Martin Luther King, Jr and the Young, Non-Southern Black Man

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. In keeping with February's great tradition of Black History Month, today's entry will be about a man who I think is the only prophet America has ever produced, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The video I posted above I found about a month ago via YouTube around the King holiday while I was searching for interviews and speeches he did, as well as documentary clips. Though the specific date of this speech is unknown, I'm assuming that he made that speech somewhere between the last two years of his life (1966-1968). When I first saw this video, I played it like it was the new single for at least two hours straight. It actually surprised me, chiefly because it was the first time I had ever heard Dr. King refer to himself and his people as "Black" as opposed to the term known to his generation, "Negro". But what I also noticed about his speech in this video is that it is a bit more outwardly radical then I had known him to be, keeping in mind that King IS a radical (you cannot accomplish goals like desegregation, voting rights, and true working pacifism unless you are radical). What makes it so "outwardly radical" is that I believe this statement must have come from his observations and the influence that the younger, "Black" generation of civil rights leaders would have on him.

Continuing my search for King information, I watched on YouTube the PBS special "Citizen King". This special focused on the last five years of his life, starting from his delivering the iconic "I Have A Dream" speech at the March on Washington and ending at his assassination and massively attended funeral. The years that primarily interested me were from 1965 to 1967- a period where he observed and experienced the life of the young, non-Southern Negro. This is the period that I believe brought King to the speech on that video. It begins with his stay in Chicago in 1966, inspired by his realization that he needed to understand the non-Southern Negro's (and underclass minorities overall) struggle with race and class disparities. This leads to his march to desegregate the Chicago suburb of Cicero where, in watching the footage of it, is easily most frightened and courageous I had seen him. The march turns into a caustic and dangerous event courtesy of its opposition, who may have been partly inspired by the counter demonstrations led by American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell. Though some marchers began to lose their cool, King maintained his, even while being hit with bricks and stones, ducking from the sounds of firecrackers meant to depict gunshots. The experience of the Cicero march indeed shook him- he would go on to unfavorably compare the experience to those he had in Mississippi and Alabama- but it also gave him a semblance to the specific level of frustration and opposition non-Southern black America faced.



I believe that the experience of Chicago began King towards that speech I found on YouTube, and the inspiration towards that speech was continued by his experience with Stokely Carmichael while continuing James Meredith's "March Against Fear" in Mississippi in 1966. Carmichael, the newly appointed chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), was the definition of the young black radical; he was a Pan-Africanist who didn't fully believe in nonviolence, sharing the view of the pre-hajj, Nation of Islam era Malcolm X in that whites couldn't really help in the fight for black and minority civil rights. During their time together leading the "March Against Fear", King and Carmichael understood that they served as diverging symbols of black leadership; King is of the generation where Negroes use nonviolent decorum to achieve their collective goal, and Carmichael represents the younger generation's ideal of "Black Power" to inspire a racially unitarian mindset. King is in fact cautious of Carmichael's "Black Power" philosophy, believing it to be a type of segregation that will lead to loneliness and destruction. However, this relationship does prove to be one of collaboration and respect, as through Carmichael King sees the non-Southern Black man in his total individual form. As "Citizen King" reports, it is also through Carmichael that King begins to interchangeably use the terms "Negro" and "Black", a fact that Carmichael would boast about to others for the rest of his life.

It is my assumption that stemming from his experiences in Chicago and with Carmichael, King now had a source of relation with the rise of the new, non-Southern black man. This newfound perspective taught him to be aware of the changes of "Black" America, as well as give him more cause to look at America as a whole nation. I think that by the time he made the speech I found on YouTube, he found a way to keep his nonviolent tactics and sensibilities yet embrace at least part of the newer generation's mantra; still not accepting the connotation of "Black Power", but ready to acknowledge that "Black is Beautiful". It is a bit ironic that King's assassination in 1968 would trigger his prophetic fears of "Black Power" to come true, as Black America would riot in major American cities in retaliation. Nevertheless, ALL of America- black, white, other colors and creeds, and even the world in general- have grown to greatly appreciate King's legacy of work in making this great land a more equal and tolerant playing field.

King's speech that I found on YouTube initially surprised me, but I also found it refreshing. Why? Because it is proven document of his forward thinking being specifically directed at his love for his people, an indication of entrusting them to make significant leaps and bounds in America's great landscape. This video makes me realize that the terminology of a people is far from just labeling, as what they call themselves dictates their future prosperity; I think that without a speech like that, a "Negro" calling himself "Black", we would have never elevated to making those superior leaps and bounds as "African Americans". King's realization couldn't have come from anywhere else but his experiences with the newer generation, as they taught him to understand them, their country, and time overall more accurately.

Well, that's about it for now folks. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until then, peace out.

How "Superfly" Symbolizes Freedom

Hello again world, and welcome back to my blog. For today's entry, I decided to talk about my perceived deeper meaning towards a blaxploitation classic. Last night, I watched the film "Superfly" on television, my first time seeing it in at least two years (and second overall). Culturally, the film is a blaxploitation standard that is punctuated by its musical score/soundtrack by the great Curtis Mayfield. The film itself stands atop the pantheon with other classics as "The Mack", "Foxy Brown" and blaxploitation's first and greatest known effort, "Shaft". The plot of "Superfly" is about a polished drug dealer named Priest who wishes to leave the trade but must make one last score that will provide enough money for him to live comfortably (at least for a while) in his exile. But in performing this daring caper, he steadily deflects criticism for his decision, and more importantly must avoid entrapment from corrupt officials that plan to keep him in the life.

As I watched "Superfly", I came to appreciate Priest's journey to freedom. I took from this film that true freedom and choice means true sacrifice; I mean, to give up all that profit and luxury for, if anything else, peace of mind? That's an astonishing choice. But what strikes me most about it is that he knew to work and prepare for that true freedom, as he knew during the course of the movie he was not free. He also knew his captivity spread to others, as since he was in a position of power he knew he had to maintain brute force and intimidation. For example, he puts the nonviolent Fat Freddie to commit violent tasks (which would ultimately cost Freddie his life, "Freddie's Dead"), and then laments to his partner Eddie about this decision.

Speaking of his partner, in fact, I found their relationship through the movie quite allegorical to the house negro (Eddie) and the field negro (Priest). The reason behind that is for this mere fact; whereas Priest was a person who found the determination to be self-defined and independent, Eddie was basically floating towards whichever side or purpose fit him best and would have to work for least. Eddie had no sort of vision for himself, and never really claimed responsibility for himself or anything in his life. By the end of the movie I found him to be a willing, but paid, slave to whichever entity provided the materialistic lifestyle he so loved. This of course puts a rift between he and Priest, as Eddie would become his biggest detractor against going straight, moreso out of Eddie's self-preservational leech mentality.

I connect to "Superfly"'s dream of freedom in life most in his excited outlook towards new opportunity and choice. In the scene where his girlfriend asks him what will he do when he is out of the game, he in effect replies that he doesn't know what his future will be but is nevertheless excited by the possibilities of it; possibilities that from then on he will totally assume and control. I think that statement reflects what I feel to be the truest feeling of total independence for oneself, as they come to the realization that only they can- and must- commit themselves to the direction of their lives, having the confidence in their decisions and readiness in their outcomes. As I stated earlier, true freedom means true sacrifice, so in making this choice you must be fully ready and prepared. I think in all that is what I perceive to be the underlying message in "Superfly".

Well, that's about it for now folks. In closing, I'll leave you with the classic "Superfly" theme by the great Curtis Mayfield. Thanks for taking the time to read the blog- in all honesty, I hope it made sense.Let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until then, peace out.

Why is Batman Better than Superman?

Hello again world, and welcome back to my blog. Today's entry is basically an opinion piece; it revolves around my love for comic books, but has some philosophical and realistic relevancy to it. Ever since I could remember, I've been a Batman fan thanks to the movies, tv shows and comic books; I truly think he is the ultimate superhero in comic book history. But, in terms of strength and cultural relevance, a lot of people cite Superman as the greatest of all time. I can't say I don't see their reasoning, as Superman is the main archetype for every superhero that has followed him since his appearance in 1938- maybe even Batman, who made his first appearance one year later. However, this great reason is not enough for me to give Superman the title of greatest superhero over Batman- I've thought about this for a very long time, and now I'm ready to give my reasons why.

I'll start with the most obvious reason; Batman is much more a media "mogul" than Superman. You see, Batman is the one superhero who is both timeless and timely, as he can be cultivated around the pop culture of different eras. Prime examples of this are Adam West's quasi-comedic Batman of the 1960's, Michael Keaton being the omnipresent yet mysterious Batman of 1989, and the brooding, sorrowful vigilante that Christian Bale's interpretation is of today. Compare these vast interpretations against the Superman interpreted by the late Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh (I cannot include George Reeves's interpretation of the 1950s tv show as I have never seen it); although these are fine performances, they are the same exact interpretation,and save from the time they are made you cannot tell one from the other. Many audiences spend more of their money on Batman merchandising and media; in fact, the current Batman visionary Christopher Nolan was hired by Warner Bros to conceptualize and produce a new vision of Superman because of he and Christian Bale's success with Batman.
Also, be sure to include the animated series of both characters; the animated Batman series of the 1990's is so popular and classic that is rated as one of the best cartoons of all time. Who really can debate that argument? At one time during the height of its popularity,it aired during prime time on Sunday nights. I actually think that Kevin Conroy (the voice of Batman) was so convincing that maybe it influenced the type of Batman that is of today. Superman's animated series was good, but again the character (by himself) is one dimensional and kinda physically weak; I mean, I know he was fighting fellow aliens and metahumans, but it always took the most out of him, then finding the strength to win at the last minute.

This leads into my next reason, being that Batman is the mentally superior of the two; and honestly not just of Superman but of many other superheroes and quite a few supervillains. Albeit, this is truly the most "nature vs. nurture" of my reasons, Superman being simply "anointed" with brute strength as Batman has to work towards many physical and psychological endeavors to become the crimefighter that he is. But it plays into their depths in the most definitive ways, as Batman cannot go into an adventure unprepared, and must be knowledgeable of and ready for the various outcomes; Superman doesn't really have that ability. You may say,'Well, he doesnt NEED that ability', but I think he may need it more than Batman, again because of the physical level of villain he fights. Now I will be fair; there are times that Superman does plan out some details, and it's not necessary for him to be the tactical genius quite like Batman. But what I am saying is for the most part Superman's initial form of attack is basic brawling, leading his villains to know how to at least incapacitate him for a while (i.e. Kryptonite). With Batman, however, there is a lot of range in his fighting and tactical skills, therefore his villains need to find different ways to attack him.

From here we go into the "meat and potatoes" of these heroes' mythology and lore, as we see how each hero shapes their community. Let us start with the villains they face; there is no shadow of a doubt that Batman has the best rouge's gallery of any comic book hero EVER. I mean, unless you're a comic book head or a Superman head, can you really name more of his archenemies than Batman's off the top of your head? I myself can name five or seven of Superman's, then eight to eleven of Batman's. From my perspective, Batman's enemies are more fearsome than Superman's because of- again- of their mental capability, as well as their unequivocal hunger for power and dominance. Look at how their villains go at their opponents; most of Superman's villains go personally at him because they realize he is the top power to either restrain or conquer. Prime examples of this are Darkseid, Bizzaro, and his archvillain Lex Luthor. The villains of Gotham City, however, want power entirely and are interested in generating it not from their hero but from the terror they bring from themselves- they know they would have to defeat Batman in order to further pursue power, not attain it. Also, Batman's villains serve as a "quadratic equation" towards himself considering his own personality and crusade; the Penguin makes him question his elitist inclinations, Catwoman (at her best) makes him question his self-denial of true love, and the Riddler is a dark depiction of his intellectual prowess and superiority. Superman has villains that make him question his discipline and self-restraint (Lex Luthor, Darkseid, Brainiac), but none that challenge his approach towards them. That might serve a point for him, I'll give you that one.



Let us not forget that Batman has not just the greatest rouge's gallery ever, but also the greatest villain ever- The Joker. This is the prime example of what a supervillain should be; he is every step Batman's equal as his competitor. Like Batman, he is calculating, uncompromising, and knows he serves as a symbol of choice. The vendetta between the Joker and Batman is more personal than any other of his enemies, as the Joker not only challenges Batman's true existence but will also fatally and/or gravely injure Batman's allies (Jason Todd/ Robin, Barbara Gordon) in his quest for total dominance of Gotham City. Yes, it is undisputed that the Joker is by no means a physical threat to Superman- and really, not even Batman- but I'm also sure that The Joker would find a way to push Superman's discipline of self-restraint to the maximum as he has Batman's.

So in fighting these villains, you must create, teach, and call upon a great army for assistance, this being where Batman truly shines. The "Batman Family" is unlike anything before it, and its best rival could be Professor Xavier and the X-Men. Batman actually takes people in like himself and trains them to be great warriors, then has them become a part of a great network at which he is the nucleus of. It's a pretty impressive count consisting of various Robins (spawning a Nightwing, Red Robin, and another Batman)and Batgirls, Huntress and even Catwoman among others. Like their primary leader/nucleus, most of these proteges and allies have no superpowers to speak of, so instead they are worked with from the ground up to become just as physical, perceptive and tactical. Not that Superman isn't a great leader himself, but in these regards Batman has this way over on him. Yes, he has allies and somewhat proteges such as Supergirl and Superboy, but as was with his own case, he didn't have to teach them much about using their physical capabilities on Earth. As for Superman leading the Justice League, Superman is more of a main delegate than primary leader; I really don't think you can tell other primary heroes (in a group which includes Batman) how to fight injustice in a way specific and/or similar to your own.



Before I give my last and most important reason why Batman is the best superhero over Superman, let me pose this question; Which city would you rather live in, Superman's Metropolis or Batman's Gotham City? My answer, of course, is Metropolis. I know; right now you're thinking "You spent all this time saying the best superhero is Batman yet you would live in Metropolis?". Let me explain why. In Metropolis I would be protected, no question, but I would be protected from evils that I cannot either foresee or really fight against- the only "person" who could fight that evil is Superman, who, to an ironic degree, is the person (and power) that attracts it. Therefore, I theorize in this sense that Metropolis is the closest realization to a utopia in comic books, as to be a citizen of Gotham City you couldn't be uninvolved in the war between good and evil and must play a part. This main reason bases all the others I've previously cited that Batman is better than Superman- because whereas Superman is a savior, Batman is a symbol. To be a savior is a great attribute, don't get me wrong, but being a savior is an attribute only non-humans- aliens or gods i.e. Superman- can attain. However, humans can be symbols to one another, inspiring works and accomplishments never before imagined. This is Batman's greatness over Superman, I feel; he truly shows that one man can make a difference and inspire a movement towards the best and worst extremes.

Well, that's about it folks. By the way, all the artwork displayed on this entry was completed by the iconic comic book artist Jim Lee. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until next time, peace out.

Hello Again World!

Hello Again World! A belated Happy Holidays and New Year to all, I hope 2010 was kind to you and 2011 will be kinder. For me, the year 2010 gave me a lot to think about and significant changes to adapt to; I lost a grandmother, gained a nephew, made important career moves, and finally came to a good understanding about some of the thoughts and theories I have about this thing called life. In all, 2010 gave me the gift of perspective, extending itself to where I've been and where I need to go.
With all that said, I also return to this blog with some work that I hope you'll enjoy. This is something I did back in June 2010, a painting (or maybe character) that is called "The Medium".




"The Medium" was done with acrylic paint, and took about a couple weeks to conceptualize and paint. As seen, it's a boy pointing at the viewer with arrows coming from his back. The most obvious reference I used was Doctor Octopus, one of Spider-Man's most notorious supervilllains; I always liked how his "tentacles" were designed in a compact fashion, the artist always having the ability to attract them to the viewer with accurate foreshortening (either deciding to make them the main element in their drawings or unleash them in the element of surprise). But I take reference from Titian's painting "St. Mark Enthroned",as you see the figure with an arrow in him but still alive and gallant. Therefore, with these two primary references in mind, I made my figure with defiancy in his stance and some ego to his facial expression (what hero doesn't have some ego?); and the arrows coming from him going in many different directions, to represent the choices we have in life. The three colors (aside from the skin tone)- red (shirt), green (jacket), and gold/yellow(arrows)- came from Pan Africanism, a sublet of black history and African diaspora.
I'm still not yet done with this idea, though. Since finishing "The Medium", I've been working on something more full scale, using him as the main character in the work. Nothing on canvas yet, but I'm thinking it'll be an expansion of the choices we make- the best and worst- in their respective extremes.
All right everyone, I think that's about it for right now. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and if you can there are two blogs you should really check out; www.designerscomplex.blogspot.com and visionofhiphop.blogspot.com. Peace out.

Our Brother, the Prince

Hey everyone! Sorry I haven't been around to chat in awhile, I've been working on some new art for your viewing pleasure. Here is some of the work that I've finished, a piece I've entitled "Our Brother,the Prince".

This work of art, completed with oil paint on a canvas surface, is meant to depict Jesus Christ in the Resurrection, the figure being modeled after African royalty and superheroic mythology (hence the title "Our Brother,the Prince"). He is holding the world in his hands, but is presenting it to the viewer as to say "the world is yours; be responsible with this gift". In time, I plan to do more with this concept, perhaps making this version of Chirst a central point in a series all its own. As always, all comments are welcome- lemme know what you think. Thanks for taking the time to view and post, and I'll see you next time.