Being Conscious of Your Own Race and Fitting In

An original version posted on 10/11/2008 as "Unconsciousness, Consciousness, Popular Discourse, Race, and the Presidential Election" @ throwascrewinit.blogspot.com

When I think of the word "consciousness", I think of Mos Def's line in his Close to the Edge Freestyle on the Chappelle Show.

So, stop with the nonsense, like he conscious
I'm just awake dawg, I'm doin' great dawg

He was talking about "conscious", meaning a state of knowing what's going on. He says "being conscious" is not really a state worthy of praise or congratulated for; it's just him simply being awake. By implication, this means he's noticing things.

Consciousness, specifically human consciousness was the main topic in the book the User Illusion by Tor Norretander.

The main thing I got from the book was that 80% of what we do is done unconsciously. Breathing, heart rate, thoughts, especially during sleep. Unconscious. We can sense a billion things a minute, but only a few bits actually enter our stream of thought and movement called our "consciousness."

I'm inclined to say that consciousness is about maintaining and exacting control. Consciousness acts so you don't go crazy processing every bit of information. It acts as yet another filter of information for the world around you.

Consciousness simplifies your life, your thought, emotion, movement process --- the way that the User Interface on your computer simplifies your life as a computer user.

You don't have to enter code just to do anything. You can click on your My Computer icon, the start button, which is nice, but there's so much work involved in making it look that easy. The binary coding, the programming language, the time it took to develop all that. That's all hidden.

Consciousness is like that user interface that hides a lot of those details like the binary code and the programming language.

One thing I notice is that what you do become conscious of, you're probably insecure about. Which brings me to self-consciousness.

I'm conscious right now about my math abilities.

Kanye West says he's so self-conscious, but he's the only one to admit it.

It's a bad thing in this socio-cultural milieu to be "self-conscious" because it means you're too worried about what people think. You don't act the way you want to because you're trying to control what people think about you. Or at least limit the bad thoughts.

When you become conscious, it seems like you don't really do anything but observe. The "I" part of you becomes active, but you cannot envision that "I" part of you committing to an action.

Basketball players, soccer players are said to be unconscious when they're making quick decisions with their respective balls. In those contexts, where timing is of the essence, you're not supposed to think, you're supposed to act. There is no room for pondering. There is no room for the "I" to perceive, and then decide to act because the moment is already over. Hesitation usually doesn't mean anything good in sports. The solution is to act before you think. Acting unconsciously.

Essentially, the book by Norretrander is about how happiness tends to happen more when we are unconsciously acting. Unconsciousness means we act rather than let the consciousness creep in and instill doubt.

Lets think again about what Mos Def said about consciousness.

So, stop with the nonsense, like he conscious
I'm just awake dawg, I'm doin' great dawg

Even outside of Mos Def's context, we use "consciousness" within urban contexts here in the US of A to indicate someone who seems to be thoughtful and knows about harsh realities. As opposed to someone who isn't conscious. By implication, a person who isn't conscious isn't thoughtful and skips over harsh realities.

There is even a demarcation of "conscious" hip-hop and non-conscious hip-hop. "Conscious hip-hop" is hip-hop that invokes thoughtfulness and harsh realities.

There seems to be a parallel between consciousness and harsh realities. Consciousness seems to recognize "harsh realities" all the time. With its recognition of harsh realities, it notices limitations as well. Consciousness by proxy notices limitations.

Consciousness. Realities. Limitations. Consciousness knows realities and knows limitations.

Acting unconsciously. Happiness. When you act unconsciously, you're generally happier.

Notice that we don't really care whether or not Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, or Paris Hilton are "conscious." I rarely hear that word used in any Hollywood Infotainment show. "Conscious."

It's probably because there's a kind of happy and upbeat discourse always surrounding them, regardless of what they actually are feeling. They live in an unconscious world where each of their missteps are exposed and judged harshly, yet anything positive they do, including losing 0.5 lbs of weight, is celebrated as an achievement. With the worlds they live in, they can fuck up royally,

When explaining why people are addicted to gossip about Hollywood celebrities, Danielle Fishel, formerly of Boy Meets World and apparently now a gossip host, said something to the effect of: "it's fun to follow their stories because their worlds are limitless." Limitless. Boundless. Unconscious. By implication, they have choices and can act on any whim, which makes their story more intriguing.

They get to act as unconsciously as they want.

Now that's something I wish I could do as a middle-class Filipino kid in America. I'm happy, but it feels like I have to walk on eggshells still. I have to carefully be something. I mean I wish I could just act ridiculous and stupid and then somehow bullshit my way into popularity. Or even something like the US presidency ala George W.

Only it feels like I can't. It feels like I can't just walk into a job interview and chum it up with old whitey.

No matter the qualifications or knowledge I have, I have to match an employer's "comfortability, fit" factor (or maybe that was just me). The employer is usually somebody white. It feels like I can't just be an Eric Kandel from Vienna who studies literature and history as an undergrad, becomes a psychiatrist in training, and becomes a Noble Prize winning neuroscientists. My point is that it seems like everyone's doing something unconsciously, except me.

I'm just sitting here consciously, and observing.

Now this brings me to a question of whether or not I could act unconsciously on my way into something like the US Presidency?

Would I as a Filipino middle-class kid be able to George W. Bush/Sarah Palin my way through anything en route to the presidency?

It feels like I have to do everything by the book while other people, namely the white folks and asskissers of color get by on a steady diet of bullshit. I feel like I've had to do things at a higher and tighter level, so good just to get something that white people could get with just a minimum of effort.

The same I could say about Barack Obama.

Community organizer from the creme-de-la-creme, professor, organizer, awesome communicator matching up against an old guy who is respectable but is probably going to continue the Bush push, and some lady who came out of nowhere and prides herself on being a hockey mom.

It feels like this presidential "race" shouldn't even be a competition anymore. However, the polls are close. He still seems to be walking on eggshells and is perpetually in doubt over the Bubba votes and the Bradley effect.

He's still defending against so many things: Reverend Wright, the unfettered linking of his middle name to Saddam's last name, the claims against his links to Islam.

All of these things shouldn't be issues, but have been made so, and he's had to straddle the line delicately to appease voters.

I think it took a lot of consciousness to play his positions the way he has. I do believe in his commitment to ALL working class folks. I really doubt he actually likes to support Israel, that he's actually steadfastly Christian, or that he's all for some kind of border security. Those seems like things in his form, his identity, that he consciously changed to make him palatable to broader demographics.

Not saying that's wrong, but that's how you win in politics --- more form than function. The right form to carry out the function. With the right form, the collective feels that it can unconsciously carry on with their functions.

Seeing Hints of Racism on Message Boards in Characterizations of USA Basketball

An original version posted on 8/20/2004 as "Racist Agenda Towards USA Basketball" @throwascrewinit.blogspot.com

It's always interesting to see how racist people really are when people from different countries come together. But that's to be expected.

What isn't really expected is when your own country is racist towards you.

One act of racism is committed when one or more individuals think that there is something inherently wrong with a group of people based on physical characteristics, namely color of skin.

Whether intentional or not, message boarders People seem to be (whether intentional or not) blaming the urban culture of hip-hop, dominated by minority races in these Team USA basketball losses. And since the USA team is composed of all black people, some people see it fitting to associate them with hip-hop. Most people do. I mean, when one thinks of hip-hop, one will most likely think of a black person's face.

People bashing Team USA start out blaming things strongly associated with hip-hop like street basketball, the And 1 Tour (sometimes even mockingly using hip-hop terms). They imply that these aspects associated with hip-hop are what is causing the US team to be selfish and lose. They claim that these players are being selfish as a result of liking hip-hop/urban.

For example, they'll say things like "it's all about And 1 basketball with these guys. They don't know anything about team basketball or fundamentals."

Yeah, I completely missed the off-the-backboard 360 dunk by Tim Duncan followed by the Emeka Okafor off BOTH Carlos Arroyo's and Carlos Boozer's head dribble all with 4 fingers while keeping his middle finger up at the US flag in the loss to Puerto Rico.

Oh wrong game?

I guess I was watching the game where Allen Iverson was actually passing the ball. The rest of the team thought that was such a great idea that they decided to do just the exact same. The team was playing defense. They may have these reputations as selfish players (which is an issue in itself), but that's not what they have shown in the games.

In other words, I've observed the exact opposite of what they have been accused of doing by message board posters.

Racist ? Check with a big fat red, white, and blue mark !

People seemed to immediately placed labels on the team based namely on Allen Iverson. They have romanticized FIBA style basketball. They call the whole team selfish, some have even said that they lacked pride.

I definitely saw that they lacked pride because they're all too black for us to see their hearts.

Team USA's just one example of how hip-hop and everything associated with it has become such a great goat for these mostly American message boarders to put all their own bad traits of Americana into and kick repeatedly.

I'm not sure that people actually watched the game. "Hip-hop" style of basketball doesn't really affect how they play the game. Hip-hop, blackness is not to blame because it had absolutely nothing to do with the team USA loss.

If there's anything to blame it's probably how the NBA Rules are structured.

Let's just all ignore the facts that this team was poorly conceived and sorely unadapted to the competition. Sure, they're top players, but all of them have the same skills and lack the same ones. It also doesn't help that none of them are great shooters.

How is that possible in basketball you ask ?

In the NBA game, these guys are taught to be aggressive and attack the hoop. What faciliates going to the hoop is that there is this 3 second rule in the NBA which prohibits players from staying in the painted area for more than 3 seconds. It was a rule conceived to add more action to the NBA game. International basketball has no such rule and so the strategy for these international teams has been to clog these lanes.

Another reason USA basketball has slipped is that these international teams don't select players from a big pool. There's a tryout process for them. The USA team basically threw together a team composed of young, inexperienced, good players. They're still the most talented team, but unlike the previous Dream Teams in 1992 and 1996, they're not good enough to plow through other teams on just talent alone. They actually need team chemistry. Not fundamentals.

More reactions of hidden racism here.

Feeling Sorry for One of Hip-Hop's Critics

An original version posted on 6/23/2008 as "Hip-Hop and Political Change? Apparently Not!" @throwascrewinit.blogspot.com

The Manhattan Institute's John McWhorter says that hip-hop is not a vehicle for positive change, but rather a destructive force for black Americans.

Another one of those "reformed" black guys who serve as a vehicle to legitimate white America's history of denial of wrongdoing coupled with paternalistic, third-person omniscient solutions.

I generally can't get myself to respect anyone who dismisses something that is important to a chunk of the population. He seems to goes out of his/her way to hate on something he doesn't really understand, kind of like a spy...or...a stalker.

Upon reading more of McWhorter here and listening to an NPR interview, I can't help but feel sorry for the man. I truly do.

Why? Two things: He's a stalker and he's passive-aggressive.

1) Keeping true to that identity as a stalker, he doesn't actually speak to anyone to uncover any truth.

In his main article against hip-hop, he leads with an observation about some kids at a KFC. The kids are loud and annoying in a public or quasi-public space, behavior virtually unheard of from any group or subgroup of teenagers in America. So, what's to blame?

You guessed it! The ASSUMED soundtrack of their lives. These Black kids at KFC...must be that damn Hip-hop! A-HA!

In his radio interview, he mentioned that when he speaks, everyone has been supportive and no one has bothered him. No one, except maybe "one hothead" gets riled up at his talks, probably because he bores his supporters or would-be supporters. And, he passively aggressively hides from those who want to call him out.

2) When explaining his avoidance of opponents and potential detractors, he calls himself a "homebody", code word for divorced-from-reality, scared, linguist.

I feel bad for him mostly because behind the flowery high-falutin' language and the degrees from Stanford and Berkeley is just a scared, passive-aggressive stalker.

Even though the writer of these books and articles is kind of pathetic in his attempts to disparage hip-hop, what he says is essentially still the same stuff that critics of hip-hop from casual to extreme haters use, so its worth a response.

I can agree with a few things he says:

• Some of the most promoted and commercialized rap songs are those without real positive messages. But I can see where it comes from and I don't think it goes anywhere.
• I agree that we could do without the sexism and violence
  
• People do need to adapt to their life circumstances

Where he and I differ is that he seems bent on extracting the worst elements of hip-hop and subsequently, rooting it out based on that.

It's kind of like trying to ban Christianity because you don't like the KKK or Terry McVeigh. In each case, you're trying to look for the worst elements of something you don't like without fairly weighing its good elements.

From this vantage point, this attempt to extract the worst of the genre, his argument boils down to two things:

1) According to him, Hip-hop is responsible for the destruction of the black American.

You'd think that the arrival of hip-hop caused the destruction of the 'hood.

The rise of nihilistic rap has mirrored the breakdown of community norms among inner-city youth over the last couple of decades. It was just as gangsta rap hit its stride that neighborhood elders began really to notice that they’d lost control of young black men, who were frequently drifting into lives of gang violence and drug dealing. Well into the seventies, the ghetto was a shabby part of town, where, despite unemployment and rising illegitimacy, a healthy number of people were doing their best to “keep their heads above water,” as the theme song of the old black sitcom Good Times put it.

He seems to operate on this romanticized and historicized viewpoint that the 'hood was a rough place but still a place where this "healthy number" of people were doing well within their own communities.

"Healthy numbers?"

I remember a talk with the LA Times Homicide Blogger, Jill Leovy where she said that the black man murder rate has always been staggeringly high from Jim Crow until now. Her point was that there's deep a history of homicide within the black community.

In 1976, before talks of handguns, gangs, crack stuff, the black male homicide rate according to the US Justice Department was still 7x higher than those of whites. In, 1960, according to the Centers for Disease Control, death rates for black man were 14x higher, and in 1950 black male death rates were 17x higher than those of whites.

So bad things were still happening within the neighborhoods before hip-hop. I think the only difference with hip-hop in the picture is that it gives people like him to pick at and justify structural injustices and hegemonies.

2) His conclusion: hip-hop is antithetical to "helping people help themselves..."

He takes aim at those who try to spread the positive messages. Cites the Dead Prez as an example of conscious hip-hop. He mentions that they're pretty good at noting the insufficient employment opportunities. But then he criticizes them for advocating civil and social rights, i.e. standing on top of Capital Hill.

The classic pull-by-the-bootstrapping yes-man, he advocates a personal anecdote to a social and structural problems. He says that plenty of UPS jobs and delivery boys do not require college degrees and they can live perfectly legit middle-class existences.

Guess he missed the talks about the disappearing middle-class, here, here, and here.

McWhorts then goes on to criticize those who do try to make their money in the underground economy. I would've thought that he'd think the underground is the adaptive way of making money, and would've applauded them.

Ultimately, Dr. McWhorter's prescription for his fellow black man is a whole dose of mediocrity. He offers a hellvua lot less that than the rappers from the neigbhorhood with the money and the women. He's essentially telling them to become drones of everyone else while other people get their action.

In the end, rap and hip-hop is only a medium of expression. It's a piece of marketing, but it doesn't drive any widespread violence that wasn't already endemic. If people want to destroy, that's usually a highly personal decision. I doubt that people make negative life or death decisions based on what they hear from an artist.

Hip-hop is mostly a tool for empowerment because it breeds expression. It has the potential to inspire. A tool for empowerment because this is where people can find their strength.

But ultimately, it's only a tool, it's not going to be the only thing that will make or break a segment of the population.