On Frank Ocean, and Why 'Gay' Shouldn't Even Matter Anymore

I know I wasn't the only near-sighted person to almost have a seizure trying to read this.

BBQ's aren't my really forte. You can invite me to a barbecue, though. I might go. But most likely I'll think about going, and either go hang out with my closest friends or bury myself in books and reruns of Chopped. It's not that I don't enjoy the prospect of grilling food with family, friends, and an assortment of complete strangers. It's that small talk gets boring. 'Where are you working?' 'How's your mom?' 'Are you going back to school?' 'How about those Yankees?' 'You see what Mitt Romney did last week?' 'What was Evelyn thinking on last week's episode?' There are always some topics that get breached constantly in loose small talk.

This Independence Day, among the hordes of hamburger-fancying twenty-somethings, the subject at hand was Frank Ocean's heartfelt message to accompany his upcoming album Channel Orange. There were toasts to Frank's liberation, to his prowess as an artist, and to the open-mindedness of Odd Future for accepting his status. Frank Ocean was the man of the hour everywhere without being anywhere.

For a loose interpreter wary of Frank's (in addition to OF as a whole) knack for picking archaic language and rosy prose over strict meaning, such as myself, I found everyone taking Frank's letter as a coming out with mixed feelings. Nowhere in the letter did the OF crooner say the word gay, bisexual, or anything related to sexual orientation. He just said he loved a man. I think in this day and age, no thanks to Anderson Cooper, everyone is jumping to find a revolutionary idol of sorts: someone who, for them, can represent everything positive about a marginalized group and serve of a bastion of the group's accomplishment within the greater majority. The letter gave hope and shouting rights to fighters of sexual liberty. That it happened on Independence Day only served to amplify the fact that a post-sexual society is on the horizon, but not here yet.

One of the things I ponder a lot is whether we're even really in a post-racial society. Yeah, my President is black and my Lambo is blue. But since the man's taken office, there's been more working against him than for him. Birthers, Tea Partiers, Mitt Romney, and Bible Belters will say that nothing about their hatred for Barry O has to do with race, but the undercurrent is too great to ignore. I think as long as the construct of race still exists in that it can be used as a basis for anything other than physical identification, we're not in a post-racial society. In the same way, as long as society keeps mentioning 'gay' or 'straight' or 'bisexual' or 'bath salt users' as a delineation, instead of a trait of the greater person, we're not past sexual preference as an issue.

It's like the old saying, 'It's not what they call you, it's what you answer to.' Frank Ocean's sexuality shouldn't even be an issue. If there wasn't a name for a sexual preference or any stigma attached to it, would it be an issue? In this day and age, where flashes in the pan are the norm, it suffices to say that there'll be another celebrity to come out of the closet and everyone will laud their bravery at barbecues and in between meetings and at happy hours. It will become the small talk of that week, and that person's status will be debated hotly because sexual preference still is a taboo topic. Not in a post-sexual society.

In this post-sexual society I imagine, your spouse will be your spouse, male or female. People won't shudder at two fathers, and there won't be a 'down low'. The words 'transgender' and 'transexual' won't mean anything anymore. Two women utilizing in vitro fertilization will be widely accepted. Post-sexual society will affect more than sexual preference, too. No one will give a damn about abortions, or womb rights, or being pro-life or pro-choice. Just like the M and F you cross out on forms, anything related to sex will become an afterthought. If we don't even mention it, it will cease to be important. It might even become one of those 'don't touch' topics like politics or religion that polite, civilized people scoff at in public (that's another post in and of itself) and hold strong opinions about behind closed doors. Who knows? The only sure thing is that Frank Ocean loved a man. Any person with a father, brother, uncle, cousin, mentor, or friend can say the same. I think that's the first step to sexuality not mattering: letting love be, regardless of who or what the target is. Lord knows we loved Frank Ocean's music before.

On Condescension, Prognostication & The Educational Gap

via Forbes.com:

He’s right. The spread between rich and poor has gotten wider over the decades. And the opportunities for the 99% have become harder to realize.

The President’s speech got me thinking. My kids are no smarter than similar kids their age from the inner city. My kids have it much easier than their counterparts from West Philadelphia. The world is not fair to those kids mainly because they had the misfortune of being born two miles away into a more difficult part of the world and with a skin color that makes realizing the opportunities that the President spoke about that much harder. This is a fact. In 2011.

I am not a poor black kid. I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for me. But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. It doesn’t mean that there are no opportunities for them. Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind. I don’t believe that. I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed. Still. In 2011. Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia.

*gets in time machine and goes back to 2008*

Oh, snap!!! Obama's the President of the United States!! You know what that means! We live in a post-racial society! Race doesn't exist anymore. A charismatic, smart, half-Kenyan man from Hawaii can ascend to the top of the political world, so that means that every minority should be able to do comparably!

*gets back in time machine and goes to present-day*

Oh, wait... Educational gaps are still tremendous. Poverty is still rampant. Employment is sparse. But Obama's President, so none of that matters.

Such is the society we live in today... A society where the haves continually look down on the have-nots... A society where even in the face of mounting evidence that the system is no more fairly skewed that the lottery, people continue to cry 'self-determination'... A society where a man with admittedly no knowledge of growing up poor feels compelled to cast judgment on the poor. While I am no urban sociologist, I've seen enough of the ills of urban sprawl to know that the odds do not favor children in the inner city. From dilapidated and underfunded schools, to a lack of a successful network supporting them, is it really that hard to see why poor black children gravitate towards endeavors far-removed from academia?

The author, a 'mediocre accountant' and owner of a 10-person accounting firm, is engaging in what I like to call condescendent prognostication - the use of one's lofty ideals to scrutinize the actions of and portend the paths of those in a more precarious situation than he. He claims to be a supporter of Obama and the 99%, but is essentially echoing the unfounded sentiments of the 1%, namely:
- If you're poor, underprivileged, or the like, it's your fault
- The government and related entities have no responsibility to help those who can't help themselves
- There are more than enough resources to help the underprivileged

The author gets even more haughty in his rhetoric:

President Obama was right in his speech last week. The division between rich and poor is a national problem. But the biggest challenge we face isn’t inequality. It’s ignorance. So many kids from West Philadelphia don’t even know these opportunities exist for them. Many come from single-parent families whose mom or dad (or in many cases their grand mom) is working two jobs to survive and are just (understandably) too plain tired to do anything else in the few short hours they’re home. Many have teachers who are overburdened and too stressed to find the time to help every kid that needs it. Many of these kids don’t have the brains to figure this out themselves – like my kids. Except that my kids are just lucky enough to have parents and a well-funded school system around to push them in the right direction.

Technology can help these kids. But only if the kids want to be helped. Yes, there is much inequality. But the opportunity is still there in this country for those that are smart enough to go for it.

This type of grandstanding is only upended by the fact that the author says himself that his children have the resources (parents and good schools) to properly advance. When did complete hypocrisy and sociological blinders replace the social contract of Roosevelt's New Deal? When did the American tenet of every citizen's unalienable rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' fall victim to 'you're on your own social policy'? The problem here isn't the author's proclamation that the will to succeed doesn't go unnoticed. It's that he fails to fully acknowledge the crumbling systems around the same 'poor black kids'. Rather than addressing the systematic failures, he asserts that these children should aspire to be the best of the worst. How is that remotely inspiring? Even if an poor black kid in West Philadelphia does gain straight A's in a terrible school, chances are he will still be drastically behind his affluent counterparts across town.

The educational gap in this country is beyond detestable, not because kids don't want to learn, but because most people removed from the worst education systems in our country have little stake in it. They can point the finger and be condescending because they admittedly have never lived in conditions anywhere close to the ones they criticize. It's like a king pointing down at peasants, scoffing at the squalor they live in: easy. I beg the question to Mr. Marks and any other critic of 'poor black kids', what would you do to improve these schools, aside from claim that the kids need to try harder? What solution do you have for the dwindling quality of teachers, curricula, infrastructure and resources? What answer do you have for the student who have no clue what Google Scholar, SparkNotes, Evernote or the CIA World Factbook are? My guess is none.

That is the plight of the condescending prognosticator. They scream that if you're not winning the race, then you should run harder instead of blaming the busted soles on your sneakers. Maybe I'm rambling. Maybe undue outrage is coming towards the author for his clearly misinformed stance. The one thing I'm certain of is that there are many more Gene Marks' out there. They live anywhere from quiet, isolated suburban neighborhoods to high rise penthouses believe that self-determination is all one needs to be successful. For the amount of technological resources they espouse can help 'poor black kids', it would behoove them to use these same tools to see that the world isn't as cut and dry as they think.

Dear Racism Whistle-Blowers

If he falls off this mountain, is the mountain now a racist?

'It's because I'm black!'

'Man, that's racist!'

'How can you do that, as a black man?'

'Don't you know that (supposedly racist act) originated in (racially-charged event)?'

The list could go on forever... Of all the things that irk me to no end, I think the one that has stood out lately is you, the prototypical racism whistle-blower. We all know about planking now, thanks to Twitter. The craze started out months ago in New Zealand as a twist on the 'lying down' game, and grew to notoriety when an unsuspecting planker died after tumbling down a mountain. Yet, in recent weeks the fad has grown to a fever pitch, conspicuously making its rounds in the mainstream media and the black community. As with many crazes, I was quick to dismiss it, simply because it is a case of major groupthink and the world has many other issues to deal with other than people lying face-down in random locations.

Yet you racism whistle-blowers had to take it to that level. People always get on blacks and other minorities for pulling out the race card at unscrupulous intervals... And predictably, we get mad, championing the sacrifices of our ancestors and claiming that we shouldn't be delving into certain things because of the racially-charged histories behind them. Planking has received the same treatment, with hoards of you whistle-blowers alluding to the triangular trade practice of stacking slaves on top of one another in slave ships to conserve space. Now, I understand why you would make this comparison. They look pretty darn similar. Hell, they might've even used the same term to describe it... But consider this: NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE RACIST!

Why is it that nothing can pass through the lens of a black 'radical' without having 'Bigot' branded on its forehead? Are we that desperate for talking points to continue the 'struggle', that something created purely in fun can't be left alone? I'll take a wild guess that when people began planking again, slave ships were the farthest thing from their minds. And by that token, I don't think that some 21st-century fad was on the mind of slave dealers when they were planking slaves. Trying to elicit an air of causation from either side is not only reaching, but silly. Yes, the link is there. But it doesn't mean the link is automatically valid or worth causing a kerfuffle about. Whistle-blowers, let me end on this: why not focus on racism that actually affects us like... I don't know... Tea partiers, or Clarence Thomas, or Michelle Bachman? Either that or go walk a plank... Seriously.

On Hip-Hop, Conservative America, and the 'Man's' Worst Fears

Remember that kid on the playground who could never win an argument? You know... The one who, when backed into a corner about the original amount of Pokemon (there were 151), would counter back with something to the effect of:

- 'but you have cooties!'
- 'I am rubber and you are glue.. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!'
- 'I'm telling Ms. (insert teacher) that you guys are cheating!'
- 'your momma!'

*rolls eyes* I can already feel the childhood urge to exclude him bubbling up. No one likes to be wrong. That said, the kid who can never be wrong no matter how idiotic his argument seems never dies. He grows up and either becomes an award-winning debater, a sufferer of dissociative identity disorder, or, best-case scenario, a (usually) conservative political pundit.

If there's one thing about conservative political pundits, it's that even when faced with situations that completely mirror those they vilify, they are always holier-than-thou. We could be talking anything from.. oh, I don't know... imperialism (#shoutout to Iraq and Afghanistan), personal liberties (word to the Patriot Act), or hell, even a rapper performing at the White House.



Enter Common. Now Common, in most educated circles, is about as safe a rapper as it gets. Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr's career originated in the chewstick era with his classic 'I Used to Love HER', an ode to a much more respectful and 'down to earth' time in hip-hop, devoid of the corporate influence that dominated the airwaves in 1994. He continued on in that same strain, collaborating with the likes of No-ID, Kanye West, Mos Def, The Last Poets and other hip-hop personalities who could be seen as 'conscious'. In hip-hop circles, if Eminem was is one side of the spectrum, the Common would be the other, speaking on issues affecting black people, political oppression and more or less being a voice of reason.

Conservative America doesn't see it that way however. The term 'rapper' doesn't have levels. It doesn't have shades. It doesn't have different strains. To the average conservative, the term 'rapper' is synonymous with rump-shaking, gunplay, drug-dealing, fatherless homes, and that bass-thumping monkey music that their daughters and sons play at all hours of night. Even if the song is talking about picking daisies and watching Barney with one's little sister, let there be a hard bass-line and a Kay Slay intro. I guarantee you, Bill O'Reilly and his conservative crew will find something to abhor about it. And this is regardless of whether they themselves are listening to what anyone else would consider 'offensive'. Yet, that is the tenet of conservative America: a self-serving bias towards anything that contradicts their strict view of how the world ought to be.

According to the average conservative, Bob Dylan runs the gamut in terms of protest music, Ronald Reagan's economic policies are the Ten Commandments, and a black man has little, if any place in the White House. That last idea continues to be swept under the rug as covert racism. Looking at everything from the Birther movement, to the Deather movement, to the continual dispute of Obama's educational background, it's clear that these controversies are arising not because there is a valid basis for them, but because the man is black. Point blank. Now that most of those arguments have fallen by the wayside, attacking anything coming from Obama that has a 'blackness' to it is the way to go.

When we speak about 'the Man', we speak of the kind of overt hypocrisy seen in the above O'Reilly interview, the posturing of falsehoods for the sake of personal gain, and the fear of anything remotely 'black' in politics. Anything resembling non-Patriotic extremism is seen as a threat to 'the Man's' peaceful existence as a dominant force. Hence why Common's appearance at the White House was such a bone of contention for conservatives. They would rather raise hell on a non-issue than see a rapper, a purveyor of that music they don't understand, perform poetry at the White House. It is the worst fear of conservative America to not be 'in' on something, and rather than try to reason or understand something, they fear and deride it. Rather than see the uplifting or beneficial aspects of something different, they hate it for its divergence from their beliefs. They compartmentalize the powerful rhetoric and wordplay that makes hip-hop great and turn it against us, as if Common joined NWA yesterday and made a song called 'Kill Cops, Stab Whitey and F*ck Reagan'.

It's sickening. As valiant as John Stewart's efforts were, it's clear they have no intention of losing an argument. It's clear Bill O'Reilly is content to fling mud in his dirthole instead of see the merits of open and fair discussion. He would rather pull out the ubiquitous 'Your momma' card and walk away knowing he didn't kow-tow than actually get something done. I'm not sure whether I'm more proud of this moment, or angered. What I do know, however, is that this discourse sheds light on the idiocy and pitiful fear that conservative America has. Chuck D and Public Enemy originated the term 'fear of a black planet'. Even though a black planet isn't what we seek in this day and age, until the kid on the playground will admit he's wrong, that fear will still exist.

Dear Attraction Theorists

I wish I had this shirt...

via Psychology Today:

Recall that women on average are more physically attractive than men. So women of all races are on average more physically attractive than the "average" Add Health respondent, except for black women. As the following graph shows, black women are statistically no different from the "average" Add Health respondent, and far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.

... What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women? Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women. The mean body-mass index (BMI) at Wave III is 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among nonblack women. (Black and nonblack men do not differ in BMI: 27.0 vs. 26.9.) However, this is not the reason black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women. Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI. Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women. Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.

... The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races, and testosterone, being an androgen (male hormone), affects the physical attractiveness of men and women differently. Men with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore more physically attractive. In contrast, women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive. The race differences in the level of testosterone can therefore potentially explain why black women are less physically attractive than women of other races, while (net of intelligence) black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.

I've always been told beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or one man's trash is another man's treasure. That's just how the world works. Subjectivity is the reason rich people don't think they're rich. It's the reason for the difference between Islamic extremists and pacifists. It's the reason you either hate or love people like the Kardashians, Sarah Palin and Rihanna. Subjectivity is the basis of opinions, many of which simultaneously take their root in facts. Yet, one issue that never seems to have any factual basis, no matter who is examining it. That, my friends is attraction.

Attraction theorists, first of all let me ask you this: in the course of civilization, has there ever been one singular, solitary definition of what makes a person attractive? Yes, you can ask a sample of 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 people, but that will never account for the outliers. That will never be able to account for all the people who love black women (raises hand) or those that only like Asian midgets or those that can't stand any race.

How dare you guys compartmentalize black women like that? Since when has the attractiveness of black women been so low? You guys could not have been asking enough people of color, which I say with a grain of salt because people might not always identify with their color. Either way, there will always be people on either side of the fence - who either can't stand or can't resist black women physically. There are also going to be those who like one race a bit more than the next. It's not a question of who is more attractive, just what people like. Subjectivity reigns supreme in the question of attraction, and breaking it down so specifically is essentially pointless.

Second of all, why are you even studying something as trivial as this? This is another case of science trying to over-intellectualize things for the sake of 'knowing' them. You can have your graphs and surveys and numbers and samples. Attraction is probably the most rudimentary instinct that a human can have. Quantifying it does little for humanity other than give schmucks like you a job. There are so many more important breakthroughs that could have been accomplished in the time it took you and your cronies to figure out what gives everyone a woody. Additionally, what does this prove other than there is somewhat of a bias against black women? There's no groundbreaking legislation, medical breakthrough or amazing new revolution that came from this research. It's what we call 'shock science'; research for the sake of research, and you guys are at the top of the totem.

I understand it's only a research study. It probably won't hold any relevance after about a week. Yet research like this only serves to undermine black women even more. You guys hold their stereotypically strong demeanor and voluptuous figures against them as if those qualities are something to be ashamed of. Somewhere there's a black woman eyeing her curves with disdain or vowing to become more submissive just because of 'findings' like this. Why don't you guys put your (sadly worthless) psychology degrees to good use and figure out a basis for racism, or find the root of homosexuality, or decide what exactly constitutes insanity. That'd help society out a lot more than essentially deriding supposed characteristics of black women in the guise of 'science'.

Dear Shellshocked Black College Students

I'm black. If all it takes are some morose drunk white kids to knock my pride, then it's a sad day...

via The Daily Pennsylvanian:

Racism at Penn is usually subtle. It is a way of life, something that minorities come to accept. In class, it's usually sly comments about us. In the dining halls, it’s people talking really loud, complaining about us to their friends. I overhear it.

But this was the first time it was so blatant.

I don't know which experience was worse that night. Being called a “nigger” or being questioned about belonging here.

In retrospect, being called a “nigger” was the short-term sting. It made me more self-conscious about what white people think of me here — just some black guy who got here because of some affirmative action.

The idea of "belonging here" is the long-term wound. Ever since I came here, I have been self-conscious. You have to understand that Penn is extremely different from most schools, in that the vast majority comes from a much wealthier background. I grew up in the projects, surrounded by crime and drugs. I came from there to here without much help, and in May I will graduate cum laude.

Maybe I'm too much a cynic. Maybe I've seen so many instances like this, that it almost humors me at this point. Maybe because I went to a primarily white high school, I've been completely desensitized to such nonsense. Whatever the case, overt racism, like that alluded to in the above editorial really doesn't bother me anymore. There will always be instances where black people just get the short end of the stick in terms of what we would call 'racial sympathy'.

Whether it be uncouth and uninformed remarks during class, students deeming anything remotely related to blackness 'ghetto', or the commodification of 'blackness', black people have always been the butt of some joke at the hands of non-blacks. That such an incident was the impetus for the above editorial isn't the point of this post. No, no, no... I wouldn't dare open that can of worms and allow the masses to paint this blog as a 'hater' or as unsympathetic to the plight of my college-educated black brethren.

What I will touch upon, however, is why situations like this needn't be aggrandized in such a fashion. Black people in college, how many of you come from communities, municipalities or simply situations where being in college is NOT the norm? My guess is a good portion of you reading this raised your hands. That said, shouldn't being in college be a triumph in and of itself? As a young black male, the propensity for me to be in less-than-stellar arrangements is that much higher. Jail... Fatherhood... You name it, and there is a black guy my age, probably just as intelligent as I, who got caught up in it at the expense of gaining higher education.

So to you, shellshocked black college students, I say: be proud! You could be elsewhere. Rather than let the idiotic ramblings of some drunk white kids affect you, why not just keep it moving? Why let their clearly misinformed 'ghetto' jargon cause you to lose sleep at night? Clearly the last time they've been in intimate contact with a black person was when they flipped on 'Basketball Wives', so why validate their ignorance by acknowledging it?

Newsflash, Black college students: THIS WORLD ISN'T MADE FOR US! It never has been, and we (we, as in our generation) may not live to see the day when it is. Flip back to 2009, when Chanequa Campbell was kicked out of Harvard in connection to a murder she was in no way involved in. Flip back another 50 years to when blacks had to be escorted to school by the national guard. Flip back another 70 years to when we had to create our own schools because whites didn't believe free blacks had the propensity to read, much less learn. Come on, son... Our presence brings about adversity whether subtle like sly comments in class and bigotry in the workplace, or blatant like the situation above. You're going to be scrutinized more heavily than your non-Black peers every single day, whether you like it or not.

Sure there are folk out there that could give two craps about your skin color, and God bless their colorblindness. Yet even in 2011, racism is nowhere near dead, and that's a reality that we have to come to grips with. If you think Martin Luther King and Malcolm X would rise from the dead today and start toe-wopping because of some semblance of 'making it', you're wrong. They'd be happy to see us in a more advanced position, but still would loathe the position we as a people are in. They would laud those of us who have managed to pull ourselves up, but would see our progress for what is is: a drop in the bucket. No, I'm not saying to walk around on eggshells as if you have nothing to be proud of. Just be cognizant that this world still isn't nice. Don't be shellshocked when some idiot calls you out of your name. Just make sure you flash that diploma/alumni ring/other demarcation of your success in college, and laugh, because they will have given you all the motivation you need...

Dear Vybz Kartel

As a rule, I've tried to keep the whole light-skinned versus dark-skinned debate off Dear Whoever, because it's simply a matter of preference and one's own self-worth when dealing with what skin shades they find attractive. Skin color is something that has hotly been debated in the black community for well over a century, with the 'paper bag test' and other ways of excluding anyone thought too dark to make it.

That said, I nearly vomited when I saw the above picture, Vybz. I'm holding no punches. You. Look. Turrible (Charles Barkley voice). You look like Tyrone Biggums' estranged Jamaican cousin. Those lips are ashier than the crackpipe you smoked to come up with the 'cake soap' idea. I don't know whether to call your condition jaundice or to just pronounce you dead. You are now what the Native Americans would call a 'pale face', which is ironic, because I'm sure the rest of you is blacker than an S of spades. I had no clue being a proverbial human zebra was in fashion.



Vybz, what made you think that cake soap was the solution to your own self-hatred? What's the matter? Have you been brainwashed that bad that you think the only way to continue your debatable success in dancehall is to be lighter-skinned? If so, you're sadly mistaken. The only dancehall artist with lighter skin to truly have a big break was Sean Paul, and he isn't even fully black! (Portuguese, Chinese and Black, if Wikipedia serves me right) If you're really doing it to improve upon your success, then why not take a page out of Beenie Man or Buju Banton's book (sans the cocaine trafficking in Buju's case) and... I don't know... make good music? 'Clarks' was a catchy tune, but can you really make a career of unofficial endorsement songs?

Regardless, the 'cake soap' product placement, no matter how much you claim it to not be a medical recommendation, will catch on like wild fire fiyah in Jamaica and you know it. A generation of young Jamaicans are going to see you and think the only way to salvation is through light skin. How DOPE is that? As if years of socioeconomic control by the British wasn't enough, here you come telling kids that dark skin is wrong. With brainwashing this good, who even needed slave masters? When we can brainwash our own selves, who needs overtly Caucasian standards of beauty? Kudos to you, Vybz. If anyone could undermine over a century of progress for blacks and make themselves look like a spectre in the process, it was you. I only hope all that 'air conditioning' that turned you into a walking dust bunny can make you disappear...

Dear KFC

Fried chicken... Fly vixen

via The Washington Post:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Yum Brands Inc. is targeting Africa and other emerging global markets for expansion for its venerable KFC chain that has become a dominant fast-food player in China but has struggled in the U.S. Louisville-based Yum said Wednesday that it expects to double the number of KFC restaurants in Africa to about 1,200 by 2014. Yum projects that KFC will grow into a nearly $2 billion brand in Africa within four years and will contribute more than $100 million in profit to Yum's international division, which excludes China - which has its own division.

"Africa has tremendous opportunity," Yum Chairman and CEO David C. Novak said during the company's investor-analyst conference in New York. "It's a great emerging continent, and we have a chance to really lead in that business."

KFC is already a leading brand in South Africa with more than 600 restaurants. The chain has a small presence in a few other African countries.

"We're using our South African base as an opportunity for us to ... enter other countries," Novak said.

The chain will expand with restaurant openings planned in such places as Nigeria, Ghana, Angola and Zambia. The company said it expects franchisees to invest about $500 million in Africa by 2014.

Ever think the Illuminati someone is listening in on your conversations and taking your ideas? Or better yet, ever think the jokes you make are a lot more close to truth than they appear? That's how I'm feeling right now in reference to the above news story, KFC. Now, it's been high time since I've written a letter, mainly because nothing has piqued my interest. Today though, KFC, you made for a finger-licking blog post.

The irony in your modus operandi is so thick that only your gravy could compete. It's no secret that your restaurant is failing on numerous fronts. From the assertion that your chicken is more processed than Sarah Palin's appeal, to the Double Down's artery-clogging chicken goodness (sarcasm), KFC, there's not much left to conquer in the United States, much less any losses you can take. My issue, or question, here is simple, though. Is this racist? KFC, the pervading stereotype for this century is that people of the black diaspora tend to enjoy chicken of the fried variety. Fried chicken is an American phenomenon that has yet to take hold worldwide, which was putting a major dent in your international pockets... At least in the developed Anglo-Saxon world. By that token, your move was damn predictable. In fact, I imagine the meeting to decide to pump more chicken into Africa as something like this:

Corporate Head 1: Seems like our shareholder value is dropping... Maybe we should cut back on the artificial flavors, coloring, and preservatives?

Corporate Head 2: Noooo! are you crazy??? Those chemicals make our chicken finger-licking good, and make it so we don't really have to cook or prepare the food! Why mess with a formula that works? Besides, I have a tip that might make us rich again!

Corporate Head 1: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Corporate Head 2: You know it, man!! Let's pump our cardiac arrest-good chicken into Africa! You know what they say about black... (looks at concerned African-American board member) Africa? Emerging markets always take hold of American fast food!

-END-

From the perspective of a young black male, this is Chappelle's Show-worthy comedy. The amount of possible insights into your reasoning could outnumber the stars, but at the end of the day, it's pretty obvious why there's a huge 'X' on your map of Africa. Rather than make better food or try different marketing worldwide, you guys are running to the Motherland with the hopes of making bank. It's business, I understand. Yet, at what point can we be real with the fact that stereotyping and racial stigmas affect our decisions? Does there have to be a huge sign that says 'Black People Enter', or have you guys already thought of that? Whatever the case, KFC, you can't run from what such expansion looks like, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it. No race is as compartmentalized as blacks, and it's only a matter of time before other racial minorities are in that same fold. Call it expansion, development, or what have you. It will never erase the stigma, much less keep you from making out like bandits in Africa. Then again, hasn't every other entity that's come to the continent? History lesson aside, I see you KFC. I see you...

Dear Racial Ambiguity

In about 200 years (pending the End of Days, 2012 and any catastrophic world disasters), when we look back on the cultural and biological makeup of humanity, this will be considered the beginning of a society of homogeneous people. This letter is weird to write, for two reasons:

A) How easily skin pigmentation fragments us. No matter how much people want to say that they are color blind, the skin (and it's color) are the first thing that one sees. People take skin color to indicate much more than it should, even in today's 'post-racial society'. That a newborn child has more or less broken every rule we knew about genetics, and skin color, is a shock to most people nor an easy pill to swallow. The birth of this 'white' baby to these 'black' parents (note the quotation marks) is the beginning a new era in human genetics: that of racial ambiguity. Because of you, the entire notion of skin color will die in a matter of centuries. People won't be too happy about that either. For many, skin color is a delineating mark. With your advent, there is one less marker for people to judge with.

B) As a black person, proud of my heritage, it's exciting, yet disconcerting to think that race may die out. Where will the culture and folklore I've grown to know end up? Will they be celebrated as a part of your new hold on humanity, or will some cultures scatter like dust in the wind? Will some parts of your 'new race's' culture hold still, while other parts get discarded as useless or classless or outmoded? How can we be sure that in 200 years black or Hispanic or Asian culture won't die out or that one won't be held up over another?

Both A) and B) are legitimate concerns, but this birth signals a pivotal time in humanity. Racial ambiguity, you've long been a heralded black sheep in genetics. Your tendency to make people 'universally beautiful' is lauded, yet people chafe at the racial issues that come into play. I can only imagine the kind of internal strife that this child will experience in it's post-latent years. From taunts to questions to weird looks, that baby's blond hair may be as much a bane as it is a blessed surprise. Then again, in this post-racial society, where your presence is heralded, she may very well be a golden child. Who's really to know at this point? What we do know is that somehow two black parents, with two black children, birthed a child who would be considered traditionally white. Racial ambiguity, it stands to say that your shroud will still be appreciated in a post-racial society, though it still may not hide you from criticism. You're something that people fear but secretly lust after. That this child achieved it through natural birth is incredible. Hopefully by the time she's old enough to write, her racial identity will be solid and understood to her, but really won't even matter any more...