I saw this article over at counterpunch when it first came up but did not find the time to post on it. So I'll do the "jobs" redux links post. I hate just posting links to other pieces but I wanted to get this stuff out.
Another Grim Jobs Report
How Safe is Your Job?
Is your job safe? Not if it can be done abroad. The only safe jobs are in domestic services that require a “hands-on” presence, such as barbers, hospital orderlies, and waitresses.
For a number of years the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly payroll jobs reports have been sending US policymakers dire warnings, only to be ignored. The March report repeats the message. Ninety-five percent of the new jobs created are in domestic services. The US economy no longer creates jobs in export or export-competitive sectors.
Wholesale and retail trade, waitresses and bartenders account for 46% of the new jobs. Education and health services, administrative and waste services, and financial activities account for another 46%. (Wholesale and retail trade jobs for March were 40,000. These jobs would be sales clerks ringing up sales on registers, people stocking the aisles at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, etc.
Leisure and hospitality (primarily waitresses and bartenders) accounted for 42,000 March jobs.) In contrast, computer system services accounted for 3,600 jobs.
The biggest item (half) in education and health services is "ambulatory health care services."
This has been the profile of US employment growth for a number of years, along with some construction jobs filled by legal and illegal immigrants. It is the job profile of a third world economy.
Click here for the rest.
While I don't always agree with Mr Hutchinson, his latest is relevant. He doesn't ask all the right questions but it is decent material:
Discrimination: The Root of the Black Job Crisis
In a comprehensive seven-month university study of the hiring practices of hundreds of Chicago-area employers (a few years before Pager's graduate study), many top company officials said they would not hire blacks. When asked to assess the work ethic of white, black and Latino employees by race, nearly forty percent of the employers ranked blacks dead last.
The employers routinely described blacks as "unskilled," "uneducated," "illiterate." "dishonest," "lacked initiative," "unmotivated," "involved with gangs and drugs," "did not understand work," "unstable," "lacked charm," "had no family values," and were "poor role models."
The consensus among these employers was that blacks brought their alleged pathologies to the work place, and were to be avoided at all costs. The researchers found that black business owners shared many of the same negative attitudes.
I will point out that 40 percent of employers ranked blacks dead last I could ask what the remainder was but Mr. Hutchinson does not provide a link to the study or at least the title of said study.
Next I'd like to point out the Center for Immigration Studies:
In 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—then chaired by Eleanor Holmes Norton—filed a lawsuit against a Chicago manufacturing firm specifically to prevent blacks from being crowded out by immigrants. It was clear, at that point, that the affirmative-action apparatus recognized the threat immigration posed to the perceived interests of blacks. The EEOC lost the lawsuit, and a subsequent one along the same lines; this ended what Graham calls a “campaign to protect black workers from the surging tides of immigrant competition.” Since then, black leaders seem to have given up on their ostensible constituents...
If minority status is fungible—any kind of minority counts toward the “goals and timetables”—then business could avoid government and activist-group attention and avoid hiring blacks simply by hiring immigrants instead. The law, Graham says, “opened a window of opportunity for business, under the banner of diversity, to hire Hispanic and Asian immigrants in preference to native-born black workers.”
Without mass immigration, this would not have been possible, since in 1965 there weren’t enough of the other minorities to make a difference. But after the admission of more than 26 million new immigrants eligible for affirmative action, there are now more Hispanics than blacks, and one-third as many Asians as blacks. And business has shown a clear preference for immigrant workers—as confirmed by, for instance, William Julius Wilson’s surveys of Chicago-area employers in the late 1980s.
Looking at a critique oF Wilson's work we find the following:
WHILE WILSON'S EMPLOYERS DISPARAGED BLACK WORKERS, THEY EXTOLLED THE VIRTUES of immigrant workers. Wilson also takes these claims at face value, repeating the familiar argument that immigrants are willing to work harder for less money because the wages, however low, compare favorably to wages in their countries of origin. Once again, Wilson's data are not so accommodating. His survey of inner-city residents found that "jobless black men have a lower 'reservation wage' than the jobless men in the other ethnic groups." Unemployed black men were willing to settle for less than $6.00 an hour, whereas their Mexican and Puerto Rican counterparts demanded $6.20 and $7.20, respectively. Unemployed whites demanded over $9.00 an hour. Thus, Wilson's data do not support the conventional wisdom that blacks are unwilling to work at the same paltry wages as immigrants.
Now this comes as a surprise as I had even thought that blacks were objecting to low wages. It is entirely possible that wage depression accelerated between the time of the study and the now, but I think the above is particularly damning to the concept that blacks wouldn't (at one point) take lower wages than immigrants.
Lastly from another edition of New Politics I would like to point the reader to this piece:
Immigration, African Americans, and Race Discourse:
IN 1971, THE Amsterdam News, New York City's oldest African-American newspaper, published a cartoon by Melvin Tapley that gave vent to a uniquely black ambivalence toward immigration. The cartoon portrayed a downtrodden black figure crouched on the ground, labeled "US Folks," a double entendre for "us folks" and "U.S. folks." A chain of other figures, representing Spanish Americans and the foreign born, climb on the back of the crouched black figure, to pluck fruit off the tree of opportunity. Tapley had no illusions about the struggles of these immigrant minorities. Although he portrays them as getting ahead on the backs of blacks, immigrants too must climb over the wall of prejudice, and they reach only the lowest branches on the tree of opportunity.
The accompanying editorial read as follows:
News from the Census Bureau that Spanish-speaking Americans are now able to earn higher incomes than Blacks will not come as a surprise to many of us.
Since our arrival here in 1619 as slaves, Black Americans have watched millions of European immigrants arrive and within a short time hold jobs and reach levels of incomes Blacks were not allowed to attain.
In fact, during the early part of the century the hordes of Irish, Italian, Jewish, Polish, German, Scottish, Greek, Spanish, and other European immigrants frequently replaced Blacks as longshoremen, street-car motormen, construction workers, jockeys, blacksmiths, and able-bodied seamen. Outright, rank racism, and discrimination were the tools by which Blacks have been deprived of work over the decades.2
The cartoon and editorial reflect a long strand of black thought, which regards immigrants and immigration with an ambivalence verging on resentment and bitterness. This should come as no surprise. As Lawrence Fuchs reminds us: "In 1883, when Emma Lazarus, a daughter of immigrants, wrote the impassioned words ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,' the Supreme Court undermined the last of the civil rights laws passed by Congress following the Civil War."3 And 1965 -- the year these rights were finally restored -- also marked the beginning of a massive influx of immigrants from every part of the world who were thrust into competition with blacks for jobs and opportunity. The crowning irony is that most of these immigrants would not be here, but for the black protest movement that led to immigration reform abolishing the national origins quotas that had chocked off flow of immigrants from nations outside of northern and western Europe...
This is a must read article. Also read the current volume for Steinberg's rejoinder to responses to his article.
(17 years of informed commentary)
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Sunday, April 23, 2006
What and Why Heteronormativeness
A while back nubian of Blackademic proposed a "blog against hetero-normativity day." That day arrived yesterday with a myriad of blog posts. I didn't read them all. Don't intend to. One entry I did note was Keguru who stated:
It is easy, too easy, for discussions against heteronormativity to turn into diatribes against heterosexuality. It is also too easy for we who critique normativity to misunderstand the object of our critique, to believe normalcy and normativity are necessarily oppressive states from which we should liberate poor heterosexuals who are dupes of ideology.
I fall prey to this all too often. Another instance of queer hubris.
However, for whatever reason he refuses to go further in this critique.
Let me go back to nubian's specific definition of hetero-normativity. She says:
why should we blog against heteronormativity?:
as bloggers, we can use our words to disrupt those pesky normative ideas that are based on the categories of male and female. we can use the internet to question the oppressive institution of heteronomativity because: not all of us identify as male/female--some of us identify as neither; not all of us are biological heterosexuals--we are homosexual, polyamorous, bisexual, transgendered, butchdykes, sadomasochists, leather queers, straight queers, and even asexual; not all of us are married, and not all of us want to be; not all of us believe that female/male coupling is the norm--some of us don't even believe in the terms "male" and "female"; not all of us believe that what makes a man is his penis, and what makes a woman is her vagina.
those of us who are blogging today, believe that there are NO traditional roles that males and females should adopt. those of us who are blogging today understand that the gender roles that are assigned as "male" and "female" are social constructs that support "the patriarchy." those of us who are blogging today, understand the multiplicity of gender identities, of sexual identities, of sexual desires, and of sexual practices.
those of us who are blogging today are against supporting the status quo that deems the male/female dichotomy as normal. we are blogging against heteronormativity.
I'll give the reader five minutes to think of the problems with the above statement.
...
...
...
...
...
OK. The problem is the mashing together of various groups, the complete mis-use of the term "normal" and the mashup of patriarchy and "hetero-normativety." In essence nubian makes this effigy that consists of a menagerie of social ill and social groups and then takes a torch to it. I wont say that it was done maliciously, but it smacks, to me, of the same pitfalls outlined in my "notes to the so called POC revolutionary". I also think it falls into the same semantic trap that the term racist and racism. let me explain.
1) Normal is defined as:
Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical or expected.
Noun: The usual, average or typical state or condition.
2) Normative:Establishing, relating to or deriving from a standard or norm.
3) Hetero is used as an abbreviation of heterosexual generally implying or defined as male-female sexual practices.
Thus hetero-normative is definitively:
Heterosexuality as the normal sexual behavior (in humans). This definition implies the existence of non-normal behaviors. What many people do is mistake hetero-normativity with hetero-exclusivity. These are two different things. Had nubian offered a blog against hetero-exclusivity then the mashups would probably be appropriate.
See normal is something we have to come to terms with. It is not normal to be homosexual, it happens, but it is not normal. It is abnormal for biological males to be "mental females." It happens but it's not normal. It is abnormal to be a hermaphrodite, but it happens. To take this out of the sexual realm; it is abnormal to be without melanin, but it happens. It is abnormal to be a "pink" or "pale' human, but it happens. The vast majority of the human species are "significantly" melanized. They do not normally get "melanomas" caused by exposure to the sun. They are "normal." Similarly, the vast majority of the world's human population is heterosexual. That is normal. There is nothing wrong with that.
Lets move on to gender roles. I'm in agreement, to an extent, that there shouldn't be, in this modern society, fixed gender roles. I'd be hard pressed to make that same statement to people in other parts of the world though. The one thing that I don't usually see discussed is how gender roles came into existence. I would like to assume that such things are known, but I don't think that is the case. Briefly then, in primitive man, lacking the varied tools that we have today, work was divided by necessity. Males of the species are physically stronger (in general) than the females of the species (Though the Kikuyu creation myths states the opposite). You simply were not going to have a 6 month pregnant female out on the hunting expedition. Pregnant women, and children have to be protected from other men and wild animals. Whiled hunting parties are out (often for days on end) women, children, and elderly must be sheltered and fed. It should not be surprising then that women, who bear the children and, in primitive societies, the primary food giver of said children, are put into caregiving roles. It should not be surprising that whole social systems that prepare women for these roles sprang up everywhere. It should not be surprising that similar social systems preparing males for their roles also sprung up. Within these communities you had reactions to various social and biological pressures. Polygamy is a normal reaction to a relative lack of males in a given society. Males may be in short demand due to many things, including wars. Thus polygamy, often put down as another means of "male domination" is in fact a rational; extension of the original division of labour. It provides that the "weakest" and "most vulnerable" of society are indeed looked out. As a side note: this very thing is why I find it amusing for black communities that discuss "man shortages" to not seriously consider polygamy. Of course the reason has more to do with sex than actual marriage or familial responsibility.
Speaking of responsibility, the one thing that is beneficial of socially enforced "rule" is that it's members knew what was to be expected of them when they entered a marriage. Rightly or wrongly, a woman knew that a man had to provide shelter and food. A man entering a familial situation knew he was required to provide home and food. He knew that having provided that, he would receive in return care of children (and elder family members) and a "kept home." I'd add that each would "expect" sexual relations as well. Ideally, these roles were coequal in the minds of all parties. We know that to not necessarily to be the case, but it would be wrong to equate the mental deficiencies of the practitioners, with the institution(s) themselves.
Fast forward to today (I said I was going to be brief), many of the "no -roles" people live in technologically modern societies, where women don't breast feed but give their children Similac. Things like housework, if not delegated to maids, are minimized by washing machines, rooombas, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, etc. Food can be prepared in 5 minutes. Indeed, technology and the capitalist idea of individual as "time is money." throws the "need" for strict roles out the proverbial window. No one is hunting for food. House building is delegated to a specialized few, energy is paid for by the KW Hour. Anyone with cash, can buy the things that were originally attended to by the individual. Many jobs, especially in the middle class areas, consists of computer use and mental prowess, which any one can do. In the realm of reproduction, one can be artificially inseminated if one wants a "biological" child or one can adopt a child, often the product of one of societies "systems' (For example, and this may not be reflective of the larger community, but I notice that white gay couples adopt black and other non-white children at a particularly high rate).
it should not be surprising that in the face of all this lack of surity, this lack of that which is to be expected, that "Social conservatives" find fertile ground for their messages. People want to have something to hold onto. They want some standard to aspire to a message that tells them they are "full of it" for wanting that will go nowhere fast.
I want to touch on the issue of paternalism. In "the west" paternalism can arguable be traced to Plato and the Greek notion of manliness as being more rational and femininity being hallmarked by frailty and irrationality. Rationality being a hallmark of God (Though even in Greek mythology "Gods" were prone to multiple irrational acts), men were closer to godliness. the development of patriarchy in Africa is different though. I think Pan-African notions of patriarchy are more rooted in the environmental realities rather than religious or philosophical ideologies. Of course colonialism and its implantation of Christianity had a great impact on how the affected societies rationalized male dominance. It could be argued that certain current paternalistic ideas are the product of colonialism rather than of the normal ideological development of the affected societies. To follow this thread of conversation though it would be a discussion of cultural development and not one of hetero-normativity and therefore off topic.
Let me end by saying that as Keguru hinted at, the discussion against "hetero-normativity" may turn into an exercise of unnecessary demonization and generalization in order to prop up another ideology. In practice (which I point out in "notes") it may not work if it becomes impractical. You can't simply say there are no roles when millions and millions (if not billions) of people are certainly happy with having defined roles. many of these people, specifically women, want their "roles" validated and respected. They want to have children and stay home and care for them (and have a small business running out that home too). Lastly, I want to remind people of a little problem that Europe is having. Europe has an average age population in it's 40's or thereabouts. The reason is, they don't have many children. Why don' they have many children? Because in part, they are more worried about business and making money. They want "independent lifestyles." They want big houses and big careers and put off having children. If it weren't for immigration much of Europe (at least Western Europe) would not only have a lower population, they would have a huge negative population growth. Negative population growth is a euphemism for "dying out."
The large reason for the large population growths of "third world" countries is that reproduction and them social structures that support it are a high priority. If such ideas and philosophies are thrown to the side and replaced with individual-centered sexual and familial ideologies I would not be surprised to find the same thing happen to non-European, populations (an episode of Battlestar Galactica touched on this very issue and a recent 60 minutes show on the gender imbalance in China due to the aborting of female fetuses).
I know I said I was going to close but I wanted to comment on one commentator that offered books like "joey has two dads". I think this kind of stuff is wrong and counter productive. I had this conversation with a child recently who apparently had been exposed to this idea. I told him that "so and so" could not possibly have two dads. He may have two male parents or two male caretakers but he does not have "two dads." I had to explain how in fact a person is created (a conversation I don't think he should have been subject to at that age). There is only one mother and one father. There may be any kind of "living arrangements" but biologically the book has no basis in fact. I shiver at the thought of any number of teachers or parents having to have THAT conversation since they often mess up other conversations anyway. Of course as, outlined above, one can have such 'Two daddy" arrangements specifically due to how this society is arranged around individualism and work. A parent is a job description that can be filled by any "qualified candidate." Heck in Japan, they have robots created to care for the elderly. Definitely more efficient AND frees up children from the pesky task of caring for their parents. Instead they can work more hours for some company or be better consumers.
So OK I'm done.
It is easy, too easy, for discussions against heteronormativity to turn into diatribes against heterosexuality. It is also too easy for we who critique normativity to misunderstand the object of our critique, to believe normalcy and normativity are necessarily oppressive states from which we should liberate poor heterosexuals who are dupes of ideology.
I fall prey to this all too often. Another instance of queer hubris.
However, for whatever reason he refuses to go further in this critique.
Let me go back to nubian's specific definition of hetero-normativity. She says:
why should we blog against heteronormativity?:
as bloggers, we can use our words to disrupt those pesky normative ideas that are based on the categories of male and female. we can use the internet to question the oppressive institution of heteronomativity because: not all of us identify as male/female--some of us identify as neither; not all of us are biological heterosexuals--we are homosexual, polyamorous, bisexual, transgendered, butchdykes, sadomasochists, leather queers, straight queers, and even asexual; not all of us are married, and not all of us want to be; not all of us believe that female/male coupling is the norm--some of us don't even believe in the terms "male" and "female"; not all of us believe that what makes a man is his penis, and what makes a woman is her vagina.
those of us who are blogging today, believe that there are NO traditional roles that males and females should adopt. those of us who are blogging today understand that the gender roles that are assigned as "male" and "female" are social constructs that support "the patriarchy." those of us who are blogging today, understand the multiplicity of gender identities, of sexual identities, of sexual desires, and of sexual practices.
those of us who are blogging today are against supporting the status quo that deems the male/female dichotomy as normal. we are blogging against heteronormativity.
I'll give the reader five minutes to think of the problems with the above statement.
...
...
...
...
...
OK. The problem is the mashing together of various groups, the complete mis-use of the term "normal" and the mashup of patriarchy and "hetero-normativety." In essence nubian makes this effigy that consists of a menagerie of social ill and social groups and then takes a torch to it. I wont say that it was done maliciously, but it smacks, to me, of the same pitfalls outlined in my "notes to the so called POC revolutionary". I also think it falls into the same semantic trap that the term racist and racism. let me explain.
1) Normal is defined as:
Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical or expected.
Noun: The usual, average or typical state or condition.
2) Normative:Establishing, relating to or deriving from a standard or norm.
3) Hetero is used as an abbreviation of heterosexual generally implying or defined as male-female sexual practices.
Thus hetero-normative is definitively:
Heterosexuality as the normal sexual behavior (in humans). This definition implies the existence of non-normal behaviors. What many people do is mistake hetero-normativity with hetero-exclusivity. These are two different things. Had nubian offered a blog against hetero-exclusivity then the mashups would probably be appropriate.
See normal is something we have to come to terms with. It is not normal to be homosexual, it happens, but it is not normal. It is abnormal for biological males to be "mental females." It happens but it's not normal. It is abnormal to be a hermaphrodite, but it happens. To take this out of the sexual realm; it is abnormal to be without melanin, but it happens. It is abnormal to be a "pink" or "pale' human, but it happens. The vast majority of the human species are "significantly" melanized. They do not normally get "melanomas" caused by exposure to the sun. They are "normal." Similarly, the vast majority of the world's human population is heterosexual. That is normal. There is nothing wrong with that.
Lets move on to gender roles. I'm in agreement, to an extent, that there shouldn't be, in this modern society, fixed gender roles. I'd be hard pressed to make that same statement to people in other parts of the world though. The one thing that I don't usually see discussed is how gender roles came into existence. I would like to assume that such things are known, but I don't think that is the case. Briefly then, in primitive man, lacking the varied tools that we have today, work was divided by necessity. Males of the species are physically stronger (in general) than the females of the species (Though the Kikuyu creation myths states the opposite). You simply were not going to have a 6 month pregnant female out on the hunting expedition. Pregnant women, and children have to be protected from other men and wild animals. Whiled hunting parties are out (often for days on end) women, children, and elderly must be sheltered and fed. It should not be surprising then that women, who bear the children and, in primitive societies, the primary food giver of said children, are put into caregiving roles. It should not be surprising that whole social systems that prepare women for these roles sprang up everywhere. It should not be surprising that similar social systems preparing males for their roles also sprung up. Within these communities you had reactions to various social and biological pressures. Polygamy is a normal reaction to a relative lack of males in a given society. Males may be in short demand due to many things, including wars. Thus polygamy, often put down as another means of "male domination" is in fact a rational; extension of the original division of labour. It provides that the "weakest" and "most vulnerable" of society are indeed looked out. As a side note: this very thing is why I find it amusing for black communities that discuss "man shortages" to not seriously consider polygamy. Of course the reason has more to do with sex than actual marriage or familial responsibility.
Speaking of responsibility, the one thing that is beneficial of socially enforced "rule" is that it's members knew what was to be expected of them when they entered a marriage. Rightly or wrongly, a woman knew that a man had to provide shelter and food. A man entering a familial situation knew he was required to provide home and food. He knew that having provided that, he would receive in return care of children (and elder family members) and a "kept home." I'd add that each would "expect" sexual relations as well. Ideally, these roles were coequal in the minds of all parties. We know that to not necessarily to be the case, but it would be wrong to equate the mental deficiencies of the practitioners, with the institution(s) themselves.
Fast forward to today (I said I was going to be brief), many of the "no -roles" people live in technologically modern societies, where women don't breast feed but give their children Similac. Things like housework, if not delegated to maids, are minimized by washing machines, rooombas, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, etc. Food can be prepared in 5 minutes. Indeed, technology and the capitalist idea of individual as "time is money." throws the "need" for strict roles out the proverbial window. No one is hunting for food. House building is delegated to a specialized few, energy is paid for by the KW Hour. Anyone with cash, can buy the things that were originally attended to by the individual. Many jobs, especially in the middle class areas, consists of computer use and mental prowess, which any one can do. In the realm of reproduction, one can be artificially inseminated if one wants a "biological" child or one can adopt a child, often the product of one of societies "systems' (For example, and this may not be reflective of the larger community, but I notice that white gay couples adopt black and other non-white children at a particularly high rate).
it should not be surprising that in the face of all this lack of surity, this lack of that which is to be expected, that "Social conservatives" find fertile ground for their messages. People want to have something to hold onto. They want some standard to aspire to a message that tells them they are "full of it" for wanting that will go nowhere fast.
I want to touch on the issue of paternalism. In "the west" paternalism can arguable be traced to Plato and the Greek notion of manliness as being more rational and femininity being hallmarked by frailty and irrationality. Rationality being a hallmark of God (Though even in Greek mythology "Gods" were prone to multiple irrational acts), men were closer to godliness. the development of patriarchy in Africa is different though. I think Pan-African notions of patriarchy are more rooted in the environmental realities rather than religious or philosophical ideologies. Of course colonialism and its implantation of Christianity had a great impact on how the affected societies rationalized male dominance. It could be argued that certain current paternalistic ideas are the product of colonialism rather than of the normal ideological development of the affected societies. To follow this thread of conversation though it would be a discussion of cultural development and not one of hetero-normativity and therefore off topic.
Let me end by saying that as Keguru hinted at, the discussion against "hetero-normativity" may turn into an exercise of unnecessary demonization and generalization in order to prop up another ideology. In practice (which I point out in "notes") it may not work if it becomes impractical. You can't simply say there are no roles when millions and millions (if not billions) of people are certainly happy with having defined roles. many of these people, specifically women, want their "roles" validated and respected. They want to have children and stay home and care for them (and have a small business running out that home too). Lastly, I want to remind people of a little problem that Europe is having. Europe has an average age population in it's 40's or thereabouts. The reason is, they don't have many children. Why don' they have many children? Because in part, they are more worried about business and making money. They want "independent lifestyles." They want big houses and big careers and put off having children. If it weren't for immigration much of Europe (at least Western Europe) would not only have a lower population, they would have a huge negative population growth. Negative population growth is a euphemism for "dying out."
The large reason for the large population growths of "third world" countries is that reproduction and them social structures that support it are a high priority. If such ideas and philosophies are thrown to the side and replaced with individual-centered sexual and familial ideologies I would not be surprised to find the same thing happen to non-European, populations (an episode of Battlestar Galactica touched on this very issue and a recent 60 minutes show on the gender imbalance in China due to the aborting of female fetuses).
I know I said I was going to close but I wanted to comment on one commentator that offered books like "joey has two dads". I think this kind of stuff is wrong and counter productive. I had this conversation with a child recently who apparently had been exposed to this idea. I told him that "so and so" could not possibly have two dads. He may have two male parents or two male caretakers but he does not have "two dads." I had to explain how in fact a person is created (a conversation I don't think he should have been subject to at that age). There is only one mother and one father. There may be any kind of "living arrangements" but biologically the book has no basis in fact. I shiver at the thought of any number of teachers or parents having to have THAT conversation since they often mess up other conversations anyway. Of course as, outlined above, one can have such 'Two daddy" arrangements specifically due to how this society is arranged around individualism and work. A parent is a job description that can be filled by any "qualified candidate." Heck in Japan, they have robots created to care for the elderly. Definitely more efficient AND frees up children from the pesky task of caring for their parents. Instead they can work more hours for some company or be better consumers.
So OK I'm done.
Technorati Tags: Culture
Thursday, April 20, 2006
School Vouchers and School Districts
This week we have news that is challenging the orthodoxy of desegregation. On one hand we have Cory Booker in Newark silently pushing for school vouchers and in Omaha Nebraska we have a law passed that creates three school districts split among African-Americans, Latinos and Whites. What these two issues bring to the fore is desegregation. Many pundits have staked their space citing Dr. King and Brown v. Board as well as comments about how "segregated" schools do not prepare students for the real world. Lets look at the situation from a Pan-Africanist perspective. A Pan-Africanist is concerned first and foremost with self-determination for black people. Self-determination is based in the exercise of power. Self determination is a principle. Many people mistake Brown v. Board as principle. It is not. It has been used to make "desegregation" a principle, but that flies in the face of reality. Let me backtrack to one of my earliest Garvey's Ghost post where I wrote out the narrative of a portion of the Matrix Reloaded:
"The Question is, Do you know why you are here?.. The Keymaker, of course. But this is not a reason. This is not a why. The Keymaker himself in his nature is a means it is not an end. So, to look for him is to be looking for a means to..do..what?" says the Merovingian
"you know the answer to that question" Says Neo
"But do you? You think you do but you do not. You are here because you were sent here. You were told to come here, and then you obeyed. It is of course the way of all things. You see there is only one constant...one universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect. "
"Everything begins with choice." Says Morpheus.
"No. Wrong. Choice is an illusion created between those with power...and those without."
"... Casuality. There is no escape from it. We are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace, is to understand it, to understand the why. "why" us what separates us from them... you from me. "why is the only real source of power. without it, you are powerless. And this is how you come to me, without why, without power. Another link in the chain."
Matrix Reloaded
Scene 17: Taste of the Merovingian.
The scene pretty much sums up how most black people think on the subject. We've been told: believe this, do that, go here, ask this, sit down, sit here, you want to sit here, you want to live here, etc. Lets' dispel some myths. Everybody is separated from some group. If you live in a rich neighborhood, you are separated from middle class and poor neighborhoods. If you are a Pentecostal then you are separated from Baptists, etc. If you send your child to a private school, your are separate from those in public schools. The fact of the matter is that life is a separating event based on what people want to do with themselves and their families. Blacks in America, have historically been told to "live here" "Work there" and in that have been economically marginalized. Due to this marginalization a schools where blacks lived were commonly poorly equipped compared to their white counterparts. Blacks fought for better schools (and other things) by challenging the laws that marginalized them in public accommodations. Hence we got Brown V. Board which claimed that separate was inherently unequal and we bought that philosophy, hook, line and sinker. Let me ask you this: If separate is inherently unequal then why have three separate branches of government? The Executive, Judicial and Legislature of the US government are supposedly equal in power. No, the court really didn't mean what they said. It was really some text used to assuage themselves of guilt, but it was far more nefarious than that. Whether they knew it or not, the real issue of separate and equal is about self determination. If blacks were to rise economically they could no longer be exploited by whites, especially in the South. The Brown V. decision has this little piece in it stating how the minds of black children are harmed by being denied access to non-black (white) children. This little piece should have let us know what was in store for us. This is a great fallacy that is repeated today. We hear of it like this:
"Going to a black college will not prepare you for the 'real world.'" Read: "You won't understand how to act around white people." The "act around white people" insult aside, how can you explain the very well adjusted (many to a fault) of black College and University graduates? Anyone?
The purpose of black colleges was supposed to be the education of black people with a mind for the betterment of black people and not to mould new employees for white corporations, which many of these institutions have become. Black people see this fallacy and in their own warped sense of logic, come to the conclusion that if a black college is going to socialize (they say: "Prepare") their children to be bossed by white people, then a white college can do that much a better job by immersing said child in a sea of whiteness. And don't be mad because I said black people, in general, have a warped sense of logic, it's true.
Anyway, having dismissed the outlandish notion that black people cannot be "well adjusted" without being in daily contact with white children, we can address the Nebraska issue. Anyone who is familiar with public education, especially in urban environments knows that blacks (and poor non-blacks) make up the vast majority of students served by the public school systems. WHites who live in these urban areas either live in a rich area of urban centers where, due to how public schools are funded, The zoned schools are in good shape. Or these whites send their kids to private school. So the big joke is that regardless of Brown V. board, most public schools (and private schools) are in fact lawfully segregated. This is the big, hush, hush, don't say it secret in plain sight. Once it is admitted that the public school system is "segregated", the next question that has to be asked is what is bad about that? Your answer depends entirely on your ideology. if you are a white liberal odds are you believe in some rainbow, ringing mountaintops and hand holding negroes coalition. If you are a black integrationist you are aghast that young black boys and girls are not interacting on the daily with "good white folk." If you are a Pan-Africanist, you are saying, now that we got all our kids in one place, how do we get them educated. Note the difference, Pan-Africanists are not the least bit concerned that black kids are filling schools at 90 percentiles, we're concerned with what they are learning in the schools. Hence we get to Omaha's law. Omaha's law will be struck down as unconstitutional unless the justices intent to overturn Brown V. Board. That legal sideshow will still not address what the lone state senator brought up: Local control of schools.
The running joke that is the funding of public schools is how they are funded. Schools are funded by property taxes. Therefore; if you live somewhere where property values are worse than GM's credit rating or where companies with huge tax "incentives" are located or where there are way to many non-tax paying houses of worship, your schools are underfunded. This describes the situation in many black urban areas. If, however, you live in a location where houses are valued in the millions and there are tax paying local business driving up the value of property in that location, then your school is in much better shape. In addition, Schools in better off neighborhoods often have the luxury of stay-at-home moms who can donate time to the schools. Also the schools have alumni who are able and willing to give large donations (both cash and non-cash). Also, for the richety-rich, there are private schools that have yearly tuitions that are equal to the after tax income of many black people. So, in wealthier neighborhoods, the people who send their kids to private school out of their own pocket are also handing their tax dollars to the public schools thus underwriting a better education for those who cannot (or do not want to) attend private schools.
In poor neighborhoods this does not exist. There are no rich families underwriting the education of those students who cannot afford to go to private school. There is barely enough to keep the school running and to add insult to injury there are gangs and other social ills that drain resources (I won't even get into the monies that go into language programs for non-english speaking immigrant children) away from direct education. Now, Cory Booker and his ilk want you too believe that the state, which is already underserving urban schools should give money to parents to send their "talented" children to private or religious schools. The same state that has a problem properly funding public schools. The most amazing thing is that there are actually black people that believe this ( that warped logic thing). Now if a private foundation (like the Olatunji Foundation wants to pony up money to send more promising students to other schools then there's no problem. However, the diversion of public monies that is supposed to fund public education, to private and religious institutions is wrong. So what should be done:
It is the cruelest situation that this nation is so white supremacist that it will gladly spend billions and extend the debt to "bring democracy to Iraq" and to plan on going to war in Iran and will not equalize the educational spending in public schools. The answer to budget shortfalls in public education is that all tax revenue marked for public education should be put into one pot and distributed equitably among the schools in the state (Or county if that works out better). The Federal government should gladly extend it's debt, if necessary, to equalize the finances of public schools because it will pay dividends in the future (assuming the outsourcing of high skill knowledge jobs is brought to a halt, a whole OTHER conversation). That would kill the whole voucher movement because it would be unnecessary and it would kill the "segregation" argument because one could no longer stigmatize a predominantly black school because it is poor (which is THE reason it is stigmatized). Ultimately though, black folk are going to have to shake loose the whole "segregation" thing and start working with each other. Every group in America has gotten it's group power and respect that way, we are the only ones that spend an inordinate amount of time trying to avoid having our own t'ing.
"The Question is, Do you know why you are here?.. The Keymaker, of course. But this is not a reason. This is not a why. The Keymaker himself in his nature is a means it is not an end. So, to look for him is to be looking for a means to..do..what?" says the Merovingian
"you know the answer to that question" Says Neo
"But do you? You think you do but you do not. You are here because you were sent here. You were told to come here, and then you obeyed. It is of course the way of all things. You see there is only one constant...one universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect. "
"Everything begins with choice." Says Morpheus.
"No. Wrong. Choice is an illusion created between those with power...and those without."
"... Casuality. There is no escape from it. We are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace, is to understand it, to understand the why. "why" us what separates us from them... you from me. "why is the only real source of power. without it, you are powerless. And this is how you come to me, without why, without power. Another link in the chain."
Matrix Reloaded
Scene 17: Taste of the Merovingian.
The scene pretty much sums up how most black people think on the subject. We've been told: believe this, do that, go here, ask this, sit down, sit here, you want to sit here, you want to live here, etc. Lets' dispel some myths. Everybody is separated from some group. If you live in a rich neighborhood, you are separated from middle class and poor neighborhoods. If you are a Pentecostal then you are separated from Baptists, etc. If you send your child to a private school, your are separate from those in public schools. The fact of the matter is that life is a separating event based on what people want to do with themselves and their families. Blacks in America, have historically been told to "live here" "Work there" and in that have been economically marginalized. Due to this marginalization a schools where blacks lived were commonly poorly equipped compared to their white counterparts. Blacks fought for better schools (and other things) by challenging the laws that marginalized them in public accommodations. Hence we got Brown V. Board which claimed that separate was inherently unequal and we bought that philosophy, hook, line and sinker. Let me ask you this: If separate is inherently unequal then why have three separate branches of government? The Executive, Judicial and Legislature of the US government are supposedly equal in power. No, the court really didn't mean what they said. It was really some text used to assuage themselves of guilt, but it was far more nefarious than that. Whether they knew it or not, the real issue of separate and equal is about self determination. If blacks were to rise economically they could no longer be exploited by whites, especially in the South. The Brown V. decision has this little piece in it stating how the minds of black children are harmed by being denied access to non-black (white) children. This little piece should have let us know what was in store for us. This is a great fallacy that is repeated today. We hear of it like this:
"Going to a black college will not prepare you for the 'real world.'" Read: "You won't understand how to act around white people." The "act around white people" insult aside, how can you explain the very well adjusted (many to a fault) of black College and University graduates? Anyone?
The purpose of black colleges was supposed to be the education of black people with a mind for the betterment of black people and not to mould new employees for white corporations, which many of these institutions have become. Black people see this fallacy and in their own warped sense of logic, come to the conclusion that if a black college is going to socialize (they say: "Prepare") their children to be bossed by white people, then a white college can do that much a better job by immersing said child in a sea of whiteness. And don't be mad because I said black people, in general, have a warped sense of logic, it's true.
Anyway, having dismissed the outlandish notion that black people cannot be "well adjusted" without being in daily contact with white children, we can address the Nebraska issue. Anyone who is familiar with public education, especially in urban environments knows that blacks (and poor non-blacks) make up the vast majority of students served by the public school systems. WHites who live in these urban areas either live in a rich area of urban centers where, due to how public schools are funded, The zoned schools are in good shape. Or these whites send their kids to private school. So the big joke is that regardless of Brown V. board, most public schools (and private schools) are in fact lawfully segregated. This is the big, hush, hush, don't say it secret in plain sight. Once it is admitted that the public school system is "segregated", the next question that has to be asked is what is bad about that? Your answer depends entirely on your ideology. if you are a white liberal odds are you believe in some rainbow, ringing mountaintops and hand holding negroes coalition. If you are a black integrationist you are aghast that young black boys and girls are not interacting on the daily with "good white folk." If you are a Pan-Africanist, you are saying, now that we got all our kids in one place, how do we get them educated. Note the difference, Pan-Africanists are not the least bit concerned that black kids are filling schools at 90 percentiles, we're concerned with what they are learning in the schools. Hence we get to Omaha's law. Omaha's law will be struck down as unconstitutional unless the justices intent to overturn Brown V. Board. That legal sideshow will still not address what the lone state senator brought up: Local control of schools.
The running joke that is the funding of public schools is how they are funded. Schools are funded by property taxes. Therefore; if you live somewhere where property values are worse than GM's credit rating or where companies with huge tax "incentives" are located or where there are way to many non-tax paying houses of worship, your schools are underfunded. This describes the situation in many black urban areas. If, however, you live in a location where houses are valued in the millions and there are tax paying local business driving up the value of property in that location, then your school is in much better shape. In addition, Schools in better off neighborhoods often have the luxury of stay-at-home moms who can donate time to the schools. Also the schools have alumni who are able and willing to give large donations (both cash and non-cash). Also, for the richety-rich, there are private schools that have yearly tuitions that are equal to the after tax income of many black people. So, in wealthier neighborhoods, the people who send their kids to private school out of their own pocket are also handing their tax dollars to the public schools thus underwriting a better education for those who cannot (or do not want to) attend private schools.
In poor neighborhoods this does not exist. There are no rich families underwriting the education of those students who cannot afford to go to private school. There is barely enough to keep the school running and to add insult to injury there are gangs and other social ills that drain resources (I won't even get into the monies that go into language programs for non-english speaking immigrant children) away from direct education. Now, Cory Booker and his ilk want you too believe that the state, which is already underserving urban schools should give money to parents to send their "talented" children to private or religious schools. The same state that has a problem properly funding public schools. The most amazing thing is that there are actually black people that believe this ( that warped logic thing). Now if a private foundation (like the Olatunji Foundation wants to pony up money to send more promising students to other schools then there's no problem. However, the diversion of public monies that is supposed to fund public education, to private and religious institutions is wrong. So what should be done:
It is the cruelest situation that this nation is so white supremacist that it will gladly spend billions and extend the debt to "bring democracy to Iraq" and to plan on going to war in Iran and will not equalize the educational spending in public schools. The answer to budget shortfalls in public education is that all tax revenue marked for public education should be put into one pot and distributed equitably among the schools in the state (Or county if that works out better). The Federal government should gladly extend it's debt, if necessary, to equalize the finances of public schools because it will pay dividends in the future (assuming the outsourcing of high skill knowledge jobs is brought to a halt, a whole OTHER conversation). That would kill the whole voucher movement because it would be unnecessary and it would kill the "segregation" argument because one could no longer stigmatize a predominantly black school because it is poor (which is THE reason it is stigmatized). Ultimately though, black folk are going to have to shake loose the whole "segregation" thing and start working with each other. Every group in America has gotten it's group power and respect that way, we are the only ones that spend an inordinate amount of time trying to avoid having our own t'ing.
Technorati Tags: Black Education, Blackanomics, Pan-Africanism
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Chad and Sudan: The US Connection
D-sekou over at the DeskRat Chronicles has a post, based on Wayne Madsens writing, that makes for very interesting reading with a convergence of Oil in the Sudan and Chad:
"April 16, 2006 -- Hypocrisy at Foggy Bottom. No sooner had Chad's President Idriss Deby threatened to cut off the flow of oil to the West via the Exxon-Mobil Chad-Cameroon pipeline, rebels from neighboring Sudan launched an attack on Chad's capital, N'Djamena. All along, Deby has been an ally of the Bush administration in the battle against pan-Sahelian rebels who were linked to the so-called "Al Qaeda" global terrorist bogeyman. Not only did Deby receive military assistance from Washington, but U.S. advisers have helped train his troops. However, when Deby got into a tiff with the Wolfowitz-run World Bank over oil revenues, he found himself facing armed rebels massed on the outskirts of his capital. Wolfowitz cut off oil revenues to Chad after Deby said he wanted to money to fight the rebels. France, which is opposed to growing U.S. hegemony in Africa, sent fighters to bomb the rebel encampments. In a display of pure Bush-Cheney hypocrisy, it was discovered that the U.S.-supported Chadian "rebels," called the "United Front for Change," were supported by Sudan and its genocidal paramilitary forces in Darfur.
Continue reading here:
http://deskrat.blogspot.com/2006/04/make-deal-with-devil-and-you-get.html#comments
"April 16, 2006 -- Hypocrisy at Foggy Bottom. No sooner had Chad's President Idriss Deby threatened to cut off the flow of oil to the West via the Exxon-Mobil Chad-Cameroon pipeline, rebels from neighboring Sudan launched an attack on Chad's capital, N'Djamena. All along, Deby has been an ally of the Bush administration in the battle against pan-Sahelian rebels who were linked to the so-called "Al Qaeda" global terrorist bogeyman. Not only did Deby receive military assistance from Washington, but U.S. advisers have helped train his troops. However, when Deby got into a tiff with the Wolfowitz-run World Bank over oil revenues, he found himself facing armed rebels massed on the outskirts of his capital. Wolfowitz cut off oil revenues to Chad after Deby said he wanted to money to fight the rebels. France, which is opposed to growing U.S. hegemony in Africa, sent fighters to bomb the rebel encampments. In a display of pure Bush-Cheney hypocrisy, it was discovered that the U.S.-supported Chadian "rebels," called the "United Front for Change," were supported by Sudan and its genocidal paramilitary forces in Darfur.
Continue reading here:
http://deskrat.blogspot.com/2006/04/make-deal-with-devil-and-you-get.html#comments
Monday, April 17, 2006
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Note To The So Called POC Revolutionaries
[Edit 04-16-2006]
[Edit 04-28-2006]
Since having discussions about the immigration "reform" proposals and the Duke sexual assault event, I have noticed a pretty disturbing trend, which I had noticed earlier and meant to blog about, but put it off and eventually forgot. I think now is a good time to make the post.
Note To The So Called POC Revolutionaries:
Hi, I hope this reaches you in good health. This note is pass on wisdom I've gained and hopefully help you to not make the mistakes I did AND perhaps accelerate our movement. First I want to warn you about some pit falls that most of us fall into when we get some knowledge:
1) "I am the definition of (consciousness, revolution, etc)." Yes, you read a few books, you know a bit more than most of your peers and you are fired up. You do not know everything. Please do not talk down to people you don't know. In fact, don't talk down to people in general. How will you know when you're doing this? It's easy: If you find yourself quoting stuff at people, stuff that wasn't asked for or is barely relevant to the conversation you're having, you're probably talking down to that person. They probably know it too. Furthermore, they will most likely avoid any future conversation with you because no one likes being treated like an idiot. Even idiots. As a part of this you probably have put yourself up on a pedestal. Probably didn't mean to do it, but you did. Problem with that is, your stuff is out for everyone to see and when you mess up, and you will, everybody will point it out AND use it as proof that you are full of cow manure. The solution to this is good old fashioned humbleness. You were once an idiot. It's OK. You are on a path, you want people to follow the path. You are not THE path nor the destination. Remember that.
2) "I know everything." No, you don't really say that, but you act like it. This is pretty closely related to number one above. What people with this problem do is act like everyone else is wrong and they are right. It spanks of arrogance and a lack of security in oneself. Think of the logic. No one person can know everything. Not even in the subject that interests them the most. So why act like you know everything? A sign of true leadership is admitting that one could be wrong AND admitting when one is wrong. Of course a large reason why people slip into this pit is because often there is a lack of leadership training among consciousness organizations. Often these organizations are simply places where everyone pats everyone else on the back rather than a place to further challenge their friends and ideas.
3) Group Generalization and Demonization: I'll admit that I fell in on this for a while. In fact I think it is pretty normal for those who are coming out of the cloud of disinformation that is in the educational system to demonize the group they see as "oppressors." The problem is that history and reality is far more complicated than white devils and sexist men (for example). Many people get stuck on demonization because it actually soothes their own damaged ego. It is a type of intellectual revenge to be able to turn the tables on the "enemy." The problem of course is that it often leads to sloppy, sloppy, sloppy scholarship and stagnant intellectual development. For example, many black people believe white people were running around Africa grabbing up people. That is simply not the case. Yet this myth persists because it is a means of understanding ones position in the world. Another one is the idea that Africans were all "peaceful" "sun people" and white people are "warrior" "cold people." There is plenty of history of not too peaceful Africans and plenty of history of peaceful white people. What you should be doing is being specific. Being specific makes you look more intelligent. When you look more intelligent, your cause looks better.
4) Name calling: Oh I think a lot of people fall down here. Most times conscious people are seen as being mad all the time. They are probably right. Often times I notice that persons who cannot defend their positions (even when they have the right one), end up name calling. Oh yes, your buddies will probably love you for "telling that cracker off" or whatever the opposition happens to be. Problem is, a lot of people who may have been with you may be turned off by your mouth (pen or keyboard). You simply never know who is in the audience and what they will respond too. Since even the most sailor mouthed person can understand to an intelligent and coherent argument, there is no need for the name calling. Worst yet, your opposition will use your sudden lack of vocabulary to smear you in the eyes of the audience. People will look at you and think that the foulness coming out of your mouth is indicative of what you stand for. Hey, I understand how easy it is. On occasion I've even fallen off that wagon. But be sure, you are being watched and listened to. Watch. Your. Mouth.
5) Putting Words in Peoples Mouths: I cannot tell you the number of times, I've had people put words in my mouth and then proceed to name call and generalize me on the basis of those misplaced words. This is yet another sign of intellectual bankruptcy. You do NOT want to get caught out there doing that, especially in a written forum. It will be pointed out. It WILL then take the conversation off track (which is sometimes the intent of such word placement) and the conversation will focus on your lack of integrity and by extension the integrity of the cause you stand for. If for some reason you have done this and it is pointed out to you, do not deny it. Apologize immediately and take back all comments made on the basis of that mistake. This is not a sign of weakness and will increase the amount of respect your audience will have of you.
6) Being Bitter: Folks, there is nothing and I mean nothing worse for a cause than a person who is bitter. A revolutionary is not defined by the strength or frequency of a scowl or the length at which one can complain about "the man" or how "stupid" "your people" are. People have their own problems and stresses. They do not need you to add to it 'K? What's even worse is that bitter people tend to ramble on and on about what bothers them. People really don't want to hear about all that. Lastly, being bitter is simply bad for your health. How do you know if you are bitter? If you can't take a joke, or have to point out that you have other interests or even a life and friends, you are probably bitter.
7) Mistaking what you want to be the case for being the case: I think this is a huge problem. So many people think that what they would like to be reality is in fact reality. For example, with the Duke issue. If rape is defined legally as involuntary vaginal intercourse don't have a discussion on the subject as if rape was legally defined as anything else. If you want to have a hypothetical discussion in which rape is legally defined as something else then have that conversation, but don't get mad at people who are having a conversation with things clearly defined. Another example, Islam allowed for slavery. So did Christianity, Judaism and just about every other religion. There are all kinds of people who get all bent out of shape because they choose to wish such things away. Don't be one of those people. The road to changing systems or even replacing them, is understanding what they are.
8) Falling into Conspiracy Theories: I've gotten caught here. You need to be very very careful about the conspiracy theories you repeat and where you repeat them. Conspiracy theories are just that, theories, having not been proven you should not be caught out there stating them as if they are fact. For example: some people think the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. Ok. Maybe. But you let me know when, where and how the detonating material was placed in the proper locations and activated. This aint the Matrix where folks can just "Jack in" somewhere plant some bombs and then disappear. All said, you lose some level of credibility when you repeat conspiracy theories without offering proof of concept or at least admitting that it is a theory.
Lastly I'd like to offer some advice. If you are really about change, then you have to be an institution builder. You need to understand organizations and how organizations work and perpetuate themselves in the absence of it's founders. A lot of so called "conscious" people and "revolutionaries" are in fact arm chair critics of the status quo. They have a lot to say about what they think is wrong with things. They even have some idea of what they would like. They usually have no clue as to how to get from status quo to new reality. It's not that they don't want that new reality, it's just that they are under the impression that those in power are simply going to give them what they want if they ask or critique enough times. They are full of *manure*. Kwame Nkrumah of the PPP said, before Ghana gained independence, that the PPP had to act as if it was in power before it got power. I would wish that many of the so called "revolutionary fronts" in Africa would practice these things. I cannot see how raping women and cutting off limbs is indicative of a new "democratic" government. I mean, if you're willing to rape, kill and maim civilians to get power, what will you do to keep it? But back to you the student.
Many of you, will grow pretty lazy because you will be using tools and institutions built and maintained by the very same people you rail against. You computer will be made by a corporation that you rail against. The School will have been funded by alumni and corporations you rail against. The electricity and the like will all be provided to you, for a fee, by more corporate entities. You will become used to these things that are so accessible to you and you won't even think to hard of all the things that are connected and organized and controlled for you to live the arm chair critic life. because you don't think of it, you will fall into intellectual stagnation and narrowness You will continue to be surface in your analysis of most affairs. In fact you probably will, like most of your peers, not even attempt to really discuss international issues outside of your pet issue. I'll tell you what, check most so called "revolutionary" blogs and you'll note a lack of discussion on international commerce or governance. Not even as links. Trust me, it's not all that surprising.
There are a couple of things I suggest you do that will make fulfilling your long term goals a lot easier:
1) Get into a stable relationship with someone drama free. It's like this: The single life is fun. It is also wastes a great deal of time and energy. I'm not saying to not have fun. I am saying you need to limit that time. You will soon learn that a 70+year lifespan is actually pretty short. Also, a good relationship is good for your health. A good relationship is also a testing laboratory for leadership and decision making. If you can't manage the difficulties in a personal relationship, odds are you will have issues running anything larger. True, there are many successful divorced and serial monogomists, but for people with social agendas the people you will be dealing with and planning for are going to, more likely than not, have some kind of family arrangement.
2) Realize that the majority of the so called "revolutionaries" are full of manure. They are in it because of ego. They got into it because they had bruised egos and needed to have something to rebel with and something to have over someone else. If you are in college, the "revolutionaries" are often simply another clique like the Jocks and Sororities. Many of these people will not be about much of anything after they graduate and find that thier ability to earn a living is seriously compromised by their often really bad attitudes posing as "revolutionary vanguard." That said, let me also warn you about prejudging people. There are a great deal of people out there who are "under cover." I have met some of the most "down ass people" who had perms and Guess apparel. I may not agree with their attire but I found that many of those people were willing to put their monies where there mouths were, even above and beyond the most dreaded and mud cloth wearing Pan-Africanist. For a great example of how your people will leach you, we should note the Black Commentator website which, though I have my occasional disagreements with, is one of the better black issues web sites out there. Even though they get thousands of hits and visitors from various countries and economic classes, they are in serious risk of going under because they apparently cannot raise enough money from their readership to continue operations AND make a living. They refuse (rightly or wrongly) to accept corporate money (They took mine..he he hee) and so are totally dependent on the community to stay afloat. This is what you are facing. The very people who will want change will not support you in getting it but will gladly spend the dividends of your struggle.
3) Spec-i-fic-i-ty: This is the exact opposite of the Generalization problem. I recall Professor Fluker of Tuskegee University saying that one needed to be specific. I didn't quite catch on until some years after. Some months ago I was in court on a speeding ticket and overheard a lawyer advising his client. He stated that the law said "xyz AND..abc" The "and" being the critical statement in the case. Specificity allows you to control a conversation by defining the terms. Your ability to make a clear and specific argument is going to be your "trump card" in most arguments. It is almost inevitable that those that oppose you will fall into pitfalls 5 and 7 above in an attempt to smear you. But because they are stupid enough to fall into pitfalls 5 and 7 you will be able to counter them with little energy on your part. At best you want terms defined in a manner that is clear to everyone AND that can be universally agreed upon. Avoid making up new terms or defining terms with contradictory words It would be best if your defined word can be broken up etymologically and still stand or you may find yourself playing the word game which is not only a distraction but will cause you to waste time defending to anyone but your "yes friends."
4) Lose the "Yes Friends": Boy are these people a drag on your development. "Yes friends" are like crack or worse, chocolate chip cookies. Like said cookies, these people exist simply to comiserate and/or inflate your ego. They often have self-esteem issues and need for you to park where they are mentally locate so that they don't feel so alone having long been left alone by those who have matured in their views. President Bush is surrounded by "Yes People." Much of the Republican Party in America is a big "Yes people club." Many of the corrupt leaders in various African countries are still around because of "Yes People." How do you know when you are surrounded by "yes people." I'll admit that it's a whole lot easier to spot yes people from the outside then it is to spot them from the inside. Let me offer this test. Are you God (5 Percenter ideologies aside)? OK having established that, you are not infalible. If you are in fact falible then you have no doubt made a mistake. I'll venture to guess you've made many mistakes. Now think of a point where you made a particular mistake that was pretty obvious after the fact. Was it pointed out to you? If so, was it pointed out to you by your "buddies" or by an "outsider" If it was pointed out by an outsider, your buddies are likely "yes friends." They may be "I don't want to hurt your feelings" friends. These are the ones that did know you goofed but didn't want to hurt your feelings by saying so so they said nothing. They are just about as bad as the yes people. What you choose to do with these people are up to you but my suggestion is to cut 'em loose.
5) Thicken Up That Skin: Negative people abound. If you allow yourself to get high blood pressure from them, it will happen. And you want to know who's fault that is? Yours. You can't (and don't want to) control what other people do or say. You can, however, determine how (and when) you respond to those people. Negative people are like "Yes friends" in that they do nothing for you. Be careful not to mistake critical people with negative people. For example; negative people simply point out problems and "name call" there isn't an original idea to be had with them. Critical people have ideas and often help you better construct your ideology. This is a good thing. I'd rather have a discussion with a critical person than a "yes friend" anytime. Negative people should be ignored at almost all costs. reacting to them only gives them the attention they are looking for and your reaction usually feeds into the negativity that they wish to engulf you in. Toughen up that skin.
So, to close, let me part with this:
Avoid as many of the pitfalls noted above. Act like you run things somewhere. Realize that as a person who would be running things, you'll not get everything you want and sometimes the choices you have to make will be unpopular and hard. Stake out positions on subjects that are controversial and perhaps outside your comfort zone. If you were running things you'd have to do it. Put your positions to the test. Put them out there for critique. Your development as a "progressive" will develop like a Chess master, after many losses and much studying of tactics. Never compromise on your principles, but make sure you know what is a principle and what is a selfish desire. You may compromise your tactics. Again, be sure to know the difference. Being a progressive does not mean you have the opposite position of the dominant society because some things in the dominant society is actually, gasp, right.
Thank you for reading.
[Edit 04-28-2006]
Since having discussions about the immigration "reform" proposals and the Duke sexual assault event, I have noticed a pretty disturbing trend, which I had noticed earlier and meant to blog about, but put it off and eventually forgot. I think now is a good time to make the post.
Note To The So Called POC Revolutionaries:
Hi, I hope this reaches you in good health. This note is pass on wisdom I've gained and hopefully help you to not make the mistakes I did AND perhaps accelerate our movement. First I want to warn you about some pit falls that most of us fall into when we get some knowledge:
1) "I am the definition of (consciousness, revolution, etc)." Yes, you read a few books, you know a bit more than most of your peers and you are fired up. You do not know everything. Please do not talk down to people you don't know. In fact, don't talk down to people in general. How will you know when you're doing this? It's easy: If you find yourself quoting stuff at people, stuff that wasn't asked for or is barely relevant to the conversation you're having, you're probably talking down to that person. They probably know it too. Furthermore, they will most likely avoid any future conversation with you because no one likes being treated like an idiot. Even idiots. As a part of this you probably have put yourself up on a pedestal. Probably didn't mean to do it, but you did. Problem with that is, your stuff is out for everyone to see and when you mess up, and you will, everybody will point it out AND use it as proof that you are full of cow manure. The solution to this is good old fashioned humbleness. You were once an idiot. It's OK. You are on a path, you want people to follow the path. You are not THE path nor the destination. Remember that.
2) "I know everything." No, you don't really say that, but you act like it. This is pretty closely related to number one above. What people with this problem do is act like everyone else is wrong and they are right. It spanks of arrogance and a lack of security in oneself. Think of the logic. No one person can know everything. Not even in the subject that interests them the most. So why act like you know everything? A sign of true leadership is admitting that one could be wrong AND admitting when one is wrong. Of course a large reason why people slip into this pit is because often there is a lack of leadership training among consciousness organizations. Often these organizations are simply places where everyone pats everyone else on the back rather than a place to further challenge their friends and ideas.
3) Group Generalization and Demonization: I'll admit that I fell in on this for a while. In fact I think it is pretty normal for those who are coming out of the cloud of disinformation that is in the educational system to demonize the group they see as "oppressors." The problem is that history and reality is far more complicated than white devils and sexist men (for example). Many people get stuck on demonization because it actually soothes their own damaged ego. It is a type of intellectual revenge to be able to turn the tables on the "enemy." The problem of course is that it often leads to sloppy, sloppy, sloppy scholarship and stagnant intellectual development. For example, many black people believe white people were running around Africa grabbing up people. That is simply not the case. Yet this myth persists because it is a means of understanding ones position in the world. Another one is the idea that Africans were all "peaceful" "sun people" and white people are "warrior" "cold people." There is plenty of history of not too peaceful Africans and plenty of history of peaceful white people. What you should be doing is being specific. Being specific makes you look more intelligent. When you look more intelligent, your cause looks better.
4) Name calling: Oh I think a lot of people fall down here. Most times conscious people are seen as being mad all the time. They are probably right. Often times I notice that persons who cannot defend their positions (even when they have the right one), end up name calling. Oh yes, your buddies will probably love you for "telling that cracker off" or whatever the opposition happens to be. Problem is, a lot of people who may have been with you may be turned off by your mouth (pen or keyboard). You simply never know who is in the audience and what they will respond too. Since even the most sailor mouthed person can understand to an intelligent and coherent argument, there is no need for the name calling. Worst yet, your opposition will use your sudden lack of vocabulary to smear you in the eyes of the audience. People will look at you and think that the foulness coming out of your mouth is indicative of what you stand for. Hey, I understand how easy it is. On occasion I've even fallen off that wagon. But be sure, you are being watched and listened to. Watch. Your. Mouth.
5) Putting Words in Peoples Mouths: I cannot tell you the number of times, I've had people put words in my mouth and then proceed to name call and generalize me on the basis of those misplaced words. This is yet another sign of intellectual bankruptcy. You do NOT want to get caught out there doing that, especially in a written forum. It will be pointed out. It WILL then take the conversation off track (which is sometimes the intent of such word placement) and the conversation will focus on your lack of integrity and by extension the integrity of the cause you stand for. If for some reason you have done this and it is pointed out to you, do not deny it. Apologize immediately and take back all comments made on the basis of that mistake. This is not a sign of weakness and will increase the amount of respect your audience will have of you.
6) Being Bitter: Folks, there is nothing and I mean nothing worse for a cause than a person who is bitter. A revolutionary is not defined by the strength or frequency of a scowl or the length at which one can complain about "the man" or how "stupid" "your people" are. People have their own problems and stresses. They do not need you to add to it 'K? What's even worse is that bitter people tend to ramble on and on about what bothers them. People really don't want to hear about all that. Lastly, being bitter is simply bad for your health. How do you know if you are bitter? If you can't take a joke, or have to point out that you have other interests or even a life and friends, you are probably bitter.
7) Mistaking what you want to be the case for being the case: I think this is a huge problem. So many people think that what they would like to be reality is in fact reality. For example, with the Duke issue. If rape is defined legally as involuntary vaginal intercourse don't have a discussion on the subject as if rape was legally defined as anything else. If you want to have a hypothetical discussion in which rape is legally defined as something else then have that conversation, but don't get mad at people who are having a conversation with things clearly defined. Another example, Islam allowed for slavery. So did Christianity, Judaism and just about every other religion. There are all kinds of people who get all bent out of shape because they choose to wish such things away. Don't be one of those people. The road to changing systems or even replacing them, is understanding what they are.
8) Falling into Conspiracy Theories: I've gotten caught here. You need to be very very careful about the conspiracy theories you repeat and where you repeat them. Conspiracy theories are just that, theories, having not been proven you should not be caught out there stating them as if they are fact. For example: some people think the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. Ok. Maybe. But you let me know when, where and how the detonating material was placed in the proper locations and activated. This aint the Matrix where folks can just "Jack in" somewhere plant some bombs and then disappear. All said, you lose some level of credibility when you repeat conspiracy theories without offering proof of concept or at least admitting that it is a theory.
Lastly I'd like to offer some advice. If you are really about change, then you have to be an institution builder. You need to understand organizations and how organizations work and perpetuate themselves in the absence of it's founders. A lot of so called "conscious" people and "revolutionaries" are in fact arm chair critics of the status quo. They have a lot to say about what they think is wrong with things. They even have some idea of what they would like. They usually have no clue as to how to get from status quo to new reality. It's not that they don't want that new reality, it's just that they are under the impression that those in power are simply going to give them what they want if they ask or critique enough times. They are full of *manure*. Kwame Nkrumah of the PPP said, before Ghana gained independence, that the PPP had to act as if it was in power before it got power. I would wish that many of the so called "revolutionary fronts" in Africa would practice these things. I cannot see how raping women and cutting off limbs is indicative of a new "democratic" government. I mean, if you're willing to rape, kill and maim civilians to get power, what will you do to keep it? But back to you the student.
Many of you, will grow pretty lazy because you will be using tools and institutions built and maintained by the very same people you rail against. You computer will be made by a corporation that you rail against. The School will have been funded by alumni and corporations you rail against. The electricity and the like will all be provided to you, for a fee, by more corporate entities. You will become used to these things that are so accessible to you and you won't even think to hard of all the things that are connected and organized and controlled for you to live the arm chair critic life. because you don't think of it, you will fall into intellectual stagnation and narrowness You will continue to be surface in your analysis of most affairs. In fact you probably will, like most of your peers, not even attempt to really discuss international issues outside of your pet issue. I'll tell you what, check most so called "revolutionary" blogs and you'll note a lack of discussion on international commerce or governance. Not even as links. Trust me, it's not all that surprising.
There are a couple of things I suggest you do that will make fulfilling your long term goals a lot easier:
1) Get into a stable relationship with someone drama free. It's like this: The single life is fun. It is also wastes a great deal of time and energy. I'm not saying to not have fun. I am saying you need to limit that time. You will soon learn that a 70+year lifespan is actually pretty short. Also, a good relationship is good for your health. A good relationship is also a testing laboratory for leadership and decision making. If you can't manage the difficulties in a personal relationship, odds are you will have issues running anything larger. True, there are many successful divorced and serial monogomists, but for people with social agendas the people you will be dealing with and planning for are going to, more likely than not, have some kind of family arrangement.
2) Realize that the majority of the so called "revolutionaries" are full of manure. They are in it because of ego. They got into it because they had bruised egos and needed to have something to rebel with and something to have over someone else. If you are in college, the "revolutionaries" are often simply another clique like the Jocks and Sororities. Many of these people will not be about much of anything after they graduate and find that thier ability to earn a living is seriously compromised by their often really bad attitudes posing as "revolutionary vanguard." That said, let me also warn you about prejudging people. There are a great deal of people out there who are "under cover." I have met some of the most "down ass people" who had perms and Guess apparel. I may not agree with their attire but I found that many of those people were willing to put their monies where there mouths were, even above and beyond the most dreaded and mud cloth wearing Pan-Africanist. For a great example of how your people will leach you, we should note the Black Commentator website which, though I have my occasional disagreements with, is one of the better black issues web sites out there. Even though they get thousands of hits and visitors from various countries and economic classes, they are in serious risk of going under because they apparently cannot raise enough money from their readership to continue operations AND make a living. They refuse (rightly or wrongly) to accept corporate money (They took mine..he he hee) and so are totally dependent on the community to stay afloat. This is what you are facing. The very people who will want change will not support you in getting it but will gladly spend the dividends of your struggle.
3) Spec-i-fic-i-ty: This is the exact opposite of the Generalization problem. I recall Professor Fluker of Tuskegee University saying that one needed to be specific. I didn't quite catch on until some years after. Some months ago I was in court on a speeding ticket and overheard a lawyer advising his client. He stated that the law said "xyz AND..abc" The "and" being the critical statement in the case. Specificity allows you to control a conversation by defining the terms. Your ability to make a clear and specific argument is going to be your "trump card" in most arguments. It is almost inevitable that those that oppose you will fall into pitfalls 5 and 7 above in an attempt to smear you. But because they are stupid enough to fall into pitfalls 5 and 7 you will be able to counter them with little energy on your part. At best you want terms defined in a manner that is clear to everyone AND that can be universally agreed upon. Avoid making up new terms or defining terms with contradictory words It would be best if your defined word can be broken up etymologically and still stand or you may find yourself playing the word game which is not only a distraction but will cause you to waste time defending to anyone but your "yes friends."
4) Lose the "Yes Friends": Boy are these people a drag on your development. "Yes friends" are like crack or worse, chocolate chip cookies. Like said cookies, these people exist simply to comiserate and/or inflate your ego. They often have self-esteem issues and need for you to park where they are mentally locate so that they don't feel so alone having long been left alone by those who have matured in their views. President Bush is surrounded by "Yes People." Much of the Republican Party in America is a big "Yes people club." Many of the corrupt leaders in various African countries are still around because of "Yes People." How do you know when you are surrounded by "yes people." I'll admit that it's a whole lot easier to spot yes people from the outside then it is to spot them from the inside. Let me offer this test. Are you God (5 Percenter ideologies aside)? OK having established that, you are not infalible. If you are in fact falible then you have no doubt made a mistake. I'll venture to guess you've made many mistakes. Now think of a point where you made a particular mistake that was pretty obvious after the fact. Was it pointed out to you? If so, was it pointed out to you by your "buddies" or by an "outsider" If it was pointed out by an outsider, your buddies are likely "yes friends." They may be "I don't want to hurt your feelings" friends. These are the ones that did know you goofed but didn't want to hurt your feelings by saying so so they said nothing. They are just about as bad as the yes people. What you choose to do with these people are up to you but my suggestion is to cut 'em loose.
5) Thicken Up That Skin: Negative people abound. If you allow yourself to get high blood pressure from them, it will happen. And you want to know who's fault that is? Yours. You can't (and don't want to) control what other people do or say. You can, however, determine how (and when) you respond to those people. Negative people are like "Yes friends" in that they do nothing for you. Be careful not to mistake critical people with negative people. For example; negative people simply point out problems and "name call" there isn't an original idea to be had with them. Critical people have ideas and often help you better construct your ideology. This is a good thing. I'd rather have a discussion with a critical person than a "yes friend" anytime. Negative people should be ignored at almost all costs. reacting to them only gives them the attention they are looking for and your reaction usually feeds into the negativity that they wish to engulf you in. Toughen up that skin.
So, to close, let me part with this:
Avoid as many of the pitfalls noted above. Act like you run things somewhere. Realize that as a person who would be running things, you'll not get everything you want and sometimes the choices you have to make will be unpopular and hard. Stake out positions on subjects that are controversial and perhaps outside your comfort zone. If you were running things you'd have to do it. Put your positions to the test. Put them out there for critique. Your development as a "progressive" will develop like a Chess master, after many losses and much studying of tactics. Never compromise on your principles, but make sure you know what is a principle and what is a selfish desire. You may compromise your tactics. Again, be sure to know the difference. Being a progressive does not mean you have the opposite position of the dominant society because some things in the dominant society is actually, gasp, right.
Thank you for reading.
Technorati Tags: Leadership, Pan-Africanism
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Jokes
Yes, we here at the ghost occasionally have time for jokes. below is a post from the King without a Crown blog. Be warned, most of this stuff is sexist. I don't advocate much of what is there. If you are too much of a tight ass, or if you take yourself and or your politics wayy to seriously, then you shouldn't bother reading.
22: Never talk to a man in a bathroom unless you are on equal footing:i.e.both urinating, both waiting in line, etc. For all other situations, analmost imperceptible nod is all the conversation you need.
BONUS:We've all heard about people having guts or balls. But do you reallyknowthe difference between them? In an effort to keep you informed, thedefinition of each is listed below.
GUTS - is arriving home late after a night out with the guys, beingassaulted by your wife with a broom, and having the guts to ask,"Are you still cleaning or are you flying somewhere?"
BALLS - is coming home late after a night out with the guys smelling ofperfume and beer, lipstick on your collar, slapping your wife on the assand having the balls to say, "You're next!"We hope this clears up any confusion.
Respectfully, International Council of Manhood
the rest here:
http://igo1077.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-men-shouldnt-cry.html
22: Never talk to a man in a bathroom unless you are on equal footing:i.e.both urinating, both waiting in line, etc. For all other situations, analmost imperceptible nod is all the conversation you need.
BONUS:We've all heard about people having guts or balls. But do you reallyknowthe difference between them? In an effort to keep you informed, thedefinition of each is listed below.
GUTS - is arriving home late after a night out with the guys, beingassaulted by your wife with a broom, and having the guts to ask,"Are you still cleaning or are you flying somewhere?"
BALLS - is coming home late after a night out with the guys smelling ofperfume and beer, lipstick on your collar, slapping your wife on the assand having the balls to say, "You're next!"We hope this clears up any confusion.
Respectfully, International Council of Manhood
the rest here:
http://igo1077.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-men-shouldnt-cry.html
Big Daddy Kane
I need to give huge PROPS to Gregory Kane for putting Marcus Garvey on the table in this illegal immigrant debate. He writes:
Syndicated columnist Larry Elder wrote that Mexican cops who stop black Mexicans make them sing the Mexican national anthem to prove they’re citizens of the country. I don’t know if that’s true. What I do know is that Marcus Garvey had Universal Negro Improvement Association chapters in several Spanish-speaking countries. The organization’s newspaper, Negro World, was published in English and Spanish.
Garvey didn’t establish UNIA chapters in those countries and have his newspaper printed in Spanish because Latinos, as “people of color,” were natural allies and friends of the Negro. He did those things precisely because they weren’t.
You can read the rest here:
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane413
Syndicated columnist Larry Elder wrote that Mexican cops who stop black Mexicans make them sing the Mexican national anthem to prove they’re citizens of the country. I don’t know if that’s true. What I do know is that Marcus Garvey had Universal Negro Improvement Association chapters in several Spanish-speaking countries. The organization’s newspaper, Negro World, was published in English and Spanish.
Garvey didn’t establish UNIA chapters in those countries and have his newspaper printed in Spanish because Latinos, as “people of color,” were natural allies and friends of the Negro. He did those things precisely because they weren’t.
You can read the rest here:
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane413
Technorati Tags: Black Employment, Blackanomics, politics
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Abrahamic What?
A couple of months ago I had a discussion with Abdul Halim of planet grenada about the origins of Islam and "Abrahamic" religions. I have asserted, as others have before me, that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are in fact derivatives of the Egyptian Mysteries probably mixed in with local cultures. With the new
"10 commandments" movie about to air on ABC, I thought it may be a good time to revisit the issue and fully lay out my position, which again is based on the works of others.
Let me begin by saying that in general all religion is local folklore. Religion is a means by which people rationalize the events around them, many of which at the time were simply unexplainable. Religion also encompasses the culture of the people who create it. It often contains their folklore and bits of their history as well as their propaganda. All this is important to understanding what will be laid out shortly.
Part I: Where Oh Where to Begin
One of the things that one eventually learns about the Bible is that some of the oldest mystical material is found in the New Testament. Let me start with the following:
John 1:1 states:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
When we look at the "Book of Knowing the Evolution of Ra" (Budge, 1895) we find:
I am he who evolved himself under the form of the god Khepera, , the evolver of the evolutions evolved myself, the evolver of all evolutions after many evolutions and developments which came forth from my mouth (another variant has "I bought into my own mouth my name as a word of power, and I straightway came into being"). No heaven existed, and no earth and no terrestial animals or reptiles had come into being. I formed them out of the inert mass of watery matter, I found no place whereon to stand..., I was alone, and the gods Shu and Tefnut had not gone forth from me; there existed none other who worked with me. I laid the foundations of all things by my will. and all things evolved themselves therefrom. I united myself to my shadow, and I sent for Shu and Tefnut out from myself; thus from being one god I became three...
Now it is pretty clear here that the concept of the WORD being the prime mover of creation is established as "known" to Ancient Egypt predating anything John had to say on the subject. But we know that at the time of John, these ideas were in wide circulation and known to the writers of said texts.
Also of interest is that creation was guided by Maa (Divine Intelligence) through the utterances of Tehuti (Oft referred to as Thoth). This brings us back to Genesis chapter 1:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. {P}
6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}
9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}
14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. {P}
20
So we have creation by word. we have God creating himself through his own will. we have God making light first (Ra first manifests as the Sun) and then the rest of creation is done through utterances or will. I point this out to show the reader just how much Egyptian (to be referred to as Khemet from now on) thought permeates the religions texts of so called "Abrahamic" religions. I'd like to point out that it is Proper to call Ra "He" since as is common in Khemtic theology to have a female counterpart, in this case Mut-em-Ra.
Not to be ommited, we should also examine the Papyrus of Ani Plate XIX Chapter XV :Homage to thee O Ra...from whome all forms of life came into being. Thou sendeth forth the word and the earth is flooded with silence, O thou only One who livedst in heaven before even the earth and the mountains were made. O Runner, Lord, Only One, though maker of things which are, thou hast moulded the tongue of the company of gods (Paut neteru) thou hast drawn forth whatsoever cometh from the waters, and thou springest up from them over the flooded land of the Lake of Horus. Make me to sniff the air which cometh forth from thy nostrils.
Word, formed life and breathed air into the nostril of man. I mean can we get any more plagaristic?
It is important to note that these concepts were well established in Khemet by the time this person Abraham (previously Abram) shows up. Lets look at the biblical account of Abraham.
Genesis 12:
10 And there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was sore in the land. 11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife: 'Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon. 12 And it will come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they will say: This is his wife; and they will kill me, but thee they will keep alive. 13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister; that it may be well with me for thy sake, and that my soul may live because of thee.' 14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. 15 And the princes of Pharaoh saw her, and praised her to Pharaoh; and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. 16 And he dealt well with Abram for her sake; and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels. 17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said: 'What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou: She is my sister? so that I took her to be my wife; now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.' 20 And Pharaoh gave men charge concerning him; and they brought him on the way, and his wife, and all that he had.
So we find Abraham wandering around after being told by God to leave the "land of his father" and wound up in Egypt. Now upon entering Egypt Abraham tells his wife to tell a rather big lie. God, apparently in cahoots with Abraham, then brings plagues on Pharaoh's house. Lets stop here for a minute. Abraham tells a lie to save his neck. God, who is going to allegedly "instruct" the Israelites on the sinfulness of lying, makes life difficult for the Egyptians. Ok. Now we should note that the text clearly states that this was a Pharaoh and therefore we are talking about pharonic Khemet. In this Khemet we know that they have rules against lying and adultery
Behold a portion of the Negative Confessions found in the Papyrus of Ani:
Hail, Neba, who comest and goest, I have not uttered lies.
Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed adultery,
Hail, Tutu, who comest forth from Ati, I have not debauched the wife of any man.
So Abraham caused the Pharaoh to break his religious laws so we understand why he is so upset. Now back to Abraham. the Torah is pretty clear that Abraham was a liar. Abraham also doesn't know too much religion. But what is most important is that this account was not written by Abraham or any of his contemporaries. At the most fundamentalist, Genesis and the Plutarch are written by Moses himself. This is important because none of the people before Moses (with a possible exception of Joseph) can write. There is no written Hebrew at this time. It is known that written Hebrew is derived from Khemet. How so? Below are two pages of copied text from a dictionary located at Tuskegee University, Tuskegee AL. in this dictionary they had the historical characters used to represent the various letters now in use. They showed Roman, Khemtic, Semitic and Phonencian of each.
Other scholars point to the Plutarch being written at about 200 BCE by persons with particular ideologies to push (hence a lying abraham and a God in cahoots). Either way, what is important to realize is that the text is pretty clear that Abraham and his folk are no where near the development as the Khemites to which they are going to be in close proximity to for a while. A long while.
So at this point we have to realize that Abraham didn't found any religion. He had a few dreams, proped up some rocks and called it a temple and had some kids. It is clear that Israelite theology would not really form until Moses steps on the scene. If you look at all the writing in Genesis you have chapters upon chapters on who begat who. You have Noah and his Ark, using measurements only known after the flood (ain't that odd). You have Joseph getting jacked for his jacket. You have Joseph in Egypt. But you have no discussion of theology. You have no laws, no elaborate temples. No priests. All you have is God telling Abraham where to go, what to say and what is going to happen to his seed. I could stop here, having generally proved the point that there is no such thing as a Abrahamic religion but rather those who may trace their ancestry to Abraham, none of whom are in West Africa.
Before getting to Moses, we should note the 12 tribes of Israel as delineated in Exodus 1:
1 Now these are the names of the sons of Israel, who came into Egypt with Jacob; every man came with his household: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah; 3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. 5
This is an interesting number, 12, because it is significant in terms of Khemet. The Paut Neteru is a collection of "neters" commonly translated as "the company of the gods." Thes Paut Neteru or Paut AAT are usually the nine "greatest gods of Egypt (Budge): Tmu, Shu, Tefnut, Seb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephhthys.
Sometimes, and this is important, the Paut Neteru refers to twelve neters. so adding RA, Horus, and Het-Heru, we get the big twelve. Is it coincidental that there are twelve tribes of Israelm delineated in Exodus? Another coincidence I suppose. You will also note that in the newly revealed Gospel Of Judas we find:
“Adamas was in the first luminous cloud that no angel has ever seen among all those
called ‘God.’ He [49] […] that […] the image […] and after the likeness of [this] angel.
He made the incorruptible [generation] of Seth appear […] the twelve […] the twentyfour
[…]. He made seventy-two luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in
accordance with the will of the Spirit. The seventy-two luminaries themselves made three
hundred sixty luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the
will of the Spirit, that their number should be five for each.
“The twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries constitute their father, with six heavens for
each aeon, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries, and for
each [50] [of them five] firmaments, [for a total of] three hundred sixty [firmaments …].
They were given authority and a [great] host of angels [without number], for glory and
adoration, [and after that also] virgin spirits, for glory and [adoration] of all the aeons and
the heavens and their firmaments.
and
“The multitude of those immortals is called the cosmos— that is, perdition—by the
Father and the seventy-two luminaries who are with the Self-Generated and his seventytwo
aeons. In him the first human appeared with his incorruptible powers. And the aeon
that appeared with his generation, the aeon in whom are the cloud of knowledge and the
angel, is called [51] El. […] aeon […] after that […] said, ‘Let twelve angels come into
being [to] rule over chaos and the [underworld].’ And look, from the cloud there
appeared an [angel] whose face flashed with fire and whose appearance was defiled with
blood. His name was Nebro, which means ‘rebel’; others call him Yaldabaoth. Another
angel, Saklas, also came from the cloud. So Nebro created six angels—as well as
Saklas—to be assistants, and these produced twelve angels in the heavens, with each one
receiving a portion in the heavens.
THE RULERS AND ANGELS
“The twelve rulers spoke with the twelve angels: ‘Let each of you [52] […] and let them
[…] generation [—one line lost—] angels’:
The first is [S]eth, who is called Christ.
The [second] is Harmathoth, who is […].
The [third] is Galila.
The fourth is Yobel.
The fifth [is] Adonaios.
These are the five who ruled over the underworld, and first of all over chaos.
THE CREATION OF HUMANITY
“Then Saklas said to his angels, ‘Let us create a human being after the likeness and after
the image.’ They fashioned Adam and his wife Eve, who is called, in the cloud, Zoe. For
by this name all the generations seek the man, and each of them calls the woman by these
names. Now, Sakla did not [53] com[mand …] except […] the gene[rations …] this […].
And the [ruler] said to Adam, ‘You shall live long, with your children.’”
Again, to those who are stuck in the current KJV "approved" texts, this may not make much sense, but when it is looked at in reference to the creation story of the Khemites and the Paut Neteru. Of course this material was known at the time.
So moving ahead we get Moses. Moses is not a Hebrew name, Moses, most likely Tutmoses is a Khemetic name. Furthermore, a brief look at how the Khemites saw themselves should make it pretty clear that Moses, to pass as khemtic royalty had to look like khemtic royalty. I won't belabor that point because the real point is that Moses knows the Oracles of Ma'at and their attendant Negative Confessions. He knows all about Ra and how the universe and humankind was created. He knows how temples are to be built and whole lot of other things. Once we move past the epic "let my people go" story, we find the meat of Judaism developing. How convenient that after 400 years of "captivity" in Egypt suddenly people know how to build proper temples to exact measurments. They have oracles (commandments). How convenient that the word Amen suddenly shows up in the Plutarch. All these convenient coincidences.
So we find in Exodus 20:
1And God spake all these words, saying,
2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13Thou shalt not kill.
14Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15Thou shalt not steal.
16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
22And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
23Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.
24An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.
25And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
And there is more, but the point should be clear. You get a subset of the Oracles, and a whole lot of rules about worshipping that simply didn't exist before. A read of the latter chapters of Exodus and Leviticus shows so much detail in worship and temple building that to deny that they did not get this from Khemet is bordering on willful ignorance. What is perhaps most interesting is the forbidding of golden or carved "gods." It is pretty clear here that whoever this "Moses" is, he wants to break his followers from the myriad of neters that they were used to dealing with. and replace them, like Akhnaten attempted to do, with a singular "God" (who's rather bad tempered). The problem is that Moses ends up using the same very symbols of these "bad gods" in order to keep order.
Here is a specific item I would like to highlight:
1) In Numbers 21:We find the Hebrews are wandering around in the desert. They are apparently afflicted by snake bites. God apparently tells Moses that in order to heal the people he would need to:
6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
8And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Now it's very interesting that Moses is told to put a serpent on a pole. In Khemet a serpent on a pole was a symbol held by Tehuti
and was a medical symbol. I guess we are to just take it as a coincidence that yet another Khemtic symbol is found in use by the Hebrews.
At this point with the exception of the Psalms, much of what is left of the Torah (Old Testament) is a matter of national history and folklore, much of which is particularly relevant to this discussion. The parts that are relevant are the references to the son of god such as that found in Daniel and the various prophesies (Isaiah, etc.) are related to what we will now discuss: New Testament material.
In Christianity the main thrust of the New Testament is the conception, birth, life of, death and resurection of Jesus. In Islam, the Quran, which comes after the Bible, pulls from the same material that the Bible does and includes material "banned" from the Christian Bible. Islam acknowledges Jesus, which makes sense, though it claims he is not God. The partial basis of this is that Jesus, in Islam is not the product of a virgin birth by Mary and some duppy (Jamaican for ghost).
So before going any further, we should present the original "Jesus Story" as found at the Temple of Amen (the Hidden One):
Let's go over what this image shows:
The Anunciation: Tehuti (bird headed figure), Neter(god) of Divine Intelligence and Word, hailing a virgin queen, Met-em-Ua. He is informing her that she will be giving birth to a son.
The Conception: Knum (cow headed figure), the fashioner or moulder, with Het-Heru (figure with the sun disk between cow horns), special Neter (goddess) of women, points the Ankh, symbol of life, to the queen. thus the queen has conceived by "Divine intervention." Note that her stomach is fuller indicative of pregnancy.
The Birth: The queen is seated on a stool while the child is in the hands of one of the nurses.
The Adoration: The child has been enthroned and is surrounded by gods paying homage. To the right is Knum, behind whom are three men kneeling and offering Ankhs and gifts.
Thus we have a story of a divine child being concieved by a virgin who is adored as the son of God.
Following up we should look at:
Horus the Child: Here is a depiction of Horus the child. As all neters do he holds an Ankh and has his legs apart signifying the fact that he is a "living god." He also wears the double crown which indicates his "royal" status.
Horus the Aged: Here Horus is shown as an adult. He holds not only the Ankh but also the staff of power. This is further evidence of his maturity. He also has the hawk head. Remember in the previous scene we saw him with his hawk head.
Horus the Avenger of his father: Horus is going to avenge the "attempted" murder of his father by Set. Incidentally Set is the Egyptian word for evil and with the suffix "an" becomes Setan meaning: the evil one. It should be noted however that Set was not always conceived of as a negative character. Similarly Lucifer was not always a "bad" angel.
Description of above scene
1: Ausar's body is being prepped for burial by Anpu with Auset giving direction.
2:Auset and Het-Heru mourning the death of Ausar.
Significance: Matthew 27:59-60 : And when Joseph had taken the body , he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And he laid it in his own new tomb....
Matthew 27:55-56: And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee., Ministering to him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses....
Matthew 28:1: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.
Again, people would have us suppose that these coincidential things are just that.
Lastly we will examine this:
Ani before the Oracles of Maat: Ani (the kneeling figure with the hands extended is repeating the 42 Oracles of Maat in their form as the Negative confessions. For example: "I have not spoken untruth." "I have not plundered the dead."
The weighing of the heart: Ani is being lead by Anpu( the Jackal headed figure) to the scales of Justice. Maat is the scale. We know this because her head is at the apex of the scale. On the right hand side of the scale ( nearest to Anpu) is Ani's heart. On the other side is the feather of Maat. The heart of Ani must be lighter than a feather in order for Ani to be allowed to continue. Should Ani's heart be found "wanting" the beast under the scale will devour Ani's heart and presumable Ani himself. We should also note that the weighing of the heart is presided over by Tehuti ( the same neter found in the birth scene). Tehuti is recording all of the events (recording angel anyone?).
The Presentation: Ani, having passed the weighing of the heart is lead by Horus to Ausar. We should note that Horus THE SON of Ausar is presenting Ani to his FATHER. Thus in a way Ani is going to the father via the son.
It should be noted that there are many variations On this basic story. Some have the beast seated On the scale and Tehuti under the scale. Some have Tehuti as the head of the scale. Still others have Anpu complete the ritual and present the soul to Ausar, Either way, the soul must go through an intercessor to be presented to the father Ausar. for reference:
# Matthew 10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
# Matthew 10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
# John 5:21
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
# John 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Let us go and discuss the resurection, the crux of the Christian salvation theory. If we look at this image:
we will see that Ani (white robed figure) has his soul returned to him (the bird) as he stands inside a tomb. The bird is holding the shem (an Ankh missing the phallic portion) which is the symbol of eternity. Where was Jesus put after crucifixion? We know that Jesus is said to have gone to "hell" in what would be his "victory over death." He would return and be risen. In the image we see that at the right Ani is facing away from the tomb ( he's also black but I won't get into that..ok?) with his soul. Notice the large sun disk over the tomb. Now isn't it entirely possible that aside from lifting this concept the..ummm..writers thought the sun was a rock? Is it therefore not surprising that the tomb containing Jesus had it's rock rolled aside? But lets not take my word for it. We shall read the Papyrus:
Let not the head of Osiris Anu be carried away from him. I have knit together my bones, I have made myself whole and sound. [writer's note: Did Jesus not have his bones broken? Was he not stabbed in the side, hence making him not whole and not sound?] I have become young once more; I am Osiris, the Lord of eternity... Let not Osiris Ani, Triumphant, triumphant, lie down in death in Annu, the land wherein souls are joined unto their bodies, even in thousands."
Do I need to explain? is it not completely clear that the entire story of Jesus is a rehash of Ausar and Horus?
What needs to be made clear here is that the mythos of Ausar (osiris) and Horus (Heru) are intermixed. We have the birth, vengeance and "presenter" taken from Horus and we have the resurrection taken from Ausar. It is for this reason that the Gnostics were so much more symbolic in their view of the new "Christian" religion and most likely why Mohammed decided to take the side of Jesus as Man in direct contradiction to the now Roman religion (both having pulled from the same source material and both serving political ends). If anything is clear here, it is that there is no such thing as an "Abrahamic" religion. It is clear by the documentation and history that the Hebrews took a whole lot of material from Egypt. This is expected as Khemet was kind of the "America" of the day. It is unfortunate that many writers will simply not give credit where it is due. Instead they insult us with "10 Commandment movies."
Now I'd like to address my charge that Christianity and Islam are in fact foreign to most of Africa. Clearly this cannot be said of all Africa given the early churches in Egypt and Ethiopia. However, even there I would say, given the information above, known to those early founders, that they were really continuing on with the Khemtic knowledge even though it had been diluted by the new comers and those with their own takes on these old philosophies. However; when we look at the rest of Africa, it is clear that Christianity as derived and codified by the Council of Nicea was in fact alien to those Africans. Islam, also being a derivative work (regardless of the claims made by Mohammed), suffers the same issue. Mohammed like Toussaint L'Ouveture, saw an opportunity and took it. In the end he mixed Persian influences with the ancient philosophies being bandied about and formed his religion. This is why his early followers would find refuge in Christian Ethiopia. For all intents and purposes the Ethiopians and early Muslims believed much of the same things. Since there were so many different groups claiming different spins on the same philosophies, there would be no reason to be inhospitable to any other group that was at least respectful.
In the end it would be of great benefit to all people to realize that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are derivative religions. As derivative religions they really do not have any special claim to any truth other than the piece they have and respect the fact that they don't have it all. It's OK.
[Edit 4-12-2006 2:07 PM: some spelling and grammar corrections and addition of some commentary]
[Edit 4-12-2006 10:07 PM: some spelling and grammar corrections and addition of some commentary]
"10 commandments" movie about to air on ABC, I thought it may be a good time to revisit the issue and fully lay out my position, which again is based on the works of others.
Let me begin by saying that in general all religion is local folklore. Religion is a means by which people rationalize the events around them, many of which at the time were simply unexplainable. Religion also encompasses the culture of the people who create it. It often contains their folklore and bits of their history as well as their propaganda. All this is important to understanding what will be laid out shortly.
Part I: Where Oh Where to Begin
One of the things that one eventually learns about the Bible is that some of the oldest mystical material is found in the New Testament. Let me start with the following:
John 1:1 states:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
When we look at the "Book of Knowing the Evolution of Ra" (Budge, 1895) we find:
I am he who evolved himself under the form of the god Khepera, , the evolver of the evolutions evolved myself, the evolver of all evolutions after many evolutions and developments which came forth from my mouth (another variant has "I bought into my own mouth my name as a word of power, and I straightway came into being"). No heaven existed, and no earth and no terrestial animals or reptiles had come into being. I formed them out of the inert mass of watery matter, I found no place whereon to stand..., I was alone, and the gods Shu and Tefnut had not gone forth from me; there existed none other who worked with me. I laid the foundations of all things by my will. and all things evolved themselves therefrom. I united myself to my shadow, and I sent for Shu and Tefnut out from myself; thus from being one god I became three...
Now it is pretty clear here that the concept of the WORD being the prime mover of creation is established as "known" to Ancient Egypt predating anything John had to say on the subject. But we know that at the time of John, these ideas were in wide circulation and known to the writers of said texts.
Also of interest is that creation was guided by Maa (Divine Intelligence) through the utterances of Tehuti (Oft referred to as Thoth). This brings us back to Genesis chapter 1:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. {P}
6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}
9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}
14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. {P}
20
So we have creation by word. we have God creating himself through his own will. we have God making light first (Ra first manifests as the Sun) and then the rest of creation is done through utterances or will. I point this out to show the reader just how much Egyptian (to be referred to as Khemet from now on) thought permeates the religions texts of so called "Abrahamic" religions. I'd like to point out that it is Proper to call Ra "He" since as is common in Khemtic theology to have a female counterpart, in this case Mut-em-Ra.
Not to be ommited, we should also examine the Papyrus of Ani Plate XIX Chapter XV :Homage to thee O Ra...from whome all forms of life came into being. Thou sendeth forth the word and the earth is flooded with silence, O thou only One who livedst in heaven before even the earth and the mountains were made. O Runner, Lord, Only One, though maker of things which are, thou hast moulded the tongue of the company of gods (Paut neteru) thou hast drawn forth whatsoever cometh from the waters, and thou springest up from them over the flooded land of the Lake of Horus. Make me to sniff the air which cometh forth from thy nostrils.
Word, formed life and breathed air into the nostril of man. I mean can we get any more plagaristic?
It is important to note that these concepts were well established in Khemet by the time this person Abraham (previously Abram) shows up. Lets look at the biblical account of Abraham.
Genesis 12:
10 And there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was sore in the land. 11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife: 'Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon. 12 And it will come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they will say: This is his wife; and they will kill me, but thee they will keep alive. 13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister; that it may be well with me for thy sake, and that my soul may live because of thee.' 14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. 15 And the princes of Pharaoh saw her, and praised her to Pharaoh; and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. 16 And he dealt well with Abram for her sake; and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels. 17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said: 'What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou: She is my sister? so that I took her to be my wife; now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.' 20 And Pharaoh gave men charge concerning him; and they brought him on the way, and his wife, and all that he had.
So we find Abraham wandering around after being told by God to leave the "land of his father" and wound up in Egypt. Now upon entering Egypt Abraham tells his wife to tell a rather big lie. God, apparently in cahoots with Abraham, then brings plagues on Pharaoh's house. Lets stop here for a minute. Abraham tells a lie to save his neck. God, who is going to allegedly "instruct" the Israelites on the sinfulness of lying, makes life difficult for the Egyptians. Ok. Now we should note that the text clearly states that this was a Pharaoh and therefore we are talking about pharonic Khemet. In this Khemet we know that they have rules against lying and adultery
Behold a portion of the Negative Confessions found in the Papyrus of Ani:
Hail, Neba, who comest and goest, I have not uttered lies.
Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed adultery,
Hail, Tutu, who comest forth from Ati, I have not debauched the wife of any man.
So Abraham caused the Pharaoh to break his religious laws so we understand why he is so upset. Now back to Abraham. the Torah is pretty clear that Abraham was a liar. Abraham also doesn't know too much religion. But what is most important is that this account was not written by Abraham or any of his contemporaries. At the most fundamentalist, Genesis and the Plutarch are written by Moses himself. This is important because none of the people before Moses (with a possible exception of Joseph) can write. There is no written Hebrew at this time. It is known that written Hebrew is derived from Khemet. How so? Below are two pages of copied text from a dictionary located at Tuskegee University, Tuskegee AL. in this dictionary they had the historical characters used to represent the various letters now in use. They showed Roman, Khemtic, Semitic and Phonencian of each.
Other scholars point to the Plutarch being written at about 200 BCE by persons with particular ideologies to push (hence a lying abraham and a God in cahoots). Either way, what is important to realize is that the text is pretty clear that Abraham and his folk are no where near the development as the Khemites to which they are going to be in close proximity to for a while. A long while.So at this point we have to realize that Abraham didn't found any religion. He had a few dreams, proped up some rocks and called it a temple and had some kids. It is clear that Israelite theology would not really form until Moses steps on the scene. If you look at all the writing in Genesis you have chapters upon chapters on who begat who. You have Noah and his Ark, using measurements only known after the flood (ain't that odd). You have Joseph getting jacked for his jacket. You have Joseph in Egypt. But you have no discussion of theology. You have no laws, no elaborate temples. No priests. All you have is God telling Abraham where to go, what to say and what is going to happen to his seed. I could stop here, having generally proved the point that there is no such thing as a Abrahamic religion but rather those who may trace their ancestry to Abraham, none of whom are in West Africa.
Before getting to Moses, we should note the 12 tribes of Israel as delineated in Exodus 1:
1 Now these are the names of the sons of Israel, who came into Egypt with Jacob; every man came with his household: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah; 3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. 5
This is an interesting number, 12, because it is significant in terms of Khemet. The Paut Neteru is a collection of "neters" commonly translated as "the company of the gods." Thes Paut Neteru or Paut AAT are usually the nine "greatest gods of Egypt (Budge): Tmu, Shu, Tefnut, Seb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephhthys.
Sometimes, and this is important, the Paut Neteru refers to twelve neters. so adding RA, Horus, and Het-Heru, we get the big twelve. Is it coincidental that there are twelve tribes of Israelm delineated in Exodus? Another coincidence I suppose. You will also note that in the newly revealed Gospel Of Judas we find:
“Adamas was in the first luminous cloud that no angel has ever seen among all those
called ‘God.’ He [49] […] that […] the image […] and after the likeness of [this] angel.
He made the incorruptible [generation] of Seth appear […] the twelve […] the twentyfour
[…]. He made seventy-two luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in
accordance with the will of the Spirit. The seventy-two luminaries themselves made three
hundred sixty luminaries appear in the incorruptible generation, in accordance with the
will of the Spirit, that their number should be five for each.
“The twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries constitute their father, with six heavens for
each aeon, so that there are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries, and for
each [50] [of them five] firmaments, [for a total of] three hundred sixty [firmaments …].
They were given authority and a [great] host of angels [without number], for glory and
adoration, [and after that also] virgin spirits, for glory and [adoration] of all the aeons and
the heavens and their firmaments.
and
“The multitude of those immortals is called the cosmos— that is, perdition—by the
Father and the seventy-two luminaries who are with the Self-Generated and his seventytwo
aeons. In him the first human appeared with his incorruptible powers. And the aeon
that appeared with his generation, the aeon in whom are the cloud of knowledge and the
angel, is called [51] El. […] aeon […] after that […] said, ‘Let twelve angels come into
being [to] rule over chaos and the [underworld].’ And look, from the cloud there
appeared an [angel] whose face flashed with fire and whose appearance was defiled with
blood. His name was Nebro, which means ‘rebel’; others call him Yaldabaoth. Another
angel, Saklas, also came from the cloud. So Nebro created six angels—as well as
Saklas—to be assistants, and these produced twelve angels in the heavens, with each one
receiving a portion in the heavens.
THE RULERS AND ANGELS
“The twelve rulers spoke with the twelve angels: ‘Let each of you [52] […] and let them
[…] generation [—one line lost—] angels’:
The first is [S]eth, who is called Christ.
The [second] is Harmathoth, who is […].
The [third] is Galila.
The fourth is Yobel.
The fifth [is] Adonaios.
These are the five who ruled over the underworld, and first of all over chaos.
THE CREATION OF HUMANITY
“Then Saklas said to his angels, ‘Let us create a human being after the likeness and after
the image.’ They fashioned Adam and his wife Eve, who is called, in the cloud, Zoe. For
by this name all the generations seek the man, and each of them calls the woman by these
names. Now, Sakla did not [53] com[mand …] except […] the gene[rations …] this […].
And the [ruler] said to Adam, ‘You shall live long, with your children.’”
Again, to those who are stuck in the current KJV "approved" texts, this may not make much sense, but when it is looked at in reference to the creation story of the Khemites and the Paut Neteru. Of course this material was known at the time.
So moving ahead we get Moses. Moses is not a Hebrew name, Moses, most likely Tutmoses is a Khemetic name. Furthermore, a brief look at how the Khemites saw themselves should make it pretty clear that Moses, to pass as khemtic royalty had to look like khemtic royalty. I won't belabor that point because the real point is that Moses knows the Oracles of Ma'at and their attendant Negative Confessions. He knows all about Ra and how the universe and humankind was created. He knows how temples are to be built and whole lot of other things. Once we move past the epic "let my people go" story, we find the meat of Judaism developing. How convenient that after 400 years of "captivity" in Egypt suddenly people know how to build proper temples to exact measurments. They have oracles (commandments). How convenient that the word Amen suddenly shows up in the Plutarch. All these convenient coincidences.
So we find in Exodus 20:
1And God spake all these words, saying,
2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13Thou shalt not kill.
14Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15Thou shalt not steal.
16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
22And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
23Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.
24An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.
25And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
And there is more, but the point should be clear. You get a subset of the Oracles, and a whole lot of rules about worshipping that simply didn't exist before. A read of the latter chapters of Exodus and Leviticus shows so much detail in worship and temple building that to deny that they did not get this from Khemet is bordering on willful ignorance. What is perhaps most interesting is the forbidding of golden or carved "gods." It is pretty clear here that whoever this "Moses" is, he wants to break his followers from the myriad of neters that they were used to dealing with. and replace them, like Akhnaten attempted to do, with a singular "God" (who's rather bad tempered). The problem is that Moses ends up using the same very symbols of these "bad gods" in order to keep order.
Here is a specific item I would like to highlight:
1) In Numbers 21:We find the Hebrews are wandering around in the desert. They are apparently afflicted by snake bites. God apparently tells Moses that in order to heal the people he would need to:
6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
8And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Now it's very interesting that Moses is told to put a serpent on a pole. In Khemet a serpent on a pole was a symbol held by Tehuti
and was a medical symbol. I guess we are to just take it as a coincidence that yet another Khemtic symbol is found in use by the Hebrews.
At this point with the exception of the Psalms, much of what is left of the Torah (Old Testament) is a matter of national history and folklore, much of which is particularly relevant to this discussion. The parts that are relevant are the references to the son of god such as that found in Daniel and the various prophesies (Isaiah, etc.) are related to what we will now discuss: New Testament material.
In Christianity the main thrust of the New Testament is the conception, birth, life of, death and resurection of Jesus. In Islam, the Quran, which comes after the Bible, pulls from the same material that the Bible does and includes material "banned" from the Christian Bible. Islam acknowledges Jesus, which makes sense, though it claims he is not God. The partial basis of this is that Jesus, in Islam is not the product of a virgin birth by Mary and some duppy (Jamaican for ghost).
So before going any further, we should present the original "Jesus Story" as found at the Temple of Amen (the Hidden One):
Let's go over what this image shows:
The Anunciation: Tehuti (bird headed figure), Neter(god) of Divine Intelligence and Word, hailing a virgin queen, Met-em-Ua. He is informing her that she will be giving birth to a son.
The Conception: Knum (cow headed figure), the fashioner or moulder, with Het-Heru (figure with the sun disk between cow horns), special Neter (goddess) of women, points the Ankh, symbol of life, to the queen. thus the queen has conceived by "Divine intervention." Note that her stomach is fuller indicative of pregnancy.
The Birth: The queen is seated on a stool while the child is in the hands of one of the nurses.
The Adoration: The child has been enthroned and is surrounded by gods paying homage. To the right is Knum, behind whom are three men kneeling and offering Ankhs and gifts.
Thus we have a story of a divine child being concieved by a virgin who is adored as the son of God.
Following up we should look at:
Horus the Child: Here is a depiction of Horus the child. As all neters do he holds an Ankh and has his legs apart signifying the fact that he is a "living god." He also wears the double crown which indicates his "royal" status.
Horus the Aged: Here Horus is shown as an adult. He holds not only the Ankh but also the staff of power. This is further evidence of his maturity. He also has the hawk head. Remember in the previous scene we saw him with his hawk head.
Horus the Avenger of his father: Horus is going to avenge the "attempted" murder of his father by Set. Incidentally Set is the Egyptian word for evil and with the suffix "an" becomes Setan meaning: the evil one. It should be noted however that Set was not always conceived of as a negative character. Similarly Lucifer was not always a "bad" angel.
Description of above scene
1: Ausar's body is being prepped for burial by Anpu with Auset giving direction.
2:Auset and Het-Heru mourning the death of Ausar.
Significance: Matthew 27:59-60 : And when Joseph had taken the body , he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And he laid it in his own new tomb....
Matthew 27:55-56: And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee., Ministering to him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses....
Matthew 28:1: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.
Again, people would have us suppose that these coincidential things are just that.
Lastly we will examine this:
Ani before the Oracles of Maat: Ani (the kneeling figure with the hands extended is repeating the 42 Oracles of Maat in their form as the Negative confessions. For example: "I have not spoken untruth." "I have not plundered the dead."
The weighing of the heart: Ani is being lead by Anpu( the Jackal headed figure) to the scales of Justice. Maat is the scale. We know this because her head is at the apex of the scale. On the right hand side of the scale ( nearest to Anpu) is Ani's heart. On the other side is the feather of Maat. The heart of Ani must be lighter than a feather in order for Ani to be allowed to continue. Should Ani's heart be found "wanting" the beast under the scale will devour Ani's heart and presumable Ani himself. We should also note that the weighing of the heart is presided over by Tehuti ( the same neter found in the birth scene). Tehuti is recording all of the events (recording angel anyone?).
The Presentation: Ani, having passed the weighing of the heart is lead by Horus to Ausar. We should note that Horus THE SON of Ausar is presenting Ani to his FATHER. Thus in a way Ani is going to the father via the son.
It should be noted that there are many variations On this basic story. Some have the beast seated On the scale and Tehuti under the scale. Some have Tehuti as the head of the scale. Still others have Anpu complete the ritual and present the soul to Ausar, Either way, the soul must go through an intercessor to be presented to the father Ausar. for reference:
# Matthew 10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
# Matthew 10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
# John 5:21
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
# John 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Let us go and discuss the resurection, the crux of the Christian salvation theory. If we look at this image:
we will see that Ani (white robed figure) has his soul returned to him (the bird) as he stands inside a tomb. The bird is holding the shem (an Ankh missing the phallic portion) which is the symbol of eternity. Where was Jesus put after crucifixion? We know that Jesus is said to have gone to "hell" in what would be his "victory over death." He would return and be risen. In the image we see that at the right Ani is facing away from the tomb ( he's also black but I won't get into that..ok?) with his soul. Notice the large sun disk over the tomb. Now isn't it entirely possible that aside from lifting this concept the..ummm..writers thought the sun was a rock? Is it therefore not surprising that the tomb containing Jesus had it's rock rolled aside? But lets not take my word for it. We shall read the Papyrus:
Let not the head of Osiris Anu be carried away from him. I have knit together my bones, I have made myself whole and sound. [writer's note: Did Jesus not have his bones broken? Was he not stabbed in the side, hence making him not whole and not sound?] I have become young once more; I am Osiris, the Lord of eternity... Let not Osiris Ani, Triumphant, triumphant, lie down in death in Annu, the land wherein souls are joined unto their bodies, even in thousands."
Do I need to explain? is it not completely clear that the entire story of Jesus is a rehash of Ausar and Horus?
What needs to be made clear here is that the mythos of Ausar (osiris) and Horus (Heru) are intermixed. We have the birth, vengeance and "presenter" taken from Horus and we have the resurrection taken from Ausar. It is for this reason that the Gnostics were so much more symbolic in their view of the new "Christian" religion and most likely why Mohammed decided to take the side of Jesus as Man in direct contradiction to the now Roman religion (both having pulled from the same source material and both serving political ends). If anything is clear here, it is that there is no such thing as an "Abrahamic" religion. It is clear by the documentation and history that the Hebrews took a whole lot of material from Egypt. This is expected as Khemet was kind of the "America" of the day. It is unfortunate that many writers will simply not give credit where it is due. Instead they insult us with "10 Commandment movies."
Now I'd like to address my charge that Christianity and Islam are in fact foreign to most of Africa. Clearly this cannot be said of all Africa given the early churches in Egypt and Ethiopia. However, even there I would say, given the information above, known to those early founders, that they were really continuing on with the Khemtic knowledge even though it had been diluted by the new comers and those with their own takes on these old philosophies. However; when we look at the rest of Africa, it is clear that Christianity as derived and codified by the Council of Nicea was in fact alien to those Africans. Islam, also being a derivative work (regardless of the claims made by Mohammed), suffers the same issue. Mohammed like Toussaint L'Ouveture, saw an opportunity and took it. In the end he mixed Persian influences with the ancient philosophies being bandied about and formed his religion. This is why his early followers would find refuge in Christian Ethiopia. For all intents and purposes the Ethiopians and early Muslims believed much of the same things. Since there were so many different groups claiming different spins on the same philosophies, there would be no reason to be inhospitable to any other group that was at least respectful.
In the end it would be of great benefit to all people to realize that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are derivative religions. As derivative religions they really do not have any special claim to any truth other than the piece they have and respect the fact that they don't have it all. It's OK.
[Edit 4-12-2006 2:07 PM: some spelling and grammar corrections and addition of some commentary]
[Edit 4-12-2006 10:07 PM: some spelling and grammar corrections and addition of some commentary]
Technorati Tags: Africa, Black Education, Religion
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Why McKinney Was Right To Apologize
Bo Bo Bo
Ka Ka Ka Ka Ka
It's the only way to deal with racism when your black.
-KRS-1
Any fan of Hip Hop knows this famous line by the Blastmaster himself KRS-ONE. No doubt Representative McKinney was feeling this idea when Capitol Cop attempted to stop her from entering congress. Unfortunately, when she hit the officer, she found herself on the wrong side of the law. She knew it and I'm sure her lawyer reminded her of the fact.
I'm not entirely sure what happened other than the following:
1) McKinney was attempting to enter the capitol building without her identifying pin.
2) The officer asked her to stop and identify herself.
3) McKinney, on the phone may not have heard the officer and continued on her way.
or
4) McKinney, upset that she was being singled out for identification chose to ignore the police officer.
5) The officer then attempted to physically stop McKinney for ID.
6) McKinney upset that the officer had touched her, hit the officer.
Here's the problem: regardless to whether 3 or 4 happened, an police officer has the right to physically stop any person from entering a secured zone. It doesn't matter if they recognize the person or not. Of course it is courtesy that congresspersons are allowed to go by, but that courtesy does not negate police power (right or wrong). Citizens, do not have the option of ignoring a police request to stop, be it at the capitol building or on a highway. This is where McKinney went wrong. Not only that, but as a representative, she is a role model for millions of black people in the US. It is not a good idea to get black people, specifically black men, the idea that it is OK to get into a physical altercation with a police officer. I think McKinney or perhaps her lawyer made this particular point.
This is not to say that McKinney was not profiled. I have little doubt that she was. She also knows the legal process for dealing with it. Also, by lashing out in anger(?) she may signal that it is OK to use violence to resolve problems. Perhaps, deep down she does. I'm not morally opposed to that point. I do think that for what McKinney has been sent by her constituents to do, violence is off the table.
So not to belabor the point, let us agree that McKinney was right to apologize (I'm mad she said she was "sorry" since she is not a "sorry" person) and that legally she had no grounds to hit the officer. Having made that point, lets continue to support Representative McKinney is every way possible, including her seniority re-instatement.
Ka Ka Ka Ka Ka
It's the only way to deal with racism when your black.
-KRS-1
Any fan of Hip Hop knows this famous line by the Blastmaster himself KRS-ONE. No doubt Representative McKinney was feeling this idea when Capitol Cop attempted to stop her from entering congress. Unfortunately, when she hit the officer, she found herself on the wrong side of the law. She knew it and I'm sure her lawyer reminded her of the fact.
I'm not entirely sure what happened other than the following:
1) McKinney was attempting to enter the capitol building without her identifying pin.
2) The officer asked her to stop and identify herself.
3) McKinney, on the phone may not have heard the officer and continued on her way.
or
4) McKinney, upset that she was being singled out for identification chose to ignore the police officer.
5) The officer then attempted to physically stop McKinney for ID.
6) McKinney upset that the officer had touched her, hit the officer.
Here's the problem: regardless to whether 3 or 4 happened, an police officer has the right to physically stop any person from entering a secured zone. It doesn't matter if they recognize the person or not. Of course it is courtesy that congresspersons are allowed to go by, but that courtesy does not negate police power (right or wrong). Citizens, do not have the option of ignoring a police request to stop, be it at the capitol building or on a highway. This is where McKinney went wrong. Not only that, but as a representative, she is a role model for millions of black people in the US. It is not a good idea to get black people, specifically black men, the idea that it is OK to get into a physical altercation with a police officer. I think McKinney or perhaps her lawyer made this particular point.
This is not to say that McKinney was not profiled. I have little doubt that she was. She also knows the legal process for dealing with it. Also, by lashing out in anger(?) she may signal that it is OK to use violence to resolve problems. Perhaps, deep down she does. I'm not morally opposed to that point. I do think that for what McKinney has been sent by her constituents to do, violence is off the table.
So not to belabor the point, let us agree that McKinney was right to apologize (I'm mad she said she was "sorry" since she is not a "sorry" person) and that legally she had no grounds to hit the officer. Having made that point, lets continue to support Representative McKinney is every way possible, including her seniority re-instatement.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
The Gospel Of Judas
So I'm prepping a monster post on the Khemetic origins of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, when lo and behold the NY Times posts an article on the "discovery" of the Gospel of Judas.
Anyone who has studied "western" religions knows that there are massive numbers of books missing from the Christian Bible. Some of these texts are found in the Quran. Of interest in the Gospel of Judas, is that Judas is instructed by Jesus to sell him to the Authorities:
The most revealing passages in the Judas manuscript begins, "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover."
The account goes on to relate that Jesus refers to the other disciples, telling Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." By that, scholars familiar with Gnostic thinking said, Jesus meant that by helping him get rid of his physical flesh, Judas will act to liberate the true spiritual self or divine being within Jesus.
Unlike the accounts in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the anonymous author of the Gospel of Judas believed that Judas Iscariot alone among the 12 disciples understood the meaning of Jesus' teachings and acceded to his will. In the diversity of early Christian thought, a group known as Gnostics believed in a secret knowledge of how people could escape the prisons of their material bodies and return to the spiritual realm from which they came.
Of course, Jesus being familiar with the Egyptian mysteries would be interested in shedding his corporeal existance as that was one of the many things taught in Egypt. I won't go further, because it would detract from my upcoming post.
link:http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/judastxt.pdf
Anyone who has studied "western" religions knows that there are massive numbers of books missing from the Christian Bible. Some of these texts are found in the Quran. Of interest in the Gospel of Judas, is that Judas is instructed by Jesus to sell him to the Authorities:
The most revealing passages in the Judas manuscript begins, "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover."
The account goes on to relate that Jesus refers to the other disciples, telling Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." By that, scholars familiar with Gnostic thinking said, Jesus meant that by helping him get rid of his physical flesh, Judas will act to liberate the true spiritual self or divine being within Jesus.
Unlike the accounts in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the anonymous author of the Gospel of Judas believed that Judas Iscariot alone among the 12 disciples understood the meaning of Jesus' teachings and acceded to his will. In the diversity of early Christian thought, a group known as Gnostics believed in a secret knowledge of how people could escape the prisons of their material bodies and return to the spiritual realm from which they came.
Of course, Jesus being familiar with the Egyptian mysteries would be interested in shedding his corporeal existance as that was one of the many things taught in Egypt. I won't go further, because it would detract from my upcoming post.
link:http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/judastxt.pdf
Immigration Again
I thought I'd be done with this topic, until at least the vote was taken, but recent reading has required this post.
See while there is much talk about the US as an immigrant nation and how the US is a colonial state and the motivations of most of the Anglos is "racist" in nature. That's all good and true. However, I was left wondering, What if the situation was reversed? What if Mexico faced the same issue that the US was? Also, what is Mexico? I concentrate on Mexico because any honest person knows that is what this is all about. check it. Mexico was a Spanish Colony. All those Mexicans, speaking Spanish are speaking a colonizers language just as those of us in the US are doing? So on the issue of language, lets' not get into it over which oppressor/colonizer language we should be teaching in school since they are both oppressor languages.
Mexico, at one time included what is now Texas. Back in the day, the Spanish governor of that state tried to get Anglos to move in and build up the state. The Central Mexican government was not too happy about this and sent troops to "Texas" to stop the immigration of Anglos, many of whom were dirt poor. The Mexican government felt that these Anglos were uneducated lowlives who were morally bankrupt and therefore unfit to be in Mexico.
Soon after this, we have the "Remember The Alamo" conflict and the capture of Texas by the US as a slave state.
Now isn't that interesting?
I'm not saying that the US is right on how it's going about it's immigration policy, but I am saying, in part, is that it is pretty disingenious for Mexicans to act like the Mexican government would not do the same thing if faced with the same "problem."
As for the rest of the subject..I'll comment when the final legislation is drafted and something lands on Bush's desk that he approves of.
See while there is much talk about the US as an immigrant nation and how the US is a colonial state and the motivations of most of the Anglos is "racist" in nature. That's all good and true. However, I was left wondering, What if the situation was reversed? What if Mexico faced the same issue that the US was? Also, what is Mexico? I concentrate on Mexico because any honest person knows that is what this is all about. check it. Mexico was a Spanish Colony. All those Mexicans, speaking Spanish are speaking a colonizers language just as those of us in the US are doing? So on the issue of language, lets' not get into it over which oppressor/colonizer language we should be teaching in school since they are both oppressor languages.
Mexico, at one time included what is now Texas. Back in the day, the Spanish governor of that state tried to get Anglos to move in and build up the state. The Central Mexican government was not too happy about this and sent troops to "Texas" to stop the immigration of Anglos, many of whom were dirt poor. The Mexican government felt that these Anglos were uneducated lowlives who were morally bankrupt and therefore unfit to be in Mexico.
Soon after this, we have the "Remember The Alamo" conflict and the capture of Texas by the US as a slave state.
Now isn't that interesting?
I'm not saying that the US is right on how it's going about it's immigration policy, but I am saying, in part, is that it is pretty disingenious for Mexicans to act like the Mexican government would not do the same thing if faced with the same "problem."
As for the rest of the subject..I'll comment when the final legislation is drafted and something lands on Bush's desk that he approves of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)