Recently a number of prominent black pastors, led by Empowerment Temple's Jamal Bryant came out against President Obama's statement on same-sex marriage. Pastor Bryant talked with Roland Martin about the issue on the Tom Joyner Morning Show. 

Most African American denominations have a written policy against same-sex marriage and same-sex unions. So now we're going to have to really recalibrate how do we move forward when the Religious Right are now raising their eyebrows saying 'I told you so', so it's going to make us finally confront the issue without gay bashing, without homophobia, to say this is something that's got to be dealt with, and the Black Church is coming en masse on Sunday to hear where their pastors are and to see how the Black Church responds.

When asked about his own opinion, Pastor Bryant noted that he disagreed "vehemently" with the President on this issue, though he agreed with his presidency. He was then asked about his vote, and he noted that he would not change his vote given the material consequences of a possible Romney presidency, but he was concerned that black voters might stay home as a result. A few comments on the interview:

• Note how Roland Martin frames the interview, by suggesting that African Americans disagree with same-sex marriage. The reality is that black attitudes are about as complex as white attitudes are. Some of us support it, some of us don't. And of those not in support, most aren't willing to take critical stances against it. Martin is a journalist here, but he's a journalist with skin in the game. 
• Although Pastor Bryant slips up at the end, talking about "the Black Church" as if there were only one, he was thoughtful in noting both black denominational diversity and the structural dynamics that preclude some of them from taking a strong stand in support.
• Finally though he probably mis-states the degree of control black pastors have over their churchgoers, he hits the nail on the head when he argues that the central issues facing black populations are economic, and that their biggest political choice come November is whether to vote or to stay home. 

A few months ago, Pastor Bryant and a number of other prominent black figures held a press conference to announce a relationship with Occupy Wall Street. I was skeptical. I thought that it was simply a media opportunity, I thought that the individuals involved were more interested in being brokers than they were in really dealing with inequality. I talked with Pastor Bryant about this on the Marc Steiner Show, and in hindsight I wished I had done more to push him. Given the message of Empowerment Temple–which seeks to combine the message of the prosperity gospel with the more political message of liberation theology (a toxic mix to be sure)–one would think that Pastor Bryant would be much more interested in wrestling with the material circumstances of his churchgoers than he would be in engaging on this particular issue.

However, while Pastor Bryant invited members of Occupy Baltimore to his services once, they were to my knowledge never invited back. I haven't heard anything about Occupy the Dream. I attended a meeting last week about foreclosure defense held at a church down the street from Empowerment Temple. Pastor Bryant was contacted but no one from his church, no members from his staff attended. It's telling that he would argue that black churchgoers might conceivably stay home because of same-sex marriage, but not because they are unemployed and are likely facing foreclosure. 

Recently Reverend Moss of Trinity United Church of Christ (Rev. Jeremiah Wright's old church) gave a powerful sermon on this issue that's worth sharing. HT to Minkah Makalani and Marvin Gladney):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Yesterday, Dr. Boyce Watkins tweeted a link that implied that 2/3 of African Americans are against same-sex marriage. 

The link led to a story by NewsOne that affirmed that, yes, 2/3 of African Americans polled in a quick internet survey attached to a story ABOUT the issue, are against Obama's decision. But it's inaccurate–to say the least–to use an unscientific push poll designed to measure how many people view a webpage to talk about this extremely important issue. And then the article compounds the issue by citing Dr. Watkins who noted that "the black community" is upset that Obama spoke here, but hasn't dealt with their more substantive concerns.

Before I get into the black politics of this issue, I think the timeline is really important.

Because Obama doesn't come out in support for same-sex marriage as much as he is forced to, by two independent actors.

Joe Biden was on the Sunday News shows last week. And when he was asked about the issue, he expressed full support. Obama aides suggest that he did so without Obama's consent, and that Obama was briefly upset about being "outed" so to speak.

The other actors were the various political activists (most but not all gay) who have both supported Obama's candidacy and urged him to move forward on this issue. 

Obama doesn't move unless his hand is forced here. I believe his turn is sincere, but that sincerity isn't all that important to me.

His ACTION is important.

Now one could argue that his words here don't really mean anything. States like North Carolina can still pass legislation making same-sex marriage illegal. His simple words don't carry the power that an Executive Order might, for example. Yes, and no. Yes, his words don't do much to assuage the discrimination gay men and lesbians feel in places like North Carolina. But when he takes the step of going on national television to affirm his personal beliefs, that speech act in effect places the entire nation on the right side of this issue (whether it "wants" to be or not). That speech act gives democratic party activists the space to push their representatives. It gives bureaucrats the power to push within their agencies.

It gives kids the power to push against their parents.

In as much as there are real resources at stake–marriage isn't just about committing one's self before God, rather it's a contract that offers tangible benefits (health coverage, tax benefits, legal protections)–this can literally mean the difference between life and death. I'm so glad he made this decision. Although I wish he'd have been ahead of the curve rather than following it.

Now on to black politics. Here's the thing. When Dr. Watkins or anyone else for that matter says that "the black community" is against same-sex marriage, who are they talking about? Are they talking about the Queen? Are they talking about the National Black Justice Coalition?

Are they talking about Method Man? Hat tip to Ta-Nehisi Coates…Method is really talking about his approach to marijuana in his music, but check out what he says at about the 1:30 mark forward:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Are they talking about young adults? One of the reasons schools like Morehouse feel they have to stifle "inappropriate" performances of black masculinity is because black gay men are far more comfortable expressing themselves than they used to be. And anecdotally I've witnessed far more tolerance and respect for these issues at Morgan State than existed in the eighties and nineties. 

There is a sizeable element of black folk who don't agree that gay men and women should be allowed to marry. But I'm willing to bet that this population is concentrated amongst older church goers. Black communities, like other communities are changing on this issue. People who write or talk about "the black community" in general want to freeze black populations in carbonite. It's a bad look.

As is Watkins attempt to argue that Christians who support same-sex marriage are somehow contradicting the Bible. 

They aren't. Or perhaps better stated, to the degree they ARE contradicting the BIble, they are choosing to emphasize a far more open concept of love embodied by Jesus, than their counterparts are. (as an aside the "homosexual" doesn't even EXIST before the 19th century, so any attempt to make claims about what the Bible does or doesn't say about homosexuality is deeply problematic.)

However, Watkins does make a powerful point by suggesting Obama would never make a similar argument about mass incarceration or other ills facing black people. This is partially because "civil rights" claims are far easier to make than the type of human rights claims we'd need to make to deal with black problems. It's also because Obama believes in the market and in the role culture plays in black life. 

Finally, it's because Obama hasn't been held accountable for believing otherwise.

Folks reacted to the Trayvon Martin tragedy in a number of ways, many taking advantage of social media. In fact it's pretty safe to say that without social media, Zimmerman would never have been charged. 

But some of the reactions themselves contain interesting politics.

Take this video, shot by Howard University students:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The message is a powerful one. Young black males come in a number of different shapes, sizes, and flavors. Simply because one chooses to wear a hoodie or some other piece of clothing should not in and of itself render him "suspicious."

But listen carefully. The argument they're making is actually something very different. And that argument becomes very clear when you think about the type of statements you DON'T hear anyone say:  

"I'm an unemployed black man who takes the bus to work everyday to look for a job. Do I look suspicious?"

"I've been a garbage man for the last five years. I pick up your trash every Tuesday. Do I look suspicious?"

"I like getting high. In fact, I'm on the way to get some weed now, with some money I borrowed from my mom. Do I look suspicious?"

Now because it was cold and I thought I'd be watching my son at soccer practice I wore a hoodie and sweatpants yesterday evening. After I dropped the zipcar off and was walking to the Metro to go home I passed a young sister. As I was walking beside her, I noticed her tense up. Hard.

In response I laughed. And kept walking.

I COULD have said "I'm an Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins. I'm not trying to jack you."

But I didn't. Because that only creates space for those of us on the "right" side of the class divide. It doesn't create much space for the people on the "wrong" side, who should ALSO be given the benefit of the doubt.  

I knew I'd name the title of my book Stare in the Darkness as soon as I knew my book would be about rap, hip-hop, and black politics. Thought it was a dope title. But I wanted to pay homage to Rakim. Even though he wasn't as prolific as Run DMC, as the Beastie Boys (RIP MCA), LL Cool J, or Public Enemy, I thought his artistic reach was as strong. The imagery he embedded in the music, his novel delivery (before Rakim it was difficult to imagine someone rapping in his "talking" voice if you know what I mean), and his use of literary techniques (alliteration is the example I always use–Music Makes Mellow Maintains to Make).

They don't call him The God for nothing.

Anyway I just came across an interview with Rakim in the pages of The Atlantic. He doesn't talk about Follow The Leader–for reasons I can't understand, the interviewer doesn't ask him about it. But he does talk a bit about the contemporary cultural politics of hip-hop.

On Paid in Full:

I guess to put the whole song in a nutshell, you know, every good plan starts at nothing. You know what I mean? We're all in the same predicament, man. So I just start "Thinking of a master plan / Ain't nothing but sweat inside my hand." I figure that a lot of people can relate with that, for the crowd that I was reaching for, for the people that felt they wanted to do better.

This passage struck me for two reasons.

The first is that as I get more and more into the art and the craft of writing, I've become more and more interested in the creative process. In the act of literally having nothing but sweat and a decent idea, and then taking that idea and making it into something. In talking about Manning Marable's book on Malcolm X I called this process the black box of cultural production that no one really wants to talk about, perhaps because we don't know how the process works ourselves, perhaps because we don't want people to know all the stuff that goes on behind the curtain.

The second is that Rakim was writing and performing at a period right before hip-hop really blew up. It didn't take him a great deal to connect with his listeners creatively because he was there with them. Hip-hop really isn't there anymore. This isn't the fault of conspiracists–a few of my boys sent me a link on fb suggesting that the rise of prison-oriented rap came because of a Steve Cokely style conspiracy involving music execs a dark room and a desire to control black music preferences–but rather the "fault" of it's rise. It's very hard to write music that comes from the same place as the people you seek to reach when you make more money in a day (or WANT to) than most of us make in a year.

The full interview, which is worth reading and sharing, can be found here. 

Today (Sunday, May 6, 2012) Alice Randall, author and activist, wrote an article on race and obesity in the New York Times. (HT to Tanehisi Coates.) Randall believes that health disparities are the most important civil rights issue of our times, and took the opportunity to examine the prevalence of obesity in black women.

I found her approach deeply problematic. It represents a war of sorts in black intellectual circles between social scientists and between humanists. For Randall, the biggest challenge people interested in this issue have to deal with is black culture.

What we need is a body-culture revolution in black America. Why? Because too many experts who are involved in the discussion of obesity don’t understand something crucial about black women and fat: many black women are fat because we want to be.

Now in analyzing the phenomenon of obesity in black communities, Randall turned to her own experience, then to the work of Andrea Elizabeth Shaw a humanities scholar, who is interested in the representation of larger black women in literature and pop culture. 

It's that turn we should be troubled by, because she uses her personal narrative and then the work of someone not interested as much in the causes of obesity but rather in the representation of obese women in literature….to make an argument for a policy approach that focuses on the cultural reasons black women supposedly WANT to be fat.

I went to Detroit a few weeks ago to give a talk. No matter how you measure obesity, Detroit is one of the fattest cities in the country. I see it every time I go back home in the summer. I saw it after my talk when I hung out with some of my fraternity brothers at the club. Plus-sized women far outnumbered non-plus sized women. This didn't hamper their ability to attract men. And they looked good in what they were wearing. But I couldn't help but think how unhealthy they were. 

Now in THAT moment, I could have theoretically turned to a cultural explanation. The plus-sized sisters didn't seem to be having problems attracting men. They didn't seem to have any problems enjoying themselves. In fact, I bet if I talked to some of them about their size, they could have told me about how their men love them that way. Could have told me stories about how they tried to lose weight but their men didn't want them to.

I can hear the narrative now.

My men want somebody with a little meat on their bones. 

My men love my love handles.

But here's the thing. I study the politics of health disparities. After reading Randall's piece I performed a search–something Ms. Randall COULD have done easily given the resources she has. The literature on obesity is growing and can be hard to wade through. But what we know is that there is a positive association between race and obesity (black women are more likely to be obese than either white or asian women), and we know there is an association between neighborhood poverty and segregation and obesity. 

Now where could this association come from? For Randall that association appears to exist because obese black women in these environments are enveloped in a culture that affirms their obesity.

Yes. Perhaps.

But Detroit has NO public transportation system to speak of, is a virtual food desert (with the powerful exception of Eastern Market), and is simply not walkable. How might the lived environment shape obesity dynamics? How might the politics of poverty shape obesity?

I wrote my first book on rap and black politics. I wouldn't have believed it was a valid subject of scholarly inquiry had I solely relied on "expert social science" instead of relying on my own gut. Relying on our gut, given how social scientists have historically treated black subjects and "black" social phenomenon, can help us develop better theory and better political outcomes. Using our own truth to build and test theories can be a good look.

However, it can also be a bad look. Randall has the right to her own story. She can and probably has been a powerful advocate for black women's health. She doesn't and should NOT have the right to ignore the quality social science research done connecting poverty and segregation to obesity in favor of a down home approach, that just so happens to blame black women for their own condition. 

A half hour ago I found out that Junior Seau, an All-Pro linebacker who spent most of his career with the San Diego Chargers, died apparently from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. In response, an ESPN sports reporter asked that we pause what we're doing and think about Seau and his family.

I have been a Lions supporter since I first remember watching football in 1979. Wanted to attend the University of Michigan largely on the strength of its football team–the academic "leaders and best" stuff came much later. So while I wasn't particularly a fan of Seau (the Chargers played in the AFC, while the Lions play in the NFC) I am a fan of the game.

With this said though, we shouldn't think about Seau and his family first.

The first thing we should do is think about Wade Belak, Rick Rypien, and Derek Boogaard. They were three NHL enforcers (people who made their hockey careers through their fists rather than through their sticks), who committed suicide over the past year. Each of them had a history of concussions. Boogaard made the courageous decision to offer up his brain to science. The results suggest his suicide may have been the result of brain damage.

It is only after thinking about Belak, Rypien, and Boogaard, that we have the medical context to understand Seau. Not so much to understand why he committed suicide–if there were a simple relationship between concussions and suicides the suicide rate of former NFL/NHL players would be far higher than it is. BUT to understand how his suicide may be at least a partial function of his NFL career. 

[edited to add]

We now know that Seau not only took his own life, but he did so by a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest. I mentioned the NHL players above (in part because of this story about Boogaard). But it's important to recall that Dave Duerson, a former safety for the Chicago Bears, also committed suicide via this method. He did so, to allow medical officials full access to his brain after he passed. At this stage, we have a bit more knowledge to suggest that whatever caused his suicide, Seau himself may have believed that his career shaped his final decision. Indeed, one can read this move as a political decision. I'm hoping that when the autopsy becomes available we'll be able to have this conversation, either alongside, or perhaps instead of the conversation that appears to be going on at ESPN and similar sites right now.

A few weeks ago I was on Morning Edition talking about Obama's response to Trayvon Martin's murder. I wanted to emphasize the constraints Obama faced as he tried to meet the needs of black constituents. And I did so, in part, by referring to the thin line blacks negotiate in integrated spaces in general, comparing his attempts as President to my own attempts as a faculty member on a predominantly white campus.

In hindsight I wish I could've come up with a better analogy. It's not simply that I shouldn't compare being President to being a professor. It's that making that comparison in this specific case takes away some of the real politics involved. The decision to, for example, argue that helping unemployment in general helps black people (it doesn't) instead of taking a more targeted approach, is NOT the decision to wear a suit everyday to work instead of jeans and a hoodie…so some students will take me seriously. This isn't to downplay the real constraints people of color have to make in negotiating our everyday lives. But I still wish I could've taken that back and said something different.

However, given what I DID say, I got an interesting letter in the mail last week. No return address:

Dear Professor Spence,

I listened to your interview on N.P.R. on 3/30/12 about Trayvon Martin. The young man’s death

is an absolute tragedy; Zimmerman should be arrested and tried in a court, with counsel, consistent with

Florida law.

On the other hand you, my friend, are totally full of horseshit. Your fear of racism or racist on

J.H.’s campus is unfounded. J.H. is one of the most diverse & tolerant schools (SAFE) on the planet! If

anything you are paranoid. You are far more likely to be mugged by a black man off campus!

Let me tell you where you ought to be afraid! Not from white folks or cops, but from young

black men, especially in the larger cities. Those niggers would shoot your liberal, black ass for a pack of

gum. Black on black crime is rampant & out of control! Ok yes, you probably blame it on the white

racism or institutional racism, or some “vestige of slavery imposed on blacks by the cultural memory of

violence against black slaves.” Perhaps even unemployment on poor housing. ‘WRONG.’ IT IS OUT OF

CONTROL BLACK MEN BEING VIOLENT!”

I AM BLACK. Man, it ain’t the crackers killing us. It is us killing us! I am from Charlotte, N.C. The

mayor is black, the police chief is black, the school board is controlled by blacks, the county manager is

black, and the brothers here are killing each other – about 2 killed per day. O.K. make a big deal about

Martin & tell the world how you suffer being a black man at JH but man you’re not telling the truth

Get Real! 

I originally thought the letter was written by someone white. I only know one black writer who routinely spells "nigger" with an "er" rather than an "a" (Ta-Nehisi Coates). I imagine most of us spell it the way we PRONOUNCE it–with an "a". But it could conceivably be someone black. I don't believe this represents a sign of "self-hatred" if it is. Rather the letter reflects the very real fact that many black people bear a great deal of resentment towards poor/working class black men and women. And experience a great deal of frustration because (black) local government officials don't seem to be able to do much to improve their quality of life. This is definitely the case in Detroit, and appears to be the case in Charlotte. 

As I've noted before I believe this conundrum is the central issue in black politics.

With that said though I've never been mugged or been fearful of being mugged/attacked/jacked by the black men I see on the way to work, on the way home, or when I'm out and about in the neighborhood outside of Hopkins, or when I'm out and about downtown.

I have, on the other hand, been racially harassed at Hopkins. It only happened once. And I'm not necessarily "fearful" of it happening again–I can handle mine. But that once was enough.  

When I first commented on the Trayvon Martin murder, I noted that few people emphasized the fact that Martin wasn't murdered in a city like Baltimore, but rather in a gated community. Ironically it's called "The Retreat." A week later, Richard Benjamin examined the siege mentality produced by gated communities in a New York Times op-ed.

Kofi M. Boone is an Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture at North Carolina State University. Below, he goes into a bit more depth. 

…..

Along with the rest of the country I am horrified and outraged by the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, as well as the conspicuously prejudiced (in)action of the Sanford, Florida police department. Beginning with a little reported altercation that occurred on the night of February 26, 2012, and currently a national movement for justice, the Trayvon Martin case has challenged the popular trend in considering the election of Barack Obama as the tipping point in the construction of a "post-racial" America. It turns out that America is not color blind at all just "blind" when considering the lingering effects of race, gender, and class. Especially with regards to the perceived threat of young black men to non-black people when encountered in places where "young black men shouldn't be."

However as a designer and educator I am also struck by the place of Martin's death. I can't help but wonder if and how the environment where this crime occurred impacted the perceptions of Zimmerman that Martin was engaged in suspicious behavior, that in turn led to the lethal encounter. I'm also struck by the "witnesses" that have come forward, piecing together events from non-visual cues: cellphone calls, sounds through walls, glimpses through windows. Surely, crimes and even murders occur in all types of communities, but the juxtaposition of the mounting evidence of wrong doing by Zimmerman with the inability to deliver a clear picture of what actually occurred begs a question; does where this occurred matter??

Trayvon Martin was killed in The Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Florida. I've watched the news coverage of the area for weeks and I'm struck by the many cues in the community layout itself that contribute to a lack of public community life, and possibly to a lack of perceived security. The Retreat is not extraordinary in any way from a design perspective. After penetrating the gate and fence, one travels along streets with chopped up or no sidewalks. There are few trees, benches, lights, or fences. Houses face the streets but they are dominated by large driveways and garage entries. There are front doors and stoops, but they are recessed and lack any connection to the street. Townhomes are close together, but with side yards separating units, which creates no real line demarcating public space from private space; a hallmark of community security. Rear yard space is continuous, lacking any boundaries to separate ones' rearyard from another. I have observed a few people on any sidewalk of street during news coverage; not a child playing in a park, or people using this community for more than their homes.  

 Over 40 years ago, noted urbanist Jane Jacobs proposed the idea that community safety comes from several factors, including community pattern. In The Death and Life of American Cities, she describes how to promote community safety by design; not through making each individual home a fortress, but by creating relationships between buildings and streets that promote walking and public life. She advocated for "Natural Surveillance", designing places that allow people to observe and informally monitor activities in the piublic realm from their homes; either through viewing from a window, or sitting on a stoop or porch. 

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Urbanite annually makes a list of Baltimore change-makers. This year I was honored for my work on the Baltimore Mixtape Project. I was and am honored to have been chosen. Particularly given the work that organizations like Civic Frame (which is really the brainchild of the wonderful April Yvonne Garrett, some spit, and some glue) and the Black Male Identity Project are doing I don't really feel like I deserve the label. But I'll take it, if for no other reason than Chris Baron, Zeke Cohen, Darius Gilmore, Lawrence Grandpre, Deverick Murray, and Jared Ball have all worked hard in giving the mixtape project legs. Since we announced it I haven't really written much on it, but that's going to change soon. We've chosen our finalists, and will be having the final competition in less than a month.

Anyway, my March visit to the Marc Steiner show focused on the act of change making. Take a listen.

The Marc Steiner Show

Was on NPR's Morning Edition on Friday, March 30, with David Greene talking about the constraints Obama faces when talking about race, specifically dealing with the Trayvon Martin case. I thought Obama's comments were spot-on, given that the case still hasn't been resolved. There are a couple of aspects of that conversation that should be emphasized. The first thing is that in this case it isn't necessarily about speaking to "race" but rather about speaking to a national tragedy that is the end result of racism. As symbolic leader of the country we expect the President to speak to national tragedies. This is no less of a tragedy than something like the Columbine Shooting was. 

Furthermore, it isn't so much about racial dialogue as it is about creating space for political action. In his Philadelphia speech, Obama emphasized the importance of private water-cooler conversations on race. Having discussions about race near the water fountain may very well increase "race relations" but this focus on "race relations" tends to lead to a type of "race management" that does not necessarily increase the ability of people who are not white to live and be free. 

Finally, I ended up focusing on my own experiences as a Hopkins professor in talking about Obama's racial constraints–about my experience having to consistently be aware of how I present myself at all times, knowing that I can never simply "blend in" on campus. This causes me to watch what I wear, to watch what I say, even in and especially when in anger. The focus on racial dialogue and race relations naturally leads to conversations about how race shapes our personal lives. Even though a lot of people have thanked me for talking about this tightrope we walk, I wish I could have found a way to talk about this that emphasized the political aspects of this dynamic better. One of the commenters on the NPR story noted that Adolph Reed would've provided more trenchant political criticism. He's right. 

For an example of what a more politicized conversation about race and national tragedy reads like, check out President Johnson's Howard University address.

Obama Walks Tightrope on Race.