Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Friday, December 29, 2006

On Saddam's Death Sentance

I've been light on the Iraq posts because I think that the Iraq war is distracting to the very serious things going on in the African world. Secondly because anyone with 3/5 ofa brain knows that the War (in political terms) is lost. Anyone who has studied colonialism knows that colonialism always falls under its own weight and that Iraq is going to go the same route as Ghana, Algeria, Egypt, etc. Thirdly, the lies told to go into Iraq are so blatant and the violations of international law so blatant that the charging of crimes against humanity against Saddam and not this administration is grand hypocracy. But for those that need an Iraq fix, I would point you to a recent posting over at the DeskRat Chronicles which is an excellent summary of the life and times of Saddam Hussein and why he "needs" to die. Portions of his post references another bloggers post.

saddam was america's boy . he began his career at age 22 as a hitman for cia .
he was part of a cia assassination plot against iraq's leader colonel kassim .
kassim was viewed by the Us as too chummy with the soviets at the time .
kassim also was a populist who wanted to nationalize iraq's oil .
saddam and the other plotters ambushed kassim's car .
saddam was too impatient and blew it by firing too soon.
kassim was only wounded , his driver was killed and saddam had to flee the country.
saddam's cia handlers paid for his apartment in cairo for a year or so until another attempt on kassim succeeded and he was killed .

saddam returned to iraq , rode the coattails of an older cousin or uncle up the ladder of the baath party . ..

The decision to uphold the death sentence of Saddam Hussein by the sham Iraqi appeals court has gained worldwide condemnation, except for the U.S., of course. The court took two days to read 1,500 pages of documents presented by the defense. No court in the world can decipher this number of pages in such a short time, not even a legitimate court...

...I challenge all journalists who advocate the hanging of Saddam Hussein to take a few hours and research reality.
The standard figure of deaths attributed to the Ba'ath regime during the Anfal campaign is 182,000. Why have there not been any bodies found? If 182,000 people were killed, there must be piles and piles of bodies, yet none has appeared.
If 148 people were sentenced to death in 1982 for attempting to assassinate the president of Iraq, why are at least 24 still alive? And, those who were executed received a lengthy and fair trial that lasted about three years. They were fighting on the side of Iran while Iraq was engaged in a war with its eastern neighbor. In the U.S., this would be considered high treason. With Saddam Hussein, it was called mass murder. George Bush himself signed off more execution orders while the governor of Texas than did Saddam in the Dujail case.
If Iraqi military personnel gassed and killed 5,000 Kurds in Halabjah, why were only 300 bodies found? And, why was the gas used to kill the citizens cyanogen, a gas that Iraq did not possess but Iran did? Why have the CIA, the U.S. Army War College, Greenpeace, the main CIA analyst in 1988 (Stephen Pellitiere), the late Jude Waniski, the U.S Marine Corps Historical Report, and various other individuals and organizations blamed Iran for the gassing of the Kurds?


Read the full post here:

http://deskrat.blogspot.com/2006/12/hanging-saddam.html#comments

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Thoughts on Kwanzaa 2006

I'mma let ya'll in on a secret. Ready? I got a problem with Kwanzaa. I know I know for the past three years I've been out there defending Kwanzaa, but I gots to keep it real. I got a problem with Kwanzaa. My problem is this. I don't think it means what it used to anymore. Maybe I'm being too sensitive but let me give a couple of examples of what I mean.

Two weeks ago I was at a school concert and there were the Channuka songs and the Christmas songs and then this thing they called the 'African Noel" that was purported to be a Kwanzaa song. This feeling went over me that I could best describe as what I presume native Africans who don't know about Kwanzaa feel when they get wind of the celebration: This is just wrong.

See the problem here is that there is no Kwanzaa song as far as I know. Though folk may sing during Kwanzaa celebrations I ain't never ever heard of an African Noel. During this 'African Noel" the only principle of Kwanzaa brought up was Kujichagulia (self-determination). I presume that Kujichagulia and Nia and Imani (self-determination, Purpose and faith respectively) are the "safe" principles that people can discuss without 'guilt' or some sort of racial ill feelings. This is a problem. Kwanzaa's growing popularity is fueled, in my opinion, by making it a safe celebration. If you see mainstream news reports of Kwanzaa celebrations you'll see dancers and drummers and people in "african costumes". You'll see advertisements by major corporations featuring people in gran bubas and walking sticks. Wishing you the best!

See my problem stems from the seriousness I take my ideologies. I left the Christian church because I no longer shared the belief. I stopped attending because I thought it disrespectful to disrupt the services and beliefs of those who chose to believe the way they did. An open forum is one thing but going to the place of worship or celebration when one is not "in the spirit" is, in my opinion, pretty disrespectful.

When I learned of Kwanzaa, I understood it to come out of a culture nationalist tradition. Created by Maulana Karenga my understanding was that Kwanzaa was specifically made to address the cultural alienation that Africans in America have from their ancestral roots as well as to forward a cultural if not political Pan-Africanism among the AA population. It was never meant to be a replacement for any persons religious observations such as Christmas, Ramadan or Hannukah. Instead it was an addition specifically for African-Americans with the hopes of bringing them into a permanent , year round Pan-African ideology. So for example, the use of KiSwahili was used out of the recognition that Swahili is the largest native African language spoken in Africa that is not restricted by country or tribe...largely. The use of Red Black and Green is a direct reference to the Pan-Africanism of Marcus and Amy Garvey thus there can be no Kwanzaa without the discussion and meditation on Pan-Africanism. So to have a Kwanzaa song that is neither Pan-Africanist and attempts to strip Kwanzaa of it's roots is problematic to me.

Thus my problem. See just as I left the Christian church out of respect for those who did believe, I think that people who are latching onto Kwanzaa for reasons other than its intentions ought not participate. Aint no "Father Kwanzaa" aint no "African Noel" Kwanzaa song. If there are Kwanzaa songs, they are freedom rider songs. They are Bob Marley's "Get up Stand up". They are Peter Tosh's "African" They are Public Enemy's " Shut Em Down". No Kwanzaa greeting cards from Hallmark. You're supposed to make this stuff yourself.

Kwanzaa will not be Kwanzaa if the meaning is lost. It's like when the Malcolm X stamp was made in the US. It gave people the excuse to act like they "knew" Malcolm X. Everybody and their momma will tell you how much of a "human rights activist" he was but aint never read his works or studied his life. Similarly I now get non-black people telling me about Kwanzaa.

"Oh it's so nice."
"really?"
"Oh yes, you know."
"Really."
"The kids were singing this Kwanzaa song. I mean it was made up but it was so much fun."
"really. Fun you say? And what was the message?"
"oh, well. You know the black kids...."

Yes, Kwanzaa as black kid recognition time. the "you have some culture too" attitude. And I completely understand. The way these schools are and this society is, black folks culture is rap music, slavery and the civil rights movement. Every other group that is here can trace back specific traditions are religions to their home countries except African-Americans. Universally, Black Americans are people without their own and constantly latching onto what other people have, be it religion, dress, food.

So if people can go through Kwanzaa and learn nothing of Pan-Africanism or of African culture of the continent or the Diaspora, then really, what is the point?

Technorati Tags:

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Black Men PSA






Nuthin' lef' to say.

Happy Solstice

Today, well at 7:33 PM EST is the Winter Soltice AKA: The Reason for the Season. One of the great things about blogging for years (going into the 4th year of writing), is that you can start to go back and quote yourself. So for this solstice I will do a nice Sankofa move and pull a Solstice post from 2004:


...Folks there is a good a natural reason why we celebrate Christmas in the week that includes Dec 25. And note I did not say "the" 25th. Those who keep an eye on the length of daylight will know that the week of December 25th in the northern hemisphere is the shortest daylight time of the year. That is called the Winter Soltice. After the week of the 25th the daylight hours begin to lengthen and hence the sun is "reborn" Get it? The S[u]n of God (As depicted in Khemetic theology) is reborn on Christmas. Helloooooooo!...


Read the complete post: Solstice the Reason for the Season

Technorati Tags: ,

Monday, December 18, 2006

Signs of Protest

Here is a small photo essay on the protest that occurred in NYC on Saturday Dec. 16, 2006. You will need QuickTime to view this.
















Signs of Protest








Technorati Tags: , ,

Monday, December 11, 2006

Not my "Blood"

after the murder of Sean Bell and the near murder of TA Police in the vicinity, I read reports that the Bloods were seeking "justice" for Mr. Bell. I thought that was a nice joke given that this was coming from, well, the Bloods street gang. I didn't think anyone seriously calling for Justice for Sean Bell or out for the general safety of the black community at large would take the Bloods very seriously.
Unfortunately, The New Black Panther Party has decided to do so inviting them to speak at a rally in front of the 103 precinct where Malik Shabazz thought it wise to get on the microphone and tell the police "kill one of ours and we will kill one of yours."

It is unfortunate that Mr. Shabazz does not quite understand power in that if he was in fact serious about such a thing he would never have announced it. The reason being that by announcing such a thing, should any 103 precinct officer end up murdered, Mr. Shabazz will find himself on the receiving end of an arrest warrant much as the blind cleric Abdur Rahman did after the first World Trade Center bombing.
Secondly, he would have taken a page from the Mafia, and simply had the murder happen. No need for announcements when actions speak very very loudly. So, we know from these two things that Mr. Shabazz is talking junk and posturing for the camera and feeding off of the righteous anger of the crowd. That said, let me get back to the Bloods.

I don't have any problems with black organizations working with gangs or gang members in order to decrease the crime in the black community and rescue our children. None, whatsoever. I do have a problem with providing a platform for these gangs to make fake-ass revolutionary statements and slogans when we all know damn well that gang members, specifically the Bloods and Crips are the cause of much of the violence in NYC and other areas with high black populations. It would have been fine by me if the gang members had come to the stage and taken the microphone to announce that they were going to renounce community violence and drug dealing. It would have been nice to have an apology from representatives of each clique for the violence visited on the various poor communities they live in. That would have been nice.

Instead Shabazz gave these groups a platform to advocate more killing and by announcing an intention to kill police officers, they will have helped increase the tension and climate that will get more people killed. Thank you Mr. Shabazz. Exactly who's payroll are you on?



Look at the picture to the left. This is NOT black power.

Black power is not gang members in gang colors putting their fists in the air. Black power isn't even putting fists in the air. I will put cold hard CASH on a bet that none of the individuals here have read Kwame Ture and Charles Hamililton's Black Power. I'll lay hard cash that none of the pictured individuals have read Kwame Ture's auto biography or even know the definition given to Black Power at it's inception because if they had, they would not be Bloods. It's that simple. Being a part of an organization that kills more black people each year than the entire NYPD is antithetical to the concept of Black Power. Why then would an organization that supposedly supports Black Power allowing a group that is antithetical to black power to be legitimized? That is a good question. While I am appreciative of the work that the NBPP did in New Orleans after the hurricane, it is all to clear that this group is in need of guidance. They should read and re-read the critique that kwame Ture laid down on the Panthers in his autobiography (I'll need to go dig it out because it is very relevant here).

So the only time I want to see a Bloods gang member on stage at a rally is to announce a truce with other sets, and an apology for all past criminal activity and a plan to stop all future criminal activity. That would be the only Black Power thing that the Bloods can do for me and I would prefer that to the criminal prosecution of the police involved. WORD. You heard me. I'd rather the Police that shot Bell to walk, if it meant an end to gang violence. That my friends would be Black Power, until then we may be skin folks, but we ain't "blood". Heard?

Cynthia's Parting Shot

I want to post the official record of Cynthia McKinney's parting shot at el Presidente Bush:

Mr. Speaker:

I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Throughout my tenure, I've always tried to speak the truth. It's that commitment that brings me here today.

We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.

No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable-what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?

The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty and accountability.

Leading up to our invasion of Iraq, the American people supported this Administration's actions because they believed in our President. They believed he was acting in good faith. They believed that American laws and American values would be respected. That in the weightiness of everything being considered, two values were rock solid-trust and truth.

From mushroom clouds to African yellow cake to aluminum tubes, the American people and this Congress were not presented the facts, but rather were presented a string of untruths, to justify the invasion of Iraq.

President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Rice, portrayed to the Congress and to the American people that Iraq represented an imminent threat, culminating with President Bush's claim that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Having used false fear to buy consent-the President then took our country to war.

This has grave consequences for the health of our democracy, for our standing with our allies, and most of all, for the lives of our men and women in the military and their families-who have been asked to make sacrifices-including the ultimate sacrifice-to keep us safe.

Just as we expect our leaders to be truthful, we expect them to abide by the law and respect our courts and judges. Here again, the President failed the American people.

When President Bush signed an executive order authorizing unlawful spying on American citizens, he circumvented the courts, the law, and he violated the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. Once the program was revealed, he then tried to hide the scope of his offense from the American people by making contradictory, untrue statements.

President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the trust of the American people.

With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us. To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our democracy is at stake.

Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this is not about political gamesmanship.

I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.

This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded.

Mr. Speaker:

Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President Bush-along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice-should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H. Res. 1106 in the House of Representatives.

To my fellow Americans, as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands-to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone.

Thank you.


It is a shame that a congressperson who does their job is being put out of office by spineless black folk in Georgia who were more concerned with media appearances than substance. I would also like to point the readership to the GNN interview with McKinney:

A few days after the Democrats won control Conyers echoed Pelosi’s statement saying, “I am in total agreement with her on this issue … impeachment is off the table.” Last week a spokesperson from Conyers office said that the resolution would not be reintroduced and that the Representative had no intention to pursue the matter...

Mike, an advisor to McKinney, mentions, “Conyers was supposed to have investigations. They were chomping at the bit 6 months ago to do subpoenas.”

McKinney quietly replies, “Now they say they aren’t even going to issue subpoenas.”

Looking up from her papers she takes a deep breath, “I’m going in alone on this one because now it is all about them playing majority politics.”



It would seem that regardless as to whether the whip is being wielded by a white man or a white woman, all these Kneegrows know how to say is: Yassa Boss!

Technorati Tags: ,

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

White Boy Shot By Police. Why it matters.

When the murder in Jamaica queens occured I wrote about it and said the following:

But what makes this situation even more egregious is the fact that at least two of the bullets fired that morning went into a home, which potentially could have killed a or the resident. Also another shot went into the AirTran station that resulted in two Port Authority police to be cut by flying glass. That shot could have easily killed either one of them. Therefore; not only was the shooting unjustified and in violation of NYPD regulations it was reckless and could have resulted in at least two other deaths of innocent parties. So what was it about the mentality of the police in that location that made them completely disregard the lives of the innocent people in the area?


Which was picked up by the NY Times Empire Zone blog. It is this question, What is the mentality of the police that they think it is OK to kill people. See the issue is larger than the shooting of black men by police. It is about a culture not only in the police departments but in the society itself that does not fully understand the founding document of the US. This lack of clarity regarding the rights of citizens extends from president Bush on down. That the US citizenry is largely unphased by the clear police state they have allowed to grow around them is particularly troublesome. But let me get back to the white boy shot by police.

Back when the PS3 was released to people with way to much time and money to waste a guy was PS3 jacked in NC shortly after purchasing the hard to get gaming system. The police tracked down a suspect to a house on a college campus and went to arrest him. Because the PS3 jacker had used some force to obtain the unit and was apparently armed at the time, the police were of the opinion that the suspect at the time of the warrant serving would be armed and dangerous. Now I'm not going to fault the police for taking precautions and I don't object to the police having firearms to apprehend dangerous people, it should be noted that any and all suspects are just that, suspects. They are, under the law, innocent of any wrong doing until convicted by a jury. Therefore one cannot pass a death sentence on an innocent person which this individual was at the time.

When the officers knocked on the door, the suspect was in the middle of playing a game. He got up to answer the door with the game controller in his hand. The police, trained professionals who apparently have problems discerning a gun from wallets, lighters and now apparently Play Station controlers, shot the suspect to death in his place of residence. Sound familiar? It should.

it is the same rush to judgement and willingness to kill on the part of police that caused this shooting as well as the Bell shooting. This is a problem. Now the police will say that "he should have done x,y or z" to submit to the police and therefore it is the dead man's fault for being killed by trained professionals. Let me lay it out to you this way. By the police's logic if you are in your house, you know, that place that supposedly the state cannot enter without a court order and without announcing themselves, and you are playing a game or whatever, and out of the blue some police barge into your home guns drawn and all and you happen to have a game controller in your hand as you reach for the sky as you've been trained to do when police point weapons at you, you should expect to be shot and killed and yes, it is your fault. Never mind the issue of your innocence or the fact that the police may be at the wrong location. Anyone else see a problem with that? Apparently not too many people do since it has been happening repeatedly with no consequences to the trained professionals involved.

Clearly then the word is out for "law" enforcers that the killing of constitutionally innocent parties is OK or it would not be happening.
See a part of the problem here is the lack of understanding of 'protect and serve" so let me clarify it for some. Police are here to protect innocent people from harm. Since by the constitution all citizens, including suspects are innocent until proven guilty, that means that even the suspect is to be protected. Secondly, Police are here to serve the public, and yes that includes those pesky suspects who I will remind the reader are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. This means that police are, in situations such as this obligated to protect the live and limb of any suspect who has not attacked them. Let's make sure we are clear here, a police officer who kills someone because he thinks the suspect is going to do them harm, has committed a crime. it's called murder. A police officer who kills a suspect because he thinks the suspect has a gun has committed murder. A police officer who has been shot at can kill a suspect. It's called self defense. Let's be clear here, this is why police have vests, backup, and many other means of determine whether a suspect is dangerous. the citizen has none of these things when confronted with the state monopoly on violence. it is the police officer's job to put themselves in harms way in order to uphold the law. The law is more important than the officer's life. Yes it is. Any law enforcement person who does not understand this should not be in that line of work.

When police fail to understand and respect their duty then we have a reckless armed body of people. When police do not follow procedure they put themselves and the citizenry in danger as was clearly the case in Queens. There were options for the police that morning. The plain clothes officer could have called for backup, given the plates of the vehicle and had it followed and pulled over later. the plain clothed officer could have hung back to see if the party did indeed get a gun and attempted a return. over all the police officer could have waited until an actual crime occurred since the last time I checked claiming to have a gun is not a crime. Not a bright thing to do, but not a crime.

Similarly, in the case of the North Carolina man, the police could have sent a plainclothes officer to the door to ask directions or ask for the suspect in question for whatever reason, thereby determining if he or anyone else in the house was armed. They could have abused the motor vehicle laws (as is regularly done) and given him a parking ticket that required a desk appearance. But no, instead, because the culture of policing is so militarized and reeking with an attitude of "we can do what we want" they went looking for a confrontation. The trained professionals could not even conceive of a means to deal with a constitutionally innocent person other than to barge in locked and loaded and ready to kill.

So ultimately there is no excuse for the police in both cases to not be brought to justice. Any Mayor or Justice department concerned with those pesky rights of citizens ought to be willing and eager to send a message to those in uniform that the blatant disregard of the safety of the public and the rights of citizens will not be tolerated. No race card even needs to be played because all the cards needed to win are already on the table. All that is needed is for those who know how to play the game to do so. if the police get away with either or both of these shootings, then white America may finally be getting the notice that black folks got with the Dred Scott decision:

You have no rights that the court is obliged to recognize.

That should bother a whole lot of people.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Ban the C word

Didn't really intend to weigh in on the "N-Word" debate because I think that right now it is about a whole bunch of pontificating people trying to do moral one-up-manship over the word. But let me enter into the record that I am firmly opposed to the banning of the word "Nigger" in any of it's permutations.

I remember when I first picked up the word for casual use. Thinking back, it's pretty funny that it happened at all given that my first memory of having to deal with the word was from the mouth of some white schoolmate who in order to end an argument called me a nigger. Yes she did end the conversation but I can say that given I got to play doctor on her some years later, I can suppose it was a term of "affection".

In truth since I didn't attend a school populated by any more than 3 black students until Junior High I was wholly unaware that black folk actually used the term to refer to each other until I was 11 years old. it came as quite a shock to me but there it was, nigga this, nigga that. It was quite disturbing for me given that up until that point that was the one word I understood black people to despise. Later, the word "nigga" went mainstream, at least for me, when Louise Jefferson of the show The Jeffersons turned to George after one of his usual stupid arguments and said "Nigga Please!" Oh what a day! Nigga done went prime time!

Oh the cat was out the bag for me at that point. Well mostly, No matter how grown I thought I was, Nigga was never used in front of my parents well in my case, parent or any grown relatives. but of all places it became a regular term used by me and my friends at church. Oh yeah, we cought the "My nigga" disease quick and we loved using the phrase. "Oh he my nigga." "Dat my nigga. Dat nigga right der!" and of course "Nigga po-leees!" Like cussin' it was kind of a gateway to being grown. Yeah, I could say Nigga and a few other choice words as well. For a while I picked up the cussin' habit (outside the home) until I decided that I would stop.

It was an interesting situation that got me to stop cussin'. I had promised myself that I would not cuss in front of children, that is younger children. Well one day I was on a bus and cussin' with the friends and spotted a child. I had broken my promise. What was worse to me was that I realized that I could no longer control the words coming out of my mouth. That bothered me. I don't like not being in control of myself. furthermore I found myself to be lacking in eloquence since it was easier to say "fuck", "shit" or some other word instead of actually wracking the brain for another adjective, noun or whatever part of grammar was being substituted by the cuss words. For a time I tried to get a friend of mine to stop too. We put in penalties of 25 cents for each offense. I got rich, as in lunch money rich and he got out.

Not too long after this, NWA came out and all hell broke lose. Nigga was on pressed tapes and Hip Hop was about to take a serious nose dive in the intelligence department and my immersion in the art form would become shallow as I, as an amature musician, one of the last generation to not have a 365/24/7 diet of Clear Channel Hip Hop and one who didn't care to hear all the new extra vulgarity in Hip Hop moved on to other forms of music with more "positive vibrations". I mean LL Cool Jay's "Dear Yvette" Just Ice's "Latoya" and Whodini's "I'm a Ho" was racy enough for me. Heck I could even get down with BDP's "Criminal Minded" but "Fuck the Police?" Not exactly something I could get with.

Even still I never actually rejected the term nigger outright. By the time I had become a full fledged member of the "consciousness" subclass of black folk, I had come to realize that you simply could not delete the word nigger from the national or international vocabulary because it would erase an important aspect of African history. Thus my position was that "Nigger" should be used in historical context. Persons should feel free to use the word when it serves to make a non-insulting, non-threatening point. I cannot imaging a movie on the civil rights movement not having "niggers" as a part of its soundtrack and I don't think it should be bleeped or dropped out. I can't imagine a reading of slave biographies where they referred to each others as "the niggers". But that all assumes that people want to act 'responsibly" with words.

The problem with having this discussion in the US is that whole freedom of speech thing. See I can't really advocate restricting someone's speech because I don't like it not the least because I then open myself up to being censored for the same exact reason. Speech would then be defined by the person with the least amount of skin, backbone or tolerance for other viewpoints. I'm not comfortable with that 'cause I definitely have opinions and the like that a whole mess of people don't like. The problem with "Nigger" and its derivatives is that having been propelled into the mainstream, and in the face of industries with severe double standards and a desire to not be seen as "racist", blacks can be seen on TV calling each other "Niggas" (a derivative of Nigger and coined by African Ancestors with a poor grasp of English and later adopted by southern white folk) but will have "Mother fucker" "Shit" and other expletives bleeped or dropped even though it is clear that many black people do not find the usage of "Nigger" in public in public forums acceptable.

One point brought up whenever this is discussed is that other groups aren't seen in public or public arts such as movies and song, calling each other ethnic or racial insults. This is generally true. I say generally 'cause I really don't watch a lot of other ethnicities media so I can't say definitively whether it happens or not. However; we can suppose one of two things regarding the lack of Wop, Spick, Kike and whatever else is out there, in the media. Either the writers simply do not write those things in OR they are censored by the media companies. While I believe it is a combination of both I think that the former is the real reason for the lack of other. I think that the writers of other groups, specifically white ethnic groups know that their communities will simply not tolerate that kind of material. Ethnic jokes and slurs stay in the group and out of the sight and consumption of the general public as a matter of group pride. But the exceptions are made for blacks because over all, "that's how niggas do." After all the unique place of the black person in America has seen him as entertainment for whites. Most black performances for white audiences depended largely on the black person making fun of himself and his group in order to be successful. In fact if one looks at the history of black presence in American entertainment you will find that after the musician (asked to sing and dance for white dinner guests) the black comic was the means by which blacks could "make it". Where the black person was absent, the black faced white actor would step in. Hence black entertainment in mass media in America exists for the express purpose of "Niggardly" behavior. And no, I don't mean niggardly as defined in the dictionary.

Ultimately the proposition to "ban the N-word" will simply fail because it will be viewed as censorship. In terms of business, the comedy club that bans the usage of the word, will send it's customers to the inevitable place that will allow it. Since the government can't legally proscribe the term's use private companies will continue to choose what they will and will not broadcast and I think that whatever the rule it should apply equally to all ethnic and racial "names". No need to exempt blacks from N-word usage. If black folk don't like the Kramers of the world using the term nigger then black folk need to stop giving license for it's public usage. When others see that black folk take the word seriously then they will respond in kind.

Let me leave you with an alternative to Nigger and it's derivatives. In the nationalist community we have means of distinguishing between different types of black folks. we do this with a couple of words. First we have the African. When we call someone an African that is the highest compliment. It's higher than the common descriptive "black" because a black person under white supremacy who identifies with Africa is a special person. Not to repeat myself but next down the line is black. Close to African but not as strong and can at it's weakest refer to any person of African descent. It doesn't necessarily connote anything other than phenotype. next we come to the interesting names.

Negro. As James Baldwin noted, Negroes, strictly speaking exist only in America. The negro is the creation of the "white man". When a nationalist calls someone a negro, all is not well. A Negro can be of any socio-economic class, but they are identifiable. Next down the line from Negro is "Kneegrow". now phonetically one usually distinguishes the Kneegrow from Negro by the emphasis on "Knee". the Kneegrow is a particular breed of sellout. They are the spineless black folk who such up to white folk in power. They are white folks emissaries if you will. see Negroes may or may not act as direct agents of white power structures and at times are known to have boughts of guilt for some agency they have done on the part of the white power structure. The Kneegrow knows full well that he or she is the antithesis of black folks collective worldview but they don't care. Think Malcolm X's house negro field negro dichotomy: We sick boss!
The last of the categorizations is the "Nigro". Yes the Nigro s the black person who simply has no social graces at all. See we ain't call him a nigger, but the pronounciation on "Nig" makes it real clear what we are talking about. Now there may be many black folk who don't use the term nigger, even in regular conversation but I guarantee that they have used the term Nigro any number of times. No way to mistake that term for some endearment either. So there you have it. A whole set of vocabulary words ripe for the usage on stage and for the Laugh Factory: Fine free.

Technorati Tags: ,

Monday, December 04, 2006

Segregation Vs. Separation

So the Supreme Court is gong to decide a case about using race in assigning students to schools in order to achieve some kind of "desegregation". You know, It really gets my blood pressure up to listen to people talk about how and where to send black children in order to get them educated. I'm kind of tired of the ole 1954, "if your kid isn't next to a white kid then they will be damaged for life", type of reasoning that is going on. I simply say: show us the money. Let us be clear here, today in 2006 there are no legally segregated schools. Period. Let all the multi-culti, kumbyaa singin', hand holdin' folks say what they want. They are lying to each and every one of you and they need to be called out.

first off, this is supposed to be a free country. given that it is a free country one can live wherever ones cash can land you. Aside from the fact of red-lining most people want to live around people like them. You want proof of that you look at Queens NY and all the black folk who live there. Look at any "ethnic" neighborhood and you'll see the same thing. It is f&*^% insulting to focus in on black folk and claim that we are "segregated" when the same can be said of any number of communities. However; you never, ever hear about those communities being segregated. The reason for this is that everybody thinks it is their duty to study the "darkies" and manipulate their lives.

So let's get the difference between segregation and separation clear since it appears that even the Supreme Court Justices have a problem understanding the difference. Segregation, in the social sense of the term means a lawful policy of separating people and accommodations by race. This is enforced by institutions and law and affected black people regardless of income. In stark contrast to this is separation. Separation, in the social sense, is when a group voluntarily decides to live, work, whatever with others in that same group. In terms of race that may mean that black students may choose to attend a black college or University in order to avoid the issues and complications found at white colleges. In terms of religion it may be an Evangelical Christian going to a Christian school thereby separating themselves from the secular society in terms of education. All of these examples are not only legal but they are rights guaranteed under the constitution. It's called freedom of association which also means the freedom to NOT associate.

This brings us to the public school system. The public school system is set up so that people go to zoned schools which is convenient and in some way can foster community cohesion by having age sets grow up together. The problem with the public school system is that it is funded from property taxes which means that in a country where income stratification is high, there are vast differences in the money available to public schools in wealthy neighborhoods and those available to poor neighborhoods. This results in a two tier system where the poor often get substandard resources though they often face the hardest circumstances. Due to America's particular history a disproportionate number of African-Americans are poor and therefore find themselves in the bottom of the system.

The solution to this problem is change how public education is funded. It is clear to anyone that the property tax model is not working. Clearly there needs to be a pot that is either split equally across a given state or proportionally to the population of each school in a state. Once that is done you have a means to bring the now poor schools up to par. The other issue is that in poor neighborhoods there are other social issues that impact the schools whether it be cracked out parents, gangs, under-employed parents, housing issues, whatever. Money will have to be spent on programs that address those issues that impact the quality of schooling as well.

Once the structural inequities of the schools are addressed the whole "what race is where" question won't even be a question. If all the schools provide an equal quality education, then the whole "school choice" thing becomes moot. Of course we'll be left with the social experimentalists who insist on telling us where our children ought to go or not to go and further distract black people from working with each other. We know this is the case because any number of black students will tell you outright that going to a black college is "not the real world" despite the numerous black college grads working all over the place in the "real world". But it tells you what the real reason is for spreading black students so that they form minorities in otherwise white school districts:

You will always be in the minority and you will always have to deal with us. Conform or else.

Technorati Tags: , , ,