Trackbacks & Pings

1. Mixed Media Watch - tracking media representations of mixed people on 31 May 2006 at 2:17 pm

   […] Oprah interviews ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ castmembers Merq: …what really bothered me was the reaction to Washington’s confession that he’d vowed never to play another thug. They applauded him like he was making this great decision not to be like other black entertainers, when in fact, it seemed he was saying that even if he had to starve, he wouldn’t play the stereotypical roles often given to black actors… […]

Comments

1. Mark La Roi wrote:

   “Confession: I have an irrational dislike towards Isaiah Washington. I think it’s because I always associate him with that awful character he played in the movie Mixing Nia: Love Isn’t Always Black & White.”

   ~Thanks for sharing that. There are a couple of actors I have that problem with even as I berate myself for forgetting that they were only acting!

   Posted 30 May 2006 at 2:56 pm ¶

2. Gandalph Mantooth wrote:

   I just happened to be at home packing to move and I saw that, too. Very confusing. Charitably, she was thinking she didn’t want there to be a parallel between her real life and TV life so as to draw fire from gossip rags. However, Washington could have been suggesting the latter. Really hard to know what she meant without any reaction. Well, stupid is as stupid does.

   Posted 30 May 2006 at 4:47 pm ¶

3. bertie wrote:

   Yeah, I was in Mexico on vacation and that was playing on the bar’s tv. I thought maybe it was the tecate and sauza shots–but I guess I really did hear him correctly. I took it as her boyfriend would be more secure if her co-star were someone that looked different from him–although Isiah looks very different from him (the boyfriend) as well. But maybe she has a preference for brothas and has only dated black men in the past. This could fuel the boyfriend’s insecurities about an on-screen romance developing. But I don’t know. It was an odd comment for her to make–and odder for him to blast on (inter) national tv.

   But in defense of Isiah–he is in one of my favorite movies “Love Jones” as well as another very good movie about media and race called “Dancing in September.” As a matter of fact, that would be a great movie for an Addicted to Race podcast review.

   Posted 30 May 2006 at 5:14 pm ¶

4. Unlisted wrote:

   Grey’s Anatomy is a good show. Hope that it is as good next season

   Posted 30 May 2006 at 7:31 pm ¶

5. Brad wrote:

   I had the same bit of confusion when Isaiah W. discussed Ellen P.’s desire to have a different person play her McDreamy. Frankly, I don’t understand the Pompeo’s concern. She’s an actor. Right? So, that means she’ll have love scenes with who knows how many men. It would be very childish of her boyfriend to feel threatened by her on-screen lover because of his color.

   As for Isaiah W., he’s an actor. Shouldn’t you separate his real life persona from the persona of a fictional character? Actors act; they pretend to be someone. Julia Roberts played that horrible role in “Pretty Woman,” but I don’t think of her as being a person who would ever consider prostitution. Similarly, lots of actors who play “nice” in films are scumbags in real life.

   Another actor on “Grey’s Anatomy,” Justin Chambers, is involved in an interracial relationship. Chambers is Caucasian and his wife is African American. I think it’s kinda cool to see more interracial relationship in Hollywood. Hopefully, that will make the normally insensitive Hollywood-types more aware of racial nuances.

   Posted 30 May 2006 at 7:34 pm ¶

6. Merq wrote:

   My Oprah-obsessed cousin is staying with me, and she had it on the other day (funny how we all feel the need to explain why we saw that episode).

   Anyway, I was only half-watching it (I had just woken up), but I read it a little differently. I thought she simply had a crush on this other dude, and was hoping Washington wouldn’t get the part, so her crush/boyfriend/husband could.

   Still, what really bothered me was the reaction to Washington’s confession that he’d vowed never to play another thug. They applauded him like he was making this great decision not to be like other black entertainers, when in fact, it seemed he was saying that even if he had to starve, he wouldn’t play the stereotypical roles often given to black actors.

   Posted 31 May 2006 at 1:17 am ¶

7. Leigh wrote:

   It’s amazing what role race still plays in one’s dating preferences…

   As a totally White looking - but mixed race identifying - woman I find I rarely date Black men… I find I’m usually treated as a novelty; I can almost hear them thinking: She looks White, she talks White, she acts White (whatever that’s supposed to mean) but I’m not a traitor to my race! I’m not a sell-out!! She has one vital drop which makes her just like me!!!

   It used to bother me that I only date White and mixed men… But after years of being a trophy girlfriend I don’t let that bother me anymore…

   I now realise my happiness is more important than blood drops - whether real or imagined.

   No-one else gets interrogated for wanting do date someone who looks like them - so why should I??

   Posted 31 May 2006 at 6:22 am ¶

8. gatamala wrote:

   heh heh heh, I do that too Merq, “Oprah just happened to be on and…”

   Everybody loves this show! Damn, I don’t have time to add another hour to my routine!

   Leigh, for what it’s worth, I’m sorry. I had suspected that SOME black men had a thing for women considered “light, bright & damn near white” [that is an old phrase I’ve heard, NO I don’t use this to describe fair-skinned and/or biracial women] b/c they could date someone of a particular appearance WITHOUT being tagged a “sellout”. My suspicions were confirmed when a guy told me that’s why he dated other non-whites. Did you ever call any guy out on this? If so, what was his response?

   Posted 31 May 2006 at 8:45 am ¶

9. bertie wrote:

   hmm–seems since you self confessed to “rarely” dating black men, it should be a stretch to assume that any particular black man dating you is doing it simply because of your skin tone (as if you had a hideous face, bad breath, and a lazy eye–but because your light skinned your a catch). Maybe you’re just good looking–light skin and all. I say date whoever you want, but don’t assume you can read a brotha’s thoughts–maybe some of the white guys also like the fact that your mixed but look white (they get the erotic exotic without all the pesky stares in public). Do you ever question their motives for dating you? I don’t know–It just seems like you’re blaming black men for your own past insecurity about not wanting to date black men. But I could be wrong–I’m not a psychologist, I just play one on the internet.

   And yes–for some reason, men especially, seem to always need an excuse for why they’ve seen an episode of Oprah. I find “it was on in the Doctor’s office waiting room” to be the most effective.

   Posted 31 May 2006 at 9:51 am ¶

10. yum yum wrote:

    In furtherance of bertie’s comments…has it ever occurred to anyone that some “light skinned” women prefer dark skinned black men? (I say dark skinned because not all black men are “dark”, unless you are a crazy mixie who thinks that anyone who doesn’t look like buckwheat is mixed) Opposites do attract you know. Let’s not assume that all light skinned women see themselves or are in fact treated as “trophy wives.” I think Leigh is stuck on herself.

    Posted 31 May 2006 at 10:57 am ¶

11. mr jay wrote:

    I like the show, hope it has a long life.
    Leigh, we are talking about a tv show, not who you choose to date.

    Posted 31 May 2006 at 12:06 pm ¶

12. Merq wrote:

    “(I say dark skinned because not all black men are “dark”, unless you are a crazy mixie who thinks that anyone who doesn’t look like buckwheat is mixed)”

    I don’t know about the “crazy mixie” part, but I definitely hear ya. Go look at the latest Halle post, and you’ll find some dude identifying everyone from Will Smith to Martin Luther King as mixed.

    Posted 31 May 2006 at 12:10 pm ¶

13. gatamala wrote:

    i agree with your thoughts on the white guys, bertie, I just didn’t want to go there……

    Posted 31 May 2006 at 2:07 pm ¶

14. dcase wrote:

    Merq :

    .
    “(I say dark skinned because not all black men are “dark”, unless you are a crazy mixie who thinks that anyone who doesn’t look like buckwheat is mixed)”

    I don’t know about the “crazy mixie” part, but I definitely hear ya. Go look at the latest Halle post, and you’ll find some dude identifying everyone from Will Smith to Martin Luther King as mixed.

    Notwithstanding the crazy mixie part and being somewhat off topic, I guess the post that spawned this particular vein of discussion begs the question of how we define mixed. If Will Smith or MLK has non-African ancestors then I believe that that they could technically be lableled as mixed,right(or does defining mixed this way lead to too large a population in the category and thus mixed loses its power as a separating device)? If not, then how mixed do you have to be to be considered mixed? Or is it being associated with all parts of your mixture that makes a person mixed? Or is it phenotype and how people perceive you? What do you think?

    (Don’t think I’m being argumentative , I am a social scientist and a light-skinned black man (with mixed parents) interested in these issues for future research.)

    Posted 31 May 2006 at 3:04 pm ¶

15. Merq wrote:

    Dcase:
    If we’re assuming that MLK and Will Smith have some mixed ancestors based on the whole “all African-Americans are (anywhere from 8-35%) mixed” theory, then why even classify anyone as African-American? They could all be called “mixed.”

    My belief is that the poster assumed these people were mixed based on phenotypical traits they don’t believe to be “naturally black.” Like yum yum said, to some people, if you ain’t buckwheat, you ain’t black. We’ve definitely had posters on these boards (including Unlisted or Jeremy Pierce… can’t remember which) who pretty-much exhibited such traits.

    Posted 31 May 2006 at 7:31 pm ¶

16. Brad wrote:

    Merq:

    It’s well known that MLK was mixed. His grandmother was an Irish immigrant. And, just because someone is more well read than you, doesn’t mean that he’s a “crazy mixie.”

    Let’s be frank, are you telling me that any of the people whom I listed are not mixed? While phenotype isn’t a perfect describer of one’s DNA, it is a good indicator. Most African-Americans are descended from West Africans who have a common phenotype. We’re not talking about slaves collected from all around Africa where you would find greater differences in phenotype (a Somali or Ethiopian looks very different from a Ghanian).

    Realistically, do you actually think that Will Smith or his wife Jada Pinkett aren’t mixed? How many people from Ghana who aren’t mixed look like Smith?
    http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/4420/JadaPinket_Cohen_7761165_400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Smith,%20Will%20(I)&seq=18

    The average African-American is mixed. That’s just a fact. I don’t think that Professor Henry Louis Gates would disagree with that since it was he who said that in his recent PBS program that explored the genetic legacy of African Americans by testing the DNA of several African-American celebrities and himself. Gates wanted to find his ancestral home but discovered that both his maternal and paternal markers (mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome, respectively) led to Europe. And most of the subjects he tested, like Oprah, Chris Tucker, Quincy Jones, and Dr. Mae Jemison were mixed (Native American, European, or Chinese).
    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/profile_gates2.html

    Indeed, if you look back to how the phrase “African-American” came to be, it was coined to get away from labeling people because of their skin color. Jesse Jackson explained that most “blacks” did not have “black” skin but came in all different colors; thus “African-American” was more embracing of common ancestry and history but not as exclusionary as “black.”

    But, don’t take my word for it. Look it up at Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American

    “Race” is a social construct.

    That said, you might want to read up on the Lembe tribe of South Africa. For generations they claimed to be Jews but were told that that couldn’t be true. That is until DNA testing was done that showed that they were the descendants of descendants of Jewish merchant traders. So, even the darkest African could be mixed. http://www.pbs.org/search/redir/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.html

    If you also visit PBS.org, you might want to look up “Queen Charlotte” for insight into the African ancestry of the current British Monarchy.

    Posted 31 May 2006 at 9:31 pm ¶

17. kim wrote:

    Brad:
    “And, just because someone is more well read than you, doesn’t mean he’s a crazy mixie.”

    LOL
    Who called you a “crazy mixie”?

    You proudly call yourself “well read”, but this seems to be the second post where you have MISREAD someone’s comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted 31 May 2006 at 10:19 pm ¶

18. Brad wrote:

    Merq,

    First, apologies to Merq for the “crazy mixie” misreading. The rest of my comment stands.

    Kim,

    Anyone who uses as many exclamation points as you should not make critical comments on anyone else’s misinterpretation or usage of the written word. You might want to pick up a copy of “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” to get a better handle on basic grammar. (Yep, I can be just as needlessly snarky and impolite as you. )

    Posted 31 May 2006 at 11:44 pm ¶

19. kim wrote:

    Brad:
    “Yep, I can be just as needlessly snarky and impolite as you.”

    You were the one who said “just because someone (Brad) is more well read than you”, right?

    Was I being critical of your grasp of the English language or was I pointing out that this is the second time you have misread someone’s comments?

    Anyway, thanks for the grammar lesson.

    Can you recommend any books on how to avoid posting the exact same comment twice?

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 12:45 am ¶

20. kim wrote:

    BTW Brad, I was referring to your twin postings on the David Carradine Kung Fu piece. (Just in case you misread that.)

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 3:37 am ¶

21. Merq wrote:

    Kim,

    Thanks for having eyes and knowing how to use them.

    Brad:
    1. I’m not American, so I don’t feel like a complete loser for not knowing about MLK’s magical Irish relative. But guess what I am?

    That’s right, WEST AFRICAN.

    And like you said after your little half-assed apology, the rest of my post stands.

    “The average African-American is mixed. That’s just a fact.”

    I love how you manage to rephrase one of my own comments as if you’re introducing some new truth to me. But I shall repeat my previous comments, in hopes that your exceedingly well-read self won’t miss it this time:

    1. There’s the theory that pretty-much all African-Americans are mixed. If that’s the case, then why even continue to see some people as “black” and others “mixed?” My point to dcase was that:
    2. your comments were obviously rooted in bullshit phenotypical “black traits”

    Your entire post had me laughing, but you know what the funniest bit was?

    “Realistically, do you actually think that Will Smith or his wife Jada Pinkett aren’t mixed? How many people from Ghana who aren’t mixed look like Smith?”

    I don’t know, man. I can’t speak for all West Africans. I’ve only been to Ghana once, but you try telling a NIGERIAN that Will Smith must be mixed based on his looks, and watch them laugh in your face.

    Here’s the 2nd GEM you included:
    “Indeed, if you look back to how the phrase “African-American” came to be, it was coined to get away from labeling people because of their skin color. Jesse Jackson explained that most “blacks” did not have “black” skin but came in all different colors; thus “African-American” was more embracing of common ancestry and history but not as exclusionary as “black.” “

    Which is hilarious, because it’s so true that black folk come in a plethora of shades and with a wide variety of traits. So why again is it that Will Smith simply must be mixed?

    Bradley, my friend (you could be a Bradford, but I really don’t give a shit either way), I have no further interest in dealing with your kind. If you saw my skin or felt my hair (as your kind so politely insists on doing), you would probably tell me to eschew my “percieved” ancestry, for I must have some white grandfather who came back down to Nigeria after the slave trade to sow his oats.

    No thanks, buddy.

    Oh yeah, and I thought we’d already discussed how pathetically bitchy it is to criticize spelling and grammar on an online message board.
    DAMN you well-read folk! Must you belittle us simpletons so???

    (look. multiple question marks!)

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 8:18 am ¶

22. Unlisted wrote:

    “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle” - George Orwell

    Does an African-American not know an African when he sees one and vice versa?

    I read an article where Ghanans (even the children) call African-Americans “Obruni” and usually know them on site

    And yes, since I was called out, I do believe (gasp!) that phenotypes are very real. I also believe that there is nothing wrong with that. Human Biodiversity is a reality. Not saying one is better than another (save that strawman for another day)

    I’ve been to Africa, Asia and Europe and spent extensive time, so I know enoough to know that to deny that is lunacy

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 1:12 pm ¶

23. Unlisted wrote:

    Brad:

    I agree with much of what you are saying, but race is not TOTALLY a social construct. To a large extent, especially here in the Americas where people have been mixing for centuries, it is a social construct to a large degree, but not completely.

    I think Steve Sailer’s definition is the best I have seen amongst academics
    http://www.vdare.com/sailer/presentation.htm

    If you could walk from, say, Calais on the English Channel to Pusan in South Korea at either end of your vast journey, however, the people look quite different. In between you might run into, a blond man with features slightly reminiscent of East Asia, and other people of varying degrees of European and East Asian admixture. But, in the big picture, Frenchmen and Koreans are still different and nobody would mistake one for the other.

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 1:24 pm ¶

24. dcase wrote:

    Merq:Such a vitriolic post!

    Unlisted:
    Steve Sailer is not an academic; he has neither academic credentials nor has he done research that was subject to peer review. He claims that he is a journalist and movie critic but some of those he is associated with are academics. Nevertheless, I am a bit troubled that you would suggest a eugenicist and purveyor of pseudo-scientific racism as an academic authority on race in a site promoting mixed race identity and interracial unions.

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 4:44 pm ¶

25. Unlisted wrote:

    dcase:

    I don’t think that Steve Sailer is a racist and he supports interracial marriage and the right of mixed race individuals do identify as such. He has stated such on many occasions. He only disagrees with the notion that there are no differences amongst populations of people, which is what I am saying.

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 5:49 pm ¶

26. Unlisted wrote:

    “My bottom line view on marriage: you ought to marry the person you love” - Steve Sailer on interracial marriage

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 5:55 pm ¶

27. lyonside wrote:

    >But, in the big picture, Frenchmen and Koreans are still different and nobody would mistake one for the other.

    Unlisted, the “differences” you’re talking about are pure phenotypic ranges that occur within an existing species genotype, that have been pre-historically and generally reinforced by geography and at its core initially evolved out of environmental pressures, but then ceased to be absolutely vital as technology replaced biology as the main method of human survival.

    It’s no different than a cat’s coat - now are you really going to tell me that my calico kitty and my grey/white tabby are different RACES?

    For some real information, start here: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/dynapage.taf?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/index.html

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 6:00 pm ¶

28. Unlisted wrote:

    lyonside:

    The “difference” I am speaking of IS phenotype.

    As you alluded to, human beings on differing continents evolved differently because of these different environments. That in itself shows that there are at least some differences between us.

    A better example than your cats is that a German Shepard and French Poodle are both dogs, but scientists say they are both from a common ancestor but evolved differently. I’m not sure about the bobcat or I would have given that example.

    Humanity is very facinating. There are races of dwarfed modern humans continuing to cling to existence in Southeast Asia. Even besides the fairly well-known Pygmies of Africa, there are several groups of “pygmies” in Southeast Asia. The adults are under five feet tall, and the women are so “steatopygous” that when a mother is carrying her small child around, she has him/her to stand on her platform-like buttocks.

    They have been isolated for so long that they have practically no immunities to the rest of the world’s germs. This is what I speak of

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 6:35 pm ¶

29. Unlisted wrote:

    lyonside:

    This is from the website you gave:

    “Increasing scientific evidence, however, indicates that genetic variation can be used to make a reasonably accurate prediction of geographic origins of an individual, at least if that individual’s grandparents all came from the same part of the world”

    The above is all I am saying. And even when all the grandparents are not from the same part of the world, they will show an admixture.

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 6:44 pm ¶

30. CJK wrote:

    “A better example than your cats is that a German Shepard and French Poodle are both dogs, but scientists say they are both from a common ancestor but evolved differently.”

    It’s called selective breeding. Humans have intentionally bred dogs to develop specific characteristics, often using inbreeding or line-breeding. They did not “evolve differently”.

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 8:58 pm ¶

31. Merq wrote:

    Dcase:
    I hope you don’t think my “vitriolic” post was directed at you, man. It definitely wasn’t.

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 10:59 pm ¶

32. Anony wrote:

    I agree with dcase: Sailer has some creepy, eugenicis-centered views on race. He certainly shouldn’t be used as a widely-accepted source/authority.

    Posted 01 Jun 2006 at 11:09 pm ¶

33. Leigh wrote:

    I said I RARELY date black men - not I NEVER date black men. Generally the black men who approach me do so because they think I’m white - trust me, it’s easy spot when this is the case.

    While I don’t have a problem dating white guys who only date white girls, I do mind dating black guys who would usually only date white girls…

    Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 6:50 am ¶

34. mr guy wrote:

    Leigh:
    Once again, what does this have to do with the tv show?Who care about who you date.Stick to the subject.

    Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 7:30 am ¶

35. dcase wrote:

    Unlisted: I was very specific in my post. I did not say the Sailer was a racist; I don’t know if he is or isn’t because he is a journalist and journalists use hyperbole and innuendo for a living. I said that Sailer was a eugenicist and purveyor of pseudo-scientific racism. Sailer suggested in His National Review article “Love is Colorblind” that Asian men and Black women are at a distinct disadvantage because of their inherent physical inferiority to their white counterparts. Moreover, he commonly cites researchers such as J. Philippe Rushton as a scientific basis for his essays. Rushton is a professor in Canada (and now president of the Pioneer fund) who once , for example, argued there is an inverse relationship between genital size and brain size and suggests that this is a confirmation of blacks’ deficit in innate mental capacity and why they are more psychopathic. Take a look at Rushton’s book “Race, Evolution, and Behavior.” Much of this work and other work he has done has been challenged and debunked on the basis of poor methodology and outright misrepresentation of past results.

    Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 10:32 am ¶

36. Unlisted wrote:

    dcase:

    I really didn’t intend to make this about Steve Sailer. I was only saying that his definition of race is the best I have seen. I also agree that we cannot deny the reality of race, though I DO agree to a large extent (especially here in the US) that it is indeed a social construct.

    I don’t agree with everything Steve says, but I think he makes many excellent points.

    I re-read “Is Love Colorblind” and I don’t see anywhere he says that Asian men and black women are inherently inferior to their white counterparts. Unless you are talking about where he mentions PERCEIVED sexual attactiveness in driving such a gap in black male/white female and white male/black female couplings and the gap in white male/Asian female and Asian male/white female couplings.

    Note that he also mentions that those are GROSS GENERALIZATIONS of the races

    Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 3:07 pm ¶

37. Ladonna wrote:

    I think Brad states it very clearly at the top…….that they are merely actors and the race issue shud not be a big deal to them on the comment of Pompeo thats jus a preference for her ok and we understand it but telling Washington that is utterley ridiculous.
    But why is this causing so much controversy around the whole racial issue??Merely because Washington opened up his huge mouth and said it on international t.v.
    I think Greys Anatomy is a great program worth watching and hopefully the next seasons will be worth watching aswell.
    On the basis of the characters played in the series they do a very good job.
    But throwing race into every thing we do is really getting old now……….and maybe because she slipped up and said that does not make her bad in anyway or rascist……..and some people would take it that way

    Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 7:24 pm ¶

38. eric daniels wrote:

    Good freakin grief you people are whining over a televison character and actor, stop being pussies Mixing Nia was a terrible movie without any merit and to sterotype Washington because he said something to his white female co-star is childish at best. Leigh there is a photo of you in the dictionary in the term that says ‘hypocrite’ You don’t date Black Men that’s cool because brothas don’t another mixed head case in their lives, but to say that it’s not okay for black men to have preferences in their romantic choices is racist at best. So let me get this st8 Black Men who choose to date…

    1. Light skin girls
    2. Damn near White Girls
    3. White Girls
    4. Women of other races

    Are wrong and have issues but it’s ok for white guys to have a preference for dating WW and for you to date (and I assume other black and mixed women) date whoever catches their fancy. This is called B.S. in the real world, People like you are always quoting MLK and talking about “colorblindness” and all that goody goody crap but when Black Men excercise that same right to make a freewill choice then people like you go ballistic.

    I am going to make a warning “on the record” to people like “Brad”, “Leigh” and the rest of you multicultral phonies and those who are the enemies of the ’silent majority’ of black men who have stayed silent and had to endure 2 generations of “Black Guilt” foisted upon us by ..

    1. Black Feminists
    2. White Conservatives
    3. Phony Liberals
    4. Biracial Brigade
    5. Stupid old black people (COSBY)
    6. Intellectuals who don’t know jack about us
    7. White Women (and women of other races) who think that every black man wants to screw them.

    Unlike the rappers (who most of you would rather deal with) because you can understand Ludacris, Ice Cube and the rest of them because they are stupid, igrorant, and uncoth and you can run intellectual games on them without pity because they are angry black men. Now there are other brothers people the ’silent majority’ of black men who go to work, feed their families,vote, particpate in their communities who had up to here with your whining asses always blaming 16 million black men for some follible you want to make up in your neurotic minds, you better start surfing sites from black men and read what we feel about all of you and the sins you want us to bear for brothas who aren’t there. I don’t care that some brotha…

    1. called you a racist name
    2. Inpreganted you with child
    3. Called you a bitch or ho
    4. Either robbed or raped you
    5. Called you half-breed
    6. Defended some sexist rapper
    7. belives in patriachy
    8. has a racial fetish
    9. insulted your white (add race here) lover while you were out
    10. flirted with you innaproaitely

    Because 14, million of us who are working and trying to survive this game called American B.S. Racism 101 are too busy to be concerned with how you feel and are not gulity because some unfortuante crap happen to you at the hands of the “bad black man” We are too busy living to care about how “you people’ feel.

    Posted 03 Jun 2006 at 2:21 am ¶

39. Sewere wrote:

    I know this it’s a little late to jump in on this but I was away for a couple of weeks and had to add my 2 cents.

    Brad and Unlisted - There is no accuracy in identifying people by phenotype. The obruni (Oyinbo in Nigerian pidgin) comment that was made is just as subjective and has more to do with identifying people by their mannerism than their phenotype.

    Case in point, I was born and raised in Nigeria, I speak English with a Yoruba accent. I’ve been living in the US for about 8yrs during that time I’ve lived and worked in Kenya and Nicaragua and I’ve been back to Nigeria on three occassions. In all my gigs, I’ve been identified as obruni, oyinbo, muzungo or norte americano. Even while I was having a conversation with colleagues in Kenya, the owner of the inn we were staying asked my colleagues in Swahili “Does the American want coffee or tea?” When they answered I was Nigerian, he said he didn’t believe them because of the way I was talking like an American.

    Posted 08 Jun 2006 at 4:10 pm ¶

40. jjpak wrote:

    Back to the topic…Pompeo’s comment to Issiah Washington could be interpreted many ways but having a partner who’s Black or African-American doesn’t mean that issues of racism don’t exist. I think that would be misleading..and then the whole color-blind thing can someone really be color blind when they’re casting? saying that you’re color blind when you cast these roles or that these roles are color blind ignores that people do have an identity, racial one that is.

    Posted 09 Jun 2006 at 3:49 pm ¶

41. lifeunscripted wrote:

    This is digressing but does it bother anyone that Asians (including Indians)
    are very seldom represented in the Oprah show? I watch Oprah a lot. I admire O very much for a lot of reasons and even heard she had a really good friend who was AA but I rarely see any Asians on the show (as a model, participant of the day’s subject or even one of those helpers that give out the free food! For example, there was a show that showcased practically every one of the cast of the GA -except, you guessed it-Sandra Oh. Ok, so she could have been detained by some other engagement but come on, who’d say she’s too busy to be on the O show? (And if I’m not mistaken, Sandra is the only one in the show that got an award so you’d think she’d be included. Also, when there was the cast of Crash on the O show, Asians were not represented-only blacks and whites (were hispanics represented?)(Crash did not have any positive Asian roles, maybe that’s why (??) There were no redeeming qualities in any of the Asian characters on Crash which I found sad.) I hope that changes. I think a lot of people take cues from Oprah…

    Posted 13 Jun 2006 at 11:12 pm ¶

42. shon wrote:

    eric daniels i agree a 100 percent brotha.

    Posted 14 Jun 2006 at 10:47 am ¶

43. shon wrote:

    I really do not understand why we as black people are at war with each other. There are so many obsticles that are set before of us which we have’nt over-come. Focusing on simple matters and entertaining “the others” will set us back another 40 years.

    Posted 14 Jun 2006 at 10:56 am ¶

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.