Russian Socialite Uses Naked Black Woman As a Chair, Calls It Art

It's been a long time. I shouldn't have left you without a dope blog to read to (In my Aaliyah voice).(Record Scratch)

 No?

 Okay maybe was reaching too far with that so I'll stop. But anyway, I'm back on my bs for the year 2014. Some strange stuff has been going on as of late, for example this article takes the cake so far. I guess it's okay to use women as furniture now as long as it's called "art".  Ok. I know what you're thinking. It usually starts with something like " Aw Hell Naw! What?! Is she serious?".   When I first saw it, I didn't know what to think. I was confused. Then again, I saw the messages conveyed in this piece. My first thought was that Black people seem to be used as accessories in the White world. This can be seen in the movies, where there is only one Black character which is portrayed as a background character that could be counted on for comedic relief, or when they want diversity.  Sometimes the Black person could be a helpful character, but in a lot of instances they say stuff like "Bitches be trippin, yo" and "Word", etc, and never offer anything of substance to the film. They are good for sprinkling dialect in a movie or for adding "variety" to a piece of media and nothing more. We must not forget the great Mileygate incident of 2013 In this case, I will refrain from linking to it simply because I don't want to be responsible for any extra views. I'll leave the research up to you at this point.

I clicked on the article and I noticed there were two other pictures: A White mannequin woman on all fours with a glass table top placed on her back, and another White mannequin fashioned as a chair, just like the Black mannequin was used in the first photo.  After reading the article, I came to a conclusion. In this culture, women are used as accessories in general. In American culture, the term "trophy wife" comes to mind. It's a wife whose purpose is to look good on a man's arm and nothing more. This term is usually reserved for rich older White men.  This art indicates that women in general are used as accessories in a male dominated world.  Even when women were allowed to work, they were used as an accessory in the office. They maintained secretary positions and often couldn't break past the glass ceiling (unless they did a little 'something extra' to get there in some cases).

That raised another question for me. What about Barbie, the United States based doll whose image has been held responsible for so many distorted images of femininity and beauty? Barbie has everything she could wish for. She has money, friends, a big house, very nice car, and a boyfriend.  Her world looks amazing, and I'm sure a lot of girls (and women) would want a taste of that lifestyle. Let's look at her world a bit closer shall we? We don't know much about her boyfriend do we? He usually comes with an outfit, maybe a comb and that's it. He exists solely to look good in Barbie's car, and we know his name is Ken. Where are Ken's friends? Where is his car? Where is his house? He seems to be the one tagging along in Barbie's world. Barbie has friends with names and a family. Her wikipedia page looks like she has an entourage.   Ken has Allan and Brad as friends, but no family, and his page looks like a short blurb. Why is that? It seems to me that Ken is treated as an accessory in this scenario.

American culture seems to be fixated with finding a way to use people as "things" or a means to an end. Who said this was okay? Who decided which type of person should be used? Why should people be used and how should they be used? Sure the woman who created this art was Russian, which begs the question, Is this representative of a male dominated culture in general or is it limited to whatever country one resides in?  I don't know.

Now I did see the following in 2013. Here we have an American  Black man wearing a White woman as a scarf and he called it art. He said that White women are looked at as a status symbol in this country. Hmm. So we have Black woman mannequin being used as furniture by a White woman (speaking of such, why did she choose to sit on the Black woman chair and not the White one?) and a White woman being used as a scarf to represent status. Real White women being seen as "trophy wives"by White men, Barbie using Ken as an accessory, and White women also being used as furniture. Holy sugar honey iced tea. I think I may have solved the relationship between Black and White men and women in the United States.

White woman+Black woman = accessory

White man +White woman+ money= trophy wife or status (The White man can be an accessory if you include age difference and/or money) Roles are interchangeable in this situation. The person with the money could use the other as an accessory, and the broke person could be using the rich person as the status symbol)

Black man + White woman+ money= trophy wife or status  (this can work with or without money) These roles are also interchangeable between parties. A White woman can see the Black man as a sexual conquest and vice versa. In that case either party is an accessory)

White man + Black man = accessory

White man+Black woman+money= accessory (see Black man+White woman+money equation. White man can see Black woman as sexual conquest)

Now hold on. This is about to jump into interracial relationship territory. I don't care who you sleep with. That is not my business. I am not against interracial relationships nor do I have a problem with them, however I do have a problem with how people see them and what ugliness can potentially reside within them, and that's a topic for another blog.

Stay tuned.

Obligatory New Years Post

Happy New Year you guys. For those who are reading this blog, or paying attention to the news in general, you know it's been a rough year. To be honest, I have no idea what this year brings. So far some good things have happened. Gay people can finally get married in all 50 states, and marijuana has been made officially legal in all forms in Colorado. Utah has an attorney general who is willing to spend two million dollars to fight this thing as if the world will end if two men or two women marry each other. I'm sure there are people who are pissed at him for wasting their money on such a trivial subject. I'm sure the schools are in such great shape that the state can afford such luxuries. But anyway, you already know I support gay marriage, so I'll just leave it at that. Back to Colorado though. Maaan! They are going to make sooo much money. There will be Colorado weed tasting tours, smoker's clubs (kind of like cigar clubs), and people will be able to buy a pack of joints. I see them treating it like cigarettes and alcohol, meaning that they won't be able to smoke them in restaurants, or public areas. I'm sure a person could become subject to getting a DUI if they drive while stoned,or get stoned while driving. However I did hear that some employers will still drug test employees and fire them if they come up positive.   Wouldn't that be counter productive? I could see them doing a zero tolerance policy, meaning a person can't smoke while on the job, or show up high. Plus marijuana stays in the system longer than alcohol. That means if a person decides to unwind after work by smoking a bowl or joint,and they get tested two or three weeks down the road, they could still lose their job. Hmm. I wonder which employers would choose to do that. Wouldn't the companies gain a high turnover rate? Wouldn't that make it harder to find a job in general?  I can definitely see an exodus to Colorado happening very soon once they get the kinks worked out of the legalization process.  The standard of living could skyrocket. All I can do is wait and see. I might just venture over there once they have all the bugs sorted out. Who knows.

Anyway, this year brings 2 positive things so far. We'll see what else happens. Hopefully there will be more positivity to come.

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty Implies that Blacks Were Happy Pre- Civil Rights << Hmmm let's take a look at this, shall we?

The latest buzz around the internet surrounds a Phil Robertson of a popular show called Duck Dynasty. He has been in the news for his views on homosexuality, (which laid grounds for a prompt suspension from the show) and now he's on notice for his views on Black people. He said the following about growing up in Louisiana around Blacks during the pre Civil Rights Era: "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word!" The CNN article mentions he also said the following via a quote from GQ Magazine: "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues,"


Ok. Everyone is all up in arms regarding this statement that implies that Blacks were indeed happier without the "pre entitlement" and "pre welfare". Think about that for a minute. I mean really think about it. Sure this statement sounds like something that every White person said about Blacks during that time period. Of course Robertson would say that. I wonder what person thinks that the Blacks would indeed bare their soul to him or anyone like him during that time period. Speaking ills of their situation to the wrong person could get a person hurt and or killed. That being said, I would be very interested to hear stories told by the Blacks he used to work with. It may be possible that he could have glossed over any racial incidents that occurred during that time, because back then, anybody who dared to even think or attempted to question Jim Crow laws were subject to very harsh treatment, that which could include lynching, burning down homes, disappearing, and murder, and that's when jail time and/or beatings didn't work.


Now let's take a look at the other part of the quote that stood out for me: " I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash."


Think about this for a minute. He said he's with the Blacks because his family is White trash.

This implies that Whites get equated with Blacks if they are poor,hence the term "white trash". It seems that Whites really don't want to acknowledge their so called "trash", just as they don't want to acknowledge Blacks as a whole. They would just like to sweep them both under the rug and pretend they don't exist. I feel the issue that needs to be brought up is why so called, "White trash" is treated the same as a catch all for Blacks as a whole. Now if the NAACP was on their job, they should have brought this question to the forefront, and forced the question to be answered while it was all over the media. Then we can sit back and watch the responses, and the NAACP could cry foul depending on how the response is met.


What does one call Blacks that don't fit in the so called "trash" category? Is there a name for that? Does it exist? Then again, it seems there is a term for it. It's called "uppity".


I'm not defending this guy by a long shot. I'm just saying that whenever somebody says something like this, instead of just getting outraged, why don't we take the time to break it all the way down while it's in the spotlight? This way, one can see how the public responds to it, and then we can be the judge on how people react, and whether or not they are perceptive to truly addressing the issue.

FOX News says Santa is White: The Christmas Edition

I'm sure you have heard about this already, but according to Fox News, Santa is White, and so is Jesus.  Everyone was outraged, and it even prompted a teacher in New Mexico to tell a child that they couldn't come to school dressed as Santa because he is White, not Black (who received paid leave for the incident btw).

All I could think of is "Ovvv Course.  Fox News would say something this ignorant, so why are people truly upset?  This country has marketed a White Santa Clause from Day. ONE.  Jesus has been depicted as a blonde haired, blue eyed man in various forms of the media as well.  See, with Fox News, one could expect racist stuff like this to spew forth from their mouths. It is their rule of thumb to twist the viewers minds to fit their agenda. Their job is to tell the viewer what to think and how to act.  It's like getting dismayed when someone announces that water is wet.

And this teacher is straight up ignorant. So what if a kid wanted to wear a Santa hat and beard. He's just getting into the spirit while the magic is still in him.  Now thanks to this fool, the kid will remember when he was told that his race doesn't allow him to wear whatever he wanted. Good job Albuquerque! But waaaaiiiit. Christmas is a time of year for everyone to enjoy.  It isn't about race, it's about faaaamily.  Let's just be haaaapy!  <Get the fuck outta here with that mess.

But wait, let's pretend Santa is indeed "White" for a second.  This guy has the luxury of being able to travel around the world and delivers toys to children by climbing down the chimney, and makes appearances in all of the malls across America.  He lets them sit on his lap and he talks to them to see what they want for Christmas. He's doing a service for all of the kids by making sure they are happy, right?  He's rich enough to purchase all of those toys just so he can give them away (face it, you and I both know that Santa didn't have his elves make that PS4 or the NES you received when you were little). Let's look at this closely:

1. He likes children enough to ask them to sit on his lap so they can talk to him
2. He buys them gifts so they will like him
3. He enters your home through a chimney.

Now, I always thought there was something wrong with the idea of Santa:

First of all, that fat fuck is NOT going to get through anybody's chimney no matter how greasy he is. Second of all, why do parents hand their children to this strange man posing as a person who would bring them happiness. To me, this sounds like how pedophillia begins. And he wants the kids to sit on his lap?!  Really? Really.
Third, he gets into everybody's house while the kids are asleep, and then eats your food.  People know damn well they wouldn't want me coming up in their house, chilling and eating stuff, and then leaving something behind. This sounds like breaking and entering to me.  Now I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but something tells me that I would get arrested and or shot if I did that.

So this guy has the privilege of:
1. Entering the homes of strangers and eating their food with no recourse
2. Allowing random children to sit on their laps while the parents allow it, again, with no recourse
3. Having enough money to buy gifts like that.
4. Traveling around the world

Last time I checked, if I bought a lot of gifts for kids, and made it known, folks would question where I got the money to do so.  But since "Santa" has money, and has the ability to do all of these things, it's okay.  Hell, I can't even go shopping for anything without White parents frantically warning and grabbing their children while telling them to stay close to their parents as soon as they see me coming.  They don't even want me thinking about speaking to their children, especially when they say something first.

Whoa...

Maybe Santa IS White for real, I mean he has all of this privilege that I couldn't dream of having even if I wanted it.

They can keep Santa and have him for themselves. If I had children, the last thing I'd want is them fantasizing about a gift giving pedofile.

Oh, if you are already familiar with my blog, you may have an inkling on how I feel about Jesus so I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Whatever holiday you celebrate this time of year, I hope you have a good one.  As for me, I'm just waiting for this tragic ass year to be over.

That is all.

I Don't Understand Why (insert racist thing) is Racist, Why don't You Clue Me In? < Are you for real?

 0_____O < Insert giant side eye here.  Here's why:

Every so often, a White person will ask this question in some way shape or form, and they never cease to amaze me. I decided I'd write a default response:

I think it's crazy for Black people to have to be their teachers on this subject. Why do we need to teach grown ass adults about how to act around different people and races? This is something they should be conscious of. They are the ones who spread the idea that America is a melting pot and that we should all get along. It is up to them to act like they have some sense, and learn on their own. They can google everything under the sun, so why is it that when something racist pops up they want to ask us what the problem is? Did their google ninja skills all of a sudden fail to function? Are their fingers broke? I think not. They need to be accountable for their actions, and stop using other races as a scapegoat for their fuck ups (for lack of a better phrase). That means no more saying things like, "But my Black friend said..." or" I'm 1/16th Cherokee" or "Why do Black people get to ..." and so on and so forth. Stop the foolishness and be accountable for their actions and stay out of Black folks's business (I'm looking at those who always want to say, "But black on black crime....but statistics, but numbers..." and other various talking points and confirmation bias based data, they may want to present to state their so called case. And stop with that oh so convenient, "But we're all American" mess, when they sit up there and want to talk about "Black on Black crime, but never refer to crime committed by Whites as "White on White crime" because then and only then crime is treated as a default or American problem", and crime by Blacks is some mystical phenomenon that must be shamed ,scrutinized, and looked at with disdain. Stop following up with paternalistic tripe whenever pretending to open up dialogue pertaining to Black issues. Long story short, we are not their teachers, and we can't expect them to learn anything about us and how things are when they can't even begin to accept the what when where why and how things got to be the way they are. They better read some books, use their google fu and do real research instead of coming up with voyeuristic things to stroke their own ego and confirm their biases and for gods sake take responsibility instead of blaming everybody else and telling them stuff like "get over it" or "everyone doesn't have the same opinion as you" after they don't like what is said when their questions are answered.

Usually, the response goes:  That's bullshit and you know it. You're racist and you people are impossible. You should be thankful you're brought into this country. It's the best country for your people, and if you don't like it, you should go back to Africa. I'm sure they'd take you.

Really?  Really. Are you sure you want to take the argument there? Naw, I take that back. I read this article that eloquently explains what White America has been feeling as of late. The title leaves much to be desired, but they wrote nothing but truth. For those who don't really like to read and want the TL;DR version of the article in question, I'd like to say : GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE WITH THAT!  Reading is something that is required  when a person has a computer or tries to communicate by using one. People have time to look up things like "What Does The Fox Say?", and shit like this  but don't have time to find out the answers to their questions?!  That's very telling indeed.  If one is actually willing to seek that knowledge, they will do what it takes to learn it, but I'll go ahead and humor folks and post the short version:

Long story short,  they refuse to recognize the accountability of their great grandparents for losing the farms, or making it so minorities would end up taking their jobs, I mean, that's what they voted for, and because of the treatment of Blacks by their ancestors for so long, the so called minority would probably be of no threat to them because they would be doing their own thing away from Whites. But no, they had to keep those Blacks under their thumb by any means necessary, and now things are the way they are because of that. I'm going to say that maybe they should have educated themselves and voted accordingly instead of voting based on party. Maybe they should have read their contracts carefully before signing up for those loans. Maybe they should have worked harder to pay them off. No one told them to take the shortcut and sell their land to pay off the debt. It's called fiscal responsibility and accountability folks! The rest of us are fiscally responsible and are accountable for what we spend and what we do, so why do they think they can get a pass? Plus the media who happens to be controlled by people like them were also telling everybody that having 2.5 kids was the "ideal' for the American family while others were making babies. This unsolicited advice was given for a very long time, I might add, so it isn't our fault that they blindly followed it. Now they are in the minority, so what do they think would happen next over a couple of years? They can't blame other minorities for their loss in income. They need to take a good hard look in the mirror, and look at what their actions have caused them over the years. 

That being said, They ought to face it, America is the country where they can exercise their freedoms more than every other country and they pay the least amount of taxes when compared to those in the European union. And since the Native Americans were there first in the US, newsflash, Whites don't own it, as much as they want to think they do and cry about what they see themselves entitled to.  If they don't like it they can leave or just shut up and deal with it. /s

What? they mad? To be continued...

Random Thought #3

Ok, I thought I'd come back again with another random thought. My mind is usually pretty busy and in between my rants and raves about all of the stuff you find here, sometimes I draw parallels to various things. Some are funny, some may be need to drawn out using discussion. Speaking of such, I've got two thoughts to bring to the table. I'll have to preface this one by saying that just because I thought about it and put the ideas together doesn't mean I believe it. I'm just pointing out the double standard here:

Calling all Muslims terrorists and hating them based on their clothes (burkas) and what extremists have done is crazy. Using that logic*, Black people should hate all White people because klansmen were White, and they committed atrocities based on religious beliefs. Therefore, White people look like klansmen, and all of them must be terrorists.

Again, please note, the key words in the observation are "USING THAT LOGIC". The last thing I need to do is argue with somebody who failed to fully read what I'm saying here. That being said, here is my other random thought in reference to the idea of Christian heaven:

I wonder if there are mansions in the Christian version of "heaven" and if I get there and end up with my own mansion, who is going to clean all of those rooms, and why is the ideal lifestyle in heaven the same as a rich person on Earth? What would a dead person do with the "riches" they get in heaven? Is there a shopping center up there or something? Does heaven have a "maintenance crew"? Is heaven really a gated community that people have been paying "homeowner's fees" for whenever they attend church? 

Maybe somebody can answer the second one for me, however I encourage dialogue for both thoughts. What do you say about these thoughts of mine? Could there be any truth to them?

Don Lemon... You Know You Done Effed Up, Right?

Recently Don Lemon made news when he mentioned his support for Stop And Frisk. He was quoted as saying, "Would you rather be politically correct or safe and alive?" He also went on to justify it by saying that '"[I]f you question many people in New York City, even some black and Hispanic people,” Lemon claimed, “they will tell you that on the surface they don’t really have an issue with stop-question-and-frisk. Not the idea of it, at least. Not if the controversial policy was conducted like the occasional, random airport screening.”"

Did he stop right there? Nope,this fool kept going, and said, "there are many among the minority community who believe “in theory” that “we’d rather be inconvenienced by being stopped by police than shot by gun-wielding criminals on the street.” However, he said, it’s become too easy for police to become “so drunk with power that they abuse it.”

I'm over here still stuck on his comment about being safe and alive vs being politically correct. It makes me forget my grammar and I want to ask him where is his mother at? Where does he live? Then I want to get mad and ask, How far did somebody have to stick their hand up his ass to get him to say these things, because this guy is a straight up puppet.  I think somebody is paying this fool, there has to be.  I guess I'm not the only one who is telling this fool to GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE. In fact, I had to do it twice. Unfortunately, I'm not as concise and eloquent as some folks, so I'll have to give props to  twitter  for chopping him up using less than 140 characters.

Now here's the real kicker about what Don Lemon said about stop and frisk.  Didn't this fool sue Tower records back in 2001 for racial profiling though?<< Is he even serious?!  Did he forget about that or did he he strike a deal with somebody affiliated with that company in exchange that he throw his race under the bus by any means necessary?  Then again, maybe the incident hit too close to home. Maybe it got in his head so much that he decided he must have done, said, or acted 'too Black' that day, which caused him to spend as much time as he could in order to 'cultivate' himself into this image that causes him to deny the people who look like him at all costs. Maybe it affected him similar to the  the16 Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham Alabama which resulted in the killing of four Black girls, one of which was Condoleezza Rice's playmate.  That incident still affects her to this day, and maybe the profiling was Don Lemon's moment of clarity that he's not really ready to address yet.  I don't know, but something is really wrong with this guy. The question is, What is it?