THE THOMPSONS AND THE MCCAUGHEYS
Background: From days of yore, I have heard about the famous feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. To launch this particular DOWN FRONT!, the reader is offered this bit of Americana (at no extra charge.) The information is taken from the Grolier disk:

“Feuds have generally occurred between groups of people sharing the same occupations and religious and civil institutions but who retain a high degree of local autonomy. A well-known example is the 19th-century feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys of the Appalachian Mountain region of the eastern United States. Feuds were also common in the FRONTIER areas of 19th-century America. Although feuding has been outlawed in most countries of the West, the hostile exchanges of the feud still occur in various non-Western societies and even among some neighboring urban groups in America today. Especially in the urban ghetto, acts of violence sometimes help to sustain strong social ties and to define social relationships among the young men of such groups as they pass from boyhood to manhood.” (Robert A. Fernea)
Bibliography: Donnelly, Shirley, The Hatfield-McCoy Feud Reader (1971); Waller, Altina, Feud (1988).

Well, I can’t right say there is a feud between the modern day Thompsons and the McCaugheys In fact, it is more than certain that they don’t know each other although I suspect that the Thompsons know more about the McCaugheys than the reverse being true.

There is something about multiple births that has always fascinated me. From twins “on up.” The biological as well as the social or nurturing aspect. It has always seemed so wonderfully different. Like perhaps other people, I have often reflected on what it would have been like to have a twin brother or sister. Contemplating more than two (of me!) has been more mind blowing than I could fathom.

But the mystery as well as the vicarious joy were clearly set aside when I learned about the ever popular fertility drugs or pills. I first understood them to act on the female anatomy in such a way as to make hitherto unsuccessful pregnancy. So far, O.K. But I now understand that the prospects of multiple births is either an automatic side “benefit” or a highly likely prospect. Either way, the family has an added responsibility or burden depending on the family’s pre-delivery circumstances or the view point of everyone else.

What that means is this: Americans continue to be spectacle/drama people. The bigger and the more unusual, the “better” at least from the standpoint of being desirable. Whether its big breasts, big muscles big families or big expense accounts, everybody clamors for some.

So the 7 McCaughey babies are destined to be paraded like tiny tot freaks whilst their parents unsuccessfully try to field ridiculous inquiries. The fascination extends itself to “things” like cash donations, a van, a house and a call from not-that-busy Bill Clinton. It is clearly a circus; but one cannot help but wonder who the real freaks are! What is certain is that the raree show will continue for a while [the $1.5 million hospital bill will somehow be taken care of] and then...the Family’s Fall. No, I most assuredly do not wish the Iowans ill. On the contrary, they need all the well wishes and moral and financial support they can muster. I am, however, again troubled by the ever-present gross (American, of course) contradiction of O.K. for some, no big thing for others.

That the McCaugheys and the Thompsons are racially different is the luck(?) of the genetic draw. That the national response - including that of the President - has been radically different is more intentional. There was something very obvious about one Dred Scott that this country failed to acknowledge or appreciate. The Thompsons pick up the same historical slack these many years later.

The feud, then, is not between the four parents and their 13 (instantaneous!) children; but between what’s fair and what’s not; what’s acceptable and what’s not; what, ultimately, is decent and humane and what is not! But like I learned from a friend many years ago, protest, however well deserved, is fine; but if you care that much, write a check and send it. I did just that.

THE BOUNDARY-BREAKING MINISTER
If the media can be believed - and this time I suspect it can, Minister Farrakhan is planning a 50 country world tour on behalf of world peace. One particular agenda item is a peaceful relationship between the United States and Iraq. Now that is truly a gas. But let me back up a minute and lay out my position on this he never-ceases-to-amaze-and/or-surprise man. Overall I approve of him. Not that that should matter to DOWN FRONT! readers; but it matters a lot to me. He continues to both do and say important and relevant “things” regarding Black people in this country. I am not so sure that he remains the same thorn in the country’s side as he may have been at an earlier time. I suspect that he continues to swell the ranks of supporters and detractors alike. The anticipated travel is sure to line up additional “troops” on both sides.

A lot of noise is made about the numbers (large numbers!) of Black men who are incarcerated in this country. It is attributed to all manner of reasons including though not limited to blatant and subtle racism. But we don’t hear much about what happens to those same men after they have been released. Who or what is positioned to give them a sense of purpose, to remind or even tell them for the first time that they are important, that they can have self-respect and should expect to be treated with respect...by everyone. Have any of us ever seen a Muslim who does not carry himself (or herself) with pride or respect? Probably...NOT! The Nation of Islam in general and Minister Farrakhan in particular “make” that happen.

But he catches hell because he has angered the Jewish community and incensed the “wider” community; because he is his own person or at least his allegiances (including though not limited to religion) are elsewhere.

The “international thing” is inherently “tricky.” And it has been for a very long time. I am no historian but I cannot think of a single African American man or woman who moved onto the international scene and was shown honest respect or support by this country...collectively. It’s as though “Y’all can say or do whatever y’all like, but stay well away from the international arena.” Reverend King addressed the horror of the Viet Nam War and was less “accepted” than during earlier times. Muhammed Ali did the same (in addition to refusing to serve) and was stripped of his title. Andrew Young had the gall to make inroads to the Palestinians and zappo...no more UN post! The latter occurred some years ago. Young being canned angered me then and it still does now.

The enduring reality (seldom discussed openly) is that America is seen as not simply a powerful country - and that is a fact - but a white male dominated/run/controlled country that will stop at little next to nothing to have its international way. It is not that white ambassadors of good international will have not been or cannot be effective in bringing about peace. It is just that mutual trust is not a global given; and there is every good reason why we should understand that men and women of color [don’t you just love that expression?] are well versed in the wiles of diplomacy on the national and international front. It would be “horrible” and next to impossible to explain if one Reverend Louis Farrakhan were to play a meaningful role in bringing about any semblance of peace or understanding between Iraq or Cuba and the United States. His even thinking about such an extensive journey shows that he does know his “place” and the latter extends well beyond Chicago, USA.

KNOWING THE HOOD - GET OFF THE BUS!
The weekly end-of-program line went something like this, “And when you least expect it, someone will say to you, “Smile. You’re on Candid Camera!” Well, I wasn’t on the famed television show but the show I experienced would have made interesting viewing: I rode the Manchester bus from LaBrea (Inglewood) to Avalon Blvd. It was my fate(?) to have had that experience during the other rush hour: that raucous time when the world’s vibrant teenagers head home from school. There were bus front to bus back Inglewood High School students. No, I didn’t board with my ears, eyes or mind closed. But I knew “from the jump” the ride would be different. And I was not disappointed in that respect. And speaking of respect, there was a total absence of it.

Backing up just a bit, I am reminded of the bad rap Black men get. Yep, in all too many instances deserve it. In fact, here in L.A, when we talk about car-jacking, gang banging, drive-bys, we are invariably talking about the unwelcome deeds of young Black men. Young Black women are let off the hook because they are characteristically not a direct part of that activity. But that doesn’t mean that they are incapable of holding their (verbal) own. So after getting on the bus it soon became dramatically clear that creatively, young Black men have their literal equal in creatively cursing young Black women. O.K. teenagers. We could say “Even Steven” or “Tit for tat” but it’s more fitting to say, “M.F for M.F.!” No shame, no respect no subtleties. Just loud, raucous cursing.
The feminist movement has made a loud and clear point that women and men are equal. I fully support that. Then again, some aspects of equality “make” those women who taken the concept 100% to heart, free and equal losers. The point being this: not all of the habits, practices, traditions of men are “worthy” of women...or some men either! To tie the score in the “game” of inappropriate public “discourse” is a bunch of...you get the idea...BULL!

STEVEN SPEILBERG’S OTHER LIST
I have been in California too long to continue to been enamored of the Hollywood scene. Having seen tons of movies as a youngster I now realize that I was never convinced that what was on screen was “real” although in some small way, I sensed that it was believable enough to be downright scary. To this day, I don’t watch horror flicks. They can’t happen, but they sure manage send chills through me - so I avoid the chills and thrills by avoiding that kind of flick. It’s that easy.

Many years later [let’s not say exactly how many] I came to appreciate the non-fiction type flick. I say “type” because there was that strong element of “this can’t possibly be true.” Yet it was adventurous and entertaining enough to be thoroughly enjoyed. And without being able to deliver enjoyment, movies would be a waste of time.

So Spielberg’s “Amistad” fit right in with the same ease as did his earlier “Schindler’s List.” I personally find the connection almost awesome. It goes to the heart of the (continues-to-get-a-bad-rap) Black-Jewish relationship. Suffice it to say here, Steven and the Mrs. have adopted two African American children and the film was supposedly done as a gift to them and their ancestral history. That’s quite a gift. And a risky one at that.
I had that rare yet delightful urging to see the film since I first heard about it being in the works. “Schindler’s List” was my pivotal point - having seen it once in the theater and once on video. Without being more ethnically persuaded than I usually am, I was anxious to see what he did with the story. One of the compelling reasons for me was that the trial [and I do have to find out whether it was the first or second one] was held in New Haven, Connecticut. Familiar turf!

Steven, Debbie Allen, the superb cast and anyone and everyone else who had a part in the “making” of Amistad” did history and all those who - without even admitting to it - need to understand some aspect of the story of American slavery - exceedingly well.

Usually, I am unavoidably drawn to the criticisms leveled against whatever the general public finds to appealing, so wonderful, so great. In this cinematic example, I have little interest in the critics. Even at this early date subsequent to the film’s release, there are many “arguments” regarding its accuracy, regarding the claim that others should have been at the “directorial” helm, the charges of plagiarism. All or some of these salvos may have merit. I have the advantage of having already seen “Amistad” and remain boldly and unapologetically convinced that it is nothing short of outstanding...whatever the critics say or write.

Knowing myself as I do, I won’t go to the public theater for a 2nd viewing. Doing so is enjoyable but rather costly...even without popcorn and soda; I’ll get the video. YOU should do either or both.

#