Does fat shaming need a comeback?

James Cordon, on Bill Maher, on fat shaming

So for those of you, who are like me, and don't always appreciate having to click through links, let me recap. On his show, Bill Maher decided to make a case to "bring back" fat shaming because apparently, he feels that the problem is not on those who fat shame but rests solely with the fat. That on top of fat people taking up more than one seat on an airplane or for fat men not being able to see their penises under their bellies, it's unhealthy and maybe if fat people felt a little shame about their fatness, they'd do something about their circumstance.

James Cordon, a man of some heft himself, took on his contemporary's position with quite a bit of grace, some humor (of course) and some honesty. So if you didn't click the link, at some point, I encourage you to give him a listen.

But I am not on TV and don't have to temper my words. So once again, let me give everyone a news flash. Fat shaming doesn't need to make a comeback because it has never gone anywhere. It's been here. While I do agree that in the past few years, there have been the emergence of some personalities who have unapologetically given a big middle finger to fat shamers (Tess Holliday, Anna O'Brien, Jessamyn Stanley, Whitney Way Thore), actual fat shaming has never gone anywhere.

And for the record: please just fucking stop. No one who is fat CHOSE this. And before everyone starts yammering about how we choose the chips and the candy and the pizza and the burgers and the fries over the veggies and the salads and the boneless, skinless grilled chicken breast and (really, let's be honest, what y'all fat shamers and haters think we should choose for every meal), nothing.

And I say that with no apology. Fat or not, everyone deserves to eat, whatever we want, whenever we want. The argument about the unhealthy foods is absolutely true. Anyone who chooses to "live" on a diet comprised of fried foods, junk food, and sugar will be unhealthy. But the thing is... there are both fat and unfat people who choose to have a shit diet. It is a better lifestyle to be active rather than sedentary but there are fat people who are lazy and unfat people who are lazy.

There are people who exercise religiously, every day or almost every day. And yet they remain fat. And, crazy as it may be, there are people who never step foot in a gym, play a moment on any sports team, jog or run or even walk any more than is absolutely required of them, and yet they maintain an appearance of a thin or at least regular-sized person.

What I am trying to point out is that yet again, we have an asshole (Maher) who is trying to disguise his asshole-ness as concern for fat people. If you really give even half a shit about a fat person, just let them live their lives like anyone else. Because let me share a few truths with you, as a fat person.

• We know we're fat. Every single day when we get out of bed and need to make that extra effort to haul our larger load onto our feet, we're aware. When we pull our clothes out of the closet or out of a desk drawer and shake them open, we see the size and know that we're fat. Every time we look in the mirror or catch our reflection in a window, we see our size and know that we're fat. Every time we get on a plane, or a bus, or a train, or a bench or anywhere that there are seats involved, we see the look of horror on the faces of other people as they realize we're going to sit down. We know. So you telling us that we're fat is not only unnecessary but it's cruel too. We know.
• We are ashamed. Already. Even if we seem to be confident and self-accepting. I promise you that when we're alone away from inquiring eyes, we feel shame. Because we've been told our entire lives that we are fat because we're weak, lazy, inherent failures. That if we tried harder, we'd eat less and exercise more that we'd be thin. And many of us start down a downward spiral of more shame. Because, like anyone who's feeling weak or ashamed or like a failure, we need to feel support and compassion. And we don't feel safe asking another person for that because instead of offering us compassion or support, you pass judgment. So we turn to things like ice cream, cake, cookies, chocolate. And then we feel more shame for being too weak and for turning to food for comfort. And so the vicious cycle continues on and on and on.
• We are also aware... of everything and everyone when there is anyone around. Even family and friends. We're aware of the eyes on us, watching our every move. We're aware of when it might take two efforts to get up off of a low-seating chair. Or of every bite of food that goes into our mouths. I mean it would be ridiculous for anyone to never eat anything, but we see you watching to see what we are eating, how big of a bite we take, how much we eat, are we eating too fast? We often feel like we have to hide away to eat, which in turn may prompt us to make poor food choices, over eat, etc.

I'm not asking for anyone's pity. But if you feel the need to go out of your way to shame me for simply existing... fuck you.

We ALL need to check ourselves

So recently, I found myself in a situation I never thought I would. I am leaving names out not to protect anyone other than myself. Not because I don't feel confidence in my position but because I don't want to get into a pissing contest with anyone.

I was following a particular person on social media (Twitter, Facebook, IG) who I will call "John". We had some mutual "friends" and the posts that prompted me to follow John made me assume he was socially responsible and an advocate for justice. As it turned out, he wasn't... not saying he doesn't care about social issues or justice; that's just not his focus.

Anyway, he tweeted something very vague and IMO derogatory about Black men, stating that straight Black men needed to be better. He himself is a Black man and I honestly didn't recall reading any similar statements from John in the past. He had always, in my recollection, been honest and called out toxic situations and seemed to push for accountability (personal and collective). So, I replied to the tweet asking for context. In hindsight, my mistake, and I own my mistake, was falling back on the ole "not all Black men..." statement. He replied with the context for his tweet (things like the R Kelly documentary, Black men's defense of him, the resurgence of homophobic tweets from Kevin Hart from a decade ago, Black men's present-day defense of him, etc.). And then, he sent a second response lambasting me for being a white woman trying to tell a Black man how to feel. I responded initially, in my own sarcastic fashion, but before I could explain my original tweet, he took screen shots of the tweets, plastered them on Facebook and suddenly I was the enemy. Now, again in hindsight, I should have clarified my original tweet first and then, if needed, unleashed my sarcasm but that's not how it happened.

Anyway... to try to damage-control, I restricted all of my social media pages (because John is much more savvy than I, and in just a few minutes, had screen shots of my profile, personal details, etc. and plastered them on his own Facebook page). Of course, the screen shots of my now-protected pages were also shared on his page.

Here's the thing though: On his Facebook page, his followers/friends were posting assumptions about me that John didn't call foul on. Things like "She's definitely Latina" and "Her husband is probably Black". Not only did he not call his followers/friends on the exact thing he was jamming me up for, but he egged them on.

For the record though;

• I am not Latina, though if I was... should I be offended that they don't think I "look" Latina enough? Isn't that the same thing that many Black men and women deal with, regarding being light or dark skinned? There's so much internal discrimination, not to mention external. Why perpetuate that against Latina brothers and sisters? One follower/friend accused me of being a Russian bot and John was sure to correct that immediately. Why not nip the bud of the debate of my ethnicity? 
• I am not married. I have dated Black men... and white men... and Hispanic men... and Native American men... but if I was married, what would the race or ethnicity of my husband have to do with my request for context of the original vague tweet from John? Yet he made no attempt to correct that either. 
• He accused me of confusing him with another fairly well-known public figure, another Black man, who is quite involved in social justice. My reference to financially supporting his social justice efforts prompted this accusation. However, as I indicated earlier, the reason I followed him in the first place was my own misconception. But from various posts across social media outlets, I became aware of different causes and initiatives that I donated to. I did not mistake him for anyone else. 
• John denied trying to make me "go viral" stating there had been no retweets and further denied understanding why I "escalated" things by protecting my pages because he wasn't arguing. But he didn't leave the interaction on Twitter... he took screen shots and posted to Facebook where things can get out of control... fast. And while I do stand behind what I said... even if it's wrong and my position has changed, I own my mistakes, always have, I don't need nor want people combing through my words and taking them out of context. IMO, John was certainly trying to provoke an argument and I think I was the one who prevented that by removing myself from the situation.

So here's the deal. The original tweet... how straight Black men need a whole new "brand" is, again IMO. extremely short sighted and potentially dangerous. I am not a man, certainly not a Black man, so I cannot tell any man or Black man "how" to feel. I wish I had worded my request for context differently. But as a caucasian person, I can attest to how Black people. specifically Black men, are portrayed and perceived. None of this is a newsflash. You have unarmed Black boys being shot dead in the streets by police because the boys "looked" older and the police were afraid for their lives. You have white women across the nation who feel fear being in the presence of Black men, that they are in physical and sexual danger. To make a general statement that Black men (ALL) need a re-brand could be construed as giving credence to the current brand of Black men as thugs and predators. And that is dangerous.

Perhaps the more accurate statement is that straight Black men need better brand representation. Perhaps the problem isn't with "straight Black men" but rather the absence of positive representation of straight Black men in TV, movies and the press. Maybe it's semantics. Perhaps it could have been an opportunity for dialogue. We'll never know.

But as I said in the title of this rant... we all need to check ourselves. From this episode, I have looked at my own communications and have noted that in the future, that I should try to be clearer about why I might be asking someone of a different race, ethnicity, orientation, etc. than me for context, to avoid the misunderstanding that caused John's reaction. I have also noted, yet again, to try to temper my sarcasm. But I think John needed to check himself as well. To perhaps not immediately feel that I was telling him how he should feel, and certainly to make sure that he's not passively allowing or actively assisting the exact thing he is so sensitive to.

Get rid of ALL of it. Yeah, ALL of it.

Shit is going to get worse before it gets better. And that’s actually a good thing. See, as a whole, Americans have romanticized our history. We like to think of ourselves as a nation that was formed in opposition to oppression. That our forefathers dreamed a dream of freedom and prosperity for all. That those first settlers banded together out of moral outrage.

Hogwash.

When settlers arrived, the land wasn’t “discovered”. It was stolen. There were already “Indians” living on the land. We stole it from them, slaughtered the tribes… many of which have been completely decimated. We brought disease and death to the indigenous people already here, and called it “settling unknown territory”.

We sent ships to Africa to capture, kidnap and steal African men and women, followed by their transportation under inhumane conditions to a land where they were auctioned, bought, sold, beaten, raped, and tortured, as if they were animals. On their backs, with their blood and sweat and tears and lives, “we” built this country.

We celebrate George Washington’s and Abraham Lincoln’s birthdays as national holidays. We have etched the faces of these two men, along with Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson into the side of a mountain as a homage to their greatness. The faces of past leaders are on our currency, and more so than perhaps any other nation, money is king in this country.

George Washington was a slave owner. Many of neighbors found him to be one of the harshest slave owners in all of Virginia. It wasn’t until the Revolutionary War, when his life was on the line, that his views on slavery changed and he developed a belief/support for abolition. Thomas Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves. His “relationship” with Sally Hemings is now public knowledge, and it is romanticized as one of the first “forbidden loves”. But please. Sally did not have any rights or choice as to her involvement in that union. Abraham Lincoln is touted as this heroic figure in American history but the truth is that he was not an abolitionist and did not believe that Black people should have the same rights as Whites. He’s credited for a lot of ideals and actions that he has no right to receive credit for. And Theodore Roosevelt? He was, himself, a White supremacist.

That’s not to say that there are/were no redeeming qualities in these men, nor that they don’t play a significant role in the history of this country. But it spotlights the dilemma that we continue to dance around but never actually address.

If the statues and other commemorations of Confederate leaders are removed, to be perfectly honest, no one with any moral character is going to care. The removal does NOT remove them from our history. As was brilliantly illustrated in a meme I saw on Facebook, Germany doesn’t have any statues or commemorations to Hitler. It doesn’t erase him from their history. This isn’t hard. Seems like common sense, right?

But it’s actually not that simple. If the monuments to the Confederacy are removed, as they should be, it does open up the door to the examination of all of our monuments to our historical leaders. Why is a statue of Robert E. Lee any more or less offensive than monuments and statues dedicated to Washington or Jefferson or Roosevelt? I mean, with respect to slavery, Lincoln will probably always get a pass because he was the POTUS who “freed” the slaves. But the point is that given how this nation was actually created, how do we justify the continued homage to people who were every bit as racist as the Confederates?

And that, my friends, is the problem. We have to finally put our collective big-girl and big-boy underpants on and examine our real history. Not the version that we’ve allowed to be written into history books and cling to like our lives depend on it. The real story… the good, the bad and the ugly. We’re going to need to throw away all those lies we’ve been teaching and lay all of our shit bare.

There’s actually a lot of “stuff” out there regarding this issue. The thing I don’t get… well, to be fair I don’t want to get…is why this is an argument for KEEPING the Confederate shit, instead of it being used as a starting point for the hard conversations that are literally hundreds of years overdue.

Detroit

Since its limited release, the movie Detroit, directed by white female Kathryn Bigelow, has received mixed reviews. The critics love it; viewers (Black viewers) mostly don’t. Not that it’s badly made, I don’t think. But there is, as there always is when “Black stories” are told from a white lens, some backlash. The amount of violence, the brutality which the Black characters are treated, understandably causes some anxiety. I have read several accounts written by Black men and women, who were moved to tears or had to leave the theater midway through the movie or who felt assaulted themselves as a result of staying through the movie. And I understand it. As a white female, the movie was tough for me to watch. And I don’t have the generations of mistreatment (to put it mildly) nor personal experiences that I have to struggle with. So I get the backlash.

My intention here is not to criticize those who feel this story should not be told from a white lens. My intention here is to ask some questions and make some observations with respect as I do not want to hurt or offend anyone.

The first thing that I noticed in the film was that the background leading to the riots felt, IMO, very glossed over. There were images with a little text that tried to set the stage, but it felt entirely too little, too generalized and too incomplete. I have to wonder if the “white lens” is part of the problem here. Showing harsh images and explaining that predominantly Black neighborhoods were policed by aggressive white officers and it created tension seems a tad underwhelming. Also: the opening scene where there was a police bust of an after-hours club seemed to be the fuse that lit the riots, but that whole scene to me was confusing.

Be that as it may, I thought there were areas of the story that were not well-told. The Black security guard (Melvin Dismukes) introduced himself to some of the National Guard, yet when all hell broke loose and he showed up at the Algiers, the cops didn’t blink. Here’s a Black man with weapons and they don’t even give him a second look? No suspicion?

In addition, afterwards, when Julie identified the officers who beat her and killed her friends, she included Dismukes in the identification… even though it was he and one of the National Guards who got her out of the hotel. What the hell was THAT? No explanation. No recant. Nothing. Maybe that’s how it really went down, but she was beyond angry at what was happening and I don’t see her falsely accusing Dismukes. Not to say that she wasn’t just mistaken from the trauma of the experience but it was never addressed.

To be perfectly honest, how and why Dismukes was even lumped in with the police who actually beat, tortured and murdered those kids is beyond me. He never raised a finger, and in fact made every effort to try to de-escalate.

The one thing that ran through my mind throughout the movie was “nothing’s changed”. Meaning here we had a group of police officers who shot and killed a looter as he ran away from them, despite a “no shoot” order. When confronted, the officer lied about it and went right back into a highly antagonized scene. We saw him shoot another Black man in the back, then drop a knife so that he could claim that he feared for his life, and it was a justified shooting. It wasn’t. We see that shit today.

We see officers on trial for their murderous behavior, and yet it’s the Black men that they beat and tortured who were basically put on trial. It didn’t matter that they hadn’t been doing anything criminal… did you ever get arrested? How many times? How many nights in jail did you spend?

Acquittals on all charges… of course. Isn’t that what we see every time?

This shit is STILL happening.

One of the biggest criticisms I hear is the brutality that is portrayed. And brutality is putting it mildly. And here’s where I get a little confused. If this had been a Spike Lee or John Singleton or Ava Du Vernay film, would there be the same reaction? Many times, when a “Black story” is told from a white lens, the criticism is that the reality of the situation is softened. That the white director eases up on certain things to make it more palatable to white audiences. That’s not the case here.

I didn’t find there to be gratuitous violence here. If anything, the scene where Julie’s dress is ripped off, leaving her completely naked, may have been gratuitous. But then again, sometimes violence can be portrayed without the shock value. So maybe there is some validity in that criticism. Regardless, considering that the vast majority of Black Americans have either personally had a violent experience with police, I can understand that those scenes will absolutely affect them differently than they do me. And if I had to avert my eyes, and had the hair on the back of my neck stand up, and literally lost my breath, and was brought to tears… well, that’s nothing in comparison. So gratuitous? I don’t think so but was it necessary? Maybe not.

Still, I can’t help but wonder if the backlash is strictly about race. I understand the need for stories to be told authentically. And I understand that the voice and lens of movies and TV and books and art in general are important. But I also have to wonder… why is all the anger saved for the white writers and producers and directors, and their Black contemporaries seem to get a pass? By this I mean there are a LOT of really talented Black writers, producers, directors, etc. Why aren’t they telling these stories instead of making yet another Madea movie, or Girl’s Trip, or a movie about gangs or drugs or basketball? That’s not to say that there’s not a market for all of these topics because there is. And yes, I know that Hollywood is still #SoWhite and movies have to be funded. But more and more actors/artists are creating their own production companies and are putting themselves in positions of deciding what gets made. Need money? GoFundMe. I mean, Spike Lee had no problem raising $1.5 million to make a movie about Black vampires.

Additionally, if Black movies told from a Black lens are going to “get” Hollywood backing, they have to make money. The reason there’s now 12 Madea movies in existence is because people go and see those. When Boo! A Madea Halloween, it pulled in over $25 million opening weekend, as compared to $7.1 million for Birth of a Nation on its opening weekend.

Birth of a Nation was Black written, directed, produced. It was also actively boycotted by many in the Black community, mostly women, due to a past allegation of sexual assault against Nate Parker. A charge, by the way, that he was acquitted of in a court of law.

In the credits of the movie, it is stated that Detroit is an attempt to tell the real story of what happened, and that when possible, the story is based on the recollections of those who were actually there. When details were unavailable, they kind of “filled in” the blanks. So there’s some question about accuracy and authenticity.

But given the reaction to the film, I think it’s clear that we’re not nearly as post-racial as we’d like to think we are. And that there is a lot of complex pain that we as a whole don’t yet know how to talk about. There are hundreds of years of healing that have yet to be healed.

But... WAS that racist?

About a week ago, or so, an op-ed piece by a Black man appeared in the New York Times in which he expressed frustration and anger at White women he encountered walking the streets of NYC (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/was-that-racist.html?mwrsm=LinkedIn). I cannot, will not, nor do I have any inclination to try to validate or invalidate Mr. Howard’s experiences, nor can I tell anyone what was in the mind of any of those women he encountered. But I see an opportunity here where I hope to shed some light and offer some explanation on perceptions.

Keeping shit real, my immediate reaction was to dismiss Mr. Howard with a suck of my teeth, a flip of my hand and the thought of “get over it” running through my mind. I mean, I live in NYC too, and I walk the same streets he walks. I find people in general, of every hue and gender and political affiliation and sexual orientation and age and race, to be oblivious. Hand-holding couples and groups of 3, 4 or more people walking down a sidewalk, side by side by side, who don’t move an inch for the foot traffic coming from the opposite direction. Men AND women, of every age and hue. And like Mr. Howard, I find myself being much more courteous to and conscientious of other people when walking than they are to me. I will step to the side, even if that means into the gutter of the street or into the dirt patches surrounding a tree. Sometimes I even have to stop walking altogether, step to the side for the oncoming assholes to pass, before I can continue on my merry way.

And again, keeping it real, I have days where I think “fuck it” and I plow right through the group of idiots, tired of being the one who always has to concede. I know it’s childish and rude, and since I happen to be Caucasian, if the people I’m plowing through are people of color, I am positive that they think the clash occurred because I’m a racist asshole. They probably don’t consider for a moment that it happened because they are oblivious to common walking courtesy.

But I have to wonder if there’s not a little extra sensitivity or heightened awareness on the part of Mr. Howard when he encounters White women on the street, simply because in 10 years of walking the streets of NYC, I find it nearly impossible to believe that ONLY White women have failed to yield or redirect themselves when in his path.

I also immediately think of some of my own experiences. When coming directly at another person from the opposite direction, I try to make eye contact, to read body language because the majority of time, both of us DO redirect ourselves somehow. Body language will say if I should move to the left or the right, etc. But in those cases when the other person either makes no indication that he or she is going to move or in what direction, a decision has to be made. Either I stop, step off the path entirely to let him or her pass, and then continue on my way or I say “fuck it” because I have just as much right to that space as anyone.

But my consciousness of my decision IS heightened when my path is crossing someone who’s Black. Not because I am afraid of him or her, or worry that they’re going to do something untoward. My heightened awareness is because I don’t want them to think that I am afraid of them. Let me explain.

There’s tons of social research that show that when a White woman is on an elevator and a Black man (especially) or woman steps on, the White woman readjusts her body, tenses up, tightens her grip on her pocketbook or will move her purse to the other side if they’re standing on the side where her purse hangs, etc. I notice when things like that happen. So when a single Black man or woman is walking toward me and I make too much of an effort… will that make them think that I’m scared of them? So maybe I should just continue on my path, not letting them deter me… but now that also makes me a racist?

I recall an incident down in the West Village, walking down one of the little side streets where the sidewalks are narrow to begin with. Coming straight at me was a group of 3 women, 2 Black and 1 Asian. They were, of course, walking side by side. As we approached, I looked for clues as to which of them would hang back and on which side of the sidewalk so that I could pass. Nothing. Not one of them was planning to move. And it was one of those “fuck it” days so I kept walking too. One of the Black women stepped back and to the side before rejoining her girlfriends in a straight line, and I heard (I was clearly meant to hear) her say “white bitch”. I kept it moving, not engaging and not caring. But it was a clear case where it was assumed that I didn’t move because I was White. It didn’t occur to any of them that other people have the right to walk there too.

BUT, then again, this country has a real communication problem between races. It’s difficult and uncomfortable so we often avoid it. As a direct result, whether it’s verbal or non-verbal, many of us simply don’t know how to communicate with each other. We misinterpret the meaning and intent of others, and instead of asking/clarifying the matter, we take offense and get angry.

I did that at the beginning when I dismissed Mr. Howard’s experiences. Because the truth is, I am sure there ARE White women (others, too) who looked through him as if he wasn’t there and didn’t matter because that’s how they feel. But I think there’s also the possibility that some of those women were having “fuck it” days. I also think there’s a good probability that it’s not only White women who didn’t adjust their path and that based on his own life experiences, the actions of those women are just more noticeable.

In the end, Mr. Howard has every right to feel angry or frustrated. He doesn’t need me to validate his feelings, but he shouldn’t have to have them dismissed either. Instead of people taking offense to his experience and feeling defensive, I hope that this can open up some dialogue about interracial perceptions. Mostly, since I will continue to walk these NYC streets for the foreseeable future, I hope everyone takes this opportunity to think about their own actions and behaviors, and that we can ALL try a little harder to be a little more courteous.

Fuck the GOP

OK, so I could elevate one of about 7,203,194 issues currently swirling around the person in possession of the Presidency of these currently United States of America. But there's really no need to for the purpose of this rant. And actually, the inhabitant of the Oval is not the focus of my current irritation... it's his GOP Minions. So without singling out or focusing on any issue/impropriety in particular, here's what i don't understand about the GOP. 

For 8 years, they obstructed President Barack Obama, the nation's first Black President. They didn't even try to cover their hatred of the man. They openly admitted that immediately following the 2008 elections, they all got together and made the decision that they were not going to support ANY initiative offered up by President Obama. Of course, they said it had nothing to do with his being Black. Instead, they claimed it was solely because the policies he had campaigned on were just SO awful. 

The issue of President Obama's race vs. policies has been debated ad nauseum. And although I personally do believe it was all about his color and not about his policies, I don't want to rehash that argument. 

Stay with me.

Let;s jump ahead to the 2016 Presidential Election Season. During the GOP primary, with their whole clown car of hopefuls, the potential candidates themselves were dismissive of Donald Trump, pointing out that he had no politics, was crass, uncouth, and did not have the temperament or skill set to lead this nation on the World Stage.

The rest of the GOP lot... senators, congressmen and women, governors, party leaders, etc... they all openly criticized Trump, labeled him basically a buffoon and a joke, and dismissed him as a serious threat to win the nomination.

And then the craziness really kicked in. Candidate after candidate dropped out of the primary and Trump was not one of them. HE was sticking around. As it got to be more and more plausible, and then eventually it became evident, that he really was going to win the nomination, the GOP stopped being so openly disdainful of him but their support was lukewarm at best.

And then, the impossible happened. Donald Trump actually won the election. Well... let's not give him all the credit. The use of the word "won" is used very loosely here. But the bottom line is that Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States of America. Period.

Thanks for sticking with me! 

SO here's where I get confused about the actions of the GOP as a whole. After fighting the 44th President of the United States in every way imaginable, and asserting over and over it was NOT because he was Black, I expected the GOP to take this opportunity to build a "body of proof" that it wasn't about Obama's skin color. They wanted us to believe that they had America's and Americans' best interest at heart when they opposed him. That it WASN'T party politics or racism. 

This was their chance. What I expected, what I had hoped would happen, is that the career politicians whose primary concern was keeping their office and their comfort, would get together like they had in 2008 and decide that they were not going to just lay down for Trump. They would challenge every initiative based on its merit. That they would extend a hand to their Democratic colleagues after 8 years of antagonizing them, and come together to limit the damage the President-Elect could do.

What actually has happened, and continues to happen, is that they are, in fact, falling into line like good little Nazi soldiers. They are blindly supporting every initiative of Trump much the same way they blindly opposed every initiative of Obama. And that's what I don't understand. 

Had they done what I expected, what I hoped they'd do, they could have at least reasonably continued to defend their treatment of Obama by saying, "See? It wasn't about opposing a Black President, because look! We have an old rich white guy in the Oval now and we are fighting him too!" 

But no. They took the coward's route. They have allowed Trump to appoint incompetent and dangerous people to his cabinet. He has taken steps to eliminate the EPA and declare Climate Change as a falsity. He is stomping the life out of anything that resembles democracy. All in the name of obliterating anything that is a part of the Obama legacy. 

So I guess instead of taking the opportunity to create a plausible defense for their contempt of our first Black President, they cemented their fate. They double-downed on being assholes and are now ingrained as complicit in what will be Trump's legacy of lunacy and destruction. 

Well done, dick heads. Well done.

This is NOT in defense of Kylie... but...

Let me preface this by saying I hate, yes HATE, all things Karkrashian. I block, ignore, gouge my eyes out and pour acid directly into my ear holes to avoid seeing or hearing or knowing anything about everything that has anything to do with that money-grubbing, attention-seeking lot of nothings. 

SO imagine my dismay when this whole Kylie Jenner/Pepsi broo-ha-ha happened and I felt compelled to find out what it was about. And as I read more and more of the indictments of her, I feel that I have to ask the questions. NOT to defend her, NOT to minimize her role in the controversy, NOT to do anything in favor of her. But to clarify some things for myself, to try to understand and learn the WHY. Because while I certainly understand the outrage, hurt, anger of those who are again having their feelings and experiences as a whole marginalized, I have questions. 

First and foremost, let's remember who and what Pepsi is. Remember the Madonna ad that Pepsi released in conjunction with her Like a Prayer video? The one that had her dancing in front of burning crosses and kissing a Black Jesus? Or when Pepsi parlayed the video shoot for the Jacksons' Pepsi commercial when Michael's hair caught on fire? Bad press is better than no press, and when they pull certain stunts, Pepsi is on eeeeeeveryone's lips whether they're Pepsi drinkers or not. 

But I digress. Before I ask my questions, I want to reiterate that this is not a defense of Kylie Jenner. I would soon hack my entire left arm off using those worthless plastic knives you get in those knife-fork-spoon-napkin bundles at fast food joints. Taking HER out of the picture, as a caucasian person, the entire concept of the commercial has me... dumbfounded. What the entire FUCK would make ANYONE think... "Hey! I have the best idea on how to sell more soda. We should pretend that drinking Pepsi can solve the problem that has literally plagued this nation since its inception, and moreover, plagued the entire WORLD since the beginning of time! But especially given the temperature of American society over the past 5-7 years (at least), what with the slew of murders of Black and Brown men and women at the hands of law enforcement that have been caught on tape, and with the erosion of said people's rights to peacefully protest the ongoing assault on their lives (because let's just think about how the 'world' reacted to BLM protests vs. the Women's March the day after 45's inauguration), this is going to be the most super-cool Pepsi ad of aaaaaaaaall time!!" 

As I regrettably watched the +2 minutes of that fuckery, in my mind, there was like a split screen happening. On one side was that drivel, and on the other side were pictures and video of the past, with Black Men and Women (as well as their supporters, but let's be honest, it was the VAST majority, Black Men and Women) having hoses turned on them. Of having boiling hot coffee poured on them for having the audacity to sit at a lunch counter. Of being punched and kicked and having dogs set on them for wanting the same right to use a public restroom or sit on a bench or drink from a water fountain or receive medical care in a life-threatening emergency or go to school or to church or vote. I thought about the march over the bridge in Selma. The burning of buses of Freedom Riders. The burning and bombing of churches where Black folks gathered to praise God and build communities. I thought of Philando Castile being told to produce his ID and being shot dead for obeying the officer's command. Of Trayvon Martin and Sean Bell and Mike Brown and Sandra Bland and Eric Garner and Amadou Diallo and Alton Sterling and Ramarley Graham and Tamir Rice and Laquan McDonald and Akai Gurley and Ezell Ford and Walter Scott and Natasha McKenna and Freddie Gray and Oscar Grant and about 100 more whose names may not come to the tip of my tongue at any given moment but whose lives are just as important, and who are just as dead. I see the coverage of the BLM movement and protests, how people demanding the simple right to live is somehow criminalized but the criminals killing them are lauded as heroes. I see pieces of televised speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. and his dream and his journey to get to that mountaintop. I hear the words of Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale and Fred Hampton.  

It is not lost on me, and it feels just that-much-more dismissive of everything that I saw and heard on that split screen, that the commercial debuted on April 4th, the anniversary of the day that Martin Luther King, Jr. was so senselessly gunned down. Talk about pissing on the man's grave.  

So yes, I understand the outrage. And I understand why the outrage is directed not only at Pepsi, but at Jenner herself and the whole Karkrashian crew. But I have to ask the questions that come to mind. Would the commercial have been less egregious if the role of Kylie Jenner was, for example, played by Taraji P. Henson? The concept is the same. The dismissal of everything "the struggle" has been and still is, is marginalized. I mean, yes I understand having a white person is... worse I guess, for lack of a better word. But I don't know that Jenner, as deserving of the vitriol being thrown at her, is THE villain here.  

Pepsi, of course, immediately stated that they stood by the ad, only today to admit they missed the mark and have pulled the ad. I guess it depends on what their intent was. I don't buy what they're selling... and that's their Pepsi shit as well as their claim that they didn't mean anything by the ad, and that they were trying to support the movement. I call bullshit. 

I mean come on... let's for the sake of argument say that they were trying to bring people together. That's just sad. Coca Cola has been trying to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony for decades! If your best effort, Pepsi, is to take a decades-old idea of unity and spin it with the complete dismissal of the ongoing struggle for equality and civil rights... WOW! Maybe it's time to just throw in the towel. 

I understand the call for boycotting not only Pepsi but all things Pepsi Co as well as all things Karkrashian. But I already don't buy their products and already live in a mostly-Karkrashian-free world. Thank goodness! 

I said I had questions at the outset, and feel like my rambling has been more about why I understand and agree with the backlash. So let me state the questions outright, and hope that if people feel compelled to opine on them, that they do so understanding that I am asking these questions not from a place where I am defending anyone involved in this fiasco, but because I truly want to know where the lines are drawn. 

Question 1: it's a payday for Jenner. Unless she was the creative behind the commercial, it wasn't her "work". She was handed a script and I am sure a shit-ton of money and was playing a part. In a perfect world, she coulda/shoulda/woulda read the scripts, thought about it for a moment and respectfully declined. But I don't think she's that smart to comprehend the Big Picture and I think all she really sees is the money. But even so, it's a job. Why is it not ok for her to take a job, but when we see Black celebrities take a job that is... questionable... (for example) slinging chicken for BK [Mary J. Blige] or singing at 45's inauguration and there's a backlash against THEM, the defense is that it's for the money and people gotta get that money when and where they can. All these horrible "reality" TV shows where mostly Black women are portrayed as negatively as possible, people watch and support them because it's "get that money!" Why can't Kylie get that money too? 

Question 2: Now that Pepsi has agreed to pull the ad and say they're sorry, will people say "bygones" and go on supporting this company's products? Clamoring for all things Karkrashian? 

Question 3: much of the reaction on social media has been about how this situation shows why "white people" can't be allies to the BLM movement and/or movements in general based on equality. And while I am getting better at taking those kinds of comments in general, and not as a personal attack against me, I still wonder why it seems to be ok to lump "all" white people together and paint us with a wide brush, but those caucasians who say "Black people are..." are wrong? Isn't it wrong for everyone to lump ALL people who share a common trait together? Why is this double standard ok on one side but not the other?  

In the end, whether my questions get answered at all is irrelevant. The truth of this whole situation just further spotlights the fact as a whole, here in the US, we still operate under the belief that a Black life is 3/5ths equivalent to a White life.  And that shit is real. Sad, infuriating, incredibly disheartening, but real.