Everyone is not a rebel simply because they wear styles reflective of rebel fashions. To be honest, I am not quite sure why this particular character is even aspired to. Most US citizens do not wish to live outside of US Military protections. Most US citizens do not wish to live a life outside of one defined hegemonic standards. Most US citizens wish to assimilate along ascribed behavioral trajectories.
From an affective standpoint, I do not wish to pass judgment. If a person finds genuine joy and hope, a certain “happiness” to pursue, I do not see why I should stand in that person’s way if they are not standing in mine. Which, ironically, does create a concern cognitively. From an effective standpoint, promoting more of that same simply because a person wishes to be in a position of power like those presently in power is an oppressive ambition.
Do what is necessary, but more importantly, accept your strengths and those more readily accessible talents and passions. “Do you”. This also implies being honest in your presentation of your politics. By “honest”, I mean being able to admit clearly when your platform benefits from systems of oppression. By “honest”, I mean being able to admit clearly when your financial well being is supplied in part or in whole by systems of oppression. By “honest”, I mean being able to admit clearly when your ambitions are rooted in desires and hopes supplied by systems of oppression.
For example, there is a normalizing of George Bush presently. In a discussion panel on Joy Reid’s show today, one of her guests discusses George Bush’s “diverse” administration as invidious comparison vis-a-vis Donald Trump’s. That embrace of George Bush by former First Lady Michelle Obama works to soften his once ignominious image amongst US Blacks. I suppose Obeezy’s “Kanye West is a jack ass” held more weight long term than Kanye’s “George Bush does not love Black people”. Given George Bush’s immense contribution to that Smithsonian African-American History Museum, many of grand-children will as well.
In order to understand why George Bush is being embraced by US Blacks, one has to accept that US Blacks do not all see “Black Power”, nor “Black oppression”, similarly. There seems to me to be a polar set of ideas regarding US Blacks and ways of dealing with US racism as a social structure that imposes structural economic and political constraints on US Blacks. Metaphorically, we could say within US Black America(not quite redundant there) our right wing is a radical notion that US Blacks need to completely separate from US Whytes, even if that means a total exodus of some sort from USA. This set of thoughts and ideas tends to find its highest point in US Black Nationalism, and maybe I could say it’s valley or cusp lies somewhere in Pan-Afrikanism. Across that vast spectrum to our far conceptual left is a belief that US Blacks can temper US Racism beyond its hierarchical structures. Within this body of visions is a notion that US Blacks cannot physically defeat a state presently physically pruning them, and it tends to find blended expression around ideologies like “Black Capitalism”, strangely enough.
What gives rise to an embrace of George Bush is an embrace of Daddy Barry Obama. In that camp of individuals that think US hierarchy can be tempered along racial lines is one that also is alright with US imperialism. An embrace of US imperialism by a US Black is an embrace of US domestic racism, as long as that US Black person does not feel too greatly impacted by that US domestic racism. Obama represents US imperialism. He is a member of a club of few humans called former US Presidents, and any embrace of him is an embrace of every member of that club. Obeezy’s legacy is one of extension to US global military might and further US domestic control, generally control through US Government, but specifically empowering that Executive Office. Assimilation is assimilation. If you think your master’s house is burning, it does not matter if that master is George Bush.
I suppose it all depends on which side of assimilation we need to peer over in order to opine whether an act is oppressive, or just presently odious…