Imperious Entertainment

Let me give a concrete example. A White friend and colleague asked me, "What is it that someone can say in a room full of Black people that they can't say in mixed company?" I couldn't give a specific example, but the only thing I could think of was some situations would be uncomfortable. What happens when one Black person jokingly refers to another as a "[insert racial slur here]?" The non-Black person in the room couldn't repeat it. The awareness of the double-standard and the implication that the non-Black people would be linguistically ostracized or feel linguistically entitled would be – in a word – uncomfortable. I also thought of my experiences eavesdropping on some White teenage girls (in high school) describing their fascination and experiences with Black men: "You know what they say about their you-know-whats" and "I hear he just can't get enough of you." Had they known they were in mixed company, might they have said it? Had they known they were in mixed company, might I have been the default 'sexpert?' Or, might this situation just been uncomfortable?

To be honest, I am less concerned with the questions of these scenarios; I am more inquisitive about the reason why we – in all communities – cannot escape and, ultimately, reify things we know are blanket generalities. I question the value of these conversations: are communities truly enhanced and made closer by ostracizing the other? Or, is this enhancement and close-knit nature simply ostensible?

Comments (3)

...
written by Simple Man , December 12, 2007

"That is to say: I truly believe that the reason this secrecy exists is because we are afraid to see similarity where we see obvious difference."

Do you really believe this is the reason secrecy exists in our communities? What do you think would happen if we were not afraid to see similarity. Would it be a colorblind society or would race, sexual orientation, and disability still matter? I think an oppressed group can definitely be enhanced by "secret " conversations sometimes. "The revolution will not be televised".

...
written by BayetteGeorge , December 13, 2007

Philosophies and Opinions of Marcus Garvey speaks of UNIVERSAL SUSPICION!!!! Humans were 1st tribal, then we pooled into larger societies such as cities, counties, states, and then countries: All fighting to secure WHAT? FOOD, CLOTHING AND SHELTER!!!! and to do WHAT? PROTECT WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!!! As we've amalgamated our societies and 'multicultures' exist we've still kept the CORE tribal mentality. (AND WHEN YOU ADD RELGION/REGIONALISM/NATIONALISM ETC. INTO THE EQUATION YOU GET EVEN MORE DIVISION) If you look around the US you can see this best in SPORTS!!!! Every city has a team, that team has a PLAYBOOK and it would be TREASON to share that playbook with your oppostion!!!! It would ensure defeat. We do the same as TRIBES!!!! We all have PLAYBOOKS that are a part of our culture and we don't share . ACTUALLY BLACK PEOPLE DO (ie the publicity of the Stop Snitching Campaign, and the public rhetoric of Hip Hop) we're the only ones to put our BUSINESS in the streets on a NATIONAL SCALE!!!!

...
written by TPickens , December 13, 2007

Simple Plan: I think some progress can be made without secrecy or at least with the recognition that there is nothing you can't say to someone of another race. That the secrecy that fundamentally persists - that there is a biological difference between racial groups. I'm not sure whether I strongly adhere to the ignorance argument. For me, what takes precedent in my line of thought is whether these secret communities are still useful and it appears that the answer is yes and no. In some ways they are and in other ways they reinvent the categories that are sometimes to the detriment of forward movement.

BayetteGeorge - I think you're right about the allegiance and construction of these groups especially in a historical sense. This brings me back to the question I mentioned to Simple Plan, do you think these are useful still? Do you consider them treacherous still?

---