I present to you my “Damn, you used to be my shit and now I can’t fucks with you” list. This list is composed of some things I have GENUINELY valued and have since been forced to eliminate from my life due to actions or positions that I find JEM-like (yes, truly truly truly outrageous). In order of when they were purged from my life:

#1 R. Kelly- 2002

This is the man responsible for the “Bump & Grind Remix.” You know the song where, for shits and giggles, he threw in “show me some ID before I get real deep in.” We loved him for every line in that cut. And as any card-carrying member of “90s R&B Lovers” will tell you, R-ah could do no wrong for almost two solid decades. Folks let the fact that he married Aaliyah when she was about 15 years old totally slide (really gross to hear him say that “even little cute Aaliyah” (who was about 13 at the time) had that “vibe” on his first hit). I’m giving myself a pass on the oversight as I was but 14 at the time.

But I was 22 and madly in love with TP-2 when the videos of R. Kelly urinating on teenage girls surfaced and it became clear that he wanted to see IDs to confirm that his ladies were in fact underaged, not some kooky 20 year olds tryna pass for 14. I lived in Philadelphia at the time and remember being disgusted by comments on morning radio. Somehow because we all used to jam to “It Seems Like You’re Ready” (another one that seems disgusting in retrospect) he was absolved of blatantly preying on impressionable, vulnerable, still-developing-brained, young girls. At the time I would ask “if you found out that Ray Charles had been smashing your underaged mother in her youth would you still be the first one to cop his new album?” Of course not, because you care about your mother. If it were your sister you’d be ready to set it off like Latifah. But folks saw these young women as accessible fair game, some even ridiculously arguing that the sexual skills that they believe they witnessed in the videos meant they were experienced enough to be with a 35 year old man. Friends from Chicago told me that seeing him at the Rock & Roll McDonalds cruising for teens while they were in high school was a legit regular occurrence. But the VIBE magazine article really put the nail in the coffin for me. I’m convinced. I’m still not even sure how he managed to get away with reduced charges and acquittals. All I do know is that I can’t fucks with him and it hurts cuz I used to love H.I.M.

# 2 NIKE (2010)

This would have been #1 on the list had I not taken so long to break up with NIKE. I found out how NIKE got down back in 1999 when I was interning at Manna Community Development Corp. in DC. A colleague placed this nifty little button on my laces.

And then he ran down its well-documented history of sweatshops and child slave labor. Oh the horror. Turns out NIKE has now been synonymous with exploitation since the early 90s: child labor violations out the wazoo, worker abuse, slave wages, the works. And while I reduced the frequency with which I made purchases, I just didn’t know how to quit him. But at some point you can’t help but confront the fact that you being a slave to fashion is endorsing others being literal slaves of fashion. And for goodness sakes, kicks just aren’t worth it.

#3 Mel Gibson (2010)

Who couldn’t love Mel Gibson, the hunky partner of our beloved Danny Glover in all the Lethal Weapons? And then to beef up the love he goes and makes Braveheart??? Literally, probably my #2 favorite movie of all time (yes, Berry Gordy’s Last Dragon will always be #1). But then William Wallace went bananas. And suddenly this dude…

became this dude...

Okay, maybe it was always there and we chose not to see it.

The abuse of his girlfriend, crazy rants ending up regularly in the news. And as appears to be the norm when white men go off on such batty rants, racial epithets are to follow. "You look like a f*king pig in heat and if you get raped by a pack of ni**ers it will be your fault." Oh Mel, I’m gonna need you to ask yourself WWWWD?

#4 And coming to the stage the latest addition to the list, CHICK-FIL-A (2012)

You had me at waffle fries Chicky. I hadn’t been able to indulge very often because of their locations, but that only made eating a Chick-Fil-A chicken sandwich all the more like Christmas. But oh noooo, here you go Dan Cathy opening your yap with a hard-core denunciation of gay marriage.

I understand corporate advocacy. It’s your company. Trust that if I had a business I would be using it to push all that I believe in. And I’d accept that I would lose money from the Tea Party crew, bigots and Black Eyed Peas lovers everywhere. And as much as we would like to use government power to obstruct the businesses of douchebags because they say something we vehemently disapprove of, we can’t. That’s where the First Amendment advocates have to chime in because it’s a slippery slope. But I’m an individual, not the government. So I have the right to criticize the hell out of a company and deprive myself of the golden chicken goodness, to make sure Dan Cathy & Co. won't get any of the money in my chicken account (You don't think I really have one do you?? Racist. Smh).

There are plenty of other things that I’m certain should be on this list. I’m not saying I am the prime contender in the running for Ms. Sacrifice, but every day we make decisions that speak to what we believe in, who we are. And these decisions can have tremendous effects that reverberate beyond our immediate space. Consider where South Africa would be right now without divestment. Where you choose to put your dollars matters. Whom you choose to back counts. When the R. Kelly scandal broke I remember wishing it had been Ja-Rule because I welcomed the end of his career (the Universe was listening and gave me 50). Not supporting Ja would’ve been so much easier. But it seems as if life is often about the decisions that don’t come easily. Some things are not so egregious as to warrant complete denunciation. Others just are. And even when we don’t want to admit it, we always know where that line is and who or what should be added to the list.

I was in the check-out line of a Target-equivalent last year in Bogotá, Colombia when I came across this candy. I couldn’t help but to start looking around like “No one else thinks this is nuts!? Am I taking crazy pills??” Blank stares as far as the eye could see. These kinds of things still leave me nonplussed even though at this point I should’ve grown somewhat accustomed to the many overt displays of racism that people seem to find acceptable throughout Latin America. This little delight is produced by Nestle and as much as I complain about the treatment of race in the US, I’m fairly certain a chocolate covered candy called “Kiss of a Black Woman” could not, in this day and age, fly at home. And just two weeks ago I came across this advertisement on an ice cream delivery truck in Cartagena. It reads “Rejoice with chocolate kisses” and below “Share the taste of the people, buy yourself Mimo’s.”

Now of course many will assert “oh no, things like that aren’t racist” (as they did last year in Facebook comments). But this notion seems related to an inability to believe that racism is still quite alive and well and due to a lack of understanding of the many forms in which racism presents itself that don’t necessarily involve burning crosses and nooses.

Can you imagine something white being called the equivalent of “Kisses of a White Woman”?? Heavens, no. THAT would be ridiculous. O_O But the image of the Black woman can be exploited at will. Two of the most pervasive archetypal characters depicting women of African descent in the United States have been the “Mammy” and the “Jezebel.” The “Mammy” figure is characterized by the physically large and overweight woman with distinct African facial features, tight, kinky hair and darker skin, that is an asexual subservient being whose life revolves around tending to the needs of whites (think Aunt Jemima before the perm). The “Jezebel” is the hypersexualized, seductive, amoral and promiscuous woman who is often slightly lighter in skin complexion with less African facial features and straighter hair that uses her sexual prowess to exploit men (think Birth of a Nation). Both of these stereotypical characters emerged in the US South during slavery.[1]

Latin American versions of these archetypes are often blended. Take for example this advertisement I saw at an airport café in Cartagena last summer:

The product is called “La Negrita Rhum” which basically means “Little Black Woman Rum.” The woman featured is of African descent, darker-skinned and reflects a sense of subservience and domesticity. She is slightly bent over and smiling, suggesting she is pleased with her role in this position. What distinguishes her from the typical Mammy archetype is that here she is sexualized. Her stance, the fact that her blouse is somewhat open and her bare feet suggest a domestic worker who could also serve in a sexual capacity for the person she is serving.

The combination of text and image in this photo suggest the “Jezebel” archetype, even though the drawing appears to be of a young girl. The name of the product ““Mi Cañita” means something to the effect of “little cup of beer or wine,” which suggests intoxication. Yet because it is made of cream, fruit and sugar it is conveying the idea of sweetness. This small girl of African descent is almost sweetly intoxicating. The use of “Mami!!” at the end of the tagline is common in Latin culture and does not typically refer to a mother, but is a way to refer to a woman and is often sexualized. It reflects the trope of the “Spicy Latina.” The way she is peering through what appears to be sugar cane suggests a sort of jungle-like quality, typical of stereotypes of women of African-descent. The manner in which the ice cream is near the figure’s mouth could also be seen as phallic.

The combination of text and image in the “Beso de Negra” photo also suggest the “Jezebel” archetype, but far more blatantly. Just the name of the product alone reflects the hypersexualization of the woman of African descent. In order to attract consumers, this chocolate product has been dubbed “Kiss of a Black Woman.” The character’s lips are pursed. She is wearing a strapless top, exposing her cleavage and large breasts.

The fact that all characters are adorned in a similar fashion suggests that a stereotype exists of what women of African descent in Latin America typically wear. They are all in bright red lipstick, large hoop earrings and a head scarf to match their attire like it’s some sort of Afro-Latina uniform. And what does each of these things represent? The red lipstick historically implies that the woman is a vamp. The head scarf could be similar to a kerchief, which suggests domesticity. The earrings could imply a certain degree of loudness and “Latinidad.”

When taken collectively, we see the repetition that both naturalizes the myth and reveals the intentions of the creators of the myth. We see an assertion of Eurocentric aesthetic values and white male hegemony. We have been fed these types of images so often that they have been normalized. No one accidentally puts a brown face depicting a woman of African-descent on a package. Someone had to sit there and think that these are appropriate representations that could be effectively used for pushing products. Before you know it you are seeing such images and not even recognizing that they are constructed. And that’s the magic of myth-making. You won't ever feel like you're taking crazy pills. This foolishness will seem normal and even acceptable.[1]

Carolyn M. West, “Mammy, Sapphire, and Jezebel: Historical images of Black women and their implications for psychotherapy.,”Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 32, no. 3 (1995): 458-466.