According To Me...By B

November 11, 2010

Do I Offend When I Defend…?



By Briscoe Pugh


I guess I am a liberal. Many of my socio-political leanings seem to point to this hypothesis by virtue of where I tend to come down on issues that concern myself and those around me. Then again, there are things that I’m conservative about. I am liberal in that I feel it is necessary to consider all things which can improve the basic, human condition. I can also be conservative at times in that there are some things that I feel must remain in place in order for human beings to live together.

Take family values, for instance:

I believe that a strong focus on keeping the basic, family unit strong and intact is an absolute imperative to any civilized society. This could be the extent to which I am conservative on this, because I would tend to differ with what many conservatives tend to say the basic makeup of the family unit actually is. I think a “family” could be (and often is) defined as having one parent, two parents, parents of both sexes, parents of the same sex or even having elder siblings as parents. We no longer live in Post-Nuclear America. The ideal dynamic of the Nuclear Family (Dad, Mom, 2.5 children, maybe a dog named Spot, a car in every garage and a chicken on every table) was not conceived with The Vietnam War, The Civil Rights Movement, Watergate, Iran-Contra, post-Reaganomics America, or the Crack epidemic in mind. The traditional family unit is multifaceted, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and defies all classical theory. Just as bumblebees aren’t supposed to be able to fly by all known laws of biology and physics, the modern family is not supposed to be able to rear children whom are indeed successful or healthy.

This is the practical reality of what the modern family happens to be and the reasonable thing to do (in my opinion) is to support and empower those whom have dedicated themselves to raising, healthy, well-adjusted children...as opposed to vilifying them because of their sexual orientation, race or religious convictions.

I didn’t mean to get on the soapbox about family values here, but since I did…at least you all know how I feel about it.

Okay…back on point I go…LOL

Much like the above issue, whatever conservatism I may embrace is held in check by a strong humanistic reflex of pragmatist reasoning.

This is also true regarding gun control.

I often joke with people who ask me where I stand on gun control by quipping thusly:

“Sure I believe in gun control. That’s why I shoot with both hands.”

That one isn’t exclusively mine, but quote me if you want. (lol)

Yes, people…I am what is known as a self-professed liberal…who takes great pride in a certain level proficiency with firearms. I feel it necessary now to assure my liberal brethren and sistren that my skill with a weapon is not based in any sort of way-out fetish with guns. I do not “love” guns.

I like to voice my opinion on gun control with a necessary reference to a far larger human issue.

I feel it is every human being’s inherent, divine right to live, love and be healthy and happy. I believe that all societal tendencies can ultimately be traced back to these basic human desires.

That said, I believe that part of being able to do these things requires that we be safe and may also ensure the safety of those we love. This could refer to eating healthily or keeping warm in winter. In extreme circumstances, this could refer to seeing that we and our loved ones are kept safe and unharmed from imminent danger.

We live in perilous times with a lot of desperate, sick and vicious people who often do not regard us, our families or even themselves with the same regard as we might.

The 2nd Amendment is fine by me. My right to “keep and bear arms” is something of a worst case measure for a worst case scenario. Many of my liberal brethren and sistren view this as an extreme consideration. I’m sorry they feel that way.

I view keeping a weapon on hand the same way many people view locking doors behind them, keeping a jack and a spare tire in the trunk, keeping gas in the car and avoiding certain parts of town at certain times of night. It is another measure of security that I feel could save my life or the life of someone else at some point.

Now, having said ALL of that…I must make something clear.

I respect weapons of every sort the same way I respect my car, the stove, power tools and electrical appliances. I do not run with scissors, play with electrical outlets or anything that produces flame. These things must be handled and operated with a constant regard for certain rules and principles. If they are not, they can be dangerous, and even life threatening.

You will never, EVER see me at a public event, wearing weapons openly for the sake of showing them in order to make a point and possibly intimidate others. I believe that brandishing weapons at political rallies, or protests or ANYTHING held in a public place is absolute IDIOCY…and accomplishes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING healthy or positive. Overt or open carry of a weapon of any sort by a civilian is quite honestly unnecessary in my opinion, even though it is legal in most places in this country. Do not be misled. People who carry a weapon this way, whom are not being paid to do so as an ESSENTIAL part of their job function do so ONLY to intimidate others and alleviate their own fears.

I am also not trying to convert anyone here, or to promote memberships to shooting clubs.

If you are not comfortable with a weapon of any sort, I urge you not to handle it without supervision from someone you trust, who is trained and proficient with it.

I just thought it appropriate to voice this particular opinion in this political climate, wherein liberals are seen as somehow monolithically inclined toward pacifism and wholly against a strong defense.

Not true.

Anyone who thinks I am somehow helpless because I happen to be liberal on most issues is more than welcome to test their theory.

Peace, my people…

And I really, really mean that. (smile)


October 8, 2010

Doing Time
By
Briscoe Pugh



I know I’m not the only one who has seen the seemingly growing preoccupation of so-called “urban” culture with language, imagery and stylistic assertions derived from prison life.

The term itself even seems like an oxymoron.

“Prison”…”life”.

Prison is essentially defined as “a state of confinement or captivity”. Anyone who knows of the state of prisons today (be it from an academic perspective or from the day-to-day accounts of prison workers and/or inmates themselves) knows that incarceration in this post-modern society is basically human storage (overcrowding) with an embedded module of servitude for the profit of everyone EXCEPT those who do the actual work (via corporate contracting of incarcerated workers to perform remote functions for pennies on the dollar). The “prison industrial complex” that Angela Davis spoke on has come into full realization of itself and has also done its part to ensure the aim of those charged with running prisons to be primarily focused on staying full to garner more government dollars…even at the cost of safety, human life and rehabilitation factor we are lead to believe it represents. The popularized misnomer by which we refer to the “corrections” element of the institution of law enforcement in this country has proven to be contrary to any stated aim of society, government or prisons themselves to actually “correct” the behavior of those subject to mandatory residence in penal facilities.

Life is essentially and universally defined as encompassing the processes directly related to actually living and being alive (growing, developing, reacting to stimuli of all sorts, etc).

Does the state of incarceration today lend itself to ANYTHING that affirms life or living…or at the very least, a state of quality of life or living?

This question is important as I address my original statement.

It is important because of all that the style and culture of the young and disenfranchised today could gain inspiration from, too many are aspiring to mimic the affectations of those either on the way to, coming from or already inside prison.

I first want to state outright that I do not intend in any way to disparage anyone whom has the misfortune of having been incarcerated. Nor do I intend in any of my statements to make light of, belittle or trivialize the experiences of those whom have been incarcerated…for whatever the reason. I also do not intend to take stances about alleged guilt or innocence here. I have close friends and family members whom have been incarcerated. Some still are. It is my regard for them and consideration for the pitfalls of their plight that has served to drive a good portion of my position on this issue. I have in fact been blessed to learn a lot directly from those close to me whom have been and still are incarcerated.

That said…

Much credence must be given regarding the role the criminal underworld has played in the development of most every ethnic group in America…whether having come here by conscious choice, visible necessity or force and coercion. Crime in urban communities has always enjoyed a wink and nod in certain communities, while at the same time being publicly maligned by the same communities. One sees this exemplified in the institutions of the Italian community and their general avoidance, fear and overall dislike of its rather famous, signature criminal elements alongside the understanding amongst a great many in the Italian community that this element also serves a protective purpose in certain situations. Much like just about every immigrant community at some point or another in America (Jewish, Irish, Polish, Russian, Latino), the Italian criminal underworld grew from a necessity of those therein having to grow past their circumstances in a social, political and cultural climate which did not favor their ascension past anything beyond manual laborers.

I am inspired to hearken back to a writing I did some years ago regarding “gangsterism,” where I pointed to the actual definition of a “gangster” (“member of a gang of criminals,” as defined by Merriam Webster), what makes one a “gangster,” the iconography and imagery of the “thug” and what that means to those who take on the style and culture influenced by this imagery. I saw fit to draw a few connections in my piece:

“We have seen through the commodification of hip hop and street culture as a whole (by virtue of our collective acquiescence to the value system of the market/profit culture) the portrayal of certain extreme (dare I say even, esoteric) elements of street culture by those with no true connection to the community as a whole. I have said before that in our current day and age, life actually does “imitate art”.

The overlapping of entertainment media with street based realities has served to distort both, as neither can truly depict or reflect the other objectively. Corporate backed media giants have siphoned from our indigenous street culture the very edge and definitive identity, which the mainstream populace feared for so very long.

As gentrification of Black and Latino communities drives rents and property values up and (in direct proportion) us out, the appropriation by corporate America of street based cultural assertions characteristic of the Black and Brown communities in this country has served to soften and homogenize the edgiest of street iconography and transform what was once multifaceted and inaccessible (but by birth, experience or initiation) into a cartoonish, defanged, grouping of clownish, buffoonish images, which we are losing an entire generation to-who are all too willing to step up and exalt this materialistically hedonistic, proverbial buck dance.

Corporate America-while eschewing the relatively benign (by comparison), localized specter of the gangster in Black and Brown communities-has established itself as a ruthless, all-consuming, barbarically mercenary, diabolical legion of gargantuan titans who wear a “smiley face” to project the illusory perception of benevolence to the human good. The actual lineage of America’s corporate elite actually represents the first genuine movement of gangsterism on this continent, starting since before this nation’s inception. We see it in the enslavement and wholesale slaughter of indigenous peoples for land and sovereignty, the Transatlantic Slave Trade involving the importation, sale, enslavement and oppression of African peoples on this continent (which served as the backbone of the various growth industries in this country at the time), the conquest of the Western U.S. (previously part of Mexico) for U.S. expansion as well as the great industrialism movement by what many call the “captains of industry” or “great robber barons”.

They were (amongst other machinations) the model and springboard for the burgeoning organized crime syndicates in the country.”

In light of our broad appropriation of the basest, most criminal impulses of those in power, and absent of the higher functioning traits they exhibit (leadership, academic excellence, mass scale organization, political savvy) the ultimate outcome is one whereby sub-culture becomes underclass status…then passes from the proverbial “belly of the beast” into its bowels: Prison.

Crime and incarceration have garnered status as rites of passage amongst many in urban communities. Gang culture drives and reinforces this mentality through a filling of the gap left in the wake of the breakdown of the family unit…whether said family is conventional or non-conventional.

When gang culture was about community upliftment, cultural pride and basic survival against corruption from the larger establishment, the argument could be made very clearly for youth choosing such affiliations. It is always a viable option to many in marginalized communities to rebel against institutional injustice via activities unjust institutional entities punish for being criminal. In this purview, the inevitable process of incarceration can indeed be viewed with a degree of honor. This is what defines the state of being a political prisoner. The distinction here is that the activities considered “criminal” by unjust political systems would not typically be deemed such from a basic, human perspective.

But when a culture honors incarceration through its music, style of dress and its basic interactions with the world around it without a basic consideration for anyone or anything outside of the base impulses of the individual, and no tangible regard for the community it thrives in…no honor can be had.

So…

The next time you encounter that young person who:

• boasts of arrest, pending court cases or incarceration...whether past, current or future

• revels in the impulse and desire to “do” something (anything) criminal AND cruel (yes…there is a distinction)

• can’t be bothered to learn from their own criminal mistakes

• either cannot or will not acknowledge the cycle of victimization that gang and prison life now represents and further perpetuates,

Talk to them. Ask them questions. Listen to them. Try to teach them something…ANYTHING about the world…even if it’s just one or two generations previous to them.

Do what you can…because their life DOES depend on it.

Peace and progress


October 7, 2010


Talking To Our…Self: A Poem
By
Briscoe Pugh


We are the inheritors of a…nay…MANY grand oral traditions…and we are blowing it…for our collective…self...

We of this massive conglomeration of walking, talking, loving, fighting, Petri dishes have within our self the radical essence of revered, indigenous people of prophecy from time immemorial…

We the people…in order to hold firm to that which guides our self from a place beyond memory…faster than thought…deeper than reflex…must tap the wellspring of waters which have never truly ceased to flow…

We have simply forgotten the true value of the need to drink of this sacred spring and have misconstrued our thirst…have collectively partaken and bathed in the swill of contrived expressions…regurgitated bastardized cultural assertions…sold for baubles assorted bits and pieces of a multicolor, patchwork legacy of primordial expressions…lacked for a collective, cohesive voice to command our…self…to re-affirm our…self…

We collectively attest that music and language are indicators for the pulse of every generation…through what we emit and receive…our self…teaches our self…but when our self…forgets who and what our self truly IS…and can truly BE…our self becomes…that something…”other”…that we have been branded as…

We must recall that our self of antiquity reminded itself constantly…through the great messengers…the carriers of the collective familial message….the griots…the shamans…the soothsayers…whose message was true…through and despite empire, zealotry and genocide…and lives in us…however transformed…

We…see and hear it all around us…in Gospel…the Blues…Jazz…Soul…Hip Hop…Poetry…street slang…home lingo…the “Pig Latin” which is neither Latin or of the swine…

We have permitted the media scavengers of cultural waste to pick at the bones and flesh of giants still alive…but barely conscious…and crawling to survive from the onslaught of corporate predators…predators lustful of our cultural lifeblood and emboldened by their hunger for more…

We…must look to the soil from which our cultures sprang…know that the wellspring has not dissipated…it is simply returned underground…much as any and every organic movement does…back to its roots…back to its essence…

From the underground up…the voice of our true self is reborn…and provides the window through which our conscience may guide us to the path whereby we may BE the village to truly raise the children…and help them to know themselves…to express themselves…and truly recognize our…collective…self.


September 30, 2010

Divinely Inspired?
By
Briscoe Pugh


I keep watching this “situation” unfold with Bishop Eddie Long and…once again…I ponder.

Of course, most know I’m speaking of the allegations made by several young men from Bishop Long’s congregation (New Birth Missionary Baptist Church) of sexual misconduct and imposition by Bishop Long with them. The allegations are damaging to Bishop Long, partially because he has vocally held to a scriptural interpretation that mandates a prohibition of same sex marriage or homosexual relationships-as many in the religious community do. This latest controversy is as well inopportune for Bishop Long, due to publicity in recent years which called attention to his very lavish lifestyle, which he lives thanks to the coffers of the church. The allegations made tell of Bishop Long lavishing upon these young men gifts of money, clothing, trips, cars and more for sexual favors…all (presumably) at the expense of the church, be it directly or indirectly.

This has all reawakened some considerations I have long had regarding the phenomenon we now call “The Mega Church” and what it actually means to the larger community of faith-whatever the religious denomination.

While I believe that one’s relationship with the vast, phenomenal, natural world and how and why it is they believe we are all are here is their business, I do question the factors that drive many to worship as they do.

Renowned public intellectual and Princeton professor, Dr. Cornel West once made this criticism of the current climate of “prosperity gospel” so prominent in today’s Christian church:

“…so many black churches went to sleep during the age of Reagan, became addicted to prosperity gospel, the market- driven conception of religion, of chamber-of-commerce religion, a market spirituality, a commodity-centered religion. Lexus, Lexus, Lexus, commodity, commodity, commodity becomes a means by which blessings are distributed. It’s a sick, impoverished form of religiosity but it was — it went hand in hand with– the market-obsessed culture, a market-obsessed religion. You saw the mega churches that became dominant. These mega-churches…you see an ATM before you see a cross on a lot of these churches”

Amen.

However…I see this as nothing particularly new.

The Black community in America has always endowed its church leaders with elevated status, partially because of the centrality with which the church has always existed in the community going back to slavery.

The Black church has a long and established history of upliftment.

During slavery, the code language for the Underground Railroad was embedded in the “negro spiritual.” The Civil Rights movement was born from the church and its portrayal of Jesus as a “liberator.” The Black church was a foundation for many historically Black colleges and universities and still is.

Indeed the Black church has been home to many of Black America’s most brilliant moments with one another, while being the scene of some of our most heinous, ongoing crimes toward one another.

The Black church in America was the one place during slavery wherein Black folk were afforded the freedom to truly express themselves in ANY manner. I subscribe to the concept that the church was specifically allowed to be such because of embedded means of social control within scriptural interpretation. In Mosaic Law as given in the Bible, one is specifically guided (theoretically) on how to do everything necessary to live in a society, such as diet, co-habitation, commerce, etc. The sanctity of worship and the means of such is of course part of this law as well. The portrayal to Black folk of those revered and reserved for worship in this holy treatise looking precisely like the Europeans who enslaved them, served an extremely diabolical purpose when combined with the brutality of slave masters and the Pre-Adamic basis for the expressed status of Black folk as equal to that of “beasts of the field” from the book of Genesis.

This set the script for the church in the Black community serving a dual purpose:

1) Place of worship, community base, political center, meeting place/town hall, place of learning, binder of extended family

2) A subconscious reminder that no matter who resides and presides in the church, you (being Black) ultimately are to bow and hold as sacred someone/something which does not look like you or reaffirm you in any self-defining way (like portrayals, images & icons of Jesus as European by European oppressors)

The predominant religious institution in the black community has also enjoyed its affiliation and connection with Black street culture…similar to many cultures. The pimp is probably THE most clear illustration of this connection.

Some old pimps have told me that the “preacher game” has been a viable avenue of their trade since the abolition of slavery. It has often been a running joke within the Black community that if one is in most any church and doesn’t know exactly who the pastor or preacher is, the best way to tell is to find the one who is dressed most like a pimp. In becoming preachers, many pimps had simply to adjust their game to reflect their own street oriented interpretations of scripture. We see the manipulation methods many of those in the pulpit use to maximize their tithing from churchgoers and those who recognize them can show you the similarities to pimping. All the while, the “pimp-turned-preacher” is praised for his miraculous awakening and re-birth as a man of God, thereby endearing him that much more to the church community. I believe it was the current cadre of chosen pimps (“Bishop” Don Magic Juan, Ju-Ju, Pimpin Ken, Pook a*k*a “Good Game”, et al) whose term “CHURCH” having been embraced by many prominent rap artists has gained so much popularity amongst those of us steeped in “urban” culture is also a signifier of this long standing association.

Now, I want all who read to understand that I do not hold every church or church leader in a negative light, nor do I think all are pimping the community.

I do believe, however that it is necessary for all who hold themselves as believers to question exploitation in their respective homes of worship whenever and wherever it makes itself evident.

Is Bishop Long guilty of the allegations made?

More and more people tend to believe so.

His predicament is evidence of a larger mentality in the church that borders on sanctioned hedonism.

I am frequently invited to churches. I have attended my share of them throughout my travels. There are certain things I view as warning signs whenever I am in a church that tells me that the place in question would not be a place I would want to necessarily attend often. This would be the time where I muse about things that I personally am annoyed by in church settings. While these things do not necessarily speak to exploitation in the church, they do speak to a mentality in the church which is far from “spiritual” and reinforce negativity in what should be the sanctity of the church environment:

• I am wary when I see the preacher whose car is not only the nicest in the lot, but often costs more than a year’s salary of most who attend the church.

• I also am a bit wary of a church where too often “tongues” get spoken and the “holy spirit” is “caught”. While I am fully in support and acknowledgement of any spontaneous expression of faith, inspiration and devotion, I am not looking to sit in ANY church where a word is given and be either utterly confused (because a preacher spoke in tongue for the past 5 minutes) or injured (because in addition to screaming and crying, the person next to me convulsed, undulated or acted out in such a way that I have to dodge or duck). I once saw a woman do so during church announcements. No lie.

• I am as well a bit put off by any church where “faith healing” is done. I have my own experience with this and have yet to be healed through laying on of hands by those in the church who profess to do so.

• I am hesitant when the focus of many on that particular Sunday service seems to center on wearing THE flyest outfit (much like one would see in any nightclub)…to the point that it is often…distracting. (Yes sisters, I’m talking to you). Even more distasteful in this ambitiously fashion-conscious pursuit, is the utter impracticality of what I have seen some wear. I have actually seen women wearing 6 inch heels with very revealing clothing (cleavage, skirt splits, low backs and all) while attempting to navigate stairs, brave cold weather, accommodate their CHILDREN and jockey for position in the pews…simultaneously.

• Men are not immune to my critique either. For many of my brothers in the church, Sunday seems to be the time before “the game” where they dress up, throw a little money, and hang out and give daps for about 45 minutes after service is over. Oh…and if there is food there, of course EVERYBODY eats and takes home what they can carry with paper plates and aluminum foil.

The “Mega Church” is the one scenario where one can see the aforementioned scenes played out in ways which are often quite bizarre.

This then brings to mind the question:

Why do many of these people go to church?

In a scenario where one’s aim seems ostensibly to be more to garner attention, eat and drink, sing, dress to impress, engage in peculiar bits of theater and “spend the day”…though God is often mentioned and invoked, is God even a part of the intention?

I ask this question because all one has to do is mentally superimpose that imagery on the backdrop absent of pews and crucifixes…and you could pretty much envision any bar, nightclub or party hall.

I’m just sayin.


September 25, 2010


Don’t Ask Me…I Just May Tell…
By
Briscoe Pugh





“Don’t ask, don’t tell”.

I imagine that most anyone who watches at least 10 cumulative minutes of cable news a day can pretty much tell you what that phrase refers to.

I’m talking about the federal policy (D.A.D.T.) that restricts efforts by the United States military to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants (Don’t ask…), while restricting those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service (Don’t tell…). The stated fear of the Department of Defense on this is that "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

The debate surrounding this policy has been extremely heated in recent years...partially due (I’m certain) to the fact that the country has been actively at war for the better part of the past decade. The Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Transsexual (GLBT) community has established its voice of dissent in the matter, no longer willing to dwell in the shadows of marginalization. The Conservative Right has conversely resisted any change in this policy, allegedly for fear that it might serve to upset the morale and effectiveness of military units with troops whom are openly gay serving in them…and the military overall, by extension.

The original objection to homosexuals openly serving in the U.S. Military was based on the scriptural mandate against sodomy. Sometime after that, homosexuality was viewed by the psychiatric community as an “indicator of psychopathology” and would actually exempt those found to “have” it, from service. Anyone who watched “M.A.S.H.” as I did when I was growing up remembers Corporal Klinger, who had resorted to wearing women’s clothing to get his “psycho discharge.”

My opinion/s:

• I believe the effectiveness of any soldier is less defined by his/her sexual orientation and more so by his/her intelligence, dedication, resilience, sense of honor, physical and mental toughness, and a host of other factors which have absolutely NOTHING to do with sex or sexuality at all.

• I feel that the “threat to combat unit cohesion” argument falls apart with just a momentary acknowledgement that many homosexual men and women have not only served with distinction in the U.S. Military throughout the history of the U.S., but many (though not openly gay to those within the chain of command) have served alongside fellow combatants who KNEW they were gay. I know a few veterans whom have served in units where either they were gay or they served with someone gay and were all the more cohesive as a result of such.

• I subscribe to the notion that perhaps it is best for a person to actually KNOW whom it is they are fighting alongside. I also do not believe that an institution which prides itself on such things as “honor codes” should willfully reward and encourage DISHONESTY on the part those whom are homosexual and IGNORANCE on the collective part of the chain of military command.

• This whole policy takes into account the acknowledged bigotry of a large segment of military personnel (and the nation, by extension) and legislates according to this bigoted perspective…which (in my opinion) is tantamount to approving of and supporting the stated bigotry.



Of the 26 countries belonging to NATO, 22 have inclusive policies regarding people whom are openly gay serving in the military (including France, Great Britain, Canada, Germany and Israel). These are countries whose militaries the U.S. supports and fights alongside in many cases. If serving with people whom are openly gay is a threat to unit cohesion, is not the frequent and inevitable possibility of serving with them as well?

I believe that at the end of the end of the day government cannot mandate or legislate to increase tolerance, reason or common sense…though many therein have shown a remarkable talent and propensity for doing so in the case of intolerance, paranoia and fear. The collective, ultra-conservative perspective maintains vocally that as a person with any other orientation than heterosexual, you are not to be trusted…especially with the lives of others…if you are honest about it. This perspective also holds that the way in which you are able or choose to give love renders you ineffective (even detrimental) in terms of how the country wages war…as long as you are honest about it.

The enemy in this case is actually not those whom are openly gay, but rather actual, intellectual honesty. Homosexual troops have and continue to distinguish themselves in service to the U.S. military to this day. We ALL know this...including the U.S. military themselves.

For them to actually admit it, and possibly prompt a change in policy would unfortunately have political ramifications for those whom have built entire careers of influence on the shoulders of extreme conservatism.

Mother Coretta Scott-King (peace be with her) was quoted to have said:

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

I found that quote appropriate because the apparatus that seeks to marginalize any grouping of people, for whatever the reason has machinery that makes a familiar sound, has a familiar aroma and is typically driven from the same place: The Extremist/Conservative Right-Wing.

The pariah of the moment just happens to be the GLBT community.

Archie Bunker would be proud.




September 20, 2010

Despite The Name…Peeves NEVER Make Good Pets
By
Briscoe Pugh


My people,

I reflected on a few more things I don’t like. Now, those who know me know that I am not the complaining, kvetching type...

However…This space feels just SOOOOO right as a place to get things off my chest. I’m a bit all over the place with this one…so bear with me. That said…I have questions:

Don’t you hate it when…(?)

a) People qualify a statement they know will rub you entirely the wrong way with, “I don’t mean to be (insert your own annoying adjective here) but…”?

*How many times have you heard that from someone you know, be it a colleague, superior at work, friend, family member, spouse, sibling…whatever?

Anyone who has experienced this bit of maneuvering often finds it accompanies a particular tone that hovers somewhere between “put upon” and “sick of your sh**,” along with any combination of little, faux-conciliatory physical gestures (a shrug, a half-smile, doe eyes, head lightly cocked to one side, etc)

It’s painfully obvious that whatever they mean to say to you is them specifically exhibiting THE EXACT BEHAVIOR they know you will ultimately find repugnant. This phrase is a passive-aggressive means by which someone seeks to position themselves to exert control in some form…no matter how minute. The perpetrators of this tidy little deception know that any gracious person will politely listen to whatever opinion you offer when it is dressed-up in the costume of “well-meaning advice.”

b) Men shake your hand…but do so as though it is the end-all, apocalyptic, battle of wills, pared down to that very handshake?

* I am blessed with a fairly good sized pair of hands which are reasonably strong in my opinion. Yet, I have had to “tangle” with men on occasion who clutched my hand as though they will have allowed the world to end if indeed they did not either cause excruciating pain or leave the imprint of their hand in or on mine…WHILE THEY SMILE IN MY FACE!!!

That is just downright…um…well…I don’t really know WHAT that is, but it is far from inviting, friendly or gracious…which is what I thought handshaking was all about.

Gentlemen…PLEASE: You prove nothing by attempting to disable my hand-be it temporarily or permanently. You REALLY don’t prove anything with your insistence on a vice-like grip, once it has been established that I and my poor, put upon hand are a great many things, but your sworn, mortal enemy is not one of them.

My advice to you is to REEEEE-LAAAAAAX. Take it easy.

Here’s an idea: The next time you shake hands with someone, and you feel that compulsion to employ the “death grip,” pretend that the person on the other end has injured both hands, and meet the pressure they are able to exert with equal pressure. Besides being proper etiquette, it is a means toward keeping your handshake from being the precursor to that very “male,” testosterone based phenomenon called the…uh… “p***ing contest.” Please be advised that this type of contest is typically not decided in the least by how powerful your grip is.

c) Women who wear ultra-revealing clothing under the umbrella defense that they are “sexually empowered”?

*Now, before I get into this, I must qualify the above questions by explaining some of the embedded parameters in my question:

• I am by no means referring to “women” in general. This would be irresponsible and dismissive. I respect women too profoundly to go out like that.

• When I use the description “ultra-revealing,” I refer to clothing that is revealing in ways which satisfy no other real purpose other than that which is specifically cosmetic, and “ultra” in the sense that far more of the body is shown than would actually be necessary to serve any practical purpose other than cosmetic (excessive cleavage, booty shorts, micro-mini skirts, etc).

I digress.

I know that this subject is a loaded one. For that reason, I’ll weigh in thusly:

Ladies…I have no issues whatsoever with female sexual empowerment. I believe in sexual empowerment for all peoples.

What I take issue with is self-exploitation masquerading as empowerment of any sort.

Who do you REALLY empower with a “buffet” of body parts other than those whom would view your worth and value exclusively in terms of the various parts you display?

While I’m asking questions…riddle me this:

Is it possible at all that this image of you having empowered yourself by displaying your body in this way was sold to you by a male-dominated culture whose preeminence is often threatened by any woman who defines herself outside of a sexually-charged format of fetishization?

There is a base, male instinct at play in these distortions of your beautiful, natural self that derives pleasure from the concept and imagery of women as objects, victims and playthings. We as men collectively sell it to you daily.

The question then becomes:

Are you buying it…and if so, at what cost?

Peace and progress.






September 15, 2010

Hey…I’m Driving Here!!!
By
Briscoe Pugh



I got annoyed today while driving.

I witnessed something today that happens fairly often in certain circumstances and I am typically able to get over immediately after seeing it with the proper momentary meditation alongside a healthy mantra of, “consider the source and the action may tend to offend less.”

I did exactly that. I drove past the perpetrator and was even able to give a “nod” of acknowledgement as our eyes met.

What is the behavior that has affected me so profoundly that I felt the need to write about it when I got home?

I will answer my own question with yet another…more pointed question.

What is it with “my people” (and you KNOW who I’m talking about) that inspires many of them to decide to walk IN THE MIDDLE of the street and disrupt automobile traffic when there are perfectly good sidewalks on BOTH sides of most any given street one encounters in both urban and residential areas?

I ask all who read to forgive what I admit could be taken as my dwelling on little more than a pet peeve.

Upon further thought I am even willing to say that my annoyance doesn’t truly even stem from the act itself. You are free as an individual to walk where you would like, so long as you doing so does not harm anyone else. Furthermore, a bit of attentive driving can actually render this behavior relatively harmless.

I suppose my issue really lies in the seeming aloofness, lack of consideration and detachment I perceive from many who decide that oncoming traffic doesn’t merit them yielding, or better yet...USING THE SIDEWALK. It is no coincidence, that the majority of those whom I see do this are young people in their teens and early 20’s.

I’m sure there are those who will scoff at my annoyance, as well as my admitted over analysis of this very common behavior.

Too bad. Since road rage and yelling out of the window of my car to curse people out just isn’t my style, I embrace this forum wherein I may indulge in exactly this rather cathartic bit of over analysis.

When I was very young, I recall working out the whole “when to cross the street” issue in my head when walking with adults. My late, Great-Grandmother (R.I.P.) comes to mind in particular.

Those who knew her well will tell you that she (all 4’ 9”, 85 pounds of her) minced no words with anyone…EVER. She said exactly what was on her mind when she felt like saying it. Insert a bit of alcohol into the equation and her typically brutal honesty could turn verbally murderous…and particularly profanity laden.

So…

One day I was with her on a walk either to or from the store and I got a little ahead of myself and started to pull her hand to cross the street at the wrong time. She pulled me back, pulled her face REALLY close to mine and yelled something to the effect of, “What the f*** is wrong with you? Don’t you know these m*****f*****s will run yo a** over????”

That is a memory and a basic safety lesson that stuck with me…to the degree that (thanks to this as well as basic logic, reasoning and etiquette) I am super careful when traversing any street…even as a grown man. I could never see walking down the middle of any street as a matter of standard procedure for a host of other reasons…self-preservation being a BIG one. I am flesh and blood. Even the flimsiest automobiles are comprised of enough metal and hard synthetic material to do serious harm to me if and when indeed they meet my physical person at ANY rate of speed.

So, my people…

Annoyed and puzzled as I may be at this behavior, I welcome your perspectives and opinions as to why this happens…and why it seems to happen most in situations where there are large numbers of young, Black and Brown folks who seem to have nothing to do and time on their hands.

Could it be an unconscious act to garner attention (albeit the negative attention of a possibly being hit by a car) or maybe an act of youthful defiance…a symbolic “f*** you” to those who drive…and the larger world by extension?

Could it be an assertion of some type of dominance, kind of like walking in large numbers or talking really loud and aggressively?

Your guess is as good as mine.

But I’ll tell you this…

If my Great-Grandmother was around today, there would be at the very least a few less young people using the middle of the street as their personal walkway. I’m sure of it.

Peace





September 14, 2010

I Think I Still Smell the Smoke
By
Briscoe Pugh


This whole book burning thing has me…well…contemplative…much as controversy typically does.

I am of course referring to Rev. Terry Jones in Florida, and his previously hatched (and ultimately “divinely” cancelled) publicity stunt (burning of The Holy Quran) that has sparked so much righteous indignation.

The media has been busy, painting this proposed act as an affront to decency and religious tolerance everywhere. I don’t really disagree with this perspective, but I have a broader take on how everyone frames and views the potential burning of Qurans…or any book for that matter.

Let me say this outright: I think Reverend Jones is an extremist and a demagogue. I also think he’s one hell of an opportunist to have staged this thing on September 11th, and then claim God “spoke to” him and compelled him to call it off. He has managed to hold this, insane, 24-hour media cycle hostage, inject himself into a prominent national issue, have THE ENTIRE WORLD know whom he is (celebs, politicos, etc) and then in a twisted “my bad” moment, attempt to pass himself off as a humble servant of God.

The book and the HBO movie are coming…just watch.

That said…

The true danger that I see in all of this is not the nature of the books being burned, or who intends to burn them…as significant as these are and as relevant to current events and the discourse surrounding them is.

I will use a quote that I used earlier on my Facebook pages to illustrate what I am wary of in all this:

"Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings."

-Heinrich Heine

If one looks at the history of book burnings of every sort, there are common threads which run through them all. The Spanish burned holy books during the Inquisition. They also burned sacred Mayan writings when they conquered the Mayans. The Nazis burned books during their quest for expansion of power. This is one thing that happens when one group seeks to subdue another. One similarity here is the suppression of an idea or set of ideas viewed as somehow different or divergent (and as a consequence-unacceptable) to group/s or individuals who maintain their way of thinking as the only way. This is an important commonality in the current social-political climate, because the imagery and perception of “the other” is being defined in very stark terms by huge segments of the American populace. Resistance to a perceived “other” is tied to many dogmas:

-nativism,

-conservatism

-fundamentalism (religious & otherwise)

-racism

-colorism

There are more to be sure, but those seem to be particularly resonant today.

In all of this resentment of “the other” a clear portrait must be available as to what the “other” is actually “other,” or opposite to. While I’m certain Rev. Jones has an ax to grind with Islam, I can’t help to think what or whom else he has a problem with. Let us not forget in his “divine” inspiration to reconsider, that he has commented publicly on his view that Islam is an “evil”, “deceptive” religion, and that Islam is “of the devil.” However he has also made the following statement:

“…Stop Islamic immigration. They are only coming to this country to…take over…to try to enforce through population growth, through political means, through educational means…they are only coming here to try to enforce and force their Islamic laws upon us…”

What I find interesting is the fact that one could swap the word “Islam” with just about any other derogatory term Americans use for those from other countries. No mention is made here of spiritual or religious implications. In here is anti-immigrant sentiment, strong nativist sentiments and xenophobia inserted into a religious diatribe...if indeed one examines it. The man actually said on CNN that he is “intolerant.”

My opinion:

He is one of a parade of people who are stoking a flame of not only hate for those of other religions, but anyone who holds an opinion different than what is viewed by many as “the average American.” They are afraid… afraid that someone will take a job meant for them, take money out of their pockets…maybe date their daughter or…maybe even attend their church. Diversity, to many of them is only a good thing in as much as it does not upset the delicate balance of their perception of America...or their little, isolated corner of it. Massive fear has made these sentiments once held in check by the schoolmarm with a ruler called “political correctness” morph into a full-blown revolution by those who have felt for a long, long time that America is just too “diverse” for them to effectively cope with.

This small time preacher burning the holy text of another belief system is a largely symbolic act to try to stamp out a consciousness. This consciousness says that you believe as you believe and that is okay…as long as you do so in peace. This consciousness also says that I will not hold you or your beliefs to account for those who twist your beliefs to hurt others. This consciousness also says that you may believe in what you do politically, as long as what you believe is sincerely rooted in a desire to do good for someone…not for profit or praise, but just because it is beneficial to someone outside yourself.

One of the most profound sicknesses I see in all of this is the perspective that ties too closely one’s spiritual and religious self with one’s national identity. This perspective helps feed the myth that a Muslim is somehow “other” than American and that being (exclusively) Christian is part and parcel being American. Many who embrace this opinion will tell you that America was founded specifically on Christian values. However, a thorough read of the Constitution will show that those who composed it tried at every turn to keep religion far away from any discourse on what the nation was to be. This specifically “Judeo-Christian” ethic that America was supposedly founded on, could actually have been derived from the basic tenets of every spiritual belief system’s code for how human beings are to get along with one another. The thread of basic, egalitarian values in the Constitution were more derived from the need for there to exist no distinction amongst neighbors based on such factors as religious beliefs than actual, specific, religious beliefs themselves.

The application of this “egalitarian ideal” as we have seen it is a subject for another time…obviously.

There IS no “American” religion…save the idolatrous worship by many of a flag, a way of life, a president, or a collective ethos which deems fear, loathing and resentment of another who looks, dresses, eats or prays differently than you an ideal worth aspiring to.

No truly divine calling seeks to diminish the humanity of another. Nor does one who truly has been touched by The Creator sew a seed of hate, fear, or judgment on this earthly plane. In a case where you don’t necessarily agree with what someone does or says and there is no imminent harm being done as a consequence of what they do or say, I believe it is best to do what my mother always says…

“Let go…and let God…”

Peace


September 3, 2010

They Are Taking It Back...But Where Exactly...and Why?
By
Briscoe Pugh



I felt the need to share. I just got finished viewing a video of interviews from the big rally Glenn Beck had in D.C. and noticed how the interviewees seemed to keep repeating some mantra about "taking the country back."

Well...this got me thinking (always a somewhat dangerous proposition) about what exactly these folks want to "take the country back to," and (even more intriguing) “whom” or “what” exactly they wish to take it back from.

In posing this question, I find myself looking back in reverse to previous eras in the latter half of the 20th century, which would cover my generation, my mother’s generation and the better part of my grandmother’s generation. I recall Keith Olbermann doing this once regarding this very subject and found it very interesting.

I will refrain from the monotonous recounting of the past 60 some odd years of American historical high and low points and narrow the analysis just a bit. This proverbial “taking back” of America seems to correspond precisely with one major event in recent history: The campaign and election of Barack Obama as 44th President of The United States.

This period is historic for many reasons, outside of Mr. Obama’s presidency. We have seen 2 wars since the turn of the millennium (Afghanistan since 2001 & Iraq since 2003), one of which (in Iraq) has only seen a major pullout recently with a hard deadline to pullout combat troops completely. We have been in the throes of an economic recession since 2007, which we are only beginning to see some positive turnaround from in terms of business growth, average income, employment numbers and a host of other factors.

There is also some history being made today in terms of public opinion. Ideological and political lines today have been drawn as hard and bold as anyone I talk to can remember since the 1960’s. Back then, many people were talking about “taking the country back” as well. Many were segregationists. They feared the repealing of Jim Crow laws and activism of Black people against their status as an underclass as somehow unjustly victimizing white folk, who just wanted things to stay the way they were.

I think that there exists an interesting parallel here.

President Obama has stoked a level of anxiety amongst a segment of the population (predominantly white and Protestant) that is unprecedented since perhaps John F. Kennedy-whose Irish-Catholic heritage was brought into the fore as a possible negative in the way he would comport himself as President. President Obama has been labeled with just about all of the “boogie man” titles one could muster to paint him as somehow not of this country, not for its people and an enemy of all America is about.

His name was enough for many.

In an era when the graphic imagery in the minds of many “patriotic” Americans regarding Africans and Arabs is tainted by both their disconnect in the basic, human condition and the cultures in many African and Arab countries, as well as their pop cultural ridicule of the archetypical, dark-skinned, immigrant with broken English...an American President named “Barack Hussein Obama” has proven to be more than many can take.

Many pounced on religion.

He was a president who identifies as Christian (having belonged to a Christian church for many years), whose father was Kenyan, born Muslim and eventually became an atheist. After his father and mother divorcing when he was 3 years old, his mother remarried when he was 6 to an Indonesian Muslim. This was enough to convince many that he was a Muslim, and hence was not “with us,” but “against us.”

Of course the hits just kept on coming: He “wasn’t born here”, he is a “Muslim”, a “socialist”, a “radical”, a “Nazi”, a “racist”...etc, etc.

It would seem that the homogeneity which so many in this country project upon the ideal image and iconography of Americas institutions of influence fly in the face of the very diversity they many times pay lip service to.

Of course all of the allegations made by domestic extremists of President Obama’s being something “other than” American have been debunked by a basic, dedication to facts and overall good sense. This then begs the question:

What did THIS president actually do to be branded as something utterly unacceptable to so many before even being elected?

Most people had to actually EXPERIENCE George W. Bush as President first to actually figure out that he may not have been the sharpest guy in the world. Even then, he got re-elected to a second term*. It took some proven trickery on his part for most to really decide that he wasn’t the man to sit in the seat. (*Please note: I’m deferring from any commentary on controversies regarding either Mr. Bush’s election or re-election).

There is something else at work here.

They want to “take the country back”...

Perhaps to a time before a “foreign…Muslim…socialist…radical…Nazi…racist” was President...?

Well...let’s suppose he is none of those...which he has proven he isn’t.

What about him is so very wrong once you remove all of the false monikers, designed to scare and alienate people?

Why is it that the majority of those whom have projected those misguided images onto him fit into a certain, very narrow, demographic classification?

I’m not here to supply the answers. I just want people to ask the questions. The answers will come...if that is one really wants them.


Septemer 2, 2010

A Little Honesty…?
By
Briscoe Pugh



Honesty is a virtue…isn’t it?

We constantly tell our children to always tell the truth, yet we support, subsidize and sell them out to a culture which values nothing more than feeding them falsehoods at a profit.

Christmas time comes to mind immediately.

I will refrain herein from commentary on what I see are contradictions in the religious implications surrounding Christmas. This is a loaded subject and I will save it for another time. I will, however express just a little on what I feel the phenomenon of commercialized holy days communicates to our children at times. The fond memories of Christmases past, with all the trappings are sacred to most. I have a slightly different take from many people, from what I have been able to gather. Mine is slightly less idyllic.

Here is how I view it:

We are raised from very young on a steady diet of ritual lapdances with salaried, department store Santa Clauses during THE most commercialized “sacred season” in creation. Incidentally, this is the same Santa we are told lives in the North Pole and whom (after listening to and mentally documenting each and every child in the entire world’s requests for Christmas gifts) will travel around the world in one night to slide down every child’s proverbial chimney to leave gifts and candy. We are also reminded of Santa’s infamous “list” of those who are naughty and nice and of how he checks it…not once…but TWICE!!!

This strikes me as a bit…sick…for what I see as some very frightening reasons.

I…like many parents have had talks with my own daughter since she was very young about what to look out for in terms of strangers, and people who might look friendly or safe but may not be safe at all. This is one of the ways we attempt to prepare our precious little people for what is a world of horrific hazards that exist for them and target them specifically. I cannot help but to wonder how it is we as parents may serve to undo some portion of this when we:

-lead them (sometimes kicking, screaming, crying and horrified) to a crowded, public place to have them stand in line with other children (many kicking, screaming, crying & horrified as well-though many not) to sit on some man’s lap, whisper in his ear, ask him for gifts and celebrate it afterward during a “sacred holiday”

-in this very scenario, scold and often punish our children for exhibiting the very reflex of caution we encourage them to exhibit in every other situation, save for when it embarrasses or becomes inconvenient for us when seeking the approval of the “jolly old man in the red suit.”

-point to children who are indeed happy to participate in this odd bit of theater as examples of what to do…regardless to what the child feels is wrong with the picture.

I am in no way equating Santa Claus with a pedophile or predator of children. Santa is a symbol for a consciousness which is just fine for adults who have the wisdom to make the choice of what they devote their energies to. I have an issue with parents indoctrinating their children into this same devotion, while possibly doing harm to the street sense we try to impart to our children as some degree of armor against those who do not love them and see them as fodder for their own twisted picture of normalcy.

Bottom line: Respect your child enough to let him/her do that which you have well taught them to do by being more honest with them from the start. To throw obstacles in the way their survival reflex via harmful mythology can serve to be harmful on many levels which are unthinkable precisely because we cherish our children. I don’t believe in delving into the mysteries of the universe with your toddler, but I don’t believe that many of the socially palatable mistruths we burden our children with are necessary most of the time. Our children can still “be children” and enjoy their childhoods…particularly when we don’t force or encourage them to engage in grown-up level deceit. Honesty doesn’t have to be brutal, as long as it is given with love and compassion.

I was born in Cleveland, OH in 1968. I have lived here and there...been across the ocean and back...worked since my teens...I wasn't the best student in high school...I have never seen college, but somehow, I managed to learn a thing or three...or thirty...from this crazy, bumpy, beautiful road called my life...

...And now...I have a few things to say.