Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Friday, October 29, 2010

The Constitution and Secession

A very good piece on the original Constitution, Federalism and the current crop of "back to the Constitution groups:

The Tenthers are fighting valiantly to reverse the 220 years in which that last item in the Bill of Rights has been emasculated and rendered effectively irrelevant, and they may even be gaining some attention, particularly in the states’ growing resistance to Obamacare. But it seems most unlikely that, with the other centralizing tools at their command, the Federal courts will give it much consideration.

And then when they finally see their beloved amendment in shreds, maybe then the Tenthers and other Constitutional-Firsters will begin to see that the U.S. Constitution, by the centralists, of the nationalists, and for the Hamiltonians, is not a document that will lead them to liberty and sovereignty. The only method for that, let us hope they finally realize, is secession.


This issue of secession has been on my mind for a couple of months. I think the US is fast reaching an inflection point. There are huge demographic changes going on. There is a vast gulf between generally liberal "coasters" and the "rest of the country". The former living relatively high on finance capital who generally don't produce anything necessary to live and the latter decimated by the exporting of low and semi-skilled labour and the importation of immigrants to fill other kinds of jobs. Usually those directly tied to manual labour and those things necessary to live.

The belligerence of the Tea Party right can be understood if you understand that the America they know and knew slips away (as they see it) by a ruling class (as they see it) that is quite arrogant and dismissive of those persons that are deemed "racist", "homophobic" and quite a few other "ists" and "ics". Of course they do not serve their cause by stomping on the heads of women. But they are mad. And if you saw what they saw as they see it, you'd understand the anger. Even if you disagreed with it.

In any case, historically when countries get to this point, one of two things happened: Mass killings of the dissenters or secession. The US went down the latter road in it's infamous civil war. As civil wars go though, as has been pointed out by authors more qualified than I, that a total victory of one side over the other is unusual. Usually there is some kind of negotiated resolution . Typically though, in a time when there was plenty of land available people "went and sat down somewhere" and a new country is formed. Like most nation-states, that country has it's own folklore and heroes (the ones who kicked butt). They usually have a common religion, language, monetary system and other things that we commonly call culture. Indeed the founding of the US is part of that rebel, move, settle, form nation pattern. What makes US is unique is that it claims to not be a land based on being "from the land" but being made under law. It is not "Our ancestors the Gauls" but "No taxation without representation" that supposedly bound the nation. There is supposedly no 'shared culture" just the law of the land and alleged freedom to live as one chose. Indeed such patterns played out. For example the Amish had an entirely different way of living and didn't even fight in the revolutionary war on religious grounds. They generally went and lived in Pennsylvania following the similar patterns of people with like culture deciding to live together. Indeed there were areas of America that were essentially transplants of Germany and other places.

We do know that at some point that there inevitably arose a dominant culture. That dominant culture, by and large has been WASP. Some of the hallmarks of the emergent US culture was Belief in a Christian God as an assumed thing. English language proficiency was expected of all regardless of what was spoken at home or where one arrived from. Newcomers learned it or had serious problems. Beauty standards, etc. have generally been under the dominant WASP ideology. Everyone who entered was expected to conform to this standard. The last 60 or so years has seen a direct challenge to these "norms" of US dominant culture. Notably the rise of immigrant groups who appear to have no interest in "assimilating" or "following the rules" and who demand rights that a generation ago would not have even passed the sniff test.

Wars in countries where there are actual concerns of civilian casualties (Yes that is some odd stuff).

The building of Mosques near where "enemies" killed Americans (something that wouldn't even have passed the suggestion phase 50 years ago).

And of course the black president.

"Real" White Americans, particularly males are at a point where they are asking "what about me? Where am I represented?" It's a funny question when you can see that white males as a group are well represented, in terms of numbers at least. But one has to see that the white man on main street small town USA doesn't necessarily see himself on Wall Street. He doesn't see himself on the pages of Forbes. He's NASCAR. He's Football. He's the "sexist"commercials on TV. He's laid off of outsourced jobs. He's 'patriarchal" and believes he ought to be able to provide for his family but His wife appears to have better employment prospects than he does and he's upset about these women telling him and his wife that something is wrong with their arrangement. His male children are made to feel inferiorized in school because they are energetic and wont sit down and read like the girl "model citizens" in school. He sees his masculinity attacked by "feminists". He sees his religion being mocked on TV by "liberal media". He is the global bad guy but sees nothing but "minorities" on TV committing crime and they are who he sees as getting special privileges are getting ahead. He. Is. Not. Happy.

So he first elects President Bush. Bush seems to be like him. Bush seems to share his values. After Bush he sees the Tea Party as representing his interests as he sees them. And his interest is getting his America back and his 'rightful" place in it. So here's the problem: If he doesn't get to a position where he sees that he has a stake in the country, by electing people who represent his interests and there's nowhere else to go, what is he going to do?

Now we understand why there is a rise in militia groups and rising "hate crimes". As I told some people who were mocking Christine O'Donnell, don't be so dismissive of her appeal. A lot of the more sane things she has said is common culture for a lot of people. Particularly Christians. When liberals mock these ideas, they are actually mocking a segment of the American people. And if liberals say "that's un-American" then they are saying to those people that they are no longer under consideration as a segment that has a stake in the country. It's very dangerous talk. It's dangerous because if they don't feel they have a stake and they can't go anywhere else (or don't wish to because it's their land too.) then the violence begins.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Witches and Christianity in Africa

One of the worst things you can do to a people is confuse them in regards to their culture. Religious conversion was used as a means to divide Africans. One of the reasons I left "the church" was because I could not in good conscience support an institution that inferiorized the African. The following is a piece on just how badly some of these churches are for the sanity of the African.

Churches, especially those belonging to the Pentecostal and prophetic movement (charismatic, revivalist, etc.), play an important role in the diffusion and legitimization of fears related to witchcraft, and in particular, child witches. The pastor‐prophet is an important figure in the process of accusing children of witchcraft, by effectively validating the presence of a “witchcraft spirit”. Pentecostalists, for example, present their faith as a form of divine armour against witchcraft, and they participate actively in the fight against Evil that is incarnated through witchcraft.


One of the main themes of the report is that widespread violence against children accused of witchcraft is a very recent phenomenon in Africa, and it is not related to African Traditional Religion, but rather is associated with the spread of Christianity and Pentecostalism in particular.


"Children Accused of Withcraft": New UNICEF Report on Africa's "Witch Children"

Let The Firing begin:



Right. Since Juan gets canned (in part) for making an honest comment and defending the rights of those he's scared of to not be harassed and Rick Sanchez was out on his ass 24 hours after making the claim that Jews run the media (or at least the one that hires John Stewart)m lets see if Silverman here gets the can from any gig she currently has.

Clock is started.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Waka Flocka Obama video

When I first heard of this video I eye rolled and went on to the next one. Tonight though I was bored so I watched it. And to be frank it is a piece of classic parody with a lot of hidden commentary which may or may not be intended by Waka Flocka. Let me explain.

First off, we, as in "middle class" and "non hood" black folk sometimes need to come up off our class pedestals and allow other black folk to do them. Obama has, for better or worse, inspired a lot of black folk and parody or not, I believe Wacka to be proud of Obama like any other of the 90+% of black folk who still support him nearly 2 years after they voted for him. So I'm not going to get into Wacka on his decision to do his Obama parody regardless of who sees it. If we simply take it as "hood video" we can easily be insulted, but if we look at it as political-social commentary, then it reveals quite a bit.

Check the headliner:

I'm the mah-fuckin' head of state niggah!


A boast for sure. But how many black folk feel that Obama is disrespected because he's black and feel a need at some point to assert that he deserves respect as head of state? How many of us thought that the disrespect shown to Obama when he gave his speech to congress was out of order? How many of us read the GQ interview with the General (I don't feel like looking up his name) who disrespected the Obama administration? Yes, Flocka is stating a feeling that many of us have felt about the rampant disrespect Obama has endured being "tha mah-fuckin' head of state niggah". It's not clean. It's not pretty but it is exactly the sentiments I am positive has run through this South Side Chicago politician turned president's mind.

So at once this anthem, which if I was Obama I'd have on my iPod for "hype" before a campaign speech, is one of accomplishment ie: I'm black. I'm head of state. Respect that! and one one of warning "I'm head of state and I'll deal with you." I can't get mad at that.

The next item on the list is Flocka's commentary on the gangster state of the executive. Rapping:

'I run the military if you want that beef"


Isn't that what the president is currently doing with Iran? Korea? Hezbollah? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Didn't Bush do this? Didn't Kennedy do this? Flocka reveals the gangsterism inherent in the imperial presidency that we have today. He's not the first to discuss this. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, discusses such things in great detail. So again, I can't get mad for Flocka for highlighting this issue.

Thirdly we see Flocka discuss the "spoils of power"

I got a man chick, and a mistress


I'm not saying Obama is getting some on the side, but we do know that men in power including recent presidents and a NYS governor do in fact have or have had such "arrangements". Also he raps:

"I put a nice suit on and got some marijuana"


This clearly highlights the fact that men and women in "nice suits" are able to get away with illegal behavior which ordinary "hood niggas" would get jailed for. Again, I'm not saying that Flocka actually meant to point this out, but the clear statement is right there for us to see.


One of the other reasons why I can't get mad at Waka is because I have to see it as a modern day production of the Richard Pryor skit of what he thought the hypothetical black president would act. Are we going to give Pryor a pass because he didn't say nigga"? Of course he couldn't. He was on broadcast television. We all know Richard Pryor would have had no problem (until his meeting with Maya Angelou) using that term.

What about the "educated" and 'classy" negroes who on twitter and elsewhere post commentary on Obama's various speeches and media appearances with #shortobama and #obamaslapelpin hashtags which are usually followed by common African-American vernacular not to different from the presentation under discussion. Why are those tweets funny and acceptable but Flocka Obama isn't? Dare I say that negative reactions to this video are based more on some "white folk will see this and think we're ignorant" type of thinking?

So I close by saying, we, "non-hood niggas" need to be careful about the judgment we pass on other black folks modes of expression 'cause sometimes they come up with political commentary in ways that we would never conceive of. Even if it may be accidentally.

Friday, October 22, 2010

NPR and the Silencing of Outspoken Black Men

I don't follow Juan Williams. In fact until yesterday I had no clue he was attached to either Fox or NPR. He was simply someone I saw from time to time on my TV. Yesterday however; the white female CEO, like many other white female CEO's and top political dogs like Christine Quinn Of New York's City Council, flexed her muscles and showed that Juan Williams who like other Negroes who dare think and speak freely (if not rationally) doesn't have enough "Black Male Privilege" to withstand the white corporate power structure.

Let me begin with the actual words of Mr. Williams. Slate Online gave us the actual back and forth between O'Reilly and Williams:

"I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts...

Hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals—very obnoxious—you don't say first and foremost, "We got a problem with Christians." That's crazy."

Williams reminds O'Reilly that "there are good Muslims." A short while later, O'Reilly asks: "Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there, or the Germans?" Williams refuses to play the group blame game. "See, you did it again," he tells O'Reilly. "It's extremists."
Williams warns O'Reilly that televised statements about Muslims as a group can foment bigotry and violence. "The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby's neck," Williams reminds him. "Or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero … We don't want, in America, people to have their rights violated, to be attacked on the street because they heard rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly."


Are these the statements of someone who in the words of a NPR customer to thee NPR Ombudsman:

"NPR must and should take a stand against this bigotry and tell Williams' he must choose NPR's code of ethics or be let go to join the racist bigoted fearmongerers of FOX,” continued Khodr. “NPR can't have it both ways."


Really? Stating that regardless of whatever fear one has, that Muslims ought not be discriminated against and attacked in the street is racist, bigoted fear mongering?

Really?

Yesterday morning, in defense of NPR, Alicia Shepard, White woman number two, wrote the following:

One reason he was fired, according to Vivian Schiller, NPR’s CEO, is that the company felt he wasn’t performing the role of a news analyst:
“News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation,” said Schiller in an email to NPR member stations, some of which are upset about Williams' firing.
“As you all well know," she continued, "we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts.”


As she neatly bypassing the snide remarks about Juan Williams psychological stability, this is total bullshit. First and foremost there is no such thing as objectivity in the news. News outlets decide what is an is not newsworthy. That is a value judgement and is in and of itself biased. Secondly by deciding what constitutes "acceptable speech" NPR like any other organization is in fact biased towards their own philosophy of "acceptable speech". To even act as if that is not itself bias is outrageous. The bias is evident in WHO is invited to comment and WHAT they are invited to comment on. When's the last time an economist from an HBCU was invited to speak on the economic crisis in America on ANY of the mainstream media outlets? Talk to me about bias.

To the point of Juan Williams actual and full commentary, there is no way to construe his total comments on the subject as being anti-Muslim. The fact of the matter is that he voiced an unpopular but in fact wide spread personal position about what he feels when he sees persons he can identify as Muslims. He then followed up that Muslims ought not be singled out or stereotyped (in his own way) due to these fears, any more than Christians do not judge Christianity on the basis of McVeigh. Then he pointed out the dangers of such fears by bringing up the recent stabbing of a cab driver in NYC. So it is clear that the firing of Juan Williams was a politically motivated move by the top (White?) folk at NPR.

Which brings me to the larger issue. Where are the black men on NPR? And if Juan Williams benign statements is enough to break the back of NPR, what other statements made by negroes are verboten on NPR? Last week was the first time that Tavis Smiley, to my knowledge managed to break the 'Chosen Negro" Embargo on "This Week" the ABC Sunday political show which has a handful (and there's plenty of space in that hand) of safe, appointed negroes who are allowed to pontificate on a limited set of subjects as if they represent "black thought". Gill Noble, the producer of Like It Is, has rarely if ever been invited to any of ABC's political shows including This Week or to do commentary outside of his perpetually threatened Sunday 12 PM time slot.

Lets look at NPR's Political news lineup as linked on the website:

The Morning Edition: Two white folk. One male one female.
All Things Considered; 1 Black Woman, 1 white male, Weekend with 1 White Male.
Fresh Air: 1 white woman
The Dianne Rhehm Show: 1 White Woman
On The Media This Week: (undetermined)
On Point with Tom Ashbrook: 1 White male
Talk of the Nation: 2 white men
Tell Me More: 1 black Woman
Weekend Edition: 1 White Male
Weekend Edition Sunday: 1 White Woman

Seriously folks. There is a total Black male embargo over at NPR. Why is this not a issue? Why is this not being discussed. Personally I find it more problematic that NPR has a No Black Man policy apparently in effect than whether Juan Williams is shook by a headscarf. How do we actually take the disrespectful treatment of Juan Williams seriously when NPR's news programming is 84% white with 0 black men?

You don't have to like Juan Williams or anything that comes out of his mouth. But when an overwhelmingly white organization decides to take out a black man simply because he didn't toe some PC line, you should be concerned. Very concerned 'cause it likely means they've been giving the shaft to others by simply denying them entry as NPR apparently does.

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

No Wedding No Womb: African?

For the past two weeks the topic of No Wedding No Womb has been a constant source of, shall I say, bickering on my twitter feed. As is usual in the blogo-twitter sphere a lot of the commentary was predictable based on gender, age, socio-political leanings and most whether one was disposed to the idea that single parenthood is "OK". However; given that the author of said "movement" claimed that it was directed at black people, the sheer lack of discussion of how black people (meaning those in the US and descended from those who came via the slave trade) traditionally built their families and then how contact with the west affected these concepts of family.

For example, most Africans who came to America via the slave trade were completely comfortable with the concept of polygamy. It was normal for men to have multiple wives and multiple children by these women. The current social construct that a man ought to have and love only one woman is a very new concept for the African in America and is directly related to his exposure to white Christian "morality". So it would be fair to say that any black person espousing such thing as One Man one Woman marriage is merely parroting white culture to Black folk. Yet because many Black people in American are not aware of what their ancestors brought with them they are unable to discern what is an imposed system of thought and behavior and what is a natural progression of one of their own. This doesn't mean that all African customs are perfect and above critique but the African has the right to put his culture at the center of his thinking and to critique and change it in a manner suitable for his own needs instead of attempting to please or gain the acceptance of some other group.

In examining the No Wedding No Womb we note that the overall message is that in light of the high numbers of children born to unwed mothers and the observable social issues that are related to such a phenomenon, both black men and women ought to take seriously the idea that one ought to be married before having children. So what I'd like to ask is does such an idea correlate to any traditional African thought on family, marriage and child rearing. To that end I decided to look at the Akan people and the work of J.B. Danquah in "God: Coast: Akan Laws and Customs and the Akim Abuakwa Constitution. In that volume we find a discussion of courtship, marriage, divorce, etc. I think such an examination of the Akan is appropriate given that a large number of Africans in America came from that area of Africa and therefore came here with these concepts. Let us take a look:

Owing to the existence of multiplicity of wives in our institutions, the wife has to retain her maiden name thoughout and it does not need to be changed for her husband's."


While not directly related to the central issue of NWNW, this quote is interesting given the current propensity of women to take hyphened names (something I can not stand) upon getting married. Clearly if Black women wanted to return to the source, they could simply not take their husband's name at all (and husbands would not expect it). It also shows (at least as presented by Danquah) that marriage is clearly not a property based system as it was/is practiced in Europe as it relates to women. Clearly in the above a woman retains her identity within a marriage. Therefore; when we run across women who make claims that marriage is, by definition, the subjugation of women by men, then we know that woman has no knowledge of traditional African thought on the subject.

Let us continue on with Danquah's discussion of Courtship:

It has been my special experience to notice in forensic cases and elsewhere, the very affectionate qualities which young men and women display in their love affairs. A young man will make love to a girl, giving her presents in money or its kind as assurance of his love, and the girl will sometimes give return presents as a sympathetic assurance of her affection. Usually he meets with his sweetheart at different places and at the dances, but not very often in public for fear of scandal... Soon the fact of her courtship would get abroad, and it would be the young man's lot to announce it to the girls parents or guardians.


We would note here that Danquah has stated pretty clearly that there is pre-maritual sex going on here. This will be confirmed in later quotes. We can say that at least for the Akan, sex before marriage was not considered odd at all, but publicly flaunting one's "love affair" was frowned upon until (or unless) the man presents himself to the woman's family. The obvious question would be what happens if the man "knocks up" his lover? Well we'll get to that. What is important here though is that such an idea of abstinence prior to marriage can be seen as foreign and so we must ask who's ideology is one pushing when one pushes such a thing? Where did it come from? And what outcome has adopting such an ideology lead us to?

Continuing:

Money presents of a value recently regulated by law according to the position of the husband, are given to the parents and other near relatives of the girl's family. The intended husband should also, as far as his means allow him, make occasional money presents to the mother or grandmother of his betrothed, otherwise the absence of such presents may be a ground for cancelling the betrothal, for it is a test of the husband's benevolence. This, though not enforced by law, is a custom which the ardent lover never fails to comply...When a lover has completely gained the heart of his fiancee, it falls upon him to introduce himself to the parents of the girl. This may be done by appearing personally or sending messengers with drinks, to make the announcement. When the parents consent is given she automatically becomes betrothed to him. There is no need for engagement rings or other superficial imitations of the deed. In course of time the husband, having previously obtained certain domestic necessaries, would inform his parent or guardian of his intention, and it devolves upon the father, uncle or other guardian with whom he has been living, to send to the parents of the intended wife, for the purpose of "begging" them to give their daughter in marriage to his son or nephew. as the case may be


And so we see here something that is quite common across the continent. A man who wishes to marry must give gifts to the family of the woman he wishes to marry. There is no doubt that such gifting is not only a means of showing "benevolence" but also a way of making sure that a man has the means and drive to support both his wife and future children. You'll note that the husband to be must have "obtained certain domestic necessaries" prior to announcing his intention to his parents/guardians with whom he's been living. We also should note the extensive use of the phrase "uncle" or guardian. It is clear here that there is an assumption of extended family (or non related persons of responsibility) availability and involvement in the affairs of both single persons. Secondly we can observe that there is a linkage of both families. I don't know how many black Americans today can imagine having family members "beg" the intended's family for a wedding.

The Girl's uncle, (i.e, her mother's brother), has to be informed before any grant of marriage is made of his niece, but his consent is not always necessary.


So to extend the idea of "It takes a village to raise a child" it apparently takes extended family to wed one was well. It should be clear thus far that marriage in the Akan perspective is very much a group event rather than the increasingly individualistic approach taken by US society.

Continuing:

...Should a father or guardian of the girl refuse to give her in marriage, and signify his dissent thereto, the connexion should henceforth cease...It will be impossible to "elope" with the girl or to contract marriage under any circumstance whatsoever. He may continue his love but he must be sure that should there be any scandal, the issue of the illegal connexion will be "illegitimate" -- Not that the child would be disinherited, or in any way inconvenienced in it's general progress in life, for illegtimacy of children is unknown in our institutions. The putative father, can, therefore, in course of time apply to his child's uncle or other maternal relation for the presentation of the child to him. In this case he will be required to pay certain fees, generally comprising the amount the baby's mother (i.e. the lover) and her parents must have expended on account of the birth and care of the child. The baby's uncle or grand parents will also be pacified by payment to them of a sum of money. This rule also applies to the case when with no object to marriage at all, an accidental issue springs from the connexion of a young man and girl


We can take the above to be a clear example of how an African group dealt with such issues as unwed pregnancies: The man is clearly prohibited from being recognized as "father" until he compensates the mother and persons in her family that helped in the care of the child. In addition he has what is clearly "punitive fines". It is also clear that it is not consistent with Akan thinking to declare a child "illegitimate" as understood by Europeans. Danquah addresses this issue in a later part of his book:

The law, as it stands at present, recognizes as legitimate a child born to a man who had cared for an unmarried girl for whose baby he stands as the putative father. Marriage is necessary to make a child legitimate, but it would seem that among the Akans a bastard child is not particularly one whose mother and father are unmarried, but one whose paternity is indeterminable, his father (or fathers) not being known. Hence the name Aguaman-ba (child of harlotry)


This stands in clear contrast to the American definition of bastard in which regardless of the verifiability of the father, so long as the parents are not married, the child is considered a bastard. It is also evident that even the Akan have a low opinion of "hoedom" since clearly there is a stigma attached to a woman who cannot ID the father of her child.

Continuing into the meat of this issue:

If on the other hand, Kwaku had kept Adjoa in concubinage for any length of time, she being unmarried, and he subsequently applied to the parents of Adjoa for a grant of lawful marriage, the previous issue of their connexion automatically become legitimate as soon as the marriage is lawfully solemnized. It therefore follows that if the family refuse to grant the application for marriage, the issue of Kwaku and Adjoa's connexion would be 'illegitimate." and Adjoa's family would be the proper persons to give names to them.


We see here that legitimacy as used by the Akan only pertains to the circumstances of the relationship as it pertains to "ownership" of the child. That is a father cannot "legitimately" act as father or make any claims on "his" child unless he "does the right thing." You'll note that in this case, the father does not even have the right to name "his" child. So we can see that for the Akan, marriage brings privileges and a male who forgoes marriage does not get the benefits. Danquah illustrates this:

Now as regards the custody of children in general, the law is clear on the point. A child belongs to his father- or rather to his father's household, and so long as the child remains with his parents his custody is in the hands of the father. A mother cannot take a child away from the father. If the child is young the father may be ordered by Tribunal to leave it in the nursing hands of its mother. After the first two or three years of infancy a father can always claim possession of his lawful child [my emphasis]


It is clear then that child "illegitimacy" as discussed in NWNW has a solution in an African context. Firstly by de-stigmatizing the unwed mother by recognizing that it is the responsibility of the male lover to perform the proper actions to obtain legitimacy for his fatherhood. Secondly; since the concept of legitimization is squarely on the shoulders of the parents and not the child, The child is not penalized by the social group. Thus any man wishing to claim his "fatherhood" MUST legitimize himself by ACTING and DOING what is expected of fathers. there is a built in social construct that would discourage "single parenthood." After all to have to pay the mother, the grandmother and uncle(s) of a woman one got pregnant just to claim paternity is not something I think lends itself to "spraying their seed all over the place" as the author of NWNW posted in her FAQ. Look at the rules as set down by the Akan:

According to Akan customary laws, the upkeep of a child is the father's duty. From childhood until the age of puberty a father is held responsible for the care and welfare of his child. This personal responsibility for a child is held to be terminated when a son is given a gun and a wife or a daughter is given in marriage


You'll note that a father's male child is not considered generally a "man" until he is given a gun (a means of self defense, family defense and means of killing animals for meat) and a wife. Nor is a man considered legitimate father unless he has married a women who he has children with regardless to whether those children were created before or after "marriage". It is clear then, that a workable solution to the issue that NWNW seeks to address would be for African-Americans to be less "American" in their outlook on child-bearing and marriage and taking on a more African/Akan outlook. It is clear that slavery and the acceptance of certain European norms of thinking have brought Africans to a point where children are going uncared for and improperly socialized. Where both boys and girls are not being shown or taught constructive social relations which places value on fatherhood, motherhood, uncle-hood and grandparent-hood. Where children (and even "grown adults") are free to be disrespectful of their elders. In short as a collective our acceptance of Europeans norms have arguably resulted in mass dysfunction.