Brother Old School Regales The Day

Here's a missive from Brotha Old School.  I've included links, most of which are from Wikipedia.

**************************

Not since the late 60s, with the rise and fall of the Panther Party, the demise of the process, (the use of chemicals, lye being the main ingredient, to conk or straighten the Black man's hair) and the birth of the natural (aka the Afro), have I seen such a great display of Black pride and unity.  Marvin Gaye sang "What's Going On," Tricky Dick was in the White House and Cheech and Chong were making light of things.

Back in the day, Blacks referred to each other as my brotha or my susta and tried greeting each
other with Muslim and Swahili exchanges.  Although, more often than not, they were mispronounced and their interpretations rarely understood; like "assalamu alaikum" or "bunny-gunny brotha."  Both phrases were greetings expressed along with a raised clinched fist symbolizing the Black Power sign.  It didn't matter whether you said it right or not.  It was more of a fun and friendly gesture not to be taken too seriously.  It was a rare era, when no matter what was your status quo, being Black, was the thing to be.

Now, all this Blackness, unity, and pride didn't set so well with J. Edgar and crew.   So they craftily circumscribed, infiltrated, then meticulously set about dismantling, from within, most of the major Black movements that promoted such pride and unity.  Reasoning?  They just didn't favor our militant flavor.

But this new found sense of pride and unity generated today is of a cleaner, non-toxic, environmentally friendlier fuel that makes no indication for revolution.  It's just the pure sweet simple joy found in witnessing this day of evolution.  The enormity of the transition for recognition of the Black man's role evolving from the past couple of centuries is not just to be looked upon by America but by the entire world.

A new day?  To say the least.   A new millennium!  A new world!  Undeniably, a new era.  Let me put a lil-some-um out there to ya about myself to shed light on my view about things.  Understand that I, in no way, have ever been one to be politically inclined.  Now, two years shy of 60, I find myself convalescing some shame for allowing my youthful inner city baggage to carry so far into my adulthood.  I was one of them brothas more concerned with trying to hook--up with an Angela Davis look-alike in mini skirt and go-go boots, while on the constant hunt for some Acupulco Gold (the bomb weed of the day).  My world was only as big as the Hollywood night life and the avenues off the Crenshaw strip.  What went on beyond those boundaries, I mistakenly felt had nothing to do with my mama's baby boy.

Today, in following this election, I gotta tell ya, I've learned more about politics and the differences between the major parties than I care to admit.  The excitement in watching history unfold, even for a piss-po-ass-excuse for a student like I've always been, has re-energized the few remaining brain cells that survived the frying of the 60s.  Along with this rejuvenation came the flash backs to those times before the Bloods and the Cuz when brothas got along.  When there was genuine comaraderie.  Sadly, something this new generation has never seen.

Understandably, it took the collective effort of all races in America to elect the nation's first Black President.  But what was such a a reassuring sense of pride and unity, was to see Black people come together as a body nearly as a whole, to stand behind the brotha.  That was a double whammy inducement of pride.  Pride for the brotha and pride for the people standing with him.

Throughout history, when ever a Black man has petitioned the White world's arena, it has never been enough to merely be equally qualified with his game.  He's always had to be better. It is without question that the whole world knows that for a Black man to ever even be considered as a serious contender for the office of the President of the United States of America, he has to be bringing one hellava extraordinary game!  So the fact alone the he was able to win, is enough of a resume in itself to state his qualifications.  You just can't be Black and get that far and not be qualified.  White people never have, nor ever would, allow such a thang.  Beleeve dat!

So, again, I point out it was the collective effort of all the races in America to bring about this day.  Understanding that point, I offer this insight to the Black experience, America tried to oppress Black pride and that's why some on the other side got it twisted with what the soon to be first lady meant when she said this was the first time in her adult life she was really proud of her county.  I've revived the chant to James Brown's, "Say It Loud" to how it now can be expressed today:

Say it loud! 

I'm Black and I'm proud!

Say it loud! 

I'm Black and I'm proud!

Say it loud!

Caint-cha unda-stand!

I'm Black and I'm proud!

To be Ameri-can!

Constant Craving

Brotha Old School and I continued our back and forth yesterday off the pages of Anonymous Sec's.  It got pretty heated, at least from my end.  He was pulling my chain because he likes to.  I continued debating the issue as same sex marriage is a constitutional issue and he, well, as Spencer pointed out, BOS' position wasn't quite clear.  He seemed to somewhat acknowledge the constitutional justness of my position, but not much substance past "I don't care what you say.  God.  Says.  So."  He is fine with that.  I am not.

Now, to be fair, I'm a blog computer nerd geek who has witnessed the blogosphere back and forth of point/counterpoint for years now.  BOS clearly has a life, is new to the computer as well as blogosphere and is not so sophisticated in the rules of engagement.  So other than being just really really really really mad at what I consider to be his hard-headed stance, I cannot fault him for engaging as he saw fit, at my invitation.  (Also, it should be noted that getting mad isn't really the productive interwebs way and I am at fault for that.  Mea culpa...but I'm still mad.)

The engagement, though, was thrilling if only for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position in my head.  I do see it as a constitutional issue, albeit a state one.  After the drubbing the US Constitution has gotten during the past 8 years, and frankly, my not really doing or saying anything about it (not that I had the power but it only takes one voice, y'know), I'm personally touchy about the promise of the Constitution being realized in daily life.

That said, there has been some rather harsh talk from the LGBT community about the effect of black voter turnout vis-a-vis passage of Prop 8, some from my beloved Andrew Sullivan.  African Americans are 6.2% of the California electorate.  Of that 6.2%, 70% voted yes on Prop 8.  Those numbers are not enough to assign blame to a whole community.

I admit that, from a civil and legal standpoint, I have a hard time understanding how black folks can actively participate in what I consider to be discrimination.   As evidenced by the back and forth yesterday between me and BOS, there are parts to this issue that I just don't get.

I believe in God.  I believe that there is honesty and guidance in the Bible.  For example, my sister who is more intimately acquainted with the Bible than I, pointed me toward The Letter of Paul to the Ephesians 6:10-20 when I was at a particularly challenging point of my life.  I type it in its entirety here just because it just rocks and I want to:

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may stand against the devil.  For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.  Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; above all taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.  Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.  To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak."

I read that and I feel like freaking Xena.  So some of the traditionalism of religion touches me.  Where I diverge, I think, is when the idea is put forth that the honesty and guidance that I find in the Bible compels me to be unfair to my fellow man.  Some people, I guess, do.  Since the church is a big part of African American cultural life, and religion is for the most part against homosexuality as a "practice," a good many African Americans are as well.  This has given rise to this harsh and unfair backlash against blacks in relationship to Prop 8.

The election of Barack Obama has made me all bold in what I believe is possible, so let me say this.  I fully believe that legal same sex marriage will be de rigueur in the U.S. in my lifetime.  As I've said before, a good part of the electorate cannot be discriminated against indefinitely because the human spirit will not stand for it.

That said, considering the mind space of the electorate, it won't be achieved simply because it is the right thing to do.  It will take work.  Hard work.  (I note my debate with BOS as Exhibit A.)  If the Obama campaign taught nothing else, it teaches that it takes focus and dedication of monumental proportions to fight an uphill battle.  It takes changing ways of thinking and doing and being.  It takes reaching out to people who would never consider your stance in a million years and convincing them that your position is the right place to be.

The LGBT community, if it believes that blacks were the lynchpin of the passing of Prop 8, need to change their way of thinking and doing and being with the community to get it done, instead of blaming people for being who they are, which is really not a whole lot different from what they are asking for themselves.

I found this essay by Jasmyne Cannick via Jack & Jill Politics (note that you open her site and music starts playing which bugs the crap out of me):

Case in point the Jordan Rustin Coalition that was started by the gays out of West Hollywood because they felt that Black gays weren’t doing enough to fight for gay marriage. Hmmm–maybe we were doing other things that we just as important. Just a thought.

The group bills itself has a Black civil rights group for lesbians and gays but does nothing more than push the gay agenda for marriage onto the Black community by holding the occasional town hall meeting in Leimert Park. The one part of the Black community they know and feel safe in thanks to gentrification. At these meetings, they use their surrogates to tell Black people why gay marriage is a priority.

This group doesn’t do anything non-gay marriage related in the Black community—and what I mean by that is that you won’t catch the Jordan Rustin Coalition at the community meetings dealing with Black issues or out on the streets in the hood registering Black people to vote. In fact, GOTV (get out the vote) weekend, instead of helping to register Black voters, they wanted Black gays to go to Pasadena for a Sing Out for Coming Out Day. While I agree that encouraging Black gays to “come out” is generally a good thing—if and when we decide to hold a coming out event, why the hell would we do it in Pasadena?

I use this example to prove to you the continued misunderstanding of priorities of Blacks by gays and the ego and superiority complex that dictates the lengths to which gays will go to micromanage and push their agenda on Blacks.

It takes involvement and care to convince.  Honest care, not agenda-based care.  The right thing to do will not just win.  If the example of 400 years of disenfranchisement of the black community teaches nothing else, it teaches that.  Me trying to out-logic fundamentalists clearly won't do the trick.  Lord, I keep coming back to the Obama campaign because it just is such an amazing example of how to get it done.  I think the LGBT community needs to think about that to achieve their goal.

I'm here to help.

Anonymous Sec's Argues Semi-Topless

Sure, B.O.S.  Pull the thread attempting to render me bare-breasted.  But by using dogma that yokes unilaterally, you're pulling at the collar.  You'll find no joy there.  You're not addressing my arguments.  Instead you're echoing those politicians who planted firmly on the courthouse step and said that interracial marriage was not God's will because it says so in the Bible.

In all of your missives, you stand steadfast in what you believe to be God's side in the issue.  I defend your right to do so.  Yet you have glossed over the civil aspect of the issue and your responsibility in that as well.  Do you recognize that you don't live exclusively in the religious realm?  You are garnering rights and freedoms from the civil aspect of life and proclaiming your religious belief to deny your neighbor those rights which you enjoy.  As dearly as you hold your religious responsibility, you should hold your civic one, particularly when it comes to your neighbors, whom you love so.

If you agree that church and state are separate, as you seem to, then how can your religious beliefs hold dominion over your civil ones?  Or your civil ones hold dominion over your religious ones, for that matter.  Civilly, same-sex marriage has nothing to do with you other than your responsibility to guarantee to another citizen a right which you can enjoy.

The Bible may guide your spiritual life, but it does not in all things, otherwise you would be just as steadfastly trying to legislate against divorce, capital punishment, the Bush Administration, and zippers.  You, as the founding fathers did, see the need for modern realities to compel fundamental thinking to change.  Why is it that marriage between two adults who love each other is the line in the sand that cannot be crossed?

Okay, so I could go off on a huge argument about the Bible being the word of God interpreted through the congenitally limited understanding of man interpreted from a foreign language by men who had vested interests in what is said, but I won't.  And I also won't go into what slight insult I take from the two separate Gods argument.  And I won't point out that you say you're not holier than thou but proclaim that God is on your side.

I won't do that (much) because you have a right to believe as such.

Let's just hope some enterprising height bigot doesn't manage to get on the California Ballot next time a proposition to amend the constitution to say that men cannot consort with women taller than they.

B.O.S. Holds His Spiritual Ground While Unraveling My Sweater!!

I'm going to put this up while I gather my thoughts for a response mostly because I want anyone out there to appreciate Brotha Old School's point of view which he shares with the many who passed Prop 8.  It's what has to be countered, appreciated and not wholly villified as best as countering belief systems held in the soul can be if propositions like Prop 8 are to be defeated.

BOS writes:

Ms. Anne,

I can add the "n-e" now that you understand it's short for your pen.

I hadn't anticipated this becoming such a loose-thread issue.  So I just wanna say, by keeping me pulling at it, don't blame me if your whole sweater becomes unraveled, rendering you topless.  (More wishful thinking than a metaphor.)

A couple of things I gotta make clear here.   First, understand, I have gay family and friends who are very dear to me.  Secondly, in no way do I proclaim to be more holier than thou.  In fact, at times, I stand to be accused of being a down right hypocrite.  Which, ironically, qualifies me in God's eyes to represent.

I need you to bear with me here, if you will, if my response comes a little slow.  I came up in the 60s and experimented with some things that perhaps I should'na.  Sometimes collecting my thoughts can be an infinite repetitive effort.

What makes this situation a wee-bit awkward for me is, I've spent most of my life avoiding the law and politics.  You might say, I gravitated more towards the aspect of the" affect" than to the "cause."  But when, collectively all my social mistakes and misguidings begin taking their toll, it forced my hand to believe or not to believe.  About God, that is.  I chose to believe.

Coming up on the opposite side of the law, I learned a lot about rights and legal loopholes and that both could be manipulative.  It usually all comes down to representation.  Which as a legal sec, I'm sho you know.  Far too often legal and constitutional terminology is ambiguous and is left solely to the mercy of belief for it's interpretation.

Time has unfolded new eras and ways of life, with some things anticipated, while others, never imagined.  The founding fathers were sharp.  But not so sharp where as they could clearly foresee in detailed account the evolving life-style of the 21st Century.  They left a basic blueprint that one would hope would be carefully amended with the balance of good morals, judgement, and fairness.

Now, I may be cutting my own throat here with the next following statements, but nonetheless I'm compelled to make.  The founding fathers could be regarded as hypocritical to the very constitution they wrote.  Because in their day they did nothing to correct things such as freeing the slaves or giving women the right to vote.  Which makes one wonder and ask the question as to why?  Is what's good for the goose good for the gander?  Were they just thinking, well eventually in time these rights will come into play?  Or did they even mean it that way?

In their time, homosexuality, was not just a taboo, it wasn't even allowed in the closet.  It had to be kept in the out-house.  Do you believe they ever meant equal rights for all was ever to be interpreted as a comprise to the Sanctity and integrity of Holy Matrimony by same sex marriage?  You think?

If you think that God approves of same sex marriage, then we're obviously referring to two different Gods, or you just simply haven't been reading your bible.  Or should I ask, are you referring to the God of the bible?  That's the one I choose to go with.

I have the utmost respect for you academic intellect, my dear, and have no qualms admitting that I'd quickly cower with most challenges in that field with you.  But this is a spiritual issue that continues intensifying with your every utterance.

I'm no preacher and have no intentions of ever becoming one.  In fact, sin kicks my ass on a daily basis. But in spite of that, I believe God is on my side with this issue and I can't lose with what I use.

Peace out,
B.O.S

Ms. An Picks Up The Thread

I see I can't be totally frivolous with my friend Brotha Old School.  I address this directly to you then, BOS.

Let's jump off all "blasphemous."  "It's a God Thing" cannot be known.  You may have faith that it's a God thing.  You may believe that it's a God thing.  You may have been taught it's a God thing.  Your bones may ring with human certainty that it's a God thing.  But you don't know that it's a God thing.  For all you truly know, God may be sadly shaking her head wondering why her favorite experiment keeps eating its own.

Your oil and water analogy as to church and state is correct, and should stand as example in American jurisprudence.  This was the point I first made that compelled you to write.  Religion has no place (dog) in the question (fight) of civil rights granted the citizenry.  The California Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to exclude same-sex couples from the legal institution of "marriage," even if such couples are granted the right to enter into "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" based on the California State Constitution's guarantee of the "right to marry" and its guarantee of "equal protection" under the law.

This is not to say that you are compelled to believe in same-sex marriage.  It does not say that you are bound to believe that it is not a sin.  You are free to believe that same-sex marriage does not constitute "marriage."  What it does say is that all citizens are guaranteed civil rights one in accordance with the next, without discrimination based on sex, race, age, sexual-orientation, height, weight, hair color, eye color, or any other superficial difference between human beings.  How brightly your view of the institution of marriage shines in comparison to other institutions is immaterial.  Civil institutions do not exist for only your benefit, but for the benefit of each as to the next.

These base rights you mention are what the California Supreme Court addressed in its ruling.  They are naming marriage as a base right that is constitutionally available to all, without regard to political or religious beliefs, and that right is equally protected under the law.  

I appreciate and respect your arguing from the perspective of religious belief.  However, nothing in the California Supreme Court's ruling disavows your belief.  As Wanda Sykes said, if you do not believe in same sex marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex.  Nonetheless, you cannot constitutionally abridge another, who may not believe as you, access to the base right that is called in civil discourse, "marriage."

You use a basketball analogy that doesn't quite ring true.  No, you cannot and should not lower the hoop, but neither can you or should you exclude short people who can ball.  If basketball equals marriage, then short people are homosexuals who have every right to play, provided they play by the rules, correct?  By your analogy, you are naming basketball (marriage) a tall people (heterosexual) only game, when in fact short people (homosexuals) can indeed play despite your tall people (heterosexual) rule.  You're prejudicially discounting short people from a game they are able to play, based on a rule that does not consider ability.  You feel me?

As to the recipe analogy, both pancakes and waffles have flour to give them substance, eggs to bind, and milk to enrich.  Consider if you will that if flour (human beings) is bound by eggs (love and commitment) to which if you can add varying amounts of milk (kids, mortgage, 401Ks), you still end up with the same cholesterol loaded ass-fattener (marriage) be it pancakes or waffles.

You are free to believe that marriage is sanctified by God.  Hell, I believe that marriage is a sanctity of God.  I just don't believe that God would disapprove of or deny any of her flock the blessing of true love and commitment and family based on who they love and smiles on such unions because she wants us to be happy.  And frankly, my beliefs are just as valuable as yours.  B'leedat.

Brotha Old School Responds Further To Ms. An On Prop 8

Brother Old School is still calling me Ms. An but I think I'm getting to be okay with it.  Short for Anonymous.  I get it.  Damn history.  BOS responds:

Ms. Anonymous Sec., a.k.a. Ms. An.,

My point, "It's A God Thing!"

I say that, yet understanding, religion and politics have a mixing capability liking to that, of oil and water.  Which often forces one to take a stand on one side or the other. For me, this proposition in which we debate, is closely characterized to the scenario of, doing right for the wrong reason, or doing wrong for the right reason.

Admitting, from the Civil Rights perspective, you post strong arguments. However, Ms. Sweet, lovely individual, the public institutions you reference the rights to, in my view , pale in comparison in their entities to that of the institution of marriage.  You feel me?

But for the sake of argument, for rights in general, may I expound to the point that some rights come with conditions.   These particular rights I refer to as "base-rights."  Base rights you must qualify for in order to execute.  Such as being of age to vote or buy alcohol.  Gays have always had a base right to marry.  To qualify you simply must be of age and marrying an individual of the opposite sex, to constitute husband and wife.  Simply enough to qualify.  However, totally un-acceptable to the case.

So, here, one proposes the question, does the case have the right to change the purpose?  If you're short, do you have the right to demand the basket to be lowered in order to play basket ball.  Or are you required in order to play to play by the standards?  If you change the recipe to a dish, the dish then takes on a new characteristic and thereby should be called by a different name.  Pancakes and waffles have very similar ingredients, but their slight differences are what make them what they are.

There is an aspect of society, myself included, who believes marriage is sanctioned by God, or at the very least, endorsed.  Without God's approval, such a union, at best, can only be a secular civil union.  Beleeve-dat.  Which is why I say, it is, what it is...

Anonymous Sec's aka Ms. An, Responds To Brotha Old School

I respond by email to Brotha Old School:

Miss Anne? Who you callin’ Miss Anne?

I’ve said it before, I’m saying it again, you write very well. That said, I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you asserting the separation of church and state? Or are you saying that each is at least partially intersects the other?

Prop 8 does not require religion to recognize same sex marriage, unless it is taking public funds. Here is a good No on Prop 8 article in the LA Times.

I think that people who voted Yes on Prop 8 can’t get their mind around the concept that religion should not dictate public policy. This public policy deals with affording all tax paying citizens equity under the law and access to all institutions. It would be like saying that you cannot use public roads if you are gay.

You wouldn’t want public policy to incorporate the tenets of Judaism (for example no pork, no Jesus, no embalming) into law; or Catholicism (no fish on Friday, no divorce, no birth control); or Santaria (slaughtering goats OH MY GOD!!!), would you? Nor does public policy have the right to dictate to Santaria that they can’t slaughter goats (OH MY GOD!!!).

It’s Sodom and Gomorrah.

Oh…and…

I find it interesting that California saw fit to pass a proposition that made chickens’ lives more comfortable and humane, but did not, in my opinion, do the same for homosexuals.

Just my opinion.

I mean no offense to Santaria.

Brotha Old School Calls Out Ms. An On Prop 8

I got an e-mail from my friend, Brotha Old School, in response to my post More More No on Prop 8.  I love Brotha Old School's writing, love challenging his thinking, love his challenging mine, and we have spent many hours in my backyard arguing some point or other.  Brotha Old School, BOS for short, is but a few years older than I so we appreciate the same old school music and old school culture.  We both agreed last summer that there was no way America was going to elect a black man, and wasn't it cute he was trying.  He has a deep, abiding and fundamental faith in God.  He's much more intelligent than he gives himself credit for, and much more hard-headed than he believes himself to be.    I've cleaned his email up for punctuation only.  He's taken to calling me Ms. An, which I'm not fond of.  It's a clever take-off on my nom de plume fraught with all measure of historical connotations.

BOS says:

Ms. An,

I sit here in the early pre-dawn morning reading your most recent writing on your commentary about Proposition 8.  You state, religion has no dog in the fight.  That prompted me to think, gul, why-what-chew mean?!?  That's the whole dul-gone kit and caboodle!  The issue is between secular and religion!  To take it a step further, it comes down to Holy Matrimony and Unholy Matrimony.

Correct me if I'm wrong, (which I know you will) but doesn't the over all definition of marriage derive, by-in-large. from the religious perspective?  The real issue here is not the right of same sex unions, but the right to entitlement of those unions.

From the religious perspective, same sex marriage is an oxymoron and does not allow for the extension or amendment to the terms of Holy Matrimony.  This is explicitly expressed in the example of Sodom and Gamour. (Spell Check?)

Now, tru-dat society, as a whole, is un-beholding to have to buy in to biblical concept. But with the same token, it has no right to amend or change that concept.  The only way society can ever address both components to this issue fairly is to keep their distinctions separate and allow for their oppositions to define them.

It's really very simple to define.  One is to be called Holly Matrimony, while the other, Unholy Matrimony.

I'm Brotha Old School, and I'd like to believe, this message is approve by God.