Chicago Defender

Why 'Django Unchained' Stirs Race Debate

(CNN) -- Spike Lee says he's never going to see Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained" because he's certain it is "disrespectful of my ancestors." Tarantino says he doesn't need to waste time responding to Lee's accusation. That, as they say, is that.

So why do we insist on staring at two egomaniacs staring down each other?

Race. Again. The subject that never fails to provoke, antagonize, alienate -- and fascinate rubber-necking onlookers from sea to shining sea. Fixating on race is an absurdity that has no rational reason to exist, yet no one quite knows how to eliminate it from humankind. The only thing dumber than race is underestimating its importance.

"Django Unchained" is Tarantino's latest exercise in genre-bending audacity, an antic ripsnorter folding in most of what its director knows and loves about spaghetti westerns, 1970s blaxploitation thrillers and his own ribald, recklessly violent body of work. Its title character, played by Jamie Foxx, is a slave bought and freed by a drolly effective German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz), who agrees to help Django emancipate his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), from a decadent plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio).

"Django" makes no pretense of being anything other than a phantasmagoric pseudo-western, rife with calculated vulgarity, anachronism and impropriety. Its body count rivals that of Tarantino's 2003 martial-arts epic, "Kill Bill Vol. 1" (to whose messily operatic set pieces of slaughter "Django" bears an uncanny resemblance).

The movie has so far grossed more than $100 million since its Christmas Day nationwide release. Critics' reactions have ranged from wild-eyed enthusiasm (The Boston Globe's Wesley Morris: "Corkscrewed, inside-out, upside-down, simultaneously clear-eyed and out of its mind") to wary detachment (The Detroit News' Tom Long: "(Y)ou may leave ... wishing for both more and less") to borderline outrage (Slate's Dana Stevens: "There's something about (Tarantino's) directorial delectation in all these acts of racial violence that left me not just physically, but morally queasy.")

Given advance hype for the movie as extravagant as its violence, I doubt that audience members, whatever their race or age, bought tickets with the expectation of seeing some historically faithful saga of antebellum life, and neither did I. We were buying a comic book. Many people have a grievance against the very notion of comic books, but I don't. Expect a movie or a comic book to explain everything about anything and all you earn is surplus sadness that you don't really need.

Nevertheless, there are many who, unlike Lee, have seen the movie and carry the same grievances as he does. The most scathing attack came from that novelist-satirist-poet Ishmael Reed, writing in The Wall Street Journal: "To compare this movie to a spaghetti western and a blaxploitation film is an insult to both genres. It's a Tarantino home movie with all the racist licks of his other movies." He aimed this laser shot at the Oscar-nominated actor who plays the treacherous "house slave" to DiCaprio's character: "Samuel L. Jackson ... plays himself."

I doubt Jackson felt the blow. He has, in fact, further provoked the movie's antagonists by running straight at an interviewer asking about the movie's prolific use of the "N-word," refusing to answer the question unless the reporter, who is white, actually says the dread epithet aloud. (He didn't.)

Still, Reed's condemnation discloses what may lie at the heart of Lee's objection: the debate over whether white artists have the right to tell any part of the black American story -- which, as Reed writes, is as old as Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1852 abolitionist novel, "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

It is also as recent as 1967 when the white Southern novelist William Styron published, "The Confessions of Nat Turner," a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel told in the first-person voice of the brilliant-but-doomed leader of an 1838 slave rebellion. The outcry from African-American novelists was so intense that a collection of essays, "William Styron's Nat Turner: Ten Black Writers Respond" was published a year later. James Baldwin, a friend of Styron's who was one of the few African-American authors speaking out on the book's behalf, put his position as succinctly as possible: "I will not tell another writer what to write. If you don't like their alternative, write yours."

It's still sound advice -- and in the intervening years, black authors have taken it, from Alex Haley's 1976 blockbuster, "Roots," to Toni Morrison's haunting "Beloved" from 1987. Both were adapted for the screen, and while "Roots," the television miniseries, delivered a resounding national impact, the 1998 movie adaptation of "Beloved," even with Oprah Winfrey as producer and co-star, earned about $26 million, roughly half of its $50 million budget.

I remember many of my African-American relatives and friends who told me they were not going to see "Beloved," no matter how good it was or who was in it, because they simply did not want to watch a movie about slavery's legacy. Some of these same folks, on the other hand, tell me they were psyched about seeing a movie, however "incorrect" on several levels, in which a black ex-slave secures freedom for his wife, kills every white man who stands in his way -- and gets away with it.

Exasperated? If you're not, you should be.

Are We 'Black No More'? Not Quite

(The Root) -- Although 2012 did not produce the Mayan apocalypse, it did produce an unending drumbeat of claims for "postracial America." So much so, I suspect, that if Harlem Renaissance novelist and essay writer George Schuyler had lived through it, he would be inspired to write a whole new version of his classic novel Black No More.

In the main, the book is a biting satire of the dilemmas created by race and race prejudice in the United States, with the plot driven by the deeds of Harlemites Max Disher and his friend Bunny Brown. They concoct a way to make black people white. Yet as the book unfolds, the problems associated with race seem to infinitely multiply rather than vanish. There is a lesson for us there.

Think about all the grist for Schulyer's mill we received over the past year. In January of 2012, researchers declared it to be "The End of the Segregated Century." No sooner, however, had this conservative Manhattan Institute report come out than it became the subject of a wave of criticism. Of course, everyday experience and common sense makes it evident that distinctly black communities and "the ghetto" have not disappeared.

If we artificially set a criterion of 80 percent black neighborhoods as meaning "segregation," then yes, we've experienced big declines in racial isolation. The end of segregation? Not hardly. As research by sociologist John Logan showed, a majority of urban blacks still live in neighborhoods that demographers classify as "highly segregated." But if you'd read only the headlines, you'd have inferred that we were rapidly becoming "black no more."

Take the case of marriage and the family. Back in February the headlines told us that "Interracial Marriage Seen Gaining Wide Acceptance" (New York Times) and "Intermarriage Rates Soar as Stereotypes Fall" (Washington Post). And indeed, a Pew Center study showed that 8 percent of all marriages and fully 15 percent of new marriages in 2010 involved people of different races or ethnicities. Certainly this is real change from the Jim Crow past.

But don't let headlines create too distorted a picture for you. Every now and then it helps to look at all the numbers. In this instance, a full 85 percent -- the overwhelming majority -- of all marriages in 2010 occurred within traditional racial and ethnic boundaries.

Helping to keep things in perspective is the 2011 incident involving the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Kentucky, which banned interracial couples from membership and certain church services. And in 2012, Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson, a black couple, were initially forbidden to be married in the predominantly white Crystal Springs, Miss., church they attended. It is a little early, perhaps, to declare us postracial on the marriage front.

(The Root) -- Although 2012 did not produce the Mayan apocalypse, it did produce an unending drumbeat of claims for "postracial America." So much so, I suspect, that if Harlem Renaissance novelist and essay writer George Schuyler had lived through it, he would be inspired to write a whole new version of his classic novel Black No More.

In the main, the book is a biting satire of the dilemmas created by race and race prejudice in the United States, with the plot driven by the deeds of Harlemites Max Disher and his friend Bunny Brown. They concoct a way to make black people white. Yet as the book unfolds, the problems associated with race seem to infinitely multiply rather than vanish. There is a lesson for us there.

Think about all the grist for Schulyer's mill we received over the past year. In January of 2012, researchers declared it to be "The End of the Segregated Century." No sooner, however, had this conservative Manhattan Institute report come out than it became the subject of a wave of criticism. Of course, everyday experience and common sense makes it evident that distinctly black communities and "the ghetto" have not disappeared.

If we artificially set a criterion of 80 percent black neighborhoods as meaning "segregation," then yes, we've experienced big declines in racial isolation. The end of segregation? Not hardly. As research by sociologist John Logan showed, a majority of urban blacks still live in neighborhoods that demographers classify as "highly segregated." But if you'd read only the headlines, you'd have inferred that we were rapidly becoming "black no more."

Take the case of marriage and the family. Back in February the headlines told us that "Interracial Marriage Seen Gaining Wide Acceptance" (New York Times) and "Intermarriage Rates Soar as Stereotypes Fall" (Washington Post). And indeed, a Pew Center study showed that 8 percent of all marriages and fully 15 percent of new marriages in 2010 involved people of different races or ethnicities. Certainly this is real change from the Jim Crow past.

But don't let headlines create too distorted a picture for you. Every now and then it helps to look at all the numbers. In this instance, a full 85 percent -- the overwhelming majority -- of all marriages in 2010 occurred within traditional racial and ethnic boundaries.

Helping to keep things in perspective is the 2011 incident involving the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Kentucky, which banned interracial couples from membership and certain church services. And in 2012, Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson, a black couple, were initially forbidden to be married in the predominantly white Crystal Springs, Miss., church they attended. It is a little early, perhaps, to declare us postracial on the marriage front.

The current habit of America's vastly exaggerated self-congratulation for each minor to modest step toward racial progress is a case in point. Following Schuyler's insight from Black No More, all the bellowing about moving toward postracialism reveals less about how far we've come and much more about about just how far we have yet to go.

Lawrence D. Bobo is the W.E.B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University.

Source: http://www.theroot.com/views/are-we-black-no-more-not-quite?page=0,1&wpisrc=root_lightbox

Entrepreneur or Business Owner: Is There a Difference?

The concept of being an entrepreneur is not new, but today, being an entrepreneur is growing in popularity and to say you're an entrepreneur sounds sexy. By my definition, an entrepreneur is an artist of the economy. Entrepreneurs are masterful at turning ideas into products and services, generally with little access to capital. They look for additional streams of revenue, and will never be broke because they always know how to leverage human capital (themselves) and opportunities.

Entrepreneurs know how to be resourceful; they are opportunists. Ask an entrepreneur if they can get something done for you, and the usual response is, 'I can get it done for you', even if they can't do it themselves. They will seek someone who can, and get the job done for you.

They are very passionate about their craft. Entrepreneurs may not be able to tell you much about the financial analysis, but they will be able to tell you everything about how the product or service operates.

Entrepreneurs are risk-takers. They are unafraid to step out and take that leap of faith to pursue their passions. They understand the "window of opportunity' and look to execute opportunities before that window closes. In addition, they know how to multi-task. They have an innate ability to complete multiple tasks; some even enjoy the feeling of working under pressure.

They are emotional, especially when it comes to their customer's feelings. They are always looking to establish meaningful relationships with individuals in an attempt to meet their specific needs. Entrepreneurs are visionaries. Many look at the whole picture, understanding what needs to be done in order to meet their goal. Most importantly, they are optimistic, focusing on why something will work and rarely taking time to analyze why it won't work.

By nature, they are excellent problem solvers, never giving up until a viable solution has been identified. And lastly, not all entrepreneurs have college degrees in business, economics, or finance. Some entrepreneurs do not have college degrees at all. Remember, some have identified an opportunity and are looking to capitalize on that opportunity.

On the other side of the coin is the business owner. Business owners are capitalist, and proud of it. They tend to be myopic in their approach, only seeing their objective and infrequently being open to any alternative strategies to reaching their goal. Business owners are less emotional than entrepreneurs (just as passionate about their business, but less emotional in dealing with customers), and often use the phrase, "it ain't personal". Numbers drive this group.

Many business owners are less willing to work 'off the cuff' than the entrepreneur. They tend to be strategic in every aspect of the business, as they must have a plan of execution or it won't get done. Business owners only take calculated risks that are well researched prior to execution, and are less willing to operate 'out of the box' than entrepreneurs. Traditional in their approach to business, they tend to rely on what has always worked in the past. That is not to say that a business owner can't be innovative, because to be a business owner or entrepreneur you must be innovative. Business owners just tend to be more innovative financially, thus lend the phrase, 'creative financing'.

Business owners tend to 'be strict about organization and are masters of taking a working concept and building upon that concept. While entrepreneurs are excellent at idea generation, they often lack the knowledge of how to scale or grow their business. Business owners are masters at team building. They know how to build a network of individuals with diverse skill sets to build a brand.

Entrepreneurs are generally sole proprietors, they like doing every aspect of the business themselves, where as business owners see that as a waste of time, energy, and resources. Business owners are excellent salespeople; they know how to sell equity ownership, thus getting other people to share in the risk of building the business.

It is very clear that most entrepreneurs aspire to become successful business owners. It is also clear that business owners need to be entrepreneurial in their approach to business development. While we use the terms entrepreneur and business owner interchangeably, virtually all entrepreneurs create and own their own opportunities; therefore they are rightfully, business owners. Not all business owners created the business themselves. Many of them took advantage of the equity ownership that was offered to them. Entrepreneurial practices and concepts are necessary today if business owners and entrepreneurs plan to continue to do business. Clearly, entrepreneurs and business owners are different; similar, but different.

Scott L. Steward, MS, is a Business and Entrepreneurship Educator and Co-Founder of Life UniverCity. Learn more about Scott and Life Univercity at http://www.lifeunivercity.com.

No Love for 'Fiscal Cliff,' 'Spoiler Alert'

(AP) — Spoiler alert: This story contains words and phrases that some people want to ban from the English language. "Spoiler alert" is among them. So are "kick the can down the road," ''trending" and "bucket list."

A dirty dozen have landed on the 38th annual List of Words to be Banished from the Queen's English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness. The nonbinding, tongue-in-cheek decree released Monday by northern Michigan's Lake Superior State University is based on nominations submitted from the United States, Canada and beyond.

"Spoiler alert," the seemingly thoughtful way to warn readers or viewers about looming references to a key plot point in a film or TV show, nevertheless passed its use-by date for many, including Joseph Foly, of Fremont, Calif. He argued in his submission the phrase is "used as an obnoxious way to show one has trivial information and is about to use it, no matter what."

At the risk of further offense, here's another spoiler alert: The phrase receiving the most nominations this year is "fiscal cliff," banished because of its overuse by media outlets when describing across-the-board federal tax increases and spending cuts that economists say could harm the economy in the new year without congressional action.

"You can't turn on the news without hearing this," said Christopher Loiselle, of Midland, Mich., in his submission. "I'm equally worried about the River of Debt and Mountain of Despair."

Other terms coming in for a literary lashing are "superfood," ''guru," ''job creators" and "double down."

University spokesman Tom Pink said that in nearly four decades, the Sault Ste. Marie school has "banished" around 900 words or phrases, and somehow the whole idea has survived rapidly advancing technology and diminishing attention spans.

Nominations used to come by mail, then fax and via the school's website, he said. Now most come through the university's Facebook page. That's fitting, since social media has helped accelerate the life cycle of certain words and phrases, such as this year's entry "YOLO" — "you only live once."

"The list surprises me in one way or another every year, and the same way every year: I'm always surprised how people still like it, love it," he said.

Rounding out the list are "job creators/creation," ''boneless wings" and "passion/passionate." Those who nominated the last one say they are tired of hearing about a company's "passion" as a substitute for providing a service or product for money.

Andrew Foyle, of Bristol, England, said it's reached the point where "passion" is the only ingredient that keeps a chef from preparing "seared tuna" that tastes "like dust swept from a station platform."

"Apparently, it's insufficient to do it ably, with skill, commitment or finesse," Foyle said. "Passionate, begone!"

As usual, the etymological exercise — or exorcise — only goes so far. Past lists haven't eradicated "viral," "amazing," ''LOL" or "man cave" from everyday use.