Controversial Blackness

Crappy Thanksgiving

2011-11-24T07:20:00.000-08:00

I'm not very familiar with the real story of Thanksgiving. But I am familiar with human beings' tendency to romanticize holidays and pretty much all historical events into something more G-rated and marketable. Much like Hollywood, R-rated movies where the hero is too much of a jerk to stand don't gross as much in the box office as one would hope.

So, not particularly sure that Thanksgiving was full of crap, I took a shot in the dark that it was and came up with this blog post. Afterall, Easter doesn't have squat to do with hiding eggs in the back yard, Christmas trees and some fat guy in a red suit are a rather quizzical addition to the birth of Christ, and no one even knows what St. Patrick's day is about anyway; it's just an excuse to get drunk. So, what are the chances that Thanksgiving has nothing to do with Indians and Pilgrams getting together and breaking bread? I didn't know how right I was.

It turns out that in 1637, a bunch of Natives (the Pequots) were approaching their annual Green Corn Festival (our modern day Thanksgiving). On this blessed day, early that morning, some English and Dutch mercenaries awoke the sleeping Indians from their slumber and asked them to come out. They had something they wanted to show them. What did they want to show them? Apparently their guns, because "those who came out were shot or clubbed to death while the terrified women and children who huddled inside the longhouse were burned alive."

And to commemorate this horrendous loss of lives the governor of the Massachusetts Bay declared a "Day of Thanksgiving" for all the people they killed. Goldmine. Right? But save your applause until the end. For after a second raid against the Pequots by some mercenaries from Stamford, a SECOND day of celebration was declared. How did they celebrate? Turkey? Fireworks? Ten gun salute? No, they played soccer with the severed heads of slain Native Americans. //Way to keep it classy, Connecticut!//

Look, I'm not here to take a whiz all over somebody's Thanksgiving Day parade //though I do have nightmares about that Snoopy balloon christening open-mouthed spectators with an unexpected shower of the salty, yellow variety//. I am here to enlighten those who may not know the truth, which is -- ok -- in essence taking a whiz all over people's Thanksgiving Day parade.

But look, at least you can stop wondering why every time you wish that Native American guy "Happy Thanksgiving" he gives you the bird //and I ain't talking turkey//. But who are we kidding? Since we so wisely killed off all the Natives in order to decrease the likelihood socially awkward situations such as these, the chances that any of us have a Native American friend is slim to none anyway.

Well, anyway, as the Pequots would say, "Happy Thanksgiving, and enjoy your turkey... jerk!"

http://www.manataka.org/page269.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greener/the-true-story-of-thanksg_b_788436.html

Sarah Palin's New Job: Free Verse

2010-01-11T21:35:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin has a new job.

What's her job?

Fox News Commentator.

That's right.

What will she do?

She'll give her opinion on stuff...

Her professional opinion.

What makes her a professional?

She governed fifteen someodd people in Alaska and a couple a caribou.

But it was too much work ... so she quit.

Then she accused Barack Obama of killing your grandmother and her grandkid.

She got away with it.

She has a myspace page too.

Are we still talking about qualifications?

Sarah Palin got a new job.

What's her job?

I don't know.

Etta James Needs To Grow Up

2009-02-05T22:32:00.000-08:00

What kind of bull crap is this? Etta James is getting all huffy with little or no logical reason behind her huffiness in reference to Beyonce Knowles. Aparrently, Etta wasn't to happy with Beyonce's protrayal of her in Cadillac Records. I didn't see the movie but I can see no reason for Etta being upset with Beyonce's interpretation unless Beyonce protrayed her as a whiney bitch or something. Well,how did Etta respond? By acting like a whiney bitch of course.

Now she's all pisseed off because Beyonce sang "her" song , "At Last" at the inaugaral ball, a song which isn't really her song since she didn't write it nor does she own the rights to it. No, she's just stupid with anger that Etta. So angry and stupid that she said the following:

"You know that woman he had singing for him, singing my song, she's going to get her a-- whipped," Etta said this to a thunderous applause.

I'm not sure who these people were who were applauding this thinly vieled phsyical threat, but I'm pretty sure they were dumb asses.

I found this out from a blogger through yahoo who thinks Etta James is in the right. Yes, someone her age should be more mature in matter such as this, says the blogger, but it's just disgraceful to him that the great Etta James did not sing at the inaugeration ball.

Well, let me tell you a little something about me. I'm not too big on tradition. So I could give two squats about who sings at the inaugaration ball. Etta James, Rick James, Lebron James. I don't care. None of them are exactly strikingly pivotal figures in black history to me. And one of them is dead. Beyonce is the Barack of female singers. A black person who has had great success... OK, so I don't know exactly how she's the Barack of female singers, but I do know that Etta James is full of crap. This is almost as stupid as Ice T. fueding with Solja Boy. (Don't ask me for the correct spellings; I hate them both.)

Cautiously, optimistically pessimistic

2008-11-13T23:24:00.000-08:00

So far, with a few exceptions, Obama is having an impressive start to his pre-presidency period. Never (people are saying) has there been a faster start and a cleaner handing over of the baton than this one. But then again, this is the biggest mess any President has ever inherited since the Great Depression, so it is refreshing that Obama has a sense of urgency in approaching the Presidency.

One of the United States downfalls when it comes to the President has always been term limits. Many Presidents will take an entire term to even learn the ropes of the Presidency and by that time, their approval rating isn't all that good. Therefore, I applaud Obama for his seriousness in a preparing for the toughest job in the world. McCain and Bush should also be applauded. McCain for his quick and graceful concession and Bush for his unprecedented cooperation in handing over the reigns of this country.

Randomness and Voting

2008-11-05T23:07:00.000-08:00

Wow. It's been a month. I've been lazy... Oh, screw you. Who are you to judge me? But let's see? What new news do we have? I don't think there's anything out of the ordinary except the fact that we elected a new PRESIDENT! The first black president to be exact. And there's just so many things I want to speak on and just get off my chest about this monumental event.

First of all, this is a victory for America. The fact that we can indeed elect a black president despite many people's skepticism of our growth, is a testament to the fact that things are indeed getting a little better as far as race relations are concerned. Also, the global ramifications of this event just blew my mind. People overseas basically hate us... No, I wouldn't say hate. OK, hate. They hate us because they see us as racist bullies that like to pick on innocent little countries with a different skin color from ours.

I remember the first time I voted. I wasn't going to vote. But I was told I'd better and then I was told to vote straight democrat. In a private protest of sorts, I randomly voted for democrats and republicans, but I did vote for Gore as all black people are supposed to. Well, this time I decided to do an across the board referendum against the two party system and voted for whoever I felt like.

I thought deeply about the Presidential candidate and my inner monologue couldn't help but think about this: When a conservative and a liberal get into an argument over the war and which president to pick, the liberal may say, "...Obama, because he'll send our troops home faster, thereby decrease American casualties." To which the conservative responds "yes, but what about the fetuses that Obama would have aborted? Those are lives too." At this point, I'm thinking, "Good points! I don't want more of our troops to die in some pointless war which isn't really a war because technically, the war was over two years ago but it wasn't really over, well I guess it took a brief five minute intermission and recommenced and at the same time, I don't want Obama randomly stabbing fetuses just so Mary Jane doesn't have to cancel her Saturday night romps at club hush that usually end with her ending up drunk in a stranger's bed and pregnant again only to have to abort that fetus too so she can make it to the next outing (it's a viscious cycle)."

Peole might scorn me for this vote, but what other choice did I have? No matter who I voted for, it would have ended up being a wasted vote. If I voted for Obama, my vote would have in effect been null in void since Texas is a solidly Republican state that McCain was a sure win to carry. If I voted for McCain... well we know how that story ended. Why not vote for the candidate whose views are closest to mine? And that was Ron Paul. Now, upon further examination of his beliefs, I may find that he's a nutcase and I would have been voting the anti-christ into the White House. I can live with that.

That being said, I wish President Barack Hussein Obama the best in all of his endeavors. (And no, I didn't include the Hussein just to piss him off and make him seem more terroristy -- like Palin was doing).

The World Is Coming to An End.

2008-10-09T20:48:00.000-07:00

I usually try to keep a light tone about things, but each day the future of the U.S. is looking bleaker and bleaker. And the news is moving too fast for me to keep up with. First, this Sarah Palin, character bursts onto the scene in the most transparent political move in the history of politics and there's so many things going through my mind on that, I can't even finish a post on her.

Second we find out she's a nincompoop (wow, I've never spelled that word before and got it right on the first go. No red line. Yay!) and -- oh, yeah -- McCain's still an old fart. The potential for her being President would be at best inspiring and at worst funny if McCain hadn't already come down with every form of cancer known to mankind. Add that into the mix and it's downright scary. And I'm hard to scare; I never jump at horror movies. But the horror movie below simply sent chills down my spine:

The message at the end weakens the power of this video a bit, but I think the danger is clear and should be at least understood from both sides of the political spectrum. This pick for a Vice Presidential candidate is reckless on McCain's part especially considering his record-setting battle with diseases (OK, maybe not record-setting). Maybe I'm being short-sighted here, but I just don't see it. How can this man (who championed the experience factor and made no bones about it and is still trying to fault Obama for his lack thereof) all of a sudden pick a woman with so LITTLE experience?

We are at war; we are in a financial crisis; the United States is in worst shape than I have ever seen in my lifetime and he chose this woman and for what purpose? To energize the republican base? To win the "Hillary" vote?

But there's no need to fear. Americans (smart Americans) to the rescue. They have responded. I don't know if it's the financial crisis or Sarah Palin or a combination of both, but they have responded by deciding they will vote for Obama.

But never fear. Americans (smart Americans) to the rescue. The tide has turned. And McCain (who I believe once led in the polls) began to trail a little after Palin started to talk. And then as the Dow dropped so did McCain's support and as it now stands, Obama has roughly 52% of the vote and could win in a landslide victory at this rate with 350+ electoral votes (only needing 270).

But I honestly want someone who disagrees with this observation of McCain being reckless to rationally tell me why I should vote for him now. In my book, once he chose Palin as V.P., all bets were off. I truly want someone to convince me that she was not indeed a piss poor decision.

More on the Debate

2008-09-27T21:54:00.000-07:00

An interesting article on Yahoo! that basically declares Obama as a slam-dunk winner....

I guess some things never change. Obama's still getting A's and McCain's still getting C's.

The Presidential Depates: Who Won?

2008-09-27T09:18:00.000-07:00

In case you didn't know, I live in Houston, and this site has been on hiatus since it's very hard to get online with things like -- you know -- electricity. I tried to attain internet access by rubbing two sticks together, but alas that didn't work (That McGuyver episode LIED to me).

But the past is the past and I can talk about my Ike experiences in another venue at another time, but on to the most pressing business and that is the highly anticipated Presidential debates (at least for me).

I unfortunately missed most of it, but from what I saw both candidates held their own and made good points. I took a brief glimpse of the web to see what the "buzz" was concerning the debates. Especially, concerning who won.

If your only source was Youtube comments, you'd think Obama won in a slam dunk. But it is my experience that avid web-dwellers tend to be more liberal than their normal world counterparts. So, I took it with a grain of sand.

Then you move on to the "professionals" and "no clear winner" is the mantra. But among the columns I only found one slightly bold enough the declare somewhat of a winner: McCain.

The article entitled "McCain won, but will it matter" by Andrew Romano, notes that McCain basically controls the whole debate by always shifting the subject matter to topics he's considered more comfortable with. Topics the voters tend to think that he knows more about than Obama like, say, WAR.

Think about football and how they flash that stat of time of possession across the screen. Going into halftime, one team has a time of possession of 15:32 and the other has 4:37. Usually the one with the lower T.O.P. is losing because it's hard to score if you're on defense. And therefore harder to win. Obama was on the defensive and therefore couldn't get as many offensive jabs in like McCain was getting. (This of course is a summary of what Romano is saying).

But in an ironic and humble turn of events Romano updates his own article later that morning by quoting another (Ben Smith of Politico):

"The mild consensus in the press file was that McCain won, if not in particularly dramatic fashion. The two insta-polls out -- from CBS and CNN -- found the opposite: That Obama won by a wide margin. CBS had it 39% to 25% for Obama, CNN 51% to 38%. Maybe the difference was expectations. People covering the campaigns think of Obama as a much-improved debater, and McCain as at times a weak one. McCain, by that standard, overperformed. But people tuning into the race now now think of McCain as an experienced hand, and Obama as a newcomer. Obama more than held his own, and McCain failed to expose him -- as he tried -- as out of his depth."

It would seem to me that Obama is benefiting from some form of what benefited George W. Bush and that is lowered expectations. If that's so, McCain and camp can blame themselves. If you say he's too inexperienced and doesn't know what he's talking about and you can't expose that then you obviously have a problem.

But in the end these polls may not mean much as it takes a while for the effects of the debate to hit home sometimes and permeate in the psyche of the highly-coveted "undecided voter". But as every American knows, every Presidential debate has an evil twin waiting in the wings: And that is The SNL Parody of the Presidential Debate. And (un)fortunely for Obama/McCain there are people in this nation stupid enough to cast their vote based solely upon that. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Lipstick on a Pig

2008-09-11T16:39:00.001-07:00

If you've read my previous posts you know that I'm not (by any means) a mindless Obama supporter, but let me just be brief and concise in my wording here. This probably doesn't apply to many people reading this post, but if you know someone who it does apply to, please feel free to pass this message on to them thereby pissing them off. And the message is this: if you fell for the "Lipstick on a Pig" Farce and actually thought that Senator Obama called Governor Palin a pig, then -- and I mean this with the utmost disrespect -- you are STUPID.

You Americans who fall for things like this are ruining this country and that is why honorable war veterans such as McCain have to resort to such pitiful tactics to get your pathetic vote which should be worth one-eigth of a vote because ingorant people like you are too intellectually lazy to care about petty little things like "issues". That's just too much damned work!!!!

There are people who say, "Oh, the American people aren't stupid". I say "No, the American people ARE stupid". Otherwise, niether candidate would even THINK about using these dishonest mudslinging tactics. If these tactics all of sudden stopped working then the candidates would stop using them, right? But they DO work. And why is that? Because they know there's STUPID people out there who will vote based upon out-of-context sound-bites.

I sleep well at night now knowing America's future is in good hands (please note the sarcasm).

Dynamic Diversity

2008-08-31T20:00:00.000-07:00

A few years ago when I was trying to get scholarship money to pay for school (well for school and to support my benadril addiction) I came across this appealing essay contest. The premise of the contest was merely to state what diversity meant to ME. So, I sat there and tried to envision what diversity meant to me. And, for the first two minutes, my mind wandered away to a land of rainbows and puppies and tax-free living. But then it slowly began to dawn on me what diversity meant to me, and my conclusion was that it didn't mean SQUAT.

Don't change the channel just yet; let me explain. If we take a bunch of volatile elements and randomly toss them into a bucket, one of two things will likely happen. (A) It'll blow up in our faces. (B) Nothing. Only through some brilliant stroke of dumb luck will we produce a cure to cancer, or an eco-friendly alternative to gasoline, or a new type of alcohol that gives you a buzz without shrivelling your liver.

That's what we do when we encourage diversity in our workplaces, our schools, and t.v. sitcoms(that token black girl was fun to see on Friends, but she wasn't very funny). We just put a bunch of hispanics, whites, and blacks in the same room and expect to come up with a solution to all the racial problems inflicting this nation. The problem with doing it this way is that once these people are placed with one another, there's no guarantee that they learn from each other or even ASSOCIATE with one another.

Diversity is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It's a mere hammer which can be used to build a house or bash somebody's brains in. There are those who take initiative and make an honest effort to learn about other cultures and, in the process, grow by assimilating another race's philosophies into their OWN way of thinking. THAT'S dynamic diversity. And on the other end there are those who only gravitate toward those of familiar skin and hair texture. Stuck in their ways. Cursing the outsiders. THAT'S mere diversity. Let's learn the difference.

Capital Hill

2008-08-27T14:46:00.000-07:00

What? It's the only picture I could find. Anyways. I was treated to a pleasant surpise when I got around to hearing about Hillary's big speech... Well it wasn't really a big surprise. It was more like a surprise to one-dimensional minded people. People who were worried about Hillary and Barack being able to be on the same page. Well, turns out not only did Hillary deliver, but she knocked it out of the park without steroids (come on if you take steroids it's not that big an accomplishment)... Too bad for her she couldn't give a speech like that earlier. You know, like in the primaries, but this is no time for low blows. Besides, they wouldn't affect her quite the same way they'd affect a man.

I, of course missed the whole speech as I had to work. Bills will be bills afterall. But I still can't see the speech since my computer's speaker isn't working. But judging from the internet buzz, she's did a great job and people were thinking she wouldn't be able to put aside her bitterness and jealousy blah blah blah and stuff. People are so naive.

Politics is like wrestling. People can be bitter rivals in the ring and go share hookers after the match. Or they can be close tag team partners and hate each other's guts once the curtain falls. I don't know which is going on here, but they're professionals and I'm pretty someone like Hillary can put her differences beside with Obama and endorse him for the good of the party. Contrary to popular belief, I don't believe she is the devil incarnate that people shape her up to be. I think that maybe she's just what people call a b*$#%, which can sometimes simply means a woman with an opinion.

Why Obama is a Joker to Me

2008-08-26T05:46:00.000-07:00

When "The Dark Knight" came out all one could hear as men and women filed out of the theater were rants and raves about Heath Ledger's chilling performance as the Joker. Not being one the first ones to see the movie, I had to sit back and watch while others gave their opinions: friends and internet critics alike. People saying his performance was "awesome", "chilling", "oscar-worthy". But I, being the skeptic that I am, was not sure that his performance was all that people were shaping it up to be, because -- you know -- he's like... dead and stuff, and dead people are notoriously sympathetic figures.

Now, let's switch over to politics which I haven't been able to keep up with as much as I have wanted to and therefore the whole phenomenom concerning Obama has been somewhat of a mystery to me. White and black people alike have been raving to me about Obama. How inspirational he is. How strong a person he is. How he's going to change America for the better. And I'm wondering if people are just raving about him because -- you know -- he's like... black and stuff.

As polls pull closer, with McCain even pulling ahead in some polls, it appears as though his honeymoon is over. But I wonder with the black community sometimes: is it a matter of this really being a candidate who they believe in or is it a matter of just wanting a black president in office?

When I ask people about Heath Ledger's performance I ask, "Is he really good or is everybody raving because he's dead?" In other words: is the perception of his performance somehow scewed because of his sympathetic nature? The same can be said of Obama: Are people merely looking to him because he's an underdog to be rooted for? Is this man all that people say he's cracked up to be?

I have no idea. I'm just cautious. Just like I was cautious when I went to go see "The Dark Knight" for the first time. After seeing it twice, so I could trully understand my opinion, it turns out Heath Ledger's performance was very good afterall.... but just not Oscar-worthy. And as I youtube a few of Obama's speeches, it seems that his performance and ideals are both very appealing, but it remains to be seen in my eyes whether he's deserving of that highly coveted trophy known as the Presidency. I just have to do more research and see what turns up.

McCain's Condos

2008-08-21T18:45:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the revamped, rebooted version of controversial blackness. And being black by at least visual standards, I guess I have to comment upon the Obama vs McCain issue. And after my long hibernation, I arose from my cave to find that today's most pressing news to report is that McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns. He'll have to get back to us.

And this is news WHY? Does it infer that McCain is too rich? I mean what is the guy supposed to do? Be poor and pass up every opportunity at money just so he can seem more in touch with the American public?

You know, I know the American public. Shoot, I'm one of them. And frankly the American public just isn't worth it. Pass up money and buy a few less houses for what? Just so I'll look better?

I just don't get the point behind all this. Please enlighten me because I'm at a loss for words. These two men are arguing back and forth about who's richer. If anything that should be seen as a strength. It means that you're a smart guy that knows how to make and manage money -- something that may come in handy when trying to deal with silly little things like -- oh I don't know -- THE ECONOMY!!!

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is a big deal and the fact that every news website considers this newsworthy is just indicitive of it's true importance. But, silly me, I'm a policy guy: What policies will you implement? And which of those policies will work? And which policies do I believe will benefit the nation? That's what it's all about. And I just don't who has their heads up their asses on this one. Is it news because voters actually care about crap like this or is it news because writers like me are writing about it? What's your opinion. Sound off.

UPDATE: Newsflash! Obama apparently finds McCain's numerical amnesia concerning his real estate investments noteworthy also. Not only that, he's resorted cheesy sound- bite tactics and outright stupidity.

Cheesy sound-bite tactics?

"Campaigning in Chester, Va., Obama said [of McCain] 'I guess if you think being rich means you've got to make $5 million and if you don't know how many houses you have, it's not surprising you might think the economy is fundamentally strong.'"

He was apparently using the following series of events and comments as a source: "McCain was asked to define the word 'rich' and to give a figure. After promoting his tax policies, McCain said: 'I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?' The audience laughed, and he added: 'But seriously, I don't think you can — I don't think seriously that — the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously — and I'm sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.'"

In these comments it would seem the McCain was joking about the 5 million figure. Maybe Obama was joking, too, but it's hard to tell through writing.

And the outright stupidity?

"Obama's campaign asked volunteers to guess how many houses McCain owns, a contest dubbed, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire: McCain Edition."

Webster and the N-Word. (Classic)

2007-08-23T22:00:00.000-07:00

Webster dictionary recently added several words to its knowledge base, but I regret not throwing into the hat of candidates the word "nigga". It is a word distinctly unique from its predecessor and yet blockheads insist on giving it the exact same infamy.

Nigger.

Nigga.

The former enslaved human beings, raped women, stripped away preordained rights, and dragged a man through the streets because of his skin color. The latter establishes a subtle bond between friends and accentuates otherwise bland language.

In high school, we used to do this thing where you figured out the meaning of the word by reading the words around it. It's called context clues. You remember that don't you? It's on all the SAT tests. I can't help it if some of you failed context clue training. But let me help you out a little bit. If someone says, "How are you doing my nigga?" then chances are they mean no harm. If someone says, "Lets hang that nigger!" then, if you're black, you and him are not
meant to be friends.

People say, "Oh it's the same word. You're denegrating your race either way. There's NO difference." But I say, there is a differece. One has an "er" the other has an "a". And though that may seem trite to some, it makes all the difference in the world...

For instance, Bert is that anal, bordeline-gay puppet from Sesame Street.

A bat is an instrument sometimes used to hit baseballs, but most times used to bash people's brains in. (Steroids is used more for the former).

See the difference?

If someone says "Wait. Let me go get my Bert," sit down, because you're going to see a puppet show. If someone says, "Wait. Let me go get my bat," run, because neither one of you play baseball and you just remembered you owe that nigga 27.50.

I know what it's supposed to mean. I know what it means to racists, but who gives a fart about their opinions. They also think we're monkeys and pre-genetically disposed to sinful living and chicken. When you say "black person", that's THEIR definition. I guess we can't say "black person" either, huh?

To end this discussion, I want to talk about the song Yankee Doodle Dandy. As the sometimes accurate Wikipedia states, the song was "originally sung by British military officers to mock the disheveled, disorganized colonial 'Yankees'" and, "[a]t the time, the most common meaning of the word doodle had the meaning of 'simpleton' or 'fool'.... During the Revolutionary War, the Americans embraced the song and made it their own, turning it back on those who had used it to mock them..."

You see! Rather than cry and whine about the derogatory remarks, the first Americans made the song into a battle cry. Not that I'm too big on our forefathers, but we can definately learn from this.

To semi-quote C.S. Lewis (I forget what he says EXACTLY in the book) "you may think that I'm trying to cast a spell, but there are two types of spells: those which are cast and those that must be broken." We are under the spell of over-political correctness. Dispense with this foolishness and let sleeping dogs lie. We have taken the Yankee Doodle Dandy and made it into an anthem. Celebrate.

Walking the Food Court (Classic Post)

2007-08-22T22:00:00.000-07:00

I remember a while back I was walking through the food court of the mall. All of the places had a good mix of people--Taco Bell, Subway, McDonald's. And then I got to a Popeye's Chicken and it had NOTHING BUT black people and A BUNCH OF THEM at that. I was a real life witness to a bunch of black people sitting around eating chicken!

I didn't know what to say. I mean, it's not like they were doing anything wrong. It just... looked bad. I guess what I was feeling is best expressed by Ron Simmons...

Personally, I like chicken in the edible sense of the word, but I definitely don't love it. What I LOVE is orange juice. And as far as fast food goes, I'd rather have pizza or a burger before chicken. The only reason I do eat chicken is for variety.

Watermelon is the worst fruit in the world in my humble opinion second only to coconut. Spitting out all those seeds---that's too much work. Just like crayfish, pealing all that skin off. If anything, when it comes to food, I guess I have the black man's stereotypical laziness.

David Chappell says that blacks prefer grape drink over grape juice-- that juice is nowhere in our vocabulary. Kool-Aid and drink: that's all we're supposedly concerned about. But MY refrigerator is FILLED with juice. One hundred percent JUICE (says the label, but if you look a little closer, you'll see it's from concentrate. So maybe it IS closer to Kool-Aid).

But probably the reason why I don't like these things that much is because they're guilty by association. These foods have negative baggage attached. Every time I take a bit out of a drumstick, I can't help but hear David Chappell's hypothetical white guy watching in the background and saying to his wife, "Look at him honey. He LOVES the stuff." So maybe my socio-allergic reaction is psychosomatic. That's a personal issue though. I'm not suggesting you stop eating these foods in some misdirected boycott of sorts. I'm just saying this to highlight behavior even MORE stupid than mine.

Think about it.

What happens if a black person offers you chicken and you decline? What will they say?--- "You're not black!" (as if declining chicken and Kool-Aid were some kind of denial of your heritage). You see, they've set up all these invisible rules of what "being black" requires. You have to talk a certain way. Walk a certain way. Act a certain way. Dress a certain way. Think a certain way. Vote a certain way. A black man can be praised as a god for being a slut and secretly condemned as a traitor for wearing a cowboy hat.

Bottom line is that blacks who engage in belittling people for breaking away from stereotypes need to do a little self-examination. What would THEY do if a white person came up to them claiming that chicken-eating was a requirement for blackness? Would they say, "hey, you're right, boss!" and start tap dancing? Or be offended?
The answer is obvious.

If you want to read a better written blog about this subject check out this one on Racialicious: A Quick Reflection on Being "Black". It's a real gem.