BIG IDEAS

Yeah, I know this a true story (of Michael Oher of the Baltimore Ravens), but still, can we be done with this narrative already?

One of the things I love about Turner Classic Movies is that I can always reliably get my black and white movie fix. Luxury for me is a Sunday with the wife and kids at church or out shopping, and me at home with the New York Times, a good bottle of wine and a great film noir or other 1930s style movie with great overacting and all the guys in tuxedos no matter what time of day. Bliss.

Unfortunately, those times only come around midnite these days and I’m too tired to enjoy it. But the other day, TCM showed Cecil B. DeMille’s 1929 film, The Godless Girl, and I was riveted.

If you don’t know this film (and I did not) the story centers around a California high school and the battle for dominance between Christian students and a secret society of young atheists, and the terrible consequences that result from their strident proselytizing.

But it all ends in a very different way, with the initial point getting buried and the whole movie switching to a screed against juvenile detention. What’s fascinating is the amazing way it’s shot - brilliant action, expert lighting, and the story line that so relates so remarkably to current conflicts between the Christian right and the liberal orthodoxy. It’s yet another in a long line of works documenting the reality that the more things change the more things stay the same.

Here’s a longer film description with pictures.

A couple posts ago I mentioned finally digging into the history of breadfruit after hearing about it so long. Now two things I had absolutely no idea about before.

Today I first heard the term “morganatic marriage” while researching something about Pushkin. People from countries with a monarchy are likely much more familiar with this term, but it refers to a special type of marriage contract generally set up between two parties of “unequal” social rank. When associated with royalty, a morganatic marriage limits the unroyal spouse of a royal person (an any children they have) from assuming the titles or the privileges of that royal spouse. Basically, a pre-nup that’s not tied to divorce, but last from the marriage into the next generation.

An interesting concept that generally happened in German and Russian royal tradition, thought not in the UK. Something tells me athletes and celebrities in the U.S. might want to study this term a bit further.

The second thing I learned while researching the famous Carthaginian general Hannibal is about the existence of Scipio Africanus, the Roman general who finally defeated Hannibal and also by all accounts a fierce and strategic warrior himself. A statue of Africanus is the Wikipedia entry initially sparked the question whether or not Scipio was also (possibly) Black, given that the statue is conspicuously done in black marble with white eyes in a way that looks like blackface. I did not go too far down that road, particualrly after finding that the name “Africanus” was spoil of war, os sorts. A title given to Scipio as reward for victory in Africa.

But I did decide to Google Scipio Africanus and found something oddly interesting nonetheless.

Namely the fact that Scipio Africanus seemed to be a popular (and rather cynical) name given to slaves in both Europe and black slaves and hous servants in the states. Further acknowledgment (at least from the slave owners’ point of view) that they also believed the ancient Scipio Africanus to have been Black, though there is no evidence supporting that.

But why have I never heard of this guy? Or again, am I the only idiot who didn’t know this?

Since the debut of Skip Gates’ African American Lives 2 on PBS, people have been buzzing most about the very intriguing family history of Don Cheadle. If you missed it, it was discovered that Cheadle is descended from a family of slaves once owned by the Chickisaw tribe. A number of people - particularly those people who have been led to believe that Native American tribes took in and protected escaped slaves - were stunned to find that the five major Indian nations not only held slaves, but refused to let them go after the Emancipation Proclamation since they were by treaty not subject to American law.

To be fair, there were several tribes that did have close relationships with Blacks, intermarried freely and acknowledged the validity of the result. The casino-rich Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan of Connecticut and some of the federally unrecognized tribes on the Virginia-North Carlina border come to mind. Even more intriguing was the fact that once the Chickisaw did free the slaves they held, they actually honored the legendary promise of 40 acres.

Then again, those Buffalo Soldiers we all celebrate on Black History Month got their moniker from the Indians they took part in killing, so in some ways the blood on the hands is mutual.

Clearly there’s a close, odd and complicated relationship between African Americans and Native Americans, but if you get a chance to visit the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C., you would never know it. I lived just blocks from that museum in DC and since its opening a few years ago have spent dozens of hours there - but in the restaurant, which is secretly one of the best places to eat in DC and features wild game, buffalo chili and several stations of food all based on foods available centuries ago on the American plain.

But the museum itself? Deadly boring and really, in my opinion, not a museum at all but an elaborate revisionist cheerleading session that offers the Native American interpretation of history but very little serious scholarship or examination of America’s strange and difficult relationship to native peoples. And even more glaring - not even the hint of an African American presence. Certainly not a discussion or admission of a history of slave ownership or intermingling. A fact made even more bizarre given that the museum was heavily funded by those same Mashantucket Pequots whose mixed-up history with Black folks is so evident that when Donald Trump was competing with the tribe over casino licensing, he was famously reported to have said “They look like some Michael Jordan Indians to me.”

Now when your people are the victims of genocide, you get a bit of a pass to talk about your culture the way you want. But that doesn’t necessarily give a federally supported historical museum the right to change history.

Which all goes to say, whenever that wonderful dialogue on race that people keeping talking about ever happens, black and white is only one subset of the issues that need to be addressed.

One can only hope that the National African American Museum being planned and constructed will be grounded in broader truths and scholarship, whether or not the picture is very pretty.

Not everything’s funky with Black History Month where Black authors are concerned. There are a couple of real benefits. For example:

(1) If you’re lucky enough to get hooked up into the highly lucrative college and corporate lecture circuit as the result of your book, consider yourself a lock for speaking gigs in February. Every big and small college in America has Black History Month Lecture Series, and the going rate these days can be anywhere from $3,000 - $10,000 a pop for an author who is well known. Exponentially more if you’re a superstar. If  you plan it right and have a good agent, a full schedule of February speaking gigs can earn you a full year’s salary after taxes. That leaves the rest of the year to do what you love - write.

(2) Everyone knows that sales of books are very heavily influenced by the major Bestseller Lists - New York Times, Washington Post.  What you might not know is that those lists have very little to do with overall sales. Most of these lists track only a select list of major chain retailers - Wal-Mart, Borders, Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble…

That dozen books you bought at the Afrocentric Negro Book, Yohimbe & Hair Care Center, your church social and Joe, the dreadlocked incense vendor at the flea market? Don’t count.

That doesn’t mean you should stop buying from those places. By all means, support them. The author gets the money no matter how it’s bought (though bulk sales sold outside of a retailer get the author a lower percentage of royalty).

What makes Black History Month good is this regard is that, by guaranteeing the shelf and window space at places like Borders, it increases the likelihood that Black authors will make those bestseller lists. That’s key. Publishers give a book about a month to catch fire before their attention flows to the next project, and the lists are a heavy part of their consideration for future promotion. Don’t make that list and forget the long book tour you dreamed about.

Ain’t the book business grand?

So here’s something something your probably don’t know - how the book industry and the whole money thing works and how Black History Month throws black authors off a bit.

The Basics:

When an author signs a book deal with a publisher, there’s about a 1.5 to 2-year wait before a book actually comes out. Publishers need to work that far ahead to schedule printers, negotiate shelf space, promote to booksellers and coordinate shipments. In some circumstances - when a publisher really, really wants to move it fast or the author has a completed manuscript at signing - that can move a bit faster.

Following so far? Let’s move ahead:

So let’s use this month as the hypothetical date that Author X signs a contract. Given the timing above, if Author X is white and delivers his or her book according to contract, that author can expect the book to come out Summer or Fall of 2009. If Author X is Black, however, nine times out of ten, said author should not expect a release until February 2010.

Why? Shelf space. Thousands of books come out each month and the only time Black authors can be guaranteed prominent window and display space in major bookstores like Borders and Barnes & Noble is to launch in that short Black History Month schedule when they will only compete with Valentine’s Day love junk. Otherwise a company has to pay for that space, which cuts into their marketing budget and the author’s future profits.

Still with me? Now here’s where that gets really funky:

When you sign a book deal, presumably you get an advance. It is not a fee or a profit. Fundamentally, an advance is a no-interest loan to the author in expectation of profit. Why a loan? Because the costs for marketing, printing, travel and other pre-publishing costs counts against your advance. So let’s say Author X gets a $100,000 advance. If the author sells enough books for $100,000 “profit” after release, and the costs for marketing, printing etc were $98,000 — Author X’s first royalty check will be: $2000.

Understood? OK.

The problem is the timing. The industry pays authors only twice per year - April and October. April’s check is for books sold from July - December of the previous year. October’s check is for sales from January - June of the current year.

So let’s get back to our hypothetical Black Author X and what this means. His/her book comes out in February 2010. By getting pushed to February instead of Fall 2009, this scheduling means Author X will not receive a royalty statement until October 2010, because there were no sales in ‘09, which means of course, no check in April. And since production and marketing costs almost always exceed the first six months of revenue, that royalty statement is, more times than not, just a statement - of how much you still owe the publishing company on their investment.

So realistically, assuming Author X sells a great deal of books, he or she won’t see a royalty on a book deal signed in February 2008 until April 2011. Nearly three and a half years after the fact. With the Black History Month element, that’s a full year or so later than other authors.

Of course, the caveat to all this is that, frankly, the vast majority of authors never get a royalty check - ever. At least not of any substance. For most people, the advance is all the money they will ever see from that source. Money’s really made on lectures, rights and other ancillary income that you can squeeze out of the notoriety you hope to get by being published.

But there’s another side to this Black History book thing. See the next post…