Call a woman a bitch and you might get cut, call her a bad bitch or a boss bitch, you probably can get her number and the panty draws. Yep, all you have to do is add an adjective to the front of it that’s deemed to be a positive to the negative word bitch and bam; you have officially transcended the word bitch. You have been officially cleared to use it whenever you want to use it.
It started with Lil Kim in 1996 when she released her debut album, Hardcore. She had a song on it entitled Queen Bitch from which her nickname was derived, as she was called The Queen B from that time on.
Four years later, in 2000, Trina came out with an album titled Da Baddest Bitch and bitch officially became a part of the African American lexicon as a term of endearment if a woman called another woman a bitch, as in “bitch please” or “I’m partying with my bitches tonight”.
Don’t get me wrong, male rappers have been using the word in lyrics since the 80’s but most women frowned upon it and had something to say negatively about the person using the word. Male rappers were always being ostracized for using it in raps, but when Lil Kim came along and coined herself as the Queen Bitch it began to take on a different form.
Not only do women use it unabashedly, men do it also. It’s become part of people’s everyday vernacular unless it’s being used in a negative way, in a form of malice. Continue reading
Over the past few months I’ve been seeing the topic that the hoes are winning in 2011 being posted on blogs and forum boards across the Internets. It’s usually accompanied by a picture of a NBA or NFL player, rapper or other celebrity in entertainment being up close and personal with what most women will call an industry hoe.
You see all kind of comments and criticism against the couple because he, the baller, shouldn’t be making a hoe his woman. Then maybe a few months later you never see any more pictures of them together.
A classic example was when Hill Harper was spotted out and about with Dolicia Bryan, a video vixen and model. Women across the web were livid that this so called intellectual was dating what they call a booty model. Then a bunch of stories sprang up about how she was an industry jump-off and all around hoe. Most of the women that were complaining were educated Black women, who felt betrayed, for some insane reason, that an educated Black man would date a booty model. As if he had to date an educated Black woman because he went to school. These women were livid, spewing their venom across blogs left and right, all because they felt like he should have been dating educated women such as themselves. They never stopped to think that this woman wasn’t ugly by any stretch of the imagination and they really didn’t know the extent of the relationship they had. They just went in on them and made it into a hot topic.
Not long after that, you didn’t see them together anymore. Case closed; chalk one up for Internet antagonist. Well not quite true!
The real question here is what were Hill Harpers intentions in the first place. Take a stab in the dark. If the answer is, he wanted to have sex with her, then you’re right, anything else is dead wrong. Continue reading
At first I just listened to the words politically and thought that they were trying to reference the fact that he’s Democrat and they are Republicans. This view spawned the usual response from the political pundits when they heard it.
“The President has been trying to work with Republicans and reach across party lines to get things done,” is what Democrats say, “It’s the Republicans who are not trying to bring the political parties together”.
The Republicans on the other hand continue to say that this President is a dividing force in America, no matter how much the President tries to work with them. This has been the narrative and it continues to be a Republican talking point.
Then today, as I was listening to Politically Direct on Current TV, they played a few sound bites from Romney who had won the New Hampshire primary the night before and it hit me.
There are 2 things that came to mind when hearing it, and both lean to the side of race baiting, a play on the inherent bias of white Americans against Black Americans. I always wondered how so many Right wing Republican hypocrites could have the audacity to say that a man who has continued to try to work with them to the detriment of his own base could be considered a divider and this is why.
- White Superiority Complex – White men in this country have always viewed Black men as their subordinates, beneath them, no matter who they are or what they do. Because of this they view anything that a Black man does that doesn’t bend to the there will as being an attack on their white manhood. A Black man that is out of line and doesn’t bend to the will of a white man when instructed to do so is considered a rebellious, cocky negro, who thinks he’s somebody, and they cant have that.This gives rise to the mentality that if you don’t obey their every whelm and I do something to you, it’s your fault. As in, this uppity Negro thought he could sit at the same table as us whites, and when we told him to move, and he didn’t, we grabbed him by the neck and beat him to a bloody pulp. It was his fault; he should have done what we told him to do!
- It’s a way for them to let other white people know, without having to say it plainly, that Obama has whites going against whites. And as a white man who has a superiority complex, this is not right. White people need to stick together. Continue reading
This post was inspired by a recent article about the new movie Red Tails, and George Lucas’ appearance on The Daily Show. In the article and interview he stated that the movie almost didn’t get made because Hollywood execs didn’t know how to market it due to the all Black cast, well a cast with no major white roles, so they wouldn’t green light it. He had to spend his own money on it and hoped it would make its money back plus bring in a profit.
I believe the budget was $58 million with an all Black cast and director, which is almost unprecedented in Hollywood. Most of the Black movies that get green lit in Tinsel Town have a budget of about half of that, but George pushed on and got the movie to be released. Before this movie the highest budget for an all Black cast and director was $45 million given to Spike Lee for Inside Man, which grossed $184,376,254 worldwide, a $139 million profit. That spurred them to give Spike $45 million more to shoot Miracle at St Anna which failed miserably at the box office only grossing $9.3 million worldwide. After that bomb in 2008 all Black cast or predominantly Black cast were relegated to the smaller budgets that they were used to receiving before Miracle at St Anna.
Personally I believe that the cast of Fast 5 was an all Black cast but for some reason Vin Deisel and The Rock doesn’t qualify as Black in some people’s eyes. The budget for it was $125 million and grossed over $626 million worldwide. So what we see is that money can be made off all Black cast but we need to help out by going to the movies as opposed to copping it on bootleg when it debuts.
So this is what we need to do. We need to support this movie with more vigor and a sense of urgency that we didn’t do when Miracle at St Anna came out. Why? Because as George said, if this movie bombs it will be even harder to get an all Black cast and director green lit by Hollywood for a high budget film.
Bootleggers, you know who you are, tell the people at the barbershop or on the streets that you don’t have a copy of Red Tails. Give it a couple weeks before you do your damage. All and all you will only be loosing a few bucks by not selling this one when you first get it. As a whole, $100’s of thousands to millions will be lost but that’s spread out amongst 1000’s of people across America, but Black actors and directors stand to loose millions on top of untold millions because of your actions. Continue reading
The question here is; is Original Sin true or a false concept created by man?
I see post all the time about Adam’s sin and it’s supposed to be the reason why death is
in the world. Religious Christian zealots claim that because of the original sin of Adam eating from The Tree of Knowledge man was condemned to death, as it states in The Bible, Gen 2:17.
This is then used as the reason that Jesus (Yahshua) had to be born into this world and die on the cross as the savior for mankind to allow us to live eternally in the abode of Heaven. But one thing makes no since in this statement because, if man was meant to live forever in the flesh in the first place, why did Jesus have to die for us to only live in heaven eternally, not in the flesh as pastors and preachers claim. There is no mention in the beginning of the Bible about man living forever in heaven, nor does any pastor or preacher teach this concept, although the Tree of Life is mentioned in Genesis.
So once again, is this truth or a lie?
So the story goes, God created man, God is All Knowing, God told man to not eat from a specific tree that he created, man, who had been given choice, chose to eat of the tree anyway. Then God punished man for doing so by allowing man to die, but first let them live for up to 999 years. Then send his son to die on the cross 4000 years later so that man can live forever in eternity! This is the gist of the story, right.
Here is where the problems come in with this story!
1) If God is All Knowing then He had to Know that Adam would eat of the Tree of Knowledge, which meant that it was part of the Divine plan, and should not be considered sin
2) Man could never have been designated to never die because that would have meant that the world would have been overpopulated 1000’s of years ago with 3 and 4 thousand year old humans
3) Why would God send Jesus to die on the cross so that we can live forever in Heaven when the original sin caused our life in the flesh to be cut short, shouldn’t Jesus’ death have been so that we can live forever in the flesh as it was originally planned
I already know what the zealots are going to say about this; God works in mysterious ways, you can’t use mans logic and reasoning when it comes down to God’s plans, etc, but this is one of the first stories in the Bible and it cannot be true by any standard of sensible thought. The only standard it works under is, blind following the blind. And this is just the tip of the iceberg!
If you are not blind and you claim to know the answers, leave a comment?