Too Little, Too Late: Why We are Way Behind on the Too $hort Debate

by Ewuare X. Osayande

On February 17, 2012 it was reported that the publisher of XXL magazine has decided to “suspend” unnamed staff members after a number of groups have called for the magazine’s editor to be fired for publishing a video interview of rap artist Too $hort (Todd Shaw) in which he gives “fatherly advise” to middle-school boys about how to “turn little girls out.”

In said video Too $hort, whose entire career has consisted of producing rap songs that are predicated upon the sexual objectification of girls and women, is recorded giving vivid instructions to middle-school-aged boys about how to “take it to the hole” and digitally stimulate young girls by “pushing her up against the wall” and “stick your finger in her underwear.” Within a few days, both Shaw and XXL editor Vanessa Satten offered apologies. In his sorry excuse of an apology, Shaw excused himself by stating that he was in “Too $hort mode.” Satten, for her part, stated that she does not “see all content before it goes live.”

Not only are the apologies hollow but the campaign to get the editor fired is a misfire; it is short-sighted at best and reactionary at worst. She is not the sole responsible party for this. We are talking about XXL, a magazine whose pages are lined with near-pornographic depictions of and expressions about women every issue since it hit the market back in 1997. The magazine’s tagline, “Hip-hop on a higher level,” certainly is not referring to cultural enlightenment or social advancement of any kind. In allowing this interview to be published online, Satten did exactly what her predecessors have done for more than a decade. If we are to be consistent in our concern, then we should be initiating a full-on boycott of XXL and all of Harris Publications’ imprints.

If you knew the publishing history of Stanley Harris, owner of XXL, you would not be surprised by this latest concern, and you certainly would not look to him as someone with the prerequisite moral character necessary to handle this issue appropriately. Harris began his publishing career in partnership with Myron Fass. Together, they published a variety of porn and pulp magazines in the Sixties and Seventies. Such titles as Flick, Poorboy, Jaguar and Brute would often feature pictures of bound naked women with headlines about rape and necrophilia. Harris would attempt to go mainstream when he left the partnership and established Harris Publications in 1977. Today, it is responsible for such niche publications as Men’s Workout, Exercise & Health, Quilt, Revolver, Combat Handguns, Celebrity Hairstyles and Rides. XXL is not his sole entre into so-called Black culture. His stable also includes King magazine (considered the Black man’s GQ but is more comparable to Penthouse given the way Black women are regularly depicted on the magazine’s cover).

Why should we expect a publisher like Stanley Harris to have the ethics necessary to handle this situation appropriately? Appealing to him to fire his editor only works to legitimate him as it bestows upon him a moral sensibility he has not historically shown in his corporate dealings. You don’t ask the fox to keep the hens in check. You take out the fox.

But before I go any further on this, I want to take a moment to address those that see nothing wrong with $hort’s advice. I read one comment by a man who admitted that he would give the same advice to his son. For some, $hort was just telling young brothers how to pleasure a girl. In the minds of many men, a moist vagina is the ultimate sign of a girl’s or woman’s willingness to engage in sexual activity. Such thinking is brutally incorrect. Rape crisis centers are inundated with calls by women who are tormented by the fact that they experienced an orgasm while being raped. As clarified in the book Resurrection After Rape: A Guide for Transforming from Victim to Survivor, an orgasm is not proof of a woman’s approval or pleasure in cases of unwanted sex or coerced sex. An orgasm or a wet vagina is simply a biological response to stimuli. It does not equate acceptance or desire. Yet such thinking is often used by pedophiles to coerce girls into misinterpreting their bodily responses when being touched. This kind of mental manipulation and coercion is what lies at the heart of $hort’s advice. His advice is the advice of a man that does not love women or girls, but sees them as prey, as notches on his belt, as something to be conquered and controlled. The minds and bodies of girls are not playgrounds for boys or men. That is but part of a much larger message of accountability and respect that we should be sending to our sons as a community.

For girls, the issue begins with challenging the way we fail to adequately educate them when they are still young. During a recent screening of “NO! The Rape Documentary,” director and producer Aishah Shahidah Simmons stated that sex education for girls is a form of self-defense that cannot be overlooked or belittled. Such an education would provide for them the mental awareness necessary not to get tricked by men or boys or be misled by their own bodily responses.

We have much work to do on this issue. Just this past weekend at the Grammy award show singer Chris Brown, who remains under supervised probation for the 2009 beating of then-girlfriend and fellow celebrity artist Rihanna, performed and won the award for Best R&B Album. During his performance, hundreds of girls and women tweeted some form of the message “Chris Brown Can Beat Me.” Such a response is a sign of a kind of female self-hatred and internalized sexism that is nothing to joke about or belittle. It is a response that finds its origin all too often in the halls of middle schools all across this country where little girls are pushed up against walls and coerced into sexual acts only to be told they wanted it, liked it, and/or caused it and are threatened to silence and left to suffer the psychological trauma.

Problem is that we, as a community, have given a pass to an entire recording and publishing industry that has socialized us to accept a culture named “Black” that demeans us, sexually exploits us and despoils our youth. That acceptance in the main presents a much larger problem for us. Our willingness to call out Too $hort’s video, but support the works of other rap artists who say as much and worse in their corporate-sponsored videos represents a contradiction that has come back to roost. This is especially true among the “hip-hoperati,” a clique of academics and hip hop journalists who have made their livelihoods celebrating hip hop as a tool of empowerment. Many of them voicing their disapproval of this Too $hort video are the very same ones who have spent their entire careers intellectually explaining away the sexist actions of rap artists and rap magazines. Seems some of us want to have our cake (or Kanye) and eat it, too. But we can’t have it both ways and keep our integrity as a community.

Fact is, the corporate conglomerate we call hip hop is the culprit. To single out Shaw and Satten, in a culture that is awash in misogyny, gives a pass to every rap artist who sits at the top of the Billboard charts on the bent-over backsides of girls and women who have been depicted in their videos in manners worse than described in this particular interview. I’m saying that what Shaw did and what Satten allowed is reprehensible and both should be taken to task. But let us not be so naïve as to think that this is sufficient. How we are handling this is akin to someone bringing a glass of water to a forest fire. This campaign should be just the beginning of a sustained attack on an industry that is sexually assaulting our girls and giving lurid and criminal advice to our boys every time a record plays on some Clear Channel station across the county.

Just this past month, the community was full of hope that the birth of Jay-Z’s baby girl would be met with him putting the B-word on eternal sabbatical. For days the social media debate was raging over this. But all the talk would go silent once Jay-Z came out and clarified that he would continue using the derogatory epithet as he saw fit. Thing is, there has been no communal outcry, no attempt to get him to apologize for all the years he has demeaned women in his lyrics.

Wonder how Jay-Z would feel the day when some random boy may approach his daughter in middle-school with the “Hova’s” “fatherly” advice booming in his prepubescent mind.

Ewuare X. Osayande (www.osayande.org) is a political activist and author of several books including Misogyny & the Emcee: Sex, Race & Hip Hop. He is founder of Onus Rites-of-Passage, a character development and cultural enrichment program for African American boys and young men that emphasizes gender equality and justice.

Let's Stay Together: Obama and the Swooning of Black Silence

Copyright 2012 by Ewuare X. Osayande

Given all the chatter about Obama’s recent appearance in Harlem, you would think he was a contestant on “Showtime at the Apollo” rather than a president running for reelection. Passing around the internet is a 90 second clip of him singing a line from Al Green’s classic song “Let’s Stay Together” during a speech at the legendary Apollo Theater. With not a word mentioned about what the man actually said, Black corporate media outlets and Black pundits have instead been raving about the president singing. And the Black community is officially swooned.

We’ve been here before. Remember when Slick Willy appeared on the Arsenio Hall Show and played the saxophone?

Is that really all it takes to win the Black vote? Evidently, it doesn’t matter where a candidate or incumbent stands on the issues as long as he or she can carry a tune. No wonder the Democratic Party has not made any real effort to respect the power of our vote. We give it up so easily. Even so, his selection of that song in particular is very telling. In an election year where Obama will need the Black vote to show up at the polls to win reelection, the song choice is most apropos. But notice Obama didn’t sing the next line: “Whatever you want to do is all right with me.” Sad part is, he doesn’t have to, hasn’t had to and doesn’t intend to do what is right by us.

Any substantial coverage of what the president actually said that night in Harlem has been drowned out by the sound of Obama’s crooning. This from a president that would not be in office were it not for the record turn-out of the Black community in 2008. Yet, since he took the oath of office, mum’s been the word when it comes to issues and concerns of dire import to the quality of life in Black America. It is a calculated silence that we are paying for with our very livelihoods.

Just a week before the president’s appearance, the national unemployment rate dropped, and this was cause for celebration. Yet, as the general unemployment rate decreased, the Black unemployment rate increased at an equal amount. If this coming election will be all about the economy, then where does that leave us, when the economy is but one of a host of issues that have so many of us without the proverbial pot to piss in? Public schools within majority Black districts sit on the verge of bankruptcy, our infant mortality rate continues to match those of so-called Third World countries, and the incarceration rate of African Americans has left our communities economically and culturally crippled. Under his watch, more African Americans have fallen out of the so-called Black middle class than ever before. Yet, not one word from the White House about us in four years.

We are told to simply be proud to have a Black family in the White House and defend him at all costs. But if the cost of electing a Black president is our collective silence, then where is the benefit when such symbolic victory doesn’t pay in dividends we can see? Pride doesn’t pay the bills or put food on the table or provide opportunity for our children. If our silence is the price of staying together, then it is high time we reevaluated this relationship.

There are those that would say that the president can’t speak on Black issues because that would cause him to lose critical support within white America. Fact is, Obama doesn’t have to speak on issues germane to the Black community in order to be tagged as Black by the Republican Party. His very Blackness is sufficient in itself. In the eyes of the white right, he is already sufficiently Black for them to raise his difference as scare tactic in their thinly veiled racially-coded script. No matter how much he panders to the white right, he will never get cross-over appeal or win the votes of those that didn’t vote for him in 2008.

While he keeps silent when it comes to us and we keep silent when it comes to him, the Republicans have been anything but silent about how they view us or him. They have thrown every vile and racist quip at him to see what will stick. In the eyes of their conservative constituents, he will always be Barack Hussein Obama, that “Muslim” “Socialist” “Food-Stamp” “who really isn’t an American” president that they would love to see assassinated but will rally to defeat at the polls if only to save face. It is this kind of racist diatribe that will find us at the voting booth throwing our considerable political weight behind the first Black president once again, only to be ignored for another four years.

This year is the 40th anniversary of The National Black Political Convention. Held in Gary, IN, it was an unprecedented political event that brought delegates from all corners of the continental United States to debate the issues of the day and create what would be called The Black Agenda. In part the convention sought to determine what direction the Black community should take toward political empowerment. The path we have meandered down finds us today at a political dead end. 40 years later, we are even more disempowered and politically inept then we were back then. So much so, that just last year our first Black president stood up in front of the Congressional Black Caucus and told us to stop whining and complaining, fall in line and follow him. Lacking a political agenda we have become his political lackeys.

Seems our greatest mistake has been equating the act of electing one of our own with political empowerment, when our empowerment lies in our ability to hold those elected accountable to an agenda we have designed. Until we do that, we will continue to be exploited by politicians who come into our community and give us nothing more than a song and a dance.

Malcolm X called us out in 1964 in his speech “The Ballot or the Bullet”. He was talking about the Johnson administration then, but he could have easily been talking about our relationship to Obama today.

“The Democrats have been in Washington D.C. only because of the Negro vote. They've been down there four years, and all other legislation they wanted to bring up they brought it up and gotten it out of the way, and now they bring up you. And now, they bring up you. You put them first, and they put you last, 'cause you're a chump, a political chump.”

I think Malcolm would agree that we don’t need politicians who will come into our community singing when we need them to go out and do some “swinging” on our behalf. But in order for that to happen, we must first stop being “political chumps”.

Ewuare X. Osayande is a political activist, poet and author of several books including his latest Whose America?. He is founder of The People's Alliance for Justice Now! and teaches African American Studies at Rutgers University in Camden, NJ. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

the passion of the phoenix

a fury of leaves
burst aflame
falling
like asteroids crashing to the earth
embers of amber crackling on the ground
branches laid bare

the phoenix consumes itself
in this perennial passion
smoldering into a compost crypt.

The Fierce Urgency of Now: The Struggle for Racial Justice Forty Years After King

(Keynote speech delivered at Lehigh University, January 23, 2008)

On April 4, 1967 The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave what was his most controversial speech, “A Time to Break Silence,” his denouncement of the US war against Vietnam. Exactly one year later he would be assassinated.

In that speech King spoke about three forces of oppression he identified as the “giant triplets of racism, militarism and materialism.” As we gather together to honor the man and the movement he gave his life for, let us not only reflect on the eloquence of his words, but let us reflect on the relevance of his words for our time and be moved to action. For today we can still see the giant triplets of racism, militarism and materialism. These three forces work together like some monstrous hydra wreaking havoc on the poor of this nation who are disproportionately people of color, particularly African American as well as people of color around the world.

Now there may be some who would rise up and resist such an assessment stating that racism is no longer an issue. These folk would point us to the progress that has been made in this country as it relates to the treatment of African Americans in our society. Most recently many have wondered aloud if racism is history given the willingness of many white people to consider voting for a Black man for president. A white person’s willingness to vote for a Black person may point to a stage in their own personal progress on racism, but racism is greater than an individual or a group of people’s beliefs about one Black person. To think that racism can be voted away belittles the role that racism plays in American life and also belittles those oppressed by it.

The fact is that despite all apparent progress, we are witnessing the erosion of civil rights for Black and Brown people in this nation. Everyone would readily acknowledge that education is the foundation for any people’s successful progress and development. Yet in this nation, the promise of education has been kept at arm’s length for many African American and Latino American children in this country, especially those living in the urban and rural regions of this country.

The discussion of public education is riddled through with rhetoric, much of it worth no more than the hot air its words ride on. The Supreme Court decision of 1954, that ruled that segregated public schools were unconstitutional, failed to give adequate timelines on remedying the problem. They stated, “with all deliberate speed,” and some 54 years later, we continue to wait for the promise of integration to be realized.

America remains a nation divided. And the fault line remains the color line.

Our children are failing in public schools that look eerily similar to the segregated schools that were the subjects of the 1954 Supreme Court case. Dilapidated buildings, out-dated text-books, and we wonder why the drop-out rate is so high. Why, I am amazed that they come to school at all!

Our children fail to achieve not because of lack of parental involvement, but lack of books, computers and other adequate resources. It’s not because of disinterested or lazy students who fail to pass culturally biased exams, but disinterested and lazy legislators who fail to pass laws that would redistribute public school dollars; not because of poor teachers, but a poorly funded system in need of the money that is due us. We don’t need more finger-pointing. What we need is equal funding!

This refusal to ensure that poor African American children receive the same quality education that their predominantly white suburban peers receive speaks to the larger issue at hand. The specter of racism not only remains real, it is experiencing a resurgence. Just this past summer the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional the practice of bussing students of color to predominantly white schools for the purpose of insuring an integrated school system. This ruling is a reflection of the nation’s willingness to turn its back on the promise of integration that was mandated in 1954.

With this ruling, America is stating that it is more expedient to keep alive the vestiges of segregation than get to the business of doing the hard work of eradicating institutional racism. Everybody knows that public schools in predominantly white neighborhoods are better staffed, better funded and better resourced. Yet this country remains unwilling to either integrate the schools or provide equal funding for the schools. This unwillingness has set the course for another generation of African American and Latino youth stuck in the vice grip of history. The result is a nation as divided as ever. The haves and the have-nots, where the majority of the wealthy in this nation remain white and the majority of the poor remain disproportionately not white.

Again, rather than address the racism that is inherent in such a reality, the power-brokers have decided to blame those that have been victimized by their policies or lack thereof. Tell me, how is a child supposed to compete when they sit in a classroom where they are lucky if they have an up to date textbook against a child with a laptop computer that is able to get access to the latest information at the touch of a button? It is the stone-age against the information age. There is no way they can win, let alone compete.

It is this collective American unwillingness that is withering away all hope within the hearts of the children that roam the concrete streets of the inner-cities to the backwoods of America’s country-sides. Dr. King had this in mind when he wrote in 1968 that, “Justice for black people will not flow into society merely from court decisions nor from fountains of political oratory. Nor will a few token changes quell all the tempestuous yearnings of millions of disadvantaged black people. White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society. The comfortable, the entrenched, the privileged cannot continue to tremble at the prospect of change in the status quo.”

This is the lesson that America still must learn. The power of that lesson is no greater seen than in the human tragedy turned political travesty that is Katrina. Even today, a full 2 years and 5 months since Hurricane Katrina ravished the Gulf Coast and left thousands of Americans dead and still tens of thousands more homeless and helpless.

The social chaos left in the wake of Katrina is the haunting omen of King’s Poor People’s Campaign. If only this nation would have considered King’s movement rather than have him removed, we would not have thousands upon thousands of poor displaced Americans roaming this country locked in multi-generational misery. King himself declared, “We must develop a program that will drive the nation to a guaranteed annual income. … We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands, it does not eliminate all poverty.”

King understood that this economic system is not set up to eliminate poverty. In fact, it functions to produce poverty. The waste produced by the gross pursuit for profit is the ever-perpetuating problem of poverty. And rather than eliminate or reduce that waste, America has decided to simply throw it away.

America is choosing to throw away the poor. We see it in New Orleans where Katrina survivors petitioned and then protested the city government for their right to return and were turned away, beaten and arrested. Just like their Civil Rights predecessors that were beaten at the Edmund Pettis Bridge in 1965. America’s response to those of us who are Black, Brown and poor has not fundamentally changed.

More and more this nation’s final solution for the poor is the prisons. Rather than guarantee them access to a quality education commensurate with that which their white suburban peers receive, rather than guarantee them the right to work for a liveable wage, the only guarantee this nation seems willing to give the poor is the guarantee of a life of misery, victimization and the promise of imprisonment or premature death.

Today there are upwards of three million people locked down in America’s prisons. They are, in effect, fodder for a new economy that is eerily reminiscent of an older economy. The legislative loophole left by the 13th Amendment enables the prison to serve as the new plantation wherein the prisoner like the slave has no rights that the system is bound to respect. Many of these prisons are private corporations that reap tremendous profits from the exploited labor of the poor who are paid wages less than the minimum allowed by law, i.e. “slave wages.”

This reality is the logical consequence of a society with an abhorrent history as this nation’s as it relates to the question of Black America and the exploitation of labor. We must have a new understanding of poverty, its origins, the reasons for its existence and preponderance within our society. We must move from the space of surface analysis to a deep-rooted resistance to the exploitation of the poor. This was the message of King’s final mission: The Poor People’s Campaign.

King stated, “A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.”

King’s analysis did not stop there. He continued to extend his analysis to the relationship between racism and imperialism. He exposed and soundly criticized the hypocrisy of a nation that preaches peace and sells war, that counsels other nations on human rights even as it dismisses the rights of thousands and imprisons them at Guantanamo Bay, that proclaims democracy even as it denies rights to its own citizens, that calls itself a safe-haven for “the poor, huddled masses of the world, yearning to be free,” even as it criminalizes immigrants of color and sets up barriers of hostility to keep them out.

King responded to this hypocrisy by reminding us that, “Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism and militarism … A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to [humanity] as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.”

This is the vision we all must embrace. Do we have the courage to view our world through the lens King provides? This is the challenge of our time. This is the choice we all must make. Social change does not require a particular gender identification, racial classification or sexual orientation. What it does require is an undying commitment to embody the revolutionary idea of justice for all. The Civil Rights Movement is the perfect example of this. We celebrate King, as we should. But King did not do it alone. He was a significant part of a significant whole. And if we fail to acknowledge these other activists, we run the risk of sending the wrong message as to who can best bring about the change we need in this world.

The fact is that the very man responsible for the movement’s embrace of non-violent direct action was not King, but a Black gay man by the name of Bayard Rustin, who at the time of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 had already given 15 years of service to the cause of Black freedom struggle.

A native of Pennsylvania, Rustin was principally responsible for the creation of SCLC, the Southern Christian Leadership Council that King would represent. He was also the architect and organizer of the March on Washington in August 1963. Were it not for him, America would have never been challenged by King’s brave, brilliant speech on that historic day.

Yet even Rustin was not alone in the creation and organization of the movement. He had a capable partner in the likes of Ella Baker. Baker too was a long-time activist in the field of Black freedom struggle. Not only did she aid in the establishment of SCLC, she would be the organization’s first director. A Black woman holding court in an organization composed of Black male clergy. This was unprecedented. This accomplishment alone would be enough to praise her. But it was only the beginning. She would go on to create the organization known as SNCC, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee that would be the bridge between the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements in the late Sixties. It was her strategic genius that would insure that the struggle would go on. James Forman, the executive secretary of SNCC, once observed that, “there were many people who knew the light that was SNCC without ever knowing the spark that was Ella Baker.”

And so as we conclude, let us know and remember Ella Baker and Bayard Rustin, and not just them but all of the activists who lived their lives in pursuit of a greater truth. A pursuit that has been bequeathed to us.

These persons’ lives and others like them best illustrate the fact that each of us has within us the spark of revolutionary change. That leadership is not the purview of any particular group, but each of us has the potential, no – the responsibility to act in the best interests of humanity and the world in which we live in our quest to make of this world a more just and humane place for all life within it. This is our task. This is our challenge.

So let us take it up and not worry over what tomorrow will bring. For as King reminds us: “We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. … We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace … and justice throughout the … world. … Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter – but beautiful – struggle for a new world. … The choice is ours to make.”

We must push past the privilege of our own indecision to action. We must wake up from the slumber of our collective apathy and believe again that a new world is not only possible but a necessity, and if it is to come, it can only come through us.

And all the guidance we need has already been provided by a small group of Black folk huddled together in a small church basement united in their collective will to be free. They were sick and tired of being sick and tired and were ready to move. They braved the terrorism of burning crosses, nooses and four-legged dogs and two-legged rabid racists brandishing rifles. They feared no one save their God and with that conviction they marched out of that church and changed the course of history.

For more information on Osayande and his work, visit his website at Osayande.org and follow him on Facebook: Ewuare Xola Osayande.

Spirit Singed

for Gil Scott-Heron
(April 1, 1949 – May 27, 2011)

by Ewuare X. Osayande

why do we have to die

like this?

why?

do we have to live

like this?
when this ain’t living
the earth’s wretched
stuck in the muck and the mire
still the last hired and first fired
from “Washington DC” to “Johannesburg”
birthed into “Get Out The Ghetto Blues”
but even when we move
the oppression remains
cuz “Home is Where the Hatred Is”

we in pain
we in pain
like the pain we saw in his face
sucked dry
our pied piper hit the pipe
but he never lied
never tried to hide the hurt
never tried to glamorize our sorrow
no
this bluesologist
poured it into his song
and tapped the keys on the boards of our hearts
trying to resuscitate himself
trying to warn us
when he said “New York Is Killing Me”
but we was too busy surviving to see
that we too are dying
being stewed in the crack pot of America’s rot gut
cuz no matter how hot it gets
its always “Winter in America”
life here be cold as snow and hard as ice
cuz most of us still not willing to pay the price
to change the season

could this be the reason why
him wrote “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”
when we still mesmerized
by the lights and cameras of inaction
sit on our asses
waiting for the fire next time
to come in some phony nickel-and-dime rhyme
brought to you by Columbia Records, BMG or Sony
whose artists only bark when told to speak
who reek from the noxious fumes
from the butt-crack of the upper class
that gets passed off as the funk

and we can’t have any real talk
cuz when the truth hits too close to home
we been trained to
just change the channel

forgot that we supposed to be
channeling the “Spirits” of those that came before
who knew what we supposed to be fighting for
and this here be the reason why
some poets become prophets ready to die
cuz those with ears to hear
too hooked on chronic
to decipher the phonics that would set us free

so truth-tellers who were hip before hop
be left ass-out
moving targets for CIA-FBI operatives
COINTELPRO-type tactics

and this be as tragic as
those that now would turn his songs into music trivia
and play
“I can name that tune in five notes” type nonsense

while his words lie in state
on the corner of 125th and Malcolm X

where I stand and keep vigil
always on the ready
taking notes of the “Small Talk” that still is heard
as your truth still burns in the embers of my mind

I hear you Gil Scott-Heron
like the bird heron
ancient Egyptian phoenix
whose words are wings to raise our consciousness
spirit singed
black sage
born again in the fire of Malcolm’s everlasting rage

your spirit is our spirit is mine
a willing vessel to carry your “Message to the Messengers”
paying homage with each breath
cause I am always yearning
for something deeper than the ying yang
I keep hearing on the radio

so I study your verses like scripture
necessary meditation so my spirit stays vexed
and keep this candle-wick called my soul
lit
to spark the Molotov cocktail
in the mind of
whoever got next.

Ewuare X. Osayande is a political activist and author of several books including his forthcoming collection of poems entitled Whose America?. He lives in Philly, PA where he is director of POWER (People Organized Working to Eradicate Racism).

When Consciousness Ain’t Common: Calling Out Karl Rove’s Contradiction and Ours Too

Copyright 2011 by Ewuare X. Osayande

After an appearance at a recent poetry event at the White House, the rap artist known as Common was called out by Republican strategist Karl Rove as a misogynist and thug. This was a broad and mean-spirited swipe against a Black president and the Black community in general. Republicans have been doing everything in their power to link Obama with the Black community to isolate him from “middle America.” This is but the latest attack.

A misogynist is someone who hates women. Common, a popular commercial rap artist, is considered one of rap music’s most conscious and gifted lyricists, which really isn’t saying much when you consider the current crop of so-called emcees repping the mic these days.

Most of the reactions I have heard and read on this have been an all-out defense of Common as rap music’s true conscious artist. He’s been honored by just about every respectable Negro in the country. Even Oprah (who on more than one occasion has spoken of her disdain for rap’s treatment of women) has even showered him with compliments when he appeared on her show in 2007. Now if that was the Common Rove had in mind when he criticized the White House for inviting him to perform, then maybe it would be an open and shut case of a white conservative seeking to unjustly malign or mischaracterize another brother holding it down. But if one were to be honest and look at Common’s more recent work, one would have to pause and reconsider their defense or we’ll have to come up with a new definition of conscious.

Not only has Common had many of his songs produced by fellow artists whose work is awash in misogyny, he, himself, has been known to take a swig or two of the pimp juice. Consider his appearance on Kid Cudi’s 2009 track “Make Her Say.” Cudi, Kanye West and Common toyingly appropriate Lady Gaga’s voice singing “Pokerface. In the track it comes off as though she is saying Poke Her Face. The song is a troubling phallic tribute that revels in the triumph of male domination. Common covers a lot of ideological ground in a few short lines when he says, “She blamed it on the al-a-a-al-a-alcohol/she had her hair did, it was bound to fall/ down down for the damn, Cudi already said it/her poker facebook, I’d already read it/but man her head was gooder than the music/electro body known to blow fuses/a stripper from the south/ looking for a payday/said bitch you should do it for the love like Ray J/but they say you be on the conscious tip/get your head right and get up on this conscious dick/I embody everything from the godly to the party/it’s the way I was raised on the Southside safari/so.” Common’s verse is particularly troubling in that he takes a verbal swing at those who have held him up as the bastion of conscious rap. His verse not only affirms the hatred of women that has come to be the mainstay of hip hop, he also disses those who claim him to be conscious. His posturing at the conclusion of his verse with “so” is a direct challenge to any who would take issue with him as if to say “I don’t give a f*ck what ya’ll say or think about me.” So much for conscious rap.

For those that would rise up and recite all the so-called conscious lyrics Common has ever wrote in his defense, I will reply with just one stanza from his song “I Used to Love H.E.R.” “I failed to mention that the chick was creative/But once the man got to her, he altered the native/Told her if she got an image and a gimmick/That she could make money/And she did it, like a dummy/Now I see her in commercials, she’s universal.” Forget that his personification of hip hop as “she” is problematic given that hip hop has always been a male dominant reality, who is the “she” he is referring to now but himself?

Those that would continue to try and claim Common as conscious even after he has distanced himself from the term and the accountability that comes with it are just as much a contradiction as he is. Rather than fight over whether this rapper or that rapper is more sexist than the next, we should be fighting to wrest control of our culture from the clutches of corporate America that truly dictates the levels of male domination these rap artists promote in their music. To do so would effectively liberate the Commons of the rap world to be able to offer up a true consciousness; one that is rooted in an acknowledgement of Black women’s equality in word and deed. To not do so continues to render us culturally vulnerable as a community. Our moral defenses have been compromised which has left us open wide to attack from those that have a vested interest in our people’s oppression.

The reality is that the whole of hip hop is controlled by a recording industry that manufactures misogyny as a means to profit. To attack the rap artist alone, then, is to strike out at what is the most visible party operating on the lowest stratum of a system that reaches the upper echelons of international media conglomerates and commercial syndicates. It is akin to when conservatives get tough on the dealers on the corner rather go after the drug kingpins.

In the rap world, the kingpins are not the new jack rappers calling themselves “King” or “Pin” but the CEOs who control what gets seen and heard, whose signatures set the tone and tenor for a culture that no longer belongs to the people who believe it is an authentic representation of who they are. For Karl Rove to call out these CEOs would mean he’d be calling out many of his homeboys. His failure to do so is a calculated power move. In one statement, he was able to attack the first Black president and Black people in general, reinforce the stereotype of the Black man as a violent sexual predator and, in the process, protect the most powerful perpetrators of misogyny in this country.

This year alone, we have witnessed and are witnessing an all-out right-wing assault on the rights of women by political thugs and senatorial sexists. These laws will have a devastating impact on the lived reality of women in this country, especially poor women of color. These laws are not made by miseducated young Black men from the inner city, but by multi-degreed wealthy white men whose deep pockets have been lined by corporate billionaires.

Karl Rove has the dubious distinction of being known as “Bush’s Brain,” a title that leaves much to the imagination given that some might argue that we are still without scientific evidence that the man actually has one. As “Bush’s Brain,” Rove was central in helping to plan and execute then President Bush’s unprecedented assault on the rights of women. It was during the Bush administration that the current fight over abortion began again in the country. Bush was responsible for stacking the Supreme Court deck with justices that would oppose women on every legislative front. In fact, Bush would replace the nation’s first female Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, with a man whose track record on women’s rights can only be described as misogynistic. Samuel Alito has been at the forefront of a concerted right-wing assault on the civil and human rights of women in the United States.

While still a judge on the Third Circuit, Alito, in the majority opinion, ruled that Congress did not have to require states to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act. When this case reached a Supreme Court on which O’Connor still presided, the court overturned the Third Circuit. Imagine what might have happened had Alito been on the bench in O’Connor’s stead then. In 1991, while an attorney with the Justice Department, Alito scribed a memo that laid out his agenda for reversing Roe v. Wade. In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Alito opposed a woman’s right to a jury trial in cases of discrimination and sexual harassment. In 1994, Alito defended an unwarranted police strip search of a 10-year old girl and her mother in Doe v. Groody. In 1992, Alito opined in his dissent that a woman should first gain the consent of her husband before obtaining a legal abortion. He dismissed evidence that such a requirement could lead to domestic abuse and violence. Such a position ran in the face of then Justice O’Connors’ leading Supreme Court opinion when she wrote that, “A State may not give to man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.” In case after case, Alito has proven himself time and time again to be a woman-hater. Legislatively speaking, Alito can be best described a serial rapist given his unrelenting drive to violate the constitutional rights of women in our society. A misogynist rap artist would get all the material he’d ever need by just reading Alito’s opinions.

In comparison to the lyrics of Common or any rapper for that matter, Justice Alito’s words are certainly more thuggish to women. Yes, Common may wield some public influence as a pop star, but Alito actually dictates public policy and directly impacts what women can and cannot do in this country. For Rove to attack Common in light of his support of someone like an Alito is beyond contradictory, it is downright sexist itself.

If Common can’t enter the White House because he’s a “misogynist thug,” then every Republican in office since the Bush regime should be banned from the White House gates and that would include Karl Rove too.

Ewuare X. Osayande (www.osayande.org) is a political activist and author of several books including Misogyny & the Emcee: Sex, Race & Hip Hop. Follow his work at Facebook.

Word to the Wise: Unpacking the White Privilege of Tim Wise

by Ewuare X. Osayande

“My friends, I have come to tell you something about slavery – what I know of it, as I have felt it. When I came North, I was astonished to find that the abolitionists knew so much about it, that they were acquainted with its effects as well as if they had lived in its midst. But though they can give you its history – though they can depict its horrors, they cannot speak as I can from experience …”
Frederick Douglass, 1841

In the past decade or so, we have witnessed the rise of critical race studies, even something called Whiteness Studies. With the rise of Whiteness Studies on college campuses across the country has come the resurgence of whites as so-called experts on all matters pertaining to race. Among the most popular of them is the anti-racist speaker Tim Wise, who has become a regular presence on the college lecture circuit as well as in the media in the past few years. He has even been deemed the leader of the anti-racist movement by some of these very media outlets.

As Black liberationist, abolitionist, anti-racist and social justice activists, we would be wise to use this moment to ask some critical questions of ourselves and the state of the movement for racial justice in the U.S. We are thus compelled to critically engage Tim Wise and what his apparent popularity represents both in symbol and substance. In so doing, we confront the two fundamental issues in this work of eradicating racism: internalized oppression and white privilege.

Wise’s popularity among liberal whites is not that surprising to me. What is surprising is the level of popularity he’s gained within segments of the Black community. Some have even gone as far as to view him as some kind of Great White Hope. What is most curious about this apparent Black fascination with Wise is that when I hear certain Black people and other people of color refer to him, they talk about him in the same way they would talk about the first time they saw a white guy dance, rap or dunk a basketball. By internalizing the stereotypes of Blackness as defined by the white racist imagination, we have, in turn, embraced a codified image of Blackness. Thus, when we see white people cross the race-tracks and engage in behavior that has been deemed “Black,” we react with a kind of cultural “shock and awe.” In the case of Wise it is a little more complicated than that. Wise isn’t being acknowledged for his ability to sing or dance “like a Black person” but for his willingness to cross the tracks of race discourse and out whiteness – the ultimate racial taboo.

There is this sense among some of us that because he speaks against racism, he must be all right. And as such, he has garnered the coveted “ghetto pass,” a symbolic gesture given to those whites considered “down” with Black people. But we have seen what happens when whites feel they are “in like Flynn” with our people; they get right racist and condescending (remember Bill Clinton during the 2008 Presidential campaign?). In effect, they become even whiter. Therefore, let us insure that Wise’s “pass” doesn’t enable him to bypass critical inquiry that could benefit the movement and, maybe, even Wise himself.

What this fascination fails to take into consideration is the fact that white people have been speaking out against racial oppression since the first slave ships docked in the colony of Virginia. We should be past such elementary appreciation. When we fail to hold whites who proclaim an anti-racist stance to a higher standard, all we end up with are whites talking about how bad racism is. Mouthing off against racism is not going to end racism, no matter how loud and boisterous the bombast becomes. We have to get beyond this almost worship-like praise for what, in the end, are but baby steps in the long march against white supremacy.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not have a problem with white people speaking out against racism or Black people acknowledging white people working against racism. But when that acknowledgment precludes or is prioritized over and beyond our acknowledgment of ourselves, then we have a problem. That problem is called internalized oppression, a symptom of the very system we are working to defeat. Therefore, Black people giving uncritical praise or consideration to our white allies actually works toward our continued oppression. Remember how some of our people who were blinded by whiteness used to say: “The white man’s ice is colder”? Well, it seems these days that that same internalized oppression is at play in some who believe that the white man’s anti-racist analysis is more accurate than our own.

When I ask such persons what makes Wise’s commentaries so unique or revolutionary, they become quiet. For in truth, there is nothing new in Wise’s analysis. If anything, it is an analysis born of the blood struggle for Black liberation and racial justice throughout American history. Our ancestors may not have used terms like “white privilege.” Instead, they just called it what it was and is: white supremacy. (Imagine a white anti-racist saying, “I’m going to use my white supremacy to help people of color.”) Nonetheless, white privilege has become the watch-word of the movement. Yet, for the most part, it has been used as a means for white anti-racists to point the finger at “those” whites or navel gaze and wallow in a guilt that doesn’t produce results. Overall, it has the tendency to takes us away from addressing the real issue head on – whiteness itself and the ideology of white supremacy that gives whiteness whatever power and meaning it currently holds.

In the case of Tim Wise and other leading white anti-racists, we can accurately pin-point the state of the anti-racist movement by unpacking the white privileges they, themselves, hold and benefit from.

The first of these white privileges is one I have already addressed: The ability to paraphrase and/or otherwise exploit the analysis of Black liberation struggle and have it received by others as though it were their own. In the past decade or so, there has grown a cottage industry of books written by white people talking about their whiteness and their awareness of racism. When these white authors fail to acknowledge the debt they owe to the blood struggle of people of color in this country as they often do, they practice a form of racism that keeps that history erased from the consciousness of this country. This enables the white establishment to bypass Black people and hold up their own as authorities on the race question.

Another white privilege Tim Wise and other white anti-racists carry is the ability to emotionally express their views about racism without having that expression dismissed as “angry” or “too emotional”. When Wise speaks passionately and fervently about racism, his expression is understood as a sign of a person standing up for what he believes. As such, it is championed even when he is derisive or sardonic in his remarks. When we, people of color activists, speak passionately about racism, we are maligned and ridiculed as being angry, militant, even hateful and dangerous. If we wish to be heard (let alone understood), we are expected to speak calmly and politely about our experience and analysis regarding racism. Otherwise we are demonized. White moral indignation is justified. Black moral indignation is vilified. This has long been the case.

The third white privilege that Tim Wise and other so-called white anti-racists enjoy is the privilege of being honored for their anti-racist work as their Black activist counterparts and other activists of color are denounced and derided. Case in point: Several years back I spoke at a school in Massachusetts for their annual Dr. King Day commemoration. As I spoke about King’s legacy and the ongoing struggle for racial justice, I was met with outright hostility from the students gathered in the auditorium. The following year I would be contacted by an Arab faculty member at the school. She would inform me that for that year’s King Day event, the school decided to invite Tim Wise to address the student body. She went on to inform me that Wise was received with profound admiration by the very same students that heckled me the year before. Isolated incident? Chance circumstance? To my knowledge, similar events like this have at occurred on two more occasions since.

On one of the other occasions, I was contacted by a Black student organization that had to petition a reluctant administration to gain the necessary approval to invite me to speak. Just one semester following my presentation they would inform me that Tim Wise had just spoken at their school, where he received the red carpet of administrative respect and welcome. When this occurred at a third school, a Vietnamese student emailed me and rhetorically but sincerely asked, “Isn’t this what Tim Wise is supposed to be against?”. In all three cases, persons and groups that reached out to me expressed a level of frustration at witnessing the hypocrisy of the institutions they were working at or attending.

Let me make it clear here that I am not airing this to complain about my personal experiences. I do it because I know that I am not the only one who is experiencing this kind of racism. I am also addressing it here because in one of the cases I’ve mentioned, it actually worked to undermine the efforts of students who had organized to hold their university accountable. Over a four-year period, I worked diligently with these students and their allies. During this time of dedicated training, they all became adept anti-racist activists. They were a small but formidable band of students ready and prepared to take the university to task on its stated and unstated policies toward students, faculty and staff of color. The very year they planned to confront the university administration with their agenda, word got back to some key university officials. And in true duck and cover fashion, the administration brought in Wise with much publicity to avoid addressing the students and their demands. The entire campus turned out and the university was able to present itself as champions of diversity. Thus, when the students brought forward their demands, the university was able to side-step them by claiming that they were on top of it given their experience with Wise. Of course they were lying, but the students no longer had leverage as the campus community felt that they had done enough by bringing Tim Wise to speak.

This is just one example of the ways that white anti-racists who are not in accountable relationships with activists of color can be used to work against the best interests of people of color, whether knowingly or not.

One of the student leaders of this effort would later ask me if I’d be willing to debate Wise. I informed her that I would welcome the opportunity to engage in a constructive conversation with Wise on the state, purpose and direction of anti-racist struggle. The problem with that is that Wise only debates individuals with views more conservative than his own. This way he can continue to promote himself as the most radical anti-racist voice on the scene when he is not – not even among whites. [Noel Ignatiev has called for the outright abolition of whiteness in the face of other whites’ calls for what essentially amount to a kinder, gentler whiteness. By so doing, Ignatiev is taking up the challenge to expose whiteness as a form of status within the capitalist system rather than as a biological or cultural reality, which is how it continues to get passed off as – even within certain so-called anti-racist circles. Such an assertion takes it cue from an observation James Baldwin made many moons ago: “As long as you think you’re white, there’s no hope for you.” If such an end were the aim of the movement, so-called white anti-racists could no longer go around claiming to want to use their white privilege for the good of the movement. Such a claim would be recognized as the nonsense it is.] Like Eminem in “8 Mile” taking on the Black rapper from the suburbs in his effort to establish his street cred and carry the “Blacker than thou” mantle, it seems that Wise takes on conservative intellectuals of color like Dinesh D’Sousa and Ward Connerly to prove he’s “Blacker” (more radical) than they are. That might impress some of Wise’s liberal Black bourgeois friends, but such side-show debates do nothing to bring us any closer to eradicating institutional racism.

It seems that Wise and other anti-racist whites have become higher education’s answer to people of color activists like me. As long as the dissidents are white, these schools are willing to practice the “tolerance” they claim to uphold as beacons of the liberal arts. It has even gotten to the point that nowadays it is not at all strange to see a white person giving the keynote speech for Black History Month. I honestly don’t think that is what Dr. Carter G. Woodson had in mind when he instituted the week-long celebration that would become Black History Month back in 1926. It is bad enough that February, the shortest calendar month of the year, is what Amiri Baraka calls “Black artist employment month.” Now we can’t even count on that. Like our people who are removed from the neighborhoods they grew up in as affluent whites gentrify urban communities, we find ourselves being removed from the one space our ancestors fought for on the calendar. And why is it so difficult for some of us to not see this racial switch as an attack on Black self-determination in much the same way as the current effort to dismiss Black History Month all together?

What can be deduced from these experiences is that there is clear benefit for those with white skin even in the context of anti-racist discourse. There is a distinct inequality in how we are perceived and treated by the white establishment. Despite Wise’s opposition to white supremacy and white privilege, he is a clear beneficiary of both. This is largely due to the fact that, evidently, he is not perceived as a threat to the establishment.

What does this say about Wise? What does this say about the state of the movement? What does this say about the state of racism in our society? White institutions can tolerate anti-racist discourse as long as it is spoken by somebody who looks like them. In fact, such staged discourse becomes a prime opportunity for such schools to present themselves as champions of multiculturalism and diversity even as they continue to enact policies and initiate professional and educational practices that discriminate against students, faculty and staff of color.

By definition, white privilege is not earned. Wise doesn’t have to do anything to gain access to the benefits assigned to the social construct of racialized whiteness. Even his apparent efforts to expose it have not caused the white establishment to banish him or treat him like a person of color. Given that Wise isn’t saying anything new or revolutionary in regards to how to eradicate racism, what accounts for his popularity and celebrity status and the fact that his calendar is filled with engagements for the next few years? His whiteness! The very thing he speaks against. Might this be the ultimate white privilege?

Now I am sure that there are some people reading this who might be saying, “Of course he can’t escape his privilege, we live in a racist society!” No argument here. All the more reason for him and those like him to be held accountable.

When grassroots Black activists speak honestly about racism at colleges across this country, we are not met with open arms by administrators and faculty. And most certainly our calendars are not full for the rest of the year let alone for the next three to five. When we speak, we are often met by the deaf ear of white denial. When Tim Wise speaks, he gets applause, standing ovations, awards and proclamations. The fact that schools can’t “hear” us when I and other people of color speak but will search out and roll out the red carpet for Wise is a statement to a kind of racism that doesn’t get discussed much – if at all – in our work. Despite all of the white anti-racist presentations given over the years at colleges and universities across the country, institutional racism at these schools remains intact. All the while, activists of color continue to be muffled and marginalized. Even in the ghetto of race discourse we remain tenants and never owners of an analysis that is ours to begin with.

One way that whites can be accountable is to stop being enablers to white supremacy by supplanting the voice of people of color with their own. We do not need white people speaking for people of color. Such talk is crass paternalism. My words do not need to be placed through a white filter in order for them to be understandable. Besides, there are some things that get lost in “translation.” If there is work for whites to do on this issue, then let it be work that addresses this deaf ear of white denial. This is a question of power. Whites that do not listen to people of color do not have a “hearing problem.” They fail to hear and to listen because they can. Those that promote the claim that white people speaking for people of color is a positive only coddle such whites in the comfort of their conformity to a way of life that denies, not just the voices of people of color, but our lives as well.

All of the aforementioned privileges taken together provide Wise a pretty formidable platform from which to attract the support of those of us who seek an end to racism. By supporting him, such persons are made to feel as if they are fighting racism. In this vein, he is able to make use of such support from those who will rally to his rescue when he calls on them to defend him with a bevy of “like” button clicks or a hail of 5-star reviews when he has occasioned a derisive remark made by the usual suspect – an avowed white supremacist. Really? Has this become the epitome of anti-racist activism? This would be laughable if we weren’t discussing something as deadly serious as racism. Such “cyber activism” is just another form of white diversion from engaging in actual activist work.

Must I remind us that people of color live our lives under daily assault? Clicking a “like” button is not going to stop the hail of gun-fire that snuffs out the lives of the Oscar Grants and Aiyana Joneses of our communities. Oscar Grant and Aiyana Jones were not militant activists. Jones was just seven years old for God’s sake! They were Black and, according to this system, that was sufficient. Until the movement confronts that reality head on rather than cry about some nasty review of their book, I have little regard for their “anti-racist” activism. Such attacks from white supremacists should be expected in this work. If I had a dollar for every piece of hate mail I’ve received …. My point is that it comes with the territory. To make noise about it is just self-serving. And that is putting it mildly.

This imbalanced relationship between people of color activists and white anti-racists reinforces the power dynamic of white supremacy even within the movement. White anti-racists have been able to evade accountability on this front due to the fact that they wield power and influence over and beyond people of color activists by virtue of their white-skinned privilege. This is a fact that has dogged our movement since the days of Abolition. And to those who question my right to question Tim Wise or suggest that Wise is beyond critique, I say as Henry Highland Garnet said to the white abolitionists of his day, “If it has come to this, that I must think and act as you do, because you are an abolitionist, or be exterminated by your thunder, then I do not hesitate to say that your abolitionism is abject slavery.”

The fact is that someone like a William Lloyd Garrison, who did far more than Wise with far less than Wise, was critiqued way more harshly than anything I have penned here by his Black contemporaries. Maria Stewart, Frederick Douglass and others within the Black Abolitionist Movement always maintained an analysis that was independent of white abolitionists. Theirs was an analysis based on the life-and-death reality they faced on the daily. And they were quick to check the blurry vision of those who sat upon the lofty heights of their privileged status as whites no matter how well-meaning they may have been. To relinquish that right and responsibility now would be a disservice to my forebears and the example they have left for all of us.

This is a problem that our movement must address. This movement cannot challenge the institutional racism as it is currently positioned or personified. Our people’s movement for liberation and self-determination has resulted in the development of a community of whites who have amassed a working knowledge of the system of white supremacy. Many of them claim to possess a conscious commitment to eradicate racism. Yet there is a lack of critical direction or an expressed unwillingness on their part to take the direction from the lived reality of people of color movements for racial justice.

In order to resolve this, we must first question ourselves and address our failure to anticipate this trend and prepare ourselves for it. Instead of providing an agenda for white anti-racists to engage with us in authentic solidarity, many of us now just get giddy and tickled by the spectacle of whites talking about racism. Our lack of awareness of the lessons learned from past alliances with whites and our apparent unwillingness and/or inability to hold those whites who claim a commitment to anti-racist struggle accountable has resulted in a movement that is largely led by whites.

Black liberation theologian James Cone’s twenty-five year old observation remains true: “Wherever Black people have entered into a mutual relation with white people, with rare exceptions, the relationship has always worked to the detriment of our struggle. From the abolitionist movement of the nineteenth century to the recent civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 60s, whites demonstrated that they cannot follow but must always lead.”

I do not expect or anticipate Wise of his own volition to critically assess himself in the context of Black self-determination and people of color solidarity. Further, I don’t expect Wise to move beyond his lucrative lecture tours to organize a movement of whites that actually confronts systemic racism. After all these years that he has been on the scene, if he were to start such an effort, he would have done so by now. Even so, the fact remains that in the realm of anti-racist struggle, thousands-of-dollars engagements do not constitute activism. They might be materially enriching for him on a personal level, but for the cause he claims to represent, such talk is cheap. And please, lest I find myself inundated with emails from those who idolize Wise, let me state for the record that nothing I have written herein will have any detrimental impact on his ability to make a living. His bank account will not take a dive on the account of my critique. One thing is for certain, he will never have to contend with the daily concerns of activists of color who are attacked and marginalized for speaking our truths and challenging convention in society and within our own ranks.

I’d say it is high time to up the anti-racist ante. In the end, what actually is a white anti-racist? Who defines such? And if that definition comes from a white person, how is that anti-racist? These questions may not be convenient, but us closing our eyes to them doesn’t make the issues they speak to go away. And I am clear that I am not the only one asking such questions. There is an ever-widening circle of committed people of color and white activists that see the hypocrisies and inconsistencies that exist within this work. They, too, are trying, in their own responsible way, to address them. It is time that we bring these questions to the surface, not to denigrate each other, but to strengthen our will and resolve in the spirit of fulfilling our purpose as a movement: the eradication of systemic racism.

Until the movement as a whole is able to adequately address these critical concerns, and people of color are no longer being dismissed and having our truths overlooked or otherwise dissed by those that claim to be our allies, here is a word to the wise: Rather than talk about the white privilege of others, Wise would be wise to simply discuss his own. Not in some general, “I’m a white guy” way either, but in a way that addresses his particular privileges as a white guy talking about racism such as the ones outlined in this essay. There would be no more compelling argument.

Ewuare Xola Osayande is a political activist, poet and author of several books including Misogyny and the Emcee: Sex, Race and Hip Hop. He is co-founder and director of POWER (People Organized Working to Eradicate Racism), a liberatory learning initiative that educates and empowers persons and organizations interested in and involved in anti-racist social justice movements. He is also host and producer of “The Resistance with Ewuare Osayande,” an online radio show that features news, music and commentary that champions the causes and concerns of people of color across the globe.