BlackMan Time

Archive for April, 2007

In competitive situations you often hear people talk about “may the best man win,” don’t you? Well, very often it’s not the best who wins! In fact, there are many instances when a lesser (the underdog or the worse) has triumphed against insurmountable odds.

Cases which readily come to mind include the Bible story David versus Goliath and the  Betamax video system versus VHS battle for consumer home recording.

These examples should usually serve as a warning to the confident about the dangers of over-confidence but it is obvious the lesson is not always learnt and/or absorbed sufficiently.

There are many reasons why the “worse man” should triumph over the best one. In the David and Goliath story Goliath was simply over confident due to his advantage of size and power but he hadn’t reckoned on David’s smarts and cunning.

I found myself making these comparisons the other day because I allowed a David to unseat me from a situation in which I was the Goliath of! I was so certain of myself sometimes I even voiced it, thereby exposing my hand to my “enemies” who, unbeknown to me, had been plotting my demise in this area, for a little while.

It was my being “too clever for your own good” which was my undoing. I can see that now but sometimes it takes a reality check like this to make us realise that you can (or should) never take anything for granted. If you do you too may find yourself losing out, to the worse man!

Think about it…

Is lip service support just as valid as someone going out of their way to perform an action to show that they support you? Let me illustrate my thoughts on the matter…

Just last week I was discussing this very topic with a singer/song-writer brother who was having some difficulty with colleagues at the huge London Company where he works.

On the surface they always paid lip service support to any shows he was performing at and got lots of “good luck”, “break a leg” and stuff, but they have never once came out to see him perform at a gig! They kept promising that one day they would do so but it has not happened yet.

Our minds met on this issue because I was having a similar experience – only in a different way – with the people I was working with. The subject also came up in private discussion with my line manager and his response was that the fact that my colleagues had never been to see me doesn’t necessarily mean they did not care about my endeavours. He made a good point…

I subsequently thought about this and had the opinion that action signals real intention much more than words do because words require not as much effort. I never said this to my line manager but this was the same conclusion my singer brethren had reached.

Ultimately, however, everyone is busy in their personal lives so maybe it is a bit much expecting them to go out of their way to come and lend their support. For some people they may have to arrange baby sitters (which can be expensive and hard to arrange at short notice), while others may have other reasons why a detour from their routine is difficult.

Somehow, though, you wonder how much of the lip service support people give you are just hollow balderdash and how much is genuine regret. After all we see a person’s face, but we never see their heart.

And that’s where the real intentions live…

The sight of George W. Bush boogieing with the Kankouran West African dance troopers on the lawn of the White House on Wednesday, made me want to vomit. There was Bush who as the former Texas governor, presided over the electric chair deaths of more Black men than any other US governors in the history of America, prancing around with some Black men…

The “stunt” was organized to mark Malaria Awareness Day, part of Bush’s five-year, $1.2 billion Malaria Initiative allegedly to combat malaria in 15 of the hardest-hit African countries.

Whereas the idea of this initiative, which was launched in 2005, is laudable, the White House gimmick was obviously a PR opportunity for him: shamelessly performing for the cameras as the naive, unsuspecting, native “savages” gave a spirited show.

For me socializing with Bush would be like dancing with the Devil himself. Doing so would be only to gain strategic insights: not to sip from the same chalice with him! Hopefully after that the goal is to use these insights to overpower the Devil, not to help in his publicity campaign!

Thus, if George W. Bush keels over and die anytime in the next few days we’ll probably look towards the Kankouran West African dance troupe for a motive!

In Iran they have a novel way of dealing with local women who parade themselves insufficiently veiled or flaunting their sexuality, Western style, in public. They simply arrest them.

This is currently the case with hundreds of Iranian women being arrested in a crackdown by the government against women accused of not covering up enough, in accordance to strict Muslim traditions.

Some have even been detained for wearing too tight an overcoat or letting too much hair peek out from under their hijabs (or veils).

This is apparently the toughest crackdown in nearly two decades and it raises fears that hard-liner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad intends to re-impose the tough Islamic Revolution-era constraints on women’s dress that loosened in past years.

I actually don’t have a problem with this: a little modesty is a good thing and who wants to emulate a situation which currently exists in the West where some women walk around practically naked, in the name of making a fashion statement. But surely arresting a woman because she dares to even show her hair in public is a bit harsh I feel.

Given the fact that many Iranians are currently facing stiff socio-political hardships, maybe the government should spend its energy helping to improve the economic situation rather than penalize women for expressing themselves!

What do you think?

Earlier tonight I performed on my second comedy show at a venue in London, E2. It couldn’t have been more different to when I made my debut on March 29, 2007!

For starters there was no microphone and my opening act depended on there being one. So, I had to project my voice across the intimately small but full room, to be heard. It was a good experience but one which was at first a little daunting!

Another thing that was different was that no alcohol was served so the crowd was as sober as could be, so if they laughed it mean they really wanted to laugh. What I learnt from this was that alcohol not only lowers audience’s self-consciousness factor but it loosened their inhibitions too. This translates to them being more susceptible to laughing and/or applauding your act, even if it was only moderately funny.

The third thing that was different was that the DJ, a really talented guy called Mr. Gee, had over sold me as a “professional comedian” which raised the audience’s expectation of my output. The “professional” title was also patently not true so when I took to the stage I had to explain to the audience that this was in fact only my second performance. Lesson learnt here was to always provide the MC/organiser with your bio beforehand.

Overall it was still a good performance and I did manage to make them laugh, but not necessarily in the places I actually expected them to laugh. This threw me initially, but I didn’t let it distract me. It made me aware that I needed to get more experience knowing how to know my audience and adjust my material according to them.

Definitely a learning experience!

An item in Monday’s Metro (owned by the right wing Associated Newspapers group), once again reminded me of just how misleading the mainstream British press can be.

On page 12 under the headline: “Oh Brother Where Art Thou?” there’s a headshot photo of singer Jamelia. The story reads:

“R’ n’ b star Jamelia’s step-brother is wanted by police over an attempted murder during the Birmingham race riots in 2005. The 26-year-old mother-of-two is no stranger to gun crime – one of her half-brothers is serving a life sentence for a gangland murder and another step-brother was shot in 2003.”

The way how this is presented any reader would immediately think that it was Jamelia herself who had actually been involved in gun crimes. I think this was the editor’s intention, judging by the tone in the line I emboldened…

The very tenuous (cheap, lazy and unscrupulous also fits) way in which the bog roll of a paper, labours to make a connection with the singer, would be laughable, except for the fact that the paper is widely read by many people.

And although it may be fair game for the editors and the scumbag reporter assigned to write such titbit drivel, maybe providing them with hours of entertainment, there’s at least one person who really would not find it funny. And that’s Jamelia herself.

Can you imagine her opening up this paper (to wrap dog mess in, for instance) and seeing this piece? She’d be livid. I know for sure I would be too.

When so-called journalists twist and misrepresent facts like this just to make a story, this is worse than unethical: it is criminal. And the crime of libelling someone a criminal, while callously side-stepping the law, is calculating beyond belief.

Is it any wonder celebrities (and other public figures) hate the press so much?

One of the worse things you can do is to tell someone what you really think when they ask you: “so, BlackMan, what do you think about this?” This is particularly true if you’re not sure exactly why they are asking you the question but you are familiar with them enough to be honest with them.

Or so you think.

They may come across as being sincere, but I have noticed in one case last week when I have revealed my thoughts to someone when requested and got a reaction that revealed the person wasn’t apparently prepared for my answer. Perhaps they weren’t really genuine in wanting to know what I think.

Their reaction suggested they more wanted me to agree with their idea and had only asked my opinion to be polite or to check how I felt about the topic. I like a fool, instead of playing the diplomat, blurted out what I thought, thus giving them cause to look at me differently.

I proved this theory because since that incident this person’s generally warm mannerism has cooled. Even though it’s clear they are trying not to show it, I can see it clearly. And, every time this person speaks with me they deliberately highlight some of the exact words from my thoughts in their dialogue.

It is such a drag when this happens because you find yourself wanting to withdraw from people like these and the good relationship you thought you had built up is revealed as just a sham. No point confronting them about your suspicion because they would probably dismiss it as a figment of your imagination. Or lie about it.

It seems rather petty and as real a human situation as you can get, but I just wish people could be more honest than that. If they cloak themselves in polite sincerity and ask for opinions to their schemes, accept the response, even if critical, without offence. Don’t draw your subject (or emotionally blackmail them) into a conspiracy of agreement.

In fact I would prefer for them not to ask me any questions and I will quite directly tell them no lies. Is that too much to ask?

Tell me what you really think!

It is one thing fighting against the young because of the general rebelliousness and exuberance usually associated with youth. It is a totally different matter fighting against the mature but young in experience.

Picture this: you’ve just started a new job to help improve this project and you are keen to do well. There are already people working on this project but some of them seem to have lost focus and are not as enthusiastic as you, or maybe they are not showing it because familiarity, lethargy and disillusionment has already started to set in.

It could be they are simply pacing themselves and are currently content to just draw their monthly salaries then go home.

Here you come along, bright eyed and bushy tailed, raring to go like the proverbial bull in a China shop. You’re full of ideas, enthusiastic, pro-active – all the positive things money can’t buy but which comes as standard in you.

Obviously, your enthusiasm isn’t welcomed in this environment. When you talk to some people about your ideas they give you exasperated answers and have a habit of answering you with your name as part of the topic. Like: “I really don’t know if it can be done that way, BlackMan.” Or: “You’ll have to ask XYZ, BlackMan…”Or even, “I just don’t know, BlackMan…”

After several of these kinds of responses it is easy to think “To hell with it! Why should I bother if they are not bothering?” and then lose heart. If you do fall a victim to this notice how your morale sinks. You then, gradually, join the ranks of the lethargic and simply work at a comatosed pace, looking forward to your monthly salary…

But why does it have to be that way? Why do people resent the young upstart? I guess it’s because the young upstart, in whatever guise they come, tend to show them up and make them look like they are not trying or haven’t been trying at all. This, of course, may not be the case in reality, but that will be how it is perceived.

Thus, the upstart, with his/her fresh pair of eyes, sees the things that the established people fail to see because familiarity has already started to breathe contempt.

I guess the way the upstart should play it is to do things in a way that makes the existing people look good. But, sometimes it is tricky to do this because there is always the danger of them getting the credit for things you’ve implemented.

The alternative is to plough ahead, bull in a China shop like, and outshine them and don’t give a damn about the consequences.

How would you play it?

I’d rather be kept in the dark than to be told a lie. I’ll give you an example of what I mean…

Let’s say it’s the early days in a relationship with someone you’re seeing (or thinking of doing so) and they haven’t quite yet broken off with their previous lover. And they have to meet this person for whatever reason.

It’s better for them to just walk out and go and not tell you some story about “linking up with a girlfriend/good mate or whatever other lame excuse they come up with.

Apart from anything else them telling something like this is a big disrespect to you although in their minds they probably think telling you a lie will spare your feelings. Either way it’s all messed up because you do know if they are seeing this person then the possibility of something happening is strong because old fire stick easy to catch afire!

And, if they go and don’t say anything other than, “see you later…” you spend all the time they are away thinking of what they’re getting up to. Unless, of course, you play the game yourself and pick up the phone and call an old ex and link up.

Two can play at that game, right? But does getting your own back really eradicate the sense of betrayal you unreasonably feel? Probably not, but the experience sure does help take your insecure mind off your semi-partner though!

Why are relationships so complicated? What would be wrong with saying: “I’m linking up with my ex because s/he wants to talk…” Of course you already know what the problem is with that situation: you are jealous, suspicious and fear something might happen with them.

And you just can’t stand the thought of it. And your pride just can’t take it either. Too bad really because you really thought they were right for you. Pity you’ll now have to release them from your consideration…

“Don’t let you right hand know what your left hand is doing…”
“Man to man is so unjust, you don’t’ know who to trust…”
“See a man’s face, but you don’t see his heart…”
“Trust no shadow after dark…”

These are just four of around ten song lyrics or old time sayings I could pluck out of the air when I considered the topic of ‘trust’.

The concept of trust is a funny thing. You always start off with it as an ideal to have in your life but as soon as you start to implement it in a relationship, you just know you’re going to fail in some way. Why is that?

I think the answer depends on you and your history with trust. If you have never ever placed a great deal of faith in relationships working then trust is the very last thing you’re going to honour! Your natural scepticism of everything means that you will be suspicious of any deals to implement a mutually agreed understanding of trust in a relationship.

Having thus entered into such an agreement sometimes you or your partner, whether you admit it or not, are just looking to see who will first betray the trust treaty! Then all bets are off.

Even if you agree that you both can do whatever you want and have an open relationship “as long as you’re honest with me…” we still never seem to pull it off because without a strong element of trust any promise you make is just a comfort to a fool.

This difficulty in trusting yourself, let alone others, is probably a good reason why so many people are now opting to stay single. It’s better to deal with your own deceit and dishonesty than to have to deal with your partner’s too.

You feel such a fool for suspecting them of anything, when you haven’t got any real proof, that at times you find yourself questioning your sanity! And that’s never a good thing.

Trust me!