RE: Why “African-American” is a Patronizing, Even Racist Term

RE: Why “African-American” is a Patronizing, Even Racist Term or Why M.G. Piety might be an idiot.

In another of a series of “why did Counterpunch publish this?” articles, M.G. Piety explains why she is uncomfortable with the term “African-American” as applied to “blacks” who are the descendants (at least partially due to that one drop rule thingy) of Africans from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (AKA Maafa).

I do not like the expression “African-American.” It’s patronizing, condescending, and racist

Patronizing! Condescending! Racist! Oh my!

I expect M.G. Piety will soon click her heels three times and wish herself away from here.

It was coined, rumor has it, to help counteract the corrosive effect of racism on the self-esteem of black Americans. But how is that supposed to work? In practice, I would argue, the effect is unavoidably the reverse. White Americans are never referred to as “European-Americans,” so to identify black Americans as “African-American” is to suggest that they are only half American.

I suppose it would have been too much work for M.G. Piety to look up the reasons rather than go on rumor and innuendo. It's not as if the term took hold hundreds of years ago. Matter of fact the folks that came up with it are still alive and reachable. But I'm not going to spend time on how and why the term came into being because Piety has given us a great falsehood in the form of what white Americans are referred to.

Lets suppose for a minute that white Americans are not identified on a regular basis as “European-Americans”. The question one has to ask is why not? Is it because that, as Piety suggests, the African is a “half-American”? Absolutely not. Well in reference to what an American is.

I have long argued that American denotes citizenship status. America being one of the few countries not created by its indigenous species of humans. One can equate French with whiteness because France grew out of those Europeans that arose there. Similarly it is quite correct to equate British with whiteness because the British also arose from their native population.

America on the other hand is a country largely populated by those who came from somewhere else. Hence, rather than a polity that grew out of a native population and bound together by a common ancestry, America is a polity created by a common set of rules. Ye Rule of Law. American is a constitutional creation. Each and every European that is in America is identifiable by his or her name.

When we say “Danny Fitzpatrick, head of the so and so police department.” We need not say “European-American” because his very name denotes his country of origins. It identifies his racial origins as well (unless other circumstances ,to be discussed later, apply).

When Todd Williams is identified, so too is his racial and ethnic origins on display. So when we speak of a European-American, there is no need to explicitly identify that individual because their very name identifies them as such. It is understood. In fact it is understood at a subconscious level. No one has to even think about it.

Now let's take a look at the African. When the African was brought to America the African was stripped of his name (among other things) and therefore the connection with his land AND people of origins. Let us be clear there are no Fitz-anything in Africa. There is no Williams, Thomas', Baldwins or any of that in Africa. Every African with a European sir name that did not marry into a European family is carrying a slave owners name or a slave name forced on them by Europeans. This is why there are no African in America descended from the Maafa with the names Yu, Xe, Li, Ping, etc. No Chinese named Africans in the 16,17 and 1800s.

And so the African, unique among the American citizenry has nothing to identify himself as connected to a nation or ethnicity of origin except his black face. That, Mr. Piety is “racist”.

Some of us have decided that since we are free people and unashamed of our origins and collective cultures, to removed our European names and have taken on names from the general geographic area to which most Africans were traded from. Some of us have been able to actually trace out lineages back to a specific people, but that vast majority of us cannot do so and must consciously choose a place to tie ourselves to. This Author has decided upon the Yoruba. Persons such as Molefe Assante have attached themselves to the Assante. Other African-Americans have take on Islamic names. I won't go into that other than to say while it's their business, with the history of West Africa during the Maafa, that's not necessarily the best choice.

When Molefe Assante changed his name he made it clear why he was doing so. Paraphrasing, he said that when he was looking at books and such he saw that it was clear by looking at the names who was writing the books. However when he picked up books by black authors he was unable to identify them by name. Hence he felt that their work could be “assumed” European. Baba Assante did not want to have his contributions to history and scholarship to be “mistook” for the work of a European and that, in part, informed his decision to change his name.

Clearly anyone who picks up a book by Molefe Assante will not assume that the author has origins in the British Isles. That is a good thing.

So having dealt with the issue of origins, let's deal with the other half of M.G. Piety's remarks:

Most black Americans do not identify with Africans and most genuine African-Americans (i.e., people who recently emigrated from Africa to the U.S. or who divide their time between two continents) do not identify with black Americans.

I would suggest that the fact that “most black Americans do not identify with Africans” is a part of the problem. But let's be clear. To say that “black Americans” do not “identify” with Africans” is like saying that the British do not identify with the Italians or that the French do not “identify” with the Polish.

No shit sherlock.

This is where ethnicity comes into play. People can belong to the same racial categories but not identify with each other because their customs are not the same. This is the difference between race and ethnicity. I sure hope that M.G. Piety is not suggesting that Africans and African-Americans are so unintelligent as to not see that they share a lot of traits with each other that they do not share with Europeans of any nationality.

Simply because I choose to identify as an African doesn't mean that I automatically become a Yoruba by ethnicity. Nor do I or Molefe Assante become a Assante by ethnicity simply because he chooses to identify himself with that group. We don't need to, because our racial identity super-cedes chosen ethnic affiliations.

That is known as Pan-Africanism. Look it up.

Let's look at Piety's discussion of “real African-Americans”.

At what point does an “real African-American” become an “American”? How many generations? Grand children? Great grand children? Eventually the recent African immigrant comes to understand that their children or grand children will be indistinguishable from the “black American” they have studiously attempted to avoid and disassociate themselves from. I'm quite certain that when Amadou Diallo was shot up in his vestibule the NYPD officers involved did not say “Well fellas, this is a REAL African-Americans and not those piece of shit home grown niggers.”

The one thing that the children of recent African immigrants will have to their advantage is that provided they do not marry a European (or other ethnic group) they will have names that connect them to their homelands like every other American. At that point there will be no need to refer to them as “African-American” because it will be self evident, just like with Europeans.

So really the only thing patronizing and condescending here was the piece M.G. Piety wrote. Perhaps M.G. Should have spent her time talking to people who don't mind identifying with Africans before penning the piece. At least she would have given us food for thought rather than diarrhea of the pixels.

Bias Against Men and Boys in Mental Health Research

Technology and The Coming Gender Relations

In past posts I have discussed the human problems with the rise of robotics in industry. I have also discussed the serious dangers to the world posed by drone warfare. Today I will discuss a multi-prong technological issue and it's relation to gender.

In Star Trek: Insurrection, the “Next Generation” crew has an adventure with a group of humans who had left the highly technological world in order to get back to what they considered being human. One might wonder what they objected to in the technological wonder that was the Federation that they wanted to leave. I would suggest that one such technology was the “replicator”.

The Past

If we look through human history much of the heavy work has been done by the males. If it needed to be killed, smashed, lifted or dragged the males did it. If there was an above average risk of injury or death, the males did it. This is largely due to the fact that among humans males generally have greater upper body strength than females. Males also generally have 50% more muscle mass than the female of the species. If you had to choose between one of the two to do hard physical work you choose the male.

In the course of his work males produced tools of varying effectiveness to aid himself in his quest to master his environment and provide for his family. Whether it be as simple as a spear or slingshot or as complex as the automobile and train, it has almost always been the males who have been at the forefront of “taming” nature by producing tools that made it easier.

Of course women also benefitted from these things. Better construction methods lead to better shelter which made life easier to raise and look after children. Better means of farming produced better crops.

The more productive a man could be and the more “wealth” he acquired the easier his female partner had in life: more secure and plentiful food, better and more clothes, relative safety from violence.

If that male became wealthy enough, his female partner could go so far as to delegate child rearing and housework to other lesser status females.

In the home, mechanization of time consuming chores “freed” the woman from the home. Washing machines removed the time needed to manually wash clothes (and anyone who's done it by hand on a washboard knows how much time that can kill). Cooking, which included killing, de-feathering, de-furring and/or skinning meat and the by hand preparation of bread and bread like material is also time consuming. In comparison to “5 minute meals” that passes for “food preparation” in many countries, women in the past had to start dinner shortly after breakfast. In fact if one has observed any society in which most things are not mechanized, you see a stunning argument for why gender based rolls evolved and why they were not “unfair” or “oppressive” as some would like to believe. It simply makes sense.

So in the past the male-female connection was largely based on a set of reciprocal needs. Man needs to have children first and foremost. Secondly he needs to be fed (and so do his children) after putting in the work necessary for building and maintaining his home and the community. He could not possibly be “watching the children” AND hunting or farming large fields. Nor, could a woman be doing the same. Since babies do not grow on trees a man must convince a female to bear children for him. His offer being that in return for providing shelter, etc. that woman would provide children and take care of the homestead while he was out. In agricultural and hunter-gatherer societies this is a good deal. Men aren't sitting around waiting on some other man to give them a job, they are out working all day (fieldwork or hunting which can take days) while women are at home working. Nobody is getting off easy or working up to their “potential”.

The Present

:

Technology changed the prior working relationship between men and their work to women. As machines were able to allow fewer men to do more work in less time (increased productivity) there was a shift in men largely working for themselves to working for other men. This is not going to be a thesis on the changes made by the Industrial Revolution though. All we need to understand is that the “better” technology got the less men as a group were needed. If anything shows this most profoundly it was the institution of slavery. Slaves were the most disposable unit of labor in an economy. The problem though is that they take upkeep. Unless you have inexhaustible supply of slaves you will have to upkeep them. They get sick. They die. They become less efficient after a certain age and they tend to rebel. Worse though, you can't sell slaves anything because slaves have no income. Now when you look at a slave in comparison to say a tractor then you ask yourself a few questions: Why have slaves to maintain a field when you can have one or two men in a tractor do the same work? Why have slaves milk cows, when one or two men and a machine can milk more cows in less time?

Mass agricultural slavery was and is “inefficient” and a barrier to “innovation”. After all if people get used to just throwing more bodies onto a field and don't ever consider the concept of a tractor, then no tractor will be made and your productivity is limited by man-hours.

The Future

There is no denying that robotics continues to advance at a rapid clip. While many of us are focused on robots that look like us, the ones that will be job killing will unlikely look human in any way most likely because while the human form may be the “most efficient” for nature (debatable) it is clearly unnecessary and likely undesirable for the various jobs we will want robots to do.

Let us be clear, eventually the jobs done by firefighters, police and construction will not require humans. The first two are tied to government budgets. As pressure grows on governments to be “efficient” technology, which requires no paycheck and no benefits will replace humans. The humans that will be left in these departments will be those who maintain and “operate” the robots (for those that are not autonomous). Because most of the “point of contact” positions in policing and firefighting are males, these are the persons who will be most affected by these changes.

Think of what we are seeing now. There is a push to get drones into the hands of law enforcement. These drones, with the proper battery systems, will be able to surveil a wide area in a far more efficient means than a human in a vehicle or on foot. Furthermore these drones can be equipped with night vision, microphones and other sensors that can detect guns and gun shots. Facial recognition software would search for known fugitives or other persons of interest. Drones could (and probably will) be armed and be able to inject itself into a situation with an armed suspect. This is in addition to bomb sniffing and disabling robots that we already have.

Mind you I'm not even talking about artificial intelligence. I'm talking about stuff that is possible and available right now.

Similarly firefighters could be replaced with firefighting robots. You don't need feet, legs or arms to fight fires. All you need is the ability to get water or some other form of fire retardant into a building and onto a flame. We already have robots that can run and jump and maintain their own balance. Encase them in a shell that can withstand the heat of a fire and you can send them into a fire with a hose (or whatever) and they can get to the source far faster than any person without the risk of life.

It is possible that two trained people can maintain an entire firehouse of equipment. On a scene of a fire it would be possible for the same two people to coordinate the use of multiple robots and drones to deal with a fire. And they could do so without risking a single life.

Construction is another area heavily populated by men that is ripe for automation. Currently a lot of construction is done by men who control machines. One simply needs a robot smart enough to manipulate the machine (or be integrated into the machine) for those men to be out of a job permanently. If you think this cannot be done please look at the recent advances is driverless cars. Understand that those cars have people in them, by law, only because lawmakers are nervous about liability. Those vehicles are “safer” than the drivers they replace. They can combine data that no human can access such as GPS, Satellite imagery, light and sonic sensors, heat sensors, etc. They do not have a union. They do not require a paycheck. They do not require background checks. They do not require lunch breaks. They do not get tired. They do not get sick and therefore do not need medical insurance (private or public). Nor do they distracted by a short skirt that happens to walk by.

Also, provided there is enough power, they can work 24/7.

Until there is AI, there will be a need for a person or two or three to manage the machines. By manage I mean send them on their assigned duties (assuming these robots cannot inform each other when they are done with their own task). There will be jobs maintaining those robots but those too will be eventually automated. And lest one think that a human is needed for “delicate” procedures, I assure you right now that there are robot hands that are very sensitive to pressure.

So the near future is pretty clear to anyone with a spec of foresight. Many occupations that a robot can do will be done by one unless restricted by law. Since much of European based societies are highly risk averse (with their own lives) I believe the laws will actually come out in favor of automation. This will happen for two reasons:

1) The money to be made off of automation for those companies that supply said robots (Roombas are 500+ bucks and all they do is vacuum your floor)

2) The safety argument will be forced by insurance companies which would rather pay to replace or repair a broken robot than pay for lifetime medical and workman's compensation to a human.

The question becomes what do these men do and if they can “do” nothing because what the vast majority of them had done has been taken over by machines, of what value are they to a family?

Well they will of course be told to go into fields dominated by women (which a lot of fields will be). However they will not be safe there either. Robots are already making inroads there as well. The duties of those person who say “get sheets” can be done by a robot today. Robots can take X-rays and whatever else without risk of exposure to humans. There are experiments with robots to run entire restaurants. Clearly then the cafeteria staff is going to go the way of the dinosaur. Staff who push patients here there and everywhere are unnecessary when robot from the 1980's could do that. Janitorial staff can be replaced by industrial sized Roombas. Machines already monitor our vitals. Don't need a person to do that. Yes there are cases where a person is needed but most of those cases are currently in the ER. Once a patient is stable the need for human intervention is minimal. The want may be there, but the need? Not so much. Once again I will point out that as the costs of medicine increases institutions and insurance companies (or the government) will start to demand these “low overhead” robots be placed into hospitals in higher numbers.

So yes, men could go an compete with women for a ever shrinking pool of jobs that would eventually be replaced by machines. Good luck with that.

But the danger is not only posed by robots and automation. The danger also exists in the area of medical science. I previously noted that men need women in order to have children. It is still the case. Men cannot carry children (and probably do not want to if childbirth is anything like I've been told) and therefore must depend upon finding a willing woman to carry a child to term. Women on the other hand only need to be inseminated in order to have a child. Modern technology is already disrupted this co-dependent relationship by allowing women to remove having any relationship with a male in order to have and raise a child.

Still though the insemination industry still needs to have men who would donate their sperm. But what if that could be eliminated? Well the technology is about here. Recently we had the phenomenon where an ear was created for a child. A Ted Talks speech was given where a presenter showed a “printed” kidney to the audience. Yes, 3D printing combined with advanced cellular growth technology has or will soon get to the point where a testicle can and will be “printed'. At that point a fertility clinic could harvest it's own sperm from its own in house testicles that were created specifically for them. They could have testicles representing all manner of races, body types, intelligence, etc. for women to pick.

At that point having actual males around will be technically unnecessary. Why would a society produce males who commit the vast majority of crimes? Why produce males that are unnecessary to build anything since robots can do that? Why produce males when robots can police the remaining women, fight the wars that “need” to be fought and put the fires out? In all seriousness, Outside of reproduction, in the technologically advanced world, why would males be necessary? And if they cannot be employed in the areas that had largely been the bastions of male employment and the resulting competition with women for the rest of the jobs leading to conflict, what would the stone cold logic be other than to limit the number of males in society via technology?

If women can and will work; where they can have their children watched after by robots in conjunction with low status females . Where the elderly can and will be watched after by robots; why would you pay a male to do anything when he isn't necessary? Not needed to provide anything at all (including his sperm). His entire existence would be for the entertainment of the population. A “few good men” to play football, soccer, baseball and other competitive sports where robots “just wouldn't be the same”.

One could suggest that the same technology could produce an artificial womb. I'm not saying that such an event couldn't happen but rather that it is currently and would continue to be far easier to produce artificial testis than it would to produce an artificial uterus. Even if we could get away with not needing an actual uterus, there are issues of fetus growth, umbilical cords, placentas and the like that would have to be addressed. I would say that these issues would likely require the reconstruction of a number of other biological structures and therefore are at least an order of magnitude more difficult to accomplish. Testicles are far easier to create and maintain and will continue to produce so long as it is “alive”. We already have the technology to preserve and “deliver” it's product. There are far less unknown unknowns with testicles than there is with an artificial womb AND the fetus that would be developing in it.

Some would suggest that such extreme sex selection is improbable. I disagree. Sex selection already happens in fertility clinics along with disease screening and designer choices in eye and hair color to name a few. In less technologically advanced times, female children were often discarded at birth in those societies that regarded male children very highly. In some modern countries there are extreme imbalances between male and female populations due to past practices of sex-selection (usually via abortion). But the “new” means can be done by women with no input by men at all. There are already groups of women who simply hate their male children. What if future women can simply decline to have boys? What if rather than simply a matter of personal choice it becomes a matter of policy because of mass unemployment of males. Think about it. If you lived in a world where your male child was unlikely to be employed, unlikely to live a life on his own. Likely to get into trouble because he hasn't the skills or inclination to do the work available would you choose to have one?

A quick note about inclination. This is pretty important. We must understand that people have different likes and dislikes that are at their very core. It is why people gravitate to certain types of work and entertainment. To act as if folks just need to be “motivated” to be good at something is nonsense.

So going back to the Star Trek: Insurrection movie. What was it they found so objectionable that they decided to leave? The removal of the human element. The purpose. The sense of having a place in society. The replacement of human work by machines in the name of efficiency, safety and profit eventually kills what it is to be human. One of the things I hear often is that retirement is the greatest predictor of death. Why is this? Well the change in lifestyle is one thing but the next is that there is no purpose anymore. No reason to get up in the morning. What happens when it is not just “old” people who are “retired” but entire populations? Perhaps they saw the threat it posed to their families and sense of being. Maybe we'll get to that point ourselves.

Israel Hints at New Strikes, Warning Syria Not to Retaliate

A senior Israeli official signaled on Wednesday that Israel was considering further military strikes on Syria to stop the transfer of advanced weapons to Islamic militants, and he warned the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, that his government would face crippling consequences if it retaliated against Israel.

Pretty bizarre world we live in when one state can openly threaten another state with warfare and dictate that the victim state face "crippling consequences" for retaliating.

Imagine if you will a person coming up to you in the street and telling you that they are going to punch you in the face, after having punched you in the face on two other occasions and then telling you that if you strike them back they will stab you as well.

That about sums it up.

Oh wait..

And imagine if a local police officer saw the entire incident and told you that you better comply.

That police officer would be the UN.

Don't mind the prattling on about Hezbollah.  That is what we call a distraction.

In Poor Margins of Paris, New Recipe for Success Is Local

Here at Garvey's Ghost we've made the repeated point that the largest contributor to black unemployment is the lack of local black owned businesses in black neighborhoods.  Every group in America has an enclave that they control that serves as a "home base" for it's people. In reference to economics, these 'bases" usually provide initial employment where young people get their feet wet in the world of employment. The larger and more successful the business the more people it can hire. A side benefit of this is that those communities are not generally dependent upon outsiders for goods, services AND basic employment.

So over in France we find that one Maurad Benamer has figured this particular thing out. France, like the US has a large unemployment rate among it's African immigrants. I've already expressed my opinion in regards to African immigrants in France versus those Africans who were taken and shipped to the US via the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. While Africans in America were part and parcel of the developing nation and were denied their rightful place at the table African immigrants to France do not have such a legacy. Therefore I don't think the French have any obligation to do anything for them. It's their country, their land and therefore their choice. If you land in France you should be prepared to make your own way. Maurad Benamer apparently understands this.

“We came from a place where there was injustice and a lack of opportunity,” Mr. Benamer, 36, recalled of his banlieue, Bondy. But there he was in the heart of tourist Paris, on a winter afternoon in 2007, with his mother pointing incredulously to truffle-and-foie-gras maki being rolled out to patrons at Eat Sushi, which since then has expanded into a chain of 38 restaurants across France.

“How did you manage to do all this?” she asked.

His answer was simple: he did it on his own.

       

As he should.

a new generation of people like Mr. Benamer are trying to turn the suburbs into incubators for entrepreneurs, who see using their own initiative as the only way up and out of the banlieues,

Better late than never.

“If we wait for the government to do something, people will just remain stuck,” Mr. Benamer said. “If we want things to improve, we have to do it ourselves.”

Just as Mr. Garvey said you should.

As part of the self-help effort, banlieue-based organizations that promote ethnic diversity have been aggressive about placing minorities into mentoring and jobs programs at French companies that as little as a decade ago routinely rejected applicants with non-French names.

Please do not spend too much time (preferably none) on this. You build enough business and corner enough of the market and those businesses will come

looking for you.

Bottom line: Nobody respects a person or people who constantly has their hand out. Nobody respects anyone who complains and blames everyone else all the time. Everybody respects (even if they do not LIKE) a person who gets shit done.

Comparative Immigration

Let's compare experiences shall we?

One of the things I do is visit websites of those persons whom I don't share a general ideology with. Living in a cocoon of your own thoughts or constantly being around people who agree with what you think is intellectually limiting. One of the themes I have seen on some blogs is a constant critique of what is wrong with black people and particularly African-Americans. Not that Black folks and specifically African-Americans cannot be critiqued, but a lot of critiques are leveled without historical context. There's a lot of “if my ancestors could come here and...” and "Why do black people do...." talk, particularly from those of European ancestry as if African-Americans (not including those from the Caribbean or recently from Africa) were or are like any other immigrant group in America. They are not. So for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar, let's take a comparative look at African and European immigration.

I. Early English Immigrants: Immigration by choice.

General mentality-Tired of this King and Pope and whatnot. I think I'll leave this country and go to the new world and make a new life.

Early African Immigrants:

* chilling in the field working*

* Attacked by strangers *

* Put in shackles *

* Stored in a dungeon under conditions that would be considered humane for Jews in Germany. *

* Put on a ship. Shackled up for weeks if not a month and a half*
* IF survived the trip put into a “holding pen”
* Sold to someone *
* Might be “fortunate” to see your wife/husband and/or children sold too.*

Let's stop here for a moment and look at these two experiences.

On the one hand you have a set of people who represented the “highly motivated” of their country. The vanguard if you will. Willing to risk all to go to a new land and start a new life. On the other hand you have a group of people who had no intentions of going anywhere. These persons being captured (by whatever means or reasons) and forced to go somewhere. You can be sure that this began a legacy of resentment among those persons.

II. Other European Immigrants prior to Emancipation:

European Immigrants:

- I think I'll leave this country and go to the new world.

- Oh I can purchase some of these Africans in order to help my American dream come true.

- Oh I can rent out my more skilled Africans to other European immigrants for a profit.

- Oh I think we'll pass laws making it illegal for these Africans to be taught to read, to congregate without our approval. We'll ban the use of their languages and customs. We'll publicly execute a few of them to make sure the others stay in line.

- African “immigrants”

* Property

* Can't own anything without the express permission of European immigrants.

* Can't get basic education. It's illegal.

* No citizenship rights whatsoever.

Africans being about the only group that were not included in the assumption of born citizenship, needed the 14^th Amendment to get what Europeans from anywhere got just by popping out the womb. For the African “immigrant” any child she had inherited the status of “not free”( AKA “property”) to some European immigrant. As a matter of fact the child conceived by a European and an African (who was his property or someone elses property) was also “property” unless said European “immigrant” decided to “free” that individual.

III. After Emancipation:

- European Immigrant: These potatoes are not growing well.... Man the poverty is damn crushing here in Southern Italy. Well I think I'll leave my country and go to the new world and see what I can do.

- Faces discrimination from previous Europeans but have one thing in common: White. So eventually the “No Irish” and “No Italians” , etc signs drop as each group finds out that they may not be WASP but they are most definitely not Africans. Now these now “Americanized” immigrants will pass more laws to keep the African in a lesser status.

- Certain immigrants will make a large presence in certain job markets such as Irish with police and firefighting (wonder why those bagpipes are played during events? Yeah...look no further). Those immigrants, now considered white will erect barriers to the African who had been in the country long before them. They will riot against the African who has here before them. He will pass laws that restrict access to public accommodations to the African who was here before him.

-African “Citizen”- Will be forced by European immigrants to live in certain areas and be forced to move FROM certain areas upon the whims of the European immigrants (and their children). Should they decide that their social and/or economic interests are inconvenienced by a black neighborhood.

In some cases when those European immigrants (or their children) decide they want a piece of prime land that belongs to an African, they will outrightthreaten the owner's life and once he “leaves town” for his own safety, the European immigrant will use the courts to grab the land claiming that the previous owner “abandoned” the property.

-Will be granted public education in sub-par structures without adequate tools.

-Will be excluded from access to higher education (assuming he has been able to obtain a High School education). Will form schools for themselves though those schools will be constantly under the threat of destruction from the surrounding white communities if any of the pupils or locals does anything that the European immigrant community does not “like”.

- Will eventually open businesses but are dependent upon European immigrant banks for capital. European immigrants don't care to lend to Africans. When they do lend to Africans it is at rates that are highly unfavorable.

-While other immigrant groups are freely allowed to celebrate their religions and cultural heritages, the African has been cut off from all cultural connections from his homeland(s). However; if the African is seen as being “too white” then he risks being assaulted or killed for being too “uppity” and not knowing “his place”. On the other hand if he behaves in a manner considered “typical” for the African it is used to re-enforce the natural “low culture” and “low intelligence” of the African. Can't win either way.

- Any invention that the African makes is co-opted by European immigrants who are then able to create large industries base on them (air conditioning, Peanut butter, Train linkages, Traffic lights, etc.). Over many generations the African is systematically denied the ability to capitalize on business ventures that European immigrants are allowed to build upon. Eventually the African is blocked out of so many industries that he can only do “small time” business. European immigrant look at the “non-accomplishments” of the African in America and say “look, he's so stupid he cannot build so and so and do such and such.” The European immigrant does not even recognize that the low position of the African is the direct result of the actions of the European immigrant to limit the activities of the African.

The European immigrant (and his or her children) forgets that a minority of people in any racial or ethnic group creates new things. Creates business, etc. That the rest of the community then benefits from the success of a few people. For example Henry Ford creates Ford. Ford is not a genious. Ford had a great idea and a community of people around him who he could tap. Millions of people became employed and able to do other things because of Henry Ford. But the European fails to understand that if Henry Ford was black, FIRST he would have been denied an education. Secondly he would not have been able to gather the people around him with the expertise he needed because those persons too would have been denied an education. Furthermore Henry Ford would not have been able to finance his idea because if he was black no bank would have given him the money. Lastly it is highly likely that Henry Ford, had he been black would have had a European immigrant take his idea. If Henry Ford was mixed enough to pass for white, he could have retained his invention but would have surrounded himself with European immigrants who would end up being the primary beneficiaries of his invention.


So as a summary we have two basic groups: Those who came of their own free will and those who did not. We have groups of European immigrants who, even after or during facing discrimination themselves would systematically turn on the African immigrant who was there before them.

We have the African "Immigrant" who was systematically stripped of their own cultural symbols and practices. The very symbols and practices that in every culture keeps a community cohesive and gives it's members grounding and purpose.  The same African "immigrant" is physically and mentally abused by the European immigrant for generations at a time while falling further and further behind the rest of the "Americans" in terms of wealth, land ownership, patents on industry founding inventions (air conditioning, traffic light) when they aren't outright denied the benefits of their own inventions (blood transfusions).

The African "immigrant" is allowed to do three things:

Sing, dance, fight.

Then we wonder why African-Americans are overrepresented in entertainment, sports and physically violent crimes mostly against other Africans.

This is but a small summary of the general immigration history of African-Americans. Don't let folks try to talk about African-Americans like they arrived at Ellis Island on some “I'm lookin' for a fresh start” story. That aint' us.

IQ and Immigration Policy

Since this topic is making waves I'm providing a link to the paper in question so that folks can make informed commentary on the subject.

Personhood in Ohio

The LA Times is reporting that Ariel Castro is facing murder charges for "terminating the pregnancies" of the women he had raped:

“Based on the facts, I fully intend to seek charges for each and every act of sexual violence, rape, each day of kidnapping, every felonious assault, all his attempted murders and each act of aggravated murder he committed by terminating pregnancies” during the years the women were held, McGinty said.

I expect that those women who are interested in abortion rights to object strenuously to these charges. Should these charges stick and if a jury convicts, then personhood for a fetus will have been legally established. Once that legal establishment is made abortion can and will be defined as murder.

Lets see if they figure this out.

Airline Discrimination Against Men

Recently Zerlina Maxwell was on a major news network peddling her "teach men not to rape" theory of "all men are predators" feminist theory. The Ghost broke that bull down and exposed it for the misandry that it was. However; the dangers of her line of thinking; that men are inherently predatory unless trained otherwise, is widespread and very dangerous to the rights of men everywhere. Here is an example: Just understand what is being said here: Men are inherently dangerous. So dangerous that we can't have them in the vicinity of children. Never mind that the vast majority of children are molested by people known to them and that studies have shown that mothers are the most likely source of abuse, you make sure that men don't sit near a child on a plane.

Al Qaeda's Track Record With Chemical Weapons

What's this?

Carla Del Ponte, the veteran war crimes prosecutor and a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria, made this claim on a Swiss-Italian TV station.

Del Ponte explained, "Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."

Del Ponte added, "This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities." [My Emphasis]

What was it I said earlier?

The U.N. commission later pedaled back from Del Ponte's statement, saying that it "has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict."

Yes. I'm sure they did. Probably after a few phone calls. Can't be upsetting the security council.