top of page
Search

The Irony of the Super Bowl: Kendrick Lamar, Black Excellence, and the NFL’s Systemic Racism



The Super Bowl halftime show has always been a reflection of American culture, a spectacle that showcases the biggest stars while masking the deeper realities of the NFL’s systemic racism. This year, Kendrick Lamar a pro-Black, socially conscious hip-hop artist took center stage, delivering a performance that embodies everything the league tries to commercialize about Black culture while simultaneously silencing Black power.


Meanwhile, on the field, history was made as two Black quarterbacks led their teams to the biggest game of the year. And yet, off the field, the NFL remains a league where Black men dominate the game but are excluded from leadership. No Black owners. A token number of Black head coaches. A league that profits off Black talent but refuses to share real power. The irony is impossible to ignore.


The NFL’s Black Labor, White Power Structure


The NFL is a billion-dollar empire built on the backs of Black athletes. Nearly 60% of the league’s players are Black, yet the ownership circle remains 100% white. Head coaching opportunities for Black men are scarce, and when they do get a chance, they’re often given short leashes and impossible situations.


Take a look at the Rooney Rule, a policy meant to increase diversity in coaching hires. It’s been in place for over 20 years, yet we still see teams giving Black coaches interviews to just to check a box, with no real intention of hiring them. Brian Flores lawsuit against the NFL made it clear the system is rigged, and Black coaches are set up to fail.


But when it comes to entertainment? When it comes to selling tickets, jerseys, and halftime shows? That’s when the league embraces Black culture.


Kendrick Lamar and the NFL’s Selective Blackness


Enter Kendrick Lamar, one of the most unapologetically pro-Black artists of our time. His music speaks to the struggles of systemic oppression, police brutality, and the realities of being Black in America. His presence at the Super Bowl is a testament to his greatness but also a reminder of how the NFL picks and chooses when Blackness is acceptable.


Think back to Colin Kaepernick. The moment a Black man used his platform to call out racial injustice, he was blackballed. The same league that celebrated Kendrick's performance is the one that told players to shut up and play when they knelt for justice.


The NFL has mastered the art of performative Blackness allowing just enough representation to keep fans engaged while maintaining a white-controlled power structure.


Two Black QuarterbacksA Sign of Progress or a Distraction?


For the first time in history, two Black quarterbacks faced off in the Super Bowl. It’s a milestone worth celebrating, considering the long history of racism that kept Black athletes from playing the position. For decades, Black quarterbacks were labeled not smart enough or not leader material, forced to switch positions while white quarterbacks were given endless opportunities to develop.


But while this moment is historic, it doesn’t erase the larger issue. The NFL will highlight two Black quarterbacks on the field, but where are the Black owners? Where are the Black decision-makers shaping the future of the league?


The Super Bowl’s Message: Black Talent is Welcome, Black Power is Not


The Super Bowl is the ultimate contradiction. It puts Black culture on full display through the players, the music, the halftime show but ensures that real control remains in the hands of the same white elites who have always run the game.


Kendrick Lamar’s presence is powerful, but it doesn’t change the fact that the NFL is still an industry that treats Black men like commodities. The real victory won’t come from a halftime performance or two Black quarterbacks it will come when Black people have real ownership, real leadership, and real power within the league.


Until then, the Super Bowl remains what it has always been: a showcase of Black excellence, controlled by a system that refuses to let Black people truly win.

Comments

USA, Atlanta, Georgia

​

Comparing a 401(k) Investment vs. Christine’s Heart $30K Program

​

Both investment strategies aim to grow wealth over time, but they differ in structure, returns, and accessibility. Let's break them down.

1. 401(k) Investment (Traditional Approach)

Scenario: Maxing out a 401(k) with a 6% employer match for 20 years.

  • Initial Investment: $23,000 per year (plus a $6,000 employer match)

  • Total Contributions: ~$580,000 over 20 years

  • Assumed Growth Rate: 8% annually (market average)

  • End Balance: $1,433,265

  • Liquidity: Limited (penalties for early withdrawals)

  • Risk: Moderate (market fluctuations but long-term growth)

  • Taxation: Tax-deferred (taxed upon withdrawal in retirement)

​

2. Christine’s Heart $30K Program (High-Growth Alternative)

Investing $30,000 with Christine’s Heart for accelerated returns.

  • Initial Investment: $30,000

  • Timeframe: 12 months

  • Projected Growth: $100,000+ potential return

  • End Balance (After 20 Years of Reinvesting Profits): Significantly higher potential

  • Liquidity: Higher (faster access to funds)

  • Risk: Higher (active investing, market knowledge required)

  • Taxation: Depending on structure, profits may be taxable each year

Which One is Better?

  • 401(k) is best for long-term, stable growth with employer matching and tax benefits.

  • Christine’s Heart is best for those seeking faster returns with the ability to reinvest profits multiple times over a 20-year period.

If someone starts with $30K in Christine’s Heart and reinvests profits wisely, they could reach seven figures much faster than a 401(k)—but with greater involvement and risk management.

Comparing a 401(k) vs. Christine’s Heart $30K Program (12-Month Cycle) 1. 401(k) Investment (Traditional Approach) Annual Contribution: $23,000 (plus $6,000 employer match) Total Contributions Over 20 Years: ~$580,000 Assumed Growth Rate: 8% annually (market average) End Balance (After 20 Years): $1,433,265 Liquidity: Low (penalties for early withdrawals) Risk: Moderate (market fluctuations but long-term growth) 2. Christine’s Heart $30K Program (12-Month Cycle) Initial Investment: $30,000 Timeframe Per Cycle: 12 months Projected Growth: $100,000 per year Reinvesting Profits: Compounding over 20 years Liquidity: High (cash available yearly) Risk: Higher (active management required) Projected Growth Over 20 Years (Reinvesting Profits Yearly) If the $30,000 grows to $100,000 in one year and the full amount is reinvested each cycle: Using the formula for compound interest: 𝐹𝑉=𝑃(1+𝑟)𝑛 FV=P(1+r) n where: P = $30,000 (Initial investment) r = 233% return per year (since $30K → $100K) n = 20 years Let’s calculate the final value. After only 10 years of reinvesting profits in Christine’s Heart $30K program (with a projected $100K return per year), the potential balance could grow to well over $4.1 million—a massive theoretical number driven by high annual compounding. Key Takeaways: Christine’s Heart offers much faster wealth accumulation, assuming consistent performance. A 401(k) is safer but slower, growing to $1.43 million over the same period. Christine’s Heart has higher risk but far greater liquidity, allowing access to funds yearly. In reality, market fluctuations, taxes, and reinvestment strategies would impact actual results, but the difference in potential returns is clear.

Stay in the Loop

Mahalo

blu porsche

blu porsche

Play Video
bottom of page