"Right To Return": Tavis Gives A Week Of Tee Vee Time To Katrina

 

Congrats to Tavis Smiley and Jonathan Demme for doing the right thing. Necessary viewing this week.

KQED/Channel 9
CHANNEL 9 -San Francisco, San Jose (Bay Area) 1:00 am PBS
May 10, 2007
CONTACT: Joel Brokaw (310) 273-2060, Laurel Lambert (323) 953-5246

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

“TAVIS SMILEY” ON PBS DEVOTES ONE WEEK OF PROGRAMMING TO JONATHAN DEMME’S STIRRING DOCUMENTARY FOOTAGE ON POST-KATRINA NEW ORLEANS, AIRING NATIONWIDE ON PBS

Academy Award-winning director Jonathan Demme is joining forces with PBS’s Tavis Smiley to present a unique week-long series on post-Katrina New Orleans called “Right to Return: New Home Movies from the Lower 9th Ward.”

The series consists of “portrait” documentaries filmed in New Orleans over the course of 2006, leading into January of this year. The five short films chart the efforts of a disparate group of New Orleanians who braved unimaginable adversity after the floods of 2005 in an attempt to reclaim their homes, their neighborhoods – primarily in the Lower 9th Ward – and their shattered lives and livelihoods. The residents presented in the unfolding seasonal format include teachers, ministers, a retired chef, volunteer workers, the owner of the legendary “Mother-In-Law Lounge,” librarians, and workers from all walks of life.

“Right to Return” will air nightly for a week, beginning Monday, May 28th on the “Tavis Smiley” late-night PBS program – seen on over 200 PBS affiliates nationwide.

“This American story of lives lost, souls shattered and uncommon courage must be told, even though the waters have subsided,” stated Tavis Smiley. “I’m pleased and honored to have the opportunity alongside an iconic director and producer like Jonathan Demme to tell that story.”

“This is an extremely personal project for me,” stated Jonathan Demme. “We started filming four months after the floods. I felt drawn, as an American filmmaker, to contribute somehow to the audio-visual record of what these people were going through in their heroic efforts to jump start their lives in the face of this epic, tragic event. I wanted to be a part of getting these stories out, and I am so thrilled and proud to be doing so with Tavis Smiley.”

Demme added, “It’s really wonderful that Tavis Smiley is providing a window into the lives of these amazing people – the spirituality, courage, imagination, tenacity, and humor that fuels their commitment to restore their homes is truly inspiring and moving to me.”

Each night, Demme will join Smiley on location to set up the portraits and introduce the people featured in each episode. The main individuals profiled will have the opportunity at the end of each program to give an update on how their lives have changed since the floods that devastated their homes in the fall of 2005.

Norman Lear, who is a major sponsor of the Demme films, said of the PBS broadcast of “Tavis Smiley,” “The New Orleanians presented on the shows represent the best we as human beings are capable of.”

The segments feature original music scores by Barry Eastmond, Donald Harrison Jr., James McBride and Steve Elson. Additional music is provided by Algerian violinist Djamel Ben Yelles, Ernie K-Doe, and others.

Jonathan Demme won an Oscar as best director in the 1991 film “Silence of the Lambs,” and a Gotham award for his documentary “The Agronomist” in 2005. He has previously made several documentaries on Haiti as well as portrait films on Nelson Mandela and Robert Castle.

The full-length film version of “Right to Return,” produced by Demme with Daniel Wolff and Abdul Franklin, is expected to be released theatrically later this year.

“Tavis Smiley” on PBS is produced by the The Smiley Group Inc./TS Media Inc. in association with KCET/Hollywood. Underwriting for “Tavis Smiley” on PBS is provided by Toyota, Wal-Mart and PBS. Additional funding for “Right to Return” is provided by the Lear Family Foundation. For more information, visit http://www.pbs.org/tavissmiley .
http://www.tavistalks.com .

Directed by Jonathan Demme
Produced by Jonathan Demme, Daniel Wolff, and Abdul Franklin
Executive Producers
Neda Armian and Lisa Hepner
Tavis Smiley and Neal Kendall (for “Tavis Smiley” on PBS)
Original music by Barry Eastmond, Donald Harrison Jr., Steve Elson and James McBride
Additional music by Djamel Ben Yelles, Ernie K-Doe, Christian Scott, and The Young Guardians of the Flame
A Clinica Estetico Production

So Here's What We Know (I Think) About "Smallville"'s Next Season……..

1) Lana’s not dead. She pulled a David Copperfield, and got into that vehicle that was passing by her car.

(Aside: Folks on the Web LOVE to hate Lana. But she’s too beautiful to hate. 🙂 )

2) Chloe will either be dead, alive or dead-but-a-permanent-part-of-Lois. And wouldn’t the third be crazy??? From the very beginning, some rabid “Smallville” fans have been theorizing that somehow Chloe would morph into Lois. Erica Durance joining the show killed that idea……until now. Hmmm……..  🙂 I love Chloe, but her essence transfer would be a “solution” to the problem of her on this show—taking up Lois’ historic space. And it would give this Lois a boost in the attributes and characteristics she needs to be a proper part of the Superman mythos.

3) Lionel’s not dead. Just knocked out.

4) Clark will find a way to kick Bizarro‘s ass, and he won’t put on a costume to do it.

 5) This was a strong ending to a weak season.

May 18th UPDATE: Understand that Chloe’s alive and will be on next season.

Says Al Gough, “Smallville”‘s executive producer, in this interview (which I didn’t read carefully enough yesterday): 

The idea that Chloe had a power was always something in the back of our minds, but we didn’t want it to be a cheap trick, we wanted the audience to be invested in the character and her relationship with Clark, and if we were going to do it, it was to deepen the character, which we think it does, and will allow us to keep exploring Chloe in season 7. You’ll see her power first manifest in the season finale.

 

Okay, there goes the theory. For now. 🙂

P.S. I guess it means NOBODY died after all. Oh, well, I would cry “gyp,” but it was an entertaining hour, so…….

A Few Words From Studs Terkel

Enjoyed Studs Terkel being interviewed today on “Democracy Now!” I’ve wanted to be the next coming of Studs for at least 15 years now. Happy 95th Birthday, Studs!

Wanted to post some excerpts I particularly enjoyed. So here they are.

I’m known as a poet of the tape recorder, right? The fact is I have no idea how the hell it works. I’m terrible, I’m a nut, mechanically. I can’t drive a car. I can’t ride a bike. I don’t know what “internet” means, or “website.” Google is an old-time comic strip — “Barney Google” — with his goo-goo-googly eyes.

 

And so, you see, I’m not up on all the current stuff. And people say, “Boy, on that tape recorder, you capture those people.” No, they capture themselves, because I am inept. That comes out quite clearly.

Sometimes I turn the wrong button down. And that person in the housing project, she sees it doesn’t work, and she reminds me of it. And as I say, “Oh, I goofed,” at that moment, she is my equal or better than my equal. In other words, I am not, whoever it is, [inaudible], “Today” or “60 Minutes” or Kathy, whoever she is. It’s me, a guy who’s in trouble, and she helps me out. And so, I’m playing this tape recorder for this woman, very poor, very pretty. I don’t know whether she’s white or black. In those days, the early public housing projects were all mixed. And these little kids running around want to hear their mama’s voice on this new machine. And so, I’m playing it back, and she’s hearing her voice for the first time in her life, and suddenly she says, “Oh, my god!” And I say, “What is it?” She said, “I never thought I felt that way before.” Well, that’s an astonishing moment for her and for me, one you might say are fellow travelers together. So that’s the exciting stuff. She discovers that she does have a voice, that she counts.

The key word, by the way, in all of these people is they must feel they “count.” Nick von Hoffman, the columnist, used to work for the organizer Saul Alinsky, and he said once people get in a group and that group thinks as they do, he feels he counts or she counts more than alone. And so, that’s what it’s about.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you want them to think of when someone says “Studs Terkel”?

STUDS TERKEL: I want them to think of somebody who remembers them, to be remembered, whether it be me or anyone else. They want Studs Terkel, maybe as somebody — I’m romanticizing myself now — somebody who gave me hope. One of my books is Hope Dies Last. Without hope, forget it. It’s hope and thought, and that can counting. That’s what it’s about. That’s what I hope I’m about.

R.I.P., "Yoki" King

With Yolanda King, two things immediately come to mind. Funtown, and her work with Attallah Shabazz.

Yoki did get to go to Funtown with her father eventually, by the way. Now she’s with back with him, performing in the Realm of the Ancestors.

Asante Sana, Yolanda King.

5:51 P.M. UPDATE: Just got this from Rev. Forrest Pritchett, a great friend and mentor of mine. He is the advisor of the Martin Luther King Scholarship Association—the group of select undergraduates of my alma mater, Seton Hall University, who are the recipients of a full, four-year renewable scholarship there in MLK’s name.

I am sad to notify all of my associates of the passing of the oldest child of Coretta Scott King and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Yolanda King.

Yolanda and I were personal friends and she was a powerful spokesperson for issues pertaining to her father’s legacy and other issues of civil rights.

In 1983, we presented a dramatic production created by Yolanda and Attallah Shabazz, the oldest daughter of Malcolm X, at Seton Hall University’s Theatre in the Round. Yolanda was also the keynote speaker for one of our MLK birthday commemorations at Seton Hall. We were recently discussing the possibility of her coming to New Jersey next February.

May she find peace in the presence of the saviour.

II Corinthians 1:3 – 4

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles,
so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God.

"Democracy Now!": Philadelphia Court Hearing Could Decide Fate of Imprisoned Journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal

 

To watch or listen to this, click here. Afterwards, check this out from Davey D.

AMY GOODMAN: In Philadelphia, Mumia Abu-Jamal’s legal team is preparing for a hearing on Thursday that could decide the fate of the imprisoned former Black Panther. Mumia Abu-Jamal has been on death row for twenty-five years, after being convicted of killing a police officer following a controversial trial before a predominantly white jury.

On Thursday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments to decide whether Mumia Abu-Jamal gets a new trial, life in prison without parole or execution. Hundreds of supporters, including Danny Glover and Cynthia McKinney, are planning to rally outside the courthouse.

In a few minutes, we’ll be joined in Philadelphia by Linn Washington, a columnist for The Philadelphia Tribune and professor at Temple University. But first, we turn to Mumia Abu-Jamal in his own words. Before he was jailed, Mumia Abu-Jamal was an award-winning journalist in Philadelphia. He continues his journalism behind bars, regularly records commentaries for the Prison Radio Project. This essay is called “Furor Over Politicizing Justice.”

MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: As voices now rise over recent revelations of White House pressures to remove uncooperative US attorneys from their posts, protests over the politicizing of the Justice Department have approached the dimensions of a media firestorm. From the den, we may assume that US attorneys are supremely apolitical. They’re but impartial officers of state power who do not deign to submit to the winding whims of politics nor the bile of bias. It is remarkable to see political appointees denounce the very practice of politics as if it were contagious disease.

In truth, the Department of Justice isn’t less political than other departments of government; it may even be more political. Who is prosecuted and for what is a political decision. Indeed, many of the removed US attorneys reportedly did not try death penalty cases with the enthusiasm that the Justice Department required. Ain’t that political? When the Justice Department targeted the former governor of Illinois, George Ryan, who made international news for his dismantling of that state’s death row, wasn’t that political? What of the recent indictments of the San Francisco Eight, former Black Panthers, some who have been subjected to torture both in the ’70s and more recently in connection with an alleged 1971 attack on a San Francisco police station? Ain’t that political?

To suggest that a politically appointed official isn’t subject to political pressure is like believing in the tooth fairy. It’s OK if you’re five years old, but not if you’re an adult. Huey P. Newton, founder of the Black Panther Party, once said, “Everything is political,” meaning how we live, what we eat, education, health, how we interact socially. All of these things are impacted by our political decisions.

Now, none of this is to suggest that these removals ordered by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales weren’t slimy. They’re slimy as whale poop. But let’s not even run amok with our unquestioned assumptions. Gonzales is the reincarnation of Nixon’s John Mitchell, the Watergate-era Attorney General who left the office in handcuffs. In fact, John Dean, a Nixon aide during the Watergate scandal, has written a book, the title of which aptly summarizes the present administration: Worse Than Watergate.

Why no calls for Gonzales’s resignation when news came out about FBI snooping on US citizens? For torture alone, he should be canned. The media, which was an accomplice in the crimes of invasion and occupation, now turns up the volume, because eight lawyers were fired. Doesn’t this smack of classic class bias? Let’s not rely on a fable. From death row, this is Mumia Abu-Jamal.

AMY GOODMAN: And this is Democracy Now! Linn Washington now joins us in Philadelphia, columnist for The Philadelphia Tribune, journalism professor at Temple University, has been following Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case for, well, the last quarter century. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Washington.

LINN WASHINGTON: Hi, Amy. How are you?

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Talk about this hearing that will be taking place on Thursday. How significant is it?

LINN WASHINGTON: Well, this is a very significant hearing, because it can determine whether Abu-Jamal finally gets a fair trial or if he’s fast-tracked for that conveyor belt for execution. There’s four basic issues here, one involving discriminatory practices in the selection of the jury. The other is the alleged bias of the trial judge during the 1995 appeals hearing, bias that, I must say, that independent journalists from mainstream news media around the country, including media that has been hostile to Abu-Jamal, felt was an absolute travesty in terms of the bias. And then there’s two other really technical issues, one involving the jury verdict form and the other involving an argument that the prosecutor made to the jury to try to lessen their responsibility in finding Abu-Jamal liable for death, interestingly language that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court outlawed in 1986, re-imposed when Abu-Jamal had his first appeal hearing in ’89, and then reversed itself again in 1990. It’s ironic that you played that particular commentary by Abu-Jamal dealing with politicization of the justice system, because that is exactly what’s happening in this case and has been a part of it for the last twenty-five years.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, what about the appeals judge panel? Who are these judges? Why would this be different than any other time?

LINN WASHINGTON: Well, for one thing, this particular court, or should I say the federal court system, has a better track record of being fair. The core problem with the Abu-Jamal case in terms of how the judiciary has handled this is that the judiciary has consistently failed to apply its own legal precedents. And to break that down in layman’s terms, courts are supposed to follow rules, and the rules are previous rulings. And in the Abu-Jamal case, they just keep going back and forth, flip-flopping all over the place.

So hopefully the Third Circuit will be that forum where finally judges apply the law. If, in fact, they apply the law, the three judges on this particular panel have participated in panels of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals over the last three and a half years, where they have overturned life sentences and death sentences because of the jury discriminatory selection practices of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Linn Washington, columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune. Did you know Mumia Abu-Jamal before he was imprisoned?

LINN WASHINGTON: I knew him. Wow, let me just say this, I knew him before people called me “sir” and “mister.” They called me “young man.” I first met Mumia in 1973 when we both worked at Temple University’s radio station, WRTI-FM. We were acquaintances from, I guess, a period of 1976 up through his incarceration, or shall I say, his arrest and subsequent incarceration. We worked very closely together as reporters here in Philadelphia, and, yes, we did, in fact, develop a good friendship.

AMY GOODMAN: This hearing on Thursday, there’s expected to be a major rally outside. Can you talk about the preparations, and also what do you expect to come out of it? When will the decision be made?

LINN WASHINGTON: Well, from what I’m told, both from checking with my sources and reading press releases, because I’m not a part of the activism related to this, they expect busloads of people from outside of the city, a groundswell of support within the city, people coming in from Europe, England and France and Germany, in particular.

And in terms of the outcome, the case will — or should I say the panel will probably deliberate a couple of weeks, if not one or two months, and then they will issue their opinion. The federal courts usually proceed in their deliberations a lot quicker than state courts, so we could have a decision in this case clearly before the end of the year, perhaps as recently or as soon as a couple of months.

AMY GOODMAN: That decision could be…what are the options?

LINN WASHINGTON: Well, the options, from what I understand, are a couple. One, the appeals court could order a whole new trial for Abu-Jamal. Number two, they could send the case back to the district court judge who handled it, which is called a remand, with instructions to hold a hearing or make rulings in a particular way that would probably be on the jury selection discrimination issue. They could also order a new PCRA. In 1995, there was a state-level appeal, and in this appeal, this is where the trial judge, Albert Sabo, the original trial judge, engaged in egregious misconduct. So the federal courts could order a new PCRA hearing, and I’m told that may, in all probability, take place in a federal court.

They could also uphold Abu-Jamal’s conviction. Then there would be perhaps — well, not perhaps, there would be an appeal to the US Supreme Court. In all likelihood, given the composition of that court, Abu-Jamal’s conviction would be upheld, and then it would come back to the governor of the state, and he has already pledged — some more politicization — that he would sign a death warrant, and then things would move along on a wholly different track.

AMY GOODMAN: Governor Rendell?

LINN WASHINGTON: Governor Ed Rendell, who was the DA of Philadelphia at the time of Abu-Jamal’s original trial, subsequently became the mayor of the city, where he presided over extraordinary police brutality, fighting it tooth and nail, and now he’s the — when I say fighting it tooth and nail, not fighting against it, fighting to cover it up and to ameliorate it — and now he’s the governor of our state.

AMY GOODMAN: I remember going to Philadelphia for one of the hearings that was before Judge Sabo in 1995. It was a remarkable, I guess you could say, performance. He would walk in and out of the courtroom.

LINN WASHINGTON: Yes, yes. I mean, this guy was the absolute worst. His behavior in 1995 was so bad that Philadelphia’s mainstream media not only editorialized against it, saying it was a travesty of justice and undermined any semblance of a fair trial, it actually gave fuel to Abu-Jamal’s supporters’ complaints. But like I said, these people were normally hostile to Abu-Jamal, and they were really outraged by it. But, unfortunately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wasn’t. And in their 1998 opinion upholding Abu-Jamal’s appeal, they said the opinions of a handful of journalists do not convince us that Sabo was not impartial, despite him doing a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i…x, y, z, you know, all the way down, a whole litany of things that he did, but they said, he was, in fact, impartial, and we’re going to stand by it. That, too, was a travesty.

But you have to understand, there’s been such politicization of this court, five members of the seven-member Supreme Court that upheld Abu-Jamal’s conviction in 1998 received campaign contributions and campaign support from the Fraternal Order of Police, which is a Philadelphia police union, the main group that is pushing for his execution. Does that give the appearance of impartiality? It doesn’t to a lot of people, because of the campaign finances.

There was a study done, ironically, in 1998, where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had a commission do a survey of the public, and — what was it — four out of ten, or it was an extraordinarily high percentage of the public in Pennsylvania, felt that campaign contributions had a direct impact on rulings and deliberations of all courts, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

AMY GOODMAN: Linn Washington, we’ll leave it there, but we’ll continue to cover this case through the week. Columnist for the Philadelphia Tribune, Linn Washington, also a journalist and professor at Temple University, thanks so much for joining us, as we end today’s broadcast with Mumia Abu-Jamal in his own words. Last November, he appeared on the Block Report Radio program.

MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: People who believe purely in the law are sometimes met with unbelief. They can’t believe that the law hasn’t done the right thing. That’s because they have a misunderstanding of the law. I mean, what has happened in my case has happened in other people’s cases. The question is not the law, but the people. If people organize and people understand that it will take the power of the people, you know, to change this thing, then they’ll understand what they need to do, if they feel compelled, if they feel pushed, if they feel that this is the right thing to do.

But, you know, if we know anything from history, we know that the law has been the force for the outlaw for hundreds of years for our people. I mean, right after the Civil War, the so-called Reconstruction amendments were put in the Constitution, but for millions of our people all across the country, it was as if no such amendments were written, because our people still couldn’t vote. We were not free. We couldn’t make contracts or have jobs or go to decent schools. You know, look at our condition today. So the law is one thing. The people are another. I rely on the people.

AMY GOODMAN: Mumia Abu-Jamal. His hearing will be on Thursday in Philadelphia.

Liked That Tavis and Gwen Ifill………..

 

……………pointed out the difference between them: Tavis as the “more like an advocacy journalist” (his words) on the soapbox, Gwen the MSM journalist who is uncomfortable with expressing opinion.

Although Tavis’ journalistic credentials are up for debate (are talk show hosts “real” journalists or “honorary” journalists?), I’m glad he’s there to explain, and show, the difference between the two of them. I’ve read too much of Ida B. Wells and Frederick Douglass to believe all Black journalists—MSM and others—are from that tradition, although they all claim it. (Who wouldn’t, right? 🙂 )

But allathat’s my issue. Since America is the home of the First Amendment and I’m not King of the Universe, I can’t stop anybody from claiming or not claiming anything.

And since anyone can say he or she is a journalist, perhaps all of this is moot, and we should just all define our unlicensed roles for ourselves. Like Tavis and Gwen did, and do.

And so I’ll continue to give what I believe to be an educated analysis as a credentialed historian of Black media, and Black MSM journalists can reply, “SO?? That doesn’t make your word final.” And the beat will go on.

Saul Williams' Open Letter To Oprah Winfrey

 

From Kalamu. 

An open letter to Oprah 4/18/7: From Saul Williams

Dear Ms. Winfrey,

It is with the greatest respect and adoration of your loving spirit that I write you. As a young child, I would sit beside my mother everyday and watch your program. As a young adult, with children of my own, I spend much less time in front of the television, but I am ever thankful for the positive effect that you continue to have on our nation, history and culture. The example that you have set as someone unafraid to answer their calling, even when the reality of that calling insists that one self-actualize beyond the point of any given example, is humbling, and serves as the cornerstone of the greatest faith. You, love, are a pioneer.

I am a poet.

Growing up in Newburgh, N.Y., with a father as a minister and a mother as a schoolteacher. At a time when we fought for our heroes to be nationally recognized, I certainly was exposed to the great names and voices of our past. I took great pride in competing in my church’s Black History Quiz Bowl and the countless events my mother organized in hopes of fostering a generation of youth well versed in the greatness as well as the horrors of our history. Yet, even in a household where I had the privilege of personally interacting with some of the most outspoken and courageous luminaries of our times, I must admit that the voices that resonated the most within me and made me want to speak up were those of my peers, and these peers were emcees. Rappers.

Yes, Ms. Winfrey, I am what my generation would call “a Hip Hop head.” Hip Hop has served as one of the greatest aspects of my self-definition. Lucky for me, I grew up in the 80s when groups like Public Enemy, Rakim, The Jungle Brothers, Queen Latifah, and many more realized the power of their voices within the artform and chose to create music aimed at the upliftment of our generation.

As a student at Morehouse College where I studied Philosophy and Drama, I was forced to venture across the street to Spelman College for all of my Drama classes, since Morehouse had no theater department of its own. I had few complaints. The performing arts scholarship awarded me by Michael Jackson had promised me a practically free ride to my dream school, which now had opened the doors to another campus that could make even the most focused of young boys dreamy, Spelman. One of my first theater professors, Pearl Cleage, shook me from my adolescent dream state. It was the year that Dr. Dre’s “The Chronic” was released and our introduction to Snoop Dogg as he sang catchy hooks like “Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks…” Although it was a playwriting class, what seemed to take precedence was Ms. Cleage’s political ideology, which had recently been pressed and bound in her 1st book, Mad at Miles. As, you know, in this book she spoke of how she could not listen to the music of Miles Davis and his muted trumpet without hearing the muted screams of the women that he was outspoken about “man-handling.” It was my first exposure to the idea of an artist being held accountable for their actions outside of their art. It was the first time I had ever heard the word “misogyny.” And as Ms. Cleage would walk into the classroom fuming over the women she would pass on campus, blasting those Snoop lyrics from their cars and jeeps, we, her students, would be privy to many freestyle rants and raves on the dangers of nodding our heads to a music that could serve as our own demise.

Her words, coupled with the words of the young women I found myself interacting with forever changed how I listened to Hip Hop and quite frankly ruined what would have been a number of good songs for me. I had now been burdened with a level of awareness that made it impossible for me to enjoy what the growing masses were ushering into the mainstream. I was now becoming what many Hip Hop heads would call “a Backpacker”—a person who chooses to associate themselves with the more “conscious” or politically astute artists of the Hip Hop community. What we termed as “conscious” Hip Hop became our preference for dance and booming systems. Groups like X-Clan, A Tribe Called Quest, Brand Nubian, Arrested Development, Gangstarr and others became the prevailing music of our circle. We also enjoyed the more playful Hip Hop of De La Soul, Heiroglyphics, Das FX, Organized Konfusion. Digable Planets, The Fugees, and more. We had more than enough positivity to fixate on. Hip Hop was diverse.

I had not yet begun writing poetry. Most of my friends hardly knew that I had been an emcee in high school. I no longer cared to identify myself as an emcee and my love of oratory seemed misplaced at Morehouse where most orators were actually preachers in training, speaking with the Southern drawl of Dr. King although they were 19 and from the North. I spent my time doing countless plays and school performances. I was in line to become what I thought would be the next Robeson, Sidney, Ossie, Denzel, Snipes… It wasn’t until I was in graduate school for acting at NYU that I was invited to a poetry reading in Manhattan where I heard Asha Bandele, Sapphire, Carl Hancock Rux, Reggie Gaines, Jessica Care Moore, and many others read poems that sometimes felt like monologues that my newly acquired journal started taking the form of a young poets’.

Yet, I still noticed that I was a bit different from these poets who listed names like: Audre Lourde, June Jordan, Sekou Sundiata, etc., when asked why they began to write poetry. I knew that I had been inspired to write because of emcees like Rakim, Chuck D, LL, Run DMC… Hip Hop had informed my love of poetry as much or even more than my theater background which had exposed me to Shakespeare, Baraka, Fugard, Genet, Hansberry and countless others. In those days, just a mere decade ago, I started writing to fill the void between what I was hearing and what I wished I was hearing. It was not enough for me to critique the voices I heard blasting through the walls of my Brooklyn brownstone. I needed to create examples of where Hip Hop, particularly its lyricism, could go. I ventured to poetry readings with my friends and neighbors, Dante Smith (now Mos Def), Talib Kweli, Eryka Badu, Jessica Care Moore, Mums the Schemer, Beau Sia, Suheir Hammad…all poets that frequented the open mics and poetry slams that we commonly saw as “the other direction” when Hip hop reached that fork in the road as you discussed on your show this past week. On your show you asked the question, “Are all rappers poets?” Nice. I wanted to take the opportunity to answer this question for you.

The genius, as far as the marketability, of Hip Hop is in its competitiveness. Its roots are as much in the dignified aspects of our oral tradition as it is in the tradition of “the dozens” or “signifying.”

In Hip Hop, every emcee is automatically pitted against every other emcee, sort of like characters with super powers in comicbooks. No one wants to listen to a rapper unless they claim to be the best or the greatest. This sort of braggadocio leads to all sorts of tirades, showdowns, battles, and sometimes even deaths. In all cases, confidence is the ruling card. Because of the competitive stance that all emcees are prone to take, they, like soldiers begin to believe that they can show no sign of vulnerability. Thus, the most popular emcees of our age are often those that claim to be heartless or show no feelings or signs of emotion.

The poet, on the other hand, is the one who realizes that their vulnerability is their power. Like you, unafraid to shed tears on countless shows, the poet finds strength in exposing their humanity, their vulnerability, thus making it possible for us to find connection and strength through their work. Many emcees have been poets. But, no, Ms. Winfrey, not all emcees are poets. Many choose gangsterism and business over the emotional terrain through which true artistry will lead. But they are not to blame. I would now like to address your question of leadership.

You may recall that in immediate response to the attacks of September 11th, our president took the national stage to say to the American public and the world that we would “…show no sign of vulnerability.” Here is the same word that distinguishes poets from rappers, but in its history, more accurately, women from men. To make such a statement is to align oneself with the ideology that instills in us a sense of vulnerability meaning “weakness.” And these meanings all take their place under the heading of what we consciously or subconsciously characterize as traits of the feminine. The weapon of mass destruction is the one that asserts that a holy trinity would be a father, a male child, and a ghost when common sense tells us that the holiest of trinities would be a mother, a father, and a child: Family.

The vulnerability that we see as weakness is the saving grace of the drunken driver who because of their drunken/vulnerable state survives the fatal accident that kills the passengers in the approaching vehicle who tighten their grip and show no physical vulnerability in the face of their fear. Vulnerability is also the saving grace of the skateboarder who attempts a trick and remembers to stay loose and not tense during their fall. Likewise, vulnerability has been the saving grace of the African American struggle as we have been whipped, jailed, spat upon, called names, and killed, yet continue to strive forward mostly non-violently towards our highest goals. But today we are at a crossroads, because the institutions that have sold us the crosses we wear around our necks are the most overt in the denigration of women and thus humanity. That is why I write you today, Ms. Winfrey. We cannot address the root of what plagues Hip Hop without addressing the root of what plagues today’s society and the world.

You see, Ms. Winfrey, at its worse, Hip Hop is simply a reflection of the society that birthed it. Our love affair with gangsterism and the denigration of women is not rooted in Hip Hop; rather it is rooted in the very core of our personal faith and religions. The gangsters that rule Hip Hop are the same gangsters that rule our nation. 50 Cent and George Bush have the same birthday (July 6th). For a Hip Hop artist to say, “I do what I wanna do/Don’t care if I get caught/The DA could play this mothafuckin tape in court/I’ll kill you” epitomizes the confidence and braggadocio we expect an admire from a rapper who claims to represent the lowest denominator. When a world leader with the spirit of a cowboy (the true original gangster of the West: raping, stealing land, and pillaging, as we clapped and cheered.) takes the position of doing what he wants to do, regardless of whether the U.N. or American public would take him to court, then we have witnessed true gangsterism and violent negligence. Yet, there is nothing more negligent than attempting to address a problem one finds on a branch by censoring the leaves.

Name calling, racist generalizations, sexist perceptions, are all rooted in something much deeper than an uncensored music. Like the rest of the world, I watched footage on AOL of you dancing mindlessly to 50 Cent on your fiftieth birthday as he proclaimed, “I got the ex/if you’re into taking drugs/ I’m into having sex/ I ain’t into making love” and you looked like you were having a great time. No judgment. I like that song too. Just as I do James Brown’s “Sex Machine” or Grandmaster Flash’s “White Lines.” Sex, drugs, and rock and roll is how the story goes.

Censorship will never solve our problems. It will only foster the sub-cultures of the underground, which inevitably inhabit the mainstream.

   Oshun

There is nothing more mainstream than the denigration of women as projected through religious doctrine. Please understand, I am by no means opposing the teachings of Jesus, by example (he wasn’t Christian), but rather the men that have used his teachings to control and manipulate the masses. Hip Hop, like Rock and Roll, like the media, and the government, all reflect an idea of power that labels vulnerability as weakness. I can only imagine the non-emotive hardness that you have had to show in order to secure your empire from the grips of those that once stood in your way: the old guard. You reflect our changing times. As time progresses we sometimes outgrow what may have served us along the way. This time, what we have outgrown, is not hip hop; rather it is the festering remnants of a God depicted as an angry and jealous male, by men who were angry and jealous over the minute role that they played in the everyday story of creation. I am sure that you have covered ideas such as these on your show, but we must make a connection before our disconnect proves fatal.

We are a nation at war. What we fail to see is that we are fighting ourselves. There is no true hatred of women in Hip Hop. At the root of our nature we inherently worship the feminine. Our overall attention to the nurturing guidance of our mothers and grandmothers as well as our ideas of what is sexy and beautiful all support this. But when the idea of the feminine is taken out of the idea of what is divine or sacred then that worship becomes objectification. When our governed morality asserts that a woman is either a virgin or a whore, then our understanding of sexuality becomes warped. Note the dangling platinum crosses over the bare asses being smacked in the videos. The emcees of my generation are the ministers of my father’s generation. They too had a warped perspective of the feminine. Censoring songs, sermons, or the tirades of radio personalities will change nothing except the format of our discussion. If we are to sincerely address the change we are praying for then we must first address to whom we are praying.

Thank you, Ms. Winfrey, for your forum, your heart, and your vision. May you find the strength and support to bring about the changes you wish to see in ways that do more than perpetuate the myth of enmity.

In loving kindness,
Saul Williams

"It's Men's Attitude, Stupid!": A Commentary About Imus, Hiphop And Sexism

Just got this from Akila Worksongs.  

“It’s Men’s Attitude, Stupid!”: A Commentary About Imus, Hiphop And Sexism

By Byron Hurt

April 24, 2007

As a response to the Don Imus fallout surrounding his racist and sexist rant hurled at the blameless Rutgers University women’s basketball team – and to the dramatic shift and intense media glare on hip-hop’s sexism and misogyny – Russell Simmons and Dr. Benjamin Chavis Muhammad, leaders of the New York-based Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, bowed under mounting criticism and pressure, and announced this week that they will make a strong push to have the words “nigger,” “bitch,” and “ho” bleeped on mainstream public radio stations nationwide.

That is not enough.

As an anti-sexist activist, pro-feminist African-American male, I have had the unique and interesting experience of rolling up my sleeves and working with thousands of boys and men in the United States around sexism, men’s violence against women, and homophobia. I have worked with boys and men across race, education, and class lines, and I know how deep and complex these issues are. In my lectures and workshops, I acknowledge my own past as someone who was sexist, and who, as a heterosexual man, behaved badly with women. I am also very candid about how I still grapple with certain gender issues that to this day confuse me. I challenge guys to speak out about sexism, and inspire men to join in the effort to end men’s physical, emotional, and sexual violence against women. I show men how all of these issues hurt men as well as women.

Over the past 14 years years, I have been in the belly of the beast delivering this message. I’ve been in locker rooms with male athletes, on U.S. Marine Corps bases with young Marines, on-campus with black and white fraternity members, and in closed-door sessions with men in positions of authority at colleges and universities. I have also addressed, to a lesser degree, men in law enforcement, and batterers in court mandated battering intervention programs.

My current mission is to engage young men from the hip-hop generation – men who, it seems, are today’s lone scapegoats for centuries-old patriarchy, sexism and misogyny. Let the truth be told, hip-hop’s misogyny is indefensible and must be confronted. But hip-hop is surely not the only place where boys and men are informed about girls and women. From the recent Supreme Court decision to ban partial birth abortion, to “men’s interests” magazine covers donning scantily clad female celebs, to hard and soft-core pornograghy that subjugate women – men are bombarded daily with messages about gender. Even as a woman, Senator Hillary Clinton, mounts a formidable campaign to become the first female president of the United States, the messages about gender in popular culture are clear – men rule the world, and women are sex objects, bitches and ho’s.

Hip-hop’s sexism is only a piece of a much larger puzzle.

I am a hip-hop fan. At 37 years old, hip-hop music has been the soundtrack of a huge chunk of my life. But as I learned more about gender issues as an original member of Northeastern University’s Mentors in Violence Prevention Program, I began to question hip-hop’s ever-present macho themes and images. I grew up with hip-hop, but hip-hop did not grow up with me. I became so weary of hip-hop’s testosterone that, in 2000, I decided to do something about it. Over a period of six years, I directed and produced Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, an award-winning PBS documentary film about violence, sexism, and homophobia. The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival to standing ovations in 2006, and won best documentary at the San Francisco Black Film Festival.

The film is getting around. It is being shown on college campuses from Howard University to Harvard University. And last month, Firelight Media launched a year-long community engagement campaign to use the film as a media literacy tool in communities across the country. National and local community partners include: A Call to Men, Mothers Day Radio, YWCA–Racial Justice Project, Gender PAC, Youth Movement Records, Reflect Connect Move, HOTGIRLS, Inc., Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center, Center for Family Policy and Practice, and The P.E.A.C.E. Initiative. Additional events are planned in collaboration with this year’s Essence Music Festival, the Congressional Black Caucus, Rikers Island, and the Open Society Institute. The goal is to help young people, using hip-hop as a catalyst for discussion, think critically about the myriad gender issues in hip-hop specifically, and in the larger American culture in general.

The Ford Foundation has also pitched in providing resources for a Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes Historically Black College Tour to further conversations about the gender politics of Hip-Hop culture on black college campuses.

For several years now, the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network has done some great work for the hip-hop community. Through a series of national workshops, panels, and seminars called “Hip-Hop Summits,” Simmons and Muhammad have helped register thousands of young people to vote, have confronted the unjust Rockerfeller Drug Laws, which disproportionately sentences black and brown men for non-violent drug offenses, and they do much to educate aspiring artists and businessmen before they enter the music industry. As hip-hop entrepreneurs, they do much to give back.

But Simmons and Muhammad’s action plan to have radio stations bleep the words “bitch” and “ho” on public airwaves is at best, a Band-Aid solution for a much larger problem. As Jackson Katz, author of The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help, says “… if men’s violence against women truly carried a significant stigma in male culture, it is possible that most incidents of sexist abuse would never happen.” I agree. Men who are not sexist need to send the message to other men that sexism and misogyny is not cool.

As men, we are woefully uneducated about gender issues. Many of us, with some exceptions, have never had a serious conversation about sexism. For decades, women all over the country have led the charge to eliminate men’s sexism and violence. But largely due to male privilege and sexism, men across racial lines have not listened. We posture, we resist, and we call it male bashing. I know, because I was once one such man. As Don Imus did so cunningly in the week after his transgression, we deflect and push blame onto someone else. In Imus’ case, hip-hop, whose face is largely black and male, was the convenient bogeyman. As men, we all need to acknowledge our sexism and take responsibility for our actions, and then work hard to change. Men are conditioned to be sexist, and we can be conditioned to become anti-sexist with education and leadership.

If Russell Simmons and Benjamin Muhammad really want to confront sexism in hip-hop, they have to begin by using their leadership, money, and status to educate the hip-hop community about the roots of sexism, and what we can do to change it. As hip-hop executives, they must own up to their own sexist attitudes and behaviors, and then, firmly reject sexism in hip-hop culture beyond bleeping offensive words. He must ask his cronies in positions of power and influence in the industry to do the same.

If the lyrics are to change, then the sexist attitudes that live on the edge of male rappers’ tongues, must change. That is going to take real work over a long period of time. Bleeping sexist words just won’t cut it.

Joan Morgan

 

Tricia Rose

Simmons and Muhammad must mount a campaign using artists with credibility, heart, and a strong desire for gender equality (that combination will be hard to find – but is possible) to send the message to all men that sexism and violence against women is – in hip-hop parlance – wack. I challenge Simmons and Muhammad to put their money where their mouth is and use their national “Hip-Hop Summit” tour to address hip-hop’s sexism and misogyny in a real and meaningful way. I dare Simmons and Muhammad to organize panel discussions with hip-hop feminists like Joan Morgan, Tricia Rose, Aishah Durham, Elizabeth Mendez-Berry, Carla Stokes, Rosa Clemente, Tracey Sharpley-Whiting, Monifa Bandele, April Silver and others, who have for years, railed against hip-hop’s sexism. Put them on the same dais with hip-hop executives and artists. Bring in some of the countries most skilled and experienced anti-sexist male activists to roll up their sleeves and work with male rappers and hip-hop heads. Conduct workshops and training sessions led by men like myself, Quentin Walcott, Don MacPherson, Ted Bunch, Antonio Arrendel, Tony Porter, Kevin Powell, Bikari Kitwana, Mark Anthony Neal, Asere Bello, Tim’m West, Juba Kalamka, and other profeminist men who love hip-hop, but who do not accept its hyper aggression, sexism, and homophobia. Make a real commitment to ending sexism and misogyny in hip-hop, not a paper-thin, disingenuous, and contrived public relations charade.

Not all men are sexist. Not all men in hip-hop are sexist. Not all rappers are sexist. Like me, many men within the hip-hop generation reject the macho and sexist manifestos contained in hip-hop lyrics and in music videos. When men with credibility, status, and a love for hip-hop stand up publicly to denounce sexism with conviction, it gives other men, good men, the space to do the same.

Byron Hurt is an anti-sexist activist, writer, college lecturer, and a filmmaker. His documentary “Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes” premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, and aired nationally on PBS’ Emmy award-winning series, Independent Lens. Byron is married and currently lives in Plainfield, N.J. He can be reached at info@bhurt.com. His website is www.bhurt.com.

R.I.P., Black Family Channel?

If so, too bad.

I’ve thought it was going to merge with TV One, not just die.

Our activists like to talk about our hundred billion dollar spending power. Well,  it’s clear now that having a trillion dollars doesn’t and won’t mean much if that money is not targeted—if we can’t convince advertisers and cable and satellite operators that the best way to reach us is through Black-owned, -controlled and -oriented media.

I remember when a Black Family Channel was Robert Johnson’s idea almost a decade ago. The BET founder said he got much love from the Congressional Black Caucus and the Movement crowd, but nada support from the cable industry. Willie Gary went ahead and did it anyway, but I see that the story ended the same—one of debits and credits.

Let’s hope against hope that it archives online the good things it did. That way, there will be dataspheric proof  it ever existed.

Okay, TV One, time to step up even stronger.

APRIL 28 UPDATE: Richard Prince mentions that the channel will move to the Internet. Good luck.