Spike Lee, Tyler Perry, and The True "Haters"

Although I realize that we live in the internet-age, which means even the simplest of criticisms can be blown out of proportion, I am disappointed to see how some Black people are unable to intelligently respond to constructive criticism, even when it is not directed at them.

The person who is the latest target of the "He's just a hater" orchestra is none other than renowned filmmaker Spike Lee. In a recent interview that he did with Ed Gordon, Spike dared to criticize some of Tyler Perry's work(specifically Meet the Browns and House of Pain) and made references to the shows as "coonery" and "buffoonery" and compared them to Amos n' Andy.

For the record, let me say that I agree with a lot of what Spike Lee said. Although I liked a couple of the Madea plays that I saw years back(even though I generally have issue with Black men parading around in dresses, even for comedy-but that's another topic), these two shows don't do anything for me. That's just me, and I do realize that comedy is subjective; what's funny to one person is not funny to another. However, any person familiar with the historical 'coonery' and 'buffoonery' that Spike Lee was referring to(reference Bamboozled if you haven't seen it) would be hard pressed to argue his point that some of Tyler Perry's characters do harken back to that era. If "Mr. Brown" isn't the prototypical coon-type character, then what is? This is not to single Tyler Perry out, because there are other examples, and some of them aren't actors(Flavor Flav).

And for those who make the simple-minded argument "well, if you don't like it, don't watch it", then I respectully say to you to study up on propaganda and media manipulation, and realize that the images that we are bombarded with via television and internet DO have an impact(especially on more impressionable minds, i.e. children), and can greatly impact our self-image and the image that others have of us. This is especially true if that impressionable mind does not have an intelligent adult there to offset the negative images, as is the case in too many Black homes. I am as far from a WWWPT(What Would White People Think?) person as you can be, but perception does matter and can have an impact in our everyday lives.

The bigger issue that this situation brought to my mind was the way in which some Black people(bloggers and others) reacted to the comments. I am all for intelligent disagreement, no problem with that whatsoever. However, a disturbing trend seems to have taken over in the past few years. Actually, the 'trend' can be summed up in one word: Hater(or 'hata'..'hataz'-plural). If I had to give a new definition for 'hater' as it is used in the present, it would be "A term commonly used by individuals either unwilling or unable to intelligently and non-emotionally acknowledge and respond to criticism(constructive or otherwise)".

The most disturbing thing is that it is not only children and teenagers who find it acceptable to respond to anyone who says or does something they dislike by saying "You're just a hater", or "Don't hate, appreciate", or some other form of this dumbness. Adults, some supposedly educated, do it as well. Now don't be me wrong, I still use slang myself in certain settings; I am not a grammar snob or stickler for 'proper' English by any stretch. My issue is not that it's slang. It's that the word(and the various phrases formed around it) has (for many) replaced intelligent, thought-out responses when faced with criticism or disagreement.

It seems that many of us have forgotten that criticism(and our mature response to it) is how we grow as a person. If someone is truly "hating" on you, meaning they are just being degrading or attacking you with no constructive intent, by all means, respond with as many ridiculous phrases from the hater manual as you like ("don't hate, ice skate", wtf). Otherwise, to avoid acknowledging the constructive critique being made(whether you like it or not...and it's kind of the point of criticism that you may not like it), is to remain mentally stagnant(dead).

I have no doubts that Spike's statements were made out of love and concern, and "hate" was the furthest thing from his mind. How backwards have some of us become that we praise and accept those who encourage and enable failure and ignorance, and "hate" those who attempt to strengthen us as a people, often by bringing things to our attention that many supposed friends and supporters refuse to?

It takes far more courage (and often, love) to criticize someone. The true "haters" are those who accept anything from anyone; who have no standards or respect, for themselves or others...not suprisingly, these are the main people hiding behind "hate".

Irritated By Judgmental Judges and The Art of Fear

Dr. Boyce Watkins
www.BoyceWatkins.com

Hey peeps!

I recently visited students at two outstanding HBCUs: Kentucky State University and The University of North Carolina Central. I wanted to give a big "What up!" to our YBW family members in North Carolina and Kentucky. FYI - if you wish to join our Black Money Advice list (many of you seem to have an interest in money recently) - please click here.

Please also take a peek at our sponsors, GreatBlackSpeakers.com, the #1 Black Speakers Bureau in the world.

Finally, America's Black Celebrity Gossip Diva, Lady Drama, has a new online show. You can sign up for it by clicking here.

The article below clears up exactly how I feel about Bill Cosby. I don't hate the man - I just want to slap him sometimes....just kidding....we just have different ways of seeing the world, and I think it is through diversity of perspective that we find our way to progress. I believe Bill really does love Black people, and that makes me give him my respect.

====================================================================

Judgmental Judges and The Art of Fear: Come On People, Let’s Stop Being So Damn Scared
by Dr. Boyce Watkins
www.BoyceWatkins.com

“‘White America needs to understand that it is poisoned to its soul by racism’, and that ‘all too many White Americans are horrified not with the conditions of (Black) life but with the product of these conditions-the (Black person) himself’. In a word, they are not horrified by injustice done to us in New York or New Orleans, in the schools, courts, streets, slums or prisons, but are horrified at the righteous anger we express, and the audacity not just to hope but also to resist injustice and oppression in its various forms.” - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I recently appeared on an episode of Good Morning America about a judge in Atlanta named Marvin Arrington. The show renewed my skepticism of mainstream media, and helped me remember why I love Bill Cosby so much.

Apparently, Judge Arrington was fed up with seeing one black defendant after another in his courtroom, and surely to the liking of Bill Cosby, Arrington took matters into his own hands. Judge Arrington took the unprecedented step of dismissing all of the white attorneys from his courtroom and holding a private session with the black defendants.

During the session, Arrington gave the defendants a piece of his mind, preaching values we can all agree with: hard work, good behavior, and human decency. He topped it off by reminding these men that they are destroying the black community with their behavior and that they just need to stop.

When Good Morning America called to ask me what I thought about Arrington’s actions, they spent more time asking me about Bill Cosby than Arrington. I was confused, since they apparently think I don’t like Bill Cosby. That’s not true. I have a lot of respect for Bill Cosby, but it is my respect for human empathy that leads me to share my point of view, even if Bill Cosby does not agree. I truly believe Bill Cosby cares for black people, even if he has a unique way of showing it.

The reporter asked me if I thought it could be appropriate for a black judge to have a conversation with only the black defendants, excluding everyone else from the court room. I informed the reporter that it’s O.K. for African-Americans to have private conversations, and the nature of the Marvin Arrington’s words would be the ultimate determinant of conversation quality.

Elitist finger wagging at members of an oppressed group is not only counter-productive, it is consistent with how minority groups are dealt with around the world. From the Turkish minority in Germany to the Aboriginal population in Australia, it is always the habit of the elite to presume that minority groups can’t fit in because they are just lazy, stupid and bad. But a conversation from a point of understanding might actually achieve something. The problem is that some judges feel they are only there to talk, not to listen or learn. Also, Bill Cosby has shown Michael Eric Dyson, Marc Lamont Hill and myself that he feels no obligation to listen to anyone.

Apparently, we have not yet created enough episodes of Fat Albert to earn the license of unconditional, single-minded self-righteousness.

I know a judge named Langston McKinney who would also hold the same kinds of private conversations as Judge Arrington. The difference with Judge McKinney, however, is that right after having a private conversation with black defendants, McKinney would be equally bold in having another “tough love” conversation with the very justice system responsible for giving these men longer sentences for the same crimes, inadequate legal counsel, disenfranchisement from voting and employment rights after they’ve been released and a horrifically bad inner city educational system that provides no options.

That’s what a real man does. You don’t just beat up on those who have less power than you, you go after those who might kick your ass.

I have never been one to say that either Bill Cosby or Judge Marvin Arrington hate the black community. I feel they both love African-Americans very much, and that is what distinguishes them from professional black bashers like Juan Williams at Fox News. But one thing Cosby might want to learn is this: given that all human beings are fundamentally equal and equally rational, individuals engaging in behavior that makes no sense to you are probably responding to factors that you have not taken the time to fully understand.

The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Inequality released a report citing that the United States has a horrific habit of incarcerating black men, giving them longer sentences for the same crimes, pushing them out of society and leaving them uneducated. It is hard to earn my respect when you accept rewards for attacking those who respond to the disparities, but you do not have the courage to address the disparities themselves.

If a husband is beating his wife because she talks too much, any man can come into the house and tell his wife to stop talking so the beatings will stop. Many men will not have the courage to confront the husband responsible for the abuse. America, according to the United Nations, has abused black families for the past 400 years and continues to do so until this day. Anyone can tell black people to stop misbehaving so the abuse will stop. But it is fear of losing stature with the oppressive majority that leads us to avoid taking further steps to actually deal with the abuse itself. Black people have survived this long by being AFRAID. There is the added opportunity to gain favor with the majority by allowing oneself to be used as an additional distributor of racial tyranny, hypocrisy and condemnation. That’s how you get invited to Fox News and Meet the Press, Cosby knows this.

Bill Cosby and Judge Marvin Arrington should learn that it’s time to stop being scared. If you are tough enough to yell at a poor single mother about how she raises her kids, then please be strong enough to yell at a court system that incarcerates black men 7 times more than it incarcerates white men. Be strong enough to address a public education system that puts black boys in special education 5 times more than white boys. Be complete with your boldness, and don’t feel that you are strong just because you can continue to pile onto the weakest members of our society. The same is true for any black man who is strong in “the hood” but afraid to go to the other side of town.

I had a friend who grew up in terrible conditions, went to a terrible school, was shot at on the bus stop and had a high school counselor that put her in special education. In spite of all this, she went on to college and had a great life. Her story would surely serve as a source of inspiration for one of Bill Cosby’s speeches. But my question is this: What if this girl had not been strong enough to overcome a situation that would have destroyed 90% of us? What if she’d shot a drug dealer, slept with a strange man to get money or became a prostitute to feed herself? Would that make her a terrible person or simply an individual who responded to a world that the adults around her have not had the courage to confront? Cosby’s argument that the little girl should “just behave herself” is not likely to be enough to help millions of children manage such dramatic racial inequality.

Barack Obama had it right. We must honestly talk about racial inequality, and we must begin the conversation with the correct assumptions. Mathematics teaches us that if you solve a problem using incorrect assumptions, this will lead to incorrect methods and ultimately, an incorrect conclusion. The simple-minded presumption that “black youth are simply screwed up” is not only incorrect, it’s what we’ve been hearing for the past 400 years.

To Bill Cosby and Judge Marvin Arrington, I say this: Come on people, we’ve got to have more personal responsibility than that. The same courage you command from youth to overcome the system must be the courage you possess when confronting the system. That’s REALLY how you keep it real.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is an Assistant Professor of Finance and author of “What if George Bush were a Black Man?” For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com. Please join our coalition at www.YourBlackWorld.com

Your Black World: Does Loving v. Virginia Guarantee Gay Marriage?

Proponents of Gay Marriage Have No Legal Argument Under Loving v. Virginia
By Syreeta L. McNeal, CPA, JD

Recently, proponents of gay marriage in California are protesting the passage of California’s Proposition 8. California Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman.[1] Proponents of gay marriage have been making the argument that their struggle is equivalent to the struggle of African-Americans in seeking their civil rights in the 1960’s. One case that proponents of gay marriage readily equate their struggle to is Loving v. Virgina.[2] This article is intended to debunk the legal argument purported by proponents of gay marriage and show that this case does not embrace recognition of gay marriage on a state level.

Overview of Loving v. Virginia

On June 12, 1967, the United States Supreme Court held that Virginia’s statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Processes Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.[3] Listed below is the issue, relevant facts, relevant law and analysis by Chief Justice Warren in rendering his opinion:

Issue:

• Whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?[4]

Relevant Facts:

• In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. [5]
• Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County.[6]
• At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. [7]
• On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years.[8]

Relevant Law:

• Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code (1959): "Leaving State to evade law. If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."[9]
• Section 20-59 of the Virginia Code (1959): "Punishment for marriage. If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."[10]
• U.S. Const. 14th Amend. Sec. 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Analysis by Supreme Court

Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

• There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race.[11]
• The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races.[12]
• Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943).[13]
• At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate.[14]
• There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.[15]
• The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.[16]
• We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race.[17]
• There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.[18]

Violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

• These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[19]
• The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.[20]
• Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).[21]
• To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.[22]
• The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.[23]
• Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.[24]

Differences between Loving v. Virginia and California Proposition 8

First, the California Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage does not violate Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. In 1959, the Lovings were charged with a state crime and incarcerated for marrying interracially in the District of Columbia and moving back to Virginia to reside. A white heterosexual couple could marry in Virginia without violating the law in 1959. A black heterosexual couple could marry in Virginia without violating the law in 1959. Only an interracial heterosexual couple could not marry in Virginia without violating the law in 1959. As a result, the U. S. Supreme Court considered the Virginia miscegenation statutes a direct violation of the due process of law for interracial heterosexual couples to exercise a basic right to marry in 1959.

In contrast to what occurred to the Lovings in 1959 in Virginia, currently the law does not penalize or incarcerate California citizens who choose to engage in same sex marriage in other states. California Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to not recognize gay marriage from another state. What California has done is replicate what 47 states have done in their state constitutions. They defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. This is not a penalty to California citizens like what Virginia did in 1959 to the Lovings. If a California citizen chooses to go to Massachusetts and get married and come back to California to live, they would not be incarcerated for the act like the Lovings had happen to them in 1959. The California amendment banning gay marriage is similar to what 47 states have done to their constitution by not recognizing gay marriage.

Second, the California amendment banning gay marriage does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. There are three levels of scrutiny that the court uses to review cases brought under the Fourteenth Amendment. Strict scrutiny is the highest level of constitutional review and it forbids state law from discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity or natural origin. The second level of constitutional review is intermediate review which forbids state law from discriminating on the basis of gender. The last level of constitutional review is rational basis and a court will uphold a state law if it appears to be one that is reasonably related to the end of protecting the health, safety and welfare of its residents. In Loving, the Virginia miscegenation statutes in 1959 were scrutinized under strict scrutiny because the state law discriminated on the basis of race.[25] In California, the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is not discriminating on the basis of race. Also, it is not discriminating on the basis of gender either. All the amendment is doing is following what 47 states did to their constitution and define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. So, it is illogical that the argument purported by the proponents of gay marriage should equate their struggle in California to that of Loving v. Virginia. That is why I am proud that 70% of the African-American citizens in California as well as the other citizens in California who did not fall for the delusional argument advocated by proponents of gay marriage. If proponents of gay marriage want to equate their struggle to the cases of the civil rights movement in the 1960’s, they need to dig a little bit deeper because Loving v. Virginia is not applicable.

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
[2] See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
[3] Id.
[4] Id. at 2.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 3.
[8] Id.
[9] Id. at 4.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 11
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. at 12.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id. at 8.