Uncategorized

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday appointed a white man to serve as interim mayor over the black woman who already had the role---and people are not happy. The board appointed Mark Farrell to the position after voting to remove acting Mayor London Breed, who is also the current board president. She had become acting mayor last month following the sudden death of Mayor Ed Lee. The political move came as hundreds of Breed’s supporters voiced their disapproval of the board’s choice. Many who showed up for public comment before the vote jeered at Farrell’s appointment, calling the ouster of Breed racist. Critics, including Farrell, have said that Breed had too much power as board president and acting Mayor in the leadup to the June 5 election. Breed plans to run for the mayorial seat then.  “To me that is too much power in one person’s hand. There needs to be checks and balances,” Farrell told CBS San Francisco.  But according to The Root, there is a direct precedent of the current situation: “In 1978, then-San Francisco Supervisor Dianne Feinstein was voted in as acting mayor by her fellow board members mere days after then-Mayor George Moscone was gunned down in his City Hall office by a deranged former supervisor, Dan White. (Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in California history, was also killed in the shooting.) In ’78, there was no dramatic coup from fellow board members: Feinstein fulfilled the interim role, then went on to win a full mayoral term months later during the regularly scheduled election.” As for Reed, she kept it classy following her removal: “It’s been an honor to serve the City during this difficult time," she wrote on Twitter. "I have a vision for an inclusive & fair San Francisco, and will keep working every day on the important issues we face: homelessness, housing, & public safety.”

Many of the people defending Netflix against actor/comedian Mo’Nique’s call to boycott it over race- and gender-based pay inequities (with black female comedians getting the short end of the stick), are lauding the $100 billion company’s groundbreaking commitment to diverse programming. But is Netflix really a champion of diversity?

First, let me get this out of the way: Netflix should not get a pass on the issue of compensation and opportunities for black female comedians because of its $100 million deal with uber-producer/screenwriter Shonda Rhimes. Netflix is a $100 billion company; it spent $8.8 billion on content alone last year. Its multiyear-deal with Rhimes is a good start, but no more than that. (By the way, it’s been reported by the Wall Street Journal that Rhimes’ work for ABC has generated over $2 billion in revenue from advertising, rerun sales, and international licensing.)

We’re only tripping because black people have never seen that kind of money (a recurring theme in our culture after decades of exclusion and discrimination). But never forget, because one of us finally got it doesn’t mean it’s the first time a black person was qualified and deserving of the opportunity. Every “black first” is just a small down payment against generations of dreams (and billions of dollars) deferred and denied by the deliberate and systematic exclusion of black people from opportunities. Get back to me when $100 million production deals become as common for black people—and black women in particular—as they are for white males in the entertainment industry. Until then, the deal is an accomplishment for Rhimes, not for Netflix.

That said, Netflix absolutely deserves credit for its diverse programming, and the acting, directing, and other opportunities it creates for people of color in the industry. However, putting on more shows with diverse casts/producers/etc. is a great example of the easiest, quickest, and least permanent execution of diversity: on-air programming. It’s not a bad place to start, but alone, it is hardly representative of a true, long-term commitment to diversity.

Some call it window dressing; I call it banana-in-the-tailpipe diversity. (My boss and CEO Earl “Butch” Graves Jr. calls it “diversity as a diversion.”) Remember the launch of UPN (the network that introduced us to the Moesha spin-off, The Parkers, starring Mo’Nique)? The CW? The WB? The Cosby-driven revival of NBC? Media platforms, especially in television, always count on black people, the demo that watches more TV than anyone else, to establish and grow an audience. Besides, black people bring the cool factor, which brings those who want to be cool, too: primarily young, mainstream [white] viewers. Once that is achieved: poof! Black programming gone! Netflix, as a streaming service, is a departure from the old network TV model, so I hope it will be different this time. Not holding my breath, though.

That said, Black Enterprise measures diversity performance in four key ways:

1. Board Diversity. Netflix ain’t got none. It’s board, including the addition of a new director announced earlier this week, consists of seven men and three women—all of them white.
2. Senior Management/Executive Diversity. How many African Americans and other people of color are in the C-Suite, and in the decision-making power jobs that report into it? There are no Netflix executives on Black Enterprise’s latest list of “The Most Powerful Executives In Corporate America.”
3. Workforce Diversity. What is the representation of African Americans and people of color employed throughout the organization? (According to Netflix’s website, 4% of its employees are black.)
4. Supplier Diversity. How much money is a company spending with businesses owned by African Americans and other people of color, as a proportion of its total spending?

Suffice to say, you won’t find Netflix on the Black Enterprise “50 Best Companies for Diversity” list.

If a company is not serious about diversity in all four of these key areas—with the numbers to back it up—they’re just playing us, if not themselves. As I’ve already said, let’s hold off on giving Netflix an NAACP Image Award. (Better to give it to the actors, producers, writers, etc. and others actually working on its shows.)

It’s great, actually amazing, that Netflix is providing opportunities to African Americans and so many other people of color and diverse backgrounds (as they should, quite frankly—pay inequities notwithstanding). But that is not where the real money and decision-making power is. To paraphrase my CEO: “Don’t let diversity become a diversion.”

The post Is Netflix Really A Champion of Diversity? Not So Fast. appeared first on Black Enterprise.

Partnering with Toyota, ESSENCE transformed The Villan event space in Brooklyn, NY into a visually stimulating, interactive playground carefully curated to activate the senses felt when jumping behind the wheel of the new 2018 Toyota Camry. Check out the video above to see what you missed as attendees navigated their way through the ultimate Afrofuturistic experience known as the Essence x Toyota #SensoryWonderland.

Writer:Sean Mackiewicz / Artist: Niko Walter / Image Comics

Gasolina #5 pulls out all the stops and goes as full-throttle as it can. Veracruz is literally on fire in this one. Yet, it somehow it misses the mark on what is clearly the end of its first arc. Gasolina #5 neatly ties off the loose ends but without that definitive ‘umph’. It happens a little too neat, and with none of the gravity of the situation built up in the last four issues. If there was going to be a legit payoff – it should’ve shown up here. Spoiler: it only halfway happens.

The La Querida gang shows its final form and tips its hand. Amalia catches a couple more bodies all commando-like. A certain unheard from young person eats the face off of someone with their chest monster. The women of Veracruz (and some of the men) return to town. Literally, every loose end is tied up. It leaves an evidence-shaped absence that demands more be done to satisfy the story. It does the most trying that it can though. It really tries to get somewhere in measuring its balance of genre.

Gasolina #5 falls on its own sword in looking way too clean in putting the pieces of the puzzle together. The issue leads nowhere unexpected. There is so much cultural richness to the geographic location and its people. So much to be explored in Amalia and Randy’s ‘mixed race’ relationship. Plenty of gender issues to engage in. There’s so much missing from the characters and the environment that it begs one to wonder if writer Sean Mackiewicz has done the appropriate cultural research to better flesh this world (and its inhabitants) out.

Crossing horror, crime, local and international politics with action elements has given Gasolina as a whole something to work with that set it apart from most titles. On that same token, the muddled development of all that left a sour taste in my mind. God bless the letters page, where we learn that there is a cultural gap at play and get to see the narrative work in process happen in response to the letters from readers.

5 snakes down the throat out of 10.

Reading Gasolina? Find BNP’s other reviews of the series here.

Are you following Black Nerd Problems on Twitter, Facebook,Instagram, Tumblr, YouTube or Google+?

The post Gasolina #5 Review appeared first on Black Nerd Problems.