Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Get Down or Sit Down, Part 4: Razing the Perch


Although social media and the age of information have been great for networking and expanding movements like never before, these advents have also given way to a much bigger problem: the self-righteous, pseudo-omniscient members of our society now have even wider, taller soapboxes on which they can prop themselves.  Granted, every last one of us sound off about something we feel is unjust or appalling and we often pull no punches when doing so.  However, when you hear the grumblings throughout the Black community regarding how we can't seem to unify to literally save our lives, that lack can often be attributed to the particularly and disturbingly pervasive mentality of "Blacktivism" from the comforts of "the perch".  In lieu of looking at all of their fellow brothers and sisters laterally, they often address 90 percent of them vertically.  So in the fourth and final part of "Get Down or Sit Down", I challenge many of my high-minded brothers and sisters as I "raze the perch" to cement a more down-to-Earth foundation for the movement...

THE "EYE BEEN WOKE, WHERE Y'ALL BEEN?" ACTIVIST.  So let's say there's an artist who suffers through years of obscurity and being a virtual nonentity.  Between extensive word of mouth, employing stronger muscle behind their marketing strategies and making more "commercially viable" songs, it seems like everyone and their grandma are singing their lyrics like they should get a portion of the publishing, showering them with praises and giving them some of the best promo that money doesn't have to buy.  Picture a group of friends, coworkers and associates going on and on about how much they love this artist.  Now imagine how annoyed you would be when creep-a-zoid emerges from the shadows like Snoop Dogg playing the scavenger smoker in Half Baked, complete with bullhorn and chest plate while proclaiming to the rest of the world, "Y'all just now finding out about them?  Man, y'all late AF...I been on that!"  That's how it feels when the so-called enlightened section of the movement makes everyone else who hasn't been "awake" as long they supposedly have feel more like they should've just stayed asleep so they wouldn't have to hear this nonsense.  Allow me to say three things about that...

First of all, I have nothing against anyone being "woke" because we all should be, but bragging about it is gratification for no one else but you.  Besides, it's never about how long you've known something or been part of a cause, but how committed you are and stay to it.  Second, if you've been "woke" so long, then how come more people haven't awakened from their slumber much sooner?  Let me answer that for you: ain't nobody comin' to see you, Otis.  You turn them off from the movement because their natural assumption is there are a bunch of other chest-thumping, self-righteous folks like you leading the charge, so you have to make your platform approachable.  Third, you're good for alienating or ostracizing certain people who you feel won't add any worth to the cause, essentially engaging in the same separatist politics of which you accuse your oppressors.  If your movement excludes either Bumquisha or Becky, then it's a movement that will quickly lose steam because it's not rooted and grounded in unity; it's simply a bad spin on the "Talented Tenth".  (See this example of exclusionary Blacktivism gone wrong.)  Simply put, never turn away a potential brother, sister or ally because they don't learn something as fast as you did, they haven't been down as long as you've been or they don't appear to be from the ideal demographic because nobody likes a know-it-all except the know-it-all.  Speaking of which...

THE GREAT IDEA HOARDER.  Let's say you're having a group discussion about ways to combat and resolve many of the issues that face the Black community.  Regardless of whether the ideas are a bit outdated or too radical, most of the people are contributing something to the conversation.  However, you get to that one person who volunteers information about the fact that he or she participates in certain community organizations and does X, Y and Z for the neighbor.  However, when members of the group ask what they're doing--not for the sake of being nosey, but more for inspiration to do the same in their community--the person not only refuses to share their tactics and strategies despite repeated pleas, but they also become a bit defensive.  Other than people who fall under the final category in this post, this might be one of the most counterproductive groups within Blacktivism.

I always think of the slogan of WOL 1450 AM: "Where information is power."  When information is verified as fact and shared on a broader scale, that's what mobilizes the masses and energizes the movement.  However, if somebody has information that could galvanize the revolution but they're holding on to it like one of the CIA's most coveted secrets, then how it is any different from being a slave master?  Sounds extreme, but indulge me for a moment.  In order for slaves to be controlled and kept in their place, slave masters had to eliminate any possibilities of their slaves getting bright ideas in their heads, i.e., failing to provide or completely eradicating any record of their lineage and making it illegal for slaves to learn how to read.  Without true knowledge and being able to understand information outside of what the slave master allowed them to know, the slave could not formulate his or her own informed opinions and ideas or share those ideas with fellow slaves.  Similarly, the "idea hoarder" may have unique ideas in areas like effective policy, impactful ways to boycott and protest or simple solutions to everyday struggles.  Unfortunately, none of that matters if he or she is unwilling to share them with the people, leaving them as the sole possessor of potentially powerful gems without disseminating the information or implementing the strategies on a widespread basis.  Hence, that deflates a unified "uprising" because even if that person is "the smartest person in the room", no individual can successfully take on an entire system alone.

THE RESIDENT CYNIC, CRITIC AND ETERNAL PESSIMIST.  In a Facebook group, two separate criticisms burned my biscuits.  The first one came not long after Jesse Williams' speech at the 2016 BET Awards, saying that it wasn't the right platform for his remarks and he's not on the same level as, say, Muhammad Ali because 1) he's an actor and 2) America didn't know who he was before that speech.  That's funny...he's only played a main role as Dr. Jackson Avery in Shonda Rhimes' flagship series, Grey's Anatomy--the highest-ranked show in ABC's ever-popular "TGIT" block--for the past six years.  I'm pretty sure that at least twelve million Americans know who Jesse Williams is.  Furthermore, his activism began long before that speech, including being on the front line in the Ferguson protests, becoming the youngest member of the board of directors at civil rights advocacy group The Advancement Project, writing numerous pieces for CNN and The Huffington Post and receiving guidance from long-time "artivist" Harry Belafonte.  A few weeks after that, another dude took the all-too-familiar gratuitous shot at Jay-Z and Beyonce for "only giving money" and not being on the front line...as if "only giving money" is a bad thing when every cause and every movement needs financial support in order to be effective.  Perfect time for a Jay-Z song quote from "Public Service Announcement" where one of my favorite producers in the whole wide world, Just Blaze, drops a gem: "Let me just say I did not come here to show out, did not come here to impress you."

One of the biggest reasons why this last group annoys me so much is because they say these things as if they are the Alpha-and-Omega standard bearers on effective activism.  Another one of the biggest reasons why the "resident cynic/critic/eternal pessimist" hinders the movement is because unlike many under the "Eye Stay Woke" banner or the "idea hoarders", these folks usually don't have an ace in the hole.  So why do they come down so hard on somebody for using one of the biggest possible platforms to send a pivotal message to millions and millions of viewers of various demographics just because they're an actor and there's this asinine assumption that it's all for show or for ratings?  Why do they criticize people for always contributing money to a cause when they've consistently done it for the majority of their career?  Simple: these people are either jealous because they don't possess the same means or they're not doing much of anything to help, and if someone calls their bluff, they'll get defensive about it nine times out of ten.  They'll criticize the Black Lives Matter Network and say they don't have an agenda, but they won't dare get on those front lines like they will, contribute $25 to an organization they actually believe will make a difference or submit any real solutions or amendments to any existing agendas  These are the folks who say without fail that Black people will get in the Jordan line quicker than they will for the voting booth or on the picket line, but you might not find these Buzz Killingtons in any line with a searchlight; they either want to say what other people aren't doing or how someone else's tactics aren't working.  At least Robert Christgau gets paid to make someone feel like their great ideas aren't that great...

###

In conclusion, some of the solutions are simple.  Instead of saying how certain strategies are ineffective either because they're too outdated or too radical and only one or two strategies are the way to go, find ways to implement working pieces from every strategy.  No one plan is the only plan that's right or perfect as many roads can lead to the same goal as long as people are willing to do the traveling.  The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference weren't the only tickets in town during the civil rights era, and the Black Lives Matter Network doesn't have to be the poster child for all Black issues now.  No one person or no designated group of people have to be the faces of the movement just because they look or sound the part; we simply need as many people and organizations who are dedicated to figuring out how to execute the plans for tangible results.  On the flipside, neither is there room for those who are offended by the word "Black" and anything attached to Blackness nor the quasi-Blacktivists who are either bombastic, fairweather, arrogant or critical.  Regardless of race, gender, class, religion, sexual orientation or whatever, it comes down to this: if you're not contributing anything valuable to the conversation that will advance the movement, then advance yourself to the nearest fold-up chair and wear the tightest muzzle you can find.  Negativity is a liability in a movement toward positive change.  Therefore, there is nothing complex about these five magic words in the mantra of this series: get down or sit down.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please feel free to enthusiastically chime in or RESPECTFULLY disagree.