This is a photo of Sara Baartman, also colloquially known as the Hottentot Venus. In 19th Century Europe, she was exhibited as a "freak show" where white Europeans marveled at the (alleged) size and shape of her buttocks. So what does the Hottentot Venus have to do with Nicki Minaj? The commonality is that Minaj embodied the past stereotype of the Hottenton Venus of the 21st Century on last week's Saturday Night Live.
I read this article on TheRoot by Michael Arceneaux (which is one of my favorite website) and was disturbed. As many people know, much of my scholarly work centers on the limited representations and constructions of black gay men on television. But this article bugged me, not because the author is wrong, but because he selectively chose which information to include and which to delete.
His gripe is that there is a revolution happening on television in terms of gay characters appearance and acceptance on TV but that black gay men have not been/are not a part of that revolution. And he rightly points out that these representations are disproportionately white. No arguments so far. Where he goes off the rails (for me) is in his selection of Antoine Dodson (of "Hide Yo Kids" fame) and Lawrence Washington (from The Real Housewives of Atlanta). While perhaps his selection of these two celetoids (to borrow a phrase from the brilliant Chris Rojek who defines it roughly as a person who acquires short, intense bursts of media attention) speaks to their omnipresence in media he is remiss in recognizing that the Entertainment Weekly article DID mention Calvin from Greek who is an out black gay man, former president of his fraternity, has an interest in sports and has been written such that he has relationships (albeit with white men) that include kissing and sometimes the implication that there was same sex sexual intercourse.
Also conveniently missing from this analysis is the gang from Noah's Arc. Are they not gay representations (or at least not the "right" gay representations)? Are the only "approved" (by whom?) ways that black gay men on television can be represented is as ultra masculine like Keith Charles on Six Feet Under? What about Carter Heywood from Spin City? Why is he missing from this analysis? He is certainly the father of the movement whereby gay black men on TV began subscribing to what Evelyn Higginbotham calls a politics of respectability.
We have to get beyond this notion of positive and negative when it comes to representations of black gay men in media. These terms are entirely subjective. Whose positive? Who's negative? I often say to a friend of mine that nuance is dead and this article speaks to that notion loud and clear. If we subscribe to Charles Cooley's notion that TV is a place we turn to in order to see ourselves reflected, then for someone, these representation are grounded in their truth. Do some of these representations rely on stereotypes? Of course they do, but stereotypes are grounded in a truth, perhaps not yours or mine, but someone's truth. It's extraordinarily facile to dismiss black gay characters because they fail to conform to the ways in which we construct what black gayness (or gayness, generally for that matter) is or is not.
I can't argue that we still need to search for the black gay men on TV, but the notion that all we have to pick from are the caricatures of gayness that harken back to the days of Men On... from In Living Color is a bit disingenuous. We still have a long way to go, (the same is true for many televisual groups including lesbians, who are as invisible on TV as black gay men), but we have more choices than Arceneaux asserts.
In the interest of full disclosure, I work in marketing and public relations and fully understand niche marketing. That, however, in no way means that I like the concept or that I think it's valuable from a consumer/user perspective.
The consumer me sees niche marketing as a ploy by companies to get me to spend my money and most of the time I tend to reject that sort of marketing/outright ploy. The primary reason I do so, is that it rarely means that the company supports your "community" but rather that there is market research that shows you and your "community" are an "untapped market" or is a growing consumer segment.
Why can't "successful" black women find a "good" man? It seems to be a controversial and thought-provoking question on the surface. But when examined more closely, it's a question that is bound up in heteronormative, reproductionist and sanguinuptial notions about men and women and family. First, it is heteronormative in that it assumes that the role of women (and men) is to couple through the bonds of the socially constructed institution of marriage. It also presupposes that women want or need to be married. As if there is something wrong with women who either chose not or are not "honored" with having a man ask them to be married. The whole premise assumes that for these black women, there is a problem because they can not find suitable mates. And while it may be true that some women bemoan the unavailability of "good" men (often anecdotally blaming gay men and incarcerated black men), there are other women who are financially secure, have fantastic friends and as such, don't worry about finding a "good" man.
A friend hipped me to this video and it is truly heartbreaking. Apparently the color of beauty is still white (and will always be if we are to believe those people interviewed in the video.
Before I am accused of being too Afrocentric, I am not advocating that the fashion industry is "blackened" just for the same of having black people on the runways and in the pages of mainstream fashion magazines. Rather, I am advocating at least an openness to representing blackness rather than having designers request "no black girls." Particularly when they are willing to allow white models to don blackface or act as props to showcase white beauty. Which recalls one of the quotes in the film that says people in the industry essentially want white girls dipped in chocolate.
I sometimes cannot believe my eyes. I knew this legislation was in the works, but for it to be signed into law is a completely different thing. (Deep breath!) OK, in Arizona it is now illegal to teach ethnic studies courses because, well, let me just put a quote here from State schools chief Tom Horne who says:
"...A Tucson school district program promotes 'ethnic chauvinism' and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race.'"
The first problem is that these "ethnic studies" programs are the only place where minority students can get a comprehensive history of their ancestors. When I was in elementary school, black history in the larger history books consisted of Harriett Tubman (she helped free slaves) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (he led the Civil Rights Movement) -- pretty insufficient.
Contrary to belief, American isn't a melting pot. Rather, we demand that people assimilate -- which adapting to "the American Way." But even as people of color, we are constantly reminded (particularly in today's political climate) that we are different and in the eyes of those who largely hold power, inferior. As such, ethnic studies is a necessary part of educating students. (Not to mention that there are non ethnic students who take these courses as well because they want to expand their knowledge -- isn't that what education is supposed to be all about?)
I mean, really? Did we really need someone to tell us that the "news" we receive isn't neutral? Despite the claims of shows and networks to have "No Bias, No Bull" and be "Fair and Balanced" the opposite is true. This goes for both right and left media. As Pierre Bourdieu tells us in his fantastic book On Television
"It explains why real information, analysis, in-depth interviews, expert discussions, and serious documentaries lose out to pure entertainment and, in particular, mindless talk show chatter between 'approved' and interchangeable speakers."
I saw this video and was torn -- it's actually laugh out loud funny, but also incredibly sad, particularly as I inhabit my black male skin daily. Certainly media, including music, movies, television (both the news and television shows) and even art to a certain degree (and the Reagan administration) has helped to perpetuate the idea of the menacing black man. But at the same time, this manages to skewer the sheer absurdity of a monolithic idea of black male menace (as well as monolithic ideas about any group of people).
A friend of mine tipped me off to this e-mail that purported to defend the idea that black people are genetically less intelligent than other people (presumably, mainly white people). I won't even try to unpack this nonsense because Feministe does it far better than I could. It's a long read, but it's well worth the time and energy to do so. Unfortunately, these are the kinds of serious, and well-informed conversations that need to be had about race in America, but that we simply are not well-equipped enough to have. But is more troubling is that, as Feministe points out, this woman is going to be charged with making and upholding the law some day. No doubt, those who believe in her particular brand of "logical" thought will herald her as one who reads the law as it was written while those who seek to uphold the rights of those less advantaged will be seen as "activist judges."
Here's a fantastic editorial by Frank Rich that in many ways illuminates the "new racial" times in which we live. All of the talk about Obama ushering in a new phase of post-racial-ness has been bunk. In many ways, I think we live in a far more racist society than we did before the Civil Rights Era.
For our allegedly being in "post-racial" times (if we're supposed to believe the line the media feeds us), I am routinely astounded by some of the things I see/hear. We've seen/heard about studies that demonstrate that when presented with a black doll and a white doll, black girls most frequently chose the white doll. But these studies can often be dismissed because they happened "back in the day." Which is why I was so shocked to hear that Good Morning America replicated the study in 2009 and found that some, not all, of the devaluing of black dolls by black girls still existed in "modern times."
It's quite easy to shake our collective heads and discuss how fashion and fashion magazines often advance a Eurocentric image of beauty which can perhaps lead to lowered self esteem -- a nod to Charles Cooley's looking glass self concept which asserts that a person's sense of self is derived from the perceptions of others. Just like the reflections in a mirror, the self depends on the perceived responses of others. It was just a few months ago that many were outraged that Vanity Fair featured all white actresses on its "The New Hollywood" cover.
But then comes this story, also from ABC that showed that a Walmart, presumably in Louisiana, set the price of a Black doll at 50% of the cost of the White doll. The spokesperson quoted in the story asserts that the Black doll was on clearance while the White doll was not citing anecdotal sales lower sales figures for Black doll. In addition, the spokesperson cited a desire to clear out the inventory of the Black doll to make way for new spring inventory.
I tend to believe everything Walmart does is evil, but in this case their stated reasons may be true and their intentions may have been innocent, but it's important to realize the message delivered -- The Black doll is worth less than White doll. It's important to know that the message sent is not always the message received (remember the game of telephone from childhood?).
My mother is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer. While undergoing chemotherapy, like most people, she lost her hair. As a man, it wasn't really a big deal to me, (I thought she had a great bald head and could, as Tyra Banks would say, "rock it!" but to her, it was a big deal.
Hair is so important to women (and to culture). As I mentioned in a previous post, hair, particularly among some black women, is of the utmost importance. I really started to notice how much hair meant to some women when I got stuck in an America's Next Top Model Cycle 6 hole a few weekends ago. Jade, a self proclaimed "biracial butterfly" kept belaboring the point that she didn't have long hair (skip to 1:11 and 1:30 in the video below for evidence).
Then I saw this photo from Huffington Post that showed a bald woman starting a fashion show in India.
The accompanying headline was "Bald Model Kicks Off Lakme Fashion Show." And it literally stopped me in my tracks. Without the qualifier "bald" the headline is unremarkable. We are to believe that something about baldness is remarkable. In this case we're supposed to say, "A bald model? It can't be done!" And ooh and ahh over the novelty of it all. Certainly, this could have been a PR stunt meant to drum up publicity, but the fact is that it worked. Why does hair equal femininity/femaleness in our culture? Why is hair, particularly long hair so rooted in ideas about attractiveness? When asked why she shaved her head, the model said she just felt like it. Maybe all women should just do what feels right to them when it comes to their hair rather than worrying about what others (particularly suitors) think.
And while it's often assumed (or at least theorized) that black women straighten their hair to submit to European ideas about beauty, it's interesting that in the film, Something New, that it is a white man who asks his black girlfriend why she wears a weave:
Brian: Can I ask you one more question? Kenya: Hmm? Brian: [grabs a piece of her hair] Can you take this off? Kenya: [opens eyes] What do you mean? Brian: I mean, its not a wig, right? But its not your real hair either, is it? Kenya: [stares at him for a moment, then sits up] I can't believe you just asked me that. Brian: I'm sorry, I'm just curious. Kenya: Its a weave, if you must know. I thought you dated black girls. Brian: They had real hair. Kenya: I have real hair too. Brian: Underneath? Kenya: Yes, underneath! Brian: So what, they just... they sew it in? Kenya: Something like that.
Last night I got into a discussion about Sandra Bullock winning an Oscar(R) for her role in The Blind Side. The person with whom I had this argument railed against Sandra Bullock's win because she felt that it reinforced the idea of the "helpless black" waiting for a good white person to come and make their lives better.
Before I dive into any argument, I like Sandra Bullock and most of her work. I also liked her work in The Blind Side. That having been said, the movie, while based on a true story, does work to continue the stereotype that white people, and white people alone hold the power. The Touhy family, as depicted in the film, introduced Michael Oher to football (also perpetuating the myth that black people -- especially black men -- excel at sport, not academics) and gave him the tools to be able to succeed. In the film, he also came from a broken home where the father was not present and the mother was a drug addict. In fact, no black person was shown as being "upstanding" setting up what Herman Gray calls black exceptionalism as difference in his book Watching Race. "blackness is figured as cultural and personal qualities that transcend and, from the position of dominant spectatorship established... reinscribe whiteness as the normative site of everyday life... this exceptional blackness has to be harnessed and ultimately placed in the service of good (Gray, 168). In other words, in the cinematic adaptation of the story Michael Oher is made "good" by "white saviors" rather than by other blacks within the community from which he comes. And we must assume that the film largely gets it right as Michael Oher hasn't publicly said otherwise (at least not to my knowledge).
In movies like The Blind Side, blacks continue to be portrayed in ways that became ingrained in our cultural fabric during the Reagan era: uneducated, violent, and "welfare queens." That is certainly not to say that this is the only representation of black people in film, but with two of the most high profile movies of the year featuring black actors (Precious and The Blind Side) featuring the Reagan-ist depictions of blacks, it is worth paying attention to the images we are being shown and the ideology that is being reinforced by the film industry.
Every bad experience is supposed to be a learning experience, right? So, I learned something from the cinematic crap fest called Valentine's Day. But I'm sure it's nothing that the writers, actors or producers expected me to get out of it. As someone who studies representation of both black people and gay people in media, I never expected Valentine's Day to shed any light on my studies, but it did -- and I guess that makes it worth the $6 I wasted seeing it. For the first half (or so) of this seemingly three hour movie I noticed that neither Jamie Foxx or Queen Latifah were getting any romantic play. Jamie Foxx's character was too cynical to be romantically involved and Queen Latifah's character was focused on her career. But then toward the end of the movie, Jamie Foxx became interested in Jessical Biel, culminating in an interracial kiss. The problem? "The kiss" was shot in such a way that you couldn't really see their lips becoming one, but just had the "idea" that they were kissing. I tried finding an image of said kiss, but when I put in the search terms Jamie Foxx Jessica Biel kiss, the first result was this and after scrolling through five pages still didn't see a screencap.
According to Erica Chito Childs, author of Fade to Black and White, "interracial stories may be appealing to show without mentioning race, and in particular, by showing interracial possibilities that promote the idea that society is color-blind while affirming the problems with crossing the color-blind color line." But by the way in which the sole interracial kiss was filmed in Valentine's Day, it shows that there is still taboo as well as perhaps some revulsion related to interracial couplings. And while the relationship was new, it's also interesting to note that they are one of the only couples not shown in bed together.
Viewers were also supposed to be shocked by Eric Dane's character's admission that he is gay and is subsequently in some kind of relationship with Bradley Cooper. The what, where or how of the relationship is never explained or defined but they're two gay characters in a movie so they must be together, right? But what is also cowardly about the portrayal of this relationship is that it is played solely for shock value. We were supposed to be shocked when we find out that Eric Dane is gay and then shocked again that Eric Dane and Bradley Cooper are a couple. And how do we know they are a couple? Because Bradley Cooper walks in and brushes a flower on Eric Dane's cheek while he's sleeping. When Eric Dane awakes they don't kiss, they just look at each other lovingly and then we fade to the next scene. While every other couple (including high school students) is shown kissing at some point.
I don't expect gayness in every movie I see (in fact, I'd probably hate it) but when you are going to have gay characters, at least have them kiss and don't just use it as a tactic to (allegedly) shock your audience. It very well may have been a shot at inclusiveness (after all, Valentine's Day is a film with a multicultural cast), but don't include a gay couple and then cop out. Sure, it may have outraged a few heterosexual viewers whose delicate palate is offended by seeing two dirty homos kissing (unless it's Jessica Biel and Jessica Alba or two equally hot women), but either go all the way or leave it out. Frankly, Valentine's Day was so craptastic, that it could have been left out entirely and the movie would have remained its level of crappiness.
When I was on vacation in Amsterdam late last year (shortly before the American Christmas holiday), I began to notice blackface dolls in storefront windows. Later in the trip, I asked a tour guide what it was all about and she retold the story of "Black Pete" who is a servant of Saint Nicholas. There are several stories about Black Pete. One is that his face is black because the Dutch expect the face of the devil to be black. Another story has Black Pete punishing bad children. Still another story purports that Black Pete is the one who actually places gifts for Saint Nicholas (and subsequently that his face is black because from sliding down the chimney, which covers his face in black soot). In current times (as when I was in Amsterdam) Black Pete's face isn't so much black as it is brown, presumably to get away from the idea of blackface. Aside from this representation of Black Pete, I (idiotically, apparently) thought blackface was largely a thing of the past since people like Ted Danson found out that most people (especially black people) don't see the "LOL" potential of blackface these days.
So, imagine my surprise when I saw this photo spread from L’Officiel Hommes, a men's French fashion magazine from 2010.
Are there really not enough black male models? I think not. And perhaps it's just for the sake of creating controversy because certain segments of the internet are abuzz about this photo spread. If that is/was the aim, then mission accomplished. But what it says is that in the high fashion modeling industry, black still isn't good enough. Despite Tyra Banks' best efforts with America's Next Top Model, there are just not a lot of black people who grace the pages of fashion magazines. The cover of Vanity Fair's most recent cover featured thin, white actresses as the future of Hollywood. What this recent attack means is that not only are blacks not good enough to be featured in fashion (along with women who are heavier than a size 6) but even when (on the rare occasion) an editorial calls for people of color they aren't even good enough to fill those few slots.
Some could make the argument that we are living in a post-racial world now that American has elected an African American president -- to which I say BULLSHIT! Try telling a black man (who is not the biracial Barack Obama) that race no longer matters. Even as a reasonably well-educated black man, no one can convince me that race no longer matters. Tell me we are post-racial when the woman on the "El" in Chicago gets up and moves to a different car when I sit down within 20 feet of her. Try telling me we are post-racial when the woman clutches her purse when I get onto the elevator with her.
Although we rarely do this is any way that has real impact, it's time for us to get outraged about our failure to have a real, honest conversation about race and ethnicity. We will always be plagued by these problems unless we get it all out in the open. Once we have had an honest conversation about race, we'll understand why brownface is as offensive as blackface and instead of giving people a forum to use it to titillate and intrigue us, we'll just yawn and look the other way and dismiss it for the publicity stunt that it is.
Whether we will admit it or not, media, at its core, works to frame events for us. Most often, news media works to frame blackness as a symbol of deviance, destruction and generally all things horrible. And as sociologist Herman Gray notes in his fantastic book Watching Race, "... the demonization of blackness -- welfare queens, the aggressive black female, the menacing black criminal -- in the public sphere of media spectacle... enables[s] the mobilization of counterimage of blackness -- the figure of individuality, competence, exceptionalism -- as difference." (See Harry Reid's comment about President Obama for more on how educated blacks are framed as different than "others."
In addition to this framing of blackness as menacing, the news media also work to frame phobias for us. Erica Chito Childs, in her book Fade to Black and White, asserts that the media frame fear of interracial relationships for us and that whenever these unions occur three things happen:
1) The relationship is often doomed from a long-term perspective; 2) The white person in the relationship is shown to be somehow deviant; and 3) The opposition to the interracial relationship is centered on black opposition rather than white opposition.
It's this third point that is most important for the purposes of this post. This framing can also be used as a way to look at homophobia. There is, without a doubt, homophobia that exists among white people. We see it nearly everyday in evangelicals and conservatives using scripture to denounce gay rights or by using "slippery slope" arguments about how gay rights will create a social Apocalypse. And one can either agree or disagree on their position by saying they are right or wrong -- and it is largely determined on where you stand on social issues. But it's the framing of black opposition that is sometimes the most telling.
While the video embedded below does not feature blacks, it's important to know that most people (particularly Americans) make no distinction for black skin and blacks are thereby implicated by the video. In addition, while homophobia among whites is framed as being either a religious issue or one related to income or education level, all blacks are often stereotyped as being homophobic. Despite efforts like the ad campaign launched last week on Long Island, there is still a long way to go to get the media to stop framing events so that we can stop relying on stereotypes to label people.
I visited the blog Joe.My.God as I often do on a daily basis for gay news and came across a post that featured a video from In Living Color and their Men On... skit with a Super Bowl Theme. One on hand, I must admit that when watching this skit as a young child, I never thought twice about it. The skits made me uncomfortable as a gay young man (although I couldn't yet articulate that I was gay) but I thought nothing of the depiction the show constructed of gay black men.
My problems with the skit originated much later in life when I began to study representations of minority groups on television. Some people, on the rare occasion that I post comments on blogs, dismiss me as being overly analytical and in the case of this video assumed that no one looked to In Living Color to provide role models. And while that may be true that no one is actively seeking a role model from the show, the reinforcement of negative stereotypes about gay men (and black gay men specifically) cannot be brushed aside.
Noted cultural scholar and sociologist Herman Gray in his fantastic book Watching Race says, "This sketch and others features Antoine and Blaine activate and engage crucial debates about identity, sexuality, and desire within the discourse of blackness. Although the sketches are not specifically about gay black men, the body, dress, language and gestures are deliberately organized to construct and covey something about the characters' identities. Moreover, and perhaps this helps to account for their resonance, these parodies and the strategies of representations on which they depend join historical contemporary debates and representations in the black community about homophobia, black men, masculinity, sexuality and drag queens."
I believe that whether we want to believe it or not, television is a major socialization factor for us. It teaches us how to be and how not to be. Representations like those found in the Men On... sketches from In Living Color help to underscore why gay men and women are (and should remain) second-class citizens. Men On... makes gay men effeminate (in both demeanor and dress) and lecherous and helps some in the show's largely black audience reinforce their hatred for all things gay.
Politicians and television talking heads, particularly right-leaning ones, have often talked about how things were so much better and simpler in times gone by. And while this Daily Show video lambastes Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, we're all a little guilty of mis-remembering events in our lives. Cultural theorist Maurice Halbwachs gives us clues about how (and why) we think this were better than they actually are through his theory of collective memory. Halbwachs was chiefly concerned with the ways in which we recount and mythologize the past. He believed that the only way that past is made relevant for us is by social institutions (like the media) and collective actions of commemoration and festivals.
Even more disturbing is the opening speech at the Tea Party Convention given by former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo. He believed that literacy tests as a prerequisite to being able to vote were a good thing. What he fails to "remember" in his remembering how these literacy tests ensured that we had educated people voting is that blacks were denied all sorts of civil rights in addition to just being prohibited from voting. Let's see... what could have possibly been happening to blacks when they were being denied the right to vote? Umm, being routinely hosed down in the streets with high-powered hoses. Oh yeah, another example is being lynched... and... one last one, having to endure a far inferior educational system (although schools have effectively been re-segregated thanks to differences in socio-economic status and "white flight" from urban schools).
Haiti is another example of collective memory. This excellent essay remembers the facts of Haiti and why it is one of the poorest countries in the world -- not because Haitians are some kind of slackers, but because America (the very country now coming to its aid and trying to rewrite history) has had their foot on the necks of Haitians for decades.
What we must work to do is remember events as they were and not as we'd like them to be. That is the best way for us to be more informed world citizens and not be told what to think by "the machine."
So read the headline of a story I saw in the Washington Informer. And on one hand, it is an important question to ask when you look at some (and I underline some three times) of the recent Black actors and actresses who have been awarded an Oscar(r) for their work. Halle Berry's win for Monster's Ball could, I believe, be seen as simply awarding a black person an Oscar because there had been so much made of the fact that no black person had won the Best Actress or Best Actor Oscar since Sidney Poitier and Hattie McDaniel. Denzel Washington's Oscar was regarded as an award not necessarily for Training Day, but for his body of work. That largely leaves Jennifer Hudson, who, while fantastic in Dreamgirls, was largely awarded an Oscar because of her back story (booted from American Idol, told she'd never make it, and persevering).
Which brings us to Mo'Nique. Her portrayal can certainly be construed as being a negative portrayal of blacks, particularly inner city blacks, but the fact remains that her performance is riveting and comes from her gut. Personally, I don't like Mo'Nique, but I absolutely have to take my hat off to her for pulling one of the year's best performances out of her hat.
But looking at the number of roles that blacks have played and the number of movies starring black actors, it is shocking that the list of those who have been awarded (or even nominated) is fairly short. I'm still pretty shocked that none of the actors in The Secret Life of Bees were even mentioned during awards season, particularly Queen Latifah or the criminal absence of Idylwild from the award season.
I do believe that black actors garner far less respect in Hollywood, particularly underrated actors like Angela Bassett, Lawrence Fishburn and Alfre Woodard -- just to name a few. I am certainly not an advocate of nominating an actor just because he or she happens to be black, but it'd be nice to see more color at the Oscars.
A while ago, I watched this video on youtube of Audra McDonald singing a song written and originally performed by the talented and under-appreciated Laura Nyro. One of the commentators remarked that Laura Nyro, a Jewish singer, sang "blacker" than Audra McDonald. In other words, the commentator implies that there is something inherently "black" about the way someone sings and that Audra McDonald, with her opera-trained voice delivers songs in a way that is "less black" than Laura Nyro.
Which begs the question, what is blackness? And more importantly, how is it objectively identified? And why does degree (or lack) of blackness even matter among black people? Is recent Kennedy Center honoree Grace Bumbry less black than, say Mary J. Blige because of the kind of music she sings?Is Terrence Howard "more black" than Will Smith because of the types of movies in which he stars? Or is Tiger Woods "less black" (I know he's bi-racial...) than Michael Jorndan because he excels at golf rather than basketball? Or is Lauren Anderson, former prima ballerina and THE ONLY black woman to be a prima ballerina in an American ballet company, less black than Judith Jamison?
Identifying things as black, with black referring to a state of being rather than a race or ethnicity is a very slippery slope. It limits what the realms of possibilities for black people.
Perhaps it's a defense mechanism to reject those things that have historically been off-limits or difficult-to-achieve for blacks like opera, golf and ballet. Whatever the root cause, if we want to truly achieve post-racialism (like the media want us to believe we have), we have to stop pigeonholing and stereotyping groups of people. It starts, I believe, with the representations we have of people on television. We still have very limited portrayals of people of color on television. It takes more than to just count the numbers of people of color on television but to look at what occupations they perform, what is their socio-economic status level, and their relationship status. When we truly have a sustained group of representations on television shows, movies and most importantly on the news (I won't even start in on the racialized way in which news is presented), we may begin to see a change in what we describe as "blackness."
