Last weekend, one of my homegirls invited me to go see “The Dutchman” — a 45 minute long one act play that’s intended to serve as an allegory for Black/White relations in America. Since Saturday was the last day it would be playing at the Bricolage Theater — and since my particular form of bougie Blackness calls for me to witness or partake in at least one “serious” conversation about race per month to offset my affinity for bottomless mimosas — I couldn’t pass it up.

Intense, disturbing, (occasionally) melodramatic, and intentionally provocative, the play itself was pretty much what I expected it to be. The most interesting part of the evening, though, was the “talk back” — the planned, hour-long discussion about race that took place right afterwards; a conversation involving cast members, the theater production people, and the audience. The theater only holds maybe 60 seats, and it’s structured so that the audience surrounds the stage on all sides. A quick jaunt to Goggle shows that this is called “theatre-in-the-round” — the perfect format to have a group discussion.

As you may have guessed, the audience was (mostly) comprised of Black people and the type of ultra-liberal, well-intentioned Whites who wear t-shirts with things like “White Privilege Sucks” written on them — basically, the exact type of audience that’s always present in any “serious” and open discussion about race that most of us have been a part of. And, usually these discussions are nothing but us (Black people) sharing our stories and airing our grievances while the Whites in the crowd nod solemnly and occasionally share their own self-depreciating stories about when they first realized that all White people are evil racists.

There was one person, though, who didn’t stick to the usual script. She was biracial (White and Native American), and she shared some not-so-positive experiences and feelings involving Black people. Her statements went over about as well as a fart in a crowded elevator; you could hear people groaning and sighing while she was talking, and everyone there — myself included — couldn’t wait to respond to and rebut some of the things she was saying.

Now, part of the reaction to her definitely had to do with her delivery. There was a certain tone-deaf antagonism attached to what she was saying. Basically, her body language and tone screamed “I’m fed up with y’all niggas, and you’re about to hear why, dammit!” But, on Sunday, as I reflected on the discussion, I realized that she actually didn’t complain about anything we don’t regularly complain about to each other.

She’s a stage manager, and the story she shared had to do with how Black actors are pretty much never on time. Once, when she asked a group of habitually late actors to be more respectful of her time, they felt disrespected and starting showing up even later just to spite her. (I actually laughed aloud when hearing that)

Again, she had the type of tone and assistant principal-esque demeanor that made it pretty easy to see why someone would respond to her the way the actors did. But, I do wonder if we just have a legitimate problem with getting “called out” by White people.

Actually, that’s a lie. I don’t wonder about this. I know we generally do not take kindly to White people criticizing anything that has to do with Black people and Black culture. As stated earlier, the criticism could even be the exact same thing we criticize about ourselves, but a White voice seems to make that criticism invalid.

For instance, in the last couple of months, there have been at least two high-profile instances of a non-liberal White person publicly criticizing something related to Black people and facing serious repercussions because of it.

John Derbyshire’s “The Talk: Nonblack version” — a “letter” to his son teaching him the best way to avoid violent confrontations with Black people — got him fired from his job at The National Review. While Derbyshire deserved to be fired for using shitty science to back his race-based racist assertions, much of what he said in his piece has come out of our own mouths many times.

In fact, three of his pieces of advice — “(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally, (10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods, and (10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date” — are things that can be found in our freakin book.

In one of our chapters, Panama jokes that any guy trying to avoid having to fight anyone while on a date should stay away from places that young Black people congregate, like Applebee’s, night clubs, and Detroit.

You could make the same point about Naomi Schaefer Riley, who was recently fired from The Chronicle of Higher Education for writing a piece criticizing the value of Black Studies courses at universities. Was she wrong for flippantly dismissing an entire field of study? Yes. But, raise your hand if you’ve ever joked among other Black people that a Black Studies degree is about as useless as thumbs on a roach.

Granted, Riley and Derbyshire aren’t the best examples to use when making this point. Both were being intentionally sensationalistic, and they both basically got what they were asking for. But, it’s not only the non-liberal Whites who get this type of push back. I’ve read 1000 word long criticisms of Roger Ebert — a man who’s about as liberal, articulate, reasonable, and well-read as a person can possibly be — just because he gave a Tyler Perry movie a (deservedly) bad review, and I can’t count how many times I’ve heard White sports pundits called racist because they had something bad to say about a Black athlete. In these instances, the tone didn’t even matter. It just came down to “You’re White and he’s Black and that means you can’t say shit”

Anyway, that’s it for me today. I’m curious though: Do you think we have a problem with hearing criticism from Whites? If so, do you think it has more to do with the content of the criticism, or the tone/manner used to criticize?

Lastly, can you think of a time/situation where it was ever “Ok” for a White to call out a Black person/Black people in regards to something race-related?

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

Evolving in this context is such a funny word. Evolution by definition alludes to continued growth. To say that his thinking is evolving almost implies that he had to grow as a person to acknowledge the truth of the situation, which is that marriage is for two people who loved and supported each other. The sex of those people should be secondary, if considered at all.

Let me state up front: I’m all for same-sex marriages. I have no qualms with it whatsoever. I think its a travesty that people are willing to fight SO hard to keep marriage “as it was intended” by the Bible.

I don’t mean to get all heretic or anything, but in my opinion, the Bible is a great book full of a lot of great stories. It’s the greatest quote book ever and the life lessons involved are definitely intended to help one live a fruitful and righteous life. Basically, the Bible is the extended version of the poem entitled “All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten” I feel like nearly everything in the Bible is subject to interpretation. I’m also not alone in this thinking since nearly every religion and denomination has seen fit to interpret scriptures to fit their own leanings.

Granted, the Bible is a bit more clear when it comes to homosexuality and marriage. However, it’s a man-made document. And plus, what if I’m an atheist? (I’m not). But if I don’t believe in the Bible or God for that matter, why should I be constrained to the principles therein. A government that purports to separate church and state altogether gets to decide my martial status, effectively based on religious traditionalism? I have big problems with that.

And hell, what if I do believe in the Bible but still can’t help but be who I am? Gay people don’t think that being gay is a choice. So if God made me this way, is God also saying that he created me as an abomination and I’m effectively a reject from God’s kingdom? Hey God, it’s me Panama…inquiring minds would like to know.

It’s very big of Obama to make such a statement. I’m fairly certain that he’s the first sitting president to make such a bold statement about such a contentious issue. Though he did temper it a bit by immediately stating afterwards that it shouldn’t be a federal issue but a state issue. I’m not sure I agree with that. I’m aware that each state has its own set of rules, but marriage seems like such a cut-and-dry thing. Either you can or you can’t. Why fiddle with states rights in an issue as loaded as this; instead, just make a blanket across the board stance. That could be my Big Brother hat on though. I’ll acknowledge this.

I realize that there are significant numbers of people, probably even people who read this blog who think that same-sex marriage is religiously wrong (arguably true), and spiritually amoral. And everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I don’t think that same-sex marriages dilute the institution of marriage anymore than allowing 19-year-olds into the NBA dilutes the quality of play (debateable).

Are there lingering issues that needed to be sorted out? Sure. But it seems like gay people want to get married for the same reason straight people do….love, tax breaks, and benefits. Everybody should have a chance to the game the system, not just straight people. Plus, straight people have been f*cking up this whole marriage thing for a while now….shouldn’t we let somebody else have a chance?

Anyway, what do you all think about Obama making such a bold statement as President? Does it matter? Do you think it could ruin his chances come November for re-election?

Thoughts? Opinions? The floor is yours.

Talk to me.

-VSB P aka THE ARSONIST aka MR. OBAMA SAID WHAT? TURN THE CHANNEL BOO! aka GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRL HE A 3

A couple weekends ago, I went out with a group of a dozen or so people to celebrate my homegirl’s birthday. And, as people in the greater Pittsburgh-area are wont to do after a night of drunken, WorldStarHipHop-worthy ratchetness, we went to Eat & Park afterwards to soak up our alcohol with pancakes and half-assed cheese eggs.

While most others usually opt for the menu food, I always choose to buy the breakfast buffet; a vast decrease in quality, but, when it’s 3:13am, quantity has a way of making you not give a f*ck.

There were so many of us there (I’m guessing 15) that the server put three tables together to accommodate all of us. And, since I was the only one who chose the buffet food, it meant…

A) I would be the only one eating food for the next 15 minutes.

B) I’d have to fight off a clawing pack of drunken and hungry zombies every time I returned to the table from the buffet.

The second part actually became a bit of a running joke. I’d go to the buffet, return with some bacon, and I’d have to smack the hands of my friends away as they tried to grab a slice. Sometimes I was successful in guarding my bacon, and sometimes the bacon zombies would get me. (I know this doesn’t sound like a very fun game to play, but we were all five exits past drunk, and the bacon game happened to be the funniest thing on Earth at the time. Only God can judge me.)

Anyway, although the table was filled with people who all were at the party I was just at, I didn’t know a couple of the people sitting at the other end of the table. I’m bringing this up because all the fun and games stopped when, while returning to the table after one of my bacon runs, one of these unfamiliar hands reached and attempted to grab the food on my plate.

When I made it back to my seat, I called this person out, asking what the f*ck was wrong with them (I think my exact words were “What the f*ck is wrong with you? I don’t know you, n*gga“), and basically put a slight damper on the mood.

(In hindsight, it was funny remembering the reactions of the people sitting around me, their expressions going from “Wait, Champ’s not serious, is he?” to “Um, yeah, he’s serious. This is getting uncomfortable. And entertaining. This is uncomfortably entertaining” and finally landing on “Wait, um, we’re not able to witness a couple dudes in suits fight over some bacon, are we?“)

I eventually forgave this person for their indiscretion. (We actually stood up and shook each other’s hands) The next day, as I was reflecting on the evening and remembering exactly how ridiculous that near fight was, it dawned on me that none of that would have happened if he was a woman.

You see, I was perfectly cool playing the bacon game with the people sitting close to me — all women that I knew. In fact, even if dude had been a woman I didn’t know, I wouldn’t have reacted the same way. I probably would have laughed, flirted, or perhaps even tried to steal some food off her plate when it finally came. But, because he was a guy doing something that guys aren’t supposed to do to other guys, it pissed me off enough to have the following absurd exchange with him

“Where are you from?” 

“Don’t worry about where I’m from. I’m from a place where n*ggas don’t take food off of n*ggas they don’t know plates.” 

(I apparently say n*gga a lot when I’m drunk and/or angry. Perhaps there’s another post in there somewhere)

If you’re still reading, you’re probably wondering what the hell a story about two drunk men having a pissing contest over some soggy bacon has to do with feminism, a concept defined as a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

Actually, that definition is a bit too bulky to work with. I prefer the one coined by Cheris Kramarae

“Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.”

Regardless of how you choose to define it, feminism has some roots in the idea that (most) men, even (most) well-intentioned men, don’t regard women with the same respect we do other men.

Thing is, as shitty as men historically have been and currently still are to women, we are pretty much just as shitty (if not shittier) to men.

As history continues to prove, men will regularly intimidate, embarrass, ridicule, mock, taunt, dominate, and even sexually humiliate other men if given the opportunity.

Think about this: Wherever you’re currently reading this, you’re at a place that was “founded” some time ago as a result of a group of men invading the land of a weaker group of men and subsequently murdering and colonizing them.

Even many “educated” and “domesticated” men still regularly do this in their own way. For instance, as ridiculous as that bacon story sounded, most men reading it probably laughed at first and then thought to themselves “You know what? I probably would have reacted the same way The Champ did.” 

Why? Well, although it may have seemed innocent, that guy reaching on my plate was his way of attempting to assert some dominance over me. His fat ass didn’t want any bacon, but he did want everyone to see him taking a slice of bacon off my plate — alpha male-ing me, in a sense.

I (over) reacted the way I did because, frankly, I wanted him to be scared. Not pissing in his pants scared, but “Hmm. This guy’s tone and body language suggests that there’s a possibility that he might actually get up and punch me in the face. It’s a slight chance, but still. Perhaps I should apologize to him.” scared.

Most people would probably consider bacon boy’s act a violation of some “man code” or some other unspoken kinship between men. While this is true, the creation of “man codes” aren’t really about any male kinship or spiritual brotherhoods or anything like that. We have these rules of decorum when dealing with each other because of fear of possible physical danger, and we treat each other with this tenuous respect because there’s always the possibility that we might get our ass kicked if we don’t.

Now, I’m (obviously) no feminist scholar, but it seems like the root cause behind man’s historically unjust treatment of women has something to do with the control and suppression of female sexuality and sexual freedom. It also seems like the only reason why (many) men are “nicer” to women than they are to other men is because they want sexual access to them, and getting women to agree to want to be with you is the socially acceptable way of gaining this access.

I don’t want to believe that the only things motivating us to be kind to each other are fear and sex, but history and any read of any newspaper continues to prove that this may be true. Am I completely off-base here, or are we (men) too f*cked up to evolve to a point where the majority of things the majority of men do are done, not because we can do them or can get away with doing them, but because they’re just the right and just things to do?

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

An episode of “the shitty” — the drunk sleep that occurs when you go to bed while inebriated and, for whatever reason, wake up far earlier than you would under normal circumstances — last Saturday night woke me at 8:30am, an ungodly hour for an “I aint got shit to do all day” Sunday morning.

Unable to go back to sleep, I remembered that a group of 20 or so guys play pick-up basketball every Sunday morning at a nearby gym, so I got out of bed and decided to go play.

I made it there by 9:15 or so, played a few games, dunked in a game for the first time in maybe 10 months, slightly sprained my ankle while jumping around and screaming like a banshee after celebrating said dunk, and made it back home by 11.

After showering and glancing at the time after getting out of the shower, I thought a thought I hadn’t thought in (at least) a few months:

“Hmm. I think I should try to make it to church.”

I got dressed, ran out the door, and made it in time for the 11:45 service.

Now, my reasons for not attending church more often range from lazy (I just never get up early enough to go.) and logistical (I occasionally spend Sunday mornings working on various writing projects.) to practical (My favorite brunch spot stops serving food at 1:30. I usually don’t get out of church until 1:15.) and pragmatic, but the main thing limiting my appearances to one per every three months is the fact that I just don’t feel anything when I go.

I understand that everyone isn’t going to catch the Holy Ghost whenever they attend service, and I also get the fact that even in church, your personal relationship with God — not your connection to the parishioners — is what really matters.

But while I do always enjoy myself when I’m there, I never seem to actually be doing what I’m supposed to be doing. While we’re supposed to be praying, I’m thinking about how many calls and texts I’ve missed since I’ve been there. While we’re supposed to be paying attention to the word, I’m scanning the crowd to spot familiar faces (and thinking some, um “unChristian” things about some of them). While we’re supposed to be standing and singing, I’m wondering if the people behind me notice that it’s been a month since I took the suit I’m wearing to the cleaners.

This isn’t a new development, btw. Even as a child, I was never able to immerse myself into church the same way some of my classmates and family members seemed to. And yes, I realize that a good percentage of that was probably an act — many of the kids were likely just going through the motions to appease their parents and teachers — but I didn’t even care/feel enough to fake it.

Despite all of this, I’m not one of those faux intellectuals who think that they’re just too smart and too analytical to be swayed by God, church, and religion in the same way many others are. In fact, my belief in God — and yes, I do believe in God — is from an intellectual perspective.

Basically, I believe in God because the existence of Earth and the universe (and Stacey Dash) — the evidence of His existence — proves that He is real. I also understand and respect the purpose of religion and church. I’ve just never been able to cultivate the type of spiritual and emotional connection that seems to keep churchgoers “filled.”

I’m also not a church cynic. Both the church I attend when I do go to church and the pastor at that church are the embodiment of what’s good about Black churches. I give (most) churchgoers, even the more demonstrative ones, the benefit of the doubt, and I’m definitely not sitting there thinking “Look at these fake-ass motherf*ckers hooting and hollering.” Not only do I believe that they feel the way they act and say they feel, I’m envious of it.

I realize that my issues with church could just be a case of confirmation bias. I know how I’ve felt before while there, so perhaps every time I enter the building now I just assume that things are going to play out the exact same way, and I start to look for things and search for feelings to prove my point.

I discussed this issue with a friend yesterday afternoon, and she thought my inability to connect was a bit deeper than that.

“Your problem is that you expect your relationship with church and God to be easy. It’s not. You have to work at it and want it to be successful. It’s actually like any other relationship with friends or even a romantic partner. Things aren’t just going to magically work. You have to put in the work for it to work, and the basis of this effort is the love you have for your friend. You want things to work because you love them and you know your life is better with them in it. You’re not connecting with church and God the way you think you should be able to because you’re just not trying hard enough to keep a consistent dialogue. As close as I am to my best friend, if I went two years without calling her, we definitely wouldn’t be as close anymore.”

I think she’s right. Perhaps my problem with church is basically just my problem with me, and “going all in” with things. I guess it’s just up to me to decide how important it is to change that.

Anyway, people of VSB.com, can anyone relate to my struggles connecting with church and/or religion? For those who are able to make that connection, how were you able to do it?

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

****ATTENTION WASHINGTON, DC: It’s that time again…THIS Saturday, Cinco De Mayo (May 5th), at Liv Nightclub (2001 11th Street NW) , it’s time for another edition of #REMINISCEDC. VSB x Shine On Me x Just Cause Productions are bringing you the hottest 90s party in the District!! It’s FREE BEFORE 11pm w/RSVP (Doors at 930pm, $10 after), OPEN BAR from 930-1030pm, and there’s NO DRESS CODE. So RSVP at reminiscedc.eventbrite.com to get in free and come party the night away at the dopest house party at the club!!! When they #reminisceDC over you…****

 ***As grown-ups who still live within reasonable driving distance of their parents are wont to do, I try to visit my parents on Sundays as often as I can. (Why? Well, my parents are my ace boon coons, and I genuinely enjoy spending time with them. Plus, they always make a ton of food for dinner, it’s always a great way to launch a new week, and, um, did I mention the free food already?) The following is a paraphrased summary of a conversation I had with my mom yesterday evening after dinner.***

Champ’s mom (CM): “Did you see SNL last night?”

Champ: “No maam.”

***Feel free to insert a joke about my parents and I being three of the remaining 17 Black people on the planet who still watch SNL on a regular basis.***

CM: “So you didn’t see the skit about Piers Morgan and George Zimmerman?”

Champ: “Nah. What happened?”

CM: “It had Piers Morgan interviewing a bunch of celebrites for their takes on George Zimmerman’s arrest.”

Champ: “Was it funny?”

CM: “I stopped watching a minute or so into it.”

Champ: “Why?”

CM: “What do you mean “Why?” Of all the things to write a skit about, why choose the Trayvon Martin case? Some subjects are too sensitive to joke about. I was honestly surprised and disappointed that SNL went there.”

***I’ve embedded the skit below. In case you can’t see it, Morgan interviews Ice-T, Kayne, Kim Kardashian, and others, and they each offer their increasingly ridiculous takes on this case and the legal system in general¹***

Champ: “Hmm.”

CM: “What?”

Champ: “I don’t know if I agree with you, Mom. Maybe the skit itself wasn’t executed properly, but I don’t think there are any off-limits subjects. I mean, I agree that the skit may have been in bad taste. But, in order to get the types of laughs comedians depend on, sometimes you have to broach uncomfortable topics. Sometimes the joke works. Sometimes it doesn’t. I just don’t think we should be able to tell people “This subject is too serious to be joked about in any manner.”

CM: ”You’re talking about censorship. I’m talking about common sense. Common sense should tell you that a situation as emotionally and politically charged as the Trayvon Martin case should be off limits. I love that you always try to be so pragmatic and practical, but sometimes being that way gives you some serious blind spots.”

***She’s definitely right about the blind spots. There have been times, both online and off, where my instistence on being “sober” or “irrelevant” or “delibrate” made people upset because they assumed I was being intentionally insensitive. In each situation, I ended up hurting feelings because I just didn’t recognize the possibility that feelings could be hurt. Ironicially, I consider myself to be extremely, almost painstakingly, considerate of others. But, I’ve come to realize that this consideration usually only extends to things that would greatly upset me as well.***

Champ: “I do agree that it’s probably too soon to talk about the Trayvon Martin case in that manner. I still think you can find humor in pretty much every subject, though. Sometimes the humor doesn’t have to be “Haha,” but more just recognizing the absurdity of a situation.”

CM: “Pedophila can be funny?”

Champ: “Every Black person in America has either laughed at or told a joke about R. Kelly — jokes specifically related to the fact that he’s the world’s most famous known pedophile. “Eat the cake, Anna Mae” — a line from “What’s Love Got to Do with It” —  has become one of Black culture’s most popular catchphrases. We use it in a tongue-in-cheek/snarky manner, which makes light of the depiction of prolonged domestic violence and sexual abuse the line comes from.”

CM: “Hmm. Two of your nieces were shot a few months ago. One almost died. Where’s the ”funny” in that?”

Champ: “Um, well…um…”

CM: “Exactly.”

***As you can see, my mom has a way of shutting me up.*** 

¹I watched the skit on Hulu a half hour or so after our conversation. The verdict? I agree that SNL probably should have picked a different subject. But, I thought it was…funny.

Um, yeah.

“…while there have been quite a few entertaining Black movies produced in the last decade or so, the only ones that would be categorized as “very good” or “great” in the same way a “Boyz n the Hood” or a even a “Devil in a Blue Dress” would be are films like “Precious” that deal with subjects so unrelentingly heavy and depressing that moviegoers should watch them with buckets of hot buttered Zoloft instead of popcorn.”

This quote is from “Three Ways That Black Movies Can Do Better,” an article published at Ebony.com yesterday that discusses how the best term to describe the Black movies made in the last decade or so is “instantly forgettable,” and lists some things that can be done to reverse this trend.

And, while I think the three things I listed (1. Bring The Sexy Back, 2. Chill With All The Church Scenes, and 3. Hire Angela Nissel) represent a good, safe start, my word count limit and the fact that, for obvious reasons, I can’t be as, um, “colorful” as I want to be when writing there limited what I was able to say…and how I was able to say it.

Today, here’s the rest of what I would have said yesterday if I wasn’t strong-armed by the Team Ebony Drop Squad.¹

4. Chill With The Got Damn Positive F*cking Messages All The Damn Time

Two of the three best Black movies I’ve seen in the last decade² both had cameos from numerous porn stars and strippers, both revolved around pimps who did some truly effed up things during the course of the movie, both dealt with a seedy urban underworld, and both featured dozens of hilariously misogynistic, racist, and homophobic jokes. And while “Black Dynamite” and “Hustle & Flow” were entirely different types of movies, part of what made them as entertaining as they were was the fact that they reveled in and had fun with some very “unpositive” subject matter. Yet, despite the fact that they were both good movies that featured numerous working Black people, neither got anywhere near the guilt-trip marketing push that “positive” or “important” movies like “Red Tails” usually receive.

I understand why Black filmmakers may feel burdened to always have some type of positive message in their movies. Generally speaking, we (Black film goers) are some thin-skinned motherf*ckers who will think nothing of creating a petition to protest anything less than an onscreen depiction of a “Black life” that never actually existed.

Still, despite the inevitable push back from the Black Blog Tea Party, I think there’s enough of us who don’t necessarily need to have positive and/or message-laden shit pushed down our throats to have a good time at the movies, and I think we’re ready for some Black filmmakers to start having some more quality and ratchet fun.

5. More Nicole Beharie

I don’t believe in the Illuminati, but I do believe that there’s a secret Black society led by Steadman Graham (Why Steadman? Because he doesn’t have shit else do to.) that forces each burgeoning Black producer or director to cast either Paula Patton, Taraji P. Henson, or Meagan Good in their movies. I know it seems far-fetched, but it has to be the only reason why one of those three chicks has been in every single Black movie made in the past eight years.

I know secret societies love them some fresh blood to hold their ceremonies with, so why not cast Beharie in one of those roles? She’s hot, she’s talented, she’s wicked smart, and, wait…did I mention how hot she is?

Anyway people of VSB.com, what do you think needs to happen to make Black movies less damn forgettable? What additions or subtractions would you make if you were Black Movie Czar for a day?

¹Just to be clear, I realize there are a ton of indie Black films that would definitely qualify as quality and entertaining. Today though, I’m more focused on major motion pictures. 

²The third movie? “Akeelah and the Bee”

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

***For all the folks in the DC area, this Saturday, April 7, from 930pm-3am at Liv Nightclub (11th and U Street, NW) is another edition of #REMINISCE, the party dedicated to all 90s everything brought to you by VSB, Shine On Me, and Just Cause Events. It’s FREE BEFORE 11 w/RSVP (reminiscedc.eventbrite.com), a Courvoisier sponosred open bar from 930-1030pm, and no dress code! It’s cheaper to come out and party. Last month’s party was OFF THE HINGES! Somebody shook my hand when they left and just said, “Thanks P, for throwing this party…” <—- not lying. So come and make it do what it do this Saturday at Reminisce!***

Aside from finding an answer to the always awkward “So…who gets to “keep” the mutual friends?” question every newly uncoupled duo needs to ask themselves, the most difficult part of making the transition to “single” for me has been figuring out how to categorize memories. More specifically, are the great times you spent with your ex remembered in the same way once the relationship ends? Does that trip you took together to Rome or that unbelievable birthday he threw for you still get filed under “great” in your memory banks, do you create an entirely different category to archive those memories, or do you just try your best to expel them completely?

It seems as if the answer depends on the nature of the break-up. I imagine that people who ended relationships because of serious betrayal have a tougher time thinking positively of anything that happened in the time they were in that relationship. And, even if they do have a fondness for those things, how do they deal with the fact that a fond memory was eventually found to be a complete fabrication? (An example: You found out that your trip to Rome was only possible because his mistress works for Delta and hooked him up with free plane tickets)

While I understand the sentiment behind allowing a present experience affect how you remember the past, I think doing so cheats yourself out of one of the best parts of living. Learning that the relationship itself may not have been everything you thought it was doesn’t negate the authentic feeling felt when those memories were created. Your joy and happiness wasn’t inauthentic; it was your genuine reaction to something good happening. And, since most relationships, even good ones, eventually end, re-categorizing all good things that happened in relationships that eventually ended from “good” to “f*ck that shit” would ultimately leave most of us with no good memories at all.

Anyway, a couple weeks ago I wrote about the fact that the Trayvon Martin case has galvanized us in a way that, to be honest, I can’t remember happening at any other point in my lifetime. Seeing us collectively committed to righting this wrong almost makes me feel as good as the event causing us to come together makes me feel bad, and many seem to share this sentiment.

Still, despite our steadfast commitment to making damn sure our outrage is felt and our demands are heeded, the fact remains that there are still only three relevant facts regarding this case:

1. Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teen, was killed by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.

2. George Zimmerman is still free

3. Aside from Zimmerman, Martin, (maybe) a few witnesses, and God, no one knows exactly what happened that night.

Now, I’m not here today to speculate on what I think happened¹ or even what anyone else thinks happened. Instead, I want to play hypothetical for a moment and ask “What if?”²

What if the reckless shit some are spewing about Trayvon being the aggressor and beating Zimmerman to a pulp happens to be true? What if the gun accidentally went off after a struggle? What if he really was a problem child who, to paraphrase the words of a dozen or so dangerously contrarian conservative columnists, “had it coming?” What if Zimmerman’s life was in real danger?

I’m asking because I wonder if would it change how we’ve felt about the last few weeks of walk-outs, petition-signing, rally-attending, hoodie-wearing, and protest-marching if any of this was found to be true. Would the outrage still be as white hot if we found out that our perception of what happened that night was completely off? Would the collective galvanization still feel as real? Would the strides we’ve made in proving to ourselves that “yes we can actually unite behind a cause” prove to be inauthentic? Would we continue to, to quote Slim Charles, “fight on that lie“?

I want to believe everything I want to believe about Trayvon, and I want to believe that even if those beliefs aren’t true, my feelings about this collective effort wouldn’t change. I’d like to think I’d follow my own advice about how not to let context cloud memories, but l desperately hope I never have to answer any of those questions.

¹I think that Zimmerman stalked, followed, and confronted Martin and shot him in a scared panic. Cold-blooded murder? No. But, his fear speaks to the latent feeling many have towards Black males, and since this fear resulted in the death of an unarmed kid, he deserves to be behind bars.

²Just wanted to remind everybody that writing a hypothetical “what if” doesn’t mean that I personally believe what’s stated in the hypothetical. It’s just a hypothetical, nothing more. 

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

Something dawned on me last night while reflecting on all the reading, listening, writing, tweeting, and talking I’ve devoted to all things Trayvon Martin in the last couple of days. Something feels different about this. 

Now, I realize that it could just be me. From Troy Davis and K.O.N.Y. to Tookie and Derrion Albert, there have been numerous recent instances of viral activism and virtual galvanization; causes we collectively championed and people we collectively cried for. I was not as taken by any of those as much as I’ve been taken by Trayvon Martin, and I accept the possibility that this “different feeling” could just be a bit of personal confirmation bias. Of course things are different now. Why? Because I’m finally involved and invested.

With that being said — and recognizing that this could all be in my head — I can not ignore the fact that something about this just feels different. The outrage seems a little hotter. The tears seem a little saltier. That sickness in our stomachs seems a little deeper. And, most importantly, that feeling of “I-don’t-know-what-do-to, but-we-f*cking-need-to-do-something”-ness seems a little stronger.

Hmm. A few days ago, I was talking to my mom about, I don’t know, work or bacon or some other typical bullshit daily minutiae, and right when I was about to get off the phone, she asked “Damon, what do you believe in?”

Even though I heard what she said, I asked her to repeat it because the question caught me so off guard. She did, and I asked if I could get back to her with an answer another time. She laughed, replied “Sure,” but added “You definitely need to think about that, though. You should be able to give me an answer.”

It’s been three days since she asked me that question. I still haven’t thought of a good answer. But, if the Trayvon Martin case has taught me anything, it’s that it’s time for me, time for us, to believe in something, and it feels like we’re finally ready and willing to do that.

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

 

Random PSA:  Liz is executive producing (yet another) web series for MadameNoire.com called “Ask A Black Man”–a talk show featuring Black men. The topics are all about love, sex, marriage and dating. You won’t want to miss this. New shows air every Wednesday on Madame Noire starting next Wednesday, March 28th. Stay tuned for the trailer. They’re rolling out the bios of each cast member. First up? Panama Jackson, who will appear in two episodes. Check out his bio and some sexxy (for a 3) photos here.

Criticism, like love, is a many splendored thing. Truth is, it’s way easier to criticize something or somebody than it is to acknowledge that something or somebody is actually attempting to make a difference and give credit where credit is due. Such brings us to the present day (well last week and running currently) KONY 2012 campaign by the company and organization Invisible Children.

To be fair, I knew very little about this until yesterday when I read somebody’s Facebook status criticizing the Kony 2012 thing on the grounds that anybody who cares about this now and didn’t pay attention to any myriad African causes is hypocrtical and ill-informed. Fair enough, but totally misses the boat. But we’ll get to that in a moment. Back to me just finding out what in Sam Hill this Kony thing is about.

I’d heard mention of it last week when somebody mentioned some video for Kony. Now, I obviously listen to too much hip-hop because I immediately thought it was some sort of King of New York upcoming tribute to the Notorious B.I.G. Or some wayward reworking of T.O.N.Y. by Capone-N-Noreaga. And because I didn’t care, I let that b*tch breathe. Again, too much hip-hop. But after seeing the critical FB message I watched the entire video, all roughly 30 minutes of it, at work, and found myself in awe at this organizations presentation AND plan to bring attention and awareness to a cause.

Let’s forget the actual target of the cause for a second. Let’s talk about the method. It’s sheer brilliance. In today’s social media driven landscape, Invisible Chidlren, created a video where they showed the birth of a movement from inception to action. And that my friends is impressive. And it’s one that takes full advantage of the way youth move in this nation now from creating viral campaigns and utilizing that message to effect change to the point where the President takes notice and does something entirely based on their work and advocacy. That is how you do something. That’s how you make a difference. I must say that I was completely impressed and inspired by the dedication it took to be both patient enough and believe in something enough to stick with it for the long haul. And the method of creating propoganda to make the man’s name a household name isn’t even obnoxious like some of the Occupy camps that popped up. Interesting that immediate reaction was to draw comparisons. I’m human. Sue me.

Joseph Kony, one of the leaders of Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army, is undoubtedly a bad man. And while there’s NO way that any 30 minute video could fully capture the complexity of the issue of Kony’s crimes against humanity and the creation of child rebel soldiers, what this video did was create an entire awareness to possibly as many as 74 million people who watched the video on YouTube and who knows how many others who’ve read about it since last week (March 5).

Obviously, that creates controversy. Which is where the criticisms start to come in (all easily Google-able). Is it too little too late? Some say that Kony is nowhere near as much of an issue as he was 10 years ago in Uganda. Maybe true, but he’s still on the ICC’s list of wanted criminals. Some say this video has done more damage than good by giving Kony the heads up that the USA and Uganda are looking for him and will force him to change up his methods of hiding (he’s on the run). Others claim that this organization isn’t clear and transparent about their actual charity work, etc. A claim that the organization itself hasn’t been shy about addressing. Others think the video had the wrong focus. And some folks are claiming some type of “why do you people care now when you didn’t care about anything else….”

I can honestly say that I hate people who make that last argument. You can’t do anything about anything unless you know about it. Speeches only reaches those that know it exists. Knowing what to care about is impossible unless everybody knows where to find out about what’s going on. Which is why this campaign is brilliant. You don’t know who Joseph Kony is? Watch the video. I guarantee you will by the end.

And that’s the point. Creating awareness about somebody in order to get the public consciousness on board. That’s the only way you get change. The Civil Rights movement wouldn’t have lasted if 100 people boarded that train. It wasn’t until the nation saw the brutality in Birmingham and the water hoses and police dogs attacking defenseless and peaceful protestors that the nation got on board (for the most part) with the Civil Rights movement. Which is why I think that much of the criticism levied against the Kony 2012 movement and the Invisible Children organization is sour grapes. This org found a target and found a way to make people care or at least pay attention. I guarantee you that there are people who know Joseph Kony’s name that would NEVER have known under any other circumstance. And that cannot be a bad thing.

At all.

Awareness. It’s the key to change. It’s why the message for every Spike Lee movie is to “wake up”. Pay attention. Be aware of what’s really going on. That’s the premise of Kony 2012. If we were smart, we’d take a lesson from this organization and do the same damn thing with other causes. It’s why Occupy Wall Street both succeeded and failed. It succeeded because for a legit moment in time, everybody was talking about it. It failed because unlike Kony 2012, at some point, it was all just rhetoric and nobody really knew what the hell to ask for.

If you bring awareness to tragedy, at some point people have to do something right. You can’t stick your head in the sand forever. And to me, this method and the cause are worthy of note.

And to be fully honest, at first I was ready to write this entire thing off as more white guilt and liberal do-gooderism until I really started thinking about the fact that you know what, if that sh*t helps to change the world, then I’m all for it. Sometimes, those who seem the most annoying and obnoxious really do have their hearts in the right place and because they care that much, and are white, they’ll have the time, resources, and desire to see something through.

If that helps me get a home loan. Sign me up.

So, good people of VSB, what do you think about the KONY 2012 campaign and ensuing dustup and debate? Hell, do you think about it at all?

-VSB P aka THE ARSONIST aka MR. I WATCHED THE WHOLE VIDEO WHERE’S MY ACTION KIT aka GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRL HE A 3

*Have you signed up for the VSB VIP List? If not, go on ahead and do it so that you can receive emailed listings of events sponsored or supported by VSB and other goings ons in your area. Plus you get more of that good ole VSB charm and pizzazz via email. Look, seriously, my mom asked me to ask you to do it, mmkay?*

It happens at least once a season. Someone on a few high profile blogs or websites will state their particular take about the whole “women are attracted to assholes” thing, and, as was seen last week at Jezebel, The National Review, Male Fide, and Chateau Heartiste, each of the (combined) thousands of responses these articles will generate will fit into one of eight categories.

1. Women using anecdotal evidence to deny that women are attracted to assholes. 

2. Women saying that it is true…for young women and stupid women. Mature women don’t  fall for the same tricks

3. Women saying “It’s not that we like assholes, it’s just that “nice” guys are usually assholes in disguise. So, why not just deal with the real thing?”

4. Women reluctantly agreeing with the theory that asshole men are generally more attractive to women, and cursing God for giving them such predictable vaginas

5. Women happily agreeing that it’s true that women are into jerks. 

6. Men using anecdotal evidence to state that assholes don’t win. (i.e. “I’m a nice guy, and I stay swimming in ass, yo.“)

7. Men stating that assholes do win, and also saying that any woman (or man) who doesn’t agree is being dishonest.

8. Men stating that assholes win, and using this info as proof that women are generally f*cked up people, and also using it as an excuse for why their lame ass hasn’t gotten any p*ssy since Big P*ssy was still alive on “The Sopranos”

Where do I stand in all of this? While I don’t think that women are inherently attracted to assholes per se, I do believe that many of the characteristics that turn women’s panties into Niagara Falls happen to be possessed in abundance by men who happen to be assholes.

I do not think this is a coincidence, though. Men (and women) who happen to be at the top of the food chain are given more asshole-leeway. A 10 can get away with more sh*t than a 7 can. Also, since they’re used to people treating them like they’re the sh*t, they possess less incentive not to be assholes.

It’s funny, though. A part of me wants to believe that not being as asshole is the way to go, but both anecdotal and observational evidence doesn’t agree with that. Even from my own personal experience, I’ve found that being me, but an aloof, distant, apathetic, and (somewhat) mysterious me does actually work better than being an open and, dare I say it, “nice” me.

Anyway, that’s enough from me today. People of VSB.com, how exactly do you feel about the theory that women are generally attracted to assholes? Also, which one of the eight are you?

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)