(Akiit.com) Last night saw the airing of the 62nd annual prime time Emmy awards. The critically-acclaimed comedy 30 Rock was nominated for “Best Comedy Series” for the fourth time in as many years (it was unseated from its throne by the new series Modern Family). The increasingly popular show features the talents of Emmy winners Tina Fey, Alec Baldwin, and nominee Tracy Morgan, who portrays a character known as Tracy Jordan, a rich black comedian known as much for his childish antics as his broad comedic abilities.

In this setting, Jordan is used as a satirical look at black actors/comedians and their behavior in the white-dominated entertainment industry. He often complains of racism, indulges in debaucherous behavior with strippers, and is accused of fathering children out of wedlock, among other things. The character has been simultaneously criticized and praised–at times being written off as another stereotypical representation of black men and a brilliant use of satire to observe and send up the way Hollywood views and treats black celebrities.

With 30 Rock entering its fifth season, I think about the Tracy Jordan character and its longevity in comparison to other popular satirical representations of black life, namely Chappelle’s Show, which went off the air after two seasons, and the recently wrapped animated series The Boondocks, which managed to last three. I have to wonder if the Jordan character can maintain its freshness, humor, and bite or will it meet an early demise like that of its satirical brethren. And that leads me to the larger question: is black satire built to last?

Consider Chappelle’s Show. After two hugely successful seasons which propelled Dave Chappelle to “funniest man in America” status and set records with the DVD sales. But with a new $50 million contract in hand for the production of a third season, Chappelle bolted without warning, taking a highly publicized and rumor laden trip to South Africa. In his first interview after returning stateside, Chappelle spoke to Oprah about his decision to quit the show. Part of his reasoning was that during the filming of a sketch in which faeries encouraged various people of different ethnic groups to participate in stereotypical behavior, Chappelle noticed a white crew member laughing in a way that made the comedian uncomfortable. He said it was at that moment he felt he was doing something “socially irresponsible” with his art.

But Chappelle wasn’t doing anything different than what his prior work would suggest. The difference, as William Jelani Cobb, a professor of history at Spelman College and author of the recent book The Substance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress, noted in his 2006 essay “The Devil and Dave Chappelle” was the audience. Where the first two seasons spoke to an audience that was “in on the joke“, the audience that tuned in after the infamous Rick James parody was a bit less savvy and aware of Chappelle’s intent in using satire. Were the original audience could appreciate the nuance and sociopolitical underpinnings of the “Black Bush” sketch in which Chappelle imagines the backlash that would be received had former President George W. Bush been black, the new audience seemed to only respond to his less intellectual work. And rather than play into that and become the very thing that he was attempting to skewer, Chappelle left.
Read The Full Story…

(Akiit.com) I wrote recently about how the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is now seeking to hire Ebonics translators to help them to apprehend drug dealers. The group seems to believe that by learning the underpinnings of urban language, it can find a way to bring down “Pookie nem” on the corner. The website Newsy.com covered the article that I wrote, with a few other scholars providing their own insights into how and why this decision might be implemented. While I am certainly listening to the discussion, I am not sure what it would mean to establish Ebonics as it’s own language or to try to teach it in school.

Does the teaching of Ebonics mean that we treat urban dialect as a class? If the kids and teachers acknowledge the language structure of Ebonics, do we continue to reinforce the use of what some might consider broken English? If the language is acknowledged in school, does that mean Employers and universities will accept graduates who speak and write in Ebonics? If not, is there any sense in solidifying a student’s desire to speak in a way that doesn’t match the rest of us? I’m not so sure.
Read The Full Story…

(Akiit.com) To my amazement seems like anyone can get their own radio show… Online that is, as I do love spoken word… Would love to be able to showcase this generation of spoken artist… Can’t forget poetry itself, so that would be within the show also… Anyway these room heaters are not pleasing to the eye… Yes stand out in a bad way… Well let me check out facebook before I log off…

Written By CTA

(Akiit.com) Just like everyone else I’m excited that in less then a month NFL starts up again… Can’t wait to see how my Colts fair… I see us winning the division again… Yes, Top 3 seed which allow atleast one home field game in the playoffs… Anyway I need to find my Patek Philippe watch… I seem to have misplaced it, as I will be hitting the town tonight… Have alittle fun with my two best friends… Oh yes I do love to party…

Written By CTA

(Akiit.com) In the last few weeks much discussion regarding a unique matter involving race has surfaced within the African-American community. Such is the case, as President Barack Obama’s appearance on the daytime talk show, The View, in which he classified African Americans as a “mongrel people” has provoked feelings of displeasure among some members of the group.

Obama’s characterization of Americans of African descent as “mongrels“, germinated in response to a question spawning from the show’s executive producer and co-host Barbara Walters, in which the Head of State was asked to expound upon an issue regarding his ethnicity.

The President’s use of the term “mongrel” in describing African Americans registers as a technically adequate expression, as it defines an individual in possession of genetic matter from more than one racial group. However, the word “mongrel” — historically used by white supremacists opposed to miscegenation — functions, more commonly, as an expression employed by canine handlers in categorizing a specific class of dog. Consequently, such peculiar phrasing on the part of the President has resonated among many within some African-American quarters as a great affront.

That Obama, then, in the next sentence suggested white Americans are too of a “mongrel” class — thus broadening the application of the term — functions not to diminish this reality.

It is not within the history of white Americans they have been classified among the beasts that inhabit the Earth as have black Americans since the arrival of the first enslaved African on these shores. The White American has largely enjoyed a station of abundant privilege, in the face of an African-American people, that have struggled unceasingly to have their complete humanity recognized.

The fact that President Obama is of partial African ancestry does not function to psychologically prohibit such an inherently offensive statement from projecting from his person, as the source of his part African identity – Barack Obama Sr. a native of Kenya – held no significant position in his life as a parental figure and or caretaker.

Obama was raised by grandparents of another race in lands physically and culturally far removed from Black America. As a result, the infusion of ethnic sensibilities, relative to an African-American population which descends from a people historically dehumanized by an unrelenting oppressor never initially developed within the psyche of our nation’s 44th President.

Obama was not brought up by those who emerge from a people enslaved for centuries in which opposition to this abominable institution invited the unforgiving sting of the whip or terminal force of a noose.

Obama was not nurtured by those whose heritage encompassed the incessant lynching of its men for the slightest perceived offense leveled toward a white woman.

Obama was not reared by those whose lineage consist of a people existing in an era in which, for any of its members, to stand in the name of the slightest semblance of justice, induced the presence of hooded riders in the night — a collection of profoundly racist American citizens committed to the practice of terrorizing and ultimately slaying any black individual who would be so bold as to challenge white authority.

Obama was not trained by those whose legacy recognizes a heritage in which its population was deemed so socially unacceptable; the larger society constructed a separate and grossly inferior society in which this people — by law — would be forced to function within — an act of social control designed to keep white citizens from having to engage the black masses in any manner that would constitute a state of equality.

Obama was not instructed by those whose history bespeaks the inability of its members to assemble in mass, vote or seek redress within an impartial justice system — an American court system, historically designed to uphold the tenets of white supremacy in leveraging its power against those persons of a darker complexion.
Read The Full Story…