Equality?

The idea of equality in this country is, and always has been an illusion. It started as a means to justify the end of seceding from Britain, and has been maintained ever since. Not just the concept of racial equality or gender equality but rather equality on a much larger scale. In other words, societal equality or rather societal inequality, since the very concept of society denotes inequality. Within a community with a singular focus, status is implied, indeed in some cases necessary. There will always be a dominant group in power. The closest we as a race of humans have every come to true equality is the Athenian democracy, which was not a true democracy. Even in that regard, it was marred by inequality since, slaves and women had no vote and therefore not voice. Men who were not prosperous and did not own land were not equal to those with more. Even in a Communist society, there are leaders. Human leaders. Human leaders who often have favorites, or simply give themselves more and others less. Power, or more specifically, the misuse of power will always be the bane of our society.

The logical conclusion? Equality is an illusion. There's simply no truth to it. There will always be a class system in every country no matter where you go, whether explicit as it is with the caste systems of India, or implicit, as it is here in the United States. Once you accept that, the next statement will make more sense: as individuals we cannot balance the scales. No matter how many boot straps you pull, or how hard you work, you will never successfully gain equality. You may gain access to more influence, power, or money, but you still haven't gained equality for the rather obvious reason that equality isn't a thing you can gain.

With that knowledge in hand, one might wonder: what then do we do about equality? The answer is quite simple: we have to rely on powerful organizations to balance the scales the best they can. In the United States, this task is unenviable, especially since the entire country was built with the blood of slaves, the majority of whom were of African descent. The effects of slavery are unique from the incident of slavery in one key way. The time period in which slavery existed is well-documented, but its effects are not. We can document the numerous disparities between the children of the formerly enslaved, and attribute it to slavery, but in truth, the damage done by three plus centuries of psychological, emotional and physical torture, not to mention the cultural damage caused by forcibly uprooting 12.5 million Africans and transplanting them into the U.S. converting them into property to be bought and sold at their owners' whims.

We can't change the past. We can only try to correct its effects. Many of the alt-right would say we shouldn't try, or that we have done enough. But have we really? 12.6% of the U.S. population identify as Black Americans, according to data from census.gov, maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau. That's 38,929,319 for those keeping track at home. According to the U. S. Bureau of Prisons, Black people constitute 37.9% of the prison population, for a total of 71,647 Black inmates. By contrast, non-Hispanic Whites are 63.7% of the country at 196,817,552. White inmates comprise 58.6% of the prison population, numbering 110,871. Surely this was caused by slavery?

Perhaps, but the water is considerably muddier than this. In the 1980's, in an effort to circumvent Congress and fund Contras in Nicaragua, the CIA begin selling cocaine and weapons to inner cities largely populated by Black Americans. Couple this with segregation, mass lynchings, and the "war on drugs" and suddenly, attribution seems far more difficult than before.

One of the key fallacies of attribution is that things can attributed to one source. We often think of things originating from one source, but the truth of the matter is that we can attribute the disparity in our statistical samples to multiple  sources. However, one thing holds true as we continue to explore the various reasons: the majority of the causes are external. To say that Black people are more inherently predisposed to crime, is ignorant, myopic and irresponsible.

As stated earlier, we can't change the past. But we can help mitigate the damage of our previously poor decisions. We can't undo the mistakes of our forefathers, but we can help those affected by it. Not because we should, but more importantly because we can. The United States is a country that has afforded so many opportunities to all of us. The very creed of this nation is about the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, and the core values of the U.S. reflect that. It's that very fact that gives us the ability to help those who have been wronged, to set right what once went wrong. Not simply because we have to, or because we should. But because we can.

People Suck

People suck royally. I came out of blogging hiatus to just say that. People suck. What? You want more? Sure. Let's do that.

Let's start with the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri. Police kill a young boy. Everyone in town gets upset and decides to protest. Which makes sense really. I mean I wanted to protest. But the protests then turned into rioting and looting. Which doesn't makes sense. Well, it does. Looters tend to want free stuff, and I mean, really, who doesn't want free stuff? I'm sure even Warren Buffet gets down on the continental breakfast sometimes. 

But now, any momentum to change the system is gone because one person wanted free stuff. Or maybe it was a group. No change was enacted. Another black youth gets gunned down in the same town. See what all that rioting did?

I know what you're thinking. It sounds like I'm saying protest is pointless. Nope. that's dumb. That's real dumb. You should protest. But rioting isn't really protest. It's pretty much just venting of anger. To say rioting is a viable means of protest is tantamount to saying that soccer games are viable political forums, and the loss of a soccer match is as moving a tragedy as the death of a young man.

What I am saying is people suck. The same people who don't change the paper on the printer at work are the same people who start rioting, with little to no knowledge about what they've joined. We all know these people. They don't care. They don't care that that they've ruined what started as a peaceful protest. They threw some stuff. They were there. They posted on the Internet about it, and they turned up. They showed the establishment. For all of two days, they were fury incarnate. But they weren't enacting change. Just proving that they and all their ilk deserve the bullets they get.

People are short-sighted, impatient, and worst of all selfish. We only want what helps us. The few times we actually do things to help other people, we do it selfishly. None of us would take a homeless person in and help him get back on his feet, but we would all give him two dollars, as "long as he doesn't use it on alcohol". What else is he going to use two dollars on? Gum? Honey buns? That two dollars isn't going to turn his life around. We give that two dollars so we can keep walking by and feel good about ourselves because we're that level of selfish and that level of pious, myself included.

One way to determine someone's mentality is to ask if they could fix one thing, what would they fix. The problem with that question is it implies no effort or giving on our parts. We can change the world. We don't need a genie or a magic lamp. We need to put our noses to the grindstone. We need to think about more than ourselves. We need to put forth an effort to think about more than our own lives and problems. But most of us don't. Know why? It's simple. It's because most of us suck.

Black People Are Cowards?

I have tried to write this in a way that made sense and was coherent and not angry but…I couldn’t. A rapper and musician from NY just called all black people cowards. Black people like my grandfather who was shot in the line of duty in the army and didn’t receive a purple heart until 1989. Black people like my uncle who went to Vietnam and fought a war that wasn’t his. Black people who live in states and cities where they are NOT the majority, and they know it. Black people who live in states like Alabama, where interracial marriage is still technically illegal, not because no one tried to change the law, but because attempts to change it are voted down. Black people who live in Mississippi, where a black man was killed simply because some white teenagers decided at a party that they should go “f*** with some niggers”. Black people who wake up every day with the weight of oppression crushing their soul. To suggest that these black people and the millions like them are cowards is a position born of arrogance and privilege.

Black people make up thirteen percent of the population in America. That numerical minority is reflected everywhere except in prison, where in 2009, Non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the prison population. Meanwhile only six are CEOS of Fortune 500 companies. Are you really so myopic to think that our problems as a race are going to be solved with a boycott? By refusing to go to work? Black Americans are not going to affect any positive changes by becoming homeless or by wasting opportunities to spread wealth and power throughout their communities because of one racist’s comments.

Racists have had positions of power for decades now, and when black people decide to take up arms and fight against the system, the racists are the ones who WIN. There can be no victory when we as a race of Americans forget that while we are black, we are also American. There can be no victory if the most responsible of our race, those who have taken advantage of the opportunities that the system has afforded them, throw those opportunities away because there are racists in the world.

The struggle that Homeboy Sandman refers to is one that neither he nor anyone of our generation truly understands. Our parents and our grandparents understand what a struggle is because they survived it. They went through a time when black people were rightfully afraid for their lives. Homeboy Sandman doesn’t understand that struggle and to be fair, neither do I. But do you know what my grandfather, my grandmother, and my parents all instilled in me at an early age, as a young black man growing up in Alabama? Survive. It’s not as glorious as getting gunned down fighting the police, nor is it as bold as quitting your job because you work for a racist. But it is the long-term plan that has ensured that Homeboy Sandman and millions like him are alive and it is the reason why we have the freedom of expression we have now.

I’m not saying to smile and dance and “yes them to death” in the words of Ralph Ellison, but I am saying to use what the system affords to point out the wrongs and oppression. If Chris Paul keeps his high profile job and uses his money to help send black children to college, or uses his celebrity to highlight the struggle of inner city black children to get comparable education to others, who is to say that he isn’t down for the “cause” or the “struggle”. To suggest that we all throw away our jobs the minute the world is revealed to be something different than what we want it to be, is myopic simply because it is planning to win only one minor battle instead of remembering the need to win the war. Survival is how we win the war. Throwing away our jobs at the first sign of racism isn’t the struggle. Remembering the need to survive, gritting our teeth, swallowing our pride and doing what it takes to win the war against racism is. Maybe that means letting the American system deal with injustices. Maybe that means suiting up and playing for an organization that is owned by a racist. Maybe that means not fighting everyone who calls you a nigger. Maybe it means instead of punching your coworker for saying something racist, you take it to HR and let the system deal with it accordingly.

Don’t throw away everything in an attempt to win a minor battle. Survival is how we win the war against racism.

Don't. Just...don't.

I never thought I'd have to write this post. Seriously. But apparently, what do I know? Okay. Soap box time.

Blacks were not better off during slavery. I repeat: Blacks were NOT better off during slavery. Let's look at what slavery was.

Slavery was the legal dehumanization of an entire race of people. It not only condoned the sale and mistreatment of an entire race, but it was LEGALLY acceptable. There was no recourse against it, and by law, Black people were considered less than human. Recently, Clive Bundy said this. Shockingly enough, there are people still trying to support this statement, or flip it or...whatever. To say black people were better off in slavery because now they are under a different system of oppression is nothing less than inflammatory rhetoric designed to garner some notoriety and press for yet another white person who has some conservative agenda. 

Conservative agenda you say? Yes, a conservative agenda of "slavery wasn't that bad". Why would anyone want to prove that slavery wasn't bad? If slavery wasn't really bad, then the effects of slavery must be not exist. Black people as a whole being unable to obtain wealth can't be blamed on the damage of building the foundation of a country for free. Which means, that all the social programs which benefit black people are completely unnecessary. Affirmative action? Nope. Not necessary. Slavery wasn't that bad. Medicare? Nope. Not necessary. Slavery wasn't that bad. Everyone started in America on equal grounds, and because of that, we don't need to try to help anyone. Bootstraps! Equality! Freedom! Of course, I'm not privy to all of the conservative master plans, but this one seems relatively viable, though significantly paranoid and overwhelmingly myopic.

White people, as a black person, I have to be honest with you. I really hate when you decide for me and my race what's best for us. Funny story, that happened a lot during slavery. But if you're the latest white person in a long line of white people to say you know what's best for black people, chances are you might actually have no problems with slavery. Hear that? That's conservatives everywhere crying foul. I know, I know, you don't want slaves, you want equality, and blah blah blah. Look let's all agree, stop using black people to make points. Slavery happened and there's nothing you can do about it.

Of course, that'll never happen because conservatives understand even if they do all this, most black people still aren't going to vote for them.

Side note: Clive Bundy is a criminal who is willfully disobeying the government, and has been for years. Why would anyone put a camera or microphone in front of him, ask him his opinion and then spread it to the masses? WHY?

So...Jeff Orr = Thug?

The news cycle is becoming ridiculous. I don't say that with some grand scepter or design to enforce change so that everyone bends to my will and does things a "better" way. Evil supervillain I'm not. But I can illustrate my point. Let's look at the story with Marcus Smart shall we?

For those of you who don't know, Marcus Smart is a 19 year old college basketball player from Ohio State, who upon entering the crowd during a recent game, shoved a fan. According to a sportscaster, Smart told his coach that the fan had called him the N word.. Understandably, the internet was set ablaze, from athletes weighing in on how the youngster should have conducted himself, to others who were arguing if you use the N word against a black man, he should be able to make you pay, no matter the context.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to save face with fans and the NCAA, Ohio State decided to suspend Marcus Smart, and issued a press release saying as much. The sleeping volcano erupted as the townspeople of the internet all begin to react to this perceived slight anew. Racism, the black people cried. Fairness, the not black people cried. As flaming conversations fell around them, mankind began to consume itself in sheer anger. And still, no one asked any questions. At least not any truly pertinent ones.

Questions like, what kind of person is Marcus Smart? What's been happening with him lately? More importantly, has Marcus Smart shown himself to be angry before? Why would he be angry enough to push a fan? One more very important question: in today's world, if a non-white fan calls a black player the N word, within earshot of others, why did no one else step forward and at the very least corroborate his story? So no one stood up and said, hey man, that's messed up. Okay, I can believe that. But no one, not even one fan heard a man call another man a slur? I know it's a loud arena, but I have a hard time believing that.

The news cycle doesn't reward asking questions, for pretty obvious reasons. If you're among the first to throw an news story/opinion out, more people will turn to you for the story, and the more people who look to you for the story, no matter how wrong it may later prove to be, the more you can be paid. That's how the news works. We all know it. The news is what it is because we made it that way. The news gives us what we want. It's our fault collectively. As I said at the outset, I'm not going to pretend that I'm above it all, that the world is full of idiots who are beneath me. I'm right in the midst of it, and I'm as guilty as anyone else.

After it was all said and done, ESPN ran a story about how the fan is saying he said "a piece of crap" or some such, and honestly, part of me wants to believe that fan. Sure he has reasons and motivation to lie, but no one heard what happened. At least no one has come forward to say they have. There were at least two people in the same area as Smart, and they haven't said if they heard anything. But again, who asked?

As far as Marcus Smart's reaction, well...one of the best things to happen to sports was the Malice in the Palace. Say what you will about Metta World Peace, but at the end of the day, he is a grown man, and he reacted like a grown man would to having a bottle thrown at him. There's a difference between sitting at home, yelling at a television and sitting in an arena yelling at a real people. Real people have feelings, and if you don't want to respect them, that's okay, just know that those real people with real feelings have real fists and might just give you a real good reason to shut up. I know, I know, the brawl in Detroit marred the image of the NBA for years after. So much so that the Pacers didn't even play in Detroit for another three years. It was a terriblly brutal example of the fact that NBA players, while they may be marketed as products, aren't products, they're people.

When I get angry at my laptop, I call it the N word. Loudly. A few times, I've smacked it around. That's because my laptop is a product, not a person. You can't treat people who play sports, professional or amateur, as if they are products. That's just the way it works. You mistreat a person, that person has a choice. There's been a lot of talk about college athletes having more to lose than fans, and frankly, I think that speaks to the sad state that college athletics is in, but fans need to have something to lose. If I told you that for fifty bucks, you can go and yell at 19 year olds all you wanted, throw things at them, and generally take all of your problems in life and yell them out with no consequences, why wouldn't you?  This is what happens in college arenas around the world. It sounds terrible. Which begs the question: why is this acceptable?

For those who say the fans are just wrapped up into the passion of the game, I say this: remember when Richard Sherman, someone who actually PLAYS in the game got passionate during an interview with Erin Andrews? What did we say about him?  He's a thug, right? Why is Richard Sherman a thug, but Texas Tech fan Jeff Orr isn't? Both are college alumni. Both care about a sports team. What's the difference between the two?

Look, at the end of the day, Marcus Smart will go on to be an NBA player, Richard Sherman still has a Superbowl ring and Jeff Orr...well, he's a white male. How many more advantages can he have?

I No Longer Respect the Grammys

It's been a while, I know. There. That's all I'll acknowledge of the hiatus that happened. Let's all just move forward yeah?

Macklemore and Ryan Lewis won a Grammy for best rap album. Wait...stop...I don't want to start like this.

The Grammy's are, in my mind at least, the last bastion of artistic credibility. I had this conversation during a round of screen golf and the general consensus is that I am a) expecting too much from the Grammy's and b) racist/homophobic. At least that's what I was told.

This threw me for a bit of a loop. As a person who is proud of my heritage (I'm black and I'm proud) I tend to forget that my overzealous defense of my particular view point can actually lead to reverse racism. Maybe I disliked the Macklemore and Ryan Lewis nomination and win because it didn't highlight what I've felt is largely the only music genre that originated with Black Americans that still largely remains ours. This is a thought that's tormented me, ever since I decided to change the name of this blog from Deep Thoughts and Other Assorted Candies to The Words of A Full Time Knee Grow. Am I so adamant in my blackness, that I forget that others have equal rights?

After some thought, I feel this is completely and utterly ridiculous. My pride in my heritage doesn't damage anyone else, just as their pride doesn't damage me. I've never begrudged anyone who felt the need to tell me about how they were from Irish heritage, and I've listened to numerous "My people were just as oppressed as your people because we were (insert nationality here) and we got called dark and were treated as less than human". While, as you can clearly tell, I maintain my normal air of cynicism, I don't disbelieve or feel as if a claim of oppression weakens what happened to my ancestors. I simply accept what I've been told, and if you feel as if your ancestors were oppressed too, then let's commiserate together. If me taking pride in my heritage and who I am bothers you, I don't feel as if that's something I did. You have the problem. You dislike my pride and as much as I hate to tell you this, you can't force me to stop feeling proud in the way that my ancestors not only struggled to gain freedom, but didn't let the oppression they were suffering completely define who they would be, nor did they let that same suffering define or shape the legacy they left to their children and their children's children.

Which brings me to the former point: I expect too much from the Grammy's as an award. I think this might be true. Ever since OK Computer, despite its not being what we'd expect from catchy mainstream alt-rock won a Grammy and was nominated for album of the year, I've had this illusion (for lack of a better word) in my mind that the Grammy's weren't about who sold the most, or who was the most popular, but about who presented the art form that most helped and moved forward his or her genre, or music in general. Oh sure, I was willing to admit there'd be a general nod to the most popular artist or the one who sold the most music by giving them a nomination, but ultimately the best artistic endeavor would win, undoubtedly.

Then Macklemore and Ryan Lewis won a Grammy. (See? Fits much more nicely here) Do I think that Macklemore and Ryan Lewis' album wasn't good? No. I found it pretty entertaining, and had it been merely nominated, I would have no complaints. But in my mind, in the world that exists in between my ears, wining Best Rap Album equates to "The album that from an artistic standpoint did the MOST for it's genre, more than any other album nominated. Here's where I feel as if this is where the contention lies. I don't feel as if it     did that. In fact, I dare say, all it did was not do what hip hop has done best ever since its inception.

Hip hop has always been an art form of defiance. From the early days of Sugarhill Gang or Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, hip hop has been a rebellious and defiant reminder that it would not conform to whatever it was you felt it should. When millions were beginning to just understand the power of the N-word (not negro, the OTHER N-word) hip hop was spitting it into the faces of the people who refused to acknowledge its existence. Hip hop culture extended from a section of the population who were expected to lay down and die: the unwashed, uneducated masses who would never contribute anything into the world, who were meant to be servants, either of food or waste disposal. An entire subsection of urban culture who were not told but shown that no one ultimately would care about them or for them. Hip hop as a growling defiant response to every politician who would ranter pander for a vote than care for the constituents that had no voice, hip hop was the voice of thousands who had no choice but to repurpose what was given them and contribute to the human experience a living culture, a constant art form that has persisted even to this day.

Hip hop doesn't know color or creed, nationality or race. It is the voice of the people. In this regard, I applaud Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. They spoke out for a largely oppressed section of people. the LGBT community, and they used hip hop to do it. Largely this is unheard of in the world of rap, the music that hip hop spawned. By and large, rap lives in a world where being gay is undesirable, and this is expressed in the largely homophobic expressions hurled at  one's enemies.

But this is not the first time that hip hop has championed the cause of an oppressed people, or even that of the LGBT community  Granted many rappers still use gay slurs as a way to denigrate their detractors (that one's aimed at you Eminem, Rap God or not.) but hip hop being used to open our eyes to the plight of the oppressed isn't new. If Macklemore and Ryan Lewis won a Grammy only for this, I suppose I could understand and even accept it. However, what has happened feels far less like a feel good story.

Macklemore beat out Kanye West's flawed album Yeezzus (yes I do mean it when I said flawed. I really enjoyed it as an album. But let's not kid ourselves MBDTF it's not.) Jay-Z's Magna Carta/Holy Grail and Kendrick Lamar's Good Kid, m.A.A.d City. Oh whatever Drake did. Yeah. That passing mention is all Drake's album deserved. I honestly feel that was the popular album mention that got nominated but should never win anything. Yeah. Sorry Drake fans.

Jay-Z not winning? Meh. I can understand that. Magna Carta was amazing, but this is a man with a Grammy, a listing on Forbes and a wife named Beyonce. Jay's won so much at life already. What else could anything or anyone actually give him? But Kendrick...oh Kendrick. Your album was amazing so much so that most of us could forgive how long it took for you to make it. More importantly, just as he did with Section 80, Kendrick didn't just give us 10 songs. He gave us an ALBUM with a tied in theme and actual artistic merit. Add to this the fact that each of the songs have boundless meaning and are artistically what hip hop should be and well...we all see where I'm going.

The only consolation I have available to me is that Kendrick will probably be rapping and creating art for many more years. Who knows, the longer that Jay-Z keeps defying the hip hop gods and producing relevant music, the longer the average career of the hip hop star will last. But to tell me that artistically, the album that helped the entire genre of hip hop more was The Heist and not good kid m.A.A.d city is just egregious. This isn't me being an unrelenting fan boy of Kendrick Lamar, which I'm sure most of you will accuse me of. This is me being a fan of hip hop, one who is both proud of what it has become and ashamed of its vices. Kendrick Lamar represents an artist, who within the confines of the genre has managed to redefine it and has done so on its own terms. Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, however politically correct their rap may have been didn't do anything to expand upon the genre. Kendrick is using the traditional tropes of hip hop, the bravado, the rebelliousness and even the complete political incorrectness it has as a genre, and turning it completlely on its ear. Years from now, Grammy awards aside, who will we remember as being more genre defining?

The Grammy's aren't concerned anymore with artistic merit, at least not in the genre of hip hop. All they care about is their image and appeasing the perceived masses. This saddens me more than I care to admit. With that in mind, where can anyone turn to for a truthful assessment of any music? They all fall to capitalism eventually.

TL;DR
The Grammy's used to care about artistic merit. Now all it cares about is popularity, sales and ingratiating itself to hipsters and liberals. (Wow...that sounds extremely Fox News)

Flying and Reading Minds

Would you rather fly or be able to read minds? This rather binary question is supposedly a guide to understanding whether you are “left brain” or “right brain”. I’ve never really understood how the answer to this question can tell anyone that, but it’s so widely accepted, it must be right. Right? I’ve always thought it was an unfair choice.

Who doesn’t want to do both? Flying would be amazing (with a windshield of course) and reading people’s minds speaks to a very human desire to understand one another. Ironically enough, we can do both of those things now, and often we don’t exercise that ability.

“Wait…did he say we can read each other’s minds?” That’s right. I did say that. And to an extent, I’m kind of right. We have to the ability to communicate with each other. Communication is more than just sharing what we mean with other people. It’s also how we find out what other people mean. The problem is many of us don’t take advantage of every avenue of communication in a few key areas.

For example: thanks to Will Smith, we’ve all heard that 60% of what you say isn’t what you say because of nonverbal communication. If we know this much, we’re off to a dynamic start. However, how many times have we seen the confusion that just misunderstanding a tone of voice can cause? Or assumed that a person who was truthful wasn’t because they wouldn’t maintain eye contact? Even something as simple as a handshake can lead to misunderstood intentions simply due to the way we shake hands. Why are there so many misunderstandings around simple things?

Simply put, it comes from our own lack of knowledge of nonverbal communication. We expect nonverbal communication to have the same formulaic laws and rules as language, which is understandable. We’re taught at a young age that language is communication. Before we learn language, we only really have a few tools to expression, namely, crying, smiling, laughing or simply remaining silent.

This isn’t a denunciation of language by any means. But it seems that we forget the most important rule of nonverbal communication once we learn verbal communication:  nonverbal communication doesn’t have a set of universal rules to govern it. I’ve always felt this was primarily due to the fact that nonverbal communication encompasses more than just intentional communication.

We rarely say or write things that we didn’t mean to write. We formulate sentences before we share them. By the time our words have entered into the common area, they’ve been especially created for the purpose of presenting a specific thought from us to others. While some people may think more about their word choice than others, it still doesn’t negate the fact that we all put some amount of thought into what we say. How we say it may be another matter altogether. But that’s not where the problems lie.

The problem lies in the fact that we know that nonverbal communication isn’t “thought out” and that in most cases it’s almost impossible to control all aspects of it. Often, we mistakenly think since people don’t actively control nonverbal communication, that it all must mean the same thing in each and every person, which unfortunately is just not true. While some things, such as pupil dilation or the electrical impulses that can be measured through the skin, are completely beyond our control, the majority of nonverbal communication has no set meaning from person to person.  We’ve all had someone ask us what “that look” meant. 

Here’s the takeaway: communication is a way to share meaning, in some cases it may be systemic, but in others it may have no rhyme or reason about it. So instead of assuming, take the time to really understand what meaning is trying to be conveyed.

Being Mediocre Is Easy. Being Great Is Not.

I’ve been here before. It all feels oddly familiar, since I have done the same thing multiple times. It’s the bane of my existence, and my greatest flaw. But where am I? I am trapped in the desire to remain mediocre.

Wait what? The desire to remain mediocre? Why would anyone want to stay mediocre? Don’t we all want to reach our potential? Of course we do. I know I personally want to be the best I can be. However, being the best I can be is, well, hard.

That’s right. It’s hard. It’s not easy. I don’t get to fall asleep at 50% and wake up at 100%. I have to work my way through each and every failure and every setback. Every painful moment of it and guess what? It’s hard. It’s very hard.

The perfect example is my own personal health. As anyone who knows me, follows me on Twitter, connected to me on Facebook or on Foursquare can tell you, I work out. My fitocracy account (Adjective_J if you’re curious) is a testament to that fact. My workouts are not light. In fact, my workouts are pretty much my own personal attempts to push myself beyond what I’m comfortable with every single time I walk into the gym. I’ve actually passed out in the gym three times. Some people would tell me that I need to be far more moderate in my workout endeavors. I would respond the same way Leonidas did in 300, with kick in the chest into a deep well as I yelled, “Madness? THIS IS MY WORKOUT!!”

Lately, though I’ve been far less Leonidas and far more Ephialtes (you know, the guy who sold the Spartans out). I’ve given in to the Persian principles of oversleeping my morning workout and eating the richest foods. Side note: Little Caesar’s five dollar large pizza is surprisingly tasty. Also, it is the devil. The result? Two weeks with moderate workouts, and a noticeable increase in a gut that was previously on the decline.

And here I am. Again. The fight is hard. The odds seem insurmountable. I know I’ll never be amazingly thin. I know that the chances of me looking like my body goal (a young Dwayne Johnson, you know before he turned into a muscle bound monstrosity with two percent body fat) are slim, in fact far slimmer than I will even hope to be. However, the odds shouldn’t matter.  All that matters is when I walk out of the gym after leaving everything I had inside, I feel good about myself. About my life. About who I am. In those moments, I’m not a man who quits. I’m not a man who gives up. I’m a man who perseveres. I’m a man who has drive, the motivation to be great.

The key, for me at least, is realizing what an easy life leads to. It leads to diabetes, being overweight, unfulfilled and most importantly, it leads to me not being able to look at myself in the mirror with pride.

The same is true of any endeavor in life. At the end of the day, you won’t be able to look yourself in the eye if you know that you took the easy way through life. Life isn’t meant to be easy. Fight for what you want. If it gets hard take pride in knowing that you are alive.

Does Time Really Equal Money?

Fun fact: the saying "time is money" is attributed to the late Benjamin Franklin, inventor, elder statesman, ambassador and the face of one hundred dollar bills in America. However, as much as Mr. Franklin (or Benji depending on what era of rap you've last heard) accomplished, I take issue with this statement. Time and money, while sharing some characteristics are most definitely not equal.

Money and time are alike in that both can be spent, either wisely or foolishly. They are both commodities that many of us would love to have more of. However, there is one major difference between time and money, a difference that really sets them both firmly in separate leagues. Money can be saved. Time, however, cannot be. As much as we like to talk about time saving devices (the internet, the cell phone, text messages, etc.) the truth of the matter is, even if we used time saving devices every day, at the end of the day, we have as much as we would have if we hadn't used any. Time has to be spent. Money however does not.

I know that this seems like I'm splitting hairs, but we have to spend our time. Most of the "time saving" techniques aren't so much saving time as freeing up what we have to spend our time doing. E-mail removes the time we would spend waiting for correspondence, as does texts, cellphones, and fax machines. Remember what research was like before the internet? I have a vague recollection of giant buildings filled with books, and a decimal system invented by some guy named Dewey that only made sense if you were named Dewey as well. (that I do remeber the .700's were the fine arts, and that's where the comic book collections could be found) Research is now as simple as typing what you want to know into Google (or some other search engine that works almost as well but not quite as well) and sifting through the top ten answers to your query.

Why are we so obsessed with time? Well, clearly it's because we have a finite supply of it. Side note: there's not a finite supply of money. Or at least I don't think there is. If you disagree, Bill Gates is actively working every day to prove you wrong. Our short supply of time ensures that what we choose to do with it reveals much about ourselves. There was a time when that type of knowledge wasn't commonplace. But now, in our era of social networking and increased personal sharing? Now we all know what we do speaks volumes about us.

Why else would there be so many people actively living lifestyles that proclaim their viewpoints? If you go to the gym at noon, you'll see the young professional, walking into the gym in wingtips or heels and a bag full of workout clothes. He or she is telling everyone that they're in control of their career, of their bodies, and of their lives. Swivel a bit to the left, and you'll see the extremely muscular young man in the cut-off T-shirt sipping water and stretching. What is his time use telling you?

How we spend our time says a lot about us. Who we spend our time with, what we spend our time doing, and ultimately, how we allot the time we've all been given. The real question then is, what does the time you spend say about you?

Why Can't I Just Be Me?

I wish I could start every blog off with a disclaimer. Something that would read along the lines of, "what do I know, I couldn't even spell negro correctly". That wish is built upon my desire to say whatever I want with no consequences. I'll even go a step further and say that I'm pretty sure everyone would love to be able to do that. For instance, Governor Mitt Romney has been plagued throughout his bid for the presidency by what he's been saying.

Of course, there are consequences for what we say, and there's not much we can do to avoid them. I personally try to pick my spots to say things, in essence concluding the less I say the less I'll ultimately be responsible for. Life has taught me that some times, in fact, most times, you should just shut up.

This often back fires on me, since the less I say, when I do say something, it carries far more weight. It's the ultimate catch-22. But every so often I see something and I just feel like I can't keep quiet. I'm sure no one will be surprised to hear that I am at such a point right now.

Last night, while killing time before falling asleep, I saw and interesting tweet on Twitter. It read: "Men. Be men. Do that and I promise I'll treat you like the KING you are." Kind of a sweet sentiment isn't it? All we as men have to do as men is be men. Yay. I should point out it was RT'd (retweeted for the non-twitter savvy) by multiple women everywhere who apparently have dealt with men not being men.

Needless to say, as a man, I have a few problems with that statement. First, isn't that a tad ambiguous? What makes a man "a man"? I can hear the backlash now as millions of women scream at me about being responsible and treating other people with respect, and being open with their emotions, and just considering the other person for a change. There's no argument against any of those things. But isn't that just being an adult? Why is it so necessary to make that being "a man"? I'm not a perfect human being, but I'd like a woman to do all of the aforementioned things in a relationship, namely because I want to date an adult and not a child, or a cleverly constructed facsimile of an adult.

In fact, I tweeted that the statement should read "Men. Be the man I want you to be. Do that and I promise I'll treat you like the KING you are." There's nothing inherently wrong with that statement either. I'm sure every man wants to be a king. I'd love to be one. I could have people beheaded any time I didn't agree with them, I could own land and people, and taxation without representation all day. That doesn't make me crazy. Even Nas had a "if I were king" platform. It was just as preposterous too. Sending all the convicts to Africa? Really Nas?

Most would like to point out that they would treat their man as a king, and therefore they would be a queen. To which I point to history, and specifically to King Henry VIII, a man who started his own church just so he could divorce his queen. My point is, don't treat anyone like a king. Respect them. Love them. Consider them. Let them be, well, them. There's no actual way to change a person, or mold them into what you want them to be. All you can do is accept them or reject them. That's it.

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with wanting a man to be a specific type of man for you. Nothing wrong with that at all. But be willing to tell men what you want in clear and certain terms. As a man, I'm proud to say that I have no clue what every single woman in the world wants from me in a committed relationship. What I do know is that I'm willing to ask, willing to listen, and if I can fit the description I will. If not, no harm no foul. I'm sure you'll find what you're looking for if it exists.

Look, there's no hard and fast rules anymore, I think we all know that. All I'm saying is instead of resorting to cliches and societal standards for what you want, actually sit down and consider what it is that you require to be happy, as well as what you offer in return. Then go out there and find someone who wants what you have and has what you want. And yes, I did just end on an O'Jay's lyric.

Be Willing To Fail

I'm always thinking. Sadly enough, it's normally about myself, my behaviors, my actions, how I look, etc. I believe the term that best describes me in the communications world is "high self-monitor". For instance, I'm still torn as to whether or not to leave my blog named "Full Time Knee Grow". I can't help but think that "knee grow" or even the properly spelled "negro" and professionalism don't go hand in hand and I have to be honest and admit that I feel a bit like a conspiracy theorist when I contemplate why I have that thought.

I also find myself wondering about how my actual abilities compare to how I perceive them. For example, when I run alone, it feels like everything is standing still and I'm a pure mecurial god floating through time and space. In my mind, I'm not just fast, I am speed itself. But then the inevitable happens. Eventually I run with someone else towards a common goal. It's usually one of us has possession of a ball of some sort and the other one of us is trying to physically oppose holder of said ball. That's when reality hits me. That's when I realize that just about everyone alive is faster than the 6'6", 290 pound guy. 

Of course, this realization doesn't mean I'm slow. Quite often, my friends will tell me that I'm actually quick (say it with me) "for a guy my size". Which is like saying that a 1998 Volkswagen Jetta is spacious for a compact. If you have to add a qualifier, it's probably closer to an insult than a compliment. But that's okay. I take it all in stride. Pun intended.

I might be wrong, but I honestly expect almost every endeavor in life to be exactly like that. In theory, it should seem as if there is no obstacle you can't overcome. I'm a planner, and in my head, my plans all lead (eventually) to some form of success. Granted, as a slightly more obsessive than normal planner, I have contingency plans for failures and backup plans but ultimately the statement still holds true: I plan for success, not for failure. 

Our plans don't always work out though, do they? Oftentimes, because of our own inabilities and imperfections, we find that our plans, though carefully laid, are dashed by time and unforeseen occurrences. What separates the successful from the unsuccessful however, isn't the quality of the plans, but it is in fact, the willingness to fail. 

You've heard it time and time again. Successful people aren't afraid to fail. I'd take that statement a step farther. Successful people are not only unafraid of failure, but they are willing to fail. You could accuse me of merely playing with semantics, and quite frankly, you'd be correct. But the rhetorical choices that we make inwardly tell us a lot about ourselves and our motivations. Think about it. When you say to yourself, "I'm not afraid to fail," what are you really saying? 

"I'm not afraid to fail," in my opinion is acknowledging that failure can happen, but that it's not necessary. In many cases, that's just not true. Think of a pharmaceutical researcher and all of the clinical trials and failures he or she must endure to find a working solution to a medicinal problem. There is a level of failure that's expected and acceptable in many cases. In fact, sometimes, we have to be willing to go and fail so that we can be successful later.

That first marketing plan may have taken you forever to conceive and put together, but it could possibly fail in three seconds. The very first business you start, the one you put your heart and soul into could tank horribly, despite how much affection and care you pour into it. 

The point being made is that you have to be willing to take that failure, learn from it, and then get back out there willingly and stare that failure in between the eyes as you try again. The old adage, "if at first you don't succeed, try try try again" applies to everything in life you want to experience success in. In some cases, that phrase might better be, "if you never succeed, try try again." I say in some cases, because there are instances where that motto will get you a restraining order and quite possibly some jail time. 

If you really feel as if you need to be motivated more, here ya go:

Go out there and fail.

Blessings Don't Come With Disguises

Being a minority in America isn't easy. There's a fine line to be walked. On one hand, it's easy to point fingers and bandy blame about while not taking any responsibility for various self-inflicted ills. On the other hand, there's statements like the ones made by John Hubbard recently in his self-published book, which read, in part, "the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise".

First, let me say that before I even begin to refute this statement, I'd like to point out an interesting rhetorical choice made by Mr. Hubbard (who coincidentally is running for a public office in Arkansas).  In the statement, "the black race has long believed" Mr. Hubbard does two interesting things rhetorically. He lumps all of the black race into one entity and then proceeds to take a superior stance in knowing more about the plight of that one said monolith. This leaves me, as a black man in a weird place. Let me elaborate.

I honestly believe that each person has a unique standpoint or view of the world. That unique viewpoint may have some similarities to others who have the same similarities, but ultimately, since we're all unique, each of our viewpoints are unique. As such, there's no real way to truly completely understand someone else's plight (Standpoint Theory) So while I don't really completely understand someone else's plight, such as what it's like to be a frustrated white American male, I refuse to believe that someone who has so little in common with me can understand anything that me or my race have ever gone through. 

Secondly, Mr. Hubbard implies that black Americans are better off than they would have been had they not been taken forcefully from Africa. On what is he basing this assumption? Who knows what might have happened if slavery had been seen as unethical and contemptuous? What if instead of treating blacks as property to be used and disposed of, black immigrants had been embraced as coworkers and cofounders of this country? What if, instead of providing hundreds of years of free labor, black Americans were paid honest wages for their work and had the same opportunities as their European counterparts?

What did slaves really gain with their hard work? Many of them struggled to survive in a country that for decades refused to offer them the same brand of justice that their counterparts enjoyed.  In fact, over 3500 black Americans were lynched between 1882 and 1968, and that number is likely much higher, since for many archivists of that time period, the loss of a black life didn't even merit the use of paper and ink. 

But life got better after 1968, correct? Black people are 13% of the American population, yet somehow they make up 33% of the prison population.  Fifty-five percent of black Americans go to college, but of that percentage only 42% actually graduate. While the standard of living may be higher here than in some parts of Africa, it's abundantly clear that if this is what black slaves gave their freedom for, they severely overpaid.

What really bothers me the most about this statement is that it's allowed to be made with no real repercussions. Clearly, this statement was made with the intention of being divisive, inflammatory and offensive. I'm not disparaging the idea of freedom of speech or of the press, but the lack of outrage concerns me. Many people probably just wrote this off as merely just being another ploy to gain notoriety. This type of language isn't okay, and I personally think that the only thing that would make this write is to remove the speech from the public eye (i.e. edit the book to be politically correct) and a public apology.

Finally, I would like to say to Mr. Hubbard, that in the future, when thinking about speaking about the plight of black people and how it makes him feel, please, stop and THINK next time. 

New Adventures Are Fun...Right?

One of the most cliched, overly done scenes in every Western is the end, let's-ride-into-the-sunset-towards-unknown-and-undocumented-adventures. It's really an amazing transition, which probably why it's used so much.

The real question is how does the person riding into the sunset feel? The sunset represents so many unknowns, and the cowboy, like any truly masculine character rides right into it, unflinchingly. It'a obviously a powerful metaphor for boldly facing the future, despite how unknown it may be, simply because it's bright. I say all of the above simply to say that I am scared. It's not the first time, though it is the first time that I've actually admitted to it. I'm riding into a sunset and though it looks pretty cool, I'm actually pretty terrified.

 My "sunset" is a future move to South Korea. I'm currently in the process of securing a job. I should be moving in November. New surroundings. New job. New people. New everything. I've never moved more than 20 miles away from my original home. There's a good chance everything will work out and I'll have the experience of a lifetime. But that bit of positive thinking doesn't make me feel too much better. Either way, I'm going. I'll be riding into the sunset. Hopefully I won't end up like young Will Hawkins.

This Is Me

This is me, in a nutshell. "Help, I'm trapped inside a giant nutshell! How did this happen?"

---

INTP - "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population.

Take Free Jung Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

Main type	Variant

Take Free Enneagram Personality Test
Personality Test by SimilarMinds.com

Enneagram Test Results Type 1 Perfectionism |||||||||||||||||| 73% Type 2 Helpfulness |||||||||||||||||| 73% Type 3 Image Awareness |||||||||||| 43% Type 4 Individuality |||||||||||||| 56% Type 5 Rationality |||||||||||||||| 66% Type 6 Anxiety |||||| 23% Type 7 Adventurousness |||||||||||||||| 70% Type 8 Aggressiveness |||||||||||||| 60% Type 9 Calmness |||||||||||||||||| 73% Your main type is 1 Your variant is self pres

Take Free Enneagram Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

The Necessity of the Dream

I don't think I've ever truly appreciated one of my best friends. I like to pretend that it's not really possible to appreciate a good friend, as if all humanity shared my one flaw, but the truth of the matter is, quite simply, I don't really appreciate the good things and people that I have in my life. It's hard sometimes for me to face that reality. That underneath all of my conscious desires to be a "good" person, there lurks a subconscious that is geared towards the basest of my needs. I don't view relationships as necessary on a subconscious level, and it manifests itself in my thoughts.

A funny thing happens though, in between my thoughts and my actions, my attitudes and the behavior that results. Somewhere in between, I catch myself thinking and trying to be a better person, trying so desperately  to be more than just what my lesser, baser instincts drive me to be. Ultimately, I think being able to distinguish between the drive to survive and the desire to become something more, to better oneself, or one's position, or lot in life, is what makes us successful in our endeavors.

I don't think I'm misspeaking when I say that the majority of us are geared only towards survival. In fact, from the moment we're born, we cry, not because we're struggling with some deep philosophical quandary, but because we're hungry, or we're uncomfortable. As children, we are geared to survive. In a perfect utopian world, we would shed that tendency and grow into well-balanced adults, each bright eyed and seeking the betterment of him or herself and his or her fellow man/woman.

But we don't live in a perfect utopia do we? All of us are affected in some way or another by our own inherited problems, or some fresh batch of issues thrust upon us by experimental parenting, or just plain old circumstance. Therefore, we don't all "grow up" completely. In some key areas, we are very immature, and it may take years for us to grow to a complete level of maturity in every aspect and facet of our adult minds.

This isn't a knock on anyone, per se, and it should be duly noted that I didn't arrive at this conclusion via research, or even by delving into statistics. I would label it "qualitative analysis" if it didn't feel as if I were spitting in the face of every researcher who ever did qualitative analyses by calling it that. No, this is just my grandiose opinion, and the Internet acting as a magnifying glass. There's a solid chance that none of this applies to you or to anyone you know, but indulge me for a second.

I honesty believe that each of us is childish in certain areas. For instance, I'm childish in my consideration of others. I realize that, and I'm working to be more considerate, to be a better friend. I think each of us are immature, or childish on different levels.

But what does this have to do with success? Recognizing that there is a deficiency in part of you, realizing that you aren't perfect is part of that desire to better yourself. Whatever way you choose to improve upon yourself is very much up to you, but knowing really is half the battle.  Once you know, you have the opportunity to spark the desire to better yourself. People who have that desire to improve upon themselves and their lot in life, these are the ones who are successful. Instead of merely squirrelling away nuts to avoid starving the winter, these are the ones who are out chasing their dreams, because for them, survival isn't enough. They're not satisfied to merely eke out a small existence.

They want more, and they're not afraid to do whatever it takes to get more. They'll reach for the stars with no fear of what might happen if they fail, or even what might happen if they manage to catch a star. They are driven to reach. We admire these people, as well we should. They are the dreamers. They are the wishers. They are our inspirations, and they carry with them our dreams.

Don't you want to be one of them? You can. You just have to begin by realizing what's wrong with you. It's that easy.

Thank you for your indulgence.

I Miss English...

I just finished reading someone else's blog belittling writers who "post when they want to" and felt slightly ashamed. Side note: if you're sick of know-it-alls who don't know anything, but are a know-it-all in a world of infinite knowledge, how do you stand yourself? But I digress. I'm very much that type of writer. I fancy myself a bit of an artist, but the real word sounds much closer to lazy. There was also some mention about long rambling posts with no real sections of scannable material and what not. To that I say poppycock.

 Poppycock I say, and I add, rubbish! I'm from a different school of writing, and from a different school of reading. I'm not saying I don't believe in paragraphs, and coherent formation of ideas, or organization, I'm saying that lately, the trend towards making language easier is a bit disturbing to me. Wait, let me back track and catch you up. Google Play Books has become one of my favorite apps on my Samsung Galaxy SII. (Yes I just name dropped my phone) One reason I've grown to love it is the public domain laws. After a copyright runs out, (yes they do that) and the author is no longer alive to care, nor has descendants who care, their works become free for all. This results in many old works being available free of charge to some publisher. Google, in its infinite giving stuff away for free knowledge, has made many of these public domain works available electronically. FOR FREE. I've been delving into many old texts and it has been a veritable delight. It has also resulted in two things.

 First, I say things now like veritable delight. I've rediscovered English words that are slowly but surely going the way of dinosaur. Such as truculent. But the second thing that I've realized is that I've had it with modern books. At least, most of the one's I've read recently. Why? Today's literature feels that scandalous or salacious content is enough to make a piece of literature art. I wholeheartedly disagree. One of my favorite books is Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. It's not without it's scandalous content (there's a vivid account of accident incest) but it doesn't rely on content alone. What pushes Ellison's book into the realm of literary art is the prose contained within his book. It's rich with symbolism, with cleverly chosen words, with vivid descriptions, in short, his book IS art.

 That dedication to writing in it's higher form seems to be lost on many popular books today, at least in my eyes. But what do I know? I'm just a guy who doesn't update his blog regularly.

REALLY?

Really?

I frequent several different blogs and read a lot of different articles. As a writer, that's how I "stay sharp" and keep abreast of the topics fresh on people's minds. One that I read recently didn't sit well with me. Now, I don't give press to other people's blogs, so I won't link the blog here, but the phrase that concerned me had to do with the "Twitter beatdown". For those who don't know, the Twitter beatdown occurred when one young woman, angry about what was said to her online, decided to go to the location of the young woman who said it and proceeded to assault her. We know that this happened, because it was taped and them disseminated to the masses via that bastion of humanity called World Star Hip-Hop. Side note: how are THE most ratchet (unflattering, in poor taste) of videos of primarily black people doing violent and foolish things linked to the culture of hip-hop? I will call out World Star Hip-Hop because of that social connection. Every time someone looks at me and stereotypes me as a black man, I can personally thank World Star Hip-Hop for continuing to perpetuate the most harmful of stereotypes. I bet if you checked George Zimmerman's browser history, you'd find World Star Hip-Hop. But I digress. The blog in question implied that in the world we live in, a world of "social media", we can't "help but to see" things that should make us cringe and flinch. Here is where my problems with this statement begin. First, this implies that because we live in an information age, we no longer can control what we see? Is that so? I contend that it is NOT so. There are people who are as active in social media as anyone, if not more so active than the average, who didn't watch that video. You know why? Because we recognized the contents as being reprehensible. I didn't watch that video. And I refuse to watch it. Why would I willingly take part in this woman's crime? What type of voyeuristic thrill comes from watching a human being demolish another one? The spectacle of it all reminds of the Roman Colosseum where the masses gathered to watch criminals be torn limb from limb by wild beasts. This was at the height of the Roman empire, and some scholars believe it was this turn to the perverse, this ever growing lust for the spectacle of depravity that led to the eventual downfall of the Western Roman empire. Of course, that wasn't the only contributing factor, as I'm sure the ongoing assaults from the multiple Germanic tribes that later went on to form the countries of Europe as we know them today probably were a much larger consideration, but the idea here is that a society, at its apex, being drawn to the most violent of entertainments should cause us all to pause and reflect. More importantly, the notion that we are beyond control because of being "plugged in" to social media reflects an ever growing trend to take our guilt and blame it on every external factor we can, as opposed to meeting it squarely on the grounds upon which it spawned, namely within ourselves. Whenever we watch videos of violence and share them with others, WE are enabling the future violent attackers. Whenever we laugh and point and most importantly, hand our attention over to those who seek it, WE are giving them the power that they so keenly crave. WE are responsible for the attention that WE give to others. No one else is. If someone sends me an email or a link and tells me to watch it, I, and I alone, am responsible for the decision I make to watch it. I can't shift the guilt or burden of my decisions onto someone else. It's my responsibility. When are we going to start taking that responsibility seriously? Maybe never. But I can't speak for everyone else. All I can do is recognize my responsibility and face it as a responsible adult human being should. I hope we all can do the same.

Music has long dealt with complex issues. The first songs were Gregorian chants, which were written to praise God and his benevolence or righteous vengeance against mankind. The oldest hymn, or chant stems back to 609 A.D. and deals with themes such as death, life, redemption, and grace. Music has been used by man to help establish systems of control, to persuade, and to help enforce or to tear down said established systems of control.

In the twentieth century, however, artists have often used music to fly into the face of tradition, and to raise questions in the minds of their listeners. They’ve often posed philosophical questions, or even questioned the established traditional system. One such song is No Church in the Wild, which is from the album, Watch The Throne. The rhetors involved are Jay-Z (Shawn Carter), Kanye West, The-Dream (Terius Nash) and Frank Ocean (Christopher Francis Ocean). Each of the rhetors contributed collaboratively to the song, and its content, which includes the themes discussed within it. Critics of the song have praised it’s complexity, for it tackles themes of existentialism, religious doctrine, and even existentialism. I feel that a full rhetorical criticism in the form of a close text analysis will reveal more than just passing mentions of these themes, but a deeper underlying theme that runs throughout the entire song. I also feel the best way to identify these themes is through a thorough textual analysis to identify first, what this underlying theme is, and secondly how it’s constructed and supported within the choices made by each of the rhetor’s involved in this particular rhetorical act.

A close text analysis is designed to look at each individual rhetorical choice made within a rhetorical act or artifact. The technique was pioneered and developed by Herman Stelzner. The goal of a close text analysis is empirical in nature, focusing on word choices, rhythms, syllables, arguments, metaphors, language, and even the amount of pauses taken, as well as where each of these pauses exist.

The chorus, sung and supposedly penned in part by Frank Ocean, opens No Church in the Wild with the words, “Human beings in a mob. What’s a mob to a king? What’s a king to a god? What’s a god to a non-believer, who don’t believe in anything?” The first thing that stands out in this particular grouping is the number of syllables used in the first two of the questioning phrases. They are each exactly six syllables, and what’s more, each of the first four groupings are separated by pauses. The pauses may be for effect, as if to add more weight to each question, or it may be strictly for rhythmic purposes, but in either case, each of these questioning phrases help establish the theme of the entire song, which is that of a subverting the traditional norms of society. In this case, the tradition that is being questioned is what’s known as the “Great Chain of Being” in which every supposed being in theology is ranked into a hierarchy. The hierarchy outlined here by No Church in the Wild challenges that very hierarchy by suggesting that a god means as much as a man does in the eyes of a non-believer. Note here that instead of the word “atheist”, the word non-believer is chosen instead. This word usage might suggest that the non-believer isn’t simply someone who questions the existence of a god in the monotheistic Christian theology, but someone who doesn’t buy into any of the traditions or trappings of society. This is reinforced by the next line, “Will he make it out alive? Alright alright, no church in the wild”. The “he” in this line may refer to the central man in Frank Ocean’s cyclical, subversive take on the Great Chain of Being. This subversion of traditional Western theology is a theme continued throughout this particular rhetorical discourse. Also of note is the statement, “no church in the wild”. The wild here may be a contrast between the ordered and structured traditional lifestyle that is traditionally advocated by religious traditions and the actual life that many actually live or practice. This, coupled with the idea that there is “no church in the wild” may refer to the life that is outside of the traditionally accepted one.

Also of interest is the music behind the opening hook, or chorus. It maintains the standard rhythmic drum section, until the line “what’s a god to a non-believer who don’t believe in anything?” At this line, suddenly an overlay of strings comes in, which may have been added to give the listener a feeling of sudden discovery, or of a revelatory truth suddenly coming to light. This makes what ‘s being said seem more like “truth” than the tradition it’s questioning, though in reality, this brand of logic would suggest that there really is no truth beyond one man.

At this point, the next rhetor, Jay-Z begins to speak. He starts off with a series of very visual phrases, “Tears on the mausoleum floor, blood stains the Colosseum doors, lies on the lips of the priest, thanksgiving disguised as a feast.” The interesting thing about each of these phrases is that they are each separated by a brief pause. This pause, just as it did with the hook, adds a certain amount of weight to each phrase. Another thing worth noting is the grouping of the four phrases into two thoughts by means of syllables. The first two phrases both share the commonality of being eight syllables apiece. The following two phrases, “lies on the lips of a priest”, and “Thanksgiving disguised as a feast” are separated by one syllable, but are still very much similar in their delivery. And the end of each of these phrases, the hissing sound of the “s” is elongated, clarifying the grouping of these two phrases together. What exactly though is Jay-Z referring to? A mausoleum is the tomb of a king, a testament to his legacy. The Colosseum, or the Flavian Amphitheatre still stands as a testament to the greatness of the Roman empire. In both cases, they are marred by the truth, in the case of a the mausoleum, the tears of the subjects, not in grieving their king, but the pain of having to supply the funding for this last great monument in his honor. The Colosseum, as a legacy is a constant reminder of the bloody past of Rome, in which the doors were “stained by blood” so to speak. This symbolism may attest to the idea that all who were entered those doors shared in the bloodshed that was contained within.

The final two phrases are equally visual in content. Again, Jay-Z is questioning established legacies. Here with these second two phrases, though, these are legacies centric to the United States of America, and its specific ideology. The first is clearly aimed at the tradition of Catholicism, otherwise, the use of the word “priest” would be completely unnecessary. This clear targeting of Catholicism may be, in part, symbolic of the entire institution of perceived Christianity. The use of Catholicism as a symbol of a Christianity in a country that was founded on Protestant beliefs, may be attributed to the sheer age of the traditions of the Catholic church. When it comes to human institutions, there are few, if any, older or more influential than that of Catholicism. In using Catholicism to portray Christianity, the rhetor may be actually attempting to the second tradition being attacked is that of American values such as freedom, and equality. Here, the reference to thanksgiving being “disguised as feast”, questions something that is viewed as pure and incorruptible by many Americans by recalling the history behind the attitude and belief system of the first Americans who established the tradition of Thanksgiving. The first feast was to express gratitude to the Native Americans who helped the first immigrants survive in their “New World”. But as history has told us, there really wasn’t really a sense gratefulness, since the same immigrants that relied on the Native American’s to survive felt that they were “superior” to them, as well as if God had preordained the land that belonged to the Native American’s to be theirs (manifest destiny).

As the rhetor continues, he mentions yet another established tradition when he says “rolling in the Rolls Royce Corniche, only the doctors got this, I’m hiding from police”. This is again establishing a tradition which juxtaposes himself with a medical doctor. As a man with no real formal college education, Jay-Z isn’t supposed to even know what a Roll Royce Corniche is. In fact, as a black man with only a high school education, if he is seen driving that car, he is a target for harassment from the police, which is why he’s “hiding from the police.” Interestingly enough, he takes the first of two pauses here, one of which is a full measure in length, or two upbeats and two downbeats in length or the second which is only three-quarters of a measure in length. These pauses serve to both separate and connect the two phrases they sandwich. It separates the ideas within each phrase, but it clearly delineates each as specific thought. The first thought questioned is the tradition of wealth, or more specifically, the path one should take to achieve wealth. Traditionally, a successful medical doctor is seen as a person deserving of wealth, and the contrast between the rhetor and such a person encourages the listener to question the tradition, since the rhetor has things that only a doctor should. The long, full measure pause helps to punctuate this idea, and separate it from the next statement.
The next phrase, “cocaine seats, all white like I got the whole thing bleached” ties into the idea of why the rhetor is hiding from the police. The imagery chosen to describe the whiteness of the seats, specifically the word cocaine, denotes an element of crime, or something illegal. This thought ties in well with the second part of the this particular phrase, “all white like I got the whole thing bleached” which gives the connotation that there was something TO be bleached. In other words, it denotes that something had to be removed, something dark or at the very least not as pure as white. The pause at the end of this piece of rhetoric helps to emphasize it, so that the impact of it lingers a bit as the rhetor then compares his lifestyle to “drug dealer chic”. This is a play on the ideal of “chic”, which is synonymous with being “stylish” or “smart” as a function or element of fashion. Whether or not the rhetor is referring to himself and his past as a drug dealer who is now fashionable or popular, or a reference to the previously aforementioned “cocaine seats” in his Rolls Royce Corniche. The next line suggests the former more than the latter.

The rhetor then asks the question, “I’m wondering if a thug’s prayers reach.” This ties into the overarching themes of whether or not God exists, but also it’s an interesting question for those who placed the label of “thug” upon others. If a thug is still capable of praying to God and being heard, then this label “thug”, which is intended to denigrate those it’s placed upon as being inferior, is rendered moot. Again this is yet another instance where what is considered traditional is questioned, though in this case, that which is considered traditional is questioned within the realms an ideology of the accepted tradition.

The next line is a direct reference to the teachings of Socrates as outlined by Plato in Euthyphro. “Is pious pious cause God loves pious?” This idea may stem back to the idea that those who would levy the judgment of “thug” against others are traditionally pious, but as postulated by Socrates in Euthyphro, many of those who feel that they are righteous or “pious” could not even define the concept themselves. Again the theme of questioning tradition surfaces, and this theme is continued in the next line, “Socrates asked whose bias do y’all seek?” The use of the word “bias” suggests the same dilemma faced by Socrates and Euthyphro in defining piety, since the belief that piety was anything that was loved by the gods, meant piety or goodness was subject to the whim of the gods, and the Greek gods were notoriously fickle. However if the gods loved pious because it was pious denotes that pious is an absolute, and isn’t subject to change. To determine which is true, Socrates essentially said it depended on whether you felt piety was absolute or relative, or the “bias” that you sought. In fact, Socrates himself was a philosopher known for his questioning of the normative traditions of his society, so much so that he was often referred to as “a gadfly”.

Also of note is the sudden speed used to deliver the line “Is Pious pious cause God loves pious?” This line may have been delivered speedily to emphasize the rhythmic nature of the sentence itself. Other purposes are possible though not readily evident.

The rhetor continues with the line “All for Plato, screech. I’m out here balling, I know y’all hear my sneaks.” This is a metaphor that uses onomatopoeia as a clever means of word play. Here the sound “screech” echoes the sentiment of basketball players, who in the sudden stops and turns while playing basketball produce a screeching sound from their rubber-soled athletic shoes. The metaphor is in the double entendre in play, for balling can also be a slang term for someone who is doing well financially.

The verse ends with an interesting comparison, when the rhetor says “Jesus was a carpenter, Yeezy he laid beats, Hova flow the Holy Ghost, get the hell up out your seats, preach”. This line hearkens back to the chorus, in which a god was not greater or lesser than one man. Jesus, in Western Christian theology, is viewed as either God’s Son, or God within the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus, in the gospel account of his life, was a carpenter. Here Jay-Z draws a direct correlation to his collaborating partner, Kanye West, by saying that he “laid beats”. Here beats are metaphorically being compared to bricks, which is more of a comparison than a contrast. Both a carpenter and a brick layer are responsible for creating the frame of a house or structure. In this comparison, Kanye, who is a producer, creates the framework for Jay-Z, who in this metaphor is “Hova”, which is a clear reference to the anglicized form of God’s name. This in conjunction with the idea of the words leaving Jay-Z’s mouth being personified in the form of the Holy Ghost, completes Jay-Z’s version of the Trinity. This is yet another example of a metaphor that questions the traditional Christian theology along the same framework established by the opening chorus which used cyclical logic to and rhetorical syllogisms to equate a man to a god. The theme of questioning tradition is again continued here, since what is being spoken here would be considered blasphemy within an established system of theology. The theme of theology and church is continued by the next line, “Get the hell up out your seats, PREACH!” This calls to mind imagery of “testifying” which is common in many different denominations of Christianity. The choice to use the word “hell” within the phrase “get up out your seats” is interesting in its brazenness, since the hell is clearly a theological term, but in the rhetor’s use here, it is counter to the theologically prescribed use. Also to be noted here is the pause that the rhetor places between the last sentence and the word “Preach!” which is immediately followed by the repeating of the chorus, which leads one to believe that the chorus itself is a sermon of sorts, which is a juxtaposition in and of itself with the belief that there is “no church in the wild”.

The hook happens again, and as before, once the rhetor reaches the “revelatory ideology” of a man being equal to a god, the drums become quiet or stop and a string/woodwind selection reinforces the nature of this sentence.
The next rhetor has a short piece which forms the bridge. Again the theme of religion and questioning it’s established traditions surfaces, this time by means of comparison and metaphor. The rhetor starts off, “I live by you, desire. I stand by you, walk through the fire.” Here the thought may be that the rhetor lives by desire, essentially doing what he wants as opposed to what societal standards or even religion may dictate to him. Note that the rhetor claims he stands by desire, even if it means he has to “walk through the fire”. Perhaps the rhetor feels his stance of doing what he wants despite of how society or tradition views it causes criticism or fiery opposition, or maybe this shows the extent to which the rhetor will go to get that which he desires. The latter statement seems to be supported by the line “I live by you, desire” and the following line, “your love is my scripture”, which maybe a comparison between this particular ideology and the more “traditional” ideology of Western religion. Another interesting choice by the rhetors is the same inclusion of the string/woodwind compliment which emphasizes this one particular line in the same vein as the line “what’s a god to an non-believer who don’t believe in anything?” Again this emphasis may well be an attempt by the rhetors to make this appear to be “revelatory” in nature, or an example of enlightenment.

The next line is “Let me into your encryption”. An encryption is a system designed to encode a message of some sort. This encoding then only allows those who understand it to comprehend the message. Perhaps the rhetor is asking to be allowed into the personified desire’s system of encoding, or is suggesting that in desire the system of standards is built by those who are in it, and thereby not comprehended by those on the outside of it. This supports the idea of “walking through the fire” of the criticism of those outside of the system or “encryption”.

The next line is spoken by the rhetor Kanye West, “coke on her black skin, made a stripe like a zebra, I call that jungle fever.” This is an interesting start to a verse which questions traditional norms since the established norm of what is termed “jungle fever” is traditionally a romantic relationship between a black person and white person, yet this is clearly involves a black woman and the rhetor, who is a black man. The invocation of a “jungle” and a “zebra” continues the theme of the wild, in essences recalling it to the mind of the listener. The rhetor continues with the line “you will not control the threesome, just roll the weed up until I get me some”. The theme of drugs and sex continue here, which sets up the next line of “We formed a new religion, no sins as long as there’s permission.” This statement within the context of the previously mentioned relationship of cocaine and black skin, as well as the mention of a threesome is clearly against the traditional aspects of a Western religion and theology. Therefore, as mentioned, this new religion is formed, win which the only sin is not seeking permission. The rhetor continues this thought in the next line, “and deception is the only felony, so never fuck nobody without telling me”. This is a continuation of the theme of a new religion of polyamoury, or the practice of “ethical non-monogamy”, which is also against the doctrine of Western religion. Also of note is the fact that the seriousness of deception is reinforced by the sudden stop of the music behind the rhetor as he left to speak this “truth” acapella.

The next line, “Sunglasses and Advil, last night was mad real. Sun coming up at 5 a.m., I wonder if they got cabs still?” continues the narrative started in this verse. Kanye in this narrative, is taking what is traditionally called the “walk of shame”, or the walk home the morning after a one night stand. Intriguingly enough, the rhetor claims the night was “mad real”, perhaps calling the traditional ideology of Western religion and theology that he’s comparing it to as not feeling “real”, or as if it isn’t as fulfilling as his polyamourous lifestyle. The rhetor continues with his narrative of the night before, “Thinking of the girl dressed in all leopard, who was rubbing the wood like Kiki Shepherd.” This is a direct reference to Kiki Shepherd, long time co-host of Showtime at the Apollo, a popular television show centered around the same event that took place at the Apollo theatre. The reference to “rubbing on the wood” is a double entendre, playing on the slang term of wood.
The next line sums up all of the rhetor’s arguments so far, “two tattoos one read ‘No Apologies’, the other said ‘Love Is Cursed by Monogamy’”. Here we see themes of non-monogamous love, or even desire, being unapologetically revered in a religious fashion, which run contrary to the established system of norms already established by Western theology.

The final lines of the song before the repeat of the hook are: “That’s something that the pastor don’t preach. That’s something that a teacher can’t teach. When we die the money we can’t keep. But we probably spend it all because the pain ain’t cheap…preach!” Here we see the same repetition that occurred at the outset of the song, where syllables and pauses are used to demarcate important phrases. Here in concluding his verse, the rhetor sums up the entire song with the idea that finding “truth” or “enlightenment” can’t be taught by those who we traditionally look to for answers. The rhetor may also be suggesting that the traditional methods shouldn’t be trusted, but as he has formed his own religion each person should do the same.
Finally, Kanye West makes the same statement of “Preach!” that Jay-Z had before the final repetition of the chorus, reinforcing the concept of the chorus being like a “sermon”, which ties in with the theme of “forming one’s own religion” even more strongly.

No Church in the Wild covers many complex themes, but as a close text analysis shows, two underlying themes run throughout the song. The first is the theme of questioning traditions, particularly those of Western theology and societal standards. This theme is coupled with the ideology of creating one’s own standards of living. The second theme is existential in nature, and is carried throughout the entire song by the chorus’s cyclical logic. These two themes, while supplemented by others throughout the song, are the most dominant that are developed within the song.