Avatar: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Avatar.

Folks have gone out to see this one in droves.

I can definitely understand why.

Pandora (where the movie is set) is completely gorgeous, the special effects are literally awesome, the characters are well developed, the speed at which the movie moves along keeps you hooked from start to finish…and it’s in 3-D!

Also, the first three quarters of the movie did a spectacular job at making a quite pointed social critique about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our total exploitation of our planet’s natural resources for our own selfish benefit (and noting the fact that this will eventually lead to our downfall), our complete lack of respect for other living beings, the sheer omnipresence of the military industrial complex in our society, our society’s obsession with guns and machines, our “Othering” of peoples and cultures in other parts of the world…

I could go on, but you get the idea.

These commentaries, which were at times subtle and at times, umm, not so subtle, were enough to make any critically-minded, potentially skeptical progressive viewer fall in love with the film on the spot.

But around the last quarter of the movie…things went terribly wrong.

[If you haven't seen the movie and want to judge for yourself, this is definetly a spoiler, so continue reading at your own risk!]

All of a sudden, there’s a huge battle scene. The Avatars are fighting for their lives, their planet, their past, their future.

Except they don’t stand a chance.

Disturbing side note 1: It is now clear that the Avatars are an amalgam of Native American and sub-Saharan African cultures. It becomes appearant that the concept behind Avatars stems from the complete blurring of “Other” peoples into one…Why not? People of color all look the same anyway; why make any distinctionas between us? In other words, Avatars are the ”Ultimate Other.” This may makes sense for the formulaic black or white, good vs. evil Hollywood approach to filmmaking…but does horrors for making us think about race/ethnicity and relations between different cultural groups in any critical or nuanced way…

Disturbing side note 2: At this point in the movie, Neytiri’s (Zoe Saldana’s character) hair has gone from some fierce warrior braids to long, straight hair flowing in the wind. Hmm, interesting sub-commentary about beauty and attractiveness. Also, note the timing of the “hair shift”…it happens right before Neytiri’s romance with Jake reaches its peak.

OK, back to the battle scene.

So the Avatars are fighting tanks and bombs with arrows.  Sure, the arrows are filled with poison and could kill someone in seconds, but they’re still arrows. Things are not looking good. The Avatars stand to lose everything they have and be completely wiped out from Pandora.

But wait!

Regardless of the fact that the Avatars already have a leader (there is even another leader next in line!) and that they are well-seasoned warriors who know their planet best, Jake comes and saves the day! You really didn’t think that Hollywood would let the “Ultimate Other” win this battle on their own?!?  Of course not, they need a wise white man to lead the way and save them from the perils and dangers of their own world.

Think Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai. OK, stop thinking about it now before you get nauseated.

At this point, I was squirming in my seat.  I couldn’t believe my eyes.

And then, to make matters worse, out came rolling onto the screen a triumphant Jake standing at the top of the mountain, leading the Avatars toward victory. 

So what does this tell us? “Don’t treat people in other parts of the world with disdain and direspect, they are people too. But obviously, these poor, poor, helpless people can’t do it without us. They need our help. So it’s up to those of us who are good-hearted to go out there and show them the way. Otherwise, they will be lost and will perish.”

Wow.

Patriarchal racism wrapped up with missionary-style follow-me-and-you-will-be saved-ism.

On the big screen.

In 3-D!!!

Deadly. 

m.

Sotomayor, white men, and identity politics

In the past few weeks, we’ve all been inundated with news about Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court and now well-known 2001 speech at Berkeley Law. 

All of the major media outlets and political talk shows, including this morning’s Meet the Press and State of the Union, have taken this on as one of their primary topics.  In fact, they’ve replaced coverage of their favorite national security issue with policymakers, pundits, and regular folks debating back and forth about whether or not Sotomayor is a “good pick” for Supreme Court Justice. 

It is, however, understandable why Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court has captured the nation’s political imagination!  President Obama has just nominated the first Latina woman to serve on the highest court of the land!  Sotomayor’s nomination represents the hopes and dreams of so many who have fought for or otherwise believe in gender equality and racial justice—of those who believe in the representation and full, meaningful engagement of women and people of color in all aspects of this country’s leadership. 

But I also don’t have to tell you that Sotomayor’s nomination represents some folks’ worst nightmare!  I can just hear it now: “Wasn’t electing a Black President enough?”  “What happened to the ‘post-racial’ Obama (if you’ve been reading between the lines of his speeches, you know that he never existed to begin with!)?” “What is this? A Black and Brown takeover?”

Fear of gender and racial justice has stirred many conservatives to their core…leading de facto party leaders such as Rush Limbaugh to call Sotomayor a racist.  Or rather, excuse me, a “reverse racist”—whatever that means given that the very definition of racism involves a dominant or hegemonic racial group exercising social, economic, and political power over another based on some socially and historically constructed definition of “race,” which the dominant group holds near and dear to its heart because of the privileges that it confers upon its members. 

An important focal point of these conversations has been whether or not Sotomayor’s statement that her identity as a Latina woman shapes her judicial judgment makes her unfit to serve on the Court. We’ve heard all sorts of accusations that Sotomayor is playing “identity politics”—which is of course, completely unacceptable given that the playing field is entirely level  for everyone in this country and that struggles for gender and racial justice are oh so passé!  

Wherever you stand on the issue, whatever “identity politics” means to you, and regardless of whether or not you like or agree with the use of the term, I’m sure you can appreciate how ironic it is that accusations of “playing identity politics” only come up when we’re talking about women or people of color or both, but never when we’re talking about white men. 

Is being a man not a gender identity? 

Is being white not a racial identity?

The way that the debate has been unfolding, you would think not! 

In fact, the only people whom I’ve heard throw around this accusation of “identity politicking” are white men.  The white women, women of color, and men of color who have appeared on political talk shows have all acknowledged and reaffirmed the inevitable truth that one’s life experiences, which in turn affect one’s professional judgment and interpretation of seemingly objective aspects of social life such as the law, are shaped by one’s gender and race/ethnicity.  Is this really surprising given that where you stand in the social hierarchy—which is based on not only your gender and race/ethnicity, but also socioeconomic position, sexual orientation, and immigrant status (among others)—affects the types of social, economic, and political opportunities that you are not only exposed to but afforded? 

The conversations surrounding the Sotomayor nomination have made it crystal clear that white men constitute the “baseline,” “standard,” or “normative” identity in this country—a kind of apolitical hegemonic identity-less identity, if you will—that is thus above any kind of “identity politics.”  Anyone who somehow deviates from this norm—and dares to bring it up in the context of social or political life—is a whiner or agitator.  Never mind that being a white man is attached to social, economic, and political power and that this power has been secured through violence (physical, economic, sexual, cultural, structural, and symbolic) against other social groups.  And never mind that being the hegemonic social identity is a source of power in and of itself.  It’s the norm and therefore beyond any scrutiny.  

In his book entitled “The Gendered Society,” Michael S. Kimmel (2000, p. 7) states: “Sometimes, I like to think that it was on this day that I became a middle-class white man. Sure, I had been all those before, but they had not meant much to me.  Until then, I had thought myself generic, universally generalizable.  Since then, I ‘ve begun to understand that race, class, and gender don’t refer only to other people, who are marginalized by race, class, or gender privivlege.  Those terms also describe me.  I enjoyed the privilege of invisibility.”  He goes on to note: “Invisibility is a privilege in another sense—as a luxury. Only white people in our society have the luxury not to think about race every minute of their lives.  And only men have the luxury to pretend that gender does not matter.” 

The reality is that no decision is ever devoid of “identity politics.”  You could easily see how having all white men on the Supreme Court could also constitute “identity politics.”  Having all white men on the Board of a major financial institution?  Easily “identity politics” as well!  Even if they are not blatantly made on race or gender (although many still are), these are political decisions made on factors such as level of experience, level of education, socioeconomic status (including occupation and social prestige)—all of which are shaped by one’s social position.  And, you guessed it, one’s social position is influenced by one’s identity—or rather, I should say, the value that our society has assigned to that particular identity.

“Identity politics” just seem more covert, less obvious, and even non-existent when white men are appointed to positions of power.  Afterall, these are the images that have dominated our social, economic, and political landscape throughout history.  It’s just business as usal.

So because people like Sonia Sotomayor, who deviate from the “normative white male identity,” are challenging the baseline assumptions of who can be in a leadership position—while noting their gender and race/ethnicity in the process—they’re playing identity politics? 

What they’re really doing is pointing out who’s been dominating the game all along.

 m.

African First Ladies: “Untapped Influences” in Promoting Health on the Continent

Global Challenges | 15 African First Ladies Meet in Los Angeles To Promote Health, Development Initiatives

[Apr 22, 2009]      First ladies from 15 African countries met earlier this week at the African First Ladies Health Summit in Los Angeles to discuss efforts to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria; improve nutrition for children and pregnant women; and promote education for girls, the AP/Google.com reports.

The first ladies met with representatives from several groups — including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, RAND, USAID, the World Bank and the World Health Organization — to discuss ways to improve health and development infrastructure in Africa and improve access to inexpensive interventions, such as insecticide-treated nets. The summit was co-sponsored by U.S. Doctors for Africa and African Synergy Against AIDS and Suffering, a group formed by 22 African first ladies (Mohajer, AP/Google.com, 4/22).

Melanne Verveer, U.S. ambassador for Global Women’s Issues, said the Obama administration would support efforts to fight HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria and other infectious diseases and promote other issues, such as maternal health care. Ted Alemayhu, founder of U.S. Doctors for Africa and an immigrant from Ethiopia, said he hopes the summit will engage U.S. residents in African health and development issues. “People are not paying too much attention anymore because of the global economy, a number of other things,” Alemayhu said, adding, “Even with that challenge, we still have to bring the issue of health care that Africa is suffering from on the global scale.” Jean Stephane Biatcha, executive director of African Synergy, added, “I am sure that after these two days of meetings, people will know more about what they do and we will surely see people more interested in one or two projects that they intend to carry out” (O’Sullivan, VOA News, 4/21).

Gery Ryan, a senior behavioral scientist at RAND, said that African first ladies are “probably one of the largest untapped influences and influencers in these places.” Sia Nyama Koroma, first lady of Sierra Leone, added, “As first ladies, people listen to us, people want to see us, the crowd goes with us” (Zavis, Los Angeles Times, 4/22). Cora Neumann, an organizer for U.S. Doctors for Africa, added, “First ladies have a unique role. They exist outside the political realm to some degree but have a very powerful role in the communities” (AP/Google.com, 4/22).

In addition to the first ladies from 15 countries — including Angola, Kenya, Nigeria and Zambia — representatives from six other African nations, including South Africa, attended the summit. California first lady Maria Shriver and several U.S. celebrities also attended the meeting, VOA News reports (VOA News, 4/21).

 Source: http://www.kaisernetwork.org

“Why I’m voting for Barack Obama” 101

In the aftermath of the Iowa caucus, an increasing number of my friends, family members, and acquaintances have asked me to explain why I will be voting for Barack Obama in 2008.  I’ve experimented with a number of approaches.  With some, I argued that Obama is the only one who can lead us to the change we need in areas such as health care, education, and job security.  To others, I explained that Obama is the only one who stands for hope and cares about the concerns of the future generation.  You get the idea…I basically relied on the usual rhetoric that Obama, his supporters, and political commentators alike have been feeding us daily on the airwaves, TV, and Internet.

But after Obama’s victory speech in Iowa, I came up with my own argument.  It’s very simple!  No need to unearth Obama’s voting record or embark on a tirade about why his policy proposals are the most sound and sustainable.   

Here goes…

I will not be voting for Edwards because, while he certainly talks the talk (re: poverty, job security, and health care reform), he most definetly does not walk the walk (think of his background as a litigation lawyer, $400 haircuts, and his new ranch…).

On the contrary, while at times Obama fails to go as far as Edwards on certain issues (e.g., poverty), he also talks the talk on a number of social, economic, and political issues that I care about, including civil rights, women’s issues, and the environment.  But most importantly, Obama walks the walk!  His personal and professional background, as well as his more recent social and policy initiatives as a Senator in IL, are a true reflection of his ideals, beliefs, and values.  In other words, Obama is both honest and authentic.  And that makes him someone to be reckoned with.  Just as dishonesty can threaten to break a campaign (just think of what is happening on the Republican side with Romney…), honesty can make a campaign. 

Last but not least, Hillary both fails to talk the talk and walk the walk! Her Iowa speech made it clear that while she has recently adopted the “change” rhetoric coined by Obama (along with all of the other candidates–both Democrats and Republicans), she fails to address the most pressing social concerns of our time.  She says nothing about social justice, nothing about women’s rights, nothing about poverty, and nothing about racial equality.

With that, I will be voting for Obama because he is the only one who both talks the talk and walks the walk–while standing for not only change and hope, but also for honesty and authenticity.

m.

A quick argument for social uplift environmentalism

Protect communities from the most harmful effects, and provide them access to the benefits.  That was the mantra at a recent Center for American Progress panel, where eco-superstars Van Jones and Majora Carter made the case for “social uplift environmentalism.”

 

If you’ve seen An Inconvenient Truth, you may remember that, while richest nations contribute the most to climate change, the poorest (and least industrialized) are faced with the majority of climate change’s nefarious effects.  Even more, the world’s richest countries more effectively defend against negative effects than their poorer counterparts.  For instance, Africa only contributes to 3% of the world’s carbon emissions, yet its people are faced with climate change’s destructive effects.  (We’ve seen this going on in the Sudan, where many observe that the fertile land/drought land divide will spur future conflicts.)  Per person, an average American emits 19 – 20 tons of carbon dioxide a year, as opposed to 10 per Western European or 3 per Chinese. 

 

Let’s change countries for a minute, and fly back to the United States.  (Well, we should train it, since flying is the number one carbon producer in many of our lives: roundtrip from London to New York would emit 2500 tons of carbon dioxide.)  Back in America, the “climate divide” — different communities having disparate impacts on and feeling disparate effects of climate change — was the crux of the argument at the CAP panel, where Jones, Carter, and others made the case that low-income communities in the US, predominantly communities of color, face climate change’s ills with no chance to participate in the emerging green economy – the markets and systems that aim to mitigate climate change’s effects.  To Jones and Carter, access to the green economy and the new green jobs movement is the new civil rights, a type of “social uplift environmentalism.”

 

Climate Change effects

 

Access to Green jobs

 

As Jones said, “I like the polar bears.  But I like our people better.  And climate change will destroy our people.”

 

 More on this later.          

 

d.

France is burning…again.

Almost exactly two years after the 2005 riots, France was once again thrown into a period of civil unrest this past week, as a number of youths took action against public infrastructures, as well as actual police officers, in the Parisian suburb of Villiers-le-Bel.

This situation is eerily reminiscent of the 2005 riots, when two teenage boys died while trying to escape from police chasing them. What followed was an eruption that had not been known to France in a long time, expanding throughout the country. For about five weeks, youths expressed their anger towards public authorities and the State by burning cars and other public buildings, leading the president to reinstate the state of emergency that had not been used since the Algerian war!

This time around, anger escalated quickly, but has not so far stretched out through France. The riots were triggered by another encounter between two youths and police officers, when the two youths were killed riding a motorcycle that collided with a police car. According to the rioters, the police fled the scene without ensuring that appropriate medical care was given to the two youths, who were fatally injured in the crash.

Quickly following the crash, groups of youths from this suburb organized themselves against the police, attacking a number of local buildings such as libraries, and using various weapons against police officers, including Molotov Cocktails. This continued over several nights after the incident. While enquiries are being made into the nature of the accident, obviously strong reprisals are taken against the rioters, with a number already being sentenced.

What is important to note here, however, is that the main issues leading to the 2005 riots have not yet been dealt with. French youths, especially those of foreign origin, are feeling abandoned by the State, and face extremely high levels of discrimination in employment, housing and education as well as constant harassment by the police. After 2005, many promises were made to attempt to rehabilitate the economic and social slump existing in the suburbs, but these promises have not yet been kept.

While the current uprisings seem to have quieted for the moment, I can only wonder, when will the next round be?

“American Gangster”: A Glimpse into the Making and Unmaking of an “American Dream”

Being a truly devoted Denzel fan (I forgave him for Inside Man and Man on Fire a long time ago…), I pre-ordered tickets to see American Gangster on its opening night.   The movie lived up to the hype, with an all-star cast consisting of Denzel Washington,  Russell Crowe, RZA, Common, and, last but not least, T.I.  The characters were well-developed; the plot was intriguing; the acting was flawless; and the supsense was high.  You get the idea: the movie was a hit.

But more than just being a blockbuster, American Gangster was a sociological inquiry into one of American society’s most hegemonic values: the American Dream.  The concept of the American Dream dates back to the 16th century.  Since then, it has been publicly and actively endorsed by prominent historical figures  ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Franklin; politicians, including Alberto Gonzales and W. ; and a number of celebrities, such as Diddy and Britney (remember their “I Am the American Dream”  shirts?). 

At first, the American Dream was used to bring English settlers to America, which was depicted as the land of abundance, opportunity, and freedom.  Throughout history and in the present-day, the American Dream has relentlessly promoted the idea that “hard work,” self-reliance (read, rugged individualism), and one’s innate abilities will lead to prosperity and financial success and in turn, in the context of capitalism, happiness and freedom.   

The American Dream has also been used to keep people ”in line” and keep potential “agitators” ”in their place.”  For example, false promises of success and equality for all, were used to lure Civil Rights activits towards civil obedience  and mitigate a movement that could have lead to an overhaul of an entire system of social, political, and economic oppression.  However, as history has shown with both Dr. King and Malcolm X, when people challenge the American Dream and its mythical premise, they often end up dead. 

The American Dream is not just a myth.  It is a form of social control used by those in power to ensure that we all–especially the most “threatening” of us–are kept ”in check.”  The American Dream is a powerful force that has been used time and time again to distract us from the reality that profound (and increasing) social inequalities exist in American society, which prevent most of us from achieving prosperity and economic security.

But we all buy into it.  Afterall, who doesn’t want freedom, equality, and success?

Frank Lucas, played by Denzel, was no exception.  Lucas, who was born in North Carolina in 1930, is often described as a drug lord and the orchestrator behind the epidemic sale of heroin in Harlem during the 1960s and 70s.  But he was much more than that. 

He was a calculating and confident, yet desperate and tragic, man. 

Like many of us then and now, Lucas was just trying to get a piece of the pie.    Lucas was a brilliant strategist and businessman who used his innate capabilities and worked hard to achieve prosperity for himself, his family, and friends. 

Isn’t that what the American Dream is all about? 

Isn ‘t that what the American Dream wants for all of us?

Well, not quite.  See, Lucas was Black.  Black people were never supposed to actually achieve the American Dream.  While the powers that be are content with letting Blacks think that someday we will be succesful and prosperous (i.e., as a form of social control)–this was never supposed to happen.  Blacks achieving prosperity and success (as a group, not as individuals) would upset the “natural order of things.”  Just like the movie pointed out, Blacks were never supposed to outdo the Italian mafia.  The world is just not supposed to work that way. 

In the case of Frank Lucas, it did–at least for a little while.  But at what cost? In order to achieve the American Dream, Lucas exploited an entire group of people to which he belonged, an entire community of people that he was a part of.  

In many ways, Lucas had no choice.  Faced with the reality of racial inequality and restricted economic opportunities, Lucas saw selling heroin in Harlem as his only way “out” of economic insecurity and towards the promise of the American Dream.  The American Dream left him with no other choice but to exploit his own community to achieve its promise. 

Herein lies the tragedy of Frank Lucas. 

And herein lies the tragedy of the American Dream for those who are not born with power, prestige, money, wealth, and beneficial social and economic networks.  Every day of our lives, we are encouraged to “work hard” in order to “make it” in this world.  But what happens when your hard work doesn’t pay? What happens when hard work hasn’t payed for generations and generations of people like you?  Some people give up.  Others keep on keeping on with the hope that it will get better someday–if not on earth, then somewhere up there.   And others, like Frank Lucas, look for a loophole. 

Lucas realized that the American Dream was never meant to be for him, but he decided to take it by any means necessary.

 Except, those aren’t the rules of the game.  Selling heroin doesn’t count as hard work.  Even when it is the only option you have.  But again, the American Dream was never meant for people like Frank Lucas to achieve. 

And when a game isn’t meant for you, what other option do you have but to make up your own rules?

This is probably why I, and many others, left the theater feeling admiration and empathy for Frank Lucas.  He was just another Black man in America trying to get what is constantly being dangled in his face, but has a big red warning sign that reads “Sorry, not for you” on it.  He did what he had to do to rise to the top in a country that spits on the very ground he walks on.

But I also felt sorrow and pain.  How could Lucas do that to his own community? How could he exploit his own people to achieve the American Dream?

We have to create a better way. 

m.

“Waterboarding is torture, period.”

Big ups to former Navy interrogator Malcolm Nance, who testified in front of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, and emphatically declared that waterboarding is indeed torture.

Picture courtesy of http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/MalcolmNance.php

As if we need someone to sit in front of our public servants to tell them that strapping someone to a inclined board, wrapping a cloth around the head, and pouring water over the mouth and nose to induce the beginning stages of drowning is cruel and unusual.

While Attorney General nominee Mukasey dodges questions and invokes the most innocuous euphemisms (a la this Administrations claim that waterboarding is an “enhanced interrogation technique”), a large majority of Americans believe that waterboarding is torture. To no surprise, today’s Judiciary Committee hearing was not call-and-response; the Bush Administration didn’t allow its designated whipping boy to testify on the supposed merits of waterboarding and other forms of their, um, “enhanced” techniques.

Nance’s testimony was frightening, especially his description of the process of waterboarding: “water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel(ing) your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs.”

Oprah’s apology

One of our contributor’s favorite newspapers, The Independent, featured a recent story on abuse and neglect at Oprah’s $40 million South African school.

$40 million on one school gets you a yoga studio, gym, protective? fencing, lavish classroom decor and fancy uniforms…and a whole lot of criticism.

I’ll give to to Oprah for doing something; I’m not hating on her for trying to be active. But, as in earlier discussions about Teach for America, I’m not sure if that kind of doing is actually doing any good.

$40 million sure could buy more (more schools, more books, more uniforms, more teachers). But it was spent on someone’s dream (read: a self-reflexive, Western consumer’s notion of an educational wonderland).

Genarlow Wilson is free!

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that Genarlow Wilson’s sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. This comes after he served two years of a ten year sentence for, at the age of 17, engaging in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl.

Here we have it: Yet another case that exemplifies how unjust our criminal justice system truly is, especially for people of color. With 2.2 million folks in prison, most of them black and brown, and with 5 million on parole or probation, isn’t it time we take a long walk around the block to think about what our draconian law and policy is actually doing to our communities?

The 7 facts you may or may not know about Genarlow’s case:

1. Had Genarlow actually had sex with the girl, the act would have been charged as a misdemeanor.

2. Under Georgia law, until 1998, oral sex between a husband and a wife was illegal.

3. Five of the other high school-age boys who had consensual oral sex with the girl on that same night were offered — and accepted — plea bargains. Genarlow, the one without a criminal record or knowledge of court workings, decided to trust the American (in)justice system.

4. The jury acquitted Genarlow of one charge of rape but were forced to render a guilty verdict for the second charge, aggravated child molestation, because the girl was under the 16-years-of-age consent limit.

5. The conviction automatically registered Genarlow as a sex offender.

6. Because of mandatory minimum sentencing (the kind in which a drug dealer slinging 1 gram of crack cocaine is sentenced to the same time as someone selling 100 grams of powder) Genarlow automatically received 10 years without the possibility of probation or parole.

7. Many people have derided Thurbert Baker, the black Georgia DA who seems not to think that Genarlow’s sentence was cruel and unusual. Jimmy Carter wrote a blah blah state-the-obvious letter to Baker that put a crazy notion out there: “The racial dimension of the case is likewise hard to ignore and perhaps unfortunately has had an impact on the final outcome of the case.” (Wow, who would have thought? Race and criminal justice, there’s a heinous intersection there?!) He also noted another shocker: white defendants have — historically received and currently receive — milder sentences for similar acts. Thankfully, more nuanced and with-it Baker critics included Rev. Joseph Lowery and the Congressional Black Caucus.

While I planned to concentrate on the criminal justice side of this case (i.e. the utter disregard for reason in mandatory sentencing and the more specific racial underpinnings in Southern criminal law), I kept reading articles where (mainly white) op-ed writers and others in the mainstream media were using the same phraseology: “honor student” and “son of a single mother” and “football star.” Even ESPN picked up on Genarlow’s case and, er, “ran” with it because he had such a great football record.

Hmm. Now, don’t get me wrong: Any time the American people are turned on to the injustice in the criminal justice system, I’m glad. I’m just worried that many may gloss right over the important parts of this case because of a few loaded phrases.

“honor student” “son of a single mother” “football star”

We know why they use these buzz phrases, don’t we? Because the more acceptable YBMs (young black males) — the ones who “overcame” their “circumstances” to make good grades — are the ones who are championed. I’ll say it again: Don’t get me wrong, I’m not hating on Genarlow for his acheivements and I’m not disregarding how this case can be used to make changes to crazed sentencing policy. I’m just hesitant to buy into what some in the media and public sphere emphasize about this case’s tone and meaning. Yeah, he seemed like a good guy. But there are plenty of good guys out there who, because of social, economic, familial and other circumstances, don’t have the access or opportunity to acheive, especially not to acheive the way that middle America folks think is “good” or “worthy” or “acceptable”…for a black man…

There are notions of a chosen-because-of-his-acceptability, Rosa Parks-like dimension to the coverage and amplification — and the corresponding outrage — of Genarlow’s case, especially in the white media. Let’s be real: Rosa should be celebrated because of her sit down and the way she pushed (or, um, was pushed) out into the public consciousness, but Claudette Colvin (one of four young black girls who refused to give up their seats to white people way before Rosa Parks and even went to court for it) was deemed unworthy of championing by the white liberals and the civil rights establishment because she was low-income and had a child out of wedlock. I just wonder what would have happened if Genarlow had had a criminal record, was a D student, or wasn’t in school. Maybe everyone would be similarly outraged. Perhaps the mainstream media would have pushed the case of a D student to their front pages, like they did with Genarlow.

But, then again, there are Genarlows all around the country, every day, convicted because of structural and policy obsurdities like the crack/powder disparity or Jena-like assault charges. Yet very few of them have the grades, the sport, and the overcoming narrative to get press coverage. Not all of them are acceptable.