Monday, October 04, 2010

The Systematic Punking of Men, Gender Blurring & Engineered Faggotry 001 • DV University Fall 2010 • Professsor Makheru Bradley

23 comments:

lincolnperry said...

You are on point DV, Oprah being the traducer that she is at times...and promotes the Tyler Perry, Lee Daniels, andre Leon Talley faggot black male collective. Dave is right, but he is guilty of some of same offensives in his buffonery, coonism is just as bad as wearing the dress...its a constant struggle in this battle against good and evil!

D.SMITH said...

Dave Chappelle is the motherfuckin' man...his "buffoonery and coonism" may have offended people, but only because they refused to recognize that he was imitating and calling bullshit on a lot of what those same folks subscribe to...and he STILL didn't have to wear a dress to do it. AND at one point he refused to do ANY of that shit anymore, walking away from a WHOLE lot more money than any of these other flimsy looking cats was clockin'.

At what point does a man look at himself and refuse to participate in this minstrel show, faggotized bullshit because he realizes that Hollywood's definition of success will not afford him any dignity and self-respect whatsoever? Is money really that important where you will succumb to any request of some writer or filmmaker, only to have your career eventually come to an end for whatever reason...and the only imprint left was you playing some cross-dressing, transgender role?

Tyler Perry ain't shit without Madea...a man dressed like some old woman. That's fucking sad. And he's made what, eighty damn movies playing off the same bullshit? Damon Wayans and David Alan Grier? Men on Film. What else is there? Chocoate fuckin' News? Will Smith and that "Six Degrees of Separation" bullshit? Get the fuck outta here. He's had a lot of more memorable roles since, but he took the cake in that one. Eddie Murphy in Big Mama, Wesley Snipes in that To Wong Fu whoever shit...so sad.

And the list of white actors that have done the same isn't even comparable in volume. I can't think of ONE that continously played a similar role.

Anonymous said...

See, D know.
You need to hook up with Nike, get your own shoe. I'd wear some Smiths to a gala like it was mandatory.

excerpts from
The Devil and Dave Chappelle
By William Jelani Cobb

"In Hollywood, where nervous breakdowns are considered a normal stage in career development, Dave Chappelle's flameout last year at least scored points for originality. Where the cliché ones involve overdoses, bad weekend grosses and cross-dressing hookers, Chappelle's crisis was more like a lost scene from Spike Lee's “Bamboozled.” Blackface, $50 million and a stint as a fugitive in South Africa are, at the least, a plot twist. Less benign observers are apt to say the man simply choked under pressure or got turned out by the cash that Comedy Central dropped on him. (The middle-tier talent Mike Epps weighed in, saying that Chappelle's stable suburban upbringing had been his undoing and a Black man like himself with a ghetto pedigree would have no problem handling that kind of situation.) That line of thought came off like a bad joke given that the tagline for Chappelle's show is 'I'm rich, bitch.'

...'Pryor told The New York Times Magazine in 1975 "I think there's a thin line between being a Tom and [depicting] human beings. When I do the people I have to do it true. If I can't do it, I'll stop right in the middle rather than pervert it and turn it into Tomism. There's a thin line between to laugh with and to laugh at.'

...for all this, race lines weren't even the primary breaking point in Chappelle's crisis. In an era defined by simpleton celebrity gloss, where the LOWEST DENOMINATOR IS ALSO THE PRIMARY TARGET AUDIENCE, Chappelle's real fault line was comedic IQ. His core audience, the people who were drawn to the first two seasons of Chappelle's Show, is multi-hued, geographically diverse and spread across a wide swath of Generations X and Y. They found a common ground in all being smart enough to catch the irony – even if only part of that audience could participate in it.

By season three, though, Chappelle's Show had officially crossed over, meaning that he was virtually assured of an audience too big to really dig what exactly he was laughing at. Jimi Hendrix encountered that same paradox when he became big enough to attract an audience that couldn't grasp his guitar genius but did manage to get hung up on their image of him as a Black Dionysus who burned guitars on stage."

And this is where the demons come in.

maskheru bradley said...

Hollywood's campaign to re-emasculate Afrikan American males is relentless.

At least Dave Chappelle reflects the spirit of Henry Highland Garnet.

“It is in your power to torment the God-cursed slaveholders that they would be glad to let you go free… But you are a patient people. You act as though you were made for the special use of these devils. You act as though your daughters were born to pamper the lusts of your masters and overseers. And worse of all, you tamely submit, while your lords tear your wives from your embraces, and defile them before your eyes. In the name of God we ask, ARE YOU MEN? …Heaven, as with a voice of thunder, calls on you to arise from the dust. Let your motto be RESISTANCE! RESISTANCE! RESISTANCE! No oppressed people have ever secured their Liberty without resistance.” – Henry Highland Garnet, The National Convention of Colored Citizens, August 16, 1843

Dr. Love said...

I agree with Bro Bradley and the concern for redefining "black manhood' and the relentless attack and the feminizing of black men has gotten way out of hand...WAY OUT HAND.... yet the so called "Black Stars" don't say a word but continue to justify their silence or participation with the " I got to get paid" which seems to make it okay to continue this insulting characterization.However, these characterizations insult the homosexual black male as well, who is struggling with his dilemma many times in silence for fear of being ostracized,physically attacked and at the "but-end" (no pun intended) of every joke. Black men in particular go through a tremendous mental stress situation that many times leads to death(the unreported suicides is amazing) which is not openly discussed in the black family.Why didn't Bruce Willis take it in the ass in the movie "PULP FICTION", why so many references to "gayness" in the "Fresh Prince" episodes. The "real deal doesn't hit home until a close family member is gay. My parents knew my younger brother was bi-sexual and never mentioned this to me or my other siblings and I had to find out on my own after years of my joining in on all the "fag" jokes and homophobic comments. I cried at the knowledge and realized that rather than being angry with my brother...I loved him even more realizing what he had been going through...even though we never really discussed it openly..he somehow knew that I knew and could feel the unconditional love..he became addicted to drugs (escapism) and passed away before he could accept that even though sexually he was a different man it did not mean that he was not a MAN. My concern is that their are a lot of homexual brothers who are talented, brilliant, and positive contributors to our struggle...they need to make some noise about the insults and characterization of these "negative images".

Thordaddy said...

Talk about homeys who got to get paid... Those black cats in the NFL are just too dang excited about revelling in hot pink accessory. Some of you more naive cats need to see the collusion between these "Alpha" athletes and the redefinition of man.

If man wears hot pink glowingly then thordaddy can't be no man... But isn't that the intention?

Thordaddy said...

Dr. Love,

The problem with having compassion for homosexuality is that you have compassion for self-annihilation. More important than your brother's homosexuality is his desire to die. This desire is liberating to him and so he has probably entertained it for quite some time. Homosexuality then became a proxy... A pretext... An illusion that said, "I was born this way so I must be this way." And this way is what? Radically autonomous... HOMO-sexual... A self-sexualizer AVERSE to the other... A self-annihilator via radical autonomy.

Anonymous said...

Point well taken, Sam Jackson didn't get punkd by Bruce Willis in Diehard 3, or took shit from Ben Affleck in Changing Lanes, can say the same for Denzil Washington, and Dennis Haysbett...its these new niggas like Taye Diggs, and Damon Wayans...

Her Side said...

The problem with having compassion for homosexuality is that you have compassion for self-annihilation.

What about the semantics of "sin" vs. "sinner?" Isn't the goal compassion for the homosexual and not homosexuality? If we're talking self-annihilation, there are countless tools a person can use to achieve that end - and compassion towards the person (i.e. love) is the only real weapon. Yeah... that includes tough love.

Thordaddy said...

Pink,

The homosexual is a self-annihilator. Your compassion for his homosexuality is the pretext to final liberation. This liberal drama only plays because Clementi was homosexual and he carefully chose a plausible pretext. The compassion for Clementi IS the compassion for his homosexual affliction. When one has compassion for homosexuality (the sin) then one is the enabler (pretext) for the self-annihilator. Clementi KILLS HIMSELF and we are to blame. Diabolical nonsense!!!

Her Side said...

Wasn't sure if you were talking to me or Pink, Thordaddy. :-)

I actually don't subscribe compassion to homosexuality. My compassion is reserved for anybody feeling cast out, rejected, unloved, or self-destructive. The excuse/tool of choice isn't a factor.

On a slightly different note: Yesterday's over-sensationalized useless news bits included a cry to treat this invasion of privacy as a hate crime - which would increase the punishment.

I seriously oppose hate crime legislation. Here's why:

My son and Mrs. Doe's son are murdered on the same day by two different young black men. My son happens to be a handsome brown man who likes females with creamy thighs and ample bosom. Mrs. Doe's son happens to be an average white man who likes men with hairy legs and big... feet.

Mrs. Doe would enjoy the increased satisfaction of justice based on a harsher sentence for her son's murderer. Puh-leeze.

DMG said...

Her Side,

I don't believe it's as simple as you state it. If YOUR heterosexual son is for some reason PERCEIVED to be gay, or of a certain group (let's say a group of folks believe he's Haitian--and they have a bias against this group), it may be considered a hate crime. He doesn't have to actually BE gay or Haitian or whatever. The Shepard/Byrd Act expands laws already on the books to include crimes motivated by the victims actual or PERCEIVED gender, sexual orientation, etc. So liking "ample (female) bottoms" won't protect your son from a hate crime from gay bashers.

Her Side said...

DMG:

I'll conceded that I oversimplified the issue in my comment, but your clarification doesn't negate my point.

A murder victim over a PERCEIVED gender, sexual orientation, etc. shouldn't receive greater "justice" under the law than a person murdered over a gold chain.

Murder is against the law because one doesn't have the right to randomly end another person's life. I don't find that the source of "hate" (demographic bias or jealously over material possessions) stands as a reasonable discriminator with regards to punishment.

DMG said...

Her Side,

Give me the definition of genocide.

Her Side said...

DMG:

I'll humor you since you could have provided this on your own. In fact, I'll let Merriam-Websters do it:

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Her Side said...

Darnit... I'll be out of pocket for a minute, so I'll leave this:

We started with the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, which allows federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" (while engaging in federally protected activities).

We encounter additional iterations (attempts to legislate morality?) such as Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994) which introduces increased penalties for crimes motivated by race, gender, religion, etc biases.

Then we arrived at the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which further protects sexual orientation (etc.) and drops the original "engaged in a federally protected activity."

We may have started at 'civil rights' and 'protecting against genocidal actions,' but somewhere along the way equal protection/equal justice fell off a cliff.

DMG said...

Explain how "equal protection/equal justice fell off a cliff".

Or are you saying it's OK to terrorize people because of their sexual orientation?

Botton line is no matter what justice is "enjoyed", the perpetrators punishment won't bring either son back from the dead. Or do you believe there is some compensation or punishment on this planet that will satisfy a grieving mother?

It's fairly simple. Don't kill or terrorize people based race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. I don't see the problem.

Her Side said...

It's fairly simple. Don't kill or terrorize people based race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. I don't see the problem.

What's wrong with "Don't kill or terrorize people?"... PERIOD.

I agree that no punishment will bring either son back from the dead. But why aim to deter crime against 'protected classes' of people? Isn't that the real (even if unintended) implication of increased punishments for some motives and not others? Are we simply telling folk to have better excuses for their murder sprees to avoid harsher sentences?

Question: Do the current hate crime laws apply against a woman who was raped by a red-headed man and waged a reign of terror against the limited demographic of "red-heads?" Just curious...

DMG said...

Nothing is wrong with it, however we homo sapiens sapiens seem to enjoy categorizing everything, and everyone. Placing certain attributes to certain groups, right or wrong. Black folks are criminals, Jews are cheap and dishonest, Muslims are terrorists, etc. hence the need for these extra laws.

Answer: Well, she'd probably be more of a serial killer, and could get the death penalty...but I digress. The current Act as I understand it seems to cover the systematic murder of Ginger-people.

Her Side said...

Ginger-people? You made me smile. :-)

Cognitive psychologists explain the need for the human brain to categorize things. It's useful for processing. We homo sapiens enjoy the (often wrong and culturally-inspired) act of assigning values to certain categories.

At any rate, the need for "extra laws" still doesn't answer the mail. Because everybody on this planet belongs to a demographic group (whether based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc). Naming a subset to protect by law doesn't make any good sense.

Can we look at another angle? Sentences are meant to deter crime (yeah.right) and keep criminals off the streets. Should the man who murdered over sexual orientation be off the streets longer than the man who robs and murders as his rent payment plan? Citizens aren't any safer with either roaming the streets.

Denmark Vesey said...

Lincoln Perry!

Coolest cat on the internet!

Where you been Bra?

Denmark Vesey said...

"At any rate, the need for "extra laws" still doesn't answer the mail. Because everybody on this planet belongs to a demographic group (whether based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc). Naming a subset to protect by law doesn't make any good sense." Her Side


Dangerously lucid!

Thordaddy said...

And DMG is dangerously stupid...

Dude jumped ON HIS OWN ACCORD...

For all we know, this homosexual sought final liberation...

And DMG wants to act as though some "bigots" pushed him.

Funny this is, dead Clementi is pushing people around from beyond.