The current issue is always free to everyone

If you need the access available to a
and cannot afford the $50 subscription price, request a complimentary subscrpition here.

Irreverence (n): 1. lack of reverence, 2. an irreverent act or utterance; Irreverent (adj): 1. lacking proper respect or seriousness, 2. Satiric; Despair (vb): to lose all hope or confidence

Lately, there’s been a lot of talk of people being irreverent (disrespectful) to the politics and processes of change (or a lack of such) in the black community. Despair is all over the community, and few people have answers that make sense — beyond doing what we’ve always done, engage in symbolic acts that bring tangible change, re-cycle old ideas that are outdated, re-cycle old leadership who don’t know the world has changed beyond what they once knew.

One has to become irreverent, according to some, just to question, or critique, the process. Some might call it desperate. Desperation evokes criticism, at the least — irreverence at best — and hostility in the most extreme instances. In black America, some things are considered sacrosanct: God (or church), anyone's mother, sick people, old people, disabled people.

Irreverent humor is considered manner-less humor. But what about irreverent reality that’s more sad than funny, when people can’t see the deficit, the inappropriateness, the obvious insanity of a situation? Should we then say nothing? Must a situation become so desperate that the truth has to shame the devil in order for a different reality to come about?

In American society, we often witness those who have lost hope (or have their hope challenged) engage in acts of irreverence. Usually, the more hopeless the situation, the more irreverent the person. Forms of rap music are considered irreverent in their criticism of the ways society chooses to do to deal with social ills. Forms of talk radio have become irreverent in discussing dissatisfaction with the war, poverty and injustice. Younger generations tend to be irreverent when they feel they’re being ignored by older generations. They rebel against the things they’re taught, reject the values that the mainstream revere, and they satirize conformity as a function of maintaining the status quo.

Resistance to change is a natural endeavor. Though we know everything must change, we will resist it until change simply overtakes us. It usually starts as an act of irreverence that signal the despair “change-agents” feel when calls for change are being ignored. Yet, there are people who feel nothing should be said when the process is being taken for granted. Certainly that type of stigmatizing modality can’t be taken seriously.

Throughout the history of social justice conflict in America, particularly as it relates to African American equality pursuits, change has been juxtaposed against sameness as a change option. Criticism emerges and even change options become a point of contention. Booker T. Washington differed with DuBois’ outward challenge to segregation. DuBois’ view of Washington was considered irreverent, given Booker T.’s social positioning in the South and with the mainstream. King was considered irreverent when he criticized the NAACP court (without direct action protest) strategy. The criticism progressed the movement.

Malcolm was irreverent in his “Chickens coming home to roost” criticism of the U.S. assassination practices in the global community at that time. Malcolm was right and U.S. policy was eventually changed. Kwame Toure (Stokely Carmichael) and the Pro-Black Radical youth were called irreverent in their criticism of the passivity of King’s non-violence movement, and even more irreverent in their efforts to insert racial pride into the civil rights agenda. “Black power” became the call of the movement and a change in the perception of the “Negro” occurred throughout the world. It all started with asking a question that seemed blasphemous at the time, but made sense to the public in the long run.

The point here is that people aren’t irreverent just for the sake be being irreverent. They’re irreverent for the same reason that some let folks know that neither the con nor the game is lost on anyone except those who refuse to say anything.  Asking a legitimate question such as why is an 81-year-old running for office, or highlighting an inappropriate action such as why people of color are being disproportionately fired, is not irreverence for the sake of irreverence. It’s irreverence stemming from despair that change is forestalled for some very illegitimate reasons, and nobody wants to ask the question. But many of us understand the game, and can see through the wool being pulled over the community’s eyes…with our irreverent selves.

Or are we just desperate enough to bring attention (change) on these issues? Either way, change is gonna' come. The question is, how soon? It depends on how silent we sit. Or how irreverent we have to become.