Interactive Politrix

Peace Everybody... it's Naijankee here...your favorite halfrican from the East Coast.

This evening, I am watching MTV2's interactive dialogue with presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards. I am wary of this $80 haircut sportin', Southern drawlin', tax baitin'...man. However, I am watching; challenging myself to become increasingly knowledgeable with regards to mainstream politics ( AND boosting my B.S. endurance factor!). As I watch John Edwards dodge questions and dance around difficult dialogues, I am astounded by the intense, politicized energy exploding from the live audience (composed entirely of students from the University of New Hampshire), as well as the young adults also questioning Edwards via Instant Messenger. Shocking as it may be, MTV and Edwards' (tired) campaign are co-terminously engaging young people...many genuinely hungry for real talk. Talking in the real terms of those of us who have only gained the right to vote within the last decade, the Internet is central to the moderation of Edwards' stage time. Young adults IM questions while they simultaneously measure their perception of John Edwards performance with an online polling pie chart...demanding that politics be a show that is at least as interactive as it is semantic and deceptive.

MTV must be putting the same "magic" in their programming that McDonald's puts in its fries...because I was soon enthralled by this whole political theater with John Edwards and my own dis-ease with white, privileged, heterosexual male politics in an overgrown slavocracy/heterosexist/capitalist hodgepodge heightening the drama. I delved even deeper when a young sista who reminded me so much of myself in the first year of college nervously gathered her thoughts to ask a provactive question of a luke-warm candidate. Her presence was as profound as her question---the tensions of polite bull ishing, socioeconomic consciousness and taking up the burdened voice of marginalized "Others" weighing her voice down---as she composed herself to ask a question that presses us all. While watching her, you feel for her...as you will also feel her...having been that "wobbly-voiced" sista trying to speak-out in (what likely presents itself as hostile and) an uncertain place.

However, my elation with Black women (literally) speaking to hegemony and political access in the real-time terms of contemporary political participation was quickly kicked in the proverbial gut when Sen. Edwards opened his mouth. He is seldom innocent of bifurcated thinking...constantly using polarized examples race and religion to create trite responses to complex questions and this instance was clearly no exception.



His response to this young Sista of the Sun was not only flattening but also indicative of his allegiance to liberal ideologies that encourage band-aid measures of systematic cruelties.

John Edwards...you solidified my dislike of you when you purported yourself to be the Good O'l' Boy candidate in a presidential campaign bid against a white woman and a biracial man, but now the power of global information access and a courageous young sista have largely exposed you as what many of us already knew you to be: short-sighted and ill-equipped to challenge the disparity you claim you've got the critical insight to correct.

Sis, what do you think?

A Fist Full of Roots...the Bullshit Continues

I haven't re-twisted my locs in well over a month and I have no intention of doing so for awhile. I wash my hair, but I'm content to allow each kink to curl over the other and entangle in a sea of ebony-colored cotton. Pardon me if I wax poetic about my hair (something so insignificant to many), but I love it and I'll be damned before I allow anyone to speak ill of it, especially after all of the years of having to catch flack from so many people.That's in part why I was bothered when I received word of the latest slight against the natural beauty of Black women.

In short, a blatantly racist editor at Glamour Magazine recently stood before a group of female lawyers at a luncheon on the "dos and don'ts" of corporate attire and exclaimed that afros and other natural Black hairstyles were a big don't (see below for the full story).

While I am in no ways shocked that a representative from a so-called women's magazine (read: teller of lies, destroyer of self-esteem...) would further such ignorance, I am still a bit peaved. Mainly because its a reminder that this is still an issue that is as politicized today as it was when Madame CJ Walker ran her first hot comb through some sista's beautiful virgin hair.

This is about assimilation and racism, not professionalism. A Black woman being made to perm her hair to get or keep a job is the same as a Jewish woman being asked to have a nose job. That would be ridiculous right? As ridiculous as us not having the choice to keep our hair the same way it was when we were born.

When the Glamour incident dropped many folks called for a boycott of the magazine. I argue that we need to draw attention to the existence of self-hatred in our beauty asthetic, how whites (particularly through the media) continue to foster that environment and how it needs to be addressed. A boycot isn't as affective as simply using the incident as a launch pad for a great and deeper discussion.

I forwarded the info to a bunch of women of color. One of my friends said that this kind of behavior should be ignored because it only gives the magazine more publicity, there are bigger issues at hand (like the Jena Six) and most people know right from wrong. This was my response to her:

Like it or not, media is one of the most powerful political tools in the way that it shapes and informs people's understandings and opinions. It is often those same misinformed people who make hiring decisions that can affect our upward mobility. I don't care what any white person thinks about my glorious kinks, but I for damn sure want them to know that they can incur EOP reprecussions if they were to test me about it. Don't give people so much credit to think they know the difference from right and wrong...its all subjective thus typically informed by perception. Remember, we live in a society that is more concerned with athletes who harm dogs than those who harm women.

Besides, little battles fought aide in the greater war. (Please remember that).....

**********************************************
Cleary Gottlieb has a bad hair day
Talk about a Glamour don't.

Vivia Chen/The American Lawyer
August 27, 2007

It seemed like a nice frothy summer treat for some hardworking gals at a hard-driving law firm. Instead of hosting another earnest discussion about client cultivation and leadership, the women lawyers group at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton invited an editor from Glamour magazine. The topic: the dos and don'ts of corporate fashion.

First slide up: an African-American woman sporting an Afro. A real no-no, announced the Glamour editor to the 40 or so lawyers in the room. As for dreadlocks: How truly dreadful! The style maven said it was "shocking" that some people still think it "appropriate" to wear those hairstyles at the office. "No offense," she sniffed, but those "political" hairstyles really have to go.

By the time the lights flicked back on, some Cleary lawyers -- particularly the 10 or so African-American women in attendance -- were in a state of disbelief. "It was like she was saying you shouldn't go out with your natural hair, and if you do, you're making a political statement," says one African-American associate. "It showed a general cluelessness about black women and their hair."

The episode also produced a "mixed reaction" along racial lines, says this associate. "Some [whites] didn't understand what the big deal was ... but all the black associates saw the controversy."

Cleary Gottlieb's managing partner, Mark Walker, who heard about the incident from some of the attendees, also saw trouble. Soon after the event, Walker issued an e-mail that denounced the hair commentary as "racially insensitive, inappropriate, and wrong." Calling the beauty advice "appalling," Walker says, "You don't tell people that their physical appearance is unacceptable, when certain characteristics are associated with a racial group." He asks, "What's the alternative? Straighten or bleach your hair?"

As for the identity of the editor, neither Cleary Gottlieb nor Condé Nast Publications Inc. (publisher of Glamour) would say. Indeed, almost all of the half-dozen Glamour editors contacted for this story professed not to have ever set foot in a law firm. "Cleary what?" asked several.

And Walker says he has no idea whether the editor who sparked all this controversy is a well-known fashionista. Not that Walker would know, even if Anna Wintour herself crossed his path. "Who is she?" Walker asks. "I really don't know people in the fashion industry." (If you have to ask, she's the editor of Vogue.)

So did the Glamour editor realize how many feathers she ruffled? Walker says that the speaker was "spoken to by one of the women partners" and that she sent an e-mail apology. "I assume she was oblivious; I doubt she's racist," says Walker. "She wasn't thinking and said something hare-brained."

Or is that hair-brained?



Glamour Magazine editor responds

I read your post about a Glamour editor's comments on hairstyles for work, and I'd like to share with you our thoughts. First, we regret the comments were made. The employee -- a junior staffer, not a beauty editor -- spoke to a small group of lawyers at a private luncheon without her supervisor’s knowledge or approval, and her comment -- that afros are not work appropriate -- does not represent Glamour's point of view.

Secondly, immediately upon learning of it, we sought to rectify the situation. The editor has been dealt with in a very serious manner, and the entire staff has been reminded of the magazine's policies and procedures for making public appearances.

Glamour is proud of its diverse readership and celebrates the beauty of ALL women. We have responded directly and openly with readers to assure them of this fact. We have also apologized to the law firm, and we extend the same apology to you.

Cindi Leive
Editor-in-Chief of Glamour