.

Carly Smithson, on the other hand, had a powerful voice, an Irish accent, and a ginormous tattoo on her arm, which she loved sporting (along with a tattoo-faced husband). In other words, she was the anti-Brooke White, which is to say the rebellious-looking white girl - not American, so obviously not able to fill the "all-American" blonde figure that a former idol, Carrie Underwood, could represent.

As an aside, I'm especially glad that Syesha outlasted Confederate-flag-waving Kristy Lee Cook, who was rumored to have performed for Aryan Nation crowds and, during her singout the week she was voted off, she sported on her jean bottoms the KKK cross insignia! Why was that not a scandal, America? (Neither did anyone address rumors that Syesha Mercado also dealt with some of the other female contestants referring to her as "nappy" when she sported an Afro earlier in the competition.)

Why would anyone expect such girls to outlast Syesha Mercado, other than the expectation that the white female contestants would "obviously" be more popular than the black female contestant, whom viewers have often described as "diva" (which, just so you know, all black female contestants are automatically given this moniker, including the shy and very non-diva personality of last year's Melinda Doolittle), arrogant, "bitchface," and fake? Whenever Syesha survives to another week, someone inevitably asks, "Who in the hell is voting for this fake diva?" I'm amazed that it never dawns on the America-is-a-white-nation folks that, hmmm, I don't know, maybe all the R&B listeners who only have Syesha, who's representing the soul community (which crosses different races and ethnicities), are throwing their votes to her. Not to mention that girlfriend can sing.

I will admit that Syesha didn't enter my radar either this season. Yes, I'm one of those shallow people who immediately went Awwww over little David Archuleta, who is solely responsible for hooking me back into this ridiculous show when I was channel-surfing one day.

And, yes, that boy is shy, nervous as all get out, a bit too mechanical, and his voice is merely pleasant. But, do I care about these flaws? Of course not! He's adorable, and he's only a young-looking 17 (which didn't prevent Miss Seventeen - that's Jordin Sparks who's probably a year older by now - from winning last year's contest and toppling a far superior singer, the already mentioned Melinda Doolittle), and I'm taking his age into account when everyone unfairly compares little David to the other David (that's big-headed [literally and figuratively], let-me-turn-every-R&B-song-into-a-rock-emo-concoction David Cook, for those who don't know), who's 25, emotionally mature, and has a self-assured sense of who he is musically. I'm so not going to hand the competition to this other David just because he's got mad talent, because mad talent didn't help Mindy Doo last year.

But I'll get into my other issues with this other David later. I was just raising the issue of how these other guys have distracted us from taking Syesha more seriously as a major contender in this competition. Keep in mind also that these guys were deliberately chosen by our three stooges - ahem, judges - to prevent another black female idol this year: yes, it's not hard to imagine that a great deal of effort went into selecting 12 strong male contestants and 12 competent female contestants to yield a white male idol this year to offset the imbalance since, you know, three out of the six idols are black, four of them are women.

However, as I've already noted, women do well in this competition, and half the idols have been black. Of all the glass ceilings that we've had to crack, the music industry is not one of them, where black women set the standard for vocal stylings and, thus, are the vocals that others aspire to. It's why the black female contestants are held to higher standards, are called "divas," and why Syesha would be seen as "unoriginal" and doesn't "bring anything new," now that we've not only seen Jennifer Hudsons, Fantasia Barrinos, and Melinda Doolittles on the show but also hear black "divas" all over pop culture. I would say that Syesha's competent vocals are why she's the last woman standing but also why she's not the main attraction in this contest. This also has everything to do with why the Other David (yes, that's what I call him) is praised ad nausea for being "daring" and "risky" and oh-so-original for turning R&B hits like Lionel Richie's "Hello" (who knew this was really a stalker song until Other David rocked it out?), Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean," and Mariah Carey's "Always Be My Baby" into rock ballads.

Granted, I kinda liked his take on Mariah Carey (note how he is being shored up by black female back-up singers - a common theme of how we are relied upon to support everyone else musically):



Yes, it's cool and entertaining, but can we please not get carried away here? First, they are cover songs, and second, our musical history has already left a bad taste with the sudden crossover success that white musicians often have when they "cover" black music (think Elvis Presley's "Hound Dog" or white jazz musicians like Paul Whiteman and Benny Goodman). What does it mean to praise a white male contestant for being "edgy" and "original" when he spins black music and rearranges it for a "white" aesthetic (rock, emo, etc.) while black female contestants, like Syesha Mercado, who is a vocalist and doing what she can do to show off her own set of skills, is constantly dismissed for "bringing nothing new"? What's really "new" about David Cook's brand of musical appropriation?

Anyway, I doubt Syesha's fanbase can knock out the last three guys in the competition (although, we've all underestimated her before, so who knows?), but I have newfound respect for her ability to last as long as she has when the racial politics of this year are not in her favor. Is she my favorite? Well, I still like my little David, the other Latino (his mom is from Honduras, so I'm going to claim him as a person of color), but I'm definitely going to pay more attention to her, and now that the other girls are gone, I have a feeling more of us who watch this show will do the same. As women of color, we've always had to rely on our talent and less on our personality or looks to persevere, which is the main lesson learned.

Otherwise, we would become trainwrecks. Paula Abdul, anyone? Who, by the way, was seriously confused - probably because she was seriously drunk - so when the show's format is changed, well, stuff like what happened Tuesday night will happen. Show producers, don't do that again! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!