Although it appeared on yesterday’s comments thread in response to what Chic Noir said, and has received a bit of comment in its own right, I thought it would be a good idea to present it as a post in its own right, because I felt that I made points that haven’t really gotten the attention, focus and examination they deserve. So, here it is, in full, and in a few I’ll edit in additional informational links that will further sharpen the tip of the spear.

Let the conversation, continue…

“Well, I suppose now is as good a time as ever to jump in and offer a response to Chic Noir’s (and now it seems several others’) evidently heartfelt comments.

Here we go…

Aside from the glaring problems in terms of leaps of logic, peddling in dangerous assumptions, and just downright wrongheaded thinking evidence by Ms. Noir, I think the thing that has to be addressed here are what I like to call the “intangibles” of any debate-what drives us as we do.

Surely, this isn’t an alien concept to Chic or anyone else, since we’ve either engaged in such theorizing ourselves, or have witnessed others do it. For example, Chic theorizes that my reasoning for raising the questions I did of so-called Educated Brothas, was due to some shortcoming on my part, particularly, that I was the low Man on America’s social totem pole; my Hulk-like envy of my brethren had to explain why I seem to go so hard on, and consistently single out, my ostensible social betters. Several others have, at the very least, questioned my own personal motivations as well.
I say, relevance as to the questions and theorizing aside, that the very act of doing such a thing is paramount here. Why do I say that?

BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH QUESTIONING OF BLACK MIDDLE CLASS FOLK IF THEY WERE DOING WHAT CHIC WERE DOING ABOVE, IE, TELLING POOR, UNDERCLASS BLACK FOLK ABOUT THEMSELVES.

The tacit assumption there would be, and is, that such an individual is dispensing not only correct information but also a kind of “tough love” to his/her lower caste brethren. On the latter score, the tacit assumption is, that merely BEING “underclass” raises all kinds of eyebrows, from being deemed lazy and improvident, to being less intelligent and yes I’ll say it, even immoral.

You see, there are deep, psychological reasons as to we we as a society, both Black and White alike, continue to insist on upbraiding a documented small group of people; for Whites, especially those like Gorbachev, who despite his many and varied world travels, still doesn’t seem to understand the fact that most African Americans are middle class, to middle class Black folk themselves, who fret that their more “ghetto” brethren threatens to topple what little social cred they have in the White world, by tainting them with the “Black” label-Black of course, meaning “ghetto”, again, despite the fact that most Black Americans are middle class in our time, and have been for at least several generations.

See how that works?

The question has to be, WHY? WHY does Gorby still see Black folk in toto as a “problem”? WHY does Chic have so much bile in her system for a small segment of the population, one that will not seriously impact her life in any event? WHY, in spite of historical facts, do we as a society automatically associate the actions, comings and goings of less than 12% of the Black community, to the Black community as a whole?

And WHY is there so little said, especially with a critical eye, of the Black middle class?

That’s what this blog attempts to examine, and hopefully, answer, folks.

So, let’s continue with our examination, shall we?

You see, I think there are deeper reasons as to why Chic Noir goes so hard at her “lesser” Sistas in the way she does, and they ain’t all got to do with real or percevied pathologies. Notice how she implored me not to bring up “that book again”. The book she refers to is one that I’ve mentioned in this and other venues for sometime now; it’s called Promises I Can Keep, and was written by two White (and I think, Jewish) Women sociologists, one of whom worked at Philly’s St. Joe’s University. The goal of the book was to examine the lives and choices of Philly and Camden NJ’s poor Black, White and Hispanic Women; among other things, they wanted to know why these Women were having kids despite not being married, given all we know about such things and poverty, etc. They conducted extensive longitudinal studies, and actually lived with some of these Women over time. The results were quite eye-opening, and necessitates a close read by anyone who is so vociferous about the issue, like Chic Noir was/is.

But, she hasn’t read the book. Why? Who knows-but my suspicion is that the issue has more than a passing academic interest for her, and this is something I’d like to explore further with her. And so, please allow me to share a theory…

I think the reason why this issue, one at its base, has to do with birth, children, and yes sex, is because these are all very deep concerns for Chic-personally. I mean let’s face it, here she is, a young African American Woman who, while revering her traditional upbringing, also has considerable issues with it. Why do I say that? Because in traditional African American life, at her age she’s supposed to be considering marriage proposals-and Chic, over the course of at least several years, both here and elsewhere, has made it quite clear that not only does she have no intention to do any such thing, but she also has no intention to have kids either. All of which is fine, of course-but they directly rub up against both that traditional upbringing she reveres in her grandparents especially, but also by extension, the Gamesphere, too.

Why do I say that? Because, while granted, the Gamesphere doesn’t deal with having kids and getting married per se, it DOES deal with relationships-and sex. And on both counts, close readers of Chic Noir’s many comments know well her “issues” with these areas, which have suggested many deep concerns on both fronts. I mean, think about it, if indeed she has no interest in having kids or getting married, why would she spend so much time in venues that at least by proxy, suggests such things (relationships & sex)? It’s like me professing to have no interest in Botany, yet spending goodly amounts of my time on the Burpee seeds website leaving all manner of comments. My inner psyche is not in sync with my consicous mind here.

So, bringing all this round robin back to our “around the way girl” piece, I think one of the reasons why Chic-and she is by no means alone, let me tell you-has so many deep issues with them, despite NOT having an academically informed view ala the book I’ve mentioned above, is because these Women do something which she still has many personal issues about. Namely, having a goodly amount of sex with precious little difficulty.

I’ll let that theory hang out there in the ether before moving on to my next point…

OK. Let me next put myself on the other side of the microscope, and reveal a bit of my personal motivations as to why I do what I do…

And that’s because I’ve discovered, that we attach VALUE JUDGMENTS about who we are as human beings, on some of the most flimsy metrics around. Simply put, if you’re college educated, white collar professional, etc, it is a given that you’re a good person. You will be given the benefit of the doubt, all the moreso if you’re White. If on the other hand, you’re not college educated, if you are blue collar, and especially if you’re Black, you are automatically considered suspect; please recall Deery’s recent use of the term “educated thug” along these lines. Moreover, please consider my own personal experiences in these regards; value judgments in my world ca have deeply profound consequences, for things that are not only out of my control, but those who render such judgments have no qualms in the least doing so either.

Yet, the past decade has shown us what such soft-reasoning will get us; clean cut White guys, the so-called best and brightest, have brought our national and international economic system to its knees, for example. Putative professionals have repeatedly and utterly bungled what should have been straight forward humanitarian operations, here in the USA. And the cover of white collar respectability, has succeeded in hiding the face of avarice, mendacity and greed, all while destroying a considerable portion of the very environment itself, perhaps for generations to come.

Chic says, in her parting shots above, that underclass Black folk “hurt us all”, and I couldn’t disagree more. What’s true is that they hurt themselves. The aforementioned class of folk, THEY hurt “all of us”, in ways we are only now dimly aware.

Yet, we continue to dump on Pookie and Shaniqua; outstanding exceptions like Bernie Maddoff aside, we don’t seem all that upset about Wall Street Banksters and if not crooked, at the very least inept politicians who’ve been around for decades.

Why?

BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY WANT TO BE THESE PEOPLE.

That’s why.

And that’s why we will never full on confront these folks, no matter how much Assange leaks information out to the world, no matter how much Lewis, and Waters, and Rangel utterly disgrace themselves, no matter how badly Banksters have ruined our very way of life, and no matter how badly politicians screw over the very people who are their constituencies-because, in the end, to be an American is to aspire not to hate on the Big Shot, or even be critical of him-but to BE LIKE THEM.

And, in addition to that, to be an American, is to kick dirt on those we deem to have fallen down on the job, who for whatever reason, couldn’t hack it. Take a look at the way the so-called “99ers” are being treated by the Congress. Patton told the truth when he said that America LOVES a winner; and she simply doesn’t have much time or love, for those who lose in the game of life.

Alright, let me address just one more major point Chic Noir spoke on, and then I’mma turn it loose…

The big problem I have with the whole “irresponsible” argument that is leveled at poor Women wrt having kids out of wedlock, is that it is at best inconsistent and at worst is hypocritical. Affluent single White Women have kids out of wedlock, too, we just don’t call it that. It’s called IVF, and studies are now coming in, that their kids are beginning to show the same problematic signs their poorer brethren are showing-more likelihood for them to engage in drug abuse, more likelihood to engage in lawbreaking, more chances they’ll suffer from depression and poor performance in school, you name it.

Yet, the discussion is entirely different when it comes to this latter cohort, and would it surprise me to learn that Chic herself really didn’t have a problem with such Women either?

Umm…nah…

OK, I’m done. Comment & reply, holla…

O.”
The Obsidian