Thanking the Black Press

Today is Thanksgiving. For many folks this means family gatherings that help us to remember the blessings and good fortune in our lives. I am appreciative of many things, my loving family (those with me in flesh and those with me in spirit), good friends and generous mentors. I also want to remember and appreciate those fearless people who paved the way for Black folks. One of those people was Frances L. Murphy III, former publisher and chief executive of the Afro-American Newspapers who died yesterday at age 85.

Black newspapers get a bum rap today. In an age of 24 hour news, the weekly cycle of many of these newspapers puts them at a severe disadvantage. By the time that they come out, the news that they are reporting is stale. Moreover, lack of resources often means that they rely heavily on wire services rather than on reported pieces. There are other things to nitpick about---regular typos, a tendency not to rigorously scrutinize Black officials and an advocacy of Democratic rhetoric that leaves no room to consider other, perhaps more viable points of view. The reality is that most Black folks do not bother to read Black newspapers anymore. While some people point to the decline of the Black press as progress---evidence that Blacks are now "mainstream," we should not forget that newspapers such as the Afro-American, Amsterdam News, The Chicago Defender and the Pittsburgh Courier for decades were sources of news for Black citizens who were ignored by the White press. They also transmitted crucial information about what was going on in our communities.

Black newspapers not only reported on events, but also served as catalysts to events by informing their readers how issues impacted their lives and how they could get involved to make change. Black newspapers also had a mandate set the record straight and give an honest and balanced account of what was happening to Black Americans in this country. We know that too often the mainstream media gets stories about Black folks wrong. Today, in many cases the bad reporting is the result of laziness or a lack of understanding---however in prior decades, wrong reporting was frequently intentional the result of racism that could not fathom Blacks as anything but criminal, evil, and ignorant.

Personally, I think that we still need a Black press, but one updated for the 21st century. In the age of the Internet, the most popular Black websites are focused on entertainment and sports. In a time when the world is getting more complex and the need for substantive information is more necessary it is problematic that there are not strong and diverse media voices out that are targeting Black Americans. Granted, there are a few shows on local newspapers and television programs that are still keeping up the fight, but their effectiveness and appeal is stymied because they are underfunded and seem to be stuck in the 1960s and 1970s, in terms of how they view the world and its relation to Blacks Americans. Most of these show fail to talk about improving our circumstances in a pro-active way that depends mire on our intellect and collective resources and less on making White folks see the error of their ways. For instance, what can Black communities and Black leaders be doing to stem the number of high school drop-out and close the achievement gap? What knowledge do we already have to accomplish this and what networks already exist to disseminate the necessary information? What would be a 10 year "Education Plan," created by a coalition of civil rights organization look like and how could it operate?

So today, I thank people like France L. Murphy III who were about the business of empowering Black folks long before we used terms like "empowering." To France L. Murphy, a member of Delta Sigma Theta and the daughter of Delta Sigma Theta founder Vashti Turley Murphy, I say a heartfelt, "Skee-Oop."

Spoken Word Artist Saul Williams Calls Rap Artists...

Today I was struggling trying to get the spirit to actually put words to screen. I am not the most disciplined writer and usually have to be "moved" by something to write. Well Saul Williams moved me albeit late this day.


On MySpace.com I was forwarded a radio interview that had Saul dropping some serious knowledge about the state of Hip Hop. Ironically it was a morning "wake up show" and he certainly woke a few folks up with his words. He associated much of commercial rap with Republicans for its glorificiation of money. He's on to something---Reagan and his successors said on the same message that everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. In short, do it yourself because the government could care less if you are hungry, homeless or illiterate. Hurricane Katrina was the best example of this type of mentality. The people too broke, sick, or old to leave New Orleans were left to fend for themselves and then were maligned because they became casualties. The prevalent rap message is not too different-- I got mine, you better get your own. The only real difference between the Republicans and rap artists is that Republicans can generate capital, exploit people and wage war under the cover of government and law, while the rap artists do not have that same immunity.


Saul continued lobbing grenades by saying that most rap artists rather than being rebels or threats to society are actually defenders of the status quo. Much of today's rap music, according to Saul has allowed Black folks to build up a tolerance to bullshit and has made them complacent---perhaps unwilling to rock the boat even to seek their own freedom.


Click to hear the entire interview

Let's Put Damon Wayans out to Pasture

For the record, I never thought that Damon Wayans was that funny. Yes, In Living Color was a good show but it was an ensemble cast, it was not solely dependent on Damon Wayans. On the real---if the Wayans family had waited for me to support their subsequent efforts they would be mighty hungry and definitely homeless.

Now Damon Wayans, the same person who tried to copyright the word nigger is defending Don Imus. People of intellect and good faith can disagree, but Damon Wayans, just like D.L. Hughley before him are trying to defend an ad hominem attack on some female college students as defensible humor. Moreover, Wayans is placing himself as the spokesmen for all Black Americans by saying that Black folks thought that the comment was funny---that it is culturally based. I guess that Wayans simply writes off every Black person who does not agree with him as "bourgie."

This Black woman certainly did not think that Imus's statement was funny, nor did I think that D.L. Hughley's comment on David Letterman was funny or Damon Wayans' latest addition. I have already expressed my views on the Imus affair in the essay, "Hip Hop's (Still) Invisible Women," located at http://www.AlterNet.org/story/51933 so I am not going to re-hash all of that. The bottom line is that if slamming some college athletes for not being their idea of glamour girls is the only way that D.L. Hughley and Damon Wayans think that they can get a laugh, it is no wonder that both of their careers have taken a nose dive.

I could care less about Imus or his defenders, because I will not respond as a victim to actions or words of boars and bigots. However I do know that racist and sexist speech should not be used wantonly on our public airwaves.

Read what Wayans said below---I don't think that Cameron Turner agrees with him either:

TURNER'S TWO CENTS:

Wayans disgraces himself by defending Imus"When he called them nappy headed hoes I was like, 'Wow! He's right!" -- Damon Wayans (on The View, 11-7-07)

*Damon Wayans has, evidently, lost his mind. The veteran comedian/actor/writer actually went on national TV (ABC's The View) last week and said that Don Imus was "right" when he called the members of the Rutgers Women's Basketball team "nappy headed hoes."

The former star of My Wife and Kids said he wasn't offended by Imus' comment because, "black people can say that about each other." Wayans grinned and giggled in solitude as The View panelists and audience responded with shocked, nervous laughter, head-shaking and groans of disapproval.

As Sherri Shepherd struggled to get a word in over the uncomfortable cacophony ("Damon! You know what, Damon?"), Joy Behar challenged Wayans directly: "These women are not hoes," she said, "They're highly respected sports (stars)."

Then, as if his original statement wasn't crazy enough, Wayans clarified and expanded position by saying something truly ignorant: "Black people at home are laughing right now. White people are going, 'That's not right!' (But) it's all cultural." No it isn't.

First of all, Damon, I guarantee you that a whole lot of black folks - the majority, in fact -- were not laughing at your pro-Imus statement. Just like we didn't laugh when Imus opened his mouth and ignited this whole controversy.

Under certain circumstances black people who are good friends agree to play around with insults (including the wretched n-word and b-word). But that has to do with individual relationships, not ethnicity. There is no across-the-board acceptance of crude, demeaning language within black culture. I, as a black man, can not just walk up to a sister, call her by the h-word (even in jest) and think she'll be okay with that. Then again, it would never cross my mind to do that because, like most African-Americans, I have home training.

Even if Damon Wayans' false premise was true, it wouldn't excuse Imus. If black folks give one another conditional permission to use inflammatory language that permission stops with us. Sorry, but white folks don't get to do it. Especially a race-bating instigator like Don Imus, who takes pride in behaving like a donkey's rectum.

Imus was not "right." He was malicious, racist and sexist. Damon Wayans disgraced himself and undermined us by defending him. Thanks for listening.

I'm Cameron Turner and that's my two cents. I'd love to hear yours. Holla back at TurnersTwoCents@aol.com. -- "Think! It Ain't Illegal yet!"

Are We Raising Leaders or Followers

What is causing and helping to maintain the achievement gap?

There at least two things that we do know: frequently schools in low-income communities fail to teach children and parents are influential in children's academic progress. To expand on these knowns about failing schools; they often have the newest or the the worst teachers; books and teaching materials are scarce and in too many instances the physical plants of these school are in shambles---no heat in the winter, no air conditioning in the summer, no working toilets. We have also been told that children who do well in school usually have parents who read to them regularly and are in school e.g. going to parent-teacher conferences and attending PTA meetings, yadda, yadda, yadda. The key piece however that seems to have been left out the public dialogue is how important parenting styles are to academic success. How you parent your child may trump what's happening in their schools.

First before I go any further, I am in no way saying that reforming public education is not a priority. Public schools should be places of learning that expect the best possible outcomes for all students. To advance that goal public schools have to provide children with teachers ready and willing to teach them, a safe environment and the tools that they need to learn be those books, computers or lab supplies. What seems more and more clear to me however is that how parents go about "developing" their children may be equally or more important to their academic and life success than the school that they attend.

The book, Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life by Annette Lareau is an interesting study about the parenting styles of middle class, working class and poor parents. In short-- middle class parents practice "concerted cultivation" which exposes children to an array of enrichment activities and strongly encourages speech and language development. In comparion, working class and poor parent are more apt to have a more hand's off approach known as "natural growth."

Concerted Cultivation
Middle class children, through their activities, learn how to interact with other adults (almost as equals), they learn the importance of discipline and teamwork (and competition) and how to deal with public scrutiny of their performance whether it's a soccer game or a piano recital. Parents also talk to the children in a way that builds their vocabularies and encourages reasoning skills. Rather than giving a child a directive, middle class parents often ask questions or provide the "because" of why something should be done. Perhaps most important, the middle class parent is willing to intervene on behalf of her child with the school or with any institution that has some bearing on her child's life. Middle class parents have no problem going over teachers' heads if they deem a grade unfair or paying for outside consultants to dispute a teacher/school assessment. Middle class children usually are articulate and by watching their parents they learn how to maneuver in the "system" to their benefit.

Natural Growth
According to Lareau (and other researchers) working class and poor parents are more apt to employ the "natural growth" style of parenting. Natural Growth is pretty much, "let a kid be a kid." Working class and poor parents, frequently consumed with how to keep a roof over their kids heads and food on the table, do not get involved in planning or overseeing their children's extracurricular activities. This means kids play outside with neighborhood friends or family members in an unscheduled, informal way. Working class and poor parents tend to use less word and give their children more directives. The net result is that generally working class and poor children do not have robust vocabularies and since they are always being told what to do without an explanantion they may have less developed critical thinking skills. Moreover, working class and poor parents are less likely to be an advocates for their children with the schools. Certainly it is not that these parents do not want the best for their children, it is that they often feel intimidated in the school environment and ill equipped (because their own education) to make education decisions for their children. In general they tend to let the school "professionals" make the decisions about their children's educational needs.

Although Lareau takes great pains not to suggest that the parenting styles of the middle class are superior to those of the poor and working class, she is forced to concede that the lessons and modes of speech and behavior that middle class children learn through "concerted cultivation" are more valued in our society. While some middle class kids can be bratty and whiny, overall they do well on standardized tests and know how to conduct themselves on job interviews and are comfortable socializing with people outside of their family. So while working class and poor children are generally more respectful of adults and have closer family ties, these characteristics are not as highly valued by society and will not help them to navigate societal institutions.

Poor and Middle Class Black Parents
Programs such as Harlem Children's Zone is taking a holistic approach to educating poor children which includes programs like "Baby College" that help their parents be better and more informed parents. The thinking is that many poor parents would implement strategies, such as daily reading, if they were aware of the importance of these activities. I think that the premise is correct and that we need to see more of these type of programs around the country.

However, the achievement gap would be less dramatic if we could say that only low-income Black children are affected, but that is not the reality. What more and more studies are showing is that although there is an increase in the number of middle class Black families (as represented by their incomes), their parenting styles still reflects their working class or poor roots. As a result, middle class Black children, despite their increased socio-economic standing are still not performing on par academically with their White and Asian peers. This means that middle class parents have to also be brought to the realization that they may need to re-consider their parenting style if they want their children to be competitive in this global economy. I think that the organizations that many middle class Black families belong to: fraternities and sororites; churches and civil rights organization need to really step up their involvement in the education and parenting discussion.

Black parenting styles that privilege following orders and being respectful have important historical rationales. There were times when a Black person's life and livelihood literally depended on whether or not they were deferential and compliant. Moreover given the poor treatment that Blacks received and still do receive at the hands of schools and other government institutions, there is no wonder that for some Blacks there is a lingering concern about dealing with them. All that being said, we have to all be willing to move forward, particularly as we prepare our children. We don't want our kids to be the whiny, disrespectful kids that we sometime see in the street, but neither do we want our kids to be consigned to the low-end of the career/life opportunity ladder because they are scared and ill-prepared to deal outside of their immediate community. We need to be preparing our children to lead and give orders, not just follow and keep their heads down.

Jay-Z: Man of Contradictions

Before I start, I have to give homage to Nelson George. I lifted the title of his 1992 book, Buppies, B-Boys, Baps and Bohos: Notes on Post-Soul Black Culture for this blog.

I thought that the title summed up my thoughts about the complexity of the "Black America" that I have experienced. So as I embark on this blogging journey, I will be sharing my observations about the various faces of Black Americans that I see regularly. Some of us are poor; some of us are rich; some of us are urbane; some of us are provincial; some of us a well educated; some of us are illiterate. My point is that while public dialogue seems to center on only one sector of "Black America," the other parts are also alive and well and contributing--whether for the good or the bad to our overall society. For my part I want to give every sector equal light.

To start it all off, I am going to talk about Jay-Z:

I saw Jay-Z on Charlie Rose the other night. He was articulate, poised, insightful and funny---everything that a rap artist is not supposed to be. He was talking about his CD "American Gangster" which is inspired by the film of the same name starring Denzel Washington.

This is not a music review, so I am not getting into the merits of the CD, or his body of work. I will say however that in my opinion Reasonable Doubt is a masterpiece.

One of the things that struck me about the interview (his second with Rose-- the first was in 2004) was that here was a guy from Marcy housing projects in Brooklyn who could now hold his own with a world class interviewer on an array of topics. What was apparent to me was that Jay-Z is ambitious and learned early on that learning how to maneuver in a world beyond Brooklyn did not put his"Blackness" in question. Moreover his willingness to learn new things, talk to different people and travel did not make him a sell-out. Even in the face of critics (which included a few White bloggers who felt he had no business on the show), Jay-Z is clear about where he came from and where he wants to go. With that confidence he did not need to shout about "keepin' it real."

Jay-Z obliquely talked about his drug-dealing past but did not dwell on it or glorify it. In the interview his background as a hustler served as the departure point to where he is now, president of Def Jam and multi-millionaire rap artist. Jay-Z, like many other people came to one of the many folks in the road---keep hustling or make music. He chose to get on the entertainment route. To his credit, he continues to work on develop himself, not feeling compelled to maintain the same ideas or lifestyle that he had when he lived in Marcy.

Jay-Z will forever rep Marcy projects, it's his roots, it is his foundation. I think that the Jay-Z can provide an important lesson to people young and old--- you don't have to turn your back on your roots in order to grow and thrive. Recently I was a panelist at the Executive Leadership Committee's Mid-Managers Symposium and got to hear Don Thompson, the youngish president of McDonald's USA. One the most relevant points of his speech was about the importance of being comfortable with your Blackness before you can be comfortable dealing with other folks.

Jay-Z realized that his being Black and from the projects were parts of his biography that were never going to change---the only question for him was whether those were going to be the only entries. Frankly I think that what Jay-Z, Don Thompson and countless other people can teach us is that there is no reason to run away from being Black (poor, minority, woman, old, etc), but don't use it as a crutch either for why you are not looking for and taking advantage of opportunities to get ahead and improve your life, economically, socially and spiritually.