Sometimes when life gives you lemons, you throw them away and get in line for the damn Mac and Cheese festival!
Coming in October of 2016 is the first annual Atlanta Mac and Cheese Festival.
It really is happening.
We’re just as shocked and excited as you.
“The Edgewood Neighborhood is organizing the inaugural Mac & Cheese Festival at Walker Park, scheduled for October 8th, 2016,” reads a message on the official Facebook event page for the festival. “This will be an annual tradition to raise money for Neighbor in Need, a Non-Profit that keeps longtime residents in the Edgewood Neighborhood.”
Over 31,000 people are “interested” in attending the event according to the Facebook event page, with already 6,000 people planning on “going” to it.
They are going to need a whole lot of mac and cheese.
The event will be happening at Walker Park (200 Memorial Terrace SE, Atlanta, GA 30316) on October 6.
Restaurants, food trucks, caterers and private chiefs are invited to get involved. If you are interested in having your mac and cheese featured then email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Atlanta Mac and Cheese Festival/ Facebook
What Do You Think?
About the AuthorRich Robinson is the CEO and publisher of Rise News. He is also a journalist and a native of Miami. Robinson graduated from the University of Alabama and can be followed on Twitter @RichRobMiami.
You Might also like
Atlantic Magazine Listed The “100 Most Influential Figures In American History” And Didn’t Put A Single Native American On The ListBy Sam Crowfoot
The other day while browsing Facebook I came across a 2006 piece from the Atlantic titled, “The 100 Most Influential Figures in American History.” It was being promoted by the magazine with a Facebook ad buy.
I clicked on the post and found that the Atlantic asked ten “eminent historians” (their words, not mine) to select 100 of the most influential people to shape American history. As I clicked through the list I realized that there was not a single Native American mentioned.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a reservation-raised, fully enrolled, card-carrying Native American (yes, we have cards, they are called Certificates of Indian Blood or CIB).
I am also an attorney, husband and father of young children. Like most parents, I am concerned about the world my children will grow up in. I pay attention to things that have the power to influence their lives. I notice when Native Americans make appearances in books, news stories and film. I also notice when we are omitted, ignored or forgotten about completely, which was the case for The Atlantic’s piece on the 100 most influential people in American history.
When you only ask people from a certain demographic to weigh in on an issue, you get biased results that reflect a limited point of view. American history is considerably more than what white people think.
So who cares right? It’s a stupid list, my children will probably never see it and no one really thinks about posts like these longer than five minutes, right? Wrong. I scrolled away and moved on, or at least tried.
In my attempt to move forward, a flurry of questions kept bringing me back to this list. “Where was Sitting Bull? Crazy Horse? Jim Thorpe? Why did PT Barnum, the circus guy make the list and not Chief Joseph or Tecumseh?”
To be sure, I re-read the list a few more times and noted how many were male and female and noted the race of each person mentioned.
Here is the count for those keeping score: 90 = male, 10 = female, 92 = White/Caucasian, 8 = Black/African, 0 = Latino, 0 = Asian and 0 = Native American.
Maybe I am sensitive to this topic because I am Native American. I definitely can’t change what I am. But I have the power to change the way I think and try to open my mind to new viewpoints. We all have that power. The Atlantic does too, and yet for this list they chose not to. In concocting this list and selecting their panel of historians The Atlantic only petitioned white people.
I am not saying that as a negative thing. It’s just a fact. I looked them all up, read their bios and saw their pictures. All very smart and very accomplished, all very white, and in the “whiteness” of these experts lies the problem. When you only ask people from a certain demographic to weigh in on an issue, you get biased results that reflect a limited point of view. American history is considerably more than what white people think.
You can’t tell me that PT Barnum, Stephen Foster or Joseph Smith are more influential in American History than literally every Native American to have ever lived. What about leaders of the Lakota, Dakota, Oglala and others who fought against Manifest Destiny and American expansion and whose resistance and treaties influenced present day American borders?
What about the Natives who fought along side George Washington during the American Revolution? Surely they had more of a hand in America’s fate and legacy than the writer of “My Old Kentucky Home” or the circus guy. When was the last time you went to a circus? Heck, when was the last time you thought about a circus?
What about Sacagawea who accompanied Lewis and Clark (they made the list) along their expedition? What about Black Elk, Red Cloud or the Code Talkers who helped defeat the Japanese in the Pacific theatre of WWII?
Genocidal Andrew Jackson made the list. I guess you can influence American history by killing Native Americans, but not if you are one.
Part of me wants to forget this stupid list altogether. Part of me wants to argue till I am blue in the face. Instead I will settle to make this one point: Do not forget about us. American historians have an ugly habit of omitting important people and events from its official narrative.
This list is just another in a long line of lists, documents and textbooks that do not acknowledge or accurately teach about the contribution of other ethnic and social groups to American history. We’ve all heard the saying, “history is written by the winners,” and that may be the case, but we should know better.
The Atlantic should know better. The history of America is not monochromatic, nor are the individuals who shaped it.
Cover Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 71
What Do You Think?
By Mariam Ansar
Last week’s MTV Video Music Awards will likely be remembered as a hot-bed of drama, social issues, and controversy, spurned by the likes of Miley Cyrus, Nicki Minaj, and Kanye West. The slightest mention of the awards show is enough to disturb the silence in any room. This is the effect of popular culture at its finest.
But, there is one music video which can be distinguished as emblematic of the whole controversy, released during the award show and drawing attention to the reflective nature of said popular culture: it is fuelled by the cues of our society and what we deem to be acceptable. Or, in this case, what can not be deemed acceptable.
The plot-line of Taylor Swift’s ‘Wildest Dreams’ is easy to understand: intended to complement the sorrowful lamentations of a doomed relationship, Sunday night was witness to a dark-haired Swift posing sadly as the star of a 1950s Hollywood film against a backdrop of what can only be described as the most colonial of images of Africa.
With Scott Eastwood as the object of her affection, her relentless glances at him are not enough to provide the pair with a happy ending and so, the glamour is for nought and the drive into the sunset is non-existent. So too, as many of us have picked up on, is the presence of non-white Africans.
Reductionist at best, Swift’s ‘Africa’ is stereotypically conveyed with all the patronising ignorance of someone imagining what would constitute as The Exotic Land of Africa, a colonial illustration leaving out the knowledge of it being a continent, complex, rich in many histories, and therefore difficult to package and sell so neatly. Still, it did not stop Swift’s creative team from trying.
So Taylor Swift’s Wildest Dreams video was filmed in “Africa” but what country? Also, why does it only contain animals and white ppl #Taylor
— Lena Olson (@LeynuhPawp) August 31, 2015
From the depiction of rolling grasslands, wild animals in migration patterns, dry dust flying as Swift kisses her co-star in her throwback hunter outfit, the video enables the audience to see all of these things as mere accessories.
The romanticism of this history is a clumsy, heavy-handed act which calls to attention an out-dated racial hierarchy and is scarily reminiscent of colonial attitudes
They are ambiguously, stereotypically ‘African’ enough to contribute to not only the myth of Africa, more at home in a historically out-dated periodical, and ambiguously, stereotypically ‘African’ enough to warrant more attention on Swift and her lover. It would be easy to make the argument that indeed, she is the star and this is her music video. But what must be recognised is the fact that the spot-light is on a truly horrifying image: Swift’s Africa features white people, complicit in acting the role of colonial settlers under the facade of the creation of a film.
Watch The Video:
— Sydney Murray (@sydmurray) September 1, 2015
The romanticism of this history is a clumsy, heavy-handed act which calls to attention an out-dated racial hierarchy and is scarily reminiscent of colonial attitudes: ‘Africa’ can be groomed to fit an image the white person deems acceptable, can be plundered for its beauty whilst the locals remain invisible, and can become the mythical image of exoticism anyone fed on racist stereotypes sees it as.
The video casts a hazy, rose-tinted glow to the white imperialist presence in the African continent, romanticising it so that Swift does achieve that old Hollywood ’50s colonialist film vibe she’s looking for
“Africa is big: fifty-four countries, 900 million people who are too busy starving and dying and warring and emigrating to read your book. The continent is full of deserts, jungles, highlands, savannahs and many other things, but your reader doesn’t care about all that, so keep your descriptions romantic and evocative and unparticular.”
Swift is not a stranger to the romantic, the evocative, and the unparticular. In fact, these qualities seem to be a staple of her song-writing style, and yet, within the context of the ‘Wildest Dreams’ video, these are not qualities which can be dismissed as simply indicative of her personality.
The video casts a hazy, rose-tinted glow to the white imperialist presence in the African continent, romanticising it so that Swift does achieve that old Hollywood ’50s colonialist film vibe she’s looking for: ‘Wildest Dreams’ can easily be recognised as an example of Western media providing a propagandistic image of the exotic frontier playground, sitting comfortably alongside John Huston’s The African Queen and Sydney Pollack’s Out of Africa in these efforts. It is an achieved goal Swift has every reason to not be proud of.
The video is deceptively portrayed as simply detailing a complicated love-affair. As Zak Cheney-Rice concisely explained for Mic:
“It is remarkable that the insidious nature of the African colonial fantasy is so seamlessly glossed over. This matters. When a pop culture product reaches as many people as a Taylor Swift video does, the images it presents have implications beyond their immediate purview.”
Cheney-Rice has every reason to be wary of Swift’s creative products in light of her influence as one of the world’s biggest female popstars, and especially so when said creative products are as disastrously constructed as ‘Wildest Dreams’.
When it comes to influence, it is a by-product of fame which must be handled with responsibility.
It is exactly this which is lacking in this music video, and while director Joseph Kahn may be comfortable to shirk this one must recognise the importance of contentious, important historical landmarks, like the African continent having to suffer under European colonialism, being treated with more respect and awareness and less lazy nonchalance.
Ultimately, it is the fact that these attitudes surfaced so casually in our modern age omitting the truth of Africa’s history and the Black African presence, whether intentionally or not, in the place of romantic fantasy which deserves to be called to attention.
In this case, Swift’s love-story stopped short of occurring between her protagonists and began to cast back to a part of history which needs no affection. It is this which is truly distressing about ‘Wildest Dreams.’
Cover Photo Credit: GabboT/Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 56
What Do You Think?
By Staff Report
The University of Mississippi took down the state flag from its campus early Monday morning after the student senate approved a resolution calling for the action last week.
“University of Mississippi Police Department officers lowered and furled the state flag in a Lyceum Circle ceremony as the campus opened Monday morning,” a statement from the University said. “The flag will be preserved in the University Archives along with resolutions from students, faculty and staff calling for its removal.”
Ole Miss student senators voted to remove the flag, which includes the Confederate battle flag after a campus wide movement developed.
Interim Ole Miss Chancellor Morris Stocks first joined other state and university leaders calling for a change in the state flag in a statement last June according to the press release.
“The University of Mississippi community came to the realization years ago that the Confederate battle flag did not represent many of our core values, such as civility and respect for others,” Stocks said in a statement. “Since that time, we have become a stronger and better university. We join other leaders in our state who are calling for a change in the state flag.”
Student media first reported the story.
Breaking: University of Mississippi takes down state flag
— Daily Mississippian (@thedm_news) October 26, 2015
Cover Photo Credit: /\ \/\/ /\/ Flickr (CC BY 2.0)Post Views: 36
What Do You Think?