AngryGayBlackCanadianman

Prior to the emergence of Noah’s Arc there was a paucity of positive representations of black gay men on mainstream television. The only images of Black gay men on television were snap queens, sex objects, or freaky drag queens. Carter Heywood on ABC’s Spin City shattered the negativity about black gay men in pop culture.

The character Carter was also important in relation to race because finally an openly gay man was a main character on television. Far too often whenever a character is gay on television its always a white person. In North America gayness equals whiteness and gay black men are displaced due to race, gender, and sexual orientation. Finally, the writers and producers of Spin City got it right. Carter was a well adjusted young black man he wasn’t on the down low, he also wasn’t confused or conflicted about his homosexuality.

I am currently on the hunt for Spin City on DVD ASAP! I have to have my Carter fix! I remember when I was struggling with my sexual orientation in the 1990s I was lost and confused. In the 1990s the vast majority of the gay male characters on television were not black I simply couldn’t relate. One evening I was watching a new television show in 1997 Spin City on ABC. I recall Michael J. Fox from the 1980s sitcom Family Ties he was the star of the show.

The character I was most fascinated by was Michael Boatman’s character the openly gay black man Carter Heywood. Carter was a revelation because he wasn’t confused about his homosexuality, he also was comfortable with his blackness. I love Carter! The writers also allowed Carter to have romantic relationships with other men. Carter’s love life was an important part of the storyline.

I felt so connected to the Carter character because he was negotiating being a black man and also dealing with his sexual orientation. Sometimes Spin City focused on the politics that gay black men endure in our lives. Spin City wasn’t afraid to deal with polemical topics such as race, sexual orientation, and homophobia.

Carter also wasn’t just an asexual sidekick like Jack on Will & Grace on NBC. Carter was a confident openly gay black man a rarity on North American television. I never liked Will and Grace because I felt there was a reticence to dealing with male homosexuality in an honest manner. Will and Jack I believe were neutered they were asexual while Grace got all the men.Jack and Will were just effeminate caricatures.

I also was impressed that Carter wasn’t effeminate, he didn’t dress like a bizarre drag queen, or some other offensive gay male stereotype. Carter liked sports he loved basketball, baseball, football he was masculine and sensitive at the same time.

One aspect of Spin City I loved was that Carter’s best friend was a white heterosexual ladies man Stuart. Stuart didn’t care that Carter was gay in fact Stuart and Carter eventually move in together but were platonic friends. I love the fact that the writers of Spin City explored the fact that gay men and heterosexual men can be friends. The straight man doesn’t have to worry that the gay man might hit on him. In fact, Stuart genuinely cared for Carter very much he was Carter’s best friend. It was so hilarious because Stuart hated Carter’s suicidal dog Rags. Another joke on Spin City was that Stuart and Carter were a couple even though Stuart was straight. In fact, there was one episode that explored the possibility that Stuart had romantic feelings for Carter. Carter was accepted by his male peers he was one of the guys. Carter emerged as one of the breakthrough characters on Spin City.

Unfortunately, Michael J Fox had to leave Spin City due to a diagnosis of Parkinson disease in the year 2000. ABC hired has beens actors Charlie Sheen and Heather Locklear to help the show. However, ABC also fired some of my favorite actors on the show such as Victoria Dillard, Connie Britton, and Alexander Chaplin. The chemistry and magic was gone. The spark that made Spin City so witty and exciting was gone the show just wasn’t the same and I tuned out. The former 1980s TV stars Sheen and Locklear ruined Spin City and the series was canceled in 2002.

I was disappointed that the producers fired some prominent characters from the show and the writers didn’t make the characters Carter and Stewart have more prominent roles on the program. Stuart and Carter was shoved to the background. Spin City shifted to Charlie Sheen and Heather Locklear’s characters storylines and it just made me want to vomit. I felt Sheen and Locklear had bad comic timing both actors ultimately destroyed the credibility of the series. I still have fond memories of Spin City but I refuse to watch episodes with Sheen and Locklear. I just feel Sheen and Locklear are not funny. I miss Carter but he will always live in my memories of Spin City.

I was talking to my friend on the phone the other day and he was watching You Tube. My friend was laughing at the Sasha Baron Cohen and Will Ferrell kiss during an award show. I should point out we are both gay men. My friend urged me to watch the clip. I have to admit I laughed as well. I looked at the audience in the clip there were also laughing. Cohen and Ferrell are rolling around on the ground kissing but it was meant for shock value.

I began to question myself and wonder why is the clip funny? Why was I laughing as well? Am I homophobic too? Was the joke funny because it was just two comedians making a joke or is there a more deeper and subversive issue taking place here? Is society trying to say two men cannot have a loving, passionate, relationship with each other?

After all would the audience laugh if two attractive women were kissing? Would the audience have been so shocked? Was the audience really laughing at the kiss or was the audience laughing in attempt to hide their own fear and prejudices about male homosexuality?

Here is another clip from the gay storyline on the American soap opera As The World Turns. For the past six months Luke and Noah have been in an intense and passionate gay romance. Luke and Noah have only kissed two times in the past six months. The heterosexual couples on As The World Turns get to have sex so why can’t Luke and Noah? Everyone knows Luke and Noah are gay so were is the passion? The kiss between Noah and Luke although very short demonstrates the passion between them. You are not supposed to laugh when Luke and Noah kiss you are supposed to yearn that their relationship works and that their love survives and thrives. Fans of the show As The World Turns are upset at CBS because they believe homophobia is the real reason Luke and Noah haven’t been allowed to kiss more often.

Here is a third clip from the lesbian drama the L Word. The scene is from the first season of the L Word a passionate and erotic kiss between Jenny and Marina. You can tell from their body language that Jenny and Marina are yearning for each other. I know some people don’t like Jenny but I love Jenny! I kind of wish Marina was on the show more often. Marina was such a mysterious and amazing character. I thought the kiss here was very important it was the first time Jenny and Marina acknowledged they are sexually attracted to each other. The L Word is on Showtime in America and that’s a cable station so there is more freedom to explore lesbianism, love, passionate sex, breaking up, making up, and all that jazz.

I just heard that Jensen Atwood the gorgeous talented actor from Noah’s Arc may not return for the movie. According to Jensen’s Myspace blog he says that he isn’t certain if he will return for the film. The rumor is that Shemar Moore may replace Jensen. Isn’t Shemar Moore kind of old the guy is almost forty?

Of course Shemar Moore is attractive but he’s not very good at romantic comedies his acting comes across as stale, dry, lacking layers, complexity, and wooden.When people think of Shemar Moore they think he’s an attractive man nobody thinks he’s a solid dramatic actor.

If Shemar doesn’t get his act together when his looks fade he may be out of work. Shemar has always been typecast in just about every movie he’s been in as the hot guy. Perhaps, Shemar wants to be in the Noah’s Arc movie to demonstrate he has range?

The character Wade on Noah’s Arc is a tough role in relation to acting. Wade has a strong masculinity yet he is also vulnerable. Shemar Moore never impressed me with his acting. I just don’t think Shemar has the range or talent to pull this performance off.

Also would Shemar be comfortable kissing another black man? Shouldn’t a younger actor such as Jensen Atwood be cast? Also, isn’t Shemar upset about the so called gay rumors? Wouldn’t the gay rumors just fuel the fire if Shemar was starring in the Noah’s Arc movie?

The quandary for the Noah’s Arc movie is how can the film reach a larger audience? LOGO wants the movie to make money but I am not sure Shemar Moore is “famous” enough anyway to attract a larger audience anyway. Shemar Moore has been on a few soaps, a few supporting roles in films, and on a CBS show “Criminal Intent” but he’s never been a leading man.

Gay people already know about Noah’s Arc and perhaps a few heterosexual women. However, the dilemma for the marketing team for the Noah’s Arc movie is how can the movie grow and reach other demographics? Can Noah’s Arc reach the lucrative heterosexual black audience such as the Tyler Perry crowd?

The dilemma for black gay and lesbian entertainment are the barriers in relation to race, gender, and sexual orientation. Race is an issue because some people won’t watch the film because it has a black cast. The gender and sexual orientation is another issue because how many black heterosexual women want to watch a movie about black gay men falling in love? How many black heterosexual men would watch the film? Can some black females handle seeing gorgeous and sexy black males kissing on screen? Will it upset them?

I think since Jensen Atwood developed an audience with his character the sexy, mysterious Wade he should be cast in the film. Now of course, this is just my opinion but remember Hollywood is a business and it is profit driven. Remember earlier this week Sean Combs ruined “A Raisin In The Sun” with his horrible acting? Well the ratings are in and despite Combs ludicrous performance the movie had a respectable ratings of 12.7 million viewers on ABC. I will admit I am sure some people tuned in just if Combs can act. LOGO doesn’t want the movie to be released in just a few hundred theaters and pull in a low box office. Also, how many people know about Noah’s Arc anyway?

Monday afternoon my friend suggested I borrow his DVD copy of the film “My Beautiful Laundrette”. I was hesitant at first because I thought the film was going to be another classic white savior movie. I notice a theme in a lot of interracial films that the person of colour always needs empowerment from the white person. Some interracial films present the false notion that interracial relationships are fighting racism. However, some interracial relationships are based on racism because of the racist assumptions once race has about another.

Whiteness is depicted as better in many interracial movies and as superior to communities of colour. The subversive vein of racism is in order for people of colour to have better lives we need white partners.

The person of colour’s family life is often framed as originating from an oppressive culture and the European culture is presented as the only solution. White culture is depicted as open minded and perfect. “My Beautiful Laundrette” challenges this racist notion that communities of colour are always oppressive. It is so wonderful to actually see the reverse in “My Beautiful Laundrette”.

In “My Beautiful Laundrette” the South Asian families are actually just as prejudiced as the white British people. The main Pakistani family in the film view lower class white people as inferior and lazy unwilling to work hard to move up the social ladder. I am happy to announce that “My Beautiful Laundrette” is definitely a forward thinking kind of movie.

The film is about a young Pakistani man Omar he lives with his father on welfare in 1980s London. The movie is set in Margaret Thatcher’s England where the racial tensions between the white British community and South Asians are intense. Omar dreams of a better life his father is an alcoholic and his mother is deceased. Omar’s uncle Nasser introduces Omar to a new life and his ambition grows he wants the capitalist dream of material wealth. Omar believes money will give him happiness.

Omar first starts out washing cars but persuades his Uncle Nasser to let him run his own laundrette. One evening Omar meets up with an old friend Johnny a young white British man. Johnny is unemployed, unhappy, and homeless. Johnny hangs out with a bunch of street punks that get involved in crimes, use drugs and are disillusioned about life in London. The young white men are upset that their lives aren’t better and make South Asians the targets and scapegoats for their own unhappiness.

The South Asian community in London are working hard to rise in British society. The young street punks feel left behind and have a sense of entitlement due to the fact they are British.

Omar needs another Uncle Salim he is the villain in the film he gets Omar involved in dirty deeds and is emotionally abusive to Omar. Omar persuades Johnny to help him fix up the Laundrette and gives Johnny a job. Johnny’s self esteem grows he now has a purpose in life and he is conflicted about hanging out with his punk friends that are miserable, racist, and anti social. Omar and Johnny’s feelings for each other grow and they fall in love.

The aspect of the movie I loved the most is  the gay romance is not viewed as a social problem. It is still so rare to see a movie about a South Asian gay man that is the star of the film and being gay is not a source of conflict. “My Beautiful Laundrette” just presents male homosexuality as a part of life. Omar just happens to be gay he doesn’t make a big deal about it and neither should the audience. Gordon Warnecke gives a confident and strong performance as the protagonist Omar. Daniel Day Lewis shines as Omar’s lover Johnny.

The gay romance is tame by twenty first century standards there are a few romantic kisses to illustrate Omar and Johnny are lovers. I love the fact that Omar and Johnny have intimacy to their relationship. Far too often gay movies either conceal the gay romance or are too explicit that it destroys a film. “My Beautiful Laundrette” has a balance that is so charming and cute. Omar and Johnny have a sweet tenderness to their relationship you can tell they are in love just by the way they gently hug or look intensely at each other.

I believe “My Beautiful Laundrette” is indeed superior to other so called big budget gay films that have been released in the last few years. My perspective is if “My Beautiful Laundrette” was made in North America the whole movie would of been worse to treat homosexuality as a social issue. It is simply incredible that “My Beautiful Laundrette” was released in 1985 because the movie is so current and so real.

The main themes about the movie deal with cultural clashes between the South Asian immigrants and white Anglo Saxon population, identity politics, and also class. Class is a main theme in the movie. Omar begins to rise in the class system and starts to become a bit arrogant as well.

Meanwhile Uncle Nasser is having an affair with a white woman Rachel and his daughter Tania and his wife know about this. Tania is depressed she doesn’t want to live in a patriarchal family and she wishes she had more to do with her life.My only criticism of the film is I think the Tania character should of had more screen time the issue of sexism and misogyny was explored to a certain extent. I wanted to know more why Tania was so unhappy and I wished her character was more developed. I feel Tania is just a plot device in the film but maybe this was in the intention of the screenwriter.

Tania confronts Rachel at the opening of the Laundrette and Rachel dumps uncle Nasser. I think Tania is a catalyst for change in the film. Johnny’s friends attack him in the third act of the movie because they feel he is betraying them by trying to become a productive citizen. Uncle Salim is also attacked by the street punks. Tania leaves her family and moves on with her life she wants Johnny to go with her. Johnny refuses Tania’s advances and says he loves Omar and he will not leave him.

Uncle Nasser confronts his fears that his ephemeral relationship with Rachel was doomed because he is so unhappy with his marriage. Omar’s father wants Omar to attend college. Omar and Johnny make it out in the end and remain a couple. I absolutely love this fact that neither Omar or Johnny died.

I cringe every single time a gay movie is released and one of the protagonists has to die. Of course in real life relationships don’t always work and this has to be explored on film. However, in cinema there is a predilection that gay romances are doomed because the subliminal message is gay romance is inferior to heterosexual love. I recommend “My Beautiful Laundrette” to anyone willing to give a movie a chance that deals with gay love in a funny, clever, intelligent, and serious manner.

            Unfortunately, since I’m Canadian TSN Canada’s “premier” sports channel broadcasts tape delay matches of the ATP Masters championships in Shanghai China. The shameless comments by American tennis commentator Patrick McEnroe makes my ears bleed.

In Patrick McEnroe’s bizarre and twisted universe Andy Roddick is still a “top player” and a ”contender” in men’s tennis. McEnroe has been talking about how “great” Andy Roddick is and every single year Roddick drops in the ATP tour rankings. The truth is Roddick has been passed by Novak Djokovic and David Nalbandian as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal’s chief rivals. Federer and Nadal have a combined 4-0 record against Roddick this year and all the victories were in straight sets.

However, listening to Patrick McEnroe basically being perfidious to the tennis audience is irritating because he is so truculent. It doesn’t make any sense. Roddick has fallen back he’s a top ten player he can beat most of the players but he cannot beat the best players. Roddick is no longer a part of the real ”elite group” of the ATP tour.

Until Andy Roddick can prove he can beat Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal consistently in a major event he is not a contender. When Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal see Andy Roddick’s name on their side of the draw they know they have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Its also painfully obvious that Patrick McEnroe should not be an ESPN tennis commentator. McEnroe has a conflict of interest he’s the United States Davis Cup captain. How can he be objective when he is also too “emotionally involved” with Andy Roddick? Its obvious that when McEnroe is commentating Roddick’s matches he’s “openly” rooting for Roddick. For example, at the 2006 US OPEN men’s final Roddick was in a tense four set battle with Roger Federer. Roddick sees Patrick McEnroe and makes the comment “I’m having so much fun” and he ultimately loses his concentration and the match. McEnroe has proven he cannot be neutral with Andy Roddick he is not professional. The bias Patrick McEnroe has towards Andy Roddick is beyond pathetic its completely unprofessional and disgraceful.

Everyone knows that Patrick McEnroe is ”in love” with Andy Roddick he can do no wrong. At the 2007 Australian Open this year Roddick was using scatological language against his  black French opponent Jo Wilfred Tsonga. Patrick McEnroe had the audacity to actually ”cheer” Roddick on for his obnoxious behavior. However, once the topic shifts to the Williams Sisters and Patrick McEnroe’s attitude is not only mean spirited its downright racist. Venus and Serena are the only American women winning grand slams. The state of American women’s tennis is also in a moment of flux. Yes Lindsay Davenport has returned but at the moment its the Williams Sisters delivering the hardware they won two out of the four slams this year. Yet Patrick McEnroe’s criticisms of the Williams Sisters is not only ludicrous it also demonstrates his lack of class. Where is McEnroe’s criticism of Andy Roddick? Why is there this double standard? The American men have failed at the grand slams for years where is McEnroe’s objectivity?

Patrick McEnroe’s “total devotion”to Andy Roddick is “very creepy” to listen to its as though he has “intense emotional feelings” for Andy Roddick. McEnroe is essentially a professional groupie he is paid by ESPN and CBS to hype Andy Roddick up despite the fact for the past four years he has failed to deliver the grand slam results. McEnroe hardly ever is “critical” of Roddick his love for Roddick is too strong. After Roddick loses one big match after another McEnroe’s attitude on the air is very somber as though he is crushed and distraught. Patrick McEnroe may be married to a woman but its clear his heart belongs to tennis star Andy Roddick.

The sports arena is one of the few places in society that allows men the opportunities to be “passionate” about other males. The sports world is one of the few places in society where “homosocial” relationships can occur without judgement. The word “homosocial” does not mean “homosexual”. The term “homosocial” is referring to social constructs and social spheres.  Men want to engage in “homosocial” relationships with each other by “gathering” at sports bars, or somebody’s apartment or house this is a ”homosocial” setting. Sports is generally a space where ”men” want to “only” be around “other men” its a form of “male bonding”.

Sports is also one of the places where the “passionate feelings” men have for male athletes is palatable. Heterosexual men pay lots of money to attend sport events to express their “adoration” and ”love” for male athletes. The NBA, NFL, CFL, baseball, tennis, golf, hockey, soccer, are all sports where the power of homoeroticism not only exists it thrives with a strong pulse.

Male athletes are also a symbol of “masculinity” they are viewed as “desirable”. I am not suggesting just because male sports fans “like” a particular sport or sports means they are gay. I am suggesting that there is “more” to men just “loving” a sport or sports. Sports is an arena where ordinary men can “feel” an ”electric connection” to the powerful, strong, muscular, and physically fit men they secretly desire to be.

 However, the issue of homoeroticism is the fuel that allows male sports stars to transform into cultural heroes. Men don’t just “like” the athletic skill of the male athlete they also admire the “physique” and the “looks” of the male athletes. Why can’t men be honest? Men don’t just admire the fact that Tiger Woods is a great golfer.  Men do “look” at the bodies of “other men” yet most men won’t “admit” this for the fear of being called “gay”.  It is not “gay” to admire the male form the biceps, the abs, the strength it is to be human. We all want to “look” better and male athletes are the perfect “specimens” of male beauty. Men also admire Tiger Woods strong muscular body and his strength since most male golfers are overweight and out of shape. Tiger Woods stands out because he takes his physical fitness seriously and men admire the dedication, drive, and ambition he has to maximize his potential. It also doesn’t hurt that Woods is attractive, young, and intelligent as well.

 It may not be a sexual attraction but the “attraction” the “allure” the ‘intense” interest is there it lingers and it grows and its real. Homoeroticism is one of the reasons male sports is so popular. Male fans don’t just appreciate “male athletes” surreptitiously some male fans not only “want to be” the “male sports star” they are also “in love” with the male sports star. Its one of sports worst kept secrets.

Patrick McEnroe appears to be living ”vicariously” through Andy Roddick. McEnroe comes across as though there is an unrequited love affair between himself and Andy Roddick’s tennis career. McEnroe is so desperate for Roddick to live up to his “dreams”, “expectations”, and “goals”. The way Patrick McEnroe boasts about Roddick’s so called “contender status” for the past four years yet he consistently has failed to produce the results proves McEnroe’s  devotion to Roddick. 

Patrick McEnroe’s homoerotic feelings for Roddick moves beyond just wanting him to “succeed” on the tennis court. Patrick McEnroe “wants to be” Andy Roddick. McEnroe’s tennis identity was of a “loser” and not “winner” like his older brother John. Andy Roddick is the tennis star that Patrick McEnroe believes can help him “lose” his “loser” status. When John McEnroe was holding various Wimbledon and US OPEN trophies and being number one in the world Patrick was in the background. Patrick was never blessed with the natural tennis gifts of his older brother John he simply was not talented enough to be a tennis champion. Its obvious Patrick McEnroe is desperate to no longer be a “loser” he wants to hold his own tennis trophy to become a “winner”. If the United States wins the Davis Cup Patrick McEnroe can finally become a “winner” and hold the Davis Cup trophy.

Cliff Drysdale the other ESPN American commentator he’s pretty honest and fair. Drysdale knows Roddick is no contender and he won’t lie to the audience about this fact. The bottom line is Andy Roddick is not one of the elite male tennis players anymore.

Its been over four long years since an American male has won a grand slam singles title. The American media is restless due to the European domination of men’s tennis. The Americans have been spoiled because for most of the 1990s it was all Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, and Andre Agassi. Its obvious the current American male tennis generation is simply not as talented as Sampras, Courier, and Agassi. I am not suggesting that Andy Roddick cannot win another grand slam because I think he can. Roddick can win another major or majors but he would need a complete change in his attitude and his game to become a serious male tennis champion.

One of the major hypocrisies I’ve noticed about the USA media is their intense hatred for the Williams Sisters yet Andy Roddick gets a free pass. I wonder why does this occur? At the US OPEN this year the venom by the mainstream American media was not surprising but typically racist and predictable. The mainstream American media will criticize Serena Williams and call her “classless” for not giving praise to Justine Henin yet ignore Andy Roddick’s deleterious attitude. Last time I checked Serena won a grand slam this year the Australian Open. Andy Roddick hasn’t won a grand slam since the year 2003. I don’t read any articles taking Roddick to task about his party lifestyle or about his lack of commitment to tennis. Roddick is also known for changing coaches the way people change shoes. Whenever Roddick is losing he always gets himself a new coach yet his problems remain the same. Its obvious Andy Roddick has a major attitude problem. Roddick’s problems are more “internal” then “external” he clearly has a conflict within himself. Roddick charges the net even though he cannot volley very well. Roddick does not know how to hit solid low volleys. Perhaps Roddick needs a sports psychologist?

Roddick is immature to the extreme he claims to be cognizant of his incendiary emotional outbursts. However, it is not even a joke anymore its to be expected and its time for the ATP tour to crack down on Andy Roddick. Roddick should be fined for his abusive behavior towards the chair umpires and fellow tennis players he acts like a mad man on the court. Its really scary how obnoxious Roddick is on the court. Where are the articles criticizing Roddick about his immaturity? Or does Roddick get a free pass because he’s a white American male? Yet the mainstream USA media ignores his unprofessionalism on the tennis court. Whenever Andy Roddick is losing he’s a ticking time bomb he will whine and complain to the chair umpire about anything, he will even shout at his opponents.

Roddick is also not popular with other male tennis players. Ivan Ljubicic and various other players have lashed out at Roddick for his unprofessionalism on the tennis court. Roddick’s lack of emotional maturity costs him to lose matches. John McEnroe also had a temper but he also was more intelligent then Roddick. Yes, John was known for being explosive on the court he would eventually get over his anger and focus on trying to win the tennis match. Andy Roddick is the opposite his anger manifests itself and festers into a cancer. Roddick’s anger boils over into the rest of his game he telegraphs poor body language by hanging his head down, slumping his shoulders, and you know he’s going to lose the match. If Roddick would just grow up and act like a real man on the tennis court maybe he would win more matches. Why make a big deal about nothing?

Another problem for Roddick is the fact he’s not getting any younger he’s in mid career now at the age of twenty five. Roddick is now a veteran he’s not a new kid on the block. Now there is a new younger generation of players that are targeting him.The younger European players such as Novak Djokovic have already passed Roddick in the rankings. Djokovic also defeated Roddick in straight sets at the Masters event in Montreal this year.

Also, McEnroe is also the Davis Cup captain for the United States. McEnroe basically got his job as a tennis commentator due to nepotism. Let’s be real here Patrick McEnroe wasn’t a champion he wasn’t even a top ten player. Patrick McEnroe was not a tennis champion he’s just John McEnroe’s less talented less obnoxious brother.

Although I find John McEnroe belligerent at times at least he was a champion and he is always honest about Andy Roddick’s limited tennis abilities. Earlier this year John McEnroe said rising Serbian tennis star Novak Djokovic is clearly ahead of Andy Roddick and of course he is correct. However, Patrick’s “devotion” to Andy Roddick is bordering on “homoeroticism”. Its just bizarre the way how Patrick continues to make excuses for the futility in Andy Roddick’s game. Patrick is blinded by his “ love” for Andy Roddick. Is Patrick McEnroe in love with Andy Roddick? I mean you got to wonder?

One result tennis fans don’t have to worry about is world number one Roger Federer defeating Andy Roddick. Federer now has a 15-1 record against Roddick he hasn’t lost to him since the 2003 Canadian Open.I continue to be amazed at Andy Roddick’s incredible immaturity on the tennis court. Now plenty of tennis players smash their rackets I understand that Marat Safin does that all the time. However, Safin does not attempt to intimidate his opponents as Roddick does when he’s losing. Yesterday against world number one Roger Federer I was disgusted with the lack of sportsmanship of Andy Roddick. Roddick utters the phrase “I’m getting better Roger” as Roger is thrashing him on the court. What was the point for Roddick to make such a stupid comment during the match? Roger was actually laughing at Andy Roddick because when Roddick makes outbursts like this he knows he’s already lost.

The mainstream American media created this artificial rivalry when its obvious none exists between Roger Federer and the American men. One topic the mainstream press ignores is the obvious intense animosity between Roger Federer and Andy Roddick. Although Rafael Nadal has a winning record against Roger Federer these two guys actually respect one another and even defend each other in the media. Roger Federer allowed Rafael Nadal to travel with him from the Masters event in Montreal this year to Cincinnati on his private jet.

My perspective is Roger doesn’t appreciate Andy’s lack of class on the tennis court and he gives 110% every single time he plays Roddick because he wants to humiliate him. Roger enjoys destroying Andy Roddick’s self confidence and he relishes in watching Roddick self destruct on the court becoming upset and agitated. Its basically a broken record. Roger let’s his racket do the talking. In press conferences Roger will say all the politically correct statements but its obvious he has a fire in his eyes when he plays Andy Roddick. Roger doesn’t respect Andy Roddick because he doesn’t approve of Roddick’s immaturity on the tennis court. Andy is obviously distraught whenever he plays Roger he will say in press conferences that he’s “ready” for the challenge but the truth is he has absolutely no confidence when he plays Roger. Andy is ”frightened” and “terrified” even though he claims otherwise. Andy Roddick is also clearly very confused and doesn’t know what to do when he plays Roger.

Roddick is also “obsessed” with Roger Federer to the extreme. Roddick changed his game in “hope” of beating Roger but he has failed every single time. The quandary for Roddick is since he’s so “obsessed” with Roger Federer and he “constantly” thinks about Roger “all the time” he let the rest of his game slip. Roddick never should of left Brad Gilbert he was the right kind of coach he could deal with Roddick.

Roger has a quiet intensity and maturity he focuses on the task at hand and he doesn’t let his emotions overwhelm him. Roger definitely picks up his game to another gear whenever he plays Roddick. Last year at the Masters Cup Roddick had three match points against Roger Federer and he could of closed the drought but he capitulated. At the end of last year’s Masters Cup Roddick continued to utter the line “I’m closing the gap.” At the 2007 Australian Open Roger blasted Roddick off the court only allowing him to win six games. Roger made sure he sent the message to Roddick the gap is not closing its as wide as the Grand Canyon!

At the 2007 US OPEN John McEnroe and a special guest Andre Agassi were honest they didn’t give Roddick much of a chance to beat Roger and of course they were correct. The tone during the USA network telecast it appeared to me that John and Andre were demoralized and felt “pity” for Roddick. During the match Andre said it was “unfortunate” that Andy Roddick was born in the “Federer era” because he said great champions need to have two great weapons but he said Roger had five.

At the Masters Cup Roger did lose his first match in a shock loss to Fernando Gonzalez so I thought that perhaps Roger could be vulnerable but once again he rolls over Roddick.Roddick even admitted that the players that give Roger trouble tend to be “quick” and he says its not one of his “strengths.” Since Roddick is “cognizant” that he isn’t “quick” maybe he needs to lay off the “beer” and spend more time in the gym. Its obvious Andy Roddick isn’t improving his game. Roddick appears clumsy, extremely slow, and uncoordinated on the court. Roddick also appears to get tired during matches he’s not physically fit enough to challenge the real top contenders.Roddick clearly is not working on foot drills his footwork is atrocious. Roddick also stands too far behind the baseline when he is returning serve its just not a very intelligent thing to do.

Another problem for Roddick although he has a big serve his serve is simply too predictable. Roger Federer and the rest of the ATP Tour have figured out all they have to do is block Andy Roddick’s serve and they most likely will win the point. Another quandary for Roddick is his backhand it simply is not a well produced groundstroke. Andy Roddick does not hit through his backhand he doesn’t produce enough pace. David Nalbandian’s game bothers Roger Federer because he not only serves well he also moves well and he has an excellent two handed backhand down the line.

I am not suggesting that Roddick is overweight because he’s not but he clearly appears “bulky” he just doesn’t look fit. Roddick is not giving 110% to his fitness. At the Indianapolis event this year during his loss to Canadian tennis star Frank Dancevic Roddick created the excuse that he wasn’t feeling well. Its obvious Roddick doesn’t train hard enough. Roddick should be trying to improve his speed through sprint drills. Tennis is not just about power its also about placement and movement. Yes, Andy Roddick is six foot two but Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are also over six feet and they are very fast. Federer and Nadal take their fitness seriously and are cognizant of the fact speed is so crucial on the tennis court. Roddick is not blessed with the natural talent and gifts of Federer and Nadal but he can lose a bit of weight make himself lighter on the court and perhaps have more energy as well.

Roddick’s compatriot James Blake is actually more naturally talented then Roddick he’s a better athlete, he’s much faster then Roddick, he has a superior forehand, return of serve, and a better backhand. However, Blake is just not not as mentally strong as Roddick is. Blake has slipped in the ATP tour rankings down to number thirteen in the world. Perhaps this is where Blake belongs  anyway? Blake has not had any results in the grand slams to suggest he deserves a place in the top ten. Roddick does give his all in his matches and he never gives up.  James Blake is known to slump his shoulders if he’s losing and mentally give up he doesn’t try hard enough he doesn’t give 110% all the time. Blake also makes numerous excuses when he loses big matches.

James Blake is known for capitulating matches or simply choking matches due to his nerves. Blake could be challenging Federer he already has a 3-0 record against Nadal. The problem with Blake is his mind, one handed backhand, and his serve. Blake serves with a locked wrist he’s not getting enough acceleration on the ball. Blake has the talent to be a contender but he doesn’t believe he can. Another obvious flaw in Blake’s game is his backhand he can hit a solid one handed top spin backhand. However, Blake has no variety on his backhand he has not improved a solid one handed slice. Blake’s one handed slice has no side spin, no edge, and no power, as Roger Federer’s one handed slice backhand.

 Interestingly, Patrick McEnroe is very critical of James Blake when he is on ESPN or other TV networks that it borderlines on the offensive. Its just surprising that Patrick McEnroe can “pretend” to be so “clueless” when he is commentating Andy Roddick’s matches about Roddick’s weaknesses yet he doesn’t have a problem pointing out James Blake’s faults.

The Davis Cup finals is next month and the question a lot of people are asking is will Patrick McEnroe allow a chronic choker such as James Blake to play singles? A lot is on the line not only for the USA Davis Cup team but also for Patrick McEnroe. McEnroe wants some kind of “legacy” some kind of “stamp of approval” that he did indeed contribute to American men’s tennis. McEnroe was an adequate tennis player but he was not a winner and capturing the Davis Cup could change that. The Russians are so deep in talent they don’t need Marat Safin to win and they have proven that this year. However, for the finals the Russians most likely will need Safin. The problem for the Russians is that Safin is so unpredictable. If Safin is playing his best tennis he can beat Andy Roddick and James Blake. The other Russians have a better shot at beating Blake. Mikhail Youzhny has beaten Blake before, Dimitri Tursunov can definitely beat Blake. Nikoklay Davydenko is a top five player he has the ability to beat Blake as well. The Russians have the chance to shock the Americans on their own soil. The Davis Cup finals is definitely in the Americans hands because they have the Bryan twins a solid doubles team and they do have Andy Roddick. James Blake has proven that he is the weakest link.

Its well known that Blake simply cannot win the important matches in Davis Cup or at the grand slams. Blake always folds under pressure. Perhaps Blake could “rise” and actually pull through for the USA? The question remains when the pressure is on in the fifth set can Blake win it? After all Blake has a 1-10 record in five set matches. Will McEnroe replace James Blake with the young Americans Donald Young or even John Isner? Isner has a monster serve but he also had a solid summer and he’s good on hard courts. However, Isner and Young are also very inexperienced. McEnroe could use Marty Fish but he’s also a choker and Robby Ginepri is a talented player that simply has not lived up to his potential. Some may gripe and say McEnroe would be out of line to do this but the bottom line is Patrick McEnroe desperately wants to win the Davis Cup. Will McEnroe give Blake a chance to redeem himself or risk losing all including his job as Davis Cup captain? Andy Roddick and James Blake also have their own incentives to win the Davis Cup they want to “prove” they can win a big event on the world stage.

The Davis Cup many not be a grand slam but is a very prestigious event. Patrick McEnroe during his professional tennis career was never a winner he wasn’t even a solid player. McEnroe, Blake, and Roddick have all have the badge of being “consistent losers”. If the USA can win the Davis Cup this could “elevate” Roddick, Blake, and McEnroe from being “consistent losers” to becoming champions. The Bryan Twins consistently win grand slam double events they are winners. If the USA Davis Cup team did not have the Bryan Twins they wouldn’t be in the finals.

Perhaps the Davis Cup can provide Blake and Roddick with the ammunition and motivation to work harder on their games and rise back into the elite? Roddick, Blake, and McEnroe are desperate for redemption their “pride” is at stake. It would be considered a very embarrassing result if the Americans lost to Russia on home soil in the Davis Cup finals. The knives and blades would be unearthed and the mainstream USA media would start carving at the last ounce of self esteem they have left. Let’s face it if the USA does not win the Davis Cup this year McEnroe should quit as Davis Cup captain.

I just finished reading Langston Hughes first memoir “The Big Sea”. I love Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston so much they are my favourite writers. I really cannot choose between Langston and Zora both are incredible writers and they mean so much to me. I love them both.

If you want to gain a real appreciation for Langston Hughes as a writer do yourself a favor read the book at the public library or just buy the book. The Big Sea was published in the year 1940 it is an account about the early part of Langston’s life from birth to his early 30s. Langston discusses how he got “discovered” by the white American poet Vachel Lindsay. Langston writes eloquently about visiting Africa and Europe for the first time during the 1920s and the trials and tribulations of being a sailor.

I was most impressed with Langston’s description of the Harlem Renaissance. I felt like I was there with all of the energy, excitement, and electricity of the moment. Langston met other soon to be famous black writers such as Zora Neale Hurston, Countee Cullen, Wallace Thurman, Richard Bruce Nugent, the sculptor Aaron Douglas, and the white gay writer Carl Van Vechten. I think Langston was brave to travel to Africa and Europe as a young man. I guess he was seeking adventure and wanted to see the world.

Carl Van Vechten is a very interesting figure in the history of the Harlem Renaissance because he was the only white person that was a part of the “inner circle”. Later on in his life Van Vechten also got involved in photography. Van Vechten met Langston and Zora Neale Hurston in the 1920s and he was friends with both writers for the rest of their lives.

Van Vechten became famous in the 1920s because he was part of a controversy over a book he had written called “Nigger Heaven”. Now the title of the novel of course is controversial. However, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston and other black writers actually defended Van Vechten when some black critics during this era slammed Van Vechten and called him racist. The term Nigger Heaven actually refers to the balcony section in the movie theaters where blacks were forced to sit during the 1920s.

I think Van Vechten had another meaning for “Nigger Heaven” that “Harlem” was like a gallery where whites were able to “watch” blacks but at a “distance”. I also believe Van Vechen was “referring” to whites viewing blacks as science experiments something to be “gawked” at and not taken seriously. Van Vechten was clearly writing about the racial and social apartheid in America he was criticizing white Americans for their hypocrisy. If blacks are so fun to be around why the need for the American laws to treat blacks as second class citizens? I won’t call “Nigger Heaven” a protest novel but clearly the book is important.

Van Vechten was ahead of his time he was cognizant of the hypocrisy and racism of white America. In Harlem blacks were barred from certain clubs such as the Cotton Club that was reserved for whites only. The only blacks allowed in side this exclusive venue were the entertainers such as the singers, musicians, and dancers that performed for whites.

Van Vechten also was very instrumental in connecting Langston Hughes with Alfred Knopf to publish his work he also helped other black writers reach a larger audience. Van Vechten, although gay, he was married to a woman; he drank heavily too, but he was a very charismatic kind of a person and threw great parties. Van Vechten is really one of the few whites during the Harlem Renaissance that wasn’t “exploiting” blacks but really had a genuine interest in black art and black culture.

During the numerous parties on the weekends regular folks mingled with celebrities like Ethel Barrymore, Salvador Dali, and even royalty in Harlem. White people flocked to Harlem to “watch” blacks. Josephine Baker was a hit on Broadway in the play “Shuffle Along.” Langston also discusses his cynical view of the Renaissance about how white Americans viewed black people as “primitive” and as a form of a social experiment or entertainment.

Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston also had a patronage with a mysterious wealthy white woman named Charlotte Osgood Mason also known as “godmother.” Ms. Mason paid Zora and Langston a salary to find the black “primitive art” she was so interested in. Hughes became disillusioned with Ms. Mason and stopped working for her around the year 1930 because he didn’t feel that she really “respected” African American culture. Langston felt Ms. Mason had a myopic view of blackness and black people.

Langston also discusses a legendary feud with Zora Neale Hurston about a play they wrote together called “Mule Bone.” Its kind of sad that this great literary friendship ended over a play. The story goes like this Zora wrote the play and wanted Langston to help her fix it up and he did. Langston helped write the final draft of the play. Now a typist Louise Thompson was hired but Zora didn’t want the other “woman” to claim credit to the play. Zora visited Langston’s mother’s house in Cleveland and she was furious screaming and yelling at Langston. Ms. Hughes had to calm Zora down. Zora continued to insist that Langston was trying to give credit to “another girl”. Ms Hughes was not pleased but eventually Zora and Langston had a discussion about the play but the friendship was over at this point.

In Zora’s memoir “Dust Tracks On A Road” she ignores Langston and the entire Mule Bone incident. In Carla Kaplan’s wonderful biography “Zora A Life In Letters” she connects the dots. Now I know Langston was a homosexual but I get this sense that maybe Zora had feelings for him? Were Langston and Zora lovers? I wonder? Maybe I am imagining things but I sense Langston and Zora may of had a romantic relationship? Did Zora know she had feelings for a homosexual? Now I am not suggesting Langston and Zora were lovers but why was Zora so upset about Louise Thompson? Its interesting in Langston’s memoir he doesn’t mention the typist Louise Thompson by name yet Carla Kaplan’s book does. Its kind of sad that this play destroyed their friendship. Langston and Zora only briefly communicated after the “Mule Bone” incident a few times in the 1930s and that was it.

Langston discussions about the incredible racial discrimination blacks experienced even in Harlem is very powerful. Blacks were viewed as just the “entertainment” often blacks were not allowed to enter certain clubs such as the “Cotton Club.”

I just love this book so much! Its so inspiring to read about his writing career and his life and the difficulty he had with maintaining a relationship with his father. Langston did not enjoy visiting his father in Mexico he even says he “hated” his father.

It was depressing at times to read about the incredible struggles Langston endured just because he was a young black man. I just cannot imagine the incredible amount of racial discrimination Langston endured during his life. I am not just talking about just the physical also the psychological effects this racist treatment must of had on older generations of black people. I think younger black people we forget the horrible treatment our elders experienced. I cannot imagine what he went through. Langston was forced to sit in the black section of a train or bus due to race. Langston also was not allowed to get accommodations at certain hotels due to being black. Blacks also were barred from using washrooms in public places as well. Even going to the park was an a big issue for African Americans during this era.

The racial apartheid of America was in full force. The Harlem Renaissance was an important time for black writers because it was the first time blacks believed there was “hope” through art. Angelina Weld Grimke the black lesbian poet had written her play about lynching “Rachel” in the year 1920. Nobody knows exactly when the Harlem Renaissance started but historians do say it ended around the 1929 or perhaps 1930.

The one area of “The Big Sea” I noticed Langston was reticent about is his love life. I was so curious I craved to know more. I believe this is the most frustrating part about the memoir I still didn’t feel like I knew everything about the real Langston Hughes? I find it very hard to believe that a man so attractive, so handsome, so charismatic, so beautiful, so intelligent such as Langston Hughes was unable to find a male lover?

Langston must of had some male or female lovers during his early life? Langston’s love life is basically non existent in “The Big Sea”. The question remains why?I find this part of the memoir most perplexing. I want to peak into Langston’s mind. I want to peel beneath the surface and shatter the canyon of silence. There isn’t even a section about his so called “heterosexual” romances much less about his gay love affairs. There appears to be a dissemblance by Langston around the issue of his homosexuality. Later on in Langston’s life he does write about homoerotic themes such as the poem cafe 3 am.

I understand during this period it was hard for African American gays and lesbians to be “respected” by the heterosexual black community. It was basically impossible to be out of the closet Langston didn’t have a choice he had to conceal his homosexuality. I think the constant need to “hide” his sexuality affected Langston emotionally and psychologically. I cannot imagine the intense fear and pressure he endured wondering if the black race would respect him if they knew he was gay.

Although the famous butch piano player Gladys Bentley was “out” about her lesbianism during the 1920s society was less fearful of lesbianism then male homosexuality. Gladys moved from Harlem to Hollywood and later on in her life shifted back to heterosexuality. Bessie Smith the Blues singer she “out” as a bisexual she had numerous affairs with female singers and dancers during the 1920s. Ma Rainey was also bisexual as well. However, Langston was a black man and the fallout would of been much greater if he did come out as gay.

It makes “sense” for Langston to conceal his homosexuality during his lifetime. How could Langston possibly come out in an era where black people still didn’t have equal rights? What good would that do? People have to remember that black gays in Langston’s era encounted multiple layers of oppression.

If Langston came out during his era it would destroy his career and maybe even his life. Langston also didn’t write much about homosexuality during his lifetime because I believe he always had a “fear” of being outed for a variety of reasons. The USA government even had witch hunts against gays in the 1940s and 1950s. Langston most likely did the “right” thing to remain in the closet he had no choice. Sure, one can argue the African American James Baldwin was brave and he was.

James Baldwin was also born in 1924 he was over twenty years “younger” then Langston Hughes. Baldwin I believe really was brave to write “Giovanni’s Room” in 1956. Notice though in “Giovanni’s Room” the protagonist is a white boy and not black. Some people say Baldwin made the characters in that book “white” to reach a larger mainstream audience there was a higher potential to make more money. And of course its true its just shrewd business. Baldiwn knew if he wrote the main gay characters David and Giovanni as “white” both white and black America would just see the book as pure “fiction”.

After all an argument is why can’t a black writer write a book with white characters? However, think about the time period that Baldwin lived in. Would “Giovanni’s Room” really be as celebrated by the white heterosexual or homosexual communities if the characters in that book were African Americans? Wouldn’t this give racist organizations in America ammunition to pathologize blacks more?

Often a lot of gay historians and scholars always exclude this important point. Baldwin wouldn’t be “celebrated” at the beginning of his career by the black or white press if “Giovanni’s Room” was about black gay men. The civil rights movement just started in 1955 one year before “Giovanni’s Room” was published. Baldwin would be crucified by the NAACP and other black heterosexual leaders if “Giovanni’s Room” was about black gay men they would brand him as a traitor and a sell out. Baldwin would lose his “place” within the private sphere of black society. I also believe the white mainstream media would be hypocritical. Racist organizations such as the KKK would just say blacks had “no morals”. During the 1950s homosexuality was thought of as a disease of the mind an affliction that could be “cured”. James Baldwin would be thought of as a “race traitor” and as a disgrace.

Also, the black media didn’t mind “Giovanni’s Room” because the book had “nothing” to do with the black community. If Baldwin had written “Giovanni’s Room” with black gay male characters during the 1950s I think it would really tarnish his reputation with the heterosexual black community during that era. There would be a storm of controversy and anger by straight blacks it could of been a major uproar against Baldwin.

Its easy for people in the 21st century to say Langston Hughes could of or should of come out but we have to remember the time and space Hughes lived in. Homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder during Langston Hughes lifetime. The black and white heterosexual communities still looked down on homosexuals for both religious and personal reasons.Homosexuality was also considered to be something “white people” engaged in but not civilized black folks. If Hughes did come out he never would be respected by the heterosexual black community. Hughes would never be considered the “hero” of black literature that he is viewed as today. Its not right the kind of thinking that existed during Langston Hughes lifetime but that was the reality. The gay and lesbian movement didn’t really start until the late 1960s and early 1970 far beyond Hughes lifetime.

I sense some internalized homophobia from Langston in the memoir when he describes other gay black men. Langston is projecting the image in the memoir that he is heterosexual and this is false. In fact, according to Faith Berry’s 1992 biography on Langston Hughes she says Hughes had an intense romantic relationship with a Jamaican man.

However, in “The Big Sea” Hughes does write about drag balls from a homophobic perspective. Langston calls the black drag queens “pathetic”. The whole aspect of drag in black queer history is important because it proves black gay men existed despite living in separate spheres. Black gay men won awards and prizes for wearing the most sensational outfits and performances at the drag balls. during the 1920s.

One black man that had an intense infatuation with Langston was the openly gay black professor Alain Locke. In fact, I believe Alain Locke and Langston could of had a secret relationship perhaps? Locke has written many letters to Langston that are quite passionate and if you read between the lines you can tell Alain was in “in love” with Langston. Although I think it was an unrequited love. Langston doesn’t discuss Alain Locke’s obvious attempts to “gain” his attention and his infatuation with him. I think its a tragedy that Langston Hughes wasn’t able to be more free and live without judgement as a black gay man during his lifetime.

Today its raining in the greater Toronto area and I’m bored. I rarely watch TV these days except for the local news, some pro tennis, or pro golf, BBC news, a couple of reality shows, and that’s it. I click the remote control and there is nothing good on TV right now. Its times like these that I keep on thinking about why was Noah’s Arc cancelled? Noah’s Arc was the first all black gay TV show ever to be broadcast on television. Is Noah’s Arc ever going to air in Canada? And why was Noah’s Arc on the small gay channel MTV LOGO and not on a major American TV network like HBO, Showtime, or one of the mainstream channels?

The story is that MTV LOGO claimed that Noah’s Arc production costs were getting too high even though the show was one of the highest rated programs on MTV LOGO. I enjoyed the show but didn’t like the fact episodes were only 22 minutes I felt it should of been a lot longer. Also now that the show has been cancelled MTV LOGO announced a movie will be released in the year 2008. I don’t think MTV LOGO was the right network for Noah’s Arc it deserved so much better.

The black TV sitcom genre has died a slow death. The glory days of black television was only for twenty something years from the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s. It all started with “The Jeffersons” in the 1970s then “The Cosby Show”, “227″, “Amen” in the 1980s, “A Different World”, “In Living Single” were great 1990s shows. However, Girlfriends is the only black TV show that I think had any meaning or importance and yet that show isn’t even on a major network its on the cable channel CW network. Jill Marie Jones the talented young actress that played Toni Childs quit the show and it hasn’t been the same since.

Although I welcome black sitcoms I don’t see the risks that “The Jeffersons” “Cosby Show” and “A Different World” took back in the day. The new black TV sitcoms are derivative and unchallenging and that’s why they get cancelled so quickly. The CW network cancelled the program “Alll of Us” and I am not surprised. The rapper Eve had her own sitcom which was quickly cancelled by the CW network. The new black sitcoms play it a bit too safe because the producers want to ensure their shows don’t get cancelled they make the programs as boring as possible. I also notice another trend and pattern this decade all the new black sitcoms have to be wannabe Cosby show rip offs and all focused on black heterosexual nuclear families. The Cosby Show was considered daring and controversial when it aired in the 1980s. Bill Cosby made sure that there was a positive image of blackness that American pop culture ignored when he made the Huxtable family middle to upper class. It was such a pleasure to watch the Huxtables deal with regular life problems and struggles yet still love and respect each other. It was so refreshing to see a show about a black family where the father was was a doctor and the mother was a lawyer they didn’t speak in slang, they had five kids and lived in a nice house in New York City. The knock offs of the Cosby show just didn’t have the excitement or good writing. As I matured I realized that my experiences as a black gay man was always ignored by television. Television is more important then some people realize it is where social attitudes to various topics and issues are discussed and a cultural dialogue is formed.

Noah’s Arc is definitely one of the best black TV shows I have seen in a long time. Noah’s Arc is controversial just for existing. Black people aren’t going to watch MTV LOGO I think Noah’s Arc should of been on BET. I mean BET broadcasts the most boring and mundane entertainment these days Noah’s Arc would of really helped the network gain more black viewers. BET these days isn’t even marketed to black people these days its obvious the people behind BET have diminished the black content so much they are trying to reach a white suburban audience.

The cultural politics of “gender”, “sexuality”, and “race” appear to have hindered the show’s success. Why wasn’t Noah’s Arc on a bigger network? Why wasn’t Noah’s Arc on HBO, ABC, or CBS, NBC, or FOX even? The two recent shows dealing with gays were on Showtime in America. Why wasn’t Noah’s Arc given the opportunity to be on Showtime? People like to say race wasn’t a factor in Noah’s Arc’s inability to reach a larger audience but I definitely believe racism was indeed a core reason why the show didn’t take off like it should.

The mainstream media says “Will and Grace” was a groundbreaking show but I beg to differ. Will and Grace still maintained the status quo where heterosexuality was at the center of the program. Also, Will and Grace had nothing to do with my experiences I just didn’t find the show that interesting. I am not a white gay man and it just doesn’t interest me that everything gay has to equal everything white. I wanted to see myself on TV or people I knew and recognized on TV and Noah’s Arc was that show.

MTV LOGO was created to provide the gay and lesbian community its own space to broadcast programs that would interest a gay audeince. However, MTV LOGO is such a small specialty channel. Why couldn’t Noah’s Arc be on the regular MTV dial? I mean MTV has silly shows about rich white kids such as “The Hills” on their main network Noah’s Arc should of been given a chance to reach a larger audience. Unlike those other two gay shows Noah’s Arc wasn’t overtly sexual the show had class. Noah’s Arc was so much more important then that program. Canada had its own gay channel that I could care less about I mean it has nothing to do with gay people of colour. And that’s why I miss Noah’s Arc so much. I miss Noah, Ricky, Chance, and Alex. Its maybe a bit hard for people that are not black and gay to understand why Noah’s Arc was so important to us. I wish the reruns of Noah’s Arc was on BET. Yes I contacted BET already and of course I didn’t get a response. The show was not disgusting like that other gay TV show that got so much press a few years back. Noah’s Arc had class.

And that’s why I was so pleased a few years ago when Noah’s Arc became the first black gay sitcom to air on television. Although Noah’s Arc was broadcast on American TV I heard about it through the grapevine and I knew once the show was available on DVD I had to watch it. Noah’s Arc aired on MTV LOGO which is the gay MTV channel that is owned by the parent company Viacom. Viacom also owns BET, MTV, and various other networks. Its such a shame that Noah’s Arc was not broadcast on the regular MTV or BET. I think the executives at MTV just didn’t care for the show it simply wasn’t promoted enough. I also found it interesting that the so called “gay media” also ignored Noah’s Arc and certainly didn’t give the show the press it deserved. Part of the blame definitely is on MTV LOGO for not promoting the program enough but the other part is the so called “gay community” patronizing attitude towards the lives and experiences of gay black men. Let’s face it, we live in a culture where whiteness has to always be the center of the universe. The cultural production of “gayness” equals “whiteness”. And Noah’s Arc was a form of resistance to this racism. The attitude of the mainstream American gay press of course was to patronize Noah’s Arc because it had nothing to do with them. Sure, the program dealt with the issue of homosexuality but Noah’s Arc was refreshing that homosexuality was not the core focus of the show. Noah’s Arc was incredible because it demonstrated the struggles that black gay people go through being both black and gay. And in gay culture far too often gay people of colour are treated like a circus or a side show.

For once, Noah’s Arc dealt with a black gay community where black gay people are at the center and not on the margins. Black culture isn’t much better I mean BET has its nightly comedy programs and so often the comedians make gay jokes. Its frustrating because gay black men we are a part of the black community yet we are also demonized as well. And when black heterosexual shows attempt to deal with the issue of homosexuality its often from a negative perspective such as focusing on the whole down low issue. I wish more black people got to see Noah’s Arc maybe they would learn and open their eyes to see that we are just like them. We have joys and struggles with life we deal with similar issues just like them.

I commend the people behind Noah’s Arc for keeping the show black and keeping away from those tired racist storylines. The show dealt with important issues such as the black church, homophobia, black parenting, and many more.

Noah’s Arc was groundbreaking for many reasons. For once it was a show where white gay men were not at the center and black gay men were the focus of the story. Second, it was a show that I could relate to. The show demonstrated that black gay love and romance was real without the supremacy. Far too often in gay culture men of colour are paired with whites in TV and film erasing the existence of black gay men and other gay men of colour. Noah’s Arc broke this supremacist mold of thinking and firmly focused on four young black gay men trying to make it in this world. It was so uplifting and amazing to watch. Its such as shame that Noah’s Arc wasn’t able to reach a larger black audience. I really honestly believe if more black people knew about the show they would watch the program. Do yourself a favour go to Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble go to your local HMV, or music store and purchase a copy of seasons 1 and 2 of Noah’s Arc on DVD and see why this show was so amazing.