Anti-religionists are prone to regurgitating the meme “Religion is the opiate of the masses”, falsely attributed to Karl Marx, at least with respect to his actual meaning. Looking at the English translation of the actual passage from Marx’s Contribution to Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, one can see that his opinion of religion is nowhere near as negative as those who improperly quote him.

Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality.

For quite awhile now, I have had this abstract sense of a connection between militant atheism and white supremacy, especially given that the public vanguard of the former is populated entirely by white people – like Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. Certainly there are atheists of color, but they do not seem to often go on record as being so anti-religious. I am inclined to think that for atheists of color, their opposition to religion is more philosophical than political, in contrast to the Islamophobia sweeping through Europe and popular amongst white Americans.

But still, what is the connection between anti-religionism and white supremacy? I think Marx involuntarily offers us one possible explanation (emphasis added):

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

White supremacy is all about power and privilege, for white people, at the expense of, to the detriment of, and built upon the oppression of people of color.  In spite of the legitimate quandary of why black people in particular would embrace the religion of their oppressors, the religion used at different times to justify their oppression, the fact is that Christianity can and has for many provided a sort of opiate effect to counter the experiences of racism, discrimination, marginalization, and enslavement.  Those who suffer most in this world are more inclined to turn their gazes towards the next in search of repose.

Those who have not experienced oppression do not have as much of a need for an opiate. So it only makes sense that more white people, as the benefactors of white supremacy, would be more inclined towards atheism than people of color, and specifically towards anti-religionism. Furthermore, when we consider that anti-religionism is often just a generic facade for Islamophobia, as it is in much of the Western world, and take note of the fact that people of color comprise the great majority of Muslims, the connection becomes even more clear.

Marx regards religion as “a protest against real suffering”.  At the same time, any honest examination of terrorism, which is often falsely attributed to religion rather than the political undercurrent which actually inspires it, has to consider the fact that terrorism is most often reactive, not proactive, meaning that it is a response to something else. In the case of terrorism coming out of the Middle East, it is not an extension of Islam, but rather a response to American Imperialism, rendered through the deaths of countless innocents.  In Chechnya it is a response to Russian imperialism, in the Philippines and Indonesia a response to ethnic discrimination and political marginalization.

And what is “protest”, if not a response to injustice? If you think the connection between protest and terrorism is a dubious one, then simply take a moment to consider the response to both by those in power – power the misuse of which is at the very heart of the response. Both are answered in almost all cases with violence, ironically under the pretext of “defense” or “neutralization”, as if the balance of power were ever skewed against those who possess it.

It is no coincidence that Representative Peter King (R-NY) has suddenly decided to include black prisoners in his witch hunt against Muslims.  Black prisoners are a representative cross-section of the oppressed in the United States, and if religion – in this case Islam – becomes for them a means of protest, then again it presents a challenge to the establishment, that is, white supremacy.

The same was true during the Civil Rights Era, with the liberation theology of Dr. Martin Luther King – which it is important to note was also anti-Imperial – and the revolutionary views of Malcolm X which found their inspiration in the Nation of Islam and were refined through Sunni Islam.  King and X were not killed for their religious beliefs, but for the political threat they presented to both American Imperialism, and the white supremacy from which it extends.

Black Muslims today as a group are more likely to possess counter-establishment views than other African-Americans, who as a voting bloc reliably support the Democratic Party. The Democrats, of course, are comfortable within the status quo (i.e. white supremacy), so as long as black people support them, they are not a threat.  This in turn enables the discussion to be turned towards religion rather than race, which some people would have you believe is a non-issue as of the very instant of Barack Obama’s election.

So is anti-religion really even about religion when we look at who invokes it and why it is invoked – most often for political reasons?  Is it strictly a coincidence that religious protest is launched mostly by people of color in opposition to ostensibly white power structures, and in turn it is mostly white atheists who take the vitriolic anti-religion tack? Or that white people of other faiths adopt Islamophobia at a time of heightened immigration of people of color – many of whom happen to be Muslim – into their countries, which poses a threat to their majority and therefore a threat to their supremacy?

The answer should be an obvious and resounding “no”.

On April 12th, 1964, Malcolm X made a speech before a large gathering on the merits of black nationalism. Below is a one-minute snippet from that speech, discussing the logic of African-Americans supporting the Democratic Party in such huge numbers.

Transcript:

In Washington, D.C., in the House of Representatives, there are 257 who are Democrats. Only 177 are Republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats; only 33 are Republicans. The party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and still they can’t keep their promise to you.

‘Cause you’re a chump.

Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government and that party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party, you’re not only a chump, but you’re a traitor to your race.

—Malcolm X

Now, allow me to paraphrase Malcolm, to reflect the current state of affairs:

Right now (since January 2009), in the House, there are 256 who are Democrats.  Only 179 are Republican.  In the Senate there are 59 Democrats; only 41 are Republicans.  The party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and nearly 60% of the Senate, and put a black man in the White House, and still they didn’t keep their promise to you.

‘Cause you’re a chump.

Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government and that party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party…

Well…I’ll let you come to your own conclusions.

But as you think about it, also consider this: Between 1964 and 2010, how much “Change” has there really been?

(Note: This is in no way meant as an endorsement for the Republican Party. Malcolm was no more forgiving of them. And certainly I’m not. The difference is that Republicans do not even pretend to represent African-Americans, and since at least the advent of the “Southern Strategy” – redoubled through the Tea Party – they have become openly hostile towards African-American interests.)

I agree with Gladwell, based on my own personal experience with “activism”, or at least political dissent online. There are countless Facebook groups, blogs, and tweeters that I have followed who are in line with my personal politics, and yet none of them encourage me to really DO anything. At best I’ll sign a petition or write a Congressman.

Those passive forms of activism allow me to feel like I’m doing ~something~ without really committing, and not just because I’m lazy or disinterested, but because no physical initiatives ever seem to emerge from these groups. This is especially true of the Left – and by that I mean the real Left, not self-proclaimed “liberals”, who, incidentally, seem far more active.

It’s pretty clear that without any sort of formal leadership or organizational structure, that there will never be any sort of revolution, because that which keeps the status quo in place is a highly organized and well-oiled machine decades in the making.  A rowdy band of misfits, as well-intentioned or self-righteous and indignant as they can be from the comfort of their living rooms or offices, really aren’t doing much of anything to change anything.

Mind you, I count myself amongst those who are doing nothing, and I wish that wasn’t the case.

This is not to say that there are not people who are truly active, but that they go largely unnoticed by the general public, seen as a nuisance, or perhaps as asking for too much.  People said the same thing about the Civil Rights Movement, too.  And in the generations since, we’ve been increasingly conditioned to accept the status quo.

There has been a sense of powerlessness, mitigated to some extent by surges of political activity every two years, and even that is largely ineffective due to the tyranny of the two-party system.  Social media, though, is the new placebo, satisfying the desire to do at least something about all the things we know to be wrong in the world, without committing bodily or any real expectations of making a difference.

When Obama first came onto the scene, he seemed to advocate for all sorts of leftist policies, or at least was very good at pretending to advocate for them.  In truth, if we look back, he was always a centrist, and expertly danced around making any serious commitments to moving left.  He was always, since he first appeared on the scene, a product of the “Chicago Machine”, which is all about gaining or maintaining power vis-a-vis the status quo.

Now, 2 years later, the pendulum shifts the other way, with the Republicans gaining hugely in the House and significantly in the Senate.  The reason many Democratic activists and party leaders cite for this shift is not their failure, oh no, but a growing apathy amongst their constituency.

As if the two things are unrelated.

Barack Obama, much to the criticism of the left, ceded too much to Republicans and the right, who sought to shoot him down regardless of any concessions he made.  Because it was never and probably has never been about compromise, but about control.  Even if Obama forwarded a completely right-wing agenda (and one could argue he has with regards to foreign policy), the Republicans would stand against him, simply because he is not a member of their party.  They will never concede that any of the changes they want could be brought about by a Democrat.  No, they need to be the ones to control and be rewarded for any changes that occur.

So the question that so many people asked of the Democrats was: “If they’re going to shoot you down, anyway, why not just push the agenda that your constituency wants?”  After all, the Democrats had virtually unchallengeable power and did not much need the Republicans for anything.  Yet in spite of every concession made – and perhaps they weren’t concessions, but the Democrats showing their true colors – the right would paint them as “socialists”, paint this picture of “government as enemy”, which is ironic given that it was part of the government itself making the claims.

In truth, Barack Obama is no closer to being a socialist than John McCain would have been.  He is, on nearly every point, the enemy of socialism.  But American exceptionalism being what it is – by this I mean their exceptional gullibility and capacity for boundless ignorance – the people on the right ate it up.  The people on the left just sighed, because for all their enthusiasm in 2008, nothing much had “changed”.

In 2008, the Democrats had the advantage of being the minority party, of being the party standing in clear opposition to George W. Bush, who by this time had become near unanimously condemned by the American public and the international community.  They had the ability to say they would “change” what was currently happening.

Now in 2010, after 2 years of the Democrats holding all the cards and doing not much of anything to deliver on those promises of change, the advantage shifted to the Republicans as the party not in power, to be able to say that things would change simply by virtue of a shift in power.  What people fail to understand, it seems, is that a change in party does not necessarily mean a change in policy.

George W. Bush was much more of a radical than Barack Obama.  He brought about a ton of changes, more with respect to Clinton than Obama has with regards to him.  But it had nothing to do with disillusionment with Clinton.  It had to do with fear, starting with 9/11 and proceeding from there.  People will make all sorts of irrational decisions when they’re afraid.  So, barring catastrophe, it has never been the case that a change in party represents a change in politics as usual in Washington.

It could be argued that the 8 years of Bush was enough of a catastrophe to warrant another serious change, and indeed it was that sense which enabled Obama to gather so much momentum.  What he has done with that momentum, however, is to attempt to re-establish the Clintonian government, which was anything but radical.

It has been a running trend that the party of the President suffers serious losses in the following midterm elections.  Why?  Because every 2 years, at least, but more likely every day, people pine for “change”, in one thing or another.  And when, following pendulum shift and pendulum shift – Republicans ceding power to Democrats and Democrats ceding power back to Republicans – no such change occurs, it leads to a surge in enthusiasm from the President’s political opponents, and a surge in apathy from the party’s constituency.

Had Barack Obama actually been a socialist President, he would’ve brought about changes that this country has never seen, and the same sort of opposition would’ve gathered.  However, in how such changes increased job growth, mitigated the increase in poverty, stood up for the everyman, provided everyone with comprehensive healthcare not for profit but because it is a necessity, forwarded a real civil rights agenda, and improved our image around the world, perhaps the opposition would’ve come only from the contrarians and the irrational fringe, rather than average disaffected citizens who in large numbers just wanted to see something different.

It’s ironic, really, that people cry for change, yet they are so afraid of the kind of change that is actually needed.  Socialism, because they don’t understand it, because it is so different from what they know (and they know so very little) and because it still – somehow – is tied to anachronistic Cold War fears, became their Red Herring.  But had the Democrats actually advanced an agenda that even hinged on socialism, and people saw the kinds of positive changes that it could bring about, they might change their tune.

But the Democrats, whose agenda has never changed, and is virtually the same as that of the Republicans (i.e. to stay in office), dared not push that far left, because rocking the boat too much apparently leads to major losses.  It’s a strange conclusion to come to, though, given that all historical evidence points to the contrary, that the pendulum shift is the status quo, that each party will rise and fall with unflinching regularity.  All evidence was that the Democrats would lose big regardless of what they did or didn’t do.

One would think that the only way to change this dynamic, to halt the pendulum shift, would be to swing the damn thing so far left that the pendulum would snap off altogether – sending the country in an entirely new direction.  Of course I couldn’t say with any certainty whether or not it would go flying towards rejuvenation or disaster, but a look around the world at other countries that have successfully instituted leftist policies, and at those that have failed miserably by instituting far right policies would suggest a positive outcome.

I realize that this is a very simplistic analysis, and that surely Democrats, well-trained in public policy, law, and everything else it takes to hold their positions, know all of this.  If so, then one can only come to the conclusion that the pendulum shift, despite all their campaigning and rhetoric, is within acceptable parameters, and that they are content to let things play out as they will until it shifts back the other way.

Change, though?  Of the sort required to keep their constituency enthusiastic?  That would be too risky, might cost them too much, might eventually lead to some President instituting radical changes that throw the country into a downward spiral, make us hated around the world, trample all over civil liberties while providing for the triumph of big business.

Oh, wait.

So better to ride out this down tick in public opinion and wait for the inevitable backswing, right?  Sure, so long as they have no intention of changing anything.

I must also point out, if it is not abundantly clear to anyone reading this, or who has ever read anything I’ve written, that no part of my decision is about apathy. Quite the contrary, in fact.  And so, if apathy is anyone’s reason for not voting, I would encourage them either to vote, or to truly understand the many legitimate reasons not to do so.

In random order:

1. I don’t support any of the candidates running in my state – that is to say, I oppose all of them
2. I question the wisdom of voting for the lesser of two evils
3. The outcome of the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court case ensured that the next election would be more about money than the last, and indeed, 2010 is breaking all sorts of spending records
4. Republicans, or at least the social conservatives amongst them, openly act against my interests and everything I stand for.
5. Democrats pretend to act for my interests and in favor of the things I stand for, or otherwise remain completely quiet on those issues, and only to shift their position or compromise once in office.
6. In some perverse way I want to sabotage Democrats – who by default are the ones I’d be voting for as the only viable candidates who are even remotely amenable to my interests – just to show people on the left how utterly ineffectual they are and make a case for putting our energy behind actual leftist candidates
7. Along the same lines, I want to see people get what they ask for, and laugh when it blows up in their faces.
8. I refuse to reward any who continue to place the interests of corporations above those of the people – and that would be both Democrats (see ridiculous Healthcare bill, silence on marijuana legalization) and Republicans (see: deregulation, tax breaks, mass privatization).
9. Because I follow the money and don’t like where it leads.
10. Real changes – for the better or for the worst – seem to only ever occur during or in the aftermath of a catastrophe (See: Roosevelt after the Great Depression or George W. Bush after 9/11/2001
11. Because compromises just aren’t enough for me anymore, which in effect aren’t small victories, but a maintenance of the status quo.
12. Neither party dares to challenge the moral hypocrisy of the Israeli government
13. Not much will change regardless of which of the two parties controls Congress; if a Democratic president and a filibuster-proof majority didn’t change anything, then neither will a Republican majority, which is not at all likely to happen, anyway.
14. My “right to vote”, as determined by my status as a citizen, is undermined by corporate personhood.
15. Not one candidate has the balls to address the issues with any real critical depth, that is, beyond the talking points
16. I am exasperated by the cheeky self-satisfied and utterly disingenuous self-righteousness of liberals (here I mean voters, not candidates)
17. I am exasperated by the raging self-sabotaging ignorance of conservatives (again, I mean voters)
18. Voting continues to be an excuse for people to believe they’ve “done their part” to affect change, even after it’s been shown that nothing has actually changed
19. Not one candidate speaks out against American Imperialism
20. Many of these points presume that my one vote actually makes a difference.  Statistically, it doesn’t.

I’m going to walk out of this sad-sack alley and find a bathroom. And I’m going to wash my face and clothes. No, I’ll steal some clothes. Good clothes. A white shirt and black pants. And I’ll steal good shoes, too. Black leather shoes, cap toes, with intricate designs cut into the leather. In good clothes, I can be a good man.

And so I shamble out of the alley. No, I suck in my stomach muscles, straighten my spine, and hold my head level and I strut out of the alley.

And I horrify my audience. People sprint around me. A few just turn around and walk in the opposite direction. One woman screams.

Jesus, I must look like a horror movie. But that doesn’t matter. I am covered with the same blood that is inside everybody else. They can’t judge me because of this blood.

“I want some respect,” I say.

Nobody hears me. Worse, nobody understands me.

“I want some respect”, I say again, louder this time.

A man walks around the corner, almost bumps into me, and then continues on. He didn’t notice me. He didn’t see my blood. I follow him. A gray man, he wears a cheap three-button suit with better shoes. He talks loudly into a Bluetooth earpiece.

“I want some respect,” I say to him.

“I’ll call you back, Jim, I got some drunk guy talking to me,” he says into his earpiece, and hits the hang-up button. And then he asks me, “What the fuck do you want, chief?”

He thinks the curse word will scare me. He thinks the curse word will let me know that he once shot a man just to watch him die.

“I knew Johnny Cash,” I say, “and you ain’t Johnny Cash.”

The man laughs. He thinks I’m crazy. I laugh. I am crazy. He offers me a handful of spare change.

“There you go, chief,” he says.

“I don’t want your money,” I say. “I want your respect.”

The man laughs again. Is laughter all I can expect?

“Don’t laugh at me,” I say.

“All right, all right, chief,” he says. “I won’t laugh at you. You have a good day.”

He turns to walk away, but I grab his shoulder. He grabs my wrist and judos me into the brick wall.

“All right, all right, chief,” he says. “I don’t want you touching me.”

He could snap my bones if he wanted to. He could drive his thumb into my temple and kill me. I can feel his strength, his skill, his muscle memory.

It’s my turn to laugh.

“What’s so funny?” he asks.

“I’m just wondering how many white guys are going to beat my ass today.”

“Chief, you keep acting this way, and we’re all going to beat your ass today.”

We both think that’s funny, so we laugh together. And we almost bond because of our shared amusement.

“I’m going to let you go,” he says. “And when I do, I want us both to act like gentlemen, okay?”

“I want some respect,” I say.

“Are you going to be a gentleman?”

“I want some respect.”

“How many times are you going to say that?”

“I’m going to say it until I get some respect.”

The man looks around. He realizes that he’s pinned a bloody homeless man against a brick wall. Not one of his prouder moments. But he’s scared to let me go.

“All right, all right,” he says. “How do I show you some respect?”

This excerpt pretty much exemplifies for me much of how racial dynamics play out in this country, between white people and people of color. Much of the dialogue – and by dialogue I mean not just conversation but all interaction – is and has been one-sided, with white people doing all of the talking, and enforcing their collective will – conscious or not – via institutionalized supremacy.

People of color demand acknowledgment, demand respect. These demands, at different times, and under different circumstances, go unheard, or are responded to with dismissal, condescension, minor consolations, contempt, and/or even violence.

At the very end of the excerpt, only after the Native American man’s demand has been repeated over and over again, and only when the white man realizes that his position of power is subject to scrutiny, does he finally ask the right question.

“How do I show you some respect?”

Only when the ongoing racial dialogue in the United States reaches this point, on individual, local, or national levels – when white people ask the right question, rather than insisting upon their own answers – can we truly say that we’ve made progress towards reconciliation.

Maybe Haiti really is cursed.  I mean, with a history of poverty, political unrest, and then the devastating Earthquake, one might get it in their head that there was some malicious overseer pointing the finger at the aggrieved Caribbean nation.  But forget Pat Robertson and all his racist nonsense about devil worship.

(Although just to play along for a moment, if one cosmic entity answered the call and led a people to a bloody and near-impossible victory over centuries of slavery and colonialism, while the other condemns them to poverty, corruption, war, and earthquakes, I’d personally be throwing in my lot with Lucifer.)

But back to reality.  If the earthquake, on top of all of Haiti’s other numerous problems wasn’t enough, it was followed by the flood of transracial adoptions with white Americans rushing in with their savior complexes to practically kidnap children, and wrench them not only from their homes, but inevitably their cultures and identities, too.

Then hey, while we’re in the midst of saying “fuck you” to an entire country, let’s have Wyclef Jean – a goddamn musician who probably knows about as much about Haitian politics as a mushroom – run for President.

And isn’t this the same guy who was conducting “free benefit concerts”, only to use his charity foundation’s money to pay himself for doing them? This is the guy who would attempt to run for president in a country with a history of political corruption? Oh, but wait, WAIT – just to make things interesting, let’s put him up against another musician who goes by the Moniker “Sweet Mickey”.

Seriously, what the fuck is going on?

But thankfully, Wyclef’s dumb ass was denied eligibility to run in the 2010 Presidential Elections, for lack of residency.  Nevermind that he doesn’t speak either of the country’s two official languages, doesn’t know their politics from a horse’s ass, and was stupid and self-important enough in all of his American celebrity to think that he could be the leader of a country besieged by the entire spectrum of domestic issues.

All I’ve got to say to that is…phew, good lookin’ out, Lucifer.

Godheval, obviously, is an alias.  But it’s not just a name, or a hat that I wear, it’s a state of mind.  One that is fueled by an intense amount of hyper-analysis, cynicism, and damn near misanthropy.  I am idealist, and as such I have all sorts of lofty ideas and dreams for the world and its possibilities.  Most of these are, and will remain mere dreams.  I spend a lot of time talking about racism – particularly whiteness and white supremacy – because those are things that I regard as major obstacles to not just the social and political well-being of “me and mine”, or even all people of color, but all people in the United States, and elsewhere in the world as well.  Yes, it’s that big of a deal.

It – the subjects, that is, not my talking about them – such a source of divisiveness, that it is enough to put at odds people who see eye to eye on just about every other political point.  The big “R”, the big elephant in the room, that only some people have the privilege to ignore.  But in a way, that is a privilege that I envy.  It would free up so much of my brain space if I didn’t have to think or talk about this shit, ever.  Trouble is…that would require it to go away, and since that’s not going to happen anytime soon, I need to free up my brain space on my own.

I talk about politics because, and in particular U.S. politics, for their ability to – quite literally – shape the world.  But the more I talk about it, the more I think about it, the more I recognize it for what it is: a game of social engineering, thought engineering, manipulation.  I don’t mean this in the woo-woo conspiracy sense, because it’s not as convoluted as all of that.  It’s really right there, on the surface, plain as day for anyone to observe if they choose to recognize it. Democrats, Republicans, whoever – they’re all cut from the same cloth.  That is, the cloth of the old, detached, financial and political elites that have run this country, if not the world, forever.  I’m not talking about any New or Old World Orders, but rather something more abstract, a vein of thinking and behaving that has driven perhaps every person who has ever desired power.  It’s what Machiavelli was talking about in The Prince – just the motions that one has to go through if they are to dominate others.

But these ideas – no, memes – are much older than Machiavelli.  Those of us who are actively interested and even involved in politics are critical of those who are apathetic, who don’t vote, because they “neglect their own power” or whatever such nonsense.  But the truth is, that whether they do it knowingly or not, the apathetic, the non-voters, have withdrawn themselves from the endless game – a game where the rest of us are mere pawns.  I envy their apathy.  And in burying my head in the sand of late, I have attempted to emulate it.  Problem for me is that I care – about people, about society, about more things than I have room in my head or my heart to contain all at once.  So the only way to fake apathy is to completely withdraw, to ignore everything that is happening around me.

While Godheval is an alias, and a state of mind as I say, it is also an integral part of who I am.  But it is not ALL that I am.  And the trouble is that Godheval is not too keen on sharing brain space.  He dominates.  When he takes the stage, it as the expense of my regular, more humble, and simpler self.  The self that likes to spend time with his family, or write less cynical things, or watch funny TV shows, or to, quite simply, just “be”.  Godheval is noise and rage and tension.  And for the past few months I have needed some peace and quiet – not around me, but inside of me.  Because Godheval is a part of who I am, it’s not like all that stuff goes away.  Of course I still care, and of course I still have bouts of righteous anger, but by not engaging “Godheval” fully, I am able to mitigate all that noise and rage and tension.

Because it’s just plain exhausting.

So I hope you can understand, you 3.5 people (I know there are more, I’m just being a self-deprecating jerk) who diligently read my words and actually (really?) give a damn about what I say here, and who allow me to think that maybe it’s not all for nothing.  I value you all more than you know, so I felt a need to explain to you this long-term hiatus of mine.  Truth be told, I don’t even know when it will end – if it will end.  It might be a situation where I occasionally tap into “him”, say my peace in a quick blast of noise and rage, then go back to my normal life, but only once ever three months.

I mean, the ideal would be to find some sort of happy medium – and I emphasize the word “happy” because ruminating on all this race and political shit also comes at the expense of happiness.  If I could find some balance, some way to effectively compartmentalize Godheval and my other “normal” self, then maybe the productivity of each would not have to be mutually exclusive.  I’m still trying to figure it out.  If this blog falls into even greater obscurity as a result, then that is the price I will have to pay for my personal peace of mind.

So that’s my story.  Thanks for reading it, and everything else, too.

Peace out for now.

This is me, sighing.

Maybe this is another case of me being “hypersensitive“, but so be it. If you’re a white person or a particularly assimilated person of color, then you’ll probably think this is a rather harmless video.

You may think it’s funny. Hilarious, even.

If you’re a person of color with even an iota of militancy, or hell, if you’re me then this commercial probably makes you cringe, or just plain annoys you.

But perhaps you’re not entirely sure why. So I’ll tell you why it irritates me, and maybe my explanation will make something click for you.

First of all, it’s cultural appropriation.  Which means that an element of a given culture is taken and used outside of its intended context – worse yet, in blatant opposition to the intended context.

From Wikipedia:

Cultural appropriation is the adoption of some specific elements of one culture by a different cultural group. It describes acculturation or assimilation, but can imply a negative view towards acculturation from a minority culture by a dominant culture. It can include the introduction of forms of dress or personal adornment, music and art, religion, language, or social behavior. These elements, once removed from their indigenous cultural contexts, may take on meanings that are significantly divergent from, or merely less nuanced than, those they originally held.

Hip-hop, and rap in particular, by no measure of historical revisionism or denial of their contributions, is undoubtedly an African-American cultural product.

This, however, does not mean that it belongs exclusively to African-Americans, or that no one else can use it.  The rule, though, is that it should be used in the spirit in which it was intended.  That is, as an expression of positivity, uplift, counter-establishment, or justified anger towards historic and lasting inequality and/or injustice.

People around the world have used hip-hop brilliantly and properly – from the Palestinians speaking out against Apartheid conditions in Israel, to the righteous anger from the socially marginalized of the Parisian banlieues, to Somalian rapper K’naan speaking about abject poverty.  And let’s not forget M.I.A., who in spite of generating mainstream appeal, has managed to keep her message authentic and political.

There are countless examples of where hip-hop and rap are used incorrectly – just look at the majority of mainstream rap today.  By African-American artists, no less.  But remember that bit I told you about appropriation?  Well, as much as I despise commercial mainstream garbage rap, the fact of the matter is that, as an African-American cultural product, rap is free for African-Americans to do with as they please.

If you own a television, it is your right to use it as a surfboard, even if it means you are rushing headlong down a slippery slope towards self-annihilation.  That was not merely an analogy, but a metaphor.

If someone else were to come in and use your television as a surfboard, well…you’d be pretty justified in wanting to smash said TV over their heads.  The smash-impulse I speak of is neither an analogy, nor a metaphor.  Which brings me back to the Toyota commercial.

Here we have a fictional white family, with all of the privilege, normativeness, and inherent “rightness” their mere existence implies, members of the “dominant” culture, appropriating the music, language, and projected mannerisms of African-American culture (“minority” culture) and using it in a way that completely contradicts the intended spirit.

Hip-hop, should I need to remind you, was originally all about countering the establishment – an establishment built-in with various mechanisms and controls to ensure that African-Americans would never stand on equal footing with white people.  An establishment that would deny the average black family access to the so-called “American Dream”, which the white family in this commercial exemplifies to a truly laughable extreme.  I mean, they even seemed to choose the blondest babies imaginable to ram the point home.

Contrary to this “wholesome” symbol of white normalcy, hip-hop and rap for the most part – in spite of their mainstream commercial appeal – are regarded as less than ideal, unworthy, “not music”, “ghetto”, “stupid”, “irresponsible”, promoting all the wrong values.  That last bit – about values – is interesting, because of course hip-hop would never promote “white values” – white being “right” – where African-Americans were not given access to the same livelihoods and cultural environment within which such “values” would flourish.

This is not to say that such values – personal responsibility, emphasis on the family, etc. – are foreign or unimportant to African-Americans.  They are equally, if not more important, in an environment that regularly creates obstacles to achieving the ideal.  Hip-hop and rap, though, were the response to that environment.

So this video, in its promotion of white normalcy and wholesomeness, not-so-subtly implies a black/white dichotomy wherein the white family champions family values and the American Dream, in stark contrast to the mainstream rap music of today, which places a premium on materialism, excess, selfishness, and often violence.

“Where are the kids?” seems particularly meaningful when we consider the stigma against black families as being “broken” – having absentee parents, teen parents, or otherwise not “doing right” by their children.  No worries about the white family, though – their two little Aryans are close at hand.

The white family drives the station wagon, with the car seats in the back, while rappers show off their financially unwise and unsustainable Escalades or even fancier cars, symbols of their excess and irresponsibility.

The whole commercial screams – or maybe whispers for most of you – this paternalistic message of: “Here, let us show you what you’re supposed to be doing.”

It is important to note here that when hip-hop and rap were definitively anti-establishment, flew arms-swinging into the face of white normativeness, there were no attempts to appropriate them.  They were swiftly and decisively demonized, devalued, dismissed as invalid and inappropriate.  The average white person would have sooner taken a shit on a rap album as purchased one.  Their children who embraced the music or the culture were regarded cautiously at best- parents hoping it to be just as a fad (as it could only ever be) – or punished at worst.  They were ridiculed by their peers and regarded as niggers-by-association, the word of choice being “wigger”.

But then something happened.  White businessmen, as they had with Jazz, Blues, Soul, Rock, and other forms of black music before, saw the money-making potential of rap music.  They may not have wanted it for their own children, but they recognized it as perfect for consumption by other white children who could use it as the ultimate symbol of rebellion against everything their parents stood for – that is, everything white.  That the sizeable minority of African-Americans would also buy the albums in large quantities was an added bonus.

And so was rap music corporatized – warped and perverted into a commercial product far-removed from its original purpose; something achieved by the silver tongues of businessmen appealing to the sensibilities of those with very little, with promises of what they never had – and, for the most part, still wouldn’t have even after the deals were signed.

When deciding which of the wide variety of rap music to push into the mainstream market, the businessmen chose those who emphasized the black/white dichotomy in the most extreme way – the “gangsta” rappers – the music which further reinforced just how far black people were from the white ideal of family values and personal responsibility.  It was the portion of rap that the kids of white suburbia would most embrace, thereby generating the highest profit.

The rappers themselves, beneath a superficial layer of anger and violence, often had important messages to relay – but these messages were lost on a market that had neither any frame of reference within which to process them, nor any real interest in hearing them.  The music that stayed completely true to hip-hop’s original spirit, what we today call “conscious rap”, was kept in the margins.  Not only because it continued to speak against white businesses’ appropriation of hip-hop, but because their message, more readily accessible without the superficial layer of violence, was not marketable to white suburbia, nor was it something that the establishment wanted people to hear.

So make no mistake.  While much of mainstream rap music today disgraces the spirit of hip-hop, its popularity and mass-marketing is the direct result of cultural appropriation.  What little wealth or acclaim it grants a handful of African-American artists – often short-lived – is a mere consolation prize for the wholesale theft of a cultural product.

The Swagger Wagon Toyota commercial, in implicitly pointing an accusatory finger at mainstream rap music, and African-Americans by proxy, again aims to make a profit by promoting a black/white dichotomy that reinforces white righteousness.  And anything that validates the current social pecking order is ripe for consumption by those at the top.

As an added bonus, the commercial even elicits a few hearty chuckles.  Hee mother fucking hee.

While I have zero doubts about what this commercial is saying, implicit though it may be, I cannot say with any conviction whether or not this loaded message was intentional.  White privilege, white normativeness, white standards, white values, and the black/white dichotomy – these things are all built into the foundation of American society.  This video may truly have been an innocuous attempt at humor, but one that echoed from that foundation.

I’ll ignore, lest I get carried away with my analysis, the fact that the commercial itself is in black and white.

The people who made it, having already embraced the dichotomy, may not even have been aware of all of the implications – just enough in the abstract to recognize how it would speak well to the sensibilities of other white people.  Such is the essence of good marketing, which as any self-aware capitalist will tell you, is often mutually exclusive from any ethical or moral good.

Technically – the play mechanics, game balance, what they did with light and shadows – it was brilliant. The writing was stellar, too – some of the best I’ve experienced.

But the plot, for all it seemed to promise from the start, did not deliver in the end.  I’m not even entirely sure what happened at the end.  I suppose I should’ve been wary from the beginning when Wake quoted Stephen King about how a good horror story never reveals the nature of the threat.

Had the “dark presence” just been some force with no explanation, or even a very vague one, that would’ve been fine.  But Alan Wake told us a lot about the nature of the threat, unfolding several separate but related story threads that it never tied together at the end.

It was plain anti-climactic.  If the developers never intended to reveal the threat, then they shouldn’t have led us into thinking that they would.

All that said, would I recommend Alan Wake?  Absolutely, but only for the sake of gameplay and atmosphere.  If you’re expecting a satisfying story or resolution, you may be sorely disappointed.